News of the Weekend (May 17-19)

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State forced to admit Communist Chinese arms in terrorists' hands: The opening statement of John Negroponte to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (Uyghur Human Rights Project) is chock-full of the usual "engagement" nonsense, but after questioning from Senators not named by the Taipei Times, Negroponte had to acknowledge "concern about Chinese weapons or Chinese-designed weapons showing up in some of these battle areas, be it Iraq or Afghanistan" (emphasis added). He also said he raised the issue with the cadres last week. Is the Administration prepared to do more if this continues?

Another day, another ally thrown under the bus: If the Administration policy toward "another Chinese province" (a.k.a. North Korea) is any indication, the cadres are free and clear on arming terrorists. Just as South Korea is finally beginning to focus on the Stalinist regime's horrendous treatment of the people of northern Korea, the United States has resumed food aid (BBC, Washington Post, and the Washington Times), due in part to the Singapore Surrender. Of course, Japan is quite used to this sort of thing (Washington Post).

Zimbabwe got its Communist arms after all, thanks in part to the South African navy (which secretly refueled the Communist Chinese vessel - Sunday-Herald, Scotland), Angola, and the Congo Republic (a.k.a. Congo-Brazzaville).

How the rest of the world views the Communist Olympiad: Canadian human rights groups, joined by two-time Olympic figure skating silver medalist Elvis Stojko, call for the Communists to stop abusing their own people - and for the rest of us to avoid the Games if they don't (Epoch Times). Meanwhile, Patrick Sherwen (Citywire via UHRP) discusses the effect of the bad publicity on foreign investment in Communist China (sadly, its' not much).

News from the occupied nations (Tibet and East Turkestan): The Tibetan government-in-exile responds to the latest Communist propaganda (TibetNet via Uyghur American Association); Mansoor Ijaz laments the plight of East Turkestan, although his assertion that Tibet has done "comparatively well under Communism" is not shared here (UHRP).

One-country, one-and-a-half systems rolls on: Hong Kong now has a "blacklist" of individuals who will not be allowed into the city at the Communist regime's behest (Radio Free Asia via Epoch Times).

Enlightened Comment of the Day: Gordon Chang takes the prize for his explanation of the Communists' openness on the massive earthquake ("the country's leaders had little to lose" - New York Sun via UHRP) and how it will likely disappear as it becomes clear that "(p)eople died and others were injured because they were in, on, or near substandard structures that were bound to fall down." Making Chang's point for him were CNN and Britain's Guardian (h/t Boycott 2008). If any of this extended to the numerous nuclear plants in the vicinity of the quake (Times of London), this could be a tremendous backlash against the Communists.

Runner-up on ECOD: The fellow who wrote this detailed analysis of Communist China's "holistic censorship regime" (for obvious reasons, (s)he chose not to reveal his/her name - UHRP).

News of the Weekend (April 25-28)

The Singapore Surrender continues to rack up opponents: As news of the Stalinists' aid to Syria's nuclear ambitions continued to reverberate (National Review Online, One Free Korea, Washington Post, and Washington Times), the Bush Administration is scrambling to put lipstick on the pig (Washington Times). Judging from the reactions of the editors of NRO, Winston Lord and Leslie Gelb (Washington Post, h/t OFK), and Senator Sam Brownback (OFK), the effort is failing spectacularly.

Pro-Communist students attack Olympic protesters in Seoul: One Free Korea has the story on the latest violence by demonstrators sent by the regime to drown out anti-Communist protesters (the Epoch Times has more on the cadres' role). Things went much more smoothly in "another Chinese province" (BBC and CNN).

More news on "another Chinese province": A lieutenant from the Stalinist military defects to South Korea (BBC and CNN); James Zumwalt talks about the new wind blowing in South Korea (Washington Times).

Interpol falls for the Communist propaganda on Olympic "terrorism": The head of Interpol cited "recent reports of thwarted plots in China" as evidence of the need for greater security (CNN); the fact that at least one of those reports was debunked was not discussed.

More Olympic news: Tibetan cadres are threatening anyone who would "excite popular feelings" during the Olympic torch relay in the occupied nation (Washington Post). The Int'l Olympic Committee returns to its apologist role (United Press Int'l, h/t Andrew Stuttaford at NRO - The Corner). Serge Schmemann discusses the popular outcry over the Communist Olympiad (Int'l Herald Tribune via Uyghur American Association).

Meanwhile, in occupied East Turkestan, a king is reduced to a tourist attraction (Christian Science Monitor via UAA) and those who support an end to Communist occupation risk imprisonment, or worse (Channel 4, UK, via UAA).

On nationalism and the CCP: Stephanie Ho (Voice of America) examines effect of Communist-fanned nationalism on the Olympics, and vice versa (via UAA). Zhang Tianliang finds the notion of the Communists as the defenders of the Chinese people to be utterly laughable (Epoch Times). Xing Fei (also in the Epoch Times), examines the true meaning of patriotism.

Zimbabwe arms ship still looking for a port: A British Trident submarine is keeping an eye on it; it may head to Venezuela (World Net Daily). Meanwhile, Michael Sheridan (Times of London) details the Communist-run COSCO's ties to Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe.

The Canada File: Bob Rae, the foreign policy spokesman for the opposition Liberal Party, dutifully spouted the party line on "engagement" with Communist China (Epoch Times), and quickly earned the opprobrium of Peter Worthington (Toronto Sun, h/t Between Heaven and Earth). Meanwhile, Falun Gong demonstrators lose a court battle in Vancouver (BH&E).

More on Communist China and the rest of the world: Falun Gong practitioners in New York mark the ninth anniversary of the April 25, 1999 protest (Epoch Times). The Australian Resource Minister comments on Communist investments in his country (AAP via Epoch Times). Finally, Stephen Hutcheon (Brisbane Times via UAA) examines the Communist hacker brigade.

Communists open the door to talks with the Dalai Lama's aide, then rip him: The cadres' back and forth is tracked by AAP (via Epoch Times), the BBC, CNN, and the Washington Post.

China 'arms surge' supports terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan

by Curry Kenworthy

Insurgents fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan will be happy to know that more help is on the way--as part of its 'Cold War II' strategy against the U.S. and its allies, China's Communist government is apparently working with Iran to arm terrorists.

According to a June 15 report by Bill Gertz in the Washington Times, intelligence indicates that China is selling large quantities of small arms and weapons to Iran for use in the Iraq insurgency as well as for the Taliban in Afghanistan. Not only that, but China is even helping to deliver the weapons to ensure that they reach their destinations successfully.

Need a better gun? Parts for an IED? An anti-aircraft missile, perhaps? Not to worry, Uncle Hu's got it all covered. Best of all, that includes delivery.

The Gertz report mentioned small arms, ammunition, sniper rifles, RPGs, and components for roadside bombs, as well as previously-reported HN-5 missiles. Gertz also states that the U.S. administration has been trying to hush or downplay this intelligence to maintain the image of China's government as a partner.

Too bad America is listening to the engagement crowd. Communist China is 'engaging' U.S. forces right now through the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it has plans to 'engage' the U.S. much more directly in future conflict, as we will continue to show at the China e-Lobby.

More (and more germane) comment on Afghanistan

When I originally posted on Afghanistan two days ago, it was for two purposes: to highlight how the inability of many to see the threat from Communist China was coloring opinions of the war, and to explain why I thought a Democratic president will end that war prematurely. Unfortunately, it wasn't until after I posted it that I realized how long the post was, and more importantly, the post's imbalance between the two purposes. I stand by what I wrote, but I'm not sure it is as germane to this blog as to the others I am posting. Additionally, I thought I should also go into further detail as to the effect of the Afghanistan battle on Cold War II (similar to my earlier posts on Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea). So here goes.

I have written extensively on Communist China's ties to terrorist states (see the links in the paragraph above), and I have commented on Communist China's ties to al Qaeda and the Taliban (the most extensive link is here). However, few seem to notice, let alone hold Communist China to account, even today. This has led to major errors in examining the situation in Afghanistan - and those errors are certainly bipartisan.

The biggest mistake that has evolved from the "engagement" mentality on Communist China is the prevailing view of Pakistan. Nearly every analysis I have seen of Pakistan's recent coziness with the Taliban (and the subsequent boost to al Qaeda) has ignored Pakistan's nearly six-decade alliance with Communist China. For anyone who thinks the Communists were not interested in using Pakistan to thwart our objectives, take a look at this link again); the Communists all but ordered Pakistan not to allow American troops on its soil. Had Pakistan listened, it would have been almost impossible to bring American troops into Afghanistan.

Communist China also made abundantly clear, numerous times, that it had no desire to see either American troops or a pro-American government in Afghanistan (Willy Lam, CNN). That its longtime ally (and Afghanistan's neighbor) would see the Taliban in a very different light then we do should surprise no one.

The second, and equally dangerous, mistake the powers that be have made is to separate the Afghanistan war from the geopolitics of the region. I have seen innumerable media reports on Afghanistan, which have included several references to Pakistan, but I can count the references to India in these pieces on one hand. This geopolitical myopia comes despite the fact that India did more to aid anti-Taliban forces than anyone else in the world prior to September 11. Thus, those who do (or would) support a withdrawal from Afghanistan would do incalculable damage to U.S.-India ties. Alienating the largest and most economically dynamic democracy on earth is never a good idea, yet hardly anyone seems to take this into account.

The last, but hardly least, mistake from all this is to assume that Communist China is either neutral or friendly in the War on Terror (or as I prefer, the Wahhabist-Ba'athist-Khomeinist War). It is not. In fact, whether it's Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Lebanon, or Afghanistan, the "theatres" in the WBK War have become a part of Cold War II. Thus, if we were to abandon the Afghan people, it would be as much a victory for Communist China as it would be for the terrorists.

If more Americans understood this, support for the liberation of Afghanistan would be far higher than the 56% it has now. As for my earlier assumptions about the Democrats, there is simply no decent anti-Communist Democrat running for President right now. If the Democratic field included Sherrod Brown, Robert Andrews, or Robert Wexler (for example), my previous post would have looked very different (title included).

My analysis of American politics aside, the fact is this: the defeat of the Taliban and al Qaeda is as central to victory in the Second Cold War as it is in the WBK War. If more Americans understood this, it would lead to some more clear-eyed views on Pakistan's real allegiance and India's importance. As it is, the tunnel vision of our leaders (from both parties) is making this battle much harder to win.