The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission – a bipartisan Commission established by Congress in 2000 “to investigate, analyze and provide recommendations to Congress on the economic and national security implications of the U.S.-China relationship” – reported to Congress this week.
The Commission concluded that: “a number of the current trends in U.S.-China relations have negative implications for our long-term economic and national security interests."
Example of an ominous economic trend? Our “goods” trade deficit with China was an astounding 20 percent greater in 2003 than the year before, with U.S. imports from China ($152 billion) exceeding exports to China ($28 billion) by more than 5 to 1.
More ominous, American private sector firms are rapidly increasing their “investment” in US-owned and/or joint-venture research, development and manufacturing centers in China. Furthermore, Chinese “private sector” firms – many actually state-owned – listed on international stock exchanges are attracting billions of dollars from U.S. investors.
Even more ominous, China had an international trade deficit of $8.4 billion in the first quarter of 2004, mostly because of huge increases in raw material imports. China increased its imports of soybeans by 39.2 percent and crude oil by 35.7 percent.
Now that huge increase in demand for soy beans ought to make American farmers happy, but that huge increase in demand for oil bodes ill for you SUV drivers.
As the Commission noted,
“China’s growing energy needs, linked to its rapidly expanding economy, are creating economic and security concerns for the United States.
“China’s energy security policies are driving it into bilateral arrangements that undermine multilateral efforts to stabilize oil supplies and prices, and in some cases may involve dangerous weapons transfers.”
So, now you know why the price of gasoline for your Chevy Equinox – much of it made in China – went to historic highs earlier this year.
And now you can begin to understand what a dangerous game Undersecretary of State Bolton is playing at the quarterly meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors.
The neo-crazies had been hell-bent on “regime change” in Iraq and Iran for dog’s ages. But public opinion polls had revealed that the only rationale you soccer-moms would accept for such regime change was the imminent prospect of Saddam and/or the mullahs giving nukes to terrorists.
But, on the eve of Gulf War II, Iraq and Iran were signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and were subject to continuous monitoring and frequent inspection by the IAEA.
So, in order to justify their preemptive invasion of Iraq, the neo-crazies lied to you. They told you that Saddam was secretly – once more – enriching uranium and fully intended to give the nukes he made from that highly-enriched uranium to al-Qaeda.
“Trust us” – quoth the neo-crazies – “Saddam has a secret nuke development program. Don’t trust the IAEA inspectors who can’t find such a program, in spite of having unrestricted access to any and all suspect sites.”
Well, if you placed your trust in the neo-crazies – rather than the IAEA—you must feel rather foolish by now.
But remember the old saying – “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
You see, the neo-crazies are attempting to fool you twice.
In the aftermath of the Gulf War, the IAEA Board of Governors concluded that the IAEA inspectors needed to have essentially unrestricted access to any and all “nuclear” sites in all NPT-signatory states. The authority would be provided in an Additional Protocol to the signatory’s existing IAEA Safeguards Agreement.
So, with threats of US and/or Israeli preemptive strikes against Iran’s secret “nuke” sites filling the air, Iran worked out a deal with France-Germany-UK. If Iran would speedily negotiate an Additional Protocol, they would “protect” Iran from such strikes and facilitate Iran’s “inalienable right” under the NPT to acquire “nuclear” technology, to be made subject to IAEA Safeguards.
What were they to get in return?
Iranian oil.
But now Bolton has gotten France-Germany-UK – who also sit on the IAEA Board – to renege on their deal with Iran. They won’t “protect” Iran nor will they provide – as the NPT requires them to do – Iran access to “dual-use” nuclear technology.
So, Iran has decided it won’t sign an Additional Protocol after all. But it won’t withdraw – as did North Korea – from the NPT.
But, who do you guess will provide Iran the technology France-Germany-UK won’t?
And who do you guess will get all that Iranian oil?
Hint: they’ll get their soy beans from us.
