China's National Defense White Paper Causes Strain on U.S.-China Relations

China’s national defense white paper released last year reflected China’s attempt to both discuss its plan modernize China’s military and simultaneously diminish any foreign concern that its purposes were for regional dominance or driven by expansionist goals by stating that their military build up was “purely defensive.”

The paper, along with China’s more assertive foreign policy, has caused diplomatic friction between China and the United States. Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, has already had to navigate some prickly situations with China’s military, including an argument with General Ma Xiaotian which revealed the “deep fissures in the military relationship.”

Considering the discord militarily between China and the United States, why aren’t China’s attempts at military transparency being well received by American officials? Some say the answer is because, in reality, China is not being transparent at all. China plans to soon deploy an aircraft carrier that is currently under construction, a plan completely omitted from the white paper. Sen. Colonel Geng Yansheng also refused to answer any questions about the aircraft carrier at a news conference.

The white paper states that, “China pursues a national defense policy which is defensive in nature,” and “China will never seek hegemony, nor will it adopt the approach of military expansion now or in the future, no matter how its economy develops.” However, the continuing development of an antiship ballistic missile by the Chinese military may suggest otherwise.

I found this article to be particularly interesting because it represents the opposite opinion of my previous post. While the former trumpeted China’s attempts to become more assertive in their international policy, the latter suggests that China’s expanding military and more forceful participation internationally are cause for concern, especially for the United States. The author of the article uses quotes from the white paper which are meant to assure foreign powers that China’s military advancements are strictly for defensive reasons. But right after these quotes, the author contrasts them with evidence or suggestions that China has ulterior motives.

The effect is a strong one. It associates all of China’s attempts to assuage the concerns of foreign powers with other dubious evidence, causing readers to believe that the white paper is a façade to present to the international community while China continues along its own path toward hegemony and all that status entails. This, like many other articles published in main American media sources, seems to be the more predominant tone toward China’s changing international policies and military development.