風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
1... Americans threatened by dissent – Kissinger
https://thepressunited.com/updates/americans-threatened-by-dissent-kissinger/
2... Kissinger changes his position on Ukraine
https://www.rt.com/news/570039-kissinger-ukraine-nato-membership/
3... 50 years after leaving Vietnam, the US keeps getting involved in wars without understanding them
https://www.rt.com/news/570651-vietnam-paris-accord-1973/
基辛格點名批評中國，聲稱：為保護世界秩序，必要時要使用武力
2023-02-10 16:51:14 來源: 鬆渡枝
在中美飛艇事件不斷升級之際，曾經中美關係“解凍”的主要推動者之一亨利·基辛格，在近日更是直接點名批評中國。基辛格聲稱，中國正在“挑戰世界秩序”，為了有效保護世界秩序，美國在必要時刻需要使用武力。
對於中國人而言，基辛格可以說算得上是中國人的“老熟人”了。20世紀70年代，時任美國國務卿的基辛格秘密訪華，並在後續直接開啟了中美關係“解凍”的新篇章，可以說是為近幾十年來中美關係的發展奠定了基礎。也正是因為如此，許多人對基辛格可以說是印象十分深刻。但就是這樣一位對中美關係影響重大的人，在中美飛艇事件不斷升級之際，竟然直接點名批評了中國。
據俄媒《今日俄羅斯》報道，就在近日，基辛格首先對美國的政治製度提出了指責。基辛格表示，“從如今的現狀來看，美國的政治製度是存在很大問題的，它無法有效的展現美國的凝聚力，沒有能夠很好的讓我們團結起來。如果美國持續無法解決這一問題，那麽美國必將陷入自我孤立的狀態，這一點是美國所無法承受的。”
不得不說，基辛格作為一位在美國政壇叱吒風雲幾十年的政治老人，對美國的政治製度看得還是十分透徹的。美國所謂的“三權分立”原則，導致美國政府、國會和法院之間相互扯皮推諉，極大的拉低美國整個國家的運行效率。而美國一直引以為傲的“多黨製”更是問題重重，民主、共和兩黨為了爭權奪利不斷地掀起內鬥，導致美國出現了十分嚴重的政治撕裂。此前就有民調顯示，多名受訪者對美國的未來並不看好，認為以後的政治撕裂隻會越來越嚴重，直到難以彌合、無法收拾的困頓局麵。
在批評了美國的政治製度之後，基辛格轉過身來，又開始指名道姓的批評起中國來。基辛格表示，“美國無法形成有效的凝聚力，那麽必然會導致美國難以有效應對當前我們所麵對的挑戰。比如來自於‘中國對世界秩序的挑戰’，俄羅斯對烏克蘭軍事行動的挑戰，以及伊朗不斷進行核試驗的挑戰。這些挑戰對於美國來說是十分緊迫的，我們必須要引起足夠的重視。”
基辛格對他所謂的“中國對世界秩序的挑戰”，作出了格外的強調。基辛格稱，“美國需要從實質上作出改變，需要在製度上和思想上變得更加強大起來。隻有這樣，我們才能夠更加有力的保護世界秩序。甚至於為了有效的保護世界秩序，美國在必要時刻是可以使用武力的。對於這一點，我們必須有著清醒的認識。”
基辛格一直在強調，美國需要成為塑造世界穩定的領導者，隻有達成這個目標，美國才能夠繼續保持安全和繁榮。而在他看來，對美國領導者地位構成最大威脅的，顯然就是正在不斷崛起的中國。他甚至於說出了要“使用武力”應對中國挑戰的這種話，其態度和立場可以說是相當的明顯了。
其實不僅僅隻是基辛格，此前美國現任國務卿布林肯在一場演講活動中也曾公開表示稱，“世界不能失去美國的領導，一旦發生這種情況，那麽世界領導位置將會被其他國家占據，這個國家很有可能是中國。但是這很明顯不會符合美國的利益和價值觀，是美國所無法接受的。所以美國必須要對這種情況引起重視，采取措施加以應對。”
因此，此次基辛格的言論，和布林肯此前可以說是如出一轍。或許在他們眼裏，美國才是世界的領導者。一旦他們認為有哪個國家挑戰美國的地位，他們甚至不惜動用武力來打壓和製裁這個國家。而從目前的現狀來看，他們將中國當成了主要競爭對手，看來未來的中美關係又將麵臨更多的考驗了。
1... Americans threatened by dissent – Kissinger
https://thepressunited.com/updates/americans-threatened-by-dissent-kissinger/
By Updates February 8, 2023
The former US secretary of state said the country suffers from ‘domestic division and international disorder’
Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger chided the nation’s political establishment for its failure to demonstrate “domestic cohesion,” warning an audience at a Sunday event celebrating former president Ronald Reagan that the country could not afford to isolate itself.
Because the US is “suffering” from “domestic division and international disorder about arguments about who we are and what we stand for,” it “finds it difficult to muster the domestic cohesion necessary to face the challenges ahead of us,” the former national security adviser told onlookers at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
These, Kissinger said, included a “challenge to world order” from China, Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, and the apparently imminent development of “the world’s most devastating weapons” by Iran – to say nothing of artificial intelligence (AI), which the former diplomat warned was “transforming human consciousness itself.”
50 years after leaving Vietnam, the US keeps getting involved in wars without understanding them
“Each of these pressing developments requires a combination of strength and conciliation,” he said, reminding the assembled Reagan fans that the former president “knew that America needed to be powerful in substance and in mind to protect world order – by force, if necessary.”
The deceased former president, who would have been 112 years old on Sunday, never wavered in his beliefs that “America is most secure and prosperous when it is the leader in shaping a stable world” and that “a stable world could not be based on American isolationism,” Kissinger claimed.
While the 99-year-old ex-diplomat described Reagan as a “peacemaker,” the conservative icon’s presidency saw the US invade Grenada, send thousands of troops to the Middle East, and attempt to overthrow the government of Nicaragua by funding, training and arming Contra militias through the CIA.
During Reagan’s presidency, Kissinger chaired the National Bipartisan Commission on Central America, which accused the Soviet Union of exploiting political unrest in the region while glossing over the US’ – and specifically Kissinger’s own – support for military dictatorships like Augusto Pinochet’s Chile and the right-wing death squads of El Salvador in the name of fighting communism.
READ MORE: Kissinger changes his position on Ukraine
Last month at the World Economic Forum, he publicly embraced the idea of Ukrainian membership in NATO, reversing course on the opposition he had voiced during the previous conference, when he called for an end to the conflict as soon as possible lest Russia be driven into the arms of China.
February 08, 2023 at 02:37AM
RT
2... Kissinger changes his position on Ukraine
https://www.rt.com/news/570039-kissinger-ukraine-nato-membership/
17 Jan, 2023 23:03 HomeWorld News
The 99-year-old former US diplomat now endorses Kiev’s NATO membership
Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger addresses the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 17, 2023 © AP / Markus Schreiber
The concept of Ukraine’s neutrality is “no longer meaningful” given the circumstances, Henry Kissinger told the World Economic Forum in Davos on Tuesday. He endorsed Kiev’s eventual membership of the US-led military bloc, but continued to insist on dialogue with Russia – a stance that earned him a spot on the notorious Ukrainian “kill list.”
Kissinger, now 99, was the US secretary of state (1973-1977) and national security advisor (1969-1975), playing a major role in the talks to end the Vietnam War, as well as the policy of pitting China against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
At last year’s Davos gathering, in May, he advocated an urgent end to hostilities in Ukraine, lest Russia is “driven into a permanent alliance with China.” For daring to suggest that Moscow could keep Crimea – which rejoined Russia in 2014 – he was placed on the “Peacemaker” list of Ukraine’s enemies, however.
On Tuesday, he prefaced his remarks with “admiration” for Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky and the “heroic conduct of the Ukrainian people,” before proposing essentially the same peace deal as last year.
“Before this war, I was opposed to the membership of Ukraine in NATO, because I feared it would start exactly the process that we have seen,” Kissinger said. “Now that this process has reached this level, the idea of a neutral Ukraine under these conditions is no longer meaningful.”
I believe Ukrainian membership in NATO would be [an] appropriate outcome.
READ MORE: Kissinger outlines Ukraine peace proposal
In Kissinger’s view, the way to prevent the conflict from escalating is to do exactly what Kiev, the US and its allies have been doing so far: demand a Russian withdrawal, while giving Ukraine military and financial aid and maintaining “sanctions and other pressures” on Moscow.
Russia should be given an “opening” to rejoin the West, “if it meets the required conditions to participate as a member in these European processes,” the elderly diplomat argued. It is important, he said, to avoid the perception that the conflict has become “against Russia itself,” which may cause Russians to re-evaluate both their historic “attraction to the culture of Europe and a fear of domination by Europe.”
Kissinger also said that the US-led military alliance ought to be the guarantor of the final peace settlement “in whatever forms NATO can develop.”
READ MORE: Ukrainian proposal is not ‘a peace plan’ – Kremlin
While his proposal flattered the Western perception that Ukraine was winning on the battlefield with the help of NATO weapons, Kissinger chose to ignore the agency of both Kiev and Moscow. Zelensky has categorically rejected any sort of ceasefire unless Russia capitulates, while the Kremlin is on the record that any deal must concede that Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye are parts of Russia – with Crimea being off the table altogether.
It was also unclear whether Moscow would accept any Western-mediated negotiations at all, after former German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s admission – later echoed by French ex-president Francois Hollande – that the 2014 Minsk armistice was not arranged in good faith, but intended to “give Ukraine time” to prepare for war.
3... 50 years after leaving Vietnam, the US keeps getting involved in wars without understanding them
https://www.rt.com/news/570651-vietnam-paris-accord-1973/
29 Jan, 2023 20:17 HomeWorld News
In 1973, the Paris Peace Accords saw American troops abandon their partners. It wouldn’t be the last time
By Matthieu Buge, who worked on Russia for the magazine l’Histoire, the Russian film magazine Séance, and as a columnist for Le Courrier de Russie. He is the author of the book Le Cauchemar russe ('The Russian Nightmare').
US National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger (R) shakes hand with Le Duc Tho, leader of North Vietnamese delegation, after the signing of a ceasefire agreement in Vietnam war, 23 January in Paris. © AFP
In January 1973, the US signed an agreement that saw it pull out of Vietnam, abandoning its South Vietnamese partners. In August 2021, history repeated itself in Afghanistan.
Vietnam being one of the theaters of the Cold War, the US decided to intervene to face the progression of communists in the country. According to the domino theory, Vietnam needed to stay within the Western sphere of influence. For the sake of democracy all over the world, obviously.
The year 1965 was the beginning of a massive US involvement. Until then, Washington had limited itself to sending supplies and about 900 military observers and trainers. But after the controversial Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, the American engagement became way more serious. At its peak in 1969, the US intervention included more than 540,000 troops on the ground. However, the large scale 1965-68 Operation Rolling Thunder, during which the US dropped 864,000 tons of bombs on North Vietnam, ended up a failure. The surprise Tet Offensive launched by the North Vietnamese was also a failure, but it seriously damaged South Vietnam’s infrastructure and the US’ reputation as a trustworthy ally.
By the end of the ‘60s, the US population had grown tired of the conflict, and more and more protests against the war were organized throughout the country. President Richard Nixon had campaigned in 1968 on the promise to end the war in Vietnam with peace and honor – the idea was to gain time and arm the South Vietnamese in order for them to defend their positions on their own. However, Nixon had failed to deliver this peace and, in 1972, was facing re-election. As the Americans had already proved during WWII when they constantly postponed the opening of a second front in Europe, a ‘democratic war’ is always closely linked to elections and internal political fights.
Three (very different) men in a boat
How the talks went is a crucial illustration of how cynical, and sometimes absurd, the foreign policy of the US can be.
Richard Nixon sent in Henry Kissinger, the national security adviser at the time. A brilliant personality, Kissinger (who is now 99) was already a member of the establishment. He did not regard South Vietnam as being important in itself, but considered it necessary to support it in order to maintain the global power status of the US. He was convinced that none of the allies of Washington would trust them anymore if the US were to dump Saigon too quickly. Realpolitik incarnate.
Kissinger changes his position on Ukraine
The North Vietnamese envoy for these negotiations was Le Duc Tho, who had started his career as a revolutionary when he was 16 and had been one of the founders of the Indochinese Communist Party in 1930. He had been jailed twice for several years by the French in very harsh conditions. He was dedicated to the unification of his country. Kissinger called him a “fanatic.”
The third man was South Vietnam’s president, Nguyen Van Thieu. He had joined Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Minh but left it after a year of service and went on to join the Vietnamese National Army of the French-backed State of Vietnam. The president of South Vietnam since 1965, he had managed to ensure a relative security but was known for turning a blind eye to (and indulging in) corruption. Another example of American foreign policy, which the quote “He may be a bastard, but he is our bastard” summarizes quite well. To add cynicism to the picture, Nguyen did not actually get a chance to sit at the negotiating table.
The cosmopolitan intellectual, the revolutionary nationalist, and the opportunist politician. Which of them was the good, the bad, or the ugly is a matter of personal preference.
The Vietnam peace treaty: Rehearsal for Afghanistan?
Between 1969 and 1973, Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho met more than 15 times in Paris. According to American historian A. J. Langguth, at one point in 1970, when things seemed at a standstill, one of Kissinger’s attempts to talk to Le Duc Tho was met with a note saying: “The US words of peace are just empty ones.” But with the US proposal and the coming presidential election, North Vietnam had a chance it could not pass up. As the subsequent events proved, the Vietnamese understood the Americans, but the Americans did not understand the Vietnamese.
The two sides ended up negotiating a complete withdrawal of the US and the release of all POWs in North Vietnam. However, the negotiations almost collapsed after this agreement, as Nixon wanted amendments and Nguyen Van Thieu, having been excluded from the talks, did not want to sign it. Kissinger managed to gain some cosmetic concessions from the North Vietnamese in order for the US not to lose face. Washington sent an ultimatum to Nguyen Van Thieu. The peace treaty was signed on January 27, 1973 in Paris. However, the ceasefire was broken by both Vietnamese sides within 24 hours. Two years later, on April 30, 1975, Saigon fell to the communist North Vietnam and it marked the definitive and complete withdrawal of the US. Nguyen Van Thieu made a final speech denouncing Washington for not keeping its word and then fled to Taiwan.
Any resemblance with the Afghan scenario is purely coincidental. In 2020, the US and the Taliban signed an agreement for the American withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Afghan government was not invited to negotiate. The ceasefire was broken almost immediately. Two years later, Kabul fell to the Taliban.
US corruption doomed Afghanistan – ex-president
Interestingly enough, the propaganda machine still has it that the US did not lose the Vietnam War – South Vietnam lost. Even Wikipedia does not mention that it was a US defeat: The French were defeated, but in the case of the US, it was simply a “withdrawal.”
Lost in translation
In Francis Ford Coppola’s movie ‘Apocalypse Now’, the character Hubert de Marais has this very important line which he delivers with a typical French accent: “The Vietnamese are very intelligent. You never know what they think. The Russian ones who help them – ‘come and give us their money. We are all communists. Chinese give us guns. We are all brothers.’ They hate the Chinese! Maybe they hate the American less than the Russian and the Chinese. I mean, if tomorrow the Vietnamese are communists they will be Vietnamese communists. And this is something you never understood, you Americans.”
Coppola had, in the ‘70’s, understood something that former US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara only came to understand in the ‘90’s when he met with Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap. With astonishment, he suddenly realized that the Vietnamese were fighting a war of independence, not an ideological war. The 20-year conflict in Vietnam had never been about the spread of communism in the world. Concerning US foreign policy, the elderly and experienced politician went on to say: “We don’t understand the Bosnians, we don’t understand the Chinese, and we don’t really understand the Iranians.” With the exception of colonized Western Europe, it seems to be a good summary of Washington’s policy towards countries all over the world.
But the propaganda machine works well: Kissinger will be remembered as the one who got the Nobel Peace Prize for the 1973 treaty. Le Duc Tho gracefully refused it.
