Copenhagen: Global Population Control Program Suggested To Stop Climate Change

Communist Chinese delegates cite concept as key to saving the planet

Steve Watson,
Infowars.net
Thursday, Dec 10, 2009

The Chinese government delegation at the Copenhagen climate change conference has argued that the Communist dictatorship's one child policy should "serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation."

Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) population program told other delegates at the summit that China "has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society" by instituting population control.

"Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture," said Zhao.

The Chinese delegate also cited the UN's own 2009 State of World Population report, which suggests that if the global population remains at 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of increasing to just over 9 billion, as projected, "it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions".

As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao bragged.

She also suggested that financing family planning is the most cost effective way of reducing climate change in comparison to clean technologies and reduced deforestation.

"Some 85 percent of the Chinese women in reproductive age use contraceptives, the highest rate in the world. This has been achieved largely through education and improvement of people's lives," Zhao said.

Not forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization then? No no no, just good old fashioned "education" has ensured success for China's one child policy.

Of course, the fact that somewhere in the region of twenty-five million men in China are unable to find brides because so many girls are murdered shortly after birth was somewhat glossed over by the Chinese delegate:

"I'm not saying that what we have done is 100 percent right, but I'm sure we are going in the right direction and now 1.3 billion people have benefited," she said.

The explosion in the illegal sex trade in Asia as a direct result of the shortage of women is also, presumably, another benefit, as is the fact that China now has a vastly imbalanced population in terms of age.

Suggestions that China's population control should be integrated globally are insipid, patently ludicrous and downright insulting you may cry. However, not so according to our leaders, who seemingly adore the prospect.

Forced abortions, mass sterilization and a“Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death were all core concepts put forth by John P. Holdren, the man now in control of science policy in the United States, in his co-authored 1977 book, Ecoscience.

In fact, Holdren's ideas pre-date the inception of China's one child policy by two years.

In the United Kingdom, top government aides have lauded China's method of population control, ignoring the fact that it has been the primary source of the most human rights abuses of any government policy on the planet.

Two days ago, a national newspaper in Canada implored the delegates at Copenhagen to implement a global program of population control in the guise of the Chinese.

It is no surprise that China's population genocide is being tolerated at the UN led Copenhagen summit, given that The United Nations Population Fund directly supports the Communist State's policy.

In 2002 Secretary of State Colin Powell stated in a letter to Congress:

"Regrettably, the People's Republic of China has in place a regime of severe penalties on women who have unapproved births. This regime plainly operates to coerce pregnant women to have abortions in order to avoid the penalties and therefore amounts to a ‘program of coercive abortion.’ Regardless of the modest size of UNFPA’s budget in China or any benefits its programs provide, UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion.”

Yet The UNPFA seem to think this is a great thing:

"China has had the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind in terms of quantity and with that, China has done mankind a favour," United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) representative Sven Burmester said last week. —10/11/99 Agence France-Presse

Under the Reagan Administration legislation sponsored by then-Rep. Jack Kemp (NY) and then-Sen. Bob Kasten (WI) ensured funding to the UNPFA was cut off for these very reasons. Yet is was no surprise when In 1993, the Clinton Administration dramatically revised the official interpretation of the “Kemp-Kasten amendment” in order to facilitate U.S. funding of UNFPA, thus making available $14.5 million.

In May 2003, the House Committee on International Relations narrowly adopted an an amendment by Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-NY) revoking the ban on such participation with the UNPFA. The amendment earmarked $100 million for UNFPA over the next two years.

All this is being disturbingly tied in to the climate change debate by hijackers of the environmental movement who have spuriously associated fears over global warming with over-population, suggesting that the solution is to implement depopulation policies and punishments for those who flout them.

The connection is an appealing one to advocates of the anthropological global warming theory because, if you believe humans are to blame for dangerous alterations in the climate, eventually the conclusion of less humans = less warming is reached.

However, there is a fundamental flaw in associating climate change with overpopulation.

Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth's population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. "The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050," states a United Nations report. The UN's support for depopulation policies is in direct contradiction to their own findings.

Once a country industrializes there is an average of a 1.6 child rate per household, so the western world population is actually in decline. That trend has also been witnessed in areas of Asia like Japan and South Korea. The UN has stated that the population will peak at 9 billion and then begin declining.

In addition, as highlighted by the Economist recently, global fertility rates are falling.

Since radical environmentalists are pushing to de-industrialize the world in the face of the so called carbon threat, this will reverse the trend that naturally lowers the amount of children people have. If climate change fanatics are allowed to implement their policies, global population will continue to increase and overpopulation may become a real problem – another example of how the global warming hysterics are actually harming the long term environment of the earth by preventing overpopulated countries from developing and naturally lowering their birth levels.

Even if you play devils advocate and accept that humans do cause catastrophic warming and there are too many of us, and if you can skip past the Nazi eugenics connotations of population control and depopulation policies, those methods are fundamentally still not a valid solution to the perceived climate change threat.

The real solution would be to pour funds into increasing the standards of living of the cripplingly poor third world, allowing those countries to industrialize, and seeing the population figures naturally level out.

Instead, the third world has seen a doubling in food prices owing to climate change policies such as turning over huge areas of agricultural land to the growth of biofuels.

In addition, the leaked Copenhagen text that emerged earlier this week highlighted the fact that developed nations are planning to take on less of a burden than anticipated and that more would be demanded of poorer countries despite the fact that any further cuts in CO2 emissions will further cripple their flimsy economies and poverty-stricken people.

The draft agreement would allow people in developed countries to emit twice as much carbon per head than those in poorer countries, who have not caused the rise in emissions said to be threatening our existence on the planet. The revelations have led third world leaders to accuse the developed world of “climate colonialism”.

Another revelation from the summit reveals that under a plan tabled by Britain, money earmarked for education or health in poorer countries would be diverted into projects such as solar panels and wind farms, again diverting much needed aid away from efforts to increase the standard of living.

Linking environmental policy to depopulation agendas opens the door to eugenics and it is no surprise that through that door have come pouring hordes of elitist filth just begging to be on the front line of the extermination policy.

One example is UK-based public policy group The Optimum Population Trust (OPT), which has launched a new initiative urging wealthy members of the developed world to participate in carbon offsets that fund programs for curbing the population of developing nations.

In 2007, the group also published a report announcing that children are 'bad for planet and 'having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags.

The same talking point has been re-iterated again and again by public policy groups and environmentalists, as well as the most influential scientists in the US government.

While you may think ideas of sterilization and depopulation could never be accepted by the public, those very concepts are now being embraced and popularized by some as the way forward for humanity.

The reality is that the summit in Copenhagen and it's attendees are providing a platform, and in some cases actively pushing for a policy enforced by a dictatorship that actively hunts down mothers who become pregnant with their second child, abducts them off the street and takes them to government controlled hospitals where they are drugged and their baby is killed - all in the name of saving the planet.

Alex Jones' Films Endgame and Fall Of The Republic address the hijacking of the environmental movement by elite social Darwinists in more detail.

Furious Reaction To Sick Editorial Calling For Global One Child Dictatorship

Francis advocates brutal regime that kidnaps, drugs women, and carries out forced abortions in China

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, December 11, 2009

An article featured in Canada’s Financial Post newspaper calling for China’s draconian one child policy, where woman are kidnapped off the streets, drugged, and forced to undergo compulsory abortions, to be imposed worldwide has been met with widespread hostile reaction, yet such measures are being debated at the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen.

In her editorial published on Tuesday, columnist Diane Francis wrote that, “A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate.”

Just days later, the Chinese government delegation at the Copenhagen climate change conference argued that the Communist dictatorship’s one child policy should “serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation.”

As we have exhaustively documented, the overpopulation myth is often cited by control freak phony environmentalists as a justification for the implementation of drastic policies, yet it has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Due to falling fertility rates globally, humans will soon stop replacing themselves and population numbers will naturally fall.

Populations in developed countries are declining, only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth’s population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. “The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050,” states a United Nations report. The UN’s support for depopulation policies is in direct contradiction to their own findings.

Once a country industrializes, there is an average of a 1.6 child rate per household, so the western world population is actually in decline. That trend has also been witnessed in areas of Asia like Japan and South Korea. The UN has stated that global population will peak at 9 billion and then begin declining.

Since radical environmentalists are pushing to de-industrialize the world in the face of the so called CO2 threat, this will reverse the trend that naturally lowers the amount of children people have. If climate change fanatics are allowed to implement their policies, global population will continue to increase and overpopulation may become a real problem – another example of how the global warming hysterics are actually harming the long term environment of the earth by preventing overpopulated countries from developing and naturally lowering their birth levels.

As is the norm with these so-called “liberals” who espouse modern-day eugenics, what they are advocating are the most illiberal, inhumane and barbarous policies imaginable – a Hitlerian final solution in the name of saving Mother Earth.

We need to call out these people for what they are – would-be mass murderers who are advocating arcane and brutal programs of global eugenics that have no place in the 21st century.

Francis’ poorly written diatribe is not only absent of facts, it is shockingly devoid of any notion of compassion or humanity for what a global implementation of China’s one child policy will entail.

China’s one child policy is enforced by way of forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization.

Somewhere in the region of twenty-five million men in China are unable to find brides because so many girls are murdered shortly after birth. The explosion in the illegal sex trade in Asia is also a direct result of the shortage of women.

In many cases, women are literally kidnapped off the street by state goons from the “Birth Control Office,” driven to government hospitals, drugged, and their child is forcibly aborted.

In one case earlier this year, both a young woman and her baby were killed after such an abduction in Liaocheng City.

“According to a Doctor at the hospital where the two died, the young woman was kidnapped by the “Birth Control Office” and taken to the hospital where she was forced to undergo an abortion procedure,” reported the Epoch Times.

“The young woman fought with staff to protect her unborn child however a half a dozen men, pushed her down on a bed and injected her with a drug to induce labor. After the young woman had a still birth, she developed a massive hemorrhage and soon thereafter died.”

This is the kind of tyrannical regime Francis is calling to be introduced worldwide.

Policies introduced in the name of cutting CO2 emissions are already killing millions of people in the third world. The implementation of policies arising out of fraudulent fearmongering and biased studies on global warming is already devastating the third world, with a doubling in food prices as a result of the introduction of biofuels causing mass starvation and death.

If Diane Francis is so keen on getting rid of stupid people that breed too much, then maybe she should step forward as the first candidate. As with all these control freaks, people like Ted Turner who calls for a 95% population reduction yet has five children and is the largest land owner in North America with some 2 million acres, they are utter hypocrites – do as I say not as I do. Francis herself has two children, according to her Wikipedia biography – one more than what she says the rest of the world should be allowed to have by decree of the dictatorial system of government she is proposing.

On the positive side, the reaction to Francis’ editorial has been vehement, furious and hostile to the kind of authoritarian hell she is pushing. Comments in response to her article were almost universally in opposition, as were callers to radio shows that she subsequently appeared on.

A selection of responses to Francis’ disgusting diatribe are reprinted below.

“Diane Francis was on a talk radio show the same morning this article was published. NOBODY agreed with her. I mean nobody at all. People can see through this Eugenics bullshit. The walls are closing in on the elite scum of the earth.”

“You make me ashamed of living in Canada. If you’re a first-born, it’s too bad your mother had you and if you’re not, she should have started with you. You are a heartless, dirty woman and shame on you. Ask the Chinese people who fled their country and came to Canada and the U.S. exactly why they’re here. Hang your head in shame.”

“That this Malthusian junk science is still proposed from time to time speaks of the fact that some in academia just refuse to learn from empirical evidence. And now it’s slipped into journalism. The management of the Financial Post should be quite embarrassed. I’ll just stick to the WSJ and not bother coming back here again. An editorial board that thinks that this is worthy of publication couldn’t possibly know how to edit a newspaper / website.”

“I am currently reading “War and Genocide” by Bergen and it strikes me that these horrible Nazi ideas keep coming back.With Nazism it was a “scientific” eugenics that led to forced abortions, sterilizations, heavy fines, etc. for some who dared procreate. For Francis, it is a “scientific” environmentalism that will lead to the exact same evils for all (except, of course, herself).”

“It’s hard to believe that this opinionated rant is called journalism. I saw no evidence of journalistic balance, fairness, and objectivity. She made NO mention of the grave problems caused by the One-Child Policy in China, including: forced sterilizations and abortions, heavy fines, disparate sex ratio, infanticide of females, increase in mental health problems (including Chinese women’s suicide rates)…”

“This reporter is a complete nut job. I can’t believe anyone in a North American country would actually believe this is a legitimate idea. And by the way, China’s policy has had major consequences. many girl babies were aborted and killed, and due to the scarcity of Chinese women, Chinese men are paying through the nose to obtain brides. Therefore, lives are unfulfilled, and the Chinese population decreases much further than they even desired.”

“And so one must wonder, what kind of journalism does this article or “column” represent? Which of her children would Diane Francis give up in order to live up to her death rhetoric? One might also ask, what kind of a self-professed do-gooder wants to have power over others in order to “help” them? Who, after all, are these elites who keep telling us that we need to be better controlled, “for our own good, you see”?”

IN THE NICK OF TIME OR TOO LATE?

by
Michael C. Ruppert
April 22, 2009, 7:30 PM PDT --

From The Wilderness' Peak Oil Blog

Even as the great corporate citizen Ali Velshi of CNN spews nonsense about a possible, imminent recovery; a new wave of foreclosures -- which FORBES attributes to a crumbling economy (No shit!) -- is about to make the first one look like a picnic. Nissan, Toyota and Honda are about to report losses. Japan is contemplating revising its GDP estimate downward to a negative 3%. Deflation is erupting in Europe... And poor Britain -- which is getting hammered at every turn -- has just reported the first drop in retail prices on High Street since 1960. (The death of snobbery. They actually had to lower the prices!)... Next year each Brit will pay an additional five thousand pounds in taxes while the government is about to begin en masse layoffs of civil servants. I am no fan of kings and princes. It's not the Royals I care about. There is too much Tom Paine in me. But I have this huge soft spot for the UK in my heart. In WWII my father was stationed in Bassingbourne with the 324th Squadron of the 91st Bomb Group (Heavy). He was a gunner and gunnery instructor in B17s. He was a hero. After emailing ahead I visited Bassingbourne in early May of 2005 and half the town turned out in authentic WWII U.S. and British regalia to welcome me. They had Tommy guns and heavy trucks, all spit shined and totally authentic. We occupied a pub where I had roast beef and Yorkshire pudding.

The WSJ is making a deal saying that China might actually be able to achieve 8% growth this year. Yeah right... The whole world is counting on China to grow and the dinos on Wall Street believe that China will then be able to buy more of our our debt.... Excuse me but if China were to achieve 8% growth in the face of Peak Oil the effects will be absolutely brutal here. With an aggregate global decline rate I estimate at between 7-9%, China's going to get all the oil it needs so it can grow and buy and lend to the rest of the world which is going to drop America like a hot rock. Oil prices will spike madly if the Chinese growth engine hits afterburner. A bad sign is that Chinese demand for new cars is up. But I'm not counting on China holding it together much longer. Maybe China and Ali Velshi are talking to each other... In either scenario we still have certain collapse.

Things are catching up here at home. As I predicted, GM is going under. A Chapter 11 filing will probably wipe out all of GMs dealers. According to U.S.A. Today the filing will instantly freeze GMs payments/reimbursements to dealers for already performed warranty repairs. By now that means shut-down time because there won't be any money to make payroll. And there's no money to lend to dealers while the FDIC is nearly insolvent as the list of "problem institutions" mushrooms. Chrysler looks to be pretty close behind.

No time to be shy now... Here's what's coming over -- I would estimate -- the next two years: FDIC insolvency; Treasury default, the dumping of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency (I started predicting that in maybe 2002); hyperinflation; bankruptcy of the Federal Reserve; and collapse of the United States government as we know it. Federal Reserve notes are legal tender for all debts public and private. What does it mean if the privately-owned Fed goes bankrupt? Our map doesn't see that territory yet. -- Oh yes, and a new strain of swine flu has been discovered in humans in San Diego... And farmers are committing mass suicide in India and Africa because they can't pay the loans they used to grow their crops or they are being undercut by large corporations. I suspect that inflation is much more contagious than deflation. I don;t know how hard that stage will hit here. But deflation in any industrialized nation is like blood in the water. CoLLapse will looking like a feeding frenzy as the carcasses get stripped.

The good news: Las Vegas is decaying like the corpse it is. Last night I watched a Dan Rather special on how bad things are there. Ugly! And yet the Mayor was insisting that the answer was to build more and bigger hotels to bring the people back... I call that the Easter Island syndrome. If anything symbolizes the worst of the old paradigm it's Las Vegas. It has to die so that others around the country will start to grasp that what is happening here is not just a bump in the road.

I wrote a pretty good book and was the subject of what I suspect is going to be a pretty good movie: CoLLapse that can soften the end result of all this. I haven't seen any of the movie yet. But was all this work by so many people in the nick of time or too late? I am beginning to think we'll look back and say the former.

We'll start to find out on May 1st. The sales numbers will tell us everything as we watch them build over time. If we're strong out of the gate we have a huge advantage.

Hang tough and find something to hug.

MCR

New Military Command to Focus on Cybersecurity

Wall Street Journal

By SIOBHAN GORMAN and YOCHI J. DREAZEN

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration plans to create a new military command to coordinate the defense of Pentagon computer networks and improve U.S. offensive capabilities in cyberwarfare, according to current and former officials familiar with the plans.

The initiative will reshape the military's efforts to protect its networks from attacks by hackers, especially those from countries such as China and Russia. The new command will be unveiled within the next few weeks, Pentagon officials said.

The move comes amid growing evidence that sophisticated cyberspies are attacking the U.S. electric grid and key defense programs. A page-one story in The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday reported that hackers breached the Pentagon's biggest weapons program, the $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter, and stole data. Lawmakers on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee wrote to the defense secretary Tuesday requesting a briefing on the matter.

Lockheed Martin Corp., the project's lead contractor, said in a statement Tuesday that it believed the article "was incorrect in its representation of successful cyber attacks" on the F-35 program. "To our knowledge, there has never been any classified information breach," the statement said. The Journal story didn't say the stolen information was classified.

President Barack Obama, when he was a candidate for the White House, pledged to elevate cybersecurity as a national-security issue, equating it in significance with nuclear and biological weapons. A White House team reviewing cybersecurity policy has completed its recommendations, including the creation of a top White House cyberpolicy official. Details of that and other proposals are still under debate. A final decision from the president is expected soon.

A draft of the White House review steps gingerly around the question of how to improve computer security in the private sector, especially key infrastructure such as telecommunications and the electricity grid. The document stresses the importance of working with the private sector and civil-liberties groups to craft a solution, but doesn't call for a specific government role, according to a person familiar with the draft.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to announce the creation of a new military "cyber command" after the rollout of the White House review, according to military officials familiar with the plan.

The Pentagon has several command organizations structured according to both geography and operational responsibility. Central Command, for example, oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the Special Operations Command is responsible for operations involving elite operatives such as Navy Seals.

View Full Image

Associated Press

Defense Secretary Robert Gates plans to announce the creation of a new military 'cyber command' after the rollout of a White House review.

The cyber command is likely to be led by a military official of four-star rank, according to officials familiar with the proposal. It would, at least initially, be part of the Pentagon's Strategic Command, which is currently responsible for computer-network security and other missions.

Pentagon officials said the front-runner to lead the new command is National Security Agency Director Keith Alexander, a three-star Army general. In a rare public appearance Tuesday at a cybersecurity conference in San Francisco, Gen. Alexander called for a "team" approach to cybersecurity that would give the NSA lead responsibility for protecting military and intelligence networks while the Department of Homeland Security worked to protect other government networks. His spokeswoman said he had no additional comment.

Former President George W. Bush's top intelligence adviser, Mike McConnell, first proposed the creation of a unified cyber command last fall. The military's cybersecurity efforts are currently divided between entities like the NSA and the Defense Information Systems Agency, which is responsible for ensuring secure and reliable communications for the military. The Air Force also runs a significant cybersecurity effort.

Advocates believe the new command will be able to avoid duplication and better leverage the technical expertise of the agencies and the military services' cyberwarriors.

Cyber defense is the Department of Homeland Security's responsibility, so the command would be charged with assisting that department's defense efforts. The relationship would be similar to the way Northern Command supports Homeland Security with rescue capabilities in natural disasters. The NSA, where much of the government's cybersecurity expertise is housed, established a similar relationship with Homeland Security through a cybersecurity initiative that the Bush administration began in its final year.

NSA's increasingly muscular role in domestic cybersecurity has raised alarms among some officials and on Capitol Hill. Rod Beckstrom, former chief of the National Cyber Security Center, which is charged with coordinating cybersecurity activities across the U.S. government, resigned last month after warning that the growing reliance on the NSA was a "bad strategy" that posed "threats to our democratic processes."

Gen. Alexander countered in his speech Tuesday that the NSA did "not want to run cybersecurity for the U.S. government."

—August Cole contributed to this article.

Fingers point towards US on economic crisis as Chinese, Russian leaders speak

Nick Cargo
Published: Wednesday January 28, 2009

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin of Russia and Premier Wen Jiabao of China had strong words for certain entities over the state of the global financial system at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on Wednesday.

Recent financial conditions are attributed by Wen, in his statement, to "inappropriate macroeconomic policies of some economies and their unsustainable model of development characterized by prolonged low savings and high consumption; excessive expansion of financial institutions in blind pursuit of profit; lack of self-discipline among financial institutions and rating agencies and the ensuing distortion of risk information and asset pricing; and the failure of financial supervision and regulation to keep up with financial innovations."

"In other words," he continued, "we must strike a balance between savings and consumption, between financial innovation and regulation, and between the financial sector and real economy.

"The current crisis has inflicted a rather big impact on China's economy. We are facing severe challenges, including notably shrinking external demand, overcapacity in some sectors, difficult business conditions for enterprises, rising unemployment in urban areas and greater downward pressure on economic growth."

Putin called out the United States directly in his speech, calling the current economic state a "perfect storm." "I just want to remind you that, just a year ago, American delegates speaking from this rostrum emphasised the US economy's fundamental stability and its cloudless prospects," he said. "Today, investment banks, the pride of Wall Street, have virtually ceased to exist. In just 12 months, they have posted losses exceeding the profits they made in the last 25 years. This example alone reflects the real situation better than any criticism."

"Excessive dependence on a single reserve currency is dangerous for the global economy," Putin said, calling for multiple reserve currencies in addition to the dollar.

"The time for enlightenment has come," he went on. "We must calmly, and without gloating, assess the root causes of this situation and try to peek into the future." 

The failure to "duly heed tremendous risks" and "substandard regulation" are among the causes Putin cited, along with "colossal" disproportions between "the scale of financial operations and the fundamental value of assets."

"The entire economic growth system, where one regional centre prints money without respite and consumes material wealth, while another regional centre manufactures inexpensive goods and saves money printed by other governments, has suffered a major setback," Putin added. "A considerable share of the world's population still cannot afford comfortable housing, education and quality health care. Even a global recovery posted in the last few years has failed to radically change this situation."

(original article)

Pakistan, China agree to boost military ties

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan and China on Monday signed an agreement for military co-operation with a view to taking their bilateral military ties to new heights.

The accord was signed in Beijing by Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Chairman General Tariq Majid and Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Chief of General Staff Chen Bingde at the conclusion of the sixth round of the Pakistan-China defence and security talks. The two sides also exchanged views on the international security situation and issues concerning bilateral and military relations.

While reviewing the growth of China-Pakistan relations over the past 57 years, the two leaders expressed satisfaction that the friendship between the two countries had withstood the test of time and matured into a comprehensive partnership. They also resolved to co-operate with each other to fight terrorism. Majid said Pakistan cherished the traditional friendship and co-operation with China and was ready to make concerted efforts with the PLA to strengthen military ties. Chen said China attached great importance to its relations with Pakistan and would work with it to further develop bilateral military relations.

He spoke highly of China-Pakistan military relations and said the two sides had witnessed close long-term military co-operation in accordance with the strong bilateral relationship. The first China-Pakistan defence and security talks were held in March 2002.

RAND Lobbies Pentagon: Start War To Save U.S. Economy

EXCLUSIVE: Shocking proposal urges military leaders to attack major foreign power

Paul Joseph Watson & Yihan Dai

Prison Planet.com

Thursday, October 30, 2008

According to reports out of top Chinese mainstream news outlets, the RAND Corporation recently presented a shocking proposal to the Pentagon in which it lobbied for a war to be started with a major foreign power in an attempt to stimulate the American economy and prevent a recession.

A fierce debate has now ensued in China about who that foreign power may be, with China itself as well as Russia and even Japan suspected to be the targets of aggression.

The reports cite French media news sources as having uncovered the proposal, in which RAND suggested that the $700 billion dollars that has been earmarked to bailout Wall Street and failing banks instead be used to finance a new war which would in turn re-invigorate the flagging stock markets.

The RAND Corporation is a notoriously powerful NGO with deep ties to the U.S. military-industrial complex as well as interlocking connections with the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations.

Current directors of RAND include Frank Charles Carlucci III, former Defense Secretary and Deputy Director of the CIA, Ronald L. Olson, Council on Foreign Relations luminary and former Secretary of Labor, and Carl Bildt, top Bilderberg member and former Swedish Prime Minister.
Carlucci was chairman of the Carlyle Group from 1989-2005 and oversaw gargantuan profits the defense contractor made in the aftermath of 9/11 following the invasion of Afghanistan. The Carlyle Group has also received investment money from the Bin Laden family.

Reportedly, the RAND proposal brazenly urged that a new war could be launched to benefit the economy, but stressed that the target country would have to be a major influential power, and not a smaller country on the scale of Afghanistan or Iraq.

The reports have prompted a surge of public debate and tension in China about the possibility that a new global conflict is on the horizon.

China’s biggest media outlet, Sohu.com, speculated that the target of the new war would probably be China or Russia, but that it could also be Iran or another middle eastern country. Japan was also mentioned as a potential target for the reason that Japan holds the most U.S. debt.

North Korea was considered as a target but ruled out because the scale of such a war would not be large enough for RAND’s requirements.

The reported RAND proposal dovetails with recent comments made by Joe Biden, Colin Powell, Madeleine Albright and others, concerning the “guarantee” that Barack Obama will face a major “international crisis” soon after taking office.

It also arrives following a warning from Michael Bayer, chairman of a key Pentagon advisory panel, who echoed the statement that the next administration will face an international crisis within months of taking office.

One would hope that good people, or at least sane people who don’t wish to start a global nuclear war, will oppose the RAND proposal, such as top the military generals who threatened to quit if Bush ordered an attack on Iran. Admiral William Fallon, the head of US Central Command, quit in March last year as a result of his opposition to Bush administration policy on Iran.
Translations from Chinese provided by Yihan Dai.

SOURCES
Sohu.com - http://news.sohu.com/20081030/n260330741.shtml
Ifeng.com - http://news.ifeng.com/mil/4/200810/1029_342_851523.shtml

Rough computer translation of Sohu.com article. Accurate translation of full article provided by native Chinese speaker Yihan Dai.