By Martyn…
A new report, Conventional Arms Sales to Developing Nations 1997-2004 by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) points out that Asia has now replaced the Near East as the world’s top conventional-weapons market. The annual report is written by CRS expert Richard Grimmett and is considered to be one of the most authoritative sources on the conventional arms trade as it’s based on both classified information and public data. Some of the report’s findings might leave some people wondering why China requires so much conventional and high-tech military hardware for it supposedly “peaceful rise”. This question could also be asked of India. Tom Lobe writes in the Asia Times Online:
While the Near East has historically been the largest arms market in the developing world – accounting for 49.2% of the value of all developing-country arms agreements in 1997-2000 – Asia took its place in 2001-2004, accounting for some $35 billion in new arms during the period. Led by purchases by China and India, the world’s most populous region accounted for nearly 50% of the total value of all new arms-transfer agreements with developing nations from 2001 through 2004.
For the eight-year period 1997-2004, the report found that India was the leader, with $15.7 billion worth of new deals, followed by China ($15.3 billion), the United Arab Emirates ($15 billion), Egypt ($12.8 billion), Saudi Arabia, ($10.5 billion), Israel ($9.8 billion) and South Korea ($8.2 billion).
But that statistic hid the emergence of China as a major arms buyer over the past three years. Ranked number seven in the 1997-2000 period, when the UAE and India led the lists, China jumped to the top spot in 2001-2004, buying $10.4 billion worth of weaponry, most of it from Russia, which has been India’s most important supplier as well.
The US and Russia continue to dominate the market which supplies arms to developing countries by a significant margin. Their combined total of US$7 and US$6 billion accounted for nearly 60% of the $21.8 billion arms-supply market to developing countries in 2004. Other major arms suppliers are Britain, France and Israel. However, Israel’s appearance in the top five was mainly due to India’s one-off purchase of an airborne radar system called “Phalcon” earlier this year. Israel has recently complied with US requests to stop selling military and dual-use technologies to China, a lucrative market for Israel going back at least a decade:
In actual arms deliveries for 2004, the US dominated the market with nearly $18.6 billion worth of transfers – or 53.4% of all deliveries to developing countries – far ahead of Russia, the number two supplier, with $4.6 billion in deliveries, or France, which made $4.4 billion worth of arms transfers.
One of its major findings is that the nearly $22 billion in new arms agreements signed between developed and developing countries last year marks a sharp increase over the previous year, when the total came to $15.1 billion. Last year’s sales were indeed the highest since 2000, according to the report. Actual arms deliveries during the year were also the highest since 2000.
The change from the Near East to Asia is partly due to the decline of major arms purchases by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states following the first Gulf War in the early 1990s. The US and, to a lesser extent, Britain were traditionally the main arms suppliers to the Middle East. However, in the case of Asia, Russia dominates:
Russia’s share of Asia’s arms market is more than twice that of the US and appears to be growing. While Washington was the supplier in nearly two-thirds of all new arms agreements in the Near East in 2001-2004, it accounted for only about 21% of the Asia market in the same period. Russia sold 48.1% of all conventional arms sold to Asian clients in 2001-2004, up from 37% in 1997-2000.
Aside from those two countries, the report found that Moscow appears focused on Southeast Asia, where it has had “some success in securing arms agreements with Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia”.
Elsewhere in the world, certain Latin America and Africa nations have expressed interest in modernizing their military forces but are constrained by finances, a factor that will be exasperated by the recent spike in oil prices. However, arms purchases by Latin American countries also increased from US$3.3 billion in 1997-2000 to US$4.7 billion in 2001-2004.
China in the 80s was a large arms supplier to the Third World, particularly to Iran and Iraq during their long and bloody war during that period. Long-time ally Pakistan was also a large recipient of Chinese made arms. During the 80s and 90s, China’s total annual arms sales averaged about US$600 million peaking in 1999 at US$2.9 billion. However, in 2004 the figure had returned to US$600 million as China became increasingly focused on modernizing its own People’s Liberation Army with advanced combat aircraft, submarines, warships and missile defense systems, principally from Russia.
The timing of the report, just days before President Hu Jintao makes an official visit to the US, highlights the contradiction that “China’s Peaceful Rise” also coincides with the well-financed and strongly government-backed modernization of the People’s Liberation Army, Navy and Air Force.
1
By Ron
Of course it is a contradiction. How can China’s rise be peaceful if it is building up and modernising the armed forces by leaps and bounds?
What exactly is the external threat?
Taiwan already is independent. The country isn’t going to declare de jure independence because that would rob it of US support.
So where are the external threats that justify China’s military build up?
I reckon that China’s multiple territorial disputes, including the ENTIRE South China Sea are providing the political impetus to re-arm.
As Deng Xiao Ping said: let China keep its head down and quietly build its economy and armed forces, then she can do what she likes.
September 3, 2005 @ 7:33 am | Comment
2
By Anonymous
so by your estimates, military technologies from the sixties and fifties is good enough for a country of 1.3 billion strong…
September 3, 2005 @ 7:58 am | Comment
3
By Ron
50s and 60s technologies? Is that the best you can up with? What about China’s claim to the entire South China Sea? Islands that lie within sight of Indonesia, Phillipnes etc are claimed by China.
The same with the sea demarcation in the Sea of Japan. The reason why China won’t allow the UN to intervene is that the Un will agree with Japan, i.e. mark the sea border EXACTLY between the two countries. China, however, says that because it’s such a big country the projection of its sea borders should include that size! What utter rubbish. china is the only country EVER to cling to such laughable arguments! It really is ridiculous.
September 3, 2005 @ 8:32 am | Comment
4
By Anonymous
Ron,
Are we on the same topic?
If you want to talk about exaggerations. How about Okinotori Shima, which the Japs claim as an island, and by definition, all others (UN included) call a rock. EEZ would give the Japs control over 150000 square miles of ocean. This is bigger than the size of the main Jap Island. Is this not ridiculous?
September 3, 2005 @ 10:02 am | Comment
5
By KCF
Interesting.
I’d also be interested to hear what external threats China faces in the light of the present military build up.
Can any Chinese people tell me why they feel aircraft carriers and ballistic with ever-increasing capability are required to defend China against…..nothing?
Which countries are set to invade China?
September 3, 2005 @ 10:08 am | Comment
6
By KCF
Anonomous: why are you posting anonomously? Can’t you think of a handle?
September 3, 2005 @ 10:09 am | Comment
7
By Anonymous
Ron,
Kissinger says China poses no threat to its neighbors nor the US. Do you think you understand the Chinese better than Kissinger?
September 3, 2005 @ 10:13 am | Comment
8
By Anonymous
KCF,
Handles are pointless.
Maybe the Chinese should outsource their military to the good o’ US Of A. They are doing such a good job in Iraq…
September 3, 2005 @ 10:20 am | Comment
9
By KCF
Ouch!
September 3, 2005 @ 10:21 am | Comment
10
By KCF
I agree, however, that’s a point I can’t argue with.
September 3, 2005 @ 10:22 am | Comment
11
By Hui Mao
What exactly is the external threat?
The same question can be asked of a lot of countries. As the article pointed out, China, a nation of 1.3 billion purchased $15.3 billion of weapons in 1997-2004, while the United Arab Emirates, a country with a population of 2.5 million, purchased $15 billion.
What about China’s claim to the entire South China Sea?
Interestingly, Taiwan (the Republic of China) also makes the exact same claim as mainland China (the People’s Republic of China). In fact, the PRC’s claim to the South China Sea was inherited from the ROC, which in turn inherited its claim from the Qing dynasty.
The same with the sea demarcation in the Sea of Japan. The reason why China won’t allow the UN to intervene is that the Un will agree with Japan
And how do you know this? According to the UN Law of the Sea, article 76, section 4-6, the coastal state has rights over the continental shelf to the continental margin. The continental shelves of the landmasses of mainland Asia and the Japanese islands are separated by the Okinawa trench, hence the continental margin in the dispute between China and Japan is marked by the Okinawa trench, which is exactly what China claims.
China, however, says that because it’s such a big country the projection of its sea borders should include that size! What utter rubbish.
Yes, what utter rubbish indeed.
September 3, 2005 @ 10:24 am | Comment
12
By Hui Mao
Can any Chinese people tell me why they feel aircraft carriers and ballistic with ever-increasing capability are required to defend China against…..nothing?
China does not have any aircraft carriers. And according to globalsecurity.org, China only has
24 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
Which countries are set to invade China?
Which countries are set to invade the US, Russia, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc? Why do all these nations have much better armed militaries than China?
September 3, 2005 @ 10:42 am | Comment
13
By Anonymous
Hui Mao,
Blogs are full of dilettantes, and they like to congregate here 🙂
September 3, 2005 @ 10:51 am | Comment
14
By Rick
Hui Mao: so you are saying that china has absolutely zero ambition past its present borders? It doesn’t intend to occupy the Spratleys and the Parasol Islands as its own territory?
This is where your points fall down flat. It’s alright to say that China has the right to build up its armed forces but do you really, honestly believe that they will stop there?
If and when China has the power they will take whatever they think is or should be theirs.
September 3, 2005 @ 11:26 am | Comment
15
By Anonymous
Ricks,
Lets all speculate on what China will do in the future and act accordingly right now. This the same preemptive rationale for the Iraq invasion. Are you trying to apply the same formula for China?
September 3, 2005 @ 11:37 am | Comment
16
By Hui Mao
Rick,
The problem is how can one know China has ambitions past its borders? How can you know that China will use its armed forces to take whatever they think is or should be theirs? It’s interesting that you ask me what I believe, because it seems to me that much of the “China Threat” hysteria in the West is largely based on preconceived beliefs that a strong and prosperous China is necessarily aggressive and expansionistic.
September 3, 2005 @ 11:55 am | Comment
17
By Rick
Hui Mao: China already CLAIMS the South China Sea. What do you mean saying how do we know what China will do with its armed forces?
All other countries involved in the Parasol/Spratleys territorial dispute are willing to negotiate and accept compromise EXCEPT China, which thinks the entire sea is theirs.
China’s current land disputes with India, Vietnam etc are currently on hold. DO yuo honestly think that china will accpet any compromises if/when it is a world power? I don’t think so.
September 3, 2005 @ 12:27 pm | Comment
18
By Hui Mao
China already CLAIMS the South China Sea. What do you mean saying how do we know what China will do with its armed forces?
As I mentioned before, China’s claim to the South China Sea long pre-dates the current military modernization and in fact pre-dates the PRC and even the ROC. In other words, there is no correlation between China’s territorial claims and her military strength. China is not making new claims because she is stronger now than before. Also, China has long had the military capability to easily evict the Philipines and Vietnam from the Spratley’s, but has not done so, preferring instead to resolve the dispute through negotiation.
All other countries involved in the Parasol/Spratleys territorial dispute are willing to negotiate and accept compromise EXCEPT China, which thinks the entire sea is theirs.
Not sure what you get this idea, but China has repeatedly proposed bilateral talks aimed at resolving the disputes over the islands. In fact, it is China that first proposed the nations involved put aside their differences and start joint exploration and commercial use of the area. BTW, Vietnam and Taiwan also both claim all of the Paracels and Spratleys.
China’s current land disputes with India, Vietnam etc are currently on hold. DO yuo honestly think that china will accpet any compromises if/when it is a world power? I don’t think so.
China and Vietnam has already settled most of the border disputes through negotiation and are now very close to settling the few remaining sections. Dialogue with India on the border issues are also being actively pursued. I cannot know the future, but I honestly don’t see China becoming an aggressive expansionistic power in the future. A better question is why do you see it that way? What make you so sure China will be aggressive and expansionistic? Just because you think so is not a good answer.
September 3, 2005 @ 2:19 pm | Comment
19
By zhj
China’s claim to the South China Sea is very solid and valid. Chinese were the first to discover the Sea and the islands, therefore the Sea and the islands belong to China. It’s now only a matter if China can re-enforce its claim. Also the Taiwan issue is far of being solved. The separatists there want to break all ties with “China”, by getting rid of its past and declaring independence. Mainland China has already declared there will be war if Taiwan declares independence and nobody should doubt this, because it is a sure fact. To be sure mainland China can win any war it needs to fight, it needs to modernize its armed forces. Yes, China’s rise is peaceful, but don’t mistake China for being a pacist hippy, because it can show its teeth when needed.
September 3, 2005 @ 4:14 pm | Comment
20
By Anonymous
Hui Mao,
An even better question would be why this website continues to perpetuate the idea of a aggressive and expansionistic China.
September 3, 2005 @ 6:09 pm | Comment
21
By everlasting
Just a quick note on territorial disputes.
Ancient Claims: In international law and in the laws of most states, the general rule is that claims and acts made closer in time are given substantive value, while ancient claims are of little value, and given almost no consideration. Evidence of actual use and control are given more dispositive value. Furthermore, claims based on prior discovery are no longer of any value.
Continental Shelf: Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas, state territory may extend to the continental shelf, while the exclusive economic zone may be extended 200 miles the coastline. This however, serves only as a basic scheme. Foreign territory which extends into the continental shelf would adjust the size of any adverse territorial claims. China’s claims in the South China Sea are based on its continental shelf. However, this creates problems because its territorial claims extend into the claims of other states, which are in turn based upon their own continental shelves and outlying islands. Thus in this area, basing territory exclusively upon the continental shelf brings no resolution to any of the underlying claims. Exclusive reliance on the Law of the Sea produces overlapping claims.
China, Vietnam and Taiwan claim all of the Spratly Islands, while the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei claim portions.
Colonial France exercised control over the islands from 1933 to 1939, and Imperial Japan took possession of the islands during WW2.
China’s claims to the islands are based mainly upon ancient evidence, including discovery and sightings going back as far as the mythical Xia dynasty. After WW2, it claims the islands were returned to it under both the 1943 Cairo Conference and the 1945 Postdam Proclamation. It further claims the islands based on the 1952 San Francisco Allied Peace Conference when Imperial Japan’s renounced rights to Taiwan, the Spratlys, and other islands occupied during the war.
The claims of other states are based more on proximity (the islands are 1000 miles away from China’s coast, and often visually within the distance of many of the Southeast Asian countries), actual use and control. The continental shelves of many of the states in SEA also extend to include some of the islands.
Vietnam claims that it has historically exercised dominion and control over the islands, and that after Japan’s renunciation of claims in 1952, it asserted its claim. Vietnam also claims the islands because the Spratlys lie within Vietnam’s continental shelf.
The Philippines bases its claims on actual use and control of island nearer to it, as well as on abandonment of claims by other nations leading to Philippine discovery in 1947.
Vietnam and the Philippines have had military clashes with China over the islands. These clashes were limited in scope however due to limitations on China’s ability to project naval power, and the fact that escalation of them would lead to war.
Developments and Discussions
Although involving nearly all the states in Southeast Asia, China has been unwilling to engage in multilateral talks to resolve the issue, and has insisted only on bilateral discussions. It is generally believed that bilateral discussions favor China, since the disparity of power between China and each single Southeast Asian state is readily apparent.
In 2002 China and ASEAN entered into the South China Sea Code of Conduct. This nonbinding agreement is basically aspirational in character, with no binding requirements. It basically commits the states involved to resolve territorial claims in the South China Sea through cooperative and peaceful means. Generally it has been effective in keeping tensions low, although some states have still sought to actively exploit resources or assert their claims. Vietnam has chartered flights to one disputed island. China has entered into bilateral agreements with the Philippines to conduct resource exploration in one area.
Many of the countries in the area have pursued discussions aimed at resolving borderland disputes, not territorial sea disputes. China concluded an agreement with Vietnam to settle border disputes, the contents of which are secret, and which produced a national backlash in Vietnam against a perceived bullying China. Discussions with India are ongoing and most likely will not reach resolution in the near future.
The key player in each of major disputes in South China Sea is China. Consternation in Southeast Asia is aimed mainly at China, the most powerful country in the region. The countries of the region have discussed division of the area amongst themselves, but such an action would not be tolerated by China. Past history highlights the fact that China has had military clashes with all of its neighbors over territorial disputes. There is also a sense that China is going too far by extending its territory within earshot of many of the states. Historically, many of the countries view Chinese territorial claims with apprehension, and it is a prism through which they still see China.
One of the problems I see is that domestic sentiment in China does not allow for resolution of the problems any way other than by full adherence to China’s claims. Much like Taiwan and Tibet, these territorial issue are seen as unnegotiable, linked nationalisitically to China forever in perpetuity. China is the key player, yet it does not and will not negotiate, which entails giving way on some issues to settle the matter. In this backdrop is China’s military development. The two give China’s neighbor’s little in the way of a long term positive outlook.
September 3, 2005 @ 9:03 pm | Comment
22
By jarl
“Chinese were the first to discover the Sea and the islands, therefore the Sea and the islands belong to China”
You cannot be serious! First of all I find it highly unlikely that the people who first discovered the Spratleys were Chinese citizens. Secondly do you have any idea how many conflicts there would be in the world if every nation thought like this?
September 3, 2005 @ 9:05 pm | Comment
23
By Johnny K
Democracies don’t feel threatened by the military buildups of other democracies.
Keep in mind the countries that can do the most damage to the US militarily are Britain and France. And yet we don’t give a fig about their militaries.
Is China a democracy? If it were, we wouldn’t care much. But it is not, and that is what is at the center of this tension.
September 4, 2005 @ 3:30 am | Comment
24
By John
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with Johnny K. This is a point that is often overlooked.
A lot of Chinese people talk about how outrageous and unfair those ‘China Threat’ articles are that regularly come out of America but the fact is that there wouldn’t be any China Threat articles if China was democratic.
It’s a question of unpredictability. What are the most worrisome countries in the world? North Korea, Iran, China—all authoritarian governments. Who the hell knows what the hell they are going to do next?
The problem with authoritarian governments comes when those govts stop delivering the economic goods to the people. What can the people do? Nothing…..except stare down the barrel of a PAP or PLA gun.
September 4, 2005 @ 5:54 am | Comment
25
By Zed
Good points Johnny K and John.
Interesting post, certainly for a blog! I always like an article which is packed full of statisitics!
I’m not an expert on Chinese history but I am aware of China’s territorial ambitions.
This is a great line from Everlasting above:
‘One of the problems I see is that domestic sentiment in China does not allow for resolution of the problems any way other than by full adherence to China’s claims. Much like Taiwan and Tibet, these territorial issue are seen as unnegotiable, linked nationalisitically to China forever in perpetuity.’
I strongly agree with this, there is little tolerance for compromise and even less willingness to understand other the stances of other countries as far as territorial claims go. The Chinese solution is to wait until they are militarily strong enough to do what they like. I’m not saying that this is a good or bad thing but, as Everlasting points out above, it’s an accurate assessment of China world view.
September 4, 2005 @ 7:30 am | Comment
26
By Sam_S
Hey, wait a minute!
What the bloody HELL is the UAE doing with all that hardware? And better yet, are they buying it just for themselves, or just brokering it out to others under the table?
September 4, 2005 @ 9:03 am | Comment
27
By zhj
China is not a democracy, therefore the China threat theory is needed? I think it’s childish. China is already a republic, just like the US. China´s representatives are not democratically elected, but if they were, then China would be democratic? It’s like rivalry between schoolkids. I wear “nikes”, but you wear “adidas”, therefore you do not belong to our club and we perceive you negatively. This immature attidude and way of thinking of some Western people is just pathetic.
About the South China Sea, only a strong China is capable of defending its interests and avoid being bullied by others, like the “nike” or “adidas” club. Therefore China should modernize the defense forces.
September 4, 2005 @ 3:59 pm | Comment
28
By dylan
The PRC is of course free to choose whatever foreign policy it likes and whatever degree of military power it prefers, but to winge about people simply reporting the facts of China’s military buildup is a bit sad. Nor should the PRC be surprised by the reaction that the combination of foreign policy choices and military acquisitions engenders amongst its neighbours and other powers. Chinese are by no means unaware of the concept of the “security dilemma” and in fact the “China Threat Theory” is a phrase dreamed up by the CPC in an effort to slow down the reaction of other states to its policies and avoid the early triggering of the security dilemma. There are many ways nations can go about securing their future, the PRC has so far chosen one course, it must live with the consequences of that decision.
September 4, 2005 @ 8:30 pm | Comment
29
By James
A related and fascinating article over at the Belmont Club. An interview with Lee Kuan Yew about Asia’s and China’s rise to power:
September 4, 2005 @ 9:41 pm | Comment
30
By Raj
A few points:
1. You can’t “own” or “claim” a body of water such as a sea or an ocean. Everything bar the nearest 13-nautical miles to the coast is international waters. Countries may have an EEZ but that has nothing to do with ownership.
So perhaps the problem is that China cannot or will not quite get to grips with this idea, because it feels that it “owns” the “South China” Sea anyway, or that it undermines its territorial claims.
2. I have heard the point before about China’s lack of civil freedoms being a reason why Beijing won’t back down in its claims. To be honest, it doesn’t matter even if China has said it is willing to talk – it shouldn’t have those claims anyway. The Paracels are one thing, but the Spratley’s are clearly much nearer to most other nations in the region than China.
3. The UAE has had large increases in military spending because it is a small country in a region with questionable security, ergo it needs to go very high-tech. Whereas China is the most populous country in the world and has the largest army, so it has less to be concerned about really.
4. A newspapers mentioned recently that Beijing has stopped using the term “peaceful rise” because it was felt this limited its foreign policy options.
I don’t think China is going to attack anyone in the region in the near future, apart from possibly Taiwan, because Beijing doesn’t want to ruin its growth through conflict. But the issue of the Spratleys et al is a bit unfortunate, given that it indicates China is either being greedy (because it wants the resources) or arrogant (because it feels it has a right to something it clearly doesn’t).
September 5, 2005 @ 2:46 am | Comment
31
By Raj
zhj:
Who’s going to bully China over the South China Sea? Indonesia? Malaysia? The Philippines? Brunai?
Come on, don’t make China out to be a victim – it is certainly the biggest power involved in the dispute.
I think people like yourself need to stop crying “wolf” because one day if a wolf does come along, the world will think Beijing is playing the victim game again. Hardly anyone in the rest of the world considers Japan a threat to China, despite the best attempts of the Chinese media to bring up the war every few weeks and write ridiculous articles on how “nationalistic” the place is.
So don’t play the victim game, it doesn’t work and just makes you appear childish.
September 5, 2005 @ 2:59 am | Comment
32
By Paul
Agree with Raj, Chinese claims over the entire South China Sea are rooted in imperialism and expansion, nothing to do with so-called “historic claims”.
After all, everything the CCP say is based on “historical truth” but it’s odd how debating “historic truth” is essentially illegal, or at least phrohibited within China by the very government that claims to deal in “historic truth”.
I’ve never known “truth” of any kind that has had to be strictly enforced!! Heh heh.
September 5, 2005 @ 6:07 am | Comment
33
By Anonymous
well, historically China has not been imperialistic and expansionistic. In my opinion, all this apriori, preemptive thinking is very dangerous. China is not Iraq…
September 5, 2005 @ 8:18 am | Comment
34
By dylan
Yawn. The Big Lie again anonymous? So predictable, its like you’re reading from the CPC copybook on who to defend China’s “peaceful rise”. Please explain how China got to be such a large country from just a small group of tribes centred around the Yellow/Yangtze River systems without being imperialistic and expansionary. Please explain what the Zhou were doing “peacefully” as they expanded aggressively from the mid-11th century BC. And those peaceful Qin, what were they up to seizing parts of modern Inner Mongolia and Gansu to the north, most of modern Guangdong and Guangxi, and part of Fujian to the south, killing the Xiongnu and Yue who stood in their way. And Han Wudi, had you conveniently erased one of the greatest imperialists of all time from history? And the Sui dynasty invasions of Korea and Vietnam, all moonshine I guess? The Yongle emperor, obviously completely misunderstood by historians, he really was a peace-loving hippie. Please explain what the Qing army was doing in Dzungaria in 1697 and again in 1732 and finally in 1755-57 when Dzungaria was conquered and suffered the same fate as Carthage. Please explain what the Qing armies were doing in Tibet in 1720, or the Qing intervention in the Tibetan Civil War of 1727-28, or the Qing direct rule of Tibet from 1750. Please explain the two Qing military expeditions to Burma in 1767 and 1770 as peaceful “interaction” with a neighbouring state.
September 5, 2005 @ 2:35 pm | Comment
35
By Martyn
Nice.
September 5, 2005 @ 3:27 pm | Comment
36
By Thomas
Dylan wins my applause for the day. He said it far better than I ever could.
September 5, 2005 @ 7:16 pm | Comment
37
By zhj
raj: I did not play the ‘victim card’ at all. I just stated a fact: a strong China will avoid being bullied by others. When China was weak, it lost. When China was strong, it gained. It gained in culture, science, economy, etc. Therefore modernizing the armed forces is justified. China should develop on all fronts. China is not Japan with a pacifist constitution imposed by the US. China is an independent and non-aligned country. China will stay that, no matter what path the country will walk in the future.
September 6, 2005 @ 5:12 pm | Comment
38
By Jimmy
Well I just have to say, from the perspective of the Australian government, they are secretly *loving* this esclation between the US and China. They are quite happy to sit back to a degree of neturality, and have Free Trade Agreements with each of the two in order to fuel China’s growing economy with primary resources, and develop high tech joint programs with the US. That way, we seem to be the true winners of this senario.
btw bravo to dylan for that smack down, i dont know what boy was thinking when they wrote that comment…/roflcopter
September 15, 2005 @ 8:37 am | Comment
39
By Gaby
Very nice site!
September 16, 2005 @ 10:36 pm | Comment