-Caveat Lector- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26322
WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! STRATFOR GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE UPDATE Brits seek use of Chinese bases Want to mute U.S. unilaterism by using Beijing's facilities ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- Editor's note: In partnership with Stratfor, the global intelligence company, WorldNetDaily publishes daily updates on international affairs provided by the respected private research and analysis firm. Look for fresh updates each afternoon, Monday through Friday. In addition, WorldNetDaily invites you to consider STRATFOR membership, entitling you to a wealth of international intelligence reports usually available only to top executives, scholars, academic institutions and press agencies. © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com The British government has held talks with Beijing about the possibility of using Chinese air bases for operations in Afghanistan, according to Stratfor, the global intelligence company. By requesting such unprecedented military cooperation from China, London is trying to convince an increasingly unilateralist Washington of the necessity of coalition building. China, for its part, could use the offer to re-emerge on the global stage after being on the sidelines post-Sept. 11. The United Kingdom's Ministry of Defense has asked Beijing for access to western Chinese air bases for use in support of relief operations in Afghanistan. Such cooperation would be unprecedented for China, which has not seen British military operations on its soil since World War II, and Beijing has yet to respond to the request. Britain – a key player in humanitarian efforts now under way in Afghanistan – has straightforward tactical reasons for requesting Chinese assistance, but the appeal harbors significance far beyond Afghanistan for both London and Beijing. For both parties, the opportunity for military cooperation in Afghanistan is a test of their ability to manage U.S. unilateralism. On the surface, Britain needs additional air bases to perform its mission in Afghanistan. The airports at Kabul and Bagram are wrecked and cannot support sufficient large-cargo aircraft to meet relief needs. Britain is seeking to establish hubs outside Afghanistan, from which smaller transports with fewer logistical requirements can shuttle into Afghanistan's poorly maintained airfields. London already has permission to use the Karachi airport, but it needs a northern airfield as well. The Chinese air bases likely under consideration are in Kashgar or Hotan in Xinjiang province, since these are the nearest airports capable of supporting substantial traffic. London has also contacted Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, any of which could provide adequate support, but none of them would serve the political purposes that a Chinese airport would serve. While the United Kingdom is at the center of the Afghan relief effort, it is also a key member of the U.S. coalition against al-Qaida. It is therefore extremely significant that London has approached Beijing for support. China has played a marginal role in the fight against al-Qaida thus far and has responded critically to what it sees as Washington's penchant for unilateralism. U.S. President George W. Bush forcefully emphasized the unilateralist doctrine in his State of the Union address, setting Washington's allies as well as adversaries on edge. Britain is extremely concerned that, as one of the United States' closest allies, it could become a hapless adjunct to Washington's war on everyone. Thus, while the United States has openly abandoned its commitment to coalition-building, London has rushed to mitigate U.S. actions and build coalitions by proxy. The British Foreign Office has dismissed Bush's assessment of Iran as part of an "axis of evil," noting that Britain will continue to seek engagement with Tehran. NATO's secretary-general, Britain's Lord George Robertson, warned Washington that NATO would not extend its support for the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign to broader attacks without convincing evidence, and he urged European defense leaders to reinforce their military cooperation and effectiveness to curtail U.S. unilateralism. Furthermore, with the approach of a U.S.-China summit, the request for air bases is clearly intended to lay the groundwork for broader talks on Chinese participation in the coalition. In engaging China, London hopes to convince Washington that coalition-building can still work and that Britain is a valuable ally in the coalition-building effort. For China, there are benefits in agreeing to such a deal. For one thing, it guarantees a very significant role in determining the future of Afghanistan. This helps keep India and others in check while placing Beijing squarely back in its self-perceived place as a leading – rather than overlooked – nation. It also is useful domestically, since Beijing can generate political capital out of foreign powers seeking its assistance. But cutting a deal with Britain is also dangerous. Allowing foreign troops onto Chinese soil for any reason can deeply affect Chinese sensibilities, potentially setting an unnerving precedent. Opening airports and airspace to the coalition at this point also sets a precedent of China accepting Washington's justifications for unilaterally – or nearly so – attacking Afghanistan, a sovereign nation, and removing the regime. China has been extremely unhappy with U.S. unilateralism and must be wary of appearing to acquiesce, even after the fact. Domestically, China is entering a period of change while still forging its new leadership roster. The presence of foreign forces – no matter how benign their role – could be used as a weapon against moderates and internationalists competing for power. Thus, Britain's request is risky business for China. There is little doubt Beijing is seriously mulling the request. There also is little doubt that while the particular issue might be minor, the implications to foreign policy are substantial. If China says no, it could fuel an anti-Chinese backlash in Washington. But if Beijing agrees, it might seem to validate the interventionist policies of the West that are anathema to China. Beijing will try to confine its decision-making to the matter at hand – access to airports – but the issue can't be so neatly contained. It intersects many other issues and sets the stage nicely, from the Western point of view, for the upcoming summit. However, Chinese leaders also can use the issue of the airfields to once again raise the question of Islamic separatism in Xinjiang and the security of those airfields. Beijing has bristled at Washington's effort to separate its Islamic fundamentalist problem from that of China. London's overture to Beijing represents a test, for both countries, of their ability to contain U.S. unilateralism. For Britain, it is a question of whether there is room to change Washington's mind before being dragged loyally into every hot spot on the globe. For China, it is a question of whether it can manage the United States through cooperation, without succumbing either to U.S. hegemony or to internal upheaval. *COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists! Write to same address to be off lists! <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
