Among the East Asian states, China has the greatest economic potential.
Currently it is the second largest economy (measuring by Purchasing Power
Parity) and in fifty years will surpass the US. Now that China is more active in
the international stage, and on her way to becoming another superpower, this has
begun to be a concern to the West and China's neighbours
Back in 1998, the South China Morning Post reported China's defence budget
would rise by 12.7%. Taiwan suspected the figure was much higher.
A study by the US Rand Corporation at that time estimated that China's 1998
defence budget reflected a real increase of 54% over its military spending in
1991.
The suspicion was that China had embarked a serious modernisation of its
military machine with a capacity to project power beyond its borders.
The rise was seen as China's commitment to preparing to fight a war under
high technology, ever since the Gulf War exposed how far it was lagging behind
the US in military technology, with special emphasis in information and cyber
warfare.
These trends so alarmed Professor Edward Friedman that he wrote in the Taipei
Times, October 2, 1999:
"This superior race is promised a glorious future. The Chinese people have
willingly embraced the view of a future of Chinese predominance in Asia, one
that requires military action by the Beijing dictators. Consequently, Beijing's
arms purchases and military doctrines are increasingly aimed in an offensive
direction. This combination of racism, chauvinistic pride and military expansion
is the new meaning of the Chinese people standing up."
Edward Friedman is a professor of political science at the University of
Wisconsin.
But China, in a white paper, "China's National Defence in 2000", expressed
its sincere aspirations for peace and to help the rest of the world better
understand its national defence policy and its modernisation.
Annual defence expenditure in 1998 and 1999 were 93.47 billion yuan (US$11.26
billion) and 107.67 billion respectively. For 2000, it was 121.29 billion yuan
(US$14.61 billion).
The increased spending was more in:
(1) covering increased in spending for the PLA for carrying out their routine
duties and operations after the armed forces have ceased commercial activities,
(2) the placement of retired officers and their pensions,
(3) pay and subsidy raises for military personnel to keep their living
standards in step with the nation's social and economic development and with the
increase of the per capita incomes of urban and rural residents, and
(4) increased spending for maintaining a garrison in Macao.
China's annual defence expenditure in 2000 was only 5 per cent of the
United State's defence spending, 30 per cent of Japan's, 40 per cent of
Britain's, 48 per cent of France's, and 64 per cent of Germany's.
More revealing, the percentage of China's defence spending in its gross
domestic product (GDP) is also lower than those of the USA, the Republic of
Korea (ROK), India, Britain, France and some other countries.
For 2001, the defence budget was US$17.2 billion, which is a substantial hike
of 17.7% in two decades. This is quite small compared to the United States'
$305.4 billion outlay for the year and 30 percent of Japan's
Minister of Finance, Xiang Huaicheng, said hike was needed to increase the
pay of army personnel, to "adapt to drastic changes in the military situation of
the world", and to cope with the demands of "modern technology [and] especially
high technology".
Zhang Yuan Yuan of the Chinese Embassy in Washington has this to say on
China's increased defence budget:
"It is quite bizarre theory you know. About the defence modernisation, we
have never denied that we wanted to build a better, more modern armed forces.
But economic development always enjoys the top priority. We still have millions
of people living below the poverty line; we still have many problems, social
problems, economic problems, so if China is so busy working on these problems,
why should China be so interested in expanding overseas? So-called offensive
ability against the United States. I find those arguments are just laughable.
They fail to grasp the reality of China. I hesitate to say but this is a fact,
they want to create something to justify their political agenda, to justify an
increased defence budget."
Taiwan continues to be the thorn in Sino US relations.
Commenting on US arms sales to Taiwan in March 3, 2001, China's Foreign
Minister Tang Jiaxuan spoke out, "The Taiwan question is a very sensitive and
very important question in China-US relations. In all frankness, what the United
States have done on this question is adequate to show that now the US factor is
an important outside factor in the way of the peaceful reunification of the
Chinese motherland. If the US side continues to fail to honor its commitments on
this question, if the US side continues to insist on selling advanced weapons to
Taiwan including particularly the Aegis missile destroyer and the Pac-III
anti-missile systems, that would send a very wrong signal to the Taiwan
authorities. It will encourage a very small number of people, the Taiwan
independence elements to continue to engage in separatist activities. It would
only feed their arrogance. And furthermore, that move by the US will endanger
China-US relations and aggravate the tension across the Taiwan Straits and it
will not work in any interest of the US itself. The US side should come to the
recognition of the serious dangers involved. It should rein in its wild horse
right on the side of the precipice."
True enough, Taiwan's Chen Shui-bian started a series of provocations
this year with his thinly disguised referendum that left no doubt to even the US
that he was rousing the populace towards independence. Insidiously, Chen hopes
the Taiwanese feelings for China would be negative to ensure his second term as
a president of Taiwan.
Now it is clear to many Americans Chen Shui-bian plots to have the US
involved in a war with China, invoking the Taiwan Relations Act. GWB, on China's
Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's official visit to US on December 9, 2003, put to
rest once and for all the ambiguity of the US not supporting Taiwan
Independence.
On that occasion, G.W. Bush categorically said he opposed Taiwan
independence. That exuded a string of tirades by Chen Shui-bian about Bush.
Chen, in defiance, would still want to proceed with the 'defensive' referendums
to ask China dismantle the 500 missiles targeting Taiwan, and renounce the use
of force.
Even Bush was not fooled by that covert attempt to inch towards independence
that may jeopardise the US in America's China War that the Taiwan leader hoped
his lobby in Congress would invoke the Taiwan Relations Act.
Clearly, Chen Shui-bian is not concerned that American blood would be
spilled.
China views US arming Taiwan a duplicity and deviation from the three
communiqu¨¦s after President Richard Nixon's historic visit to China in 1972.
These were crafted to go around the differences each side had, so that the
important business of a d¨¦tente and rapprochement to contain USSR's ambition to
dominate the world could proceed unimpeded.
This perception factors in China's defence spending.
A charge that China had used force outside its territory unprovoked needs
closer scrutiny.
The Korean War (1950-1953) was to prevent a further threat to China with a
bellicose America occupying a house next door.
The next instance was the Sino-India Border War of 1962. It was to prevent
and protect a portion of its backyard against a neighbour who went beyond the
demarcating fence.
The attack on Vietnam, albeit in the political interest of America as well,
was telling Vietnam not to behave as the Cuba of Asia. That action won for China
the support and goodwill of other Southeast Asian nations.
Professor Friedman's article is flawed. He ignored the US military actions in
other people's territories and viewed the presence of American troops in Korea
and Japan as not threatening to China.
China, sharing borders with 14 other nations, against America's sharing with
2 (Canada and Mexico), has a defence budget of US$17 .2 billion, a miniscule
5.7% of the US defence budget.
America is protected against invasion by two oceanic moats, Pacific and
Atlantic; China has a long coastline facing the Pacific Ocean, where thousands
of islands littered, some a haven to US Naval Bases (Hawaii) and others hostile
under the aegis of America (Japan and Taiwan).
Most disturbing, Taiwan is armed to the teeth by America.
So what is the ratio of China's military budget to America's? That works up
to 1:18.
The desire to defend the country is the right of every nation. It is also the
right of every nation to suspect any increase in military spending of its
neighbours as threatening.
But it is not right, and disingenuous, to say China is a military threat when
hostile countries around her are having much more military spending, and more
telling, well beyond the need to defend their borders or interests.
Friedman said that Beijing's arms purchases and military doctrines "are
increasingly aimed in an offensive direction."
The correct argument here should be "defensive."
His assertion holds true of his own country America.
No one can stop Friedman from his alarmist opinion, "This combination of
racism, chauvinistic pride and military expansion is the new meaning of the
Chinese people standing up." It only revealed his malevolent intention towards
China.
Yes, the Chinese people stood up, but not for the reason cited by Friedman.
[End]
2003-12-13 01:03
