China's Economic News

Discussion in 'China' started by Martian, Aug 6, 2010.

  1. Martian
    Offline

    Martian Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    319
    China's exports surged to 15% world share

    China, Citigroup Agree: There's No Need for Big Yuan Devaluation | Bloomberg

    [​IMG]
    "While China’s exports are slowing, they’re still edging out competitors. The country’s share in global exports surged to an unprecedented 15 percent this year, from 8.7 percent in January 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The ratio increased even as the inflation-adjusted yuan rate appreciated 33 percent against its major trading partners.
    ...
    Chinese exporters are resilient amid the yuan’s appreciation partly because it’s difficult for companies to replicate the manufacturing system, including infrastructure, supply chain and skilled labors, in other countries, according to Alex Wolf, an economist for emerging markets at Standard Life Investments Ltd.
    ...
    The importance of overseas shipments as an economic growth driver has been declining. Exports accounted for 23 percent of the economy last year, compared with a peak of 36 percent in 2006, according to the World Bank."
     
  2. positron
    Offline

    positron Captain FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    182
    Country Flag:
    India
    Chinese shares drop in dramatic slide
    Chinese shares continued their sharp fall on Monday as concerns over the country's slowing growth and volatile markets sparked panic among traders.

    The mainland benchmark index, the Shanghai Composite, fell sharply by 8.4% to 3,211.75 points, extending last week's losses.

    The sell-off continued despite China's latest attempts to reassure investors.

    Over the weekend, Beijing said it planned to let its main state pension fund invest in the stock market.

    Under the new rules, the fund will be allowed to invest up to 30% of its net assets in domestically-listed shares.

    The fund will be allowed to invest not just in shares but in a range of market instruments, including derivatives. By increasing demand for them, the government hopes prices will rise.

    The Hong Kong Hang Seng index followed the mainland's sharp decline, dropping 4% to 21,523.57 points in early trade.

    A 'one-trick pony'?
    Simon Littlewood, president at business advisory firm ACG Global told the BBC there were concerns that the world's second biggest economy was "a one-trick pony as they have been trying repeatedly over the past few months to put more liquidity into their economy", yet so far have failed to calm markets.

    Over the past week, China's benchmark Shanghai Composite fell 12%, adding up to a 30% drop since the middle of June.

    The sharp fall sparked a global sell-off, with the Dow Jones in the US losing 6%, while the UK's FTSE 100 posted its biggest weekly loss this year of 5%.

    Earlier this month, the Chinese central bank devalued the yuan in an attempt to boost exports.

    Elsewhere in Asia, the region's biggest stock market, Japan's Nikkei 225 traded 2.8% lower at 18,907.39 points in Monday morning trade.

    It marks the Nikkei's lowest level in nearly five months.

    In Australia, the S&P/ASX 200 was down by 2.9% to 5,063.50 points.

    Iron ore miner Fortescue posted an 88% drop in annual net profit as the sector was hit by a global drop in commodity prices. Fortescue shares were down by more than 10% on the weak results.

    In South Korea, the Kospi index followed the region's lead, trading 1.4% lower at 1,850.56 points.

    Earlier on Monday, stock markets in the Middle East also fell sharply.

    Chinese traders have seen equities drop some 30% since June
    IMF: 'No crisis'
    Over the weekend, the International Monetary Fund weighed in on the global sell-off in an attempt to avoid further market panic.

    China's economic slowdown and fall in equities was not a crisis but a "necessary" adjustment for the economy, a senior IMF official said on Sunday.

    "It's totally premature to speak of a crisis in China", Carlo Cottarelli, IMF executive director representing countries such as Italy and Greece on its board, told a press conference, reiterating the international lender's forecast for a 6.8% expansion of the Chinese economy this year, below the 7.4% growth achieved in 2014.

    On Friday, figures showed China's factory activity in August shrank at its fastest pace in more than six years.

    This came after official figures showed the country's economic growth continuing to slow. For the three months to the end of July, the economy grew by 7% compared with a year earlier - its slowest pace since 2009.


    Chinese shares drop in dramatic slide - BBC News

    CHINA BE ...... IT WILL AFFECT OTHER ASIAN MARKETS TOO
     
  3. Martian
    Offline

    Martian Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,662
    Likes Received:
    319
  4. Ghanta
    Offline

    Ghanta FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    90
    Country Flag:
    India
    Is China's Economy Past the Point of No Return?
    [​IMG]
    Gordon G. Chang
    December 25, 2016

    TweetShareShare
    [​IMG]
    The most important driver of events in 2017 could very well be the Chinese economy, which is shaking the country’s political system and affecting its external policies.

    Beijing, which once thought it would dominate the world, has been playing defense for the last year and a half as almost no economic trend has been going its way.

    Next year, China’s economy will more resemble the turbulent 2015 than the relatively calm 2016. The measures employed to stabilize the situation, which looked like they worked in the beginning of this year, have only made it more difficult for Chinese technocrats to rescue the situation in the longer term.

    We start on the 14th of this month, when Janet Yellen inadvertently highlighted China’s fragility. The Federal Reserve’s hawkish comments on interest rates—the central bank signaled three rate increases next year instead of the expected two—along with the quarter-point rise in rates forced bond prices down across the world. In China, the damage was historic.

    Last Thursday, just a few hours after the Fed’s announcements, futures on China’s benchmark 10-year obligation stopped trading when they hit the daily down limit, the first time that has ever occurred. Trading on the five-year also was halted, another first. The People’s Bank of China, the central bank, injected the equivalent of $22 billion in short-term money, and that allowed trading to resume.

    The next day, bond prices recovered in China, but only because the PBOC injected more than $57 billion. Beijing, by brute force, was able to stabilize the bond market, already rocked by defaults and cancelled offerings.

    And the Chinese central bank has also muscled the currency markets by orchestrating rescues. The renminbi is ailing, down 6.9% this year against the dollar. Beijing once had ambitions of the “redback” replacing the greenback as the world’s reserve currency, but now it is merely trying to stage an orderly descent.

    If the renminbi were allowed to float and if there were no capital controls, Chinese money would become worthless. China’s people and businesses certainly don’t want to hold it, and increasingly the same is true for foreigners. International use of the renminbi, even in the face of Beijing’s strenuous efforts, has declined this year.

    Last year, there was $1 trillion of net capital outflow according to Bloomberg. This year, despite the imposition of draconian capital controls, the outflow could approach last year’s astounding total. And those controls, which are now failing to prevent capital fleeing, are working against Beijing’s efforts to attract investment cash from the outside. Few want to invest in China because repatriation risk is high and growing.

    Many people, pointing to China’s forex reserves, don’t worry about a tumbling currency. The State Administration of Foreign Exchange, the custodian of the country’s forex hoard, reports that those reserves amounted to $3.05 trillion as of the end of last month.

    Yet that number is almost certainly too high. Beijing has been engaging in dubious practices designed to hide the depletion of reserves caused by the support of the renminbi. For instance, there is incomplete reporting of its use of forward contracts to mask its selling of dollars, a trick Chinese technocrats learned from Brazil in 2013.

    More important, Beijing has used its reserves, which are supposed to remain liquid, for long-term investments, such as the so-called One Belt, One Road infrastructure projects, and for loans to Venezuela and other risky borrowers. The reserves have also been deployed to capitalize China Investment Corp., the country’s sovereign wealth fund. No one outside a small circle in Beijing knows the amount of these ill-liquid investments, but they amount to at least $400 billion.

    Finally, SAFE’s monthly announcements of changes in the reserves are questionable. It has continually been announcing monthly declines smaller than the estimates of analysts, a sign of deliberate misreporting.

    In short, China’s liquid reserves are, in all probability, substantially less than Beijing claims, which means the country may soon run out of ammunition to defend the sagging renminbi. The liquid reserves are almost certainly far smaller than the $2.8 trillion IMF guidelines recommend China maintains.

    None of this would matter if China’s economy were growing fast. The official National Bureau of Statistics has announced that gross domestic product increased 6.7% in each of the first three quarters of the year. Many observers believe growth is more likely to be half that figure.

    Yet even if China is growing at a 6.7% clip, the country is creating debt at least five times faster than incremental GDP. At the moment, the debt-to-GDP ratio could be as high as the 350% that George Soros noted in January at Davos or the 400% that the respected Orient Capital Research in Hong Kong estimated at the beginning of this year. In any event, debt is far too high and its rate of accumulation much too quick.

    Beijing can continue its rescue efforts for some time—perhaps years—because it runs an increasingly state-dominated economy, but state economies tend to fail spectacularly when they go.

    Why? Underlying imbalances build up while leaders postpone downward adjustments, like they have been doing, especially since 2008. They will continue to intervene until they no longer have the ability to do so. When they no longer have that ability, their economy will go into free fall.

    And the election of Donald J. Trump makes the work of Chinese leaders far more complicated. If the 45th president engineers a recovery in growth in America with lower taxes and less regulation, even more money will flow back across the Pacific and make it almost impossible for China to avoid a severe contraction.

    A severe contraction has implications for Xi Jinping, China’s wilful leader. He has taken over much of the economics portfolio from Premier Li Keqiang, a long-term rival, and therefore has made himself the “Chairman of Everything.” As such, Xi has become responsible for all economic developments, but he can neither control them nor solve problems. China’s economy could very well be past the point of no return, and so Xi’s hold on power cannot be as firm as many suggest.

    Already, there are hints that the country’s severe economic problems have affected the still-incomplete leadership transition from Hu Jintao to Xi. Premier Li, from the same political faction as Hu, and Xi clashed in July over the role of state enterprises in the economy. In May, Xi tried to take down Li by criticizing his debt-fueled policies in the pages of People’s Daily, the most authoritative publication in China, by arranging for an “authoritative person” to warn of a “systemic financial crisis.” Senior figures this year could not keep their disagreements out of sight, and the feuding is a sign of a fracturing leadership team.

    Infighting at the top, over economic and other issues, affects the country’s external policies. As civilians like Xi and Li squabble, the generals and the admirals of the People’s Liberation Army are gaining political influence.

    We saw hints of PLA power when Bo Xilai, one of the country’s most popular political figures, ran to the headquarters of the 14th Group Army in Kunming in February 2012, during the time of his desperate maneuverings.

    Xi’s purges of Bo and the infamous Zhou Yongkang, the former internal security boss, were related to their apparent collusion with PLA elements. This collusion is what made their defiance especially dangerous to Xi.

    All this suggests China’s flag officers have now eased into a powerbroker role. The military lost political power in the 1990s as China transitioned from Deng Xiaoping, a military officer, to Jiang Zemin, a civilian.

    But the PLA has been making a comeback since the turn of the century as civilian leaders enlisted flag officers in their political struggles with each other, something apparent in the transition from Jiang to Hu Jintao.

    And apparent in the transition from Hu to Xi. Once attaining the top spot, Xi has looked to certain officers to be the core of his political support. As a result, these generals and admirals now wield great influence over him, who relies on them for their backing. And Xi’s military support becomes more crucial to him as his popularity among civilian officials erodes, something evident from a series of acts of defiance in public in March.

    At the moment, China’s general officers, pursing their “military diplomacy,” seem to be setting and implementing Beijing’s external policies, and this process has made those policies more provocative.

    The weakening of China’s economy and its increasing belligerence are occurring in tandem, and the progression from one to the other appears to be related. For one thing, a deteriorating economy will undermine Xi Jinping’s bold efforts to consolidate power, and the resulting disunity will surely make China’s external posture unpredictable.

    The country could turn inward, but lashing out looks more probable, especially if Chinese leaders think the decline in the economy will close a window of opportunity to achieve historic goals, like enlargement of Chinese control over neighboring lands and peripheral seas.

    China’s economy is moving in wrong directions. In many ways, the rest of the world is bound to suffer as a result.

    Gordon G. Chang is the author of The Coming Collapse of China. Follow him on Twitter @GordonGChang.


    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-economy-past-the-point-no-return-18858?page=show
     
  5. Picdelamirand-oil
    Online

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel STRATEGIST

    Messages:
    6,781
    Likes Received:
    4,057
    Country Flag:
    France
    CHINA’S GLOBALIST AGENDA
    Facebook VK blogger LiveJournal Twitter Google+ Email Print Partager
    ECONOMICS
    GLOBAL ATLANTICISM
    [​IMG]
    16.01.2017
    China
    Kerry Bolton
    Modern China a Creation of Wall Street

    Finally China is to make an unequivocal declaration of support for globalisation. President Xi Jinping will be aptly making the globalist declaration at the World Economic Forum in Davos during January 17-20. This meeting of Davos is reported to be focusing on the rise of anti-globalist reaction as epitomised by the election of Trump. It will also likely address the concern at the rise of ‘populism’, the conservative political manifestation of anti-globalism that is not as easy to co-opt as the ‘left-wing’ variety, as indicated – again – by the left’s histrionic opposition to Trump.

    This Davos meeting will provide for a parting swing by U.S. plutocrats and their frontmen, with the USA being represented by Vice President Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry in their presumably final notable acts in those positions.

    Reportedly what President Xi will be touting is ‘inclusive globalisation’, while condemning ‘populism’ as promoting ‘war and poverty’. His globalisation agenda for Davos was outlined by Jiang Jianguo, head of the State Council Information Office, who told a symposium hosted by the World Trade Organisation at Geneva that ‘President Xi would go to Davos to push for development, cooperation and economic globalization in order to build “a human community with shared destiny”’. (‘China; Xi to promote globalization at Davos, not war and poverty’, Reuters, 11 January 2017; http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/11/chinas-xi-to-promote-globalization-at-davos-not-war-and-poverty.html). Jiang explained:

    ‘With the rise of populism, protectionism, and nativism, the world has come to a historic crossroad where one road leads to war, poverty, confrontation and domination while the other road leads to peace, development, cooperation and win-win solutions’. (Ibid).

    Vice Foreign Minister Li Baodong, in a briefing on Davos, said that ‘China would respond to the international community’s concern over globalization by putting forward Beijing’s opinions on how to “steer economic globalization toward greater inclusiveness”. Li said criticism of trade protectionism leveled at China, by Trump and others, was unjust. “Trade protectionism will lead to isolation and is in the interest of no one,” he said’. (Ibid).

    Here we have the primary rhetoric that the globalists have long been using. The supposed demands and expectations of an ‘international community’ is an euphemism for the ‘international community’ of oligarchs, and the ‘public opinion’ generated by their mass media. Doing so in the name of ‘peace, development, and co-operation’ is indicative that China adopts the word-spin that has been used by Western politicians since Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points promoted ‘free trade’ as a war aim in the name of a ‘new world order’, as it is now called. Imperial adventures since Alexander the Great have been justified in the name of peace and co-operation, and in today’s era often by reference to ‘human rights’. World War II was fought by the USA in the interests – again- of world free trade (globalisation) as overtly stated in Roosevelt’s Atlantic Charter. The devastation of Serbia in order to obtain the mineral wealth of Kosovo via globalisation was undertaken in the name of ‘peace and co-operation’. There is now a Kosovan department of privatisation. And so we might continue through history to the present day, with the imperial adventures, wars and revolutions that have been undertaken in the name of ‘peace’. China jumps aboard the globalist bandwagon and its true face is exposed now that there is a U.S. president-elect who has made some comments indicating that America’s globalist trade and foreign policies might be reversed. Now that lines of interest are being defined more forthrightly,

    China is forced to show its hand as a primary partisan of globalisation. Indeed, if Trump does reverse the globalism, despite the prominence of luminaries from Goldman Sachs as his economic advisers, China will emerge as the primary state sponsor of globalisation, with Soros, Goldman Sachs, and Rockefeller clutching the coat-tails.

    China is as always dominated by self-interest in the name of theoretical slogans. While practising a command economy it demands that other states remain open to their dumping. In New Zealand’ situation, recently poor quality Chinese steel has been imported. There is presently an investigation into the steel dumping, but there are always concerns when questions are raised in regard to trade with China that she will retaliate. This is ‘partnership’ and ‘co-operation’ as defined by China; the other ‘partner’ must always remain subservient. This demanded subservience is part of China’s mentality over millennia, when the emperor was upheld as the world ruler as mandated by heaven. This imperial mentality has substituted the state for the emperor. The steel dumping is a practical example of what China means by ‘globalisation’. (‘MBIE launches investigation into Chinese steel dumping’, Stuff Business Day, 23 December 20156; http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/87920079/MBIE-launches-investigation-into-Chinese-steel-dumping).

    The omnipotent Henry Kissinger
    Vice Foreign Minister Li added that ‘Channels of communication are open’ between China and Trump’s transition team at the forum, ‘but warned that scheduling a meeting might be difficult’. Again, the attitude is one of dominance and contempt for the foreigner behind the smiles and handshakes and Western-style business suits. However, regardless of Trump’s policy, the U.S. oligarchy is always assured influential contact with China via the perennial Henry Kissinger. The former Secretary of State, who has been close to oligarchic and especially Rockefeller interests for most of his long life, has not lost any time in assuring that regardless of Trump, China’s relations with the globalists will be maintained. Why would China need to maintain formal diplomatic relations with a Trump government when there will be business as usual via Kissinger’s jaunts between the highest levels of American and Chinese business?

    Kissinger, whose so-called ‘ping pong diplomacy’ brought China into the world trade system during the 1970s, was fulfilling a major aim of the globalists, and in particular Rockefeller interests centred around the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. Bloomberg News reports that Kissinger was in Beijing soon after Trump’s election, after having had secret talks with Trump on 18 November. Kissinger told CNN that ‘people should not be nailing’ Trump ‘to positions that he had taken in the campaign on which he doesn’t insist’. (‘China, Grappling With Trump, Turns to “Old Friend” Kissinger’, Bloomberg News, 2 December 2016,https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ling-with-trump-turns-to-old-friend-kissinger).

    If saving jobs from globalisation, which Trump clearly identified with China, is not a bottom line for the president-elect then nothing is. It is troubling if Trump indicated to Kissinger that the comments on China and globalisation were just election rhetoric. Certainly the appointments to the Cabinet from Goldman Sachs do not promote confidence.

    Kissinger met with President Xi, thanking him for explaining ‘the nature of your thinking and the purposes of your long-range policy’; while Xi responded that he was ‘all ears to what you have to say about the current world situation and the future growth of China-U.S. relations’.

    Gao Zhikai, interpreter for the late Chinese leader Deng, who had frequently met Kissinger, said that Kissinger was in ‘a unique position’ to act as ‘a messenger’ between the USA and China. ‘No one could replace him,’ Gao said. ‘No other Americans could get the same respect from the Chinese leaders or have as honest exchanges with Chinese leaders’. (Ibid).

    The Bloomberg report states that Kissinger has visited China 80 times since his secret trip in 1971 (according to the official Xinhua News Agency) to restore diplomatic relations, and has met every Chinese leader since Mao. ‘State media heap praise on him during each visit, describing him as an “old friend of Chinese people”’. (Ibid).

    ‘Kissinger was among select U.S. experts - including former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Elaine Chao, Trump’s nominee for transportation secretary - whom Xi met in February 2012 before taking power. The group advised Xi that frequent communication with his U.S. counterpart was more important than repeat formal visits, according to a person familiar with the meeting who asked not to be identified because the talks were private’. (Ibid.)

    This indicates how world diplomacy works: above and beyond the formal governmental level; between oligarchs and their ambassadors such as Kissinger. We might add that Republican globalist Paulson, supporting Hillary Clinton, condemned Trump’s ‘populism’, but recently commended Trump’s choice of Steven Mnuchin as secretary of the treasury, coming over from his position as CEO of Goldman Sachs. (‘Former Hillary backer Henry Paulson hails Trump’s choice for treasury’, Newsmax, 30 November 2016; http://www.newsmax.com/John-Gizzi/john-gizzi-paulson-supports-steven-mnuchin/2016/11/30/id/761489/).

    Brzezinski
    Veteran Russophobe, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser for Jimmy Carter, and like Kissinger, close for much of his life to Rockefeller interests, is also a primary figure in having established relations between the USA and China. Brzezinski served as founding director of the Trilateral Commission, established by David Rockefeller for the purpose of promoting relations between China and the globalist oligarchs. In a recent interview withHuffington Post Brzezinski reiterated the globalist agenda, including the alarm over the spread of ‘populism’ and the Trump victory. Like Kissinger, Brzezinski remains a prominent player in international diplomacy. His views indicate that the Western-based oligarchs and China are in accord. Brzezinski remains as anti-Russia as he is pro-China, expressing the line that has been floated to the mass media that Russia interferes with internal politics, although the National Endowment for Democracy has long been sponsored by the U.S. government precisely for that purpose. Having been the negotiator of the USA’s ‘One China’ policy Brezinski was asked his reaction to Trump’s audacity of accepting a congratulatory phone call from Taiwan’s president, outraging China. As during the Cold War U.S. strategists still see China as an important element in containing Russia:

    ‘The danger I see is provoking antagonism in this foremost relationship of American foreign policy without any significant strategic accomplishment. It is not in our interest to antagonize Beijing. It is much better for American interests to have the Chinese work closely with us, thereby forcing the Russians to follow suit if they don’t want to be left out in the cold. That constellation gives the U.S. the unique ability to reach out across the world with collective political influence. … A world in which America and China are cooperating is a world in which American influence is maximized. If we reduce that through stupid irritations, what do we accomplish?’(Nathan Gardels, ‘Brzezinski: America’s Global Influence Depends On Cooperation With China’, The World Post, Huffpost, 23 December 2016; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...a-influence-china_us_585d8545e4b0d9a594584a37)

    Brzezinski sees Sino-U.S. accord as ‘maximising’ U.S. power. He was asked whether Trump’s pro-Russia indications would be useful in containing China as a rival to the USA. Brzezinski’s reply is an unequivocal ‘no’. He sees the real power players as the USA and China in tandem, as part of the ‘dominant pack’, and Russia as being kept subordinated.

    ‘Russia is not a rival to America in terms of what it has to offer in dealing with China. The Chinese know damned well that, though we may be weakened, depleted and confused, America is basically still number one in the world, and they, the Chinese, are also almost a number one. China thus has a choice to make. If it chooses to be against America, it will end [up] losing out. It is more in their interest to belong to the dominant pack. The reverse is also true for the U.S. if it pushes China away’. (Ibid).

    Brzezinski uses the same rationale for justifying globalist world hegemony as that now being touted by President Xi at Davos; that only Sino-U.S. supremacy can assure global stability. Russia is of no account. She can be kept down by the two super-power hegemonists. China is reading from the globalist script written by Kissinger and Brzezinski. Brzezinski continues:

    ‘To underscore the strategic reality I’ve already outlined, the U.S. and China are the world’s dominant powers. To the extent we have worked together over the years since the normalization of relations, it has not been for the evil purpose of war or conquest, but for the good of enhancing the security and stability required for each to pursue their own interests. In today’s world, China can’t lead alone. Neither can the U.S. To put it in sharper, if seemingly paradoxical terms, if America tries to go it alone in the world without China, it will not be able to assert itself. If we keep that in mind, we can begin, gradually, to shape a world that is more stable than the world today, which is very unstable and very unpredictable. America’s long-term interests lie fundamentally with deepening our ties to China, not uprooting them for perceived short-term gain’. (Ibid).

    How the Globalists created Modern China
    The ‘people’s revolution’ in China was as phoney as Soros/NED sponsored ‘spontaneous revolts’ in Eastern Europe and North Africa. While this is not the place to examine how the USA scuttled Chiang Kai-shek, and how Taiwan under Chiang pursued a genuinely autarchic economic system for decades, we will briefly examine the way oligarchs secured China as a part of the globalist economic system. In an official history of the Council on Foreign Relations, the CFR’s Peter Grose explains:

    ‘The Council turned in earnest to the problem of communist China early in the 1960s. Various Council publications had started developing the idea of a ‘two-China’ policy - recognition of both the Nationalist government of Taiwan and the communist government on the mainland. This, Council authors suggested, might be the least bad policy direction. Professor A. Doak Barnett published a trail-blazing book for the Council in 1960, Communist China and Asia. A major Council study of relations between the United States and China commenced in 1964, the year China exploded its first nuclear bomb; the group met systematically for the next four years. “Contentment with the present stalemate in relations with the Chinese is not statesmanship,” declared Robert Blum of the Asia Society, the first director of the project. “American impatience and the strong currents of political emotion often make it impossible to plan ahead to manage our policy in a persevering but flexible way.’” (Peter Grose, Continuing The Inquiry: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996, New York, Council on Foreign Relations, 2006; ‘ ‘X’ Leads the Way’; http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/index.html).

    Robert Blum, the CFR China analyst, is referred to above as a luminary of the Asia Society. The Asia Society was founded in 1956 by John D Rockefeller III, and remains a major player in cultivating economic and diplomatic relations with China for the benefit of big business.

    Taiwan presented a problem for the globalists insofar as the USA had guaranteed the Republic’s security.

    The CFR therefore formulated a dialectical solution, seemingly supporting a ‘two China’ policy that in practise would mean that Taiwan could be ditched without being too obvious. That is what happened, as the USA used the ‘two-China policy’ formulated years before within the CFR to secure Red China’s entry into the United Nations, and to side-line Taiwan. The CFR approach was one of gradual promotion of the Mao regime, decrying the so-called ‘strong currents of emotion’ that were holding back the globalist relationship with China. However, Grose is explicit regarding the CFR attitude towards China:

    ‘This seemed just the sort of political stalemate that the Council on Foreign Relations, free of electoral and partisan constraints, was endowed to repair. Midway through the project, the Council published an analysis of public opinion called The American People and China by A. T. Steele, who reached the unexpected conclusion that Americans were more willing than many of their elected officeholders to forge new relations with China. This study argued that it was only a steady diet of hostile public statements that had made Americans “disposed to believe the worst of communist China and they [the Chinese] the worst of us.’” (Ibid).

    The CFR re-mould so-called ‘public opinion’, the ‘international community’. The CFR report indicates that they believed the public would be susceptible to a pro-China policy, and the abandonment of Taiwan. Grose continues:

    ‘In 1969 the Council summed up the project under the title, The United States and China in World Affairs, publication came just as Richard Nixon, a longtime and outspoken foe of Chinese communism, became president of the United States. (Some months earlier, Nixon himself had chosen Foreign Affairs as his forum for exploring a fresh look at Asia in general, and China in particular.) Tilting at the long-prevailing freeze, the Council’s project defined a two-China policy with careful analysis. It advocated acquiescence in mainland Chinese membership in the United Nations, and argued that America must “abandon its effort to maintain the fiction that the Nationalist regime is the government of China.”’ (Ibid.).

    Grose concludes by citing Kissinger and Cyrus Vance in their pivotal roles of opening up Red China, inaugurating the process that made a China world power:

    ‘Kissinger, acting as Nixon’s national security adviser, embarked on a secret mission to Beijing in 1971, to make official, exploratory contact with the communist regime. Nixon himself followed in 1972. The delicate process of normalizing diplomatic relations between the United States and China was completed in 1978 by Kissinger’s successor as secretary of state, Cyrus R. Vance, a leading Council officer before and after his government service’. (Ibid).

    Now the globalist chickens are coming home to roost. Mr Xi goes to Davos with his globalist script, but a demarcation has been clarified by Trump’s references to China and globalisation. Mr Xi generously affirms that China is willing to take its place at the head of the globalisation process. This is the situation that has long been sought by Rockefeller, Soros, Goldman Sachs, and Trilateralist coteries in America, Asia and Europe.

    China has adopted the Western liberal economic development model. There is no contradiction between liberalism and political authoritarianism. We’ve seen it since 1789 Jacobin France, and how quickly liberal-democracies respond to a situation with bombs and guns in the name of ‘human rights’. What the Western globalists talk of is for China to ‘reform’. This reform has been proceeding apace for decades until China stands as co-equal with the USA as a globalist hegemon; talks the same talk and walks the same walk. On the other hand, what the oligarchs want for Russia is very different: ‘regime change’. Russia cannot be left in peace until she is a subservient member of an international economic system. China is a globalist back-entry to Russia. The Russo-Chinese relationship seems to have brought China everything at Russia’s expense. It is worth keeping in mind that BRICS example was an idea floated by Goldman Sachs. (K. R. Bolton ‘BRICS development bank an instrument for globalization’, Foreign Policy Journal, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...7/150714-BRICS-Development-Bank-KR-Bolton.pdf).

    Also significant, although little recognised, is that the Western liberal economic development model adopted by China is a product of a civilisation in a terminal state of decay. China sought a transfusion from a diseased organism.

    With the liberal economic model arrives concomitant elements of moral and cultural degeneration. The politically authoritarian character of China has attempted to minimise this impact on China. The emperors through millennia sought to adapt measured foreign influences while keeping the Chinese culture-organism immune from decadence. They were able to do this by maintaining China’s traditional nexus, and although there were the cyclic rise and fall of many dynasties, Chinese Civilisation remained. Mao unleashed the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution in a zealous attempt to obliterate that tradition. Recently the Chinese regime has sought to revive something of China’s Confusion and Taoist traditions. Whether this is anything more than an attempt to manipulate tradition to maintain the authority of the regime is questionable. China already faces huge problems in terms of increasing marriage breakdown, where once there was none; urban sprawl, an ageing population and other issues related to a civilisation in a cycle of decay. In addition there are the problems of a market economy, such as pollution and soil depletion. China is, as Maoists were once fond of stating about the USA, ‘a paper tiger’.

    http://katehon.com/article/chinas-globalist-agenda
     
    A_poster likes this.

Share This Page