military by cuiliqing

VIEWS: 140 PAGES: 47

									     United State and China Relations in Military Aspect

             During April 18, 2001 – July 15, 2001




                            Present to

                   Mr. Chantima Ongsuragz

                        Associate Professor
                                 of
         International Relations and International Politics

     IR 502: General Knowledge of International Relations




                          Presented by

1.   Mr. Anurun        Singkamanun        4403040027
2.   Mr. Chanutr       Techatana-nan      4403040050
3.   Ms. Chatrkwan     Adisai             4403040068
4.   Ms. Kanjana       Issarachaipisith   4403040092
5.   Mr. Pasura        Chaiwong           4403040209
6.   Ms. Rungrawee     Pattarachewin      4403040282
7.   Ms. Suthanya      Sukphaisarn        4403040332
8.   Mr. Werawat       Pinthong           4403040412




                                                              1
                          Objectives

1. To know the crisis sparked by the collision between U.S. spy
   plane and a Chinese fighter jet and the moves from both
   s          i           d            e           s           .

2. To know the reasons why Taiwan (as a supporting actor)
   want to buy weapons from U.S. and China’s reaction to this
   i          s          s         u           e            .

3. To know what Nation Missile Defense System (NMD) is and
   its impact on U.S. and China relations?

4. To clearly understand U.S. – China foreign policy in military
   a         s         p         e         c         t          .




                                                                2
                             Content


Topic                                               P a g e

1. Analysis on Chinese Military airplane Bumped by the
     U.S. Military Surveillance Plane             4

    2. Analysis on U.S. Arms sales to Taiwan             9

3. Analysis on the National Missile Defense (NMD)
   System of the United States of America           13
4. Conclusion                                       29

4. APPENDIX A                                       32

5. APPENDIX B                                       33

6. APPENDIX C                                       40

7. SOURCES                                          47




                                                             3
 Analysis on Chinese Military airplane Bumped by the U.S. Military
                        Surveillance Plane
Story and Action

      On April 1, 2001, U.S. surveillance plane, the EP-3, collided with Chinese jet in
the airspace above South China Sea during its operation near China’s airspace. A
Chinese pilot was lost while 24 American crews survived and were held by China
after emergency landing on Hainan airport. After the accident occurred, China
claimed U.S. for full responsibility and an apology because US invaded its airspace as
h e       s a i d           i n        h i s       s t a t e m e n t                  :

Chinese President Jiang Zemin, while meeting with visiting Prime Minister Abdullah
Bin Khalifa Al-Thani of the State of Qatar on April 3, 2001, said that the United
States must stop its reconnaissance flights in the airspace over China’s coastal areas
so as to prevent the recurrence of such incident. Only by doing so will it be favorable
to the development of Sino-U.S. relations. He noted that the U.S. must take all
responsibilities for the plane incident (Statement from Chinese Foreign Ministry)

However, from the U.S. point of view, the accident occurred in an international
airspace. From this point we have to look deeper into how China define its airspace.
China considers its sovereign airspace to extend 320 km offshore while international
agreements recognize only 19 km. The accident occurred about 110 km of China’s
coast, so it should be right to say that US did not invade China’s airspace before an
accident. However, after the collision U.S. plane had to make emergency landing on
Hainan island in China’s territory. In case of emergency landing like this, it is allowed
by international law that the plane and its crews be returned to the country safely
without delay. But in this case China did not send them back immediately because it
wanted U.S. to take responsibility for the accident and to apologize. Therefore,
keeping U.S. crews would make its position better in the negotiation. U.S., on the
other side, said it was not at fault to conduct a surveillance flight because it helps
promote regional stability and maintain peace. So U.S. asked for prompt and safe
return of the crews and warned China it considers the plane “sovereign U.S. property”
t h at c a n no t b e b o ar d e d o r s e i z ed a s Bu s h st a t ed i n h i s s t a t e m en t :

U.S. President George W. Bush's statement at a news conference on April 2, 2001
"From our own information, we know that the United States naval plane landed
safely. Our embassy in Beijing has been told by the Chinese government that all 24
crew members are safe. Our priorities are the prompt and safe return of the crew and
the return of the aircraft without further damaging or tampering.
"The first step should be immediate access by our embassy personnel to our crew
members. I am troubled by the lack of a timely Chinese response to our request for
this access. Our embassy officials are on the ground and prepared to visit the crew
and aircraft as soon as the Chinese government allows them to do so. And I call on
the Chinese government to grant this access promptly.
"Failure of the Chinese government to react promptly to our request is inconsistent
with standard diplomatic practice and with the expressed desire of both our countries
f or bet t er r el at i ons. (S t at em en t from U.S . Depart m en t of Def en se)




                                                                                                 4
The EP-3 surveillance plane was interesting for China to explore because it has
sophisticated equipment and secret data it collected about China during its operation.
That is the reason why U.S. have to warn China not to go on board. Somehow U.S.
came out to say sorry for the lost of a Chinese pilot, but no apology because
apologizing could mean it admit the fault, and of course that did not satisfied China as
in the Letter from U.S. Ambassador in China saying “Very Sorry” on April 11, 2001 :

Mr. Joseph Prueher, US Ambassador to China and the representative plenipotentiary
of the U.S. Government for handling the incident of a U.S. military reconnaissance
plane ramming into and destroying a Chinese military aircraft, handed a letter to
Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan at 5:30 pm on 11 April at the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, to say "very sorry" for the incident.
It is stated in the U.S. letter that "both President Bush and Secretary of State Powell
have expressed their sincere regret over your missing pilot and aircraft. Please
convey to the Chinese people and to the family of pilot Wang Wei that we are very
sorry for their loss." The U.S. side goes on to say that it is "very sorry the entering of
China's airspace and the landing did not have verbal clearance."

The US side has also expressed its appreciation of "China's efforts to see to the well
being" of its crew. (from U.S. Department of Defense)

On April 12, China released all American crews but not yet the plane. It may consider
keeping the plane as a face-saving action. If we look carefully, China will have to
return both the crews and the plane to U.S. anyway otherwise its relationship with
U.S. would be broken and that would have important effects on such things as trade
relation between them or the consideration of WTO to accept China as a member
because U.S. play an important role in WTO. Finally China returned the plane to the
U.S. in an agreement to separate the plane into parts.

According to the relevant agreement reached between China and the U .S., a
commercial Antonov124 cargo plane rented by the US arrived at Lingshui airport of
Hainan on the morning of June 16, bringing with it the necessary equipment for the
disassembling of the U.S. EP-3 surveillance plane.

Finally, in accordance with the agreement reached between China and U.S, the
disassembling work of the U.S. EP-3 spy plane that has been stayed at Lingshui
Airport in Hainan Province since April 1 has been finished on July 4, 2001. The
dismantled plane has been shipped back to the U.S. via an "AN-124" cargo plane
rented by the U.S. government. The cargo plane carrying pieces of the EP-3 Aries
landed at Hawaii’s Hickam Air Force Base on Tuesday 3 July.

Comdr. John Fleming, a spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Command, said the landing
was a "totally routine operation.” The entire plane did not make the trip to Hawaii,
but the single biggest section did. A Russian-built Antonov-124 transport carried the
disassembled aircraft across the Pacific. “The largest portion is the fuselage,"
Fleming said. "It is not the aircraft in its entirety." Other parts from the plane were
flown to Kadena Air Base, on the Japanese island of Okinawa. Those parts may be
forwarded to Georgia if it's determined they are still usable.




                                                                                        5
After the crisis, China has asked the U.S. to pay $1 million for lodging for the 24-
member crew of the U.S. Navy plane and expenses incurred during the stand-off.
However, US’s House members passed a resolution blocking any payment, labeling
China's claim the "ultimate arrogance" as stated below :

Members of the Republican-led House said they wanted to make sure that none of
China's claims were paid. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay told Reuters. "This
Congress will never allow a single dollar to be used to compensate the perpetrators of
international aggression," DeLay said. "Now the Chinese government has presented
us with a $1 million invoice. This ... is the ultimate arrogance on the part of this
communist regime," said Rep. Tom Lantos of California, senior House International
R e l a t i o n s            C o m m i t t e e              D e m o c r a t .

In return, China says it is "resolutely opposed" to efforts in the U.S. Congress to bar
compensation payments to Beijing for costs incurred during the spy plane crisis. The
official Xinhua news agency quoted a foreign ministry spokeswoman as condemning
the vote, which she said was the act of "a few anti-China members" in the House of
R      e    p     r     e      s    e     n    t     a     t     i    v    e     s    .


US would continue the surveillance flight around the area since it refers the mission to
keeping peace in the region. However, it would have to be more careful in planning
the flight this time because whatever action it takes is always watched by the world
and also it realizes from this incident that China would not be soft and not allow it to
do anything that considered invasion of China’s sovereign .



Analysis


1. Why the United States often sends its planes to make surveillance flights in
   a r e a s           s o       c l o s e                  t o          C h i n a ?
    To conduct a surveillance flight helps promote regional stability and maintain
     p                  e                     a                         c                        e
    T o k e e p a n e ye o n t h e C h i n a ’ s m i l i t a r y f o r c e d e v e l o p m e n t .
    Surveillance plane has a capacity to take pictures of things that orbiting spy
     s a t e l l i t e s                        c a n n o t                       g e t .

2. From the collision, why China claimed US side should bear full responsibility
   f  o    r          t   h    e        i  n     c   i    d    e     n   t     ?

       the U.S. military surveillance plane violated the principle of "free over-
        flight," because the incident incurred by the U.S. plane happened in airspace
        near China's coastal areas and China's exclusive economic waters. The move
        also violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which
        stipulates that any flight in airspace above another nation's exclusive economic
        zone should respect the rights of the country concerned. Thus, the U.S. plane's
        actions posed a serious threat to the national security of China. Meanwhile,
        such an action was also against the consensus reached by the two countries in
        May last year on avoiding risky military actions in sea areas. According to the


                                                                                                 6
      consensus, when military airborne vehicles encounter each other in
      international airspace, both sides should properly observe the current
      international law and practices, and take into consideration the flight safety of
      the other side so as to avoid dangerous approaches and possible collisions.

     It was illegal for the U.S. military surveillance plane to enter China's territorial
      space and to land at a Chinese airport without China's approval. The U.S.
      plane's action has constituted an infringement upon China's sovereignty and
      territorial space. According to international law and relevant Chinese laws,
      China enjoys sovereignty over its territorial space. According to the 12th
      article of the Law on China's Territorial Waters and Their Contiguous
      Areas, foreign aircraft may enter the airspace over China's territorial waters
      only in accordance with agreements or regulations signed between the
      government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the governments of
      foreign countries. Otherwise, such entry should be approved or accepted by
      the government of the PRC or its authorized organizations. The 3rd article of
      the Convention on International Civil Aviation adopted in 1944 clearly
      states that the military aircraft of a country may not fly over another country's
      territory or land on its territory without permission. The U.S. military
      surveillance plane did not issue any request or notice to the Chinese side to
      enter Chinese airspace or land on Chinese territory during the whole process.
      (Facts show that after the collision the U.S. plane had the time and technical
      ability to issue such a request or notice, however the US plane failed to do so.)
      By entering China's airspace and landing at a Chinese airport without
      informing the Chinese side, the U.S. plane has violated the above regulations
      of international conventions and Chinese laws, and its actions constituted
      s e r i o us i n f ri n ge m ent s u po n C h i n a 's so ve r e i gn t y a n d a i r sp ac e .

     It is a fact that the U.S. surveillance plane rammed the Chinese warplane.
      After the collision, the front part of the nose of the U.S. jet dropped off, and
      the aircrew of its second left engine was deformed, evidence that the U.S.
      plane veered into, approached and collided abruptly with the Chinese plane,
      which can not be denied. The U.S. side should face up to the facts, bear full
      responsibility, apologize to China, and not seek any excuse to shirk its
      r     e     s     p     o     n     s     i    b     i   l      i   t    y     .


3. Why China held the 24 American crew members and the plane?

     China did not send them back immediately because it wanted U.S. to take
      responsibility for the accident and to apologize.

     Keeping U.S. crews would make its position better in the negotiation

     The EP-3 surveillance plane was interesting for China to explore because it
      has sophisticated equipment and secret data it collected about China during its
      o       p         e      r        a        t         i      o        n        .




                                                                                                   7
          keeping the plane as a face-saving action. If we look carefully, China will have
           to return both the crews and the plane to U.S. anyway otherwise its
           relationship with U.S. would be broken and that would have important effects
           on such things as trade relation between them or the consideration of WTO to
           accept China as a member because U.S. play an important role in WTO


4. Why China rejected a US proposal to repair the plane and fly it home?

          China is apparently hoping to punish Washington for the incident by forcing
           it to destroy its aircraft in order to retrieve it.

          allowing the plane to fly off Hainan would be a national humiliation.

          To show to the world that China now can balance the power of U.S. in the
           m    i   l    i   t    a    r    y        a    s    p   e    c     t   .

           Payment to be made to Chinese contractor, HNA Hotel, $75,724 for rental
            vehicles, equipment storage and other services on Hainan.

5. W        h   o      w    i   n      a   n   d       w   h   o       l   o   o   s   e   ?

   During the crisis, the two principle demands made publicly by Chinese officials
   were for an admission of guilt by the United States over the incident and an
   agreement to discontinue flying intelligence-gathering operations near the Chinese
   coast. China appeared to get neither of these.

   In a letter presented by the U.S. government outlining the terms of the release,
   China’s leadership won expression of regrets for aspects of the incident. But U.S.
   officials say they were able to avoid an apology admitting guilt on the part of the
   U         .       S       .               p      i       l       o        t       .

   The letter noted President Bush and Secretary of State Collin Powell had
   expressed “sincere regrets” for the loss of the Chinese pilot and said the United
   States was “very sorry” that the U.S EP-3E Aries II entered Chinese airspace to
   make an emergency landing without receiving verbal Chinese permission.

   The Bush administration also managed to dodge China’s demand for an end to its
   regular reconnaissance flights in international waters off China’s coast. The letter
   o n l y       p r o m i s e d            c h i n a        t h e      i s s u e .




                                                                                           8
                      Analysis on U.S. Arms sales to Taiwan
Story and Action

      Since 1949, China has argued that under the “One China principle”, Taiwan is a
renegade province. It has said it would invade if Taiwan declared independence. In
1979, Taiwan Relations Act commits U.S. to provide Taiwan with necessary military
equipment to meet its legitimate self-defense needs. Until now, after the air collision
incident on April 1,it provoked U.S.-China relations getting worse. Both countries
have conflicts in many aspects such as economic (WTO), politics (air collision) and
a      l     s     o             m      i     l      i     t    a       r      y      .

      One important issue that reflects the US-China relations is “U.S. Arms sales to
Taiwan”. In present day, Taiwan’s still not clear in its independence while China still
strongly believes in “One China Policy” which regarded Taiwan as a breakaway
province. This brings out US’s interest in involving to help Taiwan to protect itself
from China by selling arms to Taiwan. US claimed that U.S. has helped Taiwan
according to “the Taiwan Relations Act. By the way, China strongly opposed any
cooperation between U.S.-Taiwan in their plans about defensive weapons. Certainly,
this comes up with conflicts between U.S. and China while Taiwan is an important
i        n         d        i         c         a          t       o        r         .

U S      A c t i o n s        i n   U S        a r m s   s a l e s    t o       T a i w a n

      Now, U.S. already decided to sale arms to Taiwan (on April, 25) this shows that
US ignores any conflicts which China used to warn US that it may provoke the war.
Let ’s di scuss wh y U.S governm ent de ci ded t o sal e arm s t o Tai wan.

1. C o m m i t m e n t t o t h e T a i w a n R e l a t i o n s A c t
   A l l s u p p o r t e d a c t i o n s a r e a s f o l l o w ;
       Signed into law on April 10,1979 the TRA was born of the need of the United
        States to protect its significant security and commercial interests in Taiwan in
        the wake of President Jimmy Carter’s termination as of January 1,1979 of
        diplomatic relations and a mutual defense treaty of 25 years. The TRA
        a d d r e s s e s f i v e p r i n c i p a l o b j e c t i v e s ;
        1) T      a       i   w     a     n          S       e   c    u     r       i       t   y
        2) F r a m e w o r k            f o r    C o n t i n u e d        R e l a t i o n s
        3) C o n g r e s s i o n a l                             O v e r s i g h t
        4) H          u       m     a      n             R       i    g         h       t       s
        5) M e m b e r s h i p      in    International              Organizations
        ( www.washingtonpost.com ; Creating the TRA Choices and decisions)




                                                                                                9
      Over 20 years, the Taiwan Relations Act has greatly contributed to peace and
       stability in the Taiwan Strait and to the advancement and elevation of U.S-
       R.O.C relations. The Act has not only provided an institutional framework and
       legal basis for continued interaction between the U.S and Taiwan, it has also
       guaranteed that the U.S. will provide Taiwan with defensive arms so that we
       can maintain an adequate self-defense capability, said President Lee Teng-Hui
       R     e p u          b   l    i    c       o    f         C    h i      n a
       ( www.washingtonpost.com; Taiwan Relations Act 20 Years of Success)

      The Taiwan Relations Act commits the U.S. to provide Taiwan with the
       necessary military equipment to meet its legitimate self-defense needs. Senator
       Kerry’s speech on President Bush’s remarks.
        (     w w w . u s i n f o . s t a t                           e . g o v          )

2. The U.S wants to keep Taiwan as its democratic ally and also to against
   c         o         m          m          u          n          i           s         t
   China all supported this action is as follow;
     According to “Congress Delay’s Statement” stated that the U.S. is a leader of
      the free world, so it has moral responsibility to stand by its democratic allies
      and protect democracies. Also, President Bush has made it crystal clear that
      the United States will not allow communist China to dictate its foreign policy
      and on c e a gai n co m m i t t ed t o i t s dem ocr at i c al l i es i n T a i wan.
       (      w w w        . u s i n         f o . s t a t            e . g o v          )


3.   The air collision incident sparkled Bush’s government to approve the U.S
     a r m s              s a l e s            t o       T a i w a n
     Al l    s upport e d         t hi s    act i on       are     as     fol l ows ;
      On April 25,after the Hainan spy plane incident sparked the relations between
       the U.S. and China. The U.S. government announced on April 25 that it will
       sell advanced weapons and equipment to Taiwan.
      On April 1,the U.S. military surveillance plane approached China’s air space
       southeast of China’s island province of Hainan, and to two Chinese military
       airplanes tracked it. It becomes a major problem not only to the U.S. and
       China, but both neighboring countries especially Taiwan, which has been
       brought to involve the U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.
      China held the U.S air crew for 11 days before releasing them, causing the
       worst tensions between Beijing and Washington, including one over a U.S
       a r m s            s a l e s           t o         T a i w a n .
       ( www.cnn.com ; China and U.S upbeat on ties)




                                                                                       10
Ch in a       Action s            in     US       ar ms        s al es       to     T aiwan
      It is certain that China doesn’t want the U.S. sales arms to Taiwan since it
enable Taiwan to have military capabilities against to China. The most important
thing is that why Taiwan has to purchase from the U.S. which China regarded as its
important competitive leading country in the world, let’s discuss why China doesn’t
want Taiwan to purchase arms from the U.S. The most outstanding reason is “One
China policy and China reunification” all supported these actions are as follow:
        China still strongly agreed on “One China Policy” and regarded Taiwan as a
         breakaway province, so it is certain that China doesn’t want Taiwan having
         defensive weapons to against China in any attack would occur.
        (   w w w . c n n . c o m            ;    “ O n e       C h i n a        P o l i c y ” )
     Taiwan undoubtedly remains the most sensitive and complex issue in U.S.-
      China relations. Beijing has not foresworn the use of force should Taiwan
      declare its independence from China, and China officials repeatedly block
      Taiwan’s efforts to gain greater international.
        ( www.cnn.com ; Sovereignty Issues :Taiwan)
     China is resolutely opposed to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and any form of
      incorporating Taiwan into its planned theater missile defense system, stated by
      t h e F o r e i g n M i n i s t r y, S p o k e s m a n Z h u B a n g Z a o i n B e i j i n g .
        (     w w w . c h i n a - e m b a s s y . o r g )
     A top China official Qian Quichen, Chinese Vice President blamed Taiwan
      refusal to accept Chinese terms for talks and U.S. arms sales to the island for
      the cross straits tensions. He also insisted that “the One China principle can
      neither be evade nor blurred” Qian said.
        ( www.cnn.com ; China faults U.S arms sales to Taiwan)


Taiwan           Actions            in     US      arms         sales         to     Taiwan
      Taiwan remains the most sensitive and complex issue in U.S-China relations.
Officials in Taiwan are increasingly maneuvering for more international stature and
for independent access to multilateral institutions. Thus, is this led Taiwan to demand
the defensive weapons if China threats Taiwan with the use of force? Let’s discuss
why does Taiwan want to purchase arms from the U.S.?
1. To protect the island against China increasing sophisticated weapons
   s u p p o r t e d t h i s a c t i o n a r e a s f o l l o w ;
       According to Taiwan Chang Chun-Siung premier talks tough on defense on
        March 22,he has made it clear for the first time that the island is actively
        considering building an anti -missile defense system.
        (www.cnn.com : Taiwan premier talks tough on defense)
       Taiwan Strait issue  China conducted provocative military exercises
        opposite Taiwan and threats Taiwan with aggression. Thus, Taiwan has
        focused on acquiring modern weapons system.
        (www.defenselink.com : the security situation in the Taiwan strait)


                                                                                                 11
      In recent years, China has changed in a massive military build up and the
       number of short and medium-range guided missiles, so obtaining high-tech
       system will increase their defense capabilities and help to improve regional
       security and stability. Qian, Taiwan high ranking official said during his visit
       i       n               t      h      e               U        .      S        .
       (www.cnn.com ; Qian Quichen’s visit the U.S on March 23,2001)
      On June 20,2001 Taiwan test-fired three US-made patriot missiles, which
       Taiwan bought from the United States. It is like Taiwan’s challenging towards
       the opposition from China and it will increase tensions between Taiwan-
       C h i n a .            ( w w w . m s n b c . c o m )
2. To prepare an attack from China because of four conditions ; 1) if Taiwan
   declares its independence 2) if serious upheaval or riots occur in Taiwan 3) if
   there is any intervention by foreign forces 4) if Taiwan continues to stall the
   s t a r t o f n e g o t i a t i o n i n r e u n i f i c a t i o n .
    a l l    s u p p o r t e d        d a t a      a r e       a s       f o l l o w    ;
     “If the Taiwanese authorities refuse peaceful negotiation to solve the
      reunification issues, China will have no choice but to take all measures
      including the use of force to defend its territorial integrity” said by Chinese
      Foreign Minister ,Spokesman Zhu Bangzao.This is like warning to make
      T a i w a n p r e p a r e i t s e l f f r o m a n y a t t a c k .
       (     w      w      w      .     c     n      n     .         c     o     m      )
     Regarding to the interview with CNN,Chang Chun Hsiung,Taiwan main
      adviser to President Chen Shui-bian said that “a missile attack from the
      Chinese mainland is a very serious threat to Taiwan and Taiwan should
      determine whether t here is a need for an anti -missile s yst em”.
      (     w     w     w      .      c      n    n      .      c     o    m     )
     According to Sha Zukang,director-general of the arm control department of
      Chinese Foreign Ministry,he said that “Arm sales will not save Taiwanese who
      are pro-independence” Sha said with anger after he knew that Bush’s
      government approved US arms package for Taiwan on April 25,2001
      (    w    w     w    .     m      s    n    b    c     .    c     o   m    )




                                                                                       12
    Analysis on the National Missile Defense (NMD) System
                of the United States of America
B         r         i           e       f                     S        t         o         r         y

National Missile Defense (NMD) is the system developed by the U.S., based on the
U.S. belief that such system would be able to protect itself from threats from missiles
of rogue states and terrorism which are the new threats to the today world. The
s ys t e m c a n b e u s e d e i t h e r i n t h e d e f e n s i v e o r t h e o f f e n s i v e w a y.

The idea of missile defense first appeared in the era of Ronald Reagan, and was
mocked to be “the Star Wars Project”. At that time, Russia explicitly opposed such
idea and reacted by developing its technology it claimed to be able to penetrate the
d           e          f            e          n           s           e            .

Coming to his era, Bill Clinton didn’t succeed in pushing the idea of the National
Missile Defense (NMD) system, nicknamed “Son of Star Wars” to the world.

At the very present, George W. Bush, the current president, is the descendant of the
former president by continuing work left over by the former administration. That is
the NMD, which is claimed by Bush that it can protect the U.S. from the missiles of
rogue states such as North Korea, Iraq and Iran.

Besides protecting its own self, the NMD would cover its allies in its wings as well
and according to Bush’s statement, the list includes Taiwan, which immediately calls
f o r          C h i n a ’ s                   o p p o s i t i o n .

As of now, the NMD is accepted by few, but opposed by many.

At present, the U.S. is still trying hard seeking for support, which hasn’t been received
much positive responses from nations worldwide.


A              n              a             l             y                s           i             s

1. ‘ W H A T ’            i s       t h e    o b j e c t i v e         o f     t h e       U . S . ?

      N     a    t     i   o     n    a    l        I  n   t    e    r   e   s   t
       In this case, its objective is deploying the NMD and getting the NMD idea to
       b e       a c c e p t e d               b y     i t s       a l l i e s .

2. ‘ W H A T ’ i s t h e o b j e c t i v e o f P e o p l e ’ s R e p u b l i c o f C h i n a ?

      N     a    t     i   o     n    a    l          I   n     t    e   r     e    s  t
       In this case, to preserve its own interest, it must obstruct the U.S. from success
       i n      p u t t i n g           t h e       N M D          i n t o        u s e .




                                                                                                    13
3. ‘ W H A T ’ w i l l t h e U . S . g a i n f r o m t h e N M D ?
     Stronger National Missile Defense System
        The U.S. will have the missile defense system that can protect itself from not
        only so-called rogue states but also from terrorists growing in numbers
        nowadays who may be able to retrieve the portable nuclear weapons, in one
        way or another, from those so-called rogue states or even from Russia, whose
        security system over nuclear missiles storage has been weakened
        frighteningly. That means once it has the NMD, it doesn’t have to be afraid of
        any harm arising from nuclear forces in the world anymore. This will raise
        m or e o f t h e U .S . c on fi d e nc e i n m ai nt a i ni n g i t s o wn s e cu r i t y.

        According to Bush’s speech on May 1, 2001, “Today’s most urgent threats
        stem not from thousands of ballistic missiles in the Soviet hands but from a
        small number of missiles in the hand of these (least responsible) states.”

        Considering the number of missiles China possesses right now, there is still
        nothing for the U.S. to worry about. Nonetheless, in the U.S. prediction,
        China will come to the rise soon enough, especially in the economic aspect.
        With economic strength, China will be gifted capability of developing its
        military strength in no time. And when the time comes, which may be only in
        a blink, it can raise a threat to the U.S. It is not yet today but the possible
        t h r e a t t o t h e U . S . p o w e r i n t h e f u t u r e .

4.   ‘ W H A T ’ w i l l Ch i n a l os e i f th e U .S . h as th e N M D i n h an d s ?
     China’s move is driven by the foreseeable loss it will have over this new project
     of the U.S. There are two main reasons that lead to China’s opposition to the idea
     o       f              t      h       e                N       M        D        .

     1) T       a       i       w       a       n                I      s       s       u       e
        The NMD seems to be extended to include Taiwan, which is regarded as the
        renegade province by China, in its plan. Besides the U.S. plan to arm Taiwan
        with weapons, it will also arm Taiwan with a shield this way. If this
        happened, the NMD plus the arms will erode the effectiveness of China’s
        nuclear force used to threaten Taiwan. This may even trigger Taiwan’s
        rebellion to break itself from China, the Motherland.

     2) T h r e a t    to    China’s          Security           and        Sovereignty
        The Antiballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty that was established for the belief that
        a state wouldn’t launch the missiles to attack others if it had no shield to
        protect itself from such missiles has consoled the world in these past thirty
        years ever since 1972. The success of the NMD would mean scrapping the
        ABM Treaty along the way. The U.S. claims that it only wants to protect itself
        from rogue states. Nonetheless, it doesn’t really matter what the real intention
        of the U.S. is. What matters is the effect of the NMD that would have upon
        this world’s security. The NMD would allow the U.S. to have a first strike
        capability and raise a possibility that it can defend itself from the second strike
        back from its opponents, which would also eliminate the possibility of Chinese
        counter-strike. If ever one day in the future, there is any breakout of conflicts


                                                                                               14
     of interest between the U.S. and China, what could guarantee that the U.S.
     wouldn’t launch its missiles at China? True, China can strike back but the fact
     is the U.S. is protected under the umbrella of the NMD while China is left bare
     and vulnerable to the attack of the U.S.
     China argues that the system is offensive rather than defensive because it
     eli minat es an y i nt erconti nent al threat C hina can pose the U.S.
     China considers the NMD a threat to its sovereignty and its plan of
     reunification, which China aggressively stated that China will never be
     humiliated to the world again; therefore its sovereignty is the most important
     f       o        r                C         h       i        n        a      .

5. ‘ W H Y    NMD’        in   the point          of    view     of    the U.S.?

   1) Claiming that the Anti-ballistic Missiles (ABM) Treaty is outdated in the Post-
      C      o       l    d               W       a    r             e       r      a
      According to Bush’s statement at National Defense University on May 1,
      2001, “We need a new framework that allows us to build missile defenses to
      counter the different threats of today’s world. To do so, we must move beyond
      the constraints of the 30 years old ABM Treaty. This treaty does not recognize
      the present, or points us to the future. It enshrines the past.”
      According to Bush’s statement on June 16, 2001, it starts with explaining to
      Russia and our European friends and allies that Russia is not the enemy of the
      United States; that the attitude of mutually-assured destruction is a relic of the
      Cold War, and that we must address the new threats of the 21st century if
      we're to have a peaceful continent and a peaceful world.

   2) Claming that it is possible for rogue states to launch their missiles at anytime
      According to Bush’s statement at National Defense University on May 1,
      2001, “More nations have nuclear weapons and still more have nuclear
      aspirations. Many have chemical and biological weapons. Some already
      have developed the ballistic missile technology that would allow them to
      deliver weapons of mass destruction at long distances and at incredible
      speeds. And a number of these countries are spreading these technologies
      a r o u n d                   t h e            w o r l d . ”
      The new threats of the 21st century in the US opinion are terrorism and rogue
      state, based upon the capacity of some countries developing of weapons of
      mass destruction, and therefore, hold the United States and our friends
      hostage. It is so important we think differently in order to address those
      t          h          r          e          a          t          s         .
      There’re a few states that possess the long-range missiles, or ICBM’s, that can
      reach the territory of the U.S. at the time being. They are China, Russia,
      France, and Britain while North Korea, one of the so-called rogue states, is
      purportedly developing such missiles that could reach the U.S. For Iraq, the
      focus of the U.S. isn’t on the missile program under Sadam Hussein which has
      been limited by the current U.N. sanctions, but more likely on the proliferation
      of missiles comes to it through China. For Iran, it has bought such missiles
      f      r      o      m               R       u     s      s      i      a      .


                                                                                     15
6. ‘ W H Y N O T N M D ’ i n t h e p o i n t o f v i e w o f C h i n a ?
    1) A             r                   m                   s                                   R               a                   c            e
       According the Xinhua’s saying in a commentary on May 2, 2001, “The U.S.
       missile defense plan has violated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, will destroy
       the balance of international security forces and could cause a new arms
       r              a               c               e                .               ”
       According to Shun Yuxi, “When you invent a new spear, of course you will
       invent a new shield. When you invent a new shield, you will invent new types
       of spears.             It always goes on like that.”
       Considering the statement, China believes that the U.S. NMD could spark a
       new arms race. With the shield, it may lead to research and development on
       weapons that can break through the shield in an attempt to reach the point of
       b a l a n c e         o f      p o w e r          y e t      a g a i n .

    2) D e s t r u c t i o n o f W o r l d ’ s P o w e r B a l a n c e a n d W o r l d P e a c e
       China as Mr. Jiang said, we would continue to oppose NMD because it is
       detrimental to world peace, will definitely keep opposing the ideal by claiming
       t h e           1 9 7 2              A B M            T r e a t y .
       According to Sun Yuxi, Foreign Minister spokesman, “In our view this
       disrupts the global strategic balance and stability. It is our view that this plan
       does not help the U.S. side and also harms the interests of other countries.”

7. W h a t d o e s t h e U . S . d o t o a c h i e v e i t s o b j e c t i v e s ?

    1) S h a r i n g                         t h e               N M D               w i t h                 i t s               a l l i e s
       This is a very simple measure. In order to get others to agree with, sometimes
       there’s a need to make others become part of the plan and gain mutual
       benefits. Therefore, it needs to share this newest technology so as to let its
       allies see its generosity and feel the need of the existence of the NMD, added
       to the fact that the NMD is only at a hand grab. If the U.S. keeps the NMD
       only to itself, it may be viewed as selfish and never be supported.

    2) O    f   f    e       r       i       n       g           o       t   h       e       r           b   e       n       e       f   i   t    s
       When the U.S. sees that it doesn’t get much support as it has expected, it
       begins to offer more benefits to convince others as best as possible.
       The U.S. officials stressed the White House is discussing equipment purchases
       and future aid with Russia and European allies. Both will have to be
       persuaded, officials said, before Bush can move ahead with deployment of a
       missile defense system that can offer Russia and European nations protection
       from an accidentally launched nuclear missile or one fired by a “rogue nation”.

    3) C    o    n       s       u       l       t       i   n       g           w       i       t   h           o       t       h       e   r    s
       It ’ s t h e U . S . a t t e m p t t o o v e r c o m e s k e p t i c i s m a n d c o r r e c t a l l
       misunderstandings, if any, that it claims so. This also would show that the
       U.S. always cares, more or less, about its allies or the opposite side enough to
       l i s t e n t o t h e i r c o n c e r n s a n d o p i n i o n s .

                                                                                                                                                 16
(    3      .     1   )            A       s    i       a            T         o    u    r
     Objective: “The purpose of the visit is first to brief allies and then
     explain to other key nations, such as India and China, the details of the
     (missile shield) policy,” said a spokesman for the U.S. embassy in
     Tokyo. “It’s not by any means a completed project. It’s not something
     that we’re announcing to the allies, it’s very much a consultation with
     other countries and an explanation of views.”
     The visit by Armitage and Kelly, as well as other key diplomats, covered
     Japan, South Korea, China, India, Singapore and Australia.
     Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Assistant Secretary of
     State for East Asia Jim Kelly were in Tokyo meeting a number of high-
     ranking officials, including Chief Cabitnet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda.
     According to Kelly’s words to Singaporean reporters after meeting with
     officials in the city-stae on May 14, 2001, “Part of the dialogue we will
     be having with China will be to allay the concerns they’ve expressed
     about something much grander than we have in mind.”
     However,             China            rem ains             unconvinced.

     R      e     s   u    l   t       :            F       a    i       l     u    r    e

(3.2) NATO foreign ministers meeting on May 29 and 30
     Objective: In this meeting the U.S. would like to have won and
     “understanding” of – if not support for – Bush’s plan.
     The meeting was held in Budapest. Powell was the leading envoy from
     the U.S. According to what NATO secretary-general George Robertson
     told reporters after the meeting, the U.S. consultation was warmly
     w e l c o m e d              b y      t h e       a l l i e s .
     “Powell did not come with any set of proposals for NATO ministers to
     reject or accept,” he said. “He did as President Bush promised to me …
     to emphasize that the U.S. wishes to share their thinking on missile
     defense before any decision is taken. This promise was warmly
     w e l c o m e d              b y       a l l      a l l i e s . ”
     Nonetheless, nothing was much better after the meeting as the U.S. still
     f a c e d m a n y o b j e c t i o n s f r o m a l l i e s .

     R      e     s   u    l   t       :            F       a    i       l     u    r    e

( 3 . 3 )       N A T O   d e f e n s e        m i n i s t e r s             m e e t i n g
     German officials said, “It doesn’t make sense to decide on something
     that hasn’t been proven, when you don’t know whether it works or
     w h e t h e r        y o u     c a n     p a y     f o r     i t . ”
     German defense official said, “The information was not new to us. We
     knew there were bad guys out there.”




                                                                                        17
        According to the statement of the French defense minister, Alain
        Richard, when he was told that some people felt Mr. Rumsfeld had
        provided strong new evidence of a growing missile threat, “That’s a
        superficial impression. Fortunately, I don’t discover threats every day.

        Result: Allies remain uninterested. However, some were impressed by
        Bush’s pledge to cut the U.S. nuclear arsenal and to provide missile
        defense to the allies. Some were wary to oppose since it seems the U.S.
        d    o     e     s    n   ’    t        l   i     s    t    e    n    .

(   3       .       4       )           E           u   r   o   p       e   a   n           T       o       u    r

        Objective: To make it up that Bush is not an overwhelmed, go-it-alone
        president and that the U.S. foreign policy won’t be unilateral as most of
        E u r o p e a n               s t a t e s         s u s p e c t .
        Before Bush made a trip to Europe, including Russia, himself, he had
        already sent his envoys to this region once before. They were Senior
        U.S. officials Marc Grossman, undersecretary of State and Stephen
        H a d l e y , d e p u t y a s s i s t a n t t o B u s h .

        S                               p                       a                   i                           n
        On June 12, 2001, President Bush arrived in Madrid, Spain and later he
        had a conversation with Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar over the NMD
        i            s              s             u            e             .
        “It has not been demonstrated anywhere, nor has anyone been able to
        show that that defensive initiative is something that cannot lead to
        greater and better security. What I’m surprised by is the fact that there
        are people who, from the start, disqualified this initiative,” Mr. Aznar
        said, adding “what we’re dealing with here is an attempt to provide
        g r e a t e r s e c u r i t y f o r e v e r y o n e . ”

        F       r       a       n   c       e           a   n   d           G   e   r       m       a   n       y

        After Bush’s meeting with Prime Minister of Spain, German Chancellor
        Gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac issued a joint
        statement, “France and Germany consider that the risk of ballistic
        proliferation necessitates the reinforcement of the multilateral
        i n s t r u m e n t s o f n o n - p r o l i f e r a t i o n . ”

        C           z       e       c           h           R       e       p   u       b       l       i        c
        President Vaclav Havel of the Czech Republic said in the NATO
        meeting on June 14, 2001, “The new world we are entering cannot be
        based on mutually assured destruction, the doctrine that says that peace
        is best secured in a world where each side knows an attack will bring
        retaliation. An increasingly important role should be played by defense
        s         y       s       t       e         m        s         .       ”




                                                                                                                18
           R                   u                s                s            i               a
           Bush has described the treaty as obsolete but Russia has insisted it
           remains a pillar of stability in the nuclear age.
           Putin also tells the reporters later, “Any unilateral actions can only make
           more complicated various problems and issues.” This apparently shows
           h i s d i s a g r e e m e n t o v e r t h e N M D .
           Even in the U.S. point of view, Powell urged caution. “Putin had
           suggested ‘Let’s call it with a small ‘a’. I don’t think he was talking
           about an alliance in the sense of a military alliance or political
           a       l      l        i      a       n       c       e      .       ”

           The U.S. official noted that Hungary, Italy, Poland and Spain have given
           public approval, while Britain is quie tl y s ympathetic

           Result: Indifferent. Despite more support from European countries, the
           b i g o n e s s t i l l s o u n d u n i n t e r e s t e d .

   (   3      .     6   )           T   a   l   k       w    i       t   h   C    h   i   n    a

           The U.S. has sent its representative to China for many times in the past
           months. The most recent one was made by U.S. Secretary of State,
           P o w e l l ,           o n      J u l y        2 8 ,     2 0 0 1 .

   ( 3 .7 )       A vo i d i n g c on f r on t at i on wi t h C hi n a o n Ol ym p i c G am e s

           It seems like the U.S. wants to avoid displeasing China in the smaller
           issues that it deems than the NMD. Although the U.S. has long blamed
           China over its human rights record and thus quite opposed China hosting
           the Games. However, the U.S. has stopped short, made no opposition to
           China being the host and remained neutral during the time the IOC
           (International Olympic Committee) was deciding in the final stage who
           w o ul d h os t t h e 20 0 8 O l ym pi c G am e s .

4) Consoling others by saying it would reduce its nuclear forces to prove its
   sincerity in claiming that it has no purpose to start the new arms race and it
   m e a n s        n o    t h r e a t     o r    h a r m      t o   C h i n a
   According to Bush’s statement at National Defense University on May 1,
   2001, “I am committed to achieving a credible deterrent with the lowest-
   possible number of nuclear weapon consistent with our national security
   needs, including our obligations to our allies. My goal is to move quickly to
   reduce nuclear forces. The United of States will lead by example to achieve
   our interests and the interests for peace in the world.”
   That doesn’t sound convincing enough in the latter case, though. For the U.S.
   there won’t be any need for the nuclear forces once the NMD is finished as
   there would be no missiles from any countries, at least in the U.S. expectation,
   that can break through its barrier. Also, the U.S. can raise its nuclear forces
   again anytime once it finds out that any other nations make a research for the
   more advanced weapons that may be able to break through the NMD.


                                                                                              19
      Besides, there’s no need for a large number of missiles while the other
      c o u n t r i e s      c o u l d n ’ t      s t r i k e     b a c k .

  5) Pointing out that the NMD is not only for the U.S. national interest but also for
     the benefits to the world as a whole since the threat of proliferation of missiles
     have an effect on every part of the world
      According to Bush’s statement on May 1, 2001, “I’ve made it clear from the
      very beginning that I would consult closely on the important subject with our
      friends and allies who are also threatened by missile and weapons of mass
      d      e     s     t     r     u      c      t     i    o      n      .     ”

  6) P r a c t i c i n g          a      t w o - t i e r e d        a p p r o a c h
      In a meeting of NATO defense ministers, Rumfeld outlined a two-tiered
      approach in which the administration intends to continue consultations with its
      skeptical allies and Russia, even as the Pentagon moves as swiftly as possible
      t o     d e v e l o p         a n d      d e p l o y      s y s t e m s .

8. ‘ W H Y ’       m u s t       t h e     U . S .      s e e k      s u p p o r t ?
   Although the U.S. is the main superpower in the world, it definitely can’t live, in
   this world arena, by a go-it-alone policy no matter how independent it may seem
   to be. Especially as the NMD is the global issue, which affects the world as a
   whole, the U.S. of course can’t just go against all odds or a hero will turn into a
   bandit. It needs support to make it legitimate to bring the NMD into use for its
   own benefits. According to Powell’s statement, “At the time when we think there
   has been enough consultation and we’ve reached agreements with others, then we
   will act on those agreements or act on what we believe are our best interests at the
   time.” This shows that the U.S. expects to be supported, at least by its allies, and
   if it and its allies can reach some points of agreement, it will activate the NMD.
   Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn’t gain much support as it has expected. It’s still
   seeking support, which apparently shows that the U.S. needs it greatly.

9. ‘ H O W ’               d o e s            C h i n a              r e a c t ?
  Just before the U.S. spy plane collided with China’s fighter jet, what China
  expressed was not yet still full opposition but sounded somewhat negotiable, even,
  towards the NMD system. According to the statement of Sha Zukong, head of the
  Foreign Ministry arms control department, “We are ready to have dialogue…we
  are ready to talk to them.” However, after such collision, the wind around China
  has almost immediately changed the course. What China has reacted are as
  f           o           l           l           o         w          s           :

   1) M a k i n g a s t r o n g o p p o s i t i o n a g a i n s t t h e N M D s y s t e m
      According to the statement of Xinhua, the foreign minister of China, “The
      U.S. missile defense plan has violated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, will
      destroy the balance of international security forces and could cause a new
      a       r      m       s              r      a       c      e        .      ”




                                                                                      20
   Even after the meething with Kelly on May 14-15, 2001, the U.S. assistant
   secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, China still has remained
   unchanged over its strong opinion that it doesn’t in any way agree with the
   N         M           D                 i        d         e          a        .


2) S t r e n g t h e n    good   relationship              with     its   allies
   Shanghai              Cooperation          Organization                (SCO)
   The summit was held on June 14, 2001. The participating states are China,
   Russia, Kaahkstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan, the latest member.
   Although the military was excluded from the summit, the defense ministers of
   the six nations were in Shanghai at the time. Therefore, we can expect to see
   military cooperation from the six nations.

   A        s        i      a        n                 T        o         u      r
   On May 18, 2001, National People’s Congress Chair man Li Peng begana tour
   of Cambodia, Brunei and South Korea while Premier Zhu Rongji is ending a
   five-nation trip that has included Pakistan, Nepal, the Maldives, Sri Lanka,
   a     n       d            T     h     a      i    l     a     n      d    .
   This is seen as the Chinese attempt to counter the U.S. efforts to deploy more
   m i l i t a r y           r e s o u r c e s              i n      A s i a .


3) Joining force with Russia in an attempt to maintain balance of power
   “President Putin reiterated Russia’s principled position on that matter and
   China stated that it will continue to support Russia in its efforts to maintain
   t h e        g l o b a l             e q u i l i b r i u m . ”
   After President Bush’s visit to Russia and talk with President Putin, which
   reflects Russia’s firm standing towards opposition, China suddenly came out
   t    o         p     r   a   i    s   e        R     u   s    s   i   a   .
   On June 19, 2001, “I noticed that you reiterated that the anti-ballistic missile
   treaty was the base for international security. China expresses appreciation
   on your stance,” Xinhua quoted Jiang in telling Putin.
   Shanghai Cooperation Organization held on June 14, 2001 also served well as
   an appetizer for China and Russia before the main dish will come later on in
   t h e     J i a n g - P u t i n        s u m m i t        i n   J u l y .


   Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the
   People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation (See Appendix C
   f    o     r          f    u    l    l          t    e    x    t    )
   On July 16, 2001, President Jiang Zemin of the People’s Republic of China
   and President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation signed the “Treaty of
   Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People’s
   Republic of China and the Russian Federation” in Moscow.



                                                                                21
      Overall both nations agree to cooperate in all matters: military, economy,
      culture, human rights, and so on. We can see from this, although both nations
      don’t directly state out, the treaty is greatly in conflicts with the U.S. plan on
      the NMD. It shows that both of them will not allow strategic imbalance and
      instability which will result from the NMD of the U.S. in their views.
      They also, together in the treaty, insist, on the importance of the ABM treaty
      that it should not be violated as it’s the cornerstone of the world strategic
      b a l a n c e                  a n d            s t a b i l i t y .
      They mention they would cooperate in making multi-polar order of the world.
      This is quite apparent that they wouldn’t like the U.S. to be the one and only
      superpower in the world and to reach that objective, they have to cooperate
      each other since they can do it by any one of them alone.

      Both China and Russia have expressed their flexible postures in the NMD
      issue, i.e., China has always mentioned that it is open to the U.S. talk and
      consultation with it, Russia has always mentioned that they may allow changes
      in the ABM treaty if it and the U.S. can find the common ground. However,
      their words conflict greatly with their real actions, like their treaty mentioned
      a               b               o                v                e              .
      Suspicion arises why they have to emphasize a lot that this treaty isn’t directed
      to any third party. True, one reason must be because they of course can’t cry
      it out loud what this treaty really means to do and is for what objectives.
      Another reason may be because both nations still need cooperation from the
      U.S. in trade and economic ties. In order to achieve their interests and
      objectives, they have to maintain normal relations with the U.S. They don’t
      intend, in the NMD issue, their words to compromise to be taken in reality.

10. ‘ W H A T ’    are     the      obstacles           facing        the     U.S.?

   1) Opposition against violation of 1972 Anti-ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
      “Part of the problem with the ABM Treaty is that it prevents a full exploration
      of possibility. We're bound by a treaty signed in 1972 that prohibits the United
      States from investigating all possibilities as to how to intercept missiles. For
      example, the technology of intercept on launch is a technology that we must
      more fully explore in order to make sure that we have the defensive
      capabilities necessary to prevent what I call blackmai l.”
      The US bounds to ABM treaty sign in 1972 so the US cannot research on how
      to effectively intercept the missile, which is a threat to the US. He has to seek
      for support so that he can ignore the treaty and the strongest is Russia.

   2) F e a r         f o r       t h e        n e w        a r m s          r a c e




                                                                                     22
11. ‘ H O W ’    does      the     U.S.      react       with       opposition?

   The U.S. seems much more interested in talking with and explaining to its allies
   its goals and objectives rather than with and to China and Russia. According to
   Powell’s statement, “At the time when we think there has been enough
   consultation and we’ve reached agreements with others, then we will act on those
   agreements or act on what we believe are our best interests at the time.” From
   this, it’s very likely that if its European allies agreed with it, the U.S. would go on
   its plan without listening to opposition, if it could do so, even from the militarily
   powerful nations like China and Russia. With strong opposition coming from
   China, the U.S. doesn’t even flinch. Even for Russia, the U.S. didn’t intend to
   talk with its former opponent in the Cold War era in the first place, also.
   However, the 5-days trip to Europe previously excluding Russia was changed at
   almost the last minute to include it. When the U.S. heard that Russia became
   more flexible and was ready to listen to its explanation, the U.S. couldn’t help
   p e r k i n g                  u p       i t s        e a g e r           e a r s .

12. ‘ W H A T ’        d r i v e s       t h e     U . S .      p u r s u a n c e ?

   1) B u s h ’ s      c a m p a i g n        b e f o r e      t h e    e l e c t i o n
      Of course the Bush administration’s policies come from Bush’s campaign
      which includes his vow to proceed with the NMD. Therefore, Bush has to
      stick to his campaign as best as possible. If he is not able to keep it, though,
      h e       w i l l      l o s e       h i s       p o p u l a r i t y .

   2) T h e b e l i e f o f A m e r i c a a s a l e a d e r o f t h e w o r l d
      Asked whether recent unilateral U.S. moves have aggravated relations with the
      rest of the world, Rumsfeld told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on May 6, 2001,
      “With the Soviet Union gone, that gratitude is gone, that appreciation is gone.
      People who never believed the United States had a monopoly on all political
      wisdom or all economic wisdom or all cultural wisdom now don’t feel grateful
      for the role the United States was playing to the same extent, and so they’re
      perfectly willing to express their views.”
      With this belief and to make it sacred, the U.S. needs to stick to its own plan
      and must not be conveyed by opposition from any other nations. If the U.S.
      doesn’t stand firm, the leadership image and be destroyed. Also the U.S.
      believes strongly that it is doing the very right thing.

   3) The belief that failure is a normal course leading towards success
      After a meeting of NATO defense ministers, Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters, “I
      don’t know a single advanced research and development project in the history
      of mankind that didn’t suffer a series of failures. You end up learning
      s o m e t h i n g                b y      t r y i n g            i t . ”

13. R e a c t i o n           f r o m         o t h e r          c o u n t r i e s

    The U.S. side              Neutral                  Oppose              China’s Side


                                                                                       23
    Australia                     Japan                        France                   Russia
     India                    South Korea                    Germany               North Korea
     Spain                     Taiwan                     S i n g               a p o r e
    Hungary                                                 I      t             a    l      y
                         Poland
    C                      z                          e                     c                      h
    B                r               i                t                 a            i             n

A            u            s              t        r             a           l            i         a
Australia said that it shared U.S. concerns over potential missile threats from
some governments and it accepted the U.S. argument that the “strategic
e n v i r o n m e n t                  h a d       c h a n g e d ” .

B                r               i                t                 a                i             n
According to the statement of the UK Foreign Minister Robin Cook, “I welcome
his (Bush’s) commitment to reduce nuclear weapons, and also his commitment to
‘early consultations at a senior level on missile defense.”
However, in the G-8 Summit, Britain changed its motion to support the U.S. on
t   h      e          N     M      D            i    s     s    u      e     .

C                    a                       n              a                    d                 a
According to the statement of Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley, “A
unilateral U.S. abandonment of the ABM treaty would be very problematic for
u                        s                       .                        ”
According to the statement of Foreign Affairs spokesman, Michael
O’Shaughnessy, “Bush’s plan will inevitably have a major impact on the broader
global security environment, on strategic stability and on the multilateral arms
c o n t r o l      a n d     d i s a r m a m e n t          p r o c e s s . ”

F                    r                       a              n                    c                 e
According to the statement of the French defense minister, Alain Richard, when
he was told that some people felt Mr. Rumsfeld had provided strong new
evidence of a growing missile threat, “That’s a superficial impression.
Fortunately, I don’t discover threats every day.

G                e               r               m                  a                n             y
According to the statement of a German defense official, “The information was
not new to us. We knew there were bad guys out there.”
After the NATO foreign ministers meeting on May 29-30, 2001, German Foreign
Minister Joschka Fischer said it was important that no decisions be made on the
m i s si l e d e f e ns e i s su e u n t i l fu r t h e r c on s ul t at i o ns h av e o cc u r r ed.

I                        n                       d                          i                      a
According to Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, “We welcome every
move towards lightening the shadow of the nuclear terror under which we live
today. It is in this context that we have welcomed U.S. President Bush’s



                                                                                                  24
suggestions for steep reductions in nuclear arsenals and a move away from
further development of offensive nuclear technologies.”
Apparently, it seems that India needs to strengthen its relationship with the U.S.
with the expectation that the U.S. will help it deal with the military problem at
home because China has its commitments on military cooperation with Pakistan,
I n d i a ’ s          m i l i t a r y            c o m p e t i t o r .

J                    a                   p                    a                   n
According to the statement of Yasuo Fukuda, the top government spokesman,
“The fact that the U.S., our ally, plans to deploy such a system may be all right,
but we must avoid a situation in which such systems expand throughout the
w             o             r             l           d            .            ”

N       o       r        t      h                K        o       r       e       a
Duo to the fact that the U.S. views North Korea as one of rogue states, which is
the reason why there is a must for the NMD in its point of view, it leads to North
Korea’s displeasure. Being called one of the rogue states is not an entertaining
fact. Actually, Kim Jong-it made the moratorium pledge on missile testing,
which is extended to cover 2003 but said that there would be no inter-Korean
summit as long as Washington is reviewing its policy on the North.

R                u               s                s               i               a
Russia insists on preserving the 1972 U.S.-Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile Threaty.
The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty allows each party to have only one site
of defense in the state. Russia’s is in Moscow, the capital while the U.S. one is in
N o r t h D a k o t a , t h e I C B M l a u n c h a r e a .
"We are certain that the elimination of the 1972 ABM treaty and the creation of
the Nuclear Missile Defense system by the United States disrupts this balance."
"This means that all countries, including Russia, will have the right to install
mul t i pl e w arheads carryi ng nucl e ar w eapons on t hei r mi ssi l es."
Russia will be threatened by the NMD because NATO is definitely part of U.S.
plan of NMD and Russia, former Superpower in the balance of power, who has as
many nuclear heads as US possesses; so Russia is strongly oppose the ideal. That
leads to co-operating with China who will be threatened too. As former
communist allied, Russia will feel more comfortable with China on one side; on a
contrary, Russia has serious economic problem which needs U.S. help in funding
and other several things. We don’t know yet whether how long Russia will
r    e     m     a    i    n         o    p    p     o     s   i     n     g    .
Russia also views U.S. attempt to pursue with the NMD no matter how much
opposition it faces as a unilateral action which would not work. “One cannot
build a safe world only for oneself and moreover at the expense of others,”
Russian President Vladimir Putin said in May.
On June 14, 2001, on NMD, Ivanov said, “Our views on this fully coincide with
C            h         i            n           a              .            ”




                                                                                 25
On June 19, 2001, Mr. Putin said, “We stand ready to respond to any unilateral
American action, even though Russia does not see an immediate threat from a
m    i     s    s     i    l     e         s    h      i   e     d     .    ”
“I’m also confident that at least for the coming 25 years, American missile
defenses will not cause any substantial damage to the national security of
Russia.” But he added, “We will reinforce our capability by mounting multiple
warheads on our missiles and that will cost us a meager sum. The nuclear
arsenal of Russia will be augmented multifold.”
When hearing Bush advisers said that the White House is prepared to build a
missile defense shield whether Russia participates, Putin said, “When we hear
that some program or other will be carried out ‘with or without us’ -- well, we
cannot force anyone to cooperate with us, nor will we try to.” And he added,
“We have offered to work together. If that is not needed, fine. We are ready to
a     c    t        o    n         o     u     r         o     w    n    .    ”
That expresses that Russia will not stand still and take a look at the U.S.
proceeding with the NMD without doing anything. It will react by reinforcing its
nuclear forces so as to balance the U.S. military power that the U.S. will receive
f     r     o      m             t     h      e            N      M       D      .
And also Mr. Putin said, “There is a commitment to preserve the balance of
security that we have now in the world as a whole and in this sense. China is an
i m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t , a n d n o t o n l y C h i n a . ”
This also expresses Russia’s stand that it will side with China in this issue.

G        -        8                 S         u        m         m         i        t
In the G-8 Summit, Russia and the U.S. agreed to reduce both sides’ numbers of
offensive arms and with that Russia said the ideas of editing the ABM treaty is
taken into its consideration. However, the words the Russian Leader used were
‘joint striving’ and ‘intense consultation’, no any firm words affirmed. It seems
that Russia just wants to achieve its objective of the U.S. reducing the number of
its arm so it made a flexible and modest reaction.
According to President Vladimir Putin in the G-8 Summit, “Now, as far as
possible answer or response, as you say, from Russia, in the event that one side
leaves the ABM Treaty, from the 1972 treaty, then I can say the following. We
were talking about the possible kinds and versions of response in the event that
one side comes out unilaterally. I was not talking about increasing the missiles. I
was talking about how you would substitute single-unit warheads, make them
M      I    R          V            w     a     r    h     e     a    d     s     .
But as we said today -- if, as we said today and, if, as we understood from each
other today, we are ready to look at the issue of offensive and defensive systems
together as a set, we might not ever need to look at that option. But this is one of
t h e s u b j e c t s o f o u r f u t u r e d i s c u s s i o n s . ”
He carefully selected his words. It may seem like he’s getting more flexible but
still the word remains only as ‘discussion’, not any different than before.
He also added, “As a whole we agreed, in general that in any version, today we
can go forward toward reducing offensive arms. I’m telling you this with full
responsibility and I’m telling you that within -- this is an issue of the qualitative


                                                                                  26
    and quantitative numbers. But this is, of course -- we'll let the specialists sit down
    a n d      t a l k     a b o u t           t h o s e         n u m b e r s . ”
    His real objective is the U.S. arms cut and also its arms cut as an exchange.

    S                    p                    a                    i                    n
    Spain expressed interest in the idea of NMD during Bush’s European tour.

    S       o        u       t       h                K        o        r       e       a
    According to President Kim Dae-jung’s statement, “I hope that through this
    process, the U.S. will contribute to peace and stability in the world.” South
    Korea neither supports nor opposes the idea of the NMD that the U.S. offers.
    It seems that South Korea is afraid of destroying the chance in developing
    reconciliation with North Korea it has been putting an attempt into if it supports
    the U.S. for this idea as North Korea opposes such defense and gets unsatisfied
    with the hard policy of the U.S. towards it.

    T                a                i               w                a                n
    On May 2, 200, the Foreign Ministry declined to comment on what it called ‘an
    i n t e r n a l          i s s u e ’          o f    t h e        U . S .
    On June 26, 2001, Taiwan tested its Patriot weapon, which is able to intercept
    ballistic missile. Patriot missile is the imported weapon from the US.

   Anyway, China showed no fear, and said that the ability of patriot is only what
   m e d i a            t r y           t o         p r e s e n t .

14. P o s s i b l e              e v e n t s        i n      t h e          f u t u r e
   Although Russia has softened its opposition into somewhat more negotiable,
   there’s still nothing tangible how far Russia would allow the change in the Anti-
   ballistic Missiles (ABM) treaty. We still have yet to see how much the U.S. can
   do in persuading Russia, and how much change over the ABM treaty Russia
   would allow. Of course, China is one main actor in the issue. China and Russia
   signed a treaty of cooperation between them and in many sections, they mention
   about their cooperation in all matters, including military and world strategic
   balance. Even though, Russia has seemed softened, it’s still like a game of push-
   and-pull. Russia has always said all along, though it has never reached this far in
   the past, that it is quite flexible over the NMD issue. Still, not much progress the
   U.S. can make. The key matter now is that which side Russia would take with
   between China and the U.S. Somehow, if Russia takes side with China, it still
   doesn’t seem to affect the U.S. so much that it’ll give up on its NMD. The U.S.
   has made it clear, even, that some tests of the NMD may go beyond the territory
   of the NMD in the future, and it said it still has to push the NMD through.
   However, if Russia takes side with the U.S., the NMD will make a lot of progress
   o n c e        t h e       A B M        t r e a t y    i s     m o d i f i e d .

In conclusion, it seems like Russia only fakes its sweet words to the U.S. as what it
has said to the U.S. can’t be guaranteed while its cooperation treaty with China,


                                                                                       27
something Russia wouldn’t otherwise sign if it isn’t really committed to the
cooperation, is a serious and firm one. The U.S. will continue facing obstacles
coming from the counterproductive seemed-to-be cooperation from the two countries.




                                                                               28
                                       CONCLUSION

Analysis on the U.S. Military Surveillance Plane incident with Chinese jetfighter.

Ever since Mao Zedung era, China follows the policies that China will never be humiliated
again; therefore its sovereignty, security are the top priority of the nation. Moreover, another
policy is, as important as, the first one is “ One China principled, one country two system”,
China considers separation as national humiliation. Although the story of Taiwan is totally
different from Hong Kong, China wants to be recognized as one country under one
g         o         v        e         r        n         m          e         n      t        .

There are two main points need to be discussed.

One, why does the US has to conduct such operation?

The US claimed that this operation was to promote regional stability and maintain peace but it
quite obvious that the US wanted to keep an eye on China military development of which the
satellite can’t show. The US considers China as strategic competitor who has potential to be
balance of power and keep improving their military ability constantly. Although China is not
as high-tech as the US now but who knows what will happen in next five or ten years with
massive progress in its economy. Nonetheless, this operation would definitely upset China.

T w o ,     h o w     d o e s    i t   a f f e c t    b o t h     r e l a t i o n s h i p     ?

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and The third article if the convention
on international civil aviation adopted in 1994 said quite clear that military aircraft of any
country should not and could not fly over another territory without permission and the
incident took place above China’s exclusive economic zone. Therefore after the collision,
China detained 24-crew-member and demanded for the US full responsibility because
keeping those crew might increase China negotiation power or show the world that it would
not tolerate any violation its sovereignty. Moreover, those crews are more likely prisoners
than just crew of an emergency plane in China opinion.

From this incident, China has shown that they are not non-compromise in regard to violation
of its sovereignty. And from this incident, there are effects on NMD and arm sales to Taiwan
issue. After the collision, China changed its attitude toward NMD from ready to talk to
strongly oppose and the US approves arms package sales to Taiwan 25 days after the
collision, of which put both side relationship under strong tension. Moreover, from this
incident and the scholar issue caused diplomatic stand off for eleven days.

This incident has shown China reaction toward violation of its sovereignty that China will not
much compromise on this issue so whatever the US plans to do in the future. The US must be
r e a d y           t o     t a k e          a      r i s k          o f        w a r s .

A n a l y s i s       o n     t h e     U S     a r m      s a l e s     t o    T a i w a n

First      question,            why     the     US     sell     arms       to    Taiwan?

One reason, by the TRA acts, the US bound to provide Taiwan with necessary military
equipment to meet its legitimate self-defense needs. Although every presidents of the US,
since Jimmy Carter has to accept the “One China Policy” but it doesn’t mean that the US will
cut Taiwan loose. In the past, the US wanted Taiwan to be a containment state from China’s
expanding of communism but now it wants Taiwan to be a conflict and, perhaps, discredit


                                                                                             29
China. China stated clearly that it will threaten military action against the island if it declares
independence or drags its feet on reunification talks.

Second reason, may be because of money. As we all know that now the US’ economy has met
the worst situation in decades, the unemployment rate is now up to 4.5% and there’s no sign
of improving. Sales arms may generate the US’ economy.

Second question, will China think of invading Taiwan?

Although there are military conflicts, on the other hands Taiwan and China have very good
trade relationship. At present, Taiwanese can invest in China very easily, about 7% of export
products were produced by Taiwanese company. Taiwan now may feel more comfortable
with China and that may lead to reunification one day so there’s no reason for China to invade
Taiwan. But why Taiwan still needs to protect itself from China. Because it’s not ready yet
and may be it wants to keep its status this way. But independency of Taiwan seems to be
impossible in the near future because Taiwan would not want wars.


    A      n           a           l       y        s   i           s         o           n               N       M       D

    W          h               a           t                i            s                N           M           D        ?

    NMD is the system that provide protection from ballistic missile by launching
    i n te r ce pt i n g mi s s i l e t o d es t ro y i t i n t he a ir.

    W h y              d o e s                 t h e    U S             w a n t       t h i s         s y s t e m ?

    First, It claimed that the US wants to be completely protected from rogue states such as
    North Korea or Iran which both countries have not been confirmed of possession of
    ballistic missile and from terrorist act. On the other hand, the US claimed that China had
    proliferated nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Pakistan. So it seems the US
    i n d i r e ct l y wa n t t o p r ot e c t i t s el f fr o m Ch i n a.

    Second, in the first quarter of year 2001, the US’ GPD grew only at 1.2 % annual rate and
    the number of unemployment is the highest in years so it needs to stimulate its economy
    by putting more investment. Moreover, consider from Bush attitude, he is a member of
    Republican Party who the biggest supporters came from industrial people and he obliged
    himself to his election campaign. It is approximately $100 billion needs to be spent in
    NMD and if NMD succeed, the US would definitely make a huge sum of profit from this
    s y s t e m                       b y           s e l l i n g                   i t .

    W     h        a       t           i        s       t       h       e         p   r       o   b       l   e       m    ?

    First, the US bounds to the 1972 ABM Treaty that it will not explore the possibility of
    such radar and interceptor to intercept ballistic missile. The reason behind this treaty is
    that both the US and Soviet believe that no one should be able to completely protect from
    assured-mutual destruction in a balance of power.

    Second, opposition from several countries around the world such as China, Russia,
    German. Though the US seems careless to Russia and China opposition and continues
    researching NMD, but with some of NATO members such as German and France must
    call the US attention. China and Russia opposed that the US has tried to violate the ABM
    Treaty and try to stimulate new arm races. Once the defensive system is completed, it will
    continue to go on offensive and, definitely, other countries will try to invent new weapon
    that can breakthrough NMD. However, the US seems to ignore those oppositions and


                                                                                                                          30
continues researching NMD. Its recent test showed partially succession. In the meantime,
China announced if the US had ignored its opposition, it will continue to research on
o    f    f    e    n   s     i    v     e        m       i   s     s    i    l   e    .

W i l l        t h e      U S       s t i l l      i m p l e m e n t              N M D ?

The article 11 and 12treaty of the treaty of good-neighborliness and friendly cooperation
between China and Russian stated clearly that they will cooperate with each other in
maintain peace and stability. But Russia’s opposition sounded softer and also said ready
to talk. China, one the other hand, after Powel visited China, China also sounded softer
too. Nonetheless, the US, after the succession of its last test, it stated clearly that it will
pursue any goals for national interests. It means they will continue researching on NMD
no matter the next step must violate the 1972 ABM treaty.

C          o         n          c         l         u         s          i         o         n

As China was selected to be a host of Olympic 2008, it will have to invest a large sum of
money in this event and have to cut off some military budget. Moreover, its aggressive
reaction will have to be weaker than before in order to raise support. China wants to show
the world that it’s now a civilized country that is second to no one and its path to WTO
membership would be much easier; therefore we shall not see any aggressive military
a c t i o n f r o m C h i n a w i t h i n a t l e a s t 8 y e a r s .

For the US, without NMD, it would definitely not ready for wars which is very expensive
and will destroy its economy. So it needs to be sure of total protection from ballistic
missile. Moreover, the US consider China its big market, any aggressive activity would
be avoided if it’s tolerateable. Anyway, as the no.1 country of the world, there’s
reputation needs to be preserve. So as China.

For Taiwan, although in term of political, Taiwan still has conflict between China, but in
term of trading relation, at present trading between Taiwan and China is more likely
domestic business than international trade. Taiwan is now more compromise with China
and the reunification is, perhaps, not beyond our imginary.

We have to watch closely on the APEC meeting which will be held in China in October
so that we’ll see Russia, China and the US’ reaction toward NMD which is the most
i n t e r e s t i n g               i s s u e         a t    p r e s e n t .




                                                                                            31
APPENDIX A
THE NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE (NMD) SYSTEM

   How the proposed U.S. missile defense system might be designed?
       There are four actors as follows
    1. Early Warning System
    2. Radar
    3. Space Sensor
    4. Incoming Missile

       Step 1: Space-based early warning systems and infrared sensors detect a
       missile launched at the United States or its allies.
       Step 2: Ground-based radar systems track the missile, and interceptor rockets
       a r e       l a u n c h e d             t o     d e s t r o y           i t .
       Step 3: Sensors in orbit and on board the interceptors acquire the target and
       track the incoming missile, helping the interceptors discriminate between the
       w a r h e a d a n d a n y d e c o y s o r d e b r i s .
       Step 4: The interceptor reaches its target. The rocket carries no explosives,
       relying on the force of a 16,000-mph (25,000 km/h) collision to destroy its
       t            a            r            g            e            t           .
       Step 5: Ground – and space-based sensors evaluate whether the interception
       h     a     s          s     u     c      c    e      e    d      e    d     .


   How much would a missile defense system cost?
    At this stage it is pure guesswork, not least because only on e of the first 18 tests
    on missile defense interceptors proved a success. It would depend very much on
    what system was chosen. A scaled-down missile defense system might be
    available for around $10 billion. The program begun under U.S. President Bill
    Clinton would cost around $60 billion, and a “full-works” system of the kind
    talked about by the Bush administration would cost about $ 100 billion.




                                                                                      32
APPENDIX B
TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE
UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS ON THE LIMITATION OF
A N T I - B A L L I S T I C M I S S I L E  S Y S T E M S

In the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems the United States
and the Soviet Union agree that each may have only two ABM deployment areas,1 so
restricted and so located that they cannot provide a nationwide ABM defense or
become the basis for developing one. Each country thus leaves unchallenged the
penetration capability of the others retaliatory missile forces.

The Treaty permits each side to have one limited ABM system to protect its capital
and another to protect an ICBM launch area. The two sites defended must be at least
1,300 kilometers apart, to prevent the creation of any effective regional defense zone
o r t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f a n a t i o n w i d e s ys t e m .

Precise quantitative and qualitative limits are imposed on the ABM systems that may
be deployed. At each site there may be no more than 100 interceptor missiles and 100
launchers. Agreement on the number and characteristics of radars to be permitted had
required extensive and complex technical negotiations, and the provisions governing
these important components of ABM systems are spelled out in very specific detail in
the Treaty and further clarified in the "Agreed Statements" accompanying it.

Both Parties agreed to limit qualitative improvement of their ABM technology, e.g.,
not to develop, test, or deploy ABM launchers capable of launching more than one
interceptor missile at a time or modify existing launchers to give them this capability,
and systems for rapid reload of launchers are similarly barred. These provisions, the
Agreed Statements clarify, also ban interceptor missiles with more than one
i n d e p e n d e n t l y                    g u i d e d            w a r h e a d .
There had been some concern over the possibility that surface-to-air missiles (SAMs)
intended for defense against aircraft might be improved, along with their supporting
radars, to the point where they could effectively be used against ICBMs and SLBMs,
and the Treaty prohibits this. While further deployment of radars intended to give
early warning of strategic ballistic missile attack is not prohibited, such radars must be
located along the territorial boundaries of each country and oriented outward, so that
they do not contribute to an effective ABM defense of points in the interior.

Further, to decrease the pressures of technological change and its unsettling impact on
the strategic balance, both sides agree to prohibit development, testing, or deployment
of sea-based, air-based, or space-based ABM systems and their components, along
with mobile land-based ABM systems. Should future technology bring forth new
ABM systems "based on other physical principles" than those employed in current
systems, it was agreed that limiting such systems would be discussed, in accordance
with the Treatys provisions for consultation and amendment.

The Treaty also provides for a U.S.-Soviet Standing Consultative Commission to
promote its objectives and implementation. The commission was established during
the first negotiating session of SALT II, by a Memorandum of Understanding dated
December 21, 1972. Since then both the United States and the Soviet Union have

                                                                                       33
raised a number of questions in the Commission relating to each sides compliance
with the SALT I agreements. In each case raised by the United States, the Soviet
activity in question has either ceased or additional information has allayed U.S.
c           o           n           c          e           r         n           .
_     _   _    _    _ _      _    _   _    _ _       _   _    _   _ _       _   _
1
   S ubsequent l y r educed t o one area (S ee sect i on on ABM P rot ocol )

Article XIV of the Treaty calls for review of the Treaty five years after its entry into
force, and at five-year intervals thereafter. The first such review was conducted by the
Standing Consultative Commission at its special session in the fall of 1977. At this
session, the United States and the Soviet Union agreed that the Treaty had operated
effectively during its first five years, that it had continued to serve national security
interests, and that it did not need to be amended at that time.

The most recent Treaty review was completed in October 1993. Following that
review, numerous sessions of the Standing Consultative Commission have been held
to work out Treaty succession -- to "multilateralize" the Treaty -- as a result of the
break-up of the Soviet Union and to negotiate a demarcation between ABM and non-
A       B       M              s      y        s      t      e       m       s       .




                                                                                      34
TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE
UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS ON THE LIMITATION OF
A N T I - B A L L I S T I C M I S S I L E  S Y S T E M S
                              Signed at Moscow May 26, 1972
                    Ratification advised by U.S. Senate August 3, 1972
                      Ratified by U.S. President September 30, 1972
                      Proclaimed by U.S. President October 3, 1972
                  Instruments of ratification exchanged October 3, 1972
                            Entered into force October 3, 1972
  The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
  h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e P a r t i e s ,
  Proceeding from the premise that nuclear war would have devastating
  c o n s e q u e n c e s        f o r     a l l   m a n k i n d ,
  Considering that effective measures to limit anti-ballistic missile systems would
  be a substantial factor in curbing the race in strategic offensive arms and would
  lead to a decrease in the risk of outbreak of war involving nuclear weapons,
  Proceeding from the premise that the limitation of anti-ballistic missile systems, as
  well as certain agreed measures with respect to the limitation of strategic offensive
  arms, would contribute to the creation of more favorable conditions for further
  n e g o t i a t i o n s o n l i m i t i n g s t r a t e g i c a r m s ,
  Mindful of their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non -
  P r o l i f e r a t i o n     o f   N u c l e a r     W e a p o n s ,
  Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the
  nuclear arms race and to take effective measures toward reductions in strategic
  arms, nuclear disarma-ment, and general and complete disarmament,
  Desiring to contribute to the relaxation of international tension and the
  s t r e n g t h e n i n g o f t r u s t b e t w e e n S t a t e s ,
  H   a   v   e         a       g   r   e   e   d       a   s       f   o       l   l   o   w   s    :

  A           r             t           i           c           l           e                        I
  1. Each Party undertakes to limit anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems and to
  adopt other measures in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty.
  2. Each Party undertakes not to deploy ABM systems for a defense of the territory
  of its country and not to provide a base for such a defense, and not to deploy ABM
  systems for defense of an individual region except as provided for in Article III of
  t       h       i      s              T        r      e       a      t      y      .




                                                                                                    35
A           r               t           i               c                   l               e                               I             I
1. For the purpose of this Treaty an ABM system is a system to counter strategic
ballistic missiles or their elements in flight trajectory, currently consisting of:
    (a) ABM interceptor missiles, which are interceptor missiles constructed and
    deployed for an ABM role, or of a type tested in an ABM mode;
    (b) ABM launchers, which are launchers constructed and deployed for
    launching ABM interceptor missiles; and
    (c) ABM radars, which are radars constructed and deployed for an ABM role,
    o r o f a t y p e t e s t e d i n a n A B M m o d e .
2. The ABM system components listed in paragraph 1 of this Article include those
w        h      i      c         h                 a         r         e       :
    (       a       )               o       p       e               r       a           t       i       o       n       a           l     ;
    (   b       )       u       n   d e         r               c       o       n       s   t       r   u   c       t   i       o n       ;
    (   c       )       u       n   d       e   r   g o                 i       n       g           t   e   s       t   i       n       g ;
    (d) undergoing overhaul, repair or conversion; or
    (       e       )               m           o           t           h           b       a           l   l           e           d     .

A           r           t           i           c                   l               e                           I               I         I
Each Party undertakes not to deploy ABM systems or their components except
t                 h                  a                  t                :
    (a) within one ABM system deployment area having a radius of one hundred
    and fifty kilometers and centered on the Partys national capital, a Party may
    deploy: (1) no more than one hundred ABM launchers and no more than one
    hundred ABM interceptor missiles at launch sites, and (2) ABM radars within
    no more than six ABM radar complexes, the area of each complex being
    circular and having a diameter of no more than three kilometers; and
    (b) within one ABM system deployment area having a radius of one hundred
    and fifty kilometers and containing ICBM silo launchers, a Party may deploy:
    (1) no more than one hundred ABM launchers and no more than one hundred
    ABM interceptor missiles at launch sites, (2) two large phased-array ABM
    radars comparable in potential to corresponding ABM radars operational or
    under construction on the date of signature of the Treaty in an ABM system
    deployment area containing ICBM silo launchers, and (3) no more than
    eighteen ABM radars each having a potential less than the potential of the
    smaller of the above-mentioned two large phased-array ABM radars.

A           r               t           i           c                       l               e                               I            V
The limitations provided for in Article III shall not apply to ABM systems or their
components used for development or testing, and located within current or



                                                                                                                                         36
additionally agreed test ranges. Each Party may have no more than a total of
f i f t e e n A B M l a u n c h e r s a t t e s t r a n g e s .

A               r               t                   i           c           l       e                   V
1. Each Party undertakes not to develop, test, or deploy ABM systems or
components which are sea-based, air-based, space-based, or mobile land-based.
2. Each Party undertakes not to develop, test or deploy ABM launchers for
launching more than one ABM interceptor missile at a time from each launcher,
not to modify deployed launchers to provide them with such a capacity, not to
develop, test, or deploy automatic or semi-automatic or other similar systems for
r a p i d        r e l o a d       o f     A B M        l a u n c h e r s .


A           r               t               i               c       l           e               V        I
To enhance assurance of the effectiveness of the limitations on ABM systems and
t hei r com ponents provi ded by t he Treat y, each P art y undert akes:
    (a) not to give missiles, launchers, or radars, other than ABM interceptor
    missiles, ABM launchers, or ABM radars, capabilities to counter strategic
    ballistic missiles or their elements in flight trajectory, and not to test them in
    a     n         A     B     M          m     o     d    e    ;         a     n   d
    (b) not to deploy in the future radars for early warning of strategic ballistic
    missile attack except at locations along the periphery of its national territory
    a n d           o r i e n t e d                   o u t w a r d .

A        r              t               i               c       l       e               V           I    I
Subject to the provisions of this Treaty, modernization and replacement of ABM
systems or their components may be carried out.

A       r           t               i           c           l       e               V       I       I    I
ABM systems or their components in excess of the numbers or outside the areas
specified in this Treaty, as well as ABM systems or their components prohibited
by this Treaty, shall be destroyed or dismantled under agreed procedures within
the shortest possible agreed period of time.

A           r               t               i               c       l           e               I       X
To assure the viability and effectiveness of this Treaty, each Party undertakes not
to transfer to other States, and not to deploy outside its national territory, ABM
systems or their components limited by this Treaty.

A               r               t                   i           c           l       e                   X
Each Party undertakes not to assume any international obligations which would
c o n f l i c t            w i t h        t h i s          T r e a t y .

A           r               t               i               c       l           e               X        I



                                                                                                        37
   The Parties undertake to continue active negotiations for limitations on strategic
   o    f     f    e     n     s    i     v    e            a     r     m      s     .

   A        r         t       i       c       l       e             X        I       I
   1. For the purpose of providing assurance or compliance with the provisions of
   this Treaty, each Party shall use national technical means of verification at its
   disposal in a manner consistent with generally recognized principles of
   i    n   t    e   r    n    a    t   i   o     n   a   l        l    a    w     .
   2. Each Party undertakes not to interfere with the national technical means of
   verification of the other Party operating in accordance with paragraph 1 of this
   A            r          t          i           c         l          e          .
   3. Each Party undertakes not to use deliberate concealment measures which
   impede verification by national technical means of compliance with the provisions
   of this Treaty. This obligation shall not require changes in current construction,
   assembly, conversion, or overhaul practices.

   A       r      t       i       c       l       e           X         I    I       I
   1. To promote the objectives and implementation of the provisions of this Treaty,
   the Parties shall establish promptly a Standing Consultative Commission, within
   t h e     f r a m e w o r k         o f    w h i c h       t h e y    w i l l :
       (a) consider questions concerning compliance with the obligations assumed
       and related situations which may be considered ambiguous;
       (b) provide on a voluntary basis such information as either Party considers
       necessary to assure confidence in compliance with the obligations assumed;
       (c) consider questions involving unintended interference with national
       t e c h n i c a l     m e a n s     o f    v e r i f i c a t i o n ;
       (d) consider possible changes in the strategic situation which have a bearing
       o n    t h e     p r o v i s i o n s        o f     t h i s   T r e a t y ;
       (e) agree upon procedures and dates for destruction or dismantling of ABM
       systems or their components in cases provided for by the provisions of this
       T            r          e            a            t           y           ;
       (f) consider, as appropriate, possible proposals for further increasing the
       viability of this Treaty; including proposals for amendments in accordance
       w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s T r e a t y ;
       (g) consider, as appropriate, proposals for further measures aimed at limiting
       s     t   r      a    t    e     g     i    c          a    r    m      s     .
3. The Parties through consultation shall establish, and may amend as appropriate,
   Regulations for the Standing Consultative Commission governing procedures,
   c o m p o s i t i o n a n d o t h e r r e l e v a n t m a t t e r s .




                                                                                   38
A        r        t           i           c           l            e           X      I   V
    1. Each Party may propose amendments to this Treaty. Agreed amendments shall
    enter into force in accordance with the procedures governing the entry into force
    o     f           t     h    i    s          T      r    e     a     t    y     .
    2. Five years after entry into force of this Treaty, and at five-year intervals
    thereafter, the Parties shall together conduct a review of this Treaty.

    A        r            t           i           c           l            e         X    V
    1.   This     Treaty              shall           be      of       unlimited   duration.
    2. Each Party shall, in exercising its national sovereignty, have the right to
    withdraw from this Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the
    subject matter of this Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests. It shall give
    notice of its decision to the other Party six months prior to withdrawal from the
    Treaty. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events the
    notifying Party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.

    A        r        t           i           c           l            e       X      V    I
    1. This Treaty shall be subject to ratification in accordance with the constitutional
    procedures of each Party. The Treaty shall enter into force on the day of the
    e x c h a n g e o f i n s t r u m e n t s o f r a t i f i c a t i o n .
    2. This Treaty shall be registered pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the
    U     n     i    t     e     d          N     a     t    i    o    n      s    .
    DONE at Moscow on May 26, 1972, in two copies, each in the English and
    Russian languages, both texts being equally authentic.

    FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
    RICHARD NIXON
    President of the United States of America


    FOR THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS:
    L. I. BREZHNEV
    General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU




                                                                                          39
APPENDIX C

TREATY OF GOOD-NEIGHBORLINESS AND FRIENDLY COOPERATION
BETWEEN THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA AND THE RUSSIAN
F    E      D     E    R      A     T     I    O     N

         Source: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, People’s Republic of China

  On July l6, 2001, President Jiang Zemin of the People's Republic of China and
  President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation signed the “Treaty of Good-
  Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People's Republic of China
  and the Russian Federation” in Moscow. Full text of the Treaty is as follows:

  Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation between the People's
  Republic of China and the Russian Federation. The People's Republic of China
  and the Russian Federation (hereafter known as the “contracting parti es”),

  In view of the historical tradition of good-neighborliness and friendship between
  t h e     p e o p l e         o f      C h i n a      a n d       R u s s i a ,

  Hold that the Sino-Russian Joint Declarations and Statements signed and adopted
  by the heads of states of the two countries from 1992 to 2000 which are of great
  significance to the development of bilateral relations,

  Firmly believe that to consolidate the friendly and good neighborly ties and
  mutual cooperation in all fields between the two countries is in conformity with
  the fundamental interests of the peoples of the two countries and conducive to the
  maintenance of peace, security and stability in Asia and the world,

  Reiterate the obligations committed by each party in accordance with the Charter
  of the United Nations and other international treaties of which it is a signatory,

  With the hope of promoting and establishing a just and fair new world order based
  on universally recognized principles and norms of international laws,

  Endeavor to enhance relations between the two countries to a completely new
  level, Determined to develop the friendship between the people of the two
  c o u n t r i e s f r o m g e n e r a t i o n t o g e n e r a t i o n ,

  H a v e       r e a c h e d      a g r e e m e n t         a s       f o l l o w s :

  A         r        t        i        c        l        e         .                1

  In accordance with universally recognized principles and norms of international
  laws and on the basis of the Five Principles of mutual respect of state sovereignty
  and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in each
  other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence, the
  contracting parties shall develops the strategic cooperative partnership of good-
  neighborliness, friendship and cooperation and equality and trust between the two
  count ries from a long -t erm view and i n a comprehensive manner.


                                                                                    40
A          r          t         i         c          l         e                    2

In handling their mutual relations, the contracting parties will neither resort to the
use of force ;or the threat of force nor take economic and other means to bring
pressure to bear against the other. The contracting parties will only solve their
differences through peaceful means by adhering to the provisions of the "United
Nations Charter" and the principles and norms of universally recognized
i n t e r n a t i o n a l                                        l a w s .

The contracting parties reaffirm their commitment that they will not be the first to
use nuclear weapons against each other nor target strategic nuclear missiles
a g a i n s t                        e a c h              o t h e r .

A          r          t         i         c          l         e                    3

The contracting parties respect each other's choice for the course of political,
economic, social and cultural development in line with their nation's actual
conditions so as to ensure a long-term and stable development of relations
b e t w e e n             t h e      t w o         c o u n t r i e s .


A          r          t         i         c          l         e                    4

The Chinese side supports the Russian side in its policies on the issue of
defending the national unity and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.
The Russian side supports the Chinese side in its policies on the issue of
defending the national unity and territorial integrity of the People's Republic of
C               h               i                n               a               .

A          r          t         i         c          l         e                    5

The Russian side reaffirms that the principled stand on the Taiwan issue as
expounded in the political documents signed and adopted by the heads of states of
the two countries from 1992 to 2000 remain unchanged. The Russian side
acknowledges that there is only one China in the world, that the People's Republic
of China is the sole legal government representing the whole of China and that
Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. The Russian side opposes any form of
T a i w a n ' s                   i n d e p e n d e n c e .


A          r          t         i         c          l         e                    6

The contracting parties point out with satisfaction that each has no territorial claim
on the other and both are resolved to make active efforts in building the border
between the two countries into one where ever-lasting peace and friendship
prevail. The contracting parties will adhere to the principles of non-encroachment
upon territories and national boundaries as stipulated in international laws and
strictl y observe the national boundar y between the two countries.
The contracting parties shall continue to hold talks on the pending boundary


                                                                                   41
alignment of the sectors which China and Russia have not yet arrived at an
agreement through consultations. Prior to the settlement of these issues, the two
sides will maintain the status quo in such boundary sectors.

A             r        t         i         c         l          e                    7

In accordance with the current agreements, the contracting parties shall adopt
measures to increase trust between their militaries and reduce military forces in
the border areas. The contracting parties shall expand and deepen confidence
building measures in the military field so as to consolidate each other’s security
and strengthen regional and international stability.
The contracting parties shall make efforts to ensure its own national security in
accordance with the principle of maintaining reasonable and adequate weapons
a    n    d         a    r    m     e    d         f    o    r    c    e    s     .

The military and military technology cooperation of the contracting parties carried
out in accordance with the relevant agreements are not directed at third countries.

A             r        t         i         c         l          e                    8

The contracting parties shall not enter into any alliance or be a party to any bloc
nor shall they embark on any such action, including the conclusion of such treaty
with a third country which compromises the sovereignty, security and territorial
integrity of the other contracting party. Neither side of the contracting parties shall
allow its territory to be used by a third country to jeopardize the national
sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of the other contracting party.
Neither side of the contracting parties shall allow the setting up of organizations or
gangs on its own soil which shall impair the sovereignty, security and territorial
integrity of the other contrasting party and their activities should be prohibited.

A             r        t         i         c         l          e                    9

When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is
being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is
confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately
hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.

A         r        t         i        c        l         e                 1         0

The contracting parties shall employ and perfect the mechanism for regular
meetings at all levels, above all the summit and high-level meetings, to conduct
periodic exchanges of views and co-ordinate their stand on bilateral ties and on
important and urgent international issues of common concern so as to reinforce
the strategic cooperative partnership of equality and trust.

A         r        t         i        c        l         e                 1         1

The contracting parties stand for the strict observation of universally
acknowledged principles and norms of international laws and oppose any action of
resorting to the use of force to bring pressure to bear on others or interfering in the


                                                                                    42
internal affairs of a sovereign state under all sorts of pretexts and both are ready to
make positive efforts to strengthen peace, stability, development and cooperation
t h r o u g h o u t                             t h e             w o r l d .

The contracting parties are against any action which may constitute a threat to
international stability, security and peace and will conduct mutual co-ordination
with regard to the prevention of international conflicts and bringing about their
p o l i t i c a l                        s e t t l e m e n t .

A         r        t         i        c        l        e                  1         2

The contracting parties shall work together for the maintenance of global strategic
balance and stability and make great efforts in promoting the observation of the
basic agreements relevant to the safeguard and maintenance of strategic stability.
The contracting parties shall actively promote the process of nuclear disarmament
and the reduction of chemical weapons, promote and strengthen the regimes on
the prohibition of biological weapons and take measures to prevent the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and their
r e l a t e d                        t e c h n o l o g y .

A         r        t         i        c        l        e                  1         3

The contracting parties shall strengthen their cooperation in the United Nations
and its Security Council as well as other United Nations Special Agencies. The
contracting parties shall work to reinforce the central role of the United Nations as
the most authoritative and most universal world organization composed of
sovereign states in handling international affairs, particularly in the realm of peace
and development and guarantee the major responsibility of the UN Security
Council in the area of maintaining international peace and security.

A         r        t         i        c         l        e                  l        4

The contracting parties shall energetically promote the consolidation of stability of
the surrounding areas of the two countries, create an atmosphere of mutual
understanding, trust and cooperation, and promote efforts aimed at setting up a
multi-lateral co-ordination mechanism which complies with the actual situation of
the above -m entioned areas on issues of securit y and cooperat ion.

A         r        t         i        c        l        e                  1         5

In accordance with the two countries' inter-governmental agreements concerned
and other documents relating to the handling of creditor's rights and liabilities,
each side of the contracting parties recognizes the lawful right of ownership of the
assets and other properties which belong to the other side and which are located
within the territory of the other contracting party.

A         r        t         i        c         l        e                  l        6

On the basis of mutual benefit, the contracting parties shall conduct cooperation in
such areas as economy and trade, military know-how, science and technology,


                                                                                    43
energy resources, transport, nuclear energy, finance, aerospace and aviation,
information technology and other areas of common interest. They shall promote
economic and trade cooperation in border areas and local regions between the two
countries and create necessary and favorable conditions in this regard in
accordance with the laws of each country.

The contracting parties shall energetically enhance and develop exchanges and
cooperation in culture, education, health, information, tourism, sports and legal
m           a           t          t           e          r          s          .

In accordance with their national laws and international treaties of which they are
a party, the contracting parties shall protect and maintain intellectual property
rights, including copyright and other relevant rights.

A        r         t        i        c        l        e                 I        7

The contracting parties shall conduct cooperation in world financial institutions,
economic organizations and forums, and in line with the rules and regulations of
the above-mentioned institutions, organizations and forums, make efforts to
promote the participation of a contracting party in the above -mentioned
institutions of which the other contracting party is already a member (or member
s              t            a             t             e          )             .

A        r         t        i        c        l        e                 l        8

The contracting parties shall cooperate in promoting the realization of human
rights and fundamental freedom in accordance with the international obligations
each is committed and the national laws of each country.
In line with the international obligations each of the contracting parties is
committed and the laws and regulations of each country, the contracting party
shall take effective measures to guarantee the legal rights and interests of legal
persons and natural persons of the other contracting party who reside within its
territory, and provide the necessary legal assistance over civil and criminal
m            a          t          t          e           r          s           .

The departments concerned of the contracting parties, in accordance with relevant
laws, shall conduct investigation and seek a solution to the problems and disputes
arising from the process of carrying out cooperation and business activities by the
legal persons and natural persons within the territory of the other side of the
c o n t r a c t i n g                               p a r t i e s .

A        r         t        i       c         l       e                  1        9

The contracting parties shall carry out cooperation in the protection and
improvement of the environment, prevention of cross-border pollution, the fair
and rational use of water resources along the border areas and the use of biological
resources in the northern Pacific and boundary river areas; make joint efforts in
protecting rare floras, faunas and the natural ecosystem, and conduct cooperation
in preventing the outbreak of major accidents arising from natural disasters or due
to technical reasons and eliminating their after --effects .


                                                                                 44
A         r         t        i        c         l        e                  2         0

The contracting parties, in accordance with the laws of each country and the
international obligation each has committed, shall actively cooperate in cracking
down terrorists, splittists and extremists, and in taking strong measures against
criminal activities of organized crimes, illegal trafficking of drugs, psychotropic
substances and weapons. The contracting parties shall conduct cooperation to
crack down on illegal immigration, including the crack down on illegal
transportation of natural pe rsons via its territory.

A         r         t        i        c         l        e                  2         1

The contracting parties attach great importance to the exchanges and cooperation
between the central (federal) legislative organs and law enforcement agencies of
t   h    e        t    w     o          c   o    u    n   t   r   i   e    s    .

The contracting parties shall promote with great efforts the exchanges and
cooperation between the judicial organs of the two countries.

A         r         t        i        c         l        e                  2         2

This Treaty neither affects the rights and obligations of the contracting parties in
other international treaties of which they are a party to it, nor is it directed against
a    n    y          t    h    i   r    d         c    o     u     n     t    r   y .


A         r         t        i        c         l        e                  2         3

To implement the present Treaty, the contracting parties shall actively promote the
signing of accords in specific realms which are of interests to both sides.

A         r         t        i        c         l        e                  2         4

This Treaty needs to be ratified and shall come into force from the date of the
exchange of instruments of ratification. The exchange of instruments of
r a t i f i c a t i o n s h a l l t a k e p l a c e i n B e i j i n g .

A         r         t        i        c         l        e                  2         5

The term of validity of the present treaty is twenty years. If neither side of the
contracting parties notify the other in writing of its desire to terminate the treaty
one year before the treaty expires, the treaty shall automatically be extended for
another five years and shall thereafter be continued in force in accordance with
t    h      i     s           p     r    o      v      i    s      i   o      n      .

Done in Moscow on July 16, 2001 in two copies, each in the Chinese and Russian
languages, both texts being equally authentic.




                                                                                     45
Representative of the People’s
Republic of China Jiang Zemin

R   e p r e s e            n         t   a       t     i   v   e           o       f               t        h   e
R    u   s   s i a         n                 F       e     d   e       r       a       t       i           o    n
V      l   a   d   i             m           i        r            P           u           t           i        n




                                                                                                                46
                                     Sources

1. D e p a r t m e n t o f                S t a t e      –     t h e    U . S .
   h t t p : / / w w                     w . s t         a    t e .    g o v
2. Ministry of Foreign Affairs – People’s Republic of China
   http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/index.html
3. White House
   http://www.whitehouse.gov
4. CNN
   http://www.cnn.com
5. The New York Times
   http://www.nytimes.com
6. The Washington Post
   http://www.washingtonpost.com
7. MSNBC
   http://www.msnbc.com
8. Chinese Embassy in U.S.
   http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/index.html
9. Beijing News
   http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/index.htm
10. BBC
    http://www.bbc.com
11. Department of Defense
    http://www.defenselink.mil
12. The Pentagon
    http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pentagon




                                                                             47

								
To top