Connect with us

Intelligence

CIA National Intelligence Estimates on the Cross-Strait and Sino-Russian Relations

Published

on

In July 2011, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) published a declassified National Intelligence Estimate on “Russian-Chinese Relations: Perspectives and Implications” dating back to September 2000. The 45-page report highlights growing concerns in the American intelligence community about the future of Sino-Russian defense and trade cooperation, which could undermine Washington’s Smart Power in Central Asia and the South China Sea. However, the document also underlines the relationship between Russia and China “would not deepen much beyond its current state» and could even be «subject to occasional friction“.

The People’s Republic of China is perceived by the CIA as sceptical of US influence abroad at the moment of the publication of the National Intelligence Estimate (September 2000), the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade (May 7, 1999) becoming the symbol of animosity between the two countries.

Twenty years later, geopolitical tensions remain, as underlined by American support for the protests for greater autonomy in Hong Kong (2019), and Washington’s pressure on Beijing with the accusation of the military origins of Covid-19 (2020).

In 2020, all US attempts to implement Western Soft Power in China — with the exception of Hong Kong and Macao — have had mixed success. Washington’s struggle to establish mutual trust with Beijing is similar to that of Western European countries, and the tormented past and Chinese colonisation by the West is still a contentious issue.

In Western institutions, Chinese recovery of sovereignty goes back to December 20, 1999, with the transfer of Macao from Portugal to the People’s Republic of China. To the Chinese leadership, the inference by Western power is still going on with the US support to Taiwan (sales of US arms) and the Japanese presence around the Diaoyu Dao and its affiliated islands (Japanese Senkaku Islands) backed up by Washington.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, statement by Yang Jiechi in July 2019:

“Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory. The sale of US arms to Taiwan seriously violates the One China Principle and the three joint China-U.S. communiqués, undermines China’s sovereignty and security interests, and seriously undermines peace and stability across the Strait.”

Ultimately, Beijing’s desire to overtake the United-States (eg. Chinese space program) would be motivated by the post-colonial trauma, the desire to regain control of Taiwan and attempts to gain the respect of former European colonial powers and Washington.

Sino-Russian relations may prove to be better than Sino-American relations. Nevertheless, and as the declassified CIA document of 2000 points out, bilateral cooperations between Moscow and Beijing remain difficult because of the Soviet Union’s Changing Policies on China’s Nuclear Weapons Program (Zhihua Shen and Yafeng Xia. Between Aid and Restriction: The Soviet Union’s Changing Policies on China’s Nuclear Weapons Program, 1954-1960. Asian Perspectives, 2012).

As of today, Beijing is ready to support Moscow because the two countries share the same views on multilateralism. However, Beijing has not shown any support to Russia’s diplomacy in the Black Sea (Crimea, Abkhazia and South-Ossetia) and the Middle East (Syria). To date, China does not recognize the Crimea as part of the Russian Federation, and has rejected offers to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent countries.

This research paper will focus on two reports — CIA National Intelligence Estimate (1999) “China-Taiwan: Prospects for Cross-Strait Relations” and CIA National Intelligence Estimate (2000) “Russian-Chinese Relations : Prospects and Implications” — to explain how the CIA views Beijing-Taiwan and Beijing-Moscow relations in the late 1990s, after the return of Hong Kong (United Kingdom until 1997) and Macao (Portugal until 1999) to the People’s Republic of China.

The analysis will also highlight how the Balkans and the Black Sea conflicts have a direct impact on Chinese diplomacy according to the two declassified intelligence estimates of the CIA.

The CIA National Intelligence Estimate on “China-Taiwan: Prospects for Cross-Strait Relations” (NIE 99-13 – September 1999)

After the return of Hong Kong and Macao to the People’s Republic of China, the United States is the only Western power capable of hindering Chinese territorial ambitions in the South China Sea (Taiwan). CIA reports in the 1990s, unlike those produced earlier by the CIA during the Cold War, attempted to determine whether Taiwan should remain an independent country backed up by Washington or follow the British and Portuguese examples of Hong Kong and Macao.

The CIA’s National Intelligence Estimate “China — Taiwan: Prospects for Cross-Strait Relations” published in September 1999, supposed to cover the evolution in the upcoming 3 years (2000–2003), and declassified in July 2011, answers this question and highlights the scenarii in which China could decide to regain control of Taiwan by military means.

The report has been produced at a critical moment in Sino-American relations because the return of Hong Kong and Macao under Chinese tutelage leaves the United States as the only military power capable of counterbalancing China’s regional ambitions, as Japan and South Korea do not have a nuclear strike force, unlike Great Britain.

Mention should be made of China’s rise to power, which is implied in the report. With the incorporation of Hong Kong and Macao, China has increased its GDP by attaching two bastions of capitalism, thereby weakening the British and Portuguese economy on the one hand and increasing the financial performance of Beijing on the other.

The CIA report also comes at a time when tensions between Washington and Beijing are increasing due to the NATO bombing of the People’s Republic of China embassy in Belgrade (May 7, 1999). The Balkans (Serbia) and the Caucasus (Chechnya) are recurring themes in the NIE on Taiwan, but also in the analysis on Russian-Chinese relations (CIA National Intelligence Estimate “Russian-Chinese Relations: Perspectives and Implications“).

The NIE is relying on complementary analysis conducted by several US institutions, including the following ones mentioned in the beginning:

  • NIE 98-05, “China’s Conventional Military Forces: Current Status and Future Capabilities (1998-2008)”, released in June 1998
  • China’s Strategic Priorities and Behaviour“ supposed to be published later in 1999

The number of specialized reports on Cross-Strait relations underlines the priority for the CIA to increase its expertise on the People’s Republic of China for military and diplomatic reasons in the late 1990s. These reports, which cover a period of three years, also highlight the rapid evolution of Chinese diplomacy and military power after the Cold War.

Beijing’s approach regarding partially recognized states in Asia (Taiwan)

The bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Serbia is considered a key moment in relations between Beijing and Washington, and the CIA National Intelligence Estimate does not mention the voluntary or involuntary nature of the bombing.

CIA director George Tenet testified before a congressional committee that the bombing was the only one in the campaign organized and directed by his agency. According to George Tenet, the CIA had identified the wrong coordinates for a Yugoslav military target on the same street (Tenet George (1999). DCI Statement on the Belgrade Chinese Embassy Bombing House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Open Hearing. Central Intelligence Agency). It is therefore interesting that the NIE does not mention the nature of the bombing. However, a report mentioning the voluntary nature of such an action would probably not have been declassified.

Following the bombing, China’s position vis-à-vis the United States presence in Asia will become even more sceptical and, unlike the United-Kingdom and Portugal, the possibility of negotiating with Washington regarding Taiwan’s future tainted by the bombing in Serbia.

The CIA considers that Beijing has a comfortable position in Asia since the Europeans left Hong Kong and Macao, and believes that “China is convinced that Taiwan will not gain more influence” and that “greater economic interdependence between China and Taiwan will bring the two entities closer together.”

Unlike other de facto states such as Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Europe, which live on economic and military aid from Moscow because Georgia and the West do not want to increase their economic relations with the two territories, Beijing seems to have adopted an innovative strategy regarding Taiwan (also considered to be a de facto states according to the People’s Republic of China’s law). China is thus developing its commercial relations with the Island, hoping to see the two entities move closer together.

Beijing wishes to develop its relations with Taiwan in order to bind a prosperous territory when the time comes (like Hong-Kong and Macao) and to user Soft Power and economic ties instead of Hard Power. That is why Beijing wants to put more pressure on the United States to reduce the sale of arms to Taiwan and focus on economic cooperation.

Moreover, the NIE mentions that Beijing wants to make Hong Kong an instrument of Chinese “One country, two systems” propaganda. In this way, Chinese leadership wants to present the future of Taiwan as similar to the future of Hong Kong, with a commitment to economic prosperity and more freedom compared to Mainland China.

The Chinese approach is presented as slow and gradual. According to the report, China has no deadline for reunification and the certainty Taiwan “will not gain influence in the coming years”. In addition, the CIA claims that China will not engage in a military confrontation with Taiwan as this would be detrimental to its economy and international trade. China’s wish is therefore to impress and frighten Taiwan and the United States.

China’s Smart Power and the United Nations

In order to recover control over Taiwan, Beijing is ready to use a combination of Smart Power and international pressures in international institutions such as the United Nations (UN).

According to the NIE, Beijing suspects that Japan and Taiwan have a secret military agreement. In addition, China is trying to weaken the United States and all states — such as Panama — that have good relations with Taiwan, using all available means to ensure Taiwan will be internationally isolated.

Moreover, the CIA believes the more tension there is between China and the United States, the more Washington will be willing to support the island. In this sense, there is an interest for Taiwan to push for more confrontation between the two superpowers in order to improve the bilateral relationship between Taiwan and Washington.

According to the analysis, if the United States does not show firmness towards Beijing, the possibility of a domino effect is to be feared, and recovering control over Taiwan will then lead to increased pressures from Beijing on Japan and South Korea. In that sense, Taiwan needs to be defended by the United-States in order to contain China’s influence in the whole South-East Asia. Following this reasoning, and according to the CIA analysis, the reunion of Taiwan and China will mark the beginning of the United States’ withdrawal from the Asian continent and further changes for Japan and South-Korea.

Finally, the most singular point of the CIA report on Cross-Strait Relations is that it takes us back to the Balkans several times. Beijing is said to have put pressure on Northern Macedonia (Macedonia before 2019) because of its diplomatic relation with Taiwan. China is said to have vetoed the presence of peacekeepers in North Macedonia at the UN to show Beijing’s power on the European continent, a strong signal sent to several countries that might require UN assistance in the future.

Beijing could thus use the UN and other international institutions to influence the entire Balkans and the Black Sea by recognizing new countries or refusing to recognize them (eg. Abkhazia) and destabilize the European continent.

The CIA analysis thus lays the foundations for the Chinese strategy regarding the non-recognition of Kosovo (de jure a part of Serbia before partial recognition in 2008) to weaken the West, and at the same time the non-recognition of Abkhazia, Transnistria, South Ossetia to weaken Russian, and the non-recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh to weaken Armenia.

Beijing’s policy in Europe regarding de facto and partially recognized states will have consequences for the recognition of Taiwan and vice versa. In this sense, the CIA underlines how international institutions can be used by Beijing to achieve its objectives and how its policy in Europe is related to Taiwan.

The CIA’s Red Lines

These are the scenarii that could prompt Beijing to conduct a direct military attack on Taiwan:

  • Taiwan new referendum on Independence
  • Foreign support for pro-independence forces in Taiwan
  • Taiwan development of nuclear weapons
  • Political instability on the island

Despite this, the CIA believes that China will follow its plan to develop Soft Power in the coming decades, as relations with Russia will bring economic prosperity and military cooperation in order to counterbalance American influence in Asia.

The relationship between Moscow and Washington is not present in the NIE on “China-Taiwan: Prospects for Cross-Strait Relations” and we have to focus on the National Intelligence Estimate on “Russian-Chinese Relations: Perspectives and Implications” to understand how Sino-Russian relations are done in order to diminish the US influence in Taiwan.

A section entitled “What if we were wrong” also shows that the CIA is unsure of future developments, although it does present possible scenarii. Moreover, Washington does not seem to be ready for military intervention (no details in the report) and military support to Taiwan will probably take the form of military equipment only.

Conclusions on the National Intelligence Estimate “China-Taiwan: Prospects for Cross-Strait Relations

In May 2020, the US State Department authorized a possible sale of eighteen MK-48 Mod6 Advanced Technology Heavy Weight Torpedoes and related equipment for an estimated cost of $180 million to Taiwan.

In response to the announcement Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Zhao Lijian said on May 21, 2020, that:

“China is firmly opposed to the US arms sales to Taiwan and has made solemn representations to the US. We urge the US side to strictly abide by the one-China principle and the provisions of the three Sino-US joint communiques, and stop arms sales to Taiwan and military links between the United States and Taiwan to avoid further damage to Sino-US relations and peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.”

Some 20 years after the publication of the CIA National Intelligence Estimate report “China-Taiwan: Prospects for Cross-Strait Relations,” the approach between the United-States and China seems to show no significant change. Beijing opposes any US military presence and equipment sales to Taiwan, while the United States is not ready to abandon the island for fear of losing influence in South Korea and Japan.

Another element that emerges from this report is the CIA’s anticipation of China’s diplomacy regarding de facto and partially recognized states in Europe and the influence they have on contemporary Chinese diplomacy at the UN, bilateral relations with Moscow (Crimea, Transnistria, Abkhazia and South-Ossetia), Armenia (Nagorno-Karabakh), and the West (Kosovo).

The report also bears witness to the upcoming ambivalence of relations with Russia, which wants China to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia (de jure independent according to Russia and de jure part of Georgia according to the West).

On reading the CIA report, it is clear that Beijing will not vote in favour of diplomatic recognition of any de facto states in Europe in the late 2000s, forcing it to reopen the debate on the recognition of Taiwan and the application of the Montevideo Convention.

As the CIA shows, relations between China and Taiwan will lead to a debate on the recognition of Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and possibly Transnistria and Nagorno-Karabakh. Although apparently focusing on Taiwan-China relations, the report provides multiple references that link Taiwan and Chinese diplomacy to the Balkans and the Caucasus, as evidenced by the reference to the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and the lack of support for UN Peacekeepers in North Macedonia.

The CIA National Intelligence Estimate on “Russian-Chinese Relations: Perspectives and Implications” (NIE 2000-10C–September 2000)

Alongside reports on Beijing’s growing influence in Asia, the CIA conducted a study on relations between Russia and the Republic of China during the same period (1999-2000). The NIE on “Russian-Chinese Relations: Perspectives and Implications” is partially declassified, and a considerable part of this study remains “top secret” (pages 27-36) to this day.

The early release raises the question of whether it is worthwhile for CIA archivists to provide access to the document in question, especially in view of the classification, which usually includes results that must not be accessible to the public before several decades:

  • The elements of the report that are now accessible are no longer of strategic interest (which is the case for the majority of declassified archives).
  • The CIA report shows that relations between Russia and China are ambiguous, and could lead to a form of discord between the two superpowers.
  • Technological developments (Russian S-400; Chinese J-20) are showing the report no longer covers contemporary military threats.

It seems important to mention that at the time of disclosure (2011), Russia has not yet returned to the international arena and is in the process of losing ground in Central Asia and the Black Sea area. Russia’s comeback goes back the Crisis in Crimea (2014 — nowadays) and the launch of the Eurasian Economic Union (2015).

The CIA could therefore have downgraded a document, like those on the USSR, without envisaging that the latter might have a deeper strategic relevance a decade later in 2020 and that Russia would experience a significant resurgence of influence.

Political Coordination and the fight against American unilateralism

From the very beginning, the NIE on Russia-China relations mentions the next 5 years ‘would not develop in a manner that is threatening to the US and might even stabilize Asia.’ The report adds that the 2000s will see an increase in arms sales between the two countries, particularly of SA-10 and SA-20 (S-300PMU-1/2 (SA-20)) from Russia to China.

Sino-Russian relations, in line with the CIA’s vision, should stagnate and focus on economic cooperation without any further political and military integration. The CIA also claims that the new Russian president, Vladimir Putin, will continue to sell military equipment because the Russian economy would struggle to without China. Beijing should also agree on buying more Russian military equipment because the People’s Liberation Army wants to scare Taiwan with military technology that can compete with that of the United States. According to the report, the Russian approach would be to sell military equipment in the hope that this would lead to the sales of other non-military products to China in the future.

As the NIE shows, Sino-Russian relations should not lead to supranational cooperation:

  • The Kremlin is afraid China could become more powerful economically and militarily and thus threaten Washington’s influence in Asia and Moscow’s influence in Central Asia.
  • China is skeptical regarding Russian policy since the 1950s because of the lack of support from Moscow for the development of an independent Chinese military nuclear programme (Chinese CHIC projects).

However, both countries wish to witness the emergence of a multipolar world and the attitude of American diplomacy in the 1990s has exacerbated tensions because neither Russia nor China seems capable of opposing Washington’s military ambitions. Indeed, Washington’s military power in the 1990s is such that the United States are able to bypass international bodies such as the United Nations.

The CIA therefore openly mentions the reasons for the fears of China and Russia in the 1990s, as these two countries were not able to contain American Smart Power:

  • Russia and China are angry at the American decision to launch air strikes against Baghdad (December 1998). France, Russia and China opposed such military intervention at the UN without any results.
  • Suspicion of NATO’s revised strategic concept of April 1999, which expands the geographic scope and justifications for the use of force.
  • Outrage at the US approach to the Balkan crisis from March to June 1999 and the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in May 1999.

Contrary to the CIA’s National Intelligence Estimate (1999) “China-Taiwan: Prospects for Cross-Strait Relations,” the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade is mentioned as ‘accidental’ in the “Russian-Chinese Relations: Perspectives and Implications” NIE.

The CIA adds that cooperation between Japan and the United States could weaken both China and Russia, bringing Moscow and Beijing to adopt a shared policy in Asia. Moreover, to counterbalance American influence, Russia has decided not to support Taiwan, and China has decided to support Russian involvement in Chechnya. The CIA establishes a direct link between China’s diplomacy regarding Chechnya and Russia’s policy towards Taiwan.

The NIE does not fail to add that anti-American sentiment in both countries is also based on the fact that Moscow and Beijing are dealing with internal instability in the late 1990s.

The Balkan Crisis and the Sino-Russian Cooperation

Another part of the report which concerns the sale of arms from Moscow to Beijing requires attention. The CIA thus mentions that China will not hesitate to ‘shop around’ to find the best military equipments available on the international market. Although Beijing appreciates Russia for its quality and affordability, China seems to be interested in another supplier. The name of the country has been removed from the NIE and there is no evidence to identify it.

The National Intelligence Estimate states that the crisis in the Balkans is a key moment in Sino-Russian relations because it has brought Moscow and Beijing closer together in international institutions (UN) and in their anti-Americanism. However, the CIA believes Putin, contrary to Yeltsin, is “sceptical” when it comes to China. The NIE also mentions the new Russian president has a “mercenary” approach in his relations with Beijing (page 24).

What could undermine Sino-Russian relations?

The NIE tells a policy by Vladimir Putin aimed at redirecting arms sales to the West rather than to China could have a negative impact on bilateral relations. With regard to arms sales in the 2000s, it can therefore be said that the West, and in particular the United States, have chosen not to weaken relations between Beijing and Moscow. Indeed, the CIA could have encouraged partner countries to purchase Russian military equipment and thus counterbalance the economic weight of China in the Russian economy.

This option might have been considered at the beginning of the 2000s. However the successive crises — Kursk submarine disaster (2000), September 11 attacks (2001), Iraq War (2003), the financial crisis of 2007–08 — have made it difficult for a rapprochement between Russia and Western countries.

The report adds that Russia’s lack of support for China’s ‘One Country, Two Systems’ project could also have a negative influence on relations. In the 1990s, Russia supported a more autonomous policy in non-recognized states. The CIA speculates that Russia might consider recognizing Taiwan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria on the basis of the Montevideo Convention, which it will do for Abkhazia and South Ossetia in 2008. The possibility of Russia recognizing Taiwan to justify its own recognition of Abkhazia and South-Ossetia is therefore a hypothesis suggested by the CIA in its report.

Finally, the analysis considers that China’s refusal to allow Russia to exert influence in Xinjiang and China’s western territories, as well as tensions in the Russian Far-East, could undermine bilateral cooperation.

In 2020, the context is rather similar and Beijing’s influence in Central Asia remains an issue as much as China’s influence in the Russian Far-East. Projects such as the Eurasian Economic Union (2015) are aimed at securing Russian control over Central Asia and halting the possibility of a political partnership between China and Central Asian countries. In fine, tensions between Moscow and Beijing remain, however both countries seem to have found a compromise with the coexistence of the Eurasian Economic Union supported by Russia and the One Belt One Road project sponsored by Beijing.

Sino-Russian Cooperation in Military Intelligence and/or Energy Cooperations (Classified)

The NIE remains partially classified to this day, and a considerable part (pages 27-36) has been deliberately omitted and its content is unknown. The US Department of Energy participated in the report (mentioned page 42) and the missing part might focus on Sino-Russian economic energy cooperations and pipelines.

However, the conclusion of the CIA report and the annex are mentioning a cooperation between Russia and China in the field of military intelligence (‘Russia-China Military Exchange’). It therefore seems inconsistent to see a conclusion on cooperation in this specific field when only one mention is made of it in the report (page 18). This first element leads us to believe the remaining part classified is linked to this issue. Moreover, the CIA had already made public a report on the subject “Soviet espionage schools” dating back to 1946. It therefore seems likely that the CIA will mention Sino-Russian intelligence cooperation in the National Intelligence Estimate on “Russian-Chinese Relations: Perspectives and Implications.”

On the basis of the report “Soviet Espionage Training Schools” (1946) report, one could put forward the idea that the NIE on Sino-Russian cooperation covers the following topics:

  • Suspicion of joint training between Russia and China in Tientsin and Beijing (mentioned in the 1946 report).
  • Joint training in Harbin at the National Defence Technology University. The CIA designates Harbin as the epicentre of Russia-China military relations, and to this day the National Defense Technology University remains an essential element in the training of China’s military elites.

In the NIE, the CIA also mentions that Russia is training Chinese troops in the handling of Su-27 (page 38) and Su-30 for a period of 6 months at the Krasnodar Foreign Pilot Training Centre.

In March 2000, Chinese students at the Smolensk Army Air Defence University are studying the strategy and systems of the SA-10 and SA-20 (S-300PMU-1/2 (SA-20) known as S-300 (NATO’s report name SA-10 Grumble), a series of long-range ground-to-air missile systems, first Soviet and then Russian, produced by NPO Almaz, based on the initial version of the S-300P.

The CIA claims that Russian commanders of the Siberian and Far Eastern military districts meet regularly with their Chinese counterpart in the Shenyang military region. The Russian GRU leader Korabel’nikov would have visited the PLA’s head of intelligence, Xiong Guangkai in June 1999.

Conclusion on the National Intelligence Estimates

The publication of the two NIE a decade later shows the capabilities of the US intelligence community and is an essential part of the CIA’s Soft Power. In fact, few intelligence agencies in the world can afford to produce and release such documents on the People’s Republic of China and Russia, and to provide details about the military cooperations between the two superpowers.

The choice to publish the National Intelligence Estimates may be linked to the fact that the documents are no longer relevant to the United-States and US allies. In January 2011, China unveiled its Chengdu J-20 fighter jet, and Russia’s weight in the Chinese defense industry is not the same as in the late 1990s, making the report outdated. Consequently, the documents are providing some interesting historical elements but need to be updated, especially when it comes to Russian and Chinese diplomacy regarding de facto and partially recognized states.

In 2000, it was difficult to know whether Beijing would be ready to recognize Kosovo, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia or even Nagorno-Karabakh. On decade later in 2011, it is clear that Chinese diplomacy will not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia (recognized by Russia in 2008) and that Moscow will not venture to recognize Taiwan.

Finally, the report could shed light on the tensions between Russia and China in the 1990s, and its disclosure would therefore be aimed at creating tensions between the two countries.

It is also possible that the report’s analyses are irrelevant or even incorrect, and that its disclosure is intended to suggest that the CIA has shortcomings in Russian-Chinese relations, whereas the CIA would keep the best reports on the subject without disclosing them.

Both documents are based on previous CIA analysis on China and Russia. It can thus be seen that between 1946 and 2000, the CIA monitored relations between China and Russia and had at its disposal strategically knowledge such as the location of the joint training centre for Russian and Chinese officers in Harbin.

The most original aspect of these two NIEs remains the relationship between Europe (Balkans and the Black Sea area) and Chinese policy regarding Taiwan. The bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade is perceived to be a key element in Sino-Russian relations, bringing the two countries closer together in their anti-Americanism. Moreover, the reports are establishing a connection between events in Europe and Asia, underlining both Moscow and Beijing have a global strategy regarding de facto states (Taiwan, Kosovo, Abkhazia, South-Ossetia, and Nagorno-Karabakh).

The CIA report therefore takes on an additional dimension. Whereas organisations such as the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) bring together de facto states in Europe to do a comparative analysis, the CIA has a worldwide approach and also includes Asian de facto states (Taiwan). Russia and China seem to have adopted the same approach and the Chinese policy in Chechnya is interconnected with the Russian diplomacy in Taiwan.

It can therefore be said that the US, Chinese and Russian strategies towards Taiwan, as well as towards partially and unrecognized states in Europe, are global and interconnected, raising questions about Washington’s interest in recognizing Kosovo in February 2008. The CIA was aware the diplomatic recognition of Kosovo would have an impact not only on the stability in the Balkans, but also on Russian and Chinese diplomacy in the Black Sea area (eg. recognition of Abkhazia and South-Ossetia by Moscow) and the South China Sea (more tensions between China and Taiwan).

From our partner RIAC

Ph.D. in History of Europe & International Relations, Sorbonne University - INSEAD Business School, (Geo)political scientist working on Sino-European/Russian relations and soft power in the 21st century

Continue Reading
Comments

Intelligence

China and Russia’s infiltration of the American Jewish and Israeli lobbies

Published

on

 – First: The reasons for the registration of (Communist Lobbyists in the Middle East in the United States of America) in the database documents of the US Department of Justice

 – Second: Did Washington actually seek (with the help of Jewish and Israeli lobbies) to lure the Arab communists into it to prevent Chinese and Russian communist influence in the Middle East?: Iraq as a model

– Third: The establishment of Chinese liberal democratic parties in the United States of America and the Chinese Communist Party allowing them to practice their activities legally and freely inside China until today: the (Chinese Qigongdang Party) as a model

   Despite the strangeness of this previous analysis of the Egyptian researcher, she relied on it through the proof of the relationship of (Jewish lobbies in the United States of America to the opposition communists in Iran and the Middle East), and from here came the Egyptian researcher’s question, about:

  Do China and Russia have a role in supporting the polarization of the oppressed communists from inside Iran and the Middle East in general, planting them in Washington, facilitating and drawing a plan for their relations with the (Zionist lobby and the various Jewish lobbies) within the United States of America itself, and infiltrating all American official circles, to present the communists in the Middle East as persecuted in their homelands in the Middle East?

 Thus, (the Jewish lobby and all the well-known Jewish and Israeli institutions in the United States of America present these communists fleeing from their homelands to the major American institutions as persecuted communists in the Middle East). The most important question for the Egyptian researcher remains, about:

 (Why did the oppressed communists and leftists in Iran and the Middle East choose to flee to the heart of Washington as a superpower that sponsors liberalism around the world and is the most resolute and strictest in the face of the flow of communist ideas). And does it have anything to do with the future Russian and Chinese policies to infiltrate Washington itself and the communist thought to penetrate the Jewish lobbies inside American Trans (the game of spreading Chinese and Russian communist ideology within the major American political institutions).

 Perhaps it is a new global analysis that has not been addressed by any Arab research with analysis and study, but what attracted the Egyptian researcher is her precise area of expertise and her PhD study thesis was on the Chinese political affairs, and the role of the Chinese Communist Party in the political and economic reform issues, and thus the extension of the Egyptian researcher’s interests in studying the history of communists around the world, especially the closest to the region of the Egyptian researcher in the Middle East, Israel, Iran and Turkey as regional powers that seek to support or gain their influence through two unrelated mechanisms, either:

 A) Closeness to Washington and its liberal ideas, and the rejection of Chinese and Russian communist ideas and doctrine

 B) Or by defying Washington and applying pressure towards it by rapprochement with the communists of Russia and China, and thus challenging those liberal ideas and American democratic values ​​that Washington always seeks to promote globally.

  So that some would not accuse me of drawing features of unreasonable or unimaginable relations between (the Communists and the Jewish lobby in Washington through the support of China and Russia together), then the question I had about:

  What is the position of the United States of America and its institutions towards the Jewish lobbies within it regarding the facts of the Chinese and then Russian communist penetration of its institutions with the help and close support of the Jewish and Israeli lobbies most closely related and close to the American administration and the major American institutions themselves?

 – Based on these questions, the Egyptian researcher will analyze the following main elements to understand these new global relations that have not been searched for academically and globally, through:

 – First: The reasons for the registration of (Communist Lobbyists in the Middle East in the United States of America) in the database documents of the US Department of Justice

   Perhaps the “Pilgrimage to Washington” project, which is meant to cover the activities of the Middle East lobbies in the United States, and most of the information in the report is based on documents from a database of the US Department of Justice, which follows the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which is known as “Fara”, which Lobbyists are required to disclose their activities and funds, and all documents are available for browsing on the Internet.

  Through the Egyptian researcher following the previous American report, she was able to find a new relationship that proves the registration of (communists from the Middle East as independent lobbies in the US Department of Justice, and their relations with Jewish and Israeli lobbies inside the American interior itself).

  Looking at the previous US archive of Communist records, we will find that (the documents of the US Department of Justice explicitly refer to the intense political activity of the opposition communist parties in the Middle East inside Washington with the help of Jewish and Israeli lobbies).

   By tracing the relations of the communists in Washington, we will find that, according to the official American data issued by the US Department of Justice, we will find a record of building relations between the Middle Eastern communist parties in Washington and the United States, and building influence networks with politicians in the US Congress and the US State Department itself, with those communist parties communicating  Right-leaning research centers on the American interior, and they have a special influential relationship, according to the American database of the US Department of Justice, with (the Israeli lobby in Washington).

 Hence, the official US reports themselves present a comprehensive and detailed picture of the activities of communist and leftist parties coming from the Middle East, such as the Kurdish party opposing Iranian policies in the world of lobbies.

  The documents indicate that the (Kurdish Communist Party opposed to Iran) contracted with (IF International) to penetrate the corridors of Washington itself through the gate of the Jewish and Israeli lobbies in Washington.

  The files of the US Department of Justice indicate that the opposition communist parties authorized official representatives of their parties in America to establish close relations with the US government with the help of the powerful and most influential Jewish lobby with the help of Israel, and the most significant question mark is the increase in the total payments of these Middle Eastern communist parties inside the US of thousands of dollars per month  Including the expenses of opening representative offices for its parties there.

  For example, we find a document issued by the US Department of Justice on January 2, 2019, in which (the opposition Kurdish Communist Party in Syria and Iran) contracted with the company (IF International), as a well-known international American lobbying company, and among its well-known clients in the Middle East:

  The Syrian Democratic Council, which is the political wing of the (Syrian Democratic Forces), known as the “SDF”, as one of the largest armed Kurdish factions stationed in northern Syria and supported by the United States.

 The services provided by (IF International Company) to those communist, left-wing Arab, Middle Eastern, Iranian and Kurdish opposition parties in their homelands in the Middle East are summarized in:

 1) Communication and pressure on Congress, especially with congressional staff working in the State Department and the armed forces.

  2) Communicating on behalf of those communist and leftist parties with right-leaning think tanks in general, or funded and supported by the Israeli lobby.

 3) In addition to (IF International Company’s keenness) to facilitate communication of communist parties and movements from the Middle East with the largest internationally known Israeli lobby in Washington, known as (AIPAC), and the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.

 The company of (IF International) is owned by the well-known Jewish American citizen (Eyal Frank), a political consultant who worked for political parties, and has long experience in the field of political pressure, as “Eyal Frank” previously worked in major companies, such as: (Mercury – Qorivs), and he worked as a legislative assistant in Congress between 2000-2002.

   The total payments of the communist and leftist parties from the Middle East to the mentioned American company amounted to thousands of dollars per month, according to its documented documents registered in the (US Department of Justice).

 – Second: Did Washington actually seek (with the help of Jewish and Israeli lobbies) to lure the Arab communists into it to prevent Chinese and Russian communist influence in the Middle East?: Iraq as a model

   The issue of the penetration of communist influence in the Middle East in general and in Iraq in particular is one of the most important issues that have attracted the attention of the United States of America, due to the important strategic location of Iraq in the Middle East, as it is one of the most important centres of oil production in the region and the world, despite the presence of Iraq within the accounts of the American strategy before World War II, however, America’s large entry into Iraq actually began after (the emergence of the communists on the Iraqi political scene) after the 1958 revolution, and this is a piece of information that was overlooked and ignored by most Arab and international research and studies.

  Then the political weight of the (Communist Party in Iraq) began to weaken after the Baathists took power following the movement of November 18, 1963. However, as a result of the intensive arrests and continuous pursuit of members of the Iraqi Communist Party and its organizations, the Iraqi communist and leftist movement subsided, even if it did not end or completely died.

  During the 1967 war between Iraq and Israel and Iraq’s entry into it, the Soviet Union tried to get closer to Iraq, but the American weight was stronger, which caused the collapse of the rule of (Abdul Rahman Aref) in 1968, and the Iraqi political arena was almost completely emptied of the communists.

  What caught the Egyptian researcher’s attention and curiosity was what many American presidents have repeatedly said about their “willingness to fight a third world war if they had to, so that Iraq or the Middle East in general would not be a foothold for communism”.

 Hence, the Egyptian researcher stopped at this previous phrase in research and analysis, regarding:

  Her research on the reasons for the absence of Iraqi, Kurdish, Iranian and Arab communists.

  Then suddenly the Egyptian researcher stopped at the presence of Arab, Iranian and Kurdish communist parties and the Syrian opposition within the American interior itself, which prompted the Egyptian researcher to have a theoretical hypothesis:

 Did America seek to get rid of the influence of the communists and the Arab leftists, especially the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Kurds and the Turks in the Middle East in the face of the Soviet Union and later Russia after its disintegration and China, by inviting them – that is, the communists of the Middle East region – into the United States of America itself and facilitating their unspoken assimilation into the (Liberalism intellectual agenda), and then waiting again to use them against Chinese and Russian influence in the Middle East again?

 Then the Egyptian researcher thought about another theoretical hypothesis that was not put forward at all, which is:

 Did Russia and China, through the Jewish and Israeli lobbies in the American interior itself, seek to re- polarize these communists fleeing their homelands in the Middle East once again and recruit them to serve their interests in the United States of America in the face of Washington itself?

 Which is what the Egyptian researcher could call the theory (playing with toys or returning the game with another game).

  Perhaps the most important thing I relied on in my previous analysis was (the presence of dozens of communist and leftist Arab, Iranian, Kurdish and Turkish parties that are actually opposed inside the American interior), and the emergence of communist names, especially Kurdish, Iranian and Syrian, once again as influential and influential elites in Washington itself.

   And I think that (the game of the Chinese and Russian communist penetration into the American interior is a completely logical game from my point of view), it is not an unlikely game as some will accuse me, after the American political elites and the most prominent American politicians point completely accusing fingers at (the corruption of the ruling Communist Party of China, and talk about the communist and liberal ideological war between Washington and Beijing)

 Perhaps one of the most prominent things that stopped me in this context is the accusation by prominent officials in the American administration itself and in the centers of American rule of the Communist Party of China that it is the cause of the spread of the Corona virus, or the cause of the deterioration of the world and so on. It is a sign, despite its strangeness – but it is understandable to the Egyptian researcher due to her academic research and analytical specialization on that very crucial point – regarding the export of American politicians that the hostility between the United States of America and China is not political, but has become (ideological dispute or ideological war) in the first place.  This raises many questions about:

 (The American, Chinese and Russian play and hack each other through the communist and liberal ideological gate in the face of each other)

 And even the most dangerous proposition went too far, about: Beijing and Moscow unilaterally inviting a number of American politicians to visit their countries and meet their officials in the form of announced unofficial visits. In fact, accusations were extended during the US presidential elections period by supporters of the former President (Trump) to investigate the reasons for inviting (Joe Biden), the current US president to China, and meeting with its officials and praising them, at a time when he assumed the position of responsibility in the administration of former President (Barack Obama).

 Rather, the accusations of the candidate’s supporters (Trump) at the time went even further, accusing (Biden) of working for the Communist Party of China, based on the reasons for his previously unannounced visit to Beijing, and whether he was the favorite communist candidate in Beijing and Moscow?

 Here, we must consider this future game between all its parties, regarding:

 (They accuse each other of adopting a Chinese or Russian communist agenda, or a hegemonic US imperialist liberal agenda seeking world domination)

 It is a matter or a proposal that has become new in its context, and from here I can almost imagine according to this proposition: the extent of the American determination to transform the competition between China, Russia and Washington from being (a political war or just a legitimate political competition for leadership of the new world order to an ideological war or an ideological and ideological competition) between communists and liberals around the world)…and this is where the danger lies, or less the danger of the proposition with which Washington started its game with China, regarding:

 Distracting the attention of the whole world and even its peoples and broadening the base of accusations from political affiliation in favor of the Chinese and Russian alliance together or the US to adopting communist ideology, ideas or values ​​in the face of its liberal or American democratic counterpart, and this proposition is what Washington insists on in all global circles.  This raises many questions about:

 The reasons for the presence of former Arab, Iranian, Turkish and Kurdish communists in Washington itself and the penetration of its political institutions, the reasons and the extent of their relations with the Jewish and Israeli lobby, and what is most dangerous to me and what concerns me personally and academically, are:

 The extent of the relationship between China and Russia in penetrating the communist and leftist lobbies in Washington by supporting those same Jewish and Israeli lobbies in the American interior, and thus the response of the American game itself by luring and protecting communist lobbies in the United States of America, and using them at an appropriate time to confront the agenda of China and Russia through the adoption of China and Russia for these communists who  Washington adopts them in its lands under the pretext of protecting them from the persecution of their homelands to which they belong, especially in the Middle East, as we mentioned.

– Third: The establishment of Chinese liberal democratic parties in the United States of America and the Chinese Communist Party allowing them to practice their activities legally and freely inside China until today: the (Qiqongdang Liberal Democratic Party of China) as a model

  Perhaps this information came as a surprise to many – in the Arab world and from non-academics and specialists in Chinese and communist academic studies around the world – who are not aware of the existence of (eight parties operating within Chinese society itself that follow American liberal democratic values, including parties founded by expatriate Chinese who lived in the United States). The United States of America itself, then they returned and settled inside China, and they were allowed to engage in their opposition party activity.

 Perhaps the most prominent Chinese liberal democratic party founded by a group of Chinese expatriates inside the United States of America itself is (the Qigongdang Party in China), which was founded in the city (San Francisco) in the United States of America by Chinese expatriates who were living within the same American society, most of whom are university graduates.  And when most of them returned to the bosom of the motherland in China, they submitted an official request to establish this party, and the surprise to them and to the American observers was that the official Chinese authorities missed their American counterpart that opportunity, by allowing the ruling Chinese communist authorities to practice their activities according to the scope of the similar liberal democratic party practice.  With those American values ​​that they brought back from abroad, i.e. from the United States of America itself, and carried them into Chinese society, this party is practicing its activities completely freely until this moment with the knowledge of the Chinese authorities without any harassment mentioned by the testimony of its members.

 The Egyptian researcher analyzed this very important point that (the Chinese authorities have succeeded in missing the opportunity for Washington to allow the return of these Chinese expatriates, most of whom studied in American universities and were saturated with liberal American culture, by giving them the freedom to establish a liberal democratic political party in China itself).

  Currently, the (Qiqongdang Liberal Democratic Party of China) consists of Chinese personalities from the middle and upper classes, most of whom are expatriates or Chinese immigrants who have returned to the country. After returning to their homeland in China, these expatriates and immigrants were able to attract their Chinese parents and friends to participate and become members of this party.  And expanding its base, despite following the approach and philosophy of American liberal democratic values ​​that are different from the communist approach that the majority of Chinese owe.

  On the other hand, the official Chinese authorities also allowed the licensing of (seven other parties) that follow the same liberal democratic values, in addition to the (Qigongdang Party) as we mentioned, and all of them were allowed to operate officially and legally in China, bringing the total of those liberal democratic parties in Chinese society (eight liberal parties  Chinese democracy), which is as follows:

 1) (Taiwan Democratic Party Self-Government League): It is located

 In (Hong Kong), however, his official headquarters has moved from (Hong Kong) to the Chinese capital, Beijing), and many information about him and his most prominent current activities and the names of his most prominent members are available in the archive of the well-known (China Network) website.

 2) The (Jiusan Association Party): which focuses on the need to implement democracy within Chinese society.

 3) (Chinese Association Party for the Development of Democracy): which raises the slogans of (implementing democratic policy in China, reforming Chinese authority, and then returning power to the Chinese people themselves). This party is currently adopting an agenda dominated by (the blending of American liberal democratic values ​​with Chinese socialist values), by promoting the adoption of the (socialist democracy model).

 4) The (Chinese Democratic Party of Peasants and Workers): which is based on the slogan of (establishment of the power of the Chinese people), and most importantly, its current constitution expressly provides for the acceptance of (the leadership of the Communist Party of China), and welcomes the cooperation of all liberal democratic parties with the ruling Communist Party in China, according to  The mechanism or system of (political consultation), according to what is recorded in the a well-known (China Network Website Archive) in China.

5) (KMT Revolutionary Committee Party): whose members adopt the liberal democratic doctrine, noting that (KMT) itself is an old party that was overthrown by the ruling Communist Party in China, but it is a group of old party members who wanted to work legitimately under the supervision of the same Chinese state, and applied for the founding of the (KMT Revolutionary Committee Party), and the official Chinese authorities immediately approved their request, and its members currently adopt the principles and slogans of (Unification of China), and include members of the upper and middle levels or classes in the Chinese society mainly.

  6) (Chinese Democratic National Building Association Party): The political advocacy of this party is to guarantee the basic political rights of the Chinese citizen, protect the human rights of citizens, protect and develop national industry and trade, and oppose the rule of the (old Kuomintang Party), that was overthrown by the ruling Communist Party in China. There are many data published about him, according to the official Chinese media.

  7) (Chinese Democratic Front Party League): bearing the name of (Chinese Democratic League), officially recognized by the Chinese authorities, which began its political activity as a joint political organization of parties and political forces calling for democracy, and was welcomed by the ruling Communist authorities in China.

  Hence, we find that the Chinese official authorities had (a future view in their relationship with the United States of America as a global hegemon that seeks to spread its liberal democratic values ​​around the world), by allowing the return of its Chinese citizens from the United States of America and giving them the right to exercise their political convictions in complete freedom within the framework of the state and the law and the prevailing Chinese constitution, while ensuring the freedom to exercise their own liberal democratic political beliefs and ideology under the supervision of the Chinese authorities at home. And it is the most dangerous and most important point that all of us should stop at, which indicates a (Chinese foresight regarding its future relationship with the world and the American values ​​themselves).

  Hence, the ruling Chinese communist authorities raise in the face of the United States of America and the West themselves critics of its political practice under the slogan of (political consultation between the political parties in China, and collective consultative decisions), which means: those decisions taken by the ruling Communist Party after consulting (the Eight Liberal democracy Parties) in the Chinese society, and this is one of the most prominent points of intelligence in the mechanism of exercising governance in China, by allowing the absorption of those opposition political entities and parties as long as they submit an official request to work within Chinese society itself under the supervision of the Chinese state itself.

  This is what Washington fears when other Chinese expatriates submit the similar requests to the American authorities to allow them to establish communist and left ideological parties within the American society, expand their membership base by attracting and recruiting new members, and push those communist and leftist parties with Chinese communist ideology to compete in the future in the American elections by the Chinese or Russian financial fund raising.

  Through the previous analysis, the Egyptian researcher concluded that the current competition between the United States of America, China and Russia is no longer a political or even economic and cultural competition as much as it is a tacit recognition by Washington itself and its politicians that it is (an ideological and doctrine competition between the American liberal values ​​and Chinese communist values).

  By shedding light on what is happening inside the American interior by polarizing the communists themselves to work under the supervision of the American authorities, and the Chinese attracting these liberal democrats with American orientations to work inside communist China officially, it becomes clear to us that it is (an ideological game that has been preparing for many years between the Americans and the Chinese Communists).

  In the same context, the same idea invokes me in the Arab context and in the Middle East itself, is it possible to expand the base of real partisan competition between those with liberal and communist values ​​in our countries, or does the scale tilt only in favor of American liberal democratic values, despite criticism of the American policy itself in our Arab countries?

  And my last and most serious question remains in this new future analysis of the Egyptian researcher, and it is the inevitable question that I have no choice but to ask without searching for an answer to it, which is:

  Can China and Russia intervene to finance and establish Arab communist and leftist parties and in the Middle East in general, and even around the world under supervision of African, Arab, Latin and other governments closely related to China to expand the base of communists and bearers of communist tendencies at the expense of American liberal values?, It is the question of the future that we should all keep towards the future.

Continue Reading

Intelligence

The New World Order: The conspiracy theory and the power of the Internet

Published

on

“The Illuminati, a mysterious international organisation made up of the world’s top political and social elites, controls the workings of the entire world behind the scenes”. This is the world’s most famous conspiracy theory about the New World Order.

For hundreds of years, legends about the Illuminati have been spread and many people currently believe that the Illuminati still exist. It is believed that the Illuminati operate in various fields such as global politics, military affairs, finance and mass media and control the historical process of the entire world.

The ultimate goal is to establish a New World Order. Nobody can prove it, but many people believe it. This is the greatest paradox about conspiracy theories.

In the 2009 film, Angels and Demons – based on Dan Brown’s best seller of the same name about Professor Langdon, played by Tom Hanks – the story of the Illuminati, who supposedly originated in Europe during the Age of Enlightenment, was recalled. There were physicists, mathematicians and astronomers who questioned the “erroneous teachings” of the authority of the Holy See and dedicated themselves to the scientific field of the search for truth.

Eventually, the Illuminati were forced to become a clandestine organisation and have continued to recruit members for hundreds of years to this day. In Angels and Demons, the historical facts are clearly questionable, and the movie appeared after the great economic crisis of 2007-2008.

The New World Order conspiracy theory has been circulating for a long time and is full of mysterious theories that, however, convince many people who are powerless and dissatisfied with the current state of the world.

The Illuminati, who advocate the establishment of a New World Order through the planning of a series of political and financial events (the financial tsunami of 2007-2008 is said to have been planned by the Illuminati), attempt to influence the course of world history, and ultimately establish an authoritarian world government.

Supporters of the New World Order theory believe that even the powerful US government is now just a puppet government. While another “shadow government” made up of a few people makes decisions that will change the fate of the planet.

You might think that all of the above is just crackpot theories. Many people, however, believe this is true. According to a 2013 poll conducted by the Public Policy Polling Foundation, 28% of US voters believe that the New World Order is actually taking hold.

Brian L. Keeley, a professor of philosophy at Pitts College who devotes himself to the study of modern conspiracy theories, believes that an important feature of conspiracy theorists is that they cite some trivial and overlooked incidents and then propose a perfect explanation compared to an embarrassed official response. The reason why the conspiracy theory explanation can be widely disseminated is that it has no argumentation process to deny. It is just a judgement that jumps directly from hypothesis to conclusion. In the argumentation process, it is only a subjective interpretation of the event.

Nevertheless, for the public that does not fully understand the incident, the conspiracy theory provides an “explanation” for the unknown part of the said incident, and this “explanation” cannot be denied (because its very existence is not corroborated by real arguments and facts). It is therefore recognised as a valid argument by many people.

For example, no one has substantial evidence to prove that the Illuminati actually exist, but no one can prove that the Illuminati are purely fictitious. Therefore, you cannot deny their existence because their existence is “perfection without evidence”.

Columnist Martha Gill wrote in The Guardian on the subject, describing the Illuminati as the most enduring conspiracy theory organisation in world history.

“Conspiracy theories relating to the 1969 moon landing mission, the Kennedy assassination, the 9/11 attacks, etc., are all limited to a specific time and place. But conspiracy theories supporting the existence of the Illuminati can connect them. Anything about these connections, however, is difficult to prove”. In other words, the supporters of conspiracy theories may have common imagination and attribute everything to this organisation, so that every irrational phenomenon in the world can be explained.

Although no one can prove the real existence of the Illuminati, there is actually an alleged “global shadow government” in the world whose name is the Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group holds an annual world-class private meeting and participants include elites from all walks of society such as government, business, media, science and technology.

Known as the “World’s Most Mysterious Conference”, the Bilderberg Group invites various famous political and economic figures to participate in its meetings every year.

Prince Bernhard van Lippe-Biesterfeld (1911-2004) held the first meeting in 1954. As the venue for the meeting was the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, that name was used as the name of the group.

The existence of the Bilderberg Group is not a secret, but the content of the topics discussed at the Conferences is absolutely confidential and mainstream media cannot report on the content of the meetings.

The Bilderberg Group issues a press release every year to introduce the Conference participants and the outline of the topics discussed. Over the years, participants have come from many places, including Prince Philip of Edinburgh (1921-2021) of the British Royal Family, Crown Prince Charles, former British Prime Ministers, French President Macron, German Chancellor Merkel, former US Presidents Bush and Clinton, and even Bill Gates and other Internet giants. There were also Italians, as reported years ago in a newspaper of our country.

The 2018 Conference was held in Turin, Italy, in June. According to the description on the Bilderberg Group’s official website, the main topics included European populism, the development of artificial intelligence, quantum computer technology and the “post-truth” era. Obviously the actual content and results of the meeting’s discussion have never been reported.

Therefore, the Bilderberg Group has naturally become a locus where conspiracy theorists want to draw material. They describe the Bilderberg Group as true evidence of the theory that a very small number of elites controls the world, and the participants are planning a New World Order.

On the subject of strange things, let us give some examples. In June 2018, the British Royal Family was also caught up in conspiracy theories. When Prince Harry and his wife Meghan attended a show, they were caught on camera motionless, like two stiff and dull robots. Later related clips went viral on the Internet and netizens were in an uproar: many people believed that the distinguished members of the Royal Family were actually robots developed by high technology.

However, the management of the London museum, Madame Tussauds, later explained the mystery by stating that Harry and Meghan were only played by two actors who wore extremely high-realism wax masks on their faces – all to promote an exhibition of wax statues – and inadvertently caused an uproar.

In that short video, Harry and Meghan did not change their facial appearance and their expressions were stiff just like robots. Consequently, conspiracy theorists used this as evidence that they were robots secretly built by the British Royal Family.

This argument is an extension of the ‘trivial evidence’ mentioned above. The argument proponents ignore any argumentation process and directly draw the final conclusion through the above stated “trivial evidence”. This conclusion is highly topical and quite appealing. With the fast spread of the Internet, the “quick truth” will naturally be recognised and sought after by many people.

I think many people still remember the “Mandela effect” that spread wildly across the Internet in the early years as a false memory. The name “Mandela effect” is believed to have come from Fiona Broome, a self-described “paranormal consultant”, who created a website called the “Mandela effect”. Supporters of the ‘Mandela effect’ claim to “remember” that former South African President Mandela died in prison in the 1980s. But in reality, after being released from prison, Mandela served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999 and died in December 2013.

So why should anyone believe this seemingly absurd statement? The Internet has become a support platform for a lot of false content, fake news, as well as unreasonableness and lack of justification. When someone shared that ‘false memory’ with others on the Internet, many people believed it to be true, and even suddenly recalled having that memory: “Mandela died in prison that year”.

As a result, lies inconsistent with facts continue to spread. The lie is repeated thousands of times and many people consider it to be the truth: this learning phase is the first misleading rule on the Internet.

In the Internet era, multidimensional and multiplatform features have generated a number of online “malignancies” of conspiracy theories. Moreover, their dissemination ability is not limited to “believers” only. Since online social media provide a widespread and wide dissemination platform, one passes it onto ten people, ten spread it to a hundred, a hundred to a thousand, and so it goes on in geometric fashion, thus turning a ‘hot’ topic on the Internet into an absolute truth. Those who want to believe are naturally prepared and willing to do so. Moreover, these false opinions on the Internet may even have an impact on the real world.

For example, at the political level, everyone can now comment and participate in the online arena. For politicians to get the right to speak and set the agenda, the key is to rely on the public’s direction on the Internet. The Internet discourse has become the dominant factor of the political storytelling, and not vice versa. The characteristics of social networks are precisely the breeding ground for conspiracy theories.

The Internet is easy to spread among the public and it is exactly the breeding ground for conspiracy theories.

Nowadays, conspiracy theories are enough to influence politics and even political developments. A specific conspiracy theory gains a number of supporters through the Internet that promotes it to become a highly debated topic among the public. Consequently, it enters the real political arena coming from the virtual community and its influence can change the direction of governmental decisions.

Looking at it from another perspective, when conspiracy theories are put on the Internet and continue to proliferate – regardless of whether the Illuminati exist or not – they are enough to establish a New World Order. The real-world public opinions, as well as the composition of opinions and the basis of social discussions are changed, and thus world’s countries, politics and rulers are affected.

Continue Reading

Intelligence

USA and Australia Worry About Cyber Attacks from China Amidst Pegasus Spyware

Published

on

Pegasus Spyware Scandal has shaken whole India and several other countries. What will be its fallout no one knows as we know only tip of iceberg. Amidst Pegasus Spyware Scandal USA and Australia both have shown serious concerns about Cyber Attacks on US and Australian interests. Both say that China is hub of malware software and both face millions of such attacks daily.

I am trying to understand why a software is needed to spy on a particular individual when all calls, messages, data, emails are easily accessible from server. In most of cases these servers are located in USA and some cases these are located in host country. In certain sensitive cases Government Agencies have their own server like Central Intelligence Agency and hundreds of other agencies and military establishment world over including India. Now point is who installs those servers.

A couple of years back I had talked to Mr Mike Molloy who is Chief Executive Officer of Orion Global Technologies previously known as Orion SAS. He had explained me how his company installs servers in host countries on request of private or gov bodies. He talks about contract and trust. That means even when a company or Gov buys a server or software for designated uses the “Secrecy” Factor remain on discretion of company which has supplied server or software.

Now  if all data, e-mail, chat, messages, calls are accessible to Gov as per law and technology (Through Server all components of Communication are accessible and thats why  me and you see start seeing call recording of a person even after many years later), I am unable to understand why a Gov will be needing a software to Spy on any one.

Now coming to where Australia and USA wants to carry the whole debate.

Australian Foreign Minister Sen Marise Payne said, “Australian Government joins international partners in expressing serious concerns about malicious cyber activities by China’s Ministry of State Security.

“In consultation with our partners, the Australian Government has determined that China’s Ministry of State Security exploited vulnerabilities in the Microsoft Exchange software to affect thousands of computers and networks worldwide, including in Australia. These actions have undermined international stability and security by opening the door to a range of other actors, including cybercriminals, who continue to exploit this vulnerability for illicit gain”, She further added.

She opined, ”The Australian Government is also seriously concerned about reports from our international partners that China’s Ministry of State Security is engaging contract hackers who have carried out cyber-enabled intellectual property theft for personal gain and to provide commercial advantage to the Chinese Government”.

She warned China by saying, “Australia calls on all countries – including China – to act responsibly in cyberspace.  China must adhere to the commitments it has made in the G20, and bilaterally, to refrain from cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, trade secrets and confidential business information with the intent of obtaining competitive advantage”.

On other hand USA’s The National Security Agency (NSA), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) released a Cybersecurity Advisory on Chinese State-Sponsored Cyber Operations. National Security Advisor said, ”Chinese state-sponsored cyber activity poses a major threat to U.S. and allied systems. These actors aggressively target political, economic, military, educational, and critical infrastructure personnel and organizations to access valuable, sensitive data. These cyber operations support China’s long-term economic and military objectives”.

The information in this advisory builds on NSA’s previous release “Chinese State-Sponsored Actors Exploit Publicly Known Vulnerabilities.” The NSA, CISA, and FBI recommended mitigations empower our customers to reduce the risk of Chinese malicious cyber activity, and increase the defensive posture of their critical networks. 

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Europe14 mins ago

The 30th Anniversary of the Visegrád Group: The Voice of Central Europe

The Visegrád group or V4 is a cultural and political union created in 1991, during a conference in the city...

Central Asia2 hours ago

Russia’s ‘Great Game’ in Central Asia Amid the US Withdrawal from Afghanistan

The post-Soviet Central Asian nations are gravely concerned about the Taliban’s rapid offensive in non-Pashtun northern provinces of Afghanistan seizing...

Travel & Leisure14 hours ago

Four Seasons Hotel Mexico City Reveals Five of the City’s Hidden Gems

The Concierge team at Four Seasons Hotel Mexico City, members of the Les Clefs d’Or international association, invites you to...

East Asia16 hours ago

Will US-China Tensions Trigger the Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis?

Half a century ago, the then-National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger flew to Beijing in the hope of seeking China’s alliance...

South Asia18 hours ago

The Indo-US bonhomie: A challenge to China in the IOR

The oceans have long been recognized as one of the world’s valuable natural resources, and our well-being is tied to...

Uncategorized20 hours ago

The day France fustigated Big Tech: How Google ended up in the crosshair and what will follow

At the beginning of April 2019, the European Parliament approved the EU’s unified regulation on copyright and related rights. Since...

Middle East22 hours ago

Politics by Other Means: A Case Study of the 1991 Gulf War

War has been around since the dawn of man and is spawned by innate human characteristics. Often, when efforts at...

Trending