Quotes of the Day:
Happy Birthday U.S. Army.
"I am a Soldier, I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight."
- George S. Patton
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
- Richard Grenier while discussing the works of George Orwell
"American soldiers in battle don't fight for what some president says on T.V., they don't fight for mom, apple pie, the American flag...they fight for one another."
-Hal Moore
1. This was one of the worst weeks for China on the world stage in a while
2. Exclusive: US assessing reported leak at Chinese nuclear power facility
3. U.S. Fight Against Chinese 5G Efforts Shifts From Threats to Incentives
4. Heads of G7 agree to invest on B3W infrastructure
5. How Congress can fight Hamas's use of human shields
6. The personal impact of an American general on an Afghan officer
7. FDD | Biden Lifts Sanctions on Firms Linked to Key Assad Backer
8. FDD | What to Expect From the Biden-Putin Summit
9. Beijing Protests a Lab Leak Too Much
10. How States Can Respond If Biden Lifts Iran Sanctions
11. North Korea tries to accelerate building of walls and fences along border with China
12. NATO allies seek clarity on maintaining secure facilities in Afghanistan following troop withdrawal
13. G7 ballyhoos challenge to China’s Belt and Road
14. Imperfect competition between US and China: Statesman
15. Ransomware’s suspected Russian roots point to a long detente between the Kremlin and hackers
16. The West is uniting to confront China. How worried should Beijing be?
17. NATO to look eastward and inward at summit
18. Biden’s B3W proposal no serious threat to China’s BRI
19. Biden meets with foreign leaders as ambassadorships sit vacant
20. The Party Is Not Forever | by Minxin Pei
21. US father and son admit helping Ghosn flee Japan
22. Why We Can’t Move On From Jan. 6
23. Analysis: Mystery of 1999 US stealth jet shootdown returns with twist
1. This was one of the worst weeks for China on the world stage in a while
Excerpts:
Legendary American diplomat George Kennan - known for outlining the US policy of containing the USSR during the Cold War - used to say that the US people are always about 10 years behind its diplomats when it comes to seeing danger from abroad. Lecturing back in 1950 he compared democracies to a giant prehistoric monster "with a body as long as this room and a brain the size of a pin" that needs to be directly confronted with a problem before it awakens from the "comfortable primeval mud." But when a challenge does gain our attention, Kennan said, the country lashes out with "such blind determination that he not only destroys his adversary but largely wrecks his native habitat."
Perhaps the US has learned something from Kennan. Consider the Senate's passage of a 2,400 page bill aimed at shoring up the US as an economic and technological superpower. The size and scope of the bill shows that our leaders are trying to meet a challenge before it's an emergency.
This was one of the worst weeks for China on the world stage in a while
Chinese President Xi Jinping rubs his eye as he arrives for the seventh plenary session of the first session of the 13th National People's Congress (NPC) at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. FRED DUFOUR/AFP via Getty Images
It was a bad week for China on the world stage.
President Biden is getting a warm reception in Europe rallying our democratic allies in the G7, the EU and NATO.
And at home, our squabbling US Senate somehow managed to pass a $250 billion bill countering China.
This is an opinion column. The thoughts expressed are those of the author.
This week the leaders of the Western world turned their eyes toward China, and as a result it was one of the worst weeks for Beijing on the world stage in some time.
In Washington, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate set aside their differences to pass a $250 billion industrial policy bill aimed at preparing US commerce and government for competition with Beijing. And while on a diplomatic trip to Europe, President Joe Biden is reinvigorating our ties to our allies in Europe, the G7 group of nations, and NATO. On the top of the agenda in these meetings is the question of how to counter an aggressive, totalitarian China on the rise.
This comes as every indication points to China moving farther and farther away being an open, even remotely democratic society.
Earlier this week Amnesty International published an in-depth look at life for Muslims living in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, calling it a "dystopian hellscape" where Muslims are terrorized and arbitrarily forced into labor camps as part of "part of a larger campaign of subjugation and forced assimilation." The Times also reported the Chinese government is seizing Uyghur Muslims who flee abroad.
On the economic front, the Chinese legislature rushed through a bill expanding the government's means and methods to retaliate against foreign sanctions including the ability to seize foreign companies' Chinese assets, deny visas, and block the ability to do deals in China. Foreign businesses in the country were caught flat-footed.
At the heart of China's bellicose behavior is the belief, held among many elites in the Chinese Communist Party, that the US and its partners in the West are in a state of decline. This idea took root during the 2008 financial crisis, and then was reaffirmed by the European debt crisis, the election of Donald Trump and his agression towards our European allies, and the United State's handling of the coronavirus pandemic.
To the CCP, our way of life looks like chaos - a cacophony of voices sometimes forcefully pulling our discourse to the right then back to the left. They've convinced themselves that we can no longer organize and unify our societies to do the ambitious things that need to be done to win the future. This week the West showed China signs that - when it comes to countering a strengthening totalitarian power - that may not be the case.
A matter of trust
China squandered a massive opportunity over the last four years. As president, Donald Trump snubbed America's traditional allies and made overtures to the world's thugs and petty dictators. That could have been a moment when China cozied up to Europe as a more stable alternative, instead China wound up alienating the continent with its overbearing behavior.
For example, at the beginning of this year it seemed certain that the European Union and China would sign a trade deal, against the wishes of the United States. But in March, when the EU sanctioned China over its treatment of Uyghur Muslims, Beijing - in keeping with its policy of aggressive "Wolf Warrior" diplomacy - responded by sanctioning members of EU Parliament. This put the EU-China trade deal on an indefinite hold.
That brings us to Biden and his current trip to Europe, where the president is trying to rebuild trust among nations. His administration is working on undoing the tariffs the Trump administration put on its EU partners with an aim to lift them by the end of the year. He is encouraging unity on the European continent, urging UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to settle his differences with the EU over Brexit and keep the peace on the Ireland-Northern Ireland border. Biden also announced that the US would donate 500 million doses of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine to over 100 countries "no strings attached."
Trump's betrayal of our allies left commentators around the world wondering if US-led groups like the G7 would be able to cooperate enough to do hard things again. This week we're seeing signs that they can and will. The first sign was Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen's momentous announcement that the G7 had come to an agreement on an international minimum corporate tax to stop the race to the bottom in taxing the world's richest companies.
And now it appears Biden is also rallying our allies to counter China. Before he left for Europe, Biden met with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg at the White House. Addressing the press after their meeting Stoltenberg said China "doesn't share our values." Biden will attend a NATO summit on Monday, and it will produce the strongest statement in its history on NATO's stance on China, according to the Wall Street Journal.
From the comfortable primeval mud
Legendary American diplomat George Kennan - known for outlining the US policy of containing the USSR during the Cold War - used to say that the US people are always about 10 years behind its diplomats when it comes to seeing danger from abroad. Lecturing back in 1950 he compared democracies to a giant prehistoric monster "with a body as long as this room and a brain the size of a pin" that needs to be directly confronted with a problem before it awakens from the "comfortable primeval mud." But when a challenge does gain our attention, Kennan said, the country lashes out with "such blind determination that he not only destroys his adversary but largely wrecks his native habitat."
Perhaps the US has learned something from Kennan. Consider the Senate's passage of a 2,400 page bill aimed at shoring up the US as an economic and technological superpower. The size and scope of the bill shows that our leaders are trying to meet a challenge before it's an emergency.
The bill allocates $52 billion to building up the semiconductor industry in the US in order to decrease our dependence on semiconductors from China and Taiwan. The bill also funds major research, allocating $81 billion to the National Science Foundation from 2022 to fiscal 2026 and $120 billion into technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing.
There are also diplomatic and intelligence measures. It bars US diplomats from attending the Olympics in Beijing, and requires the intelligence community to produce a report about China's efforts to influence international bodies like the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organizations and United Nations. It passed the fractious US Senate - sometimes sardonically referred to as Mitch McConnell's "legislative graveyard" - on a vote of 68 to 32.
China responded to the bill saying that it "slanders China" and is "full of Cold War mentality and ideological prejudice."
In a time when the leaders of the richest country in the world are squabbling amongst themselves over whether or not to fund the building of roads and bridges, this bill is a heartening sight. The most important ways the US can counter China are by strengthening itself domestically and by preparing for the worst with its allies. If the giant prehistoric monster hasn't awakened, this week shows that it now at least has one eye open.
Watch: Here's what would happen if you tried to dig to China
2. Exclusive: US assessing reported leak at Chinese nuclear power facility
For those who remember - Three Mile Island or Chernobyl?
Excerpts:
While US officials have deemed the situation does not currently pose a severe safety threat to workers at the plant or Chinese public, it is unusual that a foreign company would unilaterally reach out to the American government for help when its Chinese state-owned partner is yet to acknowledge a problem exists. The scenario could put the US in a complicated situation should the leak continue or become more severe without being fixed.
However, concern was significant enough that the National Security Council held multiple meetings last week as they monitored the situation, including two at the deputy level and another gathering at the assistant secretary level on Friday, which was led by NSC Senior Director for China Laura Rosenberger and Senior Director for Arms Control Mallory Stewart, according to US officials.
...
Still, Rofer, the retired nuclear scientist, warns that a gas leak could indicate bigger problems.
"If they do have a gas leak, that indicates some of their containment is broken," Rofer said. "It also argues that maybe some of the fuel elements could be broken, which would be a more serious problem."
"That would be a reason for shutting down the reactor and would then require the reactor to be refueled," Rofer told CNN, adding that removing the fuel elements must be done carefully.
For now, US officials do not think the leak is at "crisis level," but acknowledge it is increasing and bears monitoring, the source familiar with the situation told CNN.
While there is a chance the situation could become a disaster, US officials currently believe it is more likely that it will not become one, the source added.
Exclusive: US assessing reported leak at Chinese nuclear power facility
CNN · by Zachary Cohen, CNN
(CNN)The US government has spent the past week assessing a report of a leak at a Chinese nuclear power plant, after a French company that part owns and helps operate it warned of an "imminent radiological threat," according to US officials and documents reviewed by CNN.
The warning included an accusation that the Chinese safety authority was raising the acceptable limits for radiation detection outside the Taishan Nuclear Power Plant in Guangdong province in order to avoid having to shut it down, according to a letter from the French company to the US Department of Energy obtained by CNN.
Despite the alarming notification from Framatome, the French company, the Biden administration believes the facility is not yet at a "crisis level," one of the sources said.
While US officials have deemed the situation does not currently pose a severe safety threat to workers at the plant or Chinese public, it is unusual that a foreign company would unilaterally reach out to the American government for help when its Chinese state-owned partner is yet to acknowledge a problem exists. The scenario could put the US in a complicated situation should the leak continue or become more severe without being fixed.
However, concern was significant enough that the National Security Council held multiple meetings last week as they monitored the situation, including two at the deputy level and another gathering at the assistant secretary level on Friday, which was led by NSC Senior Director for China Laura Rosenberger and Senior Director for Arms Control Mallory Stewart, according to US officials.
Read More
The Biden administration has discussed the situation with the French government and their own experts at the Department of Energy, sources said. The US has also been in contact with the Chinese government, US officials said, though the extent of that contact is unclear.
The US government declined to explain the assessment but officials at the NSC, State Department and the Department of Energy insisted that if there were any risk to the Chinese public, the US would be required to make it known under current treaties related to nuclear accidents.
Framatome had reached out to the US in order to obtain a waiver that would allow them to share American technical assistance in order to resolve the issue at the Chinese plant. There are only two reasons why this waiver would be granted, and one is an "imminent radiological threat," the same verbiage used in the June 8 memo.
The memo claims the Chinese limit was increased to exceed French standards, yet it remains unclear how that compares to US limits.
"It is not surprising that the French would reach out," according to Cheryl Rofer, a nuclear scientist who retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory in 2001. "In general, this sort of thing is not extraordinary, particularly if they think the country they are contacting has some special ability to help."
"But China likes to project that everything is just fine, all the time," she added.
The US could give permission for Framatome to provide the technical assistance or support to help resolve the issue, but it is the Chinese government's decision whether the incident requires shutting down the plant completely, the documents obtained by CNN indicate.
Ultimately, the June 8 request for assistance from Framatome is the only reason why the US became involved in the situation at all, multiple sources told CNN.
CNN has reached out to the Chinese authorities in Beijing and Guangdong province, where the plant is located, the Chinese embassy in Washington, DC, as well as the state-owned energy group that operates the plant along with the French company. None have responded directly, though China is amidst a three-day national holiday that runs through the end of Monday.
However, the Taishan Nuclear Power Plant published a statement on its website Sunday night local time, maintaining that environmental readings for both the plant and its surrounding area were "normal."
The two nuclear reactors in Taishan are both operational, the statement said, adding that Unit 2 had recently completed an "overhaul" and "successfully connected to the grid on June 10, 2021." The statement did not define why or how the plant was overhauled.
"Since it was put into commercial operation, the Taishan Nuclear Power Plant has strictly controlled the operation of the units in accordance with operating license documents and technical procedures. All operating indicators of the two units have met the requirements of nuclear safety regulations and power plant technical specifications," the statement noted.
In a separate statement Friday, hours after CNN first reached out for comment, Framatome acknowledged the company "is supporting resolution of a performance issue with the Taishan Nuclear Power Plant in Guangdong Province, China."
"According to the data available, the plant is operating within the safety parameters. Our team is working with relevant experts to assess the situation and propose solutions to address any potential issue," the statement added.
Framatome would not directly address the content of the letter to the Department of Energy when asked by CNN.
The letter comes as tensions between Beijing and Washington remain high and as G7 leaders met this weekend in the United Kingdom with China an important topic of discussion. There are no indications the reports of a leak were discussed at a high level at the summit.
A warning from a French nuclear company
The issue first emerged when Framatome, a French designer and supplier of nuclear equipment and services that was contracted to help construct and operate the Chinese-French plant, reached out to the US Department of Energy late last month informing them of a potential issue at the Chinese nuclear plant.
The company, mainly owned by Électricité de France (EDF), a French utility company, then submitted an operational safety assistance request on June 3, formally asking for a waiver that would allow them to address an urgent safety matter, to the Department of Energy, warning American officials that the nuclear reactor is leaking fission gas.
The company followed up with DOE on June 8 asking for an expedited review of their request, according to a memo obtained by CNN.
"The situation is an imminent radiological threat to the site and to the public and Framatome urgently requests permission to transfer technical data and assistance as may be necessary to return the plant to normal operation," read the June 8 memo from the company's subject matter expert to the Energy Department.
Framatome reached out to the US government for assistance, the document indicates, because a Chinese government agency was continuing to increase its limits on the amount of gas that could safely be released from the facility without shutting it down, according to the documents reviewed by CNN.
When asked by CNN for comment, the Energy Department did not directly address the memo's claim that China was raising the limits.
In the June 8 memo, Framatome informed DOE the Chinese safety authority has continued to raise regulatory "off-site dose limits." It also says the company suspects that limit might be increased again as to keep the leaking reactor running despite safety concerns for the surrounding population.
"To ensure off-site dose limits are maintained within acceptable bounds to not cause undue harm to the surrounding population, TNPJVC (operator of Taishan-1) is required to comply with an regulatory limit and otherwise shut the reactor down if such a limit is exceeded," the June 8 memo reads.
It notes that this limit was established at a level consistent with what is dictated by the French safety authority, but "due to the increasing number of failures," China's safety authority, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has since revised the limit to more than double the initial release, "which in turn increases off-site risk to the public and on-site workers."
As of May 30, the Taishan reactor had reached 90% of the allegedly revised limit, the memo adds, noting concerns the plant operator may be "petitioning the NNSA to further increase the shutdown limit on an exigent basis in an effort to keep running which in turn would continue to increase the risk to the off-site population and the workers at the plant site."
The NNSA is a semi-autonomous agency in China responsible for enhancing national security through the military application of nuclear and radiation science.
The US State Department came into possession of the June 8 letter and immediately began engaging with interagency partners and with the French government, State Department officials said.
Over the course of 48-72 hours, the US government has been in repeated contact with French officials and US technical experts at DOE, State Department officials said, noting that this flurry of activity was due to the June 8 letter.
Subsequently, there were several urgent questions for the French government and Framatome, they added. CNN has reached out to the French embassy in Washington for comment.
Still, Rofer, the retired nuclear scientist, warns that a gas leak could indicate bigger problems.
"If they do have a gas leak, that indicates some of their containment is broken," Rofer said. "It also argues that maybe some of the fuel elements could be broken, which would be a more serious problem."
"That would be a reason for shutting down the reactor and would then require the reactor to be refueled," Rofer told CNN, adding that removing the fuel elements must be done carefully.
For now, US officials do not think the leak is at "crisis level," but acknowledge it is increasing and bears monitoring, the source familiar with the situation told CNN.
While there is a chance the situation could become a disaster, US officials currently believe it is more likely that it will not become one, the source added.
China has expanded its use of nuclear energy in recent years, and it represents about 5% of all power generated in the country. According to China Nuclear Energy Association, there were 16 operational nuclear plants with 49 nuclear reactors in China as of March 2021, with the total generation capacity of 51,000 megawatts.
The city of Taishan has a population of 950,000 and is situated in the southeast of the country in Guangdong province, which is home to 126 million residents and has a GDP of $1.6 trillion, comparable to that of Russia and South Korea.
CNN's Kylie Atwood, Kristen Holmes, Yong Xiong and Shanshan Wang contributed to this report.
CNN · by Zachary Cohen, CNN
3. U.S. Fight Against Chinese 5G Efforts Shifts From Threats to Incentives
Excerpts:
Ms. Kaptur said such countries still have weak economies and should be offered alternatives to Beijing-backed infrastructure projects. “They are countries at risk,” she said.
Many Central and Eastern European countries, including Romania, Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states, have been broadly receptive to American arguments against Huawei. Many also view strong military relations with the U.S. as vital after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula.
Many have been skeptical of China, too. In 2019, Poland jailed a Huawei executive on espionage charges, while Baltic and Romanian governments have taken steps to limit their countries’ use of Huawei. Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis has demanded China replace its current ambassador to his country, after a series of public spats largely about the role of Huawei in the country.
Yet the Chinese government has found partners in the region, particularly in Hungary, whose capital Budapest is hosting a new Huawei research center. Huawei opened a similar center in Serbia last year. Several countries have also signed up for Beijing’s Belt and Road program, in which Chinese government-backed institutions largely finance and build highways, ports and other infrastructure.
U.S. Fight Against Chinese 5G Efforts Shifts From Threats to Incentives
Washington is organizing workshops and offering a handbook to help governments avoid using Huawei, ZTE gear
WSJ · by Stu Woo and Drew Hinshaw
U.S. officials say they also plan to offer training to foreign politicians, regulators and academics overseeing the rollout of 5G networks in their respective countries in coming months and years. Leading the initiative is the Commerce Department’s Commercial Law Development Program, whose mission is to advance U.S. foreign policy by directly collaborating with foreign governments on technical and legal matters.
To help with training, U.S. officials say they are putting together a reference book that includes case studies of how American allies such as Britain have implemented restrictions on Chinese telecom equipment.
Over the weekend, the Group of Seven industrialized nations unveiled a new global infrastructure initiative called “Build Back Better World.” The Biden administration has positioned it as an alternative to China’s Belt and Road initiative, which has aimed Chinese investment at infrastructure projects around the world. While not part of the weekend G7 initiative, Washington’s new incentives for avoiding Chinese telecom purchases underscores the U.S.’s special focus on the telecom industry.
“The Biden-Harris administration views 5G security as a high priority,” said Stephen Anderson, an acting State Department deputy assistant secretary overseeing its outreach efforts on telecom and technology. He said U.S. experts will advise countries on the costs, regulations and cybersecurity considerations needed to build 5G networks in an effort to dissuade them from using Huawei and other Chinese equipment.
Meanwhile, a large, bipartisan group in Congress is backing a bill introduced last month that would allow Central and Eastern European countries to receive American foreign aid specifically to buy non-Chinese telecom equipment.
The efforts represent the latest phase of a long-running U.S. campaign to discourage the use of Chinese telecom equipment by overseas allies. Washington began the campaign a few years ago by mostly wielding sticks—warning allies that it would limit intelligence sharing with countries that used Huawei equipment.
The results of that effort have been mixed: Germany, for instance, has so far refused to ban Huawei gear. Other allies like the U.K. have moved to restrict Chinese equipment.
Now, Washington is offering carrots in the form of loans and training to encourage countries to stay away from Huawei and other Chinese suppliers. Telecom executives, as well officials in the U.S. and allied countries, have said Chinese gear is often cheaper than equivalent equipment made by Huawei rivals Ericsson AB and Nokia Corp.
U.S. officials and lawmakers say cybersecurity is important in 5G because the technology is envisioned to be embedded in so many sensitive industries and devices, such as automated factories and internet-connected heart monitors.
Huawei and other Chinese makers have said they aren’t beholden to China and wouldn’t use their gear to spy.
Photo: tingshu wang/Reuters
Late in the Trump administration last autumn, U.S. agencies began a push to offer loans to developing countries to buy from preferred telecom-equipment providers such as Sweden’s Ericsson, Finland’s Nokia and South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co. The initiative notched a victory in Ethiopia last month, when a U.S.-backed consortium beat out a Beijing-funded rival to build a new nationwide wireless network. Washington had offered up to $500 million in loans.
Historically, such U.S. lending has been restricted by law to developing countries. That has kept funding from reaching places like Central and Eastern Europe. Poorer than many of the world’s most advanced economies, these countries are nonetheless considered wealthy enough to fall outside the developing-world category.
Congress has already made some recent exemptions, including for energy projects. A new U.S. agency, the International Development Finance Corp., last year approved a $300 million investment in the Three Seas Initiative, a fund that invests in energy projects and other infrastructure in 12 Central and Eastern European countries.
The bipartisan bill making its way through Congress would exempt telecommunications projects, too. Rep. Marcy Kaptur, an Ohio Democrat, introduced the legislation last month. It would grant Central and Eastern European countries an exemption to receive U.S. foreign aid to buy non-Chinese telecom equipment. She said she expects the bill, which like other recent legislation aimed at countering Beijing has broad bipartisan support, to pass this year.
Ms. Kaptur said such countries still have weak economies and should be offered alternatives to Beijing-backed infrastructure projects. “They are countries at risk,” she said.
Many Central and Eastern European countries, including Romania, Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states, have been broadly receptive to American arguments against Huawei. Many also view strong military relations with the U.S. as vital after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula.
Many have been skeptical of China, too. In 2019, Poland jailed a Huawei executive on espionage charges, while Baltic and Romanian governments have taken steps to limit their countries’ use of Huawei. Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis has demanded China replace its current ambassador to his country, after a series of public spats largely about the role of Huawei in the country.
Yet the Chinese government has found partners in the region, particularly in Hungary, whose capital Budapest is hosting a new Huawei research center. Huawei opened a similar center in Serbia last year. Several countries have also signed up for Beijing’s Belt and Road program, in which Chinese government-backed institutions largely finance and build highways, ports and other infrastructure.
WSJ · by Stu Woo and Drew Hinshaw
4. Heads of G7 agree to invest on B3W infrastructure
The Korean press is picking up on the B3W narrative.
Excerpt:
According to the White House, heads of G7 countries including U.S. President Joe Biden agreed to invest on the global infrastructure at the G7 summit held in Cornwall, the U.K. on Saturday (local time). The project is called “B3W (Build Back Better World),” which was named after Biden’s presidential campaign “Build Back Better.” It is garnering attention as it is the first alternative of advanced countries against China’s project.
Heads of G7 agree to invest on B3W infrastructure
Posted June. 14, 2021 07:28,
Updated June. 14, 2021 07:28
Heads of G7 agree to invest on B3W infrastructure. June. 14, 2021 07:28. [email protected].
The U.S. drew an agreement among G7 countries for a large-scale global infrastructure investment project to hold China’s “One Belt, One Road project” in check. It is an attempt to unify allies in the Western world to stand against China’s expanding “economic territory”’ through a large-scale external economic cooperation scheme.
According to the White House, heads of G7 countries including U.S. President Joe Biden agreed to invest on the global infrastructure at the G7 summit held in Cornwall, the U.K. on Saturday (local time). The project is called “B3W (Build Back Better World),” which was named after Biden’s presidential campaign “Build Back Better.” It is garnering attention as it is the first alternative of advanced countries against China’s project.
President Moon Jae-in who participated in the summit as an invited country met Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga for the first time at the Carbis Bay hotel in Cornwall before the first session of the summit under the theme of responding to COVID-19, but only exchanged greetings. A side meeting between Korea, Japan and the U.S. did not happen as Cheong Wa Dae expected. Cheong Wa Dae had left the door open for a pull-aside meeting with Japan at the G7 summit.
5. How Congress can fight Hamas's use of human shields
Conclusion:
Finally, Congress should request that the administration pursue a legally binding UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) focused on countering human shields use by terrorists. It would not have to address a particular situation, armed conflict, or illicit armed group, and may not draw a veto from China or from Russia (which itself has repeatedly complained of human shields use against it).The resolution could require all member states to take steps to hinder, and impose consequences for, human shields use. This includes adopting national legislation criminalizing human shields use. Similar resolutions have already required national legislation and other measures to counter terrorism, the recruitment of foreign fighters, and the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Congress has led the way before in combating the use of human shields; it should lead again.
How Congress can fight Hamas's use of human shields
The Hill · by Orde F. Kittrie and Matthew Zweig, opinion contributors · June 11, 2021
A ceasefire has halted for now the Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. But the conflict continues, including through campaigns at the United Nations and in the media to attribute victory and apportion blame.
During the May 2021 conflict, Hamas reportedly used civilians as human shields to protect its military assets from Israeli counterstrikes. For example, Hamas reportedly located military tunnels under a school and adjacent to a kindergarten, a mosque, and a hospital. It reportedly placed weapons stockpiles in several different houses and apartment buildings, situated pivotal intelligence research and operations facilities in the same building as the Associated Press and other foreign journalists, and installed its military intelligence headquarters next to a kindergarten. Hamas also reportedly used civilian apartment buildings for military planning and operations, positioned rocket launch sites next to civilian buildings, and situated weapons factories in the heart of densely populated civilian areas.
Following the ceasefire, a resolution, passed by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), established a one-sided commission of inquiry designed to whitewash the use of human shields and otherwise portray the conflict’s tragic loss of life as entirely Israel’s fault. The Trump administration had withdrawn from the UNHRC in 2018, accusing the forum of having a “chronic anti-Israel bias.” But the Biden administration announced in February that it would “re-engage immediately and robustly” with the Council, explaining that a “vacuum of U.S. leadership” did “nothing” to reform the UNHRC’s “disproportionate focus on Israel.”
The U.S. was not one of the over 50 UN member states that spoke at the May 27 UNHRC meeting that created the commission of inquiry. Afterwards, U.S. diplomats slammed the UNHRC decision as a “deeply unfortunate … distraction that adds nothing to ongoing diplomatic and humanitarian efforts.” The resolution creating the commission strongly implies that only Israel is to blame for harm done during the Gaza conflict. It does not even mention Hamas, let alone its rocket attacks on Israeli civilians and use of Gaza civilians as human shields. Congress can — and should — help set the record straight.
Some of America’s adversaries, including the Islamic State and Taliban, also rely on the use of human shields. U.S. law requires the president to hold Hamas and Hezbollah accountable for human shields use, which violates international laws of armed conflict including the Geneva Conventions. Now is the time for the president to implement — and for Congress to expand — that law.
Congress led efforts to counter human shields use when it unanimously passed the Sanctioning the Use of Civilians as Defenseless Shields Act (Shields Act), which was enacted on Dec. 21, 2018. This landmark legislation requires the president to submit to Congress a list of foreign persons involved in the use of human shields by Hamas or Hezbollah. It also requires the president to impose sanctions on all listed persons.
The Shields Act required the president to submit his list not later than one year after the date of enactment, and annually thereafter. The law requires the list to cover all violations that happened after enactment.
Yet, two and a half years since the Shields Act became law, there has not been a single sanctions designation using the authorities provided for in this Act. Despite considerable evidence of human shields use by both Hamas and Hezbollah, the Trump administration did not fulfill its statutory obligation, and the Biden administration has not yet done so.
Congress should also strengthen and expand the Shields Act. Currently, the law only mandates sanctions after a person involved in human shields use has been listed in the required annual report. Rather than waiting for a yearly report, Congress could revise the law to require the administration to designate additional individuals, entities, or agencies of foreign states whenever they undertake proscribed activities.
Second, Congress should expand the scope of the Shields Act so it does not just require sanctions in response to human shields use by specific members of Hamas and Hezbollah; rather, the law should apply to human shields use by all terrorist and non-state organizations — including the Taliban, ISIS, and the Houthis — and authorize sanctions on the organization as a whole as well as on specific culpable members.
Third, when expanding the scope of the sanctions, Congress could also add sanctions for perpetrators of two other war crimes in which terrorists frequently engage during conflicts with the U.S., Israeli, and other western militaries: the deliberate use of specially protected property (e.g. hospitals and religious institutions) to shield military assets, and the deliberate targeting of civilians.
Fourth, the Congress can direct DOD to work with NATO and with individual allied and partner nations to counter the use of human shields. It will find a willing partner in NATO. In his capacity as NATO supreme allied commander Europe, U.S. General Curtis Scaparrotti in 2019 said it is “essential” that NATO member countries take additional steps to hold terrorists accountable for human-shields use. Scaparrotti specified that “measures at the national level,” including “criminalisation, robust national criminal law enforcement, active prosecution, imposition of sanctions, international cooperation, and spotlighting violations … are key in order to deter, hinder, and impose accountability for violations of international law such as the use of human shields” and would “become a major and substantial contribution to the better planning and conduct of NATO operations and missions.”
Finally, Congress should request that the administration pursue a legally binding UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) focused on countering human shields use by terrorists. It would not have to address a particular situation, armed conflict, or illicit armed group, and may not draw a veto from China or from Russia (which itself has repeatedly complained of human shields use against it).The resolution could require all member states to take steps to hinder, and impose consequences for, human shields use. This includes adopting national legislation criminalizing human shields use. Similar resolutions have already required national legislation and other measures to counter terrorism, the recruitment of foreign fighters, and the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Congress has led the way before in combating the use of human shields; it should lead again.
Orde Kittrie is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and law professor at Arizona State University. Matthew Zweig is a senior fellow at FDD. FDD is a nonpartisan think tank focused on foreign policy and national security issues. Follow them in twitter @OrdeFK and @MatthewZweig1
The Hill · by Orde F. Kittrie and Matthew Zweig, opinion contributors · June 11, 2021
6. The personal impact of an American general on an Afghan officer
The personal impact of an American general on an Afghan officer
An officer who was a second lieutenant just a year before my birthday in 1983 has earned the trust of Americans and Afghans alike. Now a four-star general, Gen. Austin Scott Miller is the longest-serving commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan. His reputation seems to be as solid here in the USA as it is in Afghanistan. In my country, people from all walks of life know his name and his compassion for a peaceful Afghanistan.
I did not get to know General Miller until I wrote a letter to Maj. Brent Taylor’s family in early November 2018. Major Taylor was a civilian contractor working with the U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan. Their team was responsible to train and conduct joint operations with elite Afghan commandos. He was mentoring Afghan commandos at Camp Scorpion (after Major Taylors’ death the camp was named after him, Camp Taylor). A generous man, Major Taylor was the only American who participated in daily running with Afghan commandos, solely because he wanted to spend time and make friends with them. When I heard about his assassination by an Afghan commando, I was shocked and horrified. The first thing that came to my mind was his family — his kids, who he often spoke about. I wanted them to hear something good from Afghanistan along with the news of their father being killed. Therefore, the least I could do to ease their pain was to write a condolence letter. I wrote the letter and in a matter of hours, it was trending on Twitter. When the letter made news, I was invited to Resolute Support (RS) headquarters to see General Miller. Just a major at the time, I was escorted by a VIP vehicle inside the RS compound, without being searched. This was my first hint at how much General Miller had learned about Afghan culture since 2001.
To my surprise, General Miller had also invited Gen. Yasin Zia, the current chief of General Staff of the Afghan Army, and Masoom Stanekzai, director general of National Directorate of Security at the time (now our current head of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan’s peace negotiating team). In our meeting, he said that the letter was historic and its impact on Americans, especially Major Taylor’s family, will be tremendous. He said that the U.S. has fought many wars — from Europe to Korea, to Japan, to Vietnam — and has been recognized by many nations for their efforts; however, this letter sets Afghanistan apart. It represents the personal bonds that have been made between the two uniforms, Americans and Afghans. It represents the trust that has been built throughout the last 20 years between brothers in arms.
That meeting changed my life forever. In the meeting, he introduced me to General Zia. He told me that he and Ambassador John Bass (former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan) had mentioned the letter and its positive impact on the American public to the president of Afghanistan, Dr. Mohammad Ashraf Ghani. President Ghani assured them of mine and my family’s safety. A few days later, I was invited by Assadullah Khalid, the minister of defense, and was asked to serve as his acting strategic communications director. That position allowed me to work closely with General Miller, his aides, and former spokesman Dave Butler. We held regular joint meetings (Dr. Zia, Minister Khalid, Minister Andarabi, and Minister Stanekzai, as well as General Miller, were usually present). In those meetings, I was able to get to know him more.
General Miller was personally and professionally attached to Afghanistan and its future. He always spoke about winning. He emphasized several times that winning the war in the information domain was as important as winning on the battlefields. For example, because of his emphasis on the information domain, the Afghan Security Sector (Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Interior, and NDS) established a joint center (we called it “media nexus“) for the first time to counter propaganda by the Taliban and other terrorist groups. At the same time, he encouraged self-confidence in younger officers like me. As a leader, he gave us the strength we needed and let him put his trust upon us. He rarely made promises, but when he made them, he would fulfill those words. I remember in one of our meetings he asked me of my wishes, to which I said: studying at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C. I am studying here today. That’s his impact. Coming from a poor family, having no connection to the political apparatus in the country, I would never have imagined working for our national security adviser and our president. I worked at the Office of National Security Council as the head of the Presidential Information Coordination Center (a center similar to the White House Situation Room), responsible for collecting and analyzing data related to national security and to provide daily, weekly, and monthly reports to the president of Afghanistan. I could not occupy this position without General Miller’s support and trust.
Beyond supporting young officers, General Miller, as a fearless and honest representative of the U.S. military, would visit provincial and corps commands regularly, speaking to young soldiers, and appearing before journalists to answer their questions in regards to peace and war. Not only that, he would bounce between Doha and Kabul to negotiate peace with the Taliban while at the same time hold meetings with security sector representatives to ensure the Taliban could not win the war militarily. With such a tight schedule, he still appears in local markets to strengthen the sense of hope in ordinary Afghans. In those appearances, he always emphasizes to his aides and bodyguards to respect Afghan culture and traditions.
I might never get the opportunity to say goodbye to him when he leaves Afghanistan. But I am sure that our nation’s history will remember him as a true friend, a guide, and a leader who gave all he could to bring peace to Afghanistan.
Col. Abdul Rahman Rahmani is a student at National Defense University in Washington and former staffer at the Office of the National Security Council, Afghanistan.
Editor’s note: This is an op-ed and as such, the opinions expressed are those of the author. If you would like to respond, or have an editorial of your own you would like to submit, please contact Military Times managing editor Howard Altman, [email protected].
7. FDD | Biden Lifts Sanctions on Firms Linked to Key Assad Backer
Excerpts:
The appearance of hesitation to hold the Assad regime accountable comes at an inopportune moment as Biden prepares for his first summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. A major issue of contention there will be Putin’s readiness to employ starvation as a weapon against Syrian civilians who remain in areas outside the Assad regime’s control. Specifically, Putin may employ Russia’s veto to block the UN Security Council’s reauthorization of aid deliveries into northwest Syria directly from Turkey, a route that bypasses Damascus, thereby preventing Assad from blocking or diverting the shipments.
If the administration did lift sanctions on ASM and Silver Pine as an indicator of goodwill toward Assad, Moscow, or Tehran, that would be a mistake, since they have no record of reciprocating. Within the past week, Syrian shelling and Russian air raids killed even more civilians. Concessions at this point would likely communicate a lack of resolve on Washington’s part.
The administration should quickly clarify why it chose to delist two of Foz’s companies. If it alleges their conduct has changed, it should present evidence of that change, since Foz and his other companies remain leading contributors to the Assad regime’s finances. More broadly, the administration should clarify its still-undefined policy toward Syria and appoint a special envoy of a stature comparable to those who served under the previous administration.
FDD | Biden Lifts Sanctions on Firms Linked to Key Assad Backer
fdd.org · by David Adesnik Senior Fellow and Director of Research · June 11, 2021
The Treasury Department announced on Thursday it had lifted sanctions on two Dubai-based corporations under the control of Samer Foz, whom it designated in 2019 for “directly supporting the murderous Assad regime.” The rationale for this reversal remains unclear, leaving open the question of whether the administration intended its action as a signal to the regime of Bashar al-Assad and its sponsors in Moscow and Tehran.
The names of Foz’s Dubai-based firms are ASM International General Trading Company and Silver Pine DMCC. At the time of their blacklisting in 2019, Treasury explained that “[a]lthough much of ASM International Trading’s overt trade is in foodstuff commodities such as grain and sugar, the company also operates in the fields of oilfield services, drilling products, and supplies to the oil and natural gas industry.” Treasury did not offer specifics on Silver Pine beyond noting that it “is an international trading company that operates out of the ASM International Trading offices.”
Both Foz himself as well as his brothers Amer and Husen, who hold top executive positions in ASM and Silver Pine, respectively, remain under sanctions, along with Aman Holdings, the vehicle through which Foz controls at least a dozen companies. The European Union has sanctioned Foz as well.
The delisting of ASM and Silver Pine garnered less attention than the removal of sanctions on three former Iranian officials “and two companies previously involved in the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of Iranian petrochemical products.” The State Department’s spokesman insisted this action reflected a purported change of behavior or status on the part of the delisted individuals and firms and had “no connection” to President Joe Biden’s efforts to revive the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.
Neither State nor Treasury indicated whether a change of behavior accounted for the delisting of ASM and Silver Pine. Along with its initial designation of Foz in 2019, Treasury designated two Beirut-based firms, Synergy SAL Offshore and BS Company Offshore, which “facilitated shipments of Iranian-origin petroleum to Syria,” a violation of U.S. sanctions on both Syria and Iran. Both Synergy and BS Company remain blacklisted.
In late May, the State Department asserted that the Biden administration would continue to implement sanctions required by the Caesar Act, which “was passed by an overwhelming majority of the American Congress.” Yet the administration has not, so far, designated a single target under Caesar or related authorities, whereas the previous administration issued new designations every month after the law took effect in June 2020. By December, 113 individuals and entities faced Caesar-related sanctions.
The appearance of hesitation to hold the Assad regime accountable comes at an inopportune moment as Biden prepares for his first summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. A major issue of contention there will be Putin’s readiness to employ starvation as a weapon against Syrian civilians who remain in areas outside the Assad regime’s control. Specifically, Putin may employ Russia’s veto to block the UN Security Council’s reauthorization of aid deliveries into northwest Syria directly from Turkey, a route that bypasses Damascus, thereby preventing Assad from blocking or diverting the shipments.
If the administration did lift sanctions on ASM and Silver Pine as an indicator of goodwill toward Assad, Moscow, or Tehran, that would be a mistake, since they have no record of reciprocating. Within the past week, Syrian shelling and Russian air raids killed even more civilians. Concessions at this point would likely communicate a lack of resolve on Washington’s part.
The administration should quickly clarify why it chose to delist two of Foz’s companies. If it alleges their conduct has changed, it should present evidence of that change, since Foz and his other companies remain leading contributors to the Assad regime’s finances. More broadly, the administration should clarify its still-undefined policy toward Syria and appoint a special envoy of a stature comparable to those who served under the previous administration.
David Adesnik is research director and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), where he also contributes to FDD’s Iran Program and Center on Economic and Financial Power (CEFP). For more analysis from David, the Iran Program, and CEFP, please subscribe HERE. Follow David on Twitter @adesnik. Follow FDD on Twitter @FDD and @FDD_Iran and @FDD_CEFP. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.
fdd.org · by David Adesnik Senior Fellow and Director of Research · June 11, 2021
8. FDD | What to Expect From the Biden-Putin Summit
Excerpt:
The summary above is just a cursory look at the points of tension between the U.S. and Russia. The Biden administration has repeatedly stated it does not think that relations between the U.S. and Russia “need to continue on a negative trajectory.”
Is there any reason to think that Vladimir Putin agrees?
FDD | What to Expect From the Biden-Putin Summit
fdd.org · by Thomas Joscelyn Senior Fellow and Senior Editor of FDD's Long War Journal · June 11, 2021
President Biden is in Europe for the first major foreign tour of his administration. He will meet with the leaders of America’s various European allies to discuss a wide range of topics. But the main event, the sitdown that is highly anticipated, will be his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin on June 16.
Biden made his desired outcome the summit well-known months in advance. The president seeks a “stable and predictable relationship with Russia consistent with U.S. interests.” This is a rather modest and reasonable goal. Biden doesn’t want any of the areas of tension between the two countries to evolve into a full-blown crisis. But there is an open question concerning how the president and his team will square this goal with President Biden’s overarching framework for conducting foreign affairs in 2021.
The president sees the world as a contest between democracies and autocracies. Autocrats “think that democracy can’t compete in the 21st century with autocracies because it takes too long to get consensus,” Biden said during a speech before Congress in April. “We have to prove democracy still works—that our government still works and we can deliver for our people,” he emphasized.
The main autocracy Biden has in mind is the one run by Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). But Vladimir Putin’s Russia, while not nearly as powerful as China, is certainly on the short list of autocracies Biden seeks to contain.
The president has many hot button issues to address with the former KGB man. These issues include: possible new strategic arms talks, cyber threats, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the humanitarian crisis in Syria, Russia’s meddling in U.S. elections, the status of jailed Russian dissident Alexei Navalny and, of course, the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a daunting list of topics, but there are still other issues that could come up between the two.
Let’s briefly examine three areas the Biden administration has been working on.
First, the Biden administration has already extended the New START Treaty, which limits the two countries’ strategic nuclear arms. The treaty, signed on April 8, 2010, was due to expire in February, but the Biden administration exercised a clause in the deal that allowed for it to be extended for five more years. The Russians agreed to this measure.
The Biden team hopes that New START can serve as a building block for a more robust arms control agreement, but that remains to be seen.
Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, provided the press with an overview of the European diplomatic tour earlier this week. Sullivan explained that the U.S. has already expressed its “concerns about Russia’s new nuclear systems,” which are presumably not covered by the treaty. According to Sullivan, the U.S. wants “additional elements … added to strategic stability talks in the realm of space or cyber or other areas.” However, Sullivan said, “that’s something to be determined as we go forward.”
Second, cyber threats against the U.S. are on the agenda. When a reporter asked Sullivan if the recent ransomware attacks on companies operating in the U.S. and elsewhere will be discussed, he responded: “Yes, 100 percent.”
Sullivan went on to make a distinction that deserves more attention. He drew a line between the massive breach of SolarWinds and other recent ransom operations. “We do not judge that the Russian government has been behind these recent ransomware attacks, but we do judge that actors in Russia have,” Sullivan said. “And we believe that Russia can take and must take steps to deal with it.”
Some brief background is in order.
Last year, Russian hackers, reportedly working for the Kremlin’s premier intelligence service (the SVR), infected software used by SolarWinds to update code on thousands of computers. From March 2020 to June 2020, according to the company, 18,000 customers downloaded the update code, though there is some ambiguity concerning how many computers were truly compromised. Regardless, this was a massive breach that infected dozens of leading companies, as well as a number of U.S. government agencies. As reported by NPR, the hackers even “found their way, rather embarrassingly, into the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, or CISA—the office at the Department of Homeland Security whose job it is to protect federal computer networks from cyberattacks.” The malicious code inserted into the SolarWinds update allowed hackers to remotely access computers and steal sensitive data and emails. The ramifications of the hack are still being assessed.
The U.S. openly blames Russia for the SolarWinds hack. In April, the Biden administration imposed sanctions on the Russian government for a range of actions, including the SolarWinds breach.
By way of contrast, the administration is treating recent ransomware attacks as criminal endeavors—not intelligence operations. This is understandable insofar as the ransomware schemes are intended to generate millions of dollars for criminals and are not designed for intelligence collection or other forms of subterfuge. The problem is that the Kremlin could be, at a minimum, turning a blind eye to such activities and thereby tacitly endorsing the attacks.
The recent ransomware hacks attributed to Russian “actors” include the attacks on JBS USA Holdings Inc. and Colonial Pipeline. JBS is one of America’s largest meat processers and a global leader in the industry. According to the Wall Street Journal, JBS “paid an $11 million ransom to cybercriminals” after they disrupted plant operations, and therefore America’s supply of meat, in early June. The payment was made in bitcoin. Similarly, according to Bloomberg, Colonial paid a ransom of $4.4 million to the Russian hacker group known as DarkSide after the “largest fuel pipeline” in the U.S. was prevented from providing fuel in a timely fashion on the East Coast.
In advance of the Biden-Putin summit, Sullivan told reporters that the administration is “not going to be in the business of telegraphing our punches publicly or issuing threats publicly.”
“I’m just going to say that we believe Russia has a responsibility,” Sullivan said. “And, of course, any country that doesn’t act, then the United States will have to consider what its options are, following that.”
In other words, the Kremlin has a “responsibility” to crackdown on the cyber criminals stealing from companies by interrupting the provision of basic goods and services. If Moscow fails to do so, then that’s telling.
A third issue is just as thorny as the others—Russia’s push into Ukraine.
In the days leading up to his trip, the president clearly stated his support for President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. “President Biden affirmed the United States’ unwavering commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of ongoing Russian aggression in Donbas and Crimea,” according to the White House’s readout of Biden’s call with Zelensky on June 7.
Shortly before their call, however, Zelensky expressed his displeasure with the Biden administration’s decision to give up its opposition to Russia’s development of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. The issue is contentious for the Ukrainians, as Russia gas currently flows through its borders on the way to Europe. Nord Stream 2 will allow Moscow to circumvent Ukraine while delivering gas to Germany. According to Axios, Zelensky described the pipeline as “a weapon, a real weapon … in the hands of the Russian Federation.” Zelensky added: “It is not very understandable … that the bullets to this weapon can possibly be provided by such a great country as the United States.”
Asked if the pipeline would be a subject of discussion with the Germans or Russians, Sullivan responded: “I expect Nord Stream 2 will come up in conversations with the Germans. Again, I don’t want to negotiate publicly on this issue. They understand well our concerns. But we do want to talk to them about what the implications of this pipeline are for energy security in Europe and for Ukraine.”
The summary above is just a cursory look at the points of tension between the U.S. and Russia. The Biden administration has repeatedly stated it does not think that relations between the U.S. and Russia “need to continue on a negative trajectory.”
Is there any reason to think that Vladimir Putin agrees?
Thomas Joscelyn is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Senior Editor for FDD’s Long War Journal. Follow Tom on Twitter @thomasjoscelyn. FDD is a nonpartisan think tank focused on foreign policy and national security issues.
fdd.org · by Thomas Joscelyn Senior Fellow and Senior Editor of FDD's Long War Journal · June 11, 2021
9. Beijing Protests a Lab Leak Too Much
China as a Shakespearean tragedy?
Excerpt:
The Chinese Communist Party’s official account of the virus is that it “jumped” from bats to humans at a wet market not far from the Wuhan lab. The city government was quick to close down that market, seal it off and provide the world with photos showing that the sealing had been done. Why were the authorities so swift and conspicuous? Because they suspected the wet market or because they wanted the world to? If they were certain that Mother Nature was the culprit, why silence their scientists and seal laboratory records? And why begin a vicious cyberstruggle against someone who records daily life as she sees it?
Beijing Protests a Lab Leak Too Much
Strong evidence the virus escaped: the Communist Party’s vicious attacks on anyone who speaks out.
Photo: Martin Kozlowski
I am as eager as anyone to follow the world’s virologists as they try to determine how Covid-19 emerged in Wuhan, China. But as a longtime student of Chinese Communist political language, I will need considerable persuading that the disease came from bats or a wet market. The linguistic evidence is overwhelming that Chinese leaders believe the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the source.
Many years ago a distinguished Chinese writer, Wu Zuxiang, explained to me that there is truth in Communist Party pronouncements, but you have to read them “upside down.” If a newspaper says “the Party has made great strides against corruption in Henan,” then you know that corruption has recently been especially bad in Henan. If you read about the heroic rescue of eight miners somewhere, you can guess that a mine collapse might have killed hundreds who aren’t mentioned. Read upside-down, there is a sense in which the official press never lies. It cannot lie. It has to tell you what the party wants you to believe, and if you can figure out the party’s motive—which always exists—then you have a sense of the truth.
A few years ago another outstanding Chinese writer, Su Xiaokang, brought me one step deeper. You Westerners, he explained, are too hung up on the question of whether propaganda is true or not. For the regime, truth and falsity are beside the point. A statement might be true, false or partly true. What matters is only whether it works. Does it advance the interests of the party? The top leaders hand out words and phrases for their minions to use, like trowels in a garden. The minions dig with them.
After the Communist Party locked down the city of Wuhan in winter 2020, a local writer named Fang Fang began recording the conditions and moods of the people around her and posting entries on the Internet. “Fang Fang’s Diary” quickly attracted a large following, and the author became known as “the conscience of Wuhan.” Michael Berry, a UCLA professor of Asian languages and cultures who was translating one of the author’s novels, went to work on her posts as well. They were published last summer by HarperCollins.
The book, “Wuhan Diary,” consists of plain truth-telling. It is unadorned, simple language that stood out in Wuhan only because no one else was daring to write anything. But the regime’s response was to attack Fang Fang more ferociously than any Chinese writer has been attacked since Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution in the late 1960s. In his day, Mao had made “struggle” a transitive verb: to struggle someone was to surround him or her, in the street or on a stage, and hurl taunts, insults, threats and demands for confessions; no bystander would dare speak for the struggled for fear of becoming the next target. Verbal abuse often led to physical beatings, sometimes even to death.
Xi Jinping has revived struggle in a form that might be called “cyberstruggle.” The young zealots of Mao’s era, called Red Guards, have been replaced by equally frenetic strugglers nicknamed “Little Pinks.” In spring of 2020, Little Pinks and others struggled Fang Fang: “Down with the imperialist running dog and traitor to China, Fang Fang!” To them, the diary was a “pile of messed up garbage and fabricated rumors [that] should be called ‘Fang Fang’s Sexual Fantasies’!” She received death threats. A witch hunt identified her supporters and began to struggle them, too. Mr. Berry, her translator, wasn’t spared. Hundreds of text messages arrived on his cell phone: “You ugly white devil, feasting on the flesh of man and drinking human blood, the eighteen realms of hell were created especially for you!”; “If you ever set foot in China again I will kill you”; and others.
The invective may tell us something about the origins of Covid. Two facts are worth noting. First, the attacks are coordinated, not a random explosion of vitriol. Second, they are much stronger—orders of magnitude stronger—than other verbal attacks on individuals in China recently have been. These two facts, taken together, make it all but certain that the campaign against Fang Fang came from the top.
Borrowing Wu Zuxiang’s technique of reading “upside down,” what the Fang Fang campaign tells us is that Xi Jinping is extremely worried that the world will hold his regime responsible for the pandemic. The most radioactive question has been where the virus originated. Fang Fang made no mention of whether the virus originated in a wet market or a lab; she merely documented all of the suffering that began in Wuhan. The regime’s focus on the origins question alone all but screams a truth.
The Chinese Communist Party’s official account of the virus is that it “jumped” from bats to humans at a wet market not far from the Wuhan lab. The city government was quick to close down that market, seal it off and provide the world with photos showing that the sealing had been done. Why were the authorities so swift and conspicuous? Because they suspected the wet market or because they wanted the world to? If they were certain that Mother Nature was the culprit, why silence their scientists and seal laboratory records? And why begin a vicious cyberstruggle against someone who records daily life as she sees it?
Mr. Link is a professor of Chinese at the University of California, Riverside and an emeritus professor of East Asian studies at Princeton.
Copyright ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8
10. How States Can Respond If Biden Lifts Iran Sanctions
Excerpts:
Governors could get even more creative. Willie Sutton infamously said he robbed banks because “that’s where the money is.” The same is true for effective sanctions policy — target the banks and financial transactions.
The State of Florida passed an Iran banking law in 2012 that required all chartered banks to certify that they did not engage in transactions with the Central Bank of Iran or other dirty Iranian banks. The hiccup: The list of those companies would be based on the U.S. Treasury Department’s sanctions list, which isn’t much help as the Biden administration prepares to lift most Iran sanctions.
There may be an easy fix for Florida and other interested governors. As it happens, foreign banks must apply to state regulators to open offices and establish representation. States could add a simple certification requirement for existing and future applicants: With an exception for trade in food and medicine, the bank must pledge it will not facilitate transactions with or for any entity in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
How States Can Respond If Biden Lifts Iran Sanctions
Republican governors and legislatures have some effective tools at their disposal.
President Joe Biden speaks during a news conference with Virginia Governor Ralph Northam in Alexandria, Va., May 28, 2021. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)
Republican governors and legislatures have some effective tools at their disposal.
A sixth round of indirect talks between the United States and Iran kicks off this weekend in Vienna with President Joe Biden still desperate to lift sanctions on the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and rejoin a dangerous agreement that gives Iran future pathways to nuclear weapons. While Republicans in Congress are doing what they can to stop this slow-motion national-security train wreck, they face an uphill battle with Democrats in control of the House and Senate. In the short term, the power to prevent money from pouring into the mullahs’ coffers may instead rest with Republican governors who can leverage public-pension investments and state banking regulations to limit Tehran’s economic benefit.
Last month, the Republican Study Committee unveiled the “Max Pressure Act,” putting most House Republicans on record opposing U.S. reentry to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and pledging to reimpose maximum pressure on Iran whenever the power pendulum of Washington swings back to the GOP. In the Senate, a series of bills, resolutions, and letters signal a Republican Caucus united against the Iran nuclear deal — with sanctions amendments to must-pass legislation still possible later this year.
But the past few weeks have made something perfectly clear: Nothing will stop the Biden administration from lifting sanctions on Iran in the short term. Not the alarm sounded this week by the world’s top nuclear watchdog that Iran is actively concealing undeclared nuclear activities and materials. Not the recent findings by a Canadian court that Iran knowingly shot down a passenger airliner in 2019. Not Iran’s complicity in arming terrorist organizations and supporting violent attacks against Israeli civilians. And not even the likely imminent selection of Ebrahim Raisi — a mass murderer — as the Islamic Republic’s next president.
Biden apparently sent his special envoy for Iran, Rob Malley, to Vienna wearing rose-colored goggles. Malley will do whatever it takes to rescue an expiring, flawed nuclear agreement that guarantees Iran’s pathways to nuclear weapons — even lifting terrorism and missile sanctions on companies connected to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard storm troopers.
Republicans in Congress will gripe. They will demand that Biden submit any agreement for review before lifting sanctions, in accordance with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, but Biden could falsely claim the law doesn’t apply since he is simply returning to a deal Congress reviewed in 2015. Legislation to prevent lifting sanctions may be blocked by Democratic majorities in each chamber. A months-long battle will ensue to attach an amendment to the annual defense-authorization bill to reimpose terrorism sanctions on Iran.
The widespread Republican opposition to Biden’s Iran policy will undoubtedly create a chilling effect on long-term contracts with and investments in Iran. Few companies will want to repeat the experience of 2018 — paying steep costs to extract themselves from deals when a Republican president reimposed sanctions. But foreign banks will still get a green light from the U.S. Treasury Department to process transactions in the near term — as will would-be importers of Iranian energy and other commodities.
That’s where Republican governors and state legislatures can play an outsized role in defending U.S. national security. Few Americans would think of their state government as a player in foreign policy, but governors know better. States wield billion-dollar pension funds that invest in companies around the world. They contract with multinational corporations and require foreign banks to register with the state before they can open for business. That gives states enormous leverage in the realm of sanctions.
This, of course, is not a new idea. During the Save Darfur movement, states passed laws to divest their public-pension funds from companies that invested in Sudan’s energy sector. An Iran divestment movement followed, with states divesting their pensions from companies that helped Iran develop oil and gas. Since 2015, states have applied the same model to divest from companies that participate in the BDS movement (boycott, divestment, sanctions) targeting Israel.
As of late 2016, 31 states had some form of sanctions in place against the Islamic Republic. The mullahs understood the potential for these state laws to impede their access to foreign markets and insisted on language in the JCPOA committing the Obama administration to oppose such laws. In retrospect, however, these laws were far too narrow to create serious economic deterrence during a period when federal sanctions are suspended.
The Iran pension divestment laws that states adopted in the late 2000s were modeled after the Iran Sanctions Act — a 1990s federal sanctions law that narrowly targeted investors of a certain dollar threshold in Iran’s petroleum sector. It wasn’t until 2011 that Congress began vastly expanding Iran sanctions — targeting the Central Bank of Iran and blacklisting entire sectors of Iran’s economy. The Trump administration built on that foundation, blacklisting additional sectors of Iran’s economy that help finance terrorism and missiles.
While today’s state laws target narrow investment in oil and gas, federal sanctions — for the moment — apply to Iran’s financial, energy, metals, mining, minerals, manufacturing, and automotive sectors — all of which have been linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Governors and state legislatures should amend their pension-divestment statutes to align with this counter–IRGC framework — ordering their pension systems to divest from any company that engages in or facilitates a transaction with any entity connected to those sectors.
State divestment laws on Iran would grow teeth overnight. Banks and companies around the world would quickly find themselves on pension blacklists for taking advantage of Biden’s temporary sanctions relief.
And, yes, multinational companies — private and public — do pay attention to these lists. In 2015, Illinois became the first state in America to use pension divestment to target companies engaged in boycotts of Israel. Florida, New Jersey, Texas, and eight other states followed. Airbnb found itself in the crosshairs of these laws after announcing it would stop listing homes in disputed Jewish communities of the West Bank. Facing financial, legal, and reputational costs in multiple U.S. states — while pursuing an initial public offering — the company quickly reversed course.
The BDS laws exist in only a dozen states — and those state pension funds alone hold more than $170 billion in international equities. Imagine the impact of even more states wielding even more leverage uniting to stop Iran-sponsored terrorism that threatens America and Israel.
Governors could get even more creative. Willie Sutton infamously said he robbed banks because “that’s where the money is.” The same is true for effective sanctions policy — target the banks and financial transactions.
The State of Florida passed an Iran banking law in 2012 that required all chartered banks to certify that they did not engage in transactions with the Central Bank of Iran or other dirty Iranian banks. The hiccup: The list of those companies would be based on the U.S. Treasury Department’s sanctions list, which isn’t much help as the Biden administration prepares to lift most Iran sanctions.
There may be an easy fix for Florida and other interested governors. As it happens, foreign banks must apply to state regulators to open offices and establish representation. States could add a simple certification requirement for existing and future applicants: With an exception for trade in food and medicine, the bank must pledge it will not facilitate transactions with or for any entity in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Governors and state legislatures hold many levers to influence decision-making in C-suites around the world. The question is whether they will pull those levers to protect the security of the United States and Israel.
Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He served on Capitol Hill, on the U.S. National Security Council, as the governor of Illinois’s chief of staff, and as a U.S. Navy Reserve intelligence officer. @rich_goldberg
11. North Korea tries to accelerate building of walls and fences along border with China
As Frost wrote: "good fences make good neighbors."
North Korea tries to accelerate building of walls and fences along border with China - Daily NK
North Korea’s leadership has decided not to build walls in areas such as Hyesan, Yanggang Province, or Sinuiju, North Pyongan Province
As North Korea continues to build concrete walls and high-voltage wires along the entire Sino-North Korean border, the country’s leadership recently sent a “storm trooper contingent” to certain border regions in Yanggang Province to accelerate construction efforts.
A source in Yanggang Province told Daily NK on Friday that the authorities sent about 1,800 to 2,000 personnel affiliated with this storm trooper contingent to Huchang (Kimhyongjik County), Sinpa (Kimjongsuk County) and Samsu, Yanggang Province, on June 3.
According to the source, the contingent is largely composed of workers belonging to institutions under Cabinet ministries that handle public works, roads, and architecture. The country’s Ministry of Labor selected and equipped the personnel in the contingent.
The labor ministry reportedly took recommendations from the Socialist Patriotic Youth League and General Federation of Trade Unions of Korea for the selection of “ideologically sound” technical personnel. This is because the workers are being sent to the border, which means they will have the opportunity to “experience the outside world” for themselves.
Members of the storm trooper contingent reportedly promised to finish the construction of the wall and high-voltage wires in Kimhyongjik, Kimjongsuk, and Samsu counties within a month.
The source said that prior to going to the border, members of the storm trooper contingent sent a letter of loyalty to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. In the letter, they vowed never to engage in “laxity or carelessness” in quarantine efforts and swore to complete construction of the “bulletproof wall” within a month to strengthen “anti-epidemic efforts against infectious diseases at the border, a point of concern for the Supreme Leader [Kim].”
North Korean soldiers seen constructing fences along the border last year. / Image: Daily NK
Calling the concrete wall they are building at the border a “bulletproof wall,” contingent members stressed in their letter that they “would technically and ideologically take the lead in the project to build the bulletproof wall along the entire border,” said the source.
As for the reason behind the contingent’s efforts to accelerate wall and electric fence construction on the border, the source said “anyone” can now go to the border because the authorities have freed up “interprovincial transportation and movement” within Yanggang Province. Accordingly, work must finish quickly in “uninhabited regions where problems are likely to occur, except for well-patrolled places.”
The northwestern part of Yanggang Province is so difficult to traverse that it does not have any telecommunication base stations. Yet smuggling and other illegal activities continue to flourish there despite the border closure. This is owing to the narrowness of the rivers that form the region’s frontier with China. According to the source, North Korean authorities apparently intend to deal with this issue by ensuring the storm trooper contingent hastens construction efforts in the area.
“[The pledge] to finish construction within a month refers to the work in Huchang and Sinpa. When it finishes work here, the contingent will be sent somewhere else and continue to work with local military construction units,” said the source. “They aim to quickly complete construction [of walls and fences] along the entire border while moving from place to place at one-month intervals.”
The source noted that the contingent was deployed to the border with all the equipment it needed. North Korean authorities have ordered, however, that provincial and county governments take charge of providing food and other supplies.
Interestingly, North Korea’s leadership has decided not to build walls in areas such as Hyesan, Yanggang Province, or Sinuiju, North Pyongan Province. Both areas overlook relatively large Chinese cities or Korean autonomous regions.
“Changbai [in Jilin Province] is across from Hyesan, while Dandong [in Liaoning Province] is across from Sinuiju. Foreigners can go to these places to peer into North Korea,” said the source. “If a wall goes up there, people might say so many people want to escape that we are building a wall to stop them. So, [the authorities] aren’t building walls [in these places] to avoid shaming the nation.”
That being said, North Korea will still build high-voltage wires in Hyesan and Sinuiju as these barriers are far less visible to people in China. The source said that the materials to install the wire fences are already in the two cities; all that is missing is the construction personnel.
12. NATO allies seek clarity on maintaining secure facilities in Afghanistan following troop withdrawal
A lot of details:
Asked about the airport and medical facility in Kabul, McKenzie said “our plans are very far advanced on what our posture is going to look like after we complete the withdrawal” of U.S. forces “and of course our NATO and other partners there.”
But while “I recognize it’s a subject of abiding interest to many people,” he said, making such information public could give tactical advantage “to those who would attack us.”
Health-care standards in Kabul are so poor that most embassies would be forced to shut down if the medical facility adjacent to the international airport, equipped to provide care to diplomats and NATO personnel, although without an intensive care capability, was not able to remain operational and in a secure environment.
NATO allies seek clarity on maintaining secure facilities in Afghanistan following troop withdrawal
With fewer than 100 days before the Sept. 11 deadline President Biden has set for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Afghanistan, allies in the two-decade-long war are anxiously awaiting U.S. guidance on what comes next.
The administration has issued broad commitments to maintaining its diplomatic presence and massive aid programs there, and to keeping terrorists from using Afghanistan as a launchpad for global attacks.
But NATO and other partners are increasingly concerned about the details, from how Kabul’s international airport and the main medical facility that diplomats and aid workers depend on will be kept operational and secure to where counterterrorism surveillance and other assets will be based outside Afghanistan.
Allies are hopeful that Biden will provide some answers — or at least more reassurance that they soon will be forthcoming — at the NATO summit he will attend in Brussels on Monday. U.S. and NATO officials have said Afghanistan is high on the agenda for the meeting.
U.S. lawmakers, assuming a likely Taliban takeover, have expressed concerns about counterterrorism, the future of Afghan women and minorities, and the safety of Afghans who worked as aides and interpreters for U.S. troops and other personnel. About 18,000 of them — along with their families — have applied for special U.S. immigrant visas.
Some lawmakers have raised the specter of Vietnam, where U.S. diplomats and their Vietnamese employees crowded onto rooftops for helicopter rescue as North Vietnamese troops entered the capital. “I remember . . . the first year I was here they had the fall of Saigon, and we saw the chaotic extradition from there,” Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the Senate’s most senior member, said of the 1975 exodus.
“I want to know what it means to our embassies. . . . I assume you have contingency plans . . . is that correct?” Leahy asked Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
Blinken, who appeared in the Senate and the House last week, provided assurances but few details. “We are not withdrawing,” he told the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “We are staying. The embassy is staying. Our programs are staying. We are working to make sure other partners stay; we are building all of that up.”
“Whatever happens in Afghanistan, if there is a significant deterioration in security, that could well happen . . . I do not think it is going to be something that happens from a Friday to a Monday,” he told lawmakers.
Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, told reporters at a briefing last week that the departure of about 3,000 U.S. troops and removal of their equipment — including Afghan-based U.S. aircraft that could prevent, or at least delay, a Taliban takeover of Kabul — is “about halfway finished.” Some assessments have indicated completion as soon as the end of next month.
McKenzie stressed the importance of progress in political negotiations between the militants and the Afghan government that have achieved little since they began 10 months ago.
“It is critical that the parties come together,” he said. “As we pull out, there needs to be something political that’s left in place. I think the government of Afghanistan is willing to do that. I’m not sure the Taliban is willing to do that.”
“Now is the time, and unfortunately, time is now becoming very short,” McKenzie said.
A member of the Afghan government negotiating team said in Kabul that “on-and-off meetings” are still taking place in Doha, the Qatari capital, but so far nothing “substantial” has been discussed, and a “serious and meaningful process” has not even begun.
Blinken has said repeatedly that Afghanistan’s need for international recognition and assistance, which will not be forthcoming if the Taliban takes over by force, is the best incentive for the militants to make a deal.
Others are less sure that the Taliban is the only impediment to a political settlement.
President Ashraf Ghani has long rejected a power-sharing agreement, proposed by Blinken this spring, and remains steadfast in insisting elections must decide any future Afghan government. Taliban leaders have expressed strong opposition to participating in any government headed by Ghani and elections they consider a Western construct.
Intense international diplomatic pressure on Kabul to reach some kind of accommodation with the Taliban is splintering Ghani’s government. Rather than unify and throw their support behind the country’s elected leadership, many of Afghanistan’s key military and political power brokers are acting independently, seeking protection for themselves and their constituents.
Senior U.S. officials now believe an agreement is extremely unlikely. While the Taliban has been making rapid gains against Afghanistan’s security forces in more rural areas, some believe the militants are waiting for the U.S. withdrawal to be completed before they launch a full offensive in major cities.
Afghan troops have performed better than expected in some situations, but the momentum is definitely with the Taliban. And as Afghan politics become more fragmented, many officials believe the NATO-trained Afghan forces will follow suit.
In addition to the United States, thousands of NATO and other partner forces from 36 countries participating in Operation Resolute Support in Afghanistan are also packing up for departure. While the United States has had the largest contingent, others with significant numbers in Afghanistan include Germany, Italy, Britain, Romania and Georgia.
In a meeting last week with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin “reaffirmed our commitment to doing what we can to help our Resolute Support partners,” Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said Wednesday.
NATO plans to continue its mission of training Afghan security forces outside of Afghanistan, but Stoltenberg declined in an interview to specify where that would take place. “It’s an ongoing process,” he said of questions that still need to be answered.
“There will always be issues that have to be sorted out,” he said, adding that the important thing was for alliance members to “sit down and address” them together.
U.S. officials have emphasized Biden’s determination to consult with the allies, a contrast the president has drawn between his administration and that of Donald Trump. But some NATO members, who found consultation lacking before Biden’s withdrawal announcement, remain concerned at the number of things still to be “sorted out.”
“Nothing is settled,” said a senior European official, one of several representatives of NATO nations who described the sensitive discussions on the condition of anonymity. “Counterterrorism is still being discussed.”
“It’s likely that the president will confirm at the NATO summit that the Americans will keep their embassy [in Kabul] with all the trimmings that requires,” the official said. “But we need to know who’s going to run the hospital and how comprehensive it will be. Who’s going to look after the airport? What sort of arrangements in the international zone . . . are available to other embassies besides the Americans? We need to know how to get in and out of Kabul [and] what the plan is in broad terms for the peace process.”
“The commander on the ground is American,” and the Americans have the most troops, the official said. “It’s not unreasonable to think the starting point is what the U.S. believes is feasible.”
White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan declined last week to discuss ongoing talks with Pakistan and other neighboring countries — including a steady stream of conversations with Central Asian nations to the north of Afghanistan — about providing a platform for ongoing U.S. counterterrorism operations.
“What I will say is that we are talking to a wide range of countries about how we build effective over-the-horizon capacity, both from an intelligence and from a defensive perspective to be able to suppress the terrorism threat in Afghanistan,” he said.
Asked about the airport and medical facility in Kabul, McKenzie said “our plans are very far advanced on what our posture is going to look like after we complete the withdrawal” of U.S. forces “and of course our NATO and other partners there.”
But while “I recognize it’s a subject of abiding interest to many people,” he said, making such information public could give tactical advantage “to those who would attack us.”
Health-care standards in Kabul are so poor that most embassies would be forced to shut down if the medical facility adjacent to the international airport, equipped to provide care to diplomats and NATO personnel, although without an intensive care capability, was not able to remain operational and in a secure environment.
The airport itself has been protected and run by Turkish troops during Resolute Support, and discussions about continuing that task after withdrawal are ongoing, diplomats from both countries said.
“Security at the airport will be important not only for the United States, but also for other nations to maintain their diplomatic presence in Kabul,” Kirby said. Without it, access — and escape routes — as well as the flow of promised aid would be difficult if not impossible.
Turkey, which has about 500 troops in Afghanistan and says it would need more for the airport mission, has made clear it intends to exact a price for its ongoing services. “We intend to stay in Afghanistan depending on conditions,” Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar said last week. “What are our conditions? Political, financial and logistical support.”
But a Taliban statement issued Saturday may force all of the allies to think again. While Afghanistan needs and welcomes “selfless and humanitarian” international assistance, it said, the militants would view any outside forces remaining in Afghanistan as “occupiers” and treat them accordingly.
“The presence of foreign forces under whatever name and by whichever country in our homeland is unacceptable,” the statement said. “Every inch of Afghan soil, its airports and security of foreign embassies and diplomatic offices is the responsibility of the Afghans,” and no one “should hold out hope of keeping military or security presence in our country.”
Susannah George in Islamabad, Pakistan, contributed to this report.
13. G7 ballyhoos challenge to China’s Belt and Road
The acronym B3W may be catching on.
Excerpts:
US President Joe Biden, who has placed China at the heart of his global strategy, has been the driving force behind the mega-initiatives in tandem with key allies. The stated aim is not to compete with China on a dollar-to-dollar or vaccine-to-vaccine basis per se, but instead provide the rules of the road for a transparent and democratic global order.
It marks a major departure from the days of the Trump administration, which alienated G7 allies with its bellicose and “America First” protectionist rhetoric, while constantly criticizing China without providing any concrete alternatives.
In a statement, the White House described the B3W as an indispensable initiative to “help narrow the $40+ trillion infrastructure need in the developing world, which has been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic.”
“The driving animating purpose of this G7 summit is to show that democracy can deliver against the biggest challenges we’re facing in the world,” a senior Biden administration official told the media, underscoring the ideological element of the grouping as a club of like-minded democracies.
G7 ballyhoos challenge to China’s Belt and Road
Following years of disruption and open disagreements during the Trump administration, the Group of Seven (G7) club of industrialized nations came together in Britain in a united challenge to China.
Over the weekend the G7 announced a new set of major initiatives including a “Build Back Better World” (B3W) global infrastructure development scheme pitched as a “values-driven, high-standard and transparent” alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
Cognizant of China’s “vaccine diplomacy”, and growing criticism of Western hoarding of global vaccine supplies, the G7 also announced its commitment to provide up to a billion free Covid-19 vaccines to the developing world.
US President Joe Biden, who has placed China at the heart of his global strategy, has been the driving force behind the mega-initiatives in tandem with key allies. The stated aim is not to compete with China on a dollar-to-dollar or vaccine-to-vaccine basis per se, but instead provide the rules of the road for a transparent and democratic global order.
It marks a major departure from the days of the Trump administration, which alienated G7 allies with its bellicose and “America First” protectionist rhetoric, while constantly criticizing China without providing any concrete alternatives.
In a statement, the White House described the B3W as an indispensable initiative to “help narrow the $40+ trillion infrastructure need in the developing world, which has been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic.”
“The driving animating purpose of this G7 summit is to show that democracy can deliver against the biggest challenges we’re facing in the world,” a senior Biden administration official told the media, underscoring the ideological element of the grouping as a club of like-minded democracies.
US President Joe Biden and United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson pose for the official family picture at Carbis Bay hotel during the G7 Summit in Cornwall, UK June 11, 2021. Photo AFP via EyePress News
In a thinly-veiled jab at China’s BRI, the US official maintained that the B3W initiative, “will embrace a high standards, transparent, climate-friendly, non-corrupt mechanism” for big-ticket infrastructure projects in the developing world.
Both the Trump and Biden administrations have openly accused China of engaging in predatory investment practices, which subvert established rules on good governance and environmental sustainability.
Eager to dispel the fog of a “New Cold War”, however, the Biden administration has insisted that, “[t]his is not just about confronting or taking on China,” but instead “providing an affirmative, positive alternative vision for the world.”
Last week, the US in tandem with Australia, Japan and European partners co-organized a multi-stakeholders technical meeting in Paris, which discussed the revival and expansion of the Blue Dot Network (BDN) infrastructure project.
Down the road, the US and its allies will likely merge the B3W and BDN as a combined initiative against China’s BRI.
The Biden administration is eager to “collectively catalyze” trillions of dollars of investments in strategic developing country from an expanded pool of “G10” nations, which includes G7 plus India, Australia and South Korea, as well as Western Big Tech companies, Wall Street and sovereign wealth fund managers from likeminded nations.
The G7 leaders, however, slightly diverged on Biden’s call for publicly confronting China, including on issues of human rights and democracy, from the repression of Uighur minority in Xinjiang to the suppression of democratic forces in Hong Kong.
The UK, France and Canada backed Biden’s call for a tougher joint statement, while Germany, a major exporter to China, and Italy, the only Western European nation to support the BRI, have preferred a more tempered approach. Nonetheless, German Chancellor Angela Merkel endorsed a mega-infrastructure alternative to China’s.
“We can’t sit back and say that China will do it but it’s the G7’s ambition to have a positive agenda for a number of countries in the world which are still lagging behind … I welcome it,” the German leader said, long seen as the de facto leader of Europe.
Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson greets Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel ahead of a bilateral meeting during the G7 summit on June 12, 2021. Photo: AFP / Stefan Rousseau
Growing domestic support has encouraged Biden’s push for a united front against China on the global stage. Last week, the US Senate overwhelmingly passed (68-32 vote) a bipartisan bill, which provides up to $250 billion over the next five years for investments in research and development to enhance America’s technological competitiveness and self-sufficiency against a resurgent China.
“Either we can concede the mantle of global leadership to our adversaries or we can pave the way for another generation of American leadership,” declared Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic majority leader who helped spearhead the bipartisan bill.
The bill provides $52 billion in emergency subsidies for the development of the semiconductor industry amid a global scramble for computer chips and growing emphasis on strategic high-tech resources in the past year.
The Democratic-led bill received high levels of support among Republicans, who have welcomed the foreign policy hawkish turn among their rivals.
As many as 19 Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell, backed the historic bill, reflecting a rare but likely enduring domestic convergence on the China issue.
“Today we declare our intention to win this century, and those that follow it as well,” exclaimed Republican Senator Todd Young of Indiana, who co-sponsored to China-centered tech-investment bill.
The G7 pow-wow marked the US president’s first overseas visit in the midst of a still-raging pandemic, underscoring the importance of traditional allies to the new American administration.
Composed of the UK, the US, Italy, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan, the G7’s relevance has come under question in the past decade.
During its founding half-a-century ago, the club was a formidable force, accounting for more than two-thirds of global economic output.
(Back row L to R) EU Council President of the European Council Charles Michel, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, (Front row L to R) Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, United States of America President Joe Biden, United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel pose for the official family picture at Carbis Bay hotel during the G7 Summit in Cornwall, UK on 11th June 2021. Photo: AFP by EyePress News
But the precipitous rise of emerging economies in the 21st century, and the ensuing establishment of more inclusive permutations such as the Group of Twenty (G20), has put into question the very raison dêtre of the seemingly cliquish and passe grouping.
The rise of authoritarian superpowers such as China, however, has given new impetus to the largely Western grouping, with like-minded democracies of Australia, South Korea, India and South Africa invited as special guests to the latest “extended family” G7 confab.
As the summit’s host, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson emphasized the increasingly ideological character of G7 by adopting a “new Atlantic Charter”, which harkens back to transatlantic cooperation during the Second World War.
He also insisted that the UK has an “indestructible” relationship with the US, which encouraged its Western allies to downplay lingering differences over London’s post-Brexit relations with the European Union.
Over the weekend, the Western leaders and their spouses projected bonhomie following a beach barbecue event. Earlier, Queen Elizabeth II also hosted a reception for the G7 leaders at Cornwall’s Eden Project, which showcased ecological riches across the world.
14. Imperfect competition between US and China: Statesman
A view from India.
Imperfect competition between US and China: Statesman
NEW DELHI (THE STATESMAN/ASIA NEWS NETWORK) - Geopolitics has assumed an economic edge with Tuesday's (June 8) passage by the US Senate of the decidedly anti-China bill, the vote-count being a convincing 68 to 32.
The economic and military war between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China has sharpened with the Senate approving what it calls a "sprawling" US$250 billion (S$331 billion) bill to curtail China's economic and military ambitions.
The legislation, adopted on a bipartisan vote, invests heavily in US science and technology while threatening a bevy of punishments - is 'reprisal' the right expression? - against Beijing. The bill is intended to counter China's growing economic and military prowess, hoping that major investments in science - and fresh reprisals targeting Beijing - might give the United States an enduring edge.
In a chamber whose functioning has often been impeded by partisan division, Democrats and Republicans found rare accord over the sweeping measure, known as the United States Innovation and Competition Act. Nonetheless, lawmakers have warned that Washington risked ceding the country's technological leadership to one of its foremost geopolitical adversaries. The legislation is quite the most important achievement in US history in recent times.
At another remove, the Communist Party of China has been straining every nerve to ensure global economic dominance. China has spent billions propping up state-owned enterprises and subsidising research and development. According to a section of the Senators, the government in Beijing often uses US ideas to compete - "and sometimes cheat" - American employees and business enterprises.
Small wonder the National People's Congress has been remarkably prompt in expressing its robust dissatisfaction. "This bill seeks to exaggerate and spread the so-called China threat to maintain global American hegemony. The United States uses human rights and religion as excuses to interfere in China's domestic politics, and deprive China of its legitimate development rights".
The foreign ministry in Beijing has denounced the legislation as an example of "zero-sum thinking which distorts the facts and smears China's development path and domestic and foreign policies". As regards the nitty-gritty of the legislation - beyond polemics - the US Innovation and Competition Act invests more than US$100 billion of taxpayers' funds to reinforce the US leadership in scientific and technological innovations that are critical to national security and economic competitiveness.
More on this topic
Additionally, it will also strengthen the security of essential supply chains, and the US' ability to address supply chain disruptions during an economic crisis. This bill, in a word, could be the turning point for American leadership in the 21st century, not to ignore the signal development in President Biden's narrative. The terms of trade are at least theoretically weighted in favour of America - an eventuality that is unlikely to be readily digested by China. It is a new chapter in bilateral economic history.
- The Statesman is a member of The Straits Times media partner Asia News Network, an alliance of 24 news media entities.
15. Ransomware’s suspected Russian roots point to a long detente between the Kremlin and hackers
"Detente?" This is more like Hybrid Warfare (from Frank Hoffman)
A hybrid threat transcends a blend of regular and irregular tactics. More than a decade ago, it was defined as an adversary that “simultaneously and adaptively employs a fused mix of conventional weapons, irregular tactics, catastrophic terrorism, and criminal behavior in the battlespace to obtain desired political objectives.”54 The criminal, or more broadly “socially disruptive behavior,” and mass terrorism aspects should not be overlooked, but the fusion of advanced military capabilities with irregular forces and tactics is key, and has appeared repeatedly during the past decade from Hezbollah to the Russian campaigns in Georgia and Ukraine.55 Hezbollah’s method of fighting Israel as is described by its leader Hassan Nasrallah, is an organic response to its security dilemma and “not a conventional army and not a guerrilla force, it is something in between.”56 As lethal as Hezbollah has been in the past decade, we should be concerned about the lessons it is learning in Syria from the Russians.57
Hybrid threats can also be created by a state actor using a proxy force. A proxy force sponsored by a major power can generate hybrid threats readily using advanced military capabilities provided by the sponsor. Proxy wars, appealing to some as “warfare on the cheap” are historically ubiquitous but chronically understudied.58
https://cco.ndu.edu/news/article/1680696/examining-complex-forms-of-conflict-gray-zone-and-hybrid-challenges/
Ransomware’s suspected Russian roots point to a long detente between the Kremlin and hackers
The Washington Post · by Isabelle Khurshudyan and Loveday Morris June 12, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. UTC · June 12, 2021
MOSCOW — The ransomware hackers suspected of targeting Colonial Pipeline and other businesses around the world have a strict set of rules.
First and foremost: Don’t target Russia or friendly states. It’s even hard-wired into the malware, including coding to prevent hacks on Moscow’s ally Syria, according to cybersecurity experts who have analyzed the malware’s digital fingerprints.
They say the reasons appear clear.
“In the West you say, ‘Don’t . . . where you eat,’ ” said Dmitry Smilyanets, a former Russia-based hacker who is now an intelligence analyst at Recorded Future, a cybersecurity company with offices in Washington and other cities around the world. “It’s a red line.”
Targeting Russia could mean a knock on the door from state security agents, he said. But attacking Western enterprises is unlikely to trigger a crackdown.
The relationship between the Russian government and ransomware criminals allegedly operating from within the country is expected to be a point of tension between President Biden and Russia’s Vladimir Putin at their planned summit in Geneva on Wednesday. The United States has accused Russia of acting as a haven for hackers by tolerating their activities — as long as they are directed outside the country.
Biden and allies have said Russia appears to be the base for the masterminds of DarkSide and REvil, the cybercriminal groups linked to recent high-profile ransomware attacks on Colonial Pipeline and the U.S. operations and other markets of JBS, a Brazil-based company and the world’s largest meat supplier. There is no clear evidence the Kremlin was directly involved.
But Moscow has “some responsibility to deal with this,” Biden said last month.
In a 2016 interview with NBC, when asked why Russia was not arresting hackers believed to have interfered in the U.S. election, Putin hinted at the hands-off approach: “If they did not break Russian law, there is nothing to prosecute them for in Russia.”
As Russia became fertile ground for skilled hackers, it recruited some to work for its state security agencies, including the military intelligence service, the GRU, allegedly responsible for damaging cyber-campaigns against U.S. institutions, according to Western intelligence agencies.
But with other hackers, there appeared to be a sort of handshake deal, cybersecurity experts speculate. As long as hackers left alone Russia and selected friendly countries, they could largely do as they wished without fear of a crackdown or extradition, the analysts said.
“If you look at the ransomware code for most of these actors, it will not install on systems that have a Russian-language keyboard, are coming from Russian IP addresses or have the Russian-language packs installed,” said Allan Liska, Recorded Future’s ransomware expert.
“In these underground forums, they explicitly say there’s no going after Russian targets,” he added. “And that allows them to operate with impunity. . . . They are not operating at the behest of Russia, but they’re operating with the tacit acknowledgment of Russia.”
The Kremlin has been dismissive of U.S. complaints that Russia is harboring cybercriminals. Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said last week that hackers exist everywhere. In an apparent reference to the ransomware attack on JBS, Putin told state television that Russia does not “deal with some chicken or beef. This is just ridiculous.”
'Underground is just growing'
Smilyanets said that it was money that pulled him into hacking. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russia inherited a top-tier educational system, but the country was broke and there were few job opportunities.
The son of a teacher and a police investigator, the 37-year-old former hacker said he was just a “regular kid.” He studied at the information security department at Moscow State Technical University.
“Even with this diploma, I couldn’t find a job,” said Smilyanets, who was extradited to the United States in 2012 after being arrested in the Netherlands. In 2015, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and was sentenced to four years in prison for his role in one of the largest credit card data breaches to be prosecuted in the United States. (U.S. authorities spelled his name Dmitriy Smilianets.)
“I had to find money,” he said of his years after university. “Somebody showed me the way [into hacking]. I believe that happens to a lot of young, smart kids in Russia.”
Smilyanets said the draw to cybercrime is now stronger than ever “because there is so much money to be made.”
That made them happy to comply with the unwritten hacking rule of operating in Russia: Do not to target Russia or any of the former Soviet Union. Of DarkSide’s 99 known ransomware targets, 66 were based in the United States, according to a list provided by Recorded Future. Most of the rest were in Europe.
Hackers in Russia feel that they have “nothing to worry about,” Smilyanets said. For cybercriminals, the country is like a greenhouse, he said.
“A place where you grow your vegetables, where you have perfect sunlight, perfect humidity and absolutely no wind,” he said. “That’s what happens in Russia: You have great education, you have great Internet, and absolutely nothing disturbs them. They flourish, they grow. They learn a new way to hack. They teach their friends and that whole underground is just growing.”
Ransomware in Russia
Ransomware is the region’s specialty, analysts said.
DarkSide and REvil are both ransomware-as-a-service outfits, meaning they don’t carry out the attacks themselves but work as intermediaries by providing the tools and affiliated services to hackers. Liska, of Recorded Future, said DarkSide’s hackers were originally part of REvil before spinning out on their own.
They won’t work with just anyone. The groups interview their potential partners and ask for proof of bona fides out of paranoia that Western intelligence agencies might be trying to infiltrate them, analysts said. All communication is done in Russian.
“If you wanted to pretend to be Russian and jump on these forums, I think they would notice any peculiarities in the language,” Liska said. “A nonnative speaker would have trouble kind of fitting in naturally.”
Dmitry Galov, a security researcher at Kaspersky, a top Russian cybersecurity firm, said the evidence is weak to definitively trace the ransomware attacks back to Russia.
“It’s pretty tricky because when someone is speaking English on dark net forums, no one says that it is England behind the attacks,” Galov said. “They might be afraid that Russian cybersecurity experts will find them and catch them or whatever. There can be so many different reasons.”
In 2015, the FBI and the State Department announced a $3 million reward for information leading to the arrest of Russian hacker Evgeniy Bogachev, making him the most-wanted cybercriminal in the world. He was charged with conspiracy, money laundering and various fraud charges after allegedly siphoning more than $100 million from American bank accounts.
He is believed to be living in Russia, apparently safe from capture as long as he doesn’t leave the country.
Kremlin buffer
In addition to Bogachev’s alleged schemes, cybersecurity firms Fox-IT and CrowdStrike, in collaboration with the FBI, noticed bots in his network were engaged in cyberespionage against countries including Russia foes Georgia and Ukraine and NATO member Turkey.
The bot probes were detailed, including searches for documents with certain levels of government secret classifications and for specific government intelligence agency employees.
“What kind of cybercriminal cares about that?” said Mark Arena, founder of the Intel 471 cybersecurity firm.
Bogachev has become the go-to example for those in cybersecurity circles who suspect Russia isn’t just allowing cybercriminals to launch attacks from the country, but could be, in some cases, working with them.
It would be a similar approach to how the Kremlin uses mercenaries from the shadowy paramilitary group Wagner, according to Western intelligence agencies, to represent its interests in Syria and several African hot spots while allowing Russian officials to deny any involvement.
Last month, the Treasury Department stated that the Russian internal security service, the FSB, “cultivates and co-opts criminal hackers, including” a group called Evil Corp., “enabling them to engage in disruptive ransomware attacks.” Treasury sanctioned Evil Corp. in late 2019.
Connections to the state come at different levels, Arena said. Once your identity is known to Russian law enforcement, you may get a knock at the door from the local police saying they know you are stealing money and want a cut, he said.
“It starts at that kind of level, up until the point where you have nation states leveraging cybercrime,” Arena said.
In an interview with the Russian OSINT blog posted June 4 on the Telegram messaging app, REvil said that another attack on the United States had been avoided “at all costs.” But the rule was lifted after U.S. officials became “outraged” at the ransom attack on JBS last month.
“We do not want to play politics, but since we are being drawn into it, it is good,” the ransomware group was quoted as saying. “Even if they pass a law prohibiting the ransom payments in the United States or put us on a terrorist list, this will not affect our work in any way.”
Morris reported from Berlin. Mary Ilyushina in Moscow contributed to this report.
The Washington Post · by Isabelle Khurshudyan and Loveday Morris June 12, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. UTC · June 12, 2021
16. The West is uniting to confront China. How worried should Beijing be?
The West is uniting to confront China. How worried should Beijing be?
CNN · by Nectar Gan, Jill Disis and Ben Westcott, CNN Business
Editor's note: CNN will be launching the Meanwhile in China newsletter on June 21, a three-times-a-week update exploring what you need to know about the country's rise and how it impacts the world. Sign up here.
United States President Joe Biden's plan to unite Washington's closest allies and take on China just scored a big political win. But it's going to take a lot more than words to curb the advance of the world's second largest economy.
The US joined the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy and Canada this weekend to deliver the Group of Seven's strongest condemnation of China in recent decades. The G7 confronted China on just about every sore spot, from allegations of human rights abuses and forced labor in Xinjiang to ongoing political disputes over Hong Kong, Taiwan and the South China Sea. The world's wealthiest democracies also pushed for a renewed independent investigation into the origins of Covid-19, and promoted a green alternative to China's Belt and Road, Chinese President Xi Jinping's expansive plan to boost its trading influence.
The rhetoric, at least, is a step forward for a US president who has been trying to bring his diplomatic partners together to counter what Washington sees as its biggest threat to trade, tech and other issues of strategic importance. Former US President Donald Trump talked tough on China and slapped the country and its prized companies with sanctions. But Trump never really presented a united front with US allies, often burning bridges rather than building them.
The G7's announcement doesn't include a ton of concrete steps forward. For example, the group is forming a task force to explore what it called the "Build Back Better World" initiative — a private-sector led plan to "help narrow the $40+ trillion infrastructure need in the developing world" that's clearly set up as a challenge to Belt and Road. But it has yet to lay out how much the program would cost, which is expected to be funded by US government finance groups, the private sector and the G7 countries.
Read More
Similarly, the communique's calls for China to "respect human rights and fundamental freedoms" in Xinjiang and Hong Kong came with little detail on how to follow through with action, nor did it offer any practical means of safeguarding the stability of the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.
China still fired back against the statement, accusing the G7 of deliberately slandering China" and "arbitrarily interfering in China's internal affairs." The Chinese Embassy in London called it a "a serious violation of the basic norms of international relations."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, Queen Elizabeth II, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi,and United States President Joe Biden were at the G7 Summit on June 11 in St Austell, Cornwall, England.
There are a couple of reasons Beijing should be watching its back.
Some Trump-era sanctions were effective at curtailing China's technological rise — look, for example, at its campaign against Huawei, which watched as its smartphone and 5G businesses were battered by restricting its access to American tech, along with US pressures on Europe and elsewhere to bar the company from extending its reach.
Under Biden, the United States recently expanded a ban on American investment in dozens of Chinese firms. And US lawmakers are advancing a bill that would pour hundreds of billions of dollars into American technology, science and research in yet another challenge to China.
"Irreconcilable differences regarding values and growing frictions with China's mercantilist and authoritarian model will continue to drive polarization and competition," said Alex Capri, a research fellow at Hinrich Foundation and a visiting senior fellow at National University of Singapore. He added that "values-driven" frameworks from the West around infrastructure development, trade and supply chain networks are "clearly emerging."
"Human rights standards around privacy and freedom of speech, fair labor standards and a clean environment will serve to further alienate Beijing," Capri said.
Such tensions have already played out on a global stage, with many Western companies facing pressure to limit business in China because of concerns about forced labor. In turn, some firms have faced boycotts within China for denouncing the government's handling of Xinjiang. And just before the G7 summit kicked off, China passed a law to counter foreign sanctions, a symbolic warning that any counter measures taken by the West will be met with strong retaliation.
Even so, it may be tough for the G7 nations to contain China. This weekend, democratic leaders aired serious differences over how best to approach China, as the United States, Britain and Canada urged stronger action against China's authoritarianism than their allies did.
European countries reluctance to go too hard on China may stem in part from a strong economic reliance: From 2010 to 2019, Germany received €22.7 billion ($27.5 billion) in Chinese foreign direct investment, while Italy received €15.9 billion ($19.2 billion) and France received €14.4 billion ($17.4 billion, according to the Mecrator Institute of China Studies. Even the UK — where relationships with China have been deeply strained over the last couple of years — received €50.3 billion (US$60.9) in such investment. And many of those countries, like Germany, rely on partnerships with China to drive other industries, such as autos, and to provide huge markets for their exports.
"Ultimately, the European Union's desire for strategic autonomy and Biden's hunt for allies to primarily counter China will create natural barriers to cooperation," analysts at Eurasia Group wrote in a note last week ahead of Biden's trip.
Around Asia
-
South Korea will exempt some travelers who have received their Covid-19 vaccine shots overseas from its mandatory two-week quarantine, health authorities said on Sunday.
-
A houseplant with just nine leaves has sold for a record-breaking $19,297 on a New Zealand auction site.
-
China has unveiled new photos of its Mars rover exploring the surface of the red planet, with state media hailing it as a sign of the mission's "complete success."
-
Meanwhile, the US government has spent the past week assessing a report of a leak at a Chinese nuclear power plant, after a French company that part owns and helps operate it warned of an "imminent radiological threat," according to US officials and documents reviewed by CNN.
Rescue workers search for survivors in the aftermath of a gas explosion in Shiyan city in central China's Hubei Province on Sunday.
Deadly blast triggers bad memories at an awkward time for Xi
China's top leaders have ordered an urgent investigation after 12 people were killed and more than a hundred injured in a gas explosion on Sunday in central China's Hubei province.
Images from the scene in the Zhangwan district of Shiyan City showed blackened streets covered in debris, with at least one building completely gutted by the blast.
The cause of the explosion is under investigation, according to local authorities, and China's leadership has wasted no time in pressing for a thorough inquiry.
In a statement published shortly after the incident by state news agency Xinhua, Chinese President Xi Jinping said those responsible for the blast needed to be "held accountable."
Xi also called for a wide-ranging check of safety standards across the country to ensure Chinese citizens are protected.
China has a long history of deadly industrial accidents. On May 26, eight people were killed by a blast in Heilongjiang province caused by illegal explosives. Three days later, eight employees were injured when a raw materials pipeline exploded at an oil refinery in Shenzhen.
Worst of all for the government, Sunday's blast in Hubei will trigger memories of the series of explosions in Tianjin in 2015, which killed more than 110 people and raised serious questions over whether enough was being done by authorities to protect China's citizens.
Xi has made it clear political considerations are on his mind. In his statement reported by Xinhua, the Chinese President said it was important to "maintain overall social stability and create a good atmosphere for the Party's centenary."
With the July 1 celebrations for the Communist Party's 100th anniversary just weeks away, Beijing doesn't want any more industrial accidents to overshadow its big day.
Photo of the Day
Remembering the patriot: Dragon Boat races were held across China over the weekend to celebrate the Dragon Boat Festival, which falls on the fifth day of the fifth lunar month. The traditional Chinese holiday commemorates the death of Qu Yuan, a patriotic poet and minister who lived more than 2,000 years ago.
CNN · by Nectar Gan, Jill Disis and Ben Westcott, CNN Business
17. NATO to look eastward and inward at summit
Excerpts:
The summit is also expected to formally order the production of a new NATO strategic concept, to conclude within a year. That work amounts to a wholesale revision of alliance guidance, to which member nations align their national defense plans. The most recent concept hails from 2010, predating Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine that changed the strategic calculus for European governments.
“The new strategic concept would be a milestone, as so many issues regarding threats and deterrence flow from it,” said German lawmaker Tobias Lindner, the Green Party’s point man for defense issues in the Bundestag.
The topic of deterrence — nuclear, that is — is expected to make a reprise in Germany following the federal election in late September, where the Greens have a shot at joining the next governing coalition, according to recent polls.
Whenever major defense questions come up in the country, Germany’s continued participation in NATO’s nuclear-sharing arrangement — meaning German Tornado aircraft carrying U.S. atomic bombs into a hypothetical war – ends up on the table.
NATO to look eastward and inward at summit
COLOGNE, Germany — NATO heads of state and government will confront a sizable to-do list at their June 14 Brussels summit, as the event will set the path for hardening the alliance’s outer defenses while staying limber on the inside.
The summit will mark one of the first major in-person defense events after the global coronavirus pandemic began showing signs of ebbing. It will also be the first such gathering with U.S. President Joe Biden, whose predecessor had NATO officials worrying more about keeping the alliance together than composing a forward-looking agenda.
Deterrence is expected to be one of the major themes, as member states in Europe look to craft a message to Russia that NATO’s eastern flank is off limits to what they see as Moscow’s military adventurism.
To that end, leaders at the summit will consider how best to implement a key document, the classified Concept for Deterrence and Defence of the Euro-Atlantic Area, or DDA for short, drawn up by military planners. The plan is part of the core canon of NATO doctrine, tying together national strategies and modernization programs.
NATO’s easternmost members have shown a particular interest in seeing the concept put into practice through military heft. Russian forces are gearing up for the large-scale Zapad exercise this summer, which has former Soviet Union countries that are now part of the Western alliance on edge.
“From Estonia’s perspective, it’s important that the DDA will form the backbone of the alliance’s modernized deterrence and defense posture, providing the strategic framework necessary to deter and defend against all threats and ensure rapid and timely reinforcement of any ally,” Estonian Defence Minister Kalle Laanet told Defense News.
One idea pitched by the Baltic countries in recent years, expected to resurface at the summit, entails expanding the alliance’s air-policing mission on the northeastern flank into a broader air defense mission, including anti-missile weapons.
Strategic homework
The summit is also expected to formally order the production of a new NATO strategic concept, to conclude within a year. That work amounts to a wholesale revision of alliance guidance, to which member nations align their national defense plans. The most recent concept hails from 2010, predating Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine that changed the strategic calculus for European governments.
“The new strategic concept would be a milestone, as so many issues regarding threats and deterrence flow from it,” said German lawmaker Tobias Lindner, the Green Party’s point man for defense issues in the Bundestag.
The topic of deterrence — nuclear, that is — is expected to make a reprise in Germany following the federal election in late September, where the Greens have a shot at joining the next governing coalition, according to recent polls.
Whenever major defense questions come up in the country, Germany’s continued participation in NATO’s nuclear-sharing arrangement — meaning German Tornado aircraft carrying U.S. atomic bombs into a hypothetical war – ends up on the table.
A German Tornado aircraft prepares to land at Büchel air base on Feb. 27, 2019, near Cochem, Germany. (Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images)
While the Greens are known to reject nuclear weapons, their exact stance would probably be finalized only during actual coalition negotiations, Lindner told Defense News.
He predicted the party’s position will end up something like this: The Greens want Germany to get out of the nuclear weapons business, and by extension discuss the Tornado replacement strategy, but not in a way that would be disruptive to Berlin’s defense commitments.
China challenge
NATO leaders are also expected to advance the alliance’s thinking on China, a country where perceptions in Europe and the United States perhaps diverge the most. NATO’s 2019 London Declaration only refers to China as having “growing influence and international policies” that present “both opportunities and challenges.”
Beijing’s combination of economic, diplomatic and military means to pursue its global agenda has at times flummoxed Western analysts trained to think in the currency of hard power or, at best, hybrid conflicts.
One of the alliance’s strategies for keeping Chinese expansionist ambitions in check is to deepen relations with partner nations in the Asia-Pacific region. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg previously referred to the approach as flexing the alliance’s political muscle in the region while keeping the geographic center of gravity in the Euro-Atlantic area.
“We share the values of many of those Asia-Pacific partners, and we are a values-based military alliance,” Air Chief Marshal Stuart Peach, the chairman of the NATO Military Committee, said in an interview with Defense News. “Therefore, working with them in this world, which is, let’s say, disturbed, seems to make sense to us. It can take many forms: partnership on missions, partnership on exercises, mutual maritime support, working together on cyber resilience.”
Peach expects the summit to provide new guidance on “the general direction of travel” when it comes to implementation.
“There isn’t a defined, finite list of activities,” he said. “Some of it will depend on their ambition and on our ambition. Whatever political direction we’re given at the summit, we can match that with military partnership.”
In Europe, there has been something of a newfound interest in proving that countries can muster lengthy naval deployments to the region. The French military, for example, sailed its nuclear-powered submarine Emeraude through the South China Sea this year. Germany is expected to send a frigate this summer, though military leaders and diplomats in Berlin have reportedly been at odds over how overtly they want the trip to serve as a freedom-of-navigation operation in an area where multiple countries, including China, are butting heads over disputed territories.
Perhaps most visibly, a U.K. carrier strike group, with the new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth as the flagship, set sail toward the region on May 22. The trip is shaping up be something of a floating exercise platform for the kinds of ties that NATO wants to promote.
American aircraft fly in formation above the British Royal Navy aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth as a landing craft, air cushion transits alongside on May 17, 2021, in the Atlantic Ocean. (Lt. Mark Nash/U.S. Navy)
The China conundrum also manifests closer to home. Earlier this year, German Army Gen. Jorg Vollmer, who commands Allied Joint Force Command Brunssum, questioned whether NATO officials fully understand Beijing’s business involvement in Europe’s transportation infrastructure. Chinese companies have been snapping up shares in most of Europe’s major ports, for example, leading local planners to wonder if that could impede NATO’s military mobility during a conflict.
One of the tools for keeping abreast of Chinese influence over transportation and telecommunications infrastructure involves a data “dashboard” for mapping Chinese investments related to its Belt and Road Initiative, alliance officials told Defense News earlier this year. The dashboard system was designed to aggregate open-source information to serve as a decision-making tool for NATO planners.
“We are concerned about infrastructure ownership,” Peach said, adding that alliance officials are striving to deepening their understanding of what’s at stake. “Sometimes ownership isn’t absolutely clear. We will continue to study this issue, and we will also continue to respond in terms of mobility and resilience.”
18. Biden’s B3W proposal no serious threat to China’s BRI
I expect to see a lot of this criticism. I had expected to read more already but perhaps it is just too soon.
As I understand it, funding from BRI does have strings attached. The biggest being if you default on the loans.
But here is the author's view in conclusion:
The world would rather sign up to BRI projects, based on hard-nosed realpolitik, than America’s B3W, based on woolly feel-good values that the US is very obviously only paying lip service to.
B3W found a vague single-line mention in the communiqué issued at the end of the recent Group of Seven summit. This is perhaps a sign that the rest of the G7 members recognized it for what it was – verbal gimmickry aimed at a domestic audience by a newly elected president desperate for a foreign-policy victory.
Biden’s B3W proposal no serious threat to China’s BRI
The program touted at the G7 summit would find it hard to rival China’s simplified and no-strings-attached BRI funding
US President Joe Biden’s ill-defined program to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative is unlikely to pose a serious threat to the latter. Hubristically named after one of his domestic campaign slogans, “Build Back Better for the World,” or B3W, it aims to be an alternative multilateral funding program to the BRI for developing countries.
Ideologically, the B3W, announced on the weekend at the Group of Seven summit, rests on the rather facile assumption that the world today is divided between democracies and autocracies, and B3W will somehow “rescue” countries from their drift toward authoritarian China. This bifurcation of the world into two opposing camps will make America’s European allies deeply uncomfortable, as it carries echoes of the Cold War.
This notion elides the fact that because of democratic backsliding in the world today, there are various countries (for example Hungary, India, Turkey, Ethiopia) nominally allied to the US, but which straddle the divide between democracy and autocracy.
Furthermore, B3W is riddled with far too many internal consistencies and rests on the US, Europe and Japan moving in tandem with regard to their China policies.
There is no uniform China policy within the European Union. Germany, for example, continues to view China as a critical market for its high-tech manufacturing products and automobiles. It will not want to be seen to be too enthusiastic in its support of B3W lest it antagonizes Beijing.
The EU, despite American pressure, recently signed an investment deal with China. On the issue of freeing global supply chains from using forced labor (a reference to China’s treatment of Uighurs), there has even been pushback from US corporations. How does B3W plan to ensure global supply chains are free of products manufactured in Israel’s illegal settler colonies in the occupied West Bank?
It also remains to be seen how B3W will be funded, beyond vague assertions by American diplomats that the program will incorporate existing multinational funding programs.
Moreover, B3W funding will be attached to conditionalities regarding human rights, climate change, corruption and the rule of law. This raises the question why developing countries will choose to work with a patchwork of funding initiatives wedded to intrusive conditionalities rather than continue seeking China’s simplified and no-strings-attached BRI funding.
How does the US plan to marshal its private-sector firms and banks to support B3W? Currently, the political atmosphere in the country remains hostile to large firms and banks, with Biden himself planning to finance his domestic Build Back Better program by raising taxes on big business.
The recent US-led initiative to institute a global minimum tax on multinationals reduces their competitiveness against China’s state-backed companies. Exactly how do American private-sector companies expect to maintain their competitiveness as part of a B3W package deal to developing countries?
Moreover, how does the US plan to offer attractive technologies to developing countries that choose B3W over BRI? Republicans remain allergic to industrial policy that seeks to divert public-sector funding toward research and development in strategic sectors. This has allowed China to steal a march over the US over 5G (fifth-generation telecom) technology, for example.
That B3W is named after one of Biden’s domestic initiatives is a well-worn sign of America’s imperial pretensions. It assumes that what is good for America ought to be a model for the rest of the world.
Yet even in this endeavor, America falls short. The US Congress, which holds the purse strings for any government initiative, is yet to approve Biden’s domestic spending initiatives under the Build Back Better program. Large parts of it may eventually have to be sacrificed to achieve bipartisan consensus in America’s dysfunctional polity.
Even as the US seeks to use B3W to promote free trade and more robust global supply chains, Washington is silent about rejoining the TPP, now called the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. This multilateral free-trade agreement includes America’s allies but faces strong opposition from both Republicans and Democrats.
The B3W’s planned incorporation of climate-change and green goals will likely run into opposition even from among America’s allies. For example, there were howls of protest from across the Canadian political spectrum when the Biden administration recently canceled the Keystone XL pipeline project meant to transport oil from Canada to the US.
Biden wants to recast America as a model state, in the hope that this can increase the attractiveness of B3W. Yet the White House has remained silent on B3W incorporating the movement of labor in addition to the movement of capital, goods and services.
The Biden administration has yet to announce immigration reform. The world bore witness recently when Vice-President Kamala Harris, herself the daughter of immigrants, told Central Americans: “Do not come to the US.”
The world would rather sign up to BRI projects, based on hard-nosed realpolitik, than America’s B3W, based on woolly feel-good values that the US is very obviously only paying lip service to.
B3W found a vague single-line mention in the communiqué issued at the end of the recent Group of Seven summit. This is perhaps a sign that the rest of the G7 members recognized it for what it was – verbal gimmickry aimed at a domestic audience by a newly elected president desperate for a foreign-policy victory.
19. Biden meets with foreign leaders as ambassadorships sit vacant
Biden meets with foreign leaders as ambassadorships sit vacant
The Hill · by Brett Samuels · June 13, 2021
President Biden's lack of ambassadors nearly five months into his term is on prominent display during his first trip overseas as he meets with leaders of the Group of Seven (G-7) nations, none of which even have an ambassador nominee.
Experts says the lack of confirmed appointees on the ground may actually hurt the future ambassadors more than it hurts Biden's ability to have a successful trip. Ambassadors are missing out on chances to sit in on meetings and build their own relationships with their foreign counterparts over the course of a week where Biden is meeting with leaders from the G-7 and NATO — as well as Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"There are a lot of interviews and opportunities to advance our foreign policy that we won’t have," said Brett Bruen, who served as director of global engagement during the Obama administration. "In practical terms, it’s handicapping our influence in all of these countries at a critical juncture."
Biden met with leaders from the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan during the first days of his trip to Europe. The president has yet to nominate ambassadors for any of those countries, even as some of his expected picks have been publicly reported for weeks.
In Biden's first bilateral meeting with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the prime minister was accompanied by several foreign affairs and national security advisers, including his ambassador to the United States.
Biden was flanked by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, national security adviser Jake Sullivan and other national security officials. But there was no ambassador in the room, only Biden's chargé d’affaires at the U.S. Embassy, Yael Lempert.
Jon Alterman, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said he's known Lempert for 20 years and credited her expertise and background working in previous administrations.
"But she doesn't have the standing as a personal emissary of the president that a confirmed ambassador would have," Alterman said.
Alterman noted the foreign policy process may generally be more insular with Biden, who came to the White House with decades of experience in Washington, D.C., and a small cadre of inner circle advisers he has relied on for years, including Sullivan and Blinken.
The White House has repeatedly dodged questions about when the president might roll out his first batch of high profile ambassadorships, even as reporting has already emerged about some of the choices.
Biden is expected to name former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel as ambassador to Japan and former State Department senior official Tom Nides as ambassador to Israel. Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti is viewed as the likely pick for ambassador to India, and Biden is expected to pick career diplomat Nicholas Burns as his ambassador to China.
"It usually takes a while to vet people and to get them ready for public presentation and nomination. In a perfect world that would’ve happened around March or April," said one former senior State Department official who served in multiple administrations. "If it extends deeper into the summer or into the fall it will start to get less typical."
Officials suggested the vetting process and desire to find a diverse slate of ambassadors could both be contributing to the delay. One source close to the administration argued Biden has wisely prioritized nominating agency officials over diplomatic roles, which often go to political allies — who could face vocal Republican opposition as Biden seeks to highlight his domestic efforts at bipartisanship.
Others close to the administration noted Biden tends to rely on personal engagement with foreign leaders, potentially negating the effect of diplomatic vacancies.
But the pace of the process faces some criticism given the global challenges the U.S. is facing. The threat of the coronavirus pandemic is waning domestically, but getting the world vaccinated remains a challenge, and coordination with allies will be critical.
The lack of a U.S. ambassador to Israel was noticeable when Biden officials were attempting to conduct behind-the-scenes diplomacy during a days-long conflict between Israel and Hamas as the two sides traded rocket fire.
Russia, meanwhile, has taken an aggressive posture toward Ukraine, cracked down on dissidents such as Alexei Navalny and is at the center of discussions about recent ransomware and cyberattacks on the U.S. government and businesses.
And China presents a growing threat economically, and the Biden administration must decide how to proceed as focus on the origins of the coronavirus intensifies despite Beijing's lack of cooperation with international investigations into the matter.
"I think the White House has got to move faster and they’ve got to open up the process to a lot more input. Otherwise there are going to be a lot of questions and concerns raised about who is representing us at such a dangerous and difficult time," Bruen said.
The Hill · by Brett Samuels · June 13, 2021
20. The Party Is Not Forever | by Minxin Pei
I had not heard this thesis before. Xi is adopting the north Korean model??
Excerpts:
That is perhaps why the Singapore model has lost its luster in the Xi era, whereas the North Korean model – totalitarian political repression, a cult of the supreme leader, and juche (economic self-reliance) – has grown more appealing. True, China has not yet become a giant North Korea, but a number of trends over the last eight years have moved the country in that direction.
...
Politically, the rule of fear has returned, not only for ordinary people, but also for the CPC’s elites, as Xi has reinstated purges under the guise of a perpetual anti-corruption campaign. Censorship is at its highest level in the post-Mao era, and Xi’s regime has all but eliminated space for civil society, including NGOs. The authorities have even reined in China’s freewheeling private entrepreneurs with regulatory crackdowns, criminal prosecution, and confiscation of wealth.
And Xi has assiduously nurtured a personality cult. These days, the front page of the People’s Daily newspaper is filled with coverage of Xi’s activities and personal edicts. The abridged history of the CPC, recently released to mark the party’s centennial, devotes a quarter of its content to Xi’s eight years in power, while giving only half as much space to Deng Xiaoping, the CPC’s true savior.
Economically, China has yet to embrace juche fully. But the CPC’s new Five-Year Plan projects a vision of technological self-sufficiency and economic security centered on domestic growth. Although the party has a reasonable excuse – America’s strategy of economic and technological decoupling leaves it no alternative – few Western democracies will want to remain economically coupled with a country that sees North Korea as its future political model.
When China’s leaders toast the CPC’s centennial, they should ask whether the party is on the right track. If it is not, the CPC’s upcoming milestone may be its last.
The Party Is Not Forever | by Minxin Pei - Project Syndicate
As the Communist Party of China prepares to mark its centennial on July 1, the poor longevity record of other dictatorial parties in modern times should give its leaders cause for worry. If the CPC is not on the right track with its neo-Maoist revival, its upcoming milestone maybe its last.
CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA – Human beings approaching 100 normally think about death. But political parties celebrating their centennial, as the Communist Party of China (CPC) will on July 1, are obsessed with immortality. Such optimism seems odd for parties that rule dictatorships, because their longevity record does not inspire confidence. The fact that no other such party in modern times has survived for a century should give China’s leaders cause for worry, not celebration.
One obvious reason for the relatively short lifespan of communist or authoritarian parties is that party-dominated modern dictatorships, unlike democracies, emerged only in the twentieth century. The Soviet Union, the first such dictatorship, was founded in 1922. The Kuomintang (KMT) in China, a quasi-Leninist party, gained nominal control of the country in 1927. The Nazis did not come to power in Germany until 1933. Nearly all of the world’s communist regimes were established after World War II.
But there is a more fundamental explanation than historical coincidence. The political environment in which dictatorial parties operate implies an existence that is far more Hobbesian – “nasty, brutish, and short” – than that of their democratic counterparts.
One sure way for dictatorial parties to die is to wage a war and lose, a fate that befell the Nazis and Mussolini’s Fascists in Italy. But most exit power in a far less dramatic (or traumatic) fashion.
In non-communist regimes, long-standing and forward-looking ruling parties, such as the KMT in Taiwan and Mexico’s Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), saw the writing on the wall and initiated democratizing reforms before they lost all legitimacy. Although these parties were eventually voted out of office, they remained politically viable and subsequently returned to power by winning competitive elections (in Taiwan in 2008 and Mexico in 2012).
In contrast, communist regimes trying to appease their populations through limited democratic reforms have all ended up collapsing. In the former Soviet bloc, liberalizing measures in the 1980s quickly triggered revolutions that swept the communists – and the Soviet Union itself – into the dustbin of history.
Back to Health: Making Up for Lost Time
The COVID-19 crisis has laid bare systemic inequities that will have to be addressed if we are ever going to build more sustainable, resilient, and inclusive societies. Join us on June 23, 2021, for our latest live virtual event, Back to Health: Making Up for Lost Time, where leading experts will examine the immediate legacy of the pandemic and explore solutions for bringing all communities and societies back to health.
REGISTER NOW
The CPC does not want to dwell on that history during its upcoming centennial festivities. Chinese President Xi Jinping and his colleagues obviously want to project an image of confidence and optimism. But political bravado is no substitute for a survival strategy, and once the CPC rules out reform as too dangerous, its available options are extremely limited.
Before Xi came to power in 2012, some Chinese leaders looked to Singapore’s model. The People’s Action Party (PAP), which has ruled the city-state without interruption since 1959, seems to have it all: a near-total monopoly of power, competent governance, superior economic performance, and dependable popular support. But the more the CPC looked – and it dispatched tens of thousands of officials to Singapore to study it – the less it wanted to become a giant version of the PAP. China’s communists certainly wanted to have the PAP’s hold on power, but they did not want to adopt the same methods and institutions that help maintain the PAP’s supremacy.
Of all the institutional ingredients that have made the PAP’s dominance special, the CPC least likes Singapore’s legalized opposition parties, relatively clean elections, and rule of law. Chinese leaders understand that these institutions, vital to the PAP’s success, would fatally weaken the CPC’s political monopoly if introduced in China.
That is perhaps why the Singapore model has lost its luster in the Xi era, whereas the North Korean model – totalitarian political repression, a cult of the supreme leader, and juche (economic self-reliance) – has grown more appealing. True, China has not yet become a giant North Korea, but a number of trends over the last eight years have moved the country in that direction.
Politically, the rule of fear has returned, not only for ordinary people, but also for the CPC’s elites, as Xi has reinstated purges under the guise of a perpetual anti-corruption campaign. Censorship is at its highest level in the post-Mao era, and Xi’s regime has all but eliminated space for civil society, including NGOs. The authorities have even reined in China’s freewheeling private entrepreneurs with regulatory crackdowns, criminal prosecution, and confiscation of wealth.
And Xi has assiduously nurtured a personality cult. These days, the front page of the People’s Daily newspaper is filled with coverage of Xi’s activities and personal edicts. The abridged history of the CPC, recently released to mark the party’s centennial, devotes a quarter of its content to Xi’s eight years in power, while giving only half as much space to Deng Xiaoping, the CPC’s true savior.
Economically, China has yet to embrace juche fully. But the CPC’s new Five-Year Plan projects a vision of technological self-sufficiency and economic security centered on domestic growth. Although the party has a reasonable excuse – America’s strategy of economic and technological decoupling leaves it no alternative – few Western democracies will want to remain economically coupled with a country that sees North Korea as its future political model.
When China’s leaders toast the CPC’s centennial, they should ask whether the party is on the right track. If it is not, the CPC’s upcoming milestone may be its last.
21. US father and son admit helping Ghosn flee Japan
Japan has an extremely high conviction rate because they do not go to trial until defendants effectively confess or plead guilty.
US father and son admit helping Ghosn flee Japan
The pair did not contest the facts laid out by prosecutors, effectively conceding their role in the saga
An American father-son duo accused of orchestrating former Nissan chief Carlos Ghosn’s audacious escape from Japan admitted their role Monday as they made their first appearance before a Tokyo court.
Former special forces operative Michael Taylor, 60, and his 28-year-old son Peter were extradited by US authorities over claims they smuggled Ghosn out of the country in a music equipment case as he awaited trial.
At the Tokyo district court Monday, the pair said they did not contest the facts laid out by prosecutors in an indictment, effectively conceding their role in the saga.
The pair face up to three years in prison if convicted of helping Ghosn, who is an international fugitive living in Lebanon, which has no extradition treaty with Japan.
Ghosn was out on bail while awaiting trial on four counts of financial misconduct, which he denies, when he managed to slip past authorities onto a private jet, transit in Turkey and land in Lebanon.
The escape was hugely embarrassing for Japanese authorities, who termed it “one of the most brazen and well-orchestrated escape acts in recent history.”
The Taylors, along with a Lebanese national still at large, are suspected of orchestrating the December 2019 escape – including putting Ghosn inside an audio equipment case to get him onto the private jet.
The pair fought their extradition to Tokyo, claiming they could face torture-like conditions, and have not commented on their case since arriving in early March.
Tokyo’s Deputy Chief Prosecutor Hiroshi Yamamoto has declined to comment on their arraignment, but local media said both men have admitted wrongdoing during questioning.
Public broadcaster NHK has said Peter received 144 million yen (US$1.3 million) from the Ghosns for their help.
The Asahi Shimbun daily said the pair spent most of the money on preparations for the escape, including the costs of chartering a private jet, claiming they were not paid for their help.
Ghosn remains at large in Lebanon, where he was questioned last month by French investigators over a series of alleged financial improprieties.
Among the allegations are improper financial interactions with Renault-Nissan’s distributor in Oman, payments by a Dutch subsidiary to consultants and lavish parties organized at the Palace of Versailles.
The questioning took place with his defense team and a Lebanese prosecutor present. Ghosn was heard as a witness as he would need to be in France to be formally indicted.
Others involved in the Ghosn case have faced legal proceedings, including his former aide at Nissan, Greg Kelly, who is also on trial in Tokyo for his alleged role in underreporting the tycoon’s income.
And a Turkish court has sentenced two pilots and another employee of a small private airline to four years and two months in prison for their role in Ghosn’s escape.
Ghosn switched planes in Turkey on his way to Lebanon, and the three Turks were charged with involvement in a conspiracy to smuggle a migrant.
– AFP
22. Why We Can’t Move On From Jan. 6
Why We Can’t Move On From Jan. 6
If you weren’t appalled by what happened that day, you have given up on American democracy.
I knew this only because I pay attention to what’s going on, as adults do. I had no special information, no inside source, no heads-up on an encrypted app. I share this because I just read the report issued this week by two Senate committees on Capitol preparations for a possible insurrection. And the authorities weren’t paying attention.
No one was ready. The report underlined how stupid government agencies often are, how careless. They had intelligence systems and people who monitor the web. But there was a systemwide security failure, “critical breakdowns involving several federal agencies.” Agencies failed to warn of a potential for violence or to prepare. An arm of the Capitol Police knew of the danger in the weeks before Jan. 6 but failed to include the information in its assessments. Police leadership never developed a staffing plan for the joint session convened to count the electoral votes, and didn’t detail where officers would be located. After the insurrection they couldn’t provide documents showing where officers were as the attack began. Incident commanders couldn’t relay information to superiors because they were engaged with rioters. Frontline officers weren’t provided with proper equipment—helmets, armor, shields. Most defended the Capitol in their daily uniforms. Heavy gear was stored in a bus near the Capitol, but when a platoon tried to retrieve it, the bus was locked and nobody had a key. Capitol Police leadership bumbled calling in the National Guard and the Defense Department bumbled getting it there.
What a disaster. Reading it, after the indignation subsides, you realize: This sounds like a lot of America now. You put on the outfit and walk around playing a role. You’re doing your best but you haven’t been properly managed, trained or equipped, and you’re not sure exactly what to do. So you walk forward and do your best. This is true in many professions—politics, business, medicine. These institutions are interested in “public facing,” not “inner reality.” They’re all about marketing and communications. Managers are rewarded not for training carefully but for training quickly.
Anyway, Capitol Hill was asleep at the switch.
I want to say something about the meaning of 1/6 and why it is so important we set ourselves to knowing all that happened that day.
It’s not just “the past” and we can’t just “move on.” It’s a story that’s still happening.
People experienced it differently. Most of us were chilled and horrified as we saw the pictures of men in assault gear climbing the face of the Capitol, breaking in, swarming the Rotunda. It was a shock to see the Capitol breached.
But some weren’t horrified. They see the Capitol as already trashed through decades of bad governance, and now a stolen election. Jan. 6 was merely the physical expression of a longtime fact, that the vandals had already arrived and were wearing congressional pins.
To the horrified, the Capitol is a symbol and repository of our republic, our democracy. Those we choose to represent us do their work there. It may be a mess and a bit of a whorehouse but it’s always been a mess and a bit of a whorehouse, because it’s human. And yet greatness can erupt there, progress can be made, things improved.
It’s what as a nation we’ve got. It’s our only hope.
If you weren’t appalled by 1/6, then you have given up: Throw in the towel, democracy’s done, its over. Those who know it’s not done, not over, who won’t allow it to be done and over, also know that democracy needs friends right now.
Here is a way to be its friend.
The breaching of the Capitol happened because of a conspiracy theory: that the election was actually won by Mr. Trump but stolen from him by bad people. That theory hasn’t gone away, it’s growing and spreading. What might be called the Trump Underworld—the operatives, grifters and media figures around him—is pushing the theories harder than ever. It’s as if they think he’s not going to be a candidate in 2024 and they’d better make their money now, the window is closing.
This conspiracism is bad for the country: It leaves us more polarized and lessens our faith in our systems. It is bad for one of our two major parties: It leaves the GOP with an untreated cancer.
The only thing that can stop it is true facts independently developed and presented with respect—and receipts. How did 1/6 happen; who was behind it, paid for it, silently encouraged it, exploited it? Who didn’t care if people got hurt? Who wanted people hurt? This information is still gettable through deep dives into documentation—phone records, bank records, hotel records, text messages. It is gettable through sworn testimony.
Republicans senators recently shut down a bill to create a public 9/11-style commission investigating what happened and what led up to it. But they can’t stop, say, a House select committee with five Democrats, five Republicans, full staffing and full subpoena power.
Democrats haven’t been quick to launch a big and formal investigation. Maybe they’re afraid they themselves would be embarrassed by some revelations. Early on they figured Mr. Trump humiliated himself, and they should turn the page into the shining new Biden era. They should rethink this. A deep investigation would be a dramatic one, and it would help distract from recent bobbles.
Barbara Comstock, a two-term GOP former House member and hearty supporter of a full investigation, notes the idea the election was stolen has morphed into “ ‘the November 3rd movement.’ ” She says in an interview: “I do think cutting out the sickness of conspiracy and QAnon is important. Trump-world is invested in it, they are duping good people who are writing $25 checks. You have smart people who believe in conspiracies now, and the ones who are smart are slower to figure out the truth than the ones who are not.”
She adds that “sometimes good policy is good politics.” Republican candidates need to be freed to develop policies that address people’s real issues again, not only their grievances. Politics needs to be serious again. Republican Trump stalwarts on Capitol Hill need to be confronted with the facts, pressed on them. “The future doesn’t have to be anti-Trump,” Ms. Comstock says, “it has to be non-Trump.”
She fears more violence and believes future attacks are possible: “Polarization has made the danger real. Threats are up 107% since the election. They wanted to hang Mike Pence. ”
Capitol Police have told her they themselves want a broad investigation. “What happened to Back the Blue?” she asks.
Congress should take this seriously and do it sooner rather than later. “The longer you wait,” Ms. Comstock says, “the more records get away.”
23. Analysis: Mystery of 1999 US stealth jet shootdown returns with twist
Some fascinating "analysis."
Analysis: Mystery of 1999 US stealth jet shootdown returns with twist
Katsuji Nakazawa is a Tokyo-based senior staff writer and editorial writer at Nikkei. He spent seven years in China as a correspondent and later as China bureau chief. He is the 2014 recipient of the Vaughn-Ueda International Journalist prize for international reporting.
TOKYO -- Shortly after top U.S. and Chinese diplomats locked horns in Alaska in late March, eye-catching articles began to appear on the Chinese internet.
"Why was the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia attacked by U.S. precision-guided bombs in 1999?" reads the headline of one.
The U.S. has always maintained that the bombing 22 years ago was an accident and that the NATO operation intended to bomb a nearby Yugoslav facility.
But what really happened that night has been a captivating topic for Chinese citizens. That such information is coming out now is a strange phenomenon, almost as if somebody is intentionally trying to reveal the secrets behind the incident.
Protesters in Beijing come out en masse to vent their anger at the U.S. for bombing the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia in May 1999.
In May 1999, the Chinese embassy was attacked by five precision-guided bombs launched from B-2 stealth bombers. Three Chinese nationals were killed and more than 20 injured. The incident sparked massive anti-U.S. protests in Beijing.
Despite an apology from then-President Bill Clinton, the Chinese government has always held that it could not have been a misfire and that the U.S. military deliberately bombed the Chinese embassy. Still, the Chinese side has never presented any evidence to back that it was a planned U.S. attack.
The articles that recently surfaced dig right into the issue. The real reason the Chinese embassy was targeted was the existence of the wreckage of a U.S. stealth fighter in the embassy, the articles hint.
Just over a month before the embassy bombing, a U.S. F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighter sent over the Kosovo conflict was shot down by a Russian-made surface-to-air missile fired by the Serbia-led Yugoslavian military.
The wreckage was strewed over farmland, and some parts were later displayed at Belgrade's air museum. But Chinese agents also crisscrossed the area, buying up parts of the plane from local farmers, Adm. Davor Domazet-Loso, then military chief of staff in neighboring Croatia, told The Associated Press in 2011.
Serb firefighters walk through what was the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade after it was hit by NATO missiles on May 8, 1999. © AP
The F-117 Nighthawk, the world's first stealth fighter, was developed by U.S. aerospace company Lockheed, now Lockheed Martin.
With research having started in the 1970s, the F-117 technology was by the time of the crash no longer tip of the spear. But the wreckage was still valuable as research material and the focus of rival countries' attention.
"We believe the Chinese used those materials to gain an insight into secret stealth technologies," Croatia's Domazet-Loso was quoted by AP as saying in an interview, "and to reverse-engineer them."
According to the recent Chinese articles, China asked the Yugoslavian government to share the remains of the recovered wreckage, and after consultations, succeeded in obtaining the guidance system, the stealthy main body and heat-resistant engine-nozzle parts.
Bound in secrecy, it was difficult for the Chinese to transport the treasures by sea or by air. As a result, China was left with no choice but to temporarily store them in the basement of the Chinese embassy, the articles say.
The U.S. military detected positioning signals coming from the wreckage and became aware of its new basement home, the articles continue.
Villagers check out the wreckage of a U.S. F-117 stealth fighter that was shot down on March 28, 1999, over the village of Budjanovci, Serbia, some 40 km west of Belgrade. © Reuters
The B-2 bombers were sent to keep military secrets from falling into China's hands, the articles conclude.
One of the bombs actually reached the basement but did not explode, leaving the wreckage intact, the stories go on to say.
After that, China spent 10 years upgrading its stealth technology and conducted in-depth research on laser-guided missiles. A 2011 AP story says that the technology for China's J-20 stealth fighter may have originated from the downed F-117 aircraft.
In the two decades since the embassy bombing, China, with a chip on its shoulder, has narrowed the gap in national power with the U.S. As evidenced by the recent meeting of top Chinese and U.S. diplomats, China has no need to fear any country as long as it has real power, the articles say.
Notably, the articles do not write in definitive terms. When it comes to the core facts, they use indirect references such as "said to be" and "the most widely supported analysis circulating on the internet."
That is likely because, if true, that the embassy was hiding sensitive material in its basement, putting the lives of embassy staff at risk, bodes ill for China's image.
Back in 2011, China's hawkish Global Times had denied the tech-theft theory.
As such, it is difficult to determine which parts of the articles are true and which are speculative. It is too early to say that the articles have revealed the truth about the 1999 incident.
China has come a long way since 1999, and J-20 stealth fighters are a source of national pride. © AP
But the change in China's stance is noteworthy.
In China, opinions expressed online are under strict surveillance and control. Authorities can delete any online post they deem inconvenient. But the articles in question are not subject to deletion, except for some parts. It is natural to think that they have received tacit approval from Chinese authorities.
Why, then, have Chinese authorities given the de facto green light?
To begin with, most Chinese have believed that the embassy bombing was deliberate. Tossing in "evidence" to that argument further highlights the past sins of the Americans and unites the people behind the Chinese government as relations deteriorate.
Secondly, Chinese authorities are apparently highlighting the exponential advancement in its military technologies since the "humiliation in Belgrade."
Both outcomes make the articles suitable content ahead of the July 1, 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party's establishment.
During the 1999 anti-U.S. demonstrations, Chinese students held banners with slogans such as "Don't underestimate the Chinese people" and "China will become the world's strongest country sometime in the future."
It seemed to be a mere pipe dream at the time, but the goal is now within reach.
Chinese President Xi Jinping delivers a speech to prominent domestic scientists at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on May 28. © CCTV/Reuters
In a closely related development, Chinese President Xi Jinping on Friday delivered a speech to prominent domestic scientists at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.
Xi, who doubles as the party's general secretary, stressed the need to build China into a leader in science and technology and achieve "sci-tech self-reliance and self-strengthening."
For China, military technologies form the core of the science and technology field.
Amid concerns about a possible supply chain disruption in the tech sector due to its confrontation with the U.S., China is clamoring for independent development of tech products that can help it march toward technological supremacy.
In its ultra-long-term plan to 2035, China seeks to catch up with the U.S. militarily as well as economically.
One day after Xi's speech, state-run China Central Television's main evening news program showed footage of J-20 stealth fighters flying in formation while the anchors discussed Xi's call for "sci-tech self-reliance and self-strengthening."
CCTV treated the J-20 as a source of national pride.
Serbian Foreign Minister Nikola Selakovic and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi address reporters in the city of Guiyang, Guizhou Province, on May 29, 2021. © CCTV/CGTN/Reuters
That day, Serbian Foreign Minister Nikola Selakovic met Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Guiyang, the capital city of China's Guizhou Province.
It seemed too much of a coincidence.
At his joint news conference with Selakovic, Wang said China's cooperation with Central and Eastern European countries "focuses on pragmatic economic and trade cooperation, which does not involve the field of defense and security."
China's cooperation with Central and Eastern European countries "has never had geostrategic intentions, and [China] has no intention of engaging in any sphere of influence," Wang said.
But when Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe visited Serbia in March, he and Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic exchanged views on military cooperation. Together, they inspected a military drill by Serbian armed forces.
China and Serbia have historically had close security links. It is a relationship that has gained prominence due to the recent U.S.-China confrontation.
Now, 22 years on, the embassy bombing is not a mere piece of history but an element of today's complicated international relations ... and of China's domestic politics.
V/R
V/R
David Maxwell
Senior Fellow
Foundation for Defense of Democracies
Phone: 202-573-8647
Twitter: @davidmaxwell161
FDD is a Washington-based nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.
