{"id":6730,"date":"2013-06-03T06:30:13","date_gmt":"2013-06-02T20:30:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=6730"},"modified":"2013-06-04T21:02:25","modified_gmt":"2013-06-04T11:02:25","slug":"asian-gazing-part-ii-the-us-jabs-china","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/asian-gazing-part-ii-the-us-jabs-china\/","title":{"rendered":"Asian gazing (part II): the US jabs China"},"content":{"rendered":"
One of the many complications of the US approach to China is the balance that has to be struck between caress and kick; between the language of engagement and estrangement. The Shangri-La speech by the new US Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel<\/a> was notable for its specific kicks at China. This was a robust way to help set the scene for a summit between a re-elected US President and a new Chinese President.<\/p>\n Over the dozen years of the Shangri-La dialogue, the first-up speech by the US has become a tradition. Having heard most of those speeches, I\u2019d venture a quick guess that the actual wordage devoted to China was a bit down this year, but the content was even more pointed. Hagel was not taking refuge in the usual US request for greater Chinese transparency. The phrase now used is a call for \u2018clarity and predictability.\u2019<\/p>\n Rather than the familiar transparency language, the US Defense Secretary was pulling back the Chinese veil and jabbing. No shadow boxing here. In the case of cyber espionage, the language amounted to a poke in the eye. A senior member of the Obama administration is publicly confronting China on its cyber operations, thus suggesting that China\u2019s denials should be viewed as close to lies. Consider the first set of jabs from Hagel:<\/p>\n While the U.S. and China will have our differences \u2013 on human rights, Syria, and regional security issues in Asia \u2013 the key is for these differences to be addressed on the basis of a continuous and respectful dialogue.\u00a0 It also requires building trust and reducing the risk of miscalculation, particularly between our militaries.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That phrase \u2018regional security issues in Asia\u2019 is the broadest of canvases. You can cram a lot of differences into that picture. \u2018Risk of miscalculation\u2019, indeed. Yet with that salvo, Hagel was only warming up in his thrusts at China\u2019s government and the People\u2019s Liberation Army. \u00a0The section on cyber-espionage was not about the need for Chinese transparency but a statement about Chinese attacks:<\/p>\n We are also clear-eyed about the challenges in cyber.\u00a0 The United States has expressed our concerns about the growing threat of cyber intrusions, some of which appear to be tied to the Chinese government and military.\u00a0 As the world\u2019s two largest economies, the US and China have many areas of common interest and concern, and the establishment of a cyber working group is a positive step in fostering U.S.-China dialogue on cyber.\u00a0 We are determined to work more vigorously with China and other partners to establish international norms of responsible behaviour in cyberspace.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Flying to Singapore, Hagel had briefed American journalists that he would talk to the Chinese delegation about the US Defense Science Board report<\/a> that nearly 40 Pentagon weapons and 30 other defence technologies had been compromised by online intrusions. The Board\u2019s judgement was that these attacks were \u2018attributable directly to the Chinese government and military.\u2019 In the Hagel speech, the word \u2018attributable\u2019 was rendered as \u2018tied to the Chinese government and military\u2019.<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n