The Implications of China's Growing Military Power: Part 2

The Implications of China's Growing Military Power: Part 2 - What is a threat?

You know, the idea that we need American submarines to protect us, you know, three, as if there's three are at sea, three, three are going to protect us from the might of China, really. I mean, the rubbish of it. So, in other words, let me say this: China has not threatened us. [1]

What are you silly enough to believe?

At the National Press Club on 15 March 2023, former Prime Minister Paul Keating, in the face of ill-informed and loaded questions, delivered a scathing rebuff to journalist after journalist who simply parroted the orthodoxy of the western press. Here's a clash with ABC's Andrew Probyn (who has since joined 9News).

Probyn, and many of his colleagues, were silly enough to conflate a trade dispute with a military threat. They also were also silly enough to conflate border disputes with a military threat (Both of these issues are dealt with in separate articles).

An explanation of threat

But since threat should be defined, Paul Keating added this explanation [1].

So what is the threat level really?

Former Deputy Secretary of Defence and Home Affairs Secretary, Mike Pezzullo, assesses the threat as 10%. In other words, minimal.

Another view

Former senior intelligence analyst and author of The Echidna Strategy, Sam Roggeveen disagreed with this assessment.

The Hartcher alarmist view

But despite being certain that China is our adversary, against all evidence, Pezzullo and Roggeveen at least acknowledge that the threat is limited. But some, like Peter Hartcher, along with the den of China-haters at The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, are far more strident. Paul Keating described Peter Hartcher in rather disparaging terms as "And so this maniac has put this stuff, and he's on the ABC's The Drum every other night, you know, he's got the great stentorian voice but no stentorian mind to match it." I admit to laughing at Keating’s hyperbole but beg to differ. I do not believe Hartcher lacks the intellectual capacity to discuss China-related issues. He has demonstrated sharp analysis on various topics in the past. However, when it comes specifically to China, I sense a deliberate intent to obscure facts. Allow me to illustrate this point.

Hartcher appears regularly on The Party Room, where Fran Kelly and Patricia Karvelas provide commentary on Australian political events, inviting various guests to contribute their commentary. In a particularly galling episode, like a couple of giggling girls awed by a tall man with a deep voice, Kelly and Karvelas simply let a blatant misrepresentation lie.

Lies, damn lies and statistics - Hatcher style

The old adage "figures lie and liars figure" poignantly reminds us how statistics can be manipulated to deceive or mislead. Allow me to elaborate.

If I have $10 and I increase it by 76% over a decade, I will have $17.60. That’s $7.60 extra. If I begin with $1000000 and I increase it by 76% over a decade, I will have $1760000. That’s $76000 extra.

You are probably thinking, “Of course, it starts from a low base. Percentage increase is not a fair measure.” Hartcher knows that. I do not know whether Kelly or Karvelas have grasped middle school Mathematics enough to understand that or were just willing to let the deceit slide.

So where does China end up after this "dramatic rise"?

So, after this ‘dramatic rise’ of 76% over a decade, where is China’s military spending? The graph below will make it clear. This is where you either laugh at Hartcher as some kind of court jester or you begin to understand how Australia is manipulated into disinformation.

Of course, Hartcher doesn’t want the listener to grasp that this is the reality.

When mathematical literacy matters

I suppose for the average ABC journalist, mathematical concepts such as ‘gradient’ or ‘slope’ might be a struggle. In simple terms, if the slope on a graph of expenditure rises sharply, one can safely say “rapid rise in military expenditure”. It is worth looking at such a graph.

In the graph below, Military expenditure; US, India, China, Australia, we note a gradual rise for Australia (recalling, as an aside that, since 2020, it has risen sharply). Likewise, India, with China rising steadily at a steeper growth than India or Australia. Now, examine the slope of the US 2000 to 2010. If China grew at this extraordinary rate for the next decade, it would still lag behind the US.

Hartcher’s alarmism is pure propaganda.

Cumulative expenditure

Now, let’s add a little Mathematics that perhaps most people would not think of and Kelly and Karvelas might be forgiven for not raising. Over the last 30 years, the US has spent 21000 billion (21 T) on military. During the same period, China has spent 3750 billion. We can calculate the area under the line to arrive at the total expenditure over 30 years (Hartcher’s time scale).

Area = 1/2(600+800)x30 ...

Here’s what that looks like in a pie chart.

Lies by omission

This is no accidental omission by Hartcher. If he provided this information, his alarmist talk about threats would sink. Of course, change in spending is important, signalling the long-term intent of a country. Sadly, the figures are only an embarrassment to Hartcher.

Even more embarrassing data

Recently, it is evident that at least 14 countries have shown a greater percentage increase than China. Critics who wish to ‘incriminate’ China will argue that these European countries are reacting to the conflict in Ukraine, highlighting a striking double standard - implying that NATO is justified in arming itself against perceived threats while suggesting China should not be afforded the same latitude.

Even when examining the decade referenced by Hartcher as indicative, China remains firmly in the middle tier, trailing five European countries and matching the performance of another dozen nations [7].

Get real

Hartcher is clearly not incompetent. His omissions regarding China’s military spending are intentional, aimed at creating confusion, and unfortunately unchallenged by ABC journalists.

The real absurdity of the debate over China’s militarisation is in what we would expect a country of China’s stature to do. As Paul Keating aptly sums up [8] ...

Military threat?

It is the height of arrogance for Australian commentators to conclude that China’s build-up of its military is in some way morally reprehensible, while prostrating themselves in submission to the US military presence on our soil.

Whether you accept Mahbubani’s “fault lines”, Keating’s scoffing dismissal, Puzzullo’s 10% or Roggeveen’s “we are a long way away”, the rational assessment of a threat does not require deceit and obfuscation - it requires clear minded engagement with facts.

Sources

1. No author (March 15 2023). Former Australian PM, Paul Keating joins Laura Tingle in conversation on 'AUKUS' at the NPC.. ABC. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2lQvFTmMxU. Retrieved 17 Jun 2024.

Claims

Author

Andrew Westerman

I am a retired teacher who has an interest in geopolitics and preventing a war between the US and China

Articles