On July 11, 2013, the United States and Communist China
agreed to restart negotiations on a bilateral investment treaty (BIT). Opting
in favor of proceeding with further and more substantive negotiations, China
dropped its previous opposition to a BIT, "namely, efforts to exempt a
number of its industries and sectors (including the service sector),"
according to The Diplomat.
"The two sides agreed to enter a more substantive stage
of negotiation as soon as possible," said Chinese Minister of Commerce Gao
Hucheng to reporters following the 5th round of the annual China-US Strategic
and Economic Dialogue, on July 11. "China announced its intention to
negotiate a high-standard bilateral investment treaty with us that will include
all stages of investment and all sectors," said U.S. Secretary of Treasury
Jacob Lew in his closing remarks. Lew went on to describe China's announced
cooperation as "a significant breakthrough, and the first time China has
agreed to do so with another country."
Although it is unclear
when formal negotiations will commence, they will however lead to an official
BIT between the U.S. and Communist China. Dr. Derek Scissors, Ph.D., a senior
research fellow for economics at the Heritage Foundation's Asian Studies
Center, believes that "Congress is unlikely to approve a BIT before
2017." Dr. Scissors noted the following in a recent article posted on the
Heritage Foundation's website, about the various obstacles facing a proposed
BIT:
The Senate already
faces politically painful votes on Trade Promotion Authority (probably this
year), the Trans-Pacific Partnership (probably next year), and, the
Trans-Atlantic Partnership (possibly 2015). It would be very dubious politics
to jump China ahead of American friends in the trade queue. But multiple
political bloodlettings in a single year is almost as difficult to see as a
pro-China vote during the 2016 presidential campaign. Although the politics for
a BIT may not be optimal at this time, the time for opponents to act is now
while the negotiations are just beginning, and while there is still enough time
to inform the electorate about the negative consequences of a Sino-U.S. BIT.
According to China Daily, the state-owned Chinese Communist newspaper, on July
13, "the US pledged to treat Chinese investment equally and fairly and to
welcome investment from China, including that from State-owned
enterprises."
The term
"State-owned enterprises" is a misnomer and should be treated as
such, considering that nothing is truly owned by just the "state" in the
People's Republic of China (PRC), but rather by "the people, represented
by the Communist Party," as stated by numerous Chinese Communist and
former Soviet Communist leaders. In other words, the "state," or
government, in countries like China and the former Soviet Union is owned and
controlled by the Communist Party. This is why the highest title or position in
authority in both the former USSR and the present-day PRC is that of
"General Secretary of the Communist Party." For example, Xi Jinping,
the current President of the People's Republic of China, is also the General
Secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC). As General Secretary, Xi
serves also as an ex officio member of the CPC Politburo Standing Committee.
Understanding the
nature of the CPC's politics is key to understanding the interlocking operation
of the Chinese government and its "state-owned enterprises." If a
business is owned by the state, and the Communist Party in turn owns the state
then it does not take much to logically deduce that the Communist Party of
China thus owns such businesses or enterprises. The CPC and its key party
members own any and all Chinese "state-owned" businesses and comprise
the vast majority of China's minority population of wealthy elites.
The ramifications of
treating Chinese state-owned enterprises equally to U.S. enterprises and firms
are of high importance when considering that such an acquiescence would further
serve the interests of the Communist Party elites in China by giving them an
unprecedented access to purchase U.S. businesses and properties. With the
largest foreign currency reserves in the world, a reported $3.4 trillion, China
would be capable of going on an extraordinary spending spree in the United
States. Such a spending spree would have extraordinarily negative effects on
our national independence and personal freedoms.
Smithfield Foods, the
world's largest producer of pork and other cold cut meats, based in Smithfield,
Virginia, has agreed to a $4.72 billion deal with the Chinese state-owned
company Shuanghui International Holdings Ltd. The above photo shows Wan Long,
chairman of Shuanghui and also a member of the Communist Party of China, making
the communist clenched fist salute in front of a large number of employees also
making the clenched fist salute. On September 6, 2013, the U.S. Committee on
Foreign Investment approved what is now the largest acquisition of a U.S.
company by a Chinese state-owned company, thus putting one sliver of U.S. food
production into the managing hands of the Communists. As more U.S. firms,
businesses, factories fall under the control of Chinese Communists, through
these foreign "investments," local U.S. governments and regulations
will likely be curtailed and amended as needed to facilitate the new foreign
Chinese Communist "business owners." While some Americans would see
short-term economic gain and profit, it is clear that Communist China would
reap the greatest benefits from the proposed BIT.
Please email your representative and senators and urge them
to oppose the negotiations for a U.S.-China Bilateral Investment Treaty based
on the information above.
Phone calls can also
be very effective, and of course, the most effective way to educate your
congressmen is by making personal visits to their offices.
Source: The John Birch Society, 9/19/13, Oppose the
U.S.-China Bilateral Investment Treaty
Comments:
Yet another way to make the U.S. a Communist country is to
have a Communist country purchase everything they want in the U.S. That would give a whole new meaning to the “People’s
Republic of California” and the “People’s Republic of Massachusetts”
This would NOT be like the Japanese companies buying stuff
in the U.S. in the 1980s. The Chinese
Communist Party would annex entire States and never leave. The next argument would be to make the rest
of the U.S. a Communist Republic too. I
think we can do better. It’s time to
quit the UN and fire our elected officials.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment