CFR: Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Towards China

The CFR claims to sponsor “… Independent Task Forces that produce reports with both findings and policy prescriptions on the most important foreign policy topics”. Yet after publishing 72 special reports, none are about Israel. Yet they claim to be “independent” and “nonpartisan”. In its Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Towards China, there are no negative mentions of the US, Europe and Japan’s meddling in Asia/China. Rather than state their views explicitly, the authors assume a pro-US stance and employ the method of stating what Beijing thinks without commenting as to the validity of said views.

This “special report” is written by two India-loving Sinophobes: Robert Blackwill and Ashley Tellis in consultation with 41 others. Jerome Cohen, John Deutch, Daniel Drezner, Irve Libby, Aaron Friedberg, Douglas Feith, Judith Miller, Evan Osnos, Paul Wolfowitz and James Steinberg are Hebrew-Europeans (David Sanger, David Shambaugh, Philip Zelikow, J. Stapleton Roy and Richard Solomon possibly also). The CFR’s president Richard Haass is also Hebrewpean who has written 11 foreign policy books, none about Israel.

From the report:

  • China is fueled by national humiliation from being “undone by the hostility of others”. This is incorrect, the unnamed “others” are not primarily hostile but greedy exploiters.
  • They insinuate that, unlike China, the USA is a “genuine democracy”
  • The US is campaigning to support democracy, rule of law and equal rights for minority peoples but the Chinese view this as destabilizing. So is it?
  • Refers to China’s state capitalism as a “so-called Beijing model” while they and their mother (U.K) also used this economic method to get rich.
  • Speaks about “illegitimate acquisition of proprietary knowledge” as if only European definitions are legitimate
  • China geopolitics is described as a “choking embrace”
  • Wants China to contribute “toward global governance” even though China states that it doesn’t seek to govern the world.
  • Chinese economic organizations “undermine standards of governance” set by “international institutions”. So what?
  • Claims that “President Xi signaled China’s aims to undermine the Asian balance of power” because he stated that “Asia’s problems ultimately must be resolved by Asians and Asia’s security ultimately must be protected by Asians.”
  • Calls India a “robust democratic power”. If this was true, why would China want to become democratic? What exactly is robust about India’s racist failed-state ‘democracy’?

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.