While U.N. figures suggest that it would take 1% of U.S. military spending to provide the world with clean drinking water, the United States could end the worst cholera epidemic in recorded history (in Yemen) for far less than that and far less than what it is spending to create the epidemic through the U.S.-Saudi war on Yemen. And what may turn out to be the most widespread poisoning of water sources around the globe ever is the use of chemicals on U.S. military bases — chemicals that are not needed, used on bases that are worse than not needed.

Yemen

Many of us have been trying to halt senseless counterproductive mass-murder in Yemen since it was a “Constitutional scholar” president doing it with robotic airplanes. The legislation currently in play in Congress leaves a loophole you could fly a thousand drones through. But, as a step, it is well worth taking. Already having moved from 55 to 37 senators voting for endless, unquestioned, and undebated genocide was a step worth taking between last March and last week. When public pressure and Congress blocked Obama from a massive bombing campaign on Syria five years ago, that too was a step worth taking. But refusing to bring something to a vote because it would fail (as with Syria) doesn’t have the same precedent-setting ring to it as passing legislation to end a crime long underway. That’s what may be possible now on Yemen.

The shortcomings of the current Congressional action must be known if we are to build on it. The Senate still must vote on cloture, on — likely both good and terrible — amendments, and on final passage. And then there’s the House, and then there’s the threatened veto, and then there’s the question of expecting compliance from a president explicitly granted immunity from impeachment by Nancy Pelosi, by preemptive strike as it were. And then there’s that loophole that allows any war to roll on that claims to be against Al Qaeda. The fact that the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been partnering with Al Qaeda on the destruction of Yemen is absolutely no reason the White House won’t claim the war is against Al Qaeda.

Understanding all of that should make clear to us that a long-term and relentless public education and mobilization campaign is needed locally and globally, and that the notion of a “good war” must be disallowed and defunded along with the murdering of Yemeni families. We must encourage Congress to get a move on with each step it takes, even while condemning legislation that violates the U.N. Charter and the Kellogg-Briand Pact by claiming to allow certain varieties of the crime of war. The notion that Saudi Arabia should not be helped out in the murder of tens of thousands and potentially millions of people because it murdered one particular person (Jamal Khashoggi) must be permitted to accomplish whatever good it can, even while we work to help people see through the idea that selling bombs only to nations that don’t “violate human rights” is a piece of grotesque nonsense, as there is no use of bombs that respects human rights. Banning weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, for whatever reasons, is a step that must be taken in addition to — and if possible by amendment to — the legislation that would cut off U.S. military participation in the slaughter.

All of that being grasped, the fact remains that there is a reason that Trump has threatened a veto, and a reason that he sent Pompeo and Mattis scurrying over to the Senate to beg and plead for genocide, even though they apparently had nothing whatsoever to use to persuade even some of the most bloodthirsty senators ever to have lived. The White House and Pentagon and State Department are horrified at the prospect of the Congress, after a couple of centuries of ever increasing slumber, waking up and doing its job and stopping a war. Imagine if this were to really happen. What would prevent some Congress member’s brain from stumbling across the thought that if one war could be ended, another might be as well? What would prevent ending a half dozen of the ghastly horrors? What would prevent Congress members from hearing people’s screams immediately upon the start of each new war and voting immediately to block any war? This is the nightmare that keeps weapons profiteers tossing and turning in their gold-plated beds.

Why were 55 Senators for Genocide reduced to 37? Three reasons: public pressure, the murder of Khashoggi, and the fact that the Pentagon told a bunch of simplistic lies and made a bunch of baseless promises eight months ago and didn’t think up anything new to explain them away this time around. Each of these three reasons is encouraging and worth building on.

1. The relentless lie that the corruption is complete and that the public cannot have any influence has to be torn down as many times as it takes. If people were aware that public pressure was a big influence on last week’s vote, there would be a 100-fold increase in public pressure.

2. While it seems ridiculous to turn against the murder of thousands of people because of the murder of one person, that very sort of nonsense has always been available in every war. U.S. war efforts and those of their allies are always accompanied by vicious outrages outside of the framework typically thought of as the war. Saudi Arabia publicly murders or whips people in small numbers all the time. Ukrainian Nazis are no better. (An anniversary of the Odessa Massacre is coming up.) Allies in Afghanistan and Iraq make the Mafia look like a peace and justice club. Allies being courted for a hoped-for war on Iran make Ukrainian Nazis look like a pink pussy-hat march. More study is needed of how a particular atrocity can be forced into the U.S. corporate media.

3. When a White House loses credibility even with U.S. Senators, something else is going on that needs to be encouraged and promoted. The U.S. public may not have rushed into the streets when Obama’s wars became Trump’s, but certain parts of the corporate elite and the silent middle-class and even of the U.S. government have lost their faith in the redemptive power of genocide. Any wedge that can now be placed between Congress and the White House that could lead to Congress actually doing its job might work wonders.

Bases

The war on Yemen is killing directly through violence, but more so through the cut-off of supplies and through environmental destruction and the destruction of public resources — results that lead to starvation and disease. People don’t have food. People don’t have clean water. People are afraid to leave their houses. In comparison with this state of affairs, fairy tales about Muslim Mexicans stealing your job seem downright charming.

A Congress that actually did its job would be subpoenaing and making public U.S. military plans for major permanent U.S. bases in the aftermath of Yemen, which I’d bet you a MAGA hat do exist. Most of the rest of the world has been coated with U.S. bases. A major global conference was just held in Ireland on the topic of how to close U.S. bases. A U.S. coalition just announced a proposal on Capitol Hill. The struggles against U.S. bases in Japan and many other places are at fever pitch.

Foreign bases are not just provokers and instigators of war. They’re not just tools for propping up brutal dictatorships. They’re not just the secrets to be hushed up during each future chorus of “But why do they hate us?” They’re not just zones of rape and drunkenness and resentment. They’re not just carcinogenic chemical leaks living under legal immunity. They’re not just would-have-been EPA Superfund Sites to never benefit from any minor pretense of a cleanup because they’re not in the United States. They’re also this: a threat to global water supplies. Pat Elder has summarized this latest toxic development:

“The water in thousands of wells in and around U.S. military installations across the globe have been tested and have been shown to contain harmful levels of PFOS and PFOA. The health effects of exposure to these chemicals include frequent miscarriages and other severe pregnancy complications, like long-term fertility issues. They contaminate human breast milk and sicken breast-feeding babies. PFOS and PFOA contribute to liver damage, kidney cancer, high cholesterol, decreased response to vaccines, an increased risk of thyroid disease, along with testicular cancer, micro-penis, and low sperm count in males.”

Is there some constituency that array of maladies doesn’t concern? Are there certain groups who, after thoughtful consideration, place flags and war slogans above that entire list of illnesses? Of course there are. Until I say this: The “U.S. military installations across the globe” include thousands across the United States. It’s OK to pretend that last sentence isn’t what finally grabbed your attention. That pretense suggests a positive tendency.

Progressive Except for Peace

Senator Elizabeth Warren’s big new speech and article on foreign policy last week pretended that a war on Iraq that killed over 1 million people had killed 6,000; proposed to end wars in order to be more prepared for other wars; dishonestly demonized other nations; advocated “better” weapons; urged that U.S. troops be brought back from Afghanistan “starting now” (rather than ending now — it’s been starting over and over again for more than a decade), and generally promoted militarism while rhetorically opposing it. There was no proposed military budget, no proposed joining of any treaties, no proposed actual ending of any wars, no concrete policy at all, no draft legislation the way one might expect on any other topic.

Senator Bernie Sanders, while helping to lead the push on Yemen, otherwise continues to promote militarism and to address other topics as if militarism were unrelated. Last week over 100 scholars and activists signed a letter to Sanders that thousands of others have since added their names to. Part of the letter — which is addressed to Sanders but could be addressed with minor changes to any other Senator — reads:

“Your recent 10-point plan omits any mention of foreign policy whatsoever. We believe this omission is not just a shortcoming. We believe it renders what does get included incoherent. Military spending is well over 60% of discretionary spending. A public policy that avoids mentioning its existence is not a public policy at all. Should military spending go up or down or remain unchanged? This is the very first question. We are dealing here with an amount of money at least comparable to what could be obtained by taxing the wealthy and corporations (something we are certainly in favor of as well). A tiny fraction of U.S. military spending could end starvation, the lack of clean water, and various diseases worldwide. No humanitarian policy can avoid the existence of the military. No discussion of free college or clean energy or public transit should omit mention of the place where a trillion dollars a year is going. War and preparations for war are among the top destroyers, if not the top destroyer, of our natural environment. No environmental policy can ignore them.”

No environmental policy can ignore them. But every environmental policy does.

A Green New Deal

Have you actually read the Green New Deal — I mean the Democrats’ version under the same name but radically different from the Green Party’s version.

It includes: “decarbonizing the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries,” but does not mention the top producer of carbon around, the U.S. military — or for that matter that the main problem with agriculture is methane, not carbon. [I’m told that methane is a type of carbon, so that the authors may in fact mean to include it.]

It includes: “decarbonizing, repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure,” but no mention of military bases.

It includes “funding massive investment in the drawdown and capture of greenhouse gases,” but no mention of the military as a top emitter of carbon, and no mention of the military as the place where all the money goes that could be most easily moved into any useful “massive investment.” Instead, the Green New Democrats’ Deal reads:

“Many will say, ‘Massive government investment! How in the world can we pay for this?’ The answer is: in the same ways that we paid for the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs, the same ways we paid for World War II and many other wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments, new public banks can be created (as in WWII) to extend credit and a combination of various taxation tools (including taxes on carbon and other emissions and progressive wealth taxes) can be employed.”

To read this as anything other than a conscious and explicit commitment to continuing to dump $1 trillion per year into the most environmentally destructive program ever devised, while seeking out any other possible way to pay for a “green deal” would be delusional. If the military budget’s existence were going to be acknowledged, it would have been acknowledged here.

The exclusion of the world’s worst environmental destroyer from environmentalism is not new. It is enshrined in the Kyoto and Paris agreements. It is embodied in the work of all of the biggest environmental organizations. Leading up to the April 2017 Climate March in Washington, D.C., many of us raised as much hell as we could, until a little peace ghetto was permitted in part of the march. I’m not sure that doing that for the upcoming December 10th rally for the Green New Deal makes sense. I think Congresswoman-Elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her colleagues should either admit that the military exists and act accordingly, or not. Here’s what I said at the Climate March:

Most countries on earth have the U.S. military in them.

Most countries on earth burn less fossil fuel than does the U.S. military.

And that’s without even calculating how much worse for the climate jet fuel is than other fossil fuels.

And it’s without even considering the fossil fuel consumption of the world’s leading weapons makers, or the pollution caused by the use of those weapons all over the world.

The U.S. is the top weapons dealer to the world, and has weapons on multiple sides of most wars.

The U.S. military created 69% of super fund environmental disaster sites and is the third leading polluter of U.S. waterways.

When the British first developed an obsession with the Middle East, passed along to the United States, the desire was to fuel the British Navy.

What came first? The wars or the oil? It was the wars.

Wars and the preparations for more wars consume a huge amount of oil.

But the wars are indeed fought for control of oil. So-called foreign intervention in civil wars is, according to comprehensive studies, 100 times more likely — not where there is suffering, not where there is cruelty, not where there is a threat to the world, but where the country at war has large reserves of oil or the intervener has a high demand for oil.

We need to learn to say

No More Wars for Oil

and

No More Oil for Wars

You know who agrees with that? Pre-presidential campaign Donald Trump. On December 6, 2009, on page 8 of the New York Times a letter to President Obama printed as an advertisement and signed by Trump called climate change an immediate challenge. “Please don’t postpone the earth,” it said. “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.”

In fact, Trump is now acting to speed up those consequences, an action prosecutable as a crime against humanity by the International Criminal Court — at least if Trump were African.

It’s also a crime impeachable by the United States Congress — at least if there’s some way to involve sex in it.

Holding this government accountable is up to us.

No More Wars For Oil
No More Oil for Wars

Say it with me.

By Dr. Sulaiman Al Hattlan*

Pope Francis’ plan to visit the UAE in February was officially announced on Thursday. He will become the first pope to officially visit the Arabian Gulf. It is no surprise that Pope Francis has selected the UAE for his first trip. Starting years ago, the country’s leaders have launched a wide range of initiatives, institutions and events focused on religious tolerance, discussing theological ideas, interfaith dialogue, and promoting peace among Muslim communities and among people of all faiths.

The UAE is a famously diverse country. Millions of residents are from different nations, religious backgrounds and cultures, and events are regularly held that help to establish a culture of tolerance, coherence and coexistence between sects and religions. The most recent such event was the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies. Its attendees, who came from all over the world and follow many different religions, are still in Abu Dhabi today.

A decade ago, who would have imagined all these different religious leaders with their diverse experiences and visions gathered in an Arab country to explore common ground and to promote the concepts of coexistence, citizenship, tolerance and fraternal bonds?

The timing of the Pope’s visit is important as, over the past few years, Daesh and other extremist groups have tried to impose their dark and horrifying vision as the “true” Islam, as if every Muslim in the world should share their views.

Some have argued that it will take decades of hard work to eradicate the dangerous ideologies and behaviors of Daesh and its like, and we certainly have a long way to go in that regard, but the “glass half-full” outlook is that the UAE has proved that practical steps can be taken to reduce that time period if intentions are clear and honest.

The UAE has never compromised its principles regarding tolerance. It has never given them up for a temporary political project or a passing interest, knowing that involving religion in political conflicts and schemes often leads to catastrophe.

The UAE has earned this show of respect and appreciation from the holder of the highest office in the Catholic Church. It has earned it for establishing a culture that advocates tolerance and respect for the beliefs and cultures of others, as long as they are consistent with UAE law.

This is the human and progressive way to look at ideologies: You are free in your beliefs as long as you do not seek to impose them on others and as long as you practice your religious views and rituals according to a mechanism that ensures others are not harmed.

Those who seek to occupy a leading role in the future cannot remain hostage to outdated concepts — which may be based on historical circumstances and justifications — about other religions or ideas.
States that seriously plan for the future place development at the forefront of those plans. A few days ago, during the UAE government’s annual meeting, a significant number of ministers revealed ambitious plans for their ministries — unsurprising for a government that seeks to surpass all others in all areas by 2071, in time to celebrate the UAE’s 100th anniversary.

The scheduled visit of Pope Francis will be an important event not just in UAE history, but also for the future of the whole region. It is a slap in the face of radical ideologues who strive to instill hatred and estrangement. It also carries an important message that the future belongs to those who seek peace — a message that has been established and reinforced by the UAE.

A leadership that has worked to turn the UAE passport into the world’s most powerful, and is diligently planning for the future of its grandchildren cannot reconcile with dark ideologies, hate speech or projects of destruction.

*Dr. Sulaiman Al-Hattlan is a well-known columnist and founder and CEO of Hattlan Media, a media company, based in Dubai. Twitter: @alHattlan

The Turkish intelligence chief has secretly briefed his U.S. counterpart and leading U.S. senators on the Saudi-sanctioned murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi who had criticised powerful Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, according to Turkish press reports.

Turkey’s National Intelligence Organisation chief Hakan Fidan held a closed-door meeting with CIA Director Gina Haspel and several U.S. Senators this week over Khashoggi’s October 2 killing in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, reported Turkey’s Haberturk.

On Thursday, citing Turkish sources, Doha-based Al-Jazeera said Fidan briefed members of the Senate about Khashoggi’s killing upon the request of the lawmakers.

But US sources did not confirm whether Fidan was in the U.S. on his own initiative or had been invited by U.S. officials, said Haberturk.

The report comes days after CIA Director Gina Haspel briefed a number of leading U.S. senators about the murder.

Senators said the briefing left them even more convinced that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was involved in the death of Khashoggi.

On Tuesday, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators introduced a measure that says Saudi Arabia’s crown prince is “complicit” in the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

It’s among several measures being considered after a closed CIA briefing on Capitol Hill that convinced top U.S. lawmakers of the crown prince’s role in the murder.

Introduced by a top ally of President Donald Trump, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, and by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the resolution says the Senate “has a high level of confidence” that the crown prince “was complicit in the murder.”

“This resolution – without equivocation – definitively states that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia was complicit in the murder of Mr Khashoggi and has been a wrecking ball to the region jeopardising our national security interests on multiple fronts,” Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator and close ally of President Donald Trump, said in a statement.

Khashoggi was killed at the Saudi consulate in Turkey after arriving for routine paperwork. The U.S. resident was critical of the Saudi regime.

The strongly-worded resolution also held MBS accountable for atrocities committed during the war in Yemen and called on Saudi Arabia to end a blockade imposed by itself and three other Arab states on Qatar in June last year.

Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE – along with Egypt – launched a surprise blockade on Qatar in June 2017, accusing Doha of moving closer to Iran and supporting extremist groups in the region.

Doha denies the charges, and has said the Saudi-led blockade was aimed at making Qatar a vassal state.
Original source

By Inday Espina-Varona

The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) says that it will continue to study complaints filed against Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte despite his refusal to recognize the organization.

Duterte withdrew the Philippines from the court on March 17 after speculation grew over whether he would be prosecuted as a result of his deadly drug war.

The ICC prosecutor, however, maintained that the Philippines’ withdrawal will only become effective in March 2019, a year after the official withdrawal, and that its probe would continue.

In its annual report on investigations, the office of ICC prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said it will pursue the process of validating at least 52 “communications” or complaints sent by Filipinos, including the families of victims of killings in anti-narcotics police operations.

Bensouda’s office placed the Philippines under Phase 2 of its work program, a preliminary investigation to find whether it has jurisdiction over crimes cited in complaints against the Philippine president.

Any further allegations of crimes filed against Duterte will also be looked at.

Families of some of the thousands of victims of extrajudicial killings linked to Duterte’s war on drugs filed a suit with the ICC in August with the help of Rise Up for Rights and Life, an ecumenical church group, and the National Union of People’s Lawyers.

Nardy Sabino, convenor of Rise Up, said the ICC report “gives strength to families who have refused to be cowed by threats and insults and vilification from pursuing justice for their kin.”

“They know it is not an easy road and could take time but this is early vindication for those who stand their ground for truth and justice,” he said.

The ICC report noted that complaints filed before the prosecutor’s office have already cited 12,000 murders. The Philippine National Police has only claimed that fewer than 5,000 suspected drug users and peddlers have been killed in “legitimate police operations.”

By Bernhard Schell

Israel has hailed U.S. President Donald Trump’s announcement that he will nominate former Fox news reporter and current State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert to be the U.S. ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations headquarters in New York, according to agencies and The Times of Israel.

Nauert will replace Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor who announced in October that she would step down as ambassador at the end of this year.

“Heather Nauert will be nominated,” Trump said on December 7 before leaving the White House on Marine One for an event in Kansas City. “She’s very talented, very smart, very quick, and I think she’s going to be respected by all.”

The Times of Israel writes: “Israeli envoy to the UN Danny Danon welcomed the announcement and paid tribute to Haley who became a darling of the Trump administration and the pro-Israel community for her vociferous defense of the Jewish state at the UN, a body often seen as hostile to Israel.”

“Nauert has stood behind Israel in her previous positions and I have no doubt that the cooperation between our countries will continue to strengthen during her term,” Danon is quoted saying.

“During the last two years we succeeded, through close cooperation in changing the hostile atmosphere in the UN and making unprecedented achievements,” he said.

A former Fox News Channel reporter, Nauert had little foreign policy experience before becoming State Department spokeswoman. If confirmed by the Senate, she would be a leading administration voice on Trump’s foreign policy.

Nauert is also seen as close to Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, senior White House adviser Jared Kushner.

Like Haley, a former South Carolina governor, Nauert would come to the job with little experience in diplomacy, maintains The Times of Israel.

The newspaper points out that President Trump’s announcement about Nauert’s appointment comes hours after a resolution championed by Haley condemning the Hamas failed to pass in the General Assembly. The measure won a large majority, but not enough to secure the two-thirds needed for it to pass. Israeli leaders nonetheless thanked her and feted the results as proof of wide support for Israel’s position.

Haley rattled the United Nations when she arrived in January 2017 vowing that the United States will be “taking names” of countries that oppose Trump’s foreign policy, particularly regarding Israel.

Ahead of the vote, the U.S. ambassador sent a letter to all UN missions to make clear that “the United States takes the outcome of this vote very seriously.”

It was not immediately clear if Nauert would be able to defend Israel in the same powerful way as Haley did. Following the vote, she retweeted a comment by U.S. special envoy Jason Greenblatt condemning the world body’s inability to pass the measure, but did not publicly comment herself, says The Times of Israel.

Other candidates considered for the job, according to Bloomberg, were former White House adviser Dina Powell, ambassador to Canada Kelly Craft and ambassador to Germany Ric Grenell.

Grabbed from Fox by the White House to serve as State Department spokeswoman, Nauert catapulted into the upper echelons of the agency’s hierarchy when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was fired in March and replaced with Mike Pompeo.

Nauert was then appointed acting undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs and was for a time the highest-ranking woman and fourth highest-ranking official in the building. She did not have a good relationship with Tillerson and had considered leaving the department.

Her associates said at the time she was surprised by the promotion offer and recommended a colleague for the job. But when White House officials told her they wanted her, she accepted.

In her current job, she has responsibilities far beyond the news conferences she held in the State Department briefing room. She oversees public diplomacy in Washington and all of the roughly 275 overseas U.S. embassies, consulates and other posts. She is in charge of the Global Engagement Center that fights extremist messaging from the Islamic State group and others, and she has a seat on the U.S. Agency for Global Media that oversees government broadcast networks such as Voice of America.

Just 18 months earlier, she wasn’t even in government, notes The Times of Israel.

By Palden Sonam*

After China’s President Xi Jinping announced the ‘China Dream of Great National Rejuvenation’, the Communist Party of China (CPC) identified three important stages of development under three different leaderships: the Chinese people “stood up” under Mao Zedong; “became rich” under Deng Xiaoping; and are “becoming powerful” under Xi. Since Mao’s and Deng’s eras are long gone, naturally, Xi is the focus of this propaganda.

With his rise as the CPC’s core leader, Xi has embraced an authoritarian form of nationalism based on his strongman leadership in the quest to transform China into a ‘Great Power’, and has positioned nationalism as a route to realising the ‘China Dream’. The objectives of this Dream are expected to be achieved by 2049, coinciding with the 100th founding anniversary of the People’s Republic. To that end, the narrative of Chinese nationalism is anchored in two pillars: cultivating public support for the CPC leadership to achieve the China Dream; and delivering on some of the promises made in the China Dream with the underlying objective of increasing regime legitimacy and longevity.

The ‘strong leader’ and ‘powerful nation’ narrative appeals to China’s domestic population, which has for long been indoctrinated with memories of a ‘Century of Humiliation’. This historical sense of victimhood and imposed inferiority makes Chinese citizens susceptible to falling for a belligerent form of nationalism that promises national power and pride. It is in this context that Xi’s ‘China Dream’ must be understood, in order to comprehend the long-term objectives of such nationalism, foremost of which is securing and sustaining the CPC’s authority. Additionally, the different strategies Xi deploys to boost a Party-authored version of nationalism too must be viewed in conjunction with his ‘China Dream’.

Equating the Party and the ‘Nation’

Under Xi, China has witnessed a resurgence of ideological nationalism where the party is projected not only as the guardian of Chinese nationalism but also as the guarantor of China’s future. Xi demands public confidence in the party’s path and theory and his ‘Xi Jinping Thought’. In 2013, the Party further tightened its grip on Universities and prohibited discussions on matters such as free press and civil rights, branding them as ‘Western values’. In 2014, Xi called on Chinese artists to serve the masses and to aim for ideological success.

At the core of this ideological nationalism is the Party’s centrality in the Chinese state and society; and at core of the Party is Xi himself, as the new helmsman. In August 2018, the CPC launched a campaign to promote a “patriotic striving spirit” among the country’s young and middle-aged intellectuals, to rally support for the party. By fusing the party and the ‘nation’ as one, Xi is attempting to cultivate a worldview that to love the CPC is to love the ‘nation’, and to serve the Party is to serve the people. Any criticism against the CPC is therefore considered anti-national and illegal—as is visible in the increasing repression of Chinese dissidents often on charges of subverting state power. This ideological nationalism also demands more ideological conformity and appreciation of his Thought from all sections of the society.

‘Great Technological Leap Forward’

Through what is being referred to as ‘techno-nationalism’, Xi is attempting to induce patriotic pride through China’s technological success as well as ambition. The underlying strategic logic is that whoever dominates the future of technologies such as artificial intelligence will also dominate other critical sectors such as security and economy. Beijing’s eagerness and thrust to win the technological race is evident in the Made in China 2025 (MIC2025) strategic plan, and is reinforced by the 2018 propaganda film, Amazing China, which extols China’s technological achievements during Xi’s first term.

However, it is the former that sparked the clash of techno-nationalists in China and the US which culminated in a trade war. The objective of the MIC2025 is to transform China from a giant to a power in technological manufacturing and innovation by 2025, and a leading power in high-technology and innovation by 2049. This ‘great technological leap forward’ has been launched with a combination of vast resources and a nationalistic rhetoric of making China a tech superpower. Consequently, the US’ persistent pressure to modify MIC2025 will likely be seen as another form of national humiliation.

External Geopolitics and Internal Regime Support

Xi uses geopolitical issues to generate nationalistic attitudes as another means to garner support for the regime. Under his leadership, China has, in both posturing and actions, intensified its claims over disputed territories extending from the East China Sea to the Himalayan borders.

He vowed to never cede “an inch of Chinese territory” and complete the ‘national reunification’ involving Taiwan. Geopolitical tensions have been ratcheted up with China’s neighbours due to Beijing’s increasing activities to assert control over disputed areas, such as through the establishment of the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea; the development of artificial islands in the South China Sea; the construction of a strategic road along the borders with India and Bhutan; and belligerent military drills targeting Taiwan. Simultaneously, Beijing has also accelerated its military modernisation with the objective of developing world class military prowess. More recently, Xi called on China’s Southern Theatre Command (which monitors the South China Sea and Taiwan) to get ready for war.

Looking Ahead

While the ‘Century of Humiliation’ discourse continues to be a powerful component of the CPC-tailored Chinese nationalism, Xi’s “great goal of national rejuvenation” is an important addition that may change the future narrative of Chinese nationalism from one driven by collective historical memory of humiliation to one driven by a collective aspiration to be the next superpower. Moreover, given China’s growing influence in the world, the CPC might view Xi’s triumphalism as a more effective strategy to shore-up regime-oriented nationalism.

*Palden Sonam
Researcher, China Research Programme (CRP)

Tensions in the South China Sea (SCS) have somewhat abated but the latent flashpoint remains. In mid-October 2018, a near collision took place between an American and Chinese warship. The US has attacked Beijing’s expansionism. In September 2018, Japan conducted its first-ever submarine drills in the waters. If the dispute escalates, ASEAN will not be able to avoid the negative fallout.

By KB Teo*

Despite protests from China to the 2016 international arbitral ruling against its territorial claim, tensions in the South China Sea have been somewhat abating. But the South China Sea waters remain a flashpoint. In mid-October 2018, a near collision took place between the USS Decatur and the Chinese warship the Lanzou.

The Decatur was conducting a Freedom of Navigation Operation (FONOP), asserting the right of free passage through international waterways. The Lanzou was asserting Beijing’s sovereignty claim over the South China Sea. In a speech at the Hudson Institute on 4 October 2018, US Vice President Mike Pence launched a ferocious attack against Beijing’s foreign policy of “authoritarian expansion” and “intimidation”.

Assessing the Powers’ Influence over SCS

The overarching dominant actors influencing the state of peace and tensions in the South China Sea are China and the United States. Japan, a regional power, is emerging to be a player as well given Tokyo’s concern for its economic lifeline being affected by tensions in the regional waters.

What are the goals of these three players in the South China Sea?

China’s Game

China’s goal is to gain dominance of the South China Sea. This would give it two advantages. One, control over the vast oil, gas, and fisheries resources there. This would help to boost China’s annual economic growth rate, which has slowed from 10% (after Deng Xiaoping’s Open Door Policy 40 years ago) to the current 6.5%. An estimated one-third of annual global shipping passes through the South China Sea.

Two, it would restrict other rival powers’ access to the South China Sea. Since 2005, Beijing has been unilaterally “militarising the islands” in the Sea: placing long-range warplanes and missiles. President Xi appears to see the South China Sea as a “core interest” of China, as in the cases of Taiwan, Xinjiang and Tibet.

In June 2018, President Xi told visiting US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis that China would not “withdraw even one inch from its ancestral land”. In effect, Beijing has formulated an Asian “Monroe Doctrine”. It is part of President Xi Jinping’s 2013 “China Dream”, which called for the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”.

Xi’s Muscle Flexing?

Xi has repeatedly exhorted the military to be ready “to fight and win wars under modern conditions”.  This is a reference to Beijing’s memories of China’s “Century of Humiliation” (1839-1949).

Xi sees Washington as trying to contain China’s rise: the US has encircled China with its ring of alliances in Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. China is keen to have good relations with the United States. Speaking at the November 2018 Canton Trade Fair, President Xi said that China would open up more for imports. A similar statement was made by Vice President Wang Qisan during his visit to Singapore in early November 2018.

In November 2018, China and the US resumed high-level talks, ahead of the East Asia Summit (EAS) in Singapore, which concluded last week. Xi and President Trump met at the G20 Summit in Argentina in early-December 2018.  While they huddled over their trade dispute, the South China Sea did not seem to have featured in their talks.

Japan’s Growing Interest

Tokyo has no claim over the South China Sea. But Japan is deeply concerned about China’s behaviour in the waters. In November 2014, Beijing had unilaterally declared an Area Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea.

All of Japan’s oil and gas imports pass through the South China Sea and the Malacca Strait. Chinese control of the South China Sea would threaten Japan’s economic lifeline. This is clearly unacceptable to Tokyo. There is a growing strategic rivalry between Japan and China. They have a maritime territorial dispute over the Senkakus/Diaoyus in the East China Sea.

Japan has sold Coast Guard patrol ships to Vietnam and the Philippines. In October 2018, Japan sent its destroyers and conducted submarine drills in the South China Sea for the first time ever − to send a message to Beijing about its right of passage through international waterways. This is the same that Washington has been sending out to Beijing.

But amid their growing economic interdependence, Japan and China are also keen to limit their rivalry. PM Shinzo Abe visited China in October 2018 to boost bilateral ties. It was the first such high-level visit in seven years.

US Getting Tougher?

Washington is strongly opposed to Beijing’s claim over the South China Sea.  In 2017, President Trump called China a “rival”, and a “peer competitor”. The US would not tolerate Beijing seeking hegemony. Defence Secretary Jim Mattis, speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore in June 2018, had demanded that Beijing stopped the militarisation of the South China Sea.

He warned Beijing of unspecified “severe consequences”. Admiral Philip S. Davidson (Chief, Pacific Command) told the US Congress in October 2018 that the US had lost control of the South China Sea, short of war with China.

Implications: The Makings of a New Cold War?

China has taken a tough but pragmatic approach to the South China Sea disputes. There are no signs that Beijing would give up its claim. The result is a new Cold War between the two largest economies in the world.

At the just concluded 33rd ASEAN Summit in Singapore, the South China Sea disputes were discussed. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong hoped that China-US relations would remain stable. ASEAN does not want to choose between the two superpowers.

China and the US are the two biggest trading partners of the ASEAN states. But if Beijing and Washington escalate their conflict, ASEAN would not be able to escape the negative fallout: “When two elephants fight, the grass gets trampled”.

At the just-ended APEC Summit that followed in Papua New Guinea, China-US differences on trade and security were again on display. The APEC Summit ended without a formal leaders’ statement due to China-US division over trade. But it is not just about trade. The US sees Beijing as trying to establish a Pax Sinica, to replace the existing Pax Americana. The result could be more than a new Cold War.

*KB Teo is a former diplomat who had previously served in the Singapore Embassy in Cairo. A graduate of the then University of Singapore, he earned his MA (International Relations) from the Australian National University.

Despite the decision by the Russian Constitutional Court, the subsequent veto by the Ingush Electoral Commission on a referendum, and appeals by republic officials to come to terms with the September 26 Ingush-Chechen border accord, Ingush opponents say they will continue to protest and now plan to appeal to international courts.

Ruslan Mutsolgov, one of the protests, says that the Russian court’s decision “was taken in favor of bureaucrats and destroys the federal structure of the country … As a result of this decision, all regions of the country, including Kabardino-Balkaria, Adygeya, Stavropol and Daghestan may suffer” (kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/328813/).

He says that opponents of the border accord will make use of “all legal means” to have it reversed. “We reserve the right to hold meetings and to appeal to international institutions.” His argument is supported by Zakri Mamilov, a deputy of the Ingush legislature, who adds that that body will support a referendum on the accord as required by the Constitution.

And the Ingush deputy continues with the observation that “the impression has been created that [the powers that be] view Ingushetia as a second-class region. I personally am feeling a deep spiritual disappointment.” His feelings almost certainly are shared by many Ingush who live in one of the smallest federal subjects which is now to become even smaller.

Three other developments over the last 24 hours related to the Ingush-Chechen border dispute include:

Yunus-Bek Kadyrov and Ramzan Kadyrov say that the decision of the Russian Constitutional Court puts an end to the argument about the border accord. They add that they will work together to develop the frontier area between them (kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/328816/).

Ever more commentators are suggesting that now that he had won in Ingushetia, Chechnya’s Kadyrov will seek to annex territory in Daghestan as well (caucasustimes.com/ru/kavkaz-gotovjat-k-ukrupneniju/ and themoscowtimes.com/articles/ramzan-kadyrovs-next-target-op-ed-63745).

Russian historian Daniil Kotsyubinsky says that the differing legal theories advanced by the Russian Constitutional Court and by the Ingush Constitutional Court are sufficiently compelling that the two sides will continue the fight in Ingushetia and that that fight is likely to cause the Kremlin ever more problems in the future (rosbalt.ru/posts/2018/12/07/1751732.html).

Many people have labeled communism as but a myth: an unattainable fantasy. Jonathan Tepper and Denise Hearn (T&H) have, by contrast, written a new book called “The Myth Of Capitalism: Monopolies And The Death Of Competition“. It contains a series of liberal and conservative critiques of the economic system of the US in particular and the West more generally.

T&H chronicle the decline of competitiveness in almost every sector of the US economy.  Most people in the mainstream media are drooling over the record highs being recorded on the stock market, but the book notes,  “Between 1996-2016, the number of stocks in the US fell by roughly 50%, from more than 7300 to fewer than 3600, while rising 50% in other developed nations.”  As T&H painstakingly explain by citing studies and charts, the US economy has been stagnant by most truly relevant metrics since the Reaganomics of the 1980s, such as R&D spending, company longevity, competitive consumer product prices and the number of annual startups.

The superficiality of the recent Wall Street gains is enabled via trickery such as stock buybacks, oligopolistic mergers & lobbyist-sponsored deregulation and tax exemptions.  Such corruption used to be illegal, in pre- Reagan and Buckley v. Valeo America.  Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt both cracked down on monopolies like Standard Oil and the New York Central Railroad by enforcing the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts.  Every president since Teddy, both Democrat and Republican, cracked down on potential monopolies until Reagan.  This helped prevent a market crash akin to those of 1907 and 1929, which were the direct result of laissez-faire capitalism.

Wide-scale mergers started occurring during the Reagan Administration and have only picked up steam ever since. Concerning our last president, T&H note that, “Obama talked tough on big business and Wall Street, but he raised as much money from them as possible and was arguably even more pro-merger than Bush.  His DOJ approved all the airline mergers, creating an oligopoly of four airlines… He allowed Google’s major acquisitions that vertically integrated parts of the ad industry… The FTC prevented Comcast from buying Time Warner in 2015 and AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile in 2011.  These were the only notable mergers Obama’s DOJ blocked.”

The book lists all of the industries that have effectively become oligopolies or even monopolies: search engines, beer, beverages, glasses, weapons, banks, telecommunications, social media, cell phone manufacturing, agriculture, airlines, pharmaceuticals, credit rating, tobacco, railroads, etc. The consolidation of market share to a handful of billion-dollar companies has throttled the entry of new companies in our so-called Age of the Startup. T&H write how Facebook has (after buying out Instagram) been able to devastate upstart platform Snapchat by mimicking all of Snapchat’s features. Such treachery, combined with Facebook’s 2B+ user base, ensured Snapchat would end up in the financial spiral that’s it’s currently in. This is but one example of how the post-merger era has sabotaged fresh competition. The book relays this sobering stat: “In 1995, the top 100 companies accounted for 53% of all income from publicly traded firms, but by 2015, they captured a whopping 84% of all profits.” After decades of decline, the number of new firm entries fell below the number of firm exits in 2013. This decline in the number of startup innovators inevitably ends up hurting technological innovations.

The merger bonanza may be great for Wall St, but it’s horrible for Middle America. For instance, T&H write, “When workers have fewer employers to choose from in their line of work, their bargaining power disappears.  Corporate giants can squeeze their suppliers, but the main thing companies buy is labor, and they have been squeezing workers.” Thus, wages have struggled to keep up with inflation for decades. Benefits are cut, while stock buybacks soar. Unhappy workers in all but 3 states can be shackled to soul-sucking jobs via non-compete clauses. Furthermore, “56% of private sector non-unionized workers are forced into mandatory arbitration and of those, 23% were also denied any access to class-action lawsuits. This means that nearly a quarter of working Americans in the private sector don’t have the basic right to sue their employer.”

Mergers aren’t good for consumers either, despite what the corporatist rhetoric will tell you. T&H give countless examples of how industries became less innovative after drinking the Oligopoly Kool-Aid. The lack of competition this environment leads to complacency and, thus, a lack of product innovation or even concern for customer service. The book also reports that, “in mergers that led to 6 or fewer significant competitors, prices rose in nearly 95% of cases… On average, post-merger prices increased 4.3%.” Industries from beer to pharmaceuticals are infamous for fixing prices, due to high barriers of entry for startups and tacit (and sometimes explicit) collusion. According to the book’s data, the average specialty pharmaceutical medication cost jumped 217% from 2011-2015. Unsurprising, when you consider that, “In 2017, drug makers paid for 882 lobbyists and spent more than $171.5M in an effort to oppose lower prescription drug prices.”

Ironically, lobbyists will argue that mergers lead to lower prices and greater innovation. They make the dishonest argument that the goal of the antitrust acts was solely to help consumers. In fact, the legislation never even mentioned consumer efficiency; the bills were all about breaking up the power of the trusts. People like Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson saw how monopolies exceeded government authority in many cases; a lack of government enforcement of industry ultimately led to the Great Depression and the resulting New Deal reformations.

In the era of the Too-Big-to-Fail banks and corporations, the lessons of “The Myth Of Capitalism” are more important than ever. They expose the façade of the post-recession “economic recovery” for what it is: stock buybacks and mergers puffing up the economy. Everyone and everything from workers, consumers, people with medical conditions, startups and the IRS suffer from the corruption of American capitalism. Tepper and Hearn frame their central thesis with liberal ideals and arguments (protecting the consumer, income inequality, maintaining government independence from corporate influence), as well as conservative (market competitiveness, cutting red tape for small business, low consumer prices). A lot is written about the thoughts of Hayek and Friedman, but also leftists like FDR and Marx. The final chapter offers some solutions to the problems of our times, but they’re pretty predictable if you’ve been reading along the whole way.

Page after page of charts succinctly illustrate the points T&H make about trust-busting, the corrosiveness of the lobbyist class, the benefits of competitive markets, and livings standards for people on Main Street. “The Myth Of Capitalism” is a very readable, even-handed and informative primer for anyone questioning whether or not they’re being gaslighted by the nonstop barrage of praise for the economy by the oligopolistic mainstream media.

The G-20, though initiated to mitigate global financial woes, demonstrated a paradigm shift to abate global trade tussle at Buenos Aires in Argentina. The summit emerged a great success with US- China trade truce for 90 days, even though it was not the main agenda.

Trade war crippled the global trade after Trump administration waged into a trade war against China to safeguard American job seekers. It imposed 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum and proposed another 25 percent tariff on US 200 billion imports from China , beginning from January 2019.

The underlying force behind the truce was both leaders’ political will. Both were convulsed by domestic compulsion. Trump’s compulsion was US Presidential election in 2020 and Xi Jinping’s climb-down from retaliation was the failure to uplift the Chinse economy , which showed rare sign of recovery from the down turn.

The trade ceasefire , even though temporary, gives a breathing time to China to reduce trade deficit by substantial increase in imports of agriculture products from USA and to exit from tit-for tit actions by withdrawing high import tariff on American cars

The trade war started to bite American farmers. Stock market dwindled, erasing the benefits which stemmed from 2018 gain amid trade jittery. IMF downgraded the growth rates of both China and USA in 2019, citing the impact of trade war. It forecasted the growth of China and USA would decline from 6.4 and 2.7 percent to 6.2 and 2.5 percent respectively in 2019.

In the summit, China agreed to negotiate immediately on “forced” technology transfer, intellectual property rights and cyber threats.

Whether or not the truce lingers after 90 days, the temporary truce makes a breakthrough in melting the ice and brings world’s largest two economies on discussion table to avert the trade war.

The truce gives opportunity to India to balance its power game with China and RCEP, where China is the major stakeholder . Paradoxically, trade war was not bane to India. It was rather propitious for warming up economic ties with China. Nevertheless, it weakened its stand on RCEP.

China is an export base economy and USA has been the driving force for China’s upsurge in the economy since it is the biggest importer of Chinese goods. Nearly one-fifth of Chinese goods are exported to USA annually. With the onslaught of tariff war, Chinese goods became expensive. It caused major dent to China’s exports and eventually imparted shadow on Chinese economy.

Threatened by US market closer , China diverted attention to India , which is considered a big global consuming market. With high growth trajectory, India provides a bigger market for Chinese goods, which , it is believed , will counterbalance the damage to export to USA.

A new synergy arose. Both India and China oscillate in the hope for warming the relation. Till the trade tussle, India was keen to improve the relation with China. But, China was reticent. After trade war, China bent towards India and vies for India’s heart for improving economic ties. Global Times – the Chinese official media – quipped that “ a new day has dawned for the two countries , which were once at odds”.

In the trade front, China agreed to increase import agricultural products from India, which hitherto were imported from USA. Soybean is a case in point. China reduced import tariff on soybean meal from India to encourage exports. It is unlikely that the temporary truce will halt India’s new export opportunities to China with the uncertainty prevailing.

China has been on investment binge since Modi –led BJP government came in the power at Centre. Chinese investment has become the driving force for upsurge in start-ups – a novel scheme by Modi government – to enhance job opportunities. Besides, Chinese investment catalyzes a strong platform for electronic manufacturing. More than six Chinese reputed mobile firms set up their manufacturing facilities in India .

RCEP – the largest trade block comprising of ASEAN plus six countries – received a new lease of life after the trade war broke. Needless to say , RCEP went morose after missing two target dates of launching. China was hurrying to conclude the deal. Paradoxically, trade war weakened India’s dilly-dally stand for non-commitment to RCEP, with the USA shutting the door for exporters.

Since beginning, India was opposing the launching of RCEP without inclusion of service trade , such as IT services. It also expressed concern for fair trade in the block , apprehending that it would pave the way for Chinese goods’ backdoor entry to Indian market.

The trade war helped China to woo the support of members of RCEP , particularly ASEAN countries, coaxing them that it would emerge a major export destination for them after USA hardened its protectionism. China is the biggest export destination for ASEAN , followed by USA. Duty free entry in RCEP will bolster ASEAN’s export to China, unleashing new lease of life to offset the damage caused by US high tariffs.

With the trade war tapering, RCEP losses its strength in the global trade. This will concurrently strengthen India’s non-committal stand to the block, with the USA relaxing its market. USA is the second biggest export destination of India..

To sum up, the trade truce in G-20 was a boon to India

Views expressed are personal

As China’s economy steadily grows, its relationship with the United States has transformed from cooperative co-evolution to decoupling.

By Vincent Ni*

Henry Kissinger, US secretary of state from 1973 to 1977, remains a rock star in China. So when US-Chinese relations go awry, Chinese leaders turn to Kissinger. In his 2011 book On China, Kissinger proposed that the United States and China should “pursue their domestic imperatives, cooperating where possible, and adjust their relations to minimize conflict.” He calls this “co-evolution.” And amid heightened tensions between the two countries, the veteran diplomat emphasized to Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing that cooperation between the two countries is “essential for peace and progress in the world.”

Meanwhile in Washington, the atmosphere is not so friendly with talk of “decoupling” from China. President Donald Trump’s strategists expect this to be effective in countering Beijing’s influence and shifting the global supply chain. The process would also minimize the two countries’ reliance on each other on matters of economics and geopolitics, even to the extent of exclusion. In the latest development, one of Trump’s economic advisers quipped to BBC: “Should we pursue evicting China from the WTO?” Kevin Hassett, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers added that China had “misbehaved” as a member of the WTO and the Trump administration’s punitive approach “is working.”

Supporters of Trump’s China policy hail the administration’s hawkish stance. Opponents warn that without a new name for the US dance card in sight, the split between the world’s two biggest economies and military establishments will corrode global supply chains and destabilize an already fragile world order.

China’s admission into the world trading system in 2001 marked a significant milestone in globalization, benefiting China enormously and creating market opportunities for the United States. That’s why when Trump publicly denounced globalization, Xi did exactly the opposite. Countries that once advocated for an interconnected world no longer celebrate it. The term “globalization” is so tainted these days that Trump even blames US allies such as Japan and the European Union for allegedly “ripping America off.” And in the UK, austerity policies carried out after the last round of global financial crises a decade ago, along with an effectively borderless European travel arrangement, largely resulted in the 2016 vote to leave the European Union.

There are legitimate concerns in Washington over the extent to which China has unfairly taken advantage of its convergence into the global trading system and globalization itself. After all, Beijing has a bad track record of protecting intellectual property and restricting market access for foreign companies while injecting billions of dollars each year to prop up its state-owned enterprises. Moreover, its ambitious state-sponsored Made in China 2025 plan reportedly aims to challenge US supremacy in sophisticated technologies arenas such as AI and biotech.

Pessimism over bilateral relations, however, did not originate with Trump. During the Obama administration, officials from both capitals clashed over intellectual property and regional security, and Washington questioned Beijing’s sincerity on tackling US complaints. “In other words, Beijing took advantage of the process,” one former US trade official confided recently.

There is truth on both sides. Trump is right in pointing out China’s misbehavior in international trade by tackling issues such as intellectual property theft and unfair state subsidies. However, the United States cannot slash its trade deficit with the rest of the world unless Americans have enough savings in their bank accounts.

Although Trump supporters disparage cheap imports from China, Americans dependent on credit cards rely on those low prices. When the White House considered additional tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods in September, retail giant Walmart warned US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer that the immediate impact “will be to raise prices on consumers and tax American businesses and manufacturers.”

The parochial outlook in the United States and the growing nationalism in China is heading toward disengagement. This is disruptive and dangerous, for two reasons.

Geopolitically, a divorce forces other countries – mainly longstanding US allies in the region – to pick sides. Japan, India, Australia and South Korea and other likeminded countries in the region are economically entangled with China. The latest warning came from Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien-loong at November’s ASEAN summit: “If you are friends with two countries which are on different sides, sometimes it is possible to get along with both, sometimes it’s more awkward when you try to get along with both.”

Secondly, disengagement could lead to hostility. During the 1990s, an engaged China promised to abide by the Missile Technology Control Regime, acceded to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and signed the Chemical Weapons Convention. Today’s challenges of North Korea, counterterrorism and cybersecurity require major powers to work together rather than against one another. During the Obama administration, Washington and Beijing reached an unprecedented agreement on controlling cyberattacks as well as a landmark agreement in Paris to curb rising temperatures.

Former US President Richard Nixon’s 1972 visit to China changed the configuration of the Cold War and brought the People’s Republic into a world that it once denounced as “dominated by American imperialists.” The relationship of 47 years could not have been possible without the subsequent talks that produced three landmark communiques in 1972, 1979 and 1982 – regarded as the foundation for modern US-China relations – signed when China’s GDP was merely a fraction of the US GDP.

Washington and Beijing should seek a new paradigm in the bilateral relationship. First, the two countries must develop a new set of rules in trade and economics, incorporating these into existing agreements and encouraging both economies to prosper in the 21st century. This would also involve setting norms in areas such as technology as well as inbound and outbound investments.

Second, Washington and Beijing must figure out how to coexist militarily. As China expands its military presence, the existing security alignment in the region changes, too. Peace depends on a sustainable risk-managing mechanism developed by both sides to avoid tit-for-tat military confrontation, for example over the South China Sea.

Third, while reiterating the “core interests” of both sides, Washington and Beijing should recognize the changing global geopolitical environment and find ways to collaborate to minimize risks and contribute to global public goods. Controlling global pandemics and sanctions enforcement to rein in North Korea’s nuclear ambition, for instance, has produced positive results in the past. While dubbed by some analysts as “rewriting the post-war global order,” such cooperation should not echo a “grand bargain” and regression to a dangerous world with spheres of influence.

For now, the United States and China seem to merely test each other’s patience, threatening decoupling that will only bring turbulence in the global supply chain and an unpredictable future. This is tactic, not strategy and tactics do not guarantee long-term stability.

By Anja Vladisavljevic

Croatian officials and the US embassy in Zagreb have dismissed reports that the US was trying to stop Croatia from buying a dozen fighter jets from Israel, insisting that the US is completely on board.

“The US government has given permission to the state of Israel to offer the Israeli F-16 to Croatia, and we have that document. Israel is obliged to deliver a NATO-compatible aircraft to Croatia … and delivery is also the responsibility of the state of Israel,” Krsticevic said.

He said the decision to buy the jets was based on tenders, and that the process had been legal and transparent.

The US embassy in Zagreb told BIRN on Friday that the US was actively working with Israel and Croatia on delivery of the F-16 fighters.

“The United States remains firmly committed to supporting Croatia’s desire to modernise and upgrade its air force by purchasing aircraft that are interoperable with its NATO allies,” the embassy told BIRN.

The website Axios wrote on Thursday that Donald Trump’s administration was blocking the sale worth 500 million US dollars between Israel and Croatia of 12 F-16 fighter jets, which were made in the US and refurbished and upgraded by Israel.

“Trump administration officials were furious that Israel upgraded the old F-16s with new and sophisticated Israeli-made electronic systems in order persuade the Croatians to buy the jets from Israel and not from the US,” it claimed.

Axios claimed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu raised the issue with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Brussels on Monday, and that Pompeo told Netanyahu he was not against the deal but Secretary of Defense James Mattis was blocking it.

In March, the Croatian Defence Ministry said that it had finally opted to buy 12 F-16 jets from Israel. The first jets are expected to be delivered by the end of 2020 but the contract for their delivery has not been signed yet.

“We have been working with Israel for over a year on the details of the proposed F-16 transfer. Over the course of our discussions, we have been consistent and clear about the technical conditions under which we could approve the transfer,” the US Embassy told BIRN.

Expensive purchases of military by both Serbia and Croatia have fuelled concerns about an arms race in the Balkans.

(Civil.Ge) — On December 6, Foreign Minister Davit Zalkaliani spoke on Russia’s “continued” breach of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia at the 25th OSCE Ministerial Council – a regular forum of the OSCE participating states’ foreign ministers – held in Milan on December 6-7.

Minister Zalkaliani said, Moscow “has intensified its illegal steps towards factual annexation” of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia, and that “the ongoing process of fortification of the occupation line through installation of artificial obstacles, barb-wire fences, further aggravated the humanitarian conditions of conflict-affected population.”

“We are deeply concerned over the systematic violation of fundamental human rights, including ethnic discrimination against Georgians in both regions. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of IDPs and refugees, victims of continued ethnic cleansing, remain to be deprived of the right to return to their homes in safety and dignity,” Zalkaliani stated.

He then touched upon “the tragic case” of Archil Tatunashvili, “who was illegally detained, tortured and killed by the occupation power” in Tskhinvali region, as well as “the brutal murder” of Giga Otkhozoria and Davit Basharuli, which, according to Minister Zalkaliani, is “a stark reminder of alarming human rights situation in both Georgian regions, where no international monitoring mechanisms are allowed.”

He said, Georgia “continues its constructive participation” in the Geneva International Discussions (GID), but “more needs to be done to deliver on core issues of the agenda, which first and foremost requires political will and commitment by Russia.” He also stressed the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism (IPRM) meetings in Gali and Ergneti “should be immediately restarted in full respect of the founding principles and ground rules.”

Zalkaliani also said that Georgia is “particularly concerned” by Russia’s ongoing aggression against Ukraine and its illegal occupation of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol. “Moreover, the latest act of unprovoked, armed aggression near the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait is a blatant violation of international law,” the Minister added.

Despite the political crisis, which engulfed the country since October 26, Sri Lanka’s tourist arrivals rose 16.8 percent in November compared to the same period last year, the data released by the Sri Lanka Tourism Development Authority (SLTDA) showed. The month recorded 195,582 tourists arriving in the country compared to the 167,511 arrived in November 2017.

As at 30th November 2018, 2,080,627 tourists had visited Sri Lanka for this year. It is an 11.2 percent growth over last year when 1,871,871 tourists had visited the country during the same period. This month, the largest source market for tourists is India, followed by United Kingdom and China.

Asia and Pacific continued to be the largest source of tourist traffic to Sri Lanka with 47 percent of the total traffic received in November 2018. Europe accounted for 43 percent of the total traffic, America 6 percent, Middle East 3 percent and Africa 1 percent. India, United Kingdom, China, Germany and Australia were Sri Lanka’s top five international tourist generating markets in the month of November this year.

India was the largest source of tourist traffic to Sri Lanka with 20 percent of the total traffic received in November 2018. United Kingdom accounted for 11 percent of the total traffic, while China, Germany and Australia accounted for 10 percent, 10 percent and 5 percent respectively.

Arrivals from North America rose 22.0 percent to 9,407 in November and the arrivals from US rose 24.9 percent to 5,799 during the month while arrivals from Canada increased 16.8 percent.

Tourist arrivals from Europe increased by 37.1 percent with the arrival of 89,716 tourists. Most of the tourists came from UK (21,971), followed by Germany (18,754) and France (6,825).

Tourist arrivals from Middle East declined by 12.1 percent with the arrival of 3,235 visitors compared to the 3,681 arrived in November 2017. Tourist arrivals from Asia & Pacific increased by 2.4 percent with 91,406 arriving in the island. Tourist arrivals from India increased by 21.4 percent with 39,137 visitors while arrivals from China declined by 1.8 percent to record 18,888 arrivals.

Arrivals from Australia recorded 51.9 percent increase with 10,299 visitors entering the country in November 2018.

Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez received this week a group of 52 young Spaniards at Moncloa Palace to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Spanish Constitution.

At the meeting, Sánchez stressed the importance that the Magna Carta had on Spain’s transition to democracy, and explained the need to reform it to adapt it to the 21st Century.

The youngsters, all of whom will be 18 this year and come from each of Spain’s 52 provinces, each received a copy of the Constitution from the Prime Minister.

According to Moncloa, the group “represents the social reality of Spain, equally divided among men and women, that stand out in terms of their social, academic, artistic or sporting profile, made up of young people from the countryside, cities and islands, of different types of families and social origins, as well as with different vocational orientations.”

An Iranian Judiciary official said four suspects have been arrested in connection with Thursday’s terrorist attack in the country’s southeastern port city of Chabahar.

The prosecutor general of Zahedan, Ali Movahhedi Rad, announced on Saturday that the four suspects have been arrested in different cities of the southeastern province of Sistan and Baluchestan.

He said investigations continue to ascertain whether the suspects have had a role in the terrorist attack and to identify the main elements behind the attack.

On Thursday, an explosive-laden vehicle attacked the police headquarters in Chabahar, killing two sentries and injuring a number of other people, including passersby.

By Lisa Bryant

In France, police clashed with protesters, as tens of thousands of ‘yellow vest’ demonstrators took to the streets Saturday for the fourth consecutive weekend. Reports say at least 135 people have been injured.

French authorities deployed nearly 90,000 police across the country, detained hundreds of people and closed major landmarks and museums out of precaution. Anti-government yellow vest rallies also took place in nearby Belgium and the Netherlands.

It’s becoming a familiar sound — and smell: teargas lobbed by riot police against so-called yellow vest protesters. Demonstrators sporting fluorescent yellow jackets were out in force again in Paris and across the country, protesting against a range of grievances, including low wages and high taxes.

Around the iconic Champs Elysees, demonstrators clashed with police, set fire to barricades and attacked stores. Armored vehicles rumbled through the streets.

Paris area janitor Jonathan Gonzales wore “Resistance Macron” scrawled on his yellow vest — referring to French President Emmanuel Macron, whose popularity has plunged to record lows.

Gonzales said France is one of the world’s richest nations, but the French people are poor because of decades of government mismanagement. He wants higher minimum wage and lower salaries for government leaders.

Other protesters brandished slogans like “Macron resign” … and “Listen to the anger of the people.” Many criticize a raft of tough reforms the government says are needed to make France more competitive. They claim the president only cares about the rich, not the poor.

The yellow vest protests began against a planned fuel tax hike, aimed to help fight climate change. But while the government has since scrapped the increase, the demonstrations continue, by a movement with no clear leadership or demands.

Protester Olivier Goldfarb says people can’t live on what they earn. The working and middle classes pay more taxes than the more affluent.”

Another protester, giving only his first name Hugo, had broader complaints.

“We’re protesting against a system that doesn’t work, but it’s not up to me to say we should do that or we should do that,” said Hugo. “It’s up to the professional politicians. We send a message that it doesn’t work anymore. Now do something, and do it quickly.”

Polls show public support for the yellow vests is still high, despite the violence. Senior citizen Eliane Daubigny and her husband watched the demonstrations unroll early Saturday.

Daubigny said she understood the concerns of protesters who have a hard time making ends meet. But she also knows how people live in Madagascar — and believes the French are pretty spoiled by comparison.

Many stores were shuttered around hot spots like the Champs Elysees. Others were still boarded up from last week’s rioting that cost Paris alone millions of dollars in damage. Restaurants, hotels and stores have lost business during this holiday season.

Meanwhile, thousands of other French joined a very different protest on Saturday — marching in the capital and other cities for more action to fight climate change. In some cases, yellow vests joined the demonstrations.

By Jim Garamone

In a tweet this morning, President Donald J. Trump indicated he will nominate Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

If confirmed by the Senate, Milley would succeed Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, who has served in the position since September 2015. Dunford will step down in September 2019. Milley would be the 20th man to hold the position since General of the Army Omar N. Bradley in 1949.

“I am thankful to both these incredible men for their service to our country,” Trump tweeted.

The top military position serves to provide military advice to the president, defense secretary and the other members of the National Security Council.

Milley was confirmed as Army chief of staff in August 2015, succeeding Gen. Ray Odierno.

He received his commission in 1980 after completing ROTC at Princeton University, New Jersey. He has two awards of the Combat Infantry Badge and wears both Ranger and Special Forces tabs. Prior to being the Army chief of staff, Milley served as the commander U.S. Army Forces Command. Before that he commanded III Corps, which formed the nucleus of the International Security Assistance Force Joint Command in Kabul, Afghanistan.

He has commanded the 82nd Airborne Division and the 5th Special Forces Group. He served in a number of other units to include the 10th Mountain Division, the 101st Airborne Division, the 25th Infantry Division and the 3rd Infantry Division.

He has deployed a number of times to the Sinai Peninsula, Panama for Operation Just Cause, Somalia, Colombia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is expected to retire in the summer.

Long before Daesh (Islamic State) began murdering tens of thousands of men, woman and children in order to establish God’s right order in the world, Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) got the massacre ball rolling.

Upon assuming the papacy in 1073, Pope Gregory issued official proclamations urging Christian princes to recover lands occupied by Muslims in Spain, over which he claimed papal sovereignty on the basis of previous rule and right.

These decrees were really the beginning of the Christian Crusades against Islam and Jews: and the first fruit of Pope Gregory’s doctrine of Christian crusades was the 1085 fall of Muslim Toledo to Christian forces.

Pope Gregory’s ideas about Christian war, which were extended to fighting against domestic enemies of the papacy and the Church (like Emperor Henry IV), were also supported by his successors in the papacy.

Pope Gregory VII’s idea that popes were responsible for establishing the right order in the world, which could only be obtained through righteous Christian violence directed by the papacy, forms the political basis for all later Christian Crusades.

It also further stimulated an all out missionary battle against Judaism and Islam that had already begun in Spain, that led Muslims like Ibn Hazm to respond in kind. Religious truth became a zero sum game: anything positive said about another religion was seen as a weakening of your own side.

The goal was not to modestly try to harmonize various religious perspectives of the one and only God; but to self-righteously exaggerate religious differences, well beyond any reasonable understanding of the two sides.

If one believes that there is only one God who is revealed by many different inspired prophets, then we should be able to learn more about God’s will by gaining insights into our own unique revelation, from other revelations of that one God.

Since all monotheistic scriptures come from the one and only God, we should view other scriptures as potentially enriching our understanding and appreciation of our own scripture.

Tens of millions of people in the past lived morally good and religiously pious lives even though they believed that the earth was flat. Truth is not the best way to reach God: love is!

But in the middle ages almost all readers thought of revelation as a zero sum sport like tennis; rather than a multiple win co-operative sport like mountain climbing.

In the same year that Toledo fell (1085) Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi, the author of the The Kuzari, was born. He died 877 years ago (1141) in Jerusalem. A young man at the time of the first crusade, he long felt the plight of his people; and shortly before 1140 he wrote in Arabic his most famous work.

The Kuzari was based on an exchange of letters in the 950s or 960s between Hasdai ibn Shaprut, foreign secretary to the Caliph of Cordoba, and Joseph Khagan/King of the Khazars. The Kuzari gives an account of the Khazar conversion to Judaism, in the form of a debate between a Catholic Priest, a Muslim Imam and a Jewish sage.

At a time in human history when most people have the right to choose who to marry, where to live, what occupation to practice, and who to vote for; every person, from every religious community, or raised without any religion, must be free to choose which religion is best for her or him.

Religious seekers should overcome their own internal fears, and any external threats of Hell coming from others; and non-religious people should have a mind open to generations of spirituality.

Most books about world religions offer parallel academic presentations of different beliefs, without any discussion of how the various religions view each others values. My book presents a conversation by five different religious proponents, who have been invited by an ex-evangelical seeker and an ex-atheist sceptic, to discuss the real life personal impacts of the distinctive ideas and practices of their own religion on their own community.

For more information on my new book “Which Religion Is Right For You? a Kuzari for the 21st century.” Hadassa Word Press ISBN (978-620-2-45517-6) see Amazon.

(RFE/RL) — U.S. President Donald Trump says Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation has failed to find evidence that he colluded with Russia during his 2016 election campaign.

“After two years and millions of pages of documents (and a cost of over $30 million) no collusion!” Trump said in a tweet on December 8.

The comments come a day after U.S. prosecutors asked a judge to sentence Trump’s longtime personal lawyer to a “substantial” prison term after he admitted to paying a porn actress money to keep her from embarrassing Trump during the 2016 election.

Trump did not mention that in their filings, prosecutors also detailed a previously unknown attempt by a Russian to help his 2016 presidential election campaign.

Meanwhile, Mueller asked a judge for no additional prison time for Michael Cohen on a separate set of charges that said Cohen lied about potential Moscow real estate development that could have brought Trump’s business “hundreds of millions of dollars from Russian sources.”

The charges Cohen faced from Manhattan federal prosecutors were separate from, but grew out of, Mueller’s investigation into Trump associates and their interactions with Russian officials.

Cohen, who has been cooperating with Mueller, pleaded guilty to charges including tax, bank, and campaign-finance fraud in August.

Cohen worked for years for Trump’s business organization, serving as a “fixer,” to help out with business deals and other matters.

Some of the charges Cohen faced stem from his efforts to prevent at least two women from going public with their stories of having affairs with Trump, something that Trump has denied repeatedly.

Some of the money that was paid to the women allegedly came from shell corporations that Cohen set up, and with money that was allegedly provided by Trump.

Investigators have been looking at whether the money Trump allegedly paid could constitute a contribution to his election effort, and whether it should have been disclosed under federal election law.

Mueller is investigating whether there was collusion between Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russia, which U.S. intelligence agencies charge mounted an influence operation to sway the vote to Trump over his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton.

Russia denies interfering in the election to help Trump.