The Stimson Center is one of those nonprofits “building solutions to promote international security, prosperity, and justice.” Ostensibly nonpartisan, in 2021 it was proud to announce “Stimson Staff and Affiliates Appointed to Biden-Harris Administration Roles.”
That was the year the peace-seeking EastWest Institute shut its doors and one year after EastWest had transferred its Sanya Initiative to the Stimson Center.
Sanya was a collaboration with the [Red] China Association for International Friendly Contact (CAIFC), which Wikipedia says is “active in overseas influence operations to promote the interests of the Chinese Communist Party.” Stimson, having taken over Sanya, has been carrying on its flagship effort, “the U.S.-China Military-to-Military Initiative [that] regularly assembled retired U.S. and Chinese four-star generals and admirals to build greater military-to-military understanding between the two countries.”
A wide spectrum
Earlier this month, commentator Natalie Winters explored this subject in her Substack, reporting the names of the American four-star officers involved over the years, details of congressional investigations into Sanya, and the conclusion that “America’s most senior former military leaders spent years collaborating through a program organized with a Chinese military front that U.S. government investigators linked to intelligence gathering and foreign influence operations.”
What were our retired flag officers supposed to be doing in this organization? Building “greater military-to-military understanding between the two countries. Delegations have discussed a wide spectrum of strategic security issues, including North Korea, maritime disputes in the South and East China Seas, [Red] China’s military reform and counterterrorism.”
Did the Biden and Trump administrations realize that they had a posse of freelance diplomats “discussing a wide spectrum of strategic security issues” with a hostile power? That amateur diplomats who were retired, not up-to-date on U.S. policy, and not authorized to speak for anyone were describing U.S. military procedures and government policies to Beijing? And that these would-be diplomats may have shared classified information either intentionally or accidentally?
And by the way, how can meetings among retired officers “build greater military-to-military understanding?” They’re out of the military. No one is asking their advice.
Winters gives an example of how our generals and admirals carried water for the communists. “Congressional investigators had warned about the danger years earlier. At a 2011 hearing of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, testimony focused on the Chinese organizations and officials behind the Sanya Initiative.
“One witness said the Chinese side’s intentions became clear in the initiative’s first report: ‘The Chinese side says we wish you would advocate these positions.’ The witness said American editorials later appeared containing language with a ‘stark similarity’ to the positions Chinese participants had urged the Americans to promote. A commissioner responded: ‘Sounds like it was a successful narrative that was placed.’ ”
There you have some primo military-to-military understanding.
Duty to betray
Sanya–Stimson–CAIFC activity foreshadowed the bizarre Mark Milley affair at the end of President Trump’s first term. Author Bob Woodward reported that Milley, the senior uniformed armed services officer, told a CCP general “that the ‘American government is stable’ and reassured [his counterpart] Gen Li that the US would not attack. If they did so, the Chinese would be warned first.” The Bob Woodward book that reported this put it in more personal terms, that Milley would ring up Beijing himself to warn the communists of U.S. intentions.
The BBC reported that according to General Milley’s spokesman, “the calls were in keeping with his ‘duties and responsibilities conveying reassurance in order to maintain strategic stability.’ ” If the Stimson generals and admirals imagine that they are maintaining stability by sharing secrets, discussing policy, and making promises, they should know that they are in fact projecting instability.
Milley was preemptively pardoned by President Biden after calling his former boss, President Trump, “fascist to the core.” In his farewell speech, Milley noted, “We don’t take an oath to a king, or a queen, or to a tyrant or dictator, and we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator.” In short, there are many reasons to not follow elected civilian authority. There are values that transcend all this loyalty stuff.
Your oath is whatever you make of it.
Is it possible that Milley’s thinking infects some segment of the higher command and that it’s not unique to Milley? That would explain why the Stimson organization has been so successful in recruiting former four-star retirees to mingle and chatter with communist Chinese. By the way, Stimson’s website says these meetings are held behind “closed doors.”
What could go wrong?
Suggestion: debrief these men, then revoke their clearances and order them to stay at home. If they want to work for world peace, let them write letters to the editor and hand out flyers. □
James Roth works for a major defense contractor in Virginia.
Also see:
Natalie Winters: “REVEALED: Top American Generals Joined a CCP Spy Front’s Backchannel Pushing China’s Military Agenda in Washington. Some Ended Up on China’s Payroll.”
