CCP Uses Washington as a Scapegoat

The latest round of Sino-American talks came to an end with yet another expression of "concern at the record American budget deficit"(Bloomberg). In fact, the most consistent line Washington has heard from Zhongnanhai is criticism of the Administration's spending and borrowing. Most Americans are themselves too worried about the president mortgaging the future to raise much of a stink about Beijing's nagging. Still, the Chinese Communist Party is not going after our record deficits to get us to see the light, but rather to pull the wool over the eyes of their own people.

That the Communist regime now holds more American debt than anyone or anything on earth has given them a perception of economic power. Granted, there isn't much reality behind that perception, but that will take some time to sink in over here. What is important here is what Beijing's carping reveals: deep concern about their own economy, and an inability to fix it.

The latest economic figures out of Beijing trumpeted 7.9% GDP growth in the second quarter. However, given the cadres' penchant for phony statistics, the actual growth number could be as low as 6% - well below population growth. In other words, the average victim of the CCP is continues to grow poorer. This despite a half-trillion-dollar "stimulus."

Meanwhile, the already creeky banking sector continued to dig itself a deeper hole, with wave after wave of reckless loans that have brought back the dreaded B-word ("bubble"). The regime has promised to use "market tools" (Bloomberg) to slow down the lending spree - without explaining to anyone just what it means by that.

So, with the economy not recovering to the extent required, corruption still out of control, and several banks sure to end up drowning in bad loans in the near future, the regime needs someone to blame - and up steps the Obama Administration. To be clear, I am in no way endorsing the reckless spending of the president. The consequences of trillion-dollar-deficits (the entire federal budget was less than a trillion dollars just twenty-five years ago) are obvious: high inflation, a devalued dollar, and a crippling effect on business investment. That's what makes it so easy for the cadres to hide behind America's mistakes.

If things continue to get worse in Communist China, look for the cadres to make more threats about dumping American bonds, while blaming the falling value of said bonds for the regime's own failures. Unfortunately, too many critics of the Administration will seize upon the cadres' smoke screen as yet another consequence of the president's refusal to slow down the spending train. This is especially true regarding the Communist banks, who will scream bloody murder about the loss of value in American assets while hoping no one notices the domestic-default tsunami.

In fact, this entire ruse is yet one more reason Washington should get its fiscal house in order. Without this crutch, Beijing will have no explanation for the continuing economic downturn, and more of their victims will rise up to take their country back. Instead, the regime could very well succeed (and certainly will attempt) to lay blame for all of their economic difficulties at the feet of the president. Foreign investors (who should know better, but that's for another day) will hear stories about worthwhile projects withering on the vine due to weakened Communist banks and those spendthrift Americans, and odds are they'll believe them. The cadres may very dupe the foreigners out of millions to billions of new dollars to make up for the mythical investment gap, giving the regime yet another vein of money siphon off for party members.

Contrary to what the Chinese Communist Party would like the world to believe, they are in a very weak position. Their economic policies are causing more problems while leaving unsolved the ones that led to the policies in the first place. However, so long as the United States continues to spend money like it grows on trees, the cadres will have the cover story they desperately need to survive. Once again, like nearly every other tyrant on the planet, they will find their survival in whipping up anti-American hatred and blaming us for things we did not do.

Francois Bayrou for President of France

Of all the places I would expect the anti-Communist community to find a political hero, France was just about the last on my list. Nothing against the French people, who themselves are not happy with Communist China for a host of reasons. However, once I discovered that Jack Lang would not be running for President, it appeared 2007 would see no anti-Communists in Paris' presidential field. I had no idea who Francois Bayrou was back then, and I certainly didn't expect the gentlemen would be so bold as to call for a conditional boycott of the 2008 Olympic Games.

Yet that's exactly what he did, so he now has my support, for what it's worth. I doubt I have many readers in the French Republic, but I apparently have at least a few, and I am now asking them to vote for M. Bayrou.

I am aware that Bayrou is currently in third place, which means he would miss the run-off, but some polls put him very close to current second-place candidate Segolene Royal. If he can pass Royal (or Nicolas Sarkozy)between now and April 22 (voting day), he can make the run-off. From there, anything can happen.

Moreover, Bayrou is the only candidate who has made such a bold move, and as such, support for him would reveal that the French people will no longer tolerate the craven policies of Jacques Chirac toward Communist China. It would make France the second major industrial democracy in less than two years to elect an anti-Communist to power (Canada was the first with Stephen Harper), and could very well encourage other democratic nations to take a second look at the Beijing Games.

I admire both M. Sarkozy (for views on domestic affairs, which is obviously not relevant to this blog) and Mlle. Royal (for her tough statements on Iran and its nuclear program), but with this call, M. Bayrou has trumped them both. To all French citizens who read this: Votez Bayrou, s'il vous plait.

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.

Good Morning. Your world is now less safe.

The United States of America, arguably the most powerful nation on Earth, just caved to Stalinist North Korea. There is no other way to describe today's "agreement," besides surrender or betrayal.

We will all see and hear a lot of false praise for the Bush Administration's ability to get SNK to agree to "shut down" its nuclear power plant in exchange for fuel oil; none of it is deserved. The President began these negotiations almost four years ago insisting the Stalinists' entire nuclear weapons program be dismantled before they received one cent of aid. Now, not once cent has become one million barrels of fuel oil.

First, let us focus on what this deal will not do: the Stalinists do not have to destroy the nuclear weapons they already have; they will not have to dismantle their uranium nuclear program; they will not have to make any amends to Japan for the numerous Japanese abducted by SNK in the 1970s and 1980s. All of these issues have been "left for later discussion" (BBC), i.e., future opportunities for the Stalinists to extract more bribes.

Now, let's see what the Stalinists will get: the aforementioned fuel oil, talks on "normalizing relations" with both the U.S. and Japan with no strings attached, and - get this - a pledge from the Administration to take SNK off its list of international terrorists, this less than one month after reports of Stalinist aid to the Iranian mullahcracy on nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

This might very well be worse than the 1994 Agreed Framework fiasco. At least back then, the Stalinist North had neither nuclear weapons nor a partially developed ballistic missile. Now they have both - and they get off the terrorist list.

How could the Bush Administration, which has shown such resolve and toughness in the Middle East and Central Asia, completely wilt in Eastern Asia? The answer reveals the one flaw that has damaged this Administration from the beginning (and, to be fair, both of its immediate predecessors): its support for "engagement" with Communist China.

Like his father and his immediate predecessor, George W. Bush apparently believes Communist China is a potential American ally, rather than the enemy it really is. That was evident throughout this incredibly sorry episode, in which the Communist regime was given complete trust to "pressure" its de facto colony. Said "pressure" never came to Pyongyang, but Beijing applied plenty of pressure to Washington, and it worked.

Communist China had and has no interest in making Stalinist North Korea a decent member of the world community; it instead used the Stalinists as a tool to wear down American resolve. The result is a deal that enables the Stalinist North to keep its nuclear weapons and receive international aid, all while getting off the terrorist list.

Does anyone think that the Iranian mullahcracy, Communist China's best friend in the Middle East, isn't paying attention? John Bolton believes the mullahs are, saying the deal "sends exactly the wrong signal to would-be proliferators around the world." Exactly.

I've talked about how to deal with the new, post-non-proliferation world before, but the correct policies flow from one simple premise: Communist China is the enemy the free world, and has proven it by aiding the enemies we fight even now in the Wahhabist-Ba'athist-Khomeinist War.

We must work with our allies (Japan, Taiwan, India, Georgia, Afghanistan, etc.) - including providing them with nuclear weapons if they wish - to make clear to the Beijing-Tehran-Pyongyang alliance that we will not tolerate its presence, let alone its increasing power. We must economically isolate them as much as possible. We must make it abundantly clear to the Communist regime that we will hold it (along with the perpetrators, of course) responsible for every future act of nuclear terrorism against the free world.

Finally, we must make clear that our policy is liberation (preferably without military force, but with force if necessary) for Iran, North Korea, and China. We will never be secure until the peoples suffering under these regimes can take their respective countries back from the tyrants. Until we do these things, the Second Cold War will never be won, and the W-B-K war itself will be in doubt.

It hurts to write these words, especially since this Administration has worked so hard - and endured so much undeserved criticism - in its attempt to make America safe in Afghanistan and Iraq. However, the fact is, its pusillanimity in Beijing has made the world less safe, and the fact that its political opponents would have done little different is no comfort. America will never be secure until Iran, North Korea, and China are free.