The Job is Not Finished Until the Red Chinese are out of Long Beac

[Stephanie]

A bit of a read I couldn't post it all here. Kinda scary?



April 3, 2006

By Tom DeWeese


Americans were rightly outraged over the possibility of an Arab nation with ties to terrorists taking control of six major American ports. Protests from across the nation helped to squelch the deal. However, the job’s not finished. The Communist Chinese still control ports at Long Beach.

Congressman Charlie Norwood, (R-GA) made a strong case for getting the Chinese out of the port of Long Beach when he noted that while Dubai has been a reliable partner for America in the War on Terror, Red Chinese officials have threatened invasion of America’s ally on Taiwan and nuclear war against the United States. Says Congressman Norwood, "We have a great deal more to fear from Red China that Dubai."

One thing is perfectly clear. China is no friend of the United States. It has embarked on an aggressive agenda to overtake the United States by undermining the U.S. economy, its manufacturing capabilities and its national defense.

Economist Hans Sennholz reported in 2005, "American capital is rushing into China, building plants and introducing modern technology while some 20,000 young Chinese are studying at American colleges and universities. At the same time … Chinese companies are investing surplus dollars in the United States, assuming control over American corporations…"

Worse, according to a report by Accuracy in Media (AIM), "The U.S. industrial base has become dangerously dependent in imports, and industries that provide materials critical to our national defense have been in serious decline." According to reports by the U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission, China’s trading practices have resulted in the erosion, some say the decimation, of U.S. manufacturing capacity. China, meanwhile, is fast becoming the manufacturing center of the world.

http://www.americanpolicy.org/more/chinese.htm

 

[Mr.Conley]

I like how the author uses, "Communist Chinese," and, "Red Chinese."

I also like all the evidence and links about China smuggling drugs and weapons into the United States.

 

[Mr.Conley]

“HEAVEN help China,” said a front-page headline last December in China Industry News, a normally staid state-owned daily paper. For four months, the newspaper had been running a series of reports into takeovers of Chinese machine manufacturers by foreign companies. If such buy-outs of key firms were allowed to continue unfettered, the newspaper quoted “experts” as saying, China would lose the high-value-added core of industry built up by the “hard struggle of successive generations” since the communist takeover in 1949.

Seldom has China heard such openly expressed misgivings as it has in recent months over the impact of foreign investment and economic reform. Earlier this month, during the annual session of the National People's Congress, China's parliament, the then head of the government's statistics service said that if “malicious” mergers and acquisitions by foreign companies in China continued unchecked, China's brands and its innovative ability would disappear. The All China Federation of Industry and Commerce, a Communist Party-backed lobby group, appealed to the congress for measures to protect “national economic security” by restricting takeovers in China by foreigners.

Such concerns are common enough in any country, but in China the party has generally stifled grievances about economic policy. In the build-up to the country's accession to the World Trade Organisation in 2001, the state-controlled media dutifully stuck to the line that the benefits of joining would outweigh the disadvantages. The media said little as tens of millions of workers lost their jobs in a huge wave of closures and privatisations of state-owned enterprises beginning in the late 1990s. Only in 2004 did debate about this begin to surface after a Hong Kong academic, Larry Lang, made a speech in China attacking the “harrowing losses” resulting from the sale of state-owned companies to their managers.

The debate over foreigners intensified last year, with some papers publishing blunt criticisms of the sale of stakes in Chinese state-owned banks to foreign banks. The deals, critics said, were priced too low, given the huge amount previously invested by the state in recapitalising them because of bad debts. They also worried that the 25% share allowed to be held by foreign companies in each bank would bring the country's vital financial levers perilously close to foreign control.

Some grumbling is hardly surprising in one of the developing world's most open economies. But is it likely to make much difference to further reforms or the opening of the economy to foreign investment? There have been mixed signals. In response to public criticism of asset stripping during management buy-outs of state-owned enterprises, the government last April introduced new restrictions (though not an outright ban) on such sales.

Also, in recent months Chinese leaders have been emphasising the need for “independent innovation” in technology, implying less reliance on foreign know-how. A possible side-effect of this was a ministerial statement this month that China will rely on its own technology in the construction of high-speed rail links between Beijing and Shanghai and between Shanghai and Hangzhou. German, Japanese and French firms have been lobbying for years for involvement in these projects.

But the leadership was also at pains during the recent parliamentary meeting to stress that economic reforms remained on track. “Retreat offers no way out,” said the prime minister. Officials continue to show eagerness to court foreign investment, an engine of economic growth especially in big cities, where stability is vital to the party's grip on power.

Chinese enterprises have long complained bitterly about tax privileges enjoyed by foreign investors, who have to pay income tax at only 15% compared with a 33% rate for domestic firms. But the legislature continues to dither over the drafting of a law that would unify these rates. It worries that setting them at a level close to the foreign tax rate might considerably reduce revenues, but that doing so much above 15% might scare away foreign investment. One theory is that a unified rate of around 25% will be set this year, with the increases for foreign companies to be phased in over five years.

Just as critics of economic policy are having a greater say, supporters are no less vocal. A book published last month, “Great Breakthrough”, argues vigorously in favour of greater private-sector involvement in industries hitherto the preserve of the state, such as telecommunications and energy. Private entrepreneurs, it says, have become increasingly concerned by the anti-reform sentiment aired in the past year. Huangfu Ping, a pseudonymous commentator whose articles in 1992 helped launch a wave of market-oriented reforms, returned to the fray in January with an article in a leading business magazine attacking what he called “a new wave of thought” opposing economic reform.

Among the country's top leaders it is likely that the same logic will prevail as did in the early 1990s when reformists in the party faced a far more serious challenge. At that time the late Deng Xiaoping won the debate by arguing that the party's survival depended on economic growth. This, he reasoned, could only be delivered by opening China wider to foreign investment and breaking the state's grip on the economy. The current leadership has been talking about steering the country away from a blind pursuit of growth and paying more attention to the concerns of the marginalised. But it shows no desire to abandon Deng's formula for success.

http://www.economist.com/World/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=6746521

See they are more afraid of us then we are of them. If anything, these foreign takeovers and mergers bind our two countries closer together, thus preventing Cold War 2.

 

[dilloduck]

A bit of a read I couldn't post it all here. Kinda scary?



April 3, 2006

By Tom DeWeese


Americans were rightly outraged over the possibility of an Arab nation with ties to terrorists taking control of six major American ports. Protests from across the nation helped to squelch the deal. However, the job’s not finished. The Communist Chinese still control ports at Long Beach.

Congressman Charlie Norwood, (R-GA) made a strong case for getting the Chinese out of the port of Long Beach when he noted that while Dubai has been a reliable partner for America in the War on Terror, Red Chinese officials have threatened invasion of America’s ally on Taiwan and nuclear war against the United States. Says Congressman Norwood, "We have a great deal more to fear from Red China that Dubai."

One thing is perfectly clear. China is no friend of the United States. It has embarked on an aggressive agenda to overtake the United States by undermining the U.S. economy, its manufacturing capabilities and its national defense.

Economist Hans Sennholz reported in 2005, "American capital is rushing into China, building plants and introducing modern technology while some 20,000 young Chinese are studying at American colleges and universities. At the same time … Chinese companies are investing surplus dollars in the United States, assuming control over American corporations…"

Worse, according to a report by Accuracy in Media (AIM), "The U.S. industrial base has become dangerously dependent in imports, and industries that provide materials critical to our national defense have been in serious decline." According to reports by the U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission, China’s trading practices have resulted in the erosion, some say the decimation, of U.S. manufacturing capacity. China, meanwhile, is fast becoming the manufacturing center of the world.

http://www.americanpolicy.org/more/chinese.htm

America obvously doesn't really care about foreign ownership of ports--just Arabs. The Shumer/Clinton sky-is-falling-hysteria was just that. History has proven that no one really cares about our ports or foreign governments invading. America--the modern day Tower of Babel.

 

[Adam's Apple]

I like how the author uses, "Communist Chinese," and, "Red Chinese."

I also like all the evidence and links about China smuggling drugs and weapons into the United States.

That annoys your lib "sensibilities", does it? The most up-to-date information I have is that China is a COMMUNIST country and has been since 1949. Do you have any information to the contrary?

Our experiment with China always had a 50% chance that it would not succeed. The article Stephanie posted gives plenty of evidence that China views the U.S. as a paper tiger, an easy prey, and that they are going to use all the help we have given them to "bury" us, using Krushchev's favorite term.

Our experiments to turn Japan and Germany around after WWII worked, and it didn't take 60 years to get the job done. There is very little hard evidence that China plans to cast off its Communist government anytime soon. If it should happen, it will be because the people rise up and revolt. How likely is that to happen? Haven't their lives improved dramatically under their Communist leadership, thanks to the help provided by the West for several decades? If you think our experiment with China is working, perhaps you should study up on what is happening in South America, and, in particular, China's influence in that region of the world.

 

[Mr.Conley]

That annoys your lib "sensibilities", does it? The most up-to-date information I have is that China is a COMMUNIST country and has been since 1949. Do you have any information to the contrary?

Ummm... well, they do have a market based, free enterprise, capitalist economy. Isn't that the polar opposite of communism? One could argue that China is more capitalist then we are. China is now non-Communist in all but name. I think the better description now would be authoritarian.

[quote-Adam's Apple]
Our experiments to turn Japan and Germany around after WWII worked, and it didn't take 60 years to get the job done. There is very little hard evidence that China plans to cast off its Communist government anytime soon. If it should happen, it will be because the people rise up and revolt. How likely is that to happen? [/quote]

ON THE NIGHT OF DECEMBER 6, 2005, Radio Free Asia (RFA) received a frantic call for help from a resident of Dongzhou village, near the port city of Shanwei, in the prosperous southern Chinese province of Guangdong. The caller told RFA that hundreds of paramilitary police had moved into the area and were firing at thousands of villagers. The villagers had been protesting what they claimed was inadequate compensation for land that local officials had expropriated, and upon which a power plant was being constructed. As the caller screamed into his cell phone, "They are using real bullets on us!" shots could be heard in the background. The incident is referred to by some as "mini-Tiananmen."

According to official Chinese government reports, only three people died in this incident. The government further claims that the protesters initiated the violence with homemade explosives. Eyewitnesses, however, have a different story. They tell RFA that more than a dozen villagers were killed by paramilitary police attempting to quell the disturbance and that the violent reaction of the armed police was out of all proportion to the threat posed by the demonstrators.

In the midst of an economic expansion that is the envy of the world, there is one particular growth industry in China over which the country's stability-obsessed leaders are greatly distressed: the protest industry, especially the rapidly increasing incidence of large-scale protests. A few instances from the last 15 months:

On October 18, 2004, in the southwestern province of Sichuan, a government official's altercation with
a street vendor sparked a night of violent clashes between police and an angry crowd that, according to eyewitnesses interviewed by Radio Free Asia, numbered in the thousands. Paramilitary units were eventually sent in to restore order.

* Also in Sichuan province, on November 3, 2004, authorities dispatched paramilitary troops to quell a protest that lasted several days and involved more than 10,000 peasants, angry over what they viewed as inadequate compensation by the government for land to be used for a hydroelectric project.

* In August 2005, in the eastern province of Zhejiang, more than 1,000 paramilitary troops moved in on thousands of protesting villagers who had demanded the closure of a polluting battery factory that they said was responsible for the high level of lead content in their children's blood.
Continued at
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/616ckhar.asp

Wow, 74,000 incidents in the last year!! Surely something is happening.

 

[manu1959]

See they are more afraid of us then we are of them. If anything, these foreign takeovers and mergers bind our two countries closer together, thus preventing Cold War 2.

cold war II is in progress and has been for some time....weapon of choice this time is economic tactical nuke.....china watched us spend Russia into dissolution.....they will now undercut our labor force and let us spend our way into debt as the "worlds" police force.....