By J. Adams
February 18th, 1997
| 6/19 UPDATE |
| Spirit Of Truth | Stock Market Update | Unreported Truth |
DOW 7000+ & A KOREAN WAR?!
J. Adams
February 18th, 1997
The Dow reached a new record high today about a percent above the
psychologically important 7000 mark as investors expectations have
reached a new irrational extreme. As I've been pointing out for some
time now, when the DJIA reaches thousand marks it often reverses
substantially, usually in connection with some sort of negative
historical event:
-The Coming Shock-
Remarkably, each time the DJIA reversed significantally
from psychologically important thousand marks in the past,
negative historical events occurred that fit the associated
reversal in investors' expectations and therefore seemingly
"caused" the stock market to decline. Each time the DJIA
reversed from the "Magic 1000" barrier between 1966 and 1982,
there were all kinds of troubles which emerged ranging from
OPEC oil embargoes, to the Vietnam War, to Watergate. One of
the most notable cases occurred in October of 1973 when the
DJIA rose to just below Dow 1000 as the Arabs launched a
surprise attack against Israel which, in turn, led to a major
East/West confrontation and an Arab oil embargo against the
West. Consequently, the world economy entered a severe
contraction and stock prices plunged. In the summer of 1990,
just after the DJIA reversed from 3000, Iraq invaded Kuwait
thereby triggered a Persian Gulf crisis and major oil-shock
that "caused" the world economy to slip into a recession and
stock prices to plunge. Lastly, right after the Dow reversed
from the 4000 mark in January of 1994, the Fed unexpectedly
hiked interest rates and the stock market entered a year-long
correction.
If this historical pattern is going to repeat here, then,
in the wake of a reversal from Dow 7000, some sort of world
crisis might erupt.
As can be surmised from a glance at recent news headlines, one
possible source of a "shock" to investors' expectations that might be
associated with a reversal from Dow 7000 is an outbreak of war on the
Korean Peninsula:
WHAT NORTH KOREA'S UP TO!
J. Adams
February 18th, 1997
Recent news articles raise some interesting questions about the newest
North Korean defection crisis:
1. Given that the defector Hwang Chang-yop developed the North Korean
philosophy of "Juche", or self-reliance, why was he sent on a mission
to elicit help, particularly in the form of food-aid, from Japan- a
country considered by North Koreans to be an ultimate imperialist
enemy?
2. Why didn't Hwang defect in Japan- where he was for a couple of
weeks prior to stopping by China- instead of Beijing, since China is
closely allied with Pyongyang and could send him back to North Korea?
3. If Hwang was closely surrounded by North Korean agents in Japan to
stop him from defecting, why was he able to casually jump into a taxi
in Beijing and drive to the South Korean embassy? And if the North
Korean leadership was aware Hwang Chang-yop might defect, why did they
send him on an trip to Japan and China where he could seek political
asylum and thereby create a dangerous political crisis in Pyongyang?
4. If Hwang knows there are tens of thousands of N. Korean agents in
South Korea that had infiltrated the South Korean political, military
and intelligence establishments to a high level, why did he reveal his
intent to defect to South Korean contacts for upwards of a year before
actually attempting to defect? Wouldn't he realize he was
jeaporadizing his chances of success or of even receiving an
opportunity to defect?
5. Is it a coincidence that the newest Korean defection crisis is
occurring at the time of the most important North Korean holiday-
i.e., the birthday of Kim Jong-Il, and at a time that Chinese leader
Deng Xiaoping appears to be on his death-bed?
6. What was Hwang's meetings with Vladimir Zhirinovsky in 1994 and the
Central Committee of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev in 1987 all
about?
So what is North Korea up to?
Clearly the defection of the North Korean Communist leader Hwang
Chang-yop makes little sense. Indeed, there is reason to believe
that, in reality, Hwang Chang-yop, the Communist leader who developed
the North Korean philosophy of Juche that emphasizes complete
obedience of North Korea's leader, is defecting because he is obeying
the orders of his "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-Il. The circumstances
surrounding the defection suggest the defection is being staged (and
rather sloppily at that), i.e., this top Communist official is
attempting to defect to South Korea as part of some sort of North
Korean plan.
And what is Pyongyang's plan?
As I have long been warning, North Korea is preparing for a
massive invasion of South Korea. Final preparations may have been
completed during the past couple of months. If so, then the North
might be planning to attack the South before spring thaw since right
now rivers and rice paddies along the DMZ are frozen such that North
Korean tanks and tracked vehicles can manuever off roads and thereby
most easily roll into South Korea (see "Weather Factors" in the 1994
U.S. News and World Report article, "The Most Dangerous Place On
Earth", 6/20/94).
North Korea's most recent war preparations are overviewed in the
following excerpt from a February 16th Toronto Sun article, 'North
Korean Kettle Threatens to Boil Over', written by Eric Margolis:
The North has backed up (recent) threats by steadily moving
combat forces towards the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) separating
the two Koreas. Since December (1996), Pyongyang has deployed
100 MiG fighter-bombers to hardened air bases 20-30 km north
of the DMZ. These aircraft can reach South Korea's capital,
Seoul, six minutes after takeoff, and are clearly positioned
for surprise attack.
North Korea has also been beefing up its ground forces
near the DMZ. Late last year (1996), it created a new
mechanized corp tasked with striking down South Korea's east
coast. New 170mm self-propelled guns have been deployed just
north of the DMZ, from where they can hit Seoul. Equally
alarming, the North continues to add new AN-30 transport
aircraft to its growing fleet of 300. Each of these fabric-
bodied planes, almost invisible to radar, carry 13 commandos
whose mission is to deliver surprise, suicide assaults on
South Korean and U. S. airbases. North Korea has between
88,000 and 100,000 commandos, the world's largest special
warfare corps.
South Korean intelligence reports the North has at least
two plutonium nuclear weapons and is close to deploying new
Rodong-1 missiles, capable of delivering nuclear, chemical and
biological warheads to South Korea, Okinawa, and western
Japan.
Much of the food aid recently delivered to North Korea by
the U.S., South Korea, Japan and international organizations
has been diverted to the North Korean military, which
continues to build vast warstocks of food, fuel and munitions.
As so often in Asia, soldiers eat while peasants starve.
Given these potentially final preparatory steps, all North Korea
needs to launch an attack is some sort of pretext. This might explain
Hwang Jang-yop's recent defection in Beijing. The defection of such a
high-level North Korean Communist Party leader creates the image that
the political hierarchy in Pyonyang is crumbling and could implode.
Consequently, a military explosion is now believed to be possible in
the form of North Korea lashing out militarily against the South. That
such a danger is perceived is reflected by how South Korean forces
have been placed on alert since the defection crisis began last week.
The reason the potential for North Korea to unleash an attack on
the South is coinciding with the potential death of Chinese leader
Deng Xiaoping is likely because what is being planned between
Pyongyang, Beijing, and, most importantly, Moscow, is a major regional
conflict in East Asia. Thus, if a second Korean War erupts at a time
of some sort of power struggle in China, the rise of a more militant,
nationalist Communist leadership in Beijing can be staged such that
American efforts to militarily defend South Korea from North Korea
aggression will entail a confrontation between the U.S. and China.
This, in turn, could be associated with a future Chinese invasion of
Taiwan and an outbreak of a regional East Asian conflict that would
completely tie-up American military forces in a distant part of the
world (of course, just a second Korean War is sufficient for tying up
a good portion of U.S. military forces in East Asia).
Importantly, the ulterior motive of future East Asian conflict is
to open the way for a war in the Middle East. As explained in my
"Korean Diversion" articles, with the Korean War in the early-1950's,
Washington was worried Moscow, who had ordered North Korea to invade
the South, was seeking to divert U.S. forces into East Asia so that
America would have difficulty defending Europe from a Soviet invasion.
Similarly, Moscow is likely seeking now to have North Korea, possibly
with Chinese-backing, invade South Korea and precipitate a major
conflict in East Asia that will draw in a huge amount of U.S. military
forces. Because U.S. forces will be tied-up in East Asia, America
will be unable to come to the defense of Israel and the Middle East in
the event of an Arab/Russian onslaught.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: elbaum@dircon.co.uk (Leiah and Jason Elbaum)
Date: 97-02-17 13:08:59 EST
Dear IRIS Subscriber,
The following commentary is reprinted with permission from The
Jerusalem Post. Views expressed are not necessarily those of IRIS or
its staff.
Leiah and Jason Elbaum
IRIS
http://www.netaxs.com/people/iris
====
"The Syria-PLO axis"
by URI DAN and DENNIS EISENBERG
(The writers are authors of The Mossad: Secrets of the Israel Secret
Service and other books on the Middle East.)
(February 13) - A thought-provoking revelation is in store for
Binyamin Netanyahu during his visit to President Clinton in Washington
this week.
He will certainly be made aware of a secret, 11-page congressional
report on terrorism and warfare, drawn up under the chairmanship of
New Jersey congressman Jim Saxton (the report is archived at the web
location- http://www.aci.net/kalliste/mewar.htm ).
At the heart of the report is a warning about a military pact drawn up
between Yasser Arafat and the Syrian government toward the end of last
year, threatening hostilities against Israel.
One of the key clauses of the Damascus pact says that Arafat's police,
as well as his "terrorist armed elements are to be trained" to ignite
"the Israel interior in case of an escalation in the north."
The report describes Arafat's rapid construction of a chain of deep
"command centers, ammunition and weapons storage areas, well-fortified
to even withstand Israeli bombing and shelling. The PA is accumulating
large stockpiles of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, including
missiles - all forbidden by the Oslo accords."
Security experts in Israel were already aware of Arafat's importing of
vast quantities of cement from Israel into Gaza, ostensibly for
constructing housing and hospitals. They will now find disturbing
confirmation of their suspicion that what the PLO chief was really up
to was building a four-story-deep HQ bunker complex under the ground.
To ensure close cooperation between Arafat and the Syrians, as laid
down in the Damascus pact, joint offices have been opened in Beirut
and Gaza. But the HQ is in Damascus, already functioning with the
blessing of President Assad.
When we contacted Saxton's Washington office, we were told by his
chief spokesman: "The situation has become more serious since the
report was written.
"The Syrians have begun distributing weapons in the refugee camps [in
southern Lebanon]. At the PA's request they have launched intensive
training of PLO anti-aircraft units."
The purpose is to train these Palestinian units in the (imminent) use
of the growing flow of such heavy weapons, now secretly entering Gaza.
These cadres will then be infiltrated into Gaza, where they will take
command of the local Palestinian units [Arafat's "police" and
"security forces"].
Even more startling news came from the head of the group that prepared
Saxton's report:
"Syrian military/intelligence teams will be infiltrated into the PA
area, granted Palestinian identity documents, and serve as military
attaches for training Palestinian forces."
At the same time, the Syrians are deploying their own intelligence
personnel in Gaza and in the Palestinian autonomy in Judea and
Samaria. These Syrian personnel control Hamas and the Islamic Jihad,
under PLO protection.
Together with the PA, the Syrians are, as the congressional report
phrases it, setting up a fresh team to "employ ruthless means" to
eradicate any remnants of Israel's General Security Service's (GSS)
networks. This is intended to "further harm Israel's ability to
prevent and fight terrorism."
In fact, so close is the cooperation between Damascus and the PA that
trusted Syrian units have been ordered "to gather intelligence data
about Israel, identify and designate targets in the deep Israeli rear,
and detect any preparations for war.
"In the event of an eruption of violence in Lebanon or on the Syrian
border," the report makes clear, "the Syrian-controlled teams will
coordinate and lead the Palestinian "contribution" to the war effort."
And "it is conceivable that the Syrian teams, along with the
Palestinians they directly control, will ultimately conduct special
operations inside Israel in case of a war."
The Saxton report is, of course, based on US intelligence data,
including satellites and other electronic military activity. It would
be surprising if much of this information were not already known to
the GSS.
The report will surely add weight to the seriousness of the liaison
between the Syrians and Arafat, and their aggressive intentions.
Advanced weapons have been smuggled for some time into Gaza by sea,
despite efforts by the Israeli navy to blockade the area. Additional
arms have been gotten to the PA across the border with Egypt.
There is clearly concern in our cabinet about the buildup of Arafat's
-let's call a spade a spade - military force.
Despite his new "super-dove" image, Israeli Foreign Minister David
Levy was sufficiently alarmed to announce recently that 30 planeloads
of weapons have been flown from Iran to Damascus.
The announcement forced US officials to admit that they have known
about this for some time.
European intelligence sources revealed this week that accompanying the
Iranian-supplied hardware on the planes were training specialists from
Iran. The weapons, including advanced rockets capable of reaching the
Haifa area from Lebanon, were sent on to Hizbullah and other
terrorists training in the southern part of the country and in the
Bekaa Valley.
There is little doubt that many of these tools of war are fast making
their way to Arafat. But the PLO chief has protested that the speed
with which his army is being equipped is too slow for him.
Which is why he is pressing the prime minister as hard as he can to
complete arrangements for building a seaport in Gaza and an airport in
the Dahaniya area - both to function independently of Israeli
inspection.
Arafat is also pressing for quick implementation of safe passage for
Palestinians and their goods between Gaza and the West Bank.
It would not be stretching cynicism too far to understand why this is
so important to him. How else can he get the weapons detailed above
into the hands of his fighters in Ramallah, Hebron, Bethlehem and
other points close to Jerusalem and other Jewish areas?
One heartily hopes that Binyamin Netanyahu, now in Washington, will
not repeat the total surrender that characterized the Hebron
agreement. But his prevarications over the past few weeks bode ill.
His already shaky approach to withstanding Syria's demands for total
withdrawal from the Golan - an area irretrievably linked to the
security zone in Lebanon - has been further weakened by Israeli
Internal Security Minister Kahalani's suggestion that an
"international force" be allowed to run things up on the Heights.
Has no one told Kahalani that one useless force is already stationed
there?
Comments Saxton in his report, entitled Approaching the New Circle of
Arab-Israeli Fighting: "The Clinton administration continues to apply
pressure on Jerusalem to make additional concessions to Mr. Arafat,
while ignoring the concurrent developments in the Middle East.
"Instead of pressuring the democratically-elected government of Israel
to deviate from the policies it was elected for, the US should
concentrate on helping Israel meet the growing threat of war."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defense & Foreign Affairs' Strategic Policy
April, 1996
"Russo-PRC Axis Changes Balance"
By Yossef Bodansky, Senior Editor
RUSSIAN PRESIDENT Boris Yeltsin's visit to the People's Republic of
China (PRC) in late April 1996 may prove a milestone in the emergence
of a strategic posture in Central Asia which is adverse to the long-
term interests of msia, India and the West. This assumes that the
regional dynamics and elations agreed-upon in Shanghai are permitted
to unfold as currently planned. Moscow is fully aware of the adverse
impact of these agreements on the Russian national interest and
strategic posture. However, given the current economic plight of
Russia and the consequent constraints imposed on its ability to pursue
its national interests, these arrangements are seen as the least of
evils.
Essentially, the Beijing phase of Yeltsin's trip should be considered
a first step in an effort by the two strategic giants -- both feeling
under pressure from Washington -- to regulate, better understand and
coordinate their respective strategic aspirations and postures.
Beijing sees in the visit the beginning of new era in Sino-Russian
relations with global implications. PRC Premier Li Peng stressed that
Beijing and Moscow "agree to develop a strategic partnership for the
21st Century based on equality, mutual benefit and confidence".
Beijing considers the visit as having "far-reaching significance" for
both Sino-Russian bilateral relations and the overall grand strategic
posture in the entire Asia and Pacific regions.
Boris Yeltsin also highlights the global essence of the new Sino-
Russian relations codified during the visit. Russia and the PRC are
resolved "to cooperate in order to create a new world order, in which
there is no place for anyone's claims to a monopoly in world affairs.
We live in a multi-polar world, and this is a new factor in world
development," Yeltsin explains.
Beijing seized on the anti-US sentiments hinted by Yeltsin to stress
this aspect of the evolving new Sino-Russian relations. Indeed,
confidential briefings by high PRC officials in Beijing contrasted
Yeltsin's visit with US President Clinton's recent visit to East Asia
and Moscow. The PRC officials stated that Beijing considers "the
Yeltsinâ trip as proof of Washington's declining influence in the
region".
However, from a practical point of view, the most important bilateral
negotiations and discussions were between Russian Foreign Minister
Yevgeniy Primakov and PRC Vice-Premier and Foreign Minister Qian
Qichen. It was these comprehensive deliberations which led to Russia
and the PRC reaching the new modalities of regional relations. The
Primakov-Qian negotiations set the real priorities and essence of the
far-reaching and very important arrangements and understandings
between Beijing and Moscow. Chinese officials explained that Primakov
and Qian agreed that their countries will "oppose interference in
other countries" internal affairs and the attempt to monopolise
international affairs': This definition is clearly anti-US. Both
officials also determined that "the future strengthening of Sino-
Russian relations was strategic, but the seeking of common interests
and close cooperation did not mean that China and Russia will form an
alliance. The development of Sino-Russian relations was not directed
against any third countries nor did it pose a threat to any country."
This point was stressed by the Russian High Command in the context of
the rapidly expanding Russian weapons sales to the PRC. "China is
interested in buying Russian combat equipment and arms. And Russia is
very keen on this since arms sales enable it to keep defence
enterprises afloat, retain science and production cadres, and improve
technology. Sometimes the development of Sino-Russian military and
military-technical ties is interpreted as an attempt to create some
kind of military alliance. However, that is a false premise. Sino-
Russian relations are not aimed against third countries and extensive
contacts between the military departments have always helped to
increase trust between peoples." The Russian military needs reduction
of tension in Central Asia and the Far East to concentrate attention
and assets on meeting the Chechen challenge. Yeltsin's forthcoming
visit to Chechnya reflects the growing importance of the crisis.
Taken together, the bilateral and regional military arrangements in
Central Asia (discussed below) will enable reduction of the regional
Russian military activities: always beneficial for Beijing and
Islamabad. At the same time, Beijing placed yet another large order
for arms -- mainly aircraft and missiles, but also APCs, commumcatlons
systems, and sub-systems for tanks and combat vehicles upgrades -- as
well as nuclear power technology.
Most important is Beijing's purchase of more than 26 Su-27s (in
addition to the previously agreed upon aircraft purchases and transfer
of production technology).
The new batch of fighters may be a combination of surplus from the
Russian Air Force and diversion of the next aircraft coming off the
production line at the expense of the Russian Air Force. Such a speedy
delivery is intended to quickly give the PRC greater capabilities
against Taiwan and in the South China Sea. In response to PRC
requirements and as an inducement for additional weapons orders,
Russia timed the arrival to the PRC of 22 Su-27s -- from the PRC's
second batch purchased in 1995 -- to coincide with Yeltsin's stay in
Beijing; ie: significantly ahead of the original delivery schedule.
Meanwhile, the most important part of Yeltsin's visit took place in
Shanghai: the summit with the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan on joint security arrangements in Central Asia. PRC
officials said that Beijing had two objectives in these regional
arrangements: (1) to contain the Islamist surge, and (2) to create
regional strategic dynamics which would neutralise the Russian -
Indian alliance by default. For Beijing, the essence of the regional
dynamics is legitimising and authorising a Chinese surge into Central
Asia, in all but two areas considered Russian monopolies: internal
security and military affairs.
On April 26, the presidents of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan
and Tajikistan signed a confidence-building military treaty to reduce
tensions along common borders. The treaty codifies and regulates the
deployment of military forces within a 100km stretch on both sides of
the old Sino-Soviet border, provides for mutual verification of major
force deployments and movements, as well as limit the ability of the
signatories to concentrate major forces in this stretch even for
previously-scheduled exercises. In a joint statement, the five
presidents hailed the importance of the treaty to "strengthening
confidence in the military field in the border areas". Significantly,
this treaty has no time limit, remains effective as long as the PRC
and any one of the other former Soviet states continues to recognise
it. The treaty permits any party to withdraw following six months'
notice that gives the other signatories ample time to adjust their own
military deployments.
The speedy reduction of military forces in Central Asia and the Far
East border with Rus sia enables the PLA to divert more troops to
active preparations for escalation against Taiwan. The PLA's best-
trained, led and equipped combined-arms units are in the Xinjiang area
and the north-west regions. Their availability bolsters implementation
of the initial lessons of the recent round of anti-Taiwan military
exercises in the Nanjing War Theatre.
Senior military sources in Beijing said that the exercises revealed
two key deficiencies in the PLA which prevented further military
actions:
* There was a clear inability of troops from the interior to cope with
amphibious operations without thorough conditiotling of the personnd
as individuals. Not only must soldiers learn to swim to overcome fear
of water, but during preparatory drills, these units suffered numerous
fatalities due to hypothermia and drowning.
* There were opposite problems with the local troops of the Nanjing
War Theatre in protracted combat operations in mountains as well as
built-up and fortified zones. The region's troops trained too much in
amphibious operations to the point of deterioration of other skills.
This loss was aggravated by the rotation of draftees.
In the exercises, all PLA units assigned to the Nanjing War Theatre
were slow and inefficient in developing offensive to the depth from
the efficiently- and swiftly-established bridgeheads. The local units
had problems implementing orders while the interior units were
debilitated by the time they reached the beachheads. Hence, the PLA
High Command ordered a remedial series of on-land exercises starting
late May, so that units can catch-up and be ready for the invasion of
Taiwan. The highly-trained and well-equipped units from Xinjiang will
form a core of the high-performance invasion force that will leap from
the beachheads (established by the Nanjing-based forces) and confront
the main Taiwanese forces.
The key to the new posture in Central Asia, however, is the
unprecedented regional agreement to combat Islamists. Despite its
close strategic alliance with Iran and Pakistan, the PRC is pushed by
the deteriorating situation in Xinjiang. The continued exposure to
Iran, Pakistan, and cross-border relations with Turkestan, have
already resulted in the rise, albeit fledgling, of an Uighur Islamist
movement with subversive and nationalist tendencies. Beijing is also
apprehensive by the emergence of the Free East Turkestan (FET)
movement in the West because it is already getting recognition and
support from some conservative elements of the International Islamist
Movement in Europe and the Persian Gulf states. The overall trend has
pushed Beijing to act.
PRC intelligence officials increasingly express concern about the zeal
of the surge by Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI)
organisation into Tajikistan and Central Asia. Beijing is worried not
so much about "angering" Moscow, but by the the regional ramifications
of the ISI's creation of a point of leverage over Beijing. This has
been Islamabad's objective in surging into Central Asia. Tacitly,
Beijing hopes to see Russia contain Pakistan without endangering
further consolidation of the Trans-Asian Adds through political,
military and commercial activities rather than Islamic revivalism.
On April 29, Qian Qichen announced that the PRC, Russia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan reached "an understanding to join forces to
combat the spread of fundamentalist Islamic movements" in their
respective coun tries and the region. "We are opposed to terrorist and
separatist activities by some fundamentalists because religion and
politics are two separate issues," Qian told Reuters. "Many problems
can arise if religion is used to engage in politics." The PRC
considered this agreement as an instrument for joint operations.
"We have an understanding with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and others that
we should work together to fight against separatist and terrorist
activities and oppose fundamentalist activities." Qian alluded to the
growing Islamist challenge in Xinjiang, acknowledging that Beijing is
already "very vigilant against fundamentalist, separatist and
terrorists activities coming from abroad". He added: "The market in
China for such activities is very small". It is significant that in
his remarks, Qian dropped mentioning Tajikistan, although a party to
the agreement. This was in order not to alienate Pakistan whose ISI
strongly supports the local Islamist forces from bases in northern
Afghanistan.
The new regional arrangements do not affect the growing flow of
nuclear and strategic goods from Russia and Central Asia to Pakistan
and Iran via Afghanistan. Conducted on "friendly territory" in their
entirety, these new shipment routes permit the ordinary acquisition
and delivery of weapon systems, strategic materials, as well as other
strategic technologies and goods, along with technical support and
experts. At the current pace, this flow would revolutionise the
nuclear capabilities of the benefiting states -- Pakistan, Iran and
the PRC -- in two years by providing for a leap of a technological
generation. The Pakistanis and Iranians share their technological
acquisitions with the PRC as an integral component of their military
nuclear cooperation.
The initial impact of this newly-acquired nuclear weapons technology
and sub systems may already be reflected in the forthcoming nuclear
tests in the PRC. Despite a heavy political "price" Beijing is moving
ahead with a revived test programme for both May and September-October
1996. Ignoring Beijing's official definition of "peaceful nuclear
explosions", Chinese officials explained that it is imperative for the
PLA to actually test new and markedly improved warheads before they
are adopted for production and operational deployment. Considering
that the 1995 successful nuclear tests were also aimed at verifying
new warhead technology prior to a cancellation of further tests for
political reasons, the new tests cannot but be explained by the urgent
need to verify the operability of recently acquired and adopted new
warhead technologies.
Given the evolutionary character of the Chinese warhead development
effort since the late 1980s, these technologies must have come from
foreign sources: the former Soviet Union.
Thus, the new anti-Islamist agreement fails to address, let alone
reverse, the most dangerous aspect of the Islamic bloc activities in
the TransAsian Axis: the rise of Islamist nuclear capabilities. Since
Beijing is the undisputed leader of the Trans-Asian Axis, the PRC has
no reason to fear these strategic dynamics. Other regional powers
should be apprehensive.
Meanwhile, the importance of the new strategic posture as a result of
Yeltsin's visit to the PRC is already apparent to the region's other
powers. Most significant is their reaction to the Sino-Russian effort
to marginalise the role of the US as a primary strategic actor in
Asia.
The most explicit recognition of this new reality has "already come
from Tokyo. Japan, ever super-sensitive to the undercurrents of Fast
Asia, reacted swiftly to the emerging strategic environment. Despite
the still reverberating aftermath of US President William Clinton's
official visit which dealt with mutual security cooperation, the
Japanese would not wait a single day. On April 28, Tokyo sent to
Moscow a high-level defence delegation led by Hideo Usui, chief of the
Japanese Defence Agency. The delegation was instructed to inspect
Russian military units and weapons, and hold "frank discussions" on
Russo-Japanese defence relations. The fate of the Kuril Islands -- a
lingering point of contention between Tokyo and Moscow -- was
completely ignored.
Instead, Hideo Usui stressed that his charter was to "actively develop
Russo-Japanese ties" and "raise the level of trust between our
countries." The Japanese acknowledged their sense of urgency in view
of recent developments in the Asia-Pacific region. Tokyo is so eager
to please Moscow, that the Hideo Usui delegation went so far as to
officially express Japan's willingness to invest in the Russian
defence industries, mainly aerospace, through the purchase of fighters
and missiles at inflated prices. Tokyo asked Russia for formal
proposals to purchase MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters, as well as several
batteries of the S-300 long-range SAM/ATBM.
With a Russian threat at least temporarily removed, the ascendancy of
the PRC as a regional hegemon will be much faster. So Tokyo rushed to
embrace the only other regional power capable of interceding on its
behalf with Beijing should the need arise: Russia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTICLES FOR FAIR USE ONLY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For current news on the former Soviet Union and Russia see:
http://wp2.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/exussr.htm
http://www.nd.edu/~astrouni/zhiwriter/
For current news on the Middle East and Iraq see:
http://wp2.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/mideast.htm
http://www.emet.com/house.htm
For current news on the Balkans see:
http://wp2.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/worldref/country/serbia.htm
http://wp2.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/worldref/country/bosniahz.htm
For current news on Korea see:
http://wp2.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/worldref/country/nkorea.htm
http://www.kimsoft.com/dprk.htm
| Spirit Of Truth Page | Stock Market Update |