|
 Lev Navrozov emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1972 He settled in New York City where he quickly learned that there was no market for his eloquent and powerful English language attacks on the Soviet Union. To this day, he writes without fear or favor or the conventions of polite society. He chaired the "Alternative to the New York Times Committee" in 1980, challenged the editors of the New York Times to a debate (which they declined) and became a columnist for the New York City Tribune. His columns are today read in both English and Russian.
|
 |
In my previous column (Nov. 21, ÒWho Are the Real Enemies of China?Ó) I discussed an e-mail from Low Seng Kiat, a fanatical Chinese government conformist. On Nov. 19, we at the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., received, thanks to John Kusumi, an 11-page Òresearch report,Ó written by Fang Jue, a Chinese dissident, at the Fairbank Center for East Asian Research, Harvard University, and publisher by The Wei Jingshang Foundation.
Fang Jue's research report is highly valuable when it deals with the political situation in China. None of what he says on the subject has been reported in the mainstream media and all of it proves the opposite of what the Chinese conformist Low Seng Kiat tries to assure us by his arrogance of speaking for all of Òus, ChineseÓ versus all Americans, all of them allegedly being racists, supremacists, and military aggressors.
Fang Jue quotes (p. 2) The 16th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party late last year:
ÒWe must uphold Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping. Theory as our guidelines in the realm of ideology.Ó
The number of victims of Mao's terror is no lower than that of Stalin's. Three years after Stalin's death (1953), Khrushchev represented Stalin as Òour Hitler, only still worse.Ó Stalin became such a monster that he was unmentionable in the media. But the Congress of the Chinese Communist Party proclaims today that ÒMao Zedong thoughtÓ is one of Òour guidelines.Ó
On p. 3 we read that in 2003 Òthere are increasing numbers of dissidents who are being tried and imprisoned. . . .Ó
After such examples, Fang Jue justifiably concludes (pp. 2-3) that Òthe human rights situation in China has not progressed; in fact, it has deteriorated.Ó
So far, so good Ñ nay, excellent, illuminating, useful for every Westerner to read. But then Fang Jue goes over to the world political and strategic situation, and the result is a disaster.
Indeed, his research report is entitled: ÒAfter the War on Terror, Refocusing Global Attention to China's Political Transformation.Ó
One can say figuratively: Òthe war on terrorism,Ó Òthe war on crime,Ó or Òthe war on drugs.Ó But to say this literally, meaning the war with bombers and tanks, is to say nonsense. Terrorism is as old as history, as common crime, as drugs Ñ or as Òregular war.Ó Terrorists have to be caught just as do common criminals, or illegal drug addicts and pushers. Bombers or tanks (or even swords and spears) are useless here.
The terrorist who sent out anthrax by mail in the U.S.A. has not been caught in the past two years, and perhaps will never be caught.
Even two years after their terrorist act, little is known about the 19 dead terrorists of Sept. 11, 2001, except that 15 of them were Saudis and that their expenses were defrayed by unknown persons through an account in the Emirates. Osama bin Laden's and his Al Qaida's attribution of the attack to themselves is a pack of their usual idiotic lies.
The double terrorist act in 1963 Ñ the assassination of President Kennedy and then the assassination of Lee Oswald Ñ remains puzzling, murky, and confusing despite the past forty years of investigations, including the ÒFrontlineÓ TV program of November 19, 2003.
It is so much easier to ÒlinkÓ any terrorists to a sufficiently weak and small country, launch a war on it, with bombers and tanks, and call it Òthe war on terror,Ó even though such a war provokes terrorism.
Nor will terrorism ever stop Ñ just as common crime or drug addiction will never do so. Terrorism is a special kind of war, akin to guerrilla war, for those who feel that their side or cause is weaker in regular forces, such as $1.5-billion bombers, and so become human bombers as they did on Sept. 11, 2001, in the belief that they would go to the Islamic paradise and deflower beautiful virgins there eternally, an important detail since, while the rich Moslems can afford four wives, many poor Moslems have never known any woman.
That blessed time when Òthe war on terrorÓ has been Òwon in a few yearsÓ (p. 10) will never come because the very belief that Òthe war on terrorÓ can be waged (in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or the United States) as a regular war with bombers and tanks is absurd, socially illiterate, and tragicomical.
Indeed, the wars on Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001), and Iraq (2003) occurred partly to divert U.S. public attention from China. It cannot be supposed that anyone in the U.S. political establishment could sincerely believe that Yugoslavia or Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein's Iraq presented a mortal danger to the world while China has been as safe as a health resort.
Nor does Fang Jue seem to know anything about the Chinese autocrats' geostrategy. Just as did the Soviet rulers, they understood that the outcome of a global contest is decided not on the old-fashioned battlefields, but in the newest labs. The real winner in WW2 was the United States whose ÒnukesÓ forced the unconditional surrender of Japan for all its field victories, vast captured territories, and kamikaze terrorists.
Therefore, in the early 1970s the Soviet rulers began the development of post-nuclear superweapons, able to defeat the West as the United States defeated Japan in 1945. Their Chinese disciples followed suit and founded in 1986 ÒProject 863,Ó to develop such superweapons in seven fields.
Why do the Chinese autocrats want to be able to annihilate the Western or force its unconditional surrender, converting it into a huge Hong Kong?
According to Fang Jue, who regards the present rulers of China without any personal animosity, ÒChina's transformationÓ (after the war on terror has been Òwon in a few yearsÓ) Òmust include at least the following criteriaÓ (p. 10): ÒLeaders at all levels of government, as well as representatives for the people's congress, need to be elected through free and direct general elections.Ó
The trouble that the present rulers of the country foresee is that they will not be elected in such elections.
Fang Jue speaks of Gorbachev's perestroika and believes that Òthe transformation of China,Ó which will begin Òin a few years,Ó will be similar.
Recall Gorbachev at the end of his perestroika. What an impressive world-famous statesman of genius! A Nobel Peace Prize winner! A champion of world freedom! A friend of the prime minister of England and the U.S. president! But when his dictatorship fell, the Russian electorate did not want to vote for him. He became a total zero, and has been living abroad on lecture fees as a kind of immigrant, now almost forgotten. He had lost his domain, estate, property, wealth Ñ Russia! Man alive, do you understand what this means? It is a greater loss than the loss of all of his property by the richest billionaire on earth. To acquire Ñ no, not dozens of billions of dollars, but $300, a robber in New York kills a taxi-driver at the risk of the death penalty if caught.
Fang Jue informs the present owners of China that they may lose China, as Gorbachev lost Russia, yet expects them to take chances Ñ to gamble for what they possess.
But their loss of China is the best outcome. What if their victims or the near and dear of those who died in labor camps clamor for their trial?
On the other hand, should the autocrats of China obtain the geostrategically decisive post-nuclear superweapon (such as the nano assembler), the West will be annihilated or become a vast Hong Kong in which the rulers will be not elected in Òfree and direct general elections,Ó but appointed by the autocrats in Beijing.
Yet, according to Fang Jue, the only obstacle to free and direct general elections, replacing the autocrats in China by elected statesmen, is the U.S. Òwar on terrorÓ The United States is too busy Ñ it cannot do two things at the same time! First, the U.S. will turn Òin a few yearsÓ the Islamic world into another United States, but without terrorists, who have been in the United States by no means only Moslems (recall, for example, all the assassinations of, or assassination attempt on, U.S. presidents). And then Òglobal attentionÓ will refocus on China's political transformation, whereupon free and direct general elections will replace all those lifelong owners of post-1949 China (who will live happily ever after on lecture fees in the West?).
Lev Navrozov's (navlev@cloud9.net] new book is available on-line at www.levnavrozov.com. To request an outline of the book, send an e-mail to webmaster@levnavrozov.com.