Paul Mcleary with Adam Ramsley publish a newsletter Situation Report for Foreign Policy. The report focuses mainly on Middle East and battles and wars therein as they occur. Lately, it is noticed that the newsletter has increased ‘situation contents about China and South China Sea’. The following two excerpts are examples appeared in their April 4, 2016 report:

“Japan just made a port call [Defense News, 4/3/2016], in the Philippines, in a sign of support to the country as it hedges its bets against China's territorial ambitions. Defense News [4/3/2016] reports that Japan sent two destroyers, the JS Ariake and JS Setogiri, and a submarine, the Oyashio, to Subic Bay on Sunday [4/3/2016]. The visit marks increasing cooperation between the two countries as both are locked in disputes with China over its claims to islands in the region. The visit also marks the growing importance of the Philippines as a base for operations in the South China Sea. The U.S. recently signed a deal with Manila that gives U.S. forces access to five bases in the country, marking a return to the country since it closed down the U.S. Navy base at Subic Bay in the early 1990s.”

“The U.S. Navy might be gearing up for a third freedom of navigation exercise [Reuters, 4/2/2016 quote an unnamed source offered on 4/1/2016] soon near disputed Chinese territory in the South China Sea. An unnamed source tells Reuters [4/2/2016, US officials speaking after Reuters reported the plan…] that the operation will take place in early April but other sources say no such operation is scheduled to take place in the near future. The source says the exercise is likely to involve a smaller ship and not the aircraft carrier USS Stennis currently in the region. China has registered mounting displeasure with the U.S. flybys and sail-throughs in recent months. In a meeting on the sidelines of the nuclear summit in Washington last week, Chinese President Xi Jinping told [South China Morning Post – Diplomacy & Defence, 4/1/2016] President Obama that "China will not accept any act under the disguise of freedom of navigation that violates our ­sovereignty and damages our security interests."

From the second excerpt, it is interesting to point out that a reputable mainstream medium- Reuters, would report a claim made by an unnamed source on 4-1-2016 (April Fool’s day) which was then denied by an unnamed US official right away. Reuters decided to publish these unnamable quotes anyway [4/2/2016]. McLeary cites Reuters but omits yet another unnamed quote in the Reuters report, “"Our long-standing position is unchanged - we do not take a position on competing sovereignty claims to naturally formed land features in the South China Sea," a senior Obama administration official said on Saturday [4/3/2016]. “ I inserted the bracketed dates in the above paragraphs just to call readers’ attention: An unnamable source’s April Fool’s Day story would get mainstream media such diligent reporting and following-up is amazing in Journalism. One must ask, what is going on here and what is the hidden agenda? Were the media being manipulated by the government or the media were anxious to fabricate catchy news to manipulate foreign relations?

From the first excerpt and its source of Defense News, it is clear that Japan is an eager player in the US-Japan-the Philippine joint ‘freedom of navigation’ exercise to show naval power. The port call came on the eve of war games between the United States and Filipino troops in the Philippines. The Philippine Navy spokesperson, Commander Lued Lincuna said: “The [Japanese Navy] visit is a manifestation of a sustained promotion of regional peace and stability and enhancement of maritime cooperation between neighboring navies.” Earlier in the year, Japan agreed to supply the Philippines with military hardware in the categories of anti-submarine and reconnaissance aircrafts as well as radar technology. In 2014, the Philippines and South Korea announced the completion of negotiations for the acquisition of 12 lead-in fighter trainer jets from South Korea with the intention to convert them to fighter jets as the new fighter jets are too expensive. It is also interesting to point out that the Subic Bay, one of the military bases Manila agreed to let the U.S. use, was closed down in 1990 after unrest and two US airmen and one US marine were killed.

I am not an expert on Philippine history, but I assume that Filipino historians and government would not white wash history textbooks like Japan did to twist the facts and cover the Japanese Imperial Army’s war crimes. Although the Philippines did not have the same treacherous fate like China had in the 19th to 20th century facing invasions by seven Western powers and the Imperial Japan, but she had her share of colonialism or occupation by the Spanish, American and the Japanese. There were wars with Spain, the U.S. and during the WW II with Japan. Just taking the Subic Bay and the nearby Olongapo for example, Philippines lost in the Spanish (Philippines)-American war (1898-1899). The American Navy (destroyer Charleston, Concord, Montgomery, Supply ship Zafaro, etc.) overpowered the Filipino resistance at Subic and elsewhere. The Treaty of Paris signed (12-19-1898 effective 4/11/1899) between the United States and Spain basically forced Spain to cede Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines to the United States. Thus Subic Bay became a US Naval base. During November 1941, WW II, Japan attacked Olongapo and marched in on 1/10/1942 then captured Subic Bay. Under Japan’s rule, forced labor and comfort women (including Filipino, Chinese and Formosan (Taiwan people) shipped in) were used to build wooden ships and to serve as sex slaves to the Japanese army. In the end the wooden ships were destroyed by US air force. The Japanese army used American prisoners to board their ship decks to avoid air raids. 

In view of the past history and Philippine’s geopolitical position, it is illogical that the Philippines would engage military alliances with Japan and the U.S. to target her biggest neighbor China which never invaded the Philippines in her thousands years of history. If the resources in South China Sea were the objective, it would make more sense for the Philippines to join hands with China to explore such resources than to prepare for war, especially a war in proximity to Philippine’s territory. In modern warfare, for short decisive war, it is advantageous to engage the war in the enemy’s territory rather than near one’s own region. Japan’s ambition is to regain her ability to attack far from Japan to exert her military power returning her to past glory. The U.S. has always smartly kept the wars far away from her territory. What would Philippine gain by drawing war close to herself? Weren’t the Filipino-America and Filipino-Japanese wars good history lessons? Buying planes or military weapons from other country only benefit the other countries.

Considering Philippine’s foreign relation, it seems that having the right diplomatic relationship with China can only be beneficial to Filipino economy and the Philippines. A good Sino-Filipino relation may give the Philippines some leverage in dealing with her Asian neighbors. History always provide good lessons, the Philippines should examine her own history and the modern history of Puerto Rico (under US administration and in debt), Hong Kong (liberated from British colonialism and a significant growing economy), Singapore (independent, neutral and a healthy economy) and China (a country that will lift the world economy, in peace, and drag the world down in war) to arrive at a win-win foreign relations with China instead of being a pawn in the ‘pivot’ and ‘freedom of navigation’ game. 

As the U.S. and China become the two largest economies in the world, the complexity of their relationship goes beyond trades, investments, cultural exchange, and education. In fact, in the area of technology (including space) and military, there seem to be more competition and concern casting uneasiness into the future of the US-China relationship. If you sensed that the U.S. had begun to sound off a hostile voice towards China, it was because the U.S. was surprised by China’s rapid rise (in economy, technology and military) and was not ready to deal with China on the world stage. The U.S. maintains a policy restricting high tech export to China and yet China has made tremendous advances on her own including satellite technology, launching missiles and the Beidou system (a variant global positioning system with added communication function) as well as super computer technology needed in space and other advanced R&D areas, lasers, robotics etc.

The notion, ‘China is a threat to the U.S.’, was mainly touted by the military industry complex based on comparing the two nations’ defense spending.  China kept a double-digit increase in defense budget while the U.S. is suffering from defense budget cuts in recent years. However, we must examine the real numbers before drawing conclusions. Based on news reports, I have collected the following data:
U.S. versus China’s Defense Spending: 1996 ($266B:$8.46B), 1997 ($270B:$10B, +18%), 1998 ($271B:$11B, +10%), 1999 ($292B:$12.5B, +14%), 2000 ($304B:$14.6B, +17%), 2001 ($335B:$17B, +16%), 2002 ($362B:$20B, +17.6%), 2003 ($456B:$22B, +10%), 2004 ($491B:$24.6B, +11.8%), 2005 ($506B:$29.9B, +21.5%), 2006 ($556B:$35B, +17%), 2007 ($625B:$45B, +28.6%), 2008 ($696B:$57.22B, +27%), 2009 ($698B:$70.27B , +23%), 2010 ($721B:$77.9, Y532.115B+11%), 2011 (*\$717B:$91.5B, Y602,4B+17%), 2012 (*\$681B:$106.4B, Y670B,+16%), 2013 (*\$610B: $114.38B,Y720.2B, +7.5%), 2014 ($614B:$131.57B,Y808.2B, +15%), 2015 ($637B:$145B,Y890B, +10%), 2016 ($651B:$156B.Y958B,+7. 6%).

The above data give us a lot of information. The defense spending is in billions. The *\ sign indicates a budget reduction which occurred between 2011-2013 for the U.S. The annual increase of the Chinese defense spending by percentage was indicated. Due to exchange rate and purchasing power variants the percent increases are not precise. China has truly maintained a double-digit increase of her defense spending for the past two decades until the current year. However, China started with a very small defense budget for the size of her country. In addition, China paced her defense spending with her economy. As her economy slows down, her defense budget is scaled down accordingly. One must notice that in terms of dollar spent, the US defense budget dwarfed China’s 31.5:1 in 1996 to 15.9:1 in 2006 and 4.2:1 in 2016. The U.S. leads in spending and advanced weapon development for so many decades that the U.S. military is far superior to the Chinese military in equipment, personnel training and real battle experiences. Some analysts predict that even with double-digit increase in defense spending, China cannot come close to the U.S. military power for four decades or more.

The real important strategic question is: Why does China keep increasing her defense budget? By finding a logical answer to the above questions, the U.S. can then devise a strategy to deal with the rising China. At present, it is unreasonable to assume China is a threat to the U.S. It is also foolish to think an arms race is a sound strategy. The collapse of the Soviet Union is a clear historical case demonstrating that arms race and military confrontation are too costly to be sustainable, eventually destroying the economy even with profitable weapon sales.  Both China and the U.S. should have understood the Soviet case and the fact that there would be no winner if nuclear weapons were included in the arms race.

So, why does China keep increasing her defense spending then? Does China have an ambitious plan to replace the superpower U.S. or does China feel compelled to build up her defense just for real defense? In the following, I would like to establish a number of factors as the basic reasons for China to keep increasing her defense spending. These are: 1. China felt insecure, 2. China recognized her vulnerability, 3. China witnessed the settlement of world crises by brutal wars and 4. China realized her weak defense capability, a large army with little modern battle experience, outdated equipments and training and a huge burden to the economy contributing little productivity. I shall present some arguments below to support this line of thinking.        
  
China is increasing her defense budget out of fear and insecurity. The fear factor always exists among nations especially between great countries. (John J. Mearsheimer asserts that ‘fear’ drives nations to practice hegemony theory) I rather believe China’s fear is born from historical nightmares rather than from hegemony theory. Since 19th century, China had been invaded and violated her sovereignty rights by numerous world powers, all developed western nations from Europe and America and Russia and Japan from Asia. China was not willing to expose her North East region to foreign military occupation again after WW II but she had no choice but to enter into the Korean War (The Soviet would be glad to march her army through northern China to the Korea Peninsula) Likewise, China would not like to see her South West border with Indochina constantly in turmoil but she had little means to stop the Vietnam war until the U.S. really wanted to stop. China is vulnerable to her 14 watchful neighbor countries with over 22000 kilometers of land border.
 
China’s vulnerability is not limited to land only; she has over 15,000 kilometer coast line not counting the security zones defined by her islands in the East and South China Seas. For many centuries, Japanese pirates had always attacked China’s mainland and fishermen with hit and loot tactics along the East China Sea extending into the South China Sea. The present disputed islands in the South China Sea historically belonged to China but were one time seized by the French and later by the Japanese until Japan surrendered at the end of WW II. As China raises economically, more than half of her $4 trillion trades, imports and exports, must pass through the South and East China Seas. It is comical for Japan and the U.S. to accuse China impairing freedom of navigation in the South China Sea. Bringing more naval power into South and East China Seas simply reminds China her vulnerability and her inadequate navy.

Is China really a threat to Japan and the U.S.? Japan has a much stronger and more modern navy than anyone in Asia; whereas the U.S. fleets are matchless in the world. China not only understands her vulnerability but also has a genuine fear from witnessing world crises being settled by brutal wars and regime change being practiced as a legitimate foreign policy. China’s repeated claims, ‘China wishes to rise peacefully’ seemed to fall on deaf ears. Following the US ‘Pivot to Asia’ policy, she saw Japan’s eagerness in enhancing her military forces and anxiously revising her pacifist constitution to give her liberty to attack. She also saw many large scale military exercises conducted in the Asia Pacific, purposely or not, could only remind China her need to modernize her military. Hence, came the reform to reduce 300,000 personnel in China’s army, to upgrade to higher quality equipment and to develop more sophisticated communication systems. I would interpret China’s continuous increase of her defense spending as a logical decision reacting to ‘fear and vulnerability’ caused by her neighbors and the U.S.
​
China’s decision to reduce the size of her army, to modernize her navy and air force for quality and to focus on technology-driven defense system rather than offensive weapons is consistent with the ‘fear and vulnerability argument’. The construction work done on her islands in South China Sea is obviously for defense rather than for offense. China gauges her defense spending with her economic development. So long her economy is healthy she will keep up with defense spending unless she no longer feels fear and vulnerability.

To most people in the world, Tibet remains a mysterious land of snows having beautiful high mountains and being a pilgrimage holy place of religion. The Himalayan peaks kept most parts of Tibet difficult to reach and numerous world mountaineers dreaming to visit. To Chinese, Tibet is a part of the vast Western China, remote and unique in culture representing four principal minorities and Han immigrants (Tibetans, Huis, Manchus, Mongolians, and Hans); However, the population really include aborigines and several generation of the old immigrants throughout several millennia as early as Tang (618-907), Yuan (1271-1368), Qing (1644-1911) dynasties as well as refuges in the recent twenty and twenty first centuries such as caused by WW II.  Only a few books were written about Tibet and some are tinted by political bias. Tibet is never a simple human rights case like (Africans) or (American Indians). Tibet is a huge territory scantly populated enjoying an isolated ‘independence’ but very ignorant and naive about political independence and external affairs.

In 2015, a book, entitled, The Noodle Maker of Kalimpong, was published by Gyalo Thondup and assisted by Anne F. Thurston. The significance of this book about Tibet is not only because Gyalo Thondup is the elder brother of the 14th Dalai Lama, the spiritual and political leader of Tibet selected by ‘reincarnation’ after the 13th Dalai Lama's death, but also because Gyalo Thondup, with his entire family, devoted all their lives to take care of the 14th Dalai Lama before and after the Holiness reached 15 years old and assumed the responsibility from the caretaker Reting Regent. Among five male siblings, Gaylo is the only one who did not become a monk. He studied in Nanking and in the U.S., but was not a diligent student, admitted by himself. Nevertheless he was groomed to serve the 14th Dalai Lama. Gyalo's book is an autobiography reflecting his honest nature as a Tibetan illustrating his and Dalai Lama's life-long experiences with chronological detail. More importantly, not to be misled by the title, this book described the inner workings of the reincarnation search and the Reting Regent government structure as well as the grooming process of the Dalai Lama from infant to maturity age to assume the spiritual and political leadership with a cabinet of advisors. Thurston was honest to say: "political rule by incarnation is an almost certain guarantee of bad government". 

Through Gyalo's book, we can learn that the unique religious practice in Tibet has controlled the Tibetans lives in an unfair social political system for generations. The monks and elites had the power and wealth but the people, devoted believers, remained poor peasants generation after generation. Gyalo might have recognized that Tibet needed reform but the ministers surrounded the Dalai Lama apparently clanged to traditions insisting on keeping the system as true independence. Failing to respect the written history of where Tibetans came from and consisting of (for example Chinese Wencheng Princess, 628-680, Tang Dynasty, married King of Tibet) and failing to understand the meaning of separation of politics and religion and ideologies prevailing in the contemporary world (Sun Yat San's Three Principles and Mao's Words on Revolution) sowed the seeds for disaster when demanding the maintenance of Tibet's traditional religious-politico-economic system. 

When Gyalo was only a young man (his brother 14th Dalai Lama 2 years younger), he served as a leading figure and spokesperson for Tibet but he was powerless to do anything by himself. In hindsight, we see that the Reting Regent was stubborn and ignorant to understand the British selfish foreign policy towards India (and Tibet and China). Even Gyalo himself was naive to understand the intrigue politics of the Chinese political parties, CCP and KMT from 1911 to 1949 and beyond. Gyalo and his cabinet colleagues were not in the league of Indian Prime Minister Nehru thus could only hopelessly accept Nehru's decisions and change of hearts toying the Tibet independence issue. Gyalo was also ignorant about the US-China and US-Taiwan relations, naively believing that the CIA (the U.S.) was sincerely helping Tibet to achieve independence rather than simply creating problems in China's backyard, a strategy based on anti-communism and legacy of Korean War. 

Perhaps because of his innocence, naivety, and likable personality, Gyalo as a spokesperson for Dalai Lama was presented with many opportunities to have direct contacts with world leaders, besides Americans and Indians, Gyalo maintained contact with both Chiang Kai-Shek of  KMT as well as Zhu De, Mao Tse Dong and later Deng Xiaoping of CCP but never was effective in producing any meaningful negotiation to obtain any real commitment from either side to maintain Tibet's antiquated religious and political system. The Tibetans including Gyalo and Dalai Lama just did not understand these leaders' views of Chinese history and nation building. In 1949, when CCP won the struggle against KMT and established the People’s Republic of China, Tibet was invited to attend the celebration but Tibet representatives failed to negotiate an autonomous region status for Tibet which was most likely acceptable to CCP at that time. Insisting on maintaining existing political system and the indecision to accept Mao's proposal, eventually invited the Chinese troops. The wishful thinking that India and the U.S. even Russia would sincerely fight for Tibet was again naive. 

Dalai Lama's exile and maintaining an exile government in India which offered no assistance made no sense. Inconsistency and lack of skills in diplomatic protocols messed up a number of opportunities to reach a meaningful agreement with CCP as Gyalo admitted and explained in several chapters of his book. Eventually, the Dalai Lama had made compromises yielding political claims such as let the Chinese Central Government have the foreign policy responsibility over Tibet. This would produce a workable system under China's one nation multiple systems policy designed to deal with Hong Kong, Tibet and Taiwan issues. When 10th Panchen Lama died (1989), Dalai Lama should have accepted the CCP's invitation to preside at his memorial service as the Tibetans' leader. Afraid of being kidnapped is not a justifiable excuse knowing that the 10th Panchen Lama had been outspoken in fighting for Tibet's benefits while living in China. Gyalo was right to say that was an opportunity lost.
​
The 14th Dalai Lama was born in 1935 and anointed in 1939. It is understandable that in the early part of Dalai Lama's life, he was an inexperienced youth basically influenced by bad advices from his senior conservative monks. Now Dalai Lama is 81, living outside of Tibet since 1959, what is the excuse not to return to Tibet to focus on restoring and maintaining the Tibet culture, language and religion since the entire China (including Tibet) has been restoring from the culture revolution. Witnessing the changes in the world, religiously (Catholicism, Christianity, Islamism) and politically (WW II, Cold War, Rise of China), it would be wise to bury the past (mistakes made by all parties) and go back to the highest monastery in the world to do something for the people of Tibet and for the peace of China and the world.