Is Bergoglio a fellow traveller of the Communist Party of China?

The Vatican’s illusions about Chinese communism: Cardinal Joseph Zen says that Francis misunderstands how repressive China is.

By DAVID FEITH

Cardinal Zen in St Peter's Square, March 6, 2013.

Hong Kong -- Cardinal Joseph Zen, the most senior Chinese cleric in the Catholic Church, believes the Vatican is fast approaching a tragic mistake in China.
Within days church leaders could conclude a landmark agreement with the Chinese government after 65 years of acrimony and persecution. Pope Francis isn’t known to have signed off, and before he does Cardinal Zen prays to be heard.
The former bishop of Hong Kong speaks with passion that belies his age (84) and recent hospitalization for a lung virus. 

As we meet at the church complex where he has lived since 2009—and where he first moved as a novice from Shanghai in 1948—he warns of “surrender”: that Chinese leaders are demanding it and Vatican officials appear willing to give it “in the hopes of achieving an agreement.”
Proponents say the deal would help millions of “underground” Catholics and open the world’s most populous country for evangelization. 

Cardinal Zen says it would sacrifice church principles, abandon the faithful, undermine evangelization and invite further repression.
The deal concerns who gets to select Catholic bishops in China—as vital a power as there is. 

Beijing has claimed it since the 1950s, when Mao Zedong banished Vatican officials and established the state-run Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association in their place. 

That organ now oversees the “official church” of some 70 bishops and five million adherents who answer to Beijing and toe its line. 

The underground church, by contrast, follows the pope, for which its 30 bishops and estimated seven million adherents face harassment, imprisonment and worse.
To promote unity the Vatican has lately accepted most Beijing-backed bishops. 

But it has always held that the state-run Patriotic Association is “incompatible with Catholic doctrine,” as Pope Benedict XVI wrote in 2007, adding: “The authority of the Pope to appoint bishops is given to the church by its founder Jesus Christ. It is not the property of the Pope, neither can the Pope give it to others.”
Yet now the Vatican seems willing to give it to Beijing, which is what Cardinal Zen calls “absolutely unacceptable.” 

Rome would commit to recognize as bishops only those clerics who first win nomination from the Patriotic Association’s bishops conference. 

This would make the church “totally subservient to an atheist government,” says Cardinal Zen, and may require the Vatican to cut ties to the true church underground.
Though he says state-backed bishops are generally “wonderful men” and “very faithful to the church,” Cardinal Zen laments that all are nonetheless “slaves” and “puppets.” 

Only someone ignorant of communism, he says, could think the nominations the government sends to Rome wouldn’t be coerced. 

Having taught in Chinese seminaries from 1989 to 1996, he recalls that state bishops couldn’t meet or even place international calls without government bosses present.
Cardinal Zen slams Vatican diplomats who say that embracing the Patriotic Association is needed to preserve the church’s hierarchy and sacraments. 

“I would prefer no bishops,” he says. 

“With fake bishops you are destroying the church.”
That’s what nearly happened in Hungary and other Soviet satellites in the 1970s after Rome embraced an Ostpolitik (“Eastern Policy”) of cooperation with Communist authorities. 

“The Churches in those countries have not been saved through the Vatican diplomacy,” he wrote recently, “but thanks to the unswerving faith of the simple faithful!”
He believes the same would happen in China if the Vatican refused to bow to Beijing. 

“The underground church is evangelizing very well,” he notes, even as authorities have destroyed 1,000 church crosses since 2013 and kept underground bishop James Su Zhimin in secret detention for two decades. 

“Also in the official church there are so many good people. . . . They are not afraid. Why should you surrender?”
“Pope Francis has no real knowledge of communism,” the cardinal laments. 

He blames Francis’ experience in Argentina, where military dictators and rich elites did evil while accused communists suffered trying to help the downtrodden. 

“So the Holy Father knew the persecuted communists, not the communist persecutors. He knew the communists killed by the government, not the communist governments who killed thousands and hundreds of thousands of people.” (In China it was tens of millions.)
“I’m sorry to say that in his goodwill he has done many things which are simply ridiculous,” the cardinal says of the pope. 

These include his approaches to both China and Cuba, the other communist state he has courted at the apparent expense of human rights. 

But still he’s the pope, so even if he signs a bad deal Cardinal Zen says he won’t protest once it’s done.
His message to the faithful in that case: You’re never obligated to act against conscience. 

“You are not bound to join the Patriotic Association. You can pray at home if you lose your churches.” 

An underground priest who loses his flock can go home and till the soil. 

“You’re still a priest anyway,” he says. 

“So wait for better times. But don’t rebel against the pope.”

Pius XII bis or Xi Jinping's Pope?

• Francis's deal with China betrays Christ, says Hong Kong cardinal
• Senior Catholic Joseph Zen says the pontiff ‘may not know the Communist persecutors who have killed hundreds of thousands’

By Benjamin Haas in Hong Kong and Tom Phillips in Beijing

Cardinal Joseph Zen, a former bishop of Hong Kong, says supporters of the Vatican deal do not truly know China.

The most senior Chinese Catholic has slammed a rapprochement between the Vatican and Beijing, saying it would be “betraying Jesus Christ”, amid a thaw in more than six decades of bitter relations.
Talk of a deal between the two sides has been building for months, with some saying the diplomatic coup for Francis would be resolving the highly controversial issue of allowing China’s Communist government to have a hand in selecting bishops.
But Cardinal Joseph Zen, the 84-year-old former bishop of Hong Kong, has been an outspoken critic, saying any agreement where Beijing would have a hand in approving clergy would be “a surrender”.

“The pope is a little naive, he doesn’t have the background to know the Communists in China,” Zen said at the Salesian school in Hong Kong where he still teaches. 

“The pope used to know the persecuted Communists in Latin America, but he may not know the Communist persecutors who have killed hundreds of thousands.”
Chinese Catholics are free to go to mass and attend government-sanctioned churches, but barred from proselytising. 

The state-controlled China Catholic Patriotic Association controls the church and appoints bishops, currently without any input from the Vatican.
An “underground” Catholic church exists, with some estimates saying it is larger than the official one, and its members and clergy have faced persecution by authorities.
Protestant Christians also face similar challenges, and a recent campaign by authorities in eastern China has seen more than 1,200 crosses removed from buildings and churches demolished.
Zen complained that most supporters of the deal did not truly know China, lacking first-hand experience with the state of the church under the Communists. 

He spent seven years frequently teaching in cities across China in the wake of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, a bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters that was followed by severe tightening of freedom of expression and religion.
One motivation for the Vatican is the relatively small number of Catholics in a country filled with people who are increasingly searching for meaning in their lives. 

There are roughly 10 million Catholics, just a 10th of the overall number of Christians in the country.
With “fake freedom” under a proposed deal, priests could more easily preach and more churches would open, Zen predicted, but “it’s only the impression of freedom, it’s not real freedom, the people sooner or later will see the bishops are puppets of the government and not really the shepherds of the flock.”

“The official bishops are not really preaching the gospel,” Zen added.

“They are preaching obedience to Communist authority.”
Francesco Sisci, an Italian scholar and journalist who is based in Beijing, said “a very wide-ranging agreement” appeared to be on the horizon but that it remained unclear exactly when the deal would be unveiled. 

No observers expected it to lead to full diplomatic relations.

“The church doesn’t want crusades … and doesn’t want to start a new one with China,” he said.

“The pope may be naive but it is his job being naive, being a man of faith,” Sisci added.
But that naivety could harm the Catholic church in China for decades to come, according to Zen, and the pope is pushing a pact he may not fully understand.
“You cannot go into negotiations with the mentality ‘we want to sign an agreement at any cost’, then you are surrendering yourself, you are betraying yourself, you are betraying Jesus Christ,” Zen lamented.
“If you cannot get a good deal, an acceptable deal, then the Vatican should walk away and maybe try again later,” he added. 

“Could the church negotiate with Hitler? Could it negotiate with Stalin? No.”
Ordinary Catholics who attend the government-controlled church welcome the negotiations as any deal would legitimise what is essentially a schismatic church.

“If they could really strike a deal, not only would us Catholics be happy, but all of the Chinese people should rejoice,” said Zhao, 36, who has been a Catholic for 20 years and works at the oldest Catholic church in China, close to Tiananmen Square in Beijing. 

He declined to give his full name because of the sensitivity of discussing religion.
But Zen warned that gains, diplomatically and in the number of faithful, could be short-lived.
In the long run people would leave the church as they became disillusioned with the “fake” institution, Zen said, adding “the clergy need to side with the people, the poor and the persecuted, not to government”.
“The blood of the martyrs is the seed of new Christians,” Zen said. 

“If that blood is poisoned, how long will those new Christians last?”

XI JINPING'S POPE

THE SECRET HISTORY OF FRANCIS

JOHN GORNVELL

China's crimes against humanity

China Harvests Thousands of Organs from Prisoners of Conscience

By Suzette Gutierrez-Cachila

Members of a surgical team implant a donated harvested kidney to transplant into patient Adam Abernathy as part of a five-way organ transplant swap in New York.

A disturbing report claims that China continues to harvest organs from prisoners of conscience on a wide scale.
Most of the victims are Falun Gong practitioners, but others, including Christians, who contradict the ideologies of the Chinese Communist Party can also suffer the same fate.
Sometimes the prisoners are killed so their organs can be harvested. 

At other times, their organs are extracted while they are still alive, according to News Corp Australia.
Another report released in June says that 60,000 to 100,000 organ transplants are being done in Chinese hospitals each year, a figure that appears to be questionable with the authorities claiming only 10,000 organs transplants are done annually.
“The total number of transplants which officials ascribe to the country as a whole, ten thousand a year, is easily surpassed by just a few hospitals. Whatever the total number is, it must be substantially more, by a multiple, than the official figure," the report said.

The report also claims organ transplantation in China has become a lucrative business. 

It cites the development of new hospitals or new transplant wings, suggesting there is an assurance of a good organ supply.
There are also many medical staff qualified to perform organ transplants, indicating a demand for the skill. 

In addition, these professionals are constantly being trained.
“Transplantation in China means money, lots of it,” the report said.
The Doctors Against Forced Organ Harvesting conducts research into such forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience. 

The organization says China is “the only place where systematic forced organ harvesting continues to occur on a mass, state-sanctioned level.”
One of the reasons for this is that there is no legislation that prohibits the practice. 

On the contrary, an old law opens the way to harvest organs from executed prisoners.
“In fact, a ‘1984 Provision’ still remains in place, which allows for executed prisoners to be used as donors — in direct violation of all international guidelines,” DAFOH spokeswoman Sophia Bryskine said, according to NewsCorp Australia.
She said China’s legal system is “corrupt.”
“China hasn’t even confirmed prisoners of conscience have been killed for their organs. They only said they stopped the practice for executed prisoners who had death sentences,” Bryskine said, adding that international pressure is necessary to put a stop to the state-sanctioned organ harvesting.
Former Canadian lawmaker David Kilgour and human rights lawyer David Matas, co-authors of the report, went to the Australian Parliament House Monday to call on lawmakers to intervene in the Chinese practice.
Kilgour and Matas told the parliament they hold evidence proving there are 60,000 to 100,000 organ transplants being performed in China each year. 

They said most of the victims, aside from Falun Gong practitioners, are Christians, Tibetan Buddhists and Muslim Uighurs, whose murder allows the demand for transplants to be met.

Australia's Chinese Fifth Column

Chinese diplomat who defected to Australia breaks silence to warn of spies
By Joseph Fitsanakis
A Chinese diplomat, who made international news headlines in 2005 when he defected to Australia, has ended a decade of silence to warn about an alleged increase in Chinese espionage operations against his adopted country.

Chen Yonglin was a seasoned member of the Chinese diplomatic corps in 2001, when he was posted as a political affairs consul at the Chinese consulate in Sydney, Australia. 

His job was to keep tabs on the Chinese expatriate community in Australia, with an emphasis on individuals and organizations deemed subversive by Beijing. 

He later revealed that his main preoccupation was targeting members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement, which is illegal in China. 

He also targeted supporters of Taiwanese independence, as well as Tibetan and East Turkestan nationalists who were active on Australian soil.
But in 2005, Chen contacted the Australian government and said that he wanted to defect, along with his spouse and six-year-old daughter. 

He was eventually granted political asylum by Canberra, making his the highest-profile defection of a Chinese government employee to Australia in over half a century. 

During a subsequent testimony given to the Parliament of Australia, Chen said that he was in contact with Australian intelligence and was giving them information about Chinese espionage activities. 

He said at the time that China operated a network of over 1,000 “secret agents and informants” in Australia. 

Chen distinguished agents and informants from Chinese intelligence officers, most of whom were stationed in Chinese diplomatic facilities.
Chen, who now works as a businessman, disappeared from the public limelight after his defection. But last weekend, he reappeared after a decade of obscurity and gave an interview to ABC, Australia’s national broadcaster. 

The ABC journalist reminded Chen that in 2005 he had estimated the number of Chinese agents and informants operating in Australia at 1,000, and asked him how many he thought were active today. Chen responded that an increase in the number is certain, given that “China is now the wealthiest government in the world”. 

That meant, said Chen, that Beijing has the funds that are necessary to maintain “a huge number of spies” in Australia. 

However, the former diplomat said that most Chinese agents are “casual informants”, not trained spies, and that they are dormant for long periods of time in between operations.

The Guardian view on independence for Hong Kong: made in Beijing

Instead of dealing with a political problem, China has sought confrontation

By Editorial

Hong Kong lawyers taking part in a silent protest earlier this month. They were objecting to Beijing’s intervention in a local political dispute that effectively barred two popularly elected separatist lawmakers from taking office.

No one can accuse Chris Patten, Hong Kong’s last colonial governor, of not being prepared to scrap with China to defend liberal values in the territory. 

The Conservative peer and chancellor of the University of Oxford took the view – rightly – two decades ago that Hong Kong’s prosperity was underpinned by a free and plural society. 

He pushed for more representative institutions, albeit far too late in Britain’s century-and-a-half tenure in charge. 

In doing so he earned the enmity of Beijing. 

Its media organs churned out ever more elaborate descriptions of the governor. 

A “serpent” and a “wrongdoer who would be condemned for a thousand generations” are among the kinder epithets hurled by mainland propagandists. 

His elected council was dissolved upon Hong Kong’s handover to the people’s republic in 1997.
So it is strange now, perhaps, to find Beijing and Lord Patten in agreement over the antics of two pro-independence Hong Kong legislators. 

Yau Wai-ching, 25, and Sixtus “Baggio” Leung, 30, had pledged allegiance to the “Hong Kong nation” and unfurled a banner declaring “Hong Kong is not China” during a swearing-in ceremony earlier this year. 

In conflating the push for greater democracy with the argument for independence, activists are, in Lord Patten’s words, “dishonest, dishonourable and reckless”. 

Words that might not go amiss in the editorials of Beijing’s mouthpiece Global Times which mocked “the Hong Kong independence farce”.
Full-blown secession from the mainland is a pipe dream. 

China’s communist leaders have zero tolerance for independence movements in restive Tibet and Xinjiang, home to minorities that resent Beijing’s rule. 

These regions suffer from periodic “strike hard” campaigns to crush dissent. 

Beijing is unlikely to let a Chinese-majority showcase city slip away. 

Yet calls for an independent Hong Kong are made from anger rather than reason. 

Independence sentiments were roused in the aftermath of 2014’s pro-democracy Umbrella Revolution. 

The mess is of Beijing’s own making. 

Two years ago, Hong Kong was ranked number one for crony capitalism by the Economist. 

Falling salaries co-existed with soaring property prices and made the city state one of the most unequal places in the developed world. 

This economic anxiety was coupled with an assertion of a Hong Kong identity. 

When Beijing rejected demands for open elections for Hong Kong’s next chief executive it energised protesters. 

The Occupy-style movement ended up with police firing tear gas on peaceful protesters.
Since then Beijing’s interference in local affairs has been heavy-handed. 

Liberal academics have been cowed and there are calls for “patriotic education” in Hong Kong. Booksellers have been spirited away. 

Pro-democracy activists harrassed. 

What was being hollowed out was Beijing’s “one country, two systems” policy, meant to guarantee Hong Kong’s way of life. 

By the summer crowds gathered for Hong Kong’s first ever pro-independence rally. 

A poll found one in six of the city’s residents favoured secession. 

Instead of dealing with a political problem, China has sought confrontation and control – threatening new national security laws that outlaw treason. 

When Beijing took over, Hong Kong was one-fifth of China’s economy. 

Now it is one-fiftieth. 

The problem is that, without dialogue and compromise, the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better.

"We will hang the capitalists with the rope that we sell them"

Most Expensive US-UK Warships Ever Built Lay “Dead In Water” Due To China “Chip Destroyer”By Sorcha Faal

An astonishing Ministry of Defense (MoD) “urgent action” bulletin circulating in the Kremlin today is reporting that two of the West’s most expensive warships ever built now lay “dead in the water” after their propulsion systems were shut down by Chinese manufactured microchips that Federation military intelligence experts are still at a loss to explain why the United States and Britain even let these sabotaging electronic devices to have been used by their navies in the first place.

USS Zumwalt, the most expensive US warship ever built

HMS Duncan, the most expensive British warship ever built.

According to this MoD bulletin, the United States Navy’s (US Navy) $4.4 billion guided missile destroyer USS Zumwalt, while transversing the Panama Canal, suffered a catastrophic propulsion failure on 21 November; while just two days later, on 23 November, the British Royal Navy’s (Royal Navy) $1.2 billion hi-tech destroyer HMS Duncan, likewise, suffered a catastrophic propulsion failure too while on NATO maneuvers.
To the commonality of both the United States and Britain’s most expensive warships ever built suffering such a catastrophic loss of propulsion, MoD experts in this bulletin point out, is directly due to what are called Chinese “chip destroyers”—which this bulletin explains are a type of microchip manufactured by the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) that shortly after Obama took power in the United States the US Navy was forced to buy by the tens-of-thousands.

Equally as astonishing as the US Navy using these Chinese “chip destroyers” in their warships, missile and communication systems, this bulletin further notes, was its purchase and use of Chinese dry docks at the Bath Iron Works shipyard where the USS Zumwalt was built—and that just two months ago (September) their experts were astonishingly in China looking to buy more of.
With these Chinese “chip destroyers” literally flooding into everything the US Navy and Pentagon has built over the past decade, this bulletin continues, a cooperation agreement signed in 2014 between the US Navy and Royal Navy have further allowed these dangerous devices to be placed in Britain’s warships, weapons and communication systems too.
MoD experts first hand knowledge of these Chinese “chip destroyers”, this bulletin continues, was gained during the Federations “experience/ordeal” with France in the Russian Navy’s planned 2009 purchase of two Mistral-class amphibious assault ships that were filled with them—but whose sale to Russia was aborted in 2015 when the Federation said it wouldn’t take them—after which they were sold by France to Egypt and delivered in September, but with Polish Minister of National Defense Antoni Macierewicz, on 4 November, stating that Egypt then sold them back to Russia for €1.
Most amazing to note in this MoD bulletin’s conclusion though is the discussion relating to how these Chinese “chip destroyed” Western warships should be treated in “conflict/war” situations—with some Federation naval experts advocating that “ships in distress” should never be fired upon, but others arguing that even though these warships may be “dead in the water”, their weapons systems still pose a “serious/grave” threat and should be sunk.

Sina Delenda Est

To Disarm North Korea, Wage Trade War On China
By Gordon G. Chang ,

Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the White House told the Trump transition team that North Korea was, in the words of the paper, the “top national security priority” for the incoming administration.
Virtually every American analyst agrees on what Trump should do to meet the No. 1 threat: drop his plans of confronting China on trade to obtain its assistance on “denuclearizing” the Kim regime.
This line of thinking is not new and ignores 13 years of American foreign policy failure. 

In fact, the opposite is true, that waging a trade war on China is the only way to obtain Beijing’s cooperation on North Korea.
It’s not hard to see why the outgoing administration thinks the North is such a danger. 

At this time, Kim Jong Un, the regime’s unstable ruler, can press a button and send three types of missiles to the lower 48 states, the Taepodong-2; the road-mobile KN-08; and the KN-08 variant, the KN-14. 

Richard Fisher of the International Assessment and Strategy Center thinks the KN-14 might be able to reach Washington, D.C.
The consensus is that North Korea cannot mate a nuclear warhead to these launchers, but in, say, four years, it will have that capability as well. 

The North already possesses a nuke that fits atop its Nodong intermediate-range missile, which can travel a little under a thousand miles.
How did North Korea, one of the world’s most destitute states, develop its nukes and missiles in the face of opposition of virtually all the international community? 

The simple answer is that Obama and Bush relentlessly pursued ineffective policies.
With the regrettable exception of about a month in early 2012, when his negotiators crafted the misguided Leap Day deal, Obama practiced a policy of “strategic patience,” not talking to the North Koreans until they showed good faith. 

At the same time, Washington worked with Beijing to impose sanctions as the North detonated four nuclear devices during the president’s eight years.
That Obama policy was an understandable reaction to Bush’s failed efforts. 

The 43rd president, placing a higher priority on integrating China into the international system than disarming the North, gave Beijing a lead role in multilateral negotiations, the so-called Six-Party talks.
Instead of helping to craft a solution, Beijing used its central position to give the North Koreans the one thing they needed most to make themselves a real menace, time. 

Kim Jong Il, the father of the current ruler in Pyongyang, stalled the talks so that he could conduct his regime’s first test of an atomic device. 

That occurred in October 2006, in the middle of then-ongoing negotiations.
With a new administration taking office in January, there will undoubtedly be a new North Korea policy, but China is still seen as the key to a solution. 

Said Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, to the Wall Street Journal, “I see little reason to think a combination of sanctions and diplomacy will deter North Korea” unless Trump gains Beijing’s assistance.
To gain that assistance, Jane Perlez of the New York Times wrote on Friday that Trump may have “to prioritize security over trade in his dealings with China.” 

She paraphrased Yang Xiyu, a former mid-level Chinese official, this way: “With the right approach, he could find a willing partner in Beijing.”
There has been no “willing partner” or “right approach” this century. 

Despite—or because of—American attempts to seek cooperation, China has played a duplicitous game. 

This spring, for instance, David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security charged that Beijing had not interrupted the flow of items from China for the North’s bomb programs, such as cylinders of uranium hexafluoride, vacuum pumps, and valves.
That’s not all. 

After the imposition of the U.N.’s March 2 sanctions, Beijing both allowed blacklisted North Korean vessels to visit Chinese ports and busted the new rules with its trade in coal and jet fuel. 

Now, China’s commerce with North Korea appears to have returned to pre-March levels.
And the China-North Korea cooperation may be even more sinister. 

The submarine-launched ballistic missile North Korea tested on August 24 resembles China’s JL-1.
Until recently, Washington imposed no cost on China for its blatant support of North Korea’s weaponization. 

On September 26, however, the Treasury Department added Dandong Hongxiang Industrial Development Co. Ltd., its owner, and three employees to its list of Specially Designated Nationals. By doing so, the U.S. imposed sanctions on the listed parties.
Treasury did not explain its designations, the first secondary sanctions on China, but Joshua Stanton of the One Free Korea site told me the parties were listed for laundering Pyongyang’s money.
On the same day, the Justice Department announced the unsealing of indictments of the same four individuals and Hongxiang for various crimes including the laundering of funds through the U.S. financial system for North Korea.
Moreover, Justice initiated civil forfeiture actions to recover money in 25 Chinese bank accounts but did not impose any sanctions on the financial institutions themselves. 

The decision to not go after the banks looks like a mistake as they have been deeply involved in the North’s illicit dealings.
North Korea looks impossible to solve, and it is if we see China as on our side. 

It is not. 

But if we treat China as part of the problem, which it is, then we can begin to craft solutions, like secondary sanctions. 

Xi Jinping, the Chinese leader, will stop supporting North Korea only when the costs of doing so are too high. 

So far, his country has suffered almost no penalty.
To impose costs, Trump’s administration could, among other things, cut offending Chinese banks off from the global financial system, sanction every Chinese proliferator, and impose his threatened 45% across-the-board tariff on China’s goods. 

He could end negotiations on the Bilateral Investment Treaty and treat Chinese businesses like Beijing treats American ones.
And Mr. Trump, starting January 20, will have the tools to raise the costs on Beijing. 

The Chinese will surely retaliate, but they have few effective options for a long-term struggle. 

After all, last year they ran a $334.1 billion trade surplus in goods and services against the United States. 

Trade-surplus countries are vulnerable in trade wars, and that is especially true of a China with an already fragile economy that is dependent on the American market.
A more coercive American approach may not work, but the current set of policies, in place for two decades, are guaranteed to fail. 

They have resulted in an even more irresponsible Beijing and a nuked-up Kim regime.
So it’s time for fresh approaches, perhaps even to wage that trade war with China, not just to protect the jobs of American workers and the profits of American businesses but the lives of American citizens.