China’s Hidden Power – USA Gov Policy

While all eyes may be trained on China due to the Covid-19 virus, foreign analysts still struggle to sort out what they actually know about the country and how its military operates. In contrast, western democracies are vastly more transparent about their military budgets and overall government spending. Beijing presents a very different story of under-reporting and under-the-table tactics designed to avoid close scrutiny by other nations. Before it opened to the West, intelligence analysts in the US often were left guessing who in the Chinese leadership was in favor and who was out. There was little, solid quantitative analysis available then or now. For many years the intelligence community resorted to simply counting the number of times a leader’s name, such as Mao Zedong, was mentioned in a major speech. Analysts believed less mentions inferred an ongoing internal leadership struggle.

While Chinese society is more open today than during the Cultural Revolution, democratic governments still do not have a good level of certainty about how much the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) spends on the country’s military or related activities. Since 2000 the CCP, which funds the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), has invested heavily in its modernization with the goal of overtaking the west within a few decades. Long-term thinking is one of China’s cultural strengths.

American military planners traditionally could count on being three-to-four generations of technology ahead of China, which in itself was a strategic advantage. Today that gap has disappeared. For the last two decades the CCP has annually increased its military budget by 13.54%, according to a There are different generic line viagra causes of joint pain for example as; steroid drug withdrawal, torn ACL, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, SAPHO syndrome, sickle cell anemia, torn meniscus, knee injury, dengue fever, arthritis, aseptic necrosis, bursitis, fibromyalgia, lliotibial band syndrome and elbow pain. There are also purchase levitra generic versions available in the market or through online pharmacies that are being used to treat impotence. Liu has suffered from prostatitis for many find over here now on line viagra years. Safed Musli : The appalachianmagazine.com purchase levitra perfect Sex Stimulator and aphrodisiac as well as rejuvenator.2. recently released Heritage Foundation study. In total, the expansion of the military budget represents a 3,852% increase in nominal growth. This also represents a strong commitment by China to overtake the west and to recapture the prestige it feels rightly belongs to the Middle Kingdom.

Eighteen years ago, the former Secretary-General of the CCP, Jiang Zemin, declared the early decades of the 21^st century to be a period of “strategic opportunity” for China. Speaking to the CCP’s 19^th Party Congress in Beijing, Jiang explained that the first 20 years would be for progress toward strategic warfighting domains, the next fifteen were for modernization and by 2050 he announced China would be a world-class military. In its latest annual report to Congress, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission stated that China is ahead of this schedule by over a decade. Despite any short-term disruptions encountered due to the Covid-19 virus it appears China is well-positioned to be a major thorn in the side of western leaders given its recent history of increasingly aggressive military behavior across the globe.

When western nations attempt to evaluate how much China is spending it is important to recognize that the Chinese version of what is included is very different from what is included in democratic nations. Many parts of Chinese military spending simply are not quantitatively available for analysis by non-Chinese. Transparency is lacking. And, little of the official data put out by the CCP is reliable. When China does release numerical figures (vs. a percentage increase or decrease), they are suspect as they are created typically to back the government’s latest propaganda campaign. There are other differentials that need to be examined but often get overlooked by the western media. The cost of labor in China is not equal to the costs incurred by employers in the west. Items not labeled as military expenditures in China often do fall under western military budgets. It makes it incredibly difficult for a fair comparison of spending between the west and China. In addition, there is the ubiquitous use of the PLA to reinforce the stability of the Communist Party and its absolute leadership over the country. Today, President Xi Jinping uses the PLA to stabilize his authoritarian rule and to reinforce the indoctrination of the Chinese people. The CCP leadership doesn’t trust the population to support it without draconian measures designed to instill fear and obedience. There is no quantitative measure to identify the cost of repression. The western media act outraged at the size of the US defense budget, yet few delve into the real story behind the numbers of what China is doing today and where it plans to be tomorrow.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. Each Saturday, she presents key updates on U.S. foreign policy from the State Department.

Photo: China Ministry of National Defense

Quick Analysis

AMERICA’S STRATEGIC POSTURE

The Final Report of the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States As 2023 drew to a close, the dramatically deteriorating national security picture for the United States and its allies prompted a review of “America’s Strategic Posture.” A committee chaired by Madelyn Creedon and Jon Kyl issued a sobering analysis. We present a summary of this vital analysis. The militarily troubling and increasingly aggressive behaviors of Russia and China over the past decade led Congress to direct a review of the strategic posture of the United States, including nuclear weapons policy, strategy, and force structure. China’s rapid military build-up, including the unprecedented growth of its nuclear forces, Russia’s diversification and expansion of its theater-based nuclear systems, the invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and subsequent full-scale invasion in February 2022, have all fundamentally altered the geopolitical landscape. As a result of China’s and Russia’s growing competition with the United States and its Allies and partners, and the increasing risk of military conflict with one or both, as well as concerns about whether the United States would be prepared to deter two nuclear peers, Congress determined it was time for a new look at U.S. strategic policy, strategy, and force structure. The new global environment is fundamentally different than anything experienced in the past, even in the darkest days of the Cold War. Today the United States is on the cusp of having not one, but two nuclear peer adversaries, each with ambitions to change the international status quo, by force, if necessary: a situation which the United States did not anticipate and for which it is not prepared. While the risk of a major nuclear conflict remains low, the risk of military conflict with either or both Russia and China, while not inevitable, has grown, and with it the risk of nuclear use, possibly against the U.S. homeland. The United States faces a strategic challenge requiring urgent action. Given current threat trajectories, our nation will soon encounter a fundamentally different global setting than it has ever experienced: we will face a world where two nations possess nuclear arsenals on par with our own. In addition, the risk of conflict with these two nuclear peers is increasing. It is an existential challenge for which the United States is ill-prepared, unless its leaders make decisions now to adjust the U.S. strategic posture. America’s defense strategy and strategic posture must change in order to properly defend its vital interests and improve strategic stability with China and Russia. Decisions need to be made now in order for the nation to be prepared to address the threats from these two nucleararmed adversaries arising during the 2027-2035 timeframe. Moreover, these threats are such that the United States and its Allies and partners must be ready to deter and defeat both adversaries simultaneously. The evidence demonstrates that the U.S.-led international order and the values it upholds are at risk from the Chinese and Russian authoritarian regimes. The risk of military conflict with those major powers has grown and carries the potential for nuclear war. Therefore, the Commission reached the unanimous, non-partisan conclusion that today’s strategic outlook requires an urgent national focus and a series of concerted actions not currently planned. In sum, we find that the United States lacks a comprehensive strategy to address the looming twonuclear-peer threat environment and lacks the force structure such a strategy will require. In reaching that overall conclusion, we make clear that the fundamentals of America’s deterrence strategy remain sound, but the application of that strategy must change to address the 2027-2035 threat environment. Those changes drive necessary adjustments to the posture of U.S. nuclear capabilities – in size and/or composition. A full spectrum of non-nuclear capabilities is also essential to the nation’s strategic posture. Such adjustments, in turn, drive the need to strengthen and expand the capacity of the infrastructure required to sustain and enhance U.S. strategic capabilities. In addition, Allies and partners are central to our findings regarding strategy and posture. We also emphasize the need for robust risk reduction efforts as fundamental to the U.S. approach in the new threat environment. The Report continues tomorrow Photo: The lead ground-based Interceptor is launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., March 25, 2019, in the first salvo engagement test of a threat-representative intercontinental ballistic missile target. The test’s two interceptors successfully intercepted a target launched from the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. (DoD)