Archives: Articles

By Mike Whitney

The United States has to have an enemy. For the last seven years, the enemy has been Russia. Now the focus has shifted to China. Take a look at these headlines on Google News and you’ll see what I mean:

• Has America been too slow to wake up to the China threat? Washington Examiner
• Why is China a threat to the United States? Quora
• Is the US ready to address China’s threats in time to make a difference?The Hill
• China and Russia are waging another Cold War — is the West up to the challenge? The Hill
• China secretly sends enough gear to Russia to equip an army, Politico
• Xi Jinping is Preparing China for War, Newsweek

Get the picture? China is a bigtime threat to the United States. Forget that the US regularly sends its warships into the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.

Forget that the US has encircled China with military bases and missile systems.

Forget that the US has sent multiple delegations to Taipei in violation of the “one-China” policy. Forget that the US arms and trains military personnel in the Taiwanese Army.

Forget that the US imposes unilateral tariffs on Chinese goods and sanctions Chinese businessmen. Forget that the US has implemented the most draconian blockade on advanced semiconductors in history. Forget that the US is building anti-China coalitions across the region.

Forget all of these things because—according to the geniuses in the mainstream media—China is the problem, China is the threat, and China is the country that is pushing the world towards war.

Does anyone believe this nonsense? Here’s how columnist Bradley Blankenship summed it up in an article at RT:

The US national security state has exploited deep ideological biases in the media and is bankrolling countless think tanks, non-governmental organizations, and academic programs to churn out constant anti-China propaganda. Self-Reinforcing Propaganda, RT

In other words, the USG is working with its allies in the media to saturate the airwaves with anti-China blather in order to convince Americans that China is the source of the problem. That’s how the government shapes public perception and lays the groundwork for war. Check out this excerpt from an article at The Diplomat:

A key feature of mainstream Western media today is the relentless China-bashing. It is off the charts and tiring, often involving regurgitated trivia or fabricated stories with no evidence to support callous statements about the country, demonstrating a deep lack of understanding. But such stories continue to be churned out with no end in sight.

Countering this in international media by offering more balanced views for a global audience is near impossible as censorship is rife. There almost seems to be a global compact to control the narrative, a propaganda war powered by today’s digital technology….

Typically, the negative stories adhere to three core ideas, which inform the unspoken guidelines within these press rooms when it comes to reporting on China.

First is the belief that China is a threat to the world and that this belief must be relentlessly reinforced at every available opportunity. How and why China is a threat is never explored; such is the deep-rooted and almost religious nature of the belief. Sound arguments do not matter. The basic tenets of good journalism are ignored when it comes to a China story. There is no need to explain or give evidence of why China is a global threat. Anti-China Rhetoric Is Off the Charts in Western Media, The Diplomat

China poses no threat to the West, in fact, China has never invaded another country in its 70 year-long history. Compare that to Washington’s unbroken record of violence around the world. Here’s a brief recap

The United States launched at least 251 military interventions between 1991 and 2022. This is according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, a US government institution that compiles information on behalf of Congress. The report documented another 218 US military interventions from 1798 to 1990.

That makes for a total of 469 US military interventions since 1798 that have been acknowledged by the Congress…. The list of countries targeted by the US military includes the vast majority of the nations on Earth, including almost every single country in Latin America and the Caribbean and most of the African continent.

The Military Intervention Project at Tufts University’s Center for Strategic Studies has documented even more foreign meddling.

“The US has undertaken over 500 international military interventions since 1776, with nearly 60% undertaken between 1950 and 2017,” the project wrote. “What’s more, over one-third of these missions occurred after 1999.”

The Military Intervention Project added: “With the end of the Cold War era, we would expect the US to decrease its military interventions abroad, assuming lower threats and interests at stake. But these patterns reveal the opposite – the US has increased its military involvements abroad.”
US launched 251 military interventions since 1991, and 469 since 1798, Geopolitical Economy

And which country is the “greatest threat to world peace”? China?

Not even close. Take a look:

The U.S. emerged as the greatest threat to world peace, followed by Pakistan and China, in the End of Year global survey conducted by WIN/Gallup International across 65 countries in the world.

Of more than 66,000 people surveyed the world over, 24% of respondents believed that the U.S. was the greatest threat to world peace. Pakistan and China got eight and six percent of the votes respectively while Iran, Israel, North Korea and Afghanistan tied for fourth place with four percent of the votes.
The U.S. Is The Biggest Threat To World Peace, Buzzfeed

So, maybe, China is not the biggest threat, after all? Is that what we’re saying?

Indeed, China is not a threat to the United States, in fact, China’s highest ideal is “peaceful development.” Think about that for a minute: Development without war. Is it even possible?

It is possible, and the US and China should work together to make it happen. There’s no reason why the world’s two biggest economies cannot work together on the shared goals of economic integration, state-of-the-art infrastructure and poverty reduction. We need leaders who will embrace collaboration and cooperation not exacerbate divisions and confrontation. We need to strengthen relations with China not look for ways vilify, coerce or bully them.

Unfortunately—as we all know—the western “rules-based order” is controlled by billionaire oligarchs who bitterly oppose nationalistic leaders who cherish their own sovereign independence and act in the interests of their own people. They won’t allow that. Western elites believe that all material wealth and power should be in private hands (not public hands) which is why they are determined to provoke a war with China, so the matter can be resolved militarily. In short, the conflict with China is shaping-up to be a nuclear cage-match between “the globalists and the nationalists”.

The West’s greatest asset in this struggle is the media whose propaganda helps to garner the public support the elites need to drive the country to war. Regrettably, the plan appears to be working. For example, in 2018 a mere 4 in 10 Americans saw China’s rise as a threat to US vital interests. (The Chicago Council on Global Affairs) Compare those results to the recent survey at Gallup which showed that “66% of U.S. adults consider (China) to be a critical threat to the vital interests of the U.S”.

In just 4 years the media has persuaded a majority of Americans that China poses a clear threat to the United States. How can one explain these results other than pointing to the pernicious impact of state propaganda used to poison the minds of Americans against Washington’s biggest economic rival?

Here’s more from Gallup:

In addition to holding a largely unfavorable opinion of China, more Americans name China as the United States’ greatest enemy than any other nation by a wide margin. This view is closely linked to two other measures in the poll, which find that Americans broadly believe China’s military and economic powers represent a “critical threat” to the United States’ vital interests in the next decade. “Record-Low 15% of Americans View China Favorably, Gallup

“China’s military is a critical threat” to the US? Is that really what Americans think?

And where exactly has China’s military been deployed in the last 30 years: Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Iraq?

No, for the last 7 decades China’s military has remained in China.

China has invaded no one and certainly has no intention to do so in the future. Americans have no reason to fear China. What they need to fear is the deranged neocons who send US warships into the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea, 8,000 miles from the United States. That’s who they should fear, because that is a deliberate provocation aimed at triggering a war.

A recent survey by the Pew Research Center appeared to show that public opinion of China has dropped dramatically in 24 countries. But a closer look at the survey shows just the opposite, in fact, Pew helps to prove the point we have been trying to make here, which is, that the countries most dominated by the western media are more likely to have “unfavorable” views of China. It’s not a coincidence. Here’s how Blankenship summed it up:

The agency polled adults in 24 countries; there are 193 United Nations member states, which indicates that it does not show any serious global trend purely based on its methodology. There is also a strong selection bias for high-income countries and American allies. However, some middle-income and poorer countries were polled and the data reveals what many know to be true – the Global South largely has favorable views of China.

For example, the Pew survey found that countries such as Kenya (72%), Nigeria (80%) and Mexico (57%) hold favorable views of China... Since poorer countries are the beneficiaries of bilateral cooperation with China, including on the Beijing-led Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), it is natural that they would have a higher opinion of Beijing. Pew, however, mostly did not select countries with high-level strategic cooperation with Beijing….

there has been a steady downward trend fully in line with American foreign policy, e.g., after 2012 with former President Barack Obama’s ‘Pivot to Asia’, the Trump trade war, and whatever it is that the current administration of President Joe Biden is doing. The US national security state has exploited deep ideological biases in the media and is bankrolling countless think tanks, non-governmental organizations, and academic programs to churn out constant anti-China propaganda….

There is a definitive and ongoing battle for hearts and minds between China and the US, and so-called ‘China experts’ are the Americans’ foot soldiers whether they realize it or not. And there are only bound to be more systemic incentives for China hawks in the future considering members of the US Congress keep introducing legislation, like the Senate ‘Countering Chinese Propaganda Act’ or the House ‘Countering the PRC Malign Influence Fund Authorization Act’, which would see hundreds of millions spent on negative news coverage against China. Both of these bills have been absorbed into the House and Senate’s versions of the America COMPETES Act, which have passed in both chambers but are awaiting minor changes before becoming law. Self-reinforcing propaganda: A new poll shows people dislike China, but there’s a catch, Bradley Blankenship, RT

So—even though a majority of Americans already believe that China is their enemy—Congress wants to spend “hundreds of millions more” to intensify the media’s indoctrination campaign to ensure that any critical thinking person who believes the US should pursue a policy of peaceful engagement with China will be denounced as a coward, a traitor and a puppet of Xi Jinping.

This is the scenario we’ll be facing if we don’t find a candidate who will break with the war-mongering concensus and craft a policy that focuses on a long-term accomodation with China that circumvents a catstrophic confrontation. Avoiding World War 3 should be our top priority.

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State.

18 August 2023

Source: globalresearch.ca

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) constitute a buoyant $5.3 Billion dollar business (2022) which is slated to increase to $12.9 Billon dollars by 2027. This profit-driven military-industrial market is dominated by six “Defense Contractors” including Raytheon, Northrup Grunman, BAE Systems (plc), Boeing, Lockheed Martin and L3Harris Technologies.

According to Raytheon:

 “The development of directed energy (DE) technology is used to counter the drone threat”.

There are several sophisticated Directed Energy Weapons technologies: High Energy Laser (Hel), High Power Radio Frequency Weapons, Sonic Weapons, Electromagnetic Weapons. (For details see Table below entitled Directed Energy Market Highlights).

While DEWs are largely intended for military use, so-called “non lethal” and/or “less lethal” Directed Energy Weapons are also envisaged for so-called “Homeland Security applications” (See table below).

The Evidence: Were Directed Energy Weapons Used in Hawaii?

Images confirm the extent and nature of devastation and destruction. (see videos below).

They also suggest that the damage incurred was not attributable to “natural causes”. 

The evidence suggests that Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) may have been used (yet to be fully ascertained) and that the acts of destruction were deliberate.

Video: Houses are Targeted? Green Trees Remain Untouched

Watch below an aerial footage. The location of this Wildfire remains to be confirmed. It may have been in Southern Oregon. [August 19, 2023]

How is it possible to have totally burned down houses in between undamaged trees?

Burned out houses between green trees?

Video: “Intentional Destruction”?

Hawaï : dévastation intentionnelle ?

Maui Directed Energy Weapon assault, like 9/11, Paradise, CA., Malibu and Boulder fires.

Maui residents return after devastating wildfires

Note the above CBS report points to “A Wildfire Disaster”.

Thousands of families have lost their homes, burnt to the ground. The devastating impacts resulting from possible DEW attacks are not mentioned. The official statements point to “Natural Causes”:

“Can you imagine calling up a family that has just seen their home burn to the ground and offering to buy their land for below market value?

This is apparently happening in Hawaii right now on a massive scale.”  Michael Snyder, (August 17, 2023)

***

Among the six private companies of the military industrial complex, Raytheon and BAE Systems are also involved in ENMOD technologies on behalf of the U.S. Air Force.

There is a flourishing international market. DEWs are exported Worldwide. There are various technologies including Electromagnetic weapons.

The usage for so-called “Homeland Security applications” includes “non-lethal” civilian applications including Airport protection, riot controls, protection of infrastructure (see below).

A Citizens’ Criminal Investigation?

Are these so-called “non-lethal or “less lethal” DEWs available for acquisition or purchase by private sector and/or governmental entities? Are sales and non-lethal usage of DEWS subject to regulation?

According to MarketandMarkets.com, non military “non-lethal” applications constitute more than 41.2% of the North American market:

“Rising demand for laser weapons for security across land, air, and sea, new development of directed energy weapons, and the adoption of non-lethal weapons are driving the market growth.

A citizens’ investigation is required to establish what is behind this devastating process of destruction in Hawaii and in various  parts of America.

Our thoughts today are with the people of Hawaii.

Below is an examination of the Directed Energy Weapons Market by:

Marketandmarkets.com

click image below to access the complete document

17 August 2023

Source: globalresearch.ca

 

By Vijay Prashad

On July 26, 2023, Niger’s presidential guard moved against the sitting president—Mohamed Bazoum—and conducted a coup d’état. A brief contest among the various armed forces in the country ended with all the branches agreeing to the removal of Bazoum and the creation of a military junta led by Presidential Guard Commander General Abdourahamane “Omar” Tchiani. This is the fourth country in the Sahel region of Africa to have experienced a coup—the other three being Burkina Faso, Guinea, and Mali. The new government announced that it would stop allowing France to leech Niger’s uranium (one in three lightbulbs in France is powered by the uranium from the field in Arlit, northern Niger). Tchiani’s government revoked all military cooperation with France, which means that the 1,500 French troops will need to start packing their bags (as they did in both Burkina Faso and Mali). Meanwhile, there has been no public statement about Airbase 201, the U.S. facility in Agadez, a thousand kilometers from the country’s capital of Niamey. This is the largest drone base in the world and key to U.S. operations across the Sahel. U.S. troops have been told to remain on the base for now and drone flights have been suspended. The coup is certainly against the French presence in Niger, but this anti-French sentiment has not enveloped the U.S. military footprint in the country.

Interventions

Hours after the coup was stabilized, the main Western states—especially France and the United States—condemned the coup and asked for the reinstatement of Bazoum, who was immediately detained by the new government. But neither France nor the United States appeared to want to lead the response to the coup. Earlier this year, the French and U.S. governments worried about an insurgency in northern Mozambique that impacted the assets of the Total-Exxon natural gas field off the coastline of Cabo Delgado. Rather than send in French and U.S. troops, which would have polarized the population and increased anti-Western sentiment, the French and the United States made a deal for Rwanda to send its troops into Mozambique. Rwandan troops entered the northern province of Mozambique and shut down the insurgency. Both Western powers seem to favor a “Rwanda” type solution to the coup in Niger, but rather than have Rwanda enter Niger the hope was for ECOWAS—the Economic Community of West African States—to send in its force to restore Bazoum.

A day after the coup, ECOWAS condemned the coup. ECOWAS encompasses fifteen West African states, which in the past few years has suspended Burkina Faso and Mali from their ranks because of the coups in that country; Niger was also suspended from ECOWAS a few days after the coup. Formed in 1975 as an economic bloc, the grouping decided—despite no mandate in its original mission—to send in peacekeeping forces in 1990 into the heart of the Liberian Civil War. Since then, ECOWAS has sent its peacekeeping troops to several countries in the region, including Sierra Leone and Gambia. Not long after the coup in Niger, ECOWAS placed an embargo on the country that included suspending its right to basic commercial transactions with its neighbors, freezing Niger’s central bank assets that are held in regional banks, and stopping foreign aid (which comprises forty percent of Niger’s budget). The most striking statement was that ECOWAS would take “all measures necessary to restore constitutional order.” An August 6 deadline given by ECOWAS expired because the bloc could not agree to send troops across the border. ECOWAS asked for a “standby force” to be assembled and ready to invade Niger. Then, ECOWAS said it would meet on August 12 in Accra, Ghana, to go over its options. That meeting was canceled for “technical reasons.” Mass demonstrations in key ECOWAS countries—such as Nigeria and Senegal—against an ECOWAS military invasion of Niger have confounded their own politicians to support an intervention. It would be naïve to suggest that no intervention is possible. Events are moving very fast, and there is no reason to suspect that ECOWAS will not intervene before August ends.

Coups in the Sahel

When ECOWAS suggested the possibility of an intervention into Niger, the military governments in Burkina Faso and Mali said that this would be a “declaration of war” not only against Niger but also against their countries. On August 2, one of the key leaders of the Niger coup, General Salifou Mody traveled to Bamako (Mali) and Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso) to discuss the situation in the region and to coordinate their response to the possibility of an ECOWAS—or Western—military intervention into Niger. Ten days later, General Moussa Salaou Barmou went to Conakry (Guinea) to seek that country’s support for Niger from the leader of the military government in that country, Mamadi Doumbouya. Suggestions have already been floated for Niger—one of the most important countries in the Sahel—to form part of the conversation of a federation that will include Burkina Faso, Guinea, and Mali. This would be a federation of countries that have had coups to overthrow what have been seen to be pro-Western governments that have not met the expectations of increasingly impoverished populations.

The story of the coup in Niger becomes partly the story of what the communist journalist Ruth First called “the contagion of the coup” in her remarkable book, The Barrel of the Gun: Political Power in Africa and the Coup d’états (1970). Over the course of the past thirty years, politics in the Sahel countries has seriously desiccated. Parties with a history in the national liberation movements, even the socialist movements (such as Bazoum’s party) have collapsed into being representatives of their elites, who are conduits of a Western agenda. The French-U.S.-NATO war in Libya in 2011 allowed jihadis groups to pour out of Libya and flock into southern Algeria and into the Sahel (almost half of Mali is held by al-Qaeda-linked formations). The entry of these forces gave the local elites and the West the justification to further tighten limited trade union freedoms and to excise the left from the ranks of the established political parties. It is not as if the leaders of the mainline political parties are right-wing or center-right, but that whatever their orientation, they have no real independence from the will of Paris and Washington. They became—to use a word on the ground—“stooges” of the West.

Absent any reliable political instruments, the discarded rural and petty-bourgeois sections of the country turn to their children in the armed forces for leadership. People like Burkina Faso’s Captain Ibrahim Traoré (born 1988), who was raised in the rural province of Mouhoun, and Colonel Assimi Goïta (born 1988), who comes from the cattle market town and military redoubt of Kati, represent these broad class fractions perfectly. Their communities have been utterly left out of the hard austerity programs of the International Monetary Fund, of the theft of their resources by Western multinationals, and of the payments for Western military garrisons in the country. Discarded populations with no real political platform to speak for them, these communities have rallied behind their young men in the military. These are “Colonel’s Coups”—coups of ordinary people who have no other options—not “General’s Coups”—coups of the elites to stem the political advancement of the people. That is why the coup in Niger is being defended in mass rallies from Niamey to the small, remote towns that border Libya. When I traveled to these regions before the pandemic, it was clear that the anti-French sentiment found no channel of expression other than hope for a military coup that would bring in leaders such as Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso, who had been assassinated in 1987. Captain Traoré, in fact, sports a red beret like Sankara, speaks with Sankara’s left-wing frankness, and even mimics Sankara’s diction. It would be a mistake to see these men as from the left since they are moved by anger at the failure of the elites and of Western policy. They do not come to power with a well-worked out agenda built from left political traditions.

The Niger military leaders have formed a twenty-one-person cabinet headed by Ali Mahaman Lamine Zeine, a civilian who had been a finance minister in a previous government and worked at the African Development Bank in Chad. Military leaders are prominent in the cabinet. Whether the appointment of this civilian-led cabinet will divide the ranks of ECOWAS is to be seen. Certainly, Western imperialist forces—notably the United States with troops on the ground in Niger—would not like to see this torque of coups remain in place. Europe—through French leadership—had shifted the borders of their continent from north of the Mediterranean Sea to south of the Sahara Desert, suborning the Sahel states into a project known as G-5 Sahel. Now with anti-French governments in three of these states (Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger) and with the possibility of trouble in the two remaining states (Chad and Mauritania), Europe will have to retreat to its coastline. Sanctions to deplete the mass support of the new governments will increase, and the possibility of military intervention will hang over the region like a famished vulture.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian, editor, and journalist. He is a writing fellow and chief correspondent at Globetrotter.

16 August 2023

Source: countercurrents.org

By Dr Ramzy Baroud

It is feasible for China to continue playing an important role in mediating Middle East conflicts. In fact, it already has. In the case of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, however, mediation is hardly the issue.

Even before Beijing successfully managed to achieve reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran last April, Chinese diplomacy has shown exceptional maturity.

For many years, China has been perceived to be an outsider to global affairs, supposedly contending itself to economic expansion or to regional economic integration.

Former US President Donald Trump forced, or rather, accelerated China’s global outreach when, in 2018, he launched an unprecedented trade war on the powerful Asian country.

Trump’s plan backfired. Not only did Washington fail to dissuade Beijing from bowing to American diktats, it also inspired what became known as China’s wolf diplomacy – a self-assertive Chinese approach to foreign policy.

From an American – or Western – viewpoint, the new tactic was perceived to be hostile and aggressive.

But from a Chinese perspective, the new policy was necessitated by the relentless war launched against China by successive US administrations, along with their Western allies.

The Russia-Ukraine war, however, accentuated China’s role in international conflicts and diplomacy. Though Beijing’s ‘12-point peace proposal’ last March failed to impress the West and was superficially welcomed by Moscow, the proposal highlighted an important shift.

The fact that China found it necessary to develop an elaborate political position as a potential mediator conveyed that China is no longer content with playing the role of the supporting actor in international forums.

China’s diplomacy was dismissed by many, especially in Western media and politics, as a non-starter, if at all serious or even well-intentioned.

Merely three weeks later, the Chinese-brokered Iran-Saudi agreement took place.

Major political actors in the region, including Washington, appeared to be taken by surprise. The Chinese success story was juxtaposed by many journalists in the Global South, to Washington’s conflict-prone, dead-end diplomacy in the Middle East.

Buoyed by its success, China ventured further into new diplomatic territories, offering to mediate between Israel and Palestine. The Palestinians welcomed a Chinese role; the Israelis were disinterested.

The Chinese government is aware of the near impossibility of engaging both Palestinians and Israelis in genuine peace talks. Though Palestinians are desperate to escape or, at least, balance out Washington’s hegemony, it is not in Israel’s interest to abandon its greatest political benefactor, financier and military backer – the United States.

Though China and Israel have developed relatively strong economic and, for China, strategic ties, in recent years, Beijing’s geopolitical worth for Tel Aviv is simply incomparable to that of Washington.

It would also make little sense for Tel Aviv to grant Beijing any political leverage at a time of geopolitical transitions, especially because China has historically supported the Palestinian people’s struggle for freedom.

Indeed, for decades, China served as a vanguard for the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and, later, the State of Palestine at the United Nations, insisting on the respect and implementation of international laws relevant to ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Unsurprisingly, China recognized the PLO’s political status in 1965 and the State of Palestine in 1988. Now, China is pushing for full Palestinian membership in the international body.

The Chinese position was fundamental to Beijing’s strategic alliances in the Global South in previous decades.

The economic growth of China and its integration into a Western-centric economic system, starting in 1978, progressively weakened China’s trade and political relevance in the Global South.

This process, however, is being reversed, not only because of Washington’s trade war, and the hesitance of Western countries to join Beijing’s Belt and Road initiative, but because of the US-led Western sanctions on Moscow. The Western economic war on Russia is an urgent reminder to China that it cannot fully rely on Western markets and financial systems.

China’s slow drift from a Western-centric economic system is being coupled with a whole new approach to foreign policy – ‘wolf diplomacy’ in the West, and a gentler, kinder approach in the Global South.

Even before former Foreign Minister of China, Qin Gang phoned his Palestinian and Israeli counterparts, offering mediation, China had already introduced a peace initiative known as the four-point proposal.

The proposal highlighted China’s readiness to move past its role as a trade partner into that of a political actor on the global stage.

For China, this was not only a matter of prestige, as various Muslim and Arab countries, along with Israel, are critical parties in the ambitious BRI project.

In recent months, however, China’s interest in being a peace mediator increased exponentially, especially amid the near total absence of Washington, the self-proclaimed ‘honest peace broker.’

China has also shown a willingness to mediate between rival Palestinian groups. That, too, ushers in an evolution in China’s approach to Palestinian politics. However, it will not be easy.

The Palestinian Authority’s (PA) financial well-being – and political future – is largely linked to Washington and other Western capitals. Though Palestinian officials, the like of Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki, are threatening to “turn to China” due to the PA’s “disappointment” in Washington, such a shift will not be permitted, if not by Washington, then by Tel Aviv itself.

The visit in June by PA President Mahmoud Abbas to Beijing, although touted by the PA-run media as an earth-shattering event, will not be a game changer. True, it highlights China’s growing interests in Palestine, but it is unlikely to be followed by substantive action on the part of the Palestinian leadership.

Palestinians need China, as they need other powerful players in the Global South, but it is not mediation that they desperately require. Mediations do not end military occupations or dismantle apartheid regimes. Instead, Palestinians need solidarity.

The major changes underway in the world’s geopolitical map, and the rising importance of the Global South present Palestinians with unique opportunities to break away from US-Western hegemony and to reconnect with Palestine’s true strategic depth in Asia, Africa, South America, and the rest of the world.

For this to occur, Palestinians must present their cause as one united front, not as political fragments and factions. Only then, emerging powers can view Palestine as a serious geopolitical asset in a vastly changing world.

Dr. Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle.

16 August 2023

Source: countercurrents.org

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Author’s note

“The term “environmental modification techniques” refers to any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space. (Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Geneva: 18 May 1977)

“US military scientists … are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in the Earth’s atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods.” (The late Rosalie Bertell)

***

I  initiated my research on Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) in 2001 focussing on the HAARP System of Antennas, in Gokona, Alaska.

The HAARP facility was fully operational starting in the mid-1990s with advanced capabilities.

While HAARP was closed down in 2014, ENMOD techniques have in the course of the last ten years become increasingly sophisticated as well as precise. Much of the documentation has become classified.

In the United States, Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) are the object of research by several agencies linked to the Pentagon, including DARPA, the Air Force Research Laboratory, the Office of Naval Research among others.

Of relevance to the debate on climate, geo-engineering and ENMOD, this article first published by The Ecologist, (December 7, 2007) provides an overview as well as a history. It also confirms the role of private military contractors in the development of HAARP including BAE Systems Inc and Raytheon.

Michel Chossudovsky, August 17, 2023

***

Rarely acknowledged in the debate on global climate change, the world’s weather can now be modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated electromagnetic weapons. Both the US and Russia have developed capabilities to manipulate the climate for military use.

Environmental modification techniques have been applied by the US military for more than half a century. US mathematician John von Neumann, in liaison with the US Department of Defense, started his research on weather modification in the late 1940s at the height of the Cold War and foresaw ‘forms of climatic warfare as yet unimagined’. During the Vietnam war, cloud-seeding techniques were used, starting in 1967 under Project Popeye, the objective of which was to prolong the monsoon season and block enemy supply routes along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

The US military has developed advanced capabilities that enable it selectively to alter weather patterns. The technology, which is being perfected under the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), is an appendage of the Strategic Defense Initiative – ‘Star Wars’. [HAARP facility was closed down in 2014. Since then more advanced facilities have been developed]. From a military standpoint, HAARP is a weapon of mass destruction, operating from the outer atmosphere and capable of destabilising agricultural and ecological systems around the world.

Weather-modification, according to the US Air Force document AF 2025 Final Report ‘offers the war fighter a wide range of possible options to defeat or coerce an adversary’, capabilities, it says, extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes:

‘Weather modification will become a part of domestic and international security and could be done unilaterally… It could have offensive and defensive applications and even be used for deterrence purposes. The ability to generate precipitation, fog and storms on earth or to modify space weather… and the production of artificial weather all are a part of an integrated set of [military] technologies.’ *(Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025)

In 1977, an international Convention was ratified by the UN General Assembly which banned ‘military or other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects.’ It defined ‘environmental modification techniques’ as ‘any technique for changing –through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.’

While the substance of the 1977 Convention was reasserted in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, debate on weather modification for military use has become a scientific taboo.

Military analysts are mute on the subject. Meteorologists are not investigating the matter and environmentalists are focused on greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. Neither is the possibility of climatic or environmental manipulations as part of a military and intelligence agenda, while tacitly acknowledged, part of the broader debate on climate change under UN auspices.

The HAARP Programme

Established in 1992, HAARP, based in Gokona, Alaska, is an array of high-powered antennas that transmit, through high-frequency radio waves, massive amounts of energy into the ionosphere (the upper layer of the atmosphere). Their construction was funded by the US Air Force, the US Navy and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Operated jointly by the Air Force Research Laboratory and the Office of Naval Research, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating ‘controlled local modifications of the ionosphere’. According to its official website, www.haarp.alaska.edu , HAARP will be used ‘to induce a small, localized change in ionospheric temperature so physical reactions can be studied by other instruments located either at or close to the HAARP site’.

HAARP array of antennas

But Rosalie Bertell, president of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health, says HAARP operates as:

“a gigantic heater that can cause major disruptions in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet”.

Physicist Dr Bernard Eastlund called it ‘the largest ionospheric heater ever built’.

HAARP is presented by the US Air Force as a research programme, but military documents confirm its main objective is to ‘induce ionospheric modifications’ with a view to altering weather patterns and disrupting communications and radar.

According to a report by the Russian State Duma:

‘The US plans to carry out large-scale experiments under the HAARP programme [and] create weapons capable of breaking radio communication lines and equipment installed on spaceships and rockets, provoke serious accidents in electricity networks and in oil and gas pipelines, and have a negative impact on the mental health of entire regions.’*

An analysis of statements emanating from the US Air Force points to the unthinkable:

The covert manipulation of weather patterns, communications and electric power systems as a weapon of global warfare, enabling the US to disrupt and dominate entire regions.

Weather manipulation is the pre-emptive weapon par excellence. It can be directed against enemy countries or ‘friendly nations’ without their knowledge, used to destabilise economies, ecosystems and agriculture. It can also trigger havoc in financial and commodity markets. The disruption in agriculture creates a greater dependency on food aid and imported grain staples from the US and other Western countries.

HAARP was developed as part of an Anglo-American partnership between Raytheon Corporation, which owns the HAARP patents, the US Air Force and British Aerospace Systems (BAES).

The HAARP project is one among several collaborative ventures in advanced weapons systems between the two defence giants. The HAARP project was initiated in 1992 by Advanced Power Technologies, Inc. (APTI), a subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Corporation (ARCO). APTI (including the HAARP patents) was sold by ARCO to E-Systems Inc, in 1994. E-Systems, on contract to the CIA and US Department of Defense, outfitted the ‘Doomsday Plan’, which ‘allows the President to manage a nuclear war’. Subsequently acquired by Raytheon Corporation, it is among the largest intelligence contractors in the World. BAES was involved in the development of the advanced stage of the HAARP antenna array under a 2004 contract with the Office of Naval Research.

The installation of 132 high frequency transmitters was entrusted by BAES to its US subsidiary, BAE Systems Inc. The project, according to a July report in Defense News, was undertaken by BAES’s Electronic Warfare division. In September it received DARPA’s top award for technical achievement for the design, construction and activation of the HAARP array of antennas.

The HAARP system is fully operational and in many regards dwarfs existing conventional and strategic weapons systems. While there is no firm evidence of its use for military purposes, Air Force documents suggest HAARP is an integral part of the militarisation of space. One would expect the antennas already to have been subjected to routine testing.

Under the UNFCCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has a mandate ‘to assess scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of climate change’. This mandate includes environmental warfare. ‘Geo-engineering’ is acknowledged, but the underlying military applications are neither the object of policy analysis or scientific research in the thousands of pages of IPCC reports and supporting documents, based on the expertise and input of some 2,500 scientists, policymakers and environmentalists. ‘Climatic warfare’ potentially threatens the future of humanity, but has casually been excluded from the reports for which the IPCC received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

17 August 2023

Source: globalresearch.ca

The New World Mathaba was born out of the original World Mathaba founded by the revolutionary leader and martyred Pan Africanist, Muammar Qaddafi. We are committed to the original mission of the World Mathaba as stated by Qaddafi: “to organize and coordinate resistance to imperialism and neo-colonialism, and to fight all forms of imperial economic, political, cultural and military domination, including the presence of imperial military bases in Africa”. In his name we extend our solidarity and support to the revolutionary and progressive forces in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger.

We unequivocally and vehemently condemn the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) for threatening the new leader of Niger, General Abdourahamane Tiani and the people of Niger with military intervention unless they reinstate former President Mohamed Bazoum. Bazoum is a Western stooge who ensured the imperialist’s continued plunder of Niger’s abundant natural resources and the exploitation and suffering of his people.

We salute the coup leaders and the people of Niger for their courage and determination to rid their country of Mohamed Bazoum and the neo-colonial and imperialist forces he represents. It is clear that the African so-called Heads of State threatening Niger are unashamedly running dogs of French and US imperialism. Where were the voices of these neo-colonial minions of ECOWAS when the Libyan Jamahiriya was being bombed by the US-led NATO (North Atlantic Terrorist Organization) forces?

The Libyan people and the revolutionary forces stood defiantly and courageously against an onslaught that lasted for nine months, while many cowardly African misleaders remained silent or openly betrayed the Brother-Leader Qaddafi, the Libyan people and the loyalist forces.

Revolutionary Pan Africanists must never forget the role played by the neo-colonial regime of Nigeria, now leading the charge against Niger, in supporting the forces of White supremacy and the Islamic heretics, parading as jihadists, funded and trained by the imperialists and their allies, that killed Qaddafi and destroyed the Libyan Jamahiriya.

Today, these same pseudo-Jihadists have infiltrated the Sahel-Sahara region, facilitated by French and US imperialism, to cause mayhem and instability so as to create a pretext for the US and French military presence in Africa, which presides over the continued plunder of the continent and exploitation of its people.  Niger, despite its tremendous wealth in natural resources, including uranium, remains one of the world’s poorest countries. This neo-colonial debacle, called “democracy” by the imperialists, and its devastating impact on Niger and its people has finally been brought to an end by the revolutionary armed forces of Niger, with the support of the Nigerien people.

The New World Mathaba commends the revolutionary leadership in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger in their just and honourable quest to complete the national liberation struggle for true independence and economic justice. They are continuing the revolutionary tradition of Kwame Nkrumah, Modibo Keita, Thomas Sankara, Muammar Qaddafi and countless others.

The global balance of power is finally shifting. In the multipolar world that is emerging, the old Hegemon can no longer have its way. BRICS is expanding to incorporate many more members from the Global South. As the US and Western Europe become increasingly isolated and powerless, revolutions including those in Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, as well as the new revolutions in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger will have a breathing space to exercise their God-given right to self-determination without fear of persecution, and threats of regime change and destruction. Other nations will soon join them, as the entire world finally rejects neo-colonialism and Western domination. As Qaddafi prophesied in The Green Book: “the era of the masses is rapidly advancing towards us…it excites the emotions and dazzles the eyes”.

Al Fateh (the Victory) is certain!

Gerald A. Perreira
On behalf of the International Coordinating Committee
New World Mathaba
Email: worldmathaba2022@gmail.com

August 7, 2023

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Democratic precandidate for President of the United States made the following remarks before the start of the Humanity for Peace Rally: [video: https://humanityforpeace.net/ from 2:11 to 11:01]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Hi everybody, it’s Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. here, and I want to thank all of the organizers at Humanity for Peace for putting this event together, and for giving me the opportunity to address you.

My uncle, John F. Kennedy, once told one of his two closest friends, Ben Bradlee, who was the editor of the Washington Post, when Bradlee asked him, what do you want on your gravestone, what’s your epitaph? My uncle told him, “He kept the peace.” And when Bradlee questioned him on that further and pressed him, my uncle Jack said that the primary job of the President of the United States is to keep the country out of war. And he succeeded in doing that during his three years in office. He never sent a combat soldier abroad, who died. He kept the country out of Laos, he kept us out of Cuba on two occasions; he kept us out of Berlin in 1961.

And he kept us out of Vietnam. He sent only 16,000 military advisors there, mainly Green Berets, and on Oct. 22nd, they didn’t have permission to fight, although some of them did. And in October 1962, he learned that one of his Green Berets had died, and he asked his aide to give him a combat casualty list, and the aide came back and said 75 had died so far; he said, that’s too many. And he signed National Security Order 263, ordering all 16,000 troops home, and the first 1,000 coming home beginning at the end of November. And of course, a month after that, right at the end of November, he was killed. And a week later, President Johnson remanded that order. Within a year Johnson had sent the 250,000 troops that the military wanted from the beginning.

My uncle understood one thing about war, and it’s something we need to understand today: Because today we’re closer to a nuclear exchange than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of 1962. My uncle understood that, if you want to keep the country out of war, you have to be able to put yourself into the shoes of your adversary. When he came into office, the intelligence agencies and people around him, knew almost nothing about Nikita Khrushchev. President Eisenhower had said that it wouldn’t be a soldier, a President who had started out as a soldier, who would put Americans into World War III, because soldiers knew about war. He was a soldier himself. My uncle had been a soldier, was the only President to win the Purple Heart. And Khrushchev, of course, was a soldier, and had been in the most brutal battle of World War II in Stalingrad.

But the CIA knew almost nothing about him, because there was a mole in Langley and all of the Kremlin officials who had defected to the United States, or who had tried to work as spies for the United States, were immediately detected. So the CIA knew almost nothing about Khrushchev and they assumed that everybody in the Kremlin was a monolith.

My uncle felt disabled by that lack of knowledge. And in 1961, he started out his relationship with Khrushchev on a rocky road. They met in Vienna, and he found Khrushchev was pugnacious and bombastic, and had practically dared my uncle to go to war with him. My uncle quickly understood that he, himself, was surrounded by military warhawks in the intelligence apparatus, in the military brass and the Pentagon, who saw nuclear exchange with Russia as not only unavoidable, but also desirable. When my uncle maintained a proposition to go to war on several occasions, they said that we were going to win that war, because we had more missiles than the Russians, which we do not have today; they have 1,000 more than us. But, his brass told him that there would be only 30 million American casualties and 130 million Russians and that would be victory. And my uncle left that meeting, saying, “and we call ourselves the human race.”

He knew that he had to, in 1961, in August, there was a confrontation at the Berlin Wall, where U.S. tanks were facing down Russian tanks at Checkpoint Charley, and the world was this close to nuclear war at that point. And my uncle made a back-channel cable to Khrushchev, asking him to pull out his tanks. Khrushchev sent a note back to my uncle’s cable, saying “my back is to the wall, I have no place to retreat,” and my uncle realized at that point that Khrushchev was in the same position that he was in: He was also surrounded by military warhawks who were egging for a fight with the United States. And they realized that only the two of them were going to prevent that full-on nuclear exchange. My uncle made a proposition, a promise to him, that if Khrushchev withdrew his tanks, my uncle would follow within a few hours, and they did that. And afterwards they trusted each other, and they realized that they had to communicate directly with each other.

They began a series of 26 letters that they exchanged with each other, highly personal letters that were smuggled by a Soviet GRU spy named Georgi Bolshakov, that end-run their own State Department, their diplomatic corps, the military and intelligence apparatus. So they were talking directly to each other.

They also installed hotlines in Cape Cod, where I live, and those wires are still protruding at the home, the summer lighthouse that my brother owns, and another hotline at the White House, where they could pick up the phone and talk directly to each other.

And that’s more important today than it ever was. They were in a very analogous situation, where we are putting Vladimir Putin in a place where his back is against the wall: And it’s a time more than ever that we need to be talking to each other. We have made no effort to talk to the Soviet—to the Russian leadership, for many, many months, almost a year. And there have been many efforts by the Russian leadership to engage us, and engage Ukraine in peace negotiations, and we have rebuffed those.

In April of 2022, the Russians and—we now know—the Russians and the Ukrainians initialed a peace agreement, that was based on the Minsk Accords, and the Russians were already beginning to withdraw their troops. And yet, we sent, the U.S. White House sent [then-British Prime Minister] Boris Johnson over there to torpedo that deal.

We need to be doing the opposite of that: We need to be talking directly with Vladimir Putin, and all sides and we need to settle this insanity, before we initiate another nuclear exchange that will destroy all of humanity.

I want to thank you for all the work that you’re doing, and I want to congratulate you and send you all my gratitude for making this a priority for all of humanity. Thank you very much.

Mike Billington
EIR
16839 Hill Haven Lane
Hamilton, VA 20158

Worldwide ‘Humanity for Peace’ Rallies Launch Movement To Stop the Danger of Nuclear War and Build a Durable Peace

Aug. 6, 2023 (EIRNS)—A stunning chorus of voices from around the world sang out on Sunday Aug. 6, the 78th anniversary of the barbaric bombing of Hiroshima, from dozens of parallel “Humanity for Peace” rallies across Europe, Ibero-America and the United States, led by a flagship rally in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza in front of the United Nations in New York City, demanding peace and a new international security architecture that protects the interests of all nations, large and small.

At the UN rally, a solid crowd of about 250 at any one time—with an additional equal number passing through over the course of the two-and-half-hour event—heard from some 20 speakers from numerous countries and of varied political affiliations, all committed to the common cause of the one Humanity, of stopping the imminent danger of thermonuclear and building a growing movement to forge a durable and just peace. The rally was co-moderated by Anastasia Battle of the Schiller Institute, and Irene Mavrakakis of Liberty Speaks.

Reflecting the political diversity of the coalition, the Humanity for Peace rally heard messages of support from three Presidential candidates—Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (Democrat), Aaron Day (Republican), and Mike ter Maat (Libertarian)—as well as from LaRouche independent candidate for U.S. Senate from New York, Diane Sare; the former President of Guyana, Donald Ramotar; Haitian presidential candidate Jude Elie; and a number of prominent anti-war activists including Scott Ritter and the LaRouche movement’s Jose Vega. All of the speakers, each in their own way, conveyed the spirit that “peace is more powerful than war,” as Rev. Dr. Terri Strong stated in her remarks. Vega closed out the rally by announcing upcoming further Humanity for Peace events in September and beyond, stating: “This does not end here!”

The central message to the event came from Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, whom various speakers thanked as the initiator and driving force of the Humanity for Peace process. Zepp-LaRouche’s message to the rally was as follows:

“To all the courageous people demonstrating today for peace!

“We have to wake people up all over the world. Never before was mankind in a bigger danger of annihilating itself in a global nuclear war. Of the more than 12,000 existing nuclear weapons today, each of which are up to a thousand times more destructive than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 3,800 are immediately deployable and nearly 2,000 are on ‘launch on warning’ status.

“If it comes to nuclear war, as there are politicians today who are recklessly considering the use of these weapons, not even a historian will be left to investigate how it could have come to this incomprehensible catastrophe. If it happens, the people who die in the first minutes will be the comparably lucky ones, for in the following days, month and years, all life on this planet will become extinct, both through total radiation and a nuclear winter of many years. Everything for which thousands of generations have struggled, all sorrows and joy, all poems and songs, will vanish forever.

“We demand the immediate controlled destruction of all nuclear weapons. But even more profoundly, we demand the realization of a new global security and development architecture, which takes into account the security interests of all nations of the world, big ones and small ones. This architecture must overcome the formation of geopolitical blocs once and for all, and put the interest of the one humanity first. The precondition for this is a new just world economic order, which allows every nation and every human being to fully develop all of their innate potentials.

“Let us unite the peace movements all over the world with the nations of the Global South, for the realization of a new paradigm in the history of the human species!

“The new name for peace is development!”

Mike Billington
EIR
16839 Hill Haven Lane
Hamilton, VA 20158

By Mike Whitney

The Biden Administration is implementing a plan to draw Taiwan into a direct military confrontation with the People’s Republic of China. The plan bears many similarities to the strategy that was used in Ukraine where Russia was goaded into invading the country in response to emerging threats to its national security. In this case, Beijing is expected to react to mounting challenges to its territorial integrity by US proxies and their political allies operating in Taiwan. These incitements will inevitably lead to greater material support from the United States which has stealthily worked behind the scenes (and in the media) to create a crisis. The ultimate objective of these machinations, is to arm, train and provide logistical support for Taiwanese separatists who will spearhead Washington’s proxy war on China. According to a number of independent reports, there is already growing operational collaboration between the Taiwanese Army and US Armed Forces. That collaboration will undoubtedly deepen after hostilities break out and the island is plunged into war.

The plan to confront China militarily was outlined in the 2022 National Security Strategy in which the PRC was identified as “America’s most consequential geopolitical challenge” who expressed its “intent to reshape the international order.” This NSS analysis was followed by an explicit commitment to prevail in the struggle to control the “Indo-Pacific” region which “fuels much of the world’s economic growth and will be the epicenter of 21st century geopolitics.”...(“No region will be of more significance to …everyday Americans than the Indo-Pacific.”) Biden’s NSS emphasizes the critical role the military will play in the impending confrontation with China: “We will…modernize and strengthen our military so it is equipped for the era of strategic competition with major powers”… “America will not hesitate to use force to defend our national interests”.

Drawing China into a Taiwan quagmire is the first phase of a broader containment strategy aimed at preserving America’s top spot in the global order while preventing China from becoming the region’s dominant economy. The plan also includes economic, cyber and informational elements that are designed to work in concert with the military component. In its entirety, the strategy represents Washington’s best effort to roll-back the clock to the heyday of the unipolar world order when America set the global agenda and the United States had no rival.

Trouble in Taiwan

Taiwan is not a country. Taiwan is an island off the coast of China much like Santa Catalina is an island off the coast of California. No one disputes that Santa Catalina is part of the United States, just as no one disputes that Taiwan is a part of China. The issue was settled long ago, and the US agrees with the results of that settlement. For all practical purposes, the issue has been resolved.

The United Nations does not recognize Taiwan’s independence nor do the 181 countries that have established diplomatic relations with China. In fact, the UN adopted a General Assembly Resolution back in 1971 acknowledging the “People’s Republic of China as the sole legal government representing the whole of China.”

The One-China policy explicitly relates to the status of Taiwan. Taiwan is part of China, that’s what the One-China policy means. Nations that want to have relations with China must agree on the status of Taiwan; it is the foundational principle upon which all relations with China are based. The issue is not debatable. One can either accept that ‘Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory’ or take their business elsewhere. There is no third option.

The United States claims that it is committed to the One-China policy. In their recent visits to Beijing, all three senior-level officials from the Biden Administration (Anthony Blinken, Janet Yellen and John Kerry) publicly stated their unwavering support for the One-China policy. This is an excerpt from an article at Forbes:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken reiterated the U.S.’ position on its One China policy as he met with China’s leader Xi Jinping Monday, saying it does not support Taiwanese independence and that containing China’s economy was not an American goal….

Blinken said the U.S. held a “One China” policy and does not support Taiwanese independence, but is concerned about China’s “provocative actions” along the Taiwan Strait. Blinken Tells Xi Jinping U.S. Does Not Support Taiwanese Independence, After Meeting To Quell Tensions, Forbes

President Joe Biden has also stated his support for the One-China principle on many, many occasions, which is what you would expect since it is the official position of the United States government. Here’s a short recap on the issue from China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

The US made the following commitments to China regarding the one-China principle in the three China-US joint communiqués.

In the Shanghai Communiqué released in 1972, the US explicitly stated that “The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position”.

In the Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations released in 1978, the US clearly stated that, “The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China”.

In the August 17 Communiqué released in 1982, the US unequivocally stated that “In the Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations on January 1, 1979, issued by the Government of the People’s Republic of China and the Government of the United States of America, the United States of America recognized the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China, and it acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China”, and that “it has no intention of infringing on Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity, or interfering in China’s internal affairs, or pursuing a policy of ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China, one Taiwan’”. (China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

The western media would like their readers to think there is some “gray area” here and that the issue regarding China’s sovereign territory has not been settled. But—as we have shown—it has been settled. Taiwan is China. We must assume therefore that the media is being intentionally misleading in order to garner support for an “independence” movement that serves only one purpose; to legitimize the arming and training of US assets and insurgents that will be used in a bloody conflagration with China. In truth, the United States is laying the groundwork for a proxy-war on China, and Taiwan has been designated as the frontlines in that war. The independence movement is merely the cover Washington has chosen to conceal its real objectives.

This is why Taiwan has become a flashpoint in US-China relations. This is why numerous US-led delegations have visited Taiwan expressing their tacit support for Taiwan independence. This is why Congress has allocated millions of dollars to provide lethal weaponry for the Taiwanese military. This is why the US Navy has sent warships through the Taiwan Strait and conducted massive military drills on China’s perimeter. This is why Washington continues to provoke Beijing on the one issue that it is most sensitive. All of these incitements were conjured-up with one goal in mind: War with China. This is from Politico:

The Biden administration announced a $345 million weapons package for Taiwan on Friday, the first tranche in a total of $1 billion the U.S. has allotted to be transferred directly from Pentagon stockpiles to the island this year.

The move is sure to anger China as Washington has been trying to rebuild relations with Beijing. Senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, recently visited China, but the outreach has done little to quell tensions over a range of issues, from U.S. support to Taiwan to Beijing’s spy balloon program.

“We take our responsibilities to Taiwan and to improving their self-defense capabilities very, very seriously,” John Kirby, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, told reporters ahead of the announcement on Friday. “U.S. announces $345M weapons package for Taiwan, Politico

Repeat: “The move is sure to anger China.”

Indeed, the move was designed to anger China. That was clearly the point. But, why? Why is Washington challenging China on an issue on which there is virtually universal agreement?

Two reasons come to mind:

1. To goad China into overreacting and thus alienating itself from its allies and regional trading partners.
2. To turn public opinion against China by portraying the country as a violent aggressor that poses a clear threat to its neighbors.

Here’s more from the World Socialist Web Site:

The US announced last Friday that it will provide Taiwan with $345 million in weapons as the first tranche of an annual $1 billion in military equipment. The announcement marks another step to arm Taiwan to the teeth as Washington escalates its provocative confrontation with China….

the Biden administration has used the same provision to supply Ukraine with billions of dollars in US military equipment to intensify the war against Russia. Just as it goaded Russia into a conflict in Ukraine, the US is deliberately provoking a conflict with China over Taiwan.

… a Chinese embassy spokesman in Washington, Liu Pengyu, stated: “China is firmly opposed to US’s military ties with and arms sales to Taiwan.” He warned the US to “stop selling arms to Taiwan, stop creating new factors that could lead to tensions in the Taiwan Strait and stop posing risks to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.”

The US is intentionally undermining the One China policy, which de facto acknowledges Beijing as the legitimate government of all China, including Taiwan, and formed the basis of US-Chinese diplomatic relations established in 1979. Washington knows full well that China has long warned that it would respond with force to any declaration of independence by Taipei.
Preparing for war with China, US provides $345 million in arms to Taiwan, World Socialist Web Site

Imagine if China sent millions of dollars of lethal weapons to a budding secessionist movement in Texas. Imagine if they offered to arm and train Texan separatists in counterinsurgency warfare so they could kill as many American soldiers as possible. Imagine if China sent one political delegation after the other to Austin (Texas) to embolden the rebels and to offer them moral and material support. Imagine if China deployed part of their fleet and airforce to ports and bases near Texas so they could join in the fray when blows were exchanged and the fighting broke out.

How would Washington react to those developments? Would they be as restrained as the Chinese leadership has been in dealing with the relentless US meddling and provocations?

And, ask yourself this: Haven’t we seen this drill before? Didn’t this same scenario unfold in Ukraine following the CIA-backed coup in 2014 after which the US armed and trained Ukrainian forces to dig-in and provoke hostilities with Russia? Didn’t Washington deliberately choose an issue on which Russia was particularly sensitive in order to ‘get a rise’ out of Moscow?

Of course, they did. In his 22 years in office, President Putin has never started a war. In contrast, in America’s 247-year history, there have been only 16 years when the US was not at war. It is an astonishing record of violence that has no equal. As former President Jimmy Carter said, “The United States is the most warlike country on earth.”

People who have been following developments closely in US-China news, know that Team Biden has been playing a game of “good cop, bad cop” in which US diplomats have been making every effort to ingratiate themselves with the Chinese leadership (to assuage the allies) while—at the same time—pumping Taiwan full of weapons hoping to incite Beijing. The objective of this charade is to preserve so-called “strategic ambiguity” on the one hand while ratchetting up the savagery on the other. Regrettably, the tactic seems to be working. Chinese leaders are getting progressively more irritated which leads us to believe that, eventually, Uncle Sam will get the war he is looking for. At least, that is how things played-out in Ukraine. Here’s more from the WSWS:

Last week the Taiwanese military carried out its annual, multi-day war games known as the Han Kuang exercises, focused on repelling a Chinese invasion of the island. This year’s drills dealt more heavily than previously on threats to major infrastructure and transportation hubs, including the island’s main Taoyuan international airport….

Speaking to the media, Taiwan’s premier Chen Chien-jen justified the exercises, declaring: “Today’s drills in Tainan, include the simulation of wartime scenarios, is not only because of the increased international sensitivity triggered by Russia’s war in Ukraine. It’s even more a reflection of the constant threats and provocations from China directed at our country.”

The reality is that the US, not China, has upended the status quo in North East Asia, setting the stage for a conflict in the Indo-Pacific between nuclear-armed powers, even as it intensifies the war with Russia in Ukraine. Just as it has sacrificed countless Ukrainian soldiers and civilians, so it is prepared to do the same in Taiwan and is marshalling its regional allies including Japan, South Korea and Australia, for war. World Socialist Web Site

All of these developments suggest that US plans for a kinetic conflict with China are in a very advanced stage and that the Taiwan powder-keg could be ignited at any time.

A number of recent polls indicate that the American people—who remain completely ignorant of the events we have discussed here—have been conditioned to regard China as an unscrupulous competitor and a growing threat to national security. According to a recent survey from Gallup, US public opinion of China has fallen off a cliff. Here’s an excerpt from the report:

A record-low 15% of Americans view China favorably,…… More than eight in 10 U.S. adults have a negative opinion of China, including 45% who view it very unfavorably and 39% mostly unfavorably….

In addition to holding a largely unfavorable opinion of China, more Americans name China as the United States’ greatest enemy than any other nation by a wide margin. This view is closely linked to two other measures in the poll, which find that Americans broadly believe China’s military and economic powers represent a “critical threat” to the United States’ vital interests in the next decade. “Record-Low 15% of Americans View China Favorably, Gallup

Additionally, the PEW Research Center produced the same grim results:

Naturally, a great deal of the animus towards China is the result of the media’s relentless propaganda which is aimed at demonizing America’s most formidable economic rival. Consider, for example, how the American people were whipped into a frenzy over a Chinese balloon that drifted off-course and traversed parts of the US posing no threat to anyone. The media transformed this inconsequential incident into a lurid tale of international espionage as the errant civilian airship was dubbed the “Chinese spy balloon” whose nefarious purpose was to “gather intelligence from several sensitive American military sites”. Now we can see how trivial incidents like this are being used to smear Washington’s enemies and prepare the people for war.

Is War with China Inevitable?

Foreign policy mandarins on both sides of the aisle have repeatedly pushed for America’s deeper involvement in Central Asia. Grandmaster Zbigniew Brzezinski first made the case in his classic The Grand Chessboard where he said:

“..how America ‘manages’ Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa’s subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania (Australia) geopolitically peripheral to the world’s central continent. About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.” Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard,Wikiquote

His views have been universally supported among the Washington pundit class and their chief proponents like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who said:

“It is becoming increasingly clear that, in the 21st century, the world’s strategic and economic center of gravity will be the Asia-Pacific, from the Indian subcontinent to western shores of the Americas.”…

“Harnessing Asia’s growth and dynamism is central to American economic and strategic interests…. Open markets in Asia provide the United States with unprecedented opportunities for investment, trade, and access to cutting-edge technology…..American firms (need) to tap into the vast and growing consumer base of Asia.” “America’s Pacific Century”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton”, Foreign Policy Magazine

And here’s one more from former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s speech at the McCain Institute at Arizona State University:

(The) ” Asia-Pacific…is the defining region for our nation’s future”… “Half of humanity will live there by 2050″ and that “more than half of the global middle class and its accompanying consumption will come from that region.”….”There are already more than 525 million middle class consumers in Asia, and we expect there to be 3.2 billion in the region by 2030…President Obama and I want to ensure that… businesses can successfully compete for all these potential customers. ….Over the next century, no region will matter more… for American prosperity.” Former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, Department of Defense

The above quotes help to underscore the importance the US places on it’s strategy for the region. China is not only the gateway to Central Asia, it is also the main obstacle to the US plans to establish itself as the regional hegemon. That is why there must be a strategy for dealing with China, a strategy that isolates, sanctions, contains and eventually subjugates America’s biggest rival. Not surprisingly, Biden’s 2022 National Security Strategy articulates that plan in clear, unambiguous terms that leaves no doubt that the country is headed for war. Here are a few excerpts from the 48-page document:

The post-Cold War era is definitively over and a competition is underway between the major powers to shape what comes next… We will build the strongest and broadest possible coalition of nations that seek to cooperate with each other, while competing with those powers that offer a darker vision and thwarting their efforts to threaten our interests… We will…modernize and strengthen our military so it is equipped for the era of strategic competition with major powers,..

The Indo-Pacific fuels much of the world’s economic growth and will be the epicenter of 21st century geopolitics. ………..No region will be of more significance to the world and to everyday Americans than the Indo-Pacific… We reaffirm our iron-clad commitments to our Indo-Pacific treaty allies… America will not hesitate to use force when necessary to defend our national interests… The military will act urgently to sustain and strengthen deterrence, with the PRC as its pacing challenge….

The PRC is the only competitor with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it…. The American military is the strongest fighting force the world has ever known……America will not hesitate to use force when necessary to defend our national interests….

Around the world, the need for American leadership is as great as it has ever been. … …. We will partner with any nation that shares our basic belief that the rules-based order must remain the foundation for global peace and prosperity.. There is nothing beyond our capacity. We can do this—for our future and for the world. National Security Strategy, White House

Let’s summarize:

1. The Indo-Pacific is now America’s top foreign policy priority because that is the area that will experience the most growth
2. The US will lead with its military and with the allies who share US interests
3. “We will…modernize and strengthen our military” to prevail in our “strategic competition with major powers.”
4. America’s Number 1 enemy is China; “the PRC presents America’s most consequential geopolitical challenge ….The PRC is the only competitor with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it…”
5. “The post-Cold War era is over” but the United States is prepared to preserve the “rules-based order” whatever the cost in blood and treasure.

This is America’s foreign policy in a nutshell. US leaders and their globalist allies are fully committed to prevailing in today’s great power struggle with Russia and China. They have a clear grasp of the objectives they want to achieve and they are prepared to risk anything, including nuclear war, to achieve them. Any developments in Taiwan must be seen through the lens of Washington’s geopolitical ambitions which are clearly driving events.

*

Michael Whitney is a renowned geopolitical and social analyst based in Washington State.

4 August 2023

Source: globalresearch.ca

By Jan Oberg, Ph.D.

A major peace publishing event across cultures. The cover story of the influential China Investment Magazine’s July 2023 edition.

Can you imagine a leading economics, finance and investment magazine in the Western world publishing a 30 A4-page (10 000 words) article about the future peace and security world order – a think-piece consisting merely of concepts, theories, visions and philosophical aspects of the theme?

I can’t. They would not see it as meaningful to include perspectives on peace, nonviolence, security and related matters. But they’d probably gladly publish articles about military corporations, profits and the like.

But in China, they see the value of such holistic thinking between interrelated dimensions of society – and of the world – as it really is. Economics is not only about economic things; it takes place in a framework that influences it – past, present and future.

In contrast, the main problem in Western economic thinking is that it’s mostly about market aspects, corporate/private actors and maximizing utilities and profits as if economics could be isolated from society and culture. Furthermore, in the academic field called ‘national economics,’ Western economy students spend years learning about something that has not existed for decades in the real world.

I’m honored to have been asked by China Investment to write about the theme indicated in the headline. And I am grateful for the opportunity to express my thinking based on four decades of scholarly work, quite some thinking and on-the-ground experiences. See the original edition here.

Before you read my future-oriented analysis, let me quote this from its homepage so you get an impression of the status of this magazine:

“China Investment, founded in 1985, is a monthly under the supervision of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), China’s macro-economic management agency, It’s jointly operated by Investment Research Institute under NDRC, China International Engineering Consulting Corporation. Enjoying an exclusive position under the central government, China Investment is the core journal which started the earliest among similar magazines to focus on the investment trend. Over the past 30-plus years, China Investment has been in line with the global market as its fundamental coordinate with a strategic focus on specific countries and regional markets and those major international propensities. China Investment is a key dialogue platform for officials from different countries, investment agencies, experts and scholars, business people and journalists.”

And now, my article below. It has been changed and re-edited in a few places and I have added some thoughts on non-military defense.

On August 1, 2023, the very important Global Times published my summary, requested by them, of the longer analysis below.

*********************

30 Jul 2023 – The world’s taxpayers give US$ 2,240 billion annually to their national military defenses. That is the highest ever, more than 600 times the regular budget of the United Nations, and three times the total trade between China and the US. Such are the perverse priorities of our governments; the five largest spenders are the US 39% of the total, China 13%, Russia 3,9%, India 3,6% and Saudi Arabia 3,1%.

Worldwide, governments maintain that they need that much to secure their people’s survival, national defense, security and stability – and that global peace will come.

With the exception of the elites of the Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complexes (MIMAC), we all know this is a huge fallacy. Today’s world is at a higher risk of war–including nuclear–, more unstable and militaristic than at any time since 1945.

At the end of the West’s Cold War a good 30 years ago, peace became a manifest possibility, NATO could have been dismantled since its raison d’être, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, fell apart. A new transatlantic common security and peace system could have replaced NATO.

Tragically, ’defensive’ NATO did everything not only to cheat Russia with its promise to not expand ‘one inch,’ but also to expand up to the border of Russia, “not one inch off limit for the alliance,” to quote Marie Sarotte’s brilliant 550-page book, Not One Inch.

The NATO world now postulates that both Russia and China are threats to be met with even higher, de facto limitless, military expenditures.

But wait! How would you think and act if you witnessed a team of doctors do one surgery after the other on a patient who, for each, came closer to death?

You’d probably say that they are quack doctors. Their diagnosis and treatment lead to a devastating prognosis. Instead of health, they produce more of the problem they claim to solve!

Given that the highest investment on peace and security in history has caused the highest risk to humanity’s survival, why don’t we have a vibrant global debate? What is fundamentally wrong with the entire paradigm of security through arms? Where are the critical analyses of the world’s most enigmatic and dangerous logical short circuit?

The dominant security paradigm builds on factors like these:

• deterrence – we shall harm them if they do something we won’t accept or don’t do as we say;
• offensiveness – our defense is directed at them even thousands of kilometers away, not on our own territory;
• military means are all-dominant;
• civil means – like minimizing society’s vulnerability; civil defense, nonviolent people’s defense, cooperation refusal, boycott – are hardly discussed;
• our intentions are noble and peaceful, but theirs are not;
• our defense is not a threat to them, but they threaten us with theirs;
• ignoring the underlying conflicts that cause violence and war, the keys to conflict-resolution, and prepare instead for war to achieve peace.

This is, by and large, how everybody ’thinks’ and then they blame others for the fact that this type of thinking can not produce disarmament or peace.

Even worse, when that peace doesn’t come, everybody concludes that they need more and better weapons. In reality, this system is the perpetual mobile of the world’s tragic militarism and squandering of resources desperately needed to solve humanity’s problems.

There must be better ways to think. But there is far too little research and debate and the MIMAC elites thrive on war. Thus, decision-makers lack political will.

What would be the criteria for good peace and security?

Conflicts are to be addressed and solved intelligently by mediation, international law, and creative visions that address the parties’ fears and wishes. Violent means should be absolutely the last resort as is stated by the UN. Peace is about reducing all kinds of violence (there are many kinds) and creating security for all at the lowest military level, like the doctor who shall never incur more pain than necessary to heal a patient.

Here some alternative ideas and thinking to promote discussion:
instead of deterrence, seek cooperation and common security; the latter means that we feel secure when they do;

• go for being invincible in defense but unable to attack anybody else; have weapons with limited destruction capacity and range;
• make control/occupation impossible by our country’s non-cooperation with any occupier;
• balance defensive military and civilian means;
• prevent violence but not conflicts;
• never do tit-for-tat escalation; do something creative to de-escalate;
• show that your intentions are non-threatening and take small steps to invite Graduated Reduction in Tension (GRIT) without risking your own security;
• handle conflicts early; build peace first and then secure it;
• address underlying conflicts, traumas, fears and interests;
• educate and use professionals in civilian conflict-resolution and mediation, not only military expertise;
• develop and nurture a peace culture through education at all levels, ministries for peace, emphasis on conflict transformation instead of confrontation and rearmament;
• replace outdated neighborhood ethics with a global ethics of care.
  The possibilities are limitless. Conflict and peace illiteracy have brought us to where we are today. It is not whether human beings are evil, good, or both. It is a systemic paradigmatic malfunctioning that must change in name of civilization.

We can learn to peace.

Masters of war are hated worldwide. Countries that take concrete leadership in developing new principles and policies for true global peace and human security will save humanity and will be loved forever.

Let a thousand peace ideas bloom!

Prof. Jan Oberg, Ph.D. is director of the independent Transnational Foundation for Peace & Future Research-TFF in Sweden and a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment.

7 August 2023

Source: transcend.org