The Empire (Continues) to Strike Back: United States Strategic Approach to The People’s Republic of China

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Prefatory note: The Exceptional Nation continues to make it official: it just "won't accept, it won't tolerate" the rise of an independent multilateralist China. [or Russia, for that matter). Written in the usual self-important corporado-diplomatic language used in such high-falutin documents, Washington's latest declaration is as menacing as it is risible. It is also a typical product of the unrealistic hodge-podge that passes for clear and righteous reasoning in a Neocon-infested foreign policy establishment long marinated in oceans of hubris. The result is a stunningly hypocritical pronouncement couched in all the usual exceptionalist claptrap about the sacrosanct "American way of life" (savage capitalism)  and "US vital interests" (the interests of the oligarchic 0.0001%) and the American nation's God-given, immutable place of paramount power  in the world.  —P. Greanville

You can read the document here, or, if that fails because the US mandarins have suddenly disappeared it, here.  Comments by lucid minds are attached. 

Exceptional State reasoning: 
China does not show expected signs of wanting to be just like us.
Conclusion: We need to modernise our nuclear weapons.
Logical, no? —Diana Johnstone

This American official anti-China stance is not recent and not a Trump anomaly. It is a product of the MIC which does no business with China, in fact competes against China in the arms market (as it does with Russia), and depends on enemies to make its living. Given the MIC's mesmerizing hold over America since the [end of ] WW2, their policy is therefore supported by everyone in the American swamp. If CCP is sharp and I believe they are because it didn't take penetrating analysis for me to notice it, they should have been preparing for this day since Xi took office, probably earlier. I believe that Xi's tenure has been extended indefinitely and his exercise of raw power to clean house at the highest level of government, are the clues of CCP's reactions to US anti-China intentions.

In fact, selecting Xi could be the reaction of the CCP preparing for the day it cannot pretend to be small any more. Make no mistake, cleaning house for CCP is a difficult and thankless task, at times dangerous. Others such as Zhu Rongji and Hu jintao have tried before but with limited success. Cleaning house takes away a lot of people's cheese and upsets a lot of powerful people's apple-carts. China is a big place with a lot of people. There are millions of soldiers, military police, and civil police. The CCP is a big party running a big country in a complicated world. The house cleaning must be done delicately and with finesse, so that the CCP does not harm itself in the process. Certainly there has been a lot of corruption (what do you expect from humans?), but the most dangerous are the CCP officials who have been corrupted and manipulated by their Western friends. China must be defended in the coming battle by a clean CCP house. Xi was selected as the best person to do the job and he was given the power to do the job. It takes a brave man to do what Xi has done. Xi was not the head of any clique nor was he involved in any plot to seize power. He was just well supported by the elders at the top rungs of the CCP power structure. At this point, China under Xi is well positioned to face down the US under Trump, or under any other imbecile the American people decide to elect as their next leader. We'll see. — Peter Man

I appreciate that there have been modifications in the language and the organisational structure of those who form the executive action branch of the regime. However it seems to me that the adoption of factional designations like neo-con or neo-liberal confuses more than it clarifies. The reason is simple: these terms direct us to see some original or elemental system of rule that was implicitly better-if not benevolent- compared with the post-1945 regime. However there is no such earlier pristine America, whether Jeffersonian, Jacksonian, Lincolnian, Wilsonian or Rooseveltian. The USA was the prototype of Rhodesia except that Rhodesia was far too late.
 
George Washington was the Georg Soros of his day.
 
Of course this w**** house paper cannot be more decent than the cesspool in which it germinated.
 
There are still people who praise Hitler for his employment policies and the motorway and think Mussolini improved rail service in Italy.
 
But if you were to try to defend either on these points alone, many would deem you insane or fascist.
 
Yet there are still millions who believe that slavery and annihilation of the indigenous in North America were accidental and trivial elements of US history and the formation of the ruling elite.
 
Take a lampshade made from a dead Sioux and it is always better than one made from a dead Jew.

p.s. of course no one says what was done with dead communists because there is no money at all to be made there.
 
Larry Romanoff, who introduced me to Bacque's Other Losses insisted that many of the alleged KZ photos were not from Poland but from the US camps in the West. I cannot confirm or deny this assertion.
 
However it raised a thought which I reiterate here.
 
Germany under US occupation was restored to economic prosperity by four main factors:
a) more than 60% of industry was actually untouched by allied bombing (since people like McCloy protected US industrial assets in Germany from bombing.
b) the US secretly removed most of the valuable industrial plant from Saxony before the Red Army arrived.
c) the US made countries like Greece waive reparations
d) when the US attacked Korea German heavy industry was swamped with orders.
 
The only country that was entitled to reparations was Rothschild's Palestinian/ Zionist colony. 
 
It would seem that these reparations were calculated on the basis of how many Jews had been killed. Zionists defined all Jews as de jure citizens. Hence ex post facto the Zionist state could claim per capita reparations for the murder of its fictive citizens.
 
Hence there was every reason to present the mass murder by the NSDAP- not only anti-semitic but anti-Slav, anti-communist -and general as a terror system- as primarily a mega-pogrom. The more Jews the more reparations. The exclusivity which was introduced into the story once the little Rothschild offshore began territorial expansion (wars against Egypt etc) justified more transfers from and through Germany to Israel.
 
We know that the Red Army -not the West- liberated all the camps in the East. The photo material initially used (but actually suppressed shortly after the war) was from the Russians. So it occurred to me- intuitively but without any more specific evidence- that Romanoff's suggestion that many of the photos used in the West to focus on German camp atrocities were not photos of camps in the East but camps in the West!
The obvious function of such manipulation would be to promote the policy of the US - subordinating Germany (its citizens not its ruling elite) and creating the overall narrative for selling what Norman Finkelstein would later call the "holocaust industry".
 
Ancillary to this hypothesis is simply the argument that there is no real inconsistency between the US regime's handling of mass murder at home and abroad: these are business transactions.

Com os meus melhores cumprimentos.

—Dr. T. P. Wilkinson

United States Strategic Approach to The People’s Republic of China

Introduction

Since the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) established diplomatic relations in 1979, United States policy toward the PRC was largely premised on a hope that deepening engagement would spur fundamental economic and political opening in the PRC and lead to its emergence as a constructive and responsible global stakeholder, with a more open society. More than 40 years later, it has become evident that this approach underestimated the will of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to constrain the scope of economic and political reform in China. Over the past two decades, reforms have slowed, stalled, or reversed. The PRC’s rapid economic development and increased engagement with the world did not lead to convergence with the citizen-centric, free and open order as the United States had hoped. The CCP has chosen instead to exploit the free and open rules based order and attempt to reshape the international system in its favor. Beijing openly acknowledges that it seeks to transform the international order to align with CCP interests and ideology. The CCP’s expanding use of economic, political, and military power to compel acquiescence from nation states harms vital American interests and undermines the sovereignty and dignity of countries and individuals around the world.

To respond to Beijing’s challenge, the Administration has adopted a competitive approach to the PRC, based on a clear-eyed assessment of the CCP’s intentions and actions, a reappraisal of the United States’ many strategic advantages and shortfalls, and a tolerance of greater bilateral friction. Our approach is not premised on determining a particular end state for China. Rather, our goal is to protect United States vital national interests, as articulated in the four pillars of the 2017 National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSS). We aim to: (1) protect the American people, homeland, and way of life; (2) promote American prosperity; (3) preserve peace through strength; and (4) advance American influence.

Our competitive approach to the PRC has two objectives: first, to improve the resiliency of our institutions, alliances, and partnerships to prevail against the challenges the PRC presents; and second, to compel Beijing to cease or reduce actions harmful to the United States’ vital, national interests and those of our allies and partners. Even as we compete with the PRC, we welcome cooperation where our interests align. Competition need not lead to confrontation or conflict. The United States has a deep and abiding respect for the Chinese people and enjoys longstanding ties to the country. We do not seek to contain China’s development, nor do we wish to disengage from the Chinese people. The United States expects to engage in fair competition with the PRC, whereby both of our nations, businesses, and individuals can enjoy security and prosperity.

Prevailing in strategic competition with the PRC requires cooperative engagement with multiple stakeholders, and the Administration is committed to building partnerships to United States Strategic Approach to The People’s Republic of China 2 protect our shared interests and values. Vital partners of this Administration include the Congress, state and local governments, the private sector, civil society, and academia. The Congress has been speaking out through hearings, statements, and reports that shed light on the CCP’s malign behavior. The Congress also provides legal authorities and resources for the United States Government to take the actions to achieve our strategic objectives. The Administration also recognizes the steps allies and partners have taken to develop more clear-eyed and robust approaches toward the PRC, including the European Union’s publication in March 2019 of EU-China: A Strategic Outlook, among others. The United States is also building cooperative partnerships and developing positive alternatives with foreign allies, partners, and international organizations to support the shared principles of a free and open order. Specific to the Indo-Pacific region, many of these initiatives are described in documents such as the Department of Defense June 2019 IndoPacific Strategy Report and the Department of State November 2019 report on A Free and Open Indo-Pacific: Advancing a Shared Vision. The United States is working in concert with mutually aligned visions and approaches such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nation’s Outlook on the Indo-Pacific, Japan’s free and open Indo-Pacific vision, India’s Security and Growth for All in the Region policy, Australia’s Indo-Pacific concept, the Republic of Korea’s New Southern Policy, and Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy.
Yada, yada, yada.
READ ON

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Do people get the government they deserve? 

• remember: ALL CAPTIONS, IMAGES, PULL QUOTES AND ANNOTATIONS BY THE EDITORS, NOT THE AUTHOR—

[premium_newsticker id="211406"]

Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读

[google-translator]

OR you can simply scan our QR code—


 

 

 

Creative Commons License
THIS WORK IS LICENSED UNDER A Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

OF INTEREST TO OUR READERS

Acclaimed by critics, Ron Ridenour’s incisive history of the struggle between the US and Russia, extending from the Bolshevik revolution to our day, plus a wide-ranging and comprehensive analysis of many cultural America features which continue to  bolster the US drive for world domination, is now available in print at a discount price. It’s 564 pages packed with information, many critical but practically unknown facts, and an uncompromising revolutionary perspective on the colossal challenges confronting this generation. (Click here or on the image below to order.)