Communist China and the "American" Defense Lobby
Posted on: June 05, 2008Written by: UWSA Staff
From: radman5@wolnet.com (Gene Crocker)
To: UWSA@uwsa.com
Subject: [uwsa] We are cutting our own throats!
Communist China and the "American" Defense Lobby
by Gene Crocker, Ph.D.
radman5@wolnet.com
"Our throats are being cut and 'American' defense contractors are supplying the razor..." In this paper, I offer evidence supporting the view the current US "Engagement" Defense Policy is in essence a sales policy for defense contractors. You will read a brief summary of the policy, memos requesting waivers, additional information regarding the defense scandals, and three tables listing defense contractor political campaign contributions. .
Brief Defense Policy Summary
The defense policy that won the Cold War for the United States was bipartisan and created with the full support of American business.. This policy called "Containment" began under Truman and lasted through Reagan's administration. A "munitions list" was created that listed military equipment and information restricted from international sale. A new defense policy called "Engagement" was advanced by Kissinger while Secretary. of State under Nixon. Engagement was rejected by Reagan because it supported the economy of the Russian Empire. Reagan did allow a limited "Engagement" policy towards Communist China (as did Nixon and Carter) that was designed to break the Russian - Chinese axis. This was the United States Defense Policy that won the Cold War.
At the end of that War, the policy of full engagement towards China and now Viet Nam was pursued vigorously by Kissinger and his disciple/employees Scrowcroft and Eagleburger in Bush's administration. Clinton evidently decided in the first days of his Presidency that "Engagement" was the road to large amounts of political money via contributions from American businesses that wanted trade with China. He did his "flipflop" and enlarged this policy by continuously expanding "Engagement" whenever the campaign contributions were large enough. The current US National Security Policy is not "appeasement" as some political analysts claim. It is far more dangerous. The "Engagement" policy legally and financially supports, promotes and aids business partnerships between "American" corporations and the totalitarian government of Communist/Neo-fascist China..The global players in the "American" defense establishment were amongst the first that took the lead in establishing this partnership. The point I make in this paper is simple. Our throats are being cut and "American" defense contractors are supplying the razor, while our elected representatives are holding the bucket.
The Waivers
"President Bush really is an incurable patsy for these dictators he sets out to coddle." Senator Gore said in a speech in the last days of the 1992 campaign. Six years later, President Clinton has approved 11 satellite exports to China, compared with Bush's nine. "Satellite Policy Rhetoric Depends On Party In White House" by John Diamond, AP, 6/1/98 - 1 -
Do you remember the term "Reinventing Government" that Clinton and Gore used in 1992. This catch phrase is more than empty political jargon. It became one of Clinton's first Presidential Edicts. Although it appeared innocuous, it is the most dangerous alteration in government that our republic has ever suffered. "Reinventing Government".has changed our national defense posture from one of relative safety into a policy of enormous risk.- 2 -. Loral wanted waivers. Loral make large political contributions. Loral got waivers.
"We are told that the request for a waiver to permit Loral to use the China Long March rocket for a satellite launch is in the West Wing, perhaps on the President's desk. If a decision is not forthcoming in the next day or so, we stand to lose the contract. In fact, even if the decision is favorable, we will lose substantial amounts of money with each passing day. Bernard Schwartz had intended to raise this issue with you at the Blair dinner, but missed you in the crowd. In any event, we would greatly appreciate your help in getting a prompt decision for us." This excerpt on waivers is from a memo written by Thomas B. Ross, Loral VP of Government Relations to his "good friend" Samuel R. Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser. - 3 -
Hughes wanted waivers. Hughes made big political contributions. Hughes got waivers.
"You ask me to support your economic package I did. .... You asked me to support NAFTA more strongly in California. I did, .... I am respectfully requesting your involvement to resolve the China sanctions." Excerpt from 1993 letter by C. Michael Armstrong, CEO of Hughes Electronics Corp to President William Clinton requesting the approval of satellite launches in Communist China. - 4 -
In a letter to Congress, on April 11, 1997, the Aerospace Industries Association of America stated that "The ultimate goal should be a stable U.S.- China commercial framework built on: (1) China's accession to the WTO under a commercially viable protocol that expands market access for US goods, services, and farm products, (2) "permanent MFN," and (3) TERMINATING COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE UNILATERAL COMMERCIAL SANCTIONS. (My caps) - 5 -.
In my research, I have found no evidence that Clinton rejected any waiver requested by "American" defense contractors to do business with Laogai China.
The Defense Scandal
Before we proceed, I urge you to read four articles discussing the national defense scandal. These articles are worth your time, easy to read and will give you a good background in sanctions, waivers, and political corruption. The first article is "How China Won Rights to Launch Satellites for U.S." from the New York Times and written by Jeff Gerth and David E. Sanger, 5/17/98. The url is http://www.dallas.net/~jvpoll/politics/china/ny980516.html
The second article is by Ken Timmerman entitled "Loral Exams" parts 1 and 2, in The American Spectator at http://www.amspec.org:80/archives/98-07_timmerman.html For a bigger picture of the China mess, read Timmerman's other articles in the TAS archives.
The third article is "Sale of Aircraft Machinery to China Shows Perils of Exporting Technology", By John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writer, Sunday, June 7, 1998; Page A08 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/campfin/stories/mcdonnell060798.htm
And the fourth article is "Treasonous Tradeoff" by William Norman Grigg, published as the cover story of The New American, 7/5/98, Vol 14, http://www.jbs.org/tna/1998/vo14no14.htm
Now that you have read these articles, please bear in mind that you have only touched the surface of this iceberg. Consider that the waivers for supercomputers, radiation resistance computer chips, submarine technology, geo-satellite positioners and all the other waivers, deletions and changes made by Clinton in the "US Munitions List" have been made for just two purposes: The first is to enable "American" defense contractors to sell restricted and secret military equipment or information to Communist China and the second is to allow the Communist Chinese Army (PLA) to legally buy restricted hi-tech US military material..
Add to the above the following Clinton administration expedited, financed and or assisted activities (with Congressional approval) in conjunction with the Communist Chinese Military:
- Chinese Navy takeover of Long Beach Naval Base in California
- Chinese Navy takeover of the Panama Canal and its associated forts, naval bases and air fields.
- Chinese Government Corporations building a $60 million dollar air transhipment center (Da Zhong Hua) at Victorville, California adjacent to the Southern California International Airport
- Billions of dollars in loans or loan guarantees made by the Clinton Administration for Chinese Army and Navy projects (ship building, power projects, etc.).
- Etc. Etc.
The Campaign Bribes
The above describes the mess we are in. To understand why this disastrous dilemma, you have to understand what our elected officials want - they want to be re-elected. To be re-elected, most of them have to raise and spend large amounts of campaign money, from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for each house campaign, millions to 10's of millions for the senate and 50 million up for the Presidency. If you wonder why most of our elected officials represent large corporations and not you the voter, that answer is easy ~ you don't give campaign contributions..
Global corporations do give campaign contributions and they give staggering amounts. These corporations are not political ideologues, nor are they being charitable. They view themselves as international and will buy whomever helps their bottom line. Corporate campaign contributions are financial investments in US Representatives, Senators, Presidents and political parties that pay big dividends.. Their investments buy votes, get waivers, removes sanctions, make tax (break) laws, get R&D money, make trade policy and now, determine our National Security Policy. Have our elected officials sold this country for legal campaign bribes? (The 1998 MFN trade status for China passed in the House with just 166 dissenting votes. Viet Nam just got the same trade deal. More and more evidence on the internet supports this argument. Elected officials and corporations may focus on the bottom line, but for me their actions are similar to General Benedicke Arnold's when he sought advancement and higher income..
The U.S. China Business Council seeks advancement and higher income for its 300 members. They do it primarily by legal bribery. It is the leading Political Action Committee that promotes business with Communist/Laogai China. Their 20 top campaign contributors distributed $26.1 million dollars to federal candidates and parties in the 1996 election cycle. Five of those top 20 contributors were defense contractors. Bear in mind, that global corporations contribute political money through different PACs and Lobby organizations. The U.S. China Business Council is just one PAC. It is not unusual for a corporation to use 5 or 10 or more different PACs and lobby organizations to obtain it's objectives.. The following table gives the contributions of the 5 US defense contractors listed among the top 20 contributors of the U.S. China Business Council.- 6 -.
Top 20 U.S.-China Business Council PAC & Soft Money Campaign Contributors,1996 Cycle*
| Rank | Company | Total | Dems | Repubsk |
| 6 | Lockheed Martin | $1,373,335 | $488,950 | $884,385 |
| 8 | General Motors | $1,162,358 | $274,825 | $887,000 |
| 11 | Textron Inc | $943,800 | $382,200 | $561,600 |
| 15 | Northrop Grumman | $883,525 | $308,750 | $574,775 |
| 19 | Boeing Co | $802,055 | $238,200 | $563,855 |
Now look at the following Tables 2 & 3 showing the funds used in legalized bribery by defense contractors. I have compiled the amounts listed in those tables from the data presented by Center for Responsive Politics. The amounts listed are by no means inclusive nor complete. Here is an example. The US Chamber of Commerce spent $7,000,000 lobbying from Jan. 1997 to June 30, 1997 listed the lobbying category as defense. But the main issue that the Chamber of Commerce has been lobbying is to obtain permanent MFN trade status for Communist China. To gain a better understanding of the lobbying effort listed as defense go to CRP's Registered Federal Lobbyist Database at http://www.crp.org/lobby/ and select defense as the area of interest. Run the query and prepare for an education.
Table 2 shows Defense Contractors who reported spending $1 million or more on federal lobbying in the six months between Jan. 1 and June 30, 1997. It does not include direct contributions to federal office holders or to political parties made individually by CEOs or other corporate executives. (Schwarz and other Loral executives made over $1,000,000 in direct contributions in the 1995 to 1996 cycle).
| Allied Signal Inc | $1,660,000 |
| Boeing Co | $2,900,000 |
| FMC Corp | $1,455,000 |
| General Dynamics | $1,411,904 |
| General Motors | $5,200,000 |
| Hughes Electronics | $1,345,000 |
| Lockheed Martin | $1,900,000 |
| McDonnell Douglas | $1,600,000 |
| Motorola Inc | $3,008,800 |
| Northrop Grumman | $3,594,197 |
| Raytheon | $1,321.000 |
| SAIC | $1,200,000 |
| United Technologies | $4,160,000 |
Table 3 shows the Defense Contractors PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates, from Jan. 1997- June 30,1998.. It does not include direct contributions to federal office holders or to political parties made individually by CEOs or other corporate executives. - 7 -
Table 3: PAC Contributions to Federal Candidates, Jan. 1997- June 30,1998.
| PAC Name | Total | Dems | Repubs |
| Allied Signal Inc | $112,000 | $47,000 | $65,000 |
| Boeing Co | $424,000 | $155,900 | $268,100 |
| General Dynamics | $262,800 | $113,450 | $149,350 |
| General Motors | $177,040 | $49,250 | $127,790 |
| Hughes Electronics | $131,000 | $52,000 | $79,000 |
| Lockheed Martin | $720,965 | $248,250 | $472,715 |
| McDonnell Douglas | $193,250 | $69,250 | $124,000 |
| Northrop Grumman | $352,925 | $125,700 | $227,225 |
| Raytheon Co | $254,987 | $90,673 | $164,369 |
| SAIC | $120,250 | $36,250 | $84,000 |
| Textron Inc | $161,550 | $51,250 | $110,300 |
| Tracor Inc | $213,900 | $70,950 | $142,950 |
| TRW Inc | $133,119 | $43,833 | $89,286 |
| United Technologies | $201,100 | $77,500 | $123,600 |
When I was a boy during World War II, I was very proud of our defense industry. I remember the manufacturing records set by GM and Lockheed producing tanks and planes. The American defense industry was magnificent. Today, the defense industry is neither magnificent nor American. Defense corporations have become global arms merchants with corporate leadership focused on short term profit motivation. During the current Senate hearings on the satellite scandal, Vincent Cannistraro, the former director of counter-terrorism at the Central Intelligence Agency stated " These companies were enticed by the carrot of the huge Chinese market." - 8 -
The death of love ones and friends is the price we paid to defend this country. We bought war bonds and taxed ourselves mercilessly to buy our sons and daughters the tools needed to defend our nation. In the past, the American defense industry was always there for this country. Today, there is no "American" defense industry. The only pledge of allegiance corporate leaders of the global arms industry make is to their bottom line. The price we pay for defense of our country is not found in the US Budget. The true price we are paying to the defense industry is the national insecurity of the United States of America. God Bless
Dr Crocker is a medically retired physicist who worked for the University of California and later as an international consultant in applied medical radiation. Trained in scientific investigation, he spends his retirement doing internet research and writing.
Notes:
1. Bush gave his waivers in the last days of his administration. One of Clinton's first acts was to
renew those waivers. For part of that story see:
http://cjonline.com/stories/060198/gov_satellites.shtml
In 1991, sanctions were imposed by the Bush Administration against China Great Wall Industry Corp. and China Precision Machinery Import Export Corp because those corporations were selling missiles to Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran. The PLA of Laogai China raises money to modernize and maintain itself through owning or controlling companies. A PLA controlled company, China Great Wall Industry Corp is the sole manufacturer of tactical and strategic missiles for the Peoples Liberation Army within China. China Precision Machinery Import Export Corp is one of the many fronts that the PLA uses to sell its weapons and to import hi-tech military technology.
In April of 1992, the Federal Register published a notice that Arms Control Sanctions had been lifted or "waived" against two Companies of Laogai China, namely China Great Wall Industry Corporation and China Precision Machinery Import Export Corporation. Waivers against Sanctions can only be given by the President of the United States. China Great Wall Industry Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of China Aerospace Corporation. Both of these companies are represented in the United States by the multibillion dollar (4th largest) lobby firm of Preston Gates & Ellis LLP.
>From the Federal Register, Sanctions are waived against China Great Wall Industry Corp. and China Precision Machinery Import Export Corp. Go to number 6. Waiver of Missile Technology Proliferation Sanctions on Foreign Persons (57 FR 11768 on April 7, 1992) http://www.t-b.com/92state.htm
On Preston Gates & Ellis LLP web site, the firm describes what it does in Washington and in state capitols. "The firm's Federal/Regulatory/Legislative practice integrates substantive legal analysis with a sophisticated understanding of the legislative and administrative policy process in developing strategy and coordinating tactics for effective advocacy. The firm is skilled in direct lobbying, monitoring legislative activities, drafting legislation, representing clients in Congressional and Executive branch investigations, and organizing grassroots and constituent support." http://www.prestongates.com/pge/newsofnote/nfarticles.htm 2. Reinventing Government: This phrase was found on a list of waivers and removal of sanctions from the United States Munitions List http://jya.com/itar112996.txt 3. Excerpt from a memo by Thomas B. Ross, Vice President of Government Relations at Loral Space and Communications to his "good friend" Samuel R. Berger, President Clinton's national security adviser. Posted at http://www.village2000.com/freesusan/messages/1918.html 4. Excerpt from 1993 letter of C. Michael Armstrong, (then) CEO of Hughes Electronics Corp to President William Clinton requesting the approval of satellite launches in Communist China. >From the article "Memo details China sanctions case", reported in Florida Today Space Online, 6/21/98. http://www.flatoday.com/space/explore/stories/1998/062198h.htm 5. The letter from the Aerospace Industries Association of America and a list of corporate associations that are lobbying for Communist China can be found at http://www.access.digex.net/~aia/coalition.html 6. The United States-China Business Council is the principal organization of US companies engaged in trade and investment in the People's Republic of China. Founded in 1973, the Council serves more than 300 corporate members through offices in Washington, DC, Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong. http://www.uschina.org/ 7. The 3 tables have been drawn from data available on The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) website. The Center "is a non-partisan, non-profit research group based in Washington, D.C. that specializes in the study of Congress and particularly the role that money plays in its elections and actions. The Center conducts computer-based research on campaign finance issues for the news media, academics, activists, and other interested observers of Congress. The Center's work is aimed at creating a more involved citizenry and a more responsive Congress." To which I add, we can all be thankful for the CRP. http://www.crp.org 8. Article concerning the Senate Investigation of the Satellite Scandal in USA Today http://www.usatoday.com//life/cyber/tech/ctc808.htm
More Notes:
Hughes Telecommunication and Space Co and the China Great Wall Industry Corp. (China's State-owned satellite launcher) have agreed to send several US-made satellites into orbit. The cooperation agreement, signed this weekend, has Hughes buying at least five launches on Long March rockets. The agreement comes after several setbacks in the Chinese satellite industry. Recent successful launches using the Long March rockets boosted confidence in the Chinese rockets. Hughes was the first foreign user of Long March rockets, (the relationship with the PLA dates back to 1980) and now, more satellite manufacturers are considering working with Great Wall Industrial. (Source: China Daily, June 23, 1997) http://www.redfish.com/usembassy-china/fcs/briefs/br97-06-23.htm#ccb.1
For the "Official Chinese" Description of the China Great Wall Industry Corp go to China Great Wall Industry Corporation, by Geng kun, http://www.space.cetin.net.cn/docs/HTM-E/019.HTM
Globalstar, another of Bernard Schwartz's corporations is in full partnership with China Great Wall Industry
The United States-China Education Foundation (USCEF) was founded in 1996 by The American International Group, The Boeing Company, General Electric Company, General Motors Corporation, IBM Corporation and Motorola. It is a principle source of propaganda concerning the partnership of American corporations and the totalitarian regime of Communist China. Search their web site and look for "Success Stories" http://www.uschinatrade.org/
After owning Hughes Electronics for 14 years, GM sold Hughes to Raytheon in 1997.
If you don't know about China's inhumane atrocities, visit Dr. Wu's Laogai Institute at http://www.laogai.org
United Technologies spent over $10,000,000 in 1996 on lobbying for trade with Communist China. Check it at the CRP website.
No copyright. Please distribute.
