One of the most reactionary syndicated columnists in America, Cal Thomas, today takes a broad, bloody swipe at China, leaving his readers (who aren’t the brightest bulbs on the tree to begin with) with the distinct impression that China poses a near-imminent threat to America and we need to take action before it’s too late.

This alarmist nonsense is wrapped around Thomas’ salivating endorsement of a book, China: The Gathering Threat by Constantine Menges — an old-school Communist hater, in love with covert operations, the contras, the death squads, etc. (To be fair, Menges was a noble human being who helped people flee the USSR; he was obsessed, however, with the threat of “Red China” until his death last year.) Thomas oozes fear and loathing of China as he venerates Menges.

Menges writes that China has defined America as its ‘‘main enemy’’ and can now launch nuclear weapons at the United States that are capable of killing 100 million of us. China’s effective espionage operation in the U.S. has managed to steal the designs of nearly all nuclear warheads and other military secrets, he says.

China has threatened to destroy entire American cities if the U.S. helps Taiwan defend itself against a military assault or invasion, Menges writes. China also buys weapons from Russia that are designed to sink U.S. aircraft carriers. It controls more than $200 billion in U.S. debt and sells more than 40 percent of its exports to America, using the profits to strengthen its economy and advanced weapons systems aimed at the U.S.

Until recently, American policy has been to give China access to U.S. markets in hopes that might reduce tensions and hasten democratic reform. It has done no such thing. Menges argues it is time to try another approach.

First, he says, the U.S. must finish development of a reliable missile defense system that can be easily expanded should China, Russia or any nation attempt to overwhelm us by building additional missiles. Menges says the cost of expanding a missile defense system is far less than building new missiles and such cost will be prohibitive to enemy nations once they realize the U.S. can’t be successfully attacked.

Without a working missile defense system, he writes, the increased number of warheads and missiles now available and under construction will make the Chinese threat substantial; he estimates by 2008, China will have more than 400 warheads capable of reaching U.S. territory.

Look, I can’t stand the CCP and I know China’s dumping lots of money into its military. But so are we. Is the US the only nation entitled to be armed? China needs to be watched and, if necessary, reined in. But to portray them as eager to destroy US cities over Taiwan…It’s the closest I’ve seen to good, old-fashioned red baiting. Get a load of this:

As anyone who has bought anything can attest, the United States is fulfilling one of Lenin’s doctrines by purchasing the rope with which the communists plan to hang us. Too many things sold in America are made in China, and too many corporations have moved their plants and operations to China, undermining the U.S. domestic economy and helping a nation that seeks to destroy us.

One of many countermeasures recommended by Menges is the expulsion of all companies that function as fronts for the Chinese People’s Liberation Army or other military or intelligence-related entities in China, Russia or any other nonallied state. Investigative reporter Kenneth R. Timmerman estimates there are hundreds of such front companies in Southern California alone.

Rumsfeld’s remarks and Menges’ book reveal China’s commitment to expanding its empire by intimidation and force, and how the U.S. had better take China’s seriousness seriously if we are to confront and repel it.

So, Southern California is crawling with PLA frontmen determined to destroy us. Who knew? (Never mind that if they destroy us they’d be up shit’s creek, since Walmart won’t be ordering those cheap shoes and tricycles from Guangzhou anymore.)

The decibel level of articles like this is steadily increasing, and poor Mr. Bush, who sold his soul to the far right, will soon find himself in a serious dilemma on the China issue because these loons see China as our blood enemy. There is no compromise. On the other hand, another part of Bush’s soul has been sold to the Corporations, which depend on China to make those cheap toys and textiles (and everything else).

My bet is that Bush is not crazy enough to join the China haters. Just like the immigration issue, he’ll toss in some rhetoric but choose a moderate approach. At least I hope so, ‘cuz if he takes these nutjobs seriously we’re all in trouble.

This is utterly inexplicable. I understand not wanting to kowtow to the Swift Boat Superliars, but it would surely have spared him from a lot of grief. Tom Maguire and Insty and Maglalang all made big deals about his undisclosed military records.

I still wish he had won, but I have to question his judgement, and I have to say we could have nominated someone better.

Disturbing signs.

Using an evangelical school gymnasium as a backdrop, Gov. Rick Perry put his signature to legislation restricting abortions and added his backing to a measure barring same-sex marriage.

Perry signed a bill Sunday requiring girls under the age of 18 to get their parents’ consent before having an abortion and also imposes more limits on late-term abortions.

“For too long, a blind eye has been turned to the rights of our most vulnerable human beings — that’s the unborn in our society,” Perry told a crowd of about 1,000 people gathered at the Calvary Christian Academy.

This brings to mind a scenario I read about a few weeks ago on a another blog (totally forget which one): What if a single girl under the age of 18 gets pregnant and wants to keep her child — but her parents insist she have an abortion? Do the parents’ rights go both ways, giving them power to force their child to kill the fetus or give birth to an unwanted child? It’s an interesting question.

In my mind, the last thing we want are girls being forced to give birth to unwanted children. Yes, abortion is horrible and the ultimate last resort. But bills like this, so blatantly designed to delight the hard-core evanglicals, are counter-productive and stupid. This is one more step toward outlawing abortion altogether, and they won’t stop until the mission is fully accomplished. Will we let them claim victory?

Not according to this article. It sounds quite possible indeed.

[Link and the photo of Chen Yonglin below via a site I normally wouldn’t hang out at. although this is an interesting post with good comments.]

Oh, and if the name Chen Yonglin sets the Cybernanny in motion, please let me know.

Update: More good stuff on this topic over at THM.

This article, brought to my attention by a commenter below, says that’s exactly what’s happening. And the writer makes a damned interesting case for it.

I’m not ready to buy it hook, line and sinker (yet) because this has been a smoldering feud for many decades, periodically turning into a full-scale conflagration. But the writer raises some alarming points (if they are all accurate).

While history does play a role in all this [the feud], if one wants to understand the antagonism between Beijing and Tokyo, one has to start in Washington and, in particular, Washington state. In mid-April of this year, the Japanese government agreed to let the US Army’s 1st Corps transfer from Fort Lewis, Washington, to Camp Zama near Yokohama.

US troops in Japan are nothing new. Some 50,000 of them are spread among 73 bases on the main islands and Okinawa, and the Japanese shell out US$2.6 billion yearly to keep them there. But American troops in Japan, according to the US-Japan security treaty, are supposed to maintain “peace and security in the Far East”. Period. However, the 1st Corps’ responsibility extends beyond the Pacific Basin to include the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, through which passes the bulk of the oil that supplies China’s roaring economy.

Besides the recent decision to re-deploy the 1st Corps, the US is busily building up Guam as a “power projection hub”, with, in the words of Pacific Commander Admiral William Fargo, “geostrategic importance”. The US is also trying to shift Guam-based bombers to Yokota airbase near Tokyo. Christopher Hughes of Warwick University, an expert on the region, told the (British) Guardian, “The ramifications of this would be that Japan would essentially serve as a frontline US command post for the Asia-Pacific and beyond.”

That “frontline” is heating up considerably. Earlier this year Central Intelligence Agency director Porter Goss and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Congress that China constitutes a “military threat” to the US. The testimony appears to signal a decision by the George W Bush administration to institute a policy of “encircling” China with bases and US alliances. The most obvious moves in this direction are the recent ones involving beefing up personnel and bases in Asia. But the US has also tightened its control of Gulf oil through its occupation of Iraq and is extending its influence into Central Asia, a growing source for China’s energy needs.

The Chinese are acutely sensitive to issues concerning their borders, and Taiwan in particular, but what has really put them on edge is a recent statement by the right-wing mayor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, that “the US, Russia and Japan” should work together to strangle China’s oil supplies. “It would keep China in check greatly,” he said, “since China has no resources.”

I wanted to think the “China threat” mentality was a thing of the past. Clinton was a huge proponent of warmer relations with China, and Bush has seemed to be continuing in his footsteps, though he’s had to pay lip service to his foaming-at-the-mouth far-right colleagues who still call the PRC “Red China.” Have we really gone so far in the opposite direction? Are actively attempting to contain and limit China?

If I lived in China and I read this article, I’d be scared out of my wits. And I’d be wary of the United States. This argument stands in stark contrast with the one put forward by Orville Schell in the post below, saying much of China’s “paranoia” is well justified.

Interesting juxtaposition; who’s right?

You won’t believe this video, created by soldiers serving in Iraq. You can’t blame this on the liberal media.

Growing economic might versus a long-ingrained sense of victimization: these are the two forces that China hand Orville Schell says are playing against one another, causing China to behave in a way that might be described as bipolar. In playing the perennial victim, China nearly always “exports” the blame for its woes onto external sources like Japan, the US, Taiwan or whoever. The result is rage, self-delusion and irrationality.

The anti-Japanese demonstrations are a symptom of the old syndrome, fueled by grievances born at a time when China was, indeed, aggrieved and humiliated. With China’s growing economic clout, rising standard of living, and increasingly respected place in the world, one would hope that the Chinese and their leaders would find a way to let go of the dead. Yet, even as the luster of the “China miracle” dazzles the world, the Chinese seem loath leave behind their dark feelings of victimization.

Instead of assuming a new national paradigm based on the reality of their accomplishments (national unity, robust international trade, and growing global influence), China’s leaders cling to the old paradigm of their country as victim, the “sick man of Asia” being “cut up like a melon” by predatory imperial and colonial powers like Japan. That bitter memory of oppression and exploitation lingers in the minds of too many Chinese like the afterimage of a bright light long after it has been turned off.

….

First and foremost, aiding and inciting the expression of popular anger against Japan gives China’s Communist Party leaders a powerful and readily available vehicle for rallying domestic support, thereby legitimizing their own power. At the same time, the demonstrations represent China’s experience of the world as an unequal place where the weak are inevitably bullied, exploited, and humiliated. This mindset suggests that, despite the panoramic city skylines, the billboards, and the flashy five-star hotels say otherwise, China has a long way to go before it truly comes to understand and appreciate its actual accomplishments and status.

This sense of victimization permeates nearly all aspects of China’s political life. It explains its leaders’ notorious paranoia and prickliness, constantly barking about “internal matters” and how the rest of the world should stop criticizing them. And it goes to the heart of China’s pattern of fomenting mass protests whenever its paranoia buttons are pushed (as they were by the 1998 embassy bombing in Yugoslavia, the Japanese textbooks this year, the crash of the US plane on Hainan Island).

Schell closes with a warning:

The role of victim is all too familiar to the Chinese, perhaps even somewhat comforting, for it provides a way to explain (and explain away) China’s problems. But it is also dangerous, because it derives from China’s old weaknesses rather than its new strengths. The era of Japanese militaristic and imperialist power has long gone, and the world is beating a path to China’s door. The last thing the country needs is to remain trapped in the past.

Is there hope for change? People often point to the “new generation” of Chinese who aren’t trapped in their country’s past, but their central position in the recent demonstrations against Japan make me wonder whether they still don’t have a long way to go before the ghosts of China Past are put behind them.

I mentioned earlier that Tianjin English teacher Adam Morris, former proprietor of Brainysmurf and frequent engager in blog battles with yours truly (always cordial, or at least usually), was blogging again. I wanted to recommend you all visit his new site for some good posts on expat life in China. Not many, but the ones there are very good. Adam has said he’s moving to Vietnam soon, so chances are we won’t see many more posts on China. Pity.

Several commenters here (and I) expressed concern that the arrest of Ching Cheong was a colossal mistake that could only result in China looking bad in the eyes of the world. I tried to understand why they’d do it, and this article in the Financial Times at least has a theory: the CCP is terrified that revelations by Ching about Zhao Ziyang’s house arrest would reach the mainstream population.

China’s current rulers are particularly anxious not to allow their citizens to hear about Zhao Ziyang, a Communist leader who died this year having spent the latter part of his life under house arrest for sympathising with the Tiananmen demonstrators and opposing the crackdown. Mr Ching, it seems, was detained after seeking to obtain a document airing Zhao’s criticisms.

Chinese officials, eager to clean up corrupt state banks and strengthen their increasingly capitalist economy, have tolerated and even encouraged investigations into financial misdeeds. They seem to think it is possible to promote transparency and honesty in Chinese corporate life while maintaining a wall of secrecy around the country’s unaccountable political leaders.

This is a naive and dangerous policy. Admittedly, the security services have been surprisingly efficient at limiting the amount of uncensored information on the internet in China, but even so the Chinese today enjoy much more freedom to speak, communicate and travel than they did a decade ago.

It is inconceivable that tens of millions of well-educated and increasingly prosperous people will allow themselves to be kept in the dark much longer. The contrast between a modern, open economy and a Stalinist political system is too extreme, and something has to yield. The chances are it will be Communist politics that crumbles, not capitalist economics.

My question is, isn’t Zhao Ziyang’s house arrest pretty much known throughout China? In the Internet age, can such a well-covered story really have been kept a secret from the masses for 15 years? What could Ching have said that they don’t already know? It still doesn’t quite add up to me, but neither do a lot of the things the CCP does.

Ching Cheong is only part of this article, which is more about how China seems intent on destroying its own image, just at the time when it can be capitalizing on all the good news, like the Olympics and the economy. Instead, they do provocative things like arrest a Straits Times reporter, which inevitably make them look very, very bad.

I think it was pretty obvious from the start that this was an unusual incident and that jumping to conclusions would be risky. That seems to be confirmed as defector Chen Yonglin claims Australian officials tried to warn the Chinese of his plan and stop his defection.

The fugitive diplomat Chen Yonglin says Australian officials immediately tipped off his bosses and repeatedly urged him to return to the Chinese consulate, despite his pleas that he was in grave danger.

Mr Chen, a long-term diplomat in Sydney with access to highly sensitive information, is the highest-profile defection since the Petrov affair in 1954. But in an interview with The Age yesterday, he said his bid for political asylum was refused within 24 hours of his defection 10 days ago without even a meeting.

Mr Chen, 37, who is in hiding with his wife and six-year-old daughter said the information he offered on China’s spies and kidnappings in Australia had been spurned. At every turn, he had been discouraged from applying for asylum and denied a haven….

Mr Chen attempted to defect on the morning of May 26, when he walked into Immigration Department offices near Sydney’s Central railway station with his wife, Jin Ping, and daughter, Chen Fangong.

He says his request to meet with the department’s state director, Jim Collaghan, was rejected and other officers then called the Chinese embassy. The Chinese consulate called his mobile, so he quickly left with his family, taking a train to Gosford, north of Sydney. He left behind a letter, a copy of which has been obtained by The Age.

It revealed his position in the consulate and that he had been charged with monitoring the activities of the “five poisonous groups”

of Chinese dissidents for four years, including the Falun Gong, democracy advocates and separatists from Tibet, Taiwan and East Turkistan. Mr Chen said he had helped the dissidents, an act that would be viewed as treason by China and would soon be discovered by his successor….

Mr Chen told The Age: “I didn’t think it would happen like this. Australia is a democratic country. I thought they would help me. My family is desperate. We are helpless. We need to be in a safe place.”

The plot certainly thickens. Why would the Australian bureaucrats refuse to meet with him and try to turn him over to the Chinese? Or is Chen just a compulsive and habitual liar? (His claim of “1,000 Chinese spies in Australia” hasn’t exactly boosted his credibility, unfortunately.) I don’t pretend to have even the vaguest idea, but I think we’re about to watch an interesting tale of international intrigue unfold.