Hyping The Chinese Threat

By Cernig

It's the last great "communist menace", but China's threat to American global military superiority has been greatly exaggerated by Pentagon planners desperate to justify billions on big-ticket development of new warplanes, ships and weapon systems. Newsweek's Andrew Moravcsik breaks down the figures:

As always with China, the numbers look scary. So it wasn't surprising that, when Beijing announced its new military-spending figures earlier this month, the Pentagon reacted with alarm. China announced a 17.6 percent increase in its 2008 defense budget, up to $58.8 billion. This followed a 17.8 percent increase last year, for a country that already has a 2.3 million-person military—the world's largest.

The U.S. Defense Department, in its annual report to Congress on China's military power on March 3, cast the news in the darkest of ways. The Pentagon painted a portrait of a secretive society seeking to become a superpower by the "acquisition of advanced foreign weapons," "high rates of investment in defense, science and technology," "improved nuclear and missile technologies" and rapid "military transformation"—Pentagon speak for the adoption of U.S.-style high-tech warfare. The report described Chinese cyberterrorism and Beijing blowing satellites out of the sky. And it warned ominously that, while China is needlessly, perhaps deliberately, ambiguous about its strategic goals, its growing capabilities "have implications beyond the Asia-Pacific region."

But hold on. Look more closely at the numbers, and China—while hardly benign—starts to look a lot less sinister. The fact is that China's military modernization is not accelerating; it's been slowing for decades. China's military means are not excessive; they're appropriate to its geopolitical situation. And Beijing's intentions are relatively clear.

Start with its total defense budget. Beijing's new tally, $58.8 billion, is high—but it pales in comparison with the U.S. total, which is $515 billion, or about half of the world's military spending. Even if, as many experts think, China (like the United States) actually spends more than its official stats indicate, it's still far behind America. And Washington has been spending like this for generations—which is why the U.S. aircraft carriers and submarines can sail right up to the Chinese coast, while the Chinese can't come close to the United States. At best, China is generations away from catching up with America—if it ever can.

As for Beijing's intentions, the best way to gauge them is to measure China's military spending as a percentage of national income. This year's increase may look high, but with China's economy growing at about 10 percent and inflation at close to 8 percent, the 17.7 percent hike is barely enough to keep the share of defense spending constant. And this share has fallen over the years, from more than 6 percent during the Cultural Revolution to 2.3 percent during the 1980s, to 1.4 percent in the 1990s, to near 1 percent at the beginning of this decade. It's since gone up a few tenths of a percent, yet even if China's true budget is twice what it says, Beijing's expenditures are still well below the 4 percent of GDP spent by the United States.

Nor is the quality of China's military impressive or threatening. The DoD report speaks of the "accelerating" quality of Chinese weapons systems, pointing to high-tech purchases from abroad. But Singapore-based defense analyst Richard Bitzinger argues that China's acquisitions are actually mundane: "Forget transformation or leap-frogging," he writes; "the Chinese are simply engaged in a frantic game of 'catch-up'." According to the DoD's own stats, 70 percent of China's Army vehicles, 60 percent of its submarines and 80 percent of its fighters are old. There is little evidence it has a pre-emptive strike capability based on aircraft carriers and advanced fighters (despite past DoD predictions that China was acquiring one). Arms purchases from Russia have actually declined tenfold over the past few years, and large naval acquisitions seem to have stalled.

China also has legitimate reasons for spending what it does—a judgment shared by no less an authority than Mike McConnell, the U.S. director of National Intelligence, who recently told Congress that China's military buildup is appropriate to its circumstances (he also reportedly tried to block publication of the Pentagon's alarmist summary). To the dismay of conservatives, McConnell said that "any Chinese regime, even a democratic one, would have similar goals."

Admitted, China has done some amazingly reprehesible stuff - such as the recent crackdown in Tibet - but it's all part of a mainly domestic and entirely regional focus on preserving its own status as the biggest fish in the local pond rather than a threat to American national security. Hyping the threat is partly about a "need to justify R&D and procurement" and thus just yet another example of propaganda in support of corporate welfare schemes. Of course, it's also about a conservative need to keep fearmongering, both for political purposes and to assuage their own psychologically disturbed sense of "threatened tribalism".

What matters is that there be some scary, malicious group about to harm them and America. The identity of the particular scary group at any given moment is really secondary.

This Week In Arms Trade Land

By Cernig

The old saw has it that one should "follow the money" to find the truth - and in foreign policy that too often means following the arms trade money. Here are a couple of interesting but under-reported stories from NewsNow's "arms trade" aggregator this week.

- The US Navy buys the gasoline it sells to squids and Marines at Navy Base Exchanges from a company owned by Hugo Chavez. Needless to say, the Heritage Warmongering Foundation isn't at all amused. "A designation by the Bush Administration of Venezuela as a terrorist-sponsoring state would allow the Navy to end this awkward situation", they say. So if the US goes to war with Venezuela, will it be all about more expensive gas at the pumps, again?

- NATO says it is near a deal with Russia to use Russian airspace and overland routes to resupply troops in Afghanistan. The obvious reason is to reduce the Afghan mission's reliance of Pakistani routes and thus shake Pakistan's conviction that they have the West by the short-and-curlies in the War on (Some) Terror. But has anyone given a thought to how the Afghans will feel watching replacement armoured vehicles or munitions roll into their nation from across the Russian border? Deja vu, or what?

- An un-named Indian Embassy employee was involved in a wide-ranging conspiracy to steal secret weapon and nuclear technology from American companies. from the U.S. Isn't it a bit of a double standard when some nations get a free pass, and even a deal for more nuclear knowledge, when they pull stuff like this - while others get sanctions and sabre-rattling?

Bout Face

By Cernig

I missed this one yesterday - international arms dealer Viktor Bout has been arrested in Thailand.

The U.S. is seeking the extradition of a suspected Russian arms dealer dubbed the "Merchant of Death," but for now he will remain in Thailand, where authorities are investigating if he used the country as a base to negotiate a weapons deal with terrorists, officials said Friday.

Viktor Bout, a 41-year-old whose dealings reportedly inspired a 2005 movie about the illicit arms trade, is accused of running weapons to al-Qaida, the Taliban and parties involved in bloody conflicts across Africa. He was arrested at a Bangkok hotel after a four-month sting operation by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Thai and U.S. authorities said.

The long list of conflicts Bout has helped fuel and dictators he has armed has to be read to be believed. His customers include Afghanistan's Taliban, Anglola, Liberia, Congo, Columbia, Libya, Sierra Leone, Rawanda and of course al-Qaida. The US believes Bout's fleet of over 50 ex-Soviet military transports could transport tanks, helicopters and weapons "by the ton" to virtually any point in the world. No wonder they call him the 'Merchant of Death' and 'Man of War'.

Bout was arrested in Thailand as he was allegedly arranging a multi-milion dollar drop of sophisticated weaponry to Columbia's FARC.

Authorities in New York unsealed a criminal complaint Thursday charging that Bout conspired to sell millions of dollars in weapons - including 100 surface-to-air missiles and armor-piercing rockets - to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

The U.S. considers the leftist rebels, who have been fighting Colombia's government for more than 40 years, a terror group. Bout and associate Andrew Smulian were charged with "conspiring to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization."

The DEA was involved because, according to the criminal complaint, the FARC uses weapons to protect its cocaine trafficking business, which helps to finance its operations.

It's a bit odd, and I'm not the only one to have noticed this, because back in 2004 Bout was a sub-contractor for the Pentagon, flying supplies into Iraq. Last September I noted an interview Laura Rosen did with author Douglas Faraj, who wrote the book on Bout.

The U.S. government response to revelations of the use of Viktor Bout to fly for government contractors in Iraq (not just a few flights, but hundreds, and perhaps a thousand) has been mixed. Bear in mind most of these flights occurred after President Bush had signed an executive order making it illegal to do business with Bout, because he represented a security threat to the United States. The State Department, under a congressional inquiry initiated by Senator Russell Feingold, found it had used Bout companies, acknowledged it, and stopped. Paul Wolfowitz, while at DOD, did not respond to queries for nine months, then acknowledged that DOD contractors had subcontracted to Bout companies. Despite the public revelation, the congressional inquiry, the executive order, and a subsequent Treasury Department order freezing the assets of Bout and his closest associates, the flights continued for many months, at least until the end of 2005. The Air Force cut him off immediately, but other branches of the military continued to use him.

If he was so wanted, why did the Bush administration deal with him, in direct contravention of their own order, rather than arresting him? I find myself wondering if the U.S. wants to extradite Bout to ensure he faces justice...or if the Bush administration simply wants more control over what evidence or testimony might come up in any trial. Cynical of me, I know.

INS Kitty Hawk?

By Cernig

The Weekly Standard's Reuben F. Johnson has an interesting piece today. He says the Bush administration are considering giving the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk, due to be decommissioned this year, to the Indian Navy for free.

The Indians, however, would have to make a committment to purchase 65 of the newest model Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets to arm the Kitty Hawk with. As Johnson points out, this would sink the Indian-Russian $1.5 billion deal to purchase the refitted Admiral Gorshkov which is so far behind schedule and it's attendant deal to buy Mig's to operate from the Gorshkov.

If true--and if New Delhi accepts--this can do more than just sink the Russian carrier deal and the MiG-29K contract. The Indian Air Force (IAF) are deep in the throes of a tender to purchase almost 200 new fighter aircraft, with Boeing and RSK-MiG both in the field of six contenders. An order of 200 fighter airplanes is unheard of--larger than any such export sale in more than 20 years. In an era where sales of 12, 20, or 40 fighters are more common, this is the PowerBall Lotto of export competitions.

If the Indian Navy decide to take on the F/A-18E/Fs, it makes logistical sense for the IAF to do the same and the competition for this massive sale would probably be over for all of the other competitors before it gets started. This would be a huge blow to the fortunes of RSK-MiG, who are bidding an advanced, developed MiG-29 model they have now re-labeled the MiG-35. It could make it hard for the famous Russian planemaker to stay in the military aircraft market.

Just last December Boeing placed $1 billion worth of outsourced production with India's HAL. To run for 10 years, this contract will have the Indians building portions of the F/A-18E/F, the Chinook CH-47 helicopter, and other Boeing platforms. This incentive--plus the carrier deal--could make the Boeing Super Hornet the proverbial offer that is too good to pass up.

Moscow's reaction is likely to be less than joyful.

That's an almost British use of understatement. Russia would be furious and out for some kind of revenge for the stolen deal - and even more livid if their largest indigenous military aircraft manufacturer collapses thereby. Even if the U.S. would just be offering a sweeter version of the deal Russia has already offered.

It's an illuminating look at arms deals as foreign policy - and a moments thought presents some downstream consequences which show why using arms deals as such a blunt FP intrument isn't always a good idea. Russia, for one, is going to become far more recalcitrant over every issue from Iran to missile defense to Kosovo to free trade. Johnson nails it: "All of which will look just like what it is--a return to Cold War behavior, as well as the thinking that is behind it all." I'm left uncertain from reading his piece whether he thinks that would be a good thing or not.

But there's also a small matter of regional inter-relations to consider. That the U.S. will be seen by everyone in the region as cynically arming both Indian and Pakistan in their own arms race is not going to make America more trusted. Others may look elsewhere for a hoped-for edge over ubiquitous American equipment, pushing them further towards Europe, Russia or China.

That the Bush administration is considering giving away a Navy carrier taxpayers have already bought and paid for long ago to provide billions in corporate welfare to Boeing may make short-term sense to them, as well as being a golden opportunity to throw a spanner in Putin's works - but I'm rather worried about what the long-term tail of such a deal would be.

So The U.S. Has An ASAT Weapon

By Cernig

So, the U.S. has an anti-satellite weapon. It's a modification of the well-tried SM3 naval missile rather than one of the fancier and far more expensive per unit specially-developed anti-missile interceptors the military are keeping up in Alaska and plan to install in Europe. It might work under all weather conditions - but the military erred on the side of caution.

The neocons are jubilant - Michael Goldfarb calling it the "greatest PR boost the program could have gotten short of actually striking down a North Korean missile inbound to Hollywood". That's a bit hyperbolic - but then again he also headlines his piece "Missile Defense Works" when hitting a satellite the size of a bus in a predictable orbit doesn't actually say a damn thing about ability to hit a dodging, far smaller re-entry vehicle which might have onboard jammers or decoys deployed.

The rest of us? Well, there isn't a single expert in the field who believes the "hydrazine threat" story. The consensus is that the Bush administration just rattled a sabre the U.S. already proved it had the capability for back in 1985 to no good outcome other than heightened international arms control tensions, at a time when the neocon lobby is calling for a walkback by the U.S. on various arms treaties to allow missile defense systems which will include the permanent stationing of weapons in space. The shootdown was a short-sighted act of marginal utility but incalculable diplomatic/foreign policy effects. Welcome to the new arms race with both China and Russia - and India, Japan, Israel...

Worse, if the neocons are successful in riding this PR victory into a Brilliant Pebbles deployment, the next time an SM3 is launched into orbit it may be targeted at a rogue satellite containing a half-dozen interceptor missiles of its own (or even a nuke-pumped X-Ray laser if one of the more nightamrish plans from Ronnie's old Star Wars comix makes a re-appearance). Wouldn't that make a nice firework video for the nightime news?

Fair Weather Missile Shield

By Cernig

Scout Finch at DKos says it all:

The US Navy announced that due to bad weather, it will postpone the attempt to shoot down the impaired satellite until tomorrow at the earliest. Our zillion dollar "star wars" technology is clearly capable of stopping incoming missiles so long as: they come one at a time, are the size of a school bus, travel in orbits that have been calculated for months, don't deploy any decoys, and the weather is clear.

Heh.

But more seriously, watch for the neocon crowd afterwards - they're going to argue how much easier it would have been if America had interceptors already in space just like Saint Ronnie wanted - and nevermind all that stuff about treaties and new arms races.

Wilkes Gets 12 Years

By Cernig

Duke Cunnigham's briber, Brent Wilkes, has been sentenced to 12 years for bribing the Republican congressman - himself now behind bars - with over $700,000 in perks (including prostitutes) in return for for nearly $90 million in Pentagon defense contracts.

$700 grand - and Duke was only a congresscritter. Makes you wonder what a Republican Senator, VP or President is worth. Maybe we'll find out after November.

Shooting Stars

By Cernig

The Bush administration's public statements about their decision to shoot down a satellite that's already falling down anyway are so ridiculous that everyone's looking for the real motive.

There are many significant political ramifications that would happen as a result of this. The US has been berating the Chinese on their ASAT test but now demonstrate that it is okay as long as it occurs at a low enough altitude to prevent long-lasting debris and can "save lives". This is close to an implied "ok" for the US and other nations to conduct more ASAT tests, which could open another arms race. I am also certain that Russian and China would also see this as a slap in the face as they are trying to revive the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space treaty discussion and ban on space weapons. It would further negatively affect the relations between them and the US. Which could lead to increased tensions, arms buildup, etc etc etc. Nothing good for anyone outside of arms manufacturers and politicians that need a bogeyman to scare people into voting for them.

The Arms Control Wonk, Jeffrey Lewis, has a great post and comments section analyzing the dangers of satellite debris creating more of a menace than the falling artificial star itself.

For myself, I think anyone looking for the real motive should be looking to the writings of the neocon think tanks that have always been the biggest proponents of anti-missile, anti-satellite and space-based weapons. They are calling upon the Bush administration and conservatives to twist and parse like a crowd of Clenises denying a new indecent liason in order to claim that "space was weaponized when the first ballistic missile was deployed, because ballistic missiles travel through space on their way to their targets." Any treaties against space-based weaponry would stop them realising Reagan's dream of Brilliant Pebbles interceptors permanently hanging over everyone's heads.

If this shot fails, it will be used as an argument for space-based interceptors instead. If it suceeds, it will be used as an argument for space-based interceptors as well.

Update The Russians aren't fooled.

Russia has accused the US of using a plan to shoot down a broken spy satellite as a cover for testing an anti-satellite weapon.
The US said last week that it would use a missile to destroy the satellite, to stop it from crash landing.

Officials say the satellite contains hazardous fuel which could kill humans.

But Russia's defence ministry said the US planned to test its "anti-missile defence system's capability to destroy other countries' satellites".

..."Speculations about the danger of the satellite hide preparations for the classical testing of an anti-satellite weapon," a statement reported by Itar-Tass news agency said.

...Such testing essentially means the creation of a new type of strategic weapons," it added.

"The decision to destroy the American satellite does not look harmless as they try to claim, especially at a time when the US has been evading negotiations on the limitation of an arms race in outer space," the statement continued.

The Russian defence ministry argued that various countries' spacecraft had crashed to Earth in the past, and many countries used toxic fuel in spacecraft, but this had never before merited such "extraordinary measures".

An Unhelpful Double Standard

By Cernig

Just a couple of weeks ago, the general in charge of the Bush adminsitration's missile shield program was in Europe telling Czechs that Iran's ballistic missile testing program proved they were a threat to world stability. It was mostly hype. This week Pakistan tested a ballistic missile able to carry one of the nuclear warheads that nation is known - not suspected - to possess. The Bush administration's reaction showed their double standards - demonizing Iran while giving several free passes to other nations with provably worse records on proliferation and secret nuke building who just happen to be allies.

The United States has said that there’s nothing alarming about Pakistan’s latest missile test but urged all countries in the region to observe their international obligations.

“We’ve seen those reports that the Pakistanis have tested a missile. This I understand is a system as reported that has been tested previously,” State Department Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey said.

“Certainly, again, we want all countries to comply with their international obligations and would not want to see anything done that would destabilise the region,” he said.

Mr Casey maintained that the missile test was “not unique and has, in fact, happened before”.

While the US continues to fail to hold itself and its allies - especially those with highly questionable histories - to a different standard on issues like proliferation, democracy, human rights, backing for terrorism and foreign meddling - it cannot hold any high ground in the world forum. That's an utterly counterproductive obstruction to successful foreign policy and must change.

Sarko's Nuclear And Arms Selling Jaunt Continues To India

By Cernig

Nicholas Sarkozy, president of France, seems to be following George W's example and has transformed the office of President into the primary sales office for weaponry and nuclear technology produced by his country. Following on his success selling nuclear know-how and a military base to the UAE, Sarkozy is in India trailed by 60 Captains of Industry, drumming up business:

India and France said they would push their military ties beyond weapons sales and open up nuclear power cooperation as soon as New Delhi is able to enter the global atomic energy market.

...The visit has seen defence ties high on the agenda, with France lobbying hard in a country ranked as the biggest weapons buyer among emerging nations and expected to spend an estimated 30 billion dollars on arms over the next five years.

French-Indian defence ties took a blow last month when New Delhi cancelled a Eurocopter bid for a 600-million-dollar (410-million-euro) helicopter contract due to alleged irregularities. The alleged payment of bribes in a submarine deal is also being probed.

France was the second largest arms supplier to India after Russia but has now been overtaken by Israel. The United States is also pushing for a place in the Indian market.

However, French firms are expected to be invited to upgrade India's fleet of Mirage fighters in a contract worth up to 1.5 billion euros -- and they are set to compete in a tender for 126 war planes.

Sarkozy also announced progress on a nuclear cooperation agreement that has been in the works for years to allow France to supply equipment and fuel to India once it has cleared hurdles with the UN's nuclear watchdog.

A joint statement said "this agreement will form the basis of wide-ranging bilateral cooperation from basic and applied research to full civil nuclear cooperation including reactors, fuel supply and management."

India is currently banned from buying fuel for atomic reactors and related equipment because of nuclear weapons tests in 1974 and 1988.

The French deal hinges on the outcome of negotiations between India and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and with the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group, which controls the global nuclear trade.

Sarkozy said he was confident that meetings allowing nuclear trade with India, a non-NPT signatory, would go well. Meanwhile, one of his captains of industry offered the Indians a sweetener on all the deals - transfer of technology to enable them to build Rafale advanced fighters under license along with 40 of the aircraft at a bargain price right now.

The offer was made by Charles Edelstennie, scion of the Dassult family, the makers of the Rafale and Mirage fighters. "We know the Indian Air Force, with which we have a decade-long close association, is facing force depletion. So we are ready to supply 40 Rafales, the world's first omni-role fighters to India, in a short span of time", the chairman and chief executive of Dassult, a multi-billion French military and civil aerospace company, told PTI.

Edelastennie said Rafale fighters could be an interim sale to India as New Delhi finalises preparations to acquire 126 Multi Role Combat Aircraft at an estimated cost of $10 billion ... Terming the Rafale fighter supply as a "friendly gesture to help close friend India," Edelstennie said his company was a strong bidder for India's MCRA contract.

Rubbishing notions that Rafale came with a heavy price tag, the Dassult CEO said "the fighters' cost to efficiency was not high. New Delhi would get a cheaper price tag as the fighters' assembly in India under technology transfer would not be high".

The Dassault boss also told reporters that French arms sales came without strings attached, unlike sales from other nations like the US and Russia.

I'm beginning to wonder what's on Sarko's mind. This might all be just friendly competition and he may even have discussed his tour and the deals he's making with his pal Bush. But then again it is beginning to look like the early days of a deliberate French attempt to steal some of the US' superpower status. That's only possible, if so, because Bush has so weakened American prestige and power with his adventure in Iraq and a string of diplomatic idiocies. That weakening may have left enough of a power vacuum that nations like the Russians and French are looking to fill that vacuum to their own benefits. Wouldn't it be ironic if George Bush, the president who has used America's lone-power status in a bid for hegemony, instead has ushered in a new multi-polar period of instability as lesser powers compete (and quite possibly clash) for the gap his policies have created?

Update Swaraaj Chauhan, an Indian professor of journalism who blogs at The Moderate Voice, has noticed recent arms deals too and rightly points out that the Indian military's bugbear is always Pakistan (and vice versa). He reminds me that I wrote a post back in 2005 exploring how arms deals to the region, especially some key deals from the US, have helped make it potentially the most dangerous place on Earth.