The Captain's Chair - Spring 1997
Thinking Americans are outraged by the blatant attempts of the Chinese Communists to
buy influence with U. S. policymakers through foreign contributions to 1996 congressional
and presidential election campaigns. Infinitely more distressing is the seeming
willingness of some American candidates for high office to accept the questionable
contributions without blinking an eye or giving any thought to what should be the obvious
consequences to our national security.
Six Members of Congress were warned last year by the FBI that they had
been targeted by Red china to receive illegal foreign campaign contributions. The
White House claims to have learned of the warnings only after the fact,
by reading news accounts. However, given the overall poisonous
atmosphere created by Whitewater, Filegate, the Web Hubbell affair, the
White House fundraising calls by the President and the Vice President, and other
improprieties, it seems amply clear that to compromise U. S. military
and economic security in exchange for campaign dollars would be "no big deal" in
the Clinton White House.
Right in the center of the illegal contribution expose' is Chinese-born John Huang, who
was given top-secret security clearance at the Commerce Department, without the routine
background checks required of foreign-born citizens, just 16 months before he became the
Democratic National
Committee's fundraising vice-chairman. The White House has admitted
to 37 of the 100+ intelligence briefings Huang allegedly received while he
was hard at work advocating lifting trade restrictions on Vietnam,
Indoenesia and Red China. At the DNC, Huang was busy soliciting
political contributions from the very businesses that stood to gain from
lifting the restrictions.
One of the businesses was an Indonesian conglomerate with direct ties to the People's
Republic of China (PRC). The now-infamous Lippo group, it turns out, was Huang's
former employer. The big question is: What did Huang learn in his numerous
top-secret briefings and who learned it from him? We
may never know, because Huang has left the country and refuses to return (without full
immunity) to answer the questions of the FBI and the seven congressional oversight
committees investigating the tangled web of international connections surrounding the 1996
U. S. elections.
John Huang, with his access to the highest levels of the U. S. government, is only one
figure in the very complicated scenario that raises such serious questions about the
possible compromising of the security of the United
States, in a climate of unconcern about where and how campaign
contributions are obtained.
Clinton buddie Charlie Trie, whose Little Rock international trading company represents
thirty companies from the U. S., China and Hong Kong, is also a target of congressional
investigators, who seek to determine his connection with the Chinese government.
Trie arranged a White House meeting for another murky character, Wang Jun, head of Poly
Technologies, whose representative was indicted in California for importing AK-47's into
the
United States. Other questions about the importing of illegal arms into the
U. S. have been raised about Trie's international wheeling and dealing.
Again, we may never know the answers. Trie, too has left the country and
is unavailable to testify.
The press, for the most part, has been content to discuss these and other troublesome
happenings as campaign shenanigans. However, a few thoughtful journalists have
explored the possibility of something more serious. William Safire, writing for the
January 2, 1997, New York Times
had this to say:
"You don't have to be a
conspiracy nut to recognize that China needs
not only to learn trade secrets, but also to discover-perhaps even influence-
U. S. government trade policy and negotiating positions that directly affect the $35
billion balance-of-trade surplus essential to the growth of China's military and economic
power."
Foreign journalists, as is often the case, were even more direct. London's Sunday
Times reported November 10, 1996, that the fundraising scandal "appears
to have been a stunning intelligence coup by China."
What can be done about this? The response of two Members of Congress
to the outrageous long-term lease of the Long Beach (California) Navy base
to the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO) is one example of the
strong action we need by our national leaders. COSCO is a corporation connected to
the Communist Chinese government, and the U. S. Marines, amazingly, were forced to leave
to make room at Long Beach for the communists. Congressman Duncan Hunter and Randy
"Duke" Cunningham have recently introduced a bill to block COSCO's lease on
grounds that it
is a national security threat. A national security threat it surely is-and that
is the kind of direct response we need to this and other sinister efforts by
the Chinese Communists to carry out whatever hidden agenda they have
for influencing U. s. foreign and economic policy.
The congressional committees investigating Red China's role in U. S.
elections and the extent of PRC influence in U. S. policymaking have
their work cut out for them. The web is complex and many of the
connections are hidden from public view. Among the questions that
cry for answers are these: In John Huang, did china have a spy in our
government? How much influence did he and his cohorts have in the
decision to normalize relations with Vietnam and in similar decisions
affecting international commerce in other communists countries in Asia?
How far-reaching is the clandestine effort of chinese companies with ties
to the Chinese government to import arms into the United States, some of which will find
their way to the streets of american cities? What is Red
China's agenda for the port at Long Beach and for the lease of the Long
Beach Navy base to COSCO? Was access to the Clinton White House for
sale to the highest bidder-the biggest campaign contributor? How will the influence
China has purchased in Washington affect the PRC's quest for
Most Favored Nation status? Just how deep does the coruption at high
levels of our government go?
The American people must get into the act, ask their own questions, and encourage their
representatives in Washington to have the political courage
to untangle the web. Overriding all the complicated questions is one that is utmost
important to us all: What is the extent of the threat now posed to the national
security of the United States? Congress has the tremendous, but imperative, task of
finding the answer to that question. The future of our nation depends on it.
