Month: March 2023

The Cold War may be heating up in the Arctic as China seizes the opportunity to take on a larger role with Russian fighting in Ukraine entering its second year. Since the start of the Covid pandemic, the Arctic Council has suspended its in-person meetings. Now with Russia about to rotate out of the chairmanship position on the Council, there is a renewed effort by China to occupy a more prominent spot in decisions over the future of the region. At the recent China-Russia Summit President Xi Jinping announced the establishment of a joint Chinese-Russian Working Group to evaluate development in the region along a new, proposed Northern Sea Route (NSR). 

China experts from the Jamestown Foundation, speaking at a webinar on the China-Russia relations on Wednesday, concurred that the Xi-Putin bond is strong but not without its issues. The point out that in a reversal of roles occurring over the last three decades, China has emerged as the stronger and more dominant partner. China appears confident and aggressive in its foreign relations approach toward its ally. Recent Russian attempts to maneuver China into signing additional contracts to purchase Russia failed, leaving Moscow both surprised and concerned. Paul Goble, of the Jamestown Foundation, suggest that the Russian Federation believes China is now in a position to “elbow Russia aside not only along the NSR but across the Arctic more generally.” He says that one Russian observer on the “Captain Arctic” Telegram channel warns that “Putin’s misguided move has given Xi ‘the keys’ to the Arctic and pushed Russia into a minefield, where an area that Moscow had always viewed as exclusively its own will now be subject to negotiations with a foreign power.”

In 2018 China began defining itself publicly as a “near-Arctic nation” and pressed for a more prominent position. Economically and geo-strategically China intends to play a larger role in the resource-rich region. In July 2020 the Eurasia Daily Monitor reported that China was building a number of icebreakers, ice-capable ships, and promoting “Chinese development of infrastructure in those northern portions of Russia where an increasingly hard-pressed Moscow could not afford to do so,” says Goble. What is new over the last year is that Putin has not received anything from China in return for Moscow’s willingness to include China in the joint development of the NSR. Goble argues this represents a major turning point in the bilateral relationship and a strong indicator of Russia’s growing weakness in the Arctic.

Putin needs China’s short-term help, although some analysts in Moscow suggest that the Russian leader is being overconfident. Xi and the CCP leadership fully recognize Russia’s position and can until Russia is forced to sell gas to China at a deep discount. Goble argues that Putin has mixed this issue in with the development of the NSR, and the result is it now “represents a far more serious and, from Russia’s point of view, negative development.” He adds that Beijing is not concerned only with the NSR, according to Chinese officials. Nakanune.ru suggests in an article this week that China merely wants a voice in the Arctic and in the development of areas of Russia adjoining China. These are areas that Moscow has long assumed to be its own by right.

Vasily Koltashov, an expert at Moscow’s Plekhanov University of Economics, argues that Beijing would make investments that Russia needs without challenging Moscow’s position if Putin can control Xi. The risk, according to Koltashov is that, if Moscow’s own position deteriorates further or if the Kremlin fails to manage the situation well, China will exploit the circumstances and Russia will be “transformed into the periphery of China,” an outcome Putin clearly does not desire but may be unable to prevent. Russian analyst Igor Yushkov of Moscow’s Financial University, argues that what happened at the summit shows that Xi Jinping is thinking in more expansive terms than Russia, focusing on the Arctic as a whole rather than simply the NSR. In recent months, Goble points out, Russia has sought to create an alternative to the Arctic Council, one involving China and other Asian countries to make it less of a target for Western boycotts. “Not accidentally, this group played a key role at a meeting in Yakutsk of Arctic researchers that took place during the same week as the Putin-Xi meeting,” he adds. The Russian publication, Nezavisimaya Gazette, reports that this is yet another indication of Russia’s turn to the East as far as the Arctic is concerned and Beijing’s exploitation of Moscow’s move, especially when it comes to programs and policies affecting the region. Xi Jinping may not own the “keys to the Arctic” today, but there are indications that the balance of power in the region is shifting in favor of Beijing. Goble says this “could have the potential of leading some who fear the rise of China relative to Russia to go public and exploit long-standing Russian fears that Beijing is planning to absorb parts of the Russian Federation.”

Daria served in the U.S. State Dept.

So far this week we’ve witnessed Putin’s nuclear blackmail against the West, Moscow’s arrest of a Wall Street Journal reporter, and an expansive Russian domestic propaganda campaign toting the benefits of nuclear war. Last Saturday, March 25, Putin formally announced his intent to station nuclear weapons in Belarus “without violating our international agreements on nuclear non-proliferation.” What is going on inside the Kremlin? That is what analysts in Washington are trying to determine this week. On Sunday the United Nation’s Security Council confirmed Kyiv has asked for an emergency meeting to consider President Putin’s latest threat: the stationing of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus’ silos. 

“Ukraine expects effective actions to counteract the Kremlin’s nuclear blackmail from the United Kingdom, China, the United States and France… We demand that an extraordinary meeting of the UN Security Council be immediately convened for this purpose,” the Ukrainian foreign ministry said.

This is an attempt by Russia to contain Western actions against Russia and discourage the United States from its ongoing support of Ukraine. Earlier this week Josep Borrel, the EU’s foreign policy chief, met in Brussels and announced that Europe was ready to impose new sanctions on Belarus if it allowed Russia to reinstall nuclear weapons in its silos. 

They have been maintained, but sitting empty, since the disintegration of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact two decades ago. Borrel tweeted that fear in Europe is growing that Russia will use the smaller battlefield-sized nuclear weapons, called “tactical” weapons, and not the higher-powered, longer range “strategic” weapons. Putin previously has talked publicly about using the tactical weapons against NATO and Ukrainian forces. The threshold for employing them is considered lower, since the kill area and region contaminated is smaller and more likely to fall below the threshold requiring a major response from the West.

In response to reactions to Putin’s Saturday announcement, he tried to claim the move to deploy the  weapons “nothing unusual” and that Washington was “totally misleading” in how it presented the situation. “The United States has been doing this for decades. They have long placed their tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of their allies,” Putin said. 

Reports coming out of Russia appear to indicate the country will start training crews on April 3 and intends to finish construction of a special storage facility for tactical nuclear weapons by July 1. Germany and NATO rejected Putin’s comments about Western actions, with a German foreign affairs official calling it deceptive and that “The comparison made by President Putin to nuclear sharing in NATO is misleading and does not justify the step announced by Russia.” NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu pointed out that “Russia’s reference to NATO’s nuclear sharing is totally misleading. NATO allies act with full respect of their international commitments.” She added that Putin actions are “dangerous and irresponsible.” This week Washington and NATO headquarters independently confirmed that there is no intent to change the Western nuclear posture in Europe.    

Just over a year ago Belarus allowed Russia to use its territory to launch Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Belarus’ leader Alexander Lukashenko is considered a close ally of Putin’s but also stated his country would become involved in the war “only if attacked.” Ukrainian officials consider Belarus a “nuclear hostage” of Putin’s and that it is intensifying the internal destabilization of Belarus. One Russian official blamed a British official for inciting Russia by saying that depleted uranium weapons ought to be sent to Ukraine. In response a Kremlin official claimed the country  has “what it needs to answer” if the West supplied Ukraine with such ammunition. “Without exaggeration, we have hundreds of thousands of such shells. We have not used them yet.”  

What is particularly problematic is that officials below Putin are no less ruthless and unlikely to restrain the Russian leader should he give the order for a nuclear strike against Ukrainian or NATO member state forces. Under Section 5 of the NATO Charter, member states agree that “an armed attack against one or more of them… shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked….” The war in Ukraine could quickly morph into a region-wide conflagration akin if Putin feels backed into a corner with no other option. 

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

Illustration: Pixabay

There has rarely been so substantial, and detrimental, a turnaround in foreign policy equal to that in U.S.-Saudi relations over the past several years.

During Trump’s tenure, Washington and Riyadh were unprecedently close.  It was part of a larger success in the Middle East, headlined by his Administration’s peace deals with Israel, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. The Saudi’s were a major asset in countering Iran’s malign influence in the region.

That happy turn of events swiftly deteriorated under Joe Biden.

The disastrous result has been the alienation of a key Middle Eastern ally. The Saudi’s have moved substantially closer to China. The two nations agreed to 35 deals valued at $29.6 billion. Even more worrisome, Riyadh and Beijing inked a “comprehensive strategic partnership agreement.”

Many members of the Senate  have decried the current White Houses’ missteps in the region, noting that:

“President Biden entered office with a Middle East united against the Iranian threat and on the heels of the Abraham Accords, an unprecedented boon to Middle East peace. Under these agreements, struck in 2020, four Arab states – the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan – agreed to recognize the State of Israel and opened the door to further cooperation. The Biden administration quickly undid that progress. From the start, he put politics ahead of policy in his zeal to restart the failed Iran nuclear deal, simply to make good on a campaign promise. In courting Tehran, the administration removed the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen from the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations and ended U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s and the UAE’s war against the group. The administration delayed an arms deal with Saudi Arabia and the UAE and withdrew air defense systems, caving to progressive demands to end the war while our allies faced Houthi attacks against civilian infrastructure. Buoyed by the administration’s actions, the Houthis launched renewed offensives in Yemen and increasingly threatened our partners. When Iran-supported militia groups targeted Americans in Iraq and Syria with rockets and drones last summer, the administration barely reacted. In a dogged effort to keep the nuclear deal alive, the Biden administration has not conducted a strike against Iranian proxies since October 2021, and regional deterrence is sorely lacking. The Israelis, to whom Iran poses an existential threat, have deeply and publicly disagreed with the administration’s approach. President Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan last August confirmed fears that he was willing to abandon our allies…” 

The inexplicable tilt towards Iran by the Biden Administration (similar to that by the Obama White House) is a major factor. The Saudis depended on the U.S. as a bulwark against Tehran’s expansionist threat. Despite Iran’s ongoing nuclear program (now believed to be mere months away from the ability to construct atomic weapons,) its support for violence throughout the region, its provision of weapons to Putin for use in the invasion of Ukraine and its purchase of Russian advanced fighter aircraft, the current White House continues its softness on the nation.

A New Republic review called Biden’s 2022 Middle Eastern trip “Nothing short of a disaster.”

Author Joel Pollack notes that “President Trump signed the Abraham Accords, creating a network of peace deals between Israel and many Arab and Muslim states. Biden has punished many of the key players: raising tariffs on the United Arab Emirates (UAE); withholding arms sales to the UAE and Saudi Arabia; de-listing the anti-Saudi, pro-Iran Houthi militia as a terror group; publishing an intelligence report naming the Saudi Crown Prince as a key player in the murder of Jamal Khashoggi; and appointing the same pro-Iran diplomats who crafted the disastrous Iran nuclear deal. All Biden had to do was continue where Trump had left off, rewarding Arab and Muslim countries that made peace, and maintaining pressure on Iran. But Biden’s foreign policy team, apparently blinded by the conviction that everything Trump did must necessarily be wrong, continues to repeat the mistakes of the Obama administration, which appeased Iran and allowed it to cause regional chaos.”

Illustration: Pixabay

How did the jury come to its decision to acquit Mark Houck in the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances so quickly?  Now that the trial is over, video evidence submitted at the trial has become available for public view. That evidence clearly demonstrates that the Justice Department never really had a case against Houck from the beginning.  

In a surveillance video taken on the day of the incident, Houck and his son can be seen standing 50 feet away from the entrance to the clinic.  Love is then seen approaching the pair, and standing close to the young son.  Houck than points over Love’s shoulder, in a gesture that unmistakably conveys a request to leave, and Love begins to comply, but then turns back to face Houck.  Houck then pushes Love, who collapses to the ground, but then returns immediately to his feet.

All of these actions occurred approximately 50 feet away from the entrance of the clinic.  Love is not in the process of escorting any patient into the clinic – in fact, Love leaves the front of the clinic to approach Houck and his son, who are obviously minding their own business.

As described by Houck’s attorney, Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, the video clip from the surveillance camera, available on YouTube, was the only film available of the incident, the director of Security at the clinic having erased the footage from all other surveillance cameras.  He also noted that this video was available to the Justice Department from the time their office decided to bring a case – video which shows Houck NOT blocking the entrance to the clinic, or interfering in any way with anyone’s receipt of services at the clinic.

As Attorney Breen stated to Fox News, “What we did was win a big victory for the pro-life movement against the Biden administration…(t)hey were trying to scare pro-lifers from coming out on the sidewalks and being active. Biden, that DOJ, sent their best prosecutor, the top guy for (FACE) prosecutions from Washington, to help deal with this case in Philly and that jury, once we finally got it seated fully, took about an hour to find Mark not guilty on all charges.”  

It is no small thing to assert that the Justice Department is using its authority and power to intimate private citizens.  But here, the evidence is clear.  From a large contingent of armed government agents used to effect the arrest, to a jury trial conducted over five days, it only took a jury one hour to see what the government would not – that this incident may have been a misdemeanor assault, but it was not, in any way, a violation of a federal statute.

Sadly, the progressive District Attorney of Philadelphia showed more sense than the US Attorney’s Office.  But Krasner doesn’t have the same agenda as the Justice Department.

We can also point to another positive development, a glimmer of hope that the Justice Department has recognized the failure of their heavy-handed attempt at intimidation of just one side in the abortion debate.

“Jane’s Revenge…claimed responsibility for at least 18 arson and vandalism attacks on crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) and other faith-based organizations throughout the U.S. since the May 2 (2022) leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization…(yet)…Not a single arrest has been made.”  

That is – until now.

“Two Florida residents were indicted by a federal grand jury for spray-painting threats on reproductive health services facilities in the state,”  according to a Press Release from the Justice Department. “The indictment, returned by a federal grand jury in the Middle District of Florida, alleges that Caleb Freestone, 27, and Amber Smith-Stewart, 23, engaged in a conspiracy to prevent employees of reproductive health services facilities from providing those services. According to the indictment, as part of the conspiracy, the defendants targeted pregnancy resource facilities and vandalized those facilities with spray-painted threats….including ‘If abortions aren’t safe than niether [sic] are you,’ ‘YOUR TIME IS UP!!,’ ‘WE’RE COMING for U,’ and ‘We are everywhere,’ on a reproductive health services facility in Winter Haven, Florida. The indictment further alleges that facilities in Hollywood, Florida, and Hialeah, Florida, were also targeted.  

Most likely ignorant of the concept of irony, Pro Abortion activists have decried the use of the FACE Act to prosecute Freestone and Smith-Stewart.  “’This is yet another example of the government disproportionately charging alleged activists with serious crimes in an attempt to deter political opposition to the fall of Roe post Dobbs,’ Lauren Regan, the director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center and attorney for defendant Smith-Stewart, (said). ‘Tagging private property might be a violation, but it should not be a federal crime’…’The level of bothsideism here by the DOJ goes beyond absurdity. Frankly, this is something I would have expected to see from the Trump Administration,’ said Hayley McMahon, a public health researcher who studies abortion and criminalization at Emory University…the Justice Department is ‘setting an incredibly irresponsible precedent for recognizing CPCs as medical facilities that provide reproductive health services.’” 

Both Freestone and Smith-Stewart are allegedly members of Miami Antifa.  According to Antifa Watch, “Freestone has a history of attending school board meetings, where he was making lists of parents and community members concerned about CRT. (Smith-Stewart) openly ID’s as Miami-Dade antifa on Facebook…” 

The two activists were arrested at the end of January, apparently without the use of 20-30 FBI Agents, and were both granted release pending trial,  unlike Houck, who  was required to post $10,000 bond, surrender his passport,  and “restrict() his travel to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania unless he receive(d) permission to leave from Pretrial Services, (as well as)…surrender any firearms he may possess.”  

Is there still disparate treatment between Pro Life and Pro Abortion defendants?  Clearly.  But the acquittal of Houck and the indictments of Freestone and Smith-Stewart at hopeful steps in the right direction.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

In November of last year, we discussed the case brought by the Justice Department against Pro Life activist Mark Houck for a violation of the “FACE” Act – the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances – which  “provides for criminal penalties including up to one year in prison for a first offense, if that person ‘by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services.’”

Mr. Houck was arrested at his home by approximately 25-30 FBI Agents after his indictment for a FACE Act violation.  His crime?  In October of 2021, “Houck was outside the Planned Parenthood Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center abortion clinic in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, praying with his 12 year old son (Houck and his wife have 7 children).  An unidentified man (who has since been identified as 72 year old Bruce Love, a ‘volunteer patient escort’ for the clinic) approached”  Houck and his 12 year old son. “According to Houck’s wife…the man ‘kind of came into [the son’s] personal space’…Mark shoved him away from his child, and the guy fell back… He didn’t have any injuries or anything.” 

Love made a complaint with the local Philadelphia authorities, who declined to pursue a case.  This is no unimportant fact – the District Attorney of Philadelphia is Larry Krasner, an unabashed progressive, who is “focused on restoring balance to our criminal justice system, ending the era of mass incarceration, and moving beyond the false promises of overly –punitive policies,” as well as “committed to ending overly punitive practices that disproportionately affect Black people, people of color, and poor people.”  

Apparently Krasner’s progressive goals did not extend to the aggressive prosecution of a Pro Life Activist who pushed an Abortion Clinic Volunteer away from the activist’s young son.

Why then were federal authorities interested in bringing criminal charges?  As we noted in November, quoting  Hans von Spakovsky and Charles Stimson of the Heritage Foundation, “(i)t is not a coincidence…that this takedown of someone who, at best, committed a misdemeanor assault came almost exactly three months after the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overruled Roe v. Wade…(t)he FBI’s raid of Houck’s home was designed to send a warning to pro-life activists engaging in activities protected by the First Amendment…(t)he timing of this indictment of Houck…is suspect and calls into question the motive behind the Justice Department’s move.”  

The idea that the Justice Department engages in the selective prosecution of citizen’s engaged in activity of which the government does not approve is chilling indeed – especially when that government sends more than two dozen armed agents to storm the home of a peaceful, prayerful man and his family.  But we are fortunate that our government is composed of more than one branch, and if the Executive (here, the Justice Department) commits an overreach in its authority, there is another branch of government that can correct that excess.

Sometimes, it is the Legislative Branch that must restrain the Executive.  But in this instance, the correction has been made by the Judicial Branch, through the exercise of one of our most basic Constitutional rights – trial by jury.

In January of this year, after a trial lasting five days, Mark Houck was found not guilty by a jury that deliberated for only about one hour.   “The prosecution argued that Houck pushed Love because he was trying to interfere with his provision of reproductive health services. Houck said he pushed Love because he was just trying to protect his 12-year-old son who was being harassed by Love. A 12-person jury unanimously found Houck not guilty of both counts of violating the FACE Act.”  

The article concludes tomorrow

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

Illustration: Pixabay

American school children are taught stereotyping is bad. At first glance that sounds correct, but in reality, it can suffice as a short-term, interim solution to the challenge of understanding “the other.” When there is an unknown factor and no other information is available, stereotyping is the first line of human defense and  provides a form of general understanding of our external environment. If one sees a person with a gun, our human senses alert us to potential danger. Our brains then gather additional information and “should” adjust our behavior to reflect the new information. Is the person in a uniform? Or, are they wearing a black ski mask over their face? In the international community the United States often is in a position where the only information we have about “the other” is stereotypical data. It may provide some general guidance, but more is required to increase the accuracy of our foreign policy assumptions and decision making.

Americans are at a great disadvantage in the world. Over 54% of Europeans are able to converse in more than one language and over 10% can speak at least three. With the study of foreign languages often comes improved cross-cultural understanding. There are over 380 languages spoken in American homes, yet most US citizens speak one. Only five percent claim to speak three languages and only 1.4% can converse in four. Our cultural knowledge and understanding of history is also severely limited. In today’s fragile international environment, Americans need to obtain a better cognitive understanding of the world around us and the ethnic groups within various foreign nation-states. Today we are facing geoeconomic conflict with China and a potential kinetic war in Europe with Russia, among other challenges. Yet the vast majority of Americans, and many of our leaders in Washington, have little knowledge of what goes on inside those nation-states. 

The Russian Federation encompasses a number of ethnic and regional groups that challenge the leadership in Moscow. Yet Americans treat Russia as a simple black box with little indication of interest in what goes on inside it. Since the war in Ukraine last year Putin has taken additional steps, for example, to control its Cossack population. Few Americans know this group’s history or its impact on the Russian Federation. Many policymakers in Washington also stereotype this ethnic group. The US understands Russia as one country, although each July the country celebrates Captive Nations Week. The resolution actually speaks about occupied Cossakia and the Russian law on rehabilitating nations that were repressed in Soviet times. The name Cossack, or Kazak, is a Turkish word meaning “free man” or “adventurer.” The dialect they often speak is the Kuban-Black Sea Balachka which started as a central Ukrainian dialect, ot a Russian one. There were a number of Cossack uprisings against the Russian Empire during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. Today they remain the most serious ethnic challenge to Kremlin rule inside the Russian Federation, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Federation. 

Putin is attempting to control the Cossacks using census manipulation and the creation of regime-controlled Cossack organizations to repress the ethnic group. As “free men” they are becoming more active and leaving the Kremlin with few effective policy options, according to a Free Nation League article last November. North Caucus Weekly, according to Goble, reports that “Since the end of the Soviet Union, Moscow has viewed the Cossacks as both an opportunity and a danger, and this combination has often confused observers as to what exactly is the Kremlin’s overarching plan.” 

Counted as Russian they could be an ally and help with the Federation’s failing demographic outlook. “They can play a key role in holding ethnic Russians in the North Caucasus and other non-Russian regions from which they are leaving and in providing cadres for Russia’s police force and military,” adds Goble.  The five to seven million unregistered Cossacks, according to Russian state officials, pose a threat to aspirations of the Kremlin leadership as they view themselves as repressed, self-organizing democratic communities seeking to gain recognition as a sovereign nation. Looking inside the Russian state, the “black box,” some intelligence community analysts who study the region says that Cossack actions are impacting other “nations” within Russia as well and adding to calls for increased regionalism that could further fragment the Russian Federation.  

“If the Cossacks succeed in breaking away from the Russian nation, not only does that mean that Russia will lose another seven million members and 5 percent of the country’s population, but it will also set the stage for a more general rise in regionalism as a political force,” argues Goble. Should Siberians, residents of the Ural mountains, and other smaller ethnic groups decide to leave the Russian Federation, Putin would be left with little more than Moscow to rule. He was so concerned about this potentiality that in a February28 speech he called to the Federal Security Bureau Board he called on its forces to actively resist “all this scum” who are trying to split and weaken Russian society. Putin views the Cossacks separatists and radicalizing other non-Russian groups inside the country. He is demanding Cossacks become Russian Orthodox in religion and work as servants of the state. 

The war in Ukraine has increasingly led Cossacks to see it as an opportunity to form their own state in alliance with Kyiv and the West. Eurasia Daily Monitor reports that some, who now call it “Cossackia,” recognize the region as a “potentially powerful bulwark against Russian imperialism.” It may not occur but it is a clear case that requires an understanding of Cossack history, culture, and language that goes beyond the capabilities of many policy makers in Washington. 

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

Illustration: Pixabay

China is facing off with the Great Wall of Capitalism, in a competition unlike any other since the end of the Cold War. President Xi Jinping portrays it as a rising China reclaiming its rightful place in the world by challenging and defeating a declining West. Ramping up the competition since assuming office in 2012, Xi is determined to take on American dominance across the Indo-Pacific. A Jamestown Foundation report released this week, examines the possibility that this new Sino-American Cold War could turn “hot” over issues such Taiwan.

Although the US, NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia are working together, China has allied itself with Russia and other non-democratic states, including Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan. China is using these states to prevent the formation of an Asian style NATO in the Indo-Pacific, according to Willy Wo-Lap Lam of the Jamestown Foundation. He says that the Chinese response has been to continue supporting their long-time quasi-ally Russia, which has further inflamed positions surrounding Russia’s war in Ukraine.  

It appears the US and China are on an irreversible spiral despite protestations from both sides about its nonexistence. President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken have publicly state the US is “not looking for a Cold war,” although Blinken last year in a speech did say “China is the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order – and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military and technological power to do it.” The reality is that the United States and China are involved in a Cold War. In Beijing Lam says that Xi warned that “efforts to form cliques [of nations] and to foment a ‘new Cold War,’ ostracism and intimidation… will only push the world toward disintegration and even confrontation.” He adds that a number of Chinese academics blame Washington for escalating tensions and creating a self-fulfilling prophesy. What China claims is dependent on the audience, according to the Jamestown Foundation report. It notes that at the G20 meeting in Bali last November, Xi vowed to Biden that the PRC had no intention of challenging American supremacy. “This wide world can accommodate the developments of China and the US,” according to the Chinese president. 

At internal meetings of the CCP leadership, however, Xi uses revolutionary lines from Mao proclaiming “the East is rising and the West is declining.” Lam says that Xi considers the “Chinese program and Chinese path” so superior that it is only a matter of a decade or so before the PRC can claim superpower status – as well as being the final arbiter of events first in Asia and then the rest of the world. The recent Chinese surveillance balloons that flew over the United States are, according to Lam, an attempt by Beijing that demonstrate their military and intelligence clout. In the past Xi has provided a timetable for overtaking the US. He says China will overtake the US as the world’s sole superpower between 2035 and 2049. It is significant that that the latter dates marks 100 years since the founding of the PRC. 

Other American allies, according to the report, have also raised the level of their concern about the “China threat” to unprecedentedly high levels. It notes British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said he supported a hardening of diplomatic relations with Beijing, since China posed a “systemic challenge to our values and interests.” One difference between the current environment and that of the first Cold War is that for a long time the US was enamored with China. It lasted until a decade ago. 

The Jamestown Foundation report argues that the “’China Fantasy,’ which underpinned a policy of engagement largely followed by presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, was that as the PRC became rich, its citizens would follow the rebellious students in Tiananmen Square and regard the Statue of Liberty as the icon of freedom and justice.” In a pivotal moment, President Clinton even encouraged China to join the World Trade Organization. China’s culture is one that values long-term planning. Xi is a nationalist with the goal of creating a “great renaissance of the Chinese nation.” 

 The PRC’s global influence, however, is much more extensive than that of the former Soviet Empire. China has extensive resources, a large economy, and through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), is willing to weaponize trade to achieve it. Lam points out that the first five-year BRI budget of $1 trillion was seven times the amount the US spent on the Marshall Plan after WWII. Together with its soft power influence operations and world-wide propaganda world there are solid reasons for the democratic West needs to be concerned about China. The Great Wall of Capitalism will need to be strong in the coming years as many in the intelligence community believe that China sees its window of opportunity beginning to close. That makes Xi and China more dangerous and less predictable.

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

Photo: Chinese tank on practice maneuvers (China Defence Ministry)

The phrase “what is in the US national interest” gets bantered around a lot in the US media. Most of the talk now is centered now on discussions surrounding Russia’s year-long war in Ukraine. There is, however, more backstory to consider than simply addressing the issue of US involvement in a European war. Due in part to the Biden Administration’s lack of a comprehensive foreign policy addressing the Ukraine issue, the Russian leadership sees the United States as weak and befuddled. Unlike the four years of the Trump Administration, the Obama-Biden White House was marred by promises made through then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev to Putin that the US president would have more “flexibility” on decisions regarding missile defense systems for Poland and Czechoslovakia after the elections. The Obama-Biden White House then followed through by stopping their delivery. 

Russian political culture requires an esteemed leader to adhere to strong man politics and never reveal any weakness. Following in Obama’s footsteps, the Biden-Harris years are marked by a lack of strong leadership or a comprehensive foreign policy in which Washington acts as leader of the free world. Putin understood this when he invaded Ukraine. And, he was correct. There was no strong or immediate reaction from Washington, which signaled Moscow to go ahead with its special military operation.

What is significant this month is that the White House is continuing to message Moscow, intended or not, that the US “reset” under Obama is ongoing. Biden appears unwilling to become more involved in the war as it is seen as outside of “US vital interests,” despite the threat to Ukraine and NATO Member states. Last week Florida governor Ron DeSantis “kicked the foreign policy establishment hornets’ nest” in his response to a questionnaire Tucker Carlson sent to potential 2024 Republican primary candidates, according to Front Page Magazine’s Bruce Thornton. Asked about our Ukraine policy, DeSantis wrote that the Russo-Ukrainian war was simply a “territorial dispute.” Left unaddressed, says Thornton, were questions about whether our “vital national interests” are being served by our open-ended, yet hesitant support of Ukraine. It is an issue that needs addressing and not by using weak diplo-rhetorical language.  

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called US involvement in his country an “investment.” Although the United States is beginning to step up, it is late in doing so. That has not gone unnoticed by Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping. Putin needs China to continue directly, or indirectly, funding his war effort in Ukraine. Xi also has noticed a lack of American leadership in the Pacific region and has taken advantage of it. China has seized East Asian islands belonging to other countries, used its navy to control vast swaths of the South China Sea, and employed its air force to monitor and threaten free international airspace. This past week Xi Jinping flew to Moscow for discussions with Putin. 

The meeting is seen as a bit of a role reversal from the Cold War era, in which Russia was the dominant partner. Putin needs China’s financial backing to pay for the war this year. At the same time, many in the US defense and intelligence community argue that it is Xi who actually needs Russia to keep America distracted for the next two to four years while Beijing finalizes its preparations for taking back Taiwan. The Chinese leadership views the US as a declining state with a weak president. Xi, many analysts suggest, would like to use Putin to further weaken the US. He will need to take a nuanced approach with the Russian leader. If China grows too close to Putin publicly Beijing could suffer from additional economic sanctions and possibly further unify the West against China. What is certain is that what’s in the US national interest is not in line with that of either Russia or China. Putin knows the trilateral relationship is changing. He is not going to back down. This war may be Russia’s last chance to regain territory, prestige, and retain some semblance of recognition as an important nation-state. Putin also knows that China holds the high cards now and that an all out push in Ukraine may be the only avenue left to Russia.

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