- The Washington Times - Friday, May 18, 2001

As hit pieces go, the New Republics recent attack on the Heritage Foundation — "Sullied Heritage," written by John Judis — is one for the ages. The article drones on for seven interminable pages, and according to the magazine, represents three months worth of "reporting." Well, you would think the magazine had better ways of spending its resources at a time when liberals and Democrats flounder and flail on the political scene. Pathetic it is for sure.
"Heritages policy offerings on China," Mr. Judis charges, "have grown decidedly softer over the past few years." Heritage, in Mr. Judis judgment, has sold its conservative ideology for a fistful of commie cash. Mr. Judis, whose New Republic bio describes him as a philosophy instructor at Berkeley while "an active member of SDS and the left of the Sixties," approvingly quotes one cowardly unnamed source: "[T]he bottom line is that there is little question they are not speaking to the threat that China represents in the way they used to and in the way that would discomfit the Chinese." And why not? According to Mr. Judis, "[P]owerful forces within the conservative movement no longer see China as a moral enemy; they see it as an economic opportunity." Asserting that "the lure of the Chinese market has eroded the rights appetite for moral combat," Mr. Judis, whose bio also tells us he was "a founding editor of the Socialist Revolution in 1969, now called Socialist Review," concludes that Heritages alleged evolution serves as "a parable" of "the moral corruption of the movement that should be most formidable foe." Coming from a self-described socialist like Mr. Judis, this is rich indeed.
So, what, in fact, is Heritages "bottom line"? Here is a partial list of Heritages "action item" recommendations on the Chinese policy front gleaned from its Issues 2000 campaign book. Let the reader judge for himself whether such ideas "discomfit the Chinese."
* Action Item: Maintain a strong military presence in Asia to deter China by upgrading U.S. defense capabilities, including Americas regional aircraft and anti-aircraft capabilities. The goal is to "maintain U.S. air superiority in Asia" by deploying the newly developed F-22 in Asia.
Regarding missile defense, which China views with extreme trepidation, Heritage could not be more clear: "(I)t is imperative that the United States develop and deploy an effective missile defense strategy both in Asia and for the United States." Heritage also recommends that the United States "conduct a serious dialogue" with its major allies around the world "to stop military sales that improve the (Peoples Liberation Armys) ability to project force and wage war." Needless to say, Heritage argued for increased intelligence surveillance of Chinas military capabilities, including the naval flights that resulted in an American planes forced landing on a Chinese island earlier this year.
* Action Item: Improve the free flow of ideas into China by increasing the funding for Voice of America and Radio Free Asia in order to get "accurate and unfiltered news and information into China." Surely, Mr. Judis believes this policy "discomfits" the Chinese leadership.
* Action Item: Enhance Taiwans security. Heritage has repeatedly stressed the need to sell defensive arms to Taiwan. "Taiwans relative military strength will promote peace through deterrence," Heritage argues, "while its weakness will only invite aggression and invasion." Heritage has long supported passage of the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act. Moreover, to Chinas supreme discomfit, Heritage recommends an improvement in U.S. military contacts with Taiwan. As an antidote to the "three nos" infamously uttered by President Clinton in 1998 in Shanghai, which needlessly isolated Taiwan, Heritage has repeatedly argued for a reaffirmation of President Reagans "Six Assurances," which emphasized Americas interest in Taiwans security and a peaceful resolution to the dispute between China and Taiwan.
It is true that Heritage has supported Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China, and consistently so, one might add. From this Mr. Judis infers a diabolical plot in which "money and ideology began to diverge." As it happens, Taiwan also supports PNTR for China, largely because it has become the premier foreign investor in China. As Heritage argues, "Expanding Chinas fledgling private sector through trade is an effective way to promote greater freedom in China." This is the logic of Heritages position: "Eventually, people who exercise informed choices in the marketplace of goods and ideas should demand choices about who governs them and how they are governed." As proof, Heritage cites the obvious: "This strategy worked in Taiwan and other parts of Asia."
Of course, while that strategy was being pursued during the 1960s and thereafter, crackpots like Mr. Judis were editing idiotic journals like Socialist Revolution at the height of the Cultural Revolution.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide