The Navy’s Failing China Policy

Admiral Timothy Keating, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific just completed a friendly four-day visit to China. Far too friendly, contends Gordon G. Chang, who believes the U.S. is not responding forcefully enough to Chinese provocations and expansionist ambitions.

January 22, 2008 - by Gordon G. Chang

The commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific has just completed a four-day visit of China. From the look of things, little was resolved. And that’s not entirely the fault of the increasingly assertive Chinese. Admiral Timothy Keating did not take advantage of an important opportunity to set military ties on a firmer footing.

There is a clear need to do so. After Beijing denied a long-arranged Hong Kong port call to the Kitty Hawk on the day before last Thanksgiving, the carrier and its multi-ship strike group sailed back to its homeport in Japan through the Taiwan Strait. The Chinese immediately complained, expressing “grave concern.” Keating to his credit asserted the long-held policy of the United States Navy. “We don’t need China’s permission to go through the Taiwan Straits. It’s international water,” he said last Tuesday in Beijing. “We will exercise our free right of passage whenever and wherever we choose.”

There is, unfortunately, a need for such forthright statements because Beijing maintains ludicrous claims. In addition to the Taiwan Strait, the Chinese claim the entire South China Sea, creating border disputes with the Philippines, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Vietnam and endangering long-held notions of free passage.

Beijing’s navy and air force are not yet strong enough to enforce its expansive assertions, yet the Chinese are willing to engage in provocative acts nonetheless. The downing of an unarmed Navy reconnaissance plane in April 2001 in international airspace over the South China Sea was followed in September 2002 by aggressive maneuvering against the Bowditch, an unarmed Navy oceanographic vessel in international waters in the Yellow Sea. In October 2006, a Chinese submarine for the first time surfaced in the middle of an American strike group-the Kitty Hawk’s, by the way-which can only be interpreted as a signal to the Navy to clear out of Asian waters. And before the rejection of the Kitty Hawk port call, Beijing refused refuge to two Navy minesweepers seeking to outrun a storm.

When the Kitty Hawk sailed home after the port call turndown in November, it appears a Chinese Song-class submarine closely tracked the carrier for 28 hours as it transited the Taiwan Strait. A Chinese surface ship was also involved in what some termed a confrontation. Keating denied the reports, carried widely in the Asian press, of any incident. Yet even if absolutely nothing happened this time, our admirals need to come to grips with China.

The Navy’s reaction to increasingly aggressive Chinese conduct has, over the course of this decade, been uninspiring. After each incident it has either been silent or called for more dialogue with Beijing. Keating’s recently concluded trip to China is a case in point.

At the time of the rejection of the Kitty Hawk, Keating said he was “perplexed.” Yang Jiechi, the Chinese foreign minister, compounded the mystery a few days after the incident when he told President Bush that the turndown was the result of a “misunderstanding.” A day later a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said that the refusal of the port call was not a mistake after all.

Keating’s trip, during which he met China’s top military officer and the foreign minister himself, presented a golden opportunity to clear the air. Yet he Washington Post reported that during his visit Chinese officials did not give any reason for the rejection of the Kitty Hawk port call. Keating, when asked at a news briefing in Beijing whether Chinese officials had provided an explanation, had this to say: “We didn’t spend a whole lot of time on why.”

Make that no time at all. On Thursday in Hong Kong the admiral told the audience at an Asia Society breakfast that he did not ask his Chinese hosts for the reason for their turndown. Instead, Keating talked about future visits. “Our Chinese hosts didn’t say no to the pending request. I’m hopeful, I’m optimistic, I bet that our request will be approved.”

And I’ll bet that failing to confront the issue will eventually be seen as a mistake. It’s hard to imagine how the United States can build enduring ties with China for the future by ignoring the unfriendly conduct of the present.

The troubles between the American and Chinese militaries are not merely matters of miscommunication or transparency, as the Navy often characterizes them. The fundamental problem is that China and the United States have mutually incompatible aspirations in Asia. There will be friction between the two nations as long as the Chinese harbor expansionist ambitions-and as long as the United States fails to respond.

Gordon G. Chang is the author of %%AMAZON=037550477X The Coming Collapse of China %% .

Bookmark and Share
Email Print Podcasts Digg PJM Home

Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.

These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.

12 Comments

1. Dan:

Given the successful implementation of economic reforms, coupled with the collapse of the Communist system, and therefore a general strategic disorientation, I think it would be wise for the USA to decide exactly how much to concede to China long before we actually make the physical accomodations. But that China ought to be allowed to expand its strategic reach to some extent ought not be denied them, I think. 1.5 billion people, even if the economic trajectory is only based on 200-300 million of them and is probably unsustainable for much longer, ought to be at least slightly entertained in their ambitions in the waters just off their own coast. Of course this will require a balancing act among the other powers, but the Cold War is over, and this is inevitable. The real problem is the Chinese political oligopoly. It’s not going to be able to stay “Communist” for long, and then what?

Jan 22, 2008 - 5:21 am 2. Tom:

Another point to keep in mind is that the Chinese military is not completely under the control of the political officials in Beijing. The PLA in particular is very conservative and many in their leadership consider the US to be a prime target of their forces in the future.

Jan 22, 2008 - 6:40 am 3. MarkD:

I’d at least make sure Hong Kong was permanently off the list of port calls. Maybe Taiwan would be interested in our money. Maybe we make the point that the next confrontation results in Taiwan getting what it asks for when it comes looking for weapons.

Oh, those Olympics? Nevermind.

Jan 22, 2008 - 6:47 am 4. smoothn00dle:

it is unnatural when some countries navy thousand miles away camp outside of your country, threaten you and killing your whales.

If the west don’t pull back, we are going to do it for them.

Jan 22, 2008 - 8:12 am 5. Eric:

The only thing that is going to clear the cowardly non-confrontationalists from the military and State Dept. bureaucracies is an actual war that will require real leaders to take over from the mere actors. From Iran to China our enemies are constantly testing our limits and finding us wanting.

Jan 22, 2008 - 8:36 am 6. Larry Anderson:

I totally agree with Mr. Chang that Admiral Keating as well as DOD and the President should be more alert and assertive with the Chinese. The Chinese submarine that surfaced inside the Kitty Hawk battle group, according to news releases at the time, had gone unnoticed to the battlegroup, hence it’s surfacing surprised everyone concerned. That in itself is unacceptable, US Navy heads should roll. Unfortunately, this President and current military leaders have adopted a pacifist approach with North Korea, China, Iran, and Mexico’s armed invasions on our Country. Conservatism and fighting terrorism has long left this President, his word is no longer good.

Jan 22, 2008 - 10:41 am 7. Wade:

This guy wrote the book a few years back predicting that China was going to implode real soon … Now he is saying that China is a great threat. He seems to me a confused guy who has been making contradicting theses often.

Jan 22, 2008 - 12:34 pm 8. Sam:

He should make sure of his facts:
. China does not claim the “entire South China Sea” – only particular island groups and reefs in the South China Sea.
. The Bowditch was not in “international waters” at the time of the incident – she was in fact in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of China.

His bottom line about “the mutually incompatible aspirations” of China and the United States in Asia is rather “over the top” – surely both these major powers aspire to peace and stability in Asia.

Jan 22, 2008 - 11:53 pm 9. DoktorNo:

As a student of international relations, I can only say, that for sure, the powershift in Asia is inevitable, and because lack of institutional “security complex”, like in Europe (OSCE-EU-NATO), and robust nationalism, the only way to secure the peace is good old balance of power policy of alliances, with US as “balance holder” (as Mr. Morgenthau would said).

Jan 23, 2008 - 6:06 am 10. Nathan Crane:

“it is unnatural when some countries navy thousand miles away camp outside of your country, threaten you and killing your whales.

If the west don’t pull back, we are going to do it for them.”

I really don’t see what Japan’s poaching in Australia’s whale sanctuary has to do with China being belligerant fools with delusions of grandeur (and millions of Taiwanese dead), but whatever.

Jan 24, 2008 - 12:01 am 11. John King:

It was unfriendly of the Chinese to arbitrarily deny port facilities to the Kitty Hawk, Do we know if this is Chinese “policy?” That is, do they deny Military access to all other nations? Also, what is our policy of allowing port access to Chinese military vessels? It was very capricious of the Chinese to deny port access during a storm to the non-military research vessel. What would they (the Chinese) think if we denied port access to one of their cargo ships for no reason at all? Maybe we should do so and see.

Jan 24, 2008 - 9:35 am 12. EdWonk:

Why we continually keep kissing China’s ass while they keep continually farting in our faces remains a mystery to me…

Guess our federal government must like the smell…

Jan 24, 2008 - 4:20 pm

Write a Comment

Name: (required, displayed)
Email: (required, not publicized)
URL: (optional, displayed)
Comments: