What is the significance of the Hong Kong protest movement and how should one understand China’s role in the emerging world order? What geopolitical interests are at stake in Hong Kong?
Chinese totalitarianism is back in the news. Not since the Tiananmen Square uprising in 1989 has the People’s Republic of China been the subject of much media scrutiny and condemnation for its “brutal crackdown” on “peaceful protesters”.
Ah yes, we love to hear about brutal crackdowns on peaceful protesters when they don’t wear yellow vests and are not protesting against our own leaders!
The recent protests in Hong Kong started when Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam proposed to amend the law to allow the extradition of criminals to the Chinese mainland after a Chinese girl was brutally murdered by her Hong Kong boyfriend. The murderer was jailed by the Hong Kong government on other offences and is due to be released in October. That is an intolerable situation for the family of the murdered girl and it is also intolerable for Beijing.
Would the British government accept it if a British citizen could be murdered in Gibraltar and the murderer could not be extradited to Britain for trial? Would the US tolerate a similar situation in Puerto Rico? The extradition proposal is perfectly normal and reasonable — but not in the eyes of US foreign policy. F
Uncle Sam quickly intervened to protect the murderer on the pretext that Beijing was using the incident to gain totalitarian control over Hong Kong. When did the US ever really care about the individual freedoms of any citizens anywhere? In the United States, jaywalking or stealing a biscuit could land you with a life sentence and there are far more prisoners per capita in the United States than China. In fact, the crime rate in Hong Kong reached a 36- year low in 2015. That means citizens in Hong Kong do not need to fear being raped, mugged, robbed and murdered as much as they do in US cities like Los Angeles or Baltimore. There are also many things you will not be prosecuted for saying in China. You can criticise UN immigration policies in China. The Chinese understand why Trump wants to build a wall: China was founded on one!
So what is really going on in Hong Kong? Why has it become the focus of international media attention and what agenda is really driving the protest movement?
The 2014 Umbrella Movement
The protest movement in Hong Kong first kicked off in 2014 and was referred to as the Umbrella movement, as thousands of protesters held umbrellas. The contention was that Beijing was pre-screening candidates for the upcoming 2017 Chief Executive elections.
The Chinese authorities accused the US of inciting the protests for geopolitical reasons. Top advisor and strategist on China, Micheal Pillsbury confirmed to Fox News that the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED)was indeed behind the protest movement. The NED is a front organisation for the CIA.
Micheal Pillsbury had helped launch the National Endowment for Democracy in 1983. A fluent Mandarin speaker, Pillsbury is the architect of current US policy towards the People’s Republic of China. The US has five main geopolitical strategies in China which are essential to outline if we are to understand why there is now a major protest movement there.
1. Support for Tibetan separatism
The Dalai Lama has been a CIA agent for many years and the US has supported violent uprisings in Tibet against the Chinese government. The US and European media wage information war on Tibet by ignoring the fact that:
a) Lamaist Tibet was the most despotic and tyrannical regime the world had ever seen, where most of the population were serfs.
b) The Communist Party of China’s (CCP) policy of “land to the tiller” in the 1950s meant that thousands of Tibet’s poorest serfs got to till their own land for the first time.
c) The CCP put an end to torture in Tibet which was widely used before the liberation by the People’s Liberation Army in 1952. One of the most common forms of torture was skinning people alive. There is ample historical evidence to prove it.
d) Tibet has been part of China for over a thousand years and enjoys certain privileges in comparison to other parts of China. For example, the one-child policy did not apply to Tibet as China sought to increase the sparse population there.
e) The real reason for Western support to Tibetan separatists is to cut off China’s water supply. China gets 80% of its water from Tibet. An “independent” Tibet would rely on NATO for security. That would give the Western military alliance a foothold in China and access to its rich resources. The Dali Lama is and always has been a stooge of Western imperialism.
2. Support for Uighur independence
The Western Chinese province of Xinjiang or East Turkestan is populated by Uighurs who are a Turkish people. A minority of Uighurs want independence from China. Many of them are radicalised Jihadis who have fought in the war in Syria and elsewhere. In 2010, they organised a violent uprising against the Chinese state. The Western media called the uprising “peaceful”, ignoring the fact that Jihadis were terrorising the local population. Since then, the Xinjiang province has been the subject of much Western media attention. Baseless and absurd claims have been made against the Chinese authorities– with the usual lack of verification: they have been accused of deliberately forcing Muslims to eat pork, etc.
The Chinese military has handled the situation with a high degree of professionalism and has succeeded thus far in quelling a the Uighur Jihad. The World Uighur Congress is based in Germany. Its leader, Rebiya Kadeer, is on record stating that the Han Chinese are racially inferior to Uighurs. She has the full support of the European Union and the United States. An independent Xinjiang would depend on the West for security. That is why no objectivity is ever required in Western media reporting on the conflict there.
3. Support for Taiwanese independence
In the 19th century, China came under the control of the Western powers. British, Portuguese (who had been there far earlier), Germans, Russians and French all dominated the Middle Kingdom. During the Second World War, the US opposed Mao’s communist forces and supported the nationalist Kuomingtang.
When the Communists seized power in 1948, the nationalists fled to Formosa or Taiwan, where they established a military dictatorship under US supervision. As the US imposed a blockade on Maoist China, the war-torn country had to rely on the USSR for its post-war development. With the death(murder?) of Joseph Stalin in 1953, however, the Soviet revisionists under Nikita Khrushchev dealt with China on a capitalist basis, which led to a souring of relations with the USSR.
The People’s Republic of China found itself having to develop on its own. There were many catastrophes due to bad-weather and incompetence which led to the starvation of millions of people. Mao stated that the Party aimed to develop capitalism in China and that the country would have to go through capitalist development for a long time before transitioning to socialist production.
But the country was held back by an over-emphasis on democracy which resulted in the Great Proletarian, Cultural Revolution. As Albania’s leader Enver Hoxha astutely pointed out: the revolution was neither great nor cultural nor proletarian; it was an attempt by Mao and the comprador bourgeoisie to maintain power against more nationalist elements in the party such as Liu Shaoqi.
Meanwhile, Taiwan industrialised under sweatshops and slave-like labour. By the mid-eighties, Taiwan had nonetheless, produced an affluent middle class. But the authoritarianism of the military regime was seen by Washington as an obstacle to global finance capitalism.
So the CIA launched a regime-change operation in Taiwan under the guise of a pro-democracy movement. The movement led to the student-led uprising in 1986. The US wanted to lift tariffs on imports and liberalise the country’s moral codes so as to encourage consumerism. Feminist and sexual liberation movements played a key role in the destabilisation, which was modelled after the US-regime change operation that had just been successfully completed in the Philippines.
Today, Taiwan is heavily armed by the United States and is considered a paragon of democracy and human rights. The country recently approved gay marriage and hosts Asia’s largest LGBT parades. Taiwan is China in America’s image. But mainland China is difficult to change.
4. The militarization of the South-China Sea
The United States has military bases all around China. The aim of US foreign policy is to prevent Chinese sovereignty. The US claims China is attempting to become a global thalassocracy but the reality is that Chinese military expansion is really about protecting the country’s sovereignty against increasing US militarism in the area.
5. Hong Kong Protests
In 1989, the United States attempted to overthrow the Chinese government, through a student-led uprising.
The Chinese protesters wanted a free-market consumerist society like the United States and they had sack-loads of dollars from the US embassy and US agencies to help them achieve their goals. The 1989 riots were extremely violent; soldiers were set on fire and hanged from buses.
The iconic image of a student facing a row of army tanks was pure CIA propaganda. What was really taking place was a CIA-funded regime change operation. Pentagon consulatant Gene Sharpe, the architect of “people power” protest movements, was in Beijing directing the movement.
The Chinese government were forced to send in tanks to quell the foreign-backed insurrection. Had the insurrectionists succeeded, it is unlikely China would have become the power it is today. The key to China’s success has been the capacity of the bureaucratic state to control the commanding heights of the economy and to scupper every pathetic attempt by US “democracy” crusaders to sabotage their development.
The HongKong riots are the same soft-power regime-change tool that the US has used all over the world — for many decades now. The US is in a trade war with China. The Americans realise that they made a big mistake in allowing China to develop so quickly by becoming America’s creditor and supplier of cheap goods. Now the United States is becoming a tributary state of China.
The Trump administration is attempting to reverse the decline of the United States by raising tariffs on Chinese imports and controlling the global oil market, so as to complicate China’s supply of oil, gas and natural resources. Many of the covert wars currently being waged against China are taking place in Africa. Whenever you hear of an African dictator killing his own people, find out if he’s doing a lot of business with China and Russia. African nations have good reason to prefer China: they pay more for natural resources; build infrastructure and don’t attempt to promote moral decadence.
Filmmaker and former Whitehouse Chief Strategist Steve Bannon says China has deceived the world and has a sinister plan for world government, and is in cahoots with what he calls the Davos elites. Is this accusation plausible?
Steve Bannon is a brilliant thinker who has produced some hard-hitting films which contain a lot of truth. Bannon says China’s President Xi Jinping has moved away from Chairman Deng’s openness to the West. But the US attempted to overthrow Deng’s regime too. It is difficult to tell just how involved Bannon is in this US destabilisation project in Hong Kong. But a close associate of Trump and Bannon, Hedge Fund manager Kyle Bass has been encouraging investors there to change to US dollars.
Bannon appeared with Bass on CNBC railing against China’s collaboration with WallStreet against Trump. But the National Endowment for Democracy has always pushed Wall Street interests and Bannon is fully behind the NED-backed Hong Kong protests.
However, Bannon and President Trump are not likely to have too much real sympathy with the protesters, given the fact that they have strong links to the US Democratic Party and have solicited the help of paedophile Joe Biden. But in US foreign policy, nothing ever really changes; the imperial establishment runs on auto-pilot.
It is also possible, however, that Trump wants to pressurise President Xi Jinping into cooperating with the United States and is thus attempting to distance himself from the Hong Kong uprising, which he has correctly described as “riots.”
Trump seems to enjoy taunting liberals. For example, his suggestion that the US should follow China in allowing a president to be re-elected indefinitely has bothered liberals. But the entire Western-media coverage of the protests has been fake news and the Trump administration has been in bed with CNN, the New York Times and all the usual purveyors of imperial propaganda.
Bannon has called the protest movement in Hong Kong “one of the greatest shows of freedom and patriotism I’ve ever seen.” He has also said that “that battle for free-market capitalism is now taking place in East Asia.” But is it not the Chinese government that is now preaching about the free market and free trade? The problem for Bannon and his brand of “economic nationalism” is that the Chinese are economic nationalists too.
So, what is taking place in Beijing is big geopolitical chess, involving as usual, poorly educated, wealthy middle-class youth who are happy to collaborate with US imperial interests against Beijing? Bannon believes that if the Hong Kong protesters use the same force against the CCP as they used in Tiananmen in 1989, the CCP will collapse. The US was wrong in 1986 and they are wrong now. The Chinese government should screen Bannon’s film ‘Occupy Unmasked’ and show how they are being manipulated by the same forces manipulating Occupy WallStreet in the United States!
China has many challenges ahead. The protesters in Hong Kong are highlighting Beijing’s totalitarian social credit mass surveillance system. There is a sense in which Bannon is correct about China: it is a mercantilist, totalitarian state with a stultifyingly materialist vision of the future; but then, so is the United States!
Until the Paris Climate Agreement in 2016, China did not take the Global Warming theory seriously. In fact, there were several high-profile books in Chinese debunking the junk-science and claiming the aim was to keep China and Africa from developing. Of course, they were not wrong. So why did China change its mind? By the Paris Climate Agreement, China had realised that the Western elites wanted to dismantle Western civilisation in order to create the conditions for a one-world Green Regime. The Western ruling class gave China an offer they couldn’t refuse: China could continue to produce as much CO2 as it wanted, provided it manufactured all the toxic “green energy” technology the West needed for their energy transition. The Chinese realised that they had no choice but to comply. The green market is now the only real market that exists and China continues to grow while helping the West commit suicide. The arrival of Trump put upset the plans of the green globalists. But China’s decision to participate in the green revolution will destroy the health of the working class. The image above is taken from a Daily Mail report on the city of Baotou in China where cornfields have been turned into toxic lakes as the city manufactures wind turbines for the West.
China has paid the price in the past for cooperation with US foreign policy. For example, in the 1980s, China sold arms to the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan in order to please to support the US Jihadis invasion of that country, which was under Soviet occupation at the time. The aforementioned Pillbury was a central figure in getting China involved. Now, China is facing a Jihadist insurgency in Xinjiang backed by the West.
In many respects, China is resisting the agenda of the New World Order. The Chinese believe that men and woman are different; pornography is illegal, and the idea of mass immigration of racially and culturally different peoples into China would be guffawed at by the average Chinese citizen. Unlike Western countries who are flooding Africa with NGOs and fake humanitarianism –which very often involves carpet-bombing Africans — then trafficking them to European countries to be used as social-engineering weapons for globalist kakistocrats — China is building infrastructure in Africa and training African elites in its universities.
Traditional Catholics have good reason to denounce the Vatican’s recent disgraceful capitulation to Beijing on the appointment of bishops but they would be better advised to focus on the Soros-funded Catholic bishops in Africa who are using fake liberation theology to do the geopolitical bidding of the West in its myriad proxy wars against China — to the detriment of Africa’s poor.
China has managed to maintain its social sanity and high civilisation through robust censorship of Western filth and decadence. But now, it is China’s capacity for control and censorship which is ironically what the green globalists seek. So China in the 21st Century does not represent an alternative model for human development but rather, exemplifies the uncanny paradox of globalisation. Fulton Sheen’s remarks about the difference between the USSR and USA during the Cold War could be transposed unto today’s US/Chinese war: the communist Chinese want the Cross without Christ, while the US wants Christ without the Cross. Humanity needs both!
What is happening in Hong Kong is a hybrid war waged by one superpower against another for the purposes of profit and power. The Trump administration claims to be opposing globalism, yet it is pushing globalism on China. China claims to be upholding socialism, yet finds itself in bed with the most degenerate elements of Western finance capital and their green activists. What is happening in HongKong is a tug of war between different factions of globalist elites. It has nothing to do with the interests of the common working man and that is really all we need to know about it.
Excellent analysis even for the China beginners…
Excellent analysis. Thanks.
One quibble: “the country was held back by an over-emphasis on democracy which resulted in the Great Proletarian, Cultural Revolution” is an over-simplification.
Rumblings were audible among the peasants by 1966. Though Mao had launched seven anti-corruption campaigns they complained of corruption and he agreed, “You can still buy a branch secretary for a few packs of cigarettes, not to mention marrying a daughter to him.” But corrupt officials troubled him far less than an estimated five thousand officials whom he called “capitalist roaders,” who had gradually established control of the state and who wanted the peasants to continue serving as beasts of burden. They were, he charged, “Seeking to seize political power and turn the dictatorship of the proletariat into a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.” Although he and his allies resisted this tendency they were not very successful. Most war veterans who were now officials were quite comfortable with the prewar order of urban privilege, scholarly elitism, official impunity, corruption, and exploitation.
In truth, China was a people’s democratic dictatorship in name only. Land reform had channeled excess production from private landlords to the State but had otherwise changed little. Four-hundred million rural people were still semi-destitute, illiterate, without access to basic needs, education or medical care. The bureaucratic elite commanded vast influence and prestige, held all political and cultural power and their sons were openly advocating a return to hereditary authority. After 1960, when the Soviet Union withdrew its engineers, technicians, and blueprints the country remained too poor and vulnerable to allow agricultural and industrial development to stagnate.
The Cultural Revolution did emancipate those 400,000,000 voiceless peasants and became the only popular revolution of the 1960s to succeed in all its goals, including growing the economy twice as fast as the then-booming US, despite being under embargoes on food, technology, finance and diplomatic representation.
For the peasants’ side of the story, I warmly recommend The Unknown Cultural Revolution: Life and Change in a Chinese Village. 2008 by Dongping Han
 Chungwu Kung, ”Cultural Revolution in Modern Chinese History,” in Nee and Peck.
Thank you for that excellent commentary. I actually read Han’s book years ago. You make very interesting points. It’s true that my dismissal is probably overly simplistic.
Great article and I have posted it here – It’s not Trade War but WAR on Capitalism verses Communism!!