China (foto tenor.com)China Emperor (foto tenor.com)

The Future for China

On July 14th, the two conjoined gangster-regimes, U.S. & UK, simultaneously started, with deadly seriousness, their aggressive economic war against China.

Business Insider headlined “US Navy warship challenges China in South China Sea as US blasts Beijing’s ‘unlawful‘ claims and ‘gangster tactics’” (http://archive.is/IyTzE) and reported that

After the US Department of State declared Beijing’s maritime claims in the South China Sea and efforts to assert dominance to be unlawful (https://www.businessinsider.nl/us-officially-rejects-many-of-beijings-south-china-sea-claims-2020-7?international=true&r=US), the US Navy destroyer USS Ralph Johnson further challenged China with a sail by operation.
The Navy released a couple of photos on Tuesday of the destroyer sailing near the contested Spratly Islands, and a Navy spokesman confirmed that the ship conducted a freedom of navigation operation in the area.

USS Ralph Johnson (foto US Navy)
The Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson (DDG 114) steams near the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea (foto US Navy)

Logistics Specialist 2nd Class Paul Vance assigned to Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson, scans horizon using telescopic alidade, July 14, near the Spratly Islands, South China Sea (foto US Navy)

The Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson (DDG 114) steams near the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Ralph Johnson is deployed conducting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts for a free and open Indo Pacific.

On the same day, Russia’s RT headlined “George Galloway: UK ban on Huawei is national self harm. China’s riposte could devastate the ailing British economy (https://www.rt.com/op-ed/494732-china-uk-huawei-5g/), and he reported that

Having alienated the remaining 27 members of the European Union and set Anglo Russian relations back a century, Boris Johnson has just declared an economic war on China. (…) The proximate reason, that allowing Huawei into Britain’s 5G roll out is a “security risk,” is patently false. If that were true for 5G, it would be true of 3 and 4G. If it were true then the company would have to be banished now, not in 2027 (by when, incidentally, 5G will be so last year).
There is not a shred, not a scintilla, not a jot or tittle, of evidence that Huawei has ever done anything wrong during its highly successful penetration of the British market, from which Britain has economically benefited mightily.
And if Chinese investment in 5G is not wanted, indeed, is being ejected, what of China’s powerful stake in Britain’s energy sector? What happens if China pulls the plugs on its nuclear power stations? Do all our lights go out? Has anyone thought this Chinese Kick Away through? (…) Boris Johnson’s decision to throw the Huawei 5G deal on the scrapheap shows UK poodle still obeys its US master.
In this triple whammy of sanctions, gunboats and settlement, the brassy note of Jingoism plays ‘Rule Britannia’, but no one seems to have noticed that China is a vastly richer and more powerful adversary than it was when we extorted Hong Kong from them in punishment for their attempt to halt the flood of British opium into China which caused the addiction of 90 million Chinese people.
The economic sanctions imposed on China in the Huawei affair will be returned several fold by Beijing.

Galloway might be correct, that China will be able to survive UK’s attempts to stifle China’s rise as a global economic competitor to the UK US empire (https://www.europereloaded.com/americas-enemy-is-england-not-russia/), but if the US is allowed to block China’s shipments through the South China Sea, then the war against China has already been won. It’s much more serious.

China has internationally been losing each one of the major rounds in its territorial disputes regarding its territorial claims in the South China Sea. It’s as if the US were losing territorial claims in the Caribbean, except that the South China Sea is far more geostrategically important to China than the Caribbean is to the United States. So, China’s losses here are geostrategic ones. Those are disputes versus the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia; and the US regime has played a decisive role in each case on the basis of its bilateral treaties, such as the 1951 US Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty (https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/phil001.asp), which enables the Philippines to call upon US military backing in case the Philippines needs muscle in order to assert a territorial claim against another country, such as, say, China, which is the giant in their neighborhood.

U.S. President Harry S Truman strongly disagreed with his predecessor, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s, opposition to imperialism, and he went for it almost as soon as he became the US President. Actually, he became President at FDR’s death on 12 April 1945, and then, less than four months later, on 26 July 1945 (http://archive.is/sKLQr#selection-861.0-861.12), committed himself to the Military Industrial Complex’s dream of establishing an all encompassing US global empire. He made that decision, on 26 July 1945 (http://archive.is/sKLQr#selection-861.0-861.12), which subsequently created the coups, military invasions, importations of thousands of Nazi officials into The West (https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB146/), to help America’s fight against the Soviet Union, and construction of the CIA’a program to control what international ‘news’ would be off limits to report in the US (http://archive.is/43cXq), and in its vassal nations (http://archive.is/Micr8).

Elliott Roosevelt, FDR’s son who accompanied his father during crucial international meetings, felt that Truman was a traitor to his father’s anti imperialistic legacy. FDR, according to his son, Elliott, also wasn’t too fond of Churchill, who agreed with Truman because Churchill had always been a champion of British imperialism and he needed US acceptance of that.

Elliott wrote

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/fdrwc.htm
“Roosevelt and Churchill Discuss Colonial Questions, August 10, 1941, excerpt from Elliott Roosevelt, As He Saw It (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1946).”
Father [FDR] started it.
“Of course,” he remarked, with a sly sort of assurance, “of course, after the war, one of the preconditions of any lasting peace will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade.”
He paused. The PM’s [Churchill’s] head was lowered; he was watching Father steadily, from under one eyebrow.
“No artificial barriers,” Father pursued. “As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition.” His eye wandered innocently around the room.
Churchill shifted in his armchair. “The British Empire trade agreements,” he began heavily, “are – ”
Father broke in. “Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It’s because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are.”
Churchill’s neck reddened and he crouched forward. “Mr President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Dominions. The trade that has made England great shall continue, and under conditions prescribed by England’s ministers.”
“You see,” said Father slowly, “it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be some disagreement between you, Winston, and me.”
“I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace it must involve the development of backward countries. Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can’t be done, obviously, by eighteenth-century methods. Now – ”
“Who’s talking eighteenth century methods?“
“Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes wealth in raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth century methods include increasing the wealth of a people by increasing their standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation – by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community.”
Around the room, all of us were leaning forward attentively. [Harry] Hopkins [a major FDR adviser] was grinning. Commander [C. R.] Thompson, Churchill’s aide, was looking glum and alarmed. The PM himself was beginning to look apoplectic.
“You mentioned India,” he growled.
“Yes. I can’t believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.”
“What about the Philippines?”
“I’m glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946. And they’ve gotten modern sanitation, modern education; their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down.“
“There can be no tampering with the Empire’s economic agreements.”
“They’re artificial (…)“
“They’re the foundation of our greatness.”
“The peace,” said Father firmly, “cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples. Equality of peoples involves the utmost freedom of competitive trade. (…)”
It was after two in the morning when finally the British party said their good nights. I helped Father into his cabin, and sat down to smoke a last cigarette with him.
Father grunted. “A real old Tory, isn’t he? A real old Tory, of the old school.”
“I thought for a minute he was [you were] going to bust, Pop.”
“Oh,” he smiled, “I’ll be able to work with him. Don’t worry about that. We’ll get along famously.”
“So long as you keep off the subject of India.”
“Mmm, I don’t know. I think we’ll even talk some more about India, before we’re through. And Burma. And Java. And Indo China. And Indonesia. And all the African colonies. And Egypt and Palestine. We’ll talk about ’em all.”
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/american_system/id10.html

At the Casablanca Conference
A similar kind of discussion occurred between Roosevelt and Churchill at the Casablanca Conference in January 1943. The following is Elliott’s description of his father’s talk with him one evening during that meeting.
His thoughts turned to the problem of the colonies and the colonial markets, the problem which he felt was at the core of all chance for future peace. ‘The thing is,’ he remarked thoughtfully, replacing a smoked cigarette in his holder with a fresh one, ‘the colonial system means war. Exploit the resources of an India, a Burma, a Java; take all the wealth out of those countries, but never put anything back into them, things like education, decent standards of living, minimum health requirements- all you’re doing is storing up the kind of trouble that leads to war. All you’re doing is negating the value of any kind of organizational structure for peace before it begins.”
‘The look that Churchill gets on his face when you mention India!‘
‘India should be made a commonwealth at once. After a certain number of years – five perhaps, or ten – she should be able to choose whether she wants to remain in the Empire or have complete independence.”
‘As a commonwealth, she would be entitled to a modern form of government, an adequate health and educational standard. But how can she have these things, when Britain is taking all the wealth of her national resources away from her, every year? Every year the Indian people have one thing to look forward to, like death and taxes. Sure as shooting, they have a famine. The season of the famine, they call it.’
He paused for a moment, thinking.
‘I must tell Churchill what I found out about his British Gambia today,’ he said, with a note of determination.
‘At Bathurst?’ I prompted.
‘This morning,’ he said, and now there was real feeling in his voice, ‘at about eight thirty, we drove through Bathurst to the airfield. The natives were just getting to work. In rags (…) glum looking. (…) They told us the natives would look happier around noontime, when the sun should have burned off the dew and the chill. I was told the prevailing wages for these men was one and nine. One shilling, ninepence. Less than fifty cents.’
‘An hour?’ I asked, foolishly.
‘A {day!} Fifty cents a {day!} Besides which, they’re given a half-cup of rice.’ He shifted uneasily in his big bed. ‘Dirt, disease. Very high mortality rate. I asked. Life expectancy – you’d never guess what it was. Twenty six years. Those people are treated worse than the livestock. Their cattle live longer!’
He was silent for a moment.
‘Churchill may have thought I wasn’t serious, last time. He’ll find out, this time.’ He looked at me thoughtfully for a moment. ‘How is it, where you are? How is it in Algeria?‘ he asked.
I told him it was the same story. Rich country, rich resources, natives desperately poor, a few white colonials that lived very well, a few native princes that lived very well, otherwise poverty, disease, ignorance. He nodded.
And then he went on to tell of what he thought should be done: France to be restored as a world power, then to be entrusted with her former colonies, as a trustee. As trustee, she was to report each year on the progress of her stewardship, how the literacy rate was improving, how the death rate declining, how disease being stamped out, how. (…)
‘Wait a minute,’ I interrupted. ‘Who’s she going to report all this to?’
‘The organization of the United Nations, when it’s been set up,’ answered Father. It was the first time I’d ever heard of this plan. ‘How else?’ I asked Father. ‘The Big Four – ourselves, Britain, China, the Soviet Union – we’ll be responsible for the peace of the world after. (…)
‘(…) It’s already high time for us to be thinking of the future, building for it. (…) These great powers will have to assume the tasks of bringing education, raising the standards of living, improving the health conditions – of all the backward, depressed colonial areas of the world.
‘And when they’ve had a chance to reach maturity, they must have the opportunity extended them of independence. After the United Nations as a whole have decided that they are prepared for it.’
‘If this isn’t done, we might as well agree that we’re in for another war.’
https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/fenwick/1946/09/offlimits3.htm

Elliott’s book as quoted in the 17 September 1946 Look Magazine.
“Father remarked,” says Elliott Roosevelt, “on how British and French financiers had dredged riches out of colonies. (…)” He continued later, “How do they belong to France? Why does Morocco, inhabited by Moroccans, belong to France? By what logic and custom and historical rule?”

Obviously, Winston Churchill’s dream came true when FDR died on 12 April 1945 and became replaced by Truman.

Among those statements by FDR, the one specifically regarding the Philippines has particular relevance today. The 1951 US Philippines Mutual Defense Treaty violated what FDR had said to Churchill, “I’m glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946.” That U.S. commitment, “freedom,” to the Philippine nation, had already been made. He promised to Churchill that it would be fulfilled, and that therefore Churchill would not be able to say that America is an imperialist power as England is. It was a basic commitment from him. Furthermore, FDR said:

“No artificial barriers,” Father pursued. “As few favored economic agreements as possible. Opportunities for expansion. Markets open for healthy competition.” His eye wandered innocently around the room.
Churchill shifted in his armchair. “The British Empire trade agreements,” he began heavily, “are – ”
Father broke in. “Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It’s because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are.”

And “‘The peace,’ said Father firmly, ‘cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples.’”

He linked bilateral, and also multilateral, trade treaties, to the creation of both World Wars. The United States, after his death, has used them in exactly the same way – building toward a WWIII. Truman was the death of FDR’s plan. For example, Barack Obama’s proposed TTIP international trade treaty for the Pacific was specifically designed against China, so as to isolate and diminish China in international trade – precisely the sorts of things that FDR had condemned in his statements to Churchill. Obama was an anti FDR, pro Truman, Democrat, who repeatedly emphasized, “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation” (http://archive.is/R1Gbd#selection-555.0-555.62). Every other nation is “dispensable.” Hitler had agreed with Obama’s view, except that in Hitler’s mind, Germany was the only indispensable nation.

In a sense, Hitler posthumously won WWII. His ideology, imperialistic fascism, certainly did.

The Philippine President, Rodrigo Duterte, condemns US imperialism and repels any dependency of his country upon the US military (https://www.rt.com/shows/rt-interview/389163-philippines-duterte-interview/). He explains “I have nothing against America. They’re perfectly alright. Trump is my friend. But my foreign policy has shifted from the pro Western one. I am now working on alliance with China, and I hope to start a good working relationship with Russia. Why? Because the Western world, the EU, and everything – it’s all this double talk.”

CONSEQUENTLY

The path forward for China will be increasingly for China to serve as a defender of the independence of the nations in its area (such as the Philippines), so that they won’t need to accept the US regime’s offers of military assistance. Either this, or else China itself will cede control of its own neighborhood over to a distant enemy nation, the ceaselessly grasping US regime, and might as well just quit altogether, and become an American pawn itself.

Either all of the nations in that area will thrive together, or else the US UK alliance will succeed at crushing and swallowing up them all.

This means that in the conflicts that China has with its nearby nations, China must grant those nations’ interests as being also China’s interests. China must accept its obligation to defend their interests in order to become enabled to assert its own. Only if this is done will those nearby nations ally with China against the US Empire, not just militarily, but also in regard to commerce and trade. For China not to take on this obligation would be unacceptable, not only for China, but for the entire world. Regardless of what China wants, China has this obligation, now, to protect its region, against America’s billionaires, and their military, and their corporations.

However, the US regime’s unmistakable threat now to block China’s freight traffic through the South China Sea will succeed if China becomes the first side to attack and tries to down any US forces there. Even if the US strikes without warning and with no clear excuse, China will need to hold back for a while, before retaliating. The US has arrayed an awesome striking force in that area. China will have to wait until the US attacks it first, in any event, but now is the time for China to negotiate with its neighbors. Otherwise China will have almost the whole world against it, if China provides the bad optics of having been the first to strike.

During this time, therefore, China needs to be negotiating with each of the other regional players in order to persuade each one that only a unified facing-down against the US in that region can even possibly salvage the independence of each one of them from now on. Russia may also need to be brought into the arrangement as a protector of China, just in case the US turns out to be uncompromising in its intention to take over the entire world. Either Russia will soon enter this new World War that the UK US regimes are already waging, or else Russia will be forced to enter it only after Russia’s major allies will already have been swallowed up by the US. The safer choice for Russia is consequently to enter the war sooner, as a guarantor for their side, their allies, the independent nations, than to enter it after those nations have already been defeated and swallowed up.

Originally posted at The Saker (https://thesaker.is/the-future-for-china/).

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 (https://www.amazon.com/Theyre-Not-Even-Close-Democratic/dp/1880026090), and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007Q1H4EG).

Meer informatie
https://robscholtemuseum.nl/?s=China
https://robscholtemuseum.nl/?s=USA
https://robscholtemuseum.nl/?s=Philippines
https://robscholtemuseum.nl/?s=South+China+Sea
https://robscholtemuseum.nl/?s=Franklin+Delano+Roosevelt
https://robscholtemuseum.nl/?s=Harry+S+Truman
https://robscholtemuseum.nl/?s=Winston+Churchill
https://robscholtemuseum.nl/?s=British+Empire