Has China Infiltrated the Deep State?

Of late, much of the talk in Washington has been about the crisis with North Korea. The upstart nation in recent weeks has become much more aggressive in the wake of sanctions on the country being discussed by the United Nations, a set of which were formally agreed upon on August 5. More than $1 billion worth of export value will be affected by the UN-imposed conditions, which represents roughly one-third of all North Korean trade. Potentially, this could put a tight squeeze on the nation’s elite class, which up until now has had relatively unfettered access to Western luxury products such as liquor, cigarettes, electronics and even items from Amazon.com.

Now, however, the Hermit Kingdom has become enraged that the UN has had the audacity to sanction it, despite the rogue regime’s launching some 18 missiles this year alone, including two intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). It was originally thought that the United States had a window of 18 to 36 months before North Korea could perfect their atomic weapons and ICBM capabilities, but this timeframe seemed to have drastically shrunk a few weeks ago when intelligence analysts announced that in their opinion, North Korea had managed to miniaturize nuclear bombs so they could fit in the nose cones of their ICBMs.

Furthermore, analysts stated that it might be possible that the country could have nearly 60 atomic bombs manufactured at this point, as compared to an original estimate of only about one dozen. These two factors have the potential to drastically change the calculus for whether it would be wise for the U.S. to execute a first strike on the nation, or even how (or if) to respond in the case of pre-emptive North Korean aggression.

A recent editorial in the Chinese Global Times newspaper stated that if the U.S. did proceed with a first strike that China would ally itself with the North Koreans against the United States, whereas if North Korea struck the U.S. first, China would remain neutral. Such a statement, if it came directly from the Chinese leadership, would surely alter the thinking of military planners at the Pentagon; but it should be borne in mind that the Global Times is independent from the Chinese government, even if it does receive state support. Therefore, whether the editorial reflects official Chinese policy is still an open question, and it may be intended by the Chinese to be interpreted ambiguously.

Certainly, the danger with the North Korean weapons program is that if it’s too far advanced, it could well be “too late” to effectively “de-nuclearize” the country via a devastating military strike; not only could the number of casualties in Seoul and other parts of South Korea be catastrophic, but the potential for nuclear-tipped missiles to actually make it to the continental U.S. could be too high (even with the U.S.’s anti-missile batteries in place and operational).

Indeed, former National Security Advisor Susan Rice has already stated that she believes the “game” of potential military action is effectively over — we should now simply accept North Korea as a member of the global “nuclear club” and move on. Some members of the academic community have also expressed this sentiment.

Of course, there are many problems with adopting this perspective, namely since it assumes that somehow the North Koreans and Kim Jong Un will suddenly become more rational and level-headed now that their weapons are more advanced as compared to their outrageous statements and provocations of months and years past. Ultimately, this could be a fatal mindset to adopt if we follow this line of thinking. The truth of the matter is that half of the North Korean people are starving; the country’s need for hard currency is so great that the temptation to sell some of their weapons and/or attempt to extort money or advantageous treaty conditions from their neighbor states could be overwhelming. Another frightening possibility is that North Korea may try to attack the U.S. with a vigorous first strike that could knock out New York and Washington in a “decapitation” maneuver capable of changing the balance of power in the world overnight.

It’s scenarios like these that surely have President Trump talking to his generals about how, when and whether to conduct a pre-emptive strike on North Korea, as damaging and destructive as that could be. But any longtime observers of international politics should be able to see that ultimately, the situation in North Korea is not really about the balance of power between the North Koreans and the United States; it’s about the balance of power between the United States and China.

If the U.S. becomes convinced that it’s not worth it to attack (or retaliate against) North Korea, then North Korea solidifies into an incredibly powerful buffer and client state of China that has the potential to destabilize the entire Pacific region and wreck the U.S.’s “Pivot to Asia” policy trumpeted in 2011.

South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines and even Russia could be endangered by the military adventurism and attraction to risk that seem built into the North Korean character. The U.S. might be forced to “back off” from its positions in the South China Sea if it had to face not one but two nuclear-armed adversaries, one of which could be almost surely be counted on to act irrationally, with “plausible deniability” claimable on China’s part.

And so, one realizes that if the North Korean crisis comes down to the U.S. versus China, it’s in China’s immediate interest to try to buy time and convince the U.S. not to strike North Korea. Any way that intelligence analysts’ reports could be manipulated to fool the Trump administration into thinking the North Korean weapons program is farther along than it is would go a long way toward that effort. Readers may recall that CIA analysts have been wrong about their weapons of mass destruction estimations before (most notably in 2003, when then-Secretary of State Colin Powell presented false “yellowcake” evidence at the UN in an effort to get a green light for the U.S. to invade Iraq). One can see that it may only be a question of getting access to the right people in Washington to concoct such a false picture. Could China have infiltrated our “deep state” intelligence apparatus that far?

When one considers how much influence (which is alleged to be considerable) China is said to have over the Federal Reserve due to the vast amount of U.S. Treasury bonds it holds, it’s not out of the question to imagine that there may be analysts in the intelligence community, particularly in niches of weapons analysis that could be on the take from China.

Certainly, there have been numerous cases of Chinese infiltration of the military-industrial complex in prior years, notably with CIA employee Larry Wu-Tai Chin in 1986, Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Wen Ho Lee in 1999, L-3 engineer Chi Mak in 2008 and Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) consultant Kevin Mallory in 2016. Besides these men, there have been at least a dozen other cases of Chinese spies caught working at federal defense contractors, nuclear engineering companies, the FBI, NASA and several U.S. intelligence agencies.

The forced backing off of the U.S. in this present Korean confrontation would set a very bad precedent for our nation and bring us much further down the road toward Chinese world-superpower status.

One must remember that globalist interests are not necessarily anathema to Chinese domination of the world. As long as money can be rapidly shifted into that economy from the American one and globalists can continue to play their financial games from Gstaad, Tahiti or any number of other geographic playgrounds, they likely don’t care who’s in charge of the globe from a political and military perspective.

Of course, one of the main problems with China dominating the planet is that for “the common man,” Chinese rule in the future appears bleakly Orwellian. Announced plans to focus on genetic engineering of humans (potentially for a race of slave-like “super workers”), tracking of individuals via online activities and the assigning of a “point-scoring” system for how government-friendly an individual’s actions are, are all acknowledged to be active efforts or in the works for China’s citizens and would presumably be encouraged for any states under China’s influence.

The concept of individual human rights in China has never been that popular with its government, and periodic crackdowns as have occurred in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in 1989 and Hong Kong in 2014 have testified to this. Currently, there’s a scandal in China regarding the harvesting of human organs from members of the banned “Falun Gong” movement, with more than 100,000 dubious organ transplants having taken place since 2000. It’s safe to say that for the sake of the world’s people, China should not be allowed to gain the upper hand over the United States from a power standpoint.

Thus, the stakes in North Korea are tremendously high, just as they were in 1950 when the original Korean War broke out. It’s worth remembering that in that conflict, the North Koreans struck first.


Most Popular

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More



Most Popular
Sponsored Content

These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.

To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].

Family-Friendly Content

Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More