Banyan

Asia

China's military power

Modernisation in sheep's clothing

Aug 26th 2011, 7:57 by J.M. | BEIJING

THE good news, as suggested by the Pentagon's latest annual report on China's military power, is that Chinese leaders are still eager to avoid confrontation with other powers and focus on beefing up the economy. The bad news, it hints, is that this might not last. With its rapidly improving military capability (described by the Pentagon in great detail), China has the wherewithal to challenge the security status quo in the Pacific as well as potential motives to do so.

The report is diplomatically couched—though from China's perspective, not nearly enough. It hints at considerable unease about long-term trends in China's military buildup. The last few months have seen some headline-grabbing aspects of this: an assertion by the Pentagon in December that China was making faster progress than expected on an aircraft-carrier-killing ballistic missile, the DF-21D; a new stealth fighter, the J-20, making its first test flight just as Robert Gates, then defence secretary, was visiting Beijing in January; and then this month the maiden launch of China's first aircraft carrier, a refitted Kuznetsov-class ship (as yet unnamed) from the former Soviet Union.

About these particular weapons, the Pentagon avoids sounding alarmed. Of the DF-21D missile, it says that it is still being developed. It does not repeat the claim made by Admiral Robert Willard of America’s Pacific Command in December that the missile has reached “initial operational capability”. The J-20, it says, is not expected to reach “effective operational capability” before 2018 (China, it says, has yet to master high-performance jet-engine production). China is likely to build “multiple” aircraft-carriers with support craft over the next decade. But it will take “several additional years” for China to achieve a “minimal level of combat capability” with them, says the report.

The Pentagon does say, however, that China is steadily closing its technological gap with modern armed forces. The country’s lack of transparency about this, it says, is fuelling concern in the region about China’s intentions, with some of its neighbours fearing that China’s growing military and economic weight is “beginning to produce a more assertive posture, particularly in the maritime domain”. A senior Pentagon official, Michael Schiffer, told reporters that China’s capabilities could “contribute to regional tensions and anxieties”.

Like previous such reports, this one lists forces which could cause China’s self-proclaimed “peaceful development” to become less so. One of these, which was not listed last year, is a growing expectation at home and abroad that China will become more involved in addressing global problems and pursuing its own international interests. This is causing some of the Chinese leaders in responsible positions to worry about taking on more than they can handle, says the Pentagon. Nationalists at home, however, are pushing for a “more muscular” posture.

China is outraged that anyone could doubt its commitment to a peaceful ascent. The Pentagon’s assertions, said China’s state-run news agency, Xinhua, were “utterly cock-and-bull” and based on “a wild guess and illogical reasoning”. Thumping furiously on the table, China apparently believes, is a good way of convincing the world of its pacific intent.

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

east wind

..

@ hkjonus

>>> ALL the nations of the world recognizes that CHINA has the sovereignty over Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan

UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW..

...Tibet, Xinjiang & Taiwan are all part of China

...

jiaguo

hkjonus wrote: Sep 6th 2011 5:49 GMT Tibet and Xinjiang.....Taiwan is next
Taiwan always been part of china, now it's governed by other chinese people than CCP, but you shoud know that they are chinese anyway!!! just think about change president of taiwan, mr ma's fist name, how can it happen!!

jiaguo

British has the wherewithal to challenge the security status quo in the Europe, do you have potential motives to do so? No you don't, why? you benefit from the peaceful enviroment, so do china in the western Pacific area.

PL123

Bill88888888 wrote:

Sep 6th 2011 6:52 GMT
.

hkjonus wrote:
Sep 6th 2011 5:49 GMT

Tibet and XinJiang.....Taiwan is next
-------------------------------------------------
As you wish...
---------------------------

@ Bill and hkjonus

Why next is Taiwan? Taiwan will be united to China in a peaceful way. Now more and more Chinese go to Taiwan, investing, studing, marrying, may be even go there to give birth. This is the way to go. United without one bullet!!

Bill88888888

hkjonus wrote:
Sep 6th 2011 5:49 GMT

Tibet and XinJiang.....Taiwan is next
-------------------------------------------------
As you wish...

guest-imnlano

i think that the Pentagon is making too big of judgments on something that they do not know very well. it is true that China is becoming very strong at a very fast rate but i don't think that we should be making those kind of judgments. as the article said, China is outraged that anyone would doubt them looking for peace and i think that that kind of judgment is what makes them mad and might result in a conflict between two nations.

guest-imnlano

i think that this is partly true but at the same time America is making a big judgment even though i do not believe they really know the full story. it is true that China is growing very quickly in military strength but they might just be preparing for when the war comes, we do not really know their intentions.

fdbetancor

Dear 8834LWz57V -

Your bold assertion of Chinese completely peaceful and unwarlike nature seems to ignore the following facts: 1. China fought a war against United Nations forces and South Korea from 1950 to 1953; 2. China invaded Tibet in 1951; 3. China fought India in 1962; 4. China had border clashes with the Soviet Union in 1969 and 1978; 5. China invaded Vietnam in 1979.

You also ignore the fact that modern China is, in fact, an amalgamation of hundreds of non-Han ethnic groups, many of which were conquered or "sinicized" during the 3000 years of chinese history. Even a cursory glance at a map of Chinese history will show that the historic dynasties were much smaller and grew mainly through military expeditions and large scale population movements, not all of which were peaceful.

Thus your conclusion is not necessarily wrong, but I hardly think the evidence supports it. You can't only look back at China as a victem of Western aggression (which it certainly was) and project forward in time.

fdbetancor

Dear 8834LWz57V -

Your bold assertion of Chinese completely peaceful and unwarlike nature seems to ignore the following facts: 1. China fought a war against United Nations forces and South Korea from 1950 to 1953; 2. China invaded Tibet in 1951; 3. China fought India in 1962; 4. China had border clashes with the Soviet Union in 1969 and 1978; 5. China invaded Vietnam in 1979.

You also ignore the fact that modern China is, in fact, an amalgamation of hundreds of non-Han ethnic groups, many of which were conquered or "sinicized" during the 3000 years of chinese history. Even a cursory glance at a map of Chinese history will show that the historic dynasties were much smaller and grew mainly through military expeditions and large scale population movements, not all of which were peaceful.

Thus your conclusion is not necessarily wrong, but I hardly think the evidence supports it. You can't only look back at China as a victem of Western aggression (which it certainly was) and project forward in time.

Sempfi

I think the question is when will the Chinese military say; "We got enough weapons now". When they match the US? That is what I think. Seems to be more about prestige than anything else, why else would they want a carrier, not a defensive weapon is it!? Got no problem with China getting more weapons, don't think WW3 with China is likely in my lifetime or ever for that matter. The problem with weapons though, is that the more you got of them, the more volitile the situation gets. If things go wrong, they go very wrong!

Dare-to-speak

After a long suffering,almost three quarters of the last century, China is finally rising once again. She is rising fast not only in her economic prowess but also in her military strength. These rises are naturally causes for concerns to the developed countries in the Western Bloc. For they now have a strong and worthy competitor who could play the global role of checks and balances to check on their expansionist role in the guise of defending the world against terrorism. With her vast expanse of investments and financial interests committed in the world, she has no reasons not to develop further her military power in order to protect her holdings.

Devils Advocate_1

[ JuNa7FbFwg wrote:
Sep 5th 2011 8:14 GMT
I wish there was a way to report people as just being PLA goons, or illiterate in English, as the two seem to run hand in hand.... that would be great.

As for the topic, you people tend to get waaaay off topic. The point behind this paper wasn't "who's committed more atrocities throughout history" or "who's more civilized and who's a barbarian," but who's on top, and what that means. If you think that China let others rise up against it when it was on top, than your a fool, plain and simple. That doesn't make them evil or bad, just in charge. Which is where we the United States find ourselves. Believe it or not, even with the "horrendous atrocities and war" etc. "perpetrated" by the US, we have in fact led the most relatively peaceful time in civilized human history. Globally. I don't seem to recall any other country in human history being able to say that, let alone be able to say that they were in fact the most powerful and undisputed nation the world over with absolutely no real challengers.

Please, do not attempt to say that China had that kind of power, because it didn't. As was proven by its numerous engagements which it lost to other smaller "countries." Besides, last time I checked, China hasn't been in charge for several hundred years, and the game has changed a lot in that time.

My point here is that America is in a truly unique position in the history of the world, a position that no other country should ever presume to know anything about as no other country has ever been where we are. Will it last? Probably not, it can't really, the localization of power in one country for too long just doesn't make sense any more. But will the mantle of power that we have pass to China? Probably not. China isn't stable and capable enough to take over the main position of ensuring a sense of global security. And however much you may dislike America, stating that our ability to enforce standards the world over is a bad thing is simply foolish. So one hopes that when our time does pass, that it will pass relatively peacefully, and not to China.]

"But will the mantle of power that we have pass to China? Probably not. "

Uncle might not "pass" it to China, but it could loose it to China! ;-D, ;-D...

Devil's

PL123

JuNa7FbFwg wrote:

Sep 5th 2011 8:14 GMT
.

I wish there was a way to report people as just being PLA goons, or illiterate in English, as the two seem to run hand in hand.... that would be great.

As for the topic, you people tend to get waaaay off topic. The point behind this paper wasn't "who's committed more atrocities throughout history" or "who's more civilized and who's a barbarian," but who's on top, and what that means. If you think that China let others rise up against it when it was on top, than your a fool, plain and simple. That doesn't make them evil or bad, just in charge. Which is where we the United States find ourselves. Believe it or not, even with the "horrendous atrocities and war" etc. "perpetrated" by the US, we have in fact led the most relatively peaceful time in civilized human history. Globally. I don't seem to recall any other country in human history being able to say that, let alone be able to say that they were in fact the most powerful and undisputed nation the world over with absolutely no real challengers.

Please, do not attempt to say that China had that kind of power, because it didn't. As was proven by its numerous engagements which it lost to other smaller "countries." Besides, last time I checked, China hasn't been in charge for several hundred years, and the game has changed a lot in that time.

My point here is that America is in a truly unique position in the history of the world, a position that no other country should ever presume to know anything about as no other country has ever been where we are. Will it last? Probably not, it can't really, the localization of power in one country for too long just doesn't make sense any more. But will the mantle of power that we have pass to China? Probably not. China isn't stable and capable enough to take over the main position of ensuring a sense of global security. And however much you may dislike America, stating that our ability to enforce standards the world over is a bad thing is simply foolish. So one hopes that when our time does pass, that it will pass relatively peacefully, and not to China.
----------------------

@ JuNa7FbFwg

Oh! You really checked that CHina was not in charge for several hundred years. Check your source correcly my friend!!

May I ask how many years America in charge?? After WW2 ??

"and the game has changed a lot in that time."

I agree totally. The gane is changing constantly, that's why "China threat" and you are ranting here. LOL

JuNa7FbFwg

I wish there was a way to report people as just being PLA goons, or illiterate in English, as the two seem to run hand in hand.... that would be great.

As for the topic, you people tend to get waaaay off topic. The point behind this paper wasn't "who's committed more atrocities throughout history" or "who's more civilized and who's a barbarian," but who's on top, and what that means. If you think that China let others rise up against it when it was on top, than your a fool, plain and simple. That doesn't make them evil or bad, just in charge. Which is where we the United States find ourselves. Believe it or not, even with the "horrendous atrocities and war" etc. "perpetrated" by the US, we have in fact led the most relatively peaceful time in civilized human history. Globally. I don't seem to recall any other country in human history being able to say that, let alone be able to say that they were in fact the most powerful and undisputed nation the world over with absolutely no real challengers.

Please, do not attempt to say that China had that kind of power, because it didn't. As was proven by its numerous engagements which it lost to other smaller "countries." Besides, last time I checked, China hasn't been in charge for several hundred years, and the game has changed a lot in that time.

My point here is that America is in a truly unique position in the history of the world, a position that no other country should ever presume to know anything about as no other country has ever been where we are. Will it last? Probably not, it can't really, the localization of power in one country for too long just doesn't make sense any more. But will the mantle of power that we have pass to China? Probably not. China isn't stable and capable enough to take over the main position of ensuring a sense of global security. And however much you may dislike America, stating that our ability to enforce standards the world over is a bad thing is simply foolish. So one hopes that when our time does pass, that it will pass relatively peacefully, and not to China.

HowleyGreen

We should keep in mind that Sun Tzu's teachings are far more complex and subtle than those of Clausewitz and other western proponents of "total war" who focus on hardware, technology, and destructive power. For example, China's recent sabre rattling in the South China Sea caused the Philippines to seek support from the U.S., and after U.S. support was less than unequivocal, Philippine President Aquino accepted an invitation for a State Visit in China with more than 300 Philippine business leaders. This resulted in stronger ties for China with Philippine business leaders (many of whom are ethnic Chinese), better relations between China and the Philippines, and a papering over of the "disputes" in the South China Sea. Who needs actual war when provocation alone is sufficient?

John Howley
http://www.pacificadvisorsllc.com/john_howley.html

Jakster

China has always been the Peace keepers. If you look into the UN china always tries to solve things peacefully! While America just sends in the troops

Jamie Lin

As a Taiwanese, I have to say that any type of hostility involving armed forces from China is extremely unlikely at this moment. Taiwan still possess enough modernized hardware that can deny a quick victory from China and I am sure the Communist China knows this.

However, this is not to say that armed military conflict will not occur in the next 10 years. (Seems to be what this report is aiming for.) From economic point of view the collapse of the global economy seems almost certain, (even if USA debt issue is resolved, China's real estate bubble will still burst and bring down their own banking system.) and it is very easy for the Communist China to blame the west (ie USA) as a way to unify its people when unemployment runs high. Radical faction within the CCP may take the opportunity to gain control much like how WWII started. Conflict would likely start with N/S Korea and China vs India, which seems almost regional much like how WWII start with Austria and Czech.

Obviously, this is only 1 possibility and may never happen. What the history has taught us is that at the time of depression logic and reason go down the toilet, even within the civilized Europe. Personally, I am happy that the Pentagon is thinking ahead. I really hope that all the discussion is unnecessary, but this recession will piss off a lot of people. If the Communist China feels that the west has screwed them over, then well let's just say that imperialistic expansionism is no longer the sole reason for war anymore. China has already carried out several naval skirmishs with weaker southeast Asian countries (ie. India) in the south China Sea. I just hope it won't get worse, and if it does, we won't be left to our own devices.

happyfish18

Gaddafi was sleeping with CIA and MI5. But they still bombed him

Sonnia & Manmohan were sleeping with Obama & Hilliary. Yet they still backward assed them.

These were mere friends of the Hegemon. Just imagine if the CCP who is neither a friend nor a foe sleeps with the Hegemon.

About Banyan

In this blog, our Asia correspondents and our Banyan columnist provide comment and analysis on Asia's political and cultural landscape. The blog takes its name from the Banyan tree, under which Buddha attained enlightenment and Gujarati merchants used to conduct business.

Advertisement

Trending topics

Read comments on the site's most popular topics

Advertisement

Products & events