Whole Colonialism – Red China’s Road to Conquest and Subjugation

The Evil Red Empire – The Road to Conquest and Subjugation

Whole Colonialism – Red China’s Road to Conquest and Subjugation

Red China, often recognized as ‘The Evil Red Empire’ is reshaping the world as per its doctrine of Neocolonialism. In the historical past, Colonial Powers of Europe conquered countries using military power to establish Colonies with intent to dominate Land, People and their economic resources. Red China’s Neocolonialism involves use of Economic Power to gain acceptance of other countries to its plan of Expansionism. Red China achieved this military and economic power after her successful military conquest of Tibet in 1950s. Red China’s ‘One Belt-One Road’ (OBOR) simply reflects the reality of Military Conquest and Political Subjugation of Tibet.

The Evil Red Empire – The Road to Conquest and Subjugation

Xi’s $500 billion push to reshape the World in China’s image

Clipped from: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/xis-dollar500-billion-push-to-reshape-the-world-in-chinas-image/ar-BBB26Nn?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

China is one of the few countries in the world today with money to spend, and Xi Jinping is ready to write some checks.

China’s president will host some 28 world leaders in Beijing on Sunday at the first Belt and Road Forum, the centerpiece of a soft-power push backed by hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure projects. More than 100 countries on five continents have signed up, showing the demand for global economic cooperation despite rising protectionism in the U.S. and Europe.

For Xi, the initiative is designed to solidify his image as one of the world’s leading advocates of globalization while U.S. President Donald Trump cuts overseas funds in the name of “America First.” The summit aims to ease concerns about China’s rise and boost Xi’s profile at home, where he’s become the most powerful leader since Deng Xiaoping died in 1997.

The Belt and Road Initiative “will likely be Xi’s most lasting legacy,” said Trey McArver, the London-based director of China research for TS Lombard, an investment research company. “It has the potential to remake global — particularly Asian — trade and economic patterns.”

The strategy also carries risks. The initiative is so far little more than a marketing slogan that encompasses all sorts of projects that China had initiated overseas for years, and major world leaders like Trump, Angela Merkel and Shinzo Abe are staying away. How Xi answers a range of outstanding questions will go a long way in determining its success.

Key to reducing uncertainty will be addressing the concerns of strategic rivals like India, Russia and the U.S., particularly as China’s growing military prowess lets it be more assertive over disputed territory. Chinese moves to spend more than $50 billion on an economic corridor in Pakistan, build a port in Djibouti and construct oil pipelines in central Asia are all creating infrastructure that could be used to challenge traditional powers.

“China needs to recognize that the way it perceives the Belt and Road Initiative is not necessarily the same way others will,” said Paul Haenle, a former China director on the U.S. National Security Council who now heads the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center in Beijing. For countries like the U.S., he said, “it’s impossible not to view the BRI through a geopolitical lens — a Chinese effort to build a sphere of influence.”

Xi’s $500 billion push to reshape the World in China’s image

© Bloomberg News Chinese president Xi Jinping

Excess Capacity

In September 2013, when Xi first pitched the plan at an obscure Kazakhstan university, he focused on the Eurasia landmass. Since then, it has repeatedly changed names and expanded to include the entire world, with the main goal of rebuilding the ancient trading routes from China to Europe overland and by sea.

One key driver was economic: China wants to spur growth in underdeveloped hinterlands and find more markets for excess industrial capacity. With more than $3 trillion in international reserves — more than a quarter of the world’s total — China has more resources than developed economies struggling to hit budget targets.

The plan gained steam last year when populist movements spurred a backlash against trade and immigration in the U.S. and Europe. Brexit raised questions about the European Union’s viability, while Trump’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership gutted the biggest U.S. push to shape global economic rules.

Trade Champion

“It was very disappointing, and it makes us feel that there is a big vacuum that Belt and Road can help to fill,” Cheah Cheng Hye, chairman and co-chief investment officer at the Hong Kong-based Value Partners Group. “So all of sudden, we begin to appreciate this Chinese initiative.”

Xi wasted no time filling the void. With exporting nations looking for a free-trade champion, he told the global elite in Davos, Switzerland, to resist protectionism and join China in boosting global commerce.

The U.S. and Europe “almost unwittingly” created space for Xi to push China’s interests, according to Peter Cai, research fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy.

“China is offering an alternative to the U.S. version of globalization,” Cai said. “In the Chinese case, it’s globalization paved by concrete: railways, highways, pipelines, ports.”

Related gallery: 33 giant Chinese infrastructure projects that are reshaping the world (provided by Business Insider)

Xi’s $500 billion push to reshape the World in China’s image

33 giant Chinese infrastructure projects that are reshaping the world

Draft Communique

This year, five European countries — Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, France and Italy — openly voiced support for the initiative. On trips to China in February, Italian President Sergio Mattarella proposed plans for the ports of Genoa and Trieste, while French Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve attended the arrival ceremony of a freight train from Lyon.

The summit will feature the likes of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Greece’s Alexis Tsipras and the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte. The U.S. and most Western countries are expected to send lower-level representatives.

A draft communique circulated before the event combined a commitment to open markets with endorsements of China’s diplomatic goals, Bloomberg reported Wednesday, citing people familiar with the document. It also generated some controversy among Beijing-based diplomats who said they didn’t have enough time to vet the document, underscoring the initiative’s potential to cause conflict.

$500 Billion

China has invested more than $50 billion in Belt and Road countries since 2013, according to the official Xinhua News Agency. Credit Suisse Group AG said this month that China could pour more than $500 billion into 62 countries over five years.

China’s state-run companies like China National Petroleum Corp. and China Mobile Ltd. — the world’s largest wireless carrier — are positioned to reap the rewards. Executives from six of China’s largest state-run firms sought to reassure the public this week that the risks were manageable.

China’s three development banks, its Silk Road Fund and China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank were involved in $143 billion of lending outside of the country last year, up more than 140 percent from 2014, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Read More: Chinese Largesse Lures Countries to Its Belt and Road Initiative

Still, financial hurdles are starting to appear. China’s slowing economic growth has left fewer resources to spend overseas. Its international reserves have fallen about 6 percent over the past year, and China needs a healthy amount to defend the yuan.

Some previous Chinese ventures abroad have turned sour. While China’s no-strings-attached approach to investment is generally welcomed by developing countries, they often have poor credit ratings and questionable governance. China has struggled to recoup loans in Venezuela and Africa, and several projects in Central Asia have spurred protests. Announcements with big dollar signs often fail to materialize.

Nonetheless, Chinese scholars see the sum of Xi’s plan as bigger than any individual project. It represents a “profound change” in how China interacts with the world, according to Wang Yiwei, director of at Renmin University’s Institute of International Affairs in Beijing, who has written three books on the initiative.

“China has moved from a participant of globalization to a main leader,” he said. “It’s Globalization 2.0.”

To contact Bloomberg News staff for this story: Ting Shi in Hong Kong at tshi31@bloomberg.net, Miao Han in Beijing at mhan22@bloomberg.net.  To contact the editors responsible for this story: Daniel Ten Kate at dtenkate@bloomberg.net, Brendan Scott 

Xi’s $500 billion push to reshape the World in China’s image

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON. THE TRIAL OF HENRY KISSINGER.

Better Late Than Never. Dr. Henry A. Kissinger usurped the powers granted to the US Secretary of State while he worked as National Security Adviser during 1970-73. He is the architect of Doomed American Fantasy that formulated US – China relations while Americans were bleeding and dying in Vietnam to contain the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. USA needs to find Special Prosecutor to investigate Nixon-Kissinger Vietnam Treason. I am waiting for “The Trial of Henry Kissinger”.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER

PRESIDENT TRUMP, HENRY KISSINGER MEET IN OVAL OFFICE AMID WATERGATE COMPARISONS – WHITE HOUSE, US PATCH 

Clipped from: https://patch.com/us/white-house/president-trump-henry-kissinger-meet-oval-office

In a surprise meeting, Trump sat down with the former secretary of State and official in the Nixon and Ford White Houses.

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON. THE TRIAL OF HENRY KISSINGER FOR WAR CRIMES.

WASHINGTON, DC — President Trump invited the press into the Oval Office Wednesday for photos and brief questions with a guest that shocked many of the reporters in attendance: Henry Kissinger, the controversial former secretary of State and official in the Nixon and Ford White Houses. Trump called the meeting “an honor.” Earlier in the morning, Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak — a choice many found shocking in light of Tuesday night’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, whose bureau is investigating ties between the president’s campaign and Russia.

Asked in the Oval Office meeting with Kissinger about the Comey termination, Trump said, “He wasn’t doing a good job. Very simple. He was not doing a good job.” (For more information on this and other political stories, subscribe to the White House Patch for daily newsletters and breaking news alerts.)

“With all the comparisons the Nixon era, Trump brings the press into the Oval to see him sitting w/ a key member of the Nixon administration,” tweeted Bloomberg and pool reporter Jennifer Epstein who attended the meeting.

The meeting with Kissinger, 93, was not on the president’s public schedule, and reporters thought they would be entering the meeting with Lavrov when Trump invited them in the office.

“We’re talking about Syria, and I think that we’re going to do very well with respect to Syria and things are happening that are really, really, really positive,” Trump said, according to the pool report. “We’re going to stop the killing and the death.”

He added that his meeting with Lavrov was “very, very good.” Both sides, he said, want to end “the killing — the horrible, horrible killing in Syria as soon as possible, and everybody is working toward that end.”

Kissinger is a deeply embattled figure. Many advocates and journalists have characterized him as a war criminal; the late Christopher Hitchens wrote a scathing book, which was turned into a documentary film, called “The Trial of Henry Kissinger” condemning the former secretary of State for his actions. In a contentious decision, the Nobel Prize committee awarded Kissinger the Peace Prize for negotiating a (ultimately unsuccessful) ceasefire in Vietnam.

According to a Politico profile published in December 2016, Kissinger has had a long-running relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The former secretary of State has been working to get closer to Trump, Politico reports, in an attempt to potentially broker a deal with Russia.

Trump said that he’s been friends with Kissinger for a long time. Hillary Clinton, too, spoke of her relationship with Kissinger during the presidential campaign.

The Russian Embassy in the United States Sent out a picture of Trump meeting with Kislyak:

Lavrov also met with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and they appeared briefly in front of the press. While Tillerson answered no questions, a reporter asked the pair if Trump’s firing of Comey cast a shadow over the

meeting, apparently unaware of the news, appeared shocked by the information. “Was he fired?” he said. But then his tone changed: “You are kidding, you are kidding.”

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

Special Prosecutor to investigate Nixon-Kissinger Vietnam Treason. The Trial of Henry Kissinger. Bring him to Justice.

SPIRITUALITY SCIENCE – WHAT IS TIBET’S DESTINY?

SPIRITUALITY SCIENCE – WHAT IS TIBET’S DESTINY?

SPIRITUALITY SCIENCE – WHAT IS TIBET’S DESTINY? TIBET’S FUTURE WILL BE DECIDED BY MAN’S SUBJUGATION TO GOD’S WILL.

In India, Nepal, and Tibet, people share cultural belief in the concept of ‘KARMA’ which in general involves actions by individuals and their consequences to individuals in either present or future life. Karma involves events generated by actions performed by individual entity.

The concept of Destiny or Fate involves operation by an external agency or power over which individual entity has no control. Destiny or Fate is manifested by events with its inevitable consequences. The concept of Destiny involves subjugation of man and man’s ‘FREE WILL’ to perform actions. However, Destiny has broader implications for it unfolds events of great magnitude that can affect a large population of people or their collective identity as people.

Tibet is under subjugation by superior military force exercised by Red China. Tibet’s Destiny is decided by people of China who must reconcile to live under subjugation by external Force, Power, or Agency called Destiny.

SPIRITUALITY SCIENCE – WHAT IS TIBET’S DESTINY? THE FUTURE OF TIBET, FREEDOM OR SUBJUGATION WILL BE DECIDED BY DOOM, DISASTER, CATASTROPHE, CATACLYSM, APOCALYPSE WHICH COMPELS RED CHINA TO CEASE HER SUBJUGATION OF TIBET.

In my analysis, I predict Beijing’s Doom. People of Red China may experience Catastrophe, Cataclysm, Disaster, Apocalypse, or Doomsday which cannot be revoked by paying ransom. This fateful event will compel China to reconsider Tibet’s Subjugation while their own Destiny is held in balance.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER

HUNGER FOR TIBET

Clipped from: http://himalmag.com/hunger-for-tibet/#comment-501456

The latest book on Tibet’s environmental degradation shows how any attempt to save the plateau’s ecosystem must come from within China.
  • Spirituality Science – What is Tibet’s Destiny?

    Photo image credit:Flickr / reurink jan

    (This is an essay from our March 2015 print quarterly ‘Labour and its discontents’. See more from the issue here.)

    Nineteen million people – a preliminary estimate – have lost their homes, their land and their property. Their only means of survival is to move into other regions; but there is no other region that can feed so many refugees. Hunger will probably drive them to violence. This is harvest time, already there has been plundering of crops and of course if the victims have nothing to eat themselves they will join the starving and seize crops elsewhere.

    The excerpt above comes not from a report on climate change or the displacement of local people following the building of a dam, but from China Tidal Wave, a futuristic novel published in 1991 by the writer and activist Wang Lixiong. In the novel, as a result of the central government’s relentless extracting of natural resources, the Yellow River bursts its banks, causing wide scale displacement and chaos. This event sets off a chain reaction in which several members of the ruling party make bids for power and plunge the country, and then the world, into war. In the nuclear winter that follows, those who have survived in China struggle on with what little natural resources remain, cultivating a vegetable called shugua and living in shelters that dot the ravaged land. At the end of the novel, Big Ox, a thuggish henchman of the Green Guards with a penchant for rape and torture is mauled to death by a Tibetan mastiff – the demise of the villain in the jaws of the dog symbolizing the final and grisly triumph of a ‘pure and unspoilt’ remoteness over the brutal pursuit of power.

    In parts of Tibet today, there is serious money to be made in breeding dogs to sell in China, where along with a sports car and a beautiful wife, a Tibetan mastiff is one of the three indispensable status symbols for a young man on the make. Six decades after the ‘liberation’, Tibet is being bottled and photographed, televised and sold to the mainland more than ever before, with the government undoubtedly hoping that the glossy packaging will help cover up the tricky cracks in the historical and political relationship with the motherland. The Open Up the West (Xibu da kaifa) campaign launched in 2000 aims to bring the resources of Tibet and Turkestan into more efficient sync with the industry and factories of the eastern seaboard. The showpiece of this drive, the Qinghai-Lhasa railway, was completed (ahead of schedule) six years later, enabling the more efficient transporting of Tibet’s mineral resources to mainland China, and the arrival of workers from the mainland to supply the service industries which accompany the engineers, miners and surveyors.

    Along with highways, shopping malls and the Internet have come diggers, fences and the despoiling of sacred sites; development efforts which Tibetan writer and activist Tsering Woeser calls “pseudo-modernization, essentially a kind of invasion, a sugar-coated, disguised act of violence.” An estimated two million Tibetans have been displaced or forcibly removed in preparation for infrastructure projects and mines between 2006 and 2012. Nomads are being cleared from the grasslands where they play an indispensable role in maintaining the fragile ecosystem of the Tibetan plateau, which is larger than the US states of Alaska and Texas combined, and resettled in purpose-built towns where they are euphemistically referred to as ‘ecological migrants’. Cables released by Wikileaks revealed how by 2010 the Dalai Lama had already reached the conclusion that environmental degradation in Tibet had become so severe that questions regarding political autonomy needed to be sidelined in favor of increased campaigning against the further damaging of Tibet’s natural environment. Nine major rivers are sourced on the plateau (five of these, the Yellow, Yangtze, Mekong, Indus and Brahmaputra, are among the ten longest rivers in Asia), providing irrigation, soil enrichment and support for the ecosystems on which more than a billion people depend in China, South and Southeast Asia.

    Meltdown in Tibet is not another futuristic disaster novel, although chapter subheadings like ‘Where Is the Thirsty Dragon Going to Guzzle Next?’ and ‘Why Can’t They Just Leave the Rivers Alone?’ give clues to the book’s hand-wringing and polemical tone, and mark a departure from Michael Buckley’s earlier, more tranquil guidebook writings on the Tibetan world. The book deals with two broad themes: first, how Tibet’s natural resources are increasingly featured in the schemes of a government hungry for electricity, timber, water and minerals; and second, the impact these plans are likely to have on the ecosystems, populations and politics of China’s neighbors. Scattered throughout are smaller sections on poaching and mass tourism, the changing face of Lhasa, and growing desertification in Tibet and Mongolia.

    Extraction

    The chapters dealing with dam building and water politics are the most coherent and sobering. Buckley cites research showing that the construction of “around 400 large dams” is being considered by the Indian and Chinese governments across the Himalayan watershed. The records of both New Delhi and Beijing are far from exemplary when it comes to consultation, safety and resettlement; furthermore, the Himalaya lies across an area of high seismic activity, and so would seem an irresponsible place to plan widespread digging, blasting and tunneling.

    Inside China, Buckley explains how the government has begun to look west and further upstream for the power it needs for the cities and industry of the east, partly because of a lack of space for new dams in eastern China.

  • At 200 GW, China, including the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), has the highest installed hydroelectric capacity of any country in the world (Brazil is second, with 84 GW). It also reflects (although Buckley only briefly mentions this) nascent but growing pressure from sections of Chinese society concerned about or affected by proposed dam projects. For example, the near-moratorium on new dam building during the 11th Five Year Plan (2006-2010) – despite the fact that the Plan envisioned major hydropower projects – was to some extent a result of civil-society groups and environmentalists putting pressure on the government. The 12th Plan, however, has been termed a ‘Great Leap Forward’ for dam building (one laughs at the idea of a cement lobby, but it almost certainly exists), and Buckley shows how much of the ‘Great Leap’ is poised to take place in Tibet.

    Currently, there are only a handful of ‘medium sized’ dams inside the TAR and the majority-Tibetan areas that border it, many of which are not operable year-round due to high-altitude rivers freezing up during winter. The government is planning to build twenty new dams, of which a proposed 38 GW capacity mega dam near Metok, in eastern Tibet, will be far and away the world’s largest if completed (the largest at the moment, the Three Gorges Dam in Hubei province, generates 22.5 GW, and set its own record in displacing 1.2 million people during construction). Although the area around Metok is sparsely populated, it is a site of religious significance for Tibetans and lies in an area prone to earthquakes. The most recent reminder of this was the 7.9 magnitude earthquake which struck Sichuan in May 2008 and killed 87,000 people. The political aftershocks of the dam will also be far-reaching; the Yarlung-Tsangpo river, upon which the dam will be built, becomes the Brahmaputra once it flows into India, and water-claiming on such a huge scale will undoubtedly raise tensions in New Delhi.

    Buckley also shows how the tender and contract-awarding processes for new dams are often hobbled by corruption. While laws introduced in 2003 stipulate that Environmental Impact Assessments must be carried out and approved before construction begins, local governments have been too easily swayed by the promise of immediate economic windfalls, and have given the go-ahead to those wanting to dig or build. Buckley also points out how distance from the central authorities means that there are ways around the government’s diktat:

    Work on Ahai Dam, in the upper Yangtze region, was carried out in secret by Sinohydro Corporation. Signs declaring the site a “military zone” were erected to discourage visitors. There was no EIA at Ahai Dam: authorities planning to visit the dam to approve the project were presented with a dam that was practically completed.

    Huaneng, another state-owned power company has been fined numerous times by the government for building before permission had officially been given, and yet continues to enjoy favor.

    Downstream

    The mega dams and water diversion projects planned by the Chinese government will allow China to “turn the water on or off” for countries downstream. Buckley travelled to Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia, India and Nepal, and these forays worked extremely well in expanding the scope of the book and providing glimpses of the larger ecological and geopolitical picture. Lake Tonle Sap in Cambodia, for example, floods every year, acting like a ‘back up valve’ for the Mekong river, and provides 60 percent of the annual freshwater fish catch when the floodwaters recede. Local sources attribute the disastrous 2003-04 catch – which was half of its usual volume after the lake flooded for three months instead of the usual five – to the completion of the Dachaoshan dam, upstream in Yunnan, in the same year. In Burma, Buckley reports how construction of the proposed 3200 MW Myitsone dam in the northeast, at the confluence of the Mali and N’Mai (the source of the Irrawaddy, the country’s longest river) was officially suspended in 2011. The dam would have submerged more than 60 villages, while 90 percent of the power generated would have been exported back to China, and its suspension is a “rare victory for anti-dam campaigners in Burma”. However, on a visit to Myitkyina with a “Kachin guide and a motorcycle”, Buckley is informed by locals that workers are still on-site, working by night. What they are doing is unclear, and one wishes he had stayed longer to find out, but he reports that those displaced during the original phases of construction have not been allowed to return home, leading to the conjecture that, “Chinese engineers are just biding their time, waiting for the project to resume.”

    The book also reports on the activities of Chinese state-owned enterprises in Pakistan, where dam building serves the dual purpose of power generation and territory-claiming in the disputed Northern Territories. The state-owned Gezhouba Group is helping Pakistan build the 969 MW-capacity Neelum-Jhelum dam, even as India proceeds to dam the river further upstream at Kishanganga. In northeast India, similar practices are being employed by New Delhi in the face of competing claims over the waters of the Yarlung-Tsangpo/Brahmaputra: “New Delhi argues that if it has to go to the International Court of Justice to counter Chinese dam building and diversion on the Yarlung-Tsangpo, then it must show beneficial use of the river in India by building its own dams.”

  • The displacement of nomads from the grasslands and plains of Tibet is an issue with ecological as well as moral implications, and one dealt with at length in the book. With knowledge of the land, weather patterns, flora and fauna, nomadic families and their herds are part of the fragile ecosystem, the “stewards of Tibet’s grasslands”. The central government has been actively discouraging this way of life, claiming that a sedentary population can be better educated and cared for. Buckley has suspicions as to the real reasons for the resettlement programs: the freedom of movement the nomads enjoy, and the presence of valuable minerals like lithium, copper and gold underneath the land they roam over. A conversation with a nomad family near the town of Litang is interesting. The head of the family tells Buckley through an interpreter:

    There has been a lot of pressure to sell their animals and settle… He says that he will stay on the grasslands as long as he can, because he has talked to others that settled and they were very disappointed with their new lives. They were no longer free. Everything suddenly came down to a question of money and having to buy food and clothing. Here, he says, he has his freedom – and he never pays for his food or water.

    Sadly, Buckley does not explore what life is like inside one of the resettlement towns, although he highlights how exactly nomads are being forced off the grasslands, and, if not into towns, into smaller fenced-in areas, where overgrazing quickly becomes a problem. This is partly achieved through the creation of what he terms ‘Paper Parks’. These are huge areas of land designated as national parks or protected areas (and so off-limits for nomads), inside which mining companies are often free to prospect for minerals.

    Within China


    The scope of Meltdown in Tibet is impressive. Buckley does a fine job in bringing together current research on Tibet’s environment and the plans Beijing has for harnessing it to maintain the economic growth it sees as a guarantor of political stability. He is clearly at home writing on things Tibetan, and his anxiety and concern for the preservation of Tibetan culture are clear. However, throughout, the polemic follows a too-simplistic ‘environmental Tibetan / materialist Chinese’ agenda, to use the phrase of academic Graham E Clarke. “The tourists and their guides”, Buckley writes of Chinese visiting Tibet, “show little interest in Tibetan culture and religion. Their interest lies in scenery, fresh air, blue skies, photography and shopping.” He backs up this generalization with anecdotal evidence, but seems to forget that European and North American tourists go to Tibet for the same reasons; they too smoke cigarettes where they shouldn’t, and are just as capable of being patronizing and disrespectful of local sensibilities. Anyone who has travelled in Tibet will know this. The arbitrary suspicion of almost everything Chinese firstly betrays Buckley’s politics – common to the rest of the adventure writer/climber/rafter crowd who yearn for Tibet to be free, pristine and unexplored again – but also, more damagingly, does not allow his book to seriously entertain the possibility that ways of combating environmental degradation in Tibet could come from within China itself.

    Environmental activism is currently one of the few domains of Chinese politics where protest and dissent are somewhat tolerated. Zed Books’ China and the Environment: The Green Revolution and Joy Zhang and Michael Barr’s Green Politics in China (both published in 2013) explore the growth in environmental NGOs and activism, and tell us that even if green politics in China is not of the confrontational kind we are familiar with elsewhere, it is certainly happening, and sometimes with encouraging results. Following the publishing of data by monitors in the US Embassy in Beijing in 2009-10, which revealed the catastrophically high presence of PM 2.5 molecules in the air, the ‘I Monitor the Air for My Country’ campaign started by the NGO Green Beagle asked citizens to take their own PM 2.5 measurements and upload their findings online. With its catchy, social media-friendly slogan, the ‘citizen science’ campaign showed that it is possible for a group of people outside the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to challenge the party’s position (or lack of one) on an issue that is both political and environmental, even if for a limited period.

    Examples of this concern extending to the Tibetan plateau are harder to come by. But they are there. Mining Tibet, published by the Tibet Information Network in 2002 quotes a paper by Chinese academics Hu Angang and Wen Jun published in the government’s China Tibetology journal, in which they argue that the state’s current mining policies are widening the wealth gap between Han migrant workers and local Tibetans, and should be scaled back in favor of sustainable development initiatives which involve local nomads and farmers. In 2011, ‘Globe Trekker: Across the Kekexili’, a publicity campaign by the Snow Beer brand which aimed to send an adventure group to Kekexili reserve in northwest Tibet sparked opposition from a number of environmental campaigners in mainland China mobilized by Weibo and other social media.

  • There are occasions where it seems Buckley’s book is about to take the ambitious and much-needed step to look at the potential for change from within China. Following a discussion of the successful campaign from 2004 to 2007 to halt the construction of a mega dam at Tiger Leaping Gorge in Yunnan, Buckley writes: “The fate of Tibet’s rivers lies with courageous figures… triggering change from within China.” Earlier, he makes the observation that “Chinese environmental NGOs and activism are tolerated, it seems… But Tibetan action is viewed as subversion.” Neither of these openings are followed up, which is a lost opportunity for the book and its author to take a great leap and enquire into whether the Chinese environmental activism that is currently tolerated also has Tibet on its radar, and if so, whether it could be mobilized to fight the government’s policies on the plateau (or to begin with, in Tibetan areas outside the TAR where restrictions on assembly and dissent do not seem to be as stringent). Hunting for scenarios or instances of ecologically minded Chinese and Tibetans working together would have required much arduous research in Chinese and Tibetan. But if such examples could be unearthed, then surely here was a new topic worth exploring which could have challenged the conventional narrative on Tibet and China.

    Possibilities

    The renegotiating of Tibet’s status within the ‘motherland’ has been unfolding for a while now. That closer integration with the mainland has so far been characterized by, among other things, the accelerated extraction and exploitation of Tibet’s natural resources should hardly be surprising, depressing as it is. The prices the inhabitants of resource-rich peripheries must pay for their modernity are the same everywhere. The bonds that bind Tibet to China are certainly tightening in many ways, and indeed seem to be shrinking spaces for dissent regarding autonomy and religious rights. But those who are concerned about the fate of Tibet’s environment need to be working out how they can be effective in this changing climate, and what kinds of opportunities it could offer if they learn to negotiate inside it.

    Within China, it is not only technocrats and government planners who have visions for what a future Tibet will look like. A small yet growing number of academics, journalists and activists already see a bigger picture in which the preservation of the plateau’s rivers and ecosystems is in everyone’s interest as floods, desertification and soil degradation increasingly affect the lives of those living downstream. Not every tourist from Shanghai drops litter in Lhasa or defaces statues in monasteries, just as every Belgian or Swiss visitor does not possess an inherent capacity to understand the plight of the Tibetans and the exclusive right to speak up for them. We need to begin accepting that growing numbers of Chinese people are also unhappy that Tibet’s mountains are being bulldozed and its rivers blocked up, and that they may in fact be more effective torchbearers than those of us in South Asia or in the West. One would hope that if criticism and opposition to the government’s environmental policies on the plateau could be raised as part of the more mainstream Chinese environmental agenda (and include familiar and tolerated Chinese voices), then the ‘splittist’ label would be less easily applied and voices from Tibet less easily dismissed out of hand. An ‘environmental Tibetan / environmental Chinese’ agenda is surely plausible.

    In an episode of the US sitcom Friends from 2004, Phoebe explains indignantly, to audience laughter, why her eccentric, steel-drum playing friend Marjorie is so smelly: “Hey! She will shower when Tibet is free!” Throwaway, pop-culture references like this illustrate how in the West the Tibet issue is effectively dead in terms of questions of political autonomy and religious freedom, even as Tibetans are portrayed as embodiments of compassion and suffering. Meanwhile, as its political and economic clout grows, the CCP continues ignoring the impassioned criticism of its Tibet policies that comes from abroad. Those in the West who have taken up the Tibetans’ cause and chafe at this deafness, often seem to forget that for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries, China was bullied, pillaged and shamed by a cohort of rapacious foreign powers and treated with contempt on the world stage. A sign at one of the entrances to the Summer Palace of Qing emperors in Beijing (which was destroyed by British and French soldiers in 1860) now reads ‘Do not forget the national shame, rebuild the Chinese nation.’

    Such jingoism does not bode well for the rivers, forests and mountains of the Tibetan plateau. And, when choices need to be made, will those dwelling in the mega cities of mainland China choose a less reliable electricity supply so that a dam need not be built on a river thousands of miles upstream? Possibly not. But – and this is a painfully obvious fact – Tibet’s environment is only going to be saved if people in China desire it to be. For the moment, there may be some breathing space to work out how this is to be done. In Spoiling Tibet: China and Resource Nationalism on the Roof of the World, another excellent book recently published by Zed, Gabriel Lafitte concludes that while Tibet is ‘primed’ for wider scale exploitation, this process has not yet begun in earnest. He also writes: “There is a deep spiritual hunger in China (jingshen weiji), for guidance as to how life can be made more meaningful than the endless consumer pursuit of endless wants.”

    The faceless, monolithic and all-consuming behemoth that we are told is China, has its own inefficiencies and failings. It also has ‘courageous figures’ like Wang Lixiong who want change – individuals who are mentioned only in passing in Buckley’s narrative. The excluding of such individuals is unfortunate and demonstrates an unwillingness to come to terms with the realities of Tibet’s political and economic situation today, however distasteful it may be. And when it should be the task of those who have long-standing connections with Tibet and deep sympathy for its people, to tell us where possibilities for saving its environment lie, even if they might be in China, Meltdown‘s refusal to entertain any such possibility can only ensure that the picture it paints of the future is a dark and hopeless one.

    ~Ross Adkin is a freelance journalist based in Kathmandu.

    (This is an essay from our March 2015 print quarterly ‘Labour and its discontents’. See more from the issue here.)

  • Spirituality Science – What is Tibet’s Destiny? Tibet’s Subjugation by Red China will cease when Chinese people reconcile with Power, Force, or Agency called Destiny or Fate.

DOOMED PRESIDENT GERALD FORD’S FRATERNITY HOUSE BUILDING DISCOVERS REDEEMER

DOOMED PRESIDENT GERALD FORD’S FRATERNITY HOUSE BUILDING DISCOVERS REDEEMER

DOOMED PRESIDENT GERALD FORD’S FRATERNITY BUILDING DISCOVERS REDEEMER. DKE ‘SHANT’ BUILDING AT 611 1/2 EAST. WILLIAM STREET, ANN ARBOR OBTAINED NEW LEASE ON LIFE.

I speak of Doomed Presidency of Nixon-Kissinger and Gerald R. Ford in the context of Doomed US Policy they initiated and followed. US Policy doomed for it fundamentally violates values cherished by Founding Members who enshrined those Principles in ‘Declaration of Independence’ to establish USA as Free Nation.

The historical legacy of Doomed Nixon-Kissinger and Ford Presidency trapped my life and military career since 1971. I left India in 1984 in search of ‘REDEEMER’ or ‘DISCOVERER’ to find the true purpose in my life.

DOOMED PRESIDENT GERALD FORD’S FRATERNITY HOUSE BUILDING DISCOVERS REDEEMER TO GET NEW LEASE ON LIFE.

My readers may not be surprised to note my interest in a story published by MLive.com giving account of historic DKE Shant Building at 611 ½ East William Street, Ann Arbor. Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity is not able to use this Building for their activities and listed it for lease. To my utter surprise, this Doomed Building used by Gerald R. Ford is discovered by ‘REDEEMER ANN ARBOR’ Church for their Worship Service. This historic Building got a new tenant to keep its life. The Story gives me Hope of reaching my true destination in life with guidance from my personal REDEEMER.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER

MLive.com

Historic DKE Shant building on Ann Arbor’s William Street listed for lease for retail user

Doomed President Gerald Ford’s Fraternity House Building Discovers Redeemer to get New Lease on Life. Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity House, Shant at 611 1/2 East William Street, Ann Arbor.

Doomed President Ford’s Fraternity House Building in Ann Arbor.

Doomed President Ford’s Fraternity House Building in Ann Arbor Discovers Redeemer.

 

 

 

 

 

Doomed President Gerald Ford’s Fraternity House Building in Ann Arbor Discovers Redeemer.                                       

Doomed President Ford’s Fraternity House Building Discovers Redeemer.

Doomed President Ford’s Fraternity House Building in Ann Arbor Discovers Redeemer.

Doomed President Ford’s Fraternity House Building in Ann Arbor Discovers Redeemer.

Doomed President Ford’s Fraternity House Building in Ann Arbor Discovers Redeemer.

Doomed President Ford’s Fraternity House Building Discovers Redeemer.

Doomed President Ford’s Fraternity House Building in Ann Arbor.

Doomed President Ford’s Fraternity House Building in Ann Arbor Discovers Redeemer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Shant building, which is owned by the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity and located at 611 1/2 E. William St. is up for lease. Melanie Maxwell | The Ann Arbor News

Melanie Maxwell | melaniemaxwell@mlive.com

By Lizzy Alfs | lizzyalfs@mlive.com

on October 02, 2014 at 5:25 AM

Set behind a seven-foot brick wall and a padlocked cast-iron gate in downtown Ann Arbor is an unusual historic building in transition.

After serving as a space for weekly Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity rituals and later, as the international headquarters for the fraternity, the 135-year-old building at 611 1/2 E. William St. is listed for lease for a retail user.

The building is located between Hunter House Hamburgers and Tianchu Restaurant.

An online real estate listing markets the building, known as the Shant, as the “most unique building on the University of Michigan campus,” noting it’s “the first time the property has been offered to the public.” The 2,000-square-foot space is listed for lease with Colliers International Ann Arbor for an annual $35 per square foot.

“Very rare opportunity for retail coffee shop or similar uses for very unique original space on campus,” the listing says.

Listing broker Jim Chaconas described the Shant as “the building that everybody wants to know.”

A long-time fixture near campus

The Shant sticks out in its surroundings – an evolving near-campus retail area – although it’s set back from the sidewalk and behind a tall brick wall. The building has retained its historic character as the area around it continues to develop.

Doomed President Ford’s Fraternity House Building in Ann Arbor Discovers Redeemer to get New Lease on Life.

The historic Shant building is located on a narrow lot at 611 1/2 E. William St. Ben Freed | The Ann Arbor News 

The Shant has a rich history in Ann Arbor; architect William Le Baron Jenney, later known as the “father of the American skyscraper,” designed the building for the Omicron Chapter of DKE at U-M. Jenney taught the university’s first courses in architecture.

The cornerstone for the chapter hall on East William Street was laid in 1878 and construction finished the following year.

As for the building’s name, people aren’t quite certain where it comes from.

“Nobody really knows,” said Sarah Christensen, DKE’s administrative director.

Designed in thirteenth century French style, the two-story building features a stone foundation, intricate wood arches, a vaulted ceiling and stained glass windows with the DKE symbol.

Doomed President Ford’s Fraternity House Building in Ann Arbor Discovers Redeemer to get New Lease on Life.

A historic photo of the Shant shows the building before 1901, when the brick wall was constructed to keep people off the property. Photo courtesy of the Bentley Historical Library, University of Michigan 

When the building was completed, it was used for weekly chapter meetings and other rituals that remain a mystery to those outside the DKE fraternity.

The building was never used to house fraternity members, who stayed at a house at 609 S. State, then a house at 1912 Geddes before DKE secured its current home at 1004 Olivia Ave.

Over time, DKE has lifted the veil of secrecy surrounding the Shant building. Years ago, only fraternity members were allowed to step foot inside the house and the brick wall outside was constructed in 1901 to keep people off the property.

Christensen said in the 1970s and 1980s, DKE members and alumni would often use the Shant building as a gathering place on football Saturdays. People would sometimes watch the games on a television on the building’s second floor.

DKE almost sold the Shant in 1980 as the fraternity faced financial troubles. A fundraising effort led by DKE alumni David K. Easlick saved the building and ownership was transferred to the newly formed Rampant Lion Foundation, which supports DKE’s educational activities.

Listing broker Jim Chaconas described the Shant as “the building that everybody wants to know.”

Today, the Omicron Chapter of DKE only meets inside the Shant about twice a year.

“It might be an alumni event, it could be a physical pinning of the pledges,” Christensen said.

The fraternity’s international headquarters rents the building’s first floor from the Rampant Lion Foundation.

A look inside the building

The DKE fraternity is proud of its history.

The walls inside the Shant are lined with photographs of DKE alumni, including five U.S. presidents: Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, U-M grad Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush.

Doomed President Ford’s Fraternity House Building in Ann Arbor Discovers Redeemer to get New Lease on Life. Delta Kappa Epsilon Fraternity Flag.

The DKE flag on display at the Shant building in 2009.The Ann Arbor News file photo 

The Gerald Ford library is on the building’s second floor, featuring works by and about DKE members.

Old DKE artifacts, including a paddle from Yale’s DKE chapter, are on display on the second floor. One photograph shows the DKE flag when it was carried to the North Pole by its discoverer.

Bricks on the Shant’s outdoor patio feature names of DKE alumni, including Gerald Ford, who have donated to the Rampant Lion Foundation.

New life for the Shant

The Shant building is listed for lease as the building is in need of repairs to its four architectural chimney features. Christensen said the fraternity organization does not have the cash flow to make the necessary repairs, and selling the building would be a last resort.

The building has a 2014 assessed value of $209,300. The property’s 2013 taxes were about $4,070.

A lease agreement with a future tenant would offer discounted rent while repairs are made to the building.

“The idea is that we would rent the space and do an agreement with a reduced rent amount and the tenant would pay for necessary repairs,” Christensen said. “The tenant would get a beautiful, unusual building to lease and then we would have the building maintained.”

Chaconas, of Colliers, said to restore the chimneys with the original materials would cost upward of $60,000. To rebuild them with different materials but a similar appearance would cost about $12,000.

Chaconas said a new tenant would not alter the character of the building.

“I’ve gone to the Historical Society and City of Ann Arbor and they are going to work with us so we don’t have to disturb the structure of the Shant,” he said.

Chaconas said he’s received preliminary interest in the building and had some showings. Examples of retail tenants he cited include a coffee shop, a wine bar or a small restaurant. Christensen mentioned a yoga studio as another example.

“It’s in a hot little area, and you’ve got your outside seating,” Chaconas said. “The upstairs could be seating, and downstairs could be a little coffee bar. …Somebody is going to do really well there.”

Lizzy Alfs is a business reporter for The Ann Arbor News. Reach her at 734-255-2638, email her lizzyalfs@mlive.com or follow her on Twitter

Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

© 2017 MLive Media Group. All rights reserved (About Us).

The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of MLive Media Group.

Community Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site.

Inserted from <http://www.mlive.com/business/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2014/10/historic_dke_shant_building_on.html>

DOOMED PRESIDENT GERALD FORD’S FRATERNITY HOUSE BUILDING DISCOVERS REDEEMER TO GET NEW LEASE ON LIFE.

DOOMED PRESIDENT GERALD FORD’S FRATERNITY HOUSE BUILDING IN ANN ARBOR DISCOVERS REDEEMER TO GET NEW LEASE ON LIFE.

A brick donated by former President Gerald Ford sits in the ground outside the Shant, the traditional gathering house for members of Delta Kappa Epsilon’s Omicron chapter at the University of Michigan. Ford was a member of DKE. Angela Cesere | AnnArbor.com                                                                                                                                                                                                            

DOOMED PRESIDENT GERALD FORD’S FRATERNITY HOUSE BUILDING DISCOVERS REDEEMER TO GET NEW LEASE ON LIFE.

DOOMED PRESIDENCY OF GERALD FORD – AMERICA’S UNFINISHED WAR

DOOMED PRESIDENCY OF GERALD FORD – AMERICA’S UNFINISHED WAR

Doomed Presidency of Gerald Ford – America’s Unfinished War.

Nixon-Kissinger and Gerald Ford initiated era of Doomed US Presidency when they concluded War against Communism through negotiated Surrender. Unchecked Communist Expansionism in Southern Asia poses severe risks to vital US security interests in Asia-Pacific Region.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER

Doomed Presidency of Gerald Ford – America’s Unfinished War. The Fall of Saigon announced by President Ford on April 23, 1975.

Clipped from: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-says-that-war-is-finished-for-america?

FORD SAYS THAT WAR IS FINISHED FOR AMERICA

At a speech at Tulane University, President Gerald Ford says the Vietnam War is finished as far as America is concerned. “Today, Americans can regain the sense of pride that existed before Vietnam. But it cannot be achieved by re-fighting a war.” This was devastating news to the South Vietnamese, who were desperately pleading for U.S. support as the North Vietnamese surrounded Saigon for the final assault on the capital city.

The North Vietnamese had launched a major offensive in March to capture the provincial capital of Ban Me Thuot (Darlac province) in the Central Highlands. The South Vietnamese defenders there fought very poorly and were quickly overwhelmed by the North Vietnamese attackers. Despite previous promises by both Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford to provide support, the United States did nothing. In an attempt to reposition his forces for a better defense, South Vietnamese President Nguyen Van Thieu ordered his forces in the Highlands to withdraw to more defensible positions to the south. What started out as a reasonably orderly withdrawal soon degenerated into a panic that spread throughout the South Vietnamese armed forces. The South Vietnamese abandoned Pleiku and Kontum in the Highlands with very little fighting and the North Vietnamese pressed the attack from the west and north. In quick succession, Quang Tri, Hue, and Da Nang in the north fell to the communist onslaught. The North Vietnamese continued to attack south along the coast, defeating the South Vietnamese forces at each encounter.

As the North Vietnamese forces closed on the approaches to Saigon, the politburo in Hanoi issued an order to Gen. Van Tien Dung to launch the “Ho Chi Minh Campaign,” the final assault on Saigon itself. Dung ordered his forces into position for the final battle.

The South Vietnamese 18th Division made a valiant final stand at Xuan Loc, 40 miles northeast of Saigon, in which the South Vietnamese soldiers destroyed three of Dung’s divisions. However, the South Vietnamese finally succumbed to the superior North Vietnamese numbers. With the fall of Xuan Loc on April 21 and Ford’s statement at Tulane, it was apparent that the North Vietnamese would be victorious. President Thieu resigned and transferred authority to Vice President Tran Van Huong before fleeing Saigon on April 25.

By April 27, the North Vietnamese had completely encircled Saigon and began to maneuver for their final assault. By the morning of April 30, it was all over. When the North Vietnamese tanks crashed through the gates of the Presidential Palace in Saigon, the South Vietnamese surrendered and the Vietnam War was officially over.

DOOMED PRESIDENCY OF GERALD FORD – AMERICA’S UNFINISHED WAR. NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON DID NOT FINISH AMERICA’S WAR ON COMMUNIST EXPANSIONISM.

NO CHINA, NO RUSSIA – U.S. MUST CHOOSE TIBET EQUILIBRIUM

 NO CHINA, NO RUSSIA – U.S. MUST CHOOSE TIBET EQUILIBRIUM

NO RUSSIA, NO CHINA – U.S. MUST CHOOSE TIBET EQUILIBRIUM. RUSSIAN EMPIRE IN 1913.

United States must define Foreign Policy before choosing allies. “AMERICA FIRST” Foreign Policy demands choosing “TIBET EQUILIBRIUM.”

NO RUSSIA, NO CHINA – U.S. MUST CHOOSE TIBET EQUILIBRIUM. QING CHINA EMPIRE CIRCA. 1820.

Both Russia and China are major military powers of world competing for Superpower status. To achieve ‘Balance of Power’ to restore ‘Power Equilibrium’, America must choose Tibet because of its strategic location.

NO RUSSIA, NO CHINA – U.S. MUST CHOOSE TIBET EQUILIBRIUM. BRITISH EMPIRE 1921.

Tibet is second largest nation of the region and Tibet’s Independence from military occupation is the only real solution to contain and engage military powers like Russia and China.

NO RUSSIA, NO CHINA – U.S. MUST CHOOSE TIBET EQUILIBRIUM. A SATELLITE’S EYE VIEW OF TIBETAN PLATEAU.

  • Major Retd Rudranarasimham, DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER

CHINA OR RUSSIA? U.S. MAY HAVE TO CHOOSE AN ALLY

NEWSWEEK

Newsweek Europe

NO RUSSIA, NO CHINA – U.S. MUST CHOOSE TIBET EQUILIBRIUM.

© Provided by IBT Media (UK) RTX2QS13

This article originally appeared on The Conversation.

Forty-five years ago, last February, U.S. President Richard Nixon returned from a visit to China that shocked the world and unsettled leaders in Moscow, who were awaiting a visit from Nixon a few months later.

Soviet leaders wondered if they were finally witnessing the birth of a U.S.-China alliance that they had feared ever since the breakdown of the Sino-Soviet alliance in the early 1960s.

As Washington and the media convulse over every new outrage emanating from Moscow, while President Trump repeatedly asks, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we actually got along with Russia?” U.S. policymakers are faced with the same choice between Russia and China, though this time the stakes might be even higher.

The history of persistent tensions between Russia and China suggests two choices: Accommodate and reconcile with Russia to balance against the greater power—China. Or, align with China to defend a rules-based international order from its most powerful antagonist—Russia.

It should be clear by now that we can no longer oppose Russia and China at the same time. Though that route might seem tempting and natural, given the historical aspirations of U.S. foreign policy to protect territorial sovereignty, promote human rights and provide a framework for free trade, we are no longer equal to the task.

At a minimum, that would require decisive U.S. action in Syria, firm military support for the government in Kiev, a drastic military buildup of NATO forces across Eastern Europe and a more confrontational posture in the South and East China seas. Doing that would further stretch  a U.S. military that is already facing a personnel shortage. It would also represent a burden that the American people apparently no longer wish to carry.

Lost in the discussion of whether Trump’s “America First” bravado reflects militarism or isolationism are the ways in which our options have been shaped by the administration that preceded him.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, second from right, and China President Xi Jinping watch the Victory Day parade at Red Square in Moscow, Russia, May 9, 2015. Reuters

We have only begun to reckon with the foreign policy legacy of Barack Obama, but he has clearly done more to shape the current global predicament than Trump has. When the Russian, Iranian and Turkish foreign ministers met in Moscow in the final weeks of the Obama administration to solve the Syrian crisis by themselves without inviting
the U.S., they were making a startling declaration: The nation that had once declared itself to be “indispensable” was now very clearly dispensable. It would have been unthinkable at any point since Pearl Harbor for American interests to be discounted so brazenly in solving the most pressing international crisis.

It is hard to separate the factors that brought us to this point. Is this simply an inevitable product of relative, or even absolute, American decline? Is it a product of a president who sought to “lead from behind” and whose fundamental foreign policy principle was that sins of commission are always worse than sins of omission? Or did Obama conclude he was dealing with a country, already exhausted by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that was no longer willing to shoulder the burden of defending the free world? Either way, Trump has inherited a country that is no longer willing and able to play the leadership role it once did in world affairs.

So where do we go from here? If we cannot oppose both Russia and China, then we need to compromise with at least one of them.

MAKE FRIENDS WITH RUSSIA?

Arguing for a Russian alignment is the notion that China already does more damage to American interests around the globe than Russia does. China damages U.S. economic interests through unfair trade practices, our standing in Asia by undermining our alliances, and our ability to promote democracy, particularly in Africa, by offering aid and investment without good governance conditions. As China grows more powerful and assertive, its efforts to drive the U.S. out of East Asia, coupled with increasing challenges to American interests around the globe, will amount to a full-spectrum challenge to the current U.S. position in the world.

In contrast, Russia’s challenges to American interests are relative pinpricks. Russia does not have the ability to turn either Eastern Europe or the Middle East into its own sphere of influence. It is even losing the competition for economic influence in Central Asia, its own post-Soviet backyard, to China.

Putin might not be an evil dictator bent on doing as much damage to the West as possible, but rather a spurned pragmatist with a realistic view of Russia’s position in the world who had initially hoped to cooperate with Western leaders, but has been embittered by poor treatment by them. Putin’s Russia, therefore, would represent not a mortal threat to the international world order, but rather a missed opportunity, one that can still perhaps be salvaged.

OR CHOOSE CHINA INSTEAD?

Alternatively, we could align with China against Russia.

This approach makes sense if you believe Putin began as a pragmatist, but that was only a temporary tack, given his KGB background and nationalist authoritarian inclinations. But now that he has seen how weak his opponents are and how much havoc he can wreak, he has set his sights higher. Fifteen years ago he might not have imagined he could break NATO or the EU, but now that seems within reach, and nothing will deter him from this chance to realize the fondest dreams of his Soviet predecessors. What could we possibly offer him to match such dreams? He would revel in the chaos that would follow.

Chaos, however, is precisely the opposite of what the leaders in Beijing desire. China’s resurgence is built on a world of peace and trade, a world ultimately sustained by American military strength. For China to seek to challenge such an order, it would have to imagine that it could not only fill the role the U.S. currently fills, but manage the transition in such a way as to avoid a chaotic interlude. Chinese leaders are far too clear-headed for such a gambit, and in any case they see no need to rush such a transition before conditions for it have matured.

President Xi Jinping is anyway preoccupied with ensuring the indefinite continuation of Communist Party rule. What could jeopardize that more than a world in chaos and economic disaster?

IS THE CHOICE EVEN OURS?

With Russia against China? With China against Russia?

There is no question such a choice is unpalatable. Not only would either alternative involve morally difficult concessions, but having to make the choice at all implies that the United States is no longer capable of defending the world order it has long sponsored. This is a difficult reality to accept.

And broaching the possibility of such a choice leads to more difficult questions.

Could Russia even be persuaded to align with the U.S. against China or China against Russia? What would we have to offer either side? What would this mean for our allies, especially in Europe and East Asia? The latter question might not be as insoluble as it may seem, because our allies have long since begun anticipating just such a scenario. But if we are no longer able and willing to perform the role we once did, we need to reckon with the consequences.

Jeremy Friedman is Assistant Professor, Business, Government, and the International Economy, Harvard Business School.

 

NO RUSSIA, NO CHINA – U.S. MUST CHOOSE TIBET EQUILIBRIUM. RUSSIAN EMPIRE 1914.                                                                                                                                                                                              

NO RUSSIA, NO CHINA – U.S. MUST CHOOSE TIBET EQUILIBRIUM. THE CHINESE  EMPIRE 1910.                                                                                                                                                                                      

NO RUSSIA, NO CHINA – U.S. MUST CHOOSE TIBET EQUILIBRIUM.                                      

NO RUSSIA, NO CHINA – U.S. MUST CHOOSE TIBET EQUILIBRIUM.

NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON – UNFINISHED WAR IN SOUTHERN ASIA

NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON – UNFINISHED WAR IN SOUTHERN ASIA

NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON – UNFINISHED WAR IN SOUTHERN ASIA. DOOMED GUN OF DOOM DOOMA SYMBOLIZES DOOMED US – CHINA POLICY.

United States fought War in Vietnam to engage and contain the spread of Communist influence in Southern Asia. Due to Nixon-Kissinger Vietnam Treason, this War has never finished. This War is about restoring Balance of Power in Southern Asia. The Power Equilibrium shifted dangerously in favor of Communists when Red China invaded and occupied Tibet, South Asia’s second largest nation. In terms of size, and geographical location, Tibet is of high priority as compared to defending territorial rights of nations like Japan, Philippines, or Vietnam. Red China cannot claim sovereignty over Tibet and her illegal military occupation cannot wipe out the long history of Tibet’s independence. Eviction of Tibet’s illegal military occupier represents Unfinished War in Southern Asia and it cannot be avoided.

NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON – UNFINISHED WAR IN SOUTHERN ASIA.

I will ask my readers to tell the US Congress and The White House to reverse the course of Nixon-Kissinger Doomed China Policy.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER

Our war with China another Vietnam War in the making

THE SOUTH CHINA SEA GAMBIT

NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON – UNFINISHED WAR IN SOUTHERN ASIA.

In this photo released by China’s Xinhua News Agency, a Russian naval ship arrives in port in Zhanjiang in Southern China’s Guangdong Province, Monday, Sept. 12, 2016. The Chinese and Russian navies launched eight days of war games.

By BRUCE FEIN – – FRIDAY, JANUARY 27, 2017

A disastrous, purposeless war with China to defend the global credibility of the United States is imminent. Only vocal citizen opposition to the war communicated to the Congress and the White House can prevent our self-ruination. It happened in 2013 to prevent President Obama from another trillion-dollar fool’s errand against Syria. The system still works, if citizens will use it.

Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson testified on Jan. 11, 2017, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the United States would deny China access to islands in the South China Sea over which China claims sovereignty. (The artificial islands are thousands of miles from the continental United States and irrelevant to invincible self-defense). Mr. Tillerson declared that China’s building and militarization of the islands was “akin to Russia’s taking Crimea” from Ukraine.

He bugled: “We’re going to have to send China a clear signal that, first, the island-building stops and, second, your access to those islands also is not going to be allowed.” (How do you think the United States would respond if China denied us access to Guantanamo Bay Naval Base?)

The White House reiterated on Jan. 24, 2017, that the United States would prevent China from accessing the South China Sea islands China claims, and hinted at an American blockade. A blockade would mean war, according to a nationalist Chinese newspaper. (A blockade assumes a state of war.) Australia, a longstanding United States ally in the Asia Pacific region, balked at participation.

The White House – Tillerson bellicosity aligns with everything the United States has done since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2011 announced a “pivot” to Asia to encircle China. We have sought to deny China a regional sphere of influence that we have exerted for almost two centuries beginning with the Monroe Doctrine. We have established a Marine training base in Darwin, Australia. We are building a THADD missile defense system in South Korea. We have negotiated the use of five military training bases in the Philippines. We have supported Vietnam in its South China Sea maritime dispute with China. We have sent aircraft carriers there. We have declared an obligation to defend Japan’s claim to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands disputed by China.

The United States has accused China of currency manipulation and threatened to impose prohibitive tariffs on Chinese imports.

These unfriendly acts are the very definition of encirclement.

Chinese resentment against the west and the United States has been building for centuries. The First Opium War (1839-42), fought by Britain, was precipitated by China’s refusal to legalize opium. It ended with the Treaty of Nanking, which indemnified merchants for confiscated opium, granted the British extraterritoriality, opened five treaty ports, and ceded Hong Kong.

The Second Opium War (1856-60) was fought by the British to compel China to open up its ports and interior to Western trade. Other Western powers piggybacked on Chinese concessions to Britain through most-favored-nation clauses in a series of “unequal treaties.”

The 1894-95 Sino-Japanese War concluded in the Treaty of Shimonoseki by which China was obliged to recognize the independence of Korea; to cede Taiwan, the Pescadores Islands, and the Liaodong (south Manchurian) Peninsula to Japan ; to pay an indemnity of 200,000,000 taels to Japan; and to open the ports of Shashi, Chongqing, Suzhou, and Hangzhou to Japanese trade.

These Western and Japanese humiliations sparked the 1900 Boxer Rebellion to expel western spheres of influence. An international force featuring British, Russian, American, Japanese, French and German troops relieved Peking (Beijing) after fighting their way through much of northern China. The victors agreed that China would not be partitioned further. In September 1901, the Peking (Beijing) Protocol was signed. Foreign nations received extremely favorable commercial treaties, foreign troops were permanently stationed in Peking (Beijing), and China was forced to pay $333 million dollars as penalty for its rebellion.

The United States intervened in the Chinese Civil War (1946-49) in favor of Gen. Chiang Kai-shek against Mao Zedong. After Chiang was driven off the mainland to Taiwan in 1949, the United States launched covert actions against the People’s Republic of China seeking the overthrow of Mao.

Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s adventurism during the Korean War provoked China to intervene with more than 1 million troops.

Depend upon it. What will provoke war against China will be a professed need to defend our credibility everywhere on the planet. It will be said that if we do not fight China over the South and East China Sea islands as we have threatened, Russia will be emboldened to attack the Baltic States or Eastern Europe, Iran will be emboldened to attack Israel and destabilize its Sunni rivals, and North Korea will be emboldened to attack South Korea and Japan.

The Han Chinese is a proud people, and China is a proud nation. China invented gunpowder and paper. It gave the world Confucius and Sun Tzu. It possesses hundreds of nuclear weapons. After suffering humiliation and subjugation by Western imperial powers for centuries, China will fight the United States for its own sphere of influence in the South China and East China Seas.

China will never bow to the double standards of the United States. We have intervened in Mexico, Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile and Grenada to maintain our sphere of influence in Central and South America and the Caribbean. Our schoolmarm-like rebuke of China over its assertion of regional hegemony takes audacity to a new level.

The Han Chinese is every bit or more nationalist than were the Vietnamese who bested the United States in the Vietnam War. The morale of United States troops in Vietnam suffered terribly because the war was about an abstraction — global American credibility — not about defending the United States from aggression.

The same will be true in our war with China, and the morale of our troops will suffer accordingly. We will be defeated for the same reasons we were defeated in the Vietnam War.

This looming calamity can be forestalled if American citizens immediately flood the White House and Congress with phone calls and emails voicing vehement opposing war with China absent actual unprovoked Chinese aggression against the United States or a Chinese declaration of war. That would represent the high water mark of self-government celebrated in the Declaration of Independence.

© Copyright 2017 The Washington Times, LLC|3600 New York Avenue NE | Washington, DC 20002 |202-636-3000


Inserted from <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/27/us-impending-war-china/>

NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON – UNFINISHED WAR IN SOUTHERN ASIA. DOOMED GUN OF DOOM DOOMA SYMBOLIZES DOOMED US – CHINA POLICY.

NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON – THE CIA’S CANCELLED WAR

NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON – THE CIA’S CANCELLED WAR

NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON – THE CIA’S CANCELLED WAR.

‘TIBET: THE CIA’S CANCELLED WAR’ fails to describe Nixon-Kissinger Vietnam Treason during 1971-72 when Americans were fighting a bloody War in Vietnam against Communists supported by the Soviet Union and Red China. As I was part of this CIA Mission in Tibet, I knew that Tibet and India were willing to help the US by fighting against Communists inside Tibet rather than directly engaging Communists in Vietnam. Tibet and India want to choose their Battlefield in full support of the US Policy to engage and contain the spread of Communism. The Central Intelligence Agency or CIA has no vested powers to wage or fight wars. “The Cancelled War” is simply an act of Treason. The 37th President of the United States chose to provide support and comfort to the Enemy during War waged on behalf of the United States.

In 1971-72, CIA Mission in Tibet never ended. The Mission continued without direct participation of American nationals. I can appreciate CIA’s unwillingness to divulge the truth about its Mission which is always sanctioned by the executive powers vested in the US President. In my analysis, this War will be fought to restore Balance of Power in Southern Asia.

Rudranarasimham, Rebbapragada

DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER

TIBET: THE CIA’S CANCELLED WAR

JONATHAN MIRSKY

NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON – CIA’S CANCELLED WAR

Lhamo Tsering Collection

Resistance fighters on the Tibetan border during the early years of the CIA’s Tibet program

For much of the past century, US relations with Tibet have been characterized by kowtowing to the Chinese and hollow good wishes for the Dalai Lama. As early as 1908, William Rockhill, a US diplomat, advised the Thirteenth Dalai Lama that “close and friendly relations with China are absolutely necessary, for Tibet is and must remain a portion of the Ta Ts’ing [Manchu] Empire for its own good.” Not much has changed with the Fourteenth Dalai Lama one hundred years later. After a meeting in 2011 with President Obama in the White House Map Room—the Oval Office being too official—the Dalai Lama has ushered out the back door, past the garbage cans. All this, of course, is intended to avoid condemnation from Beijing, which regards even the mildest criticism of its Tibet policy as “interference.”

However, there was one dramatic departure from the minimalist approach. For nearly two decades after the 1950 Chinese takeover of Tibet, the CIA ran a covert operation designed to train Tibetan insurgents and gather intelligence about the Chinese, as part of its efforts to contain the spread of communism around the world. Though little known today, the program produced at least one spectacular intelligence coup and provided a source of support for the Dalai Lama. On the eve of Richard Nixon’s historic 1972 meeting with Mao, the program was abruptly canceled, thus returning the US to its traditional arms-length policy toward Tibet. But this did not end the long legacy of mistrust that continues to color Chinese-American relations. Not only was the Chinese government aware of the CIA program; in 1992, it published a white paper on the subject. The paper included information drawn from reliable Western sources about the agency’s activities, but laid the primary blame for the insurgency on the “Dalai Lama clique,” a phrase Beijing still uses today.

The insurgency began after the People’s Liberation Army invaded Tibet following its defeat of the Nationalists, and after Beijing forced the Dalai Lama’s government to recognize Chinese administration over the region. In 1955, a group of local Tibetan leaders secretly plotted an armed uprising, and rebellion broke out a year later, with the rebels besieging local government institutions and killing hundreds of government staff as well as Han Chinese people. In May 1957, a rebel organization and a rebel fighting force were founded and began killing communist officials, disrupting communication lines, and attacking institutions and Chinese army troops stationed in the region.

By that point, the rebellion had gained American backing. In the early 1950s, the CIA began to explore ways to aid the Tibetans as part of its growing campaign to contain Communist China. By the second half of the decade, “Project Circus” had been formally launched, Tibetan resistance fighters were being flown abroad for training, and weapons and ammunition were being airdropped at strategic locations inside Tibet. In 1959, the agency opened a secret facility to train Tibetan recruits at Camp Hale near Leadville, Colorado, partly because the location, more than 10,000 feet above sea level, might approximate the terrain of the Himalayas. According to one account, some 170 “Kamba guerrillas” passed through the Colorado program.

While the CIA effort never produced a mass uprising against the Chinese occupiers, it did provide one of the greatest intelligence successes of the Cold War, in the form of a vast trove of Chinese army documents captured by Tibetan fighters and turned over to the CIA in 1961. These revealed the loss of morale among Chinese soldiers, who had learned of the vast famine that was wracking China during The Great Leap Forward. Over the next decade, however, there was growing disagreement in Washington over the CIA’s activities in Tibet, and in 1971, as Henry Kissinger prepared for Nixon’s meeting with Mao, the program was wound down.

“Although Tibet may not have been on the table in the Beijing talks, the era of official US support for the Tibetan cause was over,” recalled John Kenneth Knaus, a forty-year CIA veteran, in his 1999 book Orphans of the Cold War: America and the Tibetan Struggle for Survival. “There was no role for Tibet in Kissinger’s new equation.” By 1975, President Gerald Ford could say to a skeptical Deng Xiaoping, China’s future leader, “Let me assure you, Mr. Vice-Premier, that we oppose and do not support any [United States] governmental action as far as Tibet is concerned.”

Many friends of Tibet and admirers of the Dalai Lama, who has always advocated nonviolence, believe he knew nothing about the CIA program. But Gyalo Thondup, one of the Dalai Lama’s brothers, was closely involved in the operations, and Knaus, who took part in the operation, writes that “Gyalo Thondup kept his brother the Dalai Lama informed of the general terms of the CIA support.” According to Knaus, starting in the late 1950s, the Agency paid the Dalai Lama $15,000 a month. Those payments came to an end in 1974.

In 1999, I asked the Dalai Lama if the CIA operation had been harmful to Tibet. “Yes, that is true,” he replied. The intervention was harmful, he suggested because it was primarily aimed at serving American interests rather than helping the Tibetans in any lasting way. “Once the American policy toward China changed, they stopped their help,” he told me. “Otherwise our struggle could have gone on. Many Tibetans had great expectations of CIA [air] drops, but then the Chinese army came and destroyed them. The Americans had a different agenda from the Tibetans.”

This was exactly right, and the different goals of the Agency and the Tibetans are explored fully by the Tibetan-speaking anthropologist Carole McGranahan in her Arrested Histories: Tibet, the CIA, and Memories of a Forgotten War (2010). Although sometimes clouded by anthropological jargon, her account fascinatingly explores how differently from their American counterparts the Tibetan veterans remember the CIA operation. A striking example is the matter of the Chinese army documents, whose capture in a Tibetan ambush of a high-ranking Chinese officer is depicted in grisly detail in a huge painting in the CIA’s museum in Washington. In addition to revealing low Chinese morale, the documents disclosed the extent of Chinese violence in Tibet. “This information was the only documentary proof the Tibetan government [in exile] had of the Chinese atrocities and was therefore invaluable,” McGranahan notes. Yet the documents and their capture rarely came up during her long interview sessions with the veterans. “Why is it that this achievement, so valued by the US and Tibetan governments, is not remotely as memorable for [the] soldiers?”

One reason is that the Tibetan fighters were told nothing about the value of the documents, which they couldn’t read. One veteran explains to her:

Our soldiers attacked Chinese trucks and seized some documents of the Chinese government. After that, the Americans increased our pay scale. Nobody knew what the contents of those documents were. At that time, questions weren’t asked. If you asked many questions, then others would be suspicious of you.

The leader of the ambush tells her that “as a reward, the CIA gave me an Omega chronograph,” but he, too, had little knowledge of the documents’ importance. As McGranahan shows in extensive detail, the veterans were preoccupied above all by their devotion to the Dalai Lama, whom they wanted to resume his position as supreme leader of an independent Tibet.

After the CIA mission was ended, Tibet became increasingly marginal to Washington’s China policy, as Knaus has now made clear in a second book, Beyond Shangri-la: America and Tibet’s Move into the Twenty-First Century. The reality is that American presidents now face a world power in Beijing. In language that sums up the cats-cradle of American justifications for ignoring Tibet, ex-Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Marshall Green recalls to Knaus, “there was nothing we could do to help the Tibetans except by improving our relations with the Chinese Communists so that we might be in a position to exert pressure on them to moderate their policies towards the Tibetans.” Green “admitted that this was ‘perhaps a rationalization.'”

President Obama will soon meet the new Chinese leader, Xi Jinping. His advisers will have reminded him of the encounter between his predecessor, Bill Clinton, and then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin on June 27, 1998. In that meeting, Clinton assured Jiang that, “I agree that Tibet is a part of China, an autonomous region of China. And I can understand why the acknowledgment of that would be a precondition of dialog with the Dalai Lama.” Banking on his well-known charm, Mr. Clinton added, “I have spent time with the Dalai Lama. I believe him to be an honest man, and I believe if he had a conversation with President Jiang, they would like each other very much.” Jiang, it is reported, threw back his head and laughed. Clinton’s suggestion was omitted from the official Chinese transcript.

April 9, 2013, 2:29 pm


© 1963-2017 NYREV, Inc. All rights reserved.

NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON – CIA’S CANCELLED WAR.

TIBET NOT PART OF CHINA – ARUNACHAL PRADESH CHIEF MINISTER

TIBET NOT PART OF CHINA – ARUNACHAL PRADESH CHIEF MINISTER

Arunachal Pradesh Chief Minister Pema Khandu reveals the truth about Tibet’s military occupation. Red China’s military occupation of Tibet cannot wipe out reality of Tibetan nation.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

Doom Dooma Doomsayer

Indian Defence News

Thursday, April 06, 2017

INDIA SHARES BOUNDARY WITH TIBET, NOT WITH CHINA: ARUNACHAL PRADESH CHIEF MINISTER

TIBET NOT PART OF CHINA – INDIA SHARES NO BORDER WITH RED CHINA.

ARUNACHAL PRADESH Chief Minister Pema Khandu today said China has no business telling India what to do regarding the Dalai Lama’s movement in the country.

“China has no business telling us what to do and what not to do (regarding the Dalai Lama’s movement). It is not our next-door neighbor. India shares boundary with Tibet, not with China,” he told reporters here.

“In reality, the McMahon Line demarcated the boundary between India and Tibet,” he said.

Khandu, who accompanied the Dalai Lama during an eight-hour-long drive from Guwahati to Bomdila yesterday, said it was a brave decision on the part of the Tibetan spiritual leader to undertake the arduous trip.

“He wanted to reach Tawang anyhow and the weather could not deter him. Let us hope that his followers here get satisfaction from his discourses,” he said.

The Nobel laureate, he said, was the country’s most respected guest since 1959 and Arunachal Pradesh deserves his visit more than any other place.

This is the Dalai Lama’s sixth visit to Arunachal Pradesh as a state guest since 1983 and he has been to Tawang every time except in December 1996.

His last visit in 2009 was planned exactly 50 years after he had crossed through Arunachal Pradesh, then North East Frontier Agency, after escaping from Lhasa.

TIBET NOT PART OF CHINA – INDIA SHARES NO BORDER WITH CHINA.

CHINA MINUS TIBET EQUALS TO POWER EQUILIBRIUM

CHINA MINUS TIBET EQUALS TO POWER EQUILIBRIUM

CHINA MINUS TIBET EQUALS TO POWER EQUILIBRIUM. PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH CHINESE PRESIDENT XI JINPING.

To deal with problems of Red China’s Economic, Political, Military, Maritime, and Nuclear Expansionism, I have to address the problem of Red China’s Territorial Expansionism. Red China gained 965, 000 square miles of Tibetan Territory through military occupation. In terms of size, Tibet is the second largest nation in Southern Asia, almost as large as Republic of India( over 1, 269, 221 square miles).

Evicting Tibet’s military occupier is the first step that will restore Balance of Power in Asia and I name this process as ‘TIBET EQUILIBRIUM’ for Tibetan Territory is the Key for Political, Economic, Military Imbalance that is undermining International Relations.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162 USA
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE

CHINA MINUS TIBET EQUALS POWER EQUILIBRIUM. PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH CHINESE PRESIDENT XI JINPING.

CHINA MINUS TIBET EQUALS TO POWER EQUILIBRIUM. PRESIDENT TRUMP MEETS CHINESE PRESIDENT XI JINPING.

imp?s=135833&layout=marquee&li=todayworld&m=ee6bca8f378ecd0b471fc12c76ed04c4&p=58e71cdf71885051e1ce9582
imp?s=135834&sz=1x1&li=todayworld&m=ee6bca8f378ecd0b471fc12c76ed04c4&p=58e71cdf71885051e1ce9582 imp?s=135835&sz=1x1&li=todayworld&m=ee6bca8f378ecd0b471fc12c76ed04c4&p=58e71cdf71885051e1ce9582
imp?s=135836&sz=116x15&li=todayworld&m=ee6bca8f378ecd0b471fc12c76ed04c4&p=58e71cdf71885051e1ce9582 imp?s=135837&sz=69x15&li=todayworld&m=ee6bca8f378ecd0b471fc12c76ed04c4&p=58e71cdf71885051e1ce9582
wp-logo.png
Today's WorldView
BY ISHAAN THAROOR
BY ISHAAN THAROOR
8133dccd79bc42cfc9adc7f82c37147f-0-40-06facebook512.png 0dfb24e0a85978ee29df605d548a1664-0-40-twitter512.png

China Minus Tibet Equals to Power Equilibrium.

Chinese President Xi Jinping arrived in Palm Beach, Fla., on Thursday for an unorthodox meeting at President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. The presidents and their wives are scheduled to spend about 24 hours together, including a Thursday night dinner and a working lunch the following day.
The first meaningful discussions between arguably the two most powerful people on the planet are, of course, hugely significant. Trump spent a large chunk of his election campaign attacking China’s supposedly unfair trade and fiscal practices, which he promised would be challenged by a more protectionist and nationalist Trump presidency. Xi, meanwhile, is meeting the erratic U.S. president at a time when his own political future at home is not as secure as some might think.

f4c1f20129dc6868f24a5c4c034ae3df-540-0-847573220417044480width540embedTypetwitter.jpg

China Minus Tibet Equals to Power Equilibrium.

Trump has already signaled this may be a tough encounter. But, as my colleague Simon Denyer wrote last week, it’s quite likely Xi has come bearing gifts — “a package of pledges designed to give the U.S. president some ‘tweetable’ promises to present as victories.” Whether this translates into long-term wins for either leader is less clear. Either way, here are the main storylines to watch:
The question of trade
“We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country,” declared Trump on the campaign trail last year. He was talking about the United States’ considerable trade deficit with China and Beijing’s history of currency manipulation. Part of Trump’s pledge to revive blue-collar American jobs explicitly involved punishing China on the world stage.
This was a major departure from previous U.S. administrations, both Republican and Democratic, which embraced the dogma of open markets and sought to make China a reliable partner within — not an opponent to — an American-led international order. Earlier this year, as the world readied for Trump’s inauguration, Xi cast himself as a custodian of that order, defending globalization, open borders and free trade — all things Trump campaigned against — at the World Economic Forum. Xi’s rhetoric received mixed reviews, but it underscored the strange new paradigm shaping global relations.
Ahead of Xi’s visit this week, China’s state media attempted to make the case for normal bilateral ties. “U.S. job losses are not China’s fault,” read a Xinhua commentary on Wednesday. The next day, another piece argued that China’s trade surplus “does not necessarily mean China benefits while the United States loses.” Xinhua went on: “About 40 percent of the trade surplus is actually generated by U.S. companies in China.”
Ironically, as economic experts note, Trump’s protectionist agenda is more in line with China’s own practices, including its boosting of mammoth Chinese state-run companies.
“Mr. Trump seems to want to move the U.S. toward China’s approach, rather than move China toward the U.S. approach of open trade and globalization,” said Eswar Prasad, a professor of trade at Cornell University, to my colleague Ana Swanson. “He seems to want the U.S. to be more like China than China to be more like the U.S. And I’m not sure that’s the best path for the U.S. to go down.”

 

A magazine featuring President Trump on display with Chinese military magazines at a newsstand in Beijing on April 4. (Mark Schiefelbein/Associated Press)
The question of security
There will be a Kim Jong Un-shaped elephant in the room in Mar-a-Lago. Amid a flurry of North Korean missile tests, the Trump administration is keen on getting China — Pyongyang’s only real friend — to bring the pariah state to heel. Trump and other senior administration officials have signaled their impatience with North Korea and threatened unilateral action in the past week.
“The clock is very, very quickly running out,” a senior White House official told reporters. “All options are on the table for us.”
This may all be bluster intended to pressure Beijing, which has cast itself as the honest broker between the North Koreans and the United States — much to American chagrin. Washington’s longstanding frustration with what it perceives as China’s unwillingness (or inability) to rein in North Korea will also run up against other geopolitical disagreements, including differences over China’s expansionist role in the South China Sea and the status of Taiwan.
On all these fronts, it’s likely the Xi-Trump meeting will yield polite sound bites — and few real changes to the tense status quo.
The question of strategy
In the short term, Trump may emerge from Mar-a-Lago having burnished his credentials as a budding statesman — a pleasant photo-op here, a nice headline there. Xi, who will return home as the Communist Party is preparing for a cabinet reshuffle, has to walk a difficult line and “lose face” in the eyes of the global media and the Chinese public.
But in the long term, Western observers see an alarming drift in the course of U.S.-China relations.

China Minus Tibet Equals to Power Equilibrium.

“The problem lies in Mr. Trump’s transactional view of the world. He prefers deals to something as necessarily ill-defined as global leadership,” wrote Financial Times columnist Philip Stephens. “Hence the decision to repudiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement that would have checked Beijing’s advancing economic influence in the western Pacific and handed Washington important strategic leverage.”
“As recently as four years ago, Xi and other Chinese leaders fretted, publicly and explicitly, that their people were being seduced by the moral glamour of American democracy — by the open hearted confidence of the ‘shining city on a hill’ and by the ability of a nation founded on slavery to elect its first African-American President,” wrote the New Yorker’s Evan Osnos. “Xi worried that the American example of competence, generosity, and contempt for authoritarianism would, someday, drive his own people to challenge the rule of the Communist Party. Xi has less reason to worry about that today.”