Still Confused About US-China Arms Race Story
Frankly, I’ve been confused about this for many years. I generally try not to blog about things of which I’m woefully ignorant, but sometimes raising questions helps.
On an annual basis, when budgets are released and reports are issued (by both sides), government officials, commentators and journalists are given the opportunity to opine about the military “threat” from the other side. As both the U.S. and China continue to spend ever-increasing amounts of money on weapons, despite the fact that no real existential threats exist, there is much to talk about.
The latest bit of news was a report issued by the U.S. military, which laid out some concerns it had over China’s defense spending and increased capabilities. There are two key issues, as noted in a Businessweek writeup:
China is pursuing military capability to operate as far as the Indian Ocean and the western Pacific, as the country’s growing demand for oil and natural gas makes strategic sea routes more important, the Pentagon said.
New weapons and carriers give China an increasing ability to operate far afield, and it continues a military buildup opposite Taiwan even with improved economic ties across the strait, the U.S. Defense Department said in an annual report to Congress released yesterday.
Here’s where I start getting confused. I get that the US is a global power and can project force pretty much wherever it wants. Therefore if China expands force projection capabilities, then that in theory presents a possible threat to the US sometime in the future.
But I always come back to one question: that possible conflict between the countries concerns what exactly? I’m afraid it doesn’t help me to take the two issues described in the Businessweek article. First, of course China wants to ensure that it can protect energy supplies from the Persian Gulf, Africa or elsewhere. Understandable, that. There are some unreasonable folks running around the world, although China has cultivating fairly good relationships with most of their energy suppliers.
To pose some sort of theoretical conflict in the future that pits the US and China against each other, which includes the US interdicting oil/natural gas cargoes from the Persian Gulf to China, explains very well China’s military needs in that area. However, it does not explain what that underlying conflict might be about or how it could start. Can you think of a plausible precipitating incident?
OK, what about Taiwan, the age-old favorite of US-China conflict aficionados? This has always seemed rather odd to me, because I just can’t see the US risking so much to go to bat over Taiwan. Unless we’re talking armed invasion with wartime atrocities splashed all over CNN, the US is not going to get involved (and even that wasn’t enough in the case of Bosnia for several years). And let’s face it, despite the fact that the Taiwan Strait is bristling with weapons, it seems fairly obvious how this whole thing is going to end up (i.e., peaceful reintegration), it’s just a question of when.
Some people tell me that Taiwan is an integral part of the US navy’s Pacific theater of operations. Without that island, it will be harder to defend Japan, Southeast Asia, etc. OK, assuming that is true, it confuses me further. Do we really expect China to go after Japan with military force over ownership of a few islands? From China’s perspective, is Thailand or South Korea going to attack you? Is there any another precipitating factor that’s plausible that puts China and the US on opposing sides? North Korea? I really don’t see it, but maybe I’m just not very creative.
So that leaves me with a lot of questions and no answers. I certainly can see the possibility of armed conflict in the future. If two countries spend decades building up their arms and war-gaming against one another, bad things can happen. But that’s more of a self-fulfilling prophecy than the result of an intelligent policy choice.
Will we need some sort of bilateral arms treaty 30 years from now? If so, can’t we start negotiating it now and save ourselves a lot of money and worry?
Someone please educate me.
The terminology to describe the military build-up being conducted by America and China is known as a “Security Dilemma”. As one nation takes action to increase its security i.e. military capabilities, it makes other nations feel less secure, thus causing them to do the same, etc. Its a constant theme of history and it doesn’t have a good track record of ending well (Cold War is the only real exception).
I agree with you that on the surface, the likelihood of America “going to bat” over Taiwan is improbable. If China takes Taiwan by force, there will be a containment strategy put in place that will make it impossible for China to break out of.
However, sometimes nationalism, politics, the personality traits of leaders, and a whole host of other vices that plague men, trump logic. Mearsheimer’s Offensive Realism touches on some of this, so too does Stoessinger’s book “Why Nations Go to War”. I’m a big believer in Offensive Realism, only because I see its principles thriving (rare earth mineral policy? U.S.-Vietnamese military relations resuming again? Israel and Iran?). Although economics dominates world leaders thinking, its not the be-all-end-all of decision making.
This is a great op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that delves into this a little bit more:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703748904575410580240721848.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopBucket
Another factor that I think should be considered is just how much of an impact the hundred years of humiliation has had on the psyche of the Chinese, especially now that they are on their way back to claiming their rightful perch atop the mountain. I don’t give a shit what they say, the Chinese want payback (as would I) to wipe out the memories of that ignominious period. They feel in some ways that they are powerful enough to throw out Deng’s maxim and start the process of gaining their pride back.
And not to go off the reservation or anything, but in my view, social darwinist principles still permeate elements of both America’s and Chinese political and military thought. At some point in the future, the civilizational struggle will be drawn into this ideological battle. We were lucky during the Cold War, only in that the Soviet Union was not an entirely different civilization from that of the “West”. Can mankind go two for two? I think not….
There hasn’t been a great power war in over 60 years. Historically speaking, mankind is overdue for another one.
Good comment, although a bit depressing. I try not to think about irrational factors that might start conflicts, since they are very difficult to plan for. No doubt about nationalism/payback though. China still has a chip on its shoulder; the question is how big that chip is.