Tied. 7,7 is as bad as it gets. But yes, obviously North Korea is worse. Cuba and Saudi Arabia and Libya also have the worst ratings.
http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2003/table.pdf
My mistake, China is a 7,6. So yes, that makes Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Iraq under Hussein, North Korea, and Libya all worse than China.
The US has been very concerned about Chinas developing navy for some time. China will soon (10-30 years) challenge American policy and power projection in the western Pacific.
At the moment China has a ‘green water’ navy with naval bases in a number of asian countries. China is looking at developing a ‘blue water’ navy, capable of projecting power a great distance from the mainland.
It seems China is taking a wait-and-see approach to the middle east distraction the US is tied up in to decide on how to move forward.
Any Chinese attempt to build a blue water navy will spark an arms race China can’t win. Russia, Japan, Australia, the US, India, and Taiwan would all start a frenzy of building to counter a Chinese naval buildup. And all of them have superior navies already so they have a head start.
China’s system cannot handle an arms race with the democracies. They’d fall over eventually just like the Soviet Union did.
Paul Kennedy made a good point in Newsweek about the US attempting to be the number 1 in all possible theatres.... that means trying to compensate the growth in several areas and regions. Its simply impossible to keep up for long. Small military force growths in multiple regions would require the US to raise military power in way to many places.
They don’t have resources to dominate clearly in so many places… a reason why allies and good diplomacy are so necessary.
Well, we have that. Japan and Taiwan and Australia can add their power to ours. China has no hope of outbuilding those four powers under its current system. And then there is Russia and India, not allies, but certainly powerful in their own right and just as wary of China. And nations that are growing just like China and reforming their political and economic systems at a faster pace.
The US wants to be the biggest in every theatre no matter the alliances… and sometimes bigger than possible alliances. Allies not included therefore. While the British Empire had the notion of a “navy bigger than the next two navies combined” and they got overstretched.
If we figure the Chinese navy to grow at 10% like their economy… plus some europeans invest a bit more into their navy… all this adds up to US build up. Add to that armies and airforces. The US to be #1 everywhere will be keeping a huge military machine…
See Iraq for example... it required roughly half the US army to accomplish quickly... but its still too big a slice of the army.
Naturally the US navy can be called to back up regional crisis by weakining other areas... still Chinese build up translates in relative power reduction... and possible increase in US forces to keep a perceived big advantage.Well, we won’t be able to be biggest in every theater, that’s just not possible. THe only reason we are right now is because the vast majority of nations don’t feel that they have to build up their militaries to match ours because they trust us not to attack them.
I think that the 21st century will see great power rivalry in Asia the same way 19th century Europe saw their own great power rivalry. We have major powers(US, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, India, and Russia) along with some small but tough nations like Vietnam, Thailand, Pakistan, and Mongolia.
An arms race followed by a system of alliances in the region could eventually lead to a cataclysm by 2050.
China is making progress. China 25 years ago was a thousand times worse than today. It is setting up a system of rule of law which respects private rights and property rights. It has a long way to go but it is moving in the right direction. Many coutries which are nominally democracies today were worse than China just a few decades ago (Taiwan, South Korea, Spain, Chile, Argentina. . .) Political stability usually follows good economic development. When you have a solid middle class with a lot to lose you have a strong stabilizing force.
It is interesting to note that, while China, is making great strides in the direction of openness and rule of law, the USA has been moving in the opposite direction and is now doing things of which it accused China just not so long ago. Quite ironic.
You are assuming that China the rest of the world would race China and that is a lot to assume. If the rest of the world felt threatened then yes, no doubt. But that is a lot to assume. I cn imagine a multipolar world where China, the USA, Europe, etc balance each other. I do not think it necessarily follows that the entire world is going to be automatically on the side of the USA. They already are not and China already has enough leverage that European countries choose to please China and displease Washington. It will happen more and more.
>> An arms race followed by a system of alliances in the region could eventually lead to a cataclysm by 2050
I’ll probably be bald by then so it won’t matter to me. 
**China is making progress. China 25 years ago was a thousand times worse than today. **
You’re right. I was only being cheeky because the US gets criticized for supporting dictatorships that are “moving in the right direction”. A lot of dictatorships we supported during the Cold War are today democracies, partly because of our financial and political support. By contrast, most of the nations that we were enemies with during the Cold War are STILL just as bad as they were before, Eastern Europe excepted. I think the US should get more credit for situations like Afghanistan, where progress is being made. At least according to Freedom House, which now places Afghanistan at 6,6, where under the Taliban they were 7,7.
**You are assuming that China the rest of the world would race China and that is a lot to assume. If the rest of the world felt threatened then yes, no doubt. But that is a lot to assume. **
One of the things about Asia is that almost every nation is suspicious of almost every other nation. So any attempt by one to dominate would probably be met by other nations trying to match them. They wouldn’t be doing it for the US, they’d be doing it for themselves. As I said, much like Europe in the 19th century.
I cn imagine a multipolar world where China, the USA, Europe, etc balance each other
That’s the kind of situation that eventually leads to World Wars. Europe, for all the bad feelings lately, still trusts the US to defend it. They also have no desire to spend money on defense when they themselves don’t feel threatened, and if they are, the US will bail them out just like we’ve done for the entire 20th century. China is another matter, but China will already be balanced by other Asian nations.
Chances are, it will be several Asian nations of roughly equal power, and if they get into a scrap, the US will be the deciding factor, just as we were in the first two world wars. Europe is in decline, Asia is in the ascendant. And the US will in the future be a lot more concerned with Asia than with Europe as a result, economically and politically.
Your only discounting the fact that more people are suspicious of the US now than ever… the “benign” giant no more. Some rearmament by europeans and asians should happen… especially if Bush “wins” again.
If there is a Naval Race in teh Pacific that would hurt the United States more than China. If China adopts Germany’s attitude of the begining of the previous century when it went head to head with Britain (Essesntially trying to match only a third of the Over all Navy thus putting overseas interests in jeapordy), The United States will have some serious spending to do.
How much more can the US spend on its military before she finally goes broke? Especially seeing it’s resources are currently being used in the Middle east in the War on Terror.
So for the sake of world peace, the American people must vote George W. Bush out of office ASAP?
Nope, can’t see a downside to that. 
From kingpengvin
Even if the Chinese started tomorrow with a massive naval build up, it would be years and years before the US even would have to take notice. The Chinese having more ships doesn’t equate to having a better navy than the US by any stretch. The US isn’t about having MORE…its about having better. We’ve seen over and over again that having MORE of something (tanks, soldiers, planes, ships, etc) doesn’t equate to victory…it just gives a super high tech enemy more targets to kill, unfortunately. How long do you suppose it will take the Chinese to get to the level of technology that the US has today?? And when they get there, where do you suppose the US will be by then? The US is constantly innovating its technology, making it more deadly every day. They are constantly revising their tactics, they are constantly training their military (training being the key, when coupled with super high technology). It would take decades for China to even rival where the US is today.
Besides which, why does everyone suppose the China would want to square off against the US anyway? IF China is to become this superpower surmised by many people (a possiblity I see as likely btw), it will have to do it economically. To do so, it will have to open up its markets, change/reform its government radically, and open up its citizens fully to the information age. With a new more open government in place, why would China NEED to have a military comparible to the US…who will, most likely, be its biggest trading partner!! I don’t see any rush on the Europeans part to massively rebuild THEIR militaries to counter the horrible US threat, and THEY are also one of our biggest trading partners.
It makes no sense to me that a reformed and free China would want or need to have a massive military on the order of the US military. To what end would they want to spend the kind of money it would take just to catch up to where we are today in 10 or 20 years?? I could see it if they remain with their present government…but then, if they remain with their present government, they have zero chance of becoming either a superpower OR a real military rival to the US.
To my mind, they’d be better served with a massive prestiege project…say a Moon landing or better yet, a Mars mission. Can you imagine the impact of a free and powerful China would have on the world stage if they managed to be the first humans to land on Mars?? THAT would really be something, and it would be a serious blow to US nation prestiege IMO.
-XT
xtisme… China doesnt have to match the US navy… the US navy in the Pacific Rim only too if it does. China naturally is growing militarily more as a way of imposing their will in political matters in the region than to confront the US. Its the US that is worried about keeping ahead of everyone everywhere.
US technology, training and modernizing costs money. Numbers do count thou. Especially since we might be talking not of ship vs ship battles only… but missiles vs ship. To ensure the safety of fleets they will have to keep the technology gap wide enough to compensate numbers. That costs a lot. It won’t be the major menace (for now)… but it will be one more place where the US will be dumping money.
I agree that the Chinese are pretty backward technologically… even compared to the URSS. This extra spending will hurt their economic growth for sure. Still you ask… why “confront” your biggest trade partner… and I ask why is the US spending so much and increasingly more in defense in a world with no comparable rivals ?
I think that China will become a superpower is one of the new excuses to keep US military in high numbers. Which is why my OP asks if this is a real possible near future trend.... I think not... but US seeking a new "rival" to keep the defense industry going seems real. China in 50-60 years is another story...From Rashak Mani
I think the current Chinese government has a vested interest in a large military. I also think that a reformed and open China will NOT have such a vested interest in building such a large military. Like Europe, I expect that the benifit of letting America do the heavy lifting (if the Europeans can re-rope us in and control us better in future :)) and saving that money will become appearent to them when they throw off their current governments fixation on a large military. If you think about it, China is fairly safe from attack NOW…they don’t NEED a bigger military. They are ALREADY a regional power, as strong or stronger than any neighbor. I actually expect the Chinese military to shrink if they ever fulfil their potential and become a true superpower, becoming a leaner and meaner fighting force, again like the European model.
I don’t forsee any way for the Chinese Navy (PLAN) to EVER rival the US Navy, even locally (unless something drastic happens to America, its economy, or to the current national willingness of its citizens to fund a large military). The expense would be staggering for the Chinese, and the US Navy will always be a chimera moving just ahead of them.
From Rashak Mani
Sure, our military costs money…but I fail to see why it will cost MORE in the future. We already have a large enough military budget…from what I understand much larger based on the percentage to our GNP than most other country. Its business as usual for our tax payers atm, something we are already used too, and something that most of us have little problem with (liberals may want to lower it some percentage points, conservatives maybe raise it a few points, but I’d say I’m safe saying MOST people don’t want to eliminate it or even drastically cut it back)…and also something we don’t exactly expect to change.
Only if we massively cut spending on our military NOW, will we have to worry about building back up in the future some time when China approaches our levels of technology. At our present rate, it would take a power such as China literally decades of destructive spending to even approach us. I think that this will become clear to them, and like Europe, I think they will NOT attempt to become a military rival, but instead will attempt to form closer ties, to be able to better influence us.
From Rashak Mani
Well, I think I’ve gone into why it would be appearent to the Chinese NOT to try and become a rival to the US…the bottom line being economy. As to why the US does what it does…well, this one is a bit harder to answer to be honest. I think that most people in the US really think that we are the defenders of Democracy. Right or wrong, there are a lot of folks that think that.
Couple that with our history, which has burned us repeatedly…that history being one of military UN-preparedness. Its natural in a democracy to NOT want to spend a lot of money and energy on something that doesnt’ MAKE us money…and our history is rife with that. In all our history, America has suffered repeatedly for being UN-prepared. War of 1812, Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, even to a certain extent Viet Nam. All this has scared the American people psyke with the though that, IF we are going to have to send our boys (and now girls) off to die, they better be the best trained, best equiped they can be. In all those earlier conflicts, this was definitely NOT the case…and many of our sons and fathers died needlessly. Right or wrong, this attitude I think is the reason for what you are asking…IMO anyway, for whatever thats worth.
From Rashak Mani
Well, obviously I disagree with you. I don’t think that China becoming a superpower or not becoming a superpower is a major factor in the US military budget to be honest, certainly not now or in the past. We don’t NEED an excuse I don’t think, not with all the other things in the world, and I’d say that fighting China (except maybe in a limited contest over Taiwan maybe) isn’t a major concern or even a major war plan, certainly not now. Lets just say its pretty well down the list of potential rivals atm on the publics radar anyway.
Most of our current focus is the Middle East to be honest, and I don’t see that changing any time in the future. One has only to look at the Clinton administration to bear this out. Clinton was president during a time when the US HAD no major foriegn issues, certainly not with China, yet how much did the defense budget go down?? A few percentage points, if that? You see what I mean?
-XT
Why the assumption that we would keep fleet deployments static? If, for example, it becomes possible to pull a carrier fleet from permanent duty in the Persian Gulf, we could deploy that to the Pacific if needed.
I found a site that shows the gross military budgets, in decending order from most to least spent. It kind of illustrates my point (which was rather long winded).
Currently the US anual military budget, according to the web site, is approximately $399.1 billion. China, at number 3, is $47.0 billion. In order for the Chinese to even BEGIN to close the gap, they would FIRST have to increase their military budget by aproximately $352.1 billion dollars anually. And all THAT would do for them would be to maintain their current gap with the US. In order to CLOSE the gap, they’d have to spend MORE than the US anually I’d think.
So, unless the US drastically cuts its anual military budget, AND China increases their own to more than what the US is spending, I don’t see them ever closing the gap. And again, why should they sacrifice so much money for that goal if they are an open and free China? I don’t see it. Again, the Europeans (wisely) aren’t doing that, I don’t see why China would if get to the point where they are truely an open and free country and an economic rival.
-XT
I reckon if the Chinese become a new superpower, there values will set the rest of the world back 30 years.
You’re assuming that $$$ = $$$. But this is not the case. For x dollars, the US army supports one infantrymen. But for x dollars, the Chinese army supports, what, 5 infantrymen? 10? More than one, anyways. The purchasing power of the 47 billion the Chinese are spending is way, way higher than the purchasing power of the first 47 billion in the US military budget. This is not, of course, to suggest that the Chinese are spending anywhere near enough to catch up to the US military machine. However, the Chinese would not have to spend nearly as much as you suggest to narrow the gap. Closing the gap entirely, though, is probably next to impossible for the next couple decades at least.