MSTKG
Miscellaneous Update
2-7-01
Ambassador to China
Clark T. Randt, Jr.
Hong Kong Lawyer is China Business Expert
Gets Nod After Initial Choice Jon Huntsman Jr. is Criticized by Beijing
Reports in the China Times (Feb8, 2001) and World Journal (Feb. 7, 2001) name Clark T. Randt, Jr as the Bush administration's choice to be Ambassador to China. Randt would replace the incumbent Admiral Joseph Prueher. His nomination is said to be past the intitial stages and is in the background investigation stage. Randt is an expert, and has extensive experience, in People's Republic of China (PRC) law and speaks Mandarin. He also has described himself as a drinking buddy of President Bush in their college years.
Randt is a lawyer with Shearman and Sterling, officed in Hong Kong, and a member of the New York and Hong Kong Bars. He also is a fraternity brother of President George W. Bush from their time as Yale undergraduates.
According to Randt's biographical sketch at the Shearman and Sterling web site, Randt's background includes:
- Serving as First Secretary and Commercial Attache at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing from 1982 to 84.
- Representing "two of the first three China-related IPO issuers on the NYSE and the underwriters in the third."
- Representing the "reorganization and privatization of China's sixth largest industrial company, one of its largest regional airlines, one of its leading telecommunications companies and one of its largest electronics companies."
- Literally writing the book on doing business in China as editor of "Obtaining PRC Approvals: Foreign Investment Enterprises and Infrastructure Projects."
Randt was a fraternity brother of President George W. Bush at Yale in the 1960's and made news in 1999 when rumors were circulating about Bush's former partying and unfounded allegations of drug use. A May 14, 1999 article in the Wall Street Journal by Ellen Joan Pollock, titled Behind Rumors About George W. Bush Lurks a Culture of Washington Gossip, included these passages:
People who actually might be in the know say they are mystified. Those who have known Mr. Bush through the years produce plenty of evidence that he has impressive partying skills but no evidence that he used drugs. Clark Randt is now a partner at the law firm Shearman & Sterling and was once upon a time social chairman of the fraternity that Mr. Bush led. He happily confesses -- his term -- to downing a few beers with the governor during their Yale days in the 1960s. But when it comes to Mr. Bush's doing drugs, he says, "heavens no.""We lived for Saturday night," recalls Mr. Randt, who is no longer close to Mr. Bush. "Saturday night was party night and it was rock 'n' roll, rhythm and blues, dance music and drinking beer. People think there must have been drugs; in four years at Yale, there must have been some. I never saw any. We drank a lot of beer but nothing more than that."
In 1973 and 1974 Randt took part in Harvard Law School's East Asian Legal Studies Travelling Fellowship and later took his J.D. from University of Michigan in 1975.
He later studied at the University of East Asia in Macao (then a Portuguese colony, now part of the PRC), and took a Diploma in PRC law in 1989. He made use of this later in 1992 when he was among a team from the Hong Kong office of the US firm Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher that successfully listed Brilliance China Automotive on the New York Stock Exchange.
Brilliance China Automotive, according to a Nov. 5, 1992 article in the South China Morning Post, was a Bermuda registered company "controlled in its own right by Chinese Financial Education Development Foundation, an offshoot of the People's Bank of China." It was the first Communist Chinese owned and run company to be listed in the United States.
Rejected After Communist Criticisms
Jon Huntsman, Jr.
Earlier reports named Jon Huntsman, Jr., a former Ambassador to Singapore as the Bush Administration's choice to replace Prueher. Huntsman is a 40 year old who speaks Mandarin and did his Mormon mission in Taiwan in the late 70's. The choice of Huntsman was first reported in the Jan. 16, 2001 edition of the China Times and was attributed to a Bush transition team source.
Later Al Kamen of the Washington Post reported in the Jan. 25, 2001 edition of the Post that Huntsman would be the choice. Kamen wrote:
Across the Pacific, there are rumblings that Adm. Joseph W. Prueher would stay in China at least until President Bush arrives in October for the Asia Pacific economic summit.Probably not going to happen, we hear. A strong possibility for that job is Mandarin-speaking Jon M. Huntsman Jr., ambassador to Singapore in Bush I when he was 32 years old and now vice chairman of Huntsman Corp., the biggest family-owned chemical company in the United States. Huntsman's father, a mega-contributor worth billions, had the patent for Styrofoam.
Huntsman was a Mormon missionary, worked in the Reagan White House and has been deputy assistant secretary of commerce for East Asian and Pacific affairs.
But communist party concerns about Huntsman and another Bush choice for China related affairs, Gerritt Gong of the Center for Strategic and International Studies who was chosen to be on staff at the National Security Council, were reported in the "Inside the Ring" column of the Washington Times on Feb. 2, 2001, by Gertz and Scarborough.
In a segment subtitled "China pique", Gertz and Scaroborough report that Beijing was critical of the choice of Huntsman together with Gong because both are Mormon and also because they are not seen as being "strong" enough on China for Beijing's liking. That means they are not pro-Beijing enough.
Write Gertz and Scarborough:
Chinese officials are said to be angered by these appointments because they view them as part of a broader Bush administration strategy of downgrading the importance of China.However, there is a more subtle reason the Chinese oppose the two choices, we are told. Both are Mormons, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are known. Beijing sees the Huntsman and Gong appointments as a kind of covert effort to promote religious freedom in China and help Mormons proselytize there.
"This is an aggressive maneuver to push Mormon missionaries into China," one Chinese official recently told our informants.
Hunstman's Mission work in Taiwan would most likely also be a factor that the Chinese communists would not appreciate.
Huntsman's relative youth , at 40, in light of such a major diplomatic position was also mentioned as a factor for making the decision to drop him as their choice for Randt.
MSTKG
1-23-01
Bush Spokesman Fleischer Asked
Concerning the "Secret Envoy" report below, the day after it came out, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked about it at a January 5 press conference. Here was the extent of the exchange:
Q Ari, yesterday, a Hong Kong newspaper reported that President-elect Bush has already sent two envoys to China to discuss his likely policy towards China. Can you confirm whether that happened and can you tell us who was sent?MR. FLEISCHER: Yeah, that report is not true.
Be that as it may, word was that the first envoy was Robert Blackwill of the Harvard Kennedy School where he runs a program called the "Executive Program for Senior Chinese Military Officers".
Also, John Pomfret reported in the Washington Post that Douglas Paal had visited Qian QiChen at the time the second envoy was to have been meeting Qian.
So it would seem that these two fellows would be the most likely candidates to have been the "Secret Bush Envoys".
...asuuming one believes in secret envoys...
1-4-01
Met Qian Qichen in October and December
The Hong Kong Sun reported in their January 4, 2001 edition that George W. Bush has sent two secret envoys to Beijing to discuss US China issues so that the relations between the two countries will continue to develop. The following is based upon this Sun article, which was also reported on in the China Times.
The first enjoy went to Beijing in mid October and the second in December after the election was finalized. Both envoys, who were unnamed, met with Vice-Premier Qian Qichen, communist China's long time foreign minister and most significant authority shaping Beijing's foreign policy. The information was reported to have been revealed by sources close to Qian.
The first envoy's visit in October was meant to make four main points:
1) The US hopes a strong China standing up will serve a positive role in international stability.
2) Both the US and China have a common duty to play an active role in the world's "hotspot" regions and areas of instability.
3) The US and China have differences over a number of international issues that should not affect the the common interests shared by the two nations.
4) The US will carry on policy based upon the three Sino-US Joint Communiques and agreements reached with previous US administrations.
In response Qian is reported to have strongly restated the standard communist line that Taiwan is the key issue in China US relations and that they cannot compromise on issues of sovereignty etc...etc... ad nauseum. The Bush envoy in response is reported to have stated that the US does not support Taiwan independence.
The second, and different, envoy travelled to Beijing in December after the election results became final. This envoy also met with Qian for candid exchanges and reached three common understandings.
1) The US and China's values are not the same and a number of certain policies are not the same but this ought not hinder the US and China working together cooperatively on international issues nor hinder the two countries in developing normal relationships.
2) US and China cooperation should be established and develop based upon the foundation of the three Communiques and should not move backwards.
3) The US and China should move forward step by step in international cooperation based upon the existing framework.
The envoy stated clearly to Qian Qichen that the relationship between the two countries should maintain a standard where mutual mistrust and criticism do not outweigh mutual cooperation between the two.
The article also went on to attribute to the envoy a statement that the US does not support, nor would acknowledge, Taiwan independence because it would not be consistent with all prior US policy, nor would it be beneficial to the US or China nor would it be accepted by the international community.
The envoy also said that the US had not decided to include Taiwan in a Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system because it would not conform to US policy and that Bush looked forward to seeing the two sides of the straits continue their talks.
The envoy said that development of the missile defense system with Japan did not indicate the US thinks China is an enemy, but that the development of missile defense was directed at countries that constitute a menace to the US and is not directed at China.
Qian replied that for whatever reason the defense system was established China would respond to it as a threat to their national security and it is China's set policy to strengthen their military forces to be able to respond to any military attack that may occur.
This is an interesting report and that it was reported on by the China Times indicates it is to be taken seriously. Some of what Bush's envoy is reported to have said seems to contradict statements by Bush in a prior written interview with the World Journal shortly after the election was finalized (see below).
But what must be kept in mind is that this is spin from the Chinese communists. The Sun is not a communist party mouthpiece, but it does receive and report information from communist party sources, such as in this article. One clear indication that there is communist party spin attached was in the section where the second envoy spoke about Taiwan independence and how it would not be acceptable to the international community. It is certainly likely the envoy would have said the things about not supporting Taiwan independence he is reported to have said, but the part about it not being acceptable to the international community is long time communist spin propaganda.
This article indicates Bush said a definite "no" to Taiwan being part of the TMD, but in the World Journal interview Bush indicated Taiwan could come under the missile defense system if need be. There is not necessarily a contradiction because of the conditions Bush mentioned for bringing Taiwan in to the system mitigate the current decision not to include Taiwan. The Chinese communist side would play down any such conditional elements and play up the current policy of not including Taiwan.
What is significant, no matter how specifically accurate the article relates the meetings between the secret envoys and Qian, is that they most likely did happen. It is very doubtful they did not take place. Jim Mann's book "About Face" makes it clear that all US presidential candidates and president-elects have sent similar envoys since the 70's.
It will be very interesting to see what the Bush team says about these meetings. And also it will be very interesting to see who Bush chose as envoys for these delicate beginnings of the W Bush administration relationship with the Butchers of Beijing.
The Sun article is here in big-5 code.
MSTKG
12-18-00
President Elect Outlines Conditional Promises
After Bush's victory was finalized, the World Journal, a US based Chinese language newspaper, published statements by him made in a written interview. The article came out on the 15th of December and was titled:
Supports One China, Hopes Taiwan Does Not Declare Independence, Mainland Does Not Make Reckless Military Move, Does Not Want US To Be Forced In To Conflict
The article is somewhat significant in that it is a direct interview with Bush (albeit a written one) that specifically focuses on Taiwan and China.
Bush's policy was described as being "conditional" and focused on how to meet the "contingency of a military action eruption."
Below are quotes attributed to Bush. They are english translations of the chinese article which reported a translation of the original english into chinese. So something is certainly lost in the translation, both linguistically and journalistically. For example the article uses the terms mainland and mainland China which is terminology Bush's response probably did not use. His response most likely simply used the term China.
Here are the quotes:
"I hope Taiwan does not declare independence and that the mainland does not take any rash military action to take Taiwan".
"I support a one China policy but do not acknowledge that Beijing has a right to take rule over a free people. I hope the cross strait relationship can be resolved by peaceful means and that there will be a speedy resumption of cross strait dialog and do not want any military action to take place that would force the US to get involved in the conflict."
"In the unfortunate event that a war breaks out we must look at the situation in a straightforward and realistic manner. If Taiwan provokes hostilities the US will not intervene. If mainland China on its' own mobilizes, the US will not be able to stand by with our hands in our sleeves because based upon the Taiwan Relations Act the US has an obligation to assist in Taiwan's defense. While our long term policy is to support one China, if it is difficult for the two sides of the Taiwan Straits to reach a common understanding the US has no choice but to bring Taiwan in to the Theater Missile Defense system to ensure the security of the west Pacific region. This also is the reason for my support of the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act."
"[I] hope the cross straits relationship will be resolved peacefully and that the two sides will quickly resume talking."
The original chinese article was published on December 15, 2000 and can be read here. It is in big-5 code.
MSTKG
7-7-00
September Visit to Include Clinton Jiang Summit
The July 7 World Journal (ShiJie RiBao - www.chineseworld.com) reports that Jiang Zemin and Li Peng both will visit New York in late August and early September to participate in United Nations events.
Jiang also will meet with President Clinton in New York.
Li Peng, head of China's National People's Congress, will be visit August 29 to September 2 and will attend the World Parliamentary Conference. Jiang, the People's Republic of China's Head of State, will attend the United Nations Millenium Summit and will be in New York September 5 to September 8.
Jiang is not expected to travel to Washington D.C. but will meet various Heads of State in New York during the conference time, including President Clinton.
Clinton and Jiang are expected to have Taiwan at the top of their agenda. They will discuss the new Chen Shui-bian administration as well as US arms sales to Taiwan. Clinton and Jiang last met in New Zealand last year at an APEC conference. In the course of their meeting Jiang called then Taiwan president Lee Teng-hui a "troublemaker" and Clinton was quoted by National Security Advisor Sandy Berger as telling Jiang, "[Lee] had made things more difficult for both China and the United States"
Li Peng is number two in the Chinese Communist Party hierachy and held the position of Premier many years before moving to his current position as Head of the National People's Congress. He is the adopted son of the late Premier Zhou En-lai.
Li is known as the Butcher of Beijing for his role in the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre when as premier he gave the orders for the army to attack citizens. Hundreds and perhaps thousands were killed. The number is not known because the communist party does not allow any investigation or discussion of the "incident", as it is called, and still at times will deny anyone was killed at all.
Jiang Zemin obtained his current position by replacing his predecessor, Zhao Ziyang, immediately prior to the massacre. Zhao, who did not agree with the decision to attack unarmed citizens, was removed from office and put under house arrest where he still remains.
An advance man, Zhao Qizheng, will travel to New York at the end of this month to begin arrangement for the visits.
url for original Chinese language article -- http://www.chineseworld.com/publish/today/11_0900.4w/m/4wmp(000708)02_tb.htm ( link)
MSTKG
6-27-00
and the Wen Ho Lee Case
The Washington Times today is reporting that communist China is using US bought supercomputers to simulate nuclear weapons test -- a usage prohibited by US law.
Interestingly enough the prosecution in the Wen Ho Lee pseudo-espionage case today for the first time talked about what country Lee was trying to give advantage to -- an accusation central to the specific charges against Lee -- saying that Lee may have been hoping to aid maybe Taiwan or maybe communist China or maybe four other countries with his downloaded simulation code. They haven't quite decided, it seems, and don't want to lock themselves into one theory just yet.
Now that it comes out that China is running computer simulations of nuclear bombs. It would seem to be a nice story that Lee downloaded the simulation code (that he in large part wrote) to give the communists and that is the code they are using in their simulations. It would seem like a clear-cut case of espionage.
But, things get stranger when it turns out that. early in the Clinton administration. Los Alamos lab directors began a project to share these blast simulation codes with other nuclear countries, incuding China, in a hope to decrease the amount of actual nuclear testing that accompanies development of bombs and convince these other nuclear powers to sign a Test Ban Treaty.
And then Defense Secretary William Perry even went to Beijing in 1994 to initiate such a project. Perry is quoted in the October 21, 1994 Los Angeles Times:
Perry, who visited China earlier this week, said in a news conference Tuesday that he had discussed with senior Chinese officials "ways of eliminating the need for testing (that) had to do with computer simulation techniques.""We discussed the possibility of exchanging information in that field," Perry said. "To the extent we can do that without compromising security, I think that would be a positive step forward."
So the question comes up -- who gave the simulation codes to the communists and when did they get them (yes, yes, of course the communists will say they developed them all by themselves).
Janes reported after Perry's trip and the project headed by the Los Alamos directors that China had acquired simulation technology, presumably from the Russians.
And it gets even weirder. One of Wen Ho Lee's strongest accusers, whose testimony was crucial in putting Lee in solitary confinement and being treated as the highest level security risk imaginable, was the co-initiator of the scheme to share the simulation codes with China more than five years before Lee was arrested.
He is Stephen Younger who along with Sig Hecker began the share-the-code project in 1993 that eventually had the active involvement of the US secretary of Defense William Perry.
Younger was one of the originators of the plan to share the exact same codes -- the "crown jewels", as they have been referred to -- that now he says are so important that Wen Ho Lee must rot in the hole for downloading them.
Something is rotten in Denmark, or at least in New Mexico.
Lee's prosecutors, in saying that Lee may have worked for any of six nations but they just haven't made up their minds which ones yet, are sounding discombobulated. Said George Stamboulidis, a prosecutor in the case:
Mr Stamboulidis argued that specifying one country before the trial would ''prematurely lock the government into one theory'' about the reasons for Lee's alleged data copying.Mr Stamboulidis also said it was possible Lee had not decided to which country he would offer the nuclear secrets.
Since the specific charges against Lee relate specifically to trying to gain an advantage for another nation, it is somewhat surprising that the prosecutors haven't decided what country that might be.
It brings up the question of how can they charge him of such a crime if they have no idea about what country it is supposed to be? It seems like arresting someone for robbing a bank and when asked what bank it was the prosecutor says they haven't decided yet.
Earlier Report: Wen Ho Lee says he is innocent
MSTKG
6-23-00
China to US: No Missile Defense Or We Proliferate
Albright and Jiang may look like space aliens, but what the CCP are telling the US is very down to earth. They are making known that any development or deployment of a missile defense system by the United States will result in serious "instability" in the world. The Chinese communists have begun spelling out in public just what they plan to do if the US goes ahead and develops a missile defense. Their ideas include renouncing their no first use of nuclear weapons and withdrawing from any talks or agreements to not proliferate weapons of mass destruction and related technology. This plan was developed last year ('99) in August (the 8th month) during the communist's annual summer retreat at the Beihaide resort, hence the name for the plan: the 998 Project.
Secretary of State Albright has just finished a visit to Beijing where these topics were central. A few weeks ago when the planned visit to China was made public Albright said it was mainly just to say goodbye to the Chinese communists she had met over her tenure.
But the other day an article in the Washington Times titled " Carrying Gore's water to Beijing" made it clear that the proliferation of weapons technology by the Chinese communist regime was a major aspect of the visit.
It shapes up that the communists are setting up a classic showdown where the Chicoms are saying that they will proliferate if the US does not dump their missile defense plans. And the communists are showing that they mean business.
The Chinese Communist's official Xinhua dispatch after Albright's visit to Beijing this week reported Chinese foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan as explicitly telling Albright:
US "National Missile Defence" programme will have a seriously negative impact on the global strategic balance and stability and on international arms control, disarmament, and prevention of proliferation.
The dispatch went on to say that the "Chinese side" urges the US to "abandon this program as soon as possible."
But this aspect of the meeting has been downplayed by Albright and the US press. The Guardian, on the other hand, picked up on it fully and ran an article headlined:
That article, by John Gittings (linked here), spelled it out clearly:
China welcomed her with the sharp message that it would be forced to increase its nuclear arsenal if the US went ahead with its plan.
Gittings article was clear that the plan being referred to was the National Missile Defense. On the other hand, a Jane Perlez article in the June 23 New York Times left the mistaken impression that there was some sort of bugaboo over the Theater Missile Defense being deployed by the US in Taiwan to protect Taiwan and did not mention the NMD -- protection of the US itself -- as the communist's complaint. It did touch upon it, though, and her article confirmed the previous day's Washington Times article by Triplett and Timberlake. From Perlez' article:
Dr. Albright had arrived expecting a full dose of criticism about the Clinton administration's plans for a national missile defensive shield, something China strongly opposes because it could neutralize China's nuclear arsenal. But the Chinese chose not to dwell on that issue today, American officials said.