Non-violent Resistance pointed out Japan's little secret (Via Simonworld). Here are the data.
| Def Bud/$bn | GDP/$bn | Pop/M | Area/k km^2 | |
| USA | 455.30 | 11700 | 293 | 9629 |
| UK | 47.40 | 2100 | 59 | 245 |
| France | 46.17 | 2000 | 60 | 547 |
| Japan | 42.40 | 4600 | 128 | 378 |
| China | 35.40 | 1650 | 1300 | 9597 |
| Germany | 33.89 | 2700 | 83 | 357 |
| Russia | 19.40 | 582 | 142.8 | 17075 |
| Korea | 15.49 | 680 | 48 | 98 |
| India | 15.06 | 692 | 1100 | 3287 |
| Country | $/cap | Country | $M/sq km | |
| USA | 1,554 | UK | 0.193 | |
| UK | 803 | Korea | 0.158 | |
| France | 770 | Japan | 0.112 | |
| Germany | 408 | Germany | 0.095 | |
| Japan | 331 | France | 0.084 | |
| Korea | 323 | USA | 0.047 | |
| Russia | 136 | India | 0.005 | |
| China | 27 | China | 0.004 | |
| India | 14 | Russia | 0.001 |
The data is from Stockholm International for Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), 2004 figures. Yes, China's data was adjusted up from its official number of $29bn, and is about the average value of the Rand estimated range ($31-38bn).
27 comments:
I'm not exactly sure why this would be considered a secret. First, most of this information is out in the public realm. Unlike Russia or China, it is much easier to deduce defense spending for most of the countries on the list.
Second, with regards to Japan, the sq/km comparison adds little substance to the discussion. Japan is after all, and ISLAND country, with a huge area of ocean to monitor. Interjecting sq/km of LAND into this discussion makes no sense, especially when one considers that the great majority of Japan's military spending is focused on its navy.
According to SIPRI figures, Japan's budget was less than that of the UK, France and or Germany. Keeping in mind three things: the size of their economies, that East Asia has many more points of potential military conflict, and the fact that Japan's population is 2-3 times the size of the UK or France or Germany, wouldn't this reflect more badly on the latter countries than on Japan?
Anonynimous said,
According to SIPRI figures, Japan's budget was less than that of the UK, France and or Germany. Keeping in mind three things: the size of their economies, that East Asia has many more points of potential military conflict, and the fact that Japan's population is 2-3 times the size of the UK or France or Germany, wouldn't this reflect more badly on the latter countries than on Japan?
12/15/2005 9:18 PM
---------------------
u miss the point here , france and germany never question china’s “excessive defence spending”, but uncle sham
http://www.counterpunch.org/cloughley07232005.html
and his proud deputy, japan, both kicked up a big fuss about china’s "skyrocketing" expense.
Rumsfeld in particular was downright comical when he said that china should not spend “so much” on defence when its “not threatened by anyone”.
http://www.counterpunch.org/poff06062005.html
U really gotta hand it to the yanks, they have this ability of telling a bald faced lie while looking u straight in the eyes.
That was too much for the Chinese foreign minister, who asked rumsfeld point blank, “do u really think that china is threatening your security?”, mind u, rumsfeld has been peddling this china “threat” to all and sundry, just last year the Indians were still sounding out the asian countries about the formation of a socalled asian nato , to contain this “Chinese threat”.
But all rumsfeld could do when faced with the Chinese wrath was a meek “no, I don’t think china threaten out country”.
What a sight.
the us is planting military bases all around china. its spy planes take off from japan to harass china, a nuclear carrier will soon be docked in japanese port.
yet the yanks,and the japanese are the ones who yap the loudest about china's defence budget and the socalled chinese threat.
what cheek?
Why not look at how others look at the situation? Are you blind to the sentiments in SE Asia? ASEAN countries are equally apprehensive about China's military spending as Japan or the US. And what of India? They of course, have much less power and influence, and are less apt to be as forthright about their concerns.
America may "yap" the loudest, but their sentiments are shared by almost all of China's neighbors (who have even fewer ways to handle the situation), even if they not so outspoken about it.
i think when the delightful mr rumsfield tells China that it's spending too much on arms, it translates as: you're not spending it on us. ;o ;o
I know you can't, but can't you wait till we fix the problem? ;o
anon 1,
1) everybody keeps it as a secret. like the detailed profit and costs in any company. US, Japan do it as well. Do you really expect to see all the break down in Japan and US budget? how much they spend on each weapon and army unit?
Does US include CIA's secret budget?
2) $/area matters in only one of the 2 situations.
a) defensive: the area you defend determines how much you spend. you are right you should also add the 12 mile sea of Japan, that might lower the number from $112k to $100k, still 25 times larger than that of China
b) offensive. e.g. US and UK, they go to war in Iraq. If you are saying that is what Japan is planning, ok, include the area of Japan plans to invade. we can look at the numbers again.
- as for UK, in addition invading Iraq, it is also defending falklands and things like that. maybe japan also have something like that in mind.
But would the total area be 25 times higher?
3) size of economy, asia more dangerous. china is worrying about all these as well. So that makes China and Japan comparable. China is surrounded by many countries. while japan does not have many neighbors, and the East side is an ally USA.
if fact, back to your point of Japan being an island state. islands are a lot easier to defend, you have the sea to keep out invaders. why UK was not invaded by Napolean or Hitler? why Genghis Khan failed to invade Japan?
So what is Japan's true intention here?
maybe you are right, UK/France reflect more badly than on Japan. But Germany and Spain does not. The point is, whatever it is, it only shows than China underspent significantly (and much smaller than what Japan spends, if one compares.
anon 2,
yes, you said it all. Japan has much larger power and is very forthright.
regarding the ASEAN, they are very comfortable with China, ASEAN+3, etc. They know who is the real threat.
today, perhaps the only country that is wary of China is Vietnam.
But, why is this relevant in comparing Japan's military spending and its right to complain about someone spending much less than it in ANY measure (including total $ as well)
a side topic: more construction suggestions: see this recommendation list from ICG (via simon)
1. Saying that everybody keeps their military spending a “secret” is simply skirting the issue of transparency wholesale. Which countries, due to their political and social systems, are required to make their spending largely known? Well for one thing, US military budgets must be made public one way or another. The military requests its budget from Congress, the only body which holds the purse strings. Congress inquires into how this money shall be used, and decides how much to appropriate. You are also skirting the issue by demanding absolutes. Do “I” expect a break down of “all” of the budget? Of course not, but what I do expect is a reasonably reliable figure and a truthful response. In the US and Japan, such figures or close approximations are obtainable through public and private means. Their very government structures necessitate a great deal of transparency that people take for granted. This concept and its overreaching importance in security don’t even register for some. In China, this is not the case. You are simply using absolutes to cloud the issue of military spending transparency.
2. Your line of reasoning with regards to your #2 issue is also illogical and faulty. First, you ignore what naval power is used for. Countries do not simply “defend” the first 12 miles off their coast. The area protected includes not only land but nearby shipping lanes, economic zones, etc. For a country like Japan, I would assume the area of ocean its navy would patrol or operate in would be almost the size of continental China. (And where do you get the $100-112k figure from?) Secondly, you are implying your own answer with section b). Japan’s military budget is tied to its economy, being capped at 1% of GDP, which is one of the lowest rates in the world. As much as China fusses about Japan’s military, its SDF possesses no long-range power capabilities. All air craft carriers, long-range bombers, etc, are controlled/commanded by the US, and not Japan. No one should conflate the two militaries in a such a way as to suggest Japan has control over how the US uses its military forces.
3. I first pointed out that the Qin Gang’s comment made no sense, because he only refers to land, whereas Japan is an island country and logically would spend more on a navy. Using the size of one’s territory to base defense spending on hardly bears a relationship to the costs inherent in modern military spending. It is a faulty analogy. Referencing territorial size suggests that some sort of equivalency may be presumed in regards to comparative analysis with other countries and their relative territorial sizes and spending. This fails to take into special consideration the qualitative differences between any two militaries or their individual restrictions or needs. Sea or air based forces are more expensive and difficult to maintain than land based forces. Technological advancements exponentially increase the costs of procurement, training, and maintenance. Higher domestic prices also distort the spending, as do higher standards of living, which require higher salaries. A myriad of factors are not taken into consideration by the “square-mile” theory.
4. In today’s world, the ocean provides little “protection.” Land borders and sea borders have their strengths and weaknesses, but your assumption that being an island nation makes it somehow cheaper and easier to defend is extremely dubious. If anything, they make things much more difficult and require more expenditure. Ocean borders are much more highly porous than land borders. For one thing, you must deal with a vertical-plane above and below the sea, and the security issues implicit in that. The equipment required to patrol them must be much more technologically advanced, and subsequently more expensive. Patrolling the ocean also necessitates greater participation of air forces. Thus more expensive naval and air power is required to project power over the ocean. Being an island nation also makes it easier to surround, and makes it easier to cut off vital sea lanes. Japan depends on almost all its oil, and somewhere like half its food supplies from overseas, via its sea-lanes. The North Korean missile flying over Japan also doesn’t seem to pay heed to the ocean. (Note: England has been invaded numerous times in its history, despite being an island nation. Its island status didn’t help it against the Celts, French, or in modern history the German air attacks. Japan’s main islands very well could have been attacked by Genghis Khan, if not for seemingly miraculous, and very specific in time natural storms. I believe its smaller outlying islands were attacked by Genghis Khan.)
5. Rumsfeld may be questionable in regards to many things, such as Iraq, but his specific comments regarding China are highly relevant. His beef wasn’t with the amount of spending per se, but what it was used for, and the fact that such uncertainty exacerbates tensions. US and Japanese military spending is fairly transparent, you basically know what is being spent in what general areas, and why. This is hardly true of China, and it is the central crux for most arguments criticizing China’s military spending. No one has ever argued that China has no right to increase its budget, nor that it has no right to modernize its forces. Yet these factors are frequently used in defense of China’s military spending, and thus do not address any of the critic’s questions. Criticism basically centers on transparency and need. China may be surrounded by several countries, but it hardly faces major security threats from most of them, Japan included. Saying that China has a long land border also implies that it must protect this entire border, and thus consequently has to spend more is false. The real analysis focuses on the size and nature of the area to be protected (such as mentioned in 3, 4).
6) As a person with many personal and family connections to SE Asia, I find that you are simply ignoring the sentiments and concerns of SE Asia when you say that they are “comfortable” with China. This sentiment is rather delusional, and shows very little understanding of how the countries individually or as a group operate or think. EVERY country except for maybe Burma is highly wary of Chinese power, and are scared that Chinese inclusion into an East Asian community group would overshadow and dominate each country. Yet they are also aware that China is a rising power, so they must take steps to position themselves accordingly. They also do not have the same problems as other larger powers do, such as the US or Japan. That is one reason why almost every country in the reason wishes for the inclusion of India, and the participation of the US, Australia, and New Zealand (except Mahathir of course). If you are any one of these countries, what choices do you have economically or politically when you deal with China? None of these countries can outright complain, nor can they do anything else, they simply do not have the stature of the US, Russia, or Japan to do so. Instead, they have quietly played their cards by expanding economic participation, and bilateral security agreements. At the same they actively balance one major power against the other. Doing what seems logical hardly amounts to having no fear of China. Claiming that by participating in military exercises, or concluding a bilateral agreement simply means that a country is “China-friendly” is a shallow conclusion, reflecting no understanding of SE Asia whatsoever. This is basically saying that if a person is willing to work with someone else, they have no worries regarding their relationship.
As a side note, it would be extremely rude and un-diplomatic for Rumseld to have retorted to China’s Foreign Minster that “yes, your spending seems threatening to us.” Of course he thinks that, but he couldn’t have said it. Diplomatic etiquette seems to be something certain people do not appreciate. Everyone has a right to complain, but the Chinese reaction seems to be not to address the substance of the complaint, but to personalize any kind of criticism as an affront and try to attack the complainer. Military spending aside, if you really want to see who wants to destroy who, just log into any Chinese BBS site; you will see no similar sentiment in either the US or Japan, or most of anywhere else in the world for the matter.
bmaster,
"As a person with many personal and family connections to SE Asia, I find that you are simply ignoring the sentiments and concerns of SE Asia when you say that they are “comfortable” with China. This sentiment is rather delusional, and shows very little understanding of how the countries individually or as a group operate or think. EVERY country except for maybe Burma is highly wary of Chinese power, and are scared that Chinese inclusion into an East Asian community group would overshadow and dominate each country. Yet they are also aware that China is a rising power, so they must take steps to position themselves accordingly. They also do not have the same problems as other larger powers do, such as the US or Japan."
Which SE Asian country are you from? Do you have any statistic to back up your allegation of "EVERY country"?
Please give more facts and links other than just generalizations based on your feeling.
bmanster,
1. china DOES disclose its military spending and budget breakdown. the numbers were also well defined. However, how much you disclose your spending is for your own people's request, in every country. no one disclose the numbers based on other country's specification and classification.
2. 112k, see my table above, SIPRI.
China's naval power, is only a coast one. (i.e. merely reaching 200 miles EEZ)
Japan's, is not.
end of story.
and please do NOT assume, becauser your assumption is VERY wrong. do the numbers. all the ocean enclosed is still much less than China's land. area
3. land area is what you have to defend. it makes perfect sense, FOR A DEFENSE country.
4. again, i am going to answer to your "i believe"/"i imagine". you can believe whatever you like. I am not palnning to change your belief, even if those are all your imagaination.
5. rummy:) he has no brain. that is why US is in a mess today.
6. of course SEA had been wary of China. but know the chance of conflict is extemely low and they are willing to talk and cooperate.
why is that relevant to Japan? is Japan trying to project its military to SEA as well? that explain your assertion that Japan's area is as large as coninental China.
7. china reacted by inviting Rummy for a visit! haven't you watch the news?
BBS site...geez, they represent an extreme minority in China. 900M people do not have internet acceess. and japan's yasukuni apologists are much worse.
Bmanster,
"England has been invaded numerous times in its history, despite being an island nation. Its island status didn’t help it against the Celts, French, or in modern history the German air attacks."
You want to use the example of Britain as an island to support your claim. Unfortunately, the historical facts prove otherwise and defeat your argument. Neither France nor modern Germany had successfully invaded the British Island just because Britain was protected by the sea. The only clear occupation of Britain by a foreign power was the Roman Empire. (The Anglo-Saxon had a long history of immigration from the continent and was imported by a British king to fight the Scots and the Britons after the fall of the Roman Empire.) And what do you mean the Celts in the prehistoric time?
"No one has ever argued that China has no right to increase its budget, nor that it has no right to modernize its forces. "
bmanster,
Let me help you make your arguments clear: so this whole time you are not actually arguing and complaining about China's military expansion?
Bmaster said,
"As a side note, it would be extremely rude and un-diplomatic for Rumseld to have retorted to China's Foreign Minster that "yes, your spending seems threatening to us." Of course he thinks that, but he couldn't have said it. Diplomatic etiquette seems to be something certain people do not appreciate
----------------
wow, I guess that “certain people” is me right, next time please address me directly, that’s simple etiquet.
Lets see, rumsfeld , the epitome of “diplomatic etiquette”, is so shy that he didn’t want to tell the Chinese foreign minister that he consider china a “threat”, yet this doesn’t stop him flying all over the world advertising his china bogeyman show.
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/asia_pacific/news/fr/fr030402_1_n.shtml
some “diplomatic etiquette” eh. bitmanster, what do u call someone who slander u all over the neighhood but darent admit when confronted by u
thats right, your rummy is not only a god damned liar, he is a coward to boot.
now do u see my point?
I said the us and japan have no business carping on china’s defence expenditure when they are such big spenders themselves ., especially when they are spearheading the encirlement of china. As if china doesn’t even has the right to self defence while uncle sham try to put a noose around its neck.
Anon and bitmanster didn’t dispute that, so I guess they sorta concede the hypocrisy of those two.
But now they CLAIM that this Chinese threat is very real for the south east Asians and china’s neighbours. Huh?
The last time I check, china has excellent relations with all countries in this region, except japan. Unless bitmanster and anon can show me evidence to prove me wrong, instead of rehashing their own bigoted perception and quoting hearsays.
most asian countries aren’t weary of china, their nighmares are japan and the us, i.e. china’s accusers. How ironic?
When uncle sham tried to muscle into the Malacca straits in the name of fighting terrorism, (sic) , the malaysian foreign minister called his bluff and told him in no uncertain term., “go fly a kite, stop using the war on terror pretext to control the world.”
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/05/1081017106683.html?from=storyrhs
u know something, when the Nepalese royal was wiped out in an alleged coup in 2001, the nepalese asked uncle sham, not china , to go to hell…unlike uncertain people, they know who is the real provocateur here.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j061101.html
even in supposedly us allies, uncle sham can only count on the “friendship” of the ruling class, not the people, who are mostly resentful of us imperislism.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1218/p09s01-coop.html
why don’t u gents go ask your buddies, the south Koreans , which country make them sit up in the middle of the night in cold sweat?
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200504/17/200504172206552209900090309031.html
(btw I posted this link to curzon’s site but they didn’t dare publishing it, those mushrooms are like that, they LIKE to be kept in the dark and fed bullshit, just like those at the pekingduck ;-kushibo in particular would have eggs all over his face, )
in fact , why stop at asia, why don’t we ask the world,
http://www.iso.org.au/socialistworker/507/p2f.html
anon, bitmanster, Kevin of pekingduck, who will protect us from our “protector”? ha?
A quick google search on poll of China threat to world peace result in the following...
China more popular than US overseas
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8324290/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4124164.stm
Survey shows Japan is seen as leading threat to South Korea
http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200504/17/200504172206552209900090309031.html
Japantoday poll views US as the biggest threat to world peace
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=vote&id=118
Who is the biggest threat to world peace?
http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=vote&id=211
Greatest threat to South Korea's security: 37.1%, Japan; 28.6%, North Korea;
18.5%, United States, 11.9%, China.
http://www.freekorea.blogspot.com/2001/08/ofk-archive-anti-americanism-in-korea.html
Australians view US as a threat to peace
http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/worldandus/archives/2005/04/australians_vie.php
Anonynimous,
I posted the following in the pekinduck,
------------
Dream on,
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2003/msg00213.html
oh those damn frenchie eh, but what did u brethrens say about u,
http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/03/28/1111862313933.html?oneclick=true
http://www.iso.org.au/socialistworker/507/p2f.html
http://joi.ito.com/archives/2003/01/09/time_europe_poll_shows_us_as_biggest_threat_to_peace.html
http://english.people.com.cn/200301/19/eng20030119_110410.shtml
http://dragondiary.blogspot.com/2005/03/bbc-poll-china-is-better-for-world.html
jeeze, there are tons of it, anyway I gotta go now, see ya quite later,
Kevin u have got mail.
Posted by denk
http://pekingduck.org/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3208
---------------------
this got me kicked out of that site, lol,
this link
http://www.iso.org.au/socialistworker/507/p2f.html
was alive before I posted , but now its dead.
here is the full text
------------------
TIME MAGAZINE is running an online poll on the biggest threat to world peace.
For some reason, they were foolish enough to include the US in the list of dangerous countries.
At the time of printing, online polling has the United States way out in front on 82 per cent.
More than 240,000 people have voted in the survey-a fairly representative sample of world opinion.
But there's a disclaimer saying this is "an unscientific, informal survey for the interest and enjoyment of TIME.com users and may not be indicative of popular opinion."
Who are they kidding?
--------------------------
that site was probably sabotaged,
this happened lots of time before , certain links went dead after I posted an article, someone out there get offended I guess.
Seeing that anon and bimanster are hopelessly outgunned here,
I don’t know why kushibo of curzon and Kevin of pekingduck, both big fans of the Chinese threat show, don’t come over here for a chat?
I don’t mind going over there, but they have branded me persona non grata, lol.
As a bonus, if they come over here, they will get to see REAL democracy at work, sun bin welcome all comers, without fear or favour.
To get a good comparison you would have to adjust for purchasing power. You get a lot more bang for your buck (pun intended) manufacturing arms and paying soldiers in China than in Japan or the USA.
PPP, this is a well discussed topics. the consensus of Rand, SIPRI, Armscontrolwonk and almost everybody else is that this may apply to other countries but not China.
Because 1/3-1/2 of China's spending is in importing weapons, using hard currency.
Everyone is uncomfortable with the unknown but as Sun Bin says the chances of conflict are low with China.
The shared experience of imperialism and Japanese invasion between China and SEA mitigate the fear.
I can speak for Malaysia's good relations with China.
When the Deputy PM Razak - whose father established diplomatic ties with the mainland - returned from an official visit earlier this year, he waxed enthusiastic in public and private.
At a black-tie dinner in his honour at the Hilton hotel recently given by a China-based Malaysian tycoon, former PM Dr Mahathir again contrasted the way the West, and China, have treated our country.
To loud applause (except from the sprinkling of Westerners) the former PM recalled history when Zheng He came with his fleet to establish ties with Malacca.
Then, he recalled the Portuguese who came to trade in 1508, and to conquer three years later.
``We know we should be afraid of,'' he said.
BNMaster, Dr M has never been afraid of standing up to anyone, even though he leads a small country.
As his successful defiance of the Yank-dominated IMF during the 1997 crisis proves, the West is only as powerful as we imagine, and allow, it to be.
The only neighbor that views China as a threat is Japan
Well, there is Taiwan and India, for starters. I doubt the Vietnamese are very sanguine about China either. Nor are the Central Asian nations, as China is reconfiguring its forces for deployment there in case its energy supplies from there are cut off.
michael,
i think vietnam does, but not in the same way as japan. vietnam is suspicious, but japan has lately been belligerent and confrontational.
in fact, the reason vietnam is suspicious of china is exactly the same reason that china is suspicious of japan. history of war.
taiwan, it is not another nation, in the view of most chinese people.;) but anyway, it is a very different issue, as we all know. China has Anti-seccession law and is open about using force oon Taiwan if it declares independce. But China has vowed not to interfere with any country in the world.
india, it was. but i think it is much less so today. border treaty could be reached soon. and india is not ASEAN that i was talking above.
Michael thurton,
Well, there is Taiwan and India, for starters. I doubt the Vietnamese are very sanguine about China either. Nor are the Central Asian nations, as China is reconfiguring its forces for deployment there in case its energy supplies from there are cut off
------------
so?
Despite some initial misgiving from certain quarters,
china has gained entry to the south asian caucus,
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:YQuUL7n145oJ:www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php%3Fcontent_id%3D81928+monroe+doctrine+india+china+&hl=en
and joined the asean summit
http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2005/12/asean-3-or-asean-6-for-east-asia.html
are u jealous,?
I really don’t see why should this concern yanks,
has it ever occurred to you guys to put your own house in order first, all your neighbours are saying yankee go home
http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=3010
yet you guys are over here fretting about this china threat thingy
still trying to fish in troubled water?
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=103&ItemID=7303
Sun Bin,
Talkin about China's threat. Did you have a chance to read the above article about China's threat made up by the Pentagon so as to push the military spening?
There are so many different well-funded right wing foundations in the US established to demonize "Communist" China or exaggerate the China's threat. You can hear the same tired diatribes literally everyday from the radio, cable news and in the blogosphere. It is a rare case that someone actually speaks the truth about these alleged China's threats, (which have been created to fool the American public.) Finally someone tells it like it is!!!
Oy Vey, "the above article" is actually below here.
http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Esquire/2005/11/01/1037812
i am familiar with Barnett. He actually has a website.
there is another new article about 'china threat'
India’s pet peeve with china is a hangover from the 1962 war, but the myth of “Chinese invasion” has long has long been laid bare by Neville Maxwell and Gregory clark. Yet to this day china baiters like brahma chellenay
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1719/17191170.htm are still chanting “chinese invasion” to all and sundry. I know chellenay for more than a decade now, following him from the japan times to iht etc., all I asked is this simple question, “how could it be a Chinese invasion when Indian troops were fighting deep inside Chinese held territories, north of the mcmahon line,”. U guess it, all my letters didn’t see the light, mind u, I didn’t know what is a computer in those days so I sent by snail mails, everytime I sent one letter, I had to wait at least few weeks to be sure that another one has bitten the dust.
It was very frustrating, not to mention the small fortune I spent on the air mails in order to make it faster. I have no respect for the likes of chellenay, the man couldn’t even answer my simple question yet it doesn’t stop him from continuing with his bullshit.
Seems to me a common ailment of the democrazies, after all, the usa alone is responsible for the top 20 bullshit of the last century.
china has settled all its border issues with its neighbours, Russia, Vietnam , Nepal, Pakistan, all the stans of central asia – except India.
Chellenay like to brought up this fact in almost every article he wrote about china,
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/12/opinion/edchell.php
but he make it sounds like its china’s fault.!! lol
or is it, ?
In 1998 right after the Indian nuke test, defence minister george Fernandez promptly declared china the no 1 threat.,
But charles freeman, an ex pentagon high officer, was not impressed, as he put it, “china is contend to keep the status quo, the border problem lies with india’s internal politics…”. Such honest yanks are almost extinct today. If you fly in an aircraft across usa and u throw a stone, chances are it would drop on a professional liar’
hello sun bin,
here is another interesting take on the 1962 "chinese invasion of india"
http://groups.google.com.sg/group/soc.culture.china/browse_frm/thread/c4db734a3c105bfb/54dd9a0e8f5174af?hl=en#54dd9a0e8f5174af
Post a Comment