Countering Chinese Aggression? Redefining Its Meaning

Countering Chinese Aggression? Redefining Its Meaning

by Stephen Lendman ( – Home – Stephen Lendman)

According to UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (December 1974):

“Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.”

According to the UN Charter, no nation may attack another except in self-defense if attacked or an attack is imminent. Even under these conditions, it’s only permitted if authorized by Security Council members, not governments of individual states on their own.

US officials operate by their own rules, no others. By their standards, when the Pentagon and its allies attack targeted nations preemptively, it’s for humanitarian intervention, responsibility to protect, democracy building, and/or countering a threat to US security — no matter how different reality is from public pronouncements.

US wars are all about dominating other nations, unrelated to claimed threats that don’t exist. So they’re invented to justify what’s unjustifiable.

That’s what naked aggression is all about, repeated time and again by the US against nations threatening no one — from 1950 against North Korea to US wars ongoing in multiple theaters, plans for new ones drawn, to be implemented when or if ordered.

China, Russia, and Iran are Washington’s main adversaries — mainly for their sovereign independence free from US control.

According to the neocon/CIA-connected Washington Post, the US “must deter Chinese aggression” that doesn’t exist, adding:

The US “is trying to counter (its) malign actions,” redefining the meaning of both terms. China is at war with no other countries — polar opposite how Washington operates, waging war on humanity, blaming targeted nations for its own high crimes.

The US is concerned about China growing clout as a world power, heading toward becoming the world’s largest economy one day.

Its military might would be a significant challenge to the US if Pentagon forces foolishly attacked the country, risking use of nuclear weapons in earnest for the first time, threatening the region and planet earth if things go this far.

China seeks cooperative relations with other nations, not dominance over them the way the US operates.

Its growth and development since Deng Xiaoping introduced economic reforms in 1979 has been remarkable by any standard, elevating hundreds of millions of its people out of poverty.

Official policy aims to identify ways to achieve maximum growth. Deng called the process “crossing the river by touching the stones.”

On a purchase price basis, what a basket of goods costs in China compared to the US, China already is the world’s largest economy, well short of on a GDP basis.

The US operates a global empire of bases, used as platforms for control and for waging aggressive wars.

According to US Indo-Pacific Command head Admiral Philip Davidson quoted by WaPo, the goal of US military strategy in Asia is “to dissuade China from pursuing their ambitions, which are centered on the first island chain in the near term but are much more broadly and globally ambitious in the long term.”

No evidence suggests China intends expanding its military globally. Its ruling authorities justifiably oppose US efforts to expand its military footprint in a part of the world not its own — part of what its imperial agenda is all about.

According to WaPo, “Davidson called for more investments in cyber defense, electronic warfare, long-range precision fire, and integrated air and missile defense” to deter China.

WaPo quoted former US deputy war secretary Robert Work, saying “Chinese technological capabilities are growing as rapidly as its economic power,” suggesting a nonexistent threat.

China isn’t deterred by Washington’s growing Indo/Pacific presence. WaPo expressed concern about “whether it can be.”

Last summer, the NYT cited the threat of “China’s aggression” that doesn’t exist, noting the development of man-made islands in the South China Sea, militarized for self-defense, not as platforms for war like the US operates globally.

Days earlier, the Wall Street Journal called for defending what it defined as “the periphery of the West” against China and Russia, referring to the Indo/Pacific.

The broadsheet called for war by other means, similar to hostile US policies against Iran and Venezuela, including “tariffs…embargoes and boycotts…asset seizures…sanctions…denial of access to the US banking system and to the Swift bank-telecommunications service,” among other hostile actions.

Along with endless wars of aggression, the US uses the above tactics and other hostile actions against nations on its target list for regime change.

WaPo, the NYT, WSJ, and other establishment media support what demands denunciation, operating as imperial press agents.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at


My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: