Beijing makes its move in Latin America

Beijing makes its move in Latin America
Peter Zhang
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 10 May 2004
It's been more than four years since I wrote about the danger that Beijing
poses in South and Central America. I stressed at the time that Hutchison
Whampoa is an arm of the Chinese government and that the company's chairman,
Li Ka Shing, was an unofficial government minister.
Despite knowing these facts President Clinton still insisted on the canal
passing into Beijing's hands, even though he knew the company had corruptly
obtained the lease.
China's Defence Minister, Chi Haotian, has said that war with the United
States is inevitable. As Chi well knows there is more than one way to wage
war ? and this is where the canal comes in. It provides Beijing with a base
from which to create enormous mischief for the US while piously claiming
that its presence is merely a commercial one.
The word is out that acting through Castro's agents and Chinese crime lords,
Beijing is already heavily involved in running drugs into the US. To Beijing
drugs are merely another weapon in its unofficial war against the US. Two
other weapons are terrorism and subversion.
Drug revenues were be used to finance terrorists whose activities will, it
was hoped, destabilise the region, particularly Mexico, thus tying up US
military and intelligence resources. (Beijing also knows it can count on
America's mainstream media to sympathetically report on left-wing terrorist
activities).
Much of this has already come to pass. One needs to look no further than
Colombia and Venezuela to see that Marxist subversives and terrorists are
well organized, ruthless and on the march.
I remarked that that it was being said in certain Beijing quarters that
Mexico would play a central role in this strategy. It was assumed that
encouraging political and social turmoil in Mexico would, for example, spur
many more Mexicans to seek sanctuary in the US, forcing Washington to
strengthen its southern boarder while antagonizing Mexico City in the
process.
Beijing believed that a flood of Mexicans immigrants would provoke a
backlash which in turn would whip up anti-American feeling south of the
border, never a difficult task. It never occurred to Beijing that America
would tolerate a massive flow of illegal Mexican immigrants.
The central player ? perhaps I should say puppet ? in Beijing's scheme is
Fidel Castro. I did say at the time that an official had confided in me that
Beijing has successfully enlisted Fidel Castro as an ally and that he was to
be heavily supplied with weapons and cash. South America was to be the
weapons eventual destination.
Once again it has come to pass. (I'm feeling quite prophetic). The cash was
be used, along with drugs, to finance revolutionary groups, buy off
officials, finance subversion and corrupt politicians. This is precisely
what Castro's embassy officials were doing in Mexico City and that is why
Vincente Fox had them expelled.
I was also told that Chinese intelligence had invested a great deal in a
Venezuelan army or former army officer who is linked to the DGI (Castro's
KGB). Unfortunately, the official was not prepared to say anything further
on the subject. It no longer matters as we now know for certain that the
former army officer is Chavez.
I explained at the time that rumour had it that Beijing initially intended
to form a Latin-American triangle consisting of Cuba, Venezuela and Colombia
with Castro at the apex and Panama in the centre.
The triangle was to be the heart of the Beijing's plans for the region.
Despite the fact that some thought the plan too bold, at least at this
stage, the regime has become even more ambitious, hoping to extend the
triangle so that it includes Brazil and the Argentine.
It believes that Iraq and the war on terror will prove so much of a
distraction that for the US that it will not be able to direct the necessary
intelligence resources to the region. However, there are still those who
think that Beijing should tread carefully.
They point out that Castro is aging and his regime is highly unpopular. They
feel that should he die or fall seriously ill the regime would be swept away
by a popular revolt with embarrassing results for Beijing.
Others have counter with the argument that the machinery of repression is so
entrenched in Cuba and the populace so demoralised that Beijing's people
will have no problem in taking the reins of power. In any case, should the
worse happen any evidence connecting Beijing to subversion and drug running
would be quickly destroyed.
Moreover, these people argue that there is absolutely nothing to fear from
America's mainstream media which is still besotted with Castro as is the
Black Caucus. As evidence for this view they cite not only the media's
hostility toward President Bush but their attempts to undermine victory in
Iraq. So why should the media treat South America any differently from Iraq?
It's particularly revealing that Beijing appears convinced that most
Democratic members of Congress and the Senate would play down any
connections Beijing establishes with Castro and that they can be counted on
to dismiss China's presence in the region as hysteria just as they dismiss
Castro's subversive activities
Beijing's strategy is not primarily one of establishing pro-Chinese regimes
but of creating a massive running sore that will drain US political and
military resources. This, the regime reasons, will weaken America's Asian
presence and so make it easier for China to drive her out of the
Pacific-Asian region, leaving Hawaii as its only Pacific base.
This is not a fantasy. Why else did Beijing provide missile know-how and
nuclear weapons technology to the likes of North Korea, Pakistan, Iran and
Libya? Because it would generate political tension and fuel conflicts that
would tie up US military resources.
Four years ago I wrote:
"? why did Clinton allow the canal to fall into Beijing's hands? Because,
incredible as this will seem, he thinks of Beijing as a 'strategic partner'
of sorts and not a potential enemy. Clinton belongs to that peculiar school
of thought that sees conflict, particularly war, as the tragic outcome of
misunderstandings between basically decent and reasonable people ? except
for fascists, of course, meaning those who challenge his beliefs and
premises. Impervious to reality, those who cling to this suicidal-like
vision accuse their critics of bad faith and dismiss their patriotic
warnings as alarmist, ridiculous, hateful and so on".
As Islamofascists strive to demoralize allied troops the American media and
many Democratic politicians and their followers direct their anger and hate
not against those who murder American troops but against President Bush,
just as Beijing strategists predicted.
The only thing Beijing's warlords understand and respect is power and the
will to use it. America still has the power and, under Bush, has
demonstrated the will to use it. So guess whom Beijing is rooting for in the
coming presidential election? Clue: it isn't Bush.