Tuesday, 09 June 2015

China: Staking Claim in the New World Order

Written by 

Learning to speak Chinese may be a really good investment — at least if the globalists get their way.

In 2009, billionaire establishment power broker George Soros, a close ally and financier of Obama, called for the communist regime ruling mainland China to “own” what he referred to as the “New World Order.” Speaking to the Financial Times about what Obama should discuss while in Beijing, the self-styled philanthropist declared that the United States and the U.S. dollar were on their way down, and that the Communist Party regime must step up to the plate.

“I think you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order, financial world order,” Soros told the Financial Times. “I think you need a new world order, that China has to be part of the proc­ess of creating it and they have to buy in, they have to own it in the same way as the United States owns … the current order.”

It was hardly a slip up. The next year, while receiving the Globalist of the Year award from the Canadian International Council, Soros again called for China’s participation in the emerging global-governance regime. “They have now got to accept responsibility for world order and the interests of other people as well,” declared Soros. “Today, China has not only a more vigorous economy, but actually a better functioning government than the United States.”

Soros, of course, is hardly the only senior globalist who has been openly celebrating the rise of Communist China’s rulers as key players in the emerging “New World Order.” From Beijing to Moscow and Washington, D.C., to London, globalists are all openly pushing for this new order, which is essentially just a euphemism for world government.

In a joint statement put out by Obama and then-Chinese dictator Hu Jintao, Obama made clear that he was fully on board with the agenda. “The United States reiterated that it welcomes a strong, prosperous, and successful China that plays a greater role in world affairs,” the declaration reads.

The internationalists’ intent to make China an integral part of the New World Order — to even “own” it, according to Soros — should tell us a great deal about the type of New World Order Soros and his ilk envision. After all, not only does the People’s Republic of China hold the distinction of murdering more people than any other regime in history, but China today still brutalizes and oppresses its citizens, from forcing women to undergo abortions in compliance with its one-child policy to persecuting believers for practicing their faith (see the related article "Chinese Tyranny 2.0"). If such a regime is “actually a better functioning government than the United States,” as Soros claims, how would Soros have the new world function? How about his fellow globalists?

Anyone who doubts that a communist regime as despotic as China’s could realistically become a leading player in the New World Order need only to survey the record to learn otherwise. This record, summarized below, includes China’s ascendency in the existing “global governance” institutions — the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and more. It also includes the new global governance architecture that China is building that will complement the already-existing structure, according to the architects themselves. Finally, the record shows that China is by no means single-handedly increasing its dominance — that Western globalists’ fingerprints are all over China’s rise.

Dominating UN Global Governance

China’s membership in the United Nations was originally held by the free Republic of China (Taiwan, ROC)  not the People’s Republic of China. But much to the UN’s everlasting shame, in 1971 the dictators’ club on the East River recognized the tyrannical PRC as the only legal government of China and expelled the ROC. As a result, Communist China replaced the ROC as one of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the powerful Security Council, which not only issues resolutions supposedly binding on the world’s nations but also purportedly is authorized to order military action to put teeth behind its decisions.

Despite its deplorable human rights rec­ord, Communist China possesses a seat on the UN’s Human Rights Council. Of course, at the very least this should sound an alarm bell about the UN’s concept of human rights.

Other UN agencies or programs where China’s influence is prominent include:

UN Industrial Development Organization: The little-known UNIDO “aims to improve the living conditions of people and promote global prosperity through … sustainable industrial development” — a euphemism for limiting industrial output to what the UN deems “sustainable.” In 2013, the outfit’s members selected Chinese Communist Li Yong, the regime’s former “vice-minister of finance,” as executive director. “[The regime ruling] China will inevitably need to be given more rights in international activities, such as the right to participate and the right to have a voice in international affairs,” Li was quoted as saying by regime-controlled propaganda outlets.

UN International Telecommunications Union: Communist Chinese agent Houlin Zhao was selected last year to lead the ITU, which promotes international cooperation in assigning satellite orbits, oversees global use of the radio spectrum, and promotes and develops worldwide technical standards. It is also seeking control over the Internet. If an ITU led by a Communist Chinese operative whose bosses run a totalitarian censorship regime dubbed the “Great Firewall of China” were not troubling enough, Zhao’s comments raised even more alarm worldwide. “We [at the ITU] don’t have a common interpretation of what censorship means,” the agency chief was quoted as saying by the Korean Yonhap news agency when asked about censorship. He believes censorship is in the eye of the beholder.

UN World Health Organization: Communist Chinese loyalist Margaret Chan is the director-general of WHO, which has been attempting to usurp increasingly draconian powers over humanity under the guise of “health” on everything from trying to impose global tobacco taxes and acquiring more draconian quarantine powers to establishing a planetary “mental health” regime. Last year in Western Africa, citing the Ebola outbreak, Chan claimed “global health authorities” would need to help impose “new measures such as deploying soldiers to quarantine stricken neighborhoods in Sierra Leone,” the Wall Street Journal reported. Now, after being “criticized” in the establishment press for not doing enough to stop Ebola, Chan is working to supersize and further empower the WHO with bigger budgets and more authority.

UN International Civil Aviation Organization: In March of this year, the ICAO selected Dr. Fang Liu of Communist China to sit as secretary-general for a three-year term. That UN agency, among other troubling activities, has been at the forefront of the ongoing effort to impose UN “carbon taxes” on air travel under the guise of stopping alleged man-made global warming and averting a “trade war,” as The New American reported in 2012. A supposed dispute over CO2 taxes between the European Union and Beijing is what drove efforts to have the tax on air travel imposed at the global level — paid straight to the UN. Globalists all agreed that a UN tax would settle the matter, and its promoters are still hard at work.

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: UNFCCC executive secretary Christiana Figueres, who is Costa Rican, claims that the communist regime in Beijing is “doing it right” when it comes to fighting alleged global warming — despite China being among the most polluted nations on Earth. Figueres told Bloomberg that the Chinese regime is able to implement UN-backed “climate” schemes more efficiently because it does not have to deal with “legislative hurdles” such as those in the United States and other nations where citizens are supposed to have a say in government.

Rio+20 Summit: The secretary-general of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro in 2012 was notorious anti-American Chinese Communist Sha Zukang. In addition to openly expressing his hatred of America, Zukang had presented an award to the Chinese general responsible for massacring student protesters at Tiananmen Square.

UNESCO: The most recent General Conference of the UN Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization was chaired by former Beijing “education vice-minister” Hao Ping. UNESCO itself, of course, is chaired by a Bulgarian Communist, Irina Bokova, who is right now considered the “frontrunner” to be the next secretary-general of the broader UN. Last year, UNESCO appointed Peng Liyuan, wife of Communist Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, to serve as a “Special Envoy” for female education. “You are an immense role model for millions of young girls in China and beyond,” UNESCO boss Bokova told Peng at the ceremony in Paris. That UN agency is openly seeking to impose, among other ideas, global “education standards” on humanity.

UN “Peacekeeping”: Of the five permanent UN Security Council members, Beijing is the largest contributor to UN “peacekeeping” operations, deploying thousands of Communist Chinese troops, police, and advisors around the world under UN command. Analysts and even the regime say its growing appetite for participating in UN military schemes is indicative of its rise in global prominence — both in foreign affairs and economics.

The above examples are just the beginning of Beijing’s long-term plan to accumulate power within the UN, according to the dictatorship itself. In a “blue book” published recently by the regime’s China Institute of International Studies, Beijing’s Foreign Ministry reported on April 2, “China will target a bigger role in international affairs after recent successes in global diplomacy.” Senior regime officials have been boasting for months that Beijing is training up an army of staffers to hold key positions of influence in UN agencies and other “global governance” mechanisms.

And it is clear that, for Beijing and its allies, the UN must be at the center of the emerging global order. In a 2013 joint declaration, for example, top Communist Chinese officials joined with their counterparts in the BRICS regimes — Brazil, Russia, India, and South Africa — to openly push the agenda. “The UN enjoys universal membership and is at the center of global governance,” the rulers said. (Emphasis added.) “We underscore our commitment to work together in the UN to continue our cooperation and strengthen multilateral approaches in international relations based on the rule of law and anchored in the Charter of the United Nations.... We are fully committed to a coordinated inter-governmental process for the elaboration of the UN development agenda.”

Last year, a collection of over 100 of the world’s communist, Islamist, and socialist tyrants, along with some elected but mostly corrupt Third World regimes, gathered in Bolivia at the G77 plus China summit to demand what they called a “New World Order to Live Well.” UN boss Ban Ki-moon joined the anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-national sovereignty, anti-free market festivities, calling on the assembled rulers — the biggest bloc at the UN — to keep pushing “sustainable development” and global-warming alarmism. The goal: foisting what he also called a “New World Order” on humanity. And they all made clear, even in the summit’s final declaration, that the UN would be at the heart of that order.

Dominating Global Economic Governance

“As U.S. politicians of both political parties are still shuffling back and forth between the White House and Capitol Hill without striking a viable deal to bring normality to the body politic they brag about, it is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world,” wrote Liu Chang, a writer for Beijing’s espionage and prop­aganda agency known as Xinhua, in an undoubtedly regime-approved editorial. “Such alarming days when the destinies of others are in the hands of a hypocritical nation have to be terminated, and a new world order should be put in place.... To that end, several corner stones should be laid to underpin a de-Americanized world.” In such a world, the U.S. dollar would no longer be the world’s reserve currency, and U.S. influence in the instruments of global economic governance such as the World Bank and IMF would be diminished. China, on the other hand, would dominate.

Top Chinese officials and central bankers have long been pushing for the IMF to unveil a truly planetary currency to replace the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency. “A super-sovereign reserve currency not only eliminates the inherent risks of credit-based sovereign currency, but also makes it possible to manage global liquidity,” wrote Chinese central-bank boss Zhou Xiaochuan in his public paper calling for a world currency run by the IMF.

Communist Chinese operatives are already hard at work within the globalist economic institution, including, for example, IMF Deputy Managing Director Zhu Min, a former top official at the Chinese regime’s central bank. Zhu is right now busy trying to include the Chinese yuan in the basket of currencies that make up the special drawing rights (SDR). Now the IMF’s current boss openly says its headquarters may be moved from Washington to Beijing. “The way things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised if one of these days the IMF was headquartered in Beijing,” IMF chief Christine Lagarde said at the London School of Economics last year.

Perhaps not surprisingly, more than a few U.S. allies, and even the Obama administration, have jumped on board the bandwagon to give Beijing, along with the Kremlin, a greater leadership role at the IMF at U.S. expense as the world moves toward a New World Order heavily influenced by Communist China. In fact, when then-U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was asked about Beijing’s global-currency proposal, he said, “We’re actually quite open to that.”

The only serious remaining obstacle now to supersizing the IMF and handing Beijing more power within it at U.S. expense is getting the U.S. Congress to agree to the “reforms,” which include doubling the taxpayer-provided resources while reducing U.S. influence (including potentially the loss of its veto) and empowering Beijing and other foreign governments. So desperate is the Western establishment to empower the IMF and Beijing’s regime that IMF boss Lagarde offered to “belly dance” for U.S. lawmakers if they would just approve the reforms. When the belly-dance offer failed to persuade lawmakers, the IMF and its member regimes began plotting how to bypass the U.S. veto. Globalists in the East and West have said they will not give up until their “reforms” become reality.

“We stress the importance of the central role of the United Nations in global economic governance,” the regime and more than 130 others said in the joint “New World Order” declaration last year, demanding a bigger say in the emerging world economic government for the G77 plus China. “New attempts must now be made to establish proper global economic governance, with the full voice, representation and participation of developing countries in discussions and decision-making.” The despot-dominated UN General Assembly, where the G77 plus China bloc controls almost two-thirds of the votes, should become the “emblem of global sovereignty” and launch “a process to reform the international financial and monetary system,” they said.

Building New Global Governance Architecture

In addition to accumulating more and more influence within existing international institutions, Beijing has also been creating a dizzying array of its own outfits to plug into the new “multi-polar” world order it says it is seeking. Though the new China-created institutions are now portrayed as rivals to their older Western counterparts, Chinese leaders view the globalist architecture they are constructing as complementary to the Western-built architecture.

Most recently, despite ostensible U.S. opposition, even traditional U.S. allies rushed to join the new Shanghai-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which will essentially serve as a new addition to the existing architecture of global economic governance. The massive institution, set to have an initial capital stock of $100 billion, is aimed at “scaling up financing for sustainable development,” as defined by the UN, and fostering more “global economic governance.”

The scramble by U.S. allies to join the “rival” AIIB — Taiwan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and Australia, among others, all applied to become “founding members” — gave the United States what the establishment press painted as a “black eye.” But it is by no means an obstacle to the emerging New World Order. In fact, the AIIB is set to play a major role in “global governance,” according to Beijing and the UN. Some analysts even claimed its emergence signified a new era of “Pax Sinica” that is replacing the supposed U.S.-led world order of past generations. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying, however, said that the founding of the bank is a “constructive move that will complement the current international economic order and enable China to shoulder more global responsibility.”

In tandem with the AIIB, Beijing is also rolling out what it refers to as its “New Silk Road” and the “Maritime Silk Road” projects. The plans, which involve massive infrastructure expansion and new trade routes over land and sea, aim to connect Communist China directly with the rest of Eurasia and Africa so Beijing can more successfully peddle its goods and services, manufactured by its vast armies of practically slave laborers in regime-controlled “companies.” According to an article by Xinhua, the plans will produce “more capital convergence and currency integration.”

Before that, the communist- and socialist-minded regimes ruling the BRICS unveiled plans for a new international “development” bank. Now known as the “New Development Bank,” the entity also plans to provide $100 billion in upfront capital for various projects. Like the AIIB, this bank is also painted as a rival to existing global governance mechanisms. But in reality, the new bank represents merely another tentacle of the emerging world order, as Beijing and other BRICS regimes have made clear.

Last year, in its China Monitor publication, the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS) highlighted Beijing’s “shadow” network of globalist outfits. The report noted that (contrary to the claims of analysts who portray the scheming as a “challenge” to existing globalist institutions) the communist regime “is not seeking to demolish or exit from current international organizations.” Instead, it “is constructing supplementary — in part complementary, in part competitive — channels for shaping the international order beyond Western claims to leadership.” It cited the BRICS, the AIIB, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and numerous other examples to make its case.

In a column about China’s “New World Order,” meanwhile, Director Lee Jong-Wha at Korea University’s Asiatic Research Institute observed that Beijing was “using its growing clout to reshape global economic governance.” Despite apparent obliviousness to the danger of having the dictatorship help design a system of “global governance,” Lee, who also led the Office of Regional Economic Integration at the Asian Development Bank, noted that “China’s approach to influencing global governance is only beginning to emerge.” The dictatorship has openly stated as much.

Beijing has also been rapidly expanding its cooperation with — and in some cases domination of — regional governments, ranging from the European Union and the African Union to the Union of South American States, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, and Putin’s Eurasian Union. China has even financed the construction of the entire $200 million headquarters of the African Union. And it is working with its own regional schemes including the Shanghai Cooperation Organ­ization, a political, economic, and military cooperation body that includes the Kremlin and other governments in the region.

Still, despite its own additions to machinery of global governance, Beijing and its allies have made clear that the UN must remain at the center. In their final “New World Order to Live Well” declaration, signed by more than 130 rulers from around the world involved in the G77 plus Communist China bloc, the regimes called for what amounts to global tyranny, central planning, and massive wealth redistribution from Western taxpayers to oppressive Third World governments. From a stronger UN better able to implement its “mandates” to empowering the UN General Assembly as an “emblem of global sovereignty,” the document demands a dramatic planetary transformation to be run and led by the UN itself.

“We fully respect the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and international law,” the regimes said in the final agreement, calling for the “strengthening” of the UN for a wide variety of purposes. “We recognize that the United Nations needs to improve its capabilities and capacities to fully implement its mandates.” (Emphasis added.) The agreement, dubbed the “Declaration of Santa Cruz: For a New World Order for Living Well,” also called for empowering the despot-dominated UN General Assembly to be a sort of veto-proof planetary legislature. In other words, claims by analysts that China’s global governance projects are a “challenge” to the existing architecture of global governance are simply not credible.

Globalist Western Establishment Support

The unabashed support that Beijing enjoys from the highest echelons of the globalist Western establishment is nothing new. In fact, though full diplomatic relations between the United States and China were not established until 1978, U.S. policy decisions during and after World War II paved the way for the communist takeover of mainland China in 1949. “American diplomats surrendered the territorial integrity and the political independence of China … and wrote the blueprint for the Communist conquest of China in secret agreement at Yalta,” observed General Patrick Hurley, the U.S. Ambassador to China at the end of World War II. Numerous other senior U.S. officials have echoed those concerns. From equipping the Chinese Communists in the mid-1940s via the Soviet regime (under the guise of fighting Japan) to deliberately betraying nationalist Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek, the U.S. government and the Western establishment were crucial to the betrayal of China to communism.

The globalists were evidently pleased with their handiwork. In a 1973 op-ed in the New York Times, for example, senior globalist architect David Rockefeller actually celebrated the mass-murdering regime after a trip to China. “Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose,” he claimed, seemingly oblivious to the ghoulishness of his words. “The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” The Western banking magnate neglected to mention that it also resulted in the murder of an estimated 77 million innocent people, according to University of Hawaii democide scholar R.J. Rummel.

And in the 1990s, President Bill Clinton made sure that Beijing had access to America’s most sensitive military secrets and technology as part of what came to be known as “ChinaGate,” sparking outrage among senior U.S. military officials. “President Clinton promised to restrain those who ordered the Tiananmen Square massacre, but he has now allowed these men whose hands are stained with the blood of martyrs of freedom into the highest reaches of our military defenses, and made available to them significant portions of our advanced military technology,” wrote former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer.

Without Western assistance, the Chinese Communist regime would not have been able to subjugate the mainland much less possess its present clout. Yet globalists believe it should be even more influential on the world stage. “The West has failed to accord China — not to mention the other major emerging economies — the degree of influence in today’s global governance structures that it merits,” complained globalist Javier Solana, the former secretary-general of NATO and EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy. “This may be about to change.”

Throughout the piece, Solana also chastises the West for not giving the regime in Beijing even more control over “global governance.” He also calls repeatedly on “advanced countries” to “overcome their strategic mistrust of China.” “The West must still do more not only to welcome China to the table of global governance, but also to accept and cooperate with the institutions that the Chinese are now creating,” the former NATO boss continued. “China’s move into multilateral processes is good news for the world.”

Plenty of evidence suggests that the Western world’s decline and Communist China’s rise have been deliberately aided and even engineered by the globalist establishment in the United States and Europe. Again, as mentioned at the beginning of the article, billionaire George Soros, one of Obama’s most important backers, even put it explicitly, saying Communist China should “own” the “New World Order” in the same way the United States owns the fast-declining current world order. And that is exactly what is happening.

Earlier this year, the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, which played a key role in China’s rise and in the emergence of the “global governance” system being imposed on humanity, came out with a new report calling for revising the U.S. government’s “Grand Strategy” toward China. “Because the American effort to ‘integrate’ China into the liberal international order has now generated new threats to U.S. primacy in Asia — and could result in a consequential challenge to American power globally — Washington needs a new grand strategy toward China that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy,” wrote CFR Senior Fellow Robert D. Blackwill and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Associate Ashley J. Tellis.

The admission that Washington, D.C., continues to “assist” China’s “ascendancy” — even if accompanied by a recommendation against continuing to assist — was a rare moment of honesty from the CFR. The rest of the report, though, is less so. Instead of revising strategy, for example, the report mostly advocates more Big Government, more globalism, and more of the same generally. In fact, its “solutions” for “balancing” the glob­alist-backed rise of Communist China read like a wish list of extremist globalist scheming — and would almost be comedic if the implications were not so serious, and likely to accelerate the decline of the United States as China rises.

For example, the CFR report calls on Congress to “substantially increase the U.S. defense budget.” Having the federal government that is $18 trillion in debt borrow even more money from Beijing to rein in Beijing makes about as much sense as George W. Bush’s 2008 claim that he “abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” Also on the agenda are more pseudo-free trade regimes. “U.S. grand strategy toward China will be seriously weakened without delivering on the TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement],” the report claims. “A major push by the White House for ratification should therefore begin immediately in the new Congress, including seeking trade promotion authority.” Ironically, top Communist Chinese officials are also celebrating the TPP, expressing interest in joining while pointing out that it would serve as a steppingstone toward a broader Beijing/Moscow-led Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP). Other proposals include “revitalizing the U.S. economy” (though not with free markets or honest money), passing the draconian Cyber Information Security Protection Act (CISPA), and engaging in “high-level diplomacy with Beijing.”

None of that will do anything to contain Communist China or even slow the glob­alist buildup of its might. It will, however, further damage the United States while paving more road leading toward a more Beijing-centric World Order.

As Communist China’s brutal autocrats begin to wield more and more control over “global governance,” what might the “New World Order” they admit they are building look like — a world where the veto-proof, dictator-dominated UN General Assembly acts as the “emblem of global sovereignty”? The way China’s leaders “govern” the People’s Republic of China should provide a strong clue among many.

Already, with Beijing’s and Washington’s strong backing, the UN is on the verge of becoming a dictator-dominated global government, and the IMF is openly being groomed to serve as the planetary central bank. If liberty and Western Civilization are to survive, the brakes must be slammed on the plot — and soon. Whistleblowers from within the UN system who have spoken to The New American about the issue argue that a U.S. withdrawal from the UN and the broader emerging “global governance” regime is not even enough. Instead, the UN and its tentacles must be entirely abolished.

Still, even simply cutting off U.S. taxpayer funding and U.S. government support for the UN, the IMF, and various other organizations would go a long way toward reducing the threat. Ending the U.S. government’s suicidal policies toward Beijing — borrowing trillions of dollars from it just to stay afloat, for example, or turning a blind eye to the communist regime’s massive espionage apparatus aimed at the United States — will be important as well. Americans concerned about the danger must get educated, organized, and activated. If they do not, a Communist Chinese-style “New World Order” may well become a reality, while liberty and sovereignty disappear.

 

This article is an example of the exclusive content that's available only by subscribing to our print magazine. Twice a month get in-depth features covering the political gamut: education, candidate profiles, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, guns, etc. Digital as well as print options are available!

Related article:

Chinese Tyranny 2.0

Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment