As the World Looks Elsewhere, China Stirs Trouble in the South China Sea
[By Peter Layton]
China is again making mischief in the South China Sea, although this time while wars rage in Gaza and the Ukraine. The precise timing of its actions in the South China Sea undoubtedly reflects China’s short-term imperatives and long-term plans, but the overall trend is worrying. There may be something to US President Joe Biden’s warning last week that “conflict and chaos could spread [to]…the Indo-Pacific”.
China’s latest actions involve two ship bumpings on the same day in the Ayungin Shoal (aka Second Thomas Shoal), and both well within the Philippines exclusive economic zone. A Chinese Coast Guard vessel nudged a tiny Philippines government-contracted resupply boat, and a Chinese armed militia vessel similarly bumped a smaller Philippines Coast Guard vessel.
This is the first time the Philippines has reported Chinese ships deliberately hitting Philippine government vessels. However, it’s not unexpected.
China has been steadily escalating tensions over several months. More than 100 militia ships and numerous Chinese Coast Guard ships have been swarming around, at times almost colliding with Philippine Coast Guard ships. China’s actions are now being regularly publicised by the Philippines government and the SeaLight think tank, which has monitored China’s tactics.
China argues its Coast Guard and the militia are simply enforcing China’s domestic laws, which the country has unilaterally decided apply to the 90 per cent of the South China Sea it claims. China’s contested take-over of this expanse dwarfs Russia’s attempted annexing of Ukraine at five times larger, and was rejected by the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague in 2016.
The scale and ongoing nature of China’s actions in the Ayungin Shoal, and across the Spratly Islands more generally, demonstrate a long-term commitment to enforcing its South China Sea ownership beliefs, to gaining of regional respect and to enhancing China’s global status. Short-term issues may be reinforcing these considerations.
China wishes to be the leader of the so-called Global South, even if China does not see itself belonging to the group. The much-touted Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) forum held in Beijing last week was part of marketing that message but had mixed results. Fewer world leaders turned up than at earlier events and the $1 trillion BRI investment is now being criticised by Chinese citizens who want the money instead spent on them in this time of economic uncertainty. Numerous BRI loans also appear unsoundly based and the BRI’s core focus of building big infrastructure such as ports, railways and power plants is giving way to smaller projects, green energy and digital technology.
Beyond the BRI, China seems impotent in the Ukraine and Gaza wars; it has made multiple statements related to ending the wars but which increasingly appear as simple rhetoric. Countries seeking to be leaders need to be demonstrably influential, a subtext in Biden’s speech.
These converging issues raise concerns.
First, China’s long-term policy of taking escalating actions looks set to accelerate. The Chinese Communist Party-controlled Global Times is already forecasting “more serious collisions”. In the near term, the risk of China damaging a Philippine Coast Guard vessel or sinking one of the small Philippine government-charted vessels is high. The well-armed Chinese Coast Guard ships could also fire warning shots to further demonstrate growing resolve, with other actions plausible.
In the same vein, the China Daily is framing Philippine actions as “posing a threat to the safety of Chinese naval vessels”. Weighing in, the Global Times notes “many Chinese netizens [are] angry” and thus would be supportive of sinking Philippine vessels. Quoting others, the media outlet further writes, “If the Philippines continues to provoke in this way, China’s countermeasures may upgrade to a military level.”
Importantly, the United States and Australia have, respectively, an alliance and close strategic relationship with the Philippines. Both governments may need to update contingency plans and adjust relevant military deployments and force readiness levels. Australia had earlier offered to patrol with Philippine ships in the South China Sea.
Second, China can escalate in other ways to prove its power to both the Global South and “Chinese netizens”. For example, there are an increasing number of concerning intercepts of US, Australian and Canadian maritime patrol aircraft, including those involved in monitoring United Nations sanctions against North Korea, to which China has agreed. There may soon be more dangerous close flying, laser dazzling and chaff releases that endanger aircraft.
Third, Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and possibly Biden will soon meet Chinese President Xi Jinping. They might both give two messages, perhaps framed in an ego-stroking but reassuring manner. China does not need to engage in risky actions in the South China Sea to enhance its status or gain respect. Such actions are unnecessary and so desist. In addition, and to ensure regional peace, China really needs to work productively with others, and build robust crisis management protocols and processes.
Until Xi gives the order, his subordinates will keep stonewalling such initiatives, as has happened with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Code Of Conduct. Building peace takes all sides.
Dr. Peter Layton is a Visiting Fellow at the Griffith Asia Institute, an Associate Fellow RUSI (UK) and a Fellow of the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group. A retired RAAF Group Captain, Peter has extensive experience in force structure development and taught national security strategy at the US National Defense University.
This article appears courtesy of The Interpreter and may be found in its original form here.
Op-Ed: China is Fighting the Third Opium War - With Fish
[By Dr. Ian Ralby]
In the 19th Century, the British East India Company was buying up huge amounts of Chinese goods – tea, silk, porcelain and more – but China was not interested in buying anything from Britain. As a way of balancing the accounts, Britain began smuggling opium from India into China, and demanding payment for it in silver. Not only did this help balance the trade accounts and create an insatiable drug dependency, it helped fund British naval and military buildups. Disaffected by the arrangement, the Chinese sought to push back, leading to the two Opium Wars. Thanks in part to the silver from the Opium trade, the technological superiority of European military might at that time resulted in China being easily defeated in both wars, and forced to accept woefully unfavorable trade terms as part of the peace. This led to the “Century of Humiliation” for China. Even after the Cultural Revolution, President Xi Jinping has been fond of historical narratives surrounding Chinese greatness, as well as Chinese grievances. Indeed, “historical fishing grounds” have been the basis for China’s legally unfounded nine (or ten) dash line claim over territory in the South China Sea. There can be no doubt that President Xi and the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party remember the Century of Humiliation and the tactics that characterized it.
New reporting from The Outlaw Ocean Project in The New Yorker indicates that China has adapted the British tactics of the Opium Wars to use fish as trade-based leverage to undermine the United States and its allies. While the context is quite different – the concept is similar. Setting aside the major role China plays in the opioid crisis that has taken the lives of more Americans than the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam combined, China is reaping huge economic benefits by selling fish to the United States in a manner that is directly funding its military and diplomatic buildups to be able to out compete the United States. Indeed, the Outlaw Ocean team has even traced Chinese-caught and processed fish to U.S. military bases, not to mention school cafeterias. And the revelations that people – often from third countries – have likely died in the process of catching this fish, and others, namely Uyghur minorities who have been enslaved to process this fish, add to the pernicious dynamics of this operation. Just as the British once resorted to criminality and degradation of human beings to fund their military, the Chinese have followed suit.
One of the lighthearted, albeit relevant, parts of the Outlaw Ocean’s reporting was the revelation that squid was unpopular in the United States until it was renamed “calamari” to make it sound more appealing. Now calamari appears on menus across the country and the remarkable demand for it – particularly breaded and fried – has driven China to become the world’s largest supplier of it. Yet how many conversations about the horrors of slavery have occurred while consuming fried calamari produced by slave labor?
It is clear that the Outlaw Ocean Project based some of their work on the detailed efforts of academics and practitioners to look into the implications of subsidies. China’s use of subsidies has propelled its Distant Water Fleet (DWF) to fish around the globe and in the process, disrupt both ecosystems and economies. Indeed, this issue has been years in the making, and diligent research from scholars like Dr. Tabitha Mallory has shown just how problematic this dynamic is in terms of both ocean sustainability and broader economic and social impacts. But it goes even further.
As has been expressed, the DWF is being used for much more than just catching fish. It is an information and intelligence collection source, a tool for hybrid aggression, and part of a strategy to “own the oceans by adverse possession.” In many ways, it is the main action arm of China’s efforts to build what amounts to an oceanic empire over the 70 percent of the earth that is covered in water. But this new reporting by the Outlaw Ocean Project reveals how the United States public is financing China’s aggression toward the United States. Not only are American children eating fish fingers made by Uyghur slaves, but public institutions in America are channeling their resources toward products that are financing China’s hostility. This is the dynamic of the Opium Wars that China has replicated. China’s production and targeted sale of fentanyl and other opioids may look and seem like the principal analogy to the Opium Wars, but the fish and all the major benefits the DWF provides to China’s efforts for military superiority are actually the main parallel.
Armed with this reporting, the U.S. should muster a whole-of-society response to this Chinese effort. If the U.S. is serious about “Great Power Competition,” it at least needs to stop scoring “own goals” by funding and emboldening the main competitor. But from the standpoints of both defense and security, these issues cannot be overlooked or marginalized. China is using its DWF globally in a manner that accrues tremendous benefits to the Chinese armed forces. The least that can be done is stop buying fish caught by the DWF and processed by enslaved Uyghurs and serving it on U.S. military bases. The U.S. should heed the famous line from Karl Marx – “The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.” It may also be worth returning to the history of the first two Opium Wars to see if there are any strategic lessons the U.S. can glean in countering Chinese efforts to win the third one.
Dr. Ian Ralby is CEO of I.R. Consilium, a family firm with leading expertise in maritime and resource security. A maritime lawyer by background, Dr. Ralby has worked in more than 90 countries around the world and is an advisor to various US government agencies and international organizations.
This article appears courtesy of CIMSEC and may be found in its original form here.
The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.
THE MISQUOTE IS FROM LENIN WHO SAID IT WILL BE THE CAPITALIST WHO SELLS US THE ROPE TO HANG THE LAST ARISTOCRAT
Karl Marx said, "The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope." Is this quote true?
Marshall Solomon
Of course not. Nor did Lenin say such a thing. It’s a ridiculous statement. Any person that has a read anything Marx ever wrote will easily recognize it as dubious. The fact that such an absurdity passes for a legitimate quote among right-wingers demonstrates their infantile gullibility.
Here’s Marx discussing capitalists:
As the conscious representative of this movement, the possessor of money becomes a capitalist. His person, or rather his pocket, is the point from which the money starts and to which it returns. The expansion of value, which is the objective basis or main-spring of the circulation M-C-M, becomes his subjective aim, and it is only in so far as the appropriation of ever more and more wealth in the abstract becomes the sole motive of his operations, that he functions as a capitalist, that is, as capital personified and endowed with consciousness and a will. Use-values must therefore never be looked upon as the real aim of the capitalist; neither must the profit on any single transaction. The restless never-ending process of profit-making alone is what he aims at. This boundless greed after riches, this passionate chase after exchange-value, is common to the capitalist and the miser; but while the miser is merely a capitalist gone mad, the capitalist is a rational miser. The never-ending augmentation of exchange-value, which the miser strives after, by seeking to save his money from circulation, is attained by the more acute capitalist, by constantly throwing it afresh into circulation.
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I
Here’s Marx getting “violent” discussing capitalists:
One capitalist always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralisation, or this expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending scale, the cooperative form of the labour process, the conscious technical application of science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the instruments of labour into instruments of labour only usable in common, the economising of all means of production by their use as means of production of combined, socialised labour, the entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world market, and with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime. Along with the constantly diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and monopolise all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the revolt of the working class, a class always increasing in numbers, and disciplined, united, organised by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of production, which has sprung up and flourished along with, and under it. Centralisation of the means of production and socialisation of labour at last reach a point where they become incompatible with their capitalist integument. This integument is burst asunder. The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.
Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I
The Capitalists Will Sell Us the Rope with Which We Will Hang Them
Posted by quoteresearch
Vladimir Lenin? Joseph Stalin? Karl Marx? George Racey Jordan? Samuel E. Keeble? S. Dmitrijewski? Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn? Apocryphal?
Dear Quote Investigator: A quotation about imprudent greed and near-sightedness has been attributed to three prominent communists: Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, and Karl Marx. Here are three versions of the statement:The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.
When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope.
The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.
Would you please explore the provenance of this saying?
Quote Investigator: The earliest strong match located by QI appeared in 1955 within a periodical called “The Commonwealth: Official Journal of the Commonwealth Club of California”. The club is a non-profit public affairs organization. The quotation appeared as a filler item. Emphasis added to excerpts by QI:[1]
Lenin wrote, “When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract.”
—Major George Racey Jordan
Jordan was a U.S. military officer who became a fierce anti-communist. Lenin had died in 1924; hence, the 1955 date was quite late. No documentary source was specified, and multiple researchers have been unable to find a match in Lenin’s writings. The Congressional Research Service did report a thematically pertinent passage ascribed to Lenin. Details are given further below.
Here are additional selected citations in chronological order.
A variety of partially matching expressions concerning rope, hanging, capitalism, and socialism preceded the target quotation; examples are presented below. One class of statements was based on a proverb from the mid-17th century. When rogues are granted freedom of action they sometimes choose a self-destructive course:[2]
Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself.
The saying above clearly differs from the expression under analysis because the rope is not being sold. Nevertheless, there exists an overlap in the vocabulary and semantics. In 1896 a book by Samuel E. Keeble extolling socialism suggested that the capitalism would metaphorically hang itself:[3]
But, according to the German Socialists, deliverance lies in the very success of Capitalism—by giving it rope enough it will hang itself. It will so mass in its own hands the instruments of production and distribution—land, machinery, railways, etc., that the expropriated community—disciplined, educated, and drilled by Capitalism itself—will finally rise, in some countries quietly, in others violently, and ‘expropriate the expropriators,’ or, in other words, put the community in possession of the land and the remaining instruments of production and distribution.
The 1901 “Proceedings of the Tenth National Convention of the Socialist Labor Party” began with an epigraph attributed to a famous statesman:
Property is the creature of society, and society is entitled to the last farthing whenever society needs it.
—Benjamin Franklin.
Convention delegate Thomas Curran referred to the words above while envisioning a harsh end for recalcitrant capitalists:[4]
It is just such quotations as that of Franklin and some of the broad generalizations of the bourgeoisie of to-day that we will employ in later years to weave a rope with which we will hang the capitalist class whenever they charge us with trying to wreck society. [Applause]
In 1920 a speaker at a convention of the Industrial Relations Association America applied the rope metaphor to Wall Street:[5]
We want a man who will take Wall Street, when it gets to be an obstructionist, and punch it right square in the nose.
Wall Street will hang itself, if given enough rope . . .
In 1924 Lord Emmott delivered a speech in the U.K. Parliament in London. He referred to the acerbic words of Grigory Zinoviev who was a powerful member of the Soviet Politburo. Zinoviev purportedly made a joke about rope and hanging. A dozen years later Zinoviev was executed by his fellow communists although a gun was used instead of a rope:[6]
. . . he has carried out a campaign of insult against His Majesty’s Government and, with what perhaps passes for humour in Communist circles, he said, that they “should support British Labour Party, MacDonald’s party, as the rope ‘supports’ the man who hangs himself.” Since then he has prophesied a short life for the Government and spoken of the Prime Minister with the utmost contempt.
In 1931 the “Review of Reviews” published a profile of the Soviet diplomat Maxim Litvinov written by S. Dmitrijewski. The author described an intriguing incident that closely matched the saying being investigated:[7]
In the autumn of 1905 he founded, together with Krassin, the newspaper New Life; the necessary money being given by millionaires, who thereby helped weave the rope from which many of them should hang later on.
In 1953 the book “Stalin’s Heirs” mentioned the new Soviet leader Georgy Malenkov and included an instance of the 17th century proverb applied to “the West”:[8]
And Malenkov expressed his conviction — which he still probably holds — that the western capitalist lands will sooner or later strive to free themselves from the domination of United States finance. This theory, indeed, is one of the basic tenets of the Soviet hope that, given enough rope, the West will hang itself. For long the Soviet theory has been that only the high pace of rearmament has staved off a serious ‘recession’ in the West.
In 1955 the earliest close match known to QI appeared in “The Commonwealth” magazine as noted previously:[9]
Lenin wrote, “When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will vie with each other for the rope contract.”
—Major George Racey Jordan.
In 1956 “Time” magazine repeated the joke in the 1924 citation and attributed the words to Lenin:[10]
Lenin once said of them: “We shall support the Social Democrats like a rope supports a hanging man.”
In January 1959 a strong match appeared in a syndicated newspaper column by Victor Riesel who suggested that a Soviet diplomat attributed the remark to Lenin:[11]
Smooth his red feathers and he’ll recall privately that Nicolai Lenin once said that when “we Communists are ready to hang the capitalists, they’ll try to outbid each other for the sale of the hemp to us.”
Two weeks later U.S. Congressman Walter H. Judd ascribed the remark to Lenin:[12]
Mr. Judd. You will recall Lenin once said that when the time comes to hang the capitalists, they will bid against each other for the sale of the rope.
In May 1959 “Aviation Week and Space Technology” printed a letter to the editor containing an instance of the saying:[13]
If the leaders of this country don’t stop preoccupying themselves with the economics of an adequate defense, the statement that I believe Lenin made that “when we Communists are at last ready to hang the capitalists, they will be trying to out-bid each other for the right to supply the hemp,” will come true.
In 1960 “Special Assignment: Controversial Commentaries” by Joseph della Malva reprinted a letter that included the saying:[14]
. . . Lenin’s prophecy: ‘When time comes to hang the capitalists, the Capitalists themselves will sell the rope for that.’
In 1961 “The Miami News” of Florida printed a letter to the editor containing an interesting variant expression in which communists sell the rope instead of buying it:[15]
Many people are beginning to take the view that it is futile to try to stop communism unless we decide to quit helping it first. Lenin once said he would sell us the rope to hang ourselves because we would hope to make a profit on the transaction.
The reference work “Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations Requested from the Congressional Research Service” included a pertinent entry. Lenin reportedly wrote about credits supplied by capitalists. The following passage rendered in English appeared in a Russian-language journal in 1961 and provided a semantic match, but it did not employ the vivid rope metaphor:[16]
They [capitalists] will furnish credits which will serve us for the support of the Communist Party in their countries and, by supplying us materials and technical equipment which we lack, will restore our military industry necessary for our future attacks against our suppliers. To put it in other words, they will work on the preparation of their own suicide.
Vladimir Ilich (Ulyanov) Lenin, as reported by I. U. Annenkov in an article entitled, “Remembrances of Lenin,” Novyi Zhurnal / New Review, September 1961, p. 147.
Annenkov stated that he had examined Lenin’s manuscripts while visiting the Moscow Institute of V. I. Lenin shortly after the leader’s death in 1924. The journal Novyi Zhurnal is published in New York City.
In 1962 an article in the journal “Encounter” printed an instance:[17]
All these transactions with the West, with their overtones of hypocrisy (on both sides), reveal how the contest between East and West is gradually becoming, as Khrushchev intends, a commercial one. At the same time they throw a curious light on Lenin’s famous remark about “monopoly-capitalism”—”it would sell the rope with which it is to be hanged.” It is now far from clear who is hanging whom—or who is selling rope to whom.
In 1975 the Russian novelist and historian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who had been expelled from the Soviet Union in 1974 delivered a speech in Washington D.C. Solzhenitsyn presented an anecdote that included a version of the saying:[18]
Lenin, who spent most of his life in the West and knew it much better than Russia, always said that the Western capitalists would do anything to supply the Soviet economy—”They will fight with each other to sell us goods cheaper and sell them quicker so that we’ll buy from one rather than from the other.”
And in the difficult moments of a party meeting in Moscow he said: “Comrades, don’t worry when things are hard with us. When things are difficult, we will give a rope to the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie will hang itself with this rope.”
Then, Karl Radek, a witty fellow you may have heard of, said: “Vladimir Ilyich, where are we going to get enough rope to hang the whole bourgeoisie?”
Lenin said immediately: “They’ll supply us with it.”
In his 1979 memoir U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater attributed the saying to Joseph Stalin instead of Lenin:[19]
Stalin said, “As long as capitalism and socialism exist, we cannot live in peace. In the end one or the other will triumph—a funeral dirge will be sung either over the Soviet Republic or over world capitalism.” He also said something to this effect: “When it comes time to hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope.”
In 2007 an investment fund manager speaking before a U.S. Senate committee attributed the saying to both Karl Marx and Lenin:[20]
This matter brings to mind a saying attributed to Socialist Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin: the last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.
In conclusion, this article presents a snapshot of current research. The evidence linking the saying to Vladimir Lenin was weak because the first citation appeared in 1955 which was many years after Lenin’s death in 1924.
On the other hand, the late citation from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was interesting because it suggested that the expression was circulating within the Soviet dissident community. Yet, QI does not know how Solzhenitsyn acquired the anecdote.
In addition, the 1931 citation was compelling because it depicted an incident matching the meaning of the saying. There is no substantive evidence supporting the attributions to Joseph Stalin and Karl Marx.
(Great thanks to John McChesney-Young and the University of California, Berkeley library system for help verifying the 1955 citation.)
References
References↑1, ↑9 1955 October 31, The Commonwealth: Official Journal of the Commonwealth Club of California, Volume 31, Number 44, (Freestanding quotation), Page 268, Column 2, Published by Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco, California. (Verified with scans; thanks to John McChesney-Young and the University of California, Berkeley library system)
↑2 2004, Oxford Dictionary Of Idioms, Second Edition, Edited by Judith Siefring, Entry: rope, Quote Page 247, Oxford University Press, New York. (Verified with scans)
↑3 1896, Industrial Day-Dreams: Studies in Industrial Ethics and Economics by Samuel E. Keeble (Samuel Edward Keeble), Quote Page 20, Published by Eliot Stock, London. (Google Books Full View) link
↑4 1901, Proceedings of the Tenth National Convention of the Socialist Labor Party, Held in New York City, June 2 to June 8, 1900, Delegate Curran (Thomas Curran of Rhode Island), Start Page 100, Quote Page 101, New York Labor News Company, New York. (Google Books Full View) link
↑5 1920, Proceedings Annual Convention, Industrial Relations Association America, Held in Chicago, Illinois on May 19 to 21, 1920, What the Working Man Wants by Sherman Rogers (Author and Lecturer, New York City), Start Page 104, Quote Page 106, Published by Industrial Relations Association of America. (Google Books Full View) link
↑6 1924 March 26, Hansard, United Kingdom Parliament, Lords, Anglo-Russian Relations, Speaking: Lord Emmott, HL Deb, volume 56, cc1039-73. (Accessed hansard.millbanksystems.com on February 22, 2018) link
↑7 1931 July, Review of Reviews, The Soviet Foreign Minister by S. Dmitrijewski, (From Der Querschnitt, Berlin), Start Page 72, Quote Page 72, Column 2, The Review of Reviews Corporation, New York. (Verified with hardcopy)
↑8 1953, Stalin’s Heirs by George Young, Quote Page 48, Derek Verschoyle, London. (Verified on paper)
↑10 1956 October 8, Time, Communists: The New Yalta Conference, Time Inc., New York. (Archive at time.com; accessed June 13, 2011)
↑11 January 12, 1959, Waterloo Daily Courier, Riesel: Unionists ‘Rough Up’ Mikoyan by Victor Riesel, Quote Page 4, Column 3, Waterloo, Iowa, (Newspapers_com)
↑12 1959, U. S. House of Representatives, 86th Congress, First Session, Hearings Before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Briefing on Current World Situation on January 29, 1959, Speaker: Walter H. Judd (Minnesota): Start Page 31, Quote Page 49, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. (HathiTrust) link
↑13 1959 May 4, Aviation Week and Space Technology, Volume 70, Jeopardized Defense, (Letter to the editor from Jack Ward of Santa Monica, California), Quote Page 214, McGraw-Hill, New York. (Verified on paper)
↑14 1960, Special Assignment: Controversial Commentaries by Joseph della Malva, Chapter: American-Soviet Relations, Quote Page 23, Published by Della Malva c/o WPBC, Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Verified with hardcopy)
↑15 1961 September 10, The Miami News, Letter to the editor from Ted Slack Jr. of Miami, Letter title: Are We Buying Red Rope?, Quote Page 4B, Column 5, Miami, Florida. (Newspapers_com)
↑16 1989, Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations Requested from the Congressional Research Service, Edited by Suzy Platt, Topic: Communism, Entry Number 246, Quote Page 51, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (Verified with scans)
↑17 1962 June, Encounter, Volume 18, From The Other Shore: Letter from Prague by Anthony Rhodes, Start Page 74, Quote Page 75, Column 1, Encounter, Ltd., London. (Verified on paper)
↑18 1975, Congressional Record, Extensions of Remarks, Text from speech by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn delivered in Washington on June 30, 1975, Text was inserted into the Congressional Record by congressman Philip M. Crane of Illinois on July 15, 1975, Title: Solzhenitsyn and Official Washington: Are We Afraid to Confront the Truth about Communism? Start Page E3937, Quote Page E3937, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. (HathiTrust) link
↑19 1979, With No Apologies by U.S. Senator Barry M. Goldwater, Quote Page 86, William Morrow and Company, New York. (Verified on paper)
↑20 2011, U.S. Senate, One Hundred Tenth Congress, First Session, Hearing Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works in June 28, 2007, Examining Global Warming Issues in the Power Plant Sector, Statement of Thomas J. Borelli, Ph.D., Portfolio Manager at Free Enterprise Action Fund, Start Page 180, Quote Page 182, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. (Internet Archive at archive.org)
No comments:
Post a Comment