Doomed Gun of Doom Dooma – Page 6 – Whole Dude

ZERO FUNDING FOR TIBET – NATURAL MECHANISM FOR REGIME CHANGE IN BEIJING

**ZERO FUNDING FOR NATURAL FREEDOM IN TIBET – NATURAL MECHANISM FOR REGIME CHANGE IN BEIJING. THE SWORD OF DAMOCLES HANGING OVER THE NECK OF BEIJING.**

ZERO FUNDING FOR TIBET – NATURAL MECHANISM FOR REGIME CHANGE IN BEIJING

President Trump’s 2018 Budget provides no funding in support of Natural Freedom in Tibet.

I am presenting view shared by Ms. Olivia Enos in which she appeals to President Trump not to forget Tibet. In her view, it appears that Natural Order is always determined by choices and actions performed by Man.

As student of Natural Science, I examine Natural Factors, Natural Conditions, Natural Mechanisms, and Natural Events that impact, or reset Natural Balance, Natural Order, and Natural Equilibrium that underlies human experience called Natural Freedom. For example, Natural Event called K-T Extinction Event totally wiped out ruling clan of Dinosaurs from face of planet Earth to introduce new clan of rulers called Anatomically Modern Man.

In Natural History of Man, powerful, mighty Empires have risen and fallen altering political boundaries imposed by Man over Natural Boundaries that define terrestrial life. Man brings about Regime Change using physical force using tools invented by Man. However, to expect Regime Change through Natural Event such as Bolide Collision cannot be dismissed as figment of human imagination.

In fact, Saint John describes, Book of REVELATION, Chapter 18, a mechanism for Regime Change in Evil Empire code-named Babylon. He visualizes heavenly strike such as Bolide Collision that destroys Evil Empire Babylon. Man may interpret sudden, unexpected Downfall of Babylon as Natural Disaster, Natural Calamity, Catastrophe, Cataclysm, Doom, or Apocalypse.

I am not concerned about President Trump’s Budget Plan with Zero Funding for Natural Freedom in Tibet. In my Natural Expectation, Evil Red Empire will experience Natural Downfall triggered by Natural Event called Bolide Collision. I seek Tibet Equilibrium to restore Balance of Power in South Asia that grants Natural Freedom to Tibetans. The Sword of Damocles is hanging over the neck of Beijing.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER

PRESIDENT TRUMP, DON’T FORGET ABOUT TIBET

Clipped from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliviaenos/2017/06/09/president-trump-dont-forget-about-tibet/#105138fd7f9a

**Zero Funding in President Trump’s 2018 Budget in support of Natural Freedom in Tibet. Natural Mechanism may restore Tibet Equilibrium.**

Olivia Enos ,

Contributor

I write on international human rights and national security.

I am a researcher in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation where I write on international human rights issues including human trafficking, transnational crime, religious freedom, and democratic freedoms, among other social issues in Asia. I also work on human rights challenges facing the Middle East including ISIS genocide and U.S. refugee policy. My work has been featured in The National Interest, RealClearWorld, Providence: A Journal of Christianity and Foreign Policy, and Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, among other publications. I received my BA from Patrick Henry College and am completing my MA in Asian Studies at Georgetown University. I live with my husband Zach on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

**President Trump’s 2018 Budget provides Zero Funding in support of Natural Freedom in Tibet. Natural Mechanism for Regime Change in Beijing.**

UNSPECIFIED, CHINA – APRIL 23: Tibetan Buddhist monks use the iPhone in the courtyard of the Kumbum Monastery on April 23, 2017 in Xining, Qinghai Province. Kumbum was founded in 1583 in a narrow valley close to the village of Lusar in the Tibetan cultural region of Amdo. (Photo by Wang He/Getty Images)

President Trump’s proposed 2018 budget would zero out funding critical to advancing freedom in Tibet. Proposed budget cuts would eliminate all USAID programming for Tibet and funding for the Ngawang Choephel Fellows program, which finances educational and cultural exchanges for Tibetan refugees. What might happen with efforts to protect Tibetan refugees in South Asia is unclear.

The State Department said that many “tough choices” were made during budget negotiations. Economic development programs in Tibet will take the most significant hit. In addition to the cuts outlined above, there is a question as to how much funding—if any—will be allocated for the Tibet Fund. Nor does the budget proposal outline how cuts to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) will impact programs toward Tibet.

Defunding efforts to empower Tibetans sends the signal that the U.S. no longer cares about advancing liberty in places like Tibet and Xinjiang where China today uses human rights abuse to maintain control over these territories.

Just last year, the Chinese government began demolishing one of the world’s largest Tibetan Buddhist academies, the Larung Gar, reducing the population of monks and nuns from 12,000 to less than 5,000 after its partial destruction in 2016. Additionally, at least 150 Tibetans have self-immolated since February 2009.

At a recent event at The Heritage Foundation, Dr. Lobsang Sangay, president of the Central Tibetan Administration, reaffirmed Tibet’s commitment to the “Middle Way” approach. This policy approach seeks freedom for Tibetans within the framework of the Chinese constitution.

“The Middle Way approach” explained Sangay, “is in the middle of seeking separation or independence from China but at the same time ending the present repressive policies of the Chinese government.”

It is a peaceful initiative, one that embraces dialogue with the Chinese government. The last two U.S. administrations affirmed that policy, but it remains to be seen whether it will be supported by the Trump administration which has said little to nothing on Tibet.

U.S policy toward Tibet has historically been led by Congress and is enshrined in the 2002 law, the Tibetan Policy Act, which initiated or affirmed the programs the Trump administration plans to cut. If budget cuts are solidified, members of Congress should take steps to reaffirm U.S. support for Tibet.

One of the other ways Sangay suggests the U.S. can support Tibet is by meeting with the Dalai Lama. Sangay highlighted that on his first international trip, President Trump visited Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Vatican traveling to “all three major sacred places of three major traditions.” Sangay continued, “If he can meet with all leaders of major traditions, I think it’s just logical that he meet with the most prominent Buddhist leader”.

Advancing freedom in Asia – and around the world, for that matter – is in the interest of the U.S. China is not the only country to use human rights violations or the threat of abuse to keep the population in check and maintain their grip on power. These authoritarian tendencies are encouraged when actors like the U.S. refrain from supporting freedom where they can. The U.S. should not grant de facto impunity to China by abandoning the Tibetan people in their time of need. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in a recent speech to the State Department said that human rights would factor into the Trump administration’s foreign policy paradigm. To make good on that promise, the Trump administration should consider ways to promote human rights and norms in China. The effort can begin with protecting rights and freedom in Tibet.

President Trump’s 2018 Budget provides Zero Funding in support of Natural Freedom in Tibet. Natural Mechanism for Regime Change in Beijing may restore Tibet Equilibrium. The Sword of Damocles hanging over the neck of Beijing.

**Zero Funding in support of Natural Freedom in Tibet. Natural Mechanism for Regime Change in Beijing. The Sword of Damocles hanging over the neck of Beijing.**

**Zero Funding in support of Natural Freedom in Tibet. Natural Mechanism for Regime Change in Beijing. The Sword of Damocles hangs over the neck of Beijing.**

TIBET EQUILIBRIUM vs THUCYDIDES TRAP – UNFINISHED VIETNAM WAR

TIBET EQUILIBRIUM vs THUCYDIDES TRAP – UNFINISHED VIETNAM WAR

Special Frontier Force represents military organization that symbolizes ‘Unfinished Vietnam War’. The US fought bloody War in Vietnam to contain, to engage, to confront, and to oppose the spread of Communism in South Asia. Red China’s Evil actions Destined US-China War. ‘Tibet Equilibrium’ is good reason to fight Unfinished Vietnam War to its rightful conclusion.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE

Could the U.S. and China end up in a terrible war that neither wants?

May 30 at 6:00 AM

Chinese troops marching to commemorate the 70th Anniversary of the ‘Victory of Chinese People’s Resistance against Japanese Aggression and World Anti-Fascist War’ at Tiananmen Square in Beijing on Sept. 3, 2015. China planned to increase its defense budget in 2016 by 7 to 8 percent (European Pressphoto Agency/Rolex Dela Pena/poll/file)

Is a dangerous pattern emerging in U.S.-China relations? International relations scholar Graham Allison coined the term “Thucydides Trap” in 2012 to explain how a rising power can instill fear in an existing power, leading to hostility and mistrust that can escalate into war.

In his new book, Allison argues that China and the United States are falling into this trap, which owes its name to Greek historian Thucydides’s famous history of the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta, which proved disastrous for both sides. Fast-forward a couple of millennia, and some observers worry that Washington and Beijing are heading toward the same fate.

But the focus on whether the United States and China will follow this path has obscured another insight from Thucydides’ classic work, “The Peloponnesian War” — how the geography of East Asia would shape what a U.S.-China war might look like, and just how dangerous and destructive such a war may be.

There is another way to look at rising powers

The Thucydides Trap we often see in debates about rising powers is actually a simple version of power transition theory, which dates back to the 1950s. The idea is that a war between great powers is more likely when a rising state seeks to topple the international pecking order. It is easy to see why this idea might be applicable to contemporary U.S.-China relations.

There are other ways to view the situation. Some scholars have argued that things may be more stable when two leading powers are at similar strength; others argue that the sources of war lie elsewhere. And the empirical record does not provide a lot of evidence that rising and dominant powers fight directly, or for the reasons that power transition theorists suggest. This leads some scholars to suggest that the power transition model is a poor guide to understanding U.S.-China relations.

None of this discussion means that U.S. and Chinese analysts should ignore Thucydides, although perhaps they should look for inspiration from other parts of his book.

The other Thucydides Trap isn’t pretty

Thucydides is best remembered for his short argument about the causes of war, but he said much more about its conduct. His insights are quite relevant for a hypothetical clash between the United States and China. This is especially the case in his commentary on the first few years of the Peloponnesian War, where he describes how Athens and Sparta stumbled into a protracted fight that neither side expected.

How they got there has to do with a very different kind of Thucydides trap. They wanted a quick victory, and they wanted to avoid their respective enemies’ comparative military advantages. Both opponents fell victim to delusions about bloodless victory without hard fighting. After their early efforts failed, they faced a terrible dilemma: capitulate or settle into a long and uncertain war.

And both sides faced the same basic challenge when the war began in 431 B.C. — how to avoid engaging on terms that favored the enemy. Sparta (like China today) was a dominant land power while Athens was the dominant naval power (like today’s United States). Sparta needed to figure out how to defeat Athens without challenging its navy directly. Meanwhile, Athens needed Sparta to concede without taking the risk of a pitched battle on land against the formidable Spartan army.

Neither side had a good solution — but they pursued operational fantasies about how to win without having to challenge the enemy’s main area of strength. Athens wanted to use its navy to assist land forces that would conduct raids on Sparta’s allies, while simultaneously encouraging a slave insurrection in the Spartan homeland. Sparta, for its part, thought that others would take on the Athenian navy on its behalf — and then it could focus instead on fighting on land.

Not much came out of these plans for the first few years. As long as Sparta and Athens were unwilling to challenge their counterparts directly, neither was able to hurt the enemy enough to force surrender. Neither side was willing to back down. And because they could both retreat to reliable sanctuaries — Sparta on land, Athens at sea — they didn’t need to seek terms.

A toxic blend of geography and politics conspired against the Greek great powers, and the result was an exhausting war that no one wanted. Geography enabled retreat, while political pressures encouraged continued fighting. Meanwhile the military balance held, with Sparta dominant on land and Athens controlling the water. What followed were years of costly but indecisive campaigns. Neither side was strong enough to win — nor weak enough to lose.

Geography would factor into any U.S.-China war

Here’s how this applies to U.S.-China relations today. As I explain in a forthcoming article in the Journal of Strategic Studies, the United States and China risk slipping into this pattern.

War is far from inevitable, of course. But if it did break out, the United States and China — like Athens and Sparta — would each be able to retreat safely in the event of early wartime setbacks. When we read about potential flash points that could spark a confrontation, especially over Taiwan and disputed maritime claims, this geographic risk lurks in the background.

Wartime setbacks that send each side retreating to its safe haven are possible, perhaps even likely, given that both sides are placing their bets on elaborate plans to win quickly. In this scenario, China and the United States would each put a premium on interfering with the other’s communications and blinding its intelligence capabilities to inject confusion on the battlefield and make it hard to coordinate complex operations.

For the United States, the goal would be to seize the initiative, ensuring freedom of movement in the waters near the Chinese mainland, overcoming anti-access weapons, and buying time for superior reinforcements to arrive in the region. For China, it means forcing the United States to fight farther from the shore, which might prevent it from effectively defending its regional allies and partners.

These plans might sound good in theory, but both sides are investing in efforts to secure their communications against debilitating attacks. The normal fog and friction of war also work against operational plans that depend on precise attacks with little margin for error. Leaders might also become so concerned about nuclear escalation that they scale back their opening moves, further decreasing their effectiveness. For all these reasons, both sides may end up disappointed by the result of the first volley.

A quick political settlement might be the rational response in this case, but the fact that both sides were willing to take the gigantic risk of war suggests they will find it hard to stomach the prospect of backing down, especially if they haven’t suffered many casualties. This is a recipe for a long and grinding war.

This is the kind of Thucydides trap that looms over any U.S.-China conflict. Geography, politics and the maritime-land balance in East Asia create a situation likely to lead to prolonged fighting. The central task for strategists is figuring out how to escape it. If they cannot, the only alternative is avoiding war in the first place.

Joshua Rovner holds the John Goodwin Tower Distinguished Chair in National Security and International Politics at Southern Methodist University, where he also serves as director of the Security and Strategy Program (SAS@SMU).

Comments

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

10:32 AM EDT

On behalf of Special Frontier Force, I confirm the possibility of war between the US and China. We wanted to fight this War to relieve pressure on the US Armed Forces fighting bloody war in Vietnam. President Nixon-Kissinger continued using bombing campaign while knowing that it was not effective. Special Frontier Force as a military organization symbolizes the Unfinished Vietnam War. US was fighting against the spread of Communism in South Asia. The fall of Soviet Union has not eliminated the problem of Power Equilibrium in Asia. If not the tensions of South and North China Sea disputes, the great problem of ‘Tibet Equilibrium’ will be a good reason to check, to contain, to engage, and to oppose Red China.

mustquestion

10:20 AM EDT

Odd that it does not include North Korea in the discussion. The most likely scenario is a US – N. Korea conflict with China taking sides with N Korea. But that does not fit the simplistic model of dominant vs challenging state that is the book’s theme.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

10:46 AM EDT

Tibet is the second largest nation of this region sharing border with China. In terms of size, Tibet is second to China. Korea receives plenty of media attention. The problem of Balance of Power demands action to accomplish ‘Tibet Equilibrium’.

nqb123

7:54 AM EDT

I don’t see how the US and China could stumble onto war. What’s the motive for a war when there is so much trade going between these 2 countries? There is no common border between the two, no known historical animosity between the two people, no known problem that only a war could solve. The Taiwan problem is likely to be solved sometime in the future by the Chinese themselves. If the US wanted to defend Taiwan in the first place, Taiwan and the US would already have a mutual defense treaty. I don’t see any US military base in Taiwan either.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

10:52 AM EDT

That’s not correct reading of the US history. President Harry Truman tried his best to avert Communist victory in China. Apart from giving support to Nationalists, the US made modest efforts to deliver arms and ammunition to Tibet during 1948-49. Tibet maintained policy of Isolationism until China’s military conquest in 1950s. Since that time, the US is helping Tibetan Resistance. The plans for a future war are not yet buried.

Douglas Levene

7:42 AM EDT

Excellent article, thank you. I’ve been teaching in China for the past seven years and worry about what to do if war breaks out – can I make it across the border into Hong Kong? Would the Chinese expel all Americans or intern them or worse? From this end of the pond, it’s pretty easy to see how rising Chinese confidence could lead to miscalculations, spilled blood and war. The Chinese think they can overcome US supremacy in submarines by building out a huge network of sea floor sensors in the South China Sea – who knows what that type of arms race combined with territorial expansion could lead to?

kcs1760

7:22 AM EDT

A good article, but I would have liked to read how the author feels our economic inter-dependency would factor into the equation.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

10:56 AM EDT

In the past, Communist Powers like Soviet Union encouraged people and nations to oppose European Colonial Rulers. Now, the world of geopolitics and geoeconomics have changed. Now, the US would encourage people and nations to oppose Red China’s Neocolonialism.

William Billeaud

7:10 AM EDT

Only someone with a worldview based in the capitol of the U.S. Bible Belt would spew this. What horse shout; I subscribed to Wash Post for this?

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

11:00 AM EDT

Don’t worry about your subscription. You can still read this story without being a subscriber. The realities of the world are described by Red China’s occupation of the second largest nation of South Asia. As long as that occupation prevails, there will be Power Imbalance. Tibet Equilibrium cannot be dismissed as wishful thinking.

Inserted from <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/05/30/could-the-u-s-and-china-end-up-in-a-terrible-war-that-neither-wants/?utm_term=.37b806c4ec1a#comments>

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON

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.**

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.**

NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON – UNFINISHED WAR IN SOUTHERN ASIA

NIXON-KISSINGER VIETNAM TREASON – UNFINISHED WAR IN SOUTHERN ASIA

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

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.

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

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 37^th 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

REMEMBERING PRIME MINISTER ZHOU ENLAI – DIED ON JANUARY 08, 1976

REMEMBERING PRIME MINISTER ZHOU ENLAI – DIED ON JANUARY 08, 1976

REMEMBERING PRIME MINISTER ZHOU ENLAI ON HIS 41st DEATH ANNIVERSARY. — **REMEMBERING CHINESE PRIME MINISTER ZHOU ENLAI ON JANUARY 08, 2017, HIS 41st DEATH ANNIVERSARY. I KEEP HIM ALIVE IN MY THOUGHTS.**

Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai died on January 08, 1976. On January 08, 2017, Zhou’s 41st Death Anniversary, I disclose that I keep Zhou Enlai alive in my thoughts for Tibet is still under Military Occupation. I will bury my thoughts of Prime Minister Zhou Enlai when the Military Occupier of Tibet gets evicted from Tibet.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA 48104 – 4162.

DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER

**REMEMBERING CHINESE PRIME MINISTER ZHOU ENLAI ON JANUARY 08, 2017, HIS 41st DEATH ANNIVERSARY. I KEEP HIM ALIVE IN MY THOUGHTS.**

REMEMBERING CHINESE PRIME MINISTER ZHOU ENLAI ON JANUARY 08, 2017, HIS 41st DEATH ANNIVERSARY. I KEEP ZHOU ENLAI, MAO ZEDONG, RICHARD NIXON ALIVE IN MY THOUGHTS FOR TIBET REMAINS UNDER MILITARY OCCUPATION.

Cold War

1976

Chinese leader Zhou Enlai dies

Author
History.com Staff
Website Name
History.com
Year Published
2009
URL
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/chinese-leader-zhou-enlai-dies
Publisher
A+E Networks
Zhou Enlai, premier of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since 1949, dies of cancer at age 77. Zhou was second to Mao Zedong, the leader of the revolution that brought a communist regime to China, in terms of importance in the PRC. Beyond his significance as a leader of communist China, Zhou was instrumental in the negotiations that resulted in the U.S. recognition of the PRC in 1979.

Zhou was born in 1898, and he was heavily involved in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) by the 1920s. He rose quickly through the party ranks and became one of Mao Zedong’s most trusted advisors, particularly valued for his skill at negotiations and diplomacy. These skills were crucial during the 1930s, when the CCP found it necessary to collaborate with its enemy, the Chinese Nationalists, to oppose Japanese aggression. In 1949, the CCP was victorious in its civil war against the Nationalists and Zhou was appointed premier and foreign minister of the new government.

During the 1950s, he represented China at various diplomatic gatherings, including the 1954 Geneva Conference and the 1955 Asian-African Conference in Bandung. He was also a stabilizing force inside China during the tumultuous years of the Cultural Revolution and its resultant political tensions.

In the early 1970s, Zhou embarked on a program to rebuild relations with the United States, which had refused to recognize the Chinese communist government. In 1972, he and President Richard Nixon shocked the world by meeting and agreeing to work for closer political and economic relations between the two nations. These talks eventually did bear fruit in 1979, when the United States formally recognized the PRC.

**Remembering Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai on his 41st Death Anniversary. I keep Zhou alive in my thoughts.** **Major Milestones in U.S.-China Relations**

**Remembering Chinese Prime Minister on his 41st Death Anniversary. I keep Zhou Enlai, Mao Zedong, and Richard Nixon alive in my thoughts.** Cultural Revolution

**Remembering Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai on his 41st Death Anniversary. I keep Zhou Enlai, Mao Zedong, and Richard Nixon alive in my thoughts. Nixon Returns From China**

PEACEMAKING IN OCCUPIED TIBET – DALAI LAMA – PEACEMAKER vs SPIRITUAL HEALER

PEACEMAKING IN OCCUPIED TIBET – DALAI LAMA – PEACEMAKER vs SPIRITUAL HEALER

Dalai Lama, exiled Ruler of Tibet is often described as Spiritual Leader of Tibet who may provide Spiritual Healing to problems experienced by people all over the world. Dalai Lama recommends Peaceful Resolution of all Conflicts. In Tibet, China’s Military Occupation violates Natural Order and Natural Equilibrium that operates Tibetan National Life. This Violation of Tibetan National Life stimulates ‘Resistance’ as Natural Reaction to Oppression. Peacemaking in Occupied Tibet demands Eviction of Military Occupier which may or may not demand application of Physical Force depending upon Red China’s willingness to seek Peaceful Resolution of Conflict arising from her own actions.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER

PEACEMAKING IN OCCUPIED TIBET – CIA FUNDING NOT ENOUGH

PEACEMAKING IN OCCUPIED TIBET – CIA FUNDING NOT ENOUGH

Cold War Era Secrecy will not secure Peace, Freedom, and Justice in Occupied Tibet. Democracy thrives on the principles of Transparency and Public Accountability. To confront threat posed by Communist Expansionism, the assets of CIA are not enough. It is no surprise to note Tibet exists under Red China’s Subjugation.

United States must correctly assess Enemy’s Military, Economic, and Intelligence capabilities and engage Enemy on various fronts to neutralize Enemy’s assets before meeting Enemy on the Battlefield.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER

**PEACEMAKING IN OCCUPIED TIBET – CIA FUNDING NOT ENOUGH**

In my analysis, CIA lacks military, financial, and intelligence capabilities to Evict Military Occupier of Tibet. In this ‘BATTLE OF RIGHT AGAINST MIGHT’ of Red China, I ask World to Unite.