Pages

Showing posts with label US Hegemony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Hegemony. Show all posts

Sunday, February 23, 2025

How does USAID use aid to interfere with and 'brainwash' recipients?


 Picture shows the US Agency for International Development (USAID) headquarters in Washington, DC, the US, on February 3, 2025. Photo: VCG

In the first installment of the Global Times' new series to outline the history, the funding chains, and complex controversies behind the US Agency for International Development (USAID), we analyzed what purposes the agency serves for the US, and how it has gradually evolved into a large entity with over 10,000 employees worldwide. 

In the second installment of the series, we aim to uncover how USAID has used foreign aid for more than half a century to carry out ideological infiltration and so-called "democratic reforms" in developing countries, thereby serving the geopolitical interests of the US.

As the wrestling over the USAID is still ongoing, several Chinese experts reached by the Global Times agreed that the agency may undergo significant changes in its organizational structure and functions, but the political role it plays and the US government's practices of interference and penetration in other countries are unlikely to cease.

Development is the eternal pursuit of human society. Foreign aid should be an important resource for addressing global development challenges, yet it is viewed by the US as a tool to maintain its hegemonic position and engage in geopolitical maneuvering. Agencies and organizations like the USAID are "white gloves" for this selfish and hypocritical approach, according to two reports by the Chinese Foreign Ministry published in 2024 on the US foreign aid. 

The problems that the US has accumulated in its foreign aid efforts will ultimately harm the country itself, experts noted.

No free lunch

The USAID is the main foreign aid agency of the US, but, notably, the "humanitarian aid" or "development aid" it claims to provide is mostly accompanied by political preconditions that align with American values. 

According to a report by the Chinese Foreign Ministry published in April 2024 titled The Hypocrisy and Facts of the United States Foreign Aid, from the 1970s to the 1980s, US aid to developing countries was based on the premise that recipient countries would undergo marketization and privatization structural adjustments to achieve economic goals.

The USAID has publicly formulated a policy in this regard, requiring recipient countries to use aid mainly for the development of private enterprises and not for public investment. Such unilateral aid by the US was difficult to meld with local circumstances and affected the ecology and endogenous driving force of sustainable economic development of recipient countries and increased their debt burden, according to the report.

A Global Times reporter had studied conflict prevention and peacebuilding at Durham University in the UK from 2014 to 2015. USAID is one of the main future employment paths for students in this program, especially for those from the US. 

Based on the reporter's observation, compared to other organizations relevant to the course, USAID shows more pronounced characteristics of hegemonism and interventionism as it places greater emphasis on supporting the US' "agents" in other countries through aid to expand US influence and interests in the recipient regions, while also exporting American values and ideologies in the process.

The course provides an opportunity to observe what the potential "talent pool" for USAID looks like. From the reporter's observations, a part of American students in the class were pragmatic "defenders of American interests." They held distinct positions and made value judgments based on American and Western interests or ideologies regarding conflicts, taking sides accordingly and discussing specific aid proposals based on that foundation. 

They firmly believed that this could improve human rights conditions in the relevant countries and regions, as they perceived American ideology and values to represent the direction in which civilization and humanity should progress. Therefore, in their view, aid recipients that align with American values are deemed worthy of assistance. Even in conflict zones or areas that have long lacked education and basic human rights protections, they prioritize supporting local "pro-Western progressive forces" to seize power, even if this could worsen human rights conditions, the Global Times reporter found.

USAID's ideological infiltration and interference in the internal affairs of other countries has been criticized and publicly condemned by multiple nations. 

"What we have learned about it now suggests that it was an agency for interfering in the internal affairs of other states and changing the regimes in many countries," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova commented at a press conference on February 6, according to the website of the Russian Foreign Ministry. 

On February 9, a protest against mining organized by the opposition took place in El Salvador. El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele subsequently responded to the protest on X and said "It's clear there is no opposition without USAID money." 

In a previous post on February 2 on X, he said "Most governments don't want USAID funds flowing into their countries because they understand where much of that money actually ends up. While marketed as support for development, democracy, and human rights, the majority of these funds are funneled into opposition groups, NGOs with political agendas, and destabilizing movements."

"Many projects of the in USAID are aimed at cultivating so-called 'civil forces' or 'opinion leaders,' and through these aid recipients, they foster dissatisfaction and division in local societies, without making real improvements in local conditions," said Lü Xiang, an expert at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. 

A staff is taking off a sign of the USAID in a community in Cucuta, Colombia, on February 9, 2019. Photo: AFP

A staff is taking off a sign of the USAID in a community in Cucuta, Colombia, on February 9, 2019. Photo: AFP



Despicable acts targeting China


As an infamous "white glove" of the US government, USAID had also repeatedly exploited its resources and influence to interfere in China's internal affairs, undermine stability in some regions in the country, tarnish China's image, and incite hostility toward China in the international community. The so-called lofty slogans of "democracy" and "human rights" that USAID promotes cannot conceal its despicable intentions to suppress and split China.

Earlier this month, the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute (HKPORI), a USAID-backed separatist group, stated on its website that it "will suspend all its self-funded research activities indefinitely." Many believed the suspension was directly linked to the closure of USAID, which had been funding this group to undermine the national security law for Hong Kong and the Chinese central government. 

Chung Kim-wah, former deputy executive director of the HKPORI who moved to the UK in 2022, was one of the six wanted overseas-based activists named by Hong Kong police last month for allegedly contravening the national security law.

USAID had also been found to provide long-term support to anti-China separatist organizations globally, continuously engaging in China's internal affairs concerning regions like Xinjiang, Xizang, Hong Kong and the island of Taiwan, through these organizations.

The Swiss Better Cotton Initiative (BCI), for instance, in 2021 announced the suspension of projects related to Xinjiang cotton, against the backdrop of the "forced labor" smear campaign against Xinjiang cotton by US-led Western media outlets. USAID is a major funding partner of the BCI. 

In this context, it's hard to say there's no connection between BCI's claims about Xinjiang and USAID, some observers said. 

Similar conditions happen on the island of Taiwan. A February 17 editorial by Taiwan media China Times stated that, several NGOs on the island of Taiwan that support separatist Democratic Progressive Party had indirectly received financial support from USAID. 

In recent years, as initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) have benefited an increasing number of countries and regions worldwide, China's growing international influence has become a target of resentment for the US. Funding both domestic and overseas groups to undermine China's cooperative projects abroad and damaging its international image has therefore become a primary task for the US' "white glove" agents including USAID. In November 2023, for instance, a research lab at US-based William & Mary's Global Research Institute named AidData released a report slandering the BRI. AidData's website shows USAID as is its major partner and funder.

In Serbia, USAID had been accused of infiltrating local anti-government protests, and had repeatedly engaged in promoting rumors targeting local Chinese-invested projects. The "carcinogenic Chinese-owned steel company" rumor in late 2021 was a typical example, fabricated by a Serbian NGO Tvrdjava ("Fortress") backed by USAID. 

A Reuters report in November 2021 cited data obtained by Tvrdjava, alleging that Smederevo Steelworks in central Serbia caused a great amount of pollution and even increased "cancer cases," after being purchased by China's HeSteel Group (HBIS) in 2016. Chinese media outlets later refuted the claim with solid data.

Inglorious chain of funds 

According to a February 7 article by US think tank Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), USAID is funded by the US Congress, which allocates money for it through the State, foreign operations, and related programs appropriations each fiscal year. 

Data from the CFR and US government showed that the US disbursed close to $72 billion in foreign assistance worldwide in fiscal year 2023, nearly 61 percent of which was distributed through USAID.

Nonetheless, the vast majority of USAID's substantial funding might not actually reach those in need. US Representative Brian Mast said to Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) on February that when it comes to USAID funding, only "10 to 30 cents on the dollar is what actually goes to aid." Earlier, a January USAID report recapping 2024 stated that, about 12.1 percent of all USAID funding goes directly to local organizations in foreign countries, including NGOs, the private sector, and government partners. More of its expenditures were reportedly spent back in the US.

USAID was also found to have been largely engaged in many misinformation campaigns targeting the US' "rivals," diverting substantial funds, which could have been used to develop economies and improve lives in areas of need, toward despicable cognitive warfare tactics.

In September 2024, US Congress authorized appropriations for "Countering the People's Republic of China Malign Influence Fund," which planned to appropriate $325 million for each of the fiscal years between 2023 and 2027 - $1.625 billion in total - to counter the so-called maligning influence of China. In other words, to counter any aspects that the US perceives as unfavorable from China.

The Congress didn't explicitly say who would operate the massive fund of $1.6 billion, but USAID were found behind the scene. Act H.R. 1157, which Congress passed to authorize the money, directly mentioned that the administrator of USAID must designate a senior official as the "assistant coordinator" of the program. 

Many actions to badmouth China might have been carried out globally under such programs. In September 2021, for instance, Zimbabwe's largest daily newspaper, The Herald, revealed that the US was funding and training local reporters to write anti-China stories and discredit Chinese investments, Xinhua reported in October that year.

Facing doubts and challenges, the future direction of USAID is filled with uncertainty. Experts reached by the Global Times said that the USAID may undergo significant changes in both its organizational structure and functional roles in the future. However, the US government's need for political influence abroad still exists, experts warned. 

The overall scale of USAID is expected to be significantly reduced and some of USAID's functions, including those with political objectives, may still be retained in another form in the future. The agency may work more closely with external propaganda and foreign political relations, such as collaborating with US embassies and other institutions abroad, Lü said. 

Song Guoyou, an expert at Fudan University, believes that the likelihood of USAID being completely dismantled during Donald Trump's presidency is low, but it will inevitably undergo major institutional adjustments, project adjustments, and shifts in aid direction. 

Song predicted that the adjustments may lead USAID to stop those activities that are "both wasteful and harmful." But actions that are "detrimental to other countries but beneficial to the US" will continue by the USAID or any other potential agencies.

A 'white glove'

A 'white glove'

RELATED ARTICLES

Related:

Trump deems Zelensky "not very important" at peace talks

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday depicted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's presence at peace talks as "not very important."


Academic researchers sweat over Trump administration's funding cuts

Major research universities and hospitals across the United States are bracing for devastating funding cuts under new Trump administration policies that threaten to disrupt critical medical research and scientific progress.

By Xinhua | 2025/2/21 15:04:14
By Xinhua | 2025/2/22 15:11:29


Related posts"

Inside America's Meddling Machine destabilizing the world order

NED, the US-Funded Org Interfering in Elections Across the Globe

Thursday, March 28, 2024

How the Philippines colludes with US government, think tank and media in 'sadfishing' itself, demonizing China on South China Sea issue

 

The China Coast Guard expels Philippine vessels which had illegally intruded into waters adjacent to Ren'ai Jiao in China's Nansha Islands, on March 23, 2024. Photo: VCG

The Philippines has been making a show of the South China Sea issue for a long time. It has repeatedly provoked China and created tension in the South China Sea region while turning a blind eye to historical facts. Seemingly suffering from a sort of histrionic personality disorder, the Philippines has not only staged many farces on the issue, but also colluded with anti-China forces in the US-led West to play the thief crying "stop thief."

Last week, during his visit in the Philippines, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken reportedly "criticized China's provocative actions" in the South China Sea. Portraying the Philippines as a victim and China as a "perpetrator" has become a common intrigue to win attention and sympathy in the international community.

Supplying to its vessels illegally grounded on China's sovereign islands in the South China Sea is a trick of showmanship that the Philippines has employed in recent months. On Saturday, it sent a supply vessel and two coast guard vessels to intrude into the adjacent waters of China's Ren'ai Jiao (also known as Ren'ai Reef) in disregard of China's strong opposition. 

"China's Coast Guard took necessary measures at sea in accordance with the law to safeguard China's rights, firmly obstructed the Philippine vessels, and foiled the Philippines' attempt," Chinese Foreign Ministry stated that same day.

Days earlier, Philippine civil group the Atin Ito coalition said it was planning another mission to the South China Sea with the aim of "delivering aid to fishermen" around China's Huangyan Dao (also known as Huangyan Island). According to Philippine media, the group openly claimed to mobilize "a delegation of international observers" to join their mission. It didn't seem to mind making the involvement of Western forces public.

"What it's like on board an outnumbered Philippine ship facing down China's push to dominate the South China Sea (CNN, March 26)," "China coast guard flexes its might against the Philippines in disputed waters as journalists look on (The Economic Times, March 27)"… It's not exaggeration to say that most media stories that smear China on the South China Sea issue, whether by Philippine or Western media, are products of the collusion between the anti-China forces of the Philippines and the US-led West. 

The Global Times has looked into some of the various collusion forms, trying to reveal what's behind the current numerous untrue and misleading "media reports" that one-sidedly support the Philippines and attack China.

People protest with signs and placards on Mendiola Street against the visit of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to the Philippines in Manila, on March 19, 2024.Photo: VCG

People protest with signs and placards on Mendiola Street against the visit of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to the Philippines in Manila, on March 19, 2024. Photo: VCG

Closely linked Philippine coast guard, 'civil groups,' and US scholars

The Atin Ito coalition disclosed its new "supply mission" plan at an event it held in Manila on March 14. The event gathered senior officers from the Philippine military and government, and representatives from the British, Australian, Dutch, Swedish, and European Union embassies, local media Palawan News reported the following day.

The guest list implied that Atin Ito has never been an ordinary "civil group." Close sources told the Global Times that the group was led by Risa Hontiveros, an anti-China senator who once asserted raising the notorious 2016 South China Sea "arbitration" to the United Nations General Assembly. Last winter, Hontiveros planned a "Christmas supply" mission for Atin Ito, asking the group members to send food and goods to a military vessel "stationed" at Ren'ai Jiao with the help of the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG).

Atin Ito had tried to land on Huangyan Dao and plant the Philippines flag on the island in June 2016. According to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a US scholar Anders Corr was among the group's activists aboard the fishing boat that intruded into the adjacent waters of the island.

All the information has reflected that the so-called "civil groups" resupplying Huangyan Dao and Ren'ai Jiao are "nothing but a farce jointly planned by a few Philippine politicians and military, as well as the anti-China forces in the US-led West," Yang Xiao, deputy director of the Institute of Maritime Strategy Studies, China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, told the Global Times.

In an article published on March 6, The Associated Press (AP) introduced a PCG strategy of publicizing "aggressive actions" by China in the South China Sea, which aims to "spark international condemnation that has put Beijing under the spotlight." This strategy is known as "offensive transparency." 

"We will continue [with the strategy]," PCG spokesperson Commodore Jay Tarriela said in February.

Joining the PCG in 2005, Tarriela allegedly has numerous links with the US. In 2021, he was largely involved in bilateral US-Philippine collaboration, including in the Pacific Forum's US-Philippines' Next Generation Leaders Initiative, a project sponsored by the US Department of State, through the US Embassy in Manila. 

According to an article by The Philippine Star in December 2023, Tarriela was considered a representative of the "pro-American faction," and even faced "CIA agent" accusations on social media.

Raymond Powell is another name frequently mentioned in the Philippines' "offensive transparency" strategy. 

A retired US colonel, Powell is the founder of the security think tank Project Sealight, and leads the "Project Myoushu" at Stanford University in cooperation with the PCG and some Philippine Foreign Ministry officials. 

The main purpose of the project is to support the "offensive transparency" strategy and help create a "victim" image for the Philippines on the South China Sea issue.

A US Air Force C-130 cargo plane comes in for a landing past US marines F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets during the semi-annual Philippine-US military exercise at the airport of the former US naval base in Manila, the Philippines, on July 13, 2023. Photo: VCG

A US Air Force C-130 cargo plane comes in for a landing past US marines F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets during the semi-annual Philippine-US military exercise at the airport of the former US naval base in Manila, the Philippines, on July 13, 2023. Photo: VCG

US journalists invited on board

On March 5, two supply vessels and two coast guard vessels from the Philippines, illegally intruded into the adjacent waters of Ren'ai Jiao of China's Nansha Qundao, in an attempt to send materials, including construction materials, to the vessel illegally grounded at Ren'ai Jiao. The China Coast Guard took strict regulatory action to curtail the Philippine vessels' intrusion.

It is worth noting that the Philippines' mission included journalists from CNN, who said they witnessed a "high-stakes confrontation" that day, and wrote features that described their experiences on board in detail. 

The CNN reporters wrote it was "the first time foreign journalists have been allowed to embed with the fleet in decades." But in fact, more than 10 years ago, US media reporters had boarded Philippine official vessels, including supply vessels, and wrote distorted media reports based on their first-hand experiences.

Early in 2013, The New York Times reporter Jeff Himmelman had been to the "Sierra Madre" vessel illegally grounded at Ren'ai Jiao for an interview, and later described the confrontation between China and the Philippines at South China Sea as "a game of shark and minnow" in a feature story. 

Himmelman revealed that before they arrived they had "already hooked things up" with the local officials and the Filipino Navy.

In recent years, US journalists have been frequently invited on Philippine ships to participate in the PCG's "missions." In 2023 alone, two AP reporters and several other media staffers were invited aboard three PCG vessels that protect supply ships in November. In April 2023 the PCG reportedly invited many journalists, including those from the AP, to join a 1,670-kilometer "patrol."

According to a Chinese correspondent who worked in the Philippines for many years, there is a large number of US journalists in the Philippines. The Philippine authorities maintain close contact with foreign journalists in the country, and therefore, "it is easy for the authorities to seek cooperation from US journalists," said the correspondent who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The PCG's purpose of inviting journalists on board is to deliberately amplify the possible "incidents" through media, and to launch defamation warfare against China, the correspondent told the Global Times. "But I think [directly taking CNN reporters on board the PCG vessels] is excessive, and is even a sort of 'dishonor to the country,'" the correspondent added. "There is resentment within the Philippines, too."

US-funded Philippine media

Searching online media coverage on the South China Sea, one may find that Philippine and US media outlets are particularly close. They quote and forward each other's South China Sea stories, working closely together in attacking China on this topic.

Some of the major Philippine media outlets that are active in reporting on South China Sea include Rappler, VeraFiles, and the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. 

Having called themselves "independent", these media outlets turn out to be are reportedly funded by the CIA and the US' infamous National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

In 2019, journalists from the aforementioned three media outlets were accused of receiving payments from the CIA, "a potential criminal offense under local law." The accusations claimed that the CIA uses the NED to channel funds, and the three media outlets "receive substantial grants from the NED," said the organization Committee to Protect Journalists in May that year.

VeraFiles, for instance, started receiving funds from the NED since 2016. 

The NED website shows that, so far VeraFiles has got five batches of money from this US government-backed foundation, totally $350,600. It's far from a small amount for a media outlet without full-time reporters (only three editors and two web technicians). But VeraFiles has never disclosed how it spent the money.

Obviously, the Philippines has deeply colluded with the US government, think tanks, and media from top to bottom in "sadfishing" itself and demonizing China on the South China Sea issue. Worse still, such a nasty trick by the Philippines may become normal and diversified in the future, said Chen Xiangmiao, director of the World Navy Research Center at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies.

In response to the slander, Chen suggested China fight back with strong facts including on-site images, videos, and objective data. "We should make it clear to the international community what China's claims are in the South China Sea," Chen told the Global Times. "Do not let the US and the Philippines skew international public opinion."

Source link\

Saturday, October 21, 2023

Pentagon report hypes 'China threat' to sustain own hegemony, China's military power only makes those with malicious intent feel 'threatened

The US' "China Military Power report," like its previous editions, ignores the facts and is filled with bias, spreading the "China threats" theory which only serves as an excuse to maintain its military hegemony, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said on Friday, in response to a Pentagon report that warned Beijing is building up its nuclear and long-range missiles arsenal "faster than previous projections."

The newly-released annual Pentagon document claimed that China has more than 500 operational nuclear warheads as of May 2023, surpassing earlier projections, and forecast that China would likely have more than 1,000 operational nuclear warheads by 2030.

Describing China as a "pacing challenge," the US Defense Department report also said that Beijing may be exploring the development of conventionally-armed long-range missiles that could reach the US. It said that Beijing has completed the construction of three new fields of long-range ballistic missiles silos.

Mao Ning, a spokesperson from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said on Friday that China is firmly committed to a defensive nuclear strategy, and has always maintained nuclear forces at the lowest level required for national security, and has no intention of engaging in a nuclear arms race with any country.

China has a unique nuclear policy among nuclear weapon states and has maintained a high degree of stability, consistency and predictability, Mao said, "No country will be threatened by China's nuclear weapons as long as it does not use or threaten to use them against China."

We urge the US to abandon its Cold War mentality and hegemonic logic, to view China's strategic intentions and national defense development objectively and rationally, to stop publishing such irresponsible reports year after year, and to take practical actions to maintain the stability of the military-to-military relationship between the two sides, Mao said.

Chinese military expert Zhang Junshe said that it's hilarious that a country with more than 5,000 nuclear warheads says another nation poses a threat.

In 2020, Fu Cong, then director general of the Department of Arms Control and Disarmament, cited statistics from renowned international think tanks, pointing out that the US nuclear arsenal stands at about 5,800 nuclear warheads.

Even if China does have 500 nuclear warheads, they are not even close to the size of the US' arsenal. In addition, the number of US strategic nuclear submarines, strategic bombers, and the number of warheads they carry are far higher than any other country in the world, including China, Zhang remarked.

For fiscal year 2024, the US defense budget request hit another record high of $842 billion, more than the gross domestic product of Saudi Arabia for the entire year of 2021, and 20 percent higher than the combined defense budgets of nine countries, including China, Russia, India, and the UK, according to Xinhua.

According to Zhang, the US is developing a new generation of strategic nuclear weapons, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), sea-based strategic missiles and airborne nuclear weapons, a new generation of nuclear submarines, and strategic bombers.

In addition, the US is miniaturizing nuclear weapons for so-called tactical use, namely, lowering the threshold for the use of tactical nuclear weapons, Zhang said, "The US is also considering resuming the storage of nuclear weapons in other countries, such as the UK, a Cold War era practice of nuclear sharing with allies."

The hyping of the "China threats" is nothing but a search for excuses for Washington's uncontrolled nuclear arsenal expansion, and to discredit and suppress China's normal military development, so as to maintain absolute military superiority, Zhang said.

'Undesirable hobby'


The report smeared China's military modernization as a means of projecting power across the Pacific region and ultimately around the globe, saying China's strength is growing in all the domains of warfare, including the traditional land, air and sea, as well as nuclear, cyber and space, according to CNN.

The 212-page report also mentioned the word "Taiwan" 261 times, highlighting the Chinese mainland's "military pressure" against the island.

The US is worried that the increase of the Chinese People's Liberation Army's military capability could pose challenges to US military hegemony, thus affecting the US political hegemony and global hegemony, Chinese military expert and TV commentator Song Zhongping told the Global Times on Friday.

Given that the report was released ahead of the Beijing Xiangshan Forum, a China-hosted platform on defense and security issues, Chinese analysts believed it was also aimed at entrapping Chinese neighbors, cajoling them to resist and oppose China's normal military development so that they can be better "utilized" by the US in the Asia-Pacific region.

As the world's largest nuclear state, the US has not made a commitment not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, as China has done, as well as a commitment not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries and regions. Instead, the US has even been aggressive, emphasizing the pre-emptive use of nuclear forces, according to Zhang.

The nuclear strategy of the US is global in its scope. When it provides nuclear umbrellas and even nuclear sharing to some allies, it poses a serious threat to other countries, and at the same time is extremely destructive to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation around the world, and ultimately exacerbates regional tensions, Song said.

In July, the US deployed a nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarine to South Korea for the first time since 1980s. North Korea later fired two short-range ballistic missiles into its eastern waters as a response to the "grave provocation," media reported.

The problem that the US poses to global security is its nuclear superiority and military power, said a Beijing-based expert. "When it comes to the resolution of regional crises, the US is inclined to resort to the use of force, either by itself or through its allies. And the US' absolute military strength and nuclear power has further encouraged that undesirable hobby."

"The US, with the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal in the world, follows a first-use nuclear deterrence policy, keeps making enormous investment to upgrade its nuclear triad, advances forward deployment of strategic forces, and strengthens extended deterrence for its allies," Mao said. "These policies and acts heighten the risk of a nuclear arms race and nuclear conflict, and will only adversely affect the global strategic security environment."

RELATED ARTICLES

US media is currently attempting to redirect the current Israel-Palestine conflict toward the rise of China. The New York Times, in an article titled "New Global Divisions on View as Biden Goes to Israel and Putin to China," directly contrasts ...

China's military power only makes those with malicious intent feel 'threatened'

PLA Photo:VCG

The US Department of Defense (DoD) released its annual report to Congress on "Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China" (China military power report) on Thursday. People familiar with China-US relations know that since 2000, the Pentagon has issued this report every year, which basically compiles some public information, including media reports with unknown sources, into a "collection of annual China threat theories" in a bid to request funding from Congress and deceive allies into buying US weapons. As a result, one can imagine the level of professionalism in this report.

The China military power report can be roughly divided into three parts. First, it assesses China's current military capabilities without any real basis. Second, it selectively hypes China's military activities over the past year. Third, it distorts and speculates about China's military intentions. This year's report has an additional section - complaints about China's "resistance" to military-to-military communications with the US.

By combining these factors, the US attempts to fabricate a terrifying image of China, whose military strength is rapidly increasing, military behavior is becoming more aggressive, and "military ambitions" are insufficiently transparent. All the malicious speculations and smears about China's military in the report are far from the reality of China's military situation, but instead resemble a reflection of the US military itself.

The Pentagon's report always focuses on China's modernization of its nuclear capabilities and makes groundless speculations and comments on the situation in the Taiwan Straits. It is worth noting that this year's report claims that the DoD estimates that China possessed more than 500 operational nuclear warheads as of May 2023 - on track to exceeding previous projections, and that China will probably have over 1,000 operational nuclear warheads by 2030. In the 2020 report, the DoD made its first public estimate of China's nuclear warheads, and said its nuclear arsenal was slightly more than 200. In just three years, the number of China's nuclear warheads in the US report has more than doubled. Common sense dictates that on such a significant issue, the US report has not shown the required rigor. The specific number depends on the needs of the Pentagon and Washington at different times.

The US needs to understand two points. First, China pursues the strategic thinking of active defense, and the deployment of nuclear forces is part of its defense strategy. However, no matter how many nuclear warheads China has or how strong its defense capabilities are, they will not become violent tools for China to dominate the world, as is the case with the US military. Instead, they are a strong guarantee for China to safeguard its national sovereignty, security, and development interests, as well as regional and global peace. Second, the development of China's defense force has its own established pace, it does not target any specific country, but it firmly safeguards China's sovereignty, security, and developmental interests. As long as China has not achieved reunification and external forces continue to interfere without restraint, China will not cease to strengthen its defense capabilities.

In addition, many have also noticed that this year's report highlights the PLA's so-called coercive and risky operational behavior in the past two years. The Pentagon even presented videos and photos of Chinese military aircraft "intercepting US military aircraft flying in international airspace with dangerous maneuvers," claiming Chinese aircraft have adopted more dangerous, coercive and provocative actions toward the US and its allies in the airspace of East China Sea and South China Sea. However, what the Pentagon never mentions is that this so-called international airspace is primarily located along China's coast, with some US aircraft even intruding into China's territorial waters, while none of these incidents occurred along the US coast. Doesn't this already make the point clear? If we were to reverse the situation, in an atmosphere where even harmless balloons create a sense of impending crisis in Washington, the reaction from the US side would likely be far more significant if Chinese warships or aircraft appeared in international waters and airspace outside San Francisco Bay, beyond just what is termed "dangerous intercepts."

The US, with the most powerful armed forces in the world, has become one of the most enthusiastic proponents of the so-called "Chinese military threat" theory, which in itself is abnormal. If the US had no ill intentions toward China, has no desire to interfere with China's reunification efforts, and has no intention of conflict or suppression, it would not perceive such a strong "threat" from China's peaceful armed forces. In the past year, the actions of the US military have made it even clearer who the escalating threat in the Asia-Pacific region truly is and what poses the greatest challenge to peace and stability in that region.

At roughly the same time as the report's release, multiple US military bases in the Middle East came under consecutive attacks. The US State Department also issued a rare worldwide caution alert citing potential for terrorist attacks, demonstrations or violent actions against US citizens and interests. All of these factors indicate that the real danger facing the US does not actually stem from its imagined challenge to its position of leadership by China. Rather, it arises from its excessive interventions and the blowback resulting from creating tension and inciting the risk of war on a global scale. This is what the US truly needs to pay attention to and reflect upon.


Tuesday, August 15, 2023

International community must take action to oppose the 'new Cold War'

 

Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

If recent developments in the three major areas of politics and diplomacy, international trade and economics, and military in the US are looked at together, there will be a chilling discovery. This week, the leaders of the US, Japan, and South Korea will hold a meeting at Camp David, a retreat of US presidents. This kind of summit is the first in the history of these three countries, and its target against China is no longer concealed. According to reports from Japanese media, Japan and the US will also agree this week to jointly develop an interceptor missile "to counter hypersonic warheads being developed by China, Russia and North Korea." As for the executive order on introducing investment restrictions on China recently signed by US President Joe Biden, its negative impacts are spreading and fermenting.

The actions and policy measures of the US mentioned above are all marked by a strong "new Cold War" color and exhibit a trend of continuity and escalating intensity. Can they be characterized as "new Cold War" thinking or actions? This can be discerned through the following four criteria. First, is it confrontational zero-sum competition or cooperative mutual benefit? Second, does it involve ideological delineation or equal exchange, mutual learning, and peaceful coexistence among different civilizations? Third, does it create cliques and alliances for confrontation or does it promote openness, inclusivity, and the construction of a community with a shared future for mankind? Fourth, does it resort to containment and suppression against perceived competitors, or does it engage in benign competition within the scope of international rules and principles? Upon comparison, the answer becomes self-evident.

Just as the drumbeats of the "new Cold War" are becoming more frequent and the smell of gunpowder more suffocating, prominent figures in the White House, including President Biden, have been emphasizing on various occasions that the US "does not seek a "new Cold War"," that "the US must reject neo-containment," and that "Washington should learn from the lessons of the Cold War and the old Cold War construct of blocs is not coherent." This has created a strange scene where there is not just a departure but even a contradiction between the actions and statements of the US, as well as between US self-assessment and the real impressions of the outside world about it. This issue goes beyond American hypocrisy or lack of self-awareness; it harbors a significant underlying risk.

There are at least two possibilities. The first one is that the US knows it is engaged in a "new Cold War" and is well aware that people all around the world, including Americans, strongly oppose and are deeply concerned about a "new Cold War." In other words, the US realizes that this is a highly risky undertaking and therefore would never admit to it. Instead, it might label its actions with a new term to deceive the world.

The second scenario is that the US has actually initiated a "new Cold War," but it does not really think that it is engaging in a "new Cold War." This will have more serious consequences than the first scenario, because the US not only refuses to make a reflection and change its course, but also will gain a stronger "moral drive" from self-hypnosis. In order to wake the US up from its pretended or genuine sleep, the international community needs to strengthen its resistance and criticism against the US' initiation of a "new Cold War" and take actions.

Regardless of what the US diplomatic strategists say or think, their actions speak louder. When faced with international challenges, especially when dealing with countries that have similar power with the US but different political and cultural backgrounds from the US, they habitually and unconsciously refer to the Cold War experience. They sometimes even directly resort to Cold War tactics, without taking off the "Cold War glasses" to view the world and era that have already undergone tremendous changes, even though they may also know that this is wrong and dangerous.

An article in the American magazine Foreign Affairs points out that Cold War history has become a straitjacket constraining how Americans perceive the world, including making Americans struggle to understand gray areas between friend and foe, making negotiations with rivals appear to carry impossibly high stakes and making it hard for Americans to imagine a less-militarized foreign policy.

The deeper the misunderstandings of history and reality, the stronger the limitations and misguidance of Cold War thinking on American foreign policy decision-makers. Binary thinking makes it impossible to understand the complexity and richness of a multipolar world, and severely lacks imagination for the future. The diplomatic strategies and approaches formulated based on this have distorted international politics.

More specifically, Washington has misunderstood history, misjudged the times, and misunderstood the Communist Party of China and the Chinese people. The destructive power of "new Cold War" is world-class, and the fate of all humanity stands at a crossroads. American political elites may believe that the US was the winner of the Cold War, which is controversial, but it is certain that the US cannot be the winner of the "new Cold War" and must bear historical responsibility for today's choices.

Source link

RELATED ARTICLES
The Camp David summit wants to forcefully add drama to ASEAN: Global Times editorial

The contrast between the words and actions of the US itself, combined with the actual comparison between China and the US, provides the most vivid display for ASEAN and other countries around the world.

China lodges solemn representations with relevant parties in Camp David summit on Taiwan question and South China Sea issue: FM

​China expresses strong dissatisfaction and has lodged solemn representations with relevant parties after the leaders of the US, Japan and South Korea smeared and attacked China on the Taiwan question and South China Sea issue during the Camp David summit, ...


Camp David summit serves as hypocritical anti-China pantomime with a 'mini-NATO' in the making: analysts

Despite the US President Joe Biden claimed that the US-Japan-South Korea summit at the US presidential retreat Camp David "is ...


Unscrupulous attacks on China make US nastier and nastier: Global Times editorial

As the election campaign progresses, Washington's bottom line will sink lower and lower, and more sensational claims are likely to come out. The unscrupulous smearing and attacking of China has made the US nastier and nastier.


Facts, lessons still need to be told 78 years after Japan surrender in war

Seventy eight years ago, the Japanese government officially announced its unconditional surrender, signifying the end of World War II and the victory of people worldwide against fascism. Despite post-war efforts by the Allied powers, Japan's war criminals were subjected to ...


Int'l Memorial Day for 'Comfort Women' marked in China with fewer than 20 survivors still alive

Monday marks the 11th International Memorial Day for the “Comfort Women,” which refers to victims forced into sexual slavery by Japanese troops during World War II. More than 200,000 Chinese women were tortured between 1931 and 1945 with fewer than


Learning history is to treasure peace: head of Museum of the War of Chinese People's Resistance Against Japanese Aggression

August 15 marks the 78th anniversary of Japan's surrender in World War II, following with September 3, China's Anti-Japanese War Victory Day.


Related posts:


Pentagon planning Cold War against China - AirSea Battle concept!