Trilateral Commission

Rona Ambrose was a Member of the Trilateral Commission as reported in Vancouver's Georgia Straight, August 24, 2006.

Well shucks who knew. The Trilateral Commission is the public face of the those other secret societies of the corporatist ruling class like the Bilderbergers and the Davos Forum.

It is the original source for George Bush Seniors announcement of the New World Order.

Managing the International System Over the Next Ten Years: Three Essays
The Trilateral Commission (© 1997)
Bill Emmott, Koji Watanabe and Paul Wolfowitz

The 2006 annual meeting of the Trilateral Commission dealt with "Globalisation and Governance".

The Commission, which operates through three regional secretariats, coordinates task forces on a variety of pressing issues in international affairs and meets in regional groups as well as in an annual three-day plenary to discuss these studies and to share perspectives on common political, economic, and foreign policy challenges. The task force reports are published as a series called The Triangle Papers. Also, a report on the annual meeting is published each year as part of the Trialogue series. The annual meeting of Trilateral Commission members rotates among the three regions.

Holly Sklars book remains one of the best on the Trilateral Commission and it's importance in setting the agenda for Globalization, without falling into the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories that abound around ruling class institutions like these. As I wrote in my article; Conspiracy Theory or Ruling Class Studies

"The Trilateral Commission is international and is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the U.S." -- attributed to Senator Barry Goldwater.

The new "trilateralism" reflects the realization that the international system now requires "a truly common management," as the Commission reports indicate. The trilateral powers must order their internal relations and face both the Russian bloc, now conceded to be beyond the reach of Grand Area planning, and the Third World. Noam Chomsky: The Carter Administration: Myth and Reality

A Trilateral Commission Task Force Report, presented at the 1975 meeting in Kyoto, Japan, called An Outline for Remaking World Trade and Finance, said: "Close Trilateral cooperation in keeping the peace, in managing the world economy, and in fostering economic development and in alleviating world poverty, will improve the chances of a smooth and peaceful evolution of the global system." Another Commission document read: "The overriding goal is to make the world safe for interdependence by protecting the benefits which it provides for each country against external and internal threats which will constantly emerge from those willing to pay a price for more national autonomy. This may sometimes require slowing the pace at which interdependence proceeds, and checking some aspects of it. More frequently however, it will call for checking the intrusion of national government into the international exchange of both economic and non-economic goods." In other words, they were promoting world government by encouraging economic interdependence among the superpowers.

The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973, and it is widely perceived as an off-shoot of the Council On Foreign Relations. According to Christopher Lydon, writing in the July 1977 Atlantic, "The Trilateral Commission was David Rockefeller's brainchild." At the time, David Rockefeller was Chairman of the Council On Foreign Relations, having been elected to that post in 1970. David Rockefeller became the founding Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, which consists of leaders in business, banking, government and mass media from North America, Europe, and Japan invited to join by Rockefeller himself.

A related purpose of the Trilateral Commission was to promote cooperation among the industrialized countries in the face of an emerging bloc of Arab, African and Asian states which had come to dominate the General Assembly of the United Nations.

But the Trilateralists did not want to give up on the United Nations. The economic and political elites of America and Europe seek international political power in order to provide a stable investment climate, including protection against nationalization of their assets.

At the same time, the international bankers and multi- national corporations have gained much of their wealth through partnership with government. The corporate elite look to governments for lucrative contracts; taxpayer subsidized financing; and protection from competition.

The international bankers and multinational corporations have exploited two UN financial agencies in particular - the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. But they have relied on their own national governments to attempt to protect their foreign investments.

The politicians have looked to a strengthened United Nations for a different reason. Politicians seek power. Control over their own government is all too often only a beginning to their ambition. History is littered with corpses who mutely testify to the imperial ambitions and arrogance of politicians.

In 1973, the U.S. was winding down its involvement in Vietnam. The Vietnam War had proved to be a costly mistake, and had turned a majority of the American people against the idea of military intervention in other countries.

As noted, the Trilateral Commission was founded in 1973, in the midst of the Middle East oil crisis. The ostensible cause of the oil crisis was a decision by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to dramatically raise the posted price for oil, with the price hike enforced by limited production quotas for each member country.

11 Jun 1993 The Washington Times reports: "Presidential counsellor David Gergen resigned yesterday from the all-male Bohemian Club, three days after saying he would not run around naked at its annual Bohemian Grove encampment and insisting he would not quit. White House spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers announced the resignation along with Mr. Gergen's departure from 17 other interest groups, charities and public boards ranging from the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group and Council on Foreign Relations."

For Canadians our concern has to be that the Trilateralists promote deep integration starting with the original Mulroney Reagan FTA followed by NAFTA evolving into a continental alliance,or North American Union, including shared monetary standards.

Canadians On the Trilateral Commission 2005 appointments

Rona Ambrose, Member of Parliament, Ottawa, ON

Maurizio Bevilacqua, Member of Parliament, Ottawa, ON

Arthur A. DeFehr, President and Chief Executive Officer, Palliser Furniture, Winnipeg, MB

André Desmarais, President and Co-Chief Executive Officer, Power Corporation of Canada, Montréal, QC; Deputy Chairman, Power Financial Corporation

Peter C. Dobell, Founding Director, Parliamentary Centre, Ottawa, ON

Wendy K. Dobson, Professor and Director, Institute for International Business, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON; former Canadian Associate Deputy Minister of Finance

Peter C. Godsoe, Chairman of Fairmont Hotels & Resorts; Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Scotiabank, Toronto, ON

*Allan E. Gotlieb, Senior Advisor, Stikeman Elliott, Toronto, ON; Chairman, Sotheby’s, Canada; former Canadian Ambassador to the United States; North American Deputy Chairman, Trilateral Commission

E. Peter Lougheed, Senior Partner, Bennett Jones, Barristers & Solicitors, Calgary, AB; former Premier of Alberta

Roy MacLaren, former Canadian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom; former Canadian Minister of International Trade; Toronto, ON

John A. MacNaughton, former President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Toronto, ON

Brian Mulroney, Senior Partner, Ogilvy Renault, Barristers and Solicitors, Montréal, QC; former Prime Minister of Canada

Hartley Richardson, President and Chief Executive Officer, James Richardson & Sons, Ltd., Winnipeg, MB

Gordon Smith, Director, Centre for Global Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC; Chairman, Board of Governors, International Development Research Centre; former Canadian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Personal Representative of the Prime Minister to the Economic Summit

Ronald D. Southern, Chairman, ATCO Group, Calgary, AB

Barbara Stymiest, Chief Operating Officer, RBC Financial Group, Toronto, ON

See:

Bilderberg

Conspiracy Theory

Conspiracy

Ruling Class



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Rona Ambrose, Trilateral Commission, CFR, Bilderberg, Davos, Secret Societies, NWO, New World Order, Globalization, Conspiracy, Conspiracy theory, Bohemian Grove, Conspiracy Theories, Ruling Class, Chomsky, Carter, Bush, UN

 

Trilateral Militarization: From Missiles to Nukes

The trilateral militarization of the US, Japan and the Philippines has officially started. From missiles to nuclearization, it could cast a dark shadow over the Philippines and Southeast Asia.

by Dan Steinbock Posted onApril 18, 2024

In the Philippines, the proponents of the trilateral alliance frame it as a response to the “threat of assertive China.” In reality, the unwarranted trilateral alliance seems to be the result of a longstanding US maritime counter-insurgency (COIN) campaign, resting on the work of the US Navy Department and other US interests.

The purpose of the campaign has been to escalate the South China Sea friction in international media to justify trilateral militarization.

In the Philippines, the concern for escalation is fairly widespread. On Friday former president Duterte warned in Chinese media that “the US is trying to provoke a war between China and the Philippines,” expressing his hope that the Philippines can change course to “resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.”

The trilateral alliance seems to be a prelude to a massive rearmament drive that has potential to undermine and possibly collapse the expected Asian Century of peace and development.  

Nuclearization via QUAD and AUKUS              

In March 2023, US President Joe Biden held a press conference on the AUKUS partnership with UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego, California. A glimpse of the Asian future was provided by the nuclear-powered USS Missouri submarine, which was visibly in the background. It was meant to be a signal to China.

Ironically, the net effect is rising nuclearization in the South China Sea by countries that are not located in the ASEAN territories. The US-led multilateral security framework targeting China rests on the QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) between the US, Japan, Australia and India. AUKUS is more actionable. It seeks to hem in China’s moves with a nested military network, including sharing advanced military technologies like nuclear-powered submarines. The first subs will be built in the UK by late 2030s and in Australia after 2040.

In the interest of time, the US plans to forward-deploy Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines, coupled with the UK’s similar Astute-class subs, to a naval base near Perth in Western Australia, already by 2027. AUKUS is also likely to expand in 2024 or early 2025. Japan and Canada are in line to join the so-called pillar 2 section of the AUKUS agreement, while US is courting South Korea and New Zealand.

From the Chinese viewpoint, the US is expanding the AUKUS military alliance by “forming a mini-NATO in Asia, which poses unprecedented threats and challenges to the region’s prosperity and stability.” The track-record – from Iraq and Afghanistan to Ukraine and Gaza – is not assuring.

But nuclearization takes time. Hence, the missiles.

Missiles and militarization             

As veteran political analyst Francisco Tatad writes, “Marcos sees China as the source of the danger, but he does not say why our two countries should be going to war with each other over some pieces of stone in the vast disputed sea.” Tatad asks, “Whose war must we prepare for?”

The question about “whose war” remains blurry, unlike the question “how” that war could begin. Due to the 2019 expiration of the previously banned Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the U.S. is planning to deploy ground-based intermediate-range missiles in the Indo-Pacific already in 2024, thus establishing its first arsenal in the region since the end of the Cold War.

Missiles over South China Sea?

The Arleigh-Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) launches a Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) during a live-fire test of the ship’s aegis weapons system (Pacific Ocean, June 19, 2014). Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Originally developed by the huge US defense contractor Raytheon, which has played a key role in Ukraine’s devastation, these missiles feature land-based versions of the Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) and the Tomahawk cruise missile, with ranges between 500 and 2,700 kilometers (photo right). Tomahawks in particular have been used from the Gulf War to Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Reportedly, the U.S. Army will send the intermediate-range missile units primarily to the U.S. territory of Guam, looking for more forward deployment to Asian allies in a contingency. These allies, like Philippines, are likely expected to be open to “rotational deployments in crises.”

Responding to a crisis in the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea will require missiles that can reach targets in those critical waterways or the Chinese mainland. This means an extended deployment near the “first island chain,” which stretches from Japan’s Okinawa islands to Taiwan and, yes, the Philippines.

A decade of steps toward militarization

The US Naval Department’s involvement seems to have intensified since the mid-2010s, when the late foreign secretary Albert F. del Rosario had a key role in the creation of the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), which opened the country to U.S. military, ships, and planes; for the first time since 1991. A year later, Rosario met Obama’s then-deputy secretary of state Antony Blinken in Manila, aiming at bigger bilateral commitments.

Toward deeper military alignments

(Left) Foreign Affairs Secretary del Rosario and then-Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Manila in Nov. 2015. (Center) Foreign Affairs Secretary Locsin, Jr. and INDOPACOM Commander Adm. John C. Aquilino in Aug, 2021. (Right) Gen. Romeo Brawner, Jr., Chief of Staff and Adm. Aquilino in Mar. 2024.  Source: DFA, DFA-OPCD.

President Duterte’s electoral triumph in 2016 caused a six-year breather in the ambitious plans. Militarization began to move ahead in 2021, when Admiral John C. Aquilino, Commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), met foreign secretary Locsin, Jr. Adm. Aquilino welcomed bilateral progress as “a huge leap forward” and US press release described the ties as an “alliance.”

Aquilino’s calls matter. The INDOPACOM is the largest of six geographic combatant commands of the US Armed Forces. It is responsible for all U.S. military activities in the Indo-Pacific region.

But nothing was set in stone, yet. President Marcos Jr had pledged building on Duterte legacy and nurturing strong ties with both the US and China, like most ASEAN nations. But these pledges had to go. They were misaligned with the Big Defense’s plans for Manila.

In October 2022, Senator Imee Marcos, chair of Philippine foreign relations committee, still pled in Washington: “Do not make us choose between the United States and China.” But prior to the address, her younger brother, President Marcos had met President Biden and discussed “the full breadth of issues in the alliance.” Subsequently, major electoral pledges turned upside down and trilateral mobilization became an inflated response to a deflated problem.

Rightly, columnist Rigoberto Tiglao wondered why the Philippines should go to war with China, its biggest trading partner, over a dispute that “is solely over Ayungin Shoal, a permanently submerged, useless small area.”

Militarization benefited the Pentagon and the Big Defense. But what exactly did Manila get in return, except for risks?

More bases, more targets: 9, 15, or 20 sites?

In spring early 2023, President Marcos Jr. granted U.S. forces access to four new bases, in addition to five existing bases included under the expanded Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). The decision was opposed vehemently by several provinces and municipalities in the target areas. But these concerns were quickly suppressed as “unnecessary.” Even the Congress proved oddly numb about the seismic foreign policy shift, despite its huge economic and geopolitical implications.

And yet, in September, Adm. Aquilino returned to the Philippines to discuss “opportunities for increased multilateral cooperation, maritime security initiatives, and the upcoming exercise Balikatan.” The U.S. had added 63 projects for the EDCA sites on top of the previously-approved 32. These projects included multipurpose storage facilities, road networks and fuel storage, “among others.” Although the U.S. officially has only “rotational access” to the Philippines bases, it had allocated over $109 million towards infrastructure improvements at some seven EDCA locations.

Presumably, the Philippines is to serve as a logistical platform, to tie China in the South China Sea (SCS) before a potential Taiwan crisis. But more is needed. Or as Radio Free Asia reported: “The US is seeking access to more bases in the Philippines on top of nine sites already included under an expanded pact.”

Just weeks later, in a Senate hearing, Senator Robinhood Padilla addressed the presence of a US Navy Poseidon aircraft circling overhead during a resupply mission, suggesting that the US naval presence unnecessarily caused an escalation between China and the Philippines. Instead of welcoming Padilla’s comments as an opening for a democratic debate on the pros and cons of the foreign policy U-turn, the questions were hush-hushed away.

Eclipse of Southeast Asian economic engines

Until recently, Japan and the Philippines were reluctant to host new American capabilities, to avoid becoming an immediate target of the Chinese military in a crisis. As economic challenges are amounting in both countries, things are changing.

But us trilateral mobilization the only option?

While affirming the strong US-Philippines bilateral alliance in the 2022 CSIS event, senator Imee Marcos affirmed the broad US-Philippines address, but it was not exclusive with “engagement with China, including joint development, confidence-building measures, and a code of conduct in the South China Sea.” In a multipolar world, there is room for multiple power centers.

Against widespread criticism and skepticism in the ASEAN, the proponents of the trilateral militarization portray it as a pillar of “peace and stability” in the region. They live in a parallel universe. As several ASEAN leaders have warned, trilateral mobilization has potential to split Southeast Asia and bury the Asian Century. 

Dr. Dan Steinbock is an internationally recognized strategist of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (USA), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net.

 A version of the commentary was published by China-US Focus on April 12, 2024. 

TECHNOCRACY THE NEW WORLD ORDER

Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order 


by Patrick Wood (Author) 
Format: Kindle Edition

https://tinyurl.com/yazkxzdh

In 1974, Trilateral Commission member and academic Richard Gardner wrote an article "The Hard Road to World Order" for Foreign Affairs magazine, predicting the future of the Commission's self-proclaimed New International Economic Order. Gardner spoke of an "end-run around national sovereignty", a "booming, buzzing confusion" and building it from the "bottom up" rather than attempting an "old-fashioned frontal assault."After almost 45 years, it is time to examine the record. In Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, Wood traces the steps and developments that led to the United Nations' establishment of Sustainable Development as an outgrowth of historic Technocracy from the 1930s. UN programs such as 2030 Agenda, New Urban Agenda and the Paris Climate Agreement are all working together to displace Capitalism and Free Enterprise as the world's principal economic system. As a resource-based economic system, Sustainable Development intends to take control of all resources, all production and all consumption on planet earth, leaving all of its inhabitants to be micro-managed by a Scientific Dictatorship. Topics covered include the devolution of federal governments combined with the rise of global Smart Cities. Tools are examined, like ubiquitous surveillance, collaborative governance, Public-Private Partnerships, Reflexive Law, Fintech, including crypto currencies and the drive toward a cashless society. The spiritual aspect of Sustainable Development is also explored as an important component of manipulation. Looking underneath the cover of globalization, Wood shatters the false narrative of a promised Utopia and exposes the true nature of the deception used to promote this new economic order. Those elite who hate the bedrock of American liberty and its time-tested Constitution have pulled out all the stops to destroy both, and it's time for citizens to stand up to reject them. As always, Wood closes with the nature of effective resistance and the tools that can help to achieve success.

The dark horse of the New World Order is not Communism, Socialism or Fascism. It is Technocracy.

With meticulous detail and an abundance of original research, Patrick M. Wood uses Technocracy Rising to connect the dots of modern globalization in a way that has never been seen before so that the reader can clearly understand the globalization plan, its perpetrators and its intended endgame.

In the heat of the Great Depression during the 1930s, prominent scientists and engineers proposed a utopian energy-based economic system called Technocracy that would be run by those same scientists and engineers instead of elected politicians. Although this radical movement lost momentum by 1940, it regained status when it was conceptually adopted by the elitist Trilateral Commission (co-founded by Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller) in 1973 to be become its so-called "New International Economic Order."]

https://tinyurl.com/yaq3b7u9

In the ensuing 41 years, the modern expression of Technocracy and the New International Economic Order is clearly seen in global programs such as Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Councils of Governments, Smart Growth, Smart Grid, Total Awareness surveillance initiatives and more.

Wood contends that the only logical outcome of Technocracy is Scientific Dictatorship, as already seen in dystopian literature such as Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932) and Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell (1948), both of whom looked straight into the face of Technocracy when it was still in its infancy.

With over 250 footnotes, an extensive bibliography and clarity of writing style, Wood challenges the reader to new levels of insight and understanding into the clear and present danger of Technocracy, and how Americans might be able to reject it once again.

OMG HERE ARE THE SECRET PLANS OF THE NWO

     

Policy Innovations Transformative Change - Local 2030 ...

https://www.local2030.org › library › Policy-Innovations-for-Transformativ...

Oct 4, 2016 - Societies across the world are facing many complex ... Pathways to transformative change for sustainable development ... Chapter 2: New Trends and Innovations in Social Policy ... Government policies are key for upscaling, capacity building and facilitating ... the creation of carbon markets or incentives for.

HURRAH AN ORGANIZATION; TECHNOCRACY THAT BARELY EXISTS THIS GUY SAYS THEY ARE THE NEW CONSPIRACY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD

I LOVE THIS SCIENCE FICTION STUFF AS A HERESIOLOGIST, A HERESY HAS A HERESY OPPOSING IT.

BUT OF COURSE IT ALL BEGINS WITH THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0986373923/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i2
This is the documented story of the organization and members of the Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, with the specific purpose of creating a "New International Economic Order". With an small but powerful international membership hand-picked by an executive committee, Commissioners asserted undue influence over America, Japan and Europe. In 1976, Trilateral members James Earl Carter and Walter Mondale were elected to head the Executive Branch in the U.S., thus starting a 40 year hegemony over the greatest economic nation on earth. American influence and position was used to reform international trade, promote globalization and interdependence among nations. European Trilateral members were then instrumental in using the United Nations to create a doctrine of Sustainable Development and Green Economy: See Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (Wood, 2015) for details. Originally written in 1979-1980, Trilaterals Over Washington quickly became a best-seller and over the course of about two years, sold over 75,000 copies internationally. The books were very well received for excellent scholarship and original research, and even became a frequently-used textbook in political science classes at many colleges in U.S. universities. The co-author, Professor Antony C. Sutton, passed in 2002 having authored 24 books during a distinguished academic career that included UCLA and the Hoover Institution at 
Stanford University.

Since at least 1973, the engine of globalization has been the troika of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements. Acting in concert with each other, national barriers were broken down and national assets were often raided with impunity. Biography
Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy.

He is the author of Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.

Wood remains a leading expert on the elitist Trilateral Commission, their policies and achievements in creating their self-proclaimed “New International Economic Order” which is the essence of Sustainable Development on a global scale.

An economist by education, a financial analyst and writer by profession and an American Constitutionalist by choice, Wood maintains a Biblical world view and has deep historical insights into the modern attacks on sovereignty, property rights and personal freedom. Such attacks are epitomized by the implementation of U.N. policies such as Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth and in education, the widespread adoption of Common Core State Standards.


Wood is a frequent speaker and guest on radio shows around the nation. His current research builds on Trilateral Commission hegemony, focusing on Technocracy, Transhumanism and Scientism, and how these are transforming global economics, politics and religion.

THANK FNORD 

WW III

China watching closely as US, Japan, South Korea aim for 'de facto Asian NATO'

South China Morning Post
Tue, August 15, 2023 

China is said to be on "high alert" as US President Joe Biden hosts the leaders of Japan and South Korea at Camp David this week to deepen technological and defence ties - building what some observers have called a "de facto Asian Nato" on China's doorstep.

South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida will be joining Biden on Friday at the US presidential retreat in rural Maryland for the first three-way summit of its kind.

They are expected to announce plans for expanded cooperation on ballistic missile defence systems and technology development, senior US officials told Reuters.

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.

They are likely to also agree to set up a new three-way crisis hotline and gather annually in the future, Reuters quoted the officials as saying.

In Beijing, foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said China was opposed to "the cobbling together of various small circles by the countries concerned".

"[China] also opposes practices that exacerbate confrontation and jeopardise the strategic security of other countries," Wang said.

"The countries concerned should follow the trend of the times and do more that is conducive to regional peace, stability and prosperity."

Lu Chao, dean of the Institute of American and East Asian Studies at Liaoning University in northeastern China, said Friday's meeting could lead to a trilateral military alliance that would hit a nerve in Beijing.

"The [likely] mechanism of regular meetings among heads of state and the fixed mechanism of cooperation in the military aspect amount to the de facto formation of a three-way military alliance," Lu said.

While North Korea is expected to top the agenda, Beijing will be watching for specific references to Taiwan in the joint statement expected to be issued at the end of the summit, observers in mainland China said.

Beijing considers Taiwan a breakaway province to be eventually reunited, by force if needs be. While most countries, including the US, Japan and South Korea, do not recognise self-ruled Taiwan as an independent state, but oppose any attempt to take the island by force.

"China is on high alert for the summit, especially if the Taiwan issue is to be mentioned," Lu said.


"If they raise the Taiwan issue publicly at the summit, it would be seen as a strong provocation to China and will be a dangerous move for stability in the Asia-Pacific."

Taiwan's Vice President William Lai (centre left) chats with Ingrid D. Larson (right) managing director of the American Institute in Taiwan/Washington Office, upon arrival in New York on Sunday. Photo: Taiwan Presidential Office via AP alt=Taiwan's Vice President William Lai (centre left) chats with Ingrid D. Larson (right) managing director of the American Institute in Taiwan/Washington Office, upon arrival in New York on Sunday. Photo: Taiwan Presidential Office via AP>

The statement would also contain general observations on maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, though the exact wording was expected to be negotiated up until the last minute, an anonymous US official told Reuters.

Friday's summit comes after months of diplomacy by the Biden administration, which has tried to bring together Washington's treaty allies Japan and South Korea as part of a campaign to strengthen Asian military alliances to counter China.

The US signed the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security with Japan in 1951. In 1953, following the Korean war armistice, it signed a Mutual Defence Treaty with South Korea.

Tokyo and Seoul have a troubled history, especially over Japan's wartime excesses as well as territorial issues, but a rising China, Russia's militarism and a nuclear-armed North Korea are factors bringing the two neighbours closer to each other and the US.

Tensions had peaked from time to time, until a major thaw in recent months as Yoon, who took office in May last year, has sought to repair ties with Japan and launched a strategic pivot to the US, to tackle growing military challenges from North Korea and souring ties with China and Russia.

North Korea test-fired around 90 missiles last year, nearly four times its peak of 25 in 2017. Last month, it tested its latest Hwasong-18 intercontinental ballistic missile, saying it was a warning to the US and other adversaries.

During an inspection tour of a military factory last week, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un called for an increase in missile production to help secure "overwhelming military power" and be ready for war, state news agency KCNA reported.

This came days before annual joint US-South Korean military exercises due to begin on Monday.

Under the principle of collective defence in Article 5 of the Nato treaty, an attack against one ally is considered as an attack against all Nato members.

But Liu Jiangyong, an expert on regional affairs at Beijing's Tsinghua University, voiced scepticism about a trilateral alliance comparable to Nato.

"The three countries do not have the security commitments that Nato countries have with each other, and Japan and South Korea are security partners, not allies," Liu said.

The strategic goals of the three countries were also different, he said.

"The US may consider [its goals] from a global perspective, while Japan is largely targeting China ... South Korea, meanwhile, is trying to strengthen security cooperation with the US and Japan to build a greater military deterrent against North Korea."

However, he expected "joint military exercises and trilateral consultations against China" to continue.

In a speech on Tuesday marking the 78th anniversary of South Korea's liberation from Japanese colonial rule, Yoon said his country would step up security cooperation with the US and Japan in addressing the nuclear threat from North Korea.

Kim Jae-chun, an international relations professor at Sogang University in Seoul, also said any trilateral military technology cooperation would largely focus on North Korea.

"While previously the discussion remained on sharing the alert on North Korean missiles, now it will focus on the drills to intercept North Korean ballistic missiles using their radar and missile weapons systems," Kim said.

"I think it has a great meaning in deterring North Korean nuclear development. However, China will criticise South Korea's incorporation into the US missile defence system."

Kim said while the joint statement after the trilateral summit was not likely to point at China as a threat, the US-China rivalry had already turned into a strategic competition, regardless of the aims of the trilateral summit.

"The current trend shows that China-Russia-North Korea cooperation is strengthening in northeast Asia and US-South Korea-Japan ties are also increasing in response ... it appears that the two sides are containing each other."

This article originally appeared in the South China Morning Post (SCMP), the most authoritative voice reporting on China and Asia for more than a century. For more SCMP stories, please explore the SCMP app or visit the SCMP's Facebook and Twitter pages. Copyright © 2023 South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.

Copyright (c) 2023. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.

‘You can never become a Westerner:’ China’s top diplomat urges Japan and South Korea to align with Beijing and ‘revitalize Asia’

“No matter how blonde you dye your hair, how sharp you shape your nose, you can never become a European or American, you can never become a Westerner,” 


China's top diplomat Wang Yi attends the opening ceremony of the 2023 International Forum for Trilateral Cooperation in Qingdao, Shandong province on Monday. 

- Li Ziheng/Xinhua/Alamy Live News/AP

Nectar Gan
Wed, July 5, 2023 at 12:27 AM MDT·4 min read

China’s top diplomat has urged Japan and South Korea to foster a sense of “strategic autonomy” from the West and cooperate with Beijing to “revitalize Asia,” amid rising tensions between China and the two neighboring American allies.

The comments by Wang Yi on Monday come as Japan and South Korea forge closer relations with the United States – and mend ties with each other – driven by common concerns about Beijing’s growing influence and assertiveness in the region.

In a video shared by Chinese state media, Wang told Japanese and South Korean guests attending a trilateral forum in the eastern coastal city of Qingdao that most Americans and Europeans can’t tell China, Japan and South Korea apart.

“No matter how blonde you dye your hair, how sharp you shape your nose, you can never become a European or American, you can never become a Westerner,” Wang said. “We must know where our roots lie.”

Wang called for Japan and South Korea to work together with China to “prosper together, revitalize East Asia, revitalize Asia and benefit the world.”

Wang was speaking on the sidelines of the International Forum for Trilateral Cooperation, an annual event organized by Beijing, Tokyo and Seoul since 2011.

To experts on the region, Wang’s racialized comments harken back to the sentiment of racial pan-East Asian solidarity against the West in the early 20th century.

“Imperial Japan really leaned into that as it expanded, eventually declaring a ‘Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere’, with conquest styled as win-win racial liberation,” said Joel Atkinson, a professor specializing in Northeast Asian international politics at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in Seoul.

“The reality, of course, was Japanese ultra-nationalists destroyed all that good will in China and Korea in their attempt to replace Western influence with a new Japanese hegemony.”

Atkinson said Japan and South Korea are likely to find Wang’s pitch “unpersuasive” given a long list of assertive actions Beijing has taken toward both countries over the years.

“Unsurprisingly, China’s Northeast Asian neighbors are now resisting Beijing’s attempt to change the regional order in its favor,” he said.

“Both have made it clear they feel safer with the US around, and have no interest in abandoning their alliances to instead rely on Beijing’s goodwill.”

‘Strategic autonomy’

On Monday, Wang also addressed the forum’s opening ceremony in an effort to “send a clear signal” of the potential for the three neighbors’ regrouping, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

In his opening remarks, Wang called for Japan and South Korea to “promote inclusive Asian values, foster a sense of strategic autonomy, maintain regional unity and stability, resist the return of the Cold War mentality and be free of the coercion of bullying and hegemony,” the statement said.

“The fate of the region is firmly in our own hands,” Wang was quoted as saying.

Xi Jinping, China’s most powerful leader in decades, has pushed to expand Beijing’s role on the world stage with an increasingly assertive foreign policy that has fueled tensions with many of its neighbors and the West.

In recent years, the Biden administration has stepped up efforts to unite allies and like-minded partners to counter China’s rising influence in the Pacific, including with South Korea and Japan, two of its most important allies in Asia.

Their trilateral ties are furthered strengthened by security concerns about North Korea. The three countries have conducted joint military drills this year to boost their coordination against increasing North Korean missile threats.

They’ve also issued joint statements on tensions in the Taiwan Strait – an area both Tokyo and Seoul say is vital to their respective security – which drew the ire of Beijing.

In a thinly veiled swipe at the US, Wang on Monday accused “certain major powers outside the region” of “exaggerating ideological differences” to sow confrontation and division, in order to seek geopolitical gains, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

“If this trend is allowed to develop, it will not only seriously interfere with the smooth progress of trilateral cooperation, but also aggravate tension and confrontation in the region,” Wang added.

South Korean Foreign Minister Park Jin and Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi addressed the event via video link, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

East Asia's 'seismic shift': why China sees the Camp David summit as the start of a de facto military alliance


South China Morning Post
Sun, August 27, 2023 


As Washington inches closer to a de facto military alliance with Tokyo and Seoul, pundits have warned of the destabilising impact it could have on the regional power balance amid fears over escalating tensions between China and the US.

US President Joe Biden hailed the "new era" of a close security partnership between the three powers at a landmark trilateral summit held at Camp David over the weekend. While Biden also insisted the summit was not targeted at Beijing, a joint statement from the three powers voiced concerns about China's "dangerous and aggressive behaviour" in the South China Sea and its policy towards Taiwan.

On Monday, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin lashed out at the summit, which he said had "smeared and attacked China" and was "a deliberate attempt to sow discord between China and our neighbours". He compared the partnership to other US-led alliances such as Aukus with Britain and Australia and the Quad with India, Japan and Australia.

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.

"We see two trajectories in the Asia-Pacific [region] today," Wang said. "One features efforts to advance solidarity, cooperation and economic integration. The other features attempts to stoke division and confrontation and revive the Cold War mentality."

Seong-hyon Lee, a senior fellow at George H.W. Bush Foundation for US-China Relations, said by formalising the cooperation between the countries, the Camp David summit marked "a de facto military alliance without explicitly stating so".

"We are witnessing a seismic shift in the East Asian security landscape that we haven't seen for the last 100 years," he said, noting that Biden, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida agreed to hold summits and joint military drills annually.

The trio also agreed to set up a new hotline to share military intelligence, pledged to share real-time data on North Korea's missile launches and discussed measures to de-risk global supply chains from exposure to China.

Shi Yinhong, a professor of international affairs at Renmin University in Beijing, said although the summit fell short of announcing a military alliance, it marked a new stage of intensifying strategic coordination between Washington and China's neighbours.


In recent years, he said, both the US and Japan had stepped up "extensive, in-depth and specific" preparations for a possible conflict with China over Taiwan, which Beijing sees as a runaway province that must be reunited, by force if necessary. He added both countries had also implemented supply chain restructuring to further squeeze China's strategic and economic operating space.

"Under these circumstances, the establishment of a permanent military and economic security framework against China by the United States, Japan and South Korea was formally put on their joint agenda through effective coordination, and thus there was a Camp David meeting," Shi said.

For Beijing, the most important takeaway from the summit was the high degree of coordination on China-related issues between the three powers, against the backdrop of the Biden administration's "comprehensive suppression of China", said Zhu Feng, a professor of international affairs at Nanjing University.

Of the three nations, Zhu said South Korea's rapprochement with Japan and its change of heart on sensitive issues such as the South China Sea and Taiwan on Yoon's watch were particularly unexpected for Beijing.

"While the US, Japan and South Korea have established a tighter trilateral alignment on regional security issues, the summit also meant that Seoul has basically ended its years-long policy of maintaining a balance between the US and China," Zhu said.

"The fact that South Korea has effectively picked a side in the US-China rivalry will have a very important impact on China's peripheral security and its strategic competition with the US in East Asia."

Unlike Japan, South Korea used to be reluctant to side with the US on maritime disputes and cross-strait tensions. But since Yoon took office over a year ago, Seoul has sought closer military ties with Washington, improved strained ties with Tokyo and increasingly aligned itself with the two countries on China issues.

The three leaders, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, US President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio, formed what is being touted as a de facto military alliance at the Camp David summit. Photo: Getty Images via AFP alt=The three leaders, South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol, US President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio, formed what is being touted as a de facto military alliance at the Camp David summit. Photo: Getty Images via AFP>

Beijing recently stepped up pressure on Seoul, publicly criticising the Yoon administration's pro-US stance, particularly his pursuit of close security alignment with the US and Japan. In June, China's ambassador to South Korea Xing Haiming was caught in a diplomatic row when he warned that Seoul would "definitely regret it" if it bet against Beijing in the US-China rivalry.

Apart from Yoon's pivot towards the US, Zhu said China's Wolf Warrior-diplomacy in dealing with South Korea, especially following Seoul's deployment of a US missile defence system known as THAAD in 2016, had also had negative impacts on bilateral ties.

"Following Japan's lead, South Korea has accepted that its security and strategic concerns trump other issues, including business and economic interests," he said.

Benoit Hardy-Chartrand, an international affairs specialist at Temple University Japan in Tokyo, said Yoon's election in South Korea was the key factor in bringing the three countries together.

"Without [Yoon's] willingness to reach out to Japan despite the political risks it entailed, none of this would have been possible," he said.

"This highlights the potential fragility of the trilateral partnership. While we cannot ignore the geopolitical variables that brought them together, this partnership remains liable to the vagaries of domestic politics in South Korea and, to a lesser extent, Japan."

He noted that if a candidate from the progressive opposition, which is traditionally more anti-Japanese, won the 2027 presidential election in South Korea, it could "spell serious trouble for trilateral cooperation".

Hardy-Chartrand added that the other factors behind the summit included North Korea's repeated missile provocations, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and a shared perception among regional countries of a growing challenge posed by China.

"We cannot understate how significant the Camp David summit was. Leaders often tend to overhype such diplomatic events in order to score domestic points, but in this case, bringing the three leaders together for the first Japan-South Korea-US stand-alone summit was not only a diplomatic success for Biden, but also a sign of the widening fractures in regional geopolitics," he said.

Zhiqun Zhu, an international relations professor from Bucknell University in Pennsylvania, said the summit served to underline that the world was being divided into two Cold War-style camps, with the US and its allies on one side, and China, other authoritarian regimes and some developing countries on the other.

"As the Biden administration galvanises support from its allies in Europe and Asia in competing with China, tensions will not only grow between the US and China, but also between China and its Asian neighbours," he said.

"As a result, East Asia will become more unstable, and the dangers of conflict in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea will increase."

Zhu cautioned against what he called "a misguided belief" among the US and its allies that by strengthening security alliances, China would be deterred on issues such as Taiwan and the South China Sea.

"This miscalculation unfortunately underestimates China's will and preparedness to defend what it considers 'core' national interests," he said.

In response to the US, he said we could see China consolidate its relationships with Russia and other countries in its own circles, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and Brics, which held a summit in Johannesburg this week.

However, he said China should take a long view and wait for political changes in the US, South Korea and Japan before taking any action.

"After all, Biden may be out of office after the 2024 election, and approval ratings of both Yoon and Kishida are lacklustre at home. Nevertheless, it is unwise for China to confront the US head-on now, especially when Beijing is facing serious domestic challenges now," Zhu said.

Lee pointed to a possible weakness of the partnership: the three leaders' focus primarily on security "at a time when people are more concerned about the economy".

"If these moves do not yield economic benefits, they risk facing domestic political backlash," he said, adding that the leaders were trying to advance an economic partnership that complemented their security cooperation.

Kim Hyun-wook, a professor at Korea National Diplomatic Academy, also said domestic politics, especially leadership reshuffles, remained the biggest challenge for the trilateral partnership.

"If Trump wins the election [next year], the future of trilateral cooperation will be opaque, because Trump's keynote is America first and isolationism," he said. "The historical issue between South Korea and Japan will also rise back to the surface if Seoul has a regime change to progressive government."

Kim also said that despite China's frustration, it was unlikely to retaliate against Japan and South Korea due to economic difficulties and concerns about a public opinion backlash in both countries. He added that besides the North Korea factor, China's hardline diplomacy with South Korea and Japan had also played a big role in pushing them into the arms of America.

Hardy-Chartrand agreed that China's heavy-handed approach to South Korean relations was partly to blame for the situation.

"Beijing could until recently be comforted by the fact that South Korea was keen to maintain strong ties with China, in large part due to its economic dependence on its neighbour. But now that Seoul appears poised to move away from its traditional equidistance to Beijing and Washington, this is a blow to Chinese efforts to forge a favourable geopolitical environment and pry away American allies," he said.

Additional reporting by Seong Hyeon Choi

Copyright (c) 2023. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.

 

War Looks Just as War Looks: Dismal and Ugly

by Vijay Prashad / November 2nd, 2023

Sangho Lee (South Korea), Long for Korean Reunification, 2014.

It is impossible to look away from what the Israeli government is doing to Palestinians not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank. Waves of Israeli aircraft pummel Gaza, destroying communications networks and thereby preventing families from reaching each other, journalists from reporting on the destruction, and Palestinian authorities and United Nations agencies from providing humanitarian assistance. This violence has spurred on protests across the world, with the planet’s billions outraged by the asymmetrical destruction of the Palestinian people. If the Israeli government claims that it is conducting a form of ‘politicide’ – excising organised Palestinian forces from Gaza – the world sees Israeli aircrafts and tanks as conducting nothing but a genocide, displacing and massacring Palestine refugees in Gaza, 81% of whose residents were expelled from, or are the descendants of those who were expelled from, what was declared Israel in 1948. All images coming out of Gaza show that Israel’s assault is unrelenting, sparing neither children nor women nor the elderly and sick. The failure of the world to stop massacre after massacre shows us the deep brokenness of our international system.

That broken international system, rooted in the UN, brought us the conflict in Ukraine and is now egging on a dangerous confrontation in Northeast Asia, with flashpoints around the Korean peninsula and Taiwan. While there are indications that the US and China will restart the military talks that were suspended in August 2022 when former US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan in an act of reckless adventurism, this does not indicate lowered tensions in the waters around Northeast Asia. For this reason, Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research, No Cold War, and the International Strategy Centre have partnered to produce briefing no. 10, The US and NATO Militarise Northeast Asia, which makes up the rest of this week’s newsletter.

On 22 October, the United States, Japan, and South Korea held their first-ever joint aerial drill. The military exercise took place after US President Joe Biden, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol gathered at Camp David in August ‘to inaugurate a new era of trilateral partnership’. Although North Korea has frequently been invoked as a regional bogeyman to justify militarisation, the formation of a trilateral alliance between the US, Japan, and South Korea is a key element of Washington’s efforts to contain China. The militarisation of Northeast Asia threatens to divide the region into antagonistic blocs, undermining decades of mutually beneficial economic cooperation, and raises the likelihood of a conflict breaking out, in particular over Taiwan, entangling neighbouring countries through a web of alliances.

The Remilitarisation of Japan

In recent years, encouraged by the United States, Japan has undergone its most extensive militarisation since the end of the Second World War. After Japan’s defeat, a new postwar constitution was drafted by US occupation officials and came into effect in 1947. Under this ‘peace constitution’, Japan pledged to ‘forever renounce war […] and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes’. However, with the Chinese Revolution in 1949 and the breakout of the Korean War in 1950, the US quickly reversed its course in Japan. According to US State Department historians, ‘the idea of a re-armed and militant Japan no longer alarmed US officials; instead, the real threat appeared to be the creep of communism, particularly in Asia’. The cause of amending and circumventing Japan’s ‘peace constitution’ was taken up by the right-wing nationalist Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which received millions of dollars in support from the US Central Intelligence Agency during the Cold War and has ruled the country almost without interruption (except for 1993–1994 and 2009–2012) since 1955.

Over the past decade, the LDP has transformed Japan’s defence policy. In 2014, unable to amend the constitution, the LDP government led by Shinzo Abe ‘re-interpreted’ it to allow for ‘proactive pacifism’ and lifted a ban on Japanese troops engaging in combat overseas, enabling the country to participate in military interventions to aid allies such as the US. In 2022, the Kishida administration labeled China ‘the greatest strategic challenge ever to securing the peace and stability of Japan’ and announced plans to double military spending to 2% of gross domestic product (on par with NATO countries) by 2027, overturning Japan’s postwar cap that limited military spending to 1% of GDP. The administration also ended a policy dating back to 1956 that limited Japan’s missile capability to defend against incoming missiles and adopted a policy that allows for counter-strike abilities. This move has paved the way for Japan to purchase 400 US Tomahawk missiles beginning in 2025, with the ability to strike Chinese and Russian naval bases located on the countries’ eastern coasts.

Shigeru Onishi (Japan), Flickering Aspect, 1950s.

Absolving Japanese Colonialism

Historically, Washington’s efforts to create multilateral alliances in the Asia-Pacific have failed due to the legacy of Japanese colonialism. During the Cold War, the US resorted to a network of bilateral alliances with countries in the region known as the San Francisco System. The initial step in creating this system was the San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951), which established peaceful relations between the Allied Powers and Japan. To expedite the integration of Japan as an ally, the US excluded the victims of Japanese colonialism (including China, the Kuomintang-led administration in Taiwan, and both Koreas) from the San Francisco peace conference and excused Tokyo from taking responsibility for its colonial and war crimes (including massacres, sexual slavery, human experimentation, and forced labour).

The new trilateral alliance between the US, Japan, and South Korea has been able to overcome previous impediments because South Korea’s Yoon administration has waived away Japan’s responsibility for the crimes committed during its colonial rule over Korea (1910–1945). More specifically, the Yoon administration abandoned a 2018 South Korean Supreme Court ruling holding Japanese companies such as Mitsubishi responsible for the forced labour of Koreans. Rather than finally being held accountable, Japan has once again been let off the hook.

Lim Eung Sik (South Korea), Looking for Work, 1953.

Towards an Asian NATO?

In 2022, NATO named China a security challenge for the first time. That year’s summit was also the first attended by leaders from the Asia-Pacific region, including Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand (these four countries participated again in 2023). Meanwhile, in May, it was reported that NATO was planning to open a ‘liaison office’ in Japan, though the proposal appears to have been shelved – for now.

The US-Japan-South Korea trilateral alliance is a major step towards achieving NATO-level capabilities in Asia, namely interoperability with respect to armed forces, infrastructure, and information. The agreement reached at the Camp David meeting in August commits each country to annual meetings and military exercises. These war exercises allow the three militaries to practice sharing data and coordinating their activities in real time. In addition, the General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) between Japan and South Korea – much sought after by the US – expands military intelligence sharing between the two countries to not only be ‘limited to the DPRK’s missiles and nuclear programs but also includ[e] the threats from China and Russia’. This allows the US, Japan, and South Korea to develop a common operational picture, the foundation of interoperability in the Northeast Asian military theatre.

Yuta Niwa (Japan), Exterminating a Tiger-Wolf-Catfish, 2021.

Waging Peace

Earlier this year, in reference to the Asia-Pacific, US Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns declared that his country is ‘the leader in this region’. While China has proposed a concept of ‘indivisible security’, meaning the security of one country is dependent on the security of all, the US is taking a hostile approach that seeks to form exclusive blocs. Washington’s hegemonic attitude towards Asia is stoking tensions and pushing the region towards conflict and war – particularly over Taiwan, which Beijing has called a ‘red line’ issue. Defusing the situation in Northeast Asia will require moving away from a strategy that is centred on maintaining US dominance. Those positioned to lead this movement are the people who are already struggling on the frontlines, from Gangjeong villagers who have opposed a naval base for US warships since 2007 and Okinawans fighting to no longer be the US’s unsinkable aircraft carrier to the people of Taiwan who may ultimately have the most to lose from war in the region.

Northeast Asia has a long tradition of battles that fight to establish the good side of history against the ugly and dismal side. Kim Nam-ju (1946–1994) was a warrior of one of these battles, a poet and a militant in the minjung (‘people’s’) movement against the dictatorships in South Korea, which imprisoned him, and many others, from 1980 to 1988. Here is his poem on the Gwangju Massacre in 1980:

It was a day in May.
It was a day in May 1980.
It was a night in May 1980, in Gwangju.

At midnight I saw
the police replaced by combat police.
At midnight I saw
the combat police replaced by the army.
At midnight I saw
American civilians leaving the city.
At midnight I saw
all the vehicles blocked, trying to enter the city.

Oh, what a dismal midnight it was!
Oh, what a deliberate midnight it was!

It was a day in May.
It was a day in May 1980.
It was a day in May 1980, in Gwangju.

At noon I saw
a troop of soldiers armed with bayonets.
At noon I saw
a troop of soldiers like an invasion by a foreign nation.
At noon I saw
a troop of soldiers like a plunderer of people.
At noon I saw
a troop of soldiers like an incarnation of the devil.

Oh, what a terrible noon it was!
Oh, what a malicious noon it was!

It was a day in May.
It was a day in May 1980.
It was a night in May 1980, in Gwangju.

At midnight
the city was a heart poked like a beehive.
At midnight
the street was a river of blood running like lava.

At 1 o’clock
the wind stirred the blood-stained hair of a young, murdered woman.
At midnight
the night gorged itself on a child’s eyes, popped out like bullets.
At midnight
the slaughterers kept moving along the mountain of corpses.

Oh, what a horrible midnight it was!
Oh, what a calculated midnight of slaughter it was!

It was a day in May.
It was a day in May 1980.

At noon
the sky was a cloth of crimson blood.
At noon
on the streets, every other house was crying.
Mudeung Mountain curled up her dress and hid her face.
At noon
the Youngsan River held her breath and died.

Oh, not even the Guernica massacre was as ghastly as this one!
Oh, not even the devil’s plot was as calculated as this one!

Change the word ‘Gwangju’ for ‘Gaza’ today and the poem remains vital. Our look at the reality unfolding in Northeast Asia should sharpen our understanding of what is going on in Southwest Asia – in Gaza, a frontline of a world struggle that bleeds with no end in sight.

Vijay Prashad is an Indian historian and journalist. Prashad is the author of twenty-five books, including The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World and The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South. Read other articles by Vijay, or visit Vijay's website.