THE CHINA QUESTION (continued)

THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S ECONOMIC WAR ON JAPAN

Another disturbing twist in policy has developed with the
 Clinton Presidency. Unlike many of the Democrat contenders

to 1992, Clinton presented a posture of non-trade warrior
 mentality toward the Japanese. However, the real Clinton
 agenda regarding Japan took on a different character when,

at the onset of his administration, it named anti-Japanese
 trade warrior Walter Mondale as our Ambassador in Tokyo.
 Under a calm facade, a much more antagonistic relationship
 between Washington and Tokyo has actually been unfolding

from that juncture. 





Just the appointment of Mondale was viewed in Japan as a slap
 in the face from Clinton -- and this involving a culture
 which puts high importance on 'face.' Except in fits, the
 government has put a kind face on our relationship and its
 rhetoric with Japan. That is almost entirely a ruse, however.
 We have been about a general racheting up of the trade war
 tensions with Japan since 1993. That, in part, is a reason
 for the sluggishness of the Japanese economy for some time
 now. This has been complicated further by our other actions
 and policies in Asia, including with respect to Vietnam,
 Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, and Indonesia, among other items.
 Japan has developed a nervousness over American plans and 

intentions for the past five years. This has led on the one
 hand to Japanese efforts (in awareness of our unilateral
 disarmament and virtual abdication of power in the Asian
 sphere) to shore up its military capacity, and on the other
 to both a renewed effort by them to cultivate their
 'relationship' with mainland China and to the emergence of a
 stronger Socialist Party position in Japanese government.

The Clinton Administration has at a fundamental level
 sabotaged both Japan and our relationship with one of our
 strongest allies. And, as with so much else involving this
 bunch, it has done so while presenting a totally different
 
image of what it was about.





INDONESIAN COAL AND THE RIATI CONNECTION



Clinton's liaison with China's communist regime has led to
 some other highly questionable actions by our government,

in contravention of American economic and security interests.
 China represents a large market for coal, the source of which
 could readily have come from the United States, one of the
 world's largest producers. We also have great untapped
 deposits which could have been developed to meet Chinese
 needs. That would also have helped close the trade deficit we
 have with the PRC. A very large such source of coal lies in
 southern Utah, an area which Clinton late in second term put
 on hiatus by declaring it a national preservation area at a
 ceremony held at the Grand Canyon.
 




Coincidentally, the source of the coal which China will
 
undoubtedly tap into as a result of such closure of American
 
sources is Indonesia, a source controlled by the Riati family
 
which has played such an important part in the Clinton
 campaign funding scandals. Whether by conscious design or
 not, the Riati group will reap huge benefits from Clinton's
 decisions, quite a return on the investment the Riati group
 made to Clinton's coffers. This connection is not a new one
 developed for 1996, of course, but it does take on the
 appearance of a pay-off.





The timing of the events also seems to reek of a move by
 Clinton to line the Riati pockets in time to warrant their
 continued financial support for his re-election bid.

The Riatis also found it in their interest to pay Web Hubbell
 a huge retainer which looks a lot like hush money to buy his
 silence on Whitewater and the plethora of interconnected
 Clinton involvements. 





THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION'S UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT



Of even greater concern, however, is the course of our
 nation's military strength under the present administration.
 What has been taking place is more than a sapping our of
 strategic power. We have pursued a course tantamont to
 unilateral disarmament since the supposed end of the Cold
 War, but at an even more accelerated pace since Clinton took
 office. Our military expenditures have been reduced to a
 level we have not seen since the period just before
 
World War II. This has occured as the world has become
 generally an ever more dangerous place, and at the same time
 that China has been expanding its military and naval power at
 startling rates -- and expanding strategically across the
 Pacific Rim, as addressed earlier. Quite clearly, this would
 be something that the Communist Chinese government would have
 a great interest in promoting, especially if their designs
 are as surreptitious as the big picture seems to indicate
 they very well may be, and not surprisingly.





The strategic blundering reaches to both conventional and 

strategic power. We have been actively pursuing a course of
 
nuclear disarmament, as well. We hear of efforts to work with
 
Yeltsin to rachet down the strategic power of both countries.
 
Amidst rumors of underground proliferation, we continue this
 
course of folly. The only way to protect the American
 population from organized or terrorist attack, perhaps coming
 down to nuclear blackmale or worse, is to guarantee that we
 have the strategic capacity to respond  with an iron hand
 against anyone raising a fist against us. Faced with assured
 retaliation, such forces would be clearly disinclined to risk
 the prospect. That is not a reformed version of the M.A.D.
 'mutually assured destruction' of some years ago, it is the
 only way to guarantee the peace and security of the

United States and the world. 





OVEREXTENSION OF OUR MILITARY CAPABILITY



And while he has been about slashing our military, Clinton
 has been more pro-active than any recent President in
 committing U.S. forces around the world. We now have troops
 stationed in more places around the globe than at any time
 since the end of the Second World War. The already strapped
 capability is thus strained by overextension which has it
 tied down as well as diminished.
 




Overextended, it does not possess even adequate support
 resouces. Not only could we clearly not put together the kind
 of effort that was carried out in Desert Storm, but our
 ability to respond to crises has been sabotaged. And the
 morale of our troops has been sapped by an endless barrage

of Clintonesque social engineering and experimentation,

as well as being undermined by administratation response to
 social problems which have effectively weeded out much of the
 officer contingent. Reenlistments are sagging with the
 declining morale and pay scale.





American troops are assigned in inadequate numbers in all
 
corners. Months after they were supposed to have been
 withdrawn, they are still policing, collecting garbage, and
 confiscating weapons from the population in Haiti. They are
 stuck between a rock and a hard place in the Balkans. And
 Clinton seems to have a bottomless pit of ideas for new
 extensions of our forces. It is a recipe for disaster, and a
 wreckless abandon of men and women asked to go into harm's
 way without proper support that has been unmatched since the
 Johnson debacle tying our troops into no-win actions that
 cost us so dearly in Vietnam. 





THE ABROGATION OF OUR MILITARY COMMAND TO THE UNITED NATIONS



This administration has also taken what had become an all too
 
frequent and convenient practice which dates back perhaps
 even to the time of Korea when it involved a new organization
 and was utilized as recently as the previous Presidency,

and has tremendously increased the amount of control over
 American forces and troops by the United Nations. One can
 read into some of Clinton's executive orders a total
 capitulation of control over American military forces to

the U.N. While that may carry his words too far, he is
 blazing a extremely troublesome precedent. From Somalia to
 the Balkans, there have been American casualities who wore
 blue helmets and flags on their uniforms. It is true that our
 troops in Bosnia are now under NATO command (hardly the ideal
 scenario) and such as those in Haiti (whatever they may be
 
doing) are not given over to UN authority, Clinton has
 clearly overstepped the limits here.





China, of course, may not be impressed by such moves. After
 all, they attacked UN forces in Korea, but they are now a
 Security Council member of the UN. With respect to the
 Chinese situation, though, the real danger of this abrogation
 of duty by Clinton probably is of more concern in terms

of our dimunition of military strength.





THE FALL OF HONG KONG



Clinton surely cannot be blamed for the surrender of the
 millions of people in Hong Kong to Communist China. This was
 a British decision and one set in motion some time ago, and
 one which even Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, and Major agreed to.
 That makes it no less palatable. A firm resistance by an
 American 'leader' could have altered the sell-out terms,

if not the abdication itself. Bill Clinton was obviously not
 that kind of President!





The fact that Hong Kong has been sold down the river only
 makes the entire development of the Chinese danger more
 pronounced. Maybe the theory is that, with time, forces

in China for capitalism will push the country to really open
 society. It may also lead to a schism within China, maybe
 even along sectional lines which could lead to civil war
 
(or into spheres of influence?). Or the regime could implode
 much as we saw in the Soviet Union.It could also continue to
 advance as a 'state capitalist' regime bent on expanding its
 power and challenge to us. Will men one day have to reckon
 with such decisions alongside those of the Munich accords?
 What will have been the cost of such folly?





In any event, this entire matter is bigger than Clinton's 
 
bungling, although in typical liberal fashion, its propensity
 has been to advance the ever-growing state's control at every
 turn,but only incrementally, since it has failed to do so

in fell swopes. It has also advanced that agenda in ways that
 can only serve to weaken our posture and leave doors open to
 Red Chinese incursion.





THE ADMINISTRATION'S WAR ON THE INDUSTRIALIZED WEST:

THE ENVIRONMENTALIST CARD



No where is this more apparent than in ?????????????????????

fanatacism of this Presidency. In late October of 1997, Wall
 
Street took one of its biggest plunges in history on the
 heels of a global stock exchange convulsion. The timing of
 this turn in stock performance, even though temporary,

cannot be overlooked, having come only days after Clinton
 launched his push in preparation for the upcoming December
 1997 Kyoto Summit on the greenhouse effect. The market fell
 over 600 points over the period of Friday, October 24 thru
 Monday, October 27 -- nearly a ten percent decline. Fed by
 Asian currency crises compounded by the huge decline in the
 Hong Kong exchange that has occured since it was handed over
 to mainland control, the ripple effect has been felt around
 the world.





But the consequences of the instability in Asia could prove
 quite destabilizing for America. An investment shock
 resulting from the perhaps trillion dollar impact of this
 stock market dislocation could itself lead to contractionary
 disequilibrium, but as Asian economies continue to flounder
 and their levels of operation and profit suffer, that could
 diminish the flow of foreign capital into the U.S., further
 reducing investment, while lower production there amidst
 widespread deflation could raise the costs of exported goods
 to the U.S. on scarcity and diminish a growing U.S. market,
 setting back our export growth to them. This would enlarge
 what has been a shrinking trade deficit. The only
 
possibility of averting a contractionary disequilibrium out
 of this would be if Asian capital takes flight into America
 as a safer harbor and swells investment, although part of the
 reason for the Wall Street bloodletting has been a decline in
 Asian participation while U.S. bond markets appear to have
 strengthened slightly. This may not portend a general
 immediate collapse on Wall Street, but it clearly has
 tremendous dilatory consequences, and there is indication

that Clinton and his cohorts may seek to soak the American

economy with a bill for bailing out the effected Asian 

currencies with upwards of a $100 billion dollar tab 

out of taxpayers' pockets. Above all, it should serve as a
 warning of the dangers of China's extension of power.
 American stocks may, in fact, be a bargain given corporate
 earnings, and the bond markets have benefited, but in the
 long run, there is much more here than meets the eye at
 first. Even the danger of an eventual economic slowdown
 
growing out of the events of late October 1997 are bound to
 
mitigated by the capital gains tax cut which Congress

enacted which is bound to unleash a great deal of economic
 activity.





But the costly plans of what Clinton and Gore are promoting
 to be advanced both at Kyoto and over and above it would be
 tremendous throughout the industrialized world. Already,

over five years, other similar costs have grown out of
 efforts of thisadministration, but this set of policies

would be frosting on 


?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


standards in these nations. The sort of damper it would put
 on the industrialized world altogether was demonstrated by
 the earthquake in stock values. 





This dislocation may be temporary, for now. There is going

to be great opposition to what Clinton and Gore would like

to do. But, as they fan the flames of crisis with
 irresponsible rhetoric about el Nino and global warmimg and
 the ozone layer, the impact of any movement in this direction
 will be detrimental. 





TOO MANY PEOPLE IN THE THIRD WORLD



Al Gore tipped their hand in the weeks before the Clinton
 policy proclamation. At the White House conference designed
 to enlist American broadcast weather announcers in the fight
 'against global warming,' he said that one of the causes of
 the greenhouse effect was that there were too many people
 
in the developing sector, and pronounced a need for
 furthering the administration's past record of coercive
 population control in the LDC's.If you scratch a liberal,

you will find Malthus. If you push one in debate, he will
 inevitably come to a pronouncement that there are too many
 people and too few resources and too little wealth in the
 world. This will lead to cries for redistribution of wealth.
 And the green movement suddenly manifests its 'redness.'
 




Both men have suggested that perhaps the best way to get
 
countries such as India and China to eventually come along
 with their designs for dealing with this fabricated crisis

is by setting the example for them to follow. But
 particularly China is not going to do that, at least under
 any scenario the current leadership there is going to go
 along with. It has, of course, already outdone the Gore
 prescriptions for population control, but there is going

to be little alteration of their movement toward advancing

as a major economic power under their state capitalist

(ie, socialist or collectivist or corporatist) regime.
 




THE FREE WORLD SLEPT



In the meantime, as we perhaps pass ourselves along a course
 of reduced living standards and power, the power of China
 will continue to expand unabated, and indeed aided by our
 leaders' misdirection. Market forces are powerful and it is
 conceivable that events in China could develop well beyond
 the capabilities of the present government to constrain them.
 What we have been doing, however, is hardly of a character to
 encourage that. In fact, we have been effectively working

in the opposing direction.
 






Return to beginning of eJPS

Return to beginning of Winter 97 issue

Continue with Winter issue