Liz Cheney’s Husband w/Ties to CCP
REVEALED: Liz Cheney’s Husband Works For Chinese Communist Party-Linked Law Firm.
Representative Liz Cheney’s husband’s law firm represents several Chinese Communist Party-linked clients – including firms tied to the regime’s military – and employs former party officials to undergird its massive China practice, The National Pulse can reveal.
Phillip Perry – the husband of the House Republican Conference Chair who looks set to be ousted over the outlandish criticisms of her own party and its leader Donald Trump – serves as a Partner at Latham & Watkins. The firm, which has offices in Shanghai and Beijing, has worked with companies labeled “tools” of the Chinese Communist Party by the U.S. State Department and People’s Liberation Army collaborators.
Landing the position after working in the George W. Bush administration, Perry has defended the “revolving door” between government officials and lobbying and legal firms:
“The term ‘revolving door’ implies people going in and out of government in order to obtain monetary gain. The reason people go into government is to serve their country. It’s not appropriate to describe that as a ‘revolving door,’” Perry has previously claimed.
Communist Clients.
While Perry claims to have gone into government to serve his country, his colleagues are servicing the needs of a foreign, hostile nation.
As part of its “Greater China Practice,” Latham & Watkins describes itself as “advising” Chinese Communist Party-linked technology firm Tencent on its investment in an American company.
Tencent has been described by the State Department’s Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation as a “tool of the Chinese government,” noting the company has “no meaningful ability to tell the Chinese Communist Party ‘no’ if officials decide to ask for their assistance.” It provides “a foundation of technology-facilitated surveillance and social control” as part of the CCP’s broader crusade “to shape the world consistent with its authoritarian model,” the State Department report adds.
Even the left-wing Amnesty International rated Tencent’s data encryption capabilities zero out of 100, noting it hadn’t “stated publicly that they will not grant government requests to backdoor.”
Latham & Watkins has also boasted how it successfully “persuaded” the U.S. government to lift Trump-era sanctions on state-owned China COSCO Shipping Corporation Limited (COSCO). COSCO is a controversial, Shanghai-based logistics company labeled as a “thinly veiled arm of the Chinese military” by a task force of the U.S. House of Representatives. Eleven of its 13 executives boast of high-level Chinese Communist Party affiliations on COSCO’s website.
“On January 31, the US Department of State and the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control removed a COSCO subsidiary and one of its former executives from OFAC’s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List,” the firm’s press release reads.
Communist Colleagues.
To bolster the firm’s China practice, Latham & Watkins also employs former Chinese Communist Party apparatchiks.
One of Cheney’s husband’s fellow Partners, Hui Xu, describes himself as previously working for China’s Ministry of Commerce in his bio:
Prior to private practice, Mr. Xu was a member of the in-house legal department at the China Chamber of Commerce under the Ministry of Commerce of China, where he handled trade remedy, intellectual property, and World Trade Organization matters.
The firm tracks legislative developments in the Chinese Communist Party, often praising the regime’s “vigorous” environmental laws, even noting “President Xi’s announcement signals a renewed effort to improve the fragmented political infrastructure of environmental governance in China.”
Latham & Watkins, which has also published pamphlets titled “Doing Business in China,” has also praised China’s Five-Year Plans for its “increased focus on climate change and a more open trade environment.”
The discovery follows The National Pulse’s exposé into Douglas Emhoff, husband to Kamala Harris and Second Gentleman of the United States. Emhoff previously worked for DLA Piper, another large, global law practice with Chinese communist clients.
DLA Piper boasts of “long-established and embedded “China Desks” in both the U.S. and Europe” to assist their China-focused consulting, prompting questions about how the firm’s potential proximity to the White House could be leveraged by DLA Piper, exploited by the Chinese Communist Party, or represent a financial conflict of interest for the Vice President.
Undermining the US Military
How to tank Recruiting
Undermining the Nation’s Military Will Have a Cost
Max Dribbler 5/7/2021 1:01 PMNew Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) Lloyd Austin (General, US Army, Retired) is stumbling like-well, a drunken soldier-right out of the blocks. In addition to undoing a number of things that seemed to be going well after much consternation and personnel change at the Pentagon, his decision to highlight social justice issues and self-flagellate his cohort over “extremists and white supremacists,” only served to embarrass the people he is charged to lead, as well as himself and his staff. He made it his top priority to dictate all personnel under his charge have a “down day” within his first sixty days to address the problem of “white supremacists and extremists” in the ranks.This apparently critical issue to address an out of control “scourge” of a problem that is such a major issue that the SECDEF-a leader so talented and so uniquely qualified for the job that congress was willing to waive the waiting period that normally applies to military retirees-while agreeing to forego the bedrock principal of civilian leadership of our armed forces-highlighted it as one of his first priorities in the job. Many aren’t familiar with government service. For those who are you know that entire groups of subject matter experts and trusted advisors are behind these decisions. And yet with all his unique and outstanding talent, Team Austin was unable to properly define, identify, describe, etc., what the “boogey man” of white supremacy and extremism looks like, nor provide his underlings sufficient guidance to properly execute a “down day” to address this most critical issue among all assigned departmental mission challenges apparently degrading and hindering our armed forces. His determination to boldly go after this issue as his top priority, coupled with the amateur hour hand wringing that accompanied the execution, is just embarrassing.But it gets worse. After the down day period completed, the SECDEF had to acknowledge that it was a challenging task to define and identify the attributes that bound the problem: one wonders how it came to be a top priority yet lacks sufficient definition to identify it. Or how such an apparently uniquely qualified individual somewhat rushed into such a lightning rod issue so ill-prepared. Worse yet, recently two of his top commanders, Transportation Command Commander Army Gen Stephen Lyons and U.S. European Command Commander Air Force Gen Tod Wolters testified before the senate and were asked point blank by Senator Bloomingfool of Connecticut, an admitted liar about his “Vietnam service,” to put a percentage on the number of white supremacists and extremists in the military/their commands, insinuating it is “around ten percent.” Both General’s responded that was nowhere close, as that would translate to some 200-250 thousand service members. Both stated it was certainly less than one percent in the military and neither is aware of any in their commands.The same scenario played out in the house, only with a deeper explanation. Strategic Command’s Commander ADM Charles Richard explained that just about every service member in his command has a top-level security clearance. Which means they filled out burdensome security paperwork (known as the Department of Defense form 398,) listed references, were interviewed extensively by a federal investigator who talked to those references and solicited additional people to interview. The most sensitive clearances involve verification via the additional step of a lifestyle polygraph. The process typically takes six months to a year to complete. Any questionable activity or extremist views would have to be explained by the applicant and adjudicated by the Central Clearance Facility in order to qualify for a top-level clearance. And make no mistake about it, such views would be disqualifying.You would think the military community would be somewhat closing ranks on this ridiculous notion, but that is not the case. The total rag Military Times reported that just because someone has a clearance, that does not weed out extremists, citing a case of a Navy Contractor with a secret clearance who has been charged for the 6 January events at the Capital and been classified as “a white supremacist/extremist.” However, if Military Times is in the business of honest reporting, or supporting military personnel, this is a strange way to show it by: (1) undercutting the military’s senior most commanders (2) using an example of a contractor who is not in the military and therefore, not the subject of this discussion (3) disingenuously touting a secret clearance which is based on a short form application, and a National Agency Check that can be accomplished in a week (4) while engaging in a discussion to undercut senior military leaders, as well as the forces they lead.And of course, it gets worse, as one day after the four-star military commanders told Congress they do not have problems with extremists in their ranks, Bishop Garrison, the top Pentagon Extremism adviser on these issues to SECDEF Austin, who certainly would have been involved in and culpable for the failure to define the problem they were seeking to remedy, took a different view and stated plainly that he-incredibly-“believes the opposite.” It is not surprising to find that most race hustling zealots have job titles associated with their hustle…With his recent retirement from the Army, these are in effect the SECDEF’s peers. To state a blinding flash of the obvious, the Secdef brought in an advisor who apparently believes he knows more about the military than four of our most senior active-duty commanders with over a hundred and twenty years of experience between them! Given his long record of military service, we have to take Secdef Austin at his word that he believes our military is tainted by this “extremism” disease (that he is unable to define.)Austin was a General officer prior to his retirement with significant input and capability to influence Army and military policy, particularly considering his position leading United States Central Command. Which begs the question of when he came to these views on the state of our armed forces and the indictment of the American military comprised of our sons and daughters? Where has he has been on this issue over the long years of his service? An officer doesn’t tolerate those who lie, cheat or steal, nor those who do. Is it credible that this was never a problem during his entire career, and then all of a sudden it dawned on him that it was? Or did he ignore problems over the years so as not to make waves-and to make rank? The implications of one or the other are staggering-and disqualifying.With the continued amateur hour, hand wringing, inability to intellectually and honestly deal with supposed “big issues” challenging our military-right out of the gate-a force we depend upon to support and defend the constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, one shudders to think how such inept social warrior bumblings are going to degrade readiness as they ripple through the force.Plus-these buffoons are talking about our sons and daughters! Recruitment is going to be very challenging if this is the public view the SECDEF approves of as his stated top priority. What parent is going to support military service if serving involves being tarred with such a broad brush. Are warriors now expected to give up one of the bed rock issues the military fights for-including the constitution and free speech? How ironic will it be if service members are now expected to fight for these rights around the world-but not enjoy them at home?And forgive me for digressing again, but how could our new SECDEF of such great talent and truly unique skills and Army experience at the highest levels apparently go through an entire military career and all of a sudden realize how bad things were? Apparently not so bad that it prevented him from necking through the process. And then stumble right out of the gate in such a public way with his self-inflicted “extremist” down day??? And come out of it with little to nothing to show for it, while the “under the audio line” complaints trickling out from attendees indicate the training failed to discuss or present any information whatsoever about specific groups that have spent the better part of the last several years burning, destroying private and public property, killing people, etc.? Would not such a serious matter include identifying elements on all sides of the issue and political spectrum?With his elevation to SECDEF, Austin is now responsible for everything the services do or fail to do. Is he up to the task of leading this issue to get it right?One is reminded of what happens on a world stage when our leaders are not viewed with the respect and dignity we expect, given their stature as our apparent best and brightest, uniquely qualified for these positions of responsibility having necked out of the pack of over 330 million people! You would not anticipate these leaders being publicly humiliated and getting their butts handed to them-for instance-in an initial meeting with the Chinese. But as American Thinker’s Andrea Widburg pointed out, “The Chinese know very well with whom they are dealing” (and he’s an empty suit.)Or for our SECDEF to finally meet with our closest ally in the Middle East, albeit, after a little White House “gamesmanship” or delay in that perfunctory, but mandatory (obligatory) first phone call post inauguration. With our uniquely qualified Secdef having little to no information going into the meeting about a major operation destroying a common enemy’s nuclear efforts. If you wonder if and why it appears that brinksmanship and shenanigans are suddenly back in fashion with the US-Israeli relationship, you are on to something.Consider that the culminating, unprecedented last act of the BHO’Linsky and Biden administration actions related to Israel-after weighing in for the opposition party in his re-election bid, calling Bibi Netanyahu out as the impediment to Palestinian Peace for not agreeing to allow themselves to be marginalized, showing him the back door of the WH, notifying the press for a photo op, calling him “chickenshit” on the record because of his intransigence on the Iranian deal, you know, those little diplomatic irritations between friends-was to stab Israel in the chest (in DC your friends stab you in the chest) by having UN Ambassador Powers sustain on behalf of America on another in a long line of tedious UN Israel condemnations, a first for American diplomacy undercutting Israel.And this just in: Israel was apparently right in their distrust, as it was recently reported that “Old Bolt Neck” John Kerry allegedly shared covert Israeli actions with his social and dinner party elite friends, the Iranians. Stay tuned, all stories for another day.Dan Sullivan Blasts Democrat Claim That 10% of Military Are ‘Extremists’ (breitbart.com)Top Military Officer Dismisses Biden Admin’s Accusation of Extremism in the Ranks, Tells Senate the Truth About His Soldiers (westernjournal.com)
Iran Update
https://themedialine.org/news/opinion/mollifying-the-mullahs-a-fools-errand/
Mollifying the Mullahs: A Fool’s Errand
05/05/2021
There was a young lady of Niger / Who smiled as she rode on a tiger; / They returned from the ride / With the lady inside, / And the smile on the face of the tiger. – William Cosmo Monkhouse
The word swirling around Washington is that the Biden administration, possibly in cooperation with the UK government, is set to strike a deal with Iran for the release of two American and two British hostages. One report out of Iran suggests that up to $7 billion in frozen funds could be the price exacted by the mullahs in Tehran for their return.[1]
At the same time, a similar game of bait-and-humiliate is being played out in the nuclear arena where, once again, Iran is threatening to accelerate its enrichment of weapons-grade uranium unless the US agrees to lift all sanctions against the rogue regime. Incredibly, the administration believes that a return to the failed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the key to restraining Iran’s ambition to dominate the Middle East. They could not be more wrong.
Nothing in Iran’s malevolent conduct over the last 40 years would suggest that it has any interest in moderating its behavior. On the contrary, Tehran’s ever-expanding global terror network, unprovoked attacks on shipping, cyber-hacking, and unrelenting support for militant Islamic insurgent groups in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, reveal its true intentions.
Since first being declared a state-sponsor of terrorism by the US State Department in 1984, thousands of Americans have either died or been injured at the hands of Iran and its proxies. Adding to this grim tally have been thousands of others across Europe, South America, Asia and Africa who have fallen victim to the regime’s unrelenting global jihad.
Even so, the impulse to mollify the mullahs remains strong in some quarters of the US national security establishment. Most fervent among them are those associated with the Obama and Biden administrations. In 2015 the Obama team agreed to secretly transfer $1.7 billion.[2] in unmarked currency to the regime while, at the same time, unfreezing assets in tranches estimated at upwards of $150 billion.[3]
In a mocking rebuke to the US, estimates are that Iran now plows as much as $1 billion of this windfall annually into its terrorist operations.[4] A sizable portion of these funds go to attacking Israel through Syria and Lebanon, leaving both of these war-torn countries in utter ruin. Contrary to the best-laid plans of the Obama team, the Iranian regime has had no epiphany on the road to Damascus. Instead of curbing Tehran’s seemingly insatiable appetite for violence, former President Barack Obama’s policies actually have encouraged and enabled it.
The Iranians are playing for larger stakes, where the messianic aspirations of Shi’a Islam are fused with a uniquely Persian version of manifest destiny. The mullahs believe that hegemony over the Middle East is their birthright, conferred by the Persian kings who dominated the region two-and-a-half millennia ago.
This ancient zeitgeist, coupled with the desire to extend Islamic sovereignty over territory held by non-believers and apostates, serves as a powerful impulse to acquire nuclear weapons. In Iranian eyes, any agreement that compromises that objective must be opposed. The regime’s legitimacy rests, in part, on its adherence to this national aspiration.
If all of this sounds familiar, it is because Iran, like its fellow autocratic regimes, China, Russia and North Korea, smells blood in the wind. America is weak because its leader is weak. Social unrest is tearing at the very fabric of the country. Even America’s fabled military is unsure of its mission.
When the Iranian leadership looks at the US, it sees “a house divided against itself,” exhausted from the pandemic and decades of foreign wars. Even great civic institutions that have formed the bedrock of the republic for 230 years have fallen into disrepute. To America’s enemies, these are the unmistakable signs of a superpower in precipitous decline.
Playing out today on the international stage is the law of the Serengeti. Predators who survive on red meat never will be sated by green pastures or placated by hollow threats. Predictably, the very act of negotiating over hostages only encourages more hostage taking, invariably making America a de facto captive of Iranian machinations.
Washington has yet to learn that ancient cultures are not easily bent to its will. Every act of appeasement is viewed as weakness, every retreat from the use of force as cowardice, and every secret deal as a display of shame. For Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the thugs who preside over the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, public displays of diplomatic niceties are mere feints intended to disguise true objectives; and like a snake’s rattle, they are meant to incite fear and buy time until a fatal blow can be struck.
The mullahs know President Joe Biden well and fear him not. Battle-hardened and convinced of their own invincibility, the mullahs surely view this doddering and often incoherent geriatric president in much the same way a lion would see an aged antelope struggling to keep up with the herd: dinner. America, enfeebled by wokeness and racked by self-doubt, is not the unassailable power it once was.
If “leverage” is the sine qua non of diplomacy, it is difficult to see how eviscerating the sanctions regime meticulously reconstituted by Donald Trump will result in anything but the enabling of further Iranian treachery against the West. President Biden’s naive approach toward the despotic Iranian regime makes high-intensity war more likely, not less.
The administration would be wise to heed the lessons of history. Treat Iran as Churchill treated the Axis powers, as implacable foes, inured to conflict and deaf to entreaties for peaceful coexistence. Only a clear red line, backed by resolute force, will ensure that Iran never acquires a deliverable nuclear weapons capability. The business of appeasing tyrants, as Neville Chamberlain learned to his eternal shame, can be a perilous occupation.
[1] Becket, Stefan, “Klain says reports of deal with Iran for release of American hostages ‘not true,’” CBS News, May 2, 2921, 11:21 AM. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ron-klain-iran-american-hostages-face-the-nation/
[2] Solomon, Jay, “US Payment of $1.7 Billion to Iran Raises Questions of Ransom,” The Wall Street Journal, January 21, 2016, 7:16 pm ET. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-payment-of-1-7-billion-to-iran-raises-questions-of-ransom-1453421778
[3] Senate Hearing 114-533, “Examining the Terrorism Financing Risks of Allowing the Islamic Republic of Iran to Gain Access to Large Amounts of Hard Currency and The US Government’s Payments of $1.7 Billion in Foreign Cash to Iran,” September 21, 2016, Hearing before the Subcommittee on National Security and International Trade and Finance of the Committee on banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, US Senate, US Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC, 2017. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114shrg23439/html/CHRG-114shrg23439.htm
[4] House Hearing, “The Iran Nuclear Deal and Its Impact on Terrorism Financing,” Hearing Before the Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing of the Committee on Financial Services, US House of Representatives, 114th Congress, First Session, July 22, 2015, Serial No. 114-44. Washington, DC, 2016. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg97157/html/CHRG-114hhrg97157.htm
America Now Acting as a Communist Regime!
Sidney Powell: America is now a ‘Communist regime’
One of the lawyers who fought, without a lot of success, to have evidence of fraud in the 2020 presidential election reviewed by the courts in America has delivered a harsh verdict on the state of the nation under President Joe Biden.
Sidney Powell, a former federal prosecutor, worked on cases that, had they succeeded, would have been to the benefit of President Trump.
They argued various state election systems mishandled mailed ballots, absentee ballots and even suggested fraudulent ballots, with huge dumps of votes all for Biden sometimes appearing in the dark-of-the-night hours.
She was interviewed on The Talk of Pittsburgh radio, the Rose Unplugged show.
“The world is absolutely upside down because this country is upside down,” she charged. “They’re feeding lies to the American people very single day. Just the fact that they’re saying Biden is president is a lie because we’ve still got to resolve the election issue.”
While the allegations of deception and mishandling of ballots never got reviewed – most judges dismissed the cases on technicalities – what is not in question is that in multiple states where Biden narrowly was the winner state officials changed state laws to accommodate some ballots.
The difficulty with that is that the Constitution requires state lawmakers to control those variables.
The Gateway Pundit explained Powell said, “We are living under a Communist totalitarian regime. If the voting machine companies had nothing to hide, they wouldn’t be hiding anything.”
She charged there were millions of fraudulent votes for Biden in 2020.
Even after her lawsuits over the election were closed down, Powell remained unshaken.
Earlier, she told Erskine Radio in an interview that there is “more than enough evidence in the public now to more than reverse the election in at least five states.”
“There’s all kind of precedent for fixing what happened in this election from Bush vs. Gore to other cases as well,” she said, the Gateway Pundit reported.
Powell said the existence of “fractionalized votes” weighted in favor of Joe Biden, created by a computer algorithm, can be proved in multiple counties. And it could be proved across the country, she said, “if anybody would issue an order allowing inspection of the machines.”
She noted that federal law calls for election records to be kept for 22 months.
“In this case it requires forensic evaluations of the machines and looking at all of the paper ballots. We already know that’s not going to match up,” she said. “There were counterfeit ballots. People were saying, ‘Oh, well they did a full audit in Georgia.’ Well, if you just keep running the same counterfeit bill through the same counting machine you’re going to get the same result.”
Here the interview:
She said there’s no reasonable explanation for the courts not having reviewed the evidence.
Going on right now in Arizona is a fully audit of all 2.1 million ballots from Maricopa County. Results are expected in a couple of weeks but Democrats repeatedly have gone to court to try to have the results suppressed.
She noted that more than 5,000 people have signed sworn affidavits as witnesses of election anomalies or fraud.
Powell served in the Department of Justice for 10 years and for the last 20 years has devoted her private practice to federal appeals. She was the youngest assistant U.S attorney and later became chief of the appellate section for the Western and Northern Districts of Texas.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch took a minority position at the Supreme Court when it rejected several election disputes, arguing that the court should have taken up election challenges from Pennsylvania.
Thomas warned of “catastrophic” consequences if the court doesn’t address the issue of authorities “changing the rules in the middle of the game.”
University of California at Irvine Professor Rick Hasen on his Election Law Blog wrote it’s “a ticking time bomb” that the Supreme Court “is going to have to resolve.”
Hasen wrote: “So why didn’t the court go further in this case? My guess is that it is either the fact that the case is moot (and the court would rather address the issue in the context of a live case, but with lower stakes) or because the Trump cases are somewhat radioactive at the court. Given former President Trump’s continued false statements that the election was stolen, the case would become a further vehicle to argue that the election results were illegitimate. It would thrust the court back in the spotlight on an issue the justices showed repeatedly they wanted to avoid.
“So the bottom line is that the independent state legislature doctrine hangs out there, as a ticking time bomb, waiting to go off in a future case,” he said.
Thomas said the Pennsylvania cases “provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority non-legislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle.”
“The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”
He said there’s little dispute about the facts:
The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the ‘Manner’ of federal elections. … Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various states took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future.
China’s Plan to Control the Internet
Chinese leader Xi Jinping personally directed the communist regime to focus its efforts to control the global internet, displacing the influential role of the United States, according to internal government documents recently obtained by The Epoch Times.
In a January 2017 speech, Xi said the “power to control the internet” had become the “new focal point of [China’s] national strategic contest,” and singled out the United States as a “rival force” standing in the way of the regime’s ambitions.
The ultimate goal was for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to control all content on the global internet, so the regime could wield what Xi described as “discourse power” over communications and discussions on the world stage.
Xi articulated a vision of “using technology to rule the internet” to achieve total control over every part of the online ecosystem—over applications, content, quality, capital, and manpower.
His remarks were made at the fourth leadership meeting of the regime’s top internet regulator, the Central Cyberspace Affairs Commission, in Beijing on Jan. 4, 2017, and detailed in internal documents issued by the Liaoning Provincial Government in China’s southeast.
The statements confirm efforts made by Beijing in the past few years to promote its own authoritarian version of the internet as a model for the world.
In another speech given in April 2016, detailed in an internal document by the Anshan City Government in Liaoning Province, Xi confidently proclaimed that in the “struggle” to control the internet, the CCP has transformed from playing “passive defense” to playing both “attack and defense” at the same time.
Having successfully built the world’s most sprawling and sophisticated online censorship and surveillance apparatus, known as the Great Firewall, the CCP under Xi is turning outwards, championing a Chinese internet whose values run counter to the open model advocated by the West. Rather than prioritizing the free flow of information, the CCP’s system centers on giving the state the ability to censor, spy on, and control internet data.
Countering the US
The Chinese leader acknowledged the regime lagged behind its rival the United States—the dominant player in this field—in key areas such as technology, investments, and talent.
To realize its ambitions, Xi emphasized the need to “manage internet relations with the United States,” while “making preparations for fighting a hard war” with the country in this area.
American companies should be used by the regime to reach its goal, Xi said, without elaborating on how this would be done.
He also directed the regime to increase its cooperation with Europe, developing countries, and member states of Beijing’s “Belt and Road Initiative,” to form a “strategic counterbalance” against the United States.
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a massive infrastructure investment project launched by Beijing to connect Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East through a network of rail, sea, and road linkages. The plan has been criticized by the United States and other Western countries as a conduit for Beijing to increase its political and commercial interests in member states while saddling developing countries with heavy debt burdens.
The BRI has also pushed countries to sign up to “digital silk road” projects—those involving information and communications technology infrastructure. At least 16 countries have signed memoranda of understanding with the regime to work in this area.
Three-pronged Strategy
Xi ordered the regime to focus on three “critical” areas in its pursuit of controlling the global internet.
First, Beijing needs to be able to “set the rules” governing the international system. Second, it should install CCP surrogates in important positions in global internet organizations. Third, the regime should gain control over the infrastructure that underlies the internet, such as root servers, Xi said.
Domain Name System (DNS) root servers are key to internet communications around the world. It directs users to websites they intend to visit. There are more than 1,300 root servers in the world, about 20 of which are located in China while the United States has about 10 times that, according to the website root-servers.org.
If the Chinese regime were to gain control over more root servers, they could then redirect traffic to wherever they want, Gary Miliefsky, cybersecurity expert and publisher of Cyber Defense Magazine, told The Epoch Times. For example, if a user wants to go to a news article about a topic deemed sensitive by Beijing, then the regime’s DNS server could route the user to a fake page saying the article is no longer online.
“The minute you control the root, you can spoof or fake anything,” he said. “You can control what people see, what people don’t see.”
In recent years, the regime has made headway in advancing Xi’s strategy.
In 2019, Chinese telecom giant Huawei first proposed the idea for an entirely new internet, called New IP (internet protocol), to replace the half-century-old infrastructure underpinning the web. New IP is touted to be faster, more efficient, flexible, and secure than the current internet, and will be built by the Chinese.
While New IP may indeed bring about an improved global network, Miliefsky said, “the price for that is freedom.”
“There’s going to be no free speech. And there’s going to be eavesdropping in real-time, all the time, on everyone,” he said. “Everyone who joins it is going to be eavesdropped by a single government.”
The proposal was made at a September 2019 meeting held at the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), a U.N. agency responsible for setting standards for computing and communications issues that is currently headed by Chinese national Zhao Houlin. New IP is set to be formally debated at the ITU World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly to be held in March 2022.
Miliefsky said the plan is unlikely to gain widespread support among countries, but may be adopted by like-minded authoritarian states such as North Korea, and later by countries that signed onto BRI and are struggling to repay its loans to China.
This would accelerate a bifurcation of the internet, what analysts such as former Google CEO Eric Schmidt have dubbed the “splinternet,” Miliefsky said. “The communist net and the rest of the world.”
The Epoch Times has reached out to Huawei for comment.
Please click button above to donate and support:
Stand Up America US Foundation
If you wish to donate to our fund by sending a check, please mail your donation to:
S.U.A.Stand Up America US Foundation
PO Box 1596
Bigfork, MT 59911
Thank you for Supporting Our Troops — God Bless.
We are a 501 C (4) not for profit, non partisan organization.
Red Nation Rising
