->despite not facing any direct military threat.

Do you honestly believe that China should not feel threaten with US plane and warship never far away from China’s coast on almost daily basics? The much discussion on the potential threat on the rise of China in the west says much about the west.

October 13, 2005 @ 9:58 pm | Comment

No xing, direct military threat means a military threat to Chinese territory. No country seeks to invade China that is what is meant.

It gets complicated when China claims the entire South China Sea, the East Sea right out to the end of the continental shelf as well a load of islands and atols currently claimed or occupied by almost all the other countries in Asia.

If you want to say that China faces a threat on territory it currently claims but does not presently occupy then that’s something else entirely. The fact remains, Russia, Korea, Central Asia etc are not on the verge of invading China and annexing Chinese territory.

October 13, 2005 @ 10:07 pm | Comment

I hear more about the China threat theory now that I’m in China than I ever did when living in NA. The odd thing is I only hear about it from Chinese people telling me what I think and believe. I suppose I should be grateful for being told waht I think since that frees up my time to continue to pillage and plunder the countryside of all its natural resources.

October 13, 2005 @ 10:41 pm | Comment

True, GWBH,

Most of the people who tell me that Americans worry about China are Chinese. I rarely hear an American obsess over China.

October 13, 2005 @ 10:50 pm | Comment

Wait… you mean you can’t create a decent foreign policy on China by using basic arithmetic: rising economic Asian country + really big Communist country = China?

I have to, like, go there and, like, learn about the country?

I think there are entire policy thinktanks you might want to tell about that.

October 13, 2005 @ 10:50 pm | Comment

I gotta agree… China Threat just doesn’t get any play in the U.S., especially after 9/11. If anything, I think the U.S. underestimates China.

Especially their pig semen program.

October 13, 2005 @ 10:53 pm | Comment

“stepping on the toes of almost every country in South Asia, including Japan”

Martyn, you are really humorous. China has the largest number of neighboring countries in the world. It has settled border dispute with N Korea, Russia, (recognized) Mongolia, Afghanistan (no dispute) in the North.

In South Asia, closing a deal with India (ceding NEPA – Dalai is going to regret this), ceded a disputed landmass the size of Taiwan to Burma, settled with Nepal, Bhutan, Laos, Thailand (no dispute)
co-dev agreement reached in the South Sea, and this is going to be solved peacefully.

… the only visible dispute is with Japan.

As to the continental shelf claim. It is legitimate and first by the US. Regardless, the difference will most likely be solved by negotiation and according to int’l law.

China has given up most of the 1.5M sq km of disputed land to Russia, 100k to India and some 30-50k(?) to Burma. (and even part of the Tianchi to Kim Il-sung — those the S Korean might want more in future)

Is it really fair to blame someone to set a high price before negotiating for a bargain?

I am not going to comment on your Rummy argument, as that has been widely refuted.

October 13, 2005 @ 11:31 pm | Comment

I’m joining the chorus, I also believe many Chinese over-estimate western concerns about a growing threat from China.

IMO it’s of the same cloth as two other common Chinese mis-conceptions:

– the west (or just the US) is trying to unfairly “contain” or “restrain” China

– outside of China, Chinese people face high levels of racism

While there is a seed of truth in each (e.g. there are some real kinds of competition with other nations, some number of racists are found in every society), all three are over-estimations. All three are also to some degree self-serving, e.g. the idea that the west should rightly fear China, that Chinese are the true victims of racism, etc.

However, I suspect all three are also the result of the insecurity you might expect to find in a quickly developing nation joining an established group, particularly given the higher value east Asian societies typically place on status, not to mention China’s run-ins with the west in recent history.

Probably all three over-estimations will quickly diminish as China continues to develop, internationalize, and grow into its new place in the international order.

October 13, 2005 @ 11:51 pm | Comment

Yes Sun-Bin, China has made all sorts of agreements here, there and everywhere. I’m not putting forward any Rummy argument either. It’s just that China can’t have it both ways, it can’t play the peace card AND claim the entire South China Sea (for example) right down to the Indonesian coast. I’ve seen bloody Chinese maps indicating islands belonging to China that can be clearly seen from the Indonesian coast by naked eye. 1,000+ miles away from China.

IF China is saying that it’s not looking for regional hegemony, then it’s including, or assuming, that this already includes the South China Sea. Do you see what I mean?

China does not currently occupy the South China Sea but if it takes it over by force then this action would be neither peaceful nor non-threatening.

I don’t have a problem with whatever China wants to do (might is right and all that) but it can’t have everything both ways.

October 13, 2005 @ 11:59 pm | Comment

Shanghai Slim;

Well thought out, logical and well presented comments.

I disagree.

In my experience in China the victim mentality, the claims of being encircled and the accusations that Chinese are the msot persecuted race in three galaxies are only strengthened not lessened as China has developed over these past 15 years.

October 14, 2005 @ 12:04 am | Comment

Only three galaxies? You jest, surely?

October 14, 2005 @ 12:09 am | Comment

I also think the victim mentality continues to grow. Perhaps as a result of our friends: the Chinese Internet and the Chinese media. I seriously have ten books on the West’s “China threat theory,” all Mainland Chinese publications.
I also see the possibility of the victimhood mentality growing out of a sense that “no matter how much we reform and develop, seems like there’s something still missing,” as well as the projection of China’s own enemy-obssessed way of thinking onto others.

October 14, 2005 @ 12:20 am | Comment

First of all, no country holds all the cards in this day and age, not even the U.S. Just as it would be erroneous to claim that China does, so it would to claim that the U.S. does, hegemon or not (and some would argue that the U.S.’ hegemon status is on the wane, as the international regime is gradually transforming from an unipolar world into a multipolar one, with U.S.hegemony challenged or at least balanced by European regionalism and East Asian regionalism.)

The China Threat theory hasn’t gotten a lot of press nowadays, but before 9-11 and the subsequent foreign policy paradigm shift to global terrorism, the threat (real or otherwise) of China was a big issue for the U.S. administration, and reported upon by numerous media outlets, including TIME magazine.

On the subject of the Chinese not being a peace loving country because they’ve fought wars in the past..what wars? The First Sino-Japanese War? The Second Sino-Japanese war? The Korean conflict? Those were ones of defensive security, hardly emblematic of Chinese aggression.

I don’t get what beef you have with the article, honestly. You guys are saying the same thing, in essence – that while China shares traits both politically and economically with Japan and the former Soviet U, it cannot be treated by the U.S. in the same way it has treated those two countries, no?

October 14, 2005 @ 12:52 am | Comment

Waht about the 1979 war against Vietnam?

October 14, 2005 @ 1:03 am | Comment

Spot on nausicaa, that’s exactly what I’m trying to say anyway.

I’m not saying that China is any worse than any other country re wars fought, but I do take exception to being constanly told in the Chinese language state press (as well as the occasional book – as Kevin mentions above) that China has always been peaceful and shall always be peaceful.

Also, I care not how China intends to use it’s new-found power in Asia but please don’t tell me that China has no hegemonic ambitions when it claims the entire South China Sea.

Such claims by China obviously assume that the South China Sea is already its territory. To China’s eyes it is I suppose. However, it does not occupy the SCS – and any move to do so would impindge upon the territorial claims of most of South Asia and Japan.

Thanks for the intelligent comment.

October 14, 2005 @ 1:06 am | Comment

Oh no, I definitely think that China has hegemonic ambitions. It was a peace-loving nation in antiquity , and it may be still, on the whole [my reasons for thinking so being 1) war is generally no longer in the interest of any nation; 2) I’m an optimist, so sue me and 3) political grandstanding is not nessarily a harbinger of military aggression, but just that – grandstanding. Either that or strategy – see N.Korea’s policy of brinkmanship in the nuclear peace talks], but hegemonic ambitions, yes.

Tangentially: one of my mainland Chinese friends (I’m part of the North American Chinese diaspora) commented that it would only be fair to China – after centuries of persecution at the hands of the Japanese and those damn colonial imperialist dogs – that it had a turn at being the hegemon. I was torn between amusement at his (typically Chinese national) victim complex and inability to quite fault his logic. Basically, I’m of the belief that hegemony in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. It really depends on the hegemon and the parameters of the hegemony in question.

GWBH: The 1979 Vietnam invasion, of course. That was bound to come up. I’d forgotten about it. Yes, though I would argue it was more of a strategic than expansionist war, and that it exhibited more consistency with general Cold War policy principles than with Chinese foreign policy principles, and though it was quick and limited…that does rather dilute my case for China’s never having been a warmongering nation, doesn’t it? 😉

October 14, 2005 @ 2:42 am | Comment

A bit of clarification here, the Chinese involvement in the Korean war was a calculated attempt to ward of a then-believed prelude to an invasion of the motherland. It was more of a need to establish a hinter-zone, that is North Korea. Granted that General MacArthur was adamant on an attack on Chinese soil, he was aggresively overruled by the White House, to the point of him being replaced.
Ever since then, every conflict China has been in resulted to annexation of neighbouring regions. To qoute the S-J wars is pretty irrelavant, as pretty much of Asia then was invaded by Japan, but you don’t see any huge military or outrageous claims of territory.
In ASEAN, there remains a sticking point of contention towards the Chinese claim of territory, to the point that it encroaches upon M’sia, Indonesia, philippines sealine. Every treaty made with the Chinese government remains extremely versatile, depending on the current mindset, as best exemplified by the Suzhou Industrial Park co-opt by Singapore.
On the hindsight, hard as it may seem to be, there exists a rather large percentage of Chinese born outside of China who do SEE China as a threat, and not as a supposed ‘relative’. We see our Chinese heritage and culture as a personification of our self-identity, and China, simply as another large population whose people and language are as alien to us as the West. Ironic is it not?

October 14, 2005 @ 2:43 am | Comment

Yep, China is a whole new ball game, and one which the US doesn’t know the rules for.

The way that the US is going about things is all wrong.

“China claims to be a peace-loving country but has fought wars with several of its neighbours in living memory. Simmering territorial disputes abound.”

This is a rather unfair and bias statement that needs to be taken in context.

Ameirca claims to be a peace loving country, yet it has fought more wars in living memory than any other country I can think of and, even if you discount WWII, has travelled around the world fighting on every continent baring Australia.

America has also left a swaith of hatred across the world that stretches from the middle east right to its own doorstep in latin America, and which covers people of all colors, all religions, and most political leaning, and which outwieghts any bad feeling for China.

October 14, 2005 @ 3:18 am | Comment

Not only ironic, but quite sad, as how do you strike wholesale the “China” out of the “Chinese”?

Sorry, my personal biases at work here. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Personally, I could never divorce the cradle of my culture and the people of my culture from my own cultural identity, without being left feeling a bit schizophrenic. I’m of the “have my cake and eat it too” variety. I want to have the best of both worlds without feeling alienated from either.

As for Chinese involvement in the Korean War, this seems self-contradictory: “the Chinese involvement in the Korean war was a calculated attempt to ward of a then-believed prelude to an invasion of the motherland. It was more of a need to establish a hinter-zone, that is North Korea.” Did you mean “wasn’t” as opposed to “was”? Anyway, I disagree. If China’s involvement in the Korean Conflict was merely to establish a hinter-zone in North Korea, then China might as well have spared itself the trouble, as North Korea at that time was already pretty much a hinter-zone of China.

“Ever since then, every conflict China has been in resulted to annexation of neighbouring regions.”

Please clarify.

“To qoute the S-J wars is pretty irrelavant, as pretty much of Asia then was invaded by Japan, but you don’t see any huge military or outrageous claims of territory.”

Sorry, I’m befuddled. Japan did not, in its annexation of its East and Southeast Asian brethren, make huge and outrageous claims of terrority during WWII? Or am I misinterpreting your words? And why would it be irrelevant to reference them in context of the current discussion?

October 14, 2005 @ 3:18 am | Comment

Xing

“Do you honestly believe that China should not feel threaten with US plane and warship never far away from China’s coast on almost daily basics? The much discussion on the potential threat on the rise of China in the west says much about the west.”

This is a typical example of western hypocracy. America has tens of thousends of troops in Korea, Japan and on Japanese Okinawa, which it claims are to preserve the peace. It says that it is ‘the good guy’ so that it is OK, but if China were to send 5000 troops and a squadron or two of jets to Cuba, you can bet anything you like that Washington will be furious and will stamp its foot and scream that China is threatening it.

It was the same with Russia, America put nuclear missiles in Turkey, and other countries, right up against Russia’s borders and considered this to be a legitimate action, but when Russia moved nukes to Cuba, America threatened to destroy the entire world in a nuclear holocoust tantrum.

Ameirca can have the A-bomb, but Iran can’t. America can have chemical weapons but Iraq can’t, America can put its troops anywhere in the world, but if anybody dares to try and defend themselves, then they must be in the wrong.

Typical, western views, typical western hypocracy. You can’t expect any better from them.

October 14, 2005 @ 3:25 am | Comment

ACB,

The logic “I am for peace, you are for war; all I do is justified” applies only to those powerless nations.

I didn’t think it was worth for me to write down what you just did. This hypocracy is common when people talk about international relationship.

October 14, 2005 @ 6:27 am | Comment

>direct military threat means a military threat to Chinese territory. No country seeks to invade China that is what is meant.

Martyn,

It seems you saying that China should put more money in military only when it is under the danger of being invaded by another nation. Then what’s the justification for the US (or any other nation) to maintain the biggest military industry complex?

History shows when a nation rises, the economy and military always go hand in hand. The only exceptions are Japan and Germany due to outside pressure after world war II.

October 14, 2005 @ 6:35 am | Comment

Martyn,

By the way, I don’t agree with the gvernment claim that China will never be a hegemon. The claim itself is false in the word never. The goverment can not speak for the future generations.

October 14, 2005 @ 6:43 am | Comment

The China Threat theory not popular in the U.S.? You have got to be kidding me. Have you read any of the public speeches given recently by Rumsfeld and friends? Heard any of the wild pontificating by individual congressmen? I’m a frequent (daily in fact) reader of the Free Republic and I tell you that China Threat is alive and well in the United States public. From raging American nationalists, sorry patriots, to shrill sanctimonious democratists the China Threat theory is alive in almost all sectors of the politically conscious American public.

As for China’s military, again the hypocracy I’m witnessing would be amusing were it not so galling. The present manpower of the PLA is irrelevant, and in fact China has less men per capita under arms than most countries (note also including the United States). In regards to the ongoeing military modernization, it is absolutely essential now particulary considering how funding for the PLA had lapsed heavily during the first decade of economic reform. The PLA needs new equipment to replace the obsolescent. If you take China’s public defence budget at face value, it accounts for only 1.7% of total GDP. Even if you use the higher range estimates of total military spending, China is still using approximately 4-5% of its total GDP. Which is again similar if not less than what the United States spends. As for why China needs military modernization? Why not? Plenty of countries around the world have far more modern militaries than China yet are not facing eminent attack. If you want a good reason for buying billions of dollars of arms, you can email Lockheed-Martin or Boeing who sell them to coutnries around the world each year for a list of reasons. The simplest explanation for your asanine rhetorical question as to why China is building up its military is one of prudence, it never hurts to be prepared for anything, particularly war.

October 14, 2005 @ 6:52 am | Comment

You know, I hear a lot of people using “why shouldn’t China have a larger military? the US does” as an excuse for an explosion in military spending. I bring attention to this because those who keep giving this excuse explain nothing by giving it. You forget that many people in here don’t give a hoot about the size of the US military or of western militaries. I am talking about China here. And whether or why the US does it does not give a Chinese military explosion any more credibility. As to US military spending, trust me, there are plenty of threads in other places that criticize the US on this issue. THAT is the place to discuss it.

Certain facts remain: 1) A military exists for fighting whether offensively or defensively. 2) Countries whose borders are not threatened don’t need large defense forces. 3) The Chinese government has continuously stressed it wants peace.

For a country whose borders are not threatened, who claims to always seek a peaceful solution, there SHOULD be no reason for a large army. Period. The US SHOULD have no reason for a large army. China SHOULD have no reason for a large army too. Most people, including yourselves and even half of Americans…would agree on the first of these statements. Why can’t you agree on the second? Insecurity I imagine.

Of course, countries need to spend money on the military. And an army has to modern ize from time to time (actually, most of the criticism i have seen about China’s military spending doesn’t deny the right of the Chinese to have a well-equipped military. It simply wonders at the sudden explosion in military spending when Chinese leaders so often call themselves peace loving. It is the contradiction between words and actions that gets criticized.)

So again, why does a country that claims to be peaceful (whether China or the US) need to spend a lot on military spending? You Chinese military sympathizers in here should spend more time trying to answer that question than point fingers. If you want to criticize the US military’s spending, that is fine. A lot of people do it. But don’t use it as an excuse for China’s. Find some more solid ground to debate on than: well the other guy does it too.

(Sorry, but you guys would fare miserably in a debate class.)

October 14, 2005 @ 8:58 am | Comment

Thomas,

I think you can not be reasoned by “evidences”. No points to debate like this.

October 14, 2005 @ 9:59 am | Comment

I can offer the ever popular short explanation, Qui desiderat pacem, preparet bellum.

However Thomas, I will actually humour you and provide an actual answer as I see it. The outlook of most military establishments is to see the world as an insecure place. While peace may be ultimately the goal (a laudible one), it is not a guarantee. The smallest error or lapse can lead to fatal consequences, thus when dealing with matters of the security of the state it is always safer to err on the side of security rather than vulnerability. Call it paranoid, but thats just the way things are. Think of the world as a giant multi-faceted version of the classic prisoner’s dilemma. While rationally the optimal solution is cooperation (e.g. disarmament), the factors such as uncertainty and human fallibility make this more or less impossible, thus everyone (at least the major players) seek to be well armed and prepare for whatever contingencies.

In the case of China, as I mentioned earlier, the causes of the rapid rise in spending is for modernization. Most of the PLA’s equipment is antiquated and it of course costs money to bring it up to par. Fighter Jets aren’t cheap you know, 10-200+ million each depending on what you want. If you had read carefully Thomas, I did not in anyway criticize U.S. military spending in my last post, so you should stop instituting false interpretations of what I wrote in your text. What I did do, was compare Chinese military expenditures relative to the United States to illustrate the point that what some would call excessive is not neccessarily so in comparison. If you feel that the U.S. military spending is excessive and thus so is China’s, that is beyond what I wrote in my original arguement.

Secondly I should point out that the recent raises in military spending by the PRC have predominantly gone into quality of life issues for its personnel. Along with slashing excess personnel, another 200,000 in 2004 alone, the PLA has raised wages across the board, with some mid-rank officers receiving salary increases of as much as 50%. This was neccessary because of both the rising cost of living, as well as keeping the PLA competetive in recruiting talented personnel that would otherwise head into a much more lucrative private sector work. Arms purchases by the PRC has actually declined in 2005 relative to the last few years and China is no longer even the world’s largest arm’s importer. That dubious title now belongs to India, a country I should note right on China’s periphery that has also been raising it’s military budget by double digit figures for the last number of years as well.

October 14, 2005 @ 11:06 am | Comment

Seems we have more rational debate here now.

I may not agree with everything nausicca and ACB said, but you guys were bringing reason into this discussion.

as to thomas point, i think ACB has some old post saying that those 2.2M PLA army is very immobile and cannot do anything 50 km away from home, please read it.
I would also like to do a little maths.
1. 2.2M/1.3bn is less than 0.15% of population. which is much less than 1M/300m=0.33% for US. Such comparison is meaningful, if you consider China has a larger territory is take care of and the army are often used for flood fighting as well.
2. The military spending, is mainly to keep up with technology develop, i.e. to improve quality, not quantity. You NEED quantity (in Su-27, etc) to execute aggression plan.
3. In reality, the CCP leadership needed to appease the military to consolidate power, so they gave them the funding they asked. it was spent on retired army benefits, and (perhaps a lot on kickback/corruption in procurement). In short, it is domestic politics.

So, let’s keep these perspective in mind.

October 14, 2005 @ 11:23 am | Comment

let’s also look at the wars fought since 1949, since you have brought it up. i believe i commented on an old post by martyn, but people seems to have forgotten or ignored these facts

1. 1979 vietnam. china started this. no excuse. It was endorsed by Carter and NATO. Deng used it to “prove” to Carter that China is indeed willing to go with the West against the Soviet Camp, in exchange to their support for economic reform. Still, not an excuse.
However, it is not motivated by territorial aggression. because China quickly retreated to the pre-war boundary.

2. minor sea conflics with vietnam on south china seas 1974/1986, and other claims to south sea island. These islands (Xisha) are much closer to China than the Spratlies. Let’s not confuse them. These are disputed territories BEFORE CCP came to power. Evidence: the largest island (Taiping Is) in the Spratly (Nansha) was occupied by Taiwan (KMT) force before 1949, and still is today. Ask your Taiwanese friend if they think such claim is justifiable.

There is a legitimate claim and it is unfair to put all the blame to China

3. Korea 1950-54, self defense – discussed above
4. India 1962, definitely self defense. see wiki. India INVADED China when China was under famine and tense hold-off at the Taiwan strait. China retreated back to behind the disputed NEPA after victory. THIS WAS THE BIGGEST LIE BY WESTERN MEDIA MADE DURING THE COLD WAR.
5. Black Bear Island on Amur River with USSR in 1969: the island in dispute is now recognized by Russia as Chinese territory in recent negotiations, because it is to the south side of the navigation route.

so, China had not behaved as a saint (Vietnam), but is China peaceful or non-aggressive? please look at these facts before listening blindly to biased allegation.

October 14, 2005 @ 11:46 am | Comment

Now I am going to pick on Martyn’s report, since we have established that many of these conflicts were not voluntary from China’s side. (at least not all of them are, which you can agree, martyn?)

Is it self-contradictory for you to say that China “has fought wars with several of its neighbours in living memory” (note, involuntarily brought into these wars), and at the same time using the Rummy phrase of “despite not facing any direct military threat.”

I know you were trying to balance the Bloomberg article. I just want to make sure such “balancing” are factual and logically consistent.
The fact is, as we all know, the PRC govt is still feeling highly insecurre, this is further fueled by paranoid ultra-right in the west pushing “China containing” doctrine. The best way to dissuade PRC military spending is to convince them US and the West do not view it as a threat or enemy. This takes time to accomplish. Bashing China is excatly promoting insecurity, hence arms race, and it is not helping to promote regional peace.

October 14, 2005 @ 11:58 am | Comment

Nausicaa said: “Personally, I could never divorce the cradle of my culture and the people of my culture from my own cultural identity, without being left feeling a bit schizophrenic.”

Nausicaa that sounds totally cool but Modern China is not the cradle of Chinese culture. It’s the two story Victorian of Chinese culture. And Taiwan is the studio apartment of Chinese culture. My point being that it occupies the same space as the cradle, but the cradle is gone. That was millennia ago.

And I think Dougie’s point was that he doesn’t believe 树高千丈叶落归根.

Jing, you said: “I’m a frequent (daily in fact) reader of the Free Republic and I tell you that China Threat is alive and well in the United States public. From raging American nationalists, sorry patriots, to shrill sanctimonious democratists the China Threat theory is alive in almost all sectors of the politically conscious American public.”

Well, your first problem is that you read the Free Republic. That thing is for the shrill and raging that you speak of, and certainly does not represent “almost all sectors of the politically conscious”. Second, yes, it’s true that the neocons in power dig China Threat – or did until their Middle East invasion wet dreams came true.

I think one difference being brought up here, however, is the man on the street. In China, I find a lot more average people saying “America fears China!” than Americans saying “We gotta watch out for dem Chinese!” At least that’s my impression.

October 14, 2005 @ 12:10 pm | Comment

If there’s one thing I hate about debates on the internet, it’s that there’s always a few antagonist amateur pundits out there who, in their eagerness to prove themselves, feel it’s necessary to be patronizing and put others down. 9 times out of 10 what they reveal is only their own ignorance. (Here’s where I go, “Men!”, followed by an eyeroll. ;))

Now, as to the crux of Thomas’ objections towards the so-called Chinese sympathizers (I somewhat ambivalently include myself in that demographic…aZn pride!!, after all) –

This is not a case of the apologists slyly going “Oh, fine, China has a big military…but OH LOOK!! LOOK!! Look how shiny the U.S.’s is!!!” in order to distract you from the real argument. The size of the U.S.’s military, or any other country’s, is part and parcel of any argument concerning China’ s military, and vice versa.

Jing already elaborated on the whys and wherefores of this very well, but to beat the horse’s carcass – basically it’s your classic security dilemma, which describes a multilateral prisoner’s dilemma as it pertains to national security issues.

The premise, in plain language, of the security dilemma goes like this – no country actually wants armed conflict. But, faced with imperfect information and mutual distrust, no country can afford to trust another country to not take aggressive actions, neither. So, if one country (ie. China) sees another country or countries (ie. the US, Russia, India, Iran, North Korea…take your pick, the list goes on) having a large military capacity and stockpiles of weaponry, rationally it thinks its only course of option then is to respond by also building its own military capacity and amassing weapons. So that if something happens…well, at least it will be prepared. Now, the irony: while that is the most rational course of action for any country to take, it’s not the best one, of course. Because what happens is that other countries then see what that country only thought of as only self-defense as an act of aggression, and responds in kind – namely, by also beefing up their own armies and arms stockpiles. So, the situation escalates, and in thinking that they’re improving their own security, countries are actually lessening it, because the world ends up with more armies and more weapons than it started with, and the world is consequently more dangerous than before.

The dilemma, being a dilemma, means that it’s almost impossible to solve: in a more dangerous world, neither China nor the US nor other nation can afford to decrease their military capacities because of, again, imperfect information and distrust, but now with the risk of de-militarization and disarmament increased exponentially by not only the mere fact of more armies and weapons being out there, but also by globalization – which facilitates terrorism, and nuclear technology – which increases destructiveness.

So, to summarize: countries like the U.S. and China don’t think they can afford to de-militarize and disarm because the cost of failure is simply too high. Not because they’re inherently evil.

And so the vicious cycle continues.

October 14, 2005 @ 12:55 pm | Comment

“Nausicaa that sounds totally cool but Modern China is not the cradle of Chinese culture. It’s the two story Victorian of Chinese culture. And Taiwan is the studio apartment of Chinese culture. My point being that it occupies the same space as the cradle, but the cradle is gone. That was millennia ago.”

A two-story Victorian, eh? Ah, I love the way you put it. Although, I must say that to me modern China *is* the cradle of Chinese culture, or to be more accurate it is the cradle of the Chinese culture *I* love – not the pure, refined, rarefied (and frankly overripe) Confucianist culture of antiquity, but the schizophrenic, idiosyncratic, frenzied, amoral, mercantile, sublime yet incredibly profane culture of modernity, as apotheosized by mish-mash metropolises like Beijing, Shanghai, etc.

“And I think Dougie’s point was that he doesn’t believe Ê÷¸ßǧÕÉÒ¶Âä¹é¸ù.”

Yes, I got his point. I did say, didn’t I though, that my understanding is filtered through my biases? And my understanding expressed incredulity at any ” falling leaves” not willing to “return to his roots”. 😉

Actually, I speak in jest. I was, however, somewhat discomfited by the animus the poster professed towards mainland China and the mainlanders, in perceiving them as a threat. Not just indifference, which is understandable, but animus. Rational or not, that does rather sadden me.

Random note: I just looked at my previous post. Oh god the verbal diahrrea. It burns.

October 14, 2005 @ 1:54 pm | Comment

dave,

“the man on the street”. do you recognize the taxi drivers are the most enthusiatic political commentators in Taipei, China, and maybe other asian cities?

This is probably cultual. But i think it correlates (inversely) with freedom of speech on proper channels. (taipei taxi drivers got that in the early 1990s and it takes time and a mature democracy to fade away)

October 14, 2005 @ 4:02 pm | Comment

Hey, guys, sorry for being confusing and looking like I was trying to quantify freedom in the previous thread… do forgive me, please. However, the military spending debate CAN be quantified as we are dealing with money and not intangible concepts.

With regards to the military spending debate, please go to wiki and look up Nash’s theories on game theory; that’s the mathematical theory behind arms races, etc.

Apart from that, I think that the only way there won’t be such nation-to-nation bickering is if intelligent aliens show up w/ advanced tech… then I’m pretty sure that humanity’s tribalistic mindset will realign and everyone will hate aliens instead of each other.

Perhaps, in the interest of national security, China should sponsor a SETI-like project? Anyone?

October 14, 2005 @ 4:04 pm | Comment

I agree with the Bloomberg article, PRC is not Japan or USSR, it is much more similar to late 19th century Germany.

October 14, 2005 @ 6:29 pm | Comment

I’m late to the party so I’ll be very brief. Jing has a valid point; this year there was a virtual explosion of “China threat” articles appearing in the US media, along with carefully coded mesages put out by Rumsfeld and others. This really can’t be denied, though I think it was more political than anything else, an effort to throw some scraps to Bush’s hard-right followers who still call it “Red China” and see it as our mortal enemy. Of course, Bush’s more powerful supporters – corporate America – love China, and the most Bush & Co. will do is rattle their swords a bit, while keeping relations with China intact.

ACB, you know how critical I am of the US, but your blanket criticisms of the US and its “swathes of hatred” is really beneath you; it sounds like some freshman Berkeley student who’s toying with becoming a Marxist and is trying to show he understands Noam Chomsky. You are smarter than that.

October 14, 2005 @ 9:27 pm | Comment

Let’s take a neutral point of view here. Is America trying to contain China with hostile forces and allies? Should China be concerned? There’s a Canadian military historian and writer named Gwynne Dyer who’s written many fine books. He also writes weekly columns about world affairs. In his July 24, 2005 column called Closing the Ring on China, he points out that America has just struck up a military alliance with India against China. He also points out America has encouraged Japan to remilitarize, struck up alliances with Southeast Asia countries like Vietnam. In his opinion, trying to contain China would be foolhardy and extremely dangerous. His website is at

http://www.gwynnedyer.net/

BTW, Gwynne Dyer is no China lover. Almost all of his columns have been very critical of the CCP and their policies. He’s much more in favor of India and believes that country has a better future.

Asia Times has a fine article about containing China. It’s an excellent summary of what the Bush administration is trying to do and what it means in the future.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/GJ15Ad02.html

October 15, 2005 @ 4:33 am | Comment

I have a couple of comments about Martyn’s original article. China fighting wars in living memory? The last war China fought was against Vietnam and that was in 1979. That’s 26 years ago and I very much doubt the average man on the street knows, remembers or even cares.

The real danger for China isn’t a land invasion. The threat to China is cutting off access to Middle East oil and gas. Cut that off and China’s economy sinks in a few weeks. One of the original goals for the Project for a New American Century, the right wing neo con think tank whose members dominate the Bush administration, was to contain and control China’s growth by controlling Middle East oil. Why do you think the US is in Iraq? The Americans have constructed 15 massive and permanent military bases in Iraq. They’re not going anywhere no matter how bad the insurgency gets or even if the so called democratically elected Iraqi government asks them to leave.

October 15, 2005 @ 5:01 am | Comment

wkl,

You are mistaking the secondary threat for the principal threat.

The main threat to China (AND to America) is NOT “cutting off access to Middle Eastern oil and gas.”

The main threat to China AND America, is the same one: Being dependent on foreign oil.

If China’s government perceives a threat from being cut off from foreign oil supplies, then a good start might be to discourage too much reliance on automobiles. And America should do exactly the same thing.

October 15, 2005 @ 5:28 am | Comment

Actually, I think America is generating a swath of hatred across the world. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, has just come out with a column criticizing Bush’s foreign policy. It’s called George W. Bush’s Suicidal Statecraft and you can find it on the website, IHT. Here’s a sample of the article.

——————————

It should be a source of special concern for thoughtful Americans that even nations known for their traditional affection for America have become openly critical of American policy. As a result, large swathes of the world – be it East Asia, or Europe, or Latin America – have been quietly exploring ways of shaping closer regional associations tied less to the notions of trans-Pacific, or trans-Atlantic, or hemispheric cooperation with the United States. Geopolitical alienation from America could become a lasting and menacing reality.

That trend would especially benefit America’s historic ill-wishers or future rivals. Sitting on the sidelines and sneering at America’s ineptitude are Russia and China: Russia, because it is delighted to see Muslim hostility diverted from itself toward America, despite its own crimes in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and is eager to entice America into an anti-Islamic alliance; China, because it patiently follows the advice of its ancient strategic guru, Sun Tzu, who taught that the best way to win is to let your rival defeat himself.

In a very real sense, during the last four years, the Bush team has thus been dangerously undercutting America’s seemingly secure perch on top of the global totem pole by transforming a manageable, though serious, challenge largely of regional origin into an international debacle.

To be sure, since America is extraordinarily powerful and rich, it can afford, yet for a while, even a policy articulated with rhetorical excess and pursued with historical blindness. But in the process America is likely to become isolated in a hostile world, increasingly vulnerable to terrorist acts and less and less able to exercise a constructive global influence.

Flaying away with a stick at a hornets’ nest while loudly proclaiming “I will stay the course” is an exercise in catastrophic leadership.

October 15, 2005 @ 6:24 am | Comment

Well, it’s a bit more complex than that, wkl. If you said Bush was spreading hatred all over the world Imight agree. And I’d agree that America has spread hatred in Iraq and elsewhere under Bush. But blanket statements like this – the “swath of hatred – is risky business. We are spearheading relief to many, many parts of the world as we have done historically, and now more than ever before (not becuase Bush is altruistic but because there has ben a rash of natural catastrophes recently). I agree with much of what Brzeinski says, but he absolutely did not say America has spread a swath of hatred over the world or anything like that. I agree 100 percent that Bush has made a lot of people hate us, no question. But keep it in a broader perspective, and don’t mistake what for some is mainly a perception with fact.

October 15, 2005 @ 7:46 am | Comment

I agree with Dylan; China is moving towards a Wilhemine Germany, but still working through Bismarckian- diplomacy so as not to rock the boat.

October 15, 2005 @ 8:25 am | Comment

How do you define a military threat? Does something that could potentially threaten your government’s legitimacy, disrupt critical supply lines and destroy your capability to successfully wage war count?

I suppose if you define it as ‘land war in China’, then no, China doesn’t face a real threat there. But to say that that’s all China faces flies in the face of military theory.

October 15, 2005 @ 11:47 am | Comment

The phenomena of the “security dilemma” is being used out of context. It has primarily been applied to situations where there are abrupt increases in miiltary spending; such as where the abrupt escalation of military spending in country A causes an abrupt escalation of military spending in another country B. Yet within the last two to three decades, there has been no sudden increase in military spending by any major country in Asia, except for China and India.

Additionally, stating that increases in China’s military spending is focused mostly on “personnel support” is highly misleading. First, what do other countries comparatively spend on “personnel support?” 30% of US military spending is spent on military personnel, retirement, and family benefits. Second, Chinese statistics in the first place are notoriously unreliable. Who cites from China’s own statistics? Military expenditure according Chinese sources do not include several major costs, such research and development and the budget for the space program.

The problem with perceiving China military spending should also be associated with its needs as a rapidly developing country. As its economy grows, it is natural for it so spend more on defense commensurate with its economy. But first, what does one consider “commensurate?” As Martyn stated, China faces almost zero chance of another country initiating an attack against it. Its economic power, the complex economic relationship of the area, its sheer size, and an environment where almost all its neighbors are unable to project any long range military force, already works in the interests of China’s external security. Yet China’s military improvements are nonetheless focused on external power projection. Contrast this with Japan, who despite possessing a huge modern force, does not possess the capability of projecting force beyond its territory. This is true of nearly all of its neighbors, with the exception of Russia, Pakistan and India (and the US): yet which of these powers would foreseeable attack China? Second, as a rapidly developing country China needs to fuel its growth with raw materials. Yet the way in which it has gone abroad to secure such sources reflects a very mercantilist attitude—shutting off other countries from certain markets and getting supplies of oil, minerals steel or other materials at astronomical prices which do not reflect prevailing commodity prices. The effect of this is to raise prices for such goods globally. To other countries, notably the Southeast Asian countries, huge military spending increases coupled with its voracious need for new energy supplies, creates unease at any military increase. These concerns converge and are reflected in China’s claim to the entire South China Sea, where many deposits of oil and gas are believed to lie.

October 15, 2005 @ 5:24 pm | Comment

Japan has no force-projection?

Seriously. Do you actually know what ‘force projection’ means?

Japan has had ‘force projection’ ever since before WWII. Are you saying that its current military is worse than the one it used to ‘project’ millions of troops to China?

Why do you think China is so worried about Japanese involvement in any Taiwan scenario?

While Chinese statistics are probably inaccurate, how accurate do you think estimates without access to first-hand resources are? Taking as a precedent America’s estimates of Soviet spending?

October 15, 2005 @ 7:46 pm | Comment

everlasting

1. commensurate, use %GDP as a benchmark? then you may find the increase is a result of increase in GDP for both India and China? there is really no “sudden increase”.
i believe China spent a lot more in defense in the 1970s (%GDP), when the threat was much larger.
in fact, the ‘sudden increase’ in japan’s spending dwarf china/india combined.

2. there is some logic flaw in your argument. with your logic of ‘no threat’, china should abandon the army totally.
also, no one threatens russia, usa, uk, france, germany, japan. so they should also spend zero in defense.
something must be wrong, unless, we go back to the commensurate argument.

3. data, CIA/pentagon’s report on China is equally unreliable, with some policy agenda in mind.

i guess the only meaning comparison is perhaps to compare “trend”. i.e. comparing within the same set of data from china, or within the set of data from pentagon. assuming the assumptions are similar.

any single year number from pentagon is just as unreliable as that from PRC

4. space program. this is really arguable. what about NASA? what incremental technology china gain with shenzhou6, given it already has ICBM? what about japan’s space program? what about nuclear power plants for japan? you may be right, this is very messy and not helping us to understand the situation.

5. japan has 4500kg of enriched Plutonium, and the ability to send satellite to sky (hence long range missile). they admited they can get nuke overnight if they want.

6. commodity price: do you think China wants it to rise, or that it has any control over it?

your comments in the past are usually logical. but i think this is a much more complicated subject than you, or me, or martyn can conclude in a few lines or a few pages.

simplistic characterization can be very misleading.

that is what i wanted to highlight.

October 15, 2005 @ 7:59 pm | Comment

btw, what do you mean by “shutting off other countries from certain markets “?

October 15, 2005 @ 8:06 pm | Comment

403201
1) Japan’s military projection is severely limited by its constitution and various interpretations of Article 9. Japanese courts have loosely interpreted Article 9 to allow for self-defense in the face of an attack, but no proactive action to ward of an attack. Even this interpretation is highly controversial in Japan. Thus Japan can only “defend” in the event of a direct attack, but not “project” military force in reaction to events occurring nearby or preemptively. It is bound by its own constitutional constraints to never use its military in any show of force against any other country, or in any way to settle international disputes. Since the end of WW2, it has never used its military in such a way. Japan additionally has no missiles capable of reaching beyond its territory. The US on the other hand, with bases in South Korea and Japan, can project force beyond its bases. Japan’s spending on its SDF is legally capped at 1% of its GDP. Its military budget is third, behind the US and China. This excerpt from the following article (http://tinyurl.com/dxd4w) states, “China, for example, spends 4.1 percent of GDP on defense, the United States 3.3 percent, South Korea 2.8 percent, France 2.5 percent, and Australia 1.9 percent.” “Although this translates into an annual defense budget of $41 billion a year, the third largest in the world, more than 50 percent goes to salaries and personnel costs.” Japan is hardly a military threat, Japanese men and women seem to rather spend their budgets on LV merchandise than on arms.

Sun Bin:
2) I don’t believe there is a logical flaw in my argument. Your “no threat” is not the equivalent of my “no external threat.” The alleged nonexistence of an external threat does not mean that there should be no military with which to maintain domestic order. Of course, this could be stretched to argue that Taiwan is part of China’s domestic order. The substance of that argument however, is troubling.
3) A statement that CIA, Pentagon or US Defense department reports are unreliable is meaningless in itself. Since China does not report its actual military spending, what has to be relied upon are estimates. The question presented is, given the complete unreliability of China’s own public data, what reasonable estimates may be relied upon? China’s actual budget is difficult to estimate, since its publicly disclosed budget, as I stated, does not include such things as new weapons procurement, research and development, and such activities as its space program. Given that CIA, Pentagon, and Defense department reports are supported by the findings of other major groups, such as the RAND corporation, Institute for Strategic Studies, etc., and that major think-tanks in the US and around the world find such data reliable to use, such figures are the closest reliable data available on Chinese military spending.
4) China’s space program is a part of its military, controlled by its military, and its agenda is set forth by its military. One can only surmise that it serves military purposes. This is in contrast with NASA, the European Space Agency, Japan’s space program, and Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, which are all separate, civilian run agencies of their respective governments.
5) Japan has the capability to enrich plutonium, and build nuclear weapons. It has not, and will not. All the Japanese people I have ever met, and everything I have experienced about Japanese society tells me that there is an almost insurmountable resistance against any such action.
6) No country logically wants to increase the price of commodities. I don’t believe that is China’s intent. However, the unintended effect of China’s current mission to search the global and secure new sources of raw materials might be having that effect. (see http://tinyurl.com/8nz94). I describe it as mercantilist, and “shutting others” out of certain markets because China has been bidding at exorbitant prices for access to the raw materials supplied by certain developing countries.

All in all, though, my comments are not meant to mean that China should not modernize and devote more to its military. Logically, it certainly needs to spend a lot to modernize its forces, which are sometimes obsolete and decades old. But because China aspires to international prominence and respect, it must take into greater consideration the secondary and sometimes unintended consequences of its expansion. As it grows, so does its responsibility. China’s economy is growing, which is highly beneficial to the world, but an unintended consequence of this is its surging need for raw materials to fuel its economic growth. In procuring such, it may have lead to increased prices and scarcity (it’s also dealing with many unsavory governments in the process). The South China Sea dispute is an example of these intersection concerns, (China’s appetite for resources, its military spending, its economic growth), and the negative impression it has left on China’s neighbors. Thus far, it has proposed, and two other governments have acquiesced (Vietnam and the Philippines), to joint exploration. We don’t know however, how the issue of actual resource exploitation will be managed. Hopefully this will be done peaceably and to the benefit of all parties. (But that’s another complicated subject involving conflicting international laws and claims). China needs to do more of this with all its neighbors, more so now than in the past, exactly because its power is increasing, and it holds itself out to be only peaceful. It’s responsibility is high.

I have a lot of problems with the Chinese military in general. I feel that the military has too much power over the civilian affairs of the government. I get the impression that the military, more so than the civilian government has contributed to ever increasing nationalism, and worsened relations with the US and Japan, precluded alternatives resolutions to Taiwan, and even Japan, and ignored many of the concerns of its Southeast Asian neighbors. Thus my impressions regarding the Chinese military are, under these circumstances, quite skewed.

October 15, 2005 @ 9:49 pm | Comment

Article 9 is a piece of paper. One that is, as you say, open to interpretation. Do you really believe that the SDF would sit on their hands in a crisis just because Article 9 said they should? If that was Japan’s intention, why did they acquire the capabilities to start with? It’s not exactly cheap.

In fact, Japan spends more in absolute terms than China does on defense. And since they are allied with the US, they get more bang for their buck. The Japanese navy is the best one in Asia, save for the Pacific Fleet. Why does Japan maintain such a capability? To keep the sealanes clear in case of a blockade. To meddle in Taiwan should the need arise. To project power. All the things that an ambitious country with offshore interests would do.

In fact, what the lawmakers are doing to Article 9 is just a formality. The true spirit of pacifism has died long, long ago, and all they’re doing now is removing the fig leaf.

It is true that Japan is not a military threat – to the US. It’s a different story for China.

All that is missing the point, though. Japan by itself isn’t overall a credible opponent. Though it may have a technological edge, it suffers from a lack of liebensraum. The islands are tiny. They can’t keep up with the demands of a large-scale war. The true imaginary opponent has always been the US. Just as the US’s imaginary opponent ever since the collapse of the USSR has always been China.

Why does the US spend so much on defense? Why did it try to develop the TMD system? Why did it set up so many alliances and bases in South-east Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East? China. And then it has the cheek to turn around and say, ‘oh, but you shouldn’t do it.’

October 15, 2005 @ 10:35 pm | Comment

I don’t know 403201, you sound more paranoid than anything else.

Articles of paper mean a lot in societies governed by the rule of law. The are the beginning, the means and the ends in such societies.

As I stated before, militaries are deemed (rightly or wrongly) essential to domestic governance. Internationally then, what matters is how that military force is projected outwardly. In Japan’s case, after WW2 it has never used its military as a show of force or against any other country. If you rely solely on China’s public figures of course you will say that “Japan spends more in absolute terms than China does on defense.” You still choose to ignore the qualitative over an emphasis on the quantitative. Anyways, I choose not to rely on Chinese statistics.

Why does Japan maintain such a modern navy? Well, for many of the same reasons why China wishes to have a modern navy. If you are a modern country, you ought to have a modern and not decrepit force, a point I have acknowledged and agreed with. I would also have thought that having Russia, North Korea, the China and Taiwan problem, pirates operating in the area, etc., would be good enough reasons to have a modern force, but evidently from your reasoning, these don’t seem to mean much.

Since you so nonchalantly claim that the spirit of “pacifism” has died so long ago, would you please care to explain how this is so? Would you please care to explain why Japan has never used its military against another country after WW2, why most Japanese don’t seem to respect their military, hardly revere it, do not constantly talk about it, rather care about anything military, or want their military to play anything but minor role in society?

Given the US’s place as the world’s only superpower, and the constraints and demands of that position, it would seem axiomatic why it has to maintain its military with such funding.

You’re last paragraph makes no sense given several less than minor factors: North Korea, terrorism, China-Taiwan issues, bilateral treaties, US economic and military relations with virtually every country in the world, etc etc.

October 15, 2005 @ 11:12 pm | Comment

In times of war, laws are silent. This has been true since time memorial. Pieces of paper are powerless by themselves. So long as the Japs have public opinion on-side, then they can ignore A9 with impunity. Japan has a navy that is a credible threat to China. China must acquire means to counter that threat. It would be patently stupid of them to rely on, say, Japan’s goodwill.

I still suspect that you are confused as to what ‘force projection’ means. Japan has force-projection capabilities because its modern navy is capable of projecting force at long distances. The Chinese navy has far less but is interested in acquiring it. That’s all there is to it.

I agree with you on the reasons that Japan would want a navy. I’m not sure what you’re getting at, though. They seem pretty in-line with my reasoning. Why is it that it’s okay for Japan to have a state-of-the-art navy but not for China? It too has offshore interests that need protecting. And then there is Taiwan.

How does Vietnam, India and Korea come into this, anyway? They happened twenty, thirty years ago. If you’re going to drag up old stuff like that, why don’t you say that Japan has a bad record because it invaded China in WWII?

And what does the historic record matter anyway? There is no set criteria that says ‘you must not have made war for x years in order to be applicable’. Countries acquire military capabilities when they perceive a need for it. China certainly perceives a need. So does Japan.

Pacifism in Japan died sometime in the seventies, if I have my history right. After WWII Japan had virtually no military, its people are firmly against the war, and it relied totally on the US to provide armed protection. Nowadays Japan has the best navy and air-force in Asia, one of the highest defense figures in the world, and is removing the fig-leaf that is Article 9. Somewhere along the way the pacifism died.

It is all the doing of the US, in fact. It has always been US policy to push Japan to increase military spending to contain China. Nothing new there. Just the good ol’ containment. Is it paranoia to say that the US has set up alliances and bases in a ring of China with the expressed purpose of containing it? Dunno. Check your map.

I ask you: what credible, conventional threat does the US face in the world, other than China? Sure, there’s the terrorism. There’s the ‘axis of evil’. But none of those justifies the latest fighter programs. Or that many carrier battlegroups. And the TMD system would be patently stupid (well, even more than it already is) if it really were just to fend off ‘rogue states’. China is the only credible threat left for the US. China knows. The US knows that they know. So it is kind of stupid for them to pretend otherwise.

October 16, 2005 @ 12:15 am | Comment

403201:

I take your response as further proof of your paranoia: a clichéd yet substance-less rambling.

You throw out empty phrases such as “in times of war, laws are silent,” and “time memorial.” This serves to detract from the fact that rule of law is established in Japan, that the prohibition against use of force to settle international disputes has been adhered to, that to date Japan has not resorted to its military, that the general public is vehemently against using the military. You have not pointed to any international policy, goal, or plan embraced by Japan that would show it will attack China, other than if attacked first in self-defense. In other words, you haven’t provided any actual evidence that Japan is a “threat” to China, other than the fact that its military is modern.

In my last post, I stated that China must alleviate its neighbors’ fears, and make itself more transparent as it naturally modernizes its military. I also voiced my objection to the power wielded by the military in China’s government. But I did not state that China WILL attack its neighbors, or that such a result is a natural consequence of its military modernization. Rather, I am saying that fear of China is understandable given the complex circumstances.

I’m afraid you are confused as to what “force projection” means. First, force-projection can mean the hardware capability of its forces to conduct long-distance warfare. In this Japan fails. Some of its ships can go long distances, but what is the point? Can they conduct battle at long distances, do they have the support necessary to do so? In their own territory, yes, but not in the territory of another country. The US however, can, only in tandem with its regional forces in Japan or South Korea. Second, “force projection” means the ability to procedurally enable long-range military activity. But without any authority, legal or otherwise, to order its forces to go beyond its territory for the purposes of a military conflict, any imagined “force” cannot materialize. Why not have your brain order your body to run a mile in three minutes? I’m sure your body can, at tremendous health costs, but it won’t because your brain cannot give the signal. That’s the thing about laws, they’re invisible but powerful.

“Why is it that it’s okay for Japan to have a state-of-the-art navy but not for China?” Perhaps you need to actually read my post.

“How does Vietnam, India and Korea come into this, anyway? They happened twenty, thirty years ago.” So you are saying that past history, involving the same state government does not provide any useful insight? Why then do so many impute a “threat” from Japan based on past history, occurring even farther back, although the current government is different and the people radically different? But that was beside my point. The point, if you read anything, is that military expenditure and history is a major consideration that China must consider as it modernizes its military. The China of today is the same state that participated in major military conflicts with nearly all its neighbors. Thus although it holds itself out as benign, it nonetheless must consider that its past history will understandably cause consternation among others.

You again claim that pacifism died in Japan, and further posit that it died in the seventies (how, I wonder did you come up with that?). You provide no evidence of this, other than your warped view of history. No military attacks, no military skirmishes, no use of the military, involvement in any war, etc.. Its people are still adamantly against participation in any war. War and military themes hardly play any role in Japanese daily lives. The military is virtually irrelevant to most Japanese. Based on my own personal experiences with Japan and Japanese, attempts to remove Article 9 will fail. On the other hand, unlike virtually every other Constitution in the world, Japan’s constitution has never had any amendment. If there is an amendment to Article 9, it would be to actually state self-defense is permissible.

“Containment” is a matter of perception. What is containment, and what is deterrence? Are any of these US alliances or bases going to be used militarily against China, ever? If so, under what circumstances? Are those circumstances remote, or likely? Do these alliances not also serve the interests of the Asian countries involved, thus reflecting more than US concerns? If the US, Japan or any other country in Asia sought to “contain” China, they would never have encouraged and supported China’s entry into the word economy. They would never have actively and continuously strengthened China’s current economic position. US “containment” is a weak concept, undermined by continued support and investment into China.

Your last paragraph again makes little sense. The US faces no threat? The existing world superpower should cease actions which maintain its status? Perhaps you are both misguided and idealistic. US power is not only military but economic. Perhaps it’s best that the US decrease its military involvement worldwide, after all, it has its powerful economy. It would still be a superpower. But if one were to follow this line of logic, so too must this apply it to China. The US has far more threats worldwide than China, and the incompetence of the current US leadership in its misguided policies has only multiplied its external threats.

“China is the only credible threat left for the US.” It sounds like you are the one advocating a dire “China threat” scenario. It makes your entire attitude regarding Japan’s military force, or your argument against US military force, nothing short of hypocritical.

October 16, 2005 @ 2:17 am | Comment

Say there are no laws against murder where you live. Say your neighbour buys a gun. All you’ve got is a nail-clipper. Will you be sleeping tonight?

This is pretty much what the international situation looks like. There are, on the grander scale, nothing to stop any one country from lobbing a missile to any other, save for MAD and its conventional/economic equivalent. Nevermind intent: just that another country has the capabilities to destroy you utterly is enough reason to arm youself well.

Again: I scoff at the restraining powers of the Japanese contitution in wartime. I scoff even further at any advice to the Chinese government that they should place the security of their entire people on the integrity of laws in another country – contested ones, at that.

Having said that, Japan definitely has the hardware to project power. It is the only true blue-water navy in Asia. At the very least, it can handle the Taiwan situation without major difficulties. Far as China is concerned, that is enough.

Maybe America will never make use of those bases and troops that it has so conveniently placed all around the Chinese border. Maybe those aircraft carriers so conveniently parked near Taiwan are just there to enjoy the view. We don’t know, do we? But what if they attack? Should the CCP bend over and accept regime change? Or should it make it so prohibitively expensive that it becomes unthinkable?

It is not even as if you can’t think of a realistic scenario where it would happen. Not when there is the question of Taiwan. Someone blinks over there, and you may well have WWIII on your hands.

China does not intend to start a war. It knows that it’ll probably lose. It knows that it’s bad for economic development. But it pays to be prepared for all contingencies. And it pays to have a deterrence.

October 16, 2005 @ 3:14 am | Comment

On the death of pacifism in Japan: you would think that a pacifist nation would have a crappy military, yes? And so focused on other things that they have a tiny defense budget? That was the case right after WWII. It is no longer the case today. Ergo somewhere along these years pacifism had died. Simple, really.

I picked the 70’s because it sounds purdy.

October 16, 2005 @ 3:16 am | Comment

403201

I fail to see the relevance of your comments to anything. Your hypothetical reflects a world that does not exist. The international community does operate by a set of norms and laws. It is deemed acceptable to engage in self-defense. It is deemed acceptable to have a deterrent force. No one has challenged this. Condemnation, alienation, a decline in soft power, economic decline, these are pretty powerful deterrents to stopping one country from lobbing a missile to another, aside from suicide and pain.

I scoff at your lack of respect for the rule of law. It seems that this concept seems beyond your grasp. I scoff at the fact that you STILL cannot provide any evidence to back up your assertion that Japan would attack China.

“Having said that, Japan definitely has the hardware to project power. It is the only true blue-water navy in Asia. At the very least, it can handle the Taiwan situation without major difficulties. Far as China is concerned, that is enough.”

I scoff at such a wildly absurd assertion. Japan possesses a bluewater navy. Seems logical, it is an ISLAND nation. It would make less sense if Japan currently had a huge army. But is it capable of projecting force outside its territory? You seem to think so, since you somehow believe Japan is capable handling a China-Taiwan military debacle, all on its own. Your paranoia is amazing.

“Maybe America will never make use of those bases and troops that it has so conveniently placed all around the Chinese border. … But what if they attack? Should the CCP bend over and accept regime change? Or should it make it so prohibitively expensive that it becomes unthinkable?

It is not even as if you can’t think of a realistic scenario where it would happen. Not when there is the question of Taiwan. Someone blinks over there, and you may well have WWIII on your hands.”

You mean that Singapore, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, etc, are all parts of the Chinese border? They have no self-interest in maintaining US forces for their own purposes? It seems pretty clear that attacking China would be expensive to every country in the region, economically and otherwise. And what regime change would the US be trying to effect with an attack? But you are finally asserting one reason why you believe China should vastly improve its military, Taiwan. But this would not constitute deterrence against foreign attack. It is instead a reason to project military force outwardly against others. That comes as no consolation to practically every country in the region.

“On the death of pacifism in Japan: you would think that a pacifist nation would have a crappy military, yes? And so focused on other things that they have a tiny defense budget? That was the case right after WWII. It is no longer the case today. Ergo somewhere along these years pacifism had died. Simple, really.”

Your lack of coherent logic is astounding. Your argument basically boils down to: Japan’s military is modern, therefore pacifism died. In the seventies no less. (Simple, really.) Wouldn’t it be even more simple, and more logical to conclude: Japan is a modern technologically advanced country, therefore its military is modern. Or how about: Japan has a defense pact with the US, there its military is modern. Pacifism regards the use of force, and willingness to use force to resolve disputes. You have not provided any evidence to refute the fact that post-WW2 Japan has never used military means to resolve its disputes. Never mind that it has never used its military in the ways I previously discussed, never mind that its society is adverse to the military in general.

“I picked the 70’s because it sounds purdy.”

Yes, it seems like you have an attachment to shiny, empty catch-words.

October 16, 2005 @ 4:22 am | Comment

Hm. 403etc’s prolixity, filled with logical fallacies and amorality, is beginning to look creepily familiar.
Reminds me of…..

October 16, 2005 @ 4:23 am | Comment

All true rules of law depends, at its core, on one thing: punishment. You are deterred from committing a crime because the police officers, dispensers of the state’s punishment, can put apprehend you and put you in jail. This works because the state is a vastly superior dispenser of violence than any single person. Regardless of how you struggle, it is likely to prevail in the end.

This doesn’t work in the international setting. America gets away with an unilateral invasion of Iraq because there is no-one is capable of punishing it. If the Japanese prime minister decides to attack China (I said if), and if he had the full backing of the US, then no-one is capable of punishing Japan either. There may be domestic dissent, and it may stop the war in the long run, but Vietnam and Iraq tells us that even if it works, it would be much to late for the victim.

The establishment of the UN and international community aims to provide some source of punishment, but again, this only works on weaker nations. No-one from the US has ever been committed of a warcrime – because there is no-one capable of doling out the punishment.

And thus I scoff at the ‘rule of law’ when used in the international setting.

Taiwan is a part of China. This is recognized by the UN and by international laws and conventions. Taiwanese and US lobbying seeks to change this, but last I heard it is still a valid definition. At any rate, China is fully prepared to go to war for Taiwan. The CCP has staked its legitimacy on this, and should Taiwan claim independence, they absolutely have to, or face a coup.

Japan is determined to interfere in such a scenario, with backing from the US. Does Article 9 stop this involvement? Not likely.

Define ‘Japanese territory’. Do you mean the island itself? Then that’s what the army is for. Do you mean the surrounding oceans? Then a navy half or third its size would have sufficed. If you actually mean ‘Japanese interests’, then yes, Japan does need the navy it has, perhaps more. A great chunk of ‘Japanese interests’ involves Taiwan.

In any war scenario between China and US, those bases all along China’s border would go into overdrive. Spyplanes would fill the air. The entirety of China would be monitored for troop movements and ICBM positions. That’s what those bases are for. Also, China would be forced to position a good chunk of its military along those borders, just incase America opens a second front. The Asian countries that host US bases may do so for their own reasons, but the reason the US is willing to station them there, with the huge costs involved, is because of China.

More on the death of Japanese pacifism: it takes more than technological prowess to build a modern military. It takes a very specific form of prowess, very specific talents and very specific industrial capabilities that only come from adequate funding over a long period of time. Japan develops its own hardware, and some of it is superior to even US equivalents. This cannot come without considerable political will.

October 16, 2005 @ 4:55 am | Comment

403201:

The rule of law does not only depend on punishment. Rule of law based solely on punishment does not produce a social system capable of perpetuating itself, or a viable incentive for people to adhere to the law. Adherence to law produces stability and coherence, as well as all the benefits that flow from such a social system. Safety, a sound business environment, there are many other reasons why people adhere to the rule of law.

“This doesn’t work in the international setting. America gets away with an unilateral invasion of Iraq because there is no-one is capable of punishing it. If the Japanese prime minister decides to attack China (I said if), and if he had the full backing of the US, then no-one is capable of punishing Japan either. There may be domestic dissent, and it may stop the war in the long run, but Vietnam and Iraq tells us that even if it works, it would be much to late for the victim.”

Again, you presume too much to rely solely on physical punishment as deterrence against invasion. Equally powerful deterrents include a highly integrated economy, and the extreme repercussions caused by a disruption to such a relationship. Can you honestly say that the current debacle in Iraq, the withdrawal of active US participation in Asia and its resulting weakening of US interests in Asia (to name only a few things), are not negative repercussions with a powerful deterrent effect against a repeat of such events? Can you not include economic disaster, a steep decline in standing and soft power amongst the deterrents?

“The establishment of the UN and international community aims to provide some source of punishment, but again, this only works on weaker nations. No-one from the US has ever been committed of a warcrime – because there is no-one capable of doling out the punishment.”

Almost no one has been prosecuted of warcrimes via the UN. The focus of the UN, as embodied in its charter, is to deter and prevent humanitarian disasters and to facilitate greater global integration. I also see that no one from any country on the security council has been prosecuted for warcrimes. It is the weakness of the security council, and its fractious nature which is to blame.

“And thus I scoff at the ‘rule of law’ when used in the international setting.”

You have some very low standards, and little understanding of the nature of “international law” in the first place. International law is not akin to national law. It is embodied in treaties, regional and global associational agreements, norms, and practice. The complex nature of international law involves interdepence as one factor for its adherence, not just direct physical punishment.

“Taiwan is a part of China. This is recognized by the UN and by international laws and conventions. Taiwanese and US lobbying seeks to change this, but last I heard it is still a valid definition. At any rate, China is fully prepared to go to war for Taiwan. The CCP has staked its legitimacy on this, and should Taiwan claim independence, they absolutely have to, or face a coup.”

So you are stating that China’s military expenditure is for outward projection against others?

“Japan is determined to interfere in such a scenario, with backing from the US. Does Article 9 stop this involvement? Not likely.”

Warning: Paranoia levels skyrocketing! Article 9 prevents the use of the military to resolve international disputes. You have yet to provide even a shred of evidence supporting your assertions.

“Define ‘Japanese territory’. Do you mean the island itself? Then that’s what the army is for. Then a navy half or third its size would have sufficed.”

Japan is an island nation. Islands … are surrounded by sea. Islands therefore, logically focus more on naval power than land army power. Really, since you are such an “expert” on this, please give us an analysis of why Japan’s current naval force is larger than necessary to secure its territorial seas. Never mind that seas are more porous of difficult to defend that land. I am awaiting an explanation as to how a navy half or a third of its current size can provide sufficient protection.

“If you actually mean ‘Japanese interests’, then yes, Japan does need the navy it has, perhaps more. A great chunk of ‘Japanese interests’ involves Taiwan.”

What are your “Japanese interests?” Please feel free to explain all of Japan’s interests in Taiwan, and why they would outweigh its interest with Mainland China?

“In any war scenario between China and US, those bases all along China’s border would go into overdrive. Spyplanes would fill the air. The entirety of China would be monitored for troop movements and ICBM positions.”

I think nearly every country in the region is already currently monitoring China military deployment. Their defense departments wouldn’t be doing their job if they weren’t.

“The Asian countries that host US bases may do so for their own reasons, but the reason the US is willing to station them there, with the huge costs involved, is because of China.”

You mean the interests of those Asian countries and US interests do not converge? That Southeast Asia does not seek US influence in order to make the regional balance of power amenable to its own interests?

“More on the death of Japanese pacifism: it takes more than technological prowess to build a modern military. It takes a very specific form of prowess, very specific talents and very specific industrial capabilities that only come from adequate funding over a long period of time. Japan develops its own hardware, and some of it is superior to even US equivalents. This cannot come without considerable political will.”

I’m just rolling my eyes at this point. So you admit that your argument for the “death” of Japanese pacifism relies solely on the existence of a modern military. The existence of any administration, defense, bureaucracy, or for that matter pretty much all complicated social groups require “considerable political will.” This statement is utterly meaningless, without a point, and without any relevance to the issue or “pacifism.”

Pacifism: Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action.

You still have not answered why, despite never having used its military to resolve any of its regional or internationals disputes, never so as much as using it as a show of force in a dispute, despite widespread sentiment against military involvement and the role of the military in daily life, Japanese pacifism is dead. The maintenance of a military does not equate to a willingness to use it.

Reading through your posts, I can see no coherent argument, besides your hatred of Japan, and paranoia that it or the US will for some reason proactively attack China. You fail to address any argument regarding the need for transparency, for greater understanding of its neighbor’s concerns as China modernizes. You seem to interpret everything as conspiracy to “hold” something back from China. Paranoia.

October 16, 2005 @ 5:47 am | Comment

403201 is a troll who used to post here under the name Example. Be very wary of him; he will make longwinded and exasperating arguments, and when you catch him in his inanities he suddenly will change the subject.

October 16, 2005 @ 6:49 am | Comment

Certainly – there are benefits to be gained as a whole when the international laws are followed by ALL members of the international community. But it cannot work at all if there are no downsides – punishment – for disobeying. The nature of the current system is that the opportunity cost for disobedience is often perceived to be outweighed by the benefits of war, especially for a superpower such as America.

There are negative repercussions for America from its invasion of Iraq, but they stem primarily from its losing the war. If America had actually done what it set out to accomplish – establish a friendly, stable government in Iraq, maximize oil production, shining beacon of democracy – then the outcry would have been far less. At any rate, whatever outcry there was is too little, too late. Iraq lies in ruins. This is what happens to countries that cannot defend themselves.

Meanwhile, what did America lose? Is it in any way comparable to what Iraq lost? This is the lack of credible punishment in international law.

Of course, the weaker the country, the more credible the punishment. If China invades Taiwan tomorrow and actually succeeded, it would have to deal with decades of sanctions, become an international pariah. If a middle-eastern state declares war on Israel, it would be put down by multinational forces and a regime change would take place. Thus international law applies only to the weak.

This is why all countries maintain military forces of varying size. First and foremost, to protect themselves, because there is no rule of law to do it for them.

“Almost no one has been prosecuted of warcrimes via the UN.”

The UN sets up international warcrimes tribunals when the need arises. Only for whoever lost, of course. You are right that no country on the security council has ever been prosecuted. Why? Because the UN has no power to do anything to the victors of war.

“So you are stating that China’s military expenditure is for outward projection against others?”

I am stating that a great part of China’s military expenditure is intended to provide a contingency plan should the shit hit the fan in the Taiwan straights. Interpret this how you will.

“Article 9 prevents the use of the military to resolve international disputes. You have yet to provide even a shred of evidence supporting your assertions.”

True, I have nothing but my kung-fu grip on the terms of realpolitik. But it is definitely NOT in Japanese interests for Taiwan to fall into Chinese hands. Japan imports most of their energy. A big chunk comes from the middle-east. The supply route goes right past to Taiwan. Not just oil, either – a LOT of supply routes to Japan comes from the Malacca and right past Taiwan. Japan likes its energy and food security as much as China does.

Also, Taiwan is a former colony. There is a sizeable domestic lobbying group that could cause all sorts of grief at home if Japan refuses to intervene.

Lastly, Japan is able to claim all those contested islands partly because Taiwan does not. When the Chinese map is redrawn to include Taiwan, it would make it that much harder to defend them.

“Really, since you are such an “expert” on this, please give us an analysis of why Japan’s current naval force is larger than necessary to secure its territorial seas.”

Certainly. Compare it with the Chinese navy. China’s navy is still quite out-dated, despite recent purchases. It needs to cover a much larger area, and China has Taiwan to worry about. For the sake of shoreline security alone, though, the Chinese navy is more than sufficient. Japan has a far superior navy.

“I think nearly every country in the region is already currently monitoring China military deployment.”

It is one thing to monitor your neighbour while he’s brandishing his weapons next door. It is quite another to set up a series of spy-cams to watch him 24-7.

“You mean the interests of those Asian countries and US interests do not converge? That Southeast Asia does not seek US influence in order to make the regional balance of power amenable to its own interests?”

And how would the US ‘balance’ this? By containing China, obviously. I do not see what you are getting at. Of course Southeast Asia seeks US influence. Or else the bases wouldn’t be there. But if the US didn’t want to keep an eye on China, those bases still wouldn’t be there.

“You still have not answered why […] Japanese pacifism is dead.”

Let me ask you this: say you’re the Prime Minister of Japan. How are you going to convince your people, who are oh-so-against wars, to spend a big chunk of their tax money on new ships for the navy for the next twenty years? When you could just rely on the Americans instead? It is not like they have nothing else to spend it on, with the Japanese economy languishing until just recently. Doesn’t the fact that Japan built up a state-of-the-art navy and airforce despite the state of their economy tell you something? Why would they even bother, if they never plan to use it?

I just found this article. It puts up most of the common arguments quite well:

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=103&ItemID=8927

exerpt: “To Beijing, these comments must have been astonishing. No one threatens China? What about the US planes and warships that constantly hover off the Chinese coast, and the nuclear-armed US missiles aimed at China? What about the delivery over the past ten years of ever more potent US weapons to Taiwan? What about the US bases that encircle China on all sides?”

October 16, 2005 @ 6:50 am | Comment

Here’s my version of events, as opposed to Richard’s.

First, my old name was 403200.

Second, I used to make comments exactly like what I am making now. Then Richard decided that he didn’t agree with them. So he deleted my posts. So I left.

October 16, 2005 @ 6:52 am | Comment

Not true, example; you flooded the threads with the same nonsense and didn’t answer your critics. I gavce you ample warning to get serious. I don’t delete because someone disagrees with me. (People had asked me to delete you a long time before I finally did; you really have to srive for that honor.)

October 16, 2005 @ 7:16 am | Comment

403201:

“The nature of the current system is that the opportunity cost for disobedience is often perceived to be outweighed by the benefits of war, especially for a superpower such as America.”

If this were true, every state would be clamoring for war. Your calculus lacks any consideration for several of the deterrent factors I mentioned in my previous posts.

“There are negative repercussions for America from its invasion of Iraq, but they stem primarily from its losing the war. If America had actually done what it set out to accomplish – establish a friendly, stable government in Iraq, maximize oil production, shining beacon of democracy – then the outcry would have been far less. At any rate, whatever outcry there was is too little, too late. Iraq lies in ruins. This is what happens to countries that cannot defend themselves.”

As much as I was against the war in the first place, I do hope that the people of Iraq will eventually be able to build for themselves a free and democratic country. Since the process is still ongoing, I will not condemn it to failure as you have. However, Iraq lies in ruins because of several factors, insurgent terror, sectarian religious violence, ethnic strife, non-support from its neighbors … the US is just one of many reasons.

“Meanwhile, what did America lose? Is it in any way comparable to what Iraq lost? This is the lack of credible punishment in international law.”

You are ignoring the deterrent effects of the war on America, choosing only to frame it in terms of a win-loss consequence. And your weak comparative loss question ignores the result on American foreign policy. I find your stance highly hypocritical. In the Sudan-China thread you are against carrying international laws to prevent genocide. In this thread you rail against the “lack of credible punishment in international law.” Your views are shifting and arbitrary.

“Of course, the weaker the country, the more credible the punishment. If China invades Taiwan tomorrow and actually succeeded, it would have to deal with decades of sanctions, become an international pariah. If a middle-eastern state declares war on Israel, it would be put down by multinational forces and a regime change would take place. Thus international law applies only to the weak.”

Do you understand what international law IS? Your simplistic conclusory scenarios have yet to occur, and you provide no basis for your end results. International law applies to all parties which participate in international affairs, economic and political, based on part upon the will of the international body, group or nation to enforce those treaties, agreements, and customs which apply. International law also works by increasing the costs of non-adherence. Since the US launched the Iraq war, it has lost considerable support for its war on terror among many of its target countries (for example Middle Eastern). It has divided its allies, and significantly depleted its soft power. Also, in your scenario, if China succeeded in taking over Taiwan, it would not be weak. Yet your scenario envisions China being at the mercy of sanctions and what not, just as the smaller Middle-Eastern state, which failed in its war on Israel, would be. If anything your hypothetical would tend to show that international law applies equally to the strong and weak. Your lack of logical coherence is astounding.

“This is why all countries maintain military forces of varying size. First and foremost, to protect themselves, because there is no rule of law to do it for them.”

Yes, thank you for stating the obvious. Well there are plenty of other reasons to maintain military forces besides being invaded. One is to regulate commercial traffic. Another is to reinforce the power of the domestic sovereign. Countries also rely on reciprocity as a means of protection. Providing economic benefits, mutual security arrangements, etc, all reinforce protection.

“The UN sets up international warcrimes tribunals when the need arises. Only for whoever lost, of course. You are right that no country on the security council has ever been prosecuted. Why? Because the UN has no power to do anything to the victors of war.”
The UN has a permanent international criminal tribunal, the International Criminal Court, which hears various cases all the time, including war-crime charges. Only when the relevant parties submit to its authority however, can it make a definitive and binding ruling. The reason why no country on the Security Council has ever been prosecuted is because those very countries have the power to thwart such actions against them, and not because the UN has any power to do anything against the “victors.” Note that the UN has often made referendums and proposed sanctions against the US, Israel, China, and such. Yet just one single security council member can thwart any such action. The blame lies more in the nature, overwhelming power, and unwillingness of the Security Council to cooperate. Your constant references to the UN’s lack of sanctioning power is disingenuous, as you place overwhelming precedence on state sovereignty. This leads to a contradictory situation, where you cite to the lack of equitable punishment and enforcement in international law, but undermine the mechanisms for such.

“I am stating that a great part of China’s military expenditure is intended to provide a contingency plan should the shit hit the fan in the Taiwan straights. Interpret this how you will.”

In other words, you are indeed stating China’s military expenditure isn’t simply for defensive purposes, but mainly for power projection into the Taiwan straight and adjacent areas.

“True, I have nothing but my kung-fu grip on the terms of realpolitik. But it is definitely NOT in Japanese interests for Taiwan to fall into Chinese hands. Japan imports most of their energy. A big chunk comes from the middle-east. The supply route goes right past to Taiwan. Not just oil, either – a LOT of supply routes to Japan comes from the Malacca and right past Taiwan. Japan likes its energy and food security as much as China does.”

By your line of logic, Japan has a legitimate national interest to project its power this far into the area. And by your line of logic, Japan, South Korea, and the interest of all the Southeast Asian nations lie in preventing Taiwan from falling into Chinese hands. It would seem then, that every country has a legitimate security interest in China’s own military spending.

“Also, Taiwan is a former colony. There is a sizeable domestic lobbying group that could cause all sorts of grief at home if Japan refuses to intervene.”

And this is one major reason for your forgone conclusion that Japan will intervene? What of the powerful Keidanren, whose business interests insure that economic relations between China and Japan remain unaffected by any such rash action?

“Lastly, Japan is able to claim all those contested islands partly because Taiwan does not. When the Chinese map is redrawn to include Taiwan, it would make it that much harder to defend them.”

Taiwan continues to claim the Diaoyutai/Senkakus. It has never relinquished its claim, and many Taiwanese have protested against both Japan and China. Japan’s current claim to the islands is based upon substantive international law, not upon Taiwan’s claims.

“China’s navy is still quite out-dated, despite recent purchases. It needs to cover a much larger area, and China has Taiwan to worry about. For the sake of shoreline security alone, though, the Chinese navy is more than sufficient. Japan has a far superior navy.”

Certainly, if you were to include virtually all of Asia in China’s territorial claims, China would have a larger area to cover than Japan. But since many of its claims are contested by its neighbors, its actual area is much smaller than Japan. Japan’s borders are all of its surrounding seas, covering a total area larger than China’s coastline. Virtually all of its security concerns are concentrated in the sea. Is the same true of China? I also doubt that China’s current navy has sufficiently dealt with smuggling, immigration, or piracy problems along its shoreline.

“It is one thing to monitor your neighbour while he’s brandishing his weapons next door. It is quite another to set up a series of spy-cams to watch him 24-7.”

And spying on others 24-7 is an activity all governments engage in, including China.

“And how would the US ‘balance’ this? By containing China, obviously. I do not see what you are getting at. Of course Southeast Asia seeks US influence. Or else the bases wouldn’t be there. But if the US didn’t want to keep an eye on China, those bases still wouldn’t be there.”

You should read up on Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia in itself is divided area of diverging national interests. It realizes that each member country individually is unable to exert its interests against its larger regional neighbors. Hence the formation of ASEAN. Its strategy to secure a stable environment has been to seek a balance of interests between the larger states, China, Japan, the US. US interests are also not solely aimed at “keeping an eye on China.” It has economic, drug, energy, and other such security interests tied up in the region.

“Let me ask you this: say you’re the Prime Minister of Japan. How are you going to convince your people, who are oh-so-against wars, to spend a big chunk of their tax money on new ships for the navy for the next twenty years? When you could just rely on the Americans instead?”

So you are providing a valid reason for Japan’s reliance on US forces, the relationship you oh so despise? It’s very easy, given North Korea, Russia, and China, in addition to the fact that your own borders are the seas, to think why it is easy to devote only 1% of your GDP for self-defense.

“Doesn’t the fact that Japan built up a state-of-the-art navy and airforce despite the state of their economy tell you something?”

Doesn’t the fact that Japan limits its military spending to only 1% of GDP, even though it is the second largest economy, and whereas the US, England, France, China, Taiwan, the Koreas, Vietnam, etc spend more of their GDP, tell you something? For one thing, it tells me that for a country of its size, Japan has been spending very little on its military.

“Why would they even bother, if they never plan to use it?”

Are you questioning why I should care if Japan actually uses its weapons? Well for starters, whether a country willingly or actually resorts to military conflict, is what pacifism is all about. I see you’ve just zoomed over the entire concept of pacifism.

“To Beijing, these comments must have been astonishing. No one threatens China? What about the US planes and warships that constantly hover off the Chinese coast, and the nuclear-armed US missiles aimed at China? What about the delivery over the past ten years of ever more potent US weapons to Taiwan? What about the US bases that encircle China on all sides?”

And yes, those planes and warships have not interfered with China’s economic development, nor ever attacked China. My neighbor has a gun, has he ever used? Not to my knowledge. I’m not going to sit at home building an arsenal when no past actions have led to me conclude that he’s going to invade my house. This however, is not the point. If you actually read anything from my past posts, you will notice that I have never argued that China cannot modernize its military. Rather, I have focused on the need for China to develop its military while keeping the concerns of its neighbors in mind. It should address and make proactive steps (as it has for instance, with Vietnam and the Philippines), to ease relations. Your arguments do nothing but flat out reject any of the concerns of its neighbors, and raise alarm as to China’s intentions.

Your comments add nothing to the discussion, you keep shifting from one topic to the next, never providing any support for arguments, always skimming the line between logic and paranoia.

October 16, 2005 @ 8:06 am | Comment

I apologize in advance for my long diatribes. I certainly got carried away with all the fun with 403201. The actual point I was trying to make is contained in my response to Sun Bin, whose arguments I understand and believe are real concerns. Sorry for the rambling.

October 16, 2005 @ 8:11 am | Comment

403201 got banned, dude.

October 16, 2005 @ 8:13 am | Comment

Everlasting, you mentioned that China can modernize their military forces yet also try to improve relations with their neighbors. Is it possible that they’re trying to do so but we just keep on snubbing them? Donald Rumsfeld is making his first official visit to China soon. Apparently, the Chinese have been trying to get him to visit for the last four years to improve relations but he’s been simply refusing to go. Here’s a portion of the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/14/AR2005101401844.html

—————————————
While underscoring Washington’s suspicions about China’s aggressive military modernization, the officials said Rumsfeld’s trip marks an opportunity for improving U.S.-China military ties four years after they ruptured over the collision off China’s coast of a U.S. Navy spy plane and Chinese fighter jet.

“We have serious strategic interests which don’t always coincide but . . . Secretary Rumsfeld goes there with the intention of having some positive outcome,” said one senior defense official briefing reporters about the trip, which begins Monday. He spoke on the condition of anonymity.

In-depth talks between Rumsfeld and Chinese military and Communist Party leaders — as well as signs of Beijing’s willingness to disclose more about its growing military capabilities — could advance a relationship that a number of U.S. officials said was on a good, upward trajectory.

China, for its part, has actively sought the visit by Rumsfeld for four years — largely for symbolic reasons, defense officials and China analysts say. “The Chinese military wants this visit far more than the American military. Rumsfeld’s reluctance to go to China is legendary,” said one expert on Chinese security issues who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the trip.

Beijing seeks to demonstrate, by hosting a perceived Bush administration hardliner, that Washington is not shunning China as a looming military foe, they say. “China will probe for signals from Rumsfeld and DOD [Department of Defense] on the extent to which the U.S. views China as a major regional security threat,” said Evan Medeiros, a China military expert at the Rand Corporation here.

Chu Maoming, spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said: “The visit is imperative and helpful to promote mutual understanding, enhance mutual trust, and also expand exchanges.”

One of the most striking signs of Beijing’s desire to woo Rumsfeld is its agreement to allow a U.S. delegation for the first time to visit the headquarters of China’s most secretive military command, the Second Artillery Corps, which oversees the nation’s arsenal of conventional and nuclear missiles.

“We are pleased that they accepted this particular request,” said a senior Pentagon official. “We hope that by going there and meeting with the commander of Second Artillery . . . that we will have an opportunity to receive a deeper and more detailed briefing.”

Agreeing to the long-standing U.S. request to visit the facility, at Qinghe outside Beijing, signals “a new precedent of transparency on the Chinese part, but we’ll have to see what the Chinese show us,” said Peter Brookes, a Heritage Foundation analyst and former defense official involved with China policy in the first Bush term. “Is it substantive or a dog-and-pony show?”

In contrast, Beijing rejected a long-standing U.S. request to visit what some defense officials call the “real Chinese Pentagon” — a command center in the Western Hills outside the capital. “That was not granted to us,” a Pentagon official said. Nor has China yet accepted a U.S. proposal to establish a telephone hotline between the U.S. and Chinese militaries as a confidence-building measure, he said.

October 16, 2005 @ 4:38 pm | Comment

WKL,

That was an informative and a great post. The PRC at times has sent out signals that it wants some form of engagement, but determining what its intentions are is part of the problem. The Chinese government is of course complex with many different actors and interests. I think that due to its opaque nature, it is difficult to grasp what role and how powerful the military/PLA is, and just what its intentions are (and of course, what divisions there are in the PLA). In the US, the military is subordinate to the ultimate will of the civilian government. Yet it seems to me, that the PLA has a mind of its own, frequently clashing with the best interests of the civilian sector of the CCP. I think it is the PLA that has been most unwilling to accommodate on a wide variety of issues that China realistically could accommodate on. It could for instance, restrain itself in the use of military force in the South China sea, or wait until the UN has decided on the claims before it used its military in the area.

But if it wants more power, it would be for the best interests of the PLA that there be readily identifiable enemies, and little room for accommodation, for instance with the US, Japan, Taiwan, or etc. This strengthens its relevance to the government and the people, and gives reason for more funds to fund modernization in the manner it wishes (which may not be best suited for the civilian population). It also seems to me that more so than any sector of the Chinese government, that the PLA has played a primary role in whipping up nationalism and in turn using it as a basis to reinforce its own prominence. It insisted, and got for example, a role in public education in high schools.

So when the Chinese military makes gestures to other governments, it sends a confusing message. Is this the goal of the civilian leadership? Are the interests of both the same, or is the military pursuing its own agenda. With China’s opaque government, its difficult to surmise what the intention is, and how it figures into the government’s overall plans.

Going back to the article, I’m not sure why Rumsfield did not go to any of such meetings though. It seems that if he were confused as to intent, he’d go to the meetings to find out what they were, and draw his own conclusions. I think though, that there is a general unwillingness in the Bush administration to go forward with anything that is deemed suspect (think North Korea).

October 16, 2005 @ 6:29 pm | Comment

everlasting,

i do agree with your conclusion that “All in all, though, my comments are not meant to mean that China should not modernize and devote more to its military. Logically, it certainly needs to spend a lot to modernize its forces, which are sometimes obsolete and decades old.” and my personal opinion is CHINA SHOULD SPEND LESS on military than today’s budget.

i just wanted to point out the Rmmy argument is totally nonsense. no threat today may still mean tiny possibility of threat tomorrow. everybody is spending a little on military as an “INSURANCE” although we can argue on how much INSURANCE is reasonable. THAT WAS WHERE I SAID YOU HAD “LOGICAL FLAW”. Rummy’s “no threat why do anything” accusation is just absurd. It was unfortunately quoted by martyn, and apparently supported by your first post. I wanted to clarify this before it continue to mislead people. But now i know that was not your intention.

You said military has too much power over their civilian counterparts in China. I absolutely agree and I think it is a bad thing. As I pointed out before, it is exactly this imbalance and the appeasement (financially) that can explain some (not all) of China’s military spending. This portion is about domestic politics and interests distribution (all those pension spending/corruption/etc). It is not related to preparation for aggression.

I did not go through your exchange with 403201 (too long for me to read). But I do not see why he deserve to be banned. In fact, a ‘bobby fletcher” said he was unfairly banned. I searched some of his comment, i found it was a bit confrontation (like a lot many other commenter here), but yet his comments often have valid points.

I have just one comment on “Article 9”. Japan’s Constition can be revised. There are significant people in Japan who pushed for revision. Today the revisions were quite minor (sending troop for UN, upping the defense). But there is talk about defining offsensive defense. Its Asian neighbors worry about the trend. This could be one of the many justifiable reason for its neighbor to buy “INSURANCE”.

for the purpose of argument, i still think your response to my queries are extremely weak. point by point below:

2) China does have external threat. e.g. Japan, Russia. The probability is very small, say 1/million. But it is larger that that for USA/Japan, which must then be 1/billion. The proper explanation should be my “INSURANCE” theory above.

3) Come on, this is not a valid argument for arguing entagon report is reliable. There is a clear agenda behind the pentagon report, e.g. selling more arms to US and Taiwan. If you believe some of their source is reliable. Quote that particular source. And RAND is not a non-biased party.

If your logic is valid, one can apply it equally well to say “PLA report is reliable” because one of their source is from Jenn’s, adn there is no other reliable source.

4) You may have half a point here (about space program run by military). However, Japan can quickly transfer the research in satellite launching into missile (despite who owns it). It is just not that simple.
But you have to view the PLA ownership from a historical perspective, when such programs were run in secrecy.
To call the space program military research is entirely misleading. In doing so you are classifying the money used for weather reporting and satellite TV in Tibet to be military, not to say those that were arguably for PR purpose. THIS IS WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE PENTAGON REPORT.

5) Japan HAS ALREADY ENRICHED 100 tons of Plutonium, eqivalent to 4500 bombs at least. (see Asia time report). A Japanese minister called Tanaka publicly admitted it could get nuke overnight if it wanted to.

Yes, it does not have such intention today. It is extremely unlikely it will in the future. But one just cannot rule it out entirely even if the scenario is 1/billion. (again, insurance theory). I want to see US take charge of that enrichment plant in Japan.

6) In a “bidding” everyone who enters a bid is responsible for the resulting price. How can you blame one single bidder for shutting out others? on per capita basis China consumes much less oil or any commodity than any developed country, US or Japan. If China was allowed to buy the harmless Unoca and such, do you think they want to go to the more risky and more expensive Sudan fileds? This is totally unfair and probably raical.

October 16, 2005 @ 7:13 pm | Comment

http://www.infidelworld.net/icblog/archives/trade/index.php#000352

see this post from Infidel.

October 16, 2005 @ 8:12 pm | Comment

Sun Bin,

I interpreted Rumsfeld’s comments differently, not to mean “no threat why do anything.” Rather I interpreted it to mean just what you stated, that “everybody is spending a little on military” but that the amount for this “insurance” is debatable. I interpreted RUmsfeld to mean that the level of “threat” presently does not reflect the present military costs. Nations need to prepare for all possible contingencies, including future threats. Yet I don’t see how, as China’s economic and military power grows, threats to it will become greater in the future than those present today. The more powerful it becomes, the more secure it should ideally feel. There are also other developments that should decrease tensions in the future. For instance, if all parties will adhere to UN territorial rulings after 2009, hopefully most of the territorial disputes will diminish in significance.

403201 was banned, well I just read this, since I only went online within the last hour or so. I think however, he kept going on virtually every tangent possible, and caused the discussion to repeat itself without answering anything new. If you read his posts in the Sudan thread for instance, you can see short examples of what things he kept posting. I was once inadvertently banned from this site as well, and for a while thought it was willful and permanent. Then I decided to email Richard, and he discovered it was something wrong with the spam filtering system.

Re.: Article 9.
Yes, like any other Constitution, an individual article may be revised through an amendment. The “revision” allowing for “humanitarian aid” was a parliamentary interpretation of Article 9, and not a judicial one. Japan’s constitution, despite being over five decades old, has never been amended. From what I have read, the only proposed amendments with any chance of support are those clarifying a constitutional right to “self-defense,” and self-defense has been judicially interpreted to arise only in the case of being attacked first. Certain factions of the LDP wish to revamp the entire constitution and do away with Article 9, but given that the constitution and Article 9 enjoy widespread support, and is a pillar of modern Japan’s cultural/social/international identity, it will more than likely never occur. Even if there is an amendment, the likely result is that the current security arrangement will remain the same. This is because although Article 9 clearly states that no military forces are permissible, judicial interpretation as allowed for military self-defense force, which is nonetheless prohibited from being proactively used to solve its international conflicts or to be used reactively as a show of force. Since the end of WW2, Japan has never used its military in either fashion.

2) “China does have external threat. e.g. Japan, Russia. The probability is very small, say 1/million. But it is larger that that for USA/Japan, which must then be 1/billion. The proper explanation should be my “INSURANCE” theory above.”

As I stated before, nations have a right to create militaries, but ideally military spending should be commensurate with the level of threat present. I actually see the probabilities the other way. To me as the growing power, more beholden to its domestic nationalism, and having declared that it will never budge on several issues such as Taiwan, I see China being more likely to flex its military. As you state, the probability of conflict with Japan or Russia is extremely small, and will likely only decrease as China’s relative power increases over time, as that of its neighbors wanes comparatively. For China and Japan, as their economies become interdependent, and as territorial issues seem likely to be resolved by a third part such as the UN, I only see a decline in the possibility of military conflict. Likewise I also see a decline in military tension between China and Russia and the US. The only remote problem lies in the Taiwan problem, and that is where everything gets thrown out the door. China should be in no rush to expand its military as fast as it now is, the only possible reason I see for the current levels of spending, is Taiwan.

3) “Come on, this is not a valid argument for arguing entagon report is reliable. There is a clear agenda behind the pentagon report, e.g. selling more arms to US and Taiwan. If you believe some of their source is reliable. Quote that particular source. And RAND is not a non-biased party. If your logic is valid, one can apply it equally well to say “PLA report is reliable” because one of their source is from Jenn’s, adn there is no other reliable source.”

I still stand behind my original argument, and refuse to abide by what would be circular logic. One cannot say that since X is unknown, all secondary observation regarding X is false. Scientists cannot see a black hole, yet they can deduce its existence through secondary means. The question shifts to how accurate those secondary sources are. Since the PRC does not publicly announce its actual military spending, all analysis of China’s military requires a dependence upon secondary sources (and not a circular argument that any secondary sources are just as reliable as the known unreliable PLA report). There is no way to get around this. As I stated before, US Defense Department figures are also supported in part or in whole by a myriad of independent think tanks. The CSIS, (whom some of my friends worked with, and hence I do trust ) in 2000 published a report on China’s military which put it ahead of all other Asian countries in terms of spending, equipment, and power. Other think tanks such as the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies, which is decidedly anti-military, also state that China ranks ahead of Japan and behind the US in its military spending and equipment. (See http://tinyurl.com/999le, and http://tinyurl.com/dn6yj)

4) “You may have half a point here (about space program run by military). However, Japan can quickly transfer the research in satellite launching into missile (despite who owns it). It is just not that simple.But you have to view the PLA ownership from a historical perspective, when such programs were run in secrecy. To call the space program military research is entirely misleading. In doing so you are classifying the money used for weather reporting and satellite TV in Tibet to be military, not to say those that were arguably for PR purpose. THIS IS WHY I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE PENTAGON REPORT.”

What I can say is that Japan has no long-range missiles, that is has not pursued such, and there is no evidence to show that it will actually do so, besides pure speculation that it “could” do so. Additionally, “military” research is a nebulous term, encompassing a wide range of things which have possible military application. You stated that Japan could transfer its satellite research into missile (something). If this were true, it should also be true that China’s military run space program, would be using the same “satellite” research for military means. Why would the military not use its own research for such purposes? It’s the same agency, under the same command structure. After all, one cannot get around the fact that the space program is run by the military, and that its goals cannot be separate from the goals of the military. But I’m not a rocket scientist, so I can’t say with certainty that it’s easy to transfer satellite technology into missile capabilities.

5) “Japan HAS ALREADY ENRICHED 100 tons of Plutonium, eqivalent to 4500 bombs at least. (see Asia time report). A Japanese minister called Tanaka publicly admitted it could get nuke overnight if it wanted to. Yes, it does not have such intention today. It is extremely unlikely it will in the future. But one just cannot rule it out entirely even if the scenario is 1/billion. (again, insurance theory). I want to see US take charge of that enrichment plant in Japan.”

This would be considered a extremely remote contingency. Risk should evaluated by the likelihood of occurrence. Since you admitted that the scenario is all but unlikely, the amount of “insurance” allocated to dealing with such a threat should be commensurate with that likelihood. The amount should be very low.

6) “In a “bidding” everyone who enters a bid is responsible for the resulting price. How can you blame one single bidder for shutting out others? on per capita basis China consumes much less oil or any commodity than any developed country, US or Japan. If China was allowed to buy the harmless Unoca and such, do you think they want to go to the more risky and more expensive Sudan fileds? This is totally unfair and probably raical.”

The variable that one is paying attention to is the end market price, and going by a per capita basis is as un-helpful as going by a purchasing price parity analysis on the world market, and the effect one actor, China on this world market. This isn’t just about bidding, it’s about bidding at exorbitant prices which do not reflect actual value. Even though China is but one player, in the commodities market, extreme actions by just one major player will have the effect of skewing the entire price range. This pattern in China’s purchases also occurred prior to Sudan or Unocal, for instance with contracts in South America. I don’t understand how this could be considered racial or unfair.

October 16, 2005 @ 9:10 pm | Comment

post seems to be long now:) so let’s focus on one issue here:

commensurate #:

since you agree we need to go to the figures. i googled a RAND report (i suppose it is more accurate than PRC or Pentagon, as you said. The Pentagon’s report is full of Bullshit, let’s just disagree on this and focus on the more reliable sources.)
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG260-1.pdf

page 80:
defense as % of central govt spending for China
1990: 14.3%
2001: 5.8%

It indeed reflects very significant decrease.

i wonder how does this compare with Federal Budget of USA?

—

i am not going to argue with you regarding (6). you are much better than me in reading law/legal related issues, but I think you got the economics wrong.

if Chinese are irrational bidders making offers at exorbitant prices, i think all the china bashers would celebrate for its stupidity (instead of complaining about it) 🙂 in fact, some of the bids arguably are (eg unocal), but to generalize a whole nation (with relatively free market) as irrational businessmen, i don’t know.
let’s just leave that there.

October 16, 2005 @ 11:26 pm | Comment

p.s. i said pentagon report is unreliable because it has a political (and BUSINESS) purpose, just like the PRC official number as you alleged. not circular logic. I think RAND is better, but still influenced by pentagon.

the better source would be Jane’s, of London. if you have access to those numbers.

October 16, 2005 @ 11:29 pm | Comment

fig 4.6, p143.
this is a more comprehensice chart from 1978-2003

RAND said
“military exp as a % of central govt spending have dropped significantly……40% in 1950 to approx 8% in 2002….even if one only examinies spending since the onset of econ reforms in the late 70s,…….fallena lmost by a half, from 15% to 8%…..

What do you say? 😀

October 16, 2005 @ 11:34 pm | Comment

should be page 143 of the file, and page 109 of the document

link again here
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG260-1.pdf

October 16, 2005 @ 11:35 pm | Comment

Sun Bin, bobby fletcher had a history of posting under different user names and several readers had asked that he be banned for playing games – i.e., pushing people’s buttons and then, when confronted, hopping to a new subject and starting the game all over again. No one gets banned for disagreeing with me. You disagree with me, Jing does, FSN9 does and so many others. And Bingfeng. But I have never deleted or even considered banning them. Those that get banned are warned, and usually I discuss it with others before doing it. And if they email me and agree to get serious, I’ll let them comment again. But please understand, after a very uncomfortable experience with trolls a few months ago, I and the friends who help me maintain this site all agreed we needed an aggressive comments policy to avoid a repetition.

I can pretty safely say that anyone who gets banned knows exactly why it happened, and in all likelihood it was something they were striving for. (For those of you who remember, this site’s most notorious troll later wrote he was “testing” me to see just how far he could go. I’ve been through this multiple times now.)

October 16, 2005 @ 11:39 pm | Comment

🙂 I actually don’t always disagree with you.
If you said something I agree with, or even I diaagree with but I am busy, I will happily maintain silent.
I only select a few areas I feel some clarification is needed to discuss about.

I admit I had to skip the 430210/everlasting debate, since it would have taken me too much time to read.

Cheers.

October 17, 2005 @ 1:38 am | Comment

i mentioned ‘bobby’ only because in the few comments i read (mainly elsewhere) i picked up some very useful stuff and he has very valid points if one reads it carefully (sans the emotion)

October 17, 2005 @ 1:40 am | Comment

Not sure what your point is sun_bin: nearly every nation’s expenditure on the military as a share of central government expenditure has declined since the Cold War. For instance on average during the Cold War the US spent at about the 30 percent level, since it dropped to about the 15 percent level.

October 17, 2005 @ 1:49 am | Comment

my point:
it is the same for china. from 15% to 8%.

you may have already known the facts, so this comes no surprise to you and me. unfortunately, many other people were (mis-)lead to believe that China is expanding its military like the evil Soviet empire.
so, instead of passing subjective judgments, let’s just talk numbers.

October 17, 2005 @ 10:58 am | Comment

No it isn’t sun bin, you are quoting figures from the mid-1990s. Since then acknowledged PRC defence spending has increased steadily as a share of central govt expenditure to around 13%. This is not surprising, officially admitted PRC defence spending has doubled since 2000.

If you take the figures in the CIA factbook (which are of course American estimates of PRC military spending including things not included in the “official” figure like purchases of arms totalling US$2-3 billion a year from Russia), then it is more like 20 percent of central government expenditure.

So we are back to Rumsfeld’s question, what external threat to the sanctity of the PRC is leading to these increases? What are the PRC’s neighbours, who have not boosted their spending anything like this to make of the increases?

October 17, 2005 @ 1:50 pm | Comment

this is from my previous post.

page 143 of the file, and page 109 of the document

link again here
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG260-1.pdf

RAND said
“military exp as a % of central govt spending have dropped significantly……40% in 1950 to approx 8% in 2002….even if one only examinies spending since the onset of econ reforms in the late 70s,…….fallena lmost by a half, from 15% to 8%…..”

please read for yourself the RAND Report.
talk science, not rummage.

—
of course if you insist on a 20% figure there is nothing to discuss.

October 17, 2005 @ 3:17 pm | Comment

i checked chinese source, yes, it moved back up 12.2% in 2005. (close to your figure).

RAND also added all those extra-budget adjustments you mentioned (arms import)
they arrived at Table7.4 on pdf page 229

RAND estime 2003: 31bn
PRC official: 22.4bn
france 2002: 40.2
Japan 2002: 39.5
Russia 2002: 50.8
UK 2002: 37.3
USA 2003: 304.7

I will just let numbers speak for themselves.

October 17, 2005 @ 4:35 pm | Comment

In fact on page 132 of the RAND report they state their estimate is US$31-38 billion, or 1.4-1.7 times the official number. You only report their “low” figure – not sure why.

They note that the US DoD estimates US$45-65 billion.

I will point out some figures as well, China’s admitted defence spending as a proportion of central government expenditure has risen from a low of 8% after the Cold War back up to more than 12% today. Taiwan’s has not, neither has Japan’s, or other neighbours. That of the US has after 9/11 – hardly surprising as America apparently considers itself in a global war. What war is China anticipating?

October 18, 2005 @ 7:39 pm | Comment

RAND said $38bn was the “high-end estimate”. (i.e. including all the space program: i.e. commercial use such as satellite TV…).
— in fact, today’s VOA website reported China was frank to admit that space program is not counted, and Rummy’s aides said it is a ‘difference in accounting’ 🙂

12% is larger than the historic minimum of 8%, but still smaller than than 15% in early 1980s, and much smaller than the 1970s when Russia was a major threat.

As I said, I also think they should spend a bit less. maybe 10%(?) or so in the long run, or maintain at a level comparable to Russia, slightly larger than Japan, and should be a bit less than that of USA.
The ideal scenario is, of course, for the number of all countries to move down.

But you really cannot say there is plan for aggression just by looking at these numbers.
That is quite crazy. Japan, Russia, France all have much stronger military than the immobile PLA army.

I can probably explain the recent increase in spending as, in part, a paranoid of insecurity/scared, as a combined result of watching the Gulf War+Belgrade bombing + Hainan spy-plane.
If someone is patrolling at the pavement outside your yard, taking picture of your living room. Wouldn’t you try to pick up a knife or buy a gun just in case?
You have to understand that the hianan/belgrade events were major humiliation for the CCP govt.

But this is my own speculation. If the figures stabilize at current level (provided no new reason/excuse of scare), such hypothesis could be supported.
If it shoot up to above 15%, and is higher than that of Russia. Then I am worried, esp for our friends in Taiwan. That is does not mean regional expansion still. But it is definitely something bad.

October 19, 2005 @ 7:38 pm | Comment