China's Military May Have Gone 'Rogue' After All

Rushil51

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2014
Messages
471
Likes
314
Country flag
Source:- China’s Military May Have Gone ‘Rogue’ After All | The Diplomat

Generally, when the Chinese military does something particularly bold, such as intercept a U.S. spy plane or barge into India-administered Kashmir, inevitably some analysts explain this behavior by suggesting that the Chinese military has gone "rogue." In other words, there is a tendency to explain off Chinese aggression by pointing to a failure in the chain of command that results in miscommunication (or in some cases, non-communication) between the leadership in Zhongnanhai and field commanders. After the most recent manifestation of this sort of explanatory bias, following the U.S.-China spy plane intercept incident, Zachary Keck pushed back against this notion of rogue PLA officers. I tend to agree with this view as well–the Chinese military, after all, is subservient to the Chinese Communist Party, and Xi Jinping, as president, presides over the Central Military Commission.

It turns out this may be more of how things are supposed to work in the Chinese military chain of command on paper. In reality, the "rogue" theorists may be right.

New evidence supports the commonly held view that the Chinese military isn't entirely in line with the party leadership. Recently, President Xi Jinping delivered a speech at the PLA headquarters in Beijing with PLA chiefs of staff present. Notably he delivered this speech following his return from his South Asia tour which featured a particularly interesting visit to India when PLA troops crossed intro India-administered Kashmir as Xi arrived in the country. In his speech, Xi unusually emphasized the importance of the PLA's "absolute loyalty and firm faith in the Communist Party of China," according to Xinhua.

Further supporting the idea that there may be some commanders in the PLA who have acted without the consent of the party leadership, Xi emphasized the need for a "smooth chain of command" and called on field commanders to "make sure all decisions from the central leadership are fully implemented." In a particularly telling paraphrasal, Xinhua notes that Xi suggested that "Military commanders should have a better understanding of international and domestic security situations as well as the latest military development." According to Xinhua, Fang Fenghui, chief of the PLA general staff, was in attendance, along with other senior Chinese military leaders. A statement following Xi's speech noted that "All PLA forces should follow the instructions of President Xi Jinping, also chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC), and update their operations to meet new goals and missions set by the CMC."

In light of Xi's remarks, it seems highly likely that PLA leaders have at times acted without the consent of the Communist Party's senior leadership and, more critically, against the strategic vision of that same leadership. It is, of course, nearly impossible to ascertain the extent to which the PLA may have drifted from the party leadership without veering dangerously close to baseless speculation. All we know is that Xi Jinping, the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and the chairman of the Central Military Commission, felt it necessary to issue a statement to the People's Liberation Army that, in effect, says "Please listen to me."

In light of Xi's remarks, it may bear reconsidering the verity of, for example, him telling Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi that he honestly did not know the details of the stand-off between Indian and Chinese troops in Kashmir as the two leaders met. The fact that Xi felt it necessary to deliver these remarks and issue a statement to the PLA immediately upon his return from India suggests that the Chinese incursion in Chumar may not have been carefully coordinated after all.

The one oddity in all this is why we're hearing about this speech at all. If Xi is truly concerned by lapses in China's chain of command and fears that his leadership over the military is not absolute, why broadcast it via a report in state media? For a state apparatus so concerned with saving face, it's somewhat curious that Beijing would choose to willingly broadcast these sorts of lapses in leadership to the outside world. Xi, like Hu Jintao before him, has issued statements expressing displeasure with the military before, but the frank language and the fact that the remarks were delivered following the incident in Kashmir between Indian and Chinese troops suggest that this time things might be different. One explanation might be that this speech and the report could be engineered specifically for consumption by the outside world. After all, given recent incidents involving Chinese troops in India, Southeast Asia, and the East China Sea, it may grant the leadership in Beijing some plausible deniability by suggesting that these actions were not sanctioned by the top leadership in Beijing. Of course, by the same token, this same admission makes Xi look weak in a way very much contrary to the image he has cultivated for himself (it is almost cliche to refer to Xi as anything but the 21st century reincarnation of Deng Xiaoping).

Unfortunately for many of China's neighbors, neither explanation of Chinese military behavior–be it top-down carefully planned strategy or "rogue" field commanders–is particularly comforting. Leaders and strategists in India, Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and the United States will be less interested in cracking open the black box that is the Chinese military and more interested in responding effectively to China's increasingly assertive military behavior.
 

s002wjh

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
1,271
Likes
153
Country flag
i have to disagree, china was complain about us spy on them for long time, i think the plane incident was calculate move in order to hope we can visit their coast less frequently
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
Source:- China's Military May Have Gone 'Rogue' After All | The Diplomat

Generally, when the Chinese military does something particularly bold, such as intercept a U.S. spy plane or barge into India-administered Kashmir, inevitably some analysts explain this behavior by suggesting that the Chinese military has gone "rogue." In other words, there is a tendency to explain off Chinese aggression by pointing to a failure in the chain of command that results in miscommunication (or in some cases, non-communication) between the leadership in Zhongnanhai and field commanders. After the most recent manifestation of this sort of explanatory bias, following the U.S.-China spy plane intercept incident, Zachary Keck pushed back against this notion of rogue PLA officers. I tend to agree with this view as well–the Chinese military, after all, is subservient to the Chinese Communist Party, and Xi Jinping, as president, presides over the Central Military Commission.

It turns out this may be more of how things are supposed to work in the Chinese military chain of command on paper. In reality, the "rogue" theorists may be right.

New evidence supports the commonly held view that the Chinese military isn't entirely in line with the party leadership. Recently, President Xi Jinping delivered a speech at the PLA headquarters in Beijing with PLA chiefs of staff present. Notably he delivered this speech following his return from his South Asia tour which featured a particularly interesting visit to India when PLA troops crossed intro India-administered Kashmir as Xi arrived in the country. In his speech, Xi unusually emphasized the importance of the PLA's "absolute loyalty and firm faith in the Communist Party of China," according to Xinhua.

Further supporting the idea that there may be some commanders in the PLA who have acted without the consent of the party leadership, Xi emphasized the need for a "smooth chain of command" and called on field commanders to "make sure all decisions from the central leadership are fully implemented." In a particularly telling paraphrasal, Xinhua notes that Xi suggested that "Military commanders should have a better understanding of international and domestic security situations as well as the latest military development." According to Xinhua, Fang Fenghui, chief of the PLA general staff, was in attendance, along with other senior Chinese military leaders. A statement following Xi's speech noted that "All PLA forces should follow the instructions of President Xi Jinping, also chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC), and update their operations to meet new goals and missions set by the CMC."

In light of Xi's remarks, it seems highly likely that PLA leaders have at times acted without the consent of the Communist Party's senior leadership and, more critically, against the strategic vision of that same leadership. It is, of course, nearly impossible to ascertain the extent to which the PLA may have drifted from the party leadership without veering dangerously close to baseless speculation. All we know is that Xi Jinping, the general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party and the chairman of the Central Military Commission, felt it necessary to issue a statement to the People's Liberation Army that, in effect, says "Please listen to me."

In light of Xi's remarks, it may bear reconsidering the verity of, for example, him telling Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi that he honestly did not know the details of the stand-off between Indian and Chinese troops in Kashmir as the two leaders met. The fact that Xi felt it necessary to deliver these remarks and issue a statement to the PLA immediately upon his return from India suggests that the Chinese incursion in Chumar may not have been carefully coordinated after all.

The one oddity in all this is why we're hearing about this speech at all. If Xi is truly concerned by lapses in China's chain of command and fears that his leadership over the military is not absolute, why broadcast it via a report in state media? For a state apparatus so concerned with saving face, it's somewhat curious that Beijing would choose to willingly broadcast these sorts of lapses in leadership to the outside world. Xi, like Hu Jintao before him, has issued statements expressing displeasure with the military before, but the frank language and the fact that the remarks were delivered following the incident in Kashmir between Indian and Chinese troops suggest that this time things might be different. One explanation might be that this speech and the report could be engineered specifically for consumption by the outside world. After all, given recent incidents involving Chinese troops in India, Southeast Asia, and the East China Sea, it may grant the leadership in Beijing some plausible deniability by suggesting that these actions were not sanctioned by the top leadership in Beijing. Of course, by the same token, this same admission makes Xi look weak in a way very much contrary to the image he has cultivated for himself (it is almost cliche to refer to Xi as anything but the 21st century reincarnation of Deng Xiaoping).

Unfortunately for many of China's neighbors, neither explanation of Chinese military behavior–be it top-down carefully planned strategy or "rogue" field commanders–is particularly comforting. Leaders and strategists in India, Japan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and the United States will be less interested in cracking open the black box that is the Chinese military and more interested in responding effectively to China's increasingly assertive military behavior.
The author should have done couple things before writing this piece of crap, such as:
history of civilian/military relationship in China;
CCP's system in PLA;
Chinese political tradition.
 

mattster

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,171
Likes
870
Country flag
The author should have done couple things before writing this piece of crap, such as:
history of civilian/military relationship in China;
CCP's system in PLA;
Chinese political tradition.
@no smoking......I totally agree with your statement....nothing that the PLA does is random. It all orchestrated by the CCP leadership. But you forgot to add one more important point - let me do it for you.

If this author (who appears to know diddly jack about the long history of India-China relations) had done his homework - he would know what every Indian who studies this relationship knows: that every single time a senior Chinese diplomat visits New Delhi....the very next day the PLA forces will be camped 20 miles inside the LAC.

This timing of PLA intrusion deep into the Indian border to coincide with a visiting senior Chinese diplomat just as he is shaking hands with Indian leaders is the "single most telling aspect of the China-India relationship".

no smoking - this behavior it is so consistent that you can bet your house on it. I guess "shame" is simply not in the Chinese DNA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
There is no going rogue in China.

It is the Laogai or the gallows or the firing squad for all deviants from the laid down Communist pecking order.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
@no smoking
no smoking - this behavior it is so consistent that you can bet your house on it. I guess "shame" is simply not in the Chinese DNA.
It is funny to hear an Indian talking about "shame" on Sino-India relationship:
They claim "being back stabbed" in spite of their provocation of "forward policy";
They are crying "invaded" while their own troops cross the LOC every day;
They scream about "harassment" while this harassment is the result of their attempt of breaking the mutual understanding--no permanent building in overlap area.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kshatriya87

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
10,108
Likes
15,829
Country flag
It is funny to hear an Indian talking about "shame" on Sino-India relationship:
They claim "being back stabbed" in spite of their provocation of "forward policy";
They are crying "invaded" while their own troops cross the LOC every day;
They scream about "harassment" while this harassment is the result of their attempt of breaking the mutual understanding--no permanent building in overlap area.
1. Our army didn't cross, yours did.
2. A hut is not a permanent building.
 

Srinivas_K

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
7,417
Likes
12,935
Country flag
The author should have done couple things before writing this piece of crap, such as:
history of civilian/military relationship in China;
CCP's system in PLA;
Chinese political tradition.
Explain why Xi ordered the PLA units to retreat and obey orders and changed the commanders in Aksai Chin??
 

Illusive

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,674
Likes
7,310
Country flag
Who Sabotaged Chinese President Xi Jinping's India Visit?

On the 17-19th of September, Xi Jinping, the president of the People's Republic of China was visiting India: he and new prime minister Narendra Modi were expecting much from the meeting, touted as a breaking point in relationships.

At the end of the day though, the results are lagging from such hopes. $30 billion dollars have been committed by the Chinese delegation. $20 billion of public money would go to a fast train corridor and a new strategic road. $6.8 billion would further be spent on two industrial parks in Gujarat and Maharashtra. 24 Chinese companies would buy products (pharmaceuticals, farming"¦) for $3.6 billion.

All this was far away from the "over 100 billion dollars" suggested by Mumbai's Chinese general consul days earlier. China was keen to dwarf the 35 billion dollars committed by Japan two weeks before. China wanted to weaken the appeal of a commercial axis between its Western and Eastern big neighbors which are trying to sidestep China.

Similarly Xi Jinping also wanted to preempt any chance of a defense alliance between those two (and others in Asia, like the Philippines and Vietnam): Xi was letting India dream of a border agreement along the model agreement signed in 2004 by his predecessor Hu Jintao on the Chinese northern boundary, with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Unfortunately during this visit, on this diplomatic field as well, no progress at all was registered. And the atmosphere was so cool, that while Modi was urging China to do something about a border agreement, both leaders ended the talks on separate communiqués"¦ A rather strong way to express to the world their lack of agreement.

The reason for this derailing was the intrusion, on the 18th of September, of 1000 PLA soldiers in Southern Ladakh, one of the two contested regions along the Sino-Indian border. The troops were bringing heavy equipment and claiming to build a "provisional road". This was known in the end of the afternoon, just an hour before the banquet that Modi had called in the honor of his guest. Therefore, while 1500 Indian soldiers were dispatched on the spot, Modi asked Xi to get his troops away – Xi acquiesced.

Friday the 19th however, the Chinese troops were holding ground. They eventually retreated – but dispatched a small group of 35 men to pitch tents: when this was reported in Delhi, whatever confidence was subsiding in the visiting party evaporated.

Observers were at a loss to explain. The faux pas was deliberate, but to what aim? Xi was losing all what he had come to fetch. Modi as well. Both men's objectives had been derailed. Who might be those opponents of a Sino-Chinese rapprochement?

Some of them were obviously within the Chinese high command. They might also be in the regime's political circles, high cadres trying to weaken Xi Jinping. Since his accession to power in October 2012, Xi has started a relentless anti-corruption campaign, that has already felled thousands of heads among cadres, among which dozens at ministerial level.

Opposition could also have been reinforced from the Indian side. An Indian analyst suspects military traders in armament imports, India being now the world number one on this market.

Whoever those behind the curtain, Xi Jinping back in Beijing took two actions, both hinting at his own role as a victim in this "treacherous stroke", and at his exasperation.

First came the "authorized" rumors of impending elevations for two generals faithful to Xi Jinping: Liu Yuan, and Zhang Youxia, deemed to become vice president of the Central Military Commission and head of the military's discipline commission. This last organ is taking care of corruption within the PLA, and of dereliction of duty –the misbehavior likely to have occurred in Ladakh during Xi's Indian visit.

Second, on Sunday the 21st, the commanders of each arm were gathered in Beijing to address "inefficiencies" in the chain of military command. Mainly, they were instructed to ensure that "all PLA forces follow the instructions of President Xi." This last meeting was followed the day after by a second conference, where the Party Secretary delivered the mission to "develop new types of command", for more efficiency but also for reliability and faithfulness to the core leader.

Finally, during Xi's visit, a last incident happened. On one of the public TV channels, an anchor presented the Chinese President as "Eleven Jinping": she had erroneously read Xi's name as the roman figure "XI". She was given the sack. Such a mistake brings to smile. But it also exemplifies the long way ahead, in both countries, to know each other better.
 

Illusive

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,674
Likes
7,310
Country flag
Of course, according to Indian definition, the whole area belongs to India, how can you cross your "own territory".

That is just a starting.
According to the 1996 LAC agreement between India and China,"No activities of either side shall overstep the line of actual control." This trespassing by chinese is a violation of this agreement, so what you think, believe or dream doesn't matter, whats signed in this agreement matters.

But honouring agreement is a trait shared by civilized society, which is clearly missing in these commies.
 

Kshatriya87

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
10,108
Likes
15,829
Country flag
Of course, according to Indian definition, the whole area belongs to India, how can you cross your "own territory".



That is just a starting.

This is just starting? After over 4 decades we build a hut and you think we are starting to build permanent structures? Why would we wait for 4 decades for that? Besides, China started a long time back. You have already built roads right up to your posts and were extending them into Indian territory. But fortunately, the Indian army stopped you. This incidence is nothing but a angry kid's idea of revenge.
 

Sylex21

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2014
Messages
439
Likes
333
Anyone know if the unsuccessful resolution of the LOAC is more of an issue on the Indian or Chinese side, or both? I assume since China is currently in a stronger position militarily and economically it would be a hesitation on China's side? However China has more to gain in peace with India due to it facing multiple and more formidable potential adversaries than India.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top