McNair Paper 36, Explaining and Influencing Chinese Arms Transfers, February 1995

Clearly the Chinese perspective on the sagacity and international security implications of several important conventional weapons sales over the past decade has differed sharply from that of the Western world, led by the United States. Can such differences be reconciled? As a departure point, it is useful to briefly outline the official Chinese arms transfer line, pertinent policy positions, and export organizational control structure.

It was not until 1988, perhaps in response to the friction with the United States the previous year over the sale of Silkworm AShMs to Iran, that the PRC articulated an arms export policy. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) announced at that time:

China is a responsible country. We always assume a serious, prudent, and responsible attitude toward the military products export question. In this regard, we strictly adhere to three principles: First, our military products exports should help strengthen the legitimate self-defense capability of the countries concerned; second, it should help safeguard and promote peace, security, and stability in the regions concerned; and third, we do not use the military sale to interfere in the internal affairs of other states. (Notes 85)

These "three principles" have since remained at the center of Beijing's stated philosophy governing its export of weapons. (Notes 86) In practice, the policy allows for tremendous latitude, as it is based on tenets so sweeping as to be justify almost any arms sales abroad. Yet the ambiguity of the text is indicative of the difficulty all nations face in establishing steadfast moral guidelines to form decisions in the often "messy" affairs of national security. Still, the third principle, that of noninterference, is especially consistent with the limited faculty China, as yet, possesses to seriously influence outcomes beyond its immediate borders. To become entangled in the internal state affairs would tarnish the PRC's image as a reliable supplier, and lead in some instances to reduced sales. Hence, substantial arms exports to the internationally ostracized SLORC in Rangoon can be justified by Beijing as the act of "a responsible country."

Until the late-1970's, the PRC was only a minor player in the world arms market. United States, and later Soviet, military aid and arms sales, were vilified as self-serving acts by capitalist and social imperialist powers vying for world hegemony. However, by the mid-1980's, its own business had increased dramatically, and the destination and content of some of its transfers became an international topic of discussion.

Specifically, it has been criticized by the United States for selling Silkworms to Iran, exporting TBMs to certain Middle East states (or at least providing technical assistance to allow for their foreign production), and, in more sweeping broadsides, in the words of U.S. Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., for being "a rogue elephant on weapons proliferation [against which America] should be prepared to retaliate with a clear and unequivocal message they will understand: denying China most-favored nation trade status." (Notes 87)

The PRC has usually disavowed the particulars of such charges, and, in turn, sought to put its critics on the defensive. Beijing continually emphasizes the small volume of its sales on a comparative basis.

For example, a 1991 People's Daily article asserted, "Some people in the U.S., one of the world's largest arms exporters, should first make themselves clear which country should contain its arms sales abroad, before they launch a press campaign against an alleged Chinese arms sales plan. (Notes 88) Allegations of missile proliferations are rebuffed with two counterclaims. First, the United States is painted as the actual source of the problem. A writer in People's Liberation Army newspaper argued in 1988:

Since America has made this great "contribution" to Israel's missile program, what right does the U.S. have to make indiscreet criticisms of other nations? Nevertheless, the U.S. pretends it cannot see that Israel is the origin of the missile threat, and shields Israel in every possible way. On the contrary, the U.S. finds great significance in Saudi Arabia's purchase of missiles [the Chinese CSS-2] for self-defense and trumpets the fact incessantly. (Notes 89)

Secondly, Beijing asserts that since advanced aircraft, such as the American F-16, are themselves very capable delivery vehicles, it is inadequate to focus only on the dangers of TBM proliferation. (Notes 90)

With growing foreign interest in its arms sales in the late-1980's, China established an export control agency, the State Commission for Arms Export Administration (SCFAEA). Members include senior officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations and Trade, the PLA General Staff, and COSTIND. The State Arms Export Administration (SAEA) serves as the Commission's executive agency. All proposed major arms sales are reviewed by SCFAEA and must subsequently be authorized by the Central Military Commission and State Council. If approved, the SAEA grants official export licenses.vii While, as with export control organizations in all nations, the structure says little about the distribution of power, it is probably fair to say that since the PRC first was confronted in 1987 with the fact that arms sales on occasion may have important foreign policy repercussions, China's leaders have taken steps to improve intra-government dialogue and participation in weapons export decision making.

In examining options for influencing Chinese arms sales, it is worthwhile to review the circumstances surrounding several major PRC arms transfer decisions over the past decade to see if any inferences can be drawn about prospects for success. On two occasions, Washington has used the issue of technology transfer as a lever to persuade Beijing to discontinue or abstain from certain arms sales. In October 1987, having reached a stalemate with China on its negotiations over Silkworm transfers to Iran, the U.S. State Department declared that it was suspending the liberalization of controls on the export of advanced technology. By March of the following year, the United States reportedly had been given assurances by the PRC that it would not sell additional AShMs to Teheran, and soon thereafter, the ban was lifted.viii In the second case, in June 1991, the United States imposed sanctions against Beijing for missile technology sales to Pakistan. This action, in effect, prevented any sales (both military, and more to the point here, commercial) from two PRC arms trading companies (Great Wall and CPMIEC) to U.S. firms, suspended the export of high-speed U.S. computers to the PRC, and withdrew China as a possible source for the launching of U.S. satellites. By March of 1992, the sanctions were effectively removed with Beijing's confirmation in writing the previous month that it would adhere to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and not export its M-9 and M-11 class missiles. (Notes 91) However, in August of 1993, new sanctions were announced by the U.S. State Department against ten PRC companies allegedly participating in the transfer of M-11 components and technology (as opposed to complete systems) to Pakistan in an effort by the Chinese to circumvent their MTCR commitment. (Notes 92) Yet China has remained reluctant to formally abandon its earlier MTCR pledge, aware of the more severe measures aimed at the PRC's high tech sector the United States might take in response. It would appear that by choosing a tool (restrictions on dual-use technology transfer) most highly prized by that group of individuals and institutions managing Chinese arms exports, that Washington has been able to elicit favorable responses from Beijing.

China has also shown reluctance to be seen as violating, or being nonsupportive of, international arms control rules and norms. For instance, it voted for UN Security Council Resolution 600 against the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and promptly declared it would halt weapons sales to Iraq. (Notes 93) The PRC initially participated with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council in President Bush's Middle East arms control initiative (the so-called Perm-5 meetings) despite its visceral opposition to such a forum. Beijing did not participate in the December 1991 United Nations General Assembly vote which overwhelmingly (150 to 0) approved the establishment of an international arms registry to promote transparency, rather than join the ranks of the lone two abstainers, Iraq and Cuba.xii Additionally, as already mentioned, China has agreed to abide by the rules of the MTCR. Even as sanctions were imposed by the United States in August 1993 for violations of guidelines, PRC officials refused to concede any wrongdoing. (Notes 94) In fact, the possibility remains that China will eventually become an MTCR signatory. Thus, when the payoff for compliance, or costs of noncompliance, are sufficiently great (the Iraq embargo and MTCR), Beijing has shown a willingness to appear responsive to concerted international calls to restrain arms traffic. Furthermore, it is averse to portray itself as a spoiler of even those multilateral initiatives of which it is suspect, provided the anticipated outcomes will be long on form, and short on substance (the Perm-5 talks and UN arms registry). China's September 1992 announcement, in the wake of the U. S. decision to sell the F-16 fighter to Taiwan, that it would not attend the next round of Perm-5 talks, does not prove it is indifferent to global arms control efforts; the agenda was so overly ambitious, the active support of the participants (except the United States) so noticeably missing, and the interest of the international community so obviously lacking, as to make withdrawal from the process an ideal tit-for-tat response for Beijing. (Notes 95)

We then return to the question, how can China's arms transfers most effectively be influenced? Drawing from the previous discussion, a comprehensive answer clearly should include both supply and demand perspectives. These will be addressed in turn.

1) Influencing Supply: Simply stated, PRC arms transfers can be restrained by the coercion or persuasion of another power, by the sway of international regimes, or by voluntary controls (self-restraint). As we have seen, the United States has on two occasions convinced Beijing to amend its practices by concentrating on a specific issue, and using incentives and disincentives that seemed well-tailored to draw the desired reaction. On the other hand, across-the-board assaults that lump together an array of unrelated issues such as trade, prison labor, Tibetan autonomy, human rights, and nuclear proliferation are unlikely to achieve meaningful results. In any political system, as a rule, the more disparate the nature of topics under debate, the more difficult it is to build an effective coalition to deal with them. At the same time, those parties most concerned with the likelihood of future tensions with the PRC over its weapons export policies, should maintain an open dialogue with their Chinese counterparts. Outlooks do vary widely, and it is necessary to exchange views to help avoid unanticipated crises. International arms control regimes, however, may offer a more promising avenue than do bilateral or narrowly-based approaches. While "superpower bullying" (to use the Chinese communist vernacular) is found rankling, Beijing has shown more diffidence in global settings. Its accession to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, announced compliance with MTCR (although words and deeds, in this instance, have yet to reconciled), and signing of the UN convention to ban chemical weapons are indicative of its receptivity to cooperating in multilateral and international forums. Hence, widely-endorsed, specific, and verifiable arrangements to restrict arms flows in a given functional area (e.g., missiles), or to a particular region (e.g., an arms embargo against an aggressor state, or belligerents in an ongoing conflict), are probably the most cost-effective way of gaining China's cooperation and compliance. As a caveat, it should be added that one UN initiative that appears to offer little of practical value in actually controlling weapons transfers, the international arms registry, may have a salutary effect on Beijing. The secrecy and official lack of candor that enshrouds all aspects of the PRC's weapons exports activities has not been conducive to meaningful arms control dialogue with other states, or, for that matter, within the Chinese bureaucracy itself. Any hope for the PRC to practice self-imposed restraint in its sale of military hardware, on the other hand, does not appear realistic in the short-term. First, as a regional power, China does not share the expansive concerns of a superpower, such as the United States, for the maintenance of the international security order. Consequently, it has few incentives to display moderation, outside of Asia, in its transfer of military hardware. Second, there are, as yet, no internal domestic checks, other than perhaps the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to a laissez faire approach to arms exports. Beijing's leaders do not lose sleep worrying about the possible opposition of say National Party Congress representatives, or the People's Daily editorial staff, to arms sales to Burma's military regime. Nevertheless, with continued economic growth, increasing military commitments, and greater demands for political pluralism, more introspection by China's leadership concerning its arms sales policies can be anticipated.

2) Influencing Demand: Efforts to prevent global and regional arms races, or to limit the proliferation of certain classes of weapons, that do not adequately address demand, are likely to eventually fail. The meager results many nations have had in ridding their societies of drugs by devoting most of their assets to combatting supply, is not an altogether inappropriate analogy. Clearly, many conflicts in the world are intractable given the limited amount of resources that can mustered globally to end them. On the other hand, recurring arms transfer problems associated with other than pariah or terrorist states should be seen as symptoms of more serious ills. To the extent the major powers can attend to the sources of insecurity that underlie the seemingly endless attempts of some nations to acquire types and amounts of weapons that will inevitably be viewed by their neighbors as destabilizing, they should act accordingly. We have seen that many countries turned to Beijing for arms only after they had experienced a loss of confidence in traditional suppliers. This is not to say that arms producers should never impose conditionality on recipients. Rather, the lesson is that to ask only why states sell arms, and not ask why other states buy them, is to get policy analysis only half-right.