China's antisatellite-missle test - II (#317, Topic F)

My good friend, Anonymous, who has kept me honest in my postings, has done it again (see comment to #313); I thank him. In it, he said that China signed an international understanding, back in 1985, concerning moves to prevent the militarization of space. I confess that I know nothing about it. So, after this comment, I paid particular attention to subsequent developments on this topic. On 1/25, Washington Post had a long op-ed piece, by the director of Asia studies at the influential Council on Foreign Relations. After a long list of complaints against China, she declared: "If we want China to be a responsible world power on issues such as energy security, climate changes, human rights and even space-based weapons, we need to step up and lead. We can and should condemn China for not respecting the international rules governing these issues or negatively affecting other countries' well-being, but we must be prepared to play by the same rules. While other powers may have granted American exceptionalism in the past, China is not inclined to do so. Indeed, China is more likely to seek its own 'exceptional' status." Reading between lines, it is clear that USA has not set a good example. A case in point might be the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. China, as a developing country, is exempt from signing it, while USA, as the leading industrial power, is expected to sign it but didn't. So, this director wants China to respect "international rules" even when they do not apply to her, while excuses USA for not respecting same on the ground of "exceptionalism." What a sweet deal. The 1/27 issue of Economist, received yesterday, has a 2+ column coverage of this ASM story; a key paragraph, to me, is the following: "George Bush has refused to talk to China about a proposal it [China] raised in 2002, with Russia's backing, for a treaty outlawing the 'weaponisation' of space. Mr Bush authorised a new national space policy in August last year that irked the Chinese. It defended America's right to use space for defense and intelligence gathering purposes as well as to stop 'adversaries' from using space in ways that threaten American 'national interests.'" So, this must be the "American exceptionalism" the CFR director was talking about. But, for our purpose, it seems that international laws concerning ASM tests are yet to be written. In any case, to my way of thinking, ASM in the 21st century is analogous to anti-aircraft artellery in the 20th and to anti-warship gunnery in the 19th. It was the lack of the last that allowed Britain, with a fleet of 20 obsolete gunboats, to control China's coastlines and subdue the then most dominant country in the world -- the Opium War -- an event China is unlikely to forget for millennia to come.