Author: Frank V. Vernuccio, Jr.

Thanks to Vladimir Putin, NATO has experienced a revival, as nations realize that the powerful deterrent it provides is vitally necessary.

For several decades following the collapse of the Soviet Union, many questioned the relevance of NATO. Far too many members, especially Germany, failed to live up to their obligation to maintain an adequate defense posture necessary for the alliance’s credibility.

That issue was eventually raised by the Trump Administration, when it protested that Berlin essentially relied on the American taxpayer to fund NATO’s deterrent capability. But it was the various acts of aggression by Vladimir Putin that jolted errant members back to reality.

Ambassador Julianne Smith, U.S. permanent representative to NATO, told the Defense Writers’ Group that Moscow’s challenges had forced members to awaken to the obvious danger. “Even before February 24, she noted, that “there was a deep appreciation across the alliance that the language on Russia from 2010 was sorely outdated and needed a significant upgrade and needed to reflect the current environment,” Smith said. “There was also an appreciation that China, for the first time, needed to be part of the strategic concept.”

China’s threatening stance has been illustrated by Beijing’s naval maneuvers alongside Russia in the Mediterranean. That growing problem has brought distant nations, including Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea into closer consultations with NATO’s members.

China is increasingly agitated about NATO’s awareness of Beijing’s growing military might, and its aggressive actions. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin commented in April “Since the Cold War was long over, NATO, as a product of the Cold War and the world’s largest military alliance, should have made necessary adjustments in accordance with the changing times. However, NATO has long clung to the old security concept, engaged in bloc confrontation and become a tool for certain countries to seek hegemony…NATO, a military organization in the North Atlantic, has in recent years come to the Asia-Pacific region … The impact of NATO’s eastward expansion on the long-term peace and stability of Europe is worth reflecting upon.”

As the two totalitarian nations move closer together, formerly neutral nations are seeking admission.

Another response to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is applications by Sweden and Finland to join the alliance. The two nations, long NATO partners, have military capabilities that would fit seamlessly into the alliance. Smith stresses that “It’s been interesting for me to watch countries in the Asia-Pacific talk about hybrid threats on their side of the Pacific: how they are grappling with disinformation, cyberattacks, the aggressive tactics that they’re seeing, acts of intimidation from China,” Smith said. “Then, you pair that with an Estonian or a Lithuanian, and they talk about some of the same challenges that they’re seeing from Russia.”

In April, the alliance agreed to step up practical support to other partners at threat of Russian aggression, including Georgia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, to help strengthen their resilience. Allied Foreign Ministers were joined by their counterparts from Ukraine, Georgia, Finland, Sweden, and the European Union, and by NATO’s Asia-Pacific partners, Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea. NATO will increase its cooperation with Asia-Pacific partners in areas like cyber, new technologies, disinformation, maritime security, climate change, and resilience, “because global challenges demand global solutions,” according to General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg. While in Washington on June 1, the NATO chief stated “more and more Allies are meeting our guideline of spending 2% of GDP on defence. President Putin wanted less NATO. He is getting more NATO. More troops and more NATO members.”

At the end of this month, the Alliance will meet in Madrid to outline plans for the future, and develop a new “strategic concept,” a concept renewed every ten years.

Photo: Secretary of State Blinken greets NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg (DoD)

From college dorm posters of the murderous Che Guevara to the fawning comments of American leftists, Cuba has long been the darling of Progressives. The truth is rather ugly, however.  We present the State Department analysis of human rights in the island nation.

Cuba is an authoritarian state. The 2019 constitution codifies that Cuba remains a one-party system in which the Communist Party is the only legal political party. On April 19, President Miguel Diaz-Canel replaced former president Raul Castro as first secretary of the Communist Party, the highest political entity of the state by law. Elections were neither free nor fair nor competitive.

The Ministry of Interior controls police, internal security forces, and the prison system. The ministry’s National Revolutionary Police are the primary law enforcement organization. Specialized units of the ministry’s state security branch are responsible for monitoring, infiltrating, and suppressing independent political activity. The national leadership, including members of the military, maintained effective control over the security forces. There were credible reports that members of the security forces committed numerous abuses, and the number of political prisoners increased dramatically, with many held in pretrial detention under extremely harsh and degrading conditions.

On January 28, security forces violently arrested more than 20 artists and journalist peacefully protesting in front of the Ministry of Culture for the release of detained artists. On July 11, spontaneous peaceful protests broke out across the island. In the largest and most widespread demonstrations in decades, tens of thousands of citizens across the country poured into the streets to demand an end to repression as well as to criticize the government’s failure to meet their basic needs and its poor response to COVID-19. Social media posts helped spread news of the protests among citizens. Security forces responded with tear gas, beatings, and arrests. First Secretary of the Communist Party and President Miguel Diaz-Canel went on national television to call on “all revolutionaries and communists to confront these protests,” a reference to Article Four of the 2019 constitution, which gives citizens the right to “combat through any means, including armed combat” any who “intend to topple the political, social, and economic order established by this constitution.” Many of those arrested reported cruel and degrading treatment in prison. In October authorities denied permission for a protest planned for November 15 and threatened organizers. The government conducted summary trials for some protesters; sought long prison sentences, some up to 30 years, in hundreds of cases; and held other protesters in extended pretrial detention. Some activists chose to go into exile, and the government forced others to do so.

Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings, by the government; forced disappearance by the government; torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of political dissidents, detainees, and prisoners by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrests and detentions; political prisoners; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; reprisals against family members for offenses allegedly committed by an individual; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media including violence or threats of violence against journalists, censorship, and criminal libel laws used against persons who criticized government leadership; serious restrictions on internet freedom; severe restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly and denial of freedom of association, including refusal to recognize independent associations; severe restrictions on religious freedom; restrictions on internal and external freedom of movement; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections, including serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; serious government corruption; a lack of investigation of and accountability for gender-based violence; trafficking in persons, including forced labor; and outlawing of independent trade unions.

Government officials, at the direction of their superiors, committed most human rights abuses. As a matter of policy, officials failed to investigate or prosecute those who committed these abuses. Impunity for the perpetrators remained widespread, as was impunity for official corruption.

Illustration: Pixabay

American progressives have long idolized Leftist regimes in Latin America. Hollywood producers and celebrities have spoken glowingly of these governments.

It is instructive to see how they actually perform in terms of human rights.  For the next two days, we will present the official State Department reviews of Cuba and Venezuela. Today, we focus on executive summary of Venezuela.

While Venezuela is legally a multiparty, constitutional republic, the authoritarian regime led by Nicolas Maduro usurped control over all branches of government: executive, judicial, legislative, the offices of the prosecutor general and ombudsman, and the electoral institutions. In December 2020 the Maduro regime organized parliamentary elections that were rigged in favor of the regime, and approximately 60 countries and international bodies publicly declared the elections were neither free nor fair.

Civilian authorities’ control over the security forces continued to decline and was deeply politicized. Increasingly unpopular with citizens, the Maduro regime depended on civilian and military intelligence services, and to a lesser extent, progovernment armed gangs known as colectivos, to neutralize political opposition and subdue the population. The Bolivarian National Guard – a branch of the military that reports to the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Interior, Justice, and Peace – is responsible for maintaining public order, guarding the exterior of key government installations and prisons, conducting counternarcotics operations, monitoring borders, and providing law enforcement in remote areas. The Ministry of Interior, Justice, and Peace controls the National Scientific Criminal, and Investigative Corps, which conducts most criminal investigations, and the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service, which collects intelligence within the country and abroad and is responsible for investigating cases of corruption, subversion, and arms trafficking. Police include municipal, state, and national police forces. Mayors and governors oversee municipal and state police forces. The Bolivarian National Police report to the Ministry of Interior, Justice, and Peace. The national police largely focused on policing Caracas’ Libertador municipality; patrolling Caracas-area highways, railways, and metro system; and protecting diplomatic missions. The national armed forces patrolled other areas of the country. There were credible reports that members of security forces committed numerous abuses, and a 2020 United Nations report concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe that Maduro regime authorities and security forces committed crimes against humanity.

Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings by regime forces; forced disappearances by the regime; torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest or detention by security forces; political prisoners or detainees; serious problems with independence of the judiciary; unlawful interference with privacy; punishment of family members for offenses allegedly committed by an individual; serious restrictions on free expression and media, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental organizations and civil society organizations; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; serious government corruption; serious restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organizations; lack of investigation of and accountability for gender-based violence; significant barriers to accessing reproductive health; trafficking in persons; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting indigenous persons and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons; and the worst forms of child labor.

The Maduro regime took no effective action to identify, investigate, prosecute, or punish officials who committed human rights abuses or corruption.

There were numerous reports that the Maduro regime committed arbitrary or unlawful killings. Although the regime did not release statistics on extrajudicial killings, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) reported that national, state, and municipal police entities, as well as the armed forces and regime-supported colectivos, carried out hundreds of such killings during the year. In September the UN Independent Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) on Venezuela also noted, for the second consecutive year, concern regarding “extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detentions, and torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, including sexual and gender-based violence.” The FFM report stated “real and perceived opponents or critics” of the Maduro regime increasingly included individuals and organizations that documented, denounced, or attempted to address human rights or social and economic problems in the country. The FFM concluded that it had reasonable grounds to believe the justice system had played a significant role in the state’s repression of government opponents.

The Public Ministry is responsible for initiating judicial investigations of security force abuses. The Office for Protection of Human Rights in the Public Ministry is responsible for investigating cases involving crimes committed by public officials, particularly security officials. There was, however, no official information available on the number of public officials prosecuted, convicted, or sentenced to prison for involvement in extrajudicial killings, which, in the case of killings committed by police, were often classified as “resistance to authority.”

Illustration: Pixabay

“Bullets accidentally ended up on the territory of Tajikistan” after a shootout between Taliban and the Islamic State – Khorasan Province (ISKP) forces near the Afghan-Tajik border, according to Nurbek Bekmurazev, of the Jamestown Foundation. Last month Radio Ozodi reported that several rockets were launched from the Hojagor district of Takhar province, Afghanistan into the neighboring Panj district in Tajikistan. Bekmurazev says that a “GKNB [Tajikistan State Security Committee] statement… argued the situation on the border was stable, and the Taliban was conducting operations to locate and disarm the perpetrators.” Western analysts following Central Asia are growing increasingly concerned about intensifying ISKP activities in Afghanistan and neighboring states. The recent rocket attack was the second in three weeks in Tajikistan. Conflicting reports coming out of Central Asia attribute the attacks to both Taliban and ISKP forces. 

Taliban leaders, according to Bekmurazev, are frustrated by what they call “false accusations.” They have been targeted by the ISKP terrorists in the past. In November 2019 terrorists attacked the Ishkobod border station as a sign of loyalty to the new caliph and in August 2018 four tourists in the Dangara region of Tajikistan were killed and three foreign citizens injured. The UN Security Council reports that recent attacks continue the trend of Islamic State – Khorasan Province.  ISKP power is growing since the US withdrawal from Afghanistan last August. Since then, the number of its operatives has “increased from 2,000 to roughly 4,000, with some new recruits coming from recently released prisoners in Afghanistan,” according to an early May 2022 NY Times article. In recent weeks the violence has drawn the attention of both China and Russia.

The Taliban want to be viewed as a security partner. These attacks are straining its credibility and undermining “its promise that the territory of Afghanistan will not be used for launching terrorist attacks on foreign countries,” says Bekmurazev. Central Asian military analysts are concerned that the deep mistrust between Tajikistan and other Central Asian states and the Taliban could further destabilize the region. The level of violence has risen dramatically over the last two weeks in the Pamir region of Tajikistan and is now higher than any period since the 1997 civil war ended. 

Radio Ozodi reports that on May 16 law enforcement used tear gas and snipers to break up protests and quickly cut off the region’s internet connection. The following day the government launched a “counter-terrorism” operation, killing dozens and arresting hundreds. While the numbers killed, injured, or arrested may not be large in comparison to the war in Ukraine, it marks an increase in violence covering almost half of Tajikistan’s territory. In 2015 the government used the violence to justify silencing the opposition Islamic Renaissance Party. 

Unrest in the Pamir region of Tajikistan, in particular, is strategically significant as it is located along the border area with China and contains the only open crossing between the two countries. It is a lucrative commercial trade route and one the Chinese watch carefully due to its use as a drug transit route into Western China.  Edward Lemon, writing in the Eurasia Daily Monitor, reports that although the US has provided Tajikistan with over $364 million in security assistance since 2000, Dushanbe “leans increasingly on China and Russia for patronage, [and] the Tajikistani government is scapegoating the West for the violence its own policies have helped create or amplify.” Analysts monitoring the violence suggest that the situation has deteriorated to the point that ever more “people in Dushanbe and Moscow are openly talking about the risk that conditions there may soon trigger a full-scale civil war.”

Paul Goble, of the Jamestown Foundation, points out that “Dushanbe’s problems have compelled it to publicly ask Moscow to be ready to send forces into the region, just as [Moscow] did in Kazakhstan last January.” Tajikistan’s President has formerly requested Russian President Vladimir Putin be prepared to quell violence as it destabilizes the whole Central Asian region. 

Although the war in Ukraine has overshadowed many of the recent events in Central Asia, Xi Jinping is monitoring the situation. A sect of Islam led by the Aga Khna, an Ismali, is gaining influence in the area and could provoke a response from China. Beijing considers him a dangerous threat. Xi has placed military capabilities inside Tajikistan, and is prepared to act, if necessary. The Chinese government has made it clear in recent statements that it would like to take control of the Pamir region. The region is a powder keg that could blow, according to one analyst familiar with the environment on the ground.

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

Photo: Tajikistan (photo)

China is a dangerous and complex puzzle the democratic world must deal with in the coming years. Many in the West, upon hearing Chinese officials reference a “third child,” will assume the discussion concerns Beijing’s archaic population policy. In reality, officials are using the term today to reference China’s latest accomplishment… the upcoming launch of its third modern aircraft carrier. The ship, a Type 003 carrier, is being readied for its initial launch for sea trials, possibly as soon as this weekend. As the shipbuilders in Shanghai’s Jiangnan Yard prepare for the event, military analysts in Washington note that the ship will be the most advanced produced by China and contain electromagnetic catapult aircraft launchers to provide an extended strike range for its fighter jets. China’s first two carriers employed a ”ski ramp” style launch system which limited the amount of fuel and weapons jets could carry. The US maintains a qualitative advantage over China’s large maritime fleet; however, Beijing is closing the gap. Given recent annual increases in Chinese military spending, defense analysts expect China to advance beyond the US in many areas in the next few years. While the latest carrier is good military news for Xi Jinping, not all is not going well politically for China in the Indo-Pacific region. 

Earlier this week in Fiji Chinese Foreign Affairs Minister Wang Yi, and other officials from Beijing negotiating a mutual trade and security agreement with 10 Pacific Island nations, failed to secure a deal. American Military News is reporting that during the Summit China attempted to bring together the Federated States of Micronesia, the Solomon Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Fiji, Tonga, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, Niue, and Timor-Leste. Wang’s goal was thwarted when the independent countries refused to join a pact that included law enforcement and fishing cooperation along with port calls for PLAN security forces and ships. The United States also is countering China’s Indo-Pacific efforts by forming its own trade and diplomatic alliances and partnerships in the region. Recently several Pacific states signed the US-led Pacific Economic Framework (PEF), including Fiji, which had hosted China for the 10-country Summit.

Further south in the Pacific puzzle, Australia is holding elections for its Prime Minister. China is closely watching those events while simultaneously trying to infiltrate and control the public discourse to direct it away from Beijing’s previous attempts to influence Australian election results. According to John Garrick of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), Xi Jinping is an oligarch who seeks to forcefully influence international financial, legal, and trade systems. He argues that Xi’s dream of a national rejuvenation for China extends to “exerting global leadership and shaping international institutions to better reflect China’s great-power status.” This includes a desire to control Australia’s politics and economy at every level of society. 

Domestically the puzzle is no less challenging for Xi Jinping. A major cache of internal reports recently leaked from the Xinjiang Police Department reveal an inside view of the environment and scale of Beijing’s secretive campaign interning almost 2 million Uyghurs and other minorities in northwestern China. The number of files exposed is mind-boggling. There are over 300,000 verified personnel records, more than 23,000 detainee files, and 2,884 images of detainees themselves. Adrian Zenz, an international expert on internal Chinese government documents and the Xinjiang internment campaign says they were hacked directly from Chinese police databases in two ethnic minority counties in Xinjiang. Zenz says this is the first time the world has a first-hand account of police operations from police computer centers. The records include statements and speeches by the former Xinjiang Party Secretary Chen Quanguo, who talks about the oppressive attitude of the Chinese government toward the Muslim minorities located in the region. He says the camps need to be defended and explains why the government has to move against the entire population. Xi Jinping will be challenged to explain these documents to a world already reeling from event in Ukraine.

China is both a complex and dangerous puzzle that no one is close to solving. It has strengths but also pervasive weaknesses and paranoia that could be exploited by the West. It may be time for democratic nations to use those weaknesses to teach China a lesson in how to behave as a responsible member in an international rules-based system. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Chinese aircraft carrier (China Defence Ministry)

The macro-Arctic geographic area is heating up politically this year with Russia announcing that it must meet two strategic goals to maintain its dominance over the northern region. The first is exploiting the overall region’s economic potential, according to Sergey Sukhankin of the Jamestown Foundation. He argues that Russia intends to accomplish this “through an intensification of exports of non-renewable energy resources and liquefied natural gas (LNG) in particular.” The second, just as concerning to Arctic Council states, is the development of a new Northern Sea Route. This evolving maritime transportation corridor is tangential to Russia’s coastline and will serve as a substitute for linking Asia to Europe in lieu of transiting the Suez Canal. 

While the concept of a year-round, open water route across the northern Arctic is not new, it does point to Russia’s reorientation toward Asia and key to it emerging as a major trading and geopolitical partner with China in the coming years. With Russia struggling to win its war in Ukraine, increased sanctions by Western states, and general world condemnation of its human rights abuses, Putin may find China one of the few countries willing to conduct business with his country. After Moscow released the first strategy document labeled “On the Development of the Arctic Zone and Ensuring National Security Until 2035,” it appeared Putin would be able to implement his strategy, according to Sukhankin. In January 2022, he points out, Russia’s gas giant Novatek concluded a long-term deal with China’s ENN Natural Gas and Zhejiang Energy. It commits Moscow to supplying 1 million tons of LNG per annum to the Chinese market for the next 15 years. A year before Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Novatek had signed another LNG contract with the Chinese Shenergy Group. Although it appeared Russian strategy was working, since the February invasion of Ukraine, the Arctic policy has stalled.

As the war drags into it fourth month, Putin is facing four major challenges to his ambitious Arctic policy. Western sanctions, which restrict its supply of the advanced technology components needed for LNG production. In its fifth round of sanctions the European Union barred EU producers from directly or indirectly supply Russia, unlike the 2014 rules which allowed the world’s largest industrial gas company German Linde, to supply Putin with critical production technologies. In particular, the current sanctions are a major obstacle to Putin’s strategic Arctic LNG2 mega-project. Sukhankin says that the single domestically supplied LNG  project in Russia, is suffering from technical difficulties. Only states unfriendly to Russia have the large-scale liquefaction technology its needs to become a major play in the LNG marketplace. Prior to sanctions Russia purchased all the required technology from the US and Western Europe. 

The second challenge facing Putin is how to encourage foreign investors not to pull out of Arctic-based energy projects like the 50-50 Gydan Energy joint venture that Gazprom Neft has with Shell. This project, originally planned as the center of an Arctic energy cluster, was scheduled to open in 2028. French Total Energies and the Japanese firm Mitsui and KOGMEC already announced their intention to withdraw, leaving Russia unable to carry out financial transactions related to the LNG2 mega project. As foreign investors lose interest in working with Russia, a newer player also appears ready to leave the scene. Last week, rumors inside China appear to confirm that three of its largest energy firms – Sinopec, China National Offshore Oil and China National Petroleum Corp, along with five other large Chinese engineering companies, all are stalling on future investments according to a May 23 story in the Moscow Times. 

Decreased LNG production in the Arctic is the third challenge, as Putin is finding it more difficult to secure foreign funding. Domestically, large Russian banks, including Sber, Gazprombank, VEB.RF, and Otkrytie FC Bank, having come under sanctions. So far, Moscow has not found other funding for the mega-project. Sukhankin points to a fourth challenge – restricted Russian access to delivery methods. Reports indicate that the three largest shipbuilders in South Korea recently cancelled their $872 million contract to partner with Russian LNG producers to build large LNG ships to work in the Arctic. Although the loss of six ships is a huge blow to Russia, Sakhankin says there may be an even greater impact as Russia was in discussions to build an additional 15 ships with Korean-based Samsung Heavy Industries. If talks fail, which is likely, Russia’s Arctic strategy may fail. Although China and India may fill the gap, Russia’s grad Arctic strategy is facing serious blows since Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Most nations appear willing to forego the economic benefits to try to force Putin to abandon his war in Ukraine. Putin is faced with two choices in the Arctic. It is highly likely that he will be forced to shut down his future plans. If not, he may emerge as a more dangerous adversary to the free world.

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

Photo: Pixabay

Americans flocked to see the sequel to Top Gun, the popular classic that has served as an ode to American air power.

China has been less than thrilled about that, and is using their already heavy influence on U.S. media to express its displeasure. According to the Wall Street Journal, The Chinese tech firm Tencent Holdings, which had originally agreed to co-sponsor the film “backed out of the $170 million Paramount Pictures production after they grew concerned that Communist Party officials in Beijing would be angry about the company’s affiliation with a movie celebrating the American military.”

While the blockbuster Tom Cruise was released anyway, “The Chinese are financing some of your favorite films, buying theater chains, it is a growing trend. Major Chinese production companies teaming up with Tinseltown, which is leading to concerns over pro-China propaganda making its way into major American blockbusters” notes a Heritage study.

The Wall Street Journal had previously reported that Chinese companies engaged in $4.5 billion in purchases of Hollywood assets. “The new dynamic highlights Hollywood’s dependence on China, where the slightest change in state policy has ripple effects across the entertainment industry. China’s deep pockets have become a frequent topic of speculation and intrigue among entertainment executives, some of whom see the country as full of prospective buyers willing to pay high premiums for flashy Hollywood holdings.”

Some of China’s influence has been very overt.  Several years ago, a remake of the cult classic “Red Dawn” was originally scripted to portray China as the villain.  Beijing cracked its financial whip, and another nation was substituted.

An NBC Today review notes that “If you got to a movie theater right now, there’s a pretty good chance that the film you see will have been partially financed in China.”

To understand how China’s investment provides influence for the Beijing government, it must be understood that Chinese companies are subservient to and work diligently for China’s foreign policy. That, however, is only part of the story.  The appetite for films in China’s largest-in-the world population is vast, and even those Hollywood studies not financially dependent on China have a significant financial interest in producing movies that appeal to their worldview, even if that is detrimental to American interests.

Politico provides another example of the interrelationship between Chinese companies buying major stakes in Hollywood and Beijing’s political goals. Dalian Wanda is a Chinese firm that has intimate ties to the Chinese Communist Party, and it is intent on making major purchases of Hollywood assets. The publication asks,  asks “For American moviegoers, the peril lies in the unseen. Would a war movie called South China Sea ever play in one of Wanda’s theaters? What about an action flick with a Chinese villain?…When you control the movie experience, you can subtly influence public opinion. And the Chinese government — Wanda’s staunch supporter — has been transparent about that goal. The Communist Party has banned or currently bans thousands of books deemed controversial. It heavily censors the Internet, while Facebook and Twitter remain prohibited in China — one of the reasons Freedom House ranked it a more restrictive society than Iran and Saudi Arabia.”

China has succeeded in influencing citizens of the West in ways the former Soviet Union never had the sophistication to understand. Moscow may have (and still does) finance anti-defense spending advocates and those seeking to destroy American energy independence, Beijing, with its huge cash reserves, buys influence in major  influencing outlets, including Hollywood and academia.

Even more directly, China buys influence in major sources of information. The Times of India reports that Beijing buys or otherwise recruits influencers on such platforms as Facebook and TikTok.

Illustration: Pixabay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo: Pixabay (Alabama State Capital)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Illustration: Pixabay