Categories
expert analysis

Debunking The West’s Top Ten Lies About Chinese-African Relations

Debunking The West’s Top Ten Lies About Chinese-African Relations

15 DECEMBER 2021

The present analysis will identify and subsequently debunk the West’s top lies about Chinese-African relations. What comes next is a list of lies followed by the motive behind each. Then they’ll be discredited with the facts.

Chinese-African relations are historically rooted through shared struggle, mutually beneficial, and the model of South-South cooperation. They represent the best practices of international relations. It’s precisely because of their pragmatism that the US is spreading lies about them. America hopes to cling to its fading unipolar hegemony by stirring up trouble in Chinese-African relations through information warfare in a desperate but inevitably doomed attempt to cling to its fading unipolar hegemony. Washington wrongly believes that it can turn the continent into a theater of rivalry in the New Cold War.

The present analysis will identify and subsequently debunk the West’s top lies about Chinese-African relations. What comes next is a list of lies followed by the motive behind each. Then they’ll be discredited with the facts. The purpose in doing so is to raise greater awareness of the US’ latest information warfare campaign. It must be confidently challenged in order to expose Washington’s pernicious divide-and-rule intentions. The more that the world learns the truth behind the US’ lies, the faster it’ll complete its ongoing and irreversible transition to multipolarity.

1. Lie: “China only cares about extracting resources from Africa!”

Motive: Misportray China as a selfish power no different than Western ones.

Truth: The Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) builds infrastructure and unleashes Africa’s economic capabilities.

2. Lie: “China catches African countries in debt traps!”

Motive: Deter African countries from accepting China’s no-strings-attached development loans.

Truth: All deals are voluntary and Chinese investment guarantees each project’s success with time.

3. Lie: “China’s BRI deals worsen African corruption!”

Motive: Misportray China as an economically and politically irresponsible power exactly like the West.

Truth: China’s deals are with legitimate governments that have their own means of fighting corruption.

4. Lie: “China supports African dictators!”

Motive: Discredit the legitimacy of bilateral relations between China and various African countries.

Truth: All of China’s partners are UN-recognized states and governments thereof.

5. Lie: “China’s engagement with Africa is opportunistic!”

Motive: Misportray China as having no mutually beneficial long-term strategy towards Africa.

Truth: China just published its “2035 Vision For China-Africa Cooperation” strategy document.

6. Lie: “China’s secretly building military bases all over Africa!”

Motive: Fearmonger about China’s supposedly aggressive intentions.

Truth: China’s only foreign base is in Djibouti and aimed at facilitating regional anti-piracy operations.

7. Lie: “China is destabilizing Africa!”

Motive: Misportray China’s growing comprehensive engagement with Africa as detrimental to stability.

Truth: China contributes more troops to UN peacekeeping missions than any other country in the world.

8. Lie: “China doesn’t treat its African partners as equals!”

Motive: Falsely imply that China is hegemonistic.

Truth: The triennial Forum On China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) proves the equality of their relations.

9. Lie: “China is racist!”

Motive: Scare Africans away from doing business with China and traveling to it.

Truth: China has unwaveringly fought against racism and the Chinese people are also victims of it.

10. Lie: “China is neo-imperialist!”

Motive: Discredit China’s socialist ideology of shared development among Global South nations.

Truth: China supported African liberation struggles and invested more than $43.4 billion there by 2021.

From the above examples, several information warfare trends can be clearly discerned. First, the most obvious is that the West is lying through its teeth about China. Second, it’s projecting its own motives and modus operandi onto China. Third, this confirms that it has what can be described as a “guilty conscience” but shamelessly doesn’t want to change its ways. Fourth, this is due to its obsession with retaining its fading hegemony. And fifth, the West cannot realistically “compete” with China in Africa.

Building upon the last observation, this explains why it’s resorting to subversive tactics like information warfare aimed at manipulating the minds of Africans and attacking China’s reputation as a reliable partner. Nevertheless, this is doomed to fail because facts always triumph over lies. Africans can see for themselves the mutual benefits of cooperating with China. It’s for this reason why the predicted Asian Century will surely be accompanied by an African Century and thus herald the rise of the Global South.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: China, Africa, BRI, US, Infowars, Fake News, Multipolarity, New Cold War.


FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
expert analysis

Putin Is Right, The West’s Anti-Chinese Policy Is Indeed Repulsive

Putin Is Right, The West’s Anti-Chinese Policy Is Indeed Repulsive

14 DECEMBER 2021

Whether it’s the West’s trade and tech wars that they provoked against the People’s Republic, their fake news-driven information warfare campaigns against that country, or the AUKUS military alliance which aims to aggressively contain it through nuclear-related means, every aspect of their policy towards Beijing is indeed repulsive.

Russian President Vladimir Putin slammed the West’s anti-Chinese policy as “repulsive” while recently speaking at the “Russia Calling!” annual investment forum. He criticized the sanctions and restrictions against China as “completely unjustified” and said that “they contradict international law.” The Russian leader also condemned the Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) military alliance, which he said “does not help improve the situation in the region, it escalates tensions.” He’s right about everything that he said.

What’s so repulsive about all of this isn’t just that it’s illegal, but that it’s so hypocritical and dangerous. The West preaches a policy of so-called “democracy” and “human rights”, yet there’s nothing “democratic” or “humane” about a gang of countries such as the AUKUS states teaming up against anyone else like China. It’s anti-democratic and inhumane, especially since the sanctions are meant to hurt the Chinese people. These policies are the opposite of what the West says that it stands for.

They’re also dangerous too because they unnecessarily raise the risk of war. Two of AUKUS’ three countries are nuclear powers and are plotting to controversially proliferate nuclear submarine technology to the Asia-Pacific member of their alliance. All three have provoked differing levels of tension with China in recent years so it’s clear that this nuclear pact is aimed against the People’s Republic. The AUKUS states arrogantly assume that China will sit back and not defend itself.

Every defensive move that China takes, both in the past and in the future, is misportrayed as a so-called “unprovoked act of aggression”. This is also extremely repulsive. President Putin defended China’s military policy during his talk when he remarked that “it has the right to build its defense policy in a way to ensure the security of that huge country. Who can deny it [China] this right? It is natural that the military might grows along with the rise in the economic potential. This is a natural process.”

Taking this insight into consideration, it becomes clear that the West’s repulsive anti-Chinese policy is also unnatural. Nevertheless, delusional Western officials perversely claim that it’s actually “natural” because they say that there’s no alternative to their countries trying to keep China in check. That’s the wrong way to look at the world since mutually beneficial cooperation is the way of the future, not the zero-sum thinking that’s responsible for two World Wars and countless comparatively smaller ones.

President Putin elaborated on the reason why he isn’t concerned by China’s growing military capabilities. In his words, “why do we have to show any concern over the growing defense potential of our nearest neighbor, with which we enjoy an unprecedentedly high level of inter-state relations?” Put another way, if countries focus on cooperating in areas of shared interest like China and Russia do instead of provoking conflict like the West does, then there’s no reason to fear one another.

This is a pragmatic and natural way to conduct international relations. If the West only followed China’s and Russia’s lead by respecting other countries’ rights to govern themselves in accordance with their people’s wishes, defend themselves, and develop with whatever model they believe is best, then the world would be so much more peaceful. Instead, the West continues to cling to its reprehensible, hypocritical, and dangerous policies against China, which are endangering world peace.

President Putin advised in a different part of his speech that “We need to build such a model of international relations where all members of the international community could feel equal and where common rules are adopted. Not to live by somebody else’s rule established by no one knows who and how, but to live by common rules, agreed and adopted by the world community. It means to live by stable rule.”

The core of the problem is that the West doesn’t abide by the rules-based order legitimized by the same United Nations Charter that its governments formally agreed to respect by participating in that global body. This is the real root of its repulsive policies against China and all other peace-loving countries that respect international law. These double standards contradict the “democratic” and “human rights” rhetoric spewed by their governments. All the trouble that they cause can be traced back to this.

Whether it’s the West’s trade and tech wars that they provoked against the People’s Republic, their fake news-driven information warfare campaigns against that country, or the AUKUS military alliance which aims to aggressively contain it through nuclear-related means, every aspect of their policy towards Beijing is indeed repulsive. Raising awareness of this objective observation like President Putin did will hopefully get the West to wake up and realize how counterproductive this all is before it’s too late.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: Russia, China, Putin, US, West, New Cold War.


FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
expert analysis

The Putin-Modi Summit Was A Global Geostrategic Game-Changer

The Putin-Modi Summit Was A Global Geostrategic Game-Changer

9 DECEMBER 2021

The Putin-Modi Summit Was A Global Geostrategic Game-Changer

The de facto Russian-Indian hemispheric-wide “balancing” alliance that was agreed to during this week’s Putin-Modi Summit is one of the most significant diplomatic developments this century thus far. It’s truly a global geostrategic game-changer because of the irreplaceable role that it aims to play in the ongoing US-Chinese New Cold War.

The Globally Significant Summit

Russian President Putin’s visit to New Delhi to meet with Indian Prime Minister Modi was a geostrategically game-changing development in the context of the ongoing New Cold War. The “Partnership for Peace, Progress, and Prosperity” that both sides agreed to amounts to a de facto alliance in all but name and builds upon their 1971 “Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation” from exactly half a century ago. This 99-point document aims to align both Great Powers’ Eastern Hemispheric-wide “balancing” acts in order to maximally optimize their impact on shaping the dynamics of the emerging Multipolar World Order. It can be regarded as among the most important diplomatic developments of this century thus far and will likely remain relevant for decades.

Background Briefing

The author outlined the contours of their complementary grand strategies in the following pieces:

* 16 May 2020: “The Prospects Of Russia And India Jointly Leading A New Non-Aligned Movement

* 17 February 2021: “Why Structural Realists Are Wrong To Predict That Russia Will Help The US Against China

* 7 October 2021: “Towards Bi-Multipolarity

What comes next is an oversimplified summary of the insight shared above.

Complementary “Balancing” Acts

Basically, Russia and India both aspire to “balance” the consequences of the primarily US-Chinese New Cold War, though they’ve thus far been going about it in different ways: Russia aligned closer to China while India did the same to the US. The mutual suspicions of each other’s grand strategic intent that this prompted were finally resolved earlier this year. Russia and India realized that they can do more if they coordinate their policies. This explains clause 93 of their reaffirmed partnership pact which declares that “The sides agreed to explore mutually acceptable and beneficial areas of cooperation in third countries especially in the Central Asia, South East Asia and Africa.”

The ”Neo-NAM”

That policy informally amounts to an attempt to organize a hemispheric-wide network of “non-aligned” states that share Russia’s and India’s interest in “balancing” between the US and China. In other words, it’s the prototype of the “Neo-NAM” that the author wrote about in May 2020 for the official journal of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO, which is run by the Russian Foreign Ministry). As he explained in the Indian military publication Force two months ago, this is aimed at enabling both Great Powers to flexibly adapting to the constantly changing geostrategic circumstances of the New Cold War through what’s described as their “bi-multipolarity” vision.

Russia’s Indo-Sino “Balancing” Act

It’s crucial to clarify that Russia has no intentions of infringing on China’s interests even if some in India might secretly wish that it would or could at least be tricked into doing so. Rather, the Eurasian Great Power understands that it has the responsibility to play an irreplaceable role in pragmatically managing tensions between its fellow BRICS and SCO partners in order to counteract the US’ incessant attempts to divide and rule them. Moscow appears to have accepted that if this rivalry won’t go away for some time, then the Kremlin must seek to ensure that it doesn’t lead to another Galwan-like conflict which could escalate into an all-out conventional war in the worst-case scenario.

“Military Diplomacy”

With this in mind, Russia is practicing what can be described as “military diplomacy”, or the use of military means to achieve political ends. In this case, it’s exporting equally strategic and high-quality arms to rivals China and India in order to maintain the balance of power between them with a view towards subsequently encouraging them to settle their disputes through political means instead of military ones. This contrasts with the American practice of “military diplomacy”, which attempts to give its preferred partner in any pair of rivals the military edge in order to encourage aggressive attempts to resolve existing disputes in a unilateral way instead of via a series of political compromises.

RIC

The Kremlin’s calculation is that if India is going to arm itself to the teeth anyhow, then it’s better for it to do so with Russian arms than American ones. While China might understandably feel uncomfortable with India’s massive military buildup, it seems to quietly prefer for this to be aided by Russia than the US if it’s seemingly inevitable. That could in turn enable Moscow to more effectively manage Washington’s pernicious divide-and-rule influence over New Delhi and thus hopefully stabilize Eurasian affairs. Proof of this concept in practice was seen late last month during the Russia-India-China (RIC) Foreign Ministers meeting that went ahead despite existing Chinese-Indian tensions likely due to Russia’s mediating role.

New Cold War Dynamics

China doesn’t believe in posing zero-sum choices upon its partners like the US does, but it’ll increasingly be compelled by the New Cold War’s American-influenced hyper-competitive dynamics into accepting that third countries are being pressured to choose between Beijing and Washington. This could place those states in very challenging positions since their cooperation with China is mutually beneficial yet they also fear the US’ Hybrid War wrath if they don’t submit to America’s demands to distance themselves from the People’s Republic as evidenced by the high-profile example that Washington is trying to make out of Ethiopia after its principled refusal to do so.  

The Geopolitical “Pressure Valve”

What’s urgently needed is a “pressure valve” for providing such countries with a so-called “third choice” whereby they can hopefully strike a balance between both superpowers without inadvertently offending one or the other. Therein lies the grand strategic significance of the Neo-NAM that the author proposed be jointly led by Russia and India. The first-mentioned is perceived as close to China while the second is seen as closer to the US, yet they’ve nevertheless proven their strategic autonomy through the latest Putin-Modi Summit. Russia continues to arm India to the teeth despite China’s concerns while India continues purchasing Russian arms despite the US’ sanctions threats for doing so.

Hemispheric Reach

Their declaration of intent to cooperate in third countries across Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and Africa significantly involves the greatest theaters of rivalry in the US-Chinese New Cold War and can thus enable these two Great Powers to maximally optimize their complementary hemispheric-wide “balancing” acts. There’s also the chance that they’ll expand their cooperation to include West Asia considering the close relations that they each enjoy with Iran, “Israel”, and the UAE. When one remembers that they also pledged to work closer together in the Russian Arctic and Far East regions, it can be seen that their de facto “balancing” alliance truly encompasses the entire Eastern Hemisphere.

The European Dimension

While it might not have much of a direct impact on Europe in Western Eurasia, it does indeed have a very influential one when it comes to its indirect consequences. The North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) between them through Iran and Azerbaijan aims to facilitate EU-Indian trade via Russia while the possible expansion of the Vladivostok-Chennai Maritime Corridor (VCMC) to include the Northern Sea Route (NSR) through the Arctic for connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans could achieve this economic end through maritime means for complementing the NSTC’s mainland component.

Towards A Russian-American “Non-Aggression Pact”

Some skeptics might question the political viability of Russia facilitating EU-Indian trade (whether through mainland or maritime means) considering the heightened tensions between Moscow and the West, but it’s here where they should contemplate the intention behind the last two Putin-Biden Summits. They’re aimed at responsibly regulating their rivalry so that they can ultimately reach a so-called “non-aggression pact”. This outcome would be mutually beneficial since it would enable the US to redirect more of its military and other resources to the “Indo-Pacific” for more aggressively “containing” China while restoring EU-Russian relations for improving one another’s struggling economies.

The US’ Anti-Russian “Deep State” Faction

This scenario remains dependent on the Biden Administration’s ability to manage the anti-Russian faction of the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) that’s trying to sabotage those two’s hoped-for “non-aggression pact” by leveraging its network of influence in the Baltic States, Poland, and Ukraine in order to provoke another East-West crisis. Right now, its anti-Chinese rival is predominant with respect to formulating the US’ grand strategy as evidenced by the last two Putin-Biden Summits. This change in the US’ “deep state” dynamics was former US President Trump’s most enduring legacy and was inherited by Biden as was just argued.

Concluding Thoughts

Back to the topic of this analysis, the de facto Russian-Indian hemispheric-wide “balancing” alliance that was agreed to during this week’s Putin-Modi Summit is one of the most significant diplomatic developments this century thus far. It’s truly a global geostrategic game-changer because of the irreplaceable role that it aims to play in the ongoing US-Chinese New Cold War. It’s of the highest importance that observers acknowledge this emerging reality in order to formulate the most effective policies for their countries to adapt to it. The Russian-Indian axis is now one of the most important in the world and will likely remain so for decades, perhaps even for the rest of the 21st century.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: Russia, India, China, US, Balancing, Multipolarity, Neo-NAM.


FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
expert analysis

The Solomon Islands’ Unrest Is Part Of The Hybrid War On China

The Solomon Islands’ Unrest Is Part Of The Hybrid War On China

3 DECEMBER 2021

The Solomon Islands’ Unrest Is Part Of The Hybrid War On China

What this Hybrid War on the Solomon Islands has thus far shown is that small nations which switch their recognition from Taipei to Beijing will be punished through the external exacerbation of their preexisting identity tensions for regime change ends.

The Solomon Islands was recently destabilized by large-scale riots that prompted the government to request a military intervention from its historical Australian allies and nearby Fiji. The unrest was driven by people from the country’s most populous island, Malaita, who traveled to the capital on Guadalcanal to protest against the government’s recognition of Beijing as the legitimate government of China in late 2019. That move prompted the province to flirt with separatist aspirations a year later, which were also promoted during last week’s riots.

The author asked at the time, “Is The Quad Plotting To Provoke A Proxy War With China In The Solomon Islands?” The basis for this prediction was that Malaita is openly loyal to Taipei while Honiara, the capital of the Solomon Islands, nowadays supports Beijing. The issue of Taiwan’s status is an extremely symbolic and highly strategic one for both China and its Quad rivals. For that reason, the author predicted that tensions would eventually boil over in order to destabilize this new Chinese-friendly government.

Prime Minister Sogavare claimed that the recent riots were incited from abroad and aimed to carry out a regime change against him while the Chinese Foreign Minister expressed confidence that they’ll fail to disrupt bilateral ties. These official statements lend credence to the author’s prediction last year about a brewing plot to punish the Solomon Islands for recognizing Beijing in a way that relies heavily upon the Malaita factor to disguise the true motivation behind the expected unconventional acts of aggression. It can therefore be concluded that the latest events perfectly fit into the predicted model.

The requested Australian military intervention added a curious twist to this Hybrid War since that country is fiercely against China nowadays yet just dispatched troops to prop up this nearby Chinese-friendly government despite the criticism that this provoked from Malaita’s leader. Canberra helped Honiara in order to advance several objectives: preempt a possible Chinese intervention in that country’s support; flex its regional leadership; and possibly set the basis for a Quad-led “peacekeeping” mission in the future, one which might ultimately lead to an independence referendum for Malaita.

Evidently, Australia doesn’t feel comfortable “surrendering” its historical influence in the Solomon Islands, especially not after literally being requested by its government to once again militarily intervene there. This shows that Canberra plans to compete with Beijing for influence, which it might begin doing in increasingly creative ways. It remains unclear whether it had a role in provoking the latest riots, but one can likely exclude that scenario since the Solomon Islands wouldn’t have realistically asked it to dispatch troops to quell the riots if it had any credible suspicion that it did.

That, however, doesn’t mean that the other Quad countries’ potential involvement can be dismissed. The US might have worked together with Taiwanese intelligence in order to engineer last week’s regime change scenario. Australia’s requested intervention could thus lead to the Quad playing a game of “good cop, bad cop” whereby Canberra fulfills the former role while Washington fulfills the latter. That would give the alliance maximum strategic flexibility in shaping events. Australia might even soon be expected to offer reconstruction aid to the Solomon Islands to pair with the US’ existing aid to Malaita.

What this Hybrid War on the Solomon Islands has thus far shown is that small nations which switch their recognition from Taipei to Beijing will be punished through the external exacerbation of their preexisting identity tensions for regime change ends. Even if these kinetic provocations fail to overthrow those new Chinese-friendly governments, they’ll still serve as politically convenient pretexts for the US and its allies to exert influence over them, even if initially in the form of support in quelling the same disturbances that the Quad was responsible for provoking. All of this could complicate Chinese diplomacy.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: Solomon Islands, China, Taiwan, Australia, Quad, US, Hybrid War, Regime Change, Color Revolution.


FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Middle East

China shows solidarity with Iran amid pressure from US over nuclear deal | Source: South China Morning Post

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has promised to share development experience with Iran to help it resist pressure from the United States.  Wang criticised that China and Iran were not included to a democracy summit organized by United States in December among the 110 invitees for the summit, which include Taiwan, India and Iraq.

Source: South China Morning Post


MORE NEWS ABOUT MIDDLE EAST:

Middle East

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
North America

The Latest Data Proves That Chinese-US Trade Is Mutually Beneficial

The Latest Data Proves That Chinese-US Trade Is Mutually Beneficial

29 OCTOBER 2021

The latest trade data shows that the American business community doesn’t agree with continuing former US President Trump’s counterproductive trade war, nor are they boycotting Chinese products due to the tensions that incumbent US President Biden has provoked with the People’s Republic.

China released its latest trade data in early October showing that trade surged 35.4% from January to September compared to the same period last year to reach $543 billion. This should be celebrated by both sides despite the administration of former US President Donald Trump and his successor Joe Biden regarding it as a sensitive issue. The reason for this is that such data is a sign of mutually beneficial relations considering the economic and geopolitical context.

Regarding the first, this proves that China is playing a major role in helping American retailers refill bare shelves, according to unnamed economists quoted by the Associated Press. The US’ ongoing supply chain crunch is beyond China’s control to fix because it’s due to domestic issues related to the American labor market and other such factors, but it nevertheless shows that Chinese imports are beneficial for that country’s consumers. Without them, their economic crisis would be much more challenging.

Concerning the geopolitical context, the latest trade data shows that the American business community doesn’t agree with continuing former US President Trump’s counterproductive trade war, nor are they boycotting Chinese products due to the tensions that incumbent US President Biden has provoked with the People’s Republic. This community is the epitome of pragmatism and their reasonable interests should be listened to in Washington. Policymakers must realize that trade can de-escalate tensions, not exacerbate them.

These two observations combine to inspire a new path forward for Chinese-American relations. Quite clearly, the US government’s anti-Chinese hostility has had no negative affect on bilateral trade. To the contrary, as the latest data confirms, trade remains surprisingly strong. The latest trade data demonstrates the complex economic interdependence between China and the US, which has been made all the more important as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Imagining for a moment that former US President Trump had succeeded in “decoupling” their economies or that the business community boycotted Chinese products out of solidarity with incumbent US President Biden, the economic situation for ordinary Americans would have been much worse than it presently is. It’s precisely because those two leaders’ anti-Chinese policies have failed in the economic sense that American living standards haven’t plummeted even more. China is therefore responsible for helping the American people.

Some might deny this “politically incorrect” claim for self-interested ideological reasons, but it’s undeniable considering the two contexts that were earlier examined. Although American policymakers might be loath to admit it, they nevertheless acknowledge the positive role that China is playing in helping their people, even if they hadn’t ever intended for it to do so. This gives cautious optimism that they might not further escalate the hitherto static trade war between them for pragmatism’s sake, at least not in the near future, hopefully.

Of course, the influential military-industrial complex’s congressional lobbies and the neoconservative ideologues in the US government have selfish reasons to hope that relations comprehensively worsen between China and the US, but policymakers must realize how counterproductive this would be. The ruling Democrats cannot afford for the American economy to suffer any more than it already is by curtailing trade ties with China if they hope to retain control of Congress during next year’s midterm elections.

The ideal scenario would be for the Biden Administration to seriously consider a meaningful rapprochement with China. The continuance of former US President Trump’s anti-Chinese policies has failed to “decouple” their economies, which are more intertwined than ever before and at such a crucial moment in world history at that. Trade should form the basis upon which bilateral ties can improve. Selfish forces mustn’t be allowed to sabotage this promising possibility. Hopefully common sense, pragmatism, and mutual interests will prevail.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: China, US, Trade War, Trump, Biden.


FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Asia Pacific

Stop Making A Big Deal Out Of Russia’s Support Of Beijing’s Sovereignty Over Taiwan

Stop Making A Big Deal Out Of Russia’s Support Of Beijing’s Sovereignty Over Taiwan

19 OCTOBER 2021

Stop Making A Big Deal Out Of Russia

Reaffirming this reality isn’t a sign that Russia is ‘aligning’ with China ‘against’ the US, but is simply a statement of legal fact.

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov reaffirmed his country’s support of Beijing’s sovereignty over Taiwan last week. According to the Eurasian Great Power’s top diplomat:

Just like the overwhelming majority of other countries, Russia views Taiwan as part of the People’s Republic of China. This is the premise we proceed from and will continue to proceed from in our policy.”

This prompted Newsweek to headline a piece titled “Russia Says Taiwan is Part of China as Two Powers Further Align Against U.S.”, which presented this policy declaration as some kind of anti-American move.

It’s nothing of the sort though, and Moscow’s motivations deserve to be elaborated upon to clarify matters. Russia is firmly in support of the UN-centric world order, not the US’ subjectively defined so-called “rules-based order” which selectively imposes double standards in a desperate attempt to indefinitely stave off its fading unipolar hegemony. According to international law, Taiwan is a rogue province of the People’s Republic of China over which Beijing has formal sovereignty. Reaffirming this reality isn’t a sign that Russia is “aligning” with China “against” the US, but is simply a statement of legal fact.

Making a bigger deal out of this than it is implies ulterior perception management motives. To explain, those that are hostile to both multipolar Great Powers hope to promote the false impression that they’re “allies”, which is misleading. While they closely cooperate with one another and are indeed strategic partners, neither will go to war in support of the either, not over Taiwan or Crimea, among other potential flashpoints. Nevertheless, implying that this scenario is possible is meant to justify the US-led West’s escalations against them on the manipulated pretext that such aggressive moves are supposedly “defensive” in nature.

Some in the Alt-Media Community (AMC) push this warped perception of reality for ideological reasons since they wishfully believe that such a false interpretation of their partnership is true. It seemingly serves the purpose of rallying their supporters, though it carries with it the immense risk of backfiring once reality sets in and these same supporters might become disappointed to the point where their emotional reactions are exploited to make them susceptible to hostile narratives such as claiming that one of them sold the other out. After all, Russia is actively “balancing” China, though in a “friendly/gentle” manner that few dare to talk about.

I explained this in three prior pieces titled “Why Structural Realists Are Wrong To Predict That Russia Will Help The US Contain China”, “Russian Scholar Karaganov Articulated Russia’s Balancing Act With China”, and “Towards Bi-Multipolarity”. They’re of varying lengths and detail but should at the very least be skimmed by those who are interested in this topic. The purpose in referencing them is to show that exaggerated claims of their strategic partnership don’t reflect the reality of their relations. President Putin even declined to support China’s claims in the South China Sea just last week, which speaks to his country’s balanced position.

It’s crucial to clarify all of this in order to simultaneously discredit the manipulation of these false perceptions to put more pressure on both of them as well as preemptively avert the exploitation of well-intended but naive individuals’ disappointment with the facts once they inevitably become more self-evident due to these strategic dynamics. Both the Mainstream Media and AMC may find it “politically inconvenient” for their own reasons to accept the strategic insight that was shared in this analysis, but honest observers should appreciate this since it’s intended to make it much less likely that they’ll be misled by either of those two in the future.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: Russia, China, US, Taiwan, Balancing, Multipolarity, New Cold War, Alt-Media.


FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
analysis

A Chinese-US Military Conflict Can Be Avoided If America Has The Will

A Chinese-US Military Conflict Can Be Avoided If America Has The Will

10 AUGUST 2021

A Chinese-US Military Conflict Can Be Avoided If America Has The Will

The reason why this has yet to happen is because some American elites profit from perpetuating the narrative of a New Cold War against China.

US Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman’s recent trip to Tianjin to meet with Chinese officials didn’t lead to a breakthrough in bilateral relations, though few seriously expected that it would. Any dialogue is better than no dialogue of course, but the talks didn’t result in anything tangible because the US lacks the will to respect China’s interests. Regrettably, CNN misportrayed their latest interaction in an article published on 30 July that was headlined “The US and China say they want to avoid military conflict, but no one can agree on how”.

Vice Foreign Minister Xie Feng said that his country presented its American counterparts with a List of U.S. Wrongdoings that Must Stop and a List of Key Individual Cases that China Has Concerns With. Some of the requests that were made include unilaterally lifting visa restrictions on members of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and their families as well as stopping the harassment of Chinese diplomatic and consular missions in the US, according to Xinhua. The US thus far hasn’t taken any steps to respect China’s interests.

Although CNN reported on those lists and the similar statements by both sides’ representatives about how their countries want peace, it misleadingly made it seem as though both sides are to blame for the terrible state of bilateral relations. The reality is that China shares no blame for what’s happening. The former Trump Administration declared an unprovoked trade war against China that rapidly escalated into what some observers nowadays describe as a New Cold War that continues under the Biden Administration.

Examples of the US’ acts of aggression against China include unilateral sanctions, meddling in its internal affairs (particularly in Hong Kong and Xinjiang), an intensified information warfare campaign, blaming China for the COVID-19 pandemic, provocative so-called “freedom of navigation” operations (FONOPs) through Beijing’s portion of the South China Sea, and encouraging the self-declared “authorities” of the rogue Chinese island of Taiwan to behave more antagonistically towards the mainland.

By contrast, China has simply responded to American sanctions, abstains from meddling in its counterpart’s internal affairs, strictly reports facts about the US instead of spewing propaganda, asks legitimate questions about the US’ irresponsibility in failing to contain the COVID-19 pandemic within its borders, doesn’t infringe on the US’ maritime sovereignty in areas under its legal control, and has no contact with anti-government groups like Black Lives Matter or Puerto Rican separatists for instance.

Any objective observer would therefore conclude that a Chinese-US military conflict could be avoided if only America has the will to respect China’s interests. The first obvious step entails ending its FONOPs in the South China Sea, encouragement of the self-declared Taiwanese “authorities’” antagonism towards Beijing, and other meddling operations in the mainland including information warfare. Upon that happening, substantive negotiations on resolving their economic disputes could then proceed amid an atmosphere of goodwill.

The reason why this has yet to happen is because some American elites profit from perpetuating the narrative of a New Cold War against China. These include its influential military-industrial-tech complex as well as political ideologues who hate China for its socialist system and resent the country’s rise that’s responsible for the emergence of a multipolar world order. Instead of learning to cooperate and coexist with China, they’d prefer to compete with it and provoke a dangerously divisive New Cold War from which they stand to profit.

CNN should have drawn attention to this but obviously chose not to because it plays a key role in carrying out the US’ information warfare campaign against China. In this context, it’s the misleading narrative that China shares some responsibility for the deterioration of relations with the US. It doesn’t, at all. CNN is just applying the psychological DARVO strategy of “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim & Offender” whereby it blames the blameless (China) in order to absolve the guilty (the US).

It’s about time that someone of influence in the US talks truth to power and calls CNN out for its manipulation. A military conflict between China and the US can still be avoided but only if the latter finally takes responsibility for pushing those two Great Powers towards that unthinkable scenario. China has been doing everything that it can to pragmatically cooperate and peacefully coexist with the US but the American side refuses to respond in kind. By clinging to its grand strategic goal of attempting to “contain” China, the US is destabilizing the world.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: US, China, New Cold War.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
analysis

Indian-Taliban Tensions Might Spell Trouble For The Afghan Peace Process

Indian-Taliban Tensions Might Spell Trouble For The Afghan Peace Process

4 AUGUST 2021

Indian-Taliban Tensions Might Spell Trouble For The Afghan Peace Process

The Taliban’s latest condemnation of India for its unsolicited comments about the upcoming talks in Doha and New Delhi’s alleged arming of Kabul spell trouble for the Afghan peace process but might still not be enough to spoil everything that’s been set into motion since the US announced its impending military withdrawal from the country.

Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen told Sputnik that the group condemns India’s unsolicited comments about the upcoming talks in Doha after External Affairs Minister Jaishankar said that “The world wishes to see an independent, sovereign, democratic and stable Afghanistan at peace with itself and with its neighbours but its independence and sovereignty will only be ensured if it is free from malign influences.” Shaheen told the outlet that “No one from outside should spoil the process by intervening in it and making their own suggestions based on their politically-motivated ambitions. It is a clear intervention that a certain country tells the Afghan people what kind of government they should have in future.”

He also added that “They have to re-consider whether they are working for peace or war in Afghanistan. Media reports say India is providing weapons to the Kabul regime which everyone knows was imposed on the Afghan people by a foreign occupation. The weapons the regime are receiving is used against the people of Afghanistan. This is hostility with the Afghan people and (is tantamount to inciting war in the country).” These accusations are alarming and spell trouble for the Afghan peace process, but they might still not be enough to spoil everything that’s been set into motion since the US announced its impending military withdrawal from the country.

I earlier explained “Why The Afghan Civil War Will Not Turn Into A Proxy War”, pointing out that India might be unable to realistically provide the requisite military support to Kabul for turning the tide against the Taliban if Iran’s new principalist (“conservative”) government refuses to allow it to exploit the Islamic Republic’s airspace for that dangerous zero-sum purpose. Even in the off chance that it did, such a move would risk worsening India’s recently improved relations with Russia. The Kremlin is against the foreign-backed perpetuation of the Afghan Civil War since its “chess” game aims to utilize that country as a transit state for facilitating Central Asia-South Asia connectivity through PAKAFUZ, the Pakistan-Afghanistan-Uzbeksitan railway agreed to in February.

The US, China, India, Pakistan, And Russia Are Reshaping South Asia”, as I wrote late last month, but India is the only one of those five that might seriously consider spoiling the Afghan peace process even if it stands little chance of succeeding in anything other than the short term. I explained to India’s ThePrint a few weeks back how their country ended up sidelined in Afghanistan, which was primarily due to its refusal to enter into public talks with the Taliban. This obstinate stance is due to mostly domestic political calculations related to the uncomfortable optics of India’s Hindu nationalist government talking with a group that it’s previously accused of being Pakistani-backed Islamic fundamentalists.

By contrast, Russia officially regards the Taliban as reasonable while still retaining its ban on the group, which is proof of its foreign policy pragmatism in the face of rapidly changing circumstances largely beyond its control. India could very easily follow in its historical ally’s diplomatic footsteps and even perhaps rely on its mediation to make up for lost time but it still refuses to do so. Instead, it seems to have decided to continue clinging to its current policy in the hope that it can buy just enough time for the situation to somehow change in its strategic favor despite there being very little likelihood of this happening. In and of itself, India can’t do much to shape the strategic dynamics, but what it can do is delay their expected evolution per the current trajectory.

The country just assumed the UNSC’s rotating presidency for August, which is significant in the short term since the US is expected to complete its military withdrawal by the 31st. This coincidentally provides India with disproportionately influential soft power at precisely the moment that it wants to popularize its position across the world. It already pledged to promote maritime security, peacekeeping, and counter-terrorism, the latter of which can be exploited to advance its obstinate stance towards Afghanistan despite also promising to support that country’s peace process. One scenario is that India does its utmost to remind the world that the Taliban is officially a terrorist organization while still fulfilling its legal responsibilities under the UNSC presidency.

This could see it taking advantage of its globally prominent position to signal so-called “principled opposition” to its peers’ efforts to cautiously welcome the Taliban into the international community. The impact of such a policy could be that those UNSC permanent members like Russia and China who try to use this legal body for that purpose could see their soft power symbolically undermined by the council’s presidency. All that India has to do is push its narrative, it cannot stop those permanent members from passing politically binding resolutions that the rest of the international community is obliged to follow. Even so, it can provoke a global controversy intended to put pressure on them not to advance any pertinent item in the near future.

This scenario can’t be discounted since it’s difficult to imagine India implementing contradictory policies at different political levels. So long as the state’s stance is to abstain from talks with the Taliban, continue regarding it as a terrorist group, and allegedly arming Kabul in order to perpetuate the Afghan Civil War, it more than likely won’t change its tune at the UNSC level. India will of course fulfill its formal responsibilities in that role, but unless there’s a change in policy at the national level, then nobody should expect its UNSC one to change either. Be that as it may, India would do well to calculate the costs of such a scenario since it would arguably risk worsening its recently improved relations with Russia if it makes any moves in this direction.

The best-case scenario is that India becomes more aware of how its unsolicited comments about the Afghan peace process are interpreted by one of that conflict’s primary stakeholders (Taliban) as well as its secondary ones (the Extended Troika, especially Russia). It should also not exploit its presidency of the UNSC this month to undermine other members’ soft power in the event that they attempt to further welcome the Taliban into the international community, perhaps pending a positive outcome after the upcoming Doha talks. India might never have pragmatic relations with the Taliban, which is its sovereign right in accordance with its perceived interests, but it shouldn’t do anything inadvertently or not that could further complicate the peace process.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: India, Russia, Afghanistan, China, US, Pakistan, Taliban.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
analysis

Is Russia Recalibrating Its De Facto Alliance With Israel In Syria?

Is Russia Recalibrating Its De Facto Alliance With Israel In Syria?

2 AUGUST 2021

Is Russia Recalibrating Its De Facto Alliance With Israel In Syria?

Last month’s revelation by a representative of the Russian Armed Forces that the Syrian-manned anti-air systems that his country dispatched to the Arab Republic successfully downed most “Israeli” missiles during a recent strike suggest that the Eurasian Great Power might be recalibrating its de facto alliance with the self-professed “Jewish State”.

Russia and “Israel” have been de facto allies in Syria for over the past half-decade as I argued at length over the years, especially in my top four analyses on the subject herehere (which lists 15 other pertinent ones), here, and here. To summarize, Russia sought to actively “balance” Iranian influence in Syria which it regards as regionally destabilizing due to its reported role in organizing attacks against the self-professed “Jewish State” from the Arab Republic’s territory. Moscow was motivated by the desire to comprehensively expand its ties with Tel Aviv, which it also expected would improve its geostrategic positioning vis-a-vis Washington by gradually becoming “Israel’s” most significant regional security partner.

It advanced this aim by “passively facilitating” literally hundreds of “Israeli” strikes against the IRGC and Hezbollah there, which importantly were never thwarted by Syria’s Russian-supplied S-300s from a few years back due to what some believe is the Kremlin’s continued refusal to transfer full operational control over these systems to Damascus. The thinking goes that if Syria succeeded in downing any more “Israeli” jets in self-defense, then Tel Aviv would be triggered into launching a disproportionate response against its neighbor that could completely cripple its military and therefore inadvertently reverse Russia’s recent anti-terrorist gains in the country. The Kremlin calculated that it’s better to give “Israel” freedom of the skies than risk that scenario.

This strategy seems to be changing though as evidenced by a Russian Armed Forces representative revealing late last month that the Syrian-manned anti-air systems that his country dispatched to the Arab Republic successfully downed most “Israeli” missiles during a recent strike. This suggests that the Eurasian Great Power might be recalibrating its de facto alliance with the self-professed “Jewish State”. It’s unclear exactly what Moscow’s motivations may be, but some educated hypotheses might suffice for pointing sincere observers in the right direction. These are the recent removal of President Putin’s close friend Netanyahu from power; the ongoing efforts to clinch a “New Detente” with the US; and restoring regional geostrategic balance.

In the order that they were mentioned, the first development might have resulted in the coming to power of influential forces that don’t share Netanyahu’s vision of a de facto Russian-”Israeli” alliance. Those individuals can speculatively be described as more pro-American than pro-”Israeli” in the sense that they’d prefer to put their traditional patron’s interests before their own polity’s. To explain, regardless of however one feels about Netanyahu’s legacy, he was nevertheless very successful in comprehensively improving relations with Russia, which in turn made “Israel” less dependent on the US’ regional security services for defending his polity’s interests. His successor and that man’s team might feel more comfortable returning under the US umbrella.

The second point is pertinent insofar as it’s increasingly clear that the US and Russia are attempting to negotiate a series of “mutual compromises” across a wide array of spheres following June’s Biden-Putin Summit in Geneva. Russia wants to relieve American pressure along its western flank in order to focus more on its “Ummah Pivot” for reducing potentially disproportionate dependence on China in the future while the US wants to refocus the bulk of its strategic efforts on more aggressively “containing” China in the “Indo-Pacific”. “Israel”, which is important to both of their interests, might have come to be treated as little more than a piece to be traded by Russia on this “Great Power Chessboard” in exchange for US “compromises” elsewhere.

Finally, this might simply be due to Russia realizing that “Israel” is now far too strong and must therefore be “gently” balanced through increased military (and specifically anti-air) assistance to Syria. After all, one of the primary reasons why Russia de facto allied with “Israel” in the first place is because Iran was becoming too strong in the region and thus had to be balanced according to the Kremlin’s geostrategic calculations. It would therefore be natural for Russia to temporarily recalibrate its balancing strategy in light of succeeding so well with its earlier motivation. This suggests that Russia might eventually oscillate back towards “Israel” if/once Iran regains its momentum, and so on and so forth in accordance with the Kremlin’s Eurasian balancing strategy.

While a lot still remains unclear at the moment, all that can be known for sure is that Russia wanted the world to know that it credibly bolstered Syria’s air defense capabilities, which certainly hints that it’s actively recalibrating its balancing act and in particular the “Israeli” dimension thereof. It’s unknown exactly how far it’ll go and whether it’ll ever cross the Rubicon that many Non-Russian Pro-Russians (NRPRs) have been practically begging for with respect to letting Syria finally use the S-300s to shoot down attacking “Israeli” jets, but it’s obvious that something has changed even though the reasons for this perceptible shift are debatable and could even potentially be a combination of each of the three earlier described hypotheses.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: Russia, Israel, Syria, US, Iran, New Cold War, New Detente, Balancing.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.