The Baby Gorilla: China's Military Ambitions by Claudio Guler

Today, all eyes in the international arena are focused on the events unfolding in Iraq, and with good reason. But for a brief moment on January 11th, 2007, China offered its own glimpse into the future of the international order.

Carried out unilaterally and in complete secrecy, the Chinese tested an anti-satellite intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM). The target was one of its own aging weather satellites orbiting 537 miles above the surface of the earth. The IRBM successfully hit its target and managed to destroy it through simple collision. Traveling at 4.34 miles per second, the IRBM crumbled the weather satellite and in the process sent harmful space debris spewing into near Earth orbits.

With this test, China has become only the third country in the world, following the US and the former USSR, to develop and test the technology necessary to physically terminate a satellite. This can be considered quite an engineering accomplishment achieved by the Chinese and one that may signify serious consequences for US military power. However, it was the manner in which the test was carried out that raised eyebrows across the international community.
The unilateral and clandestine nature of the test has raised questions about its rationale. In response, the US, Japan, Australia, and South Korea all immediately filed complaints with Beijing, stating they have no intentions of commencing an arms race in space. Although this was a standardized diplomatic reaction, these countries – especially the US – may be overlooking the bold print message the Chinese wanted to send.

Following the fall of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the bipolar system came the never before seen tranquility of the 1990’s and a world overwhelmingly governed by US hegemony. With the election of George W. Bush in 2000, the US’ superpower status remained, but the tranquility of the 90’s quickly faded. Now, China’s test of an anti-satellite weapon may be implicitly challenging US hegemony with confidence.

The US has recently acted with a great deal of bravado around the world, and this may be an early sign of others’ displeasure. A curiously relevant example of such US bravado has come from President Bush’s review of the US National Space Policy (NSP) in 2006. The opening remarks that state the guiding principles of the unclassified segment of the US NSP are written in a rather one-sided tone. The most controversial of which states: “The United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.”

The Bush administration also recently withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002. This treaty was designed to reduce tensions in conjunction with nuclear weapons development. By limiting nations’ legal abilities to construct national safety nets against incoming nuclear weapons, this treaty was an intricate pillar in the international organization and the laws of space. The combination of such actions have made other nations uneasy about the US’ intentions to maintain the non-militarized order of space.

When questioned about the Chinese launch of an anti-satellite IRBM, the White House press secretary responded: “…we do want a civil space cooperation with the Chinese and others.” Cooperation? If cooperation was the policy of the current US administration, why did they in a 2005 UN Security Council vote to call for negotiations on a space treaty to limit the militarization of space, cast their vote as the only ‘no’ against 160 ‘yes?’

Is it possible that this test was meant to send a message to the US to tone down its strutting and to return to the negotiating table? If Bush refuses to see this, China has clearly expressed its right and ability to make future war fighting difficult for the United States. This matter is particularly pertinent when combined with China’s massive military buildup over the past ten years and its express desire to have Taiwan under the Mainland China communist rule. In the past, the US has vowed to defend Taiwanese sovereignty, which has been an underlying tension in international security.

A recent article in the Washington Times by Bill Gertz, entitled “Chinese Dragon Awakes,” outlines the scale of China’s military buildup. Copious amounts of funding from China’s rapidly developing economy have afforded China the opportunity to modernize their armed forces. Although still far behind the US military’s capabilities, Gertz says, “China is building its military forces faster that US intelligence and military analysts expected.” With a revitalized high-tech military that can disrupt US communications, tracking, and guidance systems in times of war, such capabilities would make defending Taiwan and the homeland significantly more difficult.

The prescription is for a change of course. The US should reverse its quasi-imperialistic behavior and not only speak of cooperation, but also pursue it. The Chinese IRBM launch is a rather minor issue that tells a much larger story. By returning to the negotiating table on this issue, the US can begin the process of giving others less reason for concern. At the least, negotiating is better than ignoring. Choosing to ignore will prove deconstructive and, in the long run, damaging.

In conclusion, it should come as no surprise that the Chinese were the ones to audaciously challenge US hegemony. For millennia, the Chinese have been a unified civilization and one that intends to rise again. Right now, the US is the 800-pound gorilla sitting in the room. However, a baby gorilla sits not far away, and it is difficult to imagine this baby gorilla not growing up. When this day comes, do you want to be the one sitting next to the uncomfortable 800-pound gorilla?