China and Russia Align Against U.S.

China's President Jiang Zemin went to Moscow in mid-July as if to receive a Russian bride. In the bride's trousseau were some of the best military and nuclear technology money can buy. Also included: an extended family of alliances, guaranteed by three generations of Communist godfathers. In exchange, Jiang handed Vladimir Putin, the former KGB officer who now is president of the Russian Federation, new contracts potentially worth tens of billions of dollars to Russian enterprises.

In Washington, Bush-administration officials reacted to the news of the Sino-Russian Friendship Treaty inked in Moscow on July 16 with quiet equanimity. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher dismissed the pact at his daily briefing, calling it "a treaty of friendship, not an alliance." At the White House, presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer noted that diplomacy was "not a zero-sum game." Echoing Boucher, he added: "Just because Russia and China have entered into an agreement does not necessarily mean it's something that would be adverse to the interests of the United States."

Official Washington was downplaying what outside observers and some top Bush-administration national-security officials say privately was a sweeping shift in the strategic balance of power that only can mean bad news for the United States. These critics say the Sino-Russian pact not only will expand Russian arms sales to China, which already had shifted the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait, but commits the two giants to a broad international agenda squarely opposed to core U.S. interests, making common cause in economic, diplomatic and military arenas.

"This treaty formalizes and makes visible a new coalition led by Beijing and Moscow to counter the United States and its allies around the world," says Constantine Menges, a former Reagan-administration National Security Council (NSC) strategic analyst now at the Hudson Institute. For Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the treaty showed that "the Sino-Soviet split which marked so much of the Cold War period is definitely over."

The treaty calls for expanded cooperation in aviation, space, nuclear, military and information technology, as well as policy coordination at the United Nations, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO). It legitimizes both parties' right to smash dissident or separatist movements and spells out Russia's support for China's claims on Taiwan. Although Putin subsequently denied any such intent, the treaty also calls for defeating U.S. plans to deploy a national missile defense. Instead, China and Russia join to advocate a "fair and rational new international order" - code words, say experts, for challenging U.S. interests.

But potentially most disturbing is Article 9, which contains language outlining a mutual-defense pact whenever one of the parties "believes there is a threat of aggression."

"With this treaty it would appear, for example, that any military move by China against Taiwan would now be backed up by the enormous nuclear arsenal of the former Soviet Union," Inhofe tells Insight. "Such an arrangement has profound strategic implications for the future." Russia war-gamed how its forces could support a Chinese military takeover of Taiwan during exercises conducted Feb. 12-16. As first reported by Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, Russian commanders escalated the conflict by threatening nuclear-missile strikes on U.S. forces in South Korea and Japan. This is the first time Russia is known to have carried out a simulation involving joint war-planning with China or to have practiced fighting the United States in the Pacific.

China repays the favor on the Taiwan issue by agreeing in the treaty to support Russian dominance of Chechnya, which sits astride strategic transportation routes that command access to the vast oil resources of Central Asia and the Persian Gulf. While NATO is not mentioned by name in the 25 articles of the treaty, in an interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera that appeared just as he was signing the pact with Jiang, Putin suggested that "NATO could be disbanded as was the Warsaw Pact."

"This is a strategic relationship," a top national-security official told this reporter six months ago, before being tapped to join the Bush administration. "That is the phrase the Chinese and the Russians use themselves. It has concrete manifestations - Russian arms sales - and it is specifically aimed against the United States." That official could not be reached for comment.

In a speech at the National Defense University on May 1, President George W. Bush suggested that the United States and Russia should cooperate on joint defense projects. Indeed, the president's father and Russia's then-president, Boris Yeltsin, agreed in December 1992 to set aside lingering Cold War hostilities and pool resources to build a common missile-defense system - plans shelved by the Clinton administration without further discussion.

But for Menges, such views amount to "wishful assumptions." China and Russia "have come to share the same two-track policy toward the U.S.," he tells Insight. "This involves maintaining a sense of normalcy and dialogue so that the U.S. and other democracies will continue providing China and Russia with vitally needed economic benefits while at the same time using mostly political and covert means to oppose the U.S. in the domain of security issues and to divide the U.S. from its allies. This was the preferred KGB approach during Putin's years [1975-1991] and this has been China's approach during the Jiang Zemin years [1993 to the present]."

When the Sino-Russian pact was first announced during a Yeltsin-Jiang summit in Beijing in December 1999, the mainstream U.S. press covered it as a kind of Twilight of the Titans. "Russia, a faltering world power, and China, an aspiring one, are united in fear of American domination," wrote New York Times correspondent Erik Eckholm. The pact merely was an expression of their relative weakness, and the United States' relative strength. "Much ado about nothing," as one Bush-administration NSC official calls it.

But during the last year, Putin and Jiang have met no fewer than eight times to nail down various aspects of their newfound alliance, including the details of a vast array of new Russian arms sales.

For Arthur Waldron, a China scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, the Sino-Russian pact may be a marriage of convenience, as the administration contends, but if so, it is reminiscent of the Axis alliance between Germany and Italy during World War II. "Hitler despised Mussolini, there was no coordination and there were deep conflicts simmering just beneath the surface. Ultimately, the Axis did fall apart and we did defeat them, but they caused us a lot of trouble before they were through."

Waldron believes, as do some analysts within the Bush administration, that it is in the interests of the United States to split Russia and China apart. "We should do this not by making concessions," Waldron says, "but by showing them we will penalize them for this sort of cooperation." Waldron believes that Bush's clear statement in April that the United States would do "whatever it took to help Taiwan defend herself" in the event of a Chinese attack actually helped improve the U.S.-Chinese relationship because it drew a clear red line. "As long as the United States is maintaining a robust position with respect to its allies, this will have a beneficial effect on the Chinese leadership, who will look for ways to improve the relationship with the U.S.," Waldron tells Insight.

This latest Sino-Russian agreement has been a decade in the works, say intelligence specialists. Military and intelligence officials traveled back and forth between Moscow and Beijing with increasing frequency starting in 1994 with a draft agreement outlined by outgoing Russian President Yeltsin and Jiang in December 1999.

According to Russian researcher Alexander V. Nemets, who has been tracking the Russia-China relationship, the two leaders signed documents at that time committing Russia to sell $15 billion to $20 billion in new weaponry and military technology to China during the next five years and to work with China to construct a common missile- and air-defense barrier, a move clearly aimed at deterring any retaliatory U.S. or NATO attack. "China and Russia are both deeply anti-Western, and this is what has sparked their cooperation," Nemets tells Insight.

The Russian arsenal transferred to China during the last decade has helped the People's Liberation Army (PLA) leapfrog a generation in its military capabilities. From a Third World army, whose fighter jets ran out of gas before they hit the end of the runway, China now commands several hundred modern attack aircraft and interceptors such as the Su-27 and Su-30 MK, which today are being assembled in China under Russian supervision (see "Russia's Air-Show Blues," July 23). Equipping these aircraft and several hundred MiG-29 fighters sold earlier, say intelligence sources, are the latest in Russian stand-off missiles, including R-73 and R-77 air-combat missiles that respond to the pilot's helmet commands, and air-to-ground cruise missiles such as the Kh-31.

At sea, the Chinese have purchased a small but robust blue-water navy from Russia, including nuclear-tipped cruise missiles fitted on Sovremenny-class destroyers (two already delivered, six more on order), originally designed to kill U.S. aircraft carriers. They also have received eight upgraded (Project 636) Kilo-class submarines, in addition to four earlier models. The new Kilo is an advanced diesel-electric sub that runs so silently that it reportedly slipped through U.S. electro-acoustic sonar arrays while on patrol in the Strait of Taiwan last year.

Insight has learned that the Chinese now are seeking long-range cruise missiles, Tu-22 MZ ("Backfire") strategic bombers and MiG-31M interceptors, the first of which already have been photographed by U.S. reconnaissance aircraft in PLA air-force markings. "The MiG-31 is a high-altitude, high-speed aircraft, capable of flying at 70,000 feet at speeds approaching Mach 3," says Rick Fisher, an expert on Chinese military affairs with the Jamestown Foundation. "It was designed to go after high-value support, command and intelligence assets, such as the AWACS, JSTARS and EP-3 surveillance aircraft" downed by the Chinese earlier this year in international airspace.

China is eyeing a direct purchase of nuclear submarines and possibly nuclear missiles, say intelligence sources. PLA Commander in Chief Col.-Gen. Zhang Wannian toured the Russian strategic rocket base in Novosibirsk two years ago to view the world's only road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile, the SS-25. He went on to visit the Komsomolsk shipyard, where two Akula-class nuclear attack submarines reportedly were being assembled for China, according to intelligence reports. The Chinese also have expressed an interest in purchasing an Oscar-class nuclear cruise-missile submarine similar to the Kursk, which went down off the Russian coast two years ago.

Next on the agenda, analysts agree, is joint development of future-generation weaponry, including advanced lasers, particle beams, intelligence-gathering satellites and military space technologies - in effect throwing open Russia's vast network of military-research facilities to Chinese weapons designers. "The Chinese are obsessed with finding a secret weapon - they call it, the `assassin's mace,'" says Fisher. "In Jiang Zemin's New Year's address to the Central Military Commission, he pounded the table demanding the military provide him with a surprise weapon - the assassin's mace - that would allow him to `trump' Taiwan."

Secret weapon aside, say strategic specialists, the Chinese and the Russians have a far more mundane goal in more closely coordinating their two militaries: joint weapons development and shared military standards. "The goal is for Russia and China to be able to resupply each other in time of war," says Nemets. After all, that's what a strategic alliance is all about. c

In a side agreement announced in Moscow on July 17, Russia and China agreed to build a 1,500-mile pipeline to bring oil from Siberia to China. The deal will bring in much-needed hard currency to Russia's inefficient and polluting oil industry, while helping China surmount one of its greatest needs: more oil.

China has become, along with India, the fastest-growing new market for oil products. According to a study by the East-West Center, a U.S. government-financed think tank in Honolulu, Asia accounted for 92 percent of the global net growth in oil consumption last year and will race ahead in the years to come. Meanwhile, China's own oil fields are aging. The only major new potential sources in the region are offshore deposits controlled by Vietnam, which beat China in a short but bloody border war in 1979, and in the Spratly Islands, a cluster of rocks in the Philippine archipelago that China has attempted to claim by force.

The Chinese appear to have become "paranoid" about their dependence on oil imports, East-West Center analyst Freidoun Fesharaki told Forbes magazine recently.

In the quest for oil, China is roaming far and wide - way beyond the Spratlys and even Russia. During the last two years, the Chinese National Petroleum Corp. has begun pumping 200,000 barrels per day from southern Sudan along with a few Western partners. The Sudanese oil comes at a price: Thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands, of Chinese paramilitary troops have been dispatched to Sudan during the last two years to sweep Christian and animist villagers from the oil fields. Critics say they are part of a plan by the Islamist government in Khartoum to exterminate Sudan's Christian population (see "Will Bush Stop Sudan Genocide?" July 16).

The Chinese also are moving into Canada, where Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing has bought a controlling interest in Husky Oil, Canada's second-largest oil company, and now is investing heavily in drilling off Canada's Atlantic coast. Li, who is widely reported to enjoy a close personal relationship with Chinese President Jiang Zemin and to act in tandem with China's communist government, has been awarded a government oil concession in Saskatchewan and now is said to be looking for new assets in Venezuela.

I don't see anything wrong with his "In forum".

Look at what interest me..."Oil for food? Does that mean I am on the U.N. payroll?

Get a grip. I don't trust them either.

indeed, NAFTA would have helped Mexico - and I was all for that, because we share a common border with Mexico, and cultural similarities (especially in the southwest), as well as the immigration issue. and Mexico is not an enemy of the united states, and they have significant energy resources of their own to support industrial development.

free trade with China has essentially rendered NAFTA useless.

"Perhaps this is why Colin Powell made those statements about Taiwan belonging to China recently?"

I am so glad Powell is on his way out. Unfortunately, Powell has been shouting the "One China" policy from the rooftops, so he is probably just repeating the president's position. If so, I hope Republicans will do their job and vigorously oppose this policy in Congress.

"Faced with the obvious mercenary intent of the four countries - it sure seems to me that the world is becoming extremely volatile. What are our options?"

As improbable as this sounds, we need to CUT OFF ALL AID AND TRADE WITH RED CHINA immediately. As it stands now, we are feeding and strengthening the very dragon that intends to devour us someday.

It appears that only two significant countries - America and Great Britain - stand for any meaningful good or moral values.

Like in WWII. It's deja vu all over again.

"I don't trust Putin, but TTS is sick indeed - just check his "in forum" option, this dude is bashing Russians all the time, this is his only input to this forum."

I have nothing against the Russian people...my beef is with their criminalist rulers (which means I am in support of your average Russian). I usually talk about Russia in the context of the growing Eurasian Alliance...the most pressing foreign policy issue of our time IMO. I am just doing my part to alert the FReepers to this growing danger. BTW, I also address Red China, Taiwan, N. Korea, Israel, the Middle East, Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, WOT, the UN, etc...

"Thank you president NIXON...What a loser he was"

You are absolutely right! Nixon got the ball rolling by giving Red China an entrance into the West. Funny, the MSM tout that as Nixon's greatest accomplishment.

These types of articles are nothing short of hysterical. Let's all learn this fact and remember it well. Historian Paul Johnson has pointed out that the US spends more in one year on defense than the next fourteen countries COMBINED. This includes countries like Russia and China. And the percentage that the US spends annually is GROWING. And the US has been actively AT WAR for four years, which accelerates operational and technological developments. Not to mention that our units have gained ACTUAL COMBAT EXPERIENCE. The United States has evolved into the greatest military power on earth; in fact, there is no historical precedent for the overwhelming dominance that the US brings to bear to world affairs, economic or military.

What does this mean? The type of "analysis" represented in articles like this have no more insight into our current situation or future position than the blathering of the old sailors who argued for building more wooden sailing ships to protect against steam-powered ironclads. These people are the last gasping voices of a dead era. Forget this kind of nonsense. We are living in a new age of global American hegemony! We are the new Rome! Every other country is nothing more than a province, including Russia and China.

Something is afoot. I have been watching the "Cold War" rise from the ashes. The "evil empire" is alive and growing each day. The pacts between the 2 countries was never dead. They just disagreed in principal. Their biggest threat is not the US but North Korea, should that fruitcake go even further south mentally. Economically, we can defeat both Russia and China combined.

We collectively as a nation have to get the MSM out of their current US bashing mode and have our politicos come together in a bipartisanship agreement. Without these 2 things we as a country will have a more difficult time in preserving our liberty as we currently know it.

"Is it any wonder why President Bush chose Condi Rice whose background as a Sovietologist and Russia expert is needed right now?"

It could be just me, but it seems like a long time since "Pootie" has been to the ranch.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.