CCP's neighbors are moving away from it

One would suspect that if the Communist Olympiad were as successful as the cadres claim it was, it would have an impact in foreign affairs, i.e., pro-"engagement" politicians would be basking in the glow while more hard-line leaders would be lowering their profile.

That's not what we see in the neighborhood, though.

In Japan, Beijing's best friend in the region stepped down as Prime Minister - due to widespread unpopularity (CNN and Washington Post). It's possible that the now-ex-PM's policies did not match well with the news of poisoned dumplings exported from Communist China to Japan (Epoch Times). In any event, the most likely successor is long-time anti-Communist Taro Aso (BBC and One Free Korea), which would mean a sea change in Japan's relations with the CCP. His counterpart in Taiwan (President Ma Ying-jeou) had several thousand anti-Communists show up on his front door this weekend demanding he stop tacking toward Beijing (BBC). Even local-level "engagement" backers like the Mayor of Vancouver are taking it on the rhetorical chin (Boycott 2008).

Meanwhile, in South Korea, President Lee Myung-bak is taking in more refugees from the Communists' Korean colony (One Free Korea), despite more bluster from said colony (OFK).

What happened? Why are the anti-Communists ascendant after the Communists' great propaganda bonanza?

Well, perhaps it wasn't really a bonanza after all (and I'm happy to see Grit Hartman agree with me - Epoch Times), and the post-mortems (literally in some cases - Boycott 2008) are only making matters worse. Besides the pre-Olympic murder in the aforementioned link, we have an entire family imprisoned because one man protested during the Games (Washington Post) and lingering anger in Taiwan about the "Chinese Taipei" label (Epoch Times - this may in part explain the anti-Ma protest). The 2008 Games are so tarnished that London City Councillor felt safe criticizing the athletes who participated (Boycott 2008).

Thus, without the Olympic "bounce," the cadres were stuck with reports of corruption in the billions of dollars (Epoch Times), environmental protests (Epoch Times), international support for Gao Zhisheng (Epoch Times and Boycott 2008), criticism of the brutal occupation of East Turkestan (Epoch Times), nationalist anger at the border treaty with Russia (Epoch Times), and nervousness from the rest of the world about the regime's geopolitical objectives (The Australian and Boycott 2008).

As if that weren't bad enough, the lawsuit against regime-owned Bank of China for facilitating Hamas financing continued to get more press (NTDTV and Pajamas Media).

Given all of this, it shouldn't surprise anyone that those who would coddle up to the regime are resigning or facing criticism. The only surprise may be that the post-Olympic hangover is coming much quicker than expected, if only because few of us new the Olympics themselves would be such a bust.

Whoops!

Four days ago, in response to comments by John McCain regarding Russia and Communist China, I wrote this:

Russia has also received criticism regarding its interference in Georgia and its
occupation of Chechnya. The criticism in the former is undoubtedly deserved, but
Georgia is still its own country . . .

Well, Georgia is still its own country, but my implied statement (that Russia was not occupying Georgia) evaporated this morning (National Review Online - The Corner). I still think McCain was far too optimistic on Communist China, but I'm willing to move a lot closer to his skepticism on Putinist Russia now.

McCain's mistake

As the Olympics barrel down toward us like a Sujiatun train, Senator John McCain revealed a terrible error in his foreign policy view. In an interview with the Washington Post, he dropped this stunner:

In an interview with The Washington Post at his Arlington headquarters, the prospective Republican presidential nominee advocated a cautious course for Bush, despite U.S. unhappiness with the Chinese crackdown on Tibet, complaints of harsh repression of domestic dissidents and strained relations stemming from last week's breakdown of global trade talks in Geneva.

McCain, who harshly condemned Russian behavior in the same interview, said some of China's actions are "also regrettable, but I don't think China is regressing the way that Russia is. We have a greater opportunity to work in a cooperative way with China."

Reality, in fact, is the complete opposite.

I say this not as a defender of Russia, which certainly has its issues and is far from friendly (the Eurasian behemoth remains Communist China's largest arms supplier), but actually put Russia ahead of Communist China on the threat-to-America list is flat-out wrong.

The problems Communist China is facing - and causing - with the Olympics continue to be well documented (Agence France Presse, Epoch Times, more Epoch Times, Guardian, the Boycott 2008 Communist Olympics blog, National Review Online, Washington Post, more Washington Post, and the Weekly Standard), but it is Communist China's behavior outside its borders that should show McCain how erroneous his view is.

McCain seems to have been particularly moved by the death of Alexander Litvinenko (which he specifically mentions in the Post interview). Leaving aside the controversy surrounding Litvinenko's death (one paper I trust - the New York Sun - reveals more than a few holes in the prevailing theory), Communist China has its own history of violent interference in the free world. Moreover, the Communists' antics have been in this country, from the mob violence in Flushing (Epoch Times) to the murder of Allen Leung. Why is Communist China given a pass on these actions?

Russia has also received criticism regarding its interference in Georgia and its occupation of Chechnya. The criticism in the former is undoubtedly deserved, but Georgia is still its own country - as opposed to, say, Tibet (CNN). As for Chechnya, while I won't call Russia's actions perfect, it's been clear for nine years (since the invasion of Dagestan in 1999) that they have been facing an irridentist group of Wahhabist terrorists with deep ties to al-Qaeda. Communist China has faced nothing remotely similar in occupied East Turkestan until perhaps this past weekend (BBC, CNN, and the Washington Post). Meanwhile, the Beijing cadres' ties to terrorism run very long and very deep. I would humbly submit that Beijing has been far more helpful to Tehran's nuclear weapons program than Moscow, and regarding the debacle surrounding Stalinist North Korea (CNN, Newsmax, One Free Korea, and the Washington Post), Russia has largely been a bystander as Communist China played the Bush Administration for fools.

To be fair to McCain, his view is widely held in Washington, and is sadly gaining traction in other capitals previously immune (like Ottawa - Globe and Mail), but that doesn't make it right. If John McCain wants America to be more forceful with Russia (again, something I don't dispute), he should at least demand the same forcefulness regarding Communist China. America will never be secure until China is free.

The cadres are getting touchy

With just over two weeks until the opening ceremonies of the Communist Propaganda Extravaganza (a.k.a. the Olympic Games), the regime is cracking down on . . . boycott opponents!

That's right; Kendra Zanotto - 2004 bronze medalist and would-be 2008 Olympic News synchronized swimming reporter - had her visa application denied because of her membership in Team Darfur (San Jose Mercury-News). This comes despite the fact that Team Darfur, while certainly trying to bring attention to the Communist-aided Darfurian outrage, opposes an Olympic boycott.

So, despite getting a de facto endorsement from the Obama campaign (a $5 million ad buy, according to NRO Media Blog), the cadres are determined to rid the games of all "unstable elements," be they local dissidents (Boycott 2008 and Epoch Times), or foreign reporters who join an organization even mildly criticizing them.

To understand why, one has to look beyond the Games, which are rapidly becoming the regime's harbor ina sea of troubles. A new agreement with Russia engendered angry reaction over the surrender of Heixiazi Island (Epoch Times). A real estate crisis that at best resembles our own (and more likely makes ours look like a Sunday School picnic) is rocking average mainlanders (Epoch Times). The Communist espionage-intimidation effort in New York City has been exposed to the world (Epoch Times). Even the Communist-backed Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe has created serious PR blowback - to say nothing of Darfur itself (Weekly Standard). All in all, the Communists can't afford to have anything go wrong during the Olympics - especially given the long memories and easy MSM access of the Darfur activists.

One question remains unanswered, however: what happens when the Olympics end? What will the cadres do when the propaganda exercise is replaced by more mundane stories of espionage (Washington Times), bad behavior by satellite states (CNN), and the massive corruption that made the Games possible?

What awaits in January

In about four and a half months, the American people will choose a new President. In just under six months, that new President will take office. What he will face across the Pacific could have greater impact on his legacy than even the current war.

That Communist China persecutes its own people (Epoch Times) is nothing new. More unprecedented could be the regime precarious economic situation (Epoch Times). Add to it what is sure to be a serious post-Olympic hangover and you have all the makings of a desperate regime looking to distract their own people with a military conflict (with Taiwan still the leading candidate).

Even worse, whoever inherits the reins of power will succeed an exhausted Administration no longer looking out for its friends (Washington Times) nor keeping a watchful eye on its enemies (One Free Korea), even as Communist China continues to build ties with its largest arms supplier (Russia - BBC).

It may seem that all of this is secondary, given the war against Wahhabists, Ba'athists, and Khomeinists. Don't' be so sure of that. Communist China has a long record of aiding and abetting terrorists, a record that continues to this very day (Washington Times). The question is this: will the next president be prepared to defend the free world against Beijing? Will he realize that American can never be secure until China is free?

As "engagement" strengthens in North America, is it weakening in Eurasia?

Throughout the first Cold War, the peoples and nations who were most adamant about ending Soviet Communism tended to be those who had the most experience in dealing with it. Soviet refugees, occupied nations, and badly disillusioned socialists formed the unexpected core of anti-Communism, and kept it going during its darkest hour (the 1970s). A generation earlier, it was Western Europe that all but begged the United States to lead the anti-Communist alliance that would become NATO. The situation with Communist China is, obviously, different, but today I saw echoes of the same pattern on the world stage.

First, the bad news: North America seems to have all but capitulated. Compounding the bad news from Canada, President Bush has decided to take Beijing's Korean colony off the list of terrorist sponsors (CNN, NRO - The Corner, Washington Post, Washington Times), despite the fact that the Stalinist North said nothing of substance about its uranium enrichment program (which started this whole thing back in 2002), and of course, there was no movement on the issue of Japanese and South Korean abductees (One Free Korea). Making matters worse, this is all based on information that Kim Jong-il sent not to the United States, but to Communist China (BBC and Washington Times). It is an appalling end to a weak policy from the President.

Not that the United States and Canada are alone on this - Taiwan has begun internalizing the Communists' Falun Gong War (Between Heaven and Earth) - but as the leader of the free world, the U.S. in particular should be immune to this sort of thing. In fact, the strength of ordinary Americans themselves was enough to stop the Communists' attempts at intimidation in New York City (Epoch Times); one can only shudder to think what might have happened had Mayor Bloomberg taken the Tainan approach.

Absent such strength on the global stage, the cadres are continuing their advance. They are now trying to apply revisionist history to Darfur (Washington Times), turning the Olympics into a weapon for "smashing the separatist plot of the Dalai Lama clique" (BBC and the Epoch Times).

Yet with all of this good news, the cadres may face trouble in their closest and most geopolitically profitable relationship - the one with Russia. After years of being Communist China's largest arms supplier, the Russian government is starting to wonder if it is "supplying weapons to an army that may turn against it tomorrow."

No military has been closer to Beijing than the one based in Moscow, yet now, as Communist China is starting to reverse engineer the weapons they have imported (and even export their version to other nations, like Pakistan), Moscow is getting skittish. Russia isn't alone either; several Asian neighbors of Communist China have responded to Beijing's charm offensive by demanding to know why the United States hasn't stopped it (Daniel Twining in the Weekly Standard):

Asian leaders broadly seek closer relations with Washington, scold their U.S. counterparts for neglecting the region, are deeply insecure about any hint of an American pullback, and increasingly identify democratic political values as the basis for closer cooperation with America and each other.

Once again, the closer one is to the Communist regime, the more one is worried.

The parallels to the first Cold War here, in particular the pre-NATO era, is striking. Once again, front-line nations looking eerily across the divide at a rising tyranny are looking to a somewhat indifferent United States for help. As for Russia, its journey will be much longer, and may never come to fruition, but if it does, it would deal a hammer-blow to the Communists' geopolitical objectives.

Either way, we are once again seeing that those with the most exposure to Communism (in this case, the Chinese version) are the most worried about it (that especially applies to the Chinese people themselves - Boycott 2008 and Washington Post - even as the outside world misses it - Newsweek). As with the Soviet Communists before them, the Chinese Communists may very well sow the seeds of their own destruction not by how they treat their enemies, but their friends and neighbors.