China's Secretive Arms Buildup Is Making Asian Neighbors Jittery
International Herald Tribune
April 1, 1993
Michael Richardson 

China's failure to disclose the full scale of its military spending or make public details of its defense purchases is fanning suspicions among Asian countries that Beijing is seeking to be a dominant regional power.

Such suspicion is dangerous because it is a major factor spurring a substantial arms buildup by many countries in the region that fear the prospect of a strong and assertive China.

Malaysia's prime minister, Mahathir bin Mohamad, said recently that "the most worrisome" development in East Asia was the growing strength of China.

He cautioned that the re-equipment of the Chinese armed forces, mainly with modern weapons bought cheaply from Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union, "may cause Japan to balance the strength of China."

Some Asian governments are concerned that a combination of U.S. economic difficulties, intensifying trade friction between America and Japan, and the end of the Soviet threat may eventually lead to then withdrawal of American forces from Japan and Japanese rearmament on a huge scale.

Japan's offensive capability is still limited despite having the third largest military budget in the world, said Jusuf Wanandi, chairman of the supervisory board of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Jakarta.

"But that can change very quickly," he added.

Mr. Jusuf said that China's assertiveness in claiming Hong Kong and disputed islands in the South China Sea, together with "the increase of her defense budget which is not transparent," had caused Japan and other countries in the region to question why the Chinese military needed to have new weapons such as jet fighters, missiles and possibly an aircraft carrier.

The Chinese government recently announced a 12.4 percent increase in military spending for 1993 to about $7.5 billion.

It is the fourth year in a row that Beijing has substantially bolstered the military budget.

Specialists said that since the publicly disclosed budget did not include money spent on new equipment, weapons research or demobilization of officers, actual spending was likely to be about double the officially declared level.

"Almost all analysts believe that China's official data grossly underestimate the real cost of China's defense budget," said Desmond Ball, a regional military specialist in the Stategic and Defense Studies Center at the Australian National University in Canberra.

To illustrate the point, he said that official Chinese figures for 1988 put the military budget at $6.9 billion. Australia's military budget in that year was $5.9 billion.

Yet China's armed forces numbered about three million while Australia had fewer than 100,000. China had about 8,000 main battle tanks, 56 major warships and 4,000 fighters. Australia had 103 tanks, 10 major warships and fewer than 100 fighters.

Jonathan Pollack, a specialist on Asian strategic affairs at the Rand Corp. in Santa Monica, California, said that because China held a cloak of secrecy over its military programs and plans, it was "easy for the outside world to fall prey to alarmist scenarios."

But it was equally easy, he warned, for Chinese military authorities to "move ahead without regard for the interests and concerns of their neighbors."

Some Southeast Asian nations such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore are seeking to break down these barriers of secrecy by promoting exchange visits of senior military planners and officers with China.

The Malaysian defense minister, Najib Razak, said that by exchanging views on mutual interests and concerns, the armed forces of China and its neighbors could help reduce mistrust and build confidence in the region.

Copyright © 2006 The International Herald Tribune