Month: May 2022

January Littlejohn has a 13 year old daughter who attends Deerlake Middle School in Tallahassee, Florida.  When her daughter expressed “gender confusion,”  “she and her husband brought their daughter to a councilor to help her work through her confusion and began doing research to understand the subject…weeks later…her daughter happily told her she had spoken with (school) officials about changing her name, and they’d asked her which bathroom she wanted to use.”

When Littlejohn called the school to discuss the issue, “(s)he was told by the school guidance councilor…that they could not disclose what had been talked about…and that Littlejohn’s daughter needed to give consent by-law for her parents to be informed about or be present for future discussions. ‘My 13-year-old daughter who can’t vote, drink, or enter into any other legal contract without our permission or input,’ Littlejohn said…after several weeks of back-and-forths with the school district, the principal finally showed her a ‘transgender non conforming student support plan’ that the school had filled out with her daughter.”  According to Littlejohn, “This was a six page document that she completed with the vice principal the guidance council, and a social worker I had never met.”

After the Littlejohn’s brought a lawsuit against the school, the case came to the attention of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who cited the experience of the Littlejohn family as the basis for the Parental Rights in Education Bill.  “The bill, which some opponents have called ‘Don’t Say Gay’…reads, ‘Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.’ Supporters of the legislation say it’s meant to allow parents to determine when and in what way to introduce LGBTQ topics to their children. It also gives parents an option to sue a school district if the policy is violated.” 

For most people, it is alarming for a school to act in any regards towards a child without the knowledge or consent of a parent.  However, at this point, we have also become used to the idea of “experts” knowing more about the raising of our children than the parents of those children.   “There are many ‘quirky kids,’ as described by pediatricians Dr. Perry Klass and Dr. Eileen Costello… There are ‘all kinds of minds,’ as described by Dr. Mel Levine… (y)our child may fit the descriptions at specific times but not at others….” 

In the Littlejohn case, the Deerlake Middle School only went so far as to “assist” their daughter with what name to use and what bathroom to use.  But what if the Littlejohn’s 13 year old wished to go further in her transition to another sexual identity?  What if she wished to physically change from a female to a male?

Gender Dysphoria and Transgenderism are difficult topics, but when it comes to the diagnosis and treatment of these “conditions” in adults, most people are in agreement – an adult can pretty much do anything they want, including undergoing gender reassignment surgery (Who pays for that surgery is a different source of dispute, and not the focus of this analysis).  But what about cases involving children with gender dysphoria?  What sort of treatment is recommended and made available for a minor with this “condition” by the “experts?”

Our review should begin with the legal definition of a child or minor.  Under federal law, “(t)he term ‘child’ means an individual under the age of 13.”    On the other hand, the definition of a “minor” is more fluid.  In general, a minor is “(a)n infant or person who is under the age of legal competence,” and all 50 states usually define the threshold for “legal competence” as 18.  

According to the International Center for Transgender Care, “(c)hildren who are transgender or gender non-conforming often benefit immensely from gender therapy.  Talking with an expert can assist the patient to clarify and accept their gender identity, cope with stigma related to gender diversity, and better manage distress related to gender dysphoria.  Additionally, because anxiety and depression are common in gender non-conforming youth, therapy…often focuses on treatment for these conditions.”  Further, “(s)o called “conversion therapies”, in which gender non-conforming individuals are subject to treatments that attempt to change their gender identity, are both harmful and unethical.” 

The National Health Service of the United Kingdom states that “(t)reatment for gender dysphoria aims to help people live the way they want to, in their preferred gender identity…(w)hat this means will vary from person to person, and is different for children, young people and adults…If your child is under 18 and may have gender dysphoria…(y)our child or teenager will be seen by a multidisciplinary team…including a; clinical psychologist; child psychotherapist; child and adolescent psychiatrist; family therapist; (and) social worker.”  The treatment centers around counseling and psychotherapy, however, “a referral to a specialist hormone (endocrine) clinic for hormone blockers for children who meet strict criteria (at puberty)” can be made, however, the NHS warns that “(m)ost treatments offered at this stage are psychological rather than medical. This is because in many cases gender variant behaviour or feelings disappear as children reach puberty.”  

The NHS also gives a comprehensive review of the effects of puberty blockers on minors; 

“Little is known about the long-term side effects of hormone or puberty blockers in children with gender dysphoria. Although…this is a physically reversible treatment if stopped, it is not known what the psychological effects may be. It’s also not known whether hormone blockers affect the development of the teenage brain or children’s bones. Side effects may also include hot flushes, fatigue and mood alterations. From the age of 16, teenagers who’ve been on hormone blockers for at least 12 months may be given cross-sex hormones, also known as gender-affirming hormones. These hormones cause some irreversible changes, such as: breast development (caused by taking oestrogen) (and) breaking or deepening of the voice (caused by taking testosterone) Long-term cross-sex hormone treatment may cause temporary or even permanent infertility…(t)here is some uncertainty about the risks of long-term cross-sex hormone treatment.” 

American medical providers also admit that use of puberty blockers have unknown future consequences.  According to the Mayo Clinic, “Use of (puberty blockers) might also have long-term effects on…(f)uture fertility — depending on when pubertal blockers are started.”    The Children’s Hospital of St Louis notes that “(t)he U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved puberty blockers for children who start puberty at a young age,” however, “(w)hile puberty blockers are generally considered safe, they have some side effects< including “(l)ower bone density…(l)ess development of genital tissue,” and of course, “(o)ther possible long-term side effects that are not yet known.” 

In general, according to Politifact, “(p)rofessional organizations such as the Endocrine Society recommend against puberty blockers for children who have not reached puberty, and recommend that patients be at least 16 years old before beginning hormone treatments for feminization or masculinization of the body. The last step in transitioning to another gender, gender reassignment surgery, is only available to those 18 and older in the United States. The onset of puberty is the baseline for medical intervention. Puberty typically occurs between ages 10 and 14 for girls and 12 and 16 for boys.” 

Given the dangers inherent in the use of the puberty blocking drugs described above, at least 15 states have laws under consideration to restrict access to certain medical procedures by children identifying as transgender.    But of these 15, only one has actually passed such protection of children into law.

In April of this year, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed the Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, “to prohibit the performance of a medical procedure or the prescription or issuance of medication, upon or to a minor child, that is intended to alter the minor child’s gender or delay puberty.”  Section 2 provides the rationale for the act; “The long-term effects and safety of the administration of puberty-blocking medications and cross sex hormones to gender incongruent children have not been rigorously studied. Absent rigorous studies showing their long-term safety and positive benefits, their continued administration to children constitutes dangerous and uncontrolled human medical experimentation that may result in grave and irreversible consequences to their physical and mental health.”

Given the medical opinions cited above, the Alabama law would appear to be a reasonable measure, intended to protect children from the admittedly unknown side and long-term effects of puberty blockers.  Reasonable minds should be able to agree that someone as young as 13 years old should not be prescribed a drug that could lower their bone density, or cause permanent infertility.  But the minds of those employed by the Department of Justice are not so reasonable.

“The Justice Department (has) filed a complaint…challenging Alabama’s (law) which bans transgender treatments for children. The DOJ asserts that criminalizing the sexual transition of children is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment on the grounds of equal protection…'(the Alabama law) discriminates against transgender youth by denying them access to certain forms of medically necessary care’ the Department of Justice wrote.” 

DOJ’s complaint cites to their own experts;  “The American Academy of Pediatrics agrees that gender-affirming care is safe, effective, and medically necessary treatment for the health and wellbeing of some children and adolescents suffering from gender dysphoria… (a)s transgender youth reach puberty, puberty delaying therapy may become medically necessary and appropriate for some minors according to the Endocrine Society’s clinical practice guidelines.” 

The complaint does not deny the side effects and long term issues described by other medical groups – instead,” during puberty suppression, an adolescent’s physical development should be carefully monitored, preferably by a pediatric endocrinologist, so that any necessary interventions can occur.” How that pediatric endocrinologist will prevent permanent infertility, or other unknown side effects remains unclear. 

Nonetheless, the heart of the complaint filed by the DOJ is an allegation that the Alabama law  “discriminates both on the basis of sex and on the basis of transgender status, each in violation of the Equal Protection Clause (of the United States Constitution).”  Further, Alabama’s Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act “is not substantially related to achieving Alabama’s articulated important governmental interests…(and) is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.”

To most reasonable minds, the protection of children from the unforeseen consequences of puberty blockers would appear to be a “legitimate government interest,” and a law designed to criminalize the prescription of such drugs “substantially related to achieve” that interest.  But don’t count on Alabama’s law being upheld.  Alabama falls under the 11th Circuit, and there the leading case is Glenn v. Brumby.  Though the case involved an employee fired by his employer once the employee announced their intention to undergo gender transition surgery, the principal is the same: 

“The Equal Protection Clause requires the State to treat all persons similarly situated alike or, conversely, to avoid all classifications that are “arbitrary or irrational” and those that reflect “a bare . . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group” (citation omitted)… The question here is whether discriminating against someone on the basis of his or her gender non-conformity constitutes sex-based discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause…we hold that it does… discrimination against a transgender individual because of her gender-nonconformity is sex discrimination, whether it’s described as being on the basis of sex or gender… a government agent violates the Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition of sex-based discrimination when he or she fires a transgender or transsexual employee because of his or her gender non-conformity.” 

Whether or not this analysis will apply to a law meant to protect children from being rendered permanently infertile remains to be seen.  But there is little cause for optimism.

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

Photo: Pixabay (Alabama State Capital)

Aggressive and dangerous threats from Russia, China, and to a lesser extent North Korea and Iran threaten America’s defense space infrastructure.

More than any other nation, the U.S. is dependent on orbital assets for defense.  Civilian life is tied in, as well. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) notes that “Space-based capabilities impact many day-to-day aspects of the American way of life. They enable functions that affect our homes, transportation, electric power grids, banking and communications. From watching television, to predicting weather patterns to avoiding traffic on our daily commutes, satellites enable many real-time conveniences that have become integral to our daily lives. On the national security front, space-based capabilities afford the United States and our allies with crucial ability to project combat power to areas of conflict and instability. They enable our armed forces to collect vital intelligence on foreign threats, navigate and maneuver rapidly, and communicate with one another to support global military and humanitarian crises.”

America’s adversaries fully comprehend this reality. They are taking steps to undercut the United States and our allies in the space domain. According to the DIA, China and Russia, in particular, are developing various means to exploit the perceived U.S. reliance on  space-based systems and challenge the U.S. position in the space domain.² Beijing and Moscow seek  to position themselves as leading space powers, intent on creating new global space norms. Through  the use of space and counterspace capabilities, they aspire to undercut U.S. global leadership. Iran and  North Korea will continue to develop and operate electronic warfare (EW) capabilities to deny or degrade  space-based communications and navigation.

The DIA acknowledges that Russia and China “view space as a requirement for winning modern wars, especially against Western nations, and look to prove themselves as world leaders. Since early 2019, competitor space operations have increased in pace and scope across nearly all major categories — communications, remote sensing, navigation, and science and technology demonstration.”

Senior defense analyst Kevin Ryder warns that “China and Russia value superiority in space. And as a result, they’ll seek ways to strengthen their space and counter-space programs and determine better ways to integrate them within their respective militaries…Beijing and Moscow have integrated space-based capabilities into their individual, national and warfighting strategies with the intent of denying the United States a space-enabled advantage. 

Evidence of both nations’ intent to undercut the United States and allied leadership in the space domain can be seen in the growth of combined in-orbit assets of China and Russia, which grew approximately 70% in just two years. This recent and continuing expansion follows a more than 200% increase between 2015 and 2018.”

In a troubling new report, “Challenges to Security in Space — 2022,” the DIA reveals that China has launched multiple missiles, capable of destroying satellites, and deployed mobile jammers to deny satellite communications and GPS. Moscow on the other hand, has developed a suite of counter-space weapons capabilities, including electronic warfare, to deny, degrade, and disrupt communications, and to not – to deny the use of space-based imagery. Russia is also developing a mobile missile that is able to destroy satellites and crewed space vehicles. The report stresses that “Now as the number of spacefaring nations grow, and counter-space capabilities become more integrated into military operations, the U.S. Space Posture will be increasingly challenged and orbit assets will face new risk.”

U.S. Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces warns that “The threats we see from China and Russia have only increased since…last year. China has demonstrated on orbit the ability to grapple with another satellite and drag it to another orbit. Russia has demonstrated a ground launched anti-satellite weapon against one of its own satellites resulting in a dangerous field of debris that the world is still dealing with.”

 Illustration: Russia’s  Nudol PL-19, anti-satellite weapon (Russian Defence Ministry)

Advancing a political agenda using disinformation amounts to a form of non-kinetic warfare lethal to fledgling democratic institutions. In recent years the African continent has been the targeted by at least 16 separate disinformation campaigns by Russia, among others. The massive effort is inclusive of millions of false and misleading social media postings subtly designed to disable critical thinking in the population and instill confusion and mistrust of local, democratic-leaning, African leaders. Russia, the main culprit, employs a dezinformatsyia campaign strategy first initiated by Joseph Stalin. Today its tactics are fragmenting and weakening civil society in the region and destroying nascent democratic movements. Russia’s success in Africa has inspired other foreign governments and domestic actors to use a similar strategy for their own ends. 

Increasingly sophisticated influence operations are contributing to the current political instability across the continent. In the strategically important Sahel region of West Africa alone there have been a number of military takeovers during the last 19 months. “Campaigns on Facebook appear to have prepared the ground for many of the coups, pushing an anti-western, pro-Russian agenda that has undermined governments. The efforts are similar to the “hybrid warfare” campaign launched by Moscow in Ukraine and elsewhere,” according to the Guardian’s African Correspondent, Jason Burke. 

Digital Forensics Lab (DFL), a group run by the Atlantic Council, recently exposed pro-Russian Facebook groups coordinating support for anti-democracy protests. In some cases their actions go beyond virtual  campaigns. The online groups involved the secretive Wagner group, a controversial Russian private military contractor, that was invited into Mali last year after the overthrow of its President Bah N’daw by the country’s armed forces. Analysts in Washington point to Yevgeny Prigozhin, a well-positioned Wagner businessman closely linked to Vladimir Putin, as the source of funding for the mercenaries in Mozambique, Sudan, Libya and in Central African Republic. An independent group of UN specialists reports that approximately 400-600 Wagner group fighters are committing human rights abuses as they fight with government forces to suppress rebels in the area. 

Tessa Knight, a South Africa-based researcher with DFL said in an Africa Center for Strategic Studies (ACSS) report that every time she … “set[s] out to search for coordinated disinformation in advance of an election or around conflicts, I have found it. I have not investigated an online space in Africa and not found disinformation…a lot of people are not aware of the scale…that is happening in Africa and how much it is distorting information networks.” Knight says that Facebook places a lower priority on removing inauthentic material from disinformation campaigns on Africa pages. Removal also appears  to be a lower priority for Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, and WhatsApp. ACSS reports that allowing these networks to operate, including in the Sahel, is reflective of a larger disinclination by Facebook and other social media corporations to admit that are adding destabilizing and incendiary material to the information environment and at times aiding mercenaries in the region. ACSS notes that “In response to claims by social media giants that they are trying to be neutral, analysts contend that allowing intentionally false content to be amplified on their platforms is itself a bias and contributes to actively shaping information systems in a way that is damaging for informed democratic discourse.”

Documented pro-Russian campaigns beginning on March 2, 2022, in Ghana, South Africa, and Nigeria produced 23 million tweets with the hashtag “I stand with Putin” and “I stand with Russia.” In Nigeria, social media accounts of 618 legitimate journalists were hacked and used to post 766 unauthorized messages to spread pro-Kremlin narratives about the Ukrainian war.  In Kenya, 37,000 verified social media accounts received funds to push out 23,000 tweets under 31 artificial hashtags on one single network. The goal, according to Kenyan authorities was to distort public opinion, discredit journalists, and target activists. Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger also suffered attacks on Facebook. Accounts with over 140,000 followers had 24,000 messages inserted, one-third of which were posted within a 60-second period in a leadup to elections in Mali. Last year in Sudan the disinformation network campaign gained a following of over 440,000 user accounts. 

The Russian military strategy of “ambiguous warfare” is expansive across Africa and threatens to destabilize many of the movements for reform while also attempting to prop up old dictatorships friendly to Moscow. Joseph Siegle of ACSS noted that “While projecting the image of a Great Power, Russia relies on asymmetric tactics to gain influence and pursue its strategic objectives in Africa…. by capturing the allegiance of politically isolated leaders.” External actors like Russia are colluding with senior African political leaders and institutions, making huge profits, and leaving African citizens foot the bill. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay

Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong is touring the Pacific and she is not alone.

Chinese Foreign Affairs Minister Wang Yi also is Island-hopping across the Indo-Pacific, visiting eight states in 10 days between May 26 and June 4, in a political influence competition between the two large Asian nations. He is working simultaneously to limit the US role in the Pacific east of Singapore. Beijing is not succumbing to the Biden’s Administration’s attempt to contain China but, instead, ramping up its efforts to contain democratic efforts. Wang Yi on Thursday arrived in the Solomon Islands to discuss the role of smaller states in the Pacific and how they can avoid the “domination” of the United States and other democratic countries. The Foreign Minister made the Solomon Islands government promises of extensive economic aid and security from Beijing without many of the restrictions demanded by western largesse. Wangi Yi  repeated his mantra at each stop that less free countries are not required to follow democratic practices to receive Chinese aid. Beijing’s offers are enticing to more authoritarian leaders with records of human rights abuses, corruption, and other issues of concern to the West that might eliminate their ability to receive aid from democratic states.

Wang Yi, along with an entourage of 20 other Chinese officials, are traveling to the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, and East Timor. Although small in size, these islands are strategically located at ground zero in Indo-Pacific great power competition. Leaders of these countries see it as an opportune time to bargain for millions in aid from China to build infrastructure projects. Western aid tends to be centered more on humanitarian needs, including health care, education, and housing. Pacific leaders appear lately to be more intrigued by Chinese offers to build airports, stadiums, and cities. 

The region lies less than 1,200 miles from Australia and is vitally important to Canberra’s trade and maritime commercial transportation routes. The Australian Foreign Minister is dealing with Indo-Pacific states receiving lucrative Chinese offers that are difficult to match. While some leaders, such as David Panuelo, president of the Federated States of Micronesia, remain distrustful of Beijing’s motives for offering aid, others are tempted by the size of the funding and lack of restrictions. Reuter’s Kirsty Needham reports that “China will seek a region-wide deal with almost a dozen Pacific Island countries covering policing, security and data communication cooperation when Foreign Minister Wang Yi hosts a meeting in Fiji next week.” 

The Chinese government sent a draft communique to 10 Pacific Island states ahead of the May 30 Foreign Ministerial meeting in Fiji. It contained the China-Pacific Island Countries Common Development Vision, a five-year action plan that has raised concerns among some of the states who fear Beijing’s moves will destabilize the region and lead to conflict. Needham notes that “In a letter to 21 Pacific leaders seen by Reuters, the president of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), David Panuelo, said his country would argue the “pre-determined joint communique” should be rejected, because he feared it could spark a new “Cold War” between China and the West. State Department spokesman Ned Price said the US is concerned about the lack of transparency and rushed process. “We don’t believe that importing security forces from the PRC and their methods will help any Pacific Island country,” he pointed out. “Doing so can only seek to fuel regional and international tension and increase concerns over Beijing’s expansion of its internal apparatus to the Pacific.”

At a press briefing in Beijing prior to his departure Wany Yi refuted the idea that Chinese aid could lead to confrontation and insisted instead that it would “consolidate mutual political trust, expand practical cooperation, deepen people-to-people ties and jointly build a closer community of destiny among China’s Pacific Island countries.” In Washington, Price responded that “It’s worth noting that PRC has a pattern of offering shadowy, vague deals with little transparency or regional consultation in areas related to fishing, related to resource management, development assistance and more recently, even security practices.” 

Such a plan would intricately link the Pacific states to Beijing. The proposed action document itself is extensive and contains sections on law enforcement capacity and police cooperation, the development of Chinese forensics laboratories, cooperation on data networks, cyber security, smart customs systems. According to Needham, “The action plan outlines a ministerial dialogue on law enforcement capacity and police cooperation in 2022, and China providing forensic laboratories. The draft communique also pledges cooperation on data networks, cyber security, smart customs systems and, according to Needham, “a balanced approach” on technological progress, economic development, national security, a China-Pacific Islands Free Trade Area, and action on climate change. 

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

Photo: Pixabay

As Russian missiles rain down on Ukraine’s oil and fuel sector infrastructure, tensions between Moscow and the Circassians, both those living inside Russia and abroad, have reached a boiling point, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. Located in territory inside Russia, north of Georgia, and extending down toward Armenia and Turkey, the indigenous Circassian population has longed for their freedom for well over a century. Last Saturday Putin prohibited the annual celebration commemorating the deportation of Circassians from their homeland inside Russia 168 years ago and threatened to arrest anyone who participated in events marking the date.

In 1864, the Russian Czar committed what the Circassian people call an ethnic cleansing or “genocide” of the minority population. Later, under the Soviet Union, the population was divided into various subgroups and multiple, artificially contrived administrative territories in an effort to suppress the Circassian’s desire for their own national identity in a single Circassian Republic. Today, Putin fears he is facing a reinvigorated population supported by overseas Circassians. He is determined to ensure that the 5 million living abroad cannot return to their homeland and change the ethnic mix in the North Caucasus region. Putin is using the Duma to try to pass legislation to keep the area permanently divided and the diaspora from returning home under the guise of maintaining stability in the region.

Circassians living inside Russia recently made strong public declarations of solidarity with the Ukrainian people who are resisting Putin’s “special military operation.” The population also is growing increasingly angry over Putin’s suppression of the identities of other minority peoples living inside the Russian Federation. Goble argues that the risk of armed conflict in the region is growing more acute and may develop into an outright clash in the coming weeks. “…the Circassians have fought back, viewing the much-delayed 2020 Russian census as a means to reunite Kabards, Cherkess, Adygeys and other parts of the Circassian nation under a single “Circassian” umbrella,” he says. 

Fewer than 700,000 Circassians live inside Russian territory today. In 1864 many fled to Syria to avoid genocide. Putin is concerned now that those Circassians living inside worn-torn Syria want to return to their homeland and will emerge as a long-term threat to Russian control of the territory and ultimately lead to its de-Russification. Stanislav Ivanov, a senior historian at IMEMO in the Russian Academy of Sciences, noted that “the project of a Greater Circassia has real support and a sufficient number of supporters abroad and in the North Caucasus.” In a February 22, 2022, Jamestown Foundation report, Goble pointed out that “If the two come together, he [Stanislav] warns in the influential Voyenno-Promyshlenny Kuryer, it will almost inevitably create serious problems for Russian rule.” 

Fatima Tlis, a longtime Circassian activist with the Voice of America, recently shared a copy of her remarks made in a video presentation to the European Parliament, notes Goble. She argued that “it is imperative for the restoration of peace and security in Europe that we understand the roots of Russia’s brutality and violence” in Ukraine “because the seeds of Bucha had been planted in Sochi and hundreds of towns and villages of Circassia that exist no longer… Russia shattered the Circassian territory into different artificial provinces to further marginalize the nation and break its unity and political significance.”

The new emerging political energy generated by movements in- and outside Russia concerns Putin, who fears that calls for independence will incite other populations to rebel against Russian authority. Putin is wrong in believing that inside the body of every Ukrainian beats a Russian heart. He also is wrong that he can suppress Circassians who view themselves, like Ukrainians, as a people distinct from Russians. As Russophobia spreads across the world, Western leaders must consider how far Putin is willing to go to achieve his territorial objectives. If the Russian leader cannot conquer Ukraine, he may choose instead to move east and south into the Caucasus and attempt a second annihilation of the Circassian population. Russia’s other “special military operation” in Syria cost hundreds of thousands of lives. It is not beyond the ken to be gravely concerned that Putin could move the war east and commit a new genocide. Strategically positioned between the European and Asian oil export markets, the region bridges the East with the West. NATO abuts Russia’s sphere of influence there and it is an oil-rich area which Chechen-trained fighters, along with their financial networks, are aiding jihadi groups fighting in and around Syria. Its importance to Russia is not lost on Putin.

Daria served in the U.S, State Department

Photo: Caucasus mountains

While the existential threats in the Indo-Pacific and Europe command the headlines, there are other significant hotspots across the globe that cannot be ignored.  Marine Corps Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., commander of U.S. Central Command, and Army Gen. Stephen J. Townsend, commander of U.S. Africa Command recently outlined threats in the Middle East and Africa.

They stressed that China, Russia, Iran and terrorist organizations continue to engage in malign activities in the Middle East and Africa.

In the Middle East, “Iran continues to pose the greatest threat to U.S. interests and the security of the region as a whole,” General McKenzie said. “They supply weapons to proxies and client states in an arc from Yemen through the Arabian Peninsula, across Iraq and Syria into Lebanon, and up to the very borders of Israel. Saudi Arabia endures regular attacks from the Houthis, who — courtesy of the Iranians — have some of the most advanced unmanned aerial systems and cruise missiles in the region. Recently, the Houthis have expanded these attacks to include urban centers and bases where U.S. forces reside in the United Arab Emirates.”

Iran’s ballistic missile forces can constitute a threat to the security of every state in the region, and perhaps globally, as well.  There are estimates that the terrorist state could soon have nuclear weapons.

U.S. intelligence sources note that “Iran will continue to threaten U.S. interests as it tries to erode U.S. influence in the Middle East, entrench its influence and project power in neighboring states, and minimize threats to regime stability.Tehran will try to leverage its expanding nuclear program, proxy and partner forces, diplomacy, and military sales and acquisitions to advance its goals. The Iranian regime sees itself as locked in an existential struggle with the United States and its regional allies, while it pursues its longstanding ambitions for regional leadership.

Tehran has a long-term vision of molding itself into a pan-Islamic power that will threaten U.S. persons directly and via proxy attacks, particularly in the Middle East. Iran also remains committed to developing networks inside the United States—an objective it has pursued for more than a decade.Iranian-supported proxies will launch attacks against U.S. forces and persons in Iraq and Syria, and on other countries and regions.

China and Russia are also watching closely for any sign that the U.S. commitment to the collective security of the region is wavering, and they’re poised to capitalize on whatever opportunities emerge.

Further south, Russia and China see Africa’s rich potential in terms of resources and strategic partnerships, note Department of Defense officials. Both countries seek to convert soft- and hard-power investments into political influence, strategic access, and economic and diplomatic engagements. They also seek to buttress autocracies and change international norms in a patient effort. The Pentagon notes that “terrorism has metastasized to Africa.”

Threats include terrorist groups al-Qaida and al-Shabab in East Africa and al-Qaida and ISIS in West Africa and elsewhere, representing one of the world’s fastest growing, wealthiest and deadliest terrorist groups.  They remain grave and growing threats that aspire to kill Americans, both abroad and within the U.S. itself.

Over 1 billion people reside in Africa, a figure that may double by 2050, when the continent will represent a quarter of the world’s population. 60 percent of that vast population will be under 25 years old.

Photo: Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy Harth 55 vessel, (background) conducted an unsafe and unprofessional action by crossing the bow of the U.S. Coast Guard patrol boat Monomoy, as the U.S. vessel was conducting a routine maritime security patrol in international waters in the southern Persian Gulf, April 2, 2021. (DoD photo)

Despite his recent comments on protecting Taiwan, serious questions are being raised about President Biden’s disturbing softness on China. The issues in which this problem manifests itself are significant, but little emphasized by a largely supportive media.

Wyoming Senator John Barasso notes that “As president, Joe Biden has been soft on China. And this is no surprise given the fact that Joe Biden has been soft on China for 50 years. When he was vice president, he said, quote, ‘a rising China is a positive development.’ He said, ‘not only for China, but for America and the world at large.’ “During his run for president, candidate Joe Biden said China was not a threat to the United States. During his announcement speech, when he was announcing that he was going to be a candidate for president, he said ‘they’re not bad folks. They’re not competition for us.’”

It’s not just elected officials who are expressing concern. A Foreign Policy study stresses that “The Biden Administration from a combination of arrogance and ignorance—is preparing to tie its own hands on China policy.”

A National Review examination notes that “…the Biden administration is proving more and more reticent to confront the Chinese government in substantive and consequential ways… Biden nominated Reta Jo Lewis to run the U.S. Export-Import Bank. Senator Marco Rubio contends that, ‘Reta Jo Lewis is currently a strategic advisor for the U.S.-China Heartland Association, which is a conduit for the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) United Front Work Department (UFWD), which aims to influence key Americans at the subnational level and ultimately undermine America’s national interests…'”

Under the Biden Administration, the US has granted licenses authorizing suppliers to sell chips to China’s blacklisted telecom company Huawei for its growing auto component business, according to Reuters. “The license applications are said to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars …

All of these concerns are coming to a head, as the Biden Department of Justice has moved to end the existing program established to respond to China’s intense espionage efforts against the United States.

In a scorching examination, a National Interest found that Biden gave a green light to Chinese spies.  “For nearly two years now, the FBI has nabbed dozens of Chinese Communist Party spies who, while posing as graduate students and research scholars at top academic institutions, siphoned out America’s most cutting edge national defense material for untold years. The spies, many secretly members of China’s military services, had to get in close to do damage this grave and found an unguarded path through America’s largely self-babysitting cultural exchange and student visa programs. But … President Joe Biden has canceled the repair and instead bestowed a priceless gift on People’s Liberation Army intelligence services: continued American vulnerability.”

The issue concerns the 1.5 million “J” and “F” visas, frequently employed by Chinese espionage agents to gain access to American research. The Department of Justice under the Trump Administration found that Beijing’s spies used these to infiltrate U.S. institutions doing advanced technical work.  After a review, the Trump Administration enacted regulations putting a stop to the practice, part of a “China Initiative” to stop the espionage.

One example: in 2020, the Justice Department brought criminal charges against a Chinese agent due to visa fraud in connection with a scheme to lie about her status as an active member of the People’s Republic of China’s military forces while in the United States conducting research at Stanford University.

 But Biden’s Homeland Security Department, with little to no fanfare or notice, eliminated the measure.

An intensive examination must be conducted concerning the financial interaction of the Biden family with China and the President’s reluctance to address Beijing’s espionage.

Illustration: Pixabay

There are substantial and legitimate questions about inappropriate influences affecting decision-making concerning climate change policy. Both Russia and China have been credibly implicated.

Energy is clearly the basic foundation of Russia’s power, particularly in Europe. The Kremlin clearly benefits from limiting production of energy in other nations. An American Military News analysis notes that “[There is an] indisputable fact that energy is the foundation of Russia’s power and influence. And that a hesitancy has existed by some of our allies in Europe and elsewhere to take truly bold actions against Vladimir Putin because they depend on Russian oil and gas.”

Moscow’s need to dominate the world’s energy supply has led to its extraordinary measures to limit production in other nations. The Gatestone Institute believes that Russia has been financing western environmentalism. It reports that Fogh Rasmussen, former NATO Secretary General, stresses that Russia, “as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations – environmental organisations working against shale gas – to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.”

Influence over American environmental groups exists as well. “On March 11, 2022,” notes Gatestone,  “US Representatives Jim Banks and Bill Johnson sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, asking for an investigation into the reported Russian manipulation of American “green groups” that are seemingly funded with “dark money” (anonymous donations). “Russia spent millions promoting anti-energy policies and politicians in the U.S. … Unlike the Russia hoax, Putin’s malign influence on our energy sector is real and deserves further investigation,” Banks said to Fox News Digital.”

“Hence the interest, for the Russian government, in mounting a vast disinformation campaign against shale gas and nuclear power in the West, by massively financing the groups most likely “naturally” to oppose it: environmentalist organizations.”

In 2017, Representatives Lamar Smith and Randy Weber asked then-Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to act against Russia’s funding of anti-fracking campaigns in the U.S.

 Influencing western movements is a tried and true tactic for the Kremlin. A Warontherocks article notes that “…the Soviets used front organizations to influence the anti-nuclear movement, the initiative that most visibly put Western leadership on the defensive. West German Interior Ministry and FBI reports concluded that Soviet-linked organizations were successfully swaying local peace movement initiatives to conform to Moscow’s positions. In 1982, the U.S. affiliate of the World Peace Council, a Soviet front, showed Moscow’s ability to secretly influence a United Nations special session on disarmament by persuading the committee coordinating the massive protests to focus the movement on U.S. and NATO rather than all (read: Soviet) missiles as the real threat.”

Russia’s interest is matched by China. China is the major builder and exporter of wind turbines.   An EVWIND analysis notes that . “In Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) 2020 ranking of global wind turbine manufacturers, 7 of the top 10 wind turbine manufacturers are Chinese companies…In addition, China commissioned 98% of the newly installed capacity from wind turbine manufacturers.”

It’s not just wind turbines. A Foreign Policy Review notes that “In 2019, China made 80 percent of the world’s supply of solar panels.”

A CSIS study notes that “the international community should be assured that China is … leading the world in one particular sector: deployment and investment in renewable energy. China is already leading in renewable energy production figures. It is currently the world’s largest producer of wind and solar energy,⁹and the largest domestic and outbound investor in renewable energy.Four of the world’s five biggest renewable energy deals were made by Chinese companies in 2016. As of early 2017, China owns five of the world’s six largest solar-module manufacturing companies and the world’s largest wind turbine manufacturer.^”

An American Military News analysis notes that “[There is an] indisputable fact that energy is the foundation of Russia’s power and influence. And that a hesitancy has existed by some of our allies in Europe and elsewhere to take truly bold actions against Vladimir Putin because they depend on Russian oil and gas.”

Moscow and Beijing have warped environmental concerns into a partisan weapon, leading to bad decisions that harm both individuals and nations.

Photo: Pixabay

In an effort to portray itself as a stabilizing force in the Middle East, the UAE is attempting to normalize its relations with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. “US focus on the Middle East had already begun to drift since President Biden took office in January 2021, and the conflict in Ukraine has ensured its focus remains away from Syria,” according to Andrew Devereux of the Jamestown Foundation. That is creating a competitive opportunity for other states in the region to strengthen their ties with the regime in Damascus. In March, al-Assad made a ceremonial trip to the UAE where he met briefly with Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum and the de-facto UAE leader and Abu Dhabi Crown Prince, now President, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan. The day-long trip marked the first time since the Syrian war began in 2011 that al-Assad visited an Arab country. The State Department called the trip “disappointing and troubling.” 

Shifting from opposition of al-Assad in recent years, to one of gradual support, the UAE today is supporting Syria’s potential readmission to the Arab League. “Attempts to reintegrate Syria into the Arab world,” notes Devereux, “are part of the UAE’s wider strategy of diversifying global relationships.” With much of the world concentrating on events unfolding in Ukraine, the UAE leveraged the opportunity to quietly expand its commercial interests in Syria. The UAE already has strong trade relations with China and India. It is highly unlikely the US will sanction the UAE for its actions as Abu Dhabi provides an alternative supply to Russian energy at a critical time. Washington also is ignoring the UAE’s refusal to support the Biden Administration’s position in Ukraine. Washington and Abu Dhabi still work close together in other areas areas, including bilateral-terrorism and security issues. “Maintaining working relations with multiple major powers and hedging bets that the US will remain distracted appears to be working for the UAE,” says Devereux. 

Despite the chill in relations between 2012-2018, UAE-Syrian relations are strong. It was Dubai that urged the UAE to further strengthen the bilateral relationship this spring, according to Kamal Alam, a journalist writing in The Middle East Eye. He points out that “Business and trade links remained active despite the war in Syria and even before the formal reopening of the UAE’s embassy in Damascus, with informal meetings through middlemen in Dubai.” In February Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited the UAE in a move that analysts in Washington say indicates that Turkey has dropped its confrontational stance to former opponents in Syria. This comes after al-Assad used the Kurdish issue to link up with Abu Dhabi’s security establishment and put pressure on Ankara. Alam writes that a former Syrian leader told him: “”Our embrace never loosened. It just froze, and now the summer has arrived again, and the ice has melted [with the UAE].”  

The UAE’s moves toward normalization with Syria are likely tied to future plans rather than trying to force al-Assad into immediately decoupling from Tehran. “Iran is a major player in the Syrian melting pot, providing billions of dollars of assistance and material support, but the UAE is able to offer advantages that Tehran cannot,” says Devereux. UAE-Syrian relations encompass a complex network of motivations. For the UAE they are driven primarily by Abu Dhabi’s longing to reach out across the Middle East and be seen a stabilizing force with enhanced influence. Syria in return received humanitarian aid from the UAE along with a promise of investment in solar powered energy plant. In recent months, improved bilateral relations have served as a safety valve for Syrian youth trying to escape the poverty and dangerous environment in their country. Many moved to the UAE after Abu Dhabi removed many of its travel restrictions. 

UAE overtures to Syria have lit a hot debate over the morality of normalizing relations with Syria given its long history of extreme human rights abuses. “At the center of the discussion are arguments about the best way to end Syria’s long civil war, and whether the country’s isolation — enforced in part by crippling Western sanctions — furthers that goal,” according to Sarah Dadouch of the Washington Post. The war in Ukraine may be catalyst that brings Syria in from the cold after a decade of civil war. Questions remain… Is this a positive given al-Assad’s brutality… that he remains in power… and even if deposed in the future, there is no viable alternative leadership inside Syria.

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

The Hudson Institute launched a new China Center this week specifically “dedicated to crafting policy responses to keep America’s strategic focus on China and [to] foster a national and global dialogue rooted in the values of freedom and democracy.” With many in the international community focused on the war in Ukraine, not much attention is centered on Chinese influence operations in the United States. It is not a new phenomenon but, it is important to recognize that as Chinese propaganda is aiding the Russian war effort, Beijing remains active on US soil. 

What do Harvard, Yale, and the University of Pennsylvania have in common? They are among the elite American universities that receive large monetary donations from China. While claiming they are not soliciting the tens of millions they receive, nor doing anything wrong, the universities continue to decline to disclose the source of their funding. Records, however, reveal that from 2014-2019 Harvard received $75 million, Yale $43.5 million, and UPenn $54.6 million from China. The Biden Center at the University of Pennsylvania, beginning in 2016, received over $23 million in “confidential gifts” from China. During this period, the then former Vice President was listed as a professor and was set to lead the Center. When Biden decided to run for president, a fact known to the Chinese government, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken took over at head of the Center, prior to being named to Biden’s cabinet. In one month alone, in May 2018, China donated $14.5 million to the Biden Center. This largesse is not lost on President Xi Jinping. 

These are only a few examples of China’s vast and sophisticated overseas influence operations over the last few years. Tom Anderson, director of the watch dog group National League and Policy Center’s (NLPC) Government Integrity Project, said:  “We’ve asked … [United States Attorney] Weiss to pursue the larger network of individuals and institutions who benefited from millions doled out by foreign interests connected to Hunter Biden’s work in China and Ukraine.” US Department of Education officials admit that combined, China and Russia, may have doled out well over $6 billion to US schools in the last five years.

Reed Rubinstein, general counsel at the Department investigating the donations, pointed out that “Some IHE [institute of higher learning] leaders are starting to acknowledge the threat of foreign academic espionage and have been working with federal law enforcement to address gaps in reporting and transparency…However, the evidence suggests massive investments of foreign money have bred dependency and distorted the decision making, mission, and values of too many institutions.” As far back as February 2020 the Wall Street Journal reported  that “Harvard and Yale were under investigation as part of a review that found US universities failed to report at least $6.5 billion in foreign funding from countries such as China….” Yale did not report a single foreign sourced donation. Harvard officials told an FBI agent meeting over the issue that it did not see a problem and did not want to cooperate with the FBI in determining if research professors at the school were influenced by communist China funding.

In January 2021, just prior to President Biden’s swearing in, the Free Beacon reported that “The American Council on Education (ACE), a lobbying group led by former Obama-administration official Ted Mitchell, is asking President-elect Joe Biden to ‘halt expanded reporting requirements” for contracts and foreign donations to universities. ACE represents nearly all of the major universities in the country, including top Democratic donors such as Harvard University, Stanford University, and the University of California system.’” The Center for Responsive Politics says that Chinese foreign agent spending has “skyrocketed from just over $10 million in 2016 to nearly $64 million” in 2020, making it the top spender on foreign influence operations inside the United States.

It took the US Justice Department three years to force the Xinhua (New Chinese News Agency) to file its first Foreign Lobby Report. The media organ is a propaganda mouthpiece run by senior Chinese Communist Party officials. From March 2020 to May 2021, its initial filing disclosed direct spending of $8.6 million in Washington, Los Angeles, Houston, San Francisco, and Chicago areas.

A 654-page report issued by the French Institute for Strategic Military Studies last October noted: “Beijing is also increasingly comfortable with infiltration and coercion: its influence operations have become considerably tougher in recent years and its methods are resembling more closely the ones employed by Moscow. This is a “Machiavellian turn” inasmuch as the Party-State now seems to believe that “it is much safer to be feared than to be loved,” in the words of Machiavelli in The Prince. This is a clear Russification of Chinese influence operations.” It certainly is a development Washington needs to pay attention to despite Russia’s war in Ukraine. 

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