1) Announcing the (French-Indian alliance) to confront the (Australian-American alliance) for establishing a (new multilateral system), and the AUKUS alliance conflicted with the (Anglo-Saxon Five Eyes intelligence alliance), and New Zealand’s rejection of the Australian deal with Britain
2) The AUKUS alliance and the division between (technological and defense democracies against Washington), in favor of strengthening Chinese technological and defense alliances with pro-Beijing political regimes
3) The division of (the Quadruple Regional Alliance) against China led by Washington, (India’s alliance with France in defense, and India’s alliance with Iran economically and strategically in favor of China) fails and restricts (AUKUS alliance) against China
4) Uniting the front of the Chinese naval communist alliances in the face of the authoritarian maritime democracies led by Washington
5) Beijing’s support for the strategy of “maritime governance” in the (Indo-Pacific) region, in the face of “AUKUS Defense Alliance” led by Washington
Since the signing of the “AUKUS Defense Alliance between the United States of America, Australia and Britain“, the Egyptian researcher, as a well-known expert in my region on Chinese political affairs, as well as my closeness to a number of Chinese political files in the Middle East, noticed a dangerous thing happening, namely:
A- I was academically and analytically, surrounded by an increasing number of emails from American and Western think tanks and research centers, to promote the idea of (AUKUS Alliance and the creation of a new world order by the USA).
B- The insistence of a large number of academic colleagues in the West and the United States of America, that it recognize China’s defensive and security defeat in the face of Washington, by declaring the “AUKUS Defense Alliance, in addition to the former Quad alliance, also led by Washington”.
C- This was also accompanied, perhaps for the first time, with a large number of international invitations that I received to work in several universities and a number of research projects, to develop my perceptions and ideas of the shape of the new world order, especially with my in-depth research and academic experience for many years in the files of China in the Middle East and globally.
D- It also coincided with an invitation that I received from the Syrian TV to analyze the “Australian submarine crisis with France, and the AUKUS Defense Agreement”, on Wednesday, September 22, 2021, and to note the American follow-up to my analysis of this crisis with other international analysts, by covering a speech by the US State Department spokesperson before the program will immediately begin to analyze the crisis raised, regarding the “AUKUS Defense Agreement between Washington, Australia and Britain“.
E- This is also in line with (the deep research and academic desire within me to continue my research, academic, analytical and practical career from inside Beijing once again, to study all those new actual changes in that region surrounding China), especially with the American insistence in 2017, to change its name from (the “Asia-Pacific” region to the “Indo-Pacific” region), as an American attempt to ensure the exclusion of China from the interactions of that region surrounding it regionally, in return for involving India as an ally of Washington and a competitor to China.
F- Perhaps what academically, intellectually and research surprised the Egyptian researcher, given my deep understanding of the interactions of that sensitive area surrounding China, according to the (Chinese and American viewpoints together), is the global academic and research situation that occurred, with the establishment of many (think centers, centers and giant research and discussion groups, and international peer-reviewed scientific journals), all of which bear the name of (Indo-Pacific), and not under its previous name (Asia-Pacific).
G- This previous mentioned point, means analytically that defining it (in the Pacific), leads to ensuring the exclusion of China from its interactions, and restricting the freedom and movement of China’s extensions, ambitions and movements in the (South and East China Sea regions, extending its territorial and maritime borders to the Indo and Pacific region), according to the Chinese perception, which is what Washington and its allies completely rejected.
L- Accordingly, upon my following up with a deep analysis, as an Egyptian academic expert in Chinese political affairs, of all those American and Western analyses that I have received, read and understood their analytical angle well, on the “formation and reshape of a new world order led by the United States of America“, so, based on my very accurate understanding of all American perceptions and the Western aforementioned, I favored to develop this comprehensive detailed international analysis in all its aspects and dimensions, which scientifically proves and responds to all previous analyzes, with my new analysis, which I am proving here in practice, that we are actually in the process of:
(Features of a new global division between maritime and technological democracies according to American ideological terms, division and conflict of American and Anglo-Saxon defense agendas, violation of the democratic laws of some allies of countries to Washington, such as: “New Zealand“, preparing for a new (European defense alliance) and excluding Washington from it, and the contradiction of the goals of the “AUKUS American Defense Alliance” with the “Alliance of Five Eyes Anglo-Saxon Intelligence”, the French announcement of coordination with India, as the Washington’s ally to create a new multilateral system, rejection of “New Zealand”, as a Washington’s ally and Australia of the Australian nuclear submarine deal, and the Beijing’s start to create new regional maritime alliances, and the re-introduction of its “Chinese Maritime Governance document” to restrict and curb the (American naval ambitions and influence in the Maritime offshore near areas of China).
– This previous brief summary analysis, I preferred to put in the beginning to “analytically, academically, militarily, security and defensively” respond, and most importantly, from my practical experience to understand the American mentality towards China, and how Beijing can respond to any alliances or moves led by Washington against it in the first place.
From here we understand, and we almost all agree, that the “AUKUS Agreement” is basically a defense agreement directed against China, a point reinforced by the fact that the leaders (Britain, the United States, Australia) have appeared together through the video that has spread globally, to announce this partnership, due to the increasing importance of the “Indo-Pacific region” for both the United States and the United Kingdom.
Although British officials insisted that the new “AUKUS defense agreement” is not a response to any country, Britain reiterates that it is directed to maintain (security and stability in the Indo-Pacific regions) and to support a “peaceful rules-based order“. It’s not a secret that Britain, the United States and Australia share concerns about (the Chinese military build-up) in the region, and the fears of threatening their interests.
The AUKUS deal represents a strategic turning point, especially as it is the first time that the United States of America has made a deal to provide such sensitive technology with a country other than Britain, and here we find that the only country with which the United States has shared this type of (nuclear propulsion technology for the AUKUS submarine Nuclear deal) to Australia is Britain only, since 1958, which is a dangerous strategic shift in the US military and defense thought against China, by seeking to strengthen Washington’s alliances and its allies in all directions to confront Beijing, through (forming a strategic security alliance in the Indo-Pacific region).
– The Egyptian researcher found analytically that the most prominent results of this (maritime division) that was begun by Washington in confronting China and France itself as a freely democratic country, are the following:
1) Announcing the (French-Indian alliance) to confront the (Australian-American alliance) for establishing a (new multilateral system), and the AUKUS alliance conflicted with the (Anglo-Saxon Five Eyes intelligence alliance), and New Zealand’s rejection of the Australian deal with Britain
Perhaps the most analytical point that caught my attention was the division created by Washington in the regions of Indo-Pacific, causing French and also New Zealand anger for contradicting the AUKUS alliance with its interests, and perhaps the anger of other international and Western parties from Washington for breaking its covenants against France, which could call, according to the Chinese, that:
(Democracies contradict the core of their liberal and humanistic values)
– The most serious consequences caused by the United States of America breaking its covenants with the French, were:
1) The French assertion came – in response to the US-Australian defense alliance against French interests – by publicly declaring France to coordinate work with the Indian side to consolidate a (new pluralistic international order), as two large sovereign states in the Indo-Pacific region.
2) France considered that the American abandonment of the French submarine project and the announcement of (a new partnership between Washington and Australia) constitute unacceptable behavior between (the allies and democratic partners) and inevitably leads to division among the democratic countries in the world, and its consequences affect the concept of (the network of alliances and partnerships for maritime democracies), regarding the importance of the Indo-Pacific region to Europe.
3) Accordingly, the statements of the French politicians, and the French leadership itself confirmed it, by declaring that:
“France is unable to trust Australia in the ongoing talks on a trade agreement with the European Union after the capital, Canberra, abandoned a deal to buy French submarines in favor of American submarines”
4) With the affirmation of the Minister of State for European Affairs, “Clément Bonn” through the various media, by verbatim saying that:
“We are in French trade negotiations with Australia, but we don’t know how we can trust our Australian partners”
5) The most important analytical point for me is what the French Minister, “Clement Bonn“, stated, by emphasizing, that:
“What happened is a serious breach of trust on the part of Australia. International relations are not naivety and good feelings, but the word. Signing contracts means something, but if we lose confidence, we cannot move forward”
6) In addition to the growing distrust (the European Commission) and the unification of the front of the European Union itself against the United States of America and against Australia, which France is an active part in the system of its European countries, where Australia is negotiating with France a large number of trade agreements, noting that (France is negotiating here on behalf of the European governments that are members of the European Commission), and Australia has entered the (eleventh round) of trade negotiations with its European partners, which started with the European Commission since 2018.
A decade before and the announcement of the Australian-American nuclear submarine deal, it was scheduled to hold a next round of talks between Australia and Europe, covering areas, including:
(Trade, services, investment, intellectual property rights)
7) In a French comment on (the consequences and repercussions of French anger), regarding the ongoing trade negotiations between the European Union and Australia to conclude a (Free Trade Agreement), “Dana Spenant“, Deputy Spokesman for the European Commission, confirmed that:
“There will be no immediate impact on discussions and relations with Australia, with the full assurance that there is great anger among politicians, the French street and all shades of public opinion”
8) The French considered that (the American-Australian-Brtish defense alliance is directed against France mainly to exclude it from the Indian and Pacific regions), to prevent any French leadership role there. It is a project that threatens to undermine French ambitions in the region, and even distance it from it.
9) The (AUKUS Alliance) is preparing to ensure that Australia obtains a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines, a matter that led to the Australian side canceling another huge deal it had concluded with the French side to buy French-made submarines, which in turn would lead to the sensitivity of relations between those countries concerned with France, in the sense that (the United States of America has caused the division of the democratic countries against each other), and not, as Washington is promoting, that the AUKUS deal is the inauguration of a new multilateral world order in the face of China, because the AUKUS agreement has led to the (division and conflict of interests of the maritime and western democracies in the face of Washington basically).
10) Perhaps my analysis of the situation is that there are French fears that Washington deliberately distance France from the (Indo-Pacific region), as a key partner and ally in it, which will increase the state of European fear and distrust in general in confronting the United States of America and partnering with it.
11) On the other hand, it can be considered that (AUKUS alliance is working against the idea of the European Union working system and works against its interests, by including Britain, which left the European Union front), and this is a great diplomatic victory for the British strategy aimed at sparing the country international isolation after Britain left the European Union, especially since the AUKUS treaty or alliance will link Britain, Australia and the United States more deeply, which will reflect on the level of trust between them and confirm the depth of their goal of forming a strong alliance against China.
12) The AUKUS alliance leads to the (independence of the European Union as democratic countries strategically from Washington and the failure of any US-European alliance in the future), especially if it is directed against China.
13) it’s expected for the upcoming period (increase in the European distrust towards Washington), especially with the catastrophic American failure in several global files, such as: withdrawal from Afghanistan, and others, which leads to a lack of effective cooperation between the European Union countries as democratic countries with the American side that can’t be trusted.
14) It is as well expected that after the AUKUS agreement and the betrayal of the American-Australian trust towards their democratic partners in Europe, the European Union will move to discuss ways to strengthen (the issue of strategic independence and the European Union’s defense system), perhaps in the face of Washington itself.
15) It is worth noting that the EU and France were upset about the deal not because they were not included in it, but because they were not consulted in the first place. This was confirmed by the European Union’s foreign policy coordinator “Josep Borrell“, who confirmed that:
“The AUKUS Agreement, which was concluded without the consultation of the European Union, requires the need to put strategic European autonomy high on the agenda”
16) Perhaps one of the most dangerous analytical point for the Egyptian researcher, is what was confirmed by the French side, considering the Europeans’ defense and independence from Washington, as the only effective means of defending European interests in the international community, including the Indo-Pacific region.
17) Based on the foregoing, the European Union “EU” announced (a new strategy for the Indo-Pacific region, after few hours of unveiling of the “AUKUS Alliance”, which considered by the Europeans that it was directed against all of them, not only against France.
18) What deepened the crises of the democratic countries allied with Washington and their division in the face of the United States of America, despite the fact that they are democratic, maritime and technological countries also with the same American approach, is (the rejection of the State of New Zealand as a democratic system also close to the United States of America, Britain and Australia), by allowing submarines to enter Australian nuclear to the depth or borders of New Zealand territorial waters, and New Zealand’s anger at (Washington’s exclusion of it from the new partnership agreement between the capital, Canberra and Washington), and New Zealand’s rejection of the Australian nuclear submarine deal, based on the policies officially established in New Zealand, since 1985, which expressly states, on:
“The state of New Zealand prohibits the entry into its territorial waters of any nuclear-powered ship”
19) Perhaps, we find that with the continued refusal of New Zealand to enter Australian nuclear submarines to its territorial waters near Canberra, this may threaten in the future severe tension in relations between (Australia, Britain and the United States of America in the face of New Zealand and its policies), despite the state of the alliance and permanent partnership between Australia And New Zealand for decades due to the proximity of the territorial waters and the maritime borders between the two countries.
20) Expectations also increasethat (many of democratic countries surrounding themselves will not join the AUKUS defense alliance with Washington), given the complex requirements that Washington imposes on its allies, given the nature of large defense alliances, especially against China, which requires special security arrangements that are not available in many countries, even with the democratic ones.
21) The State of New Zealand also considers that (AUKUS Defense Alliance is an alliance against its vital interests with both Australia and Britain), which shares with “New Zealand” in another defense and security alliance in the “Five Eyes Intelligence Alliance”, which worries New Zealand about its conflicting interests. With Washington’s interests and ambitions with Australia towards China.
22) There are also criticisms from within (the countries of the Quad Quartet alliance led by Washington and its allies against China), directed at the AUKUS defense alliance led by Washington also against China), with the focus of the “AUKUS Alliance” on (the US security dialogue and defense coordination with the Anglo-Saxon countries, not the Asian region in the most near Beijing).
23) In the same context, other criticisms were directed to Washington from some democratic countries themselves, that are friendly and ally to it as well, that the “AUKUS Defense Alliance”, doesn’t include any new security arrangements, and didn’t seek to involve other countries allied to Washington, and therefore the “AUKUS Alliance”, according to a number of friends and allies of Washington, as support to:
(Quartet Security Dialogue, ASEAN Agreement, Bi-Regional Partnerships in the Asian Region, and Indo-Pacific area)
From here, we can analytically understand, the growing state of distrust between the European partners in the face of Washington, which may lead to the failure of the American strategy to form (a new democratic world order according to American perceptions), after the United States of America lost the confidence of its European democratic allies and even the “Anglo-Saxon state of New Zealand”, and France, of course, deepened the state of suspicion and mistrust in any future alliance with Washington.
And, this case analytically is similar to the Egyptian researcher, as it goes back to an old theory, called “the theory of democracies are going to fight each other”, as the previous mentioned analysis reveals to us with evidence that the AUKUS alliance or agreement is an actual return for us to the same previous concept meaning, about “the division of democratic countries against each other, and their fight against each other by searching for their self-interests and distrust or mutual coordination between them, as in the case of the Australian nuclear submarine deal against French interests“.
Here, it comes the most dangerous from my point of view, that the growing sense of mistrust and lack of transparency towards Washington from its European partners and the democracies themselves, may hinder Washington itself from making any other alliances coming in the future, especially with (European leaders, the European Commission and the Anglo-Saxon state of New Zealand), as a result of Washington betraying their trust, by violating French covenants and agreements with Australia and Britain for narrow American interests directed primarily against China, and representing an attack on the maritime sovereignty of the territorial waters of New Zealand, and contradicting defense agreements and alliances that exist in the first place, Washington had to enter it to strengthen its allies, instead of increasing the state of division by creating America’s new defense alliances.
2) The AUKUS Agreement and the division between (technological and defense democracies against Washington), in favor of strengthening Chinese technological and defense alliances with pro-Beijing political regimes
One of the most prominent negative results of the (AUKUS agreement) was what was announced by the United States of America and US President (Joe Biden) himself, by announcing a new defense alliance between Australia, the United States and Britain, expanding the scope of the technology of American submarines operating with nuclear propulsion to include Australia, in addition to the (security technologies, Electronic) alliances, additionally, the (artificial intelligence, and underwater marine capabilities), as a declared US alliance between American-Australian liberal democratic technologies, in the face of Chinese communist digital technologies. This brings us to another level of analysis, through:
1) Confirmation of the link between the concepts of (democratic technologies and maritime democracies in the face of China), and others. What confirms the previous proposition is the circulation of a new term in mind that has raised China’s concerns regarding (maritime democracies), meaning that the US alliance was only made between (freely democratic countries that pursue liberal ideology), just as Washington divided digital technology into (democratic technology that follows the Western approach, and authoritarian communist technology on the Chinese approach), for countries that have benefited from Chinese fifth-generation networks.
2) Washington deliberately integrates the “technology component of defense” into the (Australian submarine deal), which is an indirect message to Washington in the face of Beijing’s defense technological superiority, which pushes in the region around the Indo-Pacific to increasingly the number of hypersonic missiles at several times the speed of sound, which the current US military capabilities lack reliable defenses against, as well as the advanced Chinese electronic warfare capabilities, which are directed against the (US command, control, and navigation systems), and against (the US Global Positioning System), in addition to China’s technical and technological superiority in the field of using advanced counter-weapons for satellites to reduce the use of intelligence and early warning capabilities of US forces.
3) The Chinese rejection of the new American security partnership with Australia came in its vital strategic environment, because it is “an American ideological deal in the first place”, and it reflects (the same Cold War mentality and the American ideological bias against regimes and countries that are ideologically different from it), with the constant American insistence on spreading its liberal values and ideologies around the world, which has proven its failure in “Iraq, Afghanistan, Latin America, Africa“, and all the different countries of the world in their systems than what Washington is promoting.
4) China called the American mentality in the Indo-Pacific region, as reflecting of (the American ideological bias state, in favor of its allies at the expense of other international and regional powers, including Washington’s allies itself), which came in the form of a Chinese protest against the official level, by calling on the Chinese embassy in Washington, that the United States of America should abandon the (Cold War mentality, ideological bias, conflict and competition).
5) Also, the official Chinese warning to the United States of America of its establishment of forms of (exclusionary blocs), with the aim of targeting or harming the interests of other countries, such as: China.
6) The spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, “Mr.Zhao Lijian“, issued a strongly worded statement, in which he considered:
“Washington and London have taken irresponsible behavior that would undermine regional stability and efforts to limit nuclear proliferation, which means intensifying the nuclear arms race by providing Australia with harmful nuclear technology to other neighboring countries such as China”
7) On the other hand, Britain, through its Prime Minister “Boris Johnson“, defended the (AUKUS defense alliance) with Washington in the Indo-Pacific regions, and the United States of America supplied the Australian side with advanced nuclear technology, “Boris Johnson” stated, emphasizing:
“Australia’s acquisition of submarines that operate with advanced nuclear technology maintains regional stability in the region, and that this step was not intended to antagonize any country”
8) The situation of “the ideological, technological and maritime division between the United States and China” has increased in the Indo-Pacific region, with a belief at all levels in China that the “AUKUS Defense Agreement” is (a threat to the Chinese presence in its areas of influence), and an American attempt aimed at (Chinese communist ideology restrained in favor of promoting American ideas and values, centered on democracy and economic and political liberalism), which does not fit the specific circumstances of individual countries such as China.
9) It is clear here that this American insistence on the predominance of (the pattern of ideological character over the strategic competition between Washington and China), and even the American conflict itself, which will extend to all ideologically different countries with American liberal values during the coming period in the form of (conflict or ideological competition to divide the world into Democratic and authoritarian regimes), according to the same American division.
11) It is expected – as a reaction to the new US defense deal with Australia – that China will resort to (employing the economic tool in the face of US defense initiatives), by adopting the method of deals, partnerships and economic investments, in order to prevent countries from siding with the American side in its conflict with the other Chinese side.
12) Likewise, Washington’s intention (merging the maritime and western democracies with the pattern of democratic digital technology, according to the description of the current US administration), through the exchange of advanced American technologies with its network of democratic allies to confront common democratic security challenges, so that it includes multiple other areas of cooperation to meet the emerging security challenges before democratic countries, in the face of other authoritarian and non-democratic regimes, as promoted by the United States of America.
13) Hence, Washington deliberately concluded (democratic defense and technological deals, i.e., with its allies ideologically as liberal democratic countries), as happened with Australia and Britain, through cooperation in a number of fields related to defense, security and democratic technology, such as:
(Cyberspace, artificial intelligence, cyber defense, technology of additional capabilities under the sea)
14) Here, we find the assertion of all the parties allied to Washington against China, that what is happening is (an alliance between democratic, military, technological, defense and political regimes against non-democratic countries), which is almost the same direction taken by the leaders of the three countries (USA, Australia, Britain), by full affirmation, and declaration after completing the AUKUS Defense Deal together:
“It was only natural that the extended defense cooperation relations between the countries of the three maritime democracies culminated in a step that strengthened the relations of friendship and trust that unite them”
15) Hence, it is like (an ideological game of competition to divide the world into two parts, or two parts, or two alliances, liberal-democratic American, and communist authoritarian China), which is something President Biden deliberately declared implicitly that the partnership with Australia will take two forms of (defensive, and technology ideological rivalry), and deliberately linking them together in the name of (democracy).
16) The same context applies to the problem of introducing the concept of “maritime democracies”, based on the common history of the AUKUS countries, as maritime democracies, that is, as countries bordering the seas and adopting a democratic approach.
17) We find that China’s fears revolve mainly around the fear of (Australia’s possession of nuclear-powered submarines on its borders), and China’s desire to differentiate between (submarines operating with nuclear propulsion, or a US submarine deal for Australia equipped with nuclear weapons, which will inevitably be directed against China). Australia, which was denied, asserting that it (works only with nuclear propulsion and is not equipped with any nuclear weapon, according to Chinese fears).
18) As we know, “Joe Biden“, announced several times that the American investment in forming alliances against China, whether they were defensive, economic, or technological, in partnership and the alliance with similar democracies like the USA, according to the American expression, in the face of Chinese communism, and this matter is the greatest source of strength for China to Washington.
19) Hence, we can understand the United States’ attempt to stifle and contain the strategic and vital ocean of China by forming American alliances with the democratic Chinese neighbors, according to the American propaganda, especially since there is another alliance directed against China also by Washington is the “Quadruple Regional Quartet alliance“, with the intention of US President “Joe Biden“, on September 24, 2021, in a meeting at Washington, aimed at establishing an alliance confirmation that includes (Australia, India, and Japan), with a primary goal of (re-launching the quadripartite alliance known as the “Quad” or “Quadruple Security Dialogue”, which includes those four countries.
20) Hence, we find that the AUKUS Alliance, as well as the “Quad Quartet alliance”, led by Washington and its allies in the region surrounding China, aims mainly to put pressure on Beijing’s activities in that region, under the incomprehensible rubber slogan promoted by Washington and its allies called (the Alliance of Democratic Countries), which is incomprehensible from a superpower like Washington, and neglects the different orientations, policies and ideologies of countries and does not understand the special circumstances of each country separately, as Chinese and other nations are always confirming.
21) What added to China’s concerns was the declaration of the countries of the alliance with Washington that (the four partners in the Quad Quadruple Alliance), they should join forces to deepen their commitment to make the “Indo-Pacific region open and free”.
22) Hence, we understand that these phrases are just stretchy phrases or methods adopted by Washington, as diplomatic tools to denounce Chinese regional aspirations in (the Indian and Pacific Ocean regions and the South China Sea), then link them to the development of a system of democratic technologies for the American democratic allies, such as: Australia.
From here, it becomes clear to us by analysis, this basic direction of the policy of the US alliances and its adoption of the formula or the word “democratic technology and democratic freedom”, and thus, to divide the world into two parts or two fronts in the first place (democratic allies with Washington in the face of non-democratic countries led by China), whether politically Defensively, technologically, scientifically…etc.
3) The division of (the Quadruple Regional Alliance) against China led by Washington, by (India’s defense alliance with France, and India’s alliance with Iran economically and strategically, in favor of China), which fails and restricts (American AUKUS alliance) against China
Indian coordination with the French side after the signing of the AUKUS Agreement between the United States of America and Australia is an important response to Washington, as well as a number of other Indian moves, through which it seeks to secure its interests, which may conflict with its ally Washington, as follows:
1) The Indian-Iranian agreements, and the increase in Indian investments in (Chabahar port), despite the US sanctions imposed on Iran.
2) Likewise, India’s announcement several times through its politicians of India’s desire to settle the Iranian nuclear crisis with Washington is also an important example in this context.
3) Also, it can be said that in the event of a settlement of the Iranian-American crisis, this will undoubtedly reflect positively on the chances of implementing the Indo-Iranian axis in the face of American influence in the first place.
4) India is trying to revive the idea of (establishing a trade corridor linking the regions of South, West and Central Asia and Western Europe, all regimes and countries that are mainly allies of China), and India actually began implementing this project in September 2000, with the signing of an actual agreement between (India, Russia, Iran) to create this corridor, all of which are not completely allies of Washington in the same region surrounding the Indo-Pacific regions.
5) India has taken actual measures to establish and even strengthen this former alliance, in order to create a large trade corridor, to link several regions surrounding the (Indo-Pacific) region, by negotiating with several surrounding countries to join and strengthen it, all of which are not allies at all to Washington, such as:
(Central Asian countries, Caucasus region, Armenia, Ukraine, Turkey, plus Bulgaria as an observer member)
6) Despite the great importance of this mentioned project for both (India and Iran), the chances of its implementation were severely affected by the crisis of the Iranian nuclear program, and the associated waves of international economic sanctions on Iran, which led to its temporary suspension, with the expectation that it will be completed once the American negotiations with Iran resume. This is something that India strongly encourages.
7) The most dangerous remains, India’s endeavor to revive the “North-South Corridor” project, which includes countries allied to China, mainly:
(International North-South Transport Corridor “INSTC”)
The former corridor aims to (link India through the port of Mumbai, which is located on the Arabian Sea, and Western Europe through a number of different sea and land routes).
8) Despite the multiple proposed paths of the Indian corridor with those countries close to Western Europe and the Arabian Sea, but (the sea route from the port of Mumbai in India to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas on the Strait of Hormuz, and then the land route inside Iran via the railway network), represents a major component in This project proposed by India with its various tracks.
9) Also, what may irritate Washington more towards its ally India in the “Quad Quadruple Alliance”, is this strict Indian tendency towards strengthening and supporting its influence in (the Iranian port of Chabahar), in order to balance (the Chinese influence in the Pakistani port of Gwadar).
10) Hence, we find that the growth of Indo-Iranian relations basically takes on broader and more dangerous dimensions than the Indian presence in the Iranian port of Chabahar, especially with the intensity of analyses on the development of the “Indo-Iranian axis” to balance the “Chinese-Pakistani axis”. Hence, the Indian insistence on the economic, political, and geo-strategic alliance with the Iranian side threatens the failure of the “Quad Quartet alliance led by Washington and its allies to confront Beijing”, especially with that deep strategic partnership between China and Iran in confronting Washington, while India, with Washington forms a front of Quad Quartet alliance against Beijing, but, in the same time, India is establishing an actual relations with the Iranian side, as an archenemy enemy to Washington, and the most closest regime to China.
11) With regard to the American mobilization of New Delhi against the Chinese navy in the Indian Ocean region, it has become clear that the Indian lack of interest in sharing Washington’s ambitions in this regard, with the Indian naval mobilization only interested in heading mainly towards (New Delhi’s direct areas of influence), which extend from the (eastern coast of Africa, all the way to the strategic stopping points leading to and from the Indian Ocean, especially the Straits of Malacca and Singapore), and others. Looking at these areas, the Indian mobilization is directed more towards (securing interests within the immediate Indian Ocean region and not to securing the interests of Washington), while projecting Indian naval power in further regions is a secondary task for India, in contrast to the American strategy in that region.
Through the previous detailed analysis of the Egyptian researcher, she was able to demonstrate in a practical way that the Washington’s democratic allies in the (Indo-Pacific regions), led by India, as a mainly Washington’s ally in the (Quad Quadruple Alliance against China), are basically allied with regimes and countries that constitute prejudice to the US national security, such as: (Iran), additionally the countries of (Central Asia and the Caucasus), which are more closest to Russia and China, in the face of Washington.
Hence, we can practically prove by evidence, the applying to (theory of democracies are fighting each other and struggling to search on their interests, even in the face of their liberal ally of the USA).
4) Uniting the front of the Chinese maritime communist alliances in the face of the maritime authoritarian democracies led by Washington
The importance of the United States’ alliances with Australia and Britain, specifically in the “Indo-Pacific” regions surrounding China, is the result of a number of important factors, most notably, are:
A) The growth of Chinese influence beyond the Pacific Ocean region and the South China Sea, and its extension to the Indian Ocean region and the group of sub-regions associated with it.
B) American fear of China has taken more than one level, due to: the large geographical area of the Belt and Road Chinese Initiative, and the extension of the Chinese initiative to a number of major regions in the Indo-Pacific regions, as well as other sub-regions associated with it.
C) In addition to the large Chinese concessions within the seaports on the coasts of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and China’s direction, and most importantly, to build a (new maritime governance).
Hence, China seeks to revitalize a number of its regional alliances in the face of Washington’s alliances in the Indo-Pacific regions, through:
1) Supporting the (Chinese Maritime Silk Road) as a Chinese strategic plan to encircle the Indo-Pacific and the Indo-Pacific regions in the face of the (AUKUS Defense Agreement), which is mainly between Washington and Australia.
2) China will add to its maritime network many of the so-called “nutrition or strategic corridors network“, such as: (securing and strengthening the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor), and these corridors are called “economic corridors”, which in fact serve as strategic highways, allowing China to reach (Indian Ocean through the North Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal).
3) China will undermine the US and Australian naval movements, by strengthening its network of alliances with Asian countries that have joined the (Chinese Belt and Road projects), such as: (Pakistan, Myanmar, Maldives, Sri Lanka) by providing huge infrastructure investments to these countries that are friendly to Beijing, which is eventually allows it to use the ports of those countries close to the areas of American influence in the “Indo-Pacific oceans” to encircle and control American ambitions in the region surrounding China.
4) China will also expand the establishment of “naval and military bases” to protect its interests in the face of Washington, and we find that (China’s naval base in Djibouti), as a prominent example of the increasing development in China’s naval strategy.
5) Also, the arrival of China and its investments in several nearby ports, such as: (Gwadar port in Pakistan, Hambantota port in Sri Lanka, and the ports of the Maldives), would facilitate China’s use of such ports (as logistical support centers for Chinese ships to expand its maritime influence on these ports). Naval spaces facing American moves).
6) China will support its economic weight within the regional countries surrounding the “Indo-Pacific” regions, by establishing:
(A huge Chinese market, a stable Chinese position that ensures the decision-making of trade and investment flows in the region, China’s influence as a center of gravity for the main actors within the emerging international groups, such as: (the Group of Twenty, the BRICS, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and dozens of trade agreements free and regional), which resulted in maximizing the gains of the economies of these countries in their relations with China.
7) China seeks to make a group of (polarizing alliances), that is, to attract partners in confronting Washington. In fact, China’s dilemma in pursuing (balanced policies in the Indo-Pacific) will not be confined to the borders of this region only, but also extends to most other sub-regions, including Southeast Asia. This can be confirmed by the speech of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, in which he proposed (signing a treaty of friendship and peace in the Indo-Pacific region), in a clear indication of the preoccupation of the countries of the region with the risks of conflict and polarization between China, the United States of America, Australia and their allies in that region, which will be reflected on the level of trust between them and in the face of each other.
8) China seeks to strengthen the path of the Chinese project “Belt and Road” to encircle and control the United States of America, through the (economic corridor) that links China with (Central Asia – West Asia), and aims in particular to link China with the Asia region and the Indo-Pacific region across the region. The strategy surrounding it, which enables Beijing to accurately monitor Washington’s movements in the Indo-Pacific regions, which reinforces the failure of US alliances in that region facing China and its regional partners.
9) Also, China will try to thwart American moves in the “Asia-Pacific region“, with the intensification of the dependence of the major economies in the “Indo-Pacific” regions (especially in East and Southeast Asia) on China to provide the largest proportion of its various imports, which gives China special importance within the Indo-Pacific region, even if countries, such as: Australia, are mainly allies of the United States of America.
10) China will also re-emphasize (the strategy of naval deployment in the face of American expansion), which reminds us of what happened in 2014, which witnessed a remarkable extension of the Chinese spread in the maritime domain of the Indian and Pacific oceans, when (three ships from the Chinese navy sailed through the Lombok Strait), which is for the first time that movement has taken place from (the South China Sea to the Pacific Islands), and was followed by the entry of several Chinese warships into (Indian waters) under the pretext of searching for a missing Malaysian plane, which increased Indian and American fears at the time about Beijing’s movements in the Indian and Pacific Oceans region.
11) Beijing will seek to exert control pressure on any American movements in the area facing Australia and China after the “AUKUS Defense Alliance”, as confirmed by (the Australian Broadcasting Corporation) in mid-July 2021, as Australia announced that “it had detected a second Chinese spy ship on its way to enter the waters off the Northeast Australia Coast, a move that enhances Beijing’s presence in the area near Washington and Canberra to monitor, especially after Canberra and Washington began joint military exercises in mid-July 2021”.
Therefore, the Australian Navy monitored the approach of a Chinese naval spy ship approaching Australia, through the (Solomon Sea around Papua New Guinea).
12) The Australian media has also announced several times before that there are movements of Chinese naval intelligence ships on their way to the area around Australia, through the (Torres Strait), with Australian forces announcing that they are monitoring their movements.
13) We find that there are American and Australian accusations leveled at Beijing during the month of July 2021, of China sending two naval vessels to monitor (the Exorcism Sword exercises between the United States of America and Australia), which are exercises that Washington calls “routine exercises in the military cooperation between the United States and Australia”, and are carried out every two years, which aroused fears and ire of China in its confrontation with Washington and Canberra, while seeking to restrict and curb Australian ambitions in the region with mainly American assistance.
Hence, we almost analytically understand the importance of these Chinese moves at all levels, to globally weaken the maritime strategy of the United States and the places of its positioning and spread, after the United States of America relied more on the three main strategic fulcrums in (Europe, Middle East, Asia and Pacific region), the United States is now focusing intensively its efforts on the Indo-Pacific region, which China has tried to exploit by filling the void left by Washington in other maritime areas of influence.
This makes us analyze another level of American deployment in the face of China, which is (the realistic option), meaning:
“The United States can only enhance the position of the global police by being a good policeman in the Asia-Pacific region, and on the western coast of the Pacific, with no real places of power in it except to guard and secure it as a policeman for the region against China”
5) Beijing’s support for the strategy of “maritime governance” in the (Indo-Pacific region), in the face of the “AUKUS Defense Alliance” led by Washington
China issued a new document in 2017, as a part of its strategy in the “Maritime Silk Road“, to build what Beijing described as a “new maritime governance” in the Pacific and Indian Ocean regions, in order to limit the US naval spread in the region, and limit the maritime regional influence of neighboring and surrounding countries to strengthen the mechanism of “maritime consultation, partnership and mutual benefit for all”, according to Beijing’s definition of the “maritime governance” strategy, as a new maritime strategy centered on China within the framework of the maritime part of the Belt and Road Initiative.
– Hence, the Egyptian researcher is trying to analyze the possibility of benefiting from this (new Chinese proposal) for the concept of “maritime governance”, to address the (AUKUS defense agreement) and the maritime division in the Indo-Pacific region, through the following Chinese standards and mechanisms:
1) The Chinese proposal for the concept of “strengthening joint maritime security” within the framework of (Chinese maritime governance of the Indo-Pacific region), as a proposal through which Beijing is trying to cooperate with the Australian side and all countries surrounding that maritime region, to jointly participate together to maintain security and stability of the maritime region, as a “proactive step” by Beijing, mainly to block and restrict the American arguments for (China’s maritime expansion in that region).
2) China, by introducing the “Maritime Governance Strategy”, means “collective maritime cooperation in all fields and various aspects of projects in the Indo-Pacific regions”, and promoting China’s win-win cooperation to deepen the collective commitment to maritime services along the Maritime Silk Road.
3) China has even gone beyond (the peaceful concept of maritime governance) to deeper defense aspects related to “strengthening defense, security, strategic and oversight cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region through consultative, coordinating and cooperative maritime governance”, and this is the essentially ambitious plan that China seeks to achieve in that surrounding region. Australia, which is Washington’s closest traditional ally, is working to limit China’s influence in that region.
4) China called for obtaining the consent of the surrounding maritime countries, which China has taken care to call them in its (Maritime Governance Document), for collective regional maritime cooperation with China to maintain “joint maritime security against any external dangers, threats or interference”, through:
(Building a network for monitoring and controlling the seas, strengthening international cooperation on expanding the application of the Chinese system for “satellite navigation” services, which is known in China as “Beidou application”)
5) China called on all maritime parties surrounding the Indo-Pacific regions through the “Chinese Maritime Governance Document” to develop a number of important relevant regulations on (maritime safety and cooperation in the field of maritime safety and security), and Beijing proposed the following:
A- Establishing a mechanism for bilateral and multilateral management and control
B- Develop collective plans and strategies to maintain the security and safety of maritime navigation
C- Collective regional joint combating of crimes within the maritime lines separating the countries concerned
D- Working on the protection, security and safety of maritime navigation
6) Perhaps the most dangerous part, from the Egyptian researcher’s point of view, is the confirmation of the (Chinese Maritime Governance Document) on China’s readiness to assume all “appropriate obligations to maintain the security and stability of the relevant maritime region”, according to its vision of the implications of “maritime governance and its extension”.
7) Through the Maritime Governance Document, China called for (expanding the areas of win-win maritime cooperation), and those expanded areas for collective regional maritime cooperation in (Indo-Pacific regions) from a Chinese point of view of its concept and definition of maritime governance, passing through:
A- The Chinese Maritime Governance Document, calls for the establishment of a (high-level dialogue mechanism for maritime cooperation) between countries along the Indo-Pacific Maritime Route.
B- China is inviting to sign a (series of maritime cooperation documents) between the governments involved in the Indo-Pacific maritime borders across the Indo-Pacific.
C- The Chinese Maritime Governance Document called for maritime (collective partnership) to develop plans for maritime cooperation and implement projects and various areas of cooperation in that surrounding maritime area.
8) According to the Egyptian researcher’s accurate perception and analysis, the part or part related to the “Chinese Maritime Silk Road Initiative”, and its publication of the “Chinese Maritime Governance” document, may have come (as a proactive attempt by Beijing to confront the US naval expansion and spread in the Indo-Pacific surrounding areas of influence China Maritime), which is the reason why the United States of America signed the (AUKUS Defense Alliance) with Australia and Britain to restrict the Chinese maritime governance document.
9) American fears, and the warnings of its rival allies to China in that region, such as: (Japan and Australia), have grown over the issuance of this Chinese document on maritime governance, which is primarily intended to maximize Chinese maritime influence.
10) Perhaps the most problematic for the signing of the (AUKUS Defense Agreement between Australia, Britain and the United States of America), is the fears raised by Washington and its allies about “the timing of issuing the Chinese maritime governance document,” and China’s overreaching its maritime region and borders that center around (the South China Sea region, and parts of the Pacific Ocean), to cover new marine areas from the “Indian Ocean region”, which are not primarily within the maritime border area of China.
11) In addition to other American and Australian accusations against China of trying to impose a maritime governance document, to extend China’s influence around a number of (water areas and seaports surrounding the Indian and Pacific oceans), (as a Chinese attempt to restructure the balance of power in its favor), and overturning all areas of influence of other powers for their own benefit and even control over them.
12) Because of this, the American consensus came with the network of traditional allies in the Indo-Pacific region, to agree on the need to primarily form alliances directed against Beijing’s maritime ambitions, whether (Quad Quartet alliances led by Washington or the AUKUS Defense Alliance led as well by Washington).
13) Perhaps this new transformation came in the re-drafting of a new maritime term that documents those “marine borders that do not enter or share with China to separate Beijing’s maritime borders with other surrounding regional maritime states”.
14) Therefore, the new emergence in recent years of new maritime security vocabulary, and the implicit abandonment of the use of the “Asia-Pacific” concept, and the “Indo-Pacific Document” was actually issued in 2017, because (the Asia-Pacific concept) shares China in a large parts of its borders, while its deportation by referring to the “Indo-Pacific” region, enters in China to another specific region that doesn’t fall within its scope, and this region, according to the American perception and its allies, is known as, the “Indo-Pacific” region.
15) Hence, the concept of “Indo-Pacific” adopted by Washington and its allies in the region surrounding China aims primarily to restrict and curb Chinese ambitions, and it is a concept contrary to the Chinese maritime space in the “Asia-Pacific” region, in order to mainly deal with all Chinese maritime movements in the region, which does not fall within China’s areas of influence, which China strongly rejects, stressing the entry of part of the Indo-Pacific region, and the new designation of the name of the region, as “Indo-Pacific” within the joint maritime borders of China with those countries.
15) The Egyptian researcher reached the Chinese viewpoint rejecting the concept of “Indo-Pacific“, as a vague concept put forward by the United States of America with its network of allies in the maritime region near China, in addition to proposing concepts and general borders that do not rise to dealing with the region.
Based on the previous proposition, we note that the majority, whether on the American or Chinese side, is the intensification of reliance on (the pattern of alliances and partnerships) in confronting each other, which will make it difficult for the United States of America to create a new world order with an alliance of democracies together as promoted by the current American administration led by the “Joe Biden“, which leads to the transmission of this split-over to other regions in the world, and the increasing intensity and degree of American and Chinese polarization against each other, which will increase the intensity and intensity of the level of competition / conflict in this important theater of regional and global politics, and its extension to regions Others in the world such as the Middle East, South and Latin America, the Caribbean, and others.
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).
Vaccine Passports Mandated in the New World Order
At this moment in western democracies, we are passing into a period of great unrest -social, political, and corporate where governments are enabling and exploiting the coronavirus pandemic to justify the suppression of civil rights. We became prone to think by merely reciting The Constitution, a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or great acts of past patriotism that the future liberties are forever secure to us because we simply inherited the fine qualities of common descent and live in the same democratic territories.
This is not about whether one should take the COVID-19 vaccine to protect themselves from illness but rather the dangers of the health crisis becoming the vehicle where totalitarianism has invoked a state of emergency where vaccine passports are compulsory to quell a global and national threat. We are going over the cliff where governments target their doctrine, release paramilitary forces such a Big Tech’s oversight to control and remove opposing medical opinions and science on their social media platforms, and subvert the rule of law –all historical and identifiable steps recognized to crush representative forms of government.
Robust democracies have seen this unfold very rapidly and systematically where vaccine executive orders, corporate policy, and the swift erosion of privacy and freedom to assemble are all acceptable trade-offs in complying with the restrictions and mandates for the gratifications to travel, dine out, attend family events and entertainment as well as removing the fear of one’s employment being terminated, and escape personal shaming by friends, co-workers, and even family for not abiding.
President Joe Biden’s claim that the pandemic is a pandemic of the unvaccinated where selfish humans are a threat to those already vaccinated is a most potent force for evil. This mendacity to slander has now put a premium on the knavery to attack those unwilling to insert a medicine into their bodies. The hysterical exaggeration to assail with such divisiveness has exacerbating social divisions and created a much greater epidemic of indiscriminate assault of the character with calls to arrest them, lock them out of society, and even calling them murderers.
Those who ask questions are vilified, suppressed, and censored. Federal agencies, mainstream media and social media insist they alone represent science, and any other interpretation of data is labeled dangerous misinformation. Even if one disagrees, and the unvaccinated continue to be attacked in a historic, explicit, and untruthful fashion, the attack by the politician will do more harm to the public mind than the crime of one’s constitutional rights and freedoms to decline the injections.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s address to the United Nations used the pandemic as an excuse to contain the masses and accentuate the “Great Reset”, a formal initiative from the World Economic Forum, when he stated, “This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset. This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts, to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality, and climate change.” The global elites orchestrating Covid-19 lockdowns and passports to usher in this ‘Great Reset’ should alarm you.
Preparations to control the populations were in motion when the Canadian Military was caught using the Pandemic to test propaganda techniques in what can only be described as a hatched blueprint for governments to suppress their unsuspected citizens. In response, the Canadian Forces acknowledged that tactical policies and doctrines are aimed at adversaries and have limited application domestically, however these schemes were discovered to be implemented on their own citizens to head off civil disobedience by Canadians during the pandemic and enhance command decisions in targeting those who criticize the government’s pandemic mandates.
If you are still skeptical that freedoms are not under threat, a Polish Canadian pastor, Artur Pawlowski recently landed in his home city of Calgary following a four-month tour of the US where customs officials were waiting for him. While on his knees, Pawlowski was cuffed on tarmac and his electronic devices were confiscated. Pawlowski had been traveling over the summer to spread his warning that Western governments increasingly resemble the communist regime in Poland that he fled as a young man. After being away for months, he was not even allowed to hug his wife and children before being taken away
On previous occasions, armed and uninvited officials entered Pawlowski’s church sanctuary during a worship service where he called them Nazis; and then a motorcade of police pulled him over in the middle of a busy highway to arrest him. One can argue whether the pastor should have been wearing a mask in public or holding services, but one does not imagine the ruthless and heavy-handed tactics normally witnessed in tyrannical nations and not in Canada unless there is a much bigger agenda to break this man and send a frightful message to any other dissidents contemplating to speak out against their government.
In another teetering democracy, the Australian Deputy Premier of New South Wales, John Barilard, spouted to the unvaccinated that if you choose not to be vaccinated, you will lose your freedoms. Police are now physically taking down their own citizens and arresting them if you happen to walk through the neighbourhood while not wearing a mask or ascertaining if they have been vaccinated.
One must wonder what is really going on with this crackdown reminiscent of the Chinese Communist response in the early days of the pandemic when there have been only 1,300 COVID-related deaths in Australia from a population of nearly 26 million. Overall deaths in the first half of 2021 were 71,500, an increase of 4,200 on average over the past 5 years while this virus would be responsible for a mere 400 deaths in a six-month period. The answer was clear when Dr. Kerry Chant, a leading health official in New South Wales, stated emphatically that we will be looking at what contact tracing looks like in the New World Order.
All the restrictions, vaccines, and school and business closures now lead us to the most dangerous tool in the repertoire. Once accepted and in popular use, there is no more choice remaining to participate in society. Created on the similar platform as the Communist Chinese Party’s surveillance QR code, the vaccine passport and its future use is the linchpin to government approvals in this New World Order.
First, governments, places of education, and hospitals made the passport mandatory under a state of a health emergency to maintain one’s employment, achieve an education, and attend events. Large corporations and smaller businesses are not only following suit now with the passport path made clear, but they also became the front door fascist arbitrators in checking one’s vaccine papers to assimilate into the global technocracy.
Currently there are numerous passport programs attempting to meet a wide range of public and private organization’s requirements. The Vaccination Credential Initiative VCI, whose members include the Mayo Clinic, Microsoft, Apple, Wal-Mart, the states of New York and California, and more than 220 other organizations, are looking to verify COVID-19 and other health information with a common standardized smartphone app that could be used worldwide.
By incorporating the data in a smartphone app, people will always have their passport readily available when required by the authorities. Organizations such as the US Centers for Disease Control and the UN World Health Organization will determine the required digital health documents that must be contained in the app.
Governments and the VCI will advocate for greater security due to widespread counterfeit passports and cybersecurity concerns over hackers gaining access to personal information. Additionally, more than a billion people globally cannot prove their identity with no issued birth certificate or access to a smartphone.
The solution to these issues and ensuring authentic vaccine verification will be the use of iris-based biometric systems that allow people even in the most remote places on earth to be downloaded into the global database by using a portable scanner. The technology will be dubbed a gamechanger with its secure and accurate features, and the cost-efficient rollout.
The contactless iris-based technology records the unique patterns in the colored ring surrounding the pupil to authenticate identity; including infants whose patterns form within the first year of life. Industry experts will enroll a person in the one-time biometric database in a few seconds, while authentication requires only a second to complete. This technology will adhere to international standards and eliminate the need for photo ID.
Another great democracy, the United Kingdom, has moved quickly in utilizing a vaccine passport that processes biometric facial recognition data. The National Health Services admitted that private data collected can be accessed by UK law enforcement. The NHS has not publicly disclosed the contract with iProov, the private company apparently operating the app, and it unclear whether the NHS has completed a privacy risk assessment of the collected data; however, it is known that one of iProov’s customers is the US Department of Homeland Security. The crossover of data to the department known to track terrorist threats could very well expand operations to conduct surveillance on anti-passport dissidents.
A group of UK lawyers established to challenge technocracy suggested that we should all reflect on whether we are heading towards a world where people must use their faces just to walk into the supermarket or the pharmacy or the nightclub. A prominent doctor added that once this stuff is brought in. it’s difficult to get rid of with COVID being the opportunity to gain a foothold.
The extension of the app beyond the pretext of the pandemic is evident with the Chinese Communist Party’s surveillance QR code lingering and being maintained beyond the pandemic. The technologies in the passport will see the system ‘function creep’ its way into new purposes. China possesses over half the world’s 800 million close circuit cameras located along every street to constantly scan one’s movement, purchases, behaviour, and who you are communicating with. This is all possible through Skynet, an interlinked system of facial recognition and surveillance to identify citizens in a national database. According to state media, Skynet is fast enough to scan the entire population in under a second with an accuracy rate of 99.8%.
History tends to repeat itself. In leading up to the Holocaust, there was a time like today with vaccine passports and mandates being required to enter a restaurant, attend school, or board a plane where the freedoms and businesses of the lives of millions of Jews were being destroyed as the Gestapo demanded papers from every German. Much of what is happening today throughout western democracies; particularly to the unvaccinated had taken place in 1938, including the popular support of the government’s actions whether it be Germany’s Third Reich or current governments implementing draconian vaccine mandates.
This is not about vaccines since both the vaccinated and unvaccinated can transmit COVID-19, but rather forcibly injecting people or become a sub-human dissident and wear the Jewish star on your clothing. Social media and the mainstream news have effectively become the neo-fascist public relations arm of the governments in putting forth their non-stop messaging and experts pinning the pandemic against the unvaccinated.
The vaccine passport has effectively created a list of who will be persecuted, who will lose their job, who will lose their education, who will lose their dignity, and who will be shut out and left behind. The Nazis also had a list of Jews and those who disagreed with the agenda. These people were enemies of the state, sent to concentration camps, and disappeared over night.
Today, there is a clear example and modeling in Xinjang, Northwest China, where the cultural elimination of the mostly Muslim Uighurs is taking place. The most intensive surveillance of this religious people includes providing DNA, undergoing digital and biometric scans, and they must always carry a smartphone with tracking apps or be arrested. Many Uighurs are blindfolded and transported in trains to re-education detention camps -reminiscent of a time when hated humans were crammed into trains on a one-way trip to Auschwitz.
One of the most shocking revelations coming out of Canada under the COVID-19 public health emergency is Martial Law-like measures being prepared as noted by the Order of the Lieutenant Governor Council 465/2021 dated September 13, 2021, that declares sweeping powers of the government in the Province of Saskatchewan. These powers under the Act will be enacted in other regional jurisdictions as we begin to witness hospitals collapse with the unvaccinated terminated and food and fuel shortages resulting in panic buying.
The draconian powers in Saskatchewan include assuming control of local authorities and acquire or utilize personal property necessary, control and prohibit travel -likely military checkpoints, the removal of persons, livestock, and personal property including entry without a warrant, procure and fix food and fuel prices, collect and disclose information to prevent or combat the effects of the emergency, and conscript persons where required. These actions can no longer be considered a conspiracy theory.
Will the future of democracies slide into a system of values where a quasi-democratic neo-fascist and hybrid communist alliance of mutual interest wins the world over in its quest for political supremacy where freedom has been consumed by social conditioning?
We may do well to look back at the soldier who had the power to lose his own life for the life of a larger cause, and decide if we, an intruder or mere outsider, also possess the spirit of courage that holds personal suffering of no account and have the foresight and conscience to reverse this great wrong which has sapped the foundation of self-government by the people and for the people.
The Curious Case of Russian Cyberattacks in India
As the world grapples with the COVID-19 pandemic, the technological shifts have made working remotely a reality for millions of people. But it is not just the ‘Zoom fatigue’ that has been on rise due to the drastic increase of virtual workspaces. According to data from India’s Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), cyber-attacks in India rose by almost 300 percent in 2020 in comparison to 2019.
Not only India, but other countries like US, UK, and Germany too are witnessing an increase in cyber-attacks aimed at stealing, sabotaging, or destroying data. However, high usage of legacy systems in India, both in offices and homes, puts India at a higher risk. According to a report released in June this year, by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), India is categorised as a Tier 3 nation based on its core cyber-intelligence capabilities, cyber security and resilience, strategy and doctrine, and offensive cyber capability. While US is the only nation in Tier 1, and Tier 2 consists of nations like Australia, China, Canada, France, Israel and Russia; India stands with Iran, Malaysia, Vietnam and North Korea with significant weaknesses in some of the categories mentioned above.
A 2018 report by F-secure, a cyber-security firm who deployed ‘honeypots’ across the world to enable information collection regarding cyber-attacks, highlighted that India had faced over 695,000 cyber-attacks between June and July 2018, with most cases emerging from Russia (more than 250,000).
More recently in March this year, a report by Cyfirma- a Goldman Sachs backed Singapore based threat intelligence firm, highlighted that Indian pharma companies and hospitals have been targeted by Russian, Chinese and Korean hacker groups, and identified 15 active hacking groups, again most groups linked to Russia (7).
The Russian Cyber-offensive
It is not hard to believe that Russia has been pointed out as the biggest source for cyber-attacks, considering frequent reports and allegations put on Russia-based groups since over a decade. Russia and US have engaged in cyber espionage campaigns for long and now China has also entered the fray.
But the question that needs consideration is whether the Indian government is ready to acknowledge that Russian hackers have become the biggest source of cyber-attacks on India, and whether New Delhi mulls over expressing displeasure about this to Moscow. Various reports have attributed cyber-attacks on India originating from Russian groups like APT-29 or the ‘Cozy Bear’- the group also accused of hacking US government agencies in 2014-15 and alleged to be aligned with the Russian intelligence services.
This displeasure would not be without precedent when it comes to Russian origin cyber-attacks. In June this year, the US president Joe Biden asked Russian president Vladimir Putin during their summit how Putin would feel if a ransomware attack hits Russia’s oil network (referring to an attack on the US pipeline network recently). The US president wants to take a stern approach towards cyber-attacks from Russia and has commented that he will take ‘any necessary action’ to stop them. In the same month, the Polish government blamed Russia secret services for a wave of cyber-attacks on Polish government officials from various political parties. And in September this year, Germany has accused Russia of cyber-attacks to interfere in elections to choose Germany’s new chancellor to succeed Angela Merkel.
However, New Delhi has refrained from releasing any statement.
It can be argued that when it comes to cyber-attacks, in absence of ability to assign accurate culpability on any individual, group or country, New Delhi would not want to sour relations with Moscow, given the strong partnership between India and Russia witnessed in the last two decades. Moreover, the categories like ‘Russian origin’, or ‘Russian speaking’, used by US based reports and allegations, leave a lot to be interpreted.
Many reports have highlighted that China based hackers and groups have hit Russian systems, which are alleged to be backed by state authorities. In a report by a US company Sentinel One, a hacker group associated with China was involved in using malicious software to hack websites of Russian government agencies for stealing confidential government data. While this means that Russia and China conduct cyber espionage against each other, similar reciprocity from India towards Russia has not been observed.
Moreover, it cannot be ruled out that China uses Russian-origin groups to hit Indian cyberspace, given how several reports point towards common goals of Russia and China based hacking groups in multiple realms like counter espionage against US and the continuously developing alliances and groupings in the Indo-pacific region which are seen by China and Russia as mechanisms for their containment. But any finger-pointing by New Delhi towards Moscow in public domain will only bring delight to Beijing.
In 2015, an official statement from Indian Ministry of Home Affairs had said that India and Russia will form an ‘expert group’ on cybersecurity to jointly fight the threat of terrorism (from Islamic extremists such as ISIS). However, it turned out to be only a gesture from the two sides and not working model evolved.
At present, Budapest convention is the main legally binding multilateral treaty which criminalises cyber-crime and coordinates cybercrime investigations between nation-states. India and Russia are both non-signatories to this convention. Instead, in last few years Russia has led a campaign for a cyber-crime convention to be adopted in United Nations, which includes an expanded list of cyber-crime categories. In 2019, India had voted in favour of the UN resolution for adopting this draft convention.
For now, as highlighted by many experts, India is in utmost need for a National Cyber Strategy. New Delhi needs to formulate policies to upgrade the legacy systems and take measures to shield all possible routes that can be utilised to harm India’s cyber-security. New Delhi should talk to Moscow when it comes to tightening grips on Russian origin cyber-attacks on India. Given the historical closeness in India-Russia relationship and the rejuvenation both nations have witnessed in last few years, New Delhi’s concerns might not be brushed aside by Moscow, like those of US.
The U.S. Might Finally Be Ready to Back Down, to Avoid WW III
Recently, tensions have been rising between, on the one hand, America, and on the other, both Russia and China. A...
How The West Subdue Us: An Approach of Colonial and Development Discourse
Talking about development and colonial discourse, I am reminded the story of John Perkins in his book “Confessions of an...
Formation of the Political West -from the 18th century till today
The 18th – a century of change In 1776 the American colonists threw off the British yoke and many people...
Reducing industrial pollution in the Niger River Basin
The Niger River is the third-longest river in Africa, running for 4,180 km (2,600 miles) from its source in south-eastern...
Standards & Digital Transformation – Good Governance in a Digital Age
In celebration of World Standards Day 2021, celebrated on 14 October every year, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)...
Accelerating COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake to Boost Malawi’s Economic Recovery
Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries including Malawi have struggled to mitigate its impact amid limited fiscal...
UN: Paraguay violated indigenous rights
Paraguay’s failure to prevent the toxic contamination of indigenous people’s traditional lands by commercial farming violates their rights and their sense of “home”, the UN Human Rights...
Defense3 days ago
The U.S. may not involve military confrontation in the South China Sea
Arts & Culture2 days ago
Squid Game, Style influence and Sustainable consumption
Europe4 days ago
Revisiting the Birthplace of Non-Aligned Movement
Green Planet4 days ago
It’s not fair to single out the five countries in the Greta Thunberg UN children-climate case
Americas3 days ago
The international disorder after the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the causes of the Taliban victory
Terrorism4 days ago
Trends of Online Radicalization in Bangladesh: Security Implications
Europe3 days ago
German Election: Ramifications for the US Foreign Policy
East Asia3 days ago
Kishida and Japan-Indonesia Security Relations: The Prospects