Keating in China

Admiral Timothy Keating, newly minted chief of US Pacific Command, is currently visiting China to meet with PLA brass. As documented by Dana Priest and Robert Kaplan, among others, the heads of the US Military's unified combatant commands wield tremendous military power, of course, but also diplomatic power (America's "proconsuls," to use the imperial metaphor that has perhaps gone out of favor in recent years).

As powerful as Keating is, though, his PLA interlocutors may very well wield power that puts his to shame. As Bates Gill and Martin Kleiber write in Foreign Affairs regarding China's ASAT test, "Put bluntly, Beijing's right hand may not have known what its left hand was doing. The People's Liberation Army (PLA) and its strategic rocket forces most likely proceeded with the ASAT testing program without consulting other key parts of the Chinese security and foreign policy bureaucracy -- at least not those parts with which most foreigners are familiar."

Keating, in fact, pressed General Guo Boxiong, vice chairman of the Central Military Commission, on the test, insisting that it sent a confusing signal and demanding an explanation.

While signs of the PLA's predominance are worrying, Keating's trip in general is encouraging, ensuring that the two militaries have, at the very least, cordial relations.

I also found comments by Guo reported by the People's Daily interesting: "Guo said both China and the United States shoulder responsibilities of safeguarding world peace and stability and promoting common development. The two countries are both stake holders and constructive partners who share strategic interests, and China attaches great importance to China-U.S. relations." While one cannot put too much stock in China's rhetoric, it is interesting that they are accommodating the US government's "responsible stakeholder" ideas. China certainly has nothing to lose from presenting itself as a responsible stakeholder — hence the "peaceful rise" rhetoric — and will no doubt continue to do so until it finds something else to be more beneficial.

In any case, China is not going away, and the US (and Japan) might as well figure out how to ensure stable relations with Beijing instead of making things up as they go along.

Making sense of China's Sudan policy

If there's any sense to be made, that is.

In the same week that Amnesty International condemned China for selling arms to Sudan that are purportedly being used in Darfur by Janjaweed militias accused of genocide, China has announced that it is both sending a military detachment to support African Union peacekeepers in Darfur and appointing a special envoy to Africa who will focus on Darfur.

Will this policy change make any difference whatsoever in stopping genocide in Darfur, or will it simply be window dressing to distract observers from China's unstinting support for unsavory regimes worldwide, including elsewhere in Africa? As James Kirchick wrote in the New York Sun this week, China has become the major supporter of Zimbabwe, even as the country's total collapse continues.

For all the talk about how China wants no political trouble surrounding the Beijing Olympics, I strongly doubt that China will completely back away from support for regimes that provide it with critical resources, no matter how much pressure comes from abroad. China's relations with authoritarian regimes is, after all, as much a part of the debate about who runs China as domestic policy, with this week's announcements on Darfur showing that there may be more infighting behind the scenes between the PLA and the CCP than outsiders realize.

In light of this though, I have to ask: where is Japan? Why is Japan, with its self-defense forces now having international activities as one of its primary missions, not in Africa, helping to prevent genocide in Sudan? Seems like a perfect opportunity to show how Japan is willing to bear a greater burden globally.