CF160-CAPP Ch07
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
141 7. Chinese Military-Technical Development: The Record for Western Assessments, 1979–1999 By Dr. Bates Gill 283 Introduction Given the recent upsurge in concern over Chinese military power— “asymmetrical” warfighting doctrine, missile buildups, high-tech espionage, and views of future warfare—it is timely to review the record of analysis in the West as to China’s military-technical development since 1979 and gauge whether we have been using the right tools in our work. In particular, we should ask: • How has the literature evolved, and what explains shifts in research emphasis? • What “constants”—themes, patterns of debate, frequently repeated inaccuracies, half-truths, and prescient predictions—can be identified? • What lessons can be drawn from this work and where should future research focus? In conducting this work, three points help define its approach. First, the work here focuses largely on the scholarship of U.S. specialists. This is because Americans have conducted by far the bulk of Western scholarship on this subject, though Europeans, Israelis, and Australians have also been prominent contributors to the literature. This makes the research more readily accessible, though for better or for worse, the focus of these analyses tends to dwell on U.S. concerns and points of view. Second, this assessment delves mostly into the major works on the topic, here defined as significant conference papers, chapters in edited volumes, articles appearing in scholarly journals, research monographs, and books. In some ________________ 283The author is Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Studies and Director, Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. 142 cases, particularly important articles appearing in business and trade publications—such as in the Far Eastern Economic Review or China Business Review—are assessed as part of “the literature.” While it is true that the steady stream of articles and newsclips appearing in such magazines as Asia Pacific Defense Reporter, Aviation Week & Space Technology, and Jane’s Defense Weekly often provide the raw data on which larger analyses are built, it is not possible in this brief chapter to conduct a comprehensive literature review of these items, which easily number in the thousands. Third, the term “military-technical development” is understood to mean contributions to Chinese conventional military capabilities through the indigenous and/or foreign acquisition of militarily-relevant technologies, systems, and hardware—from “muskets to missiles,” to borrow a term from Harlan Jencks. With these caveats in mind, the chapter proceeds in three principal sections. First, it reviews the literature on the topic from 1979 to 1999 by discerning its principal “phases.” This section traces the evolution and basic nature of each phase and seeks to explain transitions from one phase to the next. Second, the paper assesses the literature by considering its principal themes, debates, inaccuracies, and prescient predictions. Finally, the concluding section draws lessons from this assessment by considering sources and methods, suggesting where analysts got it right and why, where improvements in understanding are needed, and where future research should be headed. Literature Review: Three Phases It is not surprising that the evolution of Western analysis on Chinese military- technical development broadly parallels the themes and concerns of China’s security relationship with the West overall. That is, those issues of greatest interest in the security realm tended to be reflected in the literature on Chinese military modernization. Broadly speaking, over the past 20 years, we can identify three principal phases in the literature which follow this pattern. From the late-1970s to the late-1980s—a time of rapid opening between the West and China in the field of military-technical development—the literature dwells largely on the meaning of improved relations with China, especially in the context of the bipolar Cold War rivalry, and how military-related transfers from the West fit into that trend. A second phase, roughly from the late-1980s to the mid-1990s and falling in the period of post-Tiananmen estrangement between the West and China, considered less the military-technical relationship between the West and China and delved more into the domestic context of 143 Chinese defense capacities, leveraging new sources of information and on-the- ground access. The third and most recent phase, roughly from the mid- to late- 1990s, takes a more critical view of China as it emerged from its post-1989 isolation, considering its burgeoning economic base, rapidly expanding access to foreign military and dual-use technologies, and the implications of these developments for U.S. and regional security interests. Breaking the literature analysis into three phases may be somewhat arbitrary, especially because the periods tend to overlap and work conducted in previous periods often remains relevant to and supportive of subsequent research. Even so, dividing the literature in this way not only flows naturally from the work in question, but also more clearly illustrates both the changes and consistencies in research of this topic over time. In addition—and an important point—we see how the research tends to follow broader concerns in the relationship between the West and China. Burgeoning Interest, Late-1970s to Late-1980s Beginning in the late-1970s and peaking in the mid-1980s, interest in China’s defense-industrial capability blossomed with the advent of closer, normalized ties between China and the West. In many ways, this period marks a high point in terms of academic interest in and proliferation of studies on this topic. Virtually every major specialist of Chinese security issues took a crack at questions of military-industrial development during this period, and many new scholars first “cut their teeth” on topics related to Chinese arms and technology procurement in the late-1970s and early-1980s. Concerned largely with the potential military problems posed by a reform-minded, modernizing China and the nature of the West’s military-technical relationship with Beijing, these works laid the groundwork for many subsequent studies in the 1980s and 1990s. Prior to this period, little in the open literature existed about China’s defense- industrial capacity save for periodic CIA studies on the Allocation of Resources in the Soviet Union and China and some limited information about production output and order of battle.284 Studies about the Chinese military prior to this period focused primarily on civil-military relations and the politics, ideology, and professionalism of the PLA. Important exceptions to this overall trend in the open-source literature that had a bearing on defense industrial issues ________________ 284For more information see Ray Bonds, ed., The Chinese War Machine (New York Crescent Books, 1979) and various Jane’s publications (1976). 144 included the studies by Cheng (1970), Heymann (1975), and Walrath (1977), with only the latter addressing the topic directly. However, beginning n the late-1970s came a flood of works addressing Chinese military-industrial production and procurement. Many of these studies appeared in five leading edited volumes of the period.285 Generally speaking, with some overlap, these studies revolved around two issues. First, a number of studies focused on China’s defense industrial capacity and reform.286 Another set of studies zeroed in on questions of U.S. and Western military technology exports to China.287 In addition, during this period three important studies appeared which provided critical historical perspectives to illustrate the long- standing difficulties China had in assimilating foreign technologies for its defense industrial development288 ________________ 285Paul H. B. Godwin, ed., The Chinese Defense Establishment: Continuity and Change in the 1980s (Boulder: Westview Press, 1983); Gerald Segal and William T. Tow, eds., Chinese Defence Policy (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1984); U. Alexis Johnson, George R. Packard, and Alfred D. Wilhelm, Jr., eds., China Policy for the Next Decade (Boston: Oelschlager, Gunn & Hain, Publishers, 1984); Charles D. Lovejoy, Jr., and Bruce W. Watson, eds., Chinese Military Reforms: International and Domestic Implications (Boulder: Westview Press, 1986); and Larry M. Wortzel, ed., China’s Military Modernization (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988). 286See Harry G. Gelber, Technology, Defense, and External Relations in China, 1975-1978 (Boulder: Westview Press, 1979); Harlan Jencks, From Muskets to Missiles: Politics and Professionalism in the Chinese Army, 1945-1981 (Boulder: Westview Press, 1982); Sydney James, “Military Industry,” in Gerald Segal and William Tow, eds., Chinese Defense Policy (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1984); Richard J. Latham, “People’s Republic of China: The Restructuring of Defense Industrial Policies,” in James E. Katz, ed., Arms Production in Developing Countries (Lexington: Lexington Books, 1984); John Frankenstein, “Chinese Weapons Development: Process, Progress, Program?” in Charles D. Lovejoy, Jr. and Bruce W. Watson, eds., Chinese Military Reforms: International and Domestic Implications (Boulder: Westview Press, 1986); Richard Latham, “Implications of the post-Mao Reforms on the Chinese Defense Industries,” in Charles D. Lovejoy, Jr. and Bruce W. Watson, eds., Chinese Military Reforms: International and Domestic Implications (Boulder: Westview