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
A More Diverse Force: The Need for Diversity in the U.S. Intelligence Community
As part of a hiring initiative meant to attract new and diverse hires, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) released a new recruitment video in March of 2021. The video featured a Hispanic female discussing her background and time in the CIA, as well as why she chose to serve her country. She says at one point, “I’m a woman of color. I am a mom. I am a cis-gender millennial who’s been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder…I did not sneak into CIA. My employment was not and is not the result of a fluke or a slip through the cracks. I earned my way in, and I earned my way up the ranks of this organization”.
The video showed a woman who cares for her family, cares for her country, and desires to see a difference be made in the world. However, some took issue with the advert though, though these criticisms came over a month after the video first was published and made available to the public.
In a tweet, the Republican Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz, said, “If you’re a Chinese communist, or an Iranian Mullah, or Kim Jong Un…would this scare you? We’ve come a long way from Jason Bourne”. Many criticized Cruz for his usage of Jason Bourne, a fictional CIA Paramilitary Operations Officer, yet he took to Twitter once again to clarify, saying, “My point is that CIA agents should be bad-asses—not woke, fragile flowers needing safe spaces”.
Donald Trump, Jr. tweeted “China & Russia are laughing their asses off watching CIA go full woke…If you think about it, wokeness is the kind of twisted PSYOP a spy agency would invent to destroy a country from the inside out”. Others, including popular conservative commentators like Dinesh D’Souza and Meghan McCain, also criticized the ad calling a “joke” or “insane” while others went as far to say that the CIA was “actively looking to recruit the most immodest, narcissistic, grotesquely self-serving people in the world”.
Criticism towards the ad did not purely come from the Conservative, rightist personalities either, but also members of the left. Left-leaning publications such as The Intercept and Jezebel both critiqued the ad. It seems that, from all sectors of American public and political life, this advert and total tactic was heavily derided; from members of the left, it was cringey and irrespective of the agency’s long and controversial history while, from members of the right, it was ineffective national security and intelligence policy.
However, what many seem to be forgetting is that diversity within the intelligence world is an extremely important factor in creating effective and accurate foreign policy and in gaining the most up to date and accurate intelligence.
Intelligence analysis is probably the most important part of the Intelligence Cycle and holds just as much, if not more, importance as the end result, the intelligence estimate or packet. To put it simply, if the analysis is corrupted in some way, shape, or form by either the analyst’s personal views or tainted by poorly verified intelligence, then the action taken based upon this intelligence could result in missteps or negative affects to U.S. policymakers, military units, or regions in which the intelligence affects. Throughout history, there are an abundance of examples in which intelligence analysts have misinterpreted situations due to their own biases about a nation, political ideology, or have been selected specifically to sort through intelligence in order to back up a preconceived opinion.
One of the best examples in showing how analysts’ personal views, both conscious and subconscious, can affect their overall analysis is the 1954 coup d’état of Guatemalan President Jacobo Árbenz.
The coup, which was given the CIA codename Operation PBSUCCESS, was a mission in which the U.S. government, via the CIA and U.S. State Department, engaged in fomenting a coup to remove Árbenz, the leftist president who had approved of agrarian reforms within Guatemala. To justify an invasion, members of the State Department and CIA tried to link Árbenz to Guatemalan communists, yet this proved very difficult as there was “no evidence that Arbenz himself was anything more than a European-style democratic socialist”. A CIA paper, published two months before the coup, also, “did not cite any direct contact between Guatemalan Communists and Moscow. The paper offered ideology, not facts…”.
A master’s thesis written by a student at West Virginia University extensively and exclusively covers the CIA’s decision making process, detailing how, “CIA reports from the early 1950s also demonstrated this fear [of Communism]… The “red scare,” in essence, affected nearly all Americans. Many in the Eisenhower government also felt that Moscow had a nefarious hidden hand and controlled communist sympathizers around the globe,” while also noting that the, “ONI [Office of Naval Intelligence] did not feel that CIA had valid reasons or enough sources to reach the conclusion it did regarding Soviet intentions in Latin America”. The heightened fears of Communism and the Soviet Union that permeated the minds of analysts within the State Department and CIA (as well as the desires by some to ensure the survival of the United Fruit Company in the country) resulted in intelligence that was skewed to believing that the Guatemalan government was embracing Communism, when, even according to the CIA’s own histories, was baseless.
Based upon this example, as one can see, the intelligence provided to the U.S. government was based upon analyst biases and did not accurately reflect how the Guatemalan government under Árbenz operated nor how entrenched the Communists were in political life. The fear of Communism overwhelmed the amount of solid and fact-based analysis, resulting in an invasion that removed a democratically elected president.
This coup eventually resulted in the emplacement of a right-wing, military government, which would rule until 1996, overseeing a brutal civil war complete with death squads, acts of genocide committed by presidential administrations, political assassinations, and a drastic increase in governmental corruption. Members of the CIA who were involved in the operation too regretted their actions and acknowledged that the outcome did not benefit Guatemala, the U.S., or Latin America. Operation PBSUCCESS did not bring about a U.S.-friendly democracy, but a U.S.-friendly military dictatorship that engaged in war crimes and severely destabilized the entire country. The failure of this operation to bring about a democracy and U.S. intervention in the country in the first place was, in my own view and examination, based upon biased analyses by the CIA which promoted the view that Guatemala was becoming sympathetic to Communists and the operation itself shows just how important intelligence analysis is.
Not only is analysis an incredibly important tool within the intelligence cycle as a whole, but the analyst themselves are highly important. The analysis is only as good as the analyst and if the analyst is biased, limited in their outlook or worldview, or come from a sole section of society, then the analysis will reflect those beliefs. Most of the analysts involved in the Guatemalan operation were white and male, most likely coming from middle-class backgrounds and either having military service or Ivy League education or both. These beliefs and hiring processes which exclude persons beyond the majority of America’s populace can significantly hinder an agency and promote a poor world outlook. The majority of persons in countries in which the U.S. is involved, thinking of becoming involved, or are creating analyses in anticipation of potential foreign policies are not white or male nor from wealthy societies; they are, most often than not, of an extremely different mindset than many Americans, live in poverty or close to poverty, and have an immensely different culture. While the CIA has made some headway in this area, retired CIA case officers and analysts have made claims that the CIA (and the Intelligence Community as a whole) are severely underperforming and not effectively recruiting towards people from outside of that select pool.
Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, Jr.’s comments about the CIA lowering their standards and fostering an environment in which the CIA now is ineffective at creating intelligence or defending the United States from foreign threats (not being “badass” enough) is nonsensical. If anything, the inclusion of persons who are not white or male, who have experience outside of the military, who are knowledgeable on issues beyond military, intelligence, and national defense/security makes for a more well-rounded force and an agency more effective at analyzing collected intelligence, crafting accurate and informed recommendations, and allowing past mistakes, the misreading of important political events, to take hold. Including strong, analytical persons from more minority backgrounds into the national security framework will perform wonders for American intelligence analysis and in making influential policy decisions.
To quote Marc Polymeropoulos, a retired CIA officer, “Diversity is an operational advantage. Simple as that. I want case officers who look like the UN”.
Women Maoists (Naxalbari)
Every now and then, Indian newspapers flash news about Maoist insurgents, including women being killed. They usually avoid mentioning how many soldiers were killed in encounters, whether fake or genuine. Here is a glimpse of such news: A woman fighter, along with a male c-fighter, was killed in a clash with government forces in Odisha’s Malkagiri district (Press Trust of India, December 14, 2020).
In another incident, a woman Maoist was killed in an encounter with India’s security forces in Sukma district of Chhatisgarh (PTI, October 13, 2010). A woman Maoist was killed near Anrapali forest (Visakhapatnam, Andhrapradesh). And, another woman Maoist, carrying Rs. 16 lac reward on her head was killed in Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra.
Sometimes there are pitched battles between the Indian forces and the Maoists, including women. For instance, there was a head-on confrontation between a Maoist group and government forces of over 1500 “jawan”, equipped with state-of-the-art weapons and helicopters at the Bijapur-Sukma border. Sans air power, the Maoists, armed only with machine guns, gunned down 22 soldiers belonging to Central Reserve Police Force, Commando Battalions for Resolute Action (Cobra), and Bastariya Battalion of the Central Reserve Police.
Why do women join the Maoist Movement?
They find the Maoist narrative of emancipation attractive. . Not only the low-caste women but also the high-caste ones joined the Maoist ranks in droves. About 30 to 40 per cent of combatants are Maoists. The status of women in the Indian society is no better than that of slaves. They are not supposed to form an opinion or dare express it. Even the high-caste women are supposed to be reticent and coy. They are tutored to be housewives confined to quadrilateral of their homes, rear children, and do household chores. The Maoist ideology ingrained the sense of empowerment in them. The Maoist manifesto teems with such words as “mahila sasahktikaran” (women’s empowerment), “raise their voices” (awash uthaunne), “get their voices represented” (mahilako awaj ko pratinidithyo) and “understand women’s grief” (mahila ko dukka bhujnne).
The Maoist struggle is commonly known as “the people’s war”. The “war” aims at abolishing the feudal system, and creating a democratic egalitarian society. The bulwark of the Maoists is rural population, lower castes and women. Women and men of all castes, classes, ethnic backgrounds and education levels joined the movement.
The Maoist has incorporated women’s emancipation in their ideological manifesto, actually a “40-point demand-document”. The gender equality is enshrined in points 19, 20 and 21, mentioned heretofore:
“19. Patriarchal exploitation and discrimination against women should be stopped, girls should be allowed to access paternal property as their brothers.
20. All racial exploitation and suppression should be stopped. Where ethnic communities are in the majority, they should be allowed to form their own autonomous governments.”
The Maoist proved their heart-felt commitment to the manifesto by punishing rapists, wresting back the usurped land of single women, penalising men for polygamy, and prohibiting the sale of liquor as drunken men more often beat the women. Jan adalats (“people’s courts”) ferociously uphold women’s rights on issues of social and domestic violence.
Women were given political or combat position on the basis of merit. Untouchability and gender discrimination has been abolished. The points 19, 20 and 21 of the Maoist manifesto relating to women stress the need to transform state and customary laws to redress gender inequality at all levels.
In 2002, in recognition of their female constituency, the Maoists introduced the so-called “prachanda path,” creating a women’s department in the Central Committee. In several cases, it is the women who slay the incorrigible feudal tyrants. The women realise that they are “agents of change” who have to fight out repression in all its manifestations. The women have become politically aware that they have the right make decisions about their marriages, children’s education, and other everyday gender needs.
Indian police admit it was the women fighters who were in the vanguard of a deadly attack in Chhattisgarh, where 24 people, including some top politicians, were killed.
Because of its liberal manifesto, the insurgency has spread to 11 states, with Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, and Odisha as epicenters. It has become entrenched in all central and eastern Indian states, often referred to as the “Red Corridor.
Having failed to subdue the Maoists, the government occasionally resorts to spreading false news about deaths of Maoist leaders. For instance, Hindustan Times dated June 24, 2021 reported that Maoist leader Haribushan, carrying a reward of Rs. 40 lac on his head, had died from COVID19. Her wife rebutted the news (Parveen Kumar Bandari Hans News Service October 5, 2021). “More than 16 senior and middle level level communist leaders have died in the last couple of months due to COVID19…Two senior most leaders of Bastar Ganga, including Dandakaryana Special Zone Committee members Ganga and Sobhroi have died due to infection in the last couple of months”.
Sympathy with Naxals is an offence
In the Bhim Koregaon planted-letters case, several intellectuals and rights activists including Navalakha were declared “traitors” by the Indian government. They were even accused of having links with Kashmiri militants. Fake letters were inputted into their computers. They were even accused of being Pakistan’s intelligence agencies agents through Ghulam Nabi Fai, a US-based Kashmiri leader. Fei has served two-year imprisonment in the USA for having illegally received funds from the inter-services intelligence of Pakistan.
The Maoist are trying to disseminate their message to urban areas also. They understand that the minorities are fed up with the regressive caste system. The rebels want to radicalise youngsters and already have carved out a strong network in premier universities of Delhi and Kolkata. The Maoist want to create an urban militia to fight the oppressive enforcement machinery of the states and Indian Union. They are believed to have infiltrated the government intelligence machinery to stay abreact of government’s tactics.
The Maoists make no bones about their plan to set up a “coordination network among like-minded outfits in India, Bangladesh and Nepal. They want unhindered movement of left-wing extremists in these territories to exchange arms, ammunition and information”. To counter the Maoist strategy, India rushed its diplomats to capitals of neighbouring countries to plug up the porous border and obstruct the insurgents’ free movement.
In addition, India launched Special teams for simultaneous searches in Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka at suspected Maoist training centres and hideouts. The effort was counter-productive because India’s national Investigation Agency framed charges against the innocent people.
During searches, the Indian forces were surprised to know that the retired Gorkha soldiers of both British and the Indian Army harbour sympathy for the Maoists.
They trained the Maoists to use fire arms efficiently. Some Maoists demonstrated their alacrity and military sills in planning bank robberies, and extorting ransom from rich businessmen. Besides arms and ammunition snatched from police stations, the Maoists are believed to have amassed over Rs. 5 billion from bank heists. The general impression in people’s minds is that the Indian forces dare not pursue the Maoists in forests. The insurgents pick up places where to ambush the security forces, and make off with booty with impunity.
Salwa Judum (purification hut)
Having failed to arrest momentum of the movement, India organised a private army ofSalwa Judum ledbyMahendra Karma From among the villagers. To boost their morale, they were given honorary rank of “special police officer. “As a workaround, the government sponsored counter-militias and split tribes into those “for” and “against” Maoists. Those willing to fight the Maoists were offered guns, money and honorary police ranks.
The Maoists shot dead Mahendra Karma and several members of the ruling Indian National Congress whose brainchild the Salwa Judum was. It later transpired that the salwa judum had been cobbled up with help of child soldiers recruited under duress or financial allurement. It was involved in gross human rights violations. When People’s Union of Civil Liberties in India brought its atrocities to the Supreme Court’s notice, it declared it illegal in 2011.
Charu Mazumdar started the movement as a “revolutionary opposition” in 1965. The world came to know of it in 1967 when the Beijing Radio reported “peasants’ armed struggle” at Naxalbari (Siliguri division of West Bengal). In July 1972, the police arrested Charu Mazumdar and tortured him to death on the night of July 27-28. The Naxalite ideology has great appeal for marginalized strata (particularly dalit and adivasis) of India’s caste-ridden society. The Naxalites Central Committee’s resolution (1980) visualises creating a base for spreading people’s democratic revolution. It would include : ‘Homogenous contiguous forested area around Bastar Division (since divided into Bastar, Dantewada and Kanker Districts of Chhatisgarh) and adjoining areas of Adilabad, Karimnagar, Khammam, East Godavari Districts of Andhra Pradesh, Chandrapur and Garchehiroli district of Maharastra, Balaghat districts of Madhya Pradesh, Malkagiri and Koraput districts of Orissa. The Naxalites want to carve out an independent zone extending from Nepal through Bihar and then to the Dandakarnaya region extending up to Tamil Nadu to give them access to the Bay of Bengal as well as the Indian Ocean.
China disrupted Facebook around the world for political and intelligence reasons?
First: The fact that the Chinese child “Wang Zhengyang”, whose picture is circulated globally, and who now lives in the United States of America and not in China
Second: The accusations of Facebook founder “Mark Zuckerberg” against China, and the Chinese defense of deliberately waging a technological war and cyber hacking against the work of American technology companies
Third: Reasonable Chinese and international accusations that Facebook deliberately disrupted its network, coupled with evidence and proof
Fourth: Analyzing the aspects of Chinese benefits and the Chinese political and ethical employment for the disruption of the American “Facebook” network around the world, internally, externally and ideologically
Fifth: The attitude of the Chinese themselves towards the ban by the Chinese authorities and the leaders of the Communist Party of China of the “Facebook” website in their country, according to the Chinese Constitution
Sixth: The relationship between (the crisis of disrupting Facebook and restoring China’s technological prestige and position) between its citizens and the world, and promoting the theory of “the superiority of Chinese technological applications over their American counterparts”
Facebook and its CEO well-known “Mark Zuckerberg” have faced many crises in recent years, which led to his summoning to appear before a “hearing committee in the US Congress”, especially with the rumors of hacking and selling the privacy and data of tens of millions of users of the “Facebook” network and its other applications around the world. Some leaks indicated that “Cambridge Analytica Company” has obtained (the data of more than 50 million users’ accounts on the Facebook social networking site without their knowledge, after concluding a secret deal with the same company for commercial and advertising reasons), which violates the privacy of users. It leads to a violation of their human rights if their data is used inappropriately.
We find that the crisis of disrupting the “Facebook” network and its American applications for several hours, has coincided with many “accusations and conspiracy theories associated with it”, such as:
that the disruption was deliberate, as the global giant “Facebook” tried to erase some evidence, proofs and evidence that condemns the company in one way or another, especially with the (summoning of the US Senate to Mrs.Francis Haugen”, who previously worked in the products department in the location headquarter company of the “Facebook” in 2019, but it submitted its resignation after noticing illegal actions and activities carried out by Facebook and its officials, in order to hear its testimony regarding the “unlawful actions of Facebook”, endangering the interests of the United States of America itself, and condoning the Dangerous toys for children may prompt suicide in order to achieve “material gains” for the company, regardless of any other considerations.
On the other hand, analyzes have begun regarding the Chinese conspiracy theory against “Facebook” and its CEO “Mark Zuckerberg”, in a Chinese attempt to embarrass the United States of America internationally due to the failure of its democratic digital technology system that it is trying to promote around the world, and to confirm the success of “Chinese alternative networking services and applications to its American counterpart” in avoiding these American technological errors, especially after “Downdetector” spotted it.
Notifying that “Down Detector”, its main task is to track (website crashes), and it has received tens of thousands of reports of crashes on (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger) platforms. It was not immediately clear what caused the malfunction that affected the three platforms.
Despite the growing number of theories and comments about China’s involvement in “Facebook hacking and penetrating”, Facebook itself has denied any allegations of being hacked or any evidence that users’ data has been hacked, explaining the reason for the malfunction. All of its services and applications, including: (Instagram and WhatsApp), amid the growth of many (conspiracy theories) that have spread around the world, and the growing intensity of rumors circulating, including a Chinese child “hacker” penetrating the (Facebook) network alone and disabling users’ data.
Because of this, Facebook’s Vice President of Infrastructure “Santosh Janardan” issued a company statement, saying:
“Our engineering teams learned that changes to the settings on the main routers that coordinate traffic between data centers caused problems that disrupted this communication”
Santosh Janardan, as the (Vice President of Facebook Infrastructure Company), denied the responsibility of China or any other parties or even hacking operations behind this malfunction, explaining in a public statement, in which he assured the world and users, that:
“We want to make it clear that there was no malicious activity behind this malfunction, and its main cause was a wrong change of settings on our part, and we also have no evidence that user data was compromised as a result of this malfunction”
Hence, we note the “increasing international criticism of Facebook”, and its ability to avoid and solve those problems that caused (imbalance in the financial markets, stock exchanges and global markets). Accordingly, and to try to understand the whole picture, the Egyptian researcher will try to raise all the problems related to the company “Facebook”, and to respond in practice to the reasons for accusing China in the first place of hacking the network, as follows:
First: The fact that the Chinese child, “Wang Zhengyang”, whose picture is circulated globally, and who now lives in the United States of America and not in China
The Egyptian researcher followed up on the global uproar that aroused when a Chinese child “hacker” penetrated the Facebook site, and caused this global malfunction of Facebook’s search engines and disrupted the activities of the world, but when the Egyptian researcher was searching on the famous Chinese search engine “Baidu” as “Chinese alternative to the global site of Google”, they are constantly considering that “Baidu is a Google site alternative in China”.
We will find a definition of the true identity and personality of the child, completely different from what was circulated globally, according to the following reasons:
Where the “Chinese Baidu website” indicated the identity of the child appearing in the globally circulated image, as a picture of the globally known Chinese hacke “Wang Zhengyang”, who now actually lives in the United States of America to complete his studies and is not in China at all.
The interesting thing for analysis is what the famous Chinese website “Baidu” mentioned that the Chinese child whose image is being circulated globally is called (Wang Zhengyang), and he is (born in 2001), meaning that he is a young man and not a child as various sites around the world claimed, and “his age is now aout 20 years old”, and the most amazing thing for me personally, is that “he is recentely resides in the United States of America and not in China”, whereas (Wang Zhengyang) traveled to study in the United States of America to continue studying his specialization in (computer, programming and information systems).
He also noted the “Chinese Baidu website”, praising the genius of “Wang Zhengyang”, and that he was one of the students in a school in the Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau and the Education Committee for the implementation of (Enlightenment Project for Network Security).
We can as well find that the actual appearance of the Chinese child (Wang Zhengyang) for the first time globally at the (Chinese Internet Security Conference), in 2014, and that was the first appearance of the Chinese genius child (Wang Zhengyang), who was only 13 years old, as the youngest hacker across mainland China.
When the Chinese child (Wang Zhengyang) was accused at the time of hacking his school’s website and endangering the privacy of its files and students’ data, the child (Wang Zhengyang) defended those allegations against him himself, accusing him of hacking his school’s website, according to his claim or defense at the time, that:
“He was only meant to help fix his school’s data website to help her and not intentionally harm her”
As the Chinese child (Wang Zhengyang) explained at the time, that:
“The school website he hacked was not for middle school students, but for high school students in the same educational institution”
Perhaps what stopped me analytically is what the child (Wang Zhengyang) confirmed at the time and his emphasis, on:
“He would rather be seen as an ethical computer hacker, and would not use technology to do illegal things”
Hence, the whole matter was orchestrated as previously referred to as a global rumor, it was not determined who (the first cause of its release, regarding the personality and identity of the Chinese child “Wang Zhengyang”), and even more dangerous to me (the reasons and deliberately ignoring his life now in the United States of America itself and not in the China’s capital of Beijing), in which he studied throughout his primary studies.
I think that they are all legitimate questions and inquiries on my part, and the entire world public opinion has the right to understand, and this is the most dangerous point for me, and it should be asked and explained, as follows:
“Why have we all been deceived about the true identity of the Chinese child by deliberately concealing his true age and deliberately concealing as well his whereabouts?”
Second: The accusations of Facebook founder “Mark Zuckerberg” against China, and the Chinese defense of deliberately waging a technological war and cyber hacking against the work of American technology companies
We find that in the context of an attempt by “Facebook Company and its owner and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg” to circumvent the size of the losses that the company suffers periodically, as well as accusing it of many accusations in exchange for achieving financial gains and profits, Mark Zuckerberg’s accusations have been multiplied to China and its alternative technological applications, on the pretext (China’s attempt to impose its laws, systems, values, and communist ideology on the world), and despite the inability of “Facebook Company nor its founder Mark Zuckerberg” to prove the validity of their allegations against China, the Chinese side has begun to respond to “the violations of Facebook and its CEO Mark Zuckerberg”. The agreed upon ethical standards, and the most important mutual accusations between the (two sides), which are as follows:
1) It cannot be asserted that China deliberately launched a technological war and cyber hacking against the work of American technology companies, which did not explicitly accuse China in this regard. We find that the most important statement issued by “Mark Zuckerberg”, the founder of Facebook against China, is his explicit accusation of it, saying:
“Beijing wants to impose its values on us, and we will not allow another country to impose special laws on us on the Internet”
2) The second reference against China also comes, regarding what Mark Zuckerberg referred to, as the CEO of “Facebook”, and his other frank accusation directed at China, saying:
“Six out of 10 social media sites that exist today are mainly Chinese, and Beijing is trying to impose its values on us, and we cannot allow another country to impose laws on the Internet”
3) The first real confrontation between “Mark Zuckerberg” against China, is his decision to establish (a committee to monitor and control the movements of Chinese social networks), and this team can take the final decision without the intervention of any other official. Here, “Mark Zuckerberg” made sharp accusations against China, and indirect hints that it was “the reason behind calling him for an urgent hearing in the US Congress”, and that was several months ago, for what he rumored about him from “politicizing the content and spreading chaos and violence”.
4) The famous American surveillance website “whois.domaintools”, as a site that specializes in monitoring domains and their owners, especially on Facebook, has published a promotional announcement, saying that:
“The domain of facebook.com is for sale, due to its exposure to several previous cyber attacks”
5) We find that China has repeatedly been subjected to fierce attacks by American officials and politicians via Facebook and China’s denunciation of this, most notably (the emergence of the Coronavirus vaccinations and the intimidation of receiving Chinese vaccines), and China accused “Mark Zuckerberg” of causing a global panic, and of aiding preventing people from getting the right vaccine.
6) Caving in to Chinese pressure, “Mark Zuckerberg” was forced in mid-March 2021 to appear, confirming on his Facebook page his support for the global vaccination campaign and helped spread vaccine awareness ads, but the attack continued on Facebook, as a result of allowing commentators, comments and addresses to promote theories and comments that prevent people from receiving the vaccine, especially the Chinese. Hence, we understand “the tense relationship between Facebook and its founder, Mark Zuckerberg, and China”, especially during the recent period.
Through the previous analysis of the details of the relationship between Facebook and China, we find that the matter has gone beyond the line of technological competition to the exchange of accusations against each other, especially with what has been proven even within the American interior itself, that Facebook and its founder, “Mark Zuckerberg” is trying to play political roles and put (its gains profits and material above the public interest, as it overlooks the many damages caused by the site to its users and children), as well as proving a number of users of the “Instagram” application owned by the same company that the company deliberately sells their data and violates their privacy for purposes and interests that are purely material and not ethical. Hence, China is defending that:
“Our Chinese local network of applications to preserve the values, morals, and cohesion of Chinese society itself in the face of the corruption of Facebook and its operators in the United States of America”
Third: Reasonable Chinese and international accusations that Facebook deliberately disrupted its network, coupled with evidence and proof
We find that after the failure of the Facebook network service, and the rest of the other applications associated with it, the logical question in China and the world has become:
“Did Facebook intentionally disrupt its servers, software, and the scope of its networks around the world to hide a scandal or secrets that shook the image of the United States of America globally?”
We note here that a number of Chinese accusations against the company “Facebook“, which adopts a number of logical reasons, deliberately in charge of the famous network – perhaps based on US government pressures, deliberately disabling the network for several hours, to hide secrets, and was based mainly on the Chinese and globally on a number of Among the reasons behind this sudden malfunction of the “Facebook” network, including:
The Facebook company has all the adequate measures to secure its servers, software, and its giant international network from any accidental accidents, hacks, or various and innovative backups in the event of any failure or malfunction.
Facebook’s possession of the best security and technical system in the whole world, and perhaps what it has is not owned by major governments and countries, and this brings us to the same most dangerous question, related to the “conspiracy theory”, which is:
“Did “Facebook” deliberately disrupt its servers, software and network globally for several hours?”
Here, logical reasons related to the international reputation of the United States of America were actually linked, which prompted Facebook and those responsible for it to disable the network, perhaps (to erase those evidence and evidence, which condemns the United States of America), and the owner of the American Facebook, “Mark Zuckerberg”, and in conjunction with events and events Interestingly and logically linked to the sudden downfall of Facebook, such as:
(Pandora’s Leaks, the testimony of Francis Haugen)
The “Pandora Documents leak”, is one of the most important legal and political battles in the world, which Facebook is trying to contain immorally, according to the list of accusations delegated to it, which is a (leakage of a huge number of documents containing many financial secrets that may make scandals and provide financial crimes to hundreds of world leaders, politicians, billionaires and celebrities).
The accusations came to the Facebook network and its founder, “Mark Zuckerberg”, of deliberately disabling the network’s servers and data for several hours to erase and remove all documents and prices contained in documents and leaks in the name of “Pandora’s Reveal”, which is a leak of nearly 12 million documents that reveals (Fortune secrecy, tax evasion, money laundering by some world leaders and wealthy people).
Therefore, accusations have been leveled by China and a large number of well-known journalists around the world, including more than 600 journalists in 117 countries, who began searching for a large number of sensitive files from more than 14 sources for several months to reveal (major global corruption cases affecting the most important global leaders, which Facebook is trying to prevent in various ways in order to preserve Washington’s interests with the countries of the world) and to achieve material gains for the company at the same time.
The data was obtained by the (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists), based in Washington DC, known as its consortium name, is: “ICIJ”
The accusations against “Facebook company deliberately disrupting its work for several hours around the world” confirm that he was working with more than (140 media organizations in the largest global investigation of its kind ever in the world, but the quality of the documents collected and found were with political and international nature, and lead to political and international crises for Washington and its allies), so it became necessary for the “Facebook” network to get rid of it completely, so it came (deliberately disrupting the network for several hours for purely political and intelligence purposes to carry out this task, and to erase those dangerous and sensitive documents, so that no access is reached and consequently embarrassing Washington with its allies around the world), and shaking the world’s confidence in the United States of America.
On the other hand, “Facebook’s fear of publishing data, extracts or clips from the testimony of the former employee of the company, Ms. Francis Haugen against the company and its officials, is supported by documents and documents about the nature of the violations and penetrations of the Facebook network globally”. And here we mean the testimony of “Mrs. Francis Haugen”, an employee who worked as a former manager in the products department in the “Facebook” company since 2019, to help address the problem of election interference through social media, especially after (several accusations of the Russian side of interfering in the final results of the US Presidential elections), in favor of former US President “Donald Trump”.
Perhaps the most dangerous thing that “Mrs. Frances Haugen” said and tried to silence her and stop her and get rid of her by threatening her, is that American policy makers and legislators are encouraging the “Facebook and its owner Mark Zuckerberg” network to disrespect its users and violate, exploit, hack and sell their privacy for purely material purposes, as well as On the adoption by those in charge of “Facebook” of a polluted agenda, as it incites inhuman standards for the following taboo:
(Spreading hatred, racial discrimination between whites and blacks and all other minorities, fueling political and religious disputes and conflicts to achieve material gains, not caring about the health and security of users, especially children, by publishing games that encourage suicide in exchange for huge financial gains)
Based on the testimony of “Mrs. Francis Haugin”, the position of the Chinese President, Comrade “Xi Jinping”, came to issue of “laws that obligate young people to abide by the male dress and not to mix identities, and to prevent the broadcast of any content in the Chinese media in which men imitate women”, with the publicly affirmation of the Chinese authorities and leaders the Communist Party of China “CPC” stated the need to work on:
“Limiting the scope of work and spread of technology companies producing children’s electronic games and applications to reduce them and curb their growth and increasing influence”
Hence, since November 2020, the Chinese authorities have started to adopt a strict campaign throughout the country, based and aimed primarily at “protecting children, youth and school students from falling into the trap of addiction to games and applications at the expense of their health and their relationships with the entire community”.
And based on the evidence, evidence and previous evidence that confirms (the Facebook company intentionally disrupts its work to erase the evidence of its international condemnation). Hence, we find, that with the (increasing of American and Western criticism to the Chinese campaign directed against American and mainly Western technology companies, which produce children’s toys), especially those that encourage suicide, such as: (Facebook films for children), policy makers in the Communist Party of China tried to assert that:
“Germany, as a successful Western model, has adopted the same policies to protect its children and children. Despite the progress of industry and modern technologies and technology, Germany has restricted the work of children’s toy companies, with Chinese leaders confirming that Germany has succeeded in industry, production and progress, not consumption and games”
Fourth: Analyzing the aspects of Chinese benefits and the Chinese political and ethical employment for the disruption of the American “Facebook” network around the world, internally, externally and ideologically
The malfunction of Facebook and its various applications, such as: “WhatsApp, Instagram, Messenger”, shows the extent of American hegemony over very important tools in the era of the digital economy, to extend American influence and control over the world, and in return, China has distanced itself from these (Digital chaos) by banning these American and Western applications and providing (local Chinese alternatives of technology that fits the nature and values of Chinese society and protects its youth and children), through:
My accurate analysis as an expert in Chinese Politics for (the great Chinese benefits from the disruption of Facebook as a giant of American technology around the world, and the attempt to use the matter politically, ideologically and values to defend its interests), thus hitting and offending the reputation of American social networks, as well as their inability to confronting the emergency and most importantly its violations of the rights of the child, family and human being.
This may also come in the field and scope of the work of “Chinese digital technology propaganda in the face of the alliance of digital technological democracies against it, led by Washington with its allies, such as: Britain and Australia in the first place”, especially after the United States of America banned the Chinese technology giant of (Huawei company for technology), which adopts China’s plan on The world, especially in developing and African countries, to spread (the fifth generation services “G5″ for Chinese digital technology).
China will also try to improve the reputation of its technology companies globally, especially after the arrest (the Chinese financial director of Huawei in Canada and her arrest and then recently sentenced on charges of belonging to a banned group, as well as other financial charges related to the work of the Chinese company Huawei itself), which increased the tensions of the relations between China and the United States, especially with China accusing Washington of pushing its Canadian allies to obstruct its interests around the world.
China was able to use the disruption of American social networks to make (technological ideological propaganda for itself, by proving it with tangible evidence, that social networks in China did not suffer any glitch during the Facebook stoppage), regarding the work of applications for mobile phones in China.
Therefore, Chinese social networks, such as: “Weibo, WeChat, Kyukyo, Youku, Doyen”… etc., which were working normally during a period of downtime and disruption of all American versions of the web and its applications, especially those linked to the American Facebook network, the Chinese ideological propaganda focused mainly on the inside, stating that:
“The social networks in China did not suffer any malfunctions during the failure of their American counterparts”
In this context, the Chinese media tried to emphasize (the good management of the ruling Communist Party authorities of the country, especially with the Chinese authorities banning American technological services, such as: Facebook and its applications inside China), which are: “Instagram, Twitter, and WhatsApp”, and others. As well as (China bans the work of some other Western technology companies that have been proven to violate Chinese laws), and therefore, the Chinese citizen was not affected by any noticeable stop, with his use and use of Chinese applications alternative to the American, and from here (no one practically noticed that any of the Chinese applications stopped working within the whole mainland of China during the period of downtime and disruption of Facebook and its various applications around the world).
Through this analysis, we understand that (China mainly focused its efforts on the inside), certainly that China does not face any similar technical problems, especially with the impact of this interruption of Facebook’s work on the accounts of millions of users around the world, as well as causing problems using the “Oculus platform” for virtual reality, which is also affiliated with “Facebook”, while (China only uses its own technological applications with a global reputation and good value, given that there were no technical problems in it, as well as observing all the ethical standards that its American counterparts neglected).
Fifth: The attitude of the Chinese people themselves towards the ban by the Chinese authorities and the leaders of the Communist Party of China of the “Facebook” website in their country, according to the Chinese Constitution
The ruling Communist Party authorities have tried to conduct (large educational and awareness campaigns for all the Chinese people about the danger of American and Western digital technologies on the identity, national culture and values of the People’s State of China), as the new competition between China and the United States of America and the West is witnessing several accelerating geostrategic balances and radical internal social and political transformations. China has become more capable of changing the image of the world and the relations of competition in it in new unconventional ways, such as: the matter of “Chinese alternative technological applications in the face of Western technologies”.
This alternative proposal for Chinese digital technology, alternative to its American and Western counterparts, enhances the legitimacy and strength of governance and the ruling authorities of the Communist Party in the Chinese state, with their ability to win over the masses and Chinese public opinion with a system of cultural values agreed upon among all the Chinese people with their leaders, authorities and ruling party. Which can be understood, as follows:
The Chinese authorities have reaffirmed the depth of their far-reaching strategic view by blocking a number of American social networking sites, especially “Facebook” in China since 2009, and the Chinese authorities attributed the blocking to (three main reasons), which are:
First: Because (those American social media sites deliberately underestimate the values of China and fail to mention the China’s historical facts), such as deliberately mentioning the necessity of reviving the old revolutions in China and promoting their renewal.
Second: The presence of (gaps in the security and privacy options on Facebook, and its threat to Chinese national security).
Third: The growing criticism against China on the famous search engine website of “Google”, and its intentional publication of “pornographic materials”, which (infiltrate the privacy of children and the Chinese family).
2) The Chinese authorities also blocked the famous American website of “Amazon” for selling books, due to the intention of the “Amazon” website to provoke China despite its warning, by deliberately selling and promoting a book banned from publication in China that talks about revolutions, as if anyone clicks on a website or link of the book is on Amazon from China, the site is completely blocked for at least 15 minutes, which is an attempt by the Chinese state to maintain its security and stability and protect its history and heritage in the face of American and Western absurdity, as China officially defends itself.
3) Hence, (private Chinese applications began to promote themselves, and the Chinese media themselves promoted them, by not disrupting them during the period of downtime and sudden failure in other American digital services), which cost heavy losses in the United States of America approaching 164 thousand dollars, losses per minute, that is, nearly $60 million, which China has not faced.
4) As for the position of the Chinese themselves towards banning Facebook in their country, you find that “Chinaese people keenness to preserve the value system of Chinese society”, considering that American websites, such as: (Facebook, Twitter, Google), and the other applications, as from China’s point of view, they’re looking to the American and Western IT applications may (infect the Chinese value system, as it threatens the culture of the Chinese).
5) According to the Chinese constitution, “the Chinese state itself is morally responsible for protecting its citizens from exposure to Western and American cultural invasion”, and also for closing the door on Western attempts to use these sites to foment internal political unrest against the Chinese state.
6) Hence, we find that China, after the disruption of Facebook and the rest of the other related applications, we can analytically highlightthe (Chinese promotion of the superiority of its digital values and technological model in the face of American and Western applications), and the Chinese affirmation of the validity of its theory to follow a policy called: (Building the Great Firewall Project china)
Or what is officially, known as: “the Golden Cover Project”,or “Golden Shield”.
Which is one of the most important and sensitive Chinese technical projects to monitor the Internet and block the unwanted websites, and it is considered one of (the most advanced Chinese sensitive technical projects in the world).
Based on the understanding of the Chinese technological map and the most important methods and celebrities that China adopts in the face of American and Western digital technologies such as Facebook, as we analyzed it, and from here we find that (the ruling Communist Party authorities in China are trying to take advantage of the rapid technological progress in the mainland of China to change the geostrategic map of the world in a fast way, whose nature has not yet been clear in the face of American hegemony and unilateralism), which is evident to us from the way and mechanism of the Chinese political and ethical employment of the (relationship between the technology and politics and the interaction and mutual influence between them), which represents one of the most important determinants of this new world, and the innovative non-traditional competition trends between China and the USA.
Sixth: The relationship between (the crisis of disrupting Facebook and restoring China’s technological prestige and position) between its citizens and the world, and promoting the theory of “the superiority of Chinese technological applications over their American counterparts”
The researchers, scholars, and the international academic community around the world are witnessing the emergence of new technological and cognitive terms that are all centered around the American-Chinese technological conflict and polarization at the present time in its political form, such as the term of (Techno-Politics).
This new term of “Techno Politics” refers to (the relationship between political and technological affairs in its changing form), in a way that can be applied to the current conflict and competition between China and the United States of America over “fifth generation networks and the United States’ ban on the Chinese company Huawei”, as a result of the struggle over the acquisition of technological applications and their relationship The nature of competition and political polarization between Washington and Beijing, but in terms of digital and technology, which we can apply and understand on the part of China during the crisis of the Facebook disruption, as follows:
The crisis of disruption of Facebook and the rest of the applications associated with it, such as: (WhatsApp, Instagram), and others, has restored China’s technological prestige and position among its citizens, and demonstrated the depth and far-sightedness of the policies of the Communist Party of China, emphasizing that:
“China’s blocking of many American social media sites is not in vain, as the Chinese state sees great importance in “not leaving the personal information of its members in foreign hands that may one day exploit that information, which is our primary task in preserving the Chinese citizen, as one of the important ingredients for maintaining China’s national security”
This also reminds us of a crisis that occurred a few years ago, a crisis occurred between “the American Google company” and China, during which the two parties exchanged accusations that took a political nature, and ended with the consent and agreement of the two parties to transfer the “Google” engine service to the city of “Hong Kong”, where it directs you to Google’s Hong Kong site directly, if you try to open the site in any of the other provinces and provinces of China.
On the other hand, China is trying to promote other Chinese search engines competing with the US, such as: “Baidu”, which was launched by China in 2000, to be the first search engine in the country, and also a strong competitor to the American company “Google”.
We can also recognize the “Youku website” in China, which is the Chinese alternative to “YouTube”, as “Youku” is the most largest and important site that provides the service of uploading and publishing videos on the Internet in China, and the site is characterized by the ability to upload unlimited videos, as it allows users to upload full movies and complete episodes of Chinese, Korean, and American series. And the site as well allows the Chinese people to follow up on many (non-Chinese films and series, as they are accompanied by Chinese subtitles on the screen), outperforming the services of the YouTube American site.
We also find that the “Weibo” site in China, as the Chinese alternative to “Twitter”, which is blocked in China, and the word “Weibo” in Arabic means (small tweets or short posts), and according to the “Weibo site’s statistics”, its Chinese users are daily writing more than 100 million microblogs, outperforming the famous Twitter social networking site.
Here, we also find the “QQ” application in China, with taking into consideration that “QQ”, is considered one of the largest chat programs in China, and an alternative to the famous chat programs, such as: (MSN & Yahoo), which the Chinese do not accept to use.
We also find the “WeChat” applicationor “Weixin” in Chinese, which is the most used application in China for social networking, where the parent company revealed a new report to it, which showed that it has so far more than 400 million active users and they are constantly increasing.
With the intensification of the Chinese accusations against the United States of America, which I consider to be the most violent of all, was the accusation of the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister “Xie Feng” to the United States of America publicly, of “trying to eliminate the Chinese regime”, In text, he said:
“There is a campaign by an entire government and an entire society that is being waged to bring down China”
This was reported by the well-known Chinese newspaper, “China Daily”, during “Ms. Sherman’s visit to Tianjin province in China”, on July 26, 2021, who is considered the most high-level ranking senior official in the American administration of President “Joe Biden” to visit China.
Finally, we find that through the previous comprehensive analysis of the Egyptian researcher to analyze and understand the nature of the work of Chinese technology companies in the face of their American and Western counterparts, we can now accurately understand (the role or employment of the political and value but also the ideology of Chinese and American technology companies and all other digital platforms associated with them to play real and independent geopolitical roles).
Therefore, the talk about (the disruption of the Facebook network around the world, the role of China and the exchange of accusations between all concerned parties is closely linked to national security and its link to digital technology and the giant Chinese digital technology projects globally in the Silicon Valley region), especially with the connection of advanced technology networks and companies at the present time with governments, which applies to “Facebook” and its connection with the US federal government and various political institutions as I mentioned, and also with the association of Chinese companies working in the technology sector with the government, this shows us with evidence (the seriousness of the relationship between digital technology, politics and national security) for both China and the USA in our case.
Hence, what most analytically caught my eye, academically and researchly was (Chinese President Comrade Xi Jinping’s meeting with Apple CEO “Tim Cook”, at rates that exceed his meeting with presidents and leaders in the whole world). This is a confirmation of what I have previously presented in this close connection between the governments of countries and giant technology companies, and even (transcends their borders because of their connection with armies and all national security files around the world, which is almost applicable to the American and Chinese cases and the Chinese alternatives applied to digital technology in the face of American and Western competition, in order to preserve on its national security from any penetration), and this fully proves and confirms our theory about (the relationship between politics, technology and national security, the limits and extensions of influence between each other).
African Union urged to address the threat of Congo forest logging driving extreme weather
Industrial logging in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) may severely disturb rainfall patterns across sub-Saharan Africa and bring about...
Serbia: Job Creation and Green Transition Needed for Sustainable Growth
Serbia’s economic recovery is gaining pace, with a rebound in private consumption and an increase in total investments, says the...
North Africa: Is Algeria Weaponizing Airspace and Natural Gas?
In a series of shocking and unintelligible decisions, the Algerian Government closed its airspace to Moroccan military and civilian aircraft...
Biden’s Department of Justice: parents as domestic terrorists
In recent developments in the United States, US Attorney General, Merrick Garland, and the FBI have put under the FBI radar parents...
Iran poll contains different messages for Biden and Raisi
“It’s the economy, stupid.” That is the message of a just-published survey of Iranian public opinion. However, the substance of...
The Blazing Revival of Bitcoin: BITO ETF Debuts as the Second-Highest Traded Fund
It seems like bitcoin is as resilient as a relentless pandemic: persistent and refusing to stay down. Not long ago,...
Credit Suisse to pay $475 million to U.S. and U.K. authorities
Credit Suisse Group AG has agreed to pay nearly $475 million to U.S. and U.K authorities, including nearly $100 million...
Africa4 days ago
Analyzing The American Hybrid War on Ethiopia
Energy4 days ago
Gas doom hanging over Ukraine
Middle East4 days ago
Safar Barlek of the 21st Century: Erdogan the New Caliph
Middle East3 days ago
Iran unveils new negotiation strategy
Science & Technology2 days ago
U.S. Sanctions Push Huawei to Re-Invent Itself and Look Far into the Future
Middle East4 days ago
Shaping US Middle East policy amidst failing states, failed democratization and increased activism
Americas3 days ago
How terrible the consequences of the Cold War can be
Russia3 days ago
The 30th Anniversary of the Renewal of Diplomatic Relations Between Russia and Israel