China’s announcement of a more than 11 percent increase in declared military spending, following two full decades of double-digit increases, raises several uncomfortable questions for Asia and the West. It’s natural for a rising power like China to develop capabilities to defend its expanding array of interests. On the other hand, China’s ascent has been made possible by a benign security environment that well served China’s goal of “peaceful development.” China’s growing military capabilities now threaten to upset that order in ways that, ironically, could complicate China’s security environment at the same time as slowing economic growth intensifies its internal challenges.
China’s defense spending – now officially $106 billion but estimated by the Pentagon and independent researchers to be more than $160 billion – is on track to exceed that of all its Asian neighbors combined within a few years. This is particularly striking in light of a wider Asian arms race: India is the world’s largest arms importer, Japan is ending its ban on military exports, and Southeast Asian states are procuring submarines and other sophisticated capabilities. Asian countries now spend more on their militaries than do the nations of Europe. And unlike in Europe, where nations are allied in a zone of peace, Asia is a competitive arena where disputes over territory and history are alive with danger.
However, it’s less the size of China’s defense budget than its composition that alarms so many beyond its borders. Chinese military spending privileges the navy, air force, and strategic nuclear force – instruments of advanced power projection – rather than traditional defensive capabilities. What exactly does China seek to do with its large and growing fleet of advanced attack submarines, a blue-water navy including an aircraft carrier, and stealth attack aircraft? No Chinese leader has yet explained how these capabilities contribute to China’s peaceful rise. If China’s diplomatic strategy has been to reassure its neighbors, its military acquisitions have done precisely the opposite.
These military capabilities also raise eyebrows because some expressly target unique U.S. vulnerabilities – including the U.S. military’s reliance on information dominance and aircraft carrier battle groups. China’s development of anti-satellite weaponry is designed to “blind” U.S. fighting forces in the event of conflict. China’s acquisition of “carrier-killing” ballistic missiles promises to have a deterrent effect on the U.S. Navy, whose plans for the defense of Taiwan and other allies hinge on carrier access to Western Pacific waters now in China’s target zone.
Aggravating these concerns over Chinese power projection and anti-access capabilities has been China’s recent assertiveness towards its neighbors. China’s sharp-elbowed claims to the South China Sea – an international waterway through which one-third of world trade flows – have mirrored Beijing’s revisionist claims to settled Indian territory in Arunachal Pradesh. China’s 2010 ban on exports to Japan of rare-earth minerals following a clash at sea in Japanese waters was the first time China has used its economic power as a political weapon, a lesson to those who believed that the business of China was business.
Meanwhile, U.S. military officers worry that they have almost no contact with uniformed Chinese counterparts. A minor incident in international airspace or waters could turn into a military conflagration due to a lack of open communication channels. The opaque nature of Chinese decision-making, questions about civilian control over the military, and the growing role of the People’s Liberation Army in shaping Chinese foreign policy have further inflamed regional insecurities.
Ironically, China’s best efforts to increase its security by developing powerful military capabilities and asserting its interests more vigorously may only render its leaders more insecure. Other Asian countries are moving closer to the United States, and each other, to balance growing Chinese power. President Barack Obama is reorienting the United States’ military posture away from Europe and the Middle East in ways that reinforce, rather than diminish, the U.S. leadership role in Asia. Resentment of the uses and abuses of Chinese power has also spilled over into the economic realm: Western businesses are no longer the cheerleaders for China they once were as concerns over economic piracy, currency manipulation, forced technology transfer, and the role of the state in the Chinese economy come to the fore.
No matter how much they spend on defense, or to what end, China’s leaders have a deeper reason to worry. Economic growth is slowing; as the World Bank and others have argued, China must undergo an economic transition to a more sustainable development model that will necessarily require political reform. This will change the nature of the relationship between China’s authoritarian regime and its people. Despite the recent military budget increase, China this year will still spend more on internal security than on national defense. It makes one wonder: who do Chinese leaders believe is the real danger?
Daniel Twining is Senior Fellow for Asia at the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Washington DC. This article originally appeared on the GMF blog here.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
SCdad07
I miss the fireworks. ‘Tomorrow, tomorrow, it is a better day.’
Let’s fight with our ‘words’ against each others. It is good therapy.
JohnX
I must agree as words hurt less than bullets.
My problem is that I try to read the Chinese newspapers and these International Relations pages to try and understand others.
I must say that all I hear is angry words that simply make me angry. There were a few who have educated me, but most Chinese just insult me and my nation, so whnat am I supposed to learn?
JohnX
John Chan wrote:”Do you mean China cannot defend itself like in the era of unequal treaties? Why don’t you ask the question why is Japan still occupying Ryukyu Kingdom?”.
What unequal treaties is China dealing with today? It agreed to the treaties it has and if you look into it, they got the best end of many of thier deals.
Secondly, Ryukyu Kingdom.
“Many Chinese moved to Ryūkyū to serve the government or engage in business during this period. The Ming dynasty Chinese sent from Fujian 36 Chinese families at the request of the Ryukyuan King to manage oceanic dealings in the kingdom in 1392 during the Hongwu Emperor’s reign. Many Ryukuan officials were descended from these Chinese immigrants, being born in China or having Chinese grandfathers.[1] They assisted in the Ryukyuans in advancing their technology and diplomatic relations.[2][3][4]
The Chinese used the fact that the descendants of these Chinese families still lived on Ryūkyū as justification for China’s “special claim” on the islands, as Li Hongzhang told Ulysses S. Grant.
The Ryūkyū had paid tribute to China for hundreds of years, and the Chinese reserved certain trade rights for them in an amicable and beneficial relationship.[5]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ry%C5%ABky%C5%AB_Kingdom
I wouldn’t be using that excuse too often if I were you. It seems history does repeat with China and it has been land grabbing for a while. Really? The fact that Chinese immigrants lived on the island made it ok for China to claim the islands and expect tribute from them.
Wow, I better look at how many Chinese immigrants live in my country if thats all China needs to make unwarranted claims on a piece of territory. No wonder you are still pissed off. Your slaves got stolen by another country.
It may also explain why China is sending workers and immigrants around the world if they follow that sort of logic. Mate, I know a few Australians who are ethnic Chinese and whose families have been in the area for a while (1 hundred years or so) and most seem to think that they have more in common with other Australians than Chinese.
Though, I guess by your argument, they should just start waving the CCP flag and start accepting authoritarism. Sorry mate, look at the date today and it reads 21st Century, not 18th. Get over it.
I believe that I am beginning to understand you. You really are racist and cant accept that all nations and people should be treated as equals. Not ideologies obviously as some have flaws, though if they can work out the negatives there is no reason that all peoples cant be equal.
An ethnic Chinese has the same rights and no more or less than an ethnic Japanese or any other ethnicity. Do you agree or not?
‘
John Chan
@JohnX,
Why is Japan still occupying RyuKyu kingdom? Why are those aliens occupying Australia avoiding answer the question they ask China critically?
Mate, it seems you are confused, I merely ask the same questions you asked, denying other the same right surly is a remaining trait of British Empire Imperialism. History cannot be erased; it will be with us regardless, refusing to face history is avoiding responsibility. Accusing China baselessly cannot white wash Japan and other nations’ aggression against China.
ACT
@ImperiumVita, Nirvana, John X
Another History Major? Excellent, we’ll get along pretty well, i think. You are correct, but a more apt comparison would be Japan and the Meiji Restoration; while comparisons can be made between China and Germany, the Japanese comparison is more apt because of the reasons for modernization; when Japan undertook its modernization in the late 1800′s, it was with the express end-goal of expelling westerners from asia. This, too, was the reason for China’s modernization in the late 1800′s, although China’s attempt failed primarily due to the corruption and internal politicking of its leaders, all of which culminated with the Boxer Rebellion from 1898-1901.
What makes the CPC/CCP more dangerous now is that it, as an organization representing China, has been given a second chance. Unlike the attempt in 1900, the CPC on the whole is not riven by internal debates on the overall issue of modernization; that issue was tackled by Deng Xiaoping and thus China’s modernization has continued apace, to the point that it is–at best–only 7 years behind the United States in terms of military technology. This technology–even if copied–is still some of the best in the world; One need only look at the statistics for the ZTZ-99 MBT to see just how fast the PRC is catching up.
This danger is only further magnified by the fact that–as nirvana suggested–all the other factors have begun to fall into place. These factors can be boiled down into two comparisons
1. The United States: la vie en Rome
The United States, like all other empires before it, is on the decline; the period of good feelings that Obama has managed to induce are being dwarfed by military catastrophes abroad, most recently the debacle where a rogue soldier massacred nearly two-dozen Afghan civilians in their homes. Like Rome and Britain before it, the United States seems to believe that the sun shines out its proverbial arse and is heavily involved abroad, exporting its culture via diplomacy as well as force of arms. Furthermore, like Rome, it uses military bases for colonization and is heavily involved in fighting protracted wars against asymmetric and confounding foes at its periphery, wars which it no longer has the treasure to fight, against enemies whom its people consider to be utterly foreign and backward. Furthermore, like Britain before WWII, the people of the United States no longer have the will to fight. As in the aftermath of WWI, the United States is more willing to resort to negotiation or concede halfway on its goals. In other words, it is weak, and this gives the opportunity for the next comparison.
From Germany, to Japan, to China
some of you may see where i’m about to go with this. In a sense, this comparison is undeserved, but it is also deserved; For all the complaining John Chan, Liang1a and Ari may make, history and actions speak louder than words, thus this comparison.
There should be a distinction made for China, versus Japan and Germany. While Japan and Germany aspired to empire, they were nation-states; their dreams of world domination were based on the short term, on ideas of constructed racial superiority and recently forged national identity.
Not so with China; for 5000 years before the arrival of European emissaries and the disastrous opium wars, China had no peer; everyone came to it, and it continually expanded through both assimilation of arriving peoples as well as invasion of other lands. This was an extremely slow process, but the length of time created an unparallelled sense of culture in the Chinese; from dynasty to dynasty, and even to the PRC today, the Chinese have always been one people. Of course, it helps that–despite economic reforms and various political reforms–the PRC is basically the old dynasties with a new face. in this sense, and with that sense of history, the hundred years of humiliation that started with the opium war and which only truly ended with Deng Xiaoping, were nothing more than a temporary setback. Nevertheless, this setback left a lasting impression on the chinese. For the first time in their history, their people had been defeated in a head to head contest, subjected to brutal treaties designed to disenfranchise and subjugate….Most importantly, however, they lost their empire; Korea and Vietnam were stolen away from them by Japan–a former client people–and the europeans respectively. This is where the comparisons to Japan and Germany can now be introduced. because of their long history, the Chinese have an inherent sense of their superiority; for much of their history, they were the entire known world, all under heaven, the center kingdom, zhong guo. To the Chinese, all other “races” are inherently inferior, no matter their DNA or origin–whites being superior in the Chinese mind only because they managed to defeat China on equal terms (This is also a cultural anomaly: pale skin implies a lack of hard work and thus, royalty).
Since all other “races” are inferior, their claims to land and nationhood are–in the face of Chinese history and occupation, however brief–completely invalid.
This idea of racial superiority is only further reinforced by the “fact” that the Chinese people–via the PRC and the PVA–managed to “defeat” the U.N relief force. This was a “defeat” for the West only if one considers the preservation of the status quo a “victory”. Nevertheless, this “victory” had a profound impact. After being defeated by Britain in the 1840′s, China–through use of sound tactics and maneuverability, and plagued by supply shortages–had defeated the combined forces of most of the western world, pushing them back beyond the 38th parallel until the stupefied U.N commands reconstituted their forces and managed to push the PVA back to the 38th parallel. Like Japan in 1905, China had proved to the rest of the world that it was the peer of western nations. However, the CPC would not let the people of China forget, nor would it let them forgive. Again like Japan, the CPC created a historic mission for its brave men and women in arms: its new goal would be to defeat the white devils who had claimed its soil, pushing them out of Asia, restoring the dignity of the Chinese people and proving the superiority of the Han to all who would dare question the authority of Zhong Guo. Part of this is now in progress; the PRC has already retaken Hong Kong without firing a single bullet, having earned the respect of the world, and now wishes to reunite with Taiwan, thus completing the inner sphere of the old Chinese Empire; some of you more broad minded people might recognize this for the anschluss this is, a process that started with the re-annexation of Tibet and Uighur provinces.
now we can begin with comparison to Germany, and it is this: Germany never let its people forget the humiliation of the Treaty of Versailles; in the same manner, the CPC has never let the people of China forget the hundred years of humiliation or the “victory” in Korea. before i move on, i would like to address the following people:
John Chan, Ari, Liang1a, and all other China bloggers. You are not wrong to say that China should defend itself. the defense of nation, civilization and people are the inherent rights of every nation.
HOWEVER, that defense–especially in the modern age–should NEVER include the forced (via arms or threat of arms) annexation of other nations based on some twisted ideal of Chinese re-unification. it is not the idea of defense that is dangerous. WHAT IS DANGEROUS IS THAT THIS NEED FOR REUNIFICATION AND SELF-DEFENSE IS MATED INEXTRICABLY TO A NEED FOR VENGEANCE AND RACIAL DOMINATION.
It is this propaganda reinforced ideal that drives Chinese actions in the SCS, Tibet and Uighur. Coupled with the lessons of other attempts at “reunification” by Japan and Germany, China has learned well, conducting a policy in the South China Sea and Ryuku Islands of what is best described as “colonization creep”–namely, the slow but deliberate construction of civilian shelters in the territory of other nations, all of which are then militarized in quick order”. This “colonization creep”–conducted via a veil of “fishing accidents”, harassment of international shipping, micro-wars, and deliberate opacity–has but one goal end goal: the removal of the influence of “white devils”(America) and “brown devils”(India) from what the Chinese people have been indoctrinated to believe is their territory by historical right and exploratory charter, a rough region of territory that extends from Itanghar, Nepal and Bhutan in the west to China’s Third Island Chain (Read: the Hawaiian Archipalego via Midway) in the East. Naturally, this would invite war with the United States, of which Hawaii has been part of, at least informally, since 1898. Of course, this is also one of the goals of the PRC; defeating the United States–currently the most powerful military force on the planet–would complete Chinese claims to racial domination and allow any further colonial policies to be conducted unabated, whites having joined the ranks of “landless mudmen”.
JohnX
John Chan. You didn’t answer the question.
“An ethnic Chinese has the same rights and no more or less than an ethnic Japanese or any other ethnicity. Do you agree or not?”
JohnX
Who is refusing to accept thier history? My University in Brisbane gave a strong lesson in the actions that were taken against the original Australians. They were quite willing to accept the wrongs that they have done, the Government though slow has offered an apology to the first Australians.
There have been reparations and return of land. It will take time and is not a quick process, it doesn’t happen overnight. Though I must ask when was the last time Australia sent in thier military to put down protests and when did China last do it against thier minorities?
I ask because you seem so sure of our history.John Chan you write:”Accusing China baselessly cannot white wash Japan and other nations’ aggression against China.”
Though I notice you dont answer the question or even say that the issue written in the wikipedia is incorrect or a lie. You also dont specify what is baseless, is it my argumentative hypothosis that China may be trying to repeat history in its current actions or that Chinas claim to the Ryukyu Kingdom is not very strong and may not be the best use of an argument to put Chinas rights to territory in a good light.
Also history is an unusual thing as it seems to change dependent on who writes it. What do the Ryukyu people say? It would be the original inhabitants word that would count, not Chinas or Japans.
Oh and in regards to our crimes against China, well we remember too our civilians who were butchered by the Boxers. We also remember our civilians and POWs who were butchered by the CCP at the end of WW2.
History is never one sided John Chan and there have been just as many crimes commited by China against others as were commited against it.
An eye for an eye makes both blind is a lesson that you and other extreme nationalists need to learn. Sometimes its best to forgive and forget.
Though, I do believe that it is in nobodys interest to wage war and that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Therefore if China seriously wishes to regain its territory then it may find it easier through friendship and negotiation as equals then through the barrel of a gun.
I also believe that a War between the US and China would be the epitome of a M.A.D. strategy as even the winner would find himself the loser as the economic destruction would leave both requiring decades of work.
Plus, considering where it may lead in terms of casulties, even the victor could find itself a pariah and vulnerable to be taken down by other nations who were not involved in the War.
Its an interesting case, but I have noticed at times that you and Liang1a probably have more in common with some of the US pro war commentators than with many of your countrymen.
I deal daily with Japanese, Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese students and I can see that without the CCP and the increasing nationalism in China, Asia could be quite a peaceful state as many of the younmg intelligent students can learn to work together and even overcome cultural dislikes.
Therefore without the promotion of violence against its neighbors and the giving up of land claims, Asia could learn to work well together as my experience tells me that the future is not etched in stone.
John Chan
@JohnX,
I am not sure whether you realize the reality, there are 6 US carrier battle groups outside China, Japan has tens of Aegis destroyers, tens of ultra modern submarines, hundreds of hi-tech war planes, etc. ready to attack China.
Meanwhile there are orchestrated media campaigns demonizing China. You are just one of them. Even I as an ordinary Chinese can see the danger, and I don’t believe I am the exception. Yet you call China’s effort to protect itself as aggression. Your logic only you can understand. Perhaps you should ask the American and Japanese what are they up to?
China is the one calling for negotiation, shelving the disputes and co-development, but the USA, Japan, Philippines and Vietnam are the ones all pumped up and bellicose; now you point the fingers at China, where have been?
John Chan
@JohnX,
Why is Japan still occupying RyuKyu Kingdom?
ACT
@John Chan
i could ask the same of you: why is the PRC occupying Uighur and Tibet?
JohnX
John Chan write:”China is the one calling for negotiation, shelving the disputes and co-development, but the USA, Japan, Philippines and Vietnam are the ones all pumped up and bellicose; now you point the fingers at China, where have been?”
If you look at the map of the South China Sea, if you consider the geographical distance then tell me who is more of a threat to thier neighbor.
Plus, if you consider that the Philippines as a nation didn’t come into play until post WW2, nor did Vietnma as we know it come into being until post 1975, then you must accept that they are dealing with issues that relate to thier territorial control.
You also must accept that Chinas claims over territory that can not be specically determined as in no part of Chinas modern history has Chinese troops or citizens lived in that area that is controlled is not acceptable.
Plus, you just have to look at the issue of mischief reef to know thatr you argument is a complete fabrication.
Plus, once again I will ask you this question and please this question is related to you and how you see others, not to some historical event.
“An ethnic Chinese has the same rights and no more or less than an ethnic Japanese or any other ethnicity. Do you agree or not?”
John Chan
@ACT,
Why are the Whitemen occupying North American, Australia, Hawaii, Guam, … ?
John Chan
@JohnX,
May I ask what does distance got to do with a nation’s sovereignty? Okinawa and Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands is thousands miles away Japan, and both them right up to China and Taiwan; why don’t you question the legitimacy of Japan’s occupation of Okinawa and Diaoyu Islands? On top of that both of them belong to other nations, one is called Ryukyu Kingdom, and the other is called China. Hawaii and Guan are thousands miles away from California, why don’t you ridicule the American based on you geographical distance principle? Is it because American will bomb and kill Australia to total destruction like Iraq and Libya?
Nine dotted nine was never an issue, until the American pivoted to Asia-Pacific. China was the way to resolve the disputes with the ASEAN nations.
Please stop those silly arguments insisting only the Westpac’s words must be taken as given truth. De factor sovereignty is only thing counts in this world. How Philippines and Vietnam got their ill gain they should expect how to lose it.
I wish Chinese has the same rights as rest of world, then I would not need to waste my time on this site arguing against all those racist bigots for the fair treatment to China.
Kangmin Zheng
Dear John Chan,
You said “Nine dotted nine was never an issue, until the American pivoted to Asia-Pacific. China was the way to resolve the disputes with the ASEAN nations.”
As an American Chinese, I would like China to be strong too. However I can’t accept the fact that China just submitted 9 dotted map to UN May 2009 – roughly 3 years ago. How do you explain a country with 5000 years of history is still expanding its territories? You called firing at fishermen and cutting cables “resolve the disputes with the ASEAN nations.”? You called CCP’s threatening sounds of cannons “resolve the disputes with the ASEAN nations.”?
As a Chinese I’d like you to think of this – just take a moment and think hard about this. How do you feel to have your ONLY SON to go to war and get killed while the sons of elite CCP members live in luxuries life styles? How do you feel when your son risking his life because of imaginary 9 dotted line territory?
a_canadian_observer
@JohnX: This is just John Chan’s signature loss-of-the-debate concession speech.
ACT
@John Chan
i cannot, and will not, apologize for the actions of my ancestors, many of whom were attempting to flee physical and religious persecution; they went as far as their ships could take them….and ran into more people who hated them (with good reason). law was different at the time, and the world was more savage then than it is now. so, my real question to you is, why is China, in the 20th and 21st centuries, acting as though it’s still the 18th century and freely colonizing other nations or attempting to steal their territories via use of gunboat diplomacy?
a_canadian_observer
@ACT: Since John Chan has shied from answering your question, I’ll try. The answer is, because despite a lot of materialistic development, china is still a very backward country/society. The people’s mindset (general public, with a few exeptions) are still very backward. This is the results of 5000+ years of civilization (brainwashing), with their middle-kingdom mindset, coupled with an inferior complex.
Mike Larlham
Here is the simple difference between America and the PRC. Not once in American history has America every colonized another people .Can the PRC say the same?
Jonathan
What about the colonization of the Philippines and Puerto Rico after the Spanish american war? Hundreds of thousands of Philippinos died trying to fight the U.S. for independence.