Outlook for 2020: US elections, Brexit, USA-EU trade dispute, decisive year in the relations NATO-Russia and new wave of refugees

The year 2020 will be the year oft he US election campaign and the world public will watch breathlessly if Trump is reelected or not and which course the greatest superpower of the world will take in the next 4 years. This will be a very fierce and emotional campaign. Besides the US election, Boris Johnson wants to leave the EU on January 31st and the question will be if it will be a hard or a soft Brexit.

With the agreement between China and the United States on December 13, the conflict between the two world powers seems to have lost its drama. At least that suggests the reaction of the world stock exchanges to the phase I deal. They post price gains worldwide. Nevertheless, the forecast institute Oxford Economics comes to the conclusion that a renewed escalation of the trade war remains the greatest danger for the capital markets in the new year.

Much of the phase I agreement between China and the United States remains vague, the essentials remain open, and only a few of the tariffs introduced are reduced. In the past two years, no major breakthrough has become real, and the Chinese have interpreted what the Americans thought they agreed differently. Nothing has been signed anyway.

Regardless of the actual importance of the Phase I Agreement, it is likely just a ceasefire with China, and then, after re-election, Trump may begin a Phase 2 and Phase 3 trade war against China, and should it not accept Trump´s America First long-term condition to be world power No. 2 a Sino-American war and a sea blockade based on the TX Hammes Offshore Control model as a continuation of the economic war with military means according to Clausewitz may be the result. But at the moment the Europeans have cause for concern because the Americans now want to turn to them. In the new year, they could be at the center of the trade war.

A warning shot for Europe was an interview by Robert Lighthizer at Trump’s favorite Fox channel this week. The trade commissioner, who also negotiated the deal with China, made it clear that the Americans are bothered by the European trade surpluses vis-à-vis the United States. They should add up to $ 180 billion this year.

In this context, Lighthizer spoke of a “very unbalanced relationship”. There are many barriers to trade with Europe and many other issues that need to be addressed: „It is very important to deal with Europeans, and the President is now focusing on them,“ said the US Trade Representative.

After the Trump-USA renegotiated NAFTA in his favor, the phase 1 agreement with China is only a short ceasefire with the Chinese before the elections and the Trump-USA is now concentrating on the World Trade Organization, blocking its arbitrary bodies, opening it up for the front against the last central success project of European industry policy, the Airbus for the own icon of American aviation industry Boeing, which has been hit by plane crashes, urge the Europeans to take US 5 G technology instead of Chinese Huawei and, in addition, the Northstream 2 project is now being attacked. In addition, the USA tries to portray the Northstream 2 project as the German First project, although there was an EU decision after France’s objection, which approved the project, especially since France afterwards also agreed to the compromise.

Gazprom’s EU advisor, Dr. Alexander Rahr believes that the US intends to divide Europe in energy matters, with Western Europeans preferring Russian gas, Eastern Europeans US LNG gas. Nevertheless, the question arises where the Eastern Europeans have so far obtained their gas from and whether they are willing and able to buy more expensive US gas in addition to increased NATO armaments expenditure and also to invest billions of dollars in the necessary infrastructure. Rahr also believes that the Trump-USA would give up NATO in favor of some core defense key states, such as Great Britain, Romania, Poland, and Bulgaria. After Trump protected NATO against Macron’s European plans and accusations of brain death, most Europeans don’t seem to share this view. It is significant, however, that Trump does not start a new trade war with the entire EU for the time being, but above all tries to attack Northstream and thereby portray the Germans as real parasite and enemy.

The advocates of Nordstream 2 reject the argument that this project makes Europe dependent on Russia in terms of energy issues by pointing out that Europe is already dependent on Russia in terms of gas and oil supplies, so this project does not produce the current dependency. Furthermore, reference is made to the fact that even the Soviet Union never ceased its energy supplies under communist rule, although the confrontation was much more extreme and Putin would risk the bankruptcy of his own state budget in the event of an embargo, which he had no interest in.

Furthermore, there is still no European Energy Union, which was so passionately demanded in Sunday speeches after the last Ukraine gas crisis. Especially the higher economic and ecological costs for US LNG fracking gas together with the enormous investments for the associated infrastructure are brought as an argument, as well as that Germany’s energy transition needs the Russian gas quickly, because the construction of power lines for renewable energies, above all wind power from the North Sea is not making good progress due to construction delays and civil lawsuits, only 800 kilometers of 6,500 kilometers have been built, and the energy transition threatens to fail without fast Russian gas and there could be blackouts after the shutdown of nuclear and coal power.
In addition, Britain and Norway’s North Sea oil reserves will dry up in the foreseeable future and most Europeans, especially Germany, have long since become independent from the Greater Middle East energy supplies since the oil price shock and OPEC boycott in 1973.

The German energy transition could fail without Russian gas. That is why the Greens are at odds over this question, and Greens like Jürgen Trittin are speaking up and are calling for German and European sanctions against the USA as a countermeasure for their sanctions against Northstream.
Although Trittin emphasizes that Northstream 2 would not actually be needed if the energy transition were pursued more consistently, he takes into account the de facto political majority and what is feasible and is more Green realo than fundamentalist. Die-hard core transatlantists, in turn, would favor both the 2% NATO benchmark and US LNG as the price of good overseas relationships. The German and European economy associations are divided about Northstream 2. Leading business circles fear that the US could expand the trade war beyond Northstream 2 against all of Germany and the EU, and consideration is being given to accepting US LNG and a stop to Norsthstream 2 as a price if the US would nor imposes punitive tariffs on the German and the European auto industry, mechanical engineering, aerospace industries and other sectors.

However, some also argue in reverse that such appeasement would only make Trump lick blood. Conversely, the Russian trade is just 5% of German foreign trade, while the USA, China and the EU remain the main markets and Trump so far has only called for Northstream 2 to be stopped, but not for other Russian energy supply projects and projects for Europe and not yet declared a trade war against the EU. However, there are fears that giving in to this question could be an example and could lead to further demands. However, Trump could hesitate to start such a trade war as the costs for his electorate might be high and cost him votes as he wants to be reelected and a trade war against the EU might be relatively short and not that extensive as Trump´s main object is China as the real challenge for the America First No. 1 position of a world power and not the EU. In addition, the question is to what extent Trump will wage a trade war against the entire EU or not concentrate more on Germany as the leading power of the EU because he hopes to divide the Europeans, as Putin and Xi-China do. A trade war with the EU or, above all, Germany could also lead to a relatively quick agreement like the renegotation with NAFTA or Japan , especially since the EU cannot be a central state like China, the world’s number one powerhouse, especially since no European military will replace US-led NATO in short or even midterm and the EU is also no high-tech power that has a Made in China 2025 and could become a serious high-tech superpower in terms of artificial intelligence, quantum computers and essential disruptive future technologies in the foreseeable future.

It also depends on how Russia behaves now. The signals between Russia and the West are currently mixed. On the one hand there was the Ukraine Summit in the Normandy format between Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine, which ended in a compromise, which has yet to be implemented. At the same time, a Ukraine-Russia gas deal was brokered through the EU, which was demanded by the Northstream opponents as a condition so that Ukraine would not go bankrupt due to missing transit fees. Especially since Ukraine has just received an IMF loan because it is financially tight. Gazprom’s EU advisor, Dr. Rahr, believes that the Trump-USA is not interested in financing a bankrupt Ukraine, which can also be seen as a geopolitical statement and Putin’s calculation that it would then have a free hand in Ukraine.

It is striking that Putin personally inaugurated the railway bridge to the Crimea immediately after the Ukraine summit and the Ukraine-Russia gas deal, which the EU legitimately protests, as this continues to question Ukraine’s territorial integrity and cemented the status of Crimea as Russian territory. At the same time, after the Russian deployment of medium-range missiles and after the USA canceled the INF treaty, the United States was testing a new medium-range missile, emphasizing that it was tested only with conventional warheads while Russia reported the test of a hypersonic missile.

In addition, the NATO Secretary-General has now proposed to hold new talks with Russia, prompting Putin to say that NATO has expanded its aerial reconnaissance vis-à-vis Russia, while NATO emphasizes that Russia has increased its flight maneuvers to the NATO border and that there were also reports on Christmas time about increased Russian submarine activity in the Baltic and North Seas around the Northstream area. Now Putin is also talking about „anti-Russian tendencies“ in NATO. Right now saber rattle and testing positions. But should this not change. both sides could quickly slip back into a New Cold War. It would now be time to come to a settlement in Ukraine and to restart talks about an arms control agreement before a definitive NATO decision, similar to the NATO decision 1979, is reached. Putin should take advantage of the NATO Secretary General’s offer of talks.

If the year 2019 was mainly characterized by the topics of the trade dispute between the USA and China, as well as climate protection, Greta and Friday for Future, in 2020 the topics the US elections, the Brexit,  trade disputes between the USA and the EU, the relations NATO- Russia and a new wave of refugees might be the main issues. It remains to be seen to what extent the dispute over Northstream 2, Airbus and Huawei will then further expand into a trade war between the USA and the EU.

Tensions between Russia and NATO are also increasing and it will be important whether Putin accepts the NATO Secretary General’s offer of talks or whether the conflict continues to develop in the direction of the New Cold War and mutual rearmament. Interesting in this context is the announcement by the Secretary of Defense of the United States to reduce its worldwide commitment, which already began with the US withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan, especially since the Trump administration is trying to cope with the exploding US public debt. It remains to be seen to what extent this will affect NATO’s presence and relations with Russia. Especially since 2020 is also the year of a US presidential election campaign, all of these discussions and decisions will take place in an emotionally polarized atmosphere.

The situation in Syria, Algeria, Libya and Iraq is also worrying. The Arab Spring is in its second phase and the fermentation processes are far from over, as a new wave of refugees could be coming to Europe, if Russia and Turkey don´t come to an agreement about spheres of influence in Syria and Libya, which could bring the unprepared EU back into old disputes about refugee policy and give right-wing parties a boost. Significantly, Merkel will meet Erdogan in January to talk about the refugee question and developments in the MENA region. After his invasion of Syria and the final battle for Idlib, NATO partner Erdogan now wants to send troops and warships to Libya to expand his neo-Ottoman empire, especially since the fight for natural gas reserves in the Mediterranean is gaining momentum and the USA is pulling out of West Africa and the rest of the world in the fight against terror, which will give the Islamists a boost.Erdogan just visitzed Tunesia to broker a ceasefire in Lybia ad tries to support the Muslimbrotherhoods in Lybia and the North African and Arab states.

A glimmer of hope is Iran’s declaration to contractually assure the United States that it will not develop nuclear weapons and then the Iranian foreign minister’s meeting with Houthi rebels in Oman. There seems to be some movement in the Iran conflict, although one should always be careful with overly optimistic forecasts.as the Israeli military claims a military confrontation was possible, Russia, China and Iran have joint maritime manuvreuses and the USA and Japan are sending more war ships tot he Persian Guilf.

And it remains to be seen whether China intervenes in Hong Kong or does something in the South China Sea, or is now rather glad that it is currently no longer on the US radar after the breathing phase in the trade war with the USA.

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für Outlook for 2020: US elections, Brexit, USA-EU trade dispute, decisive year in the relations NATO-Russia and new wave of refugees

Jahresausblick 2020: US-Wahlen, Brexit, Handelsstreit USA- EU, Richtungsjahr NATO-Rußland und neue Flüchtlingswelle

Das Jahr 2020 wird das Jahr des US-Wahlkampfs sein und die Weltöffentlichkeit wird atemlos zusehen, ob Trump wiedergewählt wird oder nicht und welchen Kurs die größte Supermacht der Welt in den nächsten 4 Jahren einnehmen wird. Dies wird eine sehr heftige und emotionale Kampagne sein. Neben den US-Wahlen will Boris Johnson die EU am 31. Januar verlassen und die Frage wird ein harter oder weicher Brexit sein.

Mit der Vereinbarung zwischen China und den USA vom 13. Dezember scheint die Auseinandersetzung der beiden Weltmächte an Dramatik verloren zu haben. Das zumindest suggeriert die Reaktion der Weltbörsen auf den Phase-I-Deal: Sie verbuchen weltweit Kursgewinne. Dennoch kommt das renommierte Prognose-Institut Oxford Economics zum Schluss, eine erneute Eskalation des Handelskriegs bleibe die grösste Gefahr für die Kapitalmärkte im neuen Jahr.

Vieles im Phase I-Abkommen zwischen China und den USA bleibt vage, Wesentliches bleibt offen, und nur wenige der eingeführten Zölle werden abgebaut. In den letzten beiden Jahren hat sich mancher scheinbare Durchbruch als Irrtum herausgestellt, und was die Amerikaner vereinbart zu haben glaubten, haben die Chinesen anders interpretiert. Unterzeichnet ist ohnehin noch nichts.

Doch unabhängig von der tatsächlichen Bedeutung des Phase-I-Abkommens, das wahrscheinlich nur ein Waffenstillstand mit China ist, um dann nach einiger etwaigen Wiederwahl eine Phase 2 und Phase 3 eines Handelskrieges gegen China zu beginnen, und sollte dieses nicht auf die America First-Bedingung eingehen sich langfristig als Weltmacht Nr. 2 abzufinden, ist auch ein sinoamerikansicher Krieg und eine Seeblockade Chinas nach dem Modell von TX Hammes Offshore Controll als Weiterführung des Wirtschaftskrieges mit militärischen Mitteln ganz nach Clausewitz denkbar: Aber Grund zur Sorge haben jetzt vorerst die Europäer, denn die Amerikaner wollen sich nun ihnen zuwenden. Im neuen Jahr könnten sie im Zentrum des Handelskriegs stehen.

Ein Warnschuss für Europa war ein Interview von Robert Lighthizer bei Trumps Lieblingssender Fox in dieser Woche. Der Handelsbeauftragte, der auch den Deal mit China ausgehandelt hat, machte dort deutlich, dass sich die Amerikaner an den Handelsüberschüssen der Europäer gegenüber den USA stören. Im ablaufenden Jahr dürften sie sich auf 180 Milliarden Dollar summieren.

Lighthizer sprach in diesem Zusammenhang von einer «sehr unausgeglichenen Beziehung». Es gebe viele Hindernisse im Handel mit Europa und viele andere Probleme, die nun angegangen werden müssten: «Sich mit den Europäern zu befassen, ist sehr wichtig, und der Präsident fokussiert jetzt darauf», erklärte der US-Handelsbeauftragte.

Nachdem die Trump-USA NAFTA neu abgeschlaossen haben zu ihren Gunsten, mit dem Phase-1-Abkommen mit China nun erst einmal eine Verschnaufpause mit der chineischen Front vor den Walen angedeutet haben, konezntrieren sie sich nun  auf die Welthandelsorganisation ,blockieren deren Gerichtsbarkeit, eröffnen die Front gegen zentrale Erfolggsprojekt europäischer Industriepolitik, den Airbus gegen die aufgrund der Flugzeugabstürze in Bedrängnis gekommen Ikone US-amerikanischer Luftfahrt Boeing, drängen die Europäer US-5G-technolgie statt chinesischer Huaweiinfarstruktur zu nehmen und zudem wird zentral gegen das Northstrewam 2-Projekt nun mittels Sabktionen vorgegangen. Northstream. Zudem versucht man das Northstreamprojekt als alleinien deutschen Sonderweg darzustellen, obgleich es nach dem Widerspruch Frankreichs dazu einen EU-Beschluss gab, der das Projekt absegnete, zumal auch Frankreich auf den Kompromiss einging.

Der EU-Berater von Gazprom, Dr. Alexander Rahr ist der Ansicht, dass die USA beabsichtigten Europa in Energiefragen zu spalten, wobei die Westeuropäer Russengas bevorzugen würden, die Osteuropäer US-LNG-Gas. Dennoch fragt sich, woher die Osteuropäer bisher ihr Gas beziehen und ob sie willig und imstande sind neben erhöhten NATO-Rüstungsausgaben auch teuereres US-Gas zu kaufen und zudem auch die Milliardeninsvestitionen in dazu nötige Infrastruktur zu investieren. Rahr glaubt darüber hinaus, dass die Trump-USA die NATO zugunsten einiger verteidigunspolitischer Kernstaaten, wie Großbritannien, Rumänien, Polen und Bulgarien aufgeben würde. Nachdem Trump die NATO gegen Macrons europäischen Pläne und Hirntodvorwurf in Schutz nahm, scheinen die meisten Europäer diese Ansicht nicht zu teilen. Bezeichnend ist jedoch, dass Trump sich vorerst nicht mit der gesamten EU einen neuen Handelskrieg anfängt, sondern vor allem versucht Northstream anzugreifen und hierbei die Deutschen als eigentliche Schurken und Parasiten darzustellen.

Die Befürworter von Nordstream 2 weisen das Argument, dass dieses Projekt Europa von Russland in Energiefragen abhängig mache damit zurück, dass sie darauf hinweisen, dass Eurpa in Sachen Gas- und Öllieferungen ohnehin schon von Russland abhängig ist, dieses Projekt also den Zustand nicht erst hervorbringt, zumal man im Ernstfall auch auf andere Gaslieferungen ausweichen könnte. Desweiteren wird darauf verwiesen, dass selbst die Sowjetunion unter kommuinistischer Herrschaft ihre Energielieferungen nie einstellte, obgleich die Konfronattion viel extremer war und Putin im Falle eines Embargos die Pleite seines eigenen Staatshaushaltes riskieren würde, woran er kein Interesse habe.

Desweiteren gibt es bisher auch noch keine europäische Energieunion, die ja in Sonntagsreden nach der letzten Ukrainegaskrise so leidenschaftlich beschworen wurde. Zumal werden auch noch die höheren ökonomischen und ökologischen Kosten für US-LNG -Frackinggas samt der enormen Investitionen für die dazugehörige Infrastruktur als Aegument gebracht, wie auch, dass Deutschlands Energiewende schnell das Russengas braucht, da der Bau der Stromtrassen für erneuerbare Energien, vor allem der Windkraft aus der Nordsee aufgrund Bauverschleppungen und Bürgerklagen nicht recht vorangeht, erst 800 Kilometer von 6500 benötigten Kilometern gebaut sind und die Energiewende ohne schnelles Russengas droht zu scheitern und es zu Blackouts nach der Abschaltung der Atom- und Kohlekraft kommen könnte. Hinzu kommt,dass Großbritanniens und Norwegens Nordseeölreserven in absehbarer Zeit versiegen werden und sich die meisten Europäer, allen voran Deutschland schon länger aus dem Greater Middle East mit Energielieferungen seit dem Ölpreisschock und OPEC-Boykott 1973 unabhängig gemacht haben.

Kurz. Die deutsche Energiewende könnte ohne Russengas scheitern. Deswegen sind auch die Grünen über diese Frage zerstritten und Alt-Grüne wie Jürgen Trittin melden sich zu Worte und fordern deutsche und europäiosche Sanktionen gegen die USA als Gegenmassnahme für deren Sanktionen gegen Northstream. Zwar betont Trittin, dass es Northstream 2 eigentlich nicht bräuchte, wenn die Energiewende konsequenter vorangetrieben würde, er berücksichtigt aber die faktischen politischen Mehrheitsverhältnisse und was machbar ist, ist also hier mehr Realo denn Fundi. Eingefleischte Transatlantikler wiederum würden sowohl 2%- NATO-Benchmark und US-amerikanisches LNG als Preis der guten Überseebeziehungen befürworten. Die Wirtschaft ist über Northstream gespalten. Zum einen befürchten führende Wirtschaftskreise, dass die USA den Handelskrieg über Northstream 2 hinaus gegen ganz Deutschland und die EU ausweiten könnten und man überlegt, US-LNG und einen Stopp von Norsthstream 2 als Preis zu akzeptieren, wenn die USA dafür auf Strafzölle gegen die deutsche und europäische Autoindustrie, Maschinenbau- und Luftfahrtindustrie und andere Sektoren verzichten würden.

Wobei etliche auch umgekehrt argumentieren, dass solches Appeasment Trump erst Blut lecken lassen würde. Umgekehrt beträgt der Russlandhandel gerade mal 5% am deutschen Aussenhandel , während die USA, China und die EU die Hauptmäkte bleiben und Tump bisher nur den Stopp von Northstream 2 gefordert hat, nicht aber anderer russischer Energieliefeungen- und projekte für Europa und noch nicht offiziell den Handelskrieg gegen die EU erklärt hat. Doch einge befürchten, dass ein Einlenken in dieser Frage dann Beispiel sein und weitere Forderungen nach sich ziehen könnte.


Trump könnte jedoch zögern, einen solchen Handelskrieg zu beginnen, da die Kosten für seine Wähler möglicherweise hoch sind und ihn Stimmen kosten könnten, wenn er wiedergewählt werden möchte. Falls doch: Ein Handelskrieg gegen die EU könnte jedoch relativ kurz und nicht so umfangreich sein, da Trumps Hauptziel China ist, da dies die eigentliche Herausforderung für die America First Position als Weltmacht Nummer 1 darstellt und nicht die EU. Zudem auch die Frage ist, inwieweit Trump überhaupt einen Handelskrieg gegen die gesamte EU führen wird oder sich nicht eher auf Deutschland konzentriert als Führungsmacht der EU und innerhalb der EU da auf Spaltungsmöglichkeiten unter den Europäern hofft wie dies ja auch Putin und Xi-China tun. Aber ein Handelskrieg mit der EU oder vor allem Deutschland könnte auch zu einem relativ schnellen Abkommen wie bei der NAFTA oder dann Japan führen, zumal die EU nicht wie China Weltmacht Nr. 1, noch ein Zentralstaat sein kann, zumal militärisch die US-geführte NATO nicht ersetzen wird und zudem keine Hochtechnologiemacht, die ein Made in China 2025 hat und zur ernsten Hightechsupermacht in Sachen Künstlicher Intelligenz, Quantencomputern und wesentlichen disruptiven Zukunftstechnologien in absehbarer Zeit werden könnte.

Zudem hängt es auch davon ab, wie sich nun Russland verhält. Momentan sind die Signale zwischen Russland und dem Westen gemischt. Zum einen gab es den Ukrainegipfel im Normandiefomramt zwischen Deutschland, Frankreich, Russland und der Ukraine, der in einem Kompromiss endete, der aber erst noch umgesetzt werden muss. Gleichzeitig soll ein Ukraine-Russland-Gasdeal unter Vermittlung der EU unterzeichnet werden, der seitens der Northstreamgegner als Bedingung gefordert wurde, damit die Ukraine wegen ausfallender Transitgebühren nicht pleite geht. Zumal die Ukraine gerade einen IWF-Kredit erhielt, da sie finanziell klamm ist. Der EU-Berater von Gazprom Dr. Rahr ist der Ansicht, dass die Trump-USA kein Interesse hätten eine bankrotte Ukraine zu finanzieren, was man aber auch als geopolitische Aussage und Putins Kalkül sehen kann, dann freie Bahn in der Ukraine zu haben.

Auffällig ist, dass Putin nun die Eisenbahnbrücke zur Krim gleich nach dem Ukrainegipfel und dem Ukraine- Russland-Gasdeal persönlich eingeweiht hat, worauf die EU berechtigterweise protestiert, da dies die terrioritale Integrität der Ukraine weiter infrage stellt und die Krim als russisches Territorium, das nie mehr zur Disposition steht zementiert. Gleichzeitig kündigten die USA nach der russischen Stationierung von Mittelstreckenraketen das INF-Abkommen und kündigten nun selbst an eine neue Mittelstreckenrakete getestet zu haben, wobei betont wird, dass diese mit konventionellen Sprengköpfen getestet worden sei. Zudem hat der NATO-Generalsekretär nun die Bereitschaft erklärt mit Russland neue Gespräche zu führen , worauf Putin erklärt, die NATO  habe ihre Luftaufklärung gegenüber Russland ausgeweitet, während die NATO betont, Russland habe seine Flugmanöver zur NATO-Grenze erhöht und auch zur Weihnachtszeit gab es Meldungen über erhöhte russische U-Bootaktivitäten in Ost- und Nordsee um das Gebiet von Northstream. Nun redet Putin auch von „antirussischen Tendenzen „ in der NATO. Momentan noch Säbelgerassel und Austesten von Positionen. Sollte sich dies aber nicht ändern. könnten beide Seiten schnell wieder in einen Neuen Kalten Krieg hineinrutschen. Zeit wäre es jetzt zu einem Ausgleich in der Ukraine zu kommen und zu einem Neustart über ein Rüstungskontrollabkommen zu kommen, bevor es zu einem mit dem NATO-Doppelbeschluss ähnlichen Entscheidung der NATO kommt. Putin sollte das Gesprächsangebot des NATO-Generalsekretärs nutzen.

War das Jahr 2019 vor allem durch die Themen des Handelsstreits zwischen den USA und China, sowie Klimaschutz, Greta und Friday for Future geprägt, so dürften im nächsten Jahr 2020 vor allem die Themen US-Wahlen, Brexit, ein möglicher Handelsstreit ziwischen den USA und der EU, die Beziehungen NATO-Rußland sowie eine neue Flüchtlingswelle die wesentlichen Themen werden. Inwieweit der Streit um Northstream 2, Airbus und Huawei sich dann weiter zum Handelskrieg ausweitet, bleibt abzuwarten.

Ebenso nehmen die Spannungen zwischen Rußland und der NATO zu und es wird wichtig sein, ob Putin das Gesprächsangebot des NATO-Generalsekretärs annimmt oder der Konflikt weiter in Richtung Neuer Kalter Krieg samt etwaiger Aufrüstung geht. Interessant ist in diesem Zusammenhang auch die Ankündigung des US-Verteidigungsministers das weltweite Engagement der USA zu reduzieren, was ja schon mit dem US-Abzug aus Syrien und Afghanistan begann, zumal die Trump-Regierung versucht der explodierenden Staatsverschuldung der USA Herr zu werden. Inwieweit sich dies auch auf die NATO-Präsenz und das Verhältnis zu Rußland auswirkt, bleibt abzuwarten. Zumal 2020 auch noch US-Präsidentschaftswahlkampf ist, werden alle diese Diskussionen und Entscheidungen in einer emotionalöisierten und polarisierten Atmosphäre stattfinden.

Desweiteren ist die Lage in Syrien, Algerien ,Lybien und dem Irak besorgniserregend. Der arabische Frühling tritt in seine zweite Phase und die Gärungsprozesse sind bei weitem noch nicht abgeschlossen.Da kommt möglicherweise eine neue Flüchtlingswelle auf Europa zu, sollte die Türkei und Russland in Syrien und Libyen zu keiner Waffenruhe finden, die die unvorbereitete EU wieder in alte Streitigkeiten über die Flüchtlingspolitik bringen und rechtsradikalen Parteien Aufwind geben könnte. Bezeichenderweise möchte Merkel Erdogan noch im Januar treffen, um über die Flüchtlingsfrage und die Entwicklung in der MENA-Region zu reden. NATO-Partner Erdogan will nach seiner Syrieninvasion und den Endkampf um Idlib nun auch Truppen und Kriegsschiffe nach Lybien schicken, um sein neoosmanisches Reich voranzutreiben, zumal auch der Kampf um die Erdgasvorkommen im Mittelmeer an Fahrt gewinnt und die USA ziehen sich aus Westafrika und dem gesamten Raum im Terrorkampf zurück,was den Islamisten Aufwind verschaffen wird. Erdogan besuchte gerade Tunesien, um einen Waffenstillstand in Libyen zu vermitteln und versucht, die Muslimbruderschaften in Libyen sowie den nordafrikanischen und arabischen Staaten zu unterstützen.

Ein Lichtblick ist nun die Erklärung des Irans den USA vertraglich zusichern zu wollen, dass er keine Atomwaffen entwickeln werde und dann das Treffen des iranischen Aussenministers mit Houthirebellen im Oman.Da scheint etwas Bewegung in den Irankonflikt zu kommen,wenngleich man immer vorsichtig mit allzu optimistischen Prognosen sein sollte,da das israelische Militär behauptet, eine militärische Konfrontation sei möglich, Russland, China und der Iran gemeinsame Marinemanöver abhalten und die USA und Japan mehr Kriegsschiffe imndem Persischen Golf schicken.

Und es bleibt noch abzuwarten, ob China in Hongkong interveniert oder etwas im Südchinesischen Meer unternimmt oder nun eher froh ist, dass es nach der Atempuase im Handelskrieg mit den USA momentan nicht mehr so auf dem Radar der USA ist.

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für Jahresausblick 2020: US-Wahlen, Brexit, Handelsstreit USA- EU, Richtungsjahr NATO-Rußland und neue Flüchtlingswelle

Political Risk Distribution of Chinese Outward Foreign Direct Investment


Author: Qiuyu Gaovan

Introduction

In recent years, with the dramatic increase in Chinese Outward Foreign Direct Investment (OFDI), the topic on how political risk in host countries influences the locational choices of Chinese multinational enterprises (MNEs) has drawn the attention of many scholars. In this paper, I investigate the political risk distribution (PRD) of Chinese OFDI from 2006 to 2017 using a new measurement on political risk by a composite index (GaoYan 2019)— Political Risk Index (PRI). Meanwhile I use the firm-level CGIT data (https://www.aei.org/china-global-investment-tracker/) as the measurement of Chinese OFDI. I first analyse the general trend and then present the distribution of Chinese OFDI in low-, moderate- and high-risk countries.

General Trend

According to Figures 1, 2 and 3, I observed that Chinese MNEs do not follow the incremental internationalization pathway suggested by traditional theories such as the Uppsala Model and life-cycle theory (Jiménez 2010 and Jiménez et al. 2014) but expand at a much faster pace. From 2006 to 2017, Chinese OFDI destinations nearly tripled, increasing from 28 in 2006 to 80 in 2015 and declining to 59 in 2017 (see Figure 1), while the annual number of Chinese large-scale FDI projects (those with a single investment of more than US$ 100 million, regardless of construction contractor direct investment) shot up from 49 in 2006 to 408 by 2016, only to fall to 157 in 2017 (see Figure 2). I also found that the annual outflows of Chinese OFDI increased six-fold, from US$ 40.23 billion in 2006 to US$ 261.1 Billion in 2016, and then dropped to US$ 132.24 billion in 2017 (see Figure 3). Regarding industrial distribution, according to Figure 4, I found that from 2006 to 2017, Chinese investment in energy, transport, real estate, raw materials, and metals exceeded 70% of its total investment. This finding reflects that Chinese OFDI is mainly concentrated in the field of natural resource development, energy, and infrastructure construction.

Figure 1. Political Risk Distribution of Chinese OFDI Destinations, 2006-2017.

_-_-1.png

Source: Calculate by the author.

Figure 2. Political Risk Distribution of Chinese OFDI Large-scale projects, 2006-2017.

_-_-2.jpg

Source: Calculate by the author.

Figure 3. Political Risk Distribution of Annual Chinese OFDI Outflows (Million USD), 2006-2017.

_-_-3.jpg

Source: Calculate by the author.

Figure 4: Political Risk Distribution of Chinese OFDI at sectorial level

_-_-4.jpg

Source: Calculate by the author.

The decade’s long expansion of Chinese MNEs can be divided into two different stages: the “Going Global” phase from 1999 to 2012 and the “Belt and Road” phase from 2013 onwards. The “Going Out Policy” phase (1998 to 2013) was marked by clear aims of pushing Chinese domestic enterprises into global business activities to acquire strategic resources and expand into foreign markets. At this stage, the Chinese government encouraged large-scale state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and powerful privately owned enterprises to acquire strategic resources, expand into foreign markets and invest in key “sensitive” industries defined by the 12th and 13th Five-Year Plans. The Chinese government steadfastly supported Chinese MNEs’ overseas activities through political backing, subsidies, preferential tax concessions, the reformation and relaxation of the regulatory process and the easing of foreign exchange controls.

When President Xi Jinping announced the Belt and Road initiative (BRI) in 2013, it was believed to be an updated version of the “Going Global Strategy”, with a clear aim of better integrating the Chinese economy with the economies of its neighbouring countries in Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia as well as those of Eastern Europe and the Baltics through infrastructure and production capacity cooperation. Through 2018, more than 86 sovereign states and international organizations have signed BRI cooperation agreements with China, and the majority of these countries have favoured the “Beijing consensus” and have been more likely to let “both formal and informal institutions develop under the role of the state“ (Lattemann et al. 2017).

Distribution of Chinese OFDI in Low- and Moderate-risk Countries

As seen from my figures, from 2006 to 2017, over 11 years, moderate-risk countries continue to be Chinese MNEs’ priority targeting investment economies, comprising 45% to 56% of annual investment destinations and hosting 37% to 53% of annual large-scale overseas projects. Regarding annual capital flows, the percentage of annual Chinese OFDI in moderate-risk countries fluctuates between 28% and 66%. Despite drastic changes, moderate-risk counties continued to absorb the majority (over 45%) of China’s annual OFDI flows between 2006 and 2015. Regarding sectorial distribution, I found that moderate-risk countries host more than half of China’s aggregate investment in the energy, transportation, metals, utilities, and chemical industries. The real estate sector is somewhat unique, with China’s total investment being evenly distributed between moderate- and low-risk countries. During the same period, low-risk countries accounted for 11% to 25% of Chinese MNEs’ annual investment destinations, hosted 18% to 42% of China’s annual overseas large-scale projects and absorbed 14% to 64% of China’s annual OFDI outflows. At the sector level, more than 56–65% of China’s total investment in agriculture, science and technology, and finance was located in low-risk countries; for industries such as tourism and entertainment, this number exceeds 70%.

The fact that the majority of Chinese OFDI is located in low- and moderate-risk countries proves that the level of political risk in host countries is not ignored by Chinese MNEs, thus verifying that traditional FDI theories can sufficiently explain the locational choices of Chinese MNEs. However, other reasons may also help explain this phenomenon. On the one hand, troubled transactions have taught Chinese MNEs to thoroughly evaluate the possible political risk in host countries and to take more cautious procedures and steps before making OFDI decisions. On the other hand, through effective government guidance, Chinese MNEs avoid making wrong decisions. The first type of guidance is “information guidance“. By providing Chinese enterprises with detailed, specific, and up-to-date information on the targeting host countries, the Chinese government helped reduce the PRD of Chinese OFDI. The second type of guidance is “policy guidance“. Through explicit policies, the Chinese government has helped improve the PRD of Chinese OFDI. The Chinese government has made use of the fact that Chinese OFDI is mostly carried out by SOEs and is therefore in a better position to implement its OFDI guidance.

Distribution of Chinese OFDI in High-risk Countries

From 2006 to 2017, high-risk countries comprised 15% to 31% of Chinese MNEs’ annual investment destinations and absorbed 7% to 32% of Chinese annual OFDI outflows. Additionally, approximately 15% to 30% of China’s annual overseas large-scale projects were located in high-risk countries. However, in the energy, transportation and utility industries, high-risk countries hosted approximately 30% of total Chinese investment.

According to traditional assumptions, high levels of political risk have been understood as a threat to MNEs; however, many studies have found that Chinese MNEs prefer to invest in high-risk countries. According to the results, the majority (over 90%) of large-scale projects in high-risk countries are undertaken by SOEs. This result can be explained by the institutional factors in China, especially the unique “state ownership advantage” brought by the unique “government–business” relationship between SOEs and the central government. This relationship has made SOEs less dependent on their own and even on other Chinese firms’ prior host country experience because under this “government–business” relationship (Quer, Claver and Rienda 2018), SOEs come under the direct supervision of the SASAC and the government provides them with political backing while SOEs are put in place to implement the government’s “Going Out” policy and Belt and Road initiative.

Second, the results also show that the OFDI undertaken by SOEs has achieved satisfactory performance (only 32% are classified as troubled transactions), proving that institutional factors are not the sole reasons for the reduced PRD of Chinese OFDI. As Holburn and Zelner (2010) show, because there are weaker institutional constraints on policymakers and greater redistributive pressures associated with political rent-seeking in China’s business environments, all companies, regardless of their ownership, have developed strong political capabilities through organizational learning and cognitive imprinting. Thus, they know how to operate in the challenging institutional environment—comprising a high level of direct state intervention, opaque corporate governance, unpredictable and burdensome regulations, cumbersome bureaucracy, and discontinuity in government policies—that characterizes the Chinese business environment. As a result, they are more capable of dealing with burdensome regulations and navigating opaque political constraints (Buckley et al. 2007). For many Chinese firms, their familiarity with the more difficult institutional conditions of developing countries and their expertise in managing such environments have helped them develop strong political capabilities, such as the negotiation of entry conditions, lobbying, litigation, campaign contributions, and coalition formation, leading to preferential conditions, reduced environmental uncertainty, reduced transaction costs and increased long-term sustainability for the firm, which reduce the deterrent effect of political risk on their foreign entry decisions. Sometimes, they even obtain a better competitive advantage over their Western competitors, as the latter are not used to the absence of a well-established infrastructure and a well-developed contracting and intellectual property rights regime in high-risk countries (Cueruo-Cazura and Genc 2008).

Conclusion

By increasing its foreign investment linkages with other countries, China has integrated rapidly with the world economy. It is found that through continuing international economic policy reform, effective government guidance and the continuing development of political capabilities within Chinese MNEs, Chinese OFDI has witnessed a substantial increase in the last ten years, while the political risk of Chinese OFDI has declined rapidly.

To summarize, the following conclusions can be drawn: first, by applying this PRI, I found that between 2006 and 2017, low-risk and moderate-risk countries remain Chinese companies’ predominant investment destinations; however, the majority of Chinese OFDI is undertaken by Chinese SOEs. Second, I observed that until 2017, the value of China’s overseas investment and construction combined was approaching US$ 1.6325 trillion. During the same period, Chinese MNEs invested in a total of 2276 large-scale projects worldwide. Of these, 677 large-scale projects were located in low-risk countries, another 1066 took place in moderate-risk countries, and 533 occurred in high-risk countries. In terms of aggregate investment, low-risk countries were found to host 33% of the total stock of Chinese OFDI, while moderate-risk countries accounted for 45%, and the remaining 22% of Chinese OFDI was in high-risk countries. The majority of Chinese OFDI is therefore directed towards moderate- and low-risk countries. Third, during the same period, low-risk and moderate-risk countries account for more than 70% of total Chinese OFDI in 12 different industries. Only in industries such as energy, transportation, and utilities did high-risk countries host approximately 30% of total Chinese OFDI. Among the remaining nine industries, high-risk countries attracted only a small proportion of China’s total OFDI.

My conclusion proves that the importance of the political risk level in host countries has never been neglected by Chinese MNEs when making investment decisions because troubled transactions have taught them to take more cautious procedures and steps in their OFDI; at the same time, governmental efforts, such as effective guidance, consultation and real-time investment information, have prevented Chinese enterprises from investing in troubled projects and high-risk-level countries. Most importantly, the political capacities developed by Chinese MNEs in the Chinese business environment have helped them overcome many difficulties in their internationalization.

References

  1. Buckley, P., Clegg, L., Cross, A., Liu, X., Voss, H. and Zheng, P. (2007). The determinants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), pp.499-518.
  2. Cuervo-Cazurra, A. and Genc, M. (2008). Transforming disadvantages into advantages: developing-country MNEs in the least developed countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(6), pp.957-979.
  3. Holburn, G. and Zelner, B. (2010). Political capabilities, policy risk, and international investment strategy: evidence from the global electric power generation industry. Strategic Management Journal, 31(12), pp.1290-1315.
  4. Jiménez, A. (2010). Does political risk affect the scope of the expansion abroad? Evidence from Spanish MNEs. International Business Review, 19(6), pp.619-633.
  5. Jiménez, A., Luis-Rico, I. and Benito-Osorio, D. (2014). The influence of political risk on the scope of internationalization of regulated companies: Insights from a Spanish sample. Journal of World Business, 49(3), pp.301-311.
  6. Lattemann, C., Alon, I., Spigarelli, F. and Marinova, S. (2017). Dynamic Embeddedness in Chinese Firm Internationalization. Thunderbird International Business Review, 59(4), pp.547-559.
  7. Quer, D., Claver, E. and Rienda, L. (2018). The influence of political risk, inertia and imitative behavior on the location choice of Chinese multinational enterprises. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 13(3), pp.518-535.
  8. Цюйюй Гаоянь, “Распределение политических рисков при вложении прямых иностранных инвестиций Китаем (эмпирическое исследование на основе данных за 2006–2017”, Гуманитарные науки. Вестник Финан​сового университета., 2019 No.4

https://russiancouncil.ru/en/blogs/qiuyugaoyan/political-risk-distribution-of-chinese-outward-foreign-direct-investme/

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für Political Risk Distribution of Chinese Outward Foreign Direct Investment

Can Quad be Effective against Incremental Encroachment of China in Indo-Pacific Region?

Author: General Sashi Asthana

Key Points

·        Chinese adventurism in South China Sea and expeditionary design in Indo-Pacific is a global concern.

·        Quad being looked at as one of the instruments for ensuring free and open, rule-based Indo-Pacific.

·       Quad needs teeth to effective in such expected role, along with other global        efforts.

The ‘Incremental Encroachment Strategy’ of China exhibited in South China Sea (SCS) is a serious concern not only to the countries directly affected by losing their influence  over overlapping EEZ, but also to rest of the world as China can exert illegitimate monopoly over SCS global Sea Lane of Communication (SLOC).  The countries directly affected do not have adequate muscle power to stand up to China; hence will have no choice but to succumb to one sided arrangement like China driven “Code of Conduct” (COC).  Chinese adventurism therefore needs to be checked by other prominent maritime powers in global interest. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) which groups Australia, India, Japan, and the United States is often being looked at as a potential instrument to check further adventurism of china in Indo-Pacific, however it currently does not have requisite teeth and traction.  The fact that China could convert features into military base in SCS despite presence of US Navy indicates that it does require global condemnation and effort of higher order to ensure that SCS does not become ‘China’s Lake’.  Although Quad may not have requisite teeth as of now, but there is no other alternative but to have potential arrangement of this kind between likeminded maritime powers having common strategic interests in Indo-Pacific Region in relation to freedom of navigation (FON), flights and rule-based order. 

Differing Perceptions regarding Role of Quad

The Quad has repeatedly been subject of varying perceptions regarding its role, viability and prospects. Quad by nomenclature is a security dialogue forum and not a military alliance; hence the expectations from Quad have to be appropriately restricted for the time being.  Media often traces the Quad back to the expanded Malabar Naval Exercise in September 2007, that originated from the U.S.-India bilateral relationship, wherein ships of all four Quad countries participated for the first time, which was held off the Japanese island of Okinawa. It appeared to be a military and maritime arrangement revolving exclusively around four democracies. The initial impetus/usefulness of Quad it in fact emerged following the devastating tsunami in Indian Ocean back in 2004 as the so-called Tsunami Core Group, which came together to fashion a credible Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) response to it. This role for Quad, along with anti-piracy was noticed and counted, as such a role was much easier to sell to the world community including the stakeholders, which were excluded in the grouping. 

Many give the credit of the idea of Quad to Prime Minister Abe who mooted his proposal within the framework of the “confluence of the two seas”, joining the Indian and the Pacific Oceans. This would enable a “broader Asia” to emerge, which would encompass the Pacific, where Japan felt that partnership with the US and Australia would be integrated into its ambit besides Japan – India strategic partnership. The four democratic countries of the Quad project themselves to be committed to an open and transparent network which “will allow people, goods, capital, and knowledge to flow freely”. Quad is therefore yet to acknowledge that it has a role to check the adventurism of China in Indo-Pacific region and could ever operate jointly as a military force for it. In fact, Quad has chosen to be diplomatically correct to say that it is not directed towards any particular country.

Problems/Divergences

To take the dialogue forward, the Quad needs to urgently converge existing divergences regarding their individual definitions of the Indo-Pacific. While Indian and to some extent Japanese focus would be to include western Indian Ocean touching Africa and Gulf countries along with the Eastern Indian Ocean, Northern and Eastern Pacific, which perhaps other members of Quad would see as the main focus of attention. 

 All Quad members have different threat perceptions in the Indo-Pacific. This impacts their prioritization in dealing with challenges in Indo-pacific as well as the areas of focus. It also includes their approach towards dealing with flash points like SCS or upholding the freedom of navigation along the sea and air routes of communication, connectivity and rule-based order in the Indo-Pacific. An important issue for effective maritime security cooperation amongst the navies of Quad is while three of the navies (Australia, US and Japan) operate within NATO military alliance framework, India is not part of any military alliance, although a strategic partner of two of them. The trilateral dialogue between the three NATO allies is continuing since 2002 without India. India is the only country amongst Quad members which has unsettled land border with China; hence will have a different approach in dealing with China. This does create some apprehension in mind of the rest three partners as China -India relations keep fluctuating between tension and harmony with incidents like Doklam, Wuhan and reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir. This brings up the question of military decision-making by the Quad as a group.

The centrality of ASEAN in the Indo-Pacific has been emphasized by the Quad, hence their inclusion into it is another debatable issue, due to Chinese influence over them. There are differences within ASEAN in response to Chinese claim over nine dash line in SCS (based on its unilateral interpretation of history), between the countries which have overlapping EEZ and the ones not facing such problem. Generally, some of the affected ASEAN countries have occasionally raised a feeble voice against Chinese aggression (Philippines, Vietnam), expecting world powers to check Chinese adventurism, without themselves standing up against the Chinese might. They have generally tried to get the best of US and China without being seen to be taking sides. This has emboldened China to continue incremental encroachment in SCS and the region up to a point that it has become a global concern. China has also tried its best to deal with each of the country in this region on bilateral terms and lure/influence it through ‘Chequebook/Purse/Infrastructure diplomacy’.

Strengthening/Upgradation of Quad

 It is being increasingly realized that equal participation of all four Quad countries in maritime security cooperation is crucial for a ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific region’. Between 2007 to 2017, meetings of Quad officials were extremely limited, that too at Joint Secretary/equivalent level. 2017 onwards it had four meetings, the last one being at Foreign Minister level, indicates the incremental seriousness of the countries involved in such engagement. Increasing convergence in focus and roles is also being noticed. In last meeting hosted by US earlier this year, besides ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific’ to ensure freedom of navigation; maritime security cooperation; connectivity; good governance; countering terrorism and proliferation; HADR; promoting a rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific; and cyber security were some common areas of interest. Concerns like use of global commons in international water and nuclear adventurism of North Korea were also subjects of discussion. Consensus on centrality of ASEAN was also a sign of convergence.

The common focus of Quad to implement its idea of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific on a “rules-based” legal framework to secure freedom of navigation in the global SLOC in Indo-Pacific needs some introspection and strengthening. Three members of Quad namely Australia, India and Japan, have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), however US is yet to ratify the same. This ratification will be necessary to have a moral high ground to implement the same. It is still not sure that any legal framework can compel China to accept it in SCS in future, as it had rejected the PCA’s decision earlier. This is a serious global concern because China continues to make/improve infrastructure in SCS, with a view to convert features/atolls into military bases, expect others to accept them as islands and apply ‘Baseline principle’ under UNCLOS-III to claim its 200 nautical miles of EEZ to conveniently convert SCS into ‘Chinese lake’ over a period of time. If it is not resented by global community, it may lead to some restrictions like ADIZ on SCS which is a global SLOC. 

Considering the prevailing international strategic scenario, China is reasonably confident that US or any other country will not use military force to dismantle their infrastructure made in SCS. It is also increasing its naval capability as part of its comprehensive national power (CNP) to make best use of inaction by other countries in Indo-Pacific. In this context it is necessary that Quad strengthens itself beyond Malabar exercises and forum for dialogue and gets some teeth in the form of maritime capacity building of its members, further improvement of interoperability and dominate choke points sensitive to China. Chinese adventurism of recent intrusion like Vanguard episode in Vietnam waters need to be taken seriously.  

Quad members must continue freedom of navigation exercises and military posturing in Indo-Pacific as China continues to do so. Global community must continue to condemn Chinese encroachment in SCS and conversion of features into bases. These features should never be recognized as islands in consonance with PCA decision. If the strategic situation worsens there may be a need to position ‘UN Maritime Military Observers Group’ in future, which must be thought of, as prevention of accidental triggering of conflict is possible in a region having high density of combat ship on FON missions.  Some of the countries whose EEZ is being compromised by Nine dash line claims must start speaking for themselves before expecting other powers to help them. The countries who have their SLOC passing through Indo-pacific should also be consulted in finalization of China driven Code of Conduct (CoC) as they also have stakes in SCS. Any action by any country to restrict freedom of navigation/flight or violation of rule of law must be challenged in UN Security Council. Support of other navies like France for free and open Indo-Pacific is  encouraging step in this direction. Quad in its present form may not be effective enough to check Chinese adventurism, but it certainly has potential to become one of the effective instruments to do so, provided the affected countries and the global community also plays its role against common concerns.

Major General S B Asthana

(The views expressed are personal views of the author, who retains the copy right). The author can be reached at Facebook, LinkedIn, and Google+ as Shashi Asthana, @asthana_shashi on twitter, and personnel sitehttps://asthanawrites.org/email shashiasthana29@gmail.comLinkedIn Profilewww.linkedin.com/in/shashi-asthana-4b3801a6Youtube linkS B Asthana

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für Can Quad be Effective against Incremental Encroachment of China in Indo-Pacific Region?

USA-China: Phase 1 agreement – what are the other phases? From trade war to offshore control war?



Some optimists and good people are now trying to interpret the trade agreement between the United States and China as the end of the Sino-American conflict. Observers on German stock exchange television seriously declare that the agreement is now a return to rules-based world trade, while Trump is attacking the WTO to make it clear that the struggle will continue, that it will only take place a bit delayed, and that the agreement is only phase 1, which others are to follow , What is the deal so far? SPIEGEL reports:

“Part of the deal is the suspension of a new round of US punitive tariffs on Chinese goods that should have come into effect at the weekend. The Chinese government also announced the agreement in Beijing. The United States has also committed to partially withdrawing tariffs that have already been imposed, said China’s Vice Secretary of Commerce Wang Shouwen.

Trump waives announced punitive taxes

This Sunday, the U.S. had originally planned to impose an additional 15 percent penalty on consumer goods like laptops and smartphones produced in China, valued at approximately $ 150 billion. This would – after various previous customs rounds – have imposed additional duties on almost all imports from China, i.e. goods worth around $ 500 billion a year. However, this escalation does not occur.

Trump wrote that the punitive tariffs planned for December 15 will not be imposed because an agreement has been reached. He spoke of a „very large phase one agreement“ with China. „We will start negotiations on a phase two agreement immediately instead of waiting until after the 2020 election,“ he said. Beijing wanted the punitive tariffs to be abolished, but they remained in effect as a lever for further talks. ”

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/handelsstreit-usa-und-china-verkuenden-grundsaetzliche-einigung-a-1301227.html

„According to US media reports, it was agreed that:
• The US will refrain from imposing a 15 percent penalty on further imports from China worth nearly $ 160 billion as of Sunday,
• The US government has reduced existing tariffs from 25 percent to $ 250 billion worth of goods and 15 percent to $ 110 billion in volume, some reports have even cut it in half. The Trump administration had long rejected this concession. Only in the past few days did she give in,
In return, China ended its boycott of American agricultural products and, above all, ordered soybeans and pork – which the country urgently needs in view of the rampant swine fever. At first it was unclear how high the commitment was. Trump had spoken of $ 40 to $ 50 billion in October, which would be more than in the record 2012 fiscal year. Beijing’s negotiators were reluctant to commit to specific sums,
Beijing takes action against intellectual property theft and promises not to manipulate its currency. Observers consider the latter to be a problem of the past,
• Tariffs will rise again if China does not keep its promises.
On the other hand, the major issues such as China’s subsidy policy, with which it wants to conquer the economic leadership, have been excluded. Republican Senator Marco Rubio warned that the U.S. government is depriving itself of the leverage it needs to implement an agreement on the more important problem areas: in addition to subsidies, the forced technology transfer and the lack of market access for US companies in key sectors of the Chinese economy , Merely „recalibrating“ the trade balance is too little, criticized several democratic senators in a letter to the president. “

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/donald-trump-im-handelsstreit-mit-china-einigung-mit-beruhigungspille-a-1301057.html

So most punitive tariffs remain in effect, the trade agreement is just a short-term ceasefire designed to ensure Trump’s next election success after his tax-cutting program gave an initial boost but is now being thinned out by the trade war. It must be clearly seen that Trump’s first goal is to reduce the United States‘ foreign trade deficits, especially in the direction of China, but also vis-à-vis all other trading partners such as the export world champion Germany or EU or Mexico, Canada, South Korea, Japan and the Southeast Asian countries. The pro-Chinese East Asia Forum wants to see this as a victory against Trump, but sees that the Sino-American conflict with or without Trump continues to have a tendency to escalate. But she emphasizes that China will be the long-term winner, since globalization trends cannot be reversed, and that China will also become a high-tech power, which all Trump’s punitive measures and measures can no longer prevent:

The chill ahead in the Second Cold War

Author: Gary Clyde Hufbauer, PIIE

In the year 2018 — 99 years after the end of the First World War, 73 years after the end of the Second and 26 years after the end of the first Cold War — US Vice President Mike Pence announced a Second Cold War: This time with China. How and when it will end is anyone’s guess. The weapons, for the moment, are trade, investment and technology. In 2020 and beyond, the trajectory of the Second Cold War will challenge leaders in Asia and elsewhere.

„President Donald Trump’s rhetoric towards China blows hot and cold depending on his daily mood. But Trump’s overriding goal for 2020 is a glowing economy — without that his re-election prospects will take a dive. The economy is far more important to Trump’s political future than impeachment.

Yet, the trade war’s economic toll has largely offset stimulus from the 2017 tax cut. The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 increased the federal budget deficit by almost US$800 billion annually and cut the corporate tax rate to 21 per cent in line with other advanced countries. But unfortunately, trade wars fostered business uncertainty worldwide and eliminated the investment boost that the lower tax rate would have generated.

Trump can scold Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, but he cannot command negative interest rates. What Trump can do is dial back his trade wars. Accordingly, the near-term outlook is no escalation. Instead, partial rollback of existing tariffs in exchange for assured US agricultural exports seems possible.

But Trump’s near-term trade war tactics are a mere blip in the Second Cold War. Whether Trump is re-elected in 2020 or a Democrat prevails makes little difference. Trump and his Democratic rivals have all convinced themselves — and a majority of Americans — that China is the threat of our era.

But there are differences of degree. Some US political leaders, like Republican and Democratic senators Marco Rubio and Charles Schumer, respectively, characterise China as an existential threat. Others, like Republican Senator Rob Portman, favour targeted responses to specific trade and investment grievances. Henry Kissinger’s calming voice and warning that the United States and China have reached the ‘foothills of a cold war’ find much less resonance in today’s political environment.

During 2020 and beyond, bilateral US–China trade seems destined to stagnate or shrink, but technology will be the lead weapon of ‘decoupling’ — a soft description of the Second Cold War. The United States has already severely restricted US tech companies from selling to Huawei. Not surprisingly, Huawei is already making smart phones without US components.

For a short period, enhanced technological deprivation will slow China’s industrial aspirations. But this will not last. Instructive is the first Soviet atomic bomb explosion in 1949, a mere four years after Hiroshima. To be sure, Soviet scientists were aided by spies at Los Alamos, but China is no slouch when it comes to commercial espionage and Chinese scientific and technological talent and capacities today are far better than those of the Russians in the 1940s.

While the United States is busy decoupling, China has mounted an economic charm offensive. At a time when openness to trade has become too toxic for most world leaders to swallow, President Xi Jinping has repeated a plea for China to welcome more imports. Speaking at the second China International Import Expo (CIIE) hosted in Shanghai over November 5–10, Xi not only called for China to import more, he extolled the World Trade Organization (WTO) and likened globalisation to a mighty river, unstoppable despite many shoals.

American sceptics will scoff at Xi’s speech, but they should ask what other leader of a major economic power is calling for enhanced imports. Not President Donald Trump. Not Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. Not Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan.

The Second Cold War confronts Asian leaders with challenges akin to those European leaders faced in the first Cold War. Asian countries nearest China are clear targets of its geopolitical ambitions. Chinese influence travels alongside the Belt and Road Initiative, together with less obvious, and less expensive, covert measures. But China is already a much bigger economic partner for Asia than the United States. Unless China’s ambitions take overt military shape or China’s response to Hong Kong or the Uyghurs becomes visibly bloody, few Asian countries are going to join Washington’s decoupling crusade.

Trump has yet to take measures familiar in the arena of economic sanctions — using secondary trade or financial restrictions to deter third countries from doing business with the adversary. A looming question, in 2021 and beyond, is whether Trump or his successor will take such measures to deter technologically advanced countries in Asia and elsewhere from sharing technologies with Chinese firms. A taste of this option was the largely unsuccessful US diplomatic effort to deter European countries from buying Huawei’s wares. Stay tuned.

Gary Clyde Hufbauer is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics (PIIE).

Be that as it may, there are essentially two U.S. strategy lines: those of the Democrats and Republicans who militarily want to make military alliances in Asia and free trade areas like the TransPacific Partnership TPP  against China and who, with TTIP wanted to build an economic NATO of the West and at the same time wanted to challenge Russia. Then Trump, who has China and Iran as the main focus, wants to get Putin-Russia away from China, wants to bring the whole world to America first by means of a trade war and the questioning of all international organizations and also the WTO.

In any case, the phase 1 agreement is only a small ceasefire to enable Trump to be re-elected. The impeachment process is doomed to fail, as Republicans will prevent this from happening in the Senate, and there are no other important Republican candidates who would question Trump’s next presidential nomination. Democrats were driven to impeachment more than they were convinced thatbthey could impeach Trump. Especially since Trump, with his campaign against Joe Biden as a centrist integration figure, has now triggered the factional dispute among the Democrats, who are at odds with each other between the left and the right. The trade agreement with China should also be seen as a success for Trump as he claims that because of the Phase 1 agreement US exports to China will double. The chances of his re-election have increased.

But in general, the mood has turned against the CPC in the United States. Which was actually the original intent of Bush rr.when he declared China as the strategic competitor, but this failed as a result of the 9-11 s, after the war in Iraq and Afghanistan,  Obamas or Hillary Clinton’s „Asian Pivot“ wanted a united economic front of the West and the Asians against  China and contain it militarily through alliances.

The question is why China gave in. Is it taht China is afraid of Trump, that the punitive tariffs will have such an impact on China’s economy that they will no longer be acceptable and are dangerous for the economic and political stability of the CCP, or the CCP may have even an interest in Trump being re-elected, judging his rivals‘ strategies as more dangerous for China, and hoping that his trade war against the world will drive Europeans, Russians, and Asians into Beijing’s arms, and China’s rise to a Hitech and world power anyway can’t be stopped and yChina has not to rely on foreign technology and just get your time by an American idiot.. ,

Especially since Trump is also a climate denier and the EU has just decided on a Green Europe, in which 260 billion Euro should be invested annually in  a New Green Deal. China will therefore use the anti-Trump mood in Europe against the Trump-USA., as well as its own Green China image, to use Europe and all supporters of the Paris climate  agreement, which, with the exception of Trumps and Brazil-Bolsanaro, was signed by the rest of the world China will try to cover its own devastating ecological balance sheet, its neototalitarism, its striving for the new world power role No. 1 by means of its international contracts and its economic strength.

They want to challenge Hong Kong democracy activists like Joshua Wong, who calls for a the Second Cold War of the free world against the unfree world, the neototalitarian China, which is in the transition from an authoritarian one-party rule to a neototalitarian one-man rule with no term limit and social bonus system ,. But confronting China through ecological criticism is not as easy as in the question of economy and democracy. The CCP China signed the Paris climate protection agreement, which is a lazy but long-negotiated minimum compromise, which is then advocated by all sides, and which also allows China, India and other countries to expand their coal and nucleasr power, i.e. their CO2, till 2030 – These increases are priced in this global temperature saving agreement.

If the Chinese opposition acted as a pioneer of the Future for Friday, as Joshua Wong does in the column of the German newpaper Welt, they would have to question the Paris climate protection agreement, would be perceived by the world community as an adventurous hate aurator and destroyer of international contracts while the CP China would be regarded as a guarantor of inetrnationbal treateis and stabilizer of the international world order , which also has positive ecological aspects, such as the fact that it is a leading nation in the production of renewable energy and its exports via the New Silk Road, as well as a global leader in the implementation of e-mobility including its infrastructure and increasingly global lead market for e-cars, to which Green Europe and its auto industry, especially VW, wants to convert. I is also likely that the Greens are  coalition partners of the next German government, as the European Greens have grown like the right winged populist movements and parties.

Therefore, a new black- green government may have a more anti-Chinese accent towards human rights and democracy, but China could undermine this through the anti-Trump mood in Europe and its climate denial, as well as economic reasons. China could therefore counter critisism on  democracy and economic interests through a new image as Green China, which supports Green Europe in the alliance against Trump’s climate denial policy. Conversely, European politicians and business associations could also come to the idea that Trump’s trade deal could also make demands in terms of economic policy againts China from export to intellectual property, perhaps also in connection with the USA, especially since some economic associations and Greens are angry. To what extent the common goal of a CO2-free planet and not economic interests dominates remains to be seen. In any case, the promise of prosperity by the ecologists that a Freen Europe could be used to create millions of jobs by regenerative energies and that every farmer could become a solar sheikh were destroyed through China’s cost advantages and industrial policy with dumping prices. that Germany and Europe’s solar and wind power industry is actually broke and that its production and jobs are taking place in China today..

It is also a question of the grand narrative. The USA previously had freedom and propserity for he world, now only prosperity and only America first. China only has prosperity for China and the world by its New Silkroad. The EU Freedom and Ecology, the Green Europe, through which Prosperity should somehow appear indirectly. Russia d lacks everything, it fluctuates between Eurasia, GreaterEurasia , Greater Europe, but Eurasia always has the disadvantage that a Euraisen is not dominated by Russia or Europe or Greater Europe, but above all by China, and Russia would be at best the junior partner. And the old Primakovian triangle Russia-China-India is not so easy either, because India did not want to become part of the Eurasian Free Trade Agreement Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership .The Global Times demands that India should decide one day which side it would be in a future Eurasian conflict, which would be a Sino-American conflict.The Phase1  agreement is a short-term ceasefire, a breather. Trump only calls it phase 1. Phase 2 is likely to become China’s high-tech sector and Made in China in 2025, with 5 G and Huawei only being the tip of the iceberg, as everything from AI to quantum computers will follow.

In short: Trump wants to be re-elected, but then will not be saturated, because his goal is not only to reduce the trade deficit, but that the CP China agrees to its America first conditions for a new pax america, which defines China as No.2 in a sustainable and medium-term manner. At least Trump’s deal has damaged China’s image as an unstoppable rising world power as a result of globalization. Phase 2, phase 3 are yet to come and Trump will not be saturated under this agreement, but will then even more intensify his final struggle against the CPC in the event of re-election. He still has 4 years to do this, but the possibility that he could wage a Sino-American war according to the model of the US strategist TX Hammes Offshore Controll as phase 4 is currently not being considered.

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für USA-China: Phase 1 agreement – what are the other phases? From trade war to offshore control war?

USA- China: Phase 1-Abkommen-wie sehen die weiteren Phasen aus? Vom Handelskrieg zum Offshore Controllkrieg?

Einige Optimisten und Gutmenschen versuchen das Handelsabkommen zwischen den USA und China nun als Ende des sinomaerikanischen Konflikts zu interpretieren. Beobachter im deutschen Börsenfernsehen erklären ernsthaft, dass das Abkommen nun eine Rückkehrr zum regelbasierten Welthandel sei, während Trump geade die WTO angreift, um klarzumachen, dass der Kampf weitergeht, nur etwas verzögert stattfinden wird und das Abkommen nur Phase 1 ist, deren andere folgen sollen. Was ist der bisherige Deal. Der SPIEGEL berichtet dazu:

„Teil der Einigung ist demnach die Aussetzung einer neuen Runde von US-Strafzöllen auf chinesische Waren, die am Wochenende hätte in Kraft treten sollen. Auch die chinesische Regierung gab die Einigung in Peking bekannt. Die USA hätten sich auch verpflichtet, bereits verhängte Zölle teilweise zurückzunehmen, sagte Chinas Vizehandelsminister Wang Shouwen.

Trump verzichtet auf angekündigte Strafabgaben

An diesem Sonntag hätten die USA nach ursprünglichen Plänen zusätzliche Strafabgaben von 15 Prozent auf in China produzierte Konsumgüter wie Laptops und Smartphones im Wert von rund 150 Milliarden US-Dollar verhängt. Damit wären – nach diversen vorherigen Zollrunden – auf fast alle Importe aus China, also Waren im Wert von rund 500 Milliarden US-Dollar pro Jahr, zusätzliche Zölle erhoben worden. Zu dieser Eskalation kommt es nun aber nicht.

Trump schrieb, man verzichte auf die Verhängung der für den 15. Dezember geplanten Strafzölle, weil eine Vereinbarung zustande gekommen sei. Er sprach von einem „sehr großen Phase-Eins-Abkommen“ mit China. „Wir werden sofort mit den Verhandlungen über ein Phase-Zwei-Abkommen beginnen, anstatt bis nach der Wahl 2020 zu warten“, betonte er. Peking habe sich zwar die Abschaffung der Strafzölle gewünscht, aber sie blieben vorerst als Hebel für die weiteren Gespräche in Kraft.“

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/handelsstreit-usa-und-china-verkuenden-grundsaetzliche-einigung-a-1301227.html

„Nach US-Medienberichten wurde vereinbart, dass:

  • die USA darauf verzichten, ab Sonntag weitere Einfuhren aus China im Wert von knapp 160 Milliarden Dollar mit 15 Prozent Strafzoll zu belegen,
  • die US-Regierung die bestehenden Zölle von 25 Prozent auf Waren im Wert von 250 Milliarden Dollar und 15 Prozent auf ein Volumen von 110 Milliarden Dollar verringert, manchen Berichten zufolge sogar auf die Hälfte senkt. Die Trump-Administration hatte dieses Zugeständnis lange abgelehnt. Erst in den vergangenen Tagen lenkte sie ein,
  • China im Gegenzug seinen Kaufboykott für amerikanische Agrarprodukte beendet und vor allem wieder Sojabohnen und Schweinefleisch – das das Land angesichts der grassierenden Schweinepest dringend braucht – ordert. Unklar war zunächst, wie hoch die Zusage ist. Trump hatte im Oktober von 40 bis 50 Milliarden Dollar gesprochen, das wäre mehr als im Rekord-Geschäftsjahr 2012. Pekings Unterhändler zögerten, sich auf konkrete Summen festzulegen,
  • Peking gegen den Diebstahl geistigen Eigentums vorgeht und verspricht, seine Währung nicht zu manipulieren. Letzteres halten Beobachter für ein Problem der Vergangenheit,
  • die Zölle wieder steigen, wenn China seine Zusagen nicht einhält.

Dagegen wurden die großen Streitpunkte wie Chinas Subventionspolitik, mit der es die volkswirtschaftliche Führungsposition erobern will, ausgeklammert. Der republikanische Senator Marco Rubio warnte, dass sich die US-Regierung damit des Hebels beraube, den sie brauche, um ein Abkommen über die wichtigeren Problemfelder durchzusetzen: Neben den Subventionen der erzwungene Technologietransfer und der fehlende Marktzugang für US-Unternehmen in Schlüsselsektoren der chinesischen Wirtschaft. Lediglich die Handelsbilanz „neu zu kalibrieren“, sei zu wenig, kritisierten auch mehrere demokratische Senatoren in einem Schreiben an den Präsidenten.“

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/donald-trump-im-handelsstreit-mit-china-einigung-mit-beruhigungspille-a-1301057.html

Also die meisten Strafzölle bleiben in Kraft, das Handelsabkommen ist nur ein kurzfristiger Waffenstillstand, der Trump den nächsten Wahlerfolg sichern soll, nachdem sein Steuersenkungsprogramm zwar einen anfänglichen Impuls setzte, aber nun durch den Handelskrieg ausgedünnt wird. Dabei muss man klar sehen, dass Trump zwar als erstes Ziel die Verringerung der Aussenhandelsdefizite der USA hat, vor allem in Richtung China, aber eben auch gegenüber allen anderen Handelspartnern wie dem Exportweltmeister Deutschland oder EU oder Mexiko, Kanada, Südkorea, Japan und den Südostasiatischen Staatnen. Das prochinesische East Asia Forum will dies als Sieg gegenüber Trump sehen, sieht aber, dass der sinoamerikanische Konflikt mit oder ohne Trump weiterhin die Tendenz hat zu eskalieren. Aber sie betont, dass China der langfristige Gewinner sein werde, da die Trends der Globalisierung nicht zurückgedreht werden könnten, zudem China auch zur Hochtechnologiemacht aufsteigen werde, was alle Strafzölle und Maßnahmen Trumps nicht mehr verhindern könnten:

The chill ahead in the Second Cold War

Author: Gary Clyde Hufbauer, PIIE

In the year 2018 — 99 years after the end of the First World War, 73 years after the end of the Second and 26 years after the end of the first Cold War — US Vice President Mike Pence announced a Second Cold War: This time with China. How and when it will end is anyone’s guess. The weapons, for the moment, are trade, investment and technology. In 2020 and beyond, the trajectory of the Second Cold War will challenge leaders in Asia and elsewhere.

„President Donald Trump’s rhetoric towards China blows hot and cold depending on his daily mood. But Trump’s overriding goal for 2020 is a glowing economy — without that his re-election prospects will take a dive. The economy is far more important to Trump’s political future than impeachment.

Yet, the trade war’s economic toll has largely offset stimulus from the 2017 tax cut. The Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 increased the federal budget deficit by almost US$800 billion annually and cut the corporate tax rate to 21 per cent in line with other advanced countries. But unfortunately, trade wars fostered business uncertainty worldwide and eliminated the investment boost that the lower tax rate would have generated.

Trump can scold Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, but he cannot command negative interest rates. What Trump can do is dial back his trade wars. Accordingly, the near-term outlook is no escalation. Instead, partial rollback of existing tariffs in exchange for assured US agricultural exports seems possible.

But Trump’s near-term trade war tactics are a mere blip in the Second Cold War. Whether Trump is re-elected in 2020 or a Democrat prevails makes little difference. Trump and his Democratic rivals have all convinced themselves — and a majority of Americans — that China is the threat of our era.

But there are differences of degree. Some US political leaders, like Republican and Democratic senators Marco Rubio and Charles Schumer, respectively, characterise China as an existential threat. Others, like Republican Senator Rob Portman, favour targeted responses to specific trade and investment grievances. Henry Kissinger’s calming voice and warning that the United States and China have reached the ‘foothills of a cold war’ find much less resonance in today’s political environment.

During 2020 and beyond, bilateral US–China trade seems destined to stagnate or shrink, but technology will be the lead weapon of ‘decoupling’ — a soft description of the Second Cold War. The United States has already severely restricted US tech companies from selling to Huawei. Not surprisingly, Huawei is already making smart phones without US components.

For a short period, enhanced technological deprivation will slow China’s industrial aspirations. But this will not last. Instructive is the first Soviet atomic bomb explosion in 1949, a mere four years after Hiroshima. To be sure, Soviet scientists were aided by spies at Los Alamos, but China is no slouch when it comes to commercial espionage and Chinese scientific and technological talent and capacities today are far better than those of the Russians in the 1940s.

While the United States is busy decoupling, China has mounted an economic charm offensive. At a time when openness to trade has become too toxic for most world leaders to swallow, President Xi Jinping has repeated a plea for China to welcome more imports. Speaking at the second China International Import Expo (CIIE) hosted in Shanghai over November 5–10, Xi not only called for China to import more, he extolled the World Trade Organization (WTO) and likened globalisation to a mighty river, unstoppable despite many shoals.

American sceptics will scoff at Xi’s speech, but they should ask what other leader of a major economic power is calling for enhanced imports. Not President Donald Trump. Not Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. Not Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan.

The Second Cold War confronts Asian leaders with challenges akin to those European leaders faced in the first Cold War. Asian countries nearest China are clear targets of its geopolitical ambitions. Chinese influence travels alongside the Belt and Road Initiative, together with less obvious, and less expensive, covert measures. But China is already a much bigger economic partner for Asia than the United States. Unless China’s ambitions take overt military shape or China’s response to Hong Kong or the Uyghurs becomes visibly bloody, few Asian countries are going to join Washington’s decoupling crusade.

Trump has yet to take measures familiar in the arena of economic sanctions — using secondary trade or financial restrictions to deter third countries from doing business with the adversary. A looming question, in 2021 and beyond, is whether Trump or his successor will take such measures to deter technologically advanced countries in Asia and elsewhere from sharing technologies with Chinese firms. A taste of this option was the largely unsuccessful US diplomatic effort to deter European countries from buying Huawei’s wares. Stay tuned.

Gary Clyde Hufbauer is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics (PIIE).

Wie dem auch sei, es gibt im wesentlichen zwei US-Strategielinien: Die der Demokraten und Republikaner, die militärisch mit Bündnissen in Asien und Freihandelszonen wie der TransPacific Partnership TPP China eindämmen und mit TTIP eine Wirtschafts-NATO des Westens zimmern und gleichzeitig mit Russand den Konflikt eskalieren wollen . Dann Trump, der vor allem China und Iran als Hauptfokus hat, Putin-Russland von China wegbekommen will, die ganze Welt mittels eines Handelsjrieg und der Infragestellung aller internationalken Organisationen und auch der Welthandelsorganistaionen auf America first bringen will. Jedenfalls ist das Phase 1-abkommen nur ein kleiner Waffenstillstand, um Trump die Wiederwahl zu ermöglichen. Das Impeachmentverfahren ist zum Scheitern verurteilt, da die Republikaner dies im Senat verhindern werden und es auch keinen anderen irgednwie noch bedeutenden republikanischen Kandidaten gibt, der die nächste Präsidentenschaftskandidatur Trumps infrage stellen würde, Die Demokraten wurden zum Impeachnment mehr getrieben, als dass sie davon überzeugt gewesen wären, Trump stürzen zu können. Zumal Trump mit seiner Kampagne gegen Joe Biden als zentristischer Integrationsfigur nun auch den Flügelstreit unter den Demokraten ausgelöst hat, die untereinander zwischen der Linken und Rechten zerstritten werden. Das Handelsabkommen mit China dürfte ihm auch als Erfolg angesehen werden, zumal er auch behaupetet dass sich die US Exporte nach China infolge des Phase1-Ablkommens verdoppeln würden. Kurz: Die Chancen seiner Wiederwahl haben sich erhöht. Aber generell hat sich die Stimmung gegen die KP China gewendet in den USA. Was ja eigentlich das ursprüngliche Ansinnem Bush jr.s vom strategic competitor war, dass aber infolge 9-11 , des Irak- und Afghanistankriegs unterging oder  Obamas oder Hillary Clintons „Asian Pivot“ war, eben eine vereinigte Wirtschaftsfront des Westen und der Asiaten gegen China zu formieren und es militärisch durch Bündisse einzuhegen.

Die Frage ist, warum China da nachgab.Hat China Angst vor Trump, haben die Strafzölle eine derart Auswirkung auf Chinas Wirtschaft, dass sie als nicht mehr hinnehmbar und gefährlich für die ökonomische und politische Stablität der KP China gesehen werden oder hat die KP China vielleicht sogar ein Interesse, dass Trump wiedergewählt wird, da sie die Strategien seiner Konkurrenten als gefährlicher für China beurteilt und hofft, dass sein Handelskrieg gegen die Welt ihm Europäer, Russen und Asiaten in Pekings Arme treiben wird, den Aufstieg Chians zur Hitech- ud Weltmacht ohnehin nicht merh aufhalten kann und man auch nicht auf ausländische Technologie angewiesen ist und ihm eben seine Eitelkeit bedient. .

Zumal Trump ja auch ein Klimaleugner ist und die EU gerade ein Grünes Europa beschlossen hat, in das 260 Milliarden jährlich investiert werden soll, einen New Green Deal. China wird dalso die Anti-Trumpstimmung in Europa, wie auch seine eigenes Green China nutzen, um Europa und alle Unterstützer des Pariser Kliamschutzabkommen, das mit Ausnahme Trumps und Brasilien-Bolsanros die Restwelt unterschriebn haben gegen die Trump-USA zu nutzen. China wird sich versuchen sein eigene vernichtende Ökobilanz, seinen Neototalitarismus, sein Streben nach der neuen Weltmachtsrolle No 1.mittels seines Einhalten internationaler Vertäge und seiner Wirtschaftskraft zu relatvieren.

Dabei wollen sie Hongkonger Demokratieaktivisten wie Joshua Wong herausfordern, der den Zweiten Kalten Krieg der freien Welt gegen die unfreie Welt,das neototalitäre Chinas, das im Übergang von einer autoritären Ein-Parteiuenherrshcaft zu einer neototalitären Ein-Mann-Herschaftt ohne Amtszeitbegrenzung und sozialem Bonussytem ist, . Aber die Heraufordeung Chinas durch Ökologiekritik ist nicht so einfach wie in der Feitheits- und Demokrartiefrage. Denn die KP China hat das Pariser Klimaschutzabkommen unterrzeichnet, das ein fauler, aber lang verhandelter und dannvon allen Seiten befürworteretr Mindestkompromiss ist, bei dem auch China, Indien und anderen Staaten zugestanden wird, dass sie bis 2030 ihre Kohlekraft und Atmkraft ausbauen, also deren CO2-Zuwächse in dieses Abkommen zur Rettung der Welttemperatur eingepreist sind.

cWenn sich die chinesishe Opposition als Vorreiter der Future for Friday gebärden würde, wie dies Joshau Wong in der Kolumne der Springerpresse Welt tut, müsste sie das Pariser Klimaschutzabkommen infrage stellen, würde von der Weltgemeinschaft als abenteurlicher Hassadeur und Zerstörer internatioanler Vertäge  wahrgenommen während die KP China als vertragstreuer Garant und Stablisator  angesehen würde., das zumal auch positive ökologische Seiten hat, wie etwa , dass es Führernation bei der Produktion regenerativer Energie und der Export über die Neue Seidenstrasse ist, wie auch weltweiter Führer in der Durchsetzung der E-Mobilität zumal deren Infrastruktur und auch zunehmend globaler Leitmarkt werden könnte für E-Autos, auf die nun das Grüne Europa und dessen Autoindiustrie, allen voran VW umstellen will Wahrscheinlich ist auch, dass die Grünen Koalitionspartner der nächste deutschen Regierung sind, wie auch die europäischen Grünen zugelegt haben wie die rechtsradkalen Populismusbewegungen- und parteien.

Von daher dürfte ein neue schwarz-grüne Regierung einen mehr antichinesischen Akzent in Richtung Menschenrechten und Demokratie haben, aber China dies unterlaufen könnem durch die Anti-Trumpstimmung in Europa und dessen Klimaleugnen, wie auch wirtschaftlichem Gründen. China könnte also die Kritik an Demokratie und wirtschaftlichen Interessen durch ein neus Image als Grünes China , das das Grüne Europa im Bündnis gegen Trumps Klimaleugnungspolitik untertützt.Umgekehrt könnte aber auch europäische Politikter und Wirtschaftsverbände durch Trumps Handelsdeal auf die Idde kommen, dass witrschaftspolitisch von Export bis geistigem Eigentum man auch Forderungen erheben könnte, vielleicht auch in Verbindung mit den USA, zumakl auch etlcihe Wirtschaftskräfte und Grüne sauer sind, Inwieweit da das gemniensma Ziel ienes CO2-freien Planeten und nicht Wirtschaftsnteressen dominieren, bleibt abzuwarten. Jedenfalls wurde das Wohlstandsversprechen der Ökologen,dass man in Detschland und Europpa massenhaft Arbeitsplätze mittels regenerativer Energrien schaffen könnte und jeden Bauern zum Solarscheich machen könne durch Chinas Kostenvorteile und Industriepolitik mit Dumpingpreisen zunichte gemacht. dass Deutschland und Europas Solar- und Windkraftindustrie faktisch pleite und ausgrottet ist und ihre Prodkution samt Arbeitsplätze heute wie schon zuvor in China stattfindet.

Es ist auch ein ampf der Grand Narrative. Die USA hatten bisher freedom and propserty fort he wolrd, nun nur noch prosperity und nur America first. China hat nur prosperity for China and the wolrd. Die EU Freedom and Eclogy, das Grüne Europa, durch das dann auch indirekt irgendwie wieder Prosperity entsheten soll. Russland fehltes an allen, es schwankt zwischen Euraisa, GreaterEurais, Greater Europe, aber Eurais hat immer den Pferdefuss, dass ein Eurasien nict von Ruissland, sondern vor allem von China beherrscht würde und Russland da bestenfalls der Juniorpartner wäre. Und das alte Primakowsche Dreieck Russland- China-Indien geht auch nicht so einfach, da Indien gerade das eurasische Freihandelsbkommen  Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership nicht unetrzeichen wollte und sich auch mehr an die USA anlehnt, dass die Global Times fordert, Indien solle sich einmal entscheiden auf welcher Seite es bei einem künftigen euraischen Konflikt sthe, der im wentlcien ein sinomaerikanischer Konflikt wäre, Denn das Hnadelsabkommen ist ein kurzfirtsiger Waffenstillstand, eine Verschnaufspaues. Trump nennt es auch nur Phase 1-Ankommen. Phase 2 dürfte der Hochtechnologiesektor Chinas werden und Made in China 2025, wobei 5 G und Huawei nur die Spitze des Eisbergs ist, da noch alles vn KI bis Quantencomputern folgen wird.

Kurz: Trump will wiedergwählt werden, wird dann nicht saturiert sein,denn sein Ziel ist nicht nur die Verringerung des Handelsdefizits, sondern dass die KP China seine America first-Bedingungen  einer neuen pax american zustimmt, die China nachhaltig und mittelfirstig als No.2 definiert. Zimindestens hat Trumps Deal das Image Chinas als unaufhaltsame aufsteigender Weeltmacht infolge der Sachzwänge der Globalisierung lädiert. Phase 2, Phase 3 sollen noch kommen und Trump wird nach diesem Abkommen nicht saturiert sein sondern dann bei Wiederwahl seinen Endkampf gegen die KP China erst recht forcieren. Dazu bleiben ihm dann weiter 4 Jahre, aber die Möglichkeit, dass er als Phase 4 einen sinoamerikanischen Krieg nach dem Modell des US Strategen TX Hammes Offshore Controll führen könnte, wird momentan noch gar nicht angedacht.

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für USA- China: Phase 1-Abkommen-wie sehen die weiteren Phasen aus? Vom Handelskrieg zum Offshore Controllkrieg?

Why does Thailand’s South remain restless? Wrong politics or culture clash between Buddhists and Muslims?

Author: Dr. Wolfgang Sachsenröder


Most of the integration problems in the ethnic mix of Thailand are relatively low-threshold, at least compared to the civil war-like conditions in the troubled south that have been smoldering for decades. However, these have not always been there. They only started to become acute and bloody in the late 1930s and even more intensely from around 1960. The fact that the provinces on the border with Malaysia, Narathiwat, Yala and Pattani, have a predominantly Malay and Muslim population, a total of about 1 , 8 million people, cannot have been the sole cause. The north of Malaysia today also belonged to Siam historically. It was made into a crown colony by Great Britain with most of what is now Malaysia in 1867. The current state of Kelantan and the Sultanate of Pattani were until then a center of Malay Islam, which had been spread by Arab traders in Southeast Asia since the 7th century and had been firmly established since the 15th century.

Kelantan was a center of Islamic scholarship for all of Southeast Asia with the honorary title „The Veranda of Mecca“. Conquered in 1785, the Sultanate of Pattani, including Kelantan, was under Siamese rule, but increasingly came under British control in the 19th century. Until then, like almost everywhere in the region, the borders were not only very permeable, but also changeable. The British-Siamese Treaty of 1909 then drew a definitive border with Malaysia, which today is not politically questioned between the two countries apart from minor demarcation issues. He transferred the provinces of Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah and Perlis to the British, who also took over their debts to Siam. From Bangkok, the abandonment of the distant “worm process” in the deep south, now more than 800 kilometers by air and more than 1,100 kilometers by car to the Malaysian border, must have been perceived as relatively painless, because these Malay areas were not economically significant at the time.

What could be understood as a reasonable compromise in 1909, however, had ignored the fact that the historical and religious differences connected the ceded areas more strongly with the Malay-speaking provinces remaining in Siam than the latter with Siam. Ethnically and religiously, Thailand extends some 300 kilometers deep into the Malay-Malaysian cultural area. As on the Malaysian side in Kedah and Kelantan, the people in the three troubled Thai provinces speak a dialect that differs significantly from the High Malay (Bahasa Malaysia) and also use a special Arabic alphabet, the Jawi. This linguistic and religious background as well as a folkloristic idealization of the historical Sultanate of Pattani make it possible to understand a Malay Islamic identity of the people in the south of Thailand. The feeling of togetherness was further strengthened by the fact that the Japanese occupiers of Thailand at the end of 1941 included a military alliance with the Axis powers and returned Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan and Terengganu, which were also administered by Thailand from 1943 until the end of the war.

The wrong path to terrorism


As in many linguistic-cultural border regions of Europe, the coexistence of the various groups has rarely caused problems for a long period of time, until either minorities felt disadvantaged and resisted due to political errors by the central government or until ideological nationalists from the other side incited separatist activities , Just as denominational tensions led to violence in Northern Ireland, the contrasts between Buddhists and Muslims in southern Thailand have intensified in recent decades.

For the Sultanate of Pattani, Bangkok was wide and self-government and justice according to Islamic rules were common law. It was only in the 1930s that the central government under General Phibun, Prime Minister from 1936 to 44 and 1948 to 57, possibly influenced by the then common racial biology in Europe and the USA, tried to „Thaiize“ the southern border provinces. In a series of twelve decrees between 1939 and 1942, the government tried to enforce a generally binding „Thai culture“ for the minorities as well. Thai has been introduced as the sole language of instruction in all schools, exceptions to general law such as Muslim family law have been abolished and traditional minority clothing has been banned.

Above all, the linguistic „Thaiization“ and the replacement of the Islamic jurisdiction by centrally controlled civil and criminal courts, as well as the penetration of Buddhist elements such as the construction of pagodas and monasteries, were not accepted by the population. In 1948, one of Pattani’s religious leaders, Haji Sulong, drew up a catalog with seven demands that, from today’s perspective, sound anything but exaggerated. The four southern provinces were to be administered by a Muslim governor, the first seven years of school were taught in Malay, regional taxes were also levied in the region, and Thai and Malay were used as equal official languages. Haji Sulong was promptly declared an enemy of the state and mysteriously disappeared on the way to a trial in 1955.


From the beginning of the resistance and separatist movement, there were also religious and political differences between the different groups. Even Haji Sulong’s reform Islam based on the school of the Egyptian Mohammad Abduh met with rejection from Muslim traditionalists. Some Malaysian groups are still against armed resistance and are more concerned with balancing with Bangkok, but the radical forces predominate. The Deep South Watch group of observers, founded in 2006, tries to counter the state media reports, which are often viewed as tendentious, with a more objective inventory of the unrest. For the period 2004 to 2018, 20,163 incidents are listed, 6,921 dead and 13,511 injured. Bombings and raiding methods using firearms from motorcycles that are more familiar from criminal milieus have become routine. The methods are constantly evolving, for example that a second bomb will not explode until the rescue workers arrive at the site of the attack. Weapons and methods increasingly show jihadist influence as well as personal contacts to the known focal points in the Middle East and South Asia.

Economic factors as a motivation for separatism


Compared to the Buddhists, also and especially in the south, the Muslims are clearly at a disadvantage in terms of education and career opportunities. Seventy percent only have a primary school degree against 50% of Buddhists, only 1.7% have a first university degree against almost 10% of Buddhists, and only 2.4% have found employment in the civil service. In various waves, the central government has tried to improve the infrastructure in the rural southern provinces, but the dominant response in Bangkok in the fight against the „insurgents“ was military and police measures, in a particularly counterproductive manner during Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s tenure from 2001 to 2006 ,


A look across the border to the Malaysian neighbors can easily arouse envy, because Malaysia as a whole, but also in the northern states, is significantly developed and offers higher incomes. The attempts by the governments in Bangkok to compensate for the development differences with Malaysia by means of infrastructure measures were all too often destroyed by the control measures by the military and the police and were unable to convince the population as a whole.

Thailand and Islam or Islam in Thailand

Historically, Muslims from India and today’s Pakistan, Cham from today’s Cambodia, or Persian and Arab traders have lived in Thailand for centuries, easily tolerated but not fully integrated. According to official figures, around 7.5 million Muslims live in Thailand today, almost 5% of the total population, including 18% in the troubled south. There are 2,180 mosques, the construction of which is often subsidized by the state, but there are also 173 mosques in Bangkok. There has been a royal advisor on Islamic affairs since the early 17th century, called Chularatchamontri or Grand Mufti. Today, the Central Islamic Council of Thailand (CICOT) is more important with corresponding institutions in the provinces with a Muslim majority, which are also responsible for the financial support of mosques and Islamic schools. A limited parallel justice is again permitted for family and inheritance law, similar to that in Malaysia and Singapore.

The new constitution introduced by the military government in 2017 guarantees religious freedom, but only for Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Christians, and prohibits any religiously motivated discrimination. The U.S. State Department’s International Religious Freedom Report 2017 praised the Thai government’s attempts to promote understanding with Muslims in the south, while criticizing nationalist Buddhist monks calling for violence against Muslims to oppose their integration and state support protest. There are reservations against an agreement on both sides. In June 2017, an Islamic religious teacher and his family were murdered when he tried to mediate. The police and the army repeatedly tend to overreact, citing an emergency decree from 2005 and exemption rules from 2004, mostly perceived by the population as arbitrariness

. How likely is the conflict to be resolved? Whether sufficient confidence in the central government can ever be built among the 1.8 million Malays in southern Thailand is particularly questionable because the terrorist groups have been increasingly strengthened by Salafists and jihadists in recent years and Southeast Asia as a whole is a safe retreat for fighters the Middle East applies.

For the military, the inviolability of the country is absolute dogma and a real purpose. In this respect, a shift of the border in favor of Malaysia is unthinkable. The EU model of open borders can also not be imagined in Thailand or Malaysia. The core problem therefore remains and will not be solved radically in the foreseeable future.

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für Why does Thailand’s South remain restless? Wrong politics or culture clash between Buddhists and Muslims?

Warum Thailands Süden unruhig bleibt Falsche Politik oder Culture Clash zwischen Buddhisten und Muslimen?

Autor: Dr. Wolfgang Sachsenröder

Der Vielvölkerstaat Thailand
Das Urlaubsparadies Thailand ist einer der vielen südostasiatischen Vielvölkerstaaten, in denen die phänotypischen ethnischen Unterschiede weniger differenzierend wirken als Sprache, Brauchtum und Religion. Für die meisten Touristen sieht die Bevölkerung weitgehend homogen aus, manchmal etwas augenfälliger ist die starke chinesische Minderheit, die aber hervorragend assimiliert ist. Nur rund 40 Prozent der 68 Millionen Thais beherrschen in ausreichendem Maße die Hochsprache , fühlen sich als die echten Thais und schauen mit Vorurteilen auf die „Mehrheit der Minderheiten“ herab, wie die Laoten im Nordosten oder die Malaien im tiefen Süden, die als weniger fleißig oder intelligent gelten und deutlich geringere Chancen im Bildungswesen und auf dem Arbeitsmarkt haben.

Die Bindestrich-Thais im tiefen Süden und die historischen Altlasten
Die meisten Integrationsprobleme im ethnischen Gemenge Thailands sind relativ niederschwellig, auf jeden Fall im Vergleich mit den seit Jahrzehnten schwelenden bürgerkriegsartigen Zuständen im unruhigen Süden. Diese waren allerdings nicht schon immer da. Akut und blutig zu werden begannen sie erst in den späten 1930er Jahren und noch intensiver ab etwa 1960. Die Tatsache, daß die Provinzen an der Grenze zu Malaysia, Narathiwat, Yala und Pattani, eine ganz überwiegend malaiische und muslimische Bevölkerung haben, insgesamt etwa 1,8 Millionen Menschen, kann also nicht die alleinige Ursache gewesen sein. Der heutige Norden Malaysias gehörte historisch ebenfalls zu Siam. Er wurde von Großbritannien mit dem größten Teil des heutigen Malaysia 1867 zu einer Kronkolonie gemacht. Der heutige Bundesstaat Kelantan und das Sultanat Pattani waren bis dahin ein Zentrum des malaiischen Islam, der seit dem 7. Jahrhundert durch arabische Händler in Südostasien verbreitet und seit dem 15. Jahrhundert fest etabliert war.

Kelantan war ein Zentrum islamischer Gelehrsamkeit für ganz Südostasien mit dem Ehrentitel „Die Veranda von Mekka“. 1785 erobert, stand das Sultanat Pattani einschließlich Kelantan unter Siams Suzeränität, geriet aber im 19. Jahrhundert zunehmend unter britische Kontrolle. Wie fast überall in der Region waren bis dahin die Grenzen nicht nur sehr durchlässig, sondern auch veränderlich. Der Britisch-Siamesische Vertrag von 1909 zog dann eine endgültige Grenzlinie zu Malaysia, die heute zwischen den beiden Ländern bis auf kleinere Demarkationsfragen politisch nicht in Frage gestellt wird. Er übertrug die Provinzen Kelantan, Terengganu, Kedah und Perlis an die Briten, die auch deren Schulden gegenüber Siam übernahmen. Von Bangkok aus muss der damalige Verzicht auf den weit entfernten „Wurmfortsatz“ im tiefen Süden, heute über 800 Flugkilometer und über 1100 Autokilometer bis zur malaysischen Grenze entfernt, als relativ schmerzlos empfunden worden sein, denn wirtschaftlich bedeutend waren diese malaiischen Gebiete damals nicht.

Was 1909 als ein vernünftiger Kompromiss verstanden werden konnte, hatte allerdings ausgeblendet, daß die historischen und religiösen Unterschiede die abgetretenen Gebiete stärker mit den in Siam verbleibenden Malaiisch sprechenden Provinzen verbanden als letztere mit Siam. Ethnisch sowie religiös ragt Thailand rund 300 Kilometer tief in den Malaiisch-Malaysischen Kulturraum hinein. Wie auf der malaysischen Seite in Kedah und Kelantan sprechen die Menschen in den drei unruhigen Thai-Provinzen einen vom Hochmaliischen (Bahasa Malaysia) deutlich abweichenden Dialekt und benutzen zudem ein spezielles arabisches Alphabet, das Jawi. Auf diesem sprachlichen und religiösen Hintergrund sowie einer folkloristischen Idealisierung des historischen Sultanats Pattani wird ein malaiisch-islamisches Identitätsgefühl der Menschen im Süden Thailands verständlich. Eher noch verstärkt wurde das Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühl dadurch, daß die japanischen Besatzer Thailand Ende 1941 in ein Militärbündnis mit den Axenmächten eingebunden und ihm Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan und Terengganu zurückgegeben hatten, die von 1943 bis Kriegsende auch von Thailand verwaltet wurden.

Die schiefe Bahn zum Terrorismus
Wie in vielen sprachlich-kulturellen Grenzregionen Europas hat das Zusammenleben der verschiedenen Gruppen oft über längere Zeit kaum Probleme bereitet, bis entweder durch politische Fehler der Zentralregierung die Minderheiten sich benachteiligt fühlten und Widerstand leisteten, oder aber ideologische Nationalisten von der anderen Seite zu separatistischen Aktivitäten aufstachelten. Wie in Nordirland die konfessionellen Spannungen zu Gewalt führten, verschärften sich in den letzten Jahrzehnten die Gegensätze zwischen Buddhisten und Muslimen im Süden Thailands.

Für das Sultanat Pattani war Bangkok weit und die Selbstverwaltung und Justiz nach islamischen Regeln Gewohnheitsrecht. Erst in den 1930er Jahren versuchte die Zentralregierung unter General Phibun, Premierminister von 1936 bis 44 und 1948 bis 57, möglicherweise von der damals üblichen Rassenbiologie in Europa und den USA beeinflusst, die südlichen Grenzprovinzen zu „thaiisieren“. In einer Serie von zwölf Erlassen zwischen 1939 und 1942 versuchte die Regierung, eine allgemein verpflichtende „Thai-Kultur“ auch für die Minderheiten durchzusetzen. Thai wurde als alleinige Unterrichtssprache an allen Schulen eingeführt, Ausnahmen vom allgemeinen Recht wie muslimisches Familienrecht wurden abgeschafft, und die traditionelle Kleidung der Minderheiten verboten.

Vor allem die sprachliche „Thaiisierung“ und die Ablösung der islamischen Gerichtsbarkeit durch zentral gesteuerte Zivil- und Strafgerichte sowie das Eindringen buddhistischer Elemente wie die Errichtung von Pagoden und Klöstern wurden von der Bevölkerung nicht akzeptiert. 1948 stellte einer der religiösen Führer Pattanis, Haji Sulong, einen Katalog mit sieben Forderungen auf, die aus heutiger Sicht alles andere als überzogen klingen. Die vier südlichen Provinzen sollten durch einen muslimischen Gouverneur verwaltet werden, die ersten sieben Schuljahre auf Malaiisch unterrichtet werden, die Steuern der Region auch in der Region ausgegeben, und Thai und Malaiisch als gleichberechtigte Amtssprachen benutzt werden. Haji Sulong wurde prompt zum Staatsfeind erklärt und verschwand 1955 auf mysteriöse Weise auf dem Weg zu einer Gerichtsverhandlung.


Von Beginn der Widerstands- und Separatistenbewegung an gab es auch religiöse und politische Differenzen zwischen den verschiedenen Gruppierungen. Schon Haji Sulongs Reform-Islam in Anlehnung an die Schule des Ägypters Mohammad Abduh stieß auf Ablehnung durch muslimische Traditionalisten. Einige malaiische Gruppierungen sind bis heute gegen den bewaffneten Widerstand und setzen mehr auf Ausgleich mit Bangkok, aber die radikalen Kräfte überwiegen. Die Beobachtergruppe Deep South Watch, gegründet 2006, versucht den oft als tendenziös empfundenen staatlichen Medienberichten eine objektivere Bestandsaufnahme der Unruhen entgegenzusetzen. Für den Zeitraum 2004 bis 2018 werden 20.163 Zwischenfälle aufgelistet, 6.921 Tote und 13.511 Verletzte. Bombenanschläge und eher aus kriminellen Milieus bekannte Überfallmethoden mit Schusswaffen von fahrenden Motorrädern aus sind Routine geworden. Die Methoden entwickeln sich ständig weiter, etwa daß eine zweite Bombe erst explodiert, wenn die Rettungskräfte am Anschlagsort eintreffen. Bewaffnung und Methoden zeigen zunehmend jihadistischen Einfluss sowie personelle Kontakte zu den bekannten Brennpunkten im Nahen und Mittleren Osten sowie Südasien.

Wirtschaftliche Faktoren als Motivation für Separatismus


Im Vergleich zu den Buddhisten, auch und gerade im Süden, sind die Muslime im Bildungsbereich und bei den Berufschancen deutlich im Nachteil. Siebzig Prozent haben nur einen Volksschulabschluss gegenüber 50% der Buddhisten, nur 1,7% haben einen ersten Hochschulabschluss gegenüber knapp 10% der Buddhisten, und nur 2,4% haben eine Anstellung im Öffentlichen Dienst gefunden. In verschiedenen Wellen hat die Zentralregierung versucht, die Infrastruktur in den ländlichen Südprovinzen zu verbessern, die dominierende Antwort in Bangkok im Kampf gegen die „Aufständischen“ waren allerdings militärische und polizeiliche Maßnahmen, in besonders kontraproduktiver Weise während der Amtszeit von Premierminister Thaksin Shinawatra 2001 bis 2006.


Ein Blick über die Grenze zu den malaysischen Nachbarn kann leicht Neid erwecken, weil Malaysia insgesamt, aber auch in den nördlichen Bundesstaaten, deutlich weiterentwickelt ist und höhere Einkommen bietet. Die Versuche der Regierungen in Bangkok, durch Infrastrukturmaßnahmen die Entwicklungsunterschiede zu Malaysia auszugleichen, wurden nur allzu oft durch die Kontrollmaßnahmen von Militär und Polizei zunichte gemacht und konnten die Bevölkerung insgesamt nicht überzeugen.
 
Thailand und der Islam oder der Islam in Thailand

Historisch lebten Muslime aus Indien und dem heutigen Pakistan, Cham aus dem heutigen Kambodscha oder persische und arabische Händler seit Jahrhunderten in Thailand, ohne weiteres toleriert, aber nicht völlig integriert. Nach offiziellen Angaben leben heute rund 7,5 Millionen Muslime in Thailand, knapp 5% der Gesamtbevölkerung, davon 18% im unruhigen Süden. Dort gibt es 2,180 Moscheen, deren Bau oft vom Staat finanziell gefördert wird, aber auch in Bangkok werden 173 Moscheen gezählt. Seit dem frühen 17. Jahrhundert gibt es einen königlichen Berater für islamische Angelegenheiten, genannt Chularatchamontri oder Großmufti. Heute wichtiger ist der Central Islamic Council of Thailand (CICOT) mit entsprechenden Institutionen in den Provinzen mit muslimischer Mehrheit, die auch für die finanzielle Unterstützung von Moscheen und islamischen Schulen zuständig sind. Für Familien- und Erbrecht ist auch wieder eine begrenzte Paralleljustiz erlaubt, ähnlich wie in Malaysia und Singapur.

Die von der Militärregierung 2017 eingeführte neue Verfassung garantiert Religionsfreiheit, allerdings nur für Buddhisten, Muslime, Hindus, Sikhs und Christen, und verbietet jede religiös motivierte Diskriminierung. Der International „Religious Freedom Report 2017“ des US Außenministeriums lobt die Versuche der thailändischen Regierung, die Verständigung mit den Muslimen im Süden zu fördern, und kritisiert gleichzeitig nationalistische buddhistische Mönche, die zu Gewalt gegen Muslime aufrufen, um gegen deren Integration und staatliche Unterstützung zu protestieren. Vorbehalte gegen eine Verständigung gibt es auf beiden Seiten. Im Juni 2017 wurde ein islamischer Religionslehrer mitsamt seiner Familie ermordet als er vermitteln wollte. Polizei und Armee neigen immer wieder zu Überreaktionen unter Berufung auf ein Notstandsdekret von 2005 und standrechtliche Ausnahmeregeln von 2004, von der Bevölkerung meistens als Willkür empfunden.

Wie wahrscheinlich ist eine Lösung der Konflikte?     Ob unter den 1,8 Millionen Malaien in Südthailand jemals ein ausreichendes Vertrauen in die Zentralregierung aufgebaut werden kann bleibt besonders dadurch fraglich, daß die terroristischen Gruppierungen in den letzten Jahren zunehmend durch Salafisten und Jihadisten verstärkt worden sind und Südostasien insgesamt als sicheres Rückzugsgebiet für Kämpfer aus dem Mittleren Osten gilt.

Für das Militär ist die Unverletzlichkeit des Staatsgebiets absolutes Dogma und eigentlicher Daseinszweck. Insofern ist eine Verschiebung der Grenze zugunsten Malaysias undenkbar. Auch das EU-Modell der offenen Grenzen kann man sich bisher weder in Thailand noch in Malaysia vorstellen. Das Problem bleibt also im Kern bestehen und wird sich in absehbarer Zeit auch nicht radikal lösen lassen.
                                                        
Singapur,  Dezember 2019

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für Warum Thailands Süden unruhig bleibt Falsche Politik oder Culture Clash zwischen Buddhisten und Muslimen?

Falungong: After the „9 comments on the CP China“ now “ How the devil rules the world – the almost total control by the communist ghost“

The Falungong has already published its first book “9 Comments on the CP China”, in which it propagated an end-time struggle between Falungong and the CP China, which was not only an earthly but a cosmological struggle between the forces of light and darkness , because the CP China is a specter that has conspired against the Dao, the nature of man and nature as well as the cosmos. The CCP is more than just an earthly political party; from a cosmological perspective, it is „an insidious specter against nature and humanity“ (p.11). Compared to the social system of ancient despotic China and National Socialism, communism is found to be the worse system because of the abolition of self-organization, self-determination, and property.

“In the universe, all living things go through the process of birth, growing up, aging and dying. In contrast to communism, non-communist societies, regardless of how dictatorial or totalitarian they are, allow a certain degree of self-organization or self-determination. The societies in the Chinese past were indeed shaped by a double structure. The hierarchical structure of the government only extended to the district level, in the rural regions the clans formed the core of independent structures, while the cities and municipalities were organized with the guilds in the center. With the exception of communism, the right to private property existed in all modern forms of society, even during National Socialism in Germany. The communist regime completely eliminated all existing independent forms of organization and components of society and instead built up a centralized and totally totalitarian power structure. If one regards a social structure with a certain degree of self-determination and self-organization as the state that has arisen naturally from the bottom up, then communism with an absolutely totalitarian structure of power is a social structure that is directed against nature. There is no general yardstick for human nature in the Communist Party (…) The Communist Party has completely distorted the universal yardsticks, which is why it is also against human nature. In non-communist societies, the fact that good and evil coexist within people is generally accepted. Therefore, fixed regulations are made to maintain a certain balance in society. This concept is rejected in communist society and neither the good nor the bad nature of man is recognized. According to the statements of Karl Marx, the rejection of the beliefs about good and bad completely collapses the social superstructure of the old society. The Communist Party does not believe in deities and has no respect for nature. „Fighting Heaven, Fighting Earths Fighting People, Joy is Infinite,“ was the CCP’s motto during the Cultural Revolution. This resulted in unspeakable catastrophes for the people and for the country. The Chinese traditionally believe in the unity of heaven and man. Laotse said in Tao Te King: „Humanity follows the earth, earth follows the sky, sky follows the Tao and Tao follows its own nature.“ Humanity and nature exist in a harmonious relationship in the cosmos. The Communist Party is in indeed a living being. It is an insidious specter against nature, the sky, the earth, humanity and not least against the universe ”(p.12).

Today’s CPC certainly allows private property, including private companies, although the state sector and government control are still considerable. That’s what Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms were all about. Still, Mao- China is described here as far as private property is concerned. But the trivialization of genocidal National Socialism by the Falungong , which massively locked all the Democrats in concentration camps, the industrial mass murder of 6 million Jews and other “subhumans” and “inferior races” and a world war with 60 million deaths, is significant.The main thing: capitalism and sacred private property. But the Falungong is not interested in such antagonisms in their own reasoning. The main thing: Evil and good, Satan and God, the Falungong, which even with National Socialism has little or no problems.

Significantly, just as the Falungong started with the cosmological point of view, it ends again with one and characterizes the CCP as a cosmological demon not only against man and nature, but also against the whole universe.

A higher than just a worldly battle rages here. Manichaistically, there is a cosmological struggle between the forces of good and evil in the various levels and dimensions of our universe.

„What forces in history have the party chosen? Why was none other than the CCP chosen to rule China? We all know that there are two powers, two choices in the world. One is the old and the bad, who chooses the bad and the negative. The other is the sincere and good who choose the good and the merciful. The CCP is the old forces‘ choice. The reason for this decision is that the CP unites all evil in the world, be it Chinese or foreign, in the past or the present. It is the concentrated representative of evil. ”(P.56)

Conversely, the force of good is:

„From the point of view of ideology, the philosophy of the Communist Party is in direct contrast to the principles of Falungong“ (p.116)

This is also clear in the fourth of the Nine Commentaries „The Chinese Communist Party is an anti-cosmic force“:

“The Chinese pay a lot of attention to the Tao, also known as“ The Way. ”In ancient China, a brutal emperor would have been said to dislike an unscrupulous regent of Tao. Any behavior that is not the standard of Tao and virtue corresponded to, one called „deviation from the way.“ Even revolting peasants put banners with the slogan on „to carry out the Tao on behalf of heaven.“ Laotse said: „Something was present informally, born before heaven and earth. In silence and emptiness, unshakable, it stands for itself, constantly recurring without ceasing. It is the mother of the cosmos. I don’t know his name, call it the Tao ”. That means the world was created from the „Tao“. But in the past hundred years, the sudden invasion of the communist specter has created a counterforce to nature and humanity that has caused incredible pain and agony and has brought human civilization to the brink of destruction. The evils of this violence are directed against the Tao and against the heaven and the world – an extremely evil force against the cosmos.

„Humanity follows the earth, the earth follows the heaven, the heaven follows the Tao and the Tao follows its own nature“ In ancient China, people believed in harmony, mutual support and living together with nature and followed these principles. Humanity merges with nature and the two are interdependent. The Tao of the cosmos does not change. The movement of the cosmos complies with the rules of the Tao. The earth follows the heavenly constellation, hence the four seasons. People respect heaven and earth, full of gratitude and appreciation. Therefore, the Chinese appreciate „heavenly constellations, earthly benefits and harmony among people“.

This principle runs through everything from astronomy, geography, the calendar, medicine and literature to the social structures. But the CCP propagates the „philosophy of struggle“ and that „people ultimately win the struggle against nature.“ It despises the nature of heaven and earth. Mao Tse-tung said, “Enjoy the fight against heaven at the highest, enjoy the fight against the earth at the highest, and enjoy the fight against the people at the highest. Perhaps the CCP is enjoying these struggles, but it brings unspeakable suffering to the people. ”

It is by no means just a human, secular, even political struggle, the legitimacy of the CPC is less affected by social, economic or political arguments, but rather by cosmological-metaphysical-spiritual arguments and the level of the ideological cultural struggle. It is a struggle between two heavenly forces, which also takes place on the sub-level of society, much like the traditional Chinese in the imagination of the former Chinese, the emperor as the son of heaven through his own misconduct or natural disasters sent from heaven, the mandate given to him Heaven could gamble away and the peasants were then allowed to overthrow him, the Falungong author constructed that the legitimacy of the CCP was void because the CCP China violated heavenly law and cosmological order and was an evil counterforce to the Tao.

„The CCP claimed that it would fear nothing between heaven and earth. She had hoped in vain to upset heaven and earth and challenged all the righteous elements and powers of the universe. Mao Tse-tung once said: “There have been great revolutions in all nations in history. By washing the old structures and bathing them in new colors, there was a great transformation in the sense of life and death and the emergence and destruction. It is the same with the destruction of the universe. After all, the destruction of the universe is not ultimate destruction, because what means destruction here is birth there. We all expect the destruction of the universe because by destroying the old universe, we get the new. Isn’t that better than the old universe? ”“ (P.94)

„How the devil rules the world – the almost total control through the communist ghost“

 While the first book was still exclusively focused on the CP China, the new 3-volume book „How the devil rules the world – the almost total control through the communist ghost“ broadens its criticism to Western political and social forces, which as spirit Soul mates of the absolute power of evil, the CP China apply. It is about the specter of communism, which is now treacherous in a modern form in the ecological movement, the Greens, liberalism, social democracy, trade unions and all people who advocate environmental protection, the welfare state, regulation of capitalism, criticism of capitalism and social justice . Just disguise camouflage. All are Communists and evil conspirators who destroy family, society, state and nation and are the worst degree of cultural bolshevism.

About the authors: “: The team of authors consists of historians and scientists. For many years, these have dealt intensively with communist ideology and experienced it firsthand. As members of the team face spies and reprisals, as do their families, they have to remain anonymous for security reasons. ”

Now passages of the book have already been printed in the Epoch Times and it is unlikely that in a leader-centered, quasi-Leninist cadre organization like the Falungong something will be printed and published in the Epoch Times publishing house without the content approval of its leader and guru Li Hongzhi, unless he is not himself a co-author or author of this work. Especially since the question is, what kind of scientists and historians are they who write such radical right-wing, conspiracy-theoretical, paranoid fantasies and inflammatory texts. Especially since the Walraff team had already pointed out connections by the editorial staff of the Epoch Times to right-wing radicals and right-wing populist websites and a radical right-wing front against democracy, liberalism, feminism, environmental protection and social movements and organizations seems to have come together here – possibly also in connection with Steve Bannon, who, after the USA, is now also trying to gain a foothold in Europe and tries to form an anti-democratic movement and is probably also in connection with the former global Anti-Communist League. The new book promoted and pushed by the Falungong reads as follows in its self-promotion:

„How the devil rules the world – The almost total control by the communist specter – analyzed and uncovered: Recommended literature. Who has world domination? We live in a time of change. It is becoming increasingly important which key values ​​people have in common. It is also becoming increasingly clear that the history of mankind was not as it is taught today. The book „How the devil rules the world“ gives the long-sought answers. {Epoch Times28. October 2019 Updated: November 5, 2019 11:49 am}

A large proportion of people seem to think that communism has disappeared since the Soviet bloc collapsed in 1989 – and those who openly profess communism really have no influence.
But he has not disappeared from the world. On the contrary, communist ideas are more widespread today than ever before in a modified and modernized form. Above all, however, they are more accepted than ever in the West.

„Abolish Capitalism“? „Expropriate housing associations“? Dissolve family? No prosperity and no more children because of the climate? Frühsexualisierung? Such thoughts are more popular than ever in politics, the media and culture. Basically, they express exactly what Karl Marx and his followers once wanted to impose on all of humanity.

Today, humanity has reached a zenith of material wealth, but faces unprecedented challenges from the devastation communism has caused.
Global events are developing at an unbelievable pace, people are awakening. The world is experiencing a revival of traditional culture and morality in accordance with the universal values ​​of truthfulness, kindness, and forbearance.

„How the devil rules the world“
The book „How the Devil Dominates the World“ examines historical trends and the development of centuries from a new perspective and analyzes how the devil has occupied and manipulated our world in various masks and with sophisticated means.

What is the devil „The Communist Manifesto“ begins with the words: „A ghost is haunting Europe – the specter of communism.“ The use of the term „ghost“ was not a mood of Karl Marx. There is more to it than that.


Communism physically destroyed hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century, but today it targets their souls. It is the devil’s tool in the world. Wherever he rules, there is war, famine, mass murder and tyranny. Above all, however, he wants to deprive people of their dignity and prevent them from living according to the traditional way of life established by God.

Fortunately, for many people the kindness inherent in human nature has been preserved – giving people the chance to free themselves from the influence of the „specter of communism“.

The book „How the Devil Controls the World“ not only describes historical development, but also reveals how the devil can be prevented from governing our world. It depends on the awakening of the person.
book orders

ISBN Volume 1: 978-3-9810462-1-2, Volume 2: 978-3-9810462-2-9, Volume 3: 978-3-9810462-3-6. Each volume costs 19.90 euros (plus shipping costs of 2.70 euros), all three volumes can be purchased together at a special price of 45.00 euros (plus shipping costs of 5.50 euros). The book has a total of 1008 pages and over 1200 keywords in the index.
Ordering options: Via Amazon or directly from the publisher of the Epoch Times – Phone: +49 (0) 30 26395312, email: Buecher@epochtimes.de “

https://www.epochtimes.de/politik/welt/weltherrschaft-buch-wie-der-teufel-die-welt-beherrscht-nahezu-totale-kontrolle-durch-das-kommunistische-gespenst-analysiert-aufgedeckt-a3035958.html

The content of the 3 volumes can be read briefly:

„1. Volume: The 36 strategies for the destruction of humanity – Marx was a Satanist – The secret enemy of free society – Open and covert violence, every means is allowed – How politics was turned into a guerrilla war – Europe is in the hands of the enemy – Infiltration of honest belief – The Destruction of Families – How the welfare state causes chaos in society
Volume 2: High Taxation: The Violent Nationalization of Private Wealth – The Prosperity Trap – State Terrorism Using Twisted Laws – Destruction of Human Aesthetic Guidelines – Destruction of the Educational System: Emotions become facts, stupidity, therapy instead of education, brainwashing instead of knowledge – The left Media imbalance – party culture, pop culture and decadence – when people are addicted to their desires
Volume 3: The Communist Roots of Terrorism – How Environmental Protection Became a Pseudo-Religion – Anti-Human Ecologism – The Green Cloud Cuckoo Home – Economic, Political and Cultural Globalization – The Enforcement of a Socialist World Government – Global Claim of the „Model China“: Tyranny, Reward of Evil, Unrestricted Warfare – The People of the World Awaken ”

Already in the claim that Marx was a Satanist and that the world is conzrolled by the devil, it becomes obvious that the Falungong is a manacist, end-time, conspiracy sect that would show a kind of exorcism after its seizure of power, not only against the CPC, but against everyone of its presumed spiritual relatives, including secular, liberal, moderately Christian and left-wing democrats, especially since all of these are all disguised communists and worse than those who openly profess communism. The chapter „Europe is in the hands of the enemies“ also shows that this book considers liberal secular democrats to be enemies who should be eliminated, because at the moment these are still the dominant political forces in most of Europe How inflammatory and light-heartedly one speaks of devils and satanists shows the dangerousness of this movement, which would if one day in power would establish a clerical-fascist, fundamentally religious totalitarianism. Therefore, opponents of the CPC and totalitarianism should be aware that the Falungong is not a harmless meditation movement, but a fundamentalist-Buddhist-Daoist-cloaked neototalitarian movement that, like Islamism and Evangelicalism, is also on a course of world mission and conquest , but has so far not been so successful and is portraying itself as a mere pure poor victim.

Finally only two older poems by the Falungong leader Li Hongzhi, which in the end times and apocalyptically predicts that China would be overwhelmed with mass graves :

The Foretelling

Autumn is not over

Yet spring has arrived

What humans don´t believe In

All now comes forth

The sky cracks open

And the earth burns

The evil tries to hide

The wicked ones to flee

As gong surges forth

Evil spirits wail and scream

The Dafa disciples

Ascend to the heights of the heavens

In control of Heaven and Earth, rectifying the human realm

Li Hongzhi,December 30, 2001”.

„The Cleansing

Heaven and Earth turned upside down, raining sand and dust,

The minds of hundreds of millions in the mortal world poisoned,

How many can be saved by mercy

New graves cover the landscape of China Proper.

Li Hongzhi, January 31, 2002”.

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für Falungong: After the „9 comments on the CP China“ now “ How the devil rules the world – the almost total control by the communist ghost“

Falungong: Nach den“ 9 Kommentare zur KP China“ nun „„Wie der Teufel die Welt beherrscht – Die nahezu totale Kontrolle durch das kommunistische Gespenst“

Die Falungong hat schon ihr erstes Buch „9 Kommentare zur KP China“ veröffentlicht, in der sie einen endzeitlichen Kampf zwischen Falungong und KP China propagierte, der aber nicht nur ein irdischer, sondern ein kosmologischer Kampf zwischen den Kräften des Lichts und der Dunkelheit,darstellte, da die KP China ein Gespenst sei, das sich gegen das Dao, die Natur des Menschen und der Natur sowie den Kosmos verschworen habe. Die KPCh ist mehr als nur eine irdische politische Partei, sie ist durch kosmologische Perpektive „ein heimtückisches Gespenst wider Natur und Menschlichkeit“(S.11). Im Vergleich mit dem Gesellschaftssystem des alten despotischen Chinas und dem Nationalsozialismus wird der Kommunismus wegen seiner Abschaffung von Selbstorganisation, Selbstbestimmung und Eigentum als das schlechtere System befunden.

“Im Universum  durchleben alle Lebewesen den Prozess von Geburt, Heranwachsen, Altern und Sterben. Im Gegensatz zum Kommunismus erlauben nicht-kommunistische Gesellschaften egal wie diktatorisch oder totalitär sie sind, einen gewissen Grad an Selbstorganisation oder Selbstbestimmung. Auch die Gesellschaften in der chinesischen Vergangenheit war in der Tat von einer zweifachen Struktur geprägt. Der hierarchische Aufbau der Regierung erstreckte sich nur bis zur Bezirksebene, in den ländlichen Regionen bildeten die Sippen den Kern von unabhängigen Strukturen ,während die Städte und Gemeinden mit den Zünften im Mittelpunkt organisiert waren. Den Kommunismus ausgenommen, bestand in allen modernen Gesellschaftsformen das Recht auf privates Eigentum, selbst während des Nationalsozialismus in Deutschland.Das kommunistische Regime hat alle bestehenden unabhängigen Organisationsformen und Bestandteile der Gesellschaft umfassend beseitigt und stattdessen eine zentralisierte und absoult totalitärte Machtstruktur aufgebaut. Wenn man eine Gesellschaftsstruktur mit einem gewissen Grad an Selbstbestimmung und Selbstorganisation, als den von unten nach oben auf natürliche Weise entstandenen Zustand betrachtet, dann ist der Kommunismus mit absolut totalitärer Machtstruktur eine Gesellschaftsstruktur, die gegen die Natur gerichtet ist. In der KP gibt es keinen allgemeinen Maßstab für menschliche Natur (…)Die Kommunistische Partei hat die universellen Wertmaßstäbe gänzlich verdreht, deswegen ist sie auch gegen die menschliche Natur. In den nicht-kommunistischen Gesellschaften wird die Tatsache der gleichzeitigen Existenz von Gut und Böse innerhalb des Menschen grundsätzlich ahrgenommen. Daher werden feste Regelungen getroffen, um eine gewissen Balance in der Gesellschaft zu erhalten. In der kommunistischen Gesellschaft wird dieses Konzept abgelehnt und weder die gute, noch die böse Natur des Menschen wird anerkannt. Den Aussagen von Karl Marx zufolge, bringt die Ablehnung der Anschauungen über Gut und Böse, den sozialen Überbau der alten Gesellschaft völlig zum Einsturz. Die Kommunistische Partei glaubt nicht an Gottheiten und hat keinen Respekt vor der Natur.“Kämpfen gegen den Himmel, Kämpfen gegen die Erdem kämpfen gegen die Menschen, die Freude ist unendlich“, das war das Motto der KPC während der Kulturrevolution. Dadurch entstanden für das Volk und für das Land unsägliche Katastrophen. Traditionell glauben die Chinesen an die Einheit von Himmel und Mensch. Laotse sagte im Tao Te King:“Die Menschheit folg der Erde, die Erde dem Himmel, der Himmel dem Tao und der Tao folgt seiner eigenen Natur.“Die Menschheit und die Natur existieren im Kosmos in einer harmonischen Beziehung.Die Kommunistische Partei ist in der Tat auch ein Lebewesen.Sie ist ein heimtückisches Gespenst gegen die Natur, den Himmel, die Erde, die Menschheit und nicht zuletzt gegen das Universum“(S.12).

Wobei die heutige KP China durchaus Privateigentum zulässt, auch Privatfirmen, wenngleich der Staatssektor und die staatliche Lenkung noch beträchtlich ist. Darum drehten sich ja Deng Xiaopings Wirtschaftsreformen gerade .Dennoch wird hier eher Mao-China, was das Privateigentum angeht geschildert.Aber die Verharmlosung des genoizidialen Nationalsozialismus, der alle Demokraten massenhaft in Konzentrationslager wegsperrte, den industriellen Massenmord an 6 Millionen Juden und sonstigen „Untermenschen“ sowie einen Weltkrieg mit 60 Millionen Toten losbrach, ist schon bezeichnend. Hauptsache: Kapitalismus und heiliges Privateigentum. Doch solche Wiodersprüche in der eigenen Argumentation interessiert die Falungong nicht. Hauptsache: Das Böse und das Gute, Satan und Gott, die Falungong, die auch mit dem Nationalsozialismus keine oder kaum Probleme hat gegenüber der KP China.

So wie die Falungong mit dem kosmologischen Standpunkt begann, so endet sie bezeichnenderweise wieder mit einem und charakterisiert die KPC als kosmologischen Dämon nicht nur gegen Mensch und Natur, sondern auch gegen das ganze Universum.

Ein höherer als denn nur ein weltlicher Kampf tobt hier. Manichäistisch tobt ein kosmologischer Kampf zwischen den Kräfte des Guten und des Bösen in den verschiedenen Ebenen und Dimensionen unseres Universums.

„Welche Kräfte in der Geschichte haben die Partei ausgewählt? Warum wurde niemand anderes, als die KPC gewählt, China zu regieren? Wir alle wissen, dass auf der Welt zwei Mächte, zwei Möglichkeiten der Wahl existieren. Die eine ist die alte und böse, die das Schlechte und das Negative wählt. Die andere ist die aufrichtige und gute, die das Gute und Barmherzige wählt. Die KPC ist die Wahl der alten Mächte. Der Grund für diese Entscheidung ist, dass die KP alles Böse auf der Welt vereint, sei es chinesisch oder ausländisch, in der Vergangenheit oder der Gegenwart. Sie ist der konzentrierte Repräsentant des Bösen.“(S.56)

Umgekehrt gilt als Kraft des Guten:

„Vom Standpunkt der Ideologie  aus gesehen steht die Philosophie der Kommunistischen Partei im direkten Gegensatz zu den Prinzipien von Falungong“(S.116)

Dies wird auch in dem Vierten der Neun Kommentare „Die Kommunistische Partei Chinas ist eine gegen den Kosmos gerichtete Kraft“ klar:

“Die Chinesen achten sehr auf das Tao, auch bekannt als „Der Weg“.In den alten Zeiten Chinas hätte man über einen brutalen Kaiser gesagt, dass es einem gewissenlosen Regenten an Tao magelt.Jegliches Verhalten, das nicht dem Standard von Tao und Tugend entsprach, nannte man „Abweichung vom Weg.“Selbst revoltierende Bauern stellten Spruchbänder, mit dem Slogan auf „Im Auftrag des Himmels den Tao durchführen.“Laotse sagte:“Irgend etwas war formlos vorhanden, vor Himmel und Erde geboren. In der Stille und Leere, unerschütterlich steht es für sich da, immer wiederkehrend ohne Unterlass. Es ist die Mutter des Kosmos. Ich kenne nicht seinen Namen, nenne es den Tao“. Das bedeutet, die Welt ist aus dem “Tao“ entstanden. Doch in den letzten hundert Jahren hat die plötzliche Invasion des kommunistischen Gespenstes eine Gegenkraft zur Natur und Menschlichkeit erschaffen, die unglaubliche Schmerzen und Qualen verursacht und die menschlich Zivilisation an den Rand der Vernichtung gebracht hat. Die Übeltaten dieser Gewalt sind wider den Tao und gegen den Himmel und die Welt gerichtet—eine extrembösartige Kraft wider den Kosmos.

“Die Menschheit folgt der Erde, die Erde dem Himmel, der Himmel dem Tao und der Tao folgt seiner eigenen Natur“ Im alten China glaubten die Menschen an Harmonie, gegenseitige Unterstützung und ein Zusammenleben mit der Natur und folgte diesen Prinzipien. Die Menschheit verschmilzt mit der Natur und beide sind voneinander abhängig. Der Tao des Kosmos verändert sich nicht. Die Bewegung des Kosmos stimmt mit den Regeln des Tao überein. Die Erde folgt der himmlischen Konstellation, daher die vier Jahreszeiten. Menschen respektieren Himmel und Erde, voller Dankbarkeit und Wertschätzung. Deshalb schätzen die Chinesen „himmlische Konstellationen, irdische Vorteile und Harmonie unter den Menschen“.

Dieses Prinzip durchzieht alles, Astronomie, Geographie, den Kalendar, die Medizin und die Literatur bis hin zu den sozialen Strukturen. Doch die KPC propagiert die „Philosophie des Kampfes“ und dass“ die Menschen letztendlich den Kampf gegen die Natur gewinnen.“Sie verachtet die Natur von Himmel und Erde,. Mao Tse-tung sagte.“Genießt den Kampf gegen den Himmel auf das allerhöchste, genießt den Kampf gegen die Erde auf das allerhöchste und genießt den Kampf gegen die Menschen auf das allerhöchste. Vielleicht genießt die KPC diese Kämpfe, aber dem Volk bringt es unsägliches Leid.“

Es geht keineswegs nur um einen menschlichen, weltlichen , gar politischen Kampf, die Legitimation der KP China wird weniger mit sozialen, wirtschaftlichen oder politischen Argumenten angegriffen, sondern vielmehr mit kosmologisch-metaphysisch-spirituellen Argumenten und der Ebene des ideologischen Kulturkampfes. Es ist ein Kampf zweier himmlischer Kräfte, der sich  unter anderem auch auf der Subebene der Gesellschaft abspielt.Ähnlich  wie im traditionellen China in der Vorstellungswelt der früheren Chinesen der Kaiser als Sohn des Himmels durch eigene Fehlhandlungen oder vom Himmel gesandte Naturkatastrophen das ihm gegebene Mandat des Himmels verspielen konnte und die Bauern ihn dann stürzen durften, so konstruiert der Falungongautor, daß die Legitimität der KPC deswegen nichtig sei, da die KP China gegen himmlisches Gesetz und kosmologische Ordnung verstoße und eine böse Gegenkraft zum Tao sei.

„Die KPC behauptete, dass sie nichts zwischen  Himmel und Erde fürchten würde. Vergeblich hatte sie gehofft, Himmel und Erde umzuwälzen und forderte alle aufrichtigen Elemente und Kräfte des Universums heraus. Mao Tse-tung sagte einmal: „In der Geschichte gab es in allen Nationen große Revolutionen. Indem man die alten Strukturen gewaschen und in neue Farben getaucht wurden, gab es eine große Umwandlung im Sinne von Leben und Sterben und Entstehung und Zerstörung. So ist es auch bei der Zerstörung des Universums. Die Zerstörung des Universums ist schließlich keine endgültige Zerstörung, denn was hier Zerstörung bedeutet, ist dort Geburt. Wir alle erwarten die Zerstörung des Universums, denn durch die Zerstörung des alten Universums, erhalten wir das Neue. Ist das nicht besser als das alte Universum?““(S.94)

„Wie der Teufel die Welt beherrscht – Die nahezu totale Kontrolle durch das kommunistische Gespenst“

Während sich das erste Buch noch ausschliesslich auf die KP China konzentrierte, verbreitert der neue 3-bändige Buchband „Wie der Teufel die Welt beherrscht – Die nahezu totale Kontrolle durch das kommunistische Gespenst“ seine Kritik auf auch westliche politische und gesellschaftliche Kräfte, die als geistie Seelenverwandte der abvsoluten Kraft des Bösen, der KP China gelten. Es geht um das Gespenst des Kommunismus, das nun in moderner Form in der Ökologiebewegung, den Grünen, dem Liberalismus, der Sozialdemokratie, Gewerkschaften und allen Leuten, die für Frauengleichberechtigung Umweltschutz, Sozialstaat , Regulierung des Kapitalismus, Kapitalismuskritik und soziale Gerechtigkeit eintreten , in tückischem Tarngewand auftreten. Alles Kathederkommunisten und böse verschworene Kräfte, die Familie, Gesellschaft, Staat und Nation zerstören, Kulturbolschewisten übelsten Grades sind.

Zu den Autoren ist zu erfahren: „: Das Autorenteam besteht aus Historikern und Wissenschaftlern. Diese befassten sich seit vielen Jahren intensiv mit der kommunistischen Ideologie und erlebten sie am eigenen Leib. Da den Mitgliedern des Teams Bespitzelungen und Repressalien drohen, ebenso ihren Familien, müssen sie aus Sicherheitsgründen anonym bleiben.“

Nun wurden in der Epoch Times schon Pasaagen des Buches vorab abgedruckt und ist es unwahrscheinlich, dass in einer führerzentrierten, quasileninistischen  Kaderorganisation wie der Falungon etwas im Verlag der Epoch Times ohne inhaltliche Zustimmung ihres Führers und Gurus Li Hongzhi abgedruckt und veröffentlicht wird, insofern er nicht selbst Mitautor oder maßgeblicher Autor dieses Machwerks ist. Zumal auch die Frage ist, welche Sorte Wissenschaftler und Historiker es sind, die solche rechtsradikalen, verschwörungstheoretischen, paranoiden Phantastereien und Hetzschriften zusammenschreiben. Zumal hatte ja schon das Team Walraff auf Verbindungen der Redaktion der Epcoh Times zu rechtsradiaklen und rechtspopuilistischen Hetzseiten hingewiesen und scheint sich hier eine rechtsradikale Front gegen Demokratie, Liberalismus, Feminismus, Umweltschutz und soziale Bewegungen und Organisationen zusammengeschlossen zu haben— möglicherweise auch im Zusammenhang mit Steve Bannon, der nach den USA nun auch versucht, in Europa Fuß zu fassen und eine antidemokratische neototalitäre Bewegung zu bilden, und möglicherweise auch im Zusammenhang mit der ehemaligen globalen Antikommunistischen Weltliga, die von Taiwan gesteuert wurde. Das neue Buch, das von der Falungong beworben und vertrieben wird, schreibt in seiner Eigenwerbung:

„Wie der Teufel die Welt beherrscht – Die nahezu totale Kontrolle durch das kommunistische Gespenst – analysiert und aufgedeckt: Literaturempfehlung.

Wer hat die Weltherrschaft? Wir leben in einer Zeit des Umbruchs. Immer wichtiger wird, welche zentralen Werte die Menschen verbinden. Immer klarer wird auch, dass die Geschichte der Menschheit nicht so ablief, wie sie heutzutage gelehrt wird. Das Buch „Wie der Teufel die Welt beherrscht“ gibt die lange gesuchten Antworten. {Epoch Times28. Oktober 2019 Aktualisiert: 5. November 2019 11:49}

Ein großer Teil der Menschen scheint zu denken, dass der Kommunismus verschwunden ist, seit 1989 der Sowjetblock zusammenbrach – und diejenigen, die sich offen zum Kommunismus bekennen, haben auch tatsächlich keinen Einfluss mehr.
Aus der Welt verschwunden ist er aber nicht. Im Gegenteil, kommunistische Vorstellungen sind heute in abgewandelter und modernisierter Form weiter verbreitet denn je zuvor. Vor allem aber sind sie heute auch im Westen mehr denn je akzeptiert.

„Kapitalismus abschaffen“? „Wohnungsgesellschaften enteignen“? Familie auflösen? Keinen Wohlstand und keine Kinder mehr wegen des Klimas? Frühsexualisierung? Solche Gedanken sind in Politik, Medien und Kultur populärer denn je. Im Kern drücken sie genau das aus, was einst schon Karl Marx und seine Anhänger der gesamten Menschheit aufzwingen wollten.

Heute hat die Menschheit einen Zenit an materiellem Reichtum erreicht, steht aber vor beispiellosen Herausforderungen durch die Verwüstungen, die der Kommunismus angerichtet hat.
Die globalen Ereignisse entwickeln sich in einem unglaublichen Tempo, die Menschen der Welt erwachen. Die Welt erlebt eine Wiederbelebung der traditionellen Kultur und Moral in Übereinstimmung mit den universellen Werten von Wahrhaftigkeit, Güte und Nachsicht.

„Wie der Teufel die Welt beherrscht“
Das Buch „Wie der Teufel die Welt beherrscht“ untersucht historische Trends und die Entwicklung von Jahrhunderten aus einer neuen Perspektive und analysiert, wie der Teufel unsere Welt in verschiedenen Masken und mit raffinierten Mitteln besetzt und manipuliert hat.

Was ist der Teufel? „Das Kommunistische Manifest“ beginnt mit den Worten: „Ein Gespenst geht um in Europa – das Gespenst des Kommunismus.“ Die Verwendung des Begriffs „Gespenst“ war keine Laune von Karl Marx. Dahinter steckt mehr.
Der Kommunismus hat im 20. Jahrhundert hunderte Millionen Menschen physisch vernichtet, doch heute zielt er auf ihre Seelen. Er ist das Werkzeug des Teufels in der Welt. Wo er herrscht, herrschen Krieg, Hungersnot, Massenmord und Tyrannei. Vor allem aber will er Menschen ihre Würde nehmen und sie daran hindern, nach der von Gott festgelegten traditionellen Lebensweise zu leben.

Bei vielen Menschen blieb glücklicherweise die der menschlichen Natur innewohnende Güte erhalten – was den Menschen die Chance gibt, sich vom Einfluss des „Gespenst des Kommunismus“ zu befreien.

Das Buch „Wie der Teufel die Welt beherrscht“ beschreibt nicht nur die historische Entwicklung, sondern legt offen, wie der Teufel daran gehindert werden kann, unsere Welt zu regieren. Dies hängt ab vom Erwachen des Menschen.
Buchbestellung

ISBN Band 1: 978-3-9810462-1-2, Band 2: 978-3-9810462-2-9, Band 3: 978-3-9810462-3-6. Einzeln kostet jeder Band 19,90 Euro (zzgl. 2,70 Euro Versandkosten), alle drei Bände gemeinsam sind zum Sonderpreis von 45,00 Euro (zzgl. 5,50 Euro Versandkosten) zu erwerben. Das Buch hat insgesamt 1008 Seiten und über 1200 Stichworte im Indexverzeichnis.
Bestellmöglichkeiten: Über Amazon oder direkt beim Verlag der Epoch Times – Phone: +49 (0)30 26395312, E-Mail: Buecher@epochtimes.de

https://www.epochtimes.de/politik/welt/weltherrschaft-buch-wie-der-teufel-die-welt-beherrscht-nahezu-totale-kontrolle-durch-das-kommunistische-gespenst-analysiert-aufgedeckt-a3035958.html

Über den Inhalt der 3 Bände ist kurz zu lesen:

„1. Band: Die 36 Strategien zur Zerstörung der Menschheit – Marx war ein Satanist – Der geheime Feind der freien Gesellschaft – Offene und verdeckte Gewalt, jedes Mittel ist erlaubt – Wie die Politik zu einem Guerillakrieg gemacht wurde – Europa ist in den Händen des Feindes – Unterwanderung des ehrlichen Glaubens – Die Zerstörung der Familien – Wie der Sozialstaat Chaos in der Gesellschaft verursacht
2. Band: Hohe Besteuerung: Die gewaltsame Verstaatlichung von Privatvermögen – Die Wohlstandsfalle – Staatlicher Terrorismus mittels verdrehter Gesetze – Zerstörung der ästhetischen Richtlinien der Menschheit – Zerstörung des Bildungswesens: Gefühle werden zu Tatsachen, Verdummung, Therapie statt Bildung, Gehirnwäsche statt Wissen – Die linke Schieflage der Medien – Parteikultur, Pop-Kultur und Dekadenz – Wenn Menschen süchtig nach ihren Wünschen sind
3. Band: Die kommunistischen Wurzeln des Terrorismus – Wie der Umweltschutz zu einer Pseudoreligion wurde – Anti-humaner Ökologismus – Das grüne Wolkenkuckucksheim – Wirtschaftliche, politische und kulturelle Globalisierung – Die Durchsetzung einer sozialistischen Weltregierung – Globaler Anspruch des „Modell China“: Tyrannei, Belohnung des Bösen, uneingeschränkte Kriegsführung – Die Menschen der Welt erwachen“

Schon in der Behauptung, dass Marx ein Satanist war und der Teufel die Welt regiere, wird offensichtlich, dass die Falungong eine manächistische, endzeitliche, verschwörungstheoretische Massensekte ist, die wohl eine Art Exorzismus bei ihrer Machtergreifung an den Tag legen würde, nicht nur gegen die KP China, sondern gegen alle deren vermutetn Geistesverwandten, also auch säkulare, liberale, moderat christliche und linke Demokraten, zumal all diese ja alles verkappte Kommunisten sind und noch schlimmere Kommunisten als die sich offen zum Kommunismus bekennenden Marginalkommunisten, die ohnehin keinen Einfluss mehr haben. Auch das Kapitel „Europa ist in den Händen der Feinde“ zeigt, dass dieses Buch liberale säkuklare Demokraten für Feinde hält, die beseitigt gehören, denn momentan sind diese noch die dominanten politischen Kräfte im Großteil Europas. Wie hetzerisch und leichtfertig von Teufel und Satanisten gesprochen wird, zeigt die Gefährlichkeit dieser antidemokratischen Bewegung, die wäre sie einmal an der Macht wohl einen klerikalfaschistischen, fundamentalreligösen Totalitarismus errichten würde. Daher sollten Gegner der KP China und von Totalitarismen sich bewusst werden, dass es sich bei der Falungong nicht um eine harmlose Meditationsbewegung handelt, sondern eine fundamentalistisch- buddhistisch-daoistisch verbrämte neototalitäre Bewegung, die wie der Islamismus und Evangelikanismus auch auf Weltmissionierungs- und welteroberungskurs ist, aber bisher noch nicht so erfolgreich ist und sich eher als armes Opfer darstellt. Abschliessend nur noch zwei ältere Gedichte Ihres Führeres Li Hongzhi, die endzeitlich und apokalyptiosch prophezeien, dass China mit Massengräbern überhäuft werden würde :

The Foretelling

Autumn is not over

Yet spring has arrived

What humans don´t believe In

All now comes forth

The sky cracks open

And the earth burns

The evil tries to hide

The wicked ones to flee

As gong surges forth

Evil spirits wail and scream

The Dafa disciples

Ascend to the heights of the heavens

In control of Heaven and Earth, rectifying the human realm

Li Hongzhi,December 30, 2001”.

„The Cleansing

Heaven and Earth turned upside down, raining sand and dust,

The minds of hundreds of millions in the mortal world poisoned,

How many can be saved by mercy

New graves cover the landscape of China Proper.

Li Hongzhi, January 31, 2002”.

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für Falungong: Nach den“ 9 Kommentare zur KP China“ nun „„Wie der Teufel die Welt beherrscht – Die nahezu totale Kontrolle durch das kommunistische Gespenst“

Shen Yun- culture struggle between the Falungong and CP China


Published on December 13, 2019 by Ralf Ostner

The CPC’s cultural struggle through its panda diplomacy, Chinese state circus, shaolin acrobatics, Zhang Yi Mous’s few historical films and other state directors, as well as Confucius institutes offering language and calligraphy courses as well as short Chinese history courses narrating the history version of CP China, is on the side challenged the Chinese opposition only by the leader-centered, authoritarian, religious-fundamentalist organization of the Falungong through their cultural program „Shen Yun“, which is available worldwide as multimedia and cultural events and is currently touring through the USA and Europe, including Germany. Like the CP China, the Falungong emphasizes the 5000-year-old Chinese high culture, in which even minorities are assimilated and incorporated into the Chinese culture as colorful folklore and mixture of 5000 years of Chinese history. Shenyun offers legends and myths compactly in one, while the CP China offers only small more acrobatic facets such as state circus and Shaolin monks.

With its Chinese state circus, the CP China wants to present to western viewers such as the Falungong the precision and harmony of the uniform movements and interplay of the artists, who perform extreme physical accomplishments in an aesthetic collective and embody their collectivism and efficiency and present them as superior to western individualism. Both appeal to simple, authority-minded minds, which allow themselves to be lulled by pompous, clichéd and stereotypical mannerist mass kitsch, in which the individual disappears in the collective and in the masses and is drown in a sea of colors and sounds like in the best Leni Riefenstahl aesthetics in „Triumph of the will“ and the 1936 Olympics, military parades or North Korean propaganda mass productions. Yes, if these people had been Red Guardians, they would have understood the kitschy revolutionary operas by Mao widow Jiang Qing as cultural-revolutionary performances purely culturally, aesthetically and athletically and not politically.

Of course, there are differences between KP China and the Falungong. As the Shenyun advertising brochure states:

“A lost culture returns when Shenyun takes the stage. The culture of ancient China was inspired divinely. Shen Yun shows this heritage with its rich spiritual elements. Shen Yun can not perform in China today. Based in New York, Shen Yun will give you an idea of Chinese culture which remains unaffected by communist rule „.

The Falungong declares itself the actual owner of Chinese ancient culture, concentrating on spirituality and ancient deities, legends, fairy tales, fantasy worlds,
superstition, in which it also believes and which it also wants to re-establish in China with its own religion. Shen Yun creates a colorful fairy tale world for all the senses, classical music, harmony that comes close to extreme kitsch, only shows the positive sides of a Chinese fairy tale history, but is only perceived as positive by most viewers who like a different spiritual fairy tale and dream China as Xi Jinping’s atheistic, materialistic, neotatlitarian China, which apart from being a super-market, is no longer liked, or its centuries-long Asian despotism. Shen Yun promises a fairy-tale dream China, immaculate from concentration camps for Uigirs and poisonous toys or poisoned milk powder, raw materialism and greed, without divine inspiration and redeeming power of a spiritual force like the Falungong.

It is remarkable how naively Western viewers fall for this cultural-political program and praise it because they consider it a pure cultural program and want to keep politics out of culture, even though the CP China and the Falungong subtly bring it into it. Falungong leader Li Hongzhi was formerly the trumpeter of the People’s Liberation Army and knows how mass propaganda works, but this is mostly hidden from western viewers. The spectator remains the kitsch spectacle in his mind that Chinese culture is very fairytale, colorful and sensual, harmonious culture and in no way hanchauvinistic and despotic as it was and is. Fir the audience of Shen Yun it is incomprehensible why the CP China does not let Shen Yun tour through China, as it would only be about Chinese culture and China is a cultural nation in its own own self-image. Li Hongzhi’s cultural struggle and cultural policy have already achieved an essential goal. It remains to be seen whether the Chinese Communist Party, as its counterpart, will launch its own Shen Yun and send it on tour through China and the West.

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für Shen Yun- culture struggle between the Falungong and CP China

Shen Yun-Kulturkampf zwischen der Falungong und KP China

Der Kulturkampf der KP China mittels ihrer Pandadiplomatie, chinesischem Staatszirkus, Shaolinakrobatik , den wenigen historischen Kinofilmen Zhang Yi Mous und anderer Staatsregisseure sowie Konfuziusinstituten, die neben Sprach- und Kaligraphiekursen auch kurze chinesische Geschichtskurse anbieten, in denen die Geschichtsversion der KP China erzählt wird wird seitens der chinesischen Opposition nur durch die führerzentrierte, autoritäre, religiös-fundamentalistische Organisation der Falungong mittels ihres Kulturprogramms „Shen Yun“ herausgefordert, das es multimedial und als Kulturverantstaltungen weltweit gibt und momentan durch die USA und Europa, auch Deutschland tourt. Wie die KP China betont die Falungong die 5000 jährige  chinesische Hochkultur, bei der selbst Minderheiten als farbenprächtige Folklorebeimengung in die chinesische Kultur assimiliert und inkorporiert werden.Die KP China hat aber noch kein so umfassendes, pompöses  Kulturprogramm wie die Falungong, das den Ansprcuh hat umfassend 5000 Jahre vermeintlich chinesische Geschichte. Legenden und Mythen kompakt in einem Guss anzubieten, sondern nur kleine mehr akrobatische Facetten wie Staatszirkus und Shaolinmönche.

Die KP China will mit ihrem chinesischen Staatszirkus dabei bei westlichen Zuschauern wie die Falungong mit der Präzision und Harmonie der gleichförmigen Bewegungen und Zusammenspiel der Künstler, die in einem ästhetischen Kollektiv körperliche Extremleistungen vollbringen ihren Kollektivismus und Effizienz verkörpern und als dem westlichen Individualismus überlegen darstellen. Beide appellieren an schlichte, einfach gestrickte, autoritätsaffine Gemüter, die sich von pompösem, klischeehaftem und stereotyp- manieristischem Massenkitsch einlullen lassen, in dem das Individuum im Kollektiv und in der Masse verschwindet und in einem Farben- und Klangmeer untergeht wie in bester Leni-Riefenstahlästhetik in Triumph des Willen und der Olympiade 1936, Militärparaden oder nordkoreanischen Propagandamasseninszenierungen. Ja, wären diese Leute Roitgardisten gewesen hätten sie selbst noch die kitschigen Revolutionsopern von der Maowitwe Jiang Qing als kulturrevolutionäre Darbietungen rein kulturell, ästehtsich und sportlich und nicht politisch begriffen.

Freilich gibt es Unterschiede zwischen KP China und der Falungong. So heißt es in der Shenyun-Werbebroschüre:

„Eine verlorene Kultur kehrt zurück, wenn Shenyun die Bühne betritt. Die Kultur des Alten Chinas wurde göttlich inspiriert. Shen Yun zeigt dieses Erbe mit dessen reichen spirituellen Elementen. Shen Yun kann heute nicht in China auftreten. Mit Sitz in New York bietet Ihnen Shen Yun eine Vorstellung. Die von der kommunistischen Herrschaft unbeeinflusst bleibt“.

Die Falungong erklärt sich zum eigentlichen Besitzer der chinesischen alten Kultur, konzentriert sich dabei auf Spiritualität und alte Gottheiten, Legenden, Märchen, Phanatsiewelten, Abergluabe, an die sie auch selbst glaubt und die sie auch mit ihrer eigenen Religion in China wieder etablieren will. Shen Yun beitet eine bunte farbenreiche Märchenwelt für alle Sinne, klassische Musik, Harmonie, die an extremen Kitsch heranreicht, nur die positiven Seiten der chinesischen und Märchengeschichte zeigt, aber von dem meisten Zuschauern auch nur als positiv wahrgenommen wird, die sich gerne ein anderes spirituelles Märchen- und Traumchina herbeiträumen als das atheistische, materialistische, neototatlitäre Chinas Xi Jinpings, das ausser als Superabsatzmarkt nicht weiter gemocht wird oder eben die jahrhundertelange asiatische Despotie. Shen Yun verspricht da ein märchenhaftes Traumchina, ganz unbefleckt von Konzentrationslagern für Uigiren und giftigem Spielzeug oder vergiftetem Milchpulver, Dikatur, blankem Materialismus und Habgier, ohne göttliche Inspiration und erlösende Herrschaft einer spirituellen Kraft wie der Falungong.

Es ist beachtlich, wie naiv westliche Zuschauer auf dieses kulturpolitische Programm hereinfallen und es loben, da sie es als reines Kulturprogramm halten und Politik aus der Kultur heraushalten wollen, obwohl die KP China und die Falungong diese ja subtil hineinbringen. Falungongführer Li Hongzhi war früher auch Trompeter der Volksbefreiungsarmee und versteht sich auf massenwirksame Propagandaarbeit, was aber westlichen Zuschauern zumeist verborgen bleibt.Beim Zuschauer bleibt bei dem Kitschspektakel im Geiste hängen, dass chineische Kultur sehr märchenhaft, farben-und sinnesfreudig, harmonisch und keineswegs hanchauvinistisch und despotisch war und ist, so wohl die alte Kultur, die eigentlich chinesische Kultur aussehen soll und dass es unverständlich ist, warum die KP China Shen Yun nicht durch China touren lässt, geht es doch nur  um chinesische Kultur und ist China doch eine Kulturnation in seinem eigenem Selbstverständnis. Damit hat der Kulturkampf und die Kulturpolitik Li Hongzhis ja schon ein wesentliches Ziel erreicht. Bleibt abzuwarten, ob die KP China als Gegenstück auch ein eigenes Shen Yun herausbringt und auf Tour durch China und im Westen schickt.

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für Shen Yun-Kulturkampf zwischen der Falungong und KP China

Russia: The Dilemmas of an Underachiever?

Global Review publishes a fourth RIAC contribution by Ivan Timofeev „Russia: The Dilemmas of an Underachiever?“ as we think that the author asks very fundamental questions on the political theory of international relations, realism/neorealism and structuralism and proposes the ideas of international agents as an alternative to structures. The main idea is that traditional realism and structuralism focus only on hard power, not soft power or the domestic fabric of society and the skill of its leaders to act as creative and willing agents in international affairs as exemplified in the case of Russia and Syria and separate domestic-internal factors and domestic policy from international factors and foreign policy as two seperate and isolated spheres of policy which should be viewed in a holistic, dialectical way. Ivan Timofeev also questions the traditional quantitive indicators by which state power is measured and proposes more qualitative indicators, not only of hard power but also of the social fabric of society, inner relations, their leaders and elites, population and other factors. He also draws conclusions from that which are discussed already by Russian elites as the Valdai Club or RIAC.

Ivan Timofeev

PhD in Political Science, RIAC Director of Programs, RIAC Member, Head of „Contemporary State“ program at Valdai Discussion Club

The October events in Syria were an interesting indicator of the specific character of current international relations. Two NATO allies — the United States and Turkey — took opposite stands on the Kurdish issue. Washington had to introduce economic sanctions against Ankara, while Turkey conducted a military operation without so much as a backward glance at its ally. The European NATO members remained passive. Russia again consolidated its positon, spending minimal resources and maintaining equidistant relations with the key regional power centers. Iran remains an influential player in Syria despite enormous US economic pressure. Moreover, its determination to capitalize on its potential in the country and the region is increasing in proportion to Washington’s growing urge to punish Tehran.

The powerful financial and military resources of the Gulf monarchies are not helping them play a decisive role in Syria or otherwise. An ever growing China, which looms beyond the horizon, still tries to distance itself from the Middle East affairs as a matter of principle, but its de facto presence makes it part of the equation. Against the backdrop of an ostensible retreat in Syria, the United States carried out a blitzkrieg operation to destroy the leader of ISIS (banned in Russia) with what US officials describe as tacit support by Russia, the Syrian Government, Turkey, Iraq and the Kurds. However, the Americans will not leave the Syrian oil fields, while maintaining a strict oil embargo against Syria.

In all probability, these events may be considered a triumph of “agents” over “structures.” Some players show that their actions pursue quite specific pragmatic interests and that their political will prevails over the established structural restrictions, be it alliances, international institutions or allied commitments. The very policy of “agents,” that is to say, individual states, does not fit in into the linear logic of “the more the better.” Minimal pinpoint actions that result from sophisticated combinations or simple good luck yield serious dividends, whereas enormous power, resources and funds do not guarantee success. Needless to say, it is too early to write off structural factors. After all, allied relations between the US and Turkey have alleviated political differences on individual issues more than once. But deals are increasingly situational, and strategic horizons are eroded by tactical tasks. It is also premature to write off the power of states. As Kenneth Waltz aptly put it, strong states may certainly err, and weak countries can be more successful in certain situations. However, strong states are more resilient and can afford to make more attempts. So, if strong countries can afford the luxury of being wrong, any mistake can become fatal for the weak.

These events return us to one of the basic questions of the science on international relations: What are the parameters of power enjoyed by modern government players? What makes some stronger and others weaker? Is there a universal formula for power and influence that produces success under different circumstances?

Attempts to find a universal formula for comparing all states have been made for a long time and are still popular. Most formulas are based on the parameters of economy and military might. Thus, Expected Utility Generation, the well-known US project by Scott Bennett and Allan Stam, uses parameters like the numerical strength of the armed forces, defense expenditures, power generation, metal smelting, total population and urban population. Despite the relativity of these parameters, an emphasis on the economy and military potential is typical of universal comparisons. The big problem is how to fine tune the indexes to take into account various nuances. A Russian project, The Political Atlas of Modern Times, by Andrei Melvil et al attempted to take into consideration these nuances plus technological development and soft power indices.

However, universal power formulas have shortcomings. The first is that any global distribution of power will be asymmetrical. This is a reflection of objective reality and is hardly a drawback of the method as such. Almost any power potential index reveals one super leader, several leaders and the remaining mass of states that are behind them by dozens and even hundreds of times. The use of such a projection is not helpful in explaining specific situations with the participation of local players that are formally weak but may prove indispensable under specific circumstances. In addition, a departure from linearity occurs when it comes to the quality of interstate relations. For instance, there is no doubt that the United States is much more powerful than Russia, India or China. But a scenario of US military aggression against any of these states is most unlikely because of its high price. Moreover, when a potential armed action is discussed against Iran, a much weaker non-nuclear country, the United States will think twice and has so far rejected this path because the price may also prove to be too high. In other words, the ratio of power is not indicative of the quality of relations between states.

Another shortcoming is that power parameters coexist with other dimensions of the life of an “agent” or a modern state. Statistically, they may have little connection with power parameters. There are both democracies and autocracies among powerful states. Some of them are prosperous whereas others have lower living standards. There are federations and centralized states among them. Corruption is at different levels as well. In other words, the realists seem to be right when they urge us to separate power and foreign policy from government systems and domestic political issues. However, in some cases, these parameters suddenly begin to play a crucial role. In 1989, the USSR, in statistical terms, was in fairly good shape. It was a superpower with the world’s second largest economy, decent demographic potential, advanced industry and technology, and the world’s best army. But it collapsed like a house of cards in a minute, judging by the historical standards. And a no small role was played by factors that cannot be measured at all — the condition of the elites, the “crisis of the spirit and willpower,” the underlying nihilism and total cynicism as regards the dominant ideology. Similarly intangible parameters brought Russia back to the supreme league of world politics, when formally it had long been written off as a “slowly waning state” and “a leftover of the empire” with a reactive foreign policy, and a population that was becoming extinct and drinking itself to death, a country without any outlook for a future.

Interestingly, the Political Atlas revealed an important regularity. If power is considered not just by itself but in combination with other parameters of a state’s life — its political system, quality of life, the condition of statehood and the level of threats — the picture of the world will be somewhat different. Instead of a linear scale, a kaleidoscope of different clusters of states emerges. Moreover, each cluster has its own dimension. In other words, modern states exist in parallel realities as it were, and each reality has criteria and parameters of its own. The club of great powers has one set of dimensions and agendas. The cluster of advanced states with relatively small militaries has another. The cluster of underdeveloped states that are fighting for their survival has still another. The problem is aggravated by the fact that these clusters and their agendas are permeable. One fine day a state from the great power cluster can knock on the door of a state from an underdeveloped or even a “well-off” cluster with its not always welcome agenda in the shape of bombing raids, clandestine operations, economic sanctions or open interventions.

Of course, our main task is to figure out what this means for Russia. A trivial but frequently ignored truth is that Russia is a fairly unique country by global conventions. For many years, we have been involved in self-castigation, trying to be like someone else. Just look at how fast India and China are growing! And what about us? Look at what a nice life the Germans have! Why can’t we? Look at South Korea’s great chaebols! Why don’t we have this? Look at how pushy and unceremonious the Americans are! Why not do the same? How well does democracy work in Switzerland! But what about us? We are like an underachiever whose parents lecture and hector him every day, pointing to other children in the neighborhood as an example to emulate. Basil plays chess, Peter plays the violin, Nick already helps his dad in the store, and Mary is an A student and a member of two hobby groups. But you are just good for nothing, a big guy with an evil look, in a torn school uniform, with bad marks and a black eye. The problem (and possibility) lies in the fact that this underachiever will never become a Basil, a Peter, a Nick, or a Mary even in theory. However, this doesn’t mean that he has no hope or his own formula for success. The dilemma is whether he should try to match his “successful” classmates or follow his own path.

If “agents” are replacing “structures” in modern international relations, maybe it is worth changing the analytical lens through which we look at “agents,” especially an unconventional agent like Russia. Maybe, we should proceed from the qualities of an “agent” rather than universal formulas with which we study “structures.” This issue is important from both methodological and political points of view. In the final count, we are talking about the sources of our political identity. We could look for it in a “structure,” trying to conform to a universal criterion. But we can also look for it in our own selves — our specifics, balance of strong and weak points, and eventually in our history and culture. It is possible that we will have to rediscover ourselves anew.

First published in the Valdai Discussion Club.

https://russiancouncil.ru/en/analytics-and-comments/analytics/russia-the-dilemmas-of-an-underachiever/
Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für Russia: The Dilemmas of an Underachiever?

How to Stop NATO – the Russian point of view about 70 years NATO

Global Review wants to give the Russian view of NATO a public. An interesting article is „How to stop NATO“ and the plan B  and we also recommend the study „Towards a more stable Russia-NATO relationship“ -product of the European Leadership Network and RIAC, the Russian´s foreign ministery´s think tank. It can be downloaded here:

https://russiancouncil.ru/papers/Towards-a-more-stable-Russia-NATO-relationship.pdf

Author: Andrey Kortunov

Ph.D. in History, Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council, RIAC member

Catherine the Great is credited with saying that the only way to secure the borders of the Russian Empire is to expand them continuously. This logic is to some degree applicable to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which embarked on a path of geographical enlargement quite literally from the very first days of its existence. Seven rounds of enlargement over the next 70 years brought NATO membership from 12 to 29 countries. And, from the look of things, the expansion will not stop there.

It is far from obvious that there is a linear correlation between the number of NATO members and the organization’s military and/or political effectiveness. Geographical enlargement comes at a cost: the accumulation of internal contradictions; the emergence of tensions among members with diverging interests; and occasional heated conflict within the group. A recent example of such a conflict is Turkey’s purchase of Russian S-400 Triumph anti-aircraft weapon systems and the failed attempts of the United States to scuttle the deal.

The sixth and seventh rounds of NATO enlargement into the chronically unstable and explosive region of the Western Balkans (Albania, Croatia and Montenegro) created more problems than significant new opportunities for the organization. The planned eighth round of enlargement (to include North Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina) also raises a number of questions as to the ability of the new members to strengthen the organization’s military potential and increase its overall security. The possible accession of Cyprus, not to mention that of Georgia and Ukraine, posits just as many questions.

The Logic Behind Enlargement

Alarmist voices can be heard from time to time in Europe and the United States calling for at least a temporary suspension of NATO’s endless and thoughtless enlargement and for its members to focus their attention on enhancing cooperation within the organization. The alarmists’ stance is clear: the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization by including mostly “security consumers” puts the “security providers,” primarily the United States, in a difficult situation. The United States’ obligations to its European allies are mounting, while its security is not being strengthened. Last year, Donald Trump, in his typically outrageous manner, reminded the distinguished audience that a third world war might very well break out as a result of a crisis provoked by “aggressive” Montenegro.

Nevertheless, NATO’s ineluctable enlargement has its own logic and justifications, or can at least be explained.

One of these explanations is bureaucratic: each new member brings with it new personnel for the organization’s executive office, new budgets and targeted projects, and new instruments of exerting administrative pressure on old members. One look at NATO’s immense new headquarters, built two years ago at the cost of over $1 billion and taking up an area of over 250.000 square metres, is sufficient to understand why Brussels bureaucrats believe the enlargement process is rational.

Another explanation is legal: NATO cannot close its doors to potential new members without revising the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, which that states in Article 10 that NATO membership is open to “any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.” That is, NATO can reject specific applicants (the request of the Soviet Union was rejected in 1954, for example), but it cannot close its doors as a matter of principle. Revising or amending the founding Treaty under current circumstances is a purely hypothetical question.

A third explanation is economic: each subsequent candidate undertakes to modernize its weapons so that they comply with NATO standards. Accordingly, U.S. and European defence contractors gain a new market. It is not even important who ultimately pays for the modernization programme, the candidate or the United States itself, since in any case, the enlargement of the organization means new contracts and new profits for the politically influential defence industry.

And finally, the political explanation: enlargement is one of the principal instruments of legitimizing NATO. The constant flow of candidates wishing to accede to NATO means that any talk of the alliance being obsolete, ineffective or unneeded is groundless. Enlargement is a weighty argument for those who disagree with the diagnosis recently made by President of France, Emmanuel Macron, that NATO was experiencing „brain death.“

Supply and Demand

Given all of the above, it is unlikely that the further enlargement of NATO can be stopped through negotiations with the organization’s leadership or with its most influential members. While there are forces in both Washington and Brussels that oppose the endless process of NATO enlargement, their influence is clearly weaker than that wielded by the proponents of further expansion into the Balkans and possibly Eastern Europe. However, even if the desire to stop further enlargement once and for all dominated in the West today, enshrining this desire “for centuries to come“ in the form of legally binding agreements is virtually impossible.

Presidents and prime ministers come and go, the strategic and geopolitical landscape of the Euro-Atlantic space changes, and the concepts of threats and challenges to national security evolve. History, including that of the recent past, demonstrates that “where there’s a will, there’s a way” when it comes to getting out of any treaty if it no longer satisfies the leadership of a signatory country for whatever reason. Legal commitments inevitably recede into the background when it comes to political expediency. Especially when fundamental security interests of great powers are at stake.

If this is the case, then the further geographical enlargement of NATO should be counteracted not so much on the supply side as on the demand side. This requires understanding the specific motivation that drives the population and political elites of those countries that are currently in line for the long-sought-after entrance to the building on Boulevard Leopold III in Brussels.

Clearly, the issue of NATO membership takes different shapes in Tbilisi, Kyiv or Chisinau: the level of public support for NATO varies widely, and those in Eastern Europe who call for membership countries (let us note in parentheses that such people, even if they are presently few, can be found even in Belarus and Kazakhstan) have their own specific set of expectations when it comes to NATO membership. Nevertheless, we can distinguish three groups of incentives that push a part of the population in these countries, and especially part of their “establishment,” into joining NATO. These incentives are linked to security, identity and inclusivity. Let us consider each group in more detail.

Security

Naturally, not all security problems of the countries of Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus can be automatically eliminated by acceding to NATO, especially when it comes to new issues that have appeared on the global agenda this century. For instance, NATO has no particular reason to advertise its successes in counteracting climate change and illegal migration, or even in the fight against international terrorism. Moreover, involvement in NATO’s activities or participating in situational Euro-Atlantic coalitions can generate additional security risks for participating countries. A textbook example of this is the series of large-scale terrorist attacks at Madrid train stations on March 11, 2004, which, according to those responsible (Islamists), were perpetrated as a means of exacting revenge on Spain for its active role in the Iraq War. However, some former Soviet republics interpret national security primarily as security in relation to the supposed aggressive intentions and actions of Moscow, and all other security aspects are automatically moved down the national priority scale.

Is it realistic to offer the countries in the “shared neighbourhood” alternative options of protection against what they perceive as the “Moscow threat”? It should be immediately acknowledged that there is no full-fledged alternative to the military guarantees stipulated in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. But we should also remember that, frequently, those countries of Central Europe that have already become full-fledged NATO members do not even see Article 5 as a complete and sufficient guarantee of their security.

A heated discussion on the security of the Baltic countries in the face of “possible Russian aggression” following the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis in 2014 served as another reminder of the profound uncertainty within these countries concerning the effectiveness of Article 5. It is probably no coincidence at all that Poland (a NATO member) has long been fighting to have U.S. troops and U.S. military facilities on its territory, since the country views NATO’s multilateral guarantees as insufficiently convincing.

If we strip Article 5 of its “sacral” and metaphysical meaning, then there are grounds for discussing alternative options for ensuring the security of the countries in the “shared neighbourhood.” Long-term and interconnected actions in two areas could potentially serve as a replacement for NATO enlargement.

In order to alleviate the security concerns of its neighbours, Russia needs to pay persistent, consistent and carefully considered attention to the eastern trajectory of its foreign policy. This work should be done no matter how grounded or divorced from reality these concerns appear to the Russian leadership. This task looks exceedingly difficult following the 2014 crisis, and it will take many years to resolve. Without going into detail, let us note that Russia’s success will, to a great degree, depend on its ability to effectively combine the military, political, diplomatic, public and humanitarian aspects of its approaches to its post-Soviet neighbours.

As for the western trajectory of its foreign policy, Russia should take NATO ‘s efforts to expand its cooperation with its partners as a given, as long as this cooperation does not turn into practical preparations for admitting new members to the alliance. Several neutral and non-aligned countries have experience of working in partnership with NATO without the explicit goal of joining the organization (for example, Finland, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland and the Republic of Ireland). Some of these countries participate in a number of the alliance’s programmes (in particular, the “Partnership for Peace” programme) and even hold joint exercises with NATO. They have also repeatedly deployed troops to support NATO operations in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

The attempts of some European countries to make up for the lack of multilateral guarantees from NATO by concluding bilateral agreements with the United States (following the example of Japan and South Korea) should also be viewed as inevitable. The effectiveness of these attempts will most likely depend above all on the state of U.S.–Russia relations. Whatever the case may be, however, it is highly unlikely right now that the United States will provide military guarantees to an Eastern European country.

Identity

It is well known that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is both a military bloc and a self-proclaimed “club of Euro-Atlantic democracies,” an alliance based on “western values.” During the 70 years of its history, the organization has not always lived up to this image: for instance, Turkey in the 1950s, or Greece at the time of the Regime of the Colonels could hardly qualify as democratic states. Nevertheless, the interconnection between NATO and political liberalism is evident. At the 1999 Washington summit, the attendees adopted a list of requirements for new members that included, among other things, the obligation to demonstrate a commitment to human rights and the rule of law and to organize the necessary democratic and civilian control over the national armed forces.

Consequently, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe have traditionally viewed NATO membership as both a security issue and a matter of identity. Belonging to North Atlantic Alliance also meant belonging to the Euro-Atlantic, or the western civilizational space as a whole. Historically, the countries of Central Europe and the Baltic began to drift towards NATO long before they pondered and legitimized their fears of the “revanchist” Russia.

Strictly speaking, during the 1990s and up to the 2014 crisis, Russia itself actively debated the possibility of acceding to NATO’s political bodies (for instance, the North Atlantic Council and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly). Even back then, the complete military integration of Russia into the organization seemed like an impossibility, or at least as a task for the foreseeable future. However, the idea of using the “French model” of political integration with NATO seemed possible during the period 1966–2009, when Paris did not take part in the activities of the Defence Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Group but continued to work in NATO’s political bodies and joined some of its military operations in 1995. The proponents of Russia’s gradual political integration with NATO believed this step would be an essential confirmation of the unalterable Euro-Atlantic orientation of Russia’s foreign political strategy.

Of course, it is clear to any politician in Central or Eastern Europe that, from the point of view of western identity, EU membership significantly outweighs NATO membership. However, becoming a member of the European Union is far more complicated than joining NATO. Accession to the European Union requires a far more profound (and more painful) socioeconomic and political transformation of the candidate country than NATO membership. It even took the United Kingdom 12 years (from 1961 to 1973) to become a member of the European Union.

Most countries of Central Europe and the Western Balkans (Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia) joined NATO first and later acceded to the European Union. In some cases, accession to both alliances was almost simultaneous (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia and Slovenia), while in others, countries that are already NATO members are still waiting to join the European Union (for example, Albania and Montenegro). However, there has not been a single case of a former socialist country acceding to the European Union first and then to NATO. The current sentiments in EU leadership do not leave much hope that such a precedent will be set in the foreseeable future.

This experience leads Eastern European countries to the logical conclusion that NATO membership is an insufficient, yet requisite condition for acceding to the European Union. In the worst-case scenario, NATO membership can be seen as a “silver medal” of sorts in the historical race for western identity. Although Turkey’s experience demonstrates that, while a silver medal does not satisfy everyone, it is still better than withdrawing from the race.

Accordingly, if the objective is to stop the further territorial enlargement of NATO, then NATO and EU membership should be separated as far as possible. It would be useful here to rely on the rich experience of the non-aligned and/or neutral European states that are EU members: Finland, Sweden, Austria and the Republic of Ireland, whose European identity cannot be doubted. On the other hand, the attention of potential NATO members should be drawn to the fact that several countries that have long been NATO members have not come any closer to full-fledged EU membership.

Strengthening the “strategic autonomy” of the European Union could play a certain role in reducing the appeal of NATO membership for post-Soviet states. This, in turn, means that Russia should not perceive the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) programme in security and defence for the EU countries in a solely negative light. On the contrary, if this programme is successful, it could help lay down the foundations of long-term defence cooperation between Russia and Europe outside the framework of the highly toxic Russia–NATO relations.

Inclusivity

In addition to the important, yet somewhat abstract issue of “Euro-Atlantic identity,” Eastern European countries are faced with the no less important, but far more specific issue of their participation in practical everyday decision-making on matters of European security. Each country seeks to gain a seat at the table where the most pressing political and military issues — issues that are of direct relevance to them – are discussed. Nobody would like to find themselves in the position of an outside observer who does not have a say in this discussion, not to mention the right to veto decisions.

It should be acknowledged that in the 30 years since the end of the Cold War, Europe has failed to create sufficiently influential pan-European bodies that are capable of ensuring adequate and effective representation for all, including the continent’s smaller countries. Meanwhile, over the course of its 70-year history, NATO has established approximately 20 committees and councils of various kinds for all imaginable issues, from air traffic to public diplomacy. All these bodies are well staffed with officials and experts, have large budgets and, most importantly, enjoy close and stable ties with the relevant ministries and agencies in member states.

NATO has numerous national and international think tanks and leading European media outlets at its disposal. Any ambitious politician from a Central European or Balkan country can clearly see that working in the NATO executive office may prove to be a unique springboard to a high-flying career. Suffice it to recall the story of Croatian Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović, who in 2015 moved from the office of Assistant Secretary-General of NATO for Public Diplomacy directly to the Presidential Palace in Croatia.

In short, NATO quite simply does not have any worthy institutional competitors on many specific security issues in Europe. This means that reducing the appeal of NATO for the countries in the “shared neighbourhood” will require attempts to strip the organization of its current monopoly on the European security agenda, which can be achieved by strengthening the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), developing regional cooperation mechanisms and creating inclusive pan-European regimes regulating individual dimensions of European security.

Europe does have a positive experience of „outsourcing“ its security issues. For instance, the very pressing problem of military flights over the Baltic Sea by aircraft that, as a matter of protocol, had their transponders turned on was ultimately settled not in the NATO–Russia Council, but by a special Baltic Sea Project Team created under the auspices of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).

On the other hand, history demonstrates that adhering to a policy of neutrality that frees countries and their leaders from rigid bloc discipline can, under certain circumstances, afford them several additional opportunities in international affairs. Frequently, neutral states find it easier to propose original new ideas, act as unbiased intermediaries in acute conflicts and exhibit maximum flexibility in their foreign policies without having to agree to morally and ethically dubious compromises.

Let us once again refer to examples of such non-NATO states like Austria, Finland and Sweden, which have played an active role both in Europe and around the world for many decades now, sometimes being far more visible and effective than larger and more powerful NATO members. Thus, neutrality and non-alignment do not themselves always mean some kind of defective status. On the contrary, in certain circumstances, they can prove to be a significant comparative advantage on the international stage.

How about Plan B?

None of the proposals provided a guarantee that NATO will curtail its geographical enlargement. Sceptics will likely say that the current momentum of geographic expansion is too great, that NATO will continue its process of enlargement unless Russia and its partners fill the “geopolitical vacuum” in the “shared neighbourhood.” However, we should note that the attempts to fill that “geopolitical vacuum” in the three decades or so following the collapse of the Soviet Union have not been particularly successful, and that today, Russia is not surrounded exclusively by friendly neighbours. Even in the best-case scenario, it would take an extremely long time to create a reliable “good-neighbourliness belt” around Moscow. The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) that many in Russia view as potential “Eurasian” counterbalance to the North Atlantic Alliance is hardly capable of filling the “geopolitical vacuum” in the near future. While NATO continues the process of enlargement, the CSTO, on the contrary, is shrinking, as Azerbaijan, Georgia and Uzbekistan have all pulled out of the organization within the past ten years (Tashkent has even managed to leave the CSTO on two separate occasions, once in 1999 and again in 2012).

The idea that Russia could block the accession of former Soviet republics to NATO entirely by using the candidate requirements formulated at the 1999 Washington summit has gained widespread popularity in Moscow. The requirements state that potential members first resolve, by peaceful means, any international disputes, as well as any ethnic, territorial and political conflicts in which they are involved, in accordance with OSCE principles. Stoking the flames of smouldering territorial or other conflicts in neighbouring states could, in theory, block the paths of these countries to NATO membership indefinitely.

However, even if we put rather important moral and ethical considerations to one side, as a long-term strategy, this route will not necessarily bring the desired results. First, it is entirely possible that the requirements for candidates may be revised at a future NATO summit. The western expert community is already actively discussing proposals to “make an exception” for Tbilisi so that Georgia can accede to the organization despite its unresolved problems with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Once this issue is resolved, nothing is stopping the expert community from turning their attention to Ukraine with a similar idea in mind.

Second, the existence of unresolved, albeit mostly frozen conflicts along Russian borders itself creates multiple large-scale national security threats. It is entirely unreasonable, to say the least, to construct a foreign policy based on the „lesser evil“ principle, since an always present „lesser evil“ could at some point turn out to be more dangerous than what was initially thought to be the “greater evil.”

There is another possible course of action, which is to observe NATO’s irresponsible enlargement dispassionately until the organization collapses under its own weight. If we are to believe Napoleon Bonaparte, all “great empires die of indigestion,” and there is no reason to suppose that NATO will be an exception to the rule. And, following the logic of the lesser-known British writer, historian and satirist Cyril Northcote Parkinson, NATO’s move to its ostentatious headquarters is a clear symptom of its approaching decline and inevitable collapse.

However, will a world without NATO be better for Russia than a world with NATO? Will it be better if Turkey or Germany start to think about acquiring their own nuclear weapons, while Poland attempts to create an anti-Russian “three seas” military and political alliance, uniting the states of Central Europe? Will it be better if another president of the United States turns out to be entirely free of all the obligations and restrictions imposed on him by NATO’s multilateral rules and procedures?

We should harbour no illusions regarding NATO: as it approaches its 70th anniversary, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization appears to be a clearly obsolete, very costly, exceedingly cumbersome and significantly fossilized organization that is stuck somewhere in the world of the middle of the last century. The organization is very poorly prepared to counteract the threats posited by networked non-state structures and the ever-increasing number of global problems and challenges. On the whole, the idea that security issues can be resolved on a territorial basis by creating a region of “absolute security” around oneself appears rather unconvincing, to put it mildly, in the age of globalization, especially given the ”project-based” approach to security that is rapidly gaining ground in the world today.

Nevertheless, we believe that the task is not to simply go back to a “world without NATO.” Nor is it to go back to a “world without nuclear weapons.” Any return to the past is not only impossible, but it is also undesirable, since the world of the past has never been the ideal for the future. The task is to replace the bloc security system inherited from the Cold War era with a new system that exceeds its predecessor in such critical parameters as openness, efficiency and reliability.

https://russiancouncil.ru/en/analytics-and-comments/analytics/how-to-stop-nato/
Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für How to Stop NATO – the Russian point of view about 70 years NATO

Europe’s Greens as Future Strategic Partners of Russia

Global Review tried with Dr. Sasha Rahr to promote the idea of a Green Eurasia /Greater Green Europe and an ecological cooperation between a green Europe and Russia. The article „Europe’s Greens as Future Strategic Partners of Russia“ by RIAC´s chief Dr. Kortunov from July 2019 can be seen as programmatic support for our ideas, but till now the obstacles for the idea of a Green Russia and an ecological cooperation seem to be very real as many silowikis, members of the state administration and of the gas- and oil industry still think in terms of Russia as a carbonized resource empire. However, the EU emphasizes now a Green Europe and the European Green became more and more a factor Russia´s foreign policy has to adapt.

Author: Andrey Kortunov

Ph.D. in History, Director General of the Russian International Affairs Council, RIAC member

When analyzing last month’s European Parliament elections, most observers primarily focus on the impressive results of the right-wing populists and Eurosceptics. Naturally, the advance of the right-wing parties is a major factor in the current political life of Europe. However, a factor that is of no lesser importance is the rather unexpected rise of Europe’s Greens, who were able to compete successfully with both right- and left-wing radicals and with the leading European centrist parties.

The Greens finished second in the polls in Germany and third in France. They also achieved noticeable successes in Finland, Portugal, Irefland, and even the United Kingdom, which will soon be leaving the European Union. As a result, the Greens became the fourth largest faction in the European Parliament. Unlike the right-wing populists, they are a very close-knit and highly purposeful group. There is every reason to believe that their rise will not stop there: a third of Europeans under 30 voted for them in the elections.

What does this mean for Moscow? The triumph of the Greens did not attract much enthusiasm from Russian politicians. And this is no coincidence. Traditionally, Russia has had difficult relations with European politicians of this particular persuasion. The political program of the Greens included environmental protection and combating climate change, emphasized human rights, called for increased attention to be paid to all kinds of minorities, and categorically rejected the notion of resolving international problems through the use of force.

Naturally, Moscow is the only target of Europe’s environmentalists. For instance, in the spring of 2003, the leader of Germany’s Greens Party and the then Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs Joschka Fischer did not hesitate in closing ranks with his Russian and French counterparts to condemn the U.S. intervention in Iraq. However, during the conflict in Georgia in August 2008 and after the onset of the Ukrainian crisis in 2014, Europe’s Greens were among the Kremlin’s harshest critics.

Nonetheless, despite the inevitable difficulties in cooperating with Europe’s Greens, they may become a crucial strategic partner for Russia in the future.

Russia’s environmental agenda is still taking shape. Attempts to create a “Green Party” in the country have not been particularly successful so far. However, the Russian people are interested in the development of such an agenda, and this demand is likely to keep growing in the foreseeable future. Suffice it to mention the recent scandals surrounding landfills, and this is just the tip of the iceberg!

What is more, the environmental agenda is not divisive. Quite the contrary, it brings people together. It offers a chance to overcome the political barriers that Russian society is accustomed to, such as the barriers between the left and the right, between conservatives and liberals, between nationalists and globalists. Today, Russia needs a unifying agenda more than ever. We can even suppose that environmental protection will, at some point become one of those national ideas that Russia’s political philosophers have been searching for in vain for several decades.

Another unique feature of the environmental agenda is its comprehensive nature. It affects all aspects of public life in one way or another. The environment is tied to issues of economic and social modernization, local self-governance, civil society, freedom of the press, human rights, technological progress, culture, and healthcare. A serious approach to environmental protection inevitably sets the chain reaction of renewing society and the state into motion.

On the other hand, the specifics of international environmental cooperation mean that it practically does not fall under the scope of the European sanctions imposed against Russia. Most likely, this will not change. Even the most intractable European critics of the Kremlin will hardly object to cooperation in environmental issues, because the environmental agenda is transnational by definition, and any major environmental problem in Russia will inevitably and rapidly generate consequences west of Russia’s borders.

Finland’s presidency in the European Union in July–December 2019 opens additional tactical opportunities for Russia in environmental issues. Finland is one of Europe’s unquestionable “environmental leaders”: it has cutting-edge technologies and boasts the best examples of Europe’s “environmentally friendly” corporate culture. Moscow has extensive experience of successful bilateral and multilateral environmental cooperation with Helsinki. For instance, the environment of the North was the focus of Finland’s recent two-year presidency of the Arctic Council.

Clearly, Russia’s environmental agenda will not be recognized by the European Union if it takes the form of another simulacrum intended to handle ad hoc foreign political tasks. However, if Russia does succeed in transforming environmental protection into a priority of its national development, and if environmental thinking does make protecting nature a fundamental national value, it will certainly have a positive influence on the attitude to Russia around the globe in general, and in Europe in particular.

And then the Greens may prove to be Russia’s most reliable partners both in the European Parliament and in the legislative bodies of individual EU countries.

https://russiancouncil.ru/en/analytics-and-comments/analytics/europe-s-greens-as-future-strategic-partners-of-russia/

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für Europe’s Greens as Future Strategic Partners of Russia

The Intellectual Vector: Where Russian Interventionism Is Imperative

Global Review publishes the RIAC contribution by Dayan Jayatilleka „The Intellectual Vector: Where Russian Interventionism Is Imperative“ as it asks why Russia has not yet have an own grand narrative, a Third ideology, the idea of a Fourth Rome as the USA and France had as leading intellectual Western powers in the modernity and what it could bring Asia and the world. He thinks that Russia should also have an intellectual vector, not just brute hard power or the idea of a resource empire. He thinks that Eurasia and Greater Eurasia could be such a teleological grand narrative and intellectual vector and intervention by Russia and The East challenging grand narratives like The End of history by Fukuyama or Huntington´s Clash of Civilizations or Kagan´s writings. He then asks fundamental questions about how such a new ideology could be constructed. However, it is interesting that while the EU seems to find its new teleologcal grand narrative in a Green Europe, Russia still now has not any intellectual contribution or grand narrative, except the vague idea of Eurasia which was not elaborated till now. Therefore he recommends his fundamental questions as a contribution to the formulation of such a new Russian ideology.

Author: Dayan Jayatilleka

Ph.D., Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka to the Russian Federation

In an interesting contribution to a valuable volume, Prof T.V. Bordachev of the HSE Centre for Comprehensive European and International Studies makes a superbly insightful point: “Russia in Asia should play the role that France played in Europe at the dawn of European integration— the main intellectual engine of the new format of relations between the states [1] .”

In a period characterized by hysteria over alleged Russian intervention in everything from conflicts to elections, I would like to point out a deficit or indeed absence of such intervention in a vector it should, could and indeed must intervene: the intellectual vector. Just as the USA and France, Russia has been a seedbed of ideas and concepts during the period of Modernity, and still is, but with a difference. Unlike France and the USA, it has seemingly abandoned the vocation of the globalization of its ideas and concepts; of its very perspective.

In this brief note, I wish to spotlight a few thematic areas in which a Russian intellectual intervention is imperative and feasible. These are the Cold war and the clash of contending world orders in the 21st century, the phenomenon and problems of globalization and the Greater Eurasia concept/project.

The Battle of (Big) Ideas

While a vast number of books on the end and the history of the Cold War have been published in the West, with widely diverse perspectives; of the Cold War seen teleologically, from the standpoint of how it ended, there isn’t a single major, recognized Russian work, even an anthology, in English—which for better or worse, is a quasi-universal language—on the same theme and topic. Thus, teleological western perspectives of contemporary history dominate if not monopolize, by default.

The same is true of perspectives of the post-Cold war world. The ‘big ideas’ framing the future of the post-Cold war world came from the West, from Fukuyama and Huntington (and others with less impact, like Robert Kaplan). There is a dearth of ‘big ideas’ from Russia for and of the world, in the English language. Were there counters in Russia to Fukuyama and Huntington? Were there the counter-perspectives from Russia to neoliberalism and neoconservatism as paradigms or even as conceptual frameworks? Was there an ideology or doctrine from Russia that is a counter to both neoliberalism and neoconservatism? Did the Third Rome venture a Third Ideology, a Third Doctrine, not just for itself, but for and of the world—not only Russian versions/variants of neoliberalism and neoconservatism, of either Fukuyama or Huntington? There cannot be a third space in ideas globally without such a Russian intervention in ideology and political thought.

 (If I may strike a personal note, I have ventured an alternative narrative and explanatory framework from the global South. The Fall of Global Socialism—A Counter-Narrative from the South | D. Jayatilleka | Palgrave Macmillan).

Eurasia, Greater Eurasia

In the aftermath of the important recent conference “5 years of the ‘Greater Eurasia’ concept : issues and accomplishments” held at the Higher School of Economics, Moscow, and the question that was posed at the conference „What is to be done?“, I suggest that one of the intellectual tasks is to create a Eurasian/Greater Eurasian intelligentsia and a Greater Eurasian Idea, which I might add is not coterminous with the ‘The idea of Greater Eurasia’.

In developing a Greater Eurasian Idea, the future work requires both institutional and intellectual thrusts. The institutional work simply means that in a situation in which there seem to be no academic institutions, be they universities, think tanks, or centers of Advanced Studies, dedicated explicitly and specifically to Greater Eurasia or at least Eurasia itself, these should be created. A network of such institutions will be the material basis or substructure of the creation of a greater Eurasian intelligentsia.

But still more important is the Greater Eurasia Idea, which goes beyond the idea of Greater Eurasia, and develops an idea of a greater Eurasian perspective and world outlook. One of the most important means of a Greater Eurasian idea is that of excavation. By this I mean an exploration and auditing of the ideas of thinkers (including political leaders) past and present, of and from Greater Eurasia, about the existing world order and a more desirable world order. I refer not only to the ancient wisdom from this area, but much more importantly, the thinking from the period of Modernity, encompassing personalities such as Sun Yat-sen (China), Rabindranath Tagore, MN Roy (India), Renato Constantino (Philippines) and Soedjatmoko (Indonesia).

Such an audit can take the form of a multivolume anthology of writings and speeches, but would need to be extended to tracing the alternative models of a world order that was suggested by thinkers from Greater Eurasia, resulting in a conceptual reconstitution or ‘holographic projection’ of such an alternative world order.

The crucial questions concerning Eurasia and Greater Eurasia are those of architecture and organization. At the heart of such questions is that of the all-important ‘Primakovian’ triangle the RIC, i.e. Russia, India, China, which Lenin in his last published writing of March 1923, said would determine the direction of the world’s destiny. What are the structural relations that are possible in the ensemble R-I-C? Should or should not other powers be included in it? Should the architecture of Eurasia and Greater Eurasia be one of concentric circles and what criteria would determine which circle which power is in—or would that change situationally?

The history of the Russian Revolution of 1917 demonstrated the crucial strategic importance of organization exemplified by the two models or types: Menshevik and Bolshevik. The organizational or architectural question—though the two terms may not be identical—can also be used in the international arena. Decades after the Bolshevik-Menshevik split, the pith and substance of the Bolshevik organizational philosophy was summed up by Lenin in his later writings, with the phrase “Better Fewer, but Better”—meaning quality over quantity.

In today’s global context it will mean grappling with the problem that the Chinese Communists raised in the early 1960s, namely „friendly and fraternal“, which they posed as a choice „do you support the friendly or the fraternal states?“ Thankfully in today’s context, such a zero-sum game is not necessary, but the question remains of priority and hierarchy. Should the relations ship between those states which face a military strategic, and in some cases, existential, threat from a common source, have a relationship of a qualitatively higher level than those who do not, however powerful and friendly the latter may be? Should a new global architecture or a new global policy privilege such relationships, especially in a context of real or attempted global encirclement of Eurasia?

The complex problem is made slightly easier when one recalls that the tighter and looser, qualitative and quantitative, Bolshevik and Menshevik organizational models were in fact merged in the 1930s formula of the Anti-Fascist Popular Front, which had a national and broader international version. Does the thinking of Stalin, Dimitrov, Gramsci and Togliatti have an international relevance and applicability today in the face of a project of global encirclement, grand strategic offensive to preserve unipolarity and wage globalized hybrid war? What would a global united front or bloc against unipolarity, war and intervention look like in the current context?

State, the Nationalities Question and Terrorism

The theoretical, strategic and policy questions that await a perspective by Russian and Eurasian thinkers are at least three:

  1. How to reconcile the contradiction between state sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity on the one hand and the right of self-determination of nations and nationalities on the other. What are the limits of state sovereignty and of the right of nations to self-determination, respectively? Where does one stop and the other start?
  2. How to reconcile the contradiction between the need for strong sovereign states, and forms of autonomy or regions and peoples? What are the non-federal forms of autonomy that can be designed for states in which federalization is strongly felt, for historical reasons, to be fissiparous?
  3. What are the universal criteria by which legitimate struggles of resistance and for liberation can be distinguished from terrorism? Is it not possible for a global consensus reflected in a universal charter to be signed which unconditionally rejects the intentional targeting of unarmed civilians as a legitimate tactic of struggle, and registers this as the defining criteria of terrorism , irrespective of the causes involved, however legitimate, and while remaining agnostic of the issue of armed resistance/armed liberation struggles as such?

Globalization

As Marx made clear in the Communist Manifesto, capitalism was a globalized and globalizing system (which Immanuel Wallerstein was to call a ‚world system‘). What then is new about ‚globalization‘? „Globalization“ refers to the collapse of an alternative and parallel socialist system, and the incorporation of Russia and China in the world economy, which is essentially capitalist in character; a capitalist world economy. The problem, indeed the root of the crisis today is not globalization per se, it is the specific form of globalization which can be summed up as neoliberal globalization at the economic level and unipolar globalization at the geopolitical and geostrategic level. That is what I call asymmetric globalization.

The contradictions arising from these two specific forms of globalization has resulted in a hydra-headed reaction which threatens globalization itself. Therefore, globalization has to change if it is to survive and resume its pace. The dangerously false choice of “globalization or no globalization”, “globalization or de-globalization”, should be reframed. Thus, the question should be, what kind of globalization and who benefits from it? The search must be to define a model that is not an alternative TO globalization but an alternative model OF globalization. My own view is that the real choice must be framed as ‘neoliberal and unipolar globalization or Alt-globalization?’ as I call it, or ‘Asymmetric Globalization, Anti-Globalization or Alt-Globalization?’

Multipolarity

There are two conceptual problems which have to be cleared up regarding multipolarity. The first is the increasing tendency to either conflate multipolarity and multilateralism and or to surrender the project of multipolarity and settle for multilateralism. The second problem is the question of how to arrive in a multipolar world. As for the first problem, it should be clear that a multipolar and multilateral world order is the desirable goal, but that these two aspects are separable and the multipolar aspect is more important than the multilateral one. In the post-Cold War period, the western liberals used multilateralism in service of the unipolar project, while the neoconservatives did so only exceptionally or hardly at all, but the essence was the same: a unipolar hegemonistic policy. Multilateralism is an institutional pathway which is preferable to unilateralism, but the central issue is not the institutional aspect of the world order, but the politico-military aspect of the world order; the aspect of power. The (Leninist) question is “which will prevail?” The unipolar project or the multipolar project will prevail?

The second problem area concerning multipolarity is that of the transition. How will we get from here to there? From the unipolar project to a multipolar world order? As in the old question of the transition from capitalism to socialism, there are the mechanistic and evolutionary interpretations; the ones that say that the transition will take place inevitably and inexorably, as a result of the working out of the process of historical change; indeed, as an evolution. A Realist interpretation would hold however, that the transition will involve a protracted struggle along all vectors, taking place over an entire historical period, and which will involve a tipping of the scales in favour of Greater Eurasia with Eurasia as its core.

The West

The conventional attitude to the West in the world as a whole is either that it remains the fount of all enlightened norms and values or that it is in irretrievable decline and decay, incapable of yielding anything of value. There is, however, a third possibility, namely that the West is in deep crisis and from within that crisis a surprising new development may arise which Eurasia and Greater Eurasia may do well to regard with objectivity and open-mindedness. The great surprise arising from the West is that in the USA, recent polls show that 50% of millennials regard ‘socialism’ as positive, and that the mainstream US Democratic party has shifted to the Left. Similarly, in the UK, the mainstream opposition Labour Party is led by a leftwing anti-interventionist personality. Is this potential or latent transformation in and of the West, an essential component in the transition to a truly multipolar world?

Russia’s intellectual intervention in these and other areas of contemporary concern is imperative and needs to be globalized, in order for Russia to fulfil the role of the ‘intellectual engine of the new format of relations between the states’ (Bordachev, 2019).

***

These are the purely personal views of the author.

With the election of a new President in Sri Lanka, this writer’s tenure as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Russian Federation concludes at the end of this year.

1. ‘What Russia can give to Asia?’, Russia in the Forming Greater Eurasia, Problems of Geography, Volume 148, eds. VM Kotlyakov, VA Shuper, Moscow Kodeks Publishing House 2019, p. 71

https://russiancouncil.ru/en/analytics-and-comments/analytics/the-intellectual-vector-where-russian-interventionism-is-imperative/

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für The Intellectual Vector: Where Russian Interventionism Is Imperative

70 years NATO – China for the first time as a „possible threat“


The 70th Anniversary of NATO was marked by many disagreements in the Alliance. Macron’s statement that NATO was brain-dead and needed a policy debate was only one point of controversy, alongside Erdogan’s rapproachment to Russia and his call to brand the Kurdish YPG fighters in northern Syria, hitherto supported by the West, as terrorists. What was surprising about the meeting was that Trump rejected Macron’s comments, pushing for a burden-sharing and higher defense spending by the Allies but attesting NATO’s progress over the past three years, contrary to his earlier statements that NATO was „obsolete“. Macron intends to move closer to Russia, start a new detente with Putin to prvent a Sino-Russian alliance and to relieve pressure on the European central front to get more NATO resources for the South: Africa and the Near and Middle East. France has long pushed for a Mediterranean Union in the EU and is now trying to do so in NATO.

The Eastern Europeans, on the other hand, see NATO’s main area of ​​activity as against Russia in the east, and Trump wants to withdraw from the Middle East, with the exception of Iran. Trump sees Russia as Macron not the main enemy of the Alliance, is also considering a detente with Putin-Russia, especially as he wants to prevent that in the Sino-American conflict Russia allies with China and for Africa, he sees especially the AFRICOM in Stuttgart responsible.

Macron, some European countries and Trump would like to make a detente with Russia and also strengthen the European pillar inside NATO except Great Britain. But most European countries don´t think that an European military could replace NATO as Macron, Joschka Fischer or the Spinelli Group inside the European Parliament want. At this point, it´s more Grand Nation thinking of Macron who wishes an European military with France as the leading power. Most European countries do not believe that a European military could replace NATO, but Macron, Joschka Fischer, or the Spinelli faction in the European Parliament warn that Europe should not wait for the next Trump tweet, in which he dissolves NATO and then be unprepared and defenseless. Therefore, Joschka Fischer suggests that Europe should now behave and act as if Trump had already disolved the alliance and quickly build their own European force More engagement in Africa and the Near and Middle East is what the South Europeans, France , Great Britain and Germany want, but not the East Europeans. The refugee crisis, resources and markets and Islamism is the reason for it as well as these powers don´t want that these regions become exclusive spheres of influence for China and Russia. And France and Great Britain also have traditional interest in and connections with their former colonies –be it the Commonwealth or the francophone zone.

Trump’s main focus is on China and Iran. It was also significant that for the first time NATO declared China a potential threat. Trump has thus brought an important point in the Sino-American conflict now also in the Western Alliance. However, this is overdue, as NATO can no longer ignore the rise of China. In the military sense, this does not mean anything, because NATO will not have the Indo-Pacific and Asia as its area of ​​operations, but more diplomatic and economic support for the USA is needed, including 5 G , Huawei and security issues. Similarly, there is only talk of a possible threat, so it remains vague, as well as China is defined as a challenge and as an opportunity. The NATO leader meeting also emphasizes that China is not an enemy. It was also stressed that China should be included in an arms control agreement between the West and Russia.

The NATO leader meeting was accompanied by the scandal over the exiled Chechen murdered in Berlin. Although the murder is already older date now the scandal seems to come as timely as the Skripalaffair in London during the Olympic Games in Sochi. A Russian hitman was arrested, two Russian diplomats expelled and Russian spies were arrested in France. Two possibilities: Putin wants to show similar to the Soviet Union with the assassination of the Ukrainian dissident Bandera in Munich that his power is sufficient even against protests of the West to terminate dissidents in exile or anti-Russian forces wanted to counteract a detente with Moscow and propel a change of mind in the Western public.

A former diplomat commented on this:

„The Moabit case is becoming virulent not only in connection with the NATO summit, but in the immediate forefront of the FRA-GERMANY-RUS-UKR meeting in the so-called Normandie format. Cui bono?

The case is reminiscent of the Bandera murder in Munich during the Cold War. The Chechen in Berlin (no Georgians) was in close contact with Georgian (Saakashvili) offices and also US institutions. He was one of the sharpest opponents of Kadyrov and its protectors. After it was no longer safe for him in Tbilisi, he came to Berlin in 2017. Here he received material and political support from the Heinrich Böll Foundation (Fücks and Marie-Luise Beck), from the funds of a cooperation program of the HBS with the Soros Foundation (all data of the Tagesspiegel shortly after the murder).

So a gray zone. But it would be a scandal of the first order, if, for example, the GRU would use contract killers here in Berlin.

We live in a peace on the brink of war. Wolfgang Ischinger is right when he writes that the situation has long since ceased to be as unstable and dangerous as it is today. And I admit: you were right when you wrote that the biggest risk is a major Sino-American conflict. “

In addition, there is also the Ukraine summit and an Ukrainian oligarch was arrested in Germany who is supposed to have incriminating evidence against Trump in the impeachment process. Everything is a bit opaque. Anyway, Merkel drove undisturbed to the Ukraine summit in Normandy format and stressed that she wanted to wait quietly for further investigations.

In the meantime, the Ukraine summit has been completed, a ceasefire has been agreed, a prisoner exchange and the withdrawal from the front line. Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has demanded a tougher line against Russia, Putin now expelled German diplomats in return. Putin also seems to have indirectly endorsed the murder of the exile „Chechen“ in a press conference. Putin said the murdered exiled „Chechen“ had been involved in the bombing of Russian civilians in the Moscow subway, making him a terrorist and outlaw. However, what sort of freedom fighter and Democrats are Beck, Fücks, the Heinrich Böll Foundation, Soros and the USA supporting?

While Putin speaks of a Chechen, Western media speak of a Georgian. However, it seems that the so-called Georgian was connected to the Neocon-Victoria Nuland-Kagan-CIA- Saakashvili network which promotes anti-Russian activities in Chechenia, Georgia and Ukraine form colored revolutions to armed struggle and was fighting in Chechenia against Kadyrov and the Russians. Maybe some sort of foreign fighter, volunteer, spy or mercenary. Maybe Western media want to pronounce the Georgian identity as a Chechen identity wouldn´t be that favorable.


The Chechen resistance is a crude mix of hardcore jihadists who once attacked the Moscow opera with black widows or children at the Beslan school and wanted to kill Russian hostages, Islamists, militant nationalists and a few secular Democrats. And in the West, in the past, people never looked so closely who they actually supported. At the time of the Cold War, support was extended even to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden or, in the case of Syria, to the Muslim Brothers and other Islamists who wanted to topple Assad with their Islamist assassination militia to establish an Islamist dictatorship. Israel also liquidated Palestinian terrorists of the Black September after their attack on the 1972 Olympics in Munich including the „red prince“ aka Ali Hassan Salameh , without there being any complaints from the West.

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für 70 years NATO – China for the first time as a „possible threat“

70 Jahre NATO- China erstmals als „mögliche Bedrohung“

Das 70jährige Jubiliäumstreffen der Führer der NATO war von vielerlei Uneinigkeiten in dem Bündnis gekennzeichnet. Macrons Äußerung, dass die NATO hirntot sei und es eine Grundsatzdebatte bräuchte, war da nur ein Streitpunkt, neben Erdogans Annäherung an Russland sowie seiner Forderung die bisher vom Westen unterstützten kurdischen YPG-Kämpfer in Nordsyrien als Terroristen zu brandmarken. Überraschend an dem Treffen war, dass Trump Macrons Äußerungen zurückwies, zwar auf Lastenteilung und höhere Verteidigungsausgaben der Verbündeten drängte, aber der NATO gute Fortschritte in den letzten 3 Jahren attestierte – ganz entgegen seinen früheren Äußerungen, dass die NATO „obsolet“sei. Macron beabsichtigt eine Annäherung an Russland, eine neue Detente mit Putin um eine chinesisch-russische Allianz zu verhindern und an der europäischen Zentralfront Entlastung zu schaffen, um mehr NATO-Resourcen für den Süden-Afrika und den Nahen und Mittleren Osten zu bekommen. Frankreich hat schon lange in der EU auf eine Mittelmeerunion gedrängt und versucht dies nun auch in der NATO.

Die Osteuropäer hingegen sehen das Hauptaufgabengebiet der NATO wie gehabt im Osten gegen Russland und Trump möchte sich aus dem Nahen und Mittleren Osten zurückziehen-mit Ausnahme des Irans. Trump sieht in Russland wie Macron nicht den Hauptfeind des Bündnisses, erwägt auch eine Detente mit Putin-Russland, zumal er verhindern möchte dass bei dem sinoamerikanischen Konflikt sich Russland mit China verbündet und für Afrika sieht er vor allem das in Stuttgart stationierte AFRICOM zuständig.

Macron, einige europäische Länder und Trump möchten mit Russland eine Entspannung herbeiführen und auch die europäische Säule innerhalb der NATO mit Ausnahme Großbritanniens stärken. Aber die meisten europäischen Länder glauben nicht, dass ein europäisches Militär die NATO ersetzen könnte, wie es Macron, Joschka Fischer oder die Spinelli-Fraktion im Europäischen Parlament wollen, die davor warnen, Europa solle nicht den nächsten Trumptweet abwarten, in dem er die NATO auflöst und dann unvorbereitet und schutzlos dastehen. Daher schlägt Joschka Fischer vor, dass Europa sich jetzt schon so verhalten solle, als habe Trump das Bündnis schon aufgekündigt und rasch eine eigene europäische Streitmacht aufbauen, wie auch Macron „europäische Autonomie“in Sicherheitsfragen anmahnt.

An diesem Punkt denkt Macron nostalgisch in Kategorien der Grand Nation und wünscht ein europäisches Militär mit Frankreich als Führungsmacht, wenngleich seine Forderungen mehr langfristig und perspektivisch gedacht sind, denn unmittelbar kurzfristig. Mehr Engagement in Afrika sowie im Nahen und Mittleren Osten wünschen sich die Südeuropäer, Frankreich, Großbritannien und Deutschland, nicht aber die Osteuropäer. Die Flüchtlingskrise, die Ressourcen und Märkte und der Islamismus sind der Grund dafür, und diese Mächte wollen nicht, dass diese Regionen zu exklusiven Einflussbereichen für China und Russland werden. Und auch Frankreich und Großbritannien haben traditionelles Interesse an und Verbindungen zu ihren früheren Kolonien – sei es das Commonwealth oder die frankophone Zone.

Trumps Hauptaugenmerk ist China und der Iran.So war es auch bezeichnend, dass die NATO erstmals China zur möglichen Bedrohung erklärte. Trump hat damit einen wichtigen Punkt bei dem sinoamerikanischen Konflikt nun auch ins westliche Bündnis eingebracht. Gleichwohl ist dies überfällig, da die NATO den Aufstieg Chinas nicht länger ignorieren kann. Militärisch bedeutet dies erst mal nichts, da die NATO nicht den Indopazifik und Asien als ihr Einsatzgebiet haben wird, mehr diplomatische und wirtschaftliche Unterstützung der USA gefragt sind, sei es auch in Bezug auf 5 G, Huawei und Sicherheitsfragen. Ebenso ist nur von einer möglichen Bedrohung die Rede, es bleibt also noch vage, wie auch von China als Herausforderung und als Chance. Zudem wird auch betont, dass China kein Feind sei. Desweiteren wurde betont, dass man China in ein Rüstungskontrollabkommen zwischen dem Westen und Russland einbeziehen wolle.

Begleitet war das NATO-Führertreffen von dem Skandal um den in Berlin ermordeten Exiltschetschenen. Der Mord ist zwar schon älteren Datums scheint nun aber so zeitgerecht wie die Skripalaffaäre in London während der Olympischen Spiele in Sotschi zu kommen. Ein russicher Auftragskiller wurde verhaftet, zwei russische Diplomaten ausgewiesen und in Frankreich russische Spione verhaftet. Entweder Putin will ähnlich wie die Sowjetunion beim Banderamord in München zeigen, dass seine Macht ausreicht, auch gegen Proteste des Westens Oppositionelle zu exektuieren oder aber antirussische Kräfte wollten einer Detente mit Moskau propagandistisch entgegenwirken und einen Meinungsumschwung herbeiprovozieren.

Ein ehemaliger Diplomat kommentierte dazu:

„Der Fall Moabit wird nicht nur im Zusammenhang mit dem NATO-Gipfel virulent, sondern im unmittelbaren Vorfeld des Treffens FRA-DEU-RUS-UKR im sog. Normandie-Format. Cui bono?

Der Fall erinnert an den Bandera-Mord in München während des Kalten Krieges. Der Tschetschene in Berlin (kein Georgier) stand in engem Kontakt mit georgischen (Saakaschwili)-Stellen und auch US-Institutionen. Er gehörte zu den schärfsten Gegnern von Kadyrow und dessen Protektoren. Nachdem es für ihn in Tbilissi nicht mehr sicher war, kam er 2017 nach Berlin. Hier bekam er materielle und politische Unterstützung von der Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (Fücks und Marie-Luise Beck), aus den Mitteln eines Kooperationsprogramms der HBS mit der Soros-Foundation (alles Angaben des Tagesspiegels kurz nach dem Mord).

Also eine Grauzone. Doch es wäre ein Skandal erster Ordnung, wenn etwa die GRU hier in Berlin Auftragskiller einsetzen würde. 

Wir leben in einem Frieden am Rande des Krieges. Wolfgang Ischinger hat recht, wenn er schreibt, dass die Lage seit langem nicht mehr so instabil und gefährlich war wie heute. Und ich räume ein: Sie hatten recht, als Sie schrieben, dass das größte Risiko ein sino-amerikanischer Großkonflikt ist.“

Zudem steht auch noch der Ukrainegipfel an und wurde in diesem Zusammenhang auch noch ein ukrainischer Oligarch in Deutschland verhaftet, der belastendes Material gegen Trump im Impeachmentverfahren haben soll. Alles etwas undurchsichtig. Jedenfalls fuhr Merkel ungestört zu dem Ukrainegipfel im Normandieformat und betonte dass sie erst einmal ruhig die weiteren Ermittlungen abwarten wolle.

Inzwischen ist der Ukrainegifpfel abgeschlossen, hat man eine Waffenruhe beschlossen, einen Gefangenenaustausch und den Rückzug von der Frontlinie. Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer hat eine härtere Linie gegen Russland gefordert, Putin nun deutsche Diplomaten im Gegenzug ausgewiesen. Putin scheint zudem in einer Pressekonferenz indirekt den Mord an den Exiltschetchenen gebilligt zu haben. Putin erklärte der ermordete Exiltschetschene sei in den Bombenanschlag auf russische Zivilisten in der Moskauer U-Bahn verwickelt gewesen, womit er ihn zum Terroristen und für vogelfrei erklärt. Fraglich ist aber welche Sorte Freiheitskämpfer und Demokraten Beck, Fücks, die Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. Soros und die USA da unterstützen.

Während Putin von einem Tschetschenen spricht, sprechen westliche Medien von einem Georgier. Es scheint jedoch, dass der sogenannte Georgier mit dem Neocon- Netzwerk Victoria Nuland-Kagan-CIA-Saakaschwili verbunden war, das antirussische Aktivitäten in Tschetschenien, Georgien und der Ukraine fördert und in Tschetschenien gegen Kadyrow und die Russen kämpfte . Vielleicht eine Art ausländischer Kämpfer, Freiwilliger, Spion oder Söldner. Vielleicht möchten westliche Medien mehr die georgische Identität denn eine tschetschenische Identität betonen, die nicht so günstig wäre.

Der tschetschenische Widerstand ist ja ein kruder Mix aus Hardcore-Dhschihadisten, die auch mal die Moskauer Oper mit Schwarzen Witwen oder Kinder in der Schule von Beslan als Geißel ofern wollten, Islamisten, militanten Nationalisten und ein paar säkularen Demokraten. Und im Westen wurde in der Vergangenheit nie so genau hingesehen, wen man da eigentlich unterstützt. Die Unterstützung reichte ja zu Zeiten des Kalten Kriegs auch bis zu Al Kaida und Osama Bin Laden oder im Falle Syriens zu den Muslimbbrüdern und anderen Islamisten, die mit ihren islamistischen Mordbrennermilizen Assad stürzen wollten, um eine islamistische Diktatur zu errichten. Israel liquidierte ja auch diev palästinensischen Terroristen des Schwarzen Septembers nach ihrem Anschlag auf die Olympiade 1972 in München einschließlich des „roten Prinz“ alias Ali Hassan Salameh- ohne dass es da Beschwerden des Westens gegeben hatte.

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für 70 Jahre NATO- China erstmals als „mögliche Bedrohung“

Some basic thoughts on the Chinese opposition movement



First the Chinese opposition should have a common sense or find a compromise for a united front and ask itself which sort of New China she would like to have:


• A Western democracy, be it representative democracy as in Germany or presidential democracy in the USA (as represented by Fang Lizhi, Hu Ping or Weijingsheng)


• A Democracy with Chinese characters (first of all it would be necessary to clarify how it would look like and this would be a long process, since one can not refer to already existing models, maybe even India).
• Chinese Singapore semi-authoritarian democracy with rule of law and prevalence of a reformed CP China or other parties


• Return to the collective leadership of the Communist Party of China without social bonus system – one-party dictatorship instead of one-man-dictatorship with a totalitarianism


The last point would be unacceptable to the democracy movement, be only the demand of Xi-Jinping opponents within the Communist Party of China which could be in greater proportions and could be a result of  an escalation of Simo-American trade war, even a war, an imperial overstretch by the New Silk Road Xi’s cleansing orgies against KP internal critics, a financial or economic crisis that calls into question the legitimacy of the Communist Party as a developmental dictatorship, leading to a fractionalization, a power struggle within, even a split, of the Communist Party of China.

The Chinese democratic-secular opposition must therefore also think about who are allies for which goal. To what extent an alliance of the secular-democratic forces without CP dissidents and neo-religious-authoritarian Falungong is set, whether one wants an alliance with the Falungong, whether one wants an alliance with Communist Party dissidents – perhaps with the offer of a democracy with Chinese characteristics ( although one could put the clarification of the democratic form of society also after a seizure of power, but which would postpone the conflict, that also new authoritarian movements can creep in, which verbally advocates democracy, but abolish it after seizing power, especially since it is to be feared that the negotiation process in the post-CP China  could bring a paralyzing dispute between the various groups that cause instability) or a Chinese Singapore, which, however, does not question the role of a leader party`s existence as far as it reforms. As long as these issues are not offensively discussed and clarified, there is no prospect of a common strategy for the Chinese opposition, which is already marginalized at home and abroad anyway.


Other key issues that still have to be clarified, but which largely arise from the former, are the question of central state/federalism, the role of the military and the economy, and how one wants to reach the youth and which groups of the population will be addressed for mobilization.

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für Some basic thoughts on the Chinese opposition movement

The Falungong- China’s Power to overthrow the CP China?



The Falungong was founded by Li Hongzhi as a meditation movement and neo-Buddhist-Daoist sect, claiming that all Buddhism in China is a „buffalo horn Buddhism“ that has become increasingly constricted and no longer promotes the truth of Chinese traditions and culture That is why Li Hongzhi’s Falugong is the hoped-for the broadening of the buffalo horn, the demolition of existing constrictions, and the ultimate liberation and redemption. Buddhism and Daoism in the West tend to think of peaceful, nature-oriented, ecologically esoteric-harmonic movements, of the Dalai Lama, but there are other forms of Buddhism  for example, the fundamentalist Buddhist monastic movement in Myanmar, fanatically militant against the Rohingya. The fact that there could also be fundamentalist forms of Buddhism is as overlooked as Islamism was because of the liberal-democratic and Marxist historical materialism (Histomat), which neglected a potential  political role of religion, much as the US and the Soviet Union did in the face of the Islamist revolution in Iran and how Dmitry Asinovsky retrospectively describes this in his article „How Experts, Intelligence Services and Politicians of the Two Superpowers Missed the Birth of Islamic Fundamentalism“ in Russia in Global Affairs.


The fact that the Falungon is by no means limited to China in its proselytizing and mussionary activities , but has the whole world in the field, is also evident in the fact that she founded her groups in numerous countries, trains her Dafa elites and also publishes her publications multilingual.

Essentially, there are three main world missionary fundamental religious movements that are pushing for world domination: Islamism, Evangelicalism, and the Falungong, although the Falungong is suppressed by CP China and it spreads a largely positive, harmless image as a victim in the West, never even in power could be the culprit. The Hinduism of the Indian BJP is more regionally limited, the other Buddhism as well. The Orthodox Church of Russia and Ukraine are currently segregating themselves and submitting themselves as identities to the nationalist ambitions of Putin and Poroshenko. A purportedly Buddhist movement such as the Falungong has yet no one on the radar in the consideration of religious fundamentalism, even if Li Hongzhi with vlaims that all other established Buddhism is wrong and „buffalo horn Buddhism“ quasi claiming the absolute truth for his Falungong. Another change to traditional Buddhism of Li Hongzhi was the introduction of the „Yeli“, the evil power, who made this purportedly Buddhist doctrine dualistic and antagonistic  and designed  the CPC as this evil power and challenge of the forces of the heavens and the only sin against  the forces of nature and of the Dao as well as of the sky.

The CPC initially supported the Falungong as an outlet valve for politically disappointed people of the Tianmen massacre, as well as frustrated Chinese people, who were supposed to relieve their frustration in some meditation exercises. A bit of exercise, harmony and peacefulness, some body movement is good, that one does not let his mind slide too much into political things except the Communist Party of China propaganda. So a kind of gym, wellness movement brand Far East, for the inner well-being of their participants and the CPC- The CP China offered its dissatisfied subjects a kind of Aldi a Walmart  mass Buddhism that also became mass-compatible through its simplistic meditation practices. The CP China hoped for a kind of Chinese Jane Fonda, including aerobic exercise, that would dissolve grim thoughts through exercise therapy, while Li Hongzhi  linked His date of birth with that of the Gautama Buddha at an early age, and this whole irrational nonsense was legitimized by the Communist Party of China and enjoyed state support. Li Hongzhi became a CCP-promoted mega-guru, who then turned against his creator just like Frankenstein’s monster.

Because of this, Li Hongzhi and his Falungong were also initially funded by the Communist Party of China, even overloaded with para and pseudo-scientific prizes from state institutions. Such nonsense was represented with the support of state institutions that gold could be made from iron by means of Falungong meditation and that matter could be converted by means of mental power into precious substances. Millions of Chinese people meditated in China in all public places and privately. The Falungong grew into a mass movement, according to a study by the Communist Party of China, they even had 100 million followers. The decisive change came when Li Hongzhi propagated the formation of so-called Dafa elites and irrationally challenged the scientific nature of the dogmas of the Communist Party of China. As a result, the Chinese Communist Party, through a professor, questioned the scientific and societal benefits of the Falungong, which it saw as an attack on itself.


In addition, Bill Clinton saw and supported both the Democratic Party of China and the Falungong as democratizing forces in China, especially since China joined the Human Rights Pact in 1998 and the USA wanted to test the pact through party registration of the Democratic Party of China and if the CPC would take it seriously. The Democratic Party of China was simply banned, and the Falungong carried out its first public demonstration in front of the Chinese government headquarters in Beidahe. The then President Jiang Zemin was quite angry, how it can come to such demonstrations so open and why one has learned nothing from the suppression ala 1989, especially since there have been such religious movements in Chinese history before, be it the Yellow Lotus or the Taiping revolt. Why this liberality? Jiang Zemin then ordered the Falungong being banned, founded the 610 Office, which devoted itself exclusively to the suppression and persecution of the Falungong. Jiang Zemin wanted to smash the support network as well as the previous state support for the Falungong.


The question is whether the Falungong could convert their 100 million support network after the ban into an underground network of Li Hongzhi’s early propagated Dafa elites, so if there could still be a hardcore of 2 million or similar dimensions that went underground and who are  subversively waiting for their coming chance of overthrowing the CP China. Li Hongzhi fled early to the United States because he wanted the confrontation with the Communist Party of China and brought himself preventively to safety to spread anti-Communist propaganda from abroad. Li Hongzhi published  the 9 comments on the CP China, which openly called for the overthrow of the CP China, launched a party exit campaign, which, however, showed no significant success, especially as the Falungong fantasized even mendacious desire figures of 90 million CCP withdrawals. Meanwhile, she operates by means of her Cultural program ShenYun, which is touring through the US and Europe, wants to present itself as the true representative of Chinese culture alongside China’s Confucius Institutes. In addition, she publishes the multilingual „Epoch Times,“ which co-operates with right-wing populists and right-wing extremists, as a broadcast by  the Team Walraff has revealed and is increasingly turning into a Breitbart-based Chinese ala Steve Banon. She has also led a campaign accusing the CPC of organ harvesting s from detained Falungong followers and slaughtering and exterminating them.

There is no information about the domestic work of the Falungong in China, and apart from a Tiananmen self-immolation, there were no serious actions by the Falungong in China anymore, but that does not mean that it does not yet have a underground network that can support itself In as much as there should be this Falungong underground network, it is likely to outstrip that of the secular-democratic opposition. And the father of the democracy wall movement Wei Jingsheng pleaded just for the use and cooperation with this imaginary underground network, while the rest of the secular-democratic opposition emphasize the leader-centered, authoritarian nature of the Falungong, the possibility that in the event of toppling  the CP China, not a democracy, but a neo-religious -totalitarian leadership could emerge.


The Falungong can also benefit from US religious rights, which hates the atheism of the Communist Party of China. Li Hongzhi has read his Lenin („What to do?“ – about building an organization and party around a newspaper and media), he is an organizational genius and very modern. Also, that he was able to organize such an Aldi / Walmart mass Buddhism with about 100 million followers, is considerable, although initially supported and encouraged by the Communist Party of China. But the former trumpeter of the People’s Liberation Army is a person who understands agitation and propaganda with modern means and media.

The Falungong is a fundamentalist missionary religion that has China as its cultural base and wants to overthrow Communist Party China first, but then wants to proselytize and conquer the whole world, such as Christianity and the evangelicals and Islam and Islamism, especially since the Falungong wants to be political and create a religious-authoritarian rule and world state. The Falungong wants to appeal to Chinese, but at the same time, it also addresses humanity. Hence the multilingualism of the Epoch Times and the membership and recruitment of non-Chinese members.


If one still talks about the democratization of China, it is striking that the secular democratic opposition has completely failed and has been marginalized since the Tiananmen massacre in 1989, the destruction of the Democratic Party of China in 1998 and the last attempt of the Charter in 2008. They are as defeated as the German revolutionaries of 1848. This completely weakened the democratic-secular opposition which  is meanwhile mostly inactive, while a few representatives still hope for the imaginary power of the Falungong subnetwork as a partner, the possible existence does not even exist and should it exist  it would be all times more powerful than the secular-democratic movement and would aim for a leader-centric neo religious dictatorship under títs leader and Great Helmsman Li Hongzhi who  would very quickly push aside and suppress. his secular-democratic allies

Conversely, China’s party system is increasingly turning into a neo-totalitarian expansive nationalistic system that is increasingly being transformed from an authoritarian one-party dictatorship to a neotozalitarian one-man-dictatorship. . In short, for China, there seems no hope of democratization or of a Chinese Singapore, the latter would be possible at best in the event of civil unrest or in the event of a lost war. Apart from that, China is resolutely pursuing the path of German Reich before WW I right into a Sino-American war.

Veröffentlicht unter Allgemein | Kommentare deaktiviert für The Falungong- China’s Power to overthrow the CP China?