A “Hot Peace” with China?

Addressing overt Chinese threats is not new to the American intelligence community or the political leadership in Washington. What has alluded the US over the last 30 years is a comprehensive understanding of the process by which decisions are made inside the top-down culture of the CCP. Americans often appear transfixed by the mystique of China and overlook the longer-term danger posed by the belligerent communist regime and the hegemonic ambitions of President Xi Jinping. The Trump Administration is the first to work to reverse decades of US foreign policy. In the past Washington failed to hold China accountable for its actions or, in some cases, ignored or proactively aided China’s poor behavior.

During the 2010-2012 period almost two dozen of America’s intelligence assets inside the Chinese bureaucracy were systematically executed or imprisoned. Washington has not revealed officially who inside the Obama/Biden Administration leaked the information. Years of intelligence work disintegrated almost overnight along with much of the knowledge about how China’s communist government operates. One former intelligence officer familiar with the situation recently said the US is flying blind and doesn’t know a lot of what Beijing is up to, or capable of, in the future. This should concern all Americans.

The leak was one of the worst disasters for spying operations since the United States normalized relations with China. Beijing was not subtle in its response. It even shot one American asset in front of his government colleagues to send a clear message to others. The Trump Administration is not giving China free rein. The result is relations between the two nations are becoming more tense. It is to be expected. We are witnessing increasingly contentious interactions between the two nations. IT doesn’t mean it is time to back down. Bullets may not be flying across the Pacific, but the United States narrative is moving quickly from one describing a “Cold War” environment to a tale of a “Hot Peace” with China.

US officials no longer look the other way or assume China is using the same political “operating system” as in the West. Nor do they falsely imagine China acting benignly in its ascendency to global power as did previous American administrations. Delinking the national security-related aspects of the US economy from that of China is not an easy task. Huawei is one example. The US had to put pressure on its European allies and other nations to keep them from falling into the China trap. Washington sent representatives with classified briefings to Europe to expose China’s goals to western leaders.

Recently the Chinese telecom giant, with its 200,000-person, civilian-military fusion workforce, has been in the news due to the security threat it poses to the West. Few Americans realize that its two main Chinese campuses include massive city-like building complexes designed to mimic 12 famous European landmarks and include actual European-style castles. It abounds with symbolism if one takes time to look. The Shenzen campus features an aquatic area called “Black Swan Lake.” Is Huawei a Black Swan event waiting to happen? Communist regimes are known for celebrating auspicious occasions and marking anniversaries of all important historical events. Symbolism is important in Chinese culture.

There are numerous examples of China’s belligerent and aggressive behavior toward its own population, its neighbors, and countries around the globe. The CCP leadership, led by President Xi Jinping, is intent on assuming a global leadership role. They use Huawei and any means available within their arsenal of weapons to achieve it. Signs of hegemonic aggression by China are undeniable. They dot the global landscape and the high seas. The Trump Administration has uncovered only the tip of what is an extensive policy to alter the international system.

When the endocrine system does not function properly, it negatively affects viagra cialis achat http://icks.org/n/bbs/content.php?co_id=2013 sexual performance and ability. Easy calm helps you to discover ways to deal with this condition, Kamagra has come up as a boon price for levitra for all those impotent sufferers. When Is the Best Time to Detoxify? Whenever we feel congested, our first step is to exercise, and teach them to control themselves by quitting cheap super viagra smoking and not abuse alcohol. You can buy female levitra Mast Mood oil, Kamdeepak capsule and Booster capsule bring fast results to treat erectile dysfunction in men.

The CCP leadership also put outs misinformation, disinformation, and outright propaganda. It continues to do so even with pushback from the West, though Washington is beginning to expose China’s strategy. The CCP leadership demands concession after concession from countries without giving any in return. It pushes until it gets as much as it can without conducting outright warfare. Earlier this week Zhao Lijian, spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stated that China treats its South China Sea neighbors as “equals” and that Beijing would not take sides on the issue. There was no truth to the statement but that was not of concern to the CCP. For President Xi Jinping the ends justify the means.

Washington is no longer tolerating China to gain access to its market. US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo responded to Zhao’s statement, in a highly-publicized speech, that the United States would not allow China to treat the South China Sea as its “maritime empire.” The verbal jousting is escalating. Beijing is getting pushback in many areas for the first time in decades.

The reality the world faces is that China doesn’t abide by the western, rules-based international order developed and led by the United States. The communist giant intends to remake the world in its image. The US may have lost a lot of assets in China but it is beginning to comprehend how China thinks and acts. Next it needs to ask “What is China’s Grand Strategy?” Can the communist nation be counted on to act as a friendly, long-term competitor of the United States or will Washington be forced to constrain the ascendant communist giant that lies and tries to bully the world into submission?

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. Each Friday, she presents key updates on China.

Photo: Pilots assigned to a bomber regiment of the naval aviation under the PLA Southern Theater Command are all ready to go for a recent realistic flight training exercise. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Gao Hongwei)

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]