CHINA: Intriguingly Silent on Star Wars Capability

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Antoaneta Bezlova

BEIJING, Jan 23 2007 (IPS) - China’s furtive attitude regarding its growing military capability has rekindled an on-off international debate about whether its military is a paper tiger or a real power to reckon with in Asia and beyond.

Despite a chorus of concern from Tokyo to Canberra and Washington over China’s satellite-killing missile test reported by the United States intelligence agencies earlier this month – the first such experiment in more than 20 years – Beijing has declined to explain the motives behind the test.

The test is significant because it shows that China has now mastered key technology to track and destroy spy satellites operated by other nations. Beijing could use this ‘space control’ as a leverage to help project its growing power in the region and beyond.

The shooting down of an old weather satellite with a ground-based ballistic missile took place on Jan. 12, according to U.S. reports, scattering debris that could potentially damage other satellites, as they remain circling in orbit for years.

Because of its potential to ignite an arms race in space, the incident has sparked frenzy in the international media. Chinese official press though, carried no reports of it, or the controversy that ensued. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has denied knowledge of the test but stressed that Beijing supported the peaceful use of space.

“What I can say is that as a matter of principle, China opposes the weaponisation of space, and also opposes any form of arms race,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told reporters during a Chinese New Year reception, last week.

Security experts believe China’s military is at least two decades behind that of the U.S. and other western powers in terms of technology and ability to coordinate joint operations of its forces. Beijing has made clear its intentions of transforming the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) into a modern military force and has revved up arms purchases to narrow the gap.

The size of the force has fallen dramatically, from some 4 million soldiers in the late 1970s to 2.3 million in the end of 2005. Defence spending in 2006 totalled 36.3 billion US dollars, up 14.7 percent from the year before, meaning it grew faster than China’s booming economy.

While few dispute the need for China to step up military expenditure so that its military power reflects the country’s overall growth, what puzzles defence analysts is Beijing’s lack of transparency surrounding this military rise. U.S. defence-policy makers contend secrecy shrouds everything about the People’s Liberation Army – from its annual defence budget to its long-term intentions.

The Pentagon annual report last year asserted that China’s defence spending is two to three times higher than the official government estimates of 36 billion dollars. It called on China to share more information about the state of its army modernisation. “Absent greater transparency, international reactions to China’s military growth will understandably hedge against theses unknowns,” the report said.

Beijing however, dismisses such criticism saying the U.S. feels intimidated by China’s economic and military rise and wants to keep it in check. In a special defence paper published last month Beijing argued that “hegemonism and power politics” were behind the resurrection of “China threat” in recent years.

“A small number of countries have stirred up a racket about a ‘China threat’ and intensified their preventive strategy against China” in an effort to “hold its progress in check”, the paper said.

Some defence analysts suggest the sole purpose of Pentagon’s annual reports on China’s military is to justify the sale of sophisticated weaponry to Taiwan.

“Because Taipei has stalled on the U.S. arms purchase bill now for a long time, the Pentagon feels annoyed and in need to warn that the balance of power has shifted in favour of mainland China,” Jin Yinan, expert with the China Defence University said.

China claims the island as part of its territory despite the fact that Taiwan has been in essence independent for nearly 60 years. Opposing the pro-independence forces in Taiwan remains the key aim of the People’s Liberation Army. The PLA’s efforts to build an aircraft carrier and deploy more short-range missiles along its east coast are focused on preventing a formal declaration of Taiwan independence and on achieving the ability to take the island by force.

After the satellite-destroying test Taiwan questioned Beijing’s commitment to keeping peace in space and said the number of mainland missiles aimed at the island stood at 900.

“This action is bad for regional security,’ cabinet spokesman Cheng Wen-tsang was quoted as saying on Monday. “This does not fit with communist China’s ‘peaceful rise’. They say one thing and do another.”

The different messages from Beijing’s civilian and military leaders on significant issues like nuclear policy are only heightening global concerns about the ramifications of China’s economic and military rise.

While China’s top diplomats have tried to present the country as a benign power that, in pointed contrast with the U.S., is committed to a multi-polar world and has only goodwill towards other nations, China’s military leaders have been more assertive about Beijing’s need to broaden its strategic reach.

In the white defence paper last month Beijing said it is pursuing a road to “peaceful development’ but stressed that the country’s military power should increase in “step” with its expanding economy in order to protect China’s increasingly global interests.

The satellite-killing test comes at a time when China and the U.S. are debating space nuclear policy at the United Nations. Last year U.S. President George W. Bush signed an order asserting the right of the U.S. to deny adversaries access to space for hostile purposes. Beijing’s test, which was carried without an advance warning or explanation, has been received as an indirect challenge to U.S. supremacy in space.

“We’re looking for greater understanding of exactly what their intent was, what the specifics were surrounding this test, as well as any programs they may have to conduct future such tests,” U.S. State Department spokesman Steve McCormack was quoted as saying in Washington on Monday.

“The bottom line is we encourage them to be more forthcoming, more transparent with respect to not only this test but also their space programme,” McCormack said.