Asia and World War III: Is US-China collision inevitable?

Feb 6, 2012

As part of a  part new resolve to play a more assertive role, the US has reinforced and strengthened its strategic ties with Vietnam, the Philippines, India, Australia and Japan.

It is pertinent to remember that wars have often been caused by miscalculation rather than deliberation. And this is even more so when an emerging power is staking its claims impinging on the existing superpower’s perceived interests and/or seen to be threatening its regional allies. This is how the two World Wars started.

Even as Iran has come centre-stage of another likely military conflict in the Middle East with the US and its western allies determined to force it to forgo its nuclear programme, the Asia-Pacific region is emerging as another potential trouble spot pitting China against the US. With the US now disengaged from Iraq, and in the process of military withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2014, it has dawned on Washington that China has strengthened its role in the Asia-Pacific and is slowly, but steadily, working to push it out of the region. China regards the Asia-Pacific as its strategic space and the US as an external power. The US has decided to hit back by declaring that it is not going anywhere and, indeed, will beef up its military presence in the region. Straddling both the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans, the US considers itself a legitimate Pacific country.

US-China relations have never been easy. They are likely to become even more complicated after the recent announcement of a US defence review that prioritises the Asia-Pacific region. Even though the review seeks to make sizeable cuts of about $500 billion in the US’s defence budget over the next 10 years, it would not be at the cost of its engagement with the Asia-Pacific region. Indeed, as President Obama told reporters, “We will be strengthening our presence in the Asia-Pacific…”

Washington’s decision to make the Asia-Pacific a priority strategic area was presaged during Obama’s recent visit to Australia. He hit out at China on a wide range of issues, while announcing an enhanced US role, including the use of Australian bases/facilities for an effective military presence. He urged China to act like a “grown up” and play by the rules. Elaborating on this in an address to the Australian parliament, he said, “We need growth that is fair, where every nation plays by the rules; where workers’ rights are respected and our businesses can compete on a level playing field; where the intellectual property and new technologies that fuel innovation are protected; and where currencies are market-driven, so no nation has an unfair advantage.”

This catalogue of US economic grievances against China has been the subject of intermittent discussions between the two countries without any satisfactory results. On the question of human rights and freedoms in China, Obama said, “Prosperity without freedom is just another form of poverty.”

The US is upping the ante in its relations with China, with Asia-Pacific centre-stage. It does not accept China’s sovereignty claims in the South China Sea and its island chains. This has caused naval incidents with Vietnam, the Philippines, and with Japan in the East China Sea, and a close naval skirmish or two with the US. As part of a new resolve to play a more assertive role, the US has reinforced and strengthened its strategic ties with Vietnam, the Philippines, India, Australia and Japan.

In announcing cuts to the defence budget over the next decade, President Obama seemed keen to dispel the notion that this would make the US a lesser military power. He said, “The world must know — the US is going to maintain our military superiority with armed forces that are agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats.”

The US’s continued military superiority has a catch though, which is that the US will be adjusting its long-standing doctrine of being able to wage two wars simultaneously. Defence Secretary Leon Panetta maintains that the US military would still be able to confront more than one threat at a time by being more flexible and adaptable than in the past.

Be that as it may, the increased focus on Asia-Pacific has upset China. Its hope of making the region into its own strategic backyard, with the US distracted in the Middle East and its economy in the doldrums, might not be that easy with the new US strategic doctrine prioritising Asia-Pacific. Not surprisingly, the Chinese media has not reacted kindly to it. According to the Chinese news agency Xinhua, “…the US should abstain from flexing its muscles, as this will not help solve regional disputes.” It added, “If the US indiscreetly applies militarism in the region, it will be like a bull in a china shop [literally and figuratively], and endanger peace instead of enhancing regional stability.”

The Global Times called on the Chinese government to develop more long-range strike weapons to deter the US Navy.

Australia, the US’s closet regional ally, fears that China’s rising economic and military power has the potential of destabilising the region. Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd hopes though (as he told the Asia Society in New York) that there was “nothing inevitable” about a future war between the US and China, emphasising the need to craft a regional architecture that recognised the coexistence of both countries, and the acceptance of US alliances in the region. He also saw hope (as a counterpoint to China) in the “collective economic might of Japan, India, Korea, Indonesia and Australia,” which means that, hopefully, China’s perceived threat might be balanced and contained with the US’s enhanced commitment to the region, and the rising clout of a cluster of regional countries.

There are any number of issues that could become a flashpoint for future conflict, like Taiwan, Korea, the South China Sea and its islands, the maritime dispute with Japan and so on. With China determined to uphold its ‘core’ national interests, and the US and others equally committed to, for instance, freedom of navigation through the South China Sea, it only needs a spark to ignite a prairie fire.

As it is, neither China nor the US wants military conflict between their two countries. China’s official position was expounded the other day in Beijing by its Vice-President Xi Jinping, who is also the country’s president-in-waiting. Xi, who is expected to visit the US next month, hoped that “the US can view China’s strategic intentions…in a sensible and objective way, and be committed to develop a cooperative partnership”. And he emphasised that: “Ultimate caution should be given to major and sensitive issues that concern each country’s core interests to avoid any distraction and setbacks in China-US relations.”

The problem, though, is that when it comes to ‘core interests’, objectivity is generally the first casualty. For instance, the US complains that China’s strategic doctrine, if there is one, lacks transparency. The double-digit growth in China’s defence budget, as viewed in Washington, is way beyond its defensive needs. On the other hand, the US has the largest defence budget of any country in the world. It is pertinent to remember that wars have often been caused by miscalculation rather than deliberation. And this is even more so when an emerging power is staking its claims impinging on the existing superpower’s perceived interests and/or seen to be threatening its regional allies. This is how the two World Wars started.

One can only hope that China and the US will carve out a new peaceful way of coexistence and cooperation, though the past experience in such situations is not very encouraging. Indeed, it points to the inevitability of a potential military conflict sooner or later.

The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia.

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Global Research Articles by S P Seth

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29117

*********************************************************************

Will World War III be between the U.S. and China?

by Max Hastings

Nov 25, 2011

China’s vast military machine grows by the day. America’s sending troops to Australia in response. As tension between the two superpowers escalates, Max Hastings warns of a terrifying threat to world peace.

Mass hysteria: The armies of Mao Tse-tung stunned the world by intervening in the Korean WarMass hysteria: The armies of Mao Tse-tung stunned the world by intervening in the Korean War

On the evening of November 1, 1950,  22-year-old Private Carl Simon of the U.S. 8th Cavalry lay shivering with his comrades in the icy mountains of North Korea.

A patrol had just reported itself ‘under attack from unidentified troops’, which bemused and dismayed the Americans, because their campaign to occupy North Korea seemed all but complete.

Suddenly, through the darkness came sounds of bugle calls, gunfire, shouts in a language that the 8th Cavalry’s Korean interpreters could not understand. A few minutes later, waves of attackers charged into the American positions, screaming, firing and throwing grenades.

‘There was just mass hysteria,’ Simon told me long afterwards. ‘It was every man for himself. I didn’t know which way to go. In the end, I just ran with the crowd. We ran and ran until the bugles grew fainter.’

This was the moment, of course, when the armies of Mao Tse-tung stunned the world by intervening in the Korean War. It had begun in June, when Communist North Korean forces invaded the South.

U.S. and British forces repelled the communists, fighting in the name of the United Nations, then pushed deep into North Korea. Seeing their ally on the brink of defeat, the Chinese determined to take a hand.

In barren mountains just a few miles south of their own border, in the winter of 1950 their troops achieved a stunning surprise. The Chinese drove the American interlopers hundreds of miles south before they themselves were pushed back. Eventually a front was stabilised and the situation sank into stalemate.

Three years later, the United States was thankful to get out of its unwanted war with China by accepting a compromise peace, along the armistice line which still divides the two Koreas today.

For most of the succeeding 58 years the U.S., even while suffering defeat in Vietnam, has sustained strategic dominance of the Indo-Pacific region, home to half the world’s population.

Yet suddenly, everything is changing. China’s new economic power is being matched by a military build-up which deeply alarms its Asian neighbours, and Washington. The spectre of armed conflict between the superpowers, unknown since the Korean War ended in 1953, looms once more.

American strategy guru Paul Stares says: ‘If past experience is any guide, the United States and China will find themselves embroiled in a serious crisis at some point in the future.’

The Chinese navy is growing fast, acquiring aircraft-carriers and sophisticated missile systems. Beijing makes no secret of its determination to rule the oil-rich South China Sea, heedless of the claims of others such as Vietnam and the Philippines.

 
Expansion: The Chinese navy is growing fast, acquiring sophisticated missile systemsExpansion: The Chinese navy is growing fast, acquiring sophisticated missile systems

The Chinese foreign minister recently gave a speech in which he reminded the nations of South-East Asia that they are small, while China is very big.

Michael Auslin of the American Enterprise Institute described these remarks as the diplomatic equivalent of the town bully saying to the neighbours: ‘We really hope nothing happens to your nice new car.’

This year, China has refused stormbound U.S. Navy vessels admission to its ports, and in January chose the occasion of a visit from the U.S. defence secretary to show off its new, sophisticated J-20 stealth combat aircraft.

Michael Auslin, like many other Americans, is infuriated by the brutishness with which the dragon is now flexing its military muscles: ‘We have a China that is undermining the global system that allowed it to get rich and powerful, a China that now feels a sense of grievance every time it is called to account for its disruptive behaviour.’

Washington was angered by Beijing’s careless response to North Korea’s unprovoked sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan a year ago, followed by its shelling of Yeonpyeong island, a South Korean archipelago.

 
Wreckage: Washington was angered by Beijing's careless response to North Korea's sinking of the South Korean warship CheonanWreckage: Washington was angered by Beijing’s careless response to North Korea’s sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan

When the U.S. Navy deployed warships in the Yellow Sea in a show of support for the South Korean government, Beijing denounced America, blandly denying North Korea’s guilt. The Chinese claimed that they were merely displaying even-handedness and restraint, but an exasperated President Obama said: ‘There’s a difference between restraint and wilful blindness to consistent problems.’

Washington is increasingly sensitive to the fact that its bases in the western Pacific have become vulnerable to Chinese missiles. This is one reason why last week the U.S. made a historic agreement with Australia to station up to 2,500 U.S. Marines in the north of the country.

Beijing denounced the deal, saying it was not ‘appropriate to intensify and expand military alliances and may not be in the interests of countries within this region’.

Even within Australia, the agreement for the U.S. base has provoked controversy.

 

Hugh White of the Australian National University calls it ‘a potentially risky move’. He argues that, in the new world, America should gracefully back down from its claims to exercise Indo-Pacific hegemony, ‘relinquish primacy in the region and share power with China and others’.

But Richard Haas, chairman of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, says: ‘U.S. policy must create a climate in which a rising China is never tempted to use its growing power coercively within or outside the region.’

To put the matter more bluntly, leading Americans fear that once the current big expansion of Chinese armed forces reaches maturity, within a decade or so, Beijing will have no bourgeois scruples about using force to get its way in the world — unless America and its allies are militarily strong enough to deter them.

Meanwhile, in Beijing’s corridors of power there is a fissure between the political and financial leadership, and the generals and admirals.

On the one hand, Chinese economic bosses are appalled by the current turmoil in the West’s financial system, which threatens the buying power of their biggest customers.

Allies: The U.S. made a historic agreement with Australia to station up to 2,500 U.S. Marines in the north of the countryAllies: The U.S. made a historic agreement with Australia to station up to 2,500 U.S. Marines in the north of the country

On the other, Chinese military chiefs gloat without embarrassment at the spectacle of weakened Western nations.

As America announces its intention to cut back defence spending, the Chinese armed forces see historic opportunities beckon. Ever since Mao Tse-tung gained control of his country in 1949, China has been striving to escape from what it sees as American containment.

The issue of Taiwan is a permanent open sore: the U.S. is absolutely committed to protecting its independence and freedom. Taiwan broke away from mainland China in 1949, when the rump of the defeated Nationalists under their leader Chiang Kai-shek fled to the island, and established their own government under an American security blanket.

China has never wavered in its view that the island was ‘stolen’ by the capitalists, and is determined to get it back.

Beijing was infuriated by America’s recent £4  billion arms deal with Taiwan which includes the sale of 114 Patriot anti-ballistic missiles, 60 Blackhawk helicopters and two minesweepers.

When I last visited China, I was struck by how strongly ordinary Chinese feel about Taiwan. They argue that the West’s refusal to acknowledge their sovereignty reflects a wider lack of recognition of their country’s new status in the world.

 

A young Beijinger named David Zhang says: ‘The most important thing for Americans to do is to stop being arrogant and talk with their counterparts in China on a basis of mutual respect.’ That is how many of his contemporaries feel, as citizens of the proud, assertive new China.

But how is the West supposed to do business with an Asian giant that is not merely utterly heedless of its own citizens’ human rights, but also supports some of the vilest regimes in the world, for its own commercial purposes?

Burma’s tyrannical military rulers would have been toppled years ago, but for the backing of the Chinese, who have huge investments there.

A million Chinese in Africa promote their country’s massive commercial offensive, designed to secure an armlock on the continent’s natural resources. To that end, following its declared policy of ‘non-interference’, China backs bloody tyrannies, foremost among them that of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

 
'Non-interference': China backs bloody tyrannies, foremost among them that of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe‘Non-interference’: China backs bloody tyrannies, foremost among them that of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe

China, like Russia, refuses to endorse more stringent sanctions against Iran, in response to its nuclear weapons-building programme, because Beijing wants Iranian oil. Indeed, Chinese foreign policy is bleakly consistent: it dismisses pleas from the world’s democracies that, as a new global force, it should play a part in sustaining world order.

If Chinese leaders — or indeed citizens — were speaking frankly, they would reply to their country’s critics: ‘The West has exploited the world order for centuries to suit itself. Now it is our turn to exploit it to suit ourselves.’

A friend of ours has recently been working closely with Chinese leaders in Hong Kong. I said to his wife that I could not withhold a touch of sympathy for a rising nation which, in the past, was mercilessly bullied by the West.

She responded: ‘Maybe, but when they are on top I don’t think they will be very kind.’ I fear that she is right. It seems hard to overstate the ruthlessness with which China is pursuing its purposes at home and abroad.

China chose to make an example of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu by jailing him for 11 yearsChina chose to make an example of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu by jailing him for 11 years

The country imprisons Nobel prizewinners such as the political activist and writer Liu Xiaobo, steals intellectual property and technological know-how from every nation with which it does business and strives to deny its people access to information through internet censorship.

The people of Tibet suffer relentless persecution from their Chinese occupiers, while Western leaders who meet the Dalai Lama are snubbed in consequence.

Other Asian nations are appalled by China’s campaign to dominate the Western Pacific. Japan’s fears of Chinese-North Korean behaviour are becoming so acute that the country might even abandon decades of eschewing nuclear weapons, to create a deterrent.

A few months ago, the Chinese party-controlled newspaper Global Times carried a harshly bellicose editorial, warning other nations not to frustrate Beijing’s ambitions in the South China Sea — Vietnam, for example, is building schools and roads to assert its sovereignty on a series of disputed islands also claimed by China.

The Beijing newspaper wrote: ‘If Vietnam continues to provoke China, China will . . . if necessary strike back with naval forces. If Vietnam wants to start a war, China has the confidence to destroy invading Vietnam battleships.’

This sort of violent language was familiar in the era of Mao Tse-tung, but jars painfully on Western susceptibilities in the 21st century. China’s official press has urged the government to boycott American companies that sell arms to Taiwan.

 
The people of Tibet suffer relentless persecution from their Chinese occupiersThe people of Tibet suffer relentless persecution from their Chinese occupiers

The Global Times, again, demands retaliation against the United States: ‘Let the Chinese people have the last word.’

Beyond mere sabre-rattling, China is conducting increasingly sophisticated cyber-warfare penetration of American corporate, military and government computer systems. For now, their purpose seems exploratory rather than destructive.

But the next time China and the United States find themselves in confrontation, a cyber-conflict seems highly likely. The potential impact of such action is devastating, in an era when computers control almost everything.

It would be extravagant to suggest that the United States and China are about to pick up a shooting war where they left off in November 1950, when Private Carl Simon suffered the shock of his young life on a North Korean hillside.

But we should be in no doubt, that China and the United States are squaring off for a historic Indo-Pacific confrontation.

Even if, for obvious economic reasons, China does not want outright war, few military men of any nationality doubt that the Pacific region is now the most plausible place in the world for a great power clash.

Michael Auslin of the American Enterprise Institute declares resoundingly: ‘America’s economic health and global leadership in the next generation depend on maintaining our role in the world’s most dynamic region.’

But the Chinese fiercely dissent from this view. It is hard to exaggerate the threat which this clash of wills poses for peace in Asia, and for us all, in the coming decades.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2066380/Will-World-War-III-U-S-China.html

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Asia and World War III: Is US-China collision inevitable?

  1. doivienxu says:

    không biết có phải đúng là bạn đã để lại comment bài học thuộc lòng GIỜ QUỐC SỬ không
    và bài NGƯỞNG CỬA HỌC ĐƯỜNG 4 câu đầu cũng là bài học thuộc lòng của sách giáo khoa
    ( tám môn học yếu lượt ) lớp 4
    mình không còn nhớ tựa đề nhưng nhớ trọn bài gửi tặng bạn khun trời kỷ niệm của tuổi thơ

    Có những kẻ tuổi còn niên thiếu
    Mà tinh thần già yếu thương thay
    Lòng không hề biết găng say
    Việc dời hay dở chỉ nhay mật nhìn
    (Ấy?) thuở nhỏ không siêng học hỏi (bởi)
    Chỉ mặt cho thày nói bạn thưa
    chớ hề bàn luận bao giờ
    Bài dù không hiểu ùm ừ cho qua
    quen lì mãi lòng ra lạnh nhạt
    Rồi lớn lên nhút nhát ngại lời
    Hởi em nhỏ nhày xanh đừng ngắt
    hảy mờ tai mở mắt mở mồm
    Nghe, trong và học cho khôn
    Nói cho ra lẻ thiệt hơn (với đời?)(ở đòi)

    Văn Vũ! email van_811@hotmail.com

  2. doivienxu says:

    ĐOÀN KẾT XUỐNG ĐƯỜNG

    Hỡi bạn trẻ có nghe hồn Sông Núi

    Lời đau thương uất hận đến tận cùng

    Bức Dư Đồ dù rách nát cũng của chung

    Vì trách nhiệm cùng chung vai bồi đấp

    Trai xứ Việt đã bao lần hiển hách

    Ngày hôm nay các bạn cũng hiểu thừa

    Ai là kẻ ươn hèn và nhu nhược

    Chỉ cuối đầu mãi Quốc để cầu vinh

    Hãy giải thoát những ngục tù thống khổ

    Là nỗi đau của dân tộc giống nòi

    Hởi bạn trẻ từ Nam chí Bắc

    Tổ Quốc đang lâm nguy vì Hán tặc

    Nở lòng nào ta vuốt mặt làm ngơ

    Tiếng gọi Non Sông nay đã đến giờ

    Hãy cùng lúc ta xuống đường tranh đấu

    Dẹp nội thù quét sạch bọn ngoại nhân

    Khi phá tan những mọt nước sâu dân

    Là ánh sáng ngàn hoa nở rộ

    Hãy đoàn kết gieo mâm hoa dân chủ

    Cho đời sau con cháu được Tự Do

    Cho toàn dân được áo ấm cơm no

    Cùng sánh bước với cộng đồng nhân loại

    Cho quê ta được rạng danh chói lọi

    Cho quê ta được phồn thịnh phú cường

    HỠI BẠN TRẺ TA ĐOÀN KẾT XUỐNG ĐƯỜNG

    HỠI BẠN TRẺ TA ĐOÀN KẾT XUỐNG ĐƯỜNG

    Xin gửi lại bạn một bài thơ Mình làm kêu gọi xuống đưởng
    tân mến
    văn Vũ

  3. doivienxu says:

    @doivienxu,

    Mà sao lại là Bạc Liêu? Chắc thời trước bạn là công tử Bạc Liêu hay cậu ấm Bạc Liêu chăng?

    Bạn còn nhớ được hai bài học thuộc lòng đó thì quả thuộc thành phần “nấu sử sôi kinh” rồi! Nhưng sanh lầm thế kỷ phải không?🙂

    Bạn đã đến được bến bờ tự do hay là vẫn còn ở trong nước? Tôi chỉ tò mò chút thôi chứ nếu thấy không tiện thì không cần trả lời.

    Cảm ơn về hai bài thơ sau nha. Đọc thấy được lắm đó!

    Chào bạn! trả lời cho những thắ mắt của bạn đây

    Không là Công Tử BL và cũng chẳng có cơ may được làm cậu ấm Nhuở nhỏ là anhmục tử, hiện nay thì thất nghiệp cho nên mới có cơ hội học ôn lại Tiếng Của Mẹ mình

    Cuốc kêu quấc quấc, Quốc nơi đâu?

    Nhớ về thửa ruộng với hàng cau

    Năm tháng đồng xanh Chàng mụctử

    Sông nước tiêu dao dạ chẳng sầu

    Nửa kiếp lưu vong đời viền xứ

    Đêm đêm buồn tẻ giửa Bắc Âu

    Thánh ngày gánh nặng tình non Nước

    Nhớ tiếng Cuốc kêu vạn hổi sầu

  4. doivienxu says:

    Xin edit lai bài thơ của mình tựa dề là DÒNG TÂM HUYẾT lúc post không để ý bị sai tựa đề.
    Cảm ơn

    Văn Vũ

  5. doivienxu says:

    Lịch Sử tiền tệ Quốc Gia Việt Nam và Việt Nam Cộng Hòa

    Nguồn Trúc Lâm Yên Tư, Quân Sử VN

    piastre Bảo Đại

    5 piastre Bảo Đại

    10 đồng VNCH

    20 đồng Quốc gia Việt Nam

    50 đồng VNCH

    100 đồng Lê Văn Duyệt

    100 đồng VNCH

    100 đồng VNCH con trâu

    200 đồng VNCH Quang Trung

    200 đồng VNCH

    500 đồng VNCH 500 đồng nông dân đi cày

    500 đồng VNCH Trần Hưng Đạo 500 đồng VNCH Trần Hưng Đạo

    500 đồng VNCH con cọp cam

    500 đồng VNCH

    1000 đồng VNCH

    1000 đồng VNCH con voi
    Like this:
    Like
    Bấm vào đường link xem
    http://doiviensu.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/l%E1%BB%8Bch-s%E1%BB%AD-ti%E1%BB%81n-t%E1%BB%87-qu%E1%BB%91c-gia-vi%E1%BB%87t-nam/

  6. doivienxu says:

    Mẹ Việt Nam ơi

    Linh hồn Tổ Quốc mẹ Việt Man ơi

    Cả bầu trời mây đen vần vũ

    Khắp non sông trùm phũ một màu tang

    Bọn giặc Hồ đã bán đứng giang san

    Cho Đảng đỏ đầy uy quyền võng lọng

    Đưa dân ta vào nô lệ lầm than.

    Tổ Quốc và dân tộc Việt Nam

    Biết mấy thăng trầm,

    Năm ngàn năm văn hiến

    Đã bao lần vận Nước hư vong,

    Thì bấy lượt có anh hùng hào kiệt.

    Đã đứng lên.

    Mài kiếm bạc dưới trăng vàng,

    Chém quân thù tan xác

    Và bao phe rợ Hán-Nguyên-Mông.

    Đã bỏ xác bởi anh hùng dân tộc Việt

    Mấy ngàn năm

    Chúng vẫn còn khiếp đảm kinh tâm,

    Gương anh kiết bao đời còn sáng chói.

    Đến thời Pháp thuộc.

    Từ trí thức, sĩ phu,

    đến nông dân chất phát.

    Đã đứng lên khởi nghĩa không ngừng.

    Bao chiến công hiển hách

    Những máu đổ đầu rơi

    Dân tộc ta chưa hề lùi bước

    Quyết noi gương anh hùng hào kiệt

    Đã ngót trăm năm

    Những cuộc kháng chiến vẫn không ngừng

    Đến mùa thu tháng tám

    Cuộc cách mạng hiên ngang,

    Toàn dân đồng quật khởi.

    Quét sạch bọn Lang Sa.

    Nhưng than ôi!

    Bọn giặc Hồ gian xảo,

    Chúng dùng những thủ đoạn đê hèn,

    Thủ tiêu biết bao nhiêu người yêu nước?

    Và thừa cơ cướp lấy chánh quyền.

    Rồi phân chia Nam-Bắc hai miền

    Đau lòng mẹ Việt.

    Hận sông Gianh đăng đẳng bấy nhiêu năm.

    Lũ giặc Hồ chưa vứt dã tâm,

    Chúng mãi quốc để cầu mong ngoại diện

    Rồi mỵ dân để phát động chiến tranh

    Ôi! Nam tiến, máu sông, xương núi.

    Uất hận nầy ghi mãi đến ngàn sau.

    Ba mươi tháng tư sau ngày Quốc hận

    Quê hương là địa ngục giữa trần gian

    Một lần nữa chúng bán cả giang san

    Dâng biển đảo Tây Nguyên, Bản Giốc

    Cho quan thầy Tàu cộng

    Có còn chi là non sông gấm vóc

    Tổ Quốc bị tách rời từng mảnh vụn

    Từng thước đất bị Tàu ô đào xới

    Máu lương dân tràn ngập cả biển đông

    Bọn cộng nô đã thóa mạ cha-ông,

    Chúng nối giáo cho giặc thù cướp Nước,

    Đưa dân ta vào tù ngục xiềng gông

    Hỡi những ai còn yêu quý non sông,

    Hãy lẳng lặng nghe tim mình réo gọi.

    Mối hận nầy không trả “nhục tổ tông”

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s