Should It Be “China Threat Theory” or “US-Japan Threat Theory?”

Each year, the U.S. releases a report entitled “Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China” that evaluates the Chinese military complex and propagates the “China Threat Theory.” By contrast, not 20 days after this year’s May 18 publication of the U.S. military report on China, China released the “Assessment of U.S. Military Report 2011 (civilian edition)” and the “Assessment of Japanese Military Report 2011 (civilian edition)” — the very first publication of its kind. Truly tit for tat, the American appraisal of Chinese military power and the Chinese civilian report on American military strength have been presented to the international media and the general public, providing material for a comparative analysis of Sino-U.S.-Japanese military forces.

What’s intriguing is that China’s assessment of U.S. military power was not in the name of the Chinese government, nor in the name of the Chinese military, but was rather dubbed as “civilian.” Yet these reports are definitely not scams, for the two reports were shown to have been prepared under the auspices of the China Council for the Promotion of Strategic Military Culture and the organization’s Executive Vice President Major General Luo Yuan assured the media that the two reports were drafted under the guidance of a council comprised of a number of authoritative military experts. Evidently, the importance of these two reports should not be underestimated.

“The U.S. military is still the most powerful military on the globe,” describes the central viewpoint of the Chinese civilian report, which is an angle that the U.S. has claimed and that the international community has recognized. Since the U.S. military is the world’s “most powerful,” its infiltration into any country naturally espouses feelings of threat within the community. Because interference in the South China Sea dispute has been an established strategy for the U.S., the U.S. military has been actively seeking a strong military foothold in the South China Sea region. Its targets include the military bases in Singapore, in Darwin, Australia, in Subic Bay, Philippines, and in Cam Rahn Bay, Vietnam. The logic of the U.S. and Japan is that they can sell arms to Taiwan, infringe upon China’s sovereignty and disrupt China’s internal affairs. They can also send spy vessels toward China, deploy strategic nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines to the Western Pacific close to China, conduct frequent joint military exercises in surrounding regions to display military prowess, and continue to research, develop and update a variety of sophisticated equipment. Of course they can also increase the number of “self-defense” personnel and deploy armies to the doorway to China — the southeastern islands, which in the United States’ and Japan’s words would only serve to safeguard regional peace and stability. Even so, the civilian report still made the following suggestion: China should, on one hand, remain vigilant towards America’s return to Asia to intervene in the South China Sea dispute and the United States’ focal military strategy shifting eastward, and, on the other hand, see to the in-depth economic integration of both nations as the Chinese and U.S. militaries cooperate in dealing with the challenges and threats of the 21st century. This suggestion not only reveals that the Chinese public is concerned with America as a military threat, but also realistically indicates the impact of the interconnectedness that the Sino-U.S. economy has on U.S. military activities. Compared to the visceral “China Threat Theory,” this civilian report appears a lot more objective.

For one, nowadays China has become the first creditor nation for the United States; the U.S. Department of Treasury shows that by the end of 2011, Chinese holdings of U.S. Treasury Bonds amounted to $1.15 trillion, presenting a decrease of $8.2 billion per month compared to last year. The report shows that as of the end of December 2011, Chinese holdings of American debt, containing a variety of receipts, ends in a balance of $1.15 trillion. China has leapt to the seat of the world’s second largest economy. Even though conflicts persist between the U.S. and China, China is still America’s third largest export economy and has been the fastest growing export market for the U.S. for years — the situation definitely will influence Sino-U.S. military relationships. Therefore, solely discussing “China Threat Theory” or “U.S. Threat Theory” is fruitless.

Unsurprisingly, China’s “Assessment of Japanese Military Report 2011 (civilian edition)” has garnered quite a bit of international attention. The Japan report is only 16 pages versus the 51-page U.S. report, but the Japanese military has already given worrisome signs: military strategic adjustments. Japan has been exporting arms beyond regulation guidelines; the Japanese self-titled “Self Defense” force is realistically a medium-sized, well-equipped, technologically advanced and highly trained army. They have also expressed their firm stance on the issue of the Diaoyu Islands. The above list of things has already seriously violated the Japanese “pacifist” constitution. Violation of Japan’s “pacifist” constitution has imaginable consequences. Should Japan insist on a U.S.-Japan alliance and conduct military exercises, it will prove difficult to erase the “U.S.-Japan Threat Theory” from the minds of Southeast Asians. Thus, whether it’s to preserve the peace of the Asian Pacific or promote world peace, there is a need to strengthen international surveillance on Japan and its a history of aggression toward many countries in the past century, at least for the suppression of a military resurgence. Yet on this crucial issue, the powerful U.S. military maintains the U.S.-Japan axis, which can only elicit concern from people in Asia as well as worldwide.

China has promulgated that while the reports were civilian editions, they seem well supported. A rational analysis of the current world powers and threat levels cannot rely on finger-pointing, but has to be backed with facts and reasoning. To eliminate “threat theories,” communication will be critical.