Print

China’s Foreign Ministry Responds to Hostile US Actions and Rhetoric
By Stephen Lendman
Global Research, October 28, 2020

Url of this article:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/china-foreign-ministry-responds-hostile-us-actions-rhetoric/5727844

US war on China by other means risks direct confrontation between two superpowers if things are pushed too far — what’s been happening since before Trump took office.

On Tuesday, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin addressed unacceptable US regional actions, notably its escalating hostile policies toward Beijing.

In response to newly announced US arms sales to Taiwan — the island state considered a breakaway province by Beijing to be reunited with the mainland — Wang denounced them, saying:

“US arms sales to the Taiwan region severely violate the one-China principle and the three China-US joint communiques…seriously undermine China’s sovereignty and security interests…”

They “send out wrong signals to ‘Taiwan independence’ separatist forces, and gravely undermine China-US relations and peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.”

Calls by Wang and other Chinese officials for the Trump regime to cancel the sales fell on deaf ears in Washington.

Worsening bilateral relations are likely to continue in the wrong direction next year if Biden/Harris succeed Trump.

Wang responded to his UN envoy’s hostile to China New York Post op-ed.

Last week, Kelly Kraft falsely called Beijing “the biggest threat to (the) integrity and effectiveness” of the UN.

Reinventing reality, while ignoring US war on humanity worldwide, she falsely accused China of “increasingly aggressive efforts to manipulate UN agencies to whitewash its bad behavior, silence criticism and advance authoritarian government.”

It’s how the US operates against all nations, entities, and individuals not subservient to its imperial interests.

At the same time, she unacceptably slammed Syria, Venezuela and Iran — nations successfully resisting US efforts to transform them into subservient pro-Western states.

She lied about Chinese treatment of Uighurs and other Xinjiang minority groups.

She reinvented US foreign policy, falsely claiming its policymakers foster “multilateralism” — what they systematically seek to eliminate in pursuit of their aim to rule the world unchallenged.

Saying she, Trump, and Pompeo “fight every day on the side of freedom” is polar opposite how both right wings of the US one-party state operate.

In response to her hostile remarks, Wang accused her of “ignorance and bias,” adding:

The US has a long disturbing history of “criticizing other countries’ cooperation with the UN by wantonly distorting facts.”

Kraft’s “groundless allegation(s) insult…international staff members from various countries (including China), fulfill(ing) their duties according to the collective will of member states.”

Like many other US officials, “Kraft provoke(s) confrontation among great powers and interfere(s) in the internal affairs of other countries at the UN, which is deeply unpopular.”

She’s “complacent about…tell(ing) lies with such pretense and no scruples…not knowing that she has already violated international law and the basic norms of international relations.”

China and many other countries reject US cold war policies.

Right-wing extremist Pompeo — responsible for driving US international relations to a new low — is militantly hostile to peace, equity, justice and the rule of law.

As US world body envoy, Kraft expresses his unacceptable worldview.

Commenting on Pompeo’s India visit, Wang slammed his “attacks and allegations against China,” calling them “nothing new.”

He continued his hostile war of words on China with remarks like the following:

“(I)f China were to go away suddenly, that we all pray might happen…the (US) relationship” with India would benefit (sic).

“(H)undreds of millions of Chinese would like to be out under…the jackboot of the Chinese Communist Party (sic).”

Pompeo again falsely blamed made-in-the-USA covid outbreaks worldwide on Beijing.

He also falsely accused China of an array of US high crimes, notably its rage to the rule the world unchallenged by whatever hostile actions it takes to achieve its hegemonic aims.

He reinvented hostile to democratic values USA as a champion of its principles.

According to Wang, Pompeo represents US “Cold War mentality and ideological bias.”

The so-called “China threat” he pushes doesn’t exist.

US actions on the world stage, “undermine…peace and stability,” Wang correctly explained.

A day earlier, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said the following about hostile to China designations of six of the country’s media operations as “foreign missions” by the US:

“In recent years, the US government placed unwarranted restrictions on Chinese media agencies and personnel in the United States…”

It “purposely made things difficult for their normal reporting assignments, and subjected them to growing discrimination and politically-motivated oppression.”

“(I)n total disregard of China’s legitimate and reasonable demand and solemn warning (against these unacceptable actions, the US) ramped up political repression and stigmatization of Chinese media agencies and personnel.”

If what’s going on doesn’t change, “more countermeasures from China” will follow.

Hostile US policies toward Beijing risk rupturing bilateral relations or something worse.

Things could turn hot by accident or design because of US rage to replace all independent governments with pro-Western vassal ones.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from www.fmprc.gov.cn

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.