Hassanwazir's List: US and CHINA

• Like most of Asia's island disputes, the controversy emerged out of the redistribution of territory seized by Japan during World War II, though it has its origins in the first Sino-Japanese war in 1894-1895.  According to the Chinese version of events, Diaoyu had been administered by Taiwan -- which was ruled by imperial China -- prior to the war, and was ceded to Japan along with Taiwan and the Pescadores after China's defeat in the war.
• apan claims that the uninhabited islands were never China's to give. They were never administered by China and therefore not part of the package of land ceded. Rather they were simply claimed as terra nullius by Japan in 1895, when the government placed a marker designating them as Japanese territory, and have been part of Japan's southern Nansei Shoto islands ever since.  According to Japan, China never contested its claim to the islands until nearby energy deposits were discovered in the 1970s. 

• In 1971, the U.S. and Japan signed a treaty reverting Okinawa and the surrounding islands back to Japanese control, which stated "the United States of America relinquishes in favour of Japan all rights and interests under Article III of the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed at the City of San Francisco." 

   

  China points to its own agreement with the United States, the 1943 Cairo statement issued by Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Chiang Kai-shek. The three leaders agreed that following the war, "Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, [Taiwan] and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China." If you accept, as Beijing does, that Diaoyu was part of Chinese-ruled Taiwan prior to 1895, then that would indicate that it would be returned to China along with the other seized islands. (It would also mean that the U.S. military was bombing Chinese territory throughout the '50s and '60s, but that's another issue.)

1 more annotation...

• China’s military budget is about US$ 91.5 billion and the United States budget is about US$663.8 billion
• The United States military is more than seven times larger than China. In fact the United States military budget is larger than the combined military budgets of China, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Japan, Russia, India, and Brazil.
• China and the United States have roughly about the same size of land. China has 9,596,960 square kilometers of land, and the United States has 9,629,091 square kilometers of land.
• However, China has fourteen neighboring countries - four of them have nuclear weapons, and a few of them engaged in war with China in the past. The United States has two neighboring countries: Canada and Mexico. None possesses nuclear weapons and both are at peace with the United States But China’s military is only spending US$9,534 per square kilometer to protect its land, and the United States is spending US$68,936 per square kilometer to protect its land, while it has two peaceful neighbors and two great oceans serving as buffer zones.
• China has roughly 1,336,718,000 people, which means China is spending US$70 per each of its citizens, whereas the United States is spending US$2,119 per each of its citizens, 30 times that of China.
• Much of the challenges facing the United States China military to military relationship are not military issues but rather economic and political interests. It is true that one of the essential functions of a military is to protect the economy of its country. The United States has the largest economy in the world at US$14.6 trillion annually, whereas China is only a fraction of that amount at only US$5.75 trillion. With an economy almost three times as large as China’s, the United States is spending 4.7% of its GDP on its military budget while China is only spending 1.4% of its GDP.
• It is true that China possesses nuclear weapons. But since 1964, China has adopted a universal no-first-use (NFU) pledge. China applies NFU to Taiwan; and China has pledged not to target its nuclear weapons against the United States or Russia. As far back as 1998, in its White Paper on National Defense, China stated:
• If there were ever going to be a war between the United States and China, it will be because of United States’ military interference to support a Taiwan independence from China. Each time the United States arms sales to Taiwan raises great concern and contention from China. At times it has hurt the normal high level military to military engagements.
• The answer is affirmative that China has more than enough power to take over Taiwan by force. Yet China chooses to exercise restraint and not to pursue a military option.
• Last year, the Obama administration’s approval of US$6 billion of arms sales to Taiwan is pale compare to the existing China arsenal.
• Dr. Henry Kissinger said it best: “Diplomacy is the art of restraining power.”
• While current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton declared South China Sea to be United States’ “national interest”, however, we have to keep in mind that peace and prosperity is the true “international interest” for all.

10 more annotations...

• China’s GDP increased to 7.3 trillion USD last year and is expected to reach 7.9 trillion this year, nearly half the volume of the US. Chinese defense budget increased to $105 billion this year, the largest in Asia and the second largest in the world, although it makes up only one sixths that of the US
• The second development is the recent US “rebalance toward Asia”. The rebalance is driven by three factors: the rise of Asia-Pacific region as the main driver for global economic growth calls for more US engagement to help economic recovery and future prosperity; the end of the two hot wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provides for the US opportunities to redirect resources, redeploy troops and reorient policies; and China’s defense modernization have changed the balance of power in an area where the US has dominated for decades. Some US allies and partners have requested more robust US presence to offset China’s rise. Although the rebalance has created a fanfare and caused genuine concern in China, the declared measures are piecemeal and will take years to achieve.
• Meanwhile, US rebalance toward Asia is perceived as part of the hedging or even containing effort against China. Even though the rebalance has political, diplomatic, economic and military elements, measures in the last category received most attention. For example, the US will not reduce defense investment in the Asia-Pacific region even though it is going to cut its defense budget by 500 billion USD. The forward regional presence would be reinforced by rotationally deployed marines to Darwin, Australia, on board ships and even to the Philippines, and by up to 4 littoral combat ships near Singapore. The 9000 marines withdrawn from Okinawa will be redeployed to Guam, Hawaii or Alaska, and up to 60% of US naval vessels will be in the Pacific by 2020. The US is planning with its allies to set up a BMD system in East Asia. And the strengthening of alliance ties and development of partnerships are scrutinized in China for future security implications. Thus, China’s rise (together with military modernization) and US rebalance seem to place both in a “security dilemma”, in which action by one to increase security reduces the other’s sense of security. And the interactive process is leading to deeper strategic distrust.

1 more annotation...