The Cox Report officially establishes the nexus among Chinese espionage, trade with China, and illegal Chinese campaign donations. They are all cut from the same cloth, and the Cox Report stitches the pieces together.

That Communist China engaged in massive espionage to acquire U.S. military secrets, which can some day be used to threaten us and our allies, comes as no surprise. What is sensational about the Cox Report is the scope of China's success, and that it was achieved with the assistance of lax security, commercial transactions that concealed the transfer of military technology, and illegal campaign contributions to elect Bill Clinton and the Democrats in 1996.

The People's Republic of China (PRC) has "stolen classified information" on all seven of the United States' most advanced thermonuclear warheads, plus classified design information on our never-tested neutron bomb. The first of China's mobile ICBMs, the DF-31, "may be tested in 1999 and could be deployed as soon as 2002."

The nuclear secrets stolen by Communist China are not inconsequential; they give the PRC "design information on thermonuclear weapons on a par with our own." The Cox Committee states that the PRC will surely "exploit this design information in its next generation of weapons."

The hallmarks of the PRC's espionage strategy are the blurred lines between military and commercial technology. The Central Military Commission adopted Deng Xiaoping's "16-Character Policy," his command to combine the military and civil, combine peace and war, give priority to military products, and let the civil support the military.

The Cox Report unravels the many ingenious Chinese techniques used to acquire U.S. military technologies. The Chinese constantly pressure U.S. corporations to transfer technology in joint ventures, and they extensively exploit dual-use products and services for military advantages.

Nepotism is the name of the game in China's socio-political structure. The elite of the post-Deng ruling clique are the "princelings," the sons and daughters of Party officials who are credentialed with exalted business, military and political titles. Their status, as well as the cash bulging in their pockets, gave them extraordinary access to the Clinton White House. Among these specially anointed emissaries from China were Wang Jung, son of the late PRC President, and Liu Chaoying, daughter of the former most powerful PRC military boss.

Wang, who attended one of the notorious Clinton coffees in the White House, was connected to $600,000 in illegal campaign contributions made by Charlie Trie to the Democratic National Committee, and also to the 1996 Chinese attempt to smuggle AK-47 assault rifles to Los Angeles street gangs.

Liu, who was ostentatiously garbed with the titles Colonel in the People's Liberation Army as well as Vice President of a major missile and space corporation, attended a Clinton fundraiser in California. She gave $300,000 to Johnny Chung to use for Clinton's reelection in order "to better position her in the United States to acquire computer, missile, and satellite technologies."

Hughes Space and Communications, after the explosion of two of its communications satellites launched by China, gave China valuable information to make its rockets "more reliable." This information, which was directly applicable to China's military rockets and satellites, was not licensed by the United States for export.

Loral Space and Communications, as a result of the 1996 crash of a rocket carrying its communications satellite, performed "an unlicensed defense service for the PRC that resulted in the improvement of the reliability of the PRC's military rockets and ballistic missiles." This information about Western diagnostic processes facilitates improvements in reliability for all PRC missile and rocket programs.

The Defense Department concluded that "Loral and Hughes committed a serious export control violation by virtue of having performed a defense service without a license." The State Department referred the matter to the Department of Justice for possible criminal prosecution. Don't hold your breath until Janet Reno indicts. Loral's CEO was the largest Democratic contributor of legal campaign money.

We are kidding ourselves if we think that these are the acts of a friendly trading partner whose rough edges can be smoothed over by admission into the World Trade Organization (which means automatic status as what used to be called Most Favored Nation). Like all Communist countries, "the Party controls the gun"; i.e., the Communist Party is supreme over all government, military and civilian entities, including the army, navy, air force, espionage operations, government bureaucracies, commercial enterprises, and foreign trade.

The media and the Washington establishment have been touting Clinton's "victory" in the Balkans and the "success" of his bombing. But no amount of "spin" can prove such delusional notions. The deal that ended the 80 days and nights of bombing was no better, and possibly worse, than we could have had before the bombing started. Yugoslavia has been bombed back into the 19th century. Clinton and NATO have done over $50 billion worth of damage to Yugoslavia without achieving any strategic or humanitarian objective. Of course, we all know that the U.S. taxpayers will eventually be called upon to rebuild the Danube River bridges, the civilian property, and the water, electric, sanitation and communications infrastructure that the bombing destroyed.

Clinton has bombed six sovereign countries during the past year: Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania. None of those countries attacked or threatened us or our allies. For the first time in history, the United States was the aggressor in war, thus forfeiting our reputation as a peace-loving nation. For the first time in history, a President took us into war when we were not attacked or threatened, and where we have no discernable national interest.

Before the bombing started, 2,000 had been killed and 20,000 were refugees. After the bombing, 12,000 had been killed and the refugees numbered one million. Clinton's bombing didn't prove that bombing could win the war -- our bombers never engaged in combat; they were just flying over an undefended country and dropping bombs like shooting ducks in a pond.

By using anti-population "dumb" bombs for "area bombing," Clinton abandoned all pretense that his air strikes were aimed only at military targets. His Administration had to apologize 13 times for what he called "collateral damage," including the bombing of a refugee convoy, a bus on a bridge, a marketplace, a hospital, a playground, a passenger train, and a sleeping refugee village. On June 27, NATO admitted that the our bombing did little damage to Milosevic's military -- our bombers were tricked into hitting "old wrecks," and "a lot of dummy and deception targets."

Clinton's talk about our "moral" duty to take "humanitarian" action is as phony as his lies about his private misbehavior. All the people he said he wanted to help are now far worse off than before his bombing started. The State Department admits that 90 percent of the refugees became refugees after the bombing started. In Kosovo, the terror inflicted by the Serbs has been replaced by the revenge inflicted on the Serbs by our new "friends," the heroin-peddling Kosovo Liberation Army.

Clinton defended the bombing as needed to save NATO's credibility. On the contrary, Clinton's war did terrible damage to NATO's credibility because it changed NATO into a bully trying to impose its will on a non-NATO country.

Clinton's bombing fractured our relations with the two most dangerous nations in the world: Russia and China. It's not surprising that the Chinese don't believe that the bombing of their embassy in Belgrade was a mistake. They think that blaming it on a two-year old map doesn't ring true and, besides, nobody has been fired or punished.

So why did Clinton do it? Did he start the bombing of Yugoslavia, and keep it going for 80 days despite several good opportunities to end it (such as Jesse Jackson's successful mission to bring home our POWs), in order to distract attention from the transfers of U.S. missile technology to Communist China and the Clinton Administration's coverup? Was it mere coincidence that Clinton started bombing Yugoslavia just as the bad publicity started coming out about the Chinese espionage at Los Alamos, and that he kept the bombs falling as the news, day after day, re-confirmed that it happened on Clinton's watch?

Or, was it because he wanted the drama of war to define his legacy, rather than impeachment and Monicagate? After all, Clinton complained at the White House Correspondents dinner that he ranked only 53rd on the Newseum list of the top news stories, asking, "What do I have to do to make the top 50?" The answer is, start a war.

Clinton bombed a remote camp in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in the Sudan just three days after his non-apology about the Monica scandal was such a public relations flop. He bombed Iraq the day before the House was scheduled to begin impeachment proceedings.

Or, was Clinton's bombing of Yugoslavia a ruse to get Americans accustomed to an interventionist policy under which our armed forces will, again and again, be called upon to play global cops and global social workers for the rest of the world? Was it a fulfillment of Clinton's promise (in his speech to the United Nations on September 22, 1997) to take us into a global "web" for "the emerging international system" in "this new global era"?

The media spinmeisters have been trying to put Republican Members of Congress on the griddle because they were critical of Clinton's war and refused to support it. History will show that they were absolutely right to vote against Clinton's military actions in Yugoslavia.

By large majorities, Republican Members of Congress went on record against Clinton's war: 93% voted to require Congressional approval before ground troops were sent in, 86% voted against the bombing, 80% voted against sending peacekeeping troops, 58% voted to withdraw U.S. forces after the bombing started, and 64% voted to forbid the use of defense appropriations for Yugoslavia without specific Congressional approval.

Jack Kemp said it exactly right in an editorial entitled "A Web of Deceit" (Washington Times, June 27, 1999). He called Clinton's war "a debacle, an international Waco, which no amount of spinning by NATO and the media can erase." Kemp called the war "unnecessary, illegal and unconstitutional from the beginning. It failed on every score to achieve the goals articulated to justify it, exacerbated the very problems it sought to remedy and created new problems that will plague America and the Balkans for years to come." Kemp pointed out that "the bombing and the killing and destruction it wreaked in Yugoslavia were absolutelyunnecessary to achieving the final terms of the current agreement." Clinton could have gotten the same or even a better deal at Rambouillet if he had wanted to, but he flung an ultimatum on Milosevic that no sovereign country could accept, namely, that he accept NATO troops occupying Belgrade and independence for Kosovo in three years. After 80 days of bombing, Milosevic withdrew from Kosovo, but only after NATO abandoned those demands.

What Clinton did to Yugoslavia was bad enough, but what he did to the United States Constitution was even worse. He stole from Congress its constitutional power to decide when and if America goes to war. He stole from the Senate its treaty-ratification power by agreeing -- without Senate approval -- to change the mission prescribed in the NATO treaty from defensive to offensive.

Jack Kemp correctly labelled Clinton's foreign policy "this fog of lies, this culture of deceit." How much more damage will Clinton do before the 2000 elections bring the warmongering politicians back to reality?

We are approaching the fateful moment when the clock will strike noon on December 31, 1999, and America pulls out of the Panama Canal Zone forever, turning over to the Panamanians $32 billion worth of bases and equipment paid for by the American taxpayers. All the arguments advanced 20 years ago by the treaty giveaway advocates have proven false, and all the dire predictions of those who voted No have come true.

Now we find that, as the United States is pulling out, Communist China is moving in. China has negotiated long leases to occupy strategic ports at both ends of the Panama Canal: Cristobal Port on the Atlantic and Balboa Port on the Pacific.

It was a terrible mistake for President Jimmy Carter and the U.S. Senate to give away our Panama Canal in 1978, and the majority of the American people knew it was wrong. America had paid for this most expensive piece of real estate four times: we paid Panama for sovereignty "in perpetuity," we bought the Zone again from Columbia, we paid the French Canal Company for its assets, and we bought the deeds from the private property owners, and then we built the Canal with our ingenuity and investment.

The giveaway of our Canal was the most significant action of the Jimmy Carter Presidency. Why would any Senator help him to reach a two-thirds majority in the Senate to consummate the deal with the drug-smuggling Communist Omar Torrijos, the dictator of a little country that usually changed its rulers through violence? Torrijos was just as bad a Communist drug-smuggling dictator as Noriega, whom President George Bush prosecuted and sent to prison.

The big majority of the American people were stoutly opposed to giving away our Canal. In order to ram the treaty through the U.S. Senate, the giveaway advocates added the "DeConcini reservation," which purported to recognize the right of the United States to use military force, with or without Panama's consent, to keep the Canal open. The DeConcini reservation enabled the treaty to pass the Senate by one vote.

But Torrijos refused to recognize this U.S. right. The Carter Administration perpetrated a monstrous deception by making a deal (kept secret from the Senate and the American people at the time) by which Panama and the United States signed different versions of the treaty, Such a treaty should be recognized as invalid by any reasonable standard.

Cui bono? Who profited from the giveaway of our Canal? The ten largest U.S. banks had outstanding claims in Panama of almost $3 billion, and the only way they could call their loans was if the bankrupt Torrijos were given the tolls from the Canal. Incidentally, they were some of the same New York banking interests that, during the Clinton Administration, finagled the scandalous bailouts of corrupt foreign dictators and the International Monetary Fund, again imposing the costs on the U.S. taxpayers.

Within two years after the U.S. Senate ratified the Panama treaty in 1978, angry voters defeated two dozen Senators who voted for the treaty and induced eight more to retire. In 1980, the Panama Canal issue helped Ronald Reagan to be elected President in 1980 and Republicans to win their surprise majority in the U.S. Senate.