“By about the year 2000 communist China will be a super-power built by American technology and skill.” (Antony C Sutton in America’s Secret Establishment 1984)
Should the Russian government yank its supply of rocket engines for United States launches, critical national-security satellite missions could be delayed up to four years, experts told a joint Senate hearing Wednesday.
United Launch Alliance’s (ULA) Atlas 5 rocket is the workhorse of heavy satellite launches in the United States, but the booster requires a Russian RD-180 engine to get off the ground.
Recent geopolitical disputes between Russia and the United States have thrown this arrangement, which has been in place for decades, into turmoil. In Twitter remarks in May, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin threatened to ban all sales of RD-180 engines to the United States intended for use in military launches. [50 Great Russian Rocket Launch Photos]
“If you look at what has happened to us now in the past few months, it points to a vulnerability,” Gen. William Shelton, head of Air Force Space Command, told senators in remarks broadcast on the web from Washington, D.C.
“We decided to rely on a foreign supplier — with probably the most advanced rocket engine in the world, by the way — and that has worked extremely well,” added Shelton, who said that it is nevertheless time to look to new strategies for the future.
The hearing included the Senate subcommittee on strategic forces and the committee on commerce, science and transportation.
Limited engine stockpile
The Atlas 5 and ULA’s Delta 4 carry the bulk of Air Force satellites into space, under a package deal in which the Air Force agreed to buy up to 36 evolved expendable launch vehicles from ULA. Fourteen other missions are up for bids. (This deal has come under fire by SpaceX, which wants the chance to compete for military launches with its Falcon 9 rocket.)
ULA has just 15 RD-180 engines left in its stockpile. The U.S. military currently uses about six to seven rockets a year, but other government agencies such as NASA also require Atlas 5 launches, Shelton said. The Delta 4 can only carry smaller and medium-sized satellites, but that rocket could take on some of the burden.
“We’ve got to ramp up the production of our Delta factory, which would take some time. That would stretch out launches maybe 12 to 20 months, and for the heavier missions maybe 48 months,” Shelton said.
While SpaceX could be certified as early as this year, the Falcon 9 rocket is only capable of taking on medium-sized or smaller satellites, said Alan Estevez, the principal deputy under-secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.
It would take five to eight years to develop an American alternative to the RD-180 engine, he estimated. Estevez’s department is doing a financial assessment of how to replace the RD-180, which should be complete in September.
Space station also affected
Access to space could also affect the International Space Station, although a representative for NASA said that relations with Russia remain smooth so far.
“There’s no change to behavior at all,” said NASA associate administrator Robert Lightfoot. “Our teams are working together with the Russians very well to continue space station operations.”
That said, Rogozin also quipped via Twitter a few months ago that if the United States wants to send its astronauts to space alone, it should use a trampoline. All American crewmembers have launched to the orbiting lab aboard Russian Soyuz capsules since NASA retired its space shuttle fleet in 2011.
While NASA is encouraging the development of private American astronaut taxis through its commercial crew program, such spaceships likely won’t be ready until 2017 at the earliest. Lightfoot said that even with more money, it would be difficult to push the readiness date up given there are certain checks and milestones that would have to be achieved.
Russians also operate several “key components” on the space station, added Lightfoot, saying that NASA would have to look at the situation more closely if relations between the two nations soured further.
For its second launch of the year, the Atlas V rocket marked its 70th mission to space on Wednesday as the veteran rocket lofted the National Reconnaissance Office’s NROL-79 spacecraft to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Liftoff took place from SLC-3E at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, at 0950 PST (1750 UTC), the opening of a 40 minute launch window. The mission has been declared a success.
Atlas V’s 70th mission:
After entering service in 2002, the Atlas V rocket quickly became the go-to vehicle for the US military and various customers for whom launch success was critical for multibillion-dollar interplanetary payloads.
Over the course of its previous 69 missions to date, the Atlas V has launched satellites for various US military outfits, including the Air Force and the Navy, the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), NASA, various commercial entities, and another commercial launch provider: Orbital ATK and their Cygnus resupply spacecraft for the International Space Station.
For its 70th mission, the Atlas V made use of the 68th produced Atlas V core stage – known as AV-068 – and flew in its most common configuration: the 401, with a four meter payload fairing, no solid rocket motors, and a single-engine Centaur upper-stage.
In fact, this was the 35th flight of the Atlas V and its 401 configuration – marking its use in exactly 50% of all Atlas V missions.
Additionally, this was the 14th time that the NRO selected the Atlas V for launch of one of its spacecraft.
To date, the mission has already seen years of preparation, including two unforeseen, late campaign setbacks.
Originally, launch of NROL-79 was scheduled for 1 December 2016 but was postponed into late January 2017 following a period of protracted wildfires and subsequent rebuilding operations at Vandenberg Air Force Base.
The fires and recovery previously postponed the launch of the commercial WorldView 4 mission – also aboard an Atlas V 401 rocket – late last year.
Moreover, an issue was then discovered within the Centaur that necessitated an additional one month slip to the launch date.
Pointedly though, the mission is still – to the day – occurring within three months of the original launch date selected more than two years ago by the NRO, with two-thirds of that total delay owing to wildfires and not to the Atlas-Centaur system itself.
The Atlas V sported the name of a firefighter who lost his life fighting the fire.
Final preparations and launch:
Following the recovery of Vandenberg Air Force Base assets and the resumption of launch operations from the West Coast with the WorldView 4 mission, this mission’s Atlas core stage was actually delivered to the base during the wildfire threat last year.
After the WorldView 4 launch, the NROL-79’s Atlas V booster stage and Centaur upper stage were stacked together on SLC-3E in late 2016 and prepared for a Wet Dress Rehearsal (WDR) countdown – which occurred on 10 January 2017.
Following the WDR, a standard data review led to the discovery of an issue with the Centaur upper stage.
Technicians and engineers designed a plan to return the rocket to optimal health, and United Launch Alliance (ULA) CEO Tony Bruno confirmed that the issue was specific to the launch vehicle itself and was not a family issue with the Centaurs.
A second WDR subsequently proved the fix and corrective actions taken with the Centaur, and by 9 February, ULA booked assets on the Western Range for a 1 March 2017 launch.
On 15 February, the classified NROL-79 spacecraft was transported to SLC-3E and hoisted atop its Atlas-Centaur booster.
With launch day fast approaching, teams at Vandenberg Air Force Base spent the weekend performing final close out operations on the Atlas V rocket while preparing the various systems and Western Range assets required to support a successful liftoff Wednesday morning.
Monday was then spent performing a series of flight readiness reviews from both the customer and the rocket provider sides, which culminated with clearance to proceed into launch operations.
Based on the scheduled opening of the launch window, the launch team spent most of Tuesday off duty, adjusting their sleep cycles so that all personnel would be ready to support the start of the 8-hour countdown at 0150 PST Wednesday morning.
Once the countdown began, the first six hours were spent conditioning the pad’s environmental control systems, powering up various systems aboard the Atlas and Centaur, performing final spacecraft checks, and ensuring that all propellant loading equipment is ready to support fueling operations.
Communication checks with the rocket then occurred prior to the pad being cleared of all personnel approximately three hours prior to liftoff.
Two hours 40 minutes before liftoff, the countdown entered a 10-minute hold, at which point the launch director conducted the GO/NO GO for tanking poll.
The with the vehicle, range, and weather green, the countdown emerged from its 10-minute hold 2 hours 30 minutes prior to lift off, at which point LOX (Liquid Oxygen) chilldown began.
Fueling began with Centaur LOX tanking operations 2 hours 13 minutes prior to liftoff.
Then, 34 minutes prior to liftoff, the count entered a 30-minute hold at the T-4 minute mark.
During this final hold, the final weather briefing occurred, the range confirmed that it is clear and ready to proceed into the terminal count, and the spacecraft received a final go/no-go poll for liftoff and deployment.
Also during this final hold, Centaur LOX and LH2 propellant loads were brought to flight levels.
The Launch Director performed a final poll to exit the hold and commence the 4-minute terminal count sequence 7 minutes prior to liftoff – a process required whether that liftoff was timed to the opening of the launch window or sometime within.
The launch window was understood to have run from 0950-1030 PST (1750-1830 UTC).
Once the hold was released, the Atlas-Centaur entered a highly choreographed final 4-minute terminal count sequence that saw the termination of LOX replenishment to the Atlas booster at the T-4 minute mark.
The Atlas tanks were brought to flight pressure at T-3 minutes, and the Atlas-Center launch vehicle were switched to internal power at the T-2 minute mark.
Center propellant topping was completed at T-1 minute 50 seconds, with the launch control system taken to “enable” 90 seconds prior to liftoff.
A final launch verification took place at T-16 seconds, leading to the start sequence of the RD-180 engine at the base of the Atlas V core at T-2.7 seconds.
After ramping up to full thrust and a series of health checks, the hold down clamps released and the Atlas V lifted off at T+ 1.1 seconds.
While the exact orbital destination for NROL-79 has not been revealed, all previous NROL missions from Vandenberg have been non-GTO (Geostationary Transfer Orbit) missions to either LEO or Molniya orbits (highly elliptical, high inclination orbits with arguments of perigee of -90 degrees and an orbital period of one half of a sidereal day).
Given this, the NROL-79 Atlas V 401 can be expected to follow an LEO ascent profile, with the RD-180 engine producing 860,000 lbf at liftoff, a level of thrust that will gradually increase to 933,000 lbf as the vehicle breaks through Earth’s atmosphere and enters the vacuum of space.
In its 401 configuration, the Atlas V reached Max Q – the moment of maximum dynamic pressure and mechanical stress on the vehicle – 88 seconds after liftoff at an altitude of 11.6 km (37,970 ft) with a total Max Q of 490 psf.
Throughout the first 100 seconds of flight, the RD-180 engine thrusted at 100% of total throttle, stepping down to 95% of rated thrust from 100 seconds through 210 seconds, at which point a throttle drop off occurred as the booster maintained a 5G acceleration limit in preparation for Booster Engine Cutoff (BECO).
BECO occurred just prior to Atlas/Centaur separation at the T+ 246 second mark at an altitude of ~157.6 km (~517,015 ft).
Ten seconds after Atlas core stage separation, the Centaur single-engine upper stage ignited at the T+ 256 second mark.
Payload fairing jettison followed at T+ 264 seconds at an altitude of 193. km (633,100 ft).
Once payload fairing jettison occurs, per the NRO’s usual request to ULA, the live webcast ceased, and the final portion of launch operations and placement of the satellite into orbit will not be seen live.
However, the US Air Force later confirmed a successful deployment.
Launch of NROL-79 marks the first of three launch campaigns within 19 days for ULA.
The next mission is the scheduled 8 March launch of WGS-9 on a Delta IV M+ rocket from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, FL (launch window: 18:48-19:53 EST).
This is to be followed by the 22:56-23:16 EDT launch of an Atlas V 401 rocket on 19 March with the Orbital ATK Cygnus OA-7 mission to the International Space Station.
(Images: Philip Sloss, ULA; National Reconnaissance Office)
(Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., March 22, 2017, 4:30 p.m. EDT) – The launch of the ULA Atlas V rocket carrying the OA-7 Cygnus spacecraft for Orbital ATK and NASA has been postponed. While completing testing for a ground support hydraulic condition discovered during prelaunch testing, a different issue with a booster hydraulic line was observed. The team is developing a plan to resolve the issue and a new launch date will be determined. The Atlas V and Cygnus spacecraft remain secure.
Rocket/Payload:A United Launch Alliance Atlas V 401 will launch Orbital ATK’s Cygnus™ spacecraft on the initial leg of its cargo resupply mission to the International Space Station (ISS).
Mission Description: Orbital ATK developed the Cygnus advanced maneuvering spacecraft to perform ISS cargo delivery missions under the Commercial Resupply Service (CRS) contract with NASA. At a total weight of approximately 7,225 kg (15,928 lb), OA-7 will include approximately 3,380 kg (7,452 lb) of internal cargo and an 83 kg (183 lb) external deployer carrying CubeSats.
Launch Notes: This mission marks the third time ULA’s Atlas V has launched Orbital ATK’s Cygnus™ spacecraft on its way to the ISS. OA-7 will be the 71st launch of the Atlas V rocket since its first launch in 2002. The Atlas V 401 configuration rocket has flown 35 times, supporting a diverse set of missions, including national security, science and exploration, commercial as well as International Space Station resupply.
Launch Updates: To keep up to speed with updates to the launch countdown, dial the ULA launch hotline at 1-877-852-4321 or join the conversation at www.facebook.com/ulalaunch, twitter.com/ulalaunch and instagram.com/ulalaunch; hashtags #AtlasV and #OA7.
The head of defense exports for the Israeli Defense Ministry resigned after a U.S. investigation concluded that technology, including a miniature refrigeration system manufactured by Ricor and used for missiles and in electro-optic equipment, was sent to China, according to the Israeli newspaper Maariv.
Another Israeli news site, Aretz Sheva, reports the U.S. is concerned the technology could ultimately find its way to Iran, which last year sought to buy military equipment from China for its nuclear program.
Ricor, on its company website, identifies a number of defense programs using its miniature cryo-coolers, including UAVs, airborne enhanced vision systems, missile warning systems, hand-held thermal imagers and thermal weapons sights.
The Maariv report identified the Israeli defense official as Meir Shalit, and said he apologized to U.S. officials on a recent visit.
Israel has a long record of getting U.S. military technology to China.
In the early 1990s then-CIA Director James Woolsey told a Senate Government Affairs Committee that Israel had been selling U.S. secrets to China for about a decade. More than 12 years ago the U.S. demanded Israel cancel a contract to supply China with Python III missiles, which included technology developed by the U.S. for its Sidewinder missiles, The Associated Press reported in 2002.
Bureau of Export Administration
Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security
Defense Market Research Report
January 1999 –
- Part 1 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: POLICIES, PROCESS, AND DECISION MAKING IN CHINA
- Part 2 US PERSPECTIVES ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS TO CHINA
- Part 3 SHORT- AND LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
- Appendix A List of the National Engineering Research Centers
- Appendix B Map of China
- Appendix C National High and Technology Industry Development Zones
- Appendix D China�s International Defense-Industrial Organizations
- Appendix E Listing of Recent Software Agreements/Joint Ventures in China (1996- 1997)
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view these documents.
The phenomenal economic growth witnessed in China since Deng Xiaoping first declared China’s “A Open Door” policy in 1978 has led many to predict China’s certain emergence as an economic superpower in the early 21st Century. Indeed, China has followed a structured path toward gradual market reform of its still largely state-owned industrial sector, which has been transfused with increasing amounts of foreign capital and technology.
There have been numerous reports over the last several years, however, of US companies being “forced” to transfer technology to China in exchange for access to this enormous market. The purpose of his study is to assess the extent to which US commercial technology is being, in effect, “coerced” from US companies engaged in normal business practices and joint ventures in China in exchange for access to China’s market. The cumulative effect these transfers may have on China’s efforts to modernize its economy as well as its industrial and military base is also examined. Finally, this study addresses the impact of US technology transfers to China on the issues of long-term US global competitiveness and broad economic and national security interests.
PART 1: TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER – CHINESE POLICIES AND PROCESSES
The first section of this study addresses China’s foreign investment and trade policies, regulations, and practices, which largely explain how and why US technology is being transferred to China. The answer lies in the underlying and stated objectives of China’s foreign investment and trade policies, the goals of which are modernization and self-sufficiency of China’s industrial and military sectors. The transfer of US and other Western technology plays an important role in these efforts. This section, therefore, describes China’s policies regarding reform of its scientific and research and development institutions; China’s ability to absorb, assimilate, and innovate transferred technology; as well as the emerging role of US high-tech firms in China’s science, technology, and research efforts.
Science and Technology
- China’s large-scale science and technology development plans and projects are dependent upon indigenous research and technological advances as well as foreign investment, research, and technology. Comparative analysis of China’s rules and regulations regarding domestic and foreign investment in these and other state-run programs reveals discriminatory provisions regarding the rights and obligations of foreign partners. As a result, US companies currently engaged in collaborative research under the aegis of these state plans risk losing the monetary and technological gains from their investments.
Research and Development
- By 1993, more than half of China’s large state-owned enterprises (SOEs) had established technical development centers, founded for the purpose of improving production efficiency as well as increased product quality and marketability. China’s policies for industrial and commercial reforms continue to emphasize the need for cooperation among China’s industrial, commercial, and research enterprises in an effort to bolster the revenues of China’s state-owned enterprises and to modernize China’s economy as a whole. This effort has achieved mixed results to date.
- In an effort to spur domestic technological innovation and to diffuse applied technologies across government, industry, scientific, and academic communities, China has established numerous National Engineering Research Centers (NERCs) across the country. These centers play a key role in China’s strategy to reform its science and technology research system and are likely to become more prominent over time. The highly regarded Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) has also established over 500 commercial enterprises in the high-tech sector as part of a government program to develop “technical enterprises” as subsidiaries of existing research institutes.
China’s Ability to Absorb and Apply Technology
- China has no shortage of well-trained scientists, engineers, mathematicians, or other technical experts, unlike the United States. Chinese scholars educated abroad over the last decade reportedly make up more than half of the top scientific researchers now working on key research projects and receiving priority in conducting this research. As China’s economic reforms continue and older researchers retire before the turn of the century, there will be more opportunities for China’s younger, Western-educated, science and technology-minded researchers and engineers. As a result, high-tech firms in the United States and the government of the PRC are competing in some cases today for the services of these same talented individuals.
- China is increasingly attractive for highly skilled, Western-trained Chinese workers given the increased opportunities to work with US and other high-tech firms in China. This fact plus the benefits that accrue to the US firm as a result, make it likely that the trend toward US high-tech firms establishing joint ventures accompanied by R&D and training centers in China will continue for the foreseeable future.
Foreign Direct Investment
- China’s investment policies are explicit in the type of foreign investment that is “prohibited,” “permitted,” or “encouraged,” with the latter category focusing on advanced technologies. Foreign investors in high-tech industries enjoy preferential treatment, such as tax rebates and lower tariff rates as incentive to transfer technology, but are at the same time subject to regulations not imposed on domestic competitors.
- China’s investment policies are geared toward shifting foreign investment into the central and Western parts of China. As this trend takes hold, US companies will have to carefully determine the end use or end-user of US high-tech, potentially dual-use goods. China’s national laboratories and the majority of China’s military/defense industrial enterprises are located in this region, some of which are involved in foreign joint ventures.
- The amount of FDI coming into China reached a peak of $111,436 million and 83,437 new contracts in 1993. The greatest growth has been in the number and value of joint venture contracts, although the number of overall contracts has decreased since 1993. China’s investment and industrial policies frequently include explicit provisions for technology transfers in the form of local content requirements, production export quotas, and/or collaboration in production, research or training.
- China receives more foreign direct investment than any other developing nation and currently ranks second only the United States. In 1996, the US contribution to China’s FDI inflow was almost $3 billion, much of which was invested in manufacturing enterprises. The US is among the top FDI contributors to China.
- The rate of Chinese utilization of FDI (contracts or investments that are actually implemented or used) amounted in 1996 to over 50 percent, for the first time since 1990. This indicates that Chinese officials and enterprises are making better use of, and can better absorb, foreign capital and the technology that typically accompanies it.
- Exports outnumber imports in China’s top trading, coastal zones (except in the cities of Beijing, Shanghai, and Tianjin, where imports exceeded exports in 1996). According to Chinese statistics, the share of Chinese exports produced in foreign-invested plants (either joint ventures or wholly foreign owned enterprises) has grown significantly over the last decade, accounting for nearly half of all exports in 1996.
- In the effort to develop indigenous high-tech industries, China’s foreign import and investment policies have become increasingly selective and restrictive in the type of imports and investments that are allowed or officially encouraged. In particular, there has been an increased emphasis on industry-specific investment and high-technology imports.
- The Chinese leadership has identified several industrial sectors as “pillar” industries, namely machinery, electronics, petrochemicals, automobiles and construction materials. The central government will provide more than $60 billion through the year 2000 to promote domestic capabilities in these industries. These pillar industries will be developed with preferential state support as the primary engines of continued economic growth in China.
- China’s economic and industrial development strategies and defense conversion programs are also intended to assist China’s military development.
- China’s military capabilities are considered by Western and US analysts to be far behind in terms of Western models of military technology as well as in command, control, and force structure. However, the extent to which the commercial activities of China’s civilian defense industrial complex are tied to the uniformed military departments (PLA) is not well understood in the West. More research is needed on this issue.
The Role of US Technology
- One of the more common approaches to establishing a presence as well as goodwill in China is by donating equipment or funds for training or education in China. Numerous US high-tech firms have done so, often in connection with one of China’s leading universities or research centers.
- The most significant commercial offset and/or initiative put forward by US high-tech companies in seeking approval for joint venture manufacturing partnerships or facilities in China is the establishment of an institution, center, or lab devoted to joint research and development. This is a relatively recent trend and involves many US firms in several high-tech sectors in China. Compared to donations of equipment and scholarships as well as training for Chinese workers, the new R&D initiatives would appear to involve more technology transfer to China. The extent of collaboration and product development, however, is as yet unclear.
PART 2: US PERSPECTIVES ON TECHNOLOGY TRANSFERS TO CHINA
This section examines US investments in three key industry sectors in China: automotive, aerospace, electronics (including telecommunications). Each case study assesses the relationship between investment by high-tech US firms and provisions in China’s investment or industrial policies, competition with China’s state-owned or non-state sector enterprises, the effect of China’s infrastructure on investment, and the current state of the industry in China. Also addressed are technological or potential military advances that could result from US commercial technology transfers. Trade statistics are included as a means of assessing the effect(s) of US high-tech investment in these areas. Finally, a brief examination is made with regard to the approaches to technology transfers taken by the European Union nations and Japan, and contrasting these to the prevailing US view.
- The dynamism of China’s relatively rapid economic liberalization since 1978 has overshadowed in large part China’s industrial goals and policies that are explicitly designed to restrict and manage foreign investment in order to protect and bolster China’s domestic industries through acquisition of high-technology imports.
- While numerous complaints have been registered by US companies with the US Government (formally and informally) with regard to unfair trade practices in China, many companies are hesitant, if not unwilling, to complain publicly or even privately about the numerous difficulties inherent in doing business in China. Nevertheless, the majority of industry representatives interviewed for this study clearly stated that technology transfers are required to do business in China, although most also were optimistic about their future business prospects in China. They also did not think the “price” had yet become too high in terms of the level or type of technology transferred as a result.
- China’s is a buyer’s market. As such, the leverage of such an enormous potential market allows Chinese officials to frequently play foreign competitors against one another in their bids for joint venture contracts and large-scale, government-funded infrastructure projects in China. The typical result is usually more technology being transferred as competitors bid up the level or type of technology that they are willing to offer. There are also recent cases, however, of foreign companies joining forces with domestic or foreign companies in the same industry in order to enhance their own leverage. Microsoft, DEC, and Oracle, for instance, have joined forces in selling software in China and Exxon, Raytheon, Dupont, and Union Carbide have teamed up with Japanese companies in China. Although cooperation may not be possible across all industries, where such an arrangement is possible, there will likely be less technology being transferred or coerced from foreign firms.
- The answer given most often in interviews and in press reports as to why, despite demands made for commercial technology transfers and other unfair trade practices in China, US industry continues to invest heavily in China is that one cannot not be in China lest a competitor get a foothold. US high-tech firms seem willing to pay the price in technology transfers – in exchange for limited market access.
- US high-tech firms in China enjoy large market shares in the aerospace and electronics industries, although not in the automotive sector. Despite several years of high-level investment in China, however, survey data and press reports indicate that relatively few US companies are realizing profits or even a return on their investments in China.
- China’s electronics sector, more than the other industry sectors studied, has emerged rapidly and achieved some technological successes. This is because of the sheer size of China’s market, the learning curve in the electronics industry (the potential for “fast followers” based on the success of other Asian nations in this sector), and the potential for “leapfrogging” to the most advanced technologies (which China’s comparatively immature electronics market and infrastructure makes more likely). China’s capacity and increasing sophistication in the electronics sector could, if current trends continue, easily make China a leading producer (by volume) of electronics in the next decade or two. However, China’s electronics industry remains highly dependent on foreign inputs for design, marketing, and R&D.
- While the EU has fully and officially embraced technology transfers to China, Japan has been in the past more conservative in investing or sharing its advanced technologies, while the United States’ approach has been somewhere in the middle.
Conclusion: US Commercial Technology Transfers to China
This section addresses the potential short- and long-term economic and security implications of US technology transfers to the People’s Republic of China. The conclusion addresses the basic questions that this study is designed to answer: “Is the transfer of US technology the price of entry into China’s market?,” and “Are US commercial technology transfers forced?” The following are key findings resulting from this study:
- According to experts and executives interviewed for this study, the transfer of advanced US technology is the price of market access in China for US high-tech companies.
- Most US and other foreign investors in China thus far seem willing to pay the price of technology transfers – even “state-of-the-art technologies – in order to “gain a foothold” or to “establish a beachhead” in China with the expectation that the country’s enormous market potential eventually will be realized. A primary motivation for investing in China at this time and despite the difficulties and risks involved, is in order to beat foreign and domestic competitors to the China market.
- Numerous US high-tech firms have agreed to commercial offset or technology transfer agreements in exchange for joint ventures and limited market access in China. An increasingly frequent type of commercial offset is the establishment of a training or R&D center, institute, or lab, typically with one of China’s premier universities or research institutes located in Beijing or Shanghai.
- Technology transfer is both mandated in Chinese regulations or industrial policies (with which US companies wishing to invest in China must comply) and used as a deal-maker or sweetener by US firms seeking joint venture contracts in China.
- Unless significant changes are made to China’s current investment regulations and import/export policies, US commercial technology transfers to China are likely to continue, potentially enhancing Chinese competitiveness in high-technology industry sectors such as aerospace and electronics. The US-China trade imbalance may continue to worsen in the short term as commercial offset demands and foreign-invested enterprise exports increase and in the long term as China’s plans to develop indigenous capabilities in both basic and advanced technology industries are implemented.
- In the industry sectors studied, it is apparent that what technological advances and increased exports exist are disproportionately due to foreign investment capital and technology rather than to indigenous technological advances.
- The US export control review process is not designed to evaluate continuing US commercial technology transfers to China that are demanded or offered in exchange for market access.
- Although it is not possible to make a clear determination of the US national security implications of commercial US technology transfers to China, the continuation of the trends identified in this study could pose long-term challenges to US national security interests. This study does not identify any specific Chinese military advances made as a result of US commercial technology transfers, but does suggest that continued pressures on foreign high-tech firms to transfer advanced commercial technologies, if successful, could indirectly benefit China’s efforts to modernize its military.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The following transcript of Episode 297 of The Corbett Report podcast, “China and The New World Order,” was generously provided by Corbett Report listener Tezla. For the mp3 audio of the podcast please CLICK HERE, or you can watch the vodcast in the player below:
JAMES CORBETT: Welcome ladies and gentlemen to another edition of the Corbett Report. I’m your host as always James Corbett of corbettreport.com coming to you from the sunny climes of western Japan here on the 7th day of November 2014.
Welcome to episode 297 of the Corbett Report podcast: China and the New World Order.
And yes, if you are just tuning in from the last edition of the ‘Questions for Corbett’ series, of course we did leave it up to the Corbett Report community to decide what episode 297 would be about, either about the plane crash of Total Oil CEO de Margerie or China’s position in the New World Order.
The community has responded overwhelmingly for the China episode and I’m glad they did because this is a topic that I’ve been researching in one form or another for a few years now, in earnest for the last few months and in absolute incredible detail in the past two weeks, and I have a doozy of an episode for you today. If you think this podcast has been informative or data packed in the past you ain’t seen nothing yet, so let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work on constructing today’s narrative.
And it starts in a position that I think most of us will be familiar with, if you are even glancingly looking at the headlines this day and age you will note that there is an undeniable, a demonstrable build-up of diplomatic, financial and military tensions between the NATO powers on one side and China and its allies on the other.
NEWS PRESENTER: “Now new warnings over cybersecurity and the growing cyber war between the US and China. US officials charging members of a shadowy unit in the Chinese military, accusing its agents of stealing trade secrets from American companies.”
(Source: ‘This Week’ Cyber Spying Alert | Time Reference: 01:45)
NEWS PRESENTER: “…and the Chinese government has hit back. They summoned the US ambassador to China, Max Bacchus, for a dressing down and they’ve also called these allegations extremely absurd.”
(Source: China slams hacking charges | Time Reference: 02:03)
CHUCK HAGEL: “In recent months China has undertaken destabilizing unilateral actions asserting its claims in the South China Sea. We take no position on competing territorial claims, but we firmly oppose any nation’s use of intimidation, coercion or the threat of force to assert those claims. The United States will not look the other way when fundamental principles of the international order are being challenged.”
(Source: US accuses China of “destabilising’ acts in South China Sea | Time Reference: 02:14)
NEWS PRESENTER: “Beijing quickly reacted to the accusations and denounced Heigel for singling out China at a public venue. The Chinese officials said the speech was completely non-constructive, and full of hegemony, threats and intimidation.”
(Source: China censures Japan PM, US defense sec. for “provocative” speeches | Time Reference: 02:41)
NEWS PRESENTER: “The treasury’s once again criticizing China for failing to let its currency appreciate against the dollar, for the rapid buildup in China’s foreign exchange reserves, saying in this report, “both the rigidity of the Renmimbi, another name for the Yuan of course, and the reacceleration of reserve accumulation are serious concerns which should be corrected to help ensure a stronger more balanced global economy.”
(Source: U.S. Criticizes China for Lack of `Flexibility’ of Yuan | Time Reference: 02:56)
JULIA GILLARD: “Tomorrow there will be a formal announcement that Australian dollars can be directly traded into Renmimbi, into the Chinese currency RMB, here in China. The third currency in the world to do so, after the US dollar and the Japanese Yen.”
NEWS PRESENTER: “This is another small step in China’s campaign to increase international use of its currency. China has launched other new currency pairs in recent years including the Canadian dollar, Malaysian Ringgit and Hong Kong dollar. The deal is meant to help promote business between the two countries by allowing trade without using the US dollar as an intermediary.”
(Source: Australian PM Announces Direct Yuan-Australian Dollar Trading | Time Reference: 03:17)
NEWS PRESENTER: “A US Navy patrol aircraft was stalked and then repeatedly ‘buzzed’ by a Chinese fighter jet in international airspace this week. Pentagon officials are calling it dangerous and unprofessional.”
(Source: ‘Aggressive’ Chinese fighter jet flies dangerously close to U.S. Navy plane: Video | Time Reference: 03:56)
NEWS PRESENTER: “The US and Japan issued strong statements of concern over the issue, and on Tuesday the United States confirmed it flew two B52 bombers over China’s newly established air defense zone as well as the disputed Diaoyu islands. US State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki on Tuesday expressed US concern over the issue, when asked about whether the United States action should be viewed as a provocation, Psaki refused to comment.”
(Source: Two US B-52 bombers enter China’s ADIZ | Time Reference: 04:08)
This phenomenon, as I say, is fairly self-evident, even if you are only looking at the headlines of today’s news. But if you are only looking at the headlines, then you might have missed a very different set of data, indicating a very different and perhaps directly contradictory narrative, one that paints China and its supposed foes in the West, not as allies pitted against each other but as partners, however uneasily, but in some sort of alliance that will set the tone for the 21st century.
PRESENTER: “Sir Evelyn de Rothschild joins us now, to talk about investing in China and his latest venture , Weather Central – here as well. Sir Evelyn , thank you very much indeed for joining us; I just want to get your views on how things have evolved. Has it become a more open society – has it become an easier place to do business?
EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD: Oh, I think it is, no doubt. I think it’s a remarkable country. When you think of what has happened in the last 10 years, let alone 20 years, it is an achievement beyond recognition.”
(Source: De Rothschild Says China’s Growth a `Remarkable’ Story | Time Reference: 05:09)
RICHARD ROCKEFELLER: “I’m Richard Rockefeller. I’m chair of the board of the Rockefeller Brothers fund. The sentiments that my grandfather and grandmother and actually other relatives of that generation had for China, very positive feelings for the country, passed through the generations to all of us. So China in a way wasn’t such an unfamiliar place to us as it might have felt for a lot of Americans.”
(Source: Rockefeller Family in China: Then and Now | Time Reference: 05:39)
INTERVIEWER: “What sort of a financial deal should Obama be seeking to strike when he travels to China next month?
GEORGE SOROS: I think this would be the time because you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order, financial world order.”
(Source: Soros: China Must Be Part Of The New World Order | Time Reference: 06:02)
INTERVIEWER: “Sir Evelyn what about the RMB situation you mentioned a so-called currency problem. Do you see the day in the next five years where it’s fully convertible and flexible.
EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD: Well you’re talking to a person who’s quite old. If I were around in five years I’d like to think that that is the case. I think we’ve all got to move towards that opportunity and I think the challenge also is whether we should move towards an international currency.”
(Source: De Rothschild Says China’s Growth a `Remarkable’ Story | Time: 06:20)
HENRY KISSINGER: “But they really are issues of the construction of a new world order, that’s what this is about, and that’s the sort of dialogue the Chinese are generally good at and so a partnership between us is central. A conflict between us is going to exhaust us both. In tactical exercises it cannot be conclusive.
INTERVIEWER: And the New World Order could satisfy both?
KISSINGER: It has to satisfy both because otherwise it will lead to tensions that will exhaust us both.”
(Source: Henry Kissinger on China and the New World Order | Time Reference: 06:51)
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: “One has to give credit to President Nixon’s and Henry Kissinger’s initiative. They broke the ice, they did, but they confronted a residue of suspicion, and that suspicion was mutual and grievances were also mutual and it really took time for the relationship to become more normal, more predictable, and eventually what we accomplished was that they came in fact, open and full comprehensive and in fact initiated a kind of secret collaboration or even perhaps you could call it an alliance.”
(Source: Zbigniew Brzezinski on China | Time Reference: 07:30)
So we have on one hand the fiery and bellicose rhetoric of the would-be belligerents of the Cold War of the twenty-first century and on the other hand the conciliatory or even cooperative pronouncements of the usual gaggle of super gophers, the ‘Superclass’ identified by Henry Kissinger protege David Rothkopf in his recent book of the same name, that identified about 6,000 global actors able to implement transnational policy agendas, thanks to their political and financial influence.
Are these two positions which seem to go head-on and seem to be completely irreconcilable in fact resolvable, if we look at this not as a two-dimensional surface level conflict taking place between nation-states or groupings of nation-states on the geopolitical chess board, but in fact a three-dimensional problem that involves hierarchies of control vying in different levels of this game for different squares. Not just squares on a chessboard but a 3D chess board if we can extend the metaphor.
Well in fact that is exactly the position I would take. And as strange as that might seem, as difficult as it might be to wrap our heads around that type of conflict which is happening at one level, which is actually cooperation at another level, it should be noted that this is not the first time in history that we’ve noticed this type of phenomenon and in fact even within the past century we’ve noticed very, very similar analogous one would almost say template or prototypical examples of this very phenomenon, as identified by a researcher who I have name-checked a number of times on this podcast in the past so I certainly hope my regular listeners will be familiar with his work already.
I am referring of course to Antony C Sutton, the author of such trade books as Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler , Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Wall Street and FDR, but also the author of many scholarly publications, academic publications that were published under the auspices of the Hoover Institute in the 1970s and that have been well-regarded scholarly works that were even name-checked by the likes of Zbigniew Brzezinski as being convincing proof of the thesis that these books were forwarding. And that thesis revolved around the idea that, in the case of for example the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of the Nazis, that it was the Western powers, specifically the financial center of Wall Street and the Wall Street bankers, who were helping to fund their supposed arch-enemies the socialists of various stripes whether that be the Bolsheviks or the National Socialists in Germany, for their own agenda purposes.
INTERVIEWER: “Doctor Sutton, you wrote three series of books while you were a research fellow at the Hoover Institute. Can you give me basically the background of the content of these series?
ANTONY SUTTON: Yes the series I wrote at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, concerned the transfers of Western technology to the Soviet Union and essentially comprised three individual books. Each book covers a period of time since 1917.
INTERVIWER: And then you wrote a second series of books on Wall Street?
ANTONY SUTTON: Yes, these were trade books, in other words they were not academic books they were written for the general public. They concerned the buildup of the three types of socialism, Bolshevik Socialism in Russia, what we might call Welfare Socialism in the United States and Hitlerian on National Socialism, and each book examines the financing and the contributions made by Wall Street by international bankers to the development of that specific form of socialism.”
(Source: Stan Monteith Interviews Antony Sutton | Time Reference: 11:04)
But the obvious question here is why. Why on earth would these crony capitalists be funding their erstwhile supposed nominal arch nemesis rival enemies, their sworn enemies, the Socialists? These are directly contradictory ideologies and viewpoints and economic systems. Why on earth would the capitalists be supporting the Socialists in various countries?
This seems completely nonsensical if we look at it from that, again, two dimensional surface level reality, but if we extend this out again into the three-dimensional hierarchical reality we start to realize that there are agendas that can be served by the crony capitalists supporting command-and-control economical structures and political authoritarian structures in various countries.
INTERVIEWER: “Just tell us all over again. Why?
ANTONY SUTTON: Why? You won’t find this in the text books. Why is to bring about, I suspect a plan to control world society in which you and I won’t find the freedoms to believe and think and do as we believe.
INTERVIEWER: Could these power brokers actually envision that time – a one-world government that would be socialist?
SUTTON: Yes. The second statement I made was that they did not want the Soviet Union to develop into another free enterprise society and that this would offset it, aiding revolution would offset this event. That was made as a statement in 1919. You have various books, one by Gilette, the razor blade Gillette, called The City I think it was, which laid out this corporate socialism for the world to see as early as what, 1905 ,1910. So around the turn of the century you begin to see actual written statements by these internationalist businessmen and the kind of Socialist Empire they wanted to bring about.
INTERVIEWER: It’s there but these books of course are not included in your… courses in political science and history, let alone at universities.”
(Source: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution – Antony Sutton | Time Reference: 12:59)
And so we’re beginning to develop a thesis that I like to think of as a revision or updating or extending of the thesis of Antony Sutton into the 21st century, US versus China paradigm, which again looks, I think, very similar in some ways to the US versus Russia, the US versus Nazi Germany paradigm of the 20th century.
And I say its a revision an updating an extending of that thesis because I would posit that the reform of the thesis that this takes when we apply it to the supposed battle between the American Capitalists and the Chinese Communists is in fact the agenda to forward the development of a system of one world governmental control, that involves the merger of capitalist and socialist systems into a system that basically contains the worst of both worlds.
We have the Chinese version of Red Capitalism which represents both the command-and-control top-down political authoritarianism and the bankster controlled economic Crony Capitalism that is the model for the New World Order.
But do we have any evidence for this thesis. This of course is the meat and potatoes of what we are talking about today because for anyone who has not done any research into Antony Sutton’s work or read any of his books, I would like to assure you that these interview clips that we’ve been looking at, its hitherto or that you may have seen or heard online before, are really just the summation of the years and years of extensive study that Sutton did into the State Department archives and the personal correspondence of various people involved, the poring over of receipts and economic data from various corporations.
All of that hard leg-work that Sutton did for years and years developed into academic scholarly books that eventually became trade books, and we are now looking at the interviews that he did trying to summarize all of that research. The actual data in that research was pretty phenomenal, and phenomenally and convincingly put together by Sutton over a very long period of time, so no matter what this thesis sounds like or whether it makes sense or it doesn’t make sense is irrelevant. It really is the data that we have to look at.
So let’s start putting some of those pieces on this chess board and see if it makes sense as the new great game.
So let’s start with the idea for example when Sutton was talking about the rise of the Bolsheviks, the rise of the Nazis he was talking about the various ways in which these movements were funded and supported and aided and basically built into the position that they could become the dominant forces in those societies, and do we have a parallel with the Communist Chinese, obviously taking over the country in 1949 and being bitterly opposed by the Kuomintang of Chiang Kai-shek who of course then retreated to Taiwan and the battle lines were then drawn,with China of course claiming Taiwan as part of its natural one-China territory and of course Taiwan declaring itself to be an independent republic.
And so things stand, and that’s of course the very uneasy position that we remain in today and the idea being that if China ever went and tried to militarily take Taiwan then World War 3 is on, or something along those lines.
So from the perspective of that narrative, the US was obviously supporters of Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang, it was quite obvious that this was the case, at least that’s the surface-level reality.
Is there convincing or interesting or definitive or persuasive or whatever kind of evidence to point to the contrary, that in fact the US, not necessarily the government but influential people in this Super Gopher superclass category, were actually helping to support Mao and the Communists, and there is actually some tantalizing clues along that path.
I don’t think I’ve found anything that I would call definitive. I’ve heard claims, for example of CIA station chiefs having claimed that the CIA was covertly supporting Mao, I haven’t actually seen any of those claim though I’ve heard them talked about but I haven’t actually tracked down the claims themselves. If anyone can help me with that that would be much appreciated but we’ll talk more about how you can help out with this overall investigation into China and the New World Order at the end of this episode.
But let’s take a look at just some of the crumbs on this cookie trail that I did find in this new research for this podcast episode, and we’ll start with an edition of the Yale Daily News, specifically number 96 from February 29th 1972, that is available for reading online on the Yale Library – digital library – and it contains a front page story, a very interesting one, called ‘Yale Group Spurs Mao’s Emergence’, and it states:
William F Buckley was not the only Yale figure connected with the presidential trip to China” (of course referring to the then recent trip to China of President Nixon) “without Yale support. Mao Tse Tung may have never risen from obscurity to command China. Jonathan Spence, professor of Chinese history, was the first to discover Mao Tse Tung’s connection with Yale. The Professor noted “In 1919 Mao, aged 26, was in Changsha, having finished his middle school education, he visited Peking and while there received a serious introduction to communist theory in Leeteuk Charles’ Marxist study group”.
Now, if he was to develop a reputation in socialist circles, he had to find a form to propagate his views. At this crucial point The Student Union of Yale and China invited Mao to take over the editorship of their journal. Mao accepted the position and changed the format of the student magazine. It would now deal with social criticism and current problems and focus on ‘Thought Reorientation’.
(Source: Yale Daily News no. 96 February 29 1972 | Time Reference: 18:59)
‘Thought Reorientation’, that is a very intriguing name for brainwashing or reprogramming or whatever we want to call it but, again a very tantalizing piece of the puzzle and there has been a certain amount of hay made from this. There was a Yale in China connection to Mao and Yale of course the home of Skull and Bones, so there is the specter of Skull and Bones over this relationship, and again there has been some hay made of that connection. For example perhaps most notably in an oft-cited article from the January 26th 1990 edition of The New Federalist called ‘Bush’s China Policy – Skull and Bones’, and this article reads ,quote:
George Bush, the first US diplomatic representative to the People’s Republic of China back in 1973, was a member of skull and bones. So were his father, brother, son, uncle, nephew and several cousins.
Winston Lord the Reagan Bush administration ambassador to China was a member. So were his father and several other relatives.
James Lilly, the current ambassador to China, was a member of Skull and Bones, as was his brother.
Except during the Carter administration, every US ambassador to Beijing since Kissinger’s deal with Mao Tse Tung was a member of the same tiny Yale cult. A mere coincidence? Mao was a Yale-y.
Back in 1903 Yale Divinity School established a number of schools and hospitals throughout China that were collectively known as ‘Yale in China’. It has since been shown that Yale In China was an intelligence network whose purpose was to destroy the Republican movement of Sun Yat-sen on behalf of the Anglo American establishment. The Anglo American establishment hated Sun because he wanted to develop China. On the other hand they loved the Chinese Communists because they intended to keep China backward and were committed to growing dope. One of Yale In China’s most important students was Mao Tse Tung.
(Source: Bush’s China Policy: Skull And Bones | Time Reference: 21:03)
We’ll end that article there, there’s a little bit more that you can continue reading that gets into for example Antony Sutton’s work, but again a fascinating piece of this puzzle. But we should note for example, this article in The New Federalist claims that Mao was an actual student of Yale In China, although the Yale Daily News claimed that he was not a student he was just invited for some random reason, to edit the Yale In China journal, for whatever reason, took over and started his ‘ Thought Reorientation’ program that ultimately developed into the Communist Chinese movement.
So again, a very very interesting connection and especially interesting to contemplate the connection of all of those various ambassadors to China which again, up to the point of 1990, every single ambassador except under Carter, had been a Skull and Bones member, so that’s obviously a very interesting connection in and of itself, but not necessarily definitive of anything. I still think there’s probably more that needs to be made, in a concrete sense, in that connection, but obviously a lot to ponder there. And of course that does go back to the founding of Skull and Bones in the earliest part of it which of course was the money from the opium trade, that the Russell Trust was the holder of, and of course that family going on to be one of the founders of Skull and Bones.
So again, a lot of interesting history there but, as I say, nothing that definitively shows how Yale’s Skull and Bones created the Communist Chinese, but there is enough of a connection that I think more research needs to be done in that vein.
However we can tell, from going forward from the time when Mao took over the country and began his absolutely horrific abominable ‘Great Leap Forward’ that resulted in the deaths of at least forty million people in the starvation that occurred in that four-year window. Forty million people starving to death during the ‘Great Leap Forward’.
It is really interesting and, well I suppose disgusting to note the cover that he received from some very important Western politicians, perhaps unsurprisingly, with one of the most notable examples being French president Francois Mitterrand who of course covered for Mao during one of his visits to China. We can pick this up from The New Statesman which had a article ‘Mao’s Great Famine – the history of China’s most devastating catastrophe 1958 to 1962’ Mitterrand visited China in 1961, Mao Tse Tung mocked reports of famine in the country, which starts by saying:
When François Mitterrand visited China in 1961, Mao Zedong mocked reports of famine in the country. There was no famine, he said, only “a period of scarcity”, an assertion that Mitterand – who described Mao as “a great scholar known in the entire world for the diversity of his genius” – was happy to accept. Returning to France after his three-week tour, Mitterrand had no doubts about his account of events: “I repeat in order to be clearly understood – there is no famine in China.” Western politicians of the right shared the French Socialist leader’s view. After touring China in late 1960, the Conservative MP for Chester, John Temple, reported that communism was working and that the country was making “great progress”
(Source: Mao’s Great Famine: the History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe (1958-62) | Time Reference: 24:48)
And as disgusting as that was, of course another very famous or what should be very infamous example of a influential Western figure backing that disgusting display that we saw, under the reign of Mao was of course the 1973 New York Times editorial by none other than David Rockefeller, under the title ‘From a China Traveler’ in which I think he infamously said:
“The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”
(Source: Rockefeller: From A China Traveler (1973) | Time Reference: 25:55)
Again, comparing that type of rhetoric to the actual actions of Mao and what was accomplished under his leadership is, well, quite the disparity and one might ask why that would take place.
But I would like to draw people’s attention to a different part of that editorial, one that is much less cited in which Rockefeller writes:
“The Chinese, for their part, are faced with altering a primarily inward focus that they have pursued for a quarter-century under their current leadership. We, for our part, are faced with the realization that we have largely ignored a country with one-fourth of the world’s population. When one considers the profound differences in our cultural heritages and our social and economic systems, this is certain to be a long task, with much accommodation necessary on both sides.”
(Source: Rockefeller: From A China Traveler (1973) | Time Reference: 26:29)
Very interesting passage, not least of which, because one might well ponder who is exactly meant in that ‘we’ and ‘our’. Is that America as a whole, or does that have more to do with Rockefeller, his obvious banking and oil interests, his other ties to the financial and oligarchical elite? I think the latter more so than the former.
But regardless I think this is actually, in a ‘couched’ sense, a reformulation of our thesis, that ultimately the plan – the long-term game plan – has been at least since the time of the 1970s and the ‘opening up’ of China. The very idea of merging China’s inward focus and its top-down control with the ideas that the West was seeking to import, in terms of economic social historical systems.
Very interesting, so how was this actually accomplished? Again it’s one thing to talk about it in general, how about in specifics? Well of course we’re talking about David Rockefeller and his 1973 speech or op-ed in favor of the great socialist revolution of Mao, but it’s interesting to note that the 1972 trip of Nixon to China begat the famous Vulcan phrase, for Star Trek 6 fans in the crowd, ‘Only Nixon could go to China’, but actually the phrase shouldn’t be ‘Only Nixon could go to China’ because Nixon was preceded in his 1972 visit to China, in 1971 in a series of secret meetings that were eventually revealed, of Henry Kissinger to Beijing. It was Kissinger, of course, who paved the way for Nixon to ‘normalize’ relations with China, and who is Kissinger and who does he work for? Well we don’t have to dig very deeply for this knowledge, in fact we can turn to that bastion of truthiness Wikipedia, if it’s written there it has to be true, right? It’s certainly mainstream if it’s written there so, again from David Rockefeller’s own Wikipedia entry:
“In Henry Kissinger, Rockefeller found a political operative with an international and domestic perspective similar to his. They first met in 1954 when Kissinger was appointed a director of the seminal Council on Foreign Relations Study Group on Nuclear Weapons, of which David was a member. The relationship developed to the point that Kissinger was invited to sit on the Board of Trustees of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Rockefeller consulted with Kissinger on numerous occasions, as for example in the Chase Bank’s interest in Chile and the possibility of the election of Salvador Allende in 1970…(interestingly)…and fully supported his opening of China initiative in 1971, as it afforded banking opportunities for the Chase Bank.”
(Source: Rockefeller and Kissinger | Time Reference: 29:07)
Oh yes in this formulation it was Rockefeller supporting Kissinger’s initiative to open up China, rather than the other way around.
Yeah sure, sure Wikipedia, I believe that one.
But regardless of the relationship, Kissinger, Rockefeller – two peas in a pod – with the same agenda, to open up China, from the Mao era of Great Leap Forward and then the Cultural Revolution, which was an interesting time in which Mao did a very astute political maneuver. Let’s not say that he was a stupid man. He was a disgusting, horrible, cruel, perverse person, probably the greatest mass murderer in the history of the world but he was not necessarily a stupid man. One does not retain control over a country for that long, in those types of revolutionary situations, without some politically astute moves, and the Cultural Revolution, in some ways, although all of this needs a large degree of fleshing out, but can be seen as a type of counter-revolution instituted by Mao against the counterrevolutionary tendencies that were taking place within his own party.
Again it was an interesting maneuver to get the people against the Chinese Communist Party which was turning against Mao, so that he could retain his power. An interesting set up but at any rate the Cultural Revolution was what occurred after the Great Leap Forward, the utter disgusting, horrific failure of the Great Leap Forward which managed to maintain Mao’s control over the country.
And then after that point, at the point where the handover took place and Mao was out of power, we started to see a new generation of Chinese leadership taking over and this is where the story gets extremely interesting and connects again with these same figures of Chase Manhattan, of Rockefeller, Kissinger, all of these figures come together at a very interesting point, and we’ll take this from a 1986 work by Michel Chossudovsky, Towards Capitalist Restoration where he writes:
“The 1979 visit of Deng Xiaoping to the US was followed in June 1980 by the equally significant encounter in Wall Street of Rong Yiren, chairman of CITIC, and David Rockefeller. The meeting, held in the penthouse of the Chase Manhattan Bank complex, was attended by senior executives of close to 300 major US corporations. A major agreement was reached between Chase, CITIC, and the Bank of China, involving the exchange of specialists and technical personnel to ‘identify and define those areas of the Chinese economy most susceptible to American technology and capital infusion’.”
(Source: Towards Capitalist Restoration?: Chinese Socialism after Mao | Time Reference: 31:43)
Extremely interesting. Well now we have a very solid lead, a very specific point on which to start building our case, and this is again a confluence of this Rong Yiren, which I am probably mispronouncing and let me just of course add the caveat to any Chinese speakers in the crowd that I apologize for butchering your language and every single name in this episode of the podcast.
Rong Yiren, the chairman of CITIC, which is obviously something that deserves more scrutiny, with David Rockefeller of the Chase Manhattan Bank, three hundred major US corporations, meeting and engaging in a large agreement on technical and specialist exchange of information and personnel to identify and define those areas of the Chinese economy ‘most susceptible’ to American technology and capital infusion.
So who is Rong Yiren? What was CITIC? Where did this come from? How does this relate to the presidency of Deng Xiaoping?
Well let’s start boiling this down in a fascinating little piece of this puzzle that was provided by Bloomberg a couple of years ago. Of course this is not exactly hidden knowledge that was never known before this Bloomberg report but it was interestingly summarized in a December 27th 2012 ‘Bloomberg Report – Heirs of Mao’s Comrades Rise as New Capitalist Nobility’.
This is a fascinating story about a group that was known as ‘The Eight Immortals’ and yes, I am not making that up they’re known as ‘The Immortals’, and this is a group, a new class of people who have risen, that were connected to eight people specifically, who survived the Cultural Revolution of Mao and were in high-ranking positions in the Chinese Communist Party to start implementing a very different agenda from Mao’s agenda, in the reign of Deng Xiaoping. So picking up from that article:
“The people generally known as the Eight Immortals are now all dead, though all but three lived into their 90s. Their stature in China is on a par with that of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson in the U.S. They are:
General Wang, who fed Mao’s troops;
Chen Yun, who took charge of the economy when Mao assumed power in 1949;
Li Xiannian, who was instrumental in the plot that ended the Cultural Revolution;
Peng Zhen, who helped rebuild China’s legal system in the 1980s;
Song Renqiong, the Party personnel chief who oversaw the rehabilitation of purged cadres after the Cultural Revolution;
President Yang, who backed Deng’s order to carry out the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown and
Bo Yibo, a former vice premier and the last of the Immortals to die, at 98, in 2007.
or in the Chinese pronunciation of these names…(CHINESE PRONUNCIATION)
Continuing with the Bloomberg article:
“They emerged from the Cultural Revolution after Mao’s death in 1976, during which many of them had been in internal exile, to find an economy in ruins. Gross domestic product in 1978 was $165 a person, compared with $22,462 in the U.S. With Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong booming, the Immortals were surrounded by capitalist success stories. The victorious Communists had executed landlords after 1949. Farms had become People’s Communes. Factories belonged to the state.
The Immortals turned that on its head in the 1980s: Farmers could lease land. Private enterprise – at first on a small scale, later bigger – was tolerated, then encouraged. Deng took the gamble that in order to stoke growth, some “flies and mosquitoes” could be tolerated, said Ezra Vogel, an emeritus professor at Harvard, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who wrote a 2011 biography of Deng.”
(Source: Bloomberg Exposes Network of 8 Political Families | Time Reference: 35:22)
Alright so there you go, there is in a nutshell The Eight Immortals and their progeny, which now are still in control of so many different facets of the state-controlled economy there in China, that it is extremely interesting via, not strictly state-controlled anymore the now private enterprise/state-controlled hybrid system that China is prototyping for the New World Order system, and it’s interesting, I mean it’s fascinating to look at these eight families and the way that their connections continue to wield inordinate amounts of power over the political and economic life of China. And there’s more on that in this story in Bloomberg and in other stories that have been published in Bloomberg, in various pieces of this puzzle that will be found in a million different places, which I’m going to ask your help for in hoping to connect some of those pieces later on in this episode.
But let’s continue on and picking up that thread from The Eight Immortals and their influence, back to what we were talking about earlier, with that secret meeting in 1980 with Chase Manhattan and Rockefeller meeting with Rong Yiren of the CITIC group, well that ties into this story of the Immortals. Reading again from that Bloomberg article:
“Within months, Wang Jun, the general’s son, (that’s General Wang one of the Immortals) was made head of business operations at the newly formed CITIC, known then as China International Trust & Investment Corp. The group, founded by Rong Yiren, was set up to attract overseas investment at a time when the country’s foreign exchange reserves were $840 million. He turned it into a sprawling empire to drive China’s growth. CITIC now runs China’s biggest listed securities firm, backs a Beijing soccer team and develops luxury real estate projects. China’s reserves today stand at $3.3 trillion.”
840 million to 3.3 trillion! So that gives you a sense of what CITIC is and how it relates to the current Chinese hierarchy but let’s focus even more closely in on that Rong Yiren character who in June 1980 was meeting with Rockefeller at the top of Chase Manhattan complex in Manhattan. We can find this from an obituary to Rong Yiren that was run at the time of his death, so this obituary entitled The Death of China’s Red Capitalist and the 1949 Revolution reads, in part:
“In CITIC’s first year of operations, Rong met with more than 4,000 foreign businessmen. He also enlisted Henry Kissinger, the former US secretary of state who established diplomatic relations with Beijing in 1971, as one of the company’s main international advisors.
Rong facilitated investment by building infrastructure in the free trade zones and helping foreign firms set up operations. Philip Wong, a Hong Kong delegate to China’s National People’s Congress, told the China Daily on October 28: “If not for his [Rong’s] ability and vision in setting up CITIC, the pace of economic development in China would not have been so fast.”
By 1992, Rong’s CITIC had become a business empire, involved in shipping, power generation and construction. Today, CITIC has 200 enterprises around the world and total assets of $US6.3 billion. As CITIC developed, so did Rong’s private businesses. In 1979, he sent his son, Larry Rong, to Hong Kong to manage his investments there. In 2005, Larry Rong was named by Forbes magazine as China’s richest man, with a fortune of $1.64 billion.”
Billion with a ‘b’…
“Rong senior also played a key role in the further opening up of the Chinese economy after the suppression of the anti-government protests in May and June of 1989. Deng Xiaoping justified the massacre of workers and students in Tiananmen Square on the grounds that it was necessary to defend the ‘socialist system’. In reality, it was aimed at crushing the opposition of the working class to the impact of the regime’s free market policies.”
‘Free market’, yes, an interesting little bit of propaganda snuck in there.
“In 1993, Rong was promoted to Vice President of China, as a symbol of Beijing’s determination to accelerate “market reform”. As the obituary to Rong in the British Financial Times noted: “The post was mainly ceremonial, but it sent a clear message: China’s new blend of communist politics and market economics was here to stay. And it was the ‘Red Capitalist’ who had shown the way.” The same year, China received $111 billion of contracted foreign direct investment—nearly four times the amount that had been invested in the entire 10-year period from 1979 to 1989.”
(Source: The death of China’s “red capitalist” and the 1949 revolution | Time Reference: 38:52)
A very interesting character and you will notice the little bits of propaganda and the little bits of the narrative that are already being inserted into this, in very, very subtle but very powerful ways. For example it’s the free-trade, it’s the capitalist aspects of this CITIC and these types of organizations that are to blame for the incredible oppression and political oppression that we saw at Tiananmen Square and that we’ve seen in various other contexts from Beijing, that’s somehow to do with the free market system with capitalism, because of course when we’re talking about these Eight Immortals and their progeny controlling hundreds of billions – trillions of dollars ultimately if we include the Chinese reserves – in all of these various corporations – the state-controlled corporations – this is somehow free-market, this is somehow the example of capitalism.
So you’ll see the way that certain pieces of the narrative are inserted here to try to create false paradigms, that are again at that two-dimensional stage, it’s ‘capitalism versus socialism’ and they butt heads and ‘oh look what results’. And there are other aspects of this that I think are worth highlighting, for example when Heinz Kissinger himself poses something that I think is also becoming another ‘idea’ that is pushed in this ‘China versus the US’ narrative, which is that ‘Well, you know, when you think about militarily from the perspective of empire, the Chinese are kind of the good guys.’.
HENRY KISSINGER: “The Chinese believe in the superiority of their culture, the uniqueness of their culture, and they are delighted and proud if you respect it. But there’s no way you can become a Chinese. If you are not part of the Chinese culture, born into the Chinese culture, you can not become one, so it’s hard to imagine Chinese armies intervening somewhere to make Chinese culture (inaudible) Chinese governing principles. That is not a Chinese way of thinking.
The Chinese way of thinking is that the majesty of the Chinese conduct and the achievements of Chinese society will inspire respect which leads to a cooperative action, but it’s not one that they have historically attempted to bring about by military force. They’ll use military force if they feel themselves threatened, and ruthlessly, but it’s hard for me to visualize a Chinese military strategy designed to back up a Chinese World Government, even in the name of universal peace.”
(Source: CSIS Special Book Discussion: “On China,” with Henry Kissinger | Time Reference: 42:56)
And so here’s the narrative that becomes kind of the counter-narrative to the mainstream narrative which is propagated in the West, which of course is that the US and NATO are the ‘good guys’ in this Cold War scenario. Well of course there has to be a counter-narrative – an alternative narrative – that is subtly injected into the conversation by people like Kissinger, who have been intimately involved with the creation of this ‘Red Capitalist’ system since it’s inception, as we’ve already detailed in various ways and which we will continue to detail, but he gets to insert certain things that become part of the counter-narrative as well ‘Oh well China – they don’t go out and militarily invade other countries, they’re the ‘good’ side of the New World Order’ and I so I think that’s another thing that we and the alternative media really have to be careful about, is ‘What counter-narratives are we propagating and are they truly counter to the system that is being established, are they truly counter to the megabillionaire financial elite interests that are puppeteering this butting of heads of the capitalist and socialist system?’.
Well let’s continue,what specifically resulted from these increasing ties through organizations like CITIC which very attentive listeners of this podcast will remember from our examination of the Power Corporation and the Demaree family in Canada (Time reference 46:00), which managed to get an interest in and ultimately sat on the board of CITIC Pacific which was a Hong Kong subsidiary of CITIC which is the same CITIC which was Rong Yiren working with Rockefeller and everyone at Chase Manhattan and the 300 US corporations to establish this US-China tie.
So again the layers are so deep, there are so many different facets to this story, but they interlock and they are fascinating when you start going down this rabbit hole. Let’s take a look at some more specific examples of what actually eventuated from this, and in order to do that we can look, for example, at even what is bragged about openly by the Beijing government itself. Literally the government of Beijing specifically which has a post on their website eBeijingGov.cn, ‘Fortune 500: Important engine driving Beijing’s CBD economic development’ (Time reference – 46:46)
And there are copious notes with links to all of the documents that we’re talking about so that you can start to piece the pieces of this very interesting puzzle together for yourself.
But let’s turn to again this Fortune 500 ‘Important engine driving Beijing’s CBD economic development” on the Beijing government website which notes that there has been an exceptional increase in Fortune 500 investment in China over the past decades and then in the 1990s we have the Fortune 500 enterprises setting up investment companies in Beijing, and it goes through the history of that and then after 2000 they set up regional headquarters in Beijing.
So you’re getting the idea, we have the gradual build-up of the financial, the economic, the productive, even the investment capacity of foreign Fortune 500, which we should read as ‘The Corporate Member’s Roster of the Council On Foreign Relations’ for example, that’s all interlocking. It’s growing steadily throughout the 1970s, the ‘opening up’ in the 1980s and 1990s and then the 2000-to-present region.
So we, of course, are looking at China generally from 2000 on, with its remarkable 10-15 percent GDP growth rate, just it’s blistering pace of economic growth over the past decade, and as if that sprang out of nowhere and was not the concerted and and deliberate product of a very regimented agenda that has been at work for decades now and that has been rigorously planned out from behind the scenes by the crony capitalists and ‘The ‘Immortals’ in China and their progeny.
So again, there’s an interesting little graph that shows some of the examples, for example just charting the progress of various Fortune 500 enterprises, at the beginning of the opening up in the 1970s:
“HP and Matsushita set up offices in 1979 in the neighborhood of the Beijing embassy;
HP China Ltd was established in Beijing in 1985 and Beijing Matsushita Color CRT Company Ltd was established in ’87;
HP China Investment Company was established in 1995 and Matsushita China Ltd. in 1994;
HP bought HP Building in Beijing CBD in 1998 and moved several branches to the building;
In 2002 Matsushita Ltd was transferred to a regional headquarters.”
So, again we get the sense there is this buildup and there’s just a couple of examples of some of the companies that are involved in this, but there are many, many, many more, as detailed in an article that I wrote earlier this year and it’s available on corbettreport.com, of course again a link in the show notes, to an article I wrote called ‘The Great Decoupling: How the West is Engineering its Own Downfall‘. (Time Reference 49:56)
Again more about this idea of this sort of phony Cold War and how it’s being used for political purposes to engineer a new world order, a one-world system, which notes quote:
The Chinese industrial juggernaut did not just spring up overnight; the infrastructure for China’s economic marvel of the last decade was laid in the decade before. In the seven years from 1994 to 2001 alone, direct investment of US-based multinational corporations in China quadrupled from $2.6 billion to $10.5 billion.
In the same period, China rose from the 30th-largest target of US R&D investment to the 11th on the back of a doubling of US affiliates in the country. The list of companies that started major R&D activities or facilities in China in the 1990s reads like a ‘Who’s who?’ of the CFR-nested Fortune 500 set: DuPont, Ford, General Electric, General Motors, IBM, Intel, Lucent Technologies, Microsoft, Motorola, and Rohm and Haas all had a significant stake in China by the beginning of the 21st century.
…and then the economic boom suddenly springs out of nowhere, right?
An interesting part of all of this is the fact that it was, of course, framed as ‘the offshoring of productive capacity’, of course we’re using China for their cheap labor, that’s why all these companies went to China. But the part of this that doesn’t make sense is the incredible boom in R&D (research and development) funding that began in the 1990s and continued through the 2000s period. Why was there all this investment in R&D in China? That’s different from the productive sort of menial labor which one can understand, you’re going to pay basically slave labor to do menial tasks, like Foxconn or whatever, but why R&D specifically, outsourcing that to China? And there’s an interesting report that I uncovered that deals with this problem specifically, ‘Drivers of Foreign Investment in China and the new R&D Models‘ from uta.edu, and that’s a fascinating report for a lot of different ways including the way that it tries to deal with that idea – why were these foreign companies suddenly investing in R&D in China, and it concludes for example:
“As can be seen, a great deal of research has focused on China and how global companies have moved much of their production capability to that country. However, this research has overlooked the growing amount of Research and Development that these same firms have undertaken in China. In fact, China has seen the development of new models of R&D by foreign corporations.
So again this R&D investment did not spring out of nowhere, it was again a part of a coordinated agenda that involved some of the largest corporations on the planet, and this report also lists some of the countries that heavily invested in R&D in the 1990s, Motorola, Nokia, Siemens, IBM, Microsoft, GM, Samsung, Nortel, GE, JVC, Intel, P&G, DuPont, Ericsson, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Lucent, Bell and AT&T to name a few, all have R&D facilities in China.
Microsoft for instance invested a hundred and thirty million dollars to establish its research institute Microsoft Asian Technology Center in China. Motorola established 18 R&D centers in China by the end of 2000. This included an initial 300 million dollar investment and 1060 research personnel, etcetera, etcetera.”
(Source: Drivers of Foreign Investment in China and the New R&D Models | Time Reference: 51:46)
Again, this economic marvel of China over the past decade did not spring out of nowhere. It is the end result of what has been happening for decades, as part of agreements that were reached decades before that, so we have to understand this deeper level of what’s going on to understand what’s happening at the surface level, and that I think gives further bolstering to our argument, that what’s happening is not the 2D surface reality of nation states pitted against each other but the 3D hierarchical reality of the ‘super gophers’ at the top, puppeteering the system whereby they can play nation states against each other to create a global governmental system that will ultimately be this merger of capitalism and socialism, this ‘Red Capitalism’ or whatever they want to call it–of course it will not be called ‘Red Capitalism’, it will not be called anything like that–but we’re seeing the merger of these systems in various ways. But again there’s so much to be said here.
Well let’s talk about another key aspect of what Antony C Sutton talked about when he was talking about the Western backing of the Bolsheviks or the Nazis. It was not just financial support, it was not just the development of industry it was also technology transfers. In fact that was the specific focus of Sutton’s early work at the Hoover Institute, the technological transfers that enabled the rise of the Soviet Union into an industrial superpower from its basically feudal society before the Bolsheviks took over, and in that regard it was Sutton’s argument that without the US technological transfer and technological support, the Bolsheviks couldn’t have accomplished what they ultimately did, and similarly the Nazis couldn’t have built up their war machine without the synthetic oil that was provided under specific agreements that Standard Oil had with their German counterparts to provide the technology to create the synthetic oil that fueled the German Nazi war machine that again could not have functioned without that.
So is there technology transfer going on in China? The short answer is yes. There are technology transfers from the West to China that have enabled certain specific military capabilities that the Chinese now have. The question is how deep does this go and how many layers there are.
I will provide just one layer–because this is already a huge investigation and it’s only going to expand in scope from here–but a fascinating one that developed in the 1990s, which was a series of stories about basically the transfer of nuclear technologies – technologies that helped aid China’s space program, its missile technologies, its nuclear technologies – including the transfer of microchips and things that happened in the Clinton administration so it was framed in that left/right debate, as if this was some sort of leftist agenda as opposed to, again, the Bushes supporting the Tiananmen Square massacre, the Clintons supporting with technology transfers. It’s left, right, blue, red, fork, spoon, it makes no difference, the agenda is the same and it’s being forwarded by the Rockefellers and the Kissingers and people on that level, not the political puppets who are paraded in front of us as the shadows on Plato’s cave wall.
Let’s take a look at this in more detail, this story, and we can get this from first of all, a good place to go would be the official report ‘U.S. Commercial Technology Transfers to the Peoples Republic of China‘ from ‘The Bureau of Export Administration Office of Strategic Industry and Economic Security Defense Market Research Report’, which is a fascinating report about how this technology transfer occurred , the executive summary of which reads:
“The phenomenal economic growth witnessed in China since Deng Xiaoping first declared China’s “A Open Door” policy in 1978 has led many to predict China’s certain emergence as an economic superpower in the early 21st Century. Indeed, China has followed a structured path toward gradual market reform of its still largely state-owned industrial sector, which has been transfused with increasing amounts of foreign capital and technology.
There have been numerous reports over the last several years, however, of US companies being “forced” to transfer technology to China in exchange for access to this enormous market. The purpose of his study is to assess the extent to which US commercial technology is being, in effect, “coerced” from US companies engaged in normal business practices and joint ventures in China in exchange for access to China’s markets. The cumulative effect these transfers may have on China’s efforts to modernize its economy as well as its industrial and military base is also examined. Finally, this study addresses the impact of US technology transfers to China on the issues of long-term US global competitiveness and broad economic and national security interests.
…Although it is not possible to make a clear determination of the US national security implications of commercial US technology transfers to China, the continuation of the trends identified in this study could pose long-term challenges to US national security interests. This study does not identify any specific Chinese military advances made as a result of US commercial technology transfers, but does suggest that continued pressures on foreign high-tech firms to transfer advanced commercial technologies, if successful, could indirectly benefit China’s efforts to modernize its military.”
(Source: U.S. Commercial Technology Transfers to the People’s Republic of China | Time Reference: 56:38)
This report was written in 1999. So before the Chinese economic juggernaut got underway in earnest it was already well known that these corporations–which were flocking to China to set up their R&D centers and to move and set up their corporate headquarters and all of these other major investments that were taking place–were being done on agreement that this would include technology transfers to the People’s Republic of China, that maybe could be used to build up China’s military base and now, lo-and-behold, wouldn’t you know it, China is modernizing its military at an exceptionally rapid pace with aircraft carriers coming online, the latest aircraft carrier killer missiles that they’ve developed, the drones technology that now is fast approaching that of the United States.
Again it’s a military juggernaut that’s still in the process of building up, but it is being built up, and how so. Again this type of report gives us a window into a process, a process that again could not take place without the active support of the very financial and corporate oligarchy that has been wedded to the Chinese ‘Immortals’ and the Chinese regime that’s been in place at least since the death of Mao.
Fascinating stuff I hope you will agree. Some more specifics we can get on for example the Chinese military missile allegations – the allegations of specific technology transfers regarding missile technologies – there’s a Washington Post series of articles from the 1990’s (Time Reference: 1:00:10) on this that I’ll throw a link into. It’s an interesting compendium of dozens of reports that were compiled and filed in the 1998 time period. I have a report ‘China Possible Military Technology Transfers from US Satellite Export Policy Actions in Chronology‘ (Time Reference: 1:00:25) from au.af.mil. US, this is interesting one, ‘Bush’s Brother Has Contract to Help Chinese Chip Maker‘ (Time Reference: 1:00:37), talking about Bush’s younger brother Neil and his intimate ties to a Chinese chip maker and the brouhaha that caused for George W who was in power at the time. Also it was Neil Bush who, also just a couple of years ago made headlines for this: ‘Neil Bush Communist Photo Makes A Scene On Chinese Social Media Site Weibo‘ (Time Reference: 1:01:01) and it’s Neil Bush wearing Communist Chinese regalia saying “Am I doing it right?” basically. You know, it’s all funny, it’s all fun and games to these people.
That again is just the taste of the idea of what we’re really trying to drill down to which is the specifics that Antony Sutton drew out in the Soviet or Nazi paradigms. We want to construct the same case for what’s happening with Communist China because again, this is about the creation of the One World Governmental system and that cannot take place without:
A) the nation-state systems warring and ruining each other and ‘oh please save us, oh luckily there’s this model, this structure, that’s already been put in place that can come and save us, some sort of UN-type structure that will function like the Red Capitalists of China or something of that sort and
B) this also cannot take place without the active cooperation and the financial, the corporate infrastructure that has been carefully laid out for decades now in agreements between people like Rong Yiren and CITIC and those types of groups, with such things as the US-China Business Council and other extremely fascinatingly interesting groups.
Now as you can imagine, just sorting today’s episode out into what I’ve presented so far has been a mind-boggling event and I’ve had to leave out all sorts of different things that would have sent us in different directions. This podcast could probably be split into ten different podcasts, a series, and I suppose it will be, and that’s what I’m going to call on all of you out there now to help engage in this task – of following these different cookie-crumb trails and going down the various rabbit holes and digging up what you can find.
I’m calling on the Corbett Report members, the community that is developing at the Corbett Report Open Source Intelligence News Community to help assemble some of these facts and:
– Get some of these names,
– Follow some of these leads,
– Follow the careers of some of these characters,
– Follow the various dealings that they’ve done.
…to help flesh out this picture that we’re painting here because it is an exceptionally important one, that tells a very different story to what we’re being asked to believe – that there is a US-China rivalry and that there’s going to be some war because they’re so at each others throats. That is taking place at the surface level but there is a much deeper level of what’s taking place in the third dimension that is much more important in the overall game plan.
Do not get caught up in choosing sides as if choosing a nation state or a NATO vs. Shanghai Cooperation Organization or one of these phony controlled organizations is going to make a difference . At the end it’s a dialectic and it’s going to smash these two seemingly opposed systems into each other and what’s going to result is going to be horrific on the scale of what Chairman Mao instituted in his ‘Great Leap Forward’.
So, it couldn’t be more important with what’s happening right now and I think this is the perspective from which we have to view such things as what’s going on in Hong Kong right now, where people are upset at the Beijing government. Now there is all sorts of manipulations that happen and things that are taking place in the two-dimensional nation state system version of NED?? and all of these usual players getting involved in this conflict, but this is part of the conflict that is planned. We have to see it at a deeper level and support the people against these various government and corporate manipulations that have been designed and are taking place.
So this is the level of analysis that we have to get into if you really want to understand what’s taking place with China in this current day and age and this is where I’m going to call on you for help.
I have some various things that are just suggested starting points, obviously take this anyway you want but here are some suggested starting points for where we need to go from here.
First we need more information on technology transfers. You could start using some of the articles that I’ve cited, you can look for your own, but I want more specifics about technology transfers that have taken place from the west to China that have enabled, specifically Chinese military technology I find that interesting, but also the Chinese cyber capabilities – the fact that they have the most controlled internet on the planet – which again is a very complicated thing to do and something that I don’t think could have been done without the active support and collusion of technology companies for example. So there’s some starting points for the investigation.
I want to find out more about the financial interlocks between specific Fortune 500 corporations and the ‘Red Capitalists’, and in that regard I think it would be extremely important to follow up on that Bloomberg article and the eight ‘Immortals’ – those eight families and their descendants – and where they’ve gone and how they populate and connect with other people.
There’s an interesting article I saw that connects so many of these different characters that it was a bit mind-boggling to even glance through, that I’ll include in the show notes at this precise time index so you can go and find that article and start sorting through some of those leads.
I want to look at specific organizations like, not only the WTO and IMF and other organizations that China’s a part of that are clearly part of this global governmental order, but some others that are less scrutinized but I think no less important, like the US China Business Council (Time Reference: 1:06:16) which changed its name to the National Council for US China Trade.
It still exists today, it was set up 40 years ago. In my preliminary research for this podcast I could find barely any information about the historical founding of this group and who was actually its board members and when it was founded and who specifically founded it and in what way, anything to do with the history of this group. I know that a Rockefeller has been an adviser to this group. I know Kissinger has been lauded and given awards by this group (Time Reference: 1:06:47)
But specifically there have been allegations that I’ve read that this group was founded by the likes of Rockefeller and Kissinger. If there is more information on that, more solid leads that we can take this to that would be great.
How about thinking about this in terms of global monetary order which is going to come out of this merging of the systems? And in that regard we can look at the interlock between the Bank for International Settlements – the Central Bank of central banks – identified by Carol Quigley as the absolute apex of the financial pyramid, and the PBOC – the People’s Bank of China, and I’ll throw in some links to some various articles that I think are interesting with regards to, for example, some sort of symposium that took place recently, the People’s Bank of China BIS Research Conference (Time Reference: 1:07:35) that I think will be interesting, as well as some comments that have been made in recent years by various PBOC officials about how basically what is needed is to add the Yuan to the IMF currency basket (Time Reference: 1:07:50) for the Special Drawing Rights – the SDR – which many people speculate is the instrument that is going to take over the US dollar as the world reserve currency. Some interesting leads.
Again I’ll throw those links in the show notes so you can follow through with that.
A fascinating looking debate that I haven’t had the chance to watch yet. Again I would love to have the time to have watched this but we’ve got to put this podcast up at some point, so it was a Munk Debate which takes place in Canada. It’s always an interesting debate from a propaganda perspective, you have to look through the propaganda but it’s interesting, and this debate was ‘Will the 21st century belong to China?‘ (Time Reference: 1:08:28). On the pro side: Niall Ferguson and David Daokui Li. On the con side: Henry Kissinger and Fareed Zakaria, so a CFR-Bilderberg-globalist-Super-gopher tag team there. And they ended up winning the debate, incidentally, making the argument that China will not be the power of the 21st century. Make of that what you will.
(Alternative Source: ‘Does The 21st Century Belong To China? – ebook)
So all of those leads, again there are so many more than we can take, this is obviously just the first report in what will be an ongoing research investigation into this. I don’t know what form it will take – more podcasts, more interviews, more articles, I’m sure will result from all of this research. But it is up to you guys out there, please help me out in this, compile the links if you are a Corbett Report member, please sign in to the website and leave your comments on this post so that we can start compiling this research into a more fleshed-out, detailed schematic of what we are talking about.
Again I hope I’ve placed some of these pieces on the board in a way that the picture comes into view and that you see that this is a system that’s being puppeteered in a three-dimensional reality not the 2D nation state system fight that we’re being asked to believe that it is.
I will leave you on one final note, again going back to Antony C Sutton who wrote in 1984 in America’s Secret Establishment: “By about the year 2000 communist China will be a super-power built by American technology and skill.”
How did Antony C Sutton know that? Was he clairvoyant? Was he a psychic? Could he read the future? Was he informed about history? Was he in effect an armchair quarterback, who, like any good armchair quarterback knows the opposing team’s playbook so well that he can reliably predict their plays.
We will leave you there for today…I hope I’ve left you a lot to chew on so Corbett Report members please start contributing in this Open Source investigation of China and the New World Order.
Once again I’m James Corbett of corbettreport.com, looking forward very much to talking to you again in the very near future. Thank you for your time.
(Outro Music: Applying to join the Chinese Communist Party – music video | Time Reference: 1:11:15)