Chinese Military Power
Task Force Report from Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies
Task Force Report from Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies

Chinese Military Power

May 2003 , 104 Pages

Task Force Report
Analysis and policy prescriptions of major foreign policy issues facing the United States, developed through private deliberations among a diverse and distinguished group of experts.

The rise of China has long been a growing concern among U.S. foreign policymakers. Of particular concern is the strength of Chinese military power and its relation to U.S. military capability. This important report assesses the situation and concludes that China is at least two decades behind the United States in terms of military technology and capability. If the United States continues to dedicate significant resources to improving its own military forces, as expected, the balance between the United States and China, both globally and in Asia, is likely to remain decisively in America’s favor beyond the next twenty years.

Adam Segal

Ira A. Lipman Chair in Emerging Technologies and National Security and Director of the Digital and Cyberspace Policy Program

If current trends continue (for example, if Japan continues to eschew a role as a major regional military power), China will become the predominant military power in East Asia, the Task Force report concludes. China’s current force structure provides effective defense against any effort to invade and seize Chinese territory. The Task Force notes, however, that while China will have the enduring advantage of proximity to Asia, the United States traditionally has the edge in maritime, aerospace, and technological dimensions of military power. As a result, an ongoing and robust U.S. naval and air presence can offset Bejiing’s capacity to leverage future military capabilities into advantage against U.S. and allied interests in the Asia-Pacific region over the next twenty years, if not longer.

More on:

China

Military Operations

The one area of near-term concern, the report concludes, is in the Taiwan Strait. Here, China is more likely to use new technologies and asymmetric strategies—not to invade Taiwan outright but to achieve political goals such as forcing the resumption of political dialogue between the two sides on the mainland’s terms. Going forward, the rise of China will continue to be a cause for concern among U.S. policymakers. 

More on:

China

Military Operations

Task Force Members

Task Force Members:

KENNETH W. ALLEN is a senior analyst in Project Asia, the Asian security studies center at the CNA Corporation. He served twenty-one years in the U.S. Air Force, including assignments in Taiwan, Japan, China, and Headquarters Pacific Air Forces.

DESAIX ANDERSON is a writer and artist. He served as executive director of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization as well as principal deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asia, covering Japan, China, and Korea.

PAUL BRACKEN is a professor of management and political science at Yale University.

HAROLD BROWN, chairman of the independent Task Force on Chinese military power, is a partner at Warburg Pincus and Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He served as secretary of defense during the Carter administration and was the first secretary of defense to visit the People's Republic of China (in 1980).

THOMAS J. CHRISTENSEN is a professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

BERNARD D. COLE is professor of international history at the National War College. He previously served for thirty years in the U.S. Navy.

RICHARD N. COOPER is Maurits C. Boas professor of economics at Harvard University. He previously served as chairman of the National Intelligence Council and was undersecretary of state for economic affairs.

C. RICHARD D'AMATO is vice chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a former delegate in the Maryland General Assembly, and a retired Navy Reserve captain. He previously was foreign policy director for the Senate Democratic leader and staff director for Senators Abraham Ribicoff and Jim Jeffords.

JOHN DEUTCH is Institute professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He previously served as director of central intelligence, deputy secretary of defense, undersecretary of defense for acquisitions and technology, and undersecretary of energy.

WILLIAM H. DONALDSON is chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. He co-founded Donaldson, Lufkin and Jenrette, is a past chairman and chief executive officer of the New York Stock Exchange, and served as undersecretary of state for security assistance in the Nixon administration.

JUNE TEUFEL DREYER is professor and chair of the political science department at the University of Miami, Coral Gables, and a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. She is currently a commissioner of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

DAVID M. FINKELSTEIN is the director of "Project Asia" at the CNA Corporation. A retired U.S. Army China foreign area officer, he served in multiple China-related assignments throughout his career, including assistant defense intelligence officer for East Asia and the Pacific in the Pentagon, on the Joint Staff, and teaching Chinese history at West Point.

THOMAS S. FOLEY is a lawyer with the firm Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer and Feld and a former U.S. ambassador to Japan. Prior to becoming ambassador, he served in Congress from 1965 to 1994.

JOHN FRANKENSTEIN is a research associate and adjunct faculty member of the Weatherhead East Asia Institute, Columbia University.

BATES GILL holds the Freeman chair in China studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

BONNIE S. GLASER has served as a consultant on Asian affairs for the U.S. government since 1982. She is a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and at Pacific Forum, CSIS.

JOHN L. HOLDEN is president of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations. He was based in Beijing and Hong Kong for fifteen years while doing business in China.

ALASTAIR IAIN JOHNSTON is the Governor James Albert Noe and Linda Noe Laine professor of China in world affairs at Harvard University.

ARNOLD KANTER is a principal and founding member of the Scowcroft Group. He served as undersecretary of state from 1991 to 1993 and is currently a member of the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

ROBERT A. KAPP is president of the U.S.-China Business Council, the principal organization of U.S. companies and firms conducting trade and investment with China.

CHARLES R. KAYE is co-president of Warburg Pincus.

MICHAEL KREPON is the founding president of the Henry L. Stimson Center. His most recent book is Cooperative Threat Reduction, Missile Defense, and the Nuclear Future. (Palgrave, 2003).

NICHOLAS R. LARDY is a senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics.

DEBORAH M. LEHR is chairman of MBP Consulting and previously served as deputy assistant U.S. trade representative at the U.S. Trade Representative Office and director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council.

KENNETH G. LIEBERTHAL is professor of political science and William Davidson professor of business administration at the University of Michigan. He previously served as special assistant to the president for National Security Affairs and senior director for Asia at the National Security Council.

WINSTON LORD is co-chairman of the International Rescue Committee. He previously served as assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs in the Clinton administration, ambassador to the People's Republic of China in the Reagan and Bush administrations, and president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

MICHAEL A. MCDEVITT is director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the CNA Corporation and founder of CNA's "Project Asia." A retired Rear Admiral, he served in Asia policy positions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and as J-5 at Pacific Command.

JAMES C. MULVENON is the deputy director of the RAND Center for Asia-Pacific Policy.

MICHAEL PILLSBURY is a consultant to the Defense Department, a research affiliate at the National Defense University, and a councilor of the Atlantic Council. He formerly served as assistant undersecretary of defense for policy planning and as special assistant for Asian affairs in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

JONATHAN D. POLLACK is professor of Asian and Pacific studies and director of the strategic research department at the Naval War College.

JOSEPH W. PRUEHER, vice chairman of the independent Task Force on Chinese military power, is a consulting professor and senior adviser on the Stanford-Harvard Preventive Defense Program. He previously served as U.S. ambassador to China, is a retired Navy admiral, and was formerly commander in chief, U.S. Pacific Command.

ERVIN J. ROKKE is president of Moravian College. He is a retired Lieutenant General and former president of the National Defense University.

ROBERT S. ROSS is a professor of political science at Boston College and a research associate of the John King Fairbank Center for East Asian Research at Harvard University.

J. S. ROY is managing director of Kissinger Associates, Inc. He previously served as assistant secretary of state and U.S. ambassador to China.

ANDREW SCOBELL is associate research professor and a specialist on Asia at the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College.

ADAM SEGAL, director of the independent Task Force on Chinese military power, is the Maurice R. Greenberg senior fellow in China studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

DAVID SHAMBAUGH is professor and director of the China policy program in the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University, and a nonresident senior fellow in the foreign policy studies program at the Brookings Institution. He is presently on leave as a 2002-2003 fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC.

SUSAN L. SHIRK is a professor in the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at the University of California, San Diego, and research director at the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. She also served as deputy assistant secretary for China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs at the U.S. Department of State from 1997 to July 2000.

WALTER B. SLOCOMBE is a member of the Washington, DC, law firm, Caplin and Drysdale. He served as undersecretary of defense for policy from 1994 to 2001 and was principal deputy undersecretary for policy from 1993 to 1994.

KAREN SUTTER is director of business advisory services at the U.S.-China Business Council. She previously served as the director of the Atlantic-Pacific Program at the Atlantic Council of the United States.

MICHAEL D. SWAINE is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) and co-director of CEIP's China Program. He was formerly a senior political scientist and first recipient of the Asia research chair at RAND.

G. R. THOMAN is a managing partner of Corporate Perspectives, LLC. He managed Chinese businesses in four companies as a former chief executive officer of Xerox and is a past group executive of IBM, Nabisco Foods, and American Express.

LARRY D. WELCH is currently the president and chief executive officer of the Institute for Defense Analyses in Washington, DC. Before assuming his current position, he served for thirty-nine years in U.S. military forces, from private in the U.S. Army National Guard to Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force.

DONALD S. ZAGORIA is project director of the U.S.-China-Taiwan Relations Program at the National Committee on American Foreign Policy.

Top Stories on CFR

Europe

On the eighty-first anniversary of D-Day, CFR President Michael Froman and senior fellows discuss the Trump administration’s diminished appetite for engagement in European security affairs—even as the Russia-Ukraine war drags on.

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.