Kissinger Treachery In China
World Affairs Brief
Copyright Joel Skousen - All Rights Reserved
Partial quotations with attribution permitted.
Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief

Not only did Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon betray US interests in the Vietnam War, they betrayed the South Vietnamese and Taiwanese governments as well. The latest declassified revelations to surface from the National Archives are devastating to the sanitized version of events that "Sir Henry" wrote about in his memoirs.
This current release of information from the National Security Archive at George Washington University in Washington DC (not to be confused with the US government National Archives and Records Administration) covers an addition release of 28,000 pages, including verbatim transcripts of negotiations between Henry Kissinger and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai in 1972. This follows the 2002 release of declassified material which contained transcripts of Kissinger's secret visit to Beijing in 1971 to arrange the summit which eventually led to normalization of US relations with China, which I will also review in this week's brief.
In Kissinger's memoirs (1979) Kissinger said, "Chou and I by tacit agreement did not press controversial issues to the hilt. Taiwan was mentioned only briefly." The transcripts show that was not true. Chou Enlai made it clear that the US would have to recognize the People's Republic as the sole legitimate government of China with no exceptions if relations were to be normalized. In that first meeting in 1971, according to the summaries provided by [my comments in brackets], "Kissinger volunteered that the US would not support the Taiwan independence movement, would not accept a 'two China' or 'one China-one Taiwan' policy and would recognize Taiwan as an 'inalienable part' of China. He also indicated the US wanted to fully recognize China sometime within the first two years of Nixon's second term in office.
"They also worked out a deal on how Beijing would replace the Kuomintang's seat in the UN - Washington would withdraw its position that the question is an important one [an incredible assertion], allowing China to be voted into the world body by a simple majority vote. Taipei would be voted out by a two-thirds vote 'as soon as you can get the two-thirds vote for expulsion,' Kissinger told Zhou [which was not difficult given the large majority of pro-Communist regimes in the UN General Assembly]. While Washington would complain loudly about the Taiwan ouster [shows you cannot trust the rhetoric from our government, only what they do, much of which is hidden from public view], which its UN envoy [globalist] George Bush did at the time, it would tacitly accept the switch."
Taiwan's public Communiqué Commentary at the time is honest and telling: " In the transcripts, both Kissinger and Zhou agreed that the relations with the Kuomintang regime on Taiwan were linked to the war in Vietnam. The US was seeking China's help in ending the war in exchange for Washington's switching diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. These transcripts show that in his eagerness to get China's help in ending the Vietnam War - which didn't materialize - Mr. Kissinger tried to trade away something that wasn't his to give away: Taiwan's future as a free, democratic and independent country."
What is worse, when China reneged on its part and refused to halt North Vietnam's military aggression (which was fully backed by China) the US was forced to win the war militarily - hence the massive B-52 bombing raids and mining of harbors in the north. Intelligence from spies in Hanoi indicate that North Vietnam was devastated by the bombing and the cut off of Chinese supplies by sea, and ready to capitulate in the next round of Paris "Peace Talks." Instead, Henry Kissinger gave all that victory away. Not only had he and Robert McNamara hog-tied American military forces during the war with restrictive "rules of engagement," provided enemy with numerous safe havens off limits to US bombing, but gave away all that military advantage after being forced to win the war militarily anyway. Here is what the new transcripts show according to the AP:
"Henry Kissinger quietly acknowledged to China in 1972 that Washington could accept a communist takeover of South Vietnam if that evolved after a withdrawal of U.S. troops - even as the war to drive back the communists dragged on with mounting [Communist] deaths. President Nixon's envoy [Kissinger] told Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai, 'If we can live with a communist government in China, we ought to be able to accept it in Indochina.'
"Pressed by Zhou, Kissinger further acknowledged that a communist takeover by force might be tolerated if it happened long enough after a U.S. withdrawal. He said that if civil war broke out a month after a peace deal led to U.S. withdrawal and an exchange of prisoners, Washington would probably consider that a trick and have to step back in.
"If the North Vietnamese, on the other hand, engage in serious negotiation with the South Vietnamese, and if after a longer period it starts again after we were all disengaged, my personal judgment is that it is much less likely that we will go back again, much less likely." There it is: Kissinger directly colluding with enemy assuring them of the low probabilities of American re-involvement if China and Vietnam did their dirty work slowly.
"Kissinger's comments appear to lend credence to the 'decent interval' theory [there it is again] posed by some historians who say the United States was prepared to see communists take over Saigon as long as that happened long enough after a U.S. troop departure to save face." This response came after China demanded that the US force out the Saigon government and directly betray South Vietnam to the North. Kissinger could do that and save face, so he opted for the wink-and-a-nod betrayal instead.
However, the ever-wily Henry Kissinger had a ready excuse for the media after these embarrassing revelations surfaced. In one interview he said, "One of my objectives had to be to get Chinese acquiescence in our policy." This is ludicrous. His public policy was to "get out of Vietnam as soon as possible." His larger hidden policy was to lose the war and forever embitter the American public about fighting wars to contain Communism. While this larger globalist agenda of undermining US sovereignty was helpful to Chinese aggression, it and the "cut-and-run" policy was very much in line with China's goals of wearing down the US and gaining its withdrawal. So, how difficult was it for Kissinger to get China to "acquiesce to our policy?" Not very. Kissinger went so far as to tell Zhou the United States respected its Hanoi enemy as a permanent factor in the region, and had "no interest in destroying it or even defeating it."
Other allies like Japan were given secret briefings on the progress of the Kissinger China talks and encouraged to recognize Red China as the sole representative of the Chinese people. Always the hypocrite, Kissinger referred to the haste in which Japan recognized Red China as "treacherous." He should know.
Kissinger then ultimately blamed his policy (getting out of Vietnam) on Watergate: "We succeeded in it, and then when we had achieved our goal (holding off Communist aggression in Vietnam), our domestic situation made it impossible to sustain it." Actually, it was the other way around. As I pointed out in prior briefs, the entire Watergate scandal was a set-up by the dark side of government (intimately connected with Kissinger's real bosses) specifically to undermine Nixon and force him into a defensive position where he could no longer effectively function as President. Nixon was an insider-wannabe but was never allowed to join the club. He spent the rest of his days after his resignation trying to play-up to the Powers That Be (PTB) and get them to say nice things about him in the press.
WHY DO GLOBALISTS FACILITATE COMMUNIST REVOLUTION? Those on the Left who view globalists like Kissinger only as "greedy capitalists" have no explanation for Kissinger's seemingly contradictory conduct. Betraying Vietnam and Taiwan certainly wasn't helping to promote Capitalism. Why have CFR controlled governments, under both Democrats and Republicans, consistently undermined pro-Western governments and covertly assisted Communist takeovers? Why are they , even now, shielding their citizens from knowledge of Russia's continual preparations for nuclear war? Conservatives have always believed it was because the Communists had infiltrated many parts of the US government-especially the Dept. of State. However, most of these agents of influence (Alger Hiss, etc) were globalists, not Communists - facilitating Communist spying and influence for purposes hidden even from the Communists invited inside.
Their real purpose was to set the world stage for future conflict and globalist intervention to spur on the dominance of world government, controlled by them. That's the real reason for continued warmongering in the Middle East. By using Communism or common tyrants to break down nations, these target nations were unknowingly being set up (after 20 or so years of tyranny) for being "saved" from Communism by moderate appearing globalist interveners, replacing a radical form of Socialism with a more benign form, falsely labeled free market capitalism. What globalists are really after is "Third Way" Socialism (private ownership with heavy regulatory control) where the production can be syphoned off to support socialist benefits (without totally killing the markets as Communism does). Free markets are only the bait, not the end object. The globalist hook is embedded in the financial bondage created by international loans and the implementation documentation of regional government and world trade regulatory bodies (WTO, EU, FTAA, etc) that these newly liberated nations are induced to sign on to.
The recent revelations on Kissinger's betrayal of Vietnam drew a response from the outlining information Israel possessed concerning Kissinger's double dealing in the Middle east:
Senior Editor Jason Maoz gave this summary [my comments in brackets]: "[A]s Super K, the unprecedentedly powerful secretary of state and mighty architect of American foreign policy during the Nixon-Ford era, Kissinger saw his stock fall rapidly in the 1980's and 90's as conservatives criticized him for what they saw as his defeatist policy of détente with the Soviet Union and liberals lambasted him for what they viewed as his amoral, Machiavellian sacrifice of American ideals on the altar of pragmatism and realpolitik.
"On the Middle East, Kissinger has labored to recast his image from that of a play-no-favorites geostrategist - in whose eyes Israel chiefly served as an impediment to greater U.S. influence in the Arab world - to someone who has always recognized Israel's great geopolitical value, first in the Cold War and now in the war on terrorism.
"Such a pro-Israel image is quite at odds with eyewitness accounts of Kissinger's dealings within the Nixon administration during the 1973 Yom Kippur war and with Israeli and Arab leaders as he brokered a cease-fire and attempted to craft some sort of peace accord in the months after the fighting stopped. [The cease-fire was always a one-sided tool used by the globalists to halt Israel's runaway victories and to prohibit Israel from capitalizing on their rapid military victories. Out of each of these premature cease-fires, Israel would be forced by the US to accept a weakened military position that would, in turn, create the conditions for another future war.]
"In Gerald and Deborah Strober's 'Nixon: An Oral History of His Presidency,' former congressional staffer, State Department official and AIPAC executive director Morris Amitay described Kissinger as trying 'to fine-tune the outcome of the [Yom Kippur] war so that both sides would be dependent on the United States, which is what ultimately happened. But it involved bloodshed from the Israelis and it robbed them of a decisive military victory.' [While there is truth to this, the dependency on the US was meant to keep the Israeli military increasingly tied to US military control, the restrictions were constantly used (while Israel still had a pro-Israel government - not the case today) to keep Prime Ministers like Menachem Begin under control. Now that the globalists have successfully co-opted all three major political parties in Israel, this kind of arm twisting is no longer necessary.]
"Though Kissinger has his defenders in the Strobers' book, the consensus of Nixon administration insiders is that the secretary of state wanted Israel to suffer at least a limited hit, in the hope that a bloodied Israel would be more malleable at the negotiating table." [True, but for globalist - not US interests.]
"On the issue of the massive U.S. military airlift to Israel, most of those interviewed by the Strobers saw Kissinger as being an impediment to a smooth and timely transfer of arms . [This is typical of agents that play both sides. They have to keep up pro-Israel appearances, and yet hamper timely aid, which is crucial during warfare. A delay is often as bad as outright denial.] Former Nixon aide Leonard Garment recalled: 'Henry was always trying to titrate the administration's support for Israel, so as not to get the Arabs angry: 'We can do this, but we can't do that.'
"Kenneth Rush, who served as a deputy secretary of state and a deputy secretary of defense, painted a picture for the Strobers of Kissinger at his manipulative best (or worst): 'Nixon wanted the resupply; Kissinger delayed ... not because he didn't want to help the Israelis, but he wanted to make them feel that they owed the resupply to him; he could use this in his negotiations, as well as for his personal benefit. So he delayed, and the Israelis, at the time, thought that he was the hero who had stepped in and made Defense and Nixon come through. The fact is that Nixon was pressing like mad for the resupply, Defense was ready to go forward, and Kissinger was holding it up by various means.'
"Kissinger is on record as assuring the Iraqi foreign minister in 1975 that while 'we can't negotiate about the existence of Israel, ... we can reduce its size to historical proportions.' What Kissinger had in mind when referring to Israel's 'historical proportions' is anyone's guess [no, not hard to guess: Kissinger, like the current Road Map, which he designed, wants Israel back to the 1967 "green line" borders - a militarily indefensible position that will make Israel vulnerable in the next Arab-Israeli war] but his feelings about Israel - and his wildly-off-the-mark projections about Israel's future - come through all too clearly in his statement to the Iraqi official that American public opinion was turning more pro-Palestinian; that the then-current level of U.S. aid to Israel would inevitably be reduced; and that in not too distant future 'Israel will be like Lebanon - struggling for existence, with no influence in the Arab world.'" [End Maoz quote.]
That, in a nutshell, describes the globalist intentions for Israel.




This Site Served by TheHostPros