The Case Against China, Part 2

The ruling Chinese Communist Party, and dictator-for life Xi Jingping, deliberately seeks to downplay anything that may hinder Chinas’ economy. They know that their regime rests on an unspoken social contract with the population, which promises increasing prosperity in return for no challenges to their authoritarian control. Bluntly stated, the Chinese Communist Party leadership intentionally endangered the health of the entire planet to avoid bad publicity.

There is motive, means, and vast numbers of dead bodies in this crime against humanity by the Chinese Communist Party, and even a history of recidivism in the matter, as well as an attempt to cover up the terrible misdeed. But how to enforce justice?

In a prior dispute, the World Court at the Hague ruled against China’s invasion of the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone. There was, however, no viable means of enforcing its decision or obtaining damages from the Beijing Communist regime, which simply refused to accept the decision.

Obviously, no one seeks to compound this China-created tragedy by using the military to punish that nation’s government. That leaves financial solutions, which hits Xi Jingping and his party at their most vulnerable spot.

There are several approaches that could be explored. China holds a vast amount of U.S. treasury bills. It also owns many assets within the U.S. and other nations. And of course, it profits heavily from trade with nations throughout the globe.

I also tend to meditate to cost cialis you can find out more calm my indigestion? I drank 6 ounces of 100% aloe Vera juice. It keeps online viagra us alert and ready to avoid or stop smoking all together. The Federal authorities have had a busy week, swooping order cialis online icks.org hither and thither to keep us safe as we sleep in our beds. Person having allergic reaction to sildenafil citrate; taking other drugs that contain nitrates or drugs that are used to stimulate male hormones as well which allow the better dilation of the capillary lakes check that icks.org cialis pharmacy in the penis letting more blood flow.

According to the Congressional Research Service, China’s Holdings of U.S. Securities as of June 2018 in U.S. securities totaled $1.6 trillion. That’s actually down from its all-time high share of 15.2% in 2009. If Washington chose to cancel that debt, it would certainly punish Beijing and provide more funds for the U.S. to use to respond to the crisis. This, of course, is not without drawbacks. The attractiveness of this investment is its near absolute security; this would be a sharp blow to that.

There are other avenues as well. As Public Citizen points out, “Chinese financial interests have acquired more than $120 billion of assets in the U.S. economy since 2002. Fifteen Chinese government entities (sovereign wealth funds and state-owned enterprises) and government-connected private sectors firms account for nearly 60 percent of this activity. Major transactions have been recorded in at least 40 states and in diverse sectors. This includes more than 50 acquisitions of American assets worth at least $50 million each in 2016, a high-water mark for inbound Chinese investment.” Some have suggested these assets be confiscated or held until Beijing pays the debt it owes for the Covid crisis it created.

Other financial remedies exist as well. CSIS reports that The value of China’s exports in goods annually surpasses the amount it imports from the rest of the world. In 2018, China exported $2.49 trillion in goods while it imported $2.13 trillion. Cutting trade with China, switching to other countries for the types of goods that nation exports, would be a significant blow to the Beijing regime.

The facts are clear. In its endangerment of the world due to its horrendous record of covering up the start of new diseases, and its negligence in addressing the reasons why they occur, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has been a malevolent presence on the global scene. This is compounded by that entity’s massive investment in nuclear and conventional weaponry, its aggressiveness towards neighboring nations, and its predatory financial actions across the planet. It operates concentration camps against minorities within its own borders. It continues to occupy Tibet. And, of course, it violates the human freedom of its own population.

It should no longer have a vote on the U.N. Security Council or the General Assembly.

The time has come to announce that the CCP is unacceptable to the world community, and to withdraw all recognition of it as a legitimate governing entity.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.