America still holds the aces in its poker game over its challenger

Recently, a group of U.S. lawmakers nominated three leaders of the illegal "Occupy Central" movement for the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize. The Foreign Ministry in Beijing in a statement on Friday urged the U.S. lawmakers to “stop meddling” in China’s domestic affairs, saying the 2014 protests were "downright illegal."

The nomination letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee was signed by a dozen members of the U.S. Congress, including Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Chris Smith, the chair and co-chair, respectively, of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China.

This is not the first time that the Commission has openly tried to undermine China in the name of human rights, nor is it the first time that the Nobel Peace Prize has been used to attack China. From the Dalai Lama to Liu Xiaobo to the current nomination, the Nobel Peace Prize has become a big joke, at least in the eyes of many Chinese — it looks like a prestigious prize for peace, but it is really a political tool to promote the Western agenda.

The letter makes clear the ideological nature of the Nobel Peace Prize and shows how it has become a major channel for political and ideological infiltration into China. Thus, there is no surprise that the U.S. Congress members who penned the letter expressed their “deep appreciation” for the Nobel Committee’s “past willingness” to interfere in China’s internal affairs. Nor is there surprise that the U.S. lawmakers celebrated the protest leaders as “champions of peace and freedom.”

The illegal movement that the U.S. Congress members think deserves the Nobel Committee’s recognition was far from universally supported by the more than 7 million citizens of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. In late October 2014, the Alliance for Peace and Democracy collected over 1.8 million signatures over a nine-day period of Hong Kong citizens who opposed the protests. And in November, a survey conducted by the University of Hong Kong found that close to 83 percent of Hong Kong citizens wanted the protests to end.

Rather than promote fraternity, as Alfred Nobel had wished, the peace prize has deepened ideological rifts. The decision to award the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo, who was seen by many as a pawn of the West, has brought discredit on the prize.

Now, the West is trying to weaponize the prize again. The U.S. lawmakers attempted to demonize China, assuming that the pressure would promote political change in China.

This is all a fitting reminder that anti-China forces remain committed to undermining China.

As described in the will of Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Peace Prize should be awarded to “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

If the purpose of the Nobel Peace Prize is to promote peace, there are thousands of Chinese who are qualified to receive the prize. One must ask why only those who oppose China’s ruling party and the Chinese government and who seek separation are chosen for the prize.

Click to expand...

Jura said:

now noticed in Facebook

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

·

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

·

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Op-Ed: Nobel Peace Prize has become a political tool to promote the Western agenda

Click to expand...

The 2018 U.S. nuclear posture review (NPR) has drawn almost universal condemnation, as it redirects the United States toward a path of nuclear expansion.

The hawkish paper, consistent with the previously released National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy, painted a bleak picture for U.S. security, and called for more dominant role for nuclear weapons in its arsenal.

But the reasonings in the paper were unconvincing for many nuclear policy experts, who argued that a departure from previous constructive nuclear policies may trigger a new round of arms race, and that by overstating security risks the Pentagon is proposing a solution to a non-existing problem.

"The biggest difference relates to the supposed role of nuclear weapons in American military strategy," Michael Klare, an expert at the Arms Control Association, told Xinhua.

"In the Obama NPR, nuclear munitions are identified as weapons of last resort, to be used only under the most extreme circumstances; accordingly, every effort should be made to reduce their role in military strategy, and their numbers should be reduced as quickly as possible via international arms control treaties," Klare said.

"In the Trump NPR, nuclear munitions are viewed as playing a significant and growing role in U.S. military strategy, and so their numbers and types should be increased to make this possible," the expert said.

The stark difference has been described as "disturbing" by Lisbeth Gronlund, senior scientist and co-director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, who noted that the NPR has lowered the threshold of nuclear warfighting by committing nuclear response to non-nuclear aggressions.

"One of the most disturbing and significant changes to U.S. policy outlined in the NPR is the tighter integration of U.S. nuclear and conventional forces, including training and exercising with these integrated forces, so U.S. forces can operate - as the NPR states - in the face of nuclear threats and employment," she said.

"This is the textbook definition of nuclear warfighting. This new policy deliberately blurs the line between nuclear and conventional forces and eliminates a clear firewall," she warned.

To respond to emerging threats to U.S. and its allies' security, the NPR specifically proposed the development for new models of "low-yield" weapons, which it said would be essential for a "flexible" nuclear arsenal that can enhance deterrence.

"Low-yield" weapons, commonly referred to those with a yield of less than 20 kilotons, are mostly made for tactical use, and currently are mainly carried on strategic bombers with gravity bombs.

But the NPR said the United States should start mounting these tactical nuclear weapons on strategic and attack submarines.

Joan Rohlfing, president and chief operating officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, said putting tactic and strategic nuclear weapons on the same platform, such as a strategic submarine, may easily lead to miscalculations.

Any adversary would be uncertain of the yield of an incoming nuclear weapon launched from a strategic submarine, and would almost certainly respond with strategic weapons, she said.

Aside from slamming the conflict-inviting rhetoric, the academia also questioned the premise which the NPR drew from.

In a statement, the Union of Concerned Scientists said the NPR misrepresented China's nuclear power.

"The gap between China and the United States is too wide to argue that the United States is lagging behind in any meaningful way. In fact, the exact opposite is true. By any measure, the U.S. arsenal is far superior," Gregory Kulacki, an expert at UCS said.

"There is no evidence that nuclear weapons are becoming more prominent in China's military strategy or that China has changed its longstanding no-first-use policy," Kulacki said.

In a fiery response, Russia also rejected the NPR's assumption that it is adjusting to nuclear war fighting strategy.

"The document's statement that Russia allegedly refuses to further reduce its nuclear capabilities is yet another example of the blatant 'falsification'," the Russian Foreign Ministry said.

Click to expand...