From Reuters (chart included)
China will raise military spending by 10.7% this year to 740.6 billion yuan ($119 billion). China’s defense spending is contained at about 5.4% of total expenditure, up from 5.3% last year, and remains at about one-fifth of the Pentagon’s spending
This compares to the Philippines at $1.8 billion (2010) which represents .81% of GDP (Index Mundi) or $209 billion in 2011 or 1.08% of GDP (Wikipedia.org)
I am not suggesting that the Philippines should compete with China to bolster her military expenditures.
What I am also saying is that the Philippines lacks the capability to match China’s armed forces.
On the contrary the Philippines should cut government spending which should include that of the military’s. The focus instead should be on fostering trade relations with the every nation in this world. Trade relations will reduce the opportunities for conflict because trade promotes harmonious relations even among diversified interest groups.
Nevertheless expanding and nurturing a huge army will eventually take a toll on the economy as scarce resources are diverted for non-productive activities.
Moreover, huge armies become a temptation for adventurism and domestic instability. Japan’s pre-World War II political and economic policies which led to the dominance of the military in shaping national decisions should serve as example.
The ‘late’ al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden once predicted that the overall strategy of guerilla warfare has been a war of attrition meant to bankrupt or financially bleed her foes, particularly the US. In the same way the Soviet Russia lost the Afghan War.
Developing political economic conditions in the US, predicated on the growing warfare and welfare state, have been indicating the path of such politics dictated internal decay.
And it must be remembered we are in the nuclear age, where the character of military conflict has changed relative to the 20th century.
No comments:
Post a Comment