China’s Belt and Road Initiative is a Geopolitical Offensive
Ever since China launched its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), some Western analysts have portrayed it as a geopolitical offensive designed to increase China’s influence in, and ultimately control of, Eurasia. These analysts often base their portrayal on the classic geopolitical writings of Alfred Thayer Mahan, Halford Mackinder, and Nicholas Spykman, all of whom envisioned global politics as a clash between great Eurasian land powers and insular and peninsular sea powers. Over a decade ago, Naval War College scholars Toshi Yoshihara and James Holmes wrote a book titled Chinese Naval Strategy in the 21st Century: The Turn to Mahan in which they cite Chinese sources to support their claim that the PLA Navy looks to Mahan for geopolitical inspiration. Robert D. Kaplan, in a paper originally prepared for the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment (“The Return of Marco Polo’s World”), argued that the BRI was part of China’s strategy to dominate Mackinder’s “World Island.” Claudia Astarita, a lecturer at Sciences Po Lyon and an associate fellow at the University of Melbourne’s Asia Institute, has described the BRI as China’s attempt to extend its influence across Spykman’s Eurasian Rimland (Western Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia). Perhaps the best proof that China indeed views the world this way is its repeated denials that the BRI has anything to do with geopolitics and China’s quest for hegemony. Here is a case in point.
Teng Jianqun is a retired People’s Liberation Army (PLA) colonel who is the Director of the Department for American Studies and Center for Arms Control and International Security at China’s Institute of International Studies. He served in the PLA for 25 years, edited China’s Academy of Military Science’s journal World Military Review for a dozen years, and is widely published and frequently quoted in official Chinese publications. In other words, his writings and opinions carry the imprimatur of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
In November 2018, Teng Jianqun wrote an article for the China Association for International Friendly Contact titled “Three Geopolitical Theories and the ‘Belt and Road’ Initiative.” In that article, he reviews what he calls the “Sea Power” theory of Mahan, the “Heartland” theory of Mackinder, and the “Rimland” theory of Spykman, as concepts to control the world from a “geographical perspective.” Teng asserts that the “three geopolitical theories differ from the ‘Belt and Road’ initiative fundamentally and cannot be mentioned in the same breath...” The thrust of Teng’s article is that these three geopolitical theories are outdated, belonging to the previous century's international relations.
Teng describes the Mahan, Mackinder, and Spykman theories of geopolitics as theoretical bases for “nations in pursuit of becoming an imperialist power, colonial plunder, expansion and aggression or even for waging wars.” In contrast, he writes, China’s BRI “does not pursue control of certain regions... but advocates ‘mutual consultation, joint construction and co-sharing,’ and intends to build a new type of international relations and forge a community with a shared future for humanity.” “China,” he writes, “has neither intentions nor capabilities to control the sea, the land and the rim land of the world.” the BRI, he claims, does not serve “as the theoretical basis for China to seek hegemony.” Instead, Teng characterizes the BRI as “geopolitics under globalization” that features a “shared future” for humanity with “the countries in the world interlinked and complementing each other on the world industrial chain.” The BRI, he writes, “upholds the spirit of open regional cooperation, and strives to preserve the global free trade.”
Teng concludes this article by claiming that the BRI offers “a plan full of Chinese wisdom for global governance,” seeks to promote “the fundamental interests of the international community,” and “manifests the common ideal and beautiful pursuit of mankind.” And, of course, he criticizes then-president Trump for “showing a unilateralist tendency and staging trade wars, which [have] chilled the international community.”
Interestingly, Teng in December 2020 wrote an article envisioning the “transition to President Joe Biden” as having “positive implications for Asia-Pacific security.” He predicted that Biden’s coming to power would result in “the tension between China and the United States in various areas [being] eased,” opined that the “Biden administration will relax the policy of extreme pressure that President Trump sustained for four years,” and predicted further that Biden “will address cooperation rather than confrontation, including the restoration of the Sino-US strategic and economic dialogue.” In other words, Teng saw the Trump administration as acting on the belief that the BRI was indeed a geopolitical offensive, while the Biden administration would view it as less threatening. Teng has since criticized the Biden administration for not distancing itself enough from Trump’s policies.
The CCP wants us to believe that it has no hegemonic ambitions; that its BRI is just another multilateral advance for mankind; that those Western observers who see China as following a geopolitical master plan to dominate Eurasia and the world are wrong; that we should stop reading Mahan, Mackinder, and Spykman (even though Chinese strategists still do). We follow Teng Jianqun’s advice at our peril.
It was while Joe Biden was vice-president that the flood gates opened and what was a domestic influence-peddling business expanded globally into Ukraine, China, Russia and Kazakhstan, among other nations. The layers of greed and unabashed willingness to sell access to the second-highest office in the country is mind-boggling. The most egregious examples are five deals with the Communist Chinese and the subsequent payments to Hunter Biden and the Biden family valued at $31 million.
Why It’s Time To Label China a ‘Genuine Adversary’
Policy proposal outlines path to isolate Communist regime
Adam Kredo •Congress must move to designate China as a "genuine adversary" by implementing a series of proposals that will isolate the Communist regime and cut it out of the U.S. economy, according to a new policy brief exclusively obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
The brief, from Heritage Action—the advocacy arm of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank—seeks to send a message to the Biden administration and lawmakers: "Stop strengthening China." It proposes fundamentally altering the U.S. relationship with China by barring Chinese nationals from participating in federal programs, banning China from the U.S. supply chain, and icing it out of all national security projects. The recommendations are meant to serve as guideposts for congressional legislation to increase U.S. competition with China.
"The U.S.-China relationship is one of genuine adversaries, not friendly competitors," the policy brief states, explaining that Congress must frame its overall approach to the CCP through this lens. "Only when a problem is properly identified can it be solved. We will not be capable of taking the necessary steps to combat the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) influences until we recognize that the Communist Party only acts in ways to advance its interests and undermine America."
The policy brief comes amid a growing stand-off between the United States and China, both economically and militarily. The Communist regime has for years been the primary source of espionage operations against America that have targeted the federal government, national security apparatus, and critical businesses. Its deepening ties with malign regimes—including Russia, Iran, and North Korea—also signals that the CCP's ultimate goal is to supplant America as the world's leading force. To counter this, the Biden administration and Congress must develop a multi-pronged plan to slice China out of America's economy and leading academic institutions, according to the Heritage Action's proposal.
The proposal was created by a team of veteran political analysts in an attempt to reverse America's decades of economic subservience to the Communist Party.
"For too long, American foreign policy has empowered the Chinese Communist Party to continue their work in undermining American economic and strategic interests," Jessica Anderson, Heritage Action's executive director, told the Free Beacon. "Between China's espionage efforts, supply chain dominance, human rights violations, and role in COVID-19, their threats to the United States are wide-ranging and serious."
"Unless Congress and the Biden administration can start holding China accountable and unleashing American innovation, the CCP could cause irreparable damage to our economy, national security, stability, and global leadership," Anderson said.
One of the first steps to combating CCP espionage, Heritage Action says, is to revive the Department of Justice's China Initiative, a Trump-era project that ferreted out and prosecuted Chinese spies. The initiative was dissolved by the Biden administration, which claimed the program was racist against Chinese nationals. Statistics issued by the Justice Department indicate 80 percent of economic espionage prosecutions in the United States are related to China.
The United States must also bar members of the CCP and other Chinese nationals from participating in federally funded projects, "including at U.S. or allied universities with an explicit ban on U.S. universities hosting Confucius Institutes," according to the proposal. Confucius Institutes are a network of CCP-backed propaganda organizations that have deep ties to many American colleges.
On the economic front, the United States must move to build a "China-resistant economy." This can be accomplished by cutting the regime out of the U.S. supply chain and key industries, such as the electronics, energy, and pharmaceutical sectors.
"It should be obvious that America should not undertake initiatives that strengthen China," according to the proposal. "Protecting U.S. innovation and cutting-edge technology from Chinese-sponsored espionage and corporate theft is a critical front line in this new cold war."
The United States must turn away from China to "establish strategic stockpiles of critical electronics and raw, rare-earth minerals needed to build them. Establishing new production and manufacturing capacity in other key industries such as energy and pharmaceuticals also must be a priority. We must put up defenses between U.S. investment, research, and supply chains and China to protect the economic and technological advances that drive our hard power advantage."
video
Where did Biden's millions come from?
Joe Biden’s Attorney General Promises to Not Interfere in Hunter Biden Probe
President Biden’s chief law enforcement officer, Attorney General Merrick Garland, promised the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday he will not interfere with the agency’s probe into Hunter Biden’s potential tax fraud, money laundering, and violation of lobbying laws.
Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) asked Garland if he knew of the probe into the president’s son. Garland refused to reveal any internal deliberations against Hunter but noted the investigation is being run by David Weiss, a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Wilmington, Delaware.
Weiss, a 20-year federal prosecutor, will have to determine if there is enough evidence to seek a federal grand jury indictment against Hunter Biden in an investigation that may end up including other members of the Biden family, such as Joe Biden’s brother James Biden, and potentially the president himself.
“I’m aware of that, but he reports to you,” Hagerty pressed about the investigation under Weiss.
“He is supervising the investigation and I’m not at liberty to talk about internal Justice Department deliberations, but he is in charge of that investigation,” Garland reiterated.
Garland then promised the Biden administration would not interfere in the investigation. “There will not be interference of any political or improper kind.”
Hagerty continued his line of questioning by asking if Joe Biden ever told Garland that Hunter did not break any laws, including tax fraud, money laundering, and violation of lobbying laws.
“Absolutely not. And the President has not done that. And the President is committed not to interfere, not only in that investigation but any other kind of investigation,” Garland claimed.
Later in the hearing, Garland refused to say whether a special counsel should be placed over the investigation to maintain a just investigation. A special counsel would provide a degree of separation between Biden’s administration and the investigation. Legal experts have said a special counsel is necessary because Joe Biden has denied any wrongdoing by Hunter and may have influenced the ongoing investigation.
“The question of whether they have a special counsel is one that is an internal decision-making within the department, so I don’t want to make any judgments one way or the other,” Garland responded. “But I’m quite comfortable with the United States attorney for that district continuing in the role that he’s [Weiss] playing.”
During the 2020 presidential debate, Joe Biden claimed Hunter’s “laptop from hell” was a Russian plant “and a smear campaign.” Joe Biden has repeatedly claimed he was never involved in the family business.
But according to White House visitor logs obtained by the New York Post on Saturday, Hunter’s corrupt business partner, Eric Schwerin, met with Joe Biden at the White House 19 times between 2009 and 2015. Joe Biden was vice president during this time. The contact between Joe Biden and Schwerin directly contradicts Joe Biden’s repeated claims he was never involved in the family business. The Post’s reporting adds a twelfth instance Joe Biden has been involved in the family’s business scheme.
Meanwhile, 58 percent believe Joe Biden has indeed played a role in his family’s business, according to a Monday poll. Sixty percent say Hunter Biden has sold “influence and access” to Joe Biden. The poll also shows 67 percent believe Joe Biden should be impeached if he “secretly participated and facilitated” in the family’s business.
Text messages from 2019 on Hunter’s “laptop from hell” depict the Biden family payout mechanism. The instrument indicates a collection of 50 percent of familial salaries for 30 years.
“I hope you all can do what I did and pay for everything for this entire family for 30 years,” Hunter texted to his daughter in 2019. “It’s really hard. But don’t worry, unlike Pop [Joe], I won’t make you give me half your salary.”
The Biden’s family payment mechanism of collecting 50 percent of family salaries for 30 years could be legal “predicates” for racketeering charges, according to former Utah U.S. attorney Brett Tolman.
Follow Wendell Husebø on Twitter and Gettr @WendellHusebø. He is the author of Politics of Slave Morality.
No comments:
Post a Comment