Washington cries wolf
Andrew Moravcsik

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 per cent increase in its 2008 defense budget, up to $58.8 billion. This followed a 17.8 per cent increase last year, for a country that already has a 2.3 million-person military — the world’s largest. The US 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 US-style high-tech warfare. The report described Chinese cyber-terrorism 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 modernisation 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 US 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 US 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 per cent and inflation at close to 8 per cent, the 17.7 per cent hike is barely enough to keep the share of defense spending constant. And this share has fallen over the years, from more than 6 per cent during the Cultural Revolution to 2.3 per cent during the 1980s, to 1.4 per cent in the 1990s, to near 1 per cent at the beginning of this decade. It’s since gone up a few tenths of a per cent, yet even if China’s true budget is twice what it says, Beijing’s expenditures are still well below the 4 per cent 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 per cent of China’s Army vehicles, 60 per cent of its submarines and 80 per cent 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 US 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.”
This makes sense. If China hopes to attract educated soldiers of the sort necessary for high-tech warfare, or to merely placate its troops, it’s going to have to start paying them more, for salaries and benefits haven’t kept up with the country’s boom. “Two decades ago, a military man was an attractive spouse,” one Chinese researcher told me last week. “But today no one in a city like Shanghai lets their daughter marry one. They just don’t earn enough.” The Middle Kingdom, moreover, sits in the middle of a tough neighbourhood. It’s not only the US fleet off its shores Beijing must contend with. Of China’s four nuclear neighbours — Russia, India, Pakistan and North Korea — two (Russia and India) spend almost as much on defense as China does (so does nonnuclear Japan), and at least two (Pakistan and North Korea) are potentially unstable. Just a generation ago, China was defeated in war by tiny Vietnam. The Pentagon’s report suggests there is some uncertainty about China’s intentions towards its neighbours. Yet in recent years, Beijing’s local behaviour has been fairly benign: it has settled border disputes with six neighbours, joined and sponsored multilateral institutions and become the hub of a booming network of Asian trade and investment. Far from uncertain, China’s strategic intentions seem relatively clear and stable: to promote peace and prosperity.
Beijing has one other pressing local concern — Taiwan, which it regards as a breakaway province. China’s government has said that it seeks peaceful reunification with the island, but Beijing reserves the right to use force in response if Taipei declares independence. China also disputes the sovereignty of some resource-rich islands in the surrounding seas, but it has shown a willingness to compromise on such claims. China sees both these issues as domestic, so National People’s Congress spokesman Jiang Enzhu was surely sincere when he stated on March 4 that “China’s limited armed forces are totally for the purpose of safeguarding independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity.” In recent years, it has been Taiwan — not China — that has threatened the status quo.
To sum up: Beijing’s strategic priorities today are to maintain missile bases across the Taiwan Strait, build a substantial short-range naval presence, improve its anti-satellite technology and seek other means to balance US power in the event of a regional conflict. There’s little evidence China has greater strategic ambitions — let alone any desire for the sort of global hegemony that American alarmists sometimes warn of. Given all this, what explains the Pentagon’s position? Former assistant secretary of Defense Charles Freeman, who was President Nixon’s interpreter at his epochal meeting with Mao Zedong in 1972, argues that the US military’s hype is motivated by a “need to justify R&D and procurement.” Freeman, who has participated in behind-the-scenes “track two” sessions with Chinese military brass, also believes US officials often “blame the Chinese for a lack of transparency that [actually] reflects only our own intellectual laziness, linguistic incompetence and complacent ignorance.” Perhaps. But it is also a means to promote deeper military-to-military links and information exchanges with China — a controversial course for Beijing (and also for some in Washington), but one that is already underway. On February 29, for example, the two countries agreed to establish a telephone link between their respective defense departments. Military talks are also planned. These are hopeful signs.
Still, the Pentagon’s insinuations could inflame bilateral relations and distract Washington from the more limited but very real threats posed by China’s modest buildup — and the possibility that a Taiwan crisis could spiral out of control. The Bush administration, which began its tenure with a hostile view of Beijing similar to the Pentagon’s, has since changed course dramatically, recently working closely with China to avoid conflict. Seems that almost everyone in Washington has finally gotten the message — except the Pentagon.

—Khaleej Times

Repatriation of refugees is imperative
iFurzana Shaheen

FOLLOWING decades of war and civil strife, Afghans constituted the world’s largest refugee population, with 8 million people scattered in over 70 countries across the globe at the height of their exodus. Thousands of Afghan people continued to leave during the 90s as internal factional and ethnic conflicts persisted. Internal displacement due to violence, drought, and poverty was also significant. Afghanistan’s economy has collapsed, a large segment of public and private property stand destroyed and productive assets have fallen into disrepair. Consequently, rural and urban communities have fragmented and families have split up. Most of the Afghan people have taken refuge in Pakistan and Iran.
Pakistan is still hosting the world’s largest single case load of refugee population of 3.2 million approximately. Islamabad has provided shelter and support to Afghan refugees despite great social, economic, cultural, and demographic ramifications during the last 3 decades. There are 43 Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan, out of which 30 are in NWFP, 12 in Balochistan, and 1 in Punjab. Out of these camps, Kacha Garhi camp in NWFP has been closed and closure of Jalozaicamp is in process. Due to various reasons including the onset of harsh winter season, Government of Pakistan in line with its traditional hospitality and brotherly relations with Afghanistan, has agreed to extend the deadline for the closure of Jalozai camp. The worsening security situation in the most of the parts of Afghanistan is effectively impeding the return of these refugees to their homeland. In the past the repatriation of Afghan refugees was viewed as progressing at somewhat satisfactory level but the recent drastic fall in numbers has created many difficulties and injected complications for the Pakistani host. Islamabad desires a successful voluntary and comprehensive’ repatriation of Afghan refugees, therefore, it entered into the Comprehensive Repatriation and Reintegration Strategy 2007-2009 with UNHCR (United Nations High Commission for Refugees) and the Government of Afghanistan in February 2007 to resolve the refugee problem. Under this strategy, all refugees are to be repatriated by 2009.
The foreigners on Pakistan’s soil are not only our economic burden but their presence has evolved some dangerous dimensions; in so far as Pakistan’s internal security is concerned. Afghan refugees in Pakistan attract accusations of involvement in smuggling, drug trafficking, terrorism, and the ongoing insurgency in Waziristan and other tribal areas. This is further exacerbated by the lack of border management and the continued unregulated movements of people, particularly to and from Afghanistan. Unless and until the security situation in Afghanistan improves, the number of returnees is likely to further drop. Most of the Afghan refugees are reluctant to repatriate, citing unwillingness once again to undergo the traumas of displacement, the inability of the Afghan authorities to provide even minimal services to which they have become accustomed, and the absence of guaranteed economic security. One of the refugees said that, “It is much better to stay here in Pakistan until there is security, peace, and economic incentives in Afghanistan”.
Restoring security, reviving reconstruction and development can pull these refugees back to their homeland. There is a need to provide incentives to settle them to the towns and villages where they lived before their displacement. The presence of Afghan refugees in Pakistan has already complicated the situation in Pakistan and- gave birth to many unanticipated social and economic problems. Due to emerging implications, the longstanding presence of Afghan refugees on Pakistan’s soil has increasingly begun to emerge as an irritant to bilateral relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
It is said that Afghan refugee camps provide safe havens for insurgents who easily cross back and forth across the busy and porous border and the relations between Kabul and Islamabad have been strained for tit-for-tat accusations about the roots of insurgency and the whereabouts of Taliban and AI-Qaeda leaders. The people of Pakistan are doing everything t6 facilitate their stay in Pakistan but accommodating attitude of some of the refugees to provide cover to the Taliban inject complications for Pakistan. Afghan and the Western media invariably without undertaking proper investigation puts out reports in such a way that it generates the impression that it is being done with the connivance of Pakistan’s Government. But what they have failed to acknowledge is that Pakistan is doing all it can to curb cross-border infiltration.
Islamabad has decided to fence the 2,430km Pak-Afghan porous border, laying down mines, establishing 1000 security check-posts as compared to just 100 on Afghan side, introducing biometric identity checks on the Pakistani side of the border, initiating peace jirga commissions, closing of refugee camps, and repatriation of Afghan refugees to address the issue of cross-border infiltration. The Government of Pakistan is also doing the registration of Afghan refugees and registered Afghans are given PoR (Proof of Registration) cards with a validity of three years. The data from the registration exercise is helpful in providing a sharper profile of the Afghan refugees. There are 2.153 million registered refugees in Pakistan and 0.314 million refugees are non-registered. This registration would eliminate all chances of illegal entry and stay of Afghans in Pakistan. Despite acknowledging Pakistan’s support for her Afghan brethren, Karzai and his international supporters alleged Islamabad of sponsoring insurgents in Afghanistan to fight ISAF and Afghan forces. While Pakistan’s major objective is to have a friendly and stable Afghanistan, it appears that the developments in Afghanistan have invariably influenced the Afghan decision makers to employ the strategy of shifting responsibilities in one form or the other. Despite blaming Pakistan, the international community should expedite the refugees’ return to Afghanistan creating conducive conditions in this regard. The Comprehensive Repatriation and Reintegration Strategy 2007-2009 should be implemented to resolve the refugee issue and it would not be possible without mutual assent of Government of Pakistan, government of Afghanistan and UNHCR.






Double standards challenge Nancy Pelosi’s own conscience

NANCY Pelosi challenged her own conscience when the U.S. House of Representatives Speaker on Friday condemned China’s legitimate actions against violence in Tibet, but turned a blind eye to merciless rioters. Apathetic to those innocent victims in the recent Lhasa riot, Pelosi lost her own “moral authority to speak about human rights” when she acted as a defender of arsonists, looters and killers. The U.S. Speaker became a muckraker of her own hypocrisy when, out of the so-called concerns about human rights in Tibet, she pompously condemned China in Dharamsala, while enjoying the hospitality of the orchestrators of the Lhasa riots.
The death toll in the Lhasa riots reached 18 on Saturday, with the news that a family, including an eight-month-old boy, had been burned to death by rioters in their home. But in her attack on China on Friday Pelosi showed no interest in denouncing the human rights violators among the rioters. Pelosi’s double standards reveal her motives and those of her kind: their indignation is reserved for those occasions when their interests are best served. Finding a leverage to tarnish China, ‘human rights police’ like Pelosi are habitually bad tempered and ungenerous when it comes to China, refusing to check their facts and find out the truth of the case - who is it who is really trampling on human rights? China or the rioters?
Her views are like so many other politicians and western media. Beneath the double standards lies their intention to serve the interest groups behind them, who want to contain or smear China. Pelosi also pierced, unintentionally, the bubble of so-called universal values - values which didn’t get a look-in in her Dharamsala speech. For years Pelosi, and those of her ilk, have peddled human rights as part of universal values to bring all the countries under the international framework dominated by a handful of powers, but their double standards have apparently turned the universal fantasy into a lie. When Pelosi lashed out in the name of justice in Dharamsala, didn’t she also feel the whip of her own conscience? (Xinhua)