China Never Forgets: “Paybacks can be HELL!”

BY Seth Ferris

 

China’s visit to Belgrade on the 25th anniversary of the bombing of their embassy, when taken in conjunction with the cold shoulder given to the US Secretary of State on his arrival in China, should send a clear message to the US. Will the elites in Washington be clever enough to understand it is another question?

US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken arrived in China and, upon getting off the plane, was greeted without the traditional red carpet. At the top of the hierarchy of officials who met Blinken was Chen Jining, head of the Shanghai Party Committee and a member of the Politburo. As Blinken is the US Secretary of State, protocol would require him to be met by at least the Chinese Foreign minister, Wang Yi, who was notable by his absence.

It is also notable that the United States, and Blinken in particular, have been issuing threats of sanctions against China for their close relationship with Russia, something that will definitely not endear them to their Chinese counterparts, who consider any sanctions not authorized by the UN Security Council to be illegal.

The US has been raising the specter of Chinese weapons supplies to Russia since the beginning of the Russian SMO in Ukraine, without any evidence of such. Now they appear to be taking aim at any and all Chinese exports under the blanket term “dual use”, which, given the track record of US sanctions, can mean pretty much anything.

The track record of such punitive sanctions is dire, especially when we look at the case of Iraq, where sanctions on “dual use” items sch medical supplies and food, are believed to have killed anywhere up to half a million children alone. Of course, the US tries to claim these numbers are “inflated” without any real evidence.

Further evidence of the real nature of such sanctions are evident in their application to Rhodesia, then its successor Zimbabwe, and well, as Iran and now Russia. They are a weapon of warfare, albeit economic, but one that is now starting to turn on its primary wielder.

Needless to say, I doubt the Chinese are going to change course any time soon, with the burgeoning trade with Russia, which in 2023 exceeded the target of US$200 billion by a massive US$ 40 billion, helping the Chinese economy to grow at a far better than expected rate, growing by 5.4% in the first quarter of 2024 alone.

China has happily grabbed the energy exports from Russia that the EU has foolishly rejected and banned, helping to fuel its ever-increasing industrial might. In return, the Chinese are covering gaps in imports to Russia caused by US and EU sanctions, providing machine tools, computer chips, and other manufactured goods to keep the Russian economy going.

In response to US threats of sanctions, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson, Wang Wenbin, restated China’s position, which is worth quoting in full:

“The United States keeps making groundless accusations over the normal trade and economic exchanges between China and Russia, while passing a bill providing a large amount of aid for Ukraine. This is just hypocritical and highly irresponsible. China firmly rejects this.

On Ukraine, China’s position has been just and objective. We have worked actively to promote talks for peace and a political settlement. The government oversees the export of dual-use articles in accordance with the laws and regulations. China is neither the creator of the Ukraine crisis nor a party to it. We never fan the flames or seek selfish gains, and we will certainly not accept being the scapegoat.

Let me stress again that China’s right to conduct normal trade and economic exchanges with Russia and other countries in the world on the basis of equality and mutual benefit should not be interfered with or disrupted. China’s legitimate and lawful rights and interests should not be infringed on.

The US needs to know that to fan the flames or to smear others and shift the blame is no way to solve the Ukraine issue. Only by accommodating the legitimate security concerns of all parties and creating a balanced, effective, and sustainable European security architecture through dialogue and negotiation is the right way forward.”

The Chinese position is well-balanced and thoughtful, as one would expect from one of the oldest and greatest civilizations on Earth. The US government in general, and Anthony Blinken in particular, should remember that China was conducting diplomacy when their ancestors were still living in mud huts.

The Chinese also find it repulsive that the US and EU have committed billions in weapons to prolong the war, but demand others cease civil trade with Russia. One cannot blame them for their obvious disgust at western hypocrisy on this matter.

Now to the matter of the 25th anniversary of the US bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. The bombing of the Chinese Embassy on May 7th 1999 was a watershed event, although many did not consider it as such at the time. The strike killed three Chinese journalists (shocking at the time, but something that has become de jure in modern warfare as conducted by the US and its “greatest ally” Israel), and wounded a number of other Chinese citizens.

At the time, China had been expressing its opposition to the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia at the UN, by vetoing, along with Russia, a US led measure authorizing an attack. The US later claimed that the bombing was “accidental” but it is highly likely that the US, at that time far more powerful than the People’s Republic of China, was sending a none too subtle message.

The bombing was followed by a mass protest outside the US embassy in Beijing, the first government authorized protests in ten years. There is also evidence that the bombing spurred the Chinese to focus on a massive upgrading of their armed forces, as they realized that their policy of peaceful coexistence with the US was not only not being reciprocated, but was being actively abused by the US.

This policy, often called the “Rich Country – Strong Army” policy, has borne fruit over the last two decades, with China now able to produce its own stealth fighters, such as the J-20 and FC-31, and ballistic anti-shipping missiles (known also as “carrier killers”) such as the DF-21. All this backed up with a wide array of more conventional aircraft such as the already proven Su-35 from Russia, and the rapidly growing and modernizing Chinese Navy, now the largest in the world.

The Chinese policy of creating island bases seems intent on creating “no-go” areas large enough to keep US carriers away from the Chinese mainland and vital shipping lanes during any future war, negating the US advantage in these platforms.

Poo-pooing Chinese designed weapons

Needless to say, western military commentators tend to poo-poo Chinese designed weapons systems, assuming that their US counterparts are “significantly superior” without ever providing any real evidence. One would have thought that they would have learned from the debacle in Ukraine, where western “wonder weapons” from the Javelin ATGM and Stinger MANPADs through the Lepoard 2, Challenger 2, Abrams, Bradley AFVs, right through to the “war winning” HIMARS, Patriot, Storm Shadow and the GLSDB (Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb) have all failed to alter the course of the war, and in many cases have failed spectacularly.

To make matters worse, threats to sanction China, be it financially against banks, or against its major companies and exports are likely to backfire stupendously. China is the world’s workshop, providing the majority of everyday items that keep the world functioning, and not only in manufactured goods, but in the vital rare earth minerals that our modern technological society needs to keep functioning, of which China controls 92% of the available supply.

Tides have turned

China is no longer the developing country that had no way to safely retaliate against the US bombing of its embassy in 1999. It is now a military and economic superpower, one that can retaliate in a number of ways to any US aggression, be it military, or the insane idea of unilateral sanctions.

Already we see the Chinese divesting themselves of holdings in the US dollar, particularly treasury bonds, and buying gold. A rapid and massive increase in this activity would rapidly accelerate the process of de-dollarization, which in turn would have severe impacts on the US ability to continue printing money.

Countersanctions against major US companies would also cause severe economic hardship, and a cutting off of the supply of rare earth metals would bring the US tech industry, especially that supporting the US military industrial complex, to a sudden and grinding halt.

It really looks to me as if the US government, so used to being not the biggest kid on the block, but the only kid on the block, has completely failed to keep up with developments, and is about to find out what happens when the oft-bullied kid realizes he has grown bigger and stronger than his tormentor.

Good luck with that, America, you have only yourself to blame!

https://journal-neo.su/2024/05/13/china-never-forgets-paybacks-can-be-hell/

 

Once again about sanctions, or where to see social constructs and the day before yesterday

BY Ksenia Muratshina

 

Another European visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping has once again highlighted the problem of unprecedented Western pressure on the rest of the world, on the global majority, to destroy its relations with Russia. For the umpteenth time, both the leaders of individual EU countries and the pan-European Union authorities are trying to put pressure on Beijing. And even after the leader of a powerful China expressed his displeasure to them and made it clear that he would not follow their lead, the problem of such attempts to interfere in the foreign policy of others remains on the agenda of the whole world.

Both the USA and its satellite allies (Great Britain, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea), as well as the states of the European Union, still consider it a norm to tell other participants in international relations how they should behave, how they should react to events in the world, with whom they should cooperate and with whom they should not. This applies not only to relations with Russia, but also to relations with China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, any state that pursues an independent and autonomous policy and can afford to feel free to determine its own destiny, as Russian President Vladimir Putin made clear in his inaugural speech on 7 May. Southeast Asian countries, for example, are regularly told by the collective West how exactly to deal with Myanmar and what specific sanctions to impose on it. Yet, Myanmar is not a neighbour of Paris, Berlin, Brussels or Canberra, but of the countries of Southeast Asia, which in one way or another have their own relations and traditions of interaction with Myanmar. But no, the West continues to believe that it knows better how people should live on another continent and how international relations should be conducted there.

Moreover, these instructions are usually accompanied by threats: if you violate the requirements and do business with those whose foreign policy does not suit Western capitals and does not conform to their clichés, beware, you will be subject to secondary sanctions and labelled as an accomplice of “wrong” and undesirable regimes. At the first opportunity, threats are made in the most brutal style. Although nothing could be more brutal in the international relations of mature sovereign states, the West insists on giving instructions and labels: this state is democratic, that one is not; this one will receive humanitarian aid, that one will not; one will be patronisingly patted on the back (regardless of whether this is permitted by its national diplomatic etiquette); the other will be declared a centre of evil; the third will be called a failed state.

It makes no difference to Western countries who they are trying to point the finger at and threaten – whether it is a small island state in Oceania or the Caribbean, or global powers such as India or China. The reason is that not all of them have the power and confidence to respond. If India’s Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar can calmly say what he thinks about Western sanctions against Russia and Western approaches to assessing conflicts around the world, and Iran can simply impose its own, essentially retaliatory, sanctions on Western counterparts without much preamble, many small states do not have the resources to respond when their rights are violated. All they can do is speak out and work hard to remove the labels imposed by the West and get out of this or that anti-rating.

In its pseudo-mentorship, the West is not only sure of its own rightness, but as if it does not see any changes in the world around it. For politicians and the majority of Western societies, which are entangled in information propaganda, the simple truth is still not clear: each state chooses its own way of development, the way that its people need and that is in line with its national interests. It also protects its people, chooses its partners abroad, decides which international organisations it should participate in and which ones are completely useless or even hostile, decides what is a favourable factor for it and what is a threat to which it should react.

In fact, the current situation points to nothing else than the absolutely colonial and racist character of the thinking of the average Western politician, which has persisted to this day, and comes from the depths of centuries. If we look at such a historical document as the Statute of the League of Nations, which will be 105 years old this year, we can read in it a clearly articulated justification of why the West considered and continues to consider itself entitled to interfere in the affairs of other peoples around the world. Article 22 seems to be carved in granite: “To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League. There are territories, such as South-West Africa and certain of the South Pacific Islands, which, owing to the sparseness of their population, or their small size, or their remoteness from the centres of civilisation, or their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory, and other circumstances, can be best administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory, subject to the safeguards above-mentioned in the interests of the indigenous population”.

Do you feel the pathos? Only Western mandate holders (we were talking about the system of mandates on colonies) know better how to rule some island in the Pacific or a country in Africa, only the “civilised” world. But the worst thing is that in the heads of this “civilised” Western world nothing has changed in 105 years. The same confidence in their rightness, exclusivity and impunity. Moreover, it includes sympathisers from non-Western states that are in allied relations with the Westerners and/or maintain close economic ties with them – Japan, South Korea, Singapore.

In the West, the constructivist paradigm is very popular in analysing international processes. In general, in the scientific study of international relations, it is high time to abolish the requirement of meaningless references to Western political scientists and their theories; in this context, however, it is simply a case of knowing your enemy by sight and understanding his way of thinking. So, constructivism assigns a significant role in international relations to identities, social practices and social constructs. In the most general terms, a constructivist can refer to social constructs as anything: political systems, philosophical views, understanding of what human rights are, etc. A typical social construct cannot be seen or touched, it exists only because many people support it, their perceptions – their own or imposed from the outside – coincide, and thus the same mantra about democracy in the West is ready to be repeated endlessly, without even thinking about what they mean by this word and what the ancient Greeks meant.

Today’s Western policy with sanctions and interference in the internal affairs of many countries of the world gives us an opportunity to see with our own eyes, live, what is a social construct of the Western almost racist belief in its exclusivity. To put it in Russian, the West continues to live not even yesterday, but the day before yesterday. It does not see a new world in which states are developing, moving forward, and want to determine their own fate, and in which it is impossible to remain in the old realities and follow the same “rules” that are persistently spoken about in every pro-Western diplomatic document, near-scientific work, and media. Everyone can observe this day before yesterday with their own eyes, contrary, so to speak, to the laws of physics. But if we continue the analogy with time, the date line has already been passed, and it is time for the whole world to live not the day before yesterday, but today, to wake up from this centuries-long racist hypnosis about the superiority of Western civilisation, Western liberal economics, Western political thought, Western science, and to remember its roots, its traditions, its own economic, political and cultural views. Then the collective social construct of Western imposition of ideas and labels on the whole world will end its existence, and the day before yesterday will finally fade completely into history. That is where it belongs.

https://journal-neo.su/2024/05/18/once-again-about-sanctions-or-where-to-see-social-constructs-and-the-day-before-yesterday/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vics29iL2qQ

Ukraine Crumbling as Russian Offensive Goes On | Larry C. Johnson

 

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tdLptBnQHw

This Happened In China This Week | Let's Meet Live TV SHOW FROM CHINA

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVYTugFYols

Full video: Taiwan Untangled

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sav5OE6P5OE

 

Why Putin toured Harbin, China

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_nJ5s906-o

China-Russia relations: "Limitless friendship" but not unconditional alliances?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRVpacCF14o

Did Putin and Xi accomplish their agendas at Beijing meeting? An analyst weighs in

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R14CypJvD0s

Xi hugs Putin as Russia-China talks sealed with rare show of affection

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbn211UPFIQ

Steve Tsang on Putin's trip to China

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

TODAY’S WORLD IS DEVELOPING À LA PRIMAKOV

 

BY Veniamin Popov...

 

In December 1998, during an official visit to New Delhi, then-Prime Minister of Russia E. M. Primakov proposed the creation of a strategic triangle between Russia, India and China, which would be a counterweight to the hegemonic policies of the US and the West, that force their position unto other states. Primakov’s proposal was the first signal vis-à-vis the transformation of the unipolar world that had formed following the fall of the Soviet Union.

Admittedly, the initial reaction to the idea of a Russia-India-China (RIC) triangle was rather sceptical. Even in Moscow, many believed that such a trilateral format was not viable, primarily due to significant differences between India and China. Moscow’s relations with Delhi and Beijing in the post-Soviet period remain quite strong and fit the description of a real strategic partnership, however two of the world’s oldest civilizations, neighbours separated by the Himalayas for a long time, have shown elements of rivalry in becoming the regional leader. Since the middle of the last century, India and China have been unable to reach an agreement on the division of the border territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh.

Nevertheless, subsequent events have shown that Primakov’s idea is not just an interesting concept, but must also be implemented as soon as possible. RIC not only became an independent format, but also served as the basis for the creation of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) – the largest association of developing economies in the world.

Cooperation within the scope of the RIC format began in 2002, when the first meeting of foreign ministers took place during the UN General Assembly. Since 2006, regular meetings have been held between Brazil, India, Russia and China, and since 2010 South Africa has joined this quartet.

In 2023 BRICS expanded to consist of 10 members with Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and the UAE joining.

Being a major statesman, Evgeny Maksimovich Primakov, has always been an outstanding scientist, whose ideas and works have always paved the way for the future. At the beginning of the 21st century, he repeatedly warned that the survival of mankind rests upon uniting all states and peoples without exception, as we face a large number of global problems and challenges from the threat of terrorism and the possibility of using weapons of mass destruction to rapid climate change and the growth of appalling material inequality. In this regard, he placed special emphasis on the inadmissibility of a new division of the world, this time along religious and civilizational lines.

E. M. Primakov authored the maxim that the world will certainly become multipolar

The fact is that in the early 90s, the famous US political scientist S. Huntington put forth the idea of a clash of civilizations, which, according to him, would replace the Cold War. He theorised that, for the given time period, the source of future conflicts in the world would not be ideological and economic contradictions between countries, rather socio-cultural differences between civilizations due to the peculiarities of religion, shared values etc. Civilization is explained both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs and social institutions, as well as by the subjective self-identification of people. The most significant conflicts of the future (in terms of their consequences) will occur due to the schisms separating civilizations. At the same time, Huntington noted that, in the 90s, the conflict between the West and the Islamic world was the most pronounced, yet in the future it will be the Western civilization that confronts everyone else.

Differences in the volume of power and the struggle for military, economic and political power are thus a source of conflict between the West and other civilizations. Another source of conflict is differences in culture, basic values and beliefs.

Some scientists of that time assumed that the West would dominate for a long time. The famous Trinidadian writer and Nobel Prize winner V. S. Naipaul argued that Western civilization is universal and suitable for all peoples.

Singaporean scientist and politician K. Mahbubani said that the central axis of world politics would be the conflict between the West and the rest of the world in the form of a reaction of non-Western civilizations to Western power and values. He expressed the hope that the world would follow the path of convergence.

BRICS – a union of all non-Western civilizations

E.M. Primakov emphasised that ­– even in the conditions of a noticeable aggravation of contradictions in the modern world – one cannot talk about the inevitability of a conflict of civilizations. Moreover, politicians around the world must express their will and focus on solving the most acute problems facing all mankind. He is the author of the expression “partnership of civilizations”.

Also, while analysing the challenges of American identity, Huntington noted back in 2005 that disintegration processes were gaining momentum in the United States, calling into question the very fact of the future existence of the phenomenon of American identity. The US, the scientist convincingly showed, is at a turning point, and the future of not only the US, but also the entire world system, depends on which way the pendulum will eventually swing.

Currently, BRICS is a union of all non-Western civilizations: Chinese, Hindu, Islamic, Russian (Eurasian), African and Latin American.

Despite numerous failures and problems, the West – primarily the United States – is still trying to dictate its way unto all other states. This can be observed in the incitement of conflict in all parts of the world, the imposition of various kinds of sanctions and restrictive measures against those who want to live as they please, in accordance with their own vision. Examples of such include Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and other countries.

Because of their attempts to maintain their elusive dominance, Western powers are facing an increasing number of domestic political difficulties; in the US, polarisation has reached an astounding new level (some observers write about ‘two Americas’). In the UK, the bankruptcy of the conservatives’ 14-year rule has become so obvious that, according to many observers, it will clearly manifest itself in the parliamentary elections on July 4.

However, the crisis of Western civilization is most clearly witnessed in France, where most political forces talk about the ‘death of Macronism’, which will be seen during the election campaign in early July. The French example will be contagious for many other countries, as France has always been the birthplace of revolution; both Russian and US politicians have always been impressed by radical French transformations.

The majority of political observers also predict that the German government will soon change.

In June 2024, the UN General Assembly unanimously decided to celebrate June 10 each year as the ‘International Day for Dialogue among Civilizations’, the main purpose of which is to introduce people to the diversity of civilizations.

E. M. Primakov liked to repeat that humanity was able to cope with the division of the world according to an ideological principle, and will eventually be able to cope with the clash of civilizations.

In the current conditions, the further development of E. M. Primakov’s legacy is becoming particularly relevant. It is no coincidence that dozens of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America have announced their desire to join BRICS. In October, Kazan will host the next summit of this grouping, which is becoming the most attractive international organization. Our successes in the Special Military Operation in Ukraine give us ample opportunity to propose new global initiatives that will pave the way to resolving existing conflicts and solve pressing global problems.

Veniamin Popov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, PhD in History, especially for online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

 

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2024/07/04/todays-world-is-developing-a-la-primakov/

 

READ FROM TOP....