Americans who are fascinated with spy and mystery
fiction should get the Cox Report for their summer reading.
It's a fascinating whodunit. Even though the Clinton
Administration censored out a third of the text, it's still an
The Cox Report officially establishes the nexus among
Chinese espionage, trade with China, and illegal Chinese
campaign donations. They are all cut from the same cloth,
and the Cox Report stitches the pieces together.
That Communist China engaged in massive espionage
to acquire U.S. military secrets, which can some day be
used to threaten us and our allies, comes as no surprise.
What is sensational about the Cox Report is the scope of
China's success, and that it was achieved with the assistance of lax security, commercial transactions that concealed the transfer of military technology, and illegal
campaign contributions to elect Bill Clinton and the
Democrats in 1996.
The People's Republic of China (PRC) has "stolen
classified information" on all seven of the United States'
most advanced thermonuclear warheads, plus classified
design information on our never-tested neutron bomb. The
first of China's mobile ICBMs, the DF-31, "may be tested
in 1999 and could be deployed as soon as 2002."
The nuclear secrets stolen by Communist China are not
inconsequential; they give the PRC "design information on
thermonuclear weapons on a par with our own." The Cox
Committee states that the PRC will surely "exploit this
design information in its next generation of weapons."
The hallmarks of the PRC's espionage strategy are the
blurred lines between military and commercial technology.
The Central Military Commission adopted Deng
Xiaoping's "16-Character Policy," his command to combine the military and civil, combine peace and war, give
priority to military products, and let the civil support the
The Cox Report unravels the many ingenious Chinese
techniques used to acquire U.S. military technologies. The
Chinese constantly pressure U.S. corporations to transfer
technology in joint ventures, and they extensively exploit
dual-use products and services for military advantages.
Nepotism is the name of the game in China's socio-political structure. The elite of the post-Deng ruling clique
are the "princelings," the sons and daughters of Party
officials who are credentialed with exalted business,
military and political titles. Their status, as well as the cash
bulging in their pockets, gave them extraordinary access to
the Clinton White House. Among these specially anointed
emissaries from China were Wang Jung, son of the late
PRC President, and Liu Chaoying, daughter of the former
most powerful PRC military boss.
Wang, who attended one of the notorious Clinton
coffees in the White House, was connected to $600,000 in
illegal campaign contributions made by Charlie Trie to the
Democratic National Committee, and also to the 1996
Chinese attempt to smuggle AK-47 assault rifles to Los
Angeles street gangs.
Liu, who was ostentatiously garbed with the titles
Colonel in the People's Liberation Army as well as Vice
President of a major missile and space corporation, attended a Clinton fundraiser in California. She gave
$300,000 to Johnny Chung to use for Clinton's reelection
in order "to better position her in the United States to
acquire computer, missile, and satellite technologies."
Hughes Space and Communications, after the explosion
of two of its communications satellites launched by China,
gave China valuable information to make its rockets "more
reliable." This information, which was directly applicable
to China's military rockets and satellites, was not licensed
by the United States for export.
Loral Space and Communications, as a result of the
1996 crash of a rocket carrying its communications
satellite, performed "an unlicensed defense service for the
PRC that resulted in the improvement of the reliability of
the PRC's military rockets and ballistic missiles." This
information about Western diagnostic processes facilitates
improvements in reliability for all PRC missile and rocket
The Defense Department concluded that "Loral and
Hughes committed a serious export control violation by
virtue of having performed a defense service without a
license." The State Department referred the matter to the
Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution.
Don't hold your breath until Janet Reno indicts. Loral's
CEO was the largest Democratic contributor of legal
We are kidding ourselves if we think that these are the
acts of a friendly trading partner whose rough edges can be
smoothed over by admission into the World Trade Organization (which means automatic status as what used to be
called Most Favored Nation). Like all Communist countries, "the Party controls the gun"; i.e., the Communist
Party is supreme over all government, military and civilian
entities, including the army, navy, air force, espionage
operations, government bureaucracies, commercial enterprises, and foreign trade.
Clinton's War Is a Tragic Failure
The media and the Washington establishment have
been touting Clinton's "victory" in the Balkans and the
"success" of his bombing. But no amount of "spin" can
prove such delusional notions. The deal that ended the 80
days and nights of bombing was no better, and possibly
worse, than we could have had before the bombing started.
Yugoslavia has been bombed back into the 19th
century. Clinton and NATO have done over $50 billion
worth of damage to Yugoslavia without achieving any
strategic or humanitarian objective. Of course, we all know
that the U.S. taxpayers will eventually be called upon to
rebuild the Danube River bridges, the civilian property, and
the water, electric, sanitation and communications infrastructure that the bombing destroyed.
Clinton has bombed six sovereign countries during the
past year: Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria
and Albania. None of those countries attacked or threatened us or our allies. For the first time in history, the
United States was the aggressor in war, thus forfeiting our
reputation as a peace-loving nation. For the first time in
history, a President took us into war when we were not
attacked or threatened, and where we have no discernable
Before the bombing started, 2,000 had been killed and
20,000 were refugees. After the bombing, 12,000 had been
killed and the refugees numbered one million. Clinton's
bombing didn't prove that bombing could win the war --
our bombers never engaged in combat; they were just
flying over an undefended country and dropping bombs like
shooting ducks in a pond.
By using anti-population "dumb" bombs for "area
bombing," Clinton abandoned all pretense that his air
strikes were aimed only at military targets. His Administration had to apologize 13 times for what he called
"collateral damage," including the bombing of a refugee
convoy, a bus on a bridge, a marketplace, a hospital, a
playground, a passenger train, and a sleeping refugee
village. On June 27, NATO admitted that the our bombing
did little damage to Milosevic's military -- our bombers
were tricked into hitting "old wrecks," and "a lot of dummy
and deception targets."
Clinton's talk about our "moral" duty to take "humanitarian" action is as phony as his lies about his private
misbehavior. All the people he said he wanted to help are
now far worse off than before his bombing started. The
State Department admits that 90 percent of the refugees
became refugees after the bombing started. In Kosovo, the
terror inflicted by the Serbs has been replaced by the
revenge inflicted on the Serbs by our new "friends," the
heroin-peddling Kosovo Liberation Army.
Clinton defended the bombing as needed to save
NATO's credibility. On the contrary, Clinton's war did
terrible damage to NATO's credibility because it changed
NATO into a bully trying to impose its will on a non-NATO country.
Clinton's bombing fractured our relations with the two
most dangerous nations in the world: Russia and China.
It's not surprising that the Chinese don't believe that the
bombing of their embassy in Belgrade was a mistake. They
think that blaming it on a two-year old map doesn't ring
true and, besides, nobody has been fired or punished.
So why did Clinton do it? Did he start the bombing of
Yugoslavia, and keep it going for 80 days despite several
good opportunities to end it (such as Jesse Jackson's
successful mission to bring home our POWs), in order to
distract attention from the transfers of U.S. missile technology to Communist China and the Clinton Administration's
coverup? Was it mere coincidence that Clinton started
bombing Yugoslavia just as the bad publicity started
coming out about the Chinese espionage at Los Alamos,
and that he kept the bombs falling as the news, day after
day, re-confirmed that it happened on Clinton's watch?
Or, was it because he wanted the drama of war to define
his legacy, rather than impeachment and Monicagate?
After all, Clinton complained at the White House Correspondents dinner that he ranked only 53rd on the Newseum
list of the top news stories, asking, "What do I have to do to
make the top 50?" The answer is, start a war.
Clinton bombed a remote camp in Afghanistan and an
aspirin factory in the Sudan just three days after his non-apology about the Monica scandal was such a public
relations flop. He bombed Iraq the day before the House
was scheduled to begin impeachment proceedings.
Or, was Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia a ruse to get
Americans accustomed to an interventionist policy under
which our armed forces will, again and again, be called
upon to play global cops and global social workers for the
rest of the world? Was it a fulfillment of Clinton's promise
(in his speech to the United Nations on September 22,
1997) to take us into a global "web" for "the emerging
international system" in "this new global era"?
The media spinmeisters have been trying to put Republican Members of Congress on the griddle because they
were critical of Clinton's war and refused to support it.
History will show that they were absolutely right to vote
against Clinton's military actions in Yugoslavia.
By large majorities, Republican Members of Congress
went on record against Clinton's war: 93% voted to
require Congressional approval before ground troops were
sent in, 86% voted against the bombing, 80% voted against
sending peacekeeping troops, 58% voted to withdraw U.S.
forces after the bombing started, and 64% voted to forbid
the use of defense appropriations for Yugoslavia without
specific Congressional approval.
Jack Kemp said it exactly right in an editorial entitled
"A Web of Deceit" (Washington Times, June 27, 1999). He called
Clinton's war "a debacle, an international Waco, which no
amount of spinning by NATO and the media can erase."
Kemp called the war "unnecessary, illegal and unconstitutional from the beginning. It failed on every score to achieve the goals articulated to justify it, exacerbated the very
problems it sought to remedy and created new problems that
will plague America and the Balkans for years to come."
Kemp pointed out that "the bombing and the killing and
destruction it wreaked in Yugoslavia were absolutelyunnecessary to achieving the final terms of the current
agreement." Clinton could have gotten the same or even a
better deal at Rambouillet if he had wanted to, but he flung
an ultimatum on Milosevic that no sovereign country could
accept, namely, that he accept NATO troops occupying
Belgrade and independence for Kosovo in three years.
After 80 days of bombing, Milosevic withdrew from
Kosovo, but only after NATO abandoned those demands.
What Clinton did to Yugoslavia was bad enough, but
what he did to the United States Constitution was even
worse. He stole from Congress its constitutional power to
decide when and if America goes to war. He stole from the
Senate its treaty-ratification power by agreeing -- without
Senate approval -- to change the mission prescribed in the
NATO treaty from defensive to offensive.
Jack Kemp correctly labelled Clinton's foreign policy
"this fog of lies, this culture of deceit." How much more
damage will Clinton do before the 2000 elections bring the
warmongering politicians back to reality?
We are approaching the fateful moment when the clock
will strike noon on December 31, 1999, and America pulls
out of the Panama Canal Zone forever, turning over to the
Panamanians $32 billion worth of bases and equipment
paid for by the American taxpayers. All the arguments
advanced 20 years ago by the treaty giveaway advocates
have proven false, and all the dire predictions of those who
voted No have come true.
Now we find that, as the United States is pulling out,
Communist China is moving in. China has negotiated long
leases to occupy strategic ports at both ends of the Panama
Canal: Cristobal Port on the Atlantic and Balboa Port on
It was a terrible mistake for President Jimmy Carter and
the U.S. Senate to give away our Panama Canal in 1978,
and the majority of the American people knew it was
wrong. America had paid for this most expensive piece of
real estate four times: we paid Panama for sovereignty "in
perpetuity," we bought the Zone again from Columbia, we
paid the French Canal Company for its assets, and we
bought the deeds from the private property owners, and
then we built the Canal with our ingenuity and investment.
The giveaway of our Canal was the most significant
action of the Jimmy Carter Presidency. Why would any
Senator help him to reach a two-thirds majority in the
Senate to consummate the deal with the drug-smuggling
Communist Omar Torrijos, the dictator of a little country
that usually changed its rulers through violence? Torrijos
was just as bad a Communist drug-smuggling dictator as
Noriega, whom President George Bush prosecuted and sent
The big majority of the American people were stoutly
opposed to giving away our Canal. In order to ram the
treaty through the U.S. Senate, the giveaway advocates
added the "DeConcini reservation," which purported to
recognize the right of the United States to use military
force, with or without Panama's consent, to keep the Canal
open. The DeConcini reservation enabled the treaty to pass
the Senate by one vote.
But Torrijos refused to recognize this U.S. right. The
Carter Administration perpetrated a monstrous deception by
making a deal (kept secret from the Senate and the American people at the time) by which Panama and the United
States signed different versions of the treaty, Such a treaty
should be recognized as invalid by any reasonable standard.
Cui bono? Who profited from the giveaway of our
Canal? The ten largest U.S. banks had outstanding claims
in Panama of almost $3 billion, and the only way they could
call their loans was if the bankrupt Torrijos were given the
tolls from the Canal. Incidentally, they were some of the
same New York banking interests that, during the Clinton
Administration, finagled the scandalous bailouts of corrupt
foreign dictators and the International Monetary Fund,
again imposing the costs on the U.S. taxpayers.
Within two years after the U.S. Senate ratified the
Panama treaty in 1978, angry voters defeated two dozen
Senators who voted for the treaty and induced eight more
to retire. In 1980, the Panama Canal issue helped Ronald
Reagan to be elected President in 1980 and Republicans to
win their surprise majority in the U.S. Senate.
The fateful hour will strike at noon on December 31 of
this year. That's when the giveaway of our Canal will be
final. Won't somebody stop this tragedy before it's too