China on Missiles and Missile Defense: Do as We Say, Not as We Do?

From Inside the Ring on a recent Chinese missile test:

(A) Sept. 25 test highlights what China military specialists say is the growing threat posed by Beijing’s development of long- and short-range ballistic and cruise missiles, and its new missile defense interceptors.

A U.S. official confirmed that China’s military fired a missile from the Taiyuan missile center, about 320 miles southwest of Beijing, to Korla, a city in western China some 1,800 miles away.

So what’s it all mean?  It could mean the missile test was a failure, which China attempts to stage-manage very closely.  It could mean it was a success that China sees no benefit in acknowledging.  It could mean the test was partly successful, such as a successful missile test but another aspect of the test (for example, a missile defense element) might have failed.

Or, as lex parsimoniae would suggest, it might mean no one has been authorized to speak on the subject.  Remember the non-brilliant diplomatic, media, and communications response by China to their ASAT demonstration in early 2007?

Chinese Embassy spokesman Wang Baodong said he was not aware of the test but stated that if it took place, China’s military “poses no threat to any other countries, and serves for peace and stability in the region and in the world at large.”

Hmmm.  If Mr. Wang had said China was for freedom, open democracy, and honoring international laws and norms, I’d find his statement easier to believe.

Where Are The Arms Controllers On Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles?

China's DF-21

As you might imagine, China is not a party to The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, which is better known as the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.

INF does not allow the U.S. or Russia to field either nuclear or conventional ground launched ballistic or land attack cruise missiles with intermediate ranges.  Intermediate ranges are treaty-defined as 500 to 5,500km.

As such, China is treaty unconstrained in the development of whatever sorts of weapons they think will serve their needs, to include the approximately 1600 ballistic missiles they have aimed at Taiwan.  Such freedom of action also allows China to develop an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) capability while the INF treaty prohibits both Russia and the U.S. from creating such a capacity.

Now, given all the angst and gnashing of teeth regarding the New START treaty, you would think there’d be more noise–actually some noise–from the arms control community regarding China’s emergent ASBM capability, which the U.S. and Russia have decided to forego.  China’s ASBM has been described as the ‘carrier killer’ and is thought to be nearly or perhaps already operational.

So, with New START still pending Senate action, the arms controllers and ‘international institution’ communities seem curiously mute and non-multi-tasking on the serious issue of Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles.

China wants to be a player, but players have to…well, they have to play.  ASBMs aren’t playing.