This is stupid.
Strategypage (see October 3) notes:
There is definitely a growth in military spending, and apparently no enthusiasm for reversing this trend. The government has been running a propaganda campaign, for over a decade, to make people aware of the importance of China getting some respect, after a century of defeats and other humiliations. This resonates with many Chinese, and the government is exploiting this to build support for a larger military and more aggressive diplomacy. This is how wars get started. A century ago, Germany was building up its armed forces and looking for "a place in the sun." This led to two world wars and over 100 million dead.
Yet some think that the Chinese only do hostile things because we ... Well what? Don't act nice to them? Don't just abandon any ally withing 500 miles of Chinese territory? And if you even mention the word "respect" I think I'll hurl. Nations that fixate on respect tend not to earn it.
Really, consider recent Chinese actions (as Max Boot notes them):
Consider what the Chinese Communist leadership has done just in the past year: It passed an "Anti-Secession Law" asserting its legal authority to employ "nonpeaceful means" against Taiwan should the island democracy take any steps toward independence. Along with Russia, it pressured Central Asian republics to kick out U.S. bases being used in the war on terrorism; U.S. forces are now vacating a supply hub in Uzbekistan. In return for this, China has offered no useful assistance whatsoever in the fight against Islamist fanatics. Instead it held its first-ever military exercise with Russia--an exercise transparently focused on combating the United States--and agreed to purchase billions of dollars in Russian military equipment. And it continued its breakneck military buildup, which is focused on the kinds of weapons--especially missiles and submarines--needed to stymie U.S. efforts to protect Taiwan.
It also continued its massive campaign of industrial espionage intended to steal U.S. military and technological secrets. It has made some progress in protecting intellectual property but still tolerates massive copying of proprietary material that costs U.S. companies an estimated $2.6 billion a year.
Moreover, it did not reprimand, much less fire, a major general in the People's Liberation Army who publicly threatened to nuke "hundreds" of U.S. cities if the United States came to Taiwan's defense. It continued cozying up to odious regimes in places like Sudan, Venezuela, and Iran, whose oil it covets. It has also made clear that it will not cooperate in the U.N. Security Council or elsewhere in taking firm steps against nuclear proliferation by Iran and North Korea. Rather than using its considerable leverage on Pyongyang, it has brokered a replay of the 1994 Agreed Framework under which Kim Jong Il gets more foreign aid--including a "civilian nuclear reactor"--in return for the promise, but not the reality, of nuclear disarmament. Beijing also organized demonstrations, which turned into riots, aimed at America's foremost Asian ally, Japan. And, just to rub it in, China has pressed to exclude the United States from an East Asia summit meeting in Malaysia in December.
Somehow, reacting to this behavior constitutes creating an enemy? Boot looks at Britain's different strategies for coping with a rising Germany and Japan over a century ago:
History, alas, teaches that it is difficult if not impossible to integrate peacefully a major illiberal challenger into an international system it did not design and does not control. Just ask the British, who 100 years ago occupied the strategic niche that America fills today--a global hegemon threatened by powerful upstarts. In America's case the rival is China; in Britain's it was Germany and Japan. The British tried confrontation with Germany (symbolized by the 1904 Anglo-French Entente Cordiale and an Anglo-German naval arms race) and appeasement with Japan (the 1902 Anglo-Japanese Alliance and considerable aid for the Imperial Japanese Navy until the late 1920s). Neither policy worked, and the result was two of the most horrific wars in history.
Acting to prevent a rising potential enemy from being a lethal threat to us or working to be able to defeat such a potential threat are not the same as creating that threat. Sure, we should be careful how we prepare so as not to trigger the commie boys in Peking just in case they get a sustained bout of contentment and democracy and make confrontation unnecessary; but never fool ourselves into thinking that we cause their hostility. This is really waltzing into "why do they hate us" thinking.
China wants their place in the sun after too many centuries (from their point of view) as a minor player on the world stage. China sees us as the SPF 8000 sunscreen of the world and no amount of shielding our eyes from this glare changes that fact.
