Lev Navrozov
Friday, Nov. 28, 2003

In my last column (“Who Are the Real Enemies of China?”) I discussed an e-mail from Low Seng Kiat, a fanatical Chinese government conformist. On Nov. 19, we at the Center for the Survival of Western Democracies, Inc., received, thanks to John Kusumi, an 11-page “research report” written by Fang Jue, a Chinese dissident at the Fairbank Center for East Asian Research, Harvard University, and published by the Wei Jingsheng Foundation.

Fang Jue’s research report is highly valuable as it deals with the political situation in China. None of what he says on the subject has been reported in the mainstream media and all of it proves the opposite of what the Chinese conformist Low Seng Kiat tries to assure us by his arrogance of speaking for all of “us, Chinese” versus all Americans, Americans allegedly being racists, supremacists and military aggressors.

Fang Jue quotes on page 2 the 16th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party late last year:

“We must uphold Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought and Deng Xiaoping Theory as our guidelines in the realm of ideology.”

The number of victims of Mao’s terror is no lower than that of Stalin’s. Three years after Stalin’s death (1953), Khrushchev represented Stalin as “our Hitler, only still worse.” Stalin became such a monster that he was unmentionable in the media. But the Congress of the Chinese Communist Party proclaims today that “Mao Zedong Thought” is one of “our guidelines.”

On page 3 we read that in 2003 “there are increasing numbers of dissidents who are being tried and imprisoned. ...”

After such examples, Fang Jue justifiably concludes (pp. 2-3) that “the human rights situation in China has not progressed; in fact, it has deteriorated.”

So far, so good – nay, excellent, illuminating, useful for every Westerner to read. But then Fang Jue goes over to the world political and strategic situation, and the result is a disaster.

Indeed, his research report is entitled “After the War on Terror, Refocusing Global Attention to China’s Political Transformation.”

One can say figuratively “the war on terrorism,” “the war on crime” or “the war on drugs.” But to say this literally, meaning war with bombers and tanks, is to say nonsense. Terrorism is as old as history, as common crime, as drugs – or as “regular war.” Terrorists have to be caught just as do common criminals, or illegal drug addicts and pushers. Bombers or tanks (or even swords and spears) are useless here.

The terrorist who sent out anthrax by mail in the United States has not been caught in the past two years, and perhaps will never be caught.

Even two years after their terrorist act, little is known about the 19 dead terrorists of Sept. 11, 2001, except that 15 of them were Saudis and that their expenses were defrayed by unknown persons through an account in the Emirates. Osama bin Laden’s and his al-Qaeda’s attributing the attack to themselves is a pack of their usual idiotic lies.

The double terrorist act in 1963 – the assassination of President Kennedy and then the assassination of Lee Oswald – remains puzzling, murky and confusing despite the past 40 years of investigations, including the “Frontline” TV program of Nov. 19, 2003.

It is so much easier to “link” any terrorists to a sufficiently weak and small country, launch a war on it with bombers and tanks, and call it “the war on terror,” even though such a war provokes terrorism.

Nor will terrorism ever cease – just as common crime and drug addiction will never cease. Terrorism is a special kind of war, akin to guerrilla war, for those who feel that their side or cause is weaker in regular forces, such as $1.5 billion bombers, and so they become human bombers as they did on Sept. 11, 2001, in the belief that they will go to the Islamic paradise and deflower beautiful virgins there eternally. This is an important detail: While rich Moslems can afford four wives, many poor Moslems have never known a woman.

That blessed time when “the war on terror” has been “won in a few years” (p. 10) will never come because the very belief that “the war on terror” can be waged (in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey or the United States) as a regular war with bombers and tanks is absurd, socially illiterate and tragicomical.

Indeed, the wars on Yugoslavia (1999), Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) occurred partly to divert U.S. public attention from China. It cannot be supposed that anyone in the U.S. political establishment could sincerely believe that Yugoslavia or Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq presented a mortal danger to the world while China has been as safe as a health resort.

Nor does Fang Jue seem to know anything about the Chinese autocrats’ geostrategy. Just as did the Soviet rulers, they understood that the outcome of a global contest is decided not on the old-fashioned battlefields, but in the newest labs. The real winner in World War II was the United States, whose “nukes” forced the unconditional surrender of Japan in spite of all its field victories, vast captured territories and kamikaze terrorists.

Therefore, in the early 1970s the Soviet rulers began the development of post-nuclear superweapons, able to defeat the West as the United States defeated Japan in 1945. Their Chinese disciples followed suit and founded, in 1986, “Project 863” to develop such superweapons in seven fields.

Why do the Chinese autocrats want to be able to annihilate the West or force its unconditional surrender, converting it into a huge Hong Kong?

According to Fang Jue, who regards the present rulers of China without any personal animosity, “China’s transformation” (after “the war on terror” has been “won in a few years”) “must include at least the following criteria” (p. 10): “Leaders at all levels of government, as well as representatives for the people’s congress, need to be elected through free and direct general elections.”

The trouble that the present rulers of the country foresee is that they will not be elected in such elections.

Fang Jue speaks of Gorbachev’s perestroika and believes that “the transformation of China,” which will begin “in a few years,” will be similar.

Recall Gorbachev at the end of his perestroika. What an impressive, world-famous statesman of genius! A Nobel Peace Prize winner! A champion of world freedom! A friend of the prime minister of England and the U.S. president!

But when his dictatorship fell, the Russian electorate did not want to vote for him. He became a total zero and has been living abroad on lecture fees as a kind of immigrant, now almost forgotten. He had lost his domain, estate, property, wealth – Russia!

Man alive, do you understand what this means? It is a greater loss than the loss of all of his property by the richest billionaire on earth. To acquire – no, not dozens of billions of dollars, but $300, a robber in New York kills a taxi driver at the risk of the death penalty if caught.

Fang Jue informs the present owners of China that they may lose China, as Gorbachev lost Russia, yet expects them to take chances – to gamble for what they possess. But their loss of China is the best outcome. What if their victims or the near and dear of those who died in labor camps clamor for their trial?

On the other hand, should the autocrats of China obtain the geostrategically decisive post-nuclear superweapon (such as the nano assembler), the West will be annihilated or become a vast Hong Kong in which the rulers will be not elected in “free and direct general elections,” but appointed by the autocrats in Beijing.

Yet, according to Fang Jue, the only obstacle to free and direct general elections, replacing the autocrats in China by elected statesmen, is the U.S. “war on terror.” The United States is too busy – it cannot do two things at the same time!

First, the U.S. will, “in a few years,” turn the Islamic world into another United States, but without terrorists, who in the United States have been by no means only Moslems (recall, for example, all the assassinations of, or assassination attempts on, U.S. presidents).

And then “global attention” will refocus on China’s political transformation, whereupon free and direct general elections will replace all those lifelong owners of post-1949 China (who will live happily ever after on lecture fees in the West?).

For more information about the Center for the Survival of Western Democracy, Inc., including how you can help, please e-mail me at navlev@cloud9.net.

The link to my book online is www.levnavrozov.com. You can also request our webmaster@levnavrozov.com to send you by e-mail my outline of my book.

Editor's note:
Harry Wu reveals the real China – Click Here Now

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
China/Taiwan
War on Terrorism