Author: Daria Novak

Popular theory suggests that humans can only intuitively grasp small, single digit numbers. Any more than that and our understanding morphs from recognizing a numeric value to only seeing patterns or abstractions that require the mediation of language. This is true, for example, when we look at trees. Once the number increases, we no longer recognize individual branches, or even full trees. Instead, our brains only register a pattern we label as a “forest.” In the same way it is challenging for humans to fully grasp the extent of a refugee crisis such the one resulting from the war in Ukraine, the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, or the vast impact of a natural disaster like the recent catastrophic and deadly flooding across Pakistan. 

In an area only 9.6 percent the size of the United States, Pakistan contains a population that is over two-thirds the size of our population. The latest floods in that country displaced nearly 8 million people or almost the same number of individuals as reside in all of New York City. Pakistan’s population totals over 225 million today, or 67.8% of that of the US. Even these few numbers lose much of their meaning due to their size, except to the humans intimately involved in each crisis. 

This week world leaders came together in New York City to attend the United Nations General Assembly. They discussed Ukraine, the flood waters in Pakistan, and the resulting outbreaks of cholera, malaria, and dengue fever. It is a serious crisis for the many thousands of pregnant Pakistani women and the more than 3 million children needing immediate care. One set of numbers that the politicians should grasp is that floodwaters covering one-third of Pakistan may take a full six months to recede. 

Officials in Islamabad are responding to worst disaster in a hundred years and need international humanitarian assistance unlinked to a political agenda. The National Flood Response and Coordination Center in Pakistan is providing updates to the world and aid to the people where possible. One good fact is that most vital rescue missions are complete with people moved to higher ground. The crisis is not over. Agricultural fields remain inundated, and the people lack enough food, shelter, and health care. The numbers do not begin to explain the extend of the challenge faced by a international donor weary world. The United Nations has only reached a third of its goal of raising $39 million in a global economy already suffering from supply chain shocks over Covid, the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, and now the war in Ukraine.

The State Department announced today that the Foreign Ministers of Australia, India and Japan and the Secretary of State met in New York on Friday and signed into operation the Guidelines for the ‘Quad Partnership on Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) in the Indo-Pacific’. At first glance it appears a step forward in addressing the concerns of states in the region that often suffer from tsunami and other natural disasters. A full reading of the document, however, emphasizes a very different agenda of the Biden Administration. 

While Ukraine, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan’s citizens are suffering in massive numbers, the Biden Administration announcement highlights that “Under the partnership, Quad partners will promote inclusion by advancing gender equality and women’s and girl’s empowerment, ensuring persons with disabilities are agents and beneficiaries of humanitarian action, and by ensuring indigenous people, minority groups and persons in vulnerable situations are not left behind. The guidelines call for zero tolerance for inaction on tackling Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment (SEAH).” The Biden Administration appears to be redefining what constitutes a humanitarian crisis. Whether one state is allied with another, during a major crisis world leaders need to come together to address the immediate needs of the population struggling to survive and not push a radical political agenda. It appears the US is changing how it prioritizes humanitarian crises. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay

China is competing with the United States to develop key technologies in the field of artificial intelligence and biological technologies. Before long it may be capable of using its advancements in support of its own economy, military and society to the detriment of others, according to a special study backed by the US Government. Last week Robert Work, who is chair of the US Naval Institute Board of Directors, former deputy defense secretary, and co-chair of the “Special Competitive Studies Project,”  reported that international artificial intelligence and technological competition between the two states may result in the US losing out to China. In Work’s opinion, without question, China at a minimum is a national security threat to the US. He says the special panel found that soon China will be able to establish global surveillance and force American companies dependent on China for business to lose trillions of dollars.

Work argues that the United States must act now or accept that it will be reliant on China or other countries under Chinese influence for its core technologies. Heather Mongilio, writing in USNI, quotes Work as saying that “If that world happens, it’s going to be very bleak for democracy … China’s sphere of influence will grow as its technological platforms proliferate throughout the world, and they will be able to establish surveillance on a global scale… So that’s what losing looks like.” 

China publicly calls 2025 the year that it will achieve global dominance in technology manufacturing. Mongilio points out that this leaves the US a single budget left to address the issue. SCSP CEO Yll Bajraktari says that by 2030 Beijing intends to be the AI global leader and that “The 2025-2030 timeframe is a really important period for our country and the global geopolitical security.” More and more American business and technology leaders are drawing the same conclusion. “The technological competition goes beyond conflict or a military focus,” notes Eric Schmidt, co-chair of the Special Competitive Studies Project and former Google CEO. “You can imagine the issues with having platforms dominated by non-western firms, which we rely on,” Schmidt said. He says that the Chinese-owned site Tik Tok is the number one-ranked social media site and the Chinese technology corporation Huawei already is outpacing America in 5G technology.

The Special Competititive Studies panel found that competition is played out in three battle spaces: artificial intelligence, chips, and 5G, notes Bajraktari. He says it is important “to get these three battlegrounds right… [and] critical because as I’ve said, this is not just about military competition. This is about all the benefits that all these three battlegrounds will bring to our economy and our society. And ultimately, you know, our military can use it too.”

What is worrisome to DOD officials is that the US does not yet have a good plan to compete with China’s 5G technology. The communist giant also controls about 70 percent of African 4G. Bajraktari points out that China has invested billions of dollars toward chip production, “going all in.” In the area of artificial intelligence China has proclaimed it wants to be the “global leader.” 

Winning the competition, says Work, does not mean the US needs to control the production of critical technology, but it does need to be able to compete in the arena. He argues that Washington needs to have a dominant position in technological platforms and control global digital infrastructure “and we definitely want to be able to harness biotech for the safety and livelihood of our citizens and new energy.” Bajraktari says that “If the US cannot plan to excel in the three battlegrounds, advancements in biotech and computer power and next-generation inventions will happen in countries like China instead of democracies.” The stakes are greater than a simple military competition between two powerful states. The results of advances in AI, chips, and 5G will in large part determine who gets to shape the future of the geopolitical environment for the foreseeable future. The US and other western nation-states must compete to retain the democratic values and freedoms under attack by China or face that the West could end under the dominance of a communist dictatorship.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay

Several developments occurred in Russia recently that provide a glimpse into the state of Putin’s mind and the chaos present in leadership circles in Moscow. There are clear indications of diminished strength within the Russian military machine that are impacting the potential outcome of the war in Ukraine. Moscow announced this week it is holding a long-planned referendum on the occupied Ukrainian territories. The sham referendum is intended to secure these areas as Russian territory. Taken together these and other events create a picture of indecision, disarray, and confusion inside the Kremlin. Perhaps most disconcerting, however, is Putin’s announcement in a major speech this week that he is putting the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine on the table.

Increased recruiting suggests the Russian army’s ability to conduct war in Ukraine is waning although Moscow does not publish the number of casualties, wounded, or those simply exhausted from seven months of fighting on the battlefield. This follows a weeks-long quiet mobilization as the army desperately seeks recruits to replace those fallen or wounded in a war going badly for Russia. Is Putin erratically responding to his weakened state by making threats he has no intention of carrying out? That is one question military analysts are asking this week in western capitals across Europe and in Washington.

Ukraine shocked observers with its fast recapture of several thousand square miles of its sovereign territory. Russian soldiers, often in civilian clothing, fled so quickly that many dropped their weapons, left behind tanks, and discarded other military equipment. Desertion is an increasing problem. On September 13, legal changes in Russian law made “voluntary surrender” a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison. 

Foreign leaders once favorable toward Putin and supportive of his “special military action” in Ukraine are distancing themselves from Russia fearing the imposition of economic sanctions. Now that Putin is vulnerable, and victory uncertain, some are putting distance between their regime and Russia. At last week’s Summit in Uzbekistan reports came in saying that Indian Prime Minister Modi and Chinese President Xi both expressed “concerns” and that Turkish President Erdogan openly urged Putin to end the conflict, saying “The lands which were invaded will be returned to Ukraine.” 

Anne Applebaum, writing in The Atlantic, says that Putin’s action are “not those of a secure leader assured of his legitimacy and the outcome of this war.” She attributes the crisis inside Russia to Putin’s fear that he will lose his remaining international support. Autocratic leaders were once firmly in Moscow’s camp when it was the world’s 2^nd largest military and Putin’s hold on power appeared secure for the rest of his life. Today his trading partners are quietly receding unlike Putin’s adversaries at home. Many in Russia who oppose the war are actively expressing themselves on social media and blogging about what is wrong with Putin’s leadership. Putin is known to be paranoid about his safety and anything he perceives as threatening his power. That few of his critics on social media have suffered is an indication that Putin is losing the support of high-level government officials. 

The sham referendum and Putin’s nuclear threats are intended to create fear and reverse the course of the war in Russia’s favor. Analysts doubt that it will work. That leaves open the question of how extreme Putin will act in the coming weeks. One former US military analyst who is an expert on Putin says that he has stated on a number of occasion that he will fight to the death like a cornered snake willing to strike out despite its inevitable demise. What will Putin do if faced with the loss of power, prestige, and potentially the integrity of the Russian state. Joshua Keating, a global security reporter, says we are about to find out. He says the war in Ukraine is unprecedented as it poses a nuclear state against a non-nuclear one with the nuclear-armed military potentially losing. Putin has framed the conflict as a life-or-death struggle against the democratic West. On Tuesday, he reminded the world that he was “not bluffing.” One analyst asked the question: “Would Putin be capable of permitting his military to be defeated without using every available weapon he has at his disposal?” If Putin can convince the leadership in Moscow that the West is attempting to destroy Russia, the war may be far from over. To date no one is willing to call Putin’s bluff or say if those in power in Moscow will support Putin in a nuclear response that has the potential to kill Russians inside the country and contaminate the land.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Photo: Pixabay

The media has chosen not to dwell on the reality of how disastrous the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan has been for the people of that desperate nation.

By choosing not to leave a residual force behind at the near-impenetrable Bagram Air Force Base, the Biden Administration inadvertently guaranteed a Taliban victory, in much the same way then-Vice President Biden, the point man for the Middle East region for the Obama Administration, ensured an ISIS victory by withdrawing all U.S. forces from Iraq.

This was not just one side taking over for another in a nation suffering a harsh internal war.  This was a whole-scale abandonment of a segment of the population clearly marked for oppression.

In April of 2021, Biden inexplicably decided to perform an unconditional withdrawal, which completely contradicted the conditions of Trump’s Doha deal.

He ignored the need for Afghan women and girls to retain human basic rights, for the population in general to have access and to a functioning economy.

The Brookings Institute argues that “An aggressive attempt at diplomacy would possibly have spilled over past the summer, and the Taliban may have begun to attack U.S. troops. But that scenario was manageable: It would likely have meant going back to a pre-February 2020 level of warfare, in which U.S. troops sustained very low levels of casualties over the last few years. A more considered withdrawal would also have meant giving the Afghan security forces more cover as we eventually withdrew — taking intelligence and air support away step by step, and empowering them in the process, rather than pulling the rug from under them.”

A new United Nations report has disclosed that “The future is immensely bleak for Afghans if more is not done by the international community to ensure the Taliban changes its modus operandi and complies with its human rights obligations…The humanitarian and economic crisis in Afghanistan, which has already caused immeasurable harm to millions, shows no signs of slowing down. In fact, it is predicted to worsen…”

According to the international body, the Taliban has committed a “plethora” of human rights violations, with the “virtual erasure” of women and girls from society, as well as their systematic oppression, being particularly egregious.  “Nowhere else in the world has there been as wide-spread, systematic and all-encompassing an attack on the rights of women and girls – every aspect of their lives is being restricted under the guise of morality and through the instrumentalization of religion. Discrimination and violence cannot be justified on any ground”. 

The U.N. Mission in Afghanistan expressed concern about the impunity with which members of the de facto authorities appear to have carried out human rights violations. According to the report, those worst affected, were those linked to the former government and its security forces, with 160 extrajudicial killings confirmed, as well as 178 arbitrary arrests and detentions, and 56 instances of torture. “The human rights situation has been exacerbated by a nationwide economic, financial and humanitarian crisis of unprecedented scale. At least 59 per cent of the population is now in need of humanitarian assistance – an increase of six million people compared with the beginning of 2021.”

Actual starvation is a very real danger.  Human Rights Watch found that “Acute malnutrition is entrenched across Afghanistan, even though food and basic supplies are available in markets throughout the country. An Afghan humanitarian official told Human Rights Watch in mid-July, “People have nothing to eat. You may not imagine it, but children are starving…. The situation is dire…”

Despite the lack of coverage in western media, this crisis will not go unnoticed, particularly in the coming months as starvation takes its toll and the effects on women and girls deprived of education and even medical care becomes more blatant.

Photo: Pixabay

Look in the mirror, and observe the image of what the Biden Administration and the progressive left considers the enemy.

The United States faces a crisis on its uncontrolled southern border, where vast numbers of illegals, some with connections to drug cartels and human traffickers, pour across, unrestrained by an inadequate number of overwhelmed border patrol agents.

Throughout the nation’s major cities, dwindling numbers of beleaguered police officers fight a desperate battle to deter criminals let loose by absurd de-incarceration and “bail reform” policies.

Across the globe, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and an assortment of terrorists plot assaults on American ideals, allies, and the nation itself. Our military is underfunded and undermanned. Think the U.S. has the resources to discourage this? Think again. America does not have the most servicepeople in arms. China has 3,355,000; Russia has 3,014,000; India has 2,610,550; the U.S. comes in fourth at 2,233,050. China now has the globe’s largest navy, at 355 vessels, compared to its U.S. counterpart’s 296, an enemy advantage that continuously grows due to the underfunding of our maritime service. Thanks to a treaty negotiated by Obama, Moscow has the world’s largest and most sophisticated nuclear arsenal.

Despite those realities, the recent legislation pushed by the left calls for…hiring another 87,000 IRS agents to assault you.

An entire political religion has been built that casts the average American as the enemy.  Indeed, in a 2016 presidential primary debate, candidate Hillary Clinton was given yet another softball question by an adoring press. She was asked, “Who do you consider the enemy.”  The expected response was a platitude such as racism, poverty, and the like.  Instead, she answered “Republicans.” It was a clear follow-up to her description of non-leftists as “despicables” and Obama’s description of them as bitter people “Clinging to their bibles and guns.”

Parents who cling to the quaint notion that they have the right and the duty to bring up their children in traditional ways and using traditional values are part of that enemy class so despised by progressives. During the Pandemic, moms and dads where shocked to discover what really was being taught in schools. When they expressed their opinions at school board meetings, they became enemies of the state and were labelled “Domestic Terrorists” by the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, based on Attorney General Merrick Garland’s memorandum. The FBI’s subsequently created a “threat tag.”

Fundamental American symbols, such as the Betsy Ross flag flown during the American Revolution, and the Gadsen Flag from the same era and still used on U.S. Navy ships have apparently been labelled “Domestic Violent Terrorism Symbols” by the Biden Administration’s FBI.

The same Congressional leaders who have want 87,000 more IRS agents instead of cops, soldiers, and border patrol agents also believe that those enemy Americans must be oppressed with unscientific environmental remedies.  They know full well that, for decades to come, so-called “green” energy resources will not be capable of supplying more than 20% of energy needs. Nevertheless, they push policies that make energy unaffordable for the average American family, and in the process create devastating inflation.

To those on the left, merely citing the Bill of Rights is considered an enemy action. If you belong to the wrong side of the political argument, you have no right, they believe, to be safe in your home or office from invasion by government officials outraged that you helped the wrong candidate.   How dare you quote the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech guarantee? You may “trigger” the delicate feelings of a progressive that disagrees with you. Don’t even think of exercising your Second Amendment right to bear arms, just because they have defunded the police and your family needs protection.

Besides, you’re the enemy and shouldn’t have a weapon.

In the 1980’s, while reporting from the United Nations headquarters in New York, I had the opportunity to hear first-hand Nicaraguan strongman Daniel Ortega’s comments. It was evident he was a dangerous man then. After an absence of many years, he is back in power, and more dangerous than ever.  

A Washington Examiner article quotes a warning from ,”Taiwanese Vice Foreign Minister Alexander Yui that China is seeking to establish a naval post in Nicaragua, easily within striking distance of Florida and America’s Gulf Coast. It is part of a growing presence of Russian and Chinese forces in the western hemisphere.

The Communist-friendly regime of Daniel Ortega replaced its relationship with Taiwan with the Beijing regime last December. It is part of growing trend, with Costa Rica, Panama,  the Dominican Republic and El Salvador also establishing relations with Beijing.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs notes that “ The strengthening of Chinese ties with Western Hemisphere partners in a forum without US presence comes as a red flag for US hegemony and control over its own “backyard,” which, since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, has been firmly fenced off from other “external” global actors seeking influence in the region.”

The Military Times has reported that “Within days of the conclusion of the Nov. 15 [2021] virtual summit between President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping, news broke that China had been secretly integrating military capability into a commercial terminal operated by Chinese shipping company COSCO at Khalifa port in the United Arab Emirates.”

This is similar to what will clearly occur in Latin America, and the problem is growing exponentially. In June, the Ortega regime invited Russian troops, planes and ships to Nicaragua.

Lorena Baires writes that “The region has reason to feel threatened. Nicaragua bought offensive as opposed to defensive armament from the Russians. The 80 tanks that it acquired are perfectly suited for armed entry into any of the capitals of Central America,” former opposition lawmaker, lawyer, and political analyst Eliseo Núñez told Diálogo. ‘The Russians in Nicaragua, with conventional and technological military capabilities, are a danger to the region. We already see what is happening in Costa Rica with hackers blocking the internet […], who coincidentally are from Russia.’ The decree includes the entry of …Russian military personnel, on a rotating basis, to participate in “experience exchanges and conduct training in humanitarian aid operations” with the Nicaraguan Army’s Special Operations Command.”

Little or no reaction is expected from the Biden Administration.  It’s a marked contrast to the last time Ortega sought to bring Russian forces into his nation, in part to bolster his authoritarian regime against internal freedom fighters. That occurred in 1986. Then-President Ronald Reagan warned that “Using Nicaragua as a base, the Soviets and Cubans can become the dominant power in the crucial corridor between North and South America. Established there, they will be in a position to threaten the Panama Canal, interdict our vital Caribbean sealanes, and, ultimately, move against Mexico. Should that happen, desperate Latin peoples by the millions would begin fleeing north into the cities of the southern United States or to wherever some hope of freedom remained… How can such a small country pose such a great threat? Well, it is not Nicaragua alone that threatens us, but those using Nicaragua as a privileged sanctuary for their struggle against the United States. Their first target is Nicaragua’s neighbors. With an army and militia of 120,000 men, backed by more than 3,000 Cuban military advisers, Nicaragua’s Armed Forces are the largest Central America has ever seen. The Nicaraguan military machine is more powerful than all its neighbors combined.”

Jean Manes, the civilian deputy commander of U.S. Southcom, recently warned that in addition to the military challenge, China’s presence also poses environmental and economic threats. China has overfished its own waters and is now destroying local fishing communities in the Western Hemisphere. 

Photo: The Chinese PLA Navy’s missile destroyer Nanchang, the missile frigate Yancheng and the supply ship Dongpinghu, which are participating in the Vostok-2022 strategic command post exercise in Russia’s Eastern Military District, conduct a ship-to-air live-fire training exercise at related waters in the Sea of Japan on the afternoon of September 2, local time. (photo by Wang Zezhou)

Mention Georgia and probably the first place that comes to mind is a US state. There is, however, a small but important country named Georgia located 6,322 miles to the east of the city of Atlanta. It sits on the northeastern shore of the Black Sea and shares a border with Russia to its north. Today it also is at the intersection of great power politics. 

Before Russia’s February invasion of Ukraine not many took notice of Georgia. One foreign capital that did, however, was Beijing. In 2017 China signed a Free Trade Agreement with the country as part of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to develop trade routes into the west. Over the last few years China has developed close trade contacts with Georgia and the South Caucasus countries and has invested extensively in the region. Cooperation between Georgia and China stands out due to the size of the BRI investments and growth in bilateral trade over the last five years. China is now Georgia’s largest trade partner surpassing Russia. In 2021 China bought US$598.6 million of Georgia’s products, which accounted for 18.2% of the country’s total exports.

Anti-transit sanctions hitting Russia this year are serving as a boom to Georgia’s economy. The ban on overland cargo transit through Russian territory means Georgia is one of the only land corridors the European Union (EU) can use to reach the Central Asian states and China. Georgia also provides Europe access to Azerbaijan’s natural resources which, without them, the EU would be severely constrained. This summer Baku and Brussels signed an agreement doubling gas supplies to the EU through the Trans-Anatolian Natural (TANAP) and Trans Adriatic (TAP) gas pipelines, according to a July Kommersant article. Even Ukraine this week found a way to increase pressure on Moscow, when it called for the return of parts of Georgia under occupation by Russian troops. 

The Russian Foreign Ministry decried Ukraine’s recent call to open a second front in Georgia to liberate Russian-held areas of Abkhazia and South Ossetia saying it is an unwarranted provocation. “While Western sanctions have effectively fenced off Russia’s important international transit corridors, the authorities of Georgia’s breakaway region, Abkhazia, will most likely try to maximize the territory’s own transit potential as a key source of revenue,” according to a Jamestown Foundation article. It points out that the working group created by the “presidential” administration of Abkhazia proposed to “unilaterally remove all restrictions” on the passage and transit of goods across the administrative border with Georgia along the Inguri River. 

The ban was introduced in 2008 after the Russo-Georgian War, which led to the on-going Russian occupation of Abkhazia. Tbilisi officials are anxious to reactivate the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (or “Middle Corridor”). The Caucasus Watch reported this summer that Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Gharibashvili traveled to Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan to raise the issue and sign an agreement to simplify customs transit procedures and jointly manage them. Zaal Anjaparidze, writing for Jamestown Foundation, points out that “Amid the changing realities in the region, cargo turnover in the Georgian corridor has increased by one million tons” this past year, including an increase in both land and sea freight, as well as container cargo turnover. 

Political squabbles have held up development of the Georgian port at Anaklia. Other parts of the country’s transport infrastructure also need significant improvements to be able to cope with increased cargo turnover. Some Georgian politicians claim that this initiative is part of the joint Russian-Abkhaz scheme aimed at oblique recognition of Abkhazia’s independence and the attempt to circumvent anti-Russian sanctions by the uncontrolled flow of goods, says Andjaparidze. In Beijing, the Chinese leadership is carefully watching developments in the region as the reorientation of transport and energy corridors from Russia to Georgian territory holds significant opportunities in geopolitical and economic terms although it also carries an elevated level of risk should China become too active in the country.

Russia currently occupies about 22 percent of Georgian territory, including more than a 656-yard section of the strategic Baku-Supsa oil pipeline. According to Andjaparidze, the danger is that a greater part of the pipeline will be in the occupation zone, should Russia continue to move the “border” with breakaway South Ossetia deeper into Georgian territory. Right now both Russia and China are in a watch-and-see mode concerning further economic involvement in Georgia. The Ukraine war’s outcome will no doubt have a major effect on the potential of Georgia’s new transit perspectives as it plays both sides against the Georgian middle.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

The BBC reports China’s President Xi Jinping has “questions” and is growing more “concerned” over the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Reports from the Xi-Putin meeting on Thursday say the Russian president acknowledged his counterpart’s position. The two “great power” leaders met in the central Asian country of Uzbekistan for talks over China’s willingness to support Russia in its war in Europe. Their discussion was a sideline chat that occurred during a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit in Samarkand. China has not officially endorsed Putin’s “special military operation,” and reportedly has concerns about the current status of the war. Since February China’s imports from Russia have increased, especially in the energy and agricultural sectors, delivering much needed funds to Moscow to enable Putin to continue his war. It leaves China in a precarious position with Western states that are imposing sanctions on countries trading with Russia. 

Xi is facing political and economic challenges from the West over the country’s human rights record and threatening behavior toward Taiwan. The intensifying China-Russia partnership also is raising questions among democratic leaders who view Putin as getting more out of the relationship, but Xi refusing to back away from his lǎo péngyǒu. The phrase lǎo péngyǒu  [老朋友] translates as “old friend” and carries with it connotations that indicate Xi was signaling to Putin and the world that their relationship is strong, or at least one of great convenience for now. The balance in the relationship has changed over the decades as China has grown stronger than Russia and has a more modernized economy and military. Beijing also is becoming more active in international organizations and exerting its influence far from its shores.

The optics at the SCO Summit are significant according to political analysts in Washington. China holds it Communist Party Congress next month in Beijing. Xi is seeking his third five-year term amid reports of renewed Covid lockdowns across entire cities and provinces each time there is an uptick in virus cases. This marks Xi’s first international trip since the start of the pandemic. Last winter Putin traveled to Beijing and met with Xi during the Winter Olympics where the two leaders publicly declared their friendship strong and “without limits.” Within days of the visit Putin invaded Ukraine. This week’s meeting ended in a carefully worded statement by Xi in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. China only urged ending hostilities but never condemned Russia’s actions. To date, the Chinese government will only refer to the war as a “special military operation,” despite global condemnation of Putin. It remains beneficial for China to maintain the balance and retain control of the bilateral relationship.

Xi has reinforced his support of Putin by sending troops to participate in joint military exercises with Russia, delivering economic aid, and sending senior officials from Beijing to meet their counterparts in Moscow. China’s expanding economy demands vast amounts of energy to support it. Discounted prices of oil and gas exported from Russia are beneficial to Xi. According to a BBS report by Tessa Wong and Simon Fraser this week, “Last month Beijing also agreed to pay for gas in Russian roubles and China yuan, giving Moscow a much-needed alternative to dollars as a foreign reserve, while furthering China’s interests in boosting the yuan as an international currency.” 

Each country has its own reasons for maintaining the relationship to date. US intelligence sources point out that Moscow is turning out of desperation to other states such as Iran and North Korea for weapons as Xi, so far, appears unwilling to provide Moscow with the advanced weapons it seeks. This may be due, in part, to China’s need for Western international markets and its political and economic aspirations in Central Asia. Xi understands that four of the SCO member states from Central Asia do not support the Russian invasion. They once suffered under Soviet domination and, while needing Russian economic support, do not desire a return to satellite state status. Xi understands this, the geopolitical implications of balancing the Russian relationship internationally, and its impact on domestic politics before the Chinese Party Congress. “China is willing to work with Russia to play a leading role in demonstrating the responsibility of major powers, and to instill stability and positive energy into a world in turmoil,” Xi told Putin. 

The Chinese president knows keeping the relationship stable secures the country’s border regions and delivers the critical energy supplies needed to grow the Chinese economy. Al Jazeera described the dynamics of the meeting this week as Putin coming “hat in hand” to meet with China. The two countries may be working together out of convenience, but it is no longer a pairing of equals. China is using Russia in the short-term while adeptly sidestepping a full alliance as it seeks its long-term goal of resetting the world order in Beijing’s favor.

The Manhattan Institute has debunked the Progressive push to sharply reduce  the prison population, a move highlighted by Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate candidate John Fetterman.

Fetterman has recommended providing gubernatorial pardons for convicted murderers as part of an overall move to reduce the number of people in the prison population.

According to a Manhattan Institute study, “The size of America’s prison population is driven by the incarceration of violent felons. These felons are held mostly in state prisons, which account for nearly 90% of inmates nationwide. Most prisoners are serving time for violent or weapons offenses, and the vast majority of them—even those incarcerated for nonviolent drug and property offenses—will go on to re-offend, sometimes by committing serious or violent felonies. Slashing the prison population to match levels in the Western European democracies would require releasing significant numbers of violent and chronic offenders serving time for crimes that most Americans agree should lead to prison. Reducing or eliminating sentences would diminish the incapacitation benefits of incarceration and, given the extremely high rates of recidivism, would expose society to large numbers of people likely to commit more crimes.”

The report notes that 60% of state prisoners are serving time for murder, rape, assault, robbery, or burglary—four times the number convicted only of drug offenses. Despite the portion of prisoners in for serious and violent offenses, less than 15% of state felony convictions result in more than two years served in prison; even 20% of those imprisoned for murder, and nearly 60% of those imprisoned for rape or sexual assault, serve less than five years of their sentences. Most prisoners will re-offend post-release. 83% of released state prisoners are arrested for a new offense at least once after their initial release. More than one-third of those convicted of violent felonies in large urban counties had an active criminal-justice status—that is, either on probation, parole, or out pending the disposition of a prior case—when they committed their offense.

Other studies point to the accuracy of the Manhattan Institute’s research. A Politico report refutes the Progressive contention that drug crimes represent an excessive portion of the prison population.

“Drug crime is not what’s driving the high prison population in the United States. It’s crimes of violence. And this omission has consequences. It means that any “solution” is unlikely to achieve its intended goal and in the meantime society will continue to suffer long-term damage—physical, psychological and economic—from a persistent cycle of unaddressed violent crime. The numbers are unambiguous. For all the attention we pay to people convicted of drug crimes, they make up only 15 percent of our state prison populations. Over half the people serving time in state prisons have been convicted of a violent crime; half of those convicted of violence—or more than 25 percent of all prisoners—have been convicted of the most serious crimes: murder, manslaughter or sexual assault.”

The de-incarceration movement ignores history. A 2015 Pew analysis noted that “In the early 1990s, with violent crime at record levels and public alarm growing, federal and state lawmakers responded with new policies that sent more offenders to prison for longer periods. The federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, in particular, made sweeping changes to U.S. correctional policy by imposing longer prison sentences for federal crimes and encouraging states to implement similar penalties. Two decades later, the nation’s prison population has soared and crime has fallen to levels not seen since the 1960s.”

The lessons of that success story are being ignored by those who advocate reducing the prison population.

Photo: Pixabay

According to the Washington Post, “(t)he debate over what is to be done with Donald Trump and his alleged mishandling of sensitive government documents has landed in the zone where it was inevitably headed: whataboutism. Hillary Clinton escaped prosecution for using a private email server as secretary of state in 2016, the right argues, so why should Trump be indicted?” 

Indeed.  Many people may remember that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was investigated for the mishandling of government documents, and at the time, there were calls for her prosecution.  “Lock her up!”  was the chant heard during the 2016 Republican convention.

Yet, Clinton was not prosecuted, leading many to ask now what the difference is between the “crimes” each is alleged to have committed.

To answer, let us take a brief trip down the memory hole.

“Clinton’s email troubles started in 2014, when the House Select Committee on Benghazi asked the State Department for all of her emails. The department didn’t have them all because, instead of only using the State Department email system…Clinton used a personal email address…housed on private servers located in her Chappaqua, New York, home. In 2014, Clinton’s lawyers combed through the private server and turned over about 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department and deleted the rest, which Clinton said involved personal matters, such as her daughter’s wedding plans. Clinton repeatedly said she did not have any classified emails on her server…”

On July 5, 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey held a press conference, and gave a detailed statement regarding a criminal investigation his department had conducted regarding Clinton’s “use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.”  In particular, the investigation “focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.”

“Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department,” then-Director Comey explained, “and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain.”  Further, “FBI investigators…also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014… (f)rom (this) group of 30,000 e-mails…110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined…to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.”

In other words, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a private, unsecured internet server (not a secure government server) to read and transmit various levels of classified documents across the internet.  Further, Secretary Clinton decided which of her emails were relevant to the investigation, and which were not, deleting emails she claimed were not responsive to the request.  

According to Comey, “(a)lthough we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position…should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail…(n)one of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

Was this a criminal act?  Under 18 USC 1924(a), “(w)hoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.”

 Nonetheless, Comey claimed his investigation showed that Clinton and her staff did not “intend” to violate the law, and the applicable statute does requires acting “knowingly” and “with intent.”  However, to be found guilty of a violation of this statute, you do not need to have intended to break the law – you need to have intended to retain the classified documents “at an unauthorized location.” As discussed by Anthony Christina in the Penn State Law Review,  “(t)o convict Clinton, it must be shown that she had knowledge that classified emails were contained on her private server. The most recent total by the State Department of their review of 30,000 Clinton emails indicates that at least 671 emails sent or received by Clinton contained classified information. This fact stands in stark contrast to the statement Clinton gave to reporters…when she said, ‘I am confident that I have never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.’”

The conclusion is inescapable – if a “reasonable person” would know that almost 700 emails were classified, and had no place on an unsecured server, it would not be hard to establish that then-Secretary Clinton intended  “to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.”

So, was Hillary Clinton arrested and prosecuted for this violation of the law?  In his July 5, 2016 statement, then-FBI Director Comey predicted the outcome; “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case…In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.” 

No reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case….we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts…

I guess James Comey missed this one then; “On April 23,(2015, General David) Petraeus pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials under 18 USC §1924…(i)nstead of turning his journals — so-called ‘black books’ – over to the Defense Department or CIA when he left either of those organizations, Petraeus kept them at his home – an unsecure location – and provided them to his paramour/biographer, Paula Broadwell, at another private residence.” (For more detail on the Petraeus case, read here) 

Did Gen. Petraeus “intend to break the law?”  No – but he did intend to retain classified documents at an unsecured location, and fail to keep them secure.

Maybe Comey never heard of the Petraeus case – or maybe he thought the prosecutor was unreasonable.

One fact cannot be disputed – in 2016, Hillary Clinton was the Democratic candidate for President.  David Petreaus was a Republican, though he ‘stresses his independence and has not voted for years.” 

If you ask David Laufman, “who led the Justice Department’s counterintelligence section until 2018 and is now a partner at the firm Wiggin and Dana…'(p)eople sling these cases around to suit their political agenda but every case has to stand on its own circumstances.”’  While with the Justice Department, Laufman investigated the Clinton case, and managed the investigation of David Petraeus.  Regarding the Trump investigation, Laufman believes that “(f)or the department to pursue a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago tells me that the quantum and quality of the evidence they were reciting — in a search warrant and affidavit that an FBI agent swore to — was likely so pulverizing in its force as to eviscerate any notion that the search warrant and this investigation is politically motivated.”   

Maybe there is sufficient evidence to charge former-President Trump with a crime.  Maybe the investigation of Trump is not politically motivated.  Maybe the cases of Petraeus, Clinton and Trump must each stand on their own merits.

But none of that explains why its reasonable and appropriate to pursue charges against Republicans Petraeus and Trump, but not reasonable to seek the same against the Democrat Clinton.

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC