China

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Mitt Romney calls for ‘economic and diplomatic’ boycott of Beijing Olympics

      by

      The US should boycott the Beijing Winter Olympic Games next year, Mitt Romney said on Monday – but not by keeping its skiers, curlers and bobsledders at home.In a New York Times column, the Utah senator said Washington should implement “an economic and diplomatic boycott” of the quadrennial winter sports jamboree.Such a move, he said, would “demonstrate our repudiation of China’s abuses in a way that will hurt the Chinese Communist party rather than our American athletes: reduce China’s revenues, shut down their propaganda and expose their abuses”.Romney went on to list such abuses. China, he wrote, had “reneged on its agreement to allow Hong Kong self rule; it has brutally suppressed peaceful demonstrators and incarcerated respected journalists”.“It is exacting genocide against Uighurs and other ethnic minorities; Uighur women are forcefully sterilized or impregnated by Han Chinese men. Adults, ripped from their families, are sentenced into forced labor and concentration camps. Among ethnic Chinese, access to uncensored broadcast news and social media is prohibited. Citizens are surveyed, spied upon and penalized for attending religious services or expressing dissent.”Romney is a former venture capitalist and Massachusetts governor who famously took charge of preparations for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah. Debate has raged ever since over the extent to which he helped to “save” an operation dogged by financial and management scandals.Romney won the Republican nomination for president in 2012, a race he lost after Barack Obama pulled away in the home straight. The Republican’s Secret Service codename was the appropriately the Olympic-sounding “Javelin” and he regularly referred to his success in Salt Lake City. Beijing last hosted the summer Olympics in 2004. It will be the first city to host the winter games too, but it seems sure to face some sort of boycott.Groups representing Uighurs, Tibetans, Hong Kong and campaigners for democracy in China are pushing for athletes or diplomatic boycotts. Having failed to persuade the International Olympic Committee to move the games out of China, activists are targeting national committees, athletes and sponsors.The US last mounted a boycott in 1980, when American athletes stayed away from the summer games in Moscow in protest of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. China also stayed away then.But in Romney’s view now, “prohibiting our athletes from competing in China [in 2022] is the easy, but wrong, answer”.“… The right answer is an economic and diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics. American spectators – other than families of our athletes and coaches – should stay at home, preventing us from contributing to the enormous revenues the Chinese Communist party will raise from hotels, meals and tickets. American corporations that routinely send large groups of their customers and associates to the games should send them to US venues instead.“Rather than send the traditional delegation of diplomats and White House officials to Beijing, the president should invite Chinese dissidents, religious leaders and ethnic minorities to represent us.”Romney also called on NBC, which broadcasts the Olympics in the US, to “refrain from showing any jingoistic elements of the opening and closing ceremonies and instead broadcast documented reports of China’s abuses”.In his own column on Monday, for Fox News, the Texas Republican senator Ted Cruz said US athletes “should go to Beijing next year proudly, bring home medal after medal, and show the world what it means to compete on behalf of a free society”. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Chaos Under Heaven: Trump as raging bull in a China policy shop

      by

      Covid-19 has left more than 530,000 Americans dead and China’s standing with the US at a historic low. Only Iran and North Korea fare worse. US opinion is no outlier. China’s reputation has taken a beating in Australia, the UK, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany. Images of tanks rolling through Tiananmen Square in summer 1989 have been supplanted by Beijing stonewalling on the origins of the plague.In Chaos Under Heaven, the Washington Post reporter Josh Rogin reminds us that under Xi Jinping, China halted the export of personal protective equipment made by US companies, sent defective PPE to the Netherlands and barred Australian beef exports after Canberra called for an inquiry into the genesis of Covid-19. In Rogin’s telling, China’s “mask diplomacy” was a blunt instrument, designed to still criticism abroad and sow fear at home.Rogin delivers a needed modicum of clarity. Under the subtitle Trump, Xi and the Battle for the Twenty-First Century, he lays out what the US and its allies got wrong about China over decades, strife within the Trump administration and personal financial conflicts that affected US policy. Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, and Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump feature heavily. But Hunter and James Biden bear watching too.McConnell’s wealth is tethered to his wife’s family interest in Chinese shipping. Angela Chao, his sister-in-law, is chief executive of the business and sits on the board of the Bank of China. Most recently, the US transportation department inspector general reported that Elaine Chao, McConnell’s wife and Trump’s transportation secretary, escaped criminal investigation after the justice department weighed in.If the Chinese were to invade Taiwan, Trump said, ‘there isn’t a fucking thing we can do’. So much for US policyIn fall 2019, McConnell and Trump thwarted progress on the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy bill, which had cleared the Senate foreign relations committee, then controlled by Republicans. Back in 1992, McConnell backed legislation enacted in connection with the autonomy of Hong Kong. As late as summer 2019, he wrote an op-ed in support. Time – and perhaps marriage – can change perspective.Rogin has longtime interests in human rights and the far east. He spent the early days of his career at the Asahi Shimbun, a Japanese daily, and more recently rubbed shoulders with an informal group of opponents to the Chinese regime, which he calls the “Bingo Club”. One member was Peter Mattis, a former CIA analyst and nephew of James Mattis, Trump’s first defense secretary. During the 2016 Republican convention, Rogin broke the story of the Trump campaign “gutting” the GOP’s anti-Russia platform on Ukraine.Chaos Under Heaven moves quickly, is well-written and draws the reader in. Rogin makes clear that tension between Beijing and Washington will probably remain for the foreseeable future. China’s economy and military continue to grow, America’s social chasms remain on display. Under Xi, don’t expect the Middle Kingdom to back down.One of Rogin’s central points is that Trump correctly identified the threat and challenge posed by China yet proved incapable of formulating a coherent strategy and sticking with it. Much of the time, he conflated personal relationships with the national interest. As his approach to North Korea showed, not everyone was buying what he was selling. His effort to draw China into that quagmire was a bust. The art of the deal is way harder than Trump trumpeted.On the ground, the food fights of 2016 carried over to the White House. The West Wing was riven with factions. Wall Street transplants, military veterans and diehard Maga-ites exchanged verbal blows. The former reality show host zigged and zagged, blowing hot and cold as TV and his moods took him.During the 2016 transition, Trump accepted a congratulatory phone call from Tsai Ing-wen, president of Taiwan. Not surprisingly, China was angered – it regards the island as its own. Ambiguity toward Taiwan was central to US rapprochement with China in the 1970s. Trump walked his words back, invited Xi to Mar-a-Lago and treated him to the “most beautiful piece of chocolate cake that you’ve ever seen”.As for Trump’s take on Taiwan, he told a senator it was “like two feet from China” and the US was “8,000 miles away”. Trump chillingly added that if the Chinese were to invade, “there isn’t a fucking thing we can do about it”. So much for US policy.Trump’s inability to forge working alliances hampered US responses. Confronting China required playing well with others. Trump proved unable to set aside personal pique and drive a consensus forward. At times he caved on the technological threat China posed, for the sake of scoring an elusive trade deal.On the plus side of the ledger, the conduct of Beijing during the pandemic made governments realize “their dependence on China was a political vulnerability”. The UK reversed course and banned Huawei, the Chinese communications Goliath, from its networks.No book about Trump is complete without at least one salacious morsel. Chaos Under Heaven conveys that Trump came to believe an unfounded rumor that Gen HR McMaster, his second national security adviser, was conducting an extramarital affair. As expected, Trump could not keep the news to himself.At a crowded Oval Office staff meeting, the former president queried: “Have you heard who McMaster is fucking?” Ever the puritan, Trump warned: “He’s gonna get us all in trouble if he can’t keep his dick in his pants.” The Manhattan district attorney is still investigating all things Trump, including payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.Rogin observes that Trump was “great at flipping over the chess board but he couldn’t set the board back up again”. That said, he had “shifted the conversation about China in a way that cannot be undone”. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      How China Plans to Control Hong Kong’s Elections and Elevate ‘Patriots’

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }China’s Crackdown on Hong KongThe Security Law, ExplainedChina Rewrites HistoryFleeing Activists ChargedU.S. SanctionsMass ArrestsAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyHow China Plans to Control Hong Kong’s Elections and Elevate ‘Patriots’New rules imposed by Beijing will make it nearly impossible for democracy advocates in the territory to run for chief executive or the legislature.The changes to Hong Kong’s election rules were approved on Thursday during the closing session of the National People’s Congress in Beijing.Credit…Pool photo by Roman PilipeyKeith Bradsher and March 11, 2021, 7:22 a.m. ETBEIJING — China approved on Thursday a drastic overhaul of election rules for Hong Kong that would most likely bar many pro-democracy politicians from competing in elections, cementing Beijing’s grip over the territory.The National People’s Congress, China’s Communist Party-controlled legislature, voted almost unanimously to give pro-Beijing loyalists more power to choose Hong Kong’s local leader, as well as members of its legislature. The decision builds on a sweeping national security law for Hong Kong, imposed last year after months of protests, that the authorities have used to quash opposition in the former British colony.Premier Li Keqiang said at his annual news conference that the new legislation was needed to ensure that “patriots” run the territory. But critics contend that the new election system will wipe out the already limited democracy that Hong Kong enjoyed after its return to Chinese sovereignty in 1997.Here is what we know about the changes.Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s current leader, is eligible to run for re-election but has not yet said whether she will do so.Credit…Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesBeijing will have even more say over who leads Hong Kong.Until now, Hong Kong’s chief executive has been selected by a 1,200-member Election Committee dominated by Beijing’s allies. This has allowed China to pick leaders it trusts.But a groundswell of support for the territory’s democracy movement during massive protests in 2019 raised the possibility that the opposition could amass a majority of votes to stymie Beijing’s choice.Beijing plans to add 300 more spots on the committee, which could allow more seats to go to its allies. The congress also imposed a new rule that would most likely prevent democrats from getting on the Election Committee’s ballot. To be nominated, a candidate will now require at least some support from each of the five main groups on the committee. Beijing will now have the chance to form one group entirely from its loyalists, which would block pro-democracy nominees.Such moves are likely to deprive democracy supporters of much say when the committee votes early next year to select Hong Kong’s leader. The current chief executive, Carrie Lam, is eligible to run for re-election but has not yet said whether she will do so.Pro-Beijing activists showed support for the electoral changes in Hong Kong on Thursday.   Credit…Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesCandidates deemed ‘disloyal’ would be rooted out.Beijing will also empower the Election Committee to directly appoint some members of Hong Kong’s legislature. To many, this is a regression, as the committee lost the authority to appoint lawmakers several years after Hong Kong returned to Chinese sovereignty from British rule.“I think overall this is an effective, fast, hard-line kind of reverse democratization package,” said Sonny Lo, a political analyst based in Hong Kong. “The pro-democracy forces, even if they can win all the directly elected seats, they will be destined to be a permanent minority.”Half the seats in the legislature are currently chosen by direct elections and half by so-called functional constituencies: various professions, business groups and other special interests. Until recently, the democrats had held around two dozen seats, and often used their presence to protest China’s encroachment on the territory’s autonomy and filibuster some local government measures.Mrs. Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, said the changes would prevent dissenting politicians from disrupting the legislature, known as LegCo.“We will be able to resolve the problem of the LegCo making everything political in recent years and effectively deal with the reckless moves or internal rift that have torn Hong Kong apart,” she said.Beijing ordered an expansion of the legislature, to 90 seats from 70. It did not say how many of those seats would be directly appointed by the election committee.The congress also said the Hong Kong government would establish a separate committee to vet candidates seeking to run for the legislature or chief executive. This process is designed to weed out anyone who might be considered disloyal to Beijing.From left: The Democratic Party members Andrew Wan, Lam Cheuk-ting, Lo Kin-hei and Helena Wong at a news conference in January. All had been arrested on charges tied to the national security law.Credit…Jerome Favre/EPA, via ShutterstockIt’s ‘a sad move,’ democrats say.Even before the legislation takes force, the Beijing-backed government in Hong Kong has moved quickly to extinguish the opposition.Many activists have been detained or arrested on charges tied to the national security law, including Joshua Wong; Martin Lee, known as the “father of democracy” in Hong Kong; and Benny Tai, a law scholar. Their voice has been significantly dimmed.Pro-democracy activists warned that the election law changes would amount to a death knell for the territory’s limited voting rights.Lo Kin-hei, the chairman of the Democratic Party and one of the few prominent opposition figures not in custody, called the electoral changes “a sad move for Hong Kong.”“They should actually make the Legislative Council more responsive to the people’s voice, instead of suppressing the people’s voice, like what their proposal is now,” Mr. Lo said.“I believe that in the future those legislative councilors will be less and less representative of the Hong Kong people and they will just be some loyalists who can do nothing and who cannot represent the Hong Kong people at all,” he said.Last month, the authorities charged 47 people — many of them well-known democracy activists — with conspiracy to commit subversion.Their crime in the eyes of the police was their role in holding a primary election intended to help identify pro-democracy candidates for legislative elections that were originally scheduled for last September. The government postponed those elections for a year, citing the pandemic, and has hinted that a further postponement might be needed while the new election law is drafted and implemented.Keith Bradsher More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Preparing for Retaliation Against Russia, U.S. Confronts Hacking by China

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyPreparing for Retaliation Against Russia, U.S. Confronts Hacking by ChinaThe proliferation of cyberattacks by rivals is presenting a challenge to the Biden administration as it seeks to deter intrusions on government and corporate systems.Jake Sullivan, President Biden’s national security adviser, last month. He said on Thursday that the White House was “closely tracking” reports that the vulnerabilities exploited in the Microsoft hacking were being used in “potential compromises of U.S. think tanks and defense industrial base entities.”Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesDavid E. Sanger, Julian E. Barnes and March 7, 2021Updated 9:42 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — Just as it plans to begin retaliating against Russia for the large-scale hacking of American government agencies and corporations discovered late last year, the Biden administration faces a new cyberattack that raises the question of whether it will have to strike back at another major adversary: China.Taken together, the responses will start to define how President Biden fashions his new administration’s response to escalating cyberconflict and whether he can find a way to impose a steeper penalty on rivals who regularly exploit vulnerabilities in government and corporate defenses to spy, steal information and potentially damage critical components of the nation’s infrastructure.The first major move is expected over the next three weeks, officials said, with a series of clandestine actions across Russian networks that are intended to be evident to President Vladimir V. Putin and his intelligence services and military but not to the wider world.The officials said the actions would be combined with some kind of economic sanctions — though there are few truly effective sanctions left to impose — and an executive order from Mr. Biden to accelerate the hardening of federal government networks after the Russian hacking, which went undetected for months until it was discovered by a private cybersecurity firm.The issue has taken on added urgency at the White House, the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies in recent days after the public exposure of a major breach in Microsoft email systems used by small businesses, local governments and, by some accounts, key military contractors.Microsoft identified the intruders as a state-sponsored Chinese group and moved quickly to issue a patch to allow users of its software to close off the vulnerability.But that touched off a race between those responsible for patching the systems and a raft of new attackers — including multiple other Chinese hacking groups, according to Microsoft — who started using the same exploit this week.The United States government has not made public any formal determination of who was responsible for the hacking, but at the White House and on Microsoft’s campus in Redmond, Wash., the fear is that espionage and theft may be a prelude to far more destructive activity, such as changing data or wiping it out.The White House underscored the seriousness of the situation in a statement on Sunday from the National Security Council.“The White House is undertaking a whole of government response to assess and address the impact” of the Microsoft intrusion, the statement said. It said the response was being led by Anne Neuberger, a former senior National Security Agency official who is the first occupant of a newly created post: deputy national security adviser for cyber and emerging technologies.The statement said that national security officials were working throughout the weekend to address the hacking and that “this is an active threat still developing, and we urge network operators to take it very seriously.”Jake Sullivan, Mr. Biden’s national security adviser, said on Twitter on Thursday that the White House was “closely tracking” the reports that the vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange were being used in “potential compromises of U.S. think tanks and defense industrial base entities.”The discovery came as Mr. Biden’s national security team, led by Mr. Sullivan and Ms. Neuberger, has moved to the top of its agenda an effort to deter attacks, whether their intent is theft, altering data or shutting down networks entirely. For the president, who promised that the Russian attack would not “go unanswered,” the administration’s reactions in the coming weeks will be a test of his ability to assert American power in an often unseen but increasingly high-stakes battle among major powers in cyberspace.A mix of public sanctions and private actions is the most likely combination to force a “broad strategic discussion with the Russians,” Mr. Sullivan said in an interview on Thursday, before the scope of the Chinese attack was clear.“I actually believe that a set of measures that are understood by the Russians, but may not be visible to the broader world, are actually likely to be the most effective measures in terms of clarifying what the United States believes are in bounds and out of bounds, and what we are prepared to do in response,” he added.From the first day of the new administration, Mr. Sullivan has been reorganizing the White House to fashion such responses. The same order he issued on Jan. 20, requiring the military to advise the White House before conducting drone strikes outside war zones, contained a paragraph with separate instructions for dealing with major cyberoperations that risk escalating conflict.The order left in place, however, a still secret document signed by President Donald J. Trump in August 2018 giving the United States Cyber Command broader authorities than it had during the Obama administration to conduct day-to-day, short-of-war skirmishes in cyberspace, often without explicit presidential authorization.Under the new order, Cyber Command will have to bring operations of significant size and scope to the White House and allow the National Security Council to review or adjust those operations, according to officials briefed on the memo. The forthcoming operation against Russia, and any potential response to China, is likely to fall in this category.The hacking that Microsoft has attributed to China poses many of the same challenges as the SolarWinds attack by the Russians that was discovered late last year.Credit…Swayne B. Hall/Associated PressAmerican officials continue to try to better understand the scope and damage done by the Chinese attack, but every day since its revelation has suggested that it is bigger, and potentially more harmful, than first thought.“This is a crazy huge hack,” Christopher C. Krebs, the former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, wrote on Twitter on Friday.The initial estimates were that 30,000 or so systems were affected, mostly those operated by businesses or government agencies that use Microsoft software and run their email systems in-house. (Email and others systems run on Microsoft’s cloud were not affected.)But the breadth of the intrusion and the identities of the victims are still unclear. And while the Chinese deployed the attack widely, they might have sought only to take information from a narrow group of targets in which they have the highest interest.There is little doubt that the scope of the attack has American officials considering whether they will have to retaliate against China as well. That would put them in the position of engaging in a potentially escalating conflict with two countries that are also its biggest nuclear-armed adversaries.It has become increasingly clear in recent days that the hacking that Microsoft has attributed to Beijing poses many of the same challenges as the SolarWinds attack conducted by the Russians, although the targets and the methodology are significantly different.Like the Russians, the Chinese attackers initiated their campaign against Microsoft from computer servers — essentially cloud services — that they rented under assumed identities in the United States. Both countries know that American law prohibits intelligence agencies from looking in systems based in the United States, and they are exploiting that legal restriction.“The Chinese actor apparently spent the time to research the legal authorities and recognized that if they could operate from inside the United States, it takes some of the government’s best threat-hunters off the field,” Tom Burt, the Microsoft executive overseeing the investigation, said on Friday.The result was that in both the SolarWinds and the more recent Chinese hacking, American intelligence agencies appeared to have missed the evidence of what was happening until a private company saw it and alerted the authorities.The debate preoccupying the White House is how to respond. Mr. Sullivan served as Mr. Biden’s national security adviser while he was vice president, as the Obama administration struggled to respond to a series of attacks.Those included the Chinese effort that stole 22.5 million security-clearance records from the Office of Personnel Management in 2014 and the Russian attack on the 2016 presidential election.In writings and talks over the past four years, Mr. Sullivan has made clear that he believes traditional sanctions alone do not sufficiently raise the cost to force powers like Russia or China to begin to talk about new rules of the road for cyberspace.But government officials often fear that too strong a response risks escalation.That is a particular concern in the Russian and Chinese attacks, where both countries have clearly planted “back doors” to American systems that could be used for more destructive purposes.American officials say publicly that the current evidence suggests that the Russian intention in the SolarWinds attack was merely data theft. But several senior officials, when speaking not for attribution, said they believed the size, scope and expense of the operation suggested that the Russians might have had much broader motives.“I’m struck by how many of these attacks undercut trust in our systems,” Mr. Burt said, “just as there are efforts to make the country distrust the voting infrastructure, which is a core component of our democracy.”Russia broke into the Democratic National Committee and state voter-registration systems in 2016 largely by guessing or obtaining passwords. But they used a far more sophisticated method in the SolarWinds hacking, inserting code into the company’s software updates, which ushered them deep into about 18,000 systems that used the network management software. Once inside, the Russians had high-level access to the systems, with no passwords required.Similarly, four years ago, a vast majority of Chinese government hacking was conducted via email spear-phishing campaigns. But over the past few years, China’s military hacking divisions have been consolidating into a new strategic support force, similar to the Pentagon’s Cyber Command. Some of the most important hacking operations are run by the stealthier Ministry of State Security, China’s premier intelligence agency, which maintains a satellite network of contractors.Beijing also started hoarding so-called zero-days, flaws in code unknown to software vendors and for which a patch does not exist.In August 2019, security researchers got their first glimpse of how these undisclosed zero-day flaws were being used: Security researchers at Google’s Project Zero and Volexity — the same company in Reston, Va., that discovered the Microsoft attack — found that Chinese hackers were using a software vulnerability to spy on anyone who visited a website read by Uighurs, an ethnic minority group whose persecution has drawn international condemnation.For two years, until the campaign was discovered, anyone who visited the sites unwittingly downloaded Chinese implants onto their smartphones, allowing Beijing to monitor their communications.Kevin Mandia of FireEye, Sudhakar Ramakrishna of SolarWinds and Brad Smith of Microsoft testified last month in a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on the Russian hacking.Credit…Drew Angerer/Agence France-Presse, via Pool/Afp Via Getty ImagesThe Chinese attack on Microsoft’s servers used four zero-days flaws in the email software. Security experts estimated on Friday that as many as 30,000 organizations were affected by the hacking, a detail first reported by the security writer Brian Krebs. But there is some evidence that the number could be much higher.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Demanding Loyalty, China Moves to Overhaul Hong Kong Elections

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }China’s Crackdown on Hong KongThe Security Law, ExplainedChina Rewrites HistoryFleeing Activists ChargedU.S. SanctionsMass ArrestsAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyDemanding Loyalty, China Moves to Overhaul Hong Kong ElectionsChina’s national legislature disclosed plans for a law that would make it extremely difficult for Beijing’s critics to hold elective office in Hong Kong.Protesters gathered outside a Hong Kong courthouse on Thursday for the preliminary hearing of the 47 pro-democracy activists who were charged with violating Chinese law after attempting to organize an election primary.CreditCredit…Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesKeith Bradsher and March 4, 2021Updated 9:03 p.m. ET阅读简体中文版閱讀繁體中文版BEIJING — When Beijing set out last summer to quash resistance to its rule in Hong Kong, it imposed a national security law that empowered the authorities to arrest scores of democracy advocates and sent a chill over the city.Now, less than a year later, China wants nothing less than a fundamental overhaul of the city’s normally contentious politics.Zhang Yesui, a senior Communist Party official, announced on Thursday that China’s national legislature planned to rewrite election rules in Hong Kong to ensure that the territory was run by patriots, which Beijing defines as people loyal to the national government and the Communist Party.Mr. Zhang did not release details of the proposal. But Lau Siu-kai, a senior adviser to the Chinese leadership on Hong Kong policy, has said the new approach is likely to call for the creation of a government agency to vet every candidate running not only for chief executive but for the legislature and other levels of office, including neighborhood representatives.The strategy looks set to further concentrate power in the hands of Communist Party proxies in Hong Kong and to decimate the political hopes of the territory’s already beleaguered opposition for years to come.It would also appear to spell an end to the dream of full and open elections that has been nurtured by millions of Hong Kong residents in the years since Britain returned the territory to Chinese rule in 1997. Genuine universal suffrage — the right to direct elections — was one of the key demands of protesters during the 2019 demonstrations that engulfed the city of more than 7 million people for months.The police detaining a protester after the government announced the postponement of the legislative council election in September.Credit…Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesMr. Zhang, a spokesman for China’s national legislature, the National People’s Congress, indicated that political turmoil in recent years had created the need to change the territory’s electoral system to ensure a system of “patriots governing Hong Kong.”He defended Beijing’s right to bypass local officials in Hong Kong in enacting such legislation, just as the central government did in imposing the national security law in June. The congress will discuss a draft plan for changes to the electoral system when it gathers for a weeklong session starting on Friday.The electoral restrictions would be likely to further smother the opposition, which has been battered by arrests and detentions since Beijing imposed the security law in June. On Sunday, in the most forceful use of the security law so far, the police charged 47 of Hong Kong’s most prominent democracy advocates with conspiracy to commit subversion after they organized an election primary in July.The democracy campaigners had hoped to win a majority in the local legislature in elections last September, then block government budgets, a move that could force Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s leader, to resign. The government later postponed those elections. But the city’s prosecutors said the activists’ strategy of trying to oust the chief executive amounted to interfering with government functions, an offense under the security law.Opposition politicians have defended their tactics as legitimate and commonplace in democratic systems and argue that they are merely fighting to preserve the city’s relative autonomy, promised under a policy known as “one country, two systems.”Pro-democracy activists were ushered to court on Thursday. They were charged with conspiracy to commit subversion.Credit…Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesBut some of Beijing’s staunchest allies in the city have accused the pro-democracy camp more broadly of putting Hong Kong’s future at risk by testing the Chinese government’s limits and forgetting that the city was not an independent country.“We are not another Singapore,” said Leung Chun-ying, a former chief executive of Hong Kong, in a statement. “In Hong Kong, by pushing on the democracy envelope too far, and by attempting to chip away the authority of Beijing, in for example appointing the chief executive, many of the so-called democrats have become, in practice, separatists.”Ronny Tong, a former pro-democracy lawmaker who now serves in the cabinet of Hong Kong’s chief executive, said he hoped Beijing would not make it impossible for opposition figures to run for office.“If you were to overdo it, which is something I don’t want to see, we would become a one-party legislature,” he said. “That wouldn’t be in line with the spirit of one country, two systems, and therefore I have cautioned restraint to whoever wishes to listen.”Still, he acknowledged that Hong Kong officials had little role to play. “We just have to wait and see.”Keith Bradsher reported from Beijing and Austin Ramzy from Hong Kong. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Patriots’ Only: Beijing Plans Overhaul of Hong Kong’s Elections

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main story‘Patriots’ Only: Beijing Plans Overhaul of Hong Kong’s ElectionsThe central government is likely to bypass local officials, just as it did with last year’s national security law.China plans to impose restrictions on Hong Kong’s electoral system to root out candidates whom the Communist Party deems disloyal.Credit…Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesKeith Bradsher, Vivian Wang and Feb. 23, 2021, 8:05 a.m. ETBEIJING — China’s Communist Party already wields outsized influence over Hong Kong’s political landscape. Its allies have long controlled a committee that handpicks the territory’s leader. Its loyalists dominate the Hong Kong legislature. It ousted four of the city’s elected opposition lawmakers last year.Now, China plans to impose restrictions on Hong Kong’s electoral system to root out candidates the Communist Party deems disloyal, a move that could block democracy advocates in the city from running for any elected office.The planned overhaul reinforces the Communist Party’s resolve to quash the few remaining vestiges of political dissent after the antigovernment protests that roiled the territory in 2019. It also builds on a national security law for the city that Beijing enacted last summer, giving the authorities sweeping powers to target dissent.Collectively, those efforts are transforming Hong Kong’s freewheeling, often messy partial democracy into a political system more closely resembling mainland China’s authoritarian system, which demands almost total obedience.“In our country where socialist democracy is practiced, political dissent is allowed, but there is a red line here,” Xia Baolong, China’s director of Hong Kong and Macau affairs, said on Monday in a strongly worded speech that outlined Beijing’s intentions. “It must not be allowed to damage the fundamental system of the country — that is, damage the leadership of the Communist Party of China.”The central government wants Hong Kong to be run by “patriots,” Mr. Xia said, and will not let the Hong Kong government rewrite the territory’s laws, as previously expected, but will do so itself.President Xi Jinping of China, left, has told Hong Kong’s leader that having patriots govern the city is the only way to ensure its long-term stability.Credit…Kevin Frayer/Getty ImagesMr. Xia did not go into details, but Hong Kong’s leader, Carrie Lam, affirmed the broad strokes of the plan, saying on Tuesday that many years of intermittent protests over Hong Kong’s political future had forced the national government to act.When Britain returned Hong Kong to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, the territory was promised a high degree of autonomy, in addition to the preservation of its capitalist economic system and the rule of law.But in the decades since, many among the city’s 7.5 million residents have grown wary of Beijing’s encroachment on their freedoms and unfulfilled promises of universal suffrage. The Communist Party, for its part, has been alarmed by increasingly open resistance to its rule in the city and has blamed what it calls hostile foreign forces bent on undermining its sovereignty.These tensions escalated in 2019 when masses of Hong Kong residents took to the streets in protests for months, calling in part for universal suffrage. They also delivered a striking rebuke of Beijing by handing pro-democracy candidates a stunning victory in local district elections that had long been dominated by the establishment.The latest planned overhaul seeks to prevent such electoral upsets and, more important, would also give Beijing a much tighter grip on the 1,200-member committee that will decide early next year who will be the city’s chief executive for the next five years.Different groups in Hong Kong society — bankers, lawyers, accountants and others — will vote this year to choose their representatives on the committee. The urgency of the Communist Party’s move suggests a worry that pro-democracy sentiment in Hong Kong is so strong that the party could lose control of the committee unless it disqualifies democracy advocates from serving.A large-scale protest in Hong Kong in January 2020. Credit…Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesLau Siu-kai, a senior adviser to the Chinese leadership on Hong Kong policy, said China’s Communist Party-run national legislature was expected to push forward the electoral overhaul when it gathers in Beijing for its annual session starting on March 5.Mr. Lau, a former senior Hong Kong official, said the Chinese legislature, the National People’s Congress, would probably move to create a high-level group of government officials with the legal authority to investigate every candidate for public office and determine whether each candidate is genuinely loyal to Beijing.The plan would cover candidates for nearly 2,000 elected positions in Hong Kong, including the committee that chooses the chief executive, the legislature and the district councils, he said.The new election law now being drafted will not be retroactive, Mr. Lau said, and current district councilors will keep their seats as long as they adhere to the law and swear loyalty to Hong Kong and China.Beijing officials and state news media outlets have delivered a drumbeat of calls over the past month for Hong Kong to be run exclusively by people who are “patriots.” To Beijing, that term is narrowly defined as loyalty to mainland China and particularly to the Chinese Communist Party.China’s top leader, Xi Jinping, raised the issue in late January with Mrs. Lam, telling her that having patriots govern Hong Kong was the only way to ensure the city’s long-term stability. And on Tuesday, the Hong Kong government said it would introduce a bill requiring district councilors to take loyalty oaths and would ban candidates from standing for office for five years if they were deemed insincere or insufficiently patriotic.Hong Kong’s leader, Carrie Lam, said that years of intermittent protests over the city’s political future had forced the national government to act.Credit…Jerome Favre/EPA, via Shutterstock“You cannot say, ‘I’m patriotic but I don’t respect the fact that it is the Chinese Communist Party which leads the country,’” Erick Tsang, Hong Kong’s secretary for constitutional and mainland affairs, said at a news conference.Michael Mo, a pro-democracy district councilor who has been outspoken in his criticisms of the government, said that he planned to take the loyalty oath but that he had no control over whether that would be enough for the authorities.“It’s not up to me to define whether I’m a patriot,” Mr. Mo said. “The so-called passing mark is an unknown.”The government’s moves could further chill free speech and political debate in the city. Since Beijing imposed the national security law, the city’s authorities have used it for a wide-ranging crackdown. They have arrested more than 100 people, including activists, politicians, an American lawyer and a pro-democracy publisher.“I can only say people worry about that — for example, whether criticism of Communist Party or the political system in China would be regarded as not patriotic, then they have this kind of self-censorship,” said Ivan Choy, a senior lecturer in government and public administration at the Chinese University of Hong Kong.Before last year’s security law, Beijing generally let the Hong Kong legislature draft and enact laws governing the territory. In a sign of how drastic a departure the new approach is from previous years, some Hong Kong politicians initially expressed skepticism that Beijing would once again bypass local officials to enact legislation.Police officers firing tear gas against pro-democracy protesters in May 2020. Credit…Lam Yik Fei for The New York TimesOn Monday, hours after the speech by Mr. Xia, the Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong affairs, Holden Chow, a pro-establishment lawmaker, said he still expected Hong Kong to formulate the electoral changes on its own, as was tradition.But on Tuesday, as a battery of officials declared their expectation that Beijing would act directly, Mr. Chow said that he had changed his mind and that he fully supported the central government’s intention to act from on high.He said Beijing’s actions did not diminish the influence of Hong Kong’s leaders. “I don’t think you’ll find these things very often,” he said of the direct action on electoral reform and the national security law.“It’s just in connection with these two major and important matters,” Mr. Chow said. “I still believe that, going forward, we still have a role to play.”Keith Bradsher reported from Beijing, and Vivian Wang and Austin Ramzy from Hong Kong. Tiffany May contributed reporting from Hong Kong.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 100 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      After Capitol Riots, Billionaire’s ‘Scholars’ Confront Their Benefactor

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAfter Capitol Riots, Billionaire’s ‘Scholars’ Confront Their BenefactorMore than 160 participants in a master’s program funded by the Blackstone founder Stephen Schwarzman have urged him to stop donating to election objectors. He has declined.Stephen Schwarzman opened his namesake program at Tsinghua University in Beijing in 2016.Credit…Getty ImagesFeb. 18, 2021Updated 1:33 p.m. ETThe private equity billionaire Stephen A. Schwarzman has spent many years financing educational programs, from his old high school to the Ivy League.But the Blackstone chief executive’s largess hasn’t always bought good will: There was swift opposition to his proposal to put his name on Abington Senior High School in Pennsylvania, and his close ties to former President Donald J. Trump contributed to opposition to having his name on a campus center he funded at Yale.And now, some participants in the Schwarzman Scholars program — a master’s course he established at Tsinghua University in Beijing to be a Chinese analogue to the Rhodes Scholarships — are speaking out against their benefactor.They say Mr. Schwarzman is failing to live up to his own values and harming the program’s reputation by not cutting off money to lawmakers who opposed certifying President Biden’s electoral victory.In a letter emailed to Mr. Schwarzman on Feb. 10, 161 current and past Schwarzman Scholars and two program professors urged Mr. Schwarzman to cut off those politicians and groups. “You espoused integrity, honesty and courage,” they wrote. “Now, we ask that you demonstrate those values by refusing to financially support those who would overturn the results of a free and fair election for their own political gain.”About an hour later, Mr. Schwarzman — who with his wife was the third-largest donor to the objecting lawmakers, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics — refused.Although the election certification vote would be “one of the major factors” in determining whom he supported in the future, Mr. Schwarzman wrote, “I value my constitutional right to carefully determine who I vote for and support.”The rift centers on one of Mr. Schwarzman’s fondest achievements, a one-year graduate program started with a $100 million donation from him and augmented with $450 million he raised from others. Up to 200 students take part each year, living and learning in a building designed by Robert A.M. Stern Architects — called Schwarzman College — with coursework focused on Chinese history, leadership and global affairs.Mr. Schwarzman and his wife, Christine, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in 2018 for the Met Gala.Credit…Justin Lane/EPA, via ShutterstockBut some of the letter’s signers have begun to question whether having “Schwarzman Scholar” on their résumé is as much a risk as it is a benefit.“I feel like I cannot in good conscience allow my name to be associated with someone who refuses to commit not to donate to such people,” said Alistair Kitchen, a program alumnus who helped organize support for the letter.Mr. Kitchen, 29, an Australian who works in New York for Collective Impact, a strategy firm that focuses on progressive causes, said some scholars felt their association with the program could taint them, even as it burnished Mr. Schwarzman’s legacy, which Mr. Kitchen called a form a “reputation laundering.”For Ashlie Koehn, who had worked her way through the University of Kansas and joined the Kansas Air National Guard before becoming a Schwarzman Scholar, the program was a revelation — the first time she’d been able to focus on academics and not cost. But she said Mr. Schwarzman seemed not to understand the extent of his influence.“He has this self-perception of himself as an average American citizen, which he is in some ways,” said Ms. Koehn, 30, who works in state government. “But I think it disregards the fact that he has this outsized capital, and his donations give him an outsize impact.”A quarter of the more than 600 students who have participated in the program since 2016 signed the letter, including 18 anonymously. Some scholars supported the letter, organizers said, but feared repercussions in their professional lives if they signed.Others had different reasons for declining. Charles Vitry, a London-based alumnus of the program’s 2018 class, did not sign, although he said he “respected and appreciated the principles” of those who did. He said he also saw a need for “a broader community space to discuss challenging issues.”A spokesman for Mr. Schwarzman noted that the program had started in 2013 — “long before the 2016 election” — and that Mr. Schwarzman had supported congressional Republicans across the board in 2019 at the recommendation of G.O.P. leader, Representative Kevin McCarthy of California. “The majority of candidates Steve donated to voted to certify the results — as Steve had repeatedly called for,” said the spokesman, Matt Anderson.A spokeswoman for the Schwarzman Scholars program, Ellie Gottdenker, said in a statement that the program “remains true to its global mission and reputation as a world-class bridge for mutual understanding between China and the rest of the world.”The Schwarzman Scholars building at Tsinghua University.Credit…Getty ImagesThis is not the first time that Mr. Schwarzman has made a foray into educational philanthropy and faced opposition from those who benefit. Nor is it the first time that the opposition stemmed from his political positions.After Mr. Schwarzman donated $150 million to Yale, his alma mater, in 2015 to construct a building for events and informal gatherings to be named the Schwarzman Center, some professors and students complained about Blackstone’s business practices and his ties to Mr. Trump.In 2018, he pledged $350 million to build a new computer science center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also to be named after him, which drew opposition on similar grounds.The same year, he pledged $25 million to help upgrade the high school he attended in suburban Philadelphia, which agreed to add his name to its own. The proposal set off an immediate backlash, and Mr. Schwarzman and the school quickly shifted course to name only a new science and technology building after him.The friction with the Schwarzman Scholars started almost immediately after the program welcomed its first class in 2016.A portrait of Mr. Schwarzman in the program’s facilities in Beijing.Credit…Getty ImagesSoon after the election, Mr. Schwarzman agreed to lead a business advisory council that made him one of Mr. Trump’s most prominent associates. After Mr. Trump introduced a travel and immigration prohibition aimed at people from predominantly Muslim countries, Mr. Schwarzman received sharp questions from the scholars on a video chat, according to one attendee. He argued that it was important to take a broad view and focus on common ground rather than on differences, the person recalled.Then came the 2020 election, and Mr. Schwarzman’s reaction to the outcome felt like equivocation to some members of the program.On a call with business leaders as votes in battleground states were still being counted, Mr. Schwarzman said he was sympathetic to voters who were skeptical of the counts. Later in the month, he said that the outcome was “very certain” and that Mr. Biden had his full support.When rioters stormed the Capitol, Mr. Schwarzman condemned their actions as an “insurrection” and “an affront to the democratic values we hold dear” in a statement to Blackstone employees and Schwarzman Scholars.But as a number of businesses and trade organizations were announcing that they would withdraw financial support from those who opposed certification of the election, at least two alumni wrote to Mr. Schwarzman raising concerns about his financial support of the objectors; they said he did not reply.Frustrated scholars began discussing a group letter. Mr. Kitchen and his former classmate Ricky Altieri, a 28-year-old Yale law student, circulated drafts over WeChat, text and Signal and eventually settled on a five-paragraph note. It asked that Mr. Schwarzman commit never to donate to any politician or political group that “supported Mr. Trump’s bid to overturn the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.”“We believe that donations to such candidates would violate the most basic principles of Schwarzman Scholars and harm its reputation,” the letter said.In his reply, which immediately made its way among current and former scholars, Mr. Schwarzman pushed back, writing that he had publicly supported the certification of Mr. Biden’s victory. Although the large number of objectors left him disappointed and confused, he said, they were “acting legally under the Constitution.”He added, “It is important in a democracy to continue to rely on our constitutional system and not voluntarily agree to be silenced.”Some of the scholars seemed to agree — and cited the program’s influence as one reason.Jacko Walz, 25, a New York-based strategy consultant focused on international development in Latin America, said the program had enhanced his awareness of the world around him and taught him about leadership and moral courage.“I think those topics are really authentically taught there,” Mr. Walz said. “And now that I’ve graduated I hope to practice them all the time.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      How Tough Is Biden Prepared to Look?

      by

      A week after taking office, US President Joe Biden made a point of breaking with the position of his predecessor, Donald Trump, who famously blamed China for deliberately spreading the coronavirus. Trump insisted on calling it the Wuhan flu, Kung flu or any other xenophobic alternative. Coming to the defense of the entire Asian community in the United States, Biden issued a memorandum stating the following: “Inflammatory and xenophobic rhetoric has put Asian-American and Pacific Islander persons, families, communities and businesses at risk.”

      The Iran Deal vs. the Logic of History

      READ MORE

      The World Health Organization (WHO) team conducting an investigation in Wuhan released its preliminary findings this week on the origins of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. It maintained, as Reuters reports, “that the virus likely came from bats and not a laboratory in the Chinese city of Wuhan.” On February 10, an official of the US State Department announced what appeared to be a retreat to the Trump administration’s position: “The United States will not accept World Health Organization … findings coming out of its coronavirus investigation in Wuhan, China without independently verifying the findings using its own intelligence and conferring with allies.”

      One of the WHO inspectors, British zoologist and expert on disease ecology Peter Daszak, reacting to the State Department’s note, addressed this advice to Biden in a tweet: “Well now this👇. @JoeBiden has to look tough on China. Please don’t rely too much on US intel: increasingly disengaged under Trump & frankly wrong on many aspects. Happy to help.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Look tough:

      1. The principal action required to maintain the status of a bully, a person whose demeanor counts more than their substance
      2. The principal action required to maintain the image of the leader of a hegemon, called upon to make a show of being hyper-aggressive toward nations elected by politicians and the media as an existential threat  

      Contextual Note

      While the WHO team offered no definitive explanation of the origin, it focused on different possibilities of animal transmission requiring further investigation. When asked at a press conference on February 10 whether he had “any interest in punishing China for not being truthful about COVID last year,” President Biden cagily replied, “I’m interested in getting all the facts.” That answer leaves him free to look tough on China or, alternatively, to look tough at the intelligence that for the past four years has done what intelligence always does, responded obsequiously to the political solicitations of the administration in place.

      One American who, for the past four years, has made a point of looking tough and has been regularly featured in the media is Mike Pompeo, the final secretary of state under the Trump administration. In a desperate effort to keep the Trump mystique going to maintain its flagging ratings, Fox News brought Pompeo back to defend the Wuhan flu theme Trump consistently exploited for electoral advantage during last year’s presidential election campaign. In the interview, “Pompeo said ‘significant evidence’ remained that the coronavirus originated in a Chinese laboratory, casting doubt Tuesday on the World Health Organization‘s assessment that it likely spread from animals to humans.”

      .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      Pompeo, a former CIA director, admitted in 2019 that his job at the Central Intelligence Agency consisted of lying, cheating and stealing. He implied that he was now telling the truth, a fact ironically borne out by his honest admission of duplicity while at the CIA. And yet, there may be reason even today to believe that Pompeo has retained something of his talent for lying, which he will be willing to use for what he deems virtuous purposes. 

      The language people like Pompeo use often reveals how they manage to bend the truth when they aren’t simply betraying it. In the Fox interview, Pompeo explains, “I continue to know that there was significant evidence that this may well have come from that laboratory.” What can Pompeo possibly mean when he says, “I continue to know”? Is knowledge for Pompeo something that can appear and disappear? Knowledge is a state of awareness of truth, not an act of will, something one can decide according to the circumstances. 

      And because what someone knows must be a fact, what is the solid fact he says he continues to know? He tells us that it is the idea that the coronavirus “may have come from” the Wuhan laboratory. But something that “may” be true is at best a reasonable hypothesis and at worst a fabricated lie. Something that “may” be true cannot be called knowledge. Any honest speaker would use the verb “suspect.” But, in this age of conspiracy theories, people tend to suspect anything that is merely suspected. And Fox News has always preferred assertions to suspicions.

      In the same interview, Pompeo describes his recommendations for the US policy on China. He says the nation must “continue to make sure that the next century remains one dominated by rule of law, sovereignty and the things that the America first foreign policy put in place.” 

      Besides the fact that Pompeo offers another example of his favorite verb, “continue,” his odd assertion that “the next century” (the 22nd?) must be “dominated by rule of law” offers a curious yoking of two theoretically antinomic ideas: dominance and rule of law. The very idea of “rule of law” posits a relationship of equality between all concerned parties. It opposes the effect of domination. Rule of law is about level playing fields and fair play. Pompeo’s formulation reveals that he thinks of the rule of law as a specific tool of American domination. This is of course consistent with the facts, whatever the administration. The US still steadfastly refuses the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and Trump’s “America First” policy refused any law other than its own.

      For those wondering why Fox News has taken the trouble to interview the former secretary of state of a president now being tried for sedition, the journalists reveal the interest at the end of the interview. Fox sees Pompeo as a worthy contender for the 2024 presidential campaign. He’s a cleaner version of Trump, but one who will always talk and look tough.

      Historical Note

      After the most contentious presidential election in its history, the US has been preparing to experience the transition from one radical style of hyperreality to another — from Donald Trump’s outlandish display of petulant rhetoric committed to reshaping the world in his image to Joe Biden’s reserved and fundamentally uncommitted avuncular manner. Just as in 2008, when they voted in Barack Obama after eight years of George W. Bush’s chaotic wars and a Wall Street crash, Americans are expecting a change of style and focus from the never-ending drama of the Trump years. 

      But just as the self-proclaimed change candidate Obama, once in office, showed more respect for continuity than commitment to renewal, on the theme of foreign policy, President Biden appears to be following Trump’s lead while simply reducing the tone. This phenomenon reflects a more fundamental reality at the core of today’s pseudo-democratic oligarchy. It is regularly masked by the transition from Republican to Democrat and vice versa. The reigning political hyperreality, despite the contrasting personal styles of successive presidents, will always prevail. Continuity trumps change.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Biden’s future policy on both China and Iran provides two cases in point. The clock is ticking on the need to recalibrate both of these relationships, more particularly on Iran, which has an election coming in just a few months. As the world anxiously awaits the new orientations of the Biden administration, the kind of continuity Pompeo appreciates may prove more dominant than the reversal people have come to expect. After all, Trump set about reversing everything Obama did, so why shouldn’t Biden do the same? The answer may simply be that that’s not what Democrats do.

      The average American has never been seriously interested in foreign policy. That very fact has consistently led to the kind of Manichaean thinking that dominated during the Cold War. In his 2000 election campaign, the inimitable George W. Bush summed up how that Manichaean system works: “When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were. It was us versus them, and it was clear who them was. Today, we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they’re there.” As John Keats once wrote, “That is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.” 

      *[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