I don't care about your F*cking country and its trade politics
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Horowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Horowitz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:21 AM
Subject: Boycott China - please read - your life may depend on it
> Hello Everyone,
>
> The following speech, reprinted from www.newsmax.com, was made this
Tuesday
> night by U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California. I urge you all
to
> read every word of this speech. I have been aware of much of the budding
> catastrophe we face regarding China, yet have not seen the issues
> articulated with anything near the clarity that Mr. Rohrabacher does in
> this speech.
>
> My wife and I began boycotting Chinese-made goods about a year ago in
> recognition of the reasons outlined here. I urge every one of you to
> forward this message to everyone in your email list, and begin boycotting
> Chinese goods immediately.
>
> My own brief summary of the issues:
>
> 1. Our extreme trade deficit vs. China (nearly $100B per year now) has
been
> used for a massive military buildup, with the U.S. as the ultimate target.
> 2. Russia is selling their most advanced arms to China, capable of
> destroying our aircraft carriers, including a supersonic torpedo
technology
> that is far beyond anything that we have and for which we have no defense.
> 3. Our leading defense contractors, including Loral, Boeing, Hughes,
> Motorola, and others have sold advanced military technology to China over
> the past few years, including technology that now enables Chinese
> nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles to accurately hit
> American cities, something they were not able to do prior to this transfer
> of technology.
> 4. The majority of the "partner" companies of U.S. ventures in China are
in
> fact owned and operated by the PLA (the People's Liberation Army - the
> Chinese army). These are not commercial interests.
> 5. The U.S. government (read you and I) have been providing tax breaks to
> American companies to close up factories in the U.S. and reopen them in
> China. These factories transfer advanced technology in many cases, put
> Americans out of work, and provide cash to the Chinese to further their
> military expansion.
>
> I hope these points and the following reprinted speech make you think long
> and hard about our position regarding China, and that you:
>
> 1. Start boycotting Chinese-made goods immediately
> 2. Send this message to everyone on your email list. Please don't be
> embarrassed to take a stand on this. I assure you, it is not my
imagination
> that China poses a significant threat to our safety and future, and we are
> giving them the money, technology, and weaponry to carry out their many
> threats already made against our country.
>
> Here's one informational link...I'm sure you can find may others yourself.
>
> PLEASE read Mr. Rohrabacher's speech, below:
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/chinamissiles_990409.html
> ....includes, "A Chinese official hinted at launching a nuclear weapon
> at Los Angeles in 1996, when U.S. warships confronted
> China over missile firings near Taiwan."
>
> Make no mistake about it. The Chinese government is a dictatorship, and is
> very dangerous.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Rick Horowitz
>
> Rohrabacher Slams U.S. Aid to China
>
> Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
> Thursday, April 26, 2001
>
> Editor's note: This is the text of a speech on the House floor by
> U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., Tuesday night.
>
> Mr. Speaker, one month ago, the Communist regime that controls
> the mainland of China attacked an American surveillance aircraft
> while it was in international waters. After being knocked out of the
> sky, 24 American military personnel, the crew of the surveillance
> craft, were held hostage for nearly 2 weeks. The Communist
> Chinese blamed us and would not return the crew until the United
> States was humiliated before the world.
>
> Wake up, America. What is going on here? Large financial interests
> in our country whose only goal is exploiting the cheap, near-slave
> labor of China have been leading our country down the path to
> catastrophe. How much more proof do we need that the so-called
> engagement theory is a total failure?
>
> Our massive investment in China, pushed and promoted by
> American billionaires and multinational corporations, has created
> not a more peaceful, democratic China, but an aggressive
> nuclear-armed bully that now threatens the world with its hostile acts
> and proliferation. Do the Communist Chinese have to murder
> American personnel or attack the United States or our allies with
> their missiles before those who blithesomely pontificate about the
> civilizing benefits of building the Chinese economy will admit that
> China for a decade has been going in the opposite direction than
> predicted by the so-called ``free traders.''
>
> 'We Have Made a Monstrous Mistake'
>
> We have made a monstrous mistake, and if we do not face reality
> and change our fundamental policies, instead of peace, there will be
> conflict. Instead of democratic reform, we will see a further
> retrenchment of a regime that is run by gangsters and thugs, the
> world's worst human rights abusers.
>
> Let us go back to basics. The mainland of China is controlled by a
> rigid, Stalinistic Communist party. The regime is committing
> genocide in Tibet. It is holding as a captive the designated
> successor of the Dalai Lama, who is the spiritual leader of the
> Tibetan people. By the way, this person, the designated new leader,
> is a little boy. They are holding hostage a little boy in order to
> terrorize the Tibetan people. The regime is now, at this moment,
> arresting thousands of members of the Falun Gong, which is nothing
> more threatening than a meditation and yoga society. Christians of
> all denominations are being brutalized unless they register with the
> state and attend controlled churches. Just in the last few days, there
> has been a round-up of Catholics who were practicing their faith
> outside of state control. Now they are in a Chinese prison.
>
> There are no opposition parties in China. There is no free press in
> China. China is not a free society under anyone's definition. More
> importantly, it is not a society that is evolving toward freedom.
>
> President Richard Nixon first established our ties with the
> Communist Chinese in 1972 at the height of the Cold War. That was
> a brilliant move. At that particular moment, it was a brilliant move. It
> enabled us to play the power of one dictatorship off the power of
> another dictatorship. We played one against the other at a time
> when we had been weakened by the Vietnam War and at a time
> when Soviet Russia was on the offensive.
>
> During the Reagan years, we dramatically expanded our ties to
> China, but do not miss the essential fact that justified that
> relationship and made it different than what has been going on
> these last 10 years. China was at that time, during the Reagan
> administration, evolving toward a freer, more open society, a
> growing democratic movement was evident, and the United States,
> our government and our people, fostered this movement. Under
> President Reagan, we brought tens of thousands of students here,
> and we sent teams from our National Endowment for Democracy
> there. We were working with them to build a more democratic
> society, and it looked like that was what was going to happen. All of
> this ended, of course, in Tiananmen Square over 10 years ago.
>
> 'Tanks to Wipe Out the Opposition'
>
> Thousands of Chinese gathered there in Tiananmen Square in
> Beijing to demand a more open and democratic government. For a
> moment, it appeared like there had been an historic breakthrough.
> Then, from out of the darkness came battle-hardened troops and
> tanks to wipe out the opposition. The people who ordered that
> attack are still holding the reins of power in China today and, like all
> other criminals who get away with scurrilous deeds, they have
> become emboldened and arrogant.
>
> My only lament is that had Ronald Reagan been president during
> that time of Tiananmen Square, things, I think, would have been
> different; but he was not. Since that turn of events about 12 years
> ago, things have been progressively worse. The repression is more
> evident than ever. The belligerence and hostility of Beijing is even
> more open. Underscoring the insanity of it all, the Communist
> Chinese have been using their huge trade surplus with the United
> States to upgrade their military and expand its warfighting
> capabilities.
>
> Communist China's arsenal of jets, its ballistic missiles, its naval
> forces have all been modernized and reinforced. In the last 2 years,
> they have purchased destroyers from the former Soviet Union.
> These destroyers are armed with Sunburn missiles. These were
> systems that were designed during the Cold War by the Russians to
> destroy American aircraft carriers.
>
> Yes, the Communist Chinese are arming themselves to sink
> American aircraft carriers, to kill thousands upon thousands of
> American sailors. Make no mistake about it, China's military might
> now threatens America and world peace. If there is a crisis in that
> part of the world again, which there will be, we can predict that some
> day, unlike the last crisis when American aircraft carriers were able
> to become a peaceful element to bring moderation of judgment
> among the players who were in conflict, instead, American aircraft
> carriers will find themselves vulnerable, and an American President
> will have to face the choice of risking the lives of all of those sailors
> on those aircraft carriers.
>
> Mr. Speaker, how is it, then, that a relatively poor country can afford
> to enlarge its military in such a way, to the point that it can threaten a
> superpower such as the United States of America?
>
> Even as China's slide into tyranny and militarism continued in these
> last 12 years, the United States government has permitted a totally
> indefensible economic rules of engagement to guide our
> commercial ties with the mainland of China.
>
> While China was going in the right direction, permitting that country
> to have a large trade advantage and thus providing a large reserve
> of hard currency may or may not have made sense, as long as
> China was going in the right direction and going towards
> democracy. Maybe we would like to build up a freer China that way.
>
> It 'Makes No Sense' to Help Arm China
>
> But it made no sense, and it still makes no sense, for the United
> States to permit a country that is sinking even deeper into tyranny
> and into anti-Western hostility to have a huge trade surplus as a
> resource to call upon to meet their military needs.
>
> In effect, the Communist Chinese have been using the tens of
> billions of dollars of trade surplus with the United States each year to
> build their military power and military might so some day the
> Communist Chinese might be able to kill millions of our people, or at
> least to threaten us to do that in order to back us down into defeat
> without ever coming to a fight.
>
> We have essentially been arming and equipping our worst potential
> enemy and financing our own destruction. How could we let such a
> crime against the security of our country happen? Well, it was
> argued by some very sincere people that free trade would bring
> positive change to China, and that engagement would civilize the
> Communist regime.
>
> Even as evidence stacked upon more evidence indicated that
> China was not liberalizing, that just the opposite was happening, the
> barkers for open markets kept singing their song:
> ``Most-favored-nation status, just give us this and things will get
> better.'' It was nonsense then and it is nonsense today. But after all
> that has happened, one would think that the shame factor would
> silence these eternal optimists.
>
> Perhaps I am a bit sensitive because, first and foremost, let me
> state unequivocally that I consider myself a free trader. Yes, I believe
> in free trade between free people. What we should strive for is to
> have more and more open trade with all free and democratic
> countries, or countries that are heading in the right direction.
>
> I am thus positively inclined towards President Bush's efforts to
> establish a free trade zone among the democratic countries in this
> hemisphere. I will read the fine print, but my inclination is to
facilitate
> trade between democracies.
>
> When I say, ``I will read the fine print,'' I will be especially concerned
> with a free trade agreement, and I will be looking to that free trade
> agreement to make sure that we have protection that our sensitive
> technologies, which can be used for military purposes, will not be
> transferred from the countries in our hemisphere, democratic
> countries in our hemisphere, to China or to any other countries that
> are potential enemies of the United States. This will have to be in
> that free trade agreement.
>
> There will have to be protections against the transfer of our
> technology to our enemies. This is more of a concern following new
> science and technology agreements that were signed by China and
> countries like Brazil and Venezuela recently. Dictatorships are
> always going to try to gain in any agreement that they have with us,
> and they are always going to try to manipulate other agreements
> and the rules of the game so they can stay in power.
>
> When one applies the rules of free trade to a controlled society, as
> we have been told over and over again, more trade, and let us have
> free trade with China, that is going to make them more dependent
> on us and they will be freer and more prosperous, more likely to be
> peaceful people, well, if we apply the rules of free trade to a
> dictatorship, ultimately what happens is that it is only free trade in
> one direction.
>
> On one end we have free people, a democratic people who are not
> controlled by their government, and thus are basically unregulated
> and are moving forward for their own benefit. But on the other end,
> the trade will be controlled and manipulated to ensure that the
> current establishment of that country stays in power.
>
> Never has that been more evident than in America's dealing with
> Communist China. In this case, it is so very blatant.
>
> Those advocating most-favored-nation status, or as it is called now,
> normal trade relations, have always based their case on the boon to
> our country represented by the sale of American goods to ``the
> world's largest market.'' That is their argument. Here on this floor
> over and over and over again we heard people say, ``We have to
> have these normal trade relations because we have to sell our
> products, the products made by the American people, to the world's
> largest market.''
>
> This Is Free Trade?
>
> That is a great pitch. The only problem is, it is not true. The sale of
> U.S.-produced vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, autos, you name the
> commercial item, are almost a non-factor in the trade relationship
> between our countries. They are a minuscule amount of what is
> considered the trade analysis of these two countries.
>
> During these many years that we have given China
> most-favored-nation status or normal trade relations, the power elite
> there never lowered China's tariffs, and in fact increased the tariffs
> in some areas, and erected barriers to prevent the sale of all but a
> few U.S.-made products.
>
> So while we had low tariffs, and intentionally brought our tariffs down
> by most-favored-nation, for over a decade, even as China was
> slipping more into tyranny, they were permitted to have high tariffs
> and block our goods from coming in.
>
> Beijing would not permit its own people to buy American-made
> consumer items. They were not looking for a trade relationship with
> the United States for their people to be able to buy American
> products. That is not what they were looking for. That is not what it
> was all about. They knew it, but yet our people were told over and
> over and over and over and over again, ``Oh, we have to have
> most-favored-nation status and normal trade relations in order to sell
> American products to the world's largest market.''
>
> That is not what was going on. It is not what the reality was. Instead,
> the Communist Chinese were out to get American money, lots of it,
> and American money to build factories, and they wanted the
> Americans to build the factories with our technology and our money
> in their country.
>
> By the way, many of the factories that were built there were not built
> in order to sell products to the Chinese people. Those factories
> were built to export products to the United States.
>
> The system that developed with the acquiescence of our
> government, and this is no secret, what I am talking about tonight is
> no secret to anyone except to the American people, our government
> acquiesced to this for years, this policy put the American people, the
> American working people, on the losing end of the transformational
> action in the long run and sometimes even in the medium run.
>
> The Chinese, because of our low tariffs, flooded our market with
> their products, and blocked our goods from entering China, and all
> the while we were hearing over and over again, ``We must have
> most-favored-nation status in order to sell American products in the
> world's largest market.''
>
> They droned on year after year that most-favored-nation status was
> so important to selling our products in the world's largest market. I
> will just repeat that four or five times, because we must have heard it
> a thousand times on this floor, and every time said, I am sure, in
> complete sincerity by the people who were expressing it, but were
> totally wrong. A very quick look into the statistics could have
> indicated that.
>
> Taiwan a Better Customer
>
> By the way, just to let members know, the people of Taiwan,
> numbering 22 million people, buy more from us annually than the 1.2
> Chinese on the mainland. The Taiwanese, with 22 million people,
> buy more consumer products from us than do 1.2 billion Chinese in
> the mainland.
>
> What has happened? What has happened as a result of these
> nonsensical counterproductive policies, anti-American policies to
> some degree, even though our own government has acquiesced in
> them? It has resulted in a decline in domestic manufacturing
> facilities in the United States. In other words, we have been closing
> down our factories and putting our people out of work.
>
> By the way, that does not mean the company is put out of business.
> Those factories spring up someplace else. There is this flood of
> Chinese products, the factory closes down, and guess where it
> reopens? It reopens, yes, in Communist China, using our modern
> technology and our capital, which is what the Chinese want to have
> invested in their country.
>
> Taxing Americans to Help Communism
>
> Adding insult to injury, our working people, some of them, whose
> jobs are being threatened by imports, our working people are being
> taxed in order to provide taxpayer-subsidized loans and loan
> guarantees for those corporate leaders wishing to close down their
> operations in the United States and set up on the mainland of China.
>
> Even if China was a free country, that would not be a good idea. I do
> not believe we should be doing that even for democratic countries.
> But for us to do that to a Communist dictatorship or any kind of
> dictatorship, to have the American taxpayer subsidize these
> investments, taking the risks on the shoulders of the American
> taxpayer in order to build the economy of a vicious dictatorship, this
> is insane. This is an insane policy. This is not free trade between
> free people. It has nothing to do with free trade. It is subsidized trade
> with subjugated people.
>
> Companies that were permitted to sell their product to the Chinese
> in these last 10 years, and there have been a few, companies like
> Boeing who have attempted to sell airplanes to China, have found
> themselves in a very bad predicament. As part of the deal enabling
> them to sell planes now to Communist China, they have had to set
> up manufacturing facilities in China to build the parts, or at least
> some of the parts for the airplane.
>
> Thus, over a period of time, what the Chinese have managed to do
> is to have the United States just build factories and pay for them. Or,
> as part of an agreement to sell the airplane, we have set up an
> aerospace industry in China that will compete with our own
> aerospace industry.
>
> I come from California. I come from a district in which aerospace is
> a mighty important part of our economy. I just want to thank all the
> people who have permitted this policy, this blackmail of American
> companies, to go on under the name, under the guise of free trade.
> It is going to sell out our own national interest 10 years down the
> road when these people will have a modern aerospace industry
> building weapons and being able to undercut our own people. Gee,
> thanks.
>
> Making matters worse, many of the so-called companies in China
> that are partnering with American industrialists, and American
> industrialists, when they are going to build in China, are often
> required to have a Chinese company as their partner as a
> prerequisite to them investing in China, in short order these
> so-called partners end up taking over the company. So many of
> American companies have been there and have been burned.
>
> Guess what, we look at these private Chinese companies that were
> partners with our American firms, we look at them, and what do we
> find out? They are not private companies at all. Many of them are
> subsidiaries of the People's Liberation Army. That is right, the
> Communist Chinese army owns these companies. These are
> nothing more than military people in civilian clothing. Their profits
> end up paying for weapons targeting America, and we are paying
> them to build the companies that make those profits.
>
> 'Alarming Betrayal of American Security'
>
> Perhaps the most alarming betrayal of American national security
> interests surfaced about 5 years ago when some of America's
> biggest aerospace firms went into China hoping to use Chinese
> rockets to launch American satellites. They were trying to make a
> fast buck. It did not cost them a lot more to launch satellites here.
>
> Yes, the Chinese were insisting that any satellites we put up for them
> be put up on their rockets. I personally thought that, as long as we
> made sure there was no technology transfer, that was an okay
> policy. As long as we just launched our American satellite which
> helped them set up a telephone system or something in China, that
> is fine if they never got ahold of it, and that would be okay.
>
> I was guaranteed, along with the other Members of this body, there
> would be incredible safeguards. The last administration briefed us
> on the safeguards. Then as soon as we approved of letting these
> satellite deals go through and our satellites be launched on Chinese
> rockets, the administration trash canned all of the safeguards. I do
> not understand it. I do not understand why people did this.
>
> But when all was said and done, the Communist Chinese rocket
> arsenal was filled with more reliable and more capable rockets,
> thanks to Loral, Hughes and other aerospace firms. Communist
> Chinese rockets, which were a joke 10 years ago, when Bill Clinton
> became President of the United States, they were a joke, one out of
> 10 failed, exploded before they could get into space. Today they are
> dramatically more likely to hit their targets, and they even carry
> multiple warheads. Where before they had one warhead and nine
> out of 10 would explode, now about 9 out of 10 get to their target,
> and some of them are carrying multiple warheads.
>
> The Cox Report
>
> The Cox report detailed this travesty. We should not forget the Cox
> report. Unfortunately, there has been innuendo after innuendo as if
> the Cox report has in some way been proven wrong. There are no
> reports that indicate that what the gentleman from California (Mr.
> COX) and his task force proved has in some way been discredited.
> In fact, there was a transfer of technology to the Communist Chinese
> that did great damage to our national security and put millions of
> American lives at risk that did not have to be put at risk.
>
> Yet, even with all this staring Congress in the face, we have
> continued to give Most Favored Nations status to China and even
> now vote to make them part of the World Trade Organization. Why?
> One explanation, well just bad theory. Expanding trade, of course,
> they believe will make things better. But expanding trade did not
> make things better. Expanding trade with a dictatorship, as I have
> mentioned, just expands the power base and solidifies the bad guys
> in power.
>
> Of course the other explanation of why all this is going on, why we
> end up seeing our national security trashed is pure greed on some
> individuals' parts.
>
> Our businessmen have been blinded, not by the dream of selling
> U.S.-made products to China as they would have you believe in the
> debates here on the floor of the House, but rather blinded by the
> vision of using virtually slave labor for quick profits on the mainland
> of China.
>
> With little or no competition, no negotiators, no lawyers, no
> environmental restrictions, no unions, no public consent, it sounds
> like a businessman's dream to me. Yes, it is a businessman's
> dream if you just blot out the picture of a grinding tyranny and the
> human rights abuses that are going on and the horrible threat to the
> United States of America that is emerging because of the things
> that are going on and the things that are being done.
>
> Because you are a businessman, because you are engaged in
> making a profit as we are free to do in the United States does not
> exempt you from being a patriot or being loyal to the security
> interests of the United States of America.
>
> Today's American overseas businessman quite often is a far cry
> from the Yankee clipper captains of days gone by. In those days, our
> Yankee clipper ships sailed the ocean, cut through those seas, the
> Seven Seas. They were full going over, and they were full coming
> back. They waived our flag. Our flag was flying from those clipper
> ships, and our flag stood for freedom and justice. Those Yankee
> clipper captains and those business entrepreneurs were proud to
> be Americans.
>
> Today, America's tycoons often see nationalism, read that loyalty to
> the United States, as an antiquated notion. They are players in the
> global economy now, they feel. Patriotism they believe is old think.
>
> Well, we cannot rely on the decisions of people like this to
> determine what the interests of the United States of America is to
> be. Yet, the influence of these billionaires and these tycoons, these
> people who would be willing to invest in a dictatorship or a
> democracy, they could care less which one, they do not care if there
> is blood dripping off the hand that hands them the dollar bills, those
> individuals influence our government. Their influence on this elected
> body is monumental, if not insurmountable at times.
>
> 'People Must Be Free'
>
> I believe in capitalism. I am a capitalist. I am someone who believes
> in the free enterprise system, make no mistake about it. But free is
> the ultimate word. People must be free to be involved in enterprise.
> We must respect the basic tenets of liberty and justice that have
> provided us a country in which people are free to uplift themselves
> through hard work and through enterprise.
>
> Today, more often than not, we are talking about how people are
> trying to find out ways of manipulating government on how to make a
> profit, not how to build a better product that will enrich everyone's life
> and make a profit by doing that, which is the essence of the free
> enterprise system.
>
> More and more people are not even looking again to this great
> country and considering this great country for the role that it is
> playing in this world and how important it is and how we should
> never sacrifice the security of this country. Because if this country
> falls, the hope for freedom and justice everywhere in the world falls.
> No, instead they have put their baskets, not in the United States of
> America, put their eggs in the basket of globalism. Well, globalism
> will not work without democratic reform.
>
> China will corrupt the WTO, the World Trade Organization, just as it
> has corrupted the election processes in the United States of
> America. You can see it now 20 years from now, maybe 10 years
> from now, the panels of the WTO, you know, made up of countries
> from all over the world, Latin America, Africa, Middle East. There
> are members of those panels making these decisions, they will not
> have ever been elected by anybody, much less the people of the
> United States of America, yet we will be expected to follow their
> dictates. Communist China, they will pay those people off in a
> heartbeat. Why not? They did it to our people.
>
> The Clinton-Gore Scandals
>
> Remember the campaign contributions given to Vice President
> Gore at the Buddhist Temple? Remember the money delivered to
> the Clinton's by Johnny Chung? Where did that money come from?
> We are talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. Where did it
> come from? It originated with Chinese military officers.
>
> These military officers were wearing civilian clothes. They were top
> officers in that part of the People's Liberation Army that produces
> missiles. That is where the money came from, all this while our most
> deadly missile technology was being transferred to Communist
> China. One wonders why the Communist Chinese leaders are
> arrogant and think that American leaders are cowards and corrupt
> when we let this happen.
>
> Our country has, in short, had a disastrously counterproductive
> policy. We have, over the last 10 years, built our worst potential
> enemy from a weak, introverted power into a powerful economic
> military force, a force that is looking to dominate all of Asia. When I
> say worst potential enemy, that is not just my assessment. That is
> what the Communist Chinese leaders themselves believe and are
> planning for.
>
> Why do you think Communist Chinese boss Jiang Zemin recently
> visited Cuba? He was in Cuba with Fidel Castro who hates our guts
> when he released the hostages, the American military personnel
> that he was holding hostage. What do you think that was all about?
> He was telling the whole world we are standing up to the United
> States of America, and they are our enemy. He was involved with an
> activity that was declaring to the world his hostility towards the
> United States.
>
> Why, when you have a country like this who are professing hostility
> to the United States and doing such as this, why are we permitting
> them to buy up ports that will effectively give them control of the
> Panama Canal, which is what they did a year and a half ago.
>
> Giving China the Panama Canal
>
> The Panama Canal, the last administration let the Chinese, the
> Communist Chinese, through bribery, tremendously expand its
> power in Panama and, through bribery, let it get control of the port
> facilities at both ends of the Panama Canal. Why would we let such
> a thing happen?
>
> In many ways, we are repeating history. In the 1920s, Japanese
> militarists wiped out Japan's fledgling democratic movement. That it
> did. In doing so, it set a course for Japan. Japan then was a racist
> power which believed it, too, had a right to dominate Asia.
> Japanese militarists also knew that only the United States of
> America stood in their way. This is deja vu all over again as Yogi
> Berra once said.
>
> The Communist Chinese, too, are militarists who seek to dominate
> Asia. They think they are racially superior to everyone. They are
> unlike their Japanese predecessors, however, willing to go slow,
> and they have been going slow. But make no mistake about it, they
> intend to dominate Asia, all of it. And even know, their maps claim
> Siberia, Mongolia and huge chunks of the South China Sea.
>
> The confrontation with our surveillance plane must be reviewed in
> this perspective if the damage to the United States and the
> imprudence and arrogance on the part of the communist Chinese
> are to be understood.
>
> China's claim on the South China Sea includes the Spratley Islands.
> I have a map of the South China Sea with me tonight. Hainan Island.
> Our airplane was intercepted, knocked out of the sky somewhere in
> here. But what we are not told about and what the media is not
> focusing on and no one has been talking about is this plane was
> precisely in the waters between Hainan Island and the Spratley
> Islands.
>
> For those who do not know what the Spratley Islands are, they are
> just a series of reefs that are under water at high tide and at low tide
> above water. They are just a short distance, as you can see, this is
> here, this is the Philippines; and right about 100 miles offshore, the
> Spratley Islands. Yet they are several hundred miles from China. Yet
> the Chinese are trying to claim these islands. That is what this was
> all about. Not only are these islands, the Spratley Islands, the home
> of natural gas and oil deposits, but they are also in a strategic
> location. The Spratly Islands, having them in China's power, having
> them being recognized as part of China, would, of course, be a
> disaster to the Philippines whose oil and gas that belongs to, but
> also it would give the Communist Chinese sovereignty rights which
> would permit them to bracket the South China Sea. China, Hainan
> Island, the Spratlys would bracket the South China Sea, from this
> land point to this land point. Thus, we have a situation where when
> China claims, which it does, a 200-mile zone, that would leave
> China with a stranglehold on the South China Sea which is one of
> the most important commercial areas on this planet. It would have a
> stranglehold on Japan and Korea.
>
> What do you think our friends in the Persian Gulf, for example, would
> think about it if they understood that this was a power play, that what
> we had with the surveillance aircraft was a power play? The reason
> why the Communist Chinese were demanding an apology then, they
> were demanding an apology because supposedly we were in their
> airspace. If we apologized, that was a recognition of their
> sovereignty in bracketing with the Spratly Islands on one side and
> Hainan Island on the other side, bracketing the South China Sea. If
> we ended up apologizing to the Communist regime, it would have
> been taken as a legal recognition, a small one, of their sovereignty
> and their 200-mile limit. That is what this was all about. That is why
> they were playing hardball with us.
>
> The American people and our allies are not being told that that is
> what the stakes were. This is a long-term effort on the part of the
> Communist Chinese to dominate the South China Sea and expand
> their power so they could call it maybe the Communist China Sea
> rather than the South China Sea. It behooves us to face these facts.
> That is what it was all about. That is why they wanted an apology and
> that is why they should not have gotten an apology.
>
> I applaud this administration for wording its letter in a way that was
> not and could not in any way be interpreted as a recognition of the
> Chinese sovereignty over that airspace. An accommodationist
> policy toward Communist China, ignoring this type of aggression,
> ignoring human rights and democracy concerns while stressing
> expanded trade, and even through all this you have a bunch of
> people saying, ``Oh, isn't it lucky we have trade relations or we
> would really be in trouble with the Communist Chinese.'' Give me a
> break. But ignoring those other elements and just stressing trade as
> part of a so-called engagement theory has not worked.
>
> The regime in China is more powerful, more belligerent to the
> United States and more repressive than ever before. President
> Bush's decision in the wake of this incident at Hainan Island to sell
> an arms package to Taiwan including destroyers, submarines and
> an antiaircraft upgrade was good. At least it shows more moxie than
> what the last administration did.
>
> I would have preferred to see the Aegis system be provided to our
> Taiwanese friends. But at least we have gone forward with a
> respectable arms deal that will help Taiwan defend itself and thus
> deter military action in that area.
>
> Cancel 'All U.S. Military Exchanges' With China
>
> But after the Hainan Island incident, the very least we should be
> doing is canceling all U.S. military exchanges with Communist
> China. I mean, I do not know if they are still delivering us those
> berets or not, but that is just ridiculous to think that we are getting
our
> military berets from Communist China. We should cancel all military
> exchanges.
>
> The American people should be put on alert that they are in danger
> if they travel to the mainland of China. And we should quit using our
> tax dollars through the Export-Import Bank, the IMF and the World
> Bank to subsidize big business when they want to build a factory in
> China or in any other dictatorship.
>
> Why are we helping Vietnam and China? Why are we helping those
> dictatorships when nearby people, the people of the Philippines,
> whom I just mentioned, who are on the front line against this
> Communist aggression, who China is trying to flood drugs into their
> country. The Chinese army itself is involved in the drug trade going
> into the Philippines.
>
> The Philippines are struggling to have a democracy. They have just
> had to remove a president who is being bribed. Bribed by whom?
> Bribed by organized crime figures from the mainland of China.
> When those people in the Philippines are struggling, why are we not
> trying to help them?
>
> Let us not encourage American businesses to go to Vietnam or to
> Communist China, when you have got people right close by who are
> struggling to have a democratic government and love the United
> States of America. The people of the Philippines are strong and
> they love their freedom and their liberty, but they feel like they have
> been abandoned by the United States. And when we help factories
> to be set up in China rather than sending work to the Philippines,
> and they do not even have the money to buy the weapons to defend
> themselves in the Philippines. That is why it is important for us to
> stand tall, so they know they can count on us. But they can only count
> on us if we do what is right and have the courage to stand up.
>
> The same with China and India. India is not my favorite country in the
> world, but I will tell you this much, the Indians are struggling to have a
> free and democratic society. They have democratic institutions, and
> it is a struggle because they have so many varied people that live in
> India. But they are struggling to make their country better and to
> have a democratic system and to have rights and have a court
> system that functions, to have opposition newspapers. They do not
> have any of that in China. Yet instead of helping the Indian people,
> we are helping the Communist Chinese people? This is misplaced
> priorities at best.
>
> Finally, in this atmosphere of turmoil and confrontation, let us never
> forget who are our greatest allies, and that is the Chinese people
> themselves. Let no mistake in the wording that I have used tonight
> indicate that I hold the Chinese people accountable or synonymous
> with the Chinese government or with Beijing or with the Communist
> Party in China. The people of China are as freedom-loving and as
> pro-American as any people of the world.
>
> The people of China are not separated from the rest of humanity.
> They too want freedom and honest government. They want to
> improve their lives. They do not want a corrupt dictatorship over
> them. And any struggle for peace and prosperity, any plan for our
> country to try to bring peace to the world and to bring a better life
> and to support the cause of freedom must include the people of
> China.
>
> We do not want war. We want the people of China to be free. Then
> we could have free and open trade because it would be a free
> country and it would be free trade between free people instead of
> this travesty that we have today, which is a trade policy that
> strengthens the dictatorship.
>
> When the young people of China rose up and gathered together at
> Tiananmen Square, they used our Statue of Liberty as a model for
> their own goddess of liberty. That was the statue that they held forth.
> That was their dream. They dreamed that her torch, the goddess of
> liberty, would enlighten all China and they dreamed of a China
> democratic, prosperous and free. Our shortsighted policy of
> subsidized one-way trade crushes that goddess of liberty every bit
> as much as those Red Army tanks did 12 years ago.
>
> 'Re-examine Our Souls'
>
> Let us re-examine our souls. Let us re-examine our policies. Let us
> reach out to the people of China and claim together that we are all
> people of this planet, as our forefathers said, we are the ones, we
> are the people who have been given by God the rights of life, liberty
> and the pursuit of happiness. That is not just for Americans. That is
> for all the people of the world.
>
> And when we recognize that and reach out with honesty and not for
> a quick buck, not just to make a quick buck and then get out, but
> instead to reach over to those people and help them build their
> country, then we will have a future of peace and prosperity.
>
> It will not happen if we sell out our own national security interests. It
> will not happen if we are only siding with the ruling elite in China. We
> want to share a world with the people of China. We are on their side.
>
> Let me say this. That includes those soldiers in the People's
> Liberation Army. The people in the People's Liberation Army come
> from the population of China. They and those other forces at work in
> China should rise up and join with all the other people in the world,
> especially the American people, who believe in justice and truth; and
> we will wipe away those people at the negotiating table today that
> represent both sides of this negotiation, and we will sit face-to-face
> with all the people in the world who love justice and freedom and
> democracy, just as our forefathers thought was America's rightful
> role, and we will build a better world that way.
>
> We will not do it through a World Trade Organization. We will do it
> by respecting our own rights and respecting the rights of every other
> country and every other people on this planet.
>
> I hope that tonight the American people have heard these words.
> The course is not unalterable. This is a new administration. And in
> this new administration, I would hope that we reverse these horrible
> mistakes that have compromised our national security and
> undermined the cause of liberty and justice.
>
> I look forward to working with this administration to doing what is
> right for our country and right for the cause of peace and freedom.
>
>
>
> --------------------
> Rick Horowitz
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
