China

Subterms

    More stories

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      Biden’s New Culture of Brinkmanship

      by

      Taiwan is a problem. Historically separate from but linked to China, Taiwan was colonized by the Dutch and partially by the Spanish in the 17th century. Through a series of conflicts between aboriginal forces allied with the Ming dynasty and European colonial forces who also fought amongst themselves, by 1683, Taiwan became integrated into the Qing Empire. For two centuries, it evolved to become increasingly an integral part of China. In 1895, due to its strategic position on the eastern coast of China at the entry of the South China Sea, it became one of the spoils of the Sino-Japanese war and for half a century was ruled by the Japanese.

      Japan used Taiwan during the Second World War as the launching pad for its aggressive operations in Southeast Asia. At the end of the war, with the Japanese defeated and Mao Zedong’s communists in control of mainland China, Mao’s rival, Chiang Kai-shek, the leader of the Kuomintang, fled to Taiwan. This put the dissident government out of Mao’s reach. Chiang declared his government the Republic of China (ROC) in opposition to Mao’s People’s Republic of China (PRC). For forty years a single-party regime ruled Taiwan following Chiang Kai-shek’s initial declaration of martial law in 1949.

      Macron Promotes Fraternity in the Middle East

      READ MORE

      Because the United States had defined its post-war identity as anti-communist, Taiwan held the status of the preferred national government in what was then referred to as “the free world.” The fate of Taiwan — still referred to by its Portuguese name, Formosa — figured as a major foreign policy issue in the 1960 US presidential campaign that pitted John F. Kennedy against Richard Nixon. The debate turned around whether the US should commit to defending against the People’s Republic two smaller islands situated between continental China and Taiwan.

      In short, Taiwan’s history and geopolitical status over the past 150 years have become extremely complex. There are political, economic and geographical considerations as well as ideological and geopolitical factors that make it even more complex. These have been aggravated by a visible decline in the supposed capacity of the United States to impose and enforce solutions in different parts of the globe and the rise of China’s influence in the global economy.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Complexity, when applied to politics, generally signifies ambiguity. In the aftermath of the Korean War, the Eisenhower administration established a policy based on the idea of backing Taiwan while seriously hedging their bets. Writing for The Diplomat, Dennis Hickey explains that in 1954, the US “deliberately sought to ‘fuzz up’ the security pact [with Taiwan] in such a way that the territories covered by the document were unclear.”

      Following President Nixon’s historic overture in 1971, the US established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. This led to the transfer of China’s seat at the United Nations from the ROC to Mao’s PRC. The status of Taiwan was now inextricably ambiguous. US administrations, already accustomed to “fuzzy” thinking, described their policy approach as “strategic ambiguity.” It allowed them to treat Taiwan as an ally without recognizing it as an independent state. The point of such an attitude is what R. Nicolas Burns — President Joe Biden’s still unconfirmed pick for the post of US ambassador to China — calls “the smartest and most effective way” to avoid war.

      Recent events indicate that we may be observing a calculated shift in that policy. In other words, the ambiguity is becoming more ambiguous. Or, depending on one’s point of view, less ambiguous. There is a discernible trend toward the old Cold War principle of brinkmanship. A not quite prepared President Biden recently embarrassed himself in a CNN Town Hall for stating that the US had a “commitment” to defend Taiwan. The White House quickly walked back that commitment, reaffirming the position of strategic ambiguity.

      This week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken appeared to be pushing back in the other direction, threatening the Chinese with “terrible consequences” if they make any move to invade Taiwan. Blinken added, the Taipei Times reports, that the US has “been very clear and consistently clear” in its commitment to Taiwan. 

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Consistently clear:

      In normal use, unambiguous. In diplomatic use, obviously muddied and murky, but capable of being transformed by an act of assertive rhetoric into the expression of a bold-sounding intention that eliminates nuance, even when nuance remains necessary for balance and survival.

      Contextual note

      If Donald Trump’s administration projected a foreign policy based on fundamentally theatrical melodrama that consisted of calling the leader of a nuclear state “rocket man” and dismissing most of the countries of the Global South as “shitholes,” while accusing allies of taking advantage of the US, the defining characteristic of the now ten-months-old Biden administration’s foreign policy appears to be the commitment to the old 1950s Cold War stance known as brinkmanship.

      Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

      In November, the CIA director, William Burns, comically threatened Russia with “consequences” if it turned out — despite a total lack of evidence — that Vladimir Putin’s people were the perpetrators of a series of imaginary attacks popularly called the Havana syndrome. This week, backing up Biden’s warning “of a ‘strong’ Western economic response” to a Russian invasion of Ukraine, Security Adviser Jake Sullivan was more specific. “One target,” France 24 reports, “could be Russia’s mammoth Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline to Germany. Sullivan said the pipeline’s future was at ‘risk’ if Russia does invade Ukraine.” This may have been meant more to cow the Europeans, whose economy depends on Russian gas, than the Russians themselves.

      These various examples have made observers wonder what is going on, what the dreaded “consequences” repeatedly evoked may look like and what other further consequences they may provoke. The US administration seems to be recycling the nostalgia of members of Biden’s own generation, hankering after what their memory fuzzily associates with the prosperous years of the original Cold War.

      Historical Note

      Britannica defines brinkmanship as the “foreign policy practice in which one or both parties force the interaction between them to the threshold of confrontation in order to gain an advantageous negotiation position over the other. The technique is characterized by aggressive risk-taking policy choices that court potential disaster.”

      The term brinkmanship was coined by Dwight Eisenhower’s Democratic opponent in both of his elections, Adlai Stevenson, who dared to mock Secretary of State John Foster Dulles when he celebrated the principle of pushing things to the brink. “The ability to get to the verge,” Dulles explained, “without getting into the war is the necessary art…if you are scared to go to the brink, you are lost.” Eisenhower’s successor, John F. Kennedy, inherited the consequences of Dulles’ brinkmanship over Cuba, the nation that John Foster’s brother, CIA Director Alan Dulles, insisted on invading only months after Kennedy’s inauguration. This fiasco was a prelude to the truly frightening Cuban missile crisis in October 1962, when Kennedy’s generals, led by Curtis Lemay, sought to bring the world to the absolute brink.

      When, two years later, Lyndon Johnson set a hot war going in Vietnam, or when, decades later, George W. Bush triggered a long period of American military aggression targeting multiple countries in the Muslim world, the policy of brinkmanship was no longer in play. These proxy wars were calculated as bets that fell far short of the brink. The risk was limited to what, unfortunately, it historically turned out to be: a slow deterioration of the capacities and the image of a nation that was ready to abuse its power in the name of abstract principles — democracy, liberation, stifling terrorism, promoting women’s rights — that none of the perpetrators took seriously. Threats and sanctions were features of the daily rhetoric, but the idea at the core of brinkmanship — that some major, uncontrollable conflagration might occur — was never part of the equation.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The Biden administration may have serious reasons for returning to the policy of brinkmanship. The position of the United States on the world stage has manifestly suffered. Some hope it can be restored and believe it would require strong medicine. But there are also more trivial reasons: notably the fear of the administration being mocked by Republicans for being weak in the face of powerful enemies. 

      Both motivations signal danger. We may once again be returning to the devastating brinkman’s game logic illustrated in Stanley Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove.”

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      China dice que es una democracia, antes de la cumbre de Biden

      by

      Pekín argumenta que su sistema representa una forma peculiar de democracia, una que ha manejado mejor que Occidente algunos desafíos como la pandemia.PEKÍN — Mientras que el presidente Joe Biden se prepara para ser el anfitrión de una “cumbre para la democracia” esta semana, China contratacó con la afirmación inverosímil de que también es una democracia.Sin importar que el Partido Comunista de China gobierna a los 1400 millones de habitantes del país sin ninguna tolerancia con los partidos de oposición, ni que su líder Xi Jinping ascendió al poder a través de un proceso político turbio sin elecciones populares, ni que pedir públicamente la instalación de una democracia en China conlleva severos castigos, a menudo con largas sentencias de prisión.“No hay un modelo fijo de democracia; se manifiesta de muchas formas” argumentó en un documento publicado el fin de semana el Consejo Estatal, el máximo órgano del gobierno de China. El documento se titulaba: “China: democracia que funciona”.Es poco probable que cualquier país democráctico quede persuadido por el modelo chino. Bajo cualquier estándar, excepto el suyo propio, China es uno de los países menos democráticos del mundo, y se ubica cerca del final de los ránkings de libertades políticas y personales.Sin embargo, el gobierno está contando con que su mensaje encontrará una audiencia en algunos países que están desilusionados con la democracia liberal o las críticas hacia el liderazgo de Estados Unidos, ya sea en América Latina, África o Asia, incluida China.Funcionarios en una rueda de prensa en la Oficina de Información del Consejo del Estado en Pekín el sábadoMark Schiefelbein/Associated Press“Quieren cuidarse la retaguardia, estar a la defensiva, lo que llaman una democracia occidental”, dijo Jean-Pierre Cabestan, politólogo de la Universidad Bautista de Hong Kong.El documento de China sobre la democracia fue la iniciativa más reciente en una campaña que durante semanas ha intentado socavar la cumbre virtual de Biden, que inicia el jueves.En discursos, artículos y videos en la televisión estatal, los funcionarios han aplaudido lo que definen como la democracia al estilo chino. Al mismo tiempo, Pekín ha criticado la democracia estadounidense como particularmente deficiente, buscando perjudicar la autoridad moral del gobierno de Biden, que se esfuerza por unir a Occidente para contrarrestar a China.Get Ready for the 2022 Beijing Winter OlympicsJust a few months after Tokyo, the Olympics will start again in Beijing on Feb. 4. Here is what you need to know:A Guide to the Sports: From speedskating to monobob, here’s a look at every sport that will be contested at the 2022 Winter Games.Diplomatic Boycott: The U.S. will not send government officials to Beijing in a boycott to pressure China for human rights abuses.Covid Preparations: With a “closed-loop” bubble, a detailed health plan and vaccination requirements, the Games will be heavily restricted.The Fashion Race: Canada partnered with Lululemon for its Olympic kit, and a Black-owned athleisure brand will outfit Team Nigeria.“La democracia no es un adorno que se usa como decoración; se usa para resolver problemas que el pueblo quiere solucionar”, dijo Xi en la reunión de altos líderes del Partido Comunista en octubre, según reportó la agencia de noticias estatal Xinhua. (En el mismo discurso, ridiculizó los “aspavientos” que se les da a los votantes durante las elecciones y afirmó que los votantes tienen poca influencia de nuevo hasta la siguiente campaña).El domingo, la cancillería emitió otro informe que criticaba la política estadounidense por lo que describía como la influencia corruptora del dinero, la polarización social que se intensifica y la injusticia inherente en el Colegio Electoral. Del mismo modo, los funcionarios buscaron minimizar el anuncio de la Casa Blanca de que ningún funcionario estadounidense acudirá a las Olimpiadas de Invierno en Pekín en febrero al decir que, de todos modos, ninguno estaba invitado. Un periodista tomaba una copia de “Democracia que funciona”, el informe producido por el gobierno en los momentos previos a una rueda de prensa en la Oficina de Información del Consejo de Estado en Pekín, el sábado.Mark Schiefelbein/Associated PressLa ofensiva propagandística de China ha producido sorprendentes declaraciones sobre la naturaleza fundamental del régimen del Partido Comunista y la superioridad de su modelo político y social. También insinúa que Pekín podría sentir inseguridad sobre el modo en que su gobierno es percibido en el mundo.“El hecho de que el régimen sienta que debe justificar consistentemente su sistema político en términos de democracia es un poderoso reconocimiento del simbolismo y la legitimidad que contiene el concepto”, dijo Sarah Cook, una analista que cubre China para Freedom House, un grupo de defensa en Washington.Cuando los funcionarios presentaron el documento del gobierno el domingo, parecían competir por quién lograba decir “democracia” con más frecuencia y al mismo tiempo enturbiaron la definición del vocablo.El sistema de China “ha alcanzado democracia de proceso y democracia de resultados, democracia procedimental y democracia sustancial, democracia directa y democracia indirecta y la unidad de la democracia del pueblo y la voluntad del país”, comentó Xu Lin, subdirector del departamento de propaganda del Comité Central del Partido Comunista.La campaña hace recordar la rivalidad entre Estados Unidos y la Unión Soviética, que durante décadas lucharon por demostrar las ventajas de sus sistemas políticos, dijo Charles Parton, especialista en China en el Instituto Royal United Services, un grupo de investigación británico.Altos funcionarios del Partido Comunista de China en una reunión de noviembre en PekínYan Yan/Xinhua vía Associated Press“Están, de cierto modo, más aplicados en la competencia ideológica, y esto remite a la Guerra Fría”, dijo Parton, refiriéndose a China.La cumbre de democracia de Biden, que funcionarios de su gobierno han dicho que no está directamente enfocada en China, también ha enfrentado críticas, tanto de Occidente como de China, en parte por los que fueron invitados y por los que no.Angola, Irak y Congo, países que Freedom House clasifica como no democráticos, participarán, mientras que no lo harán dos aliados de la OTAN, Turquía y Hungría.La Casa Blanca, en una medida que probablemente enfurecerá a Pekín, también invitó a dos funcionarios de Taiwán, la democracia isleña que China reivindica como propia; y a Nathan Law, un exlegislador en el territorio semiautónomo de Hong Kong que solicitó asilo en Reino Unido tras la represión de China.En el centro de la defensa de Pekín de su sistema político se encuentran varios argumentos clave, algunos más plausibles que los demás.Los funcionarios mencionan las elecciones que se realizan en los barrios o municipios para elegir representantes para el más bajo de los cinco niveles de legislaturas. Dichas votaciones, sin embargo, son bastante coreografiadas y cualquier candidato que potencialmente pudiera estar en desacuerdo con el Partido Comunista enfrenta acoso o algo peor.Una protesta contra las nuevas leyes de seguridad en en Causeway Bay, Hong Kong, en mayo de 2020Lam Yik Fei para The New York TimesLas legislaturas luego eligen a los delegados para el siguiente nivel, hasta el Congreso Nacional del Pueblo, un cuerpo parlamentario con casi 3000 integrantes que cada primavera se reúne para aprobar las decisiones que el liderazgo del partido toma a puerta cerrada.Cuando Xi impulsó una enmienda constitucional para retirar los límites temporales a la presidencia —lo que le permite gobernar indefinidamente— la votación, realizada de forma secreta, fue de 2958 a 2.China también ha acusado a Estados Unidos de imponer valores occidentales en otras culturas, un argumento que podría encontrar eco en regiones donde ambas potencias compiten por influencia.El embajador de China en Estados Unidos, Qin Gang, se unió recientemente a su homólogo ruso, Anatoly Antonov, para denunciar la cumbre de Biden como hipócrita y hegemónica. En un texto que firmaron en The National Interest, una revista conservadora, aludieron al apoyo otorgado a los movimientos democráticos en países autoritarios que se conocieron como “revoluciones de color”.“Ningún país tiene derecho a juzgar el vasto y variado paisaje político con la misma vara”, escribieron.Al señalar las formas en que las sociedades estadounidense y occidentales se han visto azotadas por divisiones políticas, sociales y raciales y obstaculizadas por la pandemia de coronavirus, China también argumenta que su forma de gobierno ha sido más eficaz para crear prosperidad y estabilidad.Trabajadores sanitarios durante una alerta de covid en Wuhan, China, en eneroGilles Sabrie para The New York TimesLos funcionarios a menudo observan que China ha logrado más de cuatro décadas de crecimiento económico rápido. Y, más recientemente, ha contenido el brote de coronavirus que inició en Wuhan, con menos muertes en toda la pandemia que los que algunos países han registrado en un solo día.Los escépticos rechazan el argumento de que esos éxitos convierten a China en una democracia.Señalan sondeos como el realizado por la Universidad de Würzburg en Alemania, que ranquea a los países según variables como independencia del poder judicial, libertad de prensa e integridad de las elecciones. El más reciente pone a China cerca del final entre 176 países. Solo Arabia Saudita, Yemen, Corea del Norte y Eritrea están más abajo en la lista. Dinamarca está en primer lugar y Estados Unidos en el puesto 36.En China, el Partido Comunista controla los tribunales y censura fuertemente a los medios de comunicación. Ha suprimido la cultura y el idioma tibetanos, ha restringido la libertad religiosa y ha implementado una amplia campaña de detenciones en Sinkiang.Es más, la enérgica defensa de China de su sistema en los últimos meses no ha hecho nada para moderar el enjuiciamiento de la disidencia.Se espera que dos de los más afamados abogados de derechos humanos, Xu Zhiyong y Ding Jiaxi, enfrenten juicio a finales de este año, acusados de haber pedido mayores libertades civiles, según Jerome Cohen, profesor de derecho que se especializa en China en la Universidad de Nueva York. Una empleada china de Bloomberg News en Pekín hasta el martes llevaba un año detenida sin que se supiera cuáles eran las acusaciones en su contraEn el gobierno de Xi, los intelectuales chinos tienen más precauciones al expresarse que en cualquier otro momento desde la muerte de Mao en 1976.“Este es un momento extraordinario en la experiencia china”, dijo Cohen. “De verdad pienso que aplica la definición de totalitarismo”.Keith Bradsher More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Ahead of Biden’s Democracy Summit, China Says: We’re Also a Democracy

      by

      Beijing argues that its system represents a distinctive form of democracy, one that has dealt better than the West with challenges like the pandemic.BEIJING — As President Biden prepares to host a “summit for democracy” this week, China has counterattacked with an improbable claim: It’s a democracy, too.No matter that the Communist Party of China rules the country’s 1.4 billion people with no tolerance for opposition parties; that its leader, Xi Jinping, rose to power through an opaque political process without popular elections; that publicly calling for democracy in China is punished harshly, often with long prison sentences.“There is no fixed model of democracy; it manifests itself in many forms,” the State Council, China’s top governing body, argued in a position paper it released over the weekend titled “China: Democracy That Works.”It is unlikely that any democratic country will be persuaded by China’s model. By any measure except its own, China is one of the least democratic countries in the world, sitting near the bottom of lists ranking political and personal freedoms.Even so, the government is banking on its message finding an audience in some countries disillusioned by liberal democracy or by American-led criticism — whether in Latin America, Africa or Asia, including in China itself.Officials attending a news conference at the State Council Information Office in Beijing on Saturday.Mark Schiefelbein/Associated Press“They want to put on a back foot, put on the defensive, what they refer to as Western democracy,” said Jean-Pierre Cabestan, a political scientist at Hong Kong Baptist University.China’s paper on democracy was the latest salvo in a weekslong campaign seeking to undercut Mr. Biden’s virtual gathering, which begins on Thursday.In speeches, articles and videos on state television, officials have extolled what they call Chinese-style democracy. At the same time, Beijing has criticized democracy in the United States in particular as deeply flawed, seeking to undermine the Biden administration’s moral authority as it works to rally the West to counter China.Get Ready for the 2022 Beijing Winter OlympicsJust a few months after Tokyo, the Olympics will start again in Beijing on Feb. 4. Here is what you need to know:A Guide to the Sports: From speedskating to monobob, here’s a look at every sport that will be contested at the 2022 Winter Games.Diplomatic Boycott: The U.S. will not send government officials to Beijing in a boycott to pressure China for human rights abuses.Covid Preparations: With a “closed-loop” bubble, a detailed health plan and vaccination requirements, the Games will be heavily restricted.The Fashion Race: Canada partnered with Lululemon for its Olympic kit, and a Black-owned athleisure brand will outfit Team Nigeria.“Democracy is not an ornament to be used for decoration; it is to be used to solve the problems that the people want to solve,” Mr. Xi said at a gathering of top Communist Party leaders in October, according to Xinhua, the state news agency. (In the same address, he ridiculed the “song and dance” that voters are given during elections, contending that voters have little influence until the next campaign.)On Sunday, the foreign ministry released another report that criticized American politics for what it described as the corrupting influence of money, the deepening social polarization and the inherent unfairness of the Electoral College. In the same way, officials later sought to play down the White House announcement that no American officials would attend the Winter Olympics in Beijing in February by saying none had been invited anyway.A journalist takes a copy of a Chinese government-produced report titled “Democracy that Works” before a news conference at the State Council Information Office in Beijing on Saturday.Mark Schiefelbein/Associated PressChina’s propaganda offensive has produced some eyebrow-raising claims about the fundamental nature of Communist Party rule and the superiority of its political and social model. It also suggests that Beijing may be insecure about how it is perceived by the world.“The fact that the regime feels the need to consistently justify its political system in terms of democracy is a powerful acknowledgment of the symbolism and legitimacy that the term holds,” said Sarah Cook, an analyst who covers China for Freedom House, an advocacy group in Washington.When officials introduced the government’s policy paper on Saturday, they seemed to compete over who could mention “democracy” more often, while muddying the definition of the word.China’s system “has achieved process democracy and outcome democracy, procedural democracy and substantive democracy, direct democracy and indirect democracy, and the unity of people’s democracy and the will of the country,” said Xu Lin, deputy director of the Communist Party Central Committee’s propaganda department. The campaign carries echoes of the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union, which sparred for decades over the merits of their political systems, said Charles Parton, a China specialist at the Royal United Services Institute, a British research group.Senior Communist Party officials at a meeting in November in Beijing. Yan Yan/Xinhua, via Associated Press“They are more keen, in a way, on an ideological competition, and that takes you back to the Cold War,” Mr. Parton said, referring to China.Mr. Biden’s democracy summit, which administration officials have said is not explicitly focused on China, has also faced criticism, in the West as well as from China, in part for whom it invited and whom it left out.Angola, Iraq and Congo, countries that Freedom House classifies as undemocratic, will participate, while two NATO allies, Turkey and Hungary, will not. In a move likely to anger Beijing, the White House also invited two officials from Taiwan, the island democracy China claims as its own; and Nathan Law, a former legislator in the semiautonomous territory of Hong Kong who sought asylum in Britain after China’s crackdown.At the heart of Beijing’s defense of its political system are several core arguments, some more plausible than others.Officials cite the elections that are held in townships or neighborhoods to select representatives to the lowest of five levels of legislatures. Those votes, however, are highly choreographed, and any potential candidates who disagree with the Communist Party face harassment or worse.People in Causeway Bay, Hong Kong, protesting new security laws in May 2020.Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesThe legislatures then each choose delegates for the next level, up to the National People’s Congress, a parliamentary body with nearly 3,000 members that meets each spring to rubber-stamp decisions made behind closed doors by the party leadership.When Mr. Xi pushed through a constitutional amendment removing term limits on the presidency — effectively allowing him to rule indefinitely — the vote, by secret ballot, was 2,958 to 2.China has also accused the United States of imposing Western values on other cultures, an argument that might resonate in regions where the two powers are competing for influence.China’s ambassador to the United States, Qin Gang, recently joined his Russian counterpart, Anatoly Antonov, to denounce Mr. Biden’s summit as hypocritical and hegemonic. Writing in The National Interest, the conservative magazine, they alluded to support for democratic movements in authoritarian countries that became known as “color revolutions.”“No country has the right to judge the world’s vast and varied political landscape by a single yardstick,” they wrote.Pointing to the ways that American and other Western societies have been torn by political, social and racial divisions and hobbled by the coronavirus pandemic, China is also arguing that its form of governance has been more effective in creating prosperity and stability.Health workers during a Covid alert in Wuhan, China in January.Gilles Sabrie for The New York TimesAs officials often note, China has achieved more than four decades of rapid economic growth. More recently, it has contained the coronavirus outbreak that began in Wuhan, with fewer deaths throughout the pandemic than some countries have had in a single day.Skeptics reject the argument that such successes make China a democracy.They cite surveys like the one done by the University of Würzburg in Germany, which ranks countries based on variables like independence of the judiciary, freedom of the press and integrity of elections. The most recent put China near the bottom among 176 countries. Only Saudi Arabia, Yemen, North Korea and Eritrea rank lower. Denmark is first; the United States 36th.In China, the Communist Party controls the courts and heavily censors the media. It has suppressed Tibetan culture and language, restricted religious freedom and carried out a vast detention campaign in Xinjiang.What’s more, China’s vigorous defense of its system in recent months has done nothing to moderate its prosecution of dissent.Two of China’s most prominent human rights lawyers, Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi, are expected to face trial at the end of this year on charges that they called for more civil liberties, according to Jerome Cohen, a law professor specializing in China at New York University. A Chinese employee of Bloomberg News in Beijing has remained in detention for a year, as of Tuesday, with almost no word about the accusations against her.Under Mr. Xi’s rule, intellectuals are now warier of speaking their minds in China than at practically any time since Mao Zedong died in 1976.“This is an extraordinary time in the Chinese experience,” Mr. Cohen said. “I really think that the totalitarianism definition applies.”A police officer in 2020 walking past placards of detained rights activists taped on the fence of the Chinese liaison office in Hong Kong protesting Beijing’s detention of Xu Zhiyong, the prominent anti-corruption activist.Isaac Lawrence/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesKeith Bradsher More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view of US foreign policy: the case for democratic dominance | Editorial

      by

      The Guardian view of US foreign policy: the case for democratic dominanceEditorialChina will be the ghost at the gathering of America’s allies next month Joe Biden’s foreign policy doctrine views the future relationship between democracies and authoritarian regimes as a competitive one, accompanied by a battle of narratives. Nondemocratic regimes have become brazen in their repression and many democratic governments have regressed by adopting their tactics of restricting free speech and weakening the rule of law. The US, under Donald Trump, was not immune to such trends. One European thinktank warned last week that there remains a risk that the US could slip into authoritarianism.The Biden administration has announced the first of two virtual “summits for democracy” next month to bring together government, civil society and business leaders from more than 100 nations. This might seem a bit rich, given America’s history of befriending dictators and overthrowing elected leaders it did not like. Invitations have gone out to a group so broad it includes liberal democracies, weak democracies and states with authoritarian characteristics. Mr Biden deserves a cheer for seeking a renewal of democracy, asking attendees to reflect on their record of upholding human rights and fighting corruption.The world faces a return to great-power politics, where global rules take a backseat to historical spheres of influence. Russia’s menacing of Ukraine is a case in point. No one would choose this situation, but democracies have to face it. As the EU has noted, the high seas, space and the internet are increasingly contested domains. Mr Biden is a realist. He is prepared to cooperate with countries from Poland to the Philippines, where democracy has been going backward, to deter Moscow and Beijing. The world is also not black and white. India, a troubled democracy, watered down this month’s final Cop26 communique, backed by autocratic China.Beijing is the ghost at the US democracy-fest, a fact underlined by Mr Biden’s invite to Taiwan. Sino-US relations can be competitive, but not so fevered that neither can work together. Vaccine nationalism was a warning about how soft power could be weaponised. It’d be wrong to rationalise US actions by demonising its rivals. China’s alternative economic and political system does not make conflict inevitable, though Beijing’s sabre rattling and US defence spending makes it harder to dodge. This month’s videocall between US and Chinese presidents suggested their nations were lorries speeding along the highway of international relations and in need of a crash barrier.New rules of the road are essential in trade where Mr Biden has continued Mr Trump’s tariff hikes on Chinese exports. The US has seen a backlash to the economic upheaval induced by trade openness that should have been dealt with by redistributive policies. In their absence, the result was runaway US inequality and a richer, unequal China. Mr Biden argues he is making the economy work for ordinary Americans, and so helping recover their belief in democracy. Yet, without reform of global trade rules the benefits of higher US wages will flow largely to nations like China that suppress household income. In response, Mr Biden seeks coalitions with democratic allies to replace the current model of liberalisation. The Chinese historian Qin Hui contends that on the left globalisation is as popular in China as it is unpopular in the west. Prof Qin suggests that Chinese concern over growing inequality should be allayed by political reform so workers can strengthen their bargaining position. This seems a remote possibility. China has grown wealthy without becoming more democratic. Prof Qin’s views may resonate in Washington, but they strike the wrong note in Beijing, which has previously banned his work, and prefers instead slogans signalling a crackdown on high incomes. Mr Biden sees, both at home and abroad, democratic values under attack. The US president has identified the challenge. The hard part is to meet it.TopicsJoe BidenOpinionUS politicsUS foreign policyChinaeditorialsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Biden-Xi virtual summit: Biden says US and China must 'not veer into conflict' – video

      by

      US president Joe Biden has told Chinese leader Xi Jinping that he hoped to have a candid conversation about human rights and security issues as the two began a meeting meant to lower tensions between the two global superpowers. Biden added that the two leaders must make sure their relations do not veer into open conflict, including by installing ‘common sense’ guardrails. Biden spoke with Xi over a video conference as the two leaders engaged in their most extensive talks since Biden became president in January. Xi said the two sides must increase communication and cooperation to solve the many challenges they face.

      Biden-Xi virtual summit: US president warns nations must not ‘veer into open conflict’ More

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Xi Jinping expected in talks to tell Joe Biden to ‘step back’ on Taiwan

      by

      Xi Jinping expected in talks to tell Joe Biden to ‘step back’ on TaiwanWar of words begins before leaders’ meeting, with US president warned Taiwan is China’s ‘ultimate red line’ China’s president, Xi Jinping, is expected to warn his US counterpart, Joe Biden, to “step back” on the Taiwan issue in their first virtual meeting on Monday evening Washington time, according to Chinese state media.State media outlets such as China Daily are briefed by authorities on important issues such as China-US relations and have been accurate in reflecting the priorities of Chinese leaders.“The Taiwan question is the ultimate red line of China,” said a Monday editorial in the Global Times, a tabloid published by the ruling Communist party’s People’s Daily.“In order to reduce the risk of a strategic collision between China and the US, the latter must take a step back from the Taiwan question and show its restraint,” it added.The two leaders have talked twice by phone since Biden took office in January, but this video conference will be their most substantial discussion so far.It comes days after the two countries surprised analysts by agreeing at Cop26 in Glasgow to boost climate cooperation. But it also comes at a time of increasing friction over Taiwan – the most dangerous potential flashpoint between the two countries.On Tuesday, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) conducted the latest in a series of combat readiness exercises off the Taiwanese coast, while in a phone call on Saturday the nations’ top diplomats traded warnings about the island.Ahead of the meeting, China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, told the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, that any show of support for Taiwan’s independence would “boomerang” on the US. Blinken in turn raised concerns over China’s growing “military, diplomatic, and economic pressure” on the island.US allegations of repeated cyber-attacks from China, deep divisions over human rights in the Xinjiang region, Hong Kong and Tibet, as well as lingering trade disputes have also contributed towards the steady souring of relations.The US-China climate agreement is imperfect – but reason to hope | Sam GeallRead moreThe US is frustrated by Chinese obstruction of multilateral investigations of the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic, and has been angered by Chinese government pressure on US companies to lobby Congress to drop legislation Beijing does not like, as Reuters reported on Friday.The stakes have been raised by the rapid expansion of China’s military capabilities, including its nuclear arsenal. According to the US, Beijing has tested a new weapon, a nuclear-capable hypersonic glider launched from orbit, and China is reported to be building at least 250 new silos for long-range missiles.Expectations for the summit have been set low. There is not likely to be a joint statement, and the White House has indicated that Biden will not answer press questions after the talks are over.“Overall, in both Washington and Beijing, the expectation of convergence is pretty much dead. Instead, the relationship has become more transactional,” Scott Moore, the director of China programmes and strategic initiatives at the University of Pennsylvania, said.“For Biden, he is facing political challenges at home with the midterm elections looming [next year]. Therefore, he will likely face political constraints in terms of taking any actions that could be perceived or characterised as making significant concessions to China.”“For Xi, his biggest vulnerability is on the economic front. That’s why Beijing has been signalling its interest in making progress on trade. Recent comments from Biden administration officials suggest there is interest in engaging on these issues, but again there are likely to be significant political constraints.”Both leaders will seek to limit the dangers of the rivalry spiralling out of control.In a message to the National Committee on US-China Relations, Xi said that the bilateral relationship was at a “critical historical juncture”.“Both countries will gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation. Cooperation is the only right choice,” Xi said in his statement. In his message to the committee’s gala on 9 November, Biden also pointed to an “inflection point in history”.“From tackling the Covid-19 pandemic to addressing the existential threat of the climate crisis, the relationship between the United States and China has global significance.”The White House spokesperson, Jen Psaki, said Biden would be “clear and candid” about US concerns, but would look for ways to “responsibly manage competition” between the world’s two largest economies and also seek “to work together where our interests align”.Wang has said Monday’s summit is a potentially pivotal event in efforts to improve the trajectory in bilateral relations.“The two sides should meet each other halfway … ensuring that the meeting will be smooth and successful, and push Sino-US relations back on the track of healthy and stable development,” Wang said, according to a Chinese foreign ministry statement.Xi will be seeking to head off moves to boycott the Winter Olympics in China this year, and he is also expected to invite Biden to the games as a conciliatory gesture.But Taiwan remains on top of Xi’s talking points, particularly after a series of steps the Biden administration has taken to raise Taiwan’s status, which China sees as breaking with Washington’s long-held “one China policy”, recognising the People’s Republic as the sole sovereign Chinese government.“Beijing has noticed recent statements by senior Biden officials such as Jake Sullivan, saying that Washington no longer wants to change China’s system. It is a positive signal,” said Wang Huiyao, the president of the Centre for China and Globalisation, who also advises the Beijing government. “But if this is the case, the US should cease using Taiwan as a card to irritate China, and leave the Taiwan affairs to the peoples on both sides of the Taiwan strait.”Bonnie Glaser, the director of the Asia programme at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, said Beijing was concerned about whether the Biden administration was really sticking to its one China policy or whether there was “a lot of salami-slicing” going on. “They want to hear greater reassurance about what the US will and will not do with Taiwan,” she said.The US side will be pushing for more routine contacts between the defence and diplomatic establishments, but Xi is likely to resist any action that he sees as normalising the US role in China’s immediate neighbourhood.‘We need to be much clearer’: leading Democrat questions US strategy on defending TaiwanRead more“It’s something that the Chinese have so far been very resistant to because they don’t want to give the US military a licence to operate anywhere near their shores,” Glaser said.As for nuclear arms control, China has so far resisted any approaches on entering bilateral negotiations, and spurned Donald Trump’s attempts to start trilateral talks with Russia.“Sadly I don’t think it’s going to be a major topic at the meeting. The United States hasn’t proposed anything that China can talk about, and China doesn’t like to negotiate outside of the UN,” said Gregory Kulacki, the China project manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists.“They could make some sort of vague statement about wanting to check the nuclear arms race, but anything concrete coming out of it seems unlikely.”Reuters news agency contributed to this reportTopicsUS foreign policyXi JinpingJoe BidenChinaTaiwanAsia PacificUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The US must avoid war with China over Taiwan at all costs | Daniel L Davis

      by

      OpinionUS politicsThe US must avoid war with China over Taiwan at all costsLt Col Daniel L Davis (ret)The prevailing mood among Washington insiders is to fight if China attempts to conquer Taiwan. That would be a mistake Tue 5 Oct 2021 06.18 EDTLast modified on Tue 5 Oct 2021 09.55 EDTSince last Friday, the People’s Republic of China has launched a total of 155 warplanes – the most ever over four consecutive days – into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone; Ned Price said the state department was “very concerned”. There have been more than 500 such flights through nine months this year, as opposed to 300 all of last year.Before war comes to the Indo-Pacific and Washington faces pressure to fight a potentially existential war, American policymakers must face the cold, hard reality that fighting China over Taiwan risks an almost-certain military defeat – and gambles we won’t stumble into a nuclear war.Bluntly put, America should refuse to be drawn into a no-win war with Beijing. It needs to be said up front: there would be no palatable choice for Washington if China finally makes good on its decades-long threat to take Taiwan by force. Either choose a bad, bitter-tasting outcome or a self-destructive one in which our existence is put at risk.The prevailing mood in Washington among officials and opinion leaders is to fight if China attempts to conquer Taiwan by force. In a speech at the Center for Strategic Studies last Friday, the deputy secretary of defense, Kathleen Hicks, said that if Beijing invades Taiwan, “we have a significant amount of capability forward in the region to tamp down any such potential”.Either Hicks is unaware of how little wartime capacity we actually have forward deployed in the Indo-Pacific or she’s unaware of how significant China’s capacity is off its shores, but whichever the case, we are in no way guaranteed to “tamp down” a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.Earlier this year, Senator Rick Scott and Representative Guy Reschenthaler introduced the Taiwan Invasion Prevention Act which, Representative Reschenthaler said, would authorize “the president to use military force to defend Taiwan against a direct attack”. In the event of an actual attack, there would be enormous pressure to fast-track such a bill to authorize Biden to act. We must resist this temptation.As I have previously detailed, there is no rational scenario in which the United States could end up in a better, more secure place after a war with China. The best that could be hoped for would be a pyrrhic victory in which we are saddled with becoming the permanent defense force for Taiwan (costing us hundreds of billions a year and the equally permanent requirement to be ready for the inevitable Chinese counter-attack).The most likely outcome would be a conventional defeat of our forces in which China ultimately succeeds, despite our intervention – at the cost of large numbers of our jets being shot down, ships being sunk, and thousands of our service personnel killed. But the worst case is a conventional war spirals out of control and escalates into a nuclear exchange.That leaves as the best option something most Americans find unsatisfying: refuse to engage in direct combat against China on behalf of Taiwan. Doing so will allow the United States to emerge on the other side of a China/Taiwan war with our global military and economic power intact.That’s not to suggest we stand passively aside and let China run over Taiwan with impunity. The most effective course of action for Washington would be to condemn China in the strongest possible terms, lead a global movement that will enact crippling sanctions against Beijing, and make them an international pariah. China’s pain wouldn’t be limited to economics, however.It would take Beijing decades to overcome the losses incurred from a war to take Taiwan, even if Beijing triumphs. The United States and our western allies, on the other hand, would remain at full military power, dominate the international business markets, and have the moral high ground to keep China hemmed in like nothing that presently exists. Xi would be seen as an unquestioned aggressor, even by other Asian regimes, and the fallout against China could knock them back decades. Our security would be vastly improved from what it is today – and incalculably higher than if we foolishly tried to fight a war with China.Publicly, Washington should continue to embrace strategic ambiguity but privately convey to Taiwanese leaders that we will not fight a war with China. That would greatly incentivize Taipei to make whatever political moves and engage in any negotiation necessary to ensure the perpetuation of the status quo. The blunt, hard reality is that a Taiwan maintaining the status quo is far better than a smoldering wreck of an island conquered by Beijing.The only way the US could have our security harmed would be to allow ourselves to be drawn into a war we’re likely to lose over an issue peripheral to US security. In the event China takes Taiwan by force, Washington should stay out of the fray and lead a global effort to ostracize China, helping ensure our security will be strengthened for a generation to come.
      Daniel L Davis is a senior fellow for defense priorities and a former lieutenant colonel in the US army who deployed into combat zones four times. He is the author of The Eleventh Hour in 2020 America
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionChinaForeign policyTaiwancommentReuse this content More

    • 238 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Milley defends China calls and says ‘I am certain Trump did not intend to attack the Chinese’ – live

      by

      Key events

      Show

      5.20pm EDT
      17:20

      In deep red West Virginia, Biden’s $3.5tn spending proposal is immensely popular

      5.00pm EDT
      17:00

      Today so far

      4.17pm EDT
      16:17

      Federal agencies to take modest steps to expand voter registration

      3.40pm EDT
      15:40

      Sanders urges House colleagues to vote against infrastructure bill

      1.34pm EDT
      13:34

      Grisham book: Trump told Putin he had to pretend to be tough

      1.19pm EDT
      13:19

      Warren to Fed chair Powell: You’re a dangerous man

      1.01pm EDT
      13:01

      Today so far

      Live feed

      Show

      5.20pm EDT
      17:20

      In deep red West Virginia, Biden’s $3.5tn spending proposal is immensely popular

      Zack Harold reports:
      Elizabeth Masters isn’t a natural Joe Biden supporter. A self-described conservative who lives in Parkersburg, in deeply Republican West Virginia, she said she registered to vote in the last election so she could cast a ballot for Donald Trump.
      Masters says she doesn’t approve when people “just stand for a handout” – she doesn’t think the United States should be spending money on undocumented immigrants, for example – but says anything that will “help people that are trying to do for themselves, I’m all for it”.
      To that end, Masters has found herself supportive of efforts by the Biden administration to pass a $3.5tn budget proposal that is full of ambitious plans to help poorer and working class Americans on a range of social issues from childcare to healthcare.
      Though vehemently opposed by Republicans and West Virginia’s own Democratic senator, Joe Manchin, there is some evidence that the proposals contained in the spending plans – which some have likened to the 1930s New Deal – are more popular among grassroots Republicans than their political representatives. That may be especially true in West Virginia, which is a poor, largely white and working class state whose residents would stand to greatly benefit from the Biden effort.
      That is why Masters says she supports the Child Tax Credit, the monthly payments from the IRS given to families with children making less than $200,000. The Build Back Better plan would make the credits permanent.
      Masters and her husband recently took out a loan to repair the roof on their house, only to lose the home in a fire. They did not have insurance, so they are still paying on the loan. The Child Tax Credit payment she receives each month for her nine-year-old son covers that loan every month.
      Biden’s budget bill includes his Build Back Better plan, which would cut taxes for most Americans, raise taxes on the rich, train more workers and lower costs for healthcare, childcare, education and housing.
      When the nonpartisan nonprofit WorkMoney surveyed more than 50,000 of its 2 million members nationwide, it found 81% of respondents said they supported this plan. That includes 90% of liberals who took the survey, 81% of moderates and 66% of conservatives.
      Conservative backing appears even more robust in West Virginia, home of Manchin, a moderate Democrat who is one of the critical holdouts on the budget bill and whose efforts could derail the entire plan – or see large chunks of it scrapped as he balks at the budget’s price tag.
      But according to the survey, 80% of more than 800 people surveyed in his home state believe he should vote to pass the bill. That includes 77% of conservatives who responded to the survey.
      Read more:

      5.00pm EDT
      17:00

      Today so far

      That’s it from me today. My west coast colleague, Maanvi Singh, will take over the blog for the next few hours.
      Here’s where the day stands so far:

      Gen Mark Milley defended his calls with Chinese officials in the final days of Donald Trump’s presidency, saying the conversations were meant to “de-escalate” tensions between the two nations. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said during a Senate hearing today, “I know, I am certain that President Trump did not intend to attack the Chinese.” Republicans had called for Milley’s resignation over reports that he was attempting to prevent Trump from launching an attack on China.
      Defense secretary Lloyd Austin acknowledged that senior military leaders were caught off-guard by how quickly the Afghan government and military collapsed. “We helped build a state, Mr Chairman, but we could not forge a nation,” Austin said at the hearing. “The fact that the Afghan army that we and our partners trained simply melted away – in many cases without firing a shot – took us all by surprise. And it would be dishonest to claim otherwise.”
      Gen Kenneth McKenzie, the commander of US Central Command, contradicted Joe Biden on what military advice he received regarding Afghanistan. While not going into detail about his private conversations with Biden, McKenzie said that he recommended keeping 2,500 troops in Afghanistan to help ensure the stability of the Afghan government. Biden has previously said that he never received such advice from military leaders. The White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, told reporters that Biden heard “a range of viewpoints” on the matter.
      Congressional progressives are sticking to their position that they will not support the bipartisan infrastructure bill until the reconciliation package passes. Ahead of the expected Thursday vote on the infrastructure bill, the Congressional Progressive Caucus chair said members would not support the legislation unless the spending package advances at the same time. Senate budget committee chair Bernie Sanders has expressed his support for the House progressives’ stance as well.
      Senator Elizabeth Warren said she would not support Jay Powell’s renomination as Federal Reserve chairman. “Your record gives me grave concerns,” the Massachusetts Democrat told Powell at a hearing this morning. “Over and over, you have acted to make our banking system less safe, and that makes you a dangerous man to head up the Fed, and it’s why I will oppose your renomination.”

      Maanvi will have more coming up, so stay tuned.

      4.45pm EDT
      16:45

      Florida is suing the Biden administration over its immigration policies, while Republican governor Ron DeSantis is barring state agencies from helping with relocating undocumented immigrants.
      The AP reports:

      DeSantis’ order authorized the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Florida Highway Patrol ‘to detain any aircraft, bus, or other vehicle within the State of Florida reasonably believed to be transporting illegal aliens to Florida from the Southwest Border.’
      He also ordered the agencies to gather information on the identities of any immigrants arriving illegally in Florida from the Mexico border and told state agencies not to spend money assisting those immigrants unless required by law.
      Attorney General Ashley Moody’s lawsuit claims the federal immigration policy will cost the state millions of dollars and cause harm to Florida.

      Biden’s immigration agenda has come under harsh scrutiny in recent weeks, after alarming footage surfaced of border agents on horseback confronting Haitian migrants in the border city of Del Rio, Texas.
      Homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said on Friday that there were no remaining migrants at the camp underneath the Del Rio bridge, and administration officials had previously said they would suspend the use of horses in Del Rio.

      4.28pm EDT
      16:28

      Sam Levine

      The US constitution gives the president little power to act unilaterally around voting. But the set of actions the White House announced on Tuesday signals an aggressive effort to use the power Joe Biden does have.
      Voting rights groups have long advocated for expanded voter registration opportunities at federal agencies.
      Expanding voter registration to the Indian Health Service could help 1.9m people register, according to a report issued last year by the Brennan Center for Justice. Expanding voter registration at naturalization ceremonies could help add a significant portion of the 760,000 people naturalized each year to the voter rolls, the report said.
      The actions come six months after Biden issued an executive order instructing federal agencies to come up with plans to provide voter registration assistance.
      The announcement also comes as the White House has faced some criticism from civil rights groups who say it is not pushing hard enough to get federal voting rights legislation through congress.

      4.17pm EDT
      16:17

      Federal agencies to take modest steps to expand voter registration

      Sam Levine

      Federal agencies are going to take modest steps to expand voter registration, the White House announced on Tuesday.
      Among the actions: The Department of Veterans Affairs and the Indian Health Service will provide voter registration opportunities and assistance to their patients.
      The Justice Department will facilitate voting for those eligible who are in federal custody and help people understand the rules of voting in their states once they’re released from prison.
      The Department of Homeland Security will invite local government officials and non-profit groups to register voters at naturalization ceremonies.
      The Department of Transportation will encourage local transit agencies to weigh offering free or reduced fares on election day.

      Updated
      at 4.19pm EDT

      3.56pm EDT
      15:56

      Meanwhile, on the issue of the debt ceiling, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said today that using reconciliation to raise or suspend the debt ceiling is “risky” and a “non-starter”.
      But with Republicans digging in on their opposition, reconciliation may be the only option for Democrats to raise the debt ceiling in a party-line fashion.
      House majority leader Steny Hoyer had suggested earlier today that reconciliation may be the path forward, but he then walked back those comments after Schumer and other Senate Democrats criticized the idea.
      “Today I was asked whether reconciliation is an option to address the debt limit. It is certainly not the best option, nor the option we’re pursuing,” Hoyer said on Twitter, adding that Republicans “have a responsibility to the country to ensure the US does not default”.

      Steny Hoyer
      (@LeaderHoyer)
      Today I was asked whether reconciliation is an option to address the debt limit. It is certainly not the best option, nor the option we’re pursuing. Senate GOP are putting our economy & families at risk. They have a responsibility to the country to ensure the US does not default.

      September 28, 2021

      3.40pm EDT
      15:40

      Sanders urges House colleagues to vote against infrastructure bill

      Progressive senator Bernie Sanders is urging his House counterparts to oppose the bipartisan infrastructure bill until a reconciliation package is passed.
      Sanders, who chairs the Senate budget committee, said on Twitter, “Let’s be crystal clear. If the bipartisan infrastructure bill is passed on its own on Thursday, this will be in violation of an agreement that was reached within the Democratic Caucus in Congress.”
      Sanders warned that approving the infrastructure bill would “end all leverage that we have to pass a major reconciliation bill,” meaning Democrats would not have an opportunity to expand Medicare or invest in affordable childcare.

      Bernie Sanders
      (@SenSanders)
      Let’s be crystal clear. If the bipartisan infrastructure bill is passed on its own on Thursday, this will be in violation of an agreement that was reached within the Democratic Caucus in Congress.

      September 28, 2021

      “It also means that Congress will continue to ignore the existential threat to our country and planet with regard to climate change,” Sanders said.
      “I strongly urge my House colleagues to vote against the bipartisan infrastructure bill until Congress passes a strong reconciliation bill.”
      As of now, House progressives are standing firm to their position that they will vote against the infrastructure bill if it is taken up on Thursday without a plan to simultaneously advance the reconciliation package.
      Given Democrats’ very narrow majority in the House, the progressives’ stance raises the possibility that both bills may fail.

      3.20pm EDT
      15:20

      Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer told reporters that he would soon put forward a bill to fund the government past the end of the month.
      If Congress does not pass a government funding bill in the next two days, the government will shut down on Friday.
      “I think very soon we will put down a bill to deal with the shutdown and move forward,” Schumer said this afternoon.

      CSPAN
      (@cspan)
      .@SenSchumer: “I think very soon we will put down a bill to deal with the shutdown and move forward.” pic.twitter.com/nM5Mpn4bMq

      September 28, 2021

      Asked whether he could assure the American people that the country will avoid a government shutdown, Schumer said, “We’re doing everything we can to avoid a shutdown, and we should put something on the floor.”
      The majority leader expressed hope that Senate Republicans would help Democrats pass a government funding bill, accusing them of “playing games with the American people — political, nasty and destructive games”.

      3.05pm EDT
      15:05

      The White House press secretary reiterated that Democrats had previously hoped Republicans would help them raise the debt ceiling in a bipartisan fashion, which occurred during Donald Trump’s presidency.
      Jen Psaki added, “It’s also our hope that, if Senator McConnell isn’t going to help us avoid a default and a shutdown, at least he’ll get out of the way and let Democrats do it alone, so we can avoid a default, and right now that question remains up in the air.”
      But as Psaki held her briefing, McConnell threw another wrench into Democrats’ efforts to raise the debt ceiling along party lines.
      Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer requested unanimous consent to move toward a final vote on suspending the debt limit without having to overcome a filibuster. McConnell objected, and the saga over the debt limit continues.

      CSPAN
      (@cspan)
      .@SenSchumer makes unanimous consent request to move to a final vote to suspend the debt limit without 60-vote threshold filibuster.@LeaderMcConnell objects. pic.twitter.com/7t7dPPhJev

      September 28, 2021

      2.41pm EDT
      14:41

      A reporter asked Jen Psaki whether Joe Biden would consider supporting abolishing the Senate filibuster to raise the debt ceiling.
      “The president’s position has not changed on that,” the White House press secretary said.
      Senate Republicans remain adamant that they will not support any effort to raise the debt ceiling, intensifying concerns over a potential default next month.
      Treasury secretary Janet Yellen said in a letter today that Congress must raise or suspend the debt ceiling by October 18 to avoid economic disaster.

      2.28pm EDT
      14:28

      The White House press secretary said Joe Biden had a “constructive meeting” with Democratic senator Kyrsten Sinema today to discuss the reconciliation package.
      Jen Psaki noted that Biden was still meeting with senator Joe Manchin when she came out to the briefing room.
      According to Psaki, the senators agreed that the country is at a “pivotal moment” right now, but it’s unclear whether any progress was made toward agreeing on a top-line cost for the legislation.
      A CNN reporter spotted Sinema returning to the White House for another meeting as the press briefing started:

      Kevin Liptak
      (@Kevinliptakcnn)
      Sinema is back at the White House (2:10 p.m. ET) pic.twitter.com/TJSupZCh81

      September 28, 2021

      2.20pm EDT
      14:20

      The White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, is now holding her daily briefing, and she faced questions about Pentagon officials’ testimony before the Senate today.
      A reporter asked Psaki to respond to the claim from Gen Kenneth McKenzie, the commander of US Central Command, that he recommended keeping 2,500 US troops in Afghanistan to help ensure the stability of the Afghan government.
      The reporter asked whether Joe Biden misrepresented the military advice he received, given that the president previously said he did not hear anyone suggest an ongoing troop presence in Afghanistan.
      Psaki said Biden heard “a range of viewpoints” on the matter, and she argued maintaining a troop presence would have risked further casualties.
      Asked who recommended the complete troop withdrawal that occurred, Psaki said, “I’m not going to get into specific details of who recommended what.”

      2.11pm EDT
      14:11

      House progressives are sticking to their position that they will not support the bipartisan infrastructure bill unless the reconciliation package is simultaneously approved.

      Congresswoman Cori Bush
      (@RepCori)
      Today is Tuesday.The infrastructure vote is Thursday.And I still will be voting “No” unless we first pass the Build Back Better Act to deliver universal pre-K, tuition-free community college, Medicare expansion, paid leave, climate action, and so much more.

      September 28, 2021

      Congresswoman Cori Bush said on Twitter, “Today is Tuesday. The infrastructure vote is Thursday. And I still will be voting ‘No’ unless we first pass the Build Back Better Act to deliver universal pre-K, tuition-free community college, Medicare expansion, paid leave, climate action, and so much more.”
      But it seems virtually impossible that the reconciliation package can be advanced on that timeline, raising the possibility that both bills could fail.

      2.01pm EDT
      14:01

      Martin Pengelly

      Away from the Milley-McKenzie-Austin hearing, things are not getting any easier for Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden when it comes to passing Biden’s ambitious domestic spending plans.
      The House Progressive Caucus says in a new statement it won’t vote for the bipartisan $1tn infrastructure deal until the spending plan is passed via reconciliation.
      Caucus leader Pramila Jayapal of Washington state said of the spending plan: “This agenda is not some fringe wish list: it is the president’s agenda, the Democratic agenda, and what we all promised voters when they delivered us the House, Senate, and White House.”
      In a letter to colleagues, Pelosi writes: “The change in circumstance regarding the reconciliation bill has necessitated a change in our Build Back Better legislation but not in our values.”
      Pelosi also said “negotiations are being led by President Biden to advance his vision”. Biden was expected to meet two key moderate senators: Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Yesterday, prominent House progressive Ilhan Omar called the two senators “Republicans”.
      Of course, no one’s word in Washington is final until it’s final. But there’s meant to be a vote on the infrastructure deal on Thursday.

      1.47pm EDT
      13:47

      Martin Pengelly

      The hearings before the Senate armed services committee have resumed, with Gen Kenneth McKenzie facing questions about future operations and strike capabilities regarding Afghanistan from Senator Deb Fischer, a Nebraska Republican.
      “Hard to do but we can talk more about it in the closed session,” the general says, referring to classified aspects of the US strike capacity, then admits that the US must still rely on co-operation from Pakistan – which hosted Taliban groups during the US occupation.
      “They’re going to be very conflicted about this,” he says, “as they have been for the last 20 years.”
      Defense secretary Lloyd Austin is asked how many US citizens are still in Afghanistan. He tells Tim Kaine of Virginia, a Democrat, that 21 just came out.
      Here’s some essential reading from Julian Borger, about some essential reading from Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post:

      1.34pm EDT
      13:34

      Grisham book: Trump told Putin he had to pretend to be tough

      Martin Pengelly

      Donald Trump told Vladimir Putin he had to act tough next to the Russian president for the cameras, according to the former White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham.
      “OK, I’m going to act a little tougher with you for a few minutes,” Grisham says she heard Trump tell his Russian counterpart in Osaka in 2019. “But it’s for the cameras, and after they leave, we’ll talk. You understand.”
      Grisham makes the claim in a new book, I’ll Take Your Questions Now, which will be published next week. The Washington Post obtained a copy.
      Trump’s presidency was dogged by his relationship with Putin, the focus of the special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian election interference and links between Trump and Moscow.
      Mueller did not establish a conspiracy but stressed that he did not exonerate Trump of seeking to obstruct justice. Speculation over the two leaders’ relationship remained rampant, particularly over a meeting alone save for interpreters in Helsinki in 2018.
      In front of the media at the G20 summit in Osaka in 2019, with Grisham sitting nearby, Trump joked with Putin that they should both “get rid” of journalists who published “fake news”, saying: “You don’t have this problem in Russia.”
      Putin said: “Yes, yes, we have too, the same.”
      Trump later smirked, pointed at Putin and said: “Don’t meddle in the election.”
      Grisham was Trump’s third press secretary, an unhappy reign in which she did not hold a single White House briefing. Her book has been extensively trailed, titbits including a comparison of Melania Trump to Marie Antoinette.
      Full story: More