Author: Daria Novak

Dictators like to dictate. Chinese President Xi Jinping is no different than other historical figures who used tyranny to control their country’s population. Although some are referred to in books more benevolently than others, a leader who represses the population will likely face a time when the political system he commands waivers in its support of the government’s harsh policies limiting freedom. The “color revolutions,” that once erupted in response to harsh Soviet, Eurasian, and Middle East dictatorships, may soon be making an appearance in China. It seems Xi’s star is beginning to dim after a series of bad economic decisions, loss of public confidence in the government and CCP, and world condemnation over China’s role in the Covid pandemic.

“A storm is brewing,” according to Roger Garside a former British diplomat and author of China Coup: The Great Leap to Freedom.” He predicts that 2023 will be the year that breaks Xi. He argues that if he is correct, “…it will destroy President Xi Jinping, and bring an end to the political system he is determined to defend.” He is not alone in his assessment. Lu Shaye, China’s ambassador to France, concurs that lately the wave of protests in China has “smelled of a color revolution.” When discussing the Chinese protests with journalists he talked about the “blank sheets” of paper held up by protesters. In an acknowledgment that the placards are symbolic of the population’s inability to speak freely, he reminded reporters that “White is a color, too.” It is not, however, the first time the CCP faced challenges from the citizenry or others inside the government. 

During the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstration, the head the political section at the Chinese Embassy in Washington was sympathetic to the protesters. His son, by birth part of the political elite, participated in the Tiananmen Square protest. The Chinese government is accused of killing thousands who refused to leave the Square. From behind the white curtains hanging on each side of the front door of the Embassy in Washington, diplomatic hands would appear waiving to the media and American public outside. They were small, but brave, acts of defiance. Thirty-three years ago, China was less connected to the world. The Internet was not widespread inside China and students were restricted in the overseas studies. The global supply chain today has changed as anyone who purchases electronics knows. China is intricately linked to the West. The storm brewing in Beijing today is in part a response to the failed response to the COVID epidemic, an economy that is struggling, and a loss of faith in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). 

Without the “mandate from Heaven,” the CCP is facing a crisis that Garside says marks that beginning of a white revolution. Xi’s recent relaxation and then abandonment of COVID restrictions comes at a very high health and political cost to the regime. Although the strategy has temporarily appeased the public, it revealed a weakness never seen before in the communist regime. The CCP historically is concerned that human rights or other protests could morph into anti-regime sentiment able to threaten the legitimacy of Party rule.

According to Garside, “Never before in the history of the People’s Republic has there been such a manifestation of weakness in the face of public demand.” In response to public demands Xi ordered the lifting of restrictions. He did so, however, without a plan in place to prepare for additional vaccinations, psychological support for the citizenry, or the strengthening of the country’s public health system. Protesters called the regime’s initial restrictions undeserved punishment and suggested that it exposed the inhumanity of the regime.

No freedom of speech is permitted that criticizes the failings of the government, the CCP leadership or the Party. In relaxing health restrictions without adequate planning Xi is walking a narrowing path.

The Party is covering up health data by suppressing the number of cases and COVID deaths. It indicates a grave loss of authority for the communist dictator. As of December, the wait at the crematoria in Beijing is passing five days. By the end of March, some analysts are predicting demand for ICU beds will be ten times the available supply. At the same time as China is experiencing spikes in COVID cases, it also faces mounting economic problems. Domestically the property sector is faltering, local-government-finances are beginning to collapse and there is no abatement in the slow-moving financial crisis. Internationally, trade is weakening with rising unemployment at home. Without a sufficient welfare system in place to support the population through this period, increased unrest could lead to a destabilization of the government and CCP. Xi’s policies are proving counterproductive and alienating the support of those he needs to remain in power. Garside says that “In place of hope, there is disillusion as manifested by a major movement of emigration that is being led, for the first time in history, by rich and power people.” Some young protesters, like Xi’s own daughter, have chosen not to return to China after studying in the United States. It portends an uncertain future for Xi and the CCP. Today, there are a billion mobile phones in China, unlike the 1989 period where the government was able to successfully repress those protesting in Tiananmen Square.

It will be almost impossible for the world not to hear the call for freedom this time. It represents a glimmer of hope for the future and marks a dangerous period in Chinese domestic politics that could lead to new calls by the CCP for repression against those who refuse to accept the legitimacy of the Party.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department, and has lived in China.

Photo: On December 23, President Xi Jinping met in Zhongnanhai with Lee Ka-chao, Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, who came to Beijing to report on his work. Xi has abandoned all promises regarding civil rights in Hong Kong. (Chinese govt. photo)

A number of far-right and far-left commentators have come into agreement on the issue of Ukraine. Both are wrong.  

On the left, commentators bemoan the use of taxpayer funds to purchase military equipment. They worry about America “imposing” its values on other nations.  On the right, an allergy to any new federal spending, combines with a (rather justified) concern that politicians may get some personal kickbacks from all those dollars.  They also frequently state that we shouldn’t worry about protecting another nation’s borders until we secure our own. 

Those concerns, however good or bad, ignore the danger to the rest of the world a Putin victory in Ukraine would produce.

It is more than obvious that a Russian victory in the current invasion would encourage aggressors across the planet. China’s plans to take over Taiwan and smaller potential conflicts across the planet would all be greenlighted if Moscow succeeds. 

The authoritative United States Naval Institute noted that Russian President Vladmir Putin is “an international criminal, and we need to be saying this as forcefully as the United States condemned the leader of Serbia as responsible for the bloody Balkan wars during the 1990s…”

Vladimir Putin, who was a career KGB agent, has made no secret of his nostalgia for the Soviet Empire. He is not shy about his desire to reconstitute, in some form, the now defunct Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Ukraine is merely the first step in that process. During the Obama Administration, Putin noted the weakness of that White House, and unblushingly invaded the Crimea portion of Ukraine.    During that same presidency, China invaded the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone, a move condemned by the World Court at the Hague.  Obama didn’t even issue a diplomatic protest. Putin waited until another weak White House, led by Obama’s Vice President, was in place until he attempted to complete his conquest of Ukraine.

Forgotten in all this is the obligation to protect Ukrainian sovereignty that was made when that nation voluntarily surrendered the nuclear weapons it possessed following the Soviet Union’s collapse.  As noted in published sources,  “After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Ukraine held about one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal, the third largest in the world at the time, as well as significant means of its design and production. 130 UR-100N intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) with six warheads each, 46 RT-23 Molodets ICBMs with ten warheads apiece, as well as 33 heavy bombers, totaling approximately 1,700 warheads remained on Ukrainian territory. On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain, and the United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state.”

Critics of America’s assistance to Ukraine conveniently forget that we have a treaty obligation to live up to.

Zelenskyy made an impassioned plea for continued American assistance during his December visit to Washington, and noted that more than just Ukraine is at stake. “Today the Ukrainian people are defending not only Ukraine. We are fighting for Europe and the world and our lives in the name of the future. That is why today the American people are helping not just Ukraine, but Europe and the world to keep the planet alive. To keep justice in history.”

The failure of the world to stop aggression in the 1930’s is quoted so often that it sounds like a cliché, but it is a very real concern.  Putin already has designs on Kazakhstan, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, and other nations. It would be far better to stop him now before a far wider and even more deadly conflict takes place.

Illustration: Pixabay

The one thing Americans can agree on is that the nation is seriously divided.  Differences in politics and philosophy have existed since 1776. Why, then, do we seem more at odds than at any time, barring only the Civil War?

The answer lies not in politics, but in the intentional perpetuation, by sloppy journalists, biased educators and partisan extremists, of utterly incorrect information.

The nation’s economy, energy grid, and transportation nexus are being detrimentally affected by actions in response to allegations that the planet is heating up to unprecedented levels due to man-made global warming.  The facts suggest otherwise. The world was warmer when the Caesar’s ruled Rome, and when the Norman conquest of England took place.   In more recent times, look at the temperatures in the 1930’s.  As a matter of fact, some solar scientists predict a cooling trend due to solar activity levels.The Greenland Ice Cap is not shrinking, it’s growing.  Ditto for Antarctica ice.

For a significant period of time, U.S. cities were besieged by Antifa and Black Lives Matter.  These radical groups insisted that systemic racism plagues the nation.  In reality, they could not point to any existing laws or regulations that supported their claim. They alleged that police targeted minorities for killing. Any reasonable analysis of the facts demonstrates otherwise. Citing an example of an extremely isolated incident was an intellectually dishonest move. In a recent interview, Larry Elders, a former California Gubernatorial candidate and a black man, blames race-baiting leftist politicians such as Barack Obama for creating needless racial tension.

Paul Crookston, writing for National Review, reports that “A study by the Crime Prevention Research Center’s John R. Lott Jr. and economist Carlisle E. Moody at the College of William and Mary finds that white police officers may be less likely than their black counterparts to use deadly force against black suspects. This study has not received much attention in the media…”

We frequently hear that the Pentagon budget consumes the lion’s share of federal spending.  In reality, The Pentagon budget accounts for about 14% of federal spending. We are told that the U.S. spends vastly more than all its adversaries combined. Not true!  A major military analysis website  reports that “…the gap between U.S. expenditure on the one hand and that of Russia and China on the other has closed dramatically over the past 15 years. Today, when taken together, spending by Russia and China is roughly equal to U.S. defense expenditure.”

As crime skyrockets throughout the nation, we are fed nonsensical lines that releasing criminals out of jails or eliminating bail for violent offenders makes our streets safer. A Manhattan Institute study proves otherwise. “Slashing the prison population … would require releasing significant numbers of violent and chronic offenders serving time for crimes that most Americans agree should lead to prison. Reducing or eliminating sentences would diminish the incapacitation benefits of incarceration and, given the extremely high rates of recidivism, would expose society to large numbers of people likely to commit more crimes…60% of state prisoners are serving time for murder, rape, assault, robbery, or burglary—four times the number convicted only of drug offenses…Despite the portion of prisoners in for serious and violent offenses, less than 15% of state felony convictions result in more than two years served in prison; even 20% of those imprisoned for murder, and nearly 60% of those imprisoned for rape or sexual assault, serve less than five years of their sentences.”

The response by advocates of false doctrines and failed ideas has frequently been to attempt to censor those bringing the facts to light. Various modes of silencing have been employed, from universities firing conservative professors to the federal government’s attempt under both Presidents Obama and Biden to establish agencies to silence critics.  But the dismal result of failed policies cannot be hidden for long.

Illustration: Pixabay

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.