Peter Hartcher is heavily invested in the anti-China movement. His book, "Red Zone", relies on an audience primed to loath China and its profile seeks to take advantage of the worst excesses towards China of a completely discredited Morrison government.
It must be truly galling for Peter Hartcher that the tide is turning in Australia on issues relating to China. So galling, he has almost sent his dummy into orbit with his latest spit about China.
In the world according to Hartcher, Australia faces a grave danger from China and any kind of diplomacy that might diminish the perceived threat is, automatically, `capitulation`.
For someone who has neither studied China in any formal way, nor lived in China, Hartcher sees himself as an expert on China and encourages others to see him likewise. But his expertise is solely `journalism` - the kind that proffers opinion and manipulates fact.
But his expertise is solely `journalism` - the kind that proffers opinion and manipulates fact.
Take this little gem, for example. In an interview with Fran Kelly and Particia Karvelis in a podcast aptly called "The Party Room", in an episode on the 29 April, 2021 titled "Beating of drums and laying of hands" (no, I`m not going to advance the propaganda by linking to that podcast, although naturally I have it archived to prevent denial), amidst the laughter and sneering smugness, Hartcher asserts that, "in the last decade, China has increased its defence budget by 76%, 26 consecutive years of increased defence spending. Against that, our great and powerful friend, the US has actually cut its defence outlays by 10%".
Naturally, Kelly and Karvelis, simping on Hartcher, simply let this preposterous assertion go by. No challenge, no clarifying question, no demand for sources. Just, "Oh well. I suppose you know these things."
Of course, a long career in journalism has developed Hartcher`s ability to use "plausible deniability" to his advantage. Give a fact, make sure it is a fact, but simply leave out all context to develop a fear-mongering narrative.
Let`s just look at the 10% figure, as an example. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, [1] in the year that Hartcher makes this claim, 2021, the US spent 801 billion, a decrease of 1.4% on 2020 and a decrease of 6.1% over a decade. This directly refutes Hartcher`s claim of 10%.
However, with the service of deceit and plausible deniability, Hartcher can claim that he was referring to the 26 years that China`s military expenditure has risen. This is deliberately left ambiguous. It could easily have been clarified by simply finishing the sentence "over the same period".
Laughingly, China`s increase in spending is still less than 2% of the US budget. To coin a comparison, this is like saying that this 6`8" US basketballer is severely threatened by the growth of 1 and a half inches by a Chinese basketballer 3 foot tall. I hope you can join me in laughing at how staggeringly stupid this is.
To coin a comparison, this is like saying that this 6`8" US basketballer is severely threatened by the growth of 1 and a half inches by a Chinese basketballer 3 foot tall. I hope you can join me in laughing at how staggeringly stupid this is.
But there is more deceit.
The 72% is interesting, maybe even alarming. But as any Grade 9 student of Maths understands, compounding percentages over a decade always sound worse than they are. A meagre 2%, which nobody would think significant, becomes 22% over a decade. That sounds substantial. If your aim is to alarm and warmonger, quote a decade.
But wait, there`s more.
China may well have as increase in military spending that might make some uncomfortable. But, in terms of % increase across the globe, it is really very much in the middle. In the 20-21 year, China`s % increase was less than Sweden, Iran, Belgium, Chile, Japan, Singapore and Spain (citing just the top 40 in spending)
Naturally, such obvious contradictions of Hartcher`s war rhetoric would be highly embarrassing for him to disclose - hence, the deceit.
In the 20-21 year, China`s % increase was less than Sweden, Iran, Belgium, Chile, Japan, Singapore and Spain. (citing just the top 40 in spending)
The spending increase across a decade also puts the lie to Hartcher`s assertions. Once again, although China ranks high in one arbitrary selection (top 40 spenders), many other countries, especially our new best friends in Europe, who supposedly saw a threat in Russia, dwarf China in their military build-up.
I suspect that those of you who are intelligent are seeing the flaw in this kind of analysis. Hartcher relies on general ignorance and mathematical ineptitude to give his opinion some traction among his audience.
You will, of course, note that a small country starts from a low base and a percentage increase, even quoted over a decade or "26 years" to exaggerate its impact, makes little difference to their actual military capability. Hartcher knows that but chooses to propagate a fiction.
So, of course, quoting % is complete nonsense and no credible analyst would bother with it. What actually matters is two widely accepted metrics - % of GDP and per capita spend. % of GDP indicates whether the growth in spending is proportional to the economic size of the country and per capita spending indicates whether the spending is proportional to a country`s population.
As an analogy, consider whether an increase in 100 extra police in a city of 1 million is even remotely comparable to 100 extra police in a village of 100. This, as the well-worn cliche reminds us, is not rocket science.
Of course, Hartcher does not want you to think for yourself - ironic, given that China-haters are so convinced that the poor folk in China can`t see past the supposed `CCP propaganda`.
As an analogy, consider whether an increase in 100 extra police in a city of 1 million is even remotely comparable to 100 extra police in a village of 100.
% of GDP and per capita spend are two metrics which are very awkward and embarrassing for Hartcher because they are very revealing. Here`s the short list of countries that are above China in % of GDP. Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Israel, Qatar, Russia, Greece, Pakistan, United States, Colombia, Ukraine, Singapore, South Korea, India, Iran, United Kingdom, Turkey, Poland, Australia, Chile, Finland, Romania, France and
Norway. That`s 25 countries ahead of China, including Australia and, naturally, "our great and powerful friend".
These kind of figures must really irk Hartcher, because they directly contradict his infantile China-bad spats. It`s worth looking at two graphs which tell you everything you need to know about China.
The first is the change in military spending as a proportion of GDP from 2010 to 2020. For a long time, many countries including the US and UK saw the proportion drop. Meanwhile, China`s proportion of GDP showed no change. Flat line. In other words, China`s leadership said that military spending was going to match prosperity. Prosperity first, people first, military when it is required.
It`s quite hard to see, so let`s just focus on the last 5 years. If we should be alarmed at anything, it should be the expansion of NATO, not just by number of countries, but by % of GDP spend. Remember how Paul Keating warned that NATO expansion would lead to war? Remember how expert after expert lined up to condemn this expansion, knowing that there would be a point where Russia would say enough. Well, here it is in numbers.
But putting aside the reckless endangerment of the human species by NATO, just look at China. Absolutely flat. I can see the tears welling in Peter`s eyes already.
Here`s the short list of countries that are above China in % of GDP. Oman, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Israel, Qatar, Russia, Greece, Pakistan, United States, Colombia, Ukraine, Singapore, South Korea, India, Iran, United Kingdom, Turkey, Poland, Australia, Chile, Finland, Romania, France and Norway.
Just as Russia becomes complacent about NATO, every single NATO country accelerates their spend, some dramatically. Joining NATO means signing up for war.
But putting aside the reckless endangerment of the human species by NATO, just look at China. Absolutely flat.
When next you read an opinion piece by Peter Hartcher, keep in mind how this opinion is formed - on isolated facts and `missing` facts.
If I had the time or inclination (I have neither), I could deconstruct Hartcher`s OP. But I really don`t need to. If you are intelligent, you will reject it as the spin that it is. Let it stand as a monument to all aging anti-China opinion peddlers having a dummy spit.
