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_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
>
>
