U.S. Seeks Thaw in Sino Security Ties

While Washington’s landmark trade deal Monday with China promises to put bilateral economic relations on their best footing in years, analysts say the outlook for improved security ties is far bleaker--even considering today’s scheduled first military-to-military contact since NATO’s May bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia.

A delegation led by Kurt Campbell, the deputy assistant secretary of Defense, arrived in Beijing on Friday evening for two days of talks with Chinese military officials toward what the Clinton administration hopes will eventually be improved ties.

But lingering Chinese suspicions about U.S. antimissile defense systems, the Cox report on Chinese spying, the Kosovo war and the embassy bombing, as well as strong congressional mistrust over human rights, the spy scandal, labor issues and Taiwan, have turned even low-level military contact into a controversial proposition.

“Like two fighters going back in the ring in the 11th round after a tough fight, they’re going to be very wary of each other,” said David Shambaugh, China military specialist at George Washington University and the Brookings Institution.

Further poisoning the waters, new conditions in the Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress last month require detailed reports on any military contacts with the People’s Liberation Army, including who participated, how much was spent and what was disclosed.

Even some within the Pentagon criticize the PLA contacts as fundamentally unbalanced. All of which, analysts say, adds up to some pretty rough sledding ahead.

“There’ve been lulls up and down [in military relations] over the past 20 years,” said Ken Allen, senior associate at the Henry L. Stimson Center think tank in Washington. “But this is among the worst.”

In this environment, few expect this weekend’s meetings--the first contact in six months--to be much more than an icebreaker. That said, on several levels they could reveal quite a bit about the depth of the floe.

If Campbell--the equivalent of a Chinese vice chief of staff--is met by someone of higher rank, like the chief of staff, defense minister or even China’s premier, this will signal by degrees Beijing’s eagerness to improve military ties. If China greets Campbell with an emissary of equal or lower rank, it will send a proportionately weaker signal.

Beijing has been extremely tight-lipped about the meeting, as it normally is with any security matter.

A second important sign may be detected in the decisions reached on the pace and agenda of future meetings. While this all seems rather bureaucratic, analysts say China could tip its hand on its willingness to tackle several serious military irritants between the two sides.

“The issues for the two militaries to discuss haven’t fundamentally changed six months later,” said Chu Shulong, senior fellow with the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations in Beijing.

In particular, readers of the Chinese tea leaves will focus on the schedule outlined for the annual consultations on bilateral military concerns, which were shelved after the embassy bombing in Belgrade. A meeting set for this year is an excellent sign, analysts say, one for early next year a very good sign, while late next year or not at all is a bad sign.

Third, if things get off on a relatively good footing, a modicum of progress on Taiwan might even creep in. Campbell is the highest-ranking U.S. official allowed unofficial contact with Taipei under a Sino-American understanding.

With Beijing edgy over Taiwan’s presidential election in March, some indication by Campbell on how the U.S. will act might help allay China’s deeply held suspicions about Washington’s relationship with what it regards as a renegade province.

Military-to-military programs have often been controversial. The Pentagon was accused in the 1970s of training budding Latin American dictators on new ways to torture their victims. More recently, despite years of contact with the Indonesian military, Washington’s objections had little evident influence when that country’s soldiers used local militias to terrorize East Timor.

Factor in the PLA’s role in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators and Beijing’s checkered record on human rights, and bilateral military programs with China come under even sharper criticism.

“It’s been a one-way street from us to them,” charged William C. Triplett II, a longtime Republican aide and coauthor of the book “Red Dragon Rising.” “I think the PLA as an institution is one of the most evil institutions going.”

Supporters counter, however, that those in search of instant results from such military exchanges miss the point. No matter how much of a rogue force the PLA is perceived to be, knowing what the world’s largest military force is doing is better than staying in the dark, they argue.