回本城市首頁 全民監督
市長:uskmt  副市長:
討論區建言 字體:
上一個討論主題 回文章列表 下一個討論主題
專家說 沒有明確的對中國戰略


No Clear Strategy On China, Experts Say

The 18th CPC National Congress - Previews
A Chinese boy looks at a photo of the Liaoning, China's first aircraft carrier. The ship gives the Chinese navy more options in projecting power in the western Pacific (Feng Li / Getty Images

WASHINGTON — No real US strategy exists right now for dealing with China, even as the country challenges the territorial status quo of nearby Asian waters, several experts said Wednesday.

“You have the option of examining the classified war plans and decide if they reflect a strategy for conducting an upper-level war,” naval analyst Ronald O’Rourke of the Congressional Research Service told Congress. “But for situations short of war, it is not clear to me we have a strategy for that.”

Such a strategy, he said “needs to involve our allies — it’s not something we can do ourselves.”

China expert Andrew Ericson of the Naval War College noted “the US has an implicit collection of approaches that together constitute a strategy. ... But they would be more effective if they were brought together.”

Two other experts were more direct.

“We don’t have that strategy today,” declared Jim Thomas of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

“No such strategy exists,” said Seth Cropsey, a Navy official during the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations. “And forming one is difficult.”

The observations came at a hearing late Wednesday called by Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., chairman of the House Seapower subcommittee, to discuss China’s growing naval power. Ongoing efforts by China to assert territorial claims on a number of islands and near-island chains and the recent declaration of a new maritime air defense identification zone were cited as indications of the country’s increased confidence backed by the expanding naval capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy.

“While naval modernization is a natural development for any sea-faring nation such as China, it is clear the modernization is emboldening the Chinese government to exert their interests by bullying their neighbors and pushing back the United States in the Asia-Pacific region,” Forbes said.

“We also must understand how to engage with the PLA Navy in a manner that is constructive for all parties involved and demonstrates respect and adherence to established international norms of maritime conduct,” he said.

All four witnesses at the hearing noted the difficulty — and the need — for developing a coherent approach to China’s naval prowess.

“Fundamental issues hang in the balance,” Erickson said. “If not addressed properly, China’s rise as a major regional maritime power could begin an era in which the US military lost unfettered access to a key region.”

“It’s clear that Chinese leaders are ambitious,” noted Cropsey, “and that their diplomatic policy and their military armament are moving them toward great power status, or at least regional hegemony, in a series of small steps designed to achieve those ends with minimal resistance from their Pacific competitors, America’s allies. And the US is not taking this possibility as seriously as it should.”

No “single silver bullet” approach will address the issue, Thomas said. “Instead, the United States and its allies will likely have to undertake a combination of efforts to demonstrate their defensive strength in the face of China’s challenge.”

O’Rourke ticked off a list of elements to consider.

“Top-level US strategic considerations related to China’s naval modernization effort include, among other things, the following:

■ preventing the emergence of a regional hegemon in one part of Eurasia or another;

■ preserving the US-led international order that has operated since World War II;

■ fulfilling US treaty obligations;

■ shaping the Asia-Pacific region; and

■ having a military strategy for China.”

The US budget situation should not prevent addressing the issue, the witnesses said.

“Some might argue that in light of our fiscal situation this is the wrong time to introduce what amounts to a major overhaul of our power projection forces,” Thomas said. “I would argue the opposite — that a clear vision of America’s future force design should inform the near-term choices the administration and Congress will have to make about which forces and capabilities to preserve or expand as well as lower priority areas where we will have to divest and accept greater risk.

“Changes that begin today will take years, if not decades, to fully play themselves out.”

All agreed that while China’s rate of growth will decline, the risk from a Chinese military buildup will not fade.

“If their growth line bends downward, they may see the next few years as their period of maximum opportunity for pursuing their goals in the near-seas areas,” O’Rourke said. “They may see it as something where time is not on their side.”

Thomas echoed that statement.

“We share an interest with China in that we want a China that is secure and prosperous,” he said “But we don’t know what their future is in terms of defense programs.

“And China’s increasing reliance on nationalism — almost a replacement for communist ideology — is cause for concern.”


華盛頓 - 沒有真正的美國的戰略存在,現在對付中國,甚至作為國家的挑戰亞洲附近海域的領土現狀,幾位專家說,星期三。

“你必須檢查分為戰爭計劃的選擇和決定他們是否反映了一個戰略進行了高層的戰爭, ”美國國會研究處的海軍分析家羅納德·奧羅克告訴國會。 “但對於短期戰爭情況下,它是不是我清楚我們有一個戰略的。 ”

這樣的策略,他說,“必須涉及我們的盟友 - 它不是我們可以做自己。”

海軍戰爭學院的中國問題專家安德魯·埃里克森指出:“美國擁有共同構成一個戰略方法的隱式集合。 ...但是,如果他們被帶到一起,他們會更有效。 “



“沒有這樣的戰略存在, ”賽斯克羅波西,在裡根和老布什政府一名海軍官員說。 “而且一體成型是困難的。 ”

該意見在聽證會上來晚了週三呼籲眾議員蘭迪·福布斯,R -VA 。 ,眾議院海上力量小組委員會的主席,討論中國日益增長的海軍實力。正在進行的努力,中國主張在一些島嶼和附近島嶼鏈和最近一個新的海上防空識別區的申報領土要求被列為跡象表明該國由解放軍不斷擴大的海軍能力支持增加信心( PLA)海軍。

“雖然海軍現代化是任何航海國家,如中國的自然發展,很明顯的現代化是加粗中國政府通過欺凌他們的鄰居,並在亞太地區推回美國,以發揮他們的利益, ”福布斯說。

“我們還必須了解如何與中國海軍參與的方式是建設性的參與,並演示了尊重和遵守海上行為建立國際規範各方, ”他說。

所有四名證人在聽證會上說,困難 - 和需要 - 制定一個協調一致的辦法來中國的海軍實力。

“根本的問題掛在平衡, ”埃里克森說。 “如果得不到妥善解決,中國的崛起​​作為一個主要的地區海上力量可以開始一個時代,美軍失去了不受阻礙地進入到一個關鍵地區。 ”

“很明顯,中國領導人是雄心勃勃,指出:”克羅波西, “和他們的外交政策和軍事裝備正在他們走向大國地位,或者至少是地區性霸權,在一系列旨在實現這些目標以最小的小步驟電阻從太平洋的競爭對手,美國的盟友。和美國不採取這種可能性嚴重,因為它應該。“

沒有“單銀彈”的做法將解決這一問題,托馬斯說。 “相反,美國及其盟國可能將不得不承擔的努力來證明自己的防守實力在中國的挑戰面前的組合。 ”







■具有用於中國軍事戰略。 “


“有人可能認為,鑑於我們的財政狀況,這是錯誤的時間引進數額是多少,我們的力量投送力量的重大改革, ”托馬斯說。 “我認為相反的 - 即美國的未來部隊設計一個清晰的願景應告知近期選擇了政府和國會將不得不作出哪些力量和能力,以保持或擴大以及較低的優先領域,我們將有剝離和接受更大的風險。

“今天開始改變將需要幾年,甚至幾十年,才能充分發揮自己出。 ”


“如果他們的成長線向下彎曲,他們可能會看到未來幾年,作為最大的機遇期,追求自己的目標在不遠的公海地區, ”奧羅克說。 “他們可能會看到它的東西,時間不站在他們一邊。 ”


“我們與中國分享在利益,我們希望有一個中國是安全和繁榮, ”他說,“但我們不知道他們的未來是在防禦計劃方面。

“而中國的民族主義日益依賴 - 幾乎取代共產主義思想 - 是引起人們的關注。 ”

本文於 修改第 1 次
回應 回應給此人 推薦文章 列印 加入我的文摘