[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: China: Why Won't the GOP Defend U.S. National Security? For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use. The Washington Post- ABC News Poll conducted June 23-26 has gotten considerable attention because it appeared to show flagging American support for the war in Iraq. By a margin of 56-42, respondents indicated that they disapproved "the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq." But if one looks deeper into the entire survey, it would seem that it is not the war itself, but, as per the lead question, President George W. Bush's handling of it that has the public concerned. By a margin of 52-46, people agreed that "the war with Iraq has contributed to the long-term security of the United States." And by 58-41, support was shown for keeping U.S. military forces in Iraq until civil order is restored, "even if that means continued U.S. military casualties." Where Bush loses majority backing is on questions about getting bogged down and taking too many casualties already. As in past conflicts, the American people want to win and expect their officials to lead them to victory. Bush's popularity was at an all time high (around 80% approval) when American tanks were rolling in triumph towards Baghdad. It is when leaders seem not to be paying enough attention to the war effort or are following the wrong strategy that the public starts to turn away. Poll results like these give a strong warning to the Republican Party. The GOP has always done well when the issues at stake involved national security. Liberals, with their reluctance to use force, fear of patriotic passions, and reflexive sympathy for the enemy – as shown currently by their ardent concern for imprisoned terrorists, do not poll well when the country's survival is on the line. Yet, there is also an influential segment among Republicans who are abandoning the national security base of the party in order to cozy up to transnational corporations – whose weakness on defense issues is just as marked as that shown by the political left. The case in point is policy towards China. CIA Director Porter Goss has warned that Beijing is tilting the balance of power against the United States across Asia. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has made the same case in Congressional testimony and at an international conference in Singapore, June 4. Yet, the Pentagon's annual report on China's military modernization has been repeatedly delayed as the State Department and other agencies in the Bush Administration try to water it down. Rumsfeld's Singapore remarks set off alarm bells among those who favor the appeasement of China. One of the more notable comments came from former Secretary of State Colin Powell speaking at a forum organized by Business Week magazine on June 13. "I, for one, do not see China as an enemy that is emerging as a threat, but as a nation taking its rightful place in the world," said Powell. What is propelling China upward and outward is the pace of its economic development. But this development is almost entirely the result of massive foreign investment in new industrial capacity and infrastructure, supported by open access to rich, overseas markets. The transfer of technology, either through the device of "joint ventures" with foreign firms, or by the outright theft of intellectual property, has advanced Chinese capabilities in both commercial and military competition. When attending the Zhuhai International Airshow last November, I saw first hand the ambitions of Beijing to become a high-tech Superpower and the eagerness of American and European firms to profit by helping China achieve its strategic goals. The power of this pro-China business lobby is very strong among the Republican leadership in Congress, where the lust for campaign funds rules the agenda and the powerful House Ways and Means Committee (which controls trade policy) serves as the legislative arm of the Fortune 500. Consider the recent behavior of the committee's chairman, Bill Thomas (R-CA) in regard to House initiatives to curtail Beijing's advance. The House voted on two measures to block the state-owned Chinese National Overseas Oil Company from buying out the American oil producer Unocal as part of its global strategy to gain control of natural resources. One was a non-binding resolution (H. Res. 344) stating the obvious: that "a Chinese state-owned energy company exercising control of critical United States energy infrastructure and energy production capacity could take action that would threaten to impair the national security of the United States." This resolution passed 398-15, but Thomas was one of the 15 "no" votes. Also among the 15 were Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT), chairman of Davis' National Security Subcommittee. A more substantive action was an amendment to the Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill (H.R. 3058) "to prohibit the use of funds from being made available to recommend approval of the sale of Unocal" to CNOOC. This passed easily enough, 333-92, but 71 of the "no" votes were Republicans, including Thomas. This means that as a party, the Democrats showed more concern about Beijing than did the GOP. Thomas used a parliamentary tactic to block consideration of another amendment to H.R. 3058 that would have required the Secretary of the Treasury to submit a report defining currency manipulation and how U.S. trade law could deal with it. Beijing's use of currency manipulation is blatant and has been the subject of world-wide complaint. But Treasury Secretary John Snow is, like Thomas, in the China appeasement camp. Corporations that have located export platforms in China benefit from Beijing's market distorting practices, even as they victimize the American economy. The House GOP leadership knows something must be done to meet the raising concerns of its rank-and-file conservative members regarding the Chinese onslaught. But they want to do as little as possible, and nothing that will upset the Fortune 500. According to the National Journal's Congress Daily, the leadership effort on China is being directed by Chief Deputy Majority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), a member of Thomas' Ways and Means Committee. Cantor is meeting with "business lobbyists" to determine what is acceptable. Yet, it is this very notion that U.S. foreign policy has been outsourced to corporate interests, who care nothing about the security implications of their actions, that has so many conservative House members upset. A leading piece of China legislation is a bill sponsored by Rep. Phil English (R-PA), that would grant explicit authority to the Commerce Department to use countervailing duties to combat subsidies from non-market economies like China (H.R.1216). But Thomas said on June 29 that English's bill was "too aggressive" even though it did not mandate any action, only allowed action to be taken if needed. Thomas has also bottled up H.R. 1498, a bill that would make exchange-rate manipulation by China actionable under existing U.S. trade laws. H.R. 1498 has 102 co-sponsors and was introduced by two members of the House Armed Services Committee, its chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and Tim Ryan (D-OH). Though Beijing's friends are a minority, they hold key positions in the Republican Party hierarchy and have the backing of rich corporate patrons. They pose a threat both to the country and to the GOP, as the American people do not take kindly to those who would sell out the nation's security for private gain.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
#10. To: Willie Green (#0)
Hey Willie.. I hope you are well. Noob Financial Question: The obvious security issues aside, and also setting aside the traitors who helped bring this situation about.. What's China going to "buy" Unocal with, exactly? I don't know how you can "buy" something when your currency is artificially pegged to the dollar and may be seriously overvalued. (or undervalued, who really knows? Speculators are running both ways on this.) Am I mistaken in saying they can just print any amount of money they want, claim it's "worth" whatever percentage of the Dollar they wish to arbitrarily peg it to, and just run around buying up everything in sight, virtually for "free" ? If so, doesn't this fact, in and of itself, constitute the biggest threat to security?
There are no replies to Comment # 10. End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||