radiofree.asia

Author: John V. Walsh

  • New York Times Shifts Prowar Narrative, Documents Failure of U.S. in Ukraine

    The New York Times has a job to do – and it has done that job spectacularly well over the past few months.  The Times is a leader, in the opinion of this writer, the leader in spelling out the US narrative on the war in Ukraine, a tale designed to keep up morale, give the war a high moral purpose and justify the untold billions pouring from the taxpayers’ pockets into Joe Biden’s proxy war on Russia. Day in and day out, in page after page of word and picture, it has been instructing one and all, including politicians and lower level opinion shapers, exactly what to think about the war in Ukraine.

    So, when the Times says that things are not going well for the US and its man in Kiev, Volodymyr Zelensky, it is a man bites dog kind of story.  It tells us that some truths have gone from uncomfortable to undeniable.  Such was nature of the page one story on May 11, headlined “Russians Hold Much of the East, Setbacks Aside.”

    Even that anti-narrative headline softens the bitter truth.  The first paragraph of the story fesses up more completely, stating, “Obscured in the daily fighting is the geographic reality that Russia has made gains on the ground.” Not “holding” ground but “gaining” ground.  Not exactly a morale booster.

    The Times goes on, “The Russian Defense Ministry said Tuesday that its forces in eastern Ukraine had advanced to the border between Donetsk and Luhansk, the two Russian-speaking provinces where Moscow-backed separatists have been fighting Ukraine’s army for eight years.” Here it reminds us that the first shots in this war were not fired on February 24, as the narrative goes, but eight long years ago in the Donbas.  It is a jolting reminder for those who base their support for the war on “who fired the first shot,” that their “moral” view has a considerable blind spot.

    The Times continues: “…. the Donbas seizure, combined with the Russian invasion’s early success in seizing parts of southern Ukraine adjoining the Crimean peninsula ….gives the Kremlin enormous leverage in any future negotiation to halt the conflict.”

    It goes on: “And the Russians enjoy the added advantage of naval dominance in the Black Sea, the only maritime route for Ukrainian trade, which they have paralyzed with an embargo that could eventually starve Ukraine economically and is already contributing to a global grain shortage.”  More bad news.

    More: “Russia has all but achieved one of its primary objectives: seizing a land bridge connecting Russian territory to the Crimean peninsula.”  And: “The last stronghold of Ukrainian resistance in this area, at the Azovstal steel plant in Mariupol, has been whittled to a few hundred hungry troops now confined mostly to bunkers.”  Ouch!

    Finally, turning its attention to the economy, the Times states: “The war has ‘put Ukraine’s economy under enormous stress, with the heavy devastation of infrastructure and production capacities,’ the bank said in an economic update. It estimated that 30 percent to 50 percent of Ukrainian businesses have shut down, 10 percent of the population has fled the country and a further 15 percent is displaced internally.”  That is a grand total of 25% of the population displaced from their homes.

    This sad tale of failure, misery and death is broken up by considerable verbiage, some anecdotes from the front and the testimony of Avril Haines, Director of National Intelligence, whose testimony is guarded but bleak.  But read with thought, there is a big failure looming over the enterprise.

    So, in a panic the US continues to throw mountains of cash at the problem, about $63 billion if one includes the recent infusion of about $40 million about to whistle through the Senate and already passed by the House with only 57 Nays, all Republican.

    But why this abrupt shift in tone by the Times.  Lax editorial oversight?  This does not appear to be the case, because right on cue on the same day we are treated to an Opinion piece entitled: “America and Its Allies Want to Bleed Russia. They Really Shouldn’t.”  It suggests that it is time for the U.S. to wave the white flag.

    The piece concludes thus:

    But the longer the war, the worse the damage to Ukraine and the greater the risk of escalation. A decisive military result in eastern Ukraine may prove elusive. Yet the less dramatic outcome of a festering stalemate is hardly better. Indefinite protraction of the war, as in Syria, is too dangerous with nuclear-armed participants.

    Diplomatic efforts ought to be the centerpiece of a new Ukraine strategy. Instead, the war’s boundaries are being expanded and the war itself recast as a struggle between democracy and autocracy, in which the Donbas is the frontier of freedom. This is not just declamatory extravagance. It is reckless. The risks hardly need to be stated.

    It appears some in the Foreign Policy Elite and other precincts of the Deep State have seen the looming disaster for the proxy war on Russia being waged by Biden, Nuland, Blinken and the rest of the neocon cabal.  The prospect of nuclear holocaust lying at the end of this road may be enough to rouse them from their Exceptionalist torpor. They seem to want to stop the train that they have set in motion before it runs off the cliff.  It is not clear whether they will prevail.  But it is clear that we need to drive those responsible for this dangerous debacle out of power -before it is too late.

    The post New York Times Shifts Prowar Narrative, Documents Failure of U.S. in Ukraine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • On Ukraine, the World Majority Sides With Russia Over U.S.

    2014 saw two pivotal events that led to the current conflict in Ukraine. The first, familiar to all, was the coup in Ukraine in which a democratically elected government was overthrown at the direction of the United States and with the assistance of neo-Nazi elements which Ukraine has long harbored. Shortly thereafter the first shots More

    The post On Ukraine, the World Majority Sides With Russia Over U.S. appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • On Ukraine, The World Majority Sides With Russia Over U.S.

    2014 saw two pivotal events that led to the current conflict in Ukraine.

    The first, familiar to all, was the coup in Ukraine in which a democratically elected government was overthrown at the direction of the United States and with the assistance of neo-Nazi elements which Ukraine has long harbored.

    Shortly thereafter the first shots in the present war were fired on the Russian-sympathetic Donbass region by the newly installed Ukrainian government.  The shelling of the Donbass which claimed 14,000 lives, has continued for 8 years, despite attempts at a cease-fire under the Minsk accords which Russia, France and Germany agreed upon but Ukraine backed by the US refused to implement.  On February 24, 2022, Russia finally responded to the slaughter in Donbass and the threat of NATO on its doorstep.

    Russia Turns to the East – China Provides an Alternative Economic Powerhouse

    The second pivotal event of 2014 was less noticed and, in fact, rarely mentioned in the Western mainstream media.  In November of that year according to the IMF, China’s GDP surpassed that of the U.S. in purchasing power parity terms (PPP GDP).  (This measure of GDP is calculated and published by the IMF, World Bank and even the CIA.  Students of international relations like economics Nobel Laureate, Joseph Stiglitz, Graham Allison and many others consider this metric the best measure of a nation’s comparative economic power.)   One person who took note and who often mentions China’s standing in the PPP-GDP ranking is none other than Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.

    From one point of view, the Russian action in Ukraine represents a decisive turn away from the hostile West to the more dynamic East and the Global South.  This follows decades of importuning the West for a peaceful relationship since the Cold War’s end.  As Russia makes its Pivot to the East, it is doing its best to ensure that its Western border with Ukraine is secured.

    Following the Russian action in Ukraine, the inevitable U.S. sanctions poured onto Russia.  China refused to join them and refused to condemn Russia.  This was no surprise; after all Putin’s Russia and Xi’s China had been drawing ever closer for years, most notably with trade denominated in ruble-renminbi exchange, thus moving toward independence from the West’s dollar dominated trade regime.

    The World Majority Refuses to Back U.S. Sanctions

    But then a big surprise. India joined China in refusing to honor the US sanctions regime.  And India kept to its resolve despite enormous pressure including calls from Biden to Modi and a train of high level US, UK and EU officials trekking off to India to bully, threaten and otherwise attempting to intimidate India.  India would face “consequences,” the tired US threat went up.  India did not budge.

    India’s close military and diplomatic ties with Russia were forged during the anti-colonial struggles of the Soviet era.  India’s economic interests in Russian exports could not be countermanded by U.S. threats.  India and Russia are now working on trade via ruble-rupee exchange.  In fact, Russia has turned out to be a factor that put India and China on the same side, pursuing their own interests and independence in the face of U.S. diktat.  Moreover with trade in ruble-renminbi exchange already a reality and with ruble-rupee exchange in the offing, are we about to witness a Renminbi-Ruble-Rupee world of trade – a “3R” alternative to the Dollar-Euro monopoly?  Is the world’s second most important political relationship, that between India and China, about to take a more peaceful direction?  What’s the world’s first most important relationship?

    India is but one example of the shift in power.  Out of 195 countries, only 30 have honored the US sanctions on Russia.  That means about 165 countries in the world have refused to join the sanctions.   Those countries represent by far the majority of the world’s population.  Most of Africa, Latin America (including Mexico and Brazil), East Asia (excepting Japan, South Korea, both occupied by U.S. troops and hence not sovereign, Singapore and the renegade Chinese Province of Taiwan) have refused.  (India and China alone represent 35% of humanity.)

    Add to that fact that 40 different countries are now the targets of US sanctions and there is a powerful constituency to oppose the thuggish economic tactics of the U.S.

    Finally, at the recent G-20 Summit a walkout led by the US when the Russia delegate spoke was joined by the representatives of only 3 other G-20 countries, with 80% of these leading financial nations refusing to join!  Similarly, a US attempt to bar a Russian delegate from a G-20 meeting later in the year in Bali was rebuffed by Indonesia which currently holds the G-20 Presidency.

    Nations Taking Russia’s side are no longer poor as in Cold War 1.0.

    These dissenting countries of the Global South are no longer as poor as they were during the Cold War.  Of the top 10 countries in PPP-GDP, 5 do not support the sanctions.  And these include China (number one) and India (number 3).  So the first and third most powerful economies stand against the US on this matter.  (Russia is number 6 on that list about equal to Germany, number 5, the two being close to equal, belying the idea that Russia’s economy is negligible.)

    These stands are vastly more significant than any UN vote.  Such votes can be coerced by a great power and little attention is paid to them in the world.  But the economic interests of a nation and its view of the main danger in the world are important determinants of how it reacts economically – for example, to sanctions. A “no” to US sanctions is putting one’s money where one’s mouth is.

    We in the West hear that Russia is “isolated in the world” as a result of the crisis in Ukraine.  If one is speaking about the Eurovassal states and the Anglosphere, that is true.  But considering humanity as a whole and among the rising economies of the world, it is the US that stands isolated.  And even in Europe, cracks are emerging.  Hungary and Serbia have not joined the sanctions regime and, of course, most European countries will not and indeed cannot turn away from Russian energy imports crucial to their economies.  It appears that the grand scheme of U.S. global hegemony to be brought about by the US move to WWII Redux, both Cold and Hot, has hit a mighty snag.

    For those who look forward to a multipolar world, this is a welcome turn of events emerging out of the cruel tragedy of the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine.  The possibility of a saner, more prosperous multipolar world lies ahead – if we can get there.

    The post On Ukraine, The World Majority Sides With Russia Over U.S. first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Head to Your Local Gas Station or Supermarket to End the US Proxy War in Ukraine

    US arms and advisers mean more death over there and higher prices at the pump and supermarket right here. “Harris Tells Americans They Will Have to Pay More for Gas To Punish Russia,” proclaimed the New York Times headline recently.   So spoke no less an authority on economics than the Vice President of the United More

    The post Head to Your Local Gas Station or Supermarket to End the US Proxy War in Ukraine appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Head to Your Local Gas Station or Supermarket to End the US Proxy War in Ukraine

    “Harris Tells Americans They Will Have to Pay More for Gas To Punish Russia,” proclaimed the New York Times headline recently.   So spoke no less an authority on economics than the Vice President of the United States. Harris was on a visit to Poland to reassure a nervous NATO member and to egg on the war in Ukraine at the cost of ever more Ukrainian and Russian lives and higher inflation in the US and the world.

    Inflation, Already Bad, Will be Worsened by the War in Ukraine.

    The Times’s report on Harris’s declaration, however, concluded with this sobering reminder:

    The sanctions could also complicate the political situation back in the U.S., where Americans have for months grappled with growing inflation, which has driven down the approval ratings of the Biden presidency.

    The Consumer Price Index rose by 7.9 percent through February, the fastest pace of inflation in 40 years. The average price for a gallon of gas was $4.32 on Thursday, according to AAA. Economists say because of those record gas prices, inflation is expected to climb even more.

    To be clear, the extraordinary 7.9% inflation increase predates the crisis in Ukraine although Joe Biden has attempted to blame it all on the thoroughly demonized Putin. But unless cause can come after effect, Joe has a tough argument to make there. However, it is clear that the war and the sanctions that go with it are accelerating inflation. And it is also clear from every poll that inflation (and the pandemic) are very much on the minds of Americans. Political analysts tell us that the 2022 Congressional elections and probably the 2024 elections will turn in large part on the issue of inflation.

    A grassroots approach to stopping the war in Ukraine.

    It is clear that the public is very likely to oppose US sanctions on Russia and US involvement in Ukraine IF either proves to drive up gas prices, food prices and other items in an accelerated inflationary spiral.

    Our strategy should be to link the inflation with prolonging a war in a far-away land which has little to do with US security and risks a nuclear confrontation with Russia.

    We should have rallies opposing ALL US involvement in Ukraine by tying them to gas prices, food prices, rents and other items.

    Let us have demonstrations, not at the US Congress and not at military bases, but at gas stations and supermarkets.  Especially highly visible gas stations; there is surely one near you.

    Let us hold up placards with a simple message:

    Biden’s arms to Ukraine = Longer War.

    Longer War = Higher Gas Prices.
    Ukraine is not our biz.

    Come Home, America.

    Ukraine as US proxy war against Russia to be fought to the last Ukrainian.

    The war in Ukraine is a US war with Russia, with Ukraine as a US proxy.  So we in the US can stop it by getting one of the parties, the US, to end its involvement.  That is the right and moral responsibility of those in the US.  And it is the action that we as citizens are best positioned to do.  The effective action.

    If, in the face of facts, one believes that this is not a US proxy war but a war between the US and Ukraine, then it is none of our business.  But the course of action is the same. We should still call for an end to sending weapons, materiel and “advisors” to Ukraine and its environs. We should stay out it and avoid foreign entanglements in European disputes – the very thing that the Founders warned us about. That course is anti-interventionism as opposed to pursuing imperial or dubious ideological agendas.

    The best way to stop escalation of the war is to take the offensive.

    The Biden administration is getting a lot of credit for refusing to be part of a no-fly zone and turning thumbs down on US troops on the ground in Ukraine.  But as time goes by, pressure is building for escalation.  At a recent press briefing we saw a number of reporters from the White House press core badgering Jen Psaki and inquiringly petulantly why the President has not done more. And on top of that we have Biden embarrassing himself by making statements contrary to his own policy – either out of confusion or as a way of telling people what the real policy is. Dangerous escalation is waiting just around the corner.

    The best way to stop this vehicle from going forward is to apply the brakes, put it in reverse and leave the question of escalation in the rearview mirror. Let us make de-escalation not escalation the question of the day. Let us push escalation off the table altogether.

    Let’s go out to our local gas station or supermarket to stop the war in its tracks and not only avoid escalation but save countless lives. As I finish here, I just heard Max Blumenthal on the Jimmy Dore show suggest something along the same lines, signage at gas stations linking the war and inflation. Let’s try it.

    No weapons to Ukraine. No sanctions on the world. End the war and stop the inflation.

    The post Head to Your Local Gas Station or Supermarket to End the US Proxy War in Ukraine first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • An antidote to the “Split” in the US Peace Movement: Anti-interventionism. No more US Arms to Ukraine. End the Racist Sanctions. Stop the Russia Bashing.

    Massachusetts Peace Action, a venerable part of the US Peace Movement, has been around since the 1980s and its predecessors date back to the 1950s. Its voice is heeded and it represents most of the shared opinions of the liberal and progressive US peace movement. A recent piece by its Assistant Director, Brian Garvey, provides More

    The post An antidote to the “Split” in the US Peace Movement: Anti-interventionism. No more US Arms to Ukraine. End the Racist Sanctions. Stop the Russia Bashing. appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • An antidote to the “Split” in the US Peace Movement: Anti-interventionism

    Massachusetts Peace Action, a venerable part of the US Peace Movement, has been around since the 1980s and its predecessors date back to the 1950s.  Its voice is heeded and it represents most of the shared opinions of the liberal and progressive US peace movement.

    A recent piece by its Assistant Director, Brian Garvey,  provides an astute analysis of the ideological differences in the progressive part of the US peace movement and properly criticizes its inability to unite around a common program.  He asks the two crucial questions:

    “What do we do now? and

    “How do we make a difference?”

    “Making a difference” to end the war is crucial.  We in the US peace effort want to be effective. If what we do makes no difference, then we might as well watch TV, go for a walk in the woods or just stay in bed for the day.  In asking what is to be done, we must ask what is effective.  And below I consider the matter in terms of effectiveness.

    To get to an answer to his two questions, Garvey divides the movement into three ideological groups.  His categorization is revealing:

    “First, is the group that places all blame on Russia for the war in Ukraine..”

    “Second, is a group that refuses to denounce Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

    “The third group is a blend of the first two. It condemns Russia’s invasion… but it admits that NATO expansion set the stage.”

    To Be Effective the US Peace Movement Must Focus on the US

    Tellingly, it is all about Russia!  Does it make sense for the US peace movement to be so concerned about what Russia does or fails to do?  Remember, as Garvey points out quite correctly – that the goal of the peace movement is to “make a difference.”  Do we imagine that what we say or do will “make a difference” in the inner circles of the Russian administration or Duma (parliament)?  Or have an effect on Russian elections?

    On the other hand, the politicians in the US are very, very concerned about what we may think – our words do have an effect, albeit limited one.  That is the reason the US has no draft. So to “make a difference,” we ought to focus on what the United States can do now to end the war.  It seems evident that we should call on Biden to stop sending arms, materiel and “advisors” to Ukraine.  Today, now – first and foremost.  That should be at the top of our list of goals.

    Some would say that the Ukraine is a proxy in a fight between the US and Russia, with the US calling on Ukrainians to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.  In my view (full disclosure) that is absolutely correct, the goal being to set Europe against Russia to the benefit of the US.  But it does not matter whether one agrees with that view or not.  If above all else we want to stop the death and destruction of Ukrainians and Russians, if we want to be effective at ending the bloodshed ASAP, then we should work to stop the US from fueling the fire and prolonging the war with arms and advisors.

    In short, stop sending US arms, materiel and advisors to Ukraine and its neighbors – NOW.

    The same can be said of the US sanctions which fall most heavily on the Global South, threatening not only its energy supply but also food with expected widespread starvation to follow.  Since these sanctions have the greatest impact on the people of color in the world, it is not a stretch to say they are racist.

    In short, stop the racist US sanctions -NOW.

    Stop the Russia Bashing

    Moreover, keeping the focus on Russia takes the focus off the US and allows it to escape whatever responsibility it has for the war – and it is a rare bird in the peace community that feels the US bears no responsibility.  The focus on Russia, including the McCarthyite insistence that everyone denounce Russia, beefs up the narrative that makes the war possible.  This focus is in and of itself a great victory for the propagandists of war!

    That leads us to the question of “condemning” Russia for the war.  Wherever one might fall in the debate, what effect does this Russia bashing have?  In terms of “making a difference” and mindful again of the fact that it is only the US not the Russians that hears us, what sort of a difference does the condemnation of Russia have?  Clearly it feeds the pro-war narrative and builds more support for the war.  We do not have to take the Russian side to call for an end to the Russia bashing, and such a call should be acceptable to all those who favor peace.

    In short, stop the Russia Bashing – NOW.

    Forget about Russia and a basis for unity emerges – anti-interventionism

    The calls above are not only calls for effective action.  They are calls everyone who wishes for peace can agree on -including those who fall outside the liberal/progressive camp like the Ron Paul Republicans or the Pat Buchanan traditional conservatives or paleo-conservatives.

     Among these calls there is no call for diplomacy, negotiations or cease fires although I agree with those suggestions.  Everyone agrees on that– with the possible exception of the Biden administration and the hawks in Congress.  The Zelensky government and the Russian government are, in fact, negotiating.

    And what those two governments come up with is their business not ours.  For us to make suggestions to those two governments betrays a bit of hubris, even exceptionalism, that those of us living in the heart of the US Empire must watch out for.  It permeates everything here.  We are not gods pulling levers to run the world.

    Once upon a time anti-interventionism, especially important for peace advocates living in the heart of the hegemonic US Empire, was a point of principle for all those who consider themselves progressives in the US.  Sadly, that is no longer the case. Let’s hope that the war in Ukraine will arouse a passion for it once again.

    The post An antidote to the “Split” in the US Peace Movement: Anti-interventionism first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • President Zelensky Phones Taiwan’s Leader Tsai Ing-wen

    Tsai.  Hello Volodya.  I hope you do not mind my calling you that. Zelensky.  (Sobs, wordless.) Tsai.  What is it Volodya?  Calm down. Zelensky. (Sobbing continues.*) “We have been left alone to defend our state. “Who is ready to fight alongside us? “I don’t see anyone. Who is ready to give Ukraine a guarantee of More

    The post President Zelensky Phones Taiwan’s Leader Tsai Ing-wen appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • President Zelensky Phones Taiwan’s Leader Tsai Ing-wen

    Tsai: Hello Volodya. I hope you do not mind my calling you that.

    Zelensky: (Sobs, wordless.)

    Tsai: What is it Volodya? Calm down.

    Zelensky: (Sobbing continues.) We have been left alone to defend our state. Who is ready to fight alongside us? I don’t see anyone. Who is ready to give Ukraine a guarantee of NATO membership? Everyone is afraid.*

    Tsai: But the Americans have given you weapons, rifles. The Germans even gave you helmets — right away — and now they are promising more. And they also sent military advisors “little green men”– I think that is what they call them when they are Russian.

    Zelensky: We are facing tanks and missiles. I am afraid what we have is pretty small potatoes. As the American politician Ron Paul said, it seems the Americans are ready to fight Russia – down to the last Ukrainian (more sobbing).

    Tsai: But Volodya, you got to address the U.S. Congress and plea for help – certainly that shows support.

    Zelensky: Support? The script that the Americans handed me centered on a No Fly Zone, in other words, a call for WWIII, nuclear war. I looked like a madman! (More sobbing.)

    Tsai: I did not think that made you look like a madman. I admire someone who is willing to risk nuclear war for our beliefs. That shows real spine, real guts. And those Congress people applauded you. If you looked mad, would that not make them all insane too. Surely you cannot believe that.

    But I know how you feel about those scripts. The Americans stuff one in my face every now and then with the “advice” that it would be good to read it. I feel I am getting an offer I cannot refuse as they say in the American movies.

    But you do not have to accept the script – you are safe in hiding in Ukraine.

    Zelensky: I cannot comment on where I am – if you understand what I mean.

    And I do not know what kind of company you are keeping, Tsai, but most people are appalled and frightened by the prospect of nuclear war. My stance allowed Biden to look sane by turning thumbs down. I was the fall guy.

    Tsai: Look Volodya. You have to get hold of yourself. The U.S. has managed to get the whole world behind you. Just like the US has got the whole world behind me. Not to worry.

    Zelensky: Are you serious, Tsai? You know that not only China but also India has refused to join US sanctions on Russia – that is 35% of the world’s population right there. China is the number one economy in the world by PPP-GDP and India number three as you surely know. So two of the big three are not backing sanctions. Also refusing are Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Mexico. That is over half the world’s population! And there are many more refusenik nations including the 40 countries not in that list on which the US has sanctions – I have lost count.

    And NATO is showing cracks. Macron and others are talking to Putin all the time. Sweden has refused to join NATO, saying that would be “destabilizing.”

    The world is changing, Tsai.

    Exactly how many countries are behind you, Tsai? You better check — carefully. I wish I had. (More sobbing.)

    Tsai: (Now looks very worried) Good point, Volodya.

    Zelensky: And now Germany is rearming under the influence of the crazy German Greens, the most hawkish of the Parties in the governing coalition. That of course is a dream come true for the neocons – having Germany fight Russia. Two principal competitors of the U.S. fighting one another. It will destroy Ukraine and the rest of Europe. As I have said in the past, this war will engulf Europe.

    Tsai: (Now a bit shaken.) But why did you not stop all this as soon as you were elected. You ran as a peace candidate.

    Zelensky: (Even more upset). I could not. The Americans would not permit it, and Russia is well aware of this as Lavrov has made clear. And America’s Neo-Nazi friends like the Azov Battalion fiercely oppose it – and together they have enough clout to stop an elected President – or even depose him as we saw back in 2014. I am keenly aware of that as is any President until the U.S. grip on this country is broken and it is “de-nazified,” if I may borrow a term.

    So here I am presiding over the unnecessary destruction of my beloved country, unable to agree to the simple terms of peace that the Minsk accords established.

    My place in history is not going to be a glorious one.

    Tsai: But at least you have the Ukrainian people united behind you. Here on Taiwan there is considerable pro-Mainland sentiment.

    Zelensky: United? I have had to ban a dozen political parties, including the main opposition one. I have had to bring all TV under control of one platform. And I have had to declare martial law. Do you think everyone here is happy that instead of implementing the Minsk accords we have brought ourselves to this point?

    My advice to you, Tsai, is do not allow Taiwan to become the Ukraine of East Asia, because right now that is the plan the Americans have for you.

    I have to go now. I am being called. I am not even supposed to make calls like this.

    (Nervously) Keep this call between us. Good-bye.

    Tsai: (Shaken) Good bye Volodya.

    (Hangs up, summons her assistant.) I need to place another call. Please get President Xi on the line. He has wanted to talk. Tell him I want to discuss the One Country, Two Systems Policy.

    And tell him it is the Governor of Taiwan Province calling.

    * These are the exact words that Zelensky used in a midnight speech to Ukraine on February 25.

    The post President Zelensky Phones Taiwan’s Leader Tsai Ing-wen first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • WWII Redux: The Endpoint of U.S. Policy, from Ukraine to Taiwan

    The Threatened Peoples of East Asia and Europe Can Stop the U.S. Drive to Restore its Global Domination. “This is not going to be a war of Ukraine and Russia. This is going to be a European war, a full-fledged war.” So spoke Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky just days after berating the U.S. for beating the More

    The post WWII Redux: The Endpoint of U.S. Policy, from Ukraine to Taiwan appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • WWII Redux: The Endpoint of U.S. Policy from Ukraine to Taiwan

    “This is not going to be a war of Ukraine and Russia. This is going to be a European war, a full-fledged war.” So spoke Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky just days after berating the U.S. for beating the drums of war.

    It is not hard to imagine how Zelensky’s words must have fallen on those European ears that were attentive.  His warning surely conjured up images of World War II when tens of millions of Europeans and Russians perished.

    Zelensky’s words echoed those of Philippine’s President Rodrigo Duterte on the other side of the world at the Eastern edge of the great Eurasian land mass: “When elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled flat.”  We can be sure that Duterte, like Zelensky, had in mind WWII which also consumed tens of millions of lives in East Asia.

    The United States is stoking tensions in both Europe and East Asia, with Ukraine and Taiwan as the current flashpoints on the doorsteps of Russia and China which are the targeted nations.  Let us be clear at the outset.  As we shall see, the endpoint of this process is not for the U.S. to do battle with Russia or China but to watch China and Russia fight it out with the neighbors to the ruin of both sides.  The US is to “lead from behind’ – as safely and remotely as can be arranged.

    To make sense of this and react properly, we must be very clear-eyed about the goal of the U.S.  Neither Russia nor China has attacked or even threatened the U.S.  Nor are they in a position to do so – unless one believes that either is ready to embark on a suicidal nuclear war.

    Why should the U.S. Elite and its media pour out a steady stream of anti-China and anti-Russia invective?  Why the steady eastward march of NATO since the end of the first Cold War?  The goal of the U.S. is crystal clear – it regards itself as the Exceptional Nation and entitled to be the number one power on the planet, eclipsing all others.

    This goal is most explicitly stated in the well-known Wolfowitz Doctrine drawn shortly after the end of the first Cold War in 1992.  It proclaimed that the U.S.’s  “first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet union or elsewhere….”  It stated that no regional power must be allowed to emerge with the power and resources “sufficient to generate global power.”  It stated frankly “we must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global power.” (Emphasis, jw)

    The Wolfowitz Doctrine is but the latest in a series of such proclamations that have proclaimed global domination as the goal of U.S. foreign policy since 1941 the year before the U.S. entered WWII.  This lineage is documented clearly in the book by the Quicny Institute’s Stephen Wertheim “Tomorrow, The World: The Birth of US Global Supremacy.”

    Let us consider China first and then Russia, the foremost target of the U.S., first.  China’s economy is number one in terms of PPP-GDP according to the IMF and has been since November, 2014.  It is growing faster than the U.S. economy and shows no signs of slowing down.  In a sense China has already won by this metric since economic power is the ultimate basis of all power.

    But what about a military defeat of China?  Can the U.S. with its present vastly superior armed forces bring that about?  The historian, Alfred McCoy, answers that question in the way most do these days, with a clear “no”:

    The most volatile flashpoint in Beijing’s grand strategy for breaking Washington’s geopolitical grip over Eurasia lies in the contested waters between China’s coast and the Pacific littoral, which the Chinese call “the first island chain.

    But China’s clear advantage in any struggle over that first Pacific island chain is simply distance. …The tyranny of distance, in other words, means that the U.S. loss of that first island chain, along with its axial anchor on Eurasia’s Pacific littoral, should only be a matter of time.

    Certainly the U.S. Elite recognizes this problem.  Do they have a solution?

    Moreover, that is not the end of the “problem” for the U.S.  There are other powerful countries, like Japan, or rapidly rising economies in East Asia, easily the most dynamic economic region in the world.  These too will become peer competitors, and in the case of Japan, it already has been a competitor both before WWII and during the 1980s.

    If we hop over to the Western edge of Eurasia, we see that the U.S. has a similar “problem” when it comes to Russia.  Here too the U.S. cannot defeat Russia in a conventional conflict nor have U.S. sanctions been able to bring it down.  How can the U.S. surmount this obstacle? And as in the case of East Asia the U.S. faces another economic competitor, Germany, or more accurately, the EU, with Germany at its core. How is the U.S. to deal with this dual threat?

    One clue comes in the response of Joe Biden to both the tension over Taiwan and that over Ukraine.  Biden has said repeatedly that he will not send U.S. combat troops to fight Russia over Ukraine or to fight China over Taiwan.  But it will send materiel and weapons and also “advisors.”  And here too the U.S. has other peer competitors most notably Germany which has been the target of U.S. tariffs. The economist Michael Hudson puts it succinctly in a penetrating essay, “America’s real adversaries are its European and other allies: The U.S. aim is to keep them from trading with China and Russia.”

    Such “difficulties for the U.S. were solved once before – in WWII.  One way of looking at WWII is that it was a combination of two great regional wars, one in East Asia and one in Europe.  In Europe the U.S. was minimally involved as Russia, the core of the USSR, battled it out with Germany, sustaining great damage to life and economy.  Both Germany and Russia were economic basket cases when the war was over, two countries lying in ruins.

    The US provided weapons and materiel to Russia but was minimally involved militarily, only entering late in the game.  The same happened in East Asia with Japan in the role of Germany and China in the role of Russia.  Both Japan and China were devastated in the same way as were Russia and Europe.  This was not an unconscious strategy on the part of the United States.  As Harry Truman, then a Senator, declared in 1941: “If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia; and if that Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and in that way let them kill as many as possible.. . ”

    At the end of it all the U.S. emerged as the most powerful economic and military power on the planet.  McCoy spells it out:

    Like all past imperial hegemons, U.S. global power has similarly rested on geopolitical dominance over Eurasia, now home to 70% of the world’s population and productivity. After the Axis alliance of Germany, Italy, and Japan failed to conquer that vast land mass, the Allied victory in World War II allowed Washington, as historian John Darwin put it, to build its “colossal imperium… on an unprecedented scale,” becoming the first power in history to control the strategic axial points “at both ends of Eurasia.

    As a critical first step, the U.S. formed the NATO alliance in 1949, establishing major military installations in Germany and naval bases in Italy to ensure control of the western side of Eurasia. After its defeat of Japan, as the new overlord of the world’s largest ocean, the Pacific, Washington dictated the terms of four key mutual-defense pacts in the region with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia and so acquired a vast range of military bases along the Pacific littoral that would secure the eastern end of Eurasia. To tie the two axial ends of that vast land mass into a strategic perimeter, Washington ringed the continent’s southern rim with successive chains of steel, including three navy fleets, hundreds of combat aircraft, and most recently, a string of 60 drone bases stretching from Sicily to the Pacific island of Guam.

    The U.S. was able to become the dominant power on the planet because all peer competitors were left in ruins by the two great regional wars in Europe and East Asia, wars which are grouped under the heading of WWII.

    If Europe is plunged into a war of Russia against the EU powers with the U.S. “leading from behind,” with material and weapons, who will benefit?  And if East Asia is plunged into a war of China against Japan and whatever allies it can drum up, with the U.S. “leading from behind,” who will benefit?

    It is pretty clear that such a replay of WWII will benefit the U.S.  In WWII while Eurasia suffered tens of millions of deaths, the US suffered about 400,000 – a terrible toll certainly but nothing like that seen in Eurasia.  And with the economies and territories of Eurasia, East and West, in ruins, the U.S. will emerge on top, in the catbird seat, and able to dictate terms to the world.  WWII redux.

    But what about the danger of nuclear war growing out of such conflicts?  The U.S. has a history of nuclear “brinksmanship,” going back to the earliest post-WWII days.  It is a country that has shown itself willing to risk nuclear holocaust.

    Are there U.S. policy makers criminal enough to see this policy of provocation through to the end?  I will leave that to the reader to answer.

    The Peoples of East and West Eurasia are the ones who will suffer most in this scenario.  And they are the ones who can stop the madness by living peacefully with Russia and China rather than serving as cannon fodder for the U.S.  There are clear signs of dissent from the European “allies” of the U.S., especially Germany but the influence of the U.S. remains powerful.  Germany and many other countries are after all occupied by tens of thousands of U.S. troops, their media heavily influenced by the U.S. and with the organization that commands European troops, NATO, under U.S. command.  Which way will it go?

    In East Asia the situation is the same.  Japan is the key but the hatred of China among the Elite is intense.  Will the Japanese people and the other peoples of East Asia be able to put the brakes on the drive to war?

    Some say that a two-front conflict like this is U.S. overreach.  But certainly, if war is raging on or near the territories of both Russia and China, there is little likelihood that one can aid the other.

    Given the power of modern weaponry, this impending world war will be much more damaging than WWII by far.  The criminality that is on the way to unleashing it is almost beyond comprehension.

    The post WWII Redux: The Endpoint of U.S. Policy from Ukraine to Taiwan first appeared on Dissident Voice.

  • New York Times Equates China’s Health Care Workers to Adolph Eichmann

    In a lead article, on page one of the New York Times on January 13, Li Yuan an NYT reporter, has equated the public health and medical personnel behind China’s successful battle against Covid-19 in the city of Xi’an to Adolph Eichmann, a principal architect of the Holocaust.  The article’s opening sentence views them as More

    The post New York Times Equates China’s Health Care Workers to Adolph Eichmann appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • The Secret Speech of Jen Psaki

    White House Press Secretary Offers Thanks for Biden Infrastructure Bill – to China. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki reaffirmed Joe Biden’s stance that he was not an “old friend” of Xi Jinping before the summit between the two leaders last week.  This was big news. And the media play it received was quite disturbing More

    The post The Secret Speech of Jen Psaki appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • The Secret Speech of Jen Psaki

    White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki reaffirmed Joe Biden’s stance that he was not an “old friend” of Xi Jinping before the summit between the two leaders last week. This was big news. And the media play it received was quite disturbing to Psaki, as it turns out.

    Seeking to clarify matters, she wrote a statement to read to the press corps explaining her stance on China-US relations. She planned to read it to the press during Thanksgiving week. Presidential advisors, however, put the kabosh on the statement – and reportedly tried to put the kabosh on Psaki herself after they saw her draft. From reliable sources, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the situation, we have obtained portions of the statement which has come to be known among Washington insiders as the PPP, Psaki’s Psecret Pspeech.

    Here is the text of Psaki’s scuttled statement planned for delivery to the White House Press Corps:

    Hello everyone.

    Before we begin today’s press briefing, I wish to say once again that it is great to be back here with all of you after my bout with Covid-19. I learned a lot while thinking about things during my illness, and I will return to that.

    But first I want to reflect on the events of the last week including the President’s meeting with President Xi of China and the signing of the infrastructure bill. And in part I will address my remarks directly to China.

    To begin with – and let us not mince our words – the American people owe China a great debt of gratitude for the infrastructure bill. On behalf of all Americans, I wish to thank China. Without you we could not have done it. For decades we have had potholed roads, lead laced drinking water, and the narrowest of broadband especially out in the countryside. Now that will change if only a tiny bit. And you China deserve the credit.

    In fact the New York Times, mouthpiece of our foreign policy Establishment, made that very point two days after the signing of the bill:

    “President Biden on Tuesday began selling his $1 trillion infrastructure law, making the case that the money would do more than rebuild roads, bridges and railways. The law, he said would help the United States regain its competitive edge against China.

    “‘We’re about to turn things around in a big way,’ Mr. Biden said, ‘For example because of this law, next year will be the first year in 20 years that American infrastructure will grow faster than China’s.’”

    You see, China, getting some federal funds for things we need is an uphill battle. But when our politicians see things in terms of an enemy, they scurry about like industrious little beavers getting things done.

    Now, China, I recognize that you begged to differ on the size of the infrastructure bill. Your daily, Global Times, which occupies the same niche in China as do the New York Times or WaPo in the US, labelled the bill “a feeble imitation of China.” That is true; you, China, spend about 5.1% of GDP on infrastructure and we spend 1.5%. As a wordsmith myself, I would choose the word “puny” to describe the bill – at least compared to our whopping national security budget. But hey, when you are starving, crumbs can look like a banquet. And without you, China, we would not even have the crumbs.

    Next, China, I want to talk about another big problem we are facing – inflation. Without you, it would be far worse. Because you handled the Covid-19 pandemic so well, your economy kept plugging along and we Americans got a bigger supply of cheap goods which of course helps to keep prices in line. Unfortunately, our leaders, namely The Donald and now The Joe, are laying tariffs on your goods, making them more expensive for our own people. You give us a gift and we destroy it. You probably think us inscrutable or at least ungrateful – and I don’t blame you for one moment.

    I could go on with this praise, but no one is perfect, China. There is one area where I must level a criticism, and it comes of my personal experience with Covid. And here I fault you for your propaganda performance – and I speak as part of the most expert propaganda team on the planet. Quite frankly you are lousy propagandists. You contained Covid with fewer than 5000 deaths and fewer than 100,000 cases – total. And the “draconian” lockdowns after the initial 76 day lockdown in Wuhan were not so massive nor so widespread as we made them out to be.

    I mean your public health achievement is awesome, and I reflected a lot on it as I was in quarantine with Covid, thankfully not very sick. But you let the news coverage be dominated by every trivial event including the inevitable missteps at the outbreak of a new pathogen for which the local officials were sacked. (Good for you, China – we have many governors who deserve punishment for their behavior during the pandemic – not the least of which is Mr. Cuomo who stuffed Covid patients into nursing homes.) But if you were more effective at getting the word out, perhaps the American people would have risen up and demanded the same results that you got. Perhaps I would not have fallen ill, and perhaps 760,000 Americans would still be alive. Honestly, China, you have to step up your information campaigns – a lot is at stake.

    China, I also want to thank you for the event in Beijing at the very time of Xi-Biden confab, a refreshing change from the unrelenting hawk talk hereabouts. Again, let me quote the New York Times:

    “Even as the two leaders met virtually, another meeting was taking place in Beijing, commemorating the American pilots known as the Flying Tigers who aided China during its war against Japan in 1941 and 1942.

    “‘The story of the Flying Tigers undergirds the profound friendship forged by the lives and blood of the Chinese and American people,’ Qin Gang, China’s ambassador to the United States, said during the event. Acknowledging the tensions in the relationship, he added that the two countries ‘should inherit the friendly friendship tempered by war.’”

    Finally, I wish to conclude with the words of Chief Justice Earl Warren, “Everything I did in my life that was worthwhile, I caught hell for.”

    OK. Questions?

    The post The Secret Speech of Jen Psaki first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Biden and Congress Agree: Build Back Bombs Better

    $1.75 Trillion for the Social Welfare/Climate Bill; $1.75 trillion for “modernizing” nukes. Last Friday Congress passed the Biden “Infrastructure” Bill which will be signed into law post haste says the White House.  The bill, designed to upgrade roads, bridges, transport and broadband, is a bricks and mortar affair and will benefit industry and commerce. It More

    The post Biden and Congress Agree: Build Back Bombs Better appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Biden and Congress Agree: Build Back Bombs Better

    Last Friday Congress passed the Biden “Infrastructure” Bill which will be signed into law post haste says the White House. The bill, designed to upgrade roads, bridges, transport and broadband, is a bricks and mortar affair and will benefit industry and commerce. It is the first of two bills that have been the center of attention for months now.

    The second bill is the Build Back Better Bill. This bill has provisions for child care and preschool, eldercare, healthcare, prescription drug pricing, immigration and curbing greenhouse gas emissions. This might be described as a bill for people not for bricks and mortar. It has been the darling of progressives in Congress. The White House has now promised it will come up for a vote by November 15.

    Whatever one may think of the “Build Back Better” Bill, there is no doubt it is a shadow of its original self. The total for Build Back Better was to be in the neighborhood of $6 trillion, as originally envisioned by Congressional progressives, and then it slipped to about $3 trillion and now it has shrunk again to $1.75 trillion — the incredible shrinking Build Back Better Bill. It is woefully inadequate. On health care, greenhouse gases, family leave, education and other matters, it is little more than a stingy beginning.

    Now look at the cost of “upgrading” and “modernizing” the US nuclear arsenal, a program which was originated by Barack Obama, after he got his Nobel Peace Prize, and has now ballooned beyond its original abdominous $1 trillion price tag to a stunning $1.75 trillion. No shrinkage there. For both Parties no cost is too high to keep us poised every instant on the razor edge of Accidental Armageddon.

    Nuclear weapon “modernization,” however, is only one small corner of the total picture. Let’s look at the entire military budget. Biden’s first budget for the Pentagon and nuclear weapons, for fiscal 2022, is about $750 billion. The spending on the Build Back Better Bill is to extend over 10 years, yielding an average expenditure of $175 billion. Biden’s “transformative,” historic” Build Back Better Bill gets only 23% percent of the Pentagon budget – assuming the latter is not fattened up even more.

    The situation is even more barbaric when we look at the entire “national security” budget which includes the yearly budget of the 17 “intel” agencies and comes to $1.3 trillion. No expenditure is too great, it seems, to ensure that the Feds track all our phone conversations and emails and harass every unsuspecting Chinese student and academic they can get their mitts on. It would take only 13% of that $1.3 trillion to fund Build Back Better.

    For weeks the mainstream media has been burdening its audience with a grueling daily account of the Build Back Better Bill, with tedious detail about inter- and intra-partisan quarreling. The basic tale is that Senator Manchin is standing in the way of all that is good, holy and angelic in the political world. True, but that makes him nothing more than a typical Senator. However, the Manchin morality play touches on a simple but important question for those already feeling the limber fingers on their wallets of the insidious pickpocket, inflation. How are we to pay for Build Back Better? Regardless of which side of the question you come down on, cost constitutes an obstacle in influential quarters.

    From all of the above, a compelling proposal emerges. A 23% cut in the military budget (or if you wish to cast your net wider, a 13% cut in the “national security” budget) will fund the entire Build Back Better Bill – with no more cuts. With a 23% cut for fiscal 2022, the military budget drops from $750 billion to $580 billion. That is well in excess of the combined military expenditures of $314 billion for China ($252 billion) and Russia ($62 billion.) In fact a cut of 50% in the military outlay would still leave it at $375 bill, still higher than the combined expenditure of Russia and China. If an elected official cannot agree to that, they are either paranoid or a hegemonist up to no good. In either event they should be barred from public office.

    The military budget of $750 billion is now under “continuing resolution,” which means interim funding until a final vote can be taken in the weeks ahead. One needs no crystal ball to forecast broad bipartisan support for this piece of legislation. The only serious discussion will be how much to increase the amount. “Bomb Back Better,” if we might call it that, will sail through Congress and White House as effortlessly as a vulture on the wing.

    Common sense suggests we transfer our hard-earned dollars from guns to butter, but no such prospect is in sight. Only one act is required to get to that promised land. We must not vote for anyone who cannot see their way to an ironclad commitment to a 50% cut in the National “Security” Budget – for starters. It’s as easy as that.

    The post Biden and Congress Agree: Build Back Bombs Better first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Cover-up of U.S. Nuclear Sub Collision in South China Sea: a Wake-up Call for East Asia – and the World.

    “When elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled.” So warned Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte in his address to the UN General Assembly on September 22, 2020. He was referring to the consequences for East Asia of a conflict between the US and China.
    Fast forward to October 2, 2021, about one year later, and the first patch of grass has been stomped on by the U.S. elephant, trudging stealthily about, far from home in the South China Sea.  On that day the nuclear-powered attack submarine, the USS Connecticut, suffered serious damage in an undersea incident which the U.S. Navy ascribed to a collision with an undersea object. More

    The post Cover-up of U.S. Nuclear Sub Collision in South China Sea: a Wake-up Call for East Asia – and the World. appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Cover-up of U.S. Nuclear Sub Collision in South China Sea

    “When elephants fight, it is the grass that gets trampled.”

    So warned Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte in his address to the UN General Assembly on September 22, 2020. He was referring to the consequences for East Asia of a conflict between the US and China.

    Fast forward to October 2, 2021, about one year later, and the first patch of grass has been stomped on by the U.S. elephant, trudging stealthily about, far from home in the South China Sea. On that day the nuclear-powered attack submarine, the USS Connecticut, suffered serious damage in an undersea incident which the U.S. Navy ascribed to a collision with an undersea object.

    After sustaining damage, the submarine apparently surfaced close to the Paracel Islands which lie only 150 nautical miles from China’s Yulin submarine base in Hainan Province. The Connecticut is one of only three Seawolf class of submarines, which are assumed to be on spying missions. But they can be equipped with Intermediate Range (1250-2500 km) Tomahawk cruise missiles which can be armed with nuclear warheads. It is claimed that they are not so equipped at present because the Navy’s “policy decisions” have “phased out” their nuclear role, according to the hawkish Center For Strategic and International Studies.

    When a US nuclear submarine with such capabilities has a collision capable of killing U.S. sailors and spilling radioactive materials in the South China Sea, it should be front page news on every outlet in the U.S. This has not been the case – far from it. For example, to this day (October 30), nearly a month after the collision, the New York Times, the closest approximation to a mouthpiece for the American foreign policy elite, has carried no major story on the incident, and in fact no story at all so far as I and several daily readers can find. This news is apparently not fit to print in the Times. (A notable exception to this conformity and one worth consulting has been Craig Hooper of Forbes.)

    A blackout of this kind will come as no surprise to those who have covered the plight of Julian Assange or the US invasion of Syria or the barely hidden hand of the United States in various regime change operations, to cite a few examples

    The U.S. media has followed the narrative of the U.S. Navy which waited until October 7 to acknowledge the incident, with the following extraordinarily curt press release (I have edited it with strike-outs and italicized substitutions to make its meaning clear.):

    The Seawolf-class fast-attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN 22) struck an object while submerged on the afternoon of Oct. 2, while operating in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region in the South China Sea near or inside Chinese territorial waters. The safety of the crew remains the Navy’s top priority The crew is being held incommunicado for an indefinite period. There are no life threatening injuries. This allows the extent of injuries to the crew to be kept secret.

    The submarine remains in a safe and stable condition hidden from public view to conceal the damage and its cause. USS Connecticut’s nuclear propulsion plant and spaces were not affected and remain fully operational are in a condition that is being hidden from the public until cosmetic repairs can be done to conceal the damage. The extent of damage to the remainder of the submarine is being assessed: is also being concealed. The U.S. Navy has not requested assistance will not allow an independent inspection or investigation. The incident will be investigated cover-up will continue.

    Tan Kefei, spokesperson for China’s Ministry of National Defense although not so terse, had much the same to say as my edited version above, as reported in China’s Global Times:

    It took the US Navy five days after the accident took place to make a short and unclear statement. Such an irresponsible approach, cover-up (and) lack of transparency … can easily lead to misunderstandings and misjudgments. China and the neighboring countries in the South China Sea have to question the truth of the incident and the intentions behind it.

    But Tan went further and echoed the sentiment of President Duterte;

    This incident also shows that the recent establishment of a trilateral security partnership between the US, UK and Australia (AUKUS) to carry out nuclear submarine cooperation has brought a huge risk of nuclear proliferation, seriously violated the spirit of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, undermined the construction of a nuclear-free zone in Southeast Asia, and brought severe challenges to regional peace and security.

    “We believe that the actions of the US will affect the safety of navigation in the South China Sea, arouse serious concerns and unrest among the countries in the region, and pose a serious threat and a major risk to regional peace and stability.

    The crash of the USS Connecticut goes beyond the potential for harmful radioactive leakage into the South China Sea, with potential damage to the surrounding nations including the fishing grounds of importance to the economy. If the US continues to ramp up confrontation far from its home in the South China Sea, then a zone of conflict could spread to include all of East Asia. Will this in any way benefit the region? Does the region want to be turned into the same wreckage that the Middle East and North Africa are now after decades of US crusading for “democracy and liberty” there via bombs, sanctions and regime change operations? That would be a tragic turn for the world’s most economically dynamic region. Do the people of the region not realize this? If not, the USS Connecticut should be a wake-up call.

    But the people of the US should also think carefully about what is happening. Perhaps the foreign policy elite of the US think it can revisit the U.S. strategy in WWII with devastation visited upon Eurasia leaving the US as the only industrial power standing above the wreckage. Such are the benefits of an island nation. But in the age of intercontinental weapons, could the US homeland expect to escape unscathed from such a conflict as it did in WWII? The knot is being tied, as Krushchev wrote to Kennedy at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, and if it is tied too tightly, then no one will be able to untie it. The US is tying the knot far from its home this time half way around the world. It should not tie that knot too tight.

    The post Cover-up of U.S. Nuclear Sub Collision in South China Sea first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • French Finance Minister Issues Declaration of Independence – From the U.S.

    “Clear Differences Remain Between France and the U.S, French Minister Says,” is the headline to a remarkable  piece appearing in the New York Times today.  The Minister, Bruno Le Maire, is brutally frank on the nature of the differences as the quotations below Illustrate.  (Emphases in the quotations are mines.) In fact, they amount to More

    The post French Finance Minister Issues Declaration of Independence – From the U.S. appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • French Finance Minister Issues Declaration of Independence from the U.S.

    “Clear Differences Remain Between France and the U.S, French Minister Says,” is the headline to a remarkable  piece appearing in the New York Times today.  The Minister, Bruno Le Maire, is brutally frank on the nature of the differences as the quotations below Illustrate.  (Emphases in the quotations are writer’s.) In fact, they amount to a Declaration of Independence of France and EU from the U.S.

    It is not surprising that the differences relate to China after the brouhaha over the sale of U.S. nuclear submarines to Australia and the surprising (to the French) cancellation of contracts with France for submarines.  Mr. LeMaire, sounding very much like a reproving parent, characterized this as “misbehavior from the U.S. administration.”

    Mr. LeMaire made it crystal clear that the disagreement over submarines is symptomatic of deeper differences in world view that have emerged not only in France but in the EU as a consequence of China’s rise.  The article states:

    ‘The United States wants to confront China. The European Union wants to engage China,’ Mr. Le Maire, a close ally of President Emmanuel Macron of France, said in a wide-ranging interview ahead of the (IMF) meetings. This was natural, he added, because the United States is the world’s leading power and does not ‘want China to become in a few years or in a few decades the first superpower in the world.

    Europe’s strategic priority, by contrast, is independence,  ‘which means to be able to build more capacities on defense, to defend its own view on the fight against climate change, to defend its own economic interest, to have access to key technologies and not be too dependent on American technologies,’ he said.

    The article continued, quoting the Finance Minister:

    The key question now for the European Union, he said, is to become ‘independent from the United States, able to defend its own interests, whether economic or strategic interests.’

    LeMaire might have pre-ambled that statement with: “When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

    Still, seasoned diplomat that Mr. LeMaire is, he provided some cold comfort to the naughty U.S. administration, saying, the United States remains “our closest partner” in terms of values, economic model, respect for the rule of law, and embrace of freedom.  But with China, he said, “we do not share the same values or economic model.”

    The article continued:

    Asked if differences over China meant inevitable divergence between the United States and Europe, Mr. Le Maire said, ‘It could be if we are not cautious.’ But every effort should be made to avoid this, which means ‘recognizing Europe as one of the three superpowers in the world for the 21st century,’ alongside the United States and China.

    The piece concluded:

    One of the biggest lingering points of contention is over metal tariffs that former President Donald J. Trump imposed globally in 2018. Officials face difficult negotiations in coming weeks. Europeans plan to impose retaliatory tariffs on a range of U.S. products as of December 1, unless Mr. Biden pulls back a 25 percent duty on European steel and a 10 percent tax on aluminum.

    ‘If we want to improve the bilateral economic relationship between the continents, the first step must be for the United States to lift the sanctions in the steel and aluminum case,’ Mr. Le Maire said. ‘We are fed up with the trade wars,’ he added.

    Shared values are nice, but shared profits are clearly better.

    The post French Finance Minister Issues Declaration of Independence from the U.S. first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • NY Times Advises China on Covid-19: Abandon Success, Try Failure

    Shielding the Western elite from justified rage The recent outbreak of the Delta variant in China “shows that its strategy no longer fits. It is time for China to change tack.” So declared a lead essay atop the New York Times Opinion/Editorial section on Sept. 7 by Yanzhong Huang, a senior fellow at the Council More

    The post NY Times Advises China on Covid-19: Abandon Success, Try Failure appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • New York Times Advises China on Covid-19: Abandon Success, Try Failure

    The recent outbreak of the Delta variant in China “shows that its strategy no longer fits. It is time for China to change tack.”

    So declared a lead essay atop the New York Times Opinion/Editorial section on September  7 by Yanzhong Huang, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

    The Delta outbreak that “changed the game” in Huang’s words emerged after an outbreak at Nanjing international airport in July traced to a flight from Russia.  Did this outbreak change anything, in fact?

    Let’s do the numbers.

    Let’s do something that Huang did not; let’s look at the numbers from July 1 until September 7, the date of the article, a period that brackets the Delta outbreak cited by Huang.

    During that period China experienced 273 new cases, about 4 per day, and no new deaths. That hardly seems like a failure.

    To get some perspective on these numbers, during that same July1-September 7 period, the US, a country one fourth China’s size, reported 6,560,588 new cases (96,479 per day) and 45,054 new deaths (662 per day).

    The same contrast can be seen for the entire period of the pandemic.  From the pandemic’s initial Wuhan outbreak in January, 2020, until September 7, 2021:

    China had a sum total of 95,512 cases and 4,629 deaths;

    The US had 40,196,953 cases and 648,146 deaths.

    There have been two previous outbreaks of the Delta variant in China, one in Guangdong and another in Yunnan near the Myanmar border before the one arising in Nanjing.  The Delta variant was contained in each case. None of the three has turned out to be a “game changer,” as Huang incorrectly maintains.

    Perhaps it is the U.S. that needs “to change tack.”

    To anticipate an objection that has largely faded but persists in some quarters, can we believe the case and mortality count China gives us?  There are now many first-hand accounts of what life has been like in China these days that make the official tallies quite reasonable.  And quantitative evidence supporting China’s data is available in a peer-reviewed study in the prestigious British Medical Journal; it is summarized and discussed here.   Carried out by groups at Oxford University and China’s CDC, the study compares excess deaths in Wuhan and also in the rest of China during the period of the lockdown, and it finds that the official counts are remarkably accurate.

    Do China’s life-saving measures imperil its economy?

    China would need a very good reason to abandon its public health measures of massive, rapid testing, tracing and, where necessary, quarantining.  Are there any such reasons?  Mr. Huang states that the life-saving measures now “threaten overall economic growth in China”.  Does this prognostication fit the facts?

    China’s GDP grew more slowly in 2020, but still it grew by 2.27%, the only major economy in the world not to contract.  In contrast the US economy contracted by 3.51%.  (Even China’s slowed growth in 2020 matched the US economy in normal times, which grew at an average rate of 2.3% in the four pre-pandemic years, 2016-2019.)

    What about the future?  Economies are set to rebound in 2021 from their 2020 lows, with recent projections giving China an 8.4% bounce before settling in to an average growth of 6% over the following 5 years. For comparison the US jump in 2021 is estimated to be 6.4%, dropping to a 1.9% average over the following 5 years.

    In terms of the economy present and future, China’s policies appear to be doing quite well, better, in fact, than any other major economy.  Mr. Huang has advanced a thesis that is unencumbered by the facts.

    Why is the media’s failure to report on China’s success a threat to our very lives?

    At every step of the way, China’s successes with Covid-19 have been met in the U.S. media with silence, denigration or a prediction that the success cannot continue (FAIR provides a brief survey here).  As a result, China’s measures are not widely known or understood.

    China’s success with its public health measures is important for us now, because the pandemic is far from over. We don’t know what surprises viral evolution will have in store for us.  If a new variant emerges that is resistant to existing vaccines, then we have only public health measures to protect us until we catch up.  That is also true for future pandemics which will surely come our way. For us to be kept in ignorance of those measures or to have them dismissed, as Yanzhong Huang does, poses a threat to our very lives.

    We might also wonder what would happen if the people of the West, including the U.S., understood clearly that measures were possible which could have protected us from the millions of deaths we have suffered.  Governments have toppled from far less.  Mr. Huang, the New York Times and the mass media, whatever else they are doing, are certainly protecting our Establishment from a rage that might have most unpleasant consequences.

    The post New York Times Advises China on Covid-19: Abandon Success, Try Failure first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Biden Exits Afghanistan, Heads in the Wrong Direction

    A major motivation for getting out of Afghanistan is to give the US a freer hand to bring down China and Russia.  And this is not to be a peaceful “Pivot.”  The US has surrounded both countries with military bases, and the Pivot to Asia pioneered by Obama/Hillary/Biden sees 60% of America’s naval forces ending up in China’s neighborhood. More

    The post Biden Exits Afghanistan, Heads in the Wrong Direction appeared first on CounterPunch.org.


    This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by John V. Walsh.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Biden Exits Afghanistan, Heads in the Wrong Direction

    On August 31, Joe Biden accepted the inevitable and announced the final departure of all open military personnel from Afghanistan.

    Perhaps, the most important part of the speech had to do with the future, and here Biden was unequivocal:

    And here is the critical thing to understand: The world is changing. We’re engaged in a serious competition with China. We’re dealing with the challenges on multiple fronts with Russia. ….We have to shore up American competitiveness to meet these new challenges and the competition for the 21st century.

    A major motivation for getting out of Afghanistan is to give the US a freer hand to bring down China and Russia. And this is not to be a peaceful “Pivot.” The US has surrounded both countries with military bases, and the Pivot to Asia, pioneered by Obama/Hillary/Biden, sees 60% of America’s naval forces ending up in China’s neighborhood.

    The Final Quagmire. In the aftermath of the Afghan retreat the resolutely clueless mainstream punditocracy is asking: Has the US learned from this latest fiasco about the limits of its power? Did they not read Biden’s speech? Clearly, they have not.

    If the US has not been able to defeat a minor power like Afghanistan (or Vietnam), what are the odds of doing so with major powers like Russia and China? And given the nuclear weapons capacity of these powers, where might that lead? How many Cuban Missile Crises, or worse, shall we have to go through in this New Cold War before one incident leads not simply to endless war but to a world ending war?

    Let us be clear. Biden did the right thing in terminating the war and he should do the same in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere. He has, however, not only done the right thing for the wrong reason, but for a very malign reason which will lead to greater problems and graver dangers.

    Unfortunately, the pols, the pundits and think tankers pay no heed to the danger here. Equally sad, too many liberals are silent about this New Cold War or cheer it as a new crusade for “democracy and human rights.” But some opposition is coming from a quarter that must deal with reality, not ideology or electioneering demagoguery.

    The Business Realists Push Back. On the day after Biden’s speech, the New York Times ran a story on the front page of the business section entitled, “Businesses Push Biden to Develop China Trade Policy: … companies want the White House to drop tariffs on Chinese goods and provide clarity about a critical trade relationship.” Said the article:

    Business impatience with the administration’s approach is mounting. Corporate leaders say they need clarity about whether American companies will be able to do business with China, which is one of the biggest and fastest-growing markets. Business groups say their members are being put at a competitive disadvantage by the tariffs, which have raised costs for American importers.

    Patrick Gelsinger, the chief executive of Intel, said in an interview last week…’To me, just saying, ‘Let’s be tough on China,’ that’s not a policy, that’s a campaign slogan. It’s time to get to the real work of having a real policy of trade relationships and engagement around business exports and technology with China.’

    In early August, a group of influential U.S. business groups sent a letter to Ms. Yellen and Ms. Tai (recently appointed U.S. Trade Representative) urging the administration to restart trade talks with China and cut tariffs on imported Chinese goods.

    The silent cruelty of Biden’s speech. Biden was right to grieve for the 2,461 Americans killed in Afghanistan. But he failed to mention the hundreds of thousands of Afghans killed as a direct result of the war, hundreds of thousands more as a result of disease and malnutrition and the millions displaced internally and millions more as external refugees. Instead of apologies from Biden and an offer of reparations, there came news that the US was freezing over $9 billion dollars in Afghan foreign assets needed by this starving nation lying in ruins.

    The United States has apparently learned nothing either in terms of the limits of its power or the morality of its foreign policy if we are to take Biden’s speech and actions as any indication. To say the least, it will not be easy to change this, but we have no choice. A calamity beyond imagination awaits us if we fail.

    The post Biden Exits Afghanistan, Heads in the Wrong Direction first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • After Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, Is It Credible to Trust the Intel Agencies on Wuhan?

    “Surely, President Biden, you must be joking”! On May 26, these words should have poured forth from the White House Press Corps and the mainstream Commentariat when Joe Biden declared that he was placing the question of Covid-19’s origins securely in the hands of the “National Intel Agencies.”  They were to report back in 90 More

    The post After Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, Is It Credible to Trust the Intel Agencies on Wuhan? appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • “Surely, President Biden, you must be joking”

    “Surely, President Biden, you must be joking”!

    On May 26, these words should have poured forth from the White House Press Corps and the mainstream Commentariat when Joe Biden declared that he was placing the question of Covid-19’s origins securely in the hands of the “National Intel Agencies.”  They were to report back in 90 days.

    Have not the Intel Agencies been up to their eyeballs in deception about the “Global War on Terror” for the past 20 plus years?  Must we really remind the press and commentariat of the scandal of the Weapons of Mass Destruction hyped by the Intel Agencies to bamboozle a highly skeptical public into the War on Iraq?

    Do we need to recall the embarrassing spectacle of the hapless Colin Powell solemnly presenting the WMD fraud to the UN, with CIA Director Tenet sitting nervously behind him?  Surely for those who lived through the time, those images are seared into our psyches.

    Need we remind ourselves yet again that we were lied into the War on Vietnam “with a complete fabrication disseminated by the intelligence community and endorsed by corporate media outlets: that the North Vietnamese had launched an unprovoked attack on U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin.”  This fraud resulted in the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that landed us in the Vietnam War.

    On August 24 or thereabouts, the disgraced Intel agencies are to deliver their verdict on the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic.  This is an event of enormous consequence since blaming the pandemic on China moves us one step closer to all out conflict.  (It also is a distraction from the miserable performance of the U.S. with its over 600,000 deaths in contrast with China’s fewer than 5,000 deaths – over 100 times less in a country with a population four times as large.)

    The vehicle to assign blame to China is the claim that Covid-19 was due either to a genetically engineered virus or to a “leak” from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.  Since the alleged evidence for an engineered virus has collapsed in the face of molecular biological studies, the lab leak idea remains the sole hope for the China hawks.  There is absolutely no evidence for this idea either, leaving the door wide open for the conspiracy theorists and, yes, the “Intel Agencies.”

    The Biden administration has preened itself on “standing with science” in the face of the pandemic.  But surely the question of the origins of Covid-19 is a scientific one.   The Intel Agencies are hardly the ones to decide a question of science – or to provide the truth in any realm.

    The W.H.O. has labelled the lab leak hypothesis the least likely of the four hypotheses put forward for the origin of Covid-19.  The original W.H.O. study called this hypothesis “extremely unlikely,” although under pressure from the US, some have entered into vigorous discussion over whether to call it “extremely unlikely,” “very unlikely,” “unlikely” or some similar variation.  Whatever the label one wants to put on it, it is unfounded conjecture in search of so much as a jot or tittle of evidence.  It is based on a connect-the-dots sort of circumstantial reasoning except that there is no evidence for even the dots.  As such it richly deserves the label of “Conspiracy Theory.”

    The 90-day deadline is another absurdity.  Finding the origins of pandemics has taken many years or decades, and sometimes the problem has remained unsolved. Science does not proceed according to a schedule.  With all his power, President Biden cannot order up a bit of science at a time of his choosing any more than King Canute could reverse the tides.

    Let us hope that President Biden will show the same recognition of reality that he has just exhibited in terminating the war in Afghanistan. Let’s  hope he finds the Lab Leak Conspiracy Theory too untenable and just plain too embarrassing to go to the poisoned well of the Intel Agencies for a “determination” just one week after the Afghan debacle.

    The first signs are not hopeful.  Biden noted that his withdrawal from Afghanistan was motivated in part by his desire to devote more resources to “competition with Russia and China.”  Not to peaceful coexistence nor to a win-win global order but to a competition with an enormous military component.  Perhaps the Intel Agencies, whose image is already tarnished to the point of corrosion, will not want their remaining credibility to be sacrificed in developing yet another casus belli.  But if past is our guide, this does not look hopeful either.

    Let us not repeat the many errors of the past by trusting the Covid-19 question to the discredited and disgraced Intel Agencies.

    Too much is at stake.

    Let the scientists do their work.

    The post “Surely, President Biden, you must be joking” first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A Major Lesson of the Pandemic From the East

    The world is now in the throes of another wave of Covid-19, with another surge in infections, sickness and deaths, this time due to the more infectious and apparently more lethal Delta variant. Are there lessons to be learned from the previous waves of Covid-19 that might help us now? There are, and they were More

    The post A Major Lesson of the Pandemic From the East appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • Learn From the East:  A Major Lesson of the Pandemic.

    The world is now in the throes of another wave of Covid-19, with another surge in infections, sickness and deaths, this time due to the more infectious and apparently more lethal Delta variant.

    Are there lessons to be learned from the previous waves of Covid-19 that might help us now?

    There are, and they were evident long ago, but in the West, they have been largely ignored.  Up to now, for example, the US has suffered over 617,000 deaths; China in contrast has suffered fewer than 5,000 deaths in a population four times as large as the US.  Could there not be some lessons that might serve us in the West now and in the future?

    In the US and throughout the West, the response to China’s success has all too often been to ignore or deny it.  As an especially egregious early example, in April 2020 Donald Trump and his assistant Dr. Deborah Birx called into question China’s mortality data with a none too clever lie of  omission; they were caught in this embarrassing ploy by Asia Times.  The denial of these fatality figures persists in much of the media.  Certainly, there are many reports from those in China, foreigner and native alike, on the largely Covid-19 free environment there.  But the many who regard China as a vast, impenetrable Potemkin Village are refractory to such accounts.

    China tells the truth about Covid-19 Deaths

    Is there any way in which the truth can be established about China’s death tally?  One method is to examine excess deaths, that is, deaths during the pandemic compared to the same period in the previous five years, a measure used in many countries.  Fortunately, a study of excess deaths in China has now been published in the peer-reviewed British Medical Journal (BMJ) by a team of scientists and physicians at Oxford in the UK and at China’s CDC.

    The study was massive.  EurekAlert!, a publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, recognizing the importance of the study, captured its magnitude as follows: “The researchers used official records from China CDC’s nationally-representative Disease Surveillance Point (DSP) system. It covered more than 300 million people from 605 urban districts and rural counties, representing more than 20% of the entire population in China.”  The DSP gathers deaths that are reported by local doctors, hospitals, funeral directors, police and others. The study covered the period from January 1, 2020 to March 31, 2020, a period when most all reported deaths occurred.  The lockdown in Wuhan, the most stringent, was begun on January 23 and lifted on April 8, 2020, a total of 74 days.

    The two main findings of the BMJ study are simple and straightforward.

    First, the number of deaths due to Covid-19 pneumonia in Wuhan was very much the same as the Chinese government reported.  The BMJ study states:

    In Wuhan city, the most recent official figures released on 17 April 2020 suggested that 3869 deaths were directly attributable to covid-19, including 3653 deaths from covid-19 related pneumonia and 920 excess deaths from other types of pneumonia, primarily unspecified viral pneumonia.

    The tally based on the study of excess deaths that can be attributed with confidence to Covid-19 was 3653, somewhat lower than the 3869 given by the official count at the time.   The demographics of the excess deaths attributable to Covid-19 matched deaths elsewhere from Covid-19 (more male than female, more old than young).  And the time course of the official and excess death fatalities matched.

    What about the 920 deaths from pneumonia of uncertain etiology due to absence of Covid-19 tests during the early days?  If we include them in the total to get a worst-case number there is only a 20% difference in the estimates given by excess mortality and those given by the official count at the time.  Later China included these unconfirmed cases in its official tally, making the two tallies almost exactly equal.  No matter how one slices it, the round number of less than 5000 is correct.  It turns out China’s official account is remarkably accurate.

    Second, the number of excess deaths in the rest of China decreased!  As a result, overall deaths in China during the pandemic compared to the previous five years actually declined.  In the words of the report:

    Except in Wuhan, no increase in overall mortality was found during the three months of the Covid-19 outbreak in other parts of China. The lower death rates from certain non-Covid-19 related diseases might be attributable to the associated behaviour changes during lockdown.

    They suggest that the reduced number of deaths outside Wuhan was due to behavior changes like masking and social distancing which would reduce other respiratory diseases like the common flu and to less road traffic.

    The Lessons From China’s Handling of the Pandemic.

    The authors of the BJM study state the immediate lessons succinctly:

    Furthermore, the findings highlight the need for rapid and coordinated actions during major outbreaks of infectious diseases to contain, suppress, and eradicate transmission and minimize detrimental effects on human health and societal and economic activities.

    Such actions in China have included rapid and massive testing followed by tracing to find contacts of those who test positive and then quarantining when necessary, whenever even a small outbreak was detected.  An example is the response in October, 2020, in Qingdao a coastal city in Shandong Province. As reported in the New England Journal of Medicine three cases of Covid-19 were detected and this triggered testing of almost 11 million people in less than a week with appropriate quarantining when necessary.  Nine additional cases were quickly found and the limited lockdowns were quickly terminated.   China has responded in the same way to every outbreak, in the process learning how to restrict lockdowns to subpopulations of one area, such as a single neighborhood, and for a shorter time.

    When the lockdown began in Wuhan on January 23, 2020, there was only one death due to Covid-19 in the U.S.  The second U.S. death occurred on February 28. By April 8 when the lockdown in all Chinese cities ended there were 19,000 deaths in the US, still a small fraction of the more than 617,000 we have today.  It was apparent that China’s actions were a success by April 8, 2020, and yet the U.S. took no similar action.  The U.S. had a warning from China on January 1, 2020, and on January 11 Chinese scientists published the viral genome sequence which made immediate testing possible worldwide.

    At the time of this writing China is coping with the new scourge of the delta variant of SARS-Cov-2, that began in July.  There are now as many as 100 cases reported in a day, still miniscule by Western standards (The U.S. reported over 100,000 new cases recently, August 8, 2021.) but a genuine surge by China’s.  Today, we learn that Wuhan has completed citywide Covid-19 testing in six days and found 37 cases plus 41 asymptomatic carriers among 12 million residents.  A rapid vaccination campaign had already begun months earlier, added on to the containment measures.  By August 4, over 1.7 billion jabs have been administered, 127 doses per 100 population; for comparison the US has 105 per 100 population.  And the total death toll for the pandemic as of August 9 remains at 4629, the same as February 1, 2021 before the recent July surge.  In the event of the need for a booster, China stands ready with capacity to produce more of various sorts, including the BioNTech mRNA vaccine, which Fosun Pharma has contracted to produce in China up to 1 billion doses a year.  Clearly China is willing to learn from the West.  China’s measures seem to be holding the line at the moment, still a success story.   What happens next is anyone’s guess, but for the first year-and-a-half of the pandemic China’s measures were exemplary.

    One lesson for us here in the U.S. is to put in place public health containment measures for the next wave of Covid-19 and for the next pandemic.  These are certainly necessary before a vaccine arrives and the population can be vaccinated.  We might also do well to generalize this lesson.  Proceeding from reason, not blindness, exceptionalism, arrogance or condescension, might serve us well in all areas of US-China relations.  If not, far more than 600,000 deaths may be the price to pay.

    The post Learn From the East:  A Major Lesson of the Pandemic. first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • A Deadly Contradiction: the Chinese Dreamers vs. the U.S. Hegemon

    Do China and the US have fundamental goals that constitute a contradiction, that is, goals so profoundly at odds with one another that the goals cannot coexist? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Such a contradiction means that one side must abandon its aims if a disastrous conflict is not to ensue.  Which country should step More

    The post A Deadly Contradiction: the Chinese Dreamers vs. the U.S. Hegemon appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

    This post was originally published on CounterPunch.org.

  • The Chinese Dreamers vs. the U.S. Hegemon

    Do China and the US have fundamental goals that constitute a contradiction, that is, goals so profoundly at odds with one another that the goals cannot coexist? Unfortunately, the answer is yes.

    Such a contradiction means that one side must abandon its aims if a disastrous conflict is not to ensue. Which country should step back? Is there a moral, ethical or common-sense basis for making that call, a basis on which humankind can readily agree?

    What are these contradictory goals?

    China’ overwhelming objective is clearly economic development, a policy to which it has hewed closely and which it declares for its future. That is no surprise; it is the dream of every developing nation. It is “The Chinese Dream.”

    f such goals were no more than words on paper, there would be no problem. But China is succeeding as is widely acknowledged now. Its economy surpassed the U.S. in terms of GDP (PPP) in November of 2014 according to the IMF and is growing faster. Over 700 million have been brought out of poverty, with extreme poverty eliminated in 2020. The middle class now comprises over 400 million people. The retail market is enormous and the ecommerce market by far the world’s largest. China is the world’s largest manufacturer and trader.

    According to the World Bank, China is 7th from the top of the Upper-middle-income group as of 2020 and poised to enter the ranks of the 59 countries in the High-income group. China has a set a new goal, a standard of living enjoyed by the most prosperous countries in the West, to be achieved by 2049 the centennial of the birth of the Peoples Republic of China.

    With this in mind let’s turn to the American side of the equation. The U.S. has a long history of expansion and imperialism with the inevitable appeals to Exceptionalism and racism. However, the ambition of world dominance, global hegemony, emerged consciously among the US foreign policy elite in 1941 before entry into WWII as Stephen Wertheim documents in Tomorrow the World: The Birth of U.S. Global Supremacy. Henry Luce expressed the idea in his 1941 essay, “The American Century” in which he enjoined the U.S. “to accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful nation in the world and in consequence to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.”

    After World War II when the U.S. colossus looked down at the rest the world prostate after the war, we heard a similar sentiment from George Kennan considered as perhaps the principal architect of postwar U.S. foreign policy:

    Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. … Our real task in the coming period is to … maintain this position of disparity …. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality …. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.
    — George F. Kennan1

    (This statement of Kennan’s is discussed in detail here.)

    More recently and equally starkly at the end of the Cold War, the Wolfowitz Doctrine was enunciated by Paul Wolfowitz Under Secretary of Defense for Public Policy.

    It can be summed up in a single sentence:

    We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.2

    China fits the definition of a “potential competitor”; it not only “aspires” to a larger regional role and global role but has already attained it! By the Wolfowitz principle, China must not only be “contained” but returned to a non-competitor status by whatever “mechanism” that the US can devise.

    And so we come to the basic contradiction. The U.S. insists that it be the world’s greatest power, an unassailable hegemon. This means that it must be the number one economic power since all power ultimately derives from economic power.

    Now assume that China’s per capita GDP is equal to that of an advanced Western country, the goal of China by 1949. Take the US as an example. Since China’s population is about four times that of the US, then it will have a total national GDP four times that of the US! The US will then be far from the dominant power; the Wolfowitz Doctrine will go up in smoke.

    This does not mean that the U.S. will lapse into penury or even that its living standard will be compromised. Indeed, there is no reason that the U.S. cannot continue to be an increasingly prosperous country. In that sense the contradiction between the US and China is not a conflict of interests between the American people and Chinese people. But it is a contradiction between the U.S. governing Elite and 1.4 billion Chinese dreamers.

    Even now with China on a par with the U.S. economically in GDP (PPP) terms the U.S. cannot operate as a hegemon or as an unchallenged world power.

    How can the U.S. maintain its ambition of hegemony? Simply put, China’s development must be halted or reversed. Thus, the drive for U.S. superiority is a war on the aspirations of the vast Chinese population, not simply a war on the Chinese state. Will China’s people, nearly 20% of the global population, passively accept this fate?

    How then are we to look at the China-US contradiction in moral or ethical terms? Given the U.S. goal of hegemony versus the Chinese dream of a Western standard of living, which has the greater claim on the support of decent humans everywhere? The 1.4 billion Chinese dreamers or a tiny U.S. governing Elite?

    1. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, Volume I, p. 509-529.
    2. Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994-1999 fiscal years, dated February 18, 1992, from the office of Paul Wolfowitz.
    The post The Chinese Dreamers vs. the U.S. Hegemon first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John V. Walsh.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.