As the US Fed raises the interest rates and Biden fears a economic recession in the USA and well beyond, as the US dollars strength is increasing ,the inflation in the USA as in the West and the rest of the world is soaring, there are now promoters in the Biden administration to ease the tariffs on Chinese exports to the USA to dampen inflation and to prevent the next election defeat in the elections 2022. The problem is: How to dampen inflation by making compromises with China and not get blamed to be „too soft on China“ or being a Beijing- Biden? The story that only the Ukraine war is responsible for the inflation is not sustainable as the trade war with China is also an important factor. However, what would Trump do? Give Russia Ukraine and parts of Europe to bring Russia with a cesefire in his hoped- for anti- Chinese camp, lift the sanctions and focus only on China while Europe gets lost? And are the US citiziens prepared to have tougher sanctions on China and more inflation, if Trump is reelected or Pompeo seizes power? Or would they be satisfied if you give them any scapegoat to blame?
“Biden considers China tariffs rollback, plans talks with Xi
Biden said on Saturday he was in the process of making up his mind on tariffs and the potential call with Xi, though he hasn’t made a final determination yet.
By ROMAN MEITAV
Published: une 18, 2022 18:58
President Joe Biden is considering rolling back some of the tariffs that former president Donald J. Trump imposed on Chinese goods, in hopes of mitigating skyrocketing price hikes on goods, according to CNN.
US officials are also working to arrange a possible call this summer between President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping, according to Bloomberg.
Biden said on Saturday he was in the process of making up his mind on tariffs and the potential call with Xi, according to an official familiar with the matter, though he hasn’t made a final determination yet.
Biden and Xi last spoke in a nearly two-hour-long video call on March 18, their first following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The US president warned his counterpart at the time of “consequences” should Beijing provide support for President Vladimir Putin’s war, according to the White House readout of the chat.
Business groups and some outside economists have been pressuring the administration to relax at least a portion of the taxes on imports, saying it would be a significant step that the president could take to immediately cut costs for consumers.
“We want stability in the relationship, that takes connecting,” US Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns said Thursday at an event hosted by the Brookings Institution when asked about the state of play between the countries. “Of course, our ultimate channel is the channel between our two presidents. So we’re conducting intensive diplomacy.”
Liu Pengyu, spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington, said in an email to Bloomberg that China and the US “have smooth communications channels.”
„We have no information about a call, although we always believe it’s beneficial to keep the lines of communication open at all levels,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said Friday at a regular press briefing in Beijing.
„We have no information about a call, although we always believe it’s beneficial to keep the lines of communication open at all levels.”
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin
Biden has limited options for bringing down the price hikes and has deferred to the Federal Reserve to manage inflation. Yet its primary tactic of raising interest rates has driven stock market prices down, instead of developing fears of a looming recession.
Biden’s team believes it must make a decision soon as inflation continues to drag down the President’s approval ratings. The issue has been debated internally for months and has sparked an internal divide within Biden’s team.
Some of Biden’s advisors such as US Trade Representative Katherine Tai have advocated leaving the tariffs as they are because China hasn’t lived up to its original commitments from the Trump-era trade deal. Other members of the Cabinet, including Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, favor lifting some tariffs on certain goods, according to CNN
Biden has also come under pressure from some Democrats and organized labor to keep the tariffs in place to protect US jobs.
A White House spokesman declined to say how much of an inflation reduction administration economists believe might be possible from a tariff rollback in a probe by The New York Times, stating that the discussions are still ongoing.
Another senior administration official told The New York Times that the White House had been examining several models of how lifting tariffs would affect rising prices, which had produced a range of different estimates, depending on factors like whether the tariffs were eliminated through an exclusion process or in one fell swoop, and whether China responded by lifting its own tariffs.
However many Republican critics just not only want to see the failure of the Biden administration in the Ukraine war, but also in the Iran deal negotations in Vienna, while Iran is getting close to become a nuclear power the next weeks , while Erdogan is threatening Greece and the treaties of Lausanne 1931, Montreaux 1936 and the Paris treaty 1946 and planning an offensive in Northern Syria to expand his neo-Ottoman empire. While there are more than enough warnings and alarms by the Republicans, the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, the results of the Trump trade war like the Biden trade war against China are seen as more verbally than really addressing the concrete question of American hegemony and supremacy as a exceptionalist nation and would lack any concrete measures for a real decoupling and resilience of supply chains.
Good example for this sort of complaint is Derek Sciccors in his AEI article “Will US business undermine US China policy again?”:
“Will US Business Undermine China Policy Again?
June 16, 2022
One reason for today’s inflation is supply chain disruptions caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. A confrontation with China could have far worse effects. Last year Senators Casey (D) and Cornyn (R) introduced legislation to limit further loss of US economic capacity, to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) especially. Recent events show action like this is needed to protect American prosperity.
The legislation aims to defend “national critical capabilities.” These can appear anywhere in a supply chain, from design to final manufacture. The idea is to evaluate, mitigate, modify, or prohibit commercial activities which effectively shift such capabilities to adversary countries. The primary way American companies have done so is investing in the PRC.
The original legislation didn’t pass the Senate but is part of the House version of the omnibus China bill, after being introduced on a bipartisan basis there too. This week the original version was revised to respond to criticism from business, particularly regarding scope. The revised version has also been criticized but, in light of the changes made, some new criticism is disingenuous.
There are reasonable questions. A committee is designated to oversee a review process and it’s not obvious who should chair. The Department of Commerce lost the trust of many in Congress by refusing to implement export control law. With a narrow view of what’s critical, the defense department may be the best choice, but it’s not ideal either.
Related, it’s a legitimate topic of debate whether “critical” is applied too broadly. The revised legislation finds adversary influence over commercial entities to be risky yet doesn’t define influence, which can lead to seeing high risk where it doesn’t exist. The new text doesn’t include a way to decertify capabilities no longer critical, which will be necessary over time.
But there are potentially serious problems with accommodating other business concerns. The revised legislation exempts “ordinary” transactions. Knowledge transfer in seemingly ordinary transactions can boost capabilities of foreign entities, for instance learning how to produce to specification. China has benefited enormously from this.
A better limit on the scope of review is to start cautiously in identifying what’s truly critical and amenable to this form of government action. Within that set of capabilities, all sizable transactions are worth assessing. But the large majority of transactions involve ordinary capabilities and should be untouched.
The central issue is enforcement. Two months ago the Department of the Treasury floated an alternative approach in the form of just gathering information. Until late 2020, Treasury didn’t even publish accurate data for total American investment in the PRC. It still provides no data by sector, whether critical or not. Treasury’s record here is poor and its role should be limited.
Other business and political interests seek to replicate the useless Treasury approach. They are still contesting the parts of the bill that provide authority for any action at all. This would leave an information-collection exercise and not much of even that, since there are no consequences for failing to disclose properly.
The clock is ticking. As part of successful 2016–2018 reform of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, Congress also attempted to address these issues, falling just short. This extended effort refutes one argument against the legislation—that it’s brand new and must be extensively vetted. It’s not new, it’s not unprecedented, and vetting has occurred.
More broadly, opponents have had over a year to propose alternatives. They haven’t done so because, posturing aside, they favor doing absolutely nothing.
In a conflict over Taiwan, Americans’ supply of pharmaceuticals, among other things, would be devastated by loss of both Chinese final products and Chinese key materials for others’ final products. Do nothing. From the end of 2016 through the end of 2020 (latest available), US investment in PRC bonds and stocks rose from $368 billion to $1.15 trillion. Do nothing.
China’s military capabilities and aggressiveness have increased, as has repression. Do nothing. But the US should, say parts of the business community, give billions in taxpayer dollars to semiconductor firms while those same firms continue to help China advance this critical capability. For some, profiting from the PRC is more important than the rest of the national interest combined.
House-Senate conference on the China bill faces multiple obstacles. If the larger package can’t pass, legislation to address outbound investment moving supply chains should be considered separately. The US is walking toward a price and availability shock far worse than what’s happening now. And we’ve already lost years to empty talk.
Already in 2020 the Heritage Foundation wrote a study for the sinoamerican conflict: „Blueprint for the U.S. Response to China over the next decades“
It was not about regime change, but as Pompeo wanted a change of “behaviour” of the CCP by all means . However the CCP doesn´t behave as the USA want it to do and is even copying Putin in the definition of war or military operations abroad.
“China defines military operations Operations „that are not war“: A new order from the Chinese leadership allows more foreign missions. That evokes associations with Putin’s choice of words about Ukraine.
Xi Jinping, in his capacity as chairman of the Central Military Commission, has approved a number of new plans. In the future, these will allow China’s armed forces to carry out military operations abroad – but on the condition that these operations are „not war“. „Military operations other than war“ (MOOTW) are missions abroad such as disaster relief, humanitarian aid or peacekeeping operations. „Organizing and conducting non-military military operations is of great importance in order to effectively fulfill the missions and tasks of the military in the new era,“ reports the People’s Daily, summing up: With this step, Xi Jinping is consistently implementing his own ideas on strengthening the military . Xi’s arrangement consists of six chapters and 59 articles. The exact content was not published – and yet one can guess that the consequences are far-reaching. According to a report by the Global Times: The People’s Liberation Army troops could now protect China from spillover effects of regional instabilities, secure important transport routes for strategic materials such as oil, and defend China’s foreign investments, projects and personnel.
Good intentions only?
It quickly becomes clear: With his directive, Xi is creating the legal basis for the People’s Liberation Army to effectively protect China’s national sovereignty, security and development interests
abroad. The Global Times stressed that the intentions were good: China’s armed forces engaged in the fight against the Covid-19 pandemic and played an important role in saving lives from natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods. A Chinese expert is quoted as saying: Foreign states are increasingly beneficiaries of disaster relief and humanitarian aid from the Chinese armed forces – countries that have received medical equipment and vaccines against Covid-19, for example. He mentions Tonga by name, which was badly hit by a volcanic eruption and a tsunami this year. All of these points are factually correct: China is involved in numerous international operations – from humanitarian ones to the anti-terrorist operation in the Gulf of Aden. China recently sent more than 2,200 soldiers to UN peacekeeping missions abroad.
For comparison: Only 638 people from Germany are deployed. And financially, only the USA contributes more than the People’s Republic to these peacekeeping missions. And yet, the term „military operations that are not war“ makes one sit up and take notice these days. The Chinese formulation (军队非战争军事行动, jūnduì fēi zhànzhēng jūnshì xíngdòng) is unavoidably reminiscent of the current language regime from Russia. Whenever the Kremlin or representatives of the government in Moscow have to describe the Russian attack on Ukraine, they never talk about war, but always about a „special military operation“. From the point of view of many experts, there is another parallel in this area: what Ukraine is to Russia, Taiwan is to China. Foreign reports about Xi’s new target are correspondingly concerned: Beijing may be preparing to attack democratic Taiwan under the guise of a „special operation“ that is not classified as a war, writes Radio Free Asia, for example. Cross-strait status redefined as appropriate On closer inspection, the choice of words in the directive can actually make you nervous: military operations that are not war but serve to secure national sovereignty are favoured.
From Beijing’s point of view, an attack on Taiwan would be exactly that: a process to secure national sovereignty – after all, the island is regarded as a breakaway province that is an inalienable part of the Chinese motherland. According to this interpretation, an attack on another country would not take place. The process was more like a police operation inside. The Communist Party even considers it a national duty to bring Taiwan back to the motherland. Xi leaves no doubt about that. Most recently, China’s defense minister made it absolutely clear how determined his country was on the Taiwan issue. Speaking at the Shangri-La Forum in Singapore, China’s top military said, „If anyone dares secede Taiwan from China, we will not hesitate to fight.“ The minister warned: „We will fight at all costs. We will fight to the end.“ No one should underestimate the determination and ability of the Chinese armed forces to safeguard the People’s Republic’s territorial integrity. Remarkable: He speaks of the fight to the end, not of war. Meanwhile, at the same security conference, America’s Secretary of Defense pointed out that China was trying ever more aggressively to assert its territorial claims. Lloyd Austin was referring above all to Beijing’s behavior towards Taiwan, such as the regular military flights. Just a few days ago, 30 Chinese planes entered Taiwan’s so-called defense airspace; According to the Taiwanese Ministry of Defense, more than 20 fighter jets were among them.
For Beijing, Taiwan is a MOOTW Appropriately, in recent weeks Beijing has begun to change its terminology on the Taiwan Strait. American diplomats and government officials are said to have been informed at several levels that the 160-kilometer-wide strait is not „international waters.“ „It is a false claim when certain countries call the Taiwan Strait ‚international waters‘ to find an excuse to rig Taiwan-related affairs,“ said Wang Wenbin, spokesman for the Foreign Ministry in Beijing. And since Beijing sees the Taiwan Strait as part of China’s sea area, there is no longer a „middle line“ in the strait that used to keep Chinese and Taiwanese military jets separate. It is the description of Taiwan as a breakaway province that would allow the rulers in Beijing to speak not of a war in the classic sense between states, but of a MOOTW, a military operation that is not a war. According to this understanding, it is an internal dispute. For Beijing, it would be the end of the civil war against the Kuomintang party.”
And this is not all:
„Risky maneuvers: China declares the Taiwan Strait its own waters The new language regulation could increase the risk of unwanted collisions. The danger of miscalculations has also increased in the airspace over the South China Sea. When American warships have sailed through the Taiwan Strait in the past, China’s response has mostly been predictable. Beijing has accused the US of provocative behavior that threatens peace in the region and sends the wrong signal to „separatists“ in Taiwan. Now Beijing has apparently changed its language rules. „It is a false claim when certain countries refer to the Taiwan Strait as ‚international waters‘ to find an excuse to manipulate the Taiwan issue and threaten China’s sovereignty and security,“ the foreign ministry spokesman said in Beijing on Monday. The Taiwan Strait is subject to China’s sovereignty as an Exclusive Economic Zone. The spokesman was responding to a report by the Bloomberg news agency. It said the US government is concerned that Chinese military officials have repeatedly denied the status of the Taiwan Strait as international waters in talks in recent months. This position is actually not new, but has rarely been raised as an issue in the past. It is not to be expected that the American Navy will be dissuaded from further transits as a result. The new language regulation could increase the risk of unwanted clashes because Beijing has put itself under pressure to react more decisively in the future. Canada and Australia report incidents Apparently, there is a change of strategy behind this: Last October, China had already asked the Canadian government through various channels to stop sending warships through the Taiwan Straits. The countries involved, including France and Great Britain, justify the trips with the protection of freedom of navigation. The missions serve to reject Beijing’s internationally unrecognized territorial claims and its threatening gestures towards Taiwan. China sees this as an attempt to prevent its rise to global power. The danger of miscalculations has also increased in the airspace over the South China Sea. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin spoke in Singapore over the weekend of an „alarming“ increase in unsafe Chinese maneuvers when encountering ships and aircraft from other countries. Among other things, Canada had announced that one of its reconnaissance aircraft had been harassed by Chinese warplanes in a „very worrying and unprofessional“ manner. According to Canadian information, the plane was part of an international mission to enforce UN sanctions against North Korea.
A spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry sharply rejected this. „It is a fact that the Canadian military plane flew thousands of miles to harass China on its doorstep.“ The plane „repeatedly and continuously approached China’s airspace.“ Australia reported a similar incident. A Chinese fighter plane maneuvered directly in front of an Australian reconnaissance plane over the South China Sea and released aluminum camouflage devices that got into the Australian engine. In this case, too, China accused the Australian pilots of „approaching Chinese airspace“. When experts talk about the risk of unwanted clashes in the region, they point to a fatal incident in 2001, when a Chinese warplane collided with an American reconnaissance plane. The Americans landed on Hainan Not Island and were detained by the Chinese military for 11 days. The Chinese pilot was killed. He is still revered as a hero in China and is considered a role model for today’s pilots. At the time, it took a considerable amount of time before the Americans managed to get someone responsible on the Chinese side on the phone. In order to avoid such miscommunications in the future, the country’s top foreign policy chief, Yang Jiechi, met with US President Jake Sullivan’s security adviser for more than four hours on Monday evening. Main topic was North Korea. Beijing then said that both sides agreed that it was necessary to “keep channels of conversation open”. https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/china-erklaert-die-taiwan-strasse-zum- Eigenen-Gewaesser-18102837.html
While the CCP always warns of US moves to create an Asian NATO and to couple NATO with Asia by the Quad and the AUKUS it as often pronounces that this will not happen—maybe Japan and Southkorea might join such an alliance, but not India and the ASEAN. Therefore the Global Times is praising the Indian foreign minister for his political position against the West, the USA and is seen as a potential candiidate for the Global Security Initiative which also wants to bring also the BRICS and SCO states together:
“Why Jaishankar’s Washington visit will show New Delhi’s own path
By Qian Feng Published: May 24, 2021 08:43 PM
Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar will visit the US from Monday to Friday. Before the visit, Jaishankar’s remarks on an event hosted by The Financial Times and The Indian Express laid out India’s geopolitical calculus in a world that is being shaped by two dominant powers – China and the US.
During this event, Jaishankar signaled that New Delhi won’t abandon difficult dialogue with China, nor is it panicking into military alliance with the US. Such comments ahead of the visit seem intended to tell Washington that New Delhi’s foreign policy will continue to be in the best interest of its own country. This means that India will not give up its strategic independence or take sides. This is India’s carefully crafted tone before the visit.
With the Quad mechanism evolving, Washington has been increasing its pressure on New Delhi with growing demands. At first, the US failed to provide timely help after the extreme virus outbreak in India. Washington then dispatched some relief materials to India under the pressure of the global public opinion. Under the US‘ pragmatic concept, it hopes that India will pay Washington back in return. As such, it is highly likely that Washington will put forward higher requirements to New Delhi during Jaishankar’s visit.
„The issue of vaccine procurement is expected to be a key agenda item during Jaishankar’s interaction with US leadership and other stakeholders,“ News agency ANI reported on Monday. If this is to be achieved, New Delhi will have to pay a diplomatic price in exchange. Setting the tone ahead of the visit may also avoid Washington’s demands that New Delhi should intensify its confrontation with Beijing in exchange for vaccine cooperation. It is unclear how much India will compromise.
However, India’s policy toward China and the US follow two strategic lines. India will not change its policy toward China just because the US requires it. This demonstrates that India sees itself as a great power with diplomatic independence.
When the coronavirus became deadly serious in India these past few months, the indifferent attitude from the US led to many dissatisfactory voices in India. This has had a great impact on the thinking of the Indian people and public opinion. It again showed the world that neither Trump nor Biden can change the fact that „American First“ is always the priority of US foreign policy. It also showed the true value and weight of India in the US Indo-Pacific Strategy.
Amid the Indian public’s concern about the US, Jaishankar’s visit to the country will likely show Washington that asking New Delhi to take a side and choose the US will not succeed in this situation.
Soon, it will be one year since troops from China and India clashed in the Galwan Valley. Although the border issue has been a major topic in China-India relations, it is unlikely to worsen in the short term due to the epidemic situation in India. There are some forces in New Delhi attempting to use the border issue to divert attention from its domestic epidemic. However, conflicts will probably not erupt again under the constraints of peaceful bilateral dialogues.
New Delhi and Washington will not become real allies, because India will not give up its strategic autonomy. India will only become a US „ally“ in some fields, but it will not become another Japan or Australia that are allied with the US.
There is new content in New Delhi’s non-alignment policy: It is now looking for multilateral alliances. Also, New Delhi and Washington can form security alliances as non-allies, but will have differences over issues such as climate change.
The Indian Express mentioned that, „India wants a good neighbourly relationship with China while also realising the full potential of its partnership with the US, and more broadly, with the West.“ The best way for India to maintain its balance against China and the US is to return to the state of affairs before the border conflict with China and tilt a little bit away from the US.
Beyond the BRI and failed New Health Silkroad, the CCP started against the US narrative its own narrative , the Global Security Initiative against hegemonism, means: the USA as troublemaker and irresponsible stakeholder against world peace and development , therefore a claim to enjoy development and world peace under Chinese hegemony in Asia and the rest of the world. An Indian commentator in The Diplomat analyzed the Chinese proposal:
“China’s Xi Proposes Global Security Initiative
Despite the hypocrisy and power politics at the foundation of the GSI, it would be foolish to dismiss it or assume that it will not garner support from other countries.
May 07, 2022
Chinese President Xi Jinping has come up with a new global security proposal questioning implicitly the logic of the Indo-Pacific strategy, as well as the Quad involving Australia, Japan, India, and the United States. Xi proposed a new “Global Security Initiative” at the Boao Forum for Asia’s annual conference in China on April 21, while calling out Cold War mentality, hegemonism, and power politics as issues that would “endanger world peace” and “exacerbate security challenges in the 21st century.”
According to Xi, the initiative is meant to “uphold the principle of indivisible security, build a balanced, effective and sustainable security architecture, and oppose the building of national security on the basis of insecurity in other countries.” Xi also emphasized the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations, as well as their right to choose their own development paths and social systems.
Following Xi’s speech, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin, at a regular press briefing, sought to clarify what the new initiative means. He said that “with growing threats posed by unilateralism, hegemony and power politics, and increasing deficits in peace, security, trust and governance, mankind is facing more and more intractable problems and security threats.” A week later, Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in a piece published in People’s Daily elaborated, saying that the initiative “contributes Chinese wisdom to make up for the human peace deficit and provides Chinese solution to cope with international security challenge.” Wang reportedly added that “China will never claim hegemony, seek expansion or spheres of influence, nor engage in an arms race.”
When asked about Xi’s speech, a U.S. State Department spokesperson said that China is maintaining the same line as Russia, “parrot[ing] some of what we have heard coming from the Kremlin,” including the concept of “indivisible security.” Commenting on Xi’s initiative, an Asian diplomat reportedly said that China tends to “come out with an excessively large framework that nobody objects to. The idea is that even if countries don’t agree wholeheartedly, at least they can’t fully oppose it. Then, bit by bit, they use the framework to chip away at the US.”
It is quite possible that the Global Security Initiative (GSI) will start to play a prominent role in Chinese public diplomacy and foreign policy posture, so it is worth taking seriously. A few initial comments can be made about Xi’s proposed GSI.
The first is the blatant hypocrisy. China is proposing principles that it has clearly already violated. For example, Xi’s statement begins by talking about sovereignty and territorial integrity, but China’s behavior in both the South China Sea and along the Sino-Indian border clearly violate the notions of sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors. Similarly, Xi’s statement talks about taking the legitimate security concerns of all countries seriously and not pursuing one’s own security at the cost of others, none of which can be seen in China’s own behavior. There are other similar contradictions between the principles stated in the GSI and China’s own behavior, but these two stand out as the most blatant. Of course, great powers being hypocritical in their public statements of policy is not new. The hypocrisy should nevertheless be noted.
The second comment worth making at this juncture is that despite talking about rejecting the Cold War mentality, the GSI is a clear attempt at promoting power politics in a manner beneficial to China. Many of the proposals in the GSI are a thinly veiled effort to compete with the United States and its partners and allies. When Xi says “say no to group politics and bloc confrontation” or criticizes “small circles,” there can be little doubt that he is targeting security partnerships that the United States is anchoring in the Indo-Pacific, such as those that include India, Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and others. Not only are these proposals driven by China’s effort to compete with the United States, but they are yet again hypocritical considering that China itself has had close alignments with states, such as the Soviet Union in the past, and continues to have long-lasting security partnerships with both Pakistan and North Korea. And, of course, Putin and Xi signed earlier this year what can easily be characterized as a new security partnership.
Similarly, the essence of many of the proposals in the GSI comes down to the presumption that Asian affairs should be managed by Asian countries, which conveniently gives China a domineering position because of its size and power, and equally conveniently seeks to push the United States out of the Indo-Pacific. This is a blatant effort at the pursuit of an Asian hegemony by China and one that is designed to promote China’s interests in its great power competition with the United States.
Despite the hypocrisy and power politics at the foundation of the GSI, it is likely to garner significant support in some parts of the world, especially the Middle East, Africa, and other regions that are far from China. As the world becomes increasingly bipolar, we will see a repeat of some of the features of Cold War period, especially weaker states playing the two polar powers against each other. Although this will be difficult for countries that are proximate to China or the U.S., this will definitely be a rational strategy for others to adopt because they can derive benefit from both sides. Thus, while it is important to point out the hypocrisy in the GSI, it would be foolish to dismiss it or assume that it will not garner support from other countries.“
The Global SecurIty Initiative is the alternative to Fukuyama´s End of History narrative or Soros` Popper-style Open Society which was based on the assumption that a global middle class would rise because of neoliberalism, free trade and globalisation and spread democracy, world peace, fair and free trade, prosperity and bring the victory of liberal democracy in all regions of the world and therefore world peace– now GSI is the Chinese brand of the End of History , the spread of prosperity, by a more Keynesian global New Deal and part of a New Green deal, creating a peaceful, new multipolar world order with a Sinocentric central planning touch and thereby bring world peace, stability and properity, but not democracy, but good authoritarian governance. It will be more interesting to see who endorses the GSI and then also signs this initiative.
A Security BRI could become the next logic step to China´s expansion. SBRI . But even if it were, the GSI is not yet China’s Asian NATO. There won’t even be a Chinese Quad. With whom? Most of the Pacific islands don’t want it, and there’s a color revolution going on in Sri Lanka and Xi and Putin have problems with the Taliban at their doorsteps. Recomended a GR article about a potential Security Belt for the New Silkroad which was censored by Chinese media because they feared this could undermine Xi´s futuritsic global megaproject: „Does One Belt, One Road need a „security belt“?“
However, Biden is teaming up with AUKUS, Quad, IPEF, Japan wants to join the NATO meeting, French and British troops are partcipating in the US containment circle against China while China wants the Solomon islands , Cambodia and Sri Lanka as new military bases, while the USA want to counteract all these Chineses revisionist moves. Some Americans even think that they could get a new Subic Bay in the Philipines under Bongbong Marcos. However, this would only happen, fi the USA made a favourable free trade agreement with the Philipines which the new US econonomic nationalism against globalism and freetraders prevents. The dream of Subic Bay is not yet over. But without a free trade agreement, it seems difficult to get it again.
“To Bolster Deterrence, the U.S. Must Work with the Philippines
We left the country in the 1990s, but a new plan would not have to start from square one.
June 16, 2022
President Joe Biden is right to be clear that the U.S. will defend Taiwan if the People’s Republic of China attacks it, notwithstanding his aides’ attempts to “walk back” his pledge. Presidential statements about U.S. intent to oppose China’s use of force provide the basis for a coalition to deter Beijing’s use of force. But statements are not enough.
A deterrent coalition needs to demonstrate that it can effectively defeat the Chinese military. This requires a build-up of U.S. military force in the region together with Japan and Australia as well moves to secure the use of allied bases. No country is geographically more important to such a coalition than the Philippines. But the alliance has been rocky since the U.S. military was forced to withdraw from the country in the early 1990s. The Biden administration needs to prioritize stabilizing ties with Manila, not an easy task with the new Marcos government.
The U.S. was instrumental in ousting Ferdinand Marcos, a very popular policy in the Philippines at the time. But after the recent presidential victory of Ferdinand Sr.’s son, Ferdinand “BongBong” Marcos Jr., the family is back in power. The Marcos dynasty are clearly not fond of the U.S., where they still face legal trouble. Meanwhile, Beijing cultivated the new Philippine government before it ascended to power. The Chinese invested in Davao City in Mindanao when Vice President Sara Duterte, daughter of outgoing President Rodrigo Duterte, was mayor.
Despite these obstacles, the U.S. has an opportunity to improve the Philippine alliance. It should develop a comprehensive “Plan Philippines” that leads with diplomacy and economic inducements. One of the plan’s main goals should be to re-establish U.S. bases. This would be a major victory for deterrence in Asia, as Washington’s chief geostrategic problem is the absence of permanent military access south of Okinawa. The Philippines, situated at the eastern edge of the South China Sea, is less than 800 miles away from Taiwan and 900 miles from China’s Hainan province, which is home to a Chinese naval base. It is no surprise, then, that most of the more innovative warfighting concepts offered by the Defense Department assume the use of the Philippines. Unless alliance relations are improved, this is a faulty assumption.
The good news is that a “Plan Philippines” would not be starting from square one. In 2014 the U.S. signed the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which allowed U.S. forces to deploy to the Philippines on a rotational basis and for the storage of U.S. military equipment. It also provides the ballast for more joint training opportunities, and the two countries have enjoyed a steady pace of counter-terror exercises. Despite this, only one storage facility has been built at Basa Air Base. The two countries have yet to build four more such sites.
Notwithstanding the glacial pace of relations with the Philippines, even under the populist, anti-American President Duterte, Manila did not fully jettison the pact. Filipinos do not want to lose more maritime territory to China or the ability to lawfully use the South China Sea for economic purposes. Since 2012,China has blocked access to the Scarborough Shoal and interfered with Filipino oil and gas exploration at Reed Bank.
A 2016 U.N. Hague tribunal found those actions to violate international law and concluded that China’s expansive claims to areas inside the Philippine’s Exclusive Economic Zone have no legal basis. But absent enforcement by the U.S. and its allies, the tribunal’s decision has meant nothing. China has steadily built military outposts around the Spratly archipelago, strengthening its expansive claims around the Philippines.
U.S. diplomacy in Southeast Asia is tricky. Even, with a clear security interest in a more fulsome American presence, Manila has not pushed for a permanent presence of U.S. forces. It is not convinced that the U.S. presence will endure, whereas China is a big menacing neighbor.
Given this mixed history with Manila, a new Philippine strategy will have to include real economic inducements, notably absent from Washington current economic approach to Asia. The Philippines is a developing economy, unable to contribute extensively to its own security. The Development Finance Corporation, formed to counter China’s Belts and Road Initiative (its program to expand its economic influence), should take over infrastructure investments where China has promised money that Manila will never see. While China can out-promise the U.S., its record of delivery is mixed. The U.S. can draw a contrast between glitzy Chinese announcements and actual work completed, starting with funding projects for their viability and commercial value.
In addition, the U.S. has to get back into the trade game in a more serious way. Negotiating a free trade agreement with an ally vital to national security should be possible if the Biden administration is genuinely committed. The keys to success are concrete benefits to the Philippines and an endorsement of the bilateral relationship. In addition to encouraging Manila to cooperate on security issues, this will encourage multinationals to shift activity to the Philippines, including activity from China and possibly extending to semiconductors. While conventional macroeconomic gains for the U.S. would be very small, the past several years have underscored the need for supply chain resilience and movement from China to the Philippines would help. Indeed, absent such free trade agreements the U.S. will likely fail to reshape supply chains.
A new “Plan Philippines” would provide Manila with both more security and access to the massive U.S. market. The U.S. would get permanent bases, and the region would take a strong step toward deterring a potential conflict. This strategy may involve some unwholesome decisions by U.S. policymakers. They may have to tacitly accept continued corruption. But the alternative is worse: a democratic Taiwan becoming indefensible, and the U.S. position in Asia becoming untenable.
The next US and Chinese narratives are the utopia of Shangri La, the hidden paradise mountain state isolated by its geography in the Himalaya, while creative writers and authors like the original book „The last Horizon“ and the Chinese tourist information settled Shangrila in their propaganda from Tibet to Sichuan and then a hidden valley in Yunan. Shangrila means a new society of meritocarcy and wise old man and not angry white men, which former president Lee Kuan Yew wanted to claim that Singapure was the new modern Shangrila–between Comunism and capitalism, between East and the West. an mediator and promoter of reform communism in China by covincing the CCP that Singapur is the better China and mostly Hanchinese and that the CCP should listen more to loyal Singapureans with a US militryy base than to Taiwan as an enemy . Therefore Leee beefed up the Shangrila hotel as this had become a cheap place for German or foreign middle class migranats, but is now a premium hotel for international elites again. And then Lee initiated the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapur. However, that sort of Shangrila and Shangrila dialogue are not as peaceful and harmonious as the title claims, because US Secretary of Defense Austin and China´s highranking military Feng Weihe clashed very openly – „dueling narratives at Shangri-La Dialogue“. The summary of the meeting by democrat- biased Brookings Institution is as follows and tries to descibe the alleged US and Chinese narrative for Shangrila , its differences by its own Democat´s narrative:
“America and China present dueling narratives at Shangri-La Dialogue
Ryan Hass Tuesday, June 14, 2022
A consistent through-line of the dialogue was the cascading challenges confronting the region. Participants spoke of the dangers facing their peoples from energy and food insecurity, climate-induced crises, and the scourges of COVID-19. In this context, virtually every defense leader stressed the need to find ways to pull China into global and regional efforts to address these systemic challenges.
Participants also deliberated extensively on the risks of conflict in the Indo-Pacific. They worked to identify lessons to be drawn from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine for protecting the peace in Asia. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s virtual participation in the conference drove home the life-and-death stakes of confronting this question squarely. Zelenskyy offered a powerful call for countries to band together to defend principles of sovereignty and peaceful resolution of disputes and to oppose the normalization of large countries imposing their will on smaller neighbors.
It was against this backdrop that American and Chinese leaders offered their respective visions for the future of the region. Each country’s representative commanded the stage for a separate one-hour block, where they each delivered speeches and answered questions from delegates. Broadly speaking, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin articulated America’s positive vision for the region, while his Chinese counterpart, Defense Minister Gen. Wei Fenghe, focused on how China will be important to the future of Asia and why it would be a mistake for any country to cross China now.
Secretary Austin’s presentation did not dwell on China. Instead, he emphasized how the United States views the Indo-Pacific as the strategic center of gravity for American interests in the 21st century. He spoke about the Department of Defense’s determination to remain at the bleeding edge of technological innovation, including through its largest-ever budget request for research and development. These investments are enabling progress in fielding new capabilities around stealth aircraft, long-range fires, unmanned platforms, and integrated sensors. Austin explained that the U.S. also is pooling resources and capacity with allies and partners to accelerate innovation, including by linking up defense industrial bases, integrating supply chains, and co-producing new and emerging technologies.
Austin delivered a confident reminder the United States remains the world’s largest military force, endowed with the most significant resources and the deepest partnerships with other capable powers. Austin repeatedly invoked the “power of partnerships” to serve as force multiplier for tackling challenges. He explained that the more China pushes boundaries in the region, the more the U.S. and its partners will tighten their bonds to deal with Chinese assertiveness. Austin seemed to want to dispel any notions that China would own the future and the United States was a fading power.
At the same time, Austin also demonstrated awareness of the interests of his audience. He did not attempt to denigrate China’s achievements. While he was direct in criticizing certain Chinese behaviors, he also advocated for maintaining open channels with Beijing to manage tensions. He studiously avoided any ideological framing of competition with China as a contest between democracies versus autocracies. He did not question any countries’ relationship with China or urge countries to resist Chinese entreaties. Instead, he emphasized that America’s goal is to protect each country’s ability to pursue its interests as it defines them; Washington will not force countries to choose between the United States and China.
Austin also went to pains to emphasize that the U.S. approach to Taiwan is guided by the broadly shared goal of preserving peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. Austin read verbatim America’s longstanding policy on Taiwan, both in his speech and in the Q&A that followed. He signaled that Washington does not seek confrontation with China over Taiwan and does not support Taiwan independence. Austin seemed to suggest that the ball is in China’s court to mellow its pressure on Taiwan if it wishes to lower cross-Strait tensions.
Chinese Defense Minister Gen. Wei Fenghe’s presentation was more pointed by comparison, even as his delivery was relatively more relaxed and engaging than Austin’s. Wei stressed that China’s rise and its continued development cannot be stopped; China cannot be isolated or excluded from the region.
Wei warned that American attempts to form exclusive blocs (e.g., through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or the AUKUS pact) would split the region and undermine the interests of all. He appealed to participants to resist American plans to seek to encircle and contain China. Later, one of Wei’s deputies amplified the message by warning assembled media, “The United States has already turned the Middle East and Europe into a mess, does it want to mess up the Asia-Pacific next?”
Wei’s presentation offered a bread crumb trail of China’s anxieties and insecurities. He opened the speech by declaring that China’s record on COVID-19 was stellar and that its economy was going from strength to strength (two assertions that would appear dubious in the current moment for consumers of international news). Later, Wei identified a series of security challenges confronting China, including Taiwan, the South China Sea, North Korea, Ukraine, and the formation of exclusive groupings that challenged China’s rise. In his telling, the U.S. was the malignant actor standing in the shadow of each of these challenges.
Wei also invoked martial language at times, especially in his comments on Taiwan. He warned that China would “crush” any efforts to achieve Taiwan independence. He warned that if others want confrontation, the People’s Liberation Army would fight to the end without flinching. At the same time, Wei also paired his bluster with assurances that “peaceful unification” remains China’s utmost goal on Taiwan and that China hopes for “sound, steady development” of relations with the United States.
Overall, Wei’s presentation did not break much new ground. His warnings were familiar to anyone who has been in private conversations with Chinese officials or experts over the past year. The publicly-expressed pointedness of some of Wei’s warnings seemed to reflect a worry that Washington is not heeding the strength of China’s concerns and that a more forceful articulation of them may be needed to get the Biden administration’s attention.
Some of Wei’s worries about U.S. capacity to coordinate efforts with allies and partners in Asia may also be informed by three additional factors. First, the Biden administration likely has exceeded Beijing’s expectations. After the Trump era, Beijing might have lulled itself into believing its own narrative about America’s overall decline and its diminishing capacity to lead on the world stage. Second, many Chinese analysts assumed that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine would divert U.S. focus toward Europe and relieve strategic stress on China. Those expectations have not borne out. Third, China’s leaders and leading thinkers likely have been agitated by the pattern of senior American officials visiting Asia and engaging with Asian counterparts, but bypassing China. In the past weeks alone, President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Austin, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai, and many other senior officials have been interacting intensively with their Asian counterparts. They have not been visiting China or interacting with senior Chinese officials, though. This pattern owes in part to China’s status as a de facto closed country due to COVID-19 controls. Nevertheless, the intensity of Washington’s attention on Asia and its relative de-prioritization of direct interaction with Chinese leaders likely has fed a sense of embattlement and encirclement in Beijing.
If the Shangri-La Dialogue provided an X-ray of the current strategic landscape in Asia, the diagnosis would seem to point to compounding problems and concerns in the region, with intensifying U.S.-China rivalry overhanging all of them. Reflecting on these broader dynamics, a prominent Singaporean thinker shared with me and several others advice for Washington and Beijing. He said the region will not give its loyalty to the United States or China. As such, both sides should dial down their insults and angry words toward the other. The U.S. should take seriously China’s warnings about its “red-line” concerns. At the same time, China should not underestimate America’s resilience, strength, and appeal.
Such advice will not resolve underlying tensions animating the U.S.-China relationship, but it could help prevent a strained situation from growing sharper and more confrontational.
After the Liaoning, the Shandong, China next wants to launch its third aircraft carrier Fujian.
Satellite image of the third Chinese aircraft carrrier (May 31. 2022) Foto: Maxar Technologies / AP
The USA reacted by sending 3 aircraft carrier combat groups lead by the US Nimitz, the USS Reagan and the USS Roosevelt for the first time at once already in 2020,. At the same time, it is emphasized that you will not do this continuously, but that you can do it any time you want to do it or have to react.
U.S. naval buildup in Indo-Pacific seen as warning to China
June 12, 2020 at 15:01 JST
WASHINGTON–For the first time in nearly three years, three American aircraft carriers are patrolling the Indo-Pacific waters, a massive show of naval force in a region roiled by spiking tensions between the United States and China and a sign that the Navy has bounced back from the worst days of the coronavirus outbreak.
The unusual simultaneous appearance of the three warships, accompanied by Navy cruisers, destroyers, fighter jets and other aircraft, comes as the United States escalates criticism of Beijing’s response to the coronavirus outbreak, its moves to impose greater control over Hong Kong and its campaign to militarize human-made islands in the South China Sea.
“There have been some indications in Chinese writings that the United States was hit hard by COVID-19, that military preparedness was low, so perhaps there is an effort by the United States to signal China that it should not miscalculate,” said Bonnie Glaser, director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The Chinese will definitely portray this as an example of U.S. provocations, and as evidence that the U.S. is a source of instability in the region.”
U.S. President Donald Trump, criticized for his own handling of the coronavirus outbreak, has condemned China for what he sees as a failure to adequately warn the world about the COVID-19 threat. The administration has also moved to ban Chinese graduate students and researchers with links to the People’s Liberation Army or other security services from the United States.
The convergence of three carrier strike groups in the region is unusual because of the limited number of carriers and the fact that they are often cycling through repair schedules, port visits, training or deployments to other parts of the world. This week, however, Navy commanders said they were able to take advantage of the timing, particularly during this period of great power competition with China.
The U.S. national defense strategy cites China as a top security concern, and Pentagon leaders have been working to shift more resources and military assets to the region to battle what they see is Beijing’s growing economic influence and military might.
“The ability to be present in a strong way is part of the competition. And as I always tell my guys here, you’ve got to be present to win when you’re competing,” said Rear Adm. Stephen Koehler, director of operations at Indo-Pacific Command. “Carriers and carrier strike groups writ large are phenomenal symbols of American naval power. I really am pretty fired up that we’ve got three of them at the moment.”
Speaking to The Associated Press from his office in Hawaii, Koehler said China is slowly and methodically building up military outposts in the South China Sea, putting missile and electronic warfare systems on them. The United States and other allies and partners in the region have beefed up operations near the human-made islands to try to blunt China’s development, but none of that has appeared to work.
Koehler said that most recently China deployed aircraft to Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratly Islands and is now operating them out of there.
On Thursday, the strike group warships were spread out across the Indo-Pacific. The USS Theodore Roosevelt and its strike group are operating in the Philippine Sea near Guam. The USS Nimitz strike group is in the Pacific off the U.S. West Coast. The USS Ronald Reagan has left port in Japan and is operating in the Philippine Sea south of there. Navy commanders were quick to point out that dozens of other Navy ships had been operating around the Pacific, but the three strike groups put a bit of an exclamation point on America’s commitment to the region and its allies.
The Roosevelt has just returned to duty after spending more than two months sidelined in Guam with a massive COVID-19 outbreak among its crew. And small numbers of sailors on the Nimitz and the Reagan tested positive for the virus, triggering quarantines and extensive new health and safety procedures that had to be instituted before the ships could deploy.
As they deploy, sailors’ daily lives on the ships and to some degree their operations at sea have been altered by the virus and the new precautions they must take to ensure the ships remain clear of infection and able to continue operations.
Onboard the Nimitz, Rear Adm. Jim Kirk said there have been no positive cases of the virus on the ship since it set out, and he is confident of all the changes put in place to keep it that way. On the Nimitz and the other Pacific ships, crew members are screened daily, they wear masks where needed, meal hours have been extended to allow for more social distancing, and specific routes are designated on the ship to prevent sailors from bumping into one another in the narrow passageways and stairs.
“As we head out to stand the watch, the message that I have is that this is the end of the beginning” for the crew, said Kirk, commander of Carrier Strike Group 11. “Now it’s time to go about doing our job to the best of our abilities.”
Koehler said the ships will continue to work with allies and partners in the region, conducting exercises at sea and patrolling contested regions. One key change, however, will be their ability to stop in foreign ports.
The port visits have been largely curtailed, except to carefully pick up supplies when necessary. Guam has been designated the only safe harbor for port stops in the Pacific so far, and sailors have only limited freedom to go to the pier and cannot travel freely in the city. Navy leaders are looking into establishing other safe havens but haven’t approved them yet.
This is, said Koehler, “the new normal.” And he said that while it’s not likely there will be three carrier strike groups consistently in the Pacific over the long term, “it’s something we can do when we want to.”
The Committee on the Present Danger China continues to press for decoupling. Biden and Larry Fink, among others, are considered China’s puppets and now they also want to start a campaign against Chinese money in American pension funds. The website has since been expanded and Kyle Bass and Steve Bannon seem to be setting the tone:
However, beyond Biden, Larry Fink, Mnunich, most of the Democrats and the establishment Wallstreet connected Republicans especially the ideology and the antiracism of the Left Progressives of the Democrats are seen as main ideological ally of the CCP to undermine the liberal narrative of the USA and the West:
“Progressivism and the Chinese Regime
Published On: January 4, 2022
The rise of progressivism in the United States has consequences far beyond the profound changes it is causing to American society. It has provided the Chinese regime with a weapon of political warfare to be used against the United States to undermine its foreign policy and its society.
A dose of reality—the recognition by progressivism of the profoundly different systems and future offered by the United States and by China—is needed before any more damage is done.
Historically, the United States has advanced liberal principles in its foreign policy and in political warfare. It has sought to advance the tenets of liberalism: liberal democracy, free trade, free and competitive elections, freedom of the press, religion, and respect for human rights. Liberalism defined American identity, justified its political system and the ideas and values it sought to advance in global politics.
However, progressivism’s rise means that the United States is going through an ideological revolution, the foreign policy consequences of which will be harmful to traditional U.S. interests. Inevitability in revolution, there are opportunities upon which an enemy will capitalize.
However, progressivism’s focus on racism and the ills of U.S. society has provided the Chinese regime with a potent weapon in political warfare. Not unexpectedly, Beijing uses statements by U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and documents to demonstrate that America is a racist and flawed society by U.S. officials’ own admission. In the effort to transform the ordering principle of the United States, progressivism has introduced two major vulnerabilities for China to exploit against America.
First, the United States itself has stated that it is a flawed society with structural racism. From America’s own admission, Beijing hopes the next logical step in its political warfare syllogism will be for the world to respond with doubt that it is a fit global leader or ally. Additionally, it hopes for a return of the public doubts of the 1970s regarding U.S. foreign policy in the wake of Vietnam. Beijing’s expectation is that the U.S. population will not support engagement in global politics as the United States has self-confessed that it is culpable of great abuses, including imperialism, and thus is no more fit to advance its values than other of the failed imperial powers of the last two centuries.
Second, the Chinese regime advances the message that the U.S. global narrative, since the Washington Consensus of 1989 has been liberal democracy and free markets, is inherently flawed. Again, by its own admission, the U.S. narrative possesses structural imperfections. Thus, it is inferior to the Beijing consensus of free markets and authoritarian government, or the contemporary “common destiny of mankind” dominant global narrative advanced by Beijing.
This emphasis on the flaws of ideology is necessary because the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) fully understands that its incoherent ideology is its Achilles’ heel. The ideology is based on a completely false assertion that the CCP rules in the name of the “workers-peasants alliance,” which provides the Party with self-justified authority to rule over 1.4 billion people without their consent. The CCP’s ideology is the force that unifies and provides cohesion for the Party and its supporters within China and internationally.
With progressivism’s focus on structural racism, America has provided the CCP with the ability to undermine the legitimacy of liberalism as the political ideology of the United States and, thus, its historical principles of government, history, culture, and position in global politics. As it has already, the Chinese regime will exploit this to weaken the U.S. global position.
Thus, the United States should expect that Beijing will advance the message for global audiences that the history of U.S. global diplomacy has been hypocritical. The United States advanced freedom and human rights, but denied them to African Americans and other minority Americans; clearly it did so before the Civil Rights Movement and Women’s Rights Movement, but also after and, indeed, does so today. A consequence of this is the fact that the United States did transform its laws, culture, society, and politics to provide full civil rights to African Americans and shortly thereafter to women, as did all Western societies. That transformation provides the United States with a prodigious advantage over China in political warfare.
In actuality, Chinese performance in the Global South is defined by ruthless exploitation of people and the environment. The Chinese regime’s treatment of its ethnic, religious, women, and sexual minorities is atrocious. Illuminating China’s human rights violations in these areas is important to improve its human rights record as well as a great advantage for the United States in political warfare, and among potential allies in Africa, Asia, and the Americas.
However, while these dangers are significant and will hurt the stability of the United States and its position in global politics, due to the rise of China and the possibility that it can supplant the United States, progressivism must pivot to embrace the recognition that the United States has had flaws and has corrected them.
undamentally, what must be especially worrying for progressives is China’s radically different ideology. This includes the deeply rooted racialized worldview of racism and Han-supremacy that informs China’s domestic and foreign policies, as well as the manner in which the government treats the non-Han. This is particularly the case for the minority groups in the country that directly or indirectly challenge Han-supremacy—notably the Kazakh, Kyrgyz, and Uyghur minorities in Xinjiang.
In essence, how the Chinese communists see the world is heavily informed by Han-supremacy, and even race-based and eugenicist beliefs. Whether or not they know it, progressivism will have to confront the Chinese regime. That should compel progressives to support the United States in its struggle with that regime”
However, a Bush jr. with his Iraq war, the great mess in the Greater Middle East, the neoliberal financial crisis, Trump, Capitol Hill, Steve Bannon, Guo wenhui and Falungong which fight not a war against the CCP, but also against Biden and the Democrats, the liberal democratic Chinese opposition and who are not acknowledging election results and the rule of law are far more destructive as a Bernie Sanders, Black Live matters and the progressives ever could be.
While the Progressive, the postcolonial genderfeminists and parts of the Democrats critizise the structural racism in the USA, the black former president of the Heritage Foundation Kay C. James thinks about a grand narrartive for the USA which stops the divide and unites the nation. Therefore she wrote an essay which proposes to make the Juneteenth as race- and nation uniting holiday and celebration day like Independence Day where freedom prevailed over slavery. The celebrations for Juneteenth are now even seen by the her, but necessarily her former Heritge slaves as a suitable holiday, which is not only due to wokeness of the Progressives. However, not that much US Republicans and Democrats seem to support this idea. Maybe this still has some relation to structural racism as not every American wants to celebrate the liberation of the blacks from slavery:
What Is Juneteenth, and Why Should Every American Want To Celebrate It?
Jun 16th, 2021 3 min read
Kay C. James
James is Heritage’s former president and a leader in government, academia, and the conservative movement.
Juneteenth—June 19, 1865—was the day Union soldiers enforced President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and freed all remaining slaves in Texas.
We can use Juneteenth as a way to acknowledge our past faults, help heal current divisions, and move toward a future as a nation more united.
Let us look at Juneteenth just as we look at Independence Day—as a great turning point for freedom in our nation’s history.
Juneteenth—the annual observance celebrating the end of slavery in the United States in 1865—is a holiday that many Americans haven’t heard of until recently. That has caused some to wonder if it’s just some new “woke” holiday invented by Marxist academics, the creators of the historically inaccurate 1619 Project, or some other group on the left.
It is not.
Juneteenth has been celebrated since 1866, mostly by Black Americans; yet it’s a day that’s worthy of celebration by every American, as it represents a critical turning point in American history, not just Black history. It is the day that we as a people finally began to live up to one of the greatest principles we professed: a nation devoted to liberty for all.
Juneteenth—June 19, 1865—was the day Union soldiers enforced President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and freed all remaining slaves in Texas. It was two months after the South’s official surrender in the Civil War and two and a half years after the proclamation went into effect.
Also called Freedom Day and Emancipation Day, Juneteenth evolved from a Texas celebration (where it’s an official state holiday) to a celebration of the end of slavery throughout the United States.
It has gained renewed interest as the nation works to mend race relations in America after a year of bitter protests and violent riots.
While some will undoubtedly use Juneteenth to push their “Hate America” agenda and racial division, Juneteenth has always been a day for recognizing America as an exceptional nation—a nation that, though flawed, was built on humanity’s highest ideals and endowed with a constitutional framework that allowed us to right our wrongs throughout our history.
Juneteenth also presents a teachable moment for our young people. It’s an opportunity to tell our youth the larger story of the history of slavery in America—not to shame or to divide, but to put it in its proper context as a considerable and formative part of American history that it truly was. Slavery was a part of who we were back then, and ridding ourselves of it and working toward equality for all is an integral part of who we have become. That history (and all too often, a lack of knowledge of it) still informs the debates we have today.
Juneteenth also gives us the opportunity to talk about how the principles of the founding—perfect principles espoused by imperfect people—and our constitutional order led this republic to ultimately fight against and reject slavery, and later, against segregation and the practice of separate but equal.
By having more complete discussions with our young people about such a critical part of our history and by teaching it factually but also within the context of American idealism, we can begin to wrest this issue from those who constantly try to use race as a wedge to divide Americans. Every nation has scars from its past, but we can use Juneteenth as a way to acknowledge our past faults, help heal current divisions, and move toward a future as a nation more united.
Finally, I want to end by telling a personal story about a beautiful woman named Agnes who was an ancestor of mine. Agnes was enslaved on a plantation in Virginia, where she endured unimaginable hardships and humiliating degradation as human chattel. But as my family retraced our history to Agnes and others, we uncovered some remarkable and inspiring stories of faith, courage, tenacity and perseverance. Agnes’ history is a part of my own, and she is always on my heart as I prepare to celebrate Juneteenth each year.
My family celebrates Juneteenth because we celebrate America. We celebrate the fact that even though Agnes suffered in bondage, America is the kind of nation that ultimately makes things right. We fought a war, we lost lives, we passed constitutional amendments, we changed systems, and we even achieved the hardest victory of all: We changed hearts.
I remember what Alexis de Tocqueville once said in “Democracy in America”: “The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.”
Let us look at Juneteenth just as we look at Independence Day—as a great turning point for freedom in our nation’s history, and one where we were willing to pay a heavy price to ultimately live out our highest ideals.
Juneteenth is an opportunity to recognize the struggles we have gone through as a people, the heights we have achieved, and the realization that we continue to be a work in progress, always striving together toward that beautiful vision of a nation that our Founders knew we could one day be.
This piece originally appeared in The Washington Times
But with that sort of Black Live Matters, she might be criticisied by the Altright, the Trumpists, the white supremacist, conservative Republicans and others as some sort left Progressive of the established Republicans you have to get rid off.