China’s Lobbyists Influence U.S. Policy But It’s OK B/C they Aren’t Really Communist

I saw the article below and had to laugh. Not a happy kind of laugh, a sardonic, cynical kind of laugh. Essentially, to assuage any guilt about their role in helping to send U.S. jobs overseas, ignoring horrendous human rights abuses and enabling big business destruction of U.S. manufacturing jobs, some American politicians have told themselves it’s all ok because, hey, China’s not really communist!:

Ten years ago, U.S. lawmakers publicly accused the China Ocean Shipping Co. of being a front for espionage and blocked plans to expand its Long Beach, Calif., port terminal over fears that Chinese spies would use it to snoop on the United States.

…[snip]

The congressional about-face illustrates a dramatic increase in China’s influence on Capitol Hill, where for years its lobbying muscle never matched its ballooning importance in world affairs. Members of Congress, lobbyists and other observers said China’s new prominence is largely the result of Beijing’s increasingly sophisticated efforts to influence events at the center of U.S. power — and a growing realization among U.S. lawmakers that China has become a critical economic player across America.

[snip]

A decade ago, U.S. politicians of all stripes routinely subjected China to attacks. Now acts of benevolence are more likely — such as a resolution commemorating the 2,560th birthday of Chinese philosopher Confucius, which the House overwhelmingly approved in October.

“There was originally this kind of anti-communist view of China,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who in 1979 became the first U.S. mayor to visit China when she ran San Francisco. “That’s changing. . . . China is a socialist country but one that is increasingly becoming capitalistic.”

The new openness toward China is often subtle and not shared by all. But an undeniable evolution is taking place, congressional staffers and analysts said, as members of Congress, many with increasing numbers of large and small businesses in their districts that depend on trade with China, are now far more likely to kill or water down measures opposed by Beijing…

Senator Feinstein thinks China isn’t really communist, but instead socialist? Why, because their leaders aren’t marching around in gun-boat gray military uniforms talking about the proletariat? Is that why there is only one political party in China? Is that why pro-democracy activists are jailed, denied basic rights and even tortured? Is that why China wouldn’t televise President Obama’s town hall in China? What the hell kind of socialism is she talking about? Somebody get her a junior high civics text book. Or maybe she can take a look at the picture to the left, which is a very recent photo of a meeting the Chinese government held to think of new ways to “deal with” the Tibetan resistance (ie. new ways to harass, intimidate, imprison and torture). While some may refer to Asian economies as having elements of socialism China’s state control of business in that country hardly counts as true socialism. Neo-Leninism is more like it. In fact, they seem to have incorporated the worst aspects of capitalism- greed and cronyism, while ignoring some of the better aspects of it, like real economic freedom.

But sarcasm aside, this sort of thinking really is a problem both short and long term. What is behind this magical thinking is not a traumatic brain injury, which could possibly excuse such nonsensical statements by Feinstein, but rather corporate America’s insatiable greed and China’s willingness to buy off American politicians. And where does that leave the middle class? Screwsville. Instead of buying environmental or green technology from American workers, where is the U.S. government going for some of it? China. I posted about that not too long ago. Ironically, the environmentally-impaired Chinese government is making a killing off selling environmental products to nations which actually try to give a damn about curbing environmental harm. And apparently, American fears notwithstanding, China has just “bought” more U.S. debt and will continue to do so- apparently the Chinese have found being our chief banker and patron to be a politically advantageous position, particularly given it apparently means the U.S. won’t do too many things that upset it- you know, like meeting with an elderly monk who happens to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Over at Foreign Policy, Josh Rogin reminds us why China still continues to be a major national security threat. If you haven’t read about some of China’s more high-profile cyber-warfare tactics against the U.S. definitely go over there and read his whole post. Here is an excerpt:

The Defense Department has said that the Chinese government, in addition to employing thousands of its own hackers, manages massive teams of experts from academia and industry in “cyber militias” that act in Chinese national interests with unclear amounts of support and direction from China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

According to SANS Institute research director Alan Paller, “The problem is 1,000 times worse than what we see.” But the tip of the iceberg is still large. Here are some of the most damaging attacks on the U.S. government that have been attributed to Chinese government sponsorship or endorsement over the past few years:

1) Titan Rain

In 2004, an analyst named Shawn Carpenter at Sandia National Laboratories traced the origins of a massive cyber espionage ring back to a team of government sponsored researchers in Guangdong Province in China. The hackers, code named by the FBI “Titan Rain,” stole massive amounts of information from military labs, NASA, the World Bank, and others. Rather than being rewarded, Carpenter was fired and investigated after revealing his findings to the FBI, because hacking foreign computers is illegal under U.S. law. He later sued and was awarded more than $3 million. The FBI renamed Titan Rain and classified the new name. The group is still assumed to be operating.

2) State Department’s East Asia Bureau

In July 2006, the State Department admitted it had become a victim of cyber hacking after an official in “East Asia” accidentally opened an email he shouldn’t have. The attackers worked their way around the system, breaking into computers at U.S. embassies all over the region and then eventually penetrating systems in Washington as well.

3) Offices of Rep. Frank Wolf

Wolf has been one of the most outspoken lawmakers on Chinese human rights issues, so it was of little surprise when he announced that in August 2006 that his office computers had been compromised and that he suspected the Chinese government. Wolf also reported that similar attacks had compromised the systems of several other congressmen and the office of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

4) Commerce Department

The Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security had to throw away all of its computers in October 2006, paralyzing the bureau for more than a month due to targeted attacks originating from China. BIS is where export licenses for technology items to countries like China are issued.

5) Naval War College

In December 2006, the Naval War College in Rhode Island had to take all of its computer systems offline for weeks following a major cyber attack. One professor at the school told his students that the Chinese had brought down the system. The Naval War College is where much military strategy against China is developed.

…

That’s just a little taste.

According to the State Dept. yesterday, they have not filed a formal demarche, despite saying they would. So, the question is why not? PJ Crowley didn’t answer that yesterday. And as for China’s response to Secretary Clinton’s speech, lets put this in perspective- essentially, whenever somebody-anybody-points out the obvious about China, they over-react, throw a hissy fit and threaten that the diplomatic relationship will suffer. It’s about as predictable as the sun rising tomorrow. Or as the GOP blocking meaningful financial reform. I refuse to believe that the State Department thought China wouldn’t respond negatively. It’s kind of part of the whole game with China.

Daniel Blumenthal wrote about what he sees as Obama’s policy of appeasement with China, here. Basically, he points out that despite bending over backwards for Beijing, the Obama administration hasn’t received a whole helluva lot in return.

Joe Klein just wrote a piece for Time Magazine. Here is an excerpt:

The Chinese, who have been acting pompous and huffy on the global stage in recent years, are upset that Hillary Clinton has challenged them on internet censorship. Too bad. This is a good fight to have–and a very good moment to show the Chinese that we’re not going to be pushed around.

[snip]

Furthermore, it is time for the United States to begin pressuring China publicly on its unwillingness to play a positive role in global diplomatic efforts–from climate change to Iran’s nuclear program. The Chinese–who live by a socio-religious code (Confucianism) that is based in a precise and ornate brand of etiquette–showed shocking disrespect for the American President in Copenhagen…and perhaps also in Beijing. Obama, as is his wont, refused to be rude in return. But, if he hopes to be an effective diplomat, he is going to have to show the Chinese that he can be strong…and that there is a price to be paid for disrespect.

In the end, the most important point is this: The Chinese own our debt, but they don’t own us. In fact, we have them over a barrel…and we should use our leverage the same way the big banks did, by forcing them to support us.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/01/23/a-good-fight/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fswampland+%28TIME%3A+Swampland%29#ixzz0dTmakAAc