US false missile test narrative exposes blatant double standards

The Conference on Disarmament in Geneva witnessed a farce steeped in political scheming on Tuesday. The United States rallied about 40 countries to issue a so-called "joint statement on ballistic missile launch notifications", leveling unwarranted accusations against China over its July test of a submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missile and demanding that all countries provide 24-hour advance notification ahead of missile launches.

In response, China's Ambassador for Disarmament Affairs Li Chijiang called the move political manipulation and blatant double standards. China firmly opposes the attempts to turn the conference into a platform for political manipulation.

The US accusations are legally and politically untenable. Washington invoked the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation — a voluntary political commitment — to demand advance notification from China. But as Li pointed out, China is not a subscribing state to the code and is therefore not bound by it. Using a voluntary instrument to pressure a non-subscriber to abide by it exposes the US' political maneuvering rather than being a good-faith effort to strengthen global security.

China has consistently conducted its intercontinental ballistic missile tests in a safe, standardized and responsible manner. Contrary to the allegations, China notified the US and other relevant countries of the test in advance and it took prudent measures to ensure the launch did not harm the interests of any country, a spokesman for the Ministry of Defense confirmed. As Li stressed, such goodwill gestures must not be hijacked by geopolitical calculations.

Washington's accusations ring even more hollow in light of the fact that China has conducted only three intercontinental ballistic missile tests to date, the fewest among the five nuclear-weapon states. The US, by contrast, has conducted about 300 routine ICBM test launches, including one earlier this year.

The US has also withdrawn from some international agreements and mechanisms on arms control, poured resources into expanding and modernizing its nuclear capabilities, and pursued nuclear-sharing and extended-deterrence arrangements. Having failed to consistently uphold its own responsibilities concerning strategic stability, the US — which maintains a huge nuclear arsenal and continues to modernize its strategic forces — is hardly in a position to lecture China about missile testing.

China keeps its nuclear forces at the minimum level required to act as a deterrent, safeguard national security and maintain global strategic stability. The country's legitimate and reasonable defense modernization should not be politicized or distorted.

What Washington has done at the Conference on Disarmament is a classic example of weaponizing a multilateral forum for narrow political purposes. By rallying countries around baseless accusations against China, despite Beijing's advance notification and responsible handling of the test, the US has demonstrated precisely the kind of hegemonic and zero-sum thinking that undermines international cooperation on security issues.

The Conference on Disarmament, recognized by the UN General Assembly in 1978 as the world's sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, should not be turned into a political theater. Attempts to downgrade it into a platform for bloc confrontation only weaken the credibility of the multilateral arms-control system.

The international community should see Washington's maneuver for what it is: an attempt to shift blame, deflect attention from its own nuclear record and constrain China's legitimate defense capabilities under the guise of global security. As Li reiterated, China remains committed to peaceful development and pursues a self-defensive nuclear strategy.

The real question is whether international rules are applied consistently or selectively, and whether multilateral institutions serve common security or narrow geopolitical interests. If the US genuinely wants to strengthen global strategic stability, it should start by practicing the consistency it demands from others. The Conference on Disarmament needs less "microphone diplomacy" and more genuine disarmament diplomacy — based on equal treatment, mutual respect and rules that apply to all.