Your browser (Internet Explorer 7 or lower) is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites. Learn how to update your browser.


China EXECUTES Head Of Its Food & Drug Administration!!

Crazy as it sounds, death comes for
the higher-up sacrifices to capitalism in our new
greatest enemy nation we are demonizing,
as China grows, economically challenging us,
battling for the world’s global resources, especially oil and water.

China is being portrayed as our latest greatest danger, as we see tainted food infiltrate our supermarket shelves and dollar stores, worry about their anti-satellite weaponry, building billion dollar ships called ‘Aegis’ to encircle the edges of the great wide country so we might be able to blast any of their missiles that could be launched at us out of the lower stratosphere above the western Asian sky. And make lots of money for our wonderful weapons makers, as we inflate the threat of CHINA!!! CHINA!!! CHINA!!!!

But did you hear that with all the toothpaste tainted with the antifreeze ingredient and solvent called “diethylene glycol,” 900,000 tubes at last report, and the pet food contaminated with melamine [from coal, used as a “filler”] that killed all those dogs and cats, and the industrial chemicals like formaldehyde, malachite green, clenbuterol [banned feed additive], “Sudan” dye, lead [in toy trains’paint] contaminating all sorts of food and fish and pickles and candy, plus an unsafe antibiotic that killed at least ten people in China itself, the former director of China’s State Food and Drug Administration [SFDA] was actually EXECUTED on July 10, 2007! As “confirmed by [China] state television and the official Xinhua News Agency.”*

Zheng Xiaoyu had been head of the SFDA from 1998 to 2005. Reportedly, during that reign, six medicines that turned out to be fake were approved, “and the drug-makers used falsified documents to apply for approvals.”* Zheng was “convicted of taking cash and gifts worth $832,000 U.S. when he was in charge of the SFDA.”*

“His death sentence was unusually heavy even for China, believed to carry out more court-ordered executions than all other countries combined, and indicates the leadership’s determination to confront the country’s dire product safety record.”*

Zheng’s ‘subordinate, Cao Wenzhuang, a former director of SFDA’s drug registration department’ was also ‘sentenced to death for accepting bribes and dereliction of duty. Cao was given a two-year reprieve, a ruling which is usually commuted to life in prison if the convict is deemed to have reformed.’

“We should seriously reflect and learn lessons from these cases. We should step up our efforts to ensure food and drug safety, which is what we are doing now and what we will do in the future,” SFDA spokesperson Yan Jiangying said.*

Not much surprise then when ‘China closed the Taixing Glycerin Factory, which [was] accused of exporting diethylene glycol, and passing it off as another chemical, glycerin, that eventually ended up in cold medicine that killed at least 100 people in Panama. It also shut down the Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Company and the Binzhou Futian Biology Technology Company, which are suspected of adding melamine or other chemicals to some of their products.

The government also acknowledged today that several Chinese companies had exported seafood tainted with banned antibiotics to the United States, but regulators said they had not caught the problem because the seafood suppliers were not properly registered with the governmentís quality inspectors.’ **

Funny how China rationalizes and denies its problems, not unlike ugly corporations who kill and maim, i.e., especially nuclear ones. Before they admitted what they did, as above, as reported in the New York Times article of July 21, 2007 by David Barboza, it had been reported in the Canadian Press that ‘China admitted last month that it was the source of the deadly chemical that ended up in cough syrup and other treatments but insists the chemical was originally labelled as for industrial use only. Beijing blames the Panama traders who eventually bought the shipment for fraudulently relabelling it as medical-grade glycerin.’ *

Oh, where is the truth?

Here is another similarly rationalized incident concerning Chinese-made tires that you may not have heard about, also reported in Mr. Barboza’s article:

‘China also responded this week to allegations that one of the countryís biggest tire makers had shipped defective tires to the United States, eliminating a key safety component, which led to the recall earlier this year of 450,000 Chinese made tires and a lawsuit that contends the problem tires caused at least one fatal accident.

Beijing regulators, however, say they have now tested several similar models of the tire and that they all meet United States safety standards. The company, the Hangzhou Zhongce Rubber Company, said this week that the fatal accident was caused not by faulty tires but by the misuse of the tires.’ **

Yeah, like driving on them.

But what is at the bottom of all this hoo-ha-ha? Well, remember how our wonderful blabbering Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld railed at China for “investing in missiles and up-to-date military technology,” this posing “a risk not only to Taiwan [the island nation that cannot call itself ‘China’] and to American interests, but also to nations across Asia that view themselves as
China’s trading partners, not rivals.” ***

Horrible, isn’t it? Much worse, back in 2005, the
veritable New York Times, also reported that our
USA ‘accused China of manipulating the value of its
currency…in order to increase its exports, and of
exerting heavy-handed pressure on Taiwan.’ ***

Do not forget that Paul Krugman of those same
NY Times told us on May 5, 2005 that the Chinese
government “has kept the yuan [their kine of money]
down by shipping the incoming funds [from ‘its rapidly growing trade surplus…and investments by Western and Japanese companies’] right back out again, buying huge quantities of dollar assets – about $200 billion worth in 2004, and possibly as much as $300 billion” in 2005.**** THEY’RE BUYING UP DA COUNTRY!! you might scream and worry. Yeah, Krugman goes on to say that China is “lending vast sums at low interest rates to the United States.” and that when “those cheap loans are no longer
available…USA interest rates will rise; the
housing bubble will probably burst; construction
employment and consumer spending will both fall…we’ll suddenly wonder why anyone thought financing the budget deficit was easy.” ****

While American auto workers might make $55 per hour, Chinese auto workers may only make a dollar or $1.50 per hour in wages and benefits. [#] Do you know about that? That is why jobs are being shipped there at the expense of our laborers’ well being. Because, if you look around the world, the corporate grab of the planet’s resources under the World Trade Organization [WTO] over the last
ten years has affected South Asia and China especially, as described here by Public Citizen’s Feb 13, 2007 report:

‘The number of people living in poverty has also increased in South Asia, while growth rates and the rate of reduction in poverty have slowed in most parts of the world – – especially when one excludes China, where huge reductions in poverty have been accomplished, but not by following WTO-approved policies (China became a WTO member only in 2001). Indeed, the economic policies that China employed to obtain its dramatic growth and poverty
reduction are a veritable smorgasbord of WTO violations: high tariffs to keep out imports and significant subsidies and government intervention to promote exports; an absence of intellectual property protection; government-owned, operated and subsidized energy, transportation and manufacturing sectors; tightly regulated foreign investment with numerous performance requirements regarding domestic content and technology transfer; government-controlled finance and banking systems subsidizing billions in non-performing debt; and government-controlled, subsidized and protected agriculture. Many of these same policies are those employed by the now-wealthy countries during their period of development.’

What China has been using as policy recently, ruling
corporations do not want to allow during the WTO decade for the rest of the world they want to freely plunder. ‘Free trade.’ Free to plunder those natural resources. Take ’em and wreck the place they do not have to care for, leaving whatever mess they can get away with, tainted and strip-mined for the profit of their companies.

More from that report: ‘It’s not as if the status quo is
working for most people in the rich countries either.
During the WTO era, the U.S. trade deficit has risen to historic levels – – from around $100 billion (in today’s dollars) in 1994 (the year before the WTO went into effect) to nearly $800 billion in 2006. The U.S. trade deficit is approaching 6 percent of national income – – a figure widely agreed to be unsustainable, putting the United States and global economy at risk. Soaring U.S. imports during the WTO decade have contributed to the loss of nearly one in six U.S. manufacturing jobs. U.S. real median wages have scarcely risen above their 1970 levell, while productivity has soared 82 percent over the same period, resulting in declining or stagnant standards of living for the nearly 70 percent of the U.S. population that does not have a college degree. And for the first time in generations, the United States is headed for net food-importer status, having seen monthly agricultural imports outpace exports in August 2006. The United States lost 226,695 small and family farms between 1995 and 2003, while average net cash farm income for the very poorest farmers dropped to an astounding -$5,228.90 in 2003, a colossal 200 percent drop since the WTO went into effect.

Although trade and the status-quo model’s failure were important in many 2006 U.S. congressional races, the bottom-up public pressure that has altered trade policies in many nations has not risen to a level in the United States that translates into significantly altered negotiating positions. Thus, while a majority of the U.S. public is losing under the Bush administration’s trade agenda, the U.S. WTO position continues to be that of the narrow commercial interests that have bankrolled the administration’s campaigns and those of the GOP
majority in Congress.’

Like the weapons industry, because weapons are the number one industrial export product of the ole US of A. That is why “we” are intent on putting weapons in space, to control the Earth below with those far-flung foreign American investments that corporations want to protect. That is why we are about to sell Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates $20 billion worth of ‘equipment and weaponry.’ Which includes, in the expensive package, ‘upgrading the countries’ air and missile defense systems, improving their navies and making modest improvements in their air forces, [U.S.] administration officials said.’

And since Israel seems so concerned about all this,
especially re those ‘advanced satellite-guided bombs’
that are about to be included, we will appease their anxieties by upping our military aid to Tel Aviv by an increase of $9.1 billion compared to the last decade, to a total of $30.4 billion. [##]

With the weapons industry being an integral part of the reason for why our country is currently doing what it is doing under the pawnage of the corporation’s best pal, George Bush, see what you think about what Bruce Gagnon says. Mr. Gagnon is the director of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space.

“More than anything else, the weapons corporations in the U.S. are looking for new enemies. The war on terrorism is one thing, but it is hard to claim that Star Wars would stop airplanes from hitting tall buildings in New York City. What the U.S. Pentagon really needs are nations that have nuclear weapons to appear as though they are a direct and serious threat to the people of America. Iraq, as it turned out, had no weapons of mass destruction. Iran today has no weapons of mass destruction capable of hitting the continental U.S. Neither does North Korea. But China does. China today has 20 nuclear missiles that could hit Los Angeles or San Francisco. But are 20 Chinese nuclear missiles enough to justify the U.S. spending another $100 billion or more on Star Wars?

If China were to build more nuclear weapons, then the
threat might become such that the American people would be willing to turn over social security, health care, and education funding so the military can spend more on ‘missile defense’ to protect [us] from an ‘aggressive’ China. But how does one get China to go along with such a game?

If the U.S. military, with the help of Japan, can
successfully surround China, then it is likely China will build more nuclear missiles. Already, with new U.S. bases along China’s inland border in Central Asia, the U.S. is causing China and Russia to fear its intentions beyond the ‘war on terror’ in that region. It is not China, the communist nation, that the U.S. fears. It is China’s embrace of a modified capitalism that is quickly outpacing the U.S. economy, and shows every indication that it will soon dwarf the U.S. economy, that the U.S. desires to contain.

The Chinese find it hard to believe American claims that its missile defense program is intended only to counter threats from small ërogueí states. The U.S. systems under development would destroy Chinaís ability to deter nuclear attack by neutralizing its relatively small force of nuclear missiles. That would leave China dangerously vulnerable to bullying or attack, a Chinese arms negotiator told the New York Times in 2000. If it appears likely, he added, “We will not sit on our hands.” If the U.S. deploys a theatre missile defense, the CIA believes China will deploy multiple warheads on its missiles to overwhelm the anti-missile shield.

Jonathan Pollack, director of the Strategic Research Department of the U.S. Naval War College, told the New York Times that while China did have the largest standing army in the world and was in the process of modernizing, “I don’t see these capabilities as the leading edge of a more comprehensive, long-term plan to either supplement U.S. military power in the Western Pacific or challenge U.S. power on a global scale,” adding, “Let’s not make them out to be 10 feet tall.”

If it is accepted that in order to ësellí Star Wars to the public in America then a new arms race must first be created, then the U.S. military is well on its way to achieving its goal. There is historical evidence for this method of operation. During the height of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, it is now common knowledge that the U.S. military routinely over-estimated the Soviet military capability as justification for massive U.S. investments and development of new weapons technologies. Such is now the case with China and North Korea. The U.S. exaggerates their threat and in doing so creates the
momentum to expand its own, with Japanese help, in the Asian Pacific region. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, referring to North Korea in 2002 called the regime, “The merchant for ballistic missile technology around the world.” Could it not be said that rather, it is the U.S., with its new agreements to sell “missile defense” technologies to Japan, Australia, England, and Italy [and now the middle eastern countries mentioned above] that is the “merchant for ballistic missile technology” around the world? It is a fact that the number one industrial export product of America today is weapons. The more tensions in the world, the more money American weapons corporations will make.

For the last several years an attempt has been made
at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament in
Geneva to create a new global ban on weapons in space [fronted by China and Russia]. (The current U.N. Outer Space Treaty of 1967 is limited by its out of date definitions that prohibit weapons of mass destruction in space.) But each year the U.S. government has blocked the attempts saying that there is no need for such a new treaty because there are no weapons in space today, and thus no problem. But only a nation that has designs on space would make such a comment. Only a nation that has long planned to take “control and domination” of space [as the U.S. has said in many of its documents] would obstruct such a noble goal as a new international treaty.” [###]

You can see much more on this push by the USA to
control and dominate space throughout this website,
and also try

Further background on making China seem the next
ominous evil enemy of the USA comes from’s winter newsletter of 2006:

Regarding U.S. military strategy to ‘exaggerate
the level of China’s military build-up, encircle China
through the acquisition of military bases in the
Asian-Pacific region, to establish anti-Chinese alliances, [and] deploy Theatre Missile Defense (TMD) systems near China:’

‘Much of this military strategy is defined by controlling global resources, particularly oil and water. The U.S. and China are now involved in an international competition to control the world’s oil supplies.

According to Michael Klare, a Professor of Peace and
World Security Studies, China is now the world’s “number-two” consumer of oil, just behind the U.S. By the year 2020, Klare says, “Chinese oil consumption is projected to reach 12 million barrels per day,” while the U.S. will need to import “as much as 16 million barrels per day” by the same year.

A leading group in the effort to hype the Chinese military threat is the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which includes neocons like Lynne Cheney, Michael Novak, Irving Kristol, Ben Wattenberg, Frank Gaffney, and Michael Ledeen. The AEI is closely aligned with the Project for a New American Century, the group that successfully lobbied for “regime change” in Iraq and argues that it is a strategic necessity for the U.S. to control the world’s oil supplies.

The media are filled these days with warnings of massive Chinese military upgrading. Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld has told Congress that within a decade the Chinese navy could surpass the U.S. navy, and that China was “increasingly moving their navy further from shore.” Maine Republican Senator Olympia Snowe was recently quoted as saying that China’s navy had surpassed the U.S. navy. (Sen. Snowe is trying to ensure that production of the Navy’s Aegis destroyer continues in her state
[at the price of $1 billion per ship].)

Even supposedly ‘liberal’ analysts like Michael O’Hanlon, from the Democratic-party linked Brookings Institute says, “Whether through defense transformation or changing force posture in Asia, the reshaping of U.S. armed forces should not ignore the wide range of possible and quite demanding scenarios in Asia capable of threatening U.S. security.” [Brookings is a conservative think tank – your editor.]

The fear-mongering even extends to groups like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where senior associate Ashley Tellis stated in a recent report that the U.S. would be called upon to “maintain or even increase” its role as regional security guarantor for a number of Asian states. “This will require the U.S. to preserve its current military dominance, protect its existing alliances, and develop new ties to major states that are not allied or opposed to Washington.”

China’s military budget is less than one tenth that of the U.S. (The Rand Corporation estimates China’s military expenditures to be between $31-38 billion a year.) In spite of Rumsfeld’s dire warnings, the Chinese navy is designed for defending its territorial waters, not projecting force elsewhere. Roughly 80% of China’s energy imports pass through the waters adjacent to Taiwan. Securing those sea lanes by way of naval access to Taiwan is a high priority for China – – especially at a time when the U.S. is helping to significantly arm Taiwan with naval Aegis destroyers and TMD systems.

Early in his first term, George W. Bush warned that the U.S. would do “whatever it took” to defend Taiwan and initiated a campaign of aggressive military surveillance of China which eventually led to the downing of a U.S. Navy EP-3 spy plane on China’s Hainan Island. The development of an anti-Chinese coalition has been a key effort of Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. An October 11-13, 2005 tour of Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan by Rice was motivated by the competition for oil between Beijing and Washington. China’s National Petroleum Corporation had recently signed an agreement with its neighbor, Kazakhstan, to build a $3 billion pipeline connecting their oil fields with China. The 3,000 kilometer
pipeline would move 20 million tons of oil annually to China when it is completed by the end of 2005. Rice’s trip was timed to strengthen U.S. influence – – largely by expanding U.S. military presence in the region. (The U.S.’s largest base in Central Asia is the Ganci Air Base in Kyrgyzstan.) It was also reported in early 2005 that the U.S. would be building nine new bases in Afghanistan.

In February 2005 U.S. senators John McCain (R-AZ), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Russ Feingold (D-WI) went to Afghanistan to discuss U.S. bases. After the talks, Sen. McCain, told the media the Afghan bases would be “permanent.”

Former Soviet Foreign Intelligence Service chief, Leonid Shebarshin, has suggested that U.S. attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan were invasions under the guise of counter-terrorism and served Washington’s “hegemony strategy” as well as the scramble against China for energy in the Middle East and Central Asia.

The U.S. is also now using Thailand’s Vietnam war-era base of Utapao as an airlift hub strengthening U.S. military logistical abilities in the region and Singapore now hosts a permanent site for U.S. navy ships to dock. The U.S. is also making an effort to woo India into the American orbit by offering them help with nuclear weapons and Star Wars technologies.

Also in early 2005 the U.S. military held its third ‘Space War Game’ that pitted the U.S. (Blue team) against China (Red team). The war game, set in the year 2020, was a week-long exercise held at Nellis AFB in Nevada. Military forces from Australia, Canada, and Great Britain participated in the event as U.S. allies. Brigadier Gen. Daniel Darnell, from the Space Warfare Center at Schriever AFB in Colorado directed the war game and stated, “This is not warfare in space. Our focus is how to best use our space-based assets to coordinate the joint terrestrial fight.”

America has relied on China for a cheap supply of
consumer goods that justified closing down a large share of its domestic manufacturing base. At the same time the U.S. has moved funds away from a civilian manufacturing economy into a permanent military manufacturing economy. The new weapons systems, in a sad turn of events, are intended to be used to control China.” [####]

Also be aware that ‘Morton Abramowitz, a former U.S. ambassador to Thailand and Turkey says “The fact is American clout in Asia is decreasing.” The U.S. understands this and intends to try to regain its former clout with military power.’ [*#]

Bruce Gagnon further tells us that “China is now replacing the U.S. as Japanís top trading partner.” [*#]

When Mr. Gagnon went to China in latter May of 2007, he related that “the Chinese people were very aware of their history and considered themselves to be the victims of many events in the past. The impression I got was of a country struggling to cope with rapid growth and a huge population that wants its share of wealth and a prominent place in the modern world.”

People are people wherever you go. We all want happiness, with a minimum of suffering. Yet our leaders get carried away with the power that has been bequeathed upon them. How about this quote from Abraham Lincoln to finish off this webpost:

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a manís character, give him power.” [*#*]

George Bush….hmmmmmm…..

Copyright 2007, Conrad Miller M.D.



*** ‘Rumsfeld Issues A Sharp Rebuke to China on Arms,’ June 4, 2005, New York Times.

**** ‘The Chinese Connection’ by Paul Krugman, NY
Times, 20th May, 2005

[#] ‘China Economy Rising At Pace To Rival U.S.’ by
Keith Bradsher, June 28, 2005, NY Times.

[##] ‘U.S. Set to Offer Huge Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia,’ by David S. Cloud, July 28, 2007, NY Times.

[###] Bruce Gagnon, ‘5) Arms Races Need Enemies,’
Winter Newsletter 2006,

[####] Bruce Gagnon, ‘U.S. Moves To Manage China,’
Winter Newsletter 2006,

[*#] Bruce Gagnon, page 6, Winter Newsletter 2006,

[*#*] quoted from page 70 at beginning of ëThe Glass Parking Lotí by Cintra Wilson in Tin House Magazine, the ‘Evil’ edition, Volume 8, Number 3, 2007.


Leave a comment