Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

A very small preview of a potentially catastrophic disaster that could devastate the United States and destroy the majority of its population has been seen in recent events in several states.

Attacks on six electrical substations in North Carolina, Oregon, and Washington State have left tens of thousands of people without power in those areas. The problem will be resolved as resources from across the nation will be utilized to restore power.

It is a limited problem, but events resulting from natural causes or an enemy attack could disable power, computers and more throughout the entire nation in a matter of seconds.  The damage would not be repairable.  The entire electrical generating resources of America could be eliminated, and there are no immediate replacements. 

The effects would be calamitous.  Without power, and without the means to move people and goods (an EMP would also render all trains, planes, and automobiles useless, since all those modes of transportation rely on both electronics and computer systems) or the means to pump water, approximately 90% of the American population would die of starvation and thirst within a relatively short period of time. Those dependent on the miracles of modern medicine, including pacemakers and other devices, would face an even quicker death.

 It could take decades to replace the destroyed power structure.

In September of 1859, a geomagnetic storm from the sun wreaked havoc in the small amount of electronics in use at the time, causing fires in telegraph stations.

A 2020  joint study by the University of Warwick and the British Antarctic Survey, reported in the journal EarthSky,  used historical data to extend scientists’ previous estimates of the likelihood of space super-storms. “These storms may originate with solar flares, seen to erupt explosively on the sun during years of high solar activity. …The new work shows that what the scientists called “great” super-storms occurred in 6 years out of 150. An event such as the 1859 Carrington Event has a 0.7% chance of occurring each year.”

The effect, known as an “electromagnetic pulse” or EMP, could also result from an enemy attack. The federal EMP Commission warned that “The high-altitude nuclear weapon-generated electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is one of a small number of threats that has the potential to hold our society seriously at risk and might result in defeat of our military forces… What is different now is that some potential sources of EMP threats are difficult to deter—they can be terrorist groups that have no state identity, have only one or a few weapons, and are motivated to attack the US without regard for their own safety. Rogue states, such as North Korea and Iran, may also be developing the capability to pose an EMP threat to the United States, and may also be unpredictable and difficult to deter…Certain types of relatively low-yield nuclear weapons can be employed to generate potentially catastrophic EMP effects over wide geographic areas, and designs for variants of such weapons may have been illicitly trafficked for a quarter-century.”

A study by the Gatestone Institute found that “…an EMP attack from a single 10-kiloton nuclear weapon — of the type now in North Korea’s arsenal — could cause cascading failures…An EMP, detonated at an altitude above 30-70 kilometers, could be delivered by a short-range missile fired off a freighter, hundreds of kilometers off U.S. shores.”

According to the Free Beacon’s Bill Gertz, the report states that “China, Russia, and Iran consider the use of high-altitude nuclear blasts as ‘sixth generation warfare’ that could cripple the ability of U.S. military to wage war using advanced electronic systems for intelligence, navigation, and precision weapons guidance. ‘Nuclear EMP attack is part of the military doctrines, plans, and exercises of Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran for a revolutionary new way of warfare against military forces and civilian critical infrastructures by cyber, sabotage, and EMP.’”

The Trump Administration had warned of the danger, but no concrete actions were taken, and the Biden Administration has not followed up.

Illustration: Pixabay

There is a reason why so many absurd ideas dominate our national conversation.

Those who write or report are subjected to a culture of cancelation and censorship as never before in American history by the progressive crowd. To keep their jobs on newspapers or television, or on the faculty of educational institutions, many have been forced to comply with ridiculous woke concepts that, in a fair discussion, would be exposed for the nonsense they are. 

Consider the sheer foolishness that has become accepted as absolute truth in the nation today, in defiance of clear evidence and common sense.

The idea that you can simply wish into existence that which does not exist dominates radical thinking on climate issues. Someday, perhaps as soon as a half century from now, alternative energy sources sufficient to replace fossil fuels may be invented.  But today is not fifty years into the future. The drive to replace existing fuels with wind and solar is a ruinous pipedream.  At most, these sources can meet only about 20% of world needs.  The total lack of regard for families that will have to choose between heating their homes or buying groceries is a cruelty. Disregarding how this is destroying our national economy and family budgets is callous.

The jihad against fossil fuels and the dismantling of nuclear power plants in the United States and Europe has been an exercise in irrationality. Future historians will marvel how advanced societies devolved into madness.

The reasons cited for doing so have been proven false over and over again. No, the planet is not facing unprecedented warming. Indeed, there has been no appreciable warming for decades. The 1920’s endured hotter temperatures than today. Western droughts have been a factor for millennia.   Native American groups have had to occasionally change their locations for thousands of years due to water sources drying up. England in 1066 had warmer temperatures than exist there today. Rome during the reign of the Caesars prospered in hotter climatic conditions. The so-called “proofs” of current global climate change rely on falsified data, most notably the great fraud of the East Anglia research that forms so much of the basis of the current argument. Yes, in some places there have been warmer temperatures, most notably in the Arctic.  But the climate Cassandras don’t want you to know that the last two winters in Antarctica have been some of the coldest on record.

A lot of powerful people have made a lot of money from all this.  From politically-connected companies that have taken massive amounts of dollars from Washington, to politicians like Al Gore and John Kerry, the only thing heated up has been their bank accounts. Barack Obama warned us all that our shorelines would soon be flooded, and then purchased an $11 million dollar home on the coast of Martha’s Vineyard.  

Some have pointed to intense hurricanes, particularly, as “proof,” especially Katrina which devastated New Orleans.  But at the time that city was founded, local Native Americans warned that the site was inappropriate due to, you guessed it, periodic major hurricanes.

There is an even larger issue than disagreements about climate change allegations or the viability of alternative energy sources. That is the arrogance of insisting that those “heretics” “denying” the left’s positions be censored and cancelled, an increasingly common tactic of the progressive crowd.

Somehow, in the 21^st Century, our public discourse resembles that which took place during the Salem Witch Trials or the Spanish Inquisition. Rather than honestly reviewing contrary ideas or evidence that disputes the establishment point of view, our current media moguls and political leaders in Congress and the White House simply seek to figuratively burn their opponents at the stake.

Illustration: Pixabay

China is developing a modern, global basing network for its military that could reshape the global economy and international order by 2040, yet only two decades ago Brookings Institution labeled the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) a “hollow military.” The PLA scorecard is vastly different today. Chinese aggressive behavior coupled with its advanced capabilities create a formidable challenge to the US in many areas. At the same time, the 2023 Index of US Military Strength reports that America’s military is weaker than only a year ago. That raises a number of questions that the world needs to be considering right now. Most important, perhaps, is to learn why China’s pursuing an overseas basing strategy. And, second, where is China most likely to pursue its next bases. 

RAND Corporation released a new report this week that pulls together information from two longer RAND Arroyo Center reports. It notes that historical cases suggest China “could develop a global basing network within the next 20 years if it is determined to do so.” While the global role of the PLA remains clouded in mystery, the political leadership in Beijing has been more open about its determination to emerge within the next two decades as a leading global military power. Jesse Johnson, writing for The Japan Times, says that the message out of Washington this fall is “one of deep concern that the [Chinese] military has become significantly more aggressive in Asia,” and that at some point there will be a “major incident or accident involving the United States.”

China’s technological advances put it on par with the United States in many areas, including artificial intelligence (AI). With assistance from host nations, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is rapidly expanding its ability to project power beyond its coastal waters and into the Western hemisphere. China is also acquiring access to overseas military bases and port facilities around the world. The prime motivation for Beijing’s military policy calls for expanding its presence abroad to protect its growing interests. Economic growth abroad serves as the foundation for the China Communist Party’s (CCP) legitimacy. But China’s leaders are also pushing for a policy shift that requires a more forceful military response to what it perceives as threats to its national security and sovereignty. Although the RAND report suggests that imposing costs on the US or other nation’s is only a secondary consideration, it still needs to be addressed by Washington. The authors of the RAND report evaluated 108 countries, across 17 indicators, and identified 24 countries that may be especially well suited to Beijing’s pursuit of basing and access. “The four countries that scored the highest across these indicators are Pakistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, and Myanmar,” it says.

Most disconcerting is that China could gain rights for military bases in these countries, as they are among the most likely to face “acute security requirements that they cannot meet without foreign support.” They also pose a risk for both the US and China as domestic instability in them could end up drawing the United States into an unwanted conflict with the communist giant. The RAND report authors argue that such new large-scale overseas military bases have a potential to disrupt local balances of power and risk triggering both internal and interstate wars. “In the longer-term future, China’s global basing ambitions might touch off peripheral wars with the potential to draw in China and the United States.” To offset China’s military rise overseas, some western analysts are advising Washington to build and strengthen its overseas partnerships. 

There are a number of steps Washington policymakers can take to slow China’s aggressive behavior. They require decisive, well-planned steps and leadership, and the time is growing short. The Biden Administration needs to develop indications and warning for new overseas PLA locations and prioritize efforts to slow or impose costs on China’s quest for overseas basing before Beijing becomes to well-imbedded overseas. Economically, Washington still has the advantage in leveraging nonmilitary means to slow or minimize the PLA’s growing reach. RAND concludes that by strengthening our economic and military policy, the US could retain the capabilities and posture needed to protect America’s allies and partners in preparation for an expanded Chinese threat environment. Washington needs to recognize that China is no longer a “hollow threat” and respond from a position of strength. 

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

Photo: A fighter jet attached to an aviation brigade under the PLA Air Force fires rockets against ground targets during a flight training exercise on November 15, 2022. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Liang Pengyu)

The global warming debate has been raging for decades, starting soon after the global cooling idea was discarded.

The conversation has not consistently been scientific, with passion and politics frequently replacing logical discourse.  But following recent international decisions, the impact of suggested solutions to what many see as a threat is about to dramatically impact the lives of just about every American, draining resources from the U.S. and some other industrialized nations and transferring them to third world countries, some with unstable and frankly kleptomaniac regimes.

This Autumn, the  27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP27) took place in the Egyptian coastal city of Sharm el-Sheikh.  It concluded with a decision to establish and begin a loss/ damage fund.

Ironically, the nation which is now the planet’s biggest polluter, China, will bear no part of the cost or burden of the effort. China’s emissions are now about three times as large as that of the U.S., and it is massively increasing its use of coal.

Despite headlines and proclamations by climate extremists, there is no consensus on climate change. Nor is the evidence for human-caused warming that does not raise scientific questions..  It has been found that some data, including the foundational bedrock of key parts of global warming theory, have been falsified.  A notable example is the research presented by East Anglia University.  Nor is there “97%” agreement mong scientists about global warming.  The Number is actually closer to 59% in terms of causing actual harm to environment, according to a Fairleigh Dickenson University study. 

There is no consensus that the suggested remedies would be actually effective.

A Guardian review of the issue notes that [Climate Czar John Kerry] objected to the lion’s share of the blame being placed on the U.S.”  It has been reported that he was ‘sick’ of shouldering the blame, according to Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House climate adviser, now with the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington DC. ‘Somehow the US became the villain despite aggressive action on emissions, meanwhile Russia and China’s emissions are growing like crazy and yet they are not in the crosshairs of activists, it’s confusing…”

The Biden Administration seeks to cut U.S. emissions by 50-52 percent below 2005 levels in 2030, as well as paying “reparations” to third world countries. Already, the President’s energy policies have devastated the budgets of Americans, and spurred massive inflation.  Vast new spending will accelerate and magnify that already devastating impact. The Associated Press has reported that the “U.S. will pay up to $1 billion to compensate developing countries for global warming.”

Actions related to the White House proposal, whether based on science or not, to drastically cut emissions have serious side effects.  They make energy unaffordable for many.  They markedly harm the economy, clearly seen in the inflation caused by the Biden’s assault on U.S. energy independence. They tend to reward China, which produces products used in alternative energy production despite its own history of currently being the world’s greatest polluter.

Most of all, they tend to not actually have a serious impact on the very problem they seek to address. Indeed, most of the measures, such as those suggested by COP27 and elsewhere, have a lot more to do with pushing socialist-oriented wealth transfer schemes than with cleaning up the environment.

There is an alternative that is far more viable, economic, and practical.  Rather than seek to reverse the industrial revolution and plunge the globe into poverty, it employs science to create clean energy.

As this article goes to press, the U.S. Department of Energy has announced that it has made significant strides in the development of fusion power. When perfected, it would use a form of power generation that would generate electricity by using heat from nuclear fusion reactions. In a fusion process, two lighter atomic nuclei combine to form a heavier nucleus, while releasing energy. Devices designed to harness this energy are known as fusion reactors.

Placing resources into the development of fusion power which could successfully replace polluting fuels without bankrupting the global economy or indulging in wealth transfer schemes is the direction both the United States and the global community should take.

The federal government’s most important responsibility is to ensure the security of the nation, and the central means to achieve that is the provision of an adequate defense budget, a figure that generally represents about 14% of all Washington’s spending.

A bipartisan Congressional agreement has been achieved on the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It should be noted that while a deal has been reached within the legislative branch, the White House figure, which provided significantly less funding, has been rejected.  The “topline” figure agreed to by Congress is $858 billion, a substantial hike over the $813 billion Biden proposal.

The Executive Branch’s proposal did not reflect the intense and growing combined threats from China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and international terrorism. Dov Zakheim, In an article for The Hill, notes that    “The Biden administration’s fiscal year 2023 defense budget request is in equal parts disappointing and disturbing. It is disappointing because, when inflation is taken into account, it provides no real growth in defense spending, and most likely a real decline. It is disturbing because it has been released at a time when America’s worldwide commitments are as demanding as ever.“

Weaponry that exists merely on the drawing boards or in plans for the future don’t provide the degree of protection urgently required right now, an era fraught with danger. The NDAA addresses that by providing for readiness measures. It stops the early retirement of combat platforms, including the F-22 fighter.  As China seeks to expand its lead as the planet’s largest navy, NDAA for adding 11 Navy ships. This Puts the Navy back on track to building a 355 ship Navy. It restores funding for the sea-launched nuclear cruise missile. It reforms the National Defense Stockpile, and enhances the munitions industrial base. It also stops the bleed-off of personnel due to vaccine mandates, and politically-motivated woke agendas.

Just as aide to Ukraine was central to repulsing Moscow’s invasion and future plans for potential aggression, the NDAA provides for $10 billion over five years to provide for security assistance with Taiwan.

All the weaponry means little unless motivated skilled service members are present. The NDAA provides a 4.6% pay raise for service members. It also increased housing allowances and lowers prices at commissaries to offset inflationary pressures. It expands eligibility for low income military families to receive an additional allowances to cover basic needs.The NDAA Expands training availabilities for servicemembers, and improves the safety of the ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, and facilities.

Emerging technologies, such as AI, quantum computing, hypersonic weapons, and autonomous systems will receive investment, along with supply-chain and industrial strengthening.

It provides over $10 billion in service chief and combatant commander priorities left unfunded by the Biden Budget.

Some of the relatively modest hike in defense spending was approved in an effort to address inflationary pressures. Similar to what almost every American family is experiencing, the Pentagon is finding that its budget simply fails to go as far as it was planned to do when inflation has risen to levels not seen since 1982.

Increasing the defense budget comes at a time when it is urgently required.  As the noted research center the Jamestown Foundation notes, “ in early March, the Chinese government announced a defense budget of 1.45 trillion yuan (about $229 billion) for fiscal year 2022, which is a 7.1 percent year-on-year increase from 2021 … [a]fter years of double digit increases in the 2000s and early 2010s…An increase in Beijing’s defense budget raises red flags for China’s neighbors and the U.S. given the growing tensions over Taiwan, the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the Sino-Indian border dispute in the Himalayas.

Photo: An Air Force B-21(DoD)

The Biden Administration is disturbingly oblivious to the growing terrorist threat its own actions and policies have caused.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) recently outlined the issue. He noted that the White House is “deaf, dumb and blind to the national security threats we face.Whether it is the collapse of Afghanistan where the Taliban now reign or a completely broken southern border that could be easily penetrated by international terrorists, the Biden Administration is failing.”

The U.S. Office of the Inspector General found that “After meeting with more than 130 individuals from the Department of Homeland Security, we determined DHS encountered obstacles to screen, vet, and inspect all Afghan evacuees arriving as part of Operation Allies Refuge (OAR)/Operation Allies Welcome (OAW). Specifically, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) did not always have critical data to properly screen, vet, or inspect the evacuees. We determined some information used to vet evacuees through U.S. Government databases, such as name, date of birth, identification number, and travel document data, was inaccurate, incomplete, or missing. We also determined CBP admitted or paroled evacuees who were not fully vetted into the United States.”

Senator Graham’s comments came in response to a hearing in which National Security Division of the Department of Justice admitted that it did not know the number of border crossings, which is in the millions, from special interest countries designated as such because of their ties to terrorism. In addition, dozens of individuals have been apprehended at the southern border who are on terrorist watch lists.

His concerns were echoed by Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), along with a number of her colleagues, who expressed concern to Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Alejandro Mayorkas that

“The most devastating event would be an organized terrorist attack, originating from Afghanistan, against our homeland via our southern border … We are tremendously exposed, as the unrelenting surge of illegal immigration on our southern border is tying up resources, and taking our eye off the ball when it comes to terrorism, drugs, and crime. The Border Patrol union and others have raised concern regarding the diversion and misuse of resources at the border. We must not ignore their concerns.”

The letter noted that Terrorist groups that have already found a foothold in Central and South America, including in the Tri-Border area and elsewhere, now have an opportunity to enter the United States by way of Mexico. In the past nine months, the Border Patrol has apprehended at least 56 individuals who were on the Terrorist Screening Database. Given the unprecedented number of “got-aways” – 500,000 that known about since last October – it is a “near certainty” that other individuals on the Terrorist Screening Database have entered the United States undetected, via our open southern border.

The Senator’s concern is shared by Texas Governor Abbot, who recently tweeted “80+ terrorists on the Terrorist Watchlist have been encountered along our southern border since Pres. Biden took office.”

Abbott shared information from the Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division of the Texas Department of Public Safety’s (DPS) Fusion Center that revealed that 66 non-U.S. citizens on the federal Terrorist Screening Dataset (TSDS) have been encountered in areas between U.S. ports of entry (POEs) just in the 2022 fiscal year.

American Military News notes that the 81 terrorist watchlist encounters outside of the points of entry at the southern border since the start of fiscal year 2021 are more than seven times the number of those types of encounters from fiscal years 2017 through the end of fiscal year 2020. During those years, there were 11 recorded terrorist watchlist encounters between points of entry at the Southern border.

Photo: DHS Secretary Mayorkas

Italy changes government as often as some people buy shoes – new ones for each season. Last month Italy get again formed a new government led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.  She immediately began a public diplomacy effort. She attended meetings in Asia and Europe with world leaders with the intend to dispel rumors speculating that Italy was heading toward a possible “Magyarization” (“Hungarization”) of Italy’s foreign policy. Claudia Palazzo, of the Jamestown Foundation, notes that that this had been “concerning for Rome’s NATO and EU partners in the sense that the country might turn intransigent and isolated.”

Earlier this month, the Italian Parliament decreed that the government is allowed to supply military aid, by way of exception, to Ukraine without the need to seek new approvals from Parliament. This is an extension of Rome’s February 25 decree that was scheduled to conclude at the end of December. Palazzo argues that this extension has “much more consequential political meaning than its apparent eminently technical content.” Its content is remaining secret to limit Russian access to the information, although the press has revealed some details.  

The current makeup of the Italian Parliament, according to Palazzo, doesn’t permit Italian-Russian ties to directly impact its decision-making. But, she argues, it should be viewed from the perspective of Italy’s homeland security. At the beginning of December, Italy extended its military personnel’s participation in the NATO Very High Readiness joint Task Force. This comes after last month’s announcement by Defense Minister Guido Crosetto that Rome will pursue dedicating its “2% of GDP funds” for military spending as required by NATO.

Like much of Europe, Italy’s citizens are experiencing significant penetration of Russian propaganda and a high number of Russian operatives working in the “grey zones” of society and trade. Of concern to security officials is that foreign threats within Italy are operationally managers by law enforcement branches trained to respond only to domestic threats and may be less effective against Russia. This had led to a stalemate between Paris and Rome over migrant policy.

Immigration management, according to Palazzo, “can be easily magnified to shake the respective consensus that seems to have emerged in European public opinion, with each country hoping to push the European partners to pick their side.” The Balkan states, she adds, have been waiting for Rome to play a central role in mediating relations with the European Union (EU). So far, the new government appears to be continuing the policies of the previous one as well as maintaining a similar foreign policy that aligns with that of the United States NATO, and the EU. 

What is new is Rome’s attention to resolving issues in the Balkans, something the EU as a whole has been unable to accomplish. Italy’s newly independent foreign policy emphasizes leveraging its own ties to the region and capitalizing on how it holistically benefits the European community. Second, is a trend toward improving the defense and strategic aspects for cooperating with third countries. Palazzo suggests that this lies in the willingness and ability of Rome to leverage its assets, among which “military know-how and production capability are among the most significant,” and can serve as a solid basis for expanding cooperation and acquiring new partnerships. Etiene Soula, a research analyst with the Alliance for Securing Democracy, says that “Amidst the cascading effects of Russia’s war on Ukraine, soaring energy prices and rampant inflation negatively impacting the whole EU, the foreign policy outlook of the [European] Union’s third-largest economy will be particularly important over the coming months.” He points out that Italy’s policies towards Moscow, as well as the government’s approach to allies in Brussels and Washington, will be “critical” to maintaining a united front against Russia’s aggression while preserving European cohesion on sanctions and military support for Ukraine. It appears that Europe is developing a more unified position in responding to the Russian threat despite attempts by its intelligence operatives to influence opinions and previous Italian governments.

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

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.