• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

In his Tuesday testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Adm.
Dennis Blair discounted China’s increased defense spending with a repeated
reference to “the Chinese officers that I talked to,” or “I was told at many
different levels,” or “the people I’ve talked with in China,” etc.

It is remarkable that the U.S. Pacific commander should couch his judgments
about China in repeated references to conversations with communist officials,
as if such conversations were in the least trustworthy. This merely shows
that Adm. Blair has no perspective, and no real understanding of Chinese
communists. The U.S. admiral testified, “I don’t think that a military
confrontation between the United States and China is inevitable, and I
believe that we should pursue policies which make it less likely rather than
more likely.”

In other words, the admiral is in favor of appeasement. He somehow imagines
that underestimating the Chinese threat makes war less likely. In keeping
with this, Adm. Blair takes a dim view of Taiwan — which he once referred to
as the “turd in the punchbowl” of U.S.-China relations. One ought to ask,
after hearing Blair’s testimony on Tuesday, whether it is appropriate for
high-ranking U.S. military leaders to talk with Chinese officials. Perhaps
it is too much for them.

Adm. Blair is not alone in being influenced by his personal Chinese contacts.
Rocket expert and retired Brig. Gen. Julius H. Braun has also engaged the
Chinese personally, and might be inclined to second Adm. Blair’s comments.
This should lead us to ask a serious question: Do person-to-person contacts
between U.S. commanders and Chinese officials result in fair and frank
exchanges? Or is it a case of Chinese officials carefully measuring their
American counterparts while deceptively suggesting there is no intrinsic
hostility between the world’s most populous communist dictatorship and the
world’s greatest capitalist democracy.

We should question Adm. Blair’s assessment that China is not a growing threat
with hostile intentions. We should realize that he may have been unduly
influenced by the charm of Chinese officials. “I do not believe that the
fundamental priorities of the Chinese government have changed,” said the
admiral, referring to China’s alleged failure to adequately fund its military
machine. “The Chinese officers that I talked to clearly feel underfunded,”
added Blair.

China expert Steven W. Mosher, Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz,
researchers Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett II strongly disagree
with Adm. Blair’s assessment. They have all documented China’s preparations
for a future confrontation with the United States. They have quoted Chinese
internal documents to the effect that war between the two countries is likely
if not inevitable. The evidence on this is quite clear, but Adm. Blair
prefers to rely on his Chinese contacts.

The nice, smiling Chinese officers or rocket experts who have befriended
American military officials, who once referred to a fawning U.S. admiral as a
“golden pineapple,” belong to a system which trains its personnel to deceive
the representatives of “imperialism.” What the Chinese say to your face and
what they are preparing to do behind your back are not one and the same.

A confidential Chinese government report, which Adm. Blair and Gen. Braun
probably missed, predicted a future war between China and the United States
over Taiwan. Other Chinese internal documents have discussed both limited
and nuclear war options against America. On June 22, 1999, the official
newspaper of the Chinese communist Party, the People’s Daily, said that Nazi
Germany and the United States were “exactly the same.”

According to Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, Chinese propaganda portrays
the United States as a country engaged “in mass extermination on the same
scale as the Nazis.” In reality, of course, it is the Chinese who have waged
campaigns of terror and genocide against the people of Tibet, against Chinese
dissidents and Christians. It is China’s system that is totalitarian, with
20 million people confined to forced labor camps. It is China’s leaders who
follow Mao Zedong thought and Marxism-Leninism.

Several years ago China’s president, Jiang Zemin, told his generals: “I am
aware of the fact that the West remains our chief enemy.”

According to Edward Timperlake and William C. Triplett II, authors of the
book “Red Dragon Rising,” Chinese military officers have begun talking among
themselves “about a preemptive strike [against America] using information
warfare.” According to Chinese military statements, a surprise attack “is
the only way to steer the course of the war in a direction favorable to
China.”

In 1991 China’s late great Paramount Leader Deng Xiaoping said that China was
engaged in “a new Cold War” against America. According to China expert
Steven Mosher, “The continuing bluster of China’s leaders is not some Cold
War fantasy generated by American nativism, but a clear expression of their
hegemonic desire to become, once again, the largest, most powerful
civilization on earth.”

Adm. Blair and Gen. Braun, among many others, should not be having
conversations with Chinese military officials. Would you recommend to a
close friend or relative an intimate get-together with mafia officers on the
grounds that one should foster better relations with local organized crime?

No upstanding citizen would advocate such an approach.

But our government leaders, including every president going back to Nixon,
have believed that conversing with criminal regimes around the globe somehow
accomplishes something warm and wonderful. How is it that we can toast the
henchmen of a criminal regime while regarding such liaison with domestic
criminals as reprehensible?

Would you, in your personal affairs, enter into agreements or partnerships
with persons whose past criminal activities are famous and whose present
secretiveness leaves you in the dark as to their present intentions? Would
you enter into “frank discussions” with people whose stated goal is your
liquidation?

Well, the liquidation of Western capitalist democracy is the stated goal of
the Chinese communists. Or have we forgotten?

In 1999 President Jiang made China’s goal abundantly clear when he spoke on
the occasion of the fall of Macao to the communists. “We must assess the
trends in the world and envisage our country’s destiny with Marxism-Leninism,
Mao Zedong thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory in particular,” said Jiang. “[We
must] never deviate from the reality of China, unswervingly keep to our own
road and carry socialist reform and socialist modernization through to the
end.”

Destroying American power, overthrowing capitalism and establishing communism worldwide is a slow and deliberate process. It is done one step at a time.
You do not tell an American admiral that you are getting ready to sink his
fleet. You do not tell an American rocket scientist, like Gen. Braun, that
you are picking his brains in anticipation of a future war. You do not admit
that you are passing along false notions of your own capabilities and
readiness.

Speaking at a 1957 Moscow meeting of communist and workers parties, Mao Zedong said, “Strategically, we take the eating of a meal lightly — we know
we can finish it. But actually we eat it mouthful by mouthful. It is
impossible to swallow an entire banquet in one gulp. This is known as a
piecemeal solution. In military parlance, it is called wiping out the enemy
forces one by one.”

China’s slow buildup of missiles opposite Taiwan is one mouthful. China’s
acquisition of advanced missile destroyers from Russia is another mouthful.
Assistance to the North Korean military machine is yet another mouthful.
When you add them together you see that the West is being eaten alive.

Gen. Thomas Schwartz, commander in chief of U.S. forces in Korea testified
before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday. He said that the
North Korean communists were continuing to build up their forces. Although
the general did not say anything about China’s participation in this buildup,
there is no doubt that China is its chief sponsor.

“When I look north,” said Gen. Schwartz, “I see an enemy that’s bigger,
better, closer and deadlier, and I can prove it.”

Gen. Schwartz’s analysis has an advantage over Adm. Blair’s in that he does
not rely on communist military officers to tell him whether this buildup is
really threatening. He does not pepper his testimony with the phrase “the
North Korean officers I talked to,” or “the people I’ve talked to in North
Korea.” Consequently, instead of dismissing the North Korean buildup the way
Blair dismisses the Chinese military buildup, Gen. Schwartz arrives at a more
sensible conclusion.

It would be nice if the Bush administration instituted a rule forbidding U.S.
military commanders from fraternizing with communist officials. In that
event we would not be hearing admirals — like Blair — saying that the
communists “want a peaceful resolution” to existing disagreements. Of course
Beijing wants a peaceful resolution. They’d love to see us surrender without
resistance.

Mao Zedong might say this is the preferred dining experience of international
communism. In this regard, Adm. Blair and Gen. Braun are highly edible.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.