You can subscribe to e‑mail alerts from Spitfirelist.com HERE.
You can subscribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.
You can subscribe to the comments made on programs and posts–an excellent source of information in, and of, itself, HERE.
WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE.
Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is available on a 32GB flash drive, available for a contribution of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dave’s 40+ years’ work, complete through Fall of 2020 (through FTR #1156).
FTR #1196 This program was recorded in one, 60-minute segment.
Introduction: The program begins with discussion of two articles that frame the analysis of the New Cold War with China.
” . . . . ‘the political-economic system of the People’s Republic is precisely that what no one expects, in the West — where agitational reporting usually only confirms resentful clichés about China. . . .”
Much journalistic bloviating and diplomatic and military posturing in the U.S. has been devoted to China’s occupation of uninhabited atolls in the South China Sea and waters around China.
In addition to failure to understand this in the historical context of China’s experience during the Opium Wars and the conflict with the Japanese during World War II, the coverage in the West has omitted discussion of similar occupation and (in some cases) militarization of such islands in those waters by other countries in the region: ” . . . . Officially, Berlin justifies the frigate Bayern’s deployment to East Asia with its intention to promote the implementation of international law. This pertains particularly to conflicts over numerous islands and atolls in the South China Sea that are contested by the riparians and where China claims 28 of them and uses some militarily, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). According to CSIS, the Philippines control nine, Malaysia, five and Taiwan, one island, whereas Vietnam has established around 50 outposts of various sorts. All four countries also have a military presence on some of the islands and atolls they are occupying. . . .”
As noted in the German Foreign Policy article, the German (and U.S. and U.K.) position is blatantly hypocritical: ” . . . . The frigate Bayern, which set sail for East Asia yesterday, will soon make a port call at Diego Garcia, an island under occupation, in violation of international law, and serving military purposes. It is the main island of the Chagos Archipelago in the middle of the Indian Ocean and the site of a strategically important US military base. The Chagos Archipelago is an old British colonial possession that had once belonged to Mauritius. It was detached, in violation of international law, during the decolonization of Mauritius, to allow the United States to construct a military base. The population was deported to impoverished regions on Mauritius. In the meantime, several international court rulings have been handed down and a UN General Assembly resolution has been passed on this issue — all concluding that Mauritius has sovereignty over Diego Garcia and calling on the United Kingdom to hand back the illegally occupied Chagos Archipelago. To this day, London and Washington refuse to comply. . . .”
Another German Foreign Policy article sets forth many of Mr. Emory’s fears and observations concerning contemporary China and the U.S.
Among those concerns and fears:
- ” . . . . the major shift in the global balance of power, shaping our present, with China’s rise and the USA seeking to hold the People’s Republic of China down, to preserve its global dominance. The consequences are a dangerous escalation of the conflict, which could lead to a Third World War. . . .”
- ” . . . . At the beginning of the 19th century, the Middle Kingdom (China) — which had one-third of the world’s population — was still generating a third of the world’s economic output. Therefore, it was the world’s greatest economic power — as it had already been for many centuries. . . .”
- ” . . . . China’s resurgence, following the devastation brought on particularly by the western colonial powers was possible, Baron explains, not least because ‘the political-economic system of the People’s Republic is precisely that what no one expects, in the West — where agitational reporting usually only confirms resentful clichés about China. It is ‘highly flexible, adventurous, and adaptable.’ Baron quotes Sebastian Heilmann and Elizabeth Perry, both experts on China, saying politics is explicitly understood as a ‘process of constant transformations and conflict management, with trial runs and ad hoc adaptations.’ The Chinese system is a far cry from being a rigid, inflexible authoritarianism. . . .”
- ” . . . . Baron depicts the foreign policy the USA — at home increasingly decaying — has been indulging in since the end of the cold war: an extremely aggressive approach toward Russia, grueling wars — such as in Iraq — in addition to ‘regime change operations’ and unscrupulous extra-territorial sanctions. ‘The military-industrial-complex and the intelligence services (...) have seized an enormous amount of power,’ notes the publicist, and warns that only external aggression can hold the country together: ‘The conviction that America must be at the top in the world,’ is, at the moment, ‘almost the only thing that the deeply antagonistic Democrats and Republicans can still agree on.’ Baron speaks of ‘imperial arrogance.’ . . .”
- ” . . . . ‘To defend its lost hegemonic position’ the United States ‘is not primarily seeking to regain its competitiveness,’ Baron observes, but rather it is striving ‘by any means and on all fronts, to prevent — or at least restrain — China’s progress.’ . . . . Ultimately, ‘the threat of a Third World War’ looms large. . . .”
One cannot understand contemporary China and the political history of that country over the last couple of centuries without a comprehensive grasp of the effect of the Opium Wars on that nation and its people.
Indeed, one cannot grasp Chinese history and politics without an understanding of the narcotics trade’s central position in that country’s politics.
A viable understanding of China’s past yields understanding of its present.
Key points of analysis and discussion of the Opium Wars include:
- The economic imperative for the conflicts were the trade imbalance between China and Britain: “ . . . . In the 18th century the demand for Chinese luxury goods (particularly silk, porcelain, and tea) created a trade imbalance between China and Britain. European silver flowed into China through the Canton System, which confined incoming foreign trade to the southern port city of Canton. . . .”
- To alter that dynamic, the British East India Company turned to the opium trade: “ . . . . To counter this imbalance, the British East India Company began to grow opium in Bengal and allowed private British merchants to sell opium to Chinese smugglers for illegal sale in China. The influx of narcotics reversed the Chinese trade surplus, drained the economy of silver, and increased the numbers of opium addicts inside the country, outcomes that seriously worried Chinese officials. . . .”
- The Chinese attempt at interdicting the opium trade was countered with force of arms: “ . . . . In 1839, the Daoguang Emperor, rejecting proposals to legalize and tax opium, appointed ViceroyLin Zexu to go to Canton to halt the opium trade completely.[8] Lin wrote an open letter to Queen Victoria, which she never saw, appealing to her moral responsibility to stop the opium trade.[9] Lin then resorted to using force in the western merchants’ enclave. He confiscated all supplies and ordered a blockade of foreign ships on the Pearl River. Lin also confiscated and destroyed a significant quantity of European opium.[10] The British government responded by dispatching a military force to China and in the ensuing conflict, the Royal Navy used its naval and gunnery power to inflict a series of decisive defeats on the Chinese Empire,[11] a tactic later referred to as gunboat diplomacy. . . .”
- Forced to sign the Treaty of Nanking, China experienced: “ . . . . In 1842, the Qing dynasty was forced to sign the Treaty of Nanking—the first of what the Chinese later called the unequal treaties—which granted an indemnity and extraterritoriality to British subjects in China . . . . The 1842 Treaty of Nanking not only opened the way for further opium trade, but ceded the territory of Hong Kong . . . . ”
- The trade imbalance between China and Britain worsened, and the expense of maintain new colonial territories—including Hong Kong (appropriated through the first Opium War)—led to the second Opium War. Note that the “extraterritoriality” granted to British subjects exempted them from Chinese law, including the official prohibition against opium trafficking: “ . . . . Despite the new ports available for trade under the Treaty of Nanking, by 1854 Britain’s imports from China had reached nine times their exports to the country. At the same time British imperial finances came under further pressure from the expense of administering the burgeoning colonies of Hong Kong and Singapore in addition to India. Only the latter’s opium could balance the deficit. [30]Along with various complaints about the treatment of British merchants in Chinese ports and the Qing government’s refusal to accept further foreign ambassadors, the relatively minor ‘Arrow Incident’ provided the pretext the British needed to once more resort to military force to ensure the opium kept flowing. . . . Matters quickly escalated and led to the Second Opium War . . . .”
- As a result of the Second Opium War, China was obliged to Cede No.1 District of Kowloon (south of present-day Boundary Street) to Britain; grant “freedom of religion,” which led to an influx of Western Missionaries, U.S. in particular; British ships were allowed to carry indentured Chinese to the Americas; legalization of the opium trade.”
- Fierce, eloquent condemnation of the Opium Wars was voiced by British Prime Minister Gladstone: “ . . . . The opium trade incurred intense enmity from the later British Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone.[34] As a member of Parliament, Gladstone called it ‘most infamous and atrocious’, referring to the opium trade between China and British India in particular.[35] Gladstone was fiercely against both of the Opium Wars, was ardently opposed to the British trade in opium to China, and denounced British violence against Chinese.[36] Gladstone lambasted it as ‘Palmerston’s Opium War’ and said that he felt ‘in dread of the judgments of God upon England for our national iniquity towards China’ in May 1840.[37] A famous speech was made by Gladstone in Parliament against the First Opium War.[38][39] Gladstone criticized it as ‘a war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated in its progress to cover this country with permanent disgrace’. . . .”
1. Much journalistic bloviating and diplomatic and military posturing in the U.S. has been devoted to China’s occupation of uninhabited atolls in the South China Sea and waters around China.
In addition to failure to understand this in the historical context of China’s experience during the Opium Wars and the conflict with the Japanese during World War II, the coverage in the West has omitted discussion of similar occupation and (in some cases) militarization of such islands in those waters by other countries in the region: ” . . . . Officially, Berlin justifies the frigate Bayern’s deployment to East Asia with its intention to promote the implementation of international law. This pertains particularly to conflicts over numerous islands and atolls in the South China Sea that are contested by the riparians and where China claims 28 of them and uses some militarily, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). According to CSIS, the Philippines control nine, Malaysia, five and Taiwan, one island, whereas Vietnam has established around 50 outposts of various sorts. All four countries also have a military presence on some of the islands and atolls they are occupying. . . .”
As noted in the German Foreign Policy article, the German (and U.S. and U.K.) position is blatantly hypocritical: ” . . . . The frigate Bayern, which set sail for East Asia yesterday, will soon make a port call at Diego Garcia, an island under occupation, in violation of international law, and serving military purposes. It is the main island of the Chagos Archipelago in the middle of the Indian Ocean and the site of a strategically important US military base. The Chagos Archipelago is an old British colonial possession that had once belonged to Mauritius. It was detached, in violation of international law, during the decolonization of Mauritius, to allow the United States to construct a military base. The population was deported to impoverished regions on Mauritius. In the meantime, several international court rulings have been handed down and a UN General Assembly resolution has been passed on this issue — all concluding that Mauritius has sovereignty over Diego Garcia and calling on the United Kingdom to hand back the illegally occupied Chagos Archipelago. To this day, London and Washington refuse to comply. . . .”
“Illegally Occupied Islands;” German Foreign Policy; 8/03/2021.
During its East Asia tour the German frigate Bayern will make a port call at Diego Garcia. The island is the site of a US military base and is, according to UN courts, illegally occupied by Great Britain.
The frigate Bayern, which set sail for East Asia yesterday, will soon make a port call at Diego Garcia, an island under occupation, in violation of international law, and serving military purposes. It is the main island of the Chagos Archipelago in the middle of the Indian Ocean and the site of a strategically important US military base. The Chagos Archipelago is an old British colonial possession that had once belonged to Mauritius. It was detached, in violation of international law, during the decolonization of Mauritius, to allow the United States to construct a military base. The population was deported to impoverished regions on Mauritius. In the meantime, several international court rulings have been handed down and a UN General Assembly resolution has been passed on this issue — all concluding that Mauritius has sovereignty over Diego Garcia and calling on the United Kingdom to hand back the illegally occupied Chagos Archipelago. To this day, London and Washington refuse to comply. This does not bother Berlin.
“Advocates of a Rules-Based Order”
Officially, Berlin justifies the frigate Bayern’s deployment to East Asia with its intention to promote the implementation of international law. This pertains particularly to conflicts over numerous islands and atolls in the South China Sea that are contested by the riparians and where China claims 28 of them and uses some militarily, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). According to CSIS, the Philippines control nine, Malaysia, five and Taiwan, one island, whereas Vietnam has established around 50 outposts of various sorts. All four countries also have a military presence on some of the islands and atolls they are occupying.[1] Of course, the German Minister of Defense Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer only refers to China, when she stated yesterday that currently attempts are being made to “enforce territorial claims in accordance with the principle of might makes right.” “As advocates of a rules-based order, we are not indifferent when existing law is ignored and facts are created in violation of international law.”[2] German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas also claims that Germany is particularly committed to “upholding international law” in “the Indo-Pacific.”[3]
Colony with Slaves
Irrespective of the disputes in the South Chiba Sea, Berlin’s claims would formally be at least a bit more credible, if, according to the German defense ministry, one of the frigate Bayern’s first port calls were not Diego Garcia, the largest of the Chagos Islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean.[4] The Chagos Islands are part of the old European colonial possessions. France had seized them in 1783 and immediately imported slaves from Madagascar and Mozambique to toil on coconut plantations. In 1814, Great Britain took over the Archipelago. Until 1965, it had been under the administration of the British island colony of Mauritius, located east of Madagascar, when London, in violation of international law, amputated the Chagos Islands from Mauritius, naming them the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). Mauritius, at the time, was preparing for its decolonization (achieved in 1968). The reason for the amputation: the United States planned the construction of a naval and air base on Diego Garcia. This is why the Archipelago was not granted its independence along with Mauritius. At the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, the entire population — about 2000 people — were deported to impoverished regions on Mauritius and the Seychelles.[5]
Wars of Aggression and Interrogations under Torture
The United States has used its Diego Garcia military base not least of all for the purpose of launching air strikes in numerous wars, including blatant wars of aggression, in violation of international law, as well as for the 2003 attack on Iraq. Even now, the base is of the utmost strategic importance to the US armed forces. Experts qualify it as “the key US strategic outpost in the Indian Ocean.”[6] It also proved useful for the CIA’s abductions of suspects to torture chambers in the aftermath of September 11, 2001. Lawrence Wilkerson, former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff from 2002 to 2005, confirmed in early 2015, that Diego Garcia had served the CIA as a “transit site.” The CIA had brought suspects to the base “when perhaps other places were full or other places were deemed too dangerous or insecure, or unavailable at the moment.”[7] In such cases the abducted were flown out to Diego Garcia and “housed, let us say, and interrogated from time to time.” The procedures used at the time have still not been fully elucidated. Those responsible for the abductions and crimes of torture have never been punished.
The UN’s Verdict
Nevertheless, British colonial rule over Chagos — which lays the foundation for the US military base — has been under sharp international attack for years. In November 2000, the former inhabitants initially succeeded in having their deportation officially ruled an injustice by the British High Court. They are still fighting for their right of return. On February 25, 2019, Mauritius won its suit before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague against the illegal amputation of the Chagos Islands in 1965. The ICJ 13 — 1 ruling stipulates that Great Britain must return the archipelago to Mauritius. US Justice Joan E. Donoghue was the sole dissenting vote in the ruling. On May 22, 2019, the UN General Assembly — in a vote of 116 in favor and 6 opposed — called on the United Kingdom to comply with the ICJ’s verdict and return the islands within six months. London and Washington are ignoring the UN vote as well as the ICJ verdict. Finally, on January 28, 2021, the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg concurred with the ICJ’s ruling and stated that sovereignty over the Chagos Islands remains unadulterated with Mauritius.[8] Therefore, Great Britain and the USA are illegally occupying Diego Garcia — for military purposes.
Berlin’s Morality
According to Germany’s Ministry of Defense, the frigate Bayern, which set sail yesterday from the port of Wilhelmshaven, will first come to the Mediterranean Sea, where it will participate in NATO’s Sea Guardian Operation; continuing through the Suez Canal and the Red Sea, it will then join the EU’s Operation Atalanta at the Horn of Africa. Subsequently, it plans to make a call at Pakistan’s port city Karachi, before continuing across the Indian Ocean to pay a call at Diego Garcia. In reference to Diego Garcia, Berlin raises no criticism to “territorial claims in accordance with the principle of might makes right” (Kramp-Karrenbauer) nor to a constant refusal to “uphold international law” (Maas).
[1] Occupation and Island Building. amti.csis.org.
[2] Rede der Ministerin anlässlich des Auslaufens der Fregatte “Bayern”. bmvg.de 02.08.2021.
[3] Außenminister Maas zur Abfahrt der Fregatte “Bayern” nach Asien. Pressemitteilung des Auswärtigen Amts. 02.08.2021.
[4] Die Route der “Bayern”. bundeswehr.de 02.08.2021.
[5] Eine umfassende Darstellung der Geschichte der US-Militärbasis auf Diego Garcia bietet: David Vine: Island of Shame. The Secret History of the U.S. Military Base on Diego Garcia. Princeton/Oxford 2009.
[6] Blake Herzinger: The power of example: America’s presence in Diego Garcia. lowyinstitute.org 15.02.2021.
[7] Ian Cobain: CIA interrogated suspects on Diego Garcia, says Colin Powell aide. theguardian.com 30.01.2015.
[8] Michael Vosatka: Seegerichtshof spricht Chagos-Inseln samt US-Basis “Diego Garcia” Mauritius zu. derstandard.de 29.01.2021.
2a. Another German Foreign Policy article sets forth many of Mr. Emory’s fears and observations concerning contemporary China and the U.S.
Among those concerns and fears:
- ” . . . . the major shift in the global balance of power, shaping our present, with China’s rise and the USA seeking to hold the People’s Republic of China down, to preserve its global dominance. The consequences are a dangerous escalation of the conflict, which could lead to a Third World War. . . .”
- ” . . . . At the beginning of the 19th century, the Middle Kingdom (China) — which had one-third of the world’s population — was still generating a third of the world’s economic output. Therefore, it was the world’s greatest economic power — as it had already been for many centuries. . . .”
- ” . . . . China’s resurgence, following the devastation brought on particularly by the western colonial powers was possible, Baron explains, not least because ‘the political-economic system of the People’s Republic is precisely that what no one expects, in the West — where agitational reporting usually only confirms resentful clichés about China. It is ‘highly flexible, adventurous, and adaptable.’ Baron quotes Sebastian Heilmann and Elizabeth Perry, both experts on China, saying politics is explicitly understood as a ‘process of constant transformations and conflict management, with trial runs and ad hoc adaptations.’ The Chinese system is a far cry from being a rigid, inflexible authoritarianism. . . .”
- ” . . . . Baron depicts the foreign policy the USA — at home increasingly decaying — has been indulging in since the end of the cold war: an extremely aggressive approach toward Russia, grueling wars — such as in Iraq — in addition to ‘regime change operations’ and unscrupulous extra-territorial sanctions. ‘The military-industrial-complex and the intelligence services (...) have seized an enormous amount of power,’ notes the publicist, and warns that only external aggression can hold the country together: ‘The conviction that America must be at the top in the world,’ is, at the moment, ‘almost the only thing that the deeply antagonistic Democrats and Republicans can still agree on.’ Baron speaks of ‘imperial arrogance.’ . . .”
- ” . . . . ‘To defend its lost hegemonic position’ the United States ‘is not primarily seeking to regain its competitiveness,’ Baron observes, but rather it is striving ‘by any means and on all fronts, to prevent — or at least restrain — China’s progress.’ . . . . Ultimately, ‘the threat of a Third World War’ looms large. . . .”
Book Review: “Ami go home!;” German Foreign Policy; 7/21/2021.
Stefan Baron (former Head Editor of the German weekly, WirtschaftsWoche) analyses the struggle for hegemony between the USA and China.
“Ami go home”? That is not the sort of title one would expect to see on a book by an author like Stefan Baron. Baron, an economics graduate — who in the course of his professional career has worked as financial correspondent for “Der Spiegel,” Editor-in-Chief of the “Wirtschafts Woche” and most recently, as the Director of Global Communication for the Deutsche Bank — certainly would not want his book to be considered anti-American. In his book, the publicist, who for years had been a member of the Board of Trustees of the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies and who still enjoys good relations with the United States, focuses his attention on the major shift in the global balance of power, shaping our present, with China’s rise and the USA seeking to hold the People’s Republic of China down, to preserve its global dominance. The consequences are a dangerous escalation of the conflict, which could lead to a Third World War, which as Baron notes, which must urgently be prevented. This concern leads him to harshly criticize the United States’ current situation and to suggest ways of preventing the escalation of the transpacific power struggle.
In a sober appraisal, Baron describes the seemingly relentless “shift of the global focal point of power toward Asia,” with its driving factor being the ascendance of China. As the author points out, this is a resurgence. At the beginning of the 19th century, the Middle Kingdom (China) — which had one-third of the world’s population — was still generating a third of the world’s economic output. Therefore, it was the world’s greatest economic power — as it had already been for many centuries. China’s resurgence, following the devastation brought on particularly by the western colonial powers was possible, Baron explains, not least because “the political-economic system of the People’s Republic is precisely that what no one expects, in the West — where agitational reporting usually only confirms resentful clichés about China. It is “highly flexible, adventurous, and adaptable.” Baron quotes Sebastian Heilmann and Elizabeth Perry, both experts on China, saying politics is explicitly understood as a “process of constant transformations and conflict management, with trial runs and ad hoc adaptations.” The Chinese system is a far cry from being a rigid, inflexible authoritarianism.
On the other hand, one notices his deep disappointment in his descriptions of the current situation in the United States. “The land of freedom, equal opportunity, and democracy has degenerated into an oligarchy,” even a “plutocracy,” writes Baron. “The rule of law shows deep cracks, economic productivity and perspectives for the future are dwindling, the middle class is melting away, social inequality and racism are rampant. Baron depicts the foreign policy the USA — at home increasingly decaying — has been indulging in since the end of the cold war: an extremely aggressive approach toward Russia, grueling wars — such as in Iraq — in addition to “regime change operations” and unscrupulous extra-territorial sanctions. “The military-industrial-complex and the intelligence services (...) have seized an enormous amount of power,” notes the publicist, and warns that only external aggression can hold the country together: “The conviction that America must be at the top in the world,” is, at the moment, “almost the only thing that the deeply antagonistic Democrats and Republicans can still agree on.” Baron speaks of “imperial arrogance.”
And he has no illusions about how dangerous the situation has become. “To defend its lost hegemonic position” the United States “is not primarily seeking to regain its competitiveness,” Baron observes, but rather it is striving “by any means and on all fronts, to prevent — or at least restrain — China’s progress.” At the moment, it is using a “trade” and a “technology war,” however, predicts the publicist, although these will “seriously slow down Peking’s technological catching-up process, it cannot stop it.” Ultimately, “the threat of a Third World War” looms large. Baron recalls that already in his graduation speech to the cadets of the US West Point Military Academy in 2019, US Vice President Mike Pence had openly “admitted the prospect” that they will “one day ‘stand on the battlefield,’ in other words, will have to go to war.” The USA is not only the sole country in the world that has “already (and without necessity) used nuclear weapons,” but also the one that, “unlike China, has never renounced on their first use.”
What is to be done? Baron relies explicitly on “Europe’s emancipation” from the United States. He considers that the interests of the European powers “coincide neither with those of the United States nor those of China.” This is why they should not “choose between the two powers” but rather “choose a third path, our own.” A “multi-polar world order and peaceful coexistence of the systems” should become the basis of European foreign policy.” That can also be achieved, given that the EU is, “itself, devoid of hegemonic ambitions.” The latter may be doubted with good reason, along with his conviction that the EU had been forced by the USA into the conflict with Russia. It was precisely the EU’s expansion of power, driven by old German ambitions to gain influence in the east that had caused the dire escalation of the conflict with Russia in 2014. Even though Baron’s proposal for therapy is not really convincing, his diagnosis, in many respects, certainly is.
3. One cannot understand contemporary China and the political history of that country over the last couple of centuries without a comprehensive grasp of the effect of the Opium Wars on that nation and its people.
Indeed, one cannot grasp Chinese history and politics without an understanding of the narcotics trade’s central position in that country’s politics.
A viable understanding of China’s past yields understanding of its present.
Awareness of key dynamics of Chinese history includes:
- The decisive role of European and American military domination and economic exploitation of China.
- The role of the narcotics traffic in the erosion of Chinese society in the 19th century.
- The British-led “Opium Wars,” which were the foundation of the destruction wrought by dope addiction in China.
- The Opium Wars and their implementation by “Gunboat Diplomacy” of British and European territorial expansion in China.
- The pivotal role of that “Gunboat Diplomacy” in the British acquisition of Hong Kong.
- Contemporary Chinese concern with the military safety of their ports, territorial waters, adjacent seas and oceans, shipping lanes, merchant marine traffic. This stems in large measure from China’s experience with “Gunboat Diplomacy” and the ravaging of China by Imperial Japan during the 1930’s and 1940’s.
- The introduction of Western missionaries into China–American missionaries, in particular.
- The fostering of the “Missionary position” toward China on the part of the U.S.
- American missionaries’ use of morphine to cure Chinese opium addicts, a practice so prevalent that the Chinese referred to morphine as “Jesus opium.”
- The enormous opium trade in China as the foundation for the coalescence and ascent of Shanghai’s Green Gang and Tu Yueh-Shen: “Big Eared Tu.”
- The dominance of the Kuomintang of Chiang Kai-Shek by the Green Gang and Big-Eared Tu.
- The fundamental reliance of Chiang’s government on the narcotics trade.
- The dominant role of Chiang Kai-Shek’s regime in the U.S. narcotics trade.
- The doctrinaire fascism of Chiang Kai-Shek and his operational relationships with Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italy and Imperial Japan.
- The central role of the Soong family in Chiang Kai-Shek’s Kuomintang; T.V. Soong, his sisters Mae-ling (married to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek), Ai-ling (married to H.H. Kung, a key finance minister of the Kuomointang), and several of T. V.‘s brothers, who also shared in the slicing of the pie under Chiang.
- The pivotal role of American publishing giant Henry Luce, whose missionary background in China informed and animated his adoration of Chiang Kai-Shek and Mme. Chiang.
- The role of the Luce publishing empire and the enormous financial influence of the consummately corrupt Soong family in spawning “The China Lobby.”
- The decisive role of the Chiang Kai-Shek’s refusal to fight the Japanese invaders, combined with the brutal repression and civic ineptitude in driving the Chinese people into the arms of Mao Tse-Tung and the Chinese Communist Party.
Key points of analysis and discussion of the Opium Wars include:
- The economic imperative for the conflicts were the trade imbalance between China and Britain: “ . . . . In the 18th century the demand for Chinese luxury goods (particularly silk, porcelain, and tea) created a trade imbalance between China and Britain. European silver flowed into Chinathrough the Canton System, which confined incoming foreign trade to the southern port city of Canton. . . .”
- To alter that dynamic, the British East India Company turned to the opium trade: “ . . . . To counter this imbalance, the British East India Company began to grow opium in Bengal and allowed private British merchants to sell opium to Chinese smugglers for illegal sale in China. The influx of narcotics reversed the Chinese trade surplus, drained the economy of silver, and increased the numbers of opium addicts inside the country, outcomes that seriously worried Chinese officials. . . .”
- The Chinese attempt at interdicting the opium trade was countered with force of arms: “ . . . . In 1839, the Daoguang Emperor, rejecting proposals to legalize and tax opium, appointed ViceroyLin Zexu to go to Canton to halt the opium trade completely.[8] Lin wrote an open letter to Queen Victoria, which she never saw, appealing to her moral responsibility to stop the opium trade.[9] Lin then resorted to using force in the western merchants’ enclave. He confiscated all supplies and ordered a blockade of foreign ships on the Pearl River. Lin also confiscated and destroyed a significant quantity of European opium.[10] The British government responded by dispatching a military force to China and in the ensuing conflict, the Royal Navy used its naval and gunnery power to inflict a series of decisive defeats on the Chinese Empire,[11] a tactic later referred to as gunboat diplomacy. . . .”
- Forced to sign the Treaty of Nanking, China experienced: “ . . . . In 1842, the Qing dynasty was forced to sign the Treaty of Nanking—the first of what the Chinese later called the unequal treaties—which granted an indemnity and extraterritoriality to British subjects in China . . . . The 1842 Treaty of Nanking not only opened the way for further opium trade, but ceded the territory of Hong Kong . . . . ”
- The trade imbalance between China and Britain worsened, and the expense of maintain new colonial territories—including Hong Kong (appropriated through the first Opium War)—led to the second Opium War. Note that the “extraterritoriality” granted to British subjects exempted them from Chinese law, including the official prohibition against opium trafficking: “ . . . . Despite the new ports available for trade under the Treaty of Nanking, by 1854 Britain’s imports from China had reached nine times their exports to the country. At the same time British imperial finances came under further pressure from the expense of administering the burgeoning colonies of Hong Kong and Singapore in addition to India. Only the latter’s opium could balance the deficit. [30]Along with various complaints about the treatment of British merchants in Chinese ports and the Qing government’s refusal to accept further foreign ambassadors, the relatively minor ‘Arrow Incident’ provided the pretext the British needed to once more resort to military force to ensure the opium kept flowing. . . . Matters quickly escalated and led to the Second Opium War . . . .”
- As a result of the Second Opium War, China was obliged to Cede No.1 District of Kowloon (south of present-day Boundary Street) to Britain; grant “freedom of religion,” which led to an influx of Western Missionaries, U.S. in particular; British ships were allowed to carry indentured Chinese to the Americas; legalization of the opium trade.”
- Fierce, eloquent condemnation of the Opium Wars was voiced by British Prime Minister Gladstone: “ . . . . The opium trade incurred intense enmity from the later British Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone.[34] As a member of Parliament, Gladstone called it ‘most infamous and atrocious’, referring to the opium trade between China and British India in particular.[35] Gladstone was fiercely against both of the Opium Wars, was ardently opposed to the British trade in opium to China, and denounced British violence against Chinese.[36] Gladstone lambasted it as ‘Palmerston’s Opium War’ and said that he felt ‘in dread of the judgments of God upon England for our national iniquity towards China’ in May 1840.[37] A famous speech was made by Gladstone in Parliament against the First Opium War.[38][39] Gladstone criticized it as ‘a war more unjust in its origin, a war more calculated in its progress to cover this country with permanent disgrace’. . . .”
The Future: Technology, Theocracy and the Thousand Year Reich
It’s really hard to see what’s happening towards China as anything other than a continuation of historical racialized policy. If this were only an issue about communism versus democracy, it would make little sense for the United States to have explored selling arms to Vietnam and engaging in nuclear development cooperatives — a nation which operates as a uniparty socialist state.
This next article is one to keep in mind but it could be classified as a potentially suspicious death worth noting. Newly anointed German Ambassador to China Jan Hecker’s suddenly died within two weeks of arriving in Beijing. He was a key player in implementing Angela Merkel’s plans to accept one million asylum seekers into Germany during Europe’s refugee crisis.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9962683/German-ambassador-China-dies-suddenly-days-taking-role.html
German ambassador to China dies suddenly a few days after taking the role
Germany’s ambassador to China has died suddenly less than two weeks after taking up his post, the German government said on Monday.
There was no suggestion that the death of Jan Hecker, previously a senior adviser to Chancellor Angela Merkel, was linked to his role, the Foreign Ministry said.
The short Foreign Ministry statement announcing the 54-year-old’s death gave no details of where or when Hecker died, nor did it provide a cause of death.
Ministry spokeswoman Andrea Sasse said there were ‘no indications that the death is connected to Ambassador Hecker’s political function.’
When asked whether authorities will release further details, she told a regular government news conference that the ministry had nothing to add at present.
Photo Caption: Germany’s ambassador to China Jan Hecker (left) has died suddenly less than two weeks after taking up his post, the German government said on Monday. Hecker was previously a senior adviser to Chancellor Angela Merkel (centre) with whom he is pictured at a 2019 conference in Berlin
Photo Caption: The short Foreign Ministry statement announcing the 54-year-old’s death gave no details of where or when Hecker died, nor did it provide a cause of death [File photo]
Photo Caption: German and European Union flags flew at half-mast on Monday at the embassy in Beijing (pictured) after Hecker’s death was announced
German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas reiterated this, telling DPA news agency: ‘based on the circumstances of the death, we have no indications that Jan Hecker’s passing was related in any way at all to his professional role as German ambassador in Beijing.’
Hecker, who became ambassador in August, was married and had three children, according to his biography on the Foreign Ministry website.
He arrived in China on August 1 and presented his credentials on August 24, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry.
Reuters reported that, like all new arrivals in China, Hecker would have been required to spend time in quarantine as a coronavirus precaution.
In 2015, Hecker, a former Interior Ministry official and then a judge at Germany’s Federal Administrative Court, started work at the chancellery as the head of a unit coordinating refugee policy.
In this role, he was a key player in realising Merkel’s plans to accept one million asylum seekers into Germany during Europe’s refugee crisis.
He became Merkel’s foreign policy adviser — an influential post, though one with a low public profile — in 2017.
Merkel said in a statement that Hecker’s death ‘shocks me deeply’.
‘I am mourning an esteemed long-time adviser with deep humanity and outstanding expertise,’ the chancellor said.
‘I think with gratitude of our work together and am happy to have been so closely tied to him for years. My deepest sympathy goes out to his wife, his children and his other loved ones in their immeasurable grief’.
Photo Caption: Hecker (right) speaks with US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken (left) following a meeting with Angela Merkel in Berlin in June
Maas also expressed his condolences, saying in a Twitter post that he was ‘deeply shocked’ by Hecker’s sudden passing, adding that the Foreign Ministry has lost an ‘outstanding and valued’ colleague.
The Chinese government also offered its condolences and said it would provide assistance to Hecker’s family and the embassy.
‘We are shocked to learn of this sudden death of Ambassador Jan Hecker, who had been working actively to promote China-Germany relations since assuming his post,’ Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said at a daily briefing in Beijing.
Hecker had appeared ‘happy and all right’ when he hosted an event about German artist Joseph Beuys at his Beijing home last Friday, a guest at the event said.
German and European Union flags flew at half-mast on Monday at the embassy in Beijing.
Deputy ambassador Frank Ruckert, will take over ambassadorial duties for the time being, DW reported.
Photo Caption: In 2015, Hecker, a former Interior Ministry official and then a judge at Germany’s Federal Administrative Court, started work at the chancellery as the head of a unit coordinating refugee policy. He became Merkel’s foreign policy adviser — an influential post, though one with a low public profile — in 2017. Pictured: Hecker (second from left) with then-German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen (centre) before a cabinet meeting in 2018 [File photo]