Skip to comments.Beijing makes its move in Latin America
Posted on 05/10/2004 6:56:14 AM PDT by Dr. Marten
Monday 10 May 2004
It's been more than four years since I wrote about the danger that Beijing poses in South and Central America. I stressed at the time that Hutchison Whampoa is an arm of the Chinese government and that the company's chairman, Li Ka Shing, was an unofficial government minister.
Despite knowing these facts President Clinton still insisted on the canal passing into Beijing's hands, even though he knew the company had corruptly obtained the lease.
China's Defence Minister, Chi Haotian, has said that war with the United States is inevitable. As Chi well knows there is more than one way to wage war ? and this is where the canal comes in. It provides Beijing with a base from which to create enormous mischief for the US while piously claiming that its presence is merely a commercial one.
The word is out that acting through Castro's agents and Chinese crime lords, Beijing is already heavily involved in running drugs into the US. To Beijing drugs are merely another weapon in its unofficial war against the US. Two other weapons are terrorism and subversion.
Drug revenues were be used to finance terrorists whose activities will, it was hoped, destabilise the region, particularly Mexico, thus tying up US military and intelligence resources. (Beijing also knows it can count on America's mainstream media to sympathetically report on left-wing terrorist activities).
Much of this has already come to pass. One needs to look no further than Colombia and Venezuela to see that Marxist subversives and terrorists are well organized, ruthless and on the march.
I remarked that that it was being said in certain Beijing quarters that Mexico would play a central role in this strategy. It was assumed that encouraging political and social turmoil in Mexico would, for example, spur many more Mexicans to seek sanctuary in the US, forcing Washington to strengthen its southern boarder while antagonizing Mexico City in the process.
Beijing believed that a flood of Mexicans immigrants would provoke a backlash which in turn would whip up anti-American feeling south of the border, never a difficult task. It never occurred to Beijing that America would tolerate a massive flow of illegal Mexican immigrants.
The central player ? perhaps I should say puppet ? in Beijing's scheme is Fidel Castro. I did say at the time that an official had confided in me that Beijing has successfully enlisted Fidel Castro as an ally and that he was to be heavily supplied with weapons and cash. South America was to be the weapons eventual destination.
Once again it has come to pass. (I'm feeling quite prophetic). The cash was be used, along with drugs, to finance revolutionary groups, buy off officials, finance subversion and corrupt politicians. This is precisely what Castro's embassy officials were doing in Mexico City and that is why Vincente Fox had them expelled.
I was also told that Chinese intelligence had invested a great deal in a Venezuelan army or former army officer who is linked to the DGI (Castro's KGB). Unfortunately, the official was not prepared to say anything further on the subject. It no longer matters as we now know for certain that the former army officer is Chavez.
I explained at the time that rumour had it that Beijing initially intended to form a Latin-American triangle consisting of Cuba, Venezuela and Colombia with Castro at the apex and Panama in the centre.
The triangle was to be the heart of the Beijing's plans for the region. Despite the fact that some thought the plan too bold, at least at this stage, the regime has become even more ambitious, hoping to extend the triangle so that it includes Brazil and the Argentine.
It believes that Iraq and the war on terror will prove so much of a distraction that for the US that it will not be able to direct the necessary intelligence resources to the region. However, there are still those who think that Beijing should tread carefully.
They point out that Castro is aging and his regime is highly unpopular. They feel that should he die or fall seriously ill the regime would be swept away by a popular revolt with embarrassing results for Beijing.
Others have counter with the argument that the machinery of repression is so entrenched in Cuba and the populace so demoralised that Beijing's people will have no problem in taking the reins of power. In any case, should the worse happen any evidence connecting Beijing to subversion and drug running would be quickly destroyed.
Moreover, these people argue that there is absolutely nothing to fear from America's mainstream media which is still besotted with Castro as is the Black Caucus. As evidence for this view they cite not only the media's hostility toward President Bush but their attempts to undermine victory in Iraq. So why should the media treat South America any differently from Iraq?
It's particularly revealing that Beijing appears convinced that most Democratic members of Congress and the Senate would play down any connections Beijing establishes with Castro and that they can be counted on to dismiss China's presence in the region as hysteria just as they dismiss Castro's subversive activities
Beijing's strategy is not primarily one of establishing pro-Chinese regimes but of creating a massive running sore that will drain US political and military resources. This, the regime reasons, will weaken America's Asian presence and so make it easier for China to drive her out of the Pacific-Asian region, leaving Hawaii as its only Pacific base.
This is not a fantasy. Why else did Beijing provide missile know-how and nuclear weapons technology to the likes of North Korea, Pakistan, Iran and Libya? Because it would generate political tension and fuel conflicts that would tie up US military resources.
Four years ago I wrote:
"? why did Clinton allow the canal to fall into Beijing's hands? Because, incredible as this will seem, he thinks of Beijing as a 'strategic partner' of sorts and not a potential enemy. Clinton belongs to that peculiar school of thought that sees conflict, particularly war, as the tragic outcome of misunderstandings between basically decent and reasonable people ? except for fascists, of course, meaning those who challenge his beliefs and premises. Impervious to reality, those who cling to this suicidal-like vision accuse their critics of bad faith and dismiss their patriotic warnings as alarmist, ridiculous, hateful and so on".
As Islamofascists strive to demoralize allied troops the American media and many Democratic politicians and their followers direct their anger and hate not against those who murder American troops but against President Bush, just as Beijing strategists predicted.
The only thing Beijing's warlords understand and respect is power and the will to use it. America still has the power and, under Bush, has demonstrated the will to use it. So guess whom Beijing is rooting for in the coming presidential election? Clue: it isn't Bush.
That set of circumstances is one of many major issues that is examined and written about (along with a gripping storyline) in:
We are currently in a position, not unsimilar to the initial scenario that I came up with in 2000-2001 for the novel series...ie. heavy (and necessary) involvement in the Mid-East with a serious escalation of tensions with N. Korea that then leads to war...and then ultimate Chinese intervention when we strain to respond on the Korean penninsula while the fight in the Mid-East gets even worse.
Most Americans looks at WW II as a 1941-1945 thing. Europe saw it from 1939-1945. China saw it with Japanese from the early 1930's on.
The Cold War was a global confrontation, but I do not count it as a World War personally.
The Dragon's Fury Series is a story about a 8-10 year war that ultimately stretchces heavy fighting across every populated continent on earth.
Here is the fixed one:
I personally believe they already are involved in those plans.
Though the southern border is by far the largest conduit in my books, I also have them coming in on container ships and various other methods.
Sad but true. Thanks for the ping!
Here's a story via Drudge about the LA Slimes Editor having a hissy fit about "pseudo-journalists":
Esteemed journalist lectures on ethics.
It's really kind of funny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.