OPENING STATEMENTS

REBUTTAL STATEMENTS

CLOSING STATEMENTS

 

Closing Statements

 

The Proposer’s Closing Remarks

Andrew Krepinevich  April 25th, 2012
For one to believe that China’s military build-up is not a threat to East Asian stability, one would have to be convinced that its neighbours in the region welcome China’s growth in military capabilities, which they emphatically do not.

Before providing my summary, permit me a few observations on my distinguished opponent’s rebuttal.

Dingli Shen rightly notes that a country engaged in a military build-up should not necessarily be viewed as a threat. As he notes, “In terms of capability, America is the strongest, but does that mean it has threatened the world every day? Of course not.”

Mr. Shen incorrectly argues that because America has certain capabilities in excess of the Chinese military’s, then any effort by China to field similar capabilities on a comparable scale is inherently peaceful. But history shows this is not always the case. Between the two world wars Britain had the world’s most powerful navy, while Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan sought to build up the power of their fleets. Yet it was not Britain but Germany and Japan that posed the threat to peace. America has used its power primarily for the public good—to keep the seas free for the use of all, to enable all to benefit from its global positioning system (GPS) satellites in space and to exploit the potential of the internet. Is it any wonder the countries of East Asia have embraced America more closely in the face of growing Chinese military power?

For one to believe that China’s military build-up is not a threat to East Asian stability, one would have to be convinced that:

  • China’s neighbours in the region welcome China’s growth in military capabilities. But its neighbours are emphatically not welcoming China’s military build-up. After two decades of peace—thanks in large measure to the stability provided by the American military—China’s military build-up is increasing the probability of military tensions and perhaps open armed conflicts in a region that has been largely at peace since 1979, when China invaded Vietnam. Rather, these countries are asking America to increase its military presence because of China’s growing military capability and increasingly aggressive behaviour.
  • China’s military build-up will not jeopardise the spectacular economic growth and prosperity that most regional countries—China most of all—have enjoyed over the past several decades. It is hard to imagine how China’s military build-up could possibly improve regional economic conditions. Over the past two decades, regional military spending has been historically low because many states were “free riding” on America’s efforts to maintain regional stability. In contrast, China’s military build-up is causing its neighbours to divert resources from economic growth to offset China’s growing military capabilities.
  • China’s military build-up is only about Taiwan, and once China has resolved that issue to its satisfaction, it will accept the regional status quo. Yet China is developing power-projection capabilities, including aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and long-range missile systems, that suggest far greater ambitions. Indeed, by declaring the South China Sea a “core interest” on a par with Taiwan, China tips its hand to show it has far more expansive territorial designs in the region.
  • China’s military build-up does not pose a large opportunity cost for addressing China’s more pressing societal concerns and responsibilities. But of course it does. Hundreds of millions of Chinese live in poverty. Water supplies are shrinking or becoming polluted. A rapidly ageing Chinese population still lacks a social safety net. Those who argue that China’s military build-up does not pose a threat need to explain why its leaders, who have made economic growth—that is to say, the Chinese people’s welfare—their stated priority, continue diverting ever greater resources to expanding the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in lieu of addressing such concerns.
  • China will be a responsible stakeholder. Recent indications hardly provide confidence that this will prove to be true. When North Korean military forces sunk a South Korean ship, China kept silent. It has bullied Vietnam and the Philippines over conflicting maritime claims in the South China Sea. When Japan detained a Chinese captain whose fishing boat had rammed a Japanese Coast Guard ship in Japanese territorial waters, China cut the supply of important rare earth metals to Japanese industries. It seems fanciful to believe that as China amasses more military power it will moderate this kind of behaviour; rather the opposite seems likely to obtain.
  • There is no danger of Chinese super-nationalism. The legitimacy of the Chinese regime no longer rests on communist ideology. Nor do China’s rulers enjoy popular support as a democratically elected government. Gravity-defying economic growth rates, which have been a source of legitimacy in recent decades, are likely to decline. That leaves the regime increasingly dependent on exploiting Chinese nationalism as the source of its legitimacy. Combined with the PLA’s build-up, this would be a highly toxic mix, one that could hardly contribute towards regional stability.

In summary, the weight of evidence leads to the conclusion that China’s military expansion is undermining the regional stability that has produced an era of peace and unparalleled prosperity. China’s actions speak far louder than its words, as do the actions of most of its neighbours, which are now actively seeking to counter the PLA’s “peaceful rise”.

 

 

The Opposition’s Closing Remarks

Dingli Shen  April 25th, 2012
If there is any concern in the region over China’s military build-up, it is America’s actions and threats toward China and some other countries that have subsequently set off the chain reaction, and America is largely responsible for the regional instability.

In my esteemed opponent Mr. Krepinevich’s rebuttal, he pointed the finger at China in areas where America itself is vulnerable.

He mentions  China’s anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) test of 2007, but fails to address why the US did the same before and still continues to consider further tests.   America  has declined China’s calls to end development of space weaponization.  It is America rather than China that has devised its aggressive space strategies and maintained a substantial space weapons programs including the ASAT.

Why did China conduct the anti-satellite test?  Simply put, it is to preserve the effectiveness of China’s minimum deterrence.  This is rooted in American nuclear bluffs against China from the 1950s, which are well documented.  Even under the Clinton Administration, America still made presidential executive orders to threaten China with hundreds of nuclear warheads in a first-strike stance.  America has developed both missile defence and space weapons programs, partly to neutralize China’s retaliatory nuclear capability.  China was forced to go nuclear in the first place, and now to test its ASAT capabilities in order to preserve East Asian and global stability.

It was under the American nuclear threat that China originally developed its minimum deterrent.  After all, it was America that deployed tens of thousands of nuclear weapons during the Cold War, some of them deployed in Taiwan (which is a part of China) posing a serious threat to China and all of East Asia.  How is it that China’s restrained actions in the light of American bullying could be accused of destabilising the region?

Given America’s track record of aggression (in Vietnam and Iraq, for instance), is it surprising that China responds to the American threat? Because America, with all sorts of weapons at its disposal, threatens China, the Chinese must deter America with their own missiles, including a few ICBMs.  Why should China not have some missiles that include Taiwan within their range ? If Chinese missiles pose a capability threat in that they could reach as far as Japan, Malaysia and other countries, what about the thousands of American sea-launched ballistic missiles that could reach the entire planet?

Again, it is capacity plus intent that matters.  AmericaRecent American aggression against Iraq that caused over 110,000 Iraqi deaths, without apology, and it’s continued interference in the Taiwan question has demonstrated some of its flawed intentions.  To protect China’s interests from being further damaged, the People’s Liberation Army needs some sophisticated systems, for China’s own legitimate security and for regional stability.

While intentions can of course change, it is hard to imagine that America’s aggressive stance of “protecting” Taiwan would change soon.  Why is America entitled to undermine China’s national integrity while China is not entitled to work to deny America from doing so?  If there is any concern in the region over China’s military build-up, it is America’s actions and threats toward China and some other countries that have subsequently set off the chain reaction, and America is largely responsible for the regional instability.

Some of China’s neighbours have in the past changed their intentions.  North Vietnam admitted officially to China, in 1958, that the Xisha (Paracel) and Nansha (Spratly) Islands  belong to China. Nevertheless Vietnamese intentions changed after its war with America, in which China had assisted, by claiming all of the islands and occupying 29 of them in Spratly Islands.   The Philippines has recently greatly changed its intent, and America is backing it. It is American realpolitik, even in the light of these obvious facts, that has much destabilized this region.

However, China still endorses the Declaration on the Conduct of the Parties in the South China Sea, and intends to settle disputes peacefully. Since Mr. Krepinevich doesn’t trust China’s good intent, would he suggest China should quit the Declaration and force Vietnam to honour its position of 1958 that the Spratly and Paracel Islands should belong to China?

Mr. Krepinevich seems to have forgotten that a “democratic” America has partnered with many rogues over time, including the apartheid regime of South Africa, and the dictatorships of South Korea, South Vietnam and Taiwan.  America used to support Manuel Noriega of Panama for regional balance, ignored Pakistan’s nuclear development, and used Iran to balance Iraq.  American “democracy” accommodated and promoted slavery in Africa and at home, suppressed native Americans and imposed racial segregation.  Perhaps he should consider these things before criticising China.

To sum up, I would like to say to our moderator that in my previous statements, nothing could lead people to believe that I thought China’s build-up “is somehow a greater threat to stability”, though I did infer that a powerful America might not always be a threat—especially when it stood up against the Japanese imperialist aggression and partnered with China to defeat fascism.