News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Friends or foes? Or, a bit of both?

STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIPS in the world are still evolving after the cataclysmic events of September 11 in the United States. With ``Tora Bora'' dominating the airwaves and the headlines until recently, the American decision to pull out from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty has hardly created a ripple.

That the U.S. President, Mr. George W. Bush, intended to pull out of the Treaty (signed with the then Soviet Union) had been made known by American officials. That it would come while the ``war'' in Afghanistan was going on came as a surprise.

Whether the Russians have acquiesced in the withdrawal or not, the U.S. decision has dealt a telling blow to the international arms control regime.

Any future American exhortation to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) or future arms control measures will only be seen as two-faced.

Just when the rest of the world was thinking that ``coalition-building'' in the American war against Afghanistan marked the end of unilateralist policies under Mr. Bush, the decision on the ABM Treaty has ended such a thought process.

The Americans will do as they please. If their interests require them to be seen building coalitions they will do so, if their interests require them to withdraw from treaties they endeavoured in the past to sign, they will do so.

A new and more dangerous world order is evolving after September 11. The checks and balances which existed in the world before the collapse of the Soviet Union are being left by the wayside as the Americans move to secure their nation against future threats.

There is little doubt that given the state of its economy, Russia is hardly in a position to hold its own against the Americans. The Russian President, Mr. Vladimir Putin, made spirited remarks in the past about the need to preserve the ABM Treaty - but when it came to the crunch Moscow had little to say.

The Chinese, on the other hand, are very concerned about the American decision to abandon the ABM Treaty. Beijing has its own strategic concerns vis-a-vis the missile shield proposed by the U.S. and has repeatedly opposed American withdrawal from the Treaty.

Speaking after the U.S. announced its decision, the Chinese President, Mr. Jiang Zemin, said it was of ``great importance'' to maintain the international arms control and disarmament regime. China, he said, was ready to work with other countries in the world to make its due effort to uphold world peace and stability.

In Beijing, a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said: ``China is not in favour of missile defence systems. China worries about the negative impact... we think the relevant sides should seek through a constructive dialogue a solution that safeguards the global strategic balance and doesn't harm international efforts at arms control and disarmament.''

The official People's Daily, however, was forthright in its criticism. ``The spread of the news (about withdrawing from the ABM Treaty) has stunned the world. This not only represents the U.S. withdrawal from an important international agreement for the first time since the end of World War II in 1945, but also implies the disintegration of the international mechanism for prohibiting strategic defence that has continued for almost 30 years.''

In a commentary, the paper said: ``... it is only three months after the occurrence of the September 11 incident when the international community is helping the U.S. in winning the Afghanistan war, the U.S. once again turns a deaf ear to the just voice of the international community.

``This cannot but once again generate a deep impression on the people about the U.S. international behaviour which is full of hegemonic air (sic).''

The paper was critical of Mr. Putin and said the U.S. decision had ``discredited'' the Russian leader, who had devoted considerable effort to improving relations with the U.S. ``A reasonable explanation is that the Bush administration's present decision to choose withdrawal from the ABM (Treaty) actually is, in itself, the result of the U.S.-Russian anti-missile negotiation since the previous six months, as well as the result of the new development of U.S.-Russian relations after the September 11 incident,'' it said.

China and the U.S. also differ in their anti-terrorist perceptions. Beijing is piqued that the U.S. does not see its separatist problem in Xinjiang as ``East Turkestan'' terrorism.

Beijing has also made it clear it does not wish to see a long-term U.S. presence in Afghanistan even as it wants the Americans if not to support then at least ignore Chinese action against ``East Turkestan terrorists''.

China, as a huge economy, is a major player on the global stage. As its economic clout grows, so will its desire to play a bigger role in strategic affairs. Given the fact that the Chinese and the Americans are major trading partners, it remains to be seen whether there will be a real collision between their interests.

Beijing cannot but be aware of America's growing clout and the new assertiveness of Washington in world affairs since terrorists struck in New York and Washington. Is a long-term clash between the U.S. and China inevitable?

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion