Recently, a post circulated widely in Chinese social media. Allegedly, it was a PPT slide from a lecture by Professor Chen Zhiwu, claiming that China is reverting to a “war-preparedness driven economic model.” What characterizes this model? Two main points:
- Emphasis on military industries, critical technologies, food security (reverting forests to farming), supply and marketing cooperatives, large canteens, and low-end consumption as focal areas of investment and development.
- Saying goodbye to aspects like high-end consumption, urban strategies, and individual wealth accumulation, among others.
Against a backdrop of increasing geopolitical tensions, the term “war-preparedness driven economy” indeed grabs attention. Many wonder: Is China gearing up for war? The primary aim of war preparedness is preparation for war. If China’s economic strategies now prioritize war preparedness, it implies the country might be preparing for real-world conflict scenarios.
War, for China, is a distant memory. After the Korean War ended in 1953, China remained mostly peaceful. Notable military clashes include the 1962 Sino-Indian border conflict, the 1969 Zhenbao Island skirmish, and the 1979 counterattack against Vietnam. In the Vietnam War (1961-1975), China covertly assisted but never directly confronted the U.S. Throughout these periods, while no large-scale wars erupted, China’s economy and society maintained a state of readiness, evident from strategies such as “dig deep tunnels, store up grain” and significant “third-front” constructions.
Historically, China simultaneously endured events like the Great Leap Forward, the three-year famine, and the decade-long Cultural Revolution while preparing its economy for potential conflict against superpowers like the U.S. and the USSR. After navigating through these challenges, the country eventually found its path through economic reforms, focusing on meeting the increasing material and cultural needs of its people.
For many older Chinese citizens, the “war-preparedness economy” is not a pleasant memory, but a stark reminder of the challenges faced during those tumultuous times. An economy in constant war readiness implies potential turmoil and does not provide a peaceful environment for development.
From a regular defense perspective, every nation prepares for potential military threats, including wars. However, no country should voluntarily embrace a “war-preparedness economy.” If war readiness is viewed as a driving force for economic growth, seeking wealth and investment opportunities from it, it’s a deeply flawed and distorted policy decision.
Since its economic reforms began over four decades ago, China has been thriving in a peaceful environment, benefiting from globalization and becoming the world’s second-largest economy. Coastal regions in the east and south of the country spearheaded the initial growth. Imagine the catastrophic impacts of war in these densely populated and economically crucial areas.
The idea of proactively adopting a “war-preparedness economy” to mitigate war damages, like relocating factories from the coast to the inland areas, isn’t an appealing development model. Rumors like the relocation of chipmaker SMIC and drone manufacturer DJI from Shanghai and Shenzhen to Xi’an highlight this sentiment.
Only those who lack a sense of history would applaud such moves. Although no one can guarantee that China will always avoid war, evading conflicts should remain a paramount objective in geopolitical negotiations. Like a ship at sea, the decision to steer towards dangerous icy waters or relatively safer oceans is not entirely passive; there are always choices. Guiding the ship safely is the captain’s primary responsibility.
Final Analysis Conclusion:
Opposing the “war-preparedness driven economic model” doesn’t signify a fear of war, but rather stresses that war should never be a priority. In today’s era, a conflict between major powers would spell disaster, rendering the notion of a “war-preparedness economy” moot. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine already offers a grim lesson. Economists should not be overly naive in the face of geopolitics.
Source: Anbang Think Tank