Chinese President Xi Jinping takes absolute control of armed forces in military shake-up

Updated Thu at 3:07pm

The Chinese military — the People's Liberation Army (PLA) — has seen the biggest shake-up in decades at the week-long 19th Party Congress that has wrapped up in Beijing.

Most of the top leadership has been replaced with President Xi Jinping's generals.

Mr Xi has already started a complete overhaul and modernisation process of the military.

He wants a fighting force that can back up his vision of making China a world power by 2050.

With more than 2 million troops, China has the world biggest military, but now Mr Xi wants it to be the best.

He has set up the deadlines for this to happen. By 2035 he wants it fully modernised and by 2050 to be the top-ranked military.

Nearly 90 per cent of the military delegates to the Congress were new faces.

On Wednesday, Mr Xi replaced three out of the four top generals of the Central Military Committee.

This was the last but most important step in Mr Xi taking absolute control of the armed forces.

Professor Willy Lam from the Chinese University of Hong Kong said the purges had been intense in the months leading up to the Congress.

"The entire structure of the PLA has been shaken up. In the last two months, we have seen the elevation of 20 close proteges of Xi Jinping," he said.

"Generals that Xi Jinping knew when he worked in the provinces of Fujian and Zhejiang from 1985 to 2007. So, these generals that he has trusted have been promoted."

Mr Xi's reform process is already well underway. Seven military regions have been re-made into five combat commands. The aim is to modernise to make troops more mobile and war-ready.

Political power grows out of barrel of a gun

Professor Lam said Mr Xi has used strident nationalism, like claims over the South and East China seas to build his legitimacy as a strongman.

"There is no doubt that Xi Jinping will reserve a big part of the budget for military modernisation and particularly the modernisation of weapons," he said.

"Xi Jinping as the leader of the PLA is convinced within 10 to 20 years, China can close the gap with the Russians, and before the middle of this century China can close the defence gap in terms of military and weapon sophistication with the United States."

The blue water navy is to be built up as China pushes itself further into the Pacific.

China has built its second aircraft carrier and there is more on the way.

The navy is set to get a threefold increase in marines in the next several years. It is also extending its military presence further afield, setting up a base in Djibouti on the Horn of Africa.

China is already starting to build its own military hardware. It has developed the J-20 stealth fighter and the new generation J-16 strike jet fighter.

The PLA has taken delivery of its 1,000th attack helicopter — 20 years ago they only had 100 and they were used for transport.

But there is a long way to go and the Chinese military has not been tested in battle since 1979, when they suffered a humiliating counterpunch by a battle-hardened Vietnamese army.

Professor Joseph Chen, from City University of Hong Kong, said the military build is part and parcel of China becoming a superpower.

"It's natural China will want to have a say, [China] would like to have a measure of control. But this is going to be a long-term process and an expensive process, and it will alarm China's neighbours, so these will be the difficulties facing China," he said.

Mr Xi has made it clear he wants to make China great again, and he knows Mao Zedong's famous adage that "political power grows out of barrel of a gun" is an important way to do it.

Topics: government-and-politics, federal-government, defence-and-national-security, defence-forces, defence-industry, world-politics,china

This was proof positive, they insisted, that Trump “colluded” with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election.  Their exuberance was the equivalent of a two day-long tailgate party. Too bad it was premature. 

Manafort & Gates

The celebration came to a crashing end when the indictments of Paul Manafort and his business associate, Rick Gates, were unsealed Monday morning.  It turns out the charges are, basically, a tax fraud case.  The two men stand accused of hiding their income from their lobbying work for Ukraine in order to avoid paying taxes, then lying about it.  That’s it.

The 31-page indictment makes no mention of Trump or Russia or “collusion.”  The media seemed as dejected as a kid who wakes up on Christmas morning, only to find there are no presents under the tree.  Gee whiz.  

The truth is, it should have come as no surprise to anyone, much less the media, that Manafort was in legal jeopardy for his business dealings.  The FBI raided his home over the summer.  It was later learned that the FBI wiretapped his conversations as far back as 2014.  And it was widely reported that Manafort had been told by Mueller’s team that he would be criminally charged.

It could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.

The media became even more dispirited when they read through the indictment, discovering that nearly all of Manafort’s alleged wrongdoing substantially pre-dates his brief stint as chairman of the Trump campaign.  In other words, there is no connection to either Trump or his campaign. 

Somewhere, I’m sure, ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Van Jones were crying.  Again.  Just like the tears they shed on camera election night when Hillary lost. 

Papadopoulos

But wait.  Shortly after the indictments were unsealed, the media’s spirits were suddenly boosted when the special counsel revealed that a former adviser to Trump pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian national during his time on the Trump campaign.  Surely this was evidence of illegal “collusion,” right?

Wrong.  George Papadopoulos pled guilty to a single charge of making a false statement to the FBI.  He was not charged with so-called “collusion” because no such crime exists in American statutory law, except in anti-trust matters.  It has no application to elections and political campaigns.

It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the media would ever understand that.  They have never managed to point to a single statute that makes “colluding” with a foreign government in a political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the criminal codes.

To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.

But that did not stop them from accusing Donald Trump, Jr., of illegally conspiring with the Russians when he met with a Russian lawyer to obtain information on Hillary Clinton.  What law did he break?  None.  The Federal Election Commission has made it clear that it is perfectly lawful for foreign nationals to be involved in campaigns, as long as they are not paid and do not donate money.  Which brings us to Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton

It is against the law for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to funnel millions of dollars to a British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the infamous and discredited Trump “dossier.”  The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in U.S. campaigns.  It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the money (52 USC 30121).  This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have done.

Most often the penalty for violating this law is a fine, but in egregious cases, like this one, criminal prosecutions have been sought and convictions obtained.  In this sense, it could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.

But that’s not all.  Damning new evidence appears to show that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband.  Secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitness accounts allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials enriched the Clintons at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia. 

If this proves to be a corrupt “pay-to-play” scheme, it would constitute a myriad of crimes, including bribery (18 USC 201-b), mail fraud (18 USC 1341), and wire fraud (18 USC 1343).  It might also qualify for racketeering charges (18 USC 1961-1968), if her foundation is determined to have been used as a criminal enterprise. 

Despite all the incriminating evidence, Clinton has managed to avoid being pursued by a special counsel.  Trump, on the other hand, is being chased by Robert Mueller and his team, notwithstanding a dearth of evidence. 

Robert Mueller

The indictments of Manafort and Gates now present a unique opportunity to challenge the authority of the special counsel. 

Until now, no one had legal “standing” to argue in court that the appointment of Mueller was illegal.  The criminal charges change all that.  The two defendants will be able to argue before a judge that Mueller’s appointment by Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein violated the special counsel law. 

As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate crimes.  Only crimes.  He has limited jurisdiction.  Yet, in his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Rosenstein directed him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.”   It fails to identify any specific crimes, likely because none are applicable. 

To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law.  It is a legal impossibility.  He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable. 

If the federal judge agrees, Mueller and his team would be disbanded by judicial order.  The Department of Justice would have to seek a new indictment of Manafort and Gates without the special counsel or drop the case entirely. 

The naming of Robert Mueller was tainted with disqualifying conflicts of interest from the beginning.  Fired FBI Director James Comey admitted he leaked presidential memos to the media for the sole purpose of triggering the appointment of a special counsel who just happens to be Comey’s longtime friend, ally and partner. 

It is no coincidence that Rosenstein appointed Mueller.  We now know both men were overseeing the corrupt Uranium One sale which involved Russian bribes, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.  They appear to have kept it secret, even hiding it from Congress which would surely have cancelled the transaction involving a vital national security asset.  A cover-up?  It has the stench of one. 

How can Americans have confidence in the outcome of the Trump-Russia matter if the integrity and impartiality of Mueller and Rosenstein has been compromised by their suspected cover-up of the Clinton-Russia case?   Both men should resign. 

And a new special counsel should be appointed – this time to investigate Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.