-Caveat Lector-
> The New Australian
>
>
> Kosovo and Taiwan: a moral
> question for the US
>
>
> By James Henry
> No. 130, 16-22 Aug. 1999
>
> Sometime ago I wrote that if NATO succeeded in driving the Serbs
> out of Kosovo it would only plant the seeds of a future Balkan
> conflict. What would NATO do to protect an Albanian controlled
> Kosovo against a revanchist Serbia? Clinton, Blair and Schroeder
> being what they are have not given this dismal prospect any
> serious thought. But the war against Serbia raised other
> important questions that need to be answered. A very important
> one being: Who invaded whom?
>
> Put another way, how does a country deal with people from a
> different cultural and religious background who having settled
> into the host country now decide to annex part of it on the
> curious grounds that they are now a majority in that region. Like
> it or not, this is what Kosovo Albanians have done. They have
> sliced away a huge portion of Serbia. This could not have been
> done without the aid of Clinton and Blair, who certainly won't be
> around to pick up the pieces from the next Serbian-Kosovo
> conflict, not that they are picking up any pieces now.
>
> Does anyone think for one moment that if Britain's 1 million plus
> Moslem population decided to annex a portion of the UK on the
> novel grounds they are the majority in that area that Blair would
> stand for it. What if the reconquista movement did the same in
> parts of Texas or California? (Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo
> has already expressed the view "that the Mexican nation extends
> beyond the territory enclosed by its borders." He didn't say in
> which direction.) What would the Democrats do? Regardless of what
> the moral posturing Clinton and Blair might say to these
> hypthetical questions the fact remains that according to their
> words and actions over Kosovo they would have to concede to these
> demands for 'independence" or resort to violence. Readers
> probably realise that by now that what is really at stake here is
> a territorial principle. To what lengths can any state
> legitimately go in defending its national integrity?
>
> It has been forgotten, or should I say suppressed, that the
> drug-running KLA deliberately set out to alienate Serbian
> territory, which is what Kosovo is, by taking over administrative
> positions, disobeying Belgrade directives, murdering Serbian
> officials and setting up a separate administration. Naturally the
> Serbs responded in the usual Balkan way. Nevertheless, there were
> no mass killings and Serbian military activity was largely
> confined to areas where KLA guerrillas were operating.
>
> What we find, therefore, is that the KLA had formulated a plan to
> annex Kosovo. What made them think the Serbs would let them get
> away with this puzzles me. Unless they had good reason to think
> that Clinton would come to their aid. Whatever the case, the war
> is not over. A cocaine-snorting president still soils the Oval
> Office while drug-running KLA thugs are busy entrenching
> themselves in Kosovo. But this is where the problem will fester.
> Kosovo can only exist as a NATO protectorate. Does anyone really
> think that European countries are going to protect a drug-running
> KLA government whose activities will subvert their own political
> structures? And does anyone think the KLA will tolerate any
> domestic opposition that threatens its power? The inner
> contradictions of Clinton and Blair's Balkan blundering are
> already creating visible tensions, some of which have resulted in
> NATO troops open firing on KLA activists.
>
> Now if the so-called 'Clinton doctrine' had any moral substance
> (impossible given the source) then Clinton would have rushed to
> warn China against attacking Taiwan. Instead, this moral and
> physical coward betrays America's Taiwanese ally and prostrates
> himself before Beijing. (Truman must be spinning in his grave).
>
> Let us understand that, in my view, the principle of territorial
> integrity falls down when any group is oppressed or is in genuine
> danger of being tyrannized. This is why North Korea has no moral
> claim over the South. It is also crystal clear why Beijing has
> forfeited any moral claim to Taiwan. And it is because these are
> moral questions that Clinton and his cronies cannot understand
> them.
> The New Australian
> <Picture>Looking Out
>
> Peter Zhang's
> Column
>
> Clinton's to
> blame for
> Taiwan crisis
>
> No. 130, 16-22 Aug. 1999
>
> There is no doubt in Asia that Clinton is solely responsible for
> the Taiwan crisis. That an American president could be so
> incredibly stupid in his dealings with Beijing leaves Asian
> leaders both stunned and filled with contempt for the Oval
> Office. I have tried to stress that the Clinton's administration
> is a foreign policy disaster. And its most disastrous failures
> have been in China. Instead of working to strengthen China's
> reformist trends it has acted to strengthen its militaristic
> tendencies by rewarding bad behaviour. The more Chinese
> militarists behaved badly the more the Clinton administration did
> everything within its power to minimise their threat to American
> security.
>
> The administration deliberately, and criminally, ignored
> Beijing's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, its rapid
> attempts to try and modernise its armed services, the mischievous
> role it has played in nuclear proliferation, its application of
> US high-tech imports to military uses. As I said elsewhere, the
> effect of brushing aside China's reformists in favour of
> appeasing Chinese militarists is to strengthen them at the
> expense of US security. Rewarding bad behaviour guarantees more
> of the same. This is why China is now engaged in a fierce sabre
> rattling exercise over Taiwan.
>
> As usual, most Western commentators have missed the vital point.
> China's aggressive noises are warnings to the rest of Asia and
> are signalling how much the regime holds the US in contempt. How
> the US reacts to these signals could have political and military
> repercussions for many years to come. Already the signs are bad.
> I pointed out last week that Admiral Dennis Blair's irresponsible
> comment that the US should not defend Taiwan would encourage
> Beijing to become even more bellicose. And that is precisely what
> happened. No wonder the rest of Asia is appalled by White House
> stupidity.
>
> Does this mean an invasion of Taiwan? Not in my opinion. Two
> fundamentals must be borne in mind. The first is the fact that
> for sometime China has been working to undermine American
> influence in the region. By showing that America is a "paper
> tiger", "an ally without courage", as one official put it to me,
> Beijing hopes to weaken the regional powers' faith in America's
> willingness to stand by its allies by standing up to Chinese
> threats. At the moment it appears it will definitely have some
> success, thanks to White House cowardice over Taiwan. In other
> words, the sabre rattling is part of Beijing's political war
> against the US.
>
> I have stated before that it is Beijing's prime long term aim to
> drive America out of Asia and then virtually out of the Pacific,
> at least as far back as the Hawaiian islands. As I wrote two
> months ago the consensus among China's political elite is that
> America is in a state of terminal moral and political decline1,
> and that this will eventually be reflected in American political
> power shrinking in absolute terms. It is believed that this
> decline will be preceded by an increasing inability to project
> military power. This is why Beijing believes time is on its side.
> (Ironically, Clinton's election wins only succeeded in
> reinforcing this dismal political prognosis, as has the insane
> process of 'feminising' the US military). Unfortunately, Clinton
> and his coterie of '60s misfits are literally incapable of truly
> understanding any of this. It simply does not fit their 'liberal'
> mindset.
>
> So why should China ruin its long term plans by attacking Taiwan
> and thus bring the wrath of the US Congress down on its head? And
> it is Congress, not Clinton, that it fears. It knows that though
> Clinton is a coward an angry Congress could force him to act.
> Regardless of the damage Clinton and his appointees have done to
> the American military, Beijing still has a lot of respect for
> what's left. This brings us to the other fundamental � the true
> state of the PLA.
>
> A PLA general claimed that they could "roll up Taiwan in 10
> days." This is pure bravado and he knows it. Though China has
> about 2.5 million troops, its equipment is largely obsolete.
> Compare this with Taiwan's 400,000 troops, highly trained and
> motivated, equipped with the latest hardware and backed up by a
> huge reserve of trained personnel. Any attempt to cross the
> Taiwan Strait would therefore inflict the kind of massive losses
> on China's armed services that no government could survive. As a
> token military gesture the PLA could try and invade one of the
> outlying islands, Kinmen perhaps. But though success would be
> guaranteed the losses would probably be politically unacceptable
> and certainly militarily embarrassing.
>
> There will be no invasion of Taiwan. But America will, thanks to
> Clinton, have suffered another political defeat in the region,
> which brings us to the Democrats. This is the party that Beijing
> wants to see control both Houses and the Oval Office. And why?
> Because it considers it to be, putting it politely, the party of
> appeasement. So I strongly suggest that Americans should ask
> themselves this question: Why does Beijing want to see Al Gore in
> the Oval Office?
>
> 1China's Balkan lesson for the Pacific.
> China's Balkan lesson
> for the Pacific
>
>
> By Peter Zhang
> No. 123, 14-20 June 1999
>
> Any military man will tell you that no matter how well-equipped
> an army is what ultimately matters is the Will. Without this
> technology becomes expensive accouterments. What has struck
> Beijing is not the fact that it was social democrats who ordered
> the attack on Serbia (the same people who never condemned a
> communist regime) but their lack of will revealed by their fear
> of suffering casualties. Many people have been deceived into
> thinking that because Clinton and Blair forced NATO into
> attacking Serbia this exhibited courage and determination on
> their part. Beijing sees it differently. Moreover, it was not
> impressed with the aerial bombardment. To be able to plaster from
> a short distance a small target like Serbia does nothing to
> intimidate Beijing. And as far as she is concerned, these are
> weapons she will soon command herself, including
> counter-measures.
>
> Its long term strategic objective is to drive American bases and
> influence out of the Pacific region and to exercise hegemony over
> it. Now this does not mean another Pearl Harbour but it does mean
> that unless China's nationalists are kept in check, if not
> actually subdued, there will be a great deal of tension in the
> future between Washington and Beijing. I have written before that
> the Chinese leadership knows its history. It knows that powers
> rise and fall. It is coming to the conclusion, if it hasn't
> already, that America is in a state of terminal moral decline. To
> China's ruling elite the reelection of Clinton; his popular
> support; the refusal of the American people to evict him from the
> White House, despite his contempt for them; his treason and
> gutting of America's military and the refusal of America's
> so-called intellectual elites to abandon him are symptoms of a
> country that has lost its spirit and rejected its heritage and
> destiny. Nevertheless, keenly aware of the country's weaknesses
> Beijing will move with caution.
>
> Now this interpretation of the American mood and its moral
> character could lead to Beijing taking a more aggressive stand in
> the near future against American policy and interests, even if it
> means uttering threats and demanding demeaning apologies. This
> will be done to undermine Asian countries faith in American
> resolve. By convincing Asian countries that America is straw man,
> an ally whose word cannot be counted on, it would hop to detonate
> a chain reaction that would result in these countries deciding to
> throw their lot in with Beijing.
>
> I doubt if Americans will ever fully learn the dreadful role
> Clinton has played in fuelling and strengthening the PLA's
> ambitions. By selling it the key to America's military secrets
> and aiding the PLA in modernising it military it has brought
> closer the time when it can intimidate its neighbours. This is
> what most American observers have overlooked. To drive America
> out of most of the Pacific China does not have to threaten the
> nuclear destruction of American cities; she only has to apply
> subtle, and perhaps not so-subtle, threats against the rest of
> Asia. This is not so far fetched as many might think once one
> realises that Beijing seeks domination and not occupation.
>
> The danger, I think, is that the Chinese nationalists tend to
> view America as Rome viewed Carthage. If this idea should take
> hold the consequences could indeed be fearful. It is the same
> kind of idea that took hold among pre-war Japanese nationalists.
> But I view America in another light. To me she is not suffering a
> moral decline but sliding into a moral malaise. The common values
> that held it together are constantly under attack: ridiculed and
> scorned by its own intellectuals. Its history and traditions
> mocked and denigrated. Its moral standing in the world battered.
> This continuous assault has created confusion and uncertainty
> among the mass of its citizens.
>
> If America is going to ever again face down genuine threats to
> its existence it must first win the war at home. If the so-called
> values of the likes of Clinton should finally prevail America
> will be in mortal danger. Its sheer size and reputation for
> revitalising itself pose dangers that tyrants cannot afford to
> tolerate.
>
> The New Australian
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said
it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your
own reason and your common sense." --Buddha
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
