Rebuttal Statements
The Proposer’s Rebuttal Remarks
Andrew Krepinevich April 20th, 2012
Increasingly, China is using threats and demands to advance its position. Just recently Major General Luo Yuan warned the Philippines that it was facing its “last chance” to resolve the dispute over the South China Sea claims.
My distinguished opponent, Shen Dingli, presents several arguments to which I would like to respond. To his credit, Mr. Shen admits, “It is understandable that China’s increased [military] capacity might lead some to be concerned.” But he assures us that such concerns are unfounded since: “A threat is the product of intent as well as capacity, and China has no such threatening intent.” We are also told that China’s military focuses primarily on peacekeeping activities.
But many of the capabilities being fielded by the People’s Liberation Army—including the most sophisticated and expensive—are hardly suited for peacekeeping operations. It is not only China’s growing military power that concerns its neighbours, but the kind of military capabilities being fielded. Why is China testing anti-satellite weapons, including its 2007 destruction of a satellite that created large amounts of debris threatening other nations’ space systems? Why is China deploying ballistic missiles whose ranges far exceed the distance to Taiwan, and that place countries like Japan, Malaysia and the Philippines well within their range? Why is China engaged in cyber-economic warfare against both its neighbours and most of the world’s technologically advanced nations?
Mr. Shen argues that other nations should place faith in China’s good intentions, implying that they should ignore the old adage that “capabilities change slowly, but intentions can change overnight”. Intentions can indeed change quickly, especially in non-democratic states where power resides in the hands of an unelected few. China’s actions speak louder than words. A state’s military capabilities often provide insights into a country’s true intentions. As such, China’s neighbours have good reason to be concerned.
Given these facts, is it any surprise that China’s build-up is triggering a military response from other states in the region which are unwilling to entrust their security to its professed benign intentions? Simply stated, China’s military build-up is viewed by many of these countries as unjustified by any clear threat to its security. Rather, it is China that is provoking a regional arms race through its actions.
Mr. Shen cites China’s participation in UN peacekeeping operations as a sign of its peaceful intentions, yet fails to note that China has repeatedly used its permanent seat on the Security Council to protect corrupt regimes that ruthlessly suppress their people, including those in Iran, Syria and—especially—North Korea. Moreover, all three countries have been accused of secretly seeking to develop nuclear weapons. China has a long history of supporting such activities, particularly in the case of Pakistan, which itself became a supplier of nuclear-related materials to these countries.
Finally, we are told that China’s expanding territorial claims should be discounted since in the past it has made territorial concessions. Mr. Shen asserts, “A country conceding territory to its neighbours is not the kind of country that can be considered a threat.” He notes that over the past 60 years China has made territorial concessions to North Korea, Vietnam and Burma.
Yet upon closer inspection it becomes apparent that China’s actions were motivated by hard-headed calculations reflecting a deep appreciation of power relationships. China accepted less than 50% of the disputed territory when its dispute with Burma was resolved in 1960. However, the agreement included a clause allowing the PLA to conduct operations against Chinese Nationalist forces in Burma, and compelled the Burmese military to do the same. Only two years later China began actively supporting the Burmese communists in their insurgency to overthrow Burma’s government.
Yes, China did transfer an island to North Vietnam during its war against a South Vietnamese regime backed by America. Again, this was not an example of its altruism or good will, but raw power politics. China’s leaders had a bigger geopolitical picture in mind: they were willing to make a minor short-term concession to achieve their primary goal of reducing American influence in the region. Once that was achieved, China seized Vietnam’s Paracel Islands. Now China appears ready to exploit its growing power in claiming nearly all of the South China Sea as its preserve, at the expense of Vietnam (and others).
Contrary to Mr. Shen’s claims, a study of China’s maritime territorial disputes by M. Taylor Fravel finds that: “In its disputes over the Paracel (Xisha), Spratly (Nansha), and Senkaku (Diaoyu) island groups, China has consistently adopted a delaying strategy and never offered to compromise.” Regarding China’s signing of the Declaration on the Conduct of the Parties in the South China Sea, Mr. Fravel notes that “the agreement focused only on broad confidence-building measures, not sovereignty and dispute settlement”.
As China’s power has grown, its attitude and behaviour have changed as well. Increasingly, China is using threats and demands to advance its position. Just recently Major General Luo Yuan warned the Philippines that it was facing its “last chance” to resolve the dispute over the South China Sea claims. Actions like these hardly reflect a country committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes.
Is it any wonder, then, that so many of China’s neighbours are enhancing their defences and asking America to increase its presence in the region?
The Opposition’s Rebuttal Remarks
Dingli Shen April 20th, 2012
To assume that a country undertaking a major military build-up would pose a threat is a rather simple logic that could easily mislead. If we followed Mr. Krepinevich’s logic, we should of course conclude that it is America that poses the formidable threat.
My esteemed opponent, Andrew Krepinevich, has argued that China is a threat because it has undertaken a major military build-up, and that China’s military build-up cannot be justified by the American arms build-up. He has suggested that America poses no threat to China. He also quotes a Chinese military theorist to conclude that China’s strategic culture is coercive.
All this sounds very interesting. According to the thrust of Mr. Krepinevich’s arguments, it is easy to conclude that America, rather than China, is the threat to global stability.
First, to assume that a country undertaking a major military build-up would pose a threat is a rather simple logic that could easily mislead. If we followed Mr. Krepinevich’s logic, we should of course conclude that it is America that poses the formidable threat. Let us check the records: American defence spending went up from $281 billion in 2001 to some $711 billion (including anti-terror costs) in 2011, an increase of 153%. As a comparison, in 2011, China spent some $92 billion on defence, just 13% of the American total that year.
On top of that, military spending accounted for 4.7% of American GDP in 2011, while China’s military spending accounted for only 1.3% of its GDP the same year. If the proportion of GDP spent for military purposes is a measure of threat, as Mr. Krepinevich maintains, then America poses the biggest menace to the world. Over the past decade, the increased amount of American military spending ($430 billion) is more than four and a half times China’s current defence spending. Even if China’s actual spending could be a little more than its official figure (as many observers inside and outside China believe), America still spends significantly more than China. So it would not be unreasonable to conclude that the country that has experienced the largest military build-up in the entire history of the planet is the biggest military threat to that planet.
Second, let us look at specific defence programmes. If China’s naval and missile development, anti-satellite tests and other programmes mentioned by Mr. Krepinevich are a sign of being a threat, then how much more so are American programmes? It is America that maintains 11 carrier task-forces while China has not yet one in its fleet. It is America that has deployed thousands of strategic nuclear warheads underwater while China possesses merely a dozen or so. America also commands numerous advanced strategic- and theatre-range missiles, and is the world’s leader in research and development into, and deployment of, precision-guided missiles which serve perfectly for anti-access and area-denial in East Asia. So why is America blaming China for following suit to legitimately deny American military intervention in Taiwan? Why is America entitled to impinge on China’s sovereignty while China cannot equip itself to deal with American approaches to China? After all, it is not China that has militarily intervened in American territory, but America that has touched upon China’s national integrity.
As for space policies, it is even more bizarre that America has devised various space strategies which allow it to enter space whenever it wants, but also allow it to block others’ free access to space whenever it wants. Certainly any aggressive behaviour in space must be prevented, but only the United Nations has the legitimacy to ascertain who can stop whom doing what. How is it that America thinks it can simply claim the right to police outer space? How do we know that America will never be aggressive? It is America that used to conduct anti-satellite tests, and yet it still refuses China and Russia’s call to negotiate an international treaty for the non-weaponisation of space. Why do the Americans point at others’ actions but ignore their own?
Third, as I pointed out in my opening statement, threat is a product not just of capability, but also of intent. In terms of capability, America is the strongest, but does that mean it has threatened the world every day? Of course not. So what makes it think that China will? America does have a mixed record, though. It used chemical weapons in Vietnam, violating the codes of conduct of war. It invaded Iraq with no legitimacy at all, causing more than 110,000 Iraqi deaths, without apology or compensation.
My esteemed opponent quotes the great Chinese military theorist, Sun Tzu, that to subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill. However, it is America that has applied Sun Tzu’s thoughts to subdue mainland China on the question of Taiwan, by trying to limit China’s policy options. Indeed, it is America’s coercive hegemony in this regard that has driven China to its own military build-up, for defensive not offensive reasons.