The representatives of China and the United States had a fierce confrontation at the United Nations, and the Russian side "vetoed" the US proposal with one vote, and the US side launched a "retaliation" against China. So, what kind of fierce confrontation did China and the United States have engaged in at the United Nations on the issue of nuclear weapons in outer space? What kind of "retaliation" actions did the United States launch against China after the proposal was rejected?
According to Reuters and other media sources, on April 24, local time, the draft resolution on foreign-related space security drafted by the United States was "vetoed" by permanent member Russia in the Security Council voting session. According to the report, although the draft resolution, which calls on all countries not to develop or deploy nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in outer space to prevent a nuclear arms race in outer space, received 13 votes in favor, Russia's opposition and China's abstention still made the US representative angry.
Although there have been many cases since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, in which the US side has put forward a bill and Russia has exercised its "one-vote veto" power, the US representative's blatant "bombardment" of China and Russia's statements is still quite uncomfortable. Especially considering that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken is visiting China, the Biden administration has always hoped to deepen communication and cooperation with China.
According to the report, during the speech, Greenfield, the US permanent representative to the United Nations, expressed "great disappointment" at China's abstention, accusing China of preferring to play Russia's "little follower" rather than uphold the nuclear non-proliferation regime proposed by the West. At a time when the Chinese side has repeatedly reiterated that China and Russia are not allies and that China-Russia relations are non-aligned and not aimed at any third party, the US representative's accusation is undoubtedly excessive.
In the explanatory remarks later, Fu Cong, China's permanent representative to the United Nations, also made a solemn response to this, bluntly saying that the reason for China's abstention is that the draft does not explicitly prohibit the placement of all types of weapons in outer space, including nuclear weapons, and lacks a practical "landing plan", which has nothing to do with China-Russia relations.
Fu Cong pointed out that if the United States, Japan, and other countries are really committed to promoting constructive discussions on outer space security issues in the Security Council, they should pay full attention to the risks of weaponization and arms race in outer space, stop developing and deploying corresponding weapons, and instead of taking a passive attitude of resistance and treating outer space as an arena for great power games. If the most dissatisfying thing for China is the groundless accusations and extremely provocative statements made by the United States, then the reason for Russia's exercise of the "one-vote veto" is the irreconcilable contradiction between the United States and Russia on the issue of outer space security.
You must know that after the US side questioned Russia's non-compliance with the "rules", saying that Russia's move was contrary to the previous commitments made by the Putin government, Russia's permanent representative to the United Nations Nebenzia immediately refuted this statement, saying that the draft proposed by the US side has nothing to do with the issue of peaceful space, but is only to smear Russia and exacerbate differences in the Security Council.
It is worth mentioning that while the Russian side vetoed the US proposal, an amendment to the draft resolution provided by China and Russia was also "retaliated" by the US side. In the end, the draft draft, which calls on space-faring powers to take urgent measures to prevent the placement of weapons in outer space at any time, as well as the use or threat of use of force against space objects from space to the ground and from the ground to outer space objects, received only seven votes in favor and failed to pass.
Some analysts believe that compared with the draft submitted by the United States and Japan, the amendment calling for the conclusion of a "legally binding multilateral agreement" is actually more feasible and more binding on the space powers. However, this content restricts the plans of Western countries to use technological superiority to deploy military forces in outer space, so it is difficult to obtain the support of the United States and the Western bloc.
In other words, the United States and its allies refused to adopt this amendment, not because there was anything wrong with its contents, but because it punctured the "empty promises" of Western countries. From this point of view, if Western countries do not give up engaging in an arms race in outer space, it will be difficult for the relevant resolutions to be adopted, because after all, there is still a big difference between the peaceful use of outer space and the building of outer space into an arms race ground.