Month: December 2022

The CCP leadership in Beijing is concerned about growing domestic unrest this fall and the long-term implications for stability within the country. Chinese citizens are upset and demonstrating over the government’s zero Covid-19 policy which has led to tragic incidents and a downturn in the economy. In one case, fire and rescue personnel were unable to reach victims when a fire broke out in a locked down high-rise apartment building. Citizens were incensed by the needless deaths of the apartment dwellers. The demonstrations across China are bringing about comparisons to the 1989 demonstrations in Tiananmen Square. The government is censoring news about the deaths and demonstrations. Photos of demonstrators holding blank white placards symbolizing their lack of free speech quickly spread across the Internet.

The earlier demonstrations, beginning in April 1989, were sparked by the death of the reformist Chinese Communist Party Chief Hu Yaobang. Protests spread to major cities across China, along with violence and the student occupation of Tiananmen Square in Beijing. More than 100,000 students took to the streets in the capital. More recently, on the 30^th anniversary of Hu’s death, the Chinese government removed mentions of him on Weibo and the Chinese Internet. Leaders again feared unrest and chaos could spread and threaten the Party’s tight grip on the country.

Last month, just as protests were starting to calm down, former CCP General Secretary Jiang Zemin, passed away at the age of 96. “The timing of Jiang’s death was striking as it occurred amidst the largest public pushback against CCP rule since the student protest movement in spring 1989, which culminated in the June 3-4 Tiananmen Square massacre that preceded his assumption of CCP leadership at the 13th Central Committee’s Fourth Plenum that same month,” notes John S. Van Oudenaren of the Jamestown Foundation.

Similarly, the CCP leadership feared the current wave of demonstrations, ostensibly about the severe Covid lockdown, could morph into a more general renunciation of the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party and its principal leaders in a similar way to 1989 Tiananmen Square protest. President Xi has found himself trying to balance between totally shutting down society with a severe lockdown to stem the spread of the new variant of the virus, or bend to civil society and loosen the restrictions while risking increased cases of the virus. 

In response to pressure from the mass demonstrations President Xi Jinping folded and chose to relax Covid restrictions. In this case, the power of the people, won over the authoritarian dictates of the Chinese Communist Party leadership. Citizens in Western democracies often find ways to make their voices heard and change public policy. In China, such “luan” or chaos is not tolerated by Xi Jinping or the CCP leadership. It makes what happened this week all the more remarkable and brings into question the true strength of the Communist Party.   

 Xi Jinping, recently re-elected to a record third term as president in October, faces a domestic economy that is struggling. He is continuing to use a strong-armed interventionist approach against private sector businesses that is hurting business growth. The CCP has maintained power in the country mainly due to the expansion of the economy in recent decades. If the Party can’t produce good economic results, and the broad base of the population is suffering both economically and physically, the legitimacy of the CCP and its leadership could be called into question. 

Analysts this week suggest that Xi Jinping and the top leadership recognize this possibility and view themselves as in a weakened position, despite Xi’s directly overseeing all important levers of power, including the military, judiciary, police, propaganda, and foreign policy establishments. Looking to history for lessons learned from the 1989 demonstrations, it appears Xi Jinping chose the pragmatic course. 

There are differences between 1989 and today. The middle class is larger in China, their expectations are higher, and they are more connected to the outside world. Thirty-three years ago, students had little practical understanding of democratic practices, free market economics or advanced technologies common in the West. All that has changed. Xi may have taken the only action possible in the short-run to quell unrest. However, it may have opened the door to the eventual downfall of authoritarian rule in China.

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

Moscow has more to worry about than the war in Ukraine. As winter approaches and the ground begins freezing, Putin is also facing new concerns to his east. In the central Asian state of Azerbaijan, there are mounting concerns about a potential border war with Iran after November protests in Tehran spread across the country and the Iranian government attempted to destabilize Azerbaijan. “We will do everything possible to defend our way of life as well as the secular direction of the development of Azerbaijan and of Azerbaijanis, including Azerbaijanis living in Iran. They are part of our nation,” announced President Ilham Aliyev. Salam New Agency reports that the president’s words were intended to win support at home for those Azerbaijani living abroad. Some politicians in Azerbaijan see their secular nation as a divided people, similar to the situation on the Korean peninsula. They are vocally pushing to rename the Republic of Azerbaijan, Northern Azerbaijan. One parliamentarian in Baku, Gudrat Gasanguliyav, argued that renaming the state would serve as a “stimulus” for those religious individuals living south of the Aras River. They account for about one-third of Iran’s population, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. Azerbaijanis in the south are increasing dissatisfied with the repressive regime in Iran. 

Statements by politicians in Azerbaijan have lit a fuse in Tehran that could lead to a full-scale conflict that Putin might not be capable of stopping. The Russian publication Real Tribune reports that with heightened tensions between the two states, “the Kremlin is actively expanding shipping routes between Russia and Iran in the Caspian Sea to avoid having to rely on land routes that it once hoped could be used to circumvent Western sanctions,” notes Goble. He adds that it has “sparked fears in Tehran and elsewhere that either the Iranian authorities will try to use such language to gin up patriotic support in response to the current wave of protests or that the tit-for-tat moves by Iran and Azerbaijan along their common border may escalate into a full-scale military conflict.” It is an “indication of just how worried Moscow is about the current state of affairs,” notes Goble.  

In Regnum.ru, one Russian commentator, Stanislav Tarasov, wrote that while these statements may not lead to any immediate war, they are likely to have potentially far-reaching consequences not only for Azerbaijani-Iranian relations but also for the relationship between Baku and Ankara, thus representing a seriously destabilizing development for the greater Middle East. Tarasov says it is evidence that Baku is working with Turkey to destroy Iran but that “the actual facts of the case may be far different and lead to Azerbaijan becoming more independent of Turkey with regards to regional geopolitics.”

Aliyev’s decision to “play ‘the Iranian card’” is part of Baku’s efforts to create a kind of Azerbaijani world rather than to extend the Turkic world eastward, according to Tarasov. In what could turn out to be a potential geopolitical culture war Azerbaijan, formerly part of Persia and not Turkey, is again part of a Persian empire. Goble says that if Baku focuses its efforts to the south rather than to the west, there could be a complete reordering of the Middle East chessboard. 

There are still wider implications as President Aliyev’s words could prove even more threatening to Russia than any conflict between Azerbaijan and Iran. “This is because the Azerbaijani president’s statements suggest that Baku may now be interested not only in expanding its influence southward into Iran but also northward into Russia,” says Goble.

Last month in Baku, when Aliyev hosted Rustam Minnikhanov, the leader of the Republic of Tatarstan, he announced that “the Turkic world consists not only of independent Turkic states. Its geographic borders are much broader”—that is, it includes places such as Tatarstan, currently within Russia’s borders, and Eastern Turkestan (Xinjiang), currently within the borders of the People’s Republic of China. This is the first such meeting between Tatarstan and Azerbaijani leaders since 2011. Goble suggests it is a sign that Baku is now looking to extend its influence deep into the Russian Federation. 

While Turkish President Erdogan has “never publicly and directly declared that Iran must give up Southern Azerbaijan,” just as he has never made demands that China should “free Eastern Turkestan,” Russian commentator Dmitry Rodionov, such statements threaten Moscow’s control of Turkic areas within its borders and China’s control of its Turkic-majority areas. Goble argues that to the extent that this is true, Aliyev’s most recent statements about Iran, its minorities and the treatment of its population as a whole, appear likely to have a broader echo, potentially setting in motion events that could re-order not only the Middle East but the two largest countries in Eurasia as well. It is going to be a cold winter everywhere Putin turns this year.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

The reason for both the suppression of the Hunter Biden Laptop story, as well as the reluctance of the media to criticize the massive failures and missteps of the Biden Administration are intimately related. 

Recently, Elon Musk revealed that Twitter intentionally censored the laptop revelation, a news item which would have altered the outcome of the last presidential election. In a similar vein, other social media outlets have noted that federal officials pressured them into actions specifically intended to influence the results of that ballot.

The reasons are both foreign and domestic.

Donald Trump was the most vocal critic of China in U.S. history. His comments threatened the growing influence Beijing has over political leaders, particularly within the California Democratic Party, as well as some politicians in both political camps, although predominately Democrats. That influence didn’t have to be direct.  Major donors to the California Democrat Party seek to expand their China market, and would be generous to those who would fight Trump’s expose of China’s growing influence. It is not a coincidence, then, that California Democrats, especially Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi, were at the forefront of the attacks on him, as well as on anyone or any group that exposed the corruption.

Exposing the reality that Beijing financially influenced then-vice president Biden would start an expose of its relationship with other politicians and corporations as well.  The most recent example was recently described by National Review.  According to its report, a staffer for Rep, Don Beyer (D-Va) openly lobbied other Congressional staffers on Beijing’s behalf.

But why did major corporate leaders go along with it?  Why did a leading pharmaceutical company withhold the announcement of the news that a COVID vaccine, the result of Trump’s “Operation warp speed,” until after the election?  Why did social media barons go along with pressure from the FBI to censor the Biden laptop story, and suppress pro-Trump supporters in general? 

There is no mystery there.  American companies have long succumbed to the dream that a fortune was to be made in the Chinese marketplace.  To do that in that totalitarian regime, you have to kowtow to the Beijing dictatorship. Recently, Apple was deeply embarrassed by its cooperation with Beijing in that government’s suppression of demonstrators. Similar acts of cowardice have occurred elsewhere, notably in the NBA. Trump’s actions threatened that potential corporate gravy train.

But why did the federal bureaucracy lead the Jihad? Trump was also the most vocal critic of the inordinate power unelected bureaucrats have attained. Their attitude was made clear in the testimony some gave at the impeachment hearings, when a common theme was that the 45^th president was “rogue,” “unstable,” and “out of control,” because he wouldn’t listen to advice given by those administrators.

Biden, by contrast, has essentially given free rein to the federal bureaucracy, indeed, even leading to questions about who is actually running his Administration.

Trump is not particularly eloquent nor personable, and has been an easy target for his critics. His policies, however, were largely successful. Energy independence, a blessed four years of no new wars, a healthy economy, and significant increases in the financial well-being of minorities were exceptional. Nevertheless, he was ruthlessly attacked.  Even after the various charges, such as Russian Collusion were exposed as being totally false, there was barely any retraction by the media or the California Democrats such as Pelosi and Schiff.

Contrast that with the coverage of the disastrous Biden Administration. He eliminated U.S. energy independence and used the U.S. treasury as a personal piggybank to influence voters.  He openly lied to the American people about the border. His withdrawal from Afghanistan was a national embarrassment. His inflationary policies have harmed the population deeply. He virtually invited the Russian invasion of Ukraine when he said he might not object to a “Little invasion.” Despite all that, social media barons and legacy media outlets have been largely silent. Rabid self-interest over the good of the nation is nothing new.  Never before, however, has there been such a powerful array of corrupt politicians, power-hungry federal bureaucrats, and greedy corporate leaders.

Illustration: Pixabay

In 2019, the FBI, as well as a group of other federal agencies, identified “Fostering a Diverse, Highly-Skilled Workforce” as one of their top priorities. 

Being such an overriding concern, what content is provided at “diversity training events” and “workplace discussion groups” to insure a “diverse, high-skilled workforce?”

According to Christopher Rufo, who has made an extensive study of this topic, “the training begins with the premise that ‘virtually all white people contribute to racism’ and hold narratives that ‘don’t support the dismantling of racist institutions.’ Therefore, the trainers argue, white federal employees must ‘struggle to own their racism’ and ‘invest in race-based growth.’ The trainers then ask ‘white managers’ to create ‘safe spaces,’ where black employees can explain ‘what it means to be black’ and to be ‘seen in their pain.’ White staffers are instructed to keep silent and to ‘sit in the discomfort’ of their racism. If any conflicts arise, the trainers insist that whites ‘don’t get to decide when someone is being too emotional, too rash [or] too mean.’ Whites are told they can’t protest if a person of color ‘responds to their oppression in a way [they] don’t like.’” 

To the outside observer, it is unclear how making federal employees “struggle to own their racism” will create a “diverse, high-skilled workforce.”  But there is a more important question – have these extraordinary efforts at “diversity and inclusion” worked?  

Not according to a report from Courtney Buble of the Government Executive; “Although diversity has been a priority at the FBI over the past decade, the make-up of the bureau’s workforce has barely changed over that time, and employees’ viewsof the agency’s support for diversity have not grown more positive…as of March 2019 the FBI’s overall workforce was 55.6% male and 44.4% female. This is compared to 56.1% male and 43.9% female in December 2009…(a)s for racial demographics, the FBI’s workforce was 75% white in 2009 and 74.4% white in 2019. Additionally, whites held 79.5% of the top GS grade positions in 2009 and 77.6% in 2019…(i)n February 2020 special agents were 79.1% male and 20.9% female. This was a slight improvement from 79.6% male and 18.8% female in 2010. For ethnic minorities, there were 17% in 2010 and 18.4% in 2020, according to FBI statistics.” 

Further, a study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and published in 2019 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that “diversity training does not generally result in much change in work environments…(t)he researchers found little evidence of behavior change in any of the organizations where employees had taken the diversity training program. In the program geared toward reducing biases against women, the researchers found that employees were willing to admit such biases, they just were not willing to do anything about them…(i)n the part of the study focusing on racial bias, the researchers found that employees were willing to admit having racial biases, but no measurable changes in behavior were seen during follow-up.”   

This lack of success has not stopped the FBI, and other federal agencies, from forcing their employees to continue to attend “diversity and/or inclusion training events” and “participating in workplace discussion groups focusing on diversity.”  If ten years of failure has not persuaded the FBI to try another tact, could there be some other reason for these endless workshops and trainings?

Christopher Rufo provides one explanation; “The larger goal is explicit: The diversity apparatchiks want to convert ‘everyone in the federal government’ to the work of ‘anti-racism.’ While that sounds innocuous, it emphatically is not what most Americans understand by the term. ‘Anti-racism,’ as the diversity hustlers define it, doesn’t teach Americans to judge each other according to the contents of their character. Rather, the ideology stands for precisely the opposite: a rigid and simplistic account of race, in which minorities are permanent victims and whites are forever tainted by racism. By promoting this toxic nonsense, activist bureaucrats seek to transform the federal government into power centers for this new racial orthodoxy.” 

Given the lack of success of diversity and inclusion training, and based upon the nature of its underlying assumptions and goals, it was no surprise that in September of 2020, President Donald Trump “issued an executive order prohibiting federal agencies and contractors from using workplace training materials that include ‘divisive concepts’ such as the U.S. being ‘fundamentally racist or sexist,’ or that ‘an individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously. ‘The order cited several examples from (Christopher). Rufo’s work, such as a seminar at the Treasury Department that, according to the executive order, ‘promoted arguments that ‘virtually all White people, regardless of how ‘woke’ they are, contribute to racism.’’  

However, given the priorities of the Biden Administration, which is dedicated to continuing the work of the Obama Administration, President Joe Biden issued an Executive Order on his first day in office reinstating the Diversity and Inclusion Training for all federal employees – including members of the FBI.  

Apparently, 10 years of a failed policy is irrelevant to Joe Biden – the work of “anti-racism” must go on, no matter who objects, and no matter how little actual diversity is created.  

As for the FBI, according to The Guardian, there has been a “sharp decline in the number of applicants for special agent positions, long considered among the most prestigious in American law enforcement…from a peak of 68,500 in 2009 to a mere 11,500 in 2018.”  However, “(t)he FBI is not alone in this…(t)he army, navy and other military branches have seen recruitment shortages.”  In fact, “Police forces around the country have also had trouble recruiting of late. The total number of full-time sworn officers has dropped 23,000 since 2013 to about 700,000 according to NPR, who called the officer shortage ‘a quiet crisis in American policing.'” 

Perhaps potential Special Agents are just not interested in sitting through “diversity and/or inclusion training events” and “participating in workplace discussion groups focusing on diversity.”  Maybe there are other factors in play here as well – but in any event, the question remains – how do you create a “diverse, high-skilled workforce” when you can’t even get most  people to accept the job and sit through your indoctrination classes? 

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in New York City

Photo: Pixabay

If you are at least as old as I am, you will remember the TV show, “The FBI.”  From 1965 to 1974, Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. portrayed Inspector Lewis Erskine, who “personified the calm, business-suited government agent who always tracked his criminals down, scientifically and methodically and with virtually no emotion at all… Neither he nor his partners allowed themselves to become emotionally involved in their work which focused on a range of crimes, from bank robbery to kidnapping to the occasional Communist threat to overthrow the government. The cases were based on real FBI files and ranged across the United States and involved counterfeiters, extortionists, organised crime, Communist spies, and radical bombings.” 

For many years, the Federal Bureau of Investigation cultivated a positive image through shows like “The FBI,” and other media outreach.  Described by its most famous director, J. Edgar Hoover in 1961, the FBI was “(e)stablished in 1908 as the investigative arm of the U.S. department of justice, (and) is a fact-finding agency which does not evaluate the results of its investigations or recommend prosecutive action…(t)he two primary areas of FBI activity are general investigations and security operations. Within the latter field, it has jurisdiction over espionage, sabotage and subversive activities on a nation-wide scale… the FBI…reports the results of its investigation(s) to the attorney general, chief legal officer of the United States, his assistants and the various U.S. attorneys in federal districts throughout the United States for decisions as to prosecutive action.” 

Would J. Edgar recognize the organization he led from 1924 to 1972 in the 21st century?  What effort does the FBI make to cultivate a “positive image” in today’s world?

Rather than focus on professional, dispassionate “fact-finding,” the Bureau has found itself involved in other avenues of image-making.  For instance, in remarks given by the current FBI Director Christopher Wray to the National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives in April of this year, the director noted that the Bureau was “working hard to remove barriers and create a reflective workforce—not just in terms of gender, but across a full spectrum of diversity…(t)he FBI is focused on recruiting and building a diverse workforce…(w)omen now make up 45% of our workforce overall and nearly a quarter of our senior executive positions…(w)e’ve also increased our recruiting initiatives at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and are expanding our recruiting focus to other minority-serving institutions…I’m proud that the FBI is addressing this important issue, but I know that we can do even better, and we will.” 

These remarks underscore an emphasis on diversity and inclusion policies that have been in place at the Bureau since 2015, when “the FBI added diversity as one of the organization’s core values…(w)e stand committed, as today’s FBI, to fostering a culture of inclusivity and diversity.”  In fact, “The FBI’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion was created in 2012 to provide guidance and implement programs that promote a diverse and inclusive workplace that allows all employees to succeed and advance.”  

This office was created in response to Barack Obama’s Executive Order 13583, dated August 18, 2011, which “establish(ed) a coordinated Government-wide initiative to promote diversity and inclusion in the Federal workforce” by “highlight(ing) comprehensive strategies for agencies to identify and remove barriers to equal employment opportunity that may exist in the Federal Government’s recruitment, hiring, promotion, retention, professional development, and training policies and practices,” and to “identify appropriate practices to improve the effectiveness of each agency’s efforts to recruit, hire, promote, retain, develop, and train a diverse and inclusive workforce.”

While no one seriously disagrees that a modern workforce is not restricted to one race or sex alone, the FBI (as well as other federal agencies) exhibits a particular preoccupation with this issue.  The 2015 Policy Directive that established the Diversity and Inclusion guidelines for the FBI created a “Diversity and Executive Council,” as well as “Diversity Advisory Committees,” a “Diversity Advisory Council,” and a “Diversity and Inclusion Coordinator.”  These various levels of bureaucracy are tasked with ‘provid(ing) support to underrepresented groups within the FBI,”  and “encourage employee and management participation in diversity events…and cultural awareness activities.”  “Diversity training for supervisors and managers…includes a discussion of diversity and inclusion, as well as the use of work assignments as a professional development tool,” while “Diversity training for all other employees” includes “attendance at…diversity training event(s) or activit(ies)…completing an online course on a diversity and/or inclusion-related topic…participating in a workplace discussion group focusing on a diversity and/or inclusion topic (eg, a book, an article or an event)…” 

The Report concludes tomorrow

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in New York City

South America is not immune to the influences of the PRC despite the great distance dividing Asia from the West. Over 20 countries in South America and the Caribbean have joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Although Colombia has not yet signed on, its deepening relationship with China under the new government of Gustavo Petro is causing concern inside the American intelligence community. For many years Bogota feared that expanded political, economic, and security ties with Beijing would hurt its strong relationship with the United States. Under the Petro regime, that appears to be changing.

The Colombian President recently appointed Sergio Cabrera as the country’s ambassador to China. Cabrera “grew up in China with Communist parents during the revolutionary era of Mao Zedong and attended Beijing University, the most respected institution for higher education in the PRC. Cabrera returned to Colombia to participate in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) guerilla movement before returning to the PRC and starting his film career. His access to many parts of China while filming suggests the high level of trust the Chinese have in him,” according to a White Paper by Evan Ellis, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). 

The country’s foreign minister, Álvaro Leyva, has focused more on peace negotiations with leftist terrorist groups such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) than on China. Ellis, however, notes that Leyva has strong left-oriented ideological commitments that may dispose him to deepening the Colombia-PRC relationship for the Petro regime. China’s Ambassador to Colombia, Lan Hu, is a senior, Spanish-speaking diplomat who is very active in the country’s Chinese community. There also are rumblings in Bogota that presidential-level discussions are quietly pushing the country toward joining the BRI.

Commercial relations with China, since it was granted permanent Most-Favored-Nation status, have expanded 35-fold, although Colombia imports about four times its exports to the PRC. China’s physical footprint in the country also has expanded over the last ten years. As of this year there are at least 38 active Chinese investment projects totaling $2.04 billion. The 100 plus Chinese-based companies operating there span a broad range of sectors, from long-term involvement in petroleum and mining to infrastructure, telecommunications, and digital industries. The China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) began operations in July 2012 with a $15.1 billion acquisition of the Canadian petroleum firm Nexxen. Ecopetrol, a Colombian crude exporting firm, has established relationships with refineries in China. The country also sells China coal and nickel and operates gold mines in Colombia. Starbucks’ and other companies act as third-party sellers of Colombian coffee to China.

“Infrastructure projects have arguably been the most significant and highest-visibility area of the PRC’s expanding presence in Colombia,” says Ellis. Eight years ago, the PRC-based China Harbour Engineering Company won a $652 million contract, to build and improve a 155-mile road from Medellín to the coastal city of Necoclí near the Panamanian border. After China brought in massive numbers of Chinese workers, Colombia reportedly forced China to subcontract out some of the work to Colombian nationals. Typical of many Chinese engineering projects, the tunnels and bridges often were of poor quality with delays in delivery. China is buying its way into Colombia, too. It financed 30% of the construction cost for a subway system for Bogota. With only one bid submitted, China also won a contract to build a 17-station train line that will connect Bogotá with surrounding cities. As recently as October 2022 China

Communications Construction Corporation received a $3.5 billion public-private contract to build a metro across the eastern side of Medellín in Antioquia when all other bidders dropped out. Similar scenarios played out in the port sector where the PRC-based firm Zhenhua Heavy Industries Company Limited has supplied cranes for port operations in Cartagena and Santa Marta. China currently is attempting to construct a liquid natural gas regasification facility and expand port facilities on the country’s west coast near the frontier with Ecuador. China also holds a controlling share of the AirPlan consortium to manage and modernize Medellín’s principal airport, in Rionegro, and five surrounding airports in Antioquia and is making similar inroads in the electricity sector, automotive,  and heavy equipment industries. The list is long and growing.

“In digital and other technology sectors, PRC-based firms have made significant advances in Colombia in recent years. In telecommunications, the Chinese firm Huawei has operated in the Colombian market for at least 15 years and currently has a dominant position in the sale of telephones and other telecommunications devices to Colombian retailers,” says Ellis. Huawei plans to build a data center in Colombia while China’s ZTE is focusing on infrastructure and devices such as routers and modems. 

The 2012 Colombian Chinese Chamber of Investment and Commerce that had approximately 30 members, has over 140 participants as of 2022, including many Chinese-owned companies. Everywhere one turns in Colombia today there is a burgeoning sense of expanding Chinese soft power, from think tanks and education to military training and gifts of military transport aircraft. China has patiently spent time laying the groundwork in Colombia, Uruguay, and others South American countries. Beijing’s adventures in the Western hemisphere are beginning to pay off.

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

They move from the war zone in Ukraine, back to Russia, and into the hands of armed criminals. That is the journey many Russian guns used in the war in Ukraine are making this year. They recross the Russian border and are used in armed crimes across the country. This year there is an almost 30% average increase in armed crime in Russia over last year. The Interior Ministry reports this week that increases in crime in border areas, such as the Kurk Oblast, have skyrocketed, with a 675% increase recorded over the same period in 2021. Spikes in armed crime in other border areas are also up by triple-digit percentages.   

“This rise in violence is affecting not only businesses but also schoolchildren, with the term ‘Columbine’ having entered the Russian vernacular and raising questions about whether guns could be used more frequently by opposition groups,” says Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. Although the “bleeding back” of weapons of war is not a new phenomenon, it represents a more virulent threat to the country than when it occurred after WWI, the Stalinist era, or after the “Afghantsy” criminals of the 1990’s returned from Afghanistan. There are a number of factors that make the environment in Russia going into this winter different than in earlier events. 

Moscow is drafting more soldiers for the war in Ukraine; often men with violent criminal backgrounds. They possess limited combat experience, have less military training, and often lack the discipline of a professional soldier. Their weapons, and those found abandoned in the field, serve as booty to be brought back home. Goble says that the Russian “officers often fail to control these units in the field, and that lack of control directly affects what soldiers may carry away as well.”

Moscow has annexed portions of Ukraine, with much of the war playing out on territories that Putin’s government officially claims as Russia. Goble says that it is clearly intended to make the Russian forces fight harder. Without border checkpoints there are few constraints preventing soldiers from taking their weapons back to Russia. Once home the country’s judicial system is unwilling to prosecute war veterans to the full extent of the law. Few soldiers that are caught using military weapons in criminal acts end up in work camps or prison.  Without disincentives, gun ownership has risen to an estimated 25  million firearms in private hands. Along with an increase in gun possession comes an increased propensity to use them to commit crimes.

The profit motive is another contributing factor. Western sanctions are making it harder for Russians to acquire foreign-manufactured guns while simultaneously raising gun prices domestically. This fall, Russians have been caught firing guns at draft centers in an attempt to stop the recruitment process. Goble suggests that Putin’s “partial mobilization” also raises the specter that these illegal guns will be used more frequently by radicals against the regime. Authoritarian leaders fear the decay of public order as it impacts their ability to rule with an iron-clad fist. Putin if left with a difficult challenge: how to return criminals-turned-soldier back into civilians that will lead a normal devoid of armed criminal activity. 

The large number of weapons is an enormous challenge to Moscow as it attempts to reintegrate men returning from Ukraine back into civilian life. Goble suggests that some are “questioning whether the campaign in Ukraine is worth further destabilizing Russia’s domestic situation.” Putin soon will be forced to make a choice about how to handle the increased domestic unrest.

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

The U.S. Department of Defense has released a sobering report on China’s “Military and Security Developments.”

As this column has noted in the past, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) now has the world’s largest navy. Additionally, it may have missile technology more advanced than Americas’. Aware of these advantages, Beijing is increasingly reliant and confident in wielding its military power to progress towards its goals.

The Pentagon notes that China is strengthening its strategic deterrence capabilities. “Beijing defines this element broadly to include nuclear, space, cyber, electronic warfare, counterspace capabilities and more.”

The Department of Defense states that China has more than 400 operational nuclear warheads in its stockpile. If this modernization effort continues, the Chinese could field about 1,500 warheads by 2035.  

According to a Defense Dept. official, “…an important element of China’s strategy is a determined pursuit to amass and expand its national power to transform — at least — aspects of the international system to make it more favorable to the PRC’s political system and its national interests. This is a prime aspect of both domestic and foreign policy initiatives.”  

The official noted that as part of this, there is a trend of more coercive military endeavors by China. “We’ve seen more coercive and aggressive actions in the Indo-Pacific region, including some of which we would highlight as being dangerous,” he said. This includes PLA ships and aircraft demonstrating unsafe and unprofessional behavior…”

According to the Report, the PRC has increasingly turned to its advanced military power as an instrument of “statecraft” as it adopted more coercive and aggressive actions in the Indo-Pacific region. Having purportedly achieved its 2020 modernization goal, the PLA now sets its sights to 2027 with a goal to accelerate the integrated development of mechanization, informatization, and “intelligentization” of its armed forces. If realized, this 2027 objective could give its military capabilities to be a more credible armed tool for the Chinese Communist Party to wield as it contemplates an invasion of Taiwan.   

In addition to the development of the military’s conventional capabilities, China has continued to accelerate the modernization, diversification, and expansion of its nuclear forces. The PRC has stated its ambition to strengthen its “strategic deterrent,” while being reluctant to its developing nuclear, space, and cyberspace capabilities, negatively impacting global strategic stability—an area of increasing global concern. 

The Report stresses that China “wants its economic and political and social and military and security developments to be coordinated and mutually reinforcing, and to support the ambitious objectives that Xi Jinping has laid out for national rejuvenation by 2049.”  In plain language, this clearly means that Beijing has placed its nation on a war footing.

The PRC continues to develop and acquire advanced dual-use technology for its military.  

Military power is more than just weapons.  It also includes the industrial and technological capabilities necessary to provide a powerful military. “…in terms of kind of broader defense ambitions, the PRC has a strategy that entails strengthening and adapting its armed forces to what it views as kind of long-term trends and global military affairs,” the DoD official said. “As an outcome of the 20th Party Congress, Beijing is focusing on intensifying and accelerating [it’s military] modernization goals over the next five years, including strengthening what they refer to as its system of strategic deterrence.” 

The report details China’s regional and global ambitions. “As we noted in last year’s report, Xi Jinping and the PRC leadership are determined that the armed forces should take a more active role in advancing the PRC’s foreign policy goals globally.” 

The Chinese military is pursuing overseas bases and logistics facilities. This would allow the PLA to project and sustain military power at much greater distances from its borders.  

Picture: Amphibious armored vehicles attached to a brigade of the PLA Navy’s Marine Corps make their way to the beach-head in assault wave formation during a maritime offense and defense training exercise recently. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Tang Ruijie)