Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. grants China permanent normal trade status
Kansas City Star ^ | 12/27/01 | SCOTT LINDLAW

Posted on 12/29/2001 12:15:26 AM PST by Enemy Of The State

U.S. grants China permanent normal trade status

By SCOTT LINDLAW - The Associated Press
Date: 12/27/01 22:15

CRAWFORD, Texas -- President Bush granted China permanent normal trade status Thursday, ending a quarter-century policy of using access to U.S. markets as an annual enticement to the Chinese to expand political and economic freedoms.

The president's decision will end yearly battles in Congress that have been waged since 1980 and that sometimes divided the Democratic Party during the Clinton years. The decision was set up by China's admission last month to the World Trade Organization.

Bush called the trade proclamation the "final step in normalizing U.S.-China trade relations" and said it would open up the vast Chinese markets to billions of dollars in American goods.

The new trade status will take effect Jan. 1, Bush said in the announcement, which was released in Crawford, Texas, where he is vacationing.

Bush's proclamation formally removed China from having to adhere to the 1974 Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974. The amendment, initially aimed at the former Soviet Union's restrictions against Jewish emigration, withholds normal trade relations with communist states that restrict emigration.

Since 1980, China has enjoyed temporary normal trade relations with the United States under annual presidential waivers of the law. But each waiver has prompted debates in Congress over China's record on human rights and weapons proliferation.

The last debate occurred in July, when the House voted 259-169 to approve Bush's waiver this year, the last that will be necessary.

The annual congressional battle pitted American business and its Republican allies against big labor and its Democratic supporters. President Bill Clinton, at odds with many in his own party, started the process of moving China toward permanent trade status before he left office.

Congress last year granted the permanent status to China contingent upon its entry into the World Trade Organization. Its application was formally accepted at the organization's annual meeting last month in the United Arab Emirates.

The annual struggle also inflamed tensions with China each year and prompted worries in that country every time it arose.

China and the United States reached an agreement, as part of China's WTO entry, that will lower China's tariffs on U.S. goods and open up its service sector to American companies.

China's tariffs on U.S.-made goods are to fall from an overall average of 25 percent to 9 percent by 2005. Duties on America's primary farm products are to drop from 31 percent to 14 percent.

China has an $80 billion trade surplus with the United States.

Bush has long supported trade with Beijing, even during the standoff over a U.S. spy plane that collided with a Chinese jet fighter and made an emergency landing on Chinese territory early this year.

In asking Congress for a temporary extension in June, Bush argued that normal relations would benefit the American economy and promote an "economically open, politically stable and secure China."

Trade with China helps American farmers and American business, Bush said. Last year, he said, U.S. farmers exported goods to China and Hong Kong worth more than $3 billion, and American businesses increased exports to China by 24 percent.




TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last
Well not that anyone ever doubted that Bush was all for big business but this removes all doubt if there were any.
1 posted on 12/29/2001 12:15:27 AM PST by Enemy Of The State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP; Ranger; chaseR; Black Jade; backhoe; goldilucky; tallhappy; pokey78...
The words "China Lobby" to those with a memory of fairly recent history, recall the likes of Henry luce and Senator WIllian Knowland, whose purpose was to advance the cause of the Kuomintang on Taiwan as the legitimate gavernment of all of China. The China loby today avances the cuase of Beijing and since its victory in the MFN debate of 1994, it has become ever more active. It consists of several loosely connected parts, all of them encouraged through the granting of connections, access, or profit to China. The success of the China lobby in delinking Human rights with MFN marked the sea of change in American China policy. Ever since the influence of the business community, especially over China policy, has been enormous--certainly greater than its influence over any other aspect of American Foreign policy.

The China normalization initiative is one of many signs increasingly intense lobbying efforts by busines. In Chicago in Sept. 1996, for example, a group of corporations including Motorola, United Airlines, Arthur Anderson, Caterpillar, Deere and Company, and others (all with headquarters in the Chicago area) announced the Illinois Coalition to Support U.S.-China Commercial Relations. Motorola's top executive for Asia, Rick Younts, said: "Illinois jobs depend on trade, and trade with China is at the top of the list of future growth opportunities for a wide variety of industries." And in a press release, the group announced that its goal is "to encourage public policy at the federal, state, and local level, which supports the normalization of trade relations between the US and China.

The main reason for Washingtons resistance to Beijing's admission to the WTO has been China's trade and tariff policies, wich are themselves in part responsible for the close to $50 billion deficit that the United States now has with China. Qian Qichen (China's vice premier and foreign minister) called for MFN to be "renewed indefinitely." (apparently when China speaks, Washington listens) He also added an implicit threat, one that was first raised years ago by Deng Xiaoping. He effectively warned that the United States will suffer the consequencesif it doesn't grant China better trading terms so that the Chinese economy can continue improving. "A China with a stagnant economy, an impoverished population and even social termoil that produces massive exodus of refugees will indeed be a threat to world peace and stability," he said.

Not coincidentally, the same argument was being made in Washington by businessmen and memebers of the National Association of Manufacturers who testified at a House committee hearing held that same week as the Chicago reception. Lawrence Clarkson, senior vice president of Boeing, told the committee that the repeated debate over MFN had created a "lack of predictability" in American China policy that was hurting business:"Europe extends MFN or standard Tariff treatment to CHina, just as it does the majority of its trading partners on a permanant basis. THis contrast in policy has not gone unnoticed in Bejing. And clearly contributed to China's decision to purchase one and a half billion dollars in Airbus aircraft in April of 1997."

A representative of the National Association of Manufacturers spoke against "demanding immediate social and political change for the privilege of trading with the United States."

The lesson here is that China's efforts to impose its international political agenda on foreign companies doing business in China has shaken up AMerican businessmen. But it hasn't shaken them into leaving CHina. It has shaken them into doing China's bidding more eagerly than ever.

There is no more dramatic example of this than Boeing, which was selling one of every ten of its palnes to Chinese airlines in the 1993-95 period, accounting for 70% of the entire CHinese market. Boeing seems willing to do almost anything for the Chinese government to hold on to that share.In a series of Articles in the Seattle Times in 1996, Stanley Holmes portrayed Boeing executives frequently reminding Chinese leaders of the political and economic favors they're performing for CHina and Chinese leaders constantly demanding more.

Holmes reports that the quid pro quo between Boeing and China is crass and clear: "Boeing is not only lobbying to extend MFN for CHina this year, but also working with other corporate giants to secure 'permanent MFN' Status for CHina. If the aircraft giant doesnt deliver for CHina, Boeing;s chief international strategist, Lawrence Clarkson, conceded, 'we're toast'". One senate staff member, speaking of Boeings lobbyists, put it this way: "When it comes to China...they're everywhere and they're smart. They do it through front line organizations, they publish studies on exports, they know where their suppliers are and they put pressure on them."

Speaking about the K Street crowd, one senior senatorial staff member made the remark that those in policy-making establishment striving to attach some importance to human rights in China tend to be steamrolled by the increasingly powerful business lobby that fights for China on Capitol Hill. "As more and more businesses have invested in China, we have lost more and more people,". "The business community is speniding tens of millioins of dollars against us every year."

2 posted on 12/29/2001 12:16:11 AM PST by Enemy Of The State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Berzerker; topher; russianbear716; tigerlikesrooster; t-shirt; standwatchlisten; old lady...
Ping! FYI
3 posted on 12/29/2001 12:16:12 AM PST by Enemy Of The State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! There went any hope of business investing in the USA again and creating jobs for our citizens!
4 posted on 12/29/2001 12:16:27 AM PST by brat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
Supposedly this is a way to contain the 'rougue elements' of the CCP and to build up a viable "3rd option" for the people of China.
5 posted on 12/29/2001 12:16:28 AM PST by super175
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: super175
Hey, trade is always good, Americans get cheaper products, Chinese people get more jobs and infrastructural development, whats the problem with that?
6 posted on 12/29/2001 12:16:29 AM PST by borghead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: Enemy Of The State
When will we learn?
8 posted on 12/29/2001 12:17:08 AM PST by mikeIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: borghead
Right! It is much better to have the slaves in China produce the goods than bringing slavery back here. We get the benefit of slavery without having to bring it back to our shores. And just because Red China was still selling guns to the taliban in October is no reason not to give them most favored nation status. We get cheap, slave made, sneakers, so it's a good deal.

Besides a lot of those slaves over there wouldn't be slaves if they would just stop being Christians. They brought slavery on themselves.

9 posted on 12/29/2001 12:17:10 AM PST by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
Big mistake, W. Big, BIG, mistake. In more ways than one.

How's the Third Party platform shaping up for 2004?

10 posted on 12/29/2001 12:17:14 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
If you click on this link, you'll find another more critical view of PNTR, written nearly three years ago.
11 posted on 12/29/2001 12:17:15 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: TaxPayer2000
If we are going to support China we should use the tax gains to prepare for the coming China-Taiwan conflict. China is actively using the "free" market economy to fund its rapid expansion of their military. The focus of the expansion is against the US given that we are the sole country in their way of taking back Taiwan.
13 posted on 12/29/2001 12:18:22 AM PST by nasamn777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: borghead
I said it here who knows how many times... I am not anti-trade or any of that.

In China's case there are special circumstances that must be taken into account. And trade isn't always good.

A lot of the time "China" screws itself up with some of the kakamaime schemes they want the world to buy into. Taiwan is supposed to be a 'terrorist group'? The people in Tibet or Western China have no legitimate gripe?

"China" cannot be lumped into one big single body all with the same opinion. Neither can the CCP, yet as a whole the CCP falls on the side of a bunch of con artists and people I don't like very much. There are a whole lot of elements (and beliefs) in both "China" and the CCP that make trade with China as a whole often detrimental.

If it is just between us and those elements, I would say cut them all off, but its not. There is a large group, maybe you can say 'the silent majority' that are friendly. They don't want to blow anyone up, and they are not threatened by America.

The latter group are the only real reason to trade at all. I think those people should be in charge, which now they are only in limited numbers in positions of power. If China stops threatening people then they would not be threatened nearly as much. China often places itself in positions of conflict and contrarian thought then blames the world for being wrong. The latter group is capable of leading China into a better state and actually bring respect to the place. This group can end the conflict with Taiwan on equal and beneficial grounds.

The former group though resist change. They want ONLY the CCP to have control over EVERYTHING. They don't like America. They want to attack Taiwan. They run people over with tanks and abuse their power. All that is just a start. The whole way they even took power, and maintain power, I don't like. Preaching propaganda helps no one. All this "we are going to surpass America and take over Asia" talk, or get revenge on Japan, or conquer Taiwan talk has got to go.

Trade is a mixed bag at best. We cannot help just one of those groups. Although in a trading environment the radical thinkers are limited in what they can do therefore overall trade falls slightly in favor of the "nice crowd". If it ever starts to fall in favor of the "bad crowd" I have a problem with that.

Those friendly elements should be in charge and declare that the CCP is on its death bed. They should voluntarily open the country to outside thought and reform the government into a new system. There is no dignity lost in that at all. Yet, never forget Tian An Men in 1989.

Keep in mind the process has already started and there have been a whole lot of improvements. I am not really suggesting a new path. I am suggesting to continue to follow the path of reform and not digress back into some emperial dynasty. There are a lot of folks resistant to change and getting rid of the CCP and all its corrupt ways, thoughts, ideologies, and systems though. By trade, we help empower those people who can and want to make positive change. We have to put up with a lot of BS in the process, but hopefully the end goal will be accomplished.

If China starts to get too big for itself and starts running its military all over the place threatening wars, or preaching anti-Americanism, then I have a problem with that.

14 posted on 12/29/2001 12:18:27 AM PST by super175
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: borghead
Trade, in theory, brings a developed system to China that works for the good of China and the world. The moment that system is prevented from coming in and improving the lives of the common people, just to preserve a one party emperial rulership, I don't like it.

The moment trade starts to prop up the old system instead of rid the world of it, then trade becomes detrimental.

15 posted on 12/29/2001 12:18:28 AM PST by super175
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: soccer8; Black Jade; Enemy Of The State
bump posts 5, 6, 14 and 15.
16 posted on 12/29/2001 12:18:29 AM PST by super175
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: super175
Well, sad to inform you but they are already preaching anti-americanism and preparing for war. They have effectively taken over the Spratly Islands by building a military base on the islands. This projects their power out 1000 miles from their shores. China is arming enemies of the US and Terrorists. They are spreading weapons of mass destruction. It is not a pretty sight. At the same time they pretend to be friendly with us. Hmmm.
17 posted on 12/29/2001 12:18:31 AM PST by nasamn777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: super175
>>Taiwan is supposed to be a 'terrorist group'?

China didn't say that.

>>"China" cannot be lumped into one big single body all with the same opinion.

Different opinions don't mean disintegration of the territory.

>>The latter group are the only real reason to trade at all. I think those people should be in charge, which now they are only in limited numbers in positions of power.

The real reason why the US wants to trade with China is that the trade is in the American interets.

>>If China stops threatening people then they would not be threatened nearly as much.

The Qing dynasty was so weak that it in no way could threaten anyone. However it was constantly threatened by the foreign powers.

>>This group can end the conflict with Taiwan on equal and beneficial grounds.

If you mean "split Taiwan from China" by "end the conflict with Taiwan", I won't think you are right. That group wont do that either.

>>All this "we are going to surpass America and take over Asia" talk,

Who said that?

18 posted on 12/29/2001 12:18:31 AM PST by Lake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: abwehr
bump post #16
19 posted on 12/29/2001 12:18:31 AM PST by super175
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: nasamn777
You are not informing me of anything new.
20 posted on 12/29/2001 12:18:31 AM PST by super175
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: super175
IC you do have a number of links on China! The moderates seem to think that by playing the economic card the "hardline" mentality will fade with time. I don't think this will happen. In fact, I think the Chinese are intentionally leading us to believe this in order to further economic trade. China has always used deception in foreign policy.

I think we should abandon the "one China" policy and recognize Taiwan. Why play games with China when they are currently preparing for war? It would be better to arm Taiwan so they are able to defend themselves in case we cannot immediately come to their aid.
21 posted on 12/29/2001 12:18:38 AM PST by nasamn777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lake
China didn't say that.

Oh yes they did. They tried to get America to agree to that as a precondition to cooperation on the war on terrorism. I will look around here and try to find a news report of that...

Different opinions don't mean disintegration of the territory.

Yeah but it does mean disentigration of one party "Maoism/Marxism only" rule.

The real reason why the US wants to trade with China is that the trade is in the American interets.

America interests: #1. To get radical whackos who don't like America out of power, and to empower people who are friendly. We want to remove direct threats. You cannot accomplish this goal just by killing someone. One bad thing must be replaced by one good thing.

#2. After #1 is accomplished we are free to have as much people to people contact we want, learn, and then make money.

#2 does not proceed #1.

The Qing dynasty...

The Qing the Qing the Qing. China of the Qing is not China of the CCP. The word "China" does not refer to territory alone. It refers to the administrative rule of whoever the rulers are. Was the Qin dynasty the same territory as the Qing? NO. They were about 1/3 the size or smaller. Qin Shi Huang de 'zhong guo' refered to his feudal rule, not just his territory. It refered to his whole empire. When the Han came along, a new empire was born, and same with the Tang, the Ming or anyone else. The idea that "China" has always had the same borders that it has now is not true. There were times when multiple "Chinas" all existed at the same time.

America is not concerned about the Qing. Why not mention something in the last 50 years? The Qing is a ticket/excuse for the CCP doing absolutely anything they want.

China has a problem with this whole excuse thing.

>>All this "we are going to surpass America and take over Asia" talk,

Who said that?

Its been the talk for who knows how long. China's economy is going to surpass America's. America is in decline and China is on the rise...

There is an excellent resource. A man named Michael Pillsbury wrote some excellent books including things on that topic of China viewing America as a 'power in decline'.

22 posted on 12/29/2001 12:18:38 AM PST by super175
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: nasamn777
The moderates seem to think that by playing the economic card the "hardline" mentality will fade with time. I don't think this will happen. In fact, I think the Chinese are intentionally leading us to believe this in order to further economic trade. China has always used deception in foreign policy.

A great deal of the hardline stuff has already been disentegrated over the past 20 yrs. The extent of what it will happen over the next 20 is what I am concerned about. I am of the impression that economics alone won't do it. For the last 20 yrs it was basically 'let economics run its course'. For the next 20 that alone won't work.

I think we should abandon the "one China" policy and recognize Taiwan. Why play games with China when they are currently preparing for war? It would be better to arm Taiwan so they are able to defend themselves in case we cannot immediately come to their aid.

One China is a fairy tale. Its a figment of the imagination and creative recreation of revisionist history.

I don't care if Taiwan is independent. Thats cool with me. What I don't want to see is an extended unresolved fight. An America-Canada relationship type thing would work for me.

If the Mainland thinks they are going to take Taiwan and not make any concessions, I don't think so. If they want to hurt 25 million innocent people just out of their own pride and to extend the power of the CCP, that is unacceptable.

The fight is not between "China" and Taiwan. It is between the CCP and people who don't want to submit to them.

I think we should defend Taiwan for sure and be real clear about it, in ways of laws and the like. We need a missile sheild all around Taiwan and across Asia.

23 posted on 12/29/2001 12:18:39 AM PST by super175
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: nasamn777
As one person put it,[paraphrasing]

"Before, 'engagement' with the Chinese meant drinking tea and talking stories"..."but we want to change that definition."

24 posted on 12/29/2001 12:19:04 AM PST by super175
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: super175
>>Oh yes they did. They tried to get America to agree to that as a precondition to cooperation on the war on terrorism.

As I know, China mentioned "Xinjiang terrorists" and "Taiwan separatists".

>>Yeah but it does mean disentigration of one party "Maoism/Marxism only" rule.

You don't think Maoism has already disentegrated?

>>There were times when multiple "Chinas" all existed at the same time.

There were times when multiple "states" existed in China. They were all in Chinese territory and part of Chinese history. Don't you think the history of "three kingdoms" is Chinese history?

>>The Qing is a ticket/excuse for the CCP doing absolutely anything they want.

Not only for the CCP. It was also for all Chinese governments after Qing, including the KMT.

>>A man named Michael Pillsbury wrote some excellent books including things on that topic of China viewing America as a 'power in decline'.

I don't think the majority of Chinese people, including the leadership will believe that.

>>An America-Canada relationship type thing would work for me.

America and Canada are two indenpendent countries, while the Mainland and Taiwan are separated due to the Chinese civil war between the CCP and the KMT.

>>If the Mainland thinks they are going to take Taiwan and not make any concessions, I don't think so.

China is offering "one country two systems".

>>If they want to hurt 25 million innocent people just out of their own pride and to extend the power of the CCP, that is unacceptable.

If it's the will of 1.3 billion people?

25 posted on 12/29/2001 12:19:13 AM PST by Lake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: super175
I don't think the hardline mentality has changed. The Communists realized they could not survive without changing and allowing economic reform. Some limited freedoms did materialize with the change, but freedoms today are limited. Also, I think the economic boom did bring additional freedoms to the people purely from practical reasons. The more money you have the more you are able to do. Still the mentality of the leadership (CCP) and many of the citizens who support the leadership is one of control and domination.

The issue of Taiwan is very sticky. I believe this issue will not be resolved and will continue to be a sore point with both US and China. China will modernize the military and wait until we have a weak president and they will suprise us with a sophisticated attack. This attack will focus on the key nodes of logistics, comunication and command. In addition, we may see surprises such as missiles launched from the Panama Canal. A sophisticated Information Warfare capability will be unvailed that will shutdown our command and control. Taiwan will be taken before we can blink an eye.
26 posted on 12/29/2001 12:19:14 AM PST by nasamn777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
"The lesson here is that China's efforts to impose its international political agenda on foreign companies doing business in China has shaken up AMerican businessmen. But it hasn't shaken them into leaving CHina. It has shaken them into doing China's bidding more eagerly than ever. "

The U.S. is on bended knees for the Communist Chinese both economically and militarily. Of course our economy is shaken up by us doing business with them. We should be boycotting business with them altogether for we are strengthening their military by buying their shitty products some of which is labored by slave labor in China.

27 posted on 12/29/2001 12:19:14 AM PST by goldilucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State;super175;snow bunny;glock rocks;American Preservative;Enemy Of The State...
When I look at the actions of Presidents Carter and Clinton I have a hard time convincing myself they were socialist and not communist. Long Beach, Panama Canal, South America, Canada and illegal immigration are words that just pop up in my mind without thinking. When I look at the increase of Asian faces on the streets, in restaruants, and most definitely in gambling casinos (around the $1 and $5 machines) I wonder if the threat of Middle Eastern terrorists is what we should be worried about.

The Chinese already have nuclear weapons and know how to use them, they have missiles and a funtioning military but I don't think that is how they will defeat America.

They have been slowly involving themselves in our manufacturing businesses,(what's left of it) retail, transportation, and our FOOD importation and distribution.

Our political system is corrupt and cash will buy anything desired. Our Congressmen will not protect the Constitution.

For forty years the United Nations has very effectively been slithering into our federal agencies demanding control of the American population. The majority of our current population is ignorant of the intention of the Founders in the design of the Constitution and the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

So unless we get up off our lazy asses and start making drastic corrections the FREEDOMS and LIBERTIES that our service men and women have died for will be forever gone,probably within the next decade.

28 posted on 12/29/2001 12:19:16 AM PST by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
For forty years the United Nations has very effectively been slithering into our federal agencies demanding control of the American population. The majority of our current population is ignorant of the intention of the Founders in the design of the Constitution and the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

you nailed that one, sir. it's in the 10 step plan. they have control of the schools
and are turning out millions of little red shirts every year to replace those of
us who have actually read and understood those few hard fought-for pages of
reality we call our constitution. they now are taking control of the American property.

we can teach our children well, but as long as the socialist/communist
ilk controls education (and it would not be possible without federal
"education") we will be a dying breed. that's how it is... God bless those
who home school... but the "majority" of today's kids who go to federal schools
will be the majority of tomorrow's voters. sad. the new batch of
voters were in daycare when Ronald Reagan was president. who's to teach them?

29 posted on 12/29/2001 12:19:18 AM PST by glock rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: glock rocks
who's to teach them?

that's not an indictment, it's a call to arms.

30 posted on 12/29/2001 12:19:26 AM PST by glock rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
I'm sure ol' uncle Prescott is a happy man tonight.
31 posted on 12/29/2001 12:19:26 AM PST by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
good morning. did you read this
32 posted on 12/29/2001 12:19:28 AM PST by glock rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch;FallGuy
BUMP in agreement !! FallGuy just read it too and agrees!!!!!!
33 posted on 12/29/2001 12:19:31 AM PST by Snow Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch; super175;snow bunny;glock rocks;American Preservative;glock rocks; carry_okie...
"The Chinese already have nuclear weapons and know how to use them, they have missiles and a funtioning military but I don't think that is how they will defeat America.

They have been slowly involving themselves in our manufacturing businesses,(what's left of it) retail, transportation, and our FOOD importation and distribution. "

Bingo! You're on the mark with that one.

For those who dont think so, "As for the United States, For a relatively long time it wil be absolutely necessary that we quietly nurse our sense of vengeance....We must conceal our abilities and bide our time.

--Lieutenant General Mi Zhenyu
Vice Commandant, Academy of Military Sciences, Beijing

"To fight and conquer is not supreme excelencek supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting"
--Sun Tzu
The Art of War

This book is still read and studied in the Chinese military academy's as well as by the Communist leaders themselves. IMHO I think our politicians should be required to read it as well.

You can find spunky the dog and Princess the cat in many American toy toy stores. They are cute and cuddly. They are also manufactured and imported into the United States by a branch of the Chinese People's Liberation Army--or, to be precise, by a subsidary of Nornico, the Chinese ordnance company that supplies the PLA with most of its weapons. Norinco now has an estimated TEN subsidary companies spread around the United States.

Many Americans will be surprised to learn that the Chinese military-industrial complex, with the People's Liberation Army at its center, has incorporated many companies in the United States to sell products and obtain technology. Researchers for the AFL-CIO have identified 10 of what they call PLA-sponsored business groups in the United States, each of which typically has several subsidary companies. A lot of these companies move things around: they are freight forwarders and distributors and import-export concerns brining in a variety of products, from frozen fish and spices to firearms and overhauled engines. Two of the many companies owned by china's armed forces got un-wanted publicity in 1996 when the FBI uncovered a San Francisco smuggling ring that had attempted illegally to bring two thousand AK-47 automatic assault rifles into the United States. Two PLA linked firms, one of them being Nornico; the other a company called Poly Technologies, which is run by the PLA's General Staff Dept. were involved in the smuggling. The companies are not only linked to the PLA and China's top political leadership, but they also number among their directors the children or in-laws of senior leaders.

34 posted on 12/29/2001 6:32:47 AM PST by Enemy Of The State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: nasamn777; super175; B4Ranch; black jade
"I think we should abandon the "one China" policy and recognize Taiwan. Why play games with China when they are currently preparing for war? It would be better to arm Taiwan so they are able to defend themselves in case we cannot immediately come to their aid."

For the most part I agree with you however before doing so we need to make sure that we have our security alliances in the Asian region in Check because once we officially abandon the "one China" policy there is going to be a giant regional conflict and we will find ourselves right smack dab in the middle of it. Second, there are other undlerlying motives for the US as to the reason why we support Taiwan. Its not because we are the Defenders of Democracy and because our Govt. Truely cares about Taiwan. Its is due to Strategical interests. If Taiwan should fall back under the Mainlands control then China will effectively control the entire China sea and all access to its shipping lanes. This would enable China to restrict all access to that region of world and allow them to effectively cut restrict Japans supply of natural resources. This would no doubt allow China to be come the Regional superpower or hedonist, however you want to put it. As for the Spratly islands, China has just been probing around taking pieces of land little by little to test the world to see who would interfere and come to their aid seeing as how the Philippines are the main group of islands that lay claim to the majority of the Spratlys. China seeks to replace the United States as the balance of power in the Asian region.

35 posted on 12/29/2001 6:49:21 AM PST by Enemy Of The State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
I'm wondering why the folks who were so upset at Clinton proposing PNTR for CHina are not equally outraged that Mr. Bush has done so.
36 posted on 12/29/2001 6:55:55 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State; Fall Guy; Snow Bunny;super175
Imagine the results of China allowing one or two of their own super transport ships to sink in the Panama Canal with a load of coal. The canal would be closed for at least a couple of years because of this planned "accident". #1 How many trucks would it take to transport the goods that travel the canal daily? #2 What would the cost be to ship everything down below South America?

What would this do to our economy while their economy was roaring ahead? All without a shot being fired they would gather the number one position in world trade! All thanks to our refusal to think ahead. All thanks to our submission to the New World Order. All thanks to our allowance of letting the socialists in our own government violate the Constitution.

Don't worry because the United Nations would protect us. /disgusting sarcasm

37 posted on 12/29/2001 7:04:11 AM PST by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
Re: #35

I think you are on to something. I would only replace "China" with "CCP". The CCP wants to control all of Asia...the average joe has no say in it, only that the CCP justify their intentions by every measure of propaganda known to man.

There is a lot more to the Taiwan question than just the old rhetoric stuff.

Historically China controlled Vietnam, Korea, and the Philippines. That was just before the Brits invaded. Now they are trying to restore 'their' kingdom by the same means they built 'the kingdom' in the first place...by feudally conquering, and ruling by propaganda, and re-educating everyone who opposes.

That is exactly how every dynasty in Chinese history has operated, and especially the Qing. The feudal Chinese are nothing more than colonizers. The thing they hate, THEY ARE.

38 posted on 12/29/2001 7:21:57 AM PST by super175
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Are you referring to the President whom we are allowing to become a dictator. Clinton taught Bush just what the sheeple will allow. Damn near anything as long as he says it is for us and our America. When Congress and the Senate slid GATT down our throats that was preparation for NAFTA. NAFTA went so easily that the USA PATRIOT ACT almost fell down without anyone having to swallow.

Now I know our leaders are supposed to read and study Bills before they vote on them. This is a practice that has been determined to be unnecessary as GATT, NAFTA and the USA PATRIOT ACT have proven. Were the Congressmen allowed their recent pay raise because they did not object to the USA PATRIOT ACT ? You tell me.

39 posted on 12/29/2001 7:25:20 AM PST by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: super175
Correct and this will not be discussed or taught in schools or colleges, at least in America.
40 posted on 12/29/2001 7:27:38 AM PST by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Are you referring to the President whom we are allowing to become a dictator.

Bush must have known that PNTR would draw some fire from his own party. But he evidently decided to do it anyway. You've got to ask yourself why. Do we represent such a minority that our views can be ignored with impunity? Are there other interests competing with ours, that overshadow us? Does Bush truly believe all this "inclusionary" rhetoric that sounds so vacuous if you substitute "the Nazis" for "the Chinese"? Why are we showing such spine to one set of our enemies while caving like a leaky coal mine before an equally sinister cabal?

41 posted on 12/29/2001 7:31:37 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: super175; B4Ranch; Iron Jack; Black Jade
Re: #35,38

For many years, military experts noted that China's leaders like Mao spoke bombasitcally but were actually very cautious in their use of military power. But China has become more "assertive" in recent years. In 1974, it seized severl of the Parcel Islands in the South China Sea from Vietnam. In 1979, it broke its still frequently-reiterated promise never to be the first to resort to arms when it attacked over the north Vietnamese border. In 1988, the Chinese sank three Vietnamese ships in the Sprtatlys area. More than seventy-five Vietnamese sailors were killed or missing. SInce then, CHina has gradually occupied addional islands in the Spratlys. In 1994, There was an episode in the Yellow Sea involving a Chinese submarine and American ships. In 1995, China sent an armed naval force that seized Mischief Reef from the Philippines. In 1996, it fired missiles off the coast of Taiwan in an attempt to intimidate the residents of the island during the presidential elections there--a bit of saber rattling taken seriously enough in Washington for the Clinstone administration to respond. During the Taiwan episode, China warned the United States to stay out of the Taiwan Strait, which is an international waterway.

China in short is willing to use military force outside of its borders in what seem to be at least probing efforts, attempts to guage what the response of other countries will be, how strong their political will is, and who, if anyone, will come to their aid. It chose Vietnam as a target in part to see whether the Soviet Union would retaliate. In the Mischief Reef incident, it seemed to be testing whether the Philippines closest friends--its treaty ally, the United States, as well as its neighbors among the ASEAN nations would resopond. SO far, the attacks have been minor, but they have also demonstrated China's determination to exptend its power deep into the strategically crucial South China Sea. A quick look at a map will show the enormous thrust forward that CHina would gain by controlling the islands that it claims in what is effectively an island waterway that connects most of teh contries of Southeast Asia and governs the most important sea routes from Japan to the Middle East and Europe. Mischief Reef is in the southeast part of the South CHina Sea, about 800 nautical miles from the nearest point in undisputed CHinese territory, Hainan Island, but about 135 nautical miles from the nearest Point in the Philippines, the coast of Palawan Island. Fiery Cross Reef, in the Spratly Islands, where CHina now has built early warning radar installations, is even further south.

Hong Kong offers naval vessels free access to the best deep water ports in all of Asia, one poised at the northern entrance of the South CHina Sea. As part of the agreements for the handover, the British paid for constructions of a new naval base at Hong Kong's Stonecutters Island, with four hundred meters of deepwater frontage capable of taking even aircraft carriers. Some British analysts believe that CHina plans to turn Stonecutters into a major southern naval base, from which it could extend its control over the entire South China Sea.

Increasingly, China is looking abroad, not only to Russia, but now also to western European countries, to purchase advanced military hardware that will rapidly increase its power porjection capabilities. The latter half of 1996 witnessed an upsurge in such deal making, very likely propted by the PLA's failure to intimidate Taiwan with its military excercised and missile tests early that year. The fall of 1996 saw widespread reports that CHina was close to aquiring the aircraft carrier Clemenceau from France, reportedly with completely upgraded electronics and radar systems. Although years will pass before the CHinese Navy assebles all the other ships needed to constitute a modern aircraft carrier task force, the aquisition of the Clemenceau, particularly one with up-to-date electronics. would be a milestone.

42 posted on 12/29/2001 8:51:34 AM PST by Enemy Of The State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State, Hopalong
bump #42
43 posted on 12/29/2001 9:16:35 AM PST by super175
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
Again I ask, what is the root of our reluctance to rein in China? Why are we so bent on appeasment, while we've taken an admirable hard line with the camel-riding set?
44 posted on 12/29/2001 9:23:32 AM PST by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
You forgot the imprisonment of the EP-3A flight crew on April 1, 2001.

45 posted on 12/29/2001 9:38:07 AM PST by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State;B4Ranch
Thank you Enemy Of The State, Sun Tzu "The Art of War" is a favorite of mine.
46 posted on 12/29/2001 9:52:08 AM PST by Snow Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Yes, oh what would we do without our precious United Nations....... NOT!

Thanks B4 !!

47 posted on 12/29/2001 10:01:07 AM PST by Snow Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

Comment #49 Removed by Moderator

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson