China’s own military-industrial complex
The commentary “Bases access accord will boost US arms sales” by Bobby Tuazon (Inquirer, 7/19/13) is based on the familiar thesis that US foreign policy is driven by the US military-industrial complex. It is a one-sided presentation, because by now China also has its own military-industrial complex.
The People’s Republic of China had been a good neighbor since its establishment in 1949. It began its phenomenal economic growth after the economic reforms of 1979. Now, with its newfound economic strength, it has become a bully.
Two countries, Germany and Japan, went through the same development pains. Some European historians point out that all Germany has to do is to allow Europe to develop in peace, and Germany will dominate the region. A peaceful Europe was attained after World War II. As expected, Germany became the region’s dominant economic power.
The same is true for Japan. During this writer’s tour of duty in Japan in the late 1970s, some of its economists said that if the resources Japan had used to build the Imperial Navy and Army before World War II had instead been invested to expand its export industries, it would have been more beneficial to them. Japan would have expanded her exports and the export earnings could have easily paid for the imports of oil and raw materials it needed.
After World War II, Asia developed in peace. As anticipated, Japan became the region’s economic powerhouse. It developed its export industries and it used its export earnings to import raw materials.
The monkey wrench that derailed the development of Europe and Asia under peaceful regimes is the territorial issue. The Germans termed it “Lebensraum,” and the Japanese, “The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.” Both doctrines are premised on the need for additional territory to secure the supply of raw materials; it led to World War II.
China is committing the same mistake Germany and Japan did in World War II. With its economic reforms, China has become prosperous; it has prospered in a peaceful Asia. Unfortunately, Beijing forgot this lesson of history. Instead of “Lebensraum,” it concocted the “nine-dash line,” to claim additional territory.
China has shot itself in the foot. The resources it used to devote to increase export capacity are now being used for its armaments buildup. In return, its neighbors, including the Philippines, are using resources they would otherwise use for buying consumer goods from China to buy arms from other countries.
The US military-industrial complex has benefited from the dispute created by China. Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore had years ago upgraded their military by buying state-of-the-art F-16 and F-18 fighter jets. The increased arms sales by the US military-industrial complex that Tuazon fears have already taken place. Moreover, our neighbors are buying the additional arms that Tuazon cited in his article because of the insecurity caused by China’s bullying. In other words, it was China, and not the US arms merchants, that created the demand for these weapons.
The Tuazon approach overstates the role of the US military-industrial complex. While it is true that it is one of the major inputs to US foreign policy, the latter is subject to all the checks inherent in a democratic society, including the all-important public opinion. That Tuazon could cite the figures on the output of the US military-industrial complex is the best indicator that US foreign policy is open to public discussion.
In contrast, no similar figures are available on the Chinese side. Meaning, the inputs of China’s military-industrial complex to Chinese policy are not subject to public scrutiny. It can thus be more influential in this respect on policy formulation than its US counterpart.
Foreign policy is a complex matter. I leave it to our countrymen how much value they want to give to the Tuazon article.
Hermenegildo C. Cruz, a retired ambassador, has written other commentaries on the dispute in the West Philippine Sea. He holds a master of arts degree in law and diplomacy from the Fletcher School for Law and Diplomacy.
