2018/03/15

BBC Documentary Proves Jesus Was A Buddhist Monk Named Issa Who Spent 16+ Years In India & Tibet





BBC Documentary Proves Jesus Was A Buddhist Monk Named Issa Who Spent 16+ Years In India & Tibet









BBC Documentary Proves Jesus Was A Buddhist Monk Named Issa Who Spent 16+ Years In India & Tibet



Source




Mum Reveals Eyebag Remedy: Forget Surgery, Do This Once Daily Instead
La Mer

Sponsored by Revcontent



Find Out More >



12,387











Shocking Revelations about Jesus’ “Lost Years”



This documentary highlights a Jewish religious leader and preacher known as Jesus Christ—but it also suggests he was a Buddhist Monk. What’s more, it is argued that Jesus wasn’t actually crucified; instead, it is said that he travelled far and wide for many, many years. According to the documentary, Jesus was laid to rest at Roza Bal Shrine in Srinagar, Kashmir. Much about Jesus has been unknown due to a lack of information regarding his life between the ages of 13 and 29; in Palestine, these are sometimes referred to as “The Lost Years.” However, in 1887 a Russian doctor named Nicolas Notovitch went to India, Tibet, and Afghanistan in order to write The Unknown Life of Christ.



Notovitch soon found himself recovering from a broken leg at the Tibetan Buddhist Monastery of Hemis, atop India in the city of Leh. Two large, yellowed Tibetan volumes were presented to him: The Life of Saint Issa. He read that Jesus (or Issa, the son of God) was born in the first century in Israel, and that Vedic scholars tutored him from the age of 13 to the age of 29.




Adelaide Mum Reveals Eye Bag Remedy: Forget Surgery, Do This Once Daily Instead
Fit Mum Daily

Sponsored by Revcontent



Find Out More >



6,396



A lama explained that, “Issa is a great prophet, one of the first after the twenty-two Buddhas. He is greater than any one of all the Dalai Lamas, for he constitutes part of the spirituality of our Lord. It is he who has enlightened you, who has brought back within the pale of religion the souls of the frivolous, and who has allowed each human being to distinguish between good and evil. His name and his acts are recorded in our sacred writings. And in reading of his wondrous existence, passed in the midst of an erring and wayward people, we weep at the horrible sin of the pagans who, after having tortured him, put him to death.”







Source



When a great Buddhist or Holy Man perishes, wise men scrutinize the stars and natural omens to guide them to an infant who is their reincarnation. The child is eventually taken to be educated in the Buddhist faith, which is quite similar to the traditional story of the Three Wise Men. As per a senior lama, “Jesus is said to have visited our land and Kashmir to study Buddhism. He was inspired by the laws and wisdom of Buddha.” Russian philosopher and scientist Nicholas Roerich adds that, “Jesus passed his time in several ancient cities of India such as Benares or Varanasi. Everyone loved him because Issa dwelt in peace with the Vaishyas and Shudras whom he instructed and helped.”



Evidently, Jesus taught in the holy cities of Jagannath (Puri), Benares (in Uttar Pradesh), and Rajagriha (in Bihar), which led to the Brahmins forcing him to flee to the Himalayas to continue his studies. German scholar Holger Kersten reveals that, “The lad arrives in a region of the Sindh (along the river Indus) in the company of merchants. He settled among the Aryans with the intention of perfecting himself and learning from the laws of the great Buddha. He travelled extensively through the land of the five rivers (Punjab), stayed briefly with the Jains before proceeding to Jagannath.”



It is also said that Jesus visited Jewish settlers in Afghanistan who had fled from the Jewish emperor Nebuchadnezzar. Locals claim that Jesus spent years in the Kashmir Valley until the age of 80, when he passed away. This would mean that Jesus spent 61 to 65 years in India, Tibet, and the surrounding regions. Again, it is thought that he is buried at the Roza Bal shrine at Srinagar in Kashmir.



Texts discovered in Nag Hammadi, Egypt, and the Gospel of Thomas support many of these notions. Furthermore, The Original Jesus by Kersten and Gruber and The Agnostic and Beyond Beliefs: The Secret Gospel of Thomas by Elaine Pagels are trusted sources. Please view the video below for an even better understanding of these revelations.

Posted by at
Labels: ,

2018/03/14

성경구절을 풍선에 담아 보내는 기독탈북연합회 [탈북자:김수연]



성경구절을 풍선에 담아 보내는 기독탈북연합회 [탈북자:김수연]




성경구절을 풍선에 담아 보내는 기독탈북연합회 [탈북자:김수연]
2005.9.14


북풍(北風)이 부는 날 ‘기독탈북인연합회’이민복 대표와 회원들은 북한으로 보낼 풍선을 들고 길을 나섭니다. 풍선에는 성경구절이나 북한의 실상을 알리는 전단이 매달립니다. 이 대표가 풍선을 날려 보낸 것이 올해로 3년, 그는 왜 이 일을 시작하게 된 걸까요.

“북한 사회는 아마 역사 이래, 앞으로도 그런 나라가 없을 만큼 폐쇄된 사회 아니에요. 그 폐쇄된 땅에 외부 소식을 유일하게 그래도 들어갈 수 있는 것이 풍선이지요. 그래서 우리가 저 암흑의 땅, 정말 꽁꽁 틀어막은 그 땅에 꼭 좋은 소식을 보내야 되겠다, 그런 마음으로 우리가 시작을 했어요.”

이민복 대표는 90년 북한을 탈출하여 중국과 러시아를 거쳐 95년 한국에 입국했습니다. 그는 ‘유엔 탈북난민 1호’로 화제가 되기도 했습니다. 현재는 북한에 기독교를 전파하기 위해 활동을 펼치고 있는 이 대표를 만나 자세한 이야기를 들어보겠습니다.

북한으로 보내는 전단에는 ‘북한 사람들이 이해할 수 있도록 풀어 쓴 기독교 이야기’나 북한의 실상을 알리는 글이 실립니다. 이 대표는 북한의 실상을 알릴 때도 “감정을 담아서 없는 걸 보태서 말하지” 않는다고 합니다. “가장 유려한 것이 진실”이라고 믿기 때문입니다. 그가 북한 주민들에게 전달하는 북한 실상을 들어보겠습니다.

“예를 들어서 북한이 지상낙원이라고 하는데, 뭐가 지상낙원이냐. 그들이 선전한대 의하면 100% 찬성표, 무상치료, 무료교육 그런다고 하는데 왜 북한은 정말 유일한 나라가 그렇다. 예를 들어서 선거 100% 찬성 투표한다는 나라는 북한 밖에 없고, 약이 없으면서도 무상치료 한다는 데가 북한이고, 무료교육 시킨다면서 봄 한 달 가을 한 달 학생들 일 시키는 나라는 북한밖에 없다. 정치범수용소 있는 나라는 북한 밖에 없고, 통행증 있는 나라는 북한 밖에 없다.”

“그렇게 지상낙원이라고 하는데 왜 그렇게 꽁꽁 틀어막고 꼼짝도 못하게 하느냐. 자신감 있는 나라는 그렇지 않다” 것을 일깨워 주려는 목적에서 이 대표는 이런 전단을 북한으로 보내고 있습니다.

그러면 풍선을 통해 보내는 전단이 어느 정도 효과가 있을 까요. 이질 문에 이 대표는 “믿음은 바라는 것들의 실상이요 보지 못하는 것들 증거”라는 성경 구절로 대답을 대신했습니다. 그러나 이 대표는 전단보내기가 추상적인 활동은 아니라고 강조했습니다. 그는 북한 주민들은 폐쇄적인 만큼 역설적으로 외부 세계를 알고자 하는 심리가 매우 강하기 때문에

외부 정보에 민감하게 반응한다고 설명했습니다.

북한에 있을 때 한국에서 보낸 전단을 접해본 김철민(가명) 씨도 “삐라를 받아 보기만 해도 효과를 준다”고 견해를 밝혔습니다. 북한 주민이 전단지의 내용을 보게 될 경우 “북한의 체제 선전에 의문을 갖게 되고, 외부 세계에 대한 인식”을 하게 됩니다. 김씨는 “여의도에서 10만 명 가량의 사람들이 모여 기도하는 장면이 실린 삐라”를 보고 그들의 화려한 옷차림에 놀랐다고 합니다.

북한 당국이 선전하는 남한 사회와는 사뭇 다른 모습이었기 때문입니다. 자연스럽게 김철민 씨는 북한 당국의 선전에 대해 의문을 품기 시작했고 외부 세계와 북한 체제를 비교하는 마음이 들었다고 합니다.

북한 당국은 이런 파급효과를 우려해 외부에서 들어오는 전단은 무조건 수거해서 해당 기관에 바치거나 불태우도록 하고 있습니다. 보는 것 자체도 못하게 규제하고 있습니다. 또한 외부 소식을 확산 시키는 경우도 처벌대상으로 삼아, 전단 내용을 다른 사람에게 전달하기 어렵도록 하고 있습니다. 하지만 전단을 본 사람의 가슴 속에는 파문이 일기 시작한다는 게 김철민 씨의 설명입니다.

이토록 꽁꽁 틀어막고 있는 북한 땅에 기독교를 전파할 수 있는 방법은 없어 보입니다. 이 대표가 풍선을 선택한 것도 바로 북한의 폐쇄성 우리가 외식비 절약하고, 여기서 굶어 죽는 나라가 아니니까 사치하고 살지 않으면 그 돈 가지고 많이 보낼 수 있어요. 사람들의 생각과 의지가 문제지 그건 큰 문제가 아니에요.”

끝으로 이민복 대표는 북한에서 숨죽이며 신앙생활을 하고 있는 이름 모를 교인들에게 “당신들을 잊지 않고 있다는 것, 기도하고 있다”는 것을 잊지 말라고 당부했습니다.

“지하에서 신앙생활을 하는 분들 그런 분들을 우리가, 바로 당신들을 우리가 잊지 않고 있다는 것, 기도하고 있다는 것, 여러분들을 항상 생각하고 있다는 것을, 우리가 이렇게 전단을 통해서 보내고, 또 활동하고 있다는 데 그게 큰 힘이 되리라고 봐요.”

지금까지 서울에서 보내드린 탈북자 통신이었습니다.
Posted by at

07 '탈북지식인 48인 선언'



'탈북지식인 48인 선언'



'탈북지식인 48인 선언'
北주민들을 돕는 對北정책이어야.


자유북한방송

탈북지식인 48명이 제안하는 대북정책의 모습은?

10일 북한민주화위원회 창립을 맞아 선포된 <탈북지식인 48인 선언>은 현 남한 정부의 대북정책에 대해 정확한 정보와 상식에 근거한 것이 아님은 물론, 북한 출신인 탈북자들의 의견이 무시된 채 독단적이고 무책임하게 전개되고 있다고 비판하고 있다.



▶탈북지식인 선언낭독에 참가한 탈북자 조직 단체장들


현 대북정책은 北주민들에게 고통주고 있는 반인권적 대북정책

이들은 현재 대북 정책에 대해 김정일과 그 측근들에게는 이롭지만 2,300만 북한 주민들에게는 고통을 강요하게 되는 반인권적 대북정책이라고 평가하면서, 남북관계 개선과 북한 주민들에게 도움이 되는 대북정책의 우선순위를 다음과 같이 제안했다.
---------------------

▶남북관계 개선은 북한인권 개선을 목표로 이뤄져야 하며 
▶탈북자에 대한 소극적 수용정책은 적극적 구출전략으로 전환되어야 하고 
▶북한 인민에게 도움이 되는 금강산․개성공단이어야 하며 
▶김정일 정권의 변화를 유도하는 대북지원으로 전환되어야 하며 
▶핵문제 해결의 진정한 열쇠는 북한의 민주화여야 한다는 것이다.

이번 선언에는 황장엽 전 노동당 국제담당비서를 비롯해 홍순경 탈북자동지회 회장(김일성종합대학 법학부), 김흥광(전 함흥공산대학 교수), 조명철(김일성종합대학), 김영성(체코 프라하공대), 이영훈(전 김정일정치대학 교수), 장해성(김일성종합대학, 전 중앙방송기자) 등 북한에서 대학을 졸업하거나 중요 직책에서 근무했던 고학력층 출신 탈북 인사 48명이 참여했다.

김수연 기자 nksue@hanmail.net

----------------------------
[다음은 탈북지식인 48인 선언문 전문]


<북한민주화위원회 창립 탈북지식인 48인 선언>

자유를 찾아 대한민국에 정착한 탈북자가 1만 명을 넘어서고 북한에 관한 정보는 차고 넘치지만 대한민국의 對北정책은 정확한 정보와 상식에 근거하지 않고 북한에서 살다온 탈북자들의 의견을 무시한 채 독단적이고 무책임하게 전개되고 있다. 우리 탈북지식인들은 대한민국 정부의 대북정책이 남북한의 진정한 평화와 협력을 정착시키는 정책이 되기를 진심으로 바라고 있다.

그러나 탈북자들과 탈북지식인들이 보았을 때, 현재의 대북정책은 김정일과 그 일당에게는 이롭고 2,300만 북한 인민들에게는 한없는 고통을 강요하게 하는 반인권적 대북정책으로 평가할 수밖에 없다. 우리 탈북 지식인들이 진지한 토의를 거듭한 결과 진정으로 남북관계 개선과 북한 인민에게 도움이 되는 대북정책의 우선순위를 탈북 지식인의 입장에서 다음과 같이 제시하고자 한다.

1. 남북관계 개선은 북한인권 개선을 목표로 이뤄져야 한다.

대한민국 국민 입장에서 볼 때, 이산가족 상봉, 납북자, 국군포로 문제 등 시급한 인도적 문제가 산적해 있다. 일본도 북한 인권문제 보다 납치자 문제에 치중하고 있다. 북한 인민 입장을 그 누구도 대변해주지 않고 있다. 북한의 열악한 모든 문제 가운데 가장 시급하게 해결해야 할 문제는 북한의 정치범 수용소다. 수용소는 한순간도 방치 할 수 없는 최우선적인 인도적 사안이다.

현재 다섯 곳에 이르는 정치범 수용소는 1960년대부터 운영되고 있으며, 남녀노소 수십만이 체계적으로 수감된 채 사람이 짐승처럼 죽어가는 인간 살육장이다. 가족이 해체되고 임산부와 어린아이들까지 이런 만행의 대상이 되고 있다. 공개된 죽음보다 보이지 않는 죽음이 더 끔찍하고 처참하다. 이런 수용소문제가 남북관계를 유지함에 있어서 단 한 번도 거론되지 않는다는 것은 북한에서 시급하게 해결 되어야 할 문제가 무엇인지조차 파악하지 못했기 때문이다. 만일, 그 사실을 알면서도 남북관계를 핑계로 묻어두고 있다면, 그것은 반인류적 범죄를 묵인하고 북한 주민의 인권을 포기하는 짓이다. 평화와 화해는 수용소가 존재하는 한 불가능하며 납북자․국군포로 문제 어느 것도 해결될 수 없다. 정치범 수용소 해체는 북한 인권개선의 첫 걸음이 될 것이며, 여행의 자유, 거주 이전의 자유, 언론의 자유 등 기본적인 인권과 자유를 해결하는데 남북관계의 기본 조건으로 다뤄져야 한다.

2. 탈북자에 대한 소극적 수용정책에서 적극적 구출전략으로 전환해야 한다

일제 시대보다 더한 폭정과 굶주림을 피해 독재정권을 탈출한 탈북자들은 북송될 경우 목숨을 보장받을 수 없다. 즉, 아무리 배고파서 탈북을 해도, 그 순간부터 탈북자는 ‘민족반역자’라는 오명을 쓰게 되며 정치범으로 전락하게 된다. 때문에 탈북자들을 단순한 경제적 난민으로 해석할 수 없다. 이런 탈북자에 대해 중국정부는 ‘불법월경자’ 라는 딱지를 붙혀 이유를 불문하고 체포해 강제북송 시키고 있다. 같은 사회주의 국가인 쿠바도 과거 베트남도 떠나는 사람들을 강제 송환해 처형하거나 수용소에 수감한 사례는 없다.

북한당국은 국경지역에 인민군대 30만을 동원해 탈북자를 막기 위해 총력을 다 하고 있다. 탈북은 북한체제 변화의 가장 중요한 요소이기 때문이다. 탈북자의 증가는 김정일 정권의 변화압력으로 작용해, 북한 민주화를 촉진시키는 촉매가 될 수 있다.

평화적으로 통일을 원하고, 진정으로 북한의 민주화를 바란다면 탈북자들의 안전에 한국정부는 최선을 다해야 한다. 소극적 수용전략에서 적극적 구출전략으로 전환해, 중국정부에 강제송환을 멈추도록 지속적인 요구를 하고, 국제사회와 협조해 탈북자의 난민인정을 중국이 인정하도록 노력해야 한다.

현재 한국 정부는 중국의 압력과 무례한 요구에 굴복해 중국 내에서 벌어지고 있는 탈북자에 대한 중국당국의 불법 체포 및 송환에 대해서 무대응으로 일관하고 있다. 치외법권외 지역이라는 이유로 대사관 문턱에서 중국 공안원들에게 끌려가는 탈북자들조차 외면하고 있다. 미국에는 할 말 다하는 정부가 왜 중국에는 할 말을 하지 못하는지 이해할 수 없다.

서독 정부가 탈출하는 동독 인민 250만을 구출한 사례는 남북한 통일의 좋은 모델이 될 수 있다. 탈북자 10만 명 시대가 오면 북한 체제의 변화는 급속도로 이뤄지게 되며, 평화적 통일 가능성은 높아지게 된다.

진정한 평화통일은 탈북자로부터 시작되며, 이들의 대한민국 정착은 하나의 작은 통일을 이루는 첫 걸음이 된다. 탈북자들의 노력과 정부와 국민의 관심으로 대한민국에 성공적인 정착을 할 수 있는 사회 환경 조성과 제도개선이 시급하다.

3. 북한 인민에게 도움이 되는 금강산․개성공단이어야 한다.

현재 남북한 정부가 진행하고 있는 금강산관광과 개성공단 사업은 많은 문제점을 내포하고 있다. 고질적인 독재 권력에 의한 횡포와, 한국 측의 요구가 제대로 반영되지 않은 금강산 관광과 개성공단 사업은 결국 북한인민에게도 전혀 도움이 될 수 없다.

금강산 관광의 문제점은 첫째, 한국국민들이 내는 관광비용이 모두 군부로 들어간다는 것이다. 두 번째로, 군부와 김정일의 외화벌이를 위해 대한민국국민들이 금강산관광을 하는 것 까지는 이해하겠으나, 2,300만의 북한인민들은 금강산관광이 모두 금지됐다. 남조선 사람들의 볼거리를 제공하기 위해 북한인민들의 금강산 관광권리는 무시해도 된다는 것인가? 김정일의 배만 불리고 남한 국민들을 동물원 원숭이로 만든 것도 모자라, 북한 인민들의 금강산 관광권리를 박탈한 야만적인 금강산 관광 사업은 즉각 중단되어야 한다.

세 번째, 금강산에 웬 철조망인가? 철조망과 군인들이 지키고 서있는 금강산에 국민들을 내모는 것은 매우 잘못된 것이다. 현대아산은 지금과 같은 조건들을 수용하지 않고 금강산관광사업을 계속할 경우 김정일을 타도하고 새롭게 선출될 북한지도부와 인민들로부터 금강산 관광 사업을 지속할 수 있는 명분을 잃게 될 것이다.

이런 맥락으로 개성공단도 마찬가지다. 개성공단에서 버는 외화는 모두 북한당국의 대남기관에서 흡수하고 있다. 개성공단의 문제점은 첫째, 남한기업가가 북한 근로자들을 직접 고용해 월급을 줄 수 없다는 것이다.

둘째, 북한근로자는 58~60불 정도로 지급하는 월급에서 2달러 안팎의 월급을 한국기업이 아닌 북한정부로부터 받고 있다. 월급의 95%를 갈취당하면서 아무런 권리도 주장할 수 없는 북한근로자는 노예노동을 하는 것과 똑같다. 김정일의 외화벌이를 위해 육체적 돈벌이 도구로 이용당하고 있는 것이다. 기업 사장이 인력관리조차 할 수 없고, 노동자는 사장의 월급을 직접 받을 수 없는 이런 개성공단 사업은 김정일의 돈주머니를 불리는 ‘노예노동사업’이다. 우리 탈북지식인들이 지적하는 이런 문제가 해결되지 않는 두 사업은 재고돼야 하며 북한 측이 성실한 자세로 변화를 하도록 정당한 요구를 해야 한다.

4. 김정일 정권의 변화를 유도하는 대북지원으로 전환돼야 한다.

김정일 정권이 변하지 않은 채 지속된 10년간의 대북지원은 인민이 아닌 권력집단에 이용됐고, 결국 인민들이 피해를 보는 악순환이 계속되고 있다. 국민의 피같은 세금으로 지원되는 모든 지원이 북한인민에게 제대로 전달되는지 철저한 모니터링이 전혀 이뤄지지 않고 있다.

대한민국 국민의 세금이 인민군대로 흡수되고 북한권력집단을 강화시키는데 악용되어도 대북지원만을 고집하는 것은 북한문제 해결에 도움이 될 수 없다. 게다가 북한인민들은 마치 남한국민들이 도와줘야 먹고사는 것처럼 인식되는 것은 북한주민의 입장에서 참을 수 없는 일이다.

북한 인민들이 남한 국민들이 보내주는 쌀이나 얻어먹는 ‘거지’가지 아니다. 한반도에 태어난 모든 조선 사람들은 똑같은 두뇌와 신체와 능력을 가지고 있다. 북한 사람들이 남한 국민들에게 얻어먹고 살 이유는 아무데도 없다.

북한 인민들이 굶어죽는 것은 김정일 정권이 그들에게 자유를 주지 않기 때문이다. 인민들은 스스로 살 수 있는 능력이 있는데 정권이 그것을 허용하지 않고 있다. 한국정부와 국민들이 북한 인민의 민주화운동에 적극 동참해 주면 쌀 수백 만 톤 보다 더 값진 선물이 될 수 있다.

독재기구인 150만 인민군대도 모든 외부지원을 흡수하는 돈 먹는 하마다. 이런 인민군대가 축소되지 않는 한 대북지원이 인민에게 돌아갈리 만무하다. 상호주의가 배제되고, 모니터링을 하지 않는 한국정부의 대북지원은 체제변화를 가로막고 김정일 개인의 부귀영화와 권력집단을 살찌우고 인민들이 계속해서 노예노동과 구걸질로 살아가도록 만들고 있다. 식량난 때문에 자연발생적으로 확대된 인민들의 자유가 대북지원 때문에 뒷걸음치고 있다.

대한민국 국민들의 세금으로 이뤄지는 대북지원이 북한인민에게 도움이 되고 북한변화를 이뤄내자면 첫째, 철저한 상호주의를 해야 한다. 지원의 대가로 남북이산가족 상봉확대, 인권문제, 경제개혁문제, 납북자-국군포로 문제 등을 하나하나 풀어나가야 한다. 두 번째, 철저한 모니터링이 가능해야 한다. 세계식량기구(WFP)도 북한당국의 비협조로 철수하기에 이르렀다. 식량지원에 대한 철저한 모니터링이 이뤄지지 않으면 지원이 불가하다는 원칙을 세우고, 북한 당국의 변화를 유도해야한다. 세 번째, 현금지원은 가급적으로 피하고, 어린이나 노약자, 환자 등 취약계층을 도울 수 있는 항목으로 대북지원을 집중해야 한다. 네 번째, 모니터링이 불가능하다면, 풍선기구 등 다양한 방법으로 북한주민들을 도울 수 있는 방법도 강구해야 한다.

5. 핵문제 해결의 진정한 열쇠는 북한의 민주화다.

김정일 정권의 핵무기는 무너진 경제와 군사력으로 절망에 빠져 있는 인민군대와 인민을 현혹해 결속시킬 수 있는 유일한 수단이다. 만약 북한에 핵무기마저 없다면 더 이상 인민군대와 인민을 통제할 수단과 능력을 잃어버렸을 것이다. 김정일에게 핵무기는 하늘이 무너져도 포기할 수 없다. 게다가 국제사회도 핵무기가 있어 상대해 준다고 믿고 있는 김정일이다. 아무리 막대한 경제적 지원으로 달래고 약속을 한다고 해도 김정일 정권은 마지막 순간까지 핵을 포기하지 않는다. 이러한 사실은 북한을 경험한 탈북자 1만 명에게 물어보면 모두 똑같은 답변을 할 것이다.

6자회담에서 미국이 김정일 정권의 불법자금을 동결시킨 금융제재를 해제하고 김정일에게 숨통을 열어준 것은, 핵무기 포기는 고사하고 체제연장만을 시켜줌으로서 문제를 더 어렵게 만들어 놓았다. 핵문제가 해결되기도 전에 벌어지는 한국정부의 대북지원도 오히려 핵문제 해결에 도움이 안 된다.

김정일의 핵무기를 제거하는 방법은 두 가지가 있다. 하나는 군사적으로 핵시설을 제거하는 것이고, 두 번째는 국제적인 압력으로 스스로 포기하게 만드는 것이다.

한반도의 현실에 맞는 두 번째 방법을 선택하자면 군사적 수단 이외에 북한에 취할 수 있는 압력수단을 동원해야한다. 그것은 바로 마약, 위조화폐, 등 불법으로 번 자금을 동결시키는 금융제재가 효과적이고, 군부에 대부분 충당되는 외부지원을 단호하게 끊어 버리는 것도 강력한 수단 가운데 하나가 된다.

핵문제 해결은 북한민주화와 직결돼 있다. 핵무기는 김정일 개인과 그 집단에 필요한 것이지 북한인민과는 무관한 것이다. 인권이 없고, 민주화되지 않는 체제 하에서 수백만 인민이 굶어죽으면서 만들어낸 핵무기는 결국 인권과 자유, 민주화의 힘으로 해결할 수밖에 없다.

2007년 4월 10일 (화)
Posted by at

The coming war on China | New Internationalist



The coming war on China | New Internationalist

The coming war on China



A major US military build-up – including nuclear weapons – is under way in Asia and the Pacific with the purpose of confronting China. John Pilger raises the alarm on an under-reported and dangerous provocation.




NI 498 - December, 2016
Features
China
United States




Preparing for conflict: guided-missile destroyer USS McCampbell patrolling in the South China Sea earlier this year.
Photo: US Navy

When I first went to Hiroshima in 1967, the shadow on the steps was still there. It was an almost perfect impression of a human being at ease: legs splayed, back bent, one hand by her side as she sat waiting for a bank to open. At a quarter past eight on the morning of 6 August, 1945, she and her silhouette were burned into the granite. I stared at the shadow for an hour or more, unforgettably. When I returned many years later, it was gone: taken away, ‘disappeared’, a political embarrassment.

I have spent two years making a documentary film, The Coming War on China, in which the evidence and witnesses warn that nuclear war is no longer a shadow, but a contingency. The greatest build-up of American-led military forces since the Second World War is well under way. They are on the western borders of Russia, and in Asia and the Pacific, confronting China.

The great danger this beckons is not news, or it is news buried and distorted: a drumbeat of propaganda that echoes the psychopathic campaign embedded in public consciousness during much of the 20th century.

Like the renewal of post-Soviet Russia, the rise of China as an economic power is declared an ‘existential threat’ to the divine right of the United States to rule and dominate human affairs.

To counter this, in 2011 President Obama announced a ‘pivot to Asia’, which meant that almost two-thirds of US naval forces would be transferred to Asia and the Pacific by 2020.

Today, more than 400 American military bases encircle China with missiles, bombers, warships and, above all, nuclear weapons. From Australia north through the Pacific to Japan, Korea and across Eurasia to Afghanistan and India, the bases form, says one US strategist, ‘the perfect noose’.

A study by the RAND Corporation – which, since Vietnam, has planned America’s wars – is entitled War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable. Commissioned by the US Army, the authors evoke the Cold War when RAND made notorious the catch cry of its chief strategist, Herman Kahn – ‘thinking the unthinkable’. Kahn’s book, On Thermonuclear War, elaborated a plan for a ‘winnable’ nuclear war against the Soviet Union.

Today, his apocalyptic view is shared by those holding real power in the US: the Pentagon militarists and their neoconservative collaborators in the executive, intelligence agencies and Congress. The current Secretary of Defense, Ashley Carter, a verbose provocateur, says US policy is to confront those ‘who see America’s dominance and want to take that away from us’.

Today, more than 400 American military bases encircle China with missiles, bombers, warships and nuclear weapons.
Photo: Charles Gatward: The Coming War on China, Darmouth Films
'Punish' China

In Washington, I met Amitai Etzioni, distinguished professor of international affairs at George Washington University. The US, he writes, ‘is preparing for a war with China, a momentous decision that so far has failed to receive a thorough review from elected officials, namely the White House and Congress.’

This war would begin with a ‘blinding attack against Chinese anti-access facilities, including land and sea-based missile launchers… satellite and anti-satellite weapons’. The incalculable risk is that ‘deep inland strikes could be mistakenly perceived by the Chinese as pre-emptive attempts to take out its nuclear weapons, thus cornering them into “a terrible use-it-or-lose-it dilemma” [that would] lead to nuclear war.’

In 2015, the Pentagon released its Law of War Manual. ‘The United States,’ it says, ‘has not accepted a treaty rule that prohibits the use of nuclear weapons per se, and thus nuclear weapons are lawful weapons for the United States.’

In China, a strategist told me, ‘We are not your enemy, but if you [in the West] decide we are, we must prepare without delay.’ China’s military and arsenal are small compared to America’s. However, ‘for the first time,’ wrote Gregory Kulacki of the Union of Concerned Scientists, ‘China is discussing putting its nuclear missiles on high alert so that they can be launched quickly on warning of an attack… This would be a significant and dangerous change in Chinese policy… Indeed, the nuclear weapon policies of the United States are the most prominent external factor influencing Chinese advocates for raising the alert level of China’s nuclear forces.’


'I don't want it to be a fair fight. If it's a knife fight, I want to bring a gun'

Professor Ted Postol was scientific adviser to the head of US naval operations. An authority on nuclear weapons, he told me, ‘Everybody here wants to look like they’re tough. See, I got to be tough… I’m not afraid of doing anything military, I’m not afraid of threatening; I’m a hairy-chested gorilla. And we have gotten into a state, the United States has gotten into a situation where there’s a lot of sabre-rattling, and it’s really being orchestrated from the top.’

I said, ‘This seems incredibly dangerous.’

‘That’s an understatement.’

Andrew Krepinevich is a former Pentagon war planner and the influential author of war games against China. He wants to ‘punish’ China for extending its defences to the South China Sea. He advocates seeding the ocean with sea mines, sending in US special forces and enforcing a naval blockade. He told me, ‘Our first president, George Washington, said if you want peace, prepare for war.’

In 2015, in high secrecy, the US staged its biggest single military exercise since the Cold War. This was Talisman Sabre; an armada of ships and long-range bombers rehearsed an ‘Air-Sea Battle Concept for China’ – ASB – blocking sea lanes in the Straits of Malacca and cutting off China’s access to oil, gas and other raw materials from the Middle East and Africa.

Nerje Joseph, a survivor of nuclear tests on the MarshallIslands between 1946-58, holds a picture of the blast injuries she sustained as a child.
Photo: Bruno Sorrentino and John Pilger

It is such a provocation, and the fear of a US Navy blockade, that has seen China feverishly building strategic airstrips on disputed reefs and islets in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Last July, the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration ruled against China’s claim of sovereignty over these islands. Although the action was brought by the Philippines, it was presented by leading American and British lawyers and can be traced to then US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In 2010, Clinton flew to Manila. She demanded that America’s former colony reopen the US military bases closed down in the 1990s following a popular campaign against the violence they generated, especially against Filipino women. She declared China’s claim on the Spratly Islands – which lie more than 7,500 miles (12,000 kilometres) from the United States – a threat to US ‘national security’ and to ‘freedom of navigation’.

Handed millions of dollars in arms and military equipment, the then government of President Benigno Aquino broke off bilateral talks with China and signed a secretive Enhanced Defense Co-operation Agreement with the US. This established five rotating US bases and restored a hated colonial provision that American forces and contractors were immune from Philippine law.

Under the rubric of ‘information dominance’ – the jargon for media manipulation on which the Pentagon spends more than $4 billion – the Obama administration launched a propaganda campaign that cast China, the world’s greatest trading nation, as a threat to ‘freedom of navigation’.

CNN led the way, its ‘national security reporter’ reporting excitedly from on board a US Navy surveillance flight over the Spratlys. The BBC persuaded frightened Filipino pilots to fly a single-engine Cessna over the disputed islands ‘to see how the Chinese would react’. None of the news reports questioned why the Chinese were building airstrips off their own coastline, or why American military forces were massing on China’s doorstep.

The designated chief propagandist is Admiral Harry Harris, the US military commander in Asia and the Pacific. ‘My responsibilities,’ he told The New York Times, ‘cover Bollywood to Hollywood, from polar bears to penguins.’ Never was imperial domination described as pithily.
Malleable media and obsequious partners

Harris is one of a brace of Pentagon admirals and generals briefing selected, malleable journalists and broadcasters, with the aim of justifying a threat as specious as that with which George W Bush and Tony Blair justified the destruction of Iraq.

In Los Angeles in September, Harris declared he was ‘ready to confront a revanchist Russia and an assertive China… If we have to fight tonight, I don’t want it to be a fair fight. If it’s a knife fight, I want to bring a gun. If it’s a gun fight, I want to bring in the artillery… and all our partners with their artillery.’

These ‘partners’ include South Korea, an American colony in all but name and the launch pad for the Pentagon’s Terminal High Altitude Air Defense system, known as THAAD, ostensibly aimed at North Korea. As Professor Postol points out, it targets China.

In Sydney, Australia, Harris called on China to ‘tear down its Great Wall in the South China Sea’. The imagery was front-page news. Australia is America’s most obsequious ‘partner’; its political elite, military, intelligence agencies and the dominant Murdoch media are fully integrated into what is known as the ‘alliance’. Closing the Sydney Harbour Bridge for the motorcade of a visiting American government ‘dignitary’ is not uncommon. The war criminal Dick Cheney was afforded this honour.

Although China is Australia’s biggest trader, on which much of the national economy relies, ‘confronting China’ is the diktat from Washington. The few political dissenters in Canberra risk McCarthyite smears in the Murdoch press. ‘You in Australia are with us come what may,’ said one of the architects of the Vietnam War, McGeorge Bundy. One of the most important US bases is Pine Gap near Alice Springs. Founded by the CIA, it spies on China and all of Asia, and is a vital contributor to Washington’s murderous war by drone in the Middle East.

In October, Richard Marles, the defence spokesperson of the main Australian opposition party, the Labor Party, demanded that ‘operational decisions’ in provocative acts against China be left to military commanders in the South China Sea. In other words, a decision that could mean war with a nuclear power should not be taken by an elected leader or a parliament but by an admiral or a general.

This is the Pentagon line, a historic departure for any state calling itself a democracy. The ascendancy of the Pentagon in Washington – which Daniel Ellsberg has called a silent coup – is reflected in the record $5 trillion the United States has spent on aggressive wars since 9/11, according to a study by Brown University. The million dead in Iraq and the flight of 12 million refugees from at least four countries are the consequence.

‘I state clearly and with conviction,’ said Obama in 2009, ‘America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.’ Under Obama, nuclear warhead spending has risen higher than under any president since the end of the Cold War. A mini nuclear weapon is planned. Known as the B61 Model 12, it will mean, says General James Cartwright, former vice-chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that ‘going smaller [makes its use] more thinkable’.

‘The China trade’

James Bradley is the author of the best-selling The China Mirage: The Hidden History of American Disaster in Asia (Little Brown, 2015). In these excerpts from his interview with John Pilger, he describes how modern America was built on the ‘China trade’.

James Bradley: For most of American history, it was illegal for someone like me to know a Chinese. The Chinese came to America to mine gold and build the railroads, and Americans decided we didn’t like competition. So in 1882 we had the Chinese Exclusion Acts, which kept the Chinese out of the United States for about 100 years. Just at the point we were putting up the Statue of Liberty saying we welcome everybody, we were erecting a wall saying: ‘We welcome everybody except those Chinese.’

John Pilger: And yet, for the American elite in the 19th century, China was a goldmine.

JB: A goldmine of drugs. Warren Delano, the grandfather of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was the American opium king of China; he was the biggest American opium dealer, second only to the British. Much of the east coast [establishment] of the United States – Columbia, Harvard, Yale, Princeton – was born of drug money. The American industrial revolution was funded by huge pools of money – where did this come from? It came from illegal drugs in the biggest market in the world: China.

JP: So the grandfather of the most liberal president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was a drug runner?

JB: Yes. Franklin Delano Roosevelt never made much money in his life. He had public-service jobs that were very lowly paid, but he inherited a fortune from Warren Delano, his father. Now if you scratch anyone with the name Forbes, you’ll find opium money… such as John Forbes Kerry…

JP: That’s the present Secretary of State.

JB: Yes. His great-grandfather [Francis Blackwell Forbes] was an opium dealer. How big was opium money? Opium money built the first industrial city in the United States. It built the first five railroads. But it wasn’t talked about. It was called the China trade.



In 1959 a US fighter plane crashed into Miyamori School, Okinawa, killing a number of children.

Peaceful resistance

The Japanese island of Okinawa has 32 military installations, from which Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan and Iraq have been attacked by the United States. Today, the principal target is China, with whom Okinawans have close cultural and trade ties.

There are military aircraft constantly in the sky over Okinawa; they sometimes crash into homes and schools. People cannot sleep, teachers cannot teach. Wherever they go in their own country, they are fenced in and told to keep out.

A hugely popular Okinawan movement has been growing since a 12-year-old girl was gang-raped by US troops in 1995. It was one of hundreds of such crimes, many of them never prosecuted. Barely acknowledged in the wider world, the resistance in Okinawa is a vivid expression of how ordinary people can peacefully take on a military giant, and threaten to win.

Their campaign has elected Japan’s first anti-base governor, Takeshi Onaga, and presented an unfamiliar hurdle to the Tokyo government and the ultra-nationalist Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s plans to repeal Japan’s ‘peace constitution’.

The resistance leaders include Fumiko Shimabukuro, aged 87, a survivor of the Second World War, when a quarter of Okinawans died in the American invasion. Fumiko and hundreds of others took refuge in beautiful Henoko Bay, which she is now fighting to save. The US wants to destroy the bay in order to extend runways for its bombers. As we gathered peacefully outside the US base, Camp Schwab, giant Sea Stallion helicopters hovered over us for no reason other than to intimidate.

Fumiko Shimabukuro (right), an Okinawa World War Two survivor, is now fighting to save a bay from US bombers. With her is Eiko Ginoza.
Photo: Bruno Sorrentino and John Pilger

Across the East China Sea lies the Korean island of Jeju, a semi-tropical sanctuary and World Heritage Site declared ‘an island of world peace’. On this island of world peace has been built one of the most provocative military bases in the world, less than 400 miles (650 kilometres) from Shanghai. The fishing village of Gangjeong is dominated by a South Korean naval base purpose-built for US aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines and destroyers equipped with the Aegis missile system, aimed at China.

A people’s resistance to these war preparations has become a presence on Jeju for almost a decade. Every day, often twice a day, villagers, Catholic priests and supporters from all over the world stage a religious mass that blocks the gates of the base. In a country where political demonstrations are often banned, unlike powerful religions, the tactic has produced an inspiring spectacle.


The world is shifting east, but the astonishing vision of Eurasia from China is barely understood in the West

One of the leaders, Father Mun Jeong-hyeon, told me, ‘I sing four songs every day at the base, regardless of the weather. I sing in typhoons – no exception. To build this base, they destroyed the environment, and the life of the villagers, and we should be a witness to that. They want to rule the Pacific. They want to make China isolated in the world. They want to be emperor of the world.’

South Korean woodcarver and Catholic priest, Father Mun Jeong-hyeon, leads a daily protest against the building of a naval base that the US will use to target China.
Photo: Bruno Sorrentino and John Pilger

I flew to Shanghai for the first time in more than a generation. When I was last in China, the loudest noise I remember was the tinkling of bicycle bells; Mao Zedong had recently died, and the cities seemed dark places, in which foreboding and expectation competed. Within a few years, Deng Xiaoping, the ‘man who changed China’, was the ‘paramount leader’. Nothing prepared me for the astonishing changes today.

I met Lijia Zhang, a Beijing journalist and typical of a new class of outspoken mavericks. Her best-selling book has the ironic title Socialism Is Great! She grew up during the chaotic and brutal Cultural Revolution and has lived in the US and Europe. ‘Many Americans imagine,’ she said, ‘that Chinese people live a miserable, repressed life with no freedom whatsoever. The [idea of] the yellow peril has never left them… They have no idea there are some 500 million people being lifted out of poverty, and some would say it’s 600 million.’

China today: a tourist snaps the bull of capitalism in front of Shanghai’s Bund hotel, bedecked with communist flags.
Photo: Bruno Sorrentino and John Pilger

She described modern China as a ‘golden cage’. ‘Since the reforms started,’ she said, ‘and we’ve become so much better off, China has become one of the most unequal societies in the world. There are lots of protests now: typically, land being grabbed by officials for commercial development. But farmers are more aware of their rights; and young factory workers are demanding a better wage and conditions.’
The world is shifting east

China today presents perfect ironies, not least the house in Shanghai where Mao and his comrades secretly founded the Communist Party of China in 1921. Today, it stands in the heart of a very capitalist shopping district; you walk out of this communist shrine with your Little Red Book and your plastic bust of Mao into the embrace of Starbucks, Apple, Cartier, Prada.

Would Mao be shocked? I doubt it. Five years before his great revolution in 1949, he sent this secret message to Washington. ‘China must industrialize,’ he wrote. ‘This can only be done by free enterprise. Chinese and American interests fit together, economically and politically. America need not fear that we will not be co-operative. We cannot risk any conflict.’

Mao offered to meet Franklin Roosevelt in the White House, and his successor Harry Truman, and his successor Dwight Eisenhower. He was rebuffed, or wilfully ignored. The opportunity that might have changed contemporary history, prevented wars in Asia and saved countless lives was lost because the truth of these overtures was denied in 1950s Washington ‘when the catatonic Cold War trance,’ wrote the critic James Naremore, ‘held our country in its rigid grip’.

Eric Li, a Shanghai venture capitalist and social scientist, told me, ‘I make the joke: in America you can change political parties, but you can’t change the policies. In China you cannot change the party, but you can change policies. The political changes that have taken place in China this past 66 years have been wider and broader and greater than probably in any other major country in living memory.’

Beijing journalist and outspoken maverick, Lijia Zhang.



For all the difficulties of those left behind by China’s rapid growth, such as workers from the countryside living on the edge in cities built for conspicuous consumption, and those Tiananmen brave-hearts still challenging ‘the centre’, the Party, what is striking is the widespread sense of optimism that buttresses the epic of change.

The world is shifting east; but the astonishing vision of Eurasia from China is barely understood in the West. The ‘New Silk Road’ is a ribbon of trade, ports, pipelines and high-speed trains all the way to Europe. China, the world’s leader in rail technology, is negotiating with 28 countries for routes on which trains will reach up to 400 kilometres an hour. This opening to the world has the approval of much of humanity and, along the way, is uniting China and Russia; and they are doing it entirely without ‘us’ in the West.

We – or many of us – remain in thrall to the US, which has intervened violently in the affairs of a third of the members of the United Nations, destroying governments, subverting elections, imposing blockades. In the past five years, the US has shipped deadly weapons to 96 countries, most of them poor. Dividing societies in order to control them is US policy, as the tragedies in Iraq and Syria demonstrate.

‘I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being,’ said Barack Obama, evoking the national fetishism of the 1930s. This modern cult of superiority is Americanism, the world’s dominant predator. Accompanied by a brainwashing that presents it as enlightenment on the march, the conceit insinuates our lives.

In September, the Atlantic Council, a US geopolitical thinktank, published a report that predicted a Hobbesian world ‘marked by the breakdown of order, violent extremism [and] an era of perpetual war’. The new enemies were a ‘resurgent’ Russia and an ‘increasingly aggressive’ China. Only heroic America can save us.

There is a demented quality about this war-mongering. It is as if the ‘American Century’ – proclaimed in 1941 by the American imperialist Henry Luce, owner of Time magazine – has ended without notice and no-one has had the courage to tell the emperor to take his guns and go home.


John Pilger

Protesters on Jeju, South Korea.
Photo: Bruno Sorrentino and John Pilger

The coming war on China


John Pilger's documentary, The Coming War on China, is in cinemas in the UK from 1 December, beginning at the BFI on London’s Southbank. On 5 December, Picturehouse cinemas will hold a nationwide with John Pilger. The website is picturehouses.com. On 6 December, ITV will broadcast the film and a DVD will be available the same day. The Australian release is early in 2017; SBS Australia will broadcast the film nationwide.

For worldwide distribution enquiries, contact Dartmouth Films: christo@dartmouthfilms.com. The film’s website address is thecomingwarmovie.com

Posted by at
Labels:

The U.S. Military's Mission Is Clear: Crush Russia or China in a War | The National Interest Blog



The U.S. Military's Mission Is Clear: Crush Russia or China in a War | The National Interest Blog
The U.S. Military's Mission Is Clear: Crush Russia or China in a War


Dave Majumdar

January 22, 2018
TweetShareShare


The Pentagon’s new National Defense Strategy is refocusing the U.S. military onto traditional great power conflicts against nations such as Russia and China while still fighting terrorism. The new document, which was released last week, is the Pentagon’s first national defense strategy in over 10 years.

“The world, to quote George Shultz [former Secretary of State under Reagan], is awash in change, defined by increasing global volatility and uncertainty with Great Power competition between nations becoming a reality once again,” Defense Secretary James Mattis told an audience on Jan. 19. “Though we will continue to prosecute the campaign against terrorists that we are engaged in today, but Great Power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of U.S. national security.”


Recommended: 5 Places World War III Could Start in 2018

Recommended: How North Korea Could Start a War




Recommended: This Is What Happens if America Nuked North Korea

Mattis said that Russia and China are increasingly challenging the United States for dominance and Washington must respond accordingly. “We face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia are from each other, nations that do seek to create a world consistent with their authoritarian models, pursuing veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic and security decisions,” Mattis said. “Rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran persist in taking outlaw actions that threaten regional and even global stability. Oppressing their own people and shredding their own people's dignity and human rights, they push their warped views outward.”

However, even as authoritarian regimes rise, the United States still has to contend with terrorism. “Despite the defeat of ISIS' physical caliphate, violent extremist organizations like ISIS or Lebanese Hezbollah or al Qaida continue to sow hatred, destroying peace and murdering innocents across the globe,” Mattis said.

Even as the United States grapples with those threats, Washington’s technological edge over would be challengers are starting to erode. “In this time of change, our military is still strong. Yet our competitive edge has eroded in every domain of warfare, air, land, sea, space and cyberspace, and it is continuing to erode,” Mattis said. “Rapid technological change, the negative impact on military readiness is resulting from the longest continuous stretch of combat in our nation's history and defense spending caps, because we have been operating also for nine of the last 10 years under continuing resolutions that have created an overstretched and under-resourced military.”

Mattis’ solution is to build a more “lethal” military and double down on America’s alliance network, which seems to contradict the White House’s approach to the problem. “We're going to build a more lethal force. We will strengthen our traditional alliances and building new partnerships with other nations,” Mattis said. “And at the same time we'll reform our department's business practices for performance and affordability.”

But even as he talked about building new partnerships with allies, Mattis noted that the United States has carried most of the military burden of maintaining the liberal international order. That can no longer continue as is. “We carried a disproportionate share of the defense burden for the democracies in the post-World War II era,” Mattis said. “The growing economic strength of today's democracies and partners dictates they must now step up and do more.”

Mattis says that America’s allies are starting to pull their own weight. “I'm very encouraged by what I've seen, and we could not be better served than by [NATO] Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, there in Brussels, with our primary alliance,” Mattis said. ‘The way he leads that alliance is one where we all have to work together and do our fair share.”

Time, of course, will tell if America’s allies will eventually pull their own weight. But, thus far, history shows that allies like Germany are unlikely to do so.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.
Posted by at

U.S. War With China May Be More Likely, Deadlier



U.S. War With China May Be More Likely, Deadlier
U.S. WAR WITH CHINA MAY BE MORE LIKELY, DEADLIER
BY TOM O'CONNOR ON 10/4/17 AT 1:03 PM
Artillery is fired during a military drill in Qingtongxia, in China, on September 25. Widespread reforms to China's military have made the prospects of a future war with the United States more deadly, a report finds.STRINGER/REUTERS
SHARE
WORLDCHINACHINESE MILITARYU.S. MILITARYPACIFIC OCEANTAIWANSOUTH CHINA SEAEAST CHINA SEANORTH KOREAXI JINPING


The chances of the U.S. entering into a military conflict with China have increased in the past six years, and the stakes are higher than ever, according to a new report by the RAND Corporation.

The California-based think tank, which conducts research and analysis on behalf of the U.S. military, released the 16-page report on Tuesday. Titled "Conflict with China Revisited," it is a sequel to a 2011 report in which the group examined the contingencies of a potential war between the world's two leading economies. Six years later, the report has been revised to include China's many military reforms and advancements that make it a more formidable foe, and to examine a number of contemporary scenarios that could prove to be catalysts for such a confrontation.

Related: China may take over North Korea, Russia as greatest threat to U.S., top general warns

Keep Up With This Story And More By Subscribing Now

"We still do not believe that a Chinese-U.S. military conflict is probable in any of the cases, but our margin of confidence is somewhat lower than it was six years ago," the report read.

Artillery is fired during a military drill in Qingtongxia, China, on September 25. Widespread reforms to China's military, including advances to its missile defense, have made the prospects of a future war with the U.S. more deadly.STRINGER/REUTERS

The U.S. and China have been at odds since the latter underwent a communist revolution in 1949, expelling its nationalist government to the island of Taiwan. Since then, Beijing has successfully isolated its rival diplomatically by inheriting its United Nations Security Council seat in 1971 and by taking punitive measures against countries that trade with Taiwan. While U.S.-Chinese relations have improved since the 1970s, China maintains a territorial claim to Taiwan, and the RAND report listed a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan as a potential cause for conflict. Taiwan receives arms from the U.S.

China's increased military activity in the Taiwan Strait is just one of many issues that pit Beijing and Washington against one another in the Asia-Pacific. China claims dominion over nearly the entire South China Sea, and the U.S. has accused it of building artificial islands to host covert military sites intended to back up these claims. As part of Chinese President Xi Jinping's overall effort to streamline and modernize China's military, he's also pushed for a more powerful naval force capable of defending its interests.

The RAND document identified the North Korea nuclear weapons crisis as the greatest threat to U.S.-China peace. Chinese diplomat Liu Jieyi said last week the crisis was "getting too dangerous," as President Donald Trump has doubled down on U.S. rhetoric against China's nuclear-armed neighbor. He has threatened to use military action to disarm Pyongyang's nuclear arsenal. North Korea claims it has a right to wield the weapons in order to deter an invasion.

China has been North Korea's greatest ally since the fellow communist states were founded in the late 1940s and the two joined forces against U.S. and U.N.-backed South Korean troops in the 1950s. Young supreme leader Kim Jong Un's defiant commitment to nuclear weapons and his rejection of his father's affinity for Beijing, however, has caused rare, visible cracks to appear in this relationship. In Tuesday's report, the authors said it was unlikely China would try to defend North Korea from a potential U.S. strike, but would rather move swiftly to defend its own interests, which would likely clash with U.S. goals and possibly precipitate a larger conflict.

"The likelihood of confrontations, accidental or otherwise, between U.S. and Chinese forces would be high, with significant potential for escalation," the report read.

"Beyond the pressures to intervene and deal with the immediate consequences of a failed North Korea, the United States would confront the thorny issue of the desired end state: unification (the preferred outcome of South Korea) or the continued division of Korea (China’s preference)," it added.

China's President Xi Jinping speaks during the ceremony to mark the 90th anniversary of the founding of China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on August 1. The PLA was formed in 1927 as the Chinese Workers' and Peasants' Red Army and has since grown from a communist guerrilla army to one of the world's most powerful warfighting forces.DAMIR SAGOLJ/REUTERS

The RAND report said that the U.S. still had a clear, overall military advantage over China, but that defending Washington's regional interests in the Asia-Pacific was becoming increasingly difficult as a result of China's modifications, which include a revamped missile force and the first aircraft carrier to be made in China. Researchers recommended that the U.S. work with China to de-escalate tensions rather than put China's new, more powerful forces to the test on the battlefield.

China has traditionally invested more in its economic expansion than military abroad, but Beijing has taken a more aggressive foreign policy stance in recent years, one that often opposes U.S. hegemony and aligns more closely with Russia. China's latest international spat, a border dispute with India this summer, threatened to bring the region to war and even drag in fellow nuclear-armed force Pakistan. China and India ultimately resolved the issue.
Posted by at
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)