Search This Blog

China is not the Aggressor

Directed against China: New Site for U.S. THAAD Missile Deployment in South Korea
By Zhong Sheng
Global Research, October 04, 2016
People's Daily
Region: Asia
Theme: Militarization and WMD

Republic of Korea (ROK) on Friday announced a new site for the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile-defense system despite of strong opposition from locals and reasonable concerns of China and other regional countries. The announcement came just days after the US military set the deployment deadline as the end of next year.

The ROK government cited the concerns of the public in Seongju county, the originally-designated site, as the reason for the alteration, but a site change is not a prescription at all.

Despite the altered site, local public are expected to continue their opposition to the THAAD deployment. In Gimcheon (see map below), a southeastern city that is closer to the newly-chosen site, enraged residents have begun a new round of backlash.

As a matter of fact, the ROK government can neither appease the concerns of people from the designated sites, nor persuade its citizens to believe in the so-called effectiveness of the missile shield in protecting its national security.

Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)’s fifth nuclear test offered Seoul’s plan a new selling point. ROK government, by using the test as a more “convincing” excuse, advertised the so-called necessity to install the THAAD system, cement its military alliance with the US and resist threats through extended deterrence.

However, to avoid further deterioration of tensions on Korean Peninsula, a comprehensive and systematic solution must be found out to address both symptoms and root causes.

Past and present facts have proved that in order to sustain the peace and stability of the peninsula, efforts must be devoted to denuclearizing the peninsula, normalizing the ties between concerned countries, and building a peace and security mechanism for Northeast Asia.

The evolution course of the peninsula also showed that the so-called extended deterrence will only escalate confrontation, aggravate the tension on the peninsula and ultimately place Seoul’s security in a more risking edge.

What’s more, the technical clues also point to a conclusion: it is absurd for Seoul to pursue a sense of security through the THAAD system.

As early as Seoul and Washington announced the decision, experts have pointed out that with a radar range of 1,000 to 2,000 kilometers, the missile shield is designed to shoot down missiles at a relatively high altitude of 40 to 150 km. Given the geographical conditions of the Korean Peninsula, it is ridiculous to use the THAAD missile defense system to “deter nuclear threats from DPRK”.

Protest against THAAD in Gimcheon

Therefore, ROK has to realize that its true guardian is by no means one or two hollow weapons like the THAAD system, but a clear awareness of the reality and broader world situation.

Given the sensitive and frail security on the peninsula, the unscrupulous actions by any party may lead to an escalated tension. Against such background, the deployment of the THAAD system by Seoul and Washington will undoubtedly add fuels to the deteriorated tensions on the peninsula.

In fact, even ROK public are not convinced by the reasons given by their government. More and more locals called on the authority to reconsider the reckless decision, blaming the latter’s approval to deploy THAAD system as the culprit for today’s dilemma.

Local media Kyunghyang Shinmun commented recently that the ROK government was stubborn in ensuring national security by deterring DPRK with armament race, but as a result made its public more upset and pulled the country further away from security goals.

The public’s security worries and doubts over the guarantee provided by the US are out of historic backgrounds and reality considerations. Trapping in the whirlpool of the peninsula tension, ROK would be the direct victim with a total turn in its destiny once the situation lost control.

What’s worse, the remote US is by no means reliable helper. In recent years, in order to expand its hegemony, the superpower has fallen into a breaker of international law. Employing a “puppet” strategy, it repeatedly threw other countries or regions into disarray and then escaped unscathed.

China will never change its stance of opposing the deployment of the THAAD system since the missile shield, instead of easing regional tension, will pose serious threat to the strategic security balance of regional nations including China.

Like any other countries, China can neither be vague nor indifferent on security matters that affect its core interests. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China also shoulders a responsibility in maintaining world and regional peace and stability.

The US and ROK have to wake up to the facts that the Korean Peninsula is no place to take risks, and that they cannot afford the cost of such dangerous action. If the US and ROK undermine the strategic security interests of China and other regional countries, then they are destined to pay the price and receive a proper counter attack.

“We will pay close attention to relevant developments, and consider taking necessary actions to protect national strategic security and the regional strategic balance,” Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman told a press conference.

“What needs to be stressed is that Chinese people mean what they say,” the spokesman added, underlining China’s determination and stance against the installment of THAAD system.

Originally published in Chinese by Renmin Ribao (People’s Daily)

Translation, courtesy of People’s Daily for Global Research
The original source of this article is People's Daily
Copyright © Zhong ShengPeople's Daily, 2016

US-China Relations: America Has Now Retrospectively Joined the “Fascist Side” in World War II


Confronting both China and Russia: U.S. Risks Military Clash With China In Yellow Sea
At a commemorative celebration in Beijing on Thursday September 3rd, marking the 70th Anniversary of China’s freedom from the aggressor Japan ending World War II in China, the United States conspicuously avoided siding with its former WW II ally China, which had been one of the pro-democracy Allies during that war, and instead retrospectively switched sides, to the former fascist Axis powers, Japan itself, and also Germany. 
International diplomacy is heavily focused upon historical symbolism, something which everyone who is involved in international diplomacy understands. International diplomacy is constantly about history, and about the making of history; this is the very nature of that profession; and the historical symbolism in this particular diplomatic event was clear: the U.S. has retrospectively left the anti-fascist Allied side, and switched to the fascist Axis side; the U.S. now identifies with WW II’s Axis nations — the aggressors. The U.S. no longer identifies with the side of the nations that were being aggressed against.
The BBC in its report on China’s preparations for the event referred to «the notable absence of Western leaders» from the list of people who had accepted the invitations. The BBC’s news-report went on, in this vein of remarkable if not stunning candor: «The parade thus serves a dual role: a reflection of the past and a signal for the future. China’s official narrative of the horrors of China’s wartime past — historical humiliation at the hands of colonial powers — is directly linked to China’s current concerns over sovereignty and territorial integrity including the East and South China Seas. At a visceral level within Chinese society, it is impossible to detach the past from the present».
The report even closed by recognizing the resolve of Chinese President Xi Jinping «to protect China’s core interests». That is a sympathetic, not at all a hostile, reference, at the end of such an article. The BBC’s caption to a photo there was similarly honest, and without any added propagandistic coloration of the then-planned event: «The parade commemorates what China calls ‘the Chinese People’s War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression’». That’s what China does call it, and that’s what it actually was; and the BBC was honestly presenting the Chinese perspective on a momentous part of China’shistory. The common anti-Chinese and anti-Russian Western ‘news’-slant wasn’t present in this admirable news-report by the BBC.
Then, on Thursday September 3rd, the day of the event, China’s official news-agency Xinhua (now called «New China News Agency», in order to emphasize China’s break from the Marxist-Maoist Cold War position) bannered, «Xi calls on countries to remember war history, pursue peaceful development», and their news-report opened:
Chinese President Xi Jinping said Thursday that all countries should draw lessons from the history of World War II and stick to peaceful development.
Xi made the remarks while addressing a reception after a grand military parade to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War.
«It is our sincere hope that all countries will draw wisdom and strength from history, pursue peaceful development and work together to open up a promising future for world peace», he told more than 800 Chinese and foreign guests.
China’s victory of the war was a great triumph won by the Chinese people fighting shoulder to shoulder with their anti-fascist allies and the people throughout the world, he said.
«As the main Eastern theater of the anti-fascist war, China’s war of resistance made a critical contribution to its worldwide victory», Xi added.
No force is greater than working together with one mind», he said, noting that during the war, people from anti-fascist allies and other forces across the world joined hands in the fight against their common enemy.
We the Chinese will never forget the invaluable support given by the peace-loving and just countries, peoples and international organizations to our fight against Japanese aggressors.
The report went on to describe Xi’s vision for China’s future:
With a painful memory of the past, Xi said, the Chinese people have persistently committed themselves to a path of peaceful development and a win-win strategy of opening-up.
«A stronger and more developed China will mean a stronger force for world peace», the president said.
German Economic News, in its report on the event, noted:
Many leaders refrained from participating in the military parade — so as not to offend the Americans among other allies of Japan. Germany and the United States sent only their Ambassador. The only EU leader there was Czech President Milos Zeman. The much-criticized-in-China, right-wing conservative Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, had turned down an invitation to the «memorial to the victory in the Chinese people’s war against the Japanese invasion and the struggle against fascism».
So, who was there? Who did attend?:
Among the approximately 30 state guests were Russian President Vladimir Putin, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and President Park Geun-hye of South Korea, which had also suffered from Japan’s aggression. In the parade also marched around 1,000 soldiers from 17 countries such as Russia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Pakistan and Serbia.
In other words, this event, which concerned World War II, had an attendance-list which reflected instead the «Cold War» — the war between capitalism and communism — even though communism (other than in North Korea) is dead and gone except for vestigial and declining remains in China and Cuba. The ideology against which the U.S. waged the Cold War should therefore now be ignored, no longer treated as if the Cold War were still continuing, and were still the central focus of American foreign policy. This Cold War focus by the United States on a WW II event is sick, especially in this era of rising real threat from Islamic jihadists around the world, a real threat that’s both East and West. This Cold War II might produce a World War III, global nuclear war. For what? About what? Not about Islamic terrorism. But this is nonetheless what U.S. leaders are seeking: a restoration of a «Cold War», after all decentsense for such a thing is long past.
An accompanying article from Xinhua was headlined, «Few in West remember China’s role in World War II: Oxford expert», and it opened: «Few in the West remember the fact that China was the first country to enter what would become World War II, and it was an ally of the United States and Britain from just after Pearl Harbor in 1941 till Japan’s surrender in 1945, an Oxford expert said».
CCTV America headlined, on August 25th«China releases list of world leaders attending V-Day parade», and noted: «Reporters at the news conference showed interest about the leaders who will not attend the celebration».
The BRICS Post reported that, «Apart from Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff who is battling domestic opposition, the leaders of the BRICS states are expected to attend China’s parade next month to bolster ties».
The South China Morning Post, in the most thorough of all reports about the attendance-list, bannered, «Only China’s ‘true friends’ attending 70th anniversary parade as key western leaders and Kim Jong-un won’t be there». This report said: «The only head of state or government from the EU is Czech President Milos Zeman. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan will not be attending, though former Japanese prime minister Tomiichi Murayama will. Pyongyang [North Korea] will send its Politburo member Choe Ryong-hae. The United States, Canada and Germany will send representatives from their diplomatic missions in China [somebody from their embassy], while France and Italy will send foreign ministers». However, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair also attended, as did Russian President Vladimir Putin and South Korea’s President Park Geun-hye.
In other words: U.S., Canada, Germany, and North Korea, sent the lowest-level representatives; Czech Republic, South Korea, and Russia sent the highest; and France, Italy, Britain, and Japan, were in the middle. China is one of the BRICS countries, so on this account alone it’s natural that the BRICS sent high-level representatives. North Korea’s having sent only a member of the Politburo indicates Pyongyang’s profound dissatisfaction with the degree of support that China has been providing them recently. Japan’s having sent a former Prime Minister shows that the Japanese government really doesn’t want there to be another war between Asia’s two economic giants: it’s an extraordinary concession from the country whose defeat was actually being celebrated at this event.
That guest-list is an entire book of information about where things now really stand in the structure of international relations. It’s a historical statement, about the present, as well as about the past. The symbolism might not be as blatantly clear as words, but it is far more meaningful, because it is the raw reality, which words can only represent (or may even misrepresent). Clearly, the Obama Administration has done everything they could to support the former fascist powers Japan and Germany against China, retrospectively, on this occasion. Japan is less willing than Germany to go along with America’s effort to reconstruct world affairs on a WWII foundation with the U.S. having turned 180 degrees to become now the leading fascist power (replacing what Germany was). Italy too is unwilling to bend entirely to embrace America’s new role as fascism’s global leader. So, too, is UK unwilling to bend entirely to it. (The U.S.-UK alliance is fraying.) North Korea is with the U.S. on this matter only because of its souring relations with China. South Korea is more interested in not offending China than it is in continuing to tow the line 100% as being a vassal-state of the now clearly fascist U.S. That’s extraordinary, but it goes along with North Korea’s weakening relationship with China.
In order to understand more deeply this turn of the U.S. to fascism in international affairs, the following reports are, I think, especially relevant, because they describe earlier developments in the same general direction — the U.S. as being now the world’s fascist leader:

Asia: Choosing Between East and West

September 3, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Political and business circles across Asia face a shifting geopolitical environment driven by the inevitable rise of China. Several fundamental factors are driving this shift  that if fully understood should help established political orders, business interests, and ruling elite across Asia position themselves for a peaceful, stable, prosperous future. Failure to position oneself carefully as this shift takes place, can see a political dynasty or business empire swallowed whole in the fissures of geopolitical tectonic change.

What Asia Looked Like and Why It's Changing 

For centuries Asia was dominated by first European colonial hegemony, then for nearly a century, American hegemony. The United States itself admits that it possesses "primacy" over Asia and that its primary geopolitical objective in Asia is to maintain that "primacy."

For the better part of a century, maintaining that primacy was enabled by vast economic and military disparity between Washington and the collective resources of Asia. Victory in World War 2 and America's subsequent involvement in both the Korean War and the Vietnam War allowed the United States to maintain an immense military, political, and economic footprint in the region.

In the wake of the Vietnam War, however, an exhausted American Empire began its slow and inevitable retreat. In the void left by this expanding retreat, nations across the region, not the least of which is China, have built themselves up socioeconomically, militarily, and geopolitically.

US Admits It is a Losing Proposition  

American efforts to contain China have proven futile - points made in the US' own policy papers who have attempted on multiple occasions to reformulate their antiquated concept of "primacy" and impose it upon Asia. The most recent of which was published by the influential Council on Foreign Relations - a corporate-funded think tank that represents the collective interests of some of the most powerful Western corporate-financier interests on Earth.

Their report, "Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China," states in no uncertain terms:
Because the American effort to 'integrate' China into the liberal international order has now generated new threats to U.S. primacy in Asia—and could result in a consequential challenge to American power globally—Washington needs a new grand strategy toward China that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy.
The report was written by US political administrator and political lobbyist Robert Blackwill who has throughout his career played a role in grooming prospective client regimes in Asia through which the US planned to maintain its regional primacy.

For those that have been approached by Blackwill and Anglo-American lobbyists like him to assist in maintaining Western hegemony in Asia, his most recent report should serve as a wake up call. The US can no longer sustain its political, economic, or military grip on Asia - and those now being asked to invest in America's failing enterprise are clearly being asked to pick a losing proposition.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) among other US-initiated trade agreements seeks to establish economic control over the region not for the benefit of any nation actually residing in Asia, but for Washington's benefit specifically at the cost of Asia. The primary objective of the United States now is to isolate China from the rest of Asia - but in the process this will deny Asia the benefit of rising with China economically, politically, and militarily in an Asia redefined for Asians.

Blackwill's CFR report proposes a myriad of "solutions" to rectify America's decline in Asia - none of which can actually be implemented. Vague proposals such as to "vitalize the U.S. economy" lack any pragmatic dimensions. Others such as "strengthening the U.S. military" involve spending money that does not exist on programs that will never be approved. Other recommendations include expanding military cooperation throughout Asia - a move that would be provocative to China and would cost US partners economically both in the short and long-term.

In other words, the US is trying to sell Asian players shares in its already unfolding and inevitable decline.

An Unchanging Empire in a Changing World

The ruling interests in the United States fail to realize the shifting balance of power. Not only do they deny this shift is occurring, they lack any viable measures with which to adjust to it. The concept of a single corporation or handful of corporations controlling the production and distribution of the globe's automobiles, aircraft, electronic devices, and other consumer goods has been negated not only by rising economic power outside these established, primarily Western monopolies, but by the changing landscape of technology itself.

In such a changing landscape where the ground shifts so quickly - monolithic corporate-financier structures built on a foundation of monopoly are like towering stone castles built on mud. They will shift, lean, and inevitably topple, crushing all those inside.

China itself realizes its future is not that of the "world's factory," and is already adjusting itself not politically, but pragmatically to meet a future multipolar world - one in which nations stand more equal to one another and economic, political, military, and technical disparity is reduced. Those that adjust themselves along similar lines of pragmatism will prosper. Those who choose to invest in America's admittedly failed enterprise of global hegemony, will lose with America.

America's Hopes Lie in Asian Leaders' Egos 

The United States, not unlike empires before it, holds the allure of elitism, power, and prestige over the heads of potential client regimes. The promise of a "seat at the table" is tempting for those who place their ego before commonsense, particularly those who see the US as an avenue toward power in their respective nations.

Rather than realign itself with a changing world that will not need nor tolerate American primacy in the future, the United States has doubled down on attracting the lowest common denominator in targeted nations across the world to do their bidding.

For those nations turning down America's losing proposition, invitations have shifted to coercion. However, a nation that depends on forging international relations through coercion, subversion, terrorism, and the threat of war is a nation that has nothing of true substance to offer. After all, the United States would not need to convince a nation that doing business with Washington and Wall Street were in their best interest if it were truly in their best interest.

In Asia, for business and political leaders who value a viable future, identifying vectors through which the US can impose its increasingly desperate policy of "primacy" over Asia, and eliminating these vectors should become a priority. Politicians and business leaders who value their egos over commonsense - or short-term promises over long-term certainty - should be involved in neither politics nor business.

For those who actually believe dealing with the US will in the long term benefit them, their personal interests, or their nation and region as a whole, they need simply to read the US' own policy papers admitting their current "grand strategy" benefits none-of-the-above - and is not even benefiting the United States itself.

Will Asian Leaders Choose Commonsense? 

The dismantling of American hegemony over Asia has already begun. Nations are systematically divesting from the United States and investing in both closer ties throughout Asia, and specifically, closer ties with Beijing. Attempts to overthrow governments across Southeast Asia, strong-arm "allies" including Japan, Korea, and the Philippines to take a confrontational tack toward Beijing, and increasingly coercive attempts to impose highly unpopular trade agreements with Asia have created considerable instability throughout the region.

The entire premise of American "primacy" in Asia is that only America can bring peace and stability to the region. Not unlike a protection racket run by low-grade thugs, it appears much of the "instability" the US claims it is protecting the region from, is of its own creation in the first place. For Asia to grow and reach its true potential, to become leaders of their own region, and influential players on the world stage, they cannot afford to be burdened by the United States' antiquated notions of global empire or their increasingly disruptive attempts to maintain these notions across Asia.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazineNew Eastern Outlook”.   

Are We Silently at War with China? - YouTube

Published on 23 Aug 2012 -  Not satisfied with its missile shield in Europe - Washington has announced plans for a similar weapons system in Asia. A Pentagon official pointed at a perceived threat from North Korea as the main justification. But political activist and head of the New Patriotic Alliance, Renato Reyes, says that's a paper thin excuse.

 Published on 14 Jan 2013 - The right to a preemptive nuclear strike against China is now part of US law - thanks to the National Defense Authorization Act. The Pentagon's also ordered a thorough review of when, and how, America could strike at the network of tunnels believed to hold Beijing's atomic arsenals.

Editor of a Japan-based news website James Corbett suggests ulterior motives in this decision of US government.

Obama’s “Pivot to Asia”: US Sponsored Mobs Seek to Overthrow Malaysian Government


Malaysia’s “Bersih” movement – an umbrella organization for various opposition groups opposed to the current government of Prime Minister Najib Razak – plans its fourth street demonstration in 8 years to unfold at the end of August.
While Bersih’s alleged goal is “clean and fair elections,” it is openly led by the government’s opposition headed by the now imprisoned US-proxy Anwar Ibrahim and a myriad of US-funded and directed nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The US State Department, through its US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its subsidiary the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the Open Society Institute (OSI) among others, have funded both Bersih directly, and many of the NGOs that constitute Bersih’s core leadership.
Several NGOs currenlty openly funded by the US NED - i.e. Islamic Renaissance Front and Lawyers for Liberty - can be found also listed on Bersih’s current “endorsees” list.
Despite years of immense US-funding, Bersih has recently pleaded for donations and now claims they’ve received over a half million Ringgit (over 100,000 USD). More recent reports claim the amount could be as high as 1.2 million Ringgit.
And while they claim they seek simply to reform Malaysian politics, Bersih’s new leader, Maria Chin Abdullah openly admitted their goal for “Bersih 4.0″ is to call for the resignation of Malaysia’s current government. In a Facebook post she claimed:
Reforms – we will continue to demand and this time Yes it’s a tall order to ask the PM to resign but if we dont try we will never push the boundaries for clean & fair elections.
Apparently by “clean & fair elections,” Bersih’s leadership means elections in which their opponents have been undermined and otherwise eliminated, and in which they can take power – or in other words, another textbook case of US-backed regime change.
Image: To Berish, “clean and fair elections” means eliminating
all of your opponents through a US-backed campaign of sedition and seizing power.
Bersih’s core leadership seeks to seize power in Malaysia from behind a facade built upon alleged reforms. It is seeking donations from the Malaysian public despite immense funding from the United States government and demonstrable support from across the West’s extensive global media network. It is difficult to discern how a movement built on lies, fraud, thievery, and sedition represents a step forward for Malaysia which might explain why, after three previous staged demonstrations, those behind Bersih have yet to succeed in their true goal of overthrowing the current political order.
US’ Bersih and America’s Wider War in Asia
Malaysia’s Bersih movement is yet another example of so-called American “soft power” in action. The use of US-organized and funded street mobs to carry out political destabilization and regime change has likewise transpired in similar fashion in Thailand through the use of US-backed Thaksin Shinawatra and his “red shirt” street mobs, and in Myanmar with Aung San Suu Kyi and her legions of anti-Rohingya, violent “saffron monks.”
The goal is to string together a united front across all of Asia with which to encircle and contain China’s rise. US policy papers openly admit this, with the most recent published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) declaring America’s goal in Asia is to maintain primacy over all other nations – especially China.
Titled, “Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China,” the report states in no uncertain terms:
Because the American effort to ‘integrate’ China into the liberal international order has now generated new threats to U.S. primacy in Asia—and could result in a consequential challenge to American power globally—Washington needs a new grand strategy toward China that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy.
The report admits that China’s rise will benefit the Chinese people, their regional neighbors, and bring stability along China’s peripheries – and also admits this must be stopped in order to maintain US “primacy in Asia.”
Many of the report’s recommendations involve US “allies” expending significant amounts of money and political capital to confront China on Washington’s behalf. Many of the recommendations are already being carried out by America’s few remaining allies in the region – to little effect. Trade agreements like the unpopular Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are admittedly being implemented for the sole purpose of bolstering US hegemony in Asia versus China’s growing economic clout – not for any perceivable benefits – if any – the deal actually brings to its signatories. The report states:
…[the TPP will be] a vivid demonstration that the United States is determined to compete on the Asian economic playing field. By the same token, U.S. grand strategy toward China will be seriously weakened without delivering on the TPP. 
It is no wonder the “pivot toward Asia” has stumbled, where every option facing America’s “allies” or potential “allies” include unattractive compromises made simply to bolster US hegemony. Regional leaders genuinely interested in their respective nation’s best interests have attempted to walk a tightrope between provoking the US and forgoing the obvious benefits of doing business with China.
Malaysia, who has jailed US-proxy Anwar Ibrahim and has resisted or ignored attempts by the US to coerce Malaysian foreign and domestic policy, in particular has suffered recently a rash of suspicious incidents, including the lost of 3 passenger airliners in a single year, including MH370 lost mysteriously while en route to China, MH17 shot down during NATO’s proxy war in Ukraine, and an AirAsia plane crash which claimed 162 lives.
Reuters would report in their article, “Bodies, debris from missing AirAsia plane pulled from sea off Indonesia,” that:
Three airline disasters involving Malaysian-affiliated carriers in less than a year have dented confidence in the country’s aviation industry and spooked travelers across the region.
Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 went missing on March 8 on a trip from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 239 passengers and crew on board and has not been found. On July 17, the same airline’s Flight MH17 was shot down over Ukraine, killing all 298 people on board 
Other nations resisting US attempts to install client regimes include Thailand, which recently suffered the worst terrorist attack in Bangkok in recent memory, with 20 killed and over 100 injured in a bombingalmost identical to smaller incidents carried out by supporters of US-backed, ousted dictator Thaksin Shinawatra.
It appears the much vaunted US “pivot to Asia” has disintegrated into a brawl where violence, terrorism, and street mobs bent on regime change have taken the place of the US’ initially optimistic, positive, if not entirely disingenuous rapprochement to the region.

Turmoil in Hong Kong, Terrorism in Xinjiang: America’s Covert War on China

China is facing increasing pressure along two fronts. In its western province of Xinjiang, terrorists have been stepping up destabilization and separatist activities.
In China’s southeast Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong, protests have disrupted normality in the dense urban streets, with protest leaders seeking to directly confront Beijing while dividing and destabilizing both Hong Kong society and attempting to “infect” the mainland.

What is more troubling is the greater geopolitical agenda driving both of these seemingly “internal” conflicts – and that they both lead back to a single source beyond China’s borders. With the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) now implicated in receiving, training, and employing terrorists from China’s Xinjiang province, and considering the fact that ISIS is the result of an intentional, engineered proxy war the US and its allies are waging in the Middle East, along with the fact that the unrest in Hong Kong is also traced back to Washington and London, presents a narrative of an ongoing confrontation between East and West being fought on the battlefield of fourth generation warfare.

ISIS: Washington’s Global Expeditionary Force 
If one was asked to name a global-spanning military and intelligence operation opposed to Syria, Iran, Russia, and China, they might say the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the US Government – and they would be right. But they could also easily answer by saying the “Islamic State” or ISIS/ISIL as it is also known. This is especially true after revelations surfaced that US-backed Uyghur separatists in China’s western-most province of Xinjiang have joined ISIS for training with intentions of leading an armed rebellion against Beijing upon their return.
Reuters in their article, “China militants getting IS ‘training’,” would claim:
Chinese militants from the western region of Xinjiang have fled from the country to get “terrorist training” from Islamic State group fighters for attacks at home, state media reported on Monday.
The report was the first time state-run media had linked militants from Xinjiang, home to ethnic minority Uighur Muslims, to militants of the Islamic State group of radical Sunni Muslims.

China’s government has blamed a surge of violence over the past year on Islamist militants from Xinjiang who China says are fighting for an independent state called East Turkestan.

However, it isn’t just China’s government that claims militants in Xinjiang seek to carve out an independent state in western China – the militants themselves have stated as much, and the United States government fully backs their agenda to do so. Indeed, first and foremost in backing the Xinjiang Uyghur separatists is the United States through the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED). For China, the Western region referred to as “Xinjiang/East Turkistan” has its own webpage on NED’s site covering the various fronts funded by the US which include:
International Uyghur Human Rights and Democracy Foundation $187,918To advance the human rights of ethnic Uyghur women and children. The Foundation will maintain an English- and Uyghur-language website and advocate on the human rights situation of Uyghur women and children.
International Uyghur PEN Club $45,000To promote freedom of expression for Uyghurs. The International Uyghur PEN Club will maintain a website providing information about banned writings and the work and status of persecuted poets, historians, journalists, and others. Uyghur PEN will also conduct international advocacy campaigns on behalf of imprisoned writers.
Uyghur American Association $280,000To raise awareness of Uyghur human rights issues. UAA’s Uyghur Human Rights Project will research, document, and bring to international attention, independent and accurate information about human rights violations affecting the Turkic populations of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
World Uyghur Congress $185,000To enhance the ability of Uyghur prodemocracy groups and leaders to implement effective human rights and democracy campaigns. The World Uyghur Congress will organize a conference for pro-democracy Uyghur groups and leaders on interethnic issues and conduct advocacy work on Uyghur human rights.
ISIS Conveniently Targets Washington’s Adversaries Worldwide
The next step Washington appears to be taking in China is an attempts to enhance the menace of terrorists in Xinjiang. In addition to assisting US attempts to destabilize territory in China, ISIS has also threatened to launch a campaign against another US enemy – Russia – this in addition to already directly fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, the governments of Syria and Iraq, and with ISIS claiming to be behind attacks in Egypt against the military-led government that ousted the West’s Muslim Brotherhood proxies.

With both Russia and China now in ISIS’ sights, the global public must begin asking questions as to how and why ISIS just so happens to be arraying itself against all of Washington’s enemies, by-passing all of its allies including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, and where exactly they are getting the weapons, cash, intelligence, logistical, and administrative capabilities to do so.
So suspicious is ISIS’ appearance, agenda, and actions, many across the world have long-ago concluded they are simply the latest creation of the US and other Western-aligned intelligence agencies, just as Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood was before them, So loud has this narrative become, establishment newspapers like the New York Times have begun writing columns to tamp down what they are calling “conspiracy theories.”

The New York Times would report in a piece titled, “Suspicions Run Deep in Iraq That C.I.A. and the Islamic State Are United,” that:
The United States has conducted an escalating campaign of deadly airstrikes against the extremists of the Islamic State for more than a month. But that appears to have done little to tamp down the conspiracy theories still circulating from the streets of Baghdad to the highest levels of Iraqi government that the C.I.A. is secretly behind the same extremists that it is now attacking.
The New York Times dismisses these claims, despite reporting for the past 4 years on the CIA’s presence along the Turkish-Syrian border dumping weapons and cash into the very hotbeds of extremism and terrorism ISIS rose from. Upon closer examination, not only are these claims plausible, they are documented fact.
As far back as 2007, Pulitzer Prize-winning veteran journalist Seymour Hersh would warn of the creation of just such a terror group in his 9-page report in the New Yorker titled, “The Redirection Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” He stated that (emphasis added):
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coƶperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
That “by-product” is ISIS. It is through America’s own premeditated conspiracy to plunge not only Syria, but the entire region and now potentially Russia and even China into genocidal sectarian bloodshed that gave intentional rise to ISIS. The creation of ISIS and its use as a proxy mercenary force for Western designs is once again revealed in ISIS’ otherwise irrational declaration of war on Russia first, and now China.

America Opens Second Front in Hong Kong
It was in April of 2014 that two co-organizers of the so-called “Occupy Central” protests now ongoing in Hong Kong, would sit in Washington DC giving a talk hosted by the US State Department’s National Endowment for Democracy (NED). There, Martin Lee and Anson Chan set the stage for the impending “Occupy Central” demonstrations, introducing soon-to-be famous “characters” like US-cultivated “activist” Joshua Wong, as well as repeating, verbatim, the agenda, talking points, and slogans now flooding the airwaves and headlines regarding Hong Kong’s unrest.

While the US attempts to peel off Xinjiang province by brute force, it is using a more subtle and insidious method in Hong Kong. During Lee and Chan’s talk in DC earlier this year, a representative from the Council on Foreign Relations would literally proclaim it was hoped that ongoing movements in Hong Kong would “infect” mainland China. Indeed, while militancy and terrorism is being sown in China’s west, sedition, political instability, and social divisions are being cultivated in China’s east.

America’s Long War With China  
The adversarial nature of Washington’s posture toward Beijing has become increasingly obvious as tensions are intentionally ratcheted up in the South China Sea between US proxies and mainland China, as well as in Hong Kong. This is simply the latest in a much longer proxy war waged against Beijing since as early as the Vietnam War, with the so-called “Pentagon Papers” released in 1969 revealing the conflict as simply one part of a greater strategy aimed at containing and controlling China. While the US would ultimately lose the Vietnam War and any chance of using the Vietnamese as a proxy force against Beijing, the long war against Beijing would continue elsewhere.

This containment strategy would be updated and detailed in the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute report “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral” where it outlines China’s efforts to secure its oil lifeline from the Middle East to its shores in the South China Sea as well as means by which the US can maintain American hegemony throughout the Indian and Pacific Ocean. The premise is that, should Western foreign policy fail to entice China into participating in the “international system” as responsible stakeholders, an increasingly confrontational posture must be taken to contain the rising nation.

This includes funding, arming, and backing terrorists and proxy regimes from Africa, across the Middle East, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and even within China’s territory itself. Documented support of these movements not only include Xinjiang separatists and the leaders of “Occupy Central” in Hong Kong, but also militants and separatists in Baluchistan, Pakistan where the West seeks to disrupt a newly christened Chinese port and pipeline, as well as the machete wielding supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar’s Rakhine state – yet another site the Chinese hope to establish a logistical hub.

It is not a coincidence that ISIS is standing in for and fulfilling America’s deepest imperial aspirations from North Africa, across the Middle East, and now inching toward the borders of the West’s two largest competitors, Russia and China. Nor is it a coincidence that “Occupy Central” protesters are parroting verbatim talking points scripted in Washington earlier this year. It is no coincidence that the US State Department’s NED is found involved in every hotspot of instability and conflict both within China’s borders and beyond them. It is a documented conspiracy that is now increasingly seeing the light truth cast upon it. Whether or not that is enough to end the unnecessary barbarism and bloodshed that has resulted from the West’s hegemonic aspirations remains to be seen.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.

Leung Chun-ying: Hong Kong Leader Blames External Forces for Mass Riots

Hong Kong’s chief executive Leung Chun-ying has accused external forces from various countries of attempting to destabilize the situation in the Asian financial center.

Speaking in an interview with ATV World that aired on Sunday, Chun-ying said: “I shan’t go into details, but this is not entirely a domestic movement.”
He said various people and organizations from abroad have been meddling in Hong Kong’s political affairs, declining to name the particular countries.

“This is not the only time when they do it, and this is not an exception either,” he added.
The Hong Kong leader stressed that the Occupy Central movement is already “out of control even for the people who started it.”

In September, Chinese state media reported that the US secret services were trying export the successful experience of “color revolutions” from Eastern Europe to Hong Kong.

Meanwhile, the leaders of protests have decisively denied reports that foreign forces are behind the events.
The student-led protests, which broke out over three weeks ago, are demanding reforms on how Beijing vets Hong Kong candidates for elections in 2017 as well as the resignation of the current leader.

Threatening China: Influential Washington Think Tank Pushes US War Drive in the South China Sea

Region: ,
On July 10–11, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) held a two-day conference on the South China Sea, from which they published a 22-page report entitled “Recent Trends in the South China Sea and US Policy.”

The CSIS has played a key role in the Obama administration’s ‘pivot’ to Asia. Their concrete recommendations for the provocative escalation of the US military encirclement and diplomatic isolation of China have been consistently carried out. A report on US policy in the South China Sea from the CSIS should be regarded as having semi-official status.

The report opens with a contrived history of the events of the past year in the South China Sea, at every turn blaming escalating regional tensions on the aggressiveness and intransigence of Beijing. The truth is that the drive to war in the region has been pushed at every turn by Washington, with the CSIS playing a leading role.
In the past six months there have been repeated armed standoffs in the South China Sea between Beijing and both Manila and Hanoi. Manila has filed a legal case—drawn up by Washington—disputing China’s claims to the sea before the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). And Washington has signed a deal—the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA)—with Manila, allowing for the basing of unlimited numbers of US forces anywhere in the country.

In the new report, the CSIS is laying out an even more aggressive agenda for Washington, with two basic thrusts: establishing the legal pretext for rejecting Beijing’s claim to the South China Sea, and escalating the US military presence in the region.

Since former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the ‘pivot’, Washington has always maintained that it was neutral with regards territorial claims in the South China Sea and only had an interest in securing “freedom of navigation.”

The filing of the ITLOS case by Manila represented the beginning of a drive by Washington to legally invalidate nearly the entirety of the Chinese territorial claim. Building on this, the CSIS called on the State Department to draw up a map of the regional disputes “based strictly upon the overlap of coastal EEZs [Exclusive Economic Zones]/continental shelves and the potential maritime entitlements of disputed islands.”
There is pointedly no reference in this to historic maritime claims, which are the basis of the so-called 9-dash map of the South China Sea used by China. A map drawn up as official US policy on the strict criteria laid out by the CSIS would invalidate over 90 percent of Beijing’s territorial claim.

The CSIS called for a freeze on construction activities in the disputed areas, presenting this as a measure to defuse tensions. It is nothing of the sort. Rather this is meant to shore up the legal case before ITLOS, which is based on the argument that Beijing’s claimed territory are simply rocks and not islands, and thus have no territorial baseline.

The concern of Washington and Manila is that Beijing’s constructions in the Spratly islands may expand these ‘rocks’ into ‘islands.’ At the same time, the report approvingly noted that both Taiwan and the Philippines are constructing airstrips on disputed land features. The report claimed that Secretary of State John Kerry will “undoubtedly raise this issue at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF)” on August 10.

The CSIS is pushing to couple this aggressive legal drive with increased military moves to tighten the noose around China.

The report called for the re-examination of the ban on the sale of lethal weapons to Vietnam. This would assist Vietnam in becoming “a credible deterrent against Chinese aggression.”

Washington’s pretext for the ban on the sale of lethal weaponry to Hanoi is Vietnam’s human rights record. Washington, while carrying out bloody warfare, assassination, rendition and torture in every corner of the globe, trots out its concern for human rights whenever it wishes to enforce its political and economic dictates. To speak of a concern for human rights in Vietnam—a country whose experience of the United States was characterized by Agent Orange, napalm, and over a decade of imperialist war—is particularly hypocritical.
As it did with Burma last year, Washington is prepared to upgrade Vietnam’s human rights status in exchange for economic concessions. Obama’s nominee for ambassador to Vietnam, Ted Ossius, made this clear in his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations committee on June 17. He called for upgrading Hanoi’s human rights status, declaring: “There’s really no better time than this year given the Vietnamese interest in a deepening partnership with us.” The proof he cited of Vietnamese interest was their willingness to work to join the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal.

Particularly provocative was the CSIS recommendation that the United States clarify that it would “consider itself obligated to respond under the terms of the Mutual Defense Treaty [MDT] with the Philippines if unprovoked Chinese actions in disputed areas led directly or injury of Philippine troops.” The terms of the MDT obligate the United States to go to war if the Philippines is attacked in the Pacific or in its islands. There has been much concern expressed by the Philippine bourgeoisie that the terms of the MDT do not apply to the South China Sea.

The CSIS is advocating extending this war-trigger treaty to the contested waters, where for the past two years Philippine forces have almost routinely been at armed standoff with Chinese.

The document calls for using EDCA to develop a base at Oyster Bay on the island of Palawan for the immediate deployment of US forces into the South China Sea.

Finally, the CSIS advocates the installation of additional signals intelligence facilities throughout the region in order to establish real-time surveillance of the entire sea. Negotiations with the Philippines have made clear that this would also include the use of aerial surveillance drones.

The CSIS report is a war-mongering document that clearly reflects the agenda of the Obama White House and all Washington to tighten the screws on China. This was made especially clear by a panel hosted during the conference which featured a former assistant secretary of state under Obama, an assistant secretary of National Intelligence under Bill Clinton, a special national security advisor to George W. Bush, and the former commander of the US Marine forces in the Pacific.

The panel staged a diplomatic simulation of war games in the South China Sea. In the simulation, Manila arrested 12 Chinese fishermen for poaching and Beijing responded by having its coast guard blockade eight Filipino Marines stationed on a derelict ship in the South China Sea. These events are pulled directly from the headlines of the past four months.

The panel stated that they needed to “impose a cost” on Beijing, and that the stranded Filipino Marines provided a humanitarian justification for intervention. They mobilized Littoral Combat Ships from Singapore, a portion of the US fleet from Okinawa, some of the Marines from Darwin in northern Australia and a battleship from the Subic Bay base in the Philippines to break up the Chinese blockade. The simulation concluded with the expectation that China would back down. There was applause.

Unlike the display of polite optimism among the warmongers of the CSIS, such a scenario would not end so neatly. It could quite easily escalate into global war.

Global Militarization, the East-West Divide and the March towards World War III

Take a look at every corner of the globe today. Like never before seen on this planet, the global chessboard is fast being carved up with provocative red lines drawn in the sand resulting from rapid military armament and troop deployment throughout this ever increasing bipolar world.
Cold War Part Two was jump started with February’s US backed Ukraine coup and overnight the old familiar East versus West scenario is once again threatening the start of World War III. Wherever untapped precious natural resources can still be extracted from the sea and ground is where opposing military forces from each side are lining up and ready for the end-of-world war. If it wasn’t so alarming, it would be absurdly laughable. Can you hear the global ring announcer? “In the West’s corner, the current and still only heavyweight champion of the superpower world, the greatest empire on earth, the world bully of all bullies, the US-NATO forces! And in this East corner, the up and coming wannabe challenger, once again making its re-appearance on the global stage, the original axis-of-evil we all have all come to love to hate – the armies of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea!”

Beyond the border of the Western nations that are the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and Western Europe including Asian allies Japan and South Korea and the Eastern nations of Russia and China, virtually everywhere else on earth the West is now locked in a global power grab battling to plunder the earth’s remaining turf and resources before and against the East gets to it first in a fight to the finish. Perhaps this colliding path to increasing conflict, death and destruction can best be graphically understood in terms of geographic regional breakdowns of the various East versus West confrontations.

The champion bully so used to throwing its weight around the world is clearly the American Empire’s high powered killing machine and its right hand killer puppet NATO. But the bully has met its match with the emerging powerful Eastern bloc of a reaffirmed Russia-China alliance threatening to tilt the power away from previously unchecked US global hegemony. Several weeks ago Russia and China  signed a $400 billion gas deal ensuring that Russia’s largest export will only grow regardless of what might happen with supplying Europe. Since the US-induced Ukraine crisis, in self-defense to America’s global aggression and imperialism, Russia and China have reestablished old ties.

Recently discovered evidence exposes the US Empire’s extended Gladio operations into the twenty-first century Europe using strong arm bullying and subversive aggressive tactics against various socialist and left leaning politicians within the European Union who might oppose NATO, tactics that include possible assassination as well as “softer” character assassination techniques. This proves just how much Europe, its EU and NATO are all completely dominated and controlled by any and all means necessary as puppets of the US Empire. 

The US is pushing its “full spectrum dominance” to purposely escalate tensions with encircling Russia and China by militarizing every nation on their border. In the meantime, through mainstream media’s state sponsored propaganda, the US government is attempting to demonize Russian President Putin and his nation as the vilified aggressor when in fact US Empire has always been the warmongering state inciting war after war. Despite the lies and saber rattling propaganda, more Americans are finally seeing the true villain is in fact the hegemonic Empire. And with the overthrow of another democratically elected sovereign government in Ukraine earlier this year, by perpetual US aggression the next war could well be in Eastern Europe against nuclear armed Russia.

In Poland last week Obama promised a billion dollar military aid package to strengthen Ukraine and NATO nations in preparation for war with Russia. US Air Force and Army units along with F-16’s are arriving en masse throughout Eastern Europe and Central Asia along the Russian border and will be serving on a rotational basis for years to come. Additionally, long time scheduled nuclear powered warhead missile sites are being lined up in Poland and already this year in Romania pointed across the border to Russia. In Romania Obama’s also rolling out the newest version of the star wars program of nukes from space, capable of taking out Russian target cities with a first strike while neutralizing Russia’s response with its anti-missile defense system. Thus, overwhelming evidence indicates Obama is currently planning and preparing for the likelihood of World War III with Russia and its allies. The geopolitics game of course has everything to do with global hegemony, which in turn has everything to do with money, oil pipelines and access to earth’s most precious resources. 

US Empire agenda has always been to target any nation that defies preservation of the US dollar and petrodollar as the fiat international currency standard to ensure the central banking cabal’s global control of the world population through a feudalistic debtor system. Both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi went down quickly after planning to no longer trade in US dollars.

The underlying escalation in conflict with Iran centers greatly on Russia and other BRIC nations trade with Iran with rubles and gold. Even NATO ally Turkey’s president yesterday was making a deal with Iran’s visiting leader to buy Iran’s oil through payment in gold rather than the US petrodollar. With Russia, China, India, Brazil and South Africa all BRIC members that are choosing to not trade in US dollars, they are leading the charge that will soon bring down the US oligarch’s paper fiat. As more and more of the world moves against the US dollar, at some point in the near future the US economy will plunge into a freefall nosedive of a severe depression. But then this also has been the oligarchs’ eventual plan in the making for some time. 

In fact the biggest East vs. West geographical bone of contention covers the elongated stretch of land 10,000 miles long spanning every country bordering Russia and China, all those onetime outer Soviet state nations that end in “stan” that Americans can neither pronounce nor remember. From Europe through the trans-Caucasus of Central Asia to Tibet all the way to East Asia, the big East vs. the big West face-off in recent months has been heating up with noticeable mounting tensions throughout.

And the current hottest of all hotspots in this vast arena of course has been the civil war well underway now in Ukraine. With increasing violence the Ukraine military has been destroying hospitals, schools, residential areas and municipal buildings in eastern Ukrainian cities like Lugansk. Meanwhile Russian troops have overall shown restraint although just recently the southeastern Ukraine border crossing checkpoints have been abandoned by Kiev government forces and are now under Russian control. The impending war between Ukraine and Russia appears increasingly eminent.

But in short order, all along the Russia-China bloc’s own backyard, the West is fomenting and creating dirty secret wars spilling death squad bloodshed in any number of these highly unstable, corrupt, resource-rich borderlands. The strategy is to head Russia off at the pass from forming its own Eurasian Union (EAU) by next year with Kazakhstan and Belarus. A number of other nations in the region like Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan that may even include prior Western leaning nations like Georgia have all expressed an interest in also joining this EAU as well. If Putin succeeds in acquiring these pivotal nations on its side, the EAU would rival the EU and NATO in economic and military power. This development would weaken and potentially threaten the oligarchs’ central banking cabal. To ensure that it does not happen, World War III is more likely to happen first.

One relatively new global region where the US-NATO military is currently facing off against the Russian armed forces is fighting over the disputed waters accounting for 30% of the world’s vast oil reserves sitting underneath the Arctic Ocean floor. As the global warming rapidly melts the polar icecaps, the result makes the value of its mineral and oil reserves both more assessable and coveted by all the nations that share Arctic territory. The melted ice also opens up new trade routes never available before. Thus competition and potential conflict is ratcheting up as Russia the nation with the most Arctic territory has been building a military presence in the region since 2007 and currently possesses ten military bases along the northern sea route. Only in the last year has NATO recognized the need to match Russia’s head start both militarily and economically.

Recently 16,000 soldiers from the US and NATO participated in the largest Western joint military exercise north of the Arctic circle in a hurry up effort to try and catch up to the 70,000 troop buildup of the Russian Army already stationed on the northern tundra. Russia has the distinction of being the only nation in the world with a nuclear icebreaker fleet

Last month Norway’s defense minister echoed the NATO party line seeing Russia’s annexation of Crimea as a direct threat to all NATO countries and called for an increased focus on matching Russia’s Arctic circle growth. In April Russia successfully shipped its first oil from its Arctic drilling operations. Canada, the US, Norway and Denmark through Greenland all have a vested NATO interest in the Arctic for its plentiful deposits of oil, gas and minerals. And the Russian Federation has beaten NATO to the punch both in its resource extraction as well as its military stronghold in the region. 

The US never ratified a UN treaty among the Arctic nations that irons out how access and extraction of resources will be conducted. Even though the oil corporations, the military and environmental groups all agree the US should ratify the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, once again the dysfunctional US Congress has continually voted it down. It seems the US purposely desires to undermine any judicious international solution to the intensifying competition as if a subsequent conflict and potential war is purposely part of the Empire agenda.

In Africa Obama’s exceptionalism manifests in the form of Special Operations on the ground busily training and militarizing the entire continent so the Empire can outmaneuver and undercut surging China’s economic power interest as the continent’s leading trading partner. Training death squads in so called counterinsurgency operations has become the Special Ops modus operandi. The US is spending 1.2 billion dollars to build and expand an outpost into a major military base housing 4000 soldiers at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti. America took advantage of the recent Boko Haram kidnapping of girls to ensure its military presence including drone operations secured an even stronger foothold in Nigeria. Yemen, Somalia, Mali, Sudan, Libya and Congo have all been targeted for a growing drone surveillance and missile strike program in answer to intelligence claims that Islamic extremists have posed a rising terrorist threat on the continent. AFRICOM has now extended its operations to all African nations but two. Of course the stronger US military presence and activity are precursors for securing the region for expanding transnational corporations into Africa to compete with China’s economic dominance. 

Historically in modern times the Middle East has never stopped being the world hotspot for multi-layered international conflict. Aside from the longstanding Israeli apartheid genocide against Palestinians and the broader Jewish vs. Muslim antagonism, the focal point for over three years now has been the devastating war in Syria where Iran, Russia and China are aligned with the Assad government while the US-NATO-Israel-Saudi Arabia alliance has been financially backing, arming and deploying thousands of al Qaeda mercenaries to fight their proxy war against Syria and the Eastern alliance.

Iran and Syria have long been in the US imperialistic crosshairs as the final two of seven nations on that neocon regime change list dating back prior to 9/11 and still remain unfinished business. Controlling Ukraine and conquering Syria and Iran would cut off Russia’s oil supply to Europe and America could effectively control the outgoing oil supply from the Middle East to the rest of the world. Thus, Obama is still sending more sophisticated high powered weaponry to the so called moderate anti-Assad rebels in Syria that could potentially end up in the hands of al Qaeda militants who have already pledged to use the US made arms against America. And this comes when the Syrian government forces have begun to gain the upper hand in the bloody war against the US proxy lowlifes.

In a Reuter’s article (June 9, 2014) a Free Syrian Army general warned against Obama’s plan to arm rebel groups in Syria as he believes it will create warlords like in Somalia and Afghanistan that will operate as loose cannons not answering to anyone and only creating more problems for anti-government forces. This view only reinforces the common perception that Obama’s poor, misguided and erratic leadership in the Middle East has diminished America’s international power, reputation and credibility, grossly undermined by Obama’s empty, paper tiger rhetoric and inconsistency.

Though the US-NATO military forces can occupy nations along the entire border of Russia’s and China‘s backyard, the double standard that is US exceptionalism ensures that Chinese and Russian armies are forever banned far from North and South America. Other than Cuba, gaining a foothold of influence and power within the US dominated Western hemisphere has been tenuous for Russia and China. The exploitative and over controlling (with roots back to the Monroe Doctrine) American Empire has driven Latin American nations toward seeking an intra-continental alliance promoting a degree of independence, solidarity and defense from the reigning clutches of the sole world superpower to the north. Nations like Venezuela through the efforts of the late Hugo Chavez have taken a bold and defiant stance against US hegemony, calling Bush “the devil” at the UN a few years ago. Similar to long sanctioned Cuba, resistance to American aggression has taken the form of embracing both Russia and China for bolstered support through economic development and trade. While the US was busy focusing on waging wars on multiple warfronts, China from 2000 to 2009 quietly increased its trade with Latin America by 600%. As a result, China is gaining influence in America’s hemispheric “backyard.” 

Lastly, in the final continent East Asia tensions have only increased between America and China there as well. During his recent so called pivot tour to the Far East, Obama reaffirmed and strengthened military ties with South Korea, Japan and the Philippines. In response to the increasing territorial squabbling between China and other US allies in Asia like Japan, Philippines and more recently Vietnam, always the opportunist the US in Secretary of State Kerry recently invited Vietnam’s deputy prime minister to Washington to discuss establishment of a US naval base in Vietnam. Another recent issue causing friction is the US allegation that Chinese military officers spied on American corporations breaching security to gain valuable information. Of course the fact that the US was caught with the Snowden revelations spying on the entire world has no impact on the US willingness to chastise and accuse others nations. The rest of the planet readily recognizes America’s double standard hypocrisy in constantly objecting to other nations that are merely doing the same behavior that America does. 

The polarizing effect on the world brought on by America’s arrogance, exceptionalism and widespread bullying and aggression has created dangerous conflicts that are leading to military tensions and hostilities that in turn appear to be leading to major wars with nuclear powers Russia and China as well as unpredictable North Korea. And unlike the false propaganda of the US government and its presstitute media outlets, this increasingly militarized, armed and dangerous world is the direct intended result of US foreign policy. As the puppet to the oligarch puppet masters, it is by design that war is on the horizon and the end game of World War III looms ever closer with each passing month. It again must be up to us rational citizens of the world who know better than to plunge into a war that no one can win but all of us earth inhabitants can lose if we allow our leaders to push us off the doomsday cliff.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a masters degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing.

Will Russia and China Hold Their Fire Until War Is the Only Alternative?

Les smart bombs de Wall Street
Obama’s September 24 speech at the UN is the most absurd thing I have heard in my entire life. It is absolutely amazing that the president of the United States would stand before the entire world and tell us what everyone knows are blatant lies while simultaneously demonstrating Washington’s double standards and belief that Washington alone, because the US is exceptional and indispensable, has the right to violate all laws.
It is even more amazing that every person present did not get up and walk out of the assembly.

The diplomats of the world actually sat there and listened to blatant lies from the world’s worst terrorist. They even clapped their approval.

The rest of the speech was just utter bullshit: “We stand at a crossroads,” “signposts of progress,” “reduced chance of war between major powers,” “hundreds of millions lifted from poverty,” and while ebola ravages Africa “we’ve learned how to cure disease and harness the power of the wind and the sun.” We are now God, “We” is comprised of the “exceptional people”–Americans. No one else counts. “We” are it.
It is impossible to pick the most absurd statement in Obama’s speech or the most outrageous lie. Is it this one? “Russian aggression in Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in pursuit of territorial ambition.”
Or is it this one?
“After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and calls for reform, their corrupt president fled. Against the will of the government in Kiev, Crimea was annexed. Russia poured arms into eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict that has killed thousands. When a civilian airliner was shot down from areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to the crash for days. When Ukraine started to reassert control over its territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the separatists, and moved troops across the border.”
The entire world knows that Washington overthrew the elected Ukrainian government, that Washington refuses to release its satellite photos of the destruction of the Malaysian airliner, that Ukraine refuses to release its air traffic control instructions to the airliner, that Washington has prevented a real investigation of the airliner’s destruction, that European experts on the scene have testified that both sides of the airliner’s cockpit demonstrate machine gun fire, an indication that the airliner was shot down by the Ukrainian jets that were following it. Indeed, there has been no explanation why Ukrainian jets were close on the heels of an airliner directed by Ukrainian air traffic control.

The entire world knows that if Russia had territorial ambitions, when the Russian military defeated the American trained and supplied Georgian army that attacked South Ossetia, Russia would have kept Georgia and reincorporated it within Russia where it resided for centuries.

Notice that it is not aggression when Washington bombs and invades seven countries in 13 years without a declaration of war. Aggression occurs when Russia accepts the petition of Crimeans who voted 97 percent in favor of reuniting with Russia where Crimea resided for centuries before Khrushchev attached it to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine in 1954 when Ukraine and Russia were part of the same country.
And the entire world knows that, as the separatist leader of the Donetsk Republic said,
“If Russian military units were fighting with us, the news would not be the fall of Mariupol but the fall of Kiev and Lviv.”
Which is “the cancer of violent extremism”–ISIS which cut off the heads of four journalists, or Washington which has bombed seven countries in the 21st century murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians and displacing millions?

Who is the worst terrorist–ISIS, a group that is redrawing the artificial boundaries created by British and French colonialists, or Washington with its Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign policy, which declares Washington’s dominant objective to be US hegemony over the world?

ISIS is the creation of Washington. ISIS consists of the jihadists Washington used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent to Syria to overthrow Assad. If ISIS is a “network of death,” a “brand of evil” with which negotiation is impossible as Obama declares, it is a network of death created by the Obama regime itself. If ISIS poses the threat that Obama claims, how can the regime that created the threat be credible in leading the fight against it?

Obama never mentioned in his speech the central problem that the world faces. That problem is Washington’s inability to accept the existence of strong independent countries such as Russia and China. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine commits the United States to maintaining its status as the sole Unipower. This task requires Washington “to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.” A “hostile power” is any country that has sufficient power or influence to be able to limit Washington’s exercise of power.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine explicitly targets Russia: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere.” A “rival” is defined as any country capable of defending its interests or those of allies against Washington’s hegemony.

In his speech, Obama told Russia and China that they can be part of Washington’s world order on the condition that they accept Washington’s hegemony and do not interfere in any way with Washington’s control. When Obama tells Russia that the US will cooperate with Russia “if Russia changes course,” Obama means that Moscow must accept the primacy of Washington’s interest over Russia’s own interest.

Clearly, this is an inflexible and unrealistic position. If Washington keeps to it, war with Russia and China will ensue.
Obama told China that Washington intended to continue to be a Pacific power in China’s sphere of influence, “promoting peace, stability, and the free flow of commerce among nations” by building new US air and naval bases from the Philippines to Vietnam so that Washington can control the flow of resources in the South China Sea and cut off China at will.

As far as I can tell, neither the Russian nor Chinese governments understand the seriousness of the threat that Washington represents. Washington’s claim to world hegemony seems too farfetched to Russia and China to be real. But it is very real.

By refusing to take the threat seriously, Russia and China have not responded in ways that would bring an end to the threat without the necessity of war.

For example, the Russian government could most likely destroy NATO by responding to sanctions imposed by Washington and the EU by informing European governments that Russia does not sell natural gas to members of NATO. Instead of using this power, Russia has foolishly allowed the EU to accumulate record amounts of stored natural gas to see homes and industry through the coming winter.

Has Russia sold out its national interests for money?

Much of Washington’s power and financial hegemony rests on the role of the US dollar as world reserve currency. Russia and China have been slow, even negligent from the standpoint of defending their sovereignty, to take advantage of opportunities to undermine this pillar of Washington’s power. For example, the BRICS’ talk of abandoning the dollar payments system has been more talk than action. Russia doesn’t even require Washington’s European puppet states to pay for Russian natural gas in rubles.

One might think that a country such as Russia experiencing such extreme hostility and demonization from the West would at least use the gas sales to support its own currency instead of Washington’s dollar. If the Russian government is going to continue to support the economies of European countries hostile to Russia and to prevent the European peoples from freezing during the coming winter, shouldn’t Russia in exchange for this extraordinary subsidy to its enemies at least arrange to support its own currency by demanding payment in rubles? Unfortunately for Russia, Russia is infected with Western trained neoliberal economists who represent Western, not Russian, interests.

When the West sees such extraordinary weakness on the part of the Russian government, Obama knows he can go to the UN and tell the most blatant lies about Russia with no cost whatsoever to the US or Europe. Russian inaction subsidizes Russia’s demonization.

China has been no more successful than Russia in using its opportunities to destabilize Washington. For example, it is a known fact, as Dave Kranzler and I have repeatedly demonstrated, that the Federal Reserve uses its bullion bank agents to knock down the gold price in order to protect the dollar’s value from the Federal Reserve’s policies. The method used is for the bullion banks to drive down the gold price with enormous amounts of naked shorts during periods of low or nonexistent volume.

China or Russia or both could take advantage of this tactic by purchasing every naked short sold plus all covered shorts, if any, and demanding delivery instead of settling the contracts in cash. Neither New York Comex nor the London market could make delivery, and the system would implode. The consequence of the failure to deliver possibly could be catastrophic for the Western financial system, but in the least it would demonstrate the corrupt nature of Western financial institutions.

Or China could deal a more lethal blow. Choosing a time of heightened concern or disruptions in US financial markets, China could dump its trillion dollar plus holdings of US treasuries, or indeed all its holdings of US financial instruments, on the market. The Federal Reserve and the US Treasury could try to stabilize the prices of US financial instruments by creating money with which to purchase the bonds and other instruments. This money creation would increase concern about the dollar’s value, and at that point China could dump the trillion dollars plus it receives from its bond sales on the exchange market. The Federal Reserve cannot print foreign currencies with which to buy up the dollars. The dollar’s exchange value would collapse and with it the dollar’s use as world reserve currency. The US would become just another broke country unable to pay for its imports.

Possibly, Washington could get Japan and the European Central Bank to print enough yen and euros to buy up the dumped dollars. However, the likelihood is that this would bring down the yen and euro along with the dollar.

Flight would occur into the Chinese and Russian currencies, and financial hegemony would depart the West.
By their restraint, Russia and China enable Washington’s attack upon them. Last week Washington put thousands of its NGO operatives into the Moscow streets protesting “Putin’s war against Ukraine.” Foolishly, Russia has permitted foreign interests to buy up its newspapers, and these interests continually denounce Putin and the Russian government to their Russian readers.

Did Russia sell its soul and communication system for dollars? Did a few oligarchs sell out Russia for Swiss and London bank deposits?

Both Russia and China have Muslim populations among whom the CIA operates encouraging disassociation, rebellion, and violence. Washington intends to break up the Russian Federation into smaller, weaker countries that could not stand in the way of Washington’s hegemony. Russian and Chinese fear of discord among their own Muslim populations have caused both governments to make the extremely serious strategic mistake of aligning with Washington against ISIS and with Washington’s policy of protecting Washington’s status quo in the Muslim world.

If Russia and China understood the deadly threat that Washington presents, both governments would operate according to the time honored principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Russia and China would arm ISIS with surface to air missiles to bring down the American planes and with military intelligence in order to achieve an American defeat. With defeat would come the overthrow of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and all of the American puppet rulers in the area. Washington would lose control over oil, and the petro-dollar would be history. It is extraordinary that instead Russia and China are working to protect Washington’s control over the Middle East and the petro-dollar.

China is subject to a variety of attacks. The Rockefeller Foundation creates American agents in Chinese universities, or so I am informed by Chinese academics. American companies that locate in China create Chinese boards on which they place the relatives of local and regional party officials. This shifts loyalty from the central government to the American money. Moreover, China has many economists educated in the US who are imbued with the neoliberal economics that represents Washington’s interests.

Both Russia and China have significant percentages of their populations who wish to be western. The failure of communism in both countries and the success of American cold war propaganda have created loyalties to America in place of their own governments. In Russia they go by the designation “Atlanticist Integrationists.” They are Russians who wish to be integrated into the West. I know less about the Chinese counterpart, but among youth Western materialism and lack of sexual restraint is appealing.

The inability of the Russian and Chinese governments to come to terms with the threat posed to their existence as sovereign countries by the neoconservative insistence on American world hegemony makes nuclear war more likely. If Russia and China catch on too late in the game, their only alternative will be war or submission to Washington’s hegemony. As there is no possibility of the US and NATO invading and occupying Russia and China, the war would be nuclear.

To avoid this war, which, as so many experts have shown, would terminate life on earth, the Russian and Chinese governments must soon become far more realistic in their assessment of the evil that resides in what Washington has turned into the world’s worst terrorist state.

It is possible that Russia, China, and the rest of the world will be saved by American economic collapse. The US economy is a house of cards. Real median family incomes are in long-term decline. Universities produce graduates with degrees and heavy debts but no jobs. The bond market is rigged by the Federal Reserve which necessitates rigging the bullion markets in order to protect the dollar. The stock market is rigged by the outpouring of money from the Federal Reserve, by the Plunge Protection Team, and by corporations repurchasing their own stock. The dollar is supported by tradition, habit, and currency swaps.

The American House of Cards continues to stand only as a result of the tolerance of the world for vast corruption and disinformation and because greed is satisfied by the money made from a rigged system.

Russia and/or China could pull down this House of Cards whenever either country or both had leadership capable of it.

No comments:

Post a Comment