Sex drowns out Russian-Sino slither

Americans sat transfixed by the seamy Condit-Levy affair while an ominous hissing went unnoticed. Tacked on to the final 30 seconds of the "most telling two minutes in television" Brit Hume of Fox News delivered this item Monday night:

"The leaders of Russia and China have signed a so-called 'friendship treaty' aimed at increasing their global influence. … And the two leaders issued statements saying they hoped for a new international order that would be led by the United Nations, rather than the United States."

What was that? A new international order led by the United Nations? The Russians and the Chinese, our acknowledged enemies just 12 years ago, are now engineering a post-Cold-War world with the United Nations as the planetary parliament. They mean the United Nations that this week is negotiating an international ban on guns. That's the same United Nations that softly threatened president Bush this week against withdrawing the signature of Bill Clinton from the Rome Statute that will institute an International Criminal Court. Yes, indeed, the same United Nations that ejected the USA from the Human Rights Commission – while leaving the warm derrieres of the Russian and Chinese firmly in their seats. Is anybody listening?

American Simpsons, dulled by titillation TV, tune out the scant international reporting that does manage to make it past media elites, many of whom have followed self-styled "internationalists" Walter Cronkite and Ted Turner into "world citizenship." While the D.C. police were poking around in park bushes for a cold trail, with seemingly every reporter in the nation dogging their hunt, The Russians and the Chinese planned the demise of the American "hegemony." They didn't even worry that they might spook the masses. The typical procryptic language was abandoned – Jiang Zemin bluntly called for a "new international world order."

TRENDING: Montana lawmaker follows Trump's lead, moves to designate Antifa as domestic terror group

Alas, their brazen chat about the future of the world was covered up on this side of the globe. The mainstream media downplayed the pact. They certainly did not report the call to end any "hegemony" that threatened the proposed "new international world order" led by the U.N. Perhaps the U.S. press dismissed this as the usual ho-hum rhetoric. In fact, it has become the drumbeat of China's Jiang Zemin.

While America's pilots and crew were "guests" of China when their EP-3 surveillance plane was forced down in April, Jiang Zemin was touring South America where he repeatedly told our neighbors in Argentina and Venezuela that a "just and rational international new political order" must be established. This barely veiled language means "We plan to overthrow the American economic and military dominance – we reject the unipolar power structure of the post-Cold-War world."

Last July in Turkmenistan, President Zemin said, "With the advent of the new century, what kind of a new international order should we establish. ..." In September 2000, at the United Nations Millennium Summit, Jiang insisted that all nations "rich or poor, great or small" have "an equal voice" in world affairs and the only institution where that is possible is the United Nations. He demanded that a "new world political and economic order" be established.

His comments were echoed across town at the State of the World Forum convened by Mikhail Gorbachev. The meeting was held in support of the U.N.'s Millennium Summit. Gorbachev called for a world "economic security council" with the power and autonomy equal to that of the U.N. Security Council.

It has been 32 years since New York Times editor, Harrison Salisbury wrote "The Coming War between Russia and China." The intervening years witnessed tension between the nations, making the predictions in the Salisbury book seem remote. However, this new "friendship treaty" serves as public notice that the two mammoth nations have recognized that their power is as a team. Salisbury predicted that any thaw in Russian-Chinese relations would be a nightmare for U.S. foreign policy. "It would confront the U.S. with the most critical foreign policy crisis of the century – the prospect of facing 1,000 to 1,200 million Chinese and Russians armed with nuclear weapons ... striding the Eurasian supercontinent like a colossus."

President Bush's desire to proceed with a defensive missile shield is one protection against such a "colossus." Does anyone expect England or France or even India to launch a missile at the U.S.? Who stands to gain the most from a weakened U.S. defensive posture?

The current issue of Insight magazine features an interview with Ambassador Henry Cooper, Reagan's negotiator with the Soviet Union on SDI and director of the Strategic Defense
Initiative Organization during the George H.W. Bush administration. He said, "We have no defense against even a single ballistic missile, and there are at least 20 countries working on ballistic missiles. … Russia and China have long had long-range missiles."

Despite Western cuddling, Boris Yeltsin signed a similar treaty with the Chinese in 1996. It states that the two nations agree "to develop a strategic partnership of equality, mutual confidence and mutual coordination towards the 21st century."

The Putin-Zemin pact must be understood in light of the mutual needs of each government. Although China scooped up billions of dollars worth of Russian planes and missiles throughout the '90s, China's nuclear stash is dwarfed by Russia's stockpile of 6,000 nuclear warheads. Both nations have warned the world that the proposed U.S. missile shield will ignite a new arms race. Cash-poor but oil-rich, Russia is eager to provide China's burgeoning economy with 160 million barrels of Russian crude that will be piped through the planned 1,054-mile pipeline. It will take two years to build.

On Wednesday Vladimir Putin held a press conference at the Kremlin. He denied that the new treaty with China was an "alliance" against the United States. But the Russian-Chinese accord states "Implementing the (U.S.) National Missile Defense will engender the most serious negative results on the national security of China, Russia and other countries, as well as on the security of the United States and the global strategic stability." This clear statement reveals Russian and Chinese fears that the U.S. will then have a "unilateral military and security edge." Putin's press conference denial of the anti-U.S. nature of the Sino-Russian pact and his insistence on "normal relations" with President Bush is diplomatic window dressing for the G-8 meeting this weekend.

As the gun control conference closes at the U.N. this week, one of the main points of contention is the proposal to sell weapons only to governments. The U.S. objects, citing the need to equip freedom fighters under repressive regimes. Policy experts say America would provide defensive weaponry to Taiwan in the event of an invasion of the island.

China has blocked Taiwan's entry into the U.N. and among the provisions of the new Sino-Russian treaty is an agreement that Taiwan belongs to China. ("The Russian Federation does not support the concept of the 'independence of Taiwan' in whatever form. … Russia is against the admission of Taiwan to the UN and other international organizations of which only sovereign states are members.") Both Russia and China sit on the U.N. Security Council and on the U.N. Human Rights Commission. The U.S. supports Taiwanese independence. It is no stretch to see that the Chinese have secured Russian compliance for a future invasion of Taiwan – what remains is for China to test the strength of America's resolve to defend Taiwan.

Last July, the newly installed Vladimir Putin was in China for the signing of a pre-treaty accord. Among the formal statements of cooperation was this statement:

Russia and China as permanent members of the UN Security Council must exert joint efforts to maintain the leading role of the UN and its Security Council in international affairs, above all, on the issues of the maintenance of peace and security, thus contributing to the movement of the world toward multi-polarity.

Make no mistake: The term "multi-polarity" means the U.N. as the hub of a world government – one dominated by Russia and China. They have already maneuvered the relative positions of power at the United Nations. Their boast to initiate a "new international world order" led by the U.N. is not just hissing in the wind.

Related offer:

"The China Threat," Bill Gertz's book about how People's Republic targets America, is available in WorldNetDaily's online store.

Mary Jo Anderson is a contributing reporter to WorldNetDaily.