Institute for National Strategic Studies

Chinese Views of Future Warfare


Future Security Trends U.S.-CHINA MILITARY TIES

General Chi Haotian

For many years, despite the ups and downs in China-U.S. relations, the two National Defense Universities have managed to maintain communications, which has contributed positively to closer understanding between the two military forces and the improvement and growth of military-to-military ties. This is indeed very reassuring.

I am here at an important moment in our relationship. Not long ago, President Jiang Zemin and President Clinton held a successful meeting in Manila. That meeting was of great significance, for it was a meeting of reviewing the past and looking into the future and laid a good foundation for the establishment of a 21st-century-oriented relationship between China and the United States. At present, there exist favorable opportunities for our two countries and two militaries to improve and develop their relations. My current visit is aimed precisely at working with Secretary Perry to reactivate the process which we two set in motion when he visited China in October 1994. My visit also signifies a new beginning in the relations between our two militaries. I am convinced that, so long as we make concerted efforts in the spirit of equality and consultations our military-to-military ties will continue to move forward and give positive impetus to the improvement and growth of relations between the two countries.

Your university is the top military academy in the U.S. and the cradle for generals. As a veteran soldier, I wish to take this opportunity to exchange views with you on issues of mutual interest.

To begin with, I would like to share with you some of my observations on the current world situation. With only three years to go before the 20th century ends, mankind is about to cross the threshold of another millennium, bringing what we accomplished in the past into the future. At this turn of the century, we can see a world that is caught in profound and complex changes; profound because such changes touch upon the fundamental question of "where the world is headed," and complex because they involve the readjustment of interrelations between various forces in the world. This is a time of difficulties and challenges on the one hand and opportunities and hopes on the other. At present, the international situation as a whole is moving towards relaxation and the trend towards a multipolar world is accelerating. To maintain world peace and promote economic development has become the shared desire of all people. However, the world is no tranquil haven, but a place fraught with deep-rooted clashes of interests, with some regions reeling in conflicts and chaos. Facts have proved that peace and development remain the two major themes of the present-day world, yet both fall short of being satisfactorily addressed. Although mankind aspires to peace, the time of peace remains elusive. Although economic development has become a universal desire, development around the world still comes under interference. In my view, a lasting peace and brisk development in the world still calls for close attention and unremitting efforts by statesmen and people of all countries.

Both China and the U.S. are major powers in the Asia-Pacific and have a keen interest in what happens in this region. At present, when international relations are undergoing tremendous changes, the Asia-Pacific region as a whole has maintained stability. However destabilizing factors, both immediate and potential, still exist and should not be overlooked. The Chinese Government and people are fully aware that China's economic growth and political stability are important factors for a prosperous and stable Asia-Pacific, which, in turn, creates a favorable external environment for China's economic development. The Chinese Government and people have made and will continue to make positive efforts to promote peace, stability and development in the Asia-Pacific region.

Now, I want to discuss in greater detail China's defense policy. I know this is also a question of interest to you. If I could summarize the topic in one sentence, it would be: China is a developing socialist country; the nature of its social system and its national security interests determine that it follows a defensive defense policy. This defense policy includes mainly the following:

China pursues a defense policy that is defensive in nature. This is out of the need for safeguarding state sovereignty and territorial integrity and maintaining lasting peace and stability for the country. China has never invaded any country nor has it stationed a single soldier abroad. However, there are still some people around the world who keep spreading the fallacy of the "China threat", arguing that a stronger China will threaten others and become a destabilizing factor in the Asia-Pacific region. I believe these people have ulterior motives. They are not happy to see China in development and progress. As is known to all, China's modern history is one that saw its territories ceded and its people subjected to foreign aggression, plunder and enslavement. In more than one century from the Opium War in l840 to the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, imperialist powers, on several occasions, invaded China or turned it into their own battleground, nibbling away and seizing millions of square kilometers of Chinese territory. Even today, China's Hong Kong and Macao still await to be recovered. Taiwan, for reasons known to all, remains in a state of separation from the rest of the country after its return to China. As an old soldier who went through the winds of war in the first half of this century, I am keenly aware of the deep scars that agonizing chapter has left on the hearts and minds of our people. It teaches us that to live a peaceful tranquil and dignified life, our people must have the capability to defend themselves. It teaches us that the miseries the Chinese people went through in recent past must not be repeated either in China or in any other part of the world. Peace should be enjoyed by people of all countries. Even if China becomes stronger in the fixture, it will never embark on external aggression and expansion.

China has always attached importance to China-U.S. relations, believing that a stable and sound China-U.S. relationship not only serves the fundamental interests of the two peoples but also contributes to world peace and stability. Our bilateral relations have zigzagged in recent years. It is not surprising for us to have some disagreements, given our differences in economic development levels, social and political systems, cultural traditions and value judgments. Practice has proved that as long as our two sides bear in mind the fundamental interests of the two countries and adopt a correct attitude of consultations on equal footing and mutual respect, then in the spirit of "enhancing confidence, reducing trouble, developing cooperation and avoiding confrontation," we will be able to gradually iron out the specific problems in our bilateral relations.

Here, I feel compelled to mention the Taiwan question, an issue that is the key to and at the heart of whether China-U.S. relations can be stable and grow stronger. Settling the Taiwan question is China's internal affair. The position of the Chinese Government in this regard can be summed up as "peaceful reunification based on one country, two systems." We hope to see a peaceful settlement yet refuse to renounce the use of force. This policy is a result of careful consideration. The marked improvement in the relations between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits in recent years accords with the common interests of the people on both sides. It also contributes to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific and serves the interests of the United States as well. However, the Taiwan authorities have, in disregard of the overall interests of the Chinese nation, gone farther and farther down the road of conniving at and participating in activities aimed at splitting the motherland, which has caused tension in cross-Straits relations. I would like to point out here, that if those elements on the Island who are eager to see China dismembered and themselves becoming more important with foreign support should cling to their wrong course and slip further astray, the Chinese Government and people will not sit idly by. The entire Chinese history shows that whoever splits the motherland will end up condemned by history. Neither history nor the people will forgive him. The international relations in the Asia-Pacific, since the end of World War II, have also proved that the sole correct approach to avoiding tension in the region is to firmly oppose the separatist tendency and foreign meddling in the Taiwan question.

Frankly speaking, the Taiwan question should not have been a problem in today's China-U.S. relations. After the end of World War II, in accordance with the principle established by the Cairo Declaration and reaffirmed by the Potsdam Proclamation, Taiwan was restored to China. However, for reasons known to all, Taiwan has since been separated from the rest of China. In 1972, China and the United States issued the Shanghai Communique, which was followed by the Communique on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations and the August 17 Communique. In all these three Communiques, which constitute the foundation of China-U.S. relations, the U.S. Government recognized in clear terms that there is but one China and Taiwan is a part of China; that the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China and within this context the U.S. will only maintain unofficial relations with Taiwan; and that the U.S. will not seek to pursue a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan and its sale of arms will be gradually reduced and eventually stop. The U.S. Government has also on many occasions made it clear that it is up to the Chinese on both sides of the Straits to settle the Taiwan question. We hope that the U.S. Government can keep its promise. Facts over the years have repeatedly shown that when the Taiwan question is handled properly, China-U.S. relations will fare well; conversely, if not handled properly the relations will fare rather badly with endless troubles. To put an end to the state of separation across the Taiwan Straits and fulfill the grand cause of national reunification is the unshakable will of all Chinese people, the people in Taiwan included. This is an important issue of principle that bears on China's sovereignty and territorial integrity and directly touches the national sentiments of the Chinese people. I am confident that the American people, having experienced a Civil War themselves, should and will understand the resolve and determination of the Chinese people to safeguard state unity and oppose national separation.

As an old Chinese saying goes, one may extend his vision by standing on high ground. That is, the higher one stands, the farther he can see. It is our sincere hope that the U.S. Government may stand on a higher plane and get a broader view on the issue of Taiwan. The high ground here is to maintain and develop the friendship between the Chinese and American peoples by respecting the feelings of the Chinese people. The high ground here is also to maintain and develop China-U.S. cooperation and promote stability in the Asia-Pacific region by strictly observing the principles of the three China-U.S. Joint Communiques. In fact, we have never made any undue demands on the U.S. on the Taiwan question. Just as Mr. Deng Xiaoping put it during his visit to your country in 1979, there is nothing we want the U.S. to do, but something we want the U.S. not to do.

Before I left for my current visit I received a book entitled "Pearl Harbor in Pictures" from Admiral Preher. A famous epigram is inscribed in the book: Remember Pearl Harbor. Precisely 4 days ago was the 55th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. World War II bound China and the United States together in an earnest cooperation against their common enemy. I hope China-U.S. relations today can still reflect the spirit of that sound and positive cooperation. I hope in particular that the armed forces of the two countries will make a major contribution to the steady growth of China-U.S. relations.


Major General Yu Qifen

The developments and changes in the international structure determine the world military environment. Ever since the late 1980s, when Gorbachev pursued a new ideology, the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States has decreased, while cooperation increased. By the beginning of the 1990s, the two countries had reached an agreement on reducing strategic nuclear weapons by 30 percent, destroying chemical weapons, ending military support for Afghanistan, and reducing tactical nuclear weapons. They also pushed for the reopening of bilateral peace talks between Arabs and Israelis in Oslo. All these actions benefitted peace in the world. The radical changes in Eastern Europe, the reunification of the two Germanys, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the Warsaw-Treaty Organization, and the end of the bipolar structure have ended the political and military rivalry between the East and the West represented by the two super-powers, the Soviet Union and United States, which had lasted the 40 years since the end of World War II.

The 1990s have seen an era of peace and development. It has become common that conversation replaces conflict. Economic growth is now the key strategic target of many countries' concerns and efforts.

This more peaceful world affects the international strategic pattern, while military trends affect the international strategic pattern. Military struggle is subordinated to political and economic interests, and politics is the sum and substance of economics. The disintegration of the Soviet Union has weakened political, economic, and military power in the regions of the former Soviet Union. In Russia, the internal economic depression, together with the unstable political situation, will not be a dominant factor affecting the international security and tranquility. At present, the United States is still the number one superpower politically, economically, and militarily; however, it is not as strong as it used to be. It can no longer control the whole world. Japan and Germany grow stronger and stronger with the "peace dividend." The economic development of the European Community and the Western European Union, and the economic growth in China, India, ASEAN countries, and Brazil have enabled more and more countries to become influential in international security. As a result, this has led to the rapid development of multipolarity.

In order to be more powerful in the future, the great political and economic powers and regional alliances have all made full use of the relative peace to strengthen and develop their economies and have made improvements in their comprehensive national power, their main strategic aim. In his inauguration speech in January 1993, President Clinton said that the national security of the United States was mainly economic security; that the American people, having experienced over 40 years of sacrifice and after spending hundreds of billions dollars, had won the peace dividend, which they could use to invest into their future. This shows that the U.S. Government is determined to develop its economy, which has been given first priority. In fiscal year of 1991, the U.S. economy fell by -1.2 percent. In fiscal year 1992, it recovered, with an increase of 2.1 percent, and in fiscal year 1994, it rose to between 3.5 and 3.6 percent. Many developing countries as well as countries in the West have identified economic development as their main goal in order to strengthen their comprehensive national power.

In general, the world situation is moving in the direction of relaxation, and there is the possibility of no world war for a relatively long period. With the ending of the bipolar structure between the East and West, many countries had talks in order to build a peaceful order. However, there still exist many conflicts and problems resulting from the Cold War. Furthermore, some major powers are vying for the leading role in the transition to a multipolar structure and continue to practice hegemonism and power politics. This has led to regional wars and armed conflicts in some hot-spot areas. Quite a few Third World countries are still in the difficult situations of turmoil and economic difficulties. This shows that upheavals exist in the relaxed world order and unstable factors hide in stability. The situation is complex and changeable. It should not be ignored.

With the 1990s came a series of inevitable and profound changes in the international military situation. On one hand, many countries have made their first priority the development of their national economy. They have made appropriate changes in their military strategy that it is subordinated to and serve political and economic development. On the other hand, the objective reality, including a reduction in the risk of a U.S.-Russian war or a world war, has enabled countries all over the world, especially in the West, to change their military strategies. The great changes in the international military environment have thoroughly disturbed the old order and have given rise to some new features, new problems and new trends in a new era.

Adjusting Military Strategy
Every country, especially the major Western nations, has made great efforts to change military strategy in accordance with the relaxed international situation and to improve its economy. The United States has changed its strategy of "containing the expanision of communism" into"expanding global democratization" and changed its military strategy accordingly. The key change is from "preventing the Soviet Union from launching a widescale war" to "dealing with the regional conflicts in the Third World" and preventing the rise of "new global opponents." Early in 1989, the United States started to change its military strategy because of the easing of tensions between it and the Soviet Union. The two nations were having talks and cooperation instead of conflicts. In August 1990, President Bush put forward the "new strategy for defense." In February 1992, U.S. Secretary of Defense Cheney formally listed it in the 1993 DOD Annual Report as the "Strategy for Regional Defense." Derived from President Bush's proposal of a new strategy for defense and Mr. Cheney's own idea mentioned in the 1991 DOD Annual Report, it said that the United States should make it a first priority to deal with regional conflicts rather than dealing with the Soviet Union's global challenges. The strategy requires the following conditions:

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the disintegration of the "Warsaw Treaty" group made the military security of the NATO nations, especially those countries in Western Europe, move eastward hundreds, or even thousands of miles. The strategic warning time has increased from a few days to a few weeks or a few months. The United States and the Western countries have won "strategic depth" in time and space, which has laid the objective foundation for strategic changes. Owing to Russia's and other Warsaw Treaty nations' partnerships with the United States and other western countries, the NATO nations have determined to change their "tactical reaction" policy to "crisis management" policy, and their combat focus from "battlefront defense" to Aall position defense." NATO countries clearly want to improve their ability to avoid conflicts and to get well prepared for any military action within their region.

Russia and Ukraine within the CIS have also put forward new theories on military and security ideas. The first important target of military strategy is border disputes. They stress that military forces should be able eliminate regional wars and armed conflicts within a short period of time.

The United States and NATO nations, for the sake of their own security, have one after another changed their military strategy to strengthen their ability to control and interfer in Third World countries. Thus, it has pushed Third World countries, for their own interest and national security, to change their military strategy in order to strengthen their national defense forces and their ability to prevent regional wars.

Reducing Expenditures, Improving Quality
In order to meet the needs of their new military strategies, the United States and Western countries have, on a big scale, reduced military expenditures, reduced the number of military personnel, changed the system structure, reformed military exercises, improved the quality of life for service personnel, developed military technology, and improved quality. Many Third World countries have, based on their own countries' situation and military strategy, reduced the number of armed forces to improve the quality and strengthen their defense capability.

Reducing Defense Spending in Developed Countries
Since coming to office, President Clinton has emphasized cutting defense spending. In the 1990s, apart from defense spending for the Persian Gulf War in 1991, all military expenses, including their ratio to government expenses and the gross national product, have decreased. Defense spending for each fiscal year was as follows: in 1990, $291.4 billion; in 1992, $273.8 billion; in 1993, $277.9 billionCall of which, respectively, were, as a percentage of government expenses and gross national product, 26.98 and 5.33, 19.6 and 4.7, and 19.2, and 4.3 percent. The Clinton administration planned to reduce defense spending by $100 billion from fiscal year 1993 to 1997, and maintain the defense budget at $210.0 billion in fiscal 1997, which would account for 3 percent of the gross national product, the lowest since 1939. Apparently, the Clinton administration was criticized by the military and political circles for its wide-scale reduction in defense spending. Secretary of Defense Cheney assumed that reducing defense spending and the promise of expanding security were contradictory to each other and would weaken the U.S. Armed Forces. Recently, due to pressure from the Republicans who won the mid-term election in Congress, Mr. Clinton could do nothing but promise to increase the defense budget by $26.0 billion in the next 6 years.

Since 1991, Western countries have taken measures to reduce defense spending; in Britain, the defense budget was 24.0 billion pounds ($40 billion) in 1992. If the inflation rate was deducted, actual defense spending decreased by 2 percent, when compared to 1991. In 1993, spending decreased from 4 percent to 3.4 percent of the GDP, while in 1995, it decreased to 3 percent. In France, the defense budget in 1992 was 195.0 billion francs ($37 billion). It took up, respectively, 14.8 and 3.26 percent of government expenses and the gross national product. Actual defense costs decreased 2.3 percent, compared to 1991, taking into account the inflation rate. In Germany, the defense budget in fiscal 1992 was DM52.1 billion ($32.5 billion), which took up 12.3 percent of the federal government budget and represented a 0.8 percent decrease from the previous fiscal year. Beginning in 1993, Germany cut DM1.5 billion every year, a decrease of 3 percent. In Italy, the 1992 defense budget was L26,560.2 billion ($22 billion), which, when taking into account the inflation rate, was in fact a reduction in actual spending. In Japan, defense spending remains the same, 1 percent of the gross national product.

Contrary to defense budget trends in the United States and Western countries, some Third World countries have increased defense spending with the development of their economies, in order to strengthen their national defense. For example, South Korea established the strategy of "Self Defense." In 1990, it spent about $9 billion for defense, which took up 5 percent of its gross national product. In 1991, it spent $10.1 billion, an increase of 9 percent over fiscal year 1990. Between 1990 and 1995, South Korea planned to spend $240.3 billion for research on weapons and equipment. In the early 1990s, the increasing rate of defense spending in ASEAN countries was between 5 and 10 percent. For instance, in Indonesia, compared to the previous fiscal year, defense spending in fiscal year 1991 increased by 10 percent; in Malaysia, 15 percent; in Singapore, 29 percent; in Thailand, 20 percent. These countries made efforts to modernize weapons and equipment to strengthen their navies and air forces. There is also a trend of increased defense budgets in Middle-East and Persian Gulf countries. In Saudi Arabia, the defense budget increased $800 million over the previous fiscal year. Kuwait planned to spend as much as $5 billion to purchase weapons and equipment. In 1992, the defense budgets of Iran, Syria, and Turkey increased, respectively, by 17, 16, and 8 percent over the previous fiscal year. Israel increased its defense budget by $300 million, regardless of the economic depression and the reduction of government financial expenses.

Improving Quality, Reducing Armed Force Quantity
In order to meet the needs of new military strategy changes, the United States and Western countries have all done research and developed guidelines and programs to strengthen military quality. The United States has worked out "The Concept for the Development of Three Services by 2000" and "The Plan for Developing National Defense by 2000." In its 1993 Department of Defense Annual Report, the United States declared that its armed forces will be of high quality and well-trained, have multiple capabilities in fighting, and be able to be sent worldwide quickly and defeat all opponents, quickly reacting to all kinds of critical situations. In order to meet these requirements, the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force all have developed strategic guidelines. The U.S. Army put forward a new concept to build a new 21st-century army that can be dispatched quickly all over the world; the U.S. Navy proposed to carry out the strategic idea of "from the sea to the ground" to guide the Navy buildup; and the U.S. Air Force voiced its strategic theory on "global flexibility for global combat" as part of its plan for air force construction.

In January 1993, after his inauguration, President Clinton decided to further U.S. Armed Forces simplification. The plan requires reducing the current armed forces from 2,100,000 in 1990 to 1,400,000 in 1997; the commanding headquarters from 10 to 8; Army forces from 18 divisions to 10; navy warships from 547 to 340; aircraft carriers from 14 to 10; the Marine Corps from 194,000 to 159,000 troops; and air force wings from 24 to 10. As for strategic nuclear power, the United States has reduced international ballistic missiles from 1,000 to 500, strategic bombers from 295 to 176, and strategic missile submarines from 33 to 18. By the beginning of the 21st century, it is predicted that the United States will have reduced strategic nuclear warheads from 120,000 to 3,500.

The Western countries and some developing countries, according to their own needs for military strategy, have reduced their armed forces, built rapid response armies, and strengthened the quality of their armed forces. The "British Defense in the 90s" indicates clearly the importance of improving the quality of the armed forces and made it the first priority of their armed forces restructuring. By the mid-1990s, the British Armed Forces will be reduced from 308,000 (in 1992) to 246,000. Meanwhile, Britain will expand its rapid response force and improve its rapid response ability, and plans to create one tank division, one division with light equipment, and one combined mobile air force division to form a main force for NATO. France has put forth "Plans for the Army in 2000" and "Military Equipment Plan for 1990-1993," under which strengthening combat capability is a priority of army restructuring and a rapid response army consisting of five special divisions (47,000 troops) has been created. The German "White Paper on National Defense," Japan's "Developing Plan for Defense Force in Mid 1991-1995," and the Netherlands's A1993 National Defense White Paper" have all indicated clearly the principles and the scope for reducing troops and promote rapid response forces. Many developing countries, too, have emphasized reducing quantity but improving quality.

Improving Weapons and Equipment
The Americans believe that the key to a deterrent force lies in technological advantage during peacetime. While reducing troop numbers and defense spending, U.S. Armed Forces emphasized improving military personnel living standards and developing technology for weapons and equipment. In order to retain the advantage in military technology in the next century, the U.S. Defense Department put forward in 1990 the program on key technology exploration. It includes the following seven fields: global reconnaissance and telecommunication, accurate strike, air superiority and defense, marine control and submarine superiority, advanced combat vehicles on the ground, computers and electronic equipment, software engineering, etc. Meanwhile, the United States used a large portion of its military budget to expand the exploration of military technology. In fiscal year 1993, with the reduction of military expenditure by a big margin, the United States still spent $33.8 billion on the research of technical equipment for modern weapons, which was $1.8 billion more than the previous fiscal year. By the end of this century, the U.S. Armed Forces will have spent $2 billion for the development of information technology. From 1992 to 1993, the British Government's military budget was $245.4 ($46 billion), of which 37 percent was dedicated to weapons and equipment.

Some Third World countries have imported advanced weapons and equipment, especially for the navy and air force, in order to hasten modernization of weapons and equipment. Countries such as India, ASEAN nations, and some Middle East countries have spent several hundred billion dollars to purchase modern weapons and equipment.

Reforming Military Training
In its summary report on the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the United States claimed that the abstract system for high technical weapons and equipment was useless. Only well-trained troops will be able to grasp the system of high technology for arms and equipment and will keep on winning wars. Many countries assume that military training is a key measure to guarantee a high level of competence among the armed forces and is the "realization of a modern army." Therefore, they have taken the following measures:

  • They stress that officers and soldiers all should have a higher level of knowledge in science and technology. In Britain, 25 percent officers and soldiers graduate from college or university. A quarter of soldiers in French troops graduate from senior high school. Germany, requires 8 months of training at the Hamburg Academy for commanders above brigade level, in addition to the standard courses of the 21-month training session.
  • They require a combination of training and exercises. The French Army has made it clear that troops under the regiment level must do training in divided teams. They must spend 100 days in field training, while the regiment tactic training days must take up 45 to 60 days. In Britain and Italy, all brigades every year take part in combined services exercises. The Western European countries widely believe that the "true military academy" relies on military maneuvers. It is an all-round test of training for soldiers in military, political, educational, psychological and physical ability.
  • They stress full use of training centers and modern training equipment. In recent years, the U.S. Army has reinstituted the annual "Louisiana Maneuvers" and has set up six combat labs to develop low-cost experimental sample training systems of high efficiency in order to improve troop quality and competence. In Britain, there are three big military training centers for special battle training. In France, there are as many as 13 big training centers, where every year each regiment is able to do three military training sessions. In Denmark, there are three training centers for battalions, regiments, and artillery to have practice with live ammunition. The air force and military academies also do training there. Disarmament and Arms Control
    During the Cold War, disarmament and arms control became a mere formality. After the Cold War, there was a big improvement in disarmament and arms control. However, while troops were reduced and defense spending was cut, the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, appeared. While the international community was trying to control these destructive weapons, there emerged the tendency to compete in the research, development, and purchase of high-technology conventional weapons. Furthermore, the United States and other Western countries practiced a double standard for arms control, which led to a complex situation in disarmament and arms control.

    The United States and the former Soviet Union were the two superpowers and also the main targets for disarmament and arms control. In 1991, the two countries reached an agreement to reduce by 30 percent their strategic nuclear weapons and to destroy their chemical weapons. In January 1993, the United States and Russia signed the U.S.-Russia SALT Two Treaty. According to the treaty requirement, by 2003, Russia and the United States would keep, respectively, 3,000 and 3,500 nuclear warheads, but they could further improve their quality, thus there still is a great threat to world peace and security. This means that although they have reduced the number of strategic nuclear weapons, Russia and the United States still have enough to threaten world peace and security. The two nations are still in a position of nuclear hegemonism.

    Although these two nuclear powers have begun to reduce nuclear weapons, there still exists the crisis of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It is estimated that, by the end of the 1990s, there could be about nine developing countries that have nuclear weapons, over 30 countries with chemical weapons, 10 countries with biological weapons, and 20 countries with long-range missiles. If terrorists ever possessed these weapons, international order and security would become even more complicated. Thus, it has become a common goal in the world to prevent and control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. Secretary of Defense Aspin once claimed that the global expansion of ballistic missile technology and massive destructive arms has become the most critical and risky threat to America's safety after the Cold War. The Clinton administration has listed it as the key problem of U.S. defense strategy to be solved as soon as possible and has demanded active measures in the political, diplomatic, and military spheres to cope with the threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Nevertheless, one must be aware that the United States and other Western countries have adopted double standards in the prevention and curbing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. On one hand, they have targeted their opponents, the Third World countries, with pressure and threats. On the other, they were indulgent to a few countries that favored the West.

    While the United States, together with other Western countries, is trying to stop the expansion of weapons of mass destruction, they are at the same time doing their best to develop high-tech conventional weapons and have sold a large quantity of modern arms and equipment to Third World countries. In its 1995-1999 national defense plan, the United States decided to develop F-22 invisible combat aircraft, "Patriot" modern anti-aircraft missiles, ammunition for accurate guided missiles, and weapons of high technology like electronics warfare systems. Japan, working together with the United States, will carry out the plan for tactical missiles, import the E-2C air warning devices and command aircraft, and speed up the research on FSX fighter. Russia plans to equip the MG 29B fighter, the C-300 antiaircraft missile, and modern warships with electronics warfare systems and other weapons of high technology. At the same time, some Middle East countries have, since the Persian Gulf War, imported from the United States and other Western countries weapons and equipment at an expense of over $30 billion. By 1995, it could be as much as $54.6 billion, and if spending on training and maintenance is added, it could be $127.4 billion. The ASEAN countries also have spent a lot to purchase modern combat aircraft and warships. Statistics have shown that in 1991, the United States alone signed contracts with over 50 countries to export weapons, making a profit of as much as $9 billion; in 1992 it exceeded $10 billion, and in 1993, it reached $15.7 billion. This shows that disarmament and arms control remain a key and complicated international issue.

    Developing a Regional Security Systems
    Regional systems are emrging as the global strategies structure moves toward greater multipolarity. In Europe, the disintegration of the Warsaw Treaty organization put an end to the conflicts between the two big military groups. Some former Warsaw Treaty nations in Central and Eastern Europe requested membership in NATO. The United States and some Western countries tried to expand NATO to these countries. However, Russia strongly opposed it, believing that NATO would extend the strategic front toward Russian border regions, which would not be tolerable. At a recent European Security Conference, President Clinton and President Yeltsin had a tit-for-tat argument. President Clinton insisted NATO should expand eastward, while President Yeltsin asserted that it would be absolutely impossible for the United States to dominate Europe and the whole world. New internal problems have constantly emerged in the United States and Western countries. First, the West European Union (WEU) went from a "military forum" to an actual European defense organization. In December 1991, at the conference held in Maastricht, the European Economic Community declared that the West European Alliance was part of the European political alliance, and was a liaison institution between the European Community and NATO. On November 1, 1993, the European Community started to carry out the "European Alliance Treaty." According to the regulations of the treaty, the European Community would work out a common strategy on security, foreign affairs and defense. Meanwhile, France, Germany, and Belgium have organized both European regiment headquarters and European troops to be commanded by the West European Alliance. The European Security Council, which was involved in security talks among Western countries, the former Soviet Union, and Eastern European countries, became an institution for mutual trust and security, disarmament negotiation, cooperation, and conflict adjustment. In Europe, there is a security structure consisting of NATO, EC, WEA, and CSCE (which has changed its name to European Security and Cooperation Organization). The conflict for domination between the United States and European countries is getting more and more tense. Germany has dared to say "No" to America. France and Britain are strongly dissatisfied with America's lifting of the arms embargo in Bosnia. Italy refused to cooperate with America's armed interference in Somalia. At a conference of CSCE, French President Mitterrand was clearly against America's proposal of NATO's expansion towards Eastern Europe. On November 18, 1994, the leaders of France and Britain met in Paris, making a decision to set up the "French-British Air Force" and the "United Council for French-British Air Force." The two nations reached an agreement on future European defense, bilateral military cooperation, and resolving the conflicts in Bosnia.

    At the same time, the Asia-Pacific region also plans to set up new a system for security and has put it on the agenda. According to the new situation of stability and economic development in the Asia Pacific region, some countries in the Asia-Pacific region have proposed new proposals for a bilateral or multilateral security system. During his visit to South Korea in 1992, President Yeltsin suggested building a "multilateral negotiation system" and a "Reconciliation Center for Conflicts," for the purpose of coordinating security and cooperation in the Asia Pacific region. In July 1993, the Clinton administration proposed the founding of a "New Asia Pacific Community." Yet, based on the current security system, Japan insisted on developing a multilateral security system and taking a "double track." The ASEAN countries, according to the "ASEAN Regional Security Forum," advocated expanding the development of a security system so that Asia Pacific countries could participate. In October 1994, the ASEAN countries held the second summit conference in Bogor, Indonesia, and issued the "Bogor Declaration." They had talks and consultations on economic cooperation and security in the Asian-Pacific region. Some countries in the Asian-Pacific region criticized and resisted the so-called American democracy and human rights. No doubt, this is a challenge to America's attempt to retain a dominant position by setting up a new political and economic system in the Asian-Pacific region.

    In addition, great changes have taken place in regions of the Middle East, Africa, and the Americas, in the political economic cooperation organizations, and in the systems of security cooperation and dialogue. For example, the North American Free Trade Zone was founded on January 1, 1994, followed by the Summit Conference of American States. This will certainly push forward the political and economic development and the social stability in the regions and countries in the Americas.

    Regional Wars and Armed Conflicts
    After the end of the bipolar system, the countries and people in some regions of the world, which used to be under the control of the two superpowers and suffered a lot in the wars of the passed decades, had a strong desire to put an end to the conflicts and tensions. With the support of the United Nations and the international community, there has been a tendency by means of peaceful negotiations to end domestic fights and resolve the disputes among countries, with some successful results. South Africa ended its racial government and realized national reconciliation; in the 1994 election, Mr. Mandela was elected president. In Namibia, Mozambique, and Angola, cease- fires were achieved one after another, and national elections or negotiations were held. In the Middle East, Arab nations and Israel reopened peaceful negotiations in Oslo, Norway, in 1991; in 1993, Palestine and Israel reached an agreement that the Palestinians could have autonomy in the Gaza and Jericho regions; in 1994, Palestine and Israel signed a formal autonomy communique in Cairo. Afterward, Jordan and Israel issued the "Washington Declaration" to normalize the two countries' relations, endingd the 46-year-old confrontation. The great improvements in the Middle East peace process will definitely push forward the peace progress between Syria and Israel, and between Lebanon and Israel. In Asia, the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, Vietnam withdrew from Cambodia, and all the conflicting parties in Cambodia held elections on time to build up their homeland. Historical experiences show that the disputes among nations should be resolved by means of peaceful negotiations, which is the only and best way to solve problems.

    On the other hand, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the balance of power was lost. In the past, there was a big confrontation between the two superpowers, the two giant military groups, and the two kinds of social ideology. Some national and ethnic conflicts, factional disputes and territory issues did not break out. But with the loss of the balance of power, the confrontations became more and more tense. In the end, a series of internal wars and conflicts broke out among countries. In Europe, in the once-peaceful Balkan region, war broke out in Yugoslavia and Bosnia. In some independent countries and regions, wars and conflicts happened frequently. In the Persian Gulf region, Iraq invaded Kuwait, which aroused the indignation of peace-loving people of the world and led to the Persian Gulf War, a joint effort of allied countries headed by the United States. This was the most massive and costly regional war since WWII and used a large quantity of high-tech arms and equipment. In Africa and America, some regional wars and conflicts also occurred. According to rough statistics, in 1993 there were 32 regional wars and conflicts in the world, of which 12 were continuations from 1992. Of these wars and conflicts, 10 were in the former Soviet Union, 3 in the Balkans, 3 in the Middle East, 7 in Africa, 1 in Latin America and 1 in Asia. This shows that past conflict regions were in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Today, Europe and the former Soviet Union have become battle fields where wars and conflicts occur frequently. In 1994, there were 39 regional wars and armed conflicts in the world (a little more than that in 1993), among which 26 were extended from 1993 and 13 were new ones. At present, 24 have ended and 15 are still going on.

    More U.N. Peacekeeping Activities and Interference by the West
    After the end of Cold War, the United Nations played an important role in peacekeeping. This has greatly pushed conflicting sides to cease military activity for peaceful negotiation. Figures showed that in the past four decades, from the founding of the United Nations to 1988, the United Nations had participated in peacekeeping activities 16 times; however, from 1989 to 1994, the United Nations directed peacekeeping activities 18 times. The areas covered Asia, Africa, Middle-East and Europe. For 17 activities, over 70 countries were involved; there were over 2,000 military observers, and Blue Helmet troops numbered over 73,000. It cost dearly; in 1994, $3.6 billion was spent.

    U.N. peacekeeping activities benefit the conflicting sides by promoting more talks and fewer conflicts. But at the same time, it means new interference from the Unites States and other Western countries. Some of their doings have the tint of hegemonism and power politics. They have advocated the theory that "Domestic wars are not internal politics, human rights are above sovereignty." They interfere in other countries' internal affairs in the name of "democracy, reform" and "human rights." They have imposed their "human rights" concept on people in other countries, and sent out troops at will under the name of "defending peace," to overthrow governments, to set up no-fly zones and "safe areas," and to arrest the leaders of opponent forces. All these activities have caused uneasiness among Third World countries.


    Gao Heng

    After the end of the Cold War, the focus of the major countries in the world turned from military confrontation using nuclear weapons to power confrontation of allied countries. However, the constant increase in military forces remains a constant historical trend. Thus, people are studying seriously the many new characteristics in the world military situation.

    Troop Building
    World war became less possible after the Cold War ended. Though frequent regional wars occur, the world's major countries do not get involved in them. They seek better quality in military equipment rather than quantity in defense spending. America has further cut its military spending and reduced troops. For instance, in 1990, its defense spending was $301.6 billion; in 1991, it was $297.2 billion; in 1992, it was $295 billion; in 1993, it was $293.5 billion; in 1994, it was $263.4 billion. It is expected to be even less in 1995. From 1993 to 1998, the Americans will reduce military spending abroad by $60 billion. Russia has done the same; it has been reducing its troops and military spending for years and will further cut its military expense. For example, in 1994, military orders were reduced by 70 percent, and programs for military scientific research were reduced by 40 percent. From 1988 to 1992, Russia reduced military troops by 40 percent. From 1992 to 1993, it reduced navy warships from 548 to 460; by 2000 warships are expected to number only 300. In 1994, Russia's military expenditure was $29 billion. Between 1993 and 1994, Russian troops were cut by 600,000, down to a total of 2,200,000; by 1996 they will be 1,900,000. In comparison to the United States and Russia, Britain, France, and Japan have made fewer reductions. In Japan, since 1990 defense spending increased from 0.9 to 6.11 percent. Owing to personnel expense, which took up 42 percent of military spending, and the high cost of consumer items, there has not been much reduction in the defense budget.

    Troop cuts and reduced defense spending do not reflect the whole situation regarding the troop structure of a country. In fact, these reductions emphasize concentration on "quality in force development." For example, under the new conditions, the Americans have put more effort into equipping troops with high technology and stressing tactics to deal with regional wars. Regarding missiles, they pay more attention to building regional defense. In general, the United States cares much more about rapid response ability. Awakened by the Persian Gulf War, some small countries (i.e., ASEAN members) have actively followed examples of the world's major countries by stressing "quality in force development."

    Preparing for War in Depth
    "Preparing for war in depth" is the basis of the "Grand Strategy" system. After the Cold War ended, the world's major countries took this principle more seriously than ever. What they have done specifically is to develop troops, arms, and high-tech equipment. The United States and other Western countries have formally put off (or given up) the strategic programs planned during the Cold War for a strategic defense initiative and space stations. They have worked out a strategic program for the Ainformation highway." No doubt, this is a great part of preparing for war in depth. It is a major revolution in military affairs regardless of its speed. Facts will show that the whole globe could become a unified battle field. Traditional arms and equipment (intercontinental missiles, planes, warships and tanks) will become information weapons. There will be no border between armed forces and people; war's effects will be more focused. Thus, the major countries in the world have put every effort into carrying out the plan. We can say that almost every field related to comprehensive national power is linked closely to "preparing for war in depth."

    Regional Wars
    After the Cold War, there was less possibility of wars among the world's great powers and they stressed a unified defense and the curbing of regional wars. The Persian Gulf war was an example. In recent years, U.S. strategy has been to fight two regional wars at the same time. It worked with Japan and other countries to plan a "regional missile defense system." In Western Europe, the Americans tried to reform NATO to help deal with Bosnia. It also cooperated with ASEAN countries in order to better handle future wars in the South China Sea. These countries would do their best to make their actions legal, behind the front of the Security Council. The United States and other major countries would then gain the authorization of the Security Council (e.g., setting up no-fly zones in Iraq). It is a fact that at present, Western countries have won great strategic power by acting behind the front of "peacekeeping activities."

    Regional Wars
    After the end of the Cold War, the conflicts once constrained by the U.S.-Soviet standoff were exposed. The cause of the regional wars lies in historical grievances, national conflicts, factional and territorial disputes, power seeking, outside penetration, resources scrambling, economic friction, and arms expansion. In recent years, regional wars took place frequently and the number of wars increased. Potential hot-spots became actual hot-spots. The areas of regional wars shifted. Before and immediately after the end of the Cold War, the Middle Eastern, African, and Asian-Pacific areas were conflict sites. In recent years, however, there has been great improvement in the Middle East peace process. Bilateral relations improved greatly between Palestine and Israel, between Jordan and Israel and between Syria and Israel. The Iraq-Kuwait conflict was resolved on a political track (Iraq has officially recognized Kuwait's sovereignty and the Iraq-Kuwait border line). Wars still exist in Africa (Rwanda and Somali), yet the number of wars has been reduced. In Asian-Pacific areas, regional wars (internal wars in India-Pakistan and Cambodia) are under control. To compare with the above mentioned areas, Bosnia and southern Caucasus have become sites of conflict. This shift shows that conflicts have intensified, and penetration from outside has strengthened. This has become a trend requiring special attention.

    High-Tech Regional Wars
    When the Cold War ended, high-tech regional wars became an important phenomenon. In recent years, the technology used in regional wars has increased. The military strategy focus of the great powers is on long-range deployment and unified systems of "air, ground, and navy forces." To realize the goal, the armed forces must turn their "mechanization" into "information." The United States has, in order to realize this great goal, reduced its troop size and defense budget. It has concentrated on high technology in regional wars, on building "digital troops," "digital battle fields," and "digital war," which has become the key goal of the U.S. military. "To make full use of experimental technology" has become a keynote in American force development.

    Crisis Management
    With the end of the Cold War, the major powers entered the period of domestic economic, political, and military adjustments. They adopted a policy of indirect involvement to handle regional conflicts and wars, except the Persian Gulf War. If it was an emerging situation, they used "crisis management policies." In Haiti, Korea, Iraq (in 1994), and Bosnia, the United States and related countries used this policy to win without using armed force. This means that a big country like the United States would have to maintain its joint forces to avoid lagging behind other forces, putting itself in an unfavorable position. It also means that military force serves as a "deterrent force" and supporting force in diplomacy.

    Developments in Nuclear Expansion and the Arms Trade
    After the Cold War, some major powers, for their own benefit, reduced troop size and defense spending. Controlling defense spending has become a trend in big countries. In recent years, Japan and ASEAN countries have pushed other countries (including China) to join the U.N. registration system for military equipment as early as possible, in order to improve transparency. Meanwhile, Japan and ASEAN countries have greatly increased their military budgets and replaced standard military equipment with high-technology equipment. According to Japanese calculations, the Japanese military budget has reached $45.9 billion (second after the United States). Western statistics show that Southeast Asian regions in recent years have become the second biggest arms market (after the Middle East). What's more, smuggling nuclear material has been one of the important components in nuclear proliferation. According to news from the West, Russia and Germany are key sources and transmission stations for nuclear proliferation. Some medium-size and small countries have obtained nuclear materials and technology via these sources. Facts proved that there exists simultaneously the phenomena of major powers reducing defense spending while some medium-size and small countries cause more instability and unpredictable problems in the world.

    U.S.-Russia Military Relations
    Since the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia have established a "strategic partnership." In the past couple of years, because of changes in Russia, more complicated problems emerged in U.S.-Russian relations:

    Owing to all kinds of problems in the world, the major powers will continue their changes of strategy at home and abroad. There will be great change in military strategy, too. The following trends will emerge in world military strategy:


    Senior Colonel Yao Youzhi
    Colonel Liu Hongsong

    The Asian-Pacific region is an important area in international society. After the collapse of the polarized patterns and the Cold War, its strategic position rose greatly. Compared to other regions in the world, the current security situation in the Asia-Pacific region is relatively stable. During the Cold War, most of the countries in the Asian-Pacific region did not deeply get involved in the conflicts between the two blocs of the East and West. Thus, after the Cold War, the relative strength was kept in balance in the Asian-Pacific region. Most of the countries carry out the policies of peace, neutrality, and nonalignment. In the past decades, these countries have concentrated on economic development and followed the policy that economic development promotes political stability, and that political stability protects economic development. However, because of many unresolved historical problems in the Asian-Pacific region, there are a lot of crisscross contradictions and various potential crises. The unbalance and diversity in politics, economics, military, and culture have caused uncertainty in security development and have led to a complex situation in Asian-Pacific security.

    Self-Reliance to Deal with Outside Threats
    Owing to historical reasons, there exist internal contradictions and conflicts in many Asian-Pacific countries. In order to maintain the countries' unification and social stability, some Asian-Pacific countries' security policy has long been focused on the management of the internal security environment. With the collapse of the polarized blocs, military adjustments by America and Russia, the rapid development of the economies in the Asian-Pacific region, as well as increased modernization, these Asian-Pacific countries have turned their focus from internal security to external defense. They will mainly rely on self-defense and an allied defense to maintain the countries' security and regional peace and stability. During the Cold War, the ASEAN countries relied on America for protection, while the Indochina countries, headed by Vietnam, were aided by the former Soviet Union in defense and economics. Now, after the Cold War, these countries will rely on self-defense and maintain security themselves. As a result, some countries have focused on self-reliance to maintain security and to cope with outside threats. In the 1970s, the military defense in ASEAN countries was mainly used to deal with guerrilla forces that fought against the governments. For a while, guerrilla activities lessened or were suppressed. Then there were changes in international and regional situations, which caused the ASEAN countries to concentrate on outside threats and modern wars instead of internal rebellions.

    A Focus on Security and Development
    During the Cold War, the confrontation between the two political and military blocs, America and the Soviet Union, was caused by differing ideological and political systems. After the Cold War, the two blocs' ideological conflicts were eliminated.

    At present, in view of the development of the new world political situation, the Western countries no longer concentrate on resisting socialism, because the socialist movement is at low ebb and not a threat to the West.

    The change in the ideological disputes among the countries led to the change in international patterns from regional politics to regional economics. During the Cold War, regional economic groups were divided based on each countries' social and political system. The economic and trading relations among countries of different social systems were controlled by political relations. Many regional economic groups have the characteristic of common security. ASEAN was set up during the Cold War to meet the needs of politics and security. With the elimination of the confrontation between East and West, regional economic groups started to be gradually indifferent to ideology. Many Asian-Pacific countries, in order to deal with the new international situation, gave up the fight over ideology and made adjustments in their internal and external policies, focusing on their own peace and development. Some countries have even reformed their political system.

    The development of regional economic groups, however, has caused conflicts based on security and development. In the competition of fundamental interests, Japan is the number one opponent of the United States. The contradictions between America and Japan will be more serious in the future.

    Security Benefits in Politics, Economics, and the Military is Becoming More and More Obvious
    After the Cold War, international relations focused on economics although the remnants of the Cold War still existed. Time passed, but the former institutions of the Cold War remained. The huge nuclear weapons warehouses and military industries still exist. It will take time to eliminate the result of widescale competition in military equipment, while regional competition in military equipment grows. America is rebuilding the patterns of Asian-Pacific defense and has fanned its military forces, which means it takes the United States as the axle, and the U.S.-Japan, U.S.-Korean, U.S.-Philippines, U.S.-Thailand, and U.S.-Australia bilateral military alliances as fan-shaped spokes that radiate U.S. military force to the whole Asian-Pacific region. Some conceptual ways of thinking and defense ideology formed during the Cold War will continue to have influence.

    Nevertheless, new views on economic security have gradually become the mainstream. With the formation of the new world pattern, a new era of competition for comprehensive national power focused on economics is approaching.

    During the Cold War, the range of power and the fight for interests were mainly retained by military means. Military force marked a country's international position. The phenomenon of "military giant but economic dwarf" and "economic giant but military dwarf" was the then-contradictory outcome of military and economic forces in international relations. Such a phenomenon would not exist in a time when economics dominate. Economic influence is getting more and more important for politics. In the international market, a country's strong economy will not only expand its influence, increase its profits, strengthen its internal currency and balance its international income and expense, but also will greatly improve its reputation and political position in the world. Economic competition is playing an important role, replacing the military as the dominant force in foreign relations.

    Rapid developments in science and technology and the wide application of high technology in production have caused developed countries to concentrate more on internal development while they expand their capital accumulation. In turn, this pushes them to shift their competition from military and political strength to comprehensive national power and particularly economic strength. Economic factors have become important marks in judging a country's international position. In a country's general strategy, economic development plays a more important role; in regional and international relations, the regional economy plays a more important role in politics. The regional blocs have focused on economic cooperation instead of political and military cooperation, and they also stress unified security viewpoints of politics, economics, and defense rather than only those of military security.

    Resistance to Western Values
    Serious ethnic disputes have long existed because of historical hatreds and unbalance in politics and economics caused by colonialists. The same nation could be split into two regions or multiregions. Pushed by general support for national unification, it is possible to realize reunification. However, countries with many nationalities are having trouble with ethnic coflicts, which are very hard to settle while simultaneously maintaining unification. With the development of unbalanced politics and economics as well as outside interference, the national separatist trend will be more and more serious. The combination of nationalism, national egoism, and some countries' local chauvinism will form a trend against the general trend of world peace and prosperity.

    Religious issues have become an important factor in Asian-Pacific security and conflicts. The Asian-Pacific region is one of the three big birthplaces for religion in the world, as well as the meeting place for all kinds of cultures. There exist big differences in religions and religious parties and contradictions and conflicts are hard to reconcile. In recent years, two points regarding religion aroused the world's attention: the religious unification of nations and regions, and religion's clear political intent that directly attacks the country's political power. Social upheaval caused by religious forces, interference, and conflicts is a big issue. Usually, the religious disputes mix with ethnic conflicts, which complicate and intensify the contradictions and disputes.

    Yet, there are many common points in culture, especially in values and ideas, in the Asian-Pacific region. Indeed, common culture has provided prerequisite conditions for promoting regional stability and cooperation.

    At the same time that Asian-Pacific countries are resisting Western values, the Oriental culture, or modern Confucian culture, has had an immense influence in promoting the unification and development of Asian-Pacific countries. The East Asian cultures, in which Chinese culture is considered the mother culture and which once experienced an ancient glorious development period, have had great influence on civilization. Today it has great appeal to modern society. In the past decade, the Singapore Government has advocated Confucian culture, for the purpose of correcting excessive egoism, utilitarianism, and hedonism and to help people overcome spiritual void. The key ideas of the oriental culture are self-reliance, trust, helping each other, harmony, honesty, and thinking of others. People believe that the rapid economic development in the Asia-Pacific region is closely related to the great influence of the Oriental culture.

    Bilateral and Multilateral Understanding and Cooperation
    It is a trend in international political, economic, and security development to have talks on understanding and cooperation. After the end of the global Cold War, there has been a move to set up a multilateral security system in the Asian-Pacific region. Since the Washington Conference, held after the First World War, the Asian-Pacific countries have gone through five different historical periods during their efforts to form a collective or multilateral security system. The first period was the Japanese-American competition in the Asian-Pacific region during the first half of the 20th century. The second occurred when the two superpowers were in competion with each other. The third was when the former Soviet Union advocated the Asian Security System. The fourth was during the formation of the economic cooperation system in the Asian-Pacific region and before the Soviet Union made its strategic adjustments. The fifth is the new period, since the 1990s, when each Asian-Pacific country has wanted to create a security system. The informal talks in the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation Organization marked the opening of discussions on Asian-Pacific multilateral security.

    The Asian-Pacific countries are seeking establishment of multilateral understanding and cooperation, which shows their comprehension of historical development; their predictions of the world's future; their eagerness for mutual economic compensation; and their desire for internal benefits. In general, a country has four reasons for wanting to create such a system:

    However, because of each country's interests and strategic goals in the Asia-Pacific region, complex struggles will definitely occur during the process of each country seeking multilateral understanding and cooperation in the Asian-Pacific region.

    The Broad Goal for Maintaining Security
    While each country is seeking economic interests and security, they are excluding and fighting each other. At the same time, they constrain each other, cooperate, reconcile, and even merge together. The contradictions that emerge during a security struggle also reflect its crisscross character (e.g., you know me well and I know you inside out).

    Such circumstances make Asian-Pacific countries a unity of opposites. Many countries focus on their own benefits, actively resolve problems and conflicts, strengthen collective cooperation, and promote development of economic centralization, and regionalization. They focus more on issues about human existence and development. In national security and defense, these countries have mixed feelings about potential threats with no obvious target. Some countries have purchased weapons and equipment to expand their defense system, but they do not have a clear idea of who the enemy is. This complicated security situation is becoming more and more obvious with international economic centralization and regionalization, and the development of cooperation and political talks.

    Medium-Size and Small Countries' Participation in Regional Security
    At the end of the 1990s and at the beginning of the 21st century, the United States, Japan, China, and Russia will become the leading forces determining Asian-Pacific regional security. Of these countries, the Unites States is still the main player making decisions about Asian-Pacific regional security. The Clinton administration proposed an expanded strategy to change the former security policy that dealt with the Soviet global threat to one focused on regional conflicts that threaten global benefits. In its Asia-Pacific policy, the United States reemphasizes the concept of a power balance, which means maintaining military forces in the Asian-Pacific region and keeping the regional balance of power. It also re-established treaty alliance relations between the United States and Japan, Korea, Australia, Thailand, and Philippines. America considers the U.S.-Japanese alliance as the "center of stability."

    The Japanese Government considers it to be a major "contribution" to security to seek political talks actively with each country in the Asian-Pacific region and to help the United States to push democracy in the Asia-Pacific region. Russia started to adjust its policy of sliding too much toward the West in late 1992 and has adopted a policy of even treatment of Europe and the Asian-Pacific region. Meanwhile, they are trying to improve relations with each Asian-Pacific country. China expands its range in foreign affairs and develops its relations with neighboring countries on the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. In general, the security policy of these Asian-Pacific countries will decide the future security pattern and situation in the Asian-Pacific region.

    At the same time, the medium-size and small countries in the Asian-Pacific region have also taken an active part in security affairs and have sought the right to speak on Asian-Pacific security matters. The ASEAN countries started to take a positive attitude toward dealing with regional security issues. They not only have many internal discussions on the subject but also have held talks with related countries that do not belong to ASEAN in order to improve its reputation in the region and thoroughout the world.

    A Flexible Regional Security System
    In the long run, difficulties and disputes will exist in the Asia-Pacific region. The ethnic confrontations and territorial disputes that are related to a country's fundamental interests will not be easily reconciled. Sharp struggles over religious, social systems, unification, and separation will remain. Nevertheless, the goal of maintaining stability in the Asia-Pacific region meets the needs of the majority of countries' interests. So the Asian-Pacific countries will unite as one to work out a flexible regional security system that will assure that countries will help each other and cooperate, but will lack an internal focus. Such a system consists of not only military security but economic security. In view of the security developments in the Asian-Pacific region, there will be a mixed, pluralized security system in this area. All kinds of security systems will be put into action, such as bilateral and multilateral, area and regional, formal and informal, etc. Compared with conflicts between the two blocs during the Cold War, the security cooperation in the Asian-Pacific region will be characterized by proaction and prediction, not simply taking action after a crisis has occurred; it will stress the overall situation, mutual relations, and future influence, especially the potential impact on human's existence, and it will be based on self-reliance, in order to maintain each country's security.

    Peacefully Resolve Disputes
    The development of commodity and market economies was late in many countries in the Asian-Pacific region. In recent years, the market economy has developed rapidly. The development of commodity and market economies makes Asian-Pacific countries rely on each other, which strengthens their consistency and mutual control of interests. This will be beneficial for preventing war and maintaining peace. When the commodity economy was backward, invaders gained much from war by means of violence. However, in modern times, the price of war will be much greater than anything gained from war. In such circumstances, economic development will lessen the chance of a war for economy interests. Especially in the nuclear era, the saturation of nuclear weapons becomes a threat to human existence. The disaster and terror of war force people to recognize the concept of "mutual security." As a result, with the development of international economy and market unification and expansion of each country's openness on security policy, peaceful resolution of disputes will be the first choice.

    China and Security Developmentsin the Asian-Pacific Region
    China occupies a very important strategic position in the Asian-Pacific region. Because of China's rapid economic development, stable political environment, flexible open-policy, and successful foreign activities, China's international reputation is getting stronger and has attracted attention from other countries in the world.

    The world cannot exist without China, let alone the Asian-Pacific countries. China's economic development relies on the world. With the daily growth of the economy and expansion of the open-door policy, China, with a population of 1.2 billion, is a giant market. In addition to trade relations, China is also a very attractive market for investment. All countries, both in the West and in the Asian-Pacific region, have a chance to enter China's market. In security cooperation, China plays an important role in diversion, self-control, and balance among the Asian-Pacific countries.

    After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the triangle relation among the Unites States, the Soviet Union, and China no longer existed. In a certain sense, China's strategic position in the world was lowered. On the other hand, the disintegration of the Soviet Union made China's position in the Asian-Pacific region comparatively more important than before. This is because China's role and influence became obvious both in resolving the hot issues in the Asian-Pacific region and in economic cooperation with neighboring countries. China is a key force in maintaining the balance of power, stability, and development in the region.

    Generally speaking, the security situation in the Asian-Pacific region, like international patterns, is in a transitional period. Both pre-Cold War and post-Cold War characteristics exist, but with a gradual shift toward the latter. There will be the tendency of development and reform, which reflects the transition from internal management to external defense, from unilateral defense to bilateral or multilateral defense, from sole target to wide-range target, from big countries' domination in defense to big countries' leading role and medium-size and small countries' self defense, and from hostile defense to hostility combined with talks.

    The Asian-Pacific region's security is very important to world peace. In the future, through economic development, the Asian-Pacific regional security situation will be kept in balance and move in the direction of security and stability. The countries will be tolerant under a prerequisite of insisting on principles, and reach more common viewpoints and agreements. However, there is the possibility of conflicts in certain areas because of multiple and unbalanced contradictions in the Asian-Pacific region.


    Captain Zheng Jian

    National Defense Security Crisis (NDSC) is a kind of tense political-military situation caused by external or combined internal and external hostile actions, which can endanger the national security and can even potentially lead to war. It is a special form of conflict among countries. NDSC control is a very important strategic stage in the struggle for national defense security. It is a kind of management and control mechanism for solving defense crises. Its aim has two aspects: one is to prevent a crisis from occurring, the other is to control a crisis's horizontal and vertical escalation, making every effort to limit its destructiveness and other negative influences and to end the crisis at the lowest cost and prevent the outbreak of war. Seen at a macroscopic level, NDSC control is actually a kind of strategic guidance aiming at avoiding war. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the end of the bipolar structure, it is possible that the threat of all-out invasion to China has been eliminated. Our security environment today is one of the best since the founding of our country. But in today's world, hegemonism and power politics still remain. There are also many historical and practical contradictions and conflicts of interests in the areas of politics, economics, military, nationality, religion, and culture between our country and some of our neighbors. In the future, some of these contradictions and interest conflicts may have the potential to cause a NDSC endangering our defense security. If an NDSC occurs in the future, there may be some of the following circumstances:

    Links in Strategic Guidance

    Links in Strategic Guidance

    United Direction and Rapid Reaction
    These are the demands of a period of a crisis. Especially during the short time before a crisis breaks out, we must do our best to identify crisis signals. Once the signs are discovered, we should ascertain the problem quickly, striving to determine the opponent's interest as soon as possible. When we know that an opponent is attempting to provoke a crisis, the power to deal with it should go as quickly as possible to the highest command organization of the state.

    Internal Conditions for Coping with External Crises
    If an NDSC occurs, causing internal disturbances, we must suppress them rapidly. We must also determine if there are other potential internal disturbances. If an NDSC occurs without internal disturbances, still we need to prevent them while we are coping with the crisis.

    Peaceful Support
    We should give play to the power of the United Front, opening up the second line actively to unite international peaceful strength.

    Solving Crises Through Peace Talks
    Peace talks include informational links and diplomatic negotiations between two sides. Smooth informational links play an important role in relaxing tense situations and, further, in stopping a crisis. Informational links during a crisis tell an opponent of our peaceful aspirations. The links must be continuous and timely and also confident and mutual. The manner can be varied. At the center of the talks necessary to cope with a crisis are diplomatic negotiations. These can be either open or secret, formal or informal. During a crisis, if an opponent asks us to negotiate actively, we can participate according to the situation. If the opponent does not have this intention at that time, if necessary, we must manage to force him enter negotiations. We can repeatedly appeal to the opponent for negotiation; draw support from other countries' mediation, intervention, and other diplomatic actions; tell an opponent of our aspirations for peace and our sincerity; and strive to gain an opponent's cooperation "with tacit understanding." To insure the success of the negotiations during an NDSC, we should adhere to the following principles:

    Means to Defeat an Opponent's Escalation
    When the opponent has the intention of escalation deterrence but hasn't practiced it, we should strive to contain it ahead of time. When these measures won't do and the opponent starts to practice escalating deterrence, there are two basic theories on how to defeat it.

    Chain Reactions of Crises
    All the countermeasures to avoid crises discussed in this thesis can be used according to the circumstances. But with regard to a crisis having already taken place, the following points must be stressed:

    In case the situation of chain reactions of crisis occurs, we should unify planning with due consideration for all concerned and hold the focal point.

    Preparing Against War
    The problems of preparing against war is beyond this thesis, but there is one point that must be stressed: Only when we are ready meet any surprise attack can we effectively prevent a crisis from happening. Meanwhile, all the actions for preparation against war should be coordinated with crisis control.

    | Return to Top | Return to Contents | Next Part | Previous Part |