by Dr Jim Saleam, Ron Owen and others.
|
We continue with a long article by Queensland patriotic identity, Mr Ron Owen, discussing the recent visit of Scott Morrison to the United States and asks whether that superpower really ‘protects’ Australia…
The Spratley Islands – Chinese Bases are really close to the Brunei oilfields
‘Once it consolidated Australia’s resources they could chose who to attack next. We can be assured that present day China will see the move of President Trump to keep applying tariffs denying China from the worlds largest market, like ‘déjà vu‘.
They well know that manufactured exports are their only profit makers, every other aspect of their economy makes huge losses, housing, food production, (they now have to import food again), fuel (oil, gas and coal have to be imported) without their exports, without foreign exchange to pay for imports, without their resources (food and fuel) the future finishes in bankruptcy and starvation.
They are being forced into making a decision, either to withdraw contract, returning to their past position, or to attack and like Germany in WWII gain ‘Lebensraum‘ (living space) in order to survive.. We can only hope that Scott Morrison is aware of this and is chewing Mr Trumps ear asking him to leave a way out. Even if he gets a promise, I am doubtful if it will ever be honoured as Trump needs to close the Chinese exports off so the United States can re-build its industry, give jobs to the voters to gain re-election.
In my August Bulletin “Thoughts of the Week” to summarise I explained Australia lack of an adequate defence force, our lack of Defence Industries, the scenario of China building an Island base at Long Island, (Chesterfield Islands) and then moving on to Lord Howe Island. The inability and lack of interest for any other nation to move them. As with the South China Sea Spratley Islands, America has not stepped in to throw China off the Islands that the Philippines claims as its territory.
The probability that China dominating all of Australia’s sea and air ways would blockade, preventing the importation of fuel, or manufacturing materials, in less then twenty-five days diesel fuel and petrol would run out, food would not be delivered to the shops, Australia the land of plenty would starve. Australian politicians would surrender, do a deal and fly to the South of France. The Australian population being superfluous to the Chinese requirements would die out.
The only consolation would be the thought that Australia’s left wing unionists, media and greenies would finally find out the reality of Communism, as they would be the first to have their body parts and organs sold off. The Muslim Shari law clerics would soon follow them. The skilled workers who produced things would survive a little longer.
This Bulletin goes out to a mail list with 10,000 subscribers about 20 or 30 complimented me on my efforts to awaken Australia to pending disaster, the rest either did not read my article and just looked at the adverts, or read it and did not accept it. They may think that it is a one sided debate, maybe, but here are a few words from the Chinese perspective.
It is hard to find the Chinese perspective as the Chinese governments suppresses the truth and keeps an unyielding grip of silence on its citizens within and without the nations borders.
I was in Beijing at the beginning of June 1989 and then returned a week after the Tienanmen Square Massacre. I was staying at the Beijing Hotel which was in East Tienanmen, it was amazing to see a million peaceful people at one time in the square. I returned home and within a week there were tank tracks and huge burn marks on the square as though flame throwers had incinerated them. I was shocked how a country could treat its own citizens and amazed at how quickly it was hushed up.
This stranglehold means that, even today, relatively little information is available about the Tienanmen Square Massacre. However, British ambassador to China (1988-1991) Sir Alan Donald wrote a secret diplomatic cable around 24 hours after the massacre, which the British Government only declassified in 2017. The cable reveals stunning information previously unknown to most of the world, and most likely, China itself.
According to Donald, at least 10,000 people were brutally murdered by the China’s 27th Army; the bodies bulldozed away overnight and incinerated to hide the evidence.
One of the Chinese army units was apparently so vicious that the former ambassador described them as “primitives” in his document. The cable provides a hitherto unprecedented look at what really occurred that night and day. Donald’s cable has since found a new home in the U.K. National Archives. The former ambassador was an eyewitness to most of it from the rooftop of the Embassy, but explained that the details of his report stemmed from personal conversations from a “good friend” in China’s State Council, the government’s cabinet, who spoke to Donald in confidence.
Donald said his source “has previously proved reliable and was careful to separate fact from speculation and rumor,” making his recounting of the events of June 3 and June 4 highly credible.
Donald’s cable to London described the “atrocities” against several thousand pro-democracy protesters as being undertaken by the 27th Army of Shanxi Province. He called this truculent group of soldiers “60% illiterate” and “primitives.”
According to Donald and his trusted source, however, the local Beijing troops that entered Tiananmen Square prior to the 27th Army were unarmed. The people gave them flowers and expected them to stay and protest with them. This was an initial attempt to disperse the massive group of protesters without violence, as most were students, unarmed, and non-violent. Unfortunately, this approach rapidly came to an end.
“The 27 Army APCs (armored personnel carriers) opened fire on the crowd before running over them,” Donald wrote in his cable. “APCs ran over troops and civilians at 65kph (40 miles per hour).” He explained that even though the CCP had provided protestors with a warning, even this small amount of leeway was underhanded, a lie, and viciously broken.” “Students understood they were given one hour to leave square, but after five minutes APCs attacked,” Donald said. “The group of protesters remained steadfast, even in the face of annihilation. Shots rang out, innocents were struck, and people began to die. Nonetheless — there was power in numbers, and solidarity that allowed them to find courage, and thousands joined hands as bullets flew”. “Students linked arms but were mown down,” wrote Donald. “APCs then ran over the bodies time and time again to make, quote ‘pie’ unquote, and remains collected by bulldozer.”
As if this wasn’t atrocious enough, the government’s criminal and brutal activity that day got even worse. With no regard for the families of these victims, not to mention their identities, what was left of them was disposed of, in an unspeakably callous manner. “Remains incinerated and then hosed down drains,” Donald wrote.
According to Donald, the violent attacks stemmed from a substantial portion of China’s State Council that was afraid of civil war breaking out. The nationwide tides seemed to be turning and those in power would certainly not benefit from a freer populous. Thus, clamping down forcefully on any kind of dissent was vital to their interests. On top of that, the recently declassified cable stated that the 27th Army was called into action that day specifically because of its disregard for anything but orders. The troops were “the most reliable and obedient,” Donald explained. “The 27 Army was ordered to spare no one,” he wrote. “Wounded girl students begged for their lives but were bayoneted. A three-year-old girl was injured, but her mother was shot as she went to her aid, as were six others.”
The diplomat’s sources also told him that “snipers shot many civilians on balconies, street sweepers etc for target practice.”
The declassified document also claimed that this excessive force continued even after the first wave of killings were completed. “A 1,000 survivors were told they could escape but were then mown down by specially prepared MG (machine gun) positions,” wrote Donald. “Army ambulances who attempted to give aid were shot up, as was a Sino-Japanese hospital ambulance.”
“With medical crew dead, a wounded driver attempted to ram attackers but was blown to pieces by an anti-tank weapon.
“Donald’s declassified cable even claimed that troops killed one of their own officers. ” A 27 Army officer was shot dead by his comrades, apparently because he faltered,” said Donald. “Troops explained they would be shot if they hadn’t shot the officer.”
Of course, Chinese state TV was painting an entirely different picture. Before the army was deployed to wipe out protestors, government television was repeatedly broadcasting the following claims:
“Tonight a serious counter-revolutionary rebellion took place. Thugs frenziedly attacked People’s Liberation Army troops, seizing weapons, erecting barricades, beating soldiers and officers in an attempt to overthrow the government of the People’s Republic of China. For many days, the People’s Liberation Army has exercised restraint and now must resolutely counteract the rebellion. All those who refuse to listen to reason must take full responsibility for their actions and their consequences.”
The Chinese Red Cross estimated the death toll to be around 2,700 people on June 4, 1989. While this is far less conservative than the Chinese Governments preposterous count of 200-300, it’s far lower than Donald’s account, which ended with a stunning figure.
“Minimum estimate of civilian dead 10,000,” the final sentence of his cable read.
Sir Alan Donald’s now-declassified assessment of the Tiananmen Square massacre and the resulting death toll aligns completely with a confidential U.S. government file reported on in 2014. This document quoted a Chinese military source and said the CCP’s own internal figures estimated the body count to be 10,454 people. Chinese friends of mine at the time told me that over 10,000 were killed and over 10,000 were arrested and they worked for the Chinese Police (Jin Ang Corporation)
General Chi Haotian
Who was responsible for organising this massacre?
I have asked and the only answers I have received have named General Chi Haotian as the director of the military’s enforcement of martial law in Beijing to suppress the protests in Tienanmen Square. As at the time he was Chief of Staff he instructed the commanding officers of the Beijing, Shenyang, and Jinan Military Districts to “finalize the name list of every group army division scheduled to advance into Beijing and their exact times of departure and arrival, as well as details regarding primary duties“, according to the “Daily Report” (Meiri yibao) from the Central Military Commission Office, dated 19 May 1989. This military buildup removed the local military force and introduced the external forces who took part in the Beijing massacre, which took place on 3rd and 4th June and led to his promotion to Minister of Defence until 2001.
His perspective on China’s future plans were specified in a his speech below as Chief of General Staff and Vice-Chairman for China’s Military Commission Comrade Chi Haotian, December, 2005 to top officers and generals.
General Chi Haotian:
“Comrades, I’m very excited today, because the large-scale online survey by sina.com that was done for us showed that our next generation is quite promising and our Party’s cause will be carried on. In answering the question, “Will you shoot at women, children and prisoners of war,” more than 80 per cent of the respondents answered in the affirmative, exceeding by far our expectations.
Today I’d like to focus on why we asked sina.com to conduct this online survey among our people. My speech today is a sequel to my speech last time, during which I started with a discussion of the issue of the three islands (Taiwan, Diaoyu Islands) and the (Spratley Islands) and mentioned that 20 years of the idyllic theme of ‘peace and development’ had come to an end, and concluded that modernization under the saber is the only option for China’s next phase.”
..continued to Part 3…