The stakes just got much higher in Communist China’s investment strategy to penetrate and control key areas of the U.S. economy and the U.S. political landscape. This past week, Guan Jun, the largest shareholder in HNA Group Co., the global Chinese conglomerate, reportedly donated $18 billion to a recently formed Hainan Cihang Charity Foundation Inc. in New York City. That’s $18 billion, making the bequest one of the largest ever, and putting Guan Jun, as the New York Times noted on July 26, “in the same league as donors like Bill Gates and Warren E. Buffet and almost matched the combined giving of all American corporations in 2016.”
So, who is this generous “donor,” Guan Jun? That’s the question everyone is asking. Like many other news groups and financial analysts, Bloomberg News referred to this magnanimous benefactor as the “HNA Mystery Man.” As the Times story noted, “it has not been disclosed how that man, Guan Jun, who is in his 30s, came to own such a large piece of one of China’s biggest conglomerates. His registered address in Beijing is a modest apartment at the end of a dingy hallway littered with discarded furniture and bags of trash.”
The obvious answer, which the establishment media and investment analysts seem to be taking extraordinary pains to ignore, is that Guan Jun is merely a front man for HNA, just as HNA is a front group for the Chinese government and the Communist Party of China (CPC). Guan Jun assists the fiction that HNA Group is a legitimate business enterprise, and HNA Group assists the fiction that the criminal regime in Beijing operates a legitimate market-oriented economy.
Contrary to decades of propaganda, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never “gone capitalist.” The “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” launched by Paramount Leader Deng Xiaoping in 1978 is “state capitalism,” in which the communist state owns most major businesses (State-Owned Enterprises, SOEs) and rigidly controls those that it doesn’t own outright. And, since China’s “private” companies operate under very opaque conditions, it is really impossible for western banks and companies that partner with these Chinese companies to know who the actual owners are. As we have explained in previous articles, Deng Xiaoping was a Marxist Leninist, and his “market socialism” hearkened back to Vladimir Lenin’s New Economic Policy (NEP) in Soviet Russia, which Lenin admitted was a ploy to get capital, technology, and other aid from the West to prop up his totalitarian state.
Now, after decades of prospering from this Western aid and trade, China is using its weaponized global investment strategy to penetrate key sectors of the American economy (see here, here, here, and here). HNA Group has played a major role in that strategy, taking on, according to Bloomberg, $73 billion in debt to finance a worldwide buying binge. Some of its most high-profile purchases have been big stakes in Hilton Hotels, Red Lion Hotels, Uber (the new global transportation phenomenon), and Deutsche Bank, the German banking behemoth. Most of this debt comes in the form of loans from China’s state banks, which indicates strategic support from the Chinese Communist Party that runs the Beijing regime. The sprawling HNA empire now encompasses marquis hotels, airlines, luggage handling services, prime real estate, high-tech manufacturing, banking and financial services, and much more.
We noted in March of this year that real estate purchases in the United States by HNA and other Chinese corporations are already posing serious security problems. “A recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) warned that the federal General Services Administration (GSA) is leasing ‘high security’ office space in the United States for the FBI, Secret Service, DEA, Social Security, IRS, and other agencies from foreign-owned companies based in China,” we reported. “The risks of national security compromise — not to mention personal privacy and security compromise dangers to ordinary citizens — from exposing U.S. agencies and data bases to espionage in Chinese-owned properties would seem to be so self-evident as to require neither special comment nor official cautionary policies. However, the Obama administration, apparently, saw no problem with the practice. And these security risks will certainly escalate, if the PRC is allowed to continue its buying splurge of American properties.”