The guiding policy for the Chinese military is the so-called Chinese
“16 Character Policy”: Integrate the military with the civilian;
integrate war with peace; give priority to weaponry; make goods for
civilian use and use the profits thus generated to maintain the military
(junmin jiehe, pingzhan jiehe, junpin yousizn, yimin yangjun).

The circular motion of the “16 Characters” is all too obvious.
People’s Liberation Army (PLA) businesses feed profit monies into the
Chinese army. The Chinese army then uses the profit money to buy, borrow
or steal advanced weapons. Some of the advanced weapons have civilian
spin-offs which are then sold at profit by the PLA businesses, starting
the cycle all over again.

In August 1994, President Bill Clinton sent Commerce Secretary Ron
Brown and a group of hand-picked U.S. corporate executives to Beijing.
That group included DNC donor and investment banker Sanford Robertson.

According to Robertson, “One of the highlights was observing Ron
Brown in the way he represented the United States.”

Robertson wrote these words of praise to President Bill Clinton, in a
November 1994 thank-you letter. “Dear Mr. President,” wrote Robertson.
“Thank you for autographing the pictures taken in the cabinet room
before Ron Brown’s delegation to China. The trip seemed to be an
economic and diplomatic triumph.”

Robertson’s praise for Ron Brown was not reluctant nor without true
feeling. The trip to Beijing had been quite profitable for Robertson.
Robertson had hired the son of a major Communist official and landed a
huge deal with a Shanghai stock broker.

“His diplomatic skills were superb, particularly in the meeting with
Li Peng,” wrote Robertson about Brown. “He deftly navigated the human
rights issues by obtaining an agreement on further talks, and then moved
directly into the economic issues at hand, i.e., helping Chrysler,
Sprint and others with their joint ventures.”

Robertson also included a telling post script for Clinton’s eyes
only: “P.S. – Bob Rubin came to our home on Thursday for a Dianne
Feinstein dinner, which raised over $100,000 for her campaign. Bob, of
course, turned out the financial community and Silicon Valley.”

Clearly, Brown “deftly navigated the human rights issues” by placing
the interests of U.S. Corporations at the forefront. Of course, as
Robertson’s P.S. noted, placing business first also had obvious benefits
for Bill Clinton — e.g., “$100,000” for the DNC.

The benefits for the Chinese army were also obvious. These were not
the old Maoist peasant soldiers of the past. A 1997 report sponsored by
the Rand Corp. noted that Chinese generals often
took cuts or kickbacks from foreign deals for “Swiss bank accounts” and
“luxury automobiles.”

There is some logic to the Clinton argument that the Chinese
Communists are corrupt enough to be bought. The Clinton China policy was
based on the simple premise that the Chinese Communists would reduce
oppression once they were rewarded with “economic issues,” such as
helping Chrysler with a “joint” venture.

Yet, Clinton’s policy has failed. China continues to abuse its
citizens, suppressing religious movements and punishing free speech with
the death penalty. Instead of becoming more civilized, Red China has
threatened to invade Taiwan and strike Los Angeles with nuclear weapons.

The failure of the Clinton policy of trying to bribe China into
submission was not limited to political disasters. Many of the “joint”
business ventures have fallen apart, or worse, turned into fronts for
the Chinese army intelligence operations against America.

For example, the Chrysler “joint venture” cited by Sanford Robertson
as a glowing example of “diplomacy” was not with a civilian Chinese
company but actually with the Chinese army.

“Despite almost a decade of relative success in producing both the
Jeep Cherokee and a wholly locally produced military style jeep (the
BJ2020 series), by 1995 Chrysler had pulled out of its bid to build a
new minivan joint venture in Shanghai out of complete frustration,”
states a January 1999 U.S. Commerce Department report on technology
transfers to China.

“Chrysler executives were expressly concerned over licit and illicit
technology transfers,” states the 1999 Commerce report. “Chinese
officials were demanding more advanced technology than seemed
appropriate or necessary to Chrysler.”

The Chinese army interest in advanced technology from Chrysler, then
the maker of the U.S. Army M-1 tank, was in-line with the “16 Character”
policy. However, they were also interested in profits.

“Chrysler’s concerns were amplified when Chrysler CEO Robert Eton was
made aware that knock-offs of Chrysler’s Jeep Cherokee had been seen on
the streets of Beijing. When complaining about
this to Chinese officials, he reportedly was told that this (the ability
to copy Chrysler’s Jeep Cherokee) was a good sign of progress in China’s
auto industry, about which he should be pleased. Apparently, he was not,
and Chrysler soon canceled plans to go ahead with the Shanghai plant.”

The technology pirating is undisputed proof that the Chinese army
prefers Chrysler (knock-off) Jeeps, whether it’s a Cherokee for the home
or a BJ2020 “military” style Jeep for the office.

Bill Clinton understood the preference of the Chinese army, and he
had the four-wheel drive solution. Only the Lincoln bedroom inn-keeper
and booking agent for Air Force One could understand the corrupt needs
of the red warlords.

Source documents

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.