THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 11, 2021
Rep. Luria’s WSJ Op-Ed: Does the Pentagon Take China Seriously?
NORFOLK, VA — House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Vice-Chair Elaine Luria penned an Op-Ed in today’s Wall Street Journal on the “Say-Do Gap” in the U.S. approach to China, arguing that what the Pentagon “says” about Beijing does not match what the current budget request “does.”
“Military leaders identify China as our number one challenge, often calling Beijing ‘an increasingly capable strategic competitor,’ as Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley has warned, or a ‘pacing’ threat."
"Yet the budget request reduces the ability of the Navy and the Air Force — the services that would have outsize roles in any conflict in the Western Pacific — to respond to threats in that region,” Vice-Chair Luria wrote.
“Meanwhile, the budget promises undeveloped weapons that may take decades to enter the fleet, funded by a ‘divest to invest’ strategy.”
Vice-Chair Luria has consistently advocated for a 3-5 percent annual increase in defense spending and supported policies to counter the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) influence and aggression.
At an oversight hearing in April, she pressed military and foreign policy experts on the need for an increased INDOPACOM presence to respond to the threat posed by PRC’s rising navy.
Last month, Congresswoman Luria co-introduced the Arctic Security Initiative Act of 2021, legislation requiring the Department of Defense (DOD) to conduct a security assessment of the Arctic region and establish an Arctic Security Initiative (ASI) with a five-year plan to fully resource the DOD and individual service-specific strategies for the Arctic.
In the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, Congresswoman Luria successfully advocated for the inclusion of $2.2 billion to combat the growing threat of China through the Pacific Deterrence Initiative.
Vice-Chair Luria is a House co-sponsor of the SHIPYARD Act, a $25 billion investment in American Shipyards.
Does the Pentagon Take China Seriously?
By Rep. Elaine Luria
Our national defense leaders have a problem: What they say doesn’t line up with what they do.
The mismatch is apparent in the latest Pentagon budget, and a “say-do” gap undermines the trust of Congress and the American people.
Military leaders identify China as our No. 1 challenge, often calling Beijing “an increasingly capable strategic competitor,” as Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley has warned, or a “pacing” threat.
Yet the budget request reduces the ability of the Navy and the Air Force — the services that would have outsize roles in any conflict in the Western Pacific — to respond to threats in that region.
Meanwhile, the budget promises undeveloped weapons that may take decades to enter the fleet, funded by a “divest to invest” strategy.
The Navy wants to retire 15 ships, including seven guided-missile cruisers and four littoral combat ships, while procuring only two surface combatant ships and two submarines.
(Fortunately, Congress’s budget draft would buy another destroyer and limit the retirements.)
Naval aviation procurement dropped 15.6% over 2021 even as the Navy speeds up F/A-18 retirements.
The USS Ronald Reagan, based in Japan to counter a threat from China, is overseeing the Afghanistan withdrawal in the Middle East because no other aircraft carrier is available.
Meanwhile, China is building warships at an astonishing rate.
In 2010, the U.S. Navy had 68 more ships than the Chinese Navy.
Today, we have 63 fewer, a swing of 131 ships in 10 years.
The Air Force is also following the Pentagon’s “divest to invest” lead.
Combat aircraft procurement is down 22% from 2021.
The force wants to retire 137 aircraft, more than double the number it plans to buy.
After the retirement of 17 B-1s last year, the Air Force’s bomber inventory is at a level top officers have called the bare minimum.
Ammunition procurement is down more than 40%.
China in recent years has focused on procuring advanced aircraft and has the world’s third-largest air force.
In addition, China has an extensive ground-based conventional missile force, including the DF-26, known as the “carrier killer,” and capable of striking Guam.
The defense budget tells the American people and allies that although we say China is a threat, we are not taking action to respond.
Take Gen. Milley’s June 17 assessment of the threat that China will invade Taiwan: “I think the probability is probably low, in the immediate, near-term future.”
This directly contradicts statements by Adm. John Aquilino, the Pacific combatant commander, who testified that China could be prepared to take Taiwan by force in the next six years: “We’ve seen things that I don’t think we expected, and that’s why I continue to talk about a sense of urgency.”
Congress has a duty to close the “say-do” gap, whether through increased funding or redirecting other Pentagon dollars, and to provide the resources needed to deter China.
If you believe Adm. Aquilino — and I do — we may not have another year to waste.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
DOES THE PENTAGON TAKE CHINA SERIOUSLY?
Re: DOES THE PENTAGON TAKE CHINA SERIOUSLY?
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 12, 2021 AT 10:58 AM
Paul Plante says:
As a veteran of Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson’s war to impose his will on the people of Viet Nam by force, since to a Democrat, power comes from the muzzle of a gun, and speaking in here as what is known in the veteran’s community as a “senior veteran,” which is somebody with a working memory of what has gone before who is old enough to know better, based on knowledge of that history, and who is not concerned about political retaliation for speaking out, and who is supposed to speak out for those in service or about to enter service who are unable to speak for themselves, when I read this Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by this Democrat congresswoman Elaine Luria, I am forced to think that we are dealing with a hysterical dangerous lunatic with her infernal (irritating and tiresome) screeching about China, which nation happens to be a debt-holder of the considerable debt this nation has amassed, as well as being a trade partner.
According to CNN Money, China, Canada and Mexico are the country’s largest trading partners, accounting for nearly $1.9 trillion worth of imports and exports.
According to the website of the United States Trade Representative, and my goodness, you would think a real hot-shot Democrat like House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Vice-Chair Elaine Luria would be right on top of this, we have as follows:
The top five purchasers of U.S. goods exports in 2019 were: Canada ($292.6 billion), Mexico ($256.6 billion), China ($106.4 billion), Japan ($74.4 billion), and the United Kingdom ($69.1 billion).
end quotes
According to the World Bank website, we have:
In 2017, United States major trading partner countries for exports were Canada, Mexico, China, Japan and United Kingdom and for imports they were China, Mexico, Canada, Japan and Germany.
end quotes
And in answer to the question “Who is China’s biggest trade partner?” we have as follows:
Rank Importer Exports from China (US$)
1. United States $452,576,771,000
end quotes
Now, that is what I am seeing with respect to China, because that is what there is to see, and I think any high school student here in the United States of America who was not being taught to be stupid, but instead was taught to engage in critical thinking would see the same, given we are dealing with official government figures here, so when House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Vice-Chair Elaine Luria writes in her Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal that what the Pentagon “says” about Beijing does not match what the current budget request “does,” what exactly is it that the Pentagon, which is supposed to be answerable to the AMERICAN PEOPLE, is saying about China?
And where pray tell, are they getting their information from?
Are they making things up like was the case with Viet Nam, telling us outright lies about the “threat” Viet Nam, some 8,987 miles across an ocean from Washington, D.C., posed to our “national security,” which was a joke and a BIG LIE, as was pointed out to me in 1969 by some real pissed-off ARVNS who made it quite clear to me that they wanted us gone from THEIR country, and out of their lives with the war we were imposing on them, against their will.
In response to that U.S. charge about the Vietnamese being a threat to the mainland U.S., one of the ARVNs swept his arm around, and asked me what I saw, which was ox carts with wooden wheels and water buffalo pulling plows made of a tree trunk with a root still attached to serve as a plow, and he asked me, “HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET THERE,” referring to the Vietnamese invading the U.S., which was an absurd and ridiculous proposition, given the Vietnamese had no shipping or aircraft capable of moving an invading army across the ocean so they could invade the U.S.
And now we are hearing that same sort of nonsensical BULL**** from this Democrat Elaine Luria, who tells us, to wit:
“Military leaders identify China as our number one challenge, often calling Beijing ‘an increasingly capable strategic competitor,’ as Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley has warned, or a ‘pacing’ threat.
end quotes
Oh, really?
And when these “military leaders” identify China as our number one challenge, often calling Beijing “an increasingly capable strategic competitor,” which is exactly what we, the American People, have made them, what exactly do they mean by the term “capable strategic competitor?”
The American People, to whom the Pentagon answers to, would like to know.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Paul Plante says:
As a veteran of Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson’s war to impose his will on the people of Viet Nam by force, since to a Democrat, power comes from the muzzle of a gun, and speaking in here as what is known in the veteran’s community as a “senior veteran,” which is somebody with a working memory of what has gone before who is old enough to know better, based on knowledge of that history, and who is not concerned about political retaliation for speaking out, and who is supposed to speak out for those in service or about to enter service who are unable to speak for themselves, when I read this Wall Street Journal Op-Ed by this Democrat congresswoman Elaine Luria, I am forced to think that we are dealing with a hysterical dangerous lunatic with her infernal (irritating and tiresome) screeching about China, which nation happens to be a debt-holder of the considerable debt this nation has amassed, as well as being a trade partner.
According to CNN Money, China, Canada and Mexico are the country’s largest trading partners, accounting for nearly $1.9 trillion worth of imports and exports.
According to the website of the United States Trade Representative, and my goodness, you would think a real hot-shot Democrat like House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Vice-Chair Elaine Luria would be right on top of this, we have as follows:
The top five purchasers of U.S. goods exports in 2019 were: Canada ($292.6 billion), Mexico ($256.6 billion), China ($106.4 billion), Japan ($74.4 billion), and the United Kingdom ($69.1 billion).
end quotes
According to the World Bank website, we have:
In 2017, United States major trading partner countries for exports were Canada, Mexico, China, Japan and United Kingdom and for imports they were China, Mexico, Canada, Japan and Germany.
end quotes
And in answer to the question “Who is China’s biggest trade partner?” we have as follows:
Rank Importer Exports from China (US$)
1. United States $452,576,771,000
end quotes
Now, that is what I am seeing with respect to China, because that is what there is to see, and I think any high school student here in the United States of America who was not being taught to be stupid, but instead was taught to engage in critical thinking would see the same, given we are dealing with official government figures here, so when House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Vice-Chair Elaine Luria writes in her Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal that what the Pentagon “says” about Beijing does not match what the current budget request “does,” what exactly is it that the Pentagon, which is supposed to be answerable to the AMERICAN PEOPLE, is saying about China?
And where pray tell, are they getting their information from?
Are they making things up like was the case with Viet Nam, telling us outright lies about the “threat” Viet Nam, some 8,987 miles across an ocean from Washington, D.C., posed to our “national security,” which was a joke and a BIG LIE, as was pointed out to me in 1969 by some real pissed-off ARVNS who made it quite clear to me that they wanted us gone from THEIR country, and out of their lives with the war we were imposing on them, against their will.
In response to that U.S. charge about the Vietnamese being a threat to the mainland U.S., one of the ARVNs swept his arm around, and asked me what I saw, which was ox carts with wooden wheels and water buffalo pulling plows made of a tree trunk with a root still attached to serve as a plow, and he asked me, “HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET THERE,” referring to the Vietnamese invading the U.S., which was an absurd and ridiculous proposition, given the Vietnamese had no shipping or aircraft capable of moving an invading army across the ocean so they could invade the U.S.
And now we are hearing that same sort of nonsensical BULL**** from this Democrat Elaine Luria, who tells us, to wit:
“Military leaders identify China as our number one challenge, often calling Beijing ‘an increasingly capable strategic competitor,’ as Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley has warned, or a ‘pacing’ threat.
end quotes
Oh, really?
And when these “military leaders” identify China as our number one challenge, often calling Beijing “an increasingly capable strategic competitor,” which is exactly what we, the American People, have made them, what exactly do they mean by the term “capable strategic competitor?”
The American People, to whom the Pentagon answers to, would like to know.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Re: DOES THE PENTAGON TAKE CHINA SERIOUSLY?
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 14, 2021 AT 9:45 AM
Paul Plante says:
Is this where we are all supposed to come in and cheer and praise Congresswoman Luria?
As to the Pentagon taking China seriously or otherwise, ANYBODY who does their homework on a daily basis and keeps up with current events while engaging in critical thinking would have come across an article by Kris Osborn, the defense editor for the National Interest who previously served at the Pentagon with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology, on a website called The National Interest on March 3, 2021 entitled “U.S. Air Force Declares ‘We’re Outnumbered’ By China’s Military” wherein we who do bother to follow the developments in the world on a daily basis were appraised of operational reality in the real world outside of the dreamland of Washington, D.C., as follows:
“We’re outnumbered” … is the way Air Force Chief of Staff Charles Brown described the evolving global threat circumstance, making the point that China will have a much greater number of war platforms than the U.S. in coming years.
Brown, a former Pacific Air Force commander, told an audience at the 2021 Air Force Association Symposium that he often tells his force about the fast-growing threat presented by China.
“You know, as the PACAF commander, one of the things I would show was a slide that showed the comparison between the number of platforms China would have in 2025, the number of platforms the U.S. and our allies and partners in the region would have by 2025.”
“We’re outnumbered.”
“But it’s not about the platforms.”
“It’s about the capabilities,” Brown said, according to a transcript text of his remarks.
China’s Navy is already larger than the U.S. Navy, a circumstance which of course informs the current Navy plan to massively expand its fleet.
end quotes
Doesn’t that seem to run counter to what the congresswoman is harping about in her OpEd?
Moving right along, the article continues:
China is building its third and fourth aircraft carriers, doubling its number of destroyers in coming years and quickly adding large numbers of new amphibious assault ships and nuclear-armed submarines.
Interestingly, the GlobalFirepower 2021 rankings show large rises in Chinese air, land and sea forces.
While the U.S.’ total number of fighter aircraft, according to the assets, is 1,958 compared to China’s 1,200, this balance of power in the air may not exist for much longer.
On the ground and in the ocean, however, China far already far outnumbers the U.S. in sheer size.
GlobalFirepower lists China as now having more than 2,185,000 active duty personnel, nearly double the U.S. number at 1.4 million.
At Sea, China is also reported to nearly double the U.S. in terms of overall numbers.
Their Naval forces are listed as having 777 platforms, compared with 490 for the U.S.
As part of these growing Pentagon concerns, in coming years the size-margin between the U.S. and Chinese military overall, to include its Air Force, Navy and Army is expected to further widen.
For example, China is adding new VT-5 light tanks, Z-10 attack helicopters and several new 5th-Gen stealth aircraft variants to include a carrier-launched J-31, upgraded two-seat J-20s and a new stealthy Gongi-11 armed attack drone.
As of just last year, China began to add new 6X6 PCL-181 wheeled artillery vehicles to increase 155mm attack mobility.
end quotes
Hmmmm, sounds like China is preparing itself for a real good shooting war with the U.S. on its home territories after the previous contest with the U.S. in Korea ended somewhat inconclusively.
Getting back to the article, whose author sounds much more informed than does the congresswoman, we have:
This circumstance, according to Brown’s thinking, drives a compelling need for several key things such as an extensive intelligence gathering such as new knowledge of Chinese systems, technologies and platforms as well as accelerated U.S. Air Force innovation and modernization.
end quotes
And to realize that modernization, we would have to borrow money from China to make it happen, since China and Japan are where we have to go beg for money to keep our massively-indebted national government operating.
Getting back to the article:
“The key aspect for us is we’ve got to be thinking ahead of where Russia and China may be going, so we can put things in place to allow us a better chance to compete, versus being reactive after it’s already happened, and then figuring out what we’re going to do, because they’ve already moved on to the next event.”
“We’ve got to stay one step ahead of them,” Brown said.
The intention here is clearly to develop technologically superior weapons and platforms so as to mitigate a force size deficit, an approach will likely prioritizes new innovations in the area of AI, stealth and, perhaps of greatest significance, range.
Should U.S. weapons and sensors have the technological capacity to “out range” Chinese systems, then attacking forces can achieve a massive impact with fewer numbers of platforms.
This is part of why the U.S. Air Force is so heavily focused upon Joint All Domain Command and Control as a way to extend the battlefield through multi-node, cross-domain information sharing and targeting.
While Brown made a point to mention both Russia and China, as both are considered major power rivals, many Pentagon leaders such as Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin refer to China as the primary “pacing threat.”
China is also known to possess long-range, precision-guided land-fired missiles, anti-satellite weapons and evolving methods of cyberattack, not to mention ongoing testing of numerous hypersonic weapons and longer-range JL-3 nuclear-armed sub-launched ballistic missiles.
Also of great relevance, China appears to be mirroring U.S. coordinated, multi-service air-ground cross-domain tactics and techniques, maneuvers which likely heighten Pentagon concerns about emerging Chinese concepts of operation.
end quotes
And that, people, is the news.
So, who wants to go to war with China?
And if we do, then where oh where will you get your new Apple I-Phone from?
And if we do go to war with China, I would like to see congresswoman Luria leading from out front, going in with the first wave, sword in hand to keep their morale up for them, because with a Democrat congresswoman leading the charge, what could possibly go wrong?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Paul Plante says:
Is this where we are all supposed to come in and cheer and praise Congresswoman Luria?
As to the Pentagon taking China seriously or otherwise, ANYBODY who does their homework on a daily basis and keeps up with current events while engaging in critical thinking would have come across an article by Kris Osborn, the defense editor for the National Interest who previously served at the Pentagon with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology, on a website called The National Interest on March 3, 2021 entitled “U.S. Air Force Declares ‘We’re Outnumbered’ By China’s Military” wherein we who do bother to follow the developments in the world on a daily basis were appraised of operational reality in the real world outside of the dreamland of Washington, D.C., as follows:
“We’re outnumbered” … is the way Air Force Chief of Staff Charles Brown described the evolving global threat circumstance, making the point that China will have a much greater number of war platforms than the U.S. in coming years.
Brown, a former Pacific Air Force commander, told an audience at the 2021 Air Force Association Symposium that he often tells his force about the fast-growing threat presented by China.
“You know, as the PACAF commander, one of the things I would show was a slide that showed the comparison between the number of platforms China would have in 2025, the number of platforms the U.S. and our allies and partners in the region would have by 2025.”
“We’re outnumbered.”
“But it’s not about the platforms.”
“It’s about the capabilities,” Brown said, according to a transcript text of his remarks.
China’s Navy is already larger than the U.S. Navy, a circumstance which of course informs the current Navy plan to massively expand its fleet.
end quotes
Doesn’t that seem to run counter to what the congresswoman is harping about in her OpEd?
Moving right along, the article continues:
China is building its third and fourth aircraft carriers, doubling its number of destroyers in coming years and quickly adding large numbers of new amphibious assault ships and nuclear-armed submarines.
Interestingly, the GlobalFirepower 2021 rankings show large rises in Chinese air, land and sea forces.
While the U.S.’ total number of fighter aircraft, according to the assets, is 1,958 compared to China’s 1,200, this balance of power in the air may not exist for much longer.
On the ground and in the ocean, however, China far already far outnumbers the U.S. in sheer size.
GlobalFirepower lists China as now having more than 2,185,000 active duty personnel, nearly double the U.S. number at 1.4 million.
At Sea, China is also reported to nearly double the U.S. in terms of overall numbers.
Their Naval forces are listed as having 777 platforms, compared with 490 for the U.S.
As part of these growing Pentagon concerns, in coming years the size-margin between the U.S. and Chinese military overall, to include its Air Force, Navy and Army is expected to further widen.
For example, China is adding new VT-5 light tanks, Z-10 attack helicopters and several new 5th-Gen stealth aircraft variants to include a carrier-launched J-31, upgraded two-seat J-20s and a new stealthy Gongi-11 armed attack drone.
As of just last year, China began to add new 6X6 PCL-181 wheeled artillery vehicles to increase 155mm attack mobility.
end quotes
Hmmmm, sounds like China is preparing itself for a real good shooting war with the U.S. on its home territories after the previous contest with the U.S. in Korea ended somewhat inconclusively.
Getting back to the article, whose author sounds much more informed than does the congresswoman, we have:
This circumstance, according to Brown’s thinking, drives a compelling need for several key things such as an extensive intelligence gathering such as new knowledge of Chinese systems, technologies and platforms as well as accelerated U.S. Air Force innovation and modernization.
end quotes
And to realize that modernization, we would have to borrow money from China to make it happen, since China and Japan are where we have to go beg for money to keep our massively-indebted national government operating.
Getting back to the article:
“The key aspect for us is we’ve got to be thinking ahead of where Russia and China may be going, so we can put things in place to allow us a better chance to compete, versus being reactive after it’s already happened, and then figuring out what we’re going to do, because they’ve already moved on to the next event.”
“We’ve got to stay one step ahead of them,” Brown said.
The intention here is clearly to develop technologically superior weapons and platforms so as to mitigate a force size deficit, an approach will likely prioritizes new innovations in the area of AI, stealth and, perhaps of greatest significance, range.
Should U.S. weapons and sensors have the technological capacity to “out range” Chinese systems, then attacking forces can achieve a massive impact with fewer numbers of platforms.
This is part of why the U.S. Air Force is so heavily focused upon Joint All Domain Command and Control as a way to extend the battlefield through multi-node, cross-domain information sharing and targeting.
While Brown made a point to mention both Russia and China, as both are considered major power rivals, many Pentagon leaders such as Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin refer to China as the primary “pacing threat.”
China is also known to possess long-range, precision-guided land-fired missiles, anti-satellite weapons and evolving methods of cyberattack, not to mention ongoing testing of numerous hypersonic weapons and longer-range JL-3 nuclear-armed sub-launched ballistic missiles.
Also of great relevance, China appears to be mirroring U.S. coordinated, multi-service air-ground cross-domain tactics and techniques, maneuvers which likely heighten Pentagon concerns about emerging Chinese concepts of operation.
end quotes
And that, people, is the news.
So, who wants to go to war with China?
And if we do, then where oh where will you get your new Apple I-Phone from?
And if we do go to war with China, I would like to see congresswoman Luria leading from out front, going in with the first wave, sword in hand to keep their morale up for them, because with a Democrat congresswoman leading the charge, what could possibly go wrong?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Re: DOES THE PENTAGON TAKE CHINA SERIOUSLY?
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 14, 2021 AT 10:06 PM
Paul Plante says:
And speaking of going to war with China, like we did with Viet Nam, which required a manufactured “incident” as an excuse to get the war going, do we have some modern-day Tonkin Gulf action going on here, with the U.S. Navy seemingly trying to provoke a military confrontation with China in the South China Sea?
And here I am referring to a Newsweek article entitled “U.S. Navy Dismisses Claim China Drove Away Warship From Disputed Paracel Islands” by Anders Anglesey on 12 July 2021, where we have as follows:
U.S. Navy officials dismissed claims China drove away one of its warships that passed through the disputed Paracel Islands on Monday, saying Beijing’s statement is “false.”
The USS Benfold carried out a maneuver near the small archipelago earlier today, located east of Vietnam and south of China, which the U.S. Navy said was “consistent with international law.”
end quotes
But is it really?
If international law includes treaties, which are law of the land in the US, supposedly, anyway, might that statement be considered questionable?
And here I am referring to the Treaty of San Francisco at the end of WWII, and the San Francisco Peace Conference to which neither the Republic of China nor the People’s Republic of China were invited, which leads us to what is known as the Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan, also called the Theory of the Undetermined Sovereignty of Taiwan, which is one of the theories which describe the island of Taiwan’s present legal status.
The theory originated from United States President Harry S. Truman’s statement on June 27, 1950, regarding the Korean War, which had broken out two days earlier.
In his statement, Truman said that it would be a direct threat to the United States’ security in the western Pacific area if the Communist forces occupied Taiwan; thus, he ordered the 7th Fleet to enter the Taiwan Strait to prevent any attack on the island.
Truman stated: “The determination of the future status of Formosa must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.”
Because of the statement, the Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan came into existence.
Although Japan concluded the Treaty of San Francisco with the Allied Powers after World War II in 1951, in the treaty it merely “renounced” all right, title and claim to Taiwan and the Pescadores without explicitly stating the sovereignty status of the two territories.
Therefore, the Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan is still supported by some politicians and jurists to this day.
Which is to say it is unclear as to who actually owns what in the South China Sea today.
As to the Treaty of San Francisco, which is law of the land here in the US if our Constitution still means anything, which is more and more doubtful by the day now that the Democrats essentially own our national government, it started out thusly:
TREATY OF PEACE WITH JAPAN
WHEREAS the Allied Powers and Japan are resolved that henceforth their relations shall be those of nations which, as sovereign equals, cooperate in friendly association to promote their common welfare and to maintain international peace and security, and are therefore desirous of concluding a Treaty of Peace which will settle questions still outstanding as a result of the existence of a state of war between them;
end quotes
And from there, it went to here, to wit:
CHAPTER II
TERRITORY
Article 2
(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.
(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.
(d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of 2 April 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan.
(e) Japan renounces all claim to any right or title to or interest in connection with any part of the Antarctic area, whether deriving from the activities of Japanese nationals or otherwise.
(f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.
end quotes
So, who did Japan really renounce those rights, titles and claims to?
The United States?
If so, then in truth, it is we who own all those islands, not the Chinese, which thought is inconsistent with history, to wit:
The First Taiwan Strait Crisis (also the Formosa Crisis, the 1954–1955 Taiwan Strait Crisis, the Offshore Islands Crisis, the Quemoy-Matsu Crisis, and the 1955 Taiwan Strait Crisis) was a brief armed conflict between the Communist People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Nationalist Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan.
The conflict focused on several groups of islands in the Taiwan Strait that were held by the ROC but were located only a few miles from mainland China.
The crisis began when the PRC shelled the ROC-held island of Kinmen (Quemoy).
Later, the PRC seized the Yijiangshan Islands from the ROC.
Under pressure by the PRC, the ROC then abandoned the Tachen Islands (Dachen Islands), which were evacuated by the navies of the ROC and the US.
In 1949, the Chinese Civil War ended with the victory of the Communist People’s Republic of China (PRC).
The government of the Republic of China (ROC), controlled by Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang (KMT), and 1.3 million anti-Communist Chinese supporters fled from mainland China.
The ROC government relocated to the island of Taiwan.
The territory under ROC control was reduced to Taiwan, Hainan, the Pescadores Islands (Penghu), and several island groups along the south-east coast of China.
In April 1950, the PRC captured Hainan.
ROC forces there evacuated to Taiwan in May 1950.
And here is where it gets a bit murky, to wit:
While the United States recognized Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist (Kuomintang) government as the sole legitimate government for all of China, U.S. President Harry S. Truman announced on 5 January 1950 that the United States would not engage in any intervention in the Taiwan Strait disputes, and that he would not intervene in the event of an attack by the PRC.
end quotes
Now, as Joe Biden and Elaine Luria as his surrogate seem to be very hot to get a war with China going, we today need to carefully consider whatever precedent Democrat Harry S. Truman might have established on 5 January 1950 when he as president announced to the nation and the world that the United States would not engage in any intervention in the Taiwan Strait disputes, and that he would not intervene in the event of an attack by the PRC.
However, that was to change after the outbreak of the Korean War on 25 June 1950 when Truman declared that the “neutralization of the Straits of Formosa” was in the best interest of the United States, and he sent the U.S. Navy’s Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait to prevent any conflict between the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China, effectively putting Taiwan under American protection, which move was also intended to deter ROC attacks against the Chinese Mainland.
So, in 1950, did the United States under Harry Truman assert a claim of American ownership of the Taiwan Straits?
Getting back to the history, President Truman later ordered John Foster Dulles, a Foreign Policy Advisor to U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson, to carry out his decision on “neutralizing” Taiwan in drafting the Treaty of San Francisco of 1951 (the peace treaty with Japan), which excluded the participation of both the ROC and the PRC.
Each self-claimed legitimate government of China was excluded from the treaty because the question of China’s legitimate government remained unresolved after World War II and the Chinese Civil War, and this was considered an intractable sticking point in otherwise comprehensive and multilaterally beneficial peace negotiations.
Japan ceded control of Taiwan in the treaty but did not specify a recipient for Taiwan’s sovereignty.
The Nationalist China Government (now based in Taiwan) maintained as its goal the recovery of control of mainland China, and this required a resumption of the military confrontation with the Red Chinese.
Truman and his advisors regarded that goal as unrealizable, but regret over losing China to international communism was quite prominent in public opinion at the time, and the Truman Administration was criticized by anticommunists for preventing any attempt by Chiang Kai-shek’s forces to liberate mainland China.
Truman, a member of the Democratic Party, did not run for reelection in the presidential election of 1952, even though he was eligible to do so.
This election was won by the Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, a General from World War II.
On 2 February 1953, the new President lifted the Seventh Fleet’s blockade in order to fulfill demands by anticommunists to “unleash Chiang Kai-shek” on mainland China, hence the Kuomintang regime strengthened its Closed Port Policy of the aerial and naval blockade on foreign vessels on Chinese coast and the high seas.
In August 1954, the Nationalists placed 58,000 troops on Kinmen and 15,000 troops on Matsu.
The ROC began building defensive structures and the PRC began shelling ROC installations on Kinmen.
Zhou Enlai, Premier of the People’s Republic of China responded with a declaration on 11 August 1954, that Taiwan must be “liberated.”
He dispatched the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to the area, and it began shelling both Kinmen and the Matsu Islands.
Despite warnings from the U.S. against any attacks on the Republic of China; five days before the signing of the Manila pact, the PLA unleashed a heavy artillery bombardment of Kinmen on September 3, during which two American military advisers were killed.
In November, the PLA bombed the Tachen Islands.
This renewed Cold War fears of Communist expansion in Asia at a time when the PRC was not recognized by the United States Department of State.
Chiang Kai-shek’s government was supported by the United States because the ROC was part of the United States policy of containment of communism which stretched from a devastated South Korea to an increasingly divided Southeast Asia.
On 12 September, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended the use of nuclear weapons against mainland China.
President Eisenhower, however, resisted pressure to use nuclear weapons or involve American troops in the conflict.
However, on 2 December 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland.
This treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate on 9 February 1955.
The PLA seized the Yijiangshan Islands on 18 January 1955.
Fighting continued in nearby islands off the coast of Zhejiang, as well as around Kinmen and the Matsu Islands in Fujian.
On 29 January 1955, the Formosa Resolution was approved by both houses of the U.S. Congress authorizing Eisenhower to use U.S. forces to defend the ROC and its possessions in the Taiwan Strait against armed attack.
The U.S. Navy then assisted the Nationalists in evacuating their forces from the Tachen Islands.
In February, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill warned the U.S. against using nuclear weapons, but in March, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles stated publicly that the U.S. was seriously considering a nuclear strike.
In response, the NATO foreign ministers warned at a meeting of the alliance against such action.
In late March, U.S. Admiral Robert B. Carney said that Eisenhower is planning “to destroy Red China’s military potential.”
On 1 May the PLA temporarily ceased shelling Kinmen and Matsu.
The fundamental issues of the conflict remained unresolved, however, and both sides subsequently built up their military forces on their respective sides of the Taiwan Strait leading to a new crisis three years later.
There are strong indications that Mao used the crisis in order to provoke the United States into making nuclear threats, which would give him home support to pour money into research and production of Chinese nuclear weapons and missile technology.
After American nuclear threats during the First Taiwan Strait Crisis, the Politburo gave the green light in 1955 to pursue nuclear weapon and missile research.
The first of China’s nuclear weapons tests took place in 1964 and its first successful hydrogen bomb test occurred in 1967.
end quotes
So there is some necessary background to this mess in the South China Sea we are getting sucked into with this talk of going to war with China.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Paul Plante says:
And speaking of going to war with China, like we did with Viet Nam, which required a manufactured “incident” as an excuse to get the war going, do we have some modern-day Tonkin Gulf action going on here, with the U.S. Navy seemingly trying to provoke a military confrontation with China in the South China Sea?
And here I am referring to a Newsweek article entitled “U.S. Navy Dismisses Claim China Drove Away Warship From Disputed Paracel Islands” by Anders Anglesey on 12 July 2021, where we have as follows:
U.S. Navy officials dismissed claims China drove away one of its warships that passed through the disputed Paracel Islands on Monday, saying Beijing’s statement is “false.”
The USS Benfold carried out a maneuver near the small archipelago earlier today, located east of Vietnam and south of China, which the U.S. Navy said was “consistent with international law.”
end quotes
But is it really?
If international law includes treaties, which are law of the land in the US, supposedly, anyway, might that statement be considered questionable?
And here I am referring to the Treaty of San Francisco at the end of WWII, and the San Francisco Peace Conference to which neither the Republic of China nor the People’s Republic of China were invited, which leads us to what is known as the Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan, also called the Theory of the Undetermined Sovereignty of Taiwan, which is one of the theories which describe the island of Taiwan’s present legal status.
The theory originated from United States President Harry S. Truman’s statement on June 27, 1950, regarding the Korean War, which had broken out two days earlier.
In his statement, Truman said that it would be a direct threat to the United States’ security in the western Pacific area if the Communist forces occupied Taiwan; thus, he ordered the 7th Fleet to enter the Taiwan Strait to prevent any attack on the island.
Truman stated: “The determination of the future status of Formosa must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.”
Because of the statement, the Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan came into existence.
Although Japan concluded the Treaty of San Francisco with the Allied Powers after World War II in 1951, in the treaty it merely “renounced” all right, title and claim to Taiwan and the Pescadores without explicitly stating the sovereignty status of the two territories.
Therefore, the Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan is still supported by some politicians and jurists to this day.
Which is to say it is unclear as to who actually owns what in the South China Sea today.
As to the Treaty of San Francisco, which is law of the land here in the US if our Constitution still means anything, which is more and more doubtful by the day now that the Democrats essentially own our national government, it started out thusly:
TREATY OF PEACE WITH JAPAN
WHEREAS the Allied Powers and Japan are resolved that henceforth their relations shall be those of nations which, as sovereign equals, cooperate in friendly association to promote their common welfare and to maintain international peace and security, and are therefore desirous of concluding a Treaty of Peace which will settle questions still outstanding as a result of the existence of a state of war between them;
end quotes
And from there, it went to here, to wit:
CHAPTER II
TERRITORY
Article 2
(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.
(b) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.
(c) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Kurile Islands, and to that portion of Sakhalin and the islands adjacent to it over which Japan acquired sovereignty as a consequence of the Treaty of Portsmouth of 5 September 1905.
(d) Japan renounces all right, title and claim in connection with the League of Nations Mandate System, and accepts the action of the United Nations Security Council of 2 April 1947, extending the trusteeship system to the Pacific Islands formerly under mandate to Japan.
(e) Japan renounces all claim to any right or title to or interest in connection with any part of the Antarctic area, whether deriving from the activities of Japanese nationals or otherwise.
(f) Japan renounces all right, title and claim to the Spratly Islands and to the Paracel Islands.
end quotes
So, who did Japan really renounce those rights, titles and claims to?
The United States?
If so, then in truth, it is we who own all those islands, not the Chinese, which thought is inconsistent with history, to wit:
The First Taiwan Strait Crisis (also the Formosa Crisis, the 1954–1955 Taiwan Strait Crisis, the Offshore Islands Crisis, the Quemoy-Matsu Crisis, and the 1955 Taiwan Strait Crisis) was a brief armed conflict between the Communist People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Nationalist Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan.
The conflict focused on several groups of islands in the Taiwan Strait that were held by the ROC but were located only a few miles from mainland China.
The crisis began when the PRC shelled the ROC-held island of Kinmen (Quemoy).
Later, the PRC seized the Yijiangshan Islands from the ROC.
Under pressure by the PRC, the ROC then abandoned the Tachen Islands (Dachen Islands), which were evacuated by the navies of the ROC and the US.
In 1949, the Chinese Civil War ended with the victory of the Communist People’s Republic of China (PRC).
The government of the Republic of China (ROC), controlled by Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang (KMT), and 1.3 million anti-Communist Chinese supporters fled from mainland China.
The ROC government relocated to the island of Taiwan.
The territory under ROC control was reduced to Taiwan, Hainan, the Pescadores Islands (Penghu), and several island groups along the south-east coast of China.
In April 1950, the PRC captured Hainan.
ROC forces there evacuated to Taiwan in May 1950.
And here is where it gets a bit murky, to wit:
While the United States recognized Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist (Kuomintang) government as the sole legitimate government for all of China, U.S. President Harry S. Truman announced on 5 January 1950 that the United States would not engage in any intervention in the Taiwan Strait disputes, and that he would not intervene in the event of an attack by the PRC.
end quotes
Now, as Joe Biden and Elaine Luria as his surrogate seem to be very hot to get a war with China going, we today need to carefully consider whatever precedent Democrat Harry S. Truman might have established on 5 January 1950 when he as president announced to the nation and the world that the United States would not engage in any intervention in the Taiwan Strait disputes, and that he would not intervene in the event of an attack by the PRC.
However, that was to change after the outbreak of the Korean War on 25 June 1950 when Truman declared that the “neutralization of the Straits of Formosa” was in the best interest of the United States, and he sent the U.S. Navy’s Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait to prevent any conflict between the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China, effectively putting Taiwan under American protection, which move was also intended to deter ROC attacks against the Chinese Mainland.
So, in 1950, did the United States under Harry Truman assert a claim of American ownership of the Taiwan Straits?
Getting back to the history, President Truman later ordered John Foster Dulles, a Foreign Policy Advisor to U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson, to carry out his decision on “neutralizing” Taiwan in drafting the Treaty of San Francisco of 1951 (the peace treaty with Japan), which excluded the participation of both the ROC and the PRC.
Each self-claimed legitimate government of China was excluded from the treaty because the question of China’s legitimate government remained unresolved after World War II and the Chinese Civil War, and this was considered an intractable sticking point in otherwise comprehensive and multilaterally beneficial peace negotiations.
Japan ceded control of Taiwan in the treaty but did not specify a recipient for Taiwan’s sovereignty.
The Nationalist China Government (now based in Taiwan) maintained as its goal the recovery of control of mainland China, and this required a resumption of the military confrontation with the Red Chinese.
Truman and his advisors regarded that goal as unrealizable, but regret over losing China to international communism was quite prominent in public opinion at the time, and the Truman Administration was criticized by anticommunists for preventing any attempt by Chiang Kai-shek’s forces to liberate mainland China.
Truman, a member of the Democratic Party, did not run for reelection in the presidential election of 1952, even though he was eligible to do so.
This election was won by the Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, a General from World War II.
On 2 February 1953, the new President lifted the Seventh Fleet’s blockade in order to fulfill demands by anticommunists to “unleash Chiang Kai-shek” on mainland China, hence the Kuomintang regime strengthened its Closed Port Policy of the aerial and naval blockade on foreign vessels on Chinese coast and the high seas.
In August 1954, the Nationalists placed 58,000 troops on Kinmen and 15,000 troops on Matsu.
The ROC began building defensive structures and the PRC began shelling ROC installations on Kinmen.
Zhou Enlai, Premier of the People’s Republic of China responded with a declaration on 11 August 1954, that Taiwan must be “liberated.”
He dispatched the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to the area, and it began shelling both Kinmen and the Matsu Islands.
Despite warnings from the U.S. against any attacks on the Republic of China; five days before the signing of the Manila pact, the PLA unleashed a heavy artillery bombardment of Kinmen on September 3, during which two American military advisers were killed.
In November, the PLA bombed the Tachen Islands.
This renewed Cold War fears of Communist expansion in Asia at a time when the PRC was not recognized by the United States Department of State.
Chiang Kai-shek’s government was supported by the United States because the ROC was part of the United States policy of containment of communism which stretched from a devastated South Korea to an increasingly divided Southeast Asia.
On 12 September, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended the use of nuclear weapons against mainland China.
President Eisenhower, however, resisted pressure to use nuclear weapons or involve American troops in the conflict.
However, on 2 December 1954, the United States and the ROC agreed to the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, which did not apply to islands along the Chinese mainland.
This treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate on 9 February 1955.
The PLA seized the Yijiangshan Islands on 18 January 1955.
Fighting continued in nearby islands off the coast of Zhejiang, as well as around Kinmen and the Matsu Islands in Fujian.
On 29 January 1955, the Formosa Resolution was approved by both houses of the U.S. Congress authorizing Eisenhower to use U.S. forces to defend the ROC and its possessions in the Taiwan Strait against armed attack.
The U.S. Navy then assisted the Nationalists in evacuating their forces from the Tachen Islands.
In February, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill warned the U.S. against using nuclear weapons, but in March, U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles stated publicly that the U.S. was seriously considering a nuclear strike.
In response, the NATO foreign ministers warned at a meeting of the alliance against such action.
In late March, U.S. Admiral Robert B. Carney said that Eisenhower is planning “to destroy Red China’s military potential.”
On 1 May the PLA temporarily ceased shelling Kinmen and Matsu.
The fundamental issues of the conflict remained unresolved, however, and both sides subsequently built up their military forces on their respective sides of the Taiwan Strait leading to a new crisis three years later.
There are strong indications that Mao used the crisis in order to provoke the United States into making nuclear threats, which would give him home support to pour money into research and production of Chinese nuclear weapons and missile technology.
After American nuclear threats during the First Taiwan Strait Crisis, the Politburo gave the green light in 1955 to pursue nuclear weapon and missile research.
The first of China’s nuclear weapons tests took place in 1964 and its first successful hydrogen bomb test occurred in 1967.
end quotes
So there is some necessary background to this mess in the South China Sea we are getting sucked into with this talk of going to war with China.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Re: DOES THE PENTAGON TAKE CHINA SERIOUSLY?
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 17, 2021 AT 10:10 AM
Paul Plante says:
To untangle this tangled web we are being presented with here with this talk, crazy talk to me, of our going to war with China, although at the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised if we provoke an “episode” with China that Joe Biden and Elaine Luria will then seize upon as their Tonkin Gulf Crisis, which will require Joe and Elaine to retaliate against China with superior force, all over who owns what in the South China Sea, it is necessary to go back in time to May 18, 1844, and the Treaty Of Wangxia (Treaty Of Wang-Hsia), the first agreement between the United States of America and the Qing Empire, which started out as follows:
Desiring to establish firm, lasting, and sincere friendship between the two nations, have resolved to fix, in a manner clear and positive, by means of a Treaty or general convention of peace, amity, and commerce, the rules which shall in future be mutually observed in the intercourse of their respective countries; for which most desirable object the President of the United States has conferred full powers on their commissioner, Caleb Cushing, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States to China, and the August Sovereign of the Ta-Tsing Empire, on his Minister and Commissioner Extraordinary, Kiyeng, of the Imperial House, a Vice-Guardian of the Heir Apparent, Governor-General of the Two Kwangs, and Superintendent-General of the Trade and Foreign Intercourse of the Five Ports:
And the said Commissioners, after having exchanged their said full powers and duly considered the premises, have agreed to the following Articles:
end quotes
Now, the question arises – who exactly were the Qing that we were making this treaty with one hundred seventy-seven (177) years ago in 1844, and where do they and that treaty fit into the picture today?
And more importantly, what territory did the Qing control in 1844 at the time the U.S. made this treaty with them?
Was Formosa (Taiwan) a part of the Qing Empire?
And that answer, according to the maps of Qing territory at the time of the treaty, is in the affirmative.
So at the time we signed this treaty, which would be law of the land here in the U.S., Taiwan was part of the Qing Empire.
As to who the Qing were, they were not Chinese, which is to say, they were not Han people, so the treaty of 1844 was not a treaty with the Chinese people, it was a treaty with their conquerors and oppressors.
So that we can see who it was we were dealing with back in 1844, let’s go to an article on the Alpha History site entitled “THE MANCHU AND THE QING DYNASTY” where we are informed thusly about the Qing, or Manchus, who were the Qing, to wit:
The Qing dynasty was the last of China’s royal dynasties, ruling from 1644 until the abdication of their last emperor, the infant Puyi, in February 1912.
Its founders were not ethnic Han Chinese but Manchu invaders from the north.
end quotes
In understanding the end of the Qing, which is where this belligerence between China and the U.S. begins, it is important to understand that indeed, the Manchus were not only invaders, but conquerors, who subjugated the Han people and humiliated them by making them wear the queue hairstyle as a sign of subservience, as we see from this history of China, to wit:
The Chinese empire was conquered by about 120,000 Manchus.
They had the strengths of discipline, unity, military readiness and brilliant strategy, but the decline of the Ming dynasty was just as important to their success.
The Ming’s glory had diminished to near collapse in the space of a few decades, and at the beginning of the seventeenth century the dynasty faced threats from barbarians on all sides, political in-fighting, rebellion throughout the country, and low levels of morale and loyalty in the military.
In 1644, the Manchus took advantage of the rebellion and chaos in the Chinese empire and moved south.
Forming an alliance with a Ming loyalist general, they entered Beijing in June and almost immediately took power for themselves.
A combination of military campaigns and diplomacy enabled them to wipe out the remains of Ming resistance, and they soon won the all-important support of the Yangzi valley gentry.
By 1673 they had completed their conquest of China, though they continued to expand well into the next century, bringing Xinjiang and Taiwan into the motherland.
end quotes
So by the time we were making the 1844 treaty with the Manchus, or Qing, that empire was in a state of decline and by the late 1800s, the Qing had been challenged and undermined by a number of factors including the high population, food shortages, excessive taxation, government corruption, domestic rebellions and the incursion of foreign imperialists., which takes us back to Chinese history, to wit:
The Qing period was one of rapid and profound change in China.
Qing emperors were confronted by numerous challenges, including the arrival of foreigners and Christian missionaries, internal unrest and rebellions and the weakening of their centralised power.
By the 19th century, China was being threatened and bullied by Western imperial powers, particularly Britain, which defeated the Qing in two Opium Wars.
Unable to defend the nation from foreign imperialists, the Qing was condemned for being too weak, too corrupt and too unwilling to embrace change and modernisation.
The origins of the Chinese Revolution can be found in this declining respect for the Qing regime.
end quotes
And it is in that decline and the subsequent revolution by the Chinese people, i.e., the Han, who are not Manchus, that the roots of the present controversy involving Joe Biden, who was featured in a France 24 article with a headline of “Biden says US must invest because China ‘eating our lunch'” on 06/05/2021 wherein we were told, “President Joe Biden warned Thursday that Congress needs to adopt his multi-trillion dollar spending plans to renew the US economy because China is ‘eating our lunch,'” and Elaine Luria on the one side, the righteous side, of course, and China, on the other side, are to be found.
So, is it because the big bully China is eating our lunch that Joe Biden and Elaine Luria are going to take us to war against China, to make them stop eating our lunch, or is it to punish them for having eaten our lunch, or is it a combination of both?
Stay tuned!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Paul Plante says:
To untangle this tangled web we are being presented with here with this talk, crazy talk to me, of our going to war with China, although at the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised if we provoke an “episode” with China that Joe Biden and Elaine Luria will then seize upon as their Tonkin Gulf Crisis, which will require Joe and Elaine to retaliate against China with superior force, all over who owns what in the South China Sea, it is necessary to go back in time to May 18, 1844, and the Treaty Of Wangxia (Treaty Of Wang-Hsia), the first agreement between the United States of America and the Qing Empire, which started out as follows:
Desiring to establish firm, lasting, and sincere friendship between the two nations, have resolved to fix, in a manner clear and positive, by means of a Treaty or general convention of peace, amity, and commerce, the rules which shall in future be mutually observed in the intercourse of their respective countries; for which most desirable object the President of the United States has conferred full powers on their commissioner, Caleb Cushing, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States to China, and the August Sovereign of the Ta-Tsing Empire, on his Minister and Commissioner Extraordinary, Kiyeng, of the Imperial House, a Vice-Guardian of the Heir Apparent, Governor-General of the Two Kwangs, and Superintendent-General of the Trade and Foreign Intercourse of the Five Ports:
And the said Commissioners, after having exchanged their said full powers and duly considered the premises, have agreed to the following Articles:
end quotes
Now, the question arises – who exactly were the Qing that we were making this treaty with one hundred seventy-seven (177) years ago in 1844, and where do they and that treaty fit into the picture today?
And more importantly, what territory did the Qing control in 1844 at the time the U.S. made this treaty with them?
Was Formosa (Taiwan) a part of the Qing Empire?
And that answer, according to the maps of Qing territory at the time of the treaty, is in the affirmative.
So at the time we signed this treaty, which would be law of the land here in the U.S., Taiwan was part of the Qing Empire.
As to who the Qing were, they were not Chinese, which is to say, they were not Han people, so the treaty of 1844 was not a treaty with the Chinese people, it was a treaty with their conquerors and oppressors.
So that we can see who it was we were dealing with back in 1844, let’s go to an article on the Alpha History site entitled “THE MANCHU AND THE QING DYNASTY” where we are informed thusly about the Qing, or Manchus, who were the Qing, to wit:
The Qing dynasty was the last of China’s royal dynasties, ruling from 1644 until the abdication of their last emperor, the infant Puyi, in February 1912.
Its founders were not ethnic Han Chinese but Manchu invaders from the north.
end quotes
In understanding the end of the Qing, which is where this belligerence between China and the U.S. begins, it is important to understand that indeed, the Manchus were not only invaders, but conquerors, who subjugated the Han people and humiliated them by making them wear the queue hairstyle as a sign of subservience, as we see from this history of China, to wit:
The Chinese empire was conquered by about 120,000 Manchus.
They had the strengths of discipline, unity, military readiness and brilliant strategy, but the decline of the Ming dynasty was just as important to their success.
The Ming’s glory had diminished to near collapse in the space of a few decades, and at the beginning of the seventeenth century the dynasty faced threats from barbarians on all sides, political in-fighting, rebellion throughout the country, and low levels of morale and loyalty in the military.
In 1644, the Manchus took advantage of the rebellion and chaos in the Chinese empire and moved south.
Forming an alliance with a Ming loyalist general, they entered Beijing in June and almost immediately took power for themselves.
A combination of military campaigns and diplomacy enabled them to wipe out the remains of Ming resistance, and they soon won the all-important support of the Yangzi valley gentry.
By 1673 they had completed their conquest of China, though they continued to expand well into the next century, bringing Xinjiang and Taiwan into the motherland.
end quotes
So by the time we were making the 1844 treaty with the Manchus, or Qing, that empire was in a state of decline and by the late 1800s, the Qing had been challenged and undermined by a number of factors including the high population, food shortages, excessive taxation, government corruption, domestic rebellions and the incursion of foreign imperialists., which takes us back to Chinese history, to wit:
The Qing period was one of rapid and profound change in China.
Qing emperors were confronted by numerous challenges, including the arrival of foreigners and Christian missionaries, internal unrest and rebellions and the weakening of their centralised power.
By the 19th century, China was being threatened and bullied by Western imperial powers, particularly Britain, which defeated the Qing in two Opium Wars.
Unable to defend the nation from foreign imperialists, the Qing was condemned for being too weak, too corrupt and too unwilling to embrace change and modernisation.
The origins of the Chinese Revolution can be found in this declining respect for the Qing regime.
end quotes
And it is in that decline and the subsequent revolution by the Chinese people, i.e., the Han, who are not Manchus, that the roots of the present controversy involving Joe Biden, who was featured in a France 24 article with a headline of “Biden says US must invest because China ‘eating our lunch'” on 06/05/2021 wherein we were told, “President Joe Biden warned Thursday that Congress needs to adopt his multi-trillion dollar spending plans to renew the US economy because China is ‘eating our lunch,'” and Elaine Luria on the one side, the righteous side, of course, and China, on the other side, are to be found.
So, is it because the big bully China is eating our lunch that Joe Biden and Elaine Luria are going to take us to war against China, to make them stop eating our lunch, or is it to punish them for having eaten our lunch, or is it a combination of both?
Stay tuned!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
Re: DOES THE PENTAGON TAKE CHINA SERIOUSLY?
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 18, 2021 AT 10:17 PM
Paul Plante says:
And talk about sheer bellicosity and belligerence on the part of War Hawk Joe Biden, coming back to the present moment from history, after dispatching the USS Benfold (DDG-65), an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in the United States Navy which is a multi-mission platform capable of AAW (Anti-Aircraft Warfare) with the powerful AEGIS combat systems suite and anti-aircraft missiles, ASW (Anti-submarine warfare), with towed sonar array, anti-submarine rockets, ASUW (Anti-surface warfare) with a Harpoon missile launcher, and strategic land strike using Tomahawk missiles with the Benfold being one of the first ships fitted with the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System so that during the 2010 Stellar Daggers exercise, it was the first ship to simultaneously engage a ballistic missile and a cruise missile to provoke the Chinese in the South China Sea into giving Joe his “Tonkin Gulf Incident” as an excuse to blow China off the world map and at the same time, teach the rest of the world that you don’t eat America’s lunch if you care about having a future, we read in the CNN article “US Air Force to send dozens of F-22 fighter jets to the Pacific amid tensions with China” by Brad Lendon on 16 July 2021, as follows:
The United States Air Force is sending more than two dozen F-22 stealth fighters to an exercise in the western Pacific this month, an unusually large deployment of the powerful jets that analysts say sends a strong message to a possible adversary in China.
end quotes
So talk about Joe Biden making America great again (MAGA), it looks like game is on and Joe Biden intends to be the winner, which is only right, given that Joe is a good guy, which takes us back to the Newsweek article entitled “U.S. Navy Dismisses Claim China Drove Away Warship From Disputed Paracel Islands” by Anders Anglesey on 12 July 2021, where we had as follows concerning Joe’s recent naval provocation of China before he sent the Air Force over there to scare them some more, to wit:
U.S. Navy officials dismissed claims China drove away one of its warships that passed through the disputed Paracel Islands on Monday, saying Beijing’s statement is “false.”
The USS Benfold carried out a maneuver near the small archipelago earlier today, located east of Vietnam and south of China, which the U.S. Navy said was “consistent with international law.”
end quotes
That is what we had, and this is where that story goes, to wit:
Chinese authorities fired back at the move and claimed they were able to drive away the warship from the disputed islands.
According to Reuters, China’s military said on Monday it “drove away” the USS Benfold, which Beijing claimed had illegally entered its waters.
But, the U.S. Navy hit back with a fiery statement of its own and branded Beijing’s version of events as being “false.”
A statement issued by the U.S. 7th Fleet public affairs on Monday read: “The PRC’s (People’s Republic of China’s) statement about this mission is false.”
“USS Benfold conducted this FONOP (freedom of navigation operation) in accordance with international law and then continued on to conduct normal operations in international waters.”
“The operation reflects our commitment to uphold freedom of navigation and lawful uses of the sea as a principle.”
“The United States will continue to fly, sail, and operate wherever international waters allows, as USS Benfold did here.”
“Nothing PRC says otherwise will deter us.”
end quotes
Talk about tough talk and Joe Biden making America great again, how about that, people, for a vivid example?
Joe Biden isn’t afraid of those COMMIES one bit, and he isn’t afraid to let the world know it – you don’t **** with Joe Biden, or like “Corn Pop” all those years ago, you’ll be damn sorry if you even think about it, which brings us back to the Newsweek article, as follows:
Its statement continued: “The PLA(N)’s [People’s Liberation Army Navy] statement is the latest in a long string of PRC actions to misrepresent lawful U.S. maritime operations and assert its excessive and illegitimate maritime claims at the expense of its Southeast Asian neighbors in the South China Sea.”
“The PRC’s behavior stands in contrast to the United States’ adherence to international law and our vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific region.”
“All nations, large and small, should be secure in their sovereignty, free from coercion, and able to pursue economic growth consistent with accepted international rules and norms.”
While the Paracel Islands are under the de facto administration of China, they do face sovereignty claims from both Taiwan and Vietnam.
The Paracel Islands are located in the hotly-contended South China Sea, much of which China has made ambitious moves to claim.
But, in 2016 the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague ruled that China had no historic title over the South China Sea, a ruling that Beijing has said it would not view as legitimate.
Controversial Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, who has been courting Beijing officials, said last month the court ruling against China was “just a piece of paper.”
Beijing has laid claim to hundreds of islands in the resource-rich South China Sea that officials say fall within its so-called nine-dash line, taken from pre-war Chinese maps of the region and said to show Beijing’s sea claims.
The South China Sea reportedly holds an estimated 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 11 billion barrels of oil in proved and probable reserves, with more to be potentially discovered, according to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative.
This dispute has led the U.S. Navy to send several warships to the area in a bid to support allies in the region and curb Chinese ambitions.
In May, the USS Curtis Wilbur also conducted a freedom of navigation operation near the Paracel Islands, in a move Beijing called “illegal entry” of its waters.
end quotes
And that talk of “international law,” as if it were actually something more than empty words, like so much is today that is related to politics, takes us to Section 3: General Rights and Duties of Belligerents of The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 33, Supplement: Research in International Law (1939), published by Cambridge University Press, where we have as follows on that subject:
“This is true because international law has not yet reached the point of development where every breach of the law is considered to be a matter of common concern.”
“Up to this time, breaches of international law have been treated as we treat wrongs under civil procedure [as contrasted with criminal procedure], as if they concerned nobody except the particular nation upon which the injury was inflicted and the nation inflicting it.”
“There has been no general recognition of the right of other nations to object.”
– Elihu Root, “The Outlook For International Law,” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1915, p.8.
For those unfamiliar with that name, according to an article in Progressivism and US Foreign Policy between the World Wars, pp 23-47, entitled “Elihu Root, International Law, and the World Court” by Greg Russell, first online 6 October 2017, we have this background:
Studies of the progressive movement in American history, particularly during the interwar years, have given far too little attention to the various strands of progressive international thought.
This chapter analyzes Elihu Root’s campaign for the creation of a World Court, and defense of international law, as an important effort in the reform-minded movement to restrain international conflict and minimize the prospects for war through law.
Root joined other progressives in emphasizing the moral and rational components of human nature and stressed an important connection between societal values and the projection of power.
But he rejected balance-of-power thinking and looked to legal processes and institutions that would harmonize competing interests in the management of interstate rivalries.
end quotes
I think from the fact that Joe Biden is trying to provoke a military confrontation with China that it is apparent that Joe Biden does not agree with Elihu Root – settle it with guns, not lawyers!
But this story of Joe Biden’s incipient war with China is just getting started so don’t go away and we’ll be right back!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-385500
Paul Plante says:
And talk about sheer bellicosity and belligerence on the part of War Hawk Joe Biden, coming back to the present moment from history, after dispatching the USS Benfold (DDG-65), an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in the United States Navy which is a multi-mission platform capable of AAW (Anti-Aircraft Warfare) with the powerful AEGIS combat systems suite and anti-aircraft missiles, ASW (Anti-submarine warfare), with towed sonar array, anti-submarine rockets, ASUW (Anti-surface warfare) with a Harpoon missile launcher, and strategic land strike using Tomahawk missiles with the Benfold being one of the first ships fitted with the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System so that during the 2010 Stellar Daggers exercise, it was the first ship to simultaneously engage a ballistic missile and a cruise missile to provoke the Chinese in the South China Sea into giving Joe his “Tonkin Gulf Incident” as an excuse to blow China off the world map and at the same time, teach the rest of the world that you don’t eat America’s lunch if you care about having a future, we read in the CNN article “US Air Force to send dozens of F-22 fighter jets to the Pacific amid tensions with China” by Brad Lendon on 16 July 2021, as follows:
The United States Air Force is sending more than two dozen F-22 stealth fighters to an exercise in the western Pacific this month, an unusually large deployment of the powerful jets that analysts say sends a strong message to a possible adversary in China.
end quotes
So talk about Joe Biden making America great again (MAGA), it looks like game is on and Joe Biden intends to be the winner, which is only right, given that Joe is a good guy, which takes us back to the Newsweek article entitled “U.S. Navy Dismisses Claim China Drove Away Warship From Disputed Paracel Islands” by Anders Anglesey on 12 July 2021, where we had as follows concerning Joe’s recent naval provocation of China before he sent the Air Force over there to scare them some more, to wit:
U.S. Navy officials dismissed claims China drove away one of its warships that passed through the disputed Paracel Islands on Monday, saying Beijing’s statement is “false.”
The USS Benfold carried out a maneuver near the small archipelago earlier today, located east of Vietnam and south of China, which the U.S. Navy said was “consistent with international law.”
end quotes
That is what we had, and this is where that story goes, to wit:
Chinese authorities fired back at the move and claimed they were able to drive away the warship from the disputed islands.
According to Reuters, China’s military said on Monday it “drove away” the USS Benfold, which Beijing claimed had illegally entered its waters.
But, the U.S. Navy hit back with a fiery statement of its own and branded Beijing’s version of events as being “false.”
A statement issued by the U.S. 7th Fleet public affairs on Monday read: “The PRC’s (People’s Republic of China’s) statement about this mission is false.”
“USS Benfold conducted this FONOP (freedom of navigation operation) in accordance with international law and then continued on to conduct normal operations in international waters.”
“The operation reflects our commitment to uphold freedom of navigation and lawful uses of the sea as a principle.”
“The United States will continue to fly, sail, and operate wherever international waters allows, as USS Benfold did here.”
“Nothing PRC says otherwise will deter us.”
end quotes
Talk about tough talk and Joe Biden making America great again, how about that, people, for a vivid example?
Joe Biden isn’t afraid of those COMMIES one bit, and he isn’t afraid to let the world know it – you don’t **** with Joe Biden, or like “Corn Pop” all those years ago, you’ll be damn sorry if you even think about it, which brings us back to the Newsweek article, as follows:
Its statement continued: “The PLA(N)’s [People’s Liberation Army Navy] statement is the latest in a long string of PRC actions to misrepresent lawful U.S. maritime operations and assert its excessive and illegitimate maritime claims at the expense of its Southeast Asian neighbors in the South China Sea.”
“The PRC’s behavior stands in contrast to the United States’ adherence to international law and our vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific region.”
“All nations, large and small, should be secure in their sovereignty, free from coercion, and able to pursue economic growth consistent with accepted international rules and norms.”
While the Paracel Islands are under the de facto administration of China, they do face sovereignty claims from both Taiwan and Vietnam.
The Paracel Islands are located in the hotly-contended South China Sea, much of which China has made ambitious moves to claim.
But, in 2016 the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague ruled that China had no historic title over the South China Sea, a ruling that Beijing has said it would not view as legitimate.
Controversial Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, who has been courting Beijing officials, said last month the court ruling against China was “just a piece of paper.”
Beijing has laid claim to hundreds of islands in the resource-rich South China Sea that officials say fall within its so-called nine-dash line, taken from pre-war Chinese maps of the region and said to show Beijing’s sea claims.
The South China Sea reportedly holds an estimated 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 11 billion barrels of oil in proved and probable reserves, with more to be potentially discovered, according to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative.
This dispute has led the U.S. Navy to send several warships to the area in a bid to support allies in the region and curb Chinese ambitions.
In May, the USS Curtis Wilbur also conducted a freedom of navigation operation near the Paracel Islands, in a move Beijing called “illegal entry” of its waters.
end quotes
And that talk of “international law,” as if it were actually something more than empty words, like so much is today that is related to politics, takes us to Section 3: General Rights and Duties of Belligerents of The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 33, Supplement: Research in International Law (1939), published by Cambridge University Press, where we have as follows on that subject:
“This is true because international law has not yet reached the point of development where every breach of the law is considered to be a matter of common concern.”
“Up to this time, breaches of international law have been treated as we treat wrongs under civil procedure [as contrasted with criminal procedure], as if they concerned nobody except the particular nation upon which the injury was inflicted and the nation inflicting it.”
“There has been no general recognition of the right of other nations to object.”
– Elihu Root, “The Outlook For International Law,” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1915, p.8.
For those unfamiliar with that name, according to an article in Progressivism and US Foreign Policy between the World Wars, pp 23-47, entitled “Elihu Root, International Law, and the World Court” by Greg Russell, first online 6 October 2017, we have this background:
Studies of the progressive movement in American history, particularly during the interwar years, have given far too little attention to the various strands of progressive international thought.
This chapter analyzes Elihu Root’s campaign for the creation of a World Court, and defense of international law, as an important effort in the reform-minded movement to restrain international conflict and minimize the prospects for war through law.
Root joined other progressives in emphasizing the moral and rational components of human nature and stressed an important connection between societal values and the projection of power.
But he rejected balance-of-power thinking and looked to legal processes and institutions that would harmonize competing interests in the management of interstate rivalries.
end quotes
I think from the fact that Joe Biden is trying to provoke a military confrontation with China that it is apparent that Joe Biden does not agree with Elihu Root – settle it with guns, not lawyers!
But this story of Joe Biden’s incipient war with China is just getting started so don’t go away and we’ll be right back!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-385500
Re: DOES THE PENTAGON TAKE CHINA SERIOUSLY?
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 20, 2021 AT 9:39 PM
Paul Plante says:
And going back for the moment to the statement issued by the U.S. 7th Fleet public affairs on 12 July 2021 where we were told “USS Benfold conducted this FONOP (freedom of navigation operation) in accordance with international law and then continued on to conduct normal operations in international waters,” and “(T)he operation reflects our commitment to uphold freedom of navigation and lawful uses of the sea as a principle,” and “(T)he PLA(N)’s [People’s Liberation Army Navy] statement is the latest in a long string of PRC actions to misrepresent lawful U.S. maritime operations and assert its excessive and illegitimate maritime claims at the expense of its Southeast Asian neighbors in the South China Sea,” and “(T)he PRC’s behavior stands in contrast to the United States’ adherence to international law and our vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific region,” with respect to what the Navy press dudes are calling “international law,” as if that term meant anything concrete, we need to bring into the discussion the international treaty known as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which was never ratified by the United States.
As we learn from Wikipedia on that subject, the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) was convened from June to August in Caracas, Venezuela in 1974.
The most significant issues which were covered were setting limits, navigation, archipelagic status and transit regimes, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), continental shelf jurisdiction, deep seabed mining, the exploitation regime, protection of the marine environment, scientific research, and settlement of maritime boundary disputes.
With more than 160 nations participating, the Conference continued until its final meeting in late 1982, at which time the final act was signed and the Convention was opened for signature.
As time went on, it became clear that the United States, among other developed states, was not willing to agree to Part XI of the Convention concerning deep seabed portions and mining of potentially valuable metals.
The United States objected to Part XI of the Convention on several grounds, arguing that the treaty was unfavorable to American economic and security interests.
The U.S. claimed that the provisions of the treaty were not free-market friendly and were designed to favor the economic systems of the Communist states.
The U.S. also argued that the International Seabed Authority established by the Convention might become a bloated and expensive bureaucracy, due to a combination of large revenues and insufficient control over what the revenues could be used for.
The United States accepted all but Part XI as customary international law.
In March 1983 President Ronald Reagan, through Proclamation No. 5030, claimed a 200-mile exclusive economic zone.
In December 1988 President Reagan, through Proclamation No. 5928, extended U.S. territorial waters from three nautical miles to twelve nautical miles for national security purposes.
However a legal opinion from the Justice Department questioned the President’s constitutional authority to extend sovereignty as Congress has the power to make laws concerning the territory belonging to the United States under the U.S. Constitution.
In any event, Congress needs to pass laws defining if the extended waters, including oil and mineral rights, are under State or Federal control.
end quotes
So if we do not believe in international law, why is it that we would expect any different from the Chinese?
A mystery to me, anyway.
Perhaps as a congresswoman, Elaine Luria can give us some much needed guidance on that subject.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-386739
Paul Plante says:
And going back for the moment to the statement issued by the U.S. 7th Fleet public affairs on 12 July 2021 where we were told “USS Benfold conducted this FONOP (freedom of navigation operation) in accordance with international law and then continued on to conduct normal operations in international waters,” and “(T)he operation reflects our commitment to uphold freedom of navigation and lawful uses of the sea as a principle,” and “(T)he PLA(N)’s [People’s Liberation Army Navy] statement is the latest in a long string of PRC actions to misrepresent lawful U.S. maritime operations and assert its excessive and illegitimate maritime claims at the expense of its Southeast Asian neighbors in the South China Sea,” and “(T)he PRC’s behavior stands in contrast to the United States’ adherence to international law and our vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific region,” with respect to what the Navy press dudes are calling “international law,” as if that term meant anything concrete, we need to bring into the discussion the international treaty known as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which was never ratified by the United States.
As we learn from Wikipedia on that subject, the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III) was convened from June to August in Caracas, Venezuela in 1974.
The most significant issues which were covered were setting limits, navigation, archipelagic status and transit regimes, exclusive economic zones (EEZs), continental shelf jurisdiction, deep seabed mining, the exploitation regime, protection of the marine environment, scientific research, and settlement of maritime boundary disputes.
With more than 160 nations participating, the Conference continued until its final meeting in late 1982, at which time the final act was signed and the Convention was opened for signature.
As time went on, it became clear that the United States, among other developed states, was not willing to agree to Part XI of the Convention concerning deep seabed portions and mining of potentially valuable metals.
The United States objected to Part XI of the Convention on several grounds, arguing that the treaty was unfavorable to American economic and security interests.
The U.S. claimed that the provisions of the treaty were not free-market friendly and were designed to favor the economic systems of the Communist states.
The U.S. also argued that the International Seabed Authority established by the Convention might become a bloated and expensive bureaucracy, due to a combination of large revenues and insufficient control over what the revenues could be used for.
The United States accepted all but Part XI as customary international law.
In March 1983 President Ronald Reagan, through Proclamation No. 5030, claimed a 200-mile exclusive economic zone.
In December 1988 President Reagan, through Proclamation No. 5928, extended U.S. territorial waters from three nautical miles to twelve nautical miles for national security purposes.
However a legal opinion from the Justice Department questioned the President’s constitutional authority to extend sovereignty as Congress has the power to make laws concerning the territory belonging to the United States under the U.S. Constitution.
In any event, Congress needs to pass laws defining if the extended waters, including oil and mineral rights, are under State or Federal control.
end quotes
So if we do not believe in international law, why is it that we would expect any different from the Chinese?
A mystery to me, anyway.
Perhaps as a congresswoman, Elaine Luria can give us some much needed guidance on that subject.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-386739
Re: DOES THE PENTAGON TAKE CHINA SERIOUSLY?
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 21, 2021 AT 9:07 PM
Paul Plante says:
And as we pause here to consider the word hypocrisy as it pertains and applies to the Biden government inside the TEN MILES SQUARE of Washington, D.C., which in the Cato V political essay by Cato on November 22, 1787 was described quite accurately as “the ten miles square, if the remarks of one of the wisest men, drawn from the experience of mankind, may be credited, would be the asylum of the base, idle, avaricious and ambitious,” which word as applied to the Biden administration means “the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform,” and here we are talking with respect to China’s hotly contested Economic Opportunity Zone, let us go back into our own history, which you would think if you were rational that the Biden-istas and CULT OF JOE along with the U.S. 7th Fleet public affairs would be aware of as they do all this posturing and make these bellicose Jingoistic threats of theirs towards China, to Proclamation 5030–Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States of America, Source: The provisions of Proclamation 5030 of Mar. 10, 1983, appear at 48 FR 10605, 3 CFR, 1983 Comp., p. 22, unless otherwise noted, where we have as follows concerning our own history as it pertains to our own Exclusive Economic Zone, or the liberties we grant ourselves, but would at the same time deny to China, to wit:
WHEREAS the Government of the United States of America desires to facilitate the wise development and use of the oceans consistent with international law;
WHEREAS international law recognizes that, in a zone beyond its territory and adjacent to its territorial sea, known as the Exclusive Economic Zone, a coastal State may assert certain sovereign rights over natural resources and related jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS the establishment of an Exclusive Economic Zone by the United States will advance the development of ocean resources and promote the protection of the marine environment, while not affecting other lawful uses of the zone, including the freedoms of navigation and overflight, by other States;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the United States of America and confirm also the rights and freedoms of all States within an Exclusive Economic Zone, as described herein.
The Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States is a zone contiguous to the territorial sea, including zones contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (to the extent consistent with the Covenant and the United Nations Trusteeship Agreement), and United States overseas territories and possessions.
The Exclusive Economic Zone extends to a distance 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
In cases where the maritime boundary with a neighboring State remains to be determined, the boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone shall be determined by the United States and other State concerned in accordance with equitable principles.
Within the Exclusive Economic Zone, the United States has, to the extent permitted by international law, (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, both living and non-living, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; and (b) jurisdiction with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, and installations and structures having economic purposes, and the protection and preservation of the marine environment.
This Proclamation does not change existing United States policies concerning the continental shelf, marine mammals and fisheries, including highly migratory species of tuna which are not subject to United States jurisdiction and require international agreements for effective management.
The United States will exercise these sovereign rights and jurisdiction in accordance with the rules of international law.
Without prejudice to the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the United States, the Exclusive Economic Zone remains an area beyond the territory and territorial sea of the United States in which all States enjoy the high seas freedoms of navigation, overflight, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of March, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and seventh.
end quotes
So, because we are the United States, the greatest nation ever since we made Joe Biden the president, we get to have an Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles.
So what is China claiming then?
How about this: The exclusive economic zone of the People’s Republic of China is the area adjacent to and beyond the territorial sea of the People’s Republic of China, extending as far as 200 nautical miles measured from the baseline that is used for calculating the breadth of the territorial sea.
Doesn’t that language sound familiar, as if it was lifted straight out of Proclamation 5030–Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States of America?
And of course it was.
So why the hypocrisy of the Biden administration?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-387378
Paul Plante says:
And as we pause here to consider the word hypocrisy as it pertains and applies to the Biden government inside the TEN MILES SQUARE of Washington, D.C., which in the Cato V political essay by Cato on November 22, 1787 was described quite accurately as “the ten miles square, if the remarks of one of the wisest men, drawn from the experience of mankind, may be credited, would be the asylum of the base, idle, avaricious and ambitious,” which word as applied to the Biden administration means “the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform,” and here we are talking with respect to China’s hotly contested Economic Opportunity Zone, let us go back into our own history, which you would think if you were rational that the Biden-istas and CULT OF JOE along with the U.S. 7th Fleet public affairs would be aware of as they do all this posturing and make these bellicose Jingoistic threats of theirs towards China, to Proclamation 5030–Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States of America, Source: The provisions of Proclamation 5030 of Mar. 10, 1983, appear at 48 FR 10605, 3 CFR, 1983 Comp., p. 22, unless otherwise noted, where we have as follows concerning our own history as it pertains to our own Exclusive Economic Zone, or the liberties we grant ourselves, but would at the same time deny to China, to wit:
WHEREAS the Government of the United States of America desires to facilitate the wise development and use of the oceans consistent with international law;
WHEREAS international law recognizes that, in a zone beyond its territory and adjacent to its territorial sea, known as the Exclusive Economic Zone, a coastal State may assert certain sovereign rights over natural resources and related jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS the establishment of an Exclusive Economic Zone by the United States will advance the development of ocean resources and promote the protection of the marine environment, while not affecting other lawful uses of the zone, including the freedoms of navigation and overflight, by other States;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the United States of America and confirm also the rights and freedoms of all States within an Exclusive Economic Zone, as described herein.
The Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States is a zone contiguous to the territorial sea, including zones contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (to the extent consistent with the Covenant and the United Nations Trusteeship Agreement), and United States overseas territories and possessions.
The Exclusive Economic Zone extends to a distance 200 nautical miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured.
In cases where the maritime boundary with a neighboring State remains to be determined, the boundary of the Exclusive Economic Zone shall be determined by the United States and other State concerned in accordance with equitable principles.
Within the Exclusive Economic Zone, the United States has, to the extent permitted by international law, (a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring, exploiting, conserving and managing natural resources, both living and non-living, of the seabed and subsoil and the superjacent waters and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds; and (b) jurisdiction with regard to the establishment and use of artificial islands, and installations and structures having economic purposes, and the protection and preservation of the marine environment.
This Proclamation does not change existing United States policies concerning the continental shelf, marine mammals and fisheries, including highly migratory species of tuna which are not subject to United States jurisdiction and require international agreements for effective management.
The United States will exercise these sovereign rights and jurisdiction in accordance with the rules of international law.
Without prejudice to the sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the United States, the Exclusive Economic Zone remains an area beyond the territory and territorial sea of the United States in which all States enjoy the high seas freedoms of navigation, overflight, the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this tenth day of March, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and seventh.
end quotes
So, because we are the United States, the greatest nation ever since we made Joe Biden the president, we get to have an Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles.
So what is China claiming then?
How about this: The exclusive economic zone of the People’s Republic of China is the area adjacent to and beyond the territorial sea of the People’s Republic of China, extending as far as 200 nautical miles measured from the baseline that is used for calculating the breadth of the territorial sea.
Doesn’t that language sound familiar, as if it was lifted straight out of Proclamation 5030–Exclusive Economic Zone of the United States of America?
And of course it was.
So why the hypocrisy of the Biden administration?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-387378
Re: DOES THE PENTAGON TAKE CHINA SERIOUSLY?
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 22, 2021 AT 9:22 PM
Paul Plante says:
And my goodness, people, talk about crying havoc and letting slip the dogs of war, here we have a case of it right before our eyes with a Hearst-style Op-Ed by Democrat Elaine Luria in the Wall Street Journal lighting a fire under the tail of the seemingly pusillanimous (showing a lack of courage or determination; timid) Joe Biden in the same manner as the Yellow Journalism of William Randolph Hearst getting the U.S. into the Spanish-American War, turning old Joe overnight from pusillanimous to bellicose (demonstrating aggression and willingness to fight), and Jingoistic (characterized by extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy), a literal raging bull with respect to China, to the point of where he has turned loose his secretary of world dominance Tony Blinken on them to rip them a new *******, as that trite old political saying goes, and to let them know in no uncertain terms that nobody, but nobody, ***** with Joseph “CORN POP” Biden if they know what is good for them, we need to go to a CNN article on that very subject of Tony Blinken, who appeared to be literally puce with rage, delivering some tough talk to the Chinese on behalf of Joe Biden entitled “US warns China it stands behind South China Sea ruling and is committed to Philippine defense” by Jennifer Hansler and Brad Lendon on July 12, 2021, the day following the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, as follows:
Washington(CNN) – United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken has reaffirmed the US’ commitment to defend the Philippines’ armed forces from attack in the South China Sea, under a 70-year-old mutual defense treaty.
Blinken made the comments Sunday, in a statement marking the fifth anniversary of a ruling by an independent arbitration tribunal rejecting China’s expansive territorial claims over the waterway, siding with the Philippines.
end quotes
And here we are talking about UNCLOS, which the United States rejected on several grounds, arguing that the treaty was unfavorable to American economic and security interests, and claiming that the provisions of the treaty were not free-market friendly and were designed to favor the economic systems of the Communist states.
Now, to get an idea of just how clueless Tony Blinken, an Obama-era retread really is, this is the same Tony Blinken who was featured in an AFP story entitled “US ‘likely’ to keep troops in Iraq after 2011” by Dan De Luce on Sept. 4, 2010, as follows:
“The (Obama) White House, keen to wind down the US role in Iraq, has played down the possibility of a large US force.”
“Vice President Joe Biden’s national security advisor, Anthony Blinken, has said only “dozens or maybe hundreds” of troops could remain.”
end quotes
What an ignorant moron!
So it is indeed interesting watching the same Tony Blinken giving the Chinese the sharp side of his tongue defending something the U.S. rejected, as well as an arbitration agreement not worth the paper it is written on, since it can’t be enforced, and what makes this all the more clownish and pathetic and ridiculous is to be found in a CNN Philippines story entitled “Duterte says PH arbitral win vs. China ‘just’ a piece of paper, trash to be thrown away” by CNN Philippines Staff on May 6, 2021, to wit:
Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, May 6) — President Rodrigo Duterte on Wednesday called the country’s arbitral victory against China’s claims in the West Philippine Sea a piece of paper that he can throw away in a trash bin.
In his second late-night address this week, Duterte said the ruling affirming the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone is just a piece of paper that led to nothing.
“Nag-file sila ng kaso nanalo tayo… Sa totoong buhay, between nation, ‘yang papel wala iyan… Actually… bigay mo sakin iyan sabihin ko ‘P*t*ng-ina papel lang iyan’. Itatapon ko iyan sa waste basket,” he said.
[Translation: They filed a case and we won. In real life, between nations, that paper is noting. Actually, if you give that to me, I will tell you ‘Son of a ***** that is only a paper.’ I will throw that in a waste basket.]
The President also said calls for him to bring current developments in the West Philippine Sea to the United Nations to continue the fight is “a waste of time and at the same time disrupting the good relations of China and the Philippines.”
The arbitral tribunal constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) largely ruled in favor of the Philippines in its case against China’s sweeping claims in the South China Sea.
It invalidated Beijing’s “historic rights” claim to nearly the entire waterway and recognized Philippine sovereign rights in areas within its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf that China contests.
Beijing has refused to recognize the ruling.
Duterte also lashed out at Albert del Rosario, the Foreign Affairs secretary during the term of President Benigno Aquino III, saying he should be investigated for withdrawing Philippine ships from Scarborough Shoal during a standoff with China in 2012.
Del Rosario previously reminded Duterte that it was Chinese President Xi Jinping who “deceitfully breached” the agreement mediated by the United States to jointly withdraw all ships in the area.
Carpio and Del Rosario have been vocal against Duterte’s inaction and the importance of asserting the country’s sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea.
end quotes
So, if Duterte considers the arbitration decision to be just a piece of paper, and is concerned about the good relations between the Philippines and China, why are we suddenly now finding the yapping mouth of Tony Blinken involved?
Stay tuned!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-387886
Paul Plante says:
And my goodness, people, talk about crying havoc and letting slip the dogs of war, here we have a case of it right before our eyes with a Hearst-style Op-Ed by Democrat Elaine Luria in the Wall Street Journal lighting a fire under the tail of the seemingly pusillanimous (showing a lack of courage or determination; timid) Joe Biden in the same manner as the Yellow Journalism of William Randolph Hearst getting the U.S. into the Spanish-American War, turning old Joe overnight from pusillanimous to bellicose (demonstrating aggression and willingness to fight), and Jingoistic (characterized by extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy), a literal raging bull with respect to China, to the point of where he has turned loose his secretary of world dominance Tony Blinken on them to rip them a new *******, as that trite old political saying goes, and to let them know in no uncertain terms that nobody, but nobody, ***** with Joseph “CORN POP” Biden if they know what is good for them, we need to go to a CNN article on that very subject of Tony Blinken, who appeared to be literally puce with rage, delivering some tough talk to the Chinese on behalf of Joe Biden entitled “US warns China it stands behind South China Sea ruling and is committed to Philippine defense” by Jennifer Hansler and Brad Lendon on July 12, 2021, the day following the Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, as follows:
Washington(CNN) – United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken has reaffirmed the US’ commitment to defend the Philippines’ armed forces from attack in the South China Sea, under a 70-year-old mutual defense treaty.
Blinken made the comments Sunday, in a statement marking the fifth anniversary of a ruling by an independent arbitration tribunal rejecting China’s expansive territorial claims over the waterway, siding with the Philippines.
end quotes
And here we are talking about UNCLOS, which the United States rejected on several grounds, arguing that the treaty was unfavorable to American economic and security interests, and claiming that the provisions of the treaty were not free-market friendly and were designed to favor the economic systems of the Communist states.
Now, to get an idea of just how clueless Tony Blinken, an Obama-era retread really is, this is the same Tony Blinken who was featured in an AFP story entitled “US ‘likely’ to keep troops in Iraq after 2011” by Dan De Luce on Sept. 4, 2010, as follows:
“The (Obama) White House, keen to wind down the US role in Iraq, has played down the possibility of a large US force.”
“Vice President Joe Biden’s national security advisor, Anthony Blinken, has said only “dozens or maybe hundreds” of troops could remain.”
end quotes
What an ignorant moron!
So it is indeed interesting watching the same Tony Blinken giving the Chinese the sharp side of his tongue defending something the U.S. rejected, as well as an arbitration agreement not worth the paper it is written on, since it can’t be enforced, and what makes this all the more clownish and pathetic and ridiculous is to be found in a CNN Philippines story entitled “Duterte says PH arbitral win vs. China ‘just’ a piece of paper, trash to be thrown away” by CNN Philippines Staff on May 6, 2021, to wit:
Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, May 6) — President Rodrigo Duterte on Wednesday called the country’s arbitral victory against China’s claims in the West Philippine Sea a piece of paper that he can throw away in a trash bin.
In his second late-night address this week, Duterte said the ruling affirming the Philippines’ sovereign rights in its exclusive economic zone is just a piece of paper that led to nothing.
“Nag-file sila ng kaso nanalo tayo… Sa totoong buhay, between nation, ‘yang papel wala iyan… Actually… bigay mo sakin iyan sabihin ko ‘P*t*ng-ina papel lang iyan’. Itatapon ko iyan sa waste basket,” he said.
[Translation: They filed a case and we won. In real life, between nations, that paper is noting. Actually, if you give that to me, I will tell you ‘Son of a ***** that is only a paper.’ I will throw that in a waste basket.]
The President also said calls for him to bring current developments in the West Philippine Sea to the United Nations to continue the fight is “a waste of time and at the same time disrupting the good relations of China and the Philippines.”
The arbitral tribunal constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS) largely ruled in favor of the Philippines in its case against China’s sweeping claims in the South China Sea.
It invalidated Beijing’s “historic rights” claim to nearly the entire waterway and recognized Philippine sovereign rights in areas within its exclusive economic zone and continental shelf that China contests.
Beijing has refused to recognize the ruling.
Duterte also lashed out at Albert del Rosario, the Foreign Affairs secretary during the term of President Benigno Aquino III, saying he should be investigated for withdrawing Philippine ships from Scarborough Shoal during a standoff with China in 2012.
Del Rosario previously reminded Duterte that it was Chinese President Xi Jinping who “deceitfully breached” the agreement mediated by the United States to jointly withdraw all ships in the area.
Carpio and Del Rosario have been vocal against Duterte’s inaction and the importance of asserting the country’s sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea.
end quotes
So, if Duterte considers the arbitration decision to be just a piece of paper, and is concerned about the good relations between the Philippines and China, why are we suddenly now finding the yapping mouth of Tony Blinken involved?
Stay tuned!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-387886
Re: DOES THE PENTAGON TAKE CHINA SERIOUSLY?
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 25, 2021 AT 11:58 AM
Paul Plante says:
And as we try to make a lick of sense out of all this Jingoism (extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy) and bellicosity (warlike or hostile attitude or nature) by the Biden-istas and CULT OF JOE to include Democrat Elaine Luria pounding the drums of war for Joe in the House of Representatives and Tony Blinken, a retread from the days of the Hussein Obama administration who has managed to amass a net worth of $8 MILLION doing “public service” since then, let’s drop back in time to an article in Daily Finance entitled “China, Not U.S., Likely to Benefit from Afghanistan’s Mineral Riches” by Charles Wallace on 06/14/10, when Hussein Obama was the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the American people, Joseph “Corn Pop” Biden was his vice president and Tony Blinken was National Security Advisor to Joe, at which time, according to his published bio, Tony helped to build a crafted policy in two countries Pakistan and Afghanistan, to see what that “crafted policy” looked like in real life, to wit:
Although the U.S. government has spent more than $940 billion on the conflict in Afghanistan since 2001, a treasure trove of mineral deposits, including vast quantities of industrial metals such as lithium, gold, cobalt, copper and iron, are likely to wind up going to Russia and China instead of American firms.
end quotes
2010, people!
And Hussein Obama, “Corn Pop” Biden and Tony Blinken were handing a financial windfall to the Chinese and Russians, while having our American troops fight and die to keep them safe and protect their investments for them, which investments served to put us as a nation at a disadvantage.
So where was Joe Biden’s and Tony Blinken’s bellicosity towards China back then?
Before they were against China, they were for China?
Getting back to that story, we have:
The New York Times reported Monday that U.S. officials and American geologists have found an estimated $1 trillion worth of mineral deposits that have yet to be exploited in the country.
The paper said a Pentagon report called Afghanistan potentially “the Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key component in batteries for cellphones, laptop computers and eventually, a plug-in fleet of electric cars.
But while the United States and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries are providing the bulk of the security for Afghanistan — U.S. troop levels are set to rise to 100,000 by year’s end — the firms that are profiting from the resource boom are primarily Chinese, and to a lesser extent, Russian.
“China has an absolute advantage in Afghanistan as far as resource development goes,” says James R. Yeager, a Tucson, Ariz., consultant who worked as an adviser to the Afghan Ministry of Mines.
In December, 2007, China’s state-owned China Metallurgical Group Corp. (MCC) signed a $2.9 billion agreement with the Kabul government to extract copper from the Aynak deposit, one of the world’s largest unexploited copper deposits with an estimated 240 million tons of ore.
The Washington Post, quoting a U.S. intelligence official, reported that the Afghan minister of mines was accused of taking approximately $30 million in bribes from the Chinese company in exchange for the contract.
The minister denied the charge and said the Chinese firm had offered the best deal.
Yeager produced a 78-page investigation into the Aynak deal, which he described as a “murky and insufficient tender process.”
He said a number of sources have come forward since the report was written to confirm that bribes were paid to Afghan officials at clandestine meetings in Dubai in the Aynak tender process.
Now the problem is the way the Kabul government interprets the mining laws.
“The law says that if you buy land and acquire exploration rights, then you can go right into a mining license,” Yeager says.
“But the government of Afghanistan says if you go out and explore and find something, you can give it back to us and we’ll tender it.”
“No one will put up their risk capital just to turn the deposit over to the Chinese.”
Yeager also said the cozy relationship between the Russian and Chinese governments and Russian and Chinese mining firms gave them a major advantage over Western firms in winning mining licenses.
MCC, for example, is 44% owned by the Chinese government.
When MCC entered into negotiations with the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, it offered substantial aid for resource development as part of the package, Yeager says.
The United States, on the other hand, has no program to support U.S. mining companies with development assistance or other aid.
The irony is that it is U.S. government geologists and Western companies that are locating the vast mineral deposits that the Chinese and Russians are exploiting in Afghanistan.
end quotes
Isn’t history fascinating?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-389400
Paul Plante says:
And as we try to make a lick of sense out of all this Jingoism (extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy) and bellicosity (warlike or hostile attitude or nature) by the Biden-istas and CULT OF JOE to include Democrat Elaine Luria pounding the drums of war for Joe in the House of Representatives and Tony Blinken, a retread from the days of the Hussein Obama administration who has managed to amass a net worth of $8 MILLION doing “public service” since then, let’s drop back in time to an article in Daily Finance entitled “China, Not U.S., Likely to Benefit from Afghanistan’s Mineral Riches” by Charles Wallace on 06/14/10, when Hussein Obama was the COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the American people, Joseph “Corn Pop” Biden was his vice president and Tony Blinken was National Security Advisor to Joe, at which time, according to his published bio, Tony helped to build a crafted policy in two countries Pakistan and Afghanistan, to see what that “crafted policy” looked like in real life, to wit:
Although the U.S. government has spent more than $940 billion on the conflict in Afghanistan since 2001, a treasure trove of mineral deposits, including vast quantities of industrial metals such as lithium, gold, cobalt, copper and iron, are likely to wind up going to Russia and China instead of American firms.
end quotes
2010, people!
And Hussein Obama, “Corn Pop” Biden and Tony Blinken were handing a financial windfall to the Chinese and Russians, while having our American troops fight and die to keep them safe and protect their investments for them, which investments served to put us as a nation at a disadvantage.
So where was Joe Biden’s and Tony Blinken’s bellicosity towards China back then?
Before they were against China, they were for China?
Getting back to that story, we have:
The New York Times reported Monday that U.S. officials and American geologists have found an estimated $1 trillion worth of mineral deposits that have yet to be exploited in the country.
The paper said a Pentagon report called Afghanistan potentially “the Saudi Arabia of lithium,” a key component in batteries for cellphones, laptop computers and eventually, a plug-in fleet of electric cars.
But while the United States and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries are providing the bulk of the security for Afghanistan — U.S. troop levels are set to rise to 100,000 by year’s end — the firms that are profiting from the resource boom are primarily Chinese, and to a lesser extent, Russian.
“China has an absolute advantage in Afghanistan as far as resource development goes,” says James R. Yeager, a Tucson, Ariz., consultant who worked as an adviser to the Afghan Ministry of Mines.
In December, 2007, China’s state-owned China Metallurgical Group Corp. (MCC) signed a $2.9 billion agreement with the Kabul government to extract copper from the Aynak deposit, one of the world’s largest unexploited copper deposits with an estimated 240 million tons of ore.
The Washington Post, quoting a U.S. intelligence official, reported that the Afghan minister of mines was accused of taking approximately $30 million in bribes from the Chinese company in exchange for the contract.
The minister denied the charge and said the Chinese firm had offered the best deal.
Yeager produced a 78-page investigation into the Aynak deal, which he described as a “murky and insufficient tender process.”
He said a number of sources have come forward since the report was written to confirm that bribes were paid to Afghan officials at clandestine meetings in Dubai in the Aynak tender process.
Now the problem is the way the Kabul government interprets the mining laws.
“The law says that if you buy land and acquire exploration rights, then you can go right into a mining license,” Yeager says.
“But the government of Afghanistan says if you go out and explore and find something, you can give it back to us and we’ll tender it.”
“No one will put up their risk capital just to turn the deposit over to the Chinese.”
Yeager also said the cozy relationship between the Russian and Chinese governments and Russian and Chinese mining firms gave them a major advantage over Western firms in winning mining licenses.
MCC, for example, is 44% owned by the Chinese government.
When MCC entered into negotiations with the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, it offered substantial aid for resource development as part of the package, Yeager says.
The United States, on the other hand, has no program to support U.S. mining companies with development assistance or other aid.
The irony is that it is U.S. government geologists and Western companies that are locating the vast mineral deposits that the Chinese and Russians are exploiting in Afghanistan.
end quotes
Isn’t history fascinating?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-389400