China has never lacked traitors. 中國從來不缺乏漢奸老狗. 你们觉得有米国华人如此针对一个十八岁的华裔少女合理吗？还真的是难以相信。一些华人网友认为假设谷爱凌被斯坦佛拒收是活该。原因是，他们不高兴她决定代表中国出战北京冬奥运会。美国的华人是怎样的定义？我觉得早期的华人后裔只可称为华裔，大部分都是思想已归化的”美国人”。其中一部分已经不承认华人血统，更有的比如Andrew Yang 公开表明羞为华人。近期华人移民从台湾，香港，越南……等地到美国的大部分是仇中的。还有包括从中国去的为了美国绿卡甘愿叁军。你说这么复杂一群是似而非的”群体”能代表什么？总之，人各有志，数典忘祖，卖族求荣，就当是他家的事吧！
China has never lacked traitors. Do you think it is reasonable for American Chinese to target an 18-year-old Chinese girl? It’s really hard to believe. Some Chinese netizens think that it is right to assume that Gu Ailing is rejected by Stanford. The reason is that they were unhappy with her decision to represent China at the Beijing Winter Olympics. What is the definition of Chinese in America? I think the early Chinese descendants can only be called Chinese, and most of them are “Americans” who have been naturalized. Some of them no longer recognize Chinese ancestry, and others, such as Andrew Yang, have publicly stated that they are ashamed of being Chinese. Most of the recent Chinese immigrants from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Vietnam, etc. to the United States are feuding. There are also those who went from China willing to join the army for the US green card. What do you mean by such a complex group of paradoxical “groups”? In short, everyone has their own aspirations, forgetting their ancestors, selling their family for glory, and it should be his family’s business!
@Michael Loh I am not sure Eileen Gu herself wanted to represent China or through the influence of her mother wanting her to represent China, or both. In US it is not unusual for US Caucasian Citizens to present countries like Israel or other European nations. It is also not unusual for the European stocks Americans carry 2-3 passports + US passports. It has never a big deal until when it comes to Chinese.
One of the Chinese Chinese-haters arguments is China allowed no dual-Citizenship. Therefore Eileen Gu must has given up her US Passports! No party has come out confirming anything.
There is a big difference between US and China legal systems. In US is 法理情. In China is 情理法. I think every country can make exceptions to the law.
The Chinese Chinese-haters also don’t like people born in HK and Macau could have as many passports as they wanted. And they have the rights to travel freely to China with the unique 回鄉証.
Loving your motherland just like loving your parents, you can find a 1000 reason to love or hate. I have seen so many kids despite their parents took care of them hated their parents. And some of them have rich parents wishing their parents to die early so they can get their inheritance ASAP.
Modification is not dismantling! It is not a promise not to target Chinese and Chinese Americans! It is foolish to equate a name change with dismantling. 改裝不是拆！ 不是承諾不針對華人和華裔美國人！ 將改名等同於拆除是愚蠢的. 「終止」用孑錯誤, 誤導!
Lipstick on a filthy pig. No amount of rebranding can change this monstrosity.
The US always rebrands/renames things when they are ashamed of them or when they are criticized.
School of the Americas–> Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHISC)
AirSea Battle–>Joint Access Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC)
Pivot to Asia–>Rebalance to Asia OIL (Operation Iraq Liberation)–
Operation Iraq Freedom Torture–>Enhanced Interrogation etc. etc.
There is no dismantling. In Chinese we call it, sell dogs meat for lambs meat.
I don’t see any dismissal of all cases being filed, I don’t see an apology to all the scientists whose lives have been ruined, I don’t see ending the 2000 investigation of Chinese scientists. I don’t see releasing of those Chinese scientists who are sitting in jail for being coerced into pleading to procedural crimes that DOJ could not prove. . All I see is a name change.
AAJC can pat itself on the back. It can join the DOJ saying the China Initiative is being dismantled. I am shocked at how naive they are. But then they are all part of the propaganda perpetrated against China and Chinese scientists. That all Chinese people are spies.
It was Obama that began going after Chinese and Chinese American academics in the courtsin 2009 when a dramatic uptick was detected which continued into 2015 or 2016, as the report of the Committee of 100 released in 2016 showed.
Let us give pioneering credit where credit is due.
p.s. Not only is the China Initiative racist, but it is an attack on openness, transparency and “science itself” as those who wrote the letter defending Charles Lieber for researching with Chinese. Once again in the case of the China Initiative, the US invocation of those values is no more than flatulence of the mouth.
THIS SUNDAY: Events in D.C. and San Francisco to demand “Peace, Not War with China!” The ANSWER Coalition urges its supports to attend the following events hosted by Pivot to Peace:
Join us for demonstrations in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco on the 50th anniversary of the Shanghai Communique demanding peace, not war with China.
In February 1972, the US and China issued the Shanghai Communique at the end of Nixon’s path-breaking visit to the People’s Republic of China. As we mark the 50th anniversary of this historic breakthrough in the relationship between our countries it is a time to recall and reaffirm the guiding principles which were established in the bilateral statement agreed to by both sides.
The binding obligation of both the US and China is to “…conduct their relations on the principles of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states, non-aggression against other states, non-interference in the internal affairs of other states, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence.”
Additionally, the US government declared that it “…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. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves.”
In recent years, the US government has moved rapidly to adopt an increasingly antagonistic posture towards China. As Americans who urge peace and cooperation than to promote war with China, we urge US politicians to respect and affirm the joint Shanghai Communique, withdraw US troops from Taiwan, cease provocations in the Taiwan Strait, and allow the question of Taiwan to be resolved by the Chinese people on both sides of the Strait themselves, without outside interference and manipulation.
NATO and Africa: A Relationship of Colonial Violence and Structural White Supremacy – NATO is the means of continuing colonial aggressions against African countries. 北約與非洲：殖民暴力與結構性白人至上的關係 – 北約是對非洲國家進行持續殖民侵略的手段. by Djibo Sobukwe 23 Feb 2022
Considering the public media attention and concern about possible expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), it is worth reminding people about NATO’s bloody history in Africa. NATO was founded in 1949 after WWII at a time when African countries were still under the yoke of colonialism. In fact most of the original founders of NATO had been Africa’s principal colonizers such as UK, France, Portugal, Belgium, Italy and the USA as lead NATO organizer and dominant partner. The organization was established as a collective defense against the Soviet Union with the requirement (Article 5) that any attack on one was considered an attack on all and therefore requiring a collective response.
Since NATO was founded with the purported purpose of halting possible Soviet aggression and stopping the spread of Communism it would seem to follow that after the collapse of the USSR in 1991 there would no longer be a need for NATO. Since then however, NATO has expanded from the founding twelve to at present thirty member states many of whom are eastern European countries, formerly Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact allies. Today, NATO has become a huge axel in the wheel of the military industrial complex controlled by US empire for the purpose of full spectrum dominance , driven by the ferocious appetites of corporate capital.
Colonial Africa as NATO Bases
Walter Rodney accurately describes the early foundation of colonial Africa’s relationship with NATO which continues today as he described in How Europe Underdeveloped Africa:
“Needless to say, in the 1950’s when most Africans were still colonial subjects, they had absolutely no control over the utilization of their soil for militaristic ends. Virtually the whole of North Africa was turned into a sphere of operations for NATO, with bases aimed at the Soviet Union. There could have easily developed a nuclear war without African peoples having any knowledge of the matter. The colonial powers actually held military conferences in African cities like Dakar and Nairobi in the early 1950’s, inviting the whites of South Africa and Rhodesia and the government of the USA. Time and time again, the evidence points to this cynical use of Africa to buttress capitalism economically and militarily, and therefore in effect forcing Africa to contribute to its own exploitation. [emphasis added] [1]
Kwame Nkrumah had already warned in his 1967 Challenge of the Congo that there were at least seventeen air bases, nine foreign naval bases, three rocket sites and an atomic testing range operated by NATO in in North Africa, in addition to military missions in about a dozen other African countries, not to mention the exploitation of raw materials for the production of nuclear weapons occurring in the mines of Congo, Angola, South Africa and Rhodesia.[2] Nkrumah called for the urgent need to counter the challenge of NATO in the strategy he outlined in his Handbook of Revolutionary Warfare which included the call for a military high command and an All African People’s Revolutionary Army (AAPRA).[3]
The example of Portugal, as one of the original members of NATO is worth exploring. The great freedom fighter of Africa, Amilcar Cabral, called Portugal “a rotten appendage of imperialism” he said, “Portugal is the most underdeveloped country in Western Europe. Portugal would never be able to launch three colonial wars in Africa without the help of NATO, the weapons of NATO, the planes of NATO the bombs- it would be impossible for them.” [4]
Cabral goes on to explain that the only reason Portugal was able to hold on to its colonies in Africa is because it had been a semi-colony of Britain since 1775 and Britain defended Portugal’s interest during the partition of Africa. Furthermore NATO, a creation of the US, uses Portugal and its colonies as part of the larger objective of domination of Africa and the world.[5] Portugal conducted a vicious war against its colonies in Guinea Bissau, Cape Verde, Angola, and Mozambique much like the US did in Vietnam. In both cases, colonizing powers used the most modern weapons including napalm and cluster bombing campaigns killing thousands, against guerilla armies that refused to bow down. The Portuguese dictator Marcelo Caetano was forced to give up economic interests in Angola to some of the NATO powers in exchange for the NATO armaments and supplies used.[6] Yet, Portugal still lost the war against the heroic anti-colonial forces.
NATO’s Strategy of Neo-colonialism
Imperialism has always used its strategy of divide and rule. To enable the acceptance of the idea of a ‘benevolent’ NATO, the colonial powers knew that they had to convince and recruit a neo-colonial class of indigenous Africans who would do their bidding. This divide played itself out in the national liberation movements between those who were friendly to imperialist forces and those who wanted a real break from colonialism. Nkrumah explains in Neo-colonialism, The Last Stage of Imperialism, the wide array of methods employed by neocolonialism, ranging from economic, political, religious, ideological and cultural spheres. To do this, NATO works hand in hand with other mechanisms of imperialism like the CIA[7] which was instrumental in the coup against the Nkrumah government and the murder of Patrice Lumumba .
The settler colony of Azania/South Africa would be another example of a NATO outpost. From the beginning it was obviously on the side of the Western/ NATO powers since it was essentially a colony of Britain and therefore was a NATOsurrogate. In 1955 South Africa and Britain formulated the Simonstown agreements which contained provision for the naval surveillance and defense of the African continent from Cape to Cairo. In spite of a purported arms embargo, NATO countries and Israel also provided South Africa with the necessary technology to develop nuclear weapons.
NATO & AFRICOM
AFRICOM is actually a direct product of NATO via EUCOM, the US European command. EUCOM is a central part of NATO and originally also took responsibility for 42 African states. In 2004 NATO ended a five-year period of expansion; in 2007 the EUCOM commander proposed the creation of AFRICOM. James L. Jones Jr. explains how he came to make the proposal for AFRICOM from his position as commander of EUCOM as well as commander of operational forces of NATO.
The US/NATO role in the destruction of Libya in 2011 is important to highlight because it offers some important lessons. First, US imperialism and its western lackies do not accept any country that decides to be an independent force outside of its sphere of influence. Secondly, it also demonstrates how NATO can work hand in hand with other US/western dominated world structures like the UN. In 2011 the UN (resolution 1973) gave political authorization for a “no fly zone” and blockade of Libya purportedly to “protect” its citizens but which ultimately resulted in the destruction of Africa’s most prosperous country with the highest Human Development Index.
US led NATO forces launched a bombing campaign that killed thousands of civilians and caused tens of billions of property and infrastructure damage. This shows that although US-led NATO sometimes uses the UN for political cover, it has no problem illegally overstepping its UN mandate to commit its crimes against humanity and achieve its regime change goals. Even a few countries that abstained from the UN vote like China said they did so as not to offend the reactionary Arab League and the African Union which approved of the resolution. In this case indirect and direct cooperation between NATO, the UN, the AU, and the Arab League (which includes the GCC countries ) shows the expansive and deeply woven web of US and NATO reach.
The book The Illegal War on Libya edited by Cynthia McKinney, includes the chapter titled “NATO’s Libya War, A Nuremberg Level Crime” in which Stephen Ledman writes:
“The US-led NATO war on Libya will be remembered as one of history’s greatest crimes, violating the letter and spirit of international law and America’s Constitution. The Nuremberg Tribunal’s Chief Justice Robert Jackson (a Supreme Court justice) called Nazi war crimes ‘the supreme international crime against peace.’ Here are his November 21, 1945 opening remarks:
‘The wrongs which we seek to condemn and punish have been so calculated, so malignant, and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored, because it cannot survive their being repeated.’ “
Jackson called aggressive war “the greatest menace of our times.” International law defines crimes against peace as “planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.”
All US post-WWII wars fall under this definition. Since then, America [US] has waged direct and proxy premeditated, aggressive wars worldwide. It has killed millions in East and Central Asia, North and other parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Europe, as well as in Central and South America.[8]
Those mentioned here are but a small sampling of NATO/AFRICOM’s bloody works in Africa’s past. NATO continues to operate under guise the of “training” and “humanitarian” peacekeeping assistance. Jihadist terrorist violence on the continent has increased since the founding of AFRICOM and NATO’s destruction of Libya resulting in civilian casualties and instability which the west has used as pretext and justification for the continued need for AFRICOM. As the Black Alliance for Peace’s AFRICOM watch bulletin reported , since the founding of AFRICOM there has also been an increase in coups by AFRICOM trained soldiers.
Consistent with what Nkrumah, Rodney and others warned of in the 1960’s and 1970’s NATO continues today in the form of AFRICOM facilitating wars, instability, and the corporate pillage of Africa. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) for example is continuously plundered for its strategic raw materials such as cobalt, tantalum, chromium, coltan, and uranium etc. These minerals are strategically important not only for electronic devices but also for the technologies that drive the military industrial complex. AFRICOM continues to rely on its neocolonial African proxies to fight wars on its behalf in the DRC and throughout Africa to achieve its objectives. With the rise of China, the US/NATO now seek to ensure full spectrum dominance that seeks to shut China or any other country out of the competition to control global capital.
End Notes:
[1] Rodney, Walter How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, p189
[2] Nkrumah, Kwame Challenge of the Congo p.xi
[3] Nkrumah, Kwame, Handbook of Revolutionary Warfare p56
[4] Cabral, Amilcar, Return to The Source p.82
[5] Ibid p.83
[6] Fogel, D, Africa in Struggle National Liberation and Proletarian Revolution p.230
[7] Nkrumah, Kwame, Neo-Colonialism The Last Stage of Imperialism p.247
[8] McKinney, Cynthia ed., The Illegal War on Libya p. 79
Djibo Sobukwe is on the Research and Political Education Team of the Black Alliance for Peace. He is also a former Central Committee member of the All African People’s Revolutionary Party who worked with Kwame Ture on the political Education Committee. He can be contacted at djibo1@gmail.com
What Is the Difference Between Kosovo & Donbass? The U.S. has declared that Donbass is different. How it is different, nobody will say, because you are not supposed to ask, writes Vladimir Golstein.
The U.S. has declared that Donbass is different. How it is different, nobody will say, because you are not supposed to ask, writes Vladimir Golstein.
Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, the largest U.S. military base in Europe, is called a smaller Guantanamo for housing terrorism suspects. ( KFOR, Task Force Falcon Public Affairs Office) By Vladimir Golstein
There once was a country called Yugoslavia. It was a multi-ethnic, multi-religious federalist country, rather prosperous by Socialist standards, and consisting of proud people who stood up to Adolph Hitler and even Joseph Stalin.
There were intermarriages, great food, and great films too. And then the West — once the Soviet Union began to collapse — decided that it was Yugoslavia’s time to collapse too. It would no longer be a country but the land of ancient Balkan hatreds. And they began to foment them and foment them, blaming one republic in particular: Serbia.
Serbian villains were blamed for slowing the rapid European integration of all the other republics, which began to declare their independence. This independence — Slovenia, Croatia and so on — was quickly embraced by the West. Germans were there first, trying out their new role as the masters of Europe, so all these republics were eventually recognized and then — since the population was mixed — civil strive began within each newly, independent republic.
Serbian minorities from every republic began to be harassed and kicked out. All this was condoned and supported by the West, which started a new narrative: great separatists, bad Serbians. [The Clinton administration, including then U.N. ambassador Madeleine Albright, gave a green light to Croatia to ethnically cleanse a quarter of a million Serbs from the Krajina region. Years later, angry Czechs in solidarity with Serbs, confronted Albright at a book signing in Prague. She called them “disgusting Serbs.”]
Kosovo
Those who remember, can recall wars, and bombing and propaganda campaigns. In 1999, NATO intervened militarily to help the largely ethnic Albanian Kosovo gain its independence from Serbia. The autonomous province of Kosovo had voted 99 percent in favor of independence in a 1991 referendum. Eight years later NATO was bombing Belgrade on its behalf.
The U.S. charged the Serbs with ethnic cleansing, but one study suggests the Kosovars fled Serbia en masse only after NATO started bombing. Today neither the Council of Europe, nor the United Nations recognizes Kosovo’s independence, though the United States does. The U.S. then built its largest and most expensive European military base in Kosovo.
I was invited during the NATO campaign to participate at a panel named “Kosovo and Moral Responsibility” organized by Yale Hillel with two other participants. One was the most respected Yale professor who demanded more bombs be directed at Serbia. She constantly made references to Munich and the appeasement of Hitler in regard to the Serbs.
When I muttered something about Serbian children found dead next to their teddy bears in a train falling from a bridge bombed on the order of Bill Clinton, I was accused of demagoguery by that famous professor, who began to rhapsodize about the beauties of Dubrovnik in Croatia, threatened by the evil Serbs.
Hashim Thaci, then U.S. Vice President Joe Biden and Fatmir Sejdiu with the Declaration of Independence of Kosovo, May 21, 2009. (Office of Prime Minister of Kosovo) Somehow, it became a moral responsibility of the West to wrest the ancient Serbian lands with its thirteen century Orthodox monasteries to give to Albanian gangsters from the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), who the U.S. once branded as terrorists and who became infamous for selling Serbian body parts to western buyers. Their leader was Hashim Thaci, pictured above with Joe Biden, who later became president of Kosovo.
Donbass
In 2014, after the U.S.-backed violent coup that overthrew Ukraine’s democratically-elected president, the coup regime outlawed the Russian language and neo-Nazi gangs began attacking Russian speakers, including burning dozens of people alive in a building in Odessa. Twelve days after that incident, the largely ethnic-Russian oblasts of Lugansk and Donetsk declared independence from Ukraine.
Like in Kosovo, both provinces held referendums that returned overwhelming majorities for independence. Kiev responded by launching a war against these Russian speakers who the regime called “terrorists.”
Well. Where was the United States, Germany and other progressive European countries, when Donbass declared their independence? Nowhere, of course, as these republics were immediately dismissed as separatists and Russia-backed guerrillas, in addition to terrorists. Where were the Yale professors wringing their wrists about moral responsibility toward the Donbass people? Where are the endless articles about Ukrainian atrocities, bombing of schools and hospitals, displacing millions of people? That’s right! Nowhere! Why?
Because Uncle Sam said so. He declared that this is different. How it is different, nobody will say, because you are not supposed to ask. It is different, end of story, and if you ask questions, you are a Russian stooge.
We can recognize Slovenia and Macedonia, but not Novorossia or Donetsk. It is different. One is supported by NATO, another by Russians. Don’t you see the difference? I don’t. Nor do the millions of others who remember what Germans, Americans, Brits or the French once did to their countries.
So yes, New York Times and The Guardian, Joe Biden and Boris Johnson. Start your campaign again. Declare the illegality of recognizing breakaway republics, denounce evil Russians hell bent on invasion and do your usual stuff by parading fake authorities who’ll pontificate on the Moral Responsibility of denying Donbass its safety and freedom. You ain’t fooling anyone who is not willing to be fooled.
Vice President Joe Biden at Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, Thursday, May 21, 2009. (White House/David Lienemann) Vladimir Golstein, a former associate professor at Yale University, is chair of the Department of Slavic Studies at Brown University and is a commentator on Russian affairs.
Taiwan is not Ukraine, and seeking “Taiwan independence” can only lead to a dead end, said Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying at a press briefing in Beijing on Wednesday.
The spokesperson for Taiwan’s leader and the head of the “foreign affairs department” of the Taiwan authorities recently compared the Ukraine issue to the Taiwan issue.
In response, Hua said that Taiwan is not Ukraine, and the island is an inalienable part of China’s territory.
“I think it is unwise for some people in the Taiwan authorities to use the Ukraine issue as a pretext to hype up its own narrative and make unprovoked moves. Taiwan is not Ukraine. It is an undeniable historical and legal fact that Taiwan has always been an inalienable part of Chinese territory. The one-China principle is a universally recognized norm governing international relations. Peace in Taiwan depends on the peaceful development of cross-Strait relations, rather than fawning over the outside forces and expecting them to sell weapons or provide military support. Seeking ‘Taiwan independence’ can only lead to a dead end. No one should have any misunderstanding or miscalculation about this,” said Hua.
“I have also noticed that indeed, since the Ukraine crisis, there have been some people who often mention the Taiwan region. I think some of their remarks fully reveal their lack of basic understanding of the history regarding the Taiwan issue,” said Hua.
Hua noted that though there is political antagonism between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait as a result of the civil war fought many years ago, China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity has never been severed and will not be severed.
Russia to offer strong, measured and sensitive response to US sanctions – Foreign Ministry
World February 23 2022 According to the ministry, Russia proved that despite all sanctions it is capable of reducing the damage
MOSCOW, February 23. /TASS/. Moscow will offer a strong response to US sanctions, if not necessarily tit-for-tat, but a measured and sensitive one for Washington, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement on new US anti-Russian sanctions on Wednesday. “There should be no doubt – sanctions will be met with a strong response, not necessarily symmetrical, but measured and sensitive for the US side,” the document says.
Futile efforts
The Russian Foreign Ministry noted that the package of sanctions declared by the US administration (already the 101th one), targeting the financial sector with the extension of the blacklist of individuals, subject to personal restrictions, is part and parcel of Washington’s endless attempts to change Russia’s policy.
“Despite clearly futile efforts made for many years with the goal of hindering our economic development, the US is again grasping the restrictions tools, which are ineffective and counterproductive in terms of US interests as well,” the Foreign Ministry stressed.
According to the ministry, Russia proved that despite all sanctions it is capable of reducing the damage. “And moreover, the sanctions pressure cannot affect our determination to strongly defend our interests,” the statement reads.
Washington, which is under the sway of unipolar world stereotypes with false convictions that the US still has the right and can impose its own rules of the world order on everyone, has no other means in its foreign policy arsenals than blackmail, intimidation and threats. “This isn’t working in regard to world powers, namely Russia and other key international actors,” the Foreign Ministry stated. “’Slapdowns’ from the US should be followed by their satellites and clients who completely lost their autonomy.”
Meanwhile, the ministry noted that Russia is “open to diplomacy based on the principles of mutual respect, equality and the consideration for each other’s interests.”.
Asia Times: Why US cannot stifle China’s rise – Simply put, the US China containment’ policies have failed miserably 《亞洲時報》：美國為何不能扼殺中國崛起 – 簡而言之，美中遏制政策慘敗 By KEN MOAK FEB 23, 2022
The US and China have a long way to go to rebuild broken trust.
The US is increasingly belligerent in its efforts to stifle China’s rise and pressure its allies to do the same. But none of the tactics – trade wars, “freedom of navigation” operations (FONOPs), pushing allies to ditch Huawei equipment or the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), etc – have worked.
Indeed, one could even argue that the more the US tries to put China down, the taller and stronger the Asian country stands up. Accusing China of setting “debt traps,” for example, has seen more nations joining its BRI.
The latest to join the BRI were Argentina and Nicaragua. The Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) also signed a comprehensive agreement with China on cooperation in a host of fields, including investment, security, and more.
At home, China is also doing relatively well. Its economy grew at an astonishing rate of 8.1% in 2021, the highest annualized growth in a decade. According to the International Olympic Committee (IOC), China did a magnificent job in holding the Winter Games amid a pandemic and other challenges.
The Beijing Winter Olympics were watched by more than 2 billion worldwide, including more than 100 million Americans, according to the IOC. The majority of those who attended the Games praised China’s efforts to contain the spread of Covid-19 pandemic and for putting on a good show.
In spite of the US diplomatically boycotting the Winter Olympics, more than 30 foreign leaders and senior officials attended the Games. But the only US response was making a mountain out of mole hill regarding every little problem, such as the weather in Beijing being too cold or the food not hot enough.
Simply put, the US “China containment” policies have failed miserably, raising the question: Why is the US unable to stifle China’s rise? It is not for lack of trying. Successive US administrations have expended vast amounts of resources on pushing down or isolating China and sending senior officials to all corners of the globe to persuade countries not to embrace the Asian giant.
Former president Barack Obama’s “pivot to Asia” policy and signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) were meant to erode China’s influence in the Asia-Pacific region. His successor Donald Trump imposed trade and technology wars on China to topple it from its economic mantle. Current President Joe Biden retained or even extended many of Trump’s anti-China policies for the same reason.
So what happened? Well, three reasons for these failures come to mind.
First, history is not on the United States’ side. Allegations of “evil doings” based on questionable information will bring disappointment and despair, as the Vietnam and Iraq wars attested.
Second, few if any countries will sacrifice their national interests and security just to please America.
And finally, China is even more determined to continue going forward with its “social market economy” architecture amid the increasingly toxic US-China relationship.
Unsubstantiated anti-Chinese allegations
Economic or military conflicts against China will not produce the intended outcomes. As Vietnam was in the run-up to war in Indochina, China will be highly incentivized to resist the US onslaught. For instance, the US government blocking the sale of advanced chips to China prompted Beijing to invest billions of dollars to become self-sufficient in that field.
China’s success in combating US politically motivated policies is, in part, because they were based on questionable information. Case in point is the US accusing China of committing genocide against the Uighurs in Xinjiang.
Whether China has committed genocide and other “evil” deeds depends on whom one talks to. But the US allegations were simply speculations without proof. They also defied conventional definitions of the term “genocide.”
Redefining genocide as “structural social change” in wiping out the Uighurs to fit the narrative is a poor argument. How can anyone, except God, know what the future holds? The Uighur population could become larger and wealthier because of the language and vocational training that the would-be terrorists have received.
The Chinese government instituted the “de-radicalization” policy of putting would-be terrorists into language and vocational training schools (which the US called concentration camps or prisons). The Chinese policy, in fact, gained support not only from the Uighur community in Xinjiang, but from the Muslim world as well.
Since its inception, there have been no terrorist acts in Xinjiang. And according to the government, many Uighur trainees have found gainful employment and now are enjoying a better lifestyle.
As for whether China’s BRI investment loans are a “debt trap,” again it depends on whom one talks to. But debt statistics in the recipient or participating countries suggest the contrary.
Sri Lanka’s debts owed to China account for less than 20% of its total foreign debt, according to Sri Lankan government statistics. The majority of its foreign debts are owed to Western or US-controlled financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, which require Sri Lanka to repay loans before spending on economic development or recovery.
The fact of the matter is the BRI is a “win-win” for both China and the recipient countries. For example, the Sri Lankan port of Hambantota (which the US cited as an example of a “debt trap”) was leased to a Chinese company for financial reasons. Indeed, the port became financially viable after handling it over to the Chinese company.
Besides, how can an economy develop without infrastructure investments? The roads, ports and power-generation facilities that the BRI framework made possible is largely responsible for accelerating economic development in Africa, Latin America and other parts in the world. Roads and ports are required to facilitate trade and commerce, after all.
Similar counter-arguments can be made against US allegations of China bullying small nations, taking away human rights and democracy from Hong Kong, and other “evil” deeds.
No country in Southeast Asia was worrying about instability in the South China Sea until Obama instituted the “pivot to Asia” policy. But Obama’s posture provoked China into a defensive position, asserting its claims within the “nine dash line” (which by the way was drafted by China’s previous Nationalist government in 1947 with US blessings).
In spite of all these US anti-China policies, China’s global economic, technological and geopolitical standings continue to grow. Indeed, US policies have not only strengthened China’s determination to become stronger, but also turned many US allies off.
US unable to recruit many to its cause
Biden’s China policies differ from his predecessor Trump’s in one major way: trying to recruit allies to counter China with the slogan “democracy versus authoritarianism,” or simply “good vs evil.” But unfortunately for Biden, the world, including America’s allies, probably knows who is “good” and who is “evil.”
Just ask the countries that the US bombed for no reason other than not toeing its line. Or ask the native, black, Asian and non-white Hispanic Americans how well they were treated by some US politicians.
Perhaps the more important reason that the US was unable to recruit allies to its anti-China crusade is national interest. Joining the fight against “evil” communist China means sacrificing their national interests. Most of the allied countries are neighbors of China and rely heavily on it for their economic well-being.
For example, China is the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue members’ biggest or second-largest trade partner. According to Chinese customs statistics, around a third of Australian exports are sold to China, for instance.
Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that none of the Quad members want to have a showdown with China, particularly over questionable allegations of “evil” deeds. Doing so would wreak havoc on their economies.
Because of geographical proximity with China, allying with the US against it militarily would risk the Quad members’ national security. A US-China military war would be fought on the allies’ soils as well as those of the US and China.
But the US will not take that risk, explaining why it is pushing for the establishment of a mechanism to ensure confrontation does not veer into wars. The vast majority of the US population will oppose a war with China, particularly one fought over “fake news.”
China is not Vietnam or Iraq, it can inflict huge damages, destroying many US cities and killing large number of Americans. Of course, many Chinese cities would also be destroyed and people killed. Indeed, a US-China war could lead to mutual destruction.
China has every right to follow its development path
Under the United Nations Charter, a country has the right to adopt a development and governance architecture that reflects its history, culture and other institutions unique to it. Well, the “social market economy” has proved extremely successful, propelling China to become the second-largest economy, eradicate extreme poverty, become a major military and technology power.
So there is no reason for China to cave in to US demands to disband that architecture.
Following the US-inspired world order would mean that China and other developing countries would be forever beholden or subservient to the West, particularly America. That is something that China will not do.
Simply put, China is determined to grow stronger and richer whether the US likes it or not. China has the economic, technological and military prowess to do so.
Ken Moak taught economic theory, public policy and globalization at university level for 33 years. He co-authored a book titled China’s Economic Rise and Its Global Impact in 2015. His second book, Developed Nations and the Economic Impact of Globalization, was published by Palgrave McMillan Springer.
Exclusive: evidence of US monitoring 45 countries, regions exposed by Chinese cybersecurity experts for the 1st time 獨家：美國監控45個國家和地區的證據首次被中國網絡安全專家曝光 by Cao Siqi Feb 22 2022
An elite hacking group under the US National Security Agency (NSA) was found to have been creating an advanced and covert backdoor which has been used to monitor 45 countries and regions for over a decade, the Global Times learned from a Beijing-based cybersecurity lab exclusively on Wednesday.
Experts from Qi An Pangu lab said on Wednesday they have declassified the full technical details and organizational links of “Telescreen” (Bvp47), a top-of-the-line backdoor created by Equation – an elite hacking group affiliated with the NSA.
This is the first time that Chinese cybersecurity experts have publicly exposed the complete chain of technical evidence about the advanced persistent threat (APT) attack launched by Equation.
Experts from the lab told the Global Times that the “Telescreen” has been raging around the world for more than a decade, infiltrating 45 countries and regions including China, Russia, Japan, Germany, Spain and Italy, and involving 287 important institutional targets. Japan, though a victim itself, has also been used as a springboard to launch attacks on targets in other countries and regions.
PRISM scandal link
A backdoor is one type of APT attacks in cyberspace. It refers to a way to bypass security controls to gain access to the network system, similar to a cyber virus.
According to a report released by the Qi An Pangu lab, in 2013, researchers from the lab extracted a suspected backdoor by complex encryption during their investigation into a victim computer host in China. After successfully breaking the backdoor program, researchers identified it as a top backdoor program used for APT attacks.
However, further investigation was impeded as it requested a private key to activate the remote control function of the backdoor.
In 2016, the Shadow Brokers, a well-known hacking group, claimed to have hacked into Equation and it released a large number of the organization’s hacking tools and data in two years.
Researchers from Pangu lab then found files suspected to contain private keys from the files published by Shadow Brokers, which happened to be the only asymmetric encryption private key that could activate the backdoor, and further directly control the backdoor remotely.
“It can be concluded that Bvp47 is a hacking tool belonging to Equation,” the lab report said.
Through a further probe, researchers found that multiple programs and attack manuals disclosed by Shadow Brokers matched the unique identifiers used in the operating manuals of the NSA’s cyberattack platform, which were exposed by former CIA analyst Edward Snowden in the 2013 PRISM scandal.
Given that the US government has charged Snowden with three counts of “unauthorized communication of national defense information and willful communication of classified intelligence,” it is clear that the documents released by Shadow Brokers are NSA documents. This is sufficient evidence that Equation is part of the NSA, and that Bvp47 is the NSA’s top backdoor, the report said.
Researchers at the lab gave Bvp47 a code name, Telescreen Operation. A telescreen is a device imagined by British writer George Orwell in his novel 1984, which can be used to remotely monitor people or organizations, and grasp the information at the hackers’ will.
Good at hiding, hard to track
“Backdoors allow hackers to peer into an organization’s internal network, almost as if they had installed a telescreen in the targets’ houses and kept all secrets in their hands,” Han Zhengguang, founder of Pangu lab, told the Global Times on Wednesday.
According to Han, compared with APT attacks, the Telescreen Operation features high technical complexity, architecture flexibility and high strength of analysis and forensics countermeasures, which allow hackers to obtain data and information very easily.
Analysis finds that the Telescreen Operation backdoor could allow hackers to attack operation systems including Linux, AIX, Solaris and SUN, and the backdoor has been active for over 10 years.
“The ‘best’ thing about this backdoor is that it’s extremely hidden and good at self-destructing. Before the victim is aware of the danger, the information is leaked, and it’s hard to trace after that,” Han said.
According to Han, the backdoor has been deployed in at least 64 targets covering basic core data departments of communication, top universities and military-related departments in China.
“The backdoor has also attacked 287 goals in more than 45 countries and regions, including Russia, Japan, Spain, Germany, and Italy. Japan, as a victim, was also used as a springboard to attack other countries, covering their prestigious universities, research institutions, communications companies and government departments,” Han said.
For a long time, there have been voices supporting the West to portray the Chinese government and military as hackers. Chinese cybersecurity experts pointed out that these false allegations have political motives – hype China’s so-called cyber threat and stigmatizing China to conceal the fact that the US itself, the main implementer of the PRISM program, is the world’s largest cyberattacker, secrets stealer and the veritable “matrix,” like in the movies.
The Telescreen Operation is not US’ first large-scale cyberattack, nor will be its last. The global APT attacks are increasingly frequent with a wider range of targets, causing greater harm and being more concealed, and China is one of the largest victims, Han said.
Experts also called on governments and industrial chains around the world to work together to effectively deal with threats and safeguard cybersecurity.
Johnson Choi Biz 