http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_excomm/19990128_xex_wheres_truth.shtml
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Howard Phillips
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
The Washington Times has, over the years, done a good job of presenting news and commentary ignored or undermined by most of the liberal media. But recently even the Times has published a series of articles concerningthe United States and Panama which leave much to be desired.
In 1977 and 1978, I organized rallies, press conferences and volunteer briefings in all 50 states, as part of a nationwide campaign by the Conservative Caucus and other groups to defeat the Jimmy Carter-Howard Baker Panama Canal treaties. We fell short in the Senate 68-32, but helped assure that 29 of those who voted to ratify those unwise treaties were retired from the U.S. Senate when it convened in January 1981.
In a letter to the editor of the Times on Jan. 13, 1999, I said:
"Dear Sir:
Your Panama series has been a disappointment in at
least two ways.
One, as suggested by the
headline, 'Canal no longer crucial to national security,' you
fail to convey a fact-based sense of urgency about the on-going
strategic significance of the assets we are surrendering.
Second, your series fails to point out that it is not
too late for corrective action.
The real issue is not 'Who manages the Canal?' but rather, 'Who controls the isthmus?' Panama is, in effect, the 'belt buckle' of the Western Hemisphere from which the United States has been able to project power in defense of its vital interests from the Arctic Circle to Antarctica, and in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
While you did point out the unique value of the Jungle Operation Training Base -- which is topographically and climatologically irreplaceable -- your writers neglected to emphasize the important intelligence gathering activities which have been based in Panama with respect to naval activity in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
The particular loss
concerns naval intelligence below the surface and information
acquisition above. Our military presence in Panama has permitted
us to monitor, control, and outflank hostile activity in Central
America and throughout the Caribbean.
And, of course, without U.S. troops on the ground,
our ability to prevent a terrorist attack on the Canal could
result in our naval vessels being divested of the ability to
rapidly transit vessels in wartime between the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans.
Most serious is the
possibility that the vacuum we are creating will be filled by a
hostile power.
Most of your readers are old enough to remember the
Cuban missile crisis of 1962 involving a Soviet nuclear presence
in Cuba. Currently, the Clinton administration has permitted a
Hong Kong company closely linked to the People's Liberation Army
of Red China to gain control of the ports at both ends of the
Canal.
As Chinese influence waxes in Panama, and that of the
United States wanes,there is the distinct possibility that,
within a decade, Red China could threaten the United States from
a position of strength within Panama.
Fortunately, much can be
done, even at this late date. As you did point out, the
overwhelming sentiment in Panama is for the United States to
remain. Elections for a new government will occur in May. Even
though that government will not take office until September,
there is a strong possibility that the United States can
negotiate a reconsideration of our withdrawal.
In anticipation of that possibility, we should
immediately discontinue the premature removal of our forces and
the turnover of our facilities."
It is not too late to safeguard America's
vital interests at Panama. If you agree, please contact U.S.
Senator John Warner, R-VA, the new chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee -- by e-mail, phone 202-224-2023, fax
202-224-6295, or postal delivery 225 Senate Russell Building,
Washington,D.C. 20510 -- and ask him to provide time for me and
other representatives of the Conservative Caucus to brief him on
the issue and offer actual recommendations for his consideration.
Please send me a copy of your letter. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Phillips is chairman of the Conservative Caucus, 450 Maple
Avenue East, Vienna, Virginia 22180.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_excomm/19990129_xex_chokehold_ch.shtml
By Thomas H. Moorer, USN Ret
© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com
Any one who has been involved, as I have, in logistic planning to support the entire "forward-deployed" military capacity of the United States, where the time of transit from sources of supply to the deployed forces is so critical, knows the danger faced when choke points are controlled by unfriendly forces.
In the case of the Isthmus of Panama, any entity that controls the anchorages has the capacity to control and disrupt the flow of shipping.
Panama's enactment of its Law #5 in 1997 has enabled the Hutchison Whampoa interests, closely allied with the military interests of Communist China, to do just that. This law was passed by the Balladares clique in Panama with the tacit support and encouragement of the present administration, which has sought to prevent the public from knowing the full extent to which that law, and its implementation to date, pose a threat to our national security by giving Communist China the capability to prevent our support of our forward deployment at will. Has the president stated to the public that our entire military capability is now hostage to the very oppressive government which financed his campaigns from their outset? Or has he blocked the attempts to bring out that truth?
In June, responding to an invitation from Sen. Helms, I testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the clear and present danger created by Panamanian Law #5, which was passed under extremely suspicious circumstances indicating a motive far beyond the commercial on the part of the Hutchison Whampoa interests of Mr. Li Ka Sheng, a gentleman very close to the communist rulers of China. There are signs that this Law #5 does not reflect the will of a majority of Panamanians. In fact, although the constitution of Panama requires all laws which involve foreign nations to be submitted to a popular plebiscite, that was not done with Law #5, apparently out of fear that it would not pass such a test. The American public needs to know of the pressing strategic danger posed by the capacity of our most likely strategic foe to control the Canal in the event of a military confrontation thanks to this law.
China can prohibit America's ability to act effectively, whether acting on its own behalf in taking Taiwan, or on behalf of any other hostile power with which it might seek to ally to advance its strategic ambitions, e.g., Iran moving in the Persian Gulf or North Korea advancing across the 38th Parallel. To correct such action would require military force by the U.S. with a high cost in American lives. This threat is not remote in time nor geographic distance; it exists today and is not a function of further development of technology by the Communist Chinese. It is "low tech" and all the more effective for being so.
The administration saw fit to have its ambassador to Panama, former Rep. William Hughes, D-NJ, criticize my testimony and seek to undermine it. Why did an American administration take such steps to prevent the correction of such an obvious breach of our national security? Given the "two ocean" strategy which we have relied upon since the Panama Canal was built and our present reliance upon "forward deployment" within that strategy, this amounts to resisting examination of a strategic vulnerability which makes our entire present defense planning inoperable at the will of China. It is as if, during the Revolution, Benedict Arnold had quietly been allowed to give the British access to West Point so as to enable their army to divide the country in half at their whim and an experienced commander raising the issue of the foolishness of such a breach was opposed for attempting to point out the folly.
Ambassador Hughes opened his remarks by criticizing my testimony about the danger posed by the Chinese Communist control of ports at the ends of the Canal. He did so by attempting to distinguish the ports from the Canal, as if a ship could use the Canal without using the ports and their anchorages.
He thus sought to avoid the point of my comments and to assuage fears about the administration's tactical assistance in turning those ports, and their anchorages, over to commercial interests that are closely allied with and,in part, even openly owned by, the Communist Chinese military. This is the Hutchison Whampoa complex of companies, controlled by Mr. Li Ka Sheng.
According to Emily Lau, a leading Hong Kong democratic activist, Mr. Li operates as a virtual arm of the Chinese military. These connections have also been found by Senator Thompson's committee and may be discerned by overt intelligence using maritime and Asian business sources. Contrary to the assertions of Ambassador Hughes, control of the anchorages is, for strategic purposes, control of the Canal.
This capability to interfere with U.S. National Security that Law #5 has created is in conflict with the terms our Senate put into the Canal Treaty and makes the ambassador's distinction meaningless. In the event of a military confrontation in the Pacific, (e.g. Taiwan Straits or Korea) the large number of logistic ships required to support our deployed forces must have available to them unfettered transit of the canal from a matter of hours to a maximum of 10 days to sustain combat effectiveness. The forward deployed forces in the Eastern Mediterranean (NATO) or the Persian Gulf require the same assurances for logistic resupply from the Pacific to the Atlantic through the Canal. Control by a hostile power of the approaches and anchorages would interdict timely transit and would require taking the Canal by force. It is not "managing traffic' under normal circumstances as the Ambassador indicated, which concerns me, it is the ability of a potential enemy to disrupt traffic so as to block military supply, which in times of conflict is 80 to 90 percent dependent upon sea lift capability for any sustained effort.
At a subsequent point in his criticism Ambassador Hughes tried to argue that the capability of interests allied with the Communist Chinese military to control the Canal was not of concern because if such interference occurs, we have a right to arbitrate. My concerns about such a flagrant threat to our national security by commercial interests allied so closely with the Communist Chinese military are not alleviated because Panama Law #5 has a provision that, if there is a conflict between it and the Canal Treaty, the Treaty prevails and we could enforce it at an arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. This is not practical if a military confrontation necessitating immediate use of the canal to support our forward deployed forces should occur. The transit of logistical supply ships must occur too quickly to allow for such enforcement. The mere capacity for hostile action that Law #5 creates threatens our security and breaches the Treaty. The violation is not cured by some legal right that,as a practical matter, is unenforceable in the time frame of conflict, and lacks sufficient reliability for military planing. So again we see that the only enforcement of this supposed right would be armed seizure.
The entire argument of Ambassador Hughes also relies upon a false premise and that is that in a nation such as Communist China, military and strategic interests are separate from commercial and business interests.
This is not the case. At the heart of this denial is an unwillingness to face the reality of a totalitarian government such as that of Communist China, which operates on a central command principle, not as a Republic. There is no separation between commercial and strategic considerations on the part of the controlling party elite, any more than there was in the former Soviet Empire. The Party elites in turn, through operatives in all units, control the armed forces. The armed forces (and in this they differ from the Soviets) control the biggest business conglomerate in Communist China. Including fronts and affiliates, the military is bigger than all other businesses combined. Some of its operations, and there are thousands, (such as COSCO and China Resources) have become known to committees of our Senate and through reports in the maritime and business press. But we seem in the grip of a paralysis as far as fully analyzing the strategic implications of this massive military industrial complex and its reach into the Panama Canal. This present situation, as I write this today, is the situation which we have always feared, but which we have never previously faced since the Panama Canal was opened, i.e., having a potential hostile power as a constant presence in the canal with an ability to close it off at any time under any circumstances. I was surprised that our Ambassador sought to divert attention from a focus on this problem. Unlike missile technology transfer, this danger is not in the future and will not go away unless we take action to eliminate it. But what I see is complicity,inaction and cover up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retired Admiral Tom Moorer is a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, chief of Naval Operations, commander-in-chief of our Pacific Fleet, supreme allied commander, Atlantic, and commander-in-chief of the Atlantic Fleet. He is the honorary chairman of U.S. Defense -- American Victory in Washington, D.C. He can be reached by email at the address for U.S. Defense [~] American Victory. He can be reached by e-mail. lawnet@erols.com
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19980525_xex_the_panamach.shtml
Port company at canal has close ties to Lippo group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Edward G. Oliver
© 1998 WorldNetDaily.com
A Panamanian presidential candidate has asked the U.S. Justice Department to investigate China's activities around the canal and the possibility of a quid pro quo between the Clinton administration and the Asian Communist power.
Concerned about possible executive branch complicity in China's gatekeeper status at the Panama Canal, Panamanian presidential candidate William Bright Marine wrote to the Justice Department May 4: "I have yet to speak to one single American who is not outraged at the fact that the Clinton administration has allowed Communist China to obtain control of U.S. ports, U.S. bases, and functions of the Panama Canal. They today, effectively control access to the Panama Canal ... this agreement could not have happened, without the consent of the Clinton administration ... the executive branch has been copied by my correspondence regarding communist China dating back to late 1996. They cannot claim ignorance."
The Justice Department has not yet responded.
Marine is a dual U.S-Panamanian citizen born and raised in the canal zone. The 45-year-old businessman has been a catalyst in Panama politics since the Noriega era when he was jailed and exiled for opposition to the regime. ABC's "nightline" featured Marine in an edition detailing the treatment of prisoners jailed by the dictator. The former "Zonian" threw his hat in the ring with a platform of negotiating a new U.S. base and Panama Canal treaty -- and canceling "law #5" which gives Hutchinson-Whampoa Ltd. rights to key former U.S. ports and military installations.
The 1977 Panama Canal treaties give complete legal jurisdiction over the canal to Panama on midnight, Dec. 31, 1999. The U.S. has been following a scheduled transition process of handing over facilities and control to Panama.
Marine told WorldNetDaily that article 319 of Panama's constitution was violated because Panama never held a plebiscite allowing the people to vote on leasing the ports to Hutchinson-Whampoa Ltd. The Hutchinson subsidiary Hong Kong International Terminals (HIT) uses the alias Panama Ports Company (PPC) in Panama. Marine claims this helps keep the Panamanian people in the dark about who is controlling their ports and bases.
U.S. Army Gen. Gordan Sumner, ret., former chairman of the inter-American defense board and ambassador at large at the State Department told WorldNetDaily: "Apparently Hutchinson is a good solid commercial operation, I guess the problem from our standpoint is it's basically controlled by the Chinese Communists. It is a way of getting in here and yonder including into the Long Beach facility. That's something that when you look at what's going on at the White House with Clinton and the Chinese, the Chinese penetration there -- it raises a lot of questions in a lot of peoples' minds; it's a problem."
A Senate Committee on Foreign Relations staff report on the privatization of the Panamanian ports dated May 14, 1997, identified Hutchinson's subsidiary HIT, or Panama Ports Company, as being 10 percent owned by China Resources Enterprise (CRE), which is the commercial arm of China's "Ministry of Trade and Economic Co-operation."
During the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee hearings, the South China Morning Post on July
16, 1997, quoted Sen. Fred Thompson as saying China Resources was
"an agent of espionage - economic, military, and political -
for China."
"China Resources denied allegations it helped spy for
Beijing. Chairman Gu Yongjiang said claims made during United
States Senate hearings on campaign finance abuse were 'total
nonsense,'" the paper reported.
Also, a Lippo Group connection to CRE can be found from the hearings which focused on illegal foreign contributions. Marine hopes an investigation can reveal if those contributions are responsible for the situation at the Panama canal.
Thompson's summary of hearings into 1996 campaign finance abuses stated: "Lippo group, run by the Riady family which employed (John) Huang, had over the past few years become a major business partner with China Resources, a trading company wholly owned by the Government of the peoples republic of China, and which has reportedly served as an intelligence-collection front for China."
The South China Morning Post article stated China Resources (Holdings) "has solid relations with the Lippo Group. In 1992 it acquired 50 percent of the Hong Kong Chinese Bank, which is also 50 percent owned by Lippo, and sold the stake to its listed arm China resources Enterprise last month."
The Post quotes Thompson saying "Lippo had shifted its strategic center from Indonesia to China ... much of the conglomerate's business now involved joint ventures with China Resources and the latter had a more geopolitical purpose. Kind of like a smiling tiger; it might look friendly, but it's very dangerous."
Marine mentioned to WorldNetDaily the famous photograph of President Clinton giving a radio address with representatives of China Resources looking on.
On Jan. 2, 1997, Emily Lau replied to Bill Bright's query about Hutchinson. Lau at the time was a Hong Kong legislator until China dissolved the legislature. Her note reads, "The major shareholder of Hutchinson is Mr. Li-Ka Shing, one of the richest men in HK and a close advisor to the Chinese Government. I am not familiar with the situation in Panama but I have full sympathy for your worries."
The Senate report muses: "A question to consider is the extent that the PRC can, if at all, pressure Ka-Shing into altering his business practices to favor mainland China."
An October 1996 Journal of Commerce article by Joe Studwell reported, "When Hong Kong reverts to Chinese rule in July, tycoon Li Ka-Shing, uncrowned prince of the colony, is sure to be standing next to the top leaders of Beijing. Li's flagship Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. gives him the best connections with top Chinese government officials of any local tycoon. Its core is Hong Kong International Terminals Ltd. (HIT), the largest box handler in Hong Kong. ..."
The Senate Foreign Relations report also revealed Hutchinson's subsidiary HIT had business ventures with COSCO, the China Ocean Shipping Company. The Chinese army owns COSCO.
A State Dept. official told the WorldNetDaily "There are no Chinese ports. There is a holding company based in Hong Kong that has invested in those ports, but the term Chinese ports is a misnomer as it implies some sort of overall control. This is an investment and business group."
Marine displayed briefings faxed to
multiple government and private recipients from the time
Hutchinson first showed interest in the ports in 1996. There is
ample evidence of resulting congressional and Senate interest in
the matter but not from the executive branch. In fact, Mr. Marine
claims the U.S. Embassy, State Department and the government of
Panama misrepresented Hutchinson's connections.
Writing of his trip to Washington where he put on a presentation
to key congressional committees, he told the Justice Department:
"I traveled to Washington in March 97, and met with key
people in Congress. Based on this trip, several articles appeared
in the newspapers regarding Communist China controlling the
Panama Canal. Based on the information provided, multiple
congressional delegations have traveled to Panama. Each and every
one of these missions have been misled by Ambassador Hughes.
Until recently, he told them that Hutchinson has no ties to
Communist China."
U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, R-GA, visited Panama on a recent fact-finding trip in early February 1998. Barr told WorldNetDaily "controlling ports at both ends of the canal will give the Communist Chinese the ability to shut the canal on and off at will. It also raises the possibility that ships could be trapped in the canal for extended periods by closed ports at one end or the other, This situation will dramatically raise the potential for U.S.-Chinese confrontations."
"The president of the United States has the ability today to go right down to the President of Panama and say we will not stand for this and Panama would be forced to let these guys go," said Marine. "That's the type of juice we have down there."
At the time Hutchinson obtained the Panama Canal ports, it moved to gain Subic Bay in the Philippines in the wake of the U.S. departure. Marine sent warnings about Hutchinson to Phillipine officials. President Ramos twice vetoed Hutchinson's award and the company was denied the base.
After President Balladares of Panama was elected in May 1994, the government began searching for companies to privatize the ports claiming high operating costs and inefficiency.
Panamanian law doesn't require a bidding process, but bids were taken in a process criticized by U.S. Ambassador Hughes as "unorthodox" and "lacking transparency." Hutchinson won amid cries of protest from competitors. There was talk of shady deals under the table. In their defense, Panama officials said they were inexperienced at taking bids.
What followed was a "sweetheart deal," claimed critics, that violates the canal treaty between the U.S. and Panama, violates the constitution of Panama and risks the security of the canal, the U.S., and Panama. The contract is for 50 years.
Marine described in his letter how the U.S. Ambassador got his first look at the secretive agreement about to be implemented: "Eight days before the Communist China takeover date of March 1, 1997, an American executive met with U.S. Ambassador William Hughes in Panama. At this meeting, the executive advised Ambassador Hughes what was in the Panama Communist treaty. Mr. Hughes and Commercial Attache Benson were surprised, and kept repeating time after time, no that cannot be, that was taken out. That same evening, the executive hand-delivered a copy of the law number 5 in Spanish to Ambassador Hughes' residence. The attached copy of the law number 5 in English was hand delivered to the executive several days later. The sections marked with AE came that way from the US Embassy.
..." Marine displayed a copy showing where the ambassador underlined his concerns. The U.S. Embassy has not responded to submitted questions and multiple calls from WorldNetDaily about this matter.
Following are some key
"rights" from "law #5" granted to China's
Hutchinson-Whampoa Ltd.:
»Responsibility for hiring new pilots for the canal.
(Pilots steer all ships passing through canal);
»Assume control over critical Atlantic/Pacific
anchorages, including a monopoly on the Pacific side when Rodman
Naval base is vacated next year.(According to "law #5"
effective March 1, 1997, Hutchinson has right to demand Rodman);
»Authority to control the order of ships utilizing
the entrance to the canal on the Pacific side. Also the right to
deny ships access to the ports and entrances of the canal if they
are deemed to be interfering with Hutchinson's business -- in
direct violation of the 1977 Panama Canal treaty which guarantees
expeditious passage for the U.S. Navy;
»The right to unilaterally transfer its rights to a
third party (any company or nation of their choosing);
Certain public roads become private, cutting off strategic areas of the canal. Included in the deal for Hutchinson is U.S. Naval Station Rodman; a portion of U.S. Air Station Albrook; Diablo; Balboa (Pacific U.S.-built port);Cristobal (Atlantic U.S.-built port); the Island of Telfers (strategically located adjacent to Galeta Island, a critical communications center).
Telfers Island is the future home of the Chinese planned export zone called "The Great Wall of China Project."
A clause was inserted at the end of "law #5" that states if a conflict between provisions of the law and provisions of the Canal treaty occur, the Canal treaty prevails. Marine says the clause that is only as good as the governments in place willing to back it up.
Click on your browsers 'back' button to return to the current Msg for you.
FTM HomePage ---- Previous "Msg For You" updates