A Defense Ministry spokesperson on Thursday scorned a Wall Street Journal report on China-U.S. military ties as "confusing".

On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported the Pentagon, facing political pressure, delayed a decision on a major new military exchange with China until the two countries could reach an agreement on rules for airborne encounters.

China and the United States have actively developed a new model for military ties in 2014, featuring new progress in high-level exchanges, institutional exchanges, and joint training and exercises, said spokesperson Yang Yujun.

He said the "two mutual trust mechanisms", referring to a mutual reporting and trust mechanism on major military operations and a code of safe conduct on naval and air military encounters between the two sides, had become the highlight of China-U.S. military ties.

In the new year, China is willing to work with the U.S. to seriously carry out the consensus reached by both leaders and push forward the healthy and stable development of China-U.S. military ties, he said.

The China-U.S. military relations maintained sound development at the beginning of this year, he said.

The armies of the two countries conducted joint humanitarian assistance and disaster relief drills in Guangzhou and Haikou from Jan. 12 to 19, he said, adding that Commanding General of the U.S. Army Pacific General Vincent Brooks also witnessed the drills.

Michael Vickers, U.S. under secretary of defense for intelligence, paid a visit to China from Jan. 25 to 28, said Yang.

During his visit, Vickers said the two armed forces will benefit from a new model of military relations. He expected concrete implementation of the leaders' consensus.

Vickers said mutual respect is an important principle in developing U.S.-China relations, and the U.S. fully agrees with China on pushing forward the new model of military ties.

He also suggested the two sides should maintain high-level dialogue, promote pragmatic cooperation and ensure strategic stability, said Yang.

Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)