linda-brooks.com
paid for by the Committee to Elect Linda S Brooks to the US Congress
linda-brooks.com
paid for by the Committee to Elect Linda S Brooks to the US Congress
November 2021
Written by Linda S Brooks
American’s have a very pragmatic attitude toward the recognition of historical events of their country placing an emphasis on honesty with a purview toward improvement; moreover, the value of history to eliminate corruption because knowing the wrong things that has occurred over time is as important as the good; in fact, the tenets of the First Amendment is based on this; moreover, its premise is included in every international agreement designed for a free society. Conversely, propaganda is an attempt to manipulate a society thru vague and untrue rheteric. Emerging at the turn into the 20th Century as feudalism was being replaced by new political systems with the enhancement of communications through television, radio and cinematography, the elites of Germany wanted to know how to control the country in this new emerging idea of the rule of the people; the conclusion arrived at as Nazi Germany rose, was through propaganda.
China, for instance, is one of those countries that has developed an extensive program of propaganda portraying an image that they want their country to be recognized by following a paradigm very much like that of political correctness. In fact, China is paying departments on University Campus’ around the world to teach a program designed by China promoting this image of a successful and rising hegemony of the future. However, the US seems to be one of the nations that insists on offering opposing view points for the sake of accuracy which China is taking issue with. The fact is, that at this present time China is demanding a representation of itself that is out of balance to reality. Yes, China is rising economically; nonetheless, counter balanced,China harvests organs for sale on the International market from he bodies of prisoners of conscience, they are building a Borg military by creating a hybrid part human and part robotic soldier incorporating AI; and according to the documentary “China Power and Prosperity” portraying an elite society as a model of success economically, even though the average Chinese family lives on four-hundred dollars a month and the individual on five dollars a day; moreover, utilizing a nearly four million labor force of slaves at the base of their production capabilities. In all, the imagery, considering the restraint of Human Rights, makes China’s financial success a fraud considering the totality of what China represents; moreover giving pause to what lay ahead with any country they might absorb.
However, if one pays attention to their activities outside of Chinese territories, what China is doing is allowing talented Chinese business oriented people to spread out over the countries of the Pacific Rim, gaining control of economies and then claiming a right of sovereignty over any area that has the Chinese stamp on it; cultural, economic or otherwise. How the US responds to this is important for the sake of its own economy let alone International concerns regarding at least one-third of global territory. How can the free world combat such capricious aggression? Initially, before war, economic sanctions are the first step bringing to mind the idea behind Tariffs on foreign imports sold in the US, for instance, that create an unfair competition with US made products; moreover, the ethics of the means of production by those countries who use slave labor. The Trump Tariffs on China imports during his first term as president and China’s reaction will be briefly discussed here.
Most often, tariffs are used to balance competition of pricing when imports place the receiving nation and its producers at a significant disadvantage. However, sometimes tariffs are also imposed in order to discourage certain activities such as when a foreign country insists on violating US borders by encouraging illegal entry into the US occurring here obviously with South America and Canada. And then there are those instances when both of these reasons for imposing tariffs exists such as China’s slave labor recognized as unfair practices especially given that the US federally prohibits slavery; also known as indentured servitude, in this nation. Carry that a little bit further; tariffs can also be imposed to stop certain activities occurring in the country of origin, as well, where human rights are being noticeably violated becoming widely known with the intent to bring the leadership to revise its policy toward its own people.
A particularly difficult example, due to international territorial agreements in conflict with the indigenous people, of recent times can be considered in the Anti-Extradition Law Movement in the 2019-20 period, following a broad based movement for democracy in Hong Kong, when the general population at large, not just students, protested the arrest and extradition of Hong Kong students to inland China for trial rather than in Hong Kong. If you know anything about US criminal law, this is usually not allowed. The intent is obvious, to sweep these protestors out of sight for trial very possibly causing the US-China Cold War relationship to be brought to a head. Why? Because of the agreement signed before the United Nations between the Republic of China and Great Britain at the termination of a one-hundred year lease and transfer between the two countries occurring in 1997 , under which Hong Kong would be allowed to maintain its preexisting political system with a capitalist economy until 2047 under the One Country, Two Systems rubric as coined by China. However, the root cause of the present conflict, according to Kevin Carrico, is the “growing pressure upon the territory’s resources (Yellow Perils: 2018. pg.199) as the people of Hong Kong see their free market system being absorbed by the communist socialist command economy. What is really at stack here is a question of succession specifically outlawed in the new National Security Law for Hong Kong promulgated by the Republic of China. Does Hong Kong have the legal right to succeed from the Republic of China? Yes and No: depends on if both parties can agree. In the United States succession was not acceptable so the answer by the leadership emphasized preservation of the union with an answer of “No” after the South had already pressumed a position of independence; thus, the US Civil War broke out with the end result that the South lost and the original union was presserved intact. This brings us to the question does the infringement to the original Great Britain-China agreement give license to Hong Kong to choose succession and can it be supported in the International Court? I argue that it does based on a right of the indigenous population and centuries of seperation from China as part of its lineage.
Beginning the year before and then into the Presidential Election of 2020 when President Trump was running for his second term, the US conflict in its Cold War with China, according to Orville Schell, director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society, “the severity of the confrontation has jumped the wall from specific and solvable challenges to a clash of systems and values.” Adding Craig Allens comment, US-China Business Council, indicated he was “alarmed by the increasing invective from two superpowers that together represent 40 percent of global economic output” (“How the Cold War Between US and China is Intensifying” New York Times). Additionally, Trump black listed China’s Huawei corporation because of China’s intentional Industrial infiltration even in the Universities with the intent to steal protected technological information.
Unlike other analyst, I do not put any emphasis on marxist ideology for world dominance in what China is doing though they use that verbage; rather I see very pressing internal problems that China absolutely must resolve in order to survive an inevitable implosion which poses a far more dangerous threat to world peace than does ideology; and I see Trumps policy on trade as a historical pre-war attempt to combat not only industrial espionage; but the abuse of human rights in the gradual and incipient communist takeover of Hong Kong. In the recent demontrations, over 10,000 people were arrested; 2500 were charged and $755 million in property damage recorded as a result of the protest movement for democracy in Hong Kong. A Mr.Tang, one of the protestors, still awaits in jail for layers of trials, declaring “The government has left us no room to resist and nowhere to go” (New York Times “Hong Kong Has a New Type of Prisoner: Pro-Democracy Activists”). Moreover, according to the US Department of State, such things as executions are kept a secret in China. Since the transition to the 2021 Biden Administration, reducing Trumps policy on China imports, the US Tariff’s have been reduced by fifty percent and China followed suit with a fifty percent reduction in their Retaliatory Tariffs against the US.
Can the free world look the other way while Communism carry’s out its intended absorption of these free people of Hong Kong twenty-seven years before what was agreed to as though their lives there means nothing? The position Hong Kong takes is that over the centuries, particularly under the rule of Great Britain for one century, the Hong Kong people have acquired an identity of their own independent of that of China; therefore, the Hong Kong people have a right to choose self-government which they are now demanding. This puts pressure on China who is a permenent member of the UN and of its Security Council having assumed the China seat under Chiang Kai- shek after the Communist overthrow. The UN has taken the position in this conflict, according to Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, on the side of the protestors based on two UN-International Treaties both of which recognizes the Human Right of self determination and freedom of speech: (1) the Treaty for Civil and Political Rights and (2) the Economic, social and cultural Rights which, according to Ms. Bachelet, together raise serious questions about the verbage found in the National Security Law recently promulgated for Hong Kong. China, has, nonetheless given its “No” in their imposition of the new National Security Law on succession.
What can the free world do legally speaking, under such circumstances, especially since the National Law identifies funding the protestors by foreign agencies an act of terrorism against the Republic of China. First of all, China has broken the original agreement for transition under the rubric that China is the rightful owner of the Hong Kong region. Aside from racial and cultural differences between the Republic of China and Hong Kong, first World free nations are based on law; thus, the US as the only hegemon at present, must first take that road which the Tariff imposition would fall under. The next step would be the United Nations, created to maintain peace in third world countries; the third step after that would be the International Court. I believe that Hong Kong does have a position that is justicable. Paasi’s Place Identity, for instance, that establishes a people and nation as distinctly different from neighboring territories though of the same lineage.Thus, what Hong Kong is doing is not a nationalist movement: one country; one indigenous people; one religion; one of everything like Nasserism was; No, it is a movement for succession. If so, the only solution I can think of can be compared to the one-hundred and fifty year Mongolian captivity of Russia that occurred during the period of the Enlightenment during which what Mongolia wanted was only rents. If Hong Kong wants the golden egg, that is probably the only thing that will get it for them.
Copyright © 2021 POLITICS and OTHER ANOMALIES with Linda S Brooks. - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy Website Builder