WORLD AFFAIRS

Washington Cries Wolf

Don't believe the hype: Beijing's military buildup isn't as scary as it seems.

 
Sponsored by
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

 

As always with China, the numbers look scary. So it wasn't surprising that, when Beijing announced its new military-spending figures earlier this month, the Pentagon reacted with alarm. China announced a 17.6 percent increase in its 2008 defense budget, up to $58.8 billion. This followed a 17.8 percent increase last year, for a country that already has a 2.3 million-person military—the world's largest.

The U.S. Defense Department, in its annual report to Congress on China's military power on March 3, cast the news in the darkest of ways. The Pentagon painted a portrait of a secretive society seeking to become a superpower by the "acquisition of advanced foreign weapons," "high rates of investment in defense, science and technology," "improved nuclear and missile technologies" and rapid "military transformation"—Pentagon speak for the adoption of U.S.-style high-tech warfare. The report described Chinese cyberterrorism and Beijing blowing satellites out of the sky. And it warned ominously that, while China is needlessly, perhaps deliberately, ambiguous about its strategic goals, its growing capabilities "have implications beyond the Asia-Pacific region."

But hold on. Look more closely at the numbers, and China—while hardly benign—starts to look a lot less sinister. The fact is that China's military modernization is not accelerating; it's been slowing for decades. China's military means are not excessive; they're appropriate to its geopolitical situation. And Beijing's intentions are relatively clear.

Start with its total defense budget. Beijing's new tally, $58.8 billion, is high—but it pales in comparison with the U.S. total, which is $515 billion, or about half of the world's military spending. Even if, as many experts think, China (like the United States) actually spends more than its official stats indicate, it's still far behind America. And Washington has been spending like this for generations—which is why the U.S. aircraft carriers and submarines can sail right up to the Chinese coast, while the Chinese can't come close to the United States. At best, China is generations away from catching up with America—if it ever can.

As for Beijing's intentions, the best way to gauge them is to measure China's military spending as a percentage of national income. This year's increase may look high, but with China's economy growing at about 10 percent and inflation at close to 8 percent, the 17.7 percent hike is barely enough to keep the share of defense spending constant. And this share has fallen over the years, from more than 6 percent during the Cultural Revolution to 2.3 percent during the 1980s, to 1.4 percent in the 1990s, to near 1 percent at the beginning of this decade. It's since gone up a few tenths of a percent, yet even if China's true budget is twice what it says, Beijing's expenditures are still well below the 4 percent of GDP spent by the United States.

Nor is the quality of China's military impressive or threatening. The DoD report speaks of the "accelerating" quality of Chinese weapons systems, pointing to high-tech purchases from abroad. But Singapore-based defense analyst Richard Bitzinger argues that China's acquisitions are actually mundane: "Forget transformation or leap-frogging," he writes; "the Chinese are simply engaged in a frantic game of 'catch-up'." According to the DoD's own stats, 70 percent of China's Army vehicles, 60 percent of its submarines and 80 percent of its fighters are old. There is little evidence it has a pre-emptive strike capability based on aircraft carriers and advanced fighters (despite past DoD predictions that China was acquiring one). Arms purchases from Russia have actually declined tenfold over the past few years, and large naval acquisitions seem to have stalled.

China also has legitimate reasons for spending what it does—a judgment shared by no less an authority than Mike McConnell, the U.S. director of National Intelligence, who recently told Congress that China's military buildup is appropriate to its circumstances (he also reportedly tried to block publication of the Pentagon's alarmist summary). To the dismay of conservatives, McConnell said that "any Chinese regime, even a democratic one, would have similar goals."

 
Discuss
Member Comments
  • Posted By: honghong @ 03/26/2008 11:12:51 PM

    Comment: honestly i was touched by this artical,bcz it is one of the few reports about China that seemingly speak in the positon of China, to reveal the true face of our Chinese people, who are earger for peace and stability. i am a common Chinese girl interested in reading articles of foreign wabsite, but i am disappointed when i find so many foreigners tend to point their fingers to China, why they are so sensitive to China's development which they regard as a threat to US dure to their ignorance of the true picture of China, i do hope there will be more objective coverage about China and its government and its peace-loving people

  • Posted By: Huachuca @ 03/25/2008 5:09:05 PM

    Comment: Before someone screams about my math I will correct myself, China's 50 billion would be equal to U.S. 5 TRILLION dollars. Quite a different figure. By the way , is this magazine owned by Al Jazeera? There is obvious hat toward America in every article except for Barrak Hussein Obama... go figure

  • Posted By: Huachuca @ 03/25/2008 4:59:44 PM

    Comment: One thing not mentioned, In America, when an industry builds for the military it's employees are some of the highest paid workers in the country, Cost to the military is the most expensive wepons in the world. In China, they can basically use slave labor, produced in the country's own state run factorys. Hence the cost is less than pennies to the American dollar. In other words they can produce 100 times the U. S. can for the same dollar amount. So, China's 50 billion dollars in military would be equal to the U.S spending 500 billion, so once again a "writer" twist a story to cut the U.S. Might want to rethink that...

Sponsored by
 
 
 
The Peek
 
 
STRATEGIES

Isn't it ironic: Xerox is hoping it can profit by teaching companies how to reduce their printing.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
NATIONAL SECURITY
Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu