CNS Programs: EANP Conference

Opening Remarks by Ambassador Sha Zukang

It's my great pleasure to come to this beautiful city of Montery to attend the 2nd China-US Conference on Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-proliferation. Following the successful visit to the United States by Premier Zhu Rongji, this conference will facilitate more profound and extensive exchanges between our two countries in the field of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. These are issues with direct bearing on international peace and security.

Missile defense is currently an important and sensitive topic in the field of international arms control. Frank and open discussions at this conference will provide us with greater insight into the issue. It is my hope that our discussions here will also be instrumental to our governments in the shaping of our respective policies in this area. Now, allow me to share with you some of my personal views on this issue.

I. The US development of National Missile Defense (NMD) systems does not contribute to global stability, nor will it serve the interests of the US itself.

The reduction of strategic weapons requires a relative balance of power among major countries and the resulting global strategic stability. If such a prerequisite is lost, the process of reducing strategic weapons will come to a halt or even reverse. During the Cold War, the ABM treaty was a crucial cornerstone in maintaining balance and stability. It played a pivotal role in reining in the nuclear arms race between the US and Soviet Union. After the Cold War, the treaty provided a necessary security framework for the US and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals and to advance the process of multilateral nuclear disarmament.

However, this important treaty is in peril today. A reading into the official US announcement on its NMD shows, the program obviously violates the ABM treaty at least in three aspects. (I) Article I of the treaty clearly prohibits the deployment of ABM systems for a defense of the territory of each Party as well as the provision of a base for such a defense. NMD, as indicated by its name, is intended for a nation-wide BMD system for the defense of the entire US territory. (II) According to Article III of the treaty, after it was amended by the 1974 Protocol, each Party shall be limited at any one time to a single area for deployment of ABM systems. However, according to the report by Secretary Cohen of the US Defense Department, the United States is planning to deploy two systems, one in North Dakota and another in Alaska. (III) Article V of the treaty forbids the development, testing and deployment of ABM systems or their components which are sea-based, air-based, space-based, or mobile land-based. However, the US development of NMD will certainly involve the deployment of space-based sensor systems.

Of course, what the ABM treaty established is a so-called "balance of terror." Which can only provide relative security to countries. This might not satisfy some Americans in pursuit of absolute security. Nonetheless, "balance of terror" is better than no balance at all. Between two devils, we have to opt for the less evil. And this is the best possible choice we can have until the elimination of nuclear weapons. Disrupting such a balance will only lead to greater insecurity for all countries, including the United States. In today's world, no one can attain hegemony and absolute security, either single-handedly, or with the help of a few allies. The United States will not be an exception, though it is the only remaining super power.

For years, the US Government has viewed arms control and non-proliferation as an important means to protect its national interests. But arms control and disarmament requires the joint efforts by countries concerned. In this regard, the United States particularly needs the cooperation of other countries. The NMD program, however, is designed to gain unilateral strategic superiority by building US security on the insecurity of others. This will undoubtedly undercut the basis for its cooperation with relevant countries. How can you expect progress in arms control and non-proliferation field while you yourself are developing NMD at full-steam? It's just wishful thinking.

Now, Russia has already made a strong reaction to the US development of NMD and linked START II with the ABM treaty. The ratification of START II by Russia has been delayed again and again. The START III is even more remote. NMD might ward off several "Nodong" and "Daepudong" missiles, but as a result, thousands of Russian strategic nuclear weapons will remain intact in its arsenals. Is it wise for the US to set its mind on this prospect? I doubt.

Those NMD advocates have, on many occasions, also tried to peddle the idea of targeting NMD against China. They argued, limited NMD might not be good enough to neutralize the Russia's colossal nuclear arsenal. But it might be very effective to thwart the potential threat posed by the limited nuclear capability of China. After the Cold War, these people are suffering from a feeling of disorientation. Depicting China as an enemy perhaps might make them fell better. Recently, the US Congress has adopted a resolution, requiring annual report from the US Defense Department on China's military capabilities. This reminds us of the US-Soviet confrontation in the Cold War. It is only logical for China to oppose US development of NMD.

After the US had conducted enough nuclear tests and produced more than sufficient fissile materials, it prompted the conclusion of the CTBT and is now lobbying hard for the FMCT negotiations. The rationale is clear: It's high time to cap other countries' nuclear capabilities in both qualitative and quantitative terms so as to maintain the superiority of its own nuclear arsenal. At the same time, in disregard of the strong opposition from others, the US is obstinately pursuing its NMD program and refuses to abandon its nuclear deterrence policy based on the first-use of nuclear weapons. The US practice of grabbing spear on one hand while holding shield on the other cannot but cause the legitimate concerns of other countries. What is mine is mine, what is yours is negotiable. Such attitude is totally unacceptable to others. China is not in a position to conduct arms race with the United States and it does not intend to do so, particularly in the field of missile defense. However, China will not sit idly by and watch its strategic interests being jeopardized without taking necessary countermeasures. China will be forced to take some steps which it is reluctant to take. It is quite possible for China to review its policies on various arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation issues, including the FMCT negotiations. Moreover, years of sound coordination and cooperation between the two countries in relevant fields will certainly be severely affected. I firmly believe that any policies aimed at harming others will end up hurting oneself.

II. US-Japan joint development of TMD will make the security situation in Asia-Pacific unpredictable.

US-Japan joint development of TMD does not contribute to peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region. China is firmly against such program.

First of all, advanced TMD is technically intertwined with NMD. US-Japan joint research of advanced TMD will provide technical and financial support to US NMD program. Once it is deployed in North-East Asia, this region will become the forefront of the US NMD system. China certainly opposes this.

Secondly, US-Japan cooperation on TMD will bring substantive changes to the nature of their military alliance: 1. The one-way provision of protection by US to Japan will turn into two-way mutual assistance between the two countries. 2. The bilateral military arrangement will become regional arrangement. This will upgrade the integrated capabilities of offense and defense of the US-Japan military alliance to a level higher than that in the Cold War. Against the backdrop of NATO enlargement, its new strategy and frequent use or threat of use of force, countries in North-East Asia, including China and Russia, are surely concerned about the steps taken by the US and Japan to upgrade their military alliance.

Thirdly, US-Japan cooperation on TMD could become a stepping stone for Japan's return to the track of militarism. In light of its military spending level, armament and technological capabilities, Japan is already a de facto military power. TMD might become the finishing touches for Japan's military industry to move towards perfection. Recently, some politicians in Japan again and again called for changes of Japan's military strategy from "exclusive defense" to "preemptive strategy" in order to "contain aggression". This reminds people of Japan's "preemptive activities" in 1931, 1937 and 1941, which cannot but alert many countries in Asia, including China. Some Americans advocate for arming Japan to check China. Let me take this opportunity to advise those friends not to play with fire. It is extremely risky and does not necessarily benefit the United States. There is no need to recall in great detail the lessons from World War II. Just look at some examples around us. Some people in the US believe that it is a good way to contain China by appeasing India. The result is nuclear and missile proliferation in South Asia. Please be aware, India's economic and technologic capabilities are far below those of Japan. If the US adopts the same policy of connivance towards Japan, the jeopardy will not be limited to Asian countries alone. The US itself might also suffer ultimately.

Fourthly, US-Japan cooperation on TMD will exacerbate the tensions in the Korean Peninsular. The Korean nuclear and missile issues can only be resolved through political dialogues. Military maneuver, missile test and TMD deployment can only aggravate differences, instead of helping to resolve them. This is in the interests of no one, except those who want to seek self-interests through causing greater troubles.

Both China and the United States are major powers in the Asia-Pacific region and share common responsibilities in safeguarding security and stability in North-East Asia. We hope the US will be prudent in selecting Japan for the joint development of TMD.

III. It will be the most unwise decision for the United States to include Taiwan in its TMD system. It will meet China's strongest opposition.

Taiwan's participation in TMD has become a hot topic recently. I agree with the views of some Americans that the Taiwan authorities are using this issue to drive a wedge between China and United States.

Possession of missile defense capabilities by Taiwan may take different forms. China is firmly against any of these. US Transfer of TMD systems to Taiwan, such as PAC-III and Aegis system, will significantly enhance Taiwan's overall capabilities of offense and defense. It will enable Taiwan to directly threaten the air-space security over the Taiwan Straits and China's mainland. This will be very serious proliferation of weapons and missile technologies. If the US further provides missile early warning assistance to Taiwan, it will lead to de facto "para-military alliance" between the US and Taiwan. This will be a grave breach of the obligations the US has undertaken when it established diplomatic relations with China, namely, to abrogate its mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. The result will be evident: more serious troubles in China-US relations. Putting Taiwan under US-Japan or US TMD umbrella will signify a major policy change by US and Japan on Taiwan issue. This is something China will never tolerate. Just imagine the feeling of the US and Japan if China’s defense system covers Hawaii or Okinawa. In short, any ambiguity and mishaps on the part of United States and Japan in this regard will definitely produce negative impact on China-US and China-Japanese relations.

The Chinese Government is committed to "peaceful reunification and one country, two systems" . These constitute our fundamental policy on Taiwan issue. On many occasions, Chinese leaders have reiterated that "Chinese people will not fight Chinese people". All these illustrate that we are dedicated to peaceful reunification of the motherland. We reserve our right to use force. But the use of force is not our preferred choice. It is a kind of deterrence to prevent the separatists both in Taiwan and oversees from taking any willful actions. The inclusion of Taiwan into TMD will not improve the security in the Taiwan Straits. On the contrary, it will only complicate the issue and rendering the security situation more unpredictable-the pro-independence force will be encouraged, thus significantly increasing the possibility of armed conflicts.

Taiwan issue is China's domestic affair and also China's biggest security concern. The United States often cites its own security interests to urge China to cooperate with it in areas such as export control over weapons as well as sensitive items and technologies. The two sides have indeed conducted good cooperation so far. For this, China has paid high political and economic price. China is ready to continue such cooperation on equal and reciprocal basis. The US provisions of TMD and other state-of-art weapons to Taiwan will hamper China's reunification course and hurt the national sentiment. If the United States ignores the three Joint Communiques, the China-US Joint Statement and relevant commitments made by the US Government, or saying one thing while doing something else, China cannot but suspect the real motives of the US! We might have to consider: what's the point to maintain such cooperation with the US!

Some of you might think that I am just bluffing. Then let time and fact speak! Here I would like to strongly urge the United States to clearly undertake not to transfer TMD to Taiwan or provide any assistance to help Taiwan develop its TMD.

Conclusion

In short, China is against NMD as well as TMD, because they will undermine, rather than contribute to, regional and global peace, security and stability. The logic is quite simple. Just suppose, if the Warsaw Pact or Russia is bombing a neighboring country with thousands of cruise missiles while trying to deploy NMD and TMD for itself at the same time, will you welcome it?

It may be appropriate at this point to say a few words about the US led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. I am concerned that this campaign will lead to the collapse of the international disarmament and WMD non-proliferation regime. The abusive use of force will propel other countries to the conclusion of expanding their armament. It is no news that Russia has suspended its ratification of START-II. Recently, Russia has indicated that it will review its nuclear strategy. Obviously, Russia is left with no other alternative. Ukrainian Parliament has already adopted resolution to terminate its nuclear-weapon-free status. Byelorussia announced that it intends to redeploy its tactic missiles. After their nuclear tests a year ago, India and Pakistan test-fired new types of missiles. It appears that some regional and sub-regional powers are also looking for shortcuts to acquire WMD delivery systems. International legal instruments concerning WMD, whether existing ones, or those in the process of negotiation or pending entry into force, are all faced with severe challenges. These developments are, to some extent, all unintended "byproducts" of US led NATO bombings.

China and the United States are both Permanent Members of the UN Security Council and have important responsibility in safeguarding international peace and security. People all over the world are looking on us to live up to our obligations. They expect us to act strictly in line with the UN Charter and international norms, refraining from any activities detrimental to peace and security. There are no conflicts of fundamental interests between China and the US. As Premier Zhu said, China is not a potential opponent of the US, still less an enemy. China is a credible partner of the United States. We sincerely hope that, the US will become our credible partner. The Chinese Government and people are dedicated to building a constructive partnership between China and the US oriented towards the 21st-century. I believe that so long as the two countries can join hands, we will bring a more peaceful and prosperous world into the next century. On the contrary, if the two countries go against each other, though, as major powers, we can both survive, the world of the 21st century would witness a different picture.

Thanks for your attention.

Return to the Conference index.