Chinese ambassador to the United Nations Office at Geneva Sha Zukang told a reporter yesterday that "It's better for the U.S. to shut up [about Chinese military spending]."
According to an article from the Associated Press, the Chinese government, whose relationship with the United States has never been particularly amiable, has bolstered military spending with "double-digit percentage increases [...] every year for a decade."
This alone doesn't seem like cause for concern. United States military spending has certainly increased, and we have boosted our efforts at "homeland security" following 9/11. There are valid justifications for increased defense spending, and perhaps with North Korea becoming an increased regional threat with their looming nuclear capabilities there is valid justification in this case. There is no justification, however, for being so tight-lipped regarding spending. While it's wise to play one's cards close to one's chest when discussing military defense strategies, it would probably be more of a deterrent to potential aggressors to disclose one's military capabilities to a certain extent. If an aggressor sees the nation as a formidable threat, the chance of conflict is lessened. (Although one might argue that 9/11 is an example of how this strategy doesn't always work, it's important to recognize that terrorists act out of very different motivations than national governments.)
While telling the largest world power to "shut up" may be a diplomatic faux pas, it's relatively harmless, though the rest of Sha's quote is enough to give one pause. "Keep quiet," he said. "It's much, much better."
Better for whom? one might ask. Though it's possible to interpret this as a veiled threat ("Shut up, it's for your own good"), I don't think the ambassador would be that tactless (but if he was so undiplomatic in the first place, it's hard to say). It's always possible that the issue can be one of language. The United States government has certainly never been known to employ a language of subtlety (obfuscation, perhaps, but not subtlety) and there is no reason to suggest that China would be any different.
We should also keep in mind that the ambassador's remarks were made to a reporter, not in a traditional diplomatic setting, and shouldn't be taken to represent the official stance of the Chinese government. While he may have been selected as a representative of China in the UNOG, one man's diplomatic faux pas shouldn't be taken as indicative of an entire nation or even an entire government. He went on to say that "China basically is a peace-loving nation," and that the military spending is an act of "legitimate defense" and "is not threatening anyone." This might lend credence to the notion that they are simply bolstering their defenses against the remote possibility of a North Korean attack, but their spending has been increasing steadily over the past decade, long before we were aware of the nuclear capabilities of North Korea and the recent missile tests.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Phillip Winn
Great article. When I heard the Chinese response, I was reminded of the French response to certain Eastern European nations a year or two back.
Generally speaking, I'm optimistic with China. I prefer to think that our high volume of trade is the best road to ongoing peace with them, as it's hard to go to war with someone knowing it'll cost your economy a trillion dollrs or so.
2 - Bryan
Thanks, Phillip. What you described in your last paragraph is reminiscent of Thomas Friedman's "Golden Arches Theory", which, though disproved, still carries some real weight. The more economic interdependence there is on two countries, the less likely they are to engage in any sort of conflict. Interdependence is the key though, because I think there need to be mutual benefits to maintaining the peace.
3 - Phillip Winn
I suspect that it takes more than a few Big Macs to make a difference. It isn't franchisees that make the decision to go to war, after all!
Seriously, the Golden Arches theory has always sounded like a belief in "Magic Capitalism," and made me wonder if buying or selling something would cure warts, too. I don't think capitalism is magic, but I do believe that people generally pursue what they perceive as their own self-interest, and if we can arrange things economically so that a nation perceives its self-interest as leading to peace, so much the better!
4 - Marc Goldenberg
Bryan -
I heard the ambassador's remarks in full on NPR. The remarks wew made in the context of naval expenses, and the bel;ief that China would need to exert force should Taiwan declare independence. I believe that sentiments about "one inch of Chinese territory is worth all our people" and "no matter who chooses to intervene" were also uttered in the same breath. Don't you think the Chinese are probing for weakness in the US military posture as a result of our entanglements in Iraq and elsewhere, when we seem to be bogged down?
5 - Howard Studstill
Didn't Mao say something about the world's obligation to eliminate the US imperialist threat?
This is their chance, while we are busy screwing around in other countries chasing illusory goals, they are preparing to pounce on us, most likely with the help of others. I've even considered they may use N. Korea to attack us so our attention is misdirected. Strategically it makes sense.
6 - Bryan
Yes, obviously it takes more than one common interest (i.e. McDonalds) for such an arrangement to work, but I agree with the basic premise. I'm not a big fan of Friedman but I think he was on to something, though you articulated that "something" a lot better than he did.
7 - Bryan
Marc, thanks for the heads-up regarding the full remarks. I was going on the limited information available at the time through the AP, but it looks like there is more complete information coming out at this time. I couldn't find the NPR report you referenced, but this Russian news source documents some further comments.
The United States have the right to settle domestic problems on its own, so let them not pry into China’s internal affairs. It is not a question of how big Taiwan is. Each centimeter of Chinese land is more important to us than lives of our soldiers.
I'm not sure how accurate the quote is, as I've found different wordings on various sites, but this seemed to be the most complete rundown of the story thus far. I'll update if any more information becomes available.
To answer your question, Marc, I'm not sure if they're probing for US military weaknesses as they are warning us to back off and not interfere with affairs between China and Taiwan. I'm glad though that the comments have been put into context, as without the reference to Taiwan it was very unclear where these remarks came from. I hadn't even thought of Taiwan until reading these comments and the additional stories.
8 - bruce
It only becames a threat when the US sticks its nose between China and Taiwan. Overextending until collapse, this is how empires fall.
9 - George Winston
Mr McKays opinion and whole point hinges on the Chinese being "secret" about their military spending. He says "There is no justification, however, for being so tight-lipped regarding spending". This kind of analysis is both arrogant and patriarcal.
That the Chinese should report to mr McKay about their military endeavors puts the huge country in the role of a repository of children.
But the Chinese are growing up and Mr. McKays "report to me" attitude is childish.
10 - Joshua W. Harper
Although the U.S. is worried about the Chinese military rise, realism must kick in. The Chinese are no where near production nor spending of the United States. The last time I checked, which was rather recently, the U.S. had spent nearly 520 billion dollars on defense as compared to the almost 82 billion the Chinese spent in 2005. The United States has high technological capabilities, the Chinese are using and purchasing outdated (20-30 year old) equipment from Russian suppliers. In regard to the Navy, it is barely afloat (pun intended) and nowhere near U.S. capability. They are spending this money on Naval gain in order to prepare for a future conflict with the U.S. (which has virtually surrounded China) over a Taiwan (a U.S. ally). Unless they can rival our technological ability, they will be defeated regardless of the fact that they have the largest military in the world. The only thing that should worry the U.S. right now is that China has replaced it as the number one location for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) which will indeed increase technological capability in the military realm.
11 - Tim Schacher
China has what - 4+ times the population of the US and their defense budget was $30 billion in 2005? That's only 5% of the US defense budget!
So what if they've increased their budget 12% a year. It's miniscule compared to the US of A.
12 - Bryan
George, there is no reason for the Chinese ambassador to react so virulently to questions regarding their military spending.
It's not a matter of "report to me," it's a matter of nations being accountable to each other. That's the whole point of the United Nations. If we can't trust one another, it's very difficult to build solid and long-lasting alliances. This sort of behavior isn't going to win any friends.
And as a final point of clarification, my "whole point" doesn't hinge on the fact that China is being secretive, it hinges on the hostile manner in which the Chinese ambassador reacted, which was undiplomatic and suggested a certain degree of hostility.
As far as your remarks regarding the Chinese "growing up," I would suggest that perhaps your remarks are the arrogant ones. China is one of the oldest nations on the planet. Compared to China, we're the ones that are just "growing up."
13 - Marc Goldenberg
With all due respect to other posters here, don't you think that both Iraq and Lebanon are object lessons on the hubris of relying solely on technological superiority in military operations?
China's leaders are exhibiting something that Americans should learn: the virtue of patience and a long term strategy. America, these days, is all about the quick fix...
14 - Dean
One threat China poses is supplying military weapons to those around the world who will be their surrogates in using these weapons against us.
15 - Chas
All of you keep apoligizing for China!
Hope you all like rice
16 - chancelucky
I like rice, though not Condoleeza so much.
Could you point me to the places where the other posters are "apologizing" for China? Thanks.
17 - ROBERT
ITS OBVIOUS THAT CHINA FEELS IT'S NEW POTENTIAL POWER. THEIR PATIENT & MITICULOUS. THEIR NEW POWER IS BEING FUELED ECONOMICALLY BY CORPORATE AMERICA. THEY STRIVE TO GAIN TECHNOLOGY, BECAUSE WITH THAT THEY CAN ACHIEVE DOMINENCE OR SUPERIORITY. THIS REMARK IS EVIDENCE OF THE CONFIDENCE THEIR ATTAINING. MAKE NO MISTAKE THAT THEY WANT TO PASS AMERICA ON ALL FRONTS & THANKS TO US IT SHOULD SOON BE POSSIBLE.
18 - Zet
I also heard the ambassador's entire comment on NPR. He was commenting on our expressing displeasure about their military build up. Basically he was saying that it is none of our business. He made some statements referring to China's population vs. our population and the military spending in proportion.... He had a very legitimate point. Who is the U.S. to comment on any one and how much they spend on their own defense spending. Lastly, he made no bones about where China stands on Taiwan. I suppose Abraham Lincoln felt the same way about the South, a hundred years ago.
Our arrogance makes me very nervous. Has anyone ever considered why it is that we have problems with non-European countries that are autonomous and have a good defense system? Is there a non-European country that is well armed that we don’t consider as EVIL? Seems rather glaring to me.
19 - Zet
I think that what a lot of us don’t realize is that a lot of people all over the world feel as if we need to “shut up”.
Unfortunately some people are so fed up that they are willing to make us "shut up". Scary.
20 - Arthur
I have just returned from China, as a "Ya sure you betcha Minnesotan." I have gained a much deeper understanding of the people of China than before. I frankly see them much more like us than ever. I have lived most of my younger life in Europe and the Middle-East as my dad was attached to NATO. Back then we lived on the economy. I have learned the posturing of governments does not give us a bigger understanding of their people.
China simply wants us to treat them with respect as equals in the world at large. I believe that we both need to understand that we need each other. Taiwan (Formosa) is a much more complicated issue than we understand and we are kind of a bull in a "China shop" (pun intentional) and as such we need to be wise for the benefit of everyone. We don't own the world nor has God given us the job of managing it, from Thailand to Mongolia we need to leave our dysfunctional roots and respect healthy boundaries. Before we start throwing stones, we had better realize we live in a glass house.
The truth is if we learn to accept these people first as they are, we maybe have a chance of becoming partners in benefiting the entire world and each other. They still don't know who we are, maybe we can avoid screwing up a potential friendship. We need to stop competing and learn to partner. When our sons are married to their daughters, we may occasionally say something like: “It might be ok for the Grand kids to have ice cream now and then.” Relationship gives limited ability to guide. We must be wise here.
We need desperately, before it's too late, to see the bigger picture and not destroy our opportunity for friendship, like we did in previous generations. This is a "New Day" folks, let's greet it for what it is.
Arthur
21 - Jack
Bryan, im not sure if i understand your point on how different nations trust each other. since when did we decide that the only way we trust another country is by knowing how much its military spending is? and how should a nation's military spending affect our relationship with it? it almost sounds like you are saying that if a country's military spending is not published all over the news then its not an accountable nation. i hardly believe that this is the point of the united nations.
22 - Bryan
Jack, let me try and clarify my stance a little. It's not so much the particular issue of military spending I'm worried about, but rather the attitude of the Chinese ambassador towards the United States' curiosity. There were many appropriate ways he could have fielded the question, but he chose one that was wholly inappropriate. If people want to start talking about acting childish (i.e. comment #9), let's start with one nation telling another to "shut up." It sounds more like a fight at the playground than international diplomacy.
It's understandable to not want your countries finances plastered all over the news, but the comments of the ambassador were directed at the United States, not the reporter (who wasn't even an American).
Another reason this is different than a minor nation is that China is a member of the UN Security Council alongside the US. Perhaps it's arrogant of the US to expect an answer from China, but the ambassador's response was even more arrogant, displaying a complete public disdain for the US. That's one thing coming from a regular citizen - I'm all for freedom of speech in any capacity - but when you represent an entire nation, it's irresponsible.
23 - MT
Given our current situation in the Middle East, this comment (to "shut up," which I first heard on NPR) seems fitting. So China has upped its military spending... Not sure I agree necessarily, but the USA has no place to tell anyone to decrease spending in this area. Given that we -- essentially unilaterally -- are engaged in a war without an exit strategy or exit plan, I agree that it is "better" for the US not to comment on military spending. It is inappropriate for us to impose restrictions on others that we do not follow ourselves!
24 - Arthur
Brian, perhaps it is not so much as irresponsible as much as we are judging this from our point of view. If we consider their point of view, perhaps we can understand his words better. We keep threatening China over Taiwan. Perhaps if we understood that they have never viewed Taiwan as anything but their own property and that just because they couldn't deal with the problem at the time the Shek government took refuge there doesn't mean they don't think it's still their property.
Think of owning a cabin up north... your kid goes up there and claims it's his because he has a gun and powerful friends and is going to keep it. Whose property is it? Maybe we have pushed them so hard they feel like we are not listening and that is why he choose to speak like this.
They view this as an internal family problem and it is most inappropiate for us to get involved in their family problem. Could it be that we don't comprehend their culture.
25 - David
"Perhaps it's arrogant of the US to expect an answer from China, but the ambassador's response was even more arrogant,....." I agree that is more arrogant, emotionally. But, is that a big deal of who is more arrogant when one person arrogants to another and the other arrogants back?