China's Involvement With Terrorism : Taliban Uses Weapons Made In China, Iran

Sophisticated new weapons, including Chinese anti-aircraft missiles as well as items made in Iran, are reaching Taliban forces in Afghanistan, according to government officials and other sources.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said during a visit to Kabul yesterday that there was no evidence as yet that Tehran government officials are involved in shipping weapons to the country for use against U.S. and NATO forces.

He did not comment on the appearance in the country of Chinese anti-aircraft weapons, evidence of which was provided to The Washington Times yesterday.

A set of photographs was provided depicting Taliban insurgents showing off new supplies of Chinese-made HN-5 shoulder-fired missiles.

The weapons, similar in design to Russian Strela-2 missiles and in use with China's People's Liberation Army since the early 1990s, are limited in range, speed and altitude, but effective against helicopters and low-flying airplanes.

It is not clear who provided the missiles, since they have been in use for years as far away as Bolivia. Small numbers of them have been in Afghanistan at least since 2002 when U.S. forces discovered a hidden cache.

A Taliban "weapons expert" who provided photos of the latest missiles said the Taliban fighters were "elated" to have more of them, which they consider an important answer to U.S. air power.

He did not say how the weapons got to Kandahar province in southern Afghanistan, where a U.S. helicopter went down last week, killing seven soldiers.

The Taliban claimed to have shot down the Chinook, while NATO authorities have said only that they are investigating. An unidentified U.S. military official was quoted saying the chopper was brought down by a lucky shot from a rocket-propelled grenade.

Mr. Gates, appearing at a press conference in Kabul with President Hamid Karzai, said the Taliban had received shipments of Iranian weapons but that he had no evidence of government complicity.

"There have been indications over the past few months of weapons coming in from Iran," he said. "We do not have any information about whether the government of Iran is supporting this, is behind it, or whether it's smuggling, or exactly what's behind it."

He added that some of the weapons may have been supplied to criminals involved in Afghanistan's booming drug trade.

Mr. Karzai was doubtful about official Tehran involvement, saying, "Iran and Afghanistan have never been as friendly as they are today."

Mr. Gates did not identify the types of Iranian weapons found in Afghanistan, but NATO authorities recently announced the discovery of an armor-piercing roadside bomb in the capital.

The United States has long complained about the same kind of Iranian weapons being used against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Mr. Gates' visit took place as Afghan civilians and Westerners working outside the military and NATO say expectations about what the U.S. and NATO can achieve here have plummeted.

"One of the problems is that the U.S. and its allies raised expectations so high when they came here," said Rory Stewart, an author on Afghanistan and a former British diplomat in Iraq.

"By talking so much about democracy and propping up warlords without delivering serious progress, we have managed to discredit a lot of our basic notions in the eyes of the Afghans."

Corruption in Mr. Karzai's government is corroding faith in the alliance as well as in Afghan security forces, Afghans say. Many question how Western governments and their Afghan partners have managed to spend billions of dollars on development assistance with only limited results.

Saad Mohseni, the Afghan-Australian director of Moby Capital Partners, a leading private media group, said there is "a lot of confusion about what NATO is doing and will do in the future."

"I mean, NATO is not a cohesive force. Some NATO troops refuse to fight at night; some NATO troops refuse to fight at all, and these caveats make it very difficult for NATO to have a consistent policy right across the country."

A senior NATO source rejected that criticism, saying NATO forces apply appropriate force when and where necessary.

"The robustness of NATO's fighting in the south of the country, where the British, Canadians and Americans are fighting, would be totally inappropriate in the north," he said.

China's Involvement With Terrorism : Weapons Migrate From China to Afghanistan

Chinese advisers are believed to be working with Afghan Taliban groups who are now in combat with NATO forces, prompting concerns that China might become the conduit for shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, improved communications and additional small arms to the fundamentalist Muslim fighters.

A British military official contends that Chinese specialists have been seen training Taliban fighters in the use of infrared-guided surface-to-air missiles. This is supported by a May 13, 2008, classified U.S. State Department document released by WikiLeaks telling U.S. officials to confront Chinese officials about missile proliferation.

China is developing knock-offs of Russian-designed man-portable air defense missiles (manpads), including the QW-1 and later series models. The QW-1 Vanguard is an all-aspect, 35-lb. launch tube and missile that is reverse-engineered from the U.S. Stinger and the SA-16 Gimlet (9K310 Igla-1). China obtained SA-16s from Unita rebels in then-Zaire who had captured them from Angolan government forces. The 16g missiles have a slant range of 50,000 ft. The QW-1M is a variant that incorporates even more advanced SA-18 Grouse (9K38 Igla) technology.

So far, there has been a curious absence of manpad attacks on NATO aircraft in Afghanistan. One reason is that the Russian equipment still in place is out of date and effectively no longer usable, the British official says. Another may be that the possession of such a weapon is a status symbol, so owners are reluctant to use it. However, the introduction of new manpads could change that equation.

Although there have been no attacks using manpads, “we act as if they exist,” notes the British officer. “We know they are out there,” he says, alluding to the proliferation of increasingly advanced missiles on the black and gray markets.

In fact, NATO officials know they exist, at least in Iraq, according to the classified U.S. State Department document. U.S. officials were instructed to provide the Chinese government with pictures of QW-1 missiles found in Iraq and ask how such missiles were transferred.

“In April 2008, coalition forces recovered from a cache in Basra, Iraq, at least two Chinese-produced Iranian-supplied QW-1 manpads that we assess were provided by Iran to Iraqi Shia militants. The date of production for the recovered QW-1 systems is 2003, but it is not known when these particular launchers were transferred by China to Iran or when the launchers entered Iraq,” the cable says. “Beijing has typically responded by asserting that its sales are in accordance with international law, that it requires end-users to sign agreements pledging not to retransfer the weapons, or—disingenuously in the judgment of [U.S. government] technical experts—that it cannot confirm that the weapons recovered by coalition forces in Iraq are actually Chinese in origin.”

Talking points in the cable allege that Chinese-origin weapons have been sent to Afghanistan.

“Iran is the world’s most active state sponsor of terrorism,” the cable says. “We know that Iran has provided Chinese weapons to extremist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan that are using these weapons to kill Americans and Iraqis, something we take very seriously. Iran is not a responsible purchaser of military equipment. There is an unacceptably high risk that any military equipment sold to Iran, especially weapons like manpads, that are highly sought-after by terrorists, will be diverted to non-state actors who threaten U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Other U.S. officials are less sure about the Chinese missile threat. Army officials told Aviation Week of an unsuccessful, multi-manpad attack against a U.S. helicopter in Iraq last year, but a senior intelligence official expressed doubt that Chinese aid to the Taliban has included weaponry. But he acknowledges that Chinese activities most certainly include intelligence gathering that could be of use in China’s own internal conflicts with its restive Muslim populations. That analysis could project U.S. hopes, whether well-founded or not, that China will not become involved in weapons trade to insurgent groups.

“[China] would not be doing something directly that involves weapons used in the fight against the U.S.,” the U.S. official says. “If they got caught, it would bring down a pall on all their dealings with the U.S.—that they are trying to cultivate—and it would stoke the far right to portray China as the bad guys and raise the flag of the evil PRC.

“There’s also the question of why would they want to alienate the U.S. when it’s doing their work of trying to keep a militant Islamic group from destabilizing Afghanistan,” he says. “There probably are Chinese there among the Taliban. They may even be offering help of some sort, but they are actually there to gather information and knowledge about the Taliban. It’s just good basic intelligence work.”

That kind of Chinese intelligence involvement has surfaced in Kyrgyzstan where U.S. officials say China has an impressive presence. In fact, the Wiki­Leaks trove of State Department documents reveals a confrontation between the U.S. and Chinese ambassadors in Kyrgyzstan. The U.S. official, Tatiana Gfoeller, asked Zhang Yannian in early 2009 about a covert attempt by China to bribe the Kyrgyz government with $3 billion in cash to close the U.S. military base at Manas, which is a primary logistics center for operations in Afghanistan.

Zhang did not expressly deny the bribe, but said the idea was impossible because China was a staunch opponent of terrorism. He said that China had actually rejected offers from locals to set up a military base to counterbalance Russian and U.S. influence.

“[China] is not concerned about the base in Kyrgyzstan because of [U.S. operations in] Afghanistan but because it is a U.S. presence on the western border of China,” says the U.S. intelligence official. (Kyrgyzstan borders China’s Xinjiang province.)

Other analysts believe that China is playing a deeper game than intelligence gathering and is actually involved in or facilitating international arms proliferation to Iran and other mineral-rich countries in the Middle East and Africa.

This is borne out by yet another leaked cable, posted in mid-2008, that asked U.S. officials to ask several governments to help stop a North Korean flight to Iran. They were told to encourage the nations to deny overflight of the aircraft or “require that it land and be subjected to inspection.”

The flight came to light when the Kyrgyz government denied permission for overflight and notified the U.S. The flight, from Pyongyang to Tehran, was described as a “proliferation concern” and “may be carrying [North Korean] personnel involved in ongoing cooperation with Iran on ballistic missiles” (AW&ST Oct. 18, p. 24).

The aircraft had been scheduled to overfly China, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The U.S. also asked that the return flight, three days later, be denied or subjected to inspection.

“Alternatively,” the cable says, “if this aircraft requests a fueling stop in your country, we request that you grant this permission and promptly search the aircraft upon its arrival for evidence of prohibited items or activities.”

[weapons of mass destruction] components or delivery systems, certain military goods and related materials including spare parts [and] transfers from or to North Korea of technical training, advice, services or assistance related to WMD, their delivery systems and certain conventional arms.”

The U.S. is currently asking the International Atomic Energy Agency to take a closer look at North Korea’s sharing of nuclear technology. It is investigating the transfer of a nuclear reactor to Syria that was destroyed by an Israeli air force strike in early 2007 (AW&ST Oct. 8, 2007, p. 28). Washington is expressing concern about transfers of centrifuges to Iran and Myanmar in the wake of Pyongyang’s recent unveiling of a new uranium enrichment facility and growing suspicion that others remain hidden.

Military leaders of the nations in the Persian Gulf region called for a shared missile defense system to counter the spread of ballistic missiles and to balance the concern that non-state groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas are acquiring more advanced weaponry.

The U.S. has Patriot missiles stationed in a number of countries in the region. The United Arab Emirates is buying its own Terminal High-Altitude Air Defense system to complement a Patriot deployment in 2012. In addition, the UAE and U.S. have created a missile defense training center at Al Bateen AB to parallel the Air Warfare Center at Al Dhafra AB. The relationship between the two bases is expected to expand as anti-missile weapons—such as Raytheon’s Ncade variant of the AIM-120 Amraam—that can be carried by fighter aircraft are fielded.

An interlocking air defense system for the region is crucial because an enemy ballistic or cruise missile may fly through the airspace of several countries to reach its target.

China's Involvement With Terrorism : Lawsuit alleging Bank of China laundered terrorists' money moves forward

By Leland Vittert
| FoxNews.com

The Bank of China knowingly laundered money for various Islamic militant groups so they could get around transaction restrictions because of their label as a "terrorist organization" by the U.S. government, a lawsuit by Israeli victims of suicide bombings claims. Recent court decisions in the United States say the lawsuits can go forward against the Chinese bank.

Fox News has learned that Israeli intelligence officials warned the Chinese government that Iran was using Bank of China to finance its militant networks, including providing account numbers and transaction details, only to have the Chinese turn a blind eye as the money went to make bombs that would kill dozens of civilians.

An explosion at a Tel Aviv sandwich shop in April 2006 took just a second to kill nine and injure 60.

In the moments after, it’s chaos. But the families of the victims have a lifetime to suffer and consider -- exactly how a suicide attack really starts.

Normally such attacks start not with a bomb but with planning -- and money. According to the son of one man killed in the 2006 Shawarma stand attack, the needed money was laundered halfway around the world by the Bank of China.

“Bank of China is the same as Islamic Jihad. Any group…is as bad as Iran for me,” Tal Erez said.

What makes these allegations even more explosive is the sworn testimony of an Israeli intelligence agent who says he personally warned the Bank of China they were moving money to build bombs and pay suicide bombers who would eventually kill hundreds.

“If (Bank of China) didn’t give them the instruments to transfer money, although Israel asked them to shut down these accounts, then probably my father wouldn’t be murdered six years ago,” Tal said.

While it has been nearly impossible to sue individual terror groups, lawyer Nitzana Darshan says going after their bankers is just as effective as arresting or killing groups’ leadership.

“The suicide bomber knows that in the end of the day, after they carry out an attack, there will be someone who will be taking care of their family for the rest of their lives. It is all based on money. You cut the funding, you cut the terrorism,” said Darshan.

Islamic Jihad took responsibility for the attack that killed Tal’s father. The 16-year-old bomber came from the town of Jenin and blew himself up during the Jewish holy week of Passover.

Typically in suicide bombings, the bomber’s family is paid between $10,000 and $25,000 by the organization that sent their loved one to kill.

The case is one of the first times, however, that Israelis are using U.S. courts to go after a financial institution for allowing transactions of this type. Darshan says the threat of civil liability for banks has already curtailed the ability of militant groups to move needed funds to buy weapons or the hearts and minds of those where they operate.

“Our goal is to block the funding. To get the terror organization beyond the banking system because if they can’t wire hundreds of millions of dollars, they don’t have a choice but to bring them in suitcases or smuggling through the tunnels into Gaza or to South Lebanon. And if you cut these pipelines you defiantly hurt and damage the terror organization,” said Darshan.

The Bank of China refused repeated requests by Fox News for an interview or to respond directly to questions about their involvement in moving money for Islamic Jihad or the alleged warning given by Israel’s Mossad Intelligence Service. Through their lawyer, the bank sent an emailed statement saying in part, “Bank of China Ltd. ('BOC') has answered the lawsuit and formally denied the plaintiffs' allegations. Since the litigation is pending, BOC will not comment to the media on it.”

According to the affidavit, known Islamic Jihad and Hamas leaders in Iran wired money to a numbered Bank of China account in Guanzhoua, China, which was controlled by Said al-Shurafa, an operative of both organizations. It's alleged that al-Shurafa would then transfer the money via various means from Guanzhoua to fellow militants in the West Bank and Gaza. In all, the affidavit details transfer of more than $1.1 million.

Tal often looks back at a picture of his father, a veteran of the 1967 Israeli war. He remembers his father as a fighter – inspiration for Tal to continue the fight against the bank he now considers a mortal enemy.

“My father was a peace man, he wants peace. I want to continue his ways,” he said. “I want that the people that did these terrible things will go to jail or will pay something (so) that they will not do that again. This is our way to say – father we won. This is our heritage for him.”

Inside the Ring - Red China Arming Islamofascist Terrorists

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

China arming terrorists
New intelligence reveals China is covertly supplying large quantities of small arms and weapons to insurgents in Iraq and the Taliban militia in Afghanistan, through Iran.

U.S. government appeals to China to check some of the arms shipments in advance were met with stonewalling by Beijing, which insisted it knew nothing about the shipments and asked for additional intelligence on the transfers. The ploy has been used in the past by China to hide its arms-proliferation activities from the United States, according to U.S. officials with access to the intelligence reports.

Some arms were sent by aircraft directly from Chinese factories to Afghanistan and included large-caliber sniper rifles, millions of rounds of ammunition, rocket-propelled grenades and components for roadside bombs, as well as other small arms.

The Washington Times reported June 5 that Chinese-made HN-5 anti-aircraft missiles were being used by the Taliban.

According to the officials, the Iranians, in buying the arms, asked Chinese state-run suppliers to expedite the transfers and to remove serial numbers to prevent tracing their origin. China, for its part, offered to transport the weapons in order to prevent the weapons from being interdicted.

The weapons were described as "late-model" arms that have not been seen in the field before and were not left over from Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq.

U.S. Army specialists suspect the weapons were transferred within the past three months.

The Bush administration has been trying to hide or downplay the intelligence reports to protect its pro-business policies toward China, and to continue to claim that China is helping the United States in the war on terrorism. U.S. officials have openly criticized Iran for the arms transfers but so far there has been no mention that China is a main supplier.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Wednesday that the flow of Iranian arms to Afghanistan is "fairly substantial" and that it is likely taking place with the help of the Iranian government.

Defense officials are upset that Chinese weapons are being used to kill Americans. "Americans are being killed by Chinese-supplied weapons, with the full knowledge and understanding of Beijing where these weapons are going," one official said.

The arms shipments show that the idea that China is helping the United States in the war on terrorism is "utter nonsense," the official said.

John Tkacik, a former State Department official now with the Heritage Foundation, said the Chinese arms influx "continues 10 years of willful blindness in both Republican and Democrat administrations to China's contribution to severe instability in the Middle East and South Asia."

Mr. Tkacik said the administration should be candid with the American people about China's arms shipments, including Beijing's provision of man-portable air-defense missiles through Iran and Syria to warring factions in Lebanon and Gaza.

Apologists for China within the government (EDIT: these Red Chinese agents of influence within the US Government, i.e.: Red Chinese 5th Column) said the intelligence reports were not concrete proof of Chinese and Iranian government complicity.

Pentagon spokesmen declined to comment. A spokesman for the Chinese Embassy did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/inring.htm

China's Involvement With Terrorism : Radical Islam, PRC (China) May Have Cut a Deal

 Ed Timperlake

America today is extended diplomatically and militarily as far the British were when “the sun never set on their empire.” Although empire-building is no longer in vogue, trying to introduce freedom and democracy may ultimately be seen by historians as the greatest challenge for America in the 21st Century. So far, the U.S., with some very courageous allies, has tried to bring the concept of a free democratic society to both Afghanistan and Iraq. Success, however, is now in doubt.

Aligned against the United States are two systems of “civilization” that have at their core the destruction of 1st Amendment democracy: fanatical Islam and the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Both are fundamentally against freedom. Both Islamic fanatics and the PRC have leaders who cannot tolerate the U.S., and as a result, will do everything in their power to prevent the United States from succeeding, for it will spell their doom. There is no gray in this argument; we have a good system with good and bad people in it. Meanwhile, both Islamists and Chinese have a bad system with good and bad people in it.

I believe that there is, in fact, a global civil war raging; my previous article, “The World Wide Civil War for Humanity,” makes this point. Tragically, it now looks like some additional credible evidence can be presented that the most dangerous situation in a three-party civil war has come to pass. Two sides have cut a deal to attack and destroy the third.

A caveat is that often in the matter of events not going one’s way, most would argue for incompetence over conspiracy every time because that is the smarter bet. Too much conspiracy theorizing and one’s argument can be easily dismissed, especially on the bold theory that fanatical Islam and the PRC have cut a deal.

First, as a matter of principal, both groups are natural enemies—just ask the oppressed Muslims in western China. The second is it would be impossible to prove because both sides are smart and capable and not about to sign a memorandum of agreement.

Nevertheless, the easiest way to see if the PRC and radical Islam have cut a deal is to look at four parts of the world. Evidence is antidotal but verifiable by Holmes’s “dog not barking” deduction. Why are there not a bunch of dead Chinese in the countries we are helping?

In Afghanistan, a friend and fellow Naval Academy alumnus, a retired Marine working for Lucent, recently returned with a warning that the PRC is dominating the communication field in both fiber and wireless. He observed personally that very little violence has happened to Chinese diplomats and engineers, while the U.S. and our NATO allies are primary targets constantly under threat of attack and kidnapping. In fact, he observed first hand that the PRC military personnel, diplomats and engineers are in no danger and can move about freely without significant security.

In Iraq, another friend, Bill Keller, a fellow Naval Academy graduate, reports the same from his personal experiences in that country. The Chinese appear to have relatively free right of passage through out Iraq to build out telecommunications, both fiber and wireless.

Keller, a Vietnam combat veteran with a master’s degree from MIT, also foresees a deal in the works between the U.S., Iran, Iraq, and Syria. In essence, he is predicting a potential “Yalta II” conference in the Middle East. If a new conference turns out as bad the first Yalta, where western democracies surrendered spheres of influence to Stalin’s USSR, the PRC would eventually be huge winners as America retreats from the oil fields.

On the African continent at a recent conference looking at al Qaeda in Africa, it was remarked, “Why, yes, it does appear the PRC diplomatic and economic players have not been targeted.” Remember, U.S. embassies in Africa have been bombed by Islamic terrorists, and Chinese are all over Sudan and other African locations without being threatened.

Iran has been one of the biggest markets, after pre-war Iraq, for sophisticated PRC weapons that make their way to fanatical organizations like Hezbollah. To add insult to injury, it was also reported the Iranians were observers in North Korea, a PRC client state, while Dear Leader Kim Jung Il flexed his missile and nuke technology. I wonder if the Iranian’s stopped off in China?

So what to make of still spotty evidence. The simplest answer is to be watchful to see if the PRC has so far just caught a lucky break. After all, until 9/11 the U.S. had been a relatively easy target dating back to the Iranians’ taking over our embassy when President Jimmy Carter was in office. For more than 20 years, we never truly struck back forcefully, except once when President Ronald Reagan ordered a strike on Libya.

However, it is very possible and plausible that the PRC signaled through Iranian mullahs, Taliban war lords and al Qaeda to just leave them alone in the PRC’s worldwide quest for natural resources and influence. This would not be difficult. In return, the bad guys would have full PRC backing at the UN and in other diplomatic forums as needed, and, “Oh, by the way, buy all the nasty weapons you can afford (or we can smuggle to you), and keep making life hell for America around the globe.” 

 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1750760/posts

China's Involvement With Terrorism : The Israeli war against Hezbollah (round one) brought with it the realization at the highest levels that dangerous weapons were floating around in dangerous hands. The successful attacks against a cargo vessel by Hezbollah, using Chinese-made C-802 cruise missiles, raised alarm bells all over the globe. Immediately after the attack, the first alarm bell rang at CIA headquarters, where an intensified global intelligence operation to track weapons deliveries was started. The CIA began to track Iranian efforts to resupply Hezbollah with more Chinese-made C-802 missiles. According to reports, the CIA discovered that an Iranian Il-76 cargo plane, loaded with another Chinese-made missile launcher and up to eight C-802 missiles, was being prepared to fly to Syria. The weapons on board were for Hezbollah. Officially, the Iranian cargo plane was carrying medical and other non-military aid to help innocent victims of war inside Lebanon. A quick phone call to Baghdad convinced Iraqi officials to refuse overflight permission for the Iranian jet. Other nations were also warned about the Iranian ploy. Despite the refusal from Baghdad, the plane took off from Iran and sought overflight permission from Turkey. Turkey agreed, but only if the aircraft landed at a Turkish airbase where it and its cargo would be inspected. Of course, the cargo jet returned to Iran and unloaded its deadly payload. The Iranian efforts did not go unnoticed, and the alert is out to keep a close watch on further flights and shipments to Lebanon. Chinese Denials The original source of the C-802 cruise missiles, China, has also come under fire. China has done little to inhibit Iran from supplying these deadly cruise missiles to Hezbollah. Despite the confirmed attack using the C-802, a Chinese official stated that regulations made it "impossible" for a missile China sold to Iran to be passed on to Hezbollah. "According to our regulations, it is impossible to have that kind of situation," stated Sun Bigan, China's special envoy to the Middle East. Yet, when asked if Beijing was investigating the allegation, Sun said, "As far as I know, no." Israel, long known for its close military relationship with China, should not take the Chinese at their word. Israel has exported weaponry to China in the form of advanced air-to-air missiles, jet fighter technology, air-to-surface missiles and radars, and even wanted to provide an airborne radar control plane to the People's Liberation Army Air Force. It was only after loud complaints from Washington, D.C., in particular from Virginia Republican Senator John Warner, that Israel decided to halt arms transfers to Beijing. The C-802 has one damaged warship and one sunk Cambodian freighter to its credit. Clearly, advanced Chinese missile technology is aimed to kill. The additional proof that more missiles were on the way to Hezbollah should be more than enough evidence to make Tel Aviv pause before entering into any more advanced-weapons deals with Beijing. U.S. Exports to China The problem of advanced Chinese missiles in Hezbollah hands is also quietly changing the political-election tone here in the U.S. The feeling inside the U.S. government is that strict sanctions and export controls should be instituted to prevent U.S. military technology from falling into the hands of the Chinese. The politics of missiles have a direct effect on the U.S. aerospace industry. Many of the leading aerospace execs feel that export regulations are already too strict and have cost them export sales of advanced U.S. technology. For example, the Bush administration recently announced tough new regulations to improve the oversight of advanced-technology sales to China. In response, the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) stated that it opposed the new regulations. The National Foreign Trade Council includes major multinational corporations such as Boeing Co., Caterpillar Inc., Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Microsoft Corp., Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG. "We are writing to express our concern over the 'conventional arms catch-all' regulation for China that was proposed on July 6. As representatives of U.S. manufacturers, we support an effective export control system to protect U.S. national security. We also recognize the risks and opportunities that trade with China presents, but we believe this regulation is not clearly integrated into our China policy and will seriously hinder U.S. competitiveness," states a letter issued by the NFTC on Aug. 2, 2006. "As we have seen with night vision equipment, a unilateral approach inevitably undermines both U.S. competitiveness and security, encouraging other countries to design U.S. technology out of their products," noted the letter. Clinton Chinagate Scandal It should come as no surprise that the NFTC is headed by Clinton-era former Under Secretary for Export Administration, William Reinsch. Reinsch claims, in his NFTC bio, that he "administered and enforced the export control policies and anti-boycott laws of the U.S. government and monitored the condition of the nation's defense industrial base." Reinsch may claim to have "administered and enforced," but his record from the Clinton years shows that little of either was in place at his office. During his term at the Department of Commerce, Reinsch oversaw the greatest military technology transfer to the Chinese army in U.S. history. The Chinese army managed to obtain, steal, or buy supercomputers for nuclear weapons research, missile warhead guidance systems, missile nose-cone software, radiation-hardened chip technology, encrypted satellite communications, and Synthetic Aperture Radar systems. The list of advanced military technology that passed through Reinsch on its way to Beijing is too long for this article. It would not surprise me to find that Bill Reinsch has several awards waiting for him if he should ever visit PLA headquarters. Suffice to say that the NFTC could not have selected a more qualified individual if it is their intent to transfer whatever technology – military or otherwise – to China for hard, cold cash. I once confronted Reinsch after a congressional hearing on secure communications. During that meeting, he denied that he had anything to do with the export of advanced encryption satellite technology to the Chinese military. At that point, I presented him with copies of documents showing that he was not only a major player; he also authorized the sale of precisely that technology directly to Chinese military-owned companies. Reinsch turned very pale and literally ran from the room. Since then he has refused to answer any of my questions and failed to return any calls. Genocide Is Good for Business The story does not end here. Today, Reinsch opposes a new law on the books in the state of Illinois. The law, which went into effect in January, bars state pension funds from investing in companies and financial institutions whose depositors, borrowers, or other business associates have any dealings in war-torn Sudan. Responding to the obvious crisis in Sudan, where genocide with Chinese weaponry is a way of life, the NFTC filed a lawsuit in federal court to block Illinois from specifying where its money should go. "NFTC supports the efforts of the Bush administration to bring peace to Sudan and to end the brutality that has been occurring in Darfur," stated Reinsch. "However, state sanctions, like those enacted by the state of Illinois, work at cross purposes with federal policy," noted Reinsch. It is ironic indeed that other states, including very liberal California, enacted similar laws to keep state pension funds from investing in apartheid South Africa. To my knowledge, Bill Reinsch and the NFTC did not oppose those laws. After all, racial genocide is a crime against humanity by any definition. For some reason, I don't think the NFTC has thought this lawsuit through – just as hiring Bill Reinsch may have been a big mistake. It does not look good for the council to be linked with supporting racial genocide . . . but the money is certainly good. The NFTC seems to like to be associated with someone who helped Chinese weapons engineers design, build, and field missiles that sometimes fall into the hands of folks like Hezbollah. Call me old-fashioned, but helping weapons designers in China and providing a free hand to murderous gangs in Sudan doesn't fall under the heading of good business sense.

 Charles R. Smith 

The Israeli war against Hezbollah (round one) brought with it the realization at the highest levels that dangerous weapons were floating around in dangerous hands. The successful attacks against a cargo vessel by Hezbollah, using Chinese-made C-802 cruise missiles, raised alarm bells all over the globe. 

Immediately after the attack, the first alarm bell rang at CIA headquarters, where an intensified global intelligence operation to track weapons deliveries was started. The CIA began to track Iranian efforts to resupply Hezbollah with more Chinese-made C-802 missiles.

According to reports, the CIA discovered that an Iranian Il-76 cargo plane, loaded with another Chinese-made missile launcher and up to eight C-802 missiles, was being prepared to fly to Syria. The weapons on board were for Hezbollah. Officially, the Iranian cargo plane was carrying medical and other non-military aid to help innocent victims of war inside Lebanon.

A quick phone call to Baghdad convinced Iraqi officials to refuse overflight permission for the Iranian jet. Other nations were also warned about the Iranian ploy. Despite the refusal from Baghdad, the plane took off from Iran and sought overflight permission from Turkey. Turkey agreed, but only if the aircraft landed at a Turkish airbase where it and its cargo would be inspected.

Of course, the cargo jet returned to Iran and unloaded its deadly payload. The Iranian efforts did not go unnoticed, and the alert is out to keep a close watch on further flights and shipments to Lebanon.

Chinese Denials

The original source of the C-802 cruise missiles, China, has also come under fire. China has done little to inhibit Iran from supplying these deadly cruise missiles to Hezbollah. 


Despite the confirmed attack using the C-802, a Chinese official stated that regulations made it "impossible" for a missile China sold to Iran to be passed on to Hezbollah.

"According to our regulations, it is impossible to have that kind of situation," stated Sun Bigan, China's special envoy to the Middle East. Yet, when asked if Beijing was investigating the allegation, Sun said, "As far as I know, no."

Israel, long known for its close military relationship with China, should not take the Chinese at their word. Israel has exported weaponry to China in the form of advanced air-to-air missiles, jet fighter technology, air-to-surface missiles and radars, and even wanted to provide an airborne radar control plane to the People's Liberation Army Air Force.

It was only after loud complaints from Washington, D.C., in particular from Virginia Republican Senator John Warner, that Israel decided to halt arms transfers to Beijing.

The C-802 has one damaged warship and one sunk Cambodian freighter to its credit. Clearly, advanced Chinese missile technology is aimed to kill. The additional proof that more missiles were on the way to Hezbollah should be more than enough evidence to make Tel Aviv pause before entering into any more advanced-weapons deals with Beijing.

U.S. Exports to China

The problem of advanced Chinese missiles in Hezbollah hands is also quietly changing the political-election tone here in the U.S. The feeling inside the U.S. government is that strict sanctions and export controls should be instituted to prevent U.S. military technology from falling into the hands of the Chinese. 

The politics of missiles have a direct effect on the U.S. aerospace industry. Many of the leading aerospace execs feel that export regulations are already too strict and have cost them export sales of advanced U.S. technology.

For example, the Bush administration recently announced tough new regulations to improve the oversight of advanced-technology sales to China. In response, the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) stated that it opposed the new regulations. The National Foreign Trade Council includes major multinational corporations such as Boeing Co., Caterpillar Inc., Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., Microsoft Corp., Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and DaimlerChrysler AG.

"We are writing to express our concern over the 'conventional arms catch-all' regulation for China that was proposed on July 6. As representatives of U.S. manufacturers, we support an effective export control system to protect U.S. national security. We also recognize the risks and opportunities that trade with China presents, but we believe this regulation is not clearly integrated into our China policy and will seriously hinder U.S. competitiveness," states a letter issued by the NFTC on Aug. 2, 2006.

"As we have seen with night vision equipment, a unilateral approach inevitably undermines both U.S. competitiveness and security, encouraging other countries to design U.S. technology out of their products," noted the letter.

Clinton Chinagate Scandal

It should come as no surprise that the NFTC is headed by Clinton-era former Under Secretary for Export Administration, William Reinsch. Reinsch claims, in his NFTC bio, that he "administered and enforced the export control policies and anti-boycott laws of the U.S. government and monitored the condition of the nation's defense industrial base." 

Reinsch may claim to have "administered and enforced," but his record from the Clinton years shows that little of either was in place at his office. During his term at the Department of Commerce, Reinsch oversaw the greatest military technology transfer to the Chinese army in U.S. history.

The Chinese army managed to obtain, steal, or buy supercomputers for nuclear weapons research, missile warhead guidance systems, missile nose-cone software, radiation-hardened chip technology, encrypted satellite communications, and Synthetic Aperture Radar systems.

The list of advanced military technology that passed through Reinsch on its way to Beijing is too long for this article. It would not surprise me to find that Bill Reinsch has several awards waiting for him if he should ever visit PLA headquarters.

Suffice to say that the NFTC could not have selected a more qualified individual if it is their intent to transfer whatever technology – military or otherwise – to China for hard, cold cash.
I once confronted Reinsch after a congressional hearing on secure communications. During that meeting, he denied that he had anything to do with the export of advanced encryption satellite technology to the Chinese military. At that point, I presented him with copies of documents showing that he was not only a major player; he also authorized the sale of precisely that technology directly to Chinese military-owned companies.

Reinsch turned very pale and literally ran from the room. Since then he has refused to answer any of my questions and failed to return any calls.

Genocide Is Good for Business

The story does not end here. Today, Reinsch opposes a new law on the books in the state of Illinois. The law, which went into effect in January, bars state pension funds from investing in companies and financial institutions whose depositors, borrowers, or other business associates have any dealings in war-torn Sudan. 


Responding to the obvious crisis in Sudan, where genocide with Chinese weaponry is a way of life, the NFTC filed a lawsuit in federal court to block Illinois from specifying where its money should go.

"NFTC supports the efforts of the Bush administration to bring peace to Sudan and to end the brutality that has been occurring in Darfur," stated Reinsch.

"However, state sanctions, like those enacted by the state of Illinois, work at cross purposes with federal policy," noted Reinsch.
It is ironic indeed that other states, including very liberal California, enacted similar laws to keep state pension funds from investing in apartheid South Africa. To my knowledge, Bill Reinsch and the NFTC did not oppose those laws. After all, racial genocide is a crime against humanity by any definition.

For some reason, I don't think the NFTC has thought this lawsuit through – just as hiring Bill Reinsch may have been a big mistake. It does not look good for the council to be linked with supporting racial genocide . . . but the money is certainly good.

The NFTC seems to like to be associated with someone who helped Chinese weapons engineers design, build, and field missiles that sometimes fall into the hands of folks like Hezbollah. Call me old-fashioned, but helping weapons designers in China and providing a free hand to murderous gangs in Sudan doesn't fall under the heading of good business sense.

 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1692234/posts

Chinese Regime Talks Peace but Supports Terror : Terrorists and rogue states find friend in Chinese regime

 By Ben Kaminsky
Epoch Times Israel Staff

An Iranian Noor missile is launched during military manoeuvres at Jask peninsula in the Gulf. (-/AFP/Getty Images)

Is China a possible partner in the war against terror, as it depicts itself? Or is it on the other side of this war? In a meeting between President Bush and the former head of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Jiang Zemin in February 2002, Jiang made a clear point of being against terror, and assisting the global efforts against terror. In a meeting in April 2006 between President Bush and the current head of the CCP, Hu Jintao, Hu made similar statements. However, a look at the CCP's actions offers a different picture.
Made in China It is widely known that Hezbollah's Fajr, Zelzal, and C-802/Noor missiles came from Iran. However, many of the ballistic and cruise missiles Iran has are either Chinese or were developed with the assistance of the Chinese regime. The C-802 (or Noor) missile, which was launched by Hezbollah and hit the Israeli ship "Hanit" and an Egyptian ship in the recent Lebanon war, is known to be provided to Hezbollah by Iran. "C-802" is actually the export name of the Chinese Ying Ji 82. [1] Following the Gulf War in 1991, Iran imported the 120km range turbojet-propelled C-802 antiship cruise missile from China. According to the International Assessment and Strategy Center, in the mid-1990s the Chinese regime began enabling Iran to co-produce the C-802, which Iran code-named Noor. The Fajr and Zelzal missiles that threatened Israel during the Lebanon War were reportedly developed by Iran with the assistance of Chinese and North Korean regimes, and are based on Chinese technology—e.g., their solid-fuel propellant technology. [2]
According to some reports, the Fajr-5 is in fact a variation of the Chinese WS-1 missile, which Iran imported from China in the late 1980s or early 1990s. [3]
The Chinese regime is also known to support Iran's efforts to upgrade its Scud missiles, [4] which were developed by China's proxy, North Korea. There are also reports of the Chinese regime supplying technical and manufacturing assistance to a number of indigenous Iranian missile programs. According to a CIA report, China and Iran signed a $3 billion deal in August 1996 that included the sale of Chinese ballistic missiles, missile guidance technology and missile production equipment. [5] The CIA's 1997 report to Congress also stated that China continued to help Iran's missile programs.
According to Bates Gill, the director of the East Asian Nonproliferation Project (Monterrey Institute of International Studies), The Chinese arms trade with Iran started in the early 1980s, and involves conventional, missile, nuclear, and chemical weapons. [6]
Stephen Pollard says in an article published in The Times: "It [China] is also Iran's main supplier of unconventional arms and is thought by almost all monitors to be illicitly involved in supplying key elements in Iran's chemical and nuclear weapons programme." [7]
The popular blog China Confidential suggests that the missile that downed the Israeli chopper was possibly made in China. It claims that Iran has supplied its Shiite Lebanese proxy with Chinese Qianwei (QW) missiles, which are very effective shoulder launched surface-to-air missiles (SAM). Experts describe the QW2 as the world's most effective one-man shoulder launched SAM missiles, surpassing the American Stinger and the French Mistral. The Xinshidai Group, a Chinese state-owned arms company which is producing these missiles, was sanctioned by the U.S. for arms sales to Iran. [8]
Hezbollah's 2004 use of Iranian made unmanned aircraft vehicles (UAV) to penetrate Israeli airspace proved shocking to Israelis. In the recent Lebanon war, the Israeli air force shot down a Hezbollah UAV 10km off the coast of Acre, in the north of Israel. Due to the strength of the explosion, it was estimated that it might have contained explosives so that it could be detonated inside Israel.
Ironically, Iran's development of UAV technology may owe much to Israel itself. Israel sold its "Harpy" anti-radar drone to China in the early 1990s. In 2006 Iran revealed a new UAV that is similar to the "Harpy." No official statements confirm that China used Israeli technology to help build the new Iranian drone, but its configuration suggests the possibility. [9]
The explosion of a suicide bomber in Mike's Place in Tel-Aviv in 2003, introduced a new, more advanced and more lethal explosive that the terror organizations had not used before. The Mossad—Israeli intelligence—informed British security officials that the same explosive was apparently used in the explosion in London's metro in 2005. That explosive is known to the Mossad to be manufactured in a Chinese laboratory, not far from Beijing. [10]
Unlike U.S. and other western governments, who view Hamas as a terrorist organization, the Chinese regime was very quick in recognizing the new Palestinian Hamas government and was very prompt in inviting its leaders for an official visit. In addition, according to a Washington Times report, a Chinese intelligence officer is engaged in covertly aiding Hamas. [11]
At a dinner hosted by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Hu Jintao traced the creation of Israel to a "colonialist plot aimed at detaching from the Arab nation a part that is dear to it—Palestine."
There is also evidence of Chinese support of Al-Qaeda. A large amount of Chinese manufactured ammo was found in the Al-Qaeda hideout in the Tora Bora caves.
Moreover, Chinese forces were reportedly sent to aid Al-Qaeda during the war in Afghanistan. For instance,15 Chinese fighters who were reportedly found in Kandahar. DEBKAfile reported long Chinese convoys carrying an estimated 5,000-15,000 Chinese Muslim servicemen through northwest China into Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. [12]
A June 2006 Amnesty International report shows how Chinese weapons have helped sustain brutal conflicts, criminal violence, and other grave human rights violations in countries such as Sudan, Nepal, Myanmar and South Africa. The report branded the CCP as one of the world's biggest, most irresponsible arms exporters.
The 'Chinese Century'
In 1994, Jiang Zemin said that U.S. "hegemony" should be opposed, in part by helping countries such as Iran, which were already fighting that battle. [13]
One reason for opposing U.S. power lies in China's rapidly expanding appetite for oil. The Chinese regime wants to ensure that the U.S. won't be able to interfere with its oil flow, which is why it wants to ally and trade with Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and other countries rich in oil. The Middle East is now China's fourth largest trading partner. Barry Rubin says in the Middle East Review of International Affairs: "Being so late in entering the region—and having less to offer in economic or technology terms than the United States, Russia, Japan, and Europe—China must go after marginal or risky markets . . . supplying customers no one else will service with goods no one else will sell them."
These services and goods are, of course, arms and support in producing arms. Thus, China became a main arms supplier to Iran, for example.
Another good example is Sudan. The U.N. Security Council and the international community are struggling to end the atrocities taking place there. China, however, in exchange for oil, is supplying Sudan's regime with fighter planes, bombers, helicopters, machine guns, and rocket-propelled grenades, which have intensified the atrocities. According to a former Sudan government minister, China is Sudan's largest supplier of arms. [14]
However, the Chinese regime's opposition to the U.S. goes beyond oil.
The leaders of the Chinese regime see the 21st Century as the "Chinese century"—the century in which the CCP will lead the world. This ambition is the centerpiece of the propaganda the CCP uses to arouse the intense patriotism common among educated youth in China today. [15]
This patriotism is essential to the CCP's own survival. The CCP faces multiple crises at home and can no longer base its claim to rule China on ideology. However, it can present itself as the vehicle for vindicating Chinese national pride by becoming the world's dominant power. On those grounds, it can claim to represent China's future.
U.S. power stands squarely in the way of such ambitions. Taiwan brings the connection between the Chinese regime's patriotism and anti-Americanism into clear focus.
In an interview on the BBC on August 17, 2006, Sha Zukang, China's ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, said: "The moment Taiwan declares independence, supported by whoever, China will have no choice."
He added: "It's not a matter of how big Taiwan is, but for China, one inch of the territory is more valuable than the life of our people. We will never concede on that."
In July 2005 Professor Zhu Chenghu of China's National Defense University in a press conference organized by the Chinese regime made clear to what extent the CCP is willing to risk "the life of our people" in order to assert its claim to Taiwan. He said that if the U.S. got involved in a war between Taiwan and mainland China, China would be the first to use nuclear weapons and would wipe out hundreds of cities in the U.S., even at the cost of losing every city east of Xi'an. .
In a speech attributed to Chi Haotian, China's former Minster of Defense and vice-chairman of China's Central Military Commission, and published on several websites in mainland China (in China's heavily censored media, such widespread publication suggests endorsement by the CCP), he says: "It is indeed brutal to kill one or two hundred million Americans. But that is the only path that will secure a Chinese century, a century in which the CCP leads the world."
In the same speech, Chi also says that the CCP will sacrifice the lives of the Chinese people, if needed, because "the population, even if more than half dies, can be reproduced. But if the Party falls, everything is gone, and forever gone!"
The Chinese Nuclear Club
While the entire world is concerned about the Iranian nuclear threat, not many recognize that without the Chinese Communist regime, Iran wouldn't have such a well-developed nuclear program today.
According to a Radio Free Asia report, when Iran stated a few months ago that it has made a "significant breakthrough" in the extraction technology of enriched uranium, the breakthrough actually consisted of Iran's purchase of high quality processed uranium from China. [16] In June 2004 the BBC, quoting the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, reported that "Chinese transfers have evolved from sales of complete missile systems to exports of largely dual-use nuclear, chemical, and missile components and technologies." [17]
In other words, the Iranian nuclear threat has come about with the active participation of the Chinese Communist regime.
The Chinese regime's opposition to referring Iran's nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council is further evidence of its stance. Iran has counted on China's support. In November 2004 a senior Iranian official insisted that China was "against referral of the Iranian issue to the Security Council."
On Aug. 10, 2005, the day that Iran broke International Atomic Energy Agency seals at a uranium plant, China's U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya told reporters, "I think it is up to [the IAEA in] Vienna to come up with a solution. I think it is not up to the Security Council." [18]
In April 2006 Chinese assistant foreign minister Cui Tankai visited Teheran for the ostensible purpose of expressing concern over Iran's announcement that it is enriching uranium, and wanted to show the western world China's a positive effort in assisting the non-proliferation. However, it is more likely that his mission was designed to bolster China's security relationship with Iran. [19]
The Chinese regime supports the Iranian nuclear weapons program because it understands the CCP and the Iran share a common enemy. The Chinese regime supports governments that oppose the U.S. In Iran it seeks an ally who will support the Chinese regime in case of any conflict with the U.S., a conflict that the CCP believes inevitable. The Chinese regime seeks to help create a block of nuclear powers that can oppose the U.S. When Iran does have nuclear weapons, it will join with North Korea as a nuclear-armed regime hostile to the U.S. and allied with China.
The Chinese regime has talked about opposition to terror, but the record of its actions tells a different story. As Western nations struggle to cope with terrorists who deploy ever more sophisticated weaponry, they need to ask themselves the following question: When Western nations help the Chinese regime further develop its weapons technology, at whom are these high-tech weapons going to be aimed?

Chinese Government Supports Terrorism - Charles R. Smith

PLA Plot to Supply Missiles to Terrorists in U.S.
 
The Chinese government vetoed a U.S. proposal to reduce the threat against civilian airliners by man-portable surface-to-air missiles. The Chinese veto at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) comes at the same time two people and an unnamed Chinese general are being charged with attempting to smuggle Chinese-made surface-to-air missiles into the United States. 

In Seoul, South Korea, the U.S. presented a proposal to the APEC Counter-Terrorism Task Force that asked members to carry out an assessment of at least one major airport within their country or territory to determine if planes using it are vulnerable to missiles.
The assessment was supposed to be completed by the end of 2006 using standards developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

China, in turn, tabled the proposal, effectively killing all further action to defend civilian airliners.
 
"China objected to it so there was no consensus. It's a political and touchy issue," stated an official who attended the session who requested not to be identified.
 
Chinese Missiles Inside the U.S.

Meanwhile, two men were indicted in Los Angeles on charges of attempting to illegally import Chinese-made missiles into the United States. Chao Tung Wu, 51, of La Puente, Calif., and Yi Qing Chen, 41, of Rosemead, Calif., were charged with conspiracy to import Chinese-made surface-to-air missiles (SAMs).
Bill Gertz in The Washington Times first reported the missile case on Oct. 26.

Law enforcement officials said Wu and Chen were caught in a sting developed out of the large-scale federal investigation in Los Angeles known as Smoking Dragon. Wu and Chen charged with conspiracy to import Chinese-made "Qianwei-2" anti-aircraft missiles and launchers.

The conspiracy involved a deal between an undercover U.S. federal agent and Wu and Chen, along with officials at the Xinshidai Corporation, a Chinese state-owned weapons maker, and an un-named Chinese general.
 
Bribes and Payoffs

Law enforcement officials confirmed that the missile deal involved unindicted co-conspirators in China, forged papers from a foreign defense ministry, and illegal payoffs to the relative of a foreign president, who was not identified.

The missile deal used a third country to mask the weapons delivery by Xinshidai. The missiles were then to be shipped to the United States in containers identified as civilian machine parts. One alleged payment was determined to be a $2 million bribe to a foreign official to allow the unidentified country to transship the missiles.

The "Qianwei (Advance Guard)-2" missile is capable of destroying civilian airliners and military aircraft. According to the developers of this new missile, the "Qianwei-2" is the world's most effective one-man shoulder-launched ultra-low-altitude air defense missile, surpassing the U.S. "Stinger" and the French "Mistral" in performance.
 
Xinshidai PLA Inc.

U.S. law enforcement officials identified the missile manufacturer as the Xinshidai Group, a conglomerate of Chinese state-run manufacturers that is currently under sanction by the U.S. government for arms sales to Iran.

According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, Xinshidai is actually a state-owned arms maker controlled by the Chinese People's Liberation Army.

A 1994 report by Lt. Col. Dennis J. Blasko showed that the Chinese army unit COSTIND (Commission on Science Technology and Industry for National Defense) owns and operates the Xinshidai Group.

"COSTIND, too, has subordinate trading companies – China Xinshidai (New Era) Development Corporation, China Yuanwang (Group) Corporation, and the Galaxy New Technology Corporation," wrote Blasko.

COSTIND is a Chinese army unit that is responsible for the tremendous success of PLA espionage during the 1990s. COSTIND masquerades itself as a civilian agency, using many of its front companies such as Xinshidai, to gather intelligence and sell weapons.

However, a November 1997 report written for the Commerce Department by think-tank company SAIC, noted that COSTIND was neither civilian nor engaged in purely commercial activities.
"COSTIND supervises virtually all of China's military research, development and production. It is a military organization, staffed largely by active duty officers. ... COSTIND also coordinates certain activities with the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC), which produces, stores, and controls all fissile material for civilian as well as military applications. COSTIND approves licenses for the use of nuclear materials for military purposes."
 
PLA History

Nor is this the first time that Chinese agents have been caught trying to smuggle advanced weapons into the United States. In 1996, Norinco and Chinese army-owned Poly Technologies Corporation were both accused of attempting to sell fully automatic machine guns to U.S. gangsters.

Allegedly, Poly Tech's man in America, Robert Ma, conspired with Norinco representative Richard Chen to import 2,000 fully automatic AK-47s into the United States to Customs agents posing as Miami drug smugglers. Lu Yi Lun, described in court documents as Norinco's No. 2 official, was also charged in the case.

U.S. investigators say arms broker Hammond Ku, a key figure in the case, told undercover U.S. agents three times that China's government knew what was happening. According to the 100-page federal indictment from one of the key undercover agents, Chen and Ma had difficulty in getting the "barrels" because they required "higher-level permission."

The Customs officials added that the Chinese apparently believed the automatic rifles were going to U.S. street gangs. U.S. investigators also said company representatives tried to sell undercover U.S. agents rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles, machine guns and even tanks.
 
Act of War

China claims to be a partner in the global war on terrorism. Yet China clearly does not take that role. Instead, by vetoing attempts to protect airliners from attack and actively selling advanced missiles inside the U.S., China is showing that it supports global terrorism.

The deal to smuggle surface-to-air missiles for attacks inside the United States is clearly an open act of war against America. Chinese officials and at least one Chinese general were participants in an act of war against the U.S. 

If the war on terror is to be taken seriously, the Bush administration and Congress must act. The Chinese government should immediately turn over all officials involved in this scheme to murder thousands of American civilians – or face the consequences of the full might of U.S. action.
* * * * * *  

 http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/11/13/210422.shtml

AMERICA'S CHINA SYNDROME - Is Beijing using terror networks?

Experts see Chinese involvement
in global cells as means to an end

As global security experts and policy-makers continue to consider which nations are arming and aiding global terrorist groups, some are increasingly suspicious of the Asian giant – the People’s Republic of China.

“If you look at the Chinese strategy book, ‘Unrestricted Warfare,’ they talk about using terrorism and drug dealing as means by which to defeat the United States,” Al Santoli, an Asian military and security expert as well as national security adviser to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., told WorldNetDaily.
Chinese leaders haven’t “come right out and said they were doing so, but they’ve talked about people like bin Laden as one of their heroes,” Santoli said. “You can see by their relationship with the Taliban that China is not averse to dealing with terrorists. Also, China is the primary military ally of Pakistan, a country that is the benefactor of the Taliban and bin Laden.”

Richard D. Fisher Jr., a senior fellow at The Jamestown Foundation, a non-partisan Russia and Asia think tank, agreed that “Unrestricted Warfare” was a tome well-respected by China’s military and political hierarchy.

“There are elements in the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) who admire the tactics of Osama bin Laden,” Fisher said, noting that the two Chinese army officers who wrote the strategy manual “were quite clear in their admiration for” the dissident Saudi-born terrorist leader.

That in and of itself isn’t proof that China aided and abetted al-Qaida’s terrorist efforts against the U.S., “but it does provide just cause for suspicion that China could seek to aid international terrorism as a means of indirectly attacking its enemies,” he said.

Some experts have seen a historical connection between Beijing and rising world terrorism.

In 1992, wrote author and international threat analysis expert Yossef Bodansky, “Beijing concluded that the optimal way to cope with the challenge was an all-out surge to evict the U.S. and Western influence from the region coveted by the PRC and its allies.”

“In March 1991, in the aftermath of the Gulf War, although apprehensive about growing challenges, the Islamists were determined to capitalize on the upheaval and rage to further their cause,” Bodansky – a former consultant to the State and Defense departments – said in his 1994 thesis, “The Rise of the Trans-Asian Axis: Is it the Basis of New Confrontation?”

When contacted this week to elaborate on that analysis, as well as discuss whether China is responsible for helping arm terrorist groups worldwide, Bodansky had no comment.

“I’m disinclined to discuss this China/Mideast issue at this time,” he told WND, because there is “too little evidence” to substantiate a connection.

Bodansky is also the author of the 1998 book, “Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America.”
“Fueled by Middle Eastern oil wealth and covertly armed by some of America’s closest allies, [bin Laden's] terror network is waging a brutal guerrilla war whose aim is nothing short of changing the course of history,” said a review of the book.

Beijing: Building alliances with terrorist states

Experts said China was well on its way to developing long-term military, economic and security relationships with known terrorist states.

Santoli said it was unclear if China was “real close” with Iraq – a nation that could be next in the U.S. war against terror-supporting countries. But he noted that Syria and Iran “were much closer” with China.
Fisher, meanwhile, said China had a well-grounded relationship with Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban.

“China was in the process of building a relationship with the Taliban. Official contacts had been under way for at least two years, and Chinese companies were preparing to do business” in Afghanistan, before the U.S. launched its war against terror, Fisher said.

“There are strong suggestions from a number of open reports that bin Laden and the Taliban moved along a relationship with China by giving China unexploded U.S. Tomahawk missiles used unsuccessfully against bin Laden in 1998,” he added.

“China has denied such reports and no U.S. source has publicly confirmed them. But given China’s intense interest in building its own Tomahawk-like cruise missiles, it seems plausible that China would have taken them,” Fisher continued.

As reported by WND, in his book “Seeds of Fire,” author Gordon Thomas contends that Beijing had an actual role in the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. He claims Beijing “was prepared to infuriate America and its allies in supporting bin Laden and the Taliban because Afghanistan fitted into China’s own long-term strategic plans.”

Experts say Beijing and Islamabad are close – and getting closer – despite some appearances that would seem to indicate Pakistan’s willingness to oppose Muslim extremists.
Santoli, for example, said Pakistan’s crackdown on al-Qaida warriors crossing from Afghanistan was “baloney.”

“There might be some people that have run afoul or some people that Pakistan doesn’t care about,” he said, but Islamabad “is letting the Taliban set up new political parties right inside Pakistan, near the border.”
Fisher agreed: “China can be assumed to have a close relationship with Pakistan’s ISI intelligence service, which was the principal foreign ally of the Taliban and is known to harbor bin Laden sympathizers. If it so desired, China could readily use ISI contacts to the Taliban and bin Laden, though there are no open reports of this having happened.”

Indeed, global military, economic and security intelligence firm Stratfor.com reported Wednesday that Pakistan’s leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, will make a four-day trip to Beijing Dec. 20 in a bid to “strengthen ties with China … having received little in return from the United States after supporting the war on Afghanistan.”

“Strengthening ties with China will help [Musharraf] regain much of the public approval he lost after cooperating with the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan,” said the report. “China’s support also gives Pakistan leverage to balance the increasing U.S. support of rival India. For its part, Beijing will use the relationship to reassert itself internationally, after the anti-terrorism coalition left the communist country largely behind.”

Other terrorist-sponsoring nations are being wooed by Beijing as well.
“We should realize that the world is hostile toward us only for our commitment to Islam. After the fall of Marxism, Islam replaced it, and as long as Islam exists, U.S. hostility exists, and as long as U.S. hostility exists, the struggle exists,” said Iran’s Ahmad Khomeini during a 1991 conference devoted to formulating a long-term strategy to confront the influence of the U.S.

“It was in the context of this worldview that Tehran and its allies moved to significantly intensify their cooperation with” China, Bodansky said in his 1994 paper.

Regarding China’s own battle with Islamic extremists closer to home, “it’s not a straightforward issue,” Santoli warned.

“It’s like with drugs. China doesn’t want heavy drug addiction inside its own country, but Beijing is heavily involved with Burma and Pakistan, two nations whose primary income is derived from opium,” he said.
China “gave Afghanistan certain political support” such as its communication system, if not direct military aid, Santoli added, which makes Beijing “guilty by association” in terms of providing terror support.

“The Chinese aren’t stupid enough to give any direct link” of that assistance, Santoli said.

“All of this does not amount to a legal case against China but it does raise plenty of cause for concern that, indeed, China is capable of supporting international terrorist groups as a matter of state policy, or that China could emulate their tactics in wartime,” said Fisher.

Perhaps ironically, Beijing is also calling on the U.S. to turn over any Chinese nationals who may have been fighting with al-Qaida units.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Zhang Qiyue said the Chinese fighters would be handled according to Chinese law, said analysts at WND content partner Geostrategy-Direct.com.

U.S. officials have informed Beijing of the involvement in Afghanistan of Chinese nationals, specifically Muslim Uighurs from western Xinjiang province that the Chinese have described as “East Turkistan terrorists,” the intelligence newsletter said.

http://www.wnd.com/2001/12/12118/

China's Involvement With Terrorism - Chinese ammo found in al-Qaida hideouts

Evidence of links between terrorists,
Taliban, Beijing continues to grows

Pentagon officials aboard the plane taking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to Brussels revealed large quantities of Chinese-manufactured ammunition were discovered in the Tora Bora cave hideouts of Osama bin Laden.

Ads by Google

• IndiGo™ Welcome abroadFlights to Dubai,Bkk,S'pore,Muscat and Kathmandu.Starting fare Rs 6999 www.goIndiGo.in/Airlines
• Air India Cheap FlightsFlight Tickets At Rs. 99 + Taxes. Quality Service. Book Now & Save! MakeMyTrip.com/Cheap-Airfares

This disclosure lends further support to earlier reports by WorldNetDaily, based in part on the intelligence sources of DEBKA-Net-Weekly, that Beijing has supported the Taliban and the al-Qaida terrorist network in various ways – including men and materiel..

The arms cache included mortar shells, anti-tank rockets and ammunition for various types of automatic rifles and machine guns of Chinese manufacture, abandoned by fleeing al-Qaida men.
Earlier today, WorldNetDaily reported China was seeking the return of some ethnic Uighurs from northwestern Xinjiang province who were captured while fighting with Taliban. The U.S. is refusing to turn them over, according to a STRATFOR report.

WorldNetDaily also reported the findings of author Gordon Thomas, who has written a book claiming that Beijing had an actual role in the Sept. 11 attack on America. In “Seeds of Fire,” Thomas purports to show how Beijing is positioning itself to become America’s “new major enemy.”

Citing DEBKA’s intelligence sources, WorldNetDaily has also reported that Chinese troops, fighting with the Taliban, have been killed in Afghanistan.
In addition, citing those same sources, WorldNetDaily first reported Chinese troop and materiel support to the Taliban early in the war in Afghanistan.

The Washington Post earlier confirmed a pact signed between Beijing and the Taliban announced, ironically, Sept. 11 of this year. Sky Television also later reported the presence of Chinese fighters alongside the Taliban and al-Qaida in the battles of Konduz and Khanabad in northern Afghanistan.

Evidence of links between terrorists,
Taliban, Beijing continues to grows

Kashmir : Merger or Accession ?(By B L Saraf)

Merger or Accession ?(By B L Saraf)

Omar Abdullah’s speech in the Legislative Assembly, made few days back, has created a controversy. At this juncture, he could have done well without it. He has said that Kashmir has only acceded to and not merged with India. We don’t know what crossed his mind when he made the distinction, whereas materially there is none. He made another point that it makes no sense in repeatedly saying, “Kashmir is an integral part of India” because no one says so about any other State of India . The knowledgeable tell us that this is beleaguered C M’s attempt to regain some of the lost political ground in the Valley. Merger or Accession -the fact is that relationship of Kashmir with India is, admittedly, of a unique nature brought about in unique circumstances. Omar’s speech should make us look afresh on the circumstances preceding and surrounding the fact of the union of Kashmir with India.

Traveling some distance with the Muslim Conference ,Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah came to realize that his struggle against the autocratic rule of Maharaja would not be all inclusive and purposeful unless every section of the J&K population was taken on board .His interaction with the nationalist leadership of British India , in Lahore, comprising Jawaharlal Nehru ,Dr Saifudin Kichloo and Abdul Gaffar Khan, enlarged his vision about the political need of the hour .Writing in his autobiography Aatishe Chinar about his meeting with Jawaharlal Nehru and other nationalist leaders Sheikh Abdullah says , “Soon after meeting the nationalist leaders I felt the deliverance of the Kashmiris lies in coming out of the narrow confines and aligning with the national mainstream ….”( P,.210) . He further writes that in order to garner support of the Indian Nationalist forces it was imperative to change the name and Constitution of Muslim Conference. Sheikh Abdullah found a good deal of commonality between the Indian Nationalists, who were fighting the British rule, and his struggle against the autocratic Maharaja. Accordingly ,on 28th June, 1938, the Working Committee of the Muslim Conference , on his resolution , changed the name of the Muslim Conference to ‘ National Conference ‘, with a view to enable the Hindus and Sikhs to join the struggle against the autocratic rule .Therefore, the bedrock of Indo- Kashmir association is the vision that developed during the freedom struggles of the two .It was of a socio -political set-up which would provide for a safe, tolerant and egalitarian space to every section of the populace, and respect their religious beliefs . It, thus, became an idea central to the both. Only history will tell whether this association did strengthen the shared values or become a festering sore–a flashpoint for the bloody wars in the subcontinent. Did the parties hold on to the promises made?

Kashmir’s association with India was on some conditions. The Maharaja, while acceding to India had, in terms of Clauses 7 & 8 of the Instrument of Accession, reserved a right not to commit himself to accept Constitution of India in toto or fetter his discretion to enter into arrangement with Govt. of India, and his sovereignty would continue as provided under this Instrument. This was indicative of a special position Kashmir would have within the Indian Union. Delhi Agreement of 1952 reiterated this position and Article 2 of the Constitution of India permitted it. At the time of accession J & K was governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act of 1939, with Delhi’s jurisdiction extending only to External Affairs, Defence and Communication. The Maharaja wanted the continuation of the Act while the popular leaders differed. The Constituent Assembly was made aware that the State’s association with India would be on terms of accession , acknowledging this special position and the problems with which the government of J&K was, then, faced. Constituent Assembly adopted Article 306A which became Article 370 in the final Constitution. Thus a special provision for constitutional relationship of the State with the Union came into the existence. The geographic position, difference in the religions of the Ruler and the Ruled and the demographic character of the State dictated the course .Apart from that popular support was needed for the accession which came through Sheikh Abdullah. For some the conditions around the accession are for India and Kashmir to settle. Others see international dimension to it and think that fulfillment of the conditions is a sine quo non for Kashmir’s association with India to survive. This is a big subject in itself. Much can be said on both sides .Let us leave it for other time and the place to deliberate upon.

India is a union of States. The Indian Society is multi – cultural and multi- lingual. The language and ethnicity are the broad parameters on which the States, within the Indian Union, came to be reorganized .The Constitution of India is federal in nature where the States can exercise legislative and executive powers independent of Union Government, subject, however, to some limitations. Jammu & Kashmir is a constituent unit of Union of India as described in Article 1 of Constitution of India and Section 3 of Constitution of J&K . We must remember that all the Princely States that acceded to India or Pakistan signed the instruments of accession before joining either dominion .However, most of the Princely States got merged with the British India Provinces following the reorganisation of the States , post accession . Nearer home , Patiala and Kapoorthala ; Jaipur and Alwar in Rajasthan are the examples . The State of J&K retained its geographical boundaries as distinct identity , except those occupied by Pakistan . While acceding to India, it did not merge itself with any pre- existing Province in British India. The State retained its distinct identity as a separate entity , with a separate Constitution and flag .In any case the relationship of Kashmir with India is indestructible . There is no need to sharpen the edge of competitive politics by quibbling over the meaning of words “Accession”, “Merger” or “Union” One cannot be sure whether Omar Abdullah had this in mind when he made the speech because most people don’t credit him with the knowledge of turbulent Kashmir. But when seen in the aforementioned background his statement in the Assembly, to this extent, is a narration of the fact. Regarding his other part of the speech that there should be no repeating of , ” Kashmir is an integral part of India” he must go through Sec 3 of the State Constitution , which boldly mentions this fact . Mr CM, there is no separate constitution for any other State in the country.

The young CM would do well to recall what his illustrious grandfather told the Press in Delhi in Sept 1948., “We have burnt our boats. There is no place in Kashmir for a theocratic state. Kashmir will never make a plaything of India’s honour.” (Source – Kashmir: Behind the Vale-M.J Akbar). Omar Abdullah must realize that a word said in prevailing surcharged atmosphere may cause more harm than the intended good. Yes, Kashmir’s relationship with India needs to be reassessed and some promises made redeemed. But broad parameters of the values that, initially, defined the relationship must remain same.

(The author is former Principle Distt & Sessions Judge)

 http://www.jammukashmirnow.org/accession-of-jammu-kashmir-2/merger-or-accession-by-b-l-saraf/