Category Archives: Imperialism/World Order

The USA’s decades long war against China

After decades of covert actions meant to overthrow the communist government of China, in 1989 the CIA launched the first of its so-called “colour” revolutions, which, being unsuccessful, did not achieve a designation of its own, those appellations coming later, in Eastern Europe and Georgia. This action took place in Beijing, where the CIA had trained a coterie of “students” to unseat the government.

 

| Vancouver (Canada)

+

The USA’s decades long war against China: Part I

JPEG - 38.7 kb
The iconic photo of the “tank man”, taken by Jeff Widener of the Associated Press, which consecrated the account of the Tiananmen events peddled by the Western media, portraying them as a massacre of peaceful demonstrators.

Fast forward to 1989 and Tiananmen Square

In one of those fortuitous discoveries of the time I happened on a small sideline article buried on page A20 of The Vancouver Sun dated September 17, 1992 and attributed to the Associated Press. It was a one and only printing which obviously escaped the Gatekeepers that offer us “the only news fit to print.” The article was titled: “TIANANMEN – CIA man misread reaction, sources say.” [1]

Forget the title. All titles are created by someone other than the writer and often have little connection to the content of the story. In this case the story was extremely indispensable to truth, and this AP story was a real eye-opener, so far as truth is concerned. The article starts like this:

The CIA STATION chief in China left the country two days before Chinese troops attacked demonstrators in the capital Beijing in 1989, after predicting the military would not act, U.S. officials said…The Central Intelligence Agency had sources among protestors, as well as within China’s intelligence services with which it enjoyed a close relationship since the 1970s, said the officials, who spoke this week on condition of anonymity.”

Much more than “sources” however, were the methods being implemented to cause overthrow of the country’s communist leadership, continuing a decades long history.

JPEG - 28.2 kb
Is this what a peaceful protestor looks like…?
Jeff Widener / Associated Press / June 3, 1989

The article continues:

For months before the June 3 attack on the demonstrators, the CIA had been helping student activists form the anti-government movement, providing typewriters, facsimile machines and other equipment to help them spread their message, said one official. (Emphasis added) The CIA declined all comment.

A further article in The Vancouver Sun dated May 31, 1999 and attributed to the Washington Post [2] came shortly after US bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. It was an official response to constant US anti-China commentary surrounding the western version of events in Tiananmen. The article starts as follows:

China accused the United States Sunday of inciting the massive democracy protests in Tiananmen Square, which rocked Beijing a decade ago, as part of a strategy to promote political chaos in China“. (Emphasis added)

The Washington Post indicates what it thinks of such a statement, telling us that it had been made by China’s “rubber-stamp parliament.” Naturally we all accept that anything printed by the Post originating from China surely must be delusional, while anything originating from Washington must be beyond doubt. The Post article continues with this statement from the Chinese parliamentary source:

The United States ’played an inglorious role’ in the 1989 protests by ’directly master-minding schemes and giving money and goods to support those making the disturbance’ the statement said…America also spread ’horrifying rumours by using their media to cheat and hoodwink the international community’ it said.

The Post article seems to deplore any and every bit of information emanating from China, closing by saying,

The government has continued unrelenting criticism of the United States for the May 7 bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, which it said was intended to destabilize China“. [3]

Imagine that. The Chinese protesting merely because the US bombed its embassy and killed a number of its agents. Imagine a reversal of the situation with China bombing a US embassy somewhere in the world. How long do you think before the B2 bombers would be launched.

JPEG - 26.8 kb
Burning vehicles in Beijing
GIF - 89.5 kb
Burned out Armored Personnel Carriers.
JPEG - 34.3 kb
Chinese student protestors swarm over a captured PLA tank.

Which brings me to another amazing discovery, actual photos of the CIA’s “students” in their “democracy protest” activities, again disappeared from reality content and shortly thereafter the magazine that printed the photos, China Review, vanishing from the print world altogether. The July 1989 issue contained a number of photographs of violent activity undertaken by the “peaceful” participants – Tanks, personnel carriers, and army trucks demolished and lying in ruins; “students” carrying assault rifles etc. Apparently their CIA training involved more than facsimile machines. [4]

GIF - 124 kb
Outside a bus, the body of a soldier burned to death by the rioters.
JPEG - 24.5 kb
Body of lynched and burned Chinese soldier hanged from a building by Tiananmen Square.
JPEG - 34.7 kb
Burnt down bus and burned to a crisp Chinese soldier.

It so happens that I watched a PBS FRONTLINE documentary in 2006 titled “Tank Man.”

Among its participants was Professor Timothy Brook, professor of Chinese History at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC. Professor Brook might as well have worked for the CIA since he was a stalwart promoter of China’s despicable (to him) malfeasance in that docudrama. I managed to reach professor Brook by telephone, certify that I was speaking to the right man, and asked if he knew of the CIA’s involvement in the whole woeful affair, and the destruction of a large part of the PLA’s forces. Professor Brook asserted that no such incident took place. I responded by saying I would mail him copies of my material, which I did. That was the last I would hear from the head of UBC’s China department, demonstrating that the disseminators of information in the university system are very often little but propagandists for western imperialism.

Continue: https://www.voltairenet.org/article177116.html

Leave a comment

Filed under Imperialism/World Order, Law/Geopolitics/ Politics, Media/MindControl, Social/Society

Dueling Agendas: Russia and China v. the US

by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org

Sino/Russian and US geopolitical agendas are world’s apart. Together with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi last week, Sergey Lavrov said the following:

“(O)ur foreign policy cooperation…is a stabilizing factor in world affairs. Russia and China consistently advocate a more just, democratic and polycentric world arrangement based on the principles of the UN Charter.”

“We expressed zero tolerance for any attempt to destroy the architecture of international security based on the results of World War II, to undermine strategic stability and replace the standards of international law, including the UN Charter, with arbitrary rules.”

“We also find unacceptable any attempt to circumvent WTO standards” so the hegemonic aims of one nation can prevail over others.

Russia and China support world peace, stability, and mutual cooperation among all nations according to rule of law principles.

Both nations affirm the rights of Venezuelans, Iranians, North Koreans, Afghans, Syrians, and citizens of other states to decide the future of their countries, including their leadership, free from from foreign interference as mandated by UN Charter principles.

“(T)here is no alternative to maintain(ing) the territorial integrity of Syria,” as affirmed by SC Res. 2254, Lavrov stressed.

The JCPOA Iran nuclear deal is inviolable international law Russia and China firmly support. Both foreign ministers slammed the Trump regime’s unlawful pullout and “illegitimate nature of (its) unilateral anti-Iran sanctions aimed, in particular, at stopping oil exports from Iran.”

On Sunday, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said it’s hard dealing with the US because its position “on many issues is subject to swift changes,” adding:

“Hardy anyone will have the guts to make forecasts regarding the future of our bilateral relations” given the way the US operates, by its own rules exclusively, adding:

Trump saying “getting along (with Russia is) a good thing, not a bad thing” is meaningless when “imposing additional (unlawful) sanctions,” along with “ignoring (Moscow’s) interests. It should mean something different.”

US hegemonic aims make normalized relations with Russia and other sovereign independent nations unattainable.

They’re polar opposite what’s vital for world peace and stability. The US seeks dominance over other nations, demanding they bend to its will, doing whatever it takes to achieve its objectives, naked aggression and other unlawful hostile actions its favored strategies.

On Sunday, Trump sounded like Pompeo and Bolton tweeting: “If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!”

Iran considers his bombastic threats empty posturing, the more often made, the less credibility they have.

In response to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani earlier saying US confrontation with the Islamic Republic would be “the mother of all (regional) wars,” Trump shot back tweeting:

“To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE.”

Attacking Iran would be madness, what cool heads in Washington understand. The same goes for Pentagon commanders, knowing war on Iran will be tougher than any previous conflict since the US defeat in Vietnam.

According to political analyst Ariane Tabatabai, Trump’s aggressive Sunday tweet “undermines (his) efforts to reach the Iranian people,” adding:

“Threatening not just war but ‘the official end of Iran’ taps into deeply and historically rooted anxieties in Iran. Far from leading Iranians to oppose their leaders, it’ll rally them around the flag…(further) cement(ing) distrust of (and anger toward) the US.”

Conservative commentator/Pompeo/Bolton critic Daniel Larison agreed, saying “Trump’s rhetoric is aimed at appealing to his domestic supporters, so he doesn’t think about or care how it sounds to the targeted (nation), but my guess is that the Iranian government will take this as additional proof that there is no point in talking to the US while (he’s) in charge.”

His rhetorical toughness mimics Pompeo and Bolton, opposed by the international community, firmly against war on Iran or Venezuela.

The Trump regime’s trade war with China risks pushing the global economy into recession if it continues months longer and escalates further than already.

The wrongheaded policy is doomed to fail. China clearly won’t be cowed into accepting what undermines its longterm developmental objectives.

On Monday, Xinhua accused the Trump regime of “recklessly rais(ing) tariffs on Chinese goods, unilaterally escalating trade disputes, and…restrict(ing) (tech giant) Chinese Huawei from doing business in the United States” by blacklisting the company and its affiliates, adding:

“(T)he US trick of exerting extreme pressure to deter China won’t work. (Its policy) will only make China stronger.”

The so-called threat of its technology is its ability to compete effectively against corporate American, notably Huawei’s 5G and other technological superiority over over US and other Western telecom companies, along with the expertise of its other tech companies.

China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Cuba, and Syria won’t bow to unacceptable US demands.

The harder the US pushes, the greater the risk of global war by accident or design.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Leave a comment

Filed under Imperialism/World Order, Law/Geopolitics/ Politics

India’s betrayal of Iran is only the beginning

The sudden visit to New Delhi by the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif for a meeting on May 14 with the outgoing External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj in the dying days of the Modi government underscores dramatically how much Tehran has been traumatised by the Indian decision under American pressure to summarily stop all imports of Iranian oil w.e.f May 2.

If one were to encapsulate the anguish and bewilderment in the Iranian mind, an analogy would be the plaintive entreaty by Julius Caesar in William Shakespeare’s play of that name — ‘Et tu, Brute’ (Even you, Brute) — when on the Ides of March in 44 BC the great Roman statesman spotted amongst the conspirators in the Senate building the pale visage of his old dear friend Marcus Junius Brutus, who were stabbing him in a pre-conceived assassination plot.

To be sure, the unexpected betrayal by the old and dear Indian friend has shocked Tehran. According to reports, Swaraj offered her best explanation by taking a de tour and reportedly holding out a non-committal assurance that Delhi will review the situation after a new government is formed “keeping in mind our commercial considerations, energy security and economic interests.”  

Now, this is a big shift from the Indian stance that it will only abide by UN sanctions. But then, it is not within Swaraj’s competence to commit anything. The Boss has to decide, and he’s busy campaigning. In the final analysis, if PM Modi keeps his job, it will be a tricky decision. For, Modi enjoys wonderful friendship with three players of the infamous “B Team” — Benjamin Netanyahu, bin Salman (Saudi Crown Prince),  bin Zayed (UAE Crown Prince) — and is wary of the fourth player, Bolton (Trump’s national security advisor). And the B team sponsors the Iran project, which is about ‘regime change’ in Tehran.

The most galling thing about the Indian betrayal is that amongst the three top importers of Iranian oil — China, India and Iran — it’s only India that summarily packed up under American pressure. For the Modi government which claims to be ‘muscular’, such cowardly behaviour is a matter of shame. Simply put, the strategic understanding forged during the historic meeting between Modi and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in Ufa, Russia, on the sidelines of the SCO summit in May 2019 turns out to be a damp squib. Tehran is bound to reflect over the quality of the hand of friendship that Modi extended.

To jog memory, India is party to a trilateral MOU with Iran and Afghanistan with plans to commit at least $21billion to developing the Chabahar–Hajigak corridor, including $85 million for Chabahar port development by India. This includes $150 million line of credit by India to Iran, $8 billion India-Iran MoU for Indian industrial investment in Chabahar Special Economic Zone, $11-billion for the Hajigak iron and steel mining project awarded to seven Indian companies in central Afghanistan, and $2 billion commitment to Afghanistan for developing supporting infrastructure including the construction of the Chabahar-Hajigaj railway line.

The Chabahar-Hajigaj railway line holds the potential to expand trade manifold via connectivity to the 7,200-km-long multi-mode North-South Transport Corridor India is working on to connect to Europe and Turkey — and all across Russia by linking with the R297 Amur highway and the Trans-Siberian Highway. Over and above, a planned Herat to Mazar-i-Sharif railway will provide access for the Central Asia states via Chabahar Port to link with the Indian market. The Chabahar Port also provides the only means of India developing direct access to its erstwhile air base in Farkhor in Tajikistan. Expert opinion is that Chabahar route will result in 60% reduction in shipment costs and 50% reduction in shipment time from India to Central Asia.

The Indian media quoted government sources to the effect that the compliance with the US sanctions against Iran is the price that Washington demanded from India as quid pro quo for its support in the UN Security Council on the designation of Masood Azhar as global terrorist. The veracity of this interpretation can never be established, because the Americans will never claim ownership of any derailment of the India-Iran relationship.

Yet, it is an unfair linkage since Azhar designation has been a far from a solo US enterprise. It was collective effort where Britain and China probably played key roles alongside some very effective behind-the-scene bilateral negotiations between Delhi and Beijing aimed at carrying Pakistan along. The Americans are always quick to claim credit when something good happens — and there is always the Indian chorus that is only too keen to echo such tall claims.

Indeed, the “big picture” is not at all reassuring. For, Washington has now added two further templates to its “linkage diplomacy” vis-a-vis India. First, Washington has ratcheted up the pressure on India to remove “overly restrictive market access barriers” against American products — to quote from a speech in Delhi by visiting US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in New Delhi last week. Ross repeated President Donald Trump’s accusation that India is a “tariff king”, and threatened India with “consequences” if it responded to U.S. tariffs with counter-tariffs. Ross audaciously proposed that India could balance the trade figures by buying more American weaponry.

So, what do we have here? Delhi falls in line with the US diktat on Iran sanctions, which of course will hit the Indian economy very badly, while the US is also at the same time aggressively demanding that India should open up its market for American exports. Why can’t the Modi government prioritise India’s economic concerns?

Second, the Trump administration cracking the whip on India to give up the S-400 missile defence system and conform to the US sanctions against Russia’s arms industry. A report in Hindustan Times says that the US would expect India to instead buy from it the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and Patriot Advance Capability (PAC-3) missile defence systems as an alternative to S-400s. But these American systems are far more expensive and may still not be on par with the advanced S-400 system in capability.

Evidently, like in the case with Iran, the US attempt is to complicate India-Russia relations by forcing Modi to resile from a commitment he gave to President Vladimir Putin on the S-400 deal.

Meanwhile, another report has appeared that under American pressure, India joined a US-led naval exercise in the South China Sea with America’s Asian allies Japan and the Philippines. Whereas the US, Japan and the Philippines are longstanding allies bound together under military pacts, India is not part of any alliance system. Yet, India took part in the exercise in the disputed South China Sea within a ‘Quad Lite’ format. The US secretary of state Mike Pompeo has a cute expression for it — “banding together”.

The running theme in all this is that India’s strategic ties with Iran, Russia and China are coming under challenge from Washington. But the big question is how come Washington regards the “muscular” Modi government with a 56″ chest to be made of such cowardly stuff? Are the ruling elites so thoroughly compromised with the Americans? There are no easy answers.

https://indianpunchline.com/indias-betrayal-of-iran-is-only-the-beginning/

Leave a comment

Filed under Imperialism/World Order, Law/Geopolitics/ Politics