Connect with us

Americas

America’s Public Are Foie-Gras Ducks- American Billionaires Farm This Public

Published

on

Photo by Nicolai Berntsen on Unsplash

Any animal farm needs to feed, to its livestock, food that the farmer has selected, so as to fatten the animals in the way that the farmer wants, in order for him to serve his selected market — serve them what that market wants.

Foie-gras ducks (and geese) are fed in order to produce foie gras — sickly enlarged bird-livers — which aristocrats traditionally have craved to eat. Many rich people eat this almost tasteless “delicacy”, as a status-symbol. By French law, foie gras is defined as the liver of a duck or goose fattened by force-feeding corn with a feeding tube. The final weeks of the bird’s life consist of nothing but these force-feedings, as the animal’s only supply of food. That’s the way to produce those highly valued, sickly enlarged, bird-livers.

In the following video, the actress Kate Winslet explains and shows how this force-feeding is done (it’s showing there a bird-analogue of what’s done to America’s voters)

Those ducks and geese need to be force-fed this food because the birds don’t actually want to eat it — they’re forced to ‘eat’ it; it’s simply forced into their stomachs. That’s not really eating of food, for nutriment or for health, and especially not for pleasure, like real eating is. It is, instead, just the farmer’s forcing corn into the bird’s stomach, regardless of what that victim wants, or needs, or can even tolerate. It’s something that’s done to the bird, not by the bird. So, although it’s feeding, it’s not actually eating.

This is the way that American elections increasingly are, for Americans — elections are increasingly something that’s done to them, and less and less what they themselves do.

America’s Democratic Party voters aren’t as politically disaffected as are America’s Republican Party voters, but both groups are reluctant to vote for the politicians whom the aristocracy is offering to them as constituting their final general-election options. And there are now a larger number of unaffiliated or “independent” American voters than the voters of either Party — and America’s independent voters are astronomically politically disaffected. This was shown on 26 October 2016, just before the U.S. election, when Britain’s Guardian bannered

Most Americans do not feel represented by Democrats or Republicans – survey

Poll finds Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump continue to face historically low favourability ratings, while pessimism about the country’s direction has grown

Participating in this poll had been (as shown on page 42 of the pollsters’ full report) two thousand scientifically sampled American adults, 18 or older — including ones who hadn’t even registered to vote (and so this was a scientific sampling of the total U.S. adult population, instead of only of registered voters, or only likely voters) and consequently the most disillusioned voters who don’t vote at all were included in this political poll, which is absolutely extraordinary — and it found, as the Guardian summarized it, that: “Sixty-one per cent of survey respondents say neither political party reflects their opinions today, while 38% disagree. Nearly eight in 10 (77%) independents and a majority (54%) of Republicans took this position, while less than half (46%) of Democrats agree.”

So (to clarify that incompetent writing in the Guardian): just before America’s 2016 general election, 46% of Democrats were politically disaffected, 54% of Republicans were, and a whopping 77% of independents were; and 61% of all Americans were. Fewer than 39% of Americans thought that the U.S. Government represented them. Not necessarily in words, but definitely in reality: 61% of Americans thought they weren’t living in a democracy — they thought that America is actually a dictatorship. A better headline for that news-report would therefore have been: “61% of Americans Think They Live in a Dictatorship.” It would have been shorter, clearer, and equally as true, as the Guardian’s headline.

Since Democrats are the least-displeased American voting-group, regarding the politicians that their aristocrats have selected for them and fed to them, let’s focus on and consider here, in some detail, this least-displeased American voting-group, because they’re the least like any resistant (or “anti-Establishment”) foie gras geese and ducks are; Democratic Party voters are far more passive than other Americans are, far more willingly accepting of what’s being fed to them by the aristocracy.

During the 2016 primaries-season, which are the contests within each of America’s parties, one candidate stood out above all others as being by far the most-preferred one by the American general electorate: Bernie Sanders. He was Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic Party primaries. Although all of the Democratic Party’s billionaires were funding Ms. Clinton’s campaign, the American public strongly preferred Mr. Sanders. In the numerous one-on-one polled hypothetical choices versus any of the opposite Party’s contending candidates, Sanders crushed each one of them except John Kasich, who, throughout the primaries, was the second-most preferred of all of the candidates of both Parties (and who performed far better than Trump did in the hypothetical match-ups against Clinton). But Kasich received almost as little financial backing from the billionaires as did Sanders; so, like Sanders, Kasich didn’t receive his Party’s nomination. In the hypothetical match-ups, Sanders beat Kasich by 3.3%, whereas Kasich beat Clinton by 7.4% — that spread between +3.3% and -7.4% is 10.8%, and provides a pretty reliable indication of what the Democratic National Committee threw away when rigging the primaries and vote-counts for Hillary Clinton to win the Party’s nomination. All of the DNC insiders knew that Sanders would be the stronger general-election candidate, no matter whom the Republican nominee would end up being; all of the polling showed it clearly, and they all read the polls voraciously. In all of this hypothetical polling, Sanders beat Trump by 10.4%, whereas Clinton beat Trump by only 3.2%. That spread was 7.2% in favor of Sanders over Clinton, and that’s a huge spread. However, the DNC cared lots more about satisfying its mega-donors, than about winning, when they picked Clinton to be the Party’s nominee. Ms. Clinton’s actual victory over Mr. Trump in the final election between those two nominees turned out to be by only 2.1% — close enough a spread so as to enable Trump to win in the Electoral College (which is all that counts), which counts not individual voters but a formula that represents both the states and the voters. Sanders would have beaten Trump in a landslide — far too big a victory-margin for the Electoral College to have been able to go the opposite way, such as did happen with Clinton (who was so stupid her campaign was a mess, definitely stupider than Trump’s). This fact, of Sanders’s clearly trouncing Trump, was also shown here and here. That’s what the DNC threw away; but discard it they did, because their billionaires were strongly opposed to Sanders (and many of them might have donated even to Trump in order to defeat Sanders).

Hillary Clinton received by far the biggest support from billionaires, of all of the 2016 candidates; Sanders received by far the least; and this is the reason why the Democratic Party, which Clinton and Barack Obama (two thoroughly billionaire-controlled politicians) effectively controlled, handed its nomination to Clinton.

The poll that had been reported by Britain’s Guardian, is shown in fuller detail here, documenting how loathed both of the two Parties’ Presidential nominees were:

“Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump continue to have historically low favorability ratings with fewer than half of the public viewing each candidate positively (41% vs. 33%, respectively). Clinton is viewed less favorably than the Democratic Party (49%), but Trump’s low favorability rating is more consistent with the Republican Party’s low favorability (36%).”

Of course, the Republican Party won everything, though its favorability-rating was the lowest. In no way was this outcome the result of democracy.

The real action in American politics is in the primaries, and the billionaires know this. The primaries are the process where any candidate who wants to represent the public instead of the aristocracy, gets eliminated from further competition. That’s the reason why the billionaires are especially concerned to win in their respective party’s primaries — the first-stage selection process — so that the general-election options will be only candidates who are acceptable to the aristocracy. Then, if a particular billionaire doesn’t like what his party has nominated, he can either back that candidate if acceptable, or else might back another party’s nominee, who was selected by that other party’s billionaires. In either case, the billionaires’ class-interest will still be served, even though the given billionaire might philosophically disagree with the other party’s candidate. It’ll still be the same aristocracy ruling the country, even if a different segment of it.

This means that, for the voters, the final choice doesn’t include any anti-aristocratic (or pro-democratic) option: it’s instead between nominees all of whom represent some faction or another within the nation’s aristocracy.

That’s the situation amongst Democratic Party voters — these being the voters who are the least-disillusioned about their country’s ‘democracy’. Apparently, no matter how much the Democratic Party lies to its voters, those voters are extremely reluctant to reject their Party’s nominee. Even if their Party has stolen the nomination from them, and handed it to a nominee who ends up losing in the final contest, Democratic Party voters are still willing to back the Party that stole the nomination from them, for the weaker candidate, and that thereby handed the victory to a different party.

But America’s Republican voters, and especially America’s independent or non-affiliated voters, are very much in the position of reluctant, or even highly resistant, foie gras ducks and geese (the ones who squawk and squirm more). Democratic Party voters are the most accepting of what they’re being force-fed. That’s why most of them remain as Democrats, even after their Party’s having stolen the nomination and handed it to Clinton, and even after Clinton’s subsequent choice for DNC Chair — and not Sanders’s choice — becoming selected in 2017 by the DNC to run the Party in the 2018 mid-term elections. The fewer-than-a-thousand people (447, to be exact) who are allowed to vote in DNC elections, are, as a group, thoroughly unrepentant, even though they had, to a large extent, made Trump President. (That last linked-to site, being mainstream, and thus necessarily controlled by the aristocracy, said that “the DNC’s exact roster of current members doesn’t appear to be easily available on its website”, but that was a lie, because the membership-list simply wasn’t at all available on its website — and it still is being kept a secret there, which fact, of the DNC’s secrecy about whom those 447 DNC members are, further displays the type of ‘democracy’ that America is, which fact, in turn, explains the vast political disaffection in the United States, though Democratic voters especially accept this ongoing abuse of Democratic voters, by the DNC.)

America’s voters are foie gras birds, but some of these birds (the Republicans and especially independents) are more resisting than some others (Democrats) are.

The way that America’s billionaires farm this public is by feeding to the voters the politicians, without even considering the needs — much less the wants — of that public.

And this is the reason why the only scientific study that has ever been done of whether a given country is a democracy or instead a dictatorship, which was a study that was done about the U.S., found that America is clearly a dictatorship, no democracy at all. It found that whereas the very wealthy and well-connected do have very significant effect shaping America’s laws, the public-at-large has virtually none: “The preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” Such a country isn’t a democracy; it’s an aristocracy — a nation where only the rich and well-connected have impact upon the government. America’s public are foie gras ducks.

And the situation in America is getting rapidly even worse: Amy Baker Benjamin’s “The Many Faces of Secrecy”, in William & Mary Policy Review, 21 November 2017, is a path-breaking study of recent expansions of U.S. Governmental secrecy, and it concludes that: “We are confronting a systemic secrecy crisis. For various reasons and under cover of conflicting rationales, large swaths of policy-making have been placed beyond the review-and-reaction authority of the American people, to the detriment of even the most humble conceptions of transparency and democracy.” Dictatorship depends upon government-secrecy, because it depends upon lies, and because lies depend upon hiding the key truths. For each lie, there are key truths that must be hidden.

Two of the U.S. aristocracy’s leading magazines, Foreign Policy, and the super-prestigious Foreign Affairs, both recently headlined articles “Is Democracy Dying?” and neither magazine so much as even mentioned (nor linked to, either directly or indirectly) any of the studies — nor, really, referred to any of the realities — that have been mentioned here. This information is being blocked from reaching the public, blocked as much as the aristocracy can. The public are intended to supply the votes and the labor and the markets; and the way to get all three is to hide the truth, so that the lies can more readily be accepted, so that the aristocracy will remain in control — which they are determined to do, at all costs (especiallly all costs to the public).

Globally, the most prominent example of a duck or goose who refuses to cooperate and who is willing to experience the worst possible punishments for resisting (in other words, is a person of supreme courage and integrity), is Julian Assange; and, on June 9th, the great investigative journalist John Pilger, at Consortium News, stated the ugliness and depravity of the aristocracy, as displayed (and which the aristocracy does everything possible to hide) in that specific case:

“There is a silence among many who call themselves left. The silence is Julian Assange. As every false accusation has fallen away, every bogus smear shown to be the work of political enemies, Julian stands vindicated as one who has exposed a system that threatens humanity. The Collateral Damage video, the war logs of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Cablegate revelations, the Venezuela revelations, the Podesta email revelations … these are just a few of the storms of raw truth that have blown through the capitals of rapacious power. The fakery of Russia-gate, the collusion of a corrupt media and the shame of a legal system that pursues truth-tellers, have not been able to hold back the raw truth of WikiLeaks revelations. They have not won, not yet, and they have not destroyed the man. Only the silence of good people will allow them to win. Julian Assange has never been more isolated. He needs your support and your voice. Now more than ever is the time to demand justice and free speech for Julian. Thank you.”

If civilization doesn’t totally end from what that international network of thugs is doing, then human history will continue beyond the present generation, and the case of that lone and very courageously resistant bird, Julian Assange, will be a prominent part of it.

Author’s note: first published at strategic-culture.org

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Roads and Rails for the U.S.

Published

on

For those who expect the newly announced $2 trillion Biden infrastructure program to be a goodbye to potholes and hello to smooth-as-glass expressways, a disappointment is in store.  The largest expenditure by far ($400 billion) is on home/community care, impacting the elderly or disabled.  The $115 billion apportioned to roads and bridges is #4 on the list. 

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) keeps tabs on our infrastructure and their latest report (2020) gave it an overall grade of C-.  Although bridges worsened, this is a modest improvement on the previous report (2017) when the overall grade was D+.  If $115 billion in spending sounds adequate, one has to remember it costs $27 billion annually for upkeep.

Astounding it might be the backlog in spending for roads and bridges runs at $12 billion annually.  Go back 20 years and we have a quarter trillion shortfall.  Add all the other areas of infrastructure and the ASCE comes up with a $5 trillion total.  It is the gap between what we have been spending and what we need to.  Also one has to bear in mind that neglect worsens condition and increases repair costs. 

One notable example of maintenance is the Forth rail bridge in Scotland.  A crisscross of beams forming three superstructures linked together, it was a sensation when opened in 1890 and now is a UN World Heritage Site.  Spanning 1.5 miles, its upkeep requires a regular coat of paint.  And that it gets.  Rumor has it that when the unobtrusive painters reach the end of their task, it is time to start painting again the end where they began — a permanent job to be sure though new paints might have diminished such prospects.

Biden also proposes $80 billion for railways.  Anyone who has travelled or lived in Europe knows the stark contrast between railroads there and in the U.S.  European high-speed rail networks are growing from the established TGV in France to the new Spanish trains.  Run by RENFE, the national railway, Alta Velocidad Española (AVE) trains run at speeds up to 310 km/h (193 mph)  — a speed that amounts to a convenient overnight trip between Los Angeles and Chicago.

The hugely expensive new tracks needed can be considered a long-term investment in our children’s future.  But it will take courage to contest the well-heeled lobbies of the airplane manufacturers, the airlines and big oil.

If Spain can have high-speed rail and if China already has some 24,000 miles of such track, surely the US too can opt for a system that is convenient for its lack of airport hassle and the hour wasted each way in the journey to or from the city center.  Rail travel not only avoids both but is significantly less polluting.  

Particularly bad, airplane pollution high above (26 to 43 thousand feet) results in greater ozone formation in the troposphere.  In fact airplanes are the principal human cause of ozone formation.

Imagine a comfortable train with space to walk around, a dining car serving freshly cooked food, a lounge car and other conveniences, including a bed for overnight travel; all for a significantly less environmental cost.  When we begin to ask why we in the US do not have the public services taken for granted in other developed countries, perhaps then the politicians might take note.

Continue Reading

Americas

Congress and the Biden administration should end FBI immunity overseas

Published

on

Image source: U.S. Embassy in Uzbekistan

The FBI notably has an extended international presence running 63 offices in select countries overseas. The offices are called “legats” and are situated at the US Embassy in the host country. One of the major reasons for FBI’s international presence is fighting international terrorism.

The FBI legat personnel at the US embassies are fully accredited diplomats enjoying full diplomatic immunity but that poses several questions that are worth asking, such as: how is it possible for law enforcement to be diplomats and is that a good idea, legally speaking?

Police work should not enjoy diplomatic immunity because that opens the door to abuse. Does the FBI’s immunity overseas mean that the FBI attaches can do no wrong in the host country? How do we tackle potential rights infringements and instances of abuse of power by the FBI towards locals in the host country? The DOJ Inspector General and the State Department Inspector General would not accept complaints by foreigners directed at the FBI, so what recourse then could a local citizen have vis-a-vis the FBI legat if local courts are not an option and the Inspector Generals would not look into those cases?

This presents a real legal lacuna and a glitch in US diplomatic immunity that should not exist and should be addressed by Congress and the new Biden administration.

While FBI offices overseas conduct some far from controversial activities, such as training and educational exchanges with local law enforcement, which generally no one would object to, the real question as usual is about surveillance: who calls the shots and who assumes responsibility for potentially abusive surveillance of locals that may infringe upon their rights. It’s an issue that most people in countries with FBI presence around the world are not aware of. The FBI could be running “counter-terrorism” surveillance on you in your own country instead of the local police. And that’s not nothing.

When we hear “cooperation in the area of counter-terrorism”, as recent decades show, there is a great likelihood that the US government is abusing powers and rights, without batting an eyelash. That exposes local citizens around the world to unlawful surveillance without legal recourse. Most people are not even aware that the FBI holds local offices. Why would the FBI be operating instead of the local law enforcement on another country’s territory? That’s not a good look on the whole for the US government.

The legal lacuna is by design. This brings us to the nuts and bolts of the FBI legats’ diplomatic immunity.

Diplomatic immunity is governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, under Chapter III on privileges and immunities. The US is also a state party to the Convention, along with most states around the world. While there could be some variations and disagreements on bilateral basis (including on weather for example one state could be hosted and represented through the embassy of another state in a third state), on the whole there is a universal consensus that the Vienna Convention sets the rules establishing diplomatic immunities and privileges.

Under the Vienna Convention, only top diplomats are given the highest degree of immunity from the law. This means they cannot be handcuffed, arrested, detained, or prosecuted by law enforcement officials of the country in which they’re stationed. Diplomatic immunities and privileges also include things like diplomatic “bags” (with very peculiar cases of what that could entail) and notably, protection and diplomatic immunity for the family of diplomats.

It is a universal consensus that not everyone who works at an Embassy has or should have diplomatic immunity.  Immunity is saved for diplomats whose role has to be protected from the local jurisdiction of the country for a reason. Not all embassy staff should enjoy diplomatic immunity. Granting law enforcement such as the FBI full legal immunity for their actions is bad news.

Only the top officials at an embassy are diplomats with an actual full immunity — and that’s for a reason.

It makes sense why a diplomat negotiating an agreement should not be subjected to local courts’ jurisdiction. But the same doesn’t go for a law enforcement official who acts as a law enforcement official by, for example, requesting unlawful surveillance on a local citizen, in his law enforcement capacity, while thinking of himself as a diplomat and being recognized as such by the law.

Law enforcement personnel are not diplomats. Dealing with extraterritorial jurisdiction cases or international cases is not the same thing as the need for diplomatic immunity. If that was the case, everyone at the export division at the Department if Commerce would have diplomatic immunity for protection from foreign courts, just in case. Some inherent risk in dealing with international cases does not merit diplomatic immunity – otherwise, this would lead to absurdities such as any government official of any country being granted diplomatic immunity for anything internationally related.

The bar for diplomatic immunity is very high and that’s by design based on an international consensus resting upon international law. Simply dealing with international cases does not make a policeman at a foreign embassy a diplomat. If that was the case every policeman investigating an international case would have to become a diplomat, just in case, for protection from the jurisdiction of the involved country in order to avoid legal push-back. That’s clearly unnecessary and legally illogical. Being a staff member at an embassy in a foreign country does not in and of itself necessitate diplomatic immunity, as many embassy staff do not enjoy diplomatic protection. It is neither legally justified nor necessary for the FBI abroad to enjoy diplomatic immunity; this could only open up the function to potential abuse. The FBI’s arbitrary surveillance on locals can have a very real potential for violating the rights of local people.  This is a difference in comparison to actual diplomats. Diplomats do not investigate or run surveillance on locals; they can’t threaten or abuse the rights of local citizens directly, the way that law enforcement can. Lack of legal recourse is a really bad look for the Biden administration and for the US government.

The rationale for diplomatic immunity is that it should not be permitted to arrest top diplomats, who by definition have to be good at representing their own country’s interests in relation to the host state, for being too good at their job once the host state is unhappy with a push back, for example. The Ambassador should not be exposed to or threatened by the risk of an arrest and trial for being in contradiction with the interests of the host state under some local law on treason, for example, because Ambassadors could be running against the interests of the host state, by definition. And that’s contained within the rules of diplomatic relations. It’s contained in the nature of diplomatic work that such contradictions may arise, as each side represents their own country’s interests. Diplomats should not be punished for doing their job. The same doesn’t apply to the FBI legats. Issuing surveillance on local citizens is not the same as representing the US in negotiations. The FBI legats’ functions don’t merit diplomatic immunity and their actions have to be open to challenge in the host country’s jurisdiction.

The FBI immunity legal lacunae is in some ways reminiscent of similar historic parallels, such as the George W. Bush executive order  that US military contractors in Iraq would enjoy full legal immunity from Iraqi courts’ jurisdiction, when they shouldn’t have. At the time, Iraq was a war-torn country without a functioning government, legal system or police forces. But the same principle of unreasonable legal immunity that runs counter international laws is seen even today, across European Union countries hosting legally immune FBI attaches.

Congress and the Biden administration should end FBI immunity overseas. It can be argued that for any local rights infringements, it is the local law enforcement cooperating with the US Embassy that should be held accountable – but that would ignore that the actual request for unlawful surveillance on locals could be coming from the FBI at the Embassy. The crime has to be tackled at the source of request. 

When I reached out to the US Embassy in Bulgaria they did not respond to a request to clarify the justification for the FBI diplomatic immunity in EU countries.

To prevent abuse, Congress and the Biden Administration should remove the diplomatic immunity of the FBI serving overseas.

Continue Reading

Americas

Competition and cooperation between China and the United States and the eighth priority

Published

on

In mid-March U.S. President Biden held his first press conference since taking office. Speaking about Sino-U.S. relations, Biden said: “I will prevent China from surpassing the United States of America during my term of office”. At the same time, he also stressed that he would not seek to confront China, but to keep up fierce competition between the two countries.

Focusing on competition between major powers is one of the important changes in U.S. foreign policy in recent years. As the strengths of China and the United States draw closer together, the United States increasingly feels that its own ‘hegemony’ is threatened. During Trump’s tenure, the United States has caused a trade war, a technology war, and even a complete disagreement with China in an attempt to curb China’s development momentum and erode Chinese positions.

The expansion of the competitive field and the escalation of the competitive situation have become the hallmarks of Sino-U.S. relations during this period. Although Biden’s policy line has made substantial changes to ‘Trumpism’, it still has much of its predecessor’s legacy with regard to its policy towards China.

The first foreign policy speech made by U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken listed China Challenge as the eighth priority, preceded by:

1) ending the COVID-19 pandemic;

2) overcoming the economic crisis, reviving the economy at home and abroad, as well as and building a more stable and inclusive global economy;

3) renewing democracy;

4) reforming immigration and creating a humane and effective immigration system;

5) rebuilding alliances, revitalising U.S. ties with allies and partners with the system that the military calls force multiplier;

6) tackling climate change and leading a green energy revolution;

7) securing U.S. leadership in technology; and

8) confronting China and managing the greatest geopolitical test of the 21st century, i.e. relations with China, which is the only country with economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to seriously challenge the international system and equilibria.

The eighth medium-term guideline for the national security strategy sees China as an important competitor. These guidelines clearly show that competition still sets the tone in the way President Biden’s Administration’s manages relations with China, as was the case in the previous four-year period.

At a press conference on March 26, 2021, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said the above statements were not surprising. It is clear that China and the United States are competing on different interest levels.

The key factor, however, is to compete fairly and justly and to improve oneself. The appeal to the other side is moderation and restraint, not life or death, or a zero-sum game. These words are along the same lines as Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s statement when he spoke about Sino-U.S. relations at a session of the National Congress of People’s Representatives of the People’s Republic of China (the Chinese Parliament). It is not only a response to the U.S. strategy of competition with China, but it also provides a model for the future way in which superpowers should proceed together.

The reality of Sino-U.S. competition is unavoidable, but competition can be divided into benign and vicious. The former is a winning model for “improving oneself and understanding the needs of the other side”.

Since Deng Xiaping’s reforms and opening up to international trade, China has begun its own reconstruction. It has continuously widened the scope for benign competition and has changed its mindset by actively embracing the world’s different political parties and participating in international competition. It has also inspired enthusiasm for innovation and creativity and made progress in various fields.

At the same time, development has also provided ample opportunities for countries around the world and injected growth momentum into the global economy: this is a typical example of China’s good interaction and common development with all countries around the globe.

Conversely, fierce competition means breaking rules and systems and even breaking the demarcation line to prevent or contain the opponent, and this is usually followed by fierce conflicts.

The two World Wars of the last century were extreme examples of violent competition between great powers: the first as a clash between capitalist imperialisms in search of new markets; the second as a result of mistakes made in the peace treaties that ended the Great War, plundering the losers and causing misery, resentment and chauvinistic desires.

In today’s world, competition without respect for the other side has not disappeared from the scene of history. Trump Administration’s frantic anti-China activity over the last four years has not only failed to make the United States ‘great again’, but has caused a linear decline in its national competitiveness, at least according to the World Competitiveness Yearbook 2020 published by the Lausanne-based International Institute for Management Development, which sees the United States dropping from third to tenth place. Besides the fact that its international image has seriously plummeted and Sino-U.S. relations have hit the lowest ebb since the establishment of diplomatic relations. It can clearly be seen that fierce competition will only restrain its promoters and ultimately harm the others, themselves and the international community.

In December 2020 General Mark Alexander Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (a body that brings together the Chiefs of Staff of each branch of the U.S. military and the Head of the National Guard Bureau), said in an interview that ‘great powers must compete. This is the essence of the world’.

There is no problem with this statement: it is not wrong, but it is important to maintain a state of competition and contact between major powers, precisely to ensure that it does not turn into conflicts or wars that are fatal to mankind and the planet as a whole.

The gist of the speech shows that some U.S. elites also believe that China and the United States should adhere to the principle of ‘fighting without breaking each other’. The importance and the overall and strategic nature of Sino-U.S. relations determine that no one can afford the zero-sum game, which is a lose-lose as opposed to a win-win game – hence we need to ensure that competition between the two countries stays on the right track.

Competition between China and the United States can only be fair and based on rules and laws. This is the basic rule of international relations, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations as its point of reference.

Regardless of the common interests of China, the United States or peoples in the world, both countries should make this system promote healthy and fair competition, thus turning it into the greatest value of sharing and cooperation.

China’s goal has never been to surpass the United States, but to advance steadily and become better and no longer a prey to imperialism and colonialism as it has been the case since the 19th century, when Great Britain waged the two Opium Wars (1839-1842 – 1856-1860) to have not only the opportunity, but also the right to export drugs to the Middle Empire – hence Great Britain was the first pusher empowered and authorized by the force of its weapons.

Although – by its own good fortune -the United States has never been England, it should not always be thinking of surpassing the others or fearing being overtaken by the others, but should particularly focus on Secretary of State Blinken’s first seven priorities and raise its expectations.

China should show its traditional political wisdom and manage Sino-U.S. relations in accordance with the principles of non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation, so that Sino-U.S. relations can develop in a healthy and stable way for the good of the whole planet.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

South Asia12 hours ago

Pakistan and Germany are keen to Sustain Multifaceted and Mutually beneficial Cooperation

Pakistan has varied history of relationship and cooperation with other countries in international arena. Despite of proactive foreign policy Pakistan...

New Social Compact14 hours ago

Disability policies must be based on what the disabled need

Diversity policies, especially when it comes to disabled people, are often created and implemented by decision makers with very different...

WAN WAN
Urban Development16 hours ago

Preparing (Mega)Cities for the 2020s: An Inmovative Image and Investment Diplomacy

Globalized megacities will definitely dominate the future, in the same way as colonial empires dominated the 19th century and nation-states...

modi xi jinping modi xi jinping
East Asia18 hours ago

The Galwan Conflict: Beginning of a new Relationship Dynamics

The 15th June, 2020 may very well mark a new chapter in the Indo-Chinese relationship and pave the way for...

airplane travel airplane travel
Reports20 hours ago

Aviation Sector Calls for Unified Cybersecurity Practices to Mitigate Growing Risks

The aviation industry needs to unify its approach to prevent cybersecurity shocks, according to a new study released today by...

diesel engine diesel engine
Tech News20 hours ago

7 Driving Habits That Are Secretly Damaging Your Diesel Engine

When it comes to driving, no one is perfect, and everyone makes mistakes. But could these habits be costing you...

sofa gate erdogan sofa gate erdogan
Europe22 hours ago

Ммm is a new trend in the interaction between the EU and Turkey:”Silence is golden” or Musical chair?

On April 6, a protocol collapse occurred during a meeting between President of Turkey R. Erdogan, President of the European...

Trending