Asia’s Mad Arms Race
Asia is currently in the middle of an unprecedented arms race that is not only sharpening tensions in the region but also competing with efforts by Asian countries to address poverty and growing economic disparity. The gap between rich and poor — calculated by the Gini coefficient that measures inequality — has increased from 39 percent to 46 percent in China, India, and Indonesia. Although affluent households continue to garner larger and larger portions of the economic pie, "Children born to poor families can be 10 times more likely to die in infancy" than those from wealthy families, according to Changyong Rhee, chief economist of the Asian Development Bank.
Guns Over Ghee
This inequality trend is particularly acute in India, where life expectancy is low, infant mortality high, education spotty, and illiteracy widespread, despite that country’s status as the third-largest economy in Asia, behind China and Japan. According to an independent charity, the Naandi Foundation, some 42 percent of India’s children are malnourished. Bangladesh, a far poorer country, does considerably better in all these areas.
And yet last year India was the world’s leading arms purchaser, exemplified by a $20-billion purchase of high-performance French fighter planes. India is also developing a long-range ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads, as well as buying submarines and surface craft. Its military budget is set to rise 17 percent this year to $42 billion.
"It is ridiculous. We are getting into a useless arms race at the expense of fulfilling the needs of poor people," Praful Bidwai of the Coalition of Nuclear Disarmament and Peace told The New York Times.
China, too, is in the middle of an arms boom that includes beefing up its navy, constructing a new generation of stealth aircraft, and developing a ballistic missile that is potentially capable of neutralizing U.S. carriers near its coast. Beijing’s arms budget has grown at a rate of some 12 percent a year and, at $106.41 billion, is now the second-largest on the planet. The overall U.S. budget for national security — not counting the various wars Washington is embroiled in — runs a little over $800 billion, although some have estimated it at over $1 trillion.
Although China has made enormous strides in overcoming poverty, some 250 million Chinese officially are still considered poor, and the country’s formerly red-hot economy is cooling. "Data on April spending and output put another nail into hopes that China’s economy is bottoming out," Mark Williams, chief Asia economist at Capital Economics, told the Financial Times.
The same is true for most of Asia. For instance, India’s annual economic growth rate has fallen from 9 percent to 6.1 percent over the past two and a half years.
Regional Tensions
Tensions between China and other nations in the region have set off a local arms race. Taiwan is buying four U.S.-made Perry-class guided missile frigates, and Japan has shifted much of its military from its northern islands to face southward toward China.
The Philippines are spending almost $1 billion on new aircraft and radar, and recently held joint war games with the United States. South Korea has just successfully tested a long-range cruise missile. Washington is reviving ties with Indonesia’s brutal military because the island nation controls the strategic seaways through which pass most of the region’s trade and energy supplies.
Australia is also re-orienting its defense to face China, and Australian Defense Minister Stephen Smith has urged "that India play the role it could and should as an emerging great power in the security and stability of the region."
But that "role" is by no means clear, and some have read Smith’s statement as an attempt to rope New Delhi into a united front against Beijing. The recent test of India’s Agni V nuclear-capable ballistic missile is largely seen as directed at China.
India and China fought a brief but nasty border war in 1962, and India claims China is currently occupying some 15,000 square miles of Indian territory. The Chinese, in turn, claim almost 40,000 square miles of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. Although Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh says that "overall our relations [with China] are quite good," he also admits "the border problem is a long-standing problem."
India and China also had a short dust up last year when a Chinese warship demanded that the Indian amphibious assault vessel Airavat identify itself shortly after the ship left the port of Hanoi, Vietnam. Nothing came of the incident, but Indian President Pratibha Patil has since stressed the need for "maritime security" and "the protection of our coasts, our ‘sea lines of communications,’ and the offshore development areas."
China’s forceful stance in the South China Sea has stirred up tensions with Vietnam, Taiwan, Brunei, and Malaysia as well. A standoff last month between a Philippine warship and several Chinese surveillance ships at Scarborough Shoal is still on a low simmer.
China’s more assertive posture in the region stems largely from the 1995-96 Taiwan Straits crisis that saw two U.S. carriers humiliate Beijing in its home waters. There was little serious danger of war during the crisis — China does not have the capability to invade Taiwan — but the Clinton administration took the opportunity to demonstrate U.S. naval power. China’s naval build-up dates from that incident.
The recent "pivot" by Obama administration toward Asia, including a military buildup on Wake and Guam and the deployment of 2,500 Marines in Australia, has heightened tensions in the region, and Beijing’s heavy-handedness in the South China Sea has given Washington an opening to insert itself into the dispute.
China is prickly about its home waters — one can hardly blame it, given the history of the past 100 years — but there is no evidence that it is expansionist. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said in February, "No country, including China, has claimed sovereignty over the entire South China Sea." Nor does Beijing seem eager to use military force. Beijing has drawn some lessons from its disastrous 1979 invasion of Vietnam.
On the other hand, Beijing is seriously concerned about who controls the region’s seas, in part because some 80 percent of China’s energy supplies pass through maritime choke points controlled by the United States and its allies.
Eisenhower’s Warning
The tensions in Asia are real, if not as sharp or deep as they have been portrayed in the U.S. media. China and India do, indeed, have border "problems," but China also describes itself and New Delhi as "not competitors but partners," and has even offered an alliance to keep "foreign powers" — read the United States and NATO — from meddling in the region.
The real question is, can Asia embark on an arms race without increasing the growing gulf between rich and poor and the resulting political instability that is likely to follow in its wake? "Widening inequality threatens the sustainability of Asian growth," says Asian Development Bank economist Rhee. "A divided and unequal nation cannot prosper."
More than half a century ago, former General and President Dwight Eisenhower noted that "Every gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket fired signifies…a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, [from] those who are cold and are not clothed…this is not a way of life at all…it is humanity hanging from an iron cross."
Americans have ignored Eisenhower’s warning. Asian nations would do well to pay attention.
Read more by Conn Hallinan
- Breaking Out the Bush Playbook on Korea – April 25th, 2013
- Four More Years: The Asia Pivot – December 26th, 2012
- Turkey Haunted by Hubris – November 1st, 2012
- Syria and the Dogs of War – September 28th, 2012
- Iran Sanctions: War By Other Means – July 15th, 2012





Michael Turton
May 25th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Conn Hallinan offers another one of his pro-China pieces now appearing on various progressive websites on the net. As with his previous pieces, Hallinan also seems to have no access to Google and lives in a pro-Beijing fantasy world to boot. Sad.
He begins by correctly deploring the arms race now quietly taking place in Asia, but resolutely refuses to assign the blame for it to Chinese expansionism. The whole piece is an artful pro-China construction, but this paragraph is a classic:
"China is prickly about its home waters—one can hardly blame it, given the history of the past 100 years—but there is no evidence that it is expansionist. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman said in February “No country, including China, has claimed sovereignty over the entire South China Sea.” Nor does Beijing seem eager to use military force. Beijing has drawn some lessons from its disastrous 1979 invasion of Vietnam."
There is no need to review the dreary history of Chinese expansionism here. Suffice to say that the Tibetans or the Vietnamese or the Taiwanese or the Uyghurs would find the claim that "there is no evidence that it is expansionist" a bit incredible. Rather, I'd like to draw attention to the way, with the phrase "China's home waters" reconstructs international waters — the South China Sea is mentioned in the previous paragraph! — which no emperor of China ever claimed and to which Beijing's claims are entirely modern and post-WWI, as "China's home waters." Ugh.
I also like the way that he piously repeats China's foreign minister's statement that no one claims the entire South China Sea without mentioning that China has, indeed, done just that through the infamous Cow's Tongue map. This is an exceptionally odious example of cherry picking. It would be easy to find 100s of belligerent statements from Chinese officials observing that the South China Sea is Chinese and the nations around it are "playing with fire." Naturally Hallinan throughout the piece presents only China's views; we never get to hear Taiwanese, Japanese, Malaysian, Indonesian, or Vietnamese voices.
This construction of "China's home waters" appears above as well in this fulsome wave of historical and ideological sewage…..
"China’s more assertive posture in the region stems largely from the 1995-96 Taiwan Straits crisis that saw two U.S. carriers humiliate Beijing in its home waters. There was little serious danger of war during the crisis—China does not have the capability to invade Taiwan—but the Clinton Administration took the opportunity to demonstrate U.S. naval power. China’s naval build-up dates from that incident."
Yes, you read that correctly: Hallinan writes about the 1995-6 Straits Crisis without ever mentioning that it was caused by China firing missiles into the waters off Taiwan during and prior to a democratic election! Instead, Beijing is "humiliated" — the victim! Let's quote Wiki:
"Beijing intended to send a message to the Taiwanese electorate that voting for Lee Teng-hui in the 1996 presidential election meant war. A third set of PLA tests from March 8 to March 15 (just shortly preceding the March 23 election), sent missiles within 25 to 35 miles (just inside the ROC's territorial waters) off the ports of Keelung and Kaohsiung.
Omission of this vital fact suggests that Hallinan is either totally incompetent or a complete shill for Beijing. But let's look at his other claim, which says that China's "more assertive posture" and its military build up date from the missile test crisis in 1995-6. If you run a quick Google Search, you find a CRS report on China's naval modernization program. It observes in a footnote to the discussion on when the build-up began:
"6 China ordered its first four Russian-made Kilo-class submarines in 1993, and its four Russian-made Sovremennyclass destroyers in 1996. China laid the keel on its first Song (Type 039) class submarine in 1991, its first Luhu (Type 052) class destroyer in 1990, its Luhai (Type 051B) class destroyer in 1996, and its first Jiangwei I (Type 053 H2G) class frigate in 1990.
Anyone with any experience of China knows perfectly well it is a common tactic of Chinese apologists to treat Chinese expansionism as a defensive response to Western perfidy by pointing to incidents like this. Once again, one is stuck with the choice that either Hallinan is Google-challenged or else he is shilling for Beijing.
It is easy to rip a piece as incompetent and transparently pro-Beijing as this one, but on a deeper level, the widespread appearance of this piece on Left-oriented websites highlights the ongoing problems of (1) progressive neglect of Asia in general — lefties can always find room for another 10,000 words for the Middle East but the continent of the future, the factory of the world, barely rates a mention in the Lefty web world; and (2) specific neglect of Taiwan and its democracy among progressives; and (3) deep misunderstandings and misrepresentations of China, especially treating it as exotic and exceptional.
Michael Turton
The View from Taiwan
El Tonno
May 26th, 2012 at 4:54 am
> Left-oriented websites
I don't think antiwar.com could be described as "left oriented" or (go beware!) "progressive".
On the other hand, I do agree with your response. Whenever there is a military to feed, especially if the military has independent political power as is the case of China (and a lesser degree other countries), there will be "make work" programs of all kind, which may involved bullying of neighboring countries, agressive postures, splurging on useless kit and having a few wars to justify oneself.
The "income inequality" bemoaned by Conn Hallimann is not a problem to be solved first and in replacement of the military buildup – it is part and parcel of a strong state (so beloved by progressives), able to perform "redistributive policies", tax and spend, if necessary print up the money and take arbitrary decisions on where to shunt the economic ouput on behalf of well-connected interests.
the Lion
May 27th, 2012 at 2:00 am
Of course America has never had territorial ambitions in the region, go back 115 years and look at the Phillipines,Also remember the US used to send gunboats up the Yang ste River even after WWII, It is also in the Americans advantage to increase antagonism, the MIC are wringing their hands in Glee, Armament sales, The Spratleys have been hotley contestested for over a century more so after WWII but a century none the less. Yes the current comment from the chinese that the Sth China seas are its territorial waters, is over the top, however China is in fact I believe reacting to Americas Idea that it had the right to steam its Aircraft carriers up and down the chinese coast with out a response. We all KNOW what would happen if China decided to build carriers and do the same up and down US coastlines, US senators like McCain and Graham would have a fit. The idael aituation for the spratley group would be a multi national company from the claimants to explore for oil and share the profits, Much cheaper than a war!