Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
![]() |
March 02, 2005Arms Race with China?By Zach NeumannThings with the Chinese keep getting thicker. This morning, the NY Times reported that the European Union is probably going to move forward with plans to remove an arms ban on China:
What is the EU thinking?!. Though, I hate to say it, I’m having a John Mearsheimer moment. I believe that it would be foolish for Europe or the United States to provide armaments to the Chinese government. Aside from blatant, continued human rights violations (which I am going to sidestep here), the Chinese have engaged in a massive naval buildup since 2002. As the article details, China is attempting to develop a military capabilities on par with those of the United States. This is extremely dangerous. Though I could care less about preserving the “autonomy” of Taiwan, it is not in the best interest of the Atlantic powers to sell arms to an emerging power. With the world’s largest population and a rapidly modernizing economy, China will soon be able to rival the United States in the North Pacific. If their military expansion continues unabated, this power will take on global proportions, posing a significant threat to Western hegemony. In the long run, China’s expansion could throw the world back into a multi polar system, greatly increasing the chances for major power war. Though I do not think we should make an enemy of China, certain actions must be taken to slow the growth of this potential future rival. They include: 1. Expanding and fortifying our Pacific Fleet. 2. Encouraging the remilitarization of Japan 3. Preventing the Chinese from acquiring sophisticated Western military technology 4. Encouraging the Chinese to hold off on expanding the size of their nuclear force (perhaps through subsidies and confidence building measures??) 5. Engaging the Chinese government through strong economic ties and improved diplomatic relations— it is only by making politicians in Bejing feel secure can we significantly slow Chinese military growth. While the Bush administration is (rightly) concerned with fighting terrorism, I think they need to be aware that this is ultimately a temporary action based on passing circumstances. Very soon, I feel, the world will be plunged back into multi-power conflict, and we need to be ready for it. Posted by Zach Neumann at March 2, 2005 08:32 AM | TrackBackComments
I think that you have your prescription completely back to front. Given that the rise of China is inevitable it is best that we encourage China in every way possible to participate in the global community. Putting petty obstacles in the path may slow the development but at the expense of creating future emnity and antagonising a whole generation of Chinese children. The whole mechanism of engagement can be seen in post-war European history were the idea of Franco-German conflict etc seems ludicrous whilst previous centuries carnage show the results of competition between powers. Given the existence of nuclear weapons we may as well sell arms to anyone stupid enough to want to buy them the real killers are items such as assualt rifles which poor countries are perfectly capable of producing themselves. Posted by: Tim Bassett at March 2, 2005 11:01 AMThe Bush Administration has screwed itself, along with the US. We do not have the power to force the EU to do anything, much less China, which is financing massive amounts of Bush-driven U.S. debt. Bush has destroyed our relations with the rest of the world over Iraq, and now it's payback time. Bush's relation-warming tour of the EU is too little, too late. Restricting sales of technology and other materials to the EU is a bluff that would just hurt our economy even more. And as Time said, the rise of China is inevitable (along with the fall of the US from a weakening hegemony), so we might as well engage them instead of polarize them. Posted by: chrisken at March 2, 2005 12:41 PMTim, I fundamentally agree. If you look at prescription five, I specifically point out that we need strengthened economic ties with the Chinese as well as improved diplomatic relations (I partially buy into democratic peace/economic theory.) However, I still believe that China's military rise should be slowed at all costs. While there are real opportunities to improve the status of our realtionship with the Chinese, these need to be tempered with an eye to the practical. In other words, we shouldn't be giving them advanced military technology. I don't think withholding weapons from the Chinese government will antagonize a whole generation of Chinese children. We can maintain an arms embargo while still increasing economic ties with the Chinese. Moreover, I would support the devlopment of programs that promote cultural (and educational) exchange as well as dramatic increases in foreign aid. We can be allies with the Chinese without selling them materials vital to our defense. Perhaps my view came across wrong in the post. Though I think their growth should be monitored-- I don't think there recent advances makes them our natural enemy. Chris-- American deficits fund Chinese export markets. There large dollar holdings are primarily the product of American consumption. Though I agree that this is bad news for the US economy it doesn't weaken us to the extent that you claim. Also, how does limiting arms sales to China cause siginficant harm to our economy? it doesn't bro... sorry for the slightly incoherent response guys-- I'm on my way to an arabic quiz and am rushing thanks for the good feedback Posted by: Zach Neumann at March 2, 2005 01:12 PMGoddamnit... I just wrote a two page response and the server lost it. I'll respond later I guess. Tim, you raise some very interesting points-- although I think you unintentionally misinterpret me. Chris, I just think you're wrong. I'll explain why a bit later. I can't believe I lost my post Posted by: Zach N at March 2, 2005 01:14 PMOk, I guess both comments made it up. Nevermind Posted by: Zach N at March 2, 2005 01:22 PMyeah I got an error when I posted my comment too Posted by: chrisken at March 2, 2005 01:32 PMPost a comment
|
|