National Defence Authorization Act (2012) obliged the U.S. military to launch preemptive strike against China

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

© 2007-now
Bookmark and Share
PAPA logo
notice board blogger icon
New links

On 14 July 2015, the Supreme Court of B.C. handed down an unprecedented judgment J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216. This is the first case in Canadian legal history in which child protection workers are found liable for misfeasance in public office, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the standard of care. Findings therein confirm our views and support the merit of our cause. Continuous litigations between JP and the MCFD are summarized in JP Aftermath. Our commentary on the Plecas Review Part 1: Decision Time was published on 4 January 2016. If you have evidence of misfeasance or abuse of children in foster care, please come forward and contact us.
Our site contains vast amount of information on child protective services (CPS). Please hover your mouse over the navigation icons below to access the most frequently sought information by various categories of browsers.
parents must read
  1. MCFD Tactics
  2. MCFD Surveillance
  3. MCFD found liable for misfeasance
  4. Psychotherapy
  5. Flaws of CFCSA
  6. Absolute Power and Corruption
  7. Myths & Reality
  8. On-line Service Application
Media
  1. MCFD found liable for misfeasance
  2. MCFD Tactics
  3. MCFD Surveillance
  4. MCFD & The First Nation
  5. Unreported Deaths of Albertan Foster Children
  6. Child Removal and Human Organ Harvesting
  7. Empirical and Statistical Data
  8. Child Removal Cases
  9. Video Archives
contact us
most popular
  1. MCFD found liable for misfeasance
  2. MCFD & The First Nation
  3. The Child Protection Industry
  4. Unreported Deaths of Albertan Foster Children
  5. Our Comment on "When Talk Trumped Service"
  6. "The problem with Children’s Aid Societies" by Barbara Kay for National Post
  7. Powerful As God (2011 documentary)
  8. CPS Quotas: How Child Protective Services is Incentivized To Take Children video
  9. Documentary on the Child Protection Industry
  10. "The Child Abuse Laws Which Could Destroy Your Reputation"
  11. 3-part WLKY Target 32 Investigates (Kentucky, U.S.A.):
    1. "CPS Makes Shocking Allegations at 2 Moms Part 1 of 3"
    2. "CPS Does About Face, Accuses Parents Of Abuse Part 2 of 3"
    3. "CPS Makes More Disturbing Allegations Against Parents Part 3 of 3"
  12. "Child Protective System WLKY Louisville Part 1"; and
    "Child Protective System WLKY Louisville Part 2"
  13. Documentary on the Ministry of Children and Family Development Part 1 and Part 2
  14. "The Negative Effects of Foster Care on Removed Children" (Wikipedia)
  15. "Mass CPS corruption Part 2"
  16. "Deconstructing America Part 1" "Deconstructing America Part 2"
  17. "Death of a foster child Dontel Jeffers, Dorchester, Massachusetts, U.S.A. (Part 1)" "(Part 2)" ABC News
  18. U.S. Republican Senator Nancy Schaefer spoke on "child protective service" (CPS) corruption video
  19. "Children's Aid Society workers should be reined in" National Post
  20. Wrongful Removal of Christina Harrison's Baby
  21. Jessica Laboy case
  22. Removal of the 13 Gates Children in Texas, U.S.A.
  23. "Married to the State: How government colonizes the family"
    by Professor Stephen Baskerville (September 2009)
Table of Contents
  1. Introduction
  2. A Brief Overview of Modern Japanese History
  3. Pearl Harbor Attack: A Meticulously Planned Preemptive Strike
  4. Post-War Japan's Speedy Recovery
  5. Japan's Ambition to Ascend to World Power
  6. Japan's Ruse to Create a Pretext to Expand Its Military and to Pursue Preemptive Strike Power
  7. The Diaoyutai Islands Dispute
  8. Allegation of Japanese Warship locked by Chinese Fire-Control Radar
  9. Reasons of Conflict Between China and the U.S.A.
    1. America's Economic Problems
    2. Perception of Super Power Status Challenged
    3. Narrowing Disparity in Military Strength
  10. America's Plan of Preemptive Strike
  11. Conclusion

Yamamoto's Mistake in 1941

Introduction

This page is a spin off from "Qian Xuesen" and bears no direct relevance with the child protection industry, except:

  1. similar ruses used in the industry and international politics;
  2. analogy between a hegemony (a bully at the state level) and the child protection regime.

The main focus of this web page is to further analyze whether China (a perceived totalitarian tyranny and a threat to many, if not most, Canadians) or the U.S.A. (a democratic self ordained world police) posts a larger threat to peace and world safety in respect of readiness and reliance on preemptive strike.

Recent economical and military developments prompt the U.S. government to prepare for preemptive strike against one of its greatest perceived enemies China. We will examine the value of preemptive strike in achieving final victory in light of the Pearl Harbour attack in December of 1941. We will also discuss some historical factors that led to the current status.

A Brief Overview of Modern Japanese History

Before the Meiji Reform (明治維新) (also known as Meiji Restoration) in 1868, Japan was a backward feudal state. Gunboat diplomacy of the West opened up Japanese ports to trade and triggered the Reform that accelerated industrialization and modernization in Japan. Within three decades, Japan became a military power strong enough to defeat its neighbour China in the 9-month long First Sino-Japanese War (1894-5). The Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed on 17 April 1895 and Taiwan was ceded to Japan. War reparation from China helped to build Japan's war machine. By 1905, Japan defeated Imperial Russia on Chinese soil and took over Russian interests in China. In World War I, both China and Japan sided with the Allied. However, all German interests in China were transferred to Japan at the end of War when Germany was defeated. Exploitation from conquered territories prepared Japan to pursue further aggression.

Isoroku Yamamoto 山本五十六 (4 April 1884–18 April 1943) was the commander-in-chief of the Imperial Japanese Combined Fleet (聯合艦隊) at the beginning of the Pacific War. Since the invasion of Manchuria (north eastern China) in 1931, Japan's war effort required a huge amount of natural resources. After the League of Nations investigated and condemned Japan for invading Manchuria in 1931, Japan withdrew from the League on 27 March 1933. The United States imposed trade embargo, especially arms and oil, on Japan that threatened the island nation's war effort in China.

Pearl Harbor Attack: A Meticulously Planned Preemptive Strike

After the U.S. Congress passed the Two-Ocean Navy Act on 19 July 1940, Japan knew that war with America was inevitable. The Japanese High Command ordered Yamamoto to draw up plans to defeat the U.S. Yamamoto had lived and been educated in America. Given the disparity in strategic strength, he knew that Japan cannot defeat the U.S. The best that Japan could do is to deliver a fatal military blow to paralyze the Americans in the Pacific, demoralize their will to fight and compel them to sue for peace.

With this notion in mind, Yamamoto masterminded the preemptive strike in Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941. Delay in delivering the ultimatum to the U.S. State Department had turned the meticulously planned surprise attack to a sneak attack, fueling the Americans with rage and passion to seek revenge. Although the attack was a tactical success, Yamamoto failed to destroy the three American carriers in the Pacific. To protect his ships against air strike from the intact American carriers, Admiral Chūichi Nagumo (南雲 忠一) withdrew before launching the third wave attack aimed to destroy the docks and oil storage facilities. Pearl Harbor became functional again within months after the attack. Many of the damaged warships became combat ready. Pearl Harbour continued to function as the U.S. Pacific Fleet head quarter. Yamamoto's strategic objective to force the U.S. to sue for peace had not been accomplished.

Politically, the attack had awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve to seek total victory. At Winston Churchill's great relief, Yamamoto brought the United Sates into the war, an outcome Churchill had sought without success since war broke out in Poland in September 1939. America had turned away from isolationism. Churchill was contended that England was saved. America's entry to the war had permanently changed the balance of power against the Axis and is a determining factor of the ultimate defeat of the Axis Powers.

Post-War Japan's Speedy Recovery

After World War II, Japan's constitution (drafted under American direction) prohibited its government to build an armed force until the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950. When General Douglas MacArthur needed the American troops in Korea, Japan was allowed to build a small defensive force. A small post-war defence budget contributed significantly to the speedy recovery of the post-war Japanese economy. In less than two decades, Japan became the largest economy in Asia.

In 1991, Japanese Yen faced heavy American pressure to appreciate. The more expensive Yen rendered Japanese goods less competitive and recession sets in until now. At the point of writing, Japan has not recovered from a long period of economic slump. Failure to attain economic recovery is a reason of political instability. Japan has seven prime ministers since 26 September 2006. This provides an incentive for the Japanese government to divert attention away from domestic financial problems by way of a patriotic war.

Hover your mouse to pause the slide show and to view photo description.

Japan's Ambition to Ascend to World Power

Despite Japan's shortage of strategic edge and reliance on foreign raw materials, its ambition to dominate Asia, if not the world, has never ceased. Unlike Germany, Japan shows no remorse and pays no reparation to nations it invaded in the last century. Recent leaders denied many crimes against humanity its army had committed. Furthermore, it portrayed itself as a victim of war, in particular a victim of atomic bomb, rather than a perpetrator.

Its ambition to ascend to world power is evident in the following:

  • a strong desire (as evident by lobbying effort) to become a permanent member in the security council of the United Nation (the only defeated Axis Power that has such ambition);
  • shrewd political move to gradually change its constitution to build an armed force that could further its ambition under the pretext of foreign threats and national security;
  • aggressive diplomatic effort to solicit support of stronger Japanese military presence to contain a growing China (the Philippines is a supporter of the foregoing despite the fact that Japan had invaded, occupied and enslaved its people during World War II and massacred 100,000 Filipinos (around 10% of the population of the city) before retreating from Manila);
  • distorting history to undermine the war crimes and atrocities committed by Japan during World War II (for example, denial of the Nanking Massacre (南京大屠殺)
    The video focused on comfort women sexually
    enslaved by the Japanese military during
    World War II. Many photos and video
    footages used were taken during the
    Nanking Massacre (南京大屠殺).
    Historians and witnesses estimated
    that 250,000 to 300,000
    Chinese were killed after Nanking
    fell in December 1937. War crimes committed
    by the Japanese are no less than that
    by Nazi Germany in the Holocaust.
    and the use of chemical and biological weapons on Chinese civilians) to prepare a loyal and subservient people to go to war when its politicians see fit.

Japan's Ruse to Create a Pretext to Expand Its Military and to Pursue Preemptive Strike Power

Liberal Democratic Party (自由民主党) (the ruling party in Japan at the point of writing) blatantly declares that one goal of the party is to returning the constitution to support the political system of the pre-WWII era, hence the ability to raise an armed force capable of waging aggressive war. To garner international support, especially support from the Untied States, Japan needs excuses to justify the expansion of its military. The Diaoyutai Islands (釣魚台列嶼) (also known as Senkaku Islands by the Japanese) Dispute and the North Korea nuclear test in February 2013 provided a golden opportunity for Japan.

The Diaoyutai Islands Dispute

The Diaoyutai Islands dispute is shrewdly masterminded by the invisible hands of the United States. After World War II ended, these islands were supposed to return to China together with Taiwan under the Cairo Declaration. Although the Diaoyutai Islands were not explicitly mentioned in the Declaration, it is safe to contend that they are part of Taiwan given their geographic proximity and historical evidence of connection with China. Japan subsequently renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan in the San Francisco Peace Treaty (8 September 1951) which came into force on 28 April 1952. At that time, China lacked the naval power to take over these islands and they were under the control of the U.S. until 1972.

Yalta Conference and the loss of Mongolia
American and British generosity: In the Yalta Summit (1945), Churchill and Roosevelt gave away Chinese territory (today's Mongolia) in exchange for Stalin's declaration of war against Japan in the Pacific.
Ethnic Mongols in China reached a population size of 5.8 million, which is higher than that in Mongolia (3,179,997 according to the 2012 census). Most of them live in Inner Mongolia, Northeast China and Xinjiang.

In 1969, potential oil and gas reserves in the vicinity of the islands were proclaimed. Without consultation with China or Taiwan, the U.S. unilaterally returned the control of these islands (which obviously do not belong to the U.S.) to Japan. This is not the first time Americans generously give away territories that do not belong to them. Near the end of World War II, President Roosevelt wanted the USSR to fight Japan in the Pacific War to minimize American casualties. In the Yalta Conference held in February 1945, the Soviets demanded an American recognition of Mongolian independence from China, and a recognition of Soviet interests in the Manchurian railways and Port Arthur, which Imperial Russia lost to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt agreed without Chinese representation or consent. The agreement was imposed on China after the War. China lost a territory larger than the size of England and France combined. After the Americans sowed the seed of conflict by transferring control of these islands to Japan, financial incentive and national proud soon triggered competition of sovereignty by China, Taiwan and Japan. The United States successfully hijacked patriotism of both nations to serve its interests.

The Chinese government always maintains the position that sovereignty of these islands has never been given up and they are part of China. Former Chinese leaders had a mutual understanding with the Japanese government that sovereignty claim be set aside and no unilateral action be taken to assert sovereignty on these uninhabited islands. Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) said, "We do not have the wisdom to resolve the Diaoyutai Islands problem. We could wait, even decade is fine." This explained why the Chinese government was not supportive of civil actions in exercising Chinese sovereignty rights such as landing on Diaoyutai Islands. Commitment to this understanding served the two nations well in strengthening diplomatic tie and economic development.

On 1 June 2012, China and Japan began direct trading of Chinese Renminbi (RMB ¥ or yuan 元) and Japanese yen in Tokyo and Shanghai to facilitate bilateral trades and investment between the two countries. The greenbacks has been the only major direct trading currency in trade settlement. This move will reduce demand of the U.S. dollars in international currency market, hence curbing America's ability to repay debt by printing money.

Shortly after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton visited Tokyo in July 2012, the Japanese government decided to purchase the Diaoyutai Islands from the Kurihara family for a reported US$26.15 million and announced nationalization of these islands on 10 September 2012. Japan's suddenly action to break the status quo outraged China and Taiwan. Chinese worldwide boycotted Japanese goods. Toyota reported a sales drop of 40% following the Diaoyutai crisis. Consequently, both economies suffered setback.

Allegation of Japanese Warship locked by Chinese Fire-Control Radar

Japan is an expert in fabricating excuses to further its aggression. Similar ruse has been used repeatedly before to start aggression in China. Due to imperialistic invasion and exploitation, the presence of foreign troops on Chinese soil was common since the late Qing Dynasty. After the First Sino-Japanese War from 1894 to 1895 (also known as the War of Jiawu 甲午戰爭), Japan annexed Korea and stationed troops in Manchuria after winning the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). To further its territorial ambition in resource-rich Manchuria, Japanese military engineered a pretext for invasion by detonating a small amount of dynamite close on a railroad owned by Japan's South Manchuria Railway near Mukden (now Shenyang). The Imperial Japanese Army accused Chinese of the act and began a full invasion that led to the occupation of Manchuria. Japan established a puppet state under 1945. This is the 918 Incident in 1931 (also known as the Mukden Incident).

On 7 July 1937, the Imperial Japanese army conducted a military exercise in the vicinity of Beijing. A Japanese solider was alleged missing. Japanese troops demanded entry of Chinese held territory to look for the missing soldier. Local Chinese commanders denied. At about 4:50 a.m. 8 July 1937, Japanese opened fire despite that the missing soldier had already returned and reported to duty. Unlike in previous conflicts, the Chinese army fought back. This is the Marco Polo Bridge Incident that marks the beginning of the 8-year long Second Sino-Japanese War (also known as the War of Resistance Against Japan 抗日戰爭) that cost 30 million Chinese, mainly civilians, casualties.

International law stipulates that de facto control of a territory exceeding 50 years may qualify for annexation. At the point of writing, if Japan retains control of the islands for another 8 years, its legal position to incorporate them will be improved. China responded by stepping up marine surveillance vessel patrol of surrounding waters to assert sovereignty rights.

Chinese vessels, civilian or military alike, approaching Diaoyutai waters will attract surveillance and at times aggressive intimidation from Japanese warships. On 4 February 2013, Japan accused China of locking fire control radar on a Japanese destroyer and a helicopter on two separate counts in January 2013. Japan alleged the locking was intended as a threat to Japan to back off from its claims to the Diaoyutai islands. After confirming with her military, China denied the allegation and challenged Japan to show proof of fire radar locking. Japan refused and shrewdly alleged that showing proof will inevitably disclose its military capability and secrets. America immediately concurred with Japan's position. In such absurd logic, any allegation can be made without justification by citing national secrecy.

This ruse bears remarkable resemblance with that often used by service providers in the child protection industry. When questioned by the media on sensitive child protection cases that could harm the image of the industry, authorities often say no comment could be made under the pretext of protecting the privacy of children as required by law. This keeps people guessing in the dark. Media has nothing to report and state-created child removal atrocities are often soon forgotten. Any actions could be justified by an allegation without support of facts or valid reasons.

Reasons of Conflict Between China and the U.S.A.

From a macro perspective, all conflicts are ultimately a result of too many people competing for too few resources. Historically, America and China had been allied and had fought each other in different places for various reasons. The first war against China took place when the United States offered help to England in the Second Opium War (1856 to 1860) and to a larger extent, when the United States joined the Eight-Nation Alliance in the Boxer Rebellion (1900). The last war is the Korean War (1950-1953) in which General Mark Clark was the first American commander to agree to an armistice without victory. This is also the first time in modern history that the Chinese armed force fought a world class international army to a standstill with inferior military equipment and little air support.

America has adopted the doctrine of limited war aimed at containing advance of communism (such as the Vietnam War) and total war aimed at victory at all costs (such as World War II). These strategies had been successful with more prominent victory in the War on Terror and the 2003 invasion of Iraq (from 19 March 2003 to 1 May 2003). It is noteworthy to mention that Japan sent 600 troops to aid the Coalition in the 2003 Iraq War. Despite whether these Japanese troops played any combat role, this marked the first time that Japan sent an expeditionary force overseas for non self defence purpose since the end of World War II. Obviously, this amounts to a contravention against Japanese constitution. Of course, no country complained when the U.S. concurred such action.

China has never fought an aggressive war on American soil and was an ally during World War I and II. An estimated of a quarter million Chinese civilians were massacred by the Japanese Army in eastern China in retaliation for saving American airmen after the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo in 1942. We could not find any other nation who had sacrificed so many of its citizens to save American lives.

Why the world's only super power takes such a dangerous measure that could potentially lead to a nuclear holocaust? Ideological difference alone is unlikely to be the cause of war. The documentary above gives a good overview of subtle hostility between the two nations. James R. Liley (李潔明), an American diplomat born in China who served as the American Ambassador to China at the time of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, held a very critical view on the rise of China as a new economic and military superpower. Liley had worked in many Asian countries as a CIA operative and helped to insert CIA agents into China. His view is typical among other American hardliner politicians and military leaders. We will try to find an answer from the following:

China-US creditor-debtor

  1. America's Economic Problems

    Americans have enjoyed an affluent era since World War II. Excessive spending beyond the means of Americans is encouraged by easy credit and decades of low interest rate. Unions have rendered American labour and goods less competitive in the international market. In a democratic system, politicians use tax dollars to buy the support they need to get elected. Special interests (such as service providers in the child protection industry) deeply entrenched in government to aggrandize at taxpayer's expense. National debt and budget deficit becomes a common nightmare in every fiscal year. The Greece financial crisis in 2012 is an example of the foregoing.

    Given the greenback's currency reserve status, the U.S. can repay debt by printing money. As the economy of China grows, the Chinese Yuan inevitably gains more weight in international currency market. This also increases the likelihood that the dollar may lose its currency reserve status, hence directly threatening the financial well being of America. Diverting public attention from domestic economic problems by starting war is not uncommon. The Argentine government used this scheme before in the Falklands War in 1982. Above all, China is America's largest creditor. Annihilation of China means a large portion of national debt forgiven.

  2. Perception of Super Power Status Challenged

    National security and interests are the main cause of most wars in history. Despite China repeatedly announced that it will not seek hegemony, many American decision makers are concerned that the rise of China could challenge America's only super power status and its hegemony built after World War II. Americans used to enjoy military, economic and political supremacy. This unspoken interest is more than to preserve the only superpower status and a national pride. It is the ability to exploit and to impose American will and value on the world that the U.S. finds difficult to forgo. England underwent similar struggle when it lost its super power status in the 20th century.

  3. Narrowing Disparity in Military Strength

    It is estimated that China will catch up with the U.S. in military strength in 2020. Like Yamamoto's rationale in planning his Pearl Harbour attack, it appears logical to launch a preemptive strike to destroy a potential enemy before he acquires the strength to win. If war is considered inevitable, striking first to catch an unprepared enemy is a more desirable option to achieve quick victory.

America's Plan of Preemptive Strike

Preemptive strike is an enticing option to military planners. At the tactical level, it is logical to launch a first strike while there is still an edge over one's enemy and the element of surprise is present. This will improve the chance of winning at the onset to boost morale and to compel a defeated enemy to sue for peace. This is precisely Yamamoto's rationale to attack Pearl Habor in 1941 before the U.S. builds a navy and air force strong enough to challenge Japan's regional supremacy.

The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff published a strategic plan titled "Joint Vision 2020" in June 2000. The focus of the plan is to attain full spectrum dominance through interdependent application of dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics and full dimensional protection. Although this plan is largely military in nature, the strategic concepts of power projection and overseas presence are of equal importance. In essence, it advocates hegemonic supremacy in every aspect. We are mindful that an open document does not necessarily reflect the full intent or real course of actions of the U.S. planners. This document could be used to solicit financial support from the U.S. Congress, boost morale and/or to impel its potential rivalries to engage in resource draining defence programs calculated to bankrupt these nations (such as the star war program announced by the Regan administration in the 1980s to incite the Soviet Union to spend massive financial resources to compete). Nonetheless, the motive of the U.S. is clear: to maintain its hegemony (to remain strong in their own words) at all costs, including preemptive strike.

Furthermore, George W. Bush gave notice to Russia that the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty on 13 December 2001. Since then, America is not constrained by anti-ballistic missile treaty. After U.S. congressmen and senators overwhelming passed the National Defence Authorization Act Bill in 2012, President Obama signed the bill that authorized more funding and more power to the military, including the power to detain indefinitely without trial. It also authorized preemptive strike against China. This gives a green light to go to war against civil liberty and the most populous country in the world.

First tactical victory is seldom decisive. Final success of a war depends on a large number of factors such as the relative comprehensive strength, leadership skills, unity of a nation, possession of strategic resources, righteous cause of going to war, prudent planning, astute and prompt decisions, ... etc. The only certainty of preemptive strike is to push both belligerents to a point of no return. Yamamoto's mistake in 1941 proved that preemptive strike is not a sure-win strategy and could bring disaster, especially in a nuclear era.

America has other subtle plans to foster support of preemptive strike against China. Among those, the accusation of Chinese cyber theft is more prominent. In February 2013, the American government alleged hacker attacks to steal U.S. military secrets are from China, citing IP addresses that belong to the People's Liberation Army quarter in Shanghai. Even some high school kids know how to ghost surf the internet with a phony IP address. No professional hacker would use an IP address traceable to his real identities. Furthermore, it is inconceivable to believe that the CIA is not hacking information systems of foreign governments. Press release of faulty accusation based on unscientific reason aims to stir up anti-Chinese sentiment in a gullible American public and to garner support of rougher actions against China.

Shortly after the Xi-Obama summit in California where the U.S. President directly aired concerns about Chinese cyber theft to his counterpart, NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden testified that the U.S. had hacked hundreds of targets in Hong Kong – including public officials, the Hong Kong Chinese University, businesses and students in the city – and on Mainland China on 9 June 2013. He also alleged that NSA (National Security Agency, often referred as No Such Agency) also monitors other American intelligence agencies such as the CIA and FBI. This confirms Chinese President Xi's allegation that China is a major victim of cyber theft. Mr. Snowden's interview transcript and news video footage are archived below.

Conclusion

In his famous treatise on military tactics "The Art of War" (孫子兵法), Sun Tze (孫子) did not advocate preemptive strike per se. He qualified supreme excellence as subduing an enemy without fighting. America plots to shoot China with bullets from Japan and to provoke China to act and be tainted as an aggressor.

Rearming Japan is an important American strategy in containing China. The United States will hit a jackpot if war breaks out between China and Japan. It will weaken the military and economic strength of both countries, create more demand of American military supplies and open an opportunity for the United States to further extend its influence in a destabilized Pacific region.

Japan would not have taken such bold aggressive stance in the Diaoyutai dispute if there is no American backing. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met President Barack Obama in the White House on 22 February 2013. After the meeting, Obama remarked that Japan is one of America's closest allies, and the U.S.-Japan alliance is the central foundation for the regional security in the Pacific region. And that friendship extends not just between the two governments but also between the American and Japanese peoples. Japan had been nuked by America and they are now closest allies. Illusional sense of security from alliance with America could lead to disastrous mistakes. Will the United States risk being attacked by Chinese nuclear tipped missiles when regional hostility begins? The American position in the Diaoyutai dispute is the security of these islands is covered by the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan and at the same time the United States takes no position in the sovereignty dispute. Strategic ambiguity enables America to get involved or back off at will. In politics, there is no everlasting friends or foes. America has betrayed its allies before (such as the Chinese Nationalist government in the Chinese Liberation War from 1946 to 1949 and South Vietnam in 1975) and will do so again if it serves its best national interests.

Japan had shocked the world, in particular the Americans, of its fanatic armed force performing unthinking acts such as Kamakazi and banzai suicidal charge. Like the suicidal human bomb used by modern terrorists, this brutal tactic costs dearly in human lives and carries little strategic significance to change the outcome of war. One must question the wisdom of using a running dog of this caliber.

Japan lacks the strategic resources to become a superpower but has an ambition to become one. Its relatively large population live in small islands scattered with nuclear plants capable of producing weapon grade fusion fuel. Some of its warships and ocean liners can be converted to aircraft carriers on short notice. Above all, Japan shows no remorse on the war crimes committed against countries it had invaded. It is seeking an excuse to change its constitution by using ruses that it had used in the past to build an armed force capable of waging aggressive war and launching preemptive strike. Americans ought to have known better than any other nations that unleashing a fanatic running dog is a dangerous choice.

Japan boosted that it could defeat China in three months at the outbreak of hostility in 1937. Japanese army implemented the Three Alls Policy (三光政策), namely kill all, loot all, burn all, after 1940 to exterminate the Chinese race. Barbaric inhumane act of slaughtering unarmed civilians did not break the Chinese will to fight. The war dragged on for eight years and Japan was defeated.

In 2013, Japan alleged that it could destroy the Chinese navy and air force in two hours and warned the Chinese government not to overestimate its military strength. The U.S. military made similar threat that Chinese leaders may wake up in the morning to find out that half of their navy and air force have been wiped out. By comparison, the American threat is more modest. Japan failed to defeat China when there was a sharp disparity in military strength in the last two Sino-Japanese wars. What chance does Japan stand now when China is now a nuclear power governed by competent leadership? It appears that Japan has not learned from its mistakes in the past and needs another lesson before it is ready to live peacefully.

Most Canadians would tend to side with the United States and Japan because they are democratic countries and China is not. Our close ties, cultural similarities, common heritage and analogous ethnic background may render us more susceptible to pro-American propaganda. Perhaps many of us do not know or may have forgotten that Canadians had suffered in Japanese hands at the outbreak of the Pacific War. A regiment from Manitoba fought the Japanese in Hong Kong shortly after the Pearl Harbour attack. After 17 days of fighting, the British surrendered. Canadian soldiers expected to be treated according to the Geneva Convention, a treaty that the Empire of Japan did not recognize. Our soldiers were brutally mistreated in Japanese POW camp for over 3 years and 8 months until Japan unconditionally surrendered in 1945. Among the 1,975 Canadian soldiers sent to aid the British in the defence of Hong Kong, 550 never return.

wolf in sheep skin

Those who have flown to the United States from the Vancouver International Airport (YVR) should have noticed that YVR is a pre-clearance airport for most airlines flying to the United States. This means travelers will clear U.S. Customs and Border Protection before leaving Vancouver. In view of security needs after 911, Canadians have not complained of American immigration laws enforced on Canadian soil. What if China does the same? If our government allows it, many Canadians will be pounding on the table for invasion of our national sovereignty. This is how we subconsciously submit to the American position in our upbringing.

"The people have always some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness... This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs, when he first appears he is a protector."
(Plato, 429-347 B.C., Source: The Republic)

Understanding history and careful analysis of facts and empirical data will shed more light to make better judgment and to mitigate gullibility on the vast amount of information imparted from various sources. Like service providers in the child protection industry, those who appear to be a protector, occupy the moral high ground and pursue a seemingly noble cause. However, their motive and actions are not necessarily righteous. They could be the perpetrator, or more precisely a wolf in sheep's skin.

The analogy below illustrates the similarities between a hegemony (a bully at the state level) and the child protection regime.

similarities

The U.S. (a hegemony)

child protection regime

absolute power supreme military power that could strike at will anywhere in the world with the largest arsenal of nuclear weapon absolute statutory power to remove children from their parents at will with no repercussion from court of law or government
moral high ground occupy the moral high ground of a self ordained world police mandate of protecting freedom and democracy, fighting against tyranny and oppression occupy the moral high ground of protecting vulnerable children from abuse of their own parents
pretext national security, protection of American interests, democracy, human rights child safety, "best interests" of children and family welfare
statutory power National Defence Authorization Act, Homeland Security Act, Patriot Act, various legally binding international treaties obliging the U.S. to commit force under certain circumstances child protection regimes are governed by different legislation, in British Columbia, it is the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA)
oppressive and invasive actions sending troops and/or secret agents to overthrow foreign sovereign governments by military intervention (for example the two Gulf wars against Iraq) or covert quasi military operation (for example overthrowing the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya and supporting opposition in the Syrian civil war that began on 15 March 2011) escorted and aided by the police (as obliged by most English-speaking child protection law), child protection workers remove children from their parents (at times right after birth in the delivery room of hospital) and send their secret agents to mount surveillance on parents







similar propaganda tactics serving
the hidden agenda of those in power










Propaganda techniques used in both regimes to garner public support are the same:

  1. Create an impression that the aggressor is acting to defend a just cause or a helpless group.
  2. Build up a crusade mythology that presents the aggressor as a good guy fighting for a higher ideal or for the good of humanity.
  3. Dehumanize the enemies by presenting them as evil, barbaric or subhuman to provide moral support to those who carry out the act of aggression.





  1. exaggerate danger posed by the enemy, fabricate an attack to frame or intentionally provoke the enemy to respond
  2. spreading democracy, combating terrorism, defending human rights
  3. portraying the enemy as tyrant, dictator, radical and a threat to security




  1. exaggerate risk to children from parents, fabricate evidence of child abuse or intentionally provoke parents to respond
  2. protect vulnerable children, develop families to provide a safe environment for child nourishment
  3. portray parents as violent abuser, psychopath, a threat to children and families
self-serving motives in most cases, expansion of power, open markets for American businesses (for example the imperialistic wars against China in the 19th and early 20th century) and exploitation of natural resources aggrandize more money (mostly tax dollars), power and fame for various service providers in the child protection industry
betrayal of the original noble legislative intents
and testimonies of turncoat service providers
a threat to world peace, challenge to privacy, liberty, value of democracy, personal safety and freedom as evident by aggressive military strategy, power to monitor global communication and indiscriminate surveillance on both foreign and American nationals, use of drones to kill American citizens without trial

For more information on, please visit our "Insight from Edward Snowden" page.

the largest institutional risk to child safety and families stemming from the corruption of state-sponsored child removal
surveillance mount sophisticated worldwide surveillance on both allies, enemies and potential enemies (including individuals, corporations and universities), committing cyber thefts and invasion of privacy
mount amatuer surveillance on unsuspecting parents to create incriminating evidence in child protection hearings and to create business opportunities to service providers in the child protection industry
divide and conquer, sowing seeds of discontent divide a homogeneous group (for example North and South Korea) or combine hostile groups to live in one geographic area drive a wedge between parents and children, spouses and extended relatives to create an image of dysfunctional family and to prevent family members to form a united front to fight the child protection industry
readiness to take preemptive action history, policies and legislations suggest that American decision makers have no hesitation to launch preemptive strike against a potential threat, for example the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to maximize business opportunities and job security, the doctrine of preventive removals is often followed, courts condone such actions as child protection agencies need not to prove immediate danger to child safety in most hearings (for instance, in a 2005 presentation hearing in Vancouver "Director v. M.P., 2005 BCPC 651 Docket: 2005-19226, Registry: Vancouver", temporary custody order was made in favour of director when:
  1. there is no third party complaint (ie. uninvited protection);
  2. the director needs not to show that the child is in immediate danger; or
  3. the removal is in the best interests of the child
generosity to give away other people's properties generously give away territories that belong to another sovereign state to serve its interests, often used as a bait to:
  • induce a desired action (for example forced China to accept the independence of Mongolia in 1945 in exchange of Soviet declaration of war on Japan); or
  • to sow the seed of conflict to divide and conquer (for example transferred the control of Diaoyutai Islands to Japan in 1971)
ruthlessly seek excuse to remove children from parents and aggressively pursue continuous custody so that adoption can take place to maximize the financial benefits of service providers in the child protection industry
hypocritical accusation of wrongdoings
frequently accuses China of cyber theft based on faulty evidence (such as an IP address linked to a Chinese location) while its CIA is doing the same (as evident in China's counter argument in the Cantonese news video on the left; to those who do not believe in the Chinese government, common sense suggests that it would be inconceivable that the intelligence agency of a super power armed with the latest spy technology does not engage in espionage) accuses parents of child abuse based on opinions supported by faulty, at times fabricated, "evidence" while many removed children are traumatized and some are abused or killed in foster homes (see Death of Children in Care and other related statistics on Critical Injuries and Deaths of B.C. children in care which qualify child protection service as the largest institutional risk on child safety
imposition of value and judgment unilaterally impose American value and judgment of another sovereign power to serve its interests lobby child protect law to serve the industry's best interests and impose its value and judgment on parents
impacts on the receiving end of intervention subjugated countries often suffer immense casualties, prolonged political chaos, economic instability and natural resources exploited many families are ripped apart, some children are abused or die in foster care, most become marginalized after reaching adulthood
consequences a major threat, if not the largest threat, to world peace, safety and equity a serious threat to safety, freedom, human rights and liberty

Sun Tze correctly remarked over two thousand years ago that war is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. It is a subject of inquiry which must not be taken lightly. "The Art of War" is a compulsory subject in West Point Military Academy. American decision makers should rethink their nation's position and decide when to fight and when not to fight. Is there a righteous reason to go to war simply because its only superpower status may be at risk? It is a duty owed not only to Americans but also to the entire human race. We cherish peace and the safety of our children. That's why we study history to avoid mistakes mankind made in the past. In a nuclear war, the largest enemy is war itself.


Qian Xuesen
Return to "Qian Xuesen".

[This page was conceptualized on 11 February 2013, published on 28 February 2013, last revised 7 October 2014.]