As an asian american who joins technical lists for technical
information, how about moving this issue to a "tomcat-users-
politics" list?, unless of course, the whole idea of open
source has so jived with the communist mindset that China
can take a break from hacking into us govt websites and tearing
apart sensitive spy equipment made with capacitors labeled "made
in chine" and start
a peoples republic open source tomcat movement to create a
jsp enabled website to distribute family planning literature.
Jin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Huang, Lou [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 10:11 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Boycott China - A great idea - please do it
>
>
> Hi All real friend of Chinese people:
>
> As a Chinese, I really like the idea of boycott China. This
> idea is benifit
> to both Chinese people and American people; of course not
> China, American
> government and billionaries.
>
> Benifits to China:
> In China, almost all of the companies are state owned. Every
> body knows
> that as a state owned company, its competitive ability,
> efficiency is very
> very low. It is much much much worse than American's
> senator's district pig
> projects.
>
> Now in China, every corner is occupied by multi international
> companies like
> Motorola, Microsoft,
> IBM, etc. These companies can do whatever they want; they
> can kill small
> private companies mercilessly; they rob China's natural
> resources and make
> China's environment worse and worse.
>
> If every one can boycott China at least 10 years, then China will:
>
> 1) The small private companies will grow up gradually and
> eventually replace
> all the high cost, low efficiency state owned companies. If
> the world would
> isolate China only 10 years, China will have his own giant private
> companies, ie., China will have his own Motorola, etc. At
> that time, the
> compitition will be equal. American giant companies don't
> have too much
> advantages and they can not do everything they want like they
> are doing now.
>
> 2) The Chinese people will enjoy cheap products because they
> don't need to
> compete with American consumers.
>
> 3) China's natural resource will last longer.
>
> 4) China's environment will be cleaner.
>
>
> The benifits to American people:
>
> 1) Increase the employment opportunities because the giant
> companies can not
> move factories to China.
>
> 2) A little bit higher consumer good price is OK because 98%
> Americans are
> millionare.
>
> 3) Prevent American from other place's political unrest. Because giant
> companies will utilize and explore American's natural
> resource like oil, US
> will not depend on foreign energy supply.
>
> 4) A little bit environmental worse is OK because American's
> environment is
> the cleanest in the world. At most the American's
> environment becomes the
> second cleanest.
>
> I really hope that Boycott China is reality!
>
> It does not matter that Boycott China will success or fail
> (many things are
> controlled by greedy multi internal firms, not by our good hearts), I
> sincerely appreciate the idea and thanks from my heart those
> people who
> propose boycott China. Because these people are the real
> friends of Chinses
> people, not those multi national firms.
>
> L. Huang
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patil, Anand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 9:23 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Boycott China - please read - your life may depend on it
>
>
> Wrong.That depends what you define as politics.
> Politics is something which you don't always understand
> first time or may be forever.
> Annd
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dick Poon [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2001 12:04 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Arnaud Dostes - NTI
> > Subject: Re: Boycott China - please read - your life may
> depend on it
> >
> > I don't think this list is the place to talk about politic!Right?
> >
> >
> > Dick Poon
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Arnaud Dostes - NTI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 4:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: Boycott China - please read - your life may
> depend on it
> >
> >
> > > The Tomcat-Mailing list is the last list where I thought
> I would find
> > > hateful opinions and so poorly directed propaganda.
> > >
> > > ----- 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_9
> 90409.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
> > >
> > >
>
