Bush with China, Congress against China

Panel Urges Action vs. China on Trade,” by Foster King, Associated Press, 28 October 2006, (from Democratic Underground).

China military to tour U.S. bases,” by Audrey McAvoy, Associated Press, 29 October 2006, (from Democratic Underground).

Iraq, China to revive Saddam-era oil deal as Baghdad seeks investment”,” by , Associated Press, 29 October 2006, (from Democratic Underground).

As the Bush Administration welcomes friendly ties with China:

A Chinese military delegation will begin a five-day tour of U.S. military installations in Hawaii and California on Monday and meet with senior U.S. officers in the latest step to repair military ties between the two countries.

About 30 midlevel military commanders in the People’s Liberation Army, including division and brigade commanders, will visit U.S. Pacific Command headquarters in Hawaii, tour a guided missile destroyer in San Diego and observe Marine training at Camp Pendleton, Calif.

It is the third such visit by Chinese military officers since the countries agreed last October to increase military exchanges.

And, through the Iraqi government, has the Central State reinvest in Iraq:

China and Iraq are reviving a 1997 deal worth US$1.2 billion (€850 million) signed by Beijing and Saddam Hussein’s government to develop an Iraqi oil field, Baghdad’s oil minister said Saturday.

Officials will meet next month to renegotiate the agreement over the al-Ahdab field, said Iraqi Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani. He was wrapping up a three-nation tour to secure investment to revive his country’s oil industry.

You can count on the Congress to play the protectionist card:

)— A congressional advisory panel’s draft report is urging lawmakers to push for tough action against China on two festering trade disputes: intellectual property protection and Washington’s view that China’s currency is undervalued.

Recommendations in a draft of the annual report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, obtained by The Associated Press, deal with complaints by American manufacturers that Beijing’s artificially low currency makes Chinese goods cheaper in the United States and American products more expensive in China.

China is America’s natural ally in Systems Administration — keeping the peace around the globe. It’s too bad the Republican Congress does not recognize this.

12 thoughts on “Bush with China, Congress against China”

  1. Sorry–I mean to say, J.R. Nyquist and his readership–to judge from the message board on his website, he does seem to have quite a readership. (Made up the term “Nyquisters”; never heard them refer to themselves by any label.)

  2. “Apparently” there is. Sometime “back in the day” there was a Nyquist column that, in a sidenote, was critical of some odd Bircher conspiracy theory. This was way back–I dunno if the link is still on his site, and I'm too lazy right now to search for it. Don't recall is he was ever a member, though (but I wouldn't be surprised if he [or any of his readership] either are or were.

    Hmm…the Birchers. When I first trawled through the Net/Web *years* ago, one of the biggest surprises for me was learning that the Birchers had an online presence. (In fact, until that moment, I didn't know that they *still* existed).

    It was an “odd” thing–I wasn't surprised to learn that, say, the CPUSA had an online presence, but there was “something” about the JBS that just didn't–in my mind, anyway–or “shouldn't”–fit with the notion of a website.

    I dunno–maybe it's just me…

  3. Jayson — hmm, seems similar to those stereotypical campus left-wing groups: they aren't competing for power in the system, just membership with each other. Thus they are hyper-sensitive to minimizing each other's influence, while not doing much to change actual government policies. (Likewise shades of the Judean People's Front… [1])

    It is impressive the Birchers were early adopters of the internet. They must have some clever folks.

    [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python%27s_Life_of_Brian#Analysis

  4. Well, the Birchers certainly have some staying power. Gotta hand it to that candy businessman.

    “Back in the day”—around the time I first became aware of “the Internet” (I developed an interest in American extremist movements. I'm unable to recall *exactly* why I developed this curiousity, but reflecting on it *now,* I *think* it might've been an outgrowth of all the 1960s nostalgia during the late 1980s…what with the “romantic” portrayals of the campus left and counterculture, and those crappy Vietnam war movies (and the good ones too), etc.

    Well, the JBS is considered an “extremist” group, so I looked into them–I must say that the ancient scrolls I uncovered in my then-campus library made for some interesting reading–to think that this group posed *such* a “danger” to American democracy, that they were the harbingers of fascism, etc. OK, OK, I *exagerrate*–but much of these readings weren't *that* far off.

    I haven't looked at the JBS website in awhile; I try to keep the proverbial “open mind” about anything and everything, but while they make an occassional teresting point or 2, they–overall– seem a bit too “paleo” for me.
    I was impressed with their site then, and looking at it now, I'm still impressed–it's even better than it looked the last time I visited.

    Hey, on that website they're talking about something that would seem close to your heart–they're making noise about a coming “North American Union”–and **critical** noise at that. They hate it. But their imagined “flag” for this supposedly coming entity inadvertantly makes the concept look “attractive.” (It's a cool looking flag, IMNSHO.)

    Must admit I'm “against” it too–i.e., if it's going to end up as–as these Birchers seem to be implying–a “collective” enterprise, perhaps akin to the EU. If there's going to be a united North America, we should hope for a Real-Life version of the DTL USA. (But of course, that'll *never* happen…)

  5. Jayson,

    I first heard of the “North American Union” from guests, including the founder of the Minuteman Project and Pat Buchanan, on Coast to Coast AM [1,2,3,4]. The phrase is used on the Minutemen's homepage [6], so has some traction.

    It appears to be their term for some NAFTA coordinating agencies. On Coast it is identified as the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.” [7] Hearing about it, I have the reaction of an Israeli watching the Egyptian media: “if our side is as powerful as they say, we have nothing to fear!” 🙂

    I wonder how much of the JBS's “extremist” label comes from the Right's purge of them [8] and Ayn Rand's Objectivists [9], and how much come from the Establishment's (and later, the Left's) attempts to prevent such a coalition by tarring them.

    [1] http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/06/05.html
    [2] http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/10/23.html
    [3] http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/08/31.html
    [4] http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/06/14.html
    [5] http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2006/07/24.html
    [6] http://www.minutemanproject.com/
    [7] http://www.spp.gov/
    [8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society#1960s
    [9] http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp

  6. Oh, geez, the Midnight Express song radio show? Yeah, they're interesting. I occassionally listen to them for the same reason I've occassionally read Bircher stuff–to keep the proverbial “open mind” (and all that), so to speak. But just as the Birchers can be a wee bit too “paleo” for one as fanatically “right-wing” as I, so too C2C can be a wee bit too X-File-y for me.

    Hmm–those C2C links remind me of something else–don't know if it's still on his site, but Nyquist, in one of his old WND columns, actually had this theory that UFOlogy might've been purposely encouraged/exploited by Soviet agents as some sort long-term psychological/cultural warfare strategy, something that further undermines trust in the government and military (see X-Files, for example)–I guess you *could* call it “5GW” although he never used the term.

    “I wonder how much of the JBS's “extremist” label comes from the Right's purge of them [8] and Ayn Rand's Objectivists [9], and how much come from the Establishment's (and later, the Left's) attempts to prevent such a coalition by tarring them.”

    Well, as best as can be ascertained, I think you answered your question. (But I think it actually started with the Left and Establishment first.)

    Ah, Whittaker Chamber's review of AS. How…interesting that you should come across that, in the context of this discussion: I first read this in NR's 11/5/90 “35th Anniversary” issue–the same place where I read this John O'Sullivan piece on the late NR contributor James Burnham–


    –a part of which *partly*-explains why this supposedly coming “NAU” *may* be a bad idea (*at least* as it's *allegedly/supposedly* being conceived [actually, it discusses a possible “nightmare” world of a Western Hemipsheric “superstate” competing with a Euro and Asian/Pacific superstates [almost like 1984])

    The SPP site has a nice “Myth vs. Fact” section. I feel inclined now to give them the benefit of the doubt.

  7. Ah — a column from that belief period where a “European balance of power” with the Soviet Union still mattered… 🙂

    The disease that prevented western Europe and Japan from creating a multipolar world where mentioned in the article — the Japan's MITI and Europe's bureaucracy — but who foresaw the swiftness of the dead hand's strangling of those two potential powers?

    I listen to Coast when there's not a good Lost podcast [1] on. Occasionally they have very good guests such as Howard Bloom and Michael Heiser, and I do wish that thinkers like Tom Barnett would appear, too.

    [1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/10/19/lost-free-legal-easy.html

  8. What strikes me about this story (and the refusal of China to loan money to Pakistan a few months ago, while ramping up investment in Pakistani infrastructure projects benefiting Chinese companies) is how much of the Chinese policy with regard to aid appear less as a “state” decision with the appearance of foreign aid than as investments. Would not America be better off doing the same?

  9. The current crisis lets us see the world more clearly than we could in the good times: international institutions are durable sources of power [1] and new core countries of the global economy like China, as Eddie says, are primarily interested in their own growth.

    We need to make sure our systems allow new core economies to keep growing.

    We in America our lucky in that we don’t face threats to our survival like China or India do. We have the power and safety to try to build institutions and make the world a better place. We can change the environment so that the self-interested actions of India and China increase global stability.

    India and China, by contrast, need to avert a disaster of the 1930s. (That is, they need to manage the crisis to avoid the cataclysm of a Chinese or Indian FDR taking over.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *