World Security Through Chinese Eyes

by John Maher

As China prepares to enter the World Trade Organization (WTO), the impact of globalization, it is said, may threaten Communist power and lead to harsher rule (Minneapolis Star Tribune, Dec. 3, 2000).

But widely ignored in current discussions is the "White Paper" published by the Chinese Department of Defense last October. This document defines China's defense posture and seems to accurately reflect the military assessment that underlies much of Beijing's insecurity and tendencies towards repression. If the U.S. government and the media will look at global security through Chinese eyes, our diplomacy may be made to rest on a firmer foundation.

The following discussion quotes and paraphrases excerpts from the Chinese "White Paper" and adds a few comments.

Of great importance to Beijing are the estimates that in the year 2000, U.S. defense expenditures will be $291 billion while China's expenditures are estimated at $14.6 billion, or one-twentieth of U.S. outlays. If the spending of just four of our NATO allies is included with that of the U.S., another $152 billion is added to the cost of the defense of the West.

These Chinese estimates may be verified in such American sources as the World Almanac 2000 and from data on the Internet. It is no surprise that the Chinese complain in their "White Paper" that "There is a serious disequilibrium in the relative strength of countries."

Among "new negative developments in Asia," the paper states, "the United States is further strengthening its military presence and bilateral military alliances in this region, advocating the development of the TMD [Theatre Missile Defense, which refers to the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) program, currently opposed by our allies as threatening international stability].

"The joint research and development of the theatre missile defense system by the United States and Japan with a view to deploying it in East Asia will enhance the overall offensive and defensive capability of the U.S.-Japan military alliance to an unprecedented level, which will also far exceed the defensive needs of Japan. This will touch off a regional arms race. ..."

"[China was] one of the first countries to sign the [international nuclear disarmament treaty].... The Chinese Government is still committed to the early ratification of the Treaty, despite such negative developments in the past two years as the nuclear tests in India and Pakistan and the U.S. Senate's refusal to ratify the [Treaty]. ...In recent years the United States has accelerated its development of a national missile defense system in disregard of the relevant provisions of the ABM Treaty and the opposition of the international community.

"China does not seek military expansion nor does it station troops or set up military bases in any foreign country. ...  China ... never deploys any nuclear weapons beyond its borders."  As we know, the U.S. has bases all over the world with troops, ships, aircraft, and munitions, including nuclear missiles.

"The Taiwan Straits situation is complicated and grim. ...The United States has never stopped selling advanced weapons to Taiwan." This would appear to be a violation of a 1972 treaty prohibiting such sales.  "... A certain country, in disregard of relevant resolutions of the UN General Assembly, began to register its arms sales to Taiwan. ... It is obvious that arms sales to Taiwan are not arms transfers between sovereign states [as allowed by agreement]. Furthermore, they constitute infringements upon China's sovereignty and interference in China's internal affairs."  One may note here that the Chinese position is identical to that which the Union took when Britain was supplying arms to the breakaway Confederacy during the Civil War.

These are a few of the rational observations made by the Chinese Department of Defense. There are also allusions to the American role as policeman for the entire world. It is easy to imagine what the U.S. response would be if a foreign country sought to militarily dominate the globe in such a role. Indeed, throughout the late 1700s and much of the 1800s, we found British domination intolerable.