Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

China's Share of Global Arms Imports Falls, Sipri Says

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • China's Share of Global Arms Imports Falls, Sipri Says

    Bloomberg News
    China's Share of Global Arms Imports Falls, Sipri Says
    By Daniel Ten Kate on March 18, 2012
    China's Share of Global Arms Imports Falls, Sipri Says - Businessweek

    China, the world’s top weapons importer for much of the past decade, fell to fourth from second on an annual list from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute as it produces more arms at home.

    China received 5 percent of the volume of international transfers of “major conventional weapons” from 2007 to 2011, Sipri said in a report released today. The total was half that of India, which last year overtook China as the world’s largest recipient of arms, and less than South Korea and Pakistan.

    “In certain sectors such as combat aircraft, with the exception of certain parts like engines, China is able to put together these systems largely from their own indigenous base now,” Paul Holtom, director of Sipri’s arms transfer program, said by phone. “India is still struggling there.”

    China is set to increase military spending 11 percent this year as rising economic interests, territorial disputes and expanding global commitments drive demand for warships, missiles and fighter jets. Defense outlays of more than $100 billion per year are second only to the U.S., which along with Europe has maintained an arms embargo against the leadership in Beijing since a 1989 crackdown against protesters.

    The volume of worldwide arms transfers in 2007-2011 was 24 percent higher than in 2002-2006, the report said. The Asia- Pacific region led the world, accounting for 44 percent of arms imports. It was followed by Europe at 19 percent, the Middle East at 17 percent and the Americas at 11 percent.
    China Exports Double

    China’s arms exports nearly doubled in 2007 to 2011 from five years earlier, Sipri said, making it the world’s sixth biggest supplier after the United Kingdom. About two-thirds of China’s weapons were sold to neighboring Pakistan, it said, including 50 JF-17 combat aircraft, 203 tanks and three warships.

    Asia-Pacific spending on fighters, missiles and other equipment is set to grow an average 4.2 percent annually to $114 billion in 2016, according to Frost & Sullivan. China’s defense budget alone may rise 14 percent each year through 2015, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

    India last week said it will increase defense spending by 13 percent next year to 1.93 trillion rupees ($38.4 billion) as it seeks to counter China’s buildup.

    India’s purchases range from naval to aircraft to ground forces, Holtom said, including Russian-made 120 Su-30MK and 16 MiG-29K fighter jets. Paris-based Dassault Aviation SA (AM) is in final talks on a contract to supply at least 126 Rafale combat planes to India to clinch the first-ever export deal for the jet, Chief Executive Officer Charles Edelstenne said March 9.
    ‘Status Element’

    Brazil and South Africa are also stepping up weapons purchases, reflecting the emergence of middle-income powers on the global stage, Holtom said. Brazil’s orders of 4 Scorpène class submarines, a nuclear-powered submarine, and 50 transport helicopters will contribute to a “dramatic increase” in imports in the coming years, Sipri said.

    “There is a status element there as well as an ability to project power over distance,” Holtom said. “The emerging powers desire to be seen having the equipment of a power, and in some of those cases it’s upgrading and modernizing from Cold War-era equipment.”

    The U.S. remains the world’s largest exporter of military equipment, accounting for 30 percent of arms deliveries between 2007 and 2011, followed by Russia at 24 percent, the report said. The Pentagon is asking for $613.9 billion next year, which also includes $88.5 billion in supplemental spending for wars.

    Stockholm-based Sipri, founded in 1966, conducts research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament, according to its website. A substantial part of its funding comes from the Swedish government, it said.

    The institute says it measures the volume of arms moved around the world using an index that is “based on the known unit production costs of a core set of weapons and is intended to represent the transfer of military resources rather than the financial value of the transfer.”

    To contact the reporter on this story: Daniel Ten Kate in Bangkok at [email protected]

    To contact the editor responsible for this story: Peter Hirschberg at [email protected]
    “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

  • #2
    What's interesting in the fact that Pakistan is the 3rd largest importer!

    Not bad for a nation which has to take IMF loans for daily survival.

    Comment


    • #3
      What confuses me is the following...

      How can India par China while importing stuff, opposed to Chinese (cheap) domestic production and 2,5x higher military budget?

      Originally posted by n21 View Post
      What's interesting in the fact that Pakistan is the 3rd largest importer!
      Not bad for a nation which has to take IMF loans for daily survival.
      Oh, I thought you were talking Greece
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #4
        How can India par China while importing stuff, opposed to Chinese (cheap) domestic production and 2,5x higher military budget?
        China has a much larger armed force on a headcount basis, to put this in a simpler term. Also China has a different set of strategic requirement, ranging from that small island off to the east to the snowy mountains near sea of Japan.
        “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by xinhui View Post
          China has a much larger armed force on a headcount basis, to put this in a simpler term. Also China has a different set of strategic requirement, ranging from that small island off to the east to the snowy mountains near sea of Japan.
          Thank you for clarification. Chinese also have the largest reserve army in the World and a huge (nuclear) arsenal on their North to worry about.

          Anyway if you combine active, reserve, paramilitary,both come on same headcount and India still has China and Pakistan to worry about. I think they should all be summed if it comes to a conflict. That was where I started.
          No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

          To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

          Comment


          • #6
            Just saw this from the BBC



            19 March 2012 Last updated at 20:19 ET
            BBC News - Which is the world's biggest employer?



            The National Health Service (NHS) in England is at the centre of a big political row about its reform. It's often said to be the third biggest employer in the world, after the Chinese army and Indian Railways. But is that really true?

            It's an incredible claim, given how much smaller the UK is than China or India.

            And indeed, it is not true.

            Sizing up the world's biggest employers and compiling a list of the top 10, the NHS is revealed to be the fifth largest, with 1.7 million workers across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

            McDonald's makes it into fourth position, with 1.9 million employees. However, 80% of the restaurants are franchises so, strictly speaking, 1.5 million of these people are employed by other companies, although they all wear the uniform.
            Continue reading the main story
            More or Less: Behind the stats

            Listen to More or Less on BBC Radio 4 and the World Service, or download the free podcast

            Download the More or Less podcast

            Third is the US supermarket chain Walmart, which employs 2.1 million staff - including almost 200,000 who work for the Asda supermarket chain in the UK.

            Second place goes to the Chinese military - the People's Liberation Army (PLA) - with forces numbering 2.3 million.

            And the top spot is taken by the US Department of Defense with a cool 3.2 million-strong workforce.
            Graphic showing top 10 employers

            Why is it so big - and so much bigger than the second-placed Chinese military?

            In truth, making these comparisons is fraught with difficulties.

            The US Defense Department, with its headquarters at the vast Pentagon building in Virginia, is keen to boast that it's one of the world's largest employers and includes civilian support staff in its numbers.
            Pentagon, Arlington The Pentagon is said to be the largest office building in the world

            Getting a comparable figure for the Chinese military is near impossible.

            The figure of 2.3 million which puts it at second place in our list includes active forces only - not civilian staff, like the US figure.

            And that actually makes it the largest active military force in the world, according to Military Balance, an annual assessment of military capabilities around the world published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in the UK.

            If you were to count only active forces within the US Department of Defense, it would number 1.6 million people and slip to seventh place in our list.

            If numbers for its civilian staff were known, it is possible the Chinese could come much closer to the US, and maybe even overtake them.

            But it is not a straightforward exercise even to separate who is civilian and who is military personnel - the two forces are structured and organised completely differently.

            "There are a number of organisations within militaries - you have active forces, reserve forces, civilians, and also those that might be working as contractors - so it depends really what you're trying to count when you look at headline numbers," says James Hackett, the editor of Military Balance.

            "What we try and do is look at active service personnel, so those in uniform who are capable of operating on behalf of the state to fulfil the national security concerns of the militaries.
            Continue reading the main story
            “Start Quote

            Surprisingly, [the NHS] also has more workers than Indian Railways”

            "One reason that the PLA is large compared to other militaries stems from its composition as a mainly conscript-based force. Now other militaries in the West and across the world have moved to volunteer corps."

            The NHS might be lower in the global pecking order than people think but it is still big.

            Technically, however, it could be said the NHS does not operate as a single employer.

            Many staff are employed by individual hospital trusts and primary care trusts, while GP surgeries, for example, are run and owned by one or more partners who are contracted to provide general NHS medical services.

            But setting that aside, it is bigger - just - than the state-run China National Petroleum Corporation, which has around 1.6 million employees and operates in 49 countries.

            It's also bigger than the State Grid Corporation of China, which ranks seventh in our list with 1.5 million staff.

            Surprisingly, it also has more workers than Indian Railways, which is popularly thought to be in the top three of the world's biggest employers, but actually languishes in eighth place.

            "Languishing" with an admittedly whopping 1.4 million-strong workforce - and with plans to recruit an extra 100,000 staff this year.

            And it's still one place ahead of the Indian Armed Forces, which has 1.3 million people in its active forces.
            Indian Army Most of India's armed forces are in the army

            The reason China's railway operation does not make the top 10 list is because it's split into various separate entities.

            But Chinese operations do dominate the top 10 list.

            Number 10 on the list - behind the Indian Armed Forces - is Hon Hai Precision Industry, better known by its trading name, Foxconn.

            This Taiwanese electronics producer, which has 1.2 million employees, makes well-known products like the Apple iPad in its vast factories in China, where hundreds of thousands of people work.

            It became notorious in 2010 when news spread that 10 of its workers had committed suicide.

            Although these deaths were tragic, an understanding of how massive an employer the company is makes you realise that this isn't the shockingly high number it seemed.

            Suicide rates in China have been put at 15 per 100,000 people per year. The controversial Foxconn factory employed around 400,000 people.

            Ten suicides per 400,000 people isn't unusually high. It's unusually low for China.
            Attached Files
            “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Doktor View Post
              Anyway if you combine active, reserve, paramilitary,both come on same headcount and India still has China and Pakistan to worry about. I think they should all be summed if it comes to a conflict. That was where I started.
              While Chinese war toys might be cheaper but they are buying more of them. it is really difficult to measure a nation's defense pasture solely on weapon procurement alone, so take that Sipri report with some salt. Case-in-point, China has somewhere between 400,000 to 800,000 PAP (people's armed police), they are China's national guard and expected to take up arms in a fight. However, their budget is not counted in overall defense budget. Their imported equipments, while very limited, are also excluded from the Sipri report
              “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

              Comment

              Working...
              X