Correspondence: Looking for Asia's Security Dilemma

Abstract

In “Racing toward Tragedy? China's Rise, Military Competition in the Asia Pacific, and the Security Dilemma,” Adam Liff and John Ikenberry claim that “a number of recent developments suggest that the region is ripe for, or may already be experiencing, severe security dilemma-driven dynamics, even arms races.”1 They portray China's rise as the main cause of this dilemma and assert that states must adopt measures to reduce military competition in the region while they still can.I applaud Liff and Ikenberry for the policy relevance of their research, but their fundamental claim about the prevalence of severe military competition in the Asia Pacific region does not match the empirical reality. The real puzzle is why over the last thirty years Asian countries have shown a surprising lack of interest in boosting their military expenditures in response to China's massive increases, whether these expenditures are measured in absolute or proportional terms, and whether they are measured over the past generation or the last few years.Liff and Ikenberry ground their analysis in the empirical observation that Asia might already be engaged in severe military competition, but they never define what they mean by “military competition” (pp. 65–82). They imply that such competition exists when parties seek to enhance their military capabilities in response to an external threat (p. 65). More specifically, they state that “there is evidence of a security dilemma-driven spiral gradually unfolding between China and several states that is driving investments in military capabilities and that may worsen significantly in the years ahead” (p. 88).If Liff and Ikenberry's claim that the Asia Pacific is currently experiencing severe military competition were true, then major countries in the region should have significantly boosted their military spending over the past few decades.2 After all, China increased its military spending by 576 percent in real terms from 1992 to 2013. And as Liff and Ikenberry note, “the PLA [People's Liberation Army] increasingly poses at least a potential threat to China's neighbors and the United States” (p. 67). A generation of Asian leaders, however, has chosen not to respond with similar arms increases. Measured in constant $2011, from 1992 to 2013 Japan's increase was only 13 percent; South Korea's increase was 96 percent; and India's was 192 percent.3Measured as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), the military expenditures of most Asia Pacific countries have steadily declined since the Cold War, despite the emergence of the PLA as a professional and capable fighting force.4 Few countries in the region have been willing to make massive investments in military power at the expense of other priorities.5 In addition, as a proportion of GDP, Asian military spending in 2013 was the lowest it had been since the end of the Cold War. On average, major Asian countries spent 3.32 and 2.83 percentage of their GDP on defense in 1988 and 1992, respectively. In 2013 the average proportion of GDP that major Asian countries devoted to defense was only 1.88 percent.6 In this sense, contrary to Liff and Ikenberry's claim, military competition in the Asia Pacific is becoming less rather than more intense.Perhaps one could argue that twenty-five years is too long an analytical time frame— that China's neighbors only recently decided its growth was a threat and have begun to respond. The most recent data do not support this claim either. Measured in inflation-adjusted constant terms, the military spending of key countries in the region declined in 2013: Japan —0.23 percent, India —0.74 percent, Taiwan —2.63 percent, and Australia −3.58 percent.7 is not to suggest that Asian countries are to China's Asian with about China's policy in the South and China but they have not by in severe military competition, at least when measured in the one could argue that a military competition between the and have with even these have been in military competition or arms to has significantly increased its military measured in constant despite a massive increase in military spending over the military increased percent in absolute terms, as less competition with to Japan as a the in 2013 might of only it is and even are in Japan's the of their to in a more policy and the for A by the in that percent of to security with the United these not in and the spent a of less than on their percent of China's countries are steadily their to be to match China's military to military increased percent on average, and in 2013 it increased only are to Liff and Ikenberry claim that boosted its military spending percent in (p. The they however, the increase in terms and that the increase in military spending could by in and the in the of the rather than the percent in defense spending that Liff and Ikenberry claim, the percentage in military spending measured by in constant was an increase of percent in a of percent in and an increase of percent in is to of Liff and Ikenberry's about military it should be for that of its from its to by a to a of a power such as of military is even more the threat to security by China's claim and the of military and despite the of the of Taiwan its defense from it at percent of GDP and percent of to it at percent of GDP and percent of the to in severe military competition with Taiwan has chosen a to with the rise of that other Asian to in military competition with China might be than Liff and Ikenberry most for Asian military response to China's rise is the of a security that and that the military expenditures of most Asia Pacific countries have gradually declined for the past despite defense (p. and that the United to and increase its military (p. it might be that the region of the military security competition be a cause for but not Asian security Liff and Ikenberry this key of their on Asian security (pp. 65–82). states are on defense and not spending what they or they have about the military Liff and Ikenberry argue that states are of China and but of China the security (p. the may security for Asian it is to one of After all, the security is not a for military is a for military expenditures for and in the few states for their they are not as as Liff and Ikenberry China's are they are not are they And most China is to on military competition with China is The United and China may be for but few other states the to that the are it is not surprising that few states willing to make the domestic and for major investments in their of the evidence that countries in the Asia Pacific are only in their military to Liff and Ikenberry's Asia is experiencing military competition an arms by most China has already to major to The real is why China or an arms has not despite of and military “Racing toward Tragedy? China's Rise, Military Competition in the Asia Pacific, and the Security Dilemma,” Adam Liff and John Ikenberry argue that a security dilemma-driven spiral is in the region that is to increased and military competition, between China and the United Liff and Ikenberry for a of security dilemma and for an empirical of Asia Pacific security their be more they had is that Liff and Ikenberry on evidence to support their that a security dilemma-driven spiral is unfolding between China and the United They that China's are (p. and they that the security dilemma is not the only cause of military competition in the Asia Pacific, to other such as of or the of (p. Liff and Ikenberry that security dilemma are a major of China's in support this claim, they in military and in China's military and and Liff and Ikenberry adopt a to whether security in the Asia They do not however, why is the of the data that they have to their key they they between and states and they and other of state of the evidence by Liff and Ikenberry of China's could it to in military spending and to enhance capabilities might more than whether or in for has that China is a Ikenberry has that China Liff and have that China and has increased military spending in to capabilities to and The and of China's are to a of The by Liff and Ikenberry may not the the the of and the of power of China's military and policy over the security they do not or of the security dilemma in or as they support from the evidence for major competition between by of potential of this is to suggest that security dilemma is to the of have that states in that are to and however, military competition with to a of and rather than as to about or the that Liff and Ikenberry suggest exists in of the Asia Pacific (pp. in but the is the to it China's evidence it to the of the security dilemma as a of military competition in the with Liff and Ikenberry's their that to be of security military competition and (p. They could be as to from the past are from security dilemma the the of and the Cold War. are have on to argue that the security dilemma a more than and domestic in the of and the cause of the Cold of however, have not engaged with the the security in the arms on security dilemma of the and as states suggest that as a threat it increased the of and this its for in as an about on the is from a of the security dilemma in to the of that to the Liff and Ikenberry claim that a threat was not the for but suggest that its could have in (p. Few have engaged with the however, for an that of is an of policy suggest that and and were major of of the does not about or military support for the that security between the that be in a should the of the past to the of the security dilemma in from with the to support their and Ikenberry a of policy for on their could be a security dilemma but or other for China's policy more and for to it do to a power by In the of military and could to the evidence the in policy on the that the security dilemma is the major of military competition between China and the United such and should not to is to the of United Liff and John Ikenberry argue that the security dilemma is an of military competition in the Asia Pacific, one with the potential to worsen and to a arms in the In they a of military developments in the region and the of security dilemma Liff and Ikenberry's of the security dilemma and their empirical for however, are in that of their and Ikenberry the security dilemma as a in states are to of and about the (p. the of however, this in from of the they in their the security dilemma as a in of the by a state to increase its security the security of be for such a state when reduce its even and for of the security dilemma by the its even do not however, be of the security of a security in terms of the they from the such a in the security dilemma that even the defense to have an over the in defense and toward were by the that the had the that “the of are whether or an even in of the security its as a in states of whether this to or to the of Liff and Ikenberry do that their that to the measures as (p. they the of they on as the of this of that and about one to the measures as of however, from or Liff and Ikenberry's does not between the their analysis of the security dilemma policy is for for an to have the and to its but still an an but about what that about the is a of the security is not to this or the of addition, are to security dilemma they a of its security whether or not a state it more to be and that states Liff and states with states (p. and argue that security only between (p. In their security dilemma be or more states seek to the in a (p. They (pp. and (pp. and (p. as of the of in their of the security dilemma does not (p. states with states is as make only when states never a for more to their security and never over the Liff and it states never by state or with about the of the is with the of the security dilemma they does not with the of about the in the Asia and Liff and Ikenberry's to between security dilemma-driven and Liff and Ikenberry argue that military competition between and China is by (p. it is not by the security the they argue that Australia is to a threat from (p. but that this competition is by the security They between the by that the threat to Australia is the threat to is (p. and in and (p. security dilemma dynamics, however, states have Liff and Ikenberry's of or does not the of a of the of Liff and Ikenberry's security dilemma (p. as they claim, then it should not be to this to of the states they in their have with (p. the potential for security dilemma on the and of such on whether the is from the and whether the over the Liff and Ikenberry that “the of and and the defense the is (p. and they to for and a in the Asia empirical for the of a security dilemma in the region of The is the in the Asia (p. the from Liff and Ikenberry never these in their empirical the defense has the and the have security they an arms an increase in one arms and security still the the increase be than the a be Liff and Ikenberry do not the they about security dilemma does not this the security since the could the they do not the of and are even more as to the of security dilemma has the potential to the security In an spiral increase but Liff and Ikenberry do not the they as they on to whether are more to increase or security for states in the Asia and Ikenberry other as of their for the of a security dilemma in the Asia are driving military competition, one or (p. does state have “a of the as by of military Liff and Ikenberry these but not in that support their they to the of states by for of in this on the of as a state is one that is not that with of state does not mean a state has does a lack of of interest mean a state is Liff and Ikenberry's on of interest at the expense of the to security dilemma their and Ikenberry on to the of in of is in they that increase a of a of whether a state is they do not that in terms of security dilemma only to the that the and the defense are they are a are to even in of is a for to Liff and Ikenberry do not the of of on China's Liff and Ikenberry's that the United and China should their that security dilemma in the Asia Pacific are China's when in the security dilemma is a on for of the United might China by Liff and Ikenberry suggest that must more why China's (p. and Ikenberry only their for the security The of their empirical analysis on “the of to increase military capabilities (p. 65). they for such their to be whether a state China is driving in its military they assert that of Japan's military are by the threat by but a number of recent are a response to China's military (p. Japan could in be to one or of these as Liff and Ikenberry note, to other such as or of (p. are to in even their Liff and Ikenberry do not for the security are still to China have the potential to spiral the security dilemma is not for it is Japan could be to China's military in a that could to a and Ikenberry's their analysis in they of the between China and other they on China's neighbors in Asia that are their military states such as the and Taiwan Liff and Ikenberry's of these states a threat from China and have but are their military capabilities this in with the other Liff and Ikenberry to that their analysis is by the and driving the security dilemma that to be between China and the United their analysis when the security dilemma is its it support even their claim that security dilemma are driving a that may worsen significantly in the years ahead” (p. they make such while China China for to of threat could the of security dilemma in the Asia dilemma are in the Asia Pacific, but Liff and Ikenberry's analysis or the security dilemma is in the is one why their policy only the and on such as “the and in military competition is (p. reduce but a of security dilemma in the Liff and Ikenberry's analysis more about to the security in the Asia by and the on the and of military competition in the Asia a to on these and to several from “Racing toward to the of an too in and that the Asia Pacific is with arms and security on security dilemma a empirical to these whether security dilemma military competition in the and at and that “the from the of to the empirical is and that it of a that is the and policy of China's rise and security in the Asia Pacific (p. In policy at should be on an of the of analytical to for evidence of of security between or in security are and are by and about and or the of military competition is a of interest (pp. empirical analysis (pp. On the one evidence of about driving as by one state and military on the other that make less of is by about their as and the as On the other analysis that security are not the only of and military In of over and in the South China and China as analysis of military competition and for that it may with suggest that the region is with arms or that military is less adopt measures to and to (pp. for its but that of in the Asia Pacific is with the states that Asia is experiencing military competition an arms that is not despite China to analysis of military expenditures and with on at least of in defense spending are and they evidence of the of military competition in the Asia Pacific, with more such as the Cold or (p. with analysis in fundamental and empirical of the are to military of with the of In observation that and claim that security and arms are the The in does that this is of dynamics, rather than what it for the was to the of these and suggest a more in the Asia Pacific, and in claim to the in do that states must adopt measures to reduce military competition in the region while they still a from do argue that military competition is in the Asia Pacific and that security dilemma a in and are about the of military competition, and of and that and on could however, argue that a spiral of the less is On the that is evidence of an as “a arms in military expenditures and massive in on (pp. that to defense spending with and that in response to states are rather than of the of a (p. of end is (p. that for and in the military and that such significantly (p. addition, do not analysis several that argue that states are of China and but of China the security such a states in the region are the United while their military that states must do one or the other not only a policy between and external it is with of on and major with on to empirical by on defense spending that defense spending it in however, the potential of what is a on the most and (pp. and and external to and The of empirical are the that or military competition is in the Asia by states the region the United in and measures to enhance and military to military to and and in response to China's threat are in by these in chosen is defense spending as a percentage of gross domestic product over time to claim that military competition in the Asia Pacific is less rather than more analysis that growth has in major in absolute defense in have in military capabilities that of spending on percentage of GDP does not of spending the of key military has not been over the past it has and in terms of and to over the as when most a threat by the and when was for a time with and its the however, the of investments have significantly toward from to analysis of defense spending the Cold end that it to the of whether states China as a threat and are it a as have never that military competition in the Asia Pacific is in to a Cold or that state is a claim that “military expenditures of most Asia Pacific countries have gradually declined for the past is is it that China's neighbors have decided investments in their these imply that absolute defense spending is and that are to or their are defense be one for they are key of investments in military however, of on defense spending are not The more for is whether states are and external measures to their military capabilities to In the the to be to and to the that China is claim significantly at with the empirical empirical about analysis of security and arms in the Asia that on evidence to support are to this a and fundamental to to for the of security dilemma-driven military of are fundamental to the security is to are why have major with claim that evidence is it that evidence is that the evidence for is was to a as as evidence about and the by and evidence of in the to security dilemma and and not claim that security are the only of military competition in the Asia Pacific, and a to about the China's and that are (pp. that and of in are fundamental to security dilemma that these on of the in and external and in to of military the of its its but it about its as for and as what to they were data not even the most of could China's in (p. this to the other defense as and while in as and analysis that the is (p. that in of China's and military its of and security with the of security dilemma and analysis that of China's military and to China's however, is to the to as have long the that was not a of between and that when this to that about whether to military competition, and to suggest that states only when they have and such a claim to the Asia Pacific, for the as or on it that policy be or from a security dilemma are at support for this and for the military competition to more about what should with of the measures be in they be of a on a of and and at China's rise in a and of these measures be but they are they competition by and the of or (pp. and on empirical analysis of security and arms in the Asia Pacific in a of evidence of with on at least fundamental that security dilemma in the region is of that security are an of military competition, in that dilemma are in the Asia these fundamental the that to and about the of security dilemma is a on the and on the security in to it on its does not less for empirical of are but does that the in and the security dilemma that does empirical data that might the of on the on security dilemma that but and their for the of empirical of Security it in of the security dilemma is and of the security have is the that “the from the of to the empirical is and that should be (pp. on by and and to and about security dilemma the of between and as a of of about and several of as for to that is to the of about security and arms the Asia to in a about the to of the security dilemma to the as by that could an empirical that as of security but for and for not between and that and and to on between in are but are as a of about and in a more of In the of to the should these the of a number of to to and a security dilemma capable of evidence of the that empirical of the may have from the of to the of the empirical are several is that on of the of a of interest be of security dilemma claim on of a however, that these are and that and in a in empirical analysis and an may be the of does not mean that other a security are not at and claim to the the of as as their is an empirical a of and to of not an of the of military and the of military defense as to the less in is for the the in is the in the Asia by to the from analysis about whether a or is on of the and more for whether on such to and from the of this was a evidence between and measures on the of the or on in the the of a one by and of and to of such a not an analysis of these in empirical analysis of capabilities or by one for are by the other as and it measures the United and its adopt for the of to the or China's and with claim that the and the defense must be for to more on a than on in the claim that one whether are or military is for as not be a key in threat about states with significantly what might be major and about other and are and are significantly less and external more even capabilities military and expenditures were as as even countries that currently about their security the United be more of its with to in terms and with to In the Asia Pacific, lack as a policy about China in and are by claim that that security dilemma in the Asia Pacific are China's then to claim by that the security dilemma is a however, that security are and as a key of China's an of threat that one of has several the United could do more to China about their China's and military are the of power in the Asia capabilities and are and is increasingly to to or even military is to increase over and states are about China's for to on the United to China by its military a of for and that do not on empirical The United and several other are significantly more than China their and military and the other major United and a of China and have shown in not to the or despite capabilities over China's Liberation for In and despite military PLA China's military as “the of the while China and about policy China's significantly than that of the United and its major Asia Pacific despite recent that have security but and policy that and are by of as should on a The of was to the of that the Asia Pacific is with security and arms its in in empirical the most the that and developments in the And that the in the Asia Pacific is more than it was in or the Cold too in and on China's that despite competition, a arms is not and that is by several for and for claim that in and the of security dilemma in the Asia is to the as evidence to support claim that less for for military that of only had a or was in the of China Asia Pacific was In the interest of security and a the of what could be of or even than that security dilemma in the Asia Pacific is of are by the of in and is a that to analysis in a at the end that are in that dilemma are in the Asia is a that empirical for that is for in the was by with the of of the Asia Pacific to and with the terms and as for the and of and military In these terms are with and few have less an analytical to their a to do security dilemma is a fundamental in the and in its and the between have to be a of the security dilemma that at the from to empirical a to the and of and the real that and this to the and the while on the with such an the and for the to to this John