OT, Last week, Hong Kong's Cheng Ming newspaper quoted Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian as saying war with the United States is inevitable.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

(good thing I got more time to prep...)

http://www.drudgereport.com/gertz.htm

BILL GERTZ THE WASHINGTON TIMES January 12, 2000

China called a threat at canal; Pentagon report on Panama contradicts White House

A Pentagon intelligence report calls Chinese influence over the Panama Canal a potential threat to U.S. national security.

The released portions of the three-page report contradict claims by administration officials that the presence of the People's Republic of China near the strategic waterway poses no threat to U.S. national security interests.

"Hutchison Whampoa Ltd.'s containerized shipping facilities in the Panama Canal, as well as the Bahamas, could provide a conduit for illegal shipments of technology or prohibited items from the West to the PRC, or facilitate the movement of arms and other prohibited items into the Americas," according to a declassified report by the U.S. Southern Command's Joint Intelligence Center.

"Any potential threat posed by the presence of a pro-Chinese corporate entity in the Panama Canal zone is indirect," the report states.

President Clinton said in November that the Chinese pose no threat to the canal and are "bending over backwards to make sure that they run it in a competent and able and fair manner."

A White House spokesman said later the president had misspoken when he said China will operate the strategic waterway.

The Pentagon had also previously said it had no fear of the ports being run by a subsidiary of a Hong Kong-based company with extensive Beijing ties.

"We do not see the Chinese-owned port facilities as a military or a national-security threat," Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said in August.

However, the Pentagon intelligence report states that the economic power conferred by the Hutchison Whampoa ports at either end of the Panama Canal and in the Bahamas would give China leverage over Panama, which has diplomatic ties with rival Taiwan.

"For example, Hutchison Whampoa could threaten to shift some business from Panama to its Free Trade Zone in the Bahamas, thus giving the company additional leverage over the Panamanian government," the report said.

The Oct. 26 report is an "Intelligence Assessment" of China's interests and activities in Panama. The document, stamped "secret," was censored to prevent disclosure of intelligence activities or military operations.

The Washington public interest group Judicial Watch made the report public after it was obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Clinton administration has dismissed those concerns and said the United States reserves the right under the Panama Canal Treaty to retake the canal by military force if necessary.

The report, heavily censored, makes no mention of the strategic importance of the canal to U.S. military operations in the event the Pentagon is called on to defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack.

Long-term military operations to resupply U.S. forces in the Pacific in such a conflict make the access to the canal "crucial" to military planning, one Pentagon official said.

Last week, Hong Kong's Cheng Ming newspaper quoted Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian as saying war with the United States is inevitable.

"Seen from the changes in the world situation and the United States' hegemonic strategy for creating monopolarity, war is inevitable," Mr. Chi told a military conference in early December.

"We cannot avoid it," he was quoted in the newspaper as saying. "The issue is that the Chinese armed forces must control the initiative in this war. . . . We must be prepared to fight for one year, two years, three years or even longer."

Release of the intelligence report is likely to renew the debate over threats to the canal, which reverted to Panamanian government control Dec. 31. The U.S. military gave up several strategic military bases in the turnover.

According to the intelligence report, the two ports near entrances at each end of the Panama Canal were leased for 25 years by the Panama Ports Co., a Hutchison Whampoa subsidiary. The company also has the option to renew the leases for a second 25 years.

The People's Republic of China has "no direct ownership" of the companies involved in running the Pacific port of Balboa and the Atlantic port of Cristobal, the report said. It also states that neither Hutchison nor Panama Ports are directly involved in day-to-day operations of the canal "at this time."

According to the report, the Panama Ports Co.'s contract includes tugboat operations, ship repair and pilot services within the ports.

"It is unlikely that Panama Ports Co. officials or employees would overtly sabotage or damage the canal on orders from Beijing, as it would be contrary to their own financial interests and would undoubtedly elicit an immediate response from the U.S. and the international community," the report said.

However, Hutchison's owner, Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-Shing, "has extensive business ties in Beijing and has compelling financial reasons to maintain a good relationship with China's leadership," the report said.

The declassified report suggested that China's economic inroads into Panama threaten Taiwan's international standing.

"Economic influence equals political leverage and in some Latin American countries PRC and Taiwan competition for influence is running head to head," the report said. "Currently, 16 of the 30 countries worldwide which diplomatically recognize Taiwan are located in Latin America."

During a Senate hearing in October on Chinese activities in Panama, several administration witnesses testified that Chinese control of the Panamanian ports is not a problem. They also said they did not know if Beijing uses commercial entities to advance its military interests.

Marine Corps Gen. Charles E. Wilhelm, the commander in chief of the U.S. Southern Command, however, told the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing he believes China does use businesses for military purposes.

Gen. Wilhelm said there is "no evidence" the canal has been targeted by terrorists or foreign governments, although it is viewed as a potential target.

Gen. Wilhelm, perhaps echoing the classified assessment, stated that China's goals in Panama are "less a local threat to the canal and more a regional threat posed by expanding Chinese influence throughout Latin America."

Other experts see increased Chinese commercial activities in this hemisphere as providing Beijing with a potential base for anti-U.S. subversion during a future conflict with the United States.



-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000

Answers

Thanks for all the great threads, Hokie! The Red Scare is a pain, but we have expended our nerve endings on worry; quota used up. Prepped = peace of mind! Now we can sit back and watch these articles with simple distant intellectual interest, without adding to the shopping list. The joys of mercy-interrupted-finale Doomerism!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), January 12, 2000.

We have Comrad Karter and Klinton to thank for the giving away of vital interest to the enemies. The best friends our enemies ever had were Comrad Karter and Klinton. I bet that they have more body guards around Klinton than we do. Winning a war without firing a shot. Wow what Hitler would have given for our type of government.

-- Notforlong (fsur439@aol.com), January 12, 2000.

No, war with China is not Y2K, but another hole in the bottom of the boat will help sink the boat, regardless of how it gets there. Just because it is not in any way related to Y2K does in no way make it less significant to the deterioating situation. Should you get taken out by a mortor blast, or from falling out of the sky in a airliner that is not Y2K compliant you are still just as dead. The same holds true for all these world shattering events whether they be Y2K or not.

-- Notforlong (fsur439@aol.com), January 12, 2000.

Do you people have amnesia? As I recall China and Russia have been in bed stroking one another in a "strategic alliance" for some time now. Do you really think this enevitable war would be only with China? I doubt it. I have never posted before so I must say this. I enjoy this forum more than enything on the web and would not be able to maintain without it.

-- tech100 (billygoatcant@eat.me), January 12, 2000.

Nuclear war is not Y2K related. There is no need to panic or prepare. There is nothing wrong with this picture. Do not attempt to adjust your television. Just sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. Do not prepare. sdb

-- S. David Bays (SDBAYS@prodigy.net), January 12, 2000.


Russia and China are allied against the United States of America. China will make the first move to retake Taiwan. Russia will side with China and execute their *plan* against America.

You thought Y2K was gloom and doom? Hah! This is far worse!

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), January 12, 2000.


It is highly unlikely that Russia and China would 'link up' to defeat the US. There is more animosity between those two countries than between India and Pakistan (if you can imagine that). There are very frequent border clashes between the two and little trade. China desires the mineral deposits in the eastern Russian mountains and has tried many times over the years to get them by hook or crook. The Russians are VERY afraid of the Chinese (might just be that multiple man army the Chinese have) and expect a fight any time. In the 80's about 45% of the Russian ICBMs were pointed toward Bejing.

The major reason that Russia would not link with Bejing is that the Russians are afraid that Bejing would probably turn on them as soon as the US was out of the way and before the Russians could recover from any war.

Would Bejing start a war with the US? Probably. Even with the threat of losing 40% of their population, they would still have too dang many to feed without the acquisition of new land and mineral assets. Japan is probably not a target as it has little mineral wealth but the Spratleys, the Aleutians, Indonesia and the rest of the Far East would be a satisfactory prize. Not to mention that Taiwan would be 'returned' to the Chinese fold if the US was out of the way.

-- Lobo (atthelair@yahoo.com), January 13, 2000.


The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), January 13, 2000.

Must be why I had that dream last night. Lines of people going off to battle. Being issued weapons and sent to the front. They issued me a big black sniper rifle. Thinking. I'm to old for this stuff.

The other side was chasing/rallying the unwilling to fight the enemy. Looked a lot like the Chinese uniform.

I prefer sex dreams.

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), January 13, 2000.


Lobo:

A powerful Russian leader will be able to polarize the Russian peoples into following his every command. This new Russian leader will not take any flak from America. But do Americans care? Hah! They're asleep in their prosperity, dreaming sweet scenarios of luxurious romps through Money Land. Meanwhile, the Russians and Chinese are preparing their tactics. They will surprise America!

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), January 14, 2000.



I believe Mr Jimmy Carter was the head of the country when the Treaty to turn over control of the Canal to the Panamanians was negotiated...not clintoon.

-- am I wrong? (karlacalif@aol.com), January 15, 2000.

I must say the right-wingers are definitely consistent... dumber than a freakin horse, and every time they open their mouth it shows.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 15, 2000.

Hawk:

There have been times when you've posted some very intelligent and thought-provoking material.

This is not one of those times.

Say something edifying please. Your lack of any substantiation to your claim leaves you wide open for criticism that may or may not be warranted. You should know that by now!

I am a political conservative and I welcome your CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Send me an email with your reasonable thoughts...my addy is real.

-- (Kurt.Borzel@gems8.gov.bc.ca), January 16, 2000.


Kurt, thanks for the compliment, you are very perceptive. The reason I didn't bother to explain my comment is because frankly I'm getting tired of explaining things to ignorant and deceitful people who refuse to correct their narrow-minded misconceptions even when confronted with the truth. I have posted on this forum at least three times already the truth about the Panama Canal Treaty, and yet it is still ignored by morons like Mr. "Notforlong" here, who chooses to criminalize everything Democrats do simply because they are Democrats. This is the LAST time I'm going to explain this, so from now on you can you can just go ahead and believe the lies being manufactured by these right-wing extremists, if this suits you better than the truth.

Negotiations for the Panama Canal Treaty took place while Nixon (Republican) and Ford (Republican) were in office, with of course, a great deal of assistance from your good friend Henry Kissinger ("Mr. NWO" Republican) who signed agreements of negotiation (see Feb. 7, 1974) 3 YEARS before Carter even took office. It took a public relations campaign strongly supported by Kissinger and Ford to finally overcome opposition by the public of concerns about the very same security issues which concern you now. The Treaty was approved an ready for signing as Carter took office, and I'm not going to say that he didn't want to sign it, but he wasn't the one that was responsible for its development.

When I came to this forum I was open minded about allowing conservatives the right to their views, and liberals having the right to theirs, but my opinion of conservatives since has regretfully been rendered very cynical, and I have lost a good deal of respect for them. To say that Clinton and Carter planned to give the canal away so that the Chinese could take over our country is ludicruous, especially when people spew this kind of garbage without knowing a damn thing about the historical truth behind it. They simply say whatever is convenient for them, and frankly I'm getting fed up with hearing these lies. I have my share of complaints about some of the corrupt things that Republicans have been involved in, but at least I don't make up lies about them.

As an additional sidenote, although it still remains to be seen exactly in what way the current administration is involved in any possible transfer of technology to the Chinese, this is certainly not a new concept. During the Nixon years, Kissinger was extensively involved in sharing secrets with the Chinese ( The Kissinger Transcripts ) .

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 16, 2000.


Hawk, Don't give up , even though its a hopeless cause. It is the balance of intelligent discourse that keep the forum going. I also am conservative in nature, and enjoy listening to what you have to say from your perspective. Please don't stoop to the level of others who simply rant with no comprehension of the subject, you have proved yourself to be above that level.

Just because you present the facts to someone doesn't mean they understand or accept them. Keep posting. The possibility that someone sees for the first time what you are saying will have to be reason enough.
Trolls, disrupters, people casting about for a fight - they will always be with us. Stick to the moral high ground, and in the end your viewpoints will get the attention they deserve.

-- Possible Impact (posim@hotmail.com), January 16, 2000.


Hawk - thanks for clarifying that info on Carter - he was the signer not the instigator for the Canal Treaty...I have difficulty watching anything showing Kissinger as I always suspected he was the power behind the throne, or at least the messenger. There now you see my "conspiratorialist leanings" but I have been this way for over 30 years and there is no hope for me. :>}

-- Laurane (familyties@rttinc.com), January 16, 2000.

Shades of 1984, the book. 3 powers dominating the globe, the rest taking sides. Remember Kissinger's "spheres of interest"? China is winning a different kind of war with the US - read ABC News' "PRC, Inc.", of all places. But they are out there, positioning themselves to win the battle of the marketplace with low cost production and the world's most loyal subjects. Yes, war with China is inevitable, but by the time we starting firing bullets, they'll have "Made in China" inscribed on them.

-- Okie Dan (brendan@theshop.net), January 17, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ