|Back to Index|
Stanford's Perry-Lewis team.
Former Clinton's Secretary of Defense, William Perry is one of Stanford's most respected faculty members. He is a Professor of the Institute for International Studies and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, which is a tribute coming from an institution known for its support of Republican leaders. He is also a WAIS Fellow; we interviewed him in our TV program. He comes across as bright, unassuming, efficient and diplomatic. It is for these qualities that he has become the government's roving ambassador in East Asia.
John Lewis, also a Professor of International Studies, is a different type. A tough scholar and a leading authority on China, he has specialized in two main subjects: Chinese leadership (Leadership in Communist China, 1963, and Party Leadership and Revolutionary Power in China, 1970) and military affairs (China Builds the Bomb, 1988 and China's Strategic Seapower, 1994, to name just his major publications). He and Perry make a splendid team on East Asia.
Insight is a weekly affiliated with the Washington Times, and like it is funded by the vehemently anti-communist Rev. Sung Myung Moon, who allegedly does not interfere is the editorial content, although certainly the "right" people are appointed to the staff. Its line, "hate Clinton," is boring, but it is worth reading because it has contacts with people in government, who supply it with lots of inside information.
The May 31, 1999 issue features an article entitled "A Sale to Red China We Will One Day Regret." The author is Charles Smith, an information security specialist. It is an attack on the Perry-Lewis team, because they work for Clinton. It is illustrated wkith two cartoons of Clinton (with a long, lying nose). One shows him revealing top technical secrets to the Chinese, the other pestering the poor gun lobby.
The article charges that, under the Hua Mei project, Perry and Lewis sold China advanced communications technology though Galaxy New Technology (a Chinese firm which is a front for the military), despite the objections of the Pentagon's technology directorate and the National Security Agency. The article is based on newly released Commerce Department documents. It describes Lewis as a business partner of Galaxy New Technology and a member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. Perry was involved in the deal through Hambrecht and Quist, of which Perry was a founder. It also finances the "liberal-leaning" Salon magazine.
There is no space to give details from the article. It ends saying: "With business friends such as Perry and Lewis, who needs enemies?" Certainly, Clinton does not; Insight makes sure of that. I trust Perry and Lewis. Unfortunately, I cannot say that about Insight.
Ronald Hilton - 06/06/99
More on Stanford's Perry-Lewis team.
I told John Lewis about the attack on him and William Perry in Insight magazine. He has sent an angry reply: I have not read the Insight article and don't want to. Way back in 1996, Bill [Perry] and I were attacked by the Far Eastern Economic Review, and the attacks against me went on for 11 months in that journal, even though we and the Pentagon showed every charge to be false and malicious. FEER was able to spark a Congressional investigation, which concluded that there was no truth to the charges. But, American journalism loves lies and one cannot refute lies with the truth. The FBI (which was investigating FEER for these lies) said that by trying to do so, the only thing I was doing was to give FEER the opportunity to continue to print the lies. As you know, FEER and some who found these charges politically useful then tried to get me fired at Stanford. The original lies -- now confounded by the lies about Hua Di not being in a Chinese prison but being a real China spy (even though Hua languishes in a Chinese prison and may die there from cancer) -- are regularly brought together in the most amazing set of accusations. I continue to serve my country and to hold the highest level clearances, but I no longer make any attempt to refute silly and outrageous untruths. To the best of my ability I try to continue to do my research and writing, and I'll send you an article that is coming out concerning the Chinese air force. My comment: I can well understand John's anger. I quit the directorship of Bolivar House and the Latin American program which I had founded because the warnings I gave about the clandestine and crazy Bay of Pigs operation met with so much criticism. Events proved of course that I was right. I have lamented elsewhere that Insight, which has access to much Washington information not available elsewhere, twists it for some obscure ends. I am more surprised by the Far Eastern Economic Review, but that is a comment on my ignorance of the workings of the China lobby. I take all this very seriously not only because of my respect for people like John but also because it undermines my campaign to have journalists treated with more respect. They are performing an essential task in very difficult and dangerous conditions. There are unworthy priests and yellow journalists, but that should not lead us to condemn those who serve these callings well. Nor should we believe that all capitalists are scam artists.
It also damages the image of the "free world", which boasts about its free press. We should talk of the "free and responsible press." As André Chénier said before he was guillotined, " Oh Freedom! What crimes are committee in your name."
Ronald Hilton - 06/10/99