China military build-up scares Asian neighbors

China has been astute in many ways in improving its relations with other Asian states. It has courted neighbors with favorable trade deals and, increasingly, with aid, investment and its flow of outbound tourists. While China has piled up huge trade surpluses with the United States and Europe, most of its Asian partners are pleasantly surprised to find that they are selling much more to the dragon economy than they are buying.

The big flaw in China's courtship of Asia is its military build-up and the widespread perception that it may be designed to displace American power with Chinese hegemony. Just last month, Beijing unveiled another major increase (of nearly 18 percent) in annual defense spending. It insists that a lot of the rise will go towards better pay and conditions for its 2.2 million military personnel.

However, Japan, India and other wary neighbors also observe the progress of China's military modernization and its acquisition of submarines, warships, aircraft, missiles and other weapon systems that enable it to project power much further away from its shores. Since China has longstanding disputes to land or sea territory with India, Japan and several Southeast Asian nations, as well as Taiwan, it is hardly surprising that these countries suspect that Beijing will one day be tempted to enforce its claims with military muscle.

So China's moves in defense diplomacy are watched closely by its neighbors. After a lamentably slow start, the Chinese armed forces are becoming a bit smarter. They have been exchanging regular officer visits with Asian countries, holding bilateral training exercises and taking part in some regional security talks. There has been a striking increase in China 's participation in United Nations peacekeeping operations.

The most recent addition to the outreach program was evidently intended to send the message that China is ready to be a significant player in regional military cooperation, just as it is in diplomacy, trade and investment. For the first time ever, the Chinese navy joined a multinational maritime exercise last month.

It sent two missile-armed frigates to take part in counter-terrorism training in the Indian Ocean with ships from seven other nations. The operation used NATO instruction manuals and English as the language of command, which suggests that the Chinese navy is keen to become increasingly involved in interacting with counterpart forces that communicate in English.

Hosted by its long-time ally, Pakistan, the live-firing drill also included ships from the U.S., Britain, France, Italy, Malaysia and Bangladesh. China's participation was a reminder that it has important trade and energy interests to protect in the Indian Ocean region. Most of its seaborne commerce with Europe passes through the Suez Canal while around three-quarters of its vital oil imports come from the Middle East and Africa via the Indian Ocean and Southeast Asian waters.

Late last month, two Chinese navy destroyers visited Indonesia. It was the first such call in 12 years. China has a lot of catching up to do before it can integrate easily into regional military training exercises. On April 6, five Indian navy ships were scheduled to start six days of maneuvers (ending April 11) with the U.S. navy off Okinawa in southern Japan.

The Indian flotilla is on a two-month deployment to East Asian waters. By the time it ends on May 23, India will have exercised with the navies of Singapore, Japan, China, Russia, the Philippines, Vietnam and New Zealand as well as the U.S.

For the first time, the navies of India, Japan and the U.S. will team up for training. The trilateral exercise will take place off Japan on April 17. Some analysts have suggested that this is a sign of a new power balance emerging in Asia in which the old strongman, the U.S., is enlisting the support of Japan and India to counter the rise of China in league with Russia.

But India has been careful to ensure that its naval foray into the Pacific cannot be misconstrued by Beijing. On the same day several of its ships train with the Japanese and U.S. navies, other vessels from the same flotilla will exercise with China off the Chinese coast.

Then, to reinforce New Delhi's message of "friends with all and enemies to none", the Indian ships will come together again before heading to Vladivostock to exercise with the Russian navy.

The writer, a former Asia editor of the International Herald Tribune, is a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of South East Asian Studies in Singapore.

With all the increase in Chinese defense outlays, they are still dwarfed by the whopping 613 billion dollar US defense budget I just heard about for I think 08 or 09. This is adjusted for inflation as much spent during WWII, and nearly a third of a 2.3 or 2.4 trillion dollar budget. Lets say the Chinese spent 150 billion US they would still less than 20 percent of US defense outlays. Even with more buying power it still wouldn't even come close. At the present growth of defense spending you might see a 1 trillion dollar defense budget by end of this decade or the beginning of the next, which would nearly equal the entire defense outlay of the whole world.

Speaking about the fear of the Chinese buildup, there is some cause for concern, but much of it is overblown by the infantile politics of India and much of Southeast Asia. Example a simple kiss by Richard Gere set the Indian populace off. The lack any understanding that China can care less about them and will never have the power to conquer India, has been lost. India has a population of about 1.2 billion, equal to China. And the fact no one has that power, not even the US.

China has usurped the position of USSR as the world bogeyman, and many people inflate it power and potential to a degree in order to serve political purposes.

I bet you had no idea you could be sooooooo wrong.

"The lack any understanding that China can care less about them and will never have the power to conquer India, has been lost."

Modern wars are not about "conquring". China has many strategies against India, to squeeze India into a tight geostrategic corner and put a check on Indian economic and military rise. They are effectively trying to surround India strategically using Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar, trying to gain access to energy resources around India setting up their presence close on Indian ocean so that when time comes they can stifle India's economic growth.

We are not lost on that one.

"India has a population of about 1.2 billion, equal to China. And the fact no one has that power, not even the US."

Just having a billion people is of not much use if a country does not have the military and economic strength. Modern wars will be fought with the aid of technology not population. For a country to enjoy uninterrupted economic success it has to constantly prepare itself against unforeseen dangers and security threats. Chinese growth is by no means a peaceful one and India would be stupid not to prepare against it. And the fears expressed in the article is hardly unwarranted. Fear is good it keeps you alive.

"but much of it is overblown by the infantile politics of India and much of Southeast Asia. Example a simple kiss by Richard Gere set the Indian populace off. "

Its not really the result of infantile politics of "India and much of Southeast Asia" but a much higher level of general awareness and understanding of current affairs among the population in "India and much of Southeast Asia". And event like kiss by Richard Gere can set of a reaction because the general masses in India are a lot more aware of current events. Contrast this with my experience with Americans, I have known a lot of Americans who actually think 9/11 was caused by Iraqis. (And attacks on Sikhs post 9/11 is hardly a surprise). America is much more of an insular society, and with all due respect their knowledge of world affairs begins at the east coast and ends at the west coast. Even among high level politicians there is appalling lack of general knowledge and awareness of political events around the world. (Geography is not one of Bush's strongest subject). In contrast when Clinton visited India in 2000 even the illiterate beggars on the streets of Delhi knew who had come.

You are looking at defense in pure dollar terms. Both defense and economics is a lot more then that.

#1 To begin with, lets not forget which China can get/build for a dollar is a lot more then what the US can get/build for a dollar. For them many essential items necessary for defense (for example a large man power, skilled labourers and engineers) hardly cost anything.

#2 A massive chunk of American defense spending is sucked into the Iraqi black hole (also add Afghanistan to that). And there is no hope America will be able to pull out its troops anytime in near future.

#3 China is growing twice as fast as US and its defense modernisation is growing a lot faster. US has to spend huge amount of money only to maintain its forces in Japan, Korea, Europe, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indian Ocean, Persian gulf. Its a lot easier for China to carry out modernisation of its defense then the US. US is over stretched around the world China is not. (And we all know a smaller, efficient and effective defense is more dangerous then a large bloated defense). The Chinese are already concentrating on developing their space based weapon capability and AC killers with substantial amount of technological help from Russia even as American space weapon program is facing the prospect of budget cuts.

Oh and BTW......

There is a big difference between Saddam being involved in 9/11 and saying that Iraqis caused 9/11. The terrorists who carried out 9/11 were overwhelmingly from Saudi Arabia and the operation was launched and funded from Pakistan. America may have "new evidence" to prove Saddam's complicity in 9/11 (which I don't quite buy) but even if true that in itself does not suggest that "Iraqis" carried out 9/11. There is appalling amount of ignorance in the US.

I am not against the Iraq war, in fact I believe Bush does not need to use the 9/11 as an alibi to to remove a tyrant dictator from power (he is perfectly justified in taking out Saddam). Maybe Bush needs to sell the Iraq war to his own people by painting Saddam as being involved in 9/11 and maybe there are plenty of buyers of that BS in the US but for fact the two main countries directly involved in 9/11 were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, America's two most important allies (even now!). And its embarrassing for US to acknowledge that fact. It is because of the sheer amount of ignorance many Americans buy all kinds of nonsense. That way Indian public is far more matured.

When someone is an accomplice in or a paymaster for a murder we say that he is both involved in and caused the murder. The national origin of the people who carry out the murder does not diminish the responsibility of the accomplice or paymaster. In fact, even if you only know that someone is about to carry out a murder, and do not inform the appropriate authorities, you are as guilty as the murderer.

The other point is that there is even less evidence of either Saudi nor Pakistani government complicity than there is of Iraqi government complicity. Neither Saudi Arabia nor Pakistan are totalitarian states with the attendant cults of personality nor the police state apparatus - unlike in Saddam's Iraq, things outside of the government's observation and control can and does happen in-country. None of the people involved (of Saudi or Pakistani nationality) were government employees, unlike the Iraqi facilitators, who were working for the state.

And then there is the question of motive and historical circumstance. The Saudi government has no record of sponsoring anti-American terrorist organizations - its role is limited to supporting religious charities and the Palestinian cause. The US is what has kept Saudi Arabia from being overrun by either Iran or Iraq. The Saudis have no reason to stick it to Uncle Sam. The Pakistanis are mostly involved in helping the Taliban and sponsoring Kashmiri terrorists. American support has kept Pakistan independent from both the Soviet Union and India. It's not logical for Pakistan to target the US. Bottom line, neither had any compelling reason to sponsor 9/11.

Saddam's Iraq, on the other hand, had been under over a decade of American economic and military pressure. The US presence in the Gulf region was like a bone stuck in Saddam's throat. Previous attacks on American forces had sent the US scurrying away from whatever Muslim country they were based. Wouldn't an attack on the American homeland provoke an even more craven response, and a faster and more complete withdrawal from the Gulf?

As with the OJ Simpson case, we don't have a tape of Saddam plotting and planning 9/11. Unlike OJ, Saddam got to delegate the tasks he wanted carried out. We have documented links between Saddam's men and al Qaeda. We definitely don't have enough evidence to convict. But we can reasonably believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11, just as we can reasonably believe that OJ was involved in Nicole Simpson's death.

When I present the population of India as road block to being conquered. Even with technological advancement the Iraq conflict has shown in spades that taking over a country and pacifying it are two completely different things. We have the largest and most tech savie military in the world but we have had and continue to have trouble with a country that has a population less than 1/10 ours. So imagine trying pacify a country with 1.1 or 1.2 billion people.

The reason India and China may always be at odds is their aspirations which they have in common. Each nation wants to be the dominate power in the region and become a dominate power in the world. Each society hasn't evolve very far, and sees military might and economic might a means to become equal to us. India isn't building its military merely to check China's power, example their aircraft carrier program which is designed for force projection not coastal defense. Like the mind set that permeate the world in the 30s, it not about right or wrong it is about power. Each society has a male dominate mind set, and is swimming in nationalistic fever. Take their space programs, do you believe they are interest in the peaceful exploration of space, not likely. They along with us and Russians are going to weaponize space, if hasn't happen already. India and many other nation have a infantile response to trivial matter. Rioting in the street over a kiss is stupid, and killing because of some off color cartoons are just some signs that many nations are overly emotional. They also lack an understanding of what a civil society really is. This particularily true in the Moslim world. Free speech says we can denounce a cultural affront without burning things and rioting.

“So imagine trying pacify a country with 1.1 or 1.2 billion people.”

What makes you think the PLA would want to pacify India? The Brits ruled India for 200 years not by trying to pacify local population but through brutal force.

“Each society hasn’t evolve very far, and sees military might and economic might a means to become equal to us.”

India does not really share the American idea of a “unipolar” world. Rather on similar lines of Europe and Russia, India would like to see a “multi-polar” world one of which would be India. India does not have a problem with existing superpowers or emerging ones, rather that is very much part of India’s strategic interest. Problem arises when some countries such as China would like to see itself as the only regional power. It is a power struggle of course, it always was and will be (not just in the 30s but all throughout history) just that we have got to see who is on the right side of it and who is not.

“Take their space programs, do you believe they are interest in the peaceful exploration of space, not likely.”

Depends on what exactly you mean by peaceful exploration of space. The space race between US and USSR wasn't really about “peaceful exploration of space”.

“India and many other nation have a infantile response to trivial matter. Rioting in the street over a kiss is stupid, and killing because of some off color cartoons are just some signs that many nations are overly emotional.”

Not nations, some people are. If India (as a nation) had the habit of taking emotional decision then by now you would have witnessed a nuclear war with Pakistan (there have been plenty of provocation of that to happen).

As for the kiss incident, you can expect the media to make all kinds of hype over it. Its India’s national pass-time for the media to make a mountain out if a mole hill. In a population of one billion there would be at least a million emotionally hyper active people. If India had been emotional you would have seen people carrying Ak-47s and chanting death threats, and leaders issuing fatwas like they do on the Arab street.

In India the real serious rioting is mostly Hindu-Muslim rioting.

“Free speech says we can denounce a cultural affront without burning things and rioting.”

You think rioting does not happen in US? What do you think of the 2005 Toledo Riot, Seattle Mardi Gras Riots 2001, Seattle WTO conference riots in 1999, 2001 Cincinnati Riots, Michigan State University student riot 1999, Washington State University student riot 1998, LA riots 1992, St. Petersburg, FL Riot 1996, 1991 Washington, DC riot in D.C.’s Mount Pleasant neighborhood, May 1991?

The only thing that keeps large number of Americans from coming out on the street every now and then is that the average American is hardly aware of political events happening in the country let alone outside the country. Many Americans in my University haven’t even heard about the Vatech shooting. Its not that they can be any less emotional and juvenile.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.