A deeper look: The globalist blitzkrieg’s final destination is Beijing.
by Tony Cartalucci
Far from the Founding Father’s ideal representative republic, China has garnered a reputation as one of the most repressive regimes on earth. While some of this is well earned, much of it is due to the unsavory legacy left by Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” which to this day is still being carefully and systematically dismantled. Another large factor at play is the entirely disingenuous and very much hypocritical campaign the Western corporate-financier oligarchy has waged against the 1.3 billion strong nation.
to stem a suicide pandemic sweeping Foxconn’s workforce, an issue
of little concern for the American consumer or the self- proclaimed
champions of human rights within the US government.
While lofty, poorly articulated ideals like “democracy” and “freedom” are used by the West as leverage to divide and weaken the nation, real affronts to human rights and freedom, such as China’s “one-child policy” or the exploitation of labor are either ignored or wildly applauded by the West. In one New York Times op-ed by US Representative James Scheuer titled, “America, the U.N. and China’s Family Planning,” Scheuer states:
“China’s approach to family planning may seem foreign to Western traditions, but that is natural considering that China’s whole culture is vastly different from ours. The Chinese program relies on an incessant drumbeat of persuasion and peer pressure, which is undergirded by individuals’ sense of responsibility to society and family, which supersedes any perception they may have of their own personal rights.”
In other words, Scheuer is justifying not only usurping human rights, but the article goes on to reveal, he is also defending the 36 million dollars the US funds the UN in assisting nations like China to enforce such policies. Scheuer, in the truly intellectually bankrupt tradition of Malthusians everywhere, would go on to state that overpopulation was causing disease and poverty in nations like Haiti and throughout Africa – willfully ignorant of the fact that education and technology are actually the missing ingredients.
Leveraging “Human Rights”
The hypocrisy doesn’t end there. The corporate-financier run Western media has been recently beating their chests over the imprisonment of Nobel Laureate and “human rights activist” Liu Xiaobo, a proponent of ending China’s strong central government and politically active military in favor of a weak, Western-style system run by corruptible, feckless, incompetent leadership that invites multinational corporations to entropically infest state institutions and seize control of the nation’s people and resources. Liu Xiaobo’s support goes beyond the media’s scornful chastisement of China’s government on his behalf, and includes “pro-bono” legal aid from the Council on Foreign Relations lined “Freedom Now” organization. Readers may remember “Freedom Now” from their extensive involvement in supporting the Syrian opposition leading the recent unrest against the Assad government.
Freedom Now is also providing legal services for Gao Zhisheng, a human rights lawyer also imprisoned in China. Gao had written an open letter to the US Congress detailing human rights violations in China, and his family currently resides in the United States. Council on Foreign Relations minion Jerome Cohen, Canadian MP Irwin Cotler, and former Canadian MP David Kilgour are personally leading the campaigns for both Liu Ziaobo and Gao Zhisheng. All three, are also involved in meddling around the globe in similarly hypocritical gambits revolving around “human rights activists” who just so happen to be fighting governments the West would like to see changed.
While it may seem noble to champion for human rights, it is a matter of fact that men like Cohen, Cotler, and Kilgour, and the entire Freedom Now organization along with the CFR that populates its membership and the foundations that fund it, are amongst the greatest enemies of human rights and human freedom on earth. The Council on Foreign Relations has tirelessly repeated its goal of establishing a one world government, with members working ceaselessly to achieve it and their publications over the decades perpetually reflecting this ambition. This is a world government that is of, by, and for the corporate-financier oligarchy’s interests, and their interests alone.
This gambit of leveraging the issue of human rights for geopolitical gain is clearly illustrated in another pertinent example, directly related to China’s present predicament. Globalist lawyer and lobbyist Robert Amsterdam, of the Chatham House’s Amsterdam & Peroff is currently cultivating two other clients as points of leverage.
From “Globalist Page: Robert Amsterdam:”
His [Amsterdam’s] two most recent and perhaps most notorious cases involve one a Russian oligarch named Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and a Thai police colonel-turned-billionaire tycoon Thaksin Shinawatra. Khodorkovsky is guilty and indeed sitting in a Siberian prison for embezzling billions. His Thai counterpart, Thaksin, also has two years coming to him for immense fraud. And while both are being defended by Amsterdam as “political victims” what is never mentioned, indeed buried deeply are the extra-legal, meddling affiliations both men have with the globocratic elite that undermine their political aspirations with megalithic, even treasonous conflicts of interest.
Accomplished researcher, William Engdahl, points out some very alarming connections and trends that served as the real basis for Khodorkovsky’s current Siberian lodging. It seems that Khodorkovsky wasn’t just embezzling money or involved in breathtaking displays of corruption, such was the nature of the times he came into power. It was rather his connections with the West, in particular Henry Kissinger and “Lord” Jacob Rothschild who were sitting on what Engdahl calls a George Soros Open Society-styled “Open Russian Foundation.”
Worth repeating indefinitely, is the role these “foundations” and the networks of meddlesome NGOs they maintain play as the next greatest threat to national sovereignty behind invading armies and the IMF’s economic hitmen.
Using both his wealth and his Western organized NGO networks, Khodorkovsky set out on an ambitious political campaign to seize for himself the Russian presidency from which he would undoubtedly repay his foreign backers with the economic liberalization (read: sellout) of the Russian Federation.
With uncanny exactitude, Thaksin Shinwatra attempted the same “soft-coup” in Thailand. He was a Carlyle Group adviser while holding office in then PM Chavalit’s New Aspiration Party which oversaw the 1997 IMF’s intrusion and controlled economic implosion of the Thai economy. He would later become PM himself in 2001 and through wealth procured through similarly fraudulent, though not unprecedented means, he began consolidating power, eliminating checks and balances, and preparing the liberalization of the Thai economy on behalf of his foreign backers. On the eve of the military coup that overthrew his government, he was literally standing in New York City giving a progress report to the Council on Foreign Relations.
Since his ouster from power, he has been backed by fellow Carlyle man James Baker and his Baker Botts law firm, International Crisis Group’s Kenneth Adelman and his Edelman Public Relations firm, and now Robert Amsterdam’s Amsterdam & Peroff. His proxy political party maintains a “people’s power” organization supported by several National Endowment for Democracy NGOs including “Prachatai,” an “independent media organization” that coordinates the “people’s power” propaganda efforts.
In both Khordovsky’s and Thaksin’s case we come back to Robert Amsterdam, who now concurrently meddles in both Russian and Thai affairs using these two overtly mired convicted criminals as leverage to push not only the legal cases for which he is responsible, but the continuation of his clients’ political objectives of undermining Russia’s and Thailand’s establishments, which in turn represent the continuation of the “globocrats'” agenda.
While Russia possesses the intelligence and military apparatuses to suppress significant internal unrest caused by Western backed NGOs and the continued and now lost cause of Khordovsky, the perceived “injustice” Robert Amsterdam accuses Russia of gives the West the moral high-ground to meddle in Russia’s surrounding geography, notably color revolutions, NATO expansion, and political destabilization in Eastern Europe.
Robert Amsterdam is also attempting to lend Thaksin Shinawatra and his organized mob the same credibility and moral high-ground ahead of yet another attempted overthrow of the Thai government this coming spring. While even Thaksin’s mob leaders themselves have admitted on numerous occasions to having armed men involved in the bloodbath that ensued in 2010, Robert Amsterdam is now releasing a report that retroactively rewrites history and absolves them of their admissions. He also misses no opportunity to not only defend his “clients” (he also concurrently defends Thaksin’s “red” mob) but calls on the Thai government to resign, as per the globocrat’s aspirations of regime change and the subsequent economic liberalization under the re-installed Thaksin regime.
This then, is the same gambit being played out in China. Russia is being targeted as the other significant partner in the Shanghai Cooperative which is the focal point of the West’s foreign ambitions, from which all other geopolitical policy is driven. Thailand of course constitutes part of China’s so-called “String of Pearls,” or one of many nations that reside in China’s potential sphere of influence as it rises to power. Enticing nations like Thailand to remain aligned to the West has long since failed and a more aggressive and robust response has been formulated, namely color revolution leading to regime change. The West however, may just as well settle for perpetual destabilization to balk China’s rise.
String of Pearls: Encircling China
The term “String of Pearls” is taken from the 2006 Strategic Studies Institute’s report “String of Pearls: Meeting the Challenge of China’s Rising Power across the Asian Littoral.” Throughout the report, China’s efforts to secure its oil lifeline from the Middle East to its shores in the South China Sea are examined as are means to maintain American hegemony throughout the Indian and Pacific Ocean. The premise is that, should Western policy wonks and paper-pushers fail to entice China into participating in the “international system” as responsible stakeholders (fall in line,) an increasingly confrontational posture must be taken to contain the rising nation.
arrow and the nations it passes represents China’s strategic interests.
It also represents a region now mired in US-backed chaos.
Looking at events today, it appears that enticement has failed, and that the worst case scenarios discussed within the report have not only been put into play, but have thus far proven ineffective. Understanding this report and superimposing its implications upon a global map of today’s conflicts, we see a nearly perfect match.
Middle East: Destabilization efforts and regime change in the Middle East headed by the US State Department aim at controlling and disrupting China’s oil supply. We have seen how the transformation of the Middle East was meticulously planned and entirely coordinated by the West, despite claims that it was spontaneous. With the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt now on record having been supported and funded by the US State Department, and with the State Department now openly funding organizations like the BBC to “combat” Chinese censorship, the failed Chinese “Jasmine Revolution” appears to be more of a poorly veiled attack on China than an uprising of the people.
Though the “Jasmine Revolution” in China was a failure, the now more forceful reordering of the Arab world is setting the stage for the elimination of Iran, after which China and Russia will be further isolated, and further “encircled.”
Pakistan: In building China’s presence throughout Asia, cooperation with emerging giants like India and the populous Pakistan is in its best interest. So is stability. In order to shorten the trip oil must take to reach China, a transit corridor through Pakistan has been devised and a naval base constructed in Gwadar in Pakistan’s southwest Baluchistan province.
China’s holdings in Baluchistan have been under constant threat by both internal meddling by the US in Pakistan itself and on the borders of Baluchistan as part of the 10 year military occupation of Afghanistan, particularly the Helmand and Kandahar provinces which border Baluchistan. The globalist “National Interest” magazine published a February 2011 article titled “Free Baluchistan” which openly called for carving Baluchistan out of Pakistan:
“Most important, it [the United States] should aid the 6 million Baluch insurgents fighting for independence from Pakistan in the face of growing ISI repression. Pakistan has given China a base at Gwadar in the heart of Baluch territory. So an independent Baluchistan would serve U.S. strategic interests in addition to the immediate goal of countering Islamist forces.”
Such irresponsible statements coming from the real authors of US foreign policy should be taken as a serious threat by both the Pakistani and Chinese governments. It should be no surprise that these “Baluch insurgents” are being employed across the border in Iran as well.
The same author, Selig Harrison of the foundation-funded Center for International Policy, elaborated further on Pakistani-Chinese relations in a recent March 2011 article titled “The Chinese Cozy Up to the Pakistanis.” In it is described the joint development of Pakistan’s northern Gilgit-Baltistan region and its forming of a gateway into Chinese territory. While Harrison is able to enumerate an impressive list of benefits both nations are reaping from this relationship, all he is able to offer as a possible US response is the reiteration of starting a full-blown insurrection within Baluchistan:
“To counter what China is doing in Pakistan, the United States should play hardball by supporting the movement for an independent Baluchistan along the Arabian Sea and working with Baluch insurgents to oust the Chinese from their budding naval base at Gwadar. Beijing wants its inroads into Gilgit and Baltistan to be the first step on its way to an Arabian Sea outlet at Gwadar.”
In reading the piece, we see another example of leveraging human rights, with Harrison shamelessly able to go from openly admitting to using the Baluch insurgents in a bid to expel the Chinese, to citing Amnesty International and humanitarian concerns as a proposed narrative for justifying US involvement. This is a familiar globalist ploy, and one that is playing out in Libya under UNSC r.1973.
Southeast Asia: China has been developing infrastructure throughout Southeast Asia as well in a bid to create multiple avenues to and from its territory. In Myanmar (Burma) they are developing a deep sea port, an oil pipeline and a highway network that runs from the Bay of Bengal to the Myanmar-China border in the north. The Chinese in 2008 completed a large highway project through the mountainous terrain of Laos, connecting Kunming, China with northeast Thailand. China, Laos, and Thailand are now developing plans to create a high speed rail link between the 3 nations which would ultimately connect China to Singapore.
The West in response to China’s growing influence in the region has deferred to the “String of Pearls” strategy and is attempting to contain China by fostering instability in both Myanmar and Thailand. This attempts to install servile, pro-Western regimes and by doing so, the globalists would be able to sever China’s newly proposed links and force it to continue relying on the Malacca Strait.
In Myanmar, another Nobel Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, has been leading the opposition and has garnered support from every globalist cadre, think-tank, and organization imaginable. She was a finalist in the Chatham House Prize 2011, and not surprisingly a benefactor of Freedom Now’s services as well. Aung San Suu herself, was born into an immensely wealthy and politically well connected family. She studied abroad, worked for the UN in New York City, and received a Ph.D from the University of London before returning to Myanmar to lead the “pro-democracy” movement. Whatever her convictions may really be, the West has fully hijacked her movement as a means of removing the current military junta and replacing it with one more conducive to their corporate agenda, which most assuredly has nothing to do with “democracy for the people.”
1972, Aung San Suu Kyi now leads the Western- backed opposition
bidding to oust Myanmar’s ruling regime.
In 2007 there was the so-called “Saffron Revolution,” made a spectacle by the corporate-owned media, but gained little ground. Despite the rhetoric, the artificial aura of credibility and heroism built-up around yet another Nobel Peace Prize wearing crowbar trying to pry out another obstacle of globalization, China’s heavily invested presence inside Myanmar makes the prospect of regime change highly unlikely.
In Thailand the globalist tool of choice is Thaksin Shinwatra and his “red shirt” color revolution. He and his Western backers have attempted twice, in 2009 and 2010 to overthrow the Thai government with increasingly violent street mobs. This year, a combination of mob leaders being released from prison, the announcement of upcoming elections, and a “convenient” border skirmish with neighboring Cambodia, has taken the wind from the “red” mobs’ sails. Likely wanting to ride the wave of destabilization in the Arab world, they now lack both credibility and any conceivable justification to come out into the streets.
the globalist-backed red shirt propaganda. Thaksin’s “red shirts”
hoped to ride that wave back into political power. (photo: 2bankok.com)
Thailand has also been deepening its ties with China and distancing itself from the West. Repeated rows between the US and the Thai government over intellectual property rights along with the proposal of Tobin taxes aimed squarely at the unraveling international bankers residing in London and on Wall Street all but ensures this chasm widens further.
To a lesser extent, the US has been competing with China in countries like Cambodia, where free-market payoffs and military aid is offered by America while mega-infrastructure projects like rail and dams are on offer from China. Cambodian strongman Hun Sen must be looking at the Middle East with the realization that he is an endangered species and that no amount of appeasement will ultimately save him from globalization. And appease the globalists he has. Nearly 50% of Cambodia’s landmass has been sold to foreign investors and at a great humanitarian cost. While the Western media has been wringing its hands over Libya and Syria, it has barely mentioned at all the misdeeds of Cambodia’s Hun Sen against his own people. With Hun Sen recently leaning toward China, this corporate media self-censorship may not last long.
the personality cult of the “Dali Lama.” The Tibetan movement has
received significant US aid, including clandestine CIA backing over the years.
In several instances, these efforts to destabilize China’s peripheries cross over into China itself. Tibet has long been a point of leverage against Beijing, combining nearly ever trick in the globalists’ book from the Nobel Laureate Dali Lama complete with his own Hollywood-made personality cult, to human rights cases, to arming and backing sedition and unrest throughout the region.
Of course, by offering China a commanding role in the emerging “international system” it is hoped that given enough coercive pressure it will acquiesce in becoming a “responsible stakeholder.” As we see on a smaller scale in Libya, pressure, both militarily and economically, aims at causing divides within any given regime in hopes that enough support can be extorted to effect the globalists’ desired changes. Reports like the Brookings Institute’s “The Advantages of an Assertive China: Responding to Beijing’s Abrasive Diplomacy” says as much in regards to prodding and leading China along.
Disrupting China’s oil supply, encircling them with a wave of destabilization along with stoking domestic tension internally, all aims at frustrating their ambitions as a sovereign nation while creating a viable combine of defectors solely interested in their self-preservation. This combine can then effectively steer China toward servile obedience within the globalists’ unipolar “international system.” It is a delicate balance of both pressure and enticement, constantly refined and adjusted, simultaneously applied and systematically monitored.
As more pressure is overtly applied on China, via the brazen “Jasmine Revolution” and increasingly aggressive destabilization efforts around China’s borders and throughout the Arab world where it receives the majority of its oil imports, it appears that the regime has weighed the empty promises and paper empire of the globalists against the 1.3 billion people of China who demand pragmatic, not political solutions to their immediate problems. Most certainly, these 1.3 billion people pose a more immediate threat to the survival of the Chinese ruling regime.
Meeting these demands is done via industry, education, technology, and tangible progress. Policies, including the “one child policy” glowingly appraised by US Representative Scheuer, is an invasive, unpopular measure that is unsustainable and only partially addresses concerns like pollution and poverty. It is also a policy the Chinese government is in the process of rolling back.
As the globalists build financial networks of fiat paper, the Chinese are building networks of high-speed rail throughout their nation and beyond their borders. They are building real, tangible infrastructure from neighboring Laos to the continent of Africa. What possible incentive besides the threat of chaos and upheaval can the West offer China and its “String of Pearls” that solves both the immediate problem of self-preservation of regimes and the multitude of problems of the people under these regimes?
The West’s ineptitude is not wholly unprecedented in history. Many empires have been buried by this sort of degenerate, runaway greed exhibited by the globalist corporate-financier oligarchies – often times replaced by a more pragmatic, constructive power like China. However, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a certain “strategy of tension” is at play, where a purposefully oafish and aggressive West drives and unifies the otherwise fiercely independent nations of Asia and the Shanghai Cooperative together, only to be folded into the global government at a later time.
Particularly in Southeast Asia, much of China’s development is being coordinated by the suspiciously globalist “ASEAN” organization. Not only does ASEAN closely resemble other institutes of the West’s unipolar model of globalization, but it interfaces with it seamlessly, with many of its greatest proponents being unabashed members of the Western globalist elite.
While rail-links, highways, and infrastructure that mutually benefit participating nations are not necessarily a bad thing, some of the free-trade agreements proposed and pushed through by China are nearly as one-sided and damaging as any US FTA. Foreign ownership laws may not have been changed by these Chinese FTA’s, but ASEAN seeks to collectively lower such barriers by 2015.
China should not be looked to as a hero to rescue nations from the creep of the globalist corporate-financier oligarchs. While China may really be battling these oligarchs today, uniting under an analogous model of world government vis-a-vis the Washington consensus only makes it that much easier for the globalists to absorb a larger prize should China fail, or should the Chinese have already agreed to “responsible stakeholding” behind closed doors.
China’s real affronts to humanity must be continuously exposed and cited as failures, and efforts to move away from grotesque and invasive policies like population control and social engineering should be encouraged and cited as real progress. So too should China’s current stance of across-the-board non-interference within the borders of other nations. Similarly, its current dedication to solving problems with technical, pragmatic solutions involving technology, education, and expanding superior infrastructure should also be encouraged and cited as a viable model of progress.
Ultimately, whatever the end game may be, personal and local independence along with a paradigm shift away from centralized governance and corporate domination can ensure globalism by any name does not prevail. We must commit ourselves to an effort to make real freedom, real progress, and national sovereignty the global consensus, not the morally bankrupt, interdependent, antiquated, and degenerate policies of world governance – regardless of who it supposedly falls under, the West or Asia.