Source: The New Australian, Thursday 16 November 2000

Chinese Spying and the White House

By Peter Zhang

This article was first published in issue No. 117,   26 April - 2 May 1999. It is being republished to remind Americans what really is at stake in the present electoral situation, and to show the kind of damage Clinton and Gore selfishly and callously have done to national security.

I was going to turn my attention to the Chinese economy this week but, once again, I found myself diverted by Clinton's intelligence scandal. Telling people "I told you so" might not always be the tactful thing to do, but in Clinton's case it becomes a political imperative. In issue 1151 I wrote: "Make no mistake, this operation came from the very top.

Now these men would only have agreed to an operation like this if they had good reason to believe it would not be uncovered. But such a belief suggests that the recipients of the bribes (sorry, contributions) and those like Johnny Chung who acted as conduits for the money honestly believed they were protected at the highest level of American government. And the White House is the highest level. This . . . comes from Chinese sources whose comments led in only one direction."

It was revealed this week that a CIA report found that China stole invaluable nuclear secrets from the US. What is of particular interest is that a number of people involved with US intelligence are arguing in private that the report had been deliberately diluted in order to conceal the extent to which the Clinton administration aided Beijing's intelligence operations. One intelligence analyst was quoted this week as saying that "The Chinese took the secrets out the door, but the administration held it open for them." Yet in issue No. 1162 I pointed out that "The Americans gave Clinton the key to the candy store and he sold it to Beijing." This is from my own sources which are greatly inferior to those available to the CIA.

Americans must ask themselves two simple questions: 1. Who ordered the suppression of information that the report omitted? 2. Were these the same people sabotaged an FBI investigation into the alleged spying activities of a Chinese-born scientist employed at the Los Alamos National Labs and described in one intelligence report as a 'walk-in'.3 Now most people think the whole thing revolves around Clinton's campaign funding scandal. It does not. The whole thing boils down to Clinton's corrupt nature and absolute lack of patriotism. As I pointed out last week, the Clinton election campaigns involved millions and not a miserly $300,000 as Zhu falsely stated. Part of the price for Beijing's financial help was to give Chinese agents a virtual free hand. This included John Huang's top-secret clearance, his appointment to the Commerce Department and virtually free reign of the White House.

No matter what high-ranking White House officials claim, they knew that Huang's position had been bought, though not all could have known the real price. No wonder Chinese officials feel smug on this issue. No matter which way it blows, they are in the clear. If the whole thing turns sour at this stage — so what? They got what they wanted and that was a cheap means of greatly accelerating Beijing's military program at an enormous saving in time and scientific resources. The worst that can happen now is for Clinton to leave office in total disgrace. An event that would leave Beijing completely unmoved.

Some Americans are apparently arguing that the CIA report was watered down because no one wanted to tell Clinton what had happened. This is utter nonsense. My own sources have made it clear to me that Clinton fully understood the main thrust of Beijing's funding conditions, though not fully aware of the details, and agreed to them anyway. His only desire was to win — regardless of the cost to the national intererest. It was told to me, and I believe it, that Clinton was indirectly responsible for the gutting of the report. This way he can claim that an independent CIA report had nothing to say that was significantly damaging to the Clinton administration. And woe betide any CIA official who challenges this view.

I have already said that the money trail leads right up the White House lawn and into the Oval Office. I can only wonder at how successfully the American people have been deceived on these matters. The sooner they wake up to the damage that has been inflicted on them by Clinton the safer they and the rest of the world will be (The Chinese scientist was Wen Ho Lee)

Presidential Corruption, Spying and Chinese Nationalism

As more Americans learn about China's successful intelligence operations in the US and the disgraceful role that Clinton and his financial backers played in selling sensitive technology to Beijing for use by its military the more they will become incensed, despite most media efforts to suppress the scandal. (I consider the phrase "transferring technology as a weasel-attempt by Clinton supporters to evade the enormity of their actions. Fund raising is one thing — treason is another.) Even as Clinton fatuously asserted while in Beijing that China and the US enjoyed a "strategic partnership" that would overcome their differences, Beijing officials were sneering at his venality while high-ranking party officials and PLA generals busied themselves with the uses to which they could apply US technology.

Now technology is useless on its own, being mere knowledge. Never mind, though, Clinton also helped overcome that little difficulty by allowing the sale of advanced equipment and the use of US personnel to train Chinese technicians in its use. (Imagine Chamberlain supplying Nazi Germany with radar equipment and you will get some idea of what Clinton and his friends have done.) That Zhu has denied charges of spying is only to be expected. (Remember Eisenhower's immediate denial of aerial spying over the Soviet Union even after it had shot down a U2?) Why anyone should be surprised that China is spying on the US certainly puzzles me. The Chinese government considers it has a moral duty to do this. The US certainly has a moral duty to spy on Beijing. The real puzzle is not the spying but why Americans are tolerating a president who sacrificed national security for a bucketful of campaign funds.

Americans should know that their president will be having talks with Zhu Rongji, one of the men who OK'd bribes (sorry, I mean campaign contributions) for Clinton's election campaigns. Do not doubt for a moment that Chinese military intelligence would have given this politically sensitive action the green light without permission from Zhu, Zhang and several other high-ranking party officials. Make no mistake, this operation came from the very top. Now these men would only have agreed to an operation like this if they had good reason to believe it would not be uncovered. But such a belief suggests that the recipients of the bribes (sorry, contributions) and those like Johnny Chung who acted as conduits for the money honestly believed they were protected at the highest level of American government. And the White House is the highest level. This is not mere speculation on my part, though logic really allows of no other conclusion, but comes from Chinese sources whose comments led in only one direction.

Will Clinton and Zhu discuss the bribes or will a wink and a nudge suffice? Will Clinton entertain Zhu in the same room in which Johnny Chung dealt out PLA money on several occasions? The truth is so terrible and embarrassing I believe it will never be publicly told. How can a nation like the US allow it to be known that a president engaged in actions that most other countries classify as treasonable? The same president who is now waging war in the Balkans.

We must not, however, allow things to get out of perspective. China is not going to launch an attack this year, next or in ten years. Her ultimate aim at the moment is domination of Asia and the Pacific, not war and occupation. I stress ultimate, not only because aims can change but because the Beijing regime is thinking terms of decades and not just several years. It firmly believes that it can 'out-wait' America and that the US is in a terminal state of moral decline that will eventually destroy its will to resist Chinese pressure in Asia and the Pacific. But as I said, this is for the comparatively distant future. Those who believe that China is planning for immediate war against the US overlook an important fact: modern war can only be fought by countries with modern economies, i.e., countries in an advanced state of economic development. China is nowhere near that stage and won't be for a very long time. (This is still no excuse for what Clinton did.)

Nineteenth century Germany provides, I believe, an interesting historical comparison. Germany (or perhaps I should say Prussia) was absolutely determined to overtake Britain militarily and economically and to dominate what it considered to be its rightful sphere of influence. For China that is most of Asia, including the Pacific region. For nineteenth Germany it was middle Europe and the Baltic. Under Bismarck's guidance This policy seemed to work. In the 1860s Prussia was clearly the dominant German state. Victory in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 and victory over Austria brought about German unification and the existence of the Second Reich. By the 1890s Germany felt confident and rich enough to challenge British naval power by launching an immense naval program. This in turn goaded Britain into rapidly expanding and modernising its own navy. The race was on. Eventually, a number of factors converged to bring about the tragedy of WW1.

There are two important points here. The obvious one is that circumstances forced Germany to think in terms of decades, as is the case with China today. The second point is not obvious and is based on an observation by Thorstein Veblen. He noticed that of all the countries that were industrialising it was only in Germany and Japan that economic growth was not accompanied by real growth in democracy. In both countries political power was largely in the hands of an oligarchy whose basic values belonged to a warring pre-industrial age. Now I believe a similar situation prevails in China today. It is ruled more by an oligarchy rather than a party, and PLA generals are part of it. The danger is that should Chinese economic development continue there could come a time when the world is faced by a China whose leadership has more in common with pre-war German and Japanese militarists than democratic values.

There is a bright side. Time is on the side of peace and peace is what the Chinese people want. Rapid economic growth plus the free flow of news and knowledge, courtesy of technology, combined with a growing popular desire to be rid of the nationalist fist could bring about the kind of political changes that would not make China a threat to world peace. The present oligarchy lacks the legitimacy that tradition bestowed on German and Japanese militarists. Sure, these generals tend to be nationalists in the worst possible way but they lack, at least for the moment, the kind of hereditary respect that would legitimise their actions and rule. So there is real hope.