China tensions and the New World Order
By Andrew Steele
The Pentagon is creating a new spy agency that will focus on “high-priority targets like Iran and China”, the New York Times Reported on April 23rd.
From the article:
“Under the plan approved last week by Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, case officers from the new Defense Clandestine Service would work more closely with counterparts from the Central Intelligence Agency at a time when the military and spy agency are increasingly focused on similar threats.
“It will thicken our coverage across the board,” said a senior Defense Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss with a small group of reporters on Monday what he called a “realignment” of the military’s human espionage efforts.”
This comes while U.S. tensions mount with China over both nations’ actions in the Pacific.
The issue of which nation controls the South China Sea has been brewing for years, continuously putting China at odds with its neighbors, and their neighbors’ guard dog– the United States– whose government is steered by companies seeking themselves to exploit the vast oil and natural gas resources under the disputed waters. The latest South China Sea drama sparked two weeks ago when China blocked a Filipino warship from arresting Chinese fishermen near islands that are about 140 miles from the Philippines shoreline. The Philippine government requested that the issue be taken to an international court yet China refused, claiming that the islands are part of its territory.
Protests in the Philippines erupted as a result of the war games, with students vandalizing the U.S. embassy there.
Also as a result of the war games, China’s Liberation Army Daily warned that the United States’ actions with the Philippines could boil over into outright conflict.
“Anyone with clear eyes saw long ago that behind these drills is reflected a mentality that will lead the South China Sea issue down a fork in the road towards military confrontation and resolution through armed force,” said the commentary in the People’s Liberation Army’s paper. “Through this kind of meddling and intervention, the United States will only stir up the entire South China Sea situation towards increasing chaos, and this will inevitably have a massive impact on regional peace and stability.”
On April 23rd the International Crisis Group published a reported titled “Stirring up the South China Sea” in which it warned that while the Chinese government is trying to diffuse tensions with its neighbors, because of nationalist sentiment, unclear laws, and competing government departments, it could one day find itself in a regional war with Vietnam or the Philippines, (which of course would likely draw in the United States).
From that report:
“Beijing has deliberately imbued the South China Sea disputes with nationalist sentiment by perpetually highlighting China’s historical claims. This policy has led to a growing domestic demand for assertive action. While Beijing has been able to rein in nationalist sentiment over the South China Sea when it adopts a specific policy, this heated environment still limits its policy options and its ability to manage the issue…
“…Internally, China has taken measures to calm nationalist sentiment and discourage aggressive actions by local agencies. However, China’s current approach remains characterised by numerous ministerial-level actors and law enforcement agencies with no effective coordinating authority and no high-level long-term policy. While repeated and failed attempts to establish a centralised mechanism on maritime management show a lack of political will to address the coordination issue, Beijing might also see benefit in ambiguity. As long as this situation exists, however, its new conciliatory approach is unlikely to be sustainable. Ultimately, the ability to manage relations in the South China Sea and resolve disputes will present a major test of China’s peaceful rise.”
The short documentary “The South China Sea: Troubled Waters” put out by the U.S.-China Institute in 2010 claims that China became more emboldened as the United States got mired down in Afghanistan and Iraq and watched its own economy fall apart. This prompted China to assert itself against the United States in the region around it. As a result, the Obama administration– the film claims– has taken a defensive hardline with China, not wanting to appear weak.
While this may in fact be true, the current tensions with China don’t only involve the South China Sea issue, but are also a result the United States’ continuing aggressive actions in the Middle East and Africa (where China is heavily invested), overthrowing governments there through invasions and staged revolutions, carrying out the goal of a high level neocon plan revealed by Wesley Clark during a speech years ago.
In 2007 Clark claimed that he was told by Paul Wolfowitz in 1991 that, with the Soviet Union no longer a threat, the United States had a limited window of time to clean up old Soviet client states (Iran, Iraq, Syria, ect.) before the next superpower rose to challenge it. The next superpower, of course, is China. Because Defense Secretary Leon Panetta– who speaks for the current administration– has openly stated to Congress that authority for the President’s overseas military actions comes from NATO and the United Nations (strikingly leaving out mention of the U.S. Congress) it’s clear the President views the United Nations as having control over the legislative processes of sovereign governments and their armies, and seeks to strengthen the UN’s power. While the fact that China owns U.S. debt and that much of U.S. industry has abandoned America to exploit cheap Chinese labor illustrates an important symbiotic relationship between Western businesses and China, this relationship is one in which China (at least on the surface) currently holds the upper hand. The Chinese government at any time can use its leverage to demand new terms on Western businesses operating there and on United States foreign policy, which in turn affects the actions of the UN. Since the UN, and the New World Order it continues to shape, was created by Western powers to cement their own controlling influence over the world, China’s assertion of its own sovereign power flies in the face of traditional world authorities implementing their own agendas under the guise of global consensus.
As for the debt China holds, at its most basic level debt is simply a make believe number agreed upon by two parties, which can be cancelled if the entity that holds the debt finds itself defeated in conflict by the entity who borrowed the money. While we inflate and destroy the dollar, China finds itself sitting on increasingly worthless paper. As things melt down, national might will not be measured in the number of pretend units (Federal Reserve notes) that a country has, but by the number of high tech weapons that it managed to accumulate while times were good. If conflict is ongoing, the nation that has prepared to transition its currency into something new, (such as a world currency) will have the upper-hand and manage to fund the army needed to control the globe. The one that doesn’t will find itself the slave, regardless of any previous arrangement that were made.
This can be applied to both outcomes of a potential U.S.-China conflict, with the U.S. and its allies either winning and enjoying the benefits of China’s near slave labor economic system under complete Western control, or with China winning and imposing this system on the rest of the world , stepping over the broken skeleton of the once free United States to enjoy an open range of global influence thanks to the exploited wealth and might of the United States already having been used to take out other independent nations.