In this week's Senate confirmation hearings, Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice listed six countries as "outposts of tyranny": Cuba, Belarus, Burma, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe. A longer list might have been put forward, containing twelve to twenty names. But this is the Age of Television, which puts a premium on abbreviation and verbal condensation. What is significant in Ms. Rice's listing is not the size of the list or the list itself.
By definition an outpost is an "outlying settlement." Ms. Rice therefore alludes to a larger tyranny of which the six listed countries are mere protrusions. Cuba, Belarus, Burma, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe are "outposts" of something larger. As it happens, the listed countries are either communist states or clients of Russia and China. Belarus, for example, has a "union treaty" with Russia. Burma is dominated by China. North Korea coordinates its moves with Russia and China, receiving its armaments from China. Zimbabwe has close ties to China. Cuba is a communist state with longstanding ties to Russia, though in recent years it has drawn closer to China.
There may also be linkages between China and "outposts of terror." After thousands died in the World Trade Center, the CIA put questions to Chinese defector Xu Junping. He admitted that American efforts to kill or capture bin Laden prior to 9/11 had been thwarted by Chinese intelligence officers. In his book Seeds of Fire, intelligence writer Gordon Thomas further alleged that bin Laden made secret trips to China prior to September 11, 2001. According to Thomas, "When Osama bin-Laden had visited China, he had usually been accompanied by China's most senior diplomat in the region, its ambassador to Pakistan." [P. 492]
Americans do not want to contemplate, let alone accept, the reality of Beijing's enmity. We prefer to believe that the communist threat has subsided, that Russia and China are normal states following reasonable paths toward social improvement. While disagreements occur from time to time, and tensions may rise, a "normal country" wants peace. A Third World War need not occur. If Russia and China have sold weapons to rogue states, if they support Iran's nuclear ambitions, it is simply a matter of money. For Moscow and Beijing, selling WMDs is a profitable venture. One need not assume a conscious, subtle enmity. And yet, Ms. Rice refers to "outposts of tyranny."
Without question, the world's largest tyranny is China. It is a fact that America's leaders, in business and politics, prefer to ignore. The Chinese-American human rights activist Harry Wu, in a book titled Troublemaker, offered the following explanation. "In my view, the United States is still hoping that China's hybrid form of capitalism will lead to democracy. More likely it will lead to the creation of a new form of a totalitarian, supernationalistic military state."
Under a culture that cries out for market optimism, hypnotized by an entertainment-driven media, a subtle form of groupthink prevails. Those who analyze foreign affairs are pushed and prodded to ignore Chinese enmity, to deny that Russia and China continue to prosecute the Cold War under a flag of truce. The great revolutionary machine grinds forward. In Colombia, for example, a communist revolution is underway. Trace, if you will, the line that connects this revolution with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The line then passes from Chavez to Castro, from Chavez to China, from Chavez to Russia. Those who deny this reality are missing the big picture. They are missing the interconnectedness of strategic events in Latin America, the Korean Peninsula, the metal-producing areas of Africa, the Middle East and Europe. Unconsciously Ms. Rice has understood the significance of these lines and their points of intersection. And so she refers to "outposts of tyranny." But she will not name the larger thing. She cannot do so, since her conscious mind lags behind the unconscious realization.
In a somewhat confused fashion, Ms. Rice described President Hugo Chavez as "a democratically elected leader who governs in an illiberal way...." It seems that Ms. Rice would like to bring Chavez into the American fold, despite the "steps" he has taken "against the media, against the opposition" that are "really very deeply troubling." Ms. Rice further stated that the Venezuelan government "has not been constructive."
Two years ago I interviewed President Chavez's pilot, Major Juan Diaz. In that interview Diaz said, "For Hugo Chavez the United States is the enemy. And he is convinced that by forming a bloc of countries he can attack the United States in various ways. One way would be an economic attack. And on top of this he is not only looking for an alliance with a bloc of countries but also an alliance with terrorist groups because this will give him a direct way to attack the United States."
We know from common news reports that Venezuela has aligned itself with Cuba and China. A few years back President Chavez went to Beijing and declared that he was a "Maoist." Even more telling, Chavez went to Moscow to invite Russian arms manufacturers to his country. Condoleezza Rice should have stated, flatly, that Hugo Chavez is America's enemy. But such pronouncements are not allowed, as they would force the American people to amend their complacency.
A direct statement, touching on reality, is not possible under our shopping mall regime. It seems that America is a neurotic country, led by neurotics. Carl Jung once described the neurotic with the following words: "He hears and does not hear, he sees yet is blind, he knows and does not know at the same time."
One might add: "He speaks and does not realize what he says."
