Hydrablog

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012300114.html
China Confirms Missile Test
By Edward Cody
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, January 23, 2007; 8:58 AM [China] PRC] [US-Sino relations] [PRC] [China] [flexing its military and industrial capability muscles] [demonstrating its anti-satellite capacity] [somewhat provocative] [the N in TNT] [followup from yesterday’s external] [**********]
BEIJING, Jan. 23 -- Breaking 13 days of silence, China confirmed Tuesday that it fired a guided missile into space to destroy one of its own satellites in a test of anti-satellite technology that generated protests from the United States and other nations.
A Foreign Ministry spokesman, Liu Jianchao, said the U.S. and other governments now have been informed about the secret test through diplomatic channels and emphasized that it does not mean China has abandoned its longstanding opposition to the military use of space.
"I should stress at this time that the test was not targeted against any country and does not pose a threat to any country," Liu told a ministry briefing. He added that he knows of no plans for another such test by the secretive Chinese military.
The Chinese test shot, which culminated in destruction of an over-age weather satellite 537 miles above the earth, was detected by U.S. monitors on Jan. 11, but the Chinese government refused to discuss it. The test raised concern in Washington, where officials and analysts interpreted it as a signal by China that U.S. military satellites could be vulnerable to attack.
With the U.S. military heavily reliant on satellites for reconnaissance, navigation, weapons guidance systems and anti-missile defenses, Chinese ability to shoot down satellites in space could pose an added threat in the event of hostilities over Taiwan. In addition, China's newly demonstrated ability could threaten Taiwan's own satellites monitoring Chinese short- and medium-range missile deployments along the Taiwan Strait.
U.S. officials said they were also dismayed by the Chinese test because the United States and Russia, after testing anti-satellite technology in the 1980s, more recently have abstained from further tests, partly because theycreate a cloud of debris that could damage nearby satellites. Liu declined to address questions on this danger.
China, embarked on an accelerated military modernization program, repeatedly has emphasized its eagerness to be able to compete in 21st Century warfare, including advanced electronics and information systems. The Chinese military, which runs China's space program, has identified space-based communications and sensing systems as key to such high-technology battle. Some Chinese military theorists also have advocated asymmetrical warfare, in which pinpoint weapons would be used to disrupt the more advanced and better equipped U.S. military.
This military modernization was the context into which most analysts placed the Jan. 11 test, despite China's frequent declarations that it wants to prevent an arms race in space. Asked about the appearance of a contradiction, Liu repeated the longstanding Chinese position, saying, "We will further promote de-weaponization and the peaceful use of outer space."
At the United Nations, China consistently has advocated peaceful space development and pushed for an international agreement to prevent outer space from becoming the theater for a new arms race. The Bush administration has opposed China's suggestion for an international conference to pursue such an accord, arguing there is no need for it.
In that light, Liu was asked whether the anti-satellite test violated the spirit of China's proclaimed position and, in any case, why China kept silent for nearly two weeks while officials around the world were discussing it on the basis of U.S. intelligence reports.
"We have nothing to hide," he responded. "After the relevant parties expressed their concerns, we made our response about the test quickly. We stressed that China opposes weaponization and an arms race in outer space. Our position has not changed."
© 2007 The Washington Post Company