With the confrontation between Japan, Taiwan and China over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea showing no signs of abating, all eyes in the Asia-Pacific region are once again on China’s increasing naval might and military assertiveness. Seen as one piece in a larger puzzle, a picture begins to emerge that portrays China as a rising economic and military might, a potential future superpower competitor with the world’s dominant power, the US.
The pieces of this puzzle are many and varied, including China’s growing expenditures on military, aviation, and naval technology, its development of cyberwar capabilities, its expanding territorial claims in the South China Sea and their attendant territorial disputes with the Philippines and Vietnam, and this latest squabble with Japan, which has given Beijing an opportunity to announce their intention of deploying drones in the region by 2015.
Seen in this light, China is a menace, and the growing US military presence in the region that we have been documenting on the Eyeopener in previous weeks is a necessary, perhaps even welcome counterbalance in the region.
This is a narrative that is being popularized in the mainstream press at the moment, but like all narratives, it leaves out certain key facts that give the story an altogether different inflection. Rather than China as a growing menace, the pieces of this puzzle reveal a China that is being set up to be the new boogeyman in a 21st century Cold War environment, or even a Chinese leadership that is a willing accomplice with leaders around the globe in the creation of a new, global system of governance that will rise from the ashes of future conflict.
Although Nixon’s 1972 trip to China is generally seen as the beginning of the normalization of relations between the US and the communist Chinese, he was in fact preceded there in 1971 by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a protege of David Rockefeller. In 1973, Rockefeller himself was to visit China as Chairman of Chase Manhattan to establish the first US correspondent bank to the Bank of China. Rockefeller has remained on the speed dial of the Chinese communist leadership, and on a trip to China in the wake of 9/11, then-Chinese President Jiang Zemin praised him for his personal contributions to Sino-US relations.
Over the course of the 1990s, the process of outsourcing America’s manufacturing capacity began in earnest and, helped along by businesses like Wal-Mart which source products extensively from China, China surpassed the US as the largest manufacturer in the world last year. More and more companies have set up manufacturing capabilities in the country or relocated altogether, including Hakes Marine, GE Healthcare, Bayer HealthCare, and Honda, all of which have relocated partially or entirely to China in the past year. This movement has led billionaire George Soros to declare China on multipleoccasions to be the engine of the New World Order.
In the 1990s, even as the international trade agreements that would help to see the rise to dominance of China were being hammered out, the Clinton administration helped a Chinese-owned shipping company in its bid to lease the old naval base in Long Beach, California, a deal which Congress nixed. Clinton also personally approved the transfer of radiation-hardened chipsets to China in 1996, advanced technology that could be used in nuclear warfare.
In recent years the US Department of Commerce’s own Bureau of Industry and Security has released studies detailing how US technology transfers have been essential in the rise of China as an economic and military power.
These facts are all easily documentable, but not often raised in discussion of the rise of China because it presents a puzzling paradox: why are key elements of the American government, business and armament establishment actively aiding the Chinese government if the US and China are involved in military tensions, resource wars, currency disputes and economic competition? As we shall see, there are possible answers to this question, but first it is important to note that this phenomenon of a superpower funding its erstwhile enemy is not without precedent. In fact, as I highlighted in a recent episode of The Corbett Report podcast, Hoover Institute research fellow Antony Sutton spent decades of his life documenting the voluminous evidence that the US did precisely this with its two great enemies of the 20th century: the Nazis and the Bolsheviks.
Again, the question may be raised as to why this type of cooperation would take place at all between superpowers and their supposed enemies. What purpose could it serve? Looking at some of the reasons for US support of the Nazis and the Bolsheviks might provide us with a clue. …
And why would the owners of the federal reserve want to set up a military confrontation between the US and China? To milk us, of course:
The history of the U.S. national debt is inexorably tied to its many wars. The resolution this week of the so-called debt ceiling crisis is no different. Not only did a compliant Congress agree to fund President George W. Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with emergency appropriations; it did so with borrowed money, raising the debt ceiling 10 times since 2001 without quibbling.
So how did the Pentagon fare in the current budget battle? It looks like it did fine. Not to be confused with the soldiers and veterans who have fought these wars.
“This year is the 50th anniversary of [Dwight] Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex speech,” William Hartung of the Center for International Policy told me while the Senate assembled to vote on the debt ceiling bill. Speaking of the late general turned Republican U.S. president, Hartung said: “He talked about the need for a balanced economy, for a healthy population. Essentially, he’s to the left of Barack Obama on these issues.”
Michael Hudson, president of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends, explained the history of the debt ceiling’s connection to war:
“It was put in in 1917 during World War I, and the idea was to prevent President Wilson from committing even more American troops and money to war. In every country of Europe—England, France—the parliamentary control over the budget was introduced to stop ambitious kings or rulers from waging wars. So the whole purpose was to limit a government’s ability to run into debt for war, because that was the only reason that governments ran into debt.”
Speculators only make money during times of change, because they bet against the economic status quo. That’s where the really big money is. They had both the means and the motive to destroy the US economy, and that’s exactly what they did, with the bipartisan assistance of the clinton and bush2 administrations (see “Bush helped engineer subprime collapse” in the reference section). It’s the financial-military-industrial complex.