PART TWO:

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.

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:

• Conflicts occurred between the United States and Russia because of Middle Eastern and European countries' membership in NATO. The Russian Government worried about the security in the western part of its country being threatened. In fact, the United States and Russia were in a hostile situation over the issue of the former Yugoslavia. In February 1994, the Russian Government sent peacekeeping troops.
• The United States and Russia had tense disputes on the issue of peacekeeping in former Soviet Union regions. The Russian Government claimed that it would turn the independent parts into a unified economy of high technology and a politically cooperative regional organization within a short time. The Russian Government also requested recognition by the West of its special responsibility for peacekeeping in the east part of the former Soviet Union. However, the United States and the West worried that it would bring danger to the security of American strategic regions and the West if Russia becomes a Russian Empire. U.S. officials once declared, "The U.S. Government will use every means for the prevention of the worst situation happening in Russia."
• The United States and Russia have never stopped their power seeking in the Middle East. In the past 2 years, Russia not only restored its weapon supplies to Syria, but ignored Iraq's arms smuggling. In October 1994, Russia openly criticized American military action of deploying forces. In addition, the United States and Russia have had both open strife and veiled struggle. American officials have said that there still exists danger from Russia and aggressive nationalism will inevitably appear. In November 1994, President Yeltsin pointed out that the United States would be tough toward Russia in its foreign affairs strategy and military affairs, and that it is possible for both to get involved in military conflicts.

• The Situation of "No Big Wars, Constant Small Wars" Will Continue. After the Cold War, the world situation became that of "one superpower is getting stronger and stronger." However, the United States will fail to dominate the world. Its power to control and support world affairs will weaken. Especially under the circumstances of tense competition among the allied countries, the chances of using military means is greatly reduced. This means that it is impossible for the United States to launch a major war. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, in the next 10 to 15 years, there will not be another superpower hostile toward the United States. Even if Russia becomes stronger, it will not be as powerful as the former Soviet Union, because a multipolarized pattern will control U.S.-Russia military options. It is different for small wars; these will occur frequently. Especially in the Balkans, Caucasus, and Africa, small wars will not cease. In the coming years, small wars will increasingly occur. It is estimated that in the mid-1990s, small wars will break out from time to time. By 2000, the number of small wars may decrease. In Central and South Asia, which surround China, small wars will never stop. In some regions, hostilities will be reopen. Of course, it is possible that some potential hotspots (e.g., the South China Sea) could become real hotspots. In areas like Central and Latin America, small wars will exist constantly.
• The Major Powers Will Keep on Exporting Military Arms. After the Cold War, the major powers followed the strategy of "Quality in Building Armies." Thus, in order to save money and replace military equipment, they exported military equipment and arms. The United States, taking advantage of the Persian Gulf War, sold large quantities of arms to Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian countries. The Russians have increased arms exports to relieve economic difficulties. After his return from visiting India, President Yeltsin sped up arms and military technology exports to India and Pakistan. Britain, France, Germany, and Italy, not wanting to fall behind, followed the same course. The reasoning behind this strategy is, to build quality arms, compensation must come from arms exportation. Controlling Third World wars and turbulence requires arms. To develop their economies, they need to accumulate money by means of exporting arms. To develop their own high technology they must export arms. In terms of arms market growth, the Middle East market is shrinking, the Southeast Asia arms market is getting saturated, and the Balkan market is expanding.
• The Cry for Strengthening the U.N. "Peacekeeping System." After the Cold War, there were frequent regional wars and conflicts in the world. In order to stabilize the situation, a secure system was needed. During the Cold War, the world situation was controlled mainly by the United States and the Soviet Union, but afterward a different system needed to be worked out. Owing to the development of the world multipolarized pattern, the United Nations took the historical responsibility. In fact, the United Nations was playing such a role already. U.N. peacekeeping troops were active in Cambodia, the Persian Gulf, the Caucasus, Somali, Rwanda, and Bosnia. However, such peacekeeping usually runs against the disposition of the U.N. Security Council and has had negative effects. In order to change this, some countries have proposed to set up U.N. regular rapid response troops. Surely this will cause more conflict and friction, but it is fair to organize such forces under the United Nations, which would be easily accepted by most countries. Thus, in the future, there will be a rising cry to strengthen U.N. peacekeeping missions, which will produce more historical chances for establishing international order.

• A More Complicated Situation in U.S.-Russian Nuclear Disarmament. After the Cold War, the United States and Russia reached agreements on nuclear arms control. Facts have shown that both sides have done a lot of preparatory work. However, new problems emerged because of big changes in Russia's foreign strategy. Here is what the Russians have done: Russia wants to use its nuclear arms to regain its position as a superpower, and Russian officials requested a review of the U.S.-Russian agreements on nuclear weapons. In May 1994, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs admitted that Russian foreign policy has turned away from unilaterally favoring the West. Instead, Russia proposes to carry out a flexible policy of balance among different power centers to form a balance of power beneficial to Russia. On the U.S. side, the Republicans won a dominant position in both the House and Senate in the mid-term elections. The Americans suggested a "tougher policy" toward the Russians. This will make a more complicated situation in U.S.-Russian military relations. No doubt, it also includes the issue of whether the agreement of both sides on nuclear reductions will be completely fulfilled.
• There Will be Indirect "Military Conflict" Between Russia and the United States over Middle and Eastern Europe. After the end of the Cold War, Middle and Eastern Europe became places where Russia and the CIS were fighting for power. America did not weaken NATO because of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty; on the contrary, it wants to extend NATO's reach. In June 1994, during his visit to Europe, President Clinton claimed that NATO would, should, and will be expanded next year. There are two phases to this: First, NATO's range of operations would expand to the Middle East, and second, the countries in Middle and Eastern Europe would join NATO. Based on this, Russian officials claimed that because of the change in the military balance of the Warsaw Treaty, much attention should be paid to Russia's ideas. Extension of NATO is anti-Russian hysteria. In Russia's view, the three countries of the Baltic Sea were beyond its control. However, it wants to control the former Soviet republics. It requested that the West offer it "special power" so as to carry out peacekeeping policy in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, saying that it is a trial for NATO. Because of this, Russia slowed its military withdrawal from Eastern Europe and its nuclear reductions. But it hastened the military unification in the former Soviet republics. This means that Russia will not give in on military issues, but will start to build a new "defense line" that will be in a position of "military confrontation" with the Americans. Yet, such a confrontation would be limited and indirect and would not be the same as during the Cold War. Nevertheless, the confrontation will not easily change.
• Japan Will Complete Its "Preparation" for Becoming a Military Superpower. After the Cold War, Japan was in an international security situation that had been greatly changed. Under such circumstances, Japan was not satisfied with the situation of being a "big economic country, small political country, and tiny military country." But, because of pressure from home and abroad, Japan dared not to voice publicly its goal of becoming a "military superpower." It wants to be an "international superpower," i.e., a political superpower. In recent years, Japan requested to become a permanent member state of U.N. Security Council, in order to play the role of a political superpower. A review of Japan's activities in the past decades needs serious investigation and forecasting. According to Japanese officials, the following points were assured: -Japan possesses nuclear fuels and technology to produce 1,000 to 2,000 atom bombs. Recently, Japan imported a large quantity of nuclear materials. -Japan can make intercontinental missiles (it successfully launched the H2 rocket). -The Japanese Navy is on the top of the list for its capability in East Asia, and it is developing its sea-battle ability. -The Japanese Government has in fact given up its "three nonnuclear principles" (to allow the presence of American nuclear forces) and the policy of "defense on its own land." -Japan has trampled on its Peace Constitution and passed a new law authorizing a Japanese military role in peacekeeping operations. -Japan is second in defense spending, after the United States. -The Japanese Government advocates "new nationalism" and is preparing to become a military superpower. In general, Japan could within a few months be a nuclear superpower if the Japanese Government made the political decision. Surely, Japan more completely carry out its "preparations."
• There Will Be a Big Gap in the Military Capability Between China and Other Relevant Countries, and China Will Face a Big Challenge. After the Cold War, China faced a less severe military threat from the major powers. But, in the future, the gap between China and other major powers will be wider. This is because: -China's military expenditure per capita is extremely low, and it is sharply different from that of major powers and would not be able to be solved within a short period of time. -China's high-tech military equipment is still in the embryonic stage and will not support military forces. -Chinese soldiers' educational level cannot meet the needs of modern war; this cannot be resolved quickly. According to a report from the West, in terms of "quality" in nuclear weapons and regular weapons, India, ASEAN countries, Taiwan, Japan, Russia, and the United States are superior to China. Such a "quality gap" is expanding rapidly. Thus, China is facing a severe strategic issue that needs to be dealt with seriously.

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:

• To make clear its own position in the security of the Asian-Pacific region in order to maintain the country's security environment
• Through collective talks and consultation on security, to realize a balance of power in the regions

• To attain rights for its own security in order to weaken multinational coordination and power patterns that are not favorable to itself
• To use multilateral forces to prevent the risk of one country or a group of countries dominating 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.

MANAGING CHINA'S FUTURE SECURITY CRISES

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:

• Pluralized opponents with stronger or weaker powers than ours.
• External offensives may take place, seizing the opportunity of our internal disturbances.
• Chain reactions from many directions.
• We will face the opponents' comprehensive threats.
• Indirectly concerned countries or international organizations may manage to intervene.
• Local crisis, generally not endangering our country's overall security.
• Hard struggles may reoccur over a long period of time.

• Forecast crisis situations scientifically. This is the first important task to avoid crises. To forecast crises, we should start from our national interests, analyzing the strategic environment of the world and environment around our country; analyzing accurately the conflicts of interests in politics, economics, military, nationality, religion, and culture among our neighbors, especially the current conflicts in economics, nationality, and religion; track and analyze related countries' internal and external policies and their comprehensive powers (especially development of military power, social situations, etc.); and assess whether or not they have the ability and potential to provoke conflict. When analyzing a crisis, we should pay special attention to the analysis of potential contradictions and conflicts of interest, observing the changes in the related country's internal political situations and external policies and judging the possibility of sudden changes, so that we can take measures as soon as possible. To forecast crisis situations scientifically we need to combinr both historical and logical methods, and traditional scientific and modern scientific methods. At the present time, modern scientific methods should be emphasized. Forecasting also needs good intelligence support. The intelligence support and forecasting of an NDSC should take into account political, economical, diplomatic, and other related state security and intelligence systems. Permanent organizations are needed to forecast crisis situations.
• Stop potential internal disturbances in time to prevent opponents from utilizing them. The symptoms of disturbance must be found and stopped as soon as possible. In case disturbances break out, we should gather a dominant power to suppress them rapidly. And if they are difficult to suppress, we must contain their sphere of influence.
• Develop interdependent relationship mechanisms to contain confrontation and promote cooperation. This means to establish interdependent relations with possible opponents, or establish them to a certain degree because of the requirements of common interests in one or more areas (political, economic, military, scientific, cultural, national, and religious). Interdependent relations mean that neither of the two sides can move without the other. If this happens, the interdependent countries' interests regarding existence and development will be harmed and sometimes, this harm can even be fatal to one or all sides.
• The concrete measures we can choose in developing interdependent mechanisms are as follows: -Politically, participate selectively in the process of world and regional political integration.

  -Economically, participate selectively in the process of world and regional economi integration.

  -Militarily and securitywise, participate selectively in international and regional security mechanisms. Reject military alliances directed against our country. Cooperate with countries, including some potential opponents in order to cope with the common security threat.

  -Scientifically and culturally, exchange science and technology developments.

  -Develop multilateral security relations and maintain the balance of world strategic powers in order to restrict possible opponents.

• Relax relations and soften contradictions in order to establish the confident international mechanisms:

  -Enhance links and exchanges with possible opponents. The key principle behind these actions is to promote confidence, understanding, and good will and eliminate misunderstanding. Especially with information sent to the other side, it must have a certain degree of believability. Possible concrete measures include setting up a "hot line" with possible opponents, finding stable mechanisms of exchange and consultation with the possible opponent, and raising the transparency of sensitive problems concerning national defense.

  -Keep effective control over military elements. Almost all theories of crisis control emphasize this point. The military elements here mean mainly the construction, movement, and deployment of the army, the significant actions of the army, the introduction of important thoughts and views, and military actions concerning foreign affairs.

  -Handle disputes with possible opponents with principle and flexibility and strive for a peaceful solution. When handling disputes, we should take a longer and wider view. Regarding problems that are of significant concern to our national interest, such as sovereignty, we must make no concessions; this is a principle that cannot be forsaken. But in the handling of concrete problems, we can have some flexibility. The basic train of thought is to analyze the disputes layer by layer, avoiding the differences on the principle layer, to find common interests. Then, making this the base, both sides should make necessary concessions to change the conflict into cooperation and settle disputes at least temporarily and maybe even forever. In this way, the contradictions between possible opponents and us may be relaxed, and confidence and understanding may be promoted, avoiding a crisis. There are three points to be made. The first one is to avoid a policy of appeasement. The second is to avoid increasing passivity and for us to solve disputes in the future. The last is that we should consider the theory that handling disputes with principle and flexibility is not only a temporary way to increase confidence and avoid crisis, but is also a way to solve disputes permanently. We must strive for this without hesitation.

• Give play to the role of military deterrence. In order to deter a possible crisis, we must:

  -Develop diversified and multigradational deterrent abilities.

  -Both give play to our traditional advantages and lay stress on the new military technologies and theories as well.

  -Attach importance to the survivability of our military abilities.

  -Determine the developmental intensity of the deterrent power according to the national security situation.

• In the operation of deterrent power, we must:

  -Coordinate closely with the nation's political and diplomatic actions.

  -Deploy it correctly, deterring the opponents with our advantageous posture. -Make clear to the possible opponents our determination of self-defense.

• Adopt a prudent policy toward the intervention in foreign affairs, especially the unusual ones of our neighbors.

• Be fully prepared to cope with crises. At first warning we should strive to resolve a crisis. We should have preparatory plans to cope with all possible crises. The command systems needed to cope with crises should have preparatory plans set up; these should be exercised regularly according to the plans. The ones that have been set up or are part of organizations should also be tested regularly. The power, mainly military power that can be deployed in peacetime to cope with crises, should be deployed according to internal and external environments. Other forces should also maintain a certain degree of emergency status for crises.

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:

• Keep tight control over military elements. It is not only an important principle to avoid a crisis, but also a absolutely necessary principle to cope with a crisis.

• Maintain continuous informational links. There is one point here should be specially emphasized: when negotiations are suspended for some reason, information links must not be broken.

• Handle concrete affairs concerning the negotiations flexibly. The aim we take in negotiations should not be extreme; it is the conflict of interest, not the pure moral principles, that we should focus on. Flexibility of action and appropriate restrictions should be maintained. We should also consider the problems the an opponent's position.

• Combine struggle with negotiation. During a crisis, only by daring to struggle can peace be won. Even if an opponent is more powerful than us, we should also dare to struggle. Struggling may mean peace. This is the dialectics of crisis control.

• Control the rhythm of the action properly. To cooperate in negotiations, the rhythm of our actions should be controlled according to the stage of the crisis. The aim in doing so is to give an opponent enough time to exchange information with us, judge the state of affairs, take actions to contribute to easing the situation, and react to our suggestions, in order for the negotiations to go more smoothly.

• Handle rigidity with flexibility, secure our position without being provoked, and bear the pressure of the opponent's escalating deterrence within a certain range, neither escalation with the opponent nor surrendering to him, to prevent the opponent's expectations from coming true. This may end the crisis.
• Withstand, even break, the opponent's escalating deterrence with equal escalation tit-for-tat, and contain further escalation in order to defeat it. In the concrete operative patterns of the opponent's escalation deterrence, those most dangerous are parawar actions. To cope we must strive to avoid them. If these measures don't work, on the one hand, we should use related countermeasures, strategies, and principles to cope with the crisis. On the other hand, there are some basic ways to defeat an opponent: -Ruin the opponent with temporary avoiding actions. -Warn the opponent with limited actions. -Withstand the opponent's deterrent military actions, reduce or eliminate the deterrent effect, etc.

• Closely watch the strategic trends of the possible opponents. Attach importance to the different interests of potential and real opponents. When we are coping with real opponents, we must try our best to avoid damage to potential opponents' interests.
• Clarify the gains and losses and make clear our strong determination to defend our national interest to possible opponents, especially the ones who want to provoke crises, to contain their purposes.
• If it is possible, strive to lead possible opponents toward forming a united front with us against common enemies.

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.