DISADVANTAGE/ANTI-USA AXIS

IMPACT: NEW ANTI-USA AXIS CREATES A GLOBAL NIGHTMARE

RUSSIA-INDIA-CHINA AXIS IS A NIGHTMARE SCENARIO FOR THE USA

TYLER MARSHALL, TIMES STAFF WRITER, Los Angeles Times, September 27, 1999, Part A; Page 1; HEADLINE: ANTI-NATO AXIS COULD POSE THREAT, EXPERTS SAY; U.S. ANALYSTS EYEING CHINA-INDIA-RUSSIA COALITION SAY THAT, POST-KOSOVO, THERE IS A SENSE AMONG ALL THREE THAT AMERICAN POWER MUST SOMEHOW BE CHECKED. // ln-10/99-acs

U.S. foreign affairs specialists are monitoring the potential for increased cooperation between Russia, China and India, amid a growing conviction in all three countries, especially after NATO's bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, that U.S. power must somehow be checked.

Although agreeing that the three nations are far from coalescing into a pan-Eurasian, anti-NATO axis, the analysts remain concerned about what they call a nightmare scenario: an alliance that would bring together about 2.5 billion people, formidable military might and a vast stockpile of nuclear weapons, all held together by the common goal of countering America's global dominance.

RETURN TO BI-POLARITY THROUGH THE CREATION OF AN ANTI-USA AXIS RISKS CATASTROPHIC WAR, AS HISTORY EVIDENCES

Hans Binnendijk, 1999 Autumn; director of the Institute for National Strategic Studies at the National Defense University, The Washington Quarterly, SECTION: EDITORIALS; Vol. 22, No. 4; Pg. 7 HEADLINE: Back to Bipolarity? // ln-acs-11-11-99

A decade after the Berlin Wall was torn down and a new international system was born, the nature of that new system is not yet clear. It is a fluid and complex system that remains in evolution. But evolution toward what? History shows that the fluidity in today's world has precedents in the early stages of each of the past five international systems. Each of those previous systems had a life cycle: there was a tendency for fluidity and multipolarity to turn into rigidity and bipolarity, with that bipolarity in turn resulting in large scale conflict or a Cold War and the demise of the existing system. There are signs that history may now repeat itself and that our current international system may be moving into a more bipolar and more dangerous stage.

NEW GLOBAL BI-POLARITY LEADS TO CATASTROPHIC CONFLICTS IN FIVE OUT OF SIX INSTANCES

Some lessons from this history may provide guidance for diplomacy today. International systems tend to last two to three generations. They are both created and destroyed by large-scale conflict. Like complex biological systems, international political systems appear to go through life cycles with birth, flexibility in youth, more rigidity as the system matures, and demise. Each of these five systems was initially multipolar rather than bipolar. Multipolarity made them more complex, movement in the system was relatively fluid, and state diplomacy could be flexible. As each of the five previous systems matured, a degree of bipolarity set in. This was most prominent during the twentieth century with the rigid sets of alignments that eventually resulted in World Wars I and II and with the bipolarity of the Cold War. But similar phenomena occurred earlier, when major powers aligned against France early in the nineteenth century and again against Russia at mid-century.

THE BI-POLAR SYSTEM DRASTICALLY INCREASES THE RISKS OF LARGE WARS AT ALL STAGES

As the French writer Raymond Aron noted of bipolarity:

Such a system may not, as such, be more unstable or more belligerent than a multipolar system, but it is more seriously threatened by a generalized and inexorable war. Indeed, if all the political units belong to one camp or the other, any kind of local conflict concerns the whole system.

A NEW BI-POLARITY INCREASES THE RISKS OF LARGE SCALE WARS

In some cases, the rigidly bipolar phase occurred late in the system's life cycle. That was particularly true for the first two historical systems. In the case of the Cold War, it occurred early and lasted for decades. In every case it led to confrontation and in all but the last, it resulted in a system-changing war. Bipolarity is not the only factor that produces major conflict, but it provides a structure for it and appears to make large-scale conflict more likely.

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 // In10/99-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 SinoAmerican cold -- or hot -- war.