The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has released its annual update of world military expenditure. In 2010, global spending was estimated at $1,630 billion, an increase of 1.3 percent over the previous year. According to SIPRI, this has been the smallest annual growth rate since 2001, primarily because of the global financial crisis.
The United States continues to lead the spenders, with its share of global military expenditure rising to an astonishing 43 percent. The four other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council remain a significant distance behind, with China coming second with 7 percent, followed by Britain, France, and Russia with around 4 percent.
China’s numbers are particularly interesting. Despite the talk of China’s rising military prowess, and the country hosting the world’s largest army, with as many as 2.25 million active soldiers, its military expenditure is still far behind that of the United States.
The main reason is obvious: unlike the United States, China participates in very few international peacekeeping missions or military interventions, and doesn’t boast hundreds of military bases around the world. Instead, the People’s Liberation Army has largely limited its activities to national and, on a few occasions, regional operations.
Still, over the past 20 years, China’s estimated annual defence spending has increased steadily from $17 billion in 1990 to $114 billion in 2010. In March, the government announced a further boost in military expenditure, by almost 13 percent for the year.
According to official statements, the focus will be on pay rises for soldiers, as well as the modernization of equipment and weapons. But this further double-digit rise also suggests that China is increasingly willing to step up as a potential rival to the United States.
Until it’s ready to do so, the primary focus for China is likely to be the Asia region, and one way for it to help shift the balance of power in its favour would be to boost its participation in peacekeeping and peace enforcement missions, something that will necessitate even bigger boosts to military spending.
Currently, China’s annual military expenditure is about 2.2 percent of GDP, compared with the United States’ 4.7 percent. In real terms, this represents a difference in spending of $427 billion, meaning that even if China were to double its GDP expenditure on defence spending, it would only equal a third of US defence spending.
The raw numbers underscore the extent to which becoming the world’s premier military power is still a distant goal for China. In the meantime, it will have to continue exploring alternative avenues for rivalling the United States, whether militarily or diplomatically.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Frank
“unlike the United States, China participates in very few international peacekeeping missions” This is a lie.
China participates far more UN peacekeeping missions than USA.
Invade less country for sure.
Knarf
Your statement is actually the fallacy of truth. The US, historically, has more UN peacekeeping missions than China. When did China open up… again?
Tired
“unlike the United States, China participates in very few international peacekeeping missions or military interventions”
Definitely a sly attempt to distort the truth — Notice how in the sentence “peacekeeping missions” are put before “military interventions”, when it is obvious you rarely get to fire a bullet in the former and the latter is the one that really burns a hole in the budget.
What’s the use of Western style free media when you get people who even try to distort the obvious truth to conform to personal and societal prejudices.
Jones
How sad and disappointing.
Western media always distort and spread misinformation,no matter how slight.
The truth is, western media are not free but instruments of their government in spreading misinformation, disinformation and outright lies!
Aogin
Free Ai Weiwei, Free Tibet. Are those enough lies for you?
Observer
@ Frank – China invaded less countries?
Let see. China invaded and colonized or tried to invade or attacked:
Tibet
Inner Mongolia
Xinjiang
Korea (via North Korea)
India
Vietnam
East Sea areas of Vietnam and Phillipines and other smaller neighbors
Since 1949, which country that the US invaded and then delared it as “ancient home land” as China did with its smaller neighbors? Go ahead, we are waiting for your answer.
ozivan
Hi…Observer/Frank. Let me also participate in this Balance Sheet game.
Observer commented – China invaded less countries?
Let see. China invaded and colonized or tried to invade or attacked:
Debits Against China Credits For China
==================== =================
Tibet Arunachal Pradesh (Was once Southern Tibet
annexed by India only in 1986). Wonder why the
exiled Tibetans didn’t demand independence first
from India on AP since they are already residing
there??
Inner Mongolia Mongolia once ruled/claimed to own whole of China.
Now that their fortunes has reversed since Qing
dynasty time, it’s bizarre for others to ask for
it back and not the Outer Mongolians themselves.
Korea (via North Korea) China send troops to stop the predatory Americans
from stationing their forces up to the Yalu river
at China’s borders.The Chinese are totally out of
Koreas for a long time. The Americans still there.
India India wanted to annex Southern Tibet before the
1963 India/China border war.India pushed back the
annexation till 1986 as Arunachal Pradesh,…well
after China was happy to give peace a chance by
withdrawing to the McMahon Line and besides why
antagonise a big neighbour ?
Vietnam Over Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia during Khmer
Rouge era (though Pol Pot was murderous) but it
was never intended to conquer Vietnam.Vietnam
became an upstart and thumbed their noses on China
who had helped them during all the Vietnamese wars.
East Asia areas of Vietnam The Chinese left the other claimants (including
Phillippines and other Taiwan)in peace because they adhere to the
smaller neighbours rules of conduct set by all claimants. Only
Vietnam & Philippines have been ignoring it.
Xinjiang I am not familiar with Xinjiang’s history. Can
Frank give an insight?
You also commented :
“..Since 1949, which country that the US invaded and then delared it as “ancient home land” as China did with its smaller neighbors? Go ahead, we are waiting for your answer.”
My answer : The US invaded, attacked or went to war over Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, pre 1949..Japan & Germany, ex-colony Philippines, Guantanamo (Bay of Pigs invasion), now Libya…for whatever rightful or wrong reasons.
The US don’t declare any one as them as “ancient home land” if they succeed in those wars, but they extract and forced treaties upon them to allow US military bases in those countries. These military bases are a “sovereignty piece of land themselves” under US laws and rules…not the laws of the host countries.
No one can ask the Americans to leave if they don’t want to under those treaties.
They closed Subic and Clark bases in Philippines because Mt Pinatubo eruptions decimated them.
Ronald
Vietnam and Phils have not following conduct of the seas?look at the propaganda of such comments china built scructures in the disputed region despite earlier agreement that no additional scructures should be made second china even included areas that are outside the disputed areas but its already well within the territories of vietnam and phils look at the map why china knows these areas have oil.China is the one not following the conduct of the seas.Chinese media is
controlled by the Govt thats why you are being fed with lies.
Pete
The best thing what i have noticed is that all the people who are replying on behalf have a western names and not a single Chinese name, That shows how independent you guys are , scared from your govt or might be you all are working for propaganda dept for china
Leonard R.
I favor reducing military expenditures by getting the H*ll out of Afghanistan & Pakistan. Beyond that, US expenditures buy less because our soldiers and our equipment costs more. That accounts for a lot.
Finally, I don’t believe any figures that come out of the PRC, least of all their defense expenditures. But 7% in the PRC would buy a lot more weapons & pay a lot more uniformed personnel than would 7% in the US.
Belinda
Dear Frank and Tires,
I agree with you that the term “very few” may be too vague.
Indeed, China’s involvement in peacekeeping has increased steadily since the end of the Cold War.
The 2010 United Nations Peacekeeping statistics, however, show that while China ranks 7th (3.94 per cent) among the top 10 financial contributors to peacekeeping, it does not feature in the top 10 contributors of personnel.
This, of course, does not imply that changes in the near future are possible.
The full report is available at: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/publications/yir/yir2010.pdf
Best wishes,
Belinds
Tired
Now that we sorted out the mistakes, let me offer some comments about the methodologies you apply in your research in the University of Sydney.
“Statistics are like bikinis; What they reveal is suggestive, what they conceal is vital”~Aaron Levenstein
Do not just quote statistics like “China ranks 7th (3.94 per cent) among the top 10 financial contributors to peacekeeping”.
Firstly, the use of *rankings* is misleading. The US military budget overwhelmingly dwarfs the other countries’ budgets. Coming 2nd to the US means nothing — China’s spending is practically on par with Britain (#3), France (#4) and Russia (#4). And this has not accounted for the fact that China’s population is many times larger than other countries’, and has a more complicated border (at least compared to Britain and France). What is a country with 60 million people like Britain (1% of the world) doing with 4% of the world’s military budget? China with 24% of the world population is spending only 7%! You can double the 7% if you want, but that doesn’t even give you close to 20% and you haven’t explained why Britain and France need to spend so much (relative to their population).
Secondly, if you insist on using rankings, then objectively show the rankings of all the countries in terms of their military budget and funding for peacekeeping. What is the US’s ranking on the share on the peacekeeping contributions? Is it commensurate with its ranking as number 1 on the military budget?
Most importantly, why use only rankings? A more meaningful statistic would be the percentage among total military spending used for peacekeeping activities. This would more accurately measure the portion of funds used for belligerent/peaceful missions.
Alex
“what is a country with 60 million people like Britain (1% of the world) doing with 4% of the world’s military budget?”
Since the figures provided are in terms of spending not manpower this makes Britain (and France) at about the right level. The global economy is 61 trillion with the UK economy 2.71 trillion, which is amazingly about 4%!
if you want to go on about population you should be working out the % of global military manpower Britain and France have, I bet it is pretty small.
It should of course be noted that Britain and France are in a nice friendly neighbourhood these days, and they don’t really need to be doing so much spending. And both countries are doing the right thing in beginning to combine resources.
Frank
Uncle Sam will buy your blood.
guess
He mean actual UN “blue helmet” Peacekeeping missions. Have you ever seen US troops in blue helmets?
Frank
Uncle Sam pays your blood.
Mostly, South Asian’s blood.
Matt
This is not like the cold war in which we are dealing with a communist state that is seeking to convert countries from Latin America, SEA to communism. If the furthest the US foot print was Hawaii there would be no issue of the US for the PLA.
It is the alliances and the US foot print, in Asia and the Pacific, it is the US that prevents the PLA from doing as it pleases, at present that involves the first chain islands.
That is why I disagree with Hugh White in his belief that the US should share with the PLA, because that will not bring stability to Asia and the Pacific. What he means by share is to allow the PLA to do as it pleases in relation to at this stage the first chain island.
We can fall back to the super base at Guam and form a strategic agreement not to block PLA access in force to the Coral Sea which Guam provides US protection from. Guam is US territory so that would be an act of war against the US. We will always be able to sail where we want as we are to powerful to provoke into a confrontation of ocean access in peace time.
He see’s the US as the problem. No one needs to convince the US of relinquishing power, if the US decides it is in its best interest to leave you to the PLA then we will.
All the niche capabilities are to deny access and make it costly for the US to intervene, the PLA seek to deter the US. If the cost is too high they believe the US will not intervene and meet alliance obligations over the first chain islands.
John Chan
@Matt, There are some errors in your comment that need correction.
1. The freedom of navigation right in international water is the right that PLA uses to sail in and out of the first chain islands. On top of that the islands between Japan’s Kyushu and Taiwan belong to Ryukyu Kingdom, they do not belong to Japan.
2. USA does not need to fall back to Guam, China is content to have the US occupying Japan and SK. China just don’t want anybody interfere her internal affairs.
3. If the US wants to better utilize resource for economy recovery, USA can hand all its bases in Asia to PLA for safe keeping in order to safeguard USA’s security. There is no need for the USA to see PLA as an ex-Red Army.
4. Even USA’s Joint Chief of Staff agreed that china has the right to develop weapons just like the US. Everybody has the right for self defence.
John Chan
It is amazing how the westerner intellectuals twisting facts to smear China. In a paragraph the author started by saying China military spending increase was for the welfare of its solders, the following sentence the author linked that increase as a proof of step up to challenge the United States. What a smooth masterstroke of transition from harmless nature to an aggressive posture. The author must be graduated from the creative revisionist journalist schools in the West and its lackeys.
“The raw numbers underscore the extent to which becoming the world’s premier military power is still a distant goal for China.” proves China says what she means; her military modernization is to defend her sovergnty adequately. China has no interest to challenge USA militarily, and China is content to let the US be the biggest military power in the world. In order to prevent the US and its lackeys from interfering her internal affairs, China needs to continue her military modernization so that she can deter the aggressors properly.
Aogin
@John Chan and what does China want to prove by stockpiling more weapons? Communist China + increase military spending + propaganda = plans for military conquest or invasion. That should sum it all up. China wants to invade Taiwan, bully South east Asian Nations. Bully the Japanese. You know it’s all too confusing. Your communist leaders says one thing and their actions says another. “You pay more attention to Military spending and less concern to 1 billion Chinese people.”: “The farmers that supported the communist party is not benefiting from your newly found economic prosperity.”: “You care less about tainted products and give more concern to quantity rather than quality. Even if it kills your own people.”: “Your shoddy construction have claimed the lives of school children.”: “You beat people up if they voice their opinion against you.”: “You ran a student flat on the ground using your tanks.”: “Mao Zedong let millions to starve and died because of hunger. You have killed your elders so that the Party members could survive and grow fat like pigs.”: “You illegally occupy lands lands that are not yours (Tibet is just one example).”: “You let your Fisherman destroy nature by hunting endangered species to extinction.”: Common Communist Party look after your people first then I will start believing your words of peace. Americans have their own crimes as well but at least they have the guts to admit that they were wrong. Or you can hear from their citizens that their Government was wrong, but can I hear that from Communist China and the Chinese people. The British, The Germans, The Italians, The Japanese etc.. except Communist China. At least Taiwan and South Korea can prosecute their leaders. But not Mainland Communist China…. Why? Is Mao righteous in the same league as Kim Jong Il and Kim Il-sung. Or are they more likely compared to Pol Pot. I wish Deng Xiaoping was the founder and not Mao.
Aogin
I give respect and credit to Deng Xiaoping but spit on the grave of Mao.
John Chan
Spit to disgrace a dead person who cannot defend himself, it is not worthy of you; it must be a disgusting Indian’s custom.
John Chan
@Aogin, you are reciting what all those anti-China bigots said, there is nothing new. What you have said is nothing but fabricated accusations, twisted truth, and distorted facts to smear China.
China needs to build up enough strength to counteract the cold war encirclement led by the predatory imperialist world hegemony and it mobster lackeys. That hostile force is powerful and fearsome, and it is ruthless and menace. There is a long way to match the strength of that evil force.
Taiwan is an integral part of China, it will be reunited regardless of what. Hybrid Japanese and Japanese wannabe can shout and yell, but they cannot stop the unification between Taiwan and China.
Aogin
Taiwan will be united with the Main land if it is a Democratic or Parliamentary state but bot under the current conditions. It must be hard stomaching the truth. does your belly ache. @Wannabe American john Chan I do not hate China it’s your policy and communist Chinese Leaders I have remorse for. You can be racist all you want, but there is no single word that I said Chinese People but the Communist Chinese Party. My Chinese ancestors have suffered under the great leap and I hear stories of my grandfather. Do not tell that I m twisting the truth because it happened to Millions of Chinese.I have accepted the truth that I live in a country of lies and deceit. But have you accepted yours? And I do apologize about my words “t spit on the grave of Mao.” I just pray that Mao is paying for his heinous crimes in Hell.
ozivan
@Aogin. Don’t look too far back. Move and look forward from Deng Xiao Peng’s opening up era.
The great leap and the cultural revolution have been condemned to the ashes of Chinese history. The Chinese dragon has awakened. China and the Communist party of China today is not the same as those during your ancestors/grand dads’ time.
They are rich, prosperous and humble now.
Didn’t you notice that China’s top leaders don’t trumpet and thumb their chests by making strong uncalled for political statements;like those made by Hillary Clinton, Sarkosky or David Cameron ?
China has undergone the greatest transformation in world’s history since the industrial revolution in Europe.
Democracy is not the one and only ingredient for a nation to be successful in current times. Look at the last few days BBC’s news about the violent riots in Greece and reports of the deteriorating situation in democratic Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Iceland. The rot is just starting.
Andrew
@Aogin. You seem to not know anything about China, and take the PRC has some hostile nation that’ll take over the world, just like every other typical American that believes Western Media’s lies and distortion over China’s growth and prosperity, as John mentioned earlier. The “illegally occupied lands” isn’t illegal nor occupied – anyone who says otherwise is setting up something. China has programs to develop the rural western regions, where it’s poorest. And their military budget is increasing at a fast rate not to challenge the US (although it may be a fringe benefit in the future), but to modernize and to defend their claims. If Taiwan declared independence, of course the PRC would attack. But if Texas seceded, would the US attack or simply let them go as another nation?
By the way, you seem to treat the PRC like a Soviet Union-type nation that Westerners are fighting against (in response to your apparent hatred against the ‘Communist Chinese Party’). China is NOT Maoist anymore. They were in the 1950s-70s. But it isn’t the days of the Great Leap nor the Cultural Revolution. It’s 2011. And don’t think that it’ll be the same by the future.