Peter Zhang
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 10 May 2004
It's been more than four years since I wrote
about the danger that Beijing poses in South and Central America. I
stressed at the time that Hutchison Whampoa is an arm of the Chinese
government and that the company's chairman, Li Ka Shing, was an
unofficial government minister.
Despite knowing these facts President
Clinton still insisted on the canal passing into Beijing's hands, even
though he knew the company had corruptly obtained the lease.
China's Defence Minister, Chi Haotian, has
said that war with the United States is inevitable. As Chi well knows
there is more than one way to wage war ? and this is where the canal
comes in. It provides Beijing with a base from which to create enormous
mischief for the US while piously claiming that its presence is merely
a commercial one.
The word is out that acting through Castro's
agents and Chinese crime lords, Beijing is already heavily involved in
running drugs into the US. To Beijing drugs are merely another weapon
in its unofficial war against the US. Two other weapons are terrorism
and subversion.
Drug revenues were be used to finance
terrorists whose activities will, it was hoped, destabilise the region,
particularly Mexico, thus tying up US military and intelligence
resources. (Beijing also knows it can count on America's mainstream
media to sympathetically report on left-wing terrorist activities).
Much of this has already come to pass. One
needs to look no further than Colombia and Venezuela to see that
Marxist subversives and terrorists are well organized, ruthless and on
the march.
I remarked that that it was being said in
certain Beijing quarters that Mexico would play a central role in this
strategy. It was assumed that encouraging political and social turmoil
in Mexico would, for example, spur many more Mexicans to seek sanctuary
in the US, forcing Washington to strengthen its southern boarder while
antagonizing Mexico City in the process.
Beijing believed that a flood of Mexicans
immigrants would provoke a backlash which in turn would whip up
anti-American feeling south of the border, never a difficult task. It
never occurred to Beijing that America would tolerate a massive flow of
illegal Mexican immigrants.
The central player ? perhaps I should say
puppet ? in Beijing's scheme is Fidel Castro. I did say at the time
that an official had confided in me that Beijing has successfully
enlisted Fidel Castro as an ally and that he was to be heavily supplied
with weapons and cash. South America was to be the weapons eventual
destination.
Once again it has come to pass. (I'm feeling
quite prophetic). The cash was be used, along with drugs, to finance
revolutionary groups, buy off officials, finance subversion and corrupt
politicians. This is precisely what Castro's embassy officials were
doing in Mexico City and that is why Vincente Fox had them expelled.
I was also told that Chinese intelligence
had invested a great deal in a Venezuelan army or former army officer
who is linked to the DGI (Castro's KGB). Unfortunately, the official
was not prepared to say anything further on the subject. It no longer
matters as we now know for certain that the former army officer is
Chavez.
I explained at the time that rumour had it
that Beijing initially intended to form a Latin-American triangle
consisting of Cuba, Venezuela and Colombia with Castro at the apex and
Panama in the centre.
The triangle was to be the heart of the
Beijing's plans for the region. Despite the fact that some thought the
plan too bold, at least at this stage, the regime has become even more
ambitious, hoping to extend the triangle so that it includes Brazil and
the Argentine.
It believes that Iraq and the war on terror
will prove so much of a distraction that for the US that it will not be
able to direct the necessary intelligence resources to the region.
However, there are still those who think that Beijing should tread
carefully.
They point out that Castro is aging and his
regime is highly unpopular. They feel that should he die or fall
seriously ill the regime would be swept away by a popular revolt with
embarrassing results for Beijing.
Others have counter with the argument that
the machinery of repression is so entrenched in Cuba and the populace
so demoralised that Beijing's people will have no problem in taking the
reins of power. In any case, should the worse happen any evidence
connecting Beijing to subversion and drug running would be quickly
destroyed.
Moreover, these people argue that there is
absolutely nothing to fear from America's mainstream media which is
still besotted with Castro as is the Black Caucus. As evidence for this
view they cite not only the media's hostility toward President Bush but
their attempts to undermine victory in Iraq. So why should the media
treat South America any differently from Iraq?
It's particularly revealing that Beijing
appears convinced that most Democratic members of Congress and the
Senate would play down any connections Beijing establishes with Castro
and that they can be counted on to dismiss China's presence in the
region as hysteria just as they dismiss Castro's subversive activities
Beijing's strategy is not primarily one of
establishing pro-Chinese regimes but of creating a massive running sore
that will drain US political and military resources. This, the regime
reasons, will weaken America's Asian presence and so make it easier for
China to drive her out of the Pacific-Asian region, leaving Hawaii as
its only Pacific base.
This is not a fantasy. Why else did Beijing
provide missile know-how and nuclear weapons technology to the likes of
North Korea, Pakistan, Iran and Libya? Because it would generate
political tension and fuel conflicts that would tie up US military
resources.
Four years ago I wrote:
"? why did Clinton allow the canal to fall
into Beijing's hands? Because, incredible as this will seem, he thinks
of Beijing as a 'strategic partner' of sorts and not a potential enemy.
Clinton belongs to that peculiar school of thought that sees conflict,
particularly war, as the tragic outcome of misunderstandings between
basically decent and reasonable people ? except for fascists, of
course, meaning those who challenge his beliefs and premises.
Impervious to reality, those who cling to this suicidal-like vision
accuse their critics of bad faith and dismiss their patriotic warnings
as alarmist, ridiculous, hateful and so on".
As Islamofascists strive to demoralize
allied troops the American media and many Democratic politicians and
their followers direct their anger and hate not against those who
murder American troops but against President Bush, just as Beijing
strategists predicted.
The only thing Beijing's warlords understand
and respect is power and the will to use it. America still has the
power and, under Bush, has demonstrated the will to use it. So guess
whom Beijing is rooting for in the coming presidential election? Clue:
it isn't Bush.
