Provisional Transcript
Yoichi Kato
Regarding, the disaster cooperation between China and Japan, the Governor of Japan has counselled yesterday to dispatch its self-defence force cargo aircrafts to transport disaster relief to China, due to the consideration of the sensitivity of Chinese public opinion. This could be the first occasion of Japanese aircraft flying into Chinese airspace on a peacetime mission. It could have been a clear manifestation of mutual trust and confidence, and I feel it was a precious historical opportunity lost. I have a question for both General Ma and Minister Ishiba. To General Ma, was it premature for Japanese military aircraft to fly into Chinese air space in this kind of disaster relief mission? To Minister Ishiba, what do you think Japan has to do to win the trust and confidence of Chinese people, to be able to conduct this type of disaster relief mission in the future? Thank you.
Ralph A Cossa
First, you mentioned in your remarks that missile defence was destabilising and changed the strategic balance. According to IISS there has been a significant increase in Chinese offensive missile capabilities in East Asia. How do you explain that building offensive missiles is not destabilising, but building missile defences is destabilising. There seems to be a disconnect there.
Second, Secretary Gates, in his presentation, stressed the important stabilising and constructive role of US alliances. In your remarks you said that expanding and improving alliances was destabilising. Could you explain a bit more why there seems to be a great difference between your view and that of Secretary Gates in the role of alliances?
Andrew Yang
A question to General Ma, as you mentioned China continued to emphasise the importance of maintaining peace and stability and development in the region. That is in China’s interests also. Given the fact that relations between Beijing and Tai Pai are improving, that there will be a possible dialogue between the two sides to discuss issues over the charter flights, and the proposals with regard to building more stable relations, such as confidence building measures, I want to know what the military’s view is in terms of enhancing peace and stability, and the proposal of confidence building between the two sides?
Dato' Dr Mohamed Munir Abdul Majid
My question becomes a follow-up to the second question, directed to General Ma. Secretary Gates talks about the US as a Pacific nation, engaged, active and involved in Pacific security. There seems to be a divergence in terms of the perception of the need for Pacific security between what Secretary Gates said and what you just said as related by the second questioner. Can you reflect more closely on what the US position is, and what China’s position is?
Professor Michael Yahuda
My question is also to General Ma, I wonder if he could expand a little bit further on a statement he made about China’s interest in handling questions of piracy and sea lines of communication. Does this mean that it is part of the general planning for the role of the Chinese navy to be more active in controlling the sea lanes through which many of the resources that China imports pass, namely in South East Asia, and maybe further afield.
Participant
There seems to be a conflict between the two presentations we just had. Mr Ishiba raises the discussion of transparency in Chinese military budget, the transparency and adequacy of a Chinese military budget, and on the other hand General Ma said that the military budget of China is quite adequate. Could the two presenters pursue this matter further?
Minister Ishiba
I will speak in Japanese. I apologize for that. Regarding why our C130 transport aircraft did not fly out, that was because there was no specific request from the Chinese side which said, ‘We would like for Japan to fly out one of its transport aircraft’, and that is as far as that matter goes. We, for our part—and this includes the Self-Defence Forces, as well—have made known our intention to take all steps to provide aid to the victims of the disaster in China. But as I understand it, the Chinese side—and I don’t know what kind of an internal decision was made—will not depend upon the Japanese Self-Defence Forces, and would like transport to be carried out by some other means. When it comes to what kind of aid we can provide such that we will be able to obtain the trust of the Chinese, the People’s Liberation Army is militarily extremely strong. At the same time, we will put into use the high level of technology which Japan has, as well as the supplies that we possess. Granted, Japan does not have such a large surplus, but I think we will provide all of the supplies that we are able to.
An important thing—and this applies not only to members of the Self-Defence Forces—is that when Japan provides aid to China, we must understand and respect Chinese culture, and Chinese tradition, and the Chinese people. In addition, the people of China have various opinions of us, as in the past there was fighting between China and Japan. Japan fought also against the United States, and against other countries, too. However, Japan and China are both Asian nations, and on our side, we feel that we have done something for which we have no excuse, for which we feel very sorry. And I think that it is necessary for us to be fully aware of this fact.
The second point is that, when it comes to transparency, you have kindly pointed out that Japan and China think differently on this regard. I have absolutely no intention of saying how terribly bad it is that there has been such a surge in military spending. When Japan was experiencing its period of rapid economic growth, our military spending was increasing by more than ten percent every year. Thus, I am not going to take the position of criticizing China for her increases in military spending. However, when we look at the strengthening of China’s defence capability, there are some aspects about which it cannot be thought that the preparation of such defence capabilities is being carried out solely for the purpose of defending China. These aspects include nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles—any number of examples can be given. As we have said in our earlier speech, we do not see this as a threat to China. However, what we would like to say is that, just as we explain, clearly and to the best of our ability, what exactly we have, and how much, we would also like for you to give the same kind of clear explanation. The scales that are being used to measure military spending are different. For example, we do not include the Coast Guard in our military spending, nor do we include our space development budget in our military spending. There are many different standards for measuring military spending, and when those standards are different then it can give rise to misunderstandings. Thus, I am certain that it is important for us to put those standards into order, and to prevent misunderstandings by coming to a mutual understanding of exactly what we both have, and how much, and for what purpose.
Dr John Chipman
Thank you. I think that final point you made is something the IISS is very interested in; in trying to find ways in which one can easily compare defence budgets in countries that use different yardsticks for measuring what precisely is defence expenditure, and what might be expenditure on security that comes from other parts of the state budget.
General Ma, I would like you to answer in a couple of sentences four of the questions put to you: one, is it really premature for Japan to use military aircraft in Chinese airspace to deliver humanitarian aid; two, what is your explanation for the increase in offensive missile capacity in China; three, what offer of confidence-building measures between China and Taiwan could be promulgated; and finally, what contribution should the Chinese armed forces make in protecting the sea lines of communication, given the challenge of piracy.
General Ma
Thank you very much for providing me with this opportunity to answer the questions you have. Frankly speaking, the questions you asked have vast implications and I don’t know which one to answer first.
First of all I would like to address the question regarding Japan’s Self-Defence Force sending aircrafts into the Chinese territorial sky to deliver disaster aid. I mentioned earlier that the Chinese government and Chinese Defence Department welcome international community including the Japanese government and the Japanese Defence Department, any forms of support the Japan’s Self-Defence Force has offered to China’s earthquake victims. According to the information I received, the support was not implemented through aircrafts from the Japan’s Self-Defence Force flying into China’s territorial sky but other aircrafts were used.
Owing to many historical factors including the historical, cultural and psychological factors which Minister Shigeru Ishibu mentioned, he (the Minister) understands how the Chinese government and the Chinese people feel and why they made that choice. I think everyone can also understand this.
The second question was about China developing offensive weapons. I would like to clarify the concept of offensive weapons. For example, as I mentioned in my speech about the missile defence system. It is a defence system. However it is not purely a defence system. In terms of technology, there are four stages to it: the ascent-phase of the missile, the trajectory stage, the beginning and the end of the re-entry stage. It includes offensive weapons such as infrared detector, early warning radar detector, transmission of command information and laser missile. This is why I said it is not purely a defence system. It includes offensive tactics of real-time attack when the missile is fired from the enemy’s soil.
Our weapon and equipment systems have not reached this stage. We have not developed this type of tactics. I believe to achieve peace nowadays balance of power and balance of attack and defence tactics are crucial. Therefore we are against any party deliberately breaking the balance. Because if we don’t manage it well, the resulting peace will easily be threatened. Of course ‘’we’’ means the responsible governments of the involved nations. And China has a responsible government. I hope my reply is satisfactory. Another question was about Taiwan strait, about Taiwan. Between January, March and May of this year, Taiwan experienced three stages of changes and also a new regional leader was appointed.
The situation of Taiwan strait and Taiwan has seen some changes. We, on both sides of the strait mutually believe the changes were positive. At the same time the international community has also provided positive comments about the changes. We share the same view about this point: we believe the principle of one China should be upheld to further strengthen dialogue and communication between both sides of the strait, to further increase our mutual understanding for mutual benefits, individual gains, improved communication, seeking common grounds while respecting differences to achieve peace on both sides of the strait and prosper and advance.
Dr John Chipman
Do you have one comment on the question of piracy and what China might do on the sea lines?
General Ma
Due to the rapid international economic integration nowadays, the economies in the world are even more closely linked together. The volume of trade has increased, particularly the volume of seaborne trade. This has in turn brought issues arising from seaborne trade. We have noticed in recent years that all regions in Malacca, coastal Bangladesh, coastal Yemen by the Red Sea and coastal Somali of East Africa have seen rampant pirate activities which threaten seaborne trade of the countries worldwide.
Of course, this also has threatened China’s seaborne trade. We advocate for mainly relying on the effort of all coastal countries to combat piracy, the international community to observe Charter of the United Nations, to observe the International Law of the Sea. Coastal countries should all play the leading role on maritime security against pirate activities. For example, based on this spirit we recently formed an alliance with coastal countries to carry out sea patrol in common waters.
Dr John Chipman
General Ma, Minister Ishiba, thank you very much. It really has been a fascination conversation, and we could have easily extended it for 30 more minutes, as here were at least eight or nine people who want the floor. I hope General Ma and Minister Ishiba will make themselves available informally to delegates, and if they feel comfortable speak to members of the press who will want to ask questions following your two very important interventions today. I would like to thank you both for your wonderful presentations.
