Posted on 01/19/2006 12:47:15 PM PST by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
Concern over Communist China as a threat to American security is rising. The looming crisis over Iran's nuclear weapons program highlights Beijing's role as the protector of the remaining "axis of evil" regimes. On January 9, the day before Iran removed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seals at its uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, its Deputy Foreign Minister Mehdi Safari met with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui in Beijing. The official Chinese statement was that "Zhang reiterated the principled position of the Chinese side on properly settling the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiation. Safari briefed Zhang about the views and considerations of the Iranian side in this respect." It is hard not to believe that the meeting was to clear Tehran's impeding action with Beijing.
After the news broke, Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan's told reporters on Jan. 10, "We believe that the Iranian nuclear issue should be resolved within the framework of IAEA. In the current context, the most feasible approach is still the negotiation between the three EU countries and Iran." Beijing knows that two years of EU talks have gone nowhere. Beijing also knows that talking is the alternative to acting. As long as only Iran is acting, Tehran will prevail.
China has also been "hosting" the Six-Party Talks on North Korea's nuclear program. Again, Pyongyang continues to act while everyone else just talks – or prepares to talk. There have only been four actual rounds of negotiations since the process started in August 2003, and no progress. Beijing's insistence on a "diplomatic solution" is code for its opposition to any use of pressure or sanctions against North Korea.
So before there can be effective pressure on Iran or North Korea, there must be pressure on Beijing. This is what American business interests who have placed their bets on a rising China are concerned about. They do not want to see a political backlash in Washington that would shift the basis for policy-making from laissez-faire to national security in international relations. Consider two recent articles by business executives with direct ties to China.
In the current (Winter) issue of The National Interest foreign policy journal, the former chief executive of American International Group (AIG), Maurice Greenberg, argues that despite significant differences over "values" between America and China, "It is important that we never allow our trading and economic relations to become hostage to these differences." In other words, the conduct of business is more important than matters of national security or the global balance of power. He pulls out the tired claim that, "Overcoming legacies of mistrust and hostility is another benefit that can emerge from closer economic and trading ties." This notion has been around since the flowering of classical liberal dogma in the early 19th century, but it has been discredited by the larger role of economic development as the foundation for expanded national ambitions.
But to Greenberg, there are no conflicting national interests, only "transnational threats such as terrorism, environmental degradation and the spread of disease." He says, "American leadership is essential" but only in "creating a network of mutual interdependence" with China as the most important partner. The unstated paradigm is the classical view that since business can only dominate in the absence of international conflict, such conflict must be assumed away.
AIG is an "American" company that was founded in Shanghai, China in 1919. Greenberg reveals his real concern when he says, "China's 1.3 billion people represent an enormous and still untapped market for U.S. products and services." But it will remain an "untapped market" because Beijing will continue to place its own development needs and expansion of its political-economic-military power ahead of the profit-seeking of foreigners, as would any nation whose leaders are behaving in a realistic and responsible manner. It is to persuade American leaders to abandon their duties (at least in regard to China) that Greenberg writes for The National Interest, and AIG buys a full page ad on the back cover of the journal on a regular basis.
In the Wall Street Journal on January 17, Samuel Porteous, managing director of Navigant Consulting's Asian Litigation and Investigation Practice in Shanghai and Hong Kong, penned a column entitled, "The National Security Threat to Free Trade." He fears that the role of transnational corporations in world politics is being eroded. "Already there are signs it is fraying around the edges -- initially as a result of action by Western nations. The most recent, and high-profile, example was last year's abortive bid by Chinese energy giant Cnooc Ltd. (China National Offshore Oil Corporation) for California-based Unocal Corp. The outcry in the U.S. Congress that ultimately forced Cnooc to withdraw its bid provided a good example of how a broad interpretation of national-security concerns can be used as an excuse to interfere in what should be the beneficial flow of international trade and investment." His "blame American first" approach reveals his bias towards his clients in China. [Greenberg also wrote of his support for Cnooc.]
What the House of Representative did in regard to Cnooc was pass a resolution stating the common sense proposition that "a Chinese state-owned energy company exercising control of critical United States energy infrastructure and energy production capacity could take action that would threaten to impair the national security of the United States." This resolution passed by a vote of 398-15.
Porteous thinks it is wrong to have even the Treasury Department-led Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which is generally a rubber stamp for foreign acquisitions of defense-related American companies, to monitor the impact of foreign capital on national security. "As last year's saga showed, the committee's mere existence can deter foreign investment in potentially sensitive areas. Cnooc tried to get CFIUS to agree to an immediate review of its bid to avoid a prolonged period of uncertainty. But this was rejected, leaving Cnooc at a disadvantage to rival bidder Chevron." The "disadvantage" was that time was provided for American leaders to think about the issue and what was at stake.
Too often, the CFIUS process operates just as Porteous would like, ignoring security risks. CFIUS is charged with enforcing the 1988 Exon-Florio amendment to the Defense Production Act which authorized the President to suspend or prohibit foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies that may harm national security. However, a September 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report requested by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs found: "Exon-Florio's effectiveness in protecting U.S. national security may be limited because Treasury – as Chair of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States – has narrowly defined what constitutes a threat to national security and, along with some other member agencies, is reluctant to initiate investigations to determine whether national security concerns require a recommendation for possible Presidential action."
Porteous does point out that other countries place security concerns at the top of their agendas. "In China's case, we've already seen examples of just how broad this definition can be. Take, for instance, the citing of national security as a rationale for demanding that foreign Internet companies filter out content critical of the government. From Beijing's perspective, social stability is just another facet of national security."
And this is news to Porteous? Apparently he has been so isolated in his counting house that he also thinks it odd that "Pakistan, Uganda and several other developing nations argued during the recently concluded Doha round of trade negotiations that food security is 'inextricably connected to national security and political sovereignty' and....based on the WTO's national security exemption, they should be entitled to maintain trade barriers against imports of agricultural products in order to prevent their food supplies becoming too dependent on foreign producers." It should be noted that self-sufficiency in food is China's official policy too.
If Porteous knew anything about history, he would know that England came closer to being defeated in World War I by having its foreign food supplies cut off by the U-boats than by any German offensives in France; and that the Allied blockade of Germany was a factor leading to its defeat and domestic revolution. Throughout recorded time, being "starved into submission" was often a concern that rightfully dwarfed all others.
The business-classical liberal doctrine is similar to that of Marxism. As historian Robert I. Frost has written, "in Marxist-Leninism, it is economic forces which decide development of social and political systems, little attention was paid by scholars in the Soviet period to suggestions that social and political changes were brought about by the new demands of warfare."[The Northern Wars: War, State and Society in Northeastern Europe 1558-1721 (Longman, 20000] The more balanced view of history and civilization sees the mobilization of economic progress used to serve the needs of the larger national community. And a top priority of all societies is security from foreign rivals in what is always a dangerous world.
In a landmark essay, the eminent historian Jacob Viner noted, "where the merchants to a large extent shared directly in government, major political considerations, including the very safety of the country or its success in wars in which it was actually participating, had repeatedly to give way to the cupidity of the merchants." ["Power versus plenty as objectives of foreign policy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries," World Politics, October, 1948.] This is a situation to be avoided, which means the petty, self-serving arguments of Greenberg, Porteous, and their ilk must be vigorously rejected by those with a better grasp of history and the danger of leaving government policy formulation to greedy merchant class elites.
Fundamentally, we believe that the U.S. government needs to devote more resources and put in place new programs to build wider expertise about China and to protect our industrial base from eroding as a result of our economic relations with China.
-- C. Richard D’Amato, chairman
U.S.-China Security Review Commission
(How to improve U.S.-China relations )
ping
Free traitors do not give one care for this country.
This raises a question - apparently the thing that the Chinese want most fropm the U.S is to upgrade our west coast ports since our ports limit their exports.
Governor Schwarzenegger came back from his trip to China with a plan for bonds that would, among other things, upgrade California's ports thinking this would help the state.
Is that wrong in light of our national security situation?
>>>China Business Cheerleaders Ignore National Security Threats<<<
Got any other old news?
Most people are unaware of the second half of the famous Kruschev quote (not exact, but close)... "We will bury you, and you capitalists will sell us the shovels." The Chinese see the US as a dying empire, and to date our government is making all the (wrong) moves to bear that opinion out.
This is something I strangly agree with. I doubt we agree on the methods of doing this, but I agree that we need to realize that China is making long term plans for economic and military world dominance, and they aren't going to be a benevolent benefactor to other countries if they attain it.
We need to combat this with our own long term planning and goals.
But we're sure teaching Cuba a lesson!
"Free traitors do not give one care for this country."
Free trade or at least reasonably free trade is an important part of capitalism - capitalism that provides the engine that powers democracy. It isn't simply free trade that's bad but trade that continues in the face of evidence that we are hurting ourselves.
>>>What the House of Representative did in regard to Cnooc was pass a resolution stating the common sense proposition that "a Chinese state-owned energy company exercising control of critical United States energy infrastructure and energy production capacity could take action that would threaten to impair the national security of the United States." This resolution passed by a vote of 398-15.<<<
Who were the 15 fools who voted against this?
Most people are unaware of the second half of the famous Kruschev quote (not exact, but close)... "We will bury you, and you capitalists will sell us the shovels." The Chinese see the US as a dying empire, and to date our government is making all the (wrong) moves to bear that opinion out.
------
Exactly -- China is no different than old Russia. Washington remains OUT OF CONTROL on many fronts and one of those is the pandering to China.
All of today's whiz bang Flat Earthers and technoglobo wunderkinder are basically a bunch of Henry Ford clones who fool everyone by curling their pinkies when they have a drink and by saying all the hip things they need to with Bono at their sides. To be fair, though, they don't actually wear enemy shirts the way ole Henry did, and are probably more correctly classified as useful idiots.
Yes, and then some. Whenever we buy one of those huge new container cranes, guess where both the crane and the hull used to float it over here are built?
The following is an excerpt from the 1963 Congressional record... see how close to the current political climate it hits. The points especially pertinent to this discussion on China are 4,6,7,9,15, and 44.
Communist Goals - 1963 Congressional Record
Culture/Society Miscellaneous Keywords: COMMUNISM
Source: Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
Published: Jan 10, 1963 Author: "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen
Communist Goals (1963)
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.
At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:
[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]
CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament of the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand.
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use united force to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
And how are those goals working out for the USSR?
Although corporations cannot vote, they select our Congress members through PAC contributions. The need for election money makes PACs more influential than voters. Hopefully the Abrahamoff matter will result that only citizens who can vote can contribute money. Foreign entities, including corporations, should be prevented from controlling our government.
One citizen, one vote - not $1,000,000 PAC, one congressman.
Based upon the state of our social and political climate, and upon Putin's actions as head of state.... I'd say they're working out pretty well.
46. Allow NATO to expand thru Eastern Europe up to the border of Russia.
Wrong answer! FAIR Trade is an important part of Capitalism, amongst Capitalist. We have nothing of the sort taking place today, not even close. Blackbird.
This is the one that keeps me from believing this is an authentic, serious list.
That said, it does not show up as an urban legend although it's interesting to compare with this list
Communist Rules for Revolution In May 1919 at Dusseldorf, Germany, the allied forces discovered a copy of these 'Rules.' They were first printed in the United States in the 'Bartlesville (Oklahoma) Examiner-Enterprise' the same year, 1919. Almost 20 years later, in 1946, the attorney general of Florida obtained them from a known member of the Communist Party, who acknowledged that the 'Rules' were then still a part of the Communist program for the United States. 1. Corrupt the young; get them away from religion. Get them interested in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness. 2. Get control of all means of publicity, thereby: 3. Get people's minds off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books, plays and immoral movies. 4. Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. 5. Destroy the people's faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule and disgrace. 6. Always preach true democracy, but seize power as fast and as ruthlessly as possible. 7. By encouraging government extravagance, destroy its credit, produce years of inflation with rising prices and general discontent. 8. Incite unnecessary strikes in vital industries, encourage civil disorders and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of government toward such disorders. 9. Cause breakdown of the old moral values - honesty, sobriety, self-restraint, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness. 10. Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with a view to confiscate them and leaving the populace helpless.http://www.snopes.com/language/document/commrule.htm
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.