Reading various Internet discussion sites, talking with callers on
national talk radio, I notice a strange misconception. Some Americans
believe that if you write about a national security threat from Russia
and China, you are merely an opportunist looking for high pay; that you
have hitched your star to sinister financial forces that are plotting a
return to the Cold War, in order to enrich themselves with defense
contracts.
This idea about writers who warn of a threat from Russia and China is
completely false. Those who have documented the threat to America, like
former intelligence analysts Bill Lee and Peter Vincent Pry, or
defectors like Anatoliy Golitsyn and Stan Lunev, are not getting rich
with book sales. If anything, they have earned the dislike and
disapproval of powerful people. Those who write to warn America of the
evil regime in Beijing, like Harry Wu, Edward Timperlake and William C.
Triplett are not receiving money under the table from defense
contractors. Those defense contractors are perfectly happy to move
their missile and bomber factories to China.
After all, defense contractors and corporations want to make money.
And the best deals are not to be hatched in Washington. The best deals
involve technology transfers to China. The best deals involve sending
machine tools to Russia. Why should the rich and the powerful pay for
little voices in the wilderness like Bill Lee and Peter Pry? Such
voices are merely patriotic, not realizing where the real money and
opportunity is.
It is ironic that those of us trying to warn the country are accused
of a cynical profit motive. Meanwhile, the truly cynical profiteers
stand behind the leading national candidates for office, eager to
guarantee U.S. businessmen their share in joint ventures with the
“former” Communist Bloc. After all, there is no money in restraining
the bloody hand of Kremlin violence in Chechnya or Afghanistan. There
is no profit in risking nuclear war for Taiwan’s democracy. American
high finance would rather support an embargo against Afghanistan while
maintaining a steady flow of supplies to
the Russian General Staff.
The real American Establishment doesn’t want a renewed Cold War. All
their money is betting on a long era of peace. And there is no better
proof of this than the candidacy of George W. Bush.
Is George W. advocating a new Cold War? No. Are the alleged Cold War
hawks of past Republican administrations taking a hard line on the
unrepentant KGB thug in the Kremlin, or the Butchers of Beijing? No.
Are they outraged at Russian violations of the ABM, INF and biological
warfare treaties?
No, not at all. Our financial monkeys see no evil, hear no evil and
speak no evil.
Our well-foddered, famous wise ones are not advising Bush to reverse
Clinton’s policies of appeasement and unilateral disarmament. They are
advising Bush to go even further toward military unreadiness and
national suicide.
The old saw that Big Money is behind the military industrial complex
is dead wrong. The money power in this country is in favor of
disarmament — not rearmament.
At the National Press Club on May 23 George W. Bush outlined his
national security policy. He began by noting that he was standing there
“with some of our nation’s leading statesmen and defense experts.” And
yes, a cluster of well-foddered, famous wise ones were beside him. Gen.
Colin Powell was there, with his liberal outlook and his naive attitude
toward Russia and China. George Shultz was there — a man who betrayed
Reagan’s Cold War policy when he was Secretary of State. Henry
Kissinger, that German-accented professor who brought us the opening to
China and the ABM Treaty, was also there. And Brent Scowcroft was
there. Back in 1991 Scowcroft persuaded President Bush to remove our
tactical nuclear weapons from Europe and from deployment on U.S.
warships.
This was the crew, some of them fattened by corporate contacts,
flanking George W. These were the men hitched to the Republican
candidate’s wagon. And that is how things have turned out. “Russia
itself is no longer our enemy,” said George W. “The Cold War logic that
led to the creation of massive stockpiles on both sides is now
outdated. Our mutual security no longer depends on a nuclear balance of
terror.”
Bush’s belief in ballistic missile defense has nothing to do with
stopping Russian missiles. George is not worried about the Russians.
He says the main threat to America is from the so-called “rogue
states.” And that is the kind of missile defense he wants; that is,
something that can stop a primitive slow-moving missile — nothing more.
Meanwhile, several thousand Russian missiles, set on a hair trigger,
do not worry him. De facto Russian belligerence does not play upon his
mind. Russia’s nuclear war complex at
Yamantau Mountian and the SS-23s socked away in Slovakian and Bulgarian bunkers are ignored. The dire warnings of Ken Alibek, the former head of Russia’s biological warfare project, do not concern him.
You may find this hard to believe, but during his May 23 speech George W. Bush advocated unilateral U.S. nuclear disarmament. In addition, he also advocated taking our nuclear forces off alert.
“It should be possible,” stated Bush, “to reduce the number of American nuclear weapons significantly further than what has been already agreed to under Start II without compromising security in any way.”
During the question and answer period that followed Bush’s presentation, the following exchange took place:
- Q: I’m just trying to clarify. When you say that we should be prepared to lead by example, are you saying that you’d be prepared to reduce America’s nuclear arsenal whether or not the Russians follow suit?
Mr. Bush: Yes, and I would hope —-. Yes, I am, and I would work closely with the Russians to convince them to do the same.
Everything else George Bush advocates might be as good as gold. But on national security he would prove more disastrous than Al Gore. This is because the Republican Congress will never allow Gore the chance to implement this sort of policy. But since George Bush is a Republican, the Congress would have to reconsider its position in the name of party unity. What Bill Clinton failed to do, George Bush cannot fail to do — from the other side of the isle.
Many readers may not realize this, but the Republican Congress has passed laws to make unilateral nuclear disarmament illegal. This is what prevents Clinton from reducing our nuclear arsenal below 6,000 warheads. It is what has stopped him from taking our ICBMs off alert.
Whatever you may think of the Republican Congress, however disappointed you may be, they have nonetheless preserved your existence by drawing a firm line on defense issues. Heaven only knows the financial pressures that Congress had to resist in this case. One only has to look at the creatures lined up behind George W. Bush to see the situation. Consider the money and the power that is represented by advisors who want us to remain engaged with China, who want American technology and supplies to flow unimpeded to the “former” Communist Bloc.
The founder of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Lenin, once explained the process we are now witnessing. He explained it to Yuri Annenkov, who wrote Lenin’s statement in his diary.
“The capitalists of the world and their governments,” said Lenin, “in attempting to conquer the Soviet market, will close their eyes to the indicated higher reality and will turn into deaf-mute blindmen. They will extend credits to us, which will strengthen the Communist party in their countries and, giving us the materials and technology we lack, will restore our military industry which is indispensable for our future victorious attack on our suppliers. In other words, they will work to prepare their own suicide.”
Lenin was a self-trained political sociologist. His insights were not always valid. But in this case his insight was on target. Russian and Chinese policy is based on Leninism. And this is Leninism at its best.
In a November 1987 Politburo meeting, it has been alleged that Gorbachev made the following statement, consistent with Lenin’s idea. “Comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and democracy,” advised Gorbachev. “These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no serious internal change in the USSR other than for cosmetic purposes. Our aim is to disarm America and let them fall asleep. We want to accomplish three things: 1) the Americans to withdraw conventional forces from Europe; 2 the Americans to withdraw nuclear forces from Europe; and 3) the Americans to stop proceeding with the SDI.”
The Russian and Chinese strategy, based on Lenin’s insight, is working like a charm. It is only natural that those of us who notice this are not supported by the big money and the big names. None of the leading candidates, backed by financial and industrial interests, take our side. In fact, the prevailing propaganda of our shopping mall regime tends to ignore writers like Bill Lee and Peter Pry. The American public, reaping the benefits of the “peace dividend,” wants to believe that Russia can be trusted.
For someone who seeks high office or high book sales, the winning ticket is to avoid all talk of a Russian or Chinese threat. And the corruption here does not merely belong to the careerism and selfishness of our elite. The corruption here belongs to millions of consumers who have traded their citizenship for a good time.
Just as we vote according to our pocketbook, we also think according to our pocketbook. And like Lenin’s deaf-mute blindmen, we prefer to fill our wallets while emptying out the arsenal of democracy.
This, in essence, is the logic of America’s final phase.