|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
International Response: Chinese Opposition to Code of Conduct Might Inspire Others By Mike Nartker Beijing announced Tuesday that it probably will not participate in a signing ceremony for the code scheduled at The Hague later this month. The action could create a domino effect, disrupting the political momentum of the code and creating a precedent for other countries of concern such as India and Pakistan, according to experts. India might choose to reject the code now because it has historically been wary of Chinese missile capabilities, said Mark Smith of the Mountbatten Center for International Studies at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom. In turn, a rejection by India could prompt Pakistan to do the same, he said. The code “will need to be signed by states like China, India, Pakistan, Iran ... or else it will simply be a club of EU members, the U.S. and their allies — in which case it will struggle to establish itself,” Smith said in a written response to an inquiry by GSN. At the very least, China’s refusal to sign could provide other countries with political cover for other reasons for rejecting the code, said Tim McCarthy, a senior analyst at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Reasons for Refusal Experts have outlined several reasons why China has decided to abandon the code, including a perceived lack of involvement in its creation, disappointment over its scope and transparency concerns. Beijing’s stance might be a “philosophical” position arising from concerns that Chinese officials had little input in the code’s development, McCarthy said. While China may agree with the goal of the code, it sees little reason to support the code’s provisions because Beijing had little say in their creation, he said. The Chinese Foreign Ministry Tuesday indicated its concern that several Chinese proposals have been rejected. “We support the principle of anti-proliferation in the code,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said. China, however, “is very regretful that the final document of the code did not absorb or adopt the Chinese suggestions, making it difficult for China to participate in the code,” he added. China had hoped the code would create a more far-reaching missile nonproliferation regime that would have ultimately superceded the Missile Technology Control Regime, the current international missile control regime, said Steve LaMontagne, an analyst at the Council for a Livable World, citing a Chinese Foreign Ministry memo issued during negotiations. Beijing has believed that the MTCR, to which it does not belong, is imperfect and discriminatory, he said. Disapproval with an agreement that prohibits some but not all transfers contributed to China’s decision to reject the code, LaMontagne said. Beijing had wanted the code to prohibit technology transfers that it views as threats to Chinese national security, for example, transfers of U.S. anti-missile technology to Taiwan, he said. China also objects to certain transparency and confidence-building measures in the code, Smith said. The code calls on members to provide each other with advance information on missile policies, test sites and launches, which China regards as “the handing over of free intelligence,” Smith said. China had proposed that the code’s provisions be implemented voluntarily, a condition that the European Union members — which were a primary force in creating the code and have guided it through its development — were not likely to accept, Smith said. “I think that modifying the code to make its transparency measures a ‘take your pick’ smorgasbord was beyond what was acceptable,” Smith said. “A balance has to be struck between a code that as many states as possible can join, and a code that holds out the promise of doing something meaningful,” he added. “Organic Growth” Experts agreed that China’s rejection of the code does not necessarily doom it to failure. The move could diminish the code’s chances for success, but it is not a “fatal blow,” Smith said. The EU has envisioned an “organic growth” process for the code’s acceptance, McCarthy said. The MTCR began with seven members and has seen its membership grow to 33 countries, he added. The EU did not expect the code of conduct to be universally accepted at its onset, he said. For further information, see: Draft International Code of Conduct (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) Missile Technology Control Regime (U.S. State Department)
| ||||||||||
Back to top
