What China Should Do if Taiwan Declares Independence From China
Eric Zuesse689Views 8Votes 4
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The U.S. Government’s preferred way of forcing Russia or China to make a first-use of nuclear weapons (after the two August 1945 A-bomb blasts on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the U.S. perpetrated to start its global empire or “hegemony”) would be as follows:
1. Since it knows that invading Russia would make the planet uninhabitable, whereas invading China might not, it wants an excuse to destroy China, and it has settled upon the lie that if the local government in Taiwan declares independence from China, then America’s 1972 signed commitment to a “one China” policy that Taiwan is a province of China will have ended, and America will then ‘legitimately’ invade China in response to China’s subsequent invasion of Taiwan (to reassert that Taiwan is a part of China).
2. Based upon those lies, the U.S. Government will accuse China of “aggression” against its former province, and will say that whereas even the U.S. Government’s polls of Crimeans showed that both before and after the 16 March 2014 Crimean plebiscite on whether to join Russia had shown approximately 90% support by Crimeans for that breakaway from Ukraine and yet the U.S. Government nonetheless said that what Crimeans wanted was irrelevant and Crimea remains a part of Ukraine regardless of what the residents there want; even a bare majority of Taiwanese voting for independence from China would automatically mean that Taiwan is no longer a part of China but instead an independent country. And, so, U.S.-allied ‘news’-media there are turning the public toward supporting independence.
3. Based upon that allegation by the U.S. Government, the U.S. Government would then declare that China’s Government is an ‘aggressor’ against America’s ‘ally’ Taiwan, and wiil invade China with non-nuclear weapons.
4. At that point, China will have to decide whether the U.S. Government will have already done enough to justify a launch by China of an all-out nuclear war upon the United States, or, instead, for China to wait for yet further lies and provocations from it, before doing so.
5. If China decides to wait, and if it succeeds in destroying America’s invasion forces without resorting to nuclear weapons, then the U.S. Government will have to decide whether to accept that defeat and end its war against China, or, instead, to itself launch against China enough nuclear weapons so as to destroy China and thereby declare victory over ’that aggressor nation’.
6. If China instead decides not to wait, but instead to launch immediately a nuclear invasion of America, then anything can happen, up to and including Russia’s joining that conflict on China’s side — especially because the biggest fear that Russia’s Government has is that it will, itself, be forced into having only two options: either destroying America, or else capitulating to America. Russia has made clear that under no circumstance will it ever capitulate to America. The only remaining option for Russia then would be to launch an all-out nuclear invasion against the U.S. and its nuclearly-armed ‘allies’ (vassal-nations).
7. CONSEQUENTLY: At step #4 in the above, if China decides to wait for yet further lies and provocations from the United States, then it will be doing so with an understanding that a point-of-no-return has already then been reached, and a third option for China’s Government would likely enter the situation, at least temporarily: Calling a U.N. Security Council (UNSC) meeting in order to vote on the matter. If China fails to get a favorable vote at that level, then still a meeting can be called at the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) in order to vote on a resolution that China will propose calling for America and its allies to become formally declared to be “aggressors,” and for reasserting that Taiwan remains as being a province of China.
8. That UNGA vote would have no binding authority under international law, but it wouldn’t need any. That vote would itself determine whether or not a majority of the U.N.’s member-nations side with America on this matter, or instead with China on it. The moral power and authority of that vote could determine whether the future of the world will be led by America’s Government, or, instead, by China’s Government (perhaps in partnership with Russia’s Government).
9. I therefore would recommend, at step #4, that China will wait, in order to get the vote first at the UNSC, and, then, if necessary, at the UNGA, on the matter. That could transform the U.S. regime’s mega-strategy finally to attain its goal (ever since 25 July 1945) to take control over the entire world, into — instead, it would be — the U.S. empire’s own end-point, or termination, and the start then of a new world order.
——
On March 5th, two of the most reliable analysts of geopolitics, Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris, headlined at The Duran, “Lukashenko meets Xi Jinping. Cold war lines are being drawn”, and they well-encapsulated, in their 18-minute video-discussion, where things now are clearly — and at breakneck speed — heading. A more long-term perspective, and one which is documented by links to the data from which it’s derived, was presented by me in an article on 28 August 2022, under the headline “Why RussChina Will Probably Be the Dominant Nation Beyond the Year 2100”. But, of course, the individuals who are controlling the U.S. Government might prevent that outcome, by means of forcing Russia and/or China into a world-ending nuclear war. Anyone who thinks that that cannot happen ought to read the March 1st article from the U.S. Government’s own Voice of America, headlining “US Army Secretary Lays Out Strategy for War with China”. That’s the type of people who now (especially after 24 February 1990) control the U.S. Government. They don’t represent the American public; they represent fewer than one-in-ten-thousand Americans. But those are the very richest Americans, and all of them are “neoconservatives” or U.S. hegemonists or global-imperialists, and they control more than merely the U.S. Government: lots of profit and nonprofit corporations. So: they should be taken seriously, as an enormous threat to the entire world. And an excellent description, of how they do what they do, was given by Seymour Hersh, in a February 23rd interview under the headline “Rising INTERVIEWS SEYMOUR HERSH: Journalist DEFENDS Reporting on US DESTRUCTION of Nord Stream”. Only by deceiving the public can they do what they do. And they’ve been doing it ever since 25 July 1945 — but even more so now, than at the beginning. And they are becoming increasingly desperate because of the direction that things are going. On 17 July 2017, the great investigative journalist Nafeez Ahmed headlined “Pentagon study declares American empire is ‘collapsing’: Report demands massive expansion of military-industrial complex to maintain global ‘access to resources’”, and he summarized a major U.S. Government study that was titled “AT OUR OWN PERIL: DOD RISK ASSESSMENT IN A POST-PRIMACY WORLD”. Its endnote #2 on page 101 said:
The concept of “post-primacy” was widely acknowledged by the vast majority of those the study team engaged with during the course of the study. It was, however, a source of significant discomfort for some senior leaders engaged in the course of the study. Because of the wide majority acknowledgement of the term as appropriate to current strategic conditions, the U.S. Army War College (USAWC) study opted to retain it.
As Ahmed noted, those people are obsessed with coercing the world for America’s super-rich to become unchallengeable as dictators over every nation, the entire world: the Government’s study endorsed increasing coercion both intranationally and internationally so as to continue America’s global dominance, and more emphasis to be placed upon censorship and on military and police, and less on the public’s health and welfare. Ahmed also linked there to a 2013 (pdf) article by Sean Starrs, in International Studies Quarterly, which documented that America as constituted by the American people are becoming poorer, but America as constituted by the owners of its largest corporations — global corporations — are getting richer even faster than before, so that wealth-inequality is soaring, and America’s super-rich are benefitting even more as America’s public are experiencing the opposite. Corporate America is thriving, as public America becomes more like third-world. The Government represents corporate America, not the American people. It represents the wealth, not the people; it represents actually the richest ten-thousandth of the population, and not, at all, the other 9,999 of them. And this Government is terrified that maybe — at some point — it will no longer dominate in terms of power. Because: its billionaires’ wealth depends increasingly on their Government’s power. That coercion amplifies their wealth.
So: that is why the U.S. Government is so alarmed. Whether a world-annihilating nuclear war — or else a global dictatorship — can be avoided is the question, and the only possibility for hope would be for the existing U.S. regime to become replaced by a decent Government that has some concern for the public, which is a concern that hasn’t dominated in the U.S. Government ever since 25 July 1945, when the empire took control of the country. America’s billionaires would need to lose power — if that’s even possible. And the Governments of both China and Russia will need to understand this, if there is to be any hope of overcoming this global problem that seriously endangers the entire world’s future.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten