Certain Comments For China-Watchers

For you China-watchers out there, I was wondering if any of you had picked up on the CPC's attack earlier this month on Michael Pillsbury's infamous 2015 "The Hundred-Year Marathon" book? (https://en.people.cn/n3/2018/1207/c90000-9526190.html) I mean, why now? What prompted them to address that book this month? I have my speculations, but won't go into them here. I just find it interesting. Also, I'm actually currently reading that very book, coincidentally, & while I've seen, heard, read, researched, etc., numerous issues & assertions re Chinese near/long term goals & US policy, & while I have both quietly & loudly been attempting to make assertions, predictions, assessments, even produce various warnings, for many years, many of the others I have encountered have turned out to be anywhere from slightly off to completely inaccurate in their assertions re China's growth, intentions, military capabilities both present & future, etc. Indeed, I tend to think Pillsbury makes some interesting observations (& yes, speculations & assertions too). But I was reviewing the infamous & influential Soyoung Ho "Panda Slugger" article (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Panda+slugger%3A+the+dubious+scholarship+of+Michael+Pillsbury%2C+the...-a0148368501), & couldn't help but notice that the snarky, scoffing attitude & criticisms mixed with the journalist's own assertions actually contain a number of errors itself. For instance, Ho wrote that China had two old Russian aircraft carriers, and would have only one functional one by about this time period. Well, kind of wrong. Indeed, this morning I read an interesting piece on just that topic produced by the Chinese military itself claiming that the PLA Navy will soon have five aircraft carriers, including two nuclear-powered carriers just a few short years from now. (https://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2018-12/06/content_9369401.htm) Frankly, just about everything I’ve read & reviewed over the past half dozen years- to-a-decade has largely echoed Ho’s assertions, & while Pillsbury is obviously a controversial figure for many reasons, he alone (seemingly) has been warning of China’s alleged “real” & “secret” agenda & goals, both regionally & globally, & certainly concerning the US, for some time now. I know of so many who immediately jumped on the Ho bandwagon in criticizing or attacking Pillsbury for being a “hawk,” but have any of these outspoken individuals stopped lately to ponder whether he may have been & is still making some potentially legitimate & accurate points? I’ve seen SO many inaccurate predictions & projections regarding China & its potential economic growth (in terms of time, at a minimum), its self-described “peaceful” intentions for the region as well as the US, etc. Meanwhile, just days ago, a high ranking Chinese official publicly recommended the PLA Navy “bump” US warships in the South China Sea in an intentional effort to sink them! (https://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2018-12/10/content_9374205.htm) Another of Ho’s – excuse me, I can’t help it – moronic & sarcastic sounding criticisms of Pillsbury & his book was a deeply skeptical view of his alleged use of the term “assassin’s mace,” as he apparently applied it the Chinese military. Ho wrote “An ‘assassin's mace’ might take the form of a computer application, for instance, that would take over an enemy information system, rendering a foe the victim of his own dependence on technology. In Pillsbury's telling, China intends to leapfrog ahead in battle readiness by using assassin's-mace weapons to find breaches in U.S. armor. Moreover, he implies, they could be ready at any time.” Ho’s obvious implication is that Pillsbury is a conspiracy-centric naive idiot to think that China would ever 1) desire to and 2) be technologically capable of cyberwarfare, & I really don’t think I need to make much of an effort to point out just how Grand Canyon-sized of a naive & dead wrong statement that was on Ho’s part. I don’t think I need to point out any examples at all concerning China’s ongoing cyberattacks against the US for years now. So, Soyoung Ho – which one is the moron? The “hawk” or the seemingly brilliant, lucid, analytical writer/editor? How Ho has retained any credibility is beyond me, yet I’ve seen this article continue to circulate for what seems like an eternity now.

Ho refers to no named experts when asserting “China's military technology is widely considered to be about 20 years behind that of the United States.” Admittedly, at one point there was likely some truth to that, but I think many experts would now agree that, while still unable to compete with the US military machine in any seriously equal way, China – through whatever means possible – has done a remarkable job at closing the gap in a shockingly short period of time.

I guess my point is, Ho scoffs at the book’s author & goes out of the way to discredit him while mocking a number of his assertions, predictions, etc. – even criticizes his knowledge & use of Mandarin, which makes me wonder just how superior Ho, a Korean-American if I recall correctly, is at Mandarin? Obviously the journalist feels more qualified to interpret Mandarin than a professional academic, intel/government rep who has spent most of the decades of his long life visiting China countless times, & has studied, spoken & read the language for decades, has held hundreds of conversations with a seemingly large number of Chinese nationals, many of them military, & seems to know quite a good bit about both the distant & recent history of that country, as well as the present & possibly a certain potential future. Obviously, Ho MUST be infinitely more qualified than Pillsbury to have such a better grasp on one of the most difficult & diverse languages in the history of the world. Personally, I’d like to learn of these qualifications, since I’ve never actually seen them listed or mentioned anywhere.

Ultimately my point is not to argue that Pillsbury is 100% accurate, 50% accurate, or anything of that sort. He simply presents a very different take on the Chinese government & its alleged long-term plans regarding the US in particular. And a lot of people, led especially by Soyoung Ho, have been not only doubtful & skeptical, but in some cases, brutally critical, to the point of seeming to make it personal. And yet my two points to sum this piece up... 1) It appears that at least some of Pillsbury's contentions, assertions, observations, & predictions *may* have been or will be accurate. How accurate? Only history will provide an answer to that, so I won’t even speculate. But my first point leads to my second & final point, which circles back to how I opened this piece: Pillsbury’s book has been out on the market for several years now. The contents have been known for some time. Some believe & urge various actions, while many blow it off. But apparently the Chinese are so bothered & anxious about the book NOW, in December 2018, that their government published an op-ed just days ago in an effort to debunk it &, as always, reassure both the world & the US that they have only honest intentions, nothing nefarious whatsoever. As the title of their piece says, their admitted 100-year plan is about “development,” not “deception.” And while Ho relied on intel & while the US government for decades has had a very generous attitude & approach toward China, alongside a number of skeptical (of Pillsbury) intelligence specialists, we all know – if we know anything about world & US history at all – that far too often, intel gets things wrong. I’m not trying to do any specific finger pointing. After all, I know a lot of people & have hundreds of connections in the profession. I have great respect for virtually all of them. But sometimes people -- & policy – just get things wrong. And I’m not saying Pillsbury got it – all of it, part of it, etc. – right necessarily, but I am saying maybe many people shouldn’t have been so quick to diss him. After all, he could be dead right, who knows? The fact that the Chinese government is taking it out of the mothballs & addressing it now, this month, shows they’re taking it seriously enough to once again attempt to convey certain appearances, concepts, & reassurances. And that kind of speaks volumes to me.

Scott C. Holstad

December 13, 2018