The Chinese Communist Party’s Global Ambitions (Part I)

[Drummond]

I would be more charitable and suggest someone who is REALLY angry with the Communist system who wants to shout it from the mountaintops. I understand and sympathize with such anger. Intellectually knowing about it is one thing, it becomes much more real when you know people who have been stomped on by a Communist boot.

It's also possible that his command of the English language isn't sufficient to engage in a two way conversation.

This begs the question, then ... does this person (?) understand what is being posted ? You'd have to believe the answer is 'yes'.

It should therefore follow that, however simple the conversation might be, at least basic discussion comments could be left. If you're right, then I'm sure that there are members here who'd make an effort to adjust to what was required.

No. It's inconceivable that anyone would confidently post such lengthy pieces, without knowing their meaning. Discussion has to be possible. So, where is it ?

[Et Soh]

Is Beijing Weaponizing Your DNA?

A digital representation of the human genome at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City on Aug. 15, 2001. Each color represents one the four chemical components of DNA. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)




Is Beijing Weaponizing Your DNA?


Why is a US DNA-processing firm sharing Americans’ DNA with China? The answer is staggering.

James Gorrie
Writer


December 6, 2021


Epoch Times Commentary

If you’ve had a COVID-19 test, there’s a good possibility that the folks in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) have your DNA.

If so, they probably know more about your health and DNA vulnerabilities than you do. The implications of that are disturbing, to say the least.

The company contracted to conduct the COVID-19 tests is Fulgent Genetics, a nationwide DNA sequencing and disease testing firm. According to the firm’s website, its stated mission is, “developing flexible and affordable genetic testing that improves the everyday lives of those around us.”

Apparently, we are to believe that Fulgent Genetics is here to improve all of our lives.


Deep Ties to China


On Nov. 29, the Office of the Sheriff of Los Angeles County posted a letter to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. That letter stated that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department would not be participating in the COVID-19 testing with Fulgent Genetics.

The letter explained that the Federal Bureau of Investigations’ (FBI) Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate had warned Sheriff Alex Villanueva’s office of the risk that DNA samples, from the COVID-19 tests that Fulgent Genetics was to provide, would “likely be shared with the Republic of China.”

Villanueva also said at a press briefing that “Fulgent had strong ties with BGI, WuXP, and Huawei Technology, all of which are linked to the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the People’s Republic of China State Council and are under the control of the PRC.”

Questions Abound


Several questions come to mind. Who or what is the Fulgent Genetics corporation?
Why would an American company wish to provide American DNA samples?
Why on Earth would China even want DNA samples from Americans?
For what purpose?
How many American DNA samples do they have already?
And most importantly, what does our DNA have to do with the FBI’s concern with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) from China?

The answers to these and other questions on the stuff of dystopian worst-case scenarios are discussed below. But first, some background on Fulgent Genetics.

Who Is Fulgent Genetics?


The firm was founded in 2011 by Ming Hsieh, chairman of the board of directors, president, and chief executive officer, and James Xie, chief operating officer. Hsieh has served as a trustee at Fudan University in China since 2011. Xie received his Bachelor’s degree in engineering from Chongqing University in China in 1987. Perhaps not surprisingly, both men have deep ties to China.

And apparently, Fulgent has been sharing Americans’ DNA from coast to coast with China. As noted in Villanueva’s statement, it’s not the only PLA proxy company engaged in harvesting Americans’ genetic material. There are others as well, and millions upon millions of people’s DNA from America and many other places in the world have been sent to China.

This is where things get very dark in the weapons of mass destruction department. China wants to create a biowarfare WMD that targets your DNA.

A New, Dark Era of Biowarfare Is Here


Biowarfare isn’t a new thing; it has been used throughout history. In the 4th century B.C., Scythian archers infected their arrows by dipping them in decomposed bodies. In the 14th century, the Tartars catapulted plague-infected dead bodies into the lines of their enemies at the siege of Kaffa. And in World War II, the Imperial Japanese Army bombed Chinese cities with plague-laden fleas.

But these “old school” forms of biowarfare are child’s play compared to the latest DNA-based bioweapons technology that leverages artificial intelligence (AI) and genomics. We are entering a new and very risky era.

Biowarfare and DNA Manipulation


Just as AI and genomics enable DNA manipulation to help the human body fight all kinds of diseases, this same technology can also be used to create unique pathogens that only impact specific people. DNA-specific weapons can target a race, a gender, or even a family or individual with a specific DNA structure.

This isn’t just a possibility—it’s a probability, if not already a reality. What’s more, at least in theory, there’s no blowback to DNA-specific bioweapons because they harm only people with specified DNA characteristics. China’s access to Americans’ DNA is unquestionably a national security concern.

US Versus China in ‘Death Race 2035’


Some estimates say that the winner(s) of the bioweapon arms race will be determined by the year 2035. It may well be much sooner. In the race to create highly effective, targetable, and lethal biological weapons, the United States and China are neck and neck. Both nations have invested big money in AI and genomics. Each wants to take the lead in creating these super DNA-based bioweapons.

Like all arms races, whichever nation develops the ability to launch a biological attack without fear of blowback will be in the power position. Not a happy picture, but it’s reality.

But just being able to launch a deadly, highly targeted or even WMD bio attack isn’t enough. The survival of a nation also depends on its ability to defend against one. Like nuclear retaliation strategy (second strike capability) is meant to deter a first strike, a nation’s biowarfare retaliation ability may be a critical factor in deterring such attacks.

Unfortunately, AI and genomics make creating potentially thousands of genetically-modified lethal pathogens easy. On the flip side, immunizing whole populations, or even a small number of people, against thousands of newly-created pathogens is impossible; at least at this moment.

Biowarfare Technology Goes Viral


Predictably, the rapid spread of information itself is a problem. The internet has made it impossible to contain most secrets. If a technology exists, for the right price, it will be made available to the bad guys. Or, in the case of the PLA and Chinese scientific community, it will be developed and—if current experience with the CCP virus is an indicator—deployed in full.

This reality does not bode well for limiting the access and use of a new and dangerous bioweapons by China, or any other adversaries of the United States. If Fulgent and others are helping China develop DNA-targeted pathogens against Americans, there are no easy answers to such a threat, nor are there any good ones. But seizing all materials, data, and assets, and prosecuting such firms would be a start.

James R. Gorrie is the author of “The China Crisis” (Wiley, 2013) and writes on his blog, TheBananaRepublican.com. He is based in Southern California.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/is-bei...a_4134462.html

eReading:

Red Dragon Menacing (III) – On CCP’s All-Out Aggression Against Humanity(3)

PDF(preview)(3.97M); ePub(4.22M); MOBI(4.05M)

[Et Soh]

Pax Americana Unravels at the Feet of China

A group of naval vessels from Russia and China conduct a joint maritime military patrol in the waters of the Pacific Ocean, in this still image taken from video released on Oct. 23, 2021. (Russian Defence Ministry/Handout via Reuters)


Pax Americana Unravels at the Feet of China


Beijing and allies erode the peace in East Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and East Asia


Anders Corr

December 9, 2021

Epoch Times News Analysis

mp3Audio


The news is coming fast and hard of peace and stability eroding globally in a manner that benefits Beijing’s attempts at global destabilization to make a path for its increasing control.

As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) seeks to break apart the American-led order, including that of the United Nations that Washington developed after World War II, Beijing makes the destabilized countries—previously free, sovereign, and independent—more easily digestible into a new and emerging Chinese-led global order.

The CCP will repurpose, not destroy, the U.N. bureaucracy while disposing of its ideals of freedom, diversity, and democracy. But first it needs to destabilize and reorient the global geography of sovereign states that America spearheaded and protected from the 1940s to the present.

Beijing’s destabilization of international politics depends upon coordinated action by its allies.



China’s ally Russia is building troops opposite Ukraine for an invasion. Those troops appear to be growing toward a massive 175,000-person army. This destabilization of East Europe distracts some of the global public’s attention from Beijing, which is being freed to more easily attack Taiwan. Analysts predict that Putin could be ready for an invasion by early 2022, but the West is so frequently surprised by authoritarian powers, including Putin’s invasion of Crimea, that we should prepare ourselves for an even earlier surprise attack.

Iran and its allies, including most importantly China, are stronger relative to the United States and allies than they were in 2015 when the first Iran nuclear non-proliferation pact was agreed. Since then, Beijing increased its influence in Tehran, including by purchasing 700,000 barrels of Iranian oil in 2018 when Washington reimposed sanctions. A friend in need is a friend indeed.

Expect the terms of future Iranian nuclear negotiations to be worse for America and allies, which could lead to no new agreement, or tip Israel into preemptive war against Iran to stop it going nuclear. An Iranian-Israeli war would likely pull in the United States and Saudi Arabia, a major distraction for not only America but our allies. Iran, one of the biggest supporters of global terrorism, would likely increase this asymmetric strategy of terrorism, where it has an advantage, and the Chinese regime could then more easily attack Taiwan without serious repercussions due to the geopolitical confusion that ensues.

North Korea’s Kim Jong Un is resisting U.S. and South Korean calls for a formal end to the Korean War, has collapsed nuclear talks with the United States, and refused talks with the South. The latter’s Roman Catholic leader, Moon Jae-in, is so desperate for peace that he is turning to Pope Francis for help. The chances of the Pope changing Pyongyang, which relentlessly persecutes believers and is ruled by a family that likens itself to gods, is worse than zero. A Papal intervention could make things worse, for example, by Kim using a visit to burnish North Korea’s image.




A ballistic missile launched from a submarine in North Korea, on Oct. 19, 2021. (Korean Central News Agency/Korea News Service via AP)


The CCP is leading this rogue’s gallery of nations and directly threatening war against democratic Taiwan. Xi Jinping is openly planning to take control of the island democracy during his tenure as General Secretary of the CCP. Meanwhile, new Chinese national security and data laws are being implemented that have extraterritorial effect, meaning that laws made in Beijing apply in New York City, for example.

Case in point: the Wall Street Journal got a warning on Dec. 5 from the Hong Kong government that the newspaper was in violation of the National Security Law for an article the Journal wrote about, regarding the breakdown of what little democracy Hong Kong had after Beijing’s takeover.

But the Chinese military is already operating far afield from East Asia, and seeks new military bases in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in the Middle East and Equatorial Guinea on the Atlantic coast of Africa. These will augment its already-existing base in Djibouti. The UAE halted construction when the United States discovered it and confronted the UAE government, but Equatorial Guinea is resisting similar diplomatic overtures. The CCP’s plans for an Atlantic naval base in Equatorial Guinea continue.

A Chinese military base on Africa’s east coast will put it within striking distance of the American East Coast, increasing pressure on Washington to buckle to China’s military threats in the future. Expect Beijing to seek other military bases, overt and covert, in the 100 commercial ports it has already constructed around Africa. These are a threat to global shipping through the Mediterranean and around the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa, and will put Beijing in greater control of the oil and shipping resources of the Middle East.

The magnitude, quantity, and speed of geopolitical change is so enormous due to Beijing’s increased economic power, diplomatic assertiveness, and military aggression, that the threat of war is increasing substantially. America and its former world order, wrongly thought to be unipolar after the breakup of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, is at a moment of truth.

We must draw red lines and accept the increased risk of war with not only China, but its allies Russia, Iran, and North Korea—or give into a slow erosion of American and allied democratic power globally. Without the protection of the United States, democracy, freedom, peace, and civilizational diversity could soon be a thing of the past. This dire truth must now be confronted. There is no time to lose, because time is on Beijing’s side, and Beijing’s side is that of totalitarianism.

Anders Corr has a bachelor’s/master’s in political science from Yale University (2001) and a doctorate in government from Harvard University (2008). He is a principal at Corr Analytics Inc., publisher of the Journal of Political Risk, and has conducted extensive research in North America, Europe, and Asia. His latest books are “The Concentration of Power: Institutionalization, Hierarchy, and Hegemony” (2021) and “Great Powers, Grand Strategies: the New Game in the South China Sea” (2018).

https://www.theepochtimes.com/pax-am...a_4142821.html

[Hot Dogger]

The kind of Maoist Communism which I feel the OP alludes to is practically gone in China, Mao was installed by the CIA and that sort of rule has now become a moot point. What's happening today between China and the world is simply competition, survival of the fittest and nothing more. China actually has no goal of invading any other nation, but rather by trade and investment holding sway.

The United States moved a great deal of its industry to China under the guise of "green ecology" so in order to advance the NWO's agenda of One World Government here in North America. China is of course now part of the NWO, particularly after USAMRIID and Wuhan established relations in the 1980s so as to be "at one" in their goals of depopulation and eugenics.

I think it was about 1,300 years ago, China at that time could've conquered the entire world, but the Han Dynasty I think it was, stopped that advancement, where China has remained essentially a cohesive nation ever since.

[Et Soh]

Marines stand at attention as the sailors render honors to the USS Arizona Memorial during the 80th Anniversary Pearl Harbor Remembrance on Dec. 7, 2021. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Jeremy Lemmon Jr.)


The Next Sneak Attack



Morgan Deane
December 11, 2021

Epoch Times Commentary
Audio PDF

As Americans honor Pearl Harbor, they must be aware of the potential for another one. The Chinese regime’s history and doctrine favor sneak attacks.

The United States recently celebrated the 80th anniversary of Pearl Harbor. Americans should take a moment to consider why surprise attacks happen and how a Chinese sneak attack might appear. There is a theoretical basis, followed by recent history and doctrinal statements, that suggest Americans should be concerned, though not panicked, about a potential sneak attack.

History


As I’ve discussed before, China has a history of preemptive strikes since 1949. Its neighboring countries received one. The Chinese communists (Chicoms) attacked American forces in Korea in 1950. A few years later, they seized islands that belonged to Taiwan—in what is now called the Taiwan Crisis. It was only the timely intervention of American forces in the Taiwan Strait that prevented the Chicoms from seizing the rest of Taiwan. Just a few years after that, the Chicoms sought to readjust its borders with India in a short offensive strike in 1962. They targeted their allies, the Soviet Union, in 1969. In this case, there was another border dispute, and the area was militarized by both sides when Chinese commandos preemptively seized disputed islands in the Ussuri River.

Finally, the Chicoms fought a short but inconclusive war with Vietnam in 1979. Again, this was an offensive preemptive strike that ended with China confirming the transfer of key territory along its border. In addition to actual wars, the Chicoms have used force to intimidate their neighbors in the South China Sea.



In short, the Chinese regime has often fought offensive wars with each of its neighbors by utilizing a key strategic signature. There would be a great deal of tension where it claimed territory was unjustly stolen from China. It often initially assumed a defensive posture, but then used preemptive offensive strikes at the operational and tactical level to achieve victory. Then it defended the territory and waited for a ceasefire. This was seen most recently in the border skirmish with India last year.

Theory


As I discuss in my book, “Decisive Battles in Chinese History,” there is a strain of preemptive thought going back to Sun Tzu’s (also “Sunzi”) warnings. His writing is the most accessible of Chinese military thought, and it suggests that an overwhelming attack that induces a psychological collapse of the enemy is a preferred form of warfare. Sun Tzu admonished that the “highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy’s plans.” And “subjugating the enemy’s army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence.”

When the army unleashes its plan, it should be successful and as easily victorious as a torrent of water unleashed from a dam, a bolt released from a crossbow, or a stone rolling down a mountain. He concludes that “one who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be endangered in a hundred engagements.”

One of the problems with the “Seven Military Classics” and Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” is that, much like the Bible, it is a collection of writings that have been redacted over time that can be used to support different positions. There are also many competing authors with different and sometimes directly contradictory theories about warfare. This leads to a good deal of debate about the exact nature of Sun Tzu’s advice, but this still has influence in modern Chinese thought.

The Chinese regime has not forgotten this heritage in its modern objectives and training manuals. Mainland China’s National Defense emphasizes “rapid assaults” using a variety of orthodox and unorthodox methods, such as cyberattacks or using new technology in drone swarms. U.S. defense analysts warn that the “PRC [People’s Republic of China] continues to pursue [the ability] to fight and win short duration [conflicts].” The first principle of the Chinese Air Force is securing initiative through offensive operations.

Next Attack


There is a theoretical basis for the attack supported by China’s recent history. But what might that look like in the next war?

This conflict could look like several different things. Using the new “carrier killing” and hypersonic missiles launched by more advanced fighters, the Chicoms could overwhelm and surprise American forces, such as the U.S. Seventh Fleet stationed in Japan.

Chinese military vehicles carrying DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles, potentially capable of sinking a U.S. Nimitz-class aircraft carrier in a single strike, drive past the Tiananmen Gate during a military parade in Beijing, China, on Sept. 3, 2015. (Andy Wong/Pool/Getty Images)


The launching of hundreds of missiles within mere minutes to a theater with forces at fewer alerts than those in the South China Sea could be decisive. The new risk-averse public led by an administration in Washington that clearly doesn’t want war, and refused to do much against Russian aggression in Ukraine, could then prompt Beijing to look for a quick settlement and resolution. This essentially means that China would win a conflict in one strike. Like the advice of Sun Tzu, the attack would show a knowledge of Chicom forces, American disposition, and the ability to deliver a quick, stunning blow that “attacks the mind” and the enemy’s plans (for example, by striking a ship in port), and could win a war without a single soldier firing a bullet.

In a fictional global war of 2030, the attack would begin after tension in the South China Sea through the Chinese regime’s malware and cyberattacks at the stroke of midnight on Black Friday. Mainland Chinese supercomputers then black out American satellites: U.S. countermeasures, such as drone strikes, fall harmless into the sea as their navigation systems are corrupted. Starting to panic, the U.S. Navy tries to counter-attack, but launch codes on Zumwalt-class Destroyers tasked with destroying the enemy’s satellites no longer work.

The U.S. Navy then has difficulty sailing through the narrow passages in the South China Sea without its navigational computers. By this point, the Chicoms start sending missiles to knock out communication satellites and ground the high-tech fighters, like the F35 that rely on complex data. With American fleets rudderless, flights grounded, and communication in disarray, Russia and China assume direct control of disputed territory across the world. And by the time the United States gains its war footing, it is presented with a fait accompli from the Chinese regime. Again, using new and unexpected technology, the Chicoms cripple the United States in a lightning war that subjugates the enemy army without fighting, and without a single death.

Conclusion


We must keep in mind that the United States has significant advantages in technology, training, and countermeasures to the above strategies that suggest a need to avoid overstating the Chinese advantage. But the Chicoms have a recent history and doctrine of preemptive attacks that make it worth considering and preparing for.



Morgan Deane is a former U.S. Marine, a military historian, and a freelance author. He studied military history at Kings College London and Norwich University. Morgan works as a professor of military history at the American Public University. He is a prolific author whose writings include “Decisive Battles in Chinese History,” “Dragon’s Claws with Feet of Clay: A Primer on Modern Chinese Strategy,” and the forthcoming, “Beyond Sunzi: Classical Chinese Debates on War and Government.” His military analysis has been published in Real Clear Defense and Strategy Bridge, among other publications.


https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-ne...k_4146994.html

[Et Soh]

Light from the morning sun illuminates the Capitol in Washington on Dec. 3, 2021. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo)


Beijing Threatens Congress


SENATOR SCHUMER’S BILL MAKES BEIJING SEE RED


Milton Ezrati

December 13, 2021

Epoch Times News Analysis PDF Audio

00:00

00:00

While Chinese leader Xi Jinping and U.S. President Joe Biden have talked (albeit remotely) about improving relations between their two countries, a new Sino-American battle has started.

On one side is the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National People’s Congress (China’s rubber-stamp legislature), others in Beijing, and China’s Ambassador to the United States, Qin Gang. On the other side are Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and many in the U.S. Congress.

The issue is Schumer’s massive U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA). The senator has put it forward as a cudgel with which to beat China on trade, technology, and cybersecurity attacks, among other things. The Chinese side has made it clear that if this bill becomes law, Beijing will retaliate.

Schumer’s massive bill (2,276 pages) passed the Senate in June 2021. It has yet to pass the House of Representatives. It very much reflects the growing anti-China sentiment in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, and gathers under its umbrella several smaller bills that had already been introduced. Prominent among these are the Endless Frontiers Act, originally put forward by Sen. Todd Young (R–Ind.), and the Meeting the Chinese Challenge Act, originally put forward by Senators Sherrod Brown (R–Ohio) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa).



The composite bill, not surprisingly, has a great variety of provisions. Among them, it would insist on “buy American.” It would ban to the extent legally possible the purchase of Chinese-made drones and electric vehicles, and forbid any government server to connect to a Chinese social network such as TikTok. It would include measures to thwart cybersecurity attacks on any U.S. government agency and mandatory sanctions in response to any Chinese cybersecurity attacks, as well as any state-sponsored thefts of intellectual property and technology. It is estimated to affect some $250 billion in trade and economic activity generally.

Beijing has vowed to retaliate should the bill become law. China’s Foreign Affairs Committee has described the USICA as an attempt to “contain China’s development under the banner of innovation and competition.” Though Beijing has yet to divulge how it would retaliate, few doubt, given its actions in the past, that it would hesitate to do so. Few, however, expect tariffs.

After the strains China suffered during the 2019 “trade war” between China and the Trump White House, the last thing Beijing wants is to move matters in that direction. And given the tough line taken by U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai in her recent talks with Vice Premier Liu He, Beijing knows that Washington could take that path again. China hands suspect that Beijing’s response would target exports of parts needed by domestic U.S. manufacturers.

While the nature of the threats remains vague, China’s Washington embassy has swung into action. Ambassador Qin Gang has expressed his outrage and that of his government. He has identified some 260 bills in Congress that he describes as having “negative China content.” He has summed them up, singling out the USICA, as an attempt to “hijack China-U.S. relations and gravely damage America’s own interests.” He has also marshalled his staff to lobby (threaten?) all U.S. firms of significance, but especially those that already have interests in China, to defeat Schumer’s bill and other pieces of legislation like it.

All this anxiety may go nowhere. The bill still waits a vote in the House, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has yet to indicate when or even if such a vote will take place. Congress has a great deal of business to complete, so this issue may wait quite a while to get her attention, much less the attention of Biden.

Indeed, should it pass the House and arrive at the president’s desk, there are no assurances that he will sign it into law. He has at times talked tough on China, but its wide range of provisions could easily run afoul of other administration initiatives or important cabinet secretaries. Still, it does seem as though Congress has the proverbial bit in its teeth when it comes to China, and with the mid-term election looming in 2022, all politicians will take note of the public’s clear anti-China feeling.



Milton Ezrati is a contributing editor at The National Interest, an affiliate of the Center for the Study of Human Capital at the University at Buffalo (SUNY), and chief economist for Vested, a New York-based communications firm. Before joining Vested, he served as chief market strategist and economist for Lord, Abbett & Co. He also writes frequently for City Journal and blogs regularly for Forbes. His latest book is “Thirty Tomorrows: The Next Three Decades of Globalization, Demographics, and How We Will Live.”


https://www.theepochtimes.com/beijin...s_4152657.html

[Et Soh]

Chinese-chartered merchant ship Cosco Shipping Panama crosses the new Agua Clara Locks during the inauguration of the expansion of the Panama Canal in this undated file photo. China is continuing its push to displace U.S. influence in the region, and already has put parts of the Panama Canal under its control. (Rodrigo Arangua/AFP/Getty Images)


China Makes Economic Inroads in America’s Backyard


Beijing’s influence grows in Latin America and the Caribbean
Antonio Graceffo

December 14, 2021

Epoch Times News Analysis
Audio PDF


Through investment, trade, and diplomatic coercion, the Chinese regime is steadily expanding its influence into America’s backyard—Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC).

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) became one step closer to isolating Taiwan when Nicaragua recently announced that it switched diplomatic allegiance from Taipei to Beijing. This leaves Taiwan with only 14 allied nations. Its strongest ally, of course, is the United States. The CCP seeks to displace the United States as the world leader even in its own backyard, in Central and South America and the Caribbean.

Currently, China leads in trade with Africa and parts of Asia. China is still lagging behind the United States in the Americas, but the gap is steadily closing. In 2009, Chinese investment only accounted for 4 percent of new projects in Latin America. By 2019, the number had increased to 6.8 percent. The United States, by contrast, accounts for about 22 percent of all financing. In some countries, however, Chinese investment is more prominent. China only began investing in Chile five years ago, but has become the nation’s number one source of capital.

China’s share of mergers and acquisitions in Latin America was 2.4 percent in 2009, but had grown to 16.3 percent in 2019. This places China second only to the United States. Trade experienced a similar growth pattern. In 2000, China’s trade with the region was $16 billion. Now it is over $400 billion.



During the turmoil of leftist revolutions in Latin America, in the 1980s, a number of LAC countries switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China, including Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Uruguay. Nicaragua switched in 1985, and again in 1990 and 2020. Other LAC countries switched for financial and political reasons, such as the Bahamas in 1997, Dominica in 2004, Grenada in 2005, Costa Rica in 2007, and El Salvador 2018.

The United States handed over the Panama Canal to the Panamanians in 1999, and the Panama Canal Zone ceased to be U.S. territory. In the same year, the Chinese firm Hutchison-Whampoa was granted the right to operate ports on both the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the Canal. Panama was the first country in LAC to sign on to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Even before Panama’s recognition of China, Beijing had won contracts to have container ports on the Canal run by Chinese state-owned companies.

Between 2008 and 2016, China and Taiwan had a truce on courting Latin American and developing countries to switch their recognition. The African nation of Gambia had offered to switch recognition to Beijing, but China refused, observing the truce. When pro-independence candidate Tsai Ing-wen was elected as Taiwan’s president in 2016, China accepted Gambia’s offer. In addition, Sao Tome and Principe, another small African nation, switched its diplomatic allegiance to Beijing in the same year.
Gambia’s President Adama Barrow walks with Chinese leader Xi Jinping during a welcoming ceremony at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Dec. 21, 2017. The two countries re-established diplomatic relations in 2016. (Nicolas Asfouri/AFP/Getty Images)

Countries that switched their allegiance from Taiwan to China received incentives such as loans, investments, infrastructure, roads, sports stadiums, clinics, and access to the Chinese market. Costa Rica, for example, obtained its sports stadium immediately after switching to China in 2007.

In 2017, Panama severed diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Just before the change, China Landbridge Group began construction on the Panama Colon Container Port on Panama’s Margarita Island, a $1 billion deepwater port and logistics complex. Then-President Juan Carlos Varela kept the decision secret, only notifying the United States within an hour before the official announcement.

One year later, Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited Panama and the two countries signed 19 cooperation agreements regarding trade, infrastructure, banking, tourism, education, as well as an extradition treaty.

In 2018, the Dominican Republic and El Salvador also switched allegiance to Beijing. The Dominican Republic was offered a $3.1 billion package of investments and loans for infrastructure projects, freeways, and a natural gas power plant.

Before the switch, the Dominican Republic was already China’s second largest trading partner in the region, with trade of $2 billion. By 2020, trade between the two nations had increased to about $2.4 billion, with the Dominican Republic running a severe trade deficit with China of nearly $2 billion.

Taiwan’s remaining friends in the Americas include Belize, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Meanwhile, 19 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have joined China’s BRI. Additionally, Beijing has signed a “strategic partnership” with 10 other nations in the region.

Switching diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China often means a cut in aid from the United States. The CCP, however, are so adept at writing checks that the loss is hardly felt. To increase U.S. influence in the Americas and to counter the CCP, the United States must have meaningful engagement with the LAC countries, helping them to increase their GDP. In 2013, then-Vice President Joe Biden said that the United States might be interested in joining the Pacific Alliance as an adviser. The alliance is a trade pact between Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Peru.

The United States, along with the other Group of 7 nations, are planning the “Build Back Better World” program, an infrastructure funding vehicle for developing countries that would compete with the BRI.

While Taiwan is losing diplomatic ties in LAC, the United States is strengthening its support for Taiwan, even stationing U.S. soldiers on the island—under both the Trump and Biden administrations. The Chinese regime is definitely gaining ground, but the United States retains its primacy in the region—in particular, when it comes to the Panama Canal.

The importance of the Panama Canal has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the United States has pushed for reshoring or close-shoring of supply chains. The United States remains the primary user, accounting for 66 percent of the cargo. China, by contrast, accounts for only 13 percent of Canal traffic. However, China is the largest user of the Colón Free Trade Zone.

The United States is still ahead, but U.S. foreign policy needs to be targeted at countering CCP encroachment in the Americas.



Antonio Graceffo, Ph.D., has spent over 20 years in Asia. He is a graduate of Shanghai University of Sport and holds a China-MBA from Shanghai Jiaotong University. Antonio works as an economics professor and China economic analyst, writing for various international media. Some of his books on China include “Beyond the Belt and Road: China’s Global Economic Expansion” and “A Short Course on the Chinese Economy.”


https://www.theepochtimes.com/china-...d_4154515.html

[Et Soh]

A Chinese PLA J-16 fighter jet flies in an undisclosed location in a file photo. (Taiwan Ministry of Defense via AP)




Don’t Be Distracted by the Ukraine, the Main Event Is China



John Mills

December 16, 2021

Epoch Times Commentary
Audio PDF

We’re barely re-learning what’s going on in the Ukraine and Neocon megaphone Republican Senator Roger Wicker has already charged to the ramparts and declared the need for nuclear strikes on Russia regarding the Ukraine border tensions with Russia.

I’m not sure I ever have seen such a bellicose statement based on such little information and likely lame intelligence community assessments. I would suggest Senator Wicker has made a teensy bit of an inappropriate jump to a conclusion that has immense gravity. I think many would support the tenet or imperative that United States leaders be more restrained and reserved with comments on first use of nuclear weapons.

I’m a former career member in the uniformed military and senior civil service in the U.S. Government, with almost 40 years of service from the height of the Cold War to today’s Great Power showdown with China. I’ve been in combat, cold war, and deterrence operations. Some of it was with conventional units, some with special operations, and some as a senior staff officer. I fully embrace President Donald J. Trump’s declaration of putting an end to forever wars advanced by the swamp. At first, I didn’t understand the full gravity and meaning of the comment by DJT, but I after a while, the depth and meaning of the “Forever War” moniker sunk in. Trump was right (again).

There are many in the beltway that root for forever wars with no purpose and no defined outcome. And to be clear—Trump is not an isolationist. America First is not isolationism. It advocates deep engagements with foreign partners who must, however, share in the burden. Senator Wicker’s comments are not America First—they are a dangerous step backward.



If Biden and the swamp were serious about Putin and China, they’d unleash the three core strengths of America to bankrupt Russia and deter China. Using the Energy, Food, and American Dollar Instruments of American Power would quickly squelch Russian and Chinese Adventurism and allow the American military to properly posture for deterrence (and action if necessary).

A Post-Olympic Surprise by China?


China’s accelerated mimicry over the last year of the American Military Sealift Command and the National Defense Reserve Fleet were the key indicators I have been waiting for to see if China was serious about demonstrating the ability to generate and project force. The key operative expression is the obscure term, “Joint Logistics Over the Shore (JLOTS).”

Sorry to sound like such a Joint Staff and Office of the Secretary of Defense planner wonk but demonstrating JLOTS is the red flag and alarm bell. Where did China learn the JLOTS concept? Did they once again break and enter Department of Defense and Intelligence Community networks? Was this another dastardly and horrendous Office of Personnel Management Breach where Chinese National Security Agency equivalents broke into U.S. Government networks?

The answer: No. They simply surfed the internet, searched, found, studied, and mimicked the American naval JLOT documents. I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again – the Chinese intelligence community reads and studies everything we put out. So maybe we should put out documents that are meant to mislead the Chinese military planners. Just a thought.

The last year has seen an acceleration of public Chinese JLOTS demonstrations, a sharp rise in Chinese naval warship construction, a fervor over new silo construction for nuclear missiles, and a quickening pace of large-scale challenges to Taiwan airspace by swarms of Chinese combat aircraft. The Chinese military is feeling it’s oats and is building confidence in operational art. China is moving far beyond a “parade” military, to a military that can generate and project force afar—a rare operational art that only America has demonstrated over and over.

The key question now is when will this Chinese operational art be translated into action, action, action as Steve Bannon likes to quip? I think a time of immense danger is in the immediate aftermath of the withering Winter Olympics in Beijing that wrap up in late February 2022.

Totalitarians revel and relish in the propaganda opportunity of an Olympics. It makes them feel good about themselves. Sochi was a brilliant cover for Putin’s 2014 initial invasion of the Ukraine. Perhaps Putin might warm up the Ukraine immediately after the Beijing Olympics to distract the world, which would be brilliant double cover for China striking to the East. The Chinese seem to prefer probing southern Taiwan and the Taiwan-Philippine’s gap to the open Pacific. China now is in desperate need of chips from Taiwan, so I assert China is looking far beyond Taiwan if China initiates conflict.

90 Days to ‘De-Woke’ the U.S. Military


The American military is large, well trained, well equipped, and has deep operational relationship with several key powers in Asia to include Japan (which likely explains China’s preference to stay away from the northern approach to Taiwan), Australia, India, Canada, South Korea, and European nations like the United Kingdom and France who are also projecting naval force into the zone of possible conflict.

The U.S. military is incredible, but appears to act like King Theoden from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, under the cancerous spell of Woke-ism and Critical Race Theory. We have about 90 days—let’s hope that Grima’s spell on the U.S. military and the rest of America is broken soon.



Colonel (Ret.) John Mills is a national security professional with service in five eras: Cold War, Peace Dividend, War on Terror, World in Chaos, and now—Great Power Competition. He is the former director of cybersecurity policy, strategy, and international affairs at the Department of Defense. ColonelRETJohn on GETTR, Daily Missive on Telegram.


https://www.theepochtimes.com/dont-b...a_4162024.html

[Et Soh]

A giant portrait of Chinese leader Xi Jinping is carried atop a float at parade to celebrate the 70th Anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party’s ruling at Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China, on Oct. 1, 2019. (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)


Drifting Toward a Catastrophic American Defeat


Newt Gingrich
December 16, 2021

Epoch Times Commentary
Audio PDF


The United States is drifting toward a catastrophic defeat.

I am talking about a defeat which will eliminate our freedom and permanently subordinate America to Communist China and its demands for absolute control and obedience.

You may think this vision is alarmist, but look at the Chinese Communist Party’s control of Hong Kong, abuses in Tibet, and Uyghur genocide in Xinjiang.

For that matter, look at the giant, wealthy American companies that already kowtow to the Chinese Communist Party’s demands and adjust their language and behaviors to placate Beijing.



After pressure from China, Disney removed an episode of “The Simpsons” from its streaming services in Hong Kong over a reference to the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. Nike and Coca-Cola lobbied against legislation to ban imports of goods made with forced labor in China. JPMorgan Chase has expanded its business in China—despite known, serious data security and national security risks. And remember the turmoil when Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey tweeted support for democracy in Hong Kong. The NBA and players went into a tailspin of shameless apology and censorship on China’s behalf. It was disgusting.

Some American billionaires have made so much money in collaboration with Communist China that they prioritize padding their pockets over American values and national security interests.

Similarly, a defeated America would be subordinated to the Chinese Communist dictatorship. Our words, behaviors, and institutions would constantly be molded to appease the paranoid dictatorship in Beijing.

Despite the extraordinary consequences of defeat, the American system is gradually drifting into a national security system that will clearly lose a major war with Communist China.

Don’t take my word for it.

Major American military leaders are already sounding alarms.

As The Epoch Times reported this month, U.S. Space Force Gen. David Thompson warned that, “China could overtake the United States in terms of space capabilities by 2030 if America doesn’t speed up its development.

“The fact [is] that in essence, on average, they are building and fielding and updating their space capabilities at twice the rate we are. … If we don’t start accelerating our development and delivery capabilities, they will exceed us. And 2030 is not an unreasonable estimate.”

Despite this growing threat in space, when Vice President Kamala Harris chaired the administration’s first meeting of the National Space Council this month, there was not a single military issue discussed.

Beyond the rising vulnerabilities in space (and generals have reported that Russia and China engage the United States in space virtually every day) there is also a general crisis of our defense capabilities.

As Business Insider reported “The US military is changing the way it fights after it ‘failed miserably’ in a war game against an aggressive adversary who knew its playbook.”

Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. John Hyten warned in a July conference: “Without overstating the issue, it failed miserably.”

Hyten explained that the wargame, which simulated a conflict with China over Taiwan, involved an adversary which had studied American conflict and warfighting for two decades. As he put it the fictional China “just ran rings around us. They knew exactly what we were going to do before we did it, and they took advantage of it.”

The real Communist China has similarly studied our military strategies, “with probably even more focus, with larger numbers,” Hyten warned. As he put it, we have to make serious changes because our ability to overmatch rival powers including China was “shrinking fast.”

Admirals who have led the American Pacific military commitment have also been vocal about the failure of our current systems.

According to The Guardian, now retired Admiral Philip Davidson, who was the 25th
Commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command, said in March that a serious fight over Taiwan could come in the next six years.

“I worry that they’re [China] accelerating their ambitions to supplant the United States and our leadership role in the rules-based international order … by 2050,” Davidson said

When retired four-star Admiral James Stavridis was interviewed by the Asahi Shimbun in June about his new novel, “2034: A Novel of the Next World War,” he reinforced the sense of growing Chinese capabilities.

“When I began writing the novel, it was set in the middle of the century, roughly 2050. But the more I researched and the more I applied my analysis to the situation, the closer the date was set. Many of my friends, very senior officers in the military, both active duty and retired, and senior policymakers have complimented me on the book. Still, they have said, ‘You wrote a great novel, but you’ve got one big thing wrong. And that is the date.’ Many believe that the date of a U.S.-China confrontation will be sooner.”

As a final example of American vulnerability, James Kitfield reported in Yahoo News in March on a highly classified simulated conflict with China which started with a Chinese biological weapon attack, continued with a massive invasion disguised as a routine exercise, and culminated with devastating missile strikes against our Indo-Pacific bases and warships and Taiwan itself. Needless to say, America lost that one, too.

The National Defense Authorization Act, which is now passing through Congress, simply does not address the scale of change we need to ensure America could defeat China militarily.

The Pentagon and intelligence community’s distracting focus on creating a woke force rather than a war-winning force is further weakening America.

We need a full-blown investigation into the requirements for victory over China—and a commitment to undertake every reform needed in defense, education, capital markets, supply chains, manufacturing, and other areas to ensure American safety and freedom.

Anything short of a complete rethinking of our capabilities and the challenge of the Chinese Communist Party’s system-wide effort to become the world’s dominant superpower may well lead to our defeat in a much shorter time than anyone thinks possible.

Our freedoms and our physical safety are at stake. This should become a major focus for 2022 and 2024.

From Gingrich360.com



Newt Gingrich, a Republican, served as House speaker from 1995 to 1999 and ran as a presidential candidate in 2012.



https://www.theepochtimes.com/drifti...t_4161701.html

[Et Soh]

The U.S. Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Falcon Hypersonic Test Vehicle emerges from its rocket nose cone and prepares to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere, in this illustration. (Courtesy of DARPA)


Defending Taiwan: Think Globally and ‘Look Up’


Grant Newsham

December 9, 2021; Updated December 13, 2021

Epoch Times Commentary Audio PDF

U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said last week that Chinese air force movements toward Taiwan look like “rehearsals” for an invasion. It is good that America’s military leadership is finally realizing that Xi Jinping is serious when he says he will use force, if necessary, to seize Taiwan.

Yet, in recent years whenever the U.S. military has “war-gamed” a fight with China over Taiwan, the Americans reportedly have “failed miserably.”

But there are war games and there are war games.

Depending on how you construct the scenario, things might turn out better for the United States.



You see, if the fight is confined to Taiwan and the surrounding area, the Chinese have a big advantage. They can deploy far more ships than the U.S. Navy can, and the same goes for aircraft. Chinese land-based missile and anti-aircraft batteries will further make things difficult for U.S. forces trying to “get in close” to help Taiwan. One doesn’t envy a U.S. destroyer skipper who has two-dozen supersonic anti-ship missiles coming his way and arriving in 90 seconds.

And the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force’s ballistic missiles, which is able to hit moving targets at sea, will give U.S. aircraft carriers much to worry about. The missiles are nicknamed “carrier killers” for a reason. U.S. bases in Japan and Guam, from which American forces will be deploying to aid Taiwan, will also be getting Chinese missile attention.

This just covers a few of the problems facing U.S. forces and the Americans can, of course, strike some blows of their own.

But if it’s just a fight between the Americans and the Chinese, and it takes place right around Taiwan, then the Americans will have a hard time.

However, expand the battlefield, say, to include the entire globe, and the United States’ prospects improve considerably.

Here’s why:
China does not produce enough food to feed itself, nor does it have enough energy or natural resources to power its economy. That’s why the Chinese buy up Brazilian and Ukrainian farmland, Australian milk companies, and American pork producers. The same goes for Chinese oil concessions in Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela; and mines in Africa and South America.
Food trucks wait to enter China near Muse, close to the Chinese border in Shan state, Burma (Myanmar) on April 20, 2020. (Phyo Maung Maung/AFP via Getty Images)

China not only depends on seamless (and long) supply lines to import commodities and raw materials, but it also depends on the same supply lines to export manufactured products that earn vital foreign exchange—and keep people employed and the economy humming.

If the Americans (and their allies and partners) “expand the battlefield” and cut off China from its overseas “assets,” as one Western expert puts it: “without these commodities arriving in China from around the world, the China we know and the Chinese know will not exist … it will be 1.4 billion persons desperate for food, energy, commodities, natural resources.”

So if the United States musters the fortitude needed to impound or sink Chinese shipping and clamp down on air transport in and out of China, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will be in dire straits.

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA), despite carrying out the biggest, fastest defense buildup in history—including progress toward a “blue-water” global navy—over the last 20 years, still cannot defend China’s overseas assets. And it will probably be another decade before PLA global power projection capabilities can do so.

Compounding Beijing’s problems, China is also vulnerable to U.S. financial sanctions that exclude China from the U.S. dollar network. And Washington might also prohibit U.S. corporate business dealings with China.

So while Beijing might like its prospects in a straight up (and confined) fight to seize Taiwan, it is extremely vulnerable if the United States and other free nations “decouple” China from its overseas assets—and the convertible currency and inward foreign investment and trade that powers the Chinese economy.

But the Americans should not breathe easy.
A Long March-2F carrier rocket, carrying the Shenzhou-13 spacecraft with the second crew of three astronauts to China’s new space station, lifts off from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in the Gobi desert in northwest China early on Oct. 16, 2021. (STR/AFP via Getty Images)

If China can seize the high ground in outer space and the upper atmosphere—and threaten the United States with a surprise (and undefendable) nuclear attack, as well as blinding U.S. forces by taking out their satellites—it might be able to checkmate the Americans. At that point, America’s existing conventional advantages, both kinetic and non-kinetic, won’t matter much.

China’s recent tests of hypersonic delivery vehicles and the so-called FOBS (Fractional Orbital Bombardment System) give the American’s plenty to worry about in this regard. These are hard to track and to defend against—not least as they allow nuclear warheads to be launched from directions where U.S. anti-missile systems aren’t looking.

And, in a further move to dominate the high ground, the Chinese (and the Russians) are aiming for offensive operations against U.S. satellites on which America’s defense depends. They have, in fact, already started interfering with U.S. space assets.

Earlier this year, the commander of the U.S. Space Command, General James Dickinson, stated in a congressional hearing:

“China is building military space capabilities rapidly, including sensing and communication systems and numerous anti-satellite weapons. … Similarly concerning, Russia’s published military doctrine calls for the employment of weapons to hold us and allied space assets at risk.”

In his written testimony, Dickinson added:

“One notable object is the Shijian-17, a Chinese satellite with a robotic arm. Space-based robotic arm technology could be used in a future system for grappling other satellites. China also has multiple ground-based laser systems of varying power levels that could blind or damage satellite systems. China will attempt to hold US space assets at risk while using its own space capabilities to support its military objectives and overall national security goals.”

So far, the Americans are apparently just playing defense in outer space—rather than building up the offensive capability to do to the Chinese (and the Russians) what they are planning to do to them—and more. According to one observer, Team Biden’s response so far is “finger wagging and scolding.” Not exactly a winning approach.

One imagines a scenario where Beijing makes its move on Taiwan and tells Washington to “stand back”—and that includes sanctions and attacks on China’s supply lines—or it will face “blinding” and nuclear attack “from above.”

This is, of course, something of a poker game if things reach this point. The Chinese might be bluffing, or they might not. And it will take a certain type of American president to call their bluff. But whoever it is, if the Chinese get “the high ground,” there will be a number of people telling the president that “Taiwan isn’t worth it” and to “let it go.”

So, while the current focus is on Taiwan and conventional hardware and capabilities needed to deter a Chinese assault, the United States will do well to prepare to “expand the battlefield” and hit China where it is most vulnerable.

But the United States also needs to “look up” and do what is necessary to dominate outer space and counter China’s hypersonic and FOBS capabilities that potentially “checkmate” America’s earthbound advantages.

Not surprisingly, America’s military leadership knew of China’s developing hypersonic capabilities some years back and, by and large, ignored it.

One hopes they do better this time.



Grant Newsham is a retired U.S. Marine officer and a former U.S. diplomat and business executive who lived and worked for many years in the Asia/Pacific region. He served as a reserve head of intelligence for Marine Forces Pacific, and was the U.S. Marine attaché, U.S. Embassy Tokyo on two occasions. He is a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy.



https://www.theepochtimes.com/defend...ttom_above_etv

[Et Soh]

Paramilitary police officers patrol in a shopping area on the closing day of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) in Beijing on May 27, 2020. (Greg Baker/AFP via Getty Images)


Beijing Uses Police and Security Training to Infiltrate Foreign Countries


Antonio Graceffo
December 17, 2021

Epoch Times News Analysis
Audio PDF


Beijing is exporting its brand of justice around the globe through a series of law enforcement exchanges and by offering training and equipment.

In 2011, the government of Ecuador installed a countrywide Chinese-designed surveillance system, financed by Chinese loans in exchange for oil. Today, crime is still rampant, but the police and internal intelligence community can monitor anyone they wish.

With the brutal crackdowns in Hong Kong and the most advanced digital surveillance technology control measures in Xinjiang, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is an expert in exploiting public security forces for the means of repression.

Under Chinese leader Xi Jinping, the CCP’s control over civil society has expanded, with the creation of the Central National Security Commission and the National Supervision Commission, as well as the increased use of technology as a tool of social control. The Central National Security Commission reports directly to the CCP and is tasked with “overall national security” guarding against both external and internal security threats. Additionally, one of the primary reasons for the creation of the security commission was to improve intelligence sharing across military, intelligence, and public security apparatuses.



The CCP’s 2015 “Military Strategy” white paper stated that the security of China is linked to the security of the world. And this has been China’s justification for extending the reach of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the Ministry of State Security (China’s spy agency), and the People’s Armed Police beyond China’s borders.

These government agencies are not only trying to secure China’s safety by combating terrorists and criminals, but also furthering Beijing’s surveillance and intelligence-gathering capabilities. Additionally, the CCP is using police training and material aid as a form of diplomacy, to co-opt foreign governments, to win friends, and to place pro-China officers in high positions in foreign security forces.

Beijing is working to position itself as an international security partner, while expanding the mandate of its own security forces, as well as facilitating espionage and intelligence gathering. Over the past 15 years, the CCP has steadily expanded the overseas security role of the PLA through participating in peacekeeping, disaster response, and counterterrorism operations around the world.
Chinese soldiers stand at attention during Peace Mission-2016 joint military exercises of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in the Edelweiss training area in Balykchy, Kyrgyzstan, on Sept. 19, 2016. (Vyacheslav Oseledko/AFP/Getty Images)

Another white paper on China’s military strategy outlined the extra-territorial mandates of the PLA, such as protecting China’s overseas interests, emergency extractions, and support for national economic development. The paper also called for the PLA to strengthen international security cooperation in geographic locations where China is heavily invested.

The Public Security International Cooperation Work Conference of 2017 similarly called for the “internationalization of public security work,” as well as the establishment of an international “law enforcement security cooperation system with Chinese characteristics.”

China conducted police training in Liberia in 2014. Foreign law enforcement officials are offered police training in China. The police academy in Shandong Province holds a yearly training course for African law enforcement officers. The Yunnan Police College, in Kunming, has a Chinese association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Law Enforcement Academy, which provides free training and education to law enforcement officers from ASEAN. The Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau has cooperation agreements with 10 cities in Central Asia, and the bureau also hosts international police symposiums for foreign officers.

Beijing supports major Chinese manufacturers of cameras, video recorders, and security equipment, with tax benefits and loans from state-owned banks to fund overseas security projects. These financial incentives reduce costs, making it easier for Chinese security firms to win contracts in nations around the world. China is willing to sell this technology to repressive regimes.

Iran adopted the Chinese social credit system, in a bid to monitor and control the financial and social behavior of its citizens. In 2010, the country signed a $130 million deal with ZTE, a Chinese partially state-owned tech company, to install a surveillance system on the government-managed telephone and internet networks.

In Africa, Huawei security technology is being used to spy on political opponents, undermining democracy. China and Bolivia signed a deal to build an integrated command and control system for subregional security, financed by Export-Import Bank of China. In Jamaica, China donated equipment to the police force. In Quintuco, Argentina, the PLA built a $50 million satellite and space mission control station with international surveillance and listening capabilities.

In Ecuador, more than 3,000 public security officers, in 16 monitoring centers, review footage from 4,300 cameras as part of a video surveillance and control system set up by China. The footage is not only reviewed by the police, but is also sent to the nation’s internal intelligence forces, which has a history of monitoring, threatening, and disappearing political rivals.

Chinese-made intelligence monitoring systems are now being used by 18 countries. Thirty-six countries have received China’s training in “public opinion guidance.” In addition to video monitoring, these systems allow security officials to track phones and some are now adding facial recognition features.

China’s growing security cooperation in Africa and Latin America poses a threat to U.S. interests in those regions. Additionally, it undermines the quality of democracy, giving dictators better means to control their populace.

Antonio Graceffo, Ph.D., has spent over 20 years in Asia. He is a graduate of Shanghai University of Sport and holds a China-MBA from Shanghai Jiaotong University. Antonio works as an economics professor and China economic analyst, writing for various international media. Some of his books on China include “Beyond the Belt and Road: China’s Global Economic Expansion” and “A Short Course on the Chinese Economy.”



https://www.theepochtimes.com/beijin...s_4161229.html

[Juicer66]

I'm starting to think that you're just a spamoholic full of your own words trying to paste them anywhere they will allow it.

Or we could also talk about Comprehension classes no longer being taught in America and many other places and coupled with a serous decline in attention span .

Among the majority , Brain Clouding will cause further aggravation and complete mental dislocation .

[Juicer66]

This begs the question, then ... does this person (?) understand what is being posted ? You'd have to believe the answer is 'yes'.

It should therefore follow that, however simple the conversation might be, at least basic discussion comments could be left. If you're right, then I'm sure that there are members here who'd make an effort to adjust to what was required.

No. It's inconceivable that anyone would confidently post such lengthy pieces, without knowing their meaning. Discussion has to be possible. So, where is it ?

They are all vaxxed . So that is the end of it .


What our dear OP needs to do is concentrate the sermon into :-

The weakened US military led by a crackpot C in C --who is a dementia sufferer--- are completely hog tied and can only make strange noises , pretending they know what is happening and being able to adequately respond .
The rest of the world watches open mouthed hoping the professional losers do not start a war that will finish them and a lot of others .

[jimnyc]

Or we could also talk about Comprehension classes no longer being taught in America and many other places and coupled with a serous decline in attention span .

Among the majority , Brain Clouding will cause further aggravation and complete mental dislocation .

Tsk, Tsk. I see you haven't learned and are still looking to away. Let's see if Jim will continue to put up with it.

I don't think so. I'm not playing your games. Sorry.

Hopefully you will back off with your BS in 48.

[Et Soh]

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken (right) speaks with Lithuania’s Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis in the Benjamin Franklin Room of the State Department ahead of a meeting in Washington, on Sept. 15, 2021. (Mandel Ngan/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)


China’s Economic Attack on Lithuania Requires a Joint US-EU Defense


Beijing is also targeting Germany, France, and Sweden
Anders Corr

December 21, 2021

Epoch Times News Analysis Audio PDF

Beijing has reacted against Lithuania’s upgrade to its Taiwan relations with extended trade and diplomatic sanctions against the Baltic country. The move is so severe and unprecedented that it provoked reactions from not only the United States, Britain, and European Union, but a German business group that has deep financial ties to China.

Behind the uproar was Lithuania’s courageous decision in November to allow Taiwan to open a de facto consulate in Lithuania’s capital city of Vilnius. The office uses the name “Taiwan” rather than Taiwan’s capital city of “Taipei.” The former more accurately reflects the island democracy’s sovereignty than the “Taipei” used in the United States and elsewhere in Europe.

Last year, Lithuania withdrew from China’s “17+1” diplomatic forum of Central and East European countries, and Lithuania’s ruling coalition agreed to support “those fighting for freedom” in Taiwan.

Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis said he will not attend the Beijing Winter Olympics.



Lithuania, a country of nearly 3 million, regained its independence from the Soviet Union in 1990, which in part explains the country’s fierce defense of democracy relative to most of the rest of the world.

Beijing’s Backlash Against Lithuania


In response to Lithuania’s growing resistance, Beijing effectively banned imports from the Baltic country on Dec. 1, and demanded that international corporations sever ties with Lithuania or be denied access to the Chinese market.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) expelled Lithuania’s ambassador to China in November, withdrew its own from Vilnius, and recently attempted to illegally downgrade the Lithuanian Embassy in Beijing.

According to Bloomberg, “China had pressured the Baltic nation to change its embassy’s name to the Office of the Charge d‘Affaires, according to Lithuania’s Foreign Ministry, a label that doesn’t exist in international law and one that would effectively downgrade its diplomatic status.”

Landsbergis said: “This is still our embassy, which has never changed its name. Any change of name must be done on [a] bilateral basis. Unilateral changes are not recognized by international law.”

Beijing most recently demanded that Lithuanian diplomats return their identification cards.

Alarmed at their possible loss of diplomatic immunity and concerned for their safety, Lithuania recalled its diplomats from China on Dec. 15 for consultations. Nineteen of them and their dependents consequently departed. The embassy now works virtually.
The Lithuanian Embassy in Beijing, China, on Aug. 10, 2021. (Jade Gao/AFP via Getty Images)

According to Arnoldas Pranckevičius, Lithuania’s vice minister of Foreign Affairs, “China is trying to make an example out of us—a negative example—so that other countries do not follow our path. Therefore, it is a matter of principle how the Western community, the United States, and European Union react.”

Support for Lithuania Is Growing Too Slowly


The United States, Britain, Estonia, and of course Taiwan have all supported Lithuania in its dispute with China. But, so far, the EU has reacted only weakly, in large part due to Germany and France’s economic ties with China, and apparent reluctance to use the bloc in defense of Europe’s smaller countries.

In response to Beijing’s economic sanctions against Lithuania, the EU began gathering evidence to bring China to the World Trade Organization (WTO) for violation of international trade rules, but that could take months.

And the WTO effort could eventually be scuttled, as some companies will not want Brussels to take strong action against Beijing. According to the Financial Times, “many companies fear that if they complain they will be shut out of China completely.”

Beijing Doubles Down Against Lithuania


China’s nationalist media has weighed in on the dispute. According to the state-controlled Global Times tabloid, “we have no intention to deny that economic and trade cooperation between Lithuania and China will be affected after China downgraded its diplomatic relations with Lithuania to the level of chargé d’affaires, the lowest rank of diplomatic representative, over the latter’s breach of the One-China principle. Make no mistake that any country that provokes China’s core interests is bound to find itself on the receiving end of countermeasures.”

Beijing’s reaction could have been worse. In 2018, Beijing effectively kidnapped two prominent Canadians to pressure the North American country over the detention of Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of Chinese tech giant Huawei. The two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, were kept in harsh conditions for over 1,000 days, until Meng was returned to China.
(L-R) Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, two Canadians who were detained in China following the arrest of Meng Wanzhou in Canada on a U.S. extradition request. (AP Photo)

Over this time, Beijing lied about there being no relationship between the detention of the “two Michaels” and the Meng arrest. Yet Spavor and Kovrig were arrested, and released, within days of the same happening to Meng.

The Chinese regime has likewise denied pressuring international corporations to sever ties with Lithuania, but has indicated as much by saying that Chinese companies no longer trust Lithuania.

“I heard that many Chinese companies no longer regard Lithuania as a trustworthy partner,” a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said. “Lithuania has to look at itself for the reason why Lithuanian companies are facing difficulties in trade and economic cooperation in China.”

Beijing Extends Sanctions to Germany, France, and
Sweden


The CCP’s trade sanctions have quietly extended to pressure German, French, and Swedish companies with supply chains that reach Lithuania.

According to Politico sources, “two German companies in the auto industry had parts stopped at Chinese ports in recent days because they were manufactured in Lithuania. Some of these components could take years to be replaced with trusted alternative suppliers. … French and Swedish firms are also reportedly facing similar problems because Lithuanian products form part of their supply chain.”

Consequently, some international companies have canceled contracts with Lithuanian suppliers.

Over the longer term, others will increasingly reevaluate the wisdom of relying on Chinese markets and manufacturing.

“Lithuania’s direct trade with China is relatively small,” according to the Gatestone Institute. “The country exported €300 million worth of goods to China in 2020, less than 1% of its total exports. It is, however, home to hundreds of companies that make products for multinationals that sell to China.”

This includes Lithuanian components in German cars, for example. The German industry is pushing its business lobby, BDI, into the desperate position of publicly criticizing both Lithuania and Beijing for the dispute.

German companies, which depend on the relatively low-wage industry of Lithuania, will also consider transshipment of Lithuanian components through other countries. Continental and Hella are two major German corporations that rely on Lithuanian labor and are getting pressured by Beijing through denial of imports or exports. Similar denials are also affecting smaller German companies.

“Continental, which has operations in 58 countries, is considering shipping products from Lithuania via other countries … in order to avoid further the Chinese blockade,” according to a Financial Times source.

BDI criticized Beijing for its “own goal,” revealing even in its public criticism that the group is advising the CCP on how best to achieve what the business group should realize are Beijing’s illiberal ends.

BDI went further to tangentially criticize the victim, Lithuania, for being “out of step” with EU policy.

The German industry’s awkward attempt to find a middle path between dictatorship and democracy is explained by Germany’s 2020 trade with China. This amounted to €213 billion (about $247 billion) in goods alone, Germany’s largest with any country.

Beijing’s Threat to International Law and the Equal Sovereignty of States


By criticizing Lithuania, the German industry is weighing in on the side of autocracy and the status quo of massive China trade at the expense of democracy in Taiwan and the freedom of countries, like Lithuania, to support democracy globally. This will push the EU into pressuring not only Beijing, but Lithuania, thus furthering the occlusion of small democracies by big power politics.

China’s state media reflects this unequal approach to international politics, describing Lithuania as “a mouse or even just a flea under the feet of fighting elephants.”

Even large democratic blocs like the EU, of which Lithuania is a member, are in a weak position relative to Beijing.

According to Politico, “for the world’s biggest trade bloc, its usual trade defense instruments such as safeguards or anti-dumping measures do not cover the gray economic zone in which China is targeting Lithuania. The EU also doesn’t have a bilateral trade agreement with China through which it could remedy the tensions.”

The EU’s coordination failures and lack of defensive instruments will necessitate either caving to Beijing, or a strengthening of the EU, both of which result in a concentration of power in what are becoming superpower capitals.

EU Trade Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis has proposed as much in his anti-coercion instrument “designed to tackle exactly this [China-Lithuania] type of geopolitically motivated trade tensions,” according to Politico, and which would allow “the EU to strike back against trade challengers via goods, services and intellectual property rights.”
EU Trade Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis speaks during a press conference at the Europa building in Brussels, on Dec. 7, 2021. (Olivier Matthys/AP Photo)

But Brussels, Paris, and Berlin are all more cautious about opposing Beijing publicly, than are smaller states in the EU—including Czechia, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Slovakia—that want EU protection against Beijing’s pressure. Thus the EU is stymied by the vetoes of its biggest economies.

The WTO is likewise paralyzed and illiberal due to the accession of China in 2001.

Beijing Forces Global Political Polarization and a Concentration of Power


The China-Lithuania dispute and its necessary remedies are tragic examples of the concentration of power at the international level, as Lithuania retreats from its independent representation in Beijing to rely on the EU, whose remedies are contrary to the political independence of its component parts. The EU has a relatively illiberal position, compared to Lithuania, on the issue of Taiwan’s sovereignty and democracy.

Trade sanctions meted out by Beijing have similarities to what it might have done years ago to foreign corporations that refer to Taiwan as a country rather than a city or province of China. This indicates how Beijing views the status of not only Taiwan, but other small countries globally. They are either with Beijing, or against it, due to their recognition of Taiwan. Those in the latter category must necessarily be subordinated to Beijing’s goals of hegemony.

The best defense of Lithuania, Taiwan, and democracy generally is for the EU to overcome its paralysis and work together with the United States to impose counter-sanctions on China directly, completely bypassing the slow-moving WTO. International organizations that include China have proven to be failures for democracies given Beijing’s growing influence, veto, and breaking of international norms.



Anders Corr has a bachelor’s/master’s in political science from Yale University (2001) and a doctorate in government from Harvard University (2008). He is a principal at Corr Analytics Inc., publisher of the Journal of Political Risk, and has conducted extensive research in North America, Europe, and Asia. His latest books are “The Concentration of Power:
Institutionalization, Hierarchy, and Hegemony” (2021) and “Great Powers, Grand Strategies: the New Game in the South China Sea” (2018).



https://www.theepochtimes.com/chinas...e_4164991.html