How China’s rare missile test sparked hysterical hypocrisy

A Chinese nuclear-powered submarine fired a test missile into international waters in the South Pacific. Major countries in the areas were given advance notice. Even Japan, situated closer to the north Pacific, was warned beforehand. And the United States, located on the other side of the globe? Yes, of course it was given notice as well. Still, all hell broke loose, as pundits and politicians rushed to denounce the Chinese missile test carrying a dummy warhead. Considering what they themselves do, it’s almost funny, making you wonder whether these people are being theatrical or serious? The US House Select Committee on China called it an act of “aggression” towards US allies and other “like-minded partners in the Indo-Pacific”. “China’s long-range ballistic missile launch wasn’t just a routine drill,” it said in a public statement. “As China races to have 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030, we must have a defence industrial base that supports deterrence against China and helps our allies and partners defend themselves.” It’s not clear how the committee came up with the warhead figure and timeline. Currently, the US possesses more than 5,000 nuclear warheads with 1,770 actively deployed, while China has about 620 with 34 deployed. Beijing has voluntarily committed to a “no first use” of nuclear weapons while the US has consistently refused. The US State Department complains that the United States was only given a few hours’ notice ahead of the missile test, far short of “standard practice”. It did not specify what that mythical standard practice is. In March, the US launched a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) from the Vandenberg Space Force Base, California. The missile landed near the Marshall Islands 6,700 kilometres away 24 minutes later. In November, a similar ICBM test was launched, landing in the same vicinity. Minuteman III can carry multiple nuclear warheads. While the Chinese missile test has dominated Australian and New Zealand mainstream news reports, the US tests were barely mentioned, if at all, then as now. Instead, a mutual defence pact signed between Fiji and Australia around the time of the Chinese missile test was frequently offered as an explanation. Here’s a typical piece from David Vallance, a research associate at Australia’s Lowy Institute’s international security programme, published in The Guardian. “Coming on the day Fiji became Australia’s fourth formal treaty ally, after the US, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, this test’s timing is interesting,” he wrote. “It reads as a provocation at best, outright coercion at worst.” He continues: “These things take time … it is possible the signing of the Ocean of Peace Alliance pact caused it to move the test up the timetable … How does demonstrating that a nuclear-armed missile can strike targets thousands of kilometres away illustrate Beijing’s commitment to ‘a path of peaceful development’?” A valid question. Perhaps Vallance could ask the same about the US missile tests. Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong called the Chinese test “destabilising”, adding that it came “in the context of a rapid military build-up by China, which is lacking in the transparency and reassurance as to intent that the region expects.” Her boss, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, pointed out the obvious, saying the Chinese ICBM was capable of causing “considerable damage” if weaponised. Well, Tony, that was why it carried a dummy rather than an actual nuclear warhead. Politicians and pundits from New Zealand, Japan and Taiwan are all similarly hysterically scathing. They all neglected to mention that the US – a country on the other side of the Earth – has held at least 15 ballistic missile tests fired into the Pacific since 2021. For China? This was the second time since 1980, the last one being in September 2024 when a land-based ICBM was test-fired from Hainan Island at the country’s southern tip. The hysterical hypocrisy is, of course, par for the course with those Western allies. Last month, the US, Britain, France and Germany raised the alarm that Chinese coastguard vessels patrolling the east coast of Taiwan were threatening regional stability and freedom of navigation. They neglected to mention that Japan and the Philippines were seeking to delineate the highly disputed waters that China also claims as its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Since none of these countries recognise Taiwan as an independent country, they cannot claim to be defending the island’s territorial waters. So what are they complaining about? Western allies sail warships through the Taiwan Strait about once every month. Let that sink in. US Navy destroyers carry out the majority of such “freedom of navigation” operations. They are frequently joined by or coordinated with allies such as Canada, Australia, the UK, France, Japan, New Zealand, and Germany. The US alone makes transits every few months independently. Allied transits occur multiple times a year, with US-allied nations conducting multiple joint or individual passages annually. The US and allied navies regularly team up for joint, back-to-back transits, sometimes occurring just days after Chinese military drills. And yet, Australia and New Zealand went berserk in February last year when three Chinese warships sailed through international waters and Australia’s EEZ in the Tasman Sea. When the Western allies do it, and they do it far more frequently, it’s exercising “freedom of navigation”. But when the Chinese do it, but rarely, they are threatening regional stability and freedom of navigation. It rather reminds me of how every foreign port or cargo terminal invested in by Chinese corporations is reported as potential dual-use or possible naval base for the Chinese military. So far, China has exactly one overseas naval base in Djibouti. But even this needs to be put in context. Djibouti hosts five major foreign naval and military facilities – China, the US, France, Italy and Japan – with waterfront access on the Horn of Africa. They are within walking distance of each other. Why? Because it’s a national business and a major part of Djibouti’s economy. How many military bases does the US operate overseas? At least 70 primary bases, not counting hundreds of facilities and installations around the world, as well as undeclared and hidden sites. Does anyone seriously think China would bother to attack countries and island states in the South Pacific? Not unless they attack first.

How China’s rare missile test sparked hysterical hypocrisy

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Western pundits were quick to denounce Beijing. But far more frequent US launches rate barely a mention

Western pundits were quick to denounce Beijing. But far more frequent US launches rate barely a mention