Chinese aircraft carrier brings US out in spots
0 
Han: China's military transparency is a hot topic in the US. But the US should realize that transparency is a relative concept, and that China won't increase its military transparency to the level the US demands.
What we have is a situation like two boxing players observing each other. The stronger one can tell people what he's good at and where he's not so good. But the weaker one cannot risk provid-ing as much information. Otherwise, he will be totally controlled by his counterpart.
GT: In the US, media and military officials have all expressed concerns about China's military rise. Some analysts suggest that the interests of American defense companies are a key driver in this regard. Do you agree?
Han: This is plausible. There have been more than a few cases in which the US exaggerated or even fabricated threats against its national defense, so as to satisfy the appetites of domestic weapons firms.
In the Middle East, the US exaggerated the Iran threat, which led to the signature of a $60 arms sales contract with Saudi Arabia in 2010.
In Europe, the US talked up the threat from Russia. Now it has established a missile defense system in Poland, and will probably build a similar system in the Czech Republic and Romania in the future.
Defense is a big part of the US economy, and defense firms play a significant role in domestic politics. By promoting arms exports, US President Barack Obama can accumulate political capital for himself, and prepare a bid for another term in office.
GT: Historical experiences suggest that a country with declining economic power but a powerful military capacity is more likely to launch a military strike. The US falls into this category. How do you see this?
Finkelstein: I do not subscribe to historical determinism.
Go to Forum >>0 Comments