--===The New Australian's China and Asia Report===--- 


  _*Looking Out*_ 
_Peter Zhang's Column_     

  
-===Clinton, blackmail and Beijing's political profiles===-
  

   

                             _The New Australian_
 


  No. 120,  24-30 May 1999 

Writing on Sino-American affairs in the current situation makes me acutely
aware of how little of what I hear can be substantiated. It is for this reason
that I have chosen to keep much of what I have been told confidential.
However, there are times when what at first appear to be baseless, if not
bizarre, rumours turn out to have a great deal of credibility. How many
Americans would have believed that their president would literally sell his
countries secrets to a potential enemy. And yet this has happened. Even now,
despite the overwhelming evidence, many still refuse to accept what he has
done, including some of his political enemies. No president could be so venal
in his actions and contemptuous of the American people's security. This is
wishful thinking. 

Several things need to be understood. It is true that there have been
misunderstandings between American and Beijing in the past. This is only to be
expected given the latter's inability to fully understand how democratic
states function. But to draw on this to rationalise Clinton's behaviour on the
grounds that the two parties have misread each other's intentions is to
rationalise his behaviour. This simply will not do. There was no
misunderstanding. I can assure readers that Chinese officials understood the
nature of the arrangements. After all, it was they who laid down the
conditions which, in plain language, amounted to walking away with America's
military secrets. It matters not who was first to initiate contact as no move
would have been made unless both parties were sure that there was common
ground. 

This brings us to the bombing of China's Belgrade embassy. Regardless of what
some Washington 'insiders' evidently think, Beijing does not believe it was
deliberate or some kind of payback by the CIA. Though put out at first, the
regime quickly came to welcome the bombing as an excuse to whip up
anti-American feeling and crackdown on pro-democracy activists. Remember, this
is a state that still tortures its opponents and carries out summary
executions as a matter of course. The lives of others have always been given
little regard by despots and the present rulers are basically no different. It
was made clear in private conversations that the bombing is considered a
political gift of considerable proportions. And as the British say: "Never
look a gift horse in the mouth." So though the popular outrage is real,
official protestations are to be taken with a barrel of salt. 

The extent to which Beijing still pulls Clinton's strings can be gauged
somewhat from his grovelling apologies. That an apology was in order is beyond
dispute. But for any leader, especially the leader of the world's only super
power, to virtually prostrate himself before these arrogant mandarins should
give many Americans serious pause for thought. This was not a case of
cowardice — there is much, much more to it than that. Let me remind you that
Clinton made four abject apologies to Beijing in addition to those made by
Albright and Cohen when one was sufficient. This was a humiliating display of
Beijing's influence over Clinton and has been remarked upon in other Asian
capitals. 

So, as you Americans say, what gives? This raises the very ugly word
blackmail. A couple of months ago I made a reference to audio and video tapes
in Beijing safes. This was not a figure of speech nor was it idle gossip.
There are those in Beijing who strongly suspected that the regime holds
incriminating evidence on Clinton. His kow towing only served to transform
those suspicions into a conviction. I must confess that the information that
was passed on to me (without supporting evidence) emphatically states that the
threat of blackmail has been applied. Furthermore, it is not just Clinton. 

I revealed (No. 118, 10- 16 May 1999) that officials had confided in me that
Clinton had appointed Reno has his 'gatekeeper' with instructions to block
investigations into Chinese spying activities, not to mention his campaign
funding allegations. What is important is that Chinese officials know and that
believe Clinton is blackmailing Reno. I'm absolutely sure that they did not
come by this information via Clinton. This is where it seems to get bizarre.
Sometime ago I was told that Reno was a very active lesbian with a taste for a
certain kind of female and that a well-known organised crime figure exploited
this (how should I put it?) weakness by arranging a 'party' for her. The
resulting activities were then videotaped. An official assures me that Clinton
has a copy but couldn't say whether Beijing had also been supplied. 

It seems that this knowledge strengthened Beijing's confidence that it would
be granted sufficient protection by Reno's Justice Department to continue its
espionage activities. Of course it is not just Reno, the rot now permeates a
great many agencies. There is nothing, so it would appear, that escapes
corruption once Clinton comes in contact with it. But we must not overlook the
role that ideology still plays in this squalid affair. The regime has a
dossier on every American Senator and Congressman. Everyone of them has been
politically profiled. Beijing knows which ones will spring to Clinton's
defence, even in the present climate. One such man is Democrat Rep. Henry A.
Waxman of California. He claimed that there is no evidence that the DNC or
Clinton knew certain funds were illegal and originated with Chinese
intelligence. Readers will no doubt note that he did not say no one knew, only
that *no one can prove*, at least at this stage, that anyone knew. He has
obviously been taking linguistic lessons from your president. 

I raised Waxman because his political profile predicted his response. He is a
member of the Democratic Socialists of America who are committed to
implementing the kind of policies that killed millions of Chinese and
Russians. To these people capitalism is evil and America is the leading
capitalist state. It follows that anything that weakens America is to be
welcomed if not actually defended. Beijing's profiles are rarely wrong and
that is why they are perfectly happy with the likes of Waxman and Reno. But
where does that leave the American people?   


_The New Australian_
http://www.newaus.com.au/index.html