​Biden funding request will tell the tale for Ukraine’s future – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

President Joe Biden will beg Congress for more funding for Ukraine, according to Jake Sullivan, the national safety council’s leader. &nbsp, The death of this demand, if it is really put forward, will likely be a bellwether&nbsp, for Ukraine’s potential.

No exact numbers have been provided for a request for money from Ukraine by the White House or the NSC thus far.

With a still-family-friendly Congress, Biden and his officials hope to pass a assess for Ukraine. &nbsp, It is, however, not at all sure he can become powerful.

If the estimate is submitted and rejected, or just not acted on, Zelensky in Ukraine may be faced with a tough three-way choice: deal with the Russians, come down in flames or withdraw from office.

The present Congress has shown a respectable support for Ukraine, having supported at least one and possibly both chambers under Democratic control in January. &nbsp, Past actions have passed both the Senate, which now is controlled by Democrats but will be Republican-dominated starting in January, and the House of Representatives, which is led by Republicans and expected to continue that approach. &nbsp,

Trump’s support for the president will be a crucial factor yet before he takes business. Trump may question his Republican colleagues to just drop to proceed a measure in the House, largely postponing its consideration until his administration takes office if he opposes more Ukraine aid, which is a real possibility.

According to this article, support for Ukraine is still accessible for roughly$ 3 billion in funding approved by Congress.

In January of this year, Biden requested an additional&nbsp,$ 60 billion &nbsp, in emergency funding to support Ukraine. This act was part of the&nbsp,” supplemental investing” &nbsp, bundle, which also included funding for various government interests such as disaster relief, border security and defense investing. The&nbsp,$ 60 billion &nbsp, was particularly allocated for Ukraine’s ongoing military and humanitarian assistance.

The essential parts of the invoice included:

  • $ 24 billion &nbsp, in&nbsp, military aid, including ammunition, weapons systems ( fighter jets, air defense systems, etc ), training and logistics support,
  • $ 14 billion &nbsp, in&nbsp, economic aid&nbsp, to stabilize Ukraine’s economy and help maintain essential government functions,
  • $ 8 billion &nbsp, in&nbsp, humanitarian assistance&nbsp, for refugees, displaced persons, and medical aid, and
  • additional funding for energy system, restoration and bolstering Ukraine’s long-term security features.

Voting in the House of Representatives

The&nbsp, House&nbsp, of Representatives, particularly under the leadership of&nbsp, Speaker Mike Johnson&nbsp, ( who took over after Kevin McCarthy’s ousting in October 2023 ), faced fierce debates over the Ukraine funding. By January 2024 criticism from within the&nbsp, Republican Party, specifically from more traditional parties, &nbsp, had solidified around ending or reducing US aid to Ukraine.

Vote outcome: The&nbsp, House voted 216-212&nbsp, to approve the$ 60 billion Ukraine funding package as part of a broader supplemental funding bill.

  • Republican criticism: A considerable number of&nbsp, Republican&nbsp, people voted against the support offer, especially those from the&nbsp, Freedom Caucus&nbsp, and other conservatives who opposed continued international investing. They argued that US national priorities should be prioritized over domestic issues like debt reduction, inflation, and border security.
  • Democratic support: Most&nbsp, Democrats&nbsp, voted in favor of the package, with Ukraine aid being a central issue for them as part of their broader foreign policy priorities.

The vote in the House was &nbsp, extremely close. The administration made the claim that Ukraine was triumphing in the war at the time of the vote. The national security community holds the position that Ukraine will have to negotiate with Moscow, and that claim is no longer valid.

Senate vote

The&nbsp, Senate, which has traditionally been more supportive of Ukraine’s defense efforts, passed the same$ 60 billion aid package with greater bipartisan support, though there were still some Republicans who voted against it.

  • Vote outcome: The&nbsp, Senate voted 74-22&nbsp, in favor of the bill, with&nbsp, bipartisan support&nbsp, largely coming from the&nbsp, Democratic caucus&nbsp, and moderate Republicans.
  • Republican opposition: While the opposition was still significant in the Senate, especially from conservative Republicans such as Senators&nbsp, Rand Paul, &nbsp, Josh Hawley and&nbsp, J. D. Vance, who have become vocal critics of U. S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict, the majority of Republicans voted in favor of the package.
  • J. D. Vance is now the Vice-President Elect.
  • Democratic support: Most&nbsp, Senate Democrats&nbsp, voted in favor of the bill, consistent with their support for Ukraine.

If Republicans were to win more money for Ukraine, it’s not clear whether that would be a majority in the Senate. Trump might argue that he needs the most control over Ukraine and ask that the Senate and House prevent the Senate from approving any funding measure at this time.

Money bills traditionally have to originate in the House of Representatives. The Senate might never consider the Biden request if the House moves a funding measure.

Consequences

Under current conditions, President Biden’s funding request for Ukraine is unlikely to be approved, at least not now. &nbsp, Even if the money becomes available, the US has few weapons it can afford to share with Ukraine. &nbsp, &nbsp,

What weapons do allies occasionally need from the US? &nbsp, For example, in late 2020, the US authorized the sale of 64 ATACMS and 11 HIMARS M142 launchers to Taiwan. &nbsp, Following adjustments to its defense priorities, Taiwan later increased its order, ordering an additional 18 HIMARS systems and raising its ATACMS order from 64 to 84 units.

The first ATACMS missile deliveries for HIMARS have already been made to Taiwan, according to this report. The HIMARS launchers arrived in early November. Other countries including&nbsp, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Morocco also have requested&nbsp, HIMARS and ATACMS missiles. While the Pentagon and White House claim&nbsp, there are enough HIMARS and ATACMS, &nbsp, the fact is that if an actual conflict occurred elsewhere, particularly in the Pacific, HIMARS and ATACMS missiles would be needed.

Likewise there are shortages of anti aircraft systems, missiles for Patriot and ammunition in various calibers .&nbsp, It will take some time, measured in years, to replenish stocks of ammunition and weapons.

The US could hand over its weapon ‘s&nbsp, stockpiles in Europe, but doing so would effectively disarm US troops and weaken NATO crucially. &nbsp, Therefore doing that is highly unlikely.

In the end, Biden’s request is mostly a Hail Mary pass before he is replaced in late January.

Zelensky will undoubtedly realize that American support for Ukraine is at a turning point, and that Washington’s efforts to woo Ukraine wo n’t succeed in getting more. We’re not sure whether that will convince him to talk to the Russians. But as Ukraine is on the verge of collapse, Zelensky may take the diplomatic route, or he may resign.

Former US deputy undersecretary of defense Stephen Bryen is a recognized authority on security strategy and technology. This article originally appeared on his Substack, Weapons and Strategy. It is republished with permission.

Continue Reading

Rubio brings China Realism to the State Department – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Marco Rubio will be the next Secretary of State in the following Trump presidency, according to press reports.

The senior senator from Florida offers as a vocal China hawk, like the whole of his Democratic gathering, but with a essential difference: In September, Rubio published a 60-page statement,” The World China Made“, with a complete and painstakingly researched study of China’s financial success.

Some observers have already speculated that Nixon’s 1972 China trip might be influenced by the hiring of a seasoned China hawk like Rubio.

According to this theory, Secretary of State Rubio could negotiate with China without making any claims that he would sell out, and Secretary of State Rubio could do the same. Without second-guessing the incoming president’s negotiating strategy with China, Rubio’s published thoughts about China speak for themselves.

Full disclosure: the report cites Asia Times and this writer in particular, including our groundbreaking analysis of China’s export success in the Global South. By creating supply chains for Vietnam, Mexico, India, and other nations for export to the United States, China evaded Trump and Biden tariffs by building factories in third countries.

A bright line divides realists from Utopians among Washington’s China hawks. According to neoconservatives like Dan Blumenthal, well-known figures like Gordon Chang and Peter Zeihan, and real believers like former US Secretary of State and CIA director Michael Pompeo, China is about to collapse, and the US should prepare to do so militarily and economically.

If the US had shut down ZTE, he claimed, he would have led a group of unemployed engineers to march on Beijing and toppled Xi Jinping. A senior official from the first Trump administration told this writer in 2018 that the then-president had made a mistake by agreeing to that deal.

Realists on the other side of the coin may despise China and accuse it of scheming, but they acknowledge that it has made significant progress in both domestic and international trade. Rubio dismisses the utopian vision in the report’s conclusion as the best-informed among the realists:

Commentary on China’s economy swings wildly between extremes. On the one hand, the Chinese economy is often portrayed as deeply troubled, perhaps even on the verge of collapse. Stories in this vein emphasize China’s very high debt burden, slowing growth, distressed real-estate sector, and aging population—all real problems. In an interview with Time magazine in June, President Joe Biden made the claim that China’s economy is “on the brink.” ‘ …

China’s export- and manufacturing-oriented development model may have been successful enough in the short term to push the country toward the cutting-edge of technology, but not enough to enable it to overcome its structural issues over the long term. Many in Washington favor this narrative because it brings back our Cold War victory.

Then, a revolutionary, dynamic, and capitalist United States triumphed over a repressive regime with a dysfunctional, gerontocratic political class and a failed communist economic system incapable of navigating the information age. Our country’s past success has led to a similar triumph, which is tempting to believe. We win, they lose. But an invincible belief in one’s own success is a recipe for complacency. And increasingly, this belief is at odds with the evidence in front of our faces.

Let’s say the United States ca n’t be complacent about Communist China if this report serves as a message. Think-tank scholars and economists may bank on China’s coming collapse. The wager is being flipped by Beijing. It believes that manufacturing, exports, and ‘ new quality productive forces’ are the keys to regime survival and indeed to the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”. It thinks that modern technology and production will help it maintain its communist system while achieving wealth.

It has succeeded so far in establishing an alternative development path. But suppose today is the high-water mark of China’s power. Even in such a promising world, the CCP will continue to be a real, existential threat to American workers and industry for years to come. Additionally, Communist China will continue to be a formidable adversary unlike anything the US has ever faced. The CCP’s project’s critics, who claim that it is doomed to fail, should bear the burden of proof at this point.

Some highlights from Rubio’s report include:

  • In terms of industrial robot installations, China is the world’s top installers, with more installed in 2022 than the rest of the world combined.
  • Given the size of China’s manufacturing workforce and wage levels in comparison to those of the United States, China’s robot density exceeded our own in 2021, a remarkable achievement.
  • China’s extensive 5G telecommunications network, which consists of more than 3 million 5G base stations, makes it a leader in smart manufacturing.
  • Chinese entrepreneurs are assisting China in overcoming its reliance on imported tools and robots. Despite record installations, China’s imports of industrial robots have declined the past two years. This is due to Chinese companies ‘ steadily expanding business, which are thought to have had a 35.5 % domestic market share. share in 2022, up from 17.5 % a decade ago. China’s position is even stronger in the incredibly fragmented machine-tool market, wherein Chinese manufacturers will account for nearly a third of global production in 2022.
  • Chinese businesses are establishing sophisticated factories that will enable them to enter foreign markets and halt criticism of export practices.

Rubio’s message is that the United States must make extraordinary efforts to stay ahead of China and that it should n’t believe that a pen-waving device can stop this technological behemoth.

It is not difficult to draw any conclusions about foreign policy based on this analysis.

Follow David P Goldman on X at @davidpgoldman

Continue Reading

Want to win the AI revolution? Study up on cybernetics – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, Technology

Significant differences in attitudes toward artificial intelligence ( AI ) are found in advanced and developing economies, according to a recent study from Queensland University and KPMG. The difference between K-12 education and AI may be filled by teaching it as a subset of cybernetics. In a larger Business 4.0 environment, Cybernetics declassifies AI and situates it.

Artificial Knowledge raises some questions, mainly in the Western world. Does it kill work? Can it be abused and does it have ethical guidelines? Had AI eventually rule our lives?

Most people agree that AI will transform cultures, which raises another question: Why is AI not a compulsory subject in major knowledge? According to experts, 65 % of today’s students will work in occupations that have not yet been created.

No fresh, people are concerned about the impact of new technologies. Weavers in France and England ( Luddites ) opposed the development of tools like the spinning jenny in the 19th century. They feared that their art would be valued less by the machines. Blacksmiths who were experts in horseshoeing ( farriers ) in the US feared that automobiles would sabotage their jobs.

AI is used in a variety of professions, including stevedores and skilled individuals. Today’s kids are acquiring information that could be severely undervalued by AI when they are ready to enter the workplace. According to some experts, 65 % of today’s students will work in occupations that have not yet been created.

Not all students should learn computer password in order to prepare for a world where AI is increasingly important. Rather, students should be taught the foundational ( cybernetic ) principles underlying AI and the larger ( Industry 4.0) framework in which AI will be deployed.

Although the development of AI has altered how we perceive, evaluate, and interact with it, individuals is frequently struggle to comprehend its roots and ideas.

By integrating the principles of robotics into K-12 training, individuals gain a more solid basis in understanding AI concepts, their applications, and social implications. In today’s society, cognitive science is crucial for understanding and teaching AI, which established a comprehensive strategy to linear technology through the work of philosophers like Gottfried Leibniz, George Boole, and Claude Shannon.

The story of the nature of linear computing

One of the first frameworks to offer a clear view of technology and technology was cybernetics, which came into being. Rooted in the thoughts of Leibniz, Boole, and Shannon, robotics built a foundation based on the exploitation of linear information—essentially, people and zeros—that allowed for structured, natural processes.

Boole created Boolean algebra, a codified system that used natural operators, while Leibniz created a linear system for presenting complicated concepts in a streamlined format. Eventually, Shannon established the foundation for online computing by demonstrating how binary systems could be effectively used in electronic circuits.

Understanding this heritage provides kids with traditional context and a logical framework for comprehending computational processes in K-12 settings. By demonstrating how plain building blocks, such as logic gates, combine to create complex programs, the AI is rooted in binary-Boolean operations, which de-mystifies difficult concepts.

These thoughts likewise make AI’s” thinking” approach feel more substantial and less transparent. Rather than seeing AI as an almost magical knowledge, students may begin to understand AI as a method of organized rules, following the same reasoning that powers computers, and discover how AI decision-making builds upon these principles.

Cybernetics is not only about computing, it’s about control and feedback. The term originates from the Greek kybernetes, meaning” steersman” or “governor”, emphasizing the idea of systems regulating themselves based on input and feedback.

This principle has profound implications for AI and its applications, and it aligns well with how humans naturally learn—through observation, response, and adaptation. The three-step cybernetic process—plan, quantify, and steer—essentially describes a feedback loop where actions are monitored, measured, and adjusted based on the outcomes they produce.

This cycle is crucial for understanding how sophisticated systems “learn” and “fine” their responses.

In K-12 classrooms, students can apply this concept through practical exercises. Students could create simple robots that follow a line or avoid obstacles with sensor feedback, allowing them to observe cybernetic principles in action, for instance, in a robotics project.

These exercises can demonstrate how a system takes input ( like a sensor reading ), adjusts its path accordingly, and repeats the process. By understanding that AI, in essence, is a complex network of such feedback mechanisms, students gain insights into how AI operates, makes decisions, and even “learns” from past actions.

From the simplest machine learning algorithms to the more complex neural networks, feedback and regulation are essential to all types of intelligent systems.

By introducing students to cybernetics ‘ regulatory principles, educators can give students a practical understanding of AI’s structure—showing that AI is n’t an abstract black box but a systematic approach to receiving, analyzing, and responding to data.

Furthermore, this understanding can also help students critically examine the potential implications of autonomous systems and AI in real-world applications, leading to more informed and responsible use of technology.

Binary logic

Bridging the gap between abstract ideas and practical understanding is one of AI education’s biggest challenges. A basic knowledge of cybernetic principles, specifically binary-Boolean logic, makes AI far more accessible.

Binary-Boolean logic, which defines all computational processes in terms of “on” ( 1 ) and “off” ( 0 ) states, is not only foundational to computer science but is also at the core of AI. This logic governs everything from straightforward computer calculations to complex AI decision-making procedures.

When students understand how Boolean logic operates, they are better equipped to grasp how AI works, especially at its decision-making level. Boolean logic, for instance, allows students to visualize decision trees and straightforward machine learning models under the guidance of “if-then” statements used frequently in programming and AI.

Suppose K-12 educators introduce cybernetics ‘ binary-Boolean logic as a preliminary step. In that situation, students are more likely to comprehend why certain outcomes are reached in accordance with a set of rules and how AI makes decisions.

Furthermore, cybernetics provides students with a lens to view AI as a form of self-learning and self-regulating system. Just as a thermostat “learns” and adjusts temperature based on external conditions, AI systems can analyze data, adjust algorithms, and improve performance over time.

This self-improvement capability aligns closely with the feedback-based governance that cybernetics emphasizes, making cybernetics a natural foundation for AI concepts. When students see AI as a structured, logical process of regulation and adaptation, the mystique around AI fades, and they can approach the subject more confidently and curiously.

Industry 4.0

In teaching AI, cybernetics opens the door to a number of theoretical and practical advantages. First, it offers a structured approach that aligns with how students naturally learn—through planning, experimenting, and iterating. Students will likely not be intimidated by complex AI concepts because they view them as approachable and instead view AI as an extension of this well-known process.

Second, cybernetics lays the groundwork for understanding AI and related areas such as data science, robotics, and systems engineering. A foundation in cybernetics would lead to a deeper understanding of STEM fields because all of these fields depend on feedback mechanisms and binary logic.

Education can provide students with a coherent foundation for furthering their technical and engineering interests by starting with cybernetic principles.

Critical thinking and ethical awareness are promoted in an AI curriculum grounded in cybernetic principles. As students learn about AI through the lens of cybernetics, they are naturally encouraged to consider questions about feedback, autonomy, and responsibility.

For instance, if a system self-regulates, what are the limits of that regulation? What happens when AI systems make decisions with real-world consequences? By framing AI within cybernetics, educators can encourage a more thoughtful and morally grounded perspective on technology.

By delving into computational concepts, putting emphasis on regulatory feedback, and creating a binary-Boolean logic framework, cybernetics serves as the ideal framework for the introduction of AI in K-12 education. In addition to being a theoretical framework for the creation of AI, cybernetics is a practical and accessible method for understanding how intelligent systems operate.

By grounding AI education in cybernetic principles, students gain a logical, intuitive, and structured framework for understanding AI as a regulation, decision-making, and learning process. Cybernetics can help prepare young learners for the future of intelligent systems by enabling them to learn AI and foster a generation of technologically literate, ethical, and critical thinkers.

Continue Reading

US Sentinel missile’s nuclear deterrent in a hot spotlight – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The Sentinel Intercontinental Ballistic Missile ( ICBM ) program and other pressing concerns related to the country’s land-based nuclear arsenal were highlighted in a report released by the US Congressional Research Service ( CRS ) this month.

The Sentinel, formally known as the LGM-35A, is intended to replace aging Minuteman III weapons. However, critics have voiced concerns about the high costs associated with the system’s development and deployment, which are expected to cost the US atomic force an estimated trillion.

The CRS record mentions a heated debate over the proper requirement of maintaining a land-based ICBM calf in America’s nuclear triangle, the three-pronged military pressure structure comprised of ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles and proper bombers. Some argue that novel current challenges properly have rendered stable, silo-based methods vulnerable to proactive attacks.

According to the CRS report, Sentinel system critics question whether for systems, especially in times of crisis, increase the risk of error or accidental launch by putting pressure on decision-makers to create fatally quick responses.

According to the CRS report, the innovative missile may offer significant improvements in reliability and security, as well as providing a reliable and reliable deterrent against changing global threats.

The Sentinel plan has emerged as a non-negotiable wall of the US’s nuclear development strategy despite rising costs and brutal budget battles.

Despite an 81 % cost overrun that caused a crucial Nunn-McCurdy breach, which occurs when a defense acquisition program exceeds predetermined thresholds, the US Department of Defense ( DOD ) confirmed the continuation of the Sentinel ICBM program in July 2024.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense, under the direction of William LaPlante, came to the conclusion that there are no viable alternatives to the Sentinel because it is so essential for national protection.

The agency’s acquisition cost today stands at US$ 140.9 billion, mainly due to increases in the order and start parts. The DOD rescinded Milestone B acceptance in order to solve the cost issues and mandated a restructuring to keep nuclear deterrent capabilities in check.

Nevertheless, the Sentinel plan may remain at the cost of other US Air Force tasks. For instance, according to Asia Times, the US Air Force is under significant budget constraints while funding important projects like the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA ) drones, Next-Generation Air Dominance ( NGAD), and Next-Generation Aerial Refueling System ( NGAS ) tanker.

Due to these financial challenges, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall highlighted the need for” creativity” in force structure. Modernization efforts are hampered by commitments to nuclear deterrent updates and the growing risk from China despite these programs ‘ connected functional and affordability concerns.

The Sentinel ICBM is being criticized as a potential cause for escalating risks in addition to the escalating debates on value and importance.

The controversy over the usefulness of the US land-based nuclear army was covered in Asia Times in April 2024. The existence of a land-based nuclear arsenal, according to proponents, would serve as a “missile towel” to withstand enemy attacks and offer a quick first-strike capacity.

Critics, however, show their vulnerabilities, such as the ability to live a large-scale nuclear strike unless launched quickly and backup given the capabilities of bombers and atomic ballistic missile submarines.

Further, Stephen Cimbala mentions that it is crucial to keep the nuclear triad’s credibility afloat by supporting the replacement of the tired Minuteman III missiles with the new Sentinel ICBM in the 2023 book” Politics Between Nations.”

Cimbala claims that ICBMs improve US strategic force resilience and complicate adversarial planning.

However, Cimbala says critics point out that ICBMs are first-strike vulnerable, and their fixed silos might escalate pressures toward a launch-on-warning posture.

He mentions that opponents advocate for a dyad of sea-based missiles and bombers to lower costs and prevent unintended escalation risks and propose downsizing or eliminating the ICBM leg.

Cimbala suggests moving to mobile or deep-underground basing for survivability, incorporating antimissile defenses, or even putting conventional warheads on ICBMs for flexibility in order to keep the US ICBM force relevant.

He points out that while modernization advocates believe these improvements are stabilizing, critics believe they are accelerating the development of new threats like cyber and space warfare, and that they raise the question of whether the ICBM force’s strategic value justifies its risks and financial costs.

The legacy of Cold War-era ICBMs is alimentating a contemporary arms race, which is being shaped by shifting alliances and emerging threats as global powers increase their nuclear arsenal.

ICBMs, which embodied mutually assured destruction ( MAD), were a key component of the US and Soviet Union’s nuclear arms race during the Cold War. Each superpower’s ability to target its cities and infrastructure thousands of kilometers away reduced the time it took to respond.

Due to the possibility of disastrous retaliation, this situation created a balance of terror. The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks ( SALT) in the 1970s aimed to limit ICBM arsenals.

Despite these efforts, ICBMs remained a perilous component of Cold War strategy up until 1991, when they served as a deterrent to nuclear conflict.

However, according to Asia Times, the US, Russia, and China’s most recent ICBM tests reflect each nation’s efforts to modernize and strengthen their nuclear arsenals in the midst of rising international tensions.

With China emerging as a significant player alongside the US and Russia, the transition has been made from a bipolar to a triadic nuclear power structure.

Advancements in missile technology, the abandonment of arms control agreements, and each country’s strategic motivations to maintain or achieve nuclear deterrence are the highlights of this new arms race.

With competitive alliances and growing arsenals redefining the world’s nuclear weapons dynamics, there is also the potential for a new era of multi-front nuclear deterrence.

Continue Reading

Climate crisis: what Trump can (and can’t) do – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Donald Trump did take over as the world’s largest greenhouse gas emission in a while.

During a campaign cycle when America was plagued by climate disasters, neither Trump nor Kamala Harris made the weather issue a dominant part of their efforts. 232 people died in the southeast of the United States as a result of Hurricane Helene, which struck in late September and was overburdened by an unusually warm Atlantic Ocean.

The swing state of North Carolina, which veered sharply in the direction of Trump, was the state where almost half of those deaths occurred. Voters in the state’s also devastated western absenteed from polling places yesterday and voted in houses.

Experts claim that the Earth structure is in a knife’s length between the carbon-rich Amazon rainforest and the slowing down of ocean heat from North Atlantic currents. If either falls, it would point the environment into deeper chaos.

Drill, girl, drill?

Democrats lost in America’s past production hinterland, the western states that presently comprise the” Rust Belt” and the party’s stalwart” Blue Wall”.

The Nixon administration’s creation of the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) resulted from a river that was engulfed in industrial waste that caught fire here in 1969.

The EPA regulates climate pollutants with laws that limit pollution from power plants and automobiles, two of the region’s biggest CO₂ options.

Aerial view of an open-cast coal mine with power plant chimneys in the distance
Over the past ten years, EPA rules has been successful in reducing fuel consumption. Photo: Matthew G Eddy / Shutterstock via The Talk

According to economic policy experts Barbara Haya and Stephen Lezak ( University of Oxford ) and Stephen Lezak ( University of California, Berkeley ),” the policy proposals that Donald Trump and the think tanks advising his plan would turn the tide against America’s fundamental climate laws.”

According to a rightwing manifesto attached to the Trump campaign ( though not formally endorsed by Trump himself ), that could include” a whole-of-government unwinding” in which the EPA’s” structure and mission ]are ] greatly circumscribed”.

” Trump has promised to flame experts in state, place loyalists in their area and choose a ‘ drill, child, drill ‘ mentality”, say Lezak and Haya.

If he chooses to adopt the Project 2025 statement, as it’s known, Trump may also reduce funding for disaster preparedness and thus risk lives unnecessarily during mounting disasters.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ), a government agency that has monitored the ocean, studied the weather, and managed the protection of endangered species since 1970, would also be “dismantled” and “privatized.”

According to David Hastings Dunn, a professor of international politics at the University of Birmingham and a Project 2025 expert, Trump’s potential plans for NOAA reflect his wider agenda on the ground.

According to him,” NOAA is one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry,” and the ideological response is to banish the scientific body that produces proof that climate change has an impact.

IRAte

Trump may choose to veto the Inflation Reduction Act ( IRA ) from 2022 or to renounce Paris in Paris.

Trump’s first term removed the United States from the Paris Agreement, which mandated that all countries maintain a 2°C global warming limit. A second US exit, or a complete withdrawal from the UN climate negotiations ( another round starts in Azerbaijan ): warns climate scientist Mark Maslin (UCL).

It’s a big deal to pull out one of the world’s superpowers from international negotiations to stop global greenhouse gas emissions, he writes in an email. It also makes it easier for other nations to slow down decarbonization and blame the US for their own inachievability.

At a UN climate conference in New York in September 2019, Mike Pence and Donald Trump. &nbsp, Photo: AC News / Alamy Stock via The Conversation

The IRA extended subsidies for renewable energy until 2032, which was hailed as the Biden White House’s greatest climate achievement.

Investors in wind and solar farms typically receive federal tax breaks as a result of these subsidies. The biggest beneficiary? Banks, according to a study conducted by Durham University geographer Sarah Knuth.

Renewable tax credits were never intended to be Wall Street’s shady subsidy. They now offer significant tax shelters to banks, she claims, even though they do n’t need to file any complicated partnership forms to be incorporated into the law.

Democrats may regret supporting such a subpar model of fostering green energy, according to Knuth, and this is not the only way to finance the green transition.

She says that even the largest banks can only hold so much tax money, and that the rapidly expanding renewable energy sector requires more capital than tax equity investors can provide.

” The most significant corporate tax cuts, such as the one that was proposed under President Trump, can unfortunately shrink the entire market.”

Maslin notes Trump’s vocal support for coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, but he says he is buoyed by the strength of America’s green industries and” simple economics”.

Trump may stifle the transition away from fossil fuels and allow other nations to thwart action, he claims, but the political and economic case is still unresolved for fossil fuels.

” It is when, not if, fossil fuel ceases to be used as an energy source”.

Jack Marley is Environment Energy Editor, The Conversation

The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Cambodia’s soft but sure break from big brother Vietnam – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

The Cambodia-Laos-Vietnam Development Triangle Area ( CLV-DTA ) has long epitomized the commitment of these three Southeast Asian nations to shared growth and regional integration.

Over two centuries, the CLV-DTA has facilitated development initiatives and cross-border opportunities aimed at fostering mutual knowledge and success.

But, Cambodia’s recent decision to withdraw from the three-way initiative marks a key turning place, signaling a move toward greater strategic autonomy in Phnom Penh. In the face of difficult local dynamics and sensibilities, Cambodia’s determination as a little state to regain its authority is reflected in this decision.

The resignation serves two main purposes: strengthening Cambodia’s administration’s home legitimacy and letting the world know that it is launching a new century of independent foreign policy.

Vietnam-Cambodia relationships are colored by a complex history of colonization, conflict and action. Vietnam’s military presence in Cambodia from 1979 to 1989, which served to stop the criminal Khmer Rouge regime, engendered mingled feelings of gratitude and hatred among Cambodians.

Vietnam was seen as both a liberator and an overpowering protector after the intervention created a patriarchal powerful. Cambodia’s departure from the CLV-DTA can thus be interpreted as a critical step in reasserting its independence and recalibrating this “brotherly” but often one-sided relationship.

At the core of Cambodia’s selection lies the issue of private validity. Needs for greater freedom have grown more intense as a result of rising republican sentiments and public pressure on perceived ingrained Asian effect.

Cambodians are becoming more vocal about reclaiming their independence and challenging perceived Asian dominance as a result of social media and community engagement amplifying these tones. The withdrawal gives new prime minister Hun Manet an opportunity to improve his standing as a powerful leader who can handle public pressure.

The move also reflects the Hun Manet government’s dedication to more self-led economic growth. A common fundraising campaign for fresh border system, which has already garnered US$ 27 million in pledges, is answering rising calling for more domestic-driven purchase.

If successful, these projects promise to build Hun Manet’s picture as a worthy and flexible activist.

Beyond domestic politics, the decision to withdraw also highlights a larger issue in international relations: managing growing patriotic sentiments against Asian influence in Thai society with the financial benefits of CLV-DTA involvement.

These concerns have been highlighted by Thai community protests against the CLV-DTA as a device of Taiwanese hegemony, which have compelled the government to take action in response to requests for more autonomy. Critics claim that the CLV-DTA impairs Cambodia’s ability to prevent Taiwanese invasion of Cambodian territory.

This growing sentiment has important effects on Cambodia’s approach to provincial partnerships and assistance frameworks as well as its foreign policy strategy. In this context, Cambodia’s withdrawal from the CLV-DTA can be viewed as a” smart hedger”.

Cambodia strives to strike a balance between its interests and those of other countries to protect its interests while minimizing risks as a bright trader. Cambodia is actively exploring closer ties with China and other Association of Southeast Asian Nations ( ASEAN ) members, thereby reducing its overreliance on any one power by distancing itself from a Vietnam-dominated framework.

This change allows the nation to have greater freedom to pursue its national passions, which is a domestic political movement intended to quell domestic opposition and strengthen the president’s position, as former prime minister Hun Sen once said.

Cambodia’s increasing funding in tasks like the China-backed Funan Techo Canal, which has important effects on Vietnam’s economy and connection, serves as an example of this strategic tilt.

The river represents a significant shift in Cambodia’s aggressiveness to pursue its own development path, even if it is done with Taiwanese support, in addition to improving trade routes and reducing Cambodia’s dependence on Asian southeastern ports for its trade.

In this environment, China’s declared “ironclad connection” can be seen as a deliberate attempt to expand its strategic autonomy as a small state and tore its economic ties with the rest of the country in a bid to achieve upper-middle-income standing by 2030 and high-income standing by 2050.

The question now is: what lies ahead after CLV-DTA withdrawal? For one, the prevailing argument that Cambodia-China relations will come at the expense of Vietnam may be overblown. Cambodia’s foreign policy emphasizes the protection of sovereignty and peaceful coexistence with neighboring nations.

Cambodia is committed to a diplomatic strategy that emphasizes reciprocal respect and cooperation rather than trying to demonize Vietnam. This is evident in Phnom Penh’s soft approach to neighborhood diplomacy, which prioritizes dialogue and understanding over confrontation.

Cambodia and Vietnam continue to cooperate within broader regional frameworks, as demonstrated by the recent Greater Mekong Subregion Summit, an active participant of both countries.

Indeed, Cambodia’s withdrawal from the CLV-DTA does not intend to downgrade relations with Vietnam, but rather reflects a broader diversification of its foreign policy strategy.

This diversification allows Cambodia to strengthen existing partnerships, including with Vietnam, while forging new ties—notably with China, the US, Japan, Australia, South Korea—in line with its” strengthening old friends, making new friends” approach.

Additionally, the CLV-DTA countries have agreed to meet on the heels of important multilateral events like ASEAN summits and other multilateral forums.

The three neighbors ‘ continued cooperation on common interests will be bolstered by this, keeping their partnership strong despite changing global policy trends.

In this regard, Cambodian leaders have consistently assured their Vietnamese counterparts about controversial development projects, not least the China-backed canal. Cambodia’s intention is to ease any potential tensions that might arise from mismanaged nationalist sentiments.

After all, Vietnam remains one of Cambodia’s top five foreign direct investors, with Vietnamese enterprises holding 205 active projects in the country and a total registered capital of$ 2.94 billion. Cambodia ranks second among the countries and territories where Vietnam invests, while Vietnam is Cambodia’s second-largest export destination, following the United States.

Ultimately, Cambodia’s pursuit of strategic autonomy and its legitimate development rights deserve respect and recognition. One well-known Vietnamese scholar argued that the strategic autonomy of individual states is crucial to fostering peaceful coexistence in the Indochina sub-region, particularly in a region that is rapidly evolving.

Prime Minister Hun Manet’s resolute statement of “breathing through our own nose” is heightened by Cambodia’s withdrawal from the CLV-DTA, which highlights his rebalanced foreign policy. Cambodia aims to reduce dependence on any single neighbor, especially one that might be perceived as a potential threat, as a smart hedger.

This action effectively strengthens domestic legitimacy while preserving Hun Sen’s legacy and Hun Manet’s aspirations.

Cambodia asserts itself as a sovereign actor, setting its own course for development and regional cooperation, by putting national interests first and responding to domestic sentiments.

The Royal University of Phnom Penh ( RUPP ) has Dr. Chandarith Neak as its Director of the Institute for International Studies and Public Policy ( IISPP ). The 21st Century Maritime Silk Road Research Center, RUPP, was founded by him as well. &nbsp,

Chhay Lim is a Monbukagakusho-MEXT scholar at Ritsumeikan University in Japan. He also serves as a young leader at Pacific Forum, a think-tank based in Hawaii, United States, as well as a visiting fellow at the Royal University of Phnom Penh in Cambodia. &nbsp,

Continue Reading

Comparing North and South Korea’s support for two illegal wars – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

In recent past, two world powers – first the United States in Iraq and eventually Russia in Ukraine – initiated conflicts that were commonly regarded as questionable, if not outright improper, by much of the global community. Both of these problems sparked heated debate and scrutiny, not just for the aggressors ‘ behavior but also for the international response and alliances they sparked.

Two responses, in particular, have out for their resemblance and political sarcasm: the selection by South Korea to send troops to Iraq in 2004, and North Korea’s new move to give support to Russia in Ukraine. This parallel between the Asian states ‘ respective political systems reveals complex interconnectedness, allegiances, and evolving norms governing foreign military treatments.

A tale of two attacks

The earth was distinctly divided when the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. The alleged presence of weapons of mass destruction ( WMDs ) in Iraq was the US’s official justification for the invasion, which was later refuted. However, the Bush administration went forth, citing a desire to promote democracy and remove threats to global stability.

The war was not approved by the UN. The intervention was criticized as unlawful by the UN secretary general and numerous specific nations, including many European allies. Despite global demonstrations and social criticism, the war proceeded, sparking what would become one of the most controversial war of the 21st century.

Nearly two decades later, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine unfolded in a similar surroundings of international condemnation. Russia asserted that it was responding to safety concerns and that Ukraine’s residents were being treated unfairly by NATO’s expansion and Russian-speaking groups. Supporters make a distinction between the two, claiming that Ukraine is a neighboring state allied to European powers that threaten Russia’s immediate safety while Iraq is a royal state on the other side of the planet that does not pose a threat to the US.

Regardless, the majority of the country’s nations, especially in the West, denounced Russia’s activities as unwarranted aggression and an unconstitutional violation of Ukraine’s independence. Countries all over Europe and beyond imposed sanctions on Russia while supporting Ukraine, and the UN General Assembly largely condemned the war.

South Korea’s assistance for the US in Iraq

South Korea made the decision to send troops to support the partnership 18 weeks after the US invaded Iraq. This decision was important because South Korea, as a close ally of the United States, was under significant pressure to demonstrate its help for Washington’s plans. South Korea became one of the largest forces contributors to the alliance, behind only the United Kingdom, with the implementation of the Zaytun Division, which included around 3,600 North Korean soldiers. Nevertheless, the decision was not without controversy internally.

Substantial monetary bonuses also contributed to South Korea’s decision to support the United States and dispatch forces. This included continued US military ( including technology ) support, favorable trade conditions crucial for an export-driven economy, and lucrative contracts in construction, energy and telecommunications in Iraqi reconstruction. These economic advantages at the time significantly contributed to South Korea’s growth into Middle Eastern industry.

In South Korea, common opinion on the Iraq War was greatly divided. Many South Koreans viewed the conflict as a United States ‘ “misuse of energy” and an international agreement-brokering. However, South Korea’s state argued that the empire with the US was major, especially given the ongoing defense tension with North Korea. So, South Korea saw a way to strengthen its proper ties with the US, hoping for continued security guarantees and political support for the Korean Peninsula.

North Korea’s aid for Russia in Ukraine

Today, over 30 times into the fight in Ukraine, North Korea has sent military aid to Russia. Although the precise nature of this aid is still undetermined, evidence suggests that North Korea has already deployed military forces and provided ordnance shells and other ammunition to Russian forces, although the role they may enjoy is still unclear. In light of the international sanctions and loneliness that both nations are experiencing, North Korea’s support indicates a more comprehensive alliance with Russia.

In supporting Russia, North Korea has possible secured vital power supplies, food aid and potential access to advanced military technology, which are essential for its struggling economy. Moreover, it is likely that direct funds or in-kind payments may add to the government’s capacity to maintain control within the regime.

The choice also reflects North Korea’s long-standing anti-Western attitude and want to balance US influence in East Asia. North Korea sends a powerful concept of disobedience to what it perceives as American imperialism by supporting Russia in Ukraine. Additionally, North Korea has a significant ally in a world where there are few and its economy and tools are severely restricted by international sanctions because of aligning itself with Russia. Russia, in turn, increases from North Korea’s artillery offer, easing its possess weapons shortages on the forefront in Ukraine.

Norms are dead, long live geopolitical irony! &nbsp,

The irony of these events is not lost on observers. Each of the two rival states on the Korean Peninsula found itself allied with a superpower that was accused of carrying out illegal aggression. The decisions were strategic moves that emphasized the Koreas ‘ respective geopolitical alliances, not necessarily in accordance with the aggressors ‘ justifications.

South Korea’s participation in Iraq, while controversial, demonstrated its alignment with the Western world and its dependence on the US security umbrella, a crucial factor in its security strategy against North Korea. Similarly, North Korea’s support for Russia highlights its resistance to Western influence and a desire to maintain the balance of power in East Asia by aligning itself with a powerful, albeit embattled, Russia.

Further research is also needed regarding how international law and norms affect state behavior in these parallel decisions. Both superpowers acted in ways they believed were in line with their national interests despite the widespread condemnation and the possibility of diplomatic friction. Both South Korea and North Korea gave their strategic alliances precedence over strict adherence to international legal standards, which highlights the limitations of international law when national security is perceived as being at stake.

The two cases make a strong argument that “middle power” norms are, and always were, dependent on national interest. There is no such thing as” good international citizenship”. It is wholly dependent on national interest.

In the end, these cases demonstrate that international alliances often exert a stronger influence on state behavior than adherence to global norms or concerns about the legality of military actions. South Korea’s assistance for the US in Iraq and North Korea’s aid for Russia in Ukraine both highlight how secondary states navigate complex webs of power and influence. The priorities of both Koreas remain their national interestw and the maintenance of alliances that offer them some leverage and stability in an unpredictable world.

The complex nature of international relations and the strong sway of alliances are demonstrated by South Korea and North Korea’s decisions to engage in wars that are widely regarded as illegal. The two Koreas, though ideologically opposed, responded similarly when they were pressured&nbsp, – and offered incentives – by their superpower allies. These choices, in contrast to the increasingly multipolar world where great power competition has resumed, show how small states continue to play strategic roles, frequently placing geopolitical advantage before universal principles.

Jeffrey Robertson is an academic, consultant and writer focusing on foreign affairs, diplomacy and the Korean Peninsula. &nbsp, This article was originally published&nbsp, on his Substack, Diplomatic Seoul, and is republished with permission. Read more here.

Continue Reading

The clock is ticking on TikTok – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Last April, Congress passed, and President Joe Biden signed an unusual rules that may end up banning, in the United States at least, a solution 170 million Americans use — TikTok.

The legislation gives the Chinese-owned social-media firm until next January 19 to offer to a non-Chinese user or stop operations. The Chinese authorities is against it, according to TikTok, and a sale is difficult. TikTok may have to shut down if it is unable to persuade the authorities to reverse the law.

It’s an amazing scenario, however. Congress does not regularly enact laws to put firms in business. And this is n’t just any company.

It is a business that almost half the nation runs ( and, in some cases, is attached to ) Both presidential hopefuls used it to seduce voters, according to the business. ( They both at times favored drastic action against the business, but it’s size made them feel compelled to use it. )

Needless to say, Congress took this strange step in the name of ByteDance, which owns TikTok and is owned by the Chinese business ByteDance. All of those American consumers have private information that TikTok has collected. ByteDance may have no choice but to complience if China’s state demanded that information be disclosed.

Politicians feared that China would use the data in a hostile manner. According to TikTok supporters, China’s extensive spy network now has or had simply use TikTok to obtain information. That’s contradictory, but what’s never debatable is that with TikTok under Beijing’s influence, there’s a chance its famous engine could be adjusted to market pro-China deep scams, or worse.

As the Senate passed the bill next April, Chairwoman of the Commerce Committee said,” Congress is certainly acting to condemn ByteDance, TikTok, or any other personal business.” ” Congress is acting to prevent foreign enemies from conducting spy, security, reviled activities, harming vulnerable Americans, our servicemen and women, and our U. S. authorities personnel”.

Americans do n’t seem to want the protection Congress offered. According to Pew Research, only 32 % of US adults support a TikTok ban.

It’s not that they’re soft on China. According to another surveys, this one by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Americans give China a 26 on a one-to-100 level, the lowest preference standing since the government started polling in 1978. A record 58 % of Americans believe China to be a” critical threat to the United States ‘ vital interests.”

There are, when you think about it, two stops below. One is between how unfavorably China is perceived by the general public and how uninteresting TikTok is. Sometimes that’s because, for so many of its people, TikTok is about common culture and entertainment more than politicians.

The various discrepancy is between the enormous bipartisan support for the ban in both the House and the Senate and the general public’s opposition to it. Congress and the public are n’t usually so far apart.

The Supreme Court could also make the final decision on TikTok’s coming. Do n’t assume that the business has no chance of prevailing there. The judges will have to consider national-security considerations against First Amendment freedom-of-speech right – not only TikTok’s, but the right of the bank’s 100, 000-plus “influencers”, some of whom make their living from their TikTok articles.

Facebook, X and other American social-media operations are banned in China and there’s no court they can appeal to there. If the courts permitted the continued use of TikTok, it would be ironic.

If Washington refused to accept the offer from a Japanese company, Nippon Steel, to buy US Steel, the irony would double. A sale was opposed by both presidential candidates, not the least of which is because Pennsylvania was viewed as a swing state in the election and Pennsylvania.

President Biden opposed it, too. He requested that the Cabinet-level Committee on Foreign Investment in the US, or CFIUS, investigate whether the acquisition would be harmful to national security. Following the election, a CFIUS decision was delayed.

People in Tokyo may be wondering whether the US is aware of the difference between an adversary and an ally if the final answers are “yes” to TikTok and “no” to Nippon Steel.

Urban Lehner, a former Wall Street Journal Asia correspondent and editor, is DTN/The Progressive Farmer’s editor emeritus. &nbsp, This&nbsp, article, originally published on November 11 by the latter news organization and now republished by Asia Times with permission, is © Copyright 2024 DTN, LLC. All rights reserved. &nbsp, &nbsp, Follow&nbsp, Urban Lehner&nbsp, on X @urbanize

Continue Reading

Dysfunctional love triangle: Trump seeks to split Moscow, Beijing – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia, World

Reports of a phone call between the US president-elect, Donald Trump, and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin ( although quickly denied by the Kremlin ) have given a first flavor of the tone and direction of their relationship in the immediate future. Trump and Putin were speaking on November 7 to warn him of any increase in Ukraine and to remind him of” Washington’s substantial military presence in Europe.”

Regardless of whether it happened or never, any – if even just implicit – exchange of messages between the couple should be heeded by America’s friends in the West, as well as Russia’s main lover to his south: China’s Xi Jinping. And over the past few months, there has been a lot of this communication.

Putin addressed the Valdai Discussion Club‘s annual meeting in Sochi, the Black Sea beach, in a lengthy address before that day, according to the alleged phone call. Unsurprisingly, the conversation– and Putin’s answers to questions from the audience finally – were anti-Western and full of confidence that a new world order was now in” the cycle of true development”.

Putin, however, made fun of Trump by calling him a” courageous man,” saying he would take any proposals from him to restore US-Russian relationships and put an end to what Putin called the “Ukrainian problems” into consideration.

However, he subsequently spent a lot more time defending the relationship between China and Russia. His former friend, the Taiwanese president, was more prominent than the incoming US president in this country.

One of Trump’s information to Putin and Xi references this situation. Trump promised to “un-unite” Russia and China when he said it at a campaign event on October 31. Trump made the characterization of Russia as “natural enemies” because of China’s desire for its great landmass.

YouTube video

]embedded information]

Donald Trump: US likely’ un-unite’ Russia and China.

Russia and China have a history of territorial disputes along Siberia’s much land borders. This occurred before the US opened to China under then-president Richard Nixon in the 1960s, which was a result of the Sino-Soviet conflict.

Trump appears to be trying to restore US ties with Moscow more than Beijing, in contrast to Nixon. Trump’s obvious need to use the conflict between Russia and China to benefit the US should not be dismissed as totally impossible, even though it’s difficult to imagine a similar divide between Russia and China immediately.

On the face of it, Putin and Xi are closely aligned. However, a deeper analysis of the relationship between China and Russia suggests that it is generally one between their current frontrunners and lacks much of the administrative level that other alliances do.

In both public and private lines, Russia has a lot of hatred toward China. Russians are unsure about China’s growing influence in Central Asia and worry about possible problems over long-standing border issues. Some people even dislike the fact that Beijing now has a young lover, Moscow.

Trump might use these to scuffle Russia and China, among other things. However, much depends on what Putin thinks about Russia. The West should be focusing on the impact and implications of Trump’s proposed Ukraine coverage.

A Trump-brokered deal will probably include Russia’s full sanctions comfort, large international treatment, and recognition of its territorial gains in Ukraine since 2014. The US’s commitment to NATO would undoubtedly be slashed, as would a pledge not to do more enlargement.

Trump might find a deal with Putin, but whether Putin may stick to it is unclear. Putin is much more likely to just play both ways in an emerging innovative global order in the hopes that Russia will do this as a third gaze alongside China and the US.

This is of course a complete story, given the size of the Soviet economy only – but that’s unlikely to change Putin’s calculations, given his love to regain Russia’s power status.

Chinese leverage

Because of the difficulty of attracting foreigners to Moscow, America’s partners in Europe are unlikely to support it. Some, including Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico, might find the idea attractive in general. However, among the EU members, Germany and France are more likely to want to reach an agreement with China.

They have largely ceased to be dependent on Russian oil and gas, but not China as an export market, which is the cause of this.

Beijing, meanwhile, wo n’t sit idly by while Trump tries to drive a wedge between Russia and China. Despite Putin’s efforts to establish parallel relations with North Korea and Iran, Xi still has a lot of economic leverage over Russia and will use it to strengthen its position.

Diplomatically, Putin depends on Xi and China-led outfits such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and BRICS. Moscow and Beijing have different viewpoints on a US in terminal decline, which is likely to be accelerated by the upheaval anticipated from a second Trump term.

A top priority for China will be to stop the US from completely reversing its position in the Indo-Pacific, and to stop Trump from cutting a deal with Putin at China’s expense will be a top priority.

Trump might still try to talk to Putin about the Ukraine and reach an agreement with Putin. However, dividing Russia and China is not the same as agreeing to a deal with Putin. On the contrary, it is more likely to “un-unite” Europe and the US and weaken the trans-Atlantic alliance further.

Trump could accelerate America’s decline by mistakenly accelerating what is left of the liberal international order rather than reshaping it in accordance with US interests.

The University of Birmingham’s Stefan Wolff is an assistant professor of international security.

The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

How China may react to Trump’s threat and bluster – Asia Times

By:
On:
In: Asia

Donald Trump did make his four-year foreign policy statement when he comes back to the White House.

US citizens have chosen a president who adheres to an” America First” process, where US interests come initially, and is expected to be more separatist than the current president, Joe Biden.

While some unusual officials, including Hungarian Prime Minister&nbsp, Viktor Orban&nbsp, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, may welcome a second Trump administration, the same cannot be said about Chinese President Xi Jinping.

A Trump presidency back in the White House is unlikely to be great news for China, which has had worsening ties with the US since Trump’s first president.

China’s economic difficulties

In July 2018, Trump fought a never-before-seen trade war with the second-largest economy in the world and imposed tariffs that ranged from 25 % to 25 % on Chinese imports into the US.

But during his 2024 plan remarks, Trump suggested that US tariffs on Chinese products could go as high as 60 % or more.

China’s economy is in a slump, with slumping house prices, great local authorities debt and higher youth unemployment. More tariffs might ruin China’s economic treatment strategy, which depends greatly on exports.

However, a second Trump administration may not be the only thing Beijing worries about. China’s ambitions to lead the world Artificial market by 2030 are likely to be constrained by a Trump-led US, which would likely restrict the flow of engineering from the US or Europe to China.

The fresh US management may also use an economic decoupling approach to “derisk” itself from Chinese coverage. By shifting its supply chain somewhere, this may aim to reduce US dependence on China and stifle US investment there.

While Joe Biden’s prior high tariffs certainly strained relations between Trump and Beijing, the Russia-Ukraine war is another factor that severely damaged Sino-US relations. Beijing has threatened to sue China for aiding Russia in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and has accused it of supporting Moscow.

Luckily for Russia, a next Trump administration may turn the tide in Moscow’s pursuit. The transfer of Ukranian property that is already occupied by Russia might be included in a Trump-negotiated peace agreement. Trump may also slash or lift sanctions against Russia because the newly elected president-elect has” no passion for punishment.”

Beijing wants a strong alliance in Russia to counteract a world order led by the US and prevent Russia from focusing its attention on Ukraine in the event that Russia apparently fails to accept its conquest of Ukraine. But as the “dealmaker-in-chief” and leading proponent of an” America First” mission, what does Trump stand to gain from helping Russia?

Second, because Russia has grown increasingly dependent on China, Beijing’s effect in Russia could be undermined by helping it overcome its diplomatic and economic problems. Secondly, as a Russian-backed Iran affects US involvement in the Middle East, a new Trump administration may agent a Russian-Ukrainian peace authority that sees Russia withhold military aid from Iran and the latter’s local friends, such as Hezbollah.

As Iran’s influence in the region diminishes, Washington may open up more solutions tied up in the Middle East and refocus its resources elsewhere, such as China, if Washington so wishes. And that may destroy China’s socioeconomic recovery more.

And what future for Taiwan?

Trump has stated ambiguously whether he would support Taiwan in the event of a Taiwanese war, in contrast to Biden. There are, however, concerns that Trump might break with China and apply Taiwan as a negotiations chip, or even leave the island entirely.

Trump expressed anger over Taiwan’s” stolen” of the US semiconductor industry and claims that the island may pay more for its defence. However, his disagreement with Taiwan is not the main point.

If Beijing invaded Taiwan, Trump has indicated that he may impose tariffs on Chinese goods of up to 20 %. Given China’s financial difficulties and President Xi’s have to&nbsp, prove&nbsp, his value as a leader whose prestige and power are &nbsp, comparable&nbsp, to the creator of the People’s Republic of China, Mao Zedong, Xi may consider this a valuable business.

Beijing is likely to form relationships outside of the Western world as China prepares for difficulties brought on by a subsequent Trump presidency. As China lessens its reliance on the West for exports and investments, it may become more involved with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ( GAL ) and the Gulf Cooperation Council ( GCC).

If the Middle Eastern regime’s aid declines, China may also talk to Iran. After all, more US sources in the Middle East may mean less sources to deal with the&nbsp,” Foreign risk”.

One issue that may make Trump concerned about Taiwan coming under Beijing’s manage, even if he does like the US to make more, is that the isle manufactures 60 % of all semiconductors. This product is essential for the global use of AI and electronics.

Elon Musk’s place in Trump’s second term is still a mystery. If Trump wins a second term, Musk would head a government efficiency commission.

What part does Musk play in bridging the Washington-Beijing divide, though, given that his Tesla electric cars are heavily dependent on the Chinese market and that Tesla has a factory there?

Chee Meng Tan is assistant professor of business economics, University of Nottingham

The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading