Article 67 Chinas Military Buildup Threat
China’s Military Build-Up – A Threat to India and World Peace
By M.L. Sondhi
Should the Prime Minister visit China?
Organiser, October 9, 1988
China’s rapid militarisation and nuclear weapons build-up to catch up with the US-Soviet level is a dangerous trend which threatens the balance of forces in the world. China is not only feverishly modernising her military arsenal but also exports these deadly weapons to Third World countries, helping to destabilise the peace in these regions.
At present China’s armoured forces are among the world’s largest in terms of the number of tanks, and have powerful fire and attack capabilities. Though China reduced its armed forces to 4.1 million personnel in 1984, it still ranks second only to the USSR. The armoured forces were equipped with 20 varieties of vehicles, including amphibious tanks, light tanks, designed for operations in mountainous areas, command tanks, armoured carriers, bridging tanks, mine sweeping tanks, repair vehicles and self-propelled anti-aircraft guns.
It also has self-propelled rocket launchers, anti-tank vehicles, communication command vehicles, rescue and traction vehicles, repair vehicles and tank carriers.
To modernise and build up their military forces, China bought US military equipment worth $ 502 million in 1987
Although the Chinese leaders repeatedly claim that their nuclear industry today is almost completely involved in a wide range of research and development projects for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, observers have no doubt that China’s efforts are exclusively directed towards the accomplishment of its military objectives. According to Soviet experts, China ranks third among the nuclear powers and its advanced missile force will have global strategic significance, giving it the capability to respond to any kind of nuclear strike.
Over the past three decades, China has conducted 34 nuclear explosive tests. Testing procedures have utilised tower devices, aircraft-drop, guided missiles and underground facilities. Analysis of variously reported weapon-grade nuclear material production and order of battle estimates for missiles, aircraft and submarine launch platforms, suggests that China would presently have an inventory of about 1,245 fission and fusion weapons. These weapons can be variously deployed by a series of launch platforms. Warhead boosters include short range, medium range, intermediate range and intercontinental range-limited, full and extended, sub-marine launch-ballistic missile system. Of particular interest are the newly operational three stage CSS-5 extended range multiple independent re-entry vehicle (MIRV), ICBM capable of reaching Antarctica; the single stage, solid fuel, MIRN, Mod-CSS-2, IRBM and the liquid fuelled CSS-2/3 IRBM/ICBM systems, and the CSSN-3 two-stage solid fuel SLBM.
Arms Merchant:
China is marching firmly ahead as the newest and the most aggressive of the world’s arms merchants. In recent years, Beijing has sold an array of weapons to Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Korea, Pakistan, Thailand and the Afghan guerrillas. From 1984-1987 the Chinese wrote the orders for an estimated $5.2 billion in arms sales to the Third World. Now China has become the fourth largest supplier of arms to the Third World.
In the Middle East, ballistic missiles such as the M-9 sold by China are particularly destabilising weapons, easily capable of being re-fitted to carry poisonous gas or, given the technological know-how, nuclear warheads.
China also sells its version of the Soviet-designed T-59, complete with an Israeli-supplied 105-mm gun. China’s Silkworm missile shipment to Iran and sale of DF-3 missiles, which have a range of 2,700 kilometres, to Saudi Arabia is too grave a matter to be ignored. China is also selling CSS-2 class surface-to-surface missiles in their most advanced form with a range of about 2200 miles to Saudi Arabia.
Recently, the US Secretary of State, Mr. George Shultz, has criticised China for building and selling the same missiles which Washington and Moscow have agreed to destroy. He said, “There is an irony in that. Just as we are eliminating nuclear-armed ballistic missiles in the range of 500 to 5000 km, the Chinese are producing exactly those weapons”.
So great is the level of international concern over such weapons that last year the Western powers and Japan agreed to embargo sales of ballistic-missile technologies – an idea the Soviet Union endorsed for the first time at the Moscow Summit in May.
Arms sales have proven a lucrative trade for China. The proceeds from these sales have been a wind-fall for the generals and admirals charged with modernising the PLA’s huge arsenal. The profits of the arms sales are being used to revamp their own arsenal and to create a mobile, high-tech, professionally-led force. But with each new missile sale the Chinese make the world a riskier place.
Quest for Regional Power:
China’s arms dealings also further its geopolitical ambitions in a number of ways. The sales help to offset Soviet and US influence in the Third World, especially in the Middle East. China’s ultimate ambition is to become a regional power and eventually a superpower. At a time when US power seems to be ebbing, the Chinese are gearing themselves up to fill whatever vacuum may occur in Asia. China’s leaders remain convinced that a better army will enable them to achieve regional pre-eminence. It may have been a sign of things to come when China intruded into the Sumdorong Chu Valley in Arunachal Pradesh last year and when the Chinese navy sank three Vietnamese freighters and built permanent installations in the disputed Spratly Archipelago in the South China Sea last March.
Sino-Pak Axis:
The Sino-Pak military axis has been a serious concern to India. The Sino-Pak alliance goes back to 1963, when Pakistan and China signed a border agreement, by means of which Islamabad bartered away 2,100 square miles of illegally-occupied Indian territory in Kashmir.
The 640-km long all weather Karakoram highway, connecting China’s Sinkiang province with Gilgit, through the Kunjerab Pass, is a product of Sino-Pak friendship. Since then Chinese arms began to flow into Pakistan and later the two countries decided on nuclear co-operation.
China’s own nuclear development owes much to Pakistan. Their distrust of the Soviet Union made them natural allies. From Pakistan China has received modern Soviet tanks, helicopters and other hardware captured in Afghanistan. Western arms traders in Beijing believe that Pakistan has also provided the PLA with several of its Air Force French-made Exocet guided missiles which the Chinese engineers have been able to copy. In addition, the Pakistan connection also gives the PLA access to Western technology.
Pakistan on the other hand is acquiring 150 Chinese-built F-7M fighter aircraft fitted with new Western-made engines and American avionics. Moreover, considerable progress has been made towards co-production of advanced trained aircraft in collaboration with China. It is also to be noted with grave concern that if China can sell its Silkworm missiles to Iran and CSS-2 class surface-to-surface missiles to Saudi Arabia, there is no reason why China cannot transfer these missiles to Pakistan also.
Another important security concern to India is that Pakistan has been building up her nuclear capability with help of the Chinese. According to US intelligence in 1984-1985, China gave Pakistan its design of the nuclear warhead which it had used in its fourth test and there were reasons to suspect that the Chinese conducted one of the Pakistan nuclear tests at their Lop Nor site.
Heobic Smith, in New York Times of March 6, 1988, wrote “American experts believe that Pakistanis do not need to test an actual bomb. Sometimes during the early 1980’s, they say, the Chinese gave the Pakistanis a reliable, tested bomb design, in exchange for Pakistan’s sharing its modern uranium enriching technology. During the last several years, Chinese scientists have reportedly visited or worked off and on at Pakistan’s Kahuta facility. The Chinese design, American officials say, enables Pakistan to produce a much more sophisticated atomic bomb than the crude five-ton dropped on Hiroshima.”
Build-up in Tibet:
Militarisation of Tibet by China has a direct bearing on India’s security. The Chinese have stationed half a million of its troops in Tibet. Sizable garrisons exist in each military district together with concentration of troops on the border areas with a network of military roads. The Chinese now have nine military airfields, about fifteen radar stations and three nuclear bases in Tibet. Until 1950, the 3200 km. long Indo-Tibetan border had the occasional border policemen. Now it teems with hundreds of thousands of troops on both sides as India had to respond to Chinese presence.
What causes alarm is that China has finalised elaborate plans to deploy more nuclear missiles in Amdo and Gomo in addition to more than 100 nuclear-tipped missiles with range between 800-1750 miles already stationed in different parts of Tibet. A Hong Kong newspaper, Shin Bao reported that China had deployed 80 MRBMs (with range upto 800 miles) and 20 IRBMs (with range between 1500 and 1750 miles) at Nagchu, 320 km. north of Lhasa. Jane’s Weapons systems, the authoritative British publication, reported that the Chinese MRBMs deployed in Tibet have a range of upto 2,485 kilometres. The Nagchu base is being further modernised in order to facilitate deployment of more sophisticated nuclear missiles which would be able to bring within their range more cities and vital targets in India and also in other countries of South and South-East Asia. China has also developed some scores of ballistic missiles, both of medium and intermediate range, in the mountainous caves and valleys of Tibet.
Improvement of Sino-US relations has also helped China to buy more sophisticated modern weapons from the US. For the last few years the Chinese have been using American-made Sikorsky helicopters for the transportation of military supplies into Tibet.
China is a belligerent expansionist power that will not hesitate to use any means at its disposal to threaten its enemies, especially those in its immediate neighbourhood. In order to threaten India, the Chinese need only activate the land-based missiles presently based in Tibet.
In view of the historical, military and political background as so far understood, one may well ask what purpose is to be served by the visit of a Prime Minister of India to the capital of a country which holds vast portions of Indian territory under its illegal occupation. There has been a thaw in Sino-India relations for some time, trade has increased, cultural and academic exchanges have taken place and continue to do so, politicians and journalists freely visit the Forbidden City. Eight rounds of border talks have taken place, and even though infructuous, they are evidence of a willingness on both sides to solve their disputes amicably – although the Sumdorong Chu intrusion was not so amicable. South Block has given no hint that the talks have improved to such an extent that all is ready for the final and summit meeting between heads of states. Rather one gets the impression that all is still at square one, in which case it is against the norms of all international diplomacy as hitherto practised, for Prime Ministers to start bargaining with one another where their bureaucrats have failed. Even up-gradation from bureaucratic to political talks does not entail the Prime Ministers at first go: there are various categories of political leaders, both inside and outside the government, inside and outside the Foreign Ministry, who can be utilised for this work .
Rajiv Gandhi unfortunately seems determined to go, as per the statements he has given in Spain and other foreign countries. Our Prime Minister unfortunately has an accordmania. Some of his hastily cobbled together accords, to serve some immediate political goal, have proved disastrous in the not-so long run, and there is no evidence that the Beijing visit is preceded by enough homework. When Kissinger made his first dramatic entry into China, he arrived with twenty possible alternate scenarios. From what the public can see, in our case, it is only Beijing which is dictating the scenarios.
Chinese emphasis on “mutual understanding and mutual accommodation” as the basis for a settlement, which is so fervently quoted in this country as evidence of new spirit of conciliation is misleading. Mr. Zhao Ziyang used exactly the same words in 1983 without any softening of China’s position at the negotiating table. “Mutual understanding and mutual accommodation” to the Chinese only means territorial concessions on the part of India.
There is certainly need for a bold initiative to improve understanding between India and China but not at the cost of national interest. Before the Prime Minister’s visit to China a proper atmosphere should be created for fruitful talks. The holding of more than 40,000 sq. miles of Indian territory, non-acceptance of Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh as part of India and recognition of Kashmir as a separate region by China are the main obstacles that should be tackled first. India should make these issues pre-conditions for a summit.
When Mikhail Gorbachov proposed a summit the Chinese leadership bluntly replied that it would be “unrealistic to hold such talks whilst the obstacles remain”. They demanded the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan and Mongolia and Vietnamese troops from Kampuchea as pre-conditions. None of these territories form part of China. Why should India hesitate with regard to her own territories?
In 1983, Zhao Ziyang told the National People’s Congress that the border problem “should not stand in the way of improving relations”. But when India granted statehood to Arunachal Pradesh and the Prime Minster subsequently visited the state China strongly protested. When India objected to the Chinese intrusion into the Sumdorong Chu Valley, the Chinese denounced it as being “not conducive to successful talks”. Heads I win, tails you lose!
The Chinese have also created confusion on upgrading the talks to political level. The Government of India has made us believe that the request for raising the level came from Chinese, but Chitta Basu and the All India Forward Bloc delegation were told that Beijing would agree to raise the talks to “a higher political level” only if the Government of India made a specific suggestion to that effect. The implication is that India is desperate in solving the border dispute than China.
Given therefore this highly unsatisfactory background, one can only come to the conclusion that either in response to the Chinese military position in Tibet, its nuclear superiority, or in view of short-term gains for the party in power due to an ‘international accord’, or due to succumbing to international pressure to ‘make up with China’ which is not inconsiderable, or probably as a mixture of all three combined with the personal ambition of individual bureaucrats, the Prime Minister of India is about to undertake as craven and abject a journey to a foreign capital as Prime Minister Chamberlain did to Hitler in Munich. It was after Munich that the international community realised that appeasement was not only a dirty word, but dangerous policy. As defined by the Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thoughts, “the word (appeasement) was applied, to the (unsuccessful) policy pursued by the British and French governments of trying to avoid war with Germany by injudicious, frequently dishonourable, and inevitably un-required concessions, weakening to those who made them and often made at the expense of third parties.”
Hitler was better armed than her European neighbours – they could not buy him off with peace accords but were driven into one of the bloodiest wars of the twentieth century. At the moment China although in a superior position with regard to nuclear armaments, is still not so with regard to conventional warfare. Her advantageous position at the height is more than offset by the rebellious and unreliable Tibetan population in her hinterland, no longer cowed down by Chinese brutality, and encouraged by worldwide concern for human rights violations in their land. India has time on her side while the China is caught in the Tibetan imbroglio to improve her military and diplomatic positions. An overhasty accord at this stage would unnecessarily foreclose all our options.
There may indeed come a stage at some future date when the Prime Ministers of both countries may need to meet. We can learn a few lessons from the superpowers. They had endless rounds of preparatory talks before the leaders started meeting with prescribed agenda in third countries – and only when a sufficient atmosphere of trust had been created, did they risk visits to one another’s capitals. India and China are nowhere near that stage.
Finally, the present prime minister is handicapped in a particular way from acting as a bargaining representative for India where such momentous issues are involved. When Nixon was under the cloud of Watergate, serious objection was raised in sections of American public opinion as to his ability to represent the USA abroad – a man under a cloud is vulnerable to blackmail. It would be folly and irresponsibility of the highest order to place Rajiv Gandhi in the trap of the ruthless Chinese.
Pandit Nehru believed that friendship with China would guarantee India’s security. Nehru signed the treaty of 1954 with China on Tibet without securing anything for India. China, meanwhile, started pouring tremendous arms and ammunition into Tibet. In 1959, the Chinese Premier Chou En-lai questioned the entire India-China boundary. He rejected the McMahon Line and laid claims to 90,000 sq. km. of Indian territory in NEFA (Arunachal Pradesh) as also to Aksai Chin in Ladakh. Events ultimately led to the Chinese aggression in October 1962. Since then no substantial progress has been made in Sino-Indian relations.
Outright appeasement and sacrificing the interests of the Tibetan people have not bought peace and tranquillity in the Himalayas for the last thirty years or so. India’s conciliatory attitude has made China more aggressive and demanding. To negotiate with China from a position of strength India can play the Tibet card – support the legitimate rights of the Tibetan people and press China to accept the Dalai Lama’s proposal to make Tibet “a self-governing democratic entity” in association with China as one of the pre-conditions for a summit.
This will not amount to India’s interference in China’s internal affairs. The British and successor Indian Governments initially declared their willingness to recognise China’s suzerainty over Tibet on the condition that China agree to the terms of the Simla convention: most specifically, that she recognise and respect Tibet’s full autonomy. Moreover, India’s policy was, to a large extent, formulated on the basis of assurances which the Government of China gave the Government of India regarding the maintenance of Tibet’s autonomy and the peaceful resolution of differences.
The Chinese have acted in complete contravention of those assurances, they have violated the autonomy of Tibet, causing untold harm and suffering to the Tibetan people and resulting in the death of 1.2 million Tibetans and destruction of almost all their cultural and religious heritage.
Although some improvements in the economic situation of the Tibetans in Tibetan has taken place since 1978, it has become apparent that the Chinese Government has no intention of restoring any meaningful measure of autonomy to Tibet or otherwise resolve the question of Tibet to the satisfaction of the Tibetan people. A massive Chinese population transfer into Tibet has already reduced the Tibetans to a minority in their own country.
The recent demonstrations in Tibet and brutal repression by the Chinese clearly show that all is not well on the roof of the world. Moreover, the blunt rejection of the Dalai Lama’s conciliatory peace plan by the Chinese shows that they have no intention of modifying their stand on the question of the status of Tibet.
The Government of India after showing restraint and patience for over thirty years, with the hope of achieving a peaceful and just resolution of the Tibetan question, should now realise that over-accommodation to Chinese interest conflicts with her own. India is entitled to withdraw her recognition of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, for this recognition was conditional on China’s respect for Tibetan autonomy and adherence to the assurances given to the Government of India.
The Government would also not be acting in violation of treaty obligations with China. The 1954 Sino-Indian agreement on trade and commercial relations, which referred to Tibet as a “region of China” and which recognised China’s responsibility for Tibet’s foreign relations, expired in June 1962. Furthermore, China violated the agreement including the fundamental principle of Peaceful Co-existence embodied in the Preamble. By attacking India in 1962, China violated all agreements, understandings, and assurances which formed the basis of Sino-Indian relations, and by not returning the illegally acquired territories to India, the government of China is persisting in its violation of India’s territorial integrity and independence.
Given China’s vulnerable political presence in Tibet, and her extreme sensitivity to international public opinion on that score, India’s support for the cause of the Tibetan people might well pressurize the Chinese to come to terms with the Tibetans and also with India over the boundary question. Relations with China have not improved in any way in the past by India’s attitude of appeasement at the expense of Tibet’s rights. The only way those relations will improve, is if the Tibetan question is resolved to the satisfaction of the Tibetan and Indian people.