China’s Military Rise
DEVELOPMENTS
On March 4th, China announced its intention to increase military spending next year by 17.6% to $59 billion. The increase is on top of last year’s boost of 18%. U.S. Defense officials believe China’s actual spending is over $100 billion annually, and have expressed specific concerns with the type of military programs China is pursuing.
China’s announced increase comes after two significant events in U.S.-Sino military relations. Last Thanksgiving, China refused the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk from making a long scheduled port call in Hong Kong. But the U.S. and China also recently agreed to establish a military hotline between the two nations’ defense chiefs. The hotline will allow direct communication between the two countries and will hopefully avoid incidents like the fallout after the downing of a U.S. spy plane over China in 2001.
BACKGROUND
Until the 1990s, China’s military was equipped with outdated 1950s-era, Soviet-provided weaponry. China’s armed forces were large, but poorly trained and incapable of conducting modern military and humanitarian operations.
Since 1994, China’s official defense budget has increased nearly six-fold. During that period, U.S. officials estimate the full Chinese budget has increased by $30 billion. China has also begun to play a new role in the international community. It is an active participant in United Nations peace-keeping missions, contributing to at least fifteen since 1990. It is also planning to export more military hardware, including its indigenous J-10 fighter jet.
But many in the United States believe China represents a military threat for which the U.S. should be prepared. A survey of recent headlines from China illustrates the potentially alarming developments: a new cyber-warfare capability to hack U.S. networks, a medium range ballistic missile used to destroy a weather satellite, and positioning of 900 missiles towards Taiwan. The Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review (a four-year survey of military strategy, structure, and spending) singled China out as having great potential to compete militarily with the U.S. Furthermore, many think-tanks take for granted that China and the U.S. will one day be in military conflict.
ANALYSIS
However, even the high-end projection of Chinese military spending pales in comparison to U.S. spending. In 2008, the U.S. spent $480 billion on defense in addition to Iraq and Afghanistan war commitments, which put the total over $600 billion.
China has actually been a driver for U.S. military spending. Despite long term engagement in smaller wars and insurgencies, the U.S. continues to invest record sums in advanced military hardware such as the Air Force’s F-22 fighter jet, the Army’s Future Combat Systems, the Navy’s DDG Destroyer, and the joint Operationally Responsive Space initiative. Some of these programs may have applications in non-peer wars as the U.S. is currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. But their main purpose is combat with another major global power. Since no other global power exists that can compare to the U.S. militarily, the specter of China is invoked to justify massive programs.
There are many potential flashpoints in U.S.-Sino relations: the United States has commitments to Taiwan, which China believes is a breakaway province. The U.S. has worked to pressure China’s energy partner, Sudan, on the situation in Darfur. And China’s global economic rise increases uncertainty for the United States financial markets.
Alternatively, there is no evidence that China’s rise is not a peaceful one. For example, Chinese officials were embarrassed after the 2004 East Asia tsunami given that it did not have an aircraft carrier capable of assisting with humanitarian missions. Many of China’s other military investments and advancements may be about national prestige, not national aggression. Time will tell whether the U.S. and China can continue to coexist militarily, or if conflict is inevitable.
Marc Korman is a Juris Doctor candidate at the University of Maryland. He received his Masters of Arts in Government from Johns Hopkins University and previously worked on Capitol Hill.
