According to the November 25 Foreign Policy website, the Pentagon issued a statement the same day removing 11 prominent advisers to the Defense Policy Board, including former Secretaries of State Kissinger and Albright, retired Navy Admiral Roughead, Obama’s Secretary of Naval Operations, former Pentagon Chief Operating Officer Rudy De Leon, former senior member of the House Intelligence Committee, and former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. Commissioner Jane Harman, former U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury McCormick in the Bush administration, former senior Defense Department official Franklin Miller, and Deputy Attorney General Jamie in the Clinton administration.
While Acting Defense Secretary Miller politely thanked them for their contributions, it is clear from the background of these advisors who were removed that this is another move by Trump to clear the Washington swamp at the Department of Defense after firing former Secretary of Defense Esper and other senior DoD officials.
According to the data, the Defense Policy Board (DPB) is a federal advisory board to the U.S. Department of Defense that typically includes former military generals, secretaries of state, members of Congress, and other senior diplomats and foreign policy experts. Independent, broad-based advice and opinions on major matters in the public interest. It focuses on long-term, enduring issues that are central to DoD strategic planning and will be responsible for research and analysis of long- or short-term themes on the subject by the Secretary of Defense, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Defense.”
In years gone by, the Defense Policy Board was primarily a way for the Pentagon to consult with non-military experts. However, it had a tremendous impact on U.S. foreign policy during the presidency of George W. Bush, as when its former chairman, Richard Perle, influenced decisions on the Iraq War and Jack Keane was instrumental in increasing combat troops in Iraq in 2007.
Undoubtedly, these deposed advisors, represented by Nixon’s Secretary of State Kissinger, were predominantly “embracing” the CCP in their policies toward the country, which is consistent with Trump’s adjusted national security strategy of viewing the CCP as a “primary adversary” with a hard-line, “first enemy” approach. Policies are at odds. Although it is impossible to determine the extent of their influence on U.S. foreign policymaking toward the CCP, it is indisputable that the United States, from Clinton to Obama’s presidency, allowed the CCP to grow militarily and economically, to steal advanced U.S. technology, and to infiltrate the United States on all fronts. The role of Kissinger and others in this process cannot be underestimated.
As the only foreign dignitary to be received by four generations of Chinese Communist Party leaders, Kissinger visited China more than seventy times since 1971, including fifty official and twenty private visits, mostly of a commercial nature, to serve his many clients who had business dealings with China. His consulting firm, named after him in 1982, has helped 90 percent of his European and American clients develop business in China, and has helped companies connect with government officials and national leaders in China, for which the utilitarian Kissinger has been caricatured as a “transnational powerbroker.
The reason why Kissinger is appreciated by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leaders and is able to operate freely in the mainland Chinese market is that he has provided practical help to the CCP, such as facilitating Nixon’s visit to China and the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the United States, thus saving the CCP from difficulties; helping the CCP to introduce foreign capital and technology after the reform and opening-up; and lobbying for the CCP government in the United States, including the June Fourth Incident in 1989. “After the massacre, Kissinger and others secretly worked to persuade the U.S. government to lift sanctions; under the guise of the “U.S.-China Relations Association,” they formed a large lobbying group in Washington, D.C., to defend the Chinese Communist Party on trade and human rights, and to influence relevant resolutions in Congress.
In his 2011 book On China, Kissinger downplayed the totalitarian rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the mass deaths caused by the Mao era, and even defended the CCP government against the June 4 massacre of students and citizens in Tiananmen Square by Communist troops.
The Albright Group, founded by Clinton Secretary of State Albright, and Stone Bridge International, founded by Clinton Assistant for National Security Affairs Samuel Berger, formed the Albright Stone Bridge Group, of which Albright is chairman, to assist clients in developing and implementing business strategies in China. Similar in nature. And would the group have been able to successfully do business in mainland China without the collusion with the Chinese authorities? Albright’s several visits to China and meetings with senior Chinese officials do not appear to have been simple.
The presence of such Kissinger, Albright, and other senior U.S. officials who have colluded with the CCP, both in the Defense Policy Board and in other government departments, is a testament to the depth of the CCP’s penetration of U.S. politics. After Trump took office, they continued to make the same arguments in hopes of influencing his policies toward the CCP, but Kissinger and others realized that they could not intervene in the decision-making circles of the Trump administration, and they saw that the U.S.-China relationship was undergoing dramatic changes. Therefore, Kissinger and other “pro-communists” have prescribed to the CCP that it should “move beyond the old system” and “change its own policies, such as lowering tariffs, lowering non-tariff barriers, or creating a level playing field, regulating the Chinese economy,” and so on. More transparency, more openness to the outside world in practice.
However, they were disappointed after all, because instead of accepting their prescriptions, the Beijing regime repeatedly teased the United States during trade negotiations, repeatedly demonstrated its evil, and even deliberately spread the virus to the United States, interfering in the U.S. election and showing more Americans the true face of the CCP. The Kissingers, who had once benefited greatly from the CCP, also had to continue to use it for the CCP as much as they could, such as publicly supporting Beijing-backed Biden and belittling Trump. Albright, for example, criticized Trump in 2018 for flouting international rules, violating U.S. justice, condoning police brutality, and denigrating federal law enforcement agencies, which is also the CCP’s argument.
Against the backdrop that Trump will be able to get rid of a number of constraints during his first term, gain a firm foothold, gain a large amount of public support, and win re-election, Trump, who has recognized that the Chinese Communist Party is colluding with the deep-rooted U.S. government, sabotaging the election, and burying U.S. democracy, should now destroy the Chinese Communist Party as his first task externally, and internally, while launching a lawsuit against the election fraud, rectify Washington’s bureaucratic operations and completely change the political ecology in Washington, namely “Draining the swamp”. Trump’s recent firing of several senior government officials is a concrete action.
Now it is the turn of the advisors of the US Defense Policy Board who have either a deep government background or are in collusion with the Chinese Communist Party. The first is to “declare war” on the Deep State and the Chinese Communist Party to show that he will not compromise. The second is to ensure that the members carry out Trump’s orders by reorganizing and purging the Department of Defense and its related agencies, while preventing the removed advisers from obtaining military secrets and interfering with Trump’s future actions. Does Beijing’s Zhongnanhai sense the end in sight for Trump’s determination and actions?
Recent Comments