The Road to War

Let’s all join in!

Blog 199

The recent UN summit of world leaders showed a world in total disarray. Disarray

The Western ‘rules based system,’ based on social inequality, is now in open conflict (war by other means) with a Chinese communalist alternative that is challenging its economic and political supremacy.  The Americans use the term ‘ communist’ as a pejorative weapon in their propaganda war. However, though the Chinese Communist Party has retained the ‘communist’ title, it is simply the traditional name the Central Committee has used since its foundation. The reality has greatly mutated.

Chinese pundits refer to it as ‘A centrally managed socialist system that uses the wealth creating power of Capitalism to improve the quality of life of its citizens’. Whereas Marxist-Leninism-Stalinism-Maoism might have set out with the kindest intentions towards the generality of humanity (something that could not be said for capitalism) in practice it proved to be both economically and politically less inducive of human happiness than the alternative of democratic capitalism offered by the West.

China, having avoided the total collapse that the Russian communist system underwent, has remained at liberty to experiment and develop an apparently successful, hybrid system. There is not yet a generally accepted name for their new ‘ism’. And it should be noted that the new ‘ism’ has not finished its development. (Currently, Chinese economic progress seems to be dependent on the creation of disparities in individual wealth almost as, or as great as those in western democracies. If this tendency is not brought under control, it could yet have a destabilising effect on a society that places the greatest store on social stability.)

Despite the above caveat, the Chinese system differs from those of the generality of other nations that are also effective at using capitalism to create wealth. The Chinese Communist Party has greatly legitimised its rule by its use of the money generated by its version of a capitalist system, to bring eight-hundred million Chinese out of poverty and to improve the quality of life of all the citizenry. In contrast, most other nations (there are exceptions, such as in Scandinavia) use capitalism to increase the wealth of minority elites with a consequent enhancement of social inequalities.

Western governments’ hostility to the Chinese experiment is inspired by the self-interest of the wealthy elites that they have permitted to penetrate and corrupt their political systems.  Governments free of such constraints would give the Chinese government every encouragement, while monitoring its progress. Other than by warfare, of whatever mode, it is only from the position of a neutral, or even friendly, observer that other nations will be able to influence the economic juggernaut now gathering downhill speed.

Only recently it dawned on the western elites that the mutating Chinese system, that they thought they were using to their own advantage, had the potential to challenge their domination of the current status quo from which they so benefit at others’ expense. The ensuing barrage of lies and propaganda about Chinese conditions, intentions and capabilities makes it difficult for an observer embedded in a western style, democratic, capitalist culture, to form an accurate picture of what is happening in China

It is true that the Chinese leadership, as a new entrant in the big-boys club, has been less than tactful in drawing attention to its economic successes before it had fully solidified its position. What is now certain is that those, who see their position as being challenged, will coalesce to put the uppity new boy back in its place. Fingers crossed that it is not WWIII that will ultimately emerge from the fog banks beginning to coalesce around the Chinese experiment.

The fundamental motivation driving this conflict is the USA’s continued drive for unipolar, global, military and economic dominance and the threat to that ambition that it sees that an upstart China might represent.  This recent blog displays the motives and the risks. Dinosaurs For more background South China Sea

In its rapid social and economic progress, China has invaded no one, has bombed no one, has sanctioned no one, has deliberately avoided provoking other nations and in its rise, has been demonstrably advantageous to the economies and trade of multiple nations. Nevertheless, this has not prevented the US and its allies, despite their own overt, global misconduct, from mounting an extremely effective propaganda campaign against it.  An indication of the success of this campaign is to be found in the recent Pew Research Survey. Pew Research The emphasis in this survey is on the extent to which negative views of China have increased in the final years of the Trump presidency, as the full power of the western media has been mobilised by western government agencies to denigrate and orchestrate public hostility towards China and its Russian ally.

In its propaganda against China, the USA has chosen to argue that China is an aggressive power that poses a real danger to the freedoms enjoyed by the West. There are several points of Chinese ‘aggression’ used by the American propaganda machine.  There is China’s Himalayan border with India, the latest entrant to the ranks of US allies. (Here fisticuffs, rather than bullets have been exchanged and here China has longstanding claims – every bit as legitimate as India’s claims to Sikkim and Kashmir.)

There are the measures taken by the Chinese government to defeat Islamic terrorism among its Uighur people that was more than partly instigated by the CIA. There are indeed some very wild and unsubstantiated claims (e.g. Uighurs being used in organ farms) being made about the situation in Xinjiang. It would appear from the fog of lies and fake news, that whatever measures the CPC has adopted, they are less draconian than for example, the ‘New village’ concept used by the British to counter the CT emergency in Malaya.

 There is the imposition of Mainland law on the undeniably Chinese Territory of Hong-Kong. This was only after long provocation and blatant attempts at subversion by Western intelligence agencies. This entailed the Chinese authorities having to put up with as much, or more violence and lawlessness as the US Feds had to deal with in the recent BLM riots – to which they had responded with far more restraint.

There is the conflict with Taiwan, with each party regarding the other as occupying an integral part of the entirety of China that they should rule. Taiwan, having been defeated in the civil war and the weaker of the two, understandably alarms the CPC with its acceptance of sponsorship and support from a USA now blatantly acting as China’s enemy.

Finally there is the point at which the American propaganda machine feels best able to demonstrate and openly challenge Chinese aggression: the South China Sea. The irony of course is that it is China which wishes, at all costs, to keep the South China Sea open for freedom of navigation. It is the USA, in its new found war on China that, while pretending to be concerned to ensure navigation is kept free, would dearly like to blockade it. The fox is demanding of the hens that it should be given free entry to the hen-house.

Here is an answer that came up on today’s Quora. I have no idea who Masao Miwa might be, but I checked out his points as best I could and found no glaring fault in them.

Masao Miwa ·December 9, 2019 Why didn’t the United States & Japan do anything (other than protest) when China started building/militarizing the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea?

What right has the US in the South China Sea? For that matter Japan? After WW2, the US helped China reclaim islands in the South China Sea, though the French protested. The Vietnamese have continued that protest though they have occupied twice as many islands/spits than China has. Their claims follow the French claim after WW2. Japan agreed to return all captured lands to their previous sovereign states. China has historical claims the new UNCLOS law ignores. Even the verdict that the Philippines has a claim on certain islands in the SCS (South China Sea Tribunal) is debatable since the Hague Court of Arbitration has no jurisdiction to enforce UNCLOS. Not only that, but the presiding judge was from Japan refused to recuse himself from the case in spite of the fact that Japan and China have competing claims in the East China Sea over the Daiyu/Senkaku Island dispute. China was a ‘no show’ at the court proceedings so no arbitration ruling can be recognized because only one party was present. In fact, the US has yet to ratify UNCLOS because it too has claims that do not meet UNCLOS rules. It too refused to recognize a UN court ruling when the court issued a verdict against the US. Nicaragua v. USA

“After World War II, the Spratly Islands were noted by the British High Commission of Singapore as territory that was returned to China. In 1971, the following statement was made: “Spratly Island was a Chinese dependency, part of Kwangtung Province…and was returned to China after the war. We cannot find any indication of its having been acquired by any other country and so can only conclude it is still held by communist China. (Far Eastern Economic Review, December 31, 1974).”

It should be noted that this was outside of any major conflict in the modern period in the South China Sea (1930–1945, 1945–1956, 1974), and made after an exhaustive study was concluded by the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office. It can therefore can be considered a reasoned statement of recognition made by a knowing and authoritative governmental source who was based in the Southeast Asian before and during World War II.

The consistent nature of other statements made by Britain France and Japan suggest that these nations have historically taken the same position as China, and made public statements to that effect.

For example, France occupied the Paracel Islands in the 1930s during the war between China and Japan. The occupation took place over a year after France had refused to abolish its extraterritorial rights in China, which had been held since 1844. The first official announcement concerning the seizure of the Paracel Islands was made by M. Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister at the Quay d’Orsay, stating that the islands were now occupied by two detachments of Annamite gendarmes from Vietnam in 1938. Amid the Sino-Japanese conflict, the Quai d’Orsay took the opportunity to note that “the islands have been visited by Chinese fishermen for generations” (North China Herald, July 4, 1938, June 6, 1934).

Meanwhile, the Chinese Ambassador Wellington Koo informed M. Bonnet that China continued to claim sovereignty over the islands, and Japanese Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr Horinouchi also made official representations “regarding the French occupation of the Paracel Islands’ (Japan Times & Mail, July 6, 1938; Portsmouth Evening News, July 7, 1938; emphasis added).

It is clear that the occupation by France of islands used for internationally-recognized Chinese historical economic life was protested by China as an invasion of sovereign territory, and was publicly repeated by Japanese officials, who wished to possess the islands for belligerent purposes that were directed towards China during their war of the 1930s and 40s. The impact today can be derived from a legal interpretation, as UNESCO and UNCLOS provide protections and rights for historic grave sites. ”

Historical Support for China’s South China Sea Territorial Stance

The ‘island count’ by various islands are as follows:

Vietnam 51

China 28

Philippines 9

Malaysia 5

Taiwan 1

Island Tracker Archive | Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative

Again, what right has the US (and Japan) to interfere in the sovereign claims of China when it too violates the spirit of the UNCLOS law.

US Law of the Sea

In other words, the US doesn’t need to ratify UNCLOS because of its strong military and can enforce its will against others. Otherwise, it would have to give up energy resources not in compliance with UNCLOS. What hypocrisy.

And to top it all, New Zealand’s ally, the USA, has refused to join the UN International Seabed Authority.

Something to add? Please leave a comment in the box below

One thought on “The Road to War

  1. Godfree Roberts says:

    There is not yet a generally accepted name for their new ‘ism’. ? Mao called it “socialism with Chinese (i.e., Confucian) characteristics” and Xi still uses that.

    Chinese economic progress seems to be dependent on the creation of disparities in individual wealth almost as, or as great as those in western democracies. If this tendency is not brought under control, it could yet have a destabilising effect on a society that places the greatest store on social stability?

    In 2012, two weeks after his accession, Xi made Gini control a condition for advancement.

    The current World Bank Gini figures put the US at 41.8 and rising; China’s at 38.1 and falling.

    Xi’s plan for 2021-2035 is to bring Chinese Gini below Finland’s current 27.2.

    Incidentally, thanks to 99% home ownership, Wealth Gini indices look like this:

    China 0.547
    France 0.730
    USA 0.801

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.