Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US must ally with China to beat the common enemy
Asia Times ^ | 09/15/01 | Francesco Sisci

Posted on 09/14/2001 6:13:14 PM PDT by Bald Eagle

US must ally with China to beat the common enemy
By Francesco Sisci

BEIJING - It is clear that the reasoning behind building a multi-billion dollar National Missile Defense (NMD) system against possible terrorist attacks from "rogue states" has been shattered by Tuesday's attacks on New York and Washington. And the possibility of a nuclear attack from a "rogue state" is very remote, as the US is effectively checking the spread of nuclear technology to those states. Many countries lukewarm or outright against NMD have been quick to point this out.

Yet everybody had been clear that the motivations behind NMD are complex, and include a drive to preserve or enhance the present US strategic technological lead and put America in a position of strategic safety while facing possible strategic threats. But this certainly doesn't rule out terrorist attacks or any other strategy which doesn't include regular, by-the-book, military attacks. These attacks can be a treat for any conspiracy theorist, as in theory they can come from anywhere, including the departments of the US administration.

Anybody can be said to have had an interest in these attacks, as they can bring advantages to anybody. The EU, Russia and China can also be listed here because of their opposition to NMD, as these attacks prove NMD doesn't serve its main purpose, to make the US impossible to attack. Some weird US puppeteer could be also considered, as the immediate result of the attack was an unprecedented rally of world solidarity (including the oddest ones - the Taliban and Libya's Muammar Ghaddafi) in favor of the US.

But there are some conclusions which are certain. The main one regarding Beijing is that the "China threat" theory is wrong or, to say the least, useless. This is a very important issue, because the Bush administration openly made China the center of its foreign policy. It is clear that the most real and tangible threat to the US doesn't come from China and its economic and military development that could put pressure on American interests worldwide, but from terrorism. Now those terrorists are possibly Palestinians, tomorrow they could be anybody - drug cartels, "Una" bombers, desperate Rwandan Tutsis under Hutu threat. The US's attraction for terrorists comes from it being the only superpower, and this can't be avoided unless the US wishes to give up the mantle and to proceed to un-develop itself, something most Americans don't seem willing to do.

A philosophical issue is at stake. NMD was a means of short-circuiting politics, replacing politics more or less extensively with technology. The US with NMD would need no other country's support to secure itself, its technologically-equipped military would suffice. Allies and others were welcome to come on board, but if they didn't want to, too bad for them: America would proceed by itself.

This would have been wonderful; too bad Tuesday's attacks proved the absurdity of the idea. Just when the island America wanted to stress its distance from the rest of the world and militarily insulate itself, it was dragged into an asymmetrical war of the kind people had so far only spoken of theoretically. Terrorism has proved the most powerful weapon, something that can strike below any NMD belt.

Geopolitics, kicked out the door, came back through the window. In fact even terrorism needs space to train and prepare, therefore the only long-term strategy to counter terrorism is to enlist everybody in the effort to fill all gaps and close all the possible geopolitical black holes where terrorism can hide and grow.

To achieve this requires direct and indirect intervention. Directly, one needs to work on solving all geopolitical problems, so that terrorism won't arise, or at least it will have fewer reasons to arise. Indirectly, one has to try and bring all territories under some sort of control.

This implies a strong collaboration between the US and China on all fronts, including of course counter-terrorism and fighting organized crime, which often provides financial means and weapons for terrorism. China as a huge emerging power must be brought into some kind of partnership with the US. The US, aware now more than ever of the real threat - terrorism - can't afford to keep China outside its strategic embrace and make it indifferent to, or worse, supportive of, any kind of terrorism or powerful criminal syndicate.

In particular, China has issues in the Middle East and Central Asia similar to American concerns. China has a sizable Muslim minority (some 18 million people) and a region, Xinjiang, with a restive Islamic Turkic-speaking minority, the Uighurs. Beijing thus needs to make sure that Central Asia, populated by other Islamic and Turkic-speaking people, and in general the Muslim world, don't become the training centers for China's separatists.

For this purpose, China has developed in the past decade an attentive and original policy in the Middle East. It keeps very good relations with Israel, and officially often sides with the Palestinian cause. While wary of the support some Pakistani forces gave to militants who ended up in Xinjiang, it keeps very good relations with Pakistan. China even made overtures to the Taliban government in Afghanistan, although it is a known fact that the Taliban supports anti-Chinese Uighur militants, and some leaders of the anti-Taliban forces reside in Beijing.

China, in other words, brought into play a complex strategy of trying to turn enemies into friends, and the strattegy has won it a lot of influence in the region. The anti-terrorism agreement signed in June by China, Russia and four ex-Soviet Central Asian republics proves Beijing's influence in the area where the September 11 terrorist attack was hatched.

On September 13, after Jiang Zemin offered his collaboration in a counter-terrorist policy with the US, China detailed its assets in a China Daily commentary: "The heads of states of China, Russia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan signed at a mid-June summit in Shanghai an agreement on combating terrorism, separatism and extremism, vowing to cooperate closely for regional and world peace and stability."

From a tactical point of view, Washington would need to have access to Chinese knowledge and influence to hit the perpetrators of Tuesday's attacks. From a strategic point of view, Washington would need to actively bring China into the fray to help bring back into line the geopolitical black hole of Afghanistan. On this front, America would need some general strategy to keep control of the Eurasian continent (See Encirclement the key to a new world order).



TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS:
"US must ally with China to beat the common enemy "

I think not....China is still the enemy, they are only trying to hide in sheeps clothing during our time of mourning but the red still bleeds through...

1 posted on 09/14/2001 6:13:14 PM PDT by Bald Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bald Eagle
The justification for NMD has not been obviated, and its technological benefits extend far beyond merely having a 'missile defense'. Hopefully, all will eventually have access to and benefit from NMD and will discard long range nuclear devices.
2 posted on 09/14/2001 6:20:05 PM PDT by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bald Eagle
Washington would need to have access to Chinese knowledge and influence to hit the perpetrators of Tuesday's attacks.

Sorry,we might let them hold our coat,but we would still check our pockets later.

3 posted on 09/14/2001 6:26:55 PM PDT by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bald Eagle
If Bin Laden had an ICBM, there is no doubt he would use it against America. Unfortunately, China is spreading this technology to countries that would likley use them against America.

NMD is needed, but it doesn't mean that you don't try to build your defenses in other areas (like anti-terrorism).

4 posted on 09/14/2001 6:27:38 PM PDT by Tai_Chung
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bald Eagle
I concur, China is a threat!

As for the NMD acting as an invitation to attack, that is like saying cops with body armor are asking to be shot.

5 posted on 09/14/2001 6:29:16 PM PDT by Nitro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tet68
Most excellent analogy, BRAVO!!
6 posted on 09/14/2001 6:30:04 PM PDT by Nitro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bald Eagle
Where do you think they get the weapons from?? (shhh! china)
7 posted on 09/14/2001 6:34:15 PM PDT by BigDogFlyBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bald Eagle
How much you want to bet Clinton is already carrying this clipping in his wallet.
8 posted on 09/14/2001 6:36:45 PM PDT by america76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bald Eagle
This is really laughable. China IS the one common thread enemy.
9 posted on 09/14/2001 6:42:48 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bill 'the sinkEmperor' clinton
Can't we just send bill and hill over to Bingbong and ignore the damn Chicoms? We don't need the traitor-is-chief's butt buddies screwing up our intel on this one. These liebrals must be crushed that continuously apologize for the Chicoms. I like te's 'check the pockets' thought. I sure wouldn't want the Chicoms behind me in a firefight.
10 posted on 09/14/2001 6:50:06 PM PDT by MHGinTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bald Eagle
We pick our allies carefully; with great reservation. I think the best course is to take the money. Tell the Swiss who have not had so much as a leaflet dropped on them in two world wars that it is time to get engaged. Neutrality is wonderful if you can afford it, but we have a new paradigm that insists that terrorism now supercedes all that bovine alpine tranquility. We Want The Money!! Tell the Swiss to give it up or if whoever is left alive won't be able to touch what is left for 25,0000 years. Seriously, why don't we go after the money. Fevor is one thing but you have to feed the troops. If the people loose their their food they give up the quarry. That is what these people are trying to do to us. They are waiting for us to carpet bomb some poor sob so they can con some more souls for allah. Their premise is that that we don't have the resolve to stay the course. They talk about how allah provides (weapons, food,etc), when it is coiming from some fat cat with a sh#t pot of cash. TAKE THE MONEY and watch them scream. PS it might save a bunch of American lives if this approach is taken!!!!
11 posted on 09/14/2001 7:23:18 PM PDT by Atchafalaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
What planet has this writer been living for the last ten years? It sure couldn't have been this one. China has been sending missiles and equipment into Pakistan and Afghanistan. Also add North Korea for its supplying the rogue countries with missile components. Who in the world would believe this line other than an idiot that has been in a deep trance for ten years?
12 posted on 09/14/2001 7:25:40 PM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bald Eagle
"It is clear that the reasoning behind building a multi-billion dollar National Missile Defense (NMD) system against possible terrorist attacks from "rogue states" has been shattered by Tuesday's attacks on New York and Washington. And the possibility of a nuclear attack from a "rogue state" is very remote, as the US is effectively checking the spread of nuclear technology to those states."

We are doomed if our leaders base our defense strategy on the weak and convoluted logic of this "person." There is nothing new here, same old wooden headed thinking that opens us up to the debacles we have suffered this week. Nothing has been "shattered". His contention is simply asinine. Tuesday's disaster did not eliminate the threat of missile attack, from any quarter. How could it? This "expert" seems to think that since Bin Laden's lunatics have connived a way of mass murder on the cheap, using our airliners against our cities, that somehow the threat of missile attack is gone. Why? I have a feeling that this person has not thought the issue through, even to this simple point. Is it because these are the only terrorists we ever need ever fear, and since they did it this way, we should drop all other kinds of defenses? Huh? Sorry, Doc, no soap.

Clearly, the author is not at all concerned with the actual threats to the United States, or the best way of going about formulating defense policy for our country. He is arguing a narrow political point from an entirely dishonest partisan position. His argument is meant to dissuade the uninformed, so that leftist politicians can perpetuate a discredited policy of relying on pieces of paper to protect his family, friends, and homeland. His political ideology somehow distorts his vision so that he sees virtue in naked prostrate weakness, a kind of latent self hating anti Americanism; a belief that WE are the real threat to world peace, so WE must disarm in shame and humbly take our place at the feet of tyrants and murderous, cowardly terrorists. We should feel guilt and shame for having the temerity to possess the technological ability to build a defensive shield for own protection, thereby somehow disrupting the plans of Kim Il Jong, Saddam Hussein, the Iranians, et al, from zeroing in on our cities and exacting nuclear blackmail. This man's psyche is driven by fear and ignorance, sealed shut from change with an arrogance that prevents him from learning from the failures of his discredited ideology, and the realities of the world. Spare us from the rantings of idiots like this!

As for his contention that China is NOT our enemy, and we should somehow ally ourselves with the supplier of weapons, missile and nuclear technology to Saddam Hussein, the Iranians, and Osama Bin Laden via rogue and questionable states like Libya and Pakistan, what else can I say but... ARE YOU COMPLETELY INSANE? I don't think I need to wait for an answer to that question.

13 posted on 09/14/2001 7:28:04 PM PDT by Richard Axtell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bald Eagle
Ol' Francesco has been huffing glue, it would appear. He must think that there's an FDR in the White House. Thank God there isn't. I don't think the country would survive an alliance with China, though every Marxist traitor in the country would just love to see it happen.
14 posted on 09/14/2001 7:29:30 PM PDT by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bald Eagle
This post is incomprehensible and evil as long as China is governed by a regime anything like the current model.

For it to make sense, there would need to be a reversal of the 1949 revolution, to reinstall something like the Sun Yat-sen/Chiang Kai-shek regime: that is to say, a sort of benevolent despotism ruling the whole people, but conducted by the westernized AND PREDOMINANTLY BY THE CHRISTIANIZED elements in China. The need is for a reverse Boxer rebellion.

Oddly, I do not think this is completely impossible in the next months and years. In effect, Taiwan and Hong Kong would have conquered the mainland, with the Christian population (ests as high as 200 million) as the fifth column and future ruling class...

15 posted on 09/14/2001 7:39:09 PM PDT by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bald Eagle
The problem is if US was to invade Afghanistan (I very much doubt it), it would need the help of Pakistan. The only country that has any influence over Pakistan is China.

Secretly, I bet the Chinese would love to see the US invade Pakistan and destroy the Talibans, since they are China's #1 threat in Western China.

16 posted on 09/14/2001 7:46:53 PM PDT by Fishing-guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bald Eagle
Why is it that everyone and is brother among all who wish us ill, is forever telling us what we "must" do?

We will do as we jolly well please, thank you very much. Now crawl back under your assorted rocks, where you belong.

17 posted on 09/14/2001 8:18:34 PM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bald Eagle
This writer is usually fairly perceptive (or at least often).

This time he is out to lunch.

China is next to Afghanistan. An alliance is a good idea -- in theory.

Problem is China is not trustworthy because of their regime. They share a very common world view as the Taliban and regimes that sponsor terrorism.

Their interest in in keeping power uber alles.

The country, because of the regime, is not necesarily stable. See their insane reaction to the embassy bombing in Yugoslavia where 4 people were killed.

The other day many in China cheered like in Palestine. Others left flowers at the US embassy. But the latter were not government officials, the former were.

But these people are so mixed up that they do not even realize that this attack on the WTC killed more PRC citizens than the embassy bomb. Yet they cheered.

China supports Iraq. Their setting up a high tech fiber optic based network for their military will cost the lives of Americans in this war that is beginning.

They essentially gave Pakistan the nuclear bomb with aid and exports. This looms hugely in our Afghanistan theater.

China? No, not as it stands.

Japan, Philppines and Taiwan.

But, I say, China can be an ally. They have the choice. Renounce force against Taiwan (makes no sense to ally with a regime that wants to do to another country what they just did to us -- and on an even greater scale), not object to bases in the Philippines and Taiwan and our recognition of Taiwan which will be necessary.

China either does ally with us or all their progress economically in the last 10, 20 years is gone because they will be country non-grata.

The world has changed this week.

18 posted on 09/14/2001 10:09:53 PM PDT by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson