Fighting with hands tied behind the back

Chairman Xi meets PLA delegates during NPC meet

My article Fighting with hands tied behind the back  appeared yesterday in the Edit Page of The Pioneer.

Here is the link...

It is routine to compare India’s defence capabilities with those of China, given that the two countries are engaged in resolving border disputes. But also look at the difference in their defence budgets

The 2015 Chinese defense budget has been the focus of attention during the annual Two Meetings of the National People's Congress (NPC) and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) which opened in Beijing on March 3 and 5 respectively.
A few days before the event, the Taiwanese website WantChinaTimes quoted Jin Canrong, a professor at the School of International Studies at Renmin University of China, saying: “a sustained double-digit growth of China's defense budget would most likely be based on its strategies for coping with any changes in its relations with the United States.” The Defence expert added: “If China increases its military budget by double-digits this year, it would signal that the country is boosting its combat preparedness in response to perceived potential challenges.”
Last year, China’s ‘official’ budget was 808.2 billion yuan (US$129 billion), an annual increase of 12.2% compared to the previous year.
On March 4, 2014, during a news conference, the NPC’s spokeswoman, Fu Ying announced that this year’s defense budget would be increased by about 10 percent.
Fu further explained: “Compared with great powers, the road of China's defence modernisation is more difficult. We have to rely on ourselves for most of our military equipment and research and development.” She added that China's defence policy is defensive in nature.
A battery of Chinese experts justified Beijing’s decision to go again for a double-digit raise. Major General Xu Guangyu, senior consultant to the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association commented that the present increase in military spending is ‘basically reasonable’, adding that the $145 billion budget ‘only’ represents 1.4 percent of the country’s GDP, far below world average.
General Xu also argued that China's per capita military spending remains low, about US $ 57,000/soldier (divided among the 2.3 million officers and soldiers). He did not miss the opportunity to compare with the figure of the Japanese ($ 210,000) or American troops ($ 430,000). His conclusion was: “[China’s] current military spending is still very insufficient and cannot fully meet the needs of China's national defense.”
Though Xi Jinping introduced a new theory, the 'Four Comprehensives', which promotes ‘building a moderately prosperous society, deepening reform, governing the country according to rule by law, and enforcing strict party discipline’, the budget of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is not caught in rhetoric as China remains pragmatic (and secretive) about its defence spending.
While Xi’s proclaimed objective is to make the troops able to ‘fight and win wars’, the PLA’s main battle is today against rampant corruption. As the annual Meetings started in Beijing, a group of 14 officials of Major General rank were placed under investigation. The most prominent is Guo Zhenggang, former deputy political commissar of the Zhejiang Military Command and son of a former CMC Vice-Chairman.
The resolute fight against corruption, at all the levels of the PLA, has one ‘budgetary’ collateral, as all military officials should only rely on their salaries. If the ‘customary’ sources of income are cut, how will Xi control the generals and built a ‘Chinese Dream Army’?
The PLA Daily quoted President Xi saying that “military officers can only rely on their salaries for income. Any unapproved income or illegal gains will be investigated and punished.” Easier said than done, though as a result, the CMC will probably have to increase PLA’s salaries (a third of the military budget is for the salaries of the PLA's 2.3 million personnel).
One of the reasons for this year slightly lower budgetary increase is that China faces serious economic problems, with an annual growth of 7.4%, the slowest in 24 years; a further slowdown to around 7% being around the corner. It may seriously hamper larger defence spending.
Moreover, a report prepared by the Rand Corporation for a US congressional committee argued that China’s military is not ready to win wars despite spending heavily.
The report says: “The PLA suffers from potentially serious weaknesses that could limit its ability to conduct operations required to fight and win future conflicts. …Although the PLA’s capabilities have increased dramatically, its remaining weaknesses increase the risk of failure to successfully perform the missions the Chinese Communist Party leaders may task it to perform.”
The PLA is said to have an outdated command structure, poor quality personnel, to lack professionalism and be held back by corruption, the report added.
The main question remains: does the budget announced by Beijing reflect the reality? It certainly does not!
Take an example, The Global Times reported that China has begun upgrading its Type 094 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine. The Chinese Navy may need five or six of the submarines, capable of carrying 16 ballistic missiles, a great improvement on the original model which could only carry 12 missiles which can be fitted with JL-2 intercontinental-range ballistic missiles with a range of 8000 km.
Is the amount of R&D required for this ‘improvement’, taken into account the defence budget? It is anybody’s guess.
What about the construction of a second aircraft carrier?
The US-based Duowei News, quoted Ding Haichun, a deputy political commissar of the PLA Navy, who acknowledged that China's second aircraft carrier is currently under construction and will be more advanced than the country's first carrier, the Liaoning.
When asked how many carriers China plans to have, Liu Xiaojiang, a former PLA Navy political commissar said that it would ultimately depend on how much research and development funding is available.
In India, the 2015-16 Defence Budget disappointed many. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has ‘only’ announced a raise of about 10 percent to Rs 2,46,727 crore (40 billion US $), which is Rs 23,357 crore more than the revised estimates for the current financial year (Rs 2,22,370 crore).
Defence experts have unanimously argued that this inadequate allocation will not provide the necessary boost for the country’s military modernization, particularly if it wants to catch up with China.
Though Jaitley affirmed in the Parliament: “Modernisation of the armed forces is critical to enable them to play their role effectively”, Brig Gurmeet Kanwal, former Director of the Centre for Land Warfare Studies wrote in The Indian Defence Review that it is not enough considering “the Army has begun the raising of 17 Corps, designated as a mountain strike corps, which is expected to cost Rs 64,000 crore over seven years.”
One has to add initial payments for 126 MMRCA planes, 197 light helicopters, 145 Ultra-light Howitzers, 15 Apache attack helicopters and 22 CH-47F Chinook medium lift helicopters, C-17 heavy-lift aircraft, etc. It is mathematically impossible to cover these urgent requirements.
One can always argue that despite the shortcomings of the Indian defence budget, a stable and democratic India is perhaps not so badly off compared to China, however there is no question of catching up with the Middle Kingdom in the years to come.

To call a deer a deer is hard

Tank fitted with loudspeakers. To tell the Truth?

It is difficult to deal with China because, as Peter Mattis, the Editor of the China Brief of the Jamestown Foundation says in this article: "almost by definition, China’s behavior cannot be as bad or have any malignant intent".
Mattis quotes the Foreign Ministry spokesman affirming: "China has always adhered to an open and inclusive foreign policy and persisted in building good relations with neighboring countries".
Mattis explains further: "The problem with how Beijing frames concerns about Chinese behavior is that it denies foreign countries any standing whatsoever from which to complain. ...This dismissive approach combined with China’s placing the onus on foreign governments to improve relations does not suggest a good faith effort."
Indeed, trust is a two-way street.
Another problem was highlighted in the December 31 issue of The People’s Daily. The Communist mouthpiece asserted: "it is hard to tell the truth", while announcing its expansion from 8 pages to 12 pages on weekdays and 4 pages to 8 pages on weekends. It made this extraordinary admission: “In the new year, we will work hard to tell the truth and write the truth … making [our paper] more readable and viewable to truly serve our readers.”
The insistence on 'working hard to tell the truth' drew many sarcastic comments from Chinese netizens:

I am surprised at this announcement. If it is true, it would be the first step that the People’s Daily is taking the lead to make the media move towards openness and its contribution should deserve recognition. If, however, this first sentence from the People’s Daily in the New Year is a true lie, what to do? How could the People’s Daily face its readers?

or 

Does this mean that the Party’s official media has always been lying?

How come the Party’s newspaper must 'work hard' to tell truth?

It is very hard for a newspaper belonging to the Party to speak the truth. Of course, it must work hard to do so...

Even the Central Government newspaper must work hard to tell the truth. Whether after the hard work, the truth is really told or not may never be known...

Anything that requires ‘hard work’ is usually difficult. To call a deer a horse is normal. But  work. 

Same thing about 'love for peace' and 'good neighbourhood'.
In the meantime, Beijing shuts down the website of a reformist magazine. Reters reported: "China shut the website of a leading pro-reform magazine on Friday, apparently because it ran an article calling for political reform and constitutional government, sensitive topics for the ruling Communist Party which brooks no dissent. "Yanhuang Chunqiu" (China Through the Ages) is an influential Beijing magazine that features essays from reformist retired officials."
It is indeed hard to tell the truth.

Soothing Tones on China's Rise Strike Dissonance
China Brief Volume: 13 Issue: 1
January 4, 2013
Peter Mattis
The newly-appointed Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping’s talk of China’s national rejuvenation has generated a lot of concern in foreign analyses about the implications of the just-completed leadership transition. Although “The Great Renewal of the Chinese Nation” (zhonghua minzu weida fuxing) is a long-time justification for reform, Xi has returned it to a place front-and-center in Chinese propaganda, calling the achievement of national rejuvenation the “the greatest dream of the Chinese nation in modern times” (PLA Daily, December 13, 2012; People’s Daily, November 30, 2012). Such sentiment suggests to some that Xi’s China will be more sensitive to slights against China’s dignity or possibly even more aggressive internationally. Perhaps as a response to these concerns, official Chinese press carried a series of articles and editorials, especially at the end of December, to reassure foreign audiences about Beijing’s intentions. Such soothing lines about China’s behavior, however, are unlikely to receive an attentive hearing, because they suggest the problems of resolving China’s rise require other countries to give way.
One commentary directly confronted the issue of foreign concerns, dismissing them as irrelevant to challenges at hand: “with some even claiming an ever-growing China might be seeking ‘dominance.’ This viewpoint is groundless” (Xinhua, December 12, 2012). As Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei noted, “China’s development aims at making greater contributions toward peace and development of mankind, as well as a happy life for its people, instead of overwhelming others or scrambling for world dominance” (Xinhua, December 12, 2012).  In addition to the repeated commitments for China to adhere to the path of peaceful development, Xinhua added a historical element, stating “Anyone familiar with Chinese history knows that aggression or expansion has never been in the blood of the Asian nation” (Xinhua, January 1). Outgoing President Hu Jintao’s New Year address described “the Chinese people’s determination to pursue a road of peaceful development will never waver no matter how volatile the international situation may become” (Xinhua, December 31, 2012). Overall, according to Xinhua, China is not a challenge to the international system and is not the instigator of disputes:
“China, which advocates peaceful solutions to international disputes, has walked the talk. Whoever that suspects a rising China could be a global danger is advised to check the country’s record to see whether China has ever been the first to attack. If still unconvinced, China'’s persistence in opposing hegemony and power politics serves as another clue” [sic] (Xinhua, January 1).
Apart from the potentially contentious historical narrative, China also actively defended its military modernization and military activities as a natural outgrowth of Chinese interests. As Ministry of National Defense spokesman Yang Yujun said, “it is justifiable for the Chinese military to provide security in waters under China’s jurisdiction” and foreign governments are “in no position” to make an issue of Chinese actions (Xinhua, December 27, 2012). According to the Chinese Navy’s headquarters, roughly 60 percent of the 5,000 commercial vessels the navy has escorted through the Gulf of Aden had ties to China’s international trade. Moreover, China has 18,000 kilometers of coastline and 3 million square kilometers of territorial waters as well as expanding interests abroad. Especially in light of Japanese and Philippine provocations, Beijing’s efforts to build a modern blue water navy is “commensurate with its development status and caters to its need to safeguard its national maritime interests” (China Daily, December 27, 2012). This defensive concern also was echoed at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At a recent forum on China’s diplomacy, Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun said “While China is firm in its resolve to follow the path of peaceful development, it is equally firm in the nation's resolve to uphold its territorial sovereignty and legitimate rights and interest” (Xinhua, December 28, 2012). Regardless of the state of Chinese military modernization, provoking tensions and using force are not a part of Beijing’s foreign policy tool box, because “having benefited a lot from a peaceful environment in the past over three decades, China is deeply committed to solving international disputes by peaceful means and opposes the random use of force, and has never provoked any of those maritime disputes” (Xinhua, December 12, 2012).
Nowhere is the messaging more clear than recent articles on correcting the escalating tensions of Sino-Japanese relations. Because China is an indispensable economic partner for Japan, Tokyo needs “to show its sincerity to relieve the tensions stirred up by itself.” Japan’s problem and “restoring mutual trust” is particularly acute, because, despite new Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s reassurances, his “double-tongued statements” could not help but “cast a shadow of suspicions over China-Japan relations” (Xinhua, December 26, 2012). In a separate article, commentator Wang Haiqing stated “The new Japanese cabinet has to earnestly reflect on its foreign policy and adopt concrete measures to show its sincerity in mending strained ties with China” (Xinhua, December 26, 2012). Japan’s new ambassador to China also received such admonitions delivered by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and official outlets (Xinhua, December 24, 2012). In contrast to Japan’s ostensibly illegal actions, China’s actions related to the simmering territorial dispute in the East China Sea, however, are described as “completely normal” and the marine surveillance patrols as operating in territorial waters (Xinhua, December 21, 2012; December 13, 2012).
China’s attempts to reassure the United States and its neighbors, however, probably will be about as successful as the formulation of a “New Type of Great Power Relations.” This new formulation for how the United States and China should accommodate one another is laudable in spirit as an attempt to answer U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s challenge “to write a new answer to the age-old question of what happens when an established power and a rising power meet” (“China’s Search for a ‘New Type of Great Power Relationship’,” China Brief, September 7, 2012). Unfortunately, Beijing’s description of what the relationship should be involves Washington conceding to Chinese demands on Taiwan, human rights and regional maritime disputes without any reciprocity. As Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai and Pang Hangzhao wrote, “China has never done anything to undermine the U.S. core interests and major concerns...yet what the United States has done in matters concerning China’s core and important interests and major concerns is unsatisfactory” (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, July 20, 2012). This one-sided view of China’s actions in which Beijing ignores that a dispute even legitimately exists or that there are legitimate questions to ask of the Chinese leadership is unpersuasive to the foreign parties involved. Almost by definition, China’s behavior cannot be as bad or have any malignant intent, because, as the Foreign Ministry spokesman stated, “China has always adhered to an open and inclusive foreign policy and persisted in building good relations with neighboring countries” (Xinhua, December 12, 2012).
The problem with how Beijing frames concerns about Chinese behavior is that it denies foreign countries any standing whatsoever from which to complain. For example, when Chinese ships harassed the USNS Impeccable in March 2009 and attempted to damage the towed array, Beijing’s only admission of the incident was of routine law enforcement activities—an entirely domestic affair involving lawbreakers (Xinhua, March 11, 2009). This dismissive approach combined with China’s placing the onus on foreign governments to improve relations does not suggest a good faith effort. Trust is a two-way street and, contrary to Xinhua’s press releases, Hanoi, Manila, Tokyo and Washington cannot develop a trusting relationship with Beijing without Chinese empathy and reciprocity. Neither of which are suggested in Chinese statements, which now seem more likely to fuel tensions than ameliorate them.

Peter Mattis is Editor of China Brief at The Jamestown Foundation.