Rising military budgets in the US, China and Japan

Several Western news resources like to announce in their titles that China or that Japan has raised their military budget again. They make it sound as if these countries would be getting ready for war (it is always left open with whom). But this is a mistaken impression they create. The news are not fake: usually the data is in the articles. However, the tone of titles and their wording is obviously misleading. And the data is usually not presented in comparison with relevant trends and info, so it looks scarier than it is.

So, some basic numbers. Most of the following come from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) which is nicely compiled on wikipedia, and also links to the original.

Biggest spenders
At the moment the biggest spender is the US, the second is China, third Saudi Arabia, followed by Russia in the fourth place. Then we have India, the UK, France, and Japan in the 8th place. Germany and South Korea make up the top ten.

GDP relative spending
In terms of GDP the US and China are the biggest economies in the world. Japan follows in the third place, Germany fourth. So Japan and Germany place much further back, they spend much less relative to what they have, than many other countries.

To look at some numbers

the US spends 3.1% of its GDP
China 1.9%
Saudi Arabia 10%
Russia 4.3%
India 2.5%
UK 1.8%
Japan 0.9%
Germany 1.2%

This indicates which countries place a huge emphasis on developing and maintaining their military strength.
It is of course influenced
1) by how risky the country's environment is (but then Japan's should be much higher of course),
2) by how big the country's GDP is (the UK's 1.8% is just a bit bigger than Japan's 0.9% for example), and
3) by local prices (China can pay much less for most military personnel and products because labour costs are lower and many corporations are fully or partially state owned).

Political factors

In some cases the spending is just defense oriented, in some cases it is upkeep and development oriented, and in some cases it is potentially (or very likely) aggression oriented.
For example much of Germany's spending simply goes to upkeep. Japan is developing a good deal this year, but this is mostly defense oriented: since China and Russia, its giant neighbours, are upgrading and developing their military very fast Japan needs to spend on defense. The USA, China, Russia and Saudi Arabia are developing attacking capabilities, spending great amounts on research and new weapons (both development and purchasing).
Of course all countries look at their own safety, but with some we also know that they have territorial ambitions (China has asserted its claim to Taiwan and the South-China sea, so its preparing to fight if others don't simply allow it to capture those territories).

Real terms
It is also important to look at spending in real terms. That is, how much actual money has been spent. The top three are the US, China and Saudi Arabia.

The US has spent 610 billion US dollars (same for all others: billion USD)
China 228
Saudi Arabia 69.4
Russia 66.3
India 66.9
France 57.8
UK 47.2
Japan 45.4
Germany 44.3
South Korea 39.2

In this light we can see that the US surpasses by far all of the others. However its forces are spread out all over the world. China's and Russia forces, although seemingly cheaper, are much more concentrated which might mean that they are stronger in some locations.

It is also telling that the three biggest Europeans don't spend together as much as China.

Japan doesn't spend much more than South-Korea and already that is controversial with voters and opposition politicians. Both Japan and South-Korea have US forces stationed within their borders and could - hopefully, but who knows with Trump - count on the US's support in case of aggression. Still, one wonders whether they shouldn't build up their own, homegrown industry more in the current climate of an expansionist China, and an assertive Russia.

Rise in budgets year on year

This is important because it shows how much need the countries see there is for development. This can reflect worries about their neighbours or rivals, as well as intentions to turn to the offensive.

I didn't look that much into the data on this front but the numbers on the US, China and Japan have been much commented on, so it is easy to have. Again, it is characteristic of reporting that the enormous raise in the US budget is discussed, but usually in fairly realistic terms. I think this is fair, given that the US is in a competition for hegemony in many areas with Russia, China, in West-Asia, in the Arctic, and increasingly also in Africa. This might be morally wrong - as most military building is - but strategically necessary - because if the US would behave better that wouldn't mean the two other superpowers would stop misbehaving.

Anyway, the reported number is 10%, which is "huge" as one guy likes to say.

The reporting on China and Japan has, as usual, been much more alarmist. The funny thing is that both follow trends and both could be anticipated, so, shouldn't be very surprising. Also, from a strategic point of view maybe the Japanese budget doesn't make that much sense - why don't they increase a lot more!? - but the political situation and Japan's foreign policy makes sense of this too - Japan places emphasis on international law, economic relations and rejects employing offensive weapon system, despite all the panic and fear mongering to the contrary that we saw in the Chinese and US media. (The Guardian published a refreshingly well-contextualised short piece on this one.)


China's spending is now officially around 175 billion USD but expert estimate it to be around 225-230b USD actually. Sadly their budget is notoriously secretive. Not even citizens can access it.
This means a raise of 8.1% from last year's spending.

China likes to point out that in terms of GDP their spending has been decreasing. This is just smokescreening of course: its true, but the real numbers, the actual amount has still been rising fast, since the economy grew so much in the last 30 years.

This is in line with their enormous military capability build up. We see that China is getting bolder and bolder. Earlier its goal was just to have sufficient defense against its immediate neighbours (India, Russia). Recently it also tries to dominate its smaller neighbours (Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Nepal, Thailand) and threaten seriously Japan and South-Korea. It also asserted that it claims Taiwan and the South-China Sea, so, it needs to be able to deny access to these areas to the US military stationed in East- and South-East Asia, and it also needs to be able to counter a possible reclaiming attack. The numbers make sense in this light. Of course that they make sense doesn't mean that they are morally or politically encouraging. China is on the road to aggression under Xi's leadership, and this should worry all of us. Maybe a leadership change would help.

Japan's spending was raised by 2.5%. Yup, this is what the big excitement is about. (Up next! Another RECORD setting 2.1% raise is in line! Notice that almost all the titles use the word 'record. I know its a hard fight out there for readers but this is just ridiculous.) This is in line with their policy to pursue diplomacy and rely on the international legal tools and organizations rather than military pressure. Japan has been following this policy coherently since the end of WWII, so for more than 70 years. Abe is possibly the most hawkish and influential prime minister since the 1960s and still, Japan didn't turn into an aggressor, no matter how much the Chinese media would like to portray him like that. And of course the Japanese spending is still eminently transparent, as it should be in a democracy.

So, think a bit, look into the context and don't judge too quickly when you see a title and a few numbers. Yes, there are rising tensions, yes there is a buildup. But no, no one is going to jump against the others' throat in the next year or two, and no, Japan is not turning into an imperialist superpower again. China is still a long way from contesting US dominance on a global scale, but it can do this already in the local theatre of operations (or war, if there will be one). Russia maintains high spending, Saudi Arabia is building up like crazy, and Europe is maintaining a sensible apparatus.

Interesting developments in Turkey and Europe

The Turkey-Trump brawl might have a good outcome for the EU

Turkey got into a huge trade brawl with the US (or rather: with Trump). It is seeing some bad consequences of this at the moment. However it is a big and robust economy so this might not stick.

Behind Trump's warlike attitude to trade there is another reason for him to target Turkey. In the Middle-East/West-Asian region Saudi Arabia is the most powerful ally and proxy of the US (besides Israel), Iran is the key partner of Russia. Turkey is a regional competitor for the Saudis, Israel, and Iran. And it has several conflicts of interests with Russia. Trump coordinates several of his movements with Russia now. One of Trump's aims is to weaken the EU. He is afraid of a strong and well-coordinated EU policy that he can't push around easily so he is trying to weaken the bloc in every way he can (that's the same strategy that Putin and Xi Jinping are pursuing).

Attacking Turkey, which is usually aligning with the EU on global scale issues is one way of doing this. Turkey is now in a difficult position. The president, Erdogan has made several political, legal, economic, and military moves which make the EU distrustful of him. The population of the EU in general has a strongly negative opinion of him and his government. So, he is in a hard position when needs help and financial support. In the long run of course it is not in the EU's interest to lose one of their key allies in the region, or to see them destabilised.

However, Trump's push might also come in handy for the EU. Challenging Erdogan proved to be a hard task so far since Turkey is big enough and Erdogan popular enough not to have to rely on the EU too much in the short run. The joint US-Russian pressure on Turkey might weaken it enough to prompt Erdogan seek EU favour and support and to be willing to give up some of his prerogatives. The EU shouldn't give in at that point. If Erdogan becomes unpopular enough and he can be removed so much the better for Turkey and for the EU. In the long run this could get Erdogan out of the way and enable transition to a more democratic, transparent legal governance in Turkey. That would be a wonderful result. Trump inadvertently might enable this.

Saudi meddling and flexing against democratic countries

The EU has a tough time due to what is called the 'migration crisis'. In reality there isn't any crisis. Criminal statistics didn't become much worse. Most criminals are still homegrown, even in France or Germany. The US right wing propaganda machine tried to cook up some stories of doom but they have been debunked in every case easily.

The interesting aspect of migration is not that it caused any serious problem. It didn't.

The interesting aspect is that it gave ammunition to EU skeptics to create a hot-issue out of a non-issue. It also provides ammunition to enemies of Europe, like the US, Russia, China, and less often mentioned but just as important: the West-Asian and Middle-Eastern countries. The chief among these are of course Iran and the Saudis. They are enemies on several fronts, but weakening Europe is a goal for both of them.

There has been a steady influx of money and intellectual support for right wing radicals and euroskeptics like Nigel Farage, Marie LePen, and Viktor Orban. These people are criticising migration while benefiting from dirty oil money. A sad state of affairs.

Saudi Arabia is also trying to flex and meddle in the larger games. The last instance of this came previous week: they jailed another human rights activist. As usual, they did so on the grounds of some ridiculous charge. Canada raised its voice. The Saudi's are now threatening to push back with severe economic retaliation.

Canada and Australia as countries with relatively smaller population are sensing a danger that the US and the EU is mostly trying to neglect now: that a large Chinese investment and the need to cooperate with Middle-East/West-Asia brings with it a lot of political pressure. These countries try to gain political legitimacy for their flawed, dictatorial autocracies in exchange for investments. Of course compromising the workings and institutional system of one's democratic country in exchange of short term benefits is horribly short sighted. But we see this plenty of times in case of the US and EU countries. Canada and Australia are already under more pressure and have luckily chosen to push back. Sadly some money-eyed people are too happy to give up on any values quickly.

It is remarkable that the US didn't support Canada. It shows that Trump doesn't care about human rights, and the US in general wants to keep Saudi Arabia as a partner in the region to pin down its weight in the long run against the aggressive Russian proxies and the encroaching Chinese.

The Saudis are enjoying this change of approach from their US supporters - Obama was much stricter regarding such issues, at least in his rhetoric if not in deeds - and are now testing the waters further. They don't even shy away from spreading outright lies. Is anyone going to raise their voice in defense of the Canadian side? Or are democratic countries now too afraid that if they are critical cronies like the Saudis will turn to the Russian or the Chinese?

It seems that so far except of some international organisations everyone is keeping their mouth shut. The Saudis have oil, have money, and have a very large modern army too.

The sad thing is that being amicable with them and refraining from calling out their inhuman and backwards laws will not benefit anyone. If Russia or China pays more they will work with them. The EU and the US are fooled, as they have been several times in the last years. Instead of standing up for good things, they are too conciliatory for gains which will not materialise.

The Saudis are using the same kind of illegal play in stoking fears about migration to raise skepticism about the effectiveness of the EU, thereby damaging the unity of Europe, and making it easier for them to pressure countries in one-on-one deals and relations.

Its just gonna get worse. The US is getting panicky under Trump. There is no long term vision just imminent action. Who knows what the consequences will be. The EU is still not nearly as unified as it should be.

The GOP, Republicans, and free market capitalism

The GOP's website features under the 'Republican Platform' the programme Restoring the American Dream: Economy and Jobs. Under subsection heading 'Job Creation: Getting Americans back to work' we find a long tirade about how everyone will be better off thanks to some - unexplained - 'roaring' economic growth. The paragraph ends by saying "Republicans will pursue free market policies that are the surest way to boost employment and create job growth and economic prosperity for all."

Sure this is an empty promise. But beyond that it is also widely deceiving. What we see these days is that the distance between the wealthiest people in society and the most disadvantaged ones is bigger than before WWI, when many Europeans countries still had Aristocrats who fell under different rules. This enormous level of inequality is coupled with i) housing problems, ii) rising rent levels, iii) rising debt levels, iv) governments cutting down on social services, education, and health services. These processes together lead to even more suffering and vulnerability for the majority of people.

What the Republicans are proposing is to make this situation even worse. The problem with the current, heavily de-regulated US and European free market economies is not that they don't offer chances, options, or freedom to choose one's jobs. The problem is that thanks to the deregulation most people who don't have extensive financial resources - and that is the majority of society - don't have viable options that would allow them to i) pay for their rent/mortgage, ii) make savings, iii) educate their children, iv) pay their bills in case of healthcare relate bigger expenses. What the Republicans are proposing is to exacerbate this situation. The owners of companies, factories, etc. will be able to offer even more demeaning, predatory, and exploitative work arrangements. I don't think there is anything compelling in voting for such a party.