Thay đổi trong hàng ngũ lãnh đạo không quân Trung Quốc, và một số thông tin khác

Thay đổi trong hàng ngũ lãnh đạo không quân Trung Quốc, và một số thông tin khác

Rất tiếc là tôi không có điều kiện dịch được, mong các bác thông cảm.

Nguồn: Kanwa.
______________________________
From Kanwa, Kanwa News June 10, 2002 Air Marshal Qiao Qingchen, the political commissar of the Chinese Air Force, recently replaced Air Chief Marshal Liu Shunyao as the commander-in-chief of the Chinese Air Force. Air Chief Marshal Liu Shunrao was born in 1939 and has not yet reached to the age of retirement.

The pro-China media in Hong Kong claimed that the main reason for Liu to be removed off the position was Liu had contracted cancer. Other reports said the change had to do with the frequent accidents in the Air Force's recent training. Kanwa has been confirmed that there was at least one SU27 fighter crashed in the year 2001 due to unknown problems.

Putting aside Liu's removal from the post, it is still worth noticing that the position of the Air Force commander-in-chief is now replaced by the political commissar. It is rather abnormal to put the political commissar on the position of commander-in-chief, as Qiao and Liu have the same age. Qiao has been engaging in political affairs of the Chinese Air Force for a long time. Under the circumstance in which the air force combat units are becoming highly specialized in specific technologies, this personnel change in a certain degree reflects some of the new trends of the Chinese Air Force in reinforcing political work. In contrast, Liu has been the front-line commander for a long time.

Reliable sources from the Chinese military claim that at the eve of the 16th Convention of the Chinese Communist Party, there are huge ideological fluctuations inside the forces. The new generation of knowledgeable commanders and officers have been influenced by the concept of "nationalized military forces". These people have been advocating the necessity of building up the national military forces. This sect of military officers stress the importance of constructing democracy at the grass-root combat units, aiming at implementing the "three major democratic principles" and establishing a full-fledged Grand Convention of the Servicemen and the mechanism of military council at all company levels. They also try to deny the leadership of the Communist Part in the military and to play down the role of political commissars. Recently on different occasions, Zhang Wannian, Vice-chairman of the Military Commission of the CCP, openly criticized the concept of "nationalizing the military force". As a professional troop in which technologies prevail, the Chinese Air Force has attracted a large number of highly knowledgeable professionals who will very likely become the front-runners in the campaign of nationalizing the military forces. As a consequence, having the political commissar directly controlling the air force obviously aims at strengthening the ideological education.

On the other hand, the implementation of the "Theory of Three Representations" in the military forces has led to the resistance and indifference of the conservative sect of the political workers in the forces to the theory. This group of officers believe that the theory advocates the notion of making the Party of all people's(Quan Ming Dang) and tries to reconcile the conflicts in the current Chinese society, which would lead to the diminishing the Communist Party's role of "vanguards" in the Chinese society. The theory naturally creates an opening for the ideological trend of "nationalizing the military forces". Kanwa


Kanwa News June 10, 2002 China's CCTV recently disclosed the pictures of the SU27SK fighters on the assembly line of Shenyang Aircraft Company, which was the first time for the Chinese official media to publicly acknowledge that China is assembling SU27SK.

The production technology is obviously better than the original Russia-made SU27SK. The screw binding line is almost un-recognizable... Kanwa Digest News, for full story, see Kanwa June 10 issue

Kanwa News June 10, 2002 China has injected large amount of money into Xian, Shanyang and Chengdu Aircraft Companies in order to guarantee the production of the key model fighters. Sources from these aircraft companies confirmed at an international aviation show that these companies had received more money from the government and the assembly lines were now mostly controlled by NC equipments.

Russian aviation experts who are currently assisting China in the assembly of SU27SK fighters told Kanwa's correspondent at an exclusive interview that the testing equipments on the production lines of Shengyang Aircraft Company are much more westernized than that of Russia. Kanwa also discovered that in the above companies, more western NC facilities have been put into use.

Xian Aircraft Company, the producer of JH7A fighters, has workshops with very scientific layout and cutting edge equipments. It is even equipped with CINCINNATI MILACRON large NC miller. The Chengdu Space Mould Center that produces aviation mould for Chengdu Aircraft Company has already had two major technological reforms in the last few years. Its 4-axis digital miller is made in Germany. Kanwa Digest News, for full story, see Kanwa June 10 issue


Le Van Le

Lúc nào rỗi Bạn Lê Văn Lê dịch hộ nốt luôn nhé.

China to Buy 8 More Russian Submarines
$1.6 Billion Deal Would Aid a Blockade of Taiwan, Challenge U.S. Power in Region
John Pomfret
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, June 25, 2002; Page A15
BEIJING, June 24 -- China has begun negotiations with Russia to buy eight more submarines in a $1.6 billion deal that will significantly boost its ability to blockade Taiwan and challenge U.S. naval supremacy in nearby seas, Western and Russian sources said.
Four Russian producers are bidding to build the diesel-powered Project 636 Kilo-class vessels, which will be equipped with Klub long-range, anti-ship missile systems, defense experts said.
China has already purchased four Kilo-class subs from Russia, including two Project 636 models. The deal for ad***ional submarines is part of a $4 billion weapons package that Russia has committed to provide China over the next four to five years. Included in the package are two more Sovremenny-class destroyers, adding to a pair China has already received, a new batch of S300 PMU2 anti-aircraft missiles and 40 Su-30MKK fighter-bombers.
The $4 billion sale cements Russia's place as China's biggest military trading partner, far ahead of Israel and such former Soviet states as Ukraine. It also cements China's place as the world's biggest weapons importer, underscoring its race with Taiwan for military supremacy across the Taiwan Strait.
China became the world's biggest importer of weapons in 2000, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. It maintained the No. 1 position last year, mostly through purchases of ships and combat aircraft worth close to $3 billion, more than twice any other buyer's acquisitions.
The United States is Taiwan's main military supplier. In April 2001, the Bush administration approved a multibillion dollar package that included eight diesel submarines, 30 AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters, 12 P-3C submarine-hunting aircraft, four Kidd-class destroyers, long-range radar systems and Patriot III missiles. The U.S. submarine deal is uncertain, however, because the United States no longer makes or designs diesel-powered subs and two nations that do, Germany and the Netherlands, have refused to allow the United States to use their designs or manufacturers.
The Chinese submarine deal will "very significantly enhance [the Chinese] navy's ability to influence events in the East China Sea," said Bernard Cole, an expert on the Chinese navy at the National War College in Washington, "first, by enforcing a blockade against Taiwan, if Beijing adopts that course of action, and also by posing a serious problem for opposing naval forces attempting to operate in the area."
The deal reflects China's double-barreled military modernization strategy. On one hand, the strategy seeks to enable its army to recover Taiwan by force, if necessary. On the other, it wants to deter any intervention by the United States, which has committed itself to Taiwan's defense under the vaguely worded Taiwan Relations Act.
Two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups faced down Chinese threats to the island in 1996 after China fired missiles across the strait during training exercises. Assuming China could detect the U.S. carriers in the future, such a response would be riskier once the new submarines are operational, defense experts said.
The deal, first reported on June 7 by the Kanwa Intelligence Review, a publication based in Canada and focused on the Chinese military, has prompted competition among Russian manufacturers to win the contract, although China's desire to have swift delivery means that work will occur at several plants simultaneously.
Russian press reports have identified the contenders as the Admiralteyskie Verfi shipbuilding plant based in St. Petersburg, the Komsomolsk-on-Amur shipbuilding plant, the Krasnoye Sormovo shipbuilding plant in Nizhny Novgorod and the Sevmash shipbuilding plant based in Severodvinsk.
China's own submarine manufacturing program has encountered difficulty, especially a multibillion dollar program to develop the Song class guided-missile submarine. China tried to develop the Song to replace its 1962-vintage Romeo-class attack submarines.
According to Jane's Defense Weekly, the first Song, built with assistance from Israel and others, started sea trials in 1995, but proved a failure. A second substantially modified Song began sea trials in early 2000, but analysts say these are far behind schedule and have yet to be completed.
"If Beijing is going to buy eight ad***ional Kilos, it means that their domestic program to build Songs is, in fact, in trouble, which would certainly not surprise me," Cole said.
A second problem associated with China's purchase of the Kilos concerns its ability to use the submarines properly. China bought four Kilo-class submarines during the 1990s, two of the export version and two of the more capable Project 636 version produced by Russia for its own navy. The Chinese navy has experienced operating problems because of initially inadequate crew training, and more consistently because of certain material problems, such as troublesome batteries.
The new Kilo will be equipped with an anti-ship missile system with a range of 140 miles. But China would need to develop the ability to see "over the horizon" to use the weapons properly, defense experts said. Most submarines can only "see" a few miles without the aid of satellites, other submarines, airplanes or ships.
"China still cannot find ships at sea," a senior U.S. defense official said. "Over-the-horizon targeting escapes them. The United States built an open ocean surveillance capability in the 1960s. China has all the tools to build its own but it has not."
© 2002 The Washington Post Company
Chinese plan big Russian arms dealSale of 8 submarines to Beijing could tip balance in Asia seasBy John Pomfret (The Washington Post)Tuesday, June 25, 2002 BEIJING: China is negotiating to buy eight submarines from Russia in a $1.6 billion deal that would significantly increase China's ability to blockade Taiwan and challenge U.S. naval supremacy in the seas near China, Western and Russian sources said. Four Russian producers are currently bidding to build the Project 636 Kilo class vessels equipped with the Klub long-range anti-ship missile system, defense experts say. The deal is part of a massive $4 billion package of weapons that Russia has committed itself to provide to China over the next four to five years. Those weapons include two more Sovremenny-class destroyers (China has already received two), a new batch of S300 PMU2 anti-aircraft missiles and 40 Su-30MKK fighter-bombers among other items. China has already purchased four Kilo class subs from Russia. The deal cements Russia's place as China's biggest military trading partner, far ahead of Israel and former Soviet states, such as Ukraine. It also cements China's place as the world's biggest importer of weapons and underscores the increasingly hot race between Taiwan and China for military supremacy across the Taiwan Strait. China became the world's biggest importer of weapons in 2000, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, and continued in the No. 1 position last year, mostly through purchases of ships and combat aircraft worth close to $3 billion - more than twice any other buyer's acquisitions. The United States is Taiwan's main defense supplier. In April, the Bush administration approved a multibillion-dollar package including eight diesel submarines, 30 AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters, 12 P-3C submarine-hunting aircraft, four Kidd Class destroyers, long-range radar systems and Patriot-3 missiles. The American submarine deal is a question mark, however, because the United States no longer makes or designs diesel-powered subs and two nations that do, Germany and the Netherlands, have refused to allow the United States to use their designs or manufacturers. Defense experts said the Chinese submarine deal could have the greatest effect on the military balance in the region. Such a deal would "very significantly enhance" the Chinese Navy's "ability to influence events in the East China Sea," said Bernard Cole, an expert on the Chinese Navy at the National War College in Washington, "first, by enforcing a blockade against Taiwan, if Beijing adopts that course of action, and also by posing a serious problem for opposing naval forces attempting to operate in the area. No part of naval warfare is more difficult than detecting, localizing or neutralizing submarines." The deal reflects the double-barreled nature of China's military modernization strategy - focused on reunification with Taiwan, which broke with Communist China in 1949. On the one hand, the strategy seeks to enable the People's Liberation Army to recover Taiwan by force, if necessary. On the other, it wants to deter any intervention by the United States, which has committed itself to Taiwan's defense under the vaguely worded Taiwan Relations Act. In 1996, two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups faced down Chinese threats to the island, days after China had fired missiles across the strait during training exercises. Assuming that China could find the American carriers in the future, such a response would be riskier once the new submarines were operational, defense experts said. The deal, first reported on June 7 by the Canadian-based Kanwa Intelligence Review, a publication focused on the Chinese military, has prompted competition among Russian manufacturers to win the contract, although China's desire to have swift delivery means that work will occur at several plants at once to fill the order. Russian press reports have identified the contenders as the Admiralteyskie Verfi Shipbuilding Plant based in St. Petersburg; the Komsomolsk-on-Amur Shipbuilding Plant; the Krasnoye Sormovo Shipbuilding Plant in Nizhni Novgorod, and the Sevmash Shipbuilding Plant based in Severodvinsk. The Admiralteyskie Verfi Shipbuilding Plant built the first two Kilo 636 submarines for the Chinese Navy. In talks with the Russian defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, in Beijing early this month, Chinese military officers requested that several of the vessels be built in the plant on the Amur River near China so that their delivery could possibly escape the notice of the United States, according to Ivan Safronov, a Russian military expert. The deal underscores serious troubles within China's domestic submarine manufacturing program, especially the multibillion-dollar program to develop the Song class guided-missile submarine. China tried to develop the Song to replace its Romeo-class, called Ming class in Chinese, attack submarines, introduced in 1962. According to Jane's Defense Weekly, the first Song, built with assistance from Israel and others, started sea trials in 1995, but proved a failure. A second substantially modified Song began sea trials in early 2000, but analysts say these are far behind schedule and have yet to be completed. "If Beijing is going to buy eight ad***ional Kilos," Cole said, "it means that their domestic program to build Songs is, in fact, in trouble, which would certainly not surprise me." A second problem associated with China's purchase of the Kilos concerns its ability to use the submarines properly and not just brandish them like fancy toys. China bought four Kilo class submarines during the 1990s, two of the export version and two of the more capable Project 636 version produced by Russia for its own navy. The Chinese Navy has experienced operating problems, initially because of inadequate crew training, and more consistently because of certain material problems - such as troublesome batteries. Reportedly, China still has to send its Kilos back to Russia for all but routine maintenance. The new Kilo will be equipped with Klub class anti-ship missiles with a range of 225 kilometers (140 miles). But China would need to develop the ability to see "over the horizon" in order to use the weapons properly, defense experts said. Most submarines can only "see" a few kilometers without the aid of satellites, other submarines, airplanes or ships. But so far, China does not have "over the horizon" capability. As such, a senior U.S. defense official said, developments such as the Kilo deal illustrate the patchy nature of China's military modernization. "China still cannot find ships at sea," he said. "Over the horizon targeting escapes them. The United States built an open ocean surveillance capability in the 1960s. China has all the tools to build its own, but it has not."

Được lekien sửa chữa / chuyển vào 02/07/2002 ngày 14:54

Chẳng thấy bạn Lê Văn Lê dịch hộ gì cả.Hay lại yêu một cô Mỹ rồi ?
Will China and US Follow the Tracks of Soviet-US Cold War?
Seeing the rise of China in recent years, some people in the United States and other countries advertised the "theory of China threat", holding that China, following the former Soviet Union, would become the main enemy of the United States and a new Cold war and even a hot war would break out between the United States and China. Then let's make a comparison between the then Soviet-US relationship and today's Sino-US relationship, will China really become another Soviet Union?

PRINT DISCUSSION CHINESE SEND TO FRIEND

The nearly 50-year period from the end of World War II to the disintegration of the former Soviet Union was the so-called Cold-War period. During this period, the world situation was characterized by the all-round confrontation between the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, a nuclear war had reached the extent where "the bow was drawn but the arrow was not discharged", the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union overwhelmed other international relations and put them in a subordinate position. This phase of just past history stamped deep brands in people's minds and psychology. Seeing the rise of China in recent years, some people in the United States and other countries advertised the "theory of China threat", holding that China, following the former Soviet Union, would become the main enemy of the United States and a new Cold war and even a hot war would break out between the United States and China. Then let's make a comparison between the then Soviet-US relationship and today's Sino-US relationship, will China really become another Soviet Union? The answer is negative. China Does not have Super-powerful Military StrengthIn those years, both the United States and the Soviet Union were superpowers and both had military and overall national strength which was greater than the combined strengths of other large countries. The nuclear arsenals of the two countries were approximately equal, and both had the capability to destroy the other side many times, the conventional military strength of the Soviet Union was even more mighty. US economic and scientific and technological strength was superior to that of the Soviet Union, but the gap between the two at that time was not very wide, the Soviet Union was the opponent on a par with the United States. Therefore, in the Cold War, both sides had offensive and defensive, before the Soviet Union was finally disintegrated, it was hard to tell who would win and who would lose. Today, the United States is the sole superpower, its GDP represents over one-fourth of the world's total, its military spending is greater than the combined total of the eight military powers placed behind it, its military might is great enough to cover the whole globe, it also possesses enormous soft strength. There has never been any other country possessing so great superiority like it since the dawn of history. China of today is still a developing country, with its GDP accounting for only one-ninth of that of the United States, and its nuclear weapons for only the odd of that of the United States. The balance of strength between the two sides is asymmetric, that is to say, the strength of today's China is just enough for self-defense. China has very great potential, but to develop in every aspect to the extent that can be mentioned in the same breath with the United States perhaps still needs 30-50 years even if everything goes smoothly. China Does Not Have the Ambition to Seek HegemonyBoth the United States and the Soviet Union had the ambition to play the hegemonic overlord. What they were scrambling for was world domination, that is, to exercise the right to control over others. They had carved out spheres of influence in Europe since the Yalta Agreement in 1945, they had their respective military alliances, carried out massive activities to guarantee each other's destructive nuclear deterrent strategy and tried to regulate long-term, unceasing arms race through arms control negotiations. At the same time, they stirred up one crisis and local war after another in various parts of the world outside of their own territories, striving to expand their own domains. Their struggles had never ceased. China is different from them. As a developing country which had not long rid itself of foreign aggression and control. The main purpose of China's foreign policy has always been defense of its own independence and striving for a peaceful international environment to carry out economic and social development and improve the living standards of the entire Chinese people. China advocates the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, nonalignment, not serving as head and refraining from forming blocs. China does not have a single soldier overseas, nor a sphere of influence. China opposes hegemonism, particularly American acts of infringing on China's sovereign interests, but China does not seek hegemony and it has not the least intention to contend for hegemony with the United States. There Are Widespread Exchange and Cooperation Between China and the USThe two major camps of the United States and the Soviet Union not only were opposed to each other politically and militarily, they also divided into two isolated markets economically, their economic systems were totally different, and they had very few non-governmental exchanges. Today, Sino-US relationship is quite different. After China introduced the reform and opening up policy, particularly after it joined the World Trade Organization (WTO), the country has successfully changed its planned economic system, established a socialist market economy and actively participated in the international trading system. There are lots of mutually beneficial exchanges between China and the United States and a situation in which "there is something of each in the other" has been formed to some extent. Now the number of American tourists traveling to China each year has exceeded 800,000. Altogether180,000 students and visiting scholars from the Chinese mainland have studied or worked in the United States and over 60,000 Chinese students are continuing their studies there; the trade volume between the two countries reached US$80.4 billion in 2001, actual US investment in China has totaled US$34.5 billion, and these figures are still on the rise, more and greater mutually beneficial cooperation is in the ascendant. China Does Not Differentiate Between Friend and Foe According to IdeologyBoth the United States and the Soviet Union insist that their own concepts of value, social modes and lifestyles are the only ones universally applicable to the whole world, while those of the other side are evil and reactionary. Perhaps this attitude is related to the history and religious tra***ions of the two countries. Puritans who founded the United States believe in the manifest destiny, holding that they themselves are the God's "voters" and saving the world is the sacred mission entrusted to them by the God; Russia's Orthodoxy maintained that Moscow was the "third Rome" following the ancient Rome and Byzantine. Therefore they both spared no efforts to disseminate and spread their own concepts of value and social modes, and even unhesitatingly imposed them on others. Well-wished people maintain that reshaping others' society in accordance with their own images means practicing benefactions and doing others a favor; while ill-intentioned people seek occupying things of others, publicize themselves and control others. Whether they are well wished or ill intentioned, they lack respect for others' society. China adheres to socialism and has contradiction with the United States in ideology, but this kind of contradiction is somewhat relaxed than the US-Soviet contradiction. China has a long history and has seen much of changes in human life, ordinary Chinese lay stress on reality, pay attention to the middle course, and have a faint religious concept about monotheism and they do not have the tra***ion of doing missionary work abroad. Today China is adopting a fairly open attitude toward ideology, and advocates seeking truth from fact and emancipating the mind. It adopts an attitude of compatibility toward either China's own fine tra***ion or advanced foreign cultures. In international relations, China does not marking out in accordance with ideology, it recognizes the diversity of the cultures of various countries, it stands for dialogs between different civilizations and learning from each other. The Chinese people's achievement of this has not come about easily, it is because the many sufferings they experienced over a period of nearly 200 years have compelled them to adapt to and influence the outside world by selectively changing hemselves, they have traversed a course of exploring between blind conceit and passive inferiority, learning from the strong points of foreign cultures to make up for China's deficiencies on the basis of mutual respect and seeking common grounds while reserving differences. In ad***ion, the sources of Chinese and the US cultures are different. When reflected in diplomacy, the interaction of China-US relationship is more sensitive and complicated, eliminating misunderstanding and reducing trouble will become a long-term arduous task that will appear over and again. China Does Not Have the Nature of ExpansionBoth the United States and the Soviet Union had a strong expansionist tra***ion. Over a short span of several hundred years, the small Moscow grand duchy had expanded several hundred times to become the Soviet Union, while the United States with only 13 states located out of the way on the shore of the Atlantic Ocean had expanded within even a shorter time deep into the Pacific Ocean to become today's United States consisting of 50 states. In the process of expansion, they both resorted to unbridled use of war means to plunder other countries of their territories. After they ceased territorial expansion, they still continually expanded their spheres of influence. An American statesman once said that expansion was the life of Russia, once it ceased expansion, Russia's subsistence would face crisis. In fact, US own records show it was so busy expanding that it had no time to make concession. Therefore crashes between the two were unavoidable. China does not have the nature of expansion. Since the founding of the People's Republic of China in particular, we have been pursuing an independent foreign policy of peace, good neighborliness and friendship, although we have fought several wars of resistance against aggression to protect our homes and defend our motherland and counterattack for self-defense, we suffered not a single defeat, but even we had won big victories we invariably pulled our troops back to our own territory and even withdrew from the disputed areas which we had occupied, this is rare in the history of international relations, ordinary Chinese people consciously accepted this policy decision of the government. US Attitude: Key to Determining Sino-US RelationsThe key to China-US relations is the Taiwan issue. The nature of this question is US intervention in China's internal affairs and encroachment upon China's territorial integrity and sovereignty. Similar issue did not arise between the United States and the Soviet Union. For some US right-wingers, maintaining the situation of no war, no peace, no reunification and no independence between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits could possibly be a magic weapon for containing the rise of China. This is a potential explosive issue, the longer it is delayed, the more it is unfavorable to Sino-US relationship. The nature of Sino-US contradiction is quite different from the US-Soviet contradiction. Currently China does not constitute threat to the United States, and it has no intention to contend for hegemony with the United States. After China is fully developed in the future, there is great possibility for China to continue peaceful coexistence, friendship and cooperation with the United States, while the possibility is very small for a life-and-death struggle with the United States. This distinguishing feature of China has reduced the possibility of a China-US conflict, but this does not mean Sino-US relationship is bound to be a plain sailing. Facts since the birth of New China show US attitude is the main aspect determining whether China-US relationship is good or bad. When the United States adopts an offensive posture and alternately or simultaneously uses the two tactics of contact and containment, it has an object in its mind of changing China in accordance with the US requirement. China is in a defensive position, it also reacts by taking two policies, it strives both to establish a constructive and cooperative relationship with the United States, and resolutely opposes any US power means. China has never taken the initiative to provoke the United States, nor does it want to change the United States in accordance with China's requirement. Considering the backgrounds of the growth of China's strength as well as scientific and technical progress, globalization and the rapid development of threat to non-tra***ional security, we can say that today's China-US relationship will not evolve into the long-term, all-round confrontation during the US-Soviet Cold War. Bilateral cooperation in the aspect of common interest will continue to develop, but contradictions and struggles in many fields will also exist for a long period of time. As to partial confrontation, for instance, the Taiwan issue and some problems in the ideological field, they have never been ceased for many years, but facts have proved that so long as both sides properly handle such problems, and refrain from overdoing things, such local confrontation can be brought under control and will not expand to become all-round confrontation. Before Nixon's China visit, China and the United States had experienced all-round confrontation for more than two decades. Confrontation, needless to say, means a heavy burden on China, it is not a light and easy thing to the United States either. In October 1967, in his article published in the periodical, "Diplomacy", Nixon said: From the long-term point of view, we can't afford to bear the burden of eternally keeping China outside the big family of various countries¡.In this small celestial body, the 1 billion talented and capable people cannot be allowed to live in a state of wrath and isolation. The strong anti-China force in the American society incessantly advocated coping with China as they did with the former Soviet Union. Some of them did so out of political or ideological prejudice, some out of the intention of guaranteeing the United States' absolute, ever-lasting superiority, some out of the consideration of the interest of war industry or other economic benefits, they need to create an enemy, so as to deceive the masses and divert people's line of sight. China has a vast expanse of land, a large population and rapid development, and it is a socialist country, so it is just right to be taken as their target, it is described as a threat even though it is not a threat. However, these people are in the minority in the United States, most Americans disagree to this viewpoint. Several American presidents have openly stated that a powerful and prosperous China is in the interests of the United States and that the United States hopes to establish stable, good relationship with China. These words have been repeated over and again. In the United States, debate on US policy toward China will continue for a long time to come and there will still be twists and turns, but it should be believed that the interests of most people will ultimately take the upper hand, we hold a prudent and optimistic view about the prospect of Sino-US relationship. The above commentary was published on page 4 of Global Times, June 20

Sao lại co' mo^.t thôi hả bác Lekien?

Le Van Le

Được levanle2001 sửa chữa / chuyển vào 02/07/2002 ngày 08:15