By TONY SEED
(November 23) – On November 22, the opening day of the 11th annual Halifax International Security Forum (HISF), “a new year-long initiative focused on China” was announced by HISF President Peter Van Praagh via press release.
The HISF announcement came two days after U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke out in Brussels, following a NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting, saying that NATO’s operations are expanding into Asia. Pompeo stated that “our alliance must address the current and potential long-term threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party.” NATO countries cannot ignore the “fundamental differences and beliefs” between themselves and the ruling party in Beijing, Pompeo said.
In the HISF press release, Van Praagh declared, “It’s no longer a secret that Xi Jinping’s China is working hard to make the world safe for authoritarianism. It is time for a comprehensive China strategy for the United States, Canada and their allies -– one that makes the world safe for democracy.
“Over the next 12 months, Halifax will consult with subject experts and thought leaders to get their input on what can be done to confront this growing threat to our freedom.”
Already at the occasion of NATO’s 70th Anniversary held in Washington last April, Pompeo had explicitly classified China a “threat” and exhorted the war alliance to “confront” this threat.
The HISF’s strategy on China will be released at the 2020 Halifax International Security Forum, which will be held two weeks after the U.S. Presidential election. Thus, the U.S.-based HISF has given itself the right to design a strategy for Canada and the “allies.”
The rivalry with China over security is posed as a military conflict to be escalated by the NATO bloc. This includes sanctions, a form of war. This is unacceptable. All political and ideological conflicts must be resolved peaceably.
The major theme of this year’s HISF was to camouflage the Might Makes Right doctrine of NATO and the striving of the U.S. empire for economic domination with a phony face of human rights and cyber security against “authoritarianism” and “populism.” Within this, China was already being targeted according to Pompeo’s war cry issued in April. A public session on November 24 is titled “Huawei or Our Way.” Closed door sessions of the agenda include such topics as “The Chinese Century is Coming: That’s What Xi Said”, “Hong Kong’s Summer, China’s Fall”, “Our Allies: Our China Challenge”, and “Russia and China in Africa: The New Scramble.” That is, topics strategizing against China comprise five of the total 36 sessions, four of them secret.
However, contradictions exist within the NATO block, as NATO member Germany, for example – along with 50 other states that have signed agreements for the 5G telecommunications technology – do not agree that the blockade of Huawei Technologies is “our way.” Several south European NATO countries are cooperating quite closely with Beijing, among them, Greece, Italy and Portugal.Even though it sends its warships to patrol the coast of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and more recently South China Seas including a “visit” to Hong Kong (Operation NEON), Canada is also looking forward to economic cooperation with China within the framework of maintaining the NATO posture.
HISF participants claiming to represent the Asia-Pacific
Below are the HISF participants who came from Asia, brought to the war conference with all expenses paid by Canadian tax dollars. At the head of the list is the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command. Of those brought to Halifax from different continents, Asia is the most targeted by the number of participants with the exception of North America (USA, Canada and Mexico). This list does not include different participating think tanks specializing on Asia, which are itemized separately in a distinct U.S. category.
Philip Davidson, Commander, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command; Richard Berry, Special Assistant, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.
The U.S. Indo-Pacific Command is based in Hawaii. It is a unified combatant command of the U.S. Armed Forces responsible for the Indo-Asia-Pacific region. It dates from the period when the U.S. possessed a “one ocean” navy — the conquest of Hawaii and the Philippines and continuous aggression against China, e.g., the Boxer Rebellion — and is the oldest and largest of the unified combatant commands. Formerly known as U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM), and renamed on May 30, 2018, it conducts military operations in an area which encompasses more than 100 million square miles (260,000,000 km2), or roughly 52 per cent of the Earth’s surface, stretching from the waters off the west coast of the U.S. and Canada to the west coast of India, and from the Arctic to the Antarctic.
The Commander reports to the U.S. President through the Secretary of Defense and is supported by Service component and subordinate unified commands, including U.S. Army Pacific, U.S. Pacific Fleet, U.S. Pacific Air Forces, U.S. Marine Forces Pacific, U.S. Forces Japan, U.S. Forces Korea, Special Operations Command Korea, and Special Operations Command Pacific.
Yukinari Hirose, President, National Institute for Defense, Japan
Hideo Suzuki, Director General for International Affairs, Defense Policy Bureau, Ministry of Defense
Matake Kamiya, Professor, International Relations, National Defense Academy of Japan; Director and Distinguished Research Fellow, Japan Forum on International Relations
Masashi Nishihara, President, Research Institute for Peace and Security
Yoichi Kato, Senior Research Fellow, Asia Pacific Initiative
Hideshi Tokuchi, Visiting Professor, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies
Tsuneo Watanabe, Senior Fellow, International Peace and Security Department, Sasakawa Peace Foundation
Noboru Yamaguchi, Advisor, Sasakawa Peace Foundation
Byung Kee Kim and Seung-Joo Baek, Members of the National Assembly, The Daehanminguk Gukhoe, Republic of Korea
Jaeho Hwang, Director, Global Security Cooperation Center; Professor, Division of International Studies, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Republic of Korea
Szu-chien Hsu, Director of the Board, Institute for National Defense and Security Research, Taiwan
Yeh-chung Lu, Associate Professor, Department of Diplomacy, National Cheng-chi University; Vice President, Taiwan Foundation for Democracy
J. Michael Cole, Senior Fellow, China Policy Institute, University of Nottingham, Taiwan
Emily Lau, Former Chairperson, Democratic Party; Chair, Foreign Affairs Committee, Democratic Party
King-wa Fu, Associate Professor, Journalism and Media Studies Centre, University of Hong Kong
Figo Chan, vice-convenor, Civil Human Rights Front
Sales Director at ESTEC Corp. Inc. since August 2011
Dolkun Isa, President, World Uyghur Congress, China
Lobsang Sangay, President, Central Tibetan Administration, Tibet
Teuku Faizasyah, Adviser to the Indonesian Foreign Minister for Political, Legal, and Security Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Indonesia
Keng Yong Ong, Executive Deputy Chairman, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Richard Javad Heydarian, Research Fellow, National Chengchi University; Columnist, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Philippines
Ram Madhav, National General Secretary, Bharatiya Janata Party; Director, India Foundation
Nirmal Verma, Chief of Naval Operations Distinguished International Fellow, U.S. Naval War College
Ruhee Neog, Director, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies
Chaitanya Giri, Fellow, Space and Ocean Studies, Indian Council on Global Relations, Gateway House
Rita Manchanda, Research Consultant, South Asia Forum for Human Rights
Dhruva Jaishankar, Director, U.S. Initiative, Observer Research Foundation
Husain Haqqani, Director and Senior Fellow, South and Central Asia, Hudson Institute, Pakistan
Farahnaz Ispahani, Former Member of Parliament, Qaumi Assembly, Pakistan
Joseph Hockey, Ambassador of Australia to the United States
Michelle McGuinness, Director General Counter Proliferation & Terrorism, Defence Intelligence Organisation, Australia
Rachel Durbin, Director, Future Force Lifecycle Engineering, Navy Capability Division, Royal Australian Navy, HISF Peace With Women Fellow
Rose King, Chief of Staff, Headquarters Joint Forces New Zealand, New Zealand Defence Force, HISF Peace With Women Fellow
Lisa Ferris, Director, Defence Legal Services, New Zealand Army, HISF Peace With Women Fellow
1. The invitation of the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) together with the so-called Central Tibetan Administration is a red flag and further illustrates the role of the Halifax International Security Forum in strategizing to organizee aggression and war throughout the world.
The Turkic speaking Uyghur, are a Muslim minority living in Xinjiang. The World Uyghur Congress (WUC), an umbrella association for various exile Uyghur organizations and classified by China as a terrorist organization, is headquartered in Munich, Germany. It was founded there in Apri 2004 and receives the active support of the German and U.S. administrations, even though it openly calls for the break-up of China. Already back during the Cold War, WUC Founding President Erkin Alptekin had worked for the Munich-based, CIA-affiliated US propaganda broadcasters Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) beginning in 1971. It was at that time, that the CIA began to establish contacts to Uyghurs seeking secession. Later he had maintained constant contact with not only German, but also US foreign policy makers, german-foreign-policy.com reported. Alptekin’s successor Rebiya Kadeer, who, at the end of the 1990s was the richest business woman in the People’s Republic of China, has been living in exile in the United States since 2005. In November 2006, she was elected president of the WUC – in Munich – and, at this occasion, visited Berlin for the first time. She was being systematically groomed to become the Uyghur PR overseas symbol – corresponding to the model of the Dalai Lama, appealing for sympathy for Tibetan separatism. Rebiya Kadeer (“Mother of the Uyghurs”) has been proposed several times already as a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.
The WUC has been accused of having been involved in the preparations of the murderous Uyghur pogrom carried out against Han Chinese in July 2009 in Urumqi, capital of China’s northwest Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region – attacking non-Uyghurs, their homes and their cars with clubs, stones and knives. Some 150 non-Uyghur Chinese died in the massacre.
The apparent global balance of power shift from the Atlantic to the Pacific has already been heightening the tone in traditional anti-Chinese agitation in every state contiguous to the Republic of China with the notable exceptions of the Democratic People’s Republic of China and Vietnam. This agitation finds its latest expression in the ongoing Xinjiang campaign, initiated in the West in the aftermath of the Uyghur massacre. This campaign, blaming the Chinese security forces for the massacre, rather than the Uyghur culprits, was patterned after the 2008 Tibet campaign preceding the Olympic Games in China held in August, both in being aimed at Beijing and in the use of falsifications and classical propaganda techniques. In preparation, the WUC held its third general assembly at the end of May, 2008 – in Washington. In this context, the US-National Endowment for Democracy (NED), also organized a “human rights conference” focusing on “solutions for the future of East-Turkestan.” A representative of the German Society for Threatened Peoples (Gesellschaft für bedrohte Völker – GfbV) was listed among the speakers. The participation of US parliamentarians at the event was very motivating for the Uyghur separatists. Subsequently, at the beginning of July, the World Uyghur Congress called for demonstrations in front of Chinese embassies around the world. The WUC called on the Tibetan secessionists to join the rebellion. A map of China presented on its web page shows both the Xinjiang and Tibet autonomous regions as independent states with their own flags. This ongoing campaign is aimed at weakening the Chinese rival in its strategically important Western regions. At the same time, it is strengthening anti-Chinese forces in the USA involved in the subversive activities in Xinjiang as well as in Tibet, a coincidental and welcomed contribution toward thwarting special US-Chinese consultations à la “G2.”
An earlier version of this article was published on Facebook and in TML Weekly, November 30, 2019 – No. 29