Despite the focus of the mass media on (mostly theoretical) rivalry between the USA and China, and the rapport in recent years between China and Russia through a Central Asian axis, neither of these apparent geopolitical alignments are historically or organically based. They are superficial and in particular obscure the behind-the-scenes diplomacy that takes place above and beyond the public view. I have contended since the 1980s that there will be conflict between Russia and China, and that the USA will eventually adopt a de jure pro-China position, which has continued de facto despite the occasional posturing on the world stage.
Although there has been an ongoing relationship between Israel and China and between China and the USA, Russia, on the other hand, has been regarded as highly dubious by the USA, China, and Israel, regardless of what appears from public rostrums and treaties.
• The US foreign policy and international banking establishments together with the Zionists have been nervous about Russia for over a Century. They have regarded Russians as barbaric pogromists; Russia, the land of the Black Hundreds which has only relented during the brief interregnums of (a) The Bolsheviks up to the rise of Stalin;[1] (b) the regimes of Gorbachev[2] and Yeltsin. The conspicuous presence of Jews among the “oligarchs” targeted by Putin for corruption has served to multiply this nervousness towards Russia.
• If there was ever going to be an historically and organically based alliance between China and Russia, one would expect this to have been forged on the basis of “fraternal relations” when Russia was nominally “Communist.” Such was far from the case however. The foundation of Sino-Soviet relations was the cynically named 1950 “Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance,” which reduced China to a vassal state, and was ended by China in 1979 with the invasion of Vietnam as a symbolic gesture of the two-fingered kind.[3]
Causes of Future Conflict
In regard to the relationship that will emerge between Russia and China, it is a matter of “blood is thicker than water,” and for Russians the Chinese are racial enemies. However, in this instance, it is water that is likely to be the factor that will reinforce the bonds and the antagonisms of “blood.”
China’s domination of Tibet provides the probable key to future widespread conflict throughout South and Southeast Asia and extending to Russia. The control of the Himalayan headwaters that feed most of India and Southeast Asia means that China has the potential lever over life and death for tens of millions. Water resources, flooding, pollution, and drought are major, albeit rarely publicized, problems throughout Asia. China has plans that will enable it to turn off the water taps for Asia at will, and the Chinese will not hesitate to do so when they face water resource crises of their own. The plan is for a Great South-North Water Project which will be able to divert river waters from the Tibetan highlands, including the waters of the Brahmaputra which feed India, into the parched Yellow River.[4] With such crises against the background of historic tensions that have still not been resolved between China and India, Japan, and Vietnam, and Russia’s historically sound relations that endure with Vietnam and India, and the Chinese aim of hegemony over Central Asia, the much touted Shanghai Cooperation Organization established in 1996 as the “Shanghai Five,” will be no more enduring than the Hitler-Stalin Pact. Ironically, it was during the “Communist” era that China and the USSR came close to full-scale war, when China caused provocations along the border with Russia. During 1960-1963 there were over nine thousand disputes. The biggest clash in 1969 came when the Chinese killed 32 Russians in an ambush, with Russia responding by bombing China, causing about 800 Chinese deaths.[5]
Such was the adversity between Russia and China during the 1960s that veteran journalist Harrison E Salisbury wrote a book entitled The Coming War Between Russia and China, in which he referred to the historic enmity starting during the 13th Century.[6] It would be naïve to think that a “Shanghai Cooperation Organization” has fundamentally altered the broad outlines of Salisbury’s thesis.
USA & China
US opposition to Red China is one of the great myths of popular history. Nor was Mao particular antagonistic towards the USA other than when he wanted to posture as the rival leader of World Communism and the Third World against the “running dogs of US imperialism.” His opposition was very much that of a “paper tiger.”
Stalin was never well disposed towards Mao, whereas the USA was. The USA was insistent that Chiang deal with the Communists, while Stalin insisted that the Communists deal with Chiang. It was Chiang whom Stalin recognized as the leader of China, and regarded Mao as a “Trotskyite.”[7] When the Russians prepared to evacuate Manchuria in 1945 they stayed until 1946 to allow Chiang in ahead of Mao. The Soviet Ambassador was only withdrawn from Chiang’s entourage the day before Mao’s announcement of his government in Peking in October 1949. Mao never forgave this. Mao’s attempts to ingratiate himself with the USSR were never successful, and he endured humiliation.[8]
Conversely to the anti-Communist policy pursued by Stalin, the USA did whatever it could to back Mao. Gen. George C Marshall warned that US support for Chiang would end if he did not stop pursuing the Red Army into northern Manchuria at a time when Mao could have been defeated. As Chang and Halliday point out in their definitive biography on Mao, in a chapter aptly entitled “Saved by Washington,” this US betrayal of Chiang was decisive.[9] However, Mao, as the budding co-equal to Stalin as leader of World Communism, was obliged to direct his alliance towards the USSR rather than the USA, a decision that cost China dearly under the terms of the colonialistic “Sino-Soviet Treaty.” Moreover, Mao was never accepted as the leader of World Communism other than by the Communist Party of New Zealand and by Albania.[10] His only option for recognition as a world statesman was to return to the USA, resulting in the Nixon visit of 1972.
However, despite the self-imposed isolation of Mao in his ill-considered attempt to align with the USSR rather than the USA, the US foreign policy establishment and plutocratic interests had never disowned their pro-Mao attitude. These centred on the Rockefeller cabal and more latterly that of George Soros. Despite US recognition for China not being achieved until 1975, the policy that was pursued by the Nixon Administration towards China since 1970 had been formulated a decade previously by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Peter Grose explained this in the official history of the CFR, which he calls America’s “foreign policy establishment”:
The Council turned in earnest to the problem of communist China early in the 1960s. Various Council publications had started developing the idea of a ‘two-China’ policy—recognition of both the Nationalist government of Taiwan and the communist government on the mainland. This, Council authors suggested, might be the least bad policy direction. Professor A. Doak Barnett published a trail-blazing book for the Council in 1960, Communist China and Asia. A major Council study of relations between the United States and China commenced in 1964, the year China exploded its first nuclear bomb; the group met systematically for the next four years. ‘Contentment with the present stalemate in relations with the Chinese is not statesmanship,’ declared Robert Blum of the Asia Society[11], the first director of the project. ‘American impatience and the strong currents of political emotion often make it impossible to plan ahead to manage our policy in a persevering but flexible way.’”[12]
Like the recognition of Bolshevik Russian desired by the international bankers at the earliest stages of the regime, recognition of Red China presented a problem, especially since the USA had given guarantees to Taiwan. A typically duplicitous strategy was therefore required. The USA used the “two-China policy” to secure Red China’s entry into the United Nations, and to sideline Taiwan. The CFR approach was one of gradual promotion of the Mao regime, decrying the so-called “strong currents of emotion” that were holding back the globalist relationship with Red China. Grose explains:
This seemed just the sort of political stalemate that the Council on Foreign Relations, free of electoral and partisan constraints, was endowed to repair. Midway through the project, the Council published an analysis of public opinion called The American People and China by A. T. Steele, who reached the unexpected conclusion that Americans were more willing than many of their elected officeholders to forge new relations with China. This study argued that it was only a steady diet of hostile public statements that had made Americans “disposed to believe the worst of communist China and they [the Chinese] the worst of us.”[13]
It is from this milieu that Rockefeller protégé Henry Kissinger[14] emerged as the public architect of the US policy towards China. Grose states of Kissinger and Cyrus Vance:
Kissinger, acting as Nixon’s national security adviser, embarked on a secret mission to Beijing in 1971[15], to make official, exploratory contact with the communist regime. Nixon himself followed in 1972. The delicate process of normalizing diplomatic relations between the United States and China was completed in 1978 by Kissinger’s successor as secretary of state, Cyrus R. Vance, a leading Council officer before and after his government service.[16]
I agree with you that at the present time China and Russia have nothing in common because oil is now what makes the world go round and Russia has oil and China is it the bottom of the oil pecking order.
But the oil war has already started with the blatant attempts by US/NATO to drag Russia into war by fomenting unrest in Libya, Syria, Kosovo, placing “shield” around Russia etc .
However this week will tell whether their efforts will be successful and Russia shows its weakness by throwing away the goodwill it has generated by its principled stance in support of Libya or whether it will stand up for all those people throughout the world including America and Europe who long for a world of decency and respect where they would have the absolute right to the truth, life and ownership of property.
By the way you overlook one major country probably because it does not figure in the war scenario, India. India is in unique position because it suffered the effects of colonialism and its people are thrifty and ingenious who see no future in pointles death and destruction. Rather they see the future in the best use of technology to educate and enlighten.
It is clear that the US is not interfering in Asia,viz, avoiding selling F16s to Taiwan, staying out of the South China Sea and allowing China to have its way. These 2 countries are carving up the world into their respective hegemonies. Israel is the power behind the throne in US. Wll it do any good for the people of SEA? Time will tell. But one thing is for sure. The country that is ill treating its local Chinese will be in for a tough time.
Germany has been looking “east” since a thousands years (Teutonic knights), and France has been looking “south” since a thousands years (the Crusaders). Germany and Russia have already become de fact economic partners. France via North Africa is trying to keep control of “Afrique francophonie” and worries about U.S. Africom muscleing in! It is true, Russia is in a complicated position and nervous about ALL neighbours, but certainly aware that it is the permanent U.S. and British strategy to dismember more from its territories. Most of Latin America may now finally become independent from the U.S., and the U.S.’s geostrategic attention on China, Russia and the Near East – is seen as a fortunate diversion. China is aware that American Jews hold a unique spell over U.S. geopolitical strategies – and that no genuine triple-alliance U.S.-Israel – China would ever exist, but rather a combine of U.S.-Israel converging on China. China will be remain the reserved “Middle Kingdom” and avoid involvements which history has shown them as transitory.
Geopolitical realignments today shows an unhealthy competition among states for power. This is where the UN should step in.
But in reneigueing in its stated purpose recently the UN is being judged by its refusal to protect all humanity’s right to the truth, life and ownership of property which have formed the bedrock of ordered societies for thousands of years. The UN sanctioned attack on Libya which has been based on lies, murder and robbery shows that the UN has lost all credibility and is only relevant in that it has to be rendered powerless which is what has already happened in the cavalier attitude to it by the US and NATO, and anyone who still believes they should go along with its decrees is very foolish indeed.
So as the UN is irrelevant we now see a scramble by the nation states because they have realised that history has taught us that once an aggressor starts a war it has to keep going until it is defeated.
M. Bolton u should write Science Fiction Books. This will never happen. It is very unrealistic, not to say totally brainless.
WRONG!!!
1. Jacob Schiff, a Jewish Zionist international Banker, funded the Soviet revolution.
2. Stalin’s USSR was built and armed by the USA throughout up till the 1970s, See:
2.1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PqM-CMoa9M
“The Best Enemies Money Can Buy – Prof. Antony C. Sutton”
2.2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4
“Yuri Bezmenov: Deception Was My Job (Complete)”
3. The Holodomor was a Genocide in order to reduce the christian presence and power: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
4. The recent generation Oligarchs in Russia are MI6-backed Zionists.
5. China’s rise to power has been enabled by Germany.
First of all the article only focuses on China-US relations and China-Russia relations despite the title.
I would be convinced if the situation wouldn’t be that on a broad scale European countries and the USA tend to be blocked together and practically the European foreign policy coordinations failures show that it is a more diversified picture since instead of the USA perhaps the term anglo-saxon countries might be more accurate. At the same time I do not see the clear relations between Europe and Arabia. In terms of the EuroRussian relations it is mostly true that despite differences they are economically haevily dependent on each other which is always the best of alliances.
In my view while we might talk about Europe as a whole in a title in terms a foreign policy unfortunately it is impossible to do so. Just look at the case of Palestine, no common ground exists on that, great example for Euro-Arab relations too.
Last, but not least do not forget that China is heavily investing in Africa and thus creating strong relations with muslim countries economically.
Lol what are you smoking dude?
Triple lol. What are you smoking dude ?