to go to war against Russia (in this respect see the cartoons of Fig. 5.1a,b). It is based
on New York Times articles. A fairly safe assumption is that this newspaper reflects
the positions of the State Department.

Basically one can distinguish four themes in the news regarding this question.

1 Accounts of Russian advances in Korea.

2 The interests and objectives of Russia and Japan are incompatible.

3 Accounts of negotiations between Russia and Japan.

4 Japan is about to go to war against Russia.

Here, we will restrict ourselves to the news of the last kind. However, a more complete account involving all 4 themes can be found in Roehner (2016d).

**Dec 4, 1897** Indications of a [coming] conflict between Russia and Japan. Russia is buying supplies and travelers report that the garrison at Vladivostok has been reinforced by the arrival of troops from the Black Sea.

[With the arrival of new troops it is not surprising that more supplies are needed. To conclude that it announces a war is perhaps too hasty.]

**Dec 24, 1897** The Japanese Army is full of Russian spies disguised as Japanese.

[If that had really been true Japan would not have been victorious in the subsequent war.]

**Dec 24, 1897** Russia is absorbing Korea. Her agents control the country, and Japan is getting ready for impending hostilities.

[This was simply untrue.]

**Dec 27, 1897** Seventeen British warships back an ultimatum against Russian domination. Japan supports the British action. Her fleet of 30 vessels is awaiting the result of the protest against the dismissal of an English customs officer.

[To see three major countries go to war for the dismissal of a custom officer would be surprising. Indeed, nothing of that kind happened.]

**Jan 1, 1898** Japan feels warlike. Captain Sakuzzi, who is in San Francisco, says Russia is treating his country shamefully.

[Should one attribute such a great importance to the declaration of a captain?]

**Jan 22, 1898** Japan is prepared for war. St. James's Gazette says she could handle the Russian and German ships east of Suez alone.

[Barely two weeks after the agreement of 10 January 1898, the NYT speaks of war once again.]

**Apr 6, 1898** There is a war feeling in Japan.
<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5.1a,b Two cartoons illustrating the role of Britain and the United States in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. (a) Britain pushes Japan against Russia while the USA is watching approvingly. (b) In this Russian cartoon the USA is pushing the horse of the emperor of Japan over the brink while Britain (in red) is trying to interpose itself. At that time Britain had an alliance with France which itself was a close ally of Russia. Although in 1902 England had signed a treaty with Japan, it was certainly not her desire to see Russia go to war and even less be defeated. It can be noted that on the Internet there are many cartoons which celebrate President Theodore Roosevelt as a peace maker. Probably the US State Department had already a good public relations service. Source: Internet</figcaption></figure>

**Apr 24, 1898** Russia makes friends with Japan for the sake of furthering her schemes. The Czar is increasing his military and naval forces so that he may *dominate the Pacific*.

[April 1898 saw the beginning of the short Spanish-American War. Through the annexation of Guam and the Philippines it marked a major step in US westward expansion in the Pacific. This brought the United States on a collision course with Russia.

The US fear that Russia was willing and capable of “dominating the Pacific” was probably exaggerated for at least two reasons.

* In 1867 Russia had sold Alaska to the United States for $7 million. A country willing to dominate the Pacific would not do that.

* East Asia was just too far away from the economic center of gravity of Russia. It is true that it was also far away from the US west coast, with however the crucial difference of sea versus land transportation.

Whereas US concern regarding Russian global domination in the Pacific may have been misplaced, in Korea itself the threat was quite real. One should not forget that in 1882 the United States had signed with Korea a "Treaty of peace, amity, commerce and navigation". It is only in the following years that the United States dropped its ambitions in Korea in exchange for Japanese acceptation of the colonization of the
<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5.1a,b Two cartoons illustrating the role of Britain and the United States in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. (a) Britain pushes Japan against Russia while the USA is watching approvingly. (b) In this Russian cartoon the USA is pushing the horse of the emperor of Japan over the brink while Britain (in red) is trying to interpose itself. At that time Britain had an alliance with France which itself was a close ally of Russia. Although in 1902 England had signed a treaty with Japan, it was certainly not her desire to see Russia go to war and even less be defeated. It can be noted that on the Internet there are many cartoons which celebrate President Theodore Roosevelt as a peace maker. Probably the US State Department had already a good public relations service. Source: Internet</figcaption></figure>

**Apr 24, 1898** Russia makes friends with Japan for the sake of furthering her schemes. The Czar is increasing his military and naval forces so that he may *dominate the Pacific*.

[April 1898 saw the beginning of the short Spanish-American War. Through the annexation of Guam and the Philippines it marked a major step in US westward expansion in the Pacific. This brought the United States on a collision course with Russia.

The US fear that Russia was willing and capable of “dominating the Pacific” was probably exaggerated for at least two reasons.

* In 1867 Russia had sold Alaska to the United States for $7 million. A country willing to dominate the Pacific would not do that.

* East Asia was just too far away from the economic center of gravity of Russia. It is true that it was also far away from the US west coast, with however the crucial difference of sea versus land transportation.

Whereas US concern regarding Russian global domination in the Pacific may have been misplaced, in Korea itself the threat was quite real. One should not forget that in 1882 the United States had signed with Korea a "Treaty of peace, amity, commerce and navigation". It is only in the following years that the United States dropped its ambitions in Korea in exchange for Japanese acceptation of the colonization of the
Philippines (see the Taft-Katsura secret agreement of 29 July 1905).
Another major US concern was that Russia might get preferential treatment in China.]

**Jul 26, 1899** Russia and Japan are arming, with a view to a possible conflict in Korea.

**Nov 13, 1899** London. Hurry orders have been received by the builders of the Japanese battleship now in process of construction at Clyde Bank to complete the vessel as speedily as possible. The new ship, which will be one of the largest afloat, is to be finished by Jan. 1, 1900. It is believed that these instructions are the result of the increasing tension between Japan and Russia.

[Diplomatically England favored Russo-Japanese discussions. However it is clear that by selling state-of-the art warships to Japan England was encouraging Japan to confront Russia.]

**Jan 13, 1900** Japan prepares for war to stop Russia's advance in Korea.

[It is probably true that Japan was preparing for war because this is the duty of the military. At the same time, however, there were negotiation attempts which showed that an agreement was not completely excluded.]

**Jan 27, 1900** Japan may attack Russia. Great naval preparations suggest such an intention.

**Apr 12, 1900** Japan to war with Russia? Muscovite naval officer says clash is inevitable and Great Britain will be drawn into it.

[This entry gives the impression that the diplomacy of Japan is decided by naval officers. It may have been true in the 1930s, but was it already true in 1900?]

**Feb 17, 1901** Two powers want Korea. War between Russia and Japan became imminent in June 1900 and is still threatening.

**Mar 9, 1901** A crisis has arisen owing to Russia's action regarding Manchuria. Great Britain is reported to have asked if the United States is prepared to take joint action with her. Japan is relied upon to take action in harmony with the United States and Great Britain.

[Previous articles have suggested that it was only Japan which felt worried and threatened by the Russian advance in Manchuria and Korea. This was certainly not realistic. Britain's exports to China surpassed by far those of other western powers or Japan. While much smaller, US exports to China were in rapid progression. Thus, the fact that Britain and the US were able to convince Japan to fight the war alone was a brilliant operation.]

**Mar 22, 1901** It is Japan, which has every reason to see a distinct menace to herself
Philippines (see the Taft-Katsura secret agreement of 29 July 1905).
Another major US concern was that Russia might get preferential treatment in China.]

**Jul 26, 1899** Russia and Japan are arming, with a view to a possible conflict in Korea.

**Nov 13, 1899** London. Hurry orders have been received by the builders of the Japanese battleship now in process of construction at Clyde Bank to complete the vessel as speedily as possible. The new ship, which will be one of the largest afloat, is to be finished by Jan. 1, 1900. It is believed that these instructions are the result of the increasing tension between Japan and Russia.

[Diplomatically England favored Russo-Japanese discussions. However it is clear that by selling state-of-the art warships to Japan England was encouraging Japan to confront Russia.]

**Jan 13, 1900** Japan prepares for war to stop Russia's advance in Korea.

[It is probably true that Japan was preparing for war because this is the duty of the military. At the same time, however, there were negotiation attempts which showed that an agreement was not completely excluded.]

**Jan 27, 1900** Japan may attack Russia. Great naval preparations suggest such an intention.

**Apr 12, 1900** Japan to war with Russia? Muscovite naval officer says clash is inevitable and Great Britain will be drawn into it.

[This entry gives the impression that the diplomacy of Japan is decided by naval officers. It may have been true in the 1930s, but was it already true in 1900?]

**Feb 17, 1901** Two powers want Korea. War between Russia and Japan became imminent in June 1900 and is still threatening.

**Mar 9, 1901** A crisis has arisen owing to Russia's action regarding Manchuria. Great Britain is reported to have asked if the United States is prepared to take joint action with her. Japan is relied upon to take action in harmony with the United States and Great Britain.

[Previous articles have suggested that it was only Japan which felt worried and threatened by the Russian advance in Manchuria and Korea. This was certainly not realistic. Britain's exports to China surpassed by far those of other western powers or Japan. While much smaller, US exports to China were in rapid progression. Thus, the fact that Britain and the US were able to convince Japan to fight the war alone was a brilliant operation.]

**Mar 22, 1901** It is Japan, which has every reason to see a distinct menace to herself
<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

www.alamy.com - FHYM1H

<caption>**Fig. 5.2 England's advice to Japan.** England says to Japan: "You take him by the horns and I will take him by the tail". In the same line of thought one should remember that in the Crimean war (1853-1856) England, France and Turkey had opposed Russia's southward expansion. Source: Internet. *The cartoon was probably published in an American (rather than English) newspaper but we could not find which one.*</caption>

in the aggressiveness of Russia in North China.

[Russian advance in *Korea* understandably was a concern for Japan, but Russian advance in *North China* was also a concern for Britain and the US. In other words, this article is the continuation of the public relations campaign destined to convince Japan to go to war alone against Russia.

An article of the "San Francisco Call" (28 March 1901, p. 1) reports that a member of the Cabinet said that "the United States is not concerned with the political and territorial aspects of the Chinese situation but only with its commercial character". This is a strange statement because obviously the three aspects can hardly be separated. Commercial agreements (such as the one of October 1903) with China were almost useless because the Chinese government was too weak to enforce them especially in peripheral regions like Manchuria.

Incidentally, there are two short news on the same page of this newspaper which give a striking picture of the situation in China. The first is that 8 anti-Christian rioters were beheaded at Changsha in the province of Hunan; the second says that 3 Chinese
<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>

www.alamy.com - FHYM1H

<caption>**Fig. 5.2 England's advice to Japan.** England says to Japan: "You take him by the horns and I will take him by the tail". In the same line of thought one should remember that in the Crimean war (1853-1856) England, France and Turkey had opposed Russia's southward expansion. Source: Internet. The cartoon was probably published in an American (rather than English) newspaper but we could not find which one.</caption>

in the aggressiveness of Russia in North China.

[Russian advance in *Korea* understandably was a concern for Japan, but Russian advance in *North China* was also a concern for Britain and the US. In other words, this article is the continuation of the public relations campaign destined to convince Japan to go to war alone against Russia.

An article of the "San Francisco Call" (28 March 1901, p. 1) reports that a member of the Cabinet said that "the United States is not concerned with the political and territorial aspects of the Chinese situation but only with its commercial character". This is a strange statement because obviously the three aspects can hardly be separated. Commercial agreements (such as the one of October 1903) with China were almost useless because the Chinese government was too weak to enforce them especially in peripheral regions like Manchuria.

Incidentally, there are two short news on the same page of this newspaper which give a striking picture of the situation in China. The first is that 8 anti-Christian rioters were beheaded at Changsha in the province of Hunan; the second says that 3 Chinese
were killed in Legation Street in Beijing by a German sentry.]

**Dec 8, 1901** There are anticipations of a war between Russia and Japan. A British Army officer tells of the quiet preparations; regiments are stationed at all available points.

[Once again, these anticipations of war are based on fairly flimsy evidence provided by a simple officer.]

**Mar 10, 1902** Russian military have been ordered to remove their families from Port Arthur because preparations are being made for a war with Japan.

[According to this article Russia was prepared for an attack on Port Arthur in March 1902. However, when it really occurred on 8-9 February 1904, Russia was taken by surprise.]

**Jun 7, 1903** It is believed that war between Russia and Japan can hardly be averted.

**Oct 8, 1903** Japanese in Korea want troops sent to protect them on account of the menacing attitude of Russia. The reply of Japan is not yet known.

[Once again, the NYT relies on mere rumors to fan the flames.

On 8 October, a commercial treaty was signed between the United States and China which opened the Manchurian ports Mukden and Antung to US commerce. The treaty contained also an article for the protection of American trade marks, patents, and copyrights in China (Chicago Tribune 9 Oct 1903). It seems that this treaty was mainly directed against Russian interests in Manchuria. An article of 8 November 1903 talks of anti-Russian agitation in America, a second of 28 November 1903 observed that "Russia resents American pressure" and a third of 19 December 1903 remarked that "America irritates Russia". All these little incidents together with the fact that they were duly reported in such an important newspaper as the "Chicago Tribune" show that there was a state of tension between Russia and the United States. The commercial competition in Manchuria was probably not the only reason. Although this point would deserve a closer investigation it cannot be undertaken in the framework of this chapter.]

**Oct 12, 1903** Japan and Russia not far from war. One dispatch says Japan meant to declare war yesterday.

[This was written about 4 months before the war actually started.]

**Dec 10, 1903** Russia menaces Korea. Eight warships, including two battleships, said to have arrived at Chemul-Po. This may end the negotiations with Japan.

[Yet, the negotiations continued until January 1904.]

**Feb 6, 1904** Baron Hayashi [Japanese minister to Great Britain] says a Russian refusal to sign a Treaty regarding Manchuria will mean war.
were killed in Legation Street in Beijing by a German sentry.]

**Dec 8, 1901** There are anticipations of a war between Russia and Japan. A British Army officer tells of the quiet preparations; regiments are stationed at all available points.

[Once again, these anticipations of war are based on fairly flimsy evidence provided by a simple officer.]

**Mar 10, 1902** Russian military have been ordered to remove their families from Port Arthur because preparations are being made for a war with Japan.

[According to this article Russia was prepared for an attack on Port Arthur in March 1902. However, when it really occurred on 8-9 February 1904, Russia was taken by surprise.]

**Jun 7, 1903** It is believed that war between Russia and Japan can hardly be averted.

**Oct 8, 1903** Japanese in Korea want troops sent to protect them on account of the menacing attitude of Russia. The reply of Japan is not yet known.

[Once again, the NYT relies on mere rumors to fan the flames.

On 8 October, a commercial treaty was signed between the United States and China which opened the Manchurian ports Mukden and Antung to US commerce. The treaty contained also an article for the protection of American trade marks, patents, and copyrights in China (Chicago Tribune 9 Oct 1903). It seems that this treaty was mainly directed against Russian interests in Manchuria. An article of 8 November 1903 talks of anti-Russian agitation in America, a second of 28 November 1903 observed that "Russia resents American pressure" and a third of 19 December 1903 remarked that "America irritates Russia". All these little incidents together with the fact that they were duly reported in such an important newspaper as the "Chicago Tribune" show that there was a state of tension between Russia and the United States. The commercial competition in Manchuria was probably not the only reason. Although this point would deserve a closer investigation it cannot be undertaken in the framework of this chapter.]

**Oct 12, 1903** Japan and Russia not far from war. One dispatch says Japan meant to declare war yesterday.

[This was written about 4 months before the war actually started.]

**Dec 10, 1903** Russia menaces Korea. Eight warships, including two battleships, said to have arrived at Chemul-Po. This may end the negotiations with Japan.

[Yet, the negotiations continued until January 1904.]

**Feb 6, 1904** Baron Hayashi [Japanese minister to Great Britain] says a Russian refusal to sign a Treaty regarding Manchuria will mean war.
**Feb 10, 1904** A forerunner of the attack of 1941 against the Philippines and Pearl Harbor. Three Russian battleships and four cruisers were disabled at Port Arthur [Now Dalian (Liaoning, China) on the north west side of the Korean peninsula]. Two Russian cruisers were disabled at Chemulpo [now Incheon west of Seoul]. Troops were landed near Seoul and in northern Korea.

This episode is of particular interest (which is why it received a special title) because it shows that for starting a war the Japanese used basically the same tactical principles in this episode as in December 1941. One can emphasize the following features.

* The attack by Japanese torpedo boats on Port Arthur was a surprise attack in the sense that it preceded the declaration of war. It was the same at Pear Harbor: the war was declared as the Japanese aircraft were already in action over the Philippines and over Hawaii. It can be noted that Chemulpo was a neutral port which, apart from the Russian warships, also harbored American, British, French and Italian warships. That is why the battle took place at high sea off the port.

* The Japanese attack was a *combined operation* which involved landing of troops together with an attack on Russian battleships in port. Similarly, in 1941 apart from the attack on US airfields in the Philippines and on US battleships in Hawaii there was a landing of troops in the Philippines which, at that time, was a US colony.

**Feb 10, 1904** Comment of Admiral Bowles: "It is in the interest of the United States that Japan should be victorious in this war"

**Sep 5, 1905** Signature of the Portsmouth Peace Treaty.

**Japanese reaction to the Peace Treaty**

**Sep 5-7, 1905** Anti-American riots in Tokyo, Yokohama and Kobe against the Portsmouth Treaty. In Tokyo four American churches were burned and the US Embassy had to be protected by troops. In Tokyo alone 17 persons were killed and 70% of the two-man police boxes were set on fire.

In most US sources these riots are described as being directed against the Japanese government. Actually the role played by the United States was also a key-target as shown by the following excerpt of a letter dated September 8, 1905 and published in the newspaper "Chicago Tribune".

It is very sad to think of the Christian churches and mission property that have been ruined by mobs. We read of a Catholic priest's residence being destroyed, a Methodist church being burned; and other acts of enmity toward Americans being done. You'd have expected such acts in China, where foreigners have
**Feb 10, 1904** A forerunner of the attack of 1941 against the Philippines and Pearl Harbor. Three Russian battleships and four cruisers were disabled at Port Arthur [Now Dalian (Liaoning, China) on the north west side of the Korean peninsula]. Two Russian cruisers were disabled at Chemulpo [now Incheon west of Seoul]. Troops were landed near Seoul and in northern Korea.

This episode is of particular interest (which is why it received a special title) because it shows that for starting a war the Japanese used basically the same tactical principles in this episode as in December 1941. One can emphasize the following features.

* The attack by Japanese torpedo boats on Port Arthur was a surprise attack in the sense that it preceded the declaration of war. It was the same at Pear Harbor: the war was declared as the Japanese aircraft were already in action over the Philippines and over Hawaii. It can be noted that Chemulpo was a neutral port which, apart from the Russian warships, also harbored American, British, French and Italian warships. That is why the battle took place at high sea off the port.

* The Japanese attack was a *combined operation* which involved landing of troops together with an attack on Russian battleships in port. Similarly, in 1941 apart from the attack on US airfields in the Philippines and on US battleships in Hawaii there was a landing of troops in the Philippines which, at that time, was a US colony.

**Feb 10, 1904** Comment of Admiral Bowles: "It is in the interest of the United States that Japan should be victorious in this war"

**Sep 5, 1905** Signature of the Portsmouth Peace Treaty.

**Japanese reaction to the Peace Treaty**

**Sep 5-7, 1905** Anti-American riots in Tokyo, Yokohama and Kobe against the Portsmouth Treaty. In Tokyo four American churches were burned and the US Embassy had to be protected by troops. In Tokyo alone 17 persons were killed and 70% of the two-man police boxes were set on fire.

In most US sources these riots are described as being directed against the Japanese government. Actually the role played by the United States was also a key-target as shown by the following excerpt of a letter dated September 8, 1905 and published in the newspaper "Chicago Tribune".

It is very sad to think of the Christian churches and mission property that have been ruined by mobs. We read of a Catholic priest's residence being destroyed, a Methodist church being burned; and other acts of enmity toward Americans being done. You'd have expected such acts in China, where foreigners have
always been hated, but Japan has for years been considered as favoring western
civilization. The ill feeling of the Japanese toward America is dramatically
shown by their treatment of Mr. Edward H. Harriman<sup>48</sup> and his party in Tokyo.
His name is so well known that the news of his having been attacked in the
streets and stoned by a mob is quite shocking. The Harriman party was on the
way to a dinner at the home of the minister of finance. Once recognized as
American, the stones began to fly. Fortunately, he wasn't injured but Dr. Lyle, a
person of his party, was struck on the shoulder and slightly hurt. The party was
taken to the American legation and guarded by police.

The Taft diplomatic mission in the Pacific

As already mentioned at the beginning of the chapter the Taft mission of 1905 took
place after the considerable US expansion in the US. Its objective was to confirm the
new US rights and to export the model of a young democratic nation to the countries
of the western Pacific rim, i.e. Japan, Korea (it became a Japanese colony only in
1910) and China.

Account of the incidents in Japan

The account about the anti-American incidents is confirmed by the testimony of the
daughter of President Roosevelt who traveled to the Orient with the Taft mission of
1905. The mission went to Japan in July 1905, then to China and returned to Japan
in October 1905. Here is what she says (Longworth 1933).

Since we had left Japan in July, the Treaty of Portsmouth had been signed, and
Americans were about as unpopular as they had been popular before. I have
never seen a more complete change. There was a story that bombs had been
thrown at the Harriman party [that was of course an exaggeration] and we were
told that if anyone asked, it would be advisable to say that we were English.
The anti-American feeling, however, seemed to be confined to the populace.
The officials were just as courteous and friendly as before.

An example of what went wrong in the late Qing dynasty

In a previous chapter we emphasized the importance of close interactions between
the members of a society. In Miss Roosevelt's account of her visit to the Empress
Dowager there is an episode which reveals how bad in this respect the situation

<footnote n="48"><sup>48</sup>Although Mr. Harriman had no connection with the Portsmouth Treaty, he was close to the Roosevelt administration and his visit to Japan was at the invitation of the US ambassador in Tokyo. A railroad magnate, he was president of the "Union Pacific Railroad" and the "Southern Pacific Railroad"; he was also connected to the "Pacific Mail Steamship Company". The object that he had in view was a plan for a round-the-world transportation line, under unified American control, by way of Japan, Manchuria, Siberia, European Russia, and the Atlantic Ocean. Such a railroad and steamship line would unite 4 of the most populous countries on the globe and would enable the United States to take a commanding position in the Orient. (excerpt of E.H. Harriman, "A biography", Vol. 2.)</footnote>
always been hated, but Japan has for years been considered as favoring western
civilization. The ill feeling of the Japanese toward America is dramatically
shown by their treatment of Mr. Edward H. Harriman<sup>48</sup> and his party in Tokyo.
His name is so well known that the news of his having been attacked in the
streets and stoned by a mob is quite shocking. The Harriman party was on the
way to a dinner at the home of the minister of finance. Once recognized as
American, the stones began to fly. Fortunately, he wasn't injured but Dr. Lyle, a
person of his party, was struck on the shoulder and slightly hurt. The party was
taken to the American legation and guarded by police.

The Taft diplomatic mission in the Pacific

As already mentioned at the beginning of the chapter the Taft mission of 1905 took
place after the considerable US expansion in the US. Its objective was to confirm the
new US rights and to export the model of a young democratic nation to the countries
of the western Pacific rim, i.e. Japan, Korea (it became a Japanese colony only in
1910) and China.

Account of the incidents in Japan

The account about the anti-American incidents is confirmed by the testimony of the
daughter of President Roosevelt who traveled to the Orient with the Taft mission of
1905. The mission went to Japan in July 1905, then to China and returned to Japan
in October 1905. Here is what she says (Longworth 1933).

Since we had left Japan in July, the Treaty of Portsmouth had been signed, and
Americans were about as unpopular as they had been popular before. I have
never seen a more complete change. There was a story that bombs had been
thrown at the Harriman party [that was of course an exaggeration] and we were
told that if anyone asked, it would be advisable to say that we were English.
The anti-American feeling, however, seemed to be confined to the populace.
The officials were just as courteous and friendly as before.

An example of what went wrong in the late Qing dynasty

In a previous chapter we emphasized the importance of close interactions between
the members of a society. In Miss Roosevelt's account of her visit to the Empress
Dowager there is an episode which reveals how bad in this respect the situation

<footnote n="48"><sup>48</sup>Although Mr. Harriman had no connection with the Portsmouth Treaty, he was close to the Roosevelt administration and his visit to Japan was at the invitation of the US ambassador in Tokyo. A railroad magnate, he was president of the "Union Pacific Railroad" and the "Southern Pacific Railroad"; he was also connected to the "Pacific Mail Steamship Company". The object that he had in view was a plan for a round-the-world transportation line, under unified American control, by way of Japan, Manchuria, Siberia, European Russia, and the Atlantic Ocean. Such a railroad and steamship line would unite 4 of the most populous countries on the globe and would enable the United States to take a commanding position in the Orient. (excerpt of E.H. Harriman, "A biography", Vol. 2.)</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_47.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.3a,b** Alice Roosevelt on her visit to eastern Asia. (a) Miss Roosevelt on the ship taking her to Japan. (b) Picture published in the Washington Post of 14 September 1905. On the left: Miss Roosevelt, on the right the Dowager Empress of China. The caption at the top of the picture says: "Representative girl of western civilization meets aged example of Orient Royal whims. In her account Alice Roosevelt reported "though at the time we met her she was over seventy, one felt her charm. She by no means looked her age. On the lowest step of the throne sat the Emperor, a man in his early thirties; limp and huddled, his mouth a little open, his eyes dull and wandering, no expression in his face. We were not presented to him. No attention was paid to him. He just sat there, looking vacantly about. Source: http://www.asia.si.edu/research/archives/alice/</figcaption></figure>

A revealing episode at the court of the Empress Dowager (Sep. 1905)

From the autobiography of the daughter of President Theodore Roosevelt (Longworth 1933)
After lunch, when we wandered about the gardens [at the Summer Palace] the Empress Dowager joined us. The interpreter was Wu Ting Fang who had been Minister [i.e. ambassador] in Washington. He stood between us, a little to the side, but suddenly, as the conversation was going on, the Empress said something in a small savage voice, whereat he turned quite gray, and got down on all fours, his forehead touching the ground. The Empress would speak; he would lift his head and say it in English to me; back would go his forehead to the ground while I spoke; up would come his head again while he said it in Chinese to the Empress; then back to the ground would go his forehead again. There was no clue to her reason for humiliating him before us. It was a curious experience to see this man kowtowing at one's feet. One literally had the feeling that she might at any moment say, "Off with his head" and that off the head would go.

When I told Father about it he thought it might have been to show us that this man whom we accepted as an equal was to her no more than something to put her foot on.

had become toward the end of the Qing dynasty. It is true that societies can be
based on hierarchy and fear. That may work for a while but history suggests that
human organizations work much better when based on the kind of synergy which
<figure><img src="image_49.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.3a,b** Alice Roosevelt on her visit to eastern Asia. (a) Miss Roosevelt on the ship taking her to Japan. (b) Picture published in the Washington Post of 14 September 1905. On the left: Miss Roosevelt, on the right the Dowager Empress of China. The caption at the top of the picture says: "Representative girl of western civilization meets aged example of Orient Royal whims. In her account Alice Roosevelt reported "though at the time we met her she was over seventy, one felt her charm. She by no means looked her age. On the lowest step of the throne sat the Emperor, a man in his early thirties; limp and huddled, his mouth a little open, his eyes dull and wandering, no expression in his face. We were not presented to him. No attention was paid to him. He just sat there, looking vacantly about. Source: http://www.asia.si.edu/research/archives/alice/</figcaption></figure>

A revealing episode at the court of the Empress Dowager (Sep. 1905)

From the autobiography of the daughter of President Theodore Roosevelt (Longworth 1933)
After lunch, when we wandered about the gardens [at the Summer Palace] the Empress Dowager joined us. The interpreter was Wu Ting Fang who had been Minister [i.e. ambassador] in Washington. He stood between us, a little to the side, but suddenly, as the conversation was going on, the Empress said something in a small savage voice, whereat he turned quite gray, and got down on all fours, his forehead touching the ground. The Empress would speak; he would lift his head and say it in English to me; back would go his forehead to the ground while I spoke; up would come his head again while he said it in Chinese to the Empress; then back to the ground would go his forehead again. There was no clue to her reason for humiliating him before us. It was a curious experience to see this man kowtowing at one's feet. One literally had the feeling that she might at any moment say, "Off with his head" and that off the head would go.

When I told Father about it he thought it might have been to show us that this man whom we accepted as an equal was to her no more than something to put her foot on.

had become toward the end of the Qing dynasty. It is true that societies can be
based on hierarchy and fear. That may work for a while but history suggests that
human organizations work much better when based on the kind of synergy which
develops thanks to close interactions. An illustration was given previously through a
comparison of the “Red Army” and KMT army.

## Conclusion

The war and the Japanese victory was a watershed for Japan but also for the United States. After 1905 the United States assumed an ever greater role in China. As already observed, it is only after 1937 that American and Japanese interests in China really started to diverge. Prior to 1937, the action of Japan in northern China was seen as an effective contribution to the containment policy of Soviet Russia.

# How does the US encourage his allies to confront China?

## How does it work? France 2008 as a case in point.

In its principle the method is very simple.

Through its worlwide influence the US State Department will support foreign political leaders who promote its strategic objectives and ignore (or discredit) those who do not. Naturally, this is done indirectly and never openly. In order to appear on the "radar" of the State Department foreign political leaders must first signal themselves by some meaningful action. This is what the mayor of Paris did in May 2008⁴⁹.
Here is the story.

Because many of our readers may not be familiar with the French political landscape
let us first describe the protagonists.

* The key-character is Bertrand Delanoë who was in 2008 the mayor of Paris. He belonged to the “Socialist Party” which, by the end of the year, would choose a new leader. The chosen leader then would have a good chance to become the Socialist candidate at the French presidential election of 2012.

* The second protagonist was a weekly rightwing newspaper called “Le Point” which is well-known for being what is called in Europe an “Atlanticist” media, that is to say one which advocates a close relationship (in practice a subservient one) with the United States.

* The third protagonist was the Dalai Lama. Although touring the world in the name of peace, it may be recalled that from 1956 until 1989 he openly supported and demanded Tibetan independence. After being awarded the Peace Nobel Prize in 1989 he changed his political program from independence to a large degree of autonomy but up to now he is still backed by the Tibetan government in exile in India which is itself supported by the Indian government. Needless to say, as all governments in exile, this one has for objective to gain sovereignty.

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹Naturally such an interpretation cannot be proven and it is obvious that any foreign leader would deny to be in the service of the State Department. The only thing that can be done is to highlight strange coincidences.</footnote>
develops thanks to close interactions. An illustration was given previously through a
comparison of the “Red Army” and KMT army.

## Conclusion

The war and the Japanese victory was a watershed for Japan but also for the United States. After 1905 the United States assumed an ever greater role in China. As already observed, it is only after 1937 that American and Japanese interests in China really started to diverge. Prior to 1937, the action of Japan in northern China was seen as an effective contribution to the containment policy of Soviet Russia.

# How does the US encourage his allies to confront China?

## How does it work? France 2008 as a case in point.

In its principle the method is very simple.

Through its worlwide influence the US State Department will support foreign political leaders who promote its strategic objectives and ignore (or discredit) those who do not. Naturally, this is done indirectly and never openly. In order to appear on the "radar" of the State Department foreign political leaders must first signal themselves by some meaningful action. This is what the mayor of Paris did in May 2008⁴⁹.
Here is the story.

Because many of our readers may not be familiar with the French political landscape
let us first describe the protagonists.

* The key-character is Bertrand Delanoë who was in 2008 the mayor of Paris. He belonged to the “Socialist Party” which, by the end of the year, would choose a new leader. The chosen leader then would have a good chance to become the Socialist candidate at the French presidential election of 2012.

* The second protagonist was a weekly rightwing newspaper called “Le Point” which is well-known for being what is called in Europe an “Atlanticist” media, that is to say one which advocates a close relationship (in practice a subservient one) with the United States.

* The third protagonist was the Dalai Lama. Although touring the world in the name of peace, it may be recalled that from 1956 until 1989 he openly supported and demanded Tibetan independence. After being awarded the Peace Nobel Prize in 1989 he changed his political program from independence to a large degree of autonomy but up to now he is still backed by the Tibetan government in exile in India which is itself supported by the Indian government. Needless to say, as all governments in exile, this one has for objective to gain sovereignty.

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹Naturally such an interpretation cannot be proven and it is obvious that any foreign leader would deny to be in the service of the State Department. The only thing that can be done is to highlight strange coincidences.</footnote>
The story unfolded through the following steps.

**Apr 22, 2008** The Dalai Lama was made an honorary citizen of Paris exacerbating tensions between France and China in the build up to the Beijing Olympics. The motion was backed by the mayor Bertrand Delanoë. While proposing the resolution at the city council, the mayor said that this is in “fraternal support to the Tibetan people who are fighting for their fundamental rights, their dignity, their freedom, and simply their life”. Such a statement must have been sweet music to the ears of the State Department.

Naturally in China it brought about different reactions. Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of Chinese cities to denounce France and call for a boycott of French goods. (Irish Times 22 April 2008)

**May 21, 2008** Delanoë published a book in which he describes his positions and program on problems of domestic and foreign policy; for instance he backed US intervention in Afghanistan.

**May 22, 2008** “Le Point” devoted a long, laudatory editorial to Delanoë’s book in which his ambition to become the head of the Socialist Party was emphasized. Moreover, his portrait made the cover of this issue.

**Jul 27, 2008** “Le Point” ran an article entitled “Delanoë is the favorite of the members of the Socialist Party”. The article described the result of a survey according to which Delanoë had the highest percentage of supporters. Needless to say, such surveys can be manipulated easily to give any desired result.

**Nov 6, 2008** After being voted out by the members of the “Socialist Party” in a preliminary vote, Delanoë renounced to his candidacy for head of the “Socialist Party”.

**Jun 8, 2009** Delanoë welcomed the Dalai Lama at the City Hall for a visit during which he received the “Citizen of Honor” award bestowed on him in 2008. He had already visited Delanoë on 16 October 2003.

This closes the Delanoë story. It can be added that, François Hollande, the person who became the Socialist candidate for the 2012 election and was indeed elected as president of France, was no less an “Atlanticist” than Delanoë. It is true that he did not meet with the Dalai Lama but in other respects (NATO, Snowden, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria) he carried out all the wishes of Washington.

The Delanoë story shows that the support of the State Department can help to fulfill part of the objective but the main part remains up to the candidate. Delanoë was probably just too old for becoming president in 2012 and in addition his neoliberal program did not appeal to the members of the “Socialist Party”. Recently
The story unfolded through the following steps.

**Apr 22, 2008** The Dalai Lama was made an honorary citizen of Paris exacerbating tensions between France and China in the build up to the Beijing Olympics. The motion was backed by the mayor Bertrand Delanoë. While proposing the resolution at the city council, the mayor said that this is in “fraternal support to the Tibetan people who are fighting for their fundamental rights, their dignity, their freedom, and simply their life”. Such a statement must have been sweet music to the ears of the State Department.

Naturally in China it brought about different reactions. Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of Chinese cities to denounce France and call for a boycott of French goods. (Irish Times 22 April 2008)

**May 21, 2008** Delanoë published a book in which he describes his positions and program on problems of domestic and foreign policy; for instance he backed US intervention in Afghanistan.

**May 22, 2008** “Le Point” devoted a long, laudatory editorial to Delanoë’s book in which his ambition to become the head of the Socialist Party was emphasized. Moreover, his portrait made the cover of this issue.

**Jul 27, 2008** “Le Point” ran an article entitled “Delanoë is the favorite of the members of the Socialist Party”. The article described the result of a survey according to which Delanoë had the highest percentage of supporters. Needless to say, such surveys can be manipulated easily to give any desired result.

**Nov 6, 2008** After being voted out by the members of the “Socialist Party” in a preliminary vote, Delanoë renounced to his candidacy for head of the “Socialist Party”.

**Jun 8, 2009** Delanoë welcomed the Dalai Lama at the City Hall for a visit during which he received the “Citizen of Honor” award bestowed on him in 2008. He had already visited Delanoë on 16 October 2003.

This closes the Delanoë story. It can be added that, François Hollande, the person who became the Socialist candidate for the 2012 election and was indeed elected as president of France, was no less an “Atlanticist” than Delanoë. It is true that he did not meet with the Dalai Lama but in other respects (NATO, Snowden, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria) he carried out all the wishes of Washington.

The Delanoë story shows that the support of the State Department can help to fulfill part of the objective but the main part remains up to the candidate. Delanoë was probably just too old for becoming president in 2012 and in addition his neoliberal program did not appeal to the members of the “Socialist Party”. Recently
<figure><img src="image_48.png" /><figcaption>Paris, 12 Sep. 2016: Meeting between Emmanuel Macron and the Dalai Lama</figcaption></figure>

**Fig. 5.4 Meeting between Emmanuel Macron and the Dalai Lama in a Parisian hotel on Monday 12 September 2016.** At that time Mr. Macron was no longer Minister of Economy and he became the President of France only in May 2017; in other words, he had no official position. However, one can be sure that the US Senate was pleased with this meeting. On the left-hand side picture Mr. Macron receives a khata, a traditional Tibetan scarf. Source: Internet

the State Department has found a much better “horse” in Emmanuel Macron who became president in May 2017. Whereas Delanoë had the support of only one or two newspapers Emmanuel Macron was “put into orbit” through a tremendous media campaign which involved most TV networks (particularly BFM TV) and many newspapers. As early as August 2014 the magazine “Vanity Fair” (a French edition of the US magazine which has the same title) devoted a whole article to him. Its date, namely 28 August 2014, is interesting for it appeared only a few days after Mr. Macron was appointed “Minister of Economy and Finance”. As the writing of such a fairly long article must have taken some time, it is remarkable that it was ready so quickly. Let’s see whether or not President Macron will fulfill the wishes of his sponsors by being an obedient vassal.

We do not need to ask whether he will meet the Dalai Lama or not for he already did so (see picture) prior to being elected president. It is true that on 12 September 2016 the former minister of economy did no longer hold any official position in the French government.

## Japan

Close economic and political cooperation between China and Japan would certainly benefit both countries but it would be a strategic disaster for the United States. Therefore it must not happen. One would expect this to be a high priority for the State Department. But how exactly is it implemented? In the present section we will take a closer look.

Various means can be used to raise the tension between China and Japan. Broadly speaking, one can mention the following.
<figure><img src="image_50.png" /><figcaption>Paris, 12 Sep. 2016: Meeting between Emmanuel Macron and the Dalai Lama</figcaption></figure>

**Fig. 5.4 Meeting between Emmanuel Macron and the Dalai Lama in a Parisian hotel on Monday 12 September 2016.** At that time Mr. Macron was no longer Minister of Economy and he became the President of France only in May 2017; in other words, he had no official position. However, one can be sure that the US Senate was pleased with this meeting. On the left-hand side picture Mr. Macron receives a khata, a traditional Tibetan scarf. Source: Internet

the State Department has found a much better “horse” in Emmanuel Macron who became president in May 2017. Whereas Delanoë had the support of only one or two newspapers Emmanuel Macron was “put into orbit” through a tremendous media campaign which involved most TV networks (particularly BFM TV) and many newspapers. As early as August 2014 the magazine “Vanity Fair” (a French edition of the US magazine which has the same title) devoted a whole article to him. Its date, namely 28 August 2014, is interesting for it appeared only a few days after Mr. Macron was appointed “Minister of Economy and Finance”. As the writing of such a fairly long article must have taken some time, it is remarkable that it was ready so quickly. Let’s see whether or not President Macron will fulfill the wishes of his sponsors by being an obedient vassal.

We do not need to ask whether he will meet the Dalai Lama or not for he already did so (see picture) prior to being elected president. It is true that on 12 September 2016 the former minister of economy did no longer hold any official position in the French government.

## Japan

Close economic and political cooperation between China and Japan would certainly benefit both countries but it would be a strategic disaster for the United States. Therefore it must not happen. One would expect this to be a high priority for the State Department. But how exactly is it implemented? In the present section we will take a closer look.

Various means can be used to raise the tension between China and Japan. Broadly speaking, one can mention the following.
* An essential condition is to prevent Japanese politicians who are favorable to China (e.g. Ichiro Ozawa or Yukio Hatoyama) from becoming prime minister and in case that nevertheless happens (after all Japan is a country where there are free elections) the experience should be as short as possible. An article in the New York Times of 23 January 2010 was entitled: "In Japan, the US is losing diplomatic ground to China". But this situation did not last very long. Prime minister Hatoyama was driven out on 8 June 2010 after only 8 months in power.

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. xx** A cartoon which illustrates prime minister Hatoyama's short time in power. He felt caught between a rock and a hard place and resigned after only 8 months in power. The pressure from the US side came mostly through Japanese media, e.g. the "Japan Times" newspaper or the NHK TV channels. One can remember that the NHK was established during the US post-war occupation. Although in existence since 1897 the "Japan Times" was purged of its nationalist and leftist elements during the US occupation. The journalists tried to resist but their strike was broken. Thus, for Japanese citizens, the episode was seen as a domestic process. Signs of US discontent with Hatoyama's policy can be identified only through a careful investigation. In short, it is a hidden and shrewd form of interference. Source: Internet</figcaption></figure>

* Once the previous condition is fulfilled, it is relatively easy to maintain a state of tension by playing with various old grievances or by bringing up new ones such as the Senkaku/Diaoyu issue. In this respect it can be recalled that it was in Washington that the mayor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, announced that he was opening
* An essential condition is to prevent Japanese politicians who are favorable to China (e.g. Ichiro Ozawa or Yukio Hatoyama) from becoming prime minister and in case that nevertheless happens (after all Japan is a country where there are free elections) the experience should be as short as possible. An article in the New York Times of 23 January 2010 was entitled: "In Japan, the US is losing diplomatic ground to China". But this situation did not last very long. Prime minister Hatoyama was driven out on 8 June 2010 after only 8 months in power.

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. xx** A cartoon which illustrates prime minister Hatoyama's short time in power. He felt caught between a rock and a hard place and resigned after only 8 months in power. The pressure from the US side came mostly through Japanese media, e.g. the "Japan Times" newspaper or the NHK TV channels. One can remember that the NHK was established during the US post-war occupation. Although in existence since 1897 the "Japan Times" was purged of its nationalist and leftist elements during the US occupation. The journalists tried to resist but their strike was broken. Thus, for Japanese citizens, the episode was seen as a domestic process. Signs of US discontent with Hatoyama's policy can be identified only through a careful investigation. In short, it is a hidden and shrewd form of interference. Source: Internet</figcaption></figure>

* Once the previous condition is fulfilled, it is relatively easy to maintain a state of tension by playing with various old grievances or by bringing up new ones such as the Senkaku/Diaoyu issue. In this respect it can be recalled that it was in Washington that the mayor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, announced that he was opening
a subscription to buy back the Senkaku Islands. More precisely the announcement was made on 16 April 2012 in a speech at the “Heritage Foundation”, a conservative and nationalist think tank.

Another episode which showed fairly clearly in which direction the wind is blowing occurred on 19 April 2014. Four days before the visit of President Obama, as a kind of welcome gift, Japan decided to build a radar station on the Japanese island of Yonaguni which is located some 200km south of the Senkaku islands. Building the radar base on this island which is much closer to China than to Japan's main islands, will extend Japanese monitoring to the Chinese mainland itself. (Taipei Times 19 April 2014)

Needless to say, the tension generated by North Korea plays in the hands of the State Department by strengthening the strategic partnership of Japan with the US. The same observation holds for South Korea and even to some extent for the Philippines. The North Korean policy is now openly disapproved by the Chinese government. As a matter of fact, it is quite detrimental to China by isolating it with respect to these important neighbors. In contrast to the US which has almost no trade with North Korea, for China the economic sanctions have a cost.

A military conflict would likely be an even greater disaster for China<fnref n="50" />.

In this respect, one can observe that the invasion of South Korea by North Korean forces at the end of June 1950 has had very negative consequences for China not only in Korea itself where it strengthened the dictatorship of President Rhee but also in Taiwan because it led the US to guaranty the security of Taiwan, something that President Truman had been reluctant to declare openly prior to the beginning of the Korean War.

## The Philippines

The Philippine Senate voted in 1991 to close US bases at Subic and Clark, northwest of Manila. However, in 1999, it ratified an accord with the US allowing temporary visits by US forces. That paved the way for hundreds of US service members to hold counterterrorism combat exercises with Philippine troops dealing with insurgents in the countryside south.

The “Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement”, which allows US forces to “preposition” fighters and warships in the Philippines was signed on 28 April 2014 at the Philippine Department of Defense in Manila, shortly before the arrival of US President Barack Obama (Taipei Times 28 April 2014).

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰The bombing of North Korean facilities could release radioactive products which would then drift to the North Chinese provinces of Heilongjiang, Jinin and Liaoning as well as to South Korea. Even Beijing and Tianjin are only 500 km away from the western boundary of North Korea.</footnote>
a subscription to buy back the Senkaku Islands. More precisely the announcement was made on 16 April 2012 in a speech at the “Heritage Foundation”, a conservative and nationalist think tank.

Another episode which showed fairly clearly in which direction the wind is blowing occurred on 19 April 2014. Four days before the visit of President Obama, as a kind of welcome gift, Japan decided to build a radar station on the Japanese island of Yonaguni which is located some 200km south of the Senkaku islands. Building the radar base on this island which is much closer to China than to Japan's main islands, will extend Japanese monitoring to the Chinese mainland itself. (Taipei Times 19 April 2014)

Needless to say, the tension generated by North Korea plays in the hands of the State Department by strengthening the strategic partnership of Japan with the US. The same observation holds for South Korea and even to some extent for the Philippines. The North Korean policy is now openly disapproved by the Chinese government. As a matter of fact, it is quite detrimental to China by isolating it with respect to these important neighbors. In contrast to the US which has almost no trade with North Korea, for China the economic sanctions have a cost.

A military conflict would likely be an even greater disaster for China<fnref n="50" />.

In this respect, one can observe that the invasion of South Korea by North Korean forces at the end of June 1950 has had very negative consequences for China not only in Korea itself where it strengthened the dictatorship of President Rhee but also in Taiwan because it led the US to guaranty the security of Taiwan, something that President Truman had been reluctant to declare openly prior to the beginning of the Korean War.

## The Philippines

The Philippine Senate voted in 1991 to close US bases at Subic and Clark, northwest of Manila. However, in 1999, it ratified an accord with the US allowing temporary visits by US forces. That paved the way for hundreds of US service members to hold counterterrorism combat exercises with Philippine troops dealing with insurgents in the countryside south.

The “Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement”, which allows US forces to “preposition” fighters and warships in the Philippines was signed on 28 April 2014 at the Philippine Department of Defense in Manila, shortly before the arrival of US President Barack Obama (Taipei Times 28 April 2014).

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰The bombing of North Korean facilities could release radioactive products which would then drift to the North Chinese provinces of Heilongjiang, Jinin and Liaoning as well as to South Korea. Even Beijing and Tianjin are only 500 km away from the western boundary of North Korea.</footnote>
## Chapter 6

# Timeless features of cold wars: past, present, future

In an early version of this report this chapter was entitled “Testable predictions”. We changed the title into “Timeless features of cold wars” for three main reasons.

1. “Testable predictions” made readers believe that they would find specific predictions whose validity may be tested within a few months. Such predictions are not impossible but they will concern “small events” and will require a detailed analysis of past events and local conditions. For instance, it might be possible to predict an increase in confrontational events in Niger or Sudan but such investigations would clearly be too specialized for the present study.

2. In spite of the change in the title the purpose of the chapter remains basically the same for, in fact, once one agrees that little by little we are witnessing a shift toward a cold war situation, then all features which are usually associated with cold wars can be used as likely predictors. One needs only to adapt them to the present circumstances.

3. In the previous chapters we already described some Cold War features, for instance we explained how the very existence of vassal states allowed the implementation of containment policies against the USSR and the PRC. However, most of our discussion concerned the decades following the Second World War. In the chapter entitled “The Pacific as an American lake” we went back even further into the past by describing how the US encouraged the Russo-Japanese war of 1905. Here, in contrast, we wish to unveil cold war aspects which may play a role in coming decades. Naturally, even here the past will be our main guide; otherwise it would be pure speculation. However, in contrast to previous chapters it is the recent past that we will take as our guide.

To use the expression “cold war” in order to describe the competition between the US and the PRC is in itself a bold prediction. At the present moment (October 2017) it is still cooperation which is officially emphasized both by the US State Department as by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Probably this situation will prevail for quite a few years. However, on each side, other government institutions may already work in a different framework. This is what we explain in the next section.
Chapter 6

Timeless features of cold wars: past, present, future

In an early version of this report this chapter was entitled “Testable predictions”. We changed the title into “Timeless features of cold wars” for three main reasons.

1 “Testable predictions” made readers believe that they would find specific predictions whose validity may be tested within a few months. Such predictions are not impossible but they will concern “small events” and will require a detailed analysis of past events and local conditions. For instance, it might be possible to predict an increase in confrontational events in Niger or Sudan but such investigations would clearly be too specialized for the present study.

2 In spite of the change in the title the purpose of the chapter remains basically the same for, in fact, once one agrees that little by little we are witnessing a shift toward a cold war situation, then all features which are usually associated with cold wars can be used as likely predictors. One needs only to adapt them to the present circumstances.

3 In the previous chapters we already described some Cold War features, for instance we explained how the very existence of vassal states allowed the implementation of containment policies against the USSR and the PRC. However, most of our discussion concerned the decades following the Second World War. In the chapter entitled “The Pacific as an American lake” we went back even further into the past by describing how the US encouraged the Russo-Japanese war of 1905. Here, in contrast, we wish to unveil cold war aspects which may play a role in coming decades. Naturally, even here the past will be our main guide; otherwise it would be pure speculation. However, in contrast to previous chapters it is the recent past that we will take as our guide.

To use the expression “cold war” in order to describe the competition between the US and the PRC is in itself a bold prediction. At the present moment (October 2017) it is still cooperation which is officially emphasized both by the US State Department as by the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Probably this situation will prevail for quite a few years. However, on each side, other government institutions may already work in a different framework. This is what we explain in the next section.
# Cooperation, peaceful coexistence, competition, cold war

The four situations mentioned in the title describe degrees going from friendly to tense relations. It would be a mistake to think that these concepts are exclusive of one other. In fact they co-exist in the sense that there are different groups which believe in each of them.

<table><caption>Table 6.1: Attitudes of different groups and institutions with regard to USA-PRC relations (2017)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Cooperation</th><th>Peaceful coexistence</th><th>Competition</th><th>Cold war</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>China</th><td>Businesses which export to or invest in the US. Academics</td><td>Ministry of Foreign Affairs</td><td>RMB vs. $<br>AIIB vs. ADB</td><td>PLA, PLAN, PLAAF<br>PLA Cyber Security</td></tr><tr><th>USA</th><td>Businesses which export to or invest in China</td><td>US State Department</td><td>$ vs. RMB<br>US Congress</td><td>DoD, NSA, CIA</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: RMB=renminbi, PLA=People's Liberation Army, PLAN=PLA Navy, PLAAF=PLA Air Force, AIIB=Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, ADB=Asian Development Bank (US-Japan), DoD=Department of Defense, NSA=National Security Agency, CIA=Central Intelligence Agency. The main purpose of this table is to emphasize that at a given moment one observes a broad range of attitudes both in China and in the US.

We examine successively the different cases summarized in Table 6.1.

## Cooperation

This is the attitude of the people and organizations who believe in synergy and win-win relations. Presently, over 100 large Chinese companies are listed on the New York Stock Exchange and on the NASDAQ market (about 50 on each). They are called N-stocks (N refers to New York). In contrast there are very few (if any) US companies listed on Chinese stock markets<fnref n="51" />. Clearly, when taking the decision to become publicly traded in the US rather than in China, the leadership of these companies was assuming that cooperation would prevail for the coming decades. A cold war situation would represent a real risk. In this respect, one can remember that after 1979 Iranian assets in the US were frozen.

From a rational perspective cooperation should be the preferred form of relations for this would maximize mutual benefit. However, observation shows that other considerations may go against cooperation. In recent years, this was clearly illustrated by

<footnote n="51">⁵¹As of 2016 the total of US investments in China represented about $100 billion. This is much less than the total capitalisation of the 100 Chinese companies quoted in New York. On 9 October 2017, Alibaba alone had a capitalisation of $460 billion.</footnote>
# Cooperation, peaceful coexistence, competition, cold war

The four situations mentioned in the title describe degrees going from friendly to tense relations. It would be a mistake to think that these concepts are exclusive of one other. In fact they co-exist in the sense that there are different groups which believe in each of them.

<table><caption>Table 6.1: Attitudes of different groups and institutions with regard to USA-PRC relations (2017)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Cooperation</th><th>Peaceful coexistence</th><th>Competition</th><th>Cold war</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>China</th><td>Businesses which export to or invest in the US. Academics</td><td>Ministry of Foreign Affairs</td><td>RMB vs. $<br>AIIB vs. ADB</td><td>PLA, PLAN, PLAAF<br>PLA Cyber Security</td></tr><tr><th>USA</th><td>Businesses which export to or invest in China</td><td>US State Department</td><td>$ vs. RMB<br>US Congress</td><td>DoD, NSA, CIA</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: RMB=renminbi, PLA=People's Liberation Army, PLAN=PLA Navy, PLAAF=PLA Air Force, AIIB=Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, ADB=Asian Development Bank (US-Japan), DoD=Department of Defense, NSA=National Security Agency, CIA=Central Intelligence Agency. The main purpose of this table is to emphasize that at a given moment one observes a broad range of attitudes both in China and in the US.

We examine successively the different cases summarized in Table 6.1.

## Cooperation

This is the attitude of the people and organizations who believe in synergy and win-win relations. Presently, over 100 large Chinese companies are listed on the New York Stock Exchange and on the NASDAQ market (about 50 on each). They are called N-stocks (N refers to New York). In contrast there are very few (if any) US companies listed on Chinese stock markets<fnref n="51" />. Clearly, when taking the decision to become publicly traded in the US rather than in China, the leadership of these companies was assuming that cooperation would prevail for the coming decades. A cold war situation would represent a real risk. In this respect, one can remember that after 1979 Iranian assets in the US were frozen.

From a rational perspective cooperation should be the preferred form of relations for this would maximize mutual benefit. However, observation shows that other considerations may go against cooperation. In recent years, this was clearly illustrated by

<footnote n="51">⁵¹As of 2016 the total of US investments in China represented about $100 billion. This is much less than the total capitalisation of the 100 Chinese companies quoted in New York. On 9 October 2017, Alibaba alone had a capitalisation of $460 billion.</footnote>
the cases of Japan and South Korea. These countries are close neighbors of China and their economies are complementary in several ways. Thus, all conditions are fulfilled for a fruitful cooperation.

Yet, the synergy between Japan and China was shattered by the Diaoyu Islands problem (entirely raised by Japan) and two years later the synergy between South Korea and China was also broken through the Thaad dispute. In other words, despite the fact that both Japan and South Korea knew in advance that raising these issues would hurt the cooperation with China, this consideration did not stop them. This conundrum was already mentioned in chapter 4 where it was suggested that it is through the status of South Korea and Japan as vassal states of the US that it can be understood. Because this point is of crucial importance for the future we come back to it at the end of the present chapter.

## Peaceful coexistence

Peaceful coexistence was a theory applied by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It implied that the Soviet bloc could coexist with the United States and NATO countries. It was correct in the sense that peace was indeed maintained but it did not prevent the dislocation of the USSR.

The principles of peaceful coexistence promoted by China rely on the following principles.

(i) Mutual respect for territorial integrity.

(ii) Mutual non-aggression and peaceful co-existence.

(iii) Non-interference in each other's internal affairs.

It can safely be said that these principles may indeed be implemented by China in its relations with the United States, but the converse is not true even at an official level. This is for instance shown by the arm sales to Taiwan or the incursions of US warships into Chinese territorial waters (claimed to be international waters by the US). It is even less true when one takes into account the activities of many US organizations and think tanks that are called "independent" but are nevertheless funded by Congress.

## Competition

In Table 6.1 we mentioned the financial competition between the renminbi and the dollar. This competition will develop over a time span of several decades. On the contrary, the move of the Chinese economy toward high-value products is likely to occur within one decade. As long as China was producing low-value products (clothes, toys and so on) or even high-value products but for foreign companies (cars, Airbus airplanes and so on) the Chinese and western economies were complementary. However, if China plans to develop its own high-value products as it
the cases of Japan and South Korea. These countries are close neighbors of China and their economies are complementary in several ways. Thus, all conditions are fulfilled for a fruitful cooperation.

Yet, the synergy between Japan and China was shattered by the Diaoyu Islands problem (entirely raised by Japan) and two years later the synergy between South Korea and China was also broken through the Thaad dispute. In other words, despite the fact that both Japan and South Korea knew in advance that raising these issues would hurt the cooperation with China, this consideration did not stop them. This conundrum was already mentioned in chapter 4 where it was suggested that it is through the status of South Korea and Japan as vassal states of the US that it can be understood. Because this point is of crucial importance for the future we come back to it at the end of the present chapter.

## Peaceful coexistence

Peaceful coexistence was a theory applied by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It implied that the Soviet bloc could coexist with the United States and NATO countries. It was correct in the sense that peace was indeed maintained but it did not prevent the dislocation of the USSR.

The principles of peaceful coexistence promoted by China rely on the following principles.

(i) Mutual respect for territorial integrity.

(ii) Mutual non-aggression and peaceful co-existence.

(iii) Non-interference in each other's internal affairs.

It can safely be said that these principles may indeed be implemented by China in its relations with the United States, but the converse is not true even at an official level. This is for instance shown by the arm sales to Taiwan or the incursions of US warships into Chinese territorial waters (claimed to be international waters by the US). It is even less true when one takes into account the activities of many US organizations and think tanks that are called "independent" but are nevertheless funded by Congress.

## Competition

In Table 6.1 we mentioned the financial competition between the renminbi and the dollar. This competition will develop over a time span of several decades. On the contrary, the move of the Chinese economy toward high-value products is likely to occur within one decade. As long as China was producing low-value products (clothes, toys and so on) or even high-value products but for foreign companies (cars, Airbus airplanes and so on) the Chinese and western economies were complementary. However, if China plans to develop its own high-value products as it
has already started to do with sizeable success, then it comes in competition with
western economies.

Just as an illustration, in recent times there have been US attempts to block Chinese plans to develop a strong and innovative chip industry. Not only did the US bar the sale to a Chinese company of an US chip maker but it was also able to reverse the decision of the German government to allow the sale of a German chip maker.

It can safely be predicted that such industrial warfare will become more frequent in the coming years as China tries to enter industries in which western countries enjoy a leading position, e.g. drugs, luxury products, and so on. It is clear that resistance will come not only from the US but also from European companies, but the big difference is that the EU is a weak organization whereas the US has developed very effective fighting capabilities, e.g. the Departments of Justice or Transportation, which have already shown how they can bring down competitors (as illustrations, see the cases of the supersonic Concorde aircraft, Audi cars, Toyota cars, Bombardier aircraft).

## Cold war

At present time the government institutions working on cold war assumptions are limited to military and intelligence organizations. This is quite understandable for in any country it is the mission of the military to prepare everything for a possible coming war. This timeless truth is illustrated by the well known Latin adage *Si vis pacem, para bellum* which can be translated as: "If you want peace, prepare for war".

## Economic growth of China and role of the RMB

In the chapter on "US-PRC competition for world leadership" we offered several predictions listed below. Obviously, from the first to the last the margin of uncertainty increases.

1. We recalled that the foreign trade of China surpassed US foreign trade in 2013.

2. A projection based on current (i.e. in 2017) growth rates suggested that the GDP of China will surpass the US GDP around 2020.

3. A projection based on the pound-dollar case suggested that the RMB will surpass the USD as a world reserve currency around 2050. This conjecture should be seen as giving a broad order of magnitude (similar to what is done in physics). In other words, it can be 2040 as well as 2060, but certainly not 2025.

4. In the same line of thought, as a further conjecture, we suggested that the RMB may reach a dominant position in central bank reserves around 2100. This projection is even more hazardous than the previous one. Why? Whereas the previous projection was a two-body problem in the sense that it involved only the USD and RMB, the present one is a many-body problem in the sense that other major reserve
has already started to do with sizeable success, then it comes in competition with
western economies.

Just as an illustration, in recent times there have been US attempts to block Chinese plans to develop a strong and innovative chip industry. Not only did the US bar the sale to a Chinese company of an US chip maker but it was also able to reverse the decision of the German government to allow the sale of a German chip maker.

It can safely be predicted that such industrial warfare will become more frequent in the coming years as China tries to enter industries in which western countries enjoy a leading position, e.g. drugs, luxury products, and so on. It is clear that resistance will come not only from the US but also from European companies, but the big difference is that the EU is a weak organization whereas the US has developed very effective fighting capabilities, e.g. the Departments of Justice or Transportation, which have already shown how they can bring down competitors (as illustrations, see the cases of the supersonic Concorde aircraft, Audi cars, Toyota cars, Bombardier aircraft).

## Cold war

At present time the government institutions working on cold war assumptions are limited to military and intelligence organizations. This is quite understandable for in any country it is the mission of the military to prepare everything for a possible coming war. This timeless truth is illustrated by the well known Latin adage *Si vis pacem, para bellum* which can be translated as: "If you want peace, prepare for war".

## Economic growth of China and role of the RMB

In the chapter on "US-PRC competition for world leadership" we offered several predictions listed below. Obviously, from the first to the last the margin of uncertainty increases.

1. We recalled that the foreign trade of China surpassed US foreign trade in 2013.

2. A projection based on current (i.e. in 2017) growth rates suggested that the GDP of China will surpass the US GDP around 2020.

3. A projection based on the pound-dollar case suggested that the RMB will surpass the USD as a world reserve currency around 2050. This conjecture should be seen as giving a broad order of magnitude (similar to what is done in physics). In other words, it can be 2040 as well as 2060, but certainly not 2025.

4. In the same line of thought, as a further conjecture, we suggested that the RMB may reach a dominant position in central bank reserves around 2100. This projection is even more hazardous than the previous one. Why? Whereas the previous projection was a two-body problem in the sense that it involved only the USD and RMB, the present one is a many-body problem in the sense that other major reserve
currencies may emerge. One can think of the Indian rupee as a possible candidate.

5 The competition for the production of high-value products (e.g. drugs, aircraft, nuclear power plants) was already discussed above.

## Indirect confrontations

History shows that direct confrontations between competitors are usually preceded (or replaced) by indirect confrontations. The Cold War of 1947–1990 provides plenty of examples of indirect confrontations between the USSR and the US. Below, just for the record, we list briefly a number of them. Apart Korea and Vietnam, China was not involved in any of them.

That is why in the two following subsections we describe in some detail two cases in which China was involved.

* The first one was a confrontation between the USSR and western powers which occurred in China during the Civil war of the 1920s and 1930s. It is of special interest because in accounts by western historians it is usually overlooked. Yet, it would be difficult to understand that the USSR and western powers could be both present in China without any confrontation taking place between them. In other words, this story fills a gap in our understanding.

* The second case is a confrontation between China and the US in Thailand that is still ongoing at present. However, the accounts of western media hardly present the situation in this light which makes the picture rather confusing. That is why, to get a better understanding of what is going on, we need to identify and unearth proper facts.

### Indirect USA-USSR confrontations during and after the Cold War

The French Indochina War, the Korean War, the confrontation about Cuba, the Vietnam War, the civil wars in Angola, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and, more recently, in Ukraine and Syria. were cases which illustrate indirect confrontations between the United States and Russia. Actually, there were degrees in US involvement. Here are examples ranked from low to high involvement.

* In Ukraine in the years leading to the toppling of President Yanukovitch in 2014, US officials (e.g. US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland or US Senator John McCain) visited and supported the leaders of the opposition and the anti-government demonstrators camping on Maidan square. The opposition may also have been funded by the State Department but this is more difficult to prove.

* In the Indochina War, French troops were armed by Washington and tactical plans were supervised by US officers. However, except for some American pilots, no US military took part in combat.
currencies may emerge. One can think of the Indian rupee as a possible candidate.

5 The competition for the production of high-value products (e.g. drugs, aircraft, nuclear power plants) was already discussed above.

## Indirect confrontations

History shows that direct confrontations between competitors are usually preceded (or replaced) by indirect confrontations. The Cold War of 1947–1990 provides plenty of examples of indirect confrontations between the USSR and the US. Below, just for the record, we list briefly a number of them. Apart Korea and Vietnam, China was not involved in any of them.

That is why in the two following subsections we describe in some detail two cases in which China was involved.

* The first one was a confrontation between the USSR and western powers which occurred in China during the Civil war of the 1920s and 1930s. It is of special interest because in accounts by western historians it is usually overlooked. Yet, it would be difficult to understand that the USSR and western powers could be both present in China without any confrontation taking place between them. In other words, this story fills a gap in our understanding.

* The second case is a confrontation between China and the US in Thailand that is still ongoing at present. However, the accounts of western media hardly present the situation in this light which makes the picture rather confusing. That is why, to get a better understanding of what is going on, we need to identify and unearth proper facts.

### Indirect USA-USSR confrontations during and after the Cold War

The French Indochina War, the Korean War, the confrontation about Cuba, the Vietnam War, the civil wars in Angola, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and, more recently, in Ukraine and Syria. were cases which illustrate indirect confrontations between the United States and Russia. Actually, there were degrees in US involvement. Here are examples ranked from low to high involvement.

* In Ukraine in the years leading to the toppling of President Yanukovitch in 2014, US officials (e.g. US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland or US Senator John McCain) visited and supported the leaders of the opposition and the anti-government demonstrators camping on Maidan square. The opposition may also have been funded by the State Department but this is more difficult to prove.

* In the Indochina War, French troops were armed by Washington and tactical plans were supervised by US officers. However, except for some American pilots, no US military took part in combat.
* In Syria US Special forces are currently (2017) present in small number acting mostly as advisers. In addition the Air Force has been waging a bombing campaign in support of the groups who oppose the government.

* The two only civil wars which saw a substantial number of US ground troops involved in persistent combats were Vietnam and Afghanistan.

In addition, as mentioned in the chapter about containment, several countries were occupied by US troops.

We now come to two cases in which China was involved. Of course, one should not forget the Korean War but this case is well known and does not require additional explanations.

## Confrontation between the USSR and allied powers in South China, 1920-1936

In the 1920s there was a confrontation between the Soviet Union and western powers in China. However, it was not a direct confrontation. There were no Soviet troops in China but at the request of Kuomintang president Sun Yat-sen, the Soviets sent arms and advisers to South China. The Whampoa military Academy near Shanghai was largely created thanks to their support.

Not surprisingly, after his pact with the Soviet Union, Sun was regarded with defiance by the British. However, they did not confront him directly. Instead they used the service of the warlord Chen Jiongming. This is described in Goikhman (2014):

> "The Hong Kong government was clearly opposed to Sun Yat-sen whom the British suspected of turning Bolshevist and they saw Chen Jiongming as the better for western powers. The British governor of Hong Kong, Reginald Stubbs, appealed to the British government to give financial support to Chen."

Following the advice of his sponsors General Chen Jiongming turned against Sun Yat-sen. On 16 June 1922 he attacked the residence of Sun Yat-sen in Guangzhou. Sun and his wife Soong Ching-ling narrowly evaded heavy machine gun fire and were rescued by gunboats under Chiang Kai-shek's direction. At that time Chiang was still seen as a leftist general but after Sun's death he would become the leader of the anti-Communist and anti-Russian forces in China.

The Soviet embassy in Beijing was invaded on 7 April 1927. In the following months several Soviet consulates (Harbin, Hankow, Guangzhou) were attacked. On 1 October 1927 after the KMT Hankow government was toppled in an anti-Communist coup the United States was the first country to recognize the Chiang Kai-shek government. On 17 December 1927 the Soviet vice-consul at Canton (Guangzhou) was executed by the KMT. On the following day, six women belonging to the consular staff of the Soviet Consulate in Canton were executed<fnref n="52" />.

<footnote n="52">⁵²More details and the references of the sources can be found in Roehner (2016c).</footnote>
* In Syria US Special forces are currently (2017) present in small number acting mostly as advisers. In addition the Air Force has been waging a bombing campaign in support of the groups who oppose the government.

* The two only civil wars which saw a substantial number of US ground troops involved in persistent combats were Vietnam and Afghanistan.

In addition, as mentioned in the chapter about containment, several countries were occupied by US troops.

We now come to two cases in which China was involved. Of course, one should not forget the Korean War but this case is well known and does not require additional explanations.

## Confrontation between the USSR and allied powers in South China, 1920-1936

In the 1920s there was a confrontation between the Soviet Union and western powers in China. However, it was not a direct confrontation. There were no Soviet troops in China but at the request of Kuomintang president Sun Yat-sen, the Soviets sent arms and advisers to South China. The Whampoa military Academy near Shanghai was largely created thanks to their support.

Not surprisingly, after his pact with the Soviet Union, Sun was regarded with defiance by the British. However, they did not confront him directly. Instead they used the service of the warlord Chen Jiongming. This is described in Goikhman (2014):

> "The Hong Kong government was clearly opposed to Sun Yat-sen whom the British suspected of turning Bolshevist and they saw Chen Jiongming as the better for western powers. The British governor of Hong Kong, Reginald Stubbs, appealed to the British government to give financial support to Chen."

Following the advice of his sponsors General Chen Jiongming turned against Sun Yat-sen. On 16 June 1922 he attacked the residence of Sun Yat-sen in Guangzhou. Sun and his wife Soong Ching-ling narrowly evaded heavy machine gun fire and were rescued by gunboats under Chiang Kai-shek's direction. At that time Chiang was still seen as a leftist general but after Sun's death he would become the leader of the anti-Communist and anti-Russian forces in China.

The Soviet embassy in Beijing was invaded on 7 April 1927. In the following months several Soviet consulates (Harbin, Hankow, Guangzhou) were attacked. On 1 October 1927 after the KMT Hankow government was toppled in an anti-Communist coup the United States was the first country to recognize the Chiang Kai-shek government. On 17 December 1927 the Soviet vice-consul at Canton (Guangzhou) was executed by the KMT. On the following day, six women belonging to the consular staff of the Soviet Consulate in Canton were executed<fnref n="52" />.

<footnote n="52">⁵²More details and the references of the sources can be found in Roehner (2016c).</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_50.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.1** General Chiang Kai-shek in the issue of 11 December 1933 of “Time”, an American magazine.
In 1933 Chiang was heavily involved in his campaign against the Communists. In February 1933, as the Japanese were threatening the province of Hebei in northern China, Chiang launched 250,000 of this best troops in a fourth “Bandit Suppression” campaign. Source: Wikipedia article entitled “Chiang Kai-shek, public domain.</figcaption></figure>

In short, in the 1920s South China was the theater of an indirect confrontation between the Soviet Union on the one hand and western powers on the other hand.

We developed this example because it is not well known. After World War II during the Cold War there were numerous well-known indirect confrontations between the USA and the USSR.

**Indirect USA-China confrontations: the case of Thailand**

The civil wars in Malaysia, the Philippines (the so-called Hukbalahap, or simply Huk, rebellion), Nepal, were conflicts between leftist/Communist insurgents and governments supported by western powers. However it is difficult to know the degree of involvement of the Beijing government.

Here we will discuss a more recent case, namely Thailand from 2000 to 2017.

In June 2011 the Reuters news agency published a long report (Szep et al. 2011) about the political situation in Thailand. This was 4 years after Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was overthrown by a military coup and shortly before the elections of July 2011 which brought to power his sister Yingluck Shinawatra. In 2014 she was also removed from power by the military. The Reuters report explains that Thaksin Shinawatra was a populist who was very popular in the countryside. However it does not tell us that he was fervently pro-US and anti-Beijing. How then does one know? There are several indications,
<figure><img src="image_52.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.1** General Chiang Kai-shek in the issue of 11 December 1933 of “Time”, an American magazine.</figcaption></figure>

In 1933 Chiang was heavily involved in his campaign against the Communists. In February 1933, as the Japanese were threatening the province of Hebei in northern China, Chiang launched 250,000 of this best troops in a fourth “Bandit Suppression” campaign. Source: Wikipedia article entitled “Chiang Kai-shek, public domain.

In short, in the 1920s South China was the theater of an indirect confrontation between the Soviet Union on the one hand and western powers on the other hand.

We developed this example because it is not well known. After World War II during the Cold War there were numerous well-known indirect confrontations between the USA and the USSR.

**Indirect USA-China confrontations: the case of Thailand**

The civil wars in Malaysia, the Philippines (the so-called Hukbalahap, or simply Huk, rebellion), Nepal, were conflicts between leftist/Communist insurgents and governments supported by western powers. However it is difficult to know the degree of involvement of the Beijing government.

Here we will discuss a more recent case, namely Thailand from 2000 to 2017.

In June 2011 the Reuters news agency published a long report (Szep et al. 2011) about the political situation in Thailand. This was 4 years after Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was overthrown by a military coup and shortly before the elections of July 2011 which brought to power his sister Yingluck Shinawatra. In 2014 she was also removed from power by the military. The Reuters report explains that Thaksin Shinawatra was a populist who was very popular in the countryside. However it does not tell us that he was fervently pro-US and anti-Beijing. How then does one know? There are several indications,
* On 26 December 2003 the US journal “Washington Post” published an edito-
rial entitled “Thaksin Shinawatra, our man in Bangkok”. The fact that he was indeed
a good friend of the US can be seen in that he provided Thai troops for the US occu-
pation of Iraq and cooperated with the CIA “Rendition program” under which sus-
pected terrorists were tortured in Thailand on account of the US. Moreover, it seems
that the privatization of Thailand’s resources fulfilled the wishes of Wall Street<fnref n="53" />.

* According to Chinese sources, under Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra the relations between the two countries were fairly cool and only warmed up after he was removed from power in September 2006. After the coup of 2014 China was the first major power to recognize Thailand's ruling junta.

* By 2017 the relations between Beijing and the Thai military were still very good as revealed by the fact that in April 2017, Thailand bought three submarines from China for a total amount of 1 billion dollars. Such purchases are usually seen as being of political significance.

The low-intensity civil war which took place in Thailand between the “Red Shirts” and the “Yellow Shirts” was presented by western media as a confrontation between affluent cities and poor countryside. This may have been true. However it was also indirectly a confrontation between Beijing and Washington. This is shown by the US support given to the Red Shirts.

* In the 2010s, through the “National Endowment for Democracy” (NED), the US State Department gave annually over US$30,000 to the Thai propaganda network “Prachatai”. Although the amount may seem small, for such an organization involved in giving information about government corruption it can cover the salaries of permanent employees. “Thai Lawyers for Human Rights”, “Thai Netizen”, “Democracy Cafe” are similar organizations frequently cited by the Western media and presented to the public as independent “human rights” advocates.

* The picture below suggests that the Red Shirt villages had close relations with the US. On “Voice TV”, the website of Thaksin Shinawatra, one reads:

> Jessica Smith, currently attached to the US Embassy in Bangkok, traveled to the northeastern province and was warmly welcomed by dozens of Red Shirt villagers. Inside one village was a poster with a picture of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra viewed as spiritual leader of Red Shirt activists, and English inscriptions saying: “Long Live the Thai and American Peoples”.

* When in May 2014 Yingluck Shinawatra was finally ousted from office by a military coup, a nationwide sweep uncovered weapon caches staged by her support-

<footnote n="53">⁵³On 23 March 2006 Thailand's Supreme Court nullified the government decrees authorizing the sale of the state-owned power producer "Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand" (EGAT), a big setback to the wide-ranging plans by Thaksin Shinawatra to sell state-owned assets.</footnote>
* On 26 December 2003 the US journal “Washington Post” published an edito-
rial entitled “Thaksin Shinawatra, our man in Bangkok”. The fact that he was indeed
a good friend of the US can be seen in that he provided Thai troops for the US occu-
pation of Iraq and cooperated with the CIA “Rendition program” under which sus-
pected terrorists were tortured in Thailand on account of the US. Moreover, it seems
that the privatization of Thailand’s resources fulfilled the wishes of Wall Street<fnref n="53" />.

* According to Chinese sources, under Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra the relations between the two countries were fairly cool and only warmed up after he was removed from power in September 2006. After the coup of 2014 China was the first major power to recognize Thailand's ruling junta.

* By 2017 the relations between Beijing and the Thai military were still very good as revealed by the fact that in April 2017, Thailand bought three submarines from China for a total amount of 1 billion dollars. Such purchases are usually seen as being of political significance.

The low-intensity civil war which took place in Thailand between the “Red Shirts” and the “Yellow Shirts” was presented by western media as a confrontation between affluent cities and poor countryside. This may have been true. However it was also indirectly a confrontation between Beijing and Washington. This is shown by the US support given to the Red Shirts.

* In the 2010s, through the “National Endowment for Democracy” (NED), the US State Department gave annually over US$30,000 to the Thai propaganda network “Prachatai”. Although the amount may seem small, for such an organization involved in giving information about government corruption it can cover the salaries of permanent employees. “Thai Lawyers for Human Rights”, “Thai Netizen”, “Democracy Cafe” are similar organizations frequently cited by the Western media and presented to the public as independent “human rights” advocates.

* The picture below suggests that the Red Shirt villages had close relations with the US. On “Voice TV”, the website of Thaksin Shinawatra, one reads:

> Jessica Smith, currently attached to the US Embassy in Bangkok, traveled to the northeastern province and was warmly welcomed by dozens of Red Shirt villagers. Inside one village was a poster with a picture of former premier Thaksin Shinawatra viewed as spiritual leader of Red Shirt activists, and English inscriptions saying: “Long Live the Thai and American Peoples”.

* When in May 2014 Yingluck Shinawatra was finally ousted from office by a military coup, a nationwide sweep uncovered weapon caches staged by her support-

<footnote n="53">⁵³On 23 March 2006 Thailand's Supreme Court nullified the government decrees authorizing the sale of the state-owned power producer "Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand" (EGAT), a big setback to the wide-ranging plans by Thaksin Shinawatra to sell state-owned assets.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_51.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.2 Red Shirt Villages in Thailand and the US embassy.** The picture appeared in an article of August 2016 entitled “Does the US support terrorism and regime change in Thailand?”. Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/the-new-atlas.</figcaption></figure>

ers in preparation for Syrian type violence. Bombings which occurred in 2016 and 2017 may fulfill the objective of creating an atmosphere of fear. This recalls the bombings and political assassinations which occurred in Italy during the so-called “Years of Lead” of the 1970s<fnref n="54" />.

In the coming years one would expect this low-key civil war to continue or may be even develop further. This means more bombings both in the north and also in the south where there is an Islamic separatist movement.

# Derailing the “Silk Road” project

## Opposition to infrastructure works

In previous chapters, particularly in the chapter entitled “Silk Road vs. containment” we have explained that the US State Department does not see with favor the expansion of Chinese influence which may come along with the Silk Road project. It was able to convince some of its closest allies not to take part and is probably willing to convince other nations that the risks surpass potential benefits. Many of the regions of central Asia through which the new Silk Road will run are fairly unstable. Thus, it appears fairly easy to raise instability and hostility against the infrastructure projects and the foreign presence that it implies. To slow or hinder this project, vassal states or vassal groups are instrumental. Here we discuss in some detail a specific example.

## The case of Gwadar

As a case in point in this section we consider the port of Gwadar in South Pakistan.

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴For interested readers there is more information available in the Wikipedia article entitled “Années de plomb (Europe)” [i.e. Years of lead]. Unfortunately, this article is only available in French.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_53.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.2 Red Shirt Villages in Thailand and the US embassy.** The picture appeared in an article of August 2016 entitled “Does the US support terrorism and regime change in Thailand?”. Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/author/the-new-atlas.</figcaption></figure>

ers in preparation for Syrian type violence. Bombings which occurred in 2016 and 2017 may fulfill the objective of creating an atmosphere of fear. This recalls the bombings and political assassinations which occurred in Italy during the so-called “Years of Lead” of the 1970s<fnref n="54" />.

In the coming years one would expect this low-key civil war to continue or may be even develop further. This means more bombings both in the north and also in the south where there is an Islamic separatist movement.

# Derailing the “Silk Road” project

## Opposition to infrastructure works

In previous chapters, particularly in the chapter entitled “Silk Road vs. containment” we have explained that the US State Department does not see with favor the expansion of Chinese influence which may come along with the Silk Road project. It was able to convince some of its closest allies not to take part and is probably willing to convince other nations that the risks surpass potential benefits. Many of the regions of central Asia through which the new Silk Road will run are fairly unstable. Thus, it appears fairly easy to raise instability and hostility against the infrastructure projects and the foreign presence that it implies. To slow or hinder this project, vassal states or vassal groups are instrumental. Here we discuss in some detail a specific example.

## The case of Gwadar

As a case in point in this section we consider the port of Gwadar in South Pakistan.

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴For interested readers there is more information available in the Wikipedia article entitled “Années de plomb (Europe)” [i.e. Years of lead]. Unfortunately, this article is only available in French.</footnote>
This port was developed by China and it should play an important role in connecting the province of Xinjiang to the Indian Ocean. Pakistan is a close ally of China and although it is also a US ally one would hardly expect any obstruction coming directly from the government. However, the hinterland of Gwadar is a mountainous region where there has been separatist movements for some time. In short, this can easily become a Syria-like situation where separatist fighters may be armed, funded and trained.

Gwadar is located 650 km west of Karachi which is also a major port. The rationale for Gwadar comes from the fact that the Karachi port is already congested. In fact the government is also developing a third port, Port Qasim located 30 km to the east of Karachi.

Gwadar is at a distance of only 70 km from the port of Chabahar in south east Iran which is developed jointly by Iran and India.

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.3 Locations of the ports of Gwadar and Chabahar.** The hinterland of both Gwadar and Chabahar is the mountain region of Balochistan. Gwadar is a sea port situated in the Balochistan province of Pakistan. The port is considered to be a crucial link between the land and maritime Silk Road projects. In late 2015, the port was officially leased to China for 43 years. Gwadar Port was inaugurated on 14 November 2016. Sources: *Internet maps*.</figcaption></figure>

For both Chabahar and Gwadar the hinterland is the mountainous area of Balochistan: Iranian Balochistan for Chabahar and Pakistani Balochistan for Gwadar. In the Pakistani part of Balochistan separatist insurgencies have been fought in 1948, 1958–1959, 1962–1963 and 1973–1977. In the Iranian part of Balochistan separatist fighting has not gained as much ground as in Pakistan, but since 2012 there has been an amplification.
This port was developed by China and it should play an important role in connecting the province of Xinjiang to the Indian Ocean. Pakistan is a close ally of China and although it is also a US ally one would hardly expect any obstruction coming directly from the government. However, the hinterland of Gwadar is a mountainous region where there has been separatist movements for some time. In short, this can easily become a Syria-like situation where separatist fighters may be armed, funded and trained.

Gwadar is located 650 km west of Karachi which is also a major port. The rationale for Gwadar comes from the fact that the Karachi port is already congested. In fact the government is also developing a third port, Port Qasim located 30 km to the east of Karachi.

Gwadar is at a distance of only 70 km from the port of Chabahar in south east Iran which is developed jointly by Iran and India.

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.3 Locations of the ports of Gwadar and Chabahar.** The hinterland of both Gwadar and Chabahar is the mountain region of Balochistan. Gwadar is a sea port situated in the Balochistan province of Pakistan. The port is considered to be a crucial link between the land and maritime Silk Road projects. In late 2015, the port was officially leased to China for 43 years. Gwadar Port was inaugurated on 14 November 2016. Sources: *Internet maps*.</figcaption></figure>

For both Chabahar and Gwadar the hinterland is the mountainous area of Balochistan: Iranian Balochistan for Chabahar and Pakistani Balochistan for Gwadar. In the Pakistani part of Balochistan separatist insurgencies have been fought in 1948, 1958–1959, 1962–1963 and 1973–1977. In the Iranian part of Balochistan separatist fighting has not gained as much ground as in Pakistan, but since 2012 there has been an amplification.
As examples of incidents that occurred in recent times one can mention the following.

* On 3 May 2004 three Chinese engineers were killed and 10 other people were hurt in a car bombing in the city of Gwadar.

* On 21 March 2011 unidentified militants on motorbikes opened fire on a camp for road construction workers near to the port town of Gwadar killing 11 workers.

* On 29 March 2016, Pakistan claimed that it had apprehended a serving Indian naval officer, Kulbhushan Yadav who was tasked by the Indian “Research and Analysis Wing” (RAW) to carry out terrorism in Balochistan, and bomb Chinese nationals in a hotel in Gwadar who were there to work on the deep sea port project.

* On 12 March 2017 a bomb explosion took place under a bridge on the main road in Gwadar. While there was no loss of life the bridge was partially damaged.

An attack directed against Chinese workers in Afghanistan which was similar to the one of 21 March 2011 described above, occurred on 10 June 2004 in the town of Konduz. Eleven construction workers were killed by unidentified gunmen who broke into their quarters and shot them as they were sleeping. Two Afghan police guarding the site were also killed. The Talibans immediately denied involvement in the attack. The identity of the gunmen as well as the purpose of the attack remain a mystery.

## Synergy vs. disruption

In conclusion, one can say that while the “Silk Road project” tries to build up integration, the US State Department tries to spread suspicion and disruption. Currently (in 2017) there is a real wariness among Chinese people that did not exist 5 or 6 years ago. At that time, both in the population and in the media, the United States was seen as a good friend and an ally. As a proof one can mention the fact that although there are many TV series about the confrontations between the KMT and the Communists, to our best knowledge there is not a single one about the role that Chinese Volunteers played in the Korean war. As an illustration of this new awareness one can mention the title of an article published in “People’s Daily” (the official newspaper of the Communist Party) of 11 May 2017:

> “As US seeks dominance, China gathers friends and seeks integration”, by Curtis Stone.

Which forces will win eventually? It is difficult to say. To give an answer one would need precedents. There are none because this is the first initiative of this kind and scale. However, in a general way, one can observe that there have been numerous historical cases in which disruption forces have prevailed over integration. It is easier to wreck than to build.
As examples of incidents that occurred in recent times one can mention the following.

* On 3 May 2004 three Chinese engineers were killed and 10 other people were hurt in a car bombing in the city of Gwadar.

* On 21 March 2011 unidentified militants on motorbikes opened fire on a camp for road construction workers near to the port town of Gwadar killing 11 workers.

* On 29 March 2016, Pakistan claimed that it had apprehended a serving Indian naval officer, Kulbhushan Yadav who was tasked by the Indian “Research and Analysis Wing” (RAW) to carry out terrorism in Balochistan, and bomb Chinese nationals in a hotel in Gwadar who were there to work on the deep sea port project.

* On 12 March 2017 a bomb explosion took place under a bridge on the main road in Gwadar. While there was no loss of life the bridge was partially damaged.

An attack directed against Chinese workers in Afghanistan which was similar to the one of 21 March 2011 described above, occurred on 10 June 2004 in the town of Konduz. Eleven construction workers were killed by unidentified gunmen who broke into their quarters and shot them as they were sleeping. Two Afghan police guarding the site were also killed. The Talibans immediately denied involvement in the attack. The identity of the gunmen as well as the purpose of the attack remain a mystery.

## Synergy vs. disruption

In conclusion, one can say that while the “Silk Road project” tries to build up integration, the US State Department tries to spread suspicion and disruption. Currently (in 2017) there is a real wariness among Chinese people that did not exist 5 or 6 years ago. At that time, both in the population and in the media, the United States was seen as a good friend and an ally. As a proof one can mention the fact that although there are many TV series about the confrontations between the KMT and the Communists, to our best knowledge there is not a single one about the role that Chinese Volunteers played in the Korean war. As an illustration of this new awareness one can mention the title of an article published in “People’s Daily” (the official newspaper of the Communist Party) of 11 May 2017:

> “As US seeks dominance, China gathers friends and seeks integration”, by Curtis Stone.

Which forces will win eventually? It is difficult to say. To give an answer one would need precedents. There are none because this is the first initiative of this kind and scale. However, in a general way, one can observe that there have been numerous historical cases in which disruption forces have prevailed over integration. It is easier to wreck than to build.
## Similar security problems elsewhere

Balochistan is certainly not the only place in Central Asia where there is currently unrest and where in the future there may be even more serious disturbances. In order to propose specific predictions one needs to collect information about former insurgencies. This may be the purpose of a forthcoming study.

Now we turn to a confrontation that is less spectacular but certainly of crucial importance, namely the information war. Several sections will be devoted to this topic. First, we will show that it already exists. No doubt that it will continue in coming years, likely with increasing intensity.

## Information war 1. Illustration by a few cases

In peacetime the information war is of key-importance. This is especially true nowadays because of the multiplication of the means of information. TV and Internet are now everywhere and have largely replaced newspapers. At the same time, western information has become much more monolithic (one could even say more totalitarian) than it was in the past. Needless to say, not everybody would necessarily agree with such statements. Some would say that in the west information is free and that there is no information war whatsoever.

Thus, if we wish our readers to be convinced by our “model” (and the predictions which come with it) we must first of all establish two key-points:

1. There is indeed an ongoing information war. This is the purpose of the present section.

2. Far from being free and diversified, western medias have become more and more ideologically biased. The reasons of this evolution will be explained in the next section.

### The “Epoch Times”

Let us start with a little calculation.

The “Epoch Times” is a free, weekly, anti-Chinese newspaper which is published in about 15 languages and 30 countries. In 2016 it claimed a paper distribution of 1.5 million. If it were sold instead of being free, it would cost of the order of 2 euros (i.e. about $2). Thus, for one year the total cost would be: $52 \times 1,500,000 \times 2 = 156$ million dollars, approximately the cost of one advanced fighter aircraft. In other words, such a newspaper can be created at a fairly low cost.

We said that it is an anti-Chinese publication but a more precise qualification would be to observe that it is a mouth piece of Chinese dissidents living in exile. It is said that the journal is funded by the “Friends of the Falun Gong” but in such matters it
## Similar security problems elsewhere

Balochistan is certainly not the only place in Central Asia where there is currently unrest and where in the future there may be even more serious disturbances. In order to propose specific predictions one needs to collect information about former insurgencies. This may be the purpose of a forthcoming study.

Now we turn to a confrontation that is less spectacular but certainly of crucial importance, namely the information war. Several sections will be devoted to this topic. First, we will show that it already exists. No doubt that it will continue in coming years, likely with increasing intensity.

# Information war 1. Illustration by a few cases

In peacetime the information war is of key-importance. This is especially true nowadays because of the multiplication of the means of information. TV and Internet are now everywhere and have largely replaced newspapers. At the same time, western information has become much more monolithic (one could even say more totalitarian) than it was in the past. Needless to say, not everybody would necessarily agree with such statements. Some would say that in the west information is free and that there is no information war whatsoever.

Thus, if we wish our readers to be convinced by our “model” (and the predictions which come with it) we must first of all establish two key-points:

1. There is indeed an ongoing information war. This is the purpose of the present section.

2. Far from being free and diversified, western medias have become more and more ideologically biased. The reasons of this evolution will be explained in the next section.

## The “Epoch Times”

Let us start with a little calculation.

The “Epoch Times” is a free, weekly, anti-Chinese newspaper which is published in about 15 languages and 30 countries. In 2016 it claimed a paper distribution of 1.5 million. If it were sold instead of being free, it would cost of the order of 2 euros (i.e. about $2). Thus, for one year the total cost would be: $52 \times 1,500,000 \times 2 = 156$ million dollars, approximately the cost of one advanced fighter aircraft. In other words, such a newspaper can be created at a fairly low cost.

We said that it is an anti-Chinese publication but a more precise qualification would be to observe that it is a mouth piece of Chinese dissidents living in exile. It is said that the journal is funded by the “Friends of the Falun Gong” but in such matters it
is usually impossible to know who are the real sponsors. In fact, the only important point about this journal is its very existence.

## The role of China during the Vietnam War

The fact that there is a competition between different media is something which is normal and understandable. What we call “information war” is something else. It consists in using spin (including false news) and other public relations techniques to smear, blacken and denigrate opponents and competitors.

Let us illustrate this by an example taken from an American newspaper, namely the electronic edition of the “Deseret News” (Utah) of 16 May 1989. Here are a few excerpts and our comments in italic.

* “China has admitted for the first time that it sent more than 300,000 combat troops to Vietnam to fight against US forces and their South Vietnamese allies.”

*In fact, China never made any mystery about that. The information was available for whoever could read Chinese. As a matter of fact, it was published as soon as 1975 (Whiting 1975) that is to say immediately after the end of the war.*

* “During the war China repeatedly denied US allegations that its soldiers were operating in Vietnam.”

*China sent only engineer units and anti-aircraft battalions. They built roads and bridges in North Vietnam and rebuilt infrastructure destroyed by US bombing. In the previous sentence, “Vietnam” certainly stands for “South Vietnam” as shown by the statement below. In this sense it is indeed true that there were no Chinese soldiers in (South) Vietnam.*

* “US intelligence reports at the time spoke of US combat units finding soldiers dressed in Chinese combat gear and wearing Chinese insignia.”

*On account of what has just been said, this is certainly a lie. As a matter of fact, if Chinese soldiers had been made prisoners in the South there would certainly have been a public relations campaign by the US Army information department. There is no trace of anything like that on the Internet.*

## The Russian intervention in South Osetia in August 2008

One may remember that on 8 August 2008, the day of the opening of the Beijing Olympic games, a small-scale war started between Georgia, a former Soviet Republic and Russia. One of the authors (BR) who was in Paris at that time remembers that it was announced in the news in the following terms: “It is a tragedy, hundreds have been killed”. However, it was impossible to learn who were these “hundreds” and who killed them. In the following days no more information was to be given but in article titles and on television there was a consensus on the fact that it was a Russian aggression.
is usually impossible to know who are the real sponsors. In fact, the only important point about this journal is its very existence.

## The role of China during the Vietnam War

The fact that there is a competition between different media is something which is normal and understandable. What we call “information war” is something else. It consists in using spin (including false news) and other public relations techniques to smear, blacken and denigrate opponents and competitors.

Let us illustrate this by an example taken from an American newspaper, namely the electronic edition of the “Deseret News” (Utah) of 16 May 1989. Here are a few excerpts and our comments in italic.

* “China has admitted for the first time that it sent more than 300,000 combat troops to Vietnam to fight against US forces and their South Vietnamese allies.”

*In fact, China never made any mystery about that. The information was available for whoever could read Chinese. As a matter of fact, it was published as soon as 1975 (Whiting 1975) that is to say immediately after the end of the war.*

* “During the war China repeatedly denied US allegations that its soldiers were operating in Vietnam.”

*China sent only engineer units and anti-aircraft battalions. They built roads and bridges in North Vietnam and rebuilt infrastructure destroyed by US bombing. In the previous sentence, “Vietnam” certainly stands for “South Vietnam” as shown by the statement below. In this sense it is indeed true that there were no Chinese soldiers in (South) Vietnam.*

* “US intelligence reports at the time spoke of US combat units finding soldiers dressed in Chinese combat gear and wearing Chinese insignia.”

*On account of what has just been said, this is certainly a lie. As a matter of fact, if Chinese soldiers had been made prisoners in the South there would certainly have been a public relations campaign by the US Army information department. There is no trace of anything like that on the Internet.*

## The Russian intervention in South Osetia in August 2008

One may remember that on 8 August 2008, the day of the opening of the Beijing Olympic games, a small-scale war started between Georgia, a former Soviet Republic and Russia. One of the authors (BR) who was in Paris at that time remembers that it was announced in the news in the following terms: “It is a tragedy, hundreds have been killed”. However, it was impossible to learn who were these “hundreds” and who killed them. In the following days no more information was to be given but in article titles and on television there was a consensus on the fact that it was a Russian aggression.
Subsequently, the European Union funded a commission to find out what really happened. Headed by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, the commission came to the conclusion that the Russian account was correct and that it was in fact a Georgian aggression. Here is an excerpt of the 1,150-page long report published on 30 September 2009.

> "The use of force by Georgia in South Ossetia, beginning with the shelling of Tskhinvali during the night of 7-8 August, was not justifiable under international law. Georgia's use of multiple rocket launchers and heavy artillery in the Tskhinvali assault was neither necessary nor proportionate to repel alleged attacks by South Ossetian separatists."

The report answers our previous question. The “hundreds killed” were residents of Tskhinvali and they were killed by Georgian troops. It is only after this episode that Russian troops crossed the border to stop the massacre and rescue the residents of South Ossetia.

In fact this province of Georgia had officially a special status which resulted from an agreement between Russia and Georgia. The plan of the Georgian army (which at that time had a large team of US advisers) was to take advantage of the presence of the Russian president in Beijing to occupy Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, remove the leaders and nullify this special status. However, the occupation was opposed fiercely by a militia and this is why the Georgian troops retreated from the city and shelled it.

The question that we wish to ask is: why did all French and European media misrepresent this event? It is not that the information was not available for, what turned out to be the correct account was published by several Russian media both in Russian and in English. In addition French journalists had the possibility to call the Russian embassy. Instead, they presented a confused and embarrassed version of the facts according to which Russia was the aggressor.

**Chinese purchases of western firms presented as a threat**

At the end of the 1980s Tokyo stock market prices and Japanese real estate prices were both at their highest level. That gave Japanese companies much cash flow that they invested in buying foreign companies and particularly US companies. As a result there was an outcry in the news, in novels and films about the Japanese wanting to buy up the whole word. In reality the total Japanese foreign investments were negligible compared to US foreign investments in Europe.

The same scenario is currently replaying with Japan replaced by China. This is illustrated in Fig. 6.4

Just to give the tone and flavor of the media campaigns run in such cases here are
Subsequently, the European Union funded a commission to find out what really happened. Headed by Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, the commission came to the conclusion that the Russian account was correct and that it was in fact a Georgian aggression. Here is an excerpt of the 1,150-page long report published on 30 September 2009.

> "The use of force by Georgia in South Ossetia, beginning with the shelling of Tskhinvali during the night of 7-8 August, was not justifiable under international law. Georgia's use of multiple rocket launchers and heavy artillery in the Tskhinvali assault was neither necessary nor proportionate to repel alleged attacks by South Ossetian separatists."

The report answers our previous question. The “hundreds killed” were residents of Tskhinvali and they were killed by Georgian troops. It is only after this episode that Russian troops crossed the border to stop the massacre and rescue the residents of South Ossetia.

In fact this province of Georgia had officially a special status which resulted from an agreement between Russia and Georgia. The plan of the Georgian army (which at that time had a large team of US advisers) was to take advantage of the presence of the Russian president in Beijing to occupy Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, remove the leaders and nullify this special status. However, the occupation was opposed fiercely by a militia and this is why the Georgian troops retreated from the city and shelled it.

The question that we wish to ask is: why did all French and European media misrepresent this event? It is not that the information was not available for, what turned out to be the correct account was published by several Russian media both in Russian and in English. In addition French journalists had the possibility to call the Russian embassy. Instead, they presented a confused and embarrassed version of the facts according to which Russia was the aggressor.

**Chinese purchases of western firms presented as a threat**

At the end of the 1980s Tokyo stock market prices and Japanese real estate prices were both at their highest level. That gave Japanese companies much cash flow that they invested in buying foreign companies and particularly US companies. As a result there was an outcry in the news, in novels and films about the Japanese wanting to buy up the whole word. In reality the total Japanese foreign investments were negligible compared to US foreign investments in Europe.

The same scenario is currently replaying with Japan replaced by China. This is illustrated in Fig. 6.4

Just to give the tone and flavor of the media campaigns run in such cases here are
<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

The English caption of the picture says: "Justin Trudeau, useful idiot"

<caption>Fig. 6.4 Cartoon disparaging Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada (downloaded on 15 June 2017).</caption>

The person holding the red booklet represents Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The person in the background is his father, Pierre Trudeau, who had been a charismatic Canadian Prime Minister from 1980 to 1984. Most of what is shown about China dates from the Cultural Revolution. The Chinese caption says "I don't have much brain cells, but I have good hair". The website which posted the picture is openly anti-Trudeau and pro-US but it reflects widespread western feelings. Source: https://www.blazingcatfur.ca

some of the sentences that could be read on the Internet<fnref n="55" /> when Hytera, a Shenzhen company tried to buy the Canadian company "Norsat".

* "BETRAYAL: Trudeau lets China take over sensitive Canadian company WITH-OUT security review."

[This was in fact a lie: Trudeau made clear that there had been a security review and that the US side was consulted.]

* "Trudeau is letting China buy up our country piece by piece."

* "Over and over again, Justin Trudeau has shown a disturbing willingness to do the bidding of China, even when the national security of Canada and our allies could be at risk."

* We should never let China, an undemocratic authoritarian state, buy a company that has worked so closely with both our government, and our close allies."

* "Hytara has been accused by Motorola of a massive theft of Motorola's intellectual property, and is now facing a court case over the matter."

* As shown by the following sentence, this sort of arguments are used even for companies which are not high tech companies.

"Trudeau also let a shady Chinese company (with links to the Chinese Communist Party elite) buy the largest assisted living company in British Columbia, which gave China the chance to enter our healthcare system."

* Next come outright allegations of corruption and treason.

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵The source is: https://www.spencerfernando.com/2017/06/08/betrayal-trudeau-lets-china-take-sensitive-canadian-company-without-security-review (8 June 2017)</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_55.png" /></figure>

The English caption of the picture says: "Justin Trudeau, useful idiot"

<caption>Fig. 6.4 Cartoon disparaging Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada (downloaded on 15 June 2017).</caption>

The person holding the red booklet represents Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The person in the background is his father, Pierre Trudeau, who had been a charismatic Canadian Prime Minister from 1980 to 1984. Most of what is shown about China dates from the Cultural Revolution. The Chinese caption says "I don't have much brain cells, but I have good hair". The website which posted the picture is openly anti-Trudeau and pro-US but it reflects widespread western feelings. Source: https://www.blazingcatfur.ca

some of the sentences that could be read on the Internet<fnref n="55" /> when Hytera, a Shenzhen company tried to buy the Canadian company "Norsat".

* "BETRAYAL: Trudeau lets China take over sensitive Canadian company WITH-OUT security review."

[This was in fact a lie: Trudeau made clear that there had been a security review and that the US side was consulted.]

* "Trudeau is letting China buy up our country piece by piece."

* "Over and over again, Justin Trudeau has shown a disturbing willingness to do the bidding of China, even when the national security of Canada and our allies could be at risk."

* We should never let China, an undemocratic authoritarian state, buy a company that has worked so closely with both our government, and our close allies."

* "Hytara has been accused by Motorola of a massive theft of Motorola's intellectual property, and is now facing a court case over the matter."

* As shown by the following sentence, this sort of arguments are used even for companies which are not high tech companies.

"Trudeau also let a shady Chinese company (with links to the Chinese Communist Party elite) buy the largest assisted living company in British Columbia, which gave China the chance to enter our healthcare system."

* Next come outright allegations of corruption and treason.

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵The source is: https://www.spencerfernando.com/2017/06/08/betrayal-trudeau-lets-china-take-sensitive-canadian-company-without-security-review (8 June 2017)</footnote>
"Who can forget the Cash-For-Access fundraisers with Chinese billionaires. Does anyone believe it's just a coincidence that Trudeau raised all that money and then approved China's takeover attempts? It raises the serious question of whether our government is now serving as a proxy for foreign interests. There is something very disturbing about that."

## Overestimating the strength of the PLA

In the months preceding the first Gulf War in 1990-1991 the Iraqi army was termed by western media as being one of the most capable in the world. During the Cold War, Russian forces were regularly overestimated by US media. This behavior was seen favorably by the Department of Defense because it permitted to get more funding by Congress. At the same time it made the US population more fearful of Russia.

It is therefore an easy prediction to say that US media will have the same attitude with respect to the PLA. In fact, this has already started. For instance, the new PLA Navy destroyers are presented as far superior to US destroyers. This may be true for the simple reason that they are new, but the article omitted to say that the US Navy has about 5 times more destroyers than the PLA Navy.

## Information war 2. "Pensée unique" in western media

Many decades ago there was a time when western media presented a broad spectrum of opinions and interpretations.

It can be recalled that between August 1852 and February 1862, as European correspondents for the "New York Daily Tribune", Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote about 400 articles (i.e. about 3 per month) for this newspaper. It was one of the main American newspapers<fnref n="56" />. This newspaper was a good tribune for Marx because it was cheap enough to be read by many working class people. In other words, at that time a broad range of political opinions could find an expression in American newspapers.

However, this situation was to change in the decades following the Russian Revolution of 1917 and even more drastically in the Cold War decades after 1945.

## How anti-Communism shaped American media

During the anti-Communist drive (see Fig. 6.5) the term "Communist" had a fairly broad meaning. It was used to refer to all leftist people no matter whether or not they were members of the Communist party.

As early as January 1920 the so-called "Red Scare" and the "Palmer's raids" directed

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶In 1924 it merged with the "New York Herald" to form the "New York Herald Tribune" which remained in existence until 1962.</footnote>
"Who can forget the Cash-For-Access fundraisers with Chinese billionaires. Does anyone believe it's just a coincidence that Trudeau raised all that money and then approved China's takeover attempts? It raises the serious question of whether our government is now serving as a proxy for foreign interests. There is something very disturbing about that."

## Overestimating the strength of the PLA

In the months preceding the first Gulf War in 1990-1991 the Iraqi army was termed by western media as being one of the most capable in the world. During the Cold War, Russian forces were regularly overestimated by US media. This behavior was seen favorably by the Department of Defense because it permitted to get more funding by Congress. At the same time it made the US population more fearful of Russia.

It is therefore an easy prediction to say that US media will have the same attitude with respect to the PLA. In fact, this has already started. For instance, the new PLA Navy destroyers are presented as far superior to US destroyers. This may be true for the simple reason that they are new, but the article omitted to say that the US Navy has about 5 times more destroyers than the PLA Navy.

## Information war 2. "Pensée unique" in western media

Many decades ago there was a time when western media presented a broad spectrum of opinions and interpretations.

It can be recalled that between August 1852 and February 1862, as European correspondents for the "New York Daily Tribune", Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote about 400 articles (i.e. about 3 per month) for this newspaper. It was one of the main American newspapers<fnref n="56" />. This newspaper was a good tribune for Marx because it was cheap enough to be read by many working class people. In other words, at that time a broad range of political opinions could find an expression in American newspapers.

However, this situation was to change in the decades following the Russian Revolution of 1917 and even more drastically in the Cold War decades after 1945.

## How anti-Communism shaped American media

During the anti-Communist drive (see Fig. 6.5) the term "Communist" had a fairly broad meaning. It was used to refer to all leftist people no matter whether or not they were members of the Communist party.

As early as January 1920 the so-called "Red Scare" and the "Palmer's raids" directed

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶In 1924 it merged with the "New York Herald" to form the "New York Herald Tribune" which remained in existence until 1962.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_54.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.5 Anti-leftist campaigns in the United States.** Thick solid line: number of “New York Times” articles per year containing the two expressions “Communists” and “Committee on Un-American Activities”. The big dip following 1941 was a consequence of the military alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union in the war against Germany. Thin solid line: number of “New York Times” articles (in five-year intervals) containing the word “anti-Communist” (right-hand side scale). The vertical lines signal the beginning of the Korea War. The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) was set up in 1933; its mandate was to get information on how foreign subversive propaganda enters the United States and about the organizations that are spreading it. *Source: Electronic index of the "New York Times".*</figcaption></figure>

against leftists, anarchists and Russian immigrants showed the determination of the US government to prevent any revolutionary influence from entering the country. In this respect, it is often the time of “McCarthyism” that is mentioned. This anti-leftist witch hunt was started with President Truman’s Executive Order 9835 of March 21, 1947, which required that all federal civil service employees be screened for “loyalty”. The personal action of Senator Joseph McCarthy came to an end in June 1954 but in fact McCarthyism was only one episode in a much longer period of anti-leftist activity as is documented in the graph about the “House Committee on Un-American Activities”. Apart from government employee this witch hunt targeted all professions who had an influence on public opinion, e.g. journalists, writers, teachers, professors, film directors. As a result a situation of diversity of opinion was replaced by one of monolithic consensus. For instance, in the teaching of economics there remains only one creed, namely the neoliberal conception.

Western media were not only shaped by the elimination of leftist journalists but also, very officially, by government bodies which control them. This is explained in the
<figure><img src="image_56.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6.5 Anti-leftist campaigns in the United States.** Thick solid line: number of “New York Times” articles per year containing the two expressions “Communists” and “Committee on Un-American Activities”. The big dip following 1941 was a consequence of the military alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union in the war against Germany. Thin solid line: number of “New York Times” articles (in five-year intervals) containing the word “anti-Communist” (right-hand side scale). The vertical lines signal the beginning of the Korea War. The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) was set up in 1933; its mandate was to get information on how foreign subversive propaganda enters the United States and about the organizations that are spreading it. *Source: Electronic index of the "New York Times".*</figcaption></figure>

against leftists, anarchists and Russian immigrants showed the determination of the US government to prevent any revolutionary influence from entering the country. In this respect, it is often the time of “McCarthyism” that is mentioned. This anti-leftist witch hunt was started with President Truman’s Executive Order 9835 of March 21, 1947, which required that all federal civil service employees be screened for “loyalty”. The personal action of Senator Joseph McCarthy came to an end in June 1954 but in fact McCarthyism was only one episode in a much longer period of anti-leftist activity as is documented in the graph about the “House Committee on Un-American Activities”. Apart from government employee this witch hunt targeted all professions who had an influence on public opinion, e.g. journalists, writers, teachers, professors, film directors. As a result a situation of diversity of opinion was replaced by one of monolithic consensus. For instance, in the teaching of economics there remains only one creed, namely the neoliberal conception.

Western media were not only shaped by the elimination of leftist journalists but also, very officially, by government bodies which control them. This is explained in the
next subsection.

Media regulation by governments in western countries

Most western countries would claim that they have “free” media. How should this
be understood?

It is true that western media work mostly on the basis of self-censorship (we come back to this point below) but it would be a mistake to think that there are no government bodies in charge of regulating the media.
Here are three examples.

* In Britain Ofcom (Office of Communications) is the government's regulatory body which sets rules for UK broadcasters. The fact that Ofcom has the power to revoke the broadcasting license of any radio or TV station shows that it must be taken very seriously by the media. This is not purely theoretical. In November 2011 Ofcom fined "Press TV", an Anglo-Iranian network, to the amount of 100,000 pounds because of a program about the elections of June 2009 in Iran which was found "inappropriate" by Ofcom. Then, in January 2012, Ofcom revoked the licence of "Press TV". Following this decision "Press TV" became unavailable on UK airwaves. The point here is not whether the program was inappropriate or not (a fairly subjective judgment anyway) but the fact that this episode shows that some form of regulation does exist.

* In France, the “Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel” [High Council for the media] abbreviated CSA, is an institution which regulates the various media such as radio and television. On 14 December 2004 the CSA ordered France-based satellite company Eutelsat to stop transmitting Lebanese station “Al Manar” within 48 hours because of charges of hate speech. (BBC News 14 December 2004). “Al Manar” was a Lebanese satellite television station affiliated with Iranian-sponsored movement Hezbollah. Here too, the question is not whether the charges were justified or not but rather the interdiction itself. It is interesting to note that “Al Manar” was banned by the United States on 17 December 2004 and was later also banned by Spain and Germany.

* In the US one of the main actors in the information war is the “Broadcasting Board of Governors” (BBG). According to Wikipedia, it is an agency of the US government which supervises “Voice of America” (VOA), “Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty”, “Radio Free Asia”, “Radio y Television Marti”. The board consists of 9 members, 8 of whom are appointed by the President and the 9th being the Secretary of State. In fiscal year 2016, the BBG had a budget of $750 million.

Another important factor in the information war is American dominance of the In-
ternet. Since Edward Snowden's revelations it is known that all major US software
companies such as Google, Twitter or Facebook have working agreements with US
next subsection.

Media regulation by governments in western countries

Most western countries would claim that they have “free” media. How should this
be understood?

It is true that western media work mostly on the basis of self-censorship (we come back to this point below) but it would be a mistake to think that there are no government bodies in charge of regulating the media.
Here are three examples.

* In Britain Ofcom (Office of Communications) is the government's regulatory body which sets rules for UK broadcasters. The fact that Ofcom has the power to revoke the broadcasting license of any radio or TV station shows that it must be taken very seriously by the media. This is not purely theoretical. In November 2011 Ofcom fined "Press TV", an Anglo-Iranian network, to the amount of 100,000 pounds because of a program about the elections of June 2009 in Iran which was found "inappropriate" by Ofcom. Then, in January 2012, Ofcom revoked the licence of "Press TV". Following this decision "Press TV" became unavailable on UK airwaves. The point here is not whether the program was inappropriate or not (a fairly subjective judgment anyway) but the fact that this episode shows that some form of regulation does exist.

* In France, the “Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel” [High Council for the media] abbreviated CSA, is an institution which regulates the various media such as radio and television. On 14 December 2004 the CSA ordered France-based satellite company Eutelsat to stop transmitting Lebanese station “Al Manar” within 48 hours because of charges of hate speech. (BBC News 14 December 2004). “Al Manar” was a Lebanese satellite television station affiliated with Iranian-sponsored movement Hezbollah. Here too, the question is not whether the charges were justified or not but rather the interdiction itself. It is interesting to note that “Al Manar” was banned by the United States on 17 December 2004 and was later also banned by Spain and Germany.

* In the US one of the main actors in the information war is the “Broadcasting Board of Governors” (BBG). According to Wikipedia, it is an agency of the US government which supervises “Voice of America” (VOA), “Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty”, “Radio Free Asia”, “Radio y Television Marti”. The board consists of 9 members, 8 of whom are appointed by the President and the 9th being the Secretary of State. In fiscal year 2016, the BBG had a budget of $750 million.

Another important factor in the information war is American dominance of the In-
ternet. Since Edward Snowden's revelations it is known that all major US software
companies such as Google, Twitter or Facebook have working agreements with US
security agencies.

One should also mention the international network of newspapers organized and sponsored by US billionaire Georges Soros. Officially the purpose is only to share information in a supposedly impartial way. This is the same fiction as when physicians claim that the perks they receive from pharmaceutical companies do not influence them when they prescribe drugs to their patients.

## Information war 3. How the US uses its predominance

In any war, it is the party which is able to concentrate the largest number of well-disciplined forces against the enemy that is victorious.

The same rule is certainly also valid for the media. The United States has a huge array of news agencies (Associated Press, United Press International), TV netwoks (e.g. ABC, CBS, CNN), Hollywood movie companies, Internet news corporations (e.g. Google, Yahoo). Moreover, as explained above, all these organizations are well-disciplined and highly effective in spreading the views of the State Department and in defending the interests of big US corporations.

Now that we know that the US has big battalions using the clever techniques developed by the public relations industry, let us see how these means are used for political purposes. Needless to say, what will be described also results in predictions for in the future one expects of course the same techniques to be used again and again.

### Who is winning the information war?

There is an easy answer. One needs only to watch how for each and every event the European media report the US version without trying to check the information in any way. This is true for small events as well as for big events. We have already mentioned the example of the misrepresentation of the war in Georgia or of the Cuban missile crisis (see Schwarz 2013). Many other misrepresentations of major events could be mentioned, for instance the so-called “Berlin blockade”<fnref n="57" /> or the so-called “Tiananmen Square massacre”<fnref n="58" />. In 2012-2014 the confrontation in Syria was consistently misrepresented. Week after week, month after month, the European media reported faithfully the dispatches of the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights”, a UK-based anti-government organization, without ever saying that it was a mouthpiece of the opposition and without ever trying to interview the Syrian ambassador

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷In fact, circulation was still possible between West and East Berlin and between East Berlin and East Germany. Substantial trade took place through these channels.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸In fact all well informed persons in US media know that zero person died on Tiananmen Square; it was evacuated peacefully after a discussion between the leaders of the students and the military. There were fatalities elsewhere in Beijing and also in other Chinese cities but not on Tiananmen Square. More details can be found in Roehner (2016d) and a more complete discussion is given below.</footnote>
security agencies.

One should also mention the international network of newspapers organized and sponsored by US billionaire Georges Soros. Officially the purpose is only to share information in a supposedly impartial way. This is the same fiction as when physicians claim that the perks they receive from pharmaceutical companies do not influence them when they prescribe drugs to their patients.

## Information war 3. How the US uses its predominance

In any war, it is the party which is able to concentrate the largest number of well-disciplined forces against the enemy that is victorious.

The same rule is certainly also valid for the media. The United States has a huge array of news agencies (Associated Press, United Press International), TV netwoks (e.g. ABC, CBS, CNN), Hollywood movie companies, Internet news corporations (e.g. Google, Yahoo). Moreover, as explained above, all these organizations are well-disciplined and highly effective in spreading the views of the State Department and in defending the interests of big US corporations.

Now that we know that the US has big battalions using the clever techniques developed by the public relations industry, let us see how these means are used for political purposes. Needless to say, what will be described also results in predictions for in the future one expects of course the same techniques to be used again and again.

### Who is winning the information war?

There is an easy answer. One needs only to watch how for each and every event the European media report the US version without trying to check the information in any way. This is true for small events as well as for big events. We have already mentioned the example of the misrepresentation of the war in Georgia or of the Cuban missile crisis (see Schwarz 2013). Many other misrepresentations of major events could be mentioned, for instance the so-called “Berlin blockade”<fnref n="57" /> or the so-called “Tiananmen Square massacre”<fnref n="58" />. In 2012-2014 the confrontation in Syria was consistently misrepresented. Week after week, month after month, the European media reported faithfully the dispatches of the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights”, a UK-based anti-government organization, without ever saying that it was a mouthpiece of the opposition and without ever trying to interview the Syrian ambassador

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷In fact, circulation was still possible between West and East Berlin and between East Berlin and East Germany. Substantial trade took place through these channels.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸In fact all well informed persons in US media know that zero person died on Tiananmen Square; it was evacuated peacefully after a discussion between the leaders of the students and the military. There were fatalities elsewhere in Beijing and also in other Chinese cities but not on Tiananmen Square. More details can be found in Roehner (2016d) and a more complete discussion is given below.</footnote>
in order to get an alternative version.

Incidentally, the influence of the United States on European media is not limited to the news, more broadly it is also significant in the cultural sphere. Here is an illustration. On "Radio Television Luxembourg" (RTL) which is the most popular radio station in France, songs in English represent about 60% of the songs which are broadcast, the remaining 40% being French songs<fnref n="59" />. This means that the share of German, Italian or Spanish songs (just to mention the closest EU neighbors) is about 0%. The same observation holds for novels or movies.

## Why do European media just repeat US reports?

The reason why European media follow so sheepishly US media remains a mystery. However, even if one cannot give a detailed answer it is possible to give the following indication.

On 26 December 1977 a long article (Crewdson and Treaster 1977) was published in the "New York Times" which revealed that the US government<fnref n="60" /> owned or controlled many European and Asian newspapers and book publishers. Their names are given in the article but (not surprisingly!) the article says that this was the situation a decade ago but that in the meanwhile this control came to an end. Who will believe that once an organization like the State Department has in its hands a network of medias which gives it a worldwide influence capacity, it will voluntarily drop it?

This network was called the "Mighty Wurlitzer" (a Wurlitzer is an electronic piano produced by the Rudolph Wurlitzer Company) because it could set the tone for all media worldwide. In the next subsection we will see how it can be used<fnref n="61" />.

## A case-study in information war: "Tiananmen 1989"

The expression "Tiananmen Square massacre" is commonly used in western media. A Google search (performed on 25 November 2017) found 198,000 websites containing this expression; the same expression but without quotes leads to 466,000 results. In addition, the expression "Tank Man" is used in 389,000 websites. We have already mentioned, albeit briefly, that in fact no massacre took place on Tiananmen square. As this statement may come as a surprise to many readers we give in this section a more detailed answer.

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹These estimates are based on the personal experience of one of the authors (BR).</footnote>

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰The article is about the "Central Intelligence Agency" (CIA) but the CIA is of course an organization which carries out decisions taken by the State Department and the White House. It is funded by Congress and cannot initiate any action that is not approved by the US government.</footnote>

<footnote n="61">⁶¹Wikipedia has an article about the "Mighty Wurlitzer" that is entitled "Operation Mockingbird". In line with the New York Times, the article says that this operation had only been in existence in the 1950s and 1960s. Is this not a good example of what can be called self-censorship?</footnote>
in order to get an alternative version.

Incidentally, the influence of the United States on European media is not limited to the news, more broadly it is also significant in the cultural sphere. Here is an illustration. On "Radio Television Luxembourg" (RTL) which is the most popular radio station in France, songs in English represent about 60% of the songs which are broadcast, the remaining 40% being French songs<fnref n="59" />. This means that the share of German, Italian or Spanish songs (just to mention the closest EU neighbors) is about 0%. The same observation holds for novels or movies.

## Why do European media just repeat US reports?

The reason why European media follow so sheepishly US media remains a mystery. However, even if one cannot give a detailed answer it is possible to give the following indication.

On 26 December 1977 a long article (Crewdson and Treaster 1977) was published in the "New York Times" which revealed that the US government<fnref n="60" /> owned or controlled many European and Asian newspapers and book publishers. Their names are given in the article but (not surprisingly!) the article says that this was the situation a decade ago but that in the meanwhile this control came to an end. Who will believe that once an organization like the State Department has in its hands a network of medias which gives it a worldwide influence capacity, it will voluntarily drop it?

This network was called the "Mighty Wurlitzer" (a Wurlitzer is an electronic piano produced by the Rudolph Wurlitzer Company) because it could set the tone for all media worldwide. In the next subsection we will see how it can be used<fnref n="61" />.

## A case-study in information war: "Tiananmen 1989"

The expression "Tiananmen Square massacre" is commonly used in western media. A Google search (performed on 25 November 2017) found 198,000 websites containing this expression; the same expression but without quotes leads to 466,000 results. In addition, the expression "Tank Man" is used in 389,000 websites. We have already mentioned, albeit briefly, that in fact no massacre took place on Tiananmen square. As this statement may come as a surprise to many readers we give in this section a more detailed answer.

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹These estimates are based on the personal experience of one of the authors (BR).</footnote>

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰The article is about the "Central Intelligence Agency" (CIA) but the CIA is of course an organization which carries out decisions taken by the State Department and the White House. It is funded by Congress and cannot initiate any action that is not approved by the US government.</footnote>

<footnote n="61">⁶¹Wikipedia has an article about the "Mighty Wurlitzer" that is entitled "Operation Mockingbird". In line with the New York Times, the article says that this operation had only been in existence in the 1950s and 1960s. Is this not a good example of what can be called self-censorship?</footnote>
We will give this answer in two forms: first a short answer, then a longer explanation. What makes the second answer longer is the fact that it involves a comparative analysis of a family of similar events. As always in such cases, some background information must be given in order to make these events understandable.

## Short answer

What happened on 4-5 June 1989 in China and particularly in Beijing is explained in a chapter (namely ch. 7) entitled “Hu Yaobang, Zhao Ziyang and Tiananmen” of a book entitled “How China almost became an American backyard”. The whole book is available at the following address:

http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~roehner/oce.pdf

What makes this account trustable is the fact that it is largely based on US sources and particularly on messages sent by the US embassy in Beijing to the State Department. As these confidential messages were not destined to the public and became known only through Wikileaks, they are certainly more reliable than stories written by US journalists for US media.

The overall picture given by these sources reveals that although nobody was killed on Tiananmen Square there was nevertheless an uprising in other parts of Beijing and also in other Chinese cities.

Actually, other persons who took the time to investigate these events arrived to the same overall conclusion. As an example one can mention the account given by the Canadian researcher Brian Robinson (2011).

## Long answer, part 1: successive steps toward a better understanding

Before giving a comparative view it may be useful to say briefly how we were led to our present understanding.

In the two decades following 1989, as everybody else, I came recurrently across the expression “Tiananmen Square massacre” because it was widely used in western media. It made me uneasy for two reasons. (i) First, in my mind there was of course the terrible image of tanks crushing people (ii) The second reason was more personal. In 1993 I wrote the first draft of “Les logiques de l’histoire” (Basic mechanisms of history) which makes the point that one should not study historical events in isolation but rather in the form of *families* of similar events. For the event of 4-6-1989 I had only one case which was highly unsatisfactory. However, around 2010, thanks to the Internet, I came across a number of similar cases, that is to say the repression of anti-governmental demonstrations mostly led by students (see Table 6.2). These examples suggested that when confronted to determined and violent protests governments had little choice than to allow the police and troops to use their weapons. Although not mentioned in the subsequent table (because they are of a somewhat
We will give this answer in two forms: first a short answer, then a longer explanation. What makes the second answer longer is the fact that it involves a comparative analysis of a family of similar events. As always in such cases, some background information must be given in order to make these events understandable.

## Short answer

What happened on 4-5 June 1989 in China and particularly in Beijing is explained in a chapter (namely ch. 7) entitled “Hu Yaobang, Zhao Ziyang and Tiananmen” of a book entitled “How China almost became an American backyard”. The whole book is available at the following address:

http://www.lpthe.jussieu.fr/~roehner/oce.pdf

What makes this account trustable is the fact that it is largely based on US sources and particularly on messages sent by the US embassy in Beijing to the State Department. As these confidential messages were not destined to the public and became known only through Wikileaks, they are certainly more reliable than stories written by US journalists for US media.

The overall picture given by these sources reveals that although nobody was killed on Tiananmen Square there was nevertheless an uprising in other parts of Beijing and also in other Chinese cities.

Actually, other persons who took the time to investigate these events arrived to the same overall conclusion. As an example one can mention the account given by the Canadian researcher Brian Robinson (2011).

## Long answer, part 1: successive steps toward a better understanding

Before giving a comparative view it may be useful to say briefly how we were led to our present understanding.

In the two decades following 1989, as everybody else, I came recurrently across the expression “Tiananmen Square massacre” because it was widely used in western media. It made me uneasy for two reasons. (i) First, in my mind there was of course the terrible image of tanks crushing people (ii) The second reason was more personal. In 1993 I wrote the first draft of “Les logiques de l’histoire” (Basic mechanisms of history) which makes the point that one should not study historical events in isolation but rather in the form of *families* of similar events. For the event of 4-6-1989 I had only one case which was highly unsatisfactory. However, around 2010, thanks to the Internet, I came across a number of similar cases, that is to say the repression of anti-governmental demonstrations mostly led by students (see Table 6.2). These examples suggested that when confronted to determined and violent protests governments had little choice than to allow the police and troops to use their weapons. Although not mentioned in the subsequent table (because they are of a somewhat
different kind), this is also what happened in the US during the race riots of the
1960s.

However the previous observation did not solve the question of whether or not there
had been a massacre on Tiananmen Square. In September 2015 I discovered the
testimony of a student leader, Hou Dejian, given in the following Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hou_Dejian

Born in 1956 in Taiwan, Hou Dejian is a song writer who left Taiwan for mainland
China in 1983, despite the ban on visits to the PRC. On June 2, 1989 he started a
hunger strike together with Liu Xiaobo (a dissident who became a Nobel Peace Prize
laureate in 2010), Zhou Duo and Gao Xin.

In the early morning of June 4 the four leaders decided that they had to take respon-
sibility for the students in the square. Although Zhou Duo had volunteered to go
out to seek the cooperation of the soldiers, he realized that Hou Dejian was the only
person that the soldiers might know of. Thus, Hou and the others met with a political
commissar and said: "We volunteer to take all the students out of the square and ask
the PLA not to open fire. Please give us enough time to organize an evacuation".
The students were initially reluctant to leave the square. However, Hou and the other
leaders were able to usher them away.

After June 4, Hou spent 72 days under the protection of the Australian embassy.
Following his emergence out of hiding, Hou gave an interview in China about his
role in the evacuation of the square. The interview exposed him to the criticism of
other dissidents to which he responded by saying that the truth should prevail over
any other considerations.

Hou's account of the evacuation is confirmed by the testimony of a Chilean diplomat
which is reported in a message of the US Embassy dated from 12 July 1989 (more
details can be found in Roehner 2016d). The report's summary reads as follows:

"During a recent meeting, a Latin American diplomat, Carlos Gallo, provided Poloff [political officer, that is to say usually a CIA case officer] an eyewitness account. Although *the account generally follows those previously reported*, it provides additional insight and corroboration of events in the Square. Remaining with students by the monument to the Heroes until the final withdrawal, the diplomat said there were no mass shootings of students in the Square. When Poloff mentioned some reportedly eyewitness accounts of massacres at the monument with automatic weapons, Gallo said there was no such slaughter."

In this statement the most important part is certainly the mention that this testimony
"follows those previously reported". One can be sure that between 4 June and 12
July the US Embassy has collected as many testimonies as possible for it is the duty
different kind), this is also what happened in the US during the race riots of the
1960s.

However the previous observation did not solve the question of whether or not there
had been a massacre on Tiananmen Square. In September 2015 I discovered the
testimony of a student leader, Hou Dejian, given in the following Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hou_Dejian

Born in 1956 in Taiwan, Hou Dejian is a song writer who left Taiwan for mainland
China in 1983, despite the ban on visits to the PRC. On June 2, 1989 he started a
hunger strike together with Liu Xiaobo (a dissident who became a Nobel Peace Prize
laureate in 2010), Zhou Duo and Gao Xin.

In the early morning of June 4 the four leaders decided that they had to take respon-
sibility for the students in the square. Although Zhou Duo had volunteered to go
out to seek the cooperation of the soldiers, he realized that Hou Dejian was the only
person that the soldiers might know of. Thus, Hou and the others met with a political
commissar and said: "We volunteer to take all the students out of the square and ask
the PLA not to open fire. Please give us enough time to organize an evacuation".
The students were initially reluctant to leave the square. However, Hou and the other
leaders were able to usher them away.

After June 4, Hou spent 72 days under the protection of the Australian embassy.
Following his emergence out of hiding, Hou gave an interview in China about his
role in the evacuation of the square. The interview exposed him to the criticism of
other dissidents to which he responded by saying that the truth should prevail over
any other considerations.

Hou's account of the evacuation is confirmed by the testimony of a Chilean diplomat
which is reported in a message of the US Embassy dated from 12 July 1989 (more
details can be found in Roehner 2016d). The report's summary reads as follows:

"During a recent meeting, a Latin American diplomat, Carlos Gallo, provided Poloff [political officer, that is to say usually a CIA case officer] an eyewitness account. Although *the account generally follows those previously reported*, it provides additional insight and corroboration of events in the Square. Remaining with students by the monument to the Heroes until the final withdrawal, the diplomat said there were no mass shootings of students in the Square. When Poloff mentioned some reportedly eyewitness accounts of massacres at the monument with automatic weapons, Gallo said there was no such slaughter."

In this statement the most important part is certainly the mention that this testimony
"follows those previously reported". One can be sure that between 4 June and 12
July the US Embassy has collected as many testimonies as possible for it is the duty
of embassy personnel to give their government reliable accounts.

These reports settled the question of what had happened on Tiananmen Square but it
left open the question of what happened elsewhere in Beijing, and beyond Beijing,
elsewhere in China.

An answer to the first question is given by a series of 25 photographs published in
the mainland magazine “China Today” in 1989. They can be found on the following
webpage (available as of November 2017)

http://www.chinatoday.com/history/tiananmen_1989/tiananmen_1989_14.htm

The caption of the homepage picture says: “During the rebellion, more than 3,000 civilians were wounded and over 200 died, including 36 college students⁶²There was, however, not a single corpse found while cleaning up Tiananmen Square”. The pictures show burned civilian and military vehicles. With 120 buses and 60 armored carriers burned by insurgents, the event of June 4 can hardly be considered as a peaceful protest; it was an uprising.

In the following months, years and decades, western media kept alive the myth that there was a great massacre on Tiananmen Square itself. In a sense, this is understandable because one of the first rules of public relations campaigns is that the message should be simple, possibly a black and white picture. If one accepts that civilians were killed in the streets of Beijing, one is inevitably led to mention their attacks on army vehicles. With respect to the myth this is an embarrassing truth because it suggests that the people of Beijing who were killed were not all peaceful civilians. Incidentally, there was a similar misrepresentation of the demonstrations against President Assad in Syria in the sense that they were presented as peaceful whereas in fact the police and military were already under attack by armed rebel groups.

**Long answer, part 2: the uprising of 1989 in comparative perspective**

In the previous subsection we learned that the event of June 4 was in fact an uprising,
but what sort of uprising was it? Table 6.2 lists a number of similar cases.

The rebellions in Thailand and South Korea were popular uprisings against military
rulers. However, as both in Thailand (before 2010) and in South Korea, those military
leaders had close relations with the Pentagon, these repressions received only scant
attention in US media and more generally in western media. The same holds for the
so-called “Russian Constitutional crisis”, a label which deftly covers the shelling of
the Russian parliament by tanks ordered by Boris Yeltsin. An Internet search reveals

<footnote n="62">⁶²In spite of such a clear statement given in English, the American authors of a book published in 1996 write “One of us was in Beijing during the 1989 Tiananmen student uprising and watched as Chinese soldiers put wreaths on street corners to honor the soldiers killed in the operation. The dead students were never mentioned in the government government-controlled media” (Bernstein et al. 1998, p. 14) Not only is the last sentence a lie, but it seems that this author was not interested in understanding by whom and how the soldiers were killed.</footnote>
of embassy personnel to give their government reliable accounts.

These reports settled the question of what had happened on Tiananmen Square but it
left open the question of what happened elsewhere in Beijing, and beyond Beijing,
elsewhere in China.

An answer to the first question is given by a series of 25 photographs published in
the mainland magazine “China Today” in 1989. They can be found on the following
webpage (available as of November 2017)

http://www.chinatoday.com/history/tiananmen_1989/tiananmen_1989_14.htm

The caption of the homepage picture says: “During the rebellion, more than 3,000 civilians were wounded and over 200 died, including 36 college students⁶²There was, however, not a single corpse found while cleaning up Tiananmen Square”. The pictures show burned civilian and military vehicles. With 120 buses and 60 armored carriers burned by insurgents, the event of June 4 can hardly be considered as a peaceful protest; it was an uprising.

In the following months, years and decades, western media kept alive the myth that there was a great massacre on Tiananmen Square itself. In a sense, this is understandable because one of the first rules of public relations campaigns is that the message should be simple, possibly a black and white picture. If one accepts that civilians were killed in the streets of Beijing, one is inevitably led to mention their attacks on army vehicles. With respect to the myth this is an embarrassing truth because it suggests that the people of Beijing who were killed were not all peaceful civilians. Incidentally, there was a similar misrepresentation of the demonstrations against President Assad in Syria in the sense that they were presented as peaceful whereas in fact the police and military were already under attack by armed rebel groups.

**Long answer, part 2: the uprising of 1989 in comparative perspective**

In the previous subsection we learned that the event of June 4 was in fact an uprising,
but what sort of uprising was it? Table 6.2 lists a number of similar cases.

The rebellions in Thailand and South Korea were popular uprisings against military
rulers. However, as both in Thailand (before 2010) and in South Korea, those military
leaders had close relations with the Pentagon, these repressions received only scant
attention in US media and more generally in western media. The same holds for the
so-called “Russian Constitutional crisis”, a label which deftly covers the shelling of
the Russian parliament by tanks ordered by Boris Yeltsin. An Internet search reveals

<footnote n="62">⁶²In spite of such a clear statement given in English, the American authors of a book published in 1996 write “One of us was in Beijing during the 1989 Tiananmen student uprising and watched as Chinese soldiers put wreaths on street corners to honor the soldiers killed in the operation. The dead students were never mentioned in the government government-controlled media” (Bernstein et al. 1998, p. 14) Not only is the last sentence a lie, but it seems that this author was not interested in understanding by whom and how the soldiers were killed.</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 6.2: Repressions of failed uprisings</caption><thead><tr><th>Date</th><th>Name</th><th>Reason of protest</th><th>Fatalities (official)</th><th>Fatalities (high end)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>France</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1791, Jul 17</td><td>Champ de Mars massacre</td><td>Against the King</td><td>12</td><td>400</td></tr><tr><td>1848, Jun 23-26</td><td>June Days uprising</td><td>Worker uprising</td><td>5,000</td><td>7,000</td></tr><tr><td>1871, May 21-28</td><td>Bloody week</td><td>Insurrection of Paris</td><td>2,000</td><td>30,000</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Mexico</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1968, Oct 2</td><td>Tlatelolco massacre</td><td>Student protest</td><td>300</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Thailand</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1976, Oct 6</td><td>Thammasat University massacre</td><td>Student protest</td><td>46</td><td>150</td></tr><tr><td>1992, May 17-20</td><td>Bloody May</td><td>Popular protest</td><td>52</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2010, May 13-19</td><td>Cruel May</td><td>Popular protest</td><td>85</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>South Korea</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1980, May 18-27</td><td>Gwangju uprising</td><td>Popular uprising</td><td>600</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Russia</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1993, Oct 4</td><td>Constitutional crisis</td><td>Army stormed Parliament</td><td>187</td><td>2,000</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: “Tlatelolco” is the name of the district of Mexico City where the “Plaza de las Tres Culturas” is located where the army opened fire on demonstrators.

Sources: The table is mostly based on the corresponding Wikipedia articles either in English or French. For Mexico, Thailand and South Korea no high end estimates are given by Wikipedia except for 1976 in which case it is a fairly moderate one. This can perhaps be explained by the fact that these countries were US allies at the time when the articles were written. For the 1989 uprising in Beijing the data given in the Wikipedia article for the civilian fatalities range from 218 (official figure) to a high end estimate of “several thousands”. In addition, according to official data, 120 buses and 60 armored carriers were burned.

that this expression together with the word “tank” is used in only 19,000 websites, that is to say much less than the Tiananmen Square event.

A comparison of “Tiananmen 1989” with the cases listed in Table 6.2 suggests that there have been two different movements:

i A student movement in favor of political liberalization (whatever that may mean).

ii A protest by workers against economic liberalization commonly called neoliberalism. In 1989, economic reforms had already taken away some rights such as life-long employment or free health care, without however providing appropriate compensations in terms of wage increases especially for workers with low qualification.

This belief relies on the fact that, as a rule, workers movements are more likely to use violence than student movements. That is easily understandable because for workers the issue is not merely about ideas but about wages, working conditions and the well-being of their families. As a matter of fact, most of the persons who were arrested and sentenced for attacking soldiers were not students but workers (see
<table><caption>Table 6.2: Repressions of failed uprisings</caption><thead><tr><th>Date</th><th>Name</th><th>Reason of protest</th><th>Fatalities (official)</th><th>Fatalities (high end)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>France</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1791, Jul 17</td><td>Champ de Mars massacre</td><td>Against the King</td><td>12</td><td>400</td></tr><tr><td>1848, Jun 23-26</td><td>June Days uprising</td><td>Worker uprising</td><td>5,000</td><td>7,000</td></tr><tr><td>1871, May 21-28</td><td>Bloody week</td><td>Insurrection of Paris</td><td>2,000</td><td>30,000</td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Mexico</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1968, Oct 2</td><td>Tlatelolco massacre</td><td>Student protest</td><td>300</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Thailand</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1976, Oct 6</td><td>Thammasat University massacre</td><td>Student protest</td><td>46</td><td>150</td></tr><tr><td>1992, May 17-20</td><td>Bloody May</td><td>Popular protest</td><td>52</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2010, May 13-19</td><td>Cruel May</td><td>Popular protest</td><td>85</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>South Korea</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1980, May 18-27</td><td>Gwangju uprising</td><td>Popular uprising</td><td>600</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="5"><strong>Russia</strong></td></tr><tr><td>1993, Oct 4</td><td>Constitutional crisis</td><td>Army stormed Parliament</td><td>187</td><td>2,000</td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes: “Tlatelolco” is the name of the district of Mexico City where the “Plaza de las Tres Culturas” is located where the army opened fire on demonstrators.

Sources: The table is mostly based on the corresponding Wikipedia articles either in English or French. For Mexico, Thailand and South Korea no high end estimates are given by Wikipedia except for 1976 in which case it is a fairly moderate one. This can perhaps be explained by the fact that these countries were US allies at the time when the articles were written. For the 1989 uprising in Beijing the data given in the Wikipedia article for the civilian fatalities range from 218 (official figure) to a high end estimate of “several thousands”. In addition, according to official data, 120 buses and 60 armored carriers were burned.

that this expression together with the word “tank” is used in only 19,000 websites, that is to say much less than the Tiananmen Square event.

A comparison of “Tiananmen 1989” with the cases listed in Table 6.2 suggests that there have been two different movements:

i A student movement in favor of political liberalization (whatever that may mean).

ii A protest by workers against economic liberalization commonly called ne-oliberalism. In 1989, economic reforms had already taken away some rights such as life-long employment or free health care, without however providing appropriate compensations in terms of wage increases especially for workers with low qualification.

This belief relies on the fact that, as a rule, workers movements are more likely to use violence than student movements. That is easily understandable because for workers the issue is not merely about ideas but about wages, working conditions and the well-being of their families. As a matter of fact, most of the persons who were arrested and sentenced for attacking soldiers were not students but workers (see
Roehner 2016d).

Actually, a third component can be mentioned which consisted in persons, including members of the Communist Party, who were sponsored by US organizations. Indeed, in Roehner (2016d) it is shown that the rebels were frantically supported not only by the US State Department but also by Chinese-American organizations and media. A recurrent scenario of that kind was played out in Russia with the staunch US support given to Boris Yeltsin even when he blatantly violated the Russian constitution during the so-called “Constitutional Crisis”. Needless to say, all governments which let the army fire on demonstrators claim that the uprising was supported by a foreign country and that the first shots were fired, not by the troops, but by the demonstrators. However, in the case of China and Russia there may be some truth to this thesis.

## Self-censorship

Clearly the view according to which there was a “Tiananmen Square Massacre” is disastrous for China in terms of image. This is true for the public outside of China but also for the Chinese population itself because this view has been imported into mainland China through various channels among which one can mention the following.

(i) Hong Kong media,

(ii) “Radio Free Asia”

(iii) Chinese students who attend US or European universities.

The reaction of Chinese citizens who go abroad is certainly that a thesis that is so widely accepted in the west cannot be wrong.

Why then does the Chinese government not try to change this image?

One should realize that there there is a paradox here. The massacres in Mexico, Thailand and South Korea were kept hidden and came in the open only after several decades. Thus, in South Korea the case of the 1980 Gwangju massacre remained closed until the election of President Kim Dae Jung in 1998. Then, after the election of President Lee Myung-bak in 2008 it was closed again until President Moon Jae-in reopened it again in May 2017.

In the case of China the situation is completely different in the sense that the view imposed by western media of a cold-blooded massacre of innocent citizens is the worst possible image. Thus, in terms of image the lack of discussion is just a disaster.

By allowing free access to the website of “China Today” as well as to the testimony of Hou Dejian the Chinese government has basically allowed Chinese people to know the truth. However, our experience is that very few have taken advantage of this possibility.

This attitude suggests that there is a general disinterest tantamount to a kind of self-
Roehner 2016d).

Actually, a third component can be mentioned which consisted in persons, including members of the Communist Party, who were sponsored by US organizations. Indeed, in Roehner (2016d) it is shown that the rebels were frantically supported not only by the US State Department but also by Chinese-American organizations and media. A recurrent scenario of that kind was played out in Russia with the staunch US support given to Boris Yeltsin even when he blatantly violated the Russian constitution during the so-called “Constitutional Crisis”. Needless to say, all governments which let the army fire on demonstrators claim that the uprising was supported by a foreign country and that the first shots were fired, not by the troops, but by the demonstrators. However, in the case of China and Russia there may be some truth to this thesis.

## Self-censorship

Clearly the view according to which there was a “Tiananmen Square Massacre” is disastrous for China in terms of image. This is true for the public outside of China but also for the Chinese population itself because this view has been imported into mainland China through various channels among which one can mention the following.

(i) Hong Kong media,

(ii) “Radio Free Asia”

(iii) Chinese students who attend US or European universities.

The reaction of Chinese citizens who go abroad is certainly that a thesis that is so widely accepted in the west cannot be wrong.

Why then does the Chinese government not try to change this image?

One should realize that there there is a paradox here. The massacres in Mexico, Thailand and South Korea were kept hidden and came in the open only after several decades. Thus, in South Korea the case of the 1980 Gwangju massacre remained closed until the election of President Kim Dae Jung in 1998. Then, after the election of President Lee Myung-bak in 2008 it was closed again until President Moon Jae-in reopened it again in May 2017.

In the case of China the situation is completely different in the sense that the view imposed by western media of a cold-blooded massacre of innocent citizens is the worst possible image. Thus, in terms of image the lack of discussion is just a disaster.

By allowing free access to the website of “China Today” as well as to the testimony of Hou Dejian the Chinese government has basically allowed Chinese people to know the truth. However, our experience is that very few have taken advantage of this possibility.

This attitude suggests that there is a general disinterest tantamount to a kind of self-
censorship. The main characteristic of self-censorship is the fact that it knows no
limit. This can for instance be seen in the case of France. About two decades ago a
law was passed in Parliament which prohibits the expression of so-called “negationist
opinions” that is to say negating or even questioning the existence of the Shoa, i.e. the
mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime. As it is impossible to know the
exact limit between discussing and commenting (which is allowed supposedly) on
the one hand and questioning (which is not allowed) on the other hand, the simplest
solution is clearly to avoid this topic altogether. In other words, such a ban leads to a
situation in which opinions are completely frozen. This is probably what happened
with “Tiananmen 1989” in China.

A personal testimony about self-censorship

Currently, in China what happened on Tiananmen Square in 1989 is considered a
sensitive topic. Is this due to censorship by the Chinese government? In fact, as
already observed above, one has rather the impression that it is due to a kind of
self-censorship. Why?

Before opening this discussion it should be observed that my contacts were limited
to English-speaking persons, basically professors and researchers. It is also possi-
ble that a broader range of websites can be accessed through computers located on
university campuses than on those available to the general public.

* I have often been told by Chinese colleagues that in China one cannot get any information about “Tiananmen 1989”. This is not true. One can get access to the websites of several US newspapers and to their archive articles. In other words, one can read the articles about Tiananmen published in the “Washington Post” in the days following June 4, 1989. Naturally, through the same source one can also get the western views on many other events.

It is true that the “New York Times” is not available online in China but this is for
a very specific reason. In June 2012 the NYT launched a Chinese online version,
but then on 25 October 2012 the publication of an article entitled “Billions in hidden
riches for family of Chinese leader” which was directed against Prime Minister Wen
led to the indefinite suspension of both the English and Chinese versions inside the
PRC<fnref n="63" />. Similarly, in June 2012 after “Bloomberg News” had reported that the ex-
tended family of Vice-President Xi Jinping (at that time it was already known that he
would become China’s next president) had amassed hundreds of millions of dollars

<footnote n="63">⁶³One must recognize that the article is replete with statements made by *anonymous* bankers and businessmen. More importantly, however, such a question should be discussed in a comparative perspective. When one knows that former PM Tony Blair or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are paid some $250,000 for a one-hour conference, one can expect them to be fairly wealthy. In other words, it makes little sense to focus on just one case. In addition, the fact that this theme appears recurrently in US-sponsored anti-PRC publications (such as Falung Gong’s “Epoch Times”) raises doubts about the real motive of such articles.</footnote>
censorship. The main characteristic of self-censorship is the fact that it knows no
limit. This can for instance be seen in the case of France. About two decades ago a
law was passed in Parliament which prohibits the expression of so-called “negationist
opinions” that is to say negating or even questioning the existence of the Shoa, i.e. the
mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime. As it is impossible to know the
exact limit between discussing and commenting (which is allowed supposedly) on
the one hand and questioning (which is not allowed) on the other hand, the simplest
solution is clearly to avoid this topic altogether. In other words, such a ban leads to a
situation in which opinions are completely frozen. This is probably what happened
with “Tiananmen 1989” in China.

A personal testimony about self-censorship

Currently, in China what happened on Tiananmen Square in 1989 is considered a
sensitive topic. Is this due to censorship by the Chinese government? In fact, as
already observed above, one has rather the impression that it is due to a kind of
self-censorship. Why?

Before opening this discussion it should be observed that my contacts were limited
to English-speaking persons, basically professors and researchers. It is also possi-
ble that a broader range of websites can be accessed through computers located on
university campuses than on those available to the general public.

* I have often been told by Chinese colleagues that in China one cannot get any information about “Tiananmen 1989”. This is not true. One can get access to the websites of several US newspapers and to their archive articles. In other words, one can read the articles about Tiananmen published in the “Washington Post” in the days following June 4, 1989. Naturally, through the same source one can also get the western views on many other events.

It is true that the “New York Times” is not available online in China but this is for
a very specific reason. In June 2012 the NYT launched a Chinese online version,
but then on 25 October 2012 the publication of an article entitled “Billions in hidden
riches for family of Chinese leader” which was directed against Prime Minister Wen
led to the indefinite suspension of both the English and Chinese versions inside the
PRC<fnref n="63" />. Similarly, in June 2012 after “Bloomberg News” had reported that the ex-
tended family of Vice-President Xi Jinping (at that time it was already known that he
would become China’s next president) had amassed hundreds of millions of dollars

<footnote n="63">⁶³One must recognize that the article is replete with statements made by *anonymous* bankers and businessmen. More importantly, however, such a question should be discussed in a comparative perspective. When one knows that former PM Tony Blair or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are paid some $250,000 for a one-hour conference, one can expect them to be fairly wealthy. In other words, it makes little sense to focus on just one case. In addition, the fact that this theme appears recurrently in US-sponsored anti-PRC publications (such as Falung Gong’s “Epoch Times”) raises doubts about the real motive of such articles.</footnote>
in assets, the Chinese government blocked access to the website of Blomberg.

* I have been told repeatedly that the Chinese government prohibits discussion of “Tiananmen 1989” but this claim does not square with the fact that the photographs of “China Today” are freely available in mainland China without any VPN or similar software.

## Debasement campaigns

As observed earlier in this chapter, “Tiananmen 1989” is only one of the issues involved in the current information war. Also at stake is the image of former Chinese leaders, particularly Chairman Mao and Prime minister Zhou Enlai. Books tarnishing their reputation have already been published (in both cases by Chinese persons after they immigrated to the US). By so doing the objective is of course to blacken the whole history of China since 1949.

So far, the Chinese government has shown little awareness of an ongoing information war. The means that he started to implement have been purely cultural, e.g. the “Confucius Institutes” or the “China Global Television Network” (CGTN, formerly CCTV International); one can hardly expect that they will be able to change the attitude of western people whose opinions have been shaped by decades of China bashing. Moreover, these means of information will have no effect in China itself which is of course where the main battle will take place.

### Relentless long-term debasement campaigns

In an earlier chapter we have already observed that in order to sound convincing unfavorable comments made about a country must come from one of its citizens. This condition helps to understand why such operations require long-term planning. A few examples are described in Table 6.3.

It took the United States decades to build up credible stories and “theories” able to disparage Russian or Chinese leaders. Most of these stories were written by domestic writers.

* Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a good contributor for the Gulag story. He emigrated to the United States in 1974 shortly after the publication of the “Gulag Archipelago” in Paris.

* Li Zhisui, chairman Mao's personal physician, was a good contributor for portraying him in a disparaging way in his book entitled “The Private Life of Chairman Mao”. Li emigrated to the United States after the death of Chairman Mao and wrote his book while in the US. After the book's publication, Mao's nurse and his personal secretary wrote a book in Chinese in which they rebuted several of Li's assertions.

* Gao Wenqian, who had been a researcher at the “CPC Central Party Literature