Days ago the author took part in a seminar on International Security Environment sponsored by the Overseas Training Department of the PLA University of National Defense. The 86 senior military officers from 58 countries of the five continents, who are studying at the department, vied with each other to speak at the meeting. Their general concern over the world's security environment was very impressive.

The nerves of human society grew extremely tense upon entering the 21st century. The fact that international security became a hot topic among people at every corner of the world demonstrates an increasingly felt insecurity. The reason why this insecurity haunts people everywhere is mostly because of contradictions caused by the overall imbalance in the fields of the world's political, economic, military and social development.

In the areas of world economy and politics, the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer; the strong are getting more insolent and the poor and weak thrown onto the margin. The imbalance in the development of new military reform leads to an "epochal gap" in military technology. Faced with strong nations, which have established an informationized arms system in the information age, the developing countries, equipped only with mechanized and semi-mechanized arms of the industrial era, are put in a passive position and taking beating everywhere. After the publicly recognized norms of international relations were trampled underfoot, the "jungle law" featuring the weak falling a prey to the strong ran rampant worldwide. American's "bellicose complex" gets particularly stimulated. Its Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is already talking about his plan for fighting five wars in one year. All these wars may possibly be carried out in the name of "anti-terrorism". However, after the Iraq war, the word "anti-terrorism" has changed its flavor. The world people thus suspect certain big powers of expanding their sphere of influence, controlling strategic resources and eliminating dissidents in the name of anti-terrorism.

Is America feeling that comfort being in a so-called "mono-polar period"? As a matter of fact, its strong position in the world, its loss of security feeling and damage of its moral image are also in an imbalanced state. Security is a basic need of the human society. No matter who he is and however wealthy he may be, the lack of a sense of security would without exception weaken the quality of his life. It is indeed a sorrowful thing if the United States is truly becoming "more and more scared, the more it fights against terrorism".

"Becoming more scared the more it fights terrorism" reveals a double imbalance in the world's anti-terrorism cause, that is, the imbalance in treating the fundamental and the secondary aspects and in motivation and effect. The September 11 event has been used to create lies of all descriptions, while at the same time, advertently or inadvertently, it has made people overlook the reason why terrorism has, after all, emerged in the world. Perhaps moved by this, a South Asian state leader recently pointed out: "Extremism and armed conflicts are rooted in political discrimination, infringement of rights and exploitation. Political discrimination against a destitute country or an educationally backward people will give rise to an extremely strong feeling of having nothing in one's possession and the one being discriminated will feel extremely helpless. A people who has experienced a great deal of obfuscation are apt to give rise to many illegal armed elements and resort to extreme and terrorist action". Many people realized that after several years of anti-terrorist war, the effect seems to turn to the opposite. Al-Qaeda, Bin Laden and his like have been catalyzed into a "terrorist brand" effect worldwide. The anti-terrorist war characterized by the imbalance in treating examples, doubtful moral foundation and interest relations as well as the practice of playing with "anti-terrorist" politics in the election year, have all more or less played the part of vicious catalyst.

The world itself is a diversified existence. The value orientation of unilateralism is in violation of this objective reality. Its either-this-or-that way of thinking and action would inevitably worsen the imbalance situation in global development. The American scholar Huntington has criticized the drawing line method that "if you are not for us you are against us" adopted by President Bush during the anti-terrorist war as having resulted in disastrous consequences. A world in the new century should be one of more peaceful, more harmonious and more balanced development. Ten days from now (June 18), it will be the 50th anniversary of the initiation of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. To review and try hard to carry out the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence in international relations is still, after all, an effective prescription in changing the imbalanced and ailing world development.

This is an article carried on the 7th page of People's Daily on June 18 and translated by People's Daily Online