Eric Zuesse – US Violates Its Promises to China, Asserts Authority Over Taiwan
Taiwan (gif Gfycat)
US Violates Its Promises to China; Asserts Authority Over Taiwan
As Werner Rügemer headlined on 28 November 2021 and truthfully summarized the relevant history, “Taiwan | US Deployment Area against Mainland China – since 1945”. However, despite that fact, America did officially issue A “Joint Communique” with China recognizing and acknowledging not only that Taiwan is A province of China but that for America or it S allies or any other nation to challenge that historical fact would be unethical.
The US regime hides this crucial historical fact, in order to hoodwink its masses of suckers into assuming to the exact contrary – that Taiwan isn T A Chinese province. Here is how they do this.
The CIA edited and written Wikipedia, which blacklists (blocks from linking to) sites that aren T CIA approved, is the first source for most people who become interested in what is officially known as the Shanghai Communique of 1972, or the 27 February 1972 “JOINT COMMUNIQUE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA”.
That article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Communiqué, avoids presenting the Communique S 1.921 word text, but instead provides, in its “Document” section, A mere 428 word very selective, and sometimes misleading, summary of some of the document S less important statements, and also fails to provide any link to the document itself, which they are hiding from readers.
The US regime S Wilson Center does have an article “JOINT COMMUNIQUE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA”, https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/121325, at which only the document’s opening 286 words are shown, while the rest is veiled and the reader must then do additional clicks in order to get to it.
The US State Department S history site, https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v17/d203 does provide the entire 1.921 word document, but under A different title, one that plays down the document S actual importance, “Joint Statement Following Discussions With Leaders of the People S Republic of China”. If it S A “Joint Statement,” then whom are the “Leaders of the People S Republic of China” “jointly” issuing it with – that title for it is not only false, it is plain stupid, not even referring to the US at all. Consequently, anyone who seeks to find the document under its official and correct title won T get to see it at the US State Department S site.
Here are some of the important statements in this document (as shown below that stupid title for it at the State Department S site)
With these principles of international relations in mind the two sides stated that
• progress toward the normalization of relations between China and the United States is in the interests of all countries;
• both wish to reduce the danger of international military conflict;
• neither should seek hegemony in the Asia Pacific region and each is opposed to efforts by any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony; and
• neither is prepared to negotiate on behalf of any third party or to enter into agreements or understandings with the other directed at other states.
Both sides are of the view that it would be against the interests of the peoples of the world for any major country to collude with another against other countries, or for major countries to divide up the world into spheres of interest. (…)
The US side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is A part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in A peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all US forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes.
The Wikipedia article S 428 word summary of the “Document” did include parts of the paragraph which started “The US side declared,” but the summary closed by alleging that the document “did not explicitly endorse the People S Republic of China as the whole of China. Henry Kissinger described the move as ‘constructive ambiguity,’ which would continue to hinder efforts for complete normalization.” How that passage – or especially the entire document – could have been stated with less “ambiguity” regarding “the People S Republic of China as the whole of China” wasn T addressed. In fact, the statement that “all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is A part of China” includes asserting that the Taiwanese people “maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is A part of China.” So: the US did agree with that, even signed to it in 1972. If the US refuses to agree with it now, then what was the US agreeing to in that Communique, and under what circumstances does the Communique become null and void for either of the two agreeing Parties to it? When does it stop being binding? Perhaps the document should have added something like “The US Government will never try to break off pieces of China.” But maybe if that were to have been added to it, then the US regime wouldn T have signed to anything with China. Is the US regime really that Hitlerian? Is this what is ‘ambiguous’ about the document?
In fact, the affirmation that, “The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese them selves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all US forces and military installations from Taiwan.” is now routinely being violated by the US regime. Here S an example.
One of the leading US billionaires funded think tanks, the Center for A New American Security (CNAS), was co founded by Kurt Campbell, who is Joe Biden S “Asia co ordinator” or “Asia Tsar” with the official title of “National Security Council Coordinator for the Indo Pacific.” The other co founder is Michèle Flournoy, who also co founded with the current Secretary of State Antony Blinken, WestExec Advisors, which firm S client list is secret but generally assumed to be top investors in firms such as Lockheed Martin. That advisory firm S activities are also secret.
Perhaps nothing is more profitable than trading on inside information regarding corporations whose main, if not only, sales are to the US Government and it S allied governments. Trading on inside information needs to be secret in order to be non prosecutable. The clients of WestExec Advisors might be extraordinarily successful investors, because they ve hired people who have ‘the right’ contacts in the federal bureaucracy and so know where your ‘national security’ tax dollars are likeliest to be spent next.
CNAS issued, in October 2021, “The Poison Frog Strategy: Preventing A Chinese Fait Accompli Against Taiwanese Islands”. It was written as if the Shanghai Communique hadn T prohibited this. The presumption there was instead that America and Taiwan would have so much raised the heat against China’s not being picked apart, so as for China to have militarily responded in order to hold itself together; and, then, A stage, “MOVE 2,” would be reached, in which
The Taiwan and US teams engaged in more direct communication, which aided the US team in framing the crisis. By Move 2, the US team had accepted that using military force to retake Dongsha would be too escalatory and might disrupt the formation of any counter China coalition. Accordingly, the team reframed the take over of Dongsha as an opportunity to expose Chinese belligerence and to encourage states to join together to balance against China S aggressive behavior. The US team’s decision to place US military forces on Taiwan during Move 1 became a key driver for the rest of the game.
By Move 3, both the US and Taiwan teams were in difficult positions. The US team did not want to let Chinese aggression go unpunished, both for the sake of Taiwan and within the context of the broader regional competition. At the same time, the US team wanted to show its partners and allies that it was a responsible power capable of negotiating and avoiding all out war. The Taiwan team was caught in an escalating great power crisis that threatened to pull Taiwan into a war that it was trying to avoid. The Taiwan team had to balance its relationships and policies with the United States and China while simultaneously spearheading de escalation. In the early part of the game, before communication between the United States and Taiwan teams improved, the Taiwan team had, unbeknownst to the US team, set up A back channel with the China team. At the same time the back channel negotiations were ongoing, the US team was still, in fact, considering additional escalatory action against the China team. (…)
Toward the end of the game, the US and Taiwan teams’ main strategy was to isolate China diplomatically and economically and garner enough international backing among allies and partners to make that isolation painful. To this end, the Taiwan team focused on pulling in some of it S regional partners, such as Japan, while the US team reached out to its NATO allies. (9) To avoid unwanted escalation or permanent effects, the US and Taiwan teams limited their offensive military operations to non kinetic and reversible actions such as cyber attacks and electronic warfare.
Under “Key Takeaways and Policy Recommendations” is
Given the inherent difficulty of defending small, distant offshore islands like Dongsha, Taiwan and the United States should strive to turn them into what the players called “poison frogs.” This approach would make Chinese attempts to seize these islands so militarily, economically, and politically painful from the outset that the costs of coercion or aggression would be greater than the benefits.
The US regime S having in 1972 committed it self to there being only “A peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese them selves” has somehow now become A license for the US regime to provoke “Chinese attempts to seize these islands” and yet to cause – by America S constant further provocations and lying – this to be “so militarily, economically, and politically painful from the outset that the costs of coercion or aggression would be greater than the benefits.”
In other words: the US regime expects to portray China as being the aggressor, and the US regime as being the defender – but, actually, of what? It would be the defender of breaking off A piece of China to add it to the US regime S allies, against an ‘aggressive’ China that opposes America S violating its own, and China S, 1972 Joint Shanghai Communique – which prohibits that.
On May 19th, The Hill, one of the US regime’s many propaganda mouthpieces, headlined “China warns of Dangerous Situation developing ahead of Biden Asia Trip”, and opened
China warned the US that President Biden S visit to East Asia this week could put their relations in “serious jeopardy” if officials play the “Taiwan card” during the trip.
In A phone call with national security adviser Jake Sullivan, China S top diplomat Yang Jiechi warned the US against speaking out on the independent sovereignty of Taiwan, A self ruling democratic island in the Indo Pacific that China claims is historically part of the mainland and should be under Beijing S control.
China doesn T claim that Taiwan “is historically part of the mainland and should be under Beijing S control,” but that, just like Hawaii is NOT A part of “the mainland” but IS “under US control,” and NOT “A self ruling” nation, Taiwan is NOT A part of “the mainland” but IS (not ‘should be’, but IS) under China S control, and NOT “A self ruling” nation. Just as there is no “independent sovereignty of Hawaii,” there also is no “independent sovereignty of Taiwan.” How many lies were in that opening? This doesn T even bring in the fact that whereas Hawaii is way offshore of America S mainland, Taiwan is very close to China S mainland.
And how long will the US regime S constant lying continue to be treated as if that S acceptable to anything other than yet another dangerously tyrannical regime – A US ally, perhaps?
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse S next book (soon to be published) will be AMERICA S EMPIRE OF EVIL Hitler S Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change. It S about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to US and allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world S wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ – duping the public.