Hou Hongyu*

At present, the imbalance of international strategic forces has further intensified. On one hand, the U.S. seeks Pax-America by conducting aggressive strategic offense in world key areas and has succeeded to some degree. The U.S. has tried to keep its absolute military superiority as a pillar to realize its strategic goal. And this is reflected in its acceleration of the development of NMD, new-type nuclear weapons and high-tech long-range precision strike weapons. Geo-strategically, the U.S. has made use of anti-terrorism as a good opportunity to expand its forces and influences globally. In the western front, the U.S. has pushed NATO to expand to the east. In the middle front, the U.S. has sent military forces to Central Asian and the outer Caucasus Region and tried to transform the Middle East by attacking Iraq and toppling Sadam. In the eastern front, the U.S. has consolidated its military alliance. Thus, the U.S. has combined its European and Asian strategy into a whole and further squeezed Russia’s strategic space. On the other hand, from the point of making its people rich and building up its national power, Russia has started the process of integrating into the Western world, thus voluntarily contracting its strategic influence and playing down the differences and attached great importance to cooperation with the Western countries. Therefore, the U.S. could implement its offensive strategy without scruple. Although many countries are discontent with power politics carried out by the U.S., they could only play a limited role in restraining the U.S.. The change of international situation is more obviously reflected in the field of arms control and disarmament.
A series of significant events took place in the field of arms control and disarmament in the year of 2002, which declared the traditional model of arms control and disarmament become history, made clear to all the balance of international forces based on Mutual Assured Destruction has started to come to an end and raised the curtain on U.S. intention to seek world military hegemony in a long period of time to come.

I. The U.S. has formulated its new nuclear strategy capable of defense and offense.
At the beginning of 2002, the U.S. put forward the NPR, which reflected Bush administration’s new nuclear strategy and developing trends of U.S. nuclear strategy. The new nuclear strategy mainly includes the following changes. (1) The guideline has changed from “Mutual Assured Destruction” to “Seeking Absolute Superiority”, and attaches great importance to the integration of offense and defense in order to establish U.S. absolute military superiority and ensure U.S. absolute safety. (2) In its choice of targets, the U.S. tries to seek comprehensive deterrence and has listed China, Russia, Iraq, the DPRK, Iran, Libya and Syria as its nuclear strike targets, which means the U.S. has given up its negative security assurance. (3) Formerly, the U.S. mainly relied on offensive nuclear force, now tries to rely on offensive nuclear forces, missile defense and conventional strike. (4) The new nuclear strategy stresses nuclear and nuclear warfare, thus lowering the threshold of using nuclear weapons. (5) The U.S. tries to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons and suggests shortening the current preparation time of nuclear test from 2 or 3 years to 18 moths. Therefore, Bush administration has changed U.S. nuclear strategy. The purpose of nuclear weapons is not only to contain a war, but also to start a war. Nuclear weapons will become a tool to be used to strike terrorism, “rogue states” and in regional conflict.

II. Strategic Offensive Weapons Reduction Treaty signed by the U.S. and Russia is only in name but not in reality.
The U.S. and Russian proceeding from their respective interests and needs signed the symbolic and meaningless Strategic Offensive Weapons Reduction Treaty. The Treaty signed by the U.S. president and Russian president in May 28, 2002 in Moscow stipulates that in the coming ten years, both sides will reduce their deployed nuclear warheads to 1700—2200. The Treaty neither strictly stipulates the types, models, the period of reduction and the counting rule of warheads, which the other side should abide by, nor stipulates strict detailed verification measures. The day on which the Treaty becomes effective is also the day on which the Treaty becomes invalid. What needs to be pointed out is the U.S. has clearly indicated that it would stockpile a large number of reduced nuclear warheads in case situation changes in Russia. Therefore, the Treaty names itself as reduction of nuclear weapons, actually it is a transfer of nuclear warheads and the Treaty exists only in name but not in reality.
Signing the Treaty by the U.S. and Russia means that the struggle in the field of nuclear arms control and disarmament has come to a end for a period of time to come and also means the end of the traditional model of arms control. Now arms control and disarmament has no longer been the dominant factor in U.S.-Russian relations and the imbalance of international forces will not be changed in the foreseeable future. The signing of the treaty is a typical reflection of Bush administration’s unilateralism in the field of arms control and disarmament. Bush administration has made full use of American economic, technological and military superiority to further broaden its military superiority over others. In order to avoid the possibility that other countries may use arms control to restrict the U.S. and to keep its ability to quickly respond to changes of international situation, the U.S. government would not sign any arms control treaty binding on the U.S.. The change of the U.S. government’s attitude towards arms control is nothing accidental, but is a reflection of the fact that the U.S. comprehensive national strength is at its peak. Actually, the U.S. government’s attitude of emphasizing arms build-up but looking down on arms control has emerged since the last years of President Clinton’s administration and has become more strengthened in Bush administration. Therefore, the past restrictive, verifiable and irreversible model of arms control has changed dramatically in terms of content and form. It can be predicted that from now on to 2012 before the Treaty signed by the U.S. and Russia expires, multi-lateral or bilateral arms control or disarmament will not make any substantive progress. During this period, the U.S. will further expand its military superiority over other countries and Russia will attach great importance to developing its Topol-M force and try to guarantee the reliability and safety of its huge nuclear arsenals.
Russia has basically reached its strategic goal and defended its maximum national interests by avoiding confrontation in strategic forces with the U.S.. Through negotiations, Russia has persuaded the U.S. to agree to put the issue of reduction of strategic forces in the form of a treaty, to link development of NMD up with reduction of offensive strategic forces to a certain degree and successfully bring the U.S. into a dialogue mechanism of strategic stability. After declaring to withdraw from START-II, Russia can keep its 154 SS-18 intercontinental missiles and 36 SS-24 mobile strategic missiles. Meanwhile, Russia can make use of the leeway of the Treaty to deploy new-type ground-based multiple warhead missiles. Therefore Russia can keep nuclear balance with the U.S. at a low level.

III. The Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty ceased to exist, the U.S. has started to develop NMD and the development of missile defense technology is gaining momentum.
The Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty
ceased to exist and the U.S. began to develop missile defense system on a large scale. Bush administration has attached great importance to defense, aiming at getting absolute military superiority combined with offense and defense so as to ensure the absolute safety of the U.S. homeland, its forces stationed overseas and its allies and to ensure its unrestricted military interference. President Bush accelerated the development and deployment of ground-, sea-, air-, and space-based missile defense systems, so that multiple level interceptions from boost phase, middle to re-entry phase could be realized. At current period of anti-terrorism, Bush administration believes only by developing missile defense system, can the U.S. stop missile attacks and blackmail from the “rogue states”, reduce the desire of “the rogue states” to develop missiles and prevent the proliferation of missiles and the related technologies. Therefore, Bush administration has upgraded the rank of the Missile Defense Bureau. Bush administration will spend 7.6 billion U.S. dollars on the development of NMD in the year of 2003.
In the very evening of June 13 on which the U.S. withdrew from the ABM Treaty, the U.S. military successfully conducted its first sea-based anti-ballistic missile test. On June 15, in order to celebrate the withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, the U.S. held a ceremony of breaking ground in Alaska to construct 6 underground silos and relevant communication facilities. This means the U.S. has formally started to build the first part of NMD bases, which would protect the U.S. 50 states and its allies from being attacked by missiles. The U.S. plans to primarily deploy its ground-based missile defense system in 2004. On July 18th, the U.S. used air-based super-laser to intercept ballistic missile at its boost phase. On August 6th, the U.S. proclaimed that the missile defense system had made a major breakthrough in tackling the enemy’s decoy missiles. On the same day, the U.S. Department of Defense approved a low-orbit air-based infrared program and planed to launch 2 satellites to primarily establish its ballistic missile warning system. On August 14, the U.S. carried out its 7th missile-intercepting test after 1999 and successfully intercepted the “attacking missile” in the flying phase. On November 5th, the U.S. military successfully shot down a flying shell by super-laser. The U.S. has conducted sea-based defense flying test.
The U.S. has indicated that it would seek to cooperate with Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan to develop NMD and TMD. The U.S. believes its cooperation with its allies is critical. The areas of cooperation include jointly developing components of the missile defense system, taking part in tests or exercises and allowing the U.S. to use their territory to deploy radar or interceptors. The British government has been trying hard to urge its Parliament to approve the cooperative program of missile defense with the U.S.. During his visit to Japan and South Korea in last February, President Bush expressed that the U.S. would deploy the most effective missile defense system to protect its allies in the Asia-Pacific region. The U.S. urged Japan to transform the joint research of missile defense into the joint development. Japan has already made the decision on the joint development of TMD with the U.S. under the pretext of the DPRK’s nuclear program. The U.S. has proposed to sell South Korea advanced missile defense system and even tries to sell TMD system to Taiwan. The U.S. has cooperated with Israel in developing TMD system. The new-type Patriotic missile developed by the U.S. and Israel has tested successfully. India is stepping up the development of its missile defense system and has reached agreement with Russia to buy 25 sets of anti-missile systems. India has expressed its desire to buy TMD systems developed by Israel and the U.S. on several occasions. .
Russia has expressed that it would restore its early warning system of the missile attack and develop its own anti-missile system.
Besides, the process of space weaponization has been quickened. The U.S. army and air force plan to deploy ground-based and spaced-based anti-satellite system, which can destroy satellites. Russia has already begun to strengthen its efforts to build its space army and will launch a series of satellites. Japan will use 2.5 billion U.S.$ to develop its space program, including making 4 satellites. India has proclaimed that it will be a country with laser weapons in 5 years and will have laser weapons, which can be used in star wars in 2007.

IV. Non-proliferation has become the focus of cooperation and struggle in the field of international arms control
Anti-terrorism and non-proliferation have become top priorities of the U.S. national strategy, which have been used as tools to contain the expansion of influence of other major powers, to deprive the small and medium-sized countries of the ability to deter the U.S. and also as a major pretext and critical means for implementing the U.S. world hegemonic strategy.
The U.S. has made dramatic efforts to promote the importance of non-proliferation in Sino-U.S. and U.S.-Russian relations and tries to block up the so-called “sources of proliferation”. Bush administration believes the direct challenge it faces and the top priority in its non-proliferation efforts is to prevent the proliferation of WMD and the related material, technologies and technicians left by the former Soviet Union. Non-proliferation has become a critical area of U.S.-Russian cooperation and struggle. After evaluation, Bush administration restarted “the Cooperative Threat Reduction” program between the U.S. and Russia, which provides fund and technological support to help Russia destroy strategic nuclear weapons, protect and dispose of fissile materials and chemical weapons and help Russian nuclear scientists with jobs. In the fiscal year of 2003, the U.S. has allocated one billion U.S.$ for the initiative, which is the biggest amount for many years. At the same time, in order to disarm Russia’s nuclear forces step by step, the U.S. and its 6 allies established “the global partnership” with Russia, by which the 7 western nations would provide 20 billion U.S.$ (the U.S. itself will offer 10 billion U.S.$) in coming 10 years to be used in the non-proliferation programs in the CIS. Although U.S.-Russian relationship has improved dramatically since “the September 11th” , the U.S. has publicly doubted Russia’s non-proliferation efforts and sincerity and indicated that Russia’s progress in non-proliferation would affect the quality of U.S.-Russian relations. The U.S. has repeatedly urged Russia to stop its nuclear cooperation with Iran. The U.S. has attached great importance to non-proliferation in Sino-U.S. relations and non-proliferation has become a major issue in Sino-U.S. summit and strategic relations. The U.S. believes that China’s position and action on non-proliferation would affect the general Sino-U.S. relations. Although China has made great progress in the field of non-proliferation, the U.S. still has deep doubts and asks China to do more.
Bush administration has put forward the concept of “the axis of evil”, the pre-emption strategy and directly linked non-proliferation with anti-terrorism, so as to deter and put pressure on those countries which are not in favor of U.S. leadership. The U.S. has put forward the term of axis of evil and pre-emption strategy, has listed Iraq, the DPRK, Iran, Syria and Libya as nuclear strike targets and would conduct pre-emption against its adversary countries that try to acquire WMD or support terrorism. At present, the U.S.’ key striking target is Iraq. Bush administration believes Iraq has not observed the relevant articles of weapons verification in the cease-fire agreement of the Gulf War and doubts Iraq has developed WMD since UN weapon verification experts withdrew from Iraq. In order to destroy Iraq’s ability to develop WMD completely, Bush administration has urged UN to pass a new resolution on Iraq. Iraq is forced to accept the resolution and allow UN inspectors to inspect in Iraq. But it is still unclear that whether Iraq will completely disarm itself. It seems Bush administration has made up its mind to attack Iraq militarily. The DPRK’s nuclear program has become a hot issue in the Northeast Asian security situation. How to solve the nuclear and missile issues of the DPRK will affect the future development of the DPRK and the general security of the whole Northeast Asia. Although Bush administration has shown it would seek to solve the problem through diplomatic channels and attach importance to roles played by China, Russia, South Korea, Japan and the European Union, the U.S. pressure on the DPRK has gradually become heavier. The U.S. has stopped providing heavy oil to the DPRK and does not give up the choice of using force. The U.S. has take an approach of political isolation and military deterrence to Iran so as to prevent it from getting nuclear and missile technologies from Russia and the DPRK and delay Iran’s WMD programs. The U.S. has canceled its economic sanctions against Pakistan and India for the purpose of anti-terrorism, but keeps high vigilance on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and intends to make sure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons not to be stolen by terrorists and the Islamic extremists.
Although Bush Administration has doubted the effectiveness of international arms control treaties, it has showed great interests in strengthening multi-lateral export control systems and repeatedly expressed its willingness to support the universality of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Australia Group, MTCR, the Wassenaar Agreement, the Zangger Committee and strengthen their power of management and control. Bush administration has indicated to strengthen the NPT Treaty and emphasizes the importance of adhering to the universality of non-proliferation and strengthens IAEA’s safeguard measures and protection of nuclear materials. The U.S. would like to provide financial, technical and political support to IAEA, strengthen measures to prevent proliferation of missiles and its technologies, increase financial support to the organization of international chemical weapons and conduct intrusive inspections on those countries that violate the Treaty.
Preventing terrorists from using WMD has become a major concern of the international community. The incidents of anthrax attacks and the dirty bombs that took place in the U.S. after September 11th have brought about social panic and drawn great attention of the international community. The U.S. spent 1 billion U.S.$ in protecting nuclear materials and allocated 4.6 billion U.S.$ in anti-biological and chemical weapon attacks by terrorists. How to protect nuclear weapons, radioactive materials, biological and chemical weapons from being stolen and how to protect key targets from being attacked by terrorists have become a hot topic of study by experts in the circle of arms control in many countries.
What must be pointed out is that the U.S. takes a pragmatic attitude towards the international arms control system and uses arms control to expand its military superiority and tie other’s hand. On one hand, the U.S. resists those treaties that are not in the U.S. interests, even withdraws from a treaty and thus challenges international arms control system. For example, in order to ensure the safety of its nuclear arsenal and develop new-type nuclear weapons, the U.S. refuses to ratify the CTBT and attempts to make preparations for resuming nuclear tests by shortening the current preparation time of nuclear tests from 2 to 3 years to 18 months. In order to develop biological weapons, the U.S. refuses to ratify Convention of Biological Weapons. In order to develop missile defense system, the U.S. has withdrawn from the ABM Treaty. On the other hand, for its own strategic interests, the U.S. has continuously proliferated missiles and high-tech weapons to strengthen the military superiority of its allies in respective regions and increase its allies’ dependency on the U.S.

V. Multilateral arms control negotiation achieved no results, demand for reduction of tactical nuclear weapons has become stronger, and negotiation of nuclear free zone in Central Asia has made progress
The Conference on Disarmament concluded on September 12th ,2002 and no consensus on work plan of disarmament was reached just as the conference in 2001. The negotiation of international arms control and disarmament has run into a deadlock. Now, different sides have different views on the priority of negotiation. The U.S. insists on negotiation of a fissile material cutoff treaty. Only after reaching such a treaty, the U.S. would like to carry out negotiation on the issues of nuclear disarmament and the prevention of arms race in outer space. Since the U.S. has proposed to develop low-yield new- type nuclear weapons and would possibly use such weapons to strike terrorists and “rogue states” and, in addition, the western countries also worry that Russian nuclear weapons could be stolen by terrorists due to poor control. The international community demands the U.S. and Russia reduce their tactical nuclear weapons. The U.S. has proclaimed that there exists a possibility of proliferation of tactical nuclear weapons in Russia. Since Russia possesses many more tactical nuclear weapons than the U.S., the U.S. has proposed to have a dialogue with Russia on tactical nuclear weapons. However, the U.S. only wants to reduce Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons but not to restrict itself from developing the new generation tactical nuclear weapons, U.S.-Russia dialogue on tactical nuclear weapons will not make any real progress in the new future. With the help of the UN, Kazakstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan reached an agreement on the Treaty on Nuclear Free Zone in Central Asia.

VI. Strengthening military forces by major powers and regional powers maintains momentum and counter-disarmament is quite prominent.
At present, world major powers and regional powers have made efforts to strengthen their military forces technically and improve the quality of their military forces, so as to get a favorable position and promote their international status in a new round of competition. The military expenditure of major powers has increased considerably. The U.S. military expenditure in the fiscal year of 2003 totals 393 billion U.S.$, about 15% more than its military expenditure in 2002 and is the biggest increase for 20 years. The U.S. will spend 10 billion U.S.$ in the war of anti-terrorism, 7.6 billion U.S.$ in the development of missile defense system, 5.2 billion U.S.$ in producing F-22. The U.S. military expenditure in 2001 made up 34% of the total military expenditure of the whole world. The total military expenditure of the top 20 countries and regions (excluding the U.S.) is even less than the U.S. military expenditure. Although Russia faces difficult economic situation, its military expenditure in 2003 will increase 26% than the year of 2002, which amounts to about 11 billion U.S.$ and takes up 15% of government expenditure. Russian President Putin has indicated that he would be in charge of the affairs of military reform and build a powerful ground, sea and air force so as to tackle new threats. Russia has spent a huge amount of money in developing new weapons and improving the quality of armaments. For example, the new Topol-M with multi-warheads will arm the army in the year of 2004. France plans to increase its military expenditure from current 12.5 billion to 15.0 billion Euro dollar in 2008 and build its second aircraft carrier so as to strengthen its military presence overseas. Britain plans to increase its military expenditure from 24 billion pounds to 25 billion. Australia has decided to increase its military expenditure from 12.75 billion Australian dollar to 14.3 billion in 2003, an increase of 12%. Turkey’s military expenditure for 2003 will increase to 7.74 billion U.S.$, an increase of 32.9% than 2001. India has decided to increase its military expenditure by 25%, to 810 billion Rubee. In recent years, in order to lift its international status and play a role as a major power, India has spent a huge amount of money in buying fighters, missiles and navy ships. According to some materials, India has imported armaments worth 7.2 billion U.S.$, which makes India the number 2 arms importer in the developing world. Besides, Singapore, Malaysia and other countries in the Southeast Asia have also bought or seek to buy advanced military armaments.