DISADVANTAGE/CHINA

IMPACT: ANGERING CHINA INCREASES THE RISKS OF WAR

A NEW COLD WAR WITH CHINA WILL BREED NEW WARS — EVERY CRISIS POINT WILL BECOME MORE LIKELY TO BREAK OUT INTO WAR

Henry Kissinger, secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford. The San Diego Union-Tribune September 12, 1999, Pg. G-1 HEADLINE: DANGEROUS DRIFT; China and the United States are sliding toward perilous, and unnecessary, confrontation // ln-10/99-acs

A cold war would leave both sides in a classic no-win situation. China's economic progress would be stifled. Historically covetous neighbors might resurrect past ambitions. And, given the present disproportion of power, a military conflict would have grave consequences for China.

At the same time, Beijing would have many political cards to play. The Soviet Union, in the end, stood substantially isolated facing a coalition of all the industrial democracies plus China. But China has traversed its 5,000 years of recorded history by careful calculations of its necessities and great patience. No Asian nation will go along with a confrontational course unless provoked by Chinese pressures. Our European allies will distinguish their policies from ours and blame tensions on American highhandedness. Every crisis point, from Korea to the Middle East, would be exacerbated by a Sino-American cold -- or hot -- war.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS BUILD UP IN CHINA WOULD MASSIVELY INCREASE RISKS OF WAR IN KOREA

Frank Umbach, Senior Research Fellow at the German Society for

Foreign Affairs (DGAP) in Berlin, Jane's Intelligence Review, October 1, 1999 wise to P'yongyang's nuclear blackmail // ln-10/99-acs

Such a long-range missile build-up might not only threaten global and regional MTCR and non-proliferation policies, but may also incite a new arms race in an already complex military-strategic environment in Northeast Asia. Furthermore, it may undermine crisis stability and conflict management by creating additional incentives for pre-emptive military strike options on both sides of the Korean peninsula.

CHINA USES FORCE 72% OF THE TIME TO RESOLVE FOREIGN POLICY CONFLICTS

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. and Thor E. Ronay, Center for Security Policy in Washington. Insight on the News October 04, 1999, Pg. 44 HEADLINE: New China Strategy Should Spur Democracy // ln-acs

Unfortunately, as Harvard China expert Alistair Iain Johnston has documented, China is not afraid to use force, especially if it can do so quickly and decisively in a manner designed to alter the status quo before an opponent can react. Johnston found that since 1949, the PRC has resorted to violence to resolve foreign-policy conflicts 72 percent of the time (in eight out of 10 crises) - a rate much greater than that of the former Soviet Union, to say nothing of democracies such as the United States and the United Kingdom. Even if force is not used by China, its mere threat may be sufficient to achieve the PRC's desired results. Even now, the Chinese have begun to brandish their growing military capabilities to threaten Taiwan and other neighbors and to hint at nuclear attacks on the United States.

TENSIONS BETWEEN CHINA AND THE USA COULD DRIVE AUSTRALIA OUT OF THE WESTERN CAMP

Gary Klintworth, The Straits Times (Singapore) November 15, 1999 SECTION: Commentary Analysis; Pg. 44 HEADLINE: Diplomacy would be helpful // acs-ln-11-19-99

These are key issues affecting the security and stability of the whole Asia-Pacific region. Renewed tension between China and the US over Taiwan could force Australia to choose between its Anzus Treaty obligations to the US and its new-found military relationship with Beijing. Japan might find itself in a similar dilemma.

DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION IN CHINA WILL BE DIFFICULT, AND CHINESE GOVERNMENT WILL ATTEMPT TO MANIPULATE FEAR OF THE USA TO STOP IT

Frank J. Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy, April 3, 2001 National Review HEADLINE: What to Do about China //VT2002acsln

Have no doubt: Helping the Chinese people liberate themselves from Communist despotism will be more difficult than was the job of taking down the USSR. The extent of China's penetration of the West is far greater than was true of the Soviet Union; Beijing's influence and agents are much more widespread. Still, part of the reason that Beijing attacked our plane was in furtherance of its classic social-engineering campaign - whereby external threats (even manufactured ones) are used to promote support for the regime and to suppress dissent. The fact that the Chinese are growing increasingly restive is the best hope for making common cause with them in achieving a transformation of China. It is also the best hope for avoiding a conflict with the United States that China's leaders clearly seem determined to foment.