Editor's Note:

PRC's 60th anniversary celebrations in 2009 included a massive military parade, which filled many in China with pride, but made some outsiders worried.

As Chinese military strength develops alongside its economic growth, will doubts about China's power and transparency grow? What's the real situation of China's military?

Global Times (GT) reporter Wang Yuan interviewed Zhang Zhaozhong (Zhang), a PLA rear admiral, Dai Xu (Dai), a captain in the PLA Air Force, and Li Daguang (Li), a military expert at the National Defense University, on China's military affairs in 2009 and the future of the Chinese military.

GT: What was the military highlight of 2009 for China?

Dai: The openness of the Chinese military was seen in many areas.

We invited international observers to several military exercises, and held joint military exercises with Russia, Mongolia, Singapore and some other countries. China-US military relations have warmed.

China welcomed delegations from around 30 nations to the 60th anniversary celebrations for the PLA navy and air force. These showed the Chinese military's willingness to communicate with the rest of the world.

It is the sincere desire for peace, as well as Western doubts about transparency, that have driven the Chinese military to be more open.

Li: The National Day parade was the military highlight of 2009, and showed China's military development.

All branches of the armed forces were present, including the army, navy, air force, reserve troops and militiamen, to display the military's achievements.

This is the first time all the weapons and equipment displayed at the National Day parade were domestically made. In particular, we had our own early warning aircraft and cruise missiles. It shows that China's ability to research and produce weapons and equipment has greatly improved.

After the parade, some developing countries placed orders to buy our new weapons and equipment. It's good, since developing weapons is expensive, while China's consumption is comparatively small. Inadequate market needs will lead to the reduction of military industries' productivity and a loss of talent and technical ability. Overseas orders could help us with further weapon research and development.

However, we are still behind the developed countries. Parades are not actual war, and the war-fighting capabilities of many of those weapons and equipment have not been demonstrated yet. We should not blindly exaggerate our military strength.

GT: As for China's military strength, The Report on International Politics and Security, released by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) on December 24, triggered criticism both at home and abroad, as it said that China has the second strongest military in the world. What's your opinion on this?
Zhang: In my opinion, China's military strength ranks fifth in the world.

The US and Russia are definitely in the first echelon of military power, as their war-making capacities are global or regional. Countries in the second echelon just have regional or internal war-making capabilities, and they are the UK, France, Italy, Japan and China. In most aspects, China ranks just behind the UK and France.

The report mentioned above is unscientific. Ranking different countries' military strength is very complicated, and needs various experts to do qualitative and quantitative analysis based on masses of data and mathematical models.

Moreover, correct measurement criteria should be used. The US used to measure a country's comprehensive national strength by its territory, population and GDP. Such measurements are too simple and out of date.

If we used these criteria, China, with a vast territory, large population and a GDP as large as $4.4 trillion, could be seen as a very powerful country, but it really isn't. The report also takes the size of the armed forces as a key criterion, but modern troops ought to be smaller in quantity but better in quality.

As for people, an important factor is the quality and the level of education of military personnel.

Although our army is very large, it is of relatively poor quality. American soldiers are mainly college or high school graduates and American military officers are all college graduates. China will need a decade or two to reach this level.

Another factor is actual battle experience. Chinese forces have not fought in an actual war since the brief Sino-Vietnamese conflict of 1979. As a result, we have difficulties in many areas, such as tactical innovation and strategic applications. The security, salary and morale of ordinary soldiers also should be taken into account.

When it comes to equipment, the situation is very complicated, and doesn't depend purely on quantity.

For example, the US has over 100 fourth generation fighters, Japan has 40, while China doesn't even have one. China's largest destroyer has a displacement of 7,000 tons, but the biggest US destroyer is over 100,000 tones. All the US's submarines are nuclear-powered, while only a few of China's are. There is no comparison.

Then there is the issue of development potential. Take Japan for example. Generally, its submarines are retired after serving 10 years, then mothballed, but could rapidly be put back into service. China lacks this ability. Many Western civilian enterprises, such as Boeing and Airbus, can also be rapidly switched to military purpose, but China's can't.

A country's overall industrialization level also plays an important role in military affairs. Some Western countries started industrializing two centuries ago, while China just began a few decades ago. China didn't even make one major technological breakthrough in the 20th century.

It will take at least half a century for China to have the second most powerful military in the world.
Li: Some countries have played up China threat theory and questioned China's military transparency, and the CASS' report just gave them ammunition.

I do not encourage ranking countries' military strength. There are too many subjective factors, so it can't be accurate at all.

Whether a country could win a battle depends on concrete battle conditions. For instance, China emphasizes a good peripheral security environment, so our capability of offshore defensive operations is comparatively strong. But on oceangoing operations, China is extremely weak.

GT: Many countries have doubts about China's military transparency. What's your evaluation of this?
Zhang: Transparency is a relative concept. Even best friends value their privacy. This should be recognized by all countries.

I would give three out of 10 to China's military transparency in the 1970s and 1980s, and eight out of 10 to today's.

Nowadays, military experts can express their personal viewpoint on the media, the government issues Defense White Papers that state our military expenditure, defense policy, and so on, and we have opened up the military to foreigners.

All of this wouldn't have happened in the past, and I think it's more than adequate.

The US military has good transparency. It makes known to the public and the world what kind of weapons and equipment it plans to develop in the next decade, and also details such as the costs, developers and the timetable.

China is moving in this direction, but we can't match the US in the short term, since we are still transforming from a planned economy to a market economy, and many uncertainties in research and development remain.

China's greatest problem is that we are poor at dealing with foreign media.

We are used to tell them what achievements we have made, but this obviously sounds like propaganda to a Western audience. Putting our ideas into an interesting screenplay or a song would be more persuasive.
Dai: Generally speaking, the Chinese military is comparatively transparent.

We have clarified our military intentions, and publicized every important military activity. But it's impossible for a country to be totally transparent.

It's impossible to eliminate some Western country's criticisms of China's military transparency, as they are using a double standard and aim to curb China's military development.

When we evaluate our own and other countries' military transparency, a uniform standard should be adopted. That is whether a country has explained its military intentions, deployment and development plans, and to what extent it threatens world peace.

We need to establish and publicize our own standard of judging military transparency to respond to those unreasonable criticisms.