The following version is original version before editing. The published version is on the website of Beijing Review:

http://www.bjreview.com.cn/Files/Files-200216/Global%20Observer-200216(C).htm

Li Bin

The end of the cold war once brought a splendid image to people around the world: nuclear terror was gone and huge nuclear arsenals were no longer necessary. A series of arms control agreements were concluded: the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START), the Chemical Weapon Convention and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Some existing treaties, such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) whose duration was extended indefinitely, were strengthened. It seemed like it was time to reap the dividend of peace by reducing nuclear and other arms. However, the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests in 1998 reminded us that the path of arms reductions would not be smooth. Later, the US Senate rejected the CTBT, causing serious frustration to global arms control. At the same time, the problem with the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty raised by the US missile defense development was becoming pressing. The international community attempted to counteract the negative effects of the moves by pushing for a de-facto entry into force of the CTBT without the endorsements of India and Pakistan and to call for preserving the ABM Treaty at United Nations by overwhelming majorities of the members. The Clinton Administration tried to plan a US missile defense that would not strike heavily against the global arms control regime. However, American missile defense fans could not be satisfied with any constraints over options for missile defense development. Indeed, the concept of a nation-wide missile defense can hardly be consistent with any minor changes of the ABM Treaty if the technology is aimed at mid-course and terminal intercept. Until the end of the Clinton Administration, there had been no decision made regarding the future of the ABM treaty. It seems that these international efforts have had little effect.

Once President George W. Bush entered the White House, the US government began to destroy the global arms control regime at an unbelievably high speed. It denied the verification protocol of the Biological Weapon Convention, cut the funding supporting of CTBT inspection research, shortened the preparatory time to resume nuclear test, announced the decision of withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, raised its military budget to a historical high, and showed its interest in nuclear war-fighting in its Nuclear Posture Review. The US based magazine, The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, recently warned that the danger of nuclear war is closer to the world again mainly because of the above actions.

The think tanks associated with the Bush government have proposed an idea to replace enduring arms control agreements with flexible unilateral statements. They have suggested that the US keep the weapons reduced from deployment in its reserve in preparation for re-deployment, when necessary. If this idea becomes a persistent US policy, the existing global arms control regime will suffer serious damage. The countries in the world will fall into the security dilemma again and therefore will not accept assurances provided by arms control. Instead, they would have to rely only on self-help when facing security challenges and to assume the worst-case in making weapon development plans.

To avoid moving the world toward anarchy, the international community, including governmental and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), is making new efforts to save the global arms control regime. On April 2-4, 2002, an international conference titled "A Disarmament Agenda for the 21st Century" was held in Beijing. Governmental officials in charge of arms control and international security and NGO representatives from different countries got together in Beijing to revive the impetus for arms control. On April 8-19, 2002, a meeting of the Preparatory Committee of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will be held in New York. This meeting prepares for the NPT Review Conference in 2005 and constitutes a forum for the non-nuclear-states and NGOs to appeal for nuclear reductions. Many NPT party countries and NGOs are now working actively to make the meeting fruitful in promoting global disarmament. The two events are creating an international pressure in reserving the global arms control regime. Even if the Bush Administration does not immediately echo the appeal for arms control made by the international community, common Americans will gradually understand the dangerous trend in reversing arms control because many American NGOs are involved in promoting arms control at the two events. They hope to influence US foreign policy and are urging the Bush Administration to take a more positive policy on arms control.

If the two events can reverse the declining trend in arms control, the existing institutionalized global arms control regime will survive and continue to serve the world. However, this seems to be a difficult thing given the fact that the core Bush team is composed of arms control skeptics who believe in self-help rather than institutions for global security. The US is now a uni-polar power and it has dominant influence in global arms control. Its passive attitudes would block any significant progress to arms control. But this does not suggest that an intensive arms race will immediately come to the world. Most countries in the world are not interested in being involved in an arms race. The US will not be able to sustain its high military budget for a long time because the American people will not like the burden after they understand it is unnecessary. It will not be able to build a real national missile defense capability quickly because some of the technical problems are difficult to solve. Therefore, its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty cannot add any security benefit to the US besides breaking the global arms control regime. The notion of nuclear war-fighting expressed in the new US Nuclear Posture Review is puerile cold-war thinking and has been proven dangerous.

American public opinion is critical to the attempt in reviving such a notion. It is possible that the US government will become less hostile to arms control when public opinions pressure it not to. This will help maintain some de-facto arms control if there is no formal treaty. In such a situation, many countries would constrain their arms on a voluntary basis while keeping an eye open in case of a military surprise in other countries. Although voluntary and unilaterally declared arms control is more fragile than institutionalized arms control, it is still worth protecting and promoting. The international community should find approaches for voluntary arms control at the forenamed two events if it could not reverse the declining tendency in treaty-based arms control. If the countries in the world lose all of their confidence in maintaining low level military spending, an intensive arms race would come and the danger of major wars would be even closer to the world. The peace dividend would no longer be a realistic benefit to the people of the world and the money that could be used for improving education, social security, and health care would be spent in making new weapons. This would be the worst scenario for everyone and should be avoided.

China is now entering a critical period in its economical and social development. A peaceful and well-regulated world is beneficial to the reform and openness in China. After Washington announced its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, the Chinese leaders emphasized the importance of arms control for China again and expressed the willingness to sustain the global arms control regime. The forenamed two events will be opportunities for China to make joint efforts with other countries in the world in saving global arms control regime and maintaining a peaceful environment for China.