"underguarded security order in the region for half a century"
Surely that's a slip of the tongue, but accurate. Secretary Rumsfeld's under-reported trip to China while the American media are fixated on bird flu and the weather reminds be of Rumsfeld's over-reported trip to Abu Ghraib while Wolfowitz went before Congress making the case for new classes of nuclear weapons to keep our allies and enemies from hiding things in their mountains. One would think that even the Swiss would object to that.
Target China
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld paid a historic visit to China last week, his first since he was President Ford's Chief of Staff.
But, while the Chinese graciously let him visit a nuclear missile base, Mr. Rumsfeld was not impressed and his minions have gone to some length to make the point that the "inscrutible orientals" still lag in the modern virtue, transparency.
Also, even though a five-nation agreement has been endorsed by both Russia and China to make Central Asia a Nuclear-Free Zone, it was not discussed. That's because the U.S., Britain and France have already decided to oppose this ground-breaking agreement.
An analysis in the Taipei Times provides a number of "reasons" for U.S. suspicions:
>`ANTI-ACCESS': Although US leaders may visit China, they are only allowed >limited access, and are concerned that the US is clearly considered the >hypothetical enemy
>AFP , WASHINGTON
>Sunday, Oct 23, 2005,Page 5
>"You have this disconnect between what China says it's doing and what it's >actually doing."
>China is doing little to ease concerns over its rapid military buildup which >is threatening US dominance in a wide range of areas, from Asian sea >lanes to outer space, US experts said on Friday.
>US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld went on a maiden trip this week >to Beijing to directly express US worries over China's growing military >power, but the experts felt the assurances he received had failed to lift >long-held suspicions.
While an objective observer might conclude that being surrounded by U.S. military forces stationed in South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Turkey might give China a reason to protect itself, that's not OK with the U.S.
You see, we've got this new principle: To deny the U.S. unfettered access wherever it wants to go is considered an offense.
>China argues its military budget is dwarfed by US spending, which last >year totaled US$440 billion, and that its preoccupation is to lift living >standards of the poor.
>"But what you are seeing are capabilities to, in fact, deny the United States >from projecting power in the region," said Dan Blumenthal, a former senior >director for China and Taiwan in the US Secretary of Defense's office.
>"So you have this disconnect between what China says it's doing and what >it is actually doing," he said.
>One area of concern that has given the US sleepless nights is what >Blumenthal calls China's anti-access capabilities.
>"China is developing military capabilities that make it much more difficult >for the United States to access hot spots in the region and, therefore, to >meet its various defense commitments which have underguarded security >order in the region for half a century," he said.
Think of that. Of course, a nation in which a man's home is no longer his castle, can't be expected to respect the borders and territorial waters of other nations either.
But, when was all this decided?
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/10/23/2003276996