Since 2000, the Department of Defense has been required to submit to Congress an annual report on the Chinese military. Like all major documents, the draft is subject to review and input from other government agencies and the White House. The result of these reviews has often been to delay and soften the message from the Pentagon about the increasing capabilities of the People’s Republic of China which are designed for use against American and allied forces.

The 2010 annual report was supposed to be published by March 1, but did not appear until August 16. There had been speculation that the White House wanted to hold the April Nuclear Security Summit and the May U.S.-China Security and Economic Dialogue before the report became public. President Barack Obama hoped to make diplomatic progress with Beijing before attention was drawn to China’s military buildup. The talks, however, proved futile. Still, language was inserted expressing the hope for good relations with Beijing despite the communist regime’s behavior. The report states, “In speaking of U.S.-China relations, President Obama has said that ‘our ability to partner is a prerequisite for progress on many of the most pressing global challenges.’” The report also claims, “The United States and China are committed to the pursuit of a bilateral relationship that is positive, cooperative, and comprehensive.”

Such diplomatic window dressing fooled no one. The Washington Post headline on its story read, “Pentagon: China’s Military Power Growing.” And even the paper’s appeasement-oriented China expert John Pomfret opened his column with the warning, “China is quickly modernizing its military and has set its sights on extending its influence deep into the Pacific and Indian oceans now that the military balance with its longtime nemesis, Taiwan, is tilting in its favor, the Defense Department reported Monday.” The Wall Street Journal, which has long supported the right of corporations to help Beijing acquire the means to expand its capabilities, ran as its headline “The Chinese Military Challenge: The PLA is seeking to push U.S. forces out of Asian waters.”

The PRC reacted strongly to the report. “We ask the United States… to stop remarks and behavior that are not beneficial for mutual trust between the two militaries and Sino-US relations,” demanded Defense Ministry spokesman Geng Yansheng. The Foreign Ministry also called for an end to the annual reports. China’s state-run media carried a barrage of negative comments blasting what they called an “aggressive” and “interfering” Pentagon assessment. A Japanese defense ministry spokeswoman said, however, that Tokyo would also “keep paying attention to China’s military trend,” which it believed would “have a significant impact on security in the region.”

The WSJ headline went to the heart of the matter. Since May, there have been a series of competing naval maneuvers near the Korean peninsula and in the South China Sea which have highlighted the growing confrontation between Beijing’s ambitions and the security interests of the United States and other nations along the Pacific Rim. Capturing Taiwan would help China penetrate the “first island chain” that runs from Japan through Taiwan to the Philippines and then to Indonesia. Beijing thinks of the waters between the mainland and the island nations to the east as being Chinese territorial seas. The Pentagon report notes that the PRC is developing its own legal doctrine which is “inconsistent with international law” in regard to control of the trade routes and seabed resources of the region.

The DoD report states, “The PLA Navy has the largest force of principal combatants, submarines, and amphibious warfare ships in Asia. China’s naval forces include some 75 principal combatants, more than 60 submarines, 55 medium and large amphibious ships, and roughly 85 missile-equipped patrol craft.” A new naval base on Hainan Island is nearly complete, with underground facilities for submarines and advanced surface warships within easy striking range of South China Sea targets.

A priority is the construction of new nuclear powered and diesel-electric attack submarines armed with anti-ship cruise missiles. China is also developing an anti-ship ballistic missile with a range in excess of 1,000 miles, with a maneuverable warhead. It is designed to strike U.S. aircraft carriers before their fighters are within range of China. China has it own aircraft carrier development program. According to the report, “The PRC shipbuilding industry could start construction of an indigenous platform by the end of this year. China is interested in building multiple operational aircraft carriers with support ships in the next decade.”

Another useful document which has not gotten the same attention as the publicly released Pentagon report is the study “China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress” by Ronald O’Rourke of the Congressional Research Service. Though written for use on Capitol Hill, the study has become available on the internet. The CRS report notes Chinese objectives beyond an “anti-access” strategy meant to isolate Taiwan from outside help in a war to conquer the island. “Some observers believe that China’s military modernization effort, including its naval modernization effort, is increasingly oriented toward pursuing additional goals, such as asserting or defending China’s claims in maritime territorial disputes, protecting China’s sea lines of communications, displacing U.S. influence in the Pacific, and asserting China’s status as a major world power.”

Besides providing additional details on Chinese naval programs, the CRS study looks at how an expanding fleet could be used to advance Beijing’s influence short of war.

The U.S.-Chinese military balance in the Pacific could nevertheless influence day-to-day choices made by other Pacific countries, including choices on whether to align their policies more closely with China or the United States. In this sense, decisions that Congress and the executive branch make regarding U.S. Navy programs for countering improved Chinese maritime military forces could influence the political evolution of the Pacific, which in turn could affect the ability of the United States to pursue goals relating to various policy issues, both in the Pacific and elsewhere.

The CRS report also goes further than the Pentagon study in laying out what the U.S. needs to do to counter the Chinese naval buildup. Suggestions include developing and procuring more high-capable ships, aircraft, and other weapons for defeating Chinese forces (especially those with missile defense capabilities); assigning a larger percentage of the Navy to the Pacific theater; home-porting more warships at forward locations such as Hawaii, Guam, and Japan; and increasing antisubmarine warfare training (the CRS projects a fleet of 75 Chinese submarines).

Some of these measures are already being done, such as deploying submarines to Guam. However, more will be needed than just moving around units in a shrinking fleet. “Placing a strong emphasis on countering Chinese maritime anti-access capabilities could involve maintaining or increasing funding for procurement of Ford (CVN-78) class aircraft carriers, Virginia (SSN-774) class attack submarines, and Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) class Aegis destroyers.” Unfortunately, future Navy budgets currently do not provide for a buildup of forces to match what the Chinese are doing.

The CRS report can claim, “how the United States should respond to China’s military modernization effort, including its naval modernization effort, has emerged as a key issue in U.S. defense planning.” It can cite Congressional testimony and legislative language. But until more warships are funded, it won’t mean a thing.

Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author

William R. Hawkins
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor William R. Hawkins is a consultant specializing in international economic and national security issues. He is a former economics professor and Republican Congressional staff member.