The dictatorship in China and September 11

---

See the Lev Navrozov Archive By Lev Navrozov SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM 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.

D. J. McGuire, a reader of mine, welcoming the intention of our Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., to draw public attention to the ÒChina threat,Ó has sent us a copy of his book ÒDragon in the DarkÓ about the real attitudes of the autocrats of China toward the United States.

When a boy in Andersen's tale shouted that the emperor was naked, the value of his message was that no one else was saying it. McGuire's book is valuable above all because no one else has been saying what he does. Except that a country can live with everyone pretending that the naked emperor is wearing beautiful clothes, while the life-or-death of the West depends on the question whether China is a good peaceful ally of the United States or the emperors of China have interests of their own, as can well be expected from the rulers of the biggest dictatorship in the past one hundred years.

D. J. McGuire received a Master's in Economics from Georgetown University in 1999 and is now the co-chairman and president of the ÒChina e-Lobby,Ó which he co-founded in 2000 to enlighten the public concerning the realities of the world's biggest dictatorship in the past one hundred years.

In my college days in Soviet Russia I mimicked our professor of Marxism-Leninism, who started every sentence of his with, ÒThe American imperialists. . . .Ó Needless to say, Òthe American imperialistsÓ were going to conquer Òthe Soviet UnionÓ to make it part of the American world empire, and hence no Soviet Òdefense effortÓ could be too great.

The trouble for Marxism-Leninism (which is preached in China today as it was preached in Soviet Russia) was that the United States or England did not launch a preemptive war on any country. On the contrary, Britain was giving independence to colonies (such as Iraq) of its former British Empire.

In 1999 NATO, inspired by President Clinton, decided to help Marxism-Leninism in China. NATO invaded Yugoslavia. I discussed the event in my columns at the time. My conclusion was that the war merely provided the grist for the anti-American and anti-Western propaganda mills and feelings all over the non-Western world, including China.

Mr. McGuire does not mention this war, and here is a difference between his view and mine. He believes that the invasion of Afghanistan (2001) and that of Iraq (2003) were absolutely necessary as Òthe war on terror,Ó but they were distorted in China. I contend that bin Laden, a charlatan, full of threats and boasts, and the Taliban's Afghanistan, had nothing to do with the terrorist act of Sept. 11, 2001, while Hussein's Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism in general, and the assertion that he was a world threat is laughable, especially in the global shadow of the world's biggest dictatorship in the past 100 years.

I believe that geostrategically, the wars on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq merely diverted public attention from Òthe China threatÓ and supplied the dictators of China with ideological ammunition against the United States as an Òimperialist power,Ó seeking to convert the world into its empire unless Òwe, Chinese,Ó Òrally around our Chinese leadershipÓ and create adequate global military might.

In the United States the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were justified as reactions against the Islamic terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001. McGuire tells us (p. 12) that the ÒChinese governmentÓ duly expressed, re that attack, all the appropriate condolences. You bet! The U.S., West-European, and Russian behavior toward the dictatorship of China has been so altruistic, not to say suicidal, that the autocrats of China have been determined to do nothing that can change that behavior of suicidal love for China. Yes, the autocrats of China still grumble occasionally about Taiwan. But didn't the United States accept the Òone ChinaÓ policy?

However, there is a double-think or double-speak at work:

ÒImmediately after the attack, the People's Republic expressed its condolences. However, at the same time these condolences were sent, the academic ÒcommunityÓ in Communist China Ñ under the watchful eye of the Chinese Communist Party Ñ rose nearly as one to tell the United States, according to CNN's Willy Wo-Lap Lam, that 'its main enemy is not the others but itself.'Ó

McGuire also draws our attention (p. 11) to the book ÒUnrestricted Warfare,Ó in which the authors, two colonels of the People's (!) Liberation (!) Army, had recommended (in 1999) a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center Why not? Post-Roman Christendom developed chivalry Ñ warfare should follow chivalrous rules. A war should be declared, and be a kind of duel in which two armies encounter each other face-to-face. But these are Western prejudices Ñ warfare should be unrestricted, and terrorism is as good as air bombing or a tank attack.

Accordingly, we read (p. 12) that Xinhua News Agency produced a video representing the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001, as Òa humbling blow against the arrogant nation.Ó That is, our dear Moslem friends snubbed our hated American enemies.

I learned about the book ÒUnrestricted WarfareÓ only owing to the NewsMax.com, which sent me a copy. Who has mentioned the Xinhua video except McGuire in his book? Hence there has been no danger, for the autocrats of China, of a Western public accusation of them of duplicity or hypocrisy. The U.S. mainstream media have communicated only the Chinese rulers' condolences in connection with the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001.

Geostrategically, the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq was a godsend for the autocrats of China. The deeper the United States will be quagmired in the Islamic world (with its population of 1.3 billion), the less attention the United States will pay to the ÒChina threat.Ó Of course, it is in the geostrategic interests of the autocrats of China to try to involve the United States in the Islamic world as deeply and as hopelessly as possible. But this should be done cautiously Ñ oh, very, very, very cautiously Ñ to retain the American and Western suicidal love for China.

Thus, the autocrats of China have been selling weapons to enemies of the United States because it is virtually impossible to prove that the sale was not made by a certain independent corporation and was not sponsored or blessed by the autocrats. If the Xinhua News Agency video glorified the terrorist act of Sept. 11, 2001, it is not clear why the autocrats of China would not aid and abet any terrorism against the United States as long as they can conceal their complicity.

There is a tendency in the West to regard the population of a tyranny as a freedom-loving people subjugated by a tyrant's reprisals and propaganda. I had warned against this dangerous oversimplification about Iraq BEFORE the war on Iraq. We know, owing to the Tiananmen movement, how many Chinese are freedom-loving dissidents. But we also know that some Chinese are voluntary supporters of the dictatorship.

One of these, named Low Seng Kiat, sent me a one-paragraph e-mail expressing his loyalty to the dictatorship. I quoted the entire paragraph in my column of Nov. 21 ÒWho Are the Enemies of China?Ó Then, on Nov. 28, he sent me an 11-page e-mail, expressing his loyalty to the dictatorship and ÒdaringÓ me to post Òthis whole thing.Ó His 11-page verbiage adds nothing of interest to his previous one-paragraph e-mail, and one fact is clear from both e-mails.

No reprisals or propaganda are necessary in this case because he is no less fanatical than any autocrat of China, and he himself is a source of propaganda as anti-American and anti-Western as any propaganda in the media of China.

Predictably, the Western and U.S. wars on Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq prompt his most virulent verbal attack on THE Americans Ñ all Americans without exception, and possibly in China there are hundreds of millions of bigots, expressing of their free wiill their infinite hate for all human beings on earth except those of Òthe Han race,Ó supposed to be blindly loyal to the dictators.