Crouching tiger or paper dragon?

 

By Yu Maochun

 

`One aspect often over-looked in foreign assessments of the PLA is its political indoctrination and the level of fanaticism this can create in an actual battlefield scenario.'

 

When a senior defense expert recently testified before a US Congressional commission on China's military capability, he detailed the extraordinarily robust weapons program the People's Liberation Army (PLA) has been pursuing. He pointed particularly to the PLA's increasing number of short, intermediate and even long-range ballistic missiles. But the expert concluded that, despite the alarming number of missiles, they did not constitute a "buildup."

 

Baffled by that conclusion, the members of Congress began asking one question relentlessly: if the existing PLA missiles did not constitute a "buildup," then what number of missiles would? The inability to answer this question clearly exorcised and angered both the defense expert and the committee.

 

But this episode illustrates a fundamental and frustrating problem -- the more we know about what is going on in China the less we are sure about whether China has actually become a threat. We know China has doubled and redoubled its defense budget for, among other things, a massive weapons development program, including modernizing a deterrent and second-strike nuclear capability. Yet we cannot decide whether this build-up is menacing.

 

The prevailing consensus is not to regard China as a threat. But there are several serious conceptual flaws in this reasoning. It fails, for example, to take into account the hostile strategic culture against the US -- and against US strategic goals in the Asian and Pacific regions -- that has long been ingrained within the PLA.

 

A cursory glance at the PLA's readiness training, research and development, weapons acquisition and indoctrination programs shows that Chinese officials are preparing to fight future wars not only against regional powers, but against a superpower. Its preparations focus not on parity with the US' modern weaponry, but on the development of "asymmetrical warfare" theory and capability. As the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the US brutally reminded us, a lethal threat need not come from equivalent military hardware.

 

The PLA has spent an inordinate amount of its rapidly growing resources in areas that give it an asymmetrical advantage, such as electronic warfare and human intelligence. Such tactics are aimed at confronting an enemy that is armed with the most advanced weapons systems, but is vulnerable to sabotage and asymmetrical attack, even latter-day guerilla warfare.

 

Throughout the PLA's history, a chief tactic has always been to launch asymmetrical attacks on an enemy's command and communication centers, thus obviating direct confrontations where parity in technological development would determine a clearer definition of victory and defeat. The PLA has never been deterred or become less aggressive when confronted with an enemy possessing more advanced hardware. This was true of Mao Zedong's guerrilla war against the Japanese occupation, the civil war against Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists, the Korean War against the US and even the Vietnam War, where China backed the North.

 

More recently, PLA officials have been among the most interested observers of the two US-led Gulf wars. They have been im-pressed by US technology and remote firepower, but they have also been searching for US military weaknesses in such a context. While awed by American hardware, some PLA brass are convinced that if former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein had been a better commander, the battle for Baghdad could have been, to quote Zhang Zhaozhong of the Chinese National Defense University, "George Bush's Stalingrad."

 

One aspect often overlooked in foreign assessments of the PLA is its political indoctrination and the level of fanaticism this can create in an actual battlefield scenario. Despite all the years of stressing "military moderniza-tion," the system of indoctrination by Political Commissars remains the soul of PLA units. We have seen the ferocity of ideologically intoxicated PLA soldiers during the Korean War and even at Tiananmen Square in 1989.

 

Finally, China is far from being an Iraq or an Afghanistan. Despite the obvious imbalance with the US in terms of modern arma-ments, it would be shortsighted to ignore China's own formidable military hardware. It has a nuclear first and second-strike capability; its own satellite communications systems; increasingly sophisticated and numerous aircraft and war ships; a rapidly growing economy to sustain high levels of military investment; as well as its own political and diplomatic points of leverage at places like the UN.

 

The supposition that China cannot become a threat in the near future, or in the next 20 years, is simplistic, because it ignores basic aspects of China's political system. The reality is that China has been through a half century of Marxist-Leninist revolutionary indoctrination, which emphasizes the predatory nature of imperialism, colonialism and capitalism -- with America singled out as the leader of oppressive global forces.

 

This ideology feeds a deep popular perception of China as a wounded, humiliated Third World victim and instills in the Communist Party a powerful sense of unresolved grievance. It was from this mindset that Mao's theory of guerilla war -- the last century's mother of all asymmetrical strategies of warfare -- was born. It would be naive to assume that this mindset, which has become more deeply rooted in the PLA than anywhere else in Chinese society, is a thing of the past.

 

Whether China will prove to be a paper dragon of little military substance or a crouching tiger with sharp claws remains unresolved. But, as the saying goes: "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom."

 

Yu Maochun, born in China, is associate professor of East Asia and military history at the US Naval Academy. The views expressed here are not those of the US Department of Defense or any other US government agency.

 

 

Banding together for strength

 

On Tuesday, a group of Taiwanese businessmen who have been defrauded, conned and swindled in China established an association to advocate their rights and rights of others who have shared similar fates. More than 50 businessmen attended the opening ceremony, but according to the new association, they were just a small fraction of the tens of thousands who have fallen prey to what is supposed to be the new land of fortune.

 

The plight of Taiwanese businesspeople in China is nothing new. The question is, what exactly is being done about it, or more precisely what is the government doing about it? It is the duty of any government to protect the properties, interests and rights of their overseas citizens. One prime example is the way the US government has been vigorously looking after the business and financial interests of US citizens and companies, from demanding the protection of American intellectual property rights (IPR), to expressions of concern about the possible termination of GE's contract should the government decide to cease construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant.

 

Sadly, since this country is not formally recognized by most countries, many of which are more than willing to cave into China, the government is often subjected to discriminatory or downright demeaning treatment. Being weak is sad enough. But to be weak and rich is an open invitation to get ripped off.

 

Despite the linguistic and cultural similarities, China is perhaps the worst place for Taiwanese businesspeople, especially those with small and mid-size firms, to invest. The situation is somewhat better with respect to giant firms, which have more financial prowess as well as the connections to protect themselves.

 

First, in developed countries governed by the rule of law, Taiwanese businesses can seek redress and remedies via legal channels and mechanisms. Moreover, with transparent and consistent rules and regulations, there is much more predictability in doing businesses in such places. China, by contrast, is a country governed by lawless men. The field is completely cleared each time a new person comes to power, putting their cronies in key positions. Nothing that was agreed on previously counts for anything when there is a new leader.

 

Aggravating the problem is the cross-strait situation. China is not just any country. It is the country that continues to claim Taiwan as a province and one that might have to be forced or disciplined into accepting its place at some point in the future. Under the circumstances, China has ample incentive to trample Taiwanese business interests.

 

The most bizarre response to the launch of the new association was probably made by Chang Rong-Kung, head of the KMT's Mainland Affairs Department. According to him, the way for the government to help these businessmen is to resume official cross-strait dialogue. Perhaps Chang has forgotten that the reason the dialogue lapsed is that China insists on Taipei accepting its "one China" principle before more talks can be held. But if Taipei were to agree, it would loose -- in Beijing's eyes -- any right as a mere provincial government to bargain with the central government. Just look at how well the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region government has fared.

 

At the very least, the new association can raise the awareness of the potential risks and dangers of investing in China. This is much more useful than what is being proposed by Chang and the KMT.

 

 

HK leader asks for second chance

 

BEGGING FORGIVENESS: A day after two members of the Cabinet resigned, embattled Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa admitted that he had made mistakes

 

AP , HONG KONG

 

Chastened by angry street protests, embattled leader Tung Chee-hwa admitted yesterday he'd made mistakes and asked for a second chance, promising to listen more to ordinary Hong Kong citizens about an anti-subversion bill that fueled their uproar.

 

Nevertheless, the political crisis facing his administration deepened with record unemployment figures announced less than 24 hours after two Cabinet members quit.

 

Tung, who is not popularly elected and who reports to China, heads to Beijing tomorrow to explain the unfolding drama to the central government while critics at home clamor for him to step down -- as his security chief and financial secretary did Wednesday.

 

Tung sought a fresh start at a news conference yesterday, ruling out suggestions that he resign but promising greater accountability.

 

He said he had been left "sleepless" by the rally that brought a half-million people to the streets July 1 to denounce an anti-subversion bill, demanded by Beijing, but slammed by critics here who say it would seriously erode Hong Kong's Western-style freedoms of speech and assembly.

 

"I was left sleepless the whole night," Tung said. "The public reminded me to adopt a more humble, sincere attitude to address their demands."

 

"In the past six years, I have made mistakes," Tung said. "I understand people's criticisms and discontent toward me. But faced with such criticisms, what should my attitude be? I think I should actively face them and make improvements."

 

Tung's political crisis has become a test of the "one country, two systems" model that China promised for Hong Kong when it was returned by Britain in 1997. The system has constitutional guarantees that Hong Kong people can enjoy Western-style civil liberties unheard of in mainland China but also requires the anti-subversion legislation that stirred the crisis here.

 

Critics say Tung has lost the ability to govern, but that Beijing authorities are unlikely to seek to remove him now.

 

"It's still not time for Tung to resign," said Ivan Choy of the City University of Hong Kong. "Beijing needs time to make decisions. If you have a political vacuum, it will take time to fill. Even if he tries to resign, I think Beijing would advise him not to do so."

 

A bad economy is aggravating matters. The fallout from Hong Kong's recent SARS outbreak has pushed pushed unemployment to a record 8.6 percent in the three months ending June 30, officials said yesterday.

 

Tung has yet to say how he will replace Secretary for Security Regina Ip and Financial Secretary Antony Leung, whose resignations were announced within hours of one another late Wednesday.

Former Hong Kong secretary for security Regina Ip, center, appears at the Hong Kong government yesterday after announcing her resignation on Wednesday.