The Drumbeat Of Threats Against China Continues

If you wanted to put an antagonist at ease, to build trust and mutual good will, how would you do that? Avoid threatening behavior or rhetoric, right? Not if you’re the Anglo-Zionist Empire’s global cover organization, NATO:

NATO Dubs China ‘Decisive Enabler’ Of Russia

NATO published a declaration Wednesday aimed against Chinese trade with Russia. The declaration was approved by the 32 leaders of the countries in NATO, who are gathered in Washington DC for the summit on the occasion of the alliance’s 75th anniversary. 

The statement, which called China a “decisive enabler of Russia’s war against Ukraine,” accused the PRC of “large-scale support for Russia’s defense industrial base” for allowing the shipment into Russia of weapons components as part of the trade between the two countries.

The statement also included the demand that China “cease all material and political support to Russia’s war effort.”

“We remain open to constructive engagement with the PRC, including to build reciprocal transparency with the view of safeguarding the Alliance’s security interests,” the statement read.

The declaration reflects a recent shift in NATO’s concerns beyond the Atlantic toward Asia-Pacific affairs. Beijing has not responded to the statement.

“We remain open to constructive engagement.” The implicit threat—in view of the reference to “safeguarding [NATO’s] security interests”—is that that “openness “ is conditioned on Chinese submission to NATO’s demands, and could quickly change to hostile action. That’s an interesting attitude to take toward a major world power and a proud and ancient civilization. Given that America and its pipsqueak European vassals are clearly unable to deal with Russia, the idea of threatening another major nuclear power seems reckless and counter productive.

BTW, my wife has been reading The American century and beyond by George C Herring, US foreign relations, 1893-2015. She came across this passage, which set the stage for the Anglo-Zionist Empire’s ambitions already in 1946:

Truman took a hardsell approach to secure Congressional support for an unprecedented program of $400 million dollars in aid for Greece and Turkey. The Republicans had won smashing victories in the 1946 elections, regaining control of both Houses of Congress and vowing to implement massive budget cuts. Americans feared the Soviet Union but they were preoccupied with domestic problems, uninformed about the situation in Greece, and wary of intervention abroad. Republican Senate leader Arthur Vandenberg of Michigan, urged the president to "scare the hell out of the country," and Truman heeded his advice. In a much publicized speech before a joint session of Congress on March 12, the president echoed Acheson's warnings of a world divided between freedom and totalitarianism. Avoiding the direct reference to the USSR, he compared the threat to Greece with the crisis preceding WW2. He called upon the United States to "support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or outside pressures." Failure to act could threaten the Middle East and Western Europe. "If we falter in our leadership," Truman concluded, "we may endanger the peace of the world--and we shall surely endanger the welfare of this nation."

A program so novel was bound to spur opposition. Columnists Walter Lippmann protested the sweeping language of the doctrine, its seemingly indiscriminate commitment to global interventionism, and its apparent rejection of diplomacy—arguments that proved over time prescient—provoking a Washington dinner party spat with Acheson that almost ended in fisticuffs.

Of course, in retrospect, as the internet has encouraged a broader access to crucial information, we have learned that the reality was often exactly opposite to Truman’s representations: The CIA and MI6 aggressively funded and supported minority interests, encouraging terrorist acts to instigate crises that demanded repressive solutions. Operation Gladio, in Italy, is now the best known example, but far from the only one.

The point is not to argue history in retrospect. Rather, the point is the consistency of US policy and rhetoric, from past to present. Truman’s speech has been reissued countless times over the decades, in only slightly reworded form. Truman’s imperial rhetoric could have been spoken by virtually any US president over those decades. The embrace of interventionism has, indeed, led to a reflexive rejection of diplomacy by the US unless forced to the table. Nothing has changed, except that more people are on to the game.