PTNR -- and Israel

Thursday, May 25, 2000 -- HONG KONG (AmpolNS) -- Oh, what a nailbiter! All the way down to the wire and everyone was just gasping with excitement.

Not.

As I have said every year in these columns when MFN and then NTR for China came up for renewal, the charade in Congress had more to do with domestic politics than it did with anything actually related to China. Let's face it, big business would never have forgiven a Congress that tossed out PNTR for China. While it is Joe Public who put their crosses on the ballot papers -- it is business interests (read: campaign financing) that get most of the names on the ballot papers in the first place. Y'know, it might have been a good thing if PNTR failed. It might have triggered a change in the way things are done -- business buying openly dishonest politicians instead of sneaky hypocrites. That'd work for me, don't know about you.

As far as the Democrat Party is concerned, I think they owe Clinton -- his 'victory' might just have managed to erase Gore's flip-flop over the issue when the contender started to waver and indicate he might back the unions in opposition to the deal... oops, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that. I'm glad he didn't pursue the issue and go into too many details about Americans losing jobs to those 'cheap' Chinese labourers -- considering the U.S. minimum wage and all that stuff. Strange how -- inexplicably -- it is frequently reported that a very significant number of American kids live below the poverty line. Of course, that'd be against their basic human rights. Probably Chinese propoganda.

Obviously, being based in Hong Kong, I have been watching the circus with interest. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, amusement. Back on the 17th May I got a chuckle out of Arlen Specter's announcement that he'd oppose PNTR because of China's illegal weapons sales and the Clinton administration's failure to punish them over it. Arlen highlighted sales to Iran, among others.

Hullo, Arlen, anyone home? Does the name 'North' mean anything to you? Supporting a 'terrorist' regime and lying to the American public? Nah, I suppose it wouldn't. I might be wrong here, but isn't that sort of behaviour contrary to what America stands for? What you guys would fight for? Launch cruise missile attacks against Sudan for? The sort of thing China would do, huh?

While we are in that era, Democrat James Traficante could hardly contain his admiration for Reagan and what he described as the Republican POTUS's toughness that eventually brought down the Soviet empire. "The world was a safer place," Jim said, "until today."

Forgive me, but I seem to remember it was only a few weeks ago I read something about 'rogue' states that have emerged since the fall of the Berlin Wall and their impact on the U.S. decision to go ahead with an anti-missile defense system. So now it is the 'rogue' states and China, I suppose? If a nation breaks a treaty are they a rogue? Okay, it is another subject and I don't want to 'START TWO' complicate things.

But then, we are led to believe, these 'rogue' states got their technology from China, unlike Iraq who got it from, er, okay... just for the fun of it do an Internet search using the keywords: Eximbank, Wiley, Glaspie, Iraq.

Purely as an academic exercise, Jim, you might also like to check out the number of wars that have been fought since 1989 and George Bush's "peace dividend" compared to the decade previous to that -- and then tell us if you think the world was a safer place -- until today. Ask the United Nations, they keep records on this sort of thing. Narrow your search to wars fought in Europe, if you like.

I liked the speech by Dan Burton, very positive. I particularly liked the bit when he said that over the past couple of decades China has made remarkable progress. You bet. They've had their present constitution since 1949 -- just over 50 years. As a long time resident in Asia and frequent visitor to China, I can vouch for Dan's statement. In fact, remarkable is something of an understatement.

Apart from current affairs I also have a passionate interest in history and I'd like to ask Ampol readers a a couple of questions. How much do you really know about the Chinese Constitution and the country's laws and regulations and their effect on the daily lives of ordinary people? While some people might not like what they read or hear about the shape or colour of China's way of administration, at the end of the day, it is the law. It is tough, but that's the way it is. I guess Christians who want to build a Cathedral in Saudi Arabia -- a U.S. ally -- could explain it better than I.

My second question is: How many citizens of the United States didn't enjoy the rights emphatically laid down in the U.S. Constitution, let's say, 50 years after the Declaration of Independence? Y'know, the "all men are born equal..." stuff. Hey, didn't you guys fight a civil war or something over this?

Okay, same question but 150 years after you kicked the Brits out. Were there any Americans who didn't get the protection provided by law and the Constitution? I am sure an Ampol reader can tell me -- I remember something about "fruit swinging in the trees" connected to the name of an American state? Okay, 200 years after you kicked the Brits out.... Ah, let's not go there anymore. The decendents of white European immigrants hate to be criticised on their human rights record. But heck, credit where credit is due, like the Chinese you have made progress -- you just took a whole lot longer. And you are still working on it.

And Dan, I'd not want to offend the Chinese by saying their civilisation only goes back 5,000 years -- I'd go for 6,000 years. Just a suggestion -- you might like to pass it on to your speech writers and researchers.

Going back to wars, I don't know if anyone else shares my concern over the hasty withdrawal from Lebanon by Israel. Why the rush? Why did the South Lebanon Army militia begin to collapse so quickly? Why didn't Ehud Barak give them some assurances and then allow the United Nations at least until the self-imposed Israeli deadline of July 7th to prepare a significant peacekeeping operation? And there is still that disputed area just inside Syria.

So now we have -- courtesy of Israel and the SLA -- a better armed and equipped but still pissed-off Hezbollah within hand-held melon throwing distance of Israel. And today we have an Israeli Prime Minister who has warned that if anything more lethal than fresh fruit is hurled across the wire -- he'll consider it an act of war and respond accordingly.

The Middle East just got a lot hotter.

You might not agree, but I think Barak wants an incident. It will give him 'justification' to launch even more devastating attacks against Lebanon -- and perhaps Syria -- with the objective of pummelling them into a peace agreement. Hey, we're being led to believe it worked for NATO in Bosnia and Kosovo -- why not in Lebanon? Personally, I don't really believe it worked in the Balkans -- and it won't work in the Middle East either. But unfortunately the precedent, however flawed it may be, has been set.

Click here for more of Chris Gelken's An Outsider Looking In.