<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; William R. Hawkins</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/william-r-hawkins/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Finding Americans to do Beijing&#8217;s Dirty Work</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/william-r-hawkins/finding-americans-to-do-beijings-dirty-work-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=finding-americans-to-do-beijings-dirty-work-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/william-r-hawkins/finding-americans-to-do-beijings-dirty-work-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2014 05:26:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hawkins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prof. Kiracofe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=245668</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Chinese communists recruit the usual suspects who believe the U.S. is run by fascists.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/clifford_kirakofe.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-245553" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/clifford_kirakofe.jpg" alt="clifford_kirakofe" width="235" height="252" /></a>President Barack Obama and the mainstream media have hailed the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Beijing as demonstrating U.S. and Chinese cooperation on trade, climate change and regional issues. Chinese sources, however, have focused more on Beijing&#8217;s diplomatic gains in competition with America. <em>Global Times</em>, a publication of the ruling Chinese Communist Party noted for its nationalist rhetoric has taken the lead. But as it likes to do, it has found an American voice to make its case; Clifford A. Kiracofe, Jr. a former staffer for the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee (1987-1992) and then an adjunct professor of history and political science at the Virginia Military Institute.</p>
<p>In an <a href="http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/892215.shtml">op-ed</a> entitled &#8220;Beijing APEC rebuffs US hegemonism&#8221; Kiracofe claimed,</p>
<blockquote><p>The salient features of the meeting are embodied in innovative [Chinese] concepts such as the creation of an inclusive free trade zone, the commitment to connectivity, new <a href="http://www.globaltimes.cn/special-coverage/ReportsfromtheSilkRoad/index.html">Silk Road</a>s, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).</p>
<p>Washington&#8217;s vision for the Asia-Pacific region, on the other hand, has been the creation of an exclusive anti-China Trans-Pacific Partnership coupled with hard and soft-power containment of China. This counterproductive vision just hit a dead end in Beijing.</p></blockquote>
<p>It is clear that Beijing&#8217;s proposals were all aimed at competing with U.S.-led institutions, in particular the AIIB which will put Chinese capital to work to spread its influence and control over supply chains and export markets. What sent shock waves across the region was President Xi Jinping&#8217;s speech November 9 calling for an &#8220;Asia-Pacific Dream&#8221; which echoed his theme of a &#8220;China Dream.&#8221; The implication is that Beijing wants to incorporate the entire region within its own imperial vision of the future. The Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore and Japan all have reason to fear the expanding threats posed by Chinese forces operating off their coasts in disputed waters. Beijing&#8217;s claims it owns the entire South and East China seas, based on maps from the ancient Chinese Empire. And China&#8217;s support for North Korea keeps South Korea on edge as well.</p>
<p>After APEC, the G20 met in Brisbane, Australia. On the sidelines of that summit, Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and President Obama renewed their alliance commitments, which include providing a security umbrella for the smaller nations along the Pacific Rim. Beijing has not broken these bonds.</p>
<p>The issue isn&#8217;t whether there is a rivalry between the United States and China for influence in Asia (and globally as well). The issue is that Kiracofe sides with Beijing in this contest against his own country. But this should not be surprising given his past statements about America which should also raise eyebrows. He, of course, thinks the Vietnam War was &#8220;unjust&#8221; and<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hROU5sJUyG4"> relishes</a> his &#8220;militant&#8221; days in the 1960&#8242;s anti-war movement. After all, the U.S. was trying to defeat the expansion of communism. He also calls for coming to terms with Iran and has a warped version of how the Cold War ended. To Kiracofe,</p>
<blockquote><p>The Cold War ended through diplomatic negotiations undertaken by the US and the Soviet Union. Then US president Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev ended the Cold War on the basis of mutual respect and mutual benefit. It was a win-win and not a zero-sum conclusion to a dangerous tension-filled period in international relations.</p></blockquote>
<p>There is no mention of how the Soviet Union collapsed and disintegrated, the outcome President Reagan had been working towards since taking office. Reagan certainly had no respect for the communist regime. That moral failing falls to people like Kiracofe. Anyone who wants to know how negotiations pushed the USSR over the edge and brought victory to the U.S. should read Ken Adelman&#8217;s recent book <em>Reagan at Reykjavik</em><em>: Forty-Eight Hours That Ended the Cold War. </em></p>
<p>Professor Kiracofe has often referred to the US political elite as an &#8220;imperial faction&#8221; and US policy as &#8220;imperialism.&#8221; Yet, even these terms are mild compared to his thoughts about America expressed in a <a href="http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3327kiracoff_berlin.html">lecture</a> given in Germany at a conference organized by the radical <em>Executive Intelligence Review</em> on July 7, 2006. Kiracofe argued at length that &#8220;in today&#8217;s political situation in the United States we are, in effect, confronting the same forces that attempted to impose fascism in the United States during the 1930s.&#8221; The EIR is published by the notorious conspiracy theorist and cult figure Lyndon LaRouche, and Kiracofe has participated in several of its events. In Germany, Kiracofe argued,</p>
<blockquote><p>Radical Right ideology is promoted through the organized intellectual activity funded by a small group of private foundations backing a so-called &#8220;conservative&#8221; and &#8220;neo-conservative&#8221; ideology that is, in fact, similar to the European Fascist ideology of the 1920s and 1930s. These foundations include: the Bradley Foundation, the Koch Foundations, the Smith Richardson Foundation, and the Olin Foundation. Associated &#8220;think tanks&#8221; would include the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, both of Washington, D.C</p>
<p>Key features of the contemporary &#8220;New Right&#8221; and &#8220;neo-conservative&#8221; ideology in the United States are drawn from three main European sources: Italian nationalism and Fascism, French Integralism, and German National Socialism.</p></blockquote>
<p>He devoted a large part of his lecture to what he believes was a fascist conspiracy&#8211; which he defines in standard Marxist terms as tied to &#8220;finance capitalism&#8221;&#8211; to overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt under the banner of the American Liberty League. He then claims there was a continuation of this fascist plot after World War II which runs to the present. &#8220;For example, during the Truman Administration, Dean Acheson (1893-1971), an influential Washington, D.C. attorney, became Secretary of State under President Truman. Acheson had been a member of the American Liberty League,&#8221; Kiracofe then goes on to assert,</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Is it any coincidence today that Condi Rice praises Acheson and President Bush praises Truman? Certainly not. We can recall the close business connection between the Bush family and pro-Nazi financial and industrial circles in Germany, particularly the Thyssen interests.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>No wonder Prof. Kiracofe has left this lecture off his official VMI curriculum vitae! Such views could prove embarrassing to VMI administrators and alumni. It is, however, important to know what kind of people the Chinese Communist regime can find in America to do their dirty work for them. And speaking of fascism, does Lord Haw Haw come to mind when reading Kiracofe&#8217;s propaganda against the U.S.?</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/william-r-hawkins/finding-americans-to-do-beijings-dirty-work-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Disturbing Defense of Putin&#8217;s &#8220;Realism&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/william-r-hawkins/a-disturbing-defense-of-putins-realism/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-disturbing-defense-of-putins-realism</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/william-r-hawkins/a-disturbing-defense-of-putins-realism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 04:43:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign affairs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John J. Mearsheimer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NATO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Putin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ukraine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=241576</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John J. Mearsheimer blames the Ukraine crisis on the West.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Mearsheimer.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-241584" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Mearsheimer-280x350.jpg" alt="Mearsheimer" width="234" height="293" /></a>It is tempting to dismiss the <a href="http://stopwar.org.uk/videos/no-to-nato-no-new-wars-demonstration-against-2014-nato-summit#.VAn-IWP0e3N">protests</a> that took place at the NATO summit in Wales as the inconsequential braying of leftists who welcome a new Cold War as an opportunity to renew their vows with Moscow. However, even <a href="http://stopwar.org.uk/news/nato-is-by-far-the-biggest-danger-to-world-peace-it-should-be-dissolved-immediately">fringe ideas</a> can migrate into mainstream discourse. Case in point, John J. Mearsheimer&#8217;s <a href="http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-crisis-is-the-wests-fault">article</a> in the current (Sept.-Oct.) issue of <em>Foreign Affairs</em>, the flagship journal of the very establishmentarian Council on Foreign Relations. The author is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago with a long list of scholarly work. But, like the &#8220;No to NATO&#8221; demonstrators, Mearsheimer argues that the Ukraine crisis is the fault of the West. Russian President Vladimir Putin was &#8220;provoked&#8221; into resorting to force to &#8220;take Crimea&#8221; and &#8220;working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West.&#8221; He argues that Putin is &#8220;motivated by legitimate security concerns&#8221; which justify his actions.</p>
<p>Mearsheimer&#8217;s tone is not the crude revolutionary rant of the Wales rabble. Indeed, he pretends to criticize NATO from the right by attacking &#8220;liberals&#8221; from what he calls the &#8220;realist&#8221; perspective. He alleges that the West committed two sins. First, its aim was &#8220;to make the entire continent look like Western Europe,&#8221;</p>
<blockquote><p>The United States and its allies sought to promote democracy in the countries of Eastern Europe, increase economic interdependence among them, and embedded them in international institutions.</p></blockquote>
<p>What a nefarious scheme! Imagine wanting to bring Eastern Europe up to the living standards of the most advanced societies on the planet! The Russians opposed this effort because they do not want stronger nations on their borders. The Kremlin particularly opposed Western support for democracy in Ukraine, starting with the Orange Revolution. Mearsheimer doesn&#8217;t mention that the spark for the Orange movement was the attempt to steal the 2004 election for the pro-Moscow candidate Viktor Yanukovich. The Ukrainian Supreme Court overturned that fraud. He was elected in 2010, but was overthrown in 2014 Because of well-grounded fears that he was dragging the country back under the Russian yoke. He did not just reject a pending trade agreement with the European Union. Earlier he had extended the lease on Russia&#8217;s naval base in Crimea, which was due to expire in 2017, until 2042. After the coup, Yanukovych fled to Russia. It should also be mentioned that Yanukovych had served as governor of Donetsk Oblast, now the center of the Russian-backed separatist insurgency.</p>
<p>Mearsheimer claims that Russia did not seize Crimea until after the coup posed a threat to its security. But Moscow had been working hard to control all of Ukraine through a puppet government in Kiev; one that had welcomed a Russian military presence in the country. When that effort finally failed in the face of an aroused Ukrainian populace, it has resorted to force to grab what it can.</p>
<p>Like those on the Left, Mearsheimer spends most of his article attributing Ukrainian fears of Russia to Western &#8220;social engineering.&#8221; Yet, anyone familiar with the history of the region knows that Ukrainian nationalism is homegrown, a reaction to a long record of Russian oppression. Has Mearsheimer forgotten the great famine of 1932-1933? This was the result of Joseph Stalin&#8217;s policy of forced collectivization and was meant to crush Ukrainian society. Six to seven million Ukrainians died, something the survivors and their descendants have not forgotten.</p>
<p>Towards the end of his piece, Mearsheimer does finally concede that the Ukrainians desire an alignment with the West. But then argues,</p>
<blockquote><p>This is a dangerous way for the Ukrainians to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might often makes right when great power politics are in play. Abstract rights like self-determination are largely meaningless when powerful states get into brawls with weaker states.</p></blockquote>
<p>He also thinks it is dangerous for the West to think in such terms, advising that even if the Ukraine wants to join the EU or NATO, &#8220;the United States and its European allies have the right to reject these requests.&#8221; After all, it would upset the Russians if Ukraine moved west, and Mearsheimer is fully in the Russian camp. He even defends Russia&#8217;s attack on Georgia in 2008. &#8220;Putin sought to keep Georgia weak and divided&#8221; writes Mearsheimer, calling this a &#8220;clear warning&#8221; to NATO.</p>
<p>Mearsheimer claims the second sin of the West was not to understand that &#8220;might makes right&#8221; realism is still alive in Russia. Now that this has been revealed to all, the West should back off and appease the Kremlin. Or more precisely, appease Putin whom Mearsheimer sees as &#8220;a first-class strategist who should be feared and respected.&#8221;</p>
<p>In a key passage, he notes &#8220;When Russian leaders look at Western social engineering in Ukraine, they worry that their country might be next.&#8221; But wouldn&#8217;t such regime change be in the interests of the West, and of the Russian people?</p>
<p>Mearsheimer apparently thinks only Russia has the right to act on the tenets of realism and protect its security (and regime) interests. NATO enlargement was not just an exercise in liberalism, it greatly strengthened the alliance and pushed back the Russian &#8220;sphere of influence&#8221; which Mearsheimer thinks is sacred. But why should the West preserve Russian influences that are hostile to its own economic and security interests? When a rival retreats, you advance; that&#8217;s realpolitik. Western values and interests were not in conflict, they were in sync. Today, Putin, looking at a &#8220;war weary&#8221; America and a disarmed Europe, thinks it is the West that is in retreat. So it is time for Russia to advance&#8212; and Putin has intellectuals like Mearsheimer to champion the Kremlin&#8217;s cause.</p>
<p>The problem is not that NATO has done too much, but it has done too little. Ukraine is the great prize &#8220;when great power politics are in play.&#8221; Ukraine has a population and territory on a par with Spain, and larger than Poland. Its vast potential can only be developed if aligned with the West. Putin&#8217;s revanchist dreams of a rebuilt neo-Soviet empire should not be accommodated.</p>
<p>Mearsheimer is correct about one thing. The West has not backed up its strategy with sufficient force. It did not foresee the intensity of Putin&#8217;s ambitions and did not prepare to meet his challenge. Sanctions will not deter him, and NATO has allowed its military forces to so atrophy that even putting together a 4,000-man &#8220;rapid reaction force&#8221; (as proposed in Wales) may prove difficult. The hot topic at the Wales summit was getting the Europeans to pledge to raise defense spending to a paltry 2% of GDP.</p>
<p>Russia is much weaker in population, wealth and technology than NATO; but it has boots on the ground and that will likely prove decisive in eastern Ukraine unless the Western will to mobilize real power revives. Thus, Mearsheimer&#8217;s article can have a positive effect, albeit not the one he wants. It can remind readers that &#8220;realpolitik remains relevant&#8221; and induce American and European leaders to rearm as well as rethink the nature of the 21st century. The practice of realism is not unique to Eastern Europe; it can be seen across the Middle East and Asia as well. The new century is not that different from previous centuries and will require all the traditional tools of statecraft and strategy. Those still loyal to the West should consider Mearsheimer&#8217;s disturbing defense of Putin to be a wake-up call.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank"><strong>Click here</strong></a><strong>.   </strong></p>
<p><a href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf"><strong>Subscribe</strong></a><strong> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <em>The Glazov Gang</em>, and </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>LIKE</strong></a><strong> it on </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang"><strong>Facebook.</strong></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/william-r-hawkins/a-disturbing-defense-of-putins-realism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>64</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Left Renews Its Vows With Moscow</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/william-r-hawkins/the-left-renews-its-vows-with-moscow/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-left-renews-its-vows-with-moscow</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/william-r-hawkins/the-left-renews-its-vows-with-moscow/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2014 04:35:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Left]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moscow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Putin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ukraine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=223832</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How hatred of the U.S. is bringing old allies back together. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Putin130912.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-223834" alt="Putin130912" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Putin130912-450x330.jpg" width="270" height="198" /></a>There were many on the Left in the West who lamented the collapse of the Soviet Union as much as Vladimir Putin. They saw the USSR as the main restraint on U.S. imperialism; helping to arm and support hostile Third World regimes and creating a zone of &#8220;peace&#8221; outside the reach of capitalism. The leftist view of the world did not change just because the Soviet empire disintegrated. Its motivation is still &#8220;anti-imperialist&#8221; and it has embraced every movement that has declared itself the enemy of Western civilization. The Ukrainian crisis has sparked a revival of the left-wing love affair with Moscow. What amounts to a renewal of vows in the ideological marriage of the Cold War is evident in how events are presented, with Russia again embraced for standing up to the United States and the European Union.   </span></p>
<p><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">The Nation</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> has, of course, taken its usual &#8220;blame the West first&#8221; explanation for the Ukraine crisis. It&#8217;s April 15 </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/179338/we-are-witnessing-civil-war-ukraine">report</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> cites the magazine&#8217;s long-serving editor, Katrina vanden Heuvel, as saying, “We are witnessing civil war,&#8221; one that was “triggered by the European Union’s reckless ultimatum—despite Russian President Vladimir Putin’s offer of a tripartite agreement—which compelled an elected president of a deeply divided country to choose economically between the West and Russia.” In truth, it was Russia&#8217;s stooge Viktor Yanukovych who broke off talks with the EU to lead Kiev into the Russian camp. His actions prompted an uprising of the Ukrainian people who did not want to be sold back into a revived Kremlin empire. In the face of an aroused Ukrainian populace, Putin realized there was no chance of controlling a democratically chosen Kiev government. So he resorted to force to grab what parts of the country he thinks Russia can hold.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">It should be remembered that vanden Heuvel edited a collection of essays right after the 9/11 attacks. Its theme was that the terrorist attacks were &#8220;blowback&#8221; against American imperialism. Vanden Heuvel argued that the proper response was for Washington to refer the matter to the United Nations.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">At OpEdNews, a radical website that frequently airs calls for President Barack Obama to be tried alongside Dick Cheney for war crimes (particularly for the use of drone strikes), there are columns like those of George Eliason, titled &#8220;Kiev&#8217;s War Against the Peace-Loving People of South-East Ukraine.&#8221; Left-wingers cannot understand why the Ukrainian people would want to be independent from Russia. Aligning with the evil capitalist West, even the democratic socialist EU, is anathema. Thus patriotic Ukrainians are termed &#8220;ultra-nationalists&#8221; who are then equated with &#8220;neo-Nazis.&#8221; Pro-Russian militants are called dissidents seeking liberation. German Chancellor </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-crisis-in-the-ukraine-and-the-return-of-german-militarism/5377882">Angela Merkel is portrayed</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> as wanting to resume Hitler&#8217;s march to the East, with the backing of the hegemonic United States.  In an </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/On-Ultra-Nationalists-Whe-by-George-Eliason-Anti-semitic_Congress_Democracy_Government-140330-740.html">earlier column</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">, Eliason criticized Illinois Senator Dick Durbin (who is of Lithuanian-descent) for having stated during John Kerry&#8217;s bid for the Presidency, &#8220;If John Kerry is elected; Kerry will work vigorously for Ukraine&#8217;s continued independence and prosperity.&#8221; That was apparently a fascist thought even though it came from a very liberal source.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Left-wing rhetoric is crude even by the low standards of the Cold War. Consider </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Are-Corporate-Mercenaries-by-Donn-Marten-Austerity_Blackwater_Corporate-Rule_Democracy-140411-169.html">this diatribe</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> from another OpEd columnist,</span></p>
<blockquote><p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">With the illegal, coup d&#8217;état installed government in Kiev about to engage in some very serious skull cracking to put down a mounting rebellion in Eastern Ukraine there have been some accounts that hired guns from corporate mercenary firms are augmenting the local paramilitary police forces.  With the pushback against the US backed &#8216;Yats&#8217; regime and it&#8217;s neo-Nazi shock troops it is imperative that a real version of the Euromaiden &#8216;revolution&#8217; not be allowed to take root to oust the stooges of the corporate global finance mafia.</span></p></blockquote>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">The author, Donn Martin, a self-styled progressive activist, cites a story from the state-run Russian News and Information Agency which is supposedly not as corrupt as the Western media. On April 9, RIA Novosti reported &#8220;The deployment of foreign private security firms in Ukraine is unacceptable as they increase the risk of an outbreak of civil war, Dennis John Kucinich, a former US Representative from Ohio and a two-time presidential candidate, told RIA Novosti on Wednesday.&#8221; Kucinich was such a joke as a Congressman that his own Democratic Party contrived to gerrymander him out of his seat. Leftists have often called Western NGOs &#8220;mercenaries,&#8221; especially the National Endowment for Democracy, which, it has been alleged, stirred up the anti-Yanukovych protests. For leftists like Martin, U.S.-EU policy is simply aimed at </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.opednews.com/articles/Making-Ukraine-Safe-for-Co-by-Donn-Marten-Deep-Politics_Foreign-Policy_Media-Foreign_Military-Coups-140413-737.html">&#8220;making Ukraine safe for corporate vultures.&#8221;</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Global Research is a Montreal-based group that studies &#8220;globalization&#8221; with a focus on opposing U.S. and allied operations against terrorism. It has also defended Iran from &#8220;predatory&#8221; Western policy including &#8220;US-NATO-Israel preparations to wage a pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran.&#8221; </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">On March 30, </span><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/canadas-harper-stokes-imperialisms-drive-against-russia/5375879">it posted an essay</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> &#8220;Canada’s Harper Stokes Imperialism’s Drive Against Russia.&#8221; Writer Keith Jones was eager to portray the Soviet Union as a victim whose agony is simply being continued by the U.S.:</span></p>
<blockquote><p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">It is the US, Canada and their European allies that have moved aggressively against Russia, which emerged from the restoration of capitalism and the dissolution of the Soviet Union economically and geopolitically hobbled. In the past two decades, NATO—the US-led military bloc whose </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">raison d&#8217;être</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> was to counter and, if need be, militarily conquer the Soviet Union—has incorporated all of the states of Eastern European formerly allied with the USSR, as well as the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, which were part of the USSR until 1991. As a result, NATO forces are now deployed on Russia’s borders.</span></p></blockquote>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Jones makes no mention of the Berlin Wall or Warsaw Pact puppet governments only kept in power by the Red Army. Jones continues, &#8220;To achieve this predatory objective, the US and Germany precipitated the current crisis by intervening in Ukraine and fomenting the fascist-led overthrow of the country’s elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, after he balked at signing a pact with the European Union.&#8221;  </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">In the footsteps of Rosa Luxemburg and V.I. Lenin, Jones sees the West as creating the Ukrainian crisis to bail out &#8220;a systemic crisis of world capitalism&#8221;: </span></p>
<blockquote><p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Through war and threats of war, Washington is seeking to offset the relative decline in the US’s economic might and lay claim to resources, markets and strategic territories&#8230;.Canadian imperialism also hopes to directly profit from the confrontation between Russia and the western powers, seeing it as a golden opportunity for Canada to displace Russian oil exports to Europe and overcome opposition within the US to the building of the Keystone XL pipeline.</span></p></blockquote>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Jones makes no mention of how Moscow has used its leverage as a major supplier of natural gas to Europe to bully not only Ukraine but the rest of the continent. Providing Europe with alternative to Russian energy is a vital part of a long-term solution to the confrontation, but it is a solution that Jones does not want to see as it would weaken Russia. What is alarming is that Global Research claims its views are used as source material by college and university students. </span></p>
<p>Over at the Revolutionary Communist Progressive Labor Party (you can’t make this up) the mood is that former KGB officer Putin really is a welcome return of the USSR. In December, it presented <a href="http://www.plp.org/challenge/2013/12/26/ukraine-battleground-for-russian-and-us-rulers.html">a history of events</a> leading to the current crisis:</p>
<blockquote><p>Russian President Vladimir Putin successfully pressured cash-strapped Ukraine into remaining in Russia’s orbit and canceling its planned alliances with the U.S.-leaning European Union (EU) and the U.S.-run International Monetary Fund (IMF)&#8230;. For Russia, Ukraine is a matter of fundamental national security. For a Western power, Ukraine is of value only if that power is planning to engage and defeat Russia, as the Germans tried to do in World War II. Putin didn’t merely frustrate the EU and the IMF; he stopped the expansion of Pentagon-led NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) in its tracks.</p></blockquote>
<p>For Leftists, the nationalist revolution against Russian domination was not a real revolution. What Ukraine needs, according to the PLP, is a communist revolution against capitalism, which can only come if the country is kept out of the clutches of the West.</p>
<p>What motivates the Left is not research, analysis or &#8220;truth seeking.&#8221; It is motivated purely by hatred. Leftists are alienated from the Western civilization within which they live. They reject its values, scoff at its traditions and label its astounding material success as immoral. Yet, everyone needs to feel part of something larger than themselves. Since they cannot embrace anything akin to national loyalty, they align with foreign regimes or movements that share their opposition to their home country. Given that they only want the worst for their native land, to see it defeated in battle and to collapse into ruin and revolution, there is no reason for anyone who wants to see their nation remain strong and prosperous to pay any attention to their blathering. It is important, however, for the general public to know such &#8220;enemies within&#8221; exist, within the United States as in Ukraine, because it is from their ranks that sedition, treason and even terrorism are most likely to emerge.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/william-r-hawkins/the-left-renews-its-vows-with-moscow/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Leftists Embrace North Korea &#8212; And China</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/leftists-embrace-north-korea-and-china/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=leftists-embrace-north-korea-and-china</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/leftists-embrace-north-korea-and-china/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2010 04:40:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=77988</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Anti-war radicals continue to blame America first.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/photo1.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-78101" title="photo" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/photo1.gif" alt="" width="375" height="319" /></a></p>
<p>The ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition <a href="http://www.answercoalition.org/national/news/protests-no-war-on-korea.html">called</a> for &#8220;emergency protests&#8221; in Washington, DC and California last weekend to prevent a &#8220;new Korean War.&#8221; ANSWER had been one of the leading groups staging mass demonstrations against early U.S. military operations in Iran and Afghanistan, but their efforts petered out. The group&#8217;s opposition to American foreign policy has not slackened. Its statement issued Nov. 26 placed full blame for the Korean crisis on &#8220;the Obama administration and its South Korean client government led by the rabidly anti-communist President Lee Myung-bak.&#8221;</p>
<p>ANSWER claims:</p>
<blockquote><p>The crisis there is the result of a policy of deliberate provocation by the U.S. and South Korea over the past several months. These provocations are targeting both the DPRK and the People’s Republic of China, countries where the often-concealed but very real aim of U.S. leaders &#8212; Democrats and Republicans alike – is regime change.” This line is taken directly from Beijing&#8217;s hard-line rhetoric during the summer when the United States discussed holding joint exercises with South Korea in the Yellow Sea, but did not do so. Still, ANSWER blames the allies for a &#8220;threatening message of escalation since China considers these waters to be part of its sovereign territory.</p></blockquote>
<p>China&#8217;s claims are, however, illegal under the international law of the sea.  The Yellow Sea is not Beijing&#8217;s territory or even &#8220;territorial waters.&#8221; China is attempting to convert its rights in a 200 mile &#8220;exclusive economic zone&#8221; into sovereign control, which is not a proper interpretation of the law. &#8220;We hold a consistent and clear-cut stance on the issue. We oppose any party to take any military actions in our exclusive economic zone without permission,&#8221; said a <a href="http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/7213476.html">statement</a> by the Foreign Ministry on Nov. 25. Yet, free navigation is allowed through any EEZ as the traditional use of international waters. It should also be noted that China is not the only country opening onto the Yellow Sea, South Korea does as well.</p>
<p>Throughout the summer, there were bellicose <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-06/540008.html">editorials</a> in the state-run Chinese media about how any show of force against Pyongyang was a threat to China, and that Beijing <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-09/570320.html">needed</a> weapons to &#8220;kill&#8221; American carriers. This union of interest between the two communist regimes recalled the earlier Korean War (1950-53) when Chinese troops intervened to prevent the collapse of North Korea after its failed invasion of South Korea.</p>
<p>But China&#8217;s claims run far beyond the Yellow Sea. There were a series of diplomatic disputes during the summer, as Beijing attempted to incorporate the South and East China seas into its domain. China held military exercises in all the adjacent waters, provoking a backlash that manifested itself at the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in June at which the U.S. backed the smaller states against Chinese claims. The aircraft carrier <em>George Washington</em> and its escorts sailed through the South China Sea to support U.S. diplomacy just as it is doing today in the Yellow Sea.</p>
<p>There was no mention in the ANSWER discussion of the sinking of the South Korean corvette <em>Cheonan</em> by a North Korea submarine last March with the loss of 46 lives. There was no retaliation against Pyongyang for this act of war, only the holding of military exercises meant to show the solidarity of the U.S.-ROK alliance. The deterrent effect of these maneuvers was weakened by President Barack Obama&#8217;s decision not to send a carrier group into the Yellow Sea where the <em>Cheonan </em>went down. Instead, operations were moved to the Sea of Japan away from China, a change that Beijing undoubtedly considered a victory.</p>
<p>The South Koreans did hold exercises in the Yellow Sea and ANSWER claimed this justified North Korea&#8217;s attack on Yeonpyeong island. That there is a major difference between practice firing weapons in the open sea and firing artillery at populated areas across a boundary was lost on ANSWER.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/leftists-embrace-north-korea-and-china/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Clinton Gets Tough on China</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/is-clinton-toughening-obama-on-china-2/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=is-clinton-toughening-obama-on-china-2</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/is-clinton-toughening-obama-on-china-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 2010 04:10:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=76683</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why the Asian giant hopes it can appeal to Obama to restrain Hillary.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/obama_clinton_630px_2.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-76721" title="obama_clinton_630px_2" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/obama_clinton_630px_2.gif" alt="" width="375" height="273" /></a></p>
<p>President Barack Obama caused a stir on Nov. 9 when, in <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/09/press-conference-president-obama-and-president-yudhoyono-indonesia-jakar">response</a> to a question asked at a joint press conference with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, he said, &#8220;We think China being prosperous and secure is a positive.  And we’re not interested in containing that process. We want China to continue to achieve its development goals.&#8221; After a summer of diplomatic confrontations along the Pacific Rim, for the U.S. president to wish to see China grow stronger seemed more than odd. Yet, Obama was just falling back on what has been a boilerplate talking-point since the Clinton administration. If it sounds increasingly hollow and misguided, it is because the rise of Chinese ambitions has been drawing the smaller nations of Asia back towards the United States, which has, in turn, been strengthening its alliances with nations like Japan and India.</p>
<p>Though the White House line has been that Obama&#8217;s tour of Asia is focused on export promotion, it is clear that the president&#8217;s only stops &#8212; India, Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan &#8212; signal a geopolitical agenda that is aimed at containing China, though other terms are being used. When asked the same question posed to Obama, Yudhoyono responded:</p>
<blockquote><p>We also have the responsibility to ensure stability and security in our region. I am not using any theory or the theory of one power to counterbalance the other powers.  But I do have the view that there must be some form of dynamic equilibrium in Asia Pacific, in East and Southeast Asia.</p></blockquote>
<p>Prior to this statement, Obama and Yudhoyono had discussed &#8220;the issue of the South China Sea and how various maritime issues, conflicts, can get resolved in a peaceful fashion.&#8221;  Beijing&#8217;s assertion of control over the South and East China seas was at the center of the summer&#8217;s turmoil. It was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who took the lead last July in pledging U.S. support against the Chinese at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum in Vietnam. A group of U.S. aircraft carriers though the South China Sea and a port visit to Danang by a guided missile destroyer backed up her words.</p>
<p>At a Nov. 9 Washington event to launch his important new book <em>Monsoon: The Indian Ocean and the Future of American Power</em>, Robert D. Kaplan noted that by assigning major duties in the Middle East to special envoys, Secretary Clinton has been freed up to concentrate on Asia. This is an interest she showed from the onset of her tenure when she managed to wrest a co-chair slot with China for the State Department in the twice yearly Strategic and Economic Dialogue summits. These meetings had been initiated and run by the more collaborationist Treasury Department.</p>
<p>Beijing understands this very well. A Nov. 10 <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-11/590866.html">editorial</a> in the Chinese Communist Party newspaper <em>Global Times</em> warned: &#8220;a couple of smart power tricks are shaking the vulnerable stability in the western Pacific.&#8221; The essay mentions only Clinton, not Obama. &#8220;Clinton has a complicated interpretation of the &#8216;smart power&#8217; theory. She uses a handful of tools such as diplomacy, economics, military, and politics, as well as legal, and cultural tools,&#8221; said the paper, adding:</p>
<blockquote><p>The fact that a few words by Clinton could have such an impact in this region indicates that many countries in Asia are more or less under the influence of the US. It doesn&#8217;t matter if these countries felt they were acting on their best interests or not, they often made their moves as if they were robots programmed by the US.</p></blockquote>
<p>Indonesia is about to assume the chair of ASEAN. The week before Obama&#8217;s trip to Asia commenced, Clinton represented the U.S. at the East Asia Summit in Vietnam.  The secretary has spent a great deal of time cultivating amicability with the nations of Southeast Asia, but the president does not seem to care. He spent a minimum amount of time in Jakarta, then rewarded David Carden, a political fundraiser with no diplomatic experience, with an appointment as ambassador to ASEAN &#8212; as if it were a mere patronage post.</p>
<p>No wonder China&#8217;s leaders hope they can appeal to President Obama to restrain Secretary Clinton. In September, the president seemed to be trying to ease tensions by meeting personally with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session. There, he <a href="http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2010/September/20100923160049dmslahrellek0.5728723.html">stressed</a> economic cooperation, always the counter to national security concerns about great power rivalry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/is-clinton-toughening-obama-on-china-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pakistan Descends</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/pakistan-descends/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=pakistan-descends</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/pakistan-descends/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 04:20:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=75372</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The terrorist haven rises on the list of most corrupt states. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pakistan-taliban-11.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-75374" title="pakistan-taliban-11" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pakistan-taliban-11.gif" alt="" width="375" height="372" /></a></p>
<p>It was announced on Tuesday that Pakistan has moved &#8220;up&#8221; on the list of the world&#8217;s most corrupt governments. The Corruption Prescriptions Index ranks Pakistan 34 out of 178 countries, up from 42 last year. The annual report is prepared by <a href="http://www.transparency.org/">Transparency International</a>. It&#8217;s Pakistan Chairman Syed Adil Gilani <a href="http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C10%5C27%5Cstory_27-10-2010_pg1_2">said</a> that the Islamabad government lacks the political will to fight corruption. This is another blow to the credibility of the country that is supposed to be America&#8217;s strategic partner, but which many fear also lacks the political will to fight terrorism.</p>
<p>At the U.S. -Pakistan Strategic Dialogue meeting last week, it was announced that President Barack Obama will not visit Pakistan during his November trip to Asia. He would, however, be visiting India, Pakistan&#8217;s neighbor and arch-rival. Hopefully, this choice of destinations conveys a deepening relationship between Washington and New Delhi, one that will not be held hostage to Pakistan&#8217;s wavering cooperation in the war against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and the border areas.</p>
<p>Islamabad&#8217;s attempts to use the &#8220;war on terror&#8221; as leverage to draw the U.S. into favoring Pakistan over India must be resisted. The counter is to use a closer alignment with India to remind Pakistan&#8217;s leaders what the consequences could be if Islamabad does not cooperate with American objectives in the region.</p>
<p>The delegations led by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Pakistan Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi met in Washington Oct. 20-22 for what was the third ministerial-level meeting of the Strategic Dialogue. All have been held this year, the first in Washington in March and the second in Islamabad in July.</p>
<p>The war against terrorism was only mentioned twice in the <a href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/10/149854.htm">joint statement</a> issued on Oct.  22: &#8220;The United States commended the steadfast resolve of the Government and people of Pakistan, armed forces, and law enforcement agencies to defeat terrorists&#8221; and &#8220;The United States and Pakistan renewed their resolve to promoting peace, stability, and transparency throughout the region and to eliminate the threats posed by terrorism and extremism. &#8221; Afghanistan was never mentioned. &#8220;Counter-terrorism&#8221; was mentioned once, as part of a laundry list of issues which included agriculture, communications, public diplomacy, defense, energy, finance, economic cooperation, health, law enforcement, water, and women&#8217;s empowerment. One could not have concluded from reading this document that the war along the Pakistan-Afghan border was a priority issue. This is apparently Islamabad&#8217;s desire.</p>
<p>At their <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/10/149856.htm">joint press conference</a> at the end of the meeting, Secretary Clinton expressed her &#8220;deep sorrow and my outrage at the killing of Dr. Mohammad Farooq Khan by Taliban assassins on October 2nd.&#8221;  Farooq was a medical doctor and  Vice-Chancellor at the Islamic University in Swat. But her attempt to raise the topic of the threat that Islamic radicalism poses to Pakistan fell on deaf ears. In his remarks following hers, Foreign Minister Qureshi never mentioned the killing or anything else about terrorism. Instead, he talked about water, productivity, women&#8217;s empowerment and the need to give &#8220;legal status&#8221; to Pakistanis who are living and working in America without it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/pakistan-descends/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brazilian Ambition</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/brazilian-ambition/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=brazilian-ambition</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/brazilian-ambition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2010 04:05:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=74227</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A leader of developing nations, the South American nation inches closer toward the enemy camp.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Lula-e-Dilma-em-Manaus.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-74242" title="Lula-e-Dilma-em-Manaus" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Lula-e-Dilma-em-Manaus.gif" alt="" width="375" height="312" /></a></p>
<p>Brazil is a rising middle power with a vibrant capitalist economy and a democratic government. It is the world&#8217;s eighth largest economy and could grow by seven percent or more this year. Its success gives hope to those who have long anticipated a &#8220;take off&#8221; in Latin America. But Brazil is also a revisionist power. Under President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, it has worked with other rising powers to overthrow the international system designed by the Western powers and led by the United States. This month&#8217;s elections in Brazil will bring in a new president, but not a change in this policy.</p>
<p>In the years after the Soviet Union collapsed, it was hoped that the spread of democracy and capitalism would remove the ideological elements that had fueled great power confrontations and usher in an era of international cooperation. This is not how things have turned out. The realist view of world politics holds that nations have inherently conflicting interests because of competition for resources and markets, insecurity due to imbalances in power and wealth, and ambitions to control their surroundings. These factors exist independent of state or economic organization.</p>
<p>Brazil&#8217;s President Lula da Silva has served for eight years and cannot serve a third term. His designated successor and chief of staff, Dilma Rousseff, is expected to win the Oct. 31 runoff election after winning 46 percent of the vote in the first round on Oct. 3. Under Lula, the country has emerged from its past chronic financial instability. Brazilian politics has shifted to the Left since the military dictatorship was replaced by democratic elections. There are still complaints about excessive government regulation and Lula has introduced new social programs, but he has also put economic growth first and supported the expansion of Brazilian business. He has more than doubled military spending, not only buying combat aircrafts, missiles, and submarines from Russia and Europe, but also developing a Brazilian defense industry and cooperating with China on space projects.</p>
<p>Lula has built a broad base of domestic support which has allowed him to move onto the world stage with a more active foreign policy based and on a more left-wing revisionist posture than is evident in his policies at home. Rousseff, an economist who was a guerrilla fighter during the dictatorship, is expected to continue Lula&#8217;s policies.</p>
<p>Lula has aimed at ending the &#8220;unipolar&#8221; hegemony of the United States by joining coalitions that can balance American (and Western) influence to create a multipolar order more favorable to Brazilian interests. These coalitions can act within international organizations like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization to contain American power and to influence the rules and norms that will govern world affairs. The objective is to constrain the ability of the U.S. to act unilaterally, while giving Brazil and its partners more freedom to act on their own.</p>
<p>The two main coalitions of powers to which Brazil belongs are BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) and BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China).</p>
<p>The first group&#8217;s main focus is the UN climate talks where a new global treaty is being written to limit green house gas (GHG) emissions after the current Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. The most recent conference hosted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was held in the Chinese port city of Tianjin on Oct. 4-9. It is the last conference before the Cancun, Mexico summit where a treaty might be presented. The attempt to reach agreement last December in Copenhagen failed due to the continuing clash of national interests between the developed and developing nations.</p>
<p>The developed countries, led by the U.S. and European Union, are the only ones required under the Kyoto treaty to reduce their GHG emissions. The developing countries, led by BASIC, are currently free of mandates and are determined to stay that way so as not to slow growth. This is called the principle of &#8220;common but differentiated responsibilities&#8221; and is enshrined in UN documents. Thus, the impasse persisted in Tianjin.</p>
<p>China has assumed the informal leadership of BASIC.  <a href="http://china.globaltimes.cn/">Chinese</a> State Councilor Dai Bingguo led the host country&#8217;s delegation. According to a <a href="http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-10/04/c_13542189.htm"><strong>report</strong></a><strong> </strong>by the official Xinhua news service, he insisted that the developing countries &#8220;right&#8221; to economic growth be respected. &#8220;The developed countries should set the targets to take the lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and arrangements should be made to provide adequate financial and technological support to developing countries,&#8221; he said.</p>
<p>After the UNFCCC ended, the BASIC countries stayed in Tianjin and convened their own meeting with the addition of Yemen, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Argentina, and Egypt. The aim was to maintain their solidarity going towards Cancun in December. A major concern was that in the absence of a comprehensive treaty covering all nations, the developed countries, which may further expand their more restrictive environmental standards, will impose &#8220;border adjustment&#8221; taxes to prevent countries which do not adopt costly GHG limits from gaining a competitive advantage. BASIC <a href="http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/11/stories/2010101155330700.htm">wants</a> the UNFCCC to adopt language to “reject the use of unilateral protectionist measures” by developed countries.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/brazilian-ambition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Green Terrorism&#8217;s New Left Roots</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/green-terrorisms-new-left-roots/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=green-terrorisms-new-left-roots</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/green-terrorisms-new-left-roots/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 04:05:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=70783</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How Sixties radicals influenced the lethal anti-human philosophy of would-be killer James J. Lee. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/jamesj-lee-AP.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-70829" title="jamesj-lee-AP" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/jamesj-lee-AP.gif" alt="" width="300" height="291" /></a></p>
<p>On September 1, James J. Lee was shot and killed by police after he took several hostages and threatened to set off explosives at the Discovery Channel&#8217;s communications headquarters in downtown Silver   Spring, Maryland. <em>The </em><em>Washington</em> <em>Post</em> called him an “environmental militant” and provided a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/01/AR2010090103911.html">link</a> to his website <a href="http://savetheplanetprotest.com/">savetheplanetprotest.com</a>. To the general public, his views are certainly extreme, but the alarming reality is, within the Green movement, his views are mainstream.</p>
<p>Lee wrote that he was greatly influenced by Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth.” Other Green propaganda obviously also made a deep impression on him. What has grabbed the most attention was Lee’s hatred for the human race. His demands for changes in Discovery Channel programming included this disturbing diatribe: “Focus must be given on how people can live <em>without</em> giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution….programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed.”</p>
<p>Lee&#8217;s theme was not merely “the planet does not need humans,” but also that humans do not need civilization. He stated that his campaign would continue until “the natural world starts improving and human civilization building <em>stops</em> and is reversed.” He thought TV programs should “talk about ways to disassemble civilization…..Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is. That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed.” He wanted to bring down “the whole blasted human economy.”</p>
<p>The same day Lee was committing his act of eco-terrorism, the left-wing website <a href="http://www.opednews.com/flyer/news_20100901_2.html">OpEdNews.com</a> opened with an editorial arguing:</p>
<blockquote><p>The idea of boosting production or increasing output or efficiency is mired in the old way of thinking&#8211; about more is better. We need to end that approach and switch to the model Keith Farley describes, in his book TIME&#8217;s UP, where he suggests that we need to start buying things that last, keeping them, fixing them buying used goods, with the goal of decreasing production. That idea challenges the consumer economic model. It challenges the idea that we maintain a healthy economy by maintaining production and consumption.</p></blockquote>
<p>OpEdNews has been very critical of the betrayal of leftist beliefs by President Barack Obama, running columns calling for him to join former President George W. Bush in the dock for war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the editorial also expressed discontent with Obama and his party on environmental issues: “Things are at a point where we need to start thinking about stronger measures to bring about change. The Democratic victories failed to make anywhere close to the changes we need.” Apparently, unemployment isn’t high enough yet to produce the decline in living standards and the negative economic growth the Green Left desires.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/green-terrorisms-new-left-roots/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>China Rising</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/china-rising/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=china-rising</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/china-rising/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 04:05:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=69171</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Pentagon's 2010 report on the Chinese military reveals the disturbing military might of the old Communist power. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/aaaar221428_871591.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-69196" title="aaaar221428_871591" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/aaaar221428_871591.gif" alt="" width="375" height="259" /></a></p>
<p>On August 16, the <a href="http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/2010_CMPR_Final.pdf">annual report</a> to Congress on the Chinese military was released by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). There had been speculation that the White House wanted to hold the April Nuclear Security Summit and the May U.S.-China Security and Economic Dialogue before the report became public. President Barack Obama hoped to make diplomatic progress with Beijing before attention was drawn to China’s military buildup. The talks proved futile. And since May, there have been a series of competing naval maneuvers near the Korean peninsula and in the South China Sea, which have highlighted the growing tensions between Beijing’s ambitions and the security interests of the United States and others along the Pacific Rim.</p>
<p>The 83-page Pentagon study looks at all aspects of the People’s Republic of China’s military strategy, but three areas warrant particular attention: missiles, naval capabilities, and the defense industry. According to the OSD analysis:</p>
<blockquote><p>China has the most active land-based ballistic and cruise missile program in the world. It is developing and testing several new classes and variants of offensive missiles, forming additional missile units, qualitatively upgrading certain missile systems, and developing methods to counter ballistic missile defenses.</p></blockquote>
<p>China has a small but growing force of mobile ICBMs capable of hitting targets in most of the United States. Under the umbrella of this deterrent force, China is deploying a large number of short and medium range missiles that could devastate its neighbors with a mix of nuclear and conventional warheads. By the end of last year, over 1,000 short range ballistic missiles were deployed within range of Taiwan. And though the Taipei government has attempted to improve relations with the mainland through expanded trade and more open travel, Beijing has continued its military buildup aimed at coercing the island democracy to surrender to the Chinese dictatorship.</p>
<p>Capturing Taiwan would help China penetrate the “first island chain” that runs from Japan through Taiwan to the Philippines and then to Indonesia. Beijing thinks of the waters between the mainland and the island nations to the east as being Chinese territorial seas. The OSD report notes that the PRC is developing its own legal doctrine which is “inconsistent with international law” in regard to control of the trade routes and seabed resources of the region. To put muscle behind its claims, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) held major air and naval exercises in the East China and South China seas in June and July. Beijing also loudly protested U.S. Navy deployments in the Sea of Japan and South China Sea, and the upcoming joint U.S.-South Korea exercise in the Yellow  Sea.</p>
<p>The PLAN has been expanding, backed by the world’s second largest shipbuilding industry. The OSD report states, “The PLA Navy has the largest force of principal combatants, submarines, and amphibious warfare ships in Asia. China’s naval forces include some 75 principal combatants, more than 60 submarines, 55 medium and large amphibious ships, and roughly 85 missile-equipped patrol craft.” A new naval base on Hainan Island is nearly complete, with underground facilities for submarines and advanced surface warships within easy striking range of the major trade routes of the South  China Sea.</p>
<p>A priority is the construction of new nuclear powered and diesel-electric attack submarines armed with anti-ship cruise missiles. China is also developing an anti-ship ballistic missile with a range in excess of 1,000 miles, with a maneuverable warhead. It is designed to strike U.S. aircraft carriers before their fighters are within range of China, with a weapon that would be hard to dodge or intercept.</p>
<p>China has it own aircraft carrier development program. “The PRC shipbuilding industry could start construction of an indigenous platform by the end of this year. China is interested in building multiple operational aircraft carriers with support ships in the next decade,” says the report. A July 30 <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-07/557645.html">editorial</a> in the Communist Party newspaper <em>Global Times</em> stated, “The public strongly desires an aircraft carrier because of the prestige associated with one, the power it projects to the rest of the world and the sense of defensive security it provides.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/china-rising/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>From Keynesianism to Socialism</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/from-keynesianism-to-socialism/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=from-keynesianism-to-socialism</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/from-keynesianism-to-socialism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 2010 04:06:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=67731</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama confirms that he will truly never let a crisis go to waste. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/obamae.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-67760" title="obamae" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/obamae.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="268" /></a></p>
<p>The Office of Management of Budget published its <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/MSR">Mid-Session Review</a> July 23, forecasting Federal outlays and tax revenue to 2020. The numbers presented showed that the Obama administration has transformed government finance far beyond the immediate need of stimulating the economy to pull the country out of a major recession. Obama has locked the country into dangerously high structural deficits that will persist even after the economy resumes normal growth.</p>
<p>The deficit in 2012 is estimated at $911 billion and the deficit in 2020 at $900 billion. These massive deficits are not the result of lingering effects from the recession. The OMB’s economic assumptions are:</p>
<blockquote><p>“The growth rate is projected to rise to 4.3 percent in 2012 and 4.2 percent in 2013 as the economy returns closer to its potential output level. Beyond 2013, real GDP growth is projected to moderate, declining gradually to 2.5 percent per year in 2018-2020.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>This growth rate is within normal parameters for a mature economy like that of the United   States.</p>
<p>The OMB sees a 5.2 percent unemployment rate in 2020. But the return to normalcy will not bring about the “fiscal responsibility” President Barack Obama talks about and which financial markets need. The deficit in 2020 will still be 3.8 percent of GDP, a level normally associated with recessions, not prosperity.</p>
<p>The OMB’s review takes a potshot at the George W. Bush budgets, noting: “The previous Administration’s decisions not to pay for three large domestic initiatives (the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 and the Medicare prescription drug benefit of 2003).” Yet, the highest debt-to-GDP ratio of the Bush years prior to the economic downturn that exploded the 2009 budget was 3.5 percent in 2004. So the OMB considers it to be a triumph of fiscal responsibility to reduce the normal deficit to somewhat higher than the worst year of the previous administration.</p>
<p>The OMB also states,</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Because of the unsustainable nature of the Government’s medium-  and long-term fiscal outlook….The result of the [National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform] recommendations will be annual deficits that are approximately equal to 3 percent of GDP. Deficits of this size will stabilize the ratio of debt to GDP. Most economists consider this to be necessary for fiscal sustainability as debt and interest payments rise only as much as economic growth, rather than rising as a share of output and the budget over time.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Yet, a deficit-to-GDP ratio of 3 percent is not reached by 2020 under current assumptions. And even if it does become the standard, it will still be higher than “normal” years in the past.</p>
<p>Tax revenues in 2020 are forecast to be $1.9 trillion higher than in 2012. Government spending will also be $1.9 trillion higher, so there is no effort to use rising revenues to cut the deficit. Every new dollar taken in will be spent. GDP in 2020 is supposed to be $7.7 trillion higher than in 2012, which means the government will be taking and spending 24.7 percent of the nation’s growth over those years, a much higher share than in the past. In 2020, Federal outlays will be 23.5 percent of GDP, compared to the average of 20.2 percent of GDP during the 20 years prior to the 2009 downturn.</p>
<p>The economic theories of British economist John Maynard Keynes have taken a beating from conservatives during the debate over fiscal policy. Keynesianism has long been synonymous with deficit spending. But Lord Keynes cannot take the rap for (or be used to justify) Obama’s policies. Keynes’s ideas about macroeconomics came to prominence during the Great Depression. His purpose was not to replace capitalism but to save it. As Herbert Stein summed the matter up in his classic <em>The Fiscal Revolution in America </em>“It was accepted policy that we should run deficits in depressions, that we would not raise taxes in depressions in an attempt to balance the budget, and that in severe depressions we would raise expenditures, at least for relief and probably for recovery.” Stein’s book came out in 1969 when he was a member of President Richard Nixon’s Council of Economic Advisors. Soon his boss would acknowledge “We are all Keynesians now.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/from-keynesianism-to-socialism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama: Bowing to Beijing?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/obama-bowing-to-beijing/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=obama-bowing-to-beijing</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/obama-bowing-to-beijing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 04:05:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=66484</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A U.S. war game retreat in the Yellow Sea may signal a critical change in the balance of will in Northeast Asia.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/ar4113082263.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-66485" title="ar4113082263" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/ar4113082263.gif" alt="" width="375" height="297" /></a></p>
<p>North   Korea is furious over the U.S.-South Korean joint naval exercises scheduled to take place July 25-28 off the east coast of the Korean Peninsula in the Sea of Japan. Kim Jong Il, the country&#8217;s ruthless dictator, went so far as to threaten a &#8220;physical response&#8221; to the exercises. As the maneuvers were about to commence, however, the North Korean regime predictably retreated to a more passive stance. They toned down their rhetoric and instead <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-23/north-korea-claims-innocence-over-sinking-of-south-s-ship-won-t-apologize.html">warned</a> that they would use &#8220;nuclear deterrence&#8221; to ward off any American attack.</p>
<p>Such bluster from Pyongyang is to be expected, and it does not necessarily warranted great concern. Rather, it has been China’s objection to the naval exercises that has commanded Washington’s attention. A July 22 <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-07/554638.html">editorial</a> in the Chinese Communist Party&#8217;s <em>Global Times</em> claimed:</p>
<blockquote><p>[The situation] only reminds people of Washington&#8217;s continuation of its Cold War mentality, with a stick in hand, and waving all over the place….. Aggressive show of force only creates enemies, and the US will risk getting mired in the abyss of a Cold War again.</p></blockquote>
<p>In the real world, meanwhile, the joint exercises are clearly a reaction to North   Korea’s recent use of aggressive force. While in Seoul, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited the War Memorial to pay tribute to the 46 sailors who were killed when the South Korean corvette <em>Cheonan</em> was sunk by a North Korean torpedo attack in March.</p>
<p>The incident has since escalated into a test of naval strength and resolve across Northeast Asia. Beijing’s strong support for Pyongyang is an aspect of China’s drive to dominate the South China Sea, the East  China Sea, and the Yellow Sea. To extend its maritime reach, it needs to drive the U.S. Navy out of the area. Beijing claims this is only a “defensive” move, but the fact remains that control of these waters would threaten critical shipping lanes for raw materials and oil, upon which the trade-based economies of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Southeast Asia depend.</p>
<p>A lengthy commentary by an associate professor at the School  of Politics and Public Administration at Guangdong Ocean  University was <a href="http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2010-07/13/c_13397060.htm">posted</a> on the English language site of China’s state-run Xinhua News Agency on July 13. It made the argument for Beijing’s naval expansion:</p>
<blockquote><p>History shows no country can be a great power without a strong naval force. And no country in modern times has faced greater threats from the sea as China. It is thus logical for it to develop and modernize its marine force.</p>
<p>By misinterpreting the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and basing their actions on the so-called principles of &#8220;adjacency, prescription, and security,&#8221; some countries have violated its rights over islands, reefs and territorial waters.</p>
<p>By adding the South  China Sea to its core interests, China has shown its determination to secure its maritime resources and strategic waters.</p></blockquote>
<p>But it is Beijing that is misinterpreting the Law of the Sea convention (which the U.S. has wisely not ratified) by trying to illegitimately convert the 200 mile Economic Zone (EZ) allocated by the treaty into a claim of sovereignty. Navigation by ships and aircrafts is permitted through the EZ under the traditional principle of the “freedom of the seas.” Chinese naval strategists, however, want to declare all the waters between China and the “first island chain” that runs from Japan through Taiwan, the Philippines, and Indonesia, to Singapore and the Straits of Malacca as “territorial seas” under Beijing’s control. In the April issue of the U.S. Naval Institute’s <em>Proceedings</em> magazine, retired Cmdr. Peter Dutton, a specialist in international law, argued:</p>
<blockquote><p>The legal conflict reflects a larger clash between China’s objective of increasing its control over its “near seas” and the American geostrategic interest in maintaining the freedom of navigation on which the health and stability of the global maritime commons rely, and which is essential to support American security guarantees in East Asia.”</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/obama-bowing-to-beijing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>43</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bowing to North Korea</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/bowing-to-north-korea/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bowing-to-north-korea</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/bowing-to-north-korea/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 04:03:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=64487</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. stands by while the outlaw state and its allies antagonize the Yellow Sea. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ce602949-1b02-4379-8a3d-69b1af2a5da6.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-64497" title="North Korea Military Parade" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ce602949-1b02-4379-8a3d-69b1af2a5da6-300x195.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="195" /></a></p>
<p>Reuters <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R3WH20100628?type=politicsNews">reported</a> on June 28 that, according to the Pentagon, a joint U.S.-Republic of Korea naval exercise that had been expected in June will most likely take place in July, though a date has yet to be set. The exercise is supposed to be a show of force in the wake of the sinking of the South Korea corvette <em>Cheonan</em> with the loss of 46 lives in March. An international investigation of the sinking in May concluded that the corvette was sunk by a North Korean torpedo probably fired in ambush from a submarine. The exercise was expected to start June 8, then June 28. The question now is whether it will be held at all.</p>
<p>The People’s Republic of China, North Korea’s protector, has strongly protested the proposed naval maneuvers in the Yellow Sea between the west coast of the Korean Peninsula and the Chinese mainland. Of particular concern to Beijing is speculation that the aircraft carrier <em>George Washington</em>, (CVN-73) based in Yokosuka, Japan, will take part. The carrier departed on its summer patrol on June 14, leading a strike group consisting of two guided missile cruises and a destroyer squadron. At least one submarine is also normally assigned to such a group. From June 21-25, the task force participated in an undersea warfare exercise with Japanese air and naval units, but far from the contested waters of the Yellow Sea.</p>
<p>A June 9 <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-06/540008.html">editorial</a> in the Chinese Communist Party news paper <em>Global Times</em> warned against the joint U.S.-ROK naval operation, arguing that the “Yellow Sea is no place for a U.S. carrier.” It states:</p>
<blockquote><p>The U.S. should reconsider its military movements in the West Pacific. Disguised as a move aimed at maintaining regional stability, the deployment of a carrier off of China&#8217;s coast is a provocation that will generate hostility among the Chinese public toward the U.S. Who would not be bothered by an opponent hanging around at the door with a gun all day long?</p></blockquote>
<p>The editorial also called the American carrier “a symbol of its past hegemony,” implying that the U.S. Navy was no longer the dominant force in the western Pacific. An earlier <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-06/539583.html">editorial</a> had stated that the Obama administration was undecided about whether to include the carrier in the joint exercise and cautioned, “The decision should be made with consideration given to China&#8217;s wishes. Media outlets in South Korea and Japan have predicted that China will be unhappy if the carrier does indeed join the exercises.” Beijing constantly refers to the Yellow Sea as “China’s territorial sea,” a designation with no standing under international law.</p>
<p>As the United States backed off its planned exercise, China moved ahead with its own naval demonstration, set for June 30-July 5. The area in which the People’s Liberation Army Navy will conduct live-fire exercises is just north of Taiwan. &#8220;The location of the Chinese drill is set to be held in the East China Sea, which would make the foreign navies entering the Yellow Sea uneasy,&#8221; said Song Zhongping, a Hong Kong-based military analysis who was <a href="http://military.globaltimes.cn/china/2010-06/546416.html">quoted</a> in <em>Global Times</em> on June 29. He said the East China Sea is the only way into the Yellow Sea. Song argued it would be easy to form “a favorable war situation” for the Chinese Navy to &#8220;shut the dogs up and beat them.&#8221;</p>
<p>Song was echoing increasingly shrill voices in China denouncing the United States, as <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gMEFC7eXk74KBudZVCpBKWr_Mr6wD9GIDB180">reported</a> by the Associated Press. &#8220;China should cover the Yellow Sea with ships and missiles and open fire and drive them back should the American military dare invade our territorial waters,&#8221; a commentary on the popular <a href="http://ccvic.com/">ccvic.com</a> news website demanded.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/bowing-to-north-korea/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Appeaser</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-appeaser/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-appeaser</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-appeaser/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 04:01:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afghanistan pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Africa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attempt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beijing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brasilia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brazil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[buzz word]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[changing climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cold]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic upheaval]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[end]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[England]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[France]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[germany]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Greece]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Holland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indonesia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[integration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international rivalry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ireland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Latin America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[look]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediterranean]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national security strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North-South]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NSS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Portugal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Bill Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pyongyang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reconnaissance plane]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Africa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South China Sea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tehran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[u s navy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Brazilian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weapons of mass destruction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=61660</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The troubling unwillingness of Obama to confront our enemies and protect our friends. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/obamam.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-61696" title="obamam" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/obamam.gif" alt="" width="400" height="319" /></a></p>
<p>The National Security Strategy (NSS) released by the Barack Obama administration on May 27 is not so much a look forward as a look back. It is an attempt to return to the optimistic days following the end of the Cold War when it seemed a peaceful new world order was possible. In 1999, President Bill Clinton claimed “perhaps for the first time in history, the world’s leading nations are not engaged in a struggle with each other for security or territory. The world clearly is coming together.” President Obama says essentially the same thing in the opening paragraph of his cover letter to the NSS when he notes that “globalization”—the buzz word of the post-Cold War era &#8212; has “made peace possible among the major powers.” The dangers that remain are of a different sort, “from international terrorism and the spread of deadly technologies, to economic upheaval and a changing climate.”</p>
<p>That the world looked like the classical liberal model expounded by Clinton in 1999 was doubtful even then. A decade later, the cracks are even larger. Five months before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, a Chinese fighter rammed a U.S. Navy EP-3 reconnaissance plane over the South China Sea, an area Beijing has been trying to claim as sovereign territory. The rise of China and the emergence of other ambitious powers herald not a new world but a new cycle in the old world of international rivalry. The NSS explicitly rejects the “world as it is” in its attempt to fashion “the world we seek.” But the NSS does not lay out a path between worlds; it simply assumes the new world already exists.</p>
<p>There are still a few odds and ends to be cleaned up from the Bush administration, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The NSS pledges “a focus on defeating al-Qa’ida and its affiliates in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and around the globe” but sees no real dangers after that which would require a military effort. Though the NSS identifies the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear and biological) as problems, the two most menacing rogue states, North Korea and Iran, are to be dealt with through diplomacy. As the NSS states on page 23, “If North Korea eliminates its nuclear weapons program, and Iran meets its international obligations on its nuclear program, they will be able to proceed on a path to greater political and economic integration with the international community. If they ignore their international obligations, we will pursue multiple means to increase their isolation and bring them into compliance with international nonproliferation norms.” This is at best a containment policy.</p>
<p>But how can Pyongyang or Tehran be contained, let alone “isolated” when they have friends among the other major powers? The NSS depends on there being a consensus among the powers on issues like non-proliferation within a general spirit of cooperation. That is not how world politics is evolving.</p>
<p>According to the NSS, “The European Union has deepened its integration. Russia has reemerged in the international arena as a strong voice. China and India—the world’s two most populous nations—are becoming more engaged globally. From Latin America to Africa to the Pacific, new and emerging powers hold out opportunities for partnership, even as a handful of states endanger regional and global security by flouting international norms.” Under the Obama policy, “We are working to build deeper and more effective partnerships with other key centers of influence—including China, India, and Russia, as well as increasingly influential nations such as Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia—so that we can cooperate on issues of bilateral and global concern, with the recognition that power, in an interconnected world, is no longer a zero sum game.”</p>
<p>The integration of the EU is being called into question by the sovereign debt crisis that has ripped through Greece and has threatened to spread to Spain, Portugal, and Ireland. The single euro currency, once thought to be an alternative to the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, is in free fall. Euro skeptics in England, France, Holland and Germany are balking at “saving” the Mediterranean and Eastern members of the bloc.</p>
<p>The NSS singles out Brazil for special praise saying, “We welcome Brazil’s leadership and seek to move beyond dated North-South divisions to pursue progress on bilateral, hemispheric, and global issues.” Yet, Brazil just brokered a deal with Iran over its nuclear enrichment program meant to shield it from a new round of UN sanctions being pushed by the U.S. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva had told President Obama personally at the Nuclear Security Summit that he would not back additional sanctions on Iran, and repeated this stance when meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Brasilia immediately after the two leaders left Washington. The Hu-Lula meeting took place within the larger context of a BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) summit where the emerging powers coordinate policies formulated primarily against the positions of the United States and EU.</p>
<p>South Africa joins the mix in BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China), a coalition at the UN that opposes the American and European demand for mandated limits on green house gas emissions to fight alleged global warming. Supported by Russia and the group of 77 developing nations, BASIC represents the world’s rejection of President Obama’s obsession about climate change that appears repeatedly in the NSS as a priority global threat.</p>
<p>The core value of BASIC and its allies is unrestricted economic growth, which means intensified competition in domestic and world markets. For some time, American officials have made it clear that unless China, India and Brazil provide substantial market access to U.S. exports commensurate with their high economic growth rates, there can be no conclusion to the Doha Round of trade talks. These negotiations have been stalled virtually from their inception in 2001 due to a fundamental clash of national interests.</p>
<p>The Obama administration has hailed China and Russia for supporting a draft sanctions proposal against Iran at the UN. Yet, Beijing and Moscow watered down the resolution to prevent it from crippling the Tehran regime. Most importantly, Russia and China will be allowed to continue investing in Iran’s energy sector, which will boost the country’s revenues which the mullah’s use to finance their aggressive foreign policy as well as nuclear development. To improve relations, the Obama administration dropped sanctions against Moscow’s state arms export agency and three Russian entities previously found to have transferred technology or weapons to Iran. The UN sanctions proposal would also allow the Russians to sell S-300 air defense missiles (which have an anti-missile capability) to Tehran. So even if the UN Security Council adopts the resolution, it will not “isolate” Iran from its main international backers.</p>
<p>Nor is international rivalry confined to economics and rogue states. China’s massive military modernization program, led by new weapon systems designed to attack U.S. and allied forces across Asia, is not mentioned in the NSS. To do so would have undermined the fanciful vision of a peaceful, cooperative world. It would also have called into question why the Obama Pentagon is cutting back on the high-end conventional forces, from armored units and air superiority fighters to missile defense and naval shipbuilding, that would be needed to not only counter rising “peer” competitors like China but to defeat major regional powers like North Korea and Iran.</p>
<p>The NSS attempts to conjure up a world in which an NSS is not needed, but the Obama administration does not have the power to change the true, dangerous nature of global politics. What the NSS reveals is the unwillingness of President Obama to deal with the world as it is. Thus, America will remain vulnerable, as its leaders are continually blindsided by the strategies of adversaries they cannot bring themselves to think about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-appeaser/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rising World Powers Align</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/rising-world-powers-align/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=rising-world-powers-align</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/rising-world-powers-align/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:00:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[April]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[basic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beijing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brasilia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brazil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BRIC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bric brazil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[colonial model]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[G20]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greenhouse gas emissions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[growth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hu jintao]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Monetary Fund]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Japan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Latin America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[luiz inacio lula da silva]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lula da silva]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Moscow]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEW DELHI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[political clout]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Dmitry Medvedev]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Hu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president hu jintao]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Hugo Chavez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president luiz inacio lula da silva]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prime Minister Manmohan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prime minister manmohan singh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prime Minister Vladimir Putin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary of State Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Singh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Africa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spokesperson Jiang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tehran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The United Nations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transfer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Venezuela]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yu]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=58791</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Washington pushes further away.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Lula_BRIC_2008.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-58794" title="Lula_BRIC_2008" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Lula_BRIC_2008-300x178.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="178" /></a></p>
<p>The coalition of major developing nations known as BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) continues to pull closer together while becoming more alienated from the United States. The Obama administration has made constant pushes to limit BASIC&#8217;s economic growth in an effort to curb their greenhouse gas emissions. However, the agenda of BASIC at the United Nations has been to pressure the industrialized nations (America, Europe, Japan) to commit to ambitious cuts in emissions while staying free of any restrictions on their own activities. They have also demanded technical and financial support to speed the transfer of production capabilities from the West to the Third World.</p>
<p>The three core members of BASIC are also part of BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China.) The BRIC group met in Brasilia on April 14-16 to draw up a common plan for a “new international order” to be presented at the G20 meeting in June. The BRIC nations account for 42% of the world&#8217;s population but only 15% of the world&#8217;s gross domestic product. Promoting economic growth to improve per capita incomes and living standards is their top priority, but they believe they will need greater political clout in world affairs to gain the wealth they seek.</p>
<p>The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs&#8217; <a href="http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx/t682900.htm">report</a> on the meeting between President Hu Jintao of China and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil at BRIC emphasized “investment cooperation&#8221; between the two countries which would entail that &#8220;both sides&#8230;actively encourage two-way investment&#8230;in the areas of energy, mining, agriculture, industry and infrastructure construction.” Brazil has been leery of China’s economic pattern in Latin America which resembles that of the old colonial model. Beijing trades manufactured goods for raw materials and fuel which stunts the economic development of its trading partners. In the case of Brazil last year, 76.8% of exports to China were basic products and 98.1% of Chinese imports were manufactured goods. Trade rose from $6.7 billion in 2003 to $36.1 billion last year, with China surpassing the United States as Brazil’s main trading partner.</p>
<p>In the wake of the international financial crisis, any inflow of capital is welcome in Latin America. China has been investing in the mining and the oil industries and in building infrastructure. A common interest in promoting growth and a shared antipathy towards the United States is pulling Brasilia and Beijing together despite concerns in Brazilian industrial circles about the influx of Chinese goods. The developing countries hold the American banks responsible for the financial crisis, which they see as another negative manifestation of U.S. &#8220;hegemony.” Calls for global financial reform and a “multipolar” world were major BRIC themes articulated by all four nations.</p>
<p>The first BRIC meeting was held in June, 2009. The central topic was the need to move trade away from dependence on the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. At Brasilia last week, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev again raised this issue. His <a href="http://eng.kremlin.ru/speeches/2010/04/13/0911_type104017_225331.shtml">statement</a> called for “multilateral cooperation in nuclear energy, aircraft engineering, space exploration and nanotechnologies. Such cooperation can be enhanced through financial interaction of the BRIC countries, in particular in the form of agreements on the use of national currencies in mutual trade.” While still well short of calling for a new non-dollar reserve currency, in its final statement, BRIC called for a greater role of its members in the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.</p>
<p>At the BRIC summit, President Hu <a href="http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-04/16/c_13254287.htm">spoke</a> of the same goals of an international transfer of wealth as China has insisted upon in the UN climate talks. He said the developed countries should honor their commitments of increased assistance, debt relief, market access and technology transfer while helping developing countries promote economic growth and improve people&#8217;s well-being. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh joined in, calling for a “multipolar” world order in which the UN would play a central role.</p>
<p>The unity on economic goals provides a foundation which allows Beijing and Moscow to pull Brasilia and New Delhi in their direction on other strategic issues. Though Iran was not mentioned in the final BRIC communiqué, Lula made Brazil’s opposition to new UN sanctions on Tehran known at the close of his private meeting with Hu. Indeed, Brazil’s position seemed identical to China’s.</p>
<p>Though President Obama tried to give the impression that he had persuaded President Hu to support new sanctions on Iran when they met at the Nuclear Security Summit, this was not the case. When Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Jiang Yu was asked about this at a press conference April 13, he <a href="http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/xwfw/s2510/t679545.htm">stated</a>, “On the Iranian nuclear issue, our position has been consistent&#8230;.Sanctions and pressure are not the fundamental way out. Relevant actions of the UN Security Council should be conducive to the turn-around of the situation and proper settlement of the issue through dialogue and negotiation.” News <a href="http://community.washingtonpost.com/ver1.0/Direct/Process">reports</a> cited Brazilian officials as saying that their country shares “great affinity” with China over what course to take on Iran.</p>
<p>The visit to Brazil by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March proved a failure. Clinton had urged Brazil, who currently holds one of the rotating seats on the UN Security Council, to support sanctions. But she had combined talks about Iran with discussions about how to move the UN climate talks forward, a combination that did not go over well. Brasilia kept its distance from Washington DC on both issues.</p>
<p>After the BRIC summit, President Hu had to return home to deal with the Tibet earthquake, but the Chinese delegation continued on to Venezuela as planned. The rabidly anti-American strongman President Hugo Chavez was <a href="http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/latest/story/0,4574,381863,00.html">offered</a> $20 billion in “soft loans” from the state-owned China Development Bank and a $16 billion investment package for oil development in the eastern Orinoco region. The loan will be paid back with increased oil exports to China. Venezuela has already increased oil shipments to China by 21% over the last year while cutting back exports to the U.S. Beijing’s strategy has been to lock up oil supplies rather than be dependent on a volatile world market where increasing demand is driving up prices.</p>
<p>Earlier in April, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-0403-venezuela-russia-20100403,0,4631128.story">traveled</a> to Venezuela and promised to help build a nuclear power plant. Putin also discussed arms sales and cooperation on a space program.</p>
<p>The coalition may expand further, as it has been suggested that Indonesia join both BRIC and BASIC.</p>
<p>The Obama administration seems asleep at the switch as new powers not only rise, but cooperate on strategic issues that directly target American interests. If the White House pushes Congress to adopt a crippling energy tax and other restrictions on domestic growth as a result of climate paranoia, the need to adopt universal mandates at the UN will be increased. Unilateral anti-growth policies by the U.S. would put American firms and workers at a terrible disadvantage in global competition. Yet, pushing for UN restrictions on the developing world to make stagnation more “symmetrical” will only make the BASIC-BRIC bloc stronger, with major negative consequences to U.S. security as well as to prosperity in the years to come.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/rising-world-powers-align/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alienating India</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/alienating-india/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=alienating-india</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/alienating-india/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 04:01:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american ally]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Asia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[basic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beijing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bonn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brazil]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bureaucratic language]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cancun]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cooperative partnership]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copenhagen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copenhagen conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[December]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[germany]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[greenhouse gas emissions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[India]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indian prime minister]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indian prime minister manmohan singh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international fora]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jairam ramesh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[manmohan singh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mexico]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minister Jairam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ministry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitigation actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEW DELHI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prime Minister Manmohan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prime minister manmohan singh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ramesh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Singh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[South Africa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sudan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tibet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wen jiabao]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Xinjiang]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=57268</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How bad American policy is pushing a strategic ally toward China. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/W020091026467167539030.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-57270" title="W020091026467167539030" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/W020091026467167539030.jpg" alt="" width="360" height="292" /></a></p>
<p>India has long been regarded as an American ally but a series of missteps by the United States may be driving a strategic American partner directly into China’s embrace. One sign of that comes from India’s ministry of defense, which released its annual <a href="http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=59945&amp;kwd=">report</a> last week. Cloaked in bureaucratic language is the highly significant revelation that relations between India and China have “generally progressed well in the last year based on their strategic and cooperative partnership” and that “there has been a convergence of views and actions on various issues of international fora.” This is bad news for the United States, but an outcome largely of its own making. Washington has needlessly provoked India on a vital issue, pushing New Delhi towards Beijing.</p>
<p>The American blunder has come over climate change policy at the United Nations, and reached its peak at the Copenhagen conference last December. Meeting in Beijing November 29, officials from Brazil, South  Africa, India and China (known as BASIC), and Sudan (chair of the Group of 77 developing countries) drafted a <a href="http://www.hindu.com/2009/11/29/stories/2009112954930800.htm">joint document</a> with four “non-negotiable” elements that would guide their behavior in Copenhagen. They would never accept legally binding greenhouse gas emissions cuts, mitigation actions that are not paid for by the developed countries, international (foreign) measurement of their mitigation actions, nor the use of climate change as a trade barrier by the developed countries. Having protected their economies from outside pressure, they would then insist that legally binding restrictions be imposed on the developed countries. As Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh stated, “BASIC countries are basic reality.</p>
<p>The BASIC-Group of 77 bloc deadlocked the UN conference, as the U.S. insisted that no agreement was possible without some mandates being imposed on all parties. As the summit neared its end, President Barack Obama barged into a private meeting between Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and demanded a compromise be reached. The resulting Accord did not impose mandates on any country, and thus should have diffused the confrontation. But the UN process continues, officially still based on conflict between the developed and developing nations over who will be required to make cuts. The next negotiating session is scheduled for April 9-11 in Bonn, Germany. It is likely two additional sessions will be scheduled before December when another large Copenhagen-style meeting is set for Cancun, Mexico.</p>
<p>If the Obama administration renews its push to impose mandatory emission controls on India and the other developing countries, it will push New Delhi even closer to Beijing. India understands that UN controls would be devastating to its economy, and its scientists are very skeptical about the entire climate change issue (as they should be). Washington must understand India’s position and back off, so the two countries can better cooperate on the much more important strategic interests which they share.</p>
<p>India and China may be allies at the UN, but they are rivals in Asia. The Indian ministry of defense report notes, “India also remains conscious and alert about the implications of China’s military modernisation….Rapid infrastructure development in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR) and Xinjiang province has considerably upgraded China’s military Force projection capability and strategic operational flexibility.” The MoD says that, “Necessary steps have been initiated for the upgradation of our infrastructure and force structuring …along the northern borders.” Tibet is a sour spot between India and China, as it has become between the U.S. and China. Beijing declared that relations with Washington have been “severely undermined” by the February meeting between President Obama and the Dalia Lama.</p>
<p>Tibet has historical and cultural links to India which have been severed by China’s occupation. India moved 60,000 additional troops to the border last summer, a deployment condemned by Beijing. An <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2009-06/436174.html">editorial</a> in the Communist Party’s publication <em>Global Times</em> stated, “The tough posture Singh’s new government has taken may win some applause among India’s domestic nationalists. But it is dangerous if it is based on a false anticipation that China will cave in.” The editorial went on in a very harsh tone,</p>
<blockquote><p>India is frustrated that China’s rise has captured much of the world’s attention. Proud of its “advanced political system,” India feels superior to China. However, it faces a disappointing domestic situation which is unstable compared with China’s.</p>
<p>India likes to brag about its sustainable development, but worries that it is being left behind by China. China is seen in India as both a potential threat and a competitor to surpass.</p>
<p>But India can’t actually compete with China in a number of areas, like international influence, overall national power and economic scale. India apparently has not yet realized this.</p></blockquote>
<p>The editorial also raised the specter of India joining with the United States and Japan in creating a “ring around China.” It is just such an alliance of Asian democracies that should be the objective of American diplomacy.</p>
<p>Washington and New   Delhi also have a common interest in defeating Islamic radicalism. The MoD reported favorably the deployment of more U.S. troops in Afghanistan, stating that “the security and stability of Afghanistan is critical to India’s own security concerns.” The use of Pakistan as a sanctuary for Islamic terrorist has been a concern of India since long before 9/11 because of attacks in Kashmir. A government in Islamabad that sees Islamic terror as a threat to its own security, rather than an opportunity to conduct proxy wars against its neighbors, is in both U.S. and Indian interests.</p>
<p>The MoD report says “all parameters of proxy war are at an all time low and the current situation indicated a shift towards normalcy and peace.” This is to a large extent due to American influence on Pakistan. The problem has not gone away completely, however, as the MoD notes, “The continued infiltrations across the LoC [Line of Control] and the existence of terrorist camps across the India-Pak border however, demonstrate the continuing ambivalence of Pakistan in its actions against terrorist organisations.”</p>
<p>American and Indian influence and pressure on Pakistan reinforces the efforts of both nations to keep a more moderate, democratic Islamabad focused on eradicating terrorist sanctuaries to avoid a wider war.</p>
<p>There is a China angle to this issue as well. Beijing has long counted Pakistan as an ally against India and has been happy to see tensions on India’s northwest frontier divert New Delhi’s military resources away from the Chinese front. Beijing continues to provide Pakistan with most of its armaments, including help with its missile and nuclear programs. The Chinese are completing a new deep-water port at Gwadar, where they have also helped to build a major new international airport. Beijing intends that the port will give their expanding navy access to the Indian Ocean and to the world’s key oil-shipping routes. The U.S. and India (as well as Japan) have a common strategic interest in preventing such an expansion of Chinese power.</p>
<p>A new year of UN negotiations on climate change should not be allowed to disrupt U.S.-Indian relations. The Accord reached last year was the best of all possible outcomes in what has been a fatally flawed process. The Accord should be interpreted as acknowledgement that all nations have the right to pursue economic and environmental policies in their own interests. It should be seen as the end of the UN madness about climate as a zero sum game of international conflict. Moving forward, the U.S. should build on its agreement with India to cooperate in the expansion of nuclear power on the subcontinent. This is a positive program that supports growth while also minimizing green house gas emissions for those who are concerned about such things.</p>
<p>Climate change is a chimera that can only detract from the real factors that will govern the balance of power in Asia and thus the evolution of international politics. Handing China an issue with which it can unite the developing world against the United States has been a mistake of the first order that must be put to an end.</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /> <input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /> <input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/alienating-india/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The China Dream</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-china-dream/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-china-dream</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-china-dream/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:02:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beijing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese communist party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[currency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[currency policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[currency reserve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Europe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exchange]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exchange rate policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global downturn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international currency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jeffrey Bader]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[March]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minister Yang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minister Yang Jiechi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NPC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[number]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Premier Wen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Premier Wen Jaibao]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public disagreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary of State Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taipei]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taiwan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taiwan Strait]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tehran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tibet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[track]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade deficit with china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[yuan currency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=54624</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Beijing’s rise can no longer be ignored.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/china.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-54633" title="china" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/china.jpg" alt="" width="450" height="314" /></a></p>
<p>The 3<sup>rd</sup> session of the 11th National People’s Congress (NPC) ended on March 14. The annual meeting of the faux legislative branch of the People’s Republic of China dictatorship met for less than two weeks, having only opened on March 5. At the closing press conference, Premier Wen Jaibao <a href="http://china.globaltimes.cn/day-photo/2010-03/512795.html">stated</a>, “Some say China has got more arrogant and tough. Some put forward the theory of China&#8217;s so-called &#8216;triumphalism&#8217;. My conscience is untainted despite slanders from outside.” He was referring to the increased public disagreements between China and the United States over a number of issues since the end of last year.</p>
<p>An issue Wen was particularly adamant about was one of long standing, the claim by officials, business leaders and economists in both America and Europe that the PRC has gained a trade advantage by setting a low exchange rate for its Yuan currency by government fiat. Despite the global downturn from the financial crisis and recession, China is expected to have a current account surplus of $450 billion this year. The U.S. trade deficit with China in 2009 in goods was $226.8 billion, and America has sent to the PRC over $1.7 trillion in deficits since 1999. China’s total international currency reserve from its surpluses is approaching $3 trillion.</p>
<p>Premier Wen denounced “finger pointing” in the currency manipulation controversy “A country&#8217;s exchange rate policy and its exchange rates should depend on its national economy and economic situation,&#8221; he said. G<em>lobal Times</em>, a publication of the ruling Chinese Communist Party, ran a<a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-03/511320.html"> commentary</a> attacking the Western media. The paper argued,</p>
<blockquote><p>“’It would be good for China,’ is a typical tone adopted to draw Chinese or international readers. But in reality, currency policy is so critical to China&#8217;s economy that a cautious approach must be taken. Any sharp appreciation will give rise to a series of negative chain reactions in employment, trade and many aspects of life.”</p></blockquote>
<p>It is clear how China sees its situation. But when other countries react to Chinese policy, Beijing officials denounce them for adopting “protectionism” as if only China has a right to defend its economic interests and pursue job creation and growth.</p>
<p>The heightened sense of confrontation between Beijing and Washington does not, however, stem from trade problems which have been a sore point for a decade. A number of other issues of a direct, strategic nature have become more prominent since December.</p>
<p>The Chinese list of problems is much shorter than the U.S. list. Beijing has protested the sale of $6.4 billion in military equipment to Taiwan and the meeting between President Barak Obama and the Dalai Lama. These events focused attention on Beijing’s threats against democratic Taiwan and its human rights abuses in Tibet.</p>
<p>Beijing has reacted most strongly to the arms sale even though the U.S. pulled its punch on the deal. The Taiwan package is defensive in nature, consisting mainly of utility helicopters, air defense missiles, and mine clearing ships. The U.S. did not fulfill Taipei’s request for more F-16 fighter-bombers which the island needs to contest air superiority over the Taiwan  Strait or attack a Chinese invasion fleet.</p>
<p>On the eve of the NPC, Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg and National Security Council Senior Director for Asian Affairs Jeffrey Bader were sent to Beijing to smooth relations. Their mission failed. In reporting on the visit, state-owned <em>China Daily</em> ran the banner <a href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010npc/2010-03/07/content_9549745.htm">headline</a> “U.S. urged to respect China&#8217;s core interests.”</p>
<p>That the United States sent envoys to make amends only confirmed Beijing’s wisdom in taking an assertive stance, confident that the Obama administration was looking for ways to appease Beijing. On March 7, three days after the American envoys left; Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi <a href="http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjb/wjbz/2467/t662388.htm">stated</a>,</p>
<blockquote><p>“The responsibility for the difficulties in China-U.S relations does not lie with China…. The United States should properly handle the relevant sensitive issues and work with the Chinese side to return China-US relationship to the track of stable development.”</p></blockquote>
<p>China has not acknowledged its own confrontational actions since December. Beijing has backed Tehran’s rejection of President Obama’s “open hand.” Even Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s claim that Iran is now a “nuclear state” has not lessened Chinese support. Minister Yang repeated China&#8217;s line at the NPC, “We don&#8217;t think diplomatic efforts have been exhausted.” Negotiations have been held since 2003 without stopping the advance of Iran’s nuclear and long-range missile programs. Beijing understands the process very well, and is happy with the results. A stronger, anti-American Iran is a strategic asset to China.</p>
<p>In her January 29 Paris speech, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “As we move away from the engagement track, which has not produced the result that some had hoped for, and move forward on the pressure and sanctions track, China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing impact that a nuclear-armed Iran would have.” <em>Global Times</em> <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-02/504906.html">replied</a> in a Feb 10 editorial, “China has economic stakes in Iran, and China is determined to protect its interest through diplomacy….. Some voices have recently surfaced in the Western media asking for isolating China on the issue. These voices are extremely shallow and ludicrous.”</p>
<p>Another game changer was the December UN climate conference in Copenhagen. President Obama experienced Chinese intransigence personally. A year-long effort to cooperate with Beijing turned into a nasty confrontation with the fate of the world economy in the balance. Leading the BASIC bloc (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China), Beijing demanded crippling restrictions on the U.S. economy while proclaiming its own freedom to do as it pleases in pursuit of growth. President Obama rejected the demand, and has since taken a harder line on matters of trade and competition. The conflict over climate policy (which has never been about the weather) will continue, as another UN conference is scheduled in Bonn next month.</p>
<p>If the Steinberg-Bader mission signaled that some factions in the Obama administration wants to return to the earlier engagement policy. Beijing will see this as a U.S. retreat due to a lack of will, and will press its own agenda harder.</p>
<p>A March 4 <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/commentary/2010-03/509829.html">commentary</a> in <em>Global Times</em>, written by Rong Xiaoqing, a Chinese journalist based in New York City, was entitled<strong> “</strong>American softness bodes poorly in competitive era.” Rong wrote of spoiled Americans “who whine about so much that they will find it difficult to cope with a world where nations like China, India and Brazil are becoming rivals.”</p>
<p>A current best seller in China is the book <em>The China Dream</em>, by People’s Liberation Army Colonel Liu Mingfu, a professor at the National Defense University. He <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200P620100301">urges</a> China to replace the America as the preeminent global power by building the world&#8217;s largest economy and using its wealth to expand military capabilities. &#8220;If China&#8217;s goal for military strength is not to pass the United States and Russia, then China is locking itself into being a third-rate military power,&#8221; he writes. A March 10 <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-03/511703.html">editorial</a> in <em>Global Times</em> tells “the world to be prepared for China&#8217;s first aircraft carrier…. China has the legitimate right to build up its naval force.” The editorial goes on to talk of aircraft carriers in the plural and “other advanced weapons.”</p>
<p>From its aggressive trade policy to its military buildup, and from its bloc politics at the UN to its support of rogue regimes around the world, Beijing’s rise is generating confrontations with American interests than can no longer be ignored.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-china-dream/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>60</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The New Cold War</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-new-cold-war/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-new-cold-war</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-new-cold-war/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:01:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ambassador]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ambassador Jon Huntsman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american initiative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attempt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beijing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bennett]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chinese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese ambassador]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[chinese vice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Communist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communist china]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copenhagen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dalai]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dalai Lama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[December]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[democratic island]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DoD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[draft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feb]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[February]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Foreign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign ministry spokesperson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[formal protest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[issue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John T. Bennett]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jon huntsman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[national sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear weapons program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offensive weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PRC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[province]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qdr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Quadrennial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[renegade province]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ruling communist party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sanctions against iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary of State Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary Robert Gate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taiwan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[territorial integrity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tibet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TIME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=51760</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why Chinese leaders believe they can stand up to America anywhere, anytime. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/us-china-yin-yang1.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-51769" title="us-china-yin-yang" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/us-china-yin-yang1.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="476" /></a></p>
<p>The People’s Republic of China has denounced the meeting of Tibet’s Dalai Lama with President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Feb.18. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu <a href="http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx/t659091.htm">said</a> the meetings:</p>
<blockquote><p>“have severely violated the basic norms governing international relations….The Chinese Government and people stand steadfast in their resolve to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Any attempt from any person to interfere in China&#8217;s internal affairs under the Dalai issue is doomed to failure.”</p></blockquote>
<p>For Beijing the issue is not just about the oppression in Tibet, but the Dalai Lama’s larger message that it is the responsibility of the outside world to bring Communist China into the mainstream of global democracy,</p>
<p>Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai called in U.S. Ambassador Jon Huntsman for what were called “solemn representations.” This was the second time in recent weeks that the ambassador has been summoned. The previous time was after the Obama administration announced on January 29 that it would fulfill the commitment made by the Bush administration to sell $6.4 billion worth of defensive arms to Taiwan. Beijing has massed offensive weapons opposite the democratic island. The PRC considers Taiwan to be a renegade province despite its de facto independence for over sixty years.</p>
<p>The U.S. did not summon the Chinese ambassador in Washington for a formal protest after Beijing blocked an American initiative to strengthen sanctions against Iran for its nuclear weapons program. As <em>Global Times</em>, an official publication of the ruling Communist Party, stated<em> </em>in a Feb 10 <a href="http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/editorial/2010-02/504906.html">editoria</a>l, “China has economic stakes in Iran, and China is determined to protect its interest through diplomacy.”</p>
<p>U.S.-PRC relations have soured steadily since the confrontation between the two powers at the UN Climate conference in Copenhagen in December. At that meeting, President Obama came face to face with Chinese intransigence and saw his year long attempt to cooperate with China come to nothing.</p>
<p>While the White House and State Department were rethinking engagement with China, the Defense Department was finishing its Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the blueprint for how the U.S. military will meet threats to national security. The February 8 issue of the weekly <em>Defense News</em> had a disturbing sidebar by John T. Bennett to its lead <a href="http://defensenews.com/story.php?i=4489193&amp;c=FEA&amp;s=CVS">story</a> about the QDR. Bennett reported,</p>
<blockquote><p>As the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review moved from a December draft to the February final version, Pentagon officials deleted several passages and softened others about China’s military buildup.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Gone is one passage, present in the Dec. 3 draft, declaring that “prudence requires” the United States prepare for “disruptive competition and conflict” with China.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Altered are passages about Russian arms sales to Beijing and China’s 2007 destruction of a low-orbit satellite.</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>Why the changes? One Pentagon official said department and Obama administration officials worried that harsh words might upset Chinese officials at a time when the United States and China are so economically intertwined.</p></blockquote>
<p>Trade policy is not, however, in the DoD’s province. It is more likely that the QDR reflects Secretary Robert Gate’s often articulated view that future wars will be like the current small, irregular combat in Afghanistan rather than large-scale conventional warfare against a rival nation-state.</p>
<p>In his joint <a href="http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1416">announcement</a> of the QDR and the 2011 budget on Feb. 2, Gates summarized his vision as, “Rebalanc[ing] our programs in order to institutionalize and enhance our ability to fight the wars we are in today, while at the same time providing a hedge against current and future risks and contingencies.” The “hedge” is not of sufficient concern to justify continuing programs like the F-22 air superiority fighter, or a capability to mount large-scale Marine amphibious assaults, or an expanded national missile defense system. Shipbuilding plans will also see the Navy continue to shrink, with an emphasis on smaller warships.</p>
<p>The QDR states, “successfully balancing requires that the Department make hard choices on the level of resources required as well as accepting and managing risk in a way that favors success in today’s wars.” Obviously, winning in Iraq and Afghanistan are the current top priorities, but Gates has also emphasized his desire to “institutionalize” DoD planning, meaning his vision of avoiding confrontations with a rising “peer competitor” like China or even a major regional power like Iran.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.defense.gov/qdr/QDR%20as%20of%2029JAN10%201600.pdf">QDR</a> did not completely ignore China, though the country was mentioned only a handful of times in 105 pages. Its most complete statement is on page 60.</p>
<blockquote><p>China’s military has begun to develop new roles, missions, and capabilities in support of its growing regional and global interests, which could enable it to play a more substantial and constructive role in international affairs. The United   States welcomes a strong, prosperous, and successful China that plays a greater global role. The United   States welcomes the positive benefits that can accrue from greater cooperation. However, lack of transparency and the nature of China’s military development and decision-making processes raise legitimate questions about its future conduct and intentions within Asia and beyond. Our relationship with China must therefore be multidimensional and undergirded by a process of enhancing confidence and reducing mistrust in a manner that reinforces mutual interests.</p></blockquote>
<p>A bit tougher review of China’s military buildup is on p. 31, before the ludicrous statement about welcoming the “constructive role” of a “strong, prosperous and successful China.”</p>
<blockquote><p>As part of its long-term, comprehensive military modernization, China is developing and fielding large numbers of advanced medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles, new attack submarines equipped with advanced weapons, increasingly capable long-range air defense systems, electronic warfare and computer network attack capabilities, advanced fighter aircraft, and counter-space systems. China has shared only limited information about the pace, scope, and ultimate aims of its military modernization programs, raising a number of legitimate questions regarding its long term intentions.</p></blockquote>
<p>The notion that American military leaders and defense analysts don’t know what Beijing is trying to do and need to find out more before determining if there is a danger is disingenuous. Every advanced weapon is being designed to attack and defeat U.S. forces. In Chinese documents, the new anti-ship ballistic missile being developed is shown in artwork as attacking U.S. aircraft carriers.</p>
<p>None of the issues currently roiling U.S.-PRC relations are new. What has changed over the last decade is the wealth and industrial power Chinese leaders now have at their command. Economic growth is being turned into diplomatic influence and military strength. President Hu Jintao built his career as a hard-liner and has centered his leadership position on a close alliance with the People’s Liberation Army. Looking at the turmoil in America, Chinese leaders believe that the balance of power is shifting and they can now stand up to America on issues across the board. Such a change, whether real or imagined, makes for a much more dangerous world whether the Pentagon wants to admit it or not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/the-new-cold-war/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dead-End Diplomacy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/dead-end-diplomacy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=dead-end-diplomacy</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/dead-end-diplomacy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Jan 2010 05:02:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William R. Hawkins]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atomic energy agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beijing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[board resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[china cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chinese]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cooperation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Loevinger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Deficit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[definition of diplomacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dialogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diplomatic efforts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic dialogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic sanctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enduring power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enrichment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enrichment facility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Executive Secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[form]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geithner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Henry Paulson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international atomic energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international atomic energy agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meaningful action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[model]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[North Korea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuclear enrichment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nuclear Weapons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OIL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[power]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rogue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sanctions on iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary of State Hillary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secretary Timothy Geithner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Strategic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tehran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TIME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Timothy Geithner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Treasury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treasury secretary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uranium enrichment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wall Street Journal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[year]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=46139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Obama administration allows China to block sanctions on Iran.  ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-46140" title="CHINA_Sco_1" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/CHINA_Sco_1.jpg" alt="CHINA_Sco_1" width="400" height="315" /></p>
<p>As Iran assumes an increasingly despotic form at home while expanding its pursuit of nuclear weapons, which the regime feels will be its ultimate guarantee of enduring power, the United States’ response is hampered both by the support Tehran receives from China, and by the conflicted views on U.S. policy toward China within the Obama administration.</p>
<p>On January 6, China <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6045E720100105">blocked a U.S. initiative to impose additional economic sanctions</a> on Iran through the UN Security Council. In New York, Chinese UN ambassador Zhang Yesui <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/05/AR2010010503427.html">announced</a> that “This is not the right time or right moment for sanctions because the diplomatic efforts are still going on.” The Chinese Foreign Ministry repeated this argument in Beijing this week. In fact, several different negotiating tracks have been going on since 2003. During that time, Iran has made steady progress in its weapons research.</p>
<p>Most recently, Tehran had missed the end of the year deadline set by President Obama to respond to his offer of carrots in exchange for halting its nuclear enrichment program. The Obama administration thought it had won a pledge from China to adopt a firmer stance on Iran after Beijing endorsed an International Atomic Energy Agency governing board resolution denouncing Tehran&#8217;s recently disclosed Qom uranium enrichment facility. But the November IAEA resolution did not provide for any meaningful action, and indeed it is such action against Iran that China wants to avoid. Beijing knows that words are cheap and can be uttered without meaning. That is its definition of diplomacy.</p>
<p>Thus, the New Year brought to naught the notion of U.S.-China cooperation on strategic issues that the Obama administration had launched during the summer. This is not how things were supposed to be. In a joint July <a href="http://treasury.gov/press/releases/tg234.htm">op-ed</a> in <em>The Wall Street Journal</em>, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner described the “New Strategic and Economic Dialogue” with China that would take place later that month. The S&amp;ED was an expansion of the Strategic Economic Dialogue (SED) started by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the Bush administration. It was designed to put control of China policy in his department’s hands. As CEO of Goldman Sachs, Paulson had been deeply involved in financial deals with China and did not want to rock the boat.</p>
<p>The new Obama arrangement brought the State Department (but not the Pentagon) into the diplomatic process. In theory, the S&amp;ED would balance the business interests that had dominated China policy with a true strategic element that could look at what Beijing was doing with the capital, technology and production capacity that the business model had given it. The core concept remained, however, to forge “a positive, cooperative and comprehensive relationship with Beijing” as it expanded into a global power. As Clinton and Geithner wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Simply put, few global problems can be solved by the U.S. or China alone. And few can be solved without the U.S. and China together…..the solution to nonproliferation challenges turn in large measure on cooperation between the U.S. and China.”</p></blockquote>
<p>There was no mention of North Korea or Iran by name in regard to nuclear proliferation, but it has been clear for many years that Washington is reluctant to press Beijing on issues like the trade deficit because it wants Chinese help controlling the rogue states that Beijing supports. At the same time, though, the U.S. is afraid to press China too hard on the rogue states out of fear of retaliation against American business interests.</p>
<p>In his testimony to the Senate and House foreign relations committees last October, David Loevinger, the Treasury’s Executive Secretary and Senior Coordinator for China Affairs &amp; the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, <a href="http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg292.htm">said</a>, “We will continue to encourage the Chinese to strengthen efforts to counter the threat of North Korea and Iran&#8217;s nuclear weapons program.” But that was his only mention of non-proliferation efforts in his long, prepared statement that concentrated on the Chinese business model of recycling the U.S. trade deficit into purchases of mounting Treasury debt.</p>
<p>While Beijing has been blocking actions by others against Iran, its aid to Tehran have been increasing. China-Iran trade reached $29 billion 2008, a nearly 40 percent increase over 2007. China imports oil from Iran and pays for it with exports of manufactured goods and equipment. Over 100 state-owned Chinese corporations operate in Iran, with investments concentrated on energy development (both oil and natural gas) and infrastructure construction, including dams, airfields, shipyards, and ports. China is mining titanium and planning new rail lines. Beijing is undermining UN and U.S. sanctions rather than being held accountable. China is being allowed to profit from its policy rather than being made to pay a price for supporting Tehran.</p>
<p>This seems unlikely to change. The Treasury, with its business model of foreign relations, still seems in charge of China policy. The Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control is responsible for enforcing the sanctions on Iran and on those who do business with the Tehran regime, yet current economic sanctions on Iran are not even being enforced when it comes to Chinese firms trading in the United States. According to a recent <em>Wall Street Journal </em><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126256626983914249.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">report</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Chinese companies banned from doing business in the U.S. for allegedly selling missile technology to Iran continue to do a brisk trade with American companies, according to an analysis of shipping records.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Of particular note was state-owned China Precision Machinery Import-Export Corp., which made nearly 300 illegal shipments to U.S. firms since a ban was imposed on CPMIEC and its affiliates in mid-2006. The <em>WSJ</em> reported:</p>
<blockquote><p>“The CPMIEC shipments, worth millions of dollars, include everything from anchors and drilling equipment to automobile parts and toys. In many cases, CPMIEC acted as a shipping intermediary &#8212; activity also banned under a 2006 presidential order.”</p></blockquote>
<p>President Obama continues to say that it would be unacceptable for Iran to develop a nuclear weapons capability. But the policy of relying on China to constrain Tehran is as much a failure today as it was during the Bush Administration. A large factor in that failure over the last seven years has been to trust the Treasury Department to get the job done. The Iran threat and its Chinese sponsor are national security issues and should be entrusted to departments that have national security as their prime function. In the end, it will likely be the Pentagon that will have to settle the score.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2010/william-r-hawkins/dead-end-diplomacy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1721/1767 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 08:04:06 by W3 Total Cache -->