fufor's unregelmässige news

Russian planes buzz Alaskan coast
Associated Press, THE JERUSALEM POST Sep. 29, 2006

The Russian air force held a massive exercise that involved strategic bombers flying across the North Pole and approaching Alaska, the Aleutian Islands and Japan, a top general said Friday.

Lt. Gen. Igor Khvorov, the commander of Russian long-range aviation, said the exercise that began Tuesday and finished Friday had nothing to do with heightening tensions between Russia and Georgia, Russian news reports said.

Khvorov said the exercise involved 70 Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22M3 bombers, which test-fired 18 cruise missiles, the RIA Novosti news agency reported.

He said some bombers crossed the Arctic Ocean, flew over the North Pole and also reached Alaska, the Aleutian Islands and Japan's western coast without entering any country's airspace.

"All the aircraft involved flew over neutral waters, and none of them came closer than 12 nautical miles (25 km) to the maritime borders of any country," Khvorov said, according to RIA Novosti.
http://tinyurl.com/fdzo9


Russia launches massive air force test exercise
associated press, THE JERUSALEM POST Sep. 26, 2006

The Russian military on Tuesday launched a massive exercise that will involve dozens of long-range bombers test-firing cruise missiles, the nation's air force chief said, according to news reports.

The maneuvers will involve over 50 Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22M aircraft flying missions over the Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and the Black and Caspian Seas, Gen. Vladimir Mikhailov said, according to the Interfax and ITAR-Tass news agencies.

He said it will be the largest exercise involving Russian long-range bombers in years, the agencies reported.
http://tinyurl.com/kcwfx

Deutsche brauchen weniger Benzin
21.9.2006

WIESBADEN dpa Der Verbrauch von Benzin und Diesel ist seit Beginn der ökologischen Steuerreform am 1. April 1999 in Deutschland stetig gesunken. Nach Angaben des Statistischen Bundesamtes wurden damals noch durchschnittlich 205 Millionen Liter pro Tag verbraucht, 2005 waren es nur noch 171 Millionen täglich. Insbesondere der Benzinverbrauch sei seit 1999 um ein Viertel gesunken, bei Diesel waren es nur 6,5 Prozent. Dabei stieg im gleichen Zeitraum die Zahl der Autos, Busse, Lastwagen und Motorrädern auf Deutschlands Straßen von 52,4 Millionen auf 56,3 Millionen. Fahrzeuge. Als Grund für diese Entwicklung nannte das Statistische Bundesamt den geringeren Kraftstoffverbrauch der Fahrzeuge. Zudem ließen immer mehr Bundesbürger wegen der hohen Kraftstoffpreise ihr Auto öfter stehen.
taz Wirtschaft und Umwelt

AUTO: -CHTHON & -NOM
nA-Stromzeitschrift
Nr. 27, 1. Okt. 2006

Die antimoslemische Hetze und psychologische Kriegsvorbereitung in den Systemmedien vorauszusehen, wie dies die AUTO im Februar 2006 getan hat, bedurfte keiner besonderen prophetischen Begabung. Die Kampagne tobt inzwischen auf allen Kanälen. Es vergeht kein Tag, wo Seligmann, Broder & Co. nicht die Aufklärung gegen Moslems ins Feld führen – eine Aufklärung, von der sie keine Ahnung und für die sie keine Sympathie haben. Mit ihrer pseudo-
aufklärerischen Haltung wollen sie sich bei den Deutschen einschleimen und diese gegen die Moslems in den Krieg hetzen – in schnödem Eigeninteresse. Daß sie es sind, die jahrelang in vollkommener gegenaufklärerischer Manier den Deutschen ihre wahren identitären Empfindungen ausgeredet und verächtlich gemacht haben, und die an vorderster Front stehen, wenn es gilt, Andersdenkende auf Jahre in den Knast zu bringen, zeigt, was sie von Aufklärung halten – sie ist ihnen ein Fremdwort.

Aber Pseudo-Aufklärung ist eines ihrer wirksamsten Machtmittel. Daß Judentum heute von vielen gar mit Aufklärung assoziiert wird – darin liegt der Triumph der Gegenaufklärung. Diese Gegenaufklärer hacken im Namen der Aufklärung auf Religionen herum, wenn es ihnen machtpolitisch angezeigt erscheint, und präsentieren sich selbst als die Inkarnation von Gelassenheit und Toleranz – während sie weltweit Andersdenkende brutal verfolgen lassen. Man hält sich bedeckt, man bleibt außen vor – jenseits jeden Verdachtes. Diese Situation hat erst vor wenigen Tagen ein Bild gefunden, wie es klarer nicht erscheinen kann: An der Deutschen Oper in Berlin sollten in einer Mozart-Inszenierung Köpfe von allen möglichen Religionsstiftern rollen – nur der Anstifter der ethnisch-exklusiven Haßprediger und rassistischen Auserwähltheits-Fanatiker fehlte. Der hielt sich im Verborgenen, im Okkulten.

Und so scheint die Epoche der Aufklärung ihr Ende zu finden und das Mittelalter wieder Einzug zu halten: Die Repräsentanten der us-amerikanischen Wähler haben vor zwei Tagen, am 27. September 2006, per Gesetz die Rückkehr der Folter beschlossen. Das neue Foltergesetz „wirft“, so die junge Welt, „auch den ‚Habeas-Corpus’-Akt aus dem Fenster und damit 900 Jahre abendländische Rechtsgeschichte, denn das neue Gesetz verweigert Gefangenen vor Gericht das Recht auf die Überprüfung der Rechtmäßigkeit ihrer Festnahme. Ebenso können sich Gefangene der USA in Zukunft nicht mehr auf Rechte berufen, die von den Genfer Konventionen garantiert werden.“ Das Gesetz gilt rückwirkend, „daher werden alle US-Kriegsverbrechen, insbesondere die Foltermorde der CIA ungesühnt bleiben, weil sie nach neuer US-Definition keine Verbrechen sind“ (jW, 29.9.06).

Diese schreckliche Degeneration geht mit einer Zeitenwende im Miteinander der Völker einher: Der „Westen“ will die Verhandlungen mit dem Iran erst dann wieder aufnehmen, wenn der Iran zuvor alle Arbeiten an der Urananreicherung einstellt. „Genau diese Frage steht aber“, so noch einmal die junge Welt vom 29.9.06, „im Zentrum des Streits. Der Versuch, ein vorheriges völliges Einlenken der Gegenseite zur Voraussetzung von Verhandlungen zu machen, dürfte in der Geschichte der Diplomatie einmalig sein.“

Anders gesagt: Der Krieg wird kommen. Zu nichts anderem dient besagte pseudo-aufklärerische Kampagne. Diese wird freilich nicht genügen, um die Europäer über die Einsätze in Afghanistan und im Libanon hinaus richtig vor den Karren zu spannen. Ziemlich wahrscheinlich ist daher ein baldiger „islamistischer“ Terrorangriff in Berlin oder Paris.

Glühende und wahrhaftige Aufklärer, echte Westler, sitzen derweil hinter Gittern. Israel Shamir hatte sich an die AUTO-Mitarbeiterin und Shamir-Übersetzerin Hanne Pfiz-Soderstrom mit der Frage gewandt, was Germar Rudolf zu seinem Tun motiviere. Auf Shamirs Frage antwortet nun Germar aus dem Gefängnis heraus, daß er Shamirs Desinteresse am Zweiten Weltkrieg nicht nur nachvollziehen könne, sondern dieses sogar teile. Er äußert sich über seine eigentliche und tiefste Motivation: „Niemandem werde ich erlauben, mich zum unterwürfigen Sklaven zu machen. Niemandem.“ Germar schreibt über seine Entwicklung: „Tatsächlich fühlte ich mich schuldig an meinem Zweifel, was mich ergrimmte, da es allem widersprach, was ich gelernt hatte: Hinterfrage Autoritäten, nimm Paradigmen nicht als Nennwert, Kritik ist ehrenwert, sowie alle anderen Ideale der Aufklärung.“

Der Widerspruch von aufklärerischem Anspruch und der brutal gegenaufklärerischen Wirklichkeit mit ihren Hunderten Gedankenverbrechern in westlichen Knästen ist kaum noch auszuhalten und drängt auf eine Klärung. Wo bleibt die Ehre der westlichen Menschen?

Kritik ist nicht mehr „ehrenwert“, wenn sie es je war. Oder nur bis zu einem bestimmten Punkt – bis zu dem Punkt, den absolut heuchlerische und skrupellose Machtpolitiker vorschreiben, denen die Aufklärung bei der Unterdrückung dessen, was die Menschen empfinden, das größte Hindernis ist.

Es ist höchste Zeit, daß die Ehre – und ihr Zusammenhang mit Ehrlichkeit und Wahrheit – wieder hergestellt wird. Darüber schreibt Peter Töpfer in seinem Aufsatz „Ehre und Treue“. Töpfer zeigt die Grundlage einer nicht-totalitären, freiheitlichen Gesellschaft auf: die Nicht-Existenz von sog. objektiver Wahrheit – Wahrheit könne nur etwas Subjektives sein. Totalisiere ein Subjekt seine Wahrheit, geschehe dies immer zur Beherrschung und Ausbeutung anderer Subjekte. Schon auf der Rede von „objektiver Wahrheit“ basiere der Totalitarismus, nicht erst auf dem Zwang zu deren Anerkennung.
http://tinyurl.com/hruhk

Afghanistan: Why NATO cannot win
By M K Bhadrakumar
Sep 30, 2006

The four-month-old Republic of Montenegro on the Adriatic Sea received its first foreign dignitary on Monday when US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld arrived at its capital, Podgorica. Unknowingly, the tiny country of rugged mountains and great beauty in the Balkans with a population of 630,000 was being catapulted into the cockpit of 21st-century geopolitics.

Rumsfeld's mission was to request the inexperienced leadership in Podgorica to dispatch a military contingent to form part of the coalition of the willing in the "war on terror". Rumsfeld promised that in return, the US would help train Montenegro's fledgling army to standards of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

However, Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic could not make any commitments. Rumsfeld's proposal came at an awkward moment for the leadership in Podgorica, which had just scrapped the draft and was scaling down its 4,000-strong army to about 2,500.

This bizarre diplomatic exchange between the most awesome military power on Earth and the newest member of the "international community" brings home the paradoxes of the "war on terror" on the eve of its fifth anniversary. Three ministerial-level meetings of NATO have taken place within the space of the past month alone, specifically with the intent of ascertaining how troop strength in Afghanistan can be augmented.

US Marine Corps General James Jones, NATO's supreme commander of operations, has admitted that the fierce resistance put up by the Taliban and the burgeoning insurgency has taken the alliance by surprise. NATO forces have realized that an all-out war is at hand, rather than the peacekeeping mission that was imagined earlier. New rules of engagement have been accordingly drawn up for NATO contingents deployed in the southern provinces of Afghanistan - and soon to be extended to the whole country, where US soldiers are reportedly to be put under NATO control.

British commanders in southern Afghanistan have been given clearance to use the army's controversial Hydra rockets, which can target large concentrations of people with tungsten darts. The commanders are also permitted to resort to air strikes on suspected Taliban formations, conduct preemptive strikes and set up ambushes. Yet a British commander has been reported as telling the media, "The intensity and ferocity of the fighting is far greater than in Iraq on a daily basis."

The fatality rate of the 18,500-strong NATO force averages about five per week, which is roughly equal to the losses suffered by the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Indeed, in withering comments to The Sunday Telegraph newspaper last weekend, Soviet commanders who oversaw Moscow's disastrous campaign have predicted that the NATO forces will ultimately be forced to flee from Afghanistan.

General Boris Gromov, the charismatic Soviet commander who supervised the withdrawal in 1989, warned, "The Afghan resistance is, in my opinion, growing. Such behavior on the part of the intractable Afghans is to my mind understandable. It is conditioned by centuries of tradition, geography, climate and religion.

"We saw over a period of many years how the country was torn apart by civil war ... But in the face of outside aggressions, Afghans have always put aside their differences and united. Evidently, the [US-led] coalition forces are also being seen as a threat to the nation."

A comparison with the 1980s is in order. The 100,000-strong Soviet army operated alongside a full-fledged Afghan army of equal strength with an officer corps trained in the elite Soviet military academies, and backed by aviation, armored vehicles and artillery, with all the advantages of a functioning, politically motivated government in Kabul. And yet it proved no match for the Afghan resistance.

In comparison, there are about 20,000 US troops in Afghanistan, plus roughly the same number of troops belonging to NATO contingents, which includes 5,400 troops from Britain, 2,500 from Canada and 2,300 from the Netherlands. Nominally, there is a 42,000-strong Afghan National Army, but it suffers from a high rate of defection.

General Jones has asked for 2,500 additional NATO troops. But the major NATO countries - Turkey, France, Germany, Spain and Italy - have declined to send more. In actuality, it is questionable whether 2,500 more troops would make any significant difference in a country of the size of Afghanistan and with such a difficult terrain.

Distinguished British soldier-politician Sir Cyril Townsend wrote in Al-Hayat newspaper this week, "A realistic military appreciation of the situation would be that to gain the upper hand against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and to start winning over the southeast of the country, will require deployment of at least 10,000 extra, highly trained professional and well-equipped troops with matching air support."

Clearly, a huge crisis is shaping up for NATO. Its credibility is at stake. Sir Cyril does not foresee that the alliance will come up with the required military resources "to beat the Taliban on its own ground". No wonder Lieutenant-General David Richards, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan and former assistant chief of the general staff of the British army, ominously warned in a recent television interview, "We need to realize we could actually fail here."

Most observers have pointed a finger at the developing crisis in Afghanistan almost exclusively in terms of the shortfalls in achieving a rapid, high-tech military victory over the Taliban. In the ensuing blame game, there is the recurrent criticism that Washington did not commit enough forces.

Some say that the Iraq war turned out to be an unfortunate distraction for the US administration from wrapping up and following up on the ouster of the Taliban regime in 2001. Others put the blame on the European member countries of NATO - that the Europeans are far too timid and self-centered to fight wars in faraway lands, even if it is for their ultimate good.

Widening somewhat the gyre of the blame game, almost everyone acknowledges that opium is eating away the vitals of the Afghan state as counter-drug operations have been a dismal failure.

And, of course, there is the perennial accusation that US regional policy during the administration of George W Bush has been on the whole negligent about "nation-building" and that Washington has been tardy in earmarking enough material and financial resources for Afghanistan's reconstruction (in comparison with East Timor or Bosnia-Herzegovina).

All such criticism may contain elements of truth. But germane to the crisis in a fundamental sense is the hard reality that no matter the oft-repeated factor of a reasonably secure cross-border sanctuary in Pakistan, the Taliban have indeed staged a comeback in essence as an indigenous guerilla force capable of waging a long-term struggle. That is to say, the central issue is that the US has simply failed to come up with a winning political and military strategy in Afghanistan.

Comparison has been drawn with the successful peacekeeping operations in the Balkans. General Wesley Clark, former supreme commander of NATO, wrote in Newsweek magazine recently, "In order to succeed, we must adopt some of the lessons and practices we put in place so painfully in the Balkans. We must acknowledge the magnitude of the task and pull in the full authority of the international community. NATO can do much more than just supply troops. We need to acknowledge that, yes, we do nation-building."

But again, the Afghan problem is vastly dissimilar from the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. First and foremost, there is the highly contrived nature of the US intervention in Afghanistan. In the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, in an international environment where "we are all Americans", as Le Monde famously wrote, no one asked any hard questions as to whether Washington's decision to attack Afghanistan was justified or not. The international community simply acquiesced.

But the fact remains that Washington, indeed, had the option to forgo direct intervention and instead to extend its decisive political, diplomatic and military support to the anti-Taliban Afghan groups that, under the compulsions arising out of the assassination of the Northern Alliance's Ahmad Shah Masoud, were finally rallying under the leadership of former king Zahir Shah and were just about ready by late September 2001 to announce the establishment of an Afghan government-in-exile.

The Afghan king himself was persuaded at long last to give up his reticence about returning to active politics after three decades of exile in Rome. That option, had it been pursued, would have opened the way for a quintessentially "Afghan solution" to the challenge posed by the Taliban regime - a solution that would have enjoyed the full sanctity of Afghan traditions and culture.

But the Bush administration deliberately chose not to take that option. Conceivably, Washington decided that only a spectacular military operation would assuage the US public, which was traumatized by the September 11 attacks, and highlight the decisive leadership in the White House in safeguarding national security.

Arguably, Afghanistan would also have been viewed by the Bush administration as a laboratory where Washington could test its doctrines of preemptive military strike, the "coalition of the willing", unilateralism, etc - doctrines that provided the political underpinning for the subsequent invasion of Iraq. Or, in the medium and long term, Washington estimated that short of a military presence inside Afghanistan and without a client regime installed in Kabul, the US would be unable to ease other regional powers from the Afghan chessboard and reorder the geopolitics of the region as part of its global strategy.

At any rate, the stratagem aimed at exploiting the Afghan problem to seize geopolitical advantages was not so apparent at the beginning. But it didn't take long before it became clear that the US agenda was to exploit the "war on terror" for establishing a client state in Afghanistan, and for gaining a sought-after military presence in Central Asia. And in the event, the US military presence incrementally paved the way for creating a base for NATO in the region.

There was a high degree of sophistry in the US military operations in October 2001 as well. In the initial stages, an impression was created deliberately that the US intervention would be confined to air operations and the induction of a limited number of special forces specifically for the purpose of advising and guiding the Northern Alliance militia.

Thus the Northern Alliance furiously protested when it first came to be know of the sudden arrival of US ground troops at Bagram airport in early November 2001, in the wake of the overthrow of the Taliban government.

Washington also gave different impressions to different interlocutors in the region regarding the nature of the post-Taliban regime it had in mind. Certainly, the mostly non-Pashtun Northern Alliance leadership was led to believe that the overthrow of the Taliban would automatically result in its return to the seat of power in Kabul from where it was evicted by the Taliban in 1996.

Conceivably, regional powers such as Russia, Iran and India, too, were persuaded to fancy that such an outcome was in the cards and that the transfer of power in Kabul to the Northern Alliance leadership would ultimately work to their advantage, given their past material, financial, political and diplomatic backing of the alliance as the spearhead of the anti-Taliban resistance during the period 1996-2001.

On the other hand, Islamabad was given assurances by Washington that a Pashtun-majority government in Kabul was in the making and that incrementally there would be a political accommodation of erstwhile Taliban elements in the emergent power structure. Islamabad no doubt sought and gained an assurance from Washington that under no circumstances would the Northern Alliance be allowed to grab power in Kabul in the post-Taliban phase.

All this while, Washington seemed to have had Abdul Haq, the famous mujahideen leader with long-standing links with US intelligence, as its first choice to assume the leadership in Kabul after the overthrow of the Taliban.

But in the event, Haq was assassinated by the Taliban, most likely with the connivance of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, which got wind of Washington's hidden agenda and feared that Haq wouldn't be amenable to Islamabad's persuasions once he was ensconced in power in Kabul.

Meanwhile, the Northern Alliance outwitted its US mentors. Contrary to the tacit understanding between alliance commanders and their American mentors to the effect that after the Taliban's ouster Kabul would initially remain a neutral city under United Nations control, the alliance militia occupied the capital and its leadership unilaterally installed itself in power. These leaders hoped (optimistically, as it turned out) that the US would have little choice but to accept the fait accompli.

Thus when the Bonn conference got under way in December 2001, Washington had a two-point agenda, namely to project a credible substitute for the late Haq as the leader of the new setup and, second, to do some arm-twisting to cajole the Northern Alliance to give up its leadership role in Kabul.

Nonetheless, when the US brought up Hamid Karzai's name in Bonn, there was widespread opposition by Afghan groups. In the perceptions of the Afghan participants at the Bonn conference, Karzai simply didn't have enough standing as a political leader in the Afghan scene, having sat in exile in the US for the past several years, and being at a serious disadvantage insofar as he did not belong to a major Pashtun tribe.

But the United States pressed ahead regardless with Karzai's name, given his closeness to the US establishment and his total dependence on US support. The US brought immense pressure to bear on Afghan groups present at Bonn to accept Karzai's leadership. It was with extreme reluctance that the Northern Alliance leader, president Burhanuddin Rabbani, finally handed over the levers of power to Karzai.

While abdicating from power in Kabul in early 2002, Rabbani said he hoped that it was the last time the proud Afghan people would be bullied by foreigners. Anyone familiar with Afghan ethos and character could foresee at that juncture that Karzai would find it next to impossible to consolidate his grip on power, let alone establish his authority over the entire country. Indeed, that is exactly what has happened over the past five years.

The repeated and brazen manipulations by the US during the past five years, especially during the parliamentary and presidential elections in Afghanistan held under election rules that were tailor-made for predictable results, failed to ensure that Karzai commanded respect in the Afghan bazaar.

US attempts to consolidate a Pashtun power base for Karzai have virtually failed. Equally, the episodic attempts to create dissension within the Taliban have also not worked. In turn, these failures led to large-scale Pashtun alienation. US efforts to marginalize the Northern Alliance and to enlarge the ethnic-Pashtun representation in Karzai's cabinet have not had the desired effect of meaningfully tackling Pashtun alienation, either. Arguably, they may have created latent resentment among Northern Alliance leaders, which lies below the surface for the time being.

In other words, there is a fundamental issue of the legitimacy of state power that remains unresolved in Afghanistan. At a minimum, in these past five years there should have been an intra-Afghan dialogue that included the Taliban. This initiative could have been under UN auspices on a parallel track.

The inability to earn respect and command authority plus the heavy visible dependence on day-to-day US support have rendered the Kabul setup ineffective. Alongside this, the Afghan malaise of nepotism, tribal affiliations and corruption has also led to bad governance. It is in this combination of circumstances that the Taliban have succeeded in staging a comeback.

What lies ahead is, therefore, becoming extremely difficult to predict. Even with 2,500 additional troops it is highly doubtful whether NATO can succeed in defeating the Taliban. For one thing, the Taliban enjoy grassroots support within Afghanistan. There is no denying this ground reality.

Second, the Taliban are becoming synonymous with Afghan resistance. The mindless violations of the Afghan code of honor by the coalition forces during their search-and-destroy missions and the excessive use of force during military operations leading to loss of innocent lives have provoked widespread revulsion among Afghan people.

Karzai's inability to do anything about the coalition forces' arbitrary behavior is only adding to his image of a weak leader and is deepening his overall loss of authority in the perceptions of the Afghan people, apart from strengthening the raison d'etre of the Afghan resistance.

Third, it is a matter of time, if the threshold of the Taliban resurgence goes unchecked, before the non-Pashtun groups in the eastern, northern and western regions also begin to organize themselves. There are disturbing signs pointing in this direction already. If that were to happen, NATO forces might well find themselves in the unenviable situation of getting caught in the crossfire between various warring ethnic groups.

Fourth, at a certain point it becomes unavoidable that regional powers will get drawn into the strife. The fact remains that all Afghan ethnic groups enjoy a contiguous presence across the borders in neighboring countries. There is considerable misgiving among regional powers already over Washington's hidden long-term agenda to bring Afghanistan, which has been historically a neutral country, under the NATO flag.

No amount of pious homilies about NATO's role and objectives can obfuscate the geopolitical implications of the Western alliance's occupation of a strategically important country far away from the European continent, which lies at the crossroads of vast regions that are becoming the battleground for global influence.

Without doubt, in the perceptions of regional powers, NATO's defeat in Afghanistan can only mean the scattering of the US blueprint of domination of Central Asia, South Asia and the Persian Gulf.

Antonio Maria Costa, head of the UN Office of Drugs and Crime, stated in testimony at the House International Relations Committee of the US Congress in Washington last week: "Foreign pressures are making Afghanistan the turf for proxy wars. The country is being destabilized by an inflow of insurgents and weapons and money and intelligence. There is collusion from neighboring countries, and this is a problem in itself."

M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for more than 29 years, with postings including ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-98) and to Turkey (1998-2001).
http://tinyurl.com/fj553

''Defense and Military Education: A Dimension of Chinese Power''
29 September 2006

The National Defense University (N.D.U.) of the People's Liberation Army (P.L.A.) is China's foremost military education institution. An average of 1,000 Chinese officers graduate every year in diverse fields of study. For many years after its founding in 1984, the N.D.U. has been relatively unknown to the outside world, with very few foreign officers being allowed to attend the more advanced courses.

Those who were accepted came primarily from countries perceived to be friendly to China such as Cuba, North Korea and various other third world states that usually had poor relations with the West. The very few Western officers who attended the N.D.U. were usually confined to short symposium type courses with very little of substance being offered.

Until recently, the N.D.U. was a very closed and discrete club, open only to China's military elites and its foreign "friends." To this day, the N.D.U. does not host a website where prospective students could obtain the most basic information about the university. Information is provided to future students directly by the Chinese military attaché in their respective countries, with students only gaining access to the school's site a few days after enrollment.

Despite these restrictions, the N.D.U., just like China, has been fast opening up to the world. From a very limited number of foreign students, the N.D.U. today graduates an average of 400 foreign officers every year. Military officers and senior civilian officials from more than 100 countries have graduated from its various courses.

Three main courses are open to foreign officers: the one year Defense and Strategy Course for senior military officers; the one year High Command Course; and the recently inaugurated Joint Command Course. Attesting to the N.D.U.'s increasing global outlook, the above mentioned courses are available in the following major languages: English, Spanish, French and Russian, with courses in the different languages being held simultaneously or alternatively.

In addition, various shorter courses are also available, such as the Young and Mid-Ranking Officer Course and the 45-day International Security Symposium. In order to carry out such an extensive and multilingual academic program, the university possesses a large number of competent interpreters, usually recently gradated P.L.A. cadets, for simultaneous translations. Lectures are generally fluent in the respective languages of the course in which they are allocated, although by rule the instructors lecture in Chinese and make use of interpreters.

The N.D.U. possesses quite modern facilities with both single and married officers' apartment blocks, fully furnished and equipped with air conditioning, a central heating system, cable TV and the latest model of China's most advanced computer, the Lenovo. A gym and other sports facilities are also available, and these facilities are always decorated by pictures of China's military products, perhaps in the hope of attracting some prospective buyers.

A series of visits to China's major historical sites are organized for the foreign students, in addition to visits to P.L.A. military facilities and industrial complexes such as its main arms corporation, the NORINCO Group. Visits to various locations outside Beijing are also organized, with Shanghai and the Three Gorges Dam the most popular among students.

Building Soft Power

Various factors are behind the opening of the N.D.U. and P.L.A. schools in general to the outside world. As mentioned above, China has been opening up to the world for nearly three decades, and the opening of its academies is but a natural part of this progression.

Second, Beijing feels the need to replicate to the largest extent possible the well established and far-reaching U.S. education and training programs that have allowed the United States to maintain strong links with various militaries around the world. These programs not only allowed Washington to develop close relations between its officers and their counterparts around the world, but to facilitate issues such as basing, arms sales, joint operations and alliance maintenance. China is increasingly realizing that mere weapons sales are not enough to secure its influence. It is, therefore, beginning to engage in a similar global military education program with an aim to train and influence the leaders of the countries where it has its interests

Third, today China possesses far more resources than it ever did in the past. This allows it to host such programs. Making use of its newfound wealth, China is working to build up its reputation and prestige as a center of military excellence among the world's militaries. The hope is that as the country's resources grow, China will be able to successfully replicate the large U.S. educational network and compete for the preferences of the world's militaries. Prestige is definitely an important factor, with some visits being clearly designed to impress the guests. Therefore, China's aim is to augment its soft power among the world's militaries, while at the same time reducing the soft power of the United States and its allies.

The Results

China's military education programs have given Beijing some tangible benefits with many of its graduates assuming senior positions in their respective countries. Among them is President Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo, in addition to a few chiefs of staff and cabinet ministers in Africa and Asia. While most countries still send their very best, the chief of staff material, to Western academies, many officers reaching less senior positions such as one star and two star generals are increasingly being trained in China.

All armies in Africa and a few in Latin America and Southeast Asia have N.D.U. graduates at the ranking of colonel or brigadier. In countries such as Nigeria, Poland, Nepal and Indonesia, the Defense and Strategy Course has become a promotion course, while in Indonesia it is also being use to compensate for the decrease in interaction with the American and Australian militaries and for the lack of vacancies at the country's top strategy school.

China is also assuming a major role in regions where the U.S. presence has been curtailed by domestic politics, such as in the cases of South America and some parts of the Middle East. From Venezuela alone, an estimated 30 officers have graduated from various P.L.A. academies in recent years.

The United States, however, is not alone; some of its major allies such as Australia are in a similar predicament. Canberra's relations with two of A.S.E.A.N.'s most important members, Indonesia and Malaysia, have been "complex," to say the least. In the case of Indonesia, relations are now at their lowest since 1999 when Australia led an international effort that culminated in the independence and separation of East Timor. As a result, the number of officers from these countries reaching Australian schools has diminished, while the numbers reaching P.L.A. institutions has increased.

To complicate matters further, the U.S. position as a defense and military education provider in Southeast Asia is not much better. Despite the partial restoration of military ties early this year, the American-Indonesian military relationship remains fragile and is plagued by strong suspicions on the part of Jakarta.

The United States still maintains its role as the major defense and military education provider in countries such as Thailand, the Philippines, and Singapore. The Chinese option has been growing, particularly in Thailand, although more as a result of economic and political reasons rather than academic excellence, with most Thai officers still preferring to go to the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia.

China's role as a defense education provider has also been on the rise in South Asia, a region traditionally dominated by India. The rise of anti-Indian sentiment in Bangladesh, coupled with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, has led the Bangladeshi government to seek closer ties with China. In the past few years, literally hundreds of Bangladeshi officers graduated from various P.L.A. education institutions. China is currently the main supplier of weapons to its armed forces, supplying it with frigates, fighter jets, tanks, armored personal carriers and other equipment sold at "friendship prices."

Beijing's influence has also increased in Nepal, where decades-old resentment over alleged Indian colonial attitudes has paved the way for greater cooperation with the P.L.A. Last year alone, some 20 Nepalese officers graduated from Chinese military schools.

In South Asia, just like in Southeast Asia, Latin America and the Middle East, the emergence of a political atmosphere unfavorable to the traditionally dominant powers in these regions has allowed China to increase its influence in ways that may not otherwise have been possible. It remains to be seen if China's rising position will be able to survive political change of the very same nature that brought Beijing into the picture.

The rise of China's military education programs and its increasing global reach comes at a time when U.S. military education programs are contracting. For instance, of the four regional centers run by the American N.D.U., only two -- the Asia Pacific Center for Strategic Studies based in Hawaii and the George C. Marshall Center for European Security in Germany -- are properly funded. While it makes sense for the United States to invest more resources in Asia and Europe due to these regions' obvious importance, the neglect of Latin America and Africa in a period when China is devoting greater attention to these regions is short-sighted. As noted by a seasoned Latin American observer: "The United States runs the risk of losing contact with an entire generation of Latin American officers who one day will be in positions of great importance."

This is not to suggest, however, that China or the P.L.A. have some grand design to undermine U.S. interests in this area. Rather, China is acting within its state interests by taking advantage of a series of international and domestic circumstances that happen to be unfavorable to the United States in order to maximize its gains.

Conclusion

While China's top military institutions have improved both in terms of sophistication and scope, they still face serious problems. Even the N.D.U., the country's top military institution, has faced problems of poor and inconsistent curriculums and some material deficiencies such as poor libraries and poor audio visual facilities, particularly those for foreign officer courses. A sign of such a weakness has been the N.D.U.'S inability to have its Defense and Strategy Course awarded the level of master due to resistance from civilian universities over its alleged poor curriculum.

Despite these problems, China's military schools have seen an impressive renaissance with more attention being dedicated to the study of the military arts instead of the dry ideological tirades of the past. Its facilities are improving year by year, with various officers from developed countries expressing their surprise at the good conditions they encounter. While lagging behind U.S. academies in areas such as academic excellence, modern curriculum and teaching facilities, Chinese military schools are fast catching up and presenting themselves as credible alternatives for the world's military elites. This works to China's advantage by expanding its military influence and soft power capabilities.
http://tinyurl.com/klunh

Near RAF Wethersfield - Military Jets Chase UFO
Brian Vike - Director
HBCC UFO Research
9-27-6

HBCC UFO Research Note: This sighting below is a very important event/sighting and I am going to see about speaking to this gentleman over what he witnessed. Also I would like to request if anyone else in that area remembers this sighting, and all the activity would they please contact me here at HBCC UFO Research or UFOINFO.
Date: April 1978 (?)
Time: 0135hrs

Approach Direction: From the North East
Departure Direction: Straight up
Witness Direction: North East, then looking straight up

Description: Strange Event United Kingdom - April 1978

You know, I am sure many of you have had something strange or sometimes something happen that was so exciting or important happen to you that you said to yourself, I will never forget this day or date in my life. Well, I had a few of those but this event took the cake and I knew I would never forget that date but as amazing as the event was, I have forgotten the exact date but not the event because it was experienced with another person.

Now I know as soon as I expose this story (my event) people will say I am nutz or what ever else comes to mind about the story, at times I too wondered why or how I (we) was so lucky to have been witness to such an event that I still can't explain. The very day after the event, the very next morning I and SSgt "Mike B****" (Maintenance Operations, Weapons Controller) reported this event to the USAF, OSI at RAF Bentwaters, Suffolk, United Kingdom and that was the last we ever heard about it.

I have to admit, it is not an easy story to tell, over the years I have been told it was lights, stars or a helicopter. I can't tell you as many of you will have to search your hearts and minds and know that when you see something or participated in something and you have no physical prove, you just have to live with the fact it happened and let it go at that. I sure hope a few of you have had something happen you could not explain but regardless, it happened and you can't prove it but did have a witness with you. It feels so odd to have to defend something so strange, it makes you wonder why nothing was done or ever exposed about it, one of life's crazy stories I guess but I felt the need to share it.

When I was stationed at RAF Bentwaters, Suffolk, England from January 1977 to January 1980 I witnessed what had to be called a UFO Sighting. I know, I know, it sounds crazy but never the less, it happened. One of my assignments after the F4 to A-10 aircraft conversion was a volunteer assignment as a board controller at the RAF Bentwaters, Maintenance Operations Center, better known as the MOC .

Trying to find local housing (apartment or small house to lease or rent) near or around the RAF Bentwaters community was almost impossible. You had to know someone that was moving and try to negotiate talking their place if the landlord had not already signed an agreement to lease it to somebody else. So of course, I like most young SSgts back then had signed up for and hoped for base housing to become available, but that did not happen for almost two years. However, there was Base Housing available at another base about sixty (60) miles away, a place called RAF Wethersfield, it was a USAF Communications site that housed one of many NCO Leadership School. It was a very small base whose runway was shut down most of the time, only opened for visiting TDY troops and their flight activities so it was quiet and lots of housing was available.

It was offered to me, I knew other guys that were living there and they all carpooled before it became so popular and well known to the general public. Anyhow, my wife and I drove to that base one day, we liked what we saw and we accepted the offer to take one of those homes, but it was about an hour and fifteen minute drive each way.
Damn good thing there was a duel carriage way (A-12 highway) nearby or the drive would have been far worse. Anyway, I joined the car pool too, and we all took turns driving our vehicles back and forth to work at RAF Bentwaters while sharing the cost of fuel. I was working the swing shift the night of this event; normally the hours were from 1530hrs to 2400hrs daily. This week (the week of this event) three of us were driving with SSgt "Mike B****" (he lived across the street from me, the very same housing area and we also worked together at the MOC, lucky for us as it turned out).

Two of the guys lived in a town called Ipswich, which was on the way to base, we would pick them up or drop them off from time to time (shared the cost of gas since they did not live in our area but it was on the way), every penny helped, fuel was expensive even then.
Anyway, after dropping these two guys off, Mike and I still had about a forty minute ride home. We had just passed through the little town of Finchingfield just off the main road the A-12, headed towards RAF Wethersfield (our home). We drove about another five or six minutes as we approached the crest of a small hill, you could see in the background many miles away, the American base called RAF Mildenhall (it was about thirty or so miles away but at night it lit up the entire sky).

Anyway, we are in Mike's VW Bus, nice big open front window, great view of the road ahead, I notice this really bright light near Mildenhall (least I thought it was from that area). I watched it for a few seconds; it appeared to get bigger and brighter. I remember saying to Mike, Mike, look at that light, it is the brightest landing light (least I thought it was) I had ever seen, it lit up the entire sky near the base. I thought it was a C-5 or maybe a C-141 with new, bright landing lights (I had never seen anything so bright from so far away) before.

We both looked at for a few moments longer, since Mike was still driving and it was dark, he needed to watch the road too but I noticed it appeared to be headed our way. I said Mike look, it is headed this way! He pulled over, he wanted to see what kind of aircraft this was, the lights got brighter and it was headed our direction. We got out of the van, just as we did that, within seconds (I mean this) it was right over our heads and there was no noise, none at all. The entire sky above us was so bright, we could not look up at the object it was so weird, no noise, no shape could be seen of whatever this thing was.

We both looked at each other and said, what the hell is this ? We could not believe this, we kept trying to look up at it but could not because it was so bright, we felt nothing, no humming, no noise, no movement of the grass around, nothing was happening, it was like we were in a void of some kind. It hovered over us for a few more seconds, then I heard a noise from behind me, it was a jet engine sound. I looked up, put my hands over my eyes to see better and I saw two British F4 s headed right towards our location. They got so close, we could see the Union Jack flag panel on their aircraft fuselage. They were deploying photo flash cartridges and we could hear and see what they were doing.

They were taking pictures of this thing (not that they needed more light, this thing was extremely bright) as it was. Mike yelled out to me, What the hell is happening here ? I did not know either but a moment later, what ever this thing was took
off to the west towards London. It was like looking at a light saber or something because it left a single line of light in the
sky as it headed away from us, it was like someone drew a white line in the sky, it was instantaneous, I could not believe it. One second it was above us, the next it was over London (you could see the lights of the city from our location).

The British F4's took off after it, they kicked their aircraft into burner trying to catch or chase this thing. It was amazing
to witness, they never caught it but were headed towards London too when all of a sudden, this thing appeared over our heads again (no kidding, it was like in the wink of an eye) that fast. We tried to look at it again but it was useless to do so, I turned my head and saw the F4's headed back towards us again (I guess they were still taking pictures of this thing). We were right under it when it shot straight up; I mean it, straight up. All we saw was a white line in the sky until we could follow it no longer, still going straight up without a sound.

It was the damnist thing that ever happened to me or Mike for that matter. We waited for it to come back, it did not so we were about five minutes from Wethersfield, we just drove home. As we approached the base main gate, the American and British Security Guards there were going nutz with excitement, they too had seen whatever this thing was. They watched the whole thing as it happened too, he saw the whole thing but did not see (us) the van because of the distance involved. We told him what happened to us, we still could not believe it ourselves. They wanted us to file a report with the MOD Police (Minister of Defense) on base, of course, we did.

I woke my wife when I got home, she thought I had been drinking, of course, I had not. I decided to turn on the BBC radio as it was now two o'clock in the morning. The BBC radio stations were flooded with calls about a UFO sighting over London and fighters that were reported chasing it. It was an amazing night to say the least, of course I (we) also filed a report with the RAF Bentwaters OSI. They (OSI) took the report and that was that, we never heard another thing about it. During the rest of the tour, Mike and I talked about it often but never really understood what happened that night. I (we) know it must have been a UFO, least that is what we think it was (so did all those folks in London).

All the guys at work gave us major nonsense (crap) over it (I guess that is understandable) but just after I left that base in
Jan 1980, a so called landing occurred just outside the RAF Bentwaters in the local forest (I missed that event, I had been reassigned to Nellis) just before it. But I will never forget that evening but I have forgotten the exact date, I would have bet money that never would have happened (forgetting the date that is). Strange but that whole experience is still with me like it happened yesterday, strange crazy stuff to say the least. I just felt the need to share it, I know many folks won't believe it (thinking I am whacked) but at least Mike and I know it happened, that was one strange evening.

Anything like this ever happen to any of you??

Color/Shape: Could not tell, it was far too bright

Height & Speed: I have no idea, it was like watching the blink of an eye, it left a trail of light behind it, like drawing a white line in the dark sky.

TV/Radio/Press: BBC Radio was buzzing at the 0200hrs report, London was hoping with reports called in from what I remember.

UFOINFO:- http://www.ufoinfo.com Official Archives for UFO Roundup, AUFORN Australian UFO Reports and Experiences, UFO + PSI Magazine plus archives of Humanoid Sighting Reports (Albert Rosales), Filer's Files, UFO News UK.
http://tinyurl.com/gbsae