газет выражение «containing chain» и то, что главное, чего боятся и что тяжело 
переживают китайцы, – это буквально «окружения» (the strategic encirclement) 
силами США и НАТО.
     
     
    «Indeed, from Beijing's point of view, other than the Taliban, the People's 
Republic of China has been the biggest loser thus far in the war on terrorism.
    «Dispatching Troops to Afghanistan by the United States Is Tantamount to 
Sticking a Dagger in China's Back!» wails a headline in the Chinese press in 
Hong Kong. «To consolidate and establish its position as the sole global 
hegemon», the article asserts, the Bush administration has a threepronged 
strategy: «to occupy Afghanistan militarily, support a proU.S. puppet regime 
and stick a dagger in China's back» by creating «a containing chain along east 
China».
    This piece, which appeared less than a week after the September 11 attacks, 
typifies Chinese fears about where the war on terrorism might lead: to the 
strategic encirclement of Beijing. «If the United States should attack and 
occupy Afghanistan», the article continues, «it would impose an extremely big 
threat to the national security of China, and its objectives of modernization 
and complete national reunification» – such as gaining control of Taiwan – 
«would be seriously affected. It can be said that if the United States captured 
Afghanistan at one stroke, it would directly check and disrupt China's… major 
strategic objectives in the new century».
    The initial hysteria of the Chinese popular press has subsided, reflecting 
both the decision of Chinese leaders to try to exploit American policy to 
repress China's own Muslim minorities and their recognition that world public 
opinion sided with the United clement and containment of China have remained a 
hot topic among Chinese strategists and foreign policy analysts. An essay on 
the People's Daily website warns that the war on terrorism gives the United 
States an «excuse» to «surround and contain China. The U.S. will absolutely not 
give up such a good opportunity».
    Through Beijing's eyes, any recent tour of the strategic horizon is bleak 
and getting bleaker. Russia has permitted American overflights and now basing 
in former Soviet republics; India looks for a longterm strategic partnership 
with the United States and has reacted calmly to terrorist attacks by Islamic 
radicals; Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf has taken extraordinary internal 
risks to support U.S. policy; and Japan has played a larger military role. 
While Taiwan has played no significant role in the war in Afghanistan, recent 
elections on the island cemented the rule of the antireunification Democratic 
Progressive party. And the war on terrorism is bringing the United States 
closer to the Philippinesand even perhaps to Indonesia and Malaysia.
    The presence of American troops in Central Asia is especially surprising 
and galling to the Chinese. Not only are U.S. troops going to be in Afghanistan 
and Pakistan for some time, but the Pentagon recently admitted that it «is 
preparing a military presence in Central Asia that could last for years,» 
according to the New York Times. And the Pentagon is being remarkably frank 
about what will surely reinforce Beijing's fears of containment…
    …«The aim of U.S. global strategy in these early years of the 21st century,
» argues analyst Zhao Linglin in the Beijingowned Hong Kong newspaper Та Kung 
Pao, «is to politically integrate the whole world and act as sole world leader. 
The fight against terrorism has given the United States a good reason to 
fulfill this claim. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has 
gradually expanded its share of influence by launching a series of wars. After 
the Gulf War of 1991, it assumed control over the Middle East; after the war in 
Kosovo, it assumed control over East Europe; and over Central Asia through the 
antiterrorism war in Afghanistan. Furthermore, after each war, the United 
States enlarged its pool of allies and organized more and more coalitions» – 
China's Persecution Complex. They think we're using September 11 to encircle 
them / Tom Donnelly // Weekly Standard, January 28. 2001.
     
     Здесь мы выходим даже за рамки диалектики, когда цель – проникновение в 
бывшую советскую Среднюю Азию – становится средством и наоборот, когда 
объявление начала войны может вполне оказаться ее реальным концом (а самая 
настоящая война – самым выдающимся и подлинным миром?).
     Как бы то ни было, присутствие американских войск должно являться и 
является инструментом… всего. «Изменения режимов, политические и судебные 
реформы, организация экономического развития, сотворение, удержание и 
сохранение подлинного мира – все это не может быть выполнено вне 
продолжительного присутствия и наращивания американских вооруженных сил», – вот 
что, критикуя министра обороны США Рамсфельда, вменяет вооруженным силам своей 
державы неугомонный Доннелли
     
    («To describe the constabulary role of U.S. armed forces as simply 
„peacekeeping“ is to misunderstand the importance of armed forces in winning 
wars, not just winning battles. Regime change, political and judicial reform, 
economic development – creating, sustaining and preserving a real peace – 
cannot be accomplished without the continued presence and engagement of 
American forces, both to provide physical security and evidence of U.S. 
political interest. If war is a political act, then victory is more than 
military conquest and the defeat of enemy forces.