The Danger Is Not China But the Fake China Threat
At times a book is convincing not only because its arguments are sound but also because of the author’s identity. It would be no surprise to encounter a book penned by a socialist or Sinophile that takes on the false portrait of China that graces the US media. But Joseph Solis-Mullen, the author of The Fake China Threat And Its Very Real Danger, is neither socialist nor Sinophile.
Solis-Mullen is a libertarian in the mold of Randolph Bourne and Justin Raimondo. Hence, he is classified as a conservative in our impoverished political taxonomy. But his book is not written to appeal to people of any single political outlook. It is written with only one thing in mind, the interest of the American people and, dare I say, of humanity in general, China included. Hence it is of great utility for people across the political spectrum who sense that our people are being hoodwinked by fake China threats. It may answer your questions on China or those of your friends in ways understandable to the average American.
The Fake China Threat is ubiquitous – and dangerous
Solis-Mullens explains the purpose and scope of the fake China Threat as follows:
“On the one hand, (the fake China Threat) serves as a legitimating device, a new reason for continually climbing defense budgets… and for the continued meddling… in the affairs of other states…
“On the other hand, the fake China Threat serves as a convenient scapegoat for the end results of the bad policies that Washington has itself authored and for decades pursued. America deindustrialized? China’ fault. Millions of Americans hooked on drugs? China’s fault. The Saudis and Iranians don’t want the Americans around anymore? China’s fault. Et cetera.”
“There is one element of truth to the fake China Threat, however; the existence of an independent China (or Russia) is a threat to Washington’s accustomed ability to do more or less whatever it wants, wherever it wants. But the existence of an independent China is already a fact. Refusal on the part of Washington to accept it will cause more than theoretical problems, and therein lies the real danger. “ (Italics, jw)
To remedy that “real danger” is the purpose of this book as the author explains in these words:
“So built up in the imagination of many Americans has been the threat China allegedly poses to them and their families, that the determined opponent of the fake China Threat must venture onto the tiresome grounds of so-called ‘Great Power competition.’ He must then make estimations of relative power that, as it happens, largely buttress the case against Washington doing anything other than seeking normal relations with Beijing… The purpose of this book is to put in one place and in concise form the arguments why the interests of the American people are not served by confrontation with China. The task is an urgent one.”
Solis-Mullen succeeds on all counts in that task. The book is indeed concise, a mere 65 pages, albeit in small print, and with extensive footnotes to satisfy the reader seeking more evidence or deeper understanding.
History, empathy, the military, and the economy
The author begins with a capsule history of Sino-US relations, really an account of the West’s interaction with China beginning in the early 19th Century and leading to a century of colonial exploitation and oppression which the Chinese refer to as the Hundred Years of Humiliation. Next, he proceeds to a view of how Beijing sees the world, in other words an attempt to see the world as our official enemies do, one of the main requisites for a peaceful world, all too often forgotten by would be champions of peace. And he returns to these themes later in the book with a quick review of “Chinese Foreign Policy Historically.” One truth that emerges from this treatment is that China’s development of its military is reactive rather than aggressive, the result of the Century of Humiliation and the latest buildup of US forces ringing China since Obama launched his Pivot to Asia in 2011 which successor administrations have built on and developed further. The way to peace one concludes is to stop poking the Panda lest it morph into a fire breathing Dragon.
A central question is taken up in a chapter entitled “China’s Internal Problems and External Constraints.” The author argues, incorrectly I believe, that China’s demographics and geography put limits on its economic might. But we have heard such arguments in the past and they always come up short; China keeps surprising the pundits of the West. But Solis-Mullen argues that both his pessimistic view of China’s economic prospects and my optimistic view are irrelevant when it comes to America’s course of action.
Either China is very strong, he says, “in which case antagonizing China over issues directly in its backyard is stupid; or actually China is quite weak in which case antagonizing China in its backyard is unnecessary and counterproductive.” He continues, “In any event is hard to hard to imagine how the life of the average American would be improved by courting conflict with China, while it is quite easy to imagine countless ways in which it could be made worse.”
The Uyghurs
One of the most powerful sections of the book is chapter 8, “Uyghurs, Genocides and Realities,” where the Uyghur “genocide” hoax is debunked. One need only visit Xinjiang, home of the Uyghurs, and compare it to Gaza, to see that the charge of genocide is wildly off the mark. It is easy to do this since China is encouraging tourism in Xinjiang. Most notably, Solis-Mullen points out, the UN has not charged China with genocide despite entreaties from the US. And the US State Department seems to have dropped the term, at least for now. Most satisfyingly, the work of Adrian Zenz, who has provided much of the “documentation” to justify the charge of genocide, is called out. Zenz, Solis-Mullen informs us, is “a German anthropologist of frankly questionable scholastic character and fitness,” citing as evidence the excellent work of Max Blumenthal and Gareth Porter at The Grayzone. (See also the articles by Ajit Singh here.). The Uyghur genocide hoax makes for an excellent case history instructing us on how false narratives are constructed to advance anti-China sentiment. The chapter “Who Writes About the Fake China Threat and Why” adds more to the picture.
Solis-Mullen’s book is solidly in the American tradition of anti-interventionism which has been struggling to make itself felt since it was smothered at the end of WWII. He declares he is driven by enlightened self-interest, that most valuable form of selfishness, telling us: “It is the lives, liberty, property and the prosperity of my fellow Americans that I seek to defend in doing what I can to discredit the fake China Threat.”
At times a book is convincing not only because its arguments are sound but also because of the author’s identity. It would be no surprise to encounter a book penned by a socialist or Sinophile that takes on the false portrait of China that graces the US media. But Joseph Solis-Mullen, the author of The Fake China Threat And Its Very Real Danger, is neither socialist nor Sinophile.
Solis-Mullen is a libertarian in the mold of Randolph Bourne and Justin Raimondo. Hence, he is classified as a conservative in our impoverished political taxonomy. But his book is not written to appeal to people of any single political outlook. It is written with only one thing in mind, the interest of the American people and, dare I say, of humanity in general, China included. Hence it is of great utility for people across the political spectrum who sense that our people are being hoodwinked by fake China threats. It may answer your questions on China or those of your friends in ways understandable to the average American.
The Fake China Threat is ubiquitous – and dangerous
Solis-Mullens explains the purpose and scope of the fake China Threat as follows:
“On the one hand, (the fake China Threat) serves as a legitimating device, a new reason for continually climbing defense budgets… and for the continued meddling… in the affairs of other states…
“On the other hand, the fake China Threat serves as a convenient scapegoat for the end results of the bad policies that Washington has itself authored and for decades pursued. America deindustrialized? China’ fault. Millions of Americans hooked on drugs? China’s fault. The Saudis and Iranians don’t want the Americans around anymore? China’s fault. Et cetera.”
“There is one element of truth to the fake China Threat, however; the existence of an independent China (or Russia) is a threat to Washington’s accustomed ability to do more or less whatever it wants, wherever it wants. But the existence of an independent China is already a fact. Refusal on the part of Washington to accept it will cause more than theoretical problems, and therein lies the real danger. “ (Italics, jw)
To remedy that “real danger” is the purpose of this book as the author explains in these words:
“So built up in the imagination of many Americans has been the threat China allegedly poses to them and their families, that the determined opponent of the fake China Threat must venture onto the tiresome grounds of so-called ‘Great Power competition.’ He must then make estimations of relative power that, as it happens, largely buttress the case against Washington doing anything other than seeking normal relations with Beijing… The purpose of this book is to put in one place and in concise form the arguments why the interests of the American people are not served by confrontation with China. The task is an urgent one.”
Solis-Mullen succeeds on all counts in that task. The book is indeed concise, a mere 65 pages, albeit in small print, and with extensive footnotes to satisfy the reader seeking more evidence or deeper understanding.
History, empathy, the military, and the economy
The author begins with a capsule history of Sino-US relations, really an account of the West’s interaction with China beginning in the early 19th Century and leading to a century of colonial exploitation and oppression which the Chinese refer to as the Hundred Years of Humiliation. Next, he proceeds to a view of how Beijing sees the world, in other words an attempt to see the world as our official enemies do, one of the main requisites for a peaceful world, all too often forgotten by would be champions of peace. And he returns to these themes later in the book with a quick review of “Chinese Foreign Policy Historically.” One truth that emerges from this treatment is that China’s development of its military is reactive rather than aggressive, the result of the Century of Humiliation and the latest buildup of US forces ringing China since Obama launched his Pivot to Asia in 2011 which successor administrations have built on and developed further. The way to peace one concludes is to stop poking the Panda lest it morph into a fire breathing Dragon.
A central question is taken up in a chapter entitled “China’s Internal Problems and External Constraints.” The author argues, incorrectly I believe, that China’s demographics and geography put limits on its economic might. But we have heard such arguments in the past and they always come up short; China keeps surprising the pundits of the West. But Solis-Mullen argues that both his pessimistic view of China’s economic prospects and my optimistic view are irrelevant when it comes to America’s course of action.
Either China is very strong, he says, “in which case antagonizing China over issues directly in its backyard is stupid; or actually China is quite weak in which case antagonizing China in its backyard is unnecessary and counterproductive.” He continues, “In any event is hard to hard to imagine how the life of the average American would be improved by courting conflict with China, while it is quite easy to imagine countless ways in which it could be made worse.”
The Uyghurs
One of the most powerful sections of the book is chapter 8, “Uyghurs, Genocides and Realities,” where the Uyghur “genocide” hoax is debunked. One need only visit Xinjiang, home of the Uyghurs, and compare it to Gaza, to see that the charge of genocide is wildly off the mark. It is easy to do this since China is encouraging tourism in Xinjiang. Most notably, Solis-Mullen points out, the UN has not charged China with genocide despite entreaties from the US. And the US State Department seems to have dropped the term, at least for now. Most satisfyingly, the work of Adrian Zenz, who has provided much of the “documentation” to justify the charge of genocide, is called out. Zenz, Solis-Mullen informs us, is “a German anthropologist of frankly questionable scholastic character and fitness,” citing as evidence the excellent work of Max Blumenthal and Gareth Porter at The Grayzone. (See also the articles by Ajit Singh here.). The Uyghur genocide hoax makes for an excellent case history instructing us on how false narratives are constructed to advance anti-China sentiment. The chapter “Who Writes About the Fake China Threat and Why” adds more to the picture.
Solis-Mullen’s book is solidly in the American tradition of anti-interventionism which has been struggling to make itself felt since it was smothered at the end of WWII. He declares he is driven by enlightened self-interest, that most valuable form of selfishness, telling us: “It is the lives, liberty, property and the prosperity of my fellow Americans that I seek to defend in doing what I can to discredit the fake China Threat.”
John V. Walsh
The Newly Elected Leader of Taiwan Says He’s the Only Legitimate Ruler over All of China
The newly elected leader of Taiwan, Lai Ching-te, said in his May 20 inaugural speech, that all of China is one country, which is ruled by the leader of Taiwan, himself. His argument for this was that when the forces of (the Truman-backed) Chiang Kai-shek, who were beaten by the forces of Mao Tse-tung, escaped to the Japanese-occupied island of Taiwan after Japan was defeated in WW2, they set up a Government there and proclaimed it to be the Government of China and created a ‘Constitution’ for it that asserted itself to be the Constitution for all of China.
However, according to the “Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan)”, which was publicly announced on 1 January 1947, that narrative is simply not true: the escapees from mainland China who had set up that government in Taiwan, made no claim at that time alleging they controlled and ruled over anything but “Taiwan.” (On the other hand, the Truman Administration got Taiwan’s government appointed to the China-seats at the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly, and this remained in force until 25 October 1971 when mainland China received those seats instead.)
Lai’s speech ignored this historical fact — that the Constitution alleged to pertain only to Taiwan — and stated the opposite, by using the following argument:
We have a nation insofar as we have sovereignty. Right in the first chapter of our Constitution, it says that “The sovereignty of the Republic of China shall reside in the whole body of citizens,” and that “Persons possessing the nationality of the Republic of China shall be citizens of the Republic of China.” These two articles tell us clearly: The Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China are not subordinate to each other. All of the people of Taiwan must come together to safeguard our nation; all our political parties ought to oppose annexation and protect sovereignty; and no one should entertain the idea of giving up our national sovereignty in exchange for political power.
The U.S.-empire propaganda vehicle, Britain’s Financial Times, grudgingly headlined on May 21, “China has a point about Taiwan’s new leader: Lai Ching-te’s language on sovereignty has already strayed from the path taken by his more cautious predecessor”, and reported:
China is right to say that Lai is straying from the path of his predecessor Tsai Ing-wen — a leader whom China refused to engage but who managed to keep a delicate peace. And some question the wisdom of taking such a gamble at a time of high tension.
“Lai’s stance is a step back towards more confrontation, undoing much of Tsai’s line,” says Chao Chun-shan, a Taiwan academic who advised Tsai and her three predecessors on China policy. He argues that it puts China’s leader Xi Jinping in a difficult spot. “Xi doesn’t want a showdown now, before the result of the US election is clear.”
Lai ran for president with a pledge to follow Tsai’s China policy and preserve the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. …
But critics say Lai deviated from his promises this week during an inaugural address that used conspicuously different language, while also spelling out some of the facts that most jar Beijing.
They failed to identify what ‘facts’ they were referring to there, but said only:
He cited the ROC constitution’s language that sovereignty resides with the people, who are of ROC nationality. “This tells us clearly: the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China are not subordinate to each other,” he concluded.
While this textual analysis may verge on hair splitting, China policy experts say Lai is in danger of upending the ambiguity that has provided political space to allow Beijing’s territorial claim to sit alongside Taiwan’s de facto independence without sparking conflict.
“He is raising the stakes by stressing a difference in sovereignty between the two countries,” says Tso Chen-dong, a professor at National Taiwan University who has advised the Kuomintang (KMT), the opposition party that embraces the notion of Taiwan being part of a greater Chinese nation. The KMT argues the ROC’s territory, under its constitution, still includes all of China; what divides it from Beijing is not a battle over sovereignty, but a question of jurisdiction.
Even the pro U.S-empire “Course Hero” online site gets the history here right when it says:
In 1949, China ended a long civil war. The victorious communist forces led by Mao Zedong established their capital in Beijing. About two million supporters of the losing side, known as the nationalists, retreated to Taiwan. China was divided between two governments, one on the mainland and one in Taiwan, that each considered itself China’s legitimate ruler. The government on the mainland never gave up its claim on Taiwan, and Taiwan never declared independence.
Lai did in his inaugural speech go even beyond declaring Taiwan’s independence — he declared himself to be the ruler of all of China, including mainland China. He is demanding to reverse the fact that Mao won that civil war and that Chiang lost the civil war.
By contrast, the Financial Times article said “Lai spoke of ‘China’ throughout. He also tackled the controversial issue of sovereignty head-on.”
The tactics by which U.S.-and-allied propaganda-vehicles warp meanings, and warp realities, 180 degrees to their exact opposites, are instructive models for any of the sophistry professions.
Also on May 21, the house-organ of the real China headlined “’Lai-style Taiwan independence’ agenda is a dead-end: Global Times editorial” and opened:
On May 20, Lai Ching-te assumed the role of Taiwan region’s new leader and delivered his inaugural speech. Lai shamelessly stated in his speech that “the Republic of China Taiwan is a sovereign, independent nation” and “the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China are not subordinate to each other,” spewing various “Taiwan independence” fallacies and hostile provocations against the Chinese mainland, once again exposing his stubborn nature as “a worker for Taiwan independence.” This speech can be described as a blatant “Taiwan independence manifesto” and “a declaration of harm to Taiwan.” It is extremely dangerous, and the Taiwan compatriots should be particularly vigilant and united in opposition.
We noticed that in this speech, the term “democracy” was mentioned 31 times, and “peace” 21 times, which precisely exposes the anxiety of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities – they are well aware that what they are doing now is pushing Taiwan into a dangerous pit of war and danger, hence desperately using “democracy” as a fig leaf and talisman to cover themselves. It is clear to all discerning eyes that the so-called “democracy” is nothing but inferior makeup smeared on the face of “Taiwan independence,” unable to conceal its true face of “seeking independence by relying on foreign support and by force.”
In the positioning of cross-Straits relations, Lai boldly defines the two sides of the Straits as “two countries,” listing “Taiwan,” “Republic of China Taiwan,” and “Republic of China” as so-called “national names,” further advancing on the “one China, one Taiwan” path of “Taiwan independence.” This blatant “two states” theory cannot change the fact that Taiwan is only a part of China, nor can it stop the historical trend of reunification of the motherland. Its only effect is to exacerbate the tension in the Taiwan Straits and make Taiwan society pay a high price for the reckless gamble of “Taiwan independence.”
While treating compatriots from the mainland as “foreigners,” Lai in his speech regards Western anti-China forces as “family members,” throughout the speech filled with servility and begging for mercy from Western anti-China forces, which is very shameful. In order to gain the support of Western anti-China forces, he claims that “the world greeting a new Taiwan,” Taiwan is “an important link in the global chain of democracies,” ” Taiwan is strategically positioned in the first island chain,” and so on. These remarks of selling out Taiwan treat the hard-earned social achievements and wealth accumulated by the Taiwan residents for decades as offerings to anti-China forces in the West, reducing Taiwan to a pawn of the US and giving it the appearance of “unworthy descendants.”
Even more dangerous is the subtle manifestation of the arrogant ambition of “seeking independence by force” in his speech. On the one hand, Lai echoes the fallacies of certain Western countries, smearing the mainland as a “threat”; on the other hand, he attempts to indoctrinate the residents in Taiwan into cannon fodder for “Taiwan independence,” openly advocating for raising the citizens’ “defense awareness,” fully exposing the sinister intention of sacrificing innocent people on the island for the selfish desire of “Taiwan independence.” …
The U.S. Government said, and signed with China’s Government, in 1972, the Shanghai Communique, including “The U.S. side declared: The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.” George W. Bush’s Administration tried unsuccessfully in 2007 to outlaw internationally the phrase “Taiwan is a part of China”; and, so, the Shanghai Communique has remained the official U.S. Government policy to this day. (It hopes to get China to invade Taiwan in order for the U.S. to have a supposed pretext to then ‘defend that independent nation’ ‘against China’s aggression’, by invading China.)
On 19 July 2023, I headlined and documented “Biden Wants to Invade/Conquer China”. It opened:
His plan is to arm Taiwan and entice it to announce its complete independence from China — that Taiwan is no mere province of China but instead an independent country — which announcement would then immediately force China either to invade China or else to accept Taiwan’s becoming a separate and independent country.
Taiwan’s new leader has complied with that, even in his inaugural address. Will Biden go to war against China in the months leading up to the November 5 U.S. elections if China invades Taiwan in order to make clear to Taiwan’s voters that they had been suckered by U.S.-imperial propaganda to choose as their ‘President’ someone who would declare that Taiwan is not only independent of China but ruling over China? How much international backing would the U.S. regime have if it did that?
Taiwan’s billionaires — like Taiwan’s public — are hardly unified about whether Taiwan should concede that it is a Province of China (as it long had been), On 7 August 2023, the Hong Kong based South China Morning Post headlined “Two titans of tech are offering two very different views of Taiwan” and reported that whereas Foxconn’s leader Terry Guo was opposed to the independence movement and thought it wouldn’t win power, “Morris Chang, founder of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) who is often called the godfather of the island’s tech industry, said he didn’t think there was likely to be a war across the Taiwan Strait,” and,
We all hope he is right, but of course he would say that. After all, some Washington politicians have openly declared that at the first sign of conflict, the US military would blow up all of TSMC chip foundries to deny them to the mainland Chinese.
These billionaires are aware that the independence movement threatens them, but do nothing about it. On the other hand, Radio Taiwan International headlined on 16 August 2022, “UMC Founder: KMT needs to give up ‘one China policy’” and opened:
United Microelectronics (UMC) Founder Robert Tsao says the Kuomintang (KMT) party needs to give up its one China policy. He made the remarks in an interview with Radio Taiwan International on Tuesday. The UMC is the world’s second-largest contract microchip maker.
Tsao recently announced he is donating NT$3 billion (US$100 million) for Taiwan’s defense. As China has been elevating its military threat against Taiwan, he said the people of Taiwan need to be determined to strengthen the nation’s defense abilities to deter China from attacking Taiwan.
He criticized the opposition KMT’s 1992 Consensus policy in which Taiwan and China agree to one China, but each side has its own interpretation. He said that’s because China has never accepted another interpretation.
On 15 January 2024, Australia’s Financial Review bannered “Billionaire urges Taiwan to ‘prepare for the worst’”, and reported:
Billionaire Robert Tsao warns that Taiwan’s 23 million people must be prepared for an eventual war with China, even though the risk of an invasion has eased while Xi Jinping fights economic challenges at home.
The 76-year-old founder of one of Taiwan’s first semiconductor manufacturers has retired from big business to devote his life to what he believes is protecting the island nation’s interests from its aggressive neighbour.
So, not only is he not doing nothing about it, but he is actually encouraging what America’s Government is encouraging (by its donating U.S. weapons to Taiwan): an open public declaration of Taiwan’s independence from China.
The only difference from Lai’s policy is that the policy of Tsao and unofficially of the current U.S. Government is that Taiwan and China are two separate countries and are at war against each other.
That policy, of course, is exactly what the world’s biggest armaments manufacturers, which are headquartered in the United States, would want and lobby for. Whether Tsao is receiving any behind-the-scenes financial benefits from the U.S. for this isn’t yet known
Eric Zuesse is an investigative historian. His new book, America's Empire of Evil: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
