Why Is The New York Times Urging America To Buddy Up With Communist China

The New York Times editorial board published a piece last weekend that shows a worrying bias for America’s greatest foe: the Chinese Communist Party.

The piece, titled “Who Benefits From Confrontation With China,” is a masterclass in misdirection and falsehood. If it were not published in America’s “paper of record,” it would be just as at home in China Daily.

Arguing that Americans must avoid a “glib” and “misguided” cold war narrative, the editorial seeks a policy of “emphasizing competition with China while minimizing confrontation.” The line mimics CCP agitprop and ignores geopolitical realities. The editorial board frames the rising tensions between China and the United States as primarily the fault of American politicians — particularly in the Republican Party — who are hyperbolizing the danger from the CCP.

In reality, the U.S. has been far too soft on China throughout the 21st century, with each presidential administration doing its part. Former President George W. Bush brought China into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Former President Barack Obama studiously avoided conflict with the CCP. Former President Donald Trump put trade pressure on Beijing while simultaneously praising Chinese President Xi Jinping’s life tenure, and President Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and his family have financial ties to the Chinese regime.

Despite two decades of favorable or neutral treatment, China has consistently provoked and aggrieved its neighbors and the U.S.-led world order. China has militarized the South China Sea — an international waterway. It has used civilian fishing fleets as cover for military actions. It has waged brutal battles against Indian soldiers for control of disputed territory high in the Himalayas. It has, at best, covered up the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic and, at worst, deliberately released it from a virology lab. And, most recently, it floated a spy balloon across the entirety of the continental United States, including our sensitive military sites. This is not mere friendly competition.

The editorial uses various tropes commonplace among CCP apologists, all meant to downplay or excuse the malign actions of the Chinese government and shift the narrative in Beijing’s favor.

First, the editorial board claims the U.S. must reduce tensions with China because the relationship economically benefits both countries. But the United States does not benefit like China does. China abuses its economic power to stifle competition, promotes the “digital fentanyl” of TikTok to America’s youth, and steals important intellectual property — most often in the military realm. The New York Times-owned magazine published an incredible exposé on Chinese government industrial espionage only a few days before this major editorial.

Second, the editors mention that the U.S. needs China to combat climate change, or else the whole planet is doomed. Setting climate change science aside, they presume Beijing will act in good faith. China has massively accelerated its construction and use of coal-fired power plants — a fuel source that activists including Swedish truant Greta Thunberg protest against in nations like Germany. The editorial board has previously excoriated Republicans for not doing enough on climate while ignoring China’s actions.

Third, the editors argue that China “continues to show strikingly little interest in persuading other nations to adopt its social and political values.” They claim, then, that China is not a threat on par with the Soviet Union.

But Xi has consistently sought to export the “China model” abroad, specifically stating as much in official communiqués. American experts, including Elizabeth Economy of the Council on Foreign Relations, have proven that China exports its ideology. Budding authoritarians the world over salivate at the totalitarian information control that the CCP exerts at home, while still advancing the basic standard of living to forestall popular revolt.

Fourth, the editorial board claims that anti-American sentiment does not unite Chinese political leaders. This is a page torn right from the old pro-Iran playbook, in the purported split between “moderates” and “hardliners.” As with Iran, the dichotomy does not apply to China. Xi’s increasingly personal rule has cemented that fact. Just before the editorial’s publication, Xi was given a third term as Chinese dictator — effectively making him ruler for life. The vote was a foregone conclusion as were the appointments of his allies to all key positions in China’s government. There are no “moderates” in charge of China, and The New York Times would do well to note that.

The editorial board’s fifth and last pro-engagement argument is that the U.S. cannot “pull back from forums where it has long engaged China,” such as the World Trade Organization. The editors oddly picked the international institution that China has most abused. It has ignored or deliberately broken WTO rules from day one by continuing prohibited policies and refusing to comply with the judgments of trade courts. China has also captured the World Health Organization, which failed to investigate Covid-19’s origins.

American politicians are finally seeing the CCP’s threat to the U.S. But The New York Times views the growing bipartisan consensus on opposing China as the provocation. This purposeful reversal of cause — Chinese malfeasance — and effect — the building bipartisan consensus on China — follows CCP propaganda and aims at turning U.S. policy and public opinion toward a non-confrontational posture.

The editorial board’s pro-CCP bias has many causes, but most revolve around profit. For years, the NYT took money from the Chinese government to run more than 200 propaganda advertorials. The NYT scrubbed those puff pieces from its website in 2020. The articles reached millions of Americans. The immoral editorials did not drive the paper’s profits, though the CCP paid several hundred thousand dollars for them. The key profit motive, subscriber revenue, reinforces the pro-CCP bias.

The NYT maintains and grows its subscriber base by appealing to the professional-managerial class. And that class has the most direct and intricate economic links to China. They would lose the most from an escalation or decoupling, so the editorial board defends the status quo and thus its readership’s bias

Unlike the NYT, the American people are rejecting China as a partner and seeing it as the danger that it is. Since 2020, American public opinion on China has drastically shifted in a negative direction, with most people in both parties viewing Beijing as a threat instead of a partner. Congress has begun to reflect these concerns with the establishment of the House China Committee and efforts to counter CCP influence.

The American people and their representatives have woken up to the China challenge. It is far beyond time we reject the naïve idea of engagement with China and The New York Times editorial board with it.

Mike Coté is a writer and podcaster focusing on history, Great Power rivalry, and geopolitics. He blogs at rationalpolicy.com, hosts the Rational Policy podcast, and can be found on Twitter @ratlpolicy.


Don’t Believe Beijing’s ‘Peace Plan’ As It Builds Up Its Military

Don’t Believe Beijing’s ‘Peace Plan’ As It Builds Up Its Military

At the opening of its annual People’s Congress last Sunday, the Chinese government announced a 7.2 percent increase in its military budget, bringing China’s total military spending this year to $224 billion. China’s actual military expenditures will undoubtedly be much higher. Still, the timing of Beijing’s announcement is interesting because only a week ago, at the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Beijing cast itself as a peacemaker by issuing a 12-point “peace plan.”

But China’s accelerated military buildup is the latest evidence that anyone who counts on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to bring peace to Ukraine is delusional. Beijing’s actions always speak louder than its words. 

We shouldn’t take Beijing’s “peace plan” too seriously for three reasons. First, it lacks details and actionable items. For example, it calls for resolving the humanitarian crisis and protecting the supply chains but offers neither concrete steps nor a timetable. China does not commit to taking any specific actions to foster peace in its plan. 

Second, Beijing repeated the same talking points. It called for “abandoning the Cold War mentality,” which sounds nice on paper, but it has been Beijing’s go-to criticism of Washington on almost everything the U.S. does, from the investigation of the origin of Covid-19 to establishing a security pact with Australia and the United Kingdom.

Additionally, it seems China has already embraced a Cold War mentality. Last February, China’s leader Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a joint statement, claiming their “relationship has no limit” and opposing the U.S.-led world order and value system. At the CCP’s 20th Congress, Xi warned his comrades that “external attempts to suppress and contain China may escalate at any time.” Last Sunday, when China’s Premier Li Keqiang announced the military budget increase, he called on the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to “carry out military operations, boost combat preparedness and enhance military capabilities to accomplish the tasks entrusted to them by the Party and the people.” It sounds like a nation that is ready for war.

Third, Beijing has a credibility issue since it often doesn’t live up to its own rhetoric. For instance, its peace plan calls for respecting the sovereignty of all countries because “all countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community.” It sounds good, except Beijing often does the opposite. Ask China’s neighbors in Southeast Asia. 

Actions in the South China Sea

Multiple countries, including the Philippines, Vietnam, and China, have overlapping historical claims over the South China Sea. These international waters are one of the busiest trading routes in the world and are rich in natural resources. In 2010, at a conference hosted by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), China’s foreign minister declared that “China is a big country, and you are all small countries,” meaning Beijing gets to decide what’s happening in the South China Sea because of China’s size and power. Other smaller countries should get in line and bend to China’s wishes.

Since then, China has claimed more than 90 percent of the South China Sea as its territory, a claim no other country accepts. Yet, Beijing has used this claim to justify building artificial islands, interrupting other countries’ normal commercial activities in their own waters. The Chinese coast guard’s aggressive patrols in the region were responsible for several serious accidents that endangered the lives and properties of citizens of other nations. Given this history, Beijing’s call for respecting other nations’ sovereignty sounds duplicitous. 

Ukraine War

Besides these contradictory talking points, Beijing’s behaviors have discredited it from being a neutral peacemaker in the Russia-Ukraine war. 

Since Russia invaded Ukraine last February, China has refused to criticize Putin. Domestically, China’s state and social media embraced and spread misinformation from Moscow, claiming Russia’s war was justified and a fascist faction ran Ukraine. On the international stage, China has abstained from U.N. votes on Ukraine-related resolutions that called on Russia to cease hostilities, according to The Wall Street Journal. Beijing also voted against removing Russia from the U.N.’s Human Rights Council over its Ukraine invasion. Even in its “peace plan,” Beijing never used “invasion” to describe Putin’s military aggression and instead called it the “Ukraine Crisis.”

After the United States and its Western allies imposed severe economic sanctions on Russia, China quickly offered support to Putin’s aggression through financial means by increasing agricultural and energy imports from Russia. Voice of America reported that “China’s overall imports from Russia spiked 80 percent in May [2022] compared with a year ago, to $10.3 billion… Beijing’s purchases of Russian liquefied natural gas surged 54 percent from a year ago to 397,000 tons, even as overall imports of the fuel fell.”

Even before the U.S. imposed sanctions on Russia’s central bank and several large Russian financial institutions and restricted some Russian state-owned enterprises from raising money in international markets, China offered its currency and the China International Payment System as alternatives. The Wall Street Journal reported, “Russia’s sovereign-wealth fund, a war chest to support government spending burdened by battlefield costs in Ukraine, is using the Chinese currency to store its oil riches. Russian companies have borrowed in yuan, also known as the renminbi, and households are stashing savings in it.” As the world’s second-largest economy, China’s economic support to Russia has helped Putin blunt the effects of sanctions by the West and sustained Russia’s war in Ukraine. 

Right before China released its “peace plan,” the Biden administration announced it might release intelligence showing that Beijing is considering whether to supply weapons to Russia. Some suspected that by sending Moscow weapons, Beijing probably hoped to “increase the costs of the conflict for the West and give China a measure of leverage in proposing options to end it.” Rather than denying Washington’s accusation, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman blamed the U.S. “as the biggest source of weaponry for the battle in Ukraine” instead. 

Xi has reportedly spoken to Putin multiple times since last February but hasn’t talked with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. After making public its “peace plan,” Beijing announced that Xi plans to visit Russia sometime in April or May but with no visit to Ukraine. Recently, Chinese leader Xi welcomed Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko to Beijing. Lukashenko endorsed Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and he praised Xi for China’s support to Russia throughout last year. 

It is obvious which side of the Russia-Ukraine war Beijing is on. Thus, China’s actions render its so-called “peace plan” meaningless. So don’t count on China to bring peace to Ukraine. 


Militarism and Diplomacy in the South China Sea: The Propaganda Machine Is Mobilized

Militarism and Diplomacy in the South China Sea: The Propaganda Machine Is Mobilized

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name (desktop version)

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.


A recent Pentagon conference on psychological warfare noted that the forces of indoctrination “cannot wait until a crisis begins.” A high-ranking chief at the Department of Defense suggested a model for propaganda, in no way new: “Look at marketing…What makes people drink Coke, what makes people drink Pepsi?” In short, public “marketing.” “I think,” the chief lauded, that “the private sector has used the information domain through marketing to the Nth degree…And I think we as a department and in the national security enterprise, need to be able to pull some of those lessons.”

In fact, the “lessons” of effective indoctrination and public persuasion have been perfected in the domain of U.S. government propaganda, in conjunction with a servile free press. A natural prediction of this is that in discussions of war, peace, diplomacy, violence and so on, essentially any fact that is unfit for U.S. and Western goals will be either ignored, distorted or falsified, and Western geopolitical ambitions will be revered to the point of almost being beyond what words can describe. In the case of Western imperialism in today’s Asia, this is precisely verified.

I. Aggression in Fact and Fiction

The Biden administration declared early in 2022 that official American policy in Asia and the Pacific sought domination and control over “every corner of the region,” while deploring Chinese “coercion and aggression” which “spans the globe”—a statement which is too ludicrous to comment, and was in fact ignored by the media, though presumably not for that reason. The military branch is usually quite honest about intentions: “This grand strategy uses,” quite effectively, “security and financial institutions to both bound and reshape China’s power within the system to bolster U.S.” imperial power (U.S. Air Force’s journal). Putting all euphemisms aside, the West must ensure that “all nations can benefit”—that is, all nations that obediently serve the U.S.—“from resource-rich” assets in Southeast Asia, as the Chief of Naval Operations, Michael Gilday, put it. Surely actions confirm the urgency among elites of achieving this.

Thus, the U.S. has stationed about 375,000 troops in the Indo-Pacific, of which 80,000 are in South Korea and Japan—while conducting constant offensive large-scale military operations aimed at China, through what is an offensive “global NATO” in Asia, to use the phrase of Liz Truss.

Throughout 2021, U.S. and European “warships and planes carried out more than 2,000 close spying operations aimed at China,” including at the “coastal area of the Chinese mainland.” Although lavishly funded Western news agencies mysteriously found minimal opportunity to report on the incidents, the reader of the Asian press could have learned that Western “strike groups” in “the South China Sea” nearly doubled their activity since 2020—repeatedly to the protest of the Chinese and in fact most of Asia, though to the enthusiastic celebration of the Western liberal and humane press.

This is virtually a continuation of the policy of the Trump administration, from which Biden is scarcely different—insofar as not being more hawkish, which the one-party-two-factions military oligarchy in Washington ensures. Therefore, the U.S. government declared in mid-2020 that the West must mobilize against the “Marxist-Leninist regime” and its “desire for global hegemony of Chinese communism,” which threatens “freedom everywhere.”

Finally, we became aware of the “threat they pose to our very way of life.” The “ambitions for ideological control” of “Joseph Stalin’s successor” (Xi Jinping) are “not limited to his own people,” and violent Chinese global control “is well under way.”

Predictably enough, this was met with not a horse laugh, but rather a deluge of awe. However, liberal critics had their reservations: This policy “is meaningful only if it is accompanied by a firm commitment by the Trump administration to a robust and coordinated policy” (NYT). “China’s strategy also aims to encircle the West” (naturally, no map depicting stationed military forces was presented in the article), and so the West must strike back “in the decisive battle,” “hopefully led once again by the United States” and its “enlightened leadership,” to quote the former director of national intelligence, Dan Coats.

However, not everyone was satisfied, since confrontation with China had to be conducted with “unalterable counterforce at every point,” as New York Times columnists demanded. Crucially, the Trump administration escalated the provocations against China—both maritime and by air— setting new records of daily U.S. military operations and aircraft spying raids against China, and stationing tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel in the Asian region.

Of course, nothing comparable is done by Chinese vessels and aircraft off the coast of Miami, London, Normandy and so on. It is simply taken for granted that we have the right to do anything we feel like, and that this has to be received with stoic equanimity by those who we deem as the Enemy.

Needless to say, the European satellites—convinced that the Boss will share a piece of the cake—have happily joined in on the one-sided military confrontation off the shores of China. Thus, the main Asian diplomatic journal, East Asia Forum, noted:

Since 2016, France has mobilized support for a European presence with annually rotating forces which have expanded with participation from a growing number of countries…The German frigate Bayern was deployed in the Indo-Pacific from August 2021 to February 2022 to conduct operations…and exercise with the navies of Australia, Singapore, Japan and the United States. Germany’s contribution was considered a key decision in forging French-German unity on building a permanent and effective European military presence in the Indo-Pacific. The United Kingdom has also delivered significant contributions to Indo-Pacific defense, decoupling a carrier strike group in 2021 and two warships permanently in 2022.

The Free press insists on the Chinese leader being “the modern-day emperor he has now become,” and China now “hunkering down” in a position of hostility toward the West—that is from David Ignatius at The Washington Post, who concedes that the Chinese perceive “bullying” from “America” with their massive military build-up along China’s borders, aiming to “win the 21st century.”

In short, to “make it harder for Beijing to maintain growth,” as the technical Asian press openly points out. However, he neatly left the last parts out, naturally. In fact, they are “driven by the leader’s vision of an ascendant and uncompromising China,” unwilling to give the West any chance of respite from its overwhelming confrontational stance—unquestionably “a combative approach,” informed The Wall Street Journal.

Incidentally, in that same day, international wire services (Agence France-Presse) published an official declaration by Xi Jinping, who noted that the U.S. and China have to “find ways to get along” through diplomacy, and invited Washington to increased “cooperation.” China is “willing to work with the U.S. to give mutual respect, coexist peacefully” and “find ways to get along.” That went unreported in the major press, though the vast Western readership of, for example, The Hindu had access to the statements.

The very fact that the Western powers are openly and explicitly provoking China with massive military infrastructure in order to stifle its progress through a military coalition of powerful Western and Asian countries, constantly building new military bases in the South China Sea, is unmentionable in the Free press. However, as one moves away from the typical propaganda channels, and closer to the military strategists, official diplomatic documents and so on, one can discern the obvious.

Thus, a study conducted by the U.S. Air Force observed that

“There is an abundance of evidence that documents China’s discontent with US SRO,” military reconnaissance operations off China’s coast, and that the country is “extremely prickly about sovereignty-related issues.”

The study points out that “China’s sensitivity in this area is further aggravated by ‘ever-present aerial reconnaissance aircraft off the coast,’” conceding that such action “compels Beijing to ‘defend their sovereignty,’” including “with military means.” Consider this report published in perhaps the most respected international Asian journal, South China Morning Post:

As one senior naval officer put it, [constant American and European military operations in the South China Sea] are “an in your face, rub your nose in it operation that lets people know who is the boss.” The Donald Trump administration increased the tempo of U.S. military activities in the South China Sea…The situation became so fraught that Beijing feared an attack against its installations. Yet President Joe Biden’s administration has continued fervently down this path and even worsened the situation … The U.S. now undertakes an average of four [military ship] missions a day over the South China Sea. That is about 1,500 a year.”

That is done in combination with large-scale offensive attack exercises by NATO and its regional allies against China, rarely causing any raised eyebrows at home.

Notice that it is not perceived as relevant, then, to stop these military campaigns, or that any question could arise regarding the justness of such calculated provocations, which once again illustrates the shared consensus in an obedient culture. Rather, we must learn “the hard lessons about hard power” in order to not “succumb to the utopian path of disarmament,” and we must not “allow the fear of escalation to dominate our decisions,” as Representative Mike Gallagher (R-WI) noted in a Wall Street Journal piece.

Speaking of which, the same Journal warned us the next day that the West now faces an “uncompromising China that challenges” us, and has “championed a combative approach in dealing with the West.” You will notice that this was printed as a news article, not an opinion piece, thus exposing the paper’s actual role as a servile tool of state propaganda.

Another window of opportunity for diplomacy opened itself in mid-November, when the Chinese president noted that the West and China “should respect each other, coexist in peace, pursue win-win cooperation” and avoid a “collision.” We do not know whether this was seriously meant, principally because the call was rejected by the West, which responded by saying that it will “continue to compete vigorously”—“compete,” meaning militarize and massively provoke near the shores of China. As we will discover, this sort of response to diplomacy generalizes.

II. The concocted nuclear peril and the predictable response

Using the Chinese “threat” to keep the domestic population in line, the military sector now has free access to unlimited welfare funding to high-tech industry, known in Newspeak as “defense spending.” “The imperative to innovate is back,” as military journals celebrate. Consider in this context the concern over alleged mindless Chinese “nuclear militarism,” a topic of extreme furor and concern in both Western press and government agitprop (essentially the same thing). The media has been saturated with headlines pointing out all kinds of threats to nuclear non-proliferation and expansion. As with every depoliticized and indoctrinated culture, the usual suspects are always fit for attack. In our case: North Korea, Iran and, crucially, China.

Thus, the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review warns of the “PRC” and its ever-increasing ability to conduct “nuclear coercion,” repeated by Pentagon and State Department officials, who regularly decry “China’s nuclear modernization and its rapid expansion.”

That is a staple in government propaganda and, hence, the Free press, which refuses to expose it as the obvious fraud that they in fact know it to be. The best grasping at the straw to illustrate the global intent of the “rogue regime brandishing nuclear weapons and threatening its neighbors” (WSJ editorial commenting on both China and NK l) was in the summer of 2021, in which The Washington Post claimed that “China is building more than 100 new missile silos” to be armed with nuclear warheads. That number later increased, though that cannot be said about the presenting of evidence. The entire thing was quickly exposed as falsification, as these “turn out to be wind turbines” (e.g., TFI Global and Council on Pacific Affairs). However, that lie was simply too useful to let go of, and the actual facts of the matter are yet more or less literally unreported in the West, and the ploy has now been forgotten after having properly served its propaganda function.

The intelligentsia made sure to not miss this splendid opportunity of showing complete loyalty to the state disinformation system. Former CIA agent and Atlantic Council propagandist Matthew Kroenig warned that America “should continue with bipartisan plans to modernize U.S. nuclear weapons. In addition, the Pentagon” has to be able to “meet its deterrence requirements with existing stockpile numbers,” and beyond.

The CIA’s and State Department’s favored China analysts declared that “China is now shifting to war-fighting mode.”

“Beijing’s refusal to talk and its insistence on secrecy about its arsenal means Washington has no choice but to believe but to believe Beijing intends to build a bigger nuclear force than America’s” (Gordon Chang)—that is, to build 14-20 times that of their existing amount of nuclear weapons. The falsifications continued well after the entire episode had been exposed, with media pretending not to know, while describing the “explosive growth” of Chinese nuclear arms as “breathtaking, and frankly, the word ‘breathtaking’ may not be enough” (The Sun, U.S. edition).

Incidentally, had the free press actually been concerned about “explosive growth” of nuclear arms, they would certainly have had no difficulty finding and reporting material documenting such “breathtaking” developments. Just prior to the carefully orchestrated furor about Chinese windmills purported to be “nuclear silos,” the UK openly declared that it would “expand” its “nuclear warhead stockpile by over 40%,” closer to 300 warheads in total.

This fact, too, was totally useless for the purposes of ideological warfare, and was therefore quickly forgotten in the ever-expanding memory hole. However, this is marginal compared to the nuclear escalation that by far puts in the shade other countries’ combined such. Namely, the dramatic American nuclear expansion program—which, of course, also happens to be the one never mentioned in the Free press. It consists of new nuclear missiles, strategic bombers (the newly revealed B-21), submarines and so on, which in total will cost $1.7 trillion, according to congressional numbers—all in all an impressive escalation.

The new B-21 bomber. [Source: military-today.com]

Biden’s Nuclear Posture Review calls for “Modernizing U.S. nuclear forces,” and an openness to a first nuclear strike, which is in order with earlier policy of the only country to have used the nuclear bomb on a population.

The Union of Concerned Scientists deemed the Review to be “a terrifying document” that “not only keeps the world on a path of increasing nuclear risk, in many ways it increases that risk.” Somewhat of an understatement.

Not everyone agrees, however. Nuclear weapons producers and retired military generals inform us that nuclear bombs must serve “as a mainstay of deterrence,” and defense

“is based on our demonstrated capabilities and the will power to use nuclear weapons.” A no-first-use policy of nuclear bombs must, therefore, be regarded as “narcissistic, self-indulgent, dangerous and destabilizing” (C. Robert Kehler, retired general and board member of Maxar Technologies).

You will notice that the entire publication about the alleged threat posed to us by China from which we have to defend ourselves is complete hypocrisy; apparently the West is not obliged to non-proliferation.

That is reserved for our adversary—a funny thought, given that China has about the same number of nuclear weapons as countries such as France, Israel or the UK. The U.S., on the other hand, has 14 times the amount China does, is spending close to two trillion dollars on nuclear weapons modernization, and is carrying out massive provocation off the Chinese border. Though this militarism and nuclear arms proliferation is off the agenda, for reasons obvious enough, while the media goes along.

No sane person would like China, or any other nation for that matter, to have a nuclear arsenal, let alone for them to expand it. Therefore the first thing one who is seriously concerned about Chinese nuclear armament would do, naturally, is to not act in such a way which is known to advance it. In fact, there is a perfectly clear way to stop China from arming itself, and everyone in the government knows it. That is: for the West to stop carrying out massive military provocations against the Chinese.

Thus, military experts, in Senate hearings, note that U.S. nuclear bombs and military infrastructure established in southern Asia “pose threats to China’s ability to retain an assured retaliation capability” and to its ability “to deter” a “first strike by the United States.” “So what accounts for this pattern of change and continuity in China’s strategic posture?” the Senate asked—“Several external drivers play important roles. Foremost among them are developments by the United States [and its allies],” deploying their military forces in China’s backyard, and massively increasing their already overwhelming nuclear capacities.

In the technical diplomatic literature it is conceded all the time that “China” is merely sending “a response to the gratuitous, unrestrained nuclear policies” of the U.S. and its allies. “Massively outgunned, China is acting rationally and predictably…By modernizing its nuclear force, the United States is giving China every reason to expand its own” (Foreign Affairs). Or to quote military analysts in Forbes: The (exaggerated) Chinese modernization of its military and nuclear forces “is a rational response to decades of American provocations. And if those provocations don’t end, rivals such as China are sure to develop even more capable nukes.”

Source: historyproject9.weebly.com

“China” does this, notes Dr. Jeffrey Lewis, one the leading arms-control experts, “because they want to be able to have a secure second-strike capability” were the U.S. to attack—as it regularly simulates in military exercises off China’s borders, together with a hostile alliance of nuclear-armed nations. And so the technical military analyses go, all in virtually the same tune and all equally unreported to the general public.

With the U.S. knowingly acting precisely to increase the Chinese nuclear threat against itself, we can discard the alleged concern and fear over Chinese nuclear arms. The trivial truism that the U.S. is knowingly and actively driving the Chinese to the path of militarization, is far beyond what can be perceived in the Free press. Although the person who fanatically reads the entire press can learn about these facts, one will likely not read the very plausible reality that U.S. policy is in fact designed to induce this Chinese response, as a cover for further aggressive military escalation and renewal. Though all of this is inaudible among the current jingoist blast, favored by hawks and doves alike.

Reaching a frenzied pitch in the fall and winter of 2022, a media barrage sought to inform that, on nuclear talks, there is “zero give on Beijing’s side,” noting “the fact that Xi” will not “negotiate on any of the contentious issues…because of his long record of deception,” to quote The Washington Post’s Josh Rogin.

A few days earlier, the same Post warned in an editorial that “the United States faces” a menace “who might prove far less willing to sign up for new treaty limits”—that is, “China, which has refused to engage in negotiations about its nuclear forces.” Obviously the West has to respond accordingly, and so it “is time for diplomatic rock ‘n’ roll. Let’s prevent whining from isolationists,” to use advice given in The Wall Street Journal by John Bolton.

The record of diplomatic proposals is clear and easy to discover, had there been an interest to do so. But the actual facts are entirely unacceptable to Western government propaganda, and are therefore simply not facts. Namely, that China on multiple occasions has signaled its willingness to establish a nuclear weapons settlement.

Let us pick just a few examples. In 2020 and 2021, there were concerns over how to “bring the Chinese to the negotiating table” to be held between the U.S. and Russia in the START talks in early 2021, as then U.S. top arms negotiator Marshall Billingslea, put it.

Shortly after this announcement, the Chinese leadership declared that it would be “happy” to participate to reach a settlement on the nuclear issue, “happy to participate the next day.” But on one condition: The U.S. dramatically reduces its nuclear arsenal—a perfectly sensible condition, given the astronomical discrepancy between China’s and the U.S.’s arsenals. It is not as if the U.S. ignored the proposal. It responded. Namely, it responded by totally rejecting the diplomatic proposal, boasting that it would outspend China “into oblivion”: “We know how to win these [arms] races and we know how to spend the adversary into oblivion,” Billingslea trumpeted.

Last year, in November 2021, Xi Jinping informed, that “China supports ASEAN’s [Southeast Asia’s intergovernmental body] efforts to build a nuclear weapon-free zone, and is prepared to sign the Protocol to the Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone as early as possible.” “Beijing’s demand for a nuclear-free Southeast Asia comes as the U.S. and UK empower their ally Australia with nuclear-armed submarines,” as the Asian press noted.

But none of this can be reported in the West, since it would give the game away, and would render unusable the inversion of fact suggesting that the West is hopelessly trying to reach a settlement, facing “Chinese unwillingness to join any arms-control regime in the foreseeable future” (Global Asia). That is not allowed to happen, since the cover for aggression against China would be exposed for what it plainly is.

One could extend the discussion beyond merely the questions of militarism and diplomacy in Western conduct toward China, though very little unexpected is to be discovered. It was once observed by leaders of the early modern PR and propaganda industry that “it is as impossible to imagine a genuine democracy without the science of persuasion,” namely propaganda, “as it is to think of a totalitarian state without coercion.”

This never ceases to be verified. In short, the behavior of the intellectual classes in their analysis of Western imperial policy in Asia is yet another illustration of how close we are to reaching “the ideal of a propaganda-managed democracy.”[1]


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Andi Olluri lives in western Sweden. He just turned 20 and is studying dietetics. Andi has been an activist since he was a young teenager. He can be reached at [email protected].


1. Alex Carey, Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate Propaganda Versus Freedom and Liberty (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997), 19, 82.

Featured image is from brownsbfs.co.uk


Dangerous Crossroads: US Carrier Strike Group Returns to South China Sea Amid Taiwan Tensions

Dangerous Crossroads: US Carrier Strike Group Returns to South China Sea Amid Taiwan Tensions

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.


A US aircraft carrier and its strike group have returned to the South China Sea after a port call in Singapore, deploying in the disputed region as tensions with China rise over a possible visit to Taiwan by congressional leader Nancy Pelosi.

Officials with the US Navy’s Seventh Fleet confirmed the deployment of the USS Ronald Reagan to the vital trade route but did not comment on questions about tensions over the trip by Pelosi, speaker of the US House of Representatives.

“USS Ronald Reagan and her strike group are underway, operating in the South China Sea following a successful port visit to Singapore,” Commander Hayley Sims said in a statement to Reuters.

Sims added that the Reagan “is continuing normal, scheduled operations as part of her routine patrol in support of a free and open Indo-Pacific”.

When asked for comment, China’s foreign ministry said the US was once again “flexing its muscles” in the South China Sea with the Reagan’s sailing.

“It is clear from this for everyone to see who is the biggest threat to the South China Sea and the Asian region’s peace and stability,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian told a regular briefing on Thursday.

News of the deployment of the Japan-based carrier comes as Beijing and Washington trade diplomatic blows over Pelosi’s visit, reportedly due to take place next month after being postponed earlier in the year. Pelosi has not confirmed the possible trip.

US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin said on Wednesday he had spoken with Pelosi and given her a security assessment but any comments about a trip she might make to Taiwan would have to come from her office.

The tensions come as US President Joe Biden and China’s Xi Jinping begin their fifth call as leaders on Thursday, which the White House said started at 8:33am (1233 GMT).

US officials said the call would have a broad agenda, including discussion of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which China has yet to condemn.

China has issued stern warnings to US officials about Pelosi’s possible visit to Taiwan, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said on Monday.

Beijing considers Taiwan to be part of its territory and has never renounced using force to bring the island under its control.

The Reagan strike group had been operating in the South China Sea earlier in the month before heading for a five-day rest stop in Singapore at the weekend.

Singapore-based security scholar Ian Storey said he would expect Chinese vessels to shadow the strike group, based on recent actions as well as the latest tensions.

“Most of the time those interactions are safe and professional, but there’s always a risk they could get too close and spark a confrontation,” said Storey, of the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.

US officials on Tuesday accused China of increased “provocations” against rival claimants in the South China Sea and said its “aggressive and irresponsible behavior” meant it was only a matter of time before there was a major incident or accident.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook


Biden’s Reckless New Provocation Ratchets Up Risk of Nuclear War with China

Biden’s Reckless New Provocation Ratchets Up Risk of Nuclear War with China

All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.

Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.


On June 25, the U.S. Navy sent a warship, the USS Benfold, to the South China Sea, only one day after a U.S. spy plane provocatively flew over the Taiwan Strait under the close monitoring of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

According to CNN, the U.S. flyover came after China sent 29 planes into Taiwan’s self-declared air defense identification zone (ADIZ).


Satellite image of USS Benfold entering South China Sea on June 25 through Verde Island passage. [Source: twitter.com]

From China’s point of view, the U.S. spy plane mission on June 24 was especially provocative because it was the first U.S. military activity in the region after China made it clear that there are no “international waters” in the Taiwan Strait.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, China claims jurisdiction over the Taiwan Strait.

Taiwan Strait - Wikipedia

Source: wikipedia.org

The PLA Eastern Theater Command organized aerial and ground forces and tracked the spy plane’s movements on high alert throughout its entire course on June 24 according to Senior Colonel Shi Yi, spokesperson of the PLA Eastern Theater Command.

Shi slammed the Biden administration’s move as being “intentional,” whose purpose was “to disrupt the regional situation and endanger the cross-Straits peace and stability. We firmly oppose this,” she said.

Turning Taiwan into a Porcupine

Ever since the Obama administration launched a “pivot to Asia,” the U.S. has expanded its military forces and provocative military maneuvers in an effort to encircle and intimidate China. The Biden administration, following Trump, has extended this policy, with National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan stockpiling the National Security Council (NSC) with China hawks.[1]

U.S. strategic planners consider Taiwan—which broke away from China in 1949 after the defeated Guomindang in China’s civil war took refuge there with U.S. backing—essential in blockading China and a key source for the manufacture of advanced computing chips essential to the U.S. military and industry.[2]

When Biden made a commitment to backing Taiwan militarily, he effectively overturned the “One China Policy”—established when the U.S. resumed diplomatic relations with China in 1979—recognizing Beijing to be the legitimate government of all China, including Taiwan.[3]

Since 2019, the U.S. has sold more than $14 billion in weaponry to Taiwan and sent military advisers to train its Special Forces. A U.S. government official described the U.S. strategy as being designed to turn Taiwan into a “porcupine”— a territory bristling with armaments and other forms of U.S.-led support that makes it “appear too painful to attack.”

Rejecting China’s Claim of Sovereignty over the Taiwan Strait

In line with this latter strategy, the Biden administration rejects China’s claims to sovereignty over the Taiwan Strait. The U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said that the spy plane’s transit demonstrates the United States’s “commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific.”

U.S. State Department spokesman Ned Price told Bloomberg News that “the Taiwan Strait is an international waterway” where freedom of navigation and overflight “are guaranteed under international law. The United States will continue to fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows, and that includes transiting through the Taiwan Strait.”

According to Price, China’s assertion that “there are no international waters” in the Taiwan Strait is not legitimate but is intended to “deter the U.S. from sailing through the Strait,”something that Beijing says “harms stability and send[s] the wrong signal to ‘Taiwan independence forces.’”

Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which China has ratified but the U.S. has not, nations are entitled to territorial waters stretching 12 nautical miles (22km) from their coast.

They may also claim an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) stretching another 200 nautical miles—beyond that are the high seas.

At its widest, the Taiwan Strait spans about 220 nautical miles; however, at its narrowest, it is 70 nautical miles—meaning recent U.S. actions are illegal.

If one accepts that Taiwan is part of China, as the U.S. nominally still does under the One China policy, then the entirety of the strait generally falls under Chinese jurisdiction—as China alleges.

A Habitual Aggressor

According to the Global Times, the USS Benfold—a guided missile destroyer built by Ingalls Shipbuilding—is a habitual aggressor in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait.

In January 2022, the destroyer illegally entered the Chinese territorial waters off the Xisha Islands in the South China Sea without authorization from the Chinese government, leading the PLA Southern Theater Command to organize naval and air forces to warn it away.

U.S. Navy spokesmen referred to the USS Benfold’s operations as “freedom of navigation operations.”

They accused China of violating international law by establishing baselines around dispersed islands like the Paracels in the South China Sea, which allows China to “claim more internal waters, territorial sea, exclusive economic zone, and continental shelf than it is entitled to under international law.”

China, however, accuses the U.S. of “infring[ing] on China’s sovereignty and security,” while “pursuing maritime hegemony and militarizing the South China Sea. Facts fully prove that the U.S. is a ‘risk-maker’ in the South China Sea and the ‘biggest destroyer’ of peace and stability in the South China Sea.

The South China Sea Is Not the Gulf of Mexico

We should remember that the name of the Sea where the U.S. is sending its naval vessels and spy planes is the South China Sea—and not the Gulf of Mexico.

If China were sending its warships on provocative missions off the coast of Mexico or Canada, U.S. leaders would respond with hysterics and probably immediately begin bombing.

Rising Specter of Nuclear War

Mark Selden, the editor of The Asia-Pacific Journal and academic expert on China, raised concern in an interview about “the rising specter of nuclear war,” particularly “in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine” and “at a time when [the] U.S. calculus has shifted from welcoming growing Chinese economic and geopolitical strength, notably in the Nixon era, to across-the-board pressures on China.”

According to Selden, the shifting U.S. calculus “includes mounting U.S. military support for Taiwan and stepping back from its position of calculated ambiguity on the future of the island in favor of direct and indirect challenges of China’s claims. The result is the largest increase in U.S. military spending since World War II in the form of $70 billion in aid…at a time when U.S.-China conflict again centers on Taiwan.”

Tally of Provocative Military Maneuvers

The Committee for a SANE U.S.-China Policy, an activist group that aims to prevent war, has compiled a tally of provocative military maneuvers and close encounters between the U.S. and China since January 2021 in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait.

According to their findings, the U.S. in that time initiated 45 incidents, and the Chinese 53.

Joseph Gerson and Michael T. Klare, the founders of the committee, write that

“almost every day, China and/or the United States deploy their ships and warplanes in a menacing (“muscle-flexing”) fashion to demonstrate resolve and to throw the other side off balance….While officials on both sides claim that their forces are merely conducting military drills that pose no threat to their rival, these mock combat operations in the vicinity of opposing forces send an unmistakable signal of hostile intent. It is not unusual, moreover, for ships and planes of one side to monitor the operations of the other, and even, on occasion, to interfere with them. When this occurs, there is always the risk of a collision or unintended shooting incident, leading to further military action and full-scale conflict.”

A picture containing text, outdoor, boat, sign Description automatically generated

Source: apjjf.org

In short, the specter of war between the U.S. and China has never been greater. It is up to us, consequently, to try to avert conflict and restore legality and sanity to U.S. foreign policy through concerted political activism.


Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.

Jeremy Kuzmarov is Managing Editor of CovertAction Magazine. He is the author of four books on U.S. foreign policy, including Obama’s Unending Wars (Clarity Press, 2019) and The Russians Are Coming, Again, with John Marciano (Monthly Review Press, 2018). He can be reached at: [email protected].


  1. One of the hawks was Kurt Campbell, an architect of Obama’s pivot who declared that “the period that was broadly described as engagement [with China] has come to an end.” 

  2. Peter Symonds, “U.S.-China tensions flare over Taiwan Strait,” World Socialist Website, June 24, 2022, https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/06/25/pbhh-j25.pdf. The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company produces more than 90% of the world’s most advanced computing chips. 
  3. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have introduced the bipartisan Taiwan Policy Act into Congress that, according to Peter Symonds, “would drop any pretense of ‘strategic ambiguity’ and commit the U.S. to a war with China over Taiwan. As well as providing almost $4.5 billion in military assistance to Taiwan, the bill would designate Taiwan as a Major Non-NATO ally.” 

Featured image: Biden laughing in 2021. [Source: ia.acs.org]


Mysterious South China Sea missile launch allegedly captured by airliner

(Image from original article)

On Tuesday, May 24, Twitter user @jchovernut, a pilot for Allegiant Airlines and a veteran of the U.S. Navy’s submarine force, posted a video on Facebook showing a Cathay Pacific Boeing 777 flying over the South China Sea when a missile launch was seen lifting off from the plane, possibly from a submarine. People can be heard in the video discussing whether the missile is coming in their direction.

The text in the video reads that while flying over the South China Sea, an emergency call was received at the last minute from air traffic control: ‘Turn 90 degrees to the left immediately!’

And the video is also unlikely to be the one from 2017, when a Cathay Pacific crew flying in northern Japan observed a North Korean missile test, as the airline said at the time that the crew saw part of the missile fall back to Earth, not launch it.

It is not clear exactly when and where the video was taken, nor is there any pilot notice (NOTAM).

However, the Communist Party of China’s (CCP) People’s Liberation Army (PLA) had announced that it would conduct exercises in the South China Sea between May 19 and May 23, which coincided with U.S. President Joe Biden’s visits to South Korea and Japan, but did not mention any plans for live missile launches.

If this is indeed an unannounced CCP missile launch from a submarine, ship or other platform in the South China Sea, a launch near a route used by commercial aircraft, or an aircraft very close to a projectile at some point, this seems to be an extremely reckless decision.

The world should realize that the Chinese Communist Party is constantly brutally testing the people of the Communist country and how much the world tolerates its dictatorship for the purpose of controlling the world.

Following Miles Guo‘ s lead to Take down the Chinese Communist Party is a must for justice.


Edited by:Rebecca (一切心皆不可得!)
Posted by:Hong

Disclaimer: This article only represents the author’s view. Gnews is not responsible for any legal risks.



Please help truthPeep spread the word :)