China conspiracies

Why are hearing so much about China these days? Over the last couple of weeks it seems that the Bush Administration has been ratcheting up the rhetoric on long-simmering conflicts with China over trade and security matters. First, on May 18 the New York Times reported

“The Bush administration warned China on Tuesday that its currency policies were distorting world trade, and it brandished the threat of retaliation against the country's exports if Chinese leaders did not change course in the next year.

In language far harsher than it has used before, the Treasury Department declared that China's fixed exchange rate between its currency, the yuan, and the dollar posed a risk to its economy and the economies of much of the rest of the world.”

Then in the June 3 edition we read:

“Secretary of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez warned on Thursday that without solid enforcement of patent and trademark rights in China, trade tensions with the United States would increase... At the start of a three-day visit to Beijing, Mr. Gutierrez took a tough line on protection of intellectual property. In a speech to American and Chinese businesspeople, he said the time for negotiations on China's lax enforcement of copyrights and patents had ended. 'Promises in principle eventually need to lead to results,'' he said, ''and we believe it is about that time.'’”

Next, on June 4 it was reported that

“Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, in an unusually blunt public critique of China, said Saturday that Beijing's military spending threatened the delicate security balance in Asia and called for an emphasis instead on political freedom and open markets.

In a keynote address at an Asian security conference here, Mr. Rumsfeld argued that China's investment in missiles and up-to-date military technology posed a risk not only to Taiwan and to American interests, but also to nations across Asia that view themselves as China's trading partners, not rivals...

In recent weeks, American officials have compiled reports detailing how China has carefully analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the United States military to focus its growing spending on weapons systems that could exploit perceived American weaknesses in case the United States ever responds to fighting in Taiwan.

These military and intelligence officials say China has purchased or built enough amphibious assault ships, submarines, fighter jets and short-range missiles that pose an immediate threat to Taiwan and to any American force that might come to Taiwan's aid.”

The Wall Street Journal (June 3) puts it all into perspective:

“After Sept. 11, 2001, China eame an ally in the war on terror and a secondary concern for Washington. Now, Beijing’s rising power and influence – and its role as a potential rival – are becoming a focus again...

Mr. Rumsfeld’s trip comes as Pentagon officials put the finishing touches on their annual report to Congress on china’s military capabilities, a study that is expected this year to depict Beijing as a potential competitor with the U.S. in Asia, and one looking to project its influence beyond the Taiwan Straits. “For the past three and a half years, the U.s. has been focused on the war on terror,” said a China expert in Washington who has seen drafts of the report. But now it’s seen that it’s time to move on to other issues. And this is driven by China.”...

On the military front, previous pentagon reports have focused largely on china’s military ambitions with regard to Taiwan. This year’s document is likely to look at how China may use its military to project power in the region beyond Taiwan, said U.S. officials who have seen drafts. The report is important, say officials who have reviewed it, because it marks the beginning of a debate on China’s military influence that is likely to be carried over into a quadrennial review of Pentagon spending that is slated to wrap up in January...

Senior Army and Marine Corps officials tend to play down the threat posed by China and argue that the most pressing and immediate threats to U.S. security are terrorists and guerilla insurgents of the sort seen in Iraq... The Navy and the Air Force, which tend to play a far-more-limited role in low-tech counterinsurgency wars, argue that China’s growing investment in its military – in a more capable submarine force, better survace-to-air missile capacity and more high-tech communication networks – should be a driver of U.S. military modernization.”

Now comes another NY Times article from May 18:

“The Air Force, saying it must secure space to protect the nation from attack, is seeking President Bush's approval of a national-security directive that could move the United States closer to fielding offensive and defensive space weapons, according to White House and Air Force officials.”

Some of the choicer Dr. Strangelovian passages:

''We haven't reached the point of strafing and bombing from space,'' Pete Teets, who stepped down last month as the acting secretary of the Air Force, told a space warfare symposium last year. ''Nonetheless, we are thinking about those possibilities.''

The Air Force believes ''we must establish and maintain space superiority,'' Gen. Lance Lord, who leads the Air Force Space Command, told Congress recently. ''Simply put, it's the American way of fighting.'' Air Force doctrine defines space superiority as ''freedom to attack as well as freedom from attack'' in space.

Another Air Force space program, nicknamed Rods From God, aims to hurl cylinders of tungsten, titanium or uranium from the edge of space to destroy targets on the ground, striking at speeds of about 7,200 miles an hour with the force of a small nuclear weapon.

Last month, Gen. James E. Cartwright, who leads the United States Strategic Command, told the Senate Armed Services nuclear forces subcommittee that the goal of developing space weaponry was to allow the nation to deliver an attack ''very quickly, with very short time lines on the planning and delivery, any place on the face of the earth.''

Senator Jeff Sessions, a Republican from Alabama who is chairman of the subcommittee, worried that the common aero vehicle might be used in ways that would ''be mistaken as some sort of attack on, for example, Russia.'' They might think it would be a launch against them of maybe a nuclear warhead,'' Senator Sessions said. ''We want to be sure that there could be no misunderstanding in that before we authorize going forward with this vehicle.'' General Cartwright said that the military would ''provide every opportunity to ensure that it's not misunderstood'' and that Global Strike simply aimed to ''expand the choices that we might be able to offer to the president in crisis.''

''Space superiority is not our birthright, but it is our destiny,'' he [General Lord] told an Air Force conference in September. ''Space superiority is our day-to-day mission. Space supremacy is our vision for the future.''

So what we’ve got here, it seems to me, are some truly crazy and dangerous characters in the Air Force who feel that they’ve been left out of the action in the War on Terror. They’d really like to put some laser weapons and the like in space, at the price of a few hundred billion dollars. But how do you convince the President and Congress to fund a program such as this when the U.S. already has by far the most dominant military force to ever exist on the planet? Enter China. Here’s a country that a lot of Americans already view as an economic threat, with a government that both the left and the right can revile. Take a harder line on the economic conflicts, have Rumsfeld go to Asia to denounce China’s growing military capability, and voila, you’ve got yourself the makings of a new cold war. Belly up boys, looks like we got ourselves a space race! (Especially ironic in light of the article on space weapons quoted from above is this passage from the Times article on Rumsfeld’s speech: “’Since no nation threatens China, one wonders: why this growing [military] investment?’ Mr. Rumsfeld asked.”)

No, no, stop, don’t take me back to Conspiracyworld! I spent the better part of the 1980s in Conspiracyworld, ruminating over Iran-Contra, secret wars in Central America, and the October Surprise. Sure, it’s an exciting place to be, but it’s emotionally, intellectually, and of course politically exhausting. What’s that? An article in April’s The American Prospect appears before me:

“For well over two decades now, dreamers and schemers who hope to overthrow the [Iranian] mullahs have been lurking along the banks of the Seine, passing secrets and lies through proxies, back channels, and middlemen. Among the Persian plotters marooned in the French capital is a former minister of commerce in the shah’s government, who has recently acquired the code name of “Ali.”... The Prospect has learned that the true identity of “Ali” is Fereidoun Mahdavi, formerly the shah’s minister of commerce and, more importantly, the close friend and business partner of Manucher Ghorbanifar, legendary arms dealer, infamous intelligence fabricator, and central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal that almost brought down the Reagan administration. It was “Gorba,” as he was known back then to Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, the rogue National Security Council officer, who lured the Reagan administration into secretly selling U.S. missiles to the Islamic regime in exchange for the release of Western hostages...

...with his neoconservative sponsors and opportunistic methods, Ghorbanifar very much resembles Ahmad Chalabi, another slick operator who eventually came to be viewed with the deepest suspicion -- but not before his faulty “intelligence” about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction helped to draw America into war.

Among those who have compared Ghorbanifar to Chalabi is Michael Ledeen, the neoconservative writer and historian who has befriended both men. As the “freedom scholar” at the American Enterprise Institute and a contributing editor to the National Review, he now spends much of his time urging the Bush administration to support efforts by Iranian dissidents to topple their country’s theocratic rulers. Coming from Ledeen -- who also played a central role in the Iran-Contra affair alongside Ghorbanifar, and who still defends Chalabi -- the comparison of the shadowy pair is meant as a compliment. He says that their poor reputation at the CIA and the State Department simply proves the inflexibility of the American bureaucrats.

“They never liked Ghorbanifar, [which was] similar to them not liking lots of other people, including Chalabi,” insisted Ledeen in a recent interview with the Prospect. “It’s because [Chalabi and Ghorbanifar] want to work with the American government and not for it. The CIA and State Department have a difficult time with such people. But Chalabi is first and foremost an Iraqi; Ghorbanifar is an Iranian. There are times when their interests coincide with those of the U.S. government. But they do not wish to be agents of the American government. They are very happy to help when interests coincide.”

Following the 9-11 terrorist attacks, Ghorbanifar saw an opportunity to reopen his connections with the United States government, just as he had perceived such an opportunity during the hostage crises of the Reagan era. In the months after 9-11, the Bush administration was desperate for actionable intelligence on terrorist threats and state sponsorship of terrorist groups by hostile governments in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Around that time, Ghorbanifar called his old friend Ledeen, who no longer consults officially for the U.S. government but is very well-connected in both the White House and the Pentagon. He convinced Ledeen that he could produce Iranian informants with crucial intelligence about an alleged Tehran-backed terrorist threat to U.S. troops in Afghanistan...

As first reported in Newsday, Ghorbanifar secretly met with officials from the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans in Rome in December 2001. The main topic was the supposed threat to U.S. forces in Afghanistan, but the options for regime change in Iran were also discussed...

In June 2003, [Harold] Rhode [a Middle East specialis working for Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith] met with Ghorbanifar once more, this time in Paris. The publicity about the meetings, combined with opposition from the State Department and the CIA, reportedly led to the shutdown of the arms dealer’s back channel the following autumn. Ghorbanifar’s contacts with the U.S. government remained dormant. But by then “Ali” had commenced his discussions with Congressman Weldon about Tehran’s terrorist plots. Cut off once more by the Pentagon and the CIA, Ghorbanifar had already opened a second channel via the unwitting Weldon."

Aiiiiiieeeee!!!!!!