Who Will Strike First? by Erick San Juan
A threat of a nuclear tsunami is for real and the first strike policy that will come from a superpower can trigger such a global disaster.
This warning came from an article by William Jones (Executive Intelligence Review), 'Prelude to War in the Pacific' that “President Barack Obama’s provocative policy in the Pacific is leading to a conflict between nuclear powers, and can have no other result if the policy is not quickly reversed. These provocations have gone so far as sailing destroyers straight into waters legitimately claimed as territorial waters by the People’s Republic of China, in alleged freedom of navigation patrols, and attempts to line up local “allies” to join in. While the naval deployments are accompanied by all sorts of high-falutin’ moralizing rhetoric from the U.S. government, in reality they have less justification than the European gunboats on the Yangtze in the 19th Century.”
Still a long way until the Americans will choose their new President and a lot of things can happen between now and the day of the proclamation of the new US President. The world is in the wait and see mode as we witness the militarization of the South China Sea as the provocations continue.
I would like to share some salient points in the said article of Jones in EIR, reads : The Western media, in their typical manner, have depicted China’s claims to the Nansha (Spratly) and Xisha (Paracel) Islands as a Chinese “power grab,” although for most of China’s history, these claims have never been contested. In the 1970s—with the growth in the importance of the seabeds for offshore drilling and the expansion of the fishing industry with a diminishing fish population—other countries in the region have raised their own claims to the islands, and the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia all began, with the help of their militaries, to build facilities on some of the islands, which China solemnly protested at the time.
After World War II, the United States fully supported China in reclaiming these islands from Japan. But the Cold War and the peaceful rise of China to become a world power have changed all of that. And recent U.S. actions have effectively sent signals to China that the United States will not accept the Chinese claims and is prepared to go to war to prevent China from asserting them, despite Obama’s hollow pretense that the United States is not taking sides with respect to those claims.
When the Japanese moved into Southeast Asia in World War II, everything changed. The islands were occupied by Japan until the end of the war. After the war, it was clearly recognized by the Allied Powers that the islands were part of Chinese territory and should be returned to China. Both the war-time Cairo Declaration and the subsequent Potsdam Declaration are explicit in their demand that Japan should give back these occupied islands to China.
In fact, the United States sent warships to the Kuomintang in 1946 to enable the recovery of the Nansha Islands. Books, periodicals, and maps published in the United States clearly indicated that the Nanshas are part of Chinese territory. While the San Francisco Treaty in 1951 also affirmed that Japan must give up the islands, it did not explicitly state that the territory belongs to China, an argument that is now being used by the Philippines to bolster its own claims. But China was not represented at all at that conference, and had no say in the formulation of the treaty. While the United States wished to invite Taiwan to represent China, Great Britain wanted the People’s Republic of China, and the dispute resulted in no Chinese representative being invited.”
So it has been like this that China was never represented in such ‘talks’ and in the process they lost the opportunity to claim what is theirs. And people repeating history as the Philippines and the rest of the nations in the region are awaiting the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision from The Hague. Again, China was not represented because that was their choice this time.
Solutions to ease tensions in the South China Sea will continue to be a perennial problem because claimants will always fight for what they believe is theirs and the threat of a war in the Pacific will continue to haunt us.
According to Jones “… But the U.S. invasions of Chinese waters, and the attempts by the United States to create a mini-NATO to target China using the few allies it has in the region, have made such a solution all but impossible. And unless the war-mongering Barack Obama is soon removed from office for his crimes, and his policy reversed, we may be looking at another war in the Pacific—and the threat of a nuclear tsunami.”
Lets all be vigilant and we're not sure this time as to who will strike first. Another false flag op is in the offing.
A threat of a nuclear tsunami is for real and the first strike policy that will come from a superpower can trigger such a global disaster.
This warning came from an article by William Jones (Executive Intelligence Review), 'Prelude to War in the Pacific' that “President Barack Obama’s provocative policy in the Pacific is leading to a conflict between nuclear powers, and can have no other result if the policy is not quickly reversed. These provocations have gone so far as sailing destroyers straight into waters legitimately claimed as territorial waters by the People’s Republic of China, in alleged freedom of navigation patrols, and attempts to line up local “allies” to join in. While the naval deployments are accompanied by all sorts of high-falutin’ moralizing rhetoric from the U.S. government, in reality they have less justification than the European gunboats on the Yangtze in the 19th Century.”
Still a long way until the Americans will choose their new President and a lot of things can happen between now and the day of the proclamation of the new US President. The world is in the wait and see mode as we witness the militarization of the South China Sea as the provocations continue.
I would like to share some salient points in the said article of Jones in EIR, reads : The Western media, in their typical manner, have depicted China’s claims to the Nansha (Spratly) and Xisha (Paracel) Islands as a Chinese “power grab,” although for most of China’s history, these claims have never been contested. In the 1970s—with the growth in the importance of the seabeds for offshore drilling and the expansion of the fishing industry with a diminishing fish population—other countries in the region have raised their own claims to the islands, and the Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia all began, with the help of their militaries, to build facilities on some of the islands, which China solemnly protested at the time.
After World War II, the United States fully supported China in reclaiming these islands from Japan. But the Cold War and the peaceful rise of China to become a world power have changed all of that. And recent U.S. actions have effectively sent signals to China that the United States will not accept the Chinese claims and is prepared to go to war to prevent China from asserting them, despite Obama’s hollow pretense that the United States is not taking sides with respect to those claims.
When the Japanese moved into Southeast Asia in World War II, everything changed. The islands were occupied by Japan until the end of the war. After the war, it was clearly recognized by the Allied Powers that the islands were part of Chinese territory and should be returned to China. Both the war-time Cairo Declaration and the subsequent Potsdam Declaration are explicit in their demand that Japan should give back these occupied islands to China.
In fact, the United States sent warships to the Kuomintang in 1946 to enable the recovery of the Nansha Islands. Books, periodicals, and maps published in the United States clearly indicated that the Nanshas are part of Chinese territory. While the San Francisco Treaty in 1951 also affirmed that Japan must give up the islands, it did not explicitly state that the territory belongs to China, an argument that is now being used by the Philippines to bolster its own claims. But China was not represented at all at that conference, and had no say in the formulation of the treaty. While the United States wished to invite Taiwan to represent China, Great Britain wanted the People’s Republic of China, and the dispute resulted in no Chinese representative being invited.”
So it has been like this that China was never represented in such ‘talks’ and in the process they lost the opportunity to claim what is theirs. And people repeating history as the Philippines and the rest of the nations in the region are awaiting the Arbitral Tribunal’s decision from The Hague. Again, China was not represented because that was their choice this time.
Solutions to ease tensions in the South China Sea will continue to be a perennial problem because claimants will always fight for what they believe is theirs and the threat of a war in the Pacific will continue to haunt us.
According to Jones “… But the U.S. invasions of Chinese waters, and the attempts by the United States to create a mini-NATO to target China using the few allies it has in the region, have made such a solution all but impossible. And unless the war-mongering Barack Obama is soon removed from office for his crimes, and his policy reversed, we may be looking at another war in the Pacific—and the threat of a nuclear tsunami.”
Lets all be vigilant and we're not sure this time as to who will strike first. Another false flag op is in the offing.
No comments:
Post a Comment