China

Subterms

    More stories

    • 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

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US Afghanistan withdrawal a ‘logistical success but strategic failure’, Milley says

      by

      US militaryUS Afghanistan withdrawal a ‘logistical success but strategic failure’, Milley saysGeneral and other military leaders in heated cross-examinationMilley defends loyalty to country and rejects suggestion to quit Julian Borger in WashingtonTue 28 Sep 2021 14.44 EDTLast modified on Tue 28 Sep 2021 17.00 EDTThe withdrawal from Afghanistan and the evacuation of Kabul was “a logistical success but a strategic failure,” the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has told the Senate.Gen Mark Milley gave the stark assessment at an extraordinary hearing of the Senate armed services committee to examine the US departure, which also became a postmortem on the 20-year war that preceded it.Milley appeared alongside the defence secretary, Lloyd Austin, and the head of US Central Command, Gen Kenneth ‘Frank’ McKenzie, in the most intense, heated cross-examination of the country’s military leadership in more than a decade.At one point, Milley was obliged to defend his loyalty to his country, in the face of allegations of insubordination in last weeks of the Trump administration, and to explain why he had not resigned in the course of the chaotic Afghan pullout.General defends himself over Trump and says his loyalty to nation is absoluteRead more“It is obvious the war in Afghanistan did not end on the terms we wanted,” Milley said, noting “the Taliban is now in power in Kabul.”“We must remember that the Taliban was and remains a terrorist organization and they still have not broken ties with al-Qaida,” he added. “I have no illusions who we are dealing with. It remains to be seen whether or not the Taliban can consolidate power, or if the country will further fracture into civil war.”It was a long and very difficult day in Congress for the Biden administration, which has been trying to move past the reputational damage caused by the sudden fall of Kabul last month and subsequent scramble to evacuate Americans and allies, which left tens of thousands of vulnerable Afghans behind.Milley, Austin and McKenzie all confirmed that when the Biden administration was considering its policy on Afghanistan in its first few months in office, they had believed a small US force of about 2,500 should remain.None could explain Joe Biden’s claim in an interview last month that he had not received any such advice.“No one said that to me that I can recall,” Biden told ABC News on 19 August.Milley adamantly rejected a suggestion by Republican senator Tom Cotton he should resign because that advice was rejected.“It would be an incredible act of political defiance for a commissioned officer to just resign because my advice is not taken,” he said, staring straight at Cotton. “This country doesn’t want generals figuring out what orders we’re going to accept and do or not. That’s not our job.”In his 19 August interview, Biden had said that US forces would stay until all American citizens had been evacuated. But when the last soldier left on a flight on 30 August, there were still believed to be more than a hundred Americans – most if not all dual nationals who had delayed their decision to leave until it was too late.Milley said it was the advice of the military leadership to stick to the end of August deadline to complete the departure, which the Taliban had accepted.If the US had stayed on into September to try to evacuate more people, he said: “We would have been at war with the Taliban again,” requiring an extra 20,000 troops to clear Kabul of Taliban fighters and retake Bagram air base near the capital, which the US had abandoned in July.Milley also had to defend himself against charges that he deliberately sought to undermine Donald Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief out of fear that the former president would launch a foreign war as a diversion to distract attention from his election loss in November.“My loyalty to this nation, its people and the constitution hasn’t changed and will never change,” Milley told the Senate armed services committee on Tuesday. “As long as I have a breath to give, my loyalty is absolute.”Milley was facing hostile Republicans, some of whom have demanded his resignation following revelations that he spoke twice to his Chinese counterpart, reassuring him that the US would not launch a surprise attack.Mark Milley, US general who stood up to Trump, founders over Kabul strikeRead moreThe revelations are contained in a new book, Peril, by the Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa.According to the book, Milley also ordered officers assigned to the Pentagon war room to let him know if Trump ordered a nuclear launch, despite the fact that the chairman of the joint chiefs is not in the chain of command.The general said his two calls with the Chinese army chief followed intelligence suggesting China was fearful of an attack, and were intended to defuse tensions.“I am certain President Trump did not intend to attack the Chinese,” Milley said, adding he had been directed by the defence secretary to convey that message to the Chinese.“My task at that time was to de-escalate,” he said. “My message again was consistent: stay calm, steady and de-escalate. We are not going to attack you.”He said the calls were closely coordinated with the defence secretary and other senior officials in the Trump administration, and that several senior Pentagon officials sat in on the calls.On the question of his actions on nuclear launch procedures, Milley said he had a responsibility to insert himself into those procedures in order to be able to perform his role to advise the president properly.“By law I am not in the chain of command and I know that,” he said. “However, by presidential directive, and [defence department] instruction, I am in the chain of communication to fulfil my legal statutory role as the president’s primary military adviser.”TopicsUS militaryAfghanistanSouth and Central AsiaUS foreign policyUS CongressUS politicsUS SenatenewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Hong Kong Pushes Opposition to Run in Preordained Elections

      by

      China has already determined the outcome, but the government is pressuring opposition parties to participate to lend the vote legitimacy.HONG KONG — As far as the trappings of a healthy democracy go, Hong Kong’s upcoming legislative election has them all.Hundreds of politicians hand out leaflets in the tropical heat. Posters remind residents of voter registration deadlines. During a preliminary ballot on Sunday, the government touted a record 90 percent turnout rate.All the ingredients are there — except one: any uncertainty about the outcome.The legislative election, set for December, is the first since the Chinese government ordered sweeping changes to Hong Kong’s election system to ensure its favored candidates win. Some opposition groups have pledged to boycott in protest, and the largest of them, the Democratic Party, will decide this weekend whether to follow.But Hong Kong officials have warned that a boycott could violate the city’s expansive national security law. After all, an election doesn’t look valid if the opposition doesn’t show up.Welcome to elections in Hong Kong now: not so much exercises in democracy as the vigorous performance of it.“They want to continue to give the illusion that they respect the Basic Law,” said Jean-Pierre Cabestan, a professor of Chinese politics at Hong Kong Baptist University. The law is Hong Kong’s mini-Constitution, which promises the city, a former British colony, certain political rights under Chinese rule. “That’s the best way to legitimize their rule.”Government officials opening a ballot box during the vote counting on Sunday.Anthony Kwan/Getty ImagesHong Kong’s elections have never been fully free, with rules that favored Beijing’s allies even before this spring’s overhaul. Even so, the opposition had long managed to win at least some influence on government policy, and polls had consistently shown that they had the majority of the public’s support. In late 2019, months of fierce antigovernment protests helped fuel an unprecedented landslide victory by pro-democracy candidates in local elections.The Chinese Communist Party was determined not to see a repeat. After imposing the security law last summer to crush the protests, it quickly followed up with election changes that allowed only government-approved “patriots” to hold office. In addition, the general public will now be allowed to choose just 20 of 90 legislators. Most of the rest will be chosen by the electors picked last Sunday — all but one aligned with the authorities.Yet the party, intent on preserving Hong Kong’s status as a global financial center, has fervently denied international accusations that it is reneging on the pledges it made upon Hong Kong’s return to China in 1997. Hence officials’ determination to make the elections look as credible as possible — even if that requires intimidating the opposition into running.One senior official has suggested that boycotting the elections would be a statement of rebellion. Carrie Lam, the city’s chief executive, said last month that it would be “strange” for a party not to run.“If there is a political party with many members, but it does not discuss or participate in politics, then we might need to question the value of its existence,” she told reporters.The government has also made it illegal to encourage others to cast protest ballots.Regardless of what the Democratic Party decides, this past Sunday’s preliminary vote has already offered a preview of what Hong Kong elections may look like in the future.“Hong Kong’s elections have always been known for being fair, open, just, clean and honest, and we take pride in that,” Carrie Lam said in a speech on Sunday.Jerome Favre/EPA, via ShutterstockThe purpose of the vote was to form an Election Committee, a group of 1,500 that under Beijing’s new rules will select many legislators, as well as Hong Kong’s next top leader. According to the government, the committee is a diverse microcosm of Hong Kong society.But fewer than 8,000 residents — 0.1 percent of the population — were eligible to vote in the Election Committee poll, all drawn from a list approved by Beijing.All the candidates had to be screened by a government panel for loyalty. No major opposition groups fielded candidates, citing the futility given the handpicked electorate. (In addition, many of the opposition’s leaders have been arrested, are in exile or have been disqualified from holding government posts.)Even the few residents who did have a vote had limited say. Of the Election Committee’s 1,500 seats, three-quarters were uncontested or set aside for designated government allies.None of that stopped officials from declaring the day a paragon of civic participation. “Hong Kong’s elections have always been known for being fair, open, just, clean and honest, and we take pride in that,” Mrs. Lam said before polls opened.At times, the authorities’ dedication to the veneer of public engagement verged on absurdism.The weekend before the Election Committee vote, the Central Liaison Office, Beijing’s official arm in Hong Kong, ordered the ranks of the city’s billionaire tycoons to staff street booths and extol the virtues of the new election system.Voters posing for a photograph before walking into a polling station on Sunday. Fewer than 8,000 residents were eligible to vote in the Election Committee poll.Louise Delmotte/Getty ImagesVirtually all the tycoons were running uncontested or guaranteed appointed seats on the committee, in keeping with Beijing’s tradition of political partnerships with the business elite. But the central government wanted residents to feel as if they had earned their positions, said Tam Yiu-Chung, a Hong Kong member of the Chinese legislature’s top committee.“It was the liaison office that asked us to do this,” Mr. Tam said. “Even though we are guaranteed members, we still believe we should tell residents what expectations we have for ourselves, and let them understand us better.”That was how Pansy Ho, the second-richest woman in Hong Kong, found herself hawking leaflets on a 92-degree day. Raymond Kwok, the billionaire chairman of one of Hong Kong’s largest developers, stayed only a few minutes, enough time to be photographed handing out fliers, before leaving.Kennedy Wong, a lawyer and member of an advisory body to Beijing, lasted longer — about an hour and a half, he said — at a booth in the working-class neighborhood of North Point. Mr. Wong acknowledged that the success of the outreach was questionable.“I didn’t receive questions on the street during my time there,” he said, adding that passers-by either flashed signs of support or “walked past and ignored us.”On the day of the election, officials touted a 90 percent turnout rate. Mrs. Lam said it “reflected the support for the new electoral system.”But that 90 percent was not calculated out of the total pool of roughly 8,000 eligible voters; it was of the number of voters in the few contested races. It represented 4,380 of 4,889 voters in that category casting ballots. There were more police deployed to guard polling stations — over 5,000 — than electors.Police officers searching a protester during a four-person demonstration near a polling station in Hong Kong on Sunday.Vincent Yu/Associated PressStill, those who voted professed to be unfazed. In an interview as she left the polling station, Chan Nga Yue said she considered the candidates representative because “many of them are people that we know.”Even with the few ballots cast, vote counting proved troublesome. The first results were not announced until nine hours after polls closed — for a seat for which 82 votes had been cast. The full results were not finalized for an additional three hours. Officials cited staff errors.Only one candidate who was not part of the pro-Beijing bloc won a seat. Officials said the victory of Tik Chi-yuen, a self-declared independent, proved that diverse voices were welcome.But Mr. Tik’s election was, in part, pure luck: After tying with two other candidates, he prevailed in a random draw.Occasionally, reminders that not everyone was thrilled with the new setup broke through.One pro-democracy group staged a four-person protest near a polling station, where the members were surrounded by dozens of police officers.Also, midway through the day, Barnabas Fung, the city’s top elections official, acknowledged that the reduction in the electorate had led “many unregistered people” to line up at polling stations mistakenly.“There were people who thought they had a vote,” Mr. Fung told reporters. “In the future, we’ll have to see if there’s a way to let everyone know that only registered voters can vote.” More

    • 138 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Does the world trust Joe Biden? Politics Weekly Extra – podcast

      by

      This week, Joe Biden spoke to the UN General Assembly for the first time as president. After watching him oversee a disastrous exit from Afghanistan and sign up to a controversial nuclear submarine deal with the UK and Australia, Jonathan Freedland and Dr Leslie Vinjamuri discuss how the world views Biden

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      Archive: BBC, and Sky News Send us your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com Help support the Guardian by going to gu.com/supportpodcasts More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Biden’s UN speech: cooperation not competition | Editorial

      by

      OpinionJoe BidenThe Guardian view on Biden’s UN speech: cooperation not competitionEditorialThe US president is right to say he does not want a cold war with China Wed 22 Sep 2021 14.10 EDTLast modified on Wed 22 Sep 2021 14.45 EDT“We’re not seeking – say it again, we are not seeking – a new cold war or a world divided into rigid blocs,” President Joe Biden told the United Nations general assembly on Tuesday. That is a relief. Washington’s undeclared opponent is, as almost all observers agree, Beijing. In his address, however, Mr Biden made it clear he is determined to ensure that the rise of China will not mean the decline of the US.The US president said he was willing to “work together with our democratic partners” on breakthroughs in technology which can be “used to lift people up … and advance human freedom – not to suppress dissent or target minority communities”. This is admirable rhetoric, though some sceptics may spy the promotion of US national interests under the guise of a foreign policy that favours democracies. There are also dangers in an overly hawkish prosecution of this approach. Pushing Ukraine’s membership in Nato as a pro-democracy step may bring about a Russian military response. Taiwan’s democracy has to be defended without Washington being pulled into a confrontation with Beijing. The challenges of this era, such as the climate emergency, also require international cooperation to deliver global public goods and prevent beggar-thy-neighbour policies.The problem is twofold. First, Mr Biden seems to see US rivalry with China as a zero-sum game, where one country’s gain is another country’s loss. Second, China’s president, Xi Jinping, has the same view of the US. This has the potential for competition between the two powers to spiral out of control. Mr Biden talks of carefully managing relationships so that they do not tip “from responsible competition to conflict”. His policy is a world away from the cold war strategy of “containment”. But the risks are real. Cooperation is needed to balance competition in world affairs, otherwise nationalism will become even more of a driving force in international affairs.That might explain why Mr Biden had no time for a US-UK trade deal, which would only feed Boris Johnson’s delusions. Brexiters may seek solace in the argument that Mr Biden is anti-free trade, but that neglects his support for a new US-Mexico-Canada deal that included worker and environmental protections. Claiming Britain could sign up to this free trade pact is gathering Brexit crumbs from the US table.New forms of cooperation and coordination are needed in the international arena. Britain’s search for a trade pact that could replace the EU’s market may prove fruitless, but that the country is looking for one underlines what it has lost. Mr Biden, whose formative political years were spent with Kremlin officials on arms control, knows that multilateralism requires working with nations irrespective of their system of government. There can be no reduction in nuclear weapons without deals with autocrats.Mr Biden withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan crystallised two questions: what is the future of US alliances, and what should be done about China? The time for foreign policy crusades is over but the fight goes on against poverty, the pandemic and global heating. With a majority of American voters now favouring diplomacy over military intervention, the US president ought to embrace collective action rather than go-it-alone policies.TopicsJoe BidenOpinionUnited NationsUS politicsChinaBiden administrationBrexitTrade policyeditorialsReuse this content More