Calm Down About China’s Naval Asset Buildup

There’s been a lot of talk the past few weeks about the buildup of China’s military assets, particularly its navy.  Most of the literature you’ll read in the press will be decidedly pessimistic, alarmist, or downright fear mongering.  I’m going to take a few minutes tonight to review what is actually happening, on both sides.  This is of course a hotly debated topic, and because of the limited amount of information made public by the Chinese regarding their foreign policy, the best policy experts are giving it their best guess.

The procurement of blue water naval assets by the Chinese military has increased in velocity recently.  Blue water naval assets include air craft carriers, submarines, and large frigates.  We usually refer to these assets as being able to expand a military’s force projection.  Force projection is exactly what it sounds like, the ability to project military force beyond your borders.

Within certain policy circles there has been much talk over the past couple of years regarding the relatively small number of blue water naval assets within the Chinese military compared to the size and scope of China’s economy.  There is a general principal which states that as a country’s economy grows, it’s military expenditure normally grows to a certain percentage of its GDP.  This is especially seen in its naval assets, as the country expands its force projection to match the increasing amount of global trade it conducts.  We’ve seen this recently in India especially.

China has lagged in both over the past 10 years.  Their military expenditure as a percentage of GDP is still extremely low.  Their ability to project force around the world is still extremely weak.  China is now the largest energy consumer in the world, yet their ability to secure the safe delivery of those raw materials is relatively weak.  So taking this into consideration, China’s recent increase in the velocity of their naval asset procurement program is not out of the ordinary.  I would make the argument that they are still well behind the curve compared to where the United States was at this point in its economic development.

But why now?  Why are the Chinese now becoming more concerned with force projection?  This is the most difficult question to answer, largely because they are so far behind the curve.

Here’s my theory.  The United States and China have had an agreement in place over the past 15 years regarding global trade security.  China would forgo it’s military asset buildup and instead buy a large amount of US treasury bonds.  In return, the United States has continued to spend a tremendous amount of money on its force projection and global trade security.  In essence, China has outsourced global security to the United States.  This arrangement has worked extremely well for China, they have seen a decade and a half of extreme calm around the world, and the ability to grow their economy at a rapid pace without an interruption of the flow of raw materials.  War isn’t good for global trade, and China’s economy is completely reliant on exports right now.  Until the Chinese can stoke their domestic economy, they will be extremely careful when it comes to their international relationships.

This for a large reason is why you have not seen them become more involved in the Korean peninsula in a greater way.  Of course China knows that the midget dictator is a pain in the ass who should be blown off the face of the earth.  But you would be remiss to believe that they are willing to see a large scale war take place which would disrupt trade between them and South Korea, not a chance.  For now, keeping the midget dictator in his box is just fine with them, and it never hurts to have another card at the table with the United States when it comes time to talk turkey (not the country).

As well, you will not see China make even the slightest step towards Taiwan, not a chance.  There is no way on gods green earth they are willing to disrupt trade between that island and the mainland in order to change the defacto relationship which is just fine with them.

The Chinese are focused on one thing and one thing only right now, not seeing their economic growth collapse.  So why the recent naval asset buildup?

I believe the relationship between the United States and China is changing.  The Chinese recognize that the United States can not continue to spend the amount of money that they have on the underwriting of global security.  When the US is done in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will most likely slip in to another isolationist period, especially given its fiscal position.  The Chinese are preparing to take on their fair share of the burden for global security.  This means greater force projection.

Some may be fearful of China’s rise, I am not.  Thus far, China has conducted itself in a very low key manner when it comes to its global dealings.  No, they do not operate with the same moral ground that the United States does (or says it does).  We’ve seen energy and raw material deals made by China with some rather ugly and failed states, particularly in the Sudan, and other African states.  But they have leveraged their economic power far more than their military power to this point, something I don’t see changing.

Another reason you are hearing a good deal of fear mongering within the press has to do with our own military procurement process.  Let me fill you in on a little background first.

There are two camps within both the military and civilian leadership at this point regarding China.  There are those who believe that we should continue to buy heavy assets in order to prepare for the day when we may have to go to war with China.  I find these people to be rather over the top and alarmist, but none of the less, they are important.  Why?  Because we have a history of preparing and buying assets for the last war we just fought, not the war we may have to fight down the road.  The last two wars we’ve fought, or are still fighting, in Iraq and Afghanistan, have exemplified the people heavy, weapons light doctrine of counter insurgency.  Don’t be confused, not all wars are fought in this manner, and there will be wars fought in the future that require heavy assets with little man power.  For this reason, it’s productive to have a voice which keeps the equilibrium between those who feel that heavy assets will no longer be needed, and those who believe otherwise.

Don’t be surprised as well that those on the side of being weary regarding China and for a continued buildup in our own heavy assets are also of that mind because they represent military budgets or people who would lose their jobs.  You see, when it comes to military budgets, things are rather simple.  Find a way to spend the money, or have your budget slashed.  So you may not need to be spending X dollars on platform A and B now, but in 5 years when you will, if you want the money to be there, you better find a way to spend it now.  For representatives, no one wants to see a government contractor lose a big contract which puts jobs on the line in their district.  I think you can connect the dots there between the money and the China fear mongering.

The other side of the table belongs to those who believe that we need not worry about China, but transform our military to deal with failed states around the world.  This means less heavy assets, more people.  The military isn’t in love with this to begin with, they aren’t too fond of hand holding, teaching, nation building, diplomacy, it sucks, it’s hard, and it’s not what they do well.   The American military was built to break stuff, not kind of break stuff and then put it all back together in a better way.

So which side is right?  Well they both are to some extent, and it’s good that we have a balance.  But at the end of the day I would side with those who believe we will be doing a greater deal of nation building over the next 40 years or so, and less fighting with China.  In fact, I would be willing to sell you insurance on any kind of military engagement between China and the United States on either’s sovereign territory over the next 40 years.  It’s just not going to happen.  The military isn’t going to like this, and certain budgets will be slashed.  The Chinese are prepping to take over a greater deal of responsibility, I see this as a positive sign.

The more the Chinese are involved in the global economy, global security, engaged in global politics, the better.  The more they are involved, the more they have to lose by going to war.

Full Disclosure: Nothing on this site should ever be considered to be advice, research or an invitation to buy or sell any securities, please see the Disclaimer page for a full disclaimer.


blog comments powered by Disqus