Archive by Author

The top 5 states with the most ‘green’ jobs

Alaska, Colorado and Washington are the top three states with the most “green” jobs in the country, according to data from sustainable promotional product company Promoleaf.  

Measuring what exactly is a green job can be tricky. But the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics defines a green job as either a job in a business that produces goods or services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources or jobs that require workers to make production processes more environmentally friendly or use fewer natural resources.  

There are roughly 900,000 green jobs in the country, or 0.6 percent of the workforce, according to a data crunch by Promoleaf. And another 114,330 new green jobs are expected to be added to the national workforce by 2030, according to the analysis.  

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.

While green careers still do not make up a huge section of the job market they are growing with wind turbine service technician and solar PV installer being two careers projected to grow by 69 and 51 percent respectively over the next decade, according to BLS projections.  

Promoleaf compiled a list of the states with the most green jobs by comparing BLS data to see which states employ the most people in this growing field compared to the national average, according to a statement.  

In Alaska, Colorado and Washington, green jobs make up almost 1 percent of the workforce or about 40 percent more than the national average, according to the analysis.  

Here are the five states with the most green jobs:  

1. Alaska 

2. Colorado 

3. Washington 

4. California 

5. Iowa 

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA

WOLVERINE CAPTURED, COLLARED IN ‘ONCE-IN-A-LIFETIME EXPERIENCE’ FOR UTAH RESEARCHERS 

WILDLY RARE VIDEO SHOWS YELLOWSTONE BEAR JOIN IN WOLF HUNT — AND STEAL FOOD IN ‘KLEPTOPARASITIC’ DRAMA

RESEARCHERS CAPTURE FOOTAGE OF RARE DEEP SEA FISH WITH TRANSLUCENT HEAD

‘I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO DIE’: MAN SUDDENLY ATTACKED BY PACK OF OTTERS

Source: TEST FEED1

DOJ alerted after Trump called unseen Jan. 6 witness, says Cheney

Former President Trump tried to call a witness expected to appear at a future hearing for the House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said Tuesday, raising further questions about potential witness tampering.

“After our last hearing, President Trump tried to call a witness in our investigation. A witness you have not yet seen in these hearings,” Cheney said at the conclusion of Tuesday’s hearing. “That person declined to answer or respond to President Trump’s call, and instead alerted their lawyer to the call. Their lawyer alerted us, and this committee has supplied that information to the Department of Justice.”

“We will take any effort to influence witness testimony very seriously,” Cheney added.

At a hearing late last month with former Trump White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, Cheney displayed a text message sent to one undisclosed witness that read: “[A person] let me know you have your deposition tomorrow. He wants me to let you know that he’s thinking about you. He knows you’re loyal, and you’re going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition.”

Cheney also showed a statement at the previous hearing from a witness in which the person recalled being told that as long as they remained loyal to Trump and his team, “I’ll continue to stay in good graces in Trump World. And they have reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts and just to keep that in mind as I proceeded through my depositions and interviews with the committee.”

One of the witnesses involved in the previous messages is reportedly Hutchinson.

But Cheney’s comments on Tuesday are the first public confirmation that Trump had personally reached out to those who are communicating with the committee.

The committee has kept the identity of witnesses at future hearings under wraps, partly due to increased security concerns.

Source: TEST FEED1

The Wild West of regulating ESG investments

ESG finance is at a crossroads. Victim of its own success, the incorporation of environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics into investment and lending decisions has become mainstream practice — and with it increased scrutiny. Recent crackdowns on alleged greenwashing by BNY Mellon, DWS and Goldman Sachs illustrate that market participants are demanding fewer lies and more truth.  

What was once a niche led by a group of mission-aligned investors, ESG is now touted as more than a $40 trillion industry. These days, ESG ratings are developed to bring clarity to what constitutes a good investment given ESG risks, opportunities and impacts. ESG strategies range from applying negative screens to harmful practices to actively seeking a societal outcome with the capital invested.

Nevertheless, ESG ratings are the Wild West in investing of our time, presenting significant divergence in scope, measurement and weight factors. The result is that ESG ratings are often incomparable, incomprehensible and incomplete. 

While it may be tempting for regulators to harmonize the ESG ratings field, in a recent comment letter we argue that it would be better to enact a series of minimum safeguards that encourage competition and protect against a lack of methodological rigor and conflicts of interest as observed in the Credit Rating Agency (CRA) model.

There are two critical ways forward to achieve trust, competition and clarity for ESG ratings: banning the sale of ancillary services for ESG rating providers and requiring transparency for methodologies and conflicts. 

The CRA model is rife with conflicts and has illustrated that companies paying to be rated generally receive more favorable ratings. We need only look to the 1960s and 70s, when Moody’s Investors Service switched to the issuer paid model before S&P Global Ratings replicated; this issuer-paid model led to higher ratings of the issuer. More recently in 2018, India enacted a transparency law to make CRA ancillary fee payments publicly available. Subsequently, researchers found there to be a three-notch upgrade in rating for companies paying for ancillary services. It’s imperative that ESG rating providers not be allowed to sell ancillary services to those they rate; in addition, these providers should disclose whether a rating has been solicited and whether the entity being rated has paid for the rating.

It’s important to level the playing field by allowing those acting in the public interest to co-exist with those acting in commercial interest. There is rapid consolidation in the ESG rating field, most concerningly by CRA parents and affiliates. Morningstar acquired Sustainalytics, Moody’s acquired Four Twenty Seven, S&P acquired Trucost, and the list goes on. However, there are also non-profits and other institutions that provide an ESG rating and ranking service in the public interest. 

To achieve a level playing field, methodologies, including questionnaires, should be disclosed. One test of methodological transparency is whether a third party could replicate the ESG rating based on the information provided. Additionally, the introduction of ESG signifiers would bring market clarity. The “sf” signifier, pioneered in Europe, is now commonplace for credit ratings to indicate a structured finance rating. A similar signifier could be introduced for ESG ratings, indicating when the rating is “inward,” “outward” or “circular” looking: “inward” meaning the impact of the outside world upon the rated entity, “outward” meaning the impact of the rated entity on the outside world, and “circular” indicating a co-dependent, circular, non-binary nature of a metric.

Another measure to prevent misleading information would be to require absolute metrics instead of, or in addition to, intensity metrics. The practice of making ESG impact metrics relative to capital deployed or similar factors serves to relativize the impacts on people and planet, while also skewing ESG ratings in favor of larger companies. For example, a ton of arsenic pollution will have the same impact on community health regardless of whether it came from a company of $5 billion in annual revenue, or one with $1 million.

Finally, breaking down E, S and G scores if aggregation exists would allow the user to understand how well the rated entity performs on each. Some ESG ratings game the system by only focusing on one or few components of ESG, whereas the user is often expecting something more comprehensive. Being clear about what is being rated, and in what categories, would help improve trust in the ESG market. 

To be sure, over-regulation in this nascent field would be damaging. Very stringent criteria may reduce competition in a sector where oligopolies are already forming, leaving much-needed innovation by the wayside. This is why we suggest minimum safeguards as opposed to outright taxonomies.

Learning from the failures of the CRA industry, regulators now have an opportunity to define the minimum safeguards of the ESG ratings industry in a way that benefits people and planet.

Marilyn Waite is managing director at Climate Finance Fund.

Daniel Cash, Ph.D., is lecturer in law at Aston University’s Credit Rating Research Initiative.

Bill Harrington is a senior fellow at Croatan Institute whose work centers on boosting the sustainability of the world financial system.

Source: TEST FEED1

Pennsylvania governor signs executive order to protect access to abortion

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf (D) announced Tuesday that he has signed an executive order protecting the right to an abortion and other reproductive health care, such as contraception, in Pennsylvania for both in-state residents and out-of-state visitors seeking care.

Wolf stated in his executive order announcement that Pennsylvania will also decline any request from another state to issue a warrant for an arrest or surrender a person charged with a criminal violation involving reproductive care from out-of-state.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to dismantle Roe v. Wade has invoked fear and uncertainty across our nation but especially in states where access to reproductive health care services is being questioned and, in some cases, banned,” said Wolf.

“Here in Pennsylvania, I will not stand for this attack on women and pregnant people. By signing this executive order, I am affirming that individuals seeking and providing reproductive health services are safe in the commonwealth from discipline and prosecution. Everyone, whether a resident of Pennsylvania or elsewhere, deserves access to health care. As long as I am governor, I will do everything in my power to protect that right,” Wolf continued.

The state executive order says it will also protect health care professionals who perform and are involved with abortions and other reproductive health care in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Last week, the Pennsylvania state Senate advanced a proposal that sought to amend the state constitution to include clear language that there is no constitutional right to abortion.

The Pennsylvania state constitution does not give the governor the power to veto constitutional amendments, nor do constitutional amendments require the governor’s support to be enacted.

The debate over abortion rights in Pennsylvania comes before a tight midterm election this November for state governor between Republican Doug Mastriano and Democrat Josh Shapiro, and an open seat to represent Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate between Democrat John Fetterman and Republican Mehmet Oz.

Source: TEST FEED1

Abortion ruling creating health care 'chaos,' House panel warned

The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the constitutional right to abortion is creating “chaos” in the health care sector as some states see a spike in women seeking abortions and physicians are unsure of their legal rights, lawmakers were told in a hearing on Tuesday. 

The ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization has quickly created a patchwork of abortion laws across the country, with legal battles now playing out at the state level to determine what laws will be enforced, and whether they adhere to state constitutions. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on Tuesday on the legal reality around abortion and reproductive care in a post-Roe America.

Dr. Colleen McNicholas, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri, told lawmakers that physicians are fearful of prescribing certain medications that may contribute to miscarriage or be used for abortions because of the potential legal repercussions.

“We are already seeing mass chaos among OBGYNs, emergency room physicians, and quite frankly pharmacists. We’re talking about people being denied or delayed care for pregnancy and non-pregnancy related conditions,” McNicholas said.  

“When the consequence of violating a law is criminal, doctors are put in impossible positions where they know the right care, they know what to do to help somebody, but yet they have to wait, making folks sustain totally preventable harm,” McNicholas added.

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) said the impact could also extend to medical training, not only limiting abortion care but also how to treat related issues like miscarriages or ectopic pregnanacies in states banning abortion. 

Responding to Hirono’s concerns, McNicholas said, “We will be creating an entire cohort of physicians who are underprepared to take care of pregnancy emergencies,” noting that the procedures and medication used in abortions is the same as for people experiencing pregnancy loss.

Khiara M. Bridges, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law, said that some clinics in Kansas and Oklahoma saw a one thousand percent increase in patients after Texas passed SB 8, which banned abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy.   

“That makes it difficult, of course, for people from Texas to access abortion care because now they have to travel hundreds of miles for abortion care, but it also makes it difficult for the residents of Oklahoma and Kansas to access the care in their state because the supply simply cannot meet the demand,” Bridges said at the hearing.  

Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said their states, where abortion remains legal, will see influxes of patients seeking abortions from surrounding areas following the Dobbs decision. Klobuchar said providers in Minnesota, which is near a number of states banning abortions, expect to see up to 25 percent more people seeking abortion care. 

“States like Connecticut and Illinois face an impending surge of women seeking their rights, healthcare rights, reproductive rights, human rights, in our states. What we face is an unprecedented cost to our healthcare system, to the providers of clinics,” Blumenthal said at the hearing. 

Despite these concerns, Republicans at the hearing celebrated the return of power to the states to set their own abortion laws. 

“What the Supreme Court has done is return this deeply personal, deeply important, deeply contentious issue to the voters — to let the American people decide, that’s democracy,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said.

However, McNicholas said it meant that in states banning or restricting abortion, it meant doctors would need to weigh the potential of prison time against the health of patients. 

“People will suffer unnecessary harm as doctors wait for permission from hospital lawyers to tell them that they can proceed,” she said.

Source: TEST FEED1

The Hill's Campaign Report — Biden’s dismal poll numbers rattle Democrats

Biden’s dismal poll numbers rattle Dems

Welcome to The Hill’s Campaign Report, tracking all things related to the 2022 midterm elections. You can expect this newsletter in your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday leading up to November’s election. 

Email us tips and feedback: Max Greenwood (mgreenwood@thehill.com), Julia Manchester (jmanchester@thehill.com), and Caroline Vakil (cvakil@thehill.com).  Someone forward this newsletter to you? Subscribe here.

Recent polls offer stark warning ahead of midterms

New poll numbers out this week are painting a clearer picture of how dismal a scenario Democrats are facing going into 2022 and possibly 2024.

A Politico/Morning Consult poll released on Tuesday shows that only 29 percent of voters said they believe Biden should run for reelection in 2024, while a whopping 64 percent said that he should not run for reelection. That poll comes after a New York Times/Siena College survey out on Monday found that 64 percent of Democrats said they would prefer a different 2024 candidate over Biden. Additionally, 44 percent of all respondents said they would cast their vote for Biden if the election were today. 

While the polls are focused on 2024, The Hill’s Mychael Schnell and Hanna Trudo report that Democrats are viewing their chances of retaining a House majority as slimmer than ever. Even in the Senate, where Democrats had a bit of an advantage, fears are growing among the party’s hopefuls.  

Is Virginia slipping away?: Biden’s poor poll numbers, coupled with a terrible political environment for his party, are putting already vulnerable Democratic incumbents in a tough spot. The Hill’s Julia Manchester reports that this is playing out in states like Virginia, where Democrats have experienced heavy losses recently.  

“[Biden’s] numbers are so bad and the public opinion about the direction of the country is so low that it’s putting into jeopardy two or potentially three Democratic incumbent legislators here in the House,” said veteran Virginia political analyst Bob Holsworth, referring to incumbent Democratic Reps. Elaine Luria, Abigail Spanberger and Jennifer Wexton.

Progressives seize the moment: So what are Democrats doing to deal with the fallout over Biden’s latest poll numbers?  

RootsAction, a progressive grassroots organization, is launching a campaign to oppose Biden’s reelection bid.

“In 2024 the United States will face the dual imperatives of preventing a Republican takeover of the White House and advancing a truly progressive agenda. The stakes could not be higher,” RootsAction wrote in a press release. “The threat of a neofascist GOP has become all too obvious. Bold and inspiring leadership from the Oval Office will be essential.”

“With so much at stake, making [Biden] the Democratic Party’s standard-bearer in 2024 would be a tragic mistake.”

Is Trump in trouble too?

While The New York Times/Siena College poll offers some not-so-good news to Biden about Democrats’ willingness to reelect him again in 2024, the survey also shows that close to half of Republican primary voters are interested in someone other than former President Trump in the next election cycle.

When Republican primary voter respondents were asked who they would vote for if the GOP 2024 presidential primary were held today, 49 percent said Trump. But a separate 47 percent named another candidate or said “someone else,” meaning that primary voters are not completely sold on a third Trump bid.

A closer look: Some of the most important contingents of Republican primary voters are less enthusiastic about a Trump 2024 bid, including 41 percent of respondents between the ages of 18 and 29 years old and 44 percent of those between the ages of 30 and 44 years old.

While 62 percent of respondents with a high school education or less and 52 percent of those with some college experience would also back Trump, the poll suggests the more education a respondent has, the less enthusiastic they are about the former president.

Only 29 percent of those with a Bachelors’ degree and 26 percent with a graduate degree would support the former president for a 2024 bid.

While Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) receives 25 percent of support from respondents overall, he’s also the only other candidate to receive double-digit support. Former Vice President Pence, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo all received less than 10 percent support from respondents.

Though Trump, or any of the other Republicans noted in the poll have formally declared a 2024 presidential bid, have yet to formally announce a bid, the former president has often teased out the possibility. Multiple sources who spoke to The Hill said that there has been discussion that an announcement could come as soon as this summer by Trump.

Key quote: “It’s been clear for a while now that voters would like an alternative to Trump AND Biden. That’s not the same as saying that they CAN’T win the nomination. But, a ‘change’ candidate starts with a deep reservoir of support,” Amy Walter, Cook Political Report publisher and editor-in-chief, tweets.  

TRUMP IN ARIZONA

Former President Trump is heading to the Grand Canyon State on Saturday to campaign for several of his endorsees, including Senate hopeful Blake Masters (R) and gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake (R), ahead of the state’s Aug. 2 primary.

Recent polling shows Trump’s endorsed candidates leading their respective rivals. An OH Predictive Insights poll released last week, which surveyed 515 Arizonans who qualified as likely Republican primary voters, found that Lake received 39 percent support compared to developer Karrin Taylor Robson at 31 percent.

Another Trump test: But when former Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) was removed from the polling (he’s already left the race and backed Robson), those margins tighten up: Lake gets 40 percent support compared to Robson’s 35 percent.

Separate OH Predictive Insights polling released last week, which surveyed 515 Arizonans who qualified as likely Republican primary voters, found Masters receiving 25 percent compared to businessman Jim Lamon (18 percent) and state Attorney General Mark Brnovich (14 percent).

Trump’s Arizona rally comes on the heels of two rallies he held last week in Nevada and Alaska for a handful of his endorsed candidates. 

Senate Dem hopefuls rake in cash

More candidates are releasing their fundraising totals for the second quarter of 2022, the latest of which include Pennsylvania Senate hopeful John Fetterman (D) and Florida Senate candidate and Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) and North Carolina Senate hopeful Cheri Beasley (D).

Fetterman’s campaign announced on Tuesday that he had raked in $11 million for the second quarter, a stark contrast to the $3.1 million he raised in the first quarter of this year. His campaign noted that it was not only the highest sum of money Fetterman had ever raised in one quarter, but the highest amount of money that a Pennsylvania Senate candidate had ever raised in one quarter, too.

Fetterman ends the second quarter with close to $5.5 million cash on hand.

Southern Dems make bank: Over in the Sunshine State, Demings announced that she hauled in more than $12.2 million for this latest quarter; in the first quarter, she raised more than $10 million. The Florida Democrat ends the second quarter with $12.5 million cash on hand.

North Carolina Democratic Senate nominee Cheri Beasley raised over $7.42 million in the second quarter, beating the state’s 2020 Democratic Senate nominee Cal Cunningham’s second quarter record.

Republicans have also raked in impressive hauls at the House level in their effort to win back the lower chamber. Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy brought in $19.2 million during the second quarter, bringing his fundraising total to $50 million for the first six months of the year.

GOP groups are posting large hauls as well. Winning for Women Action Fund, a group devoted to electing Republican women posted a $2.6 million second-quarter haul.  

AD WATCH

New Hampshire Sen. Maggie Hassan’s (D) campaign rolled out an ad titled “Responsible” on Tuesday, highlighting what she says she has done to cut government spending.  

Wisconsin Democratic Senate candidate and Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes unveiled an ad titled “Right” in which his mother shares her abortion story.  

The Democratic National Committee has launched digital display ads as a part of its Defend Choice Week of Action. The display ads promoting DefendChoice.org will run on over 20 lifestyle sites including Teen Vogue, Refinery29, Glamour, The Cut, Bustle, In Style, The Everygirl, HelloGiggles, Cup of Jo, Cosmopolitan, Elle, Women’s Health, Allure, Essence, Latina, GQ, Rolling Stones, The Ringer, Men’s Health, Men’s Journal, and Esquire.  

That’s it for today. Thanks for reading and check out The Hill’s Campaign page for the latest news and coverage. See you Thursday. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán to speak at CPAC next month

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán will speak at the Conservative Politic Action Conference (CPAC) next month. 

CPAC Chairman Matt Schlapp tweeted on Monday that Orbán will appear at the conference in Texas. Orbán previously appeared at a CPAC conference in Budapest, Hungary, in May, where he gave recommendations for conservatives to attain and stay in power. 

During his remarks in May, he said that conservative media networks are the best way to battle the left’s agenda. He said Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show should be broadcast “24/7.” 

CPAC said in a statement to The Hill that Orbán is the “leading voice” in Europe fighting for his people and “everyone who believes in national sovereignty.” 

“He and President Trump forged a special relationship since they both understand that we should not be controlled by the [United Nations], the [European Union], radical, woke corporatists or the billionaires who think regular people cannot be trusted to make their own decisions,” the statement reads.

“We are looking forward to Prime Minister Orban explaining to our CPAC audience and to people around the world how he is successfully fighting the radical Left in Europe.”

Orbán is coming off an electoral victory in April that secured his election to a fourth term as prime minister.

The conference will also feature other international speakers including British politician Nigel Farage and Mexican actor Eduardo Verástegui.

Source: TEST FEED1

Tiger Woods knocks golfers joining Saudi-backed tour: 'I disagree with it'

Golfing legend Tiger Woods shares his criticism about fellow pro golfers leaving the PGA Tour for the newly created LIV Golf Tour, saying that he disagrees with the player movement. 

“I disagree with it,” Woods said at the Open Championship news conference on Monday, according to ESPN. “I think that what they’ve done is they’ve turned their back on what has allowed them to get to this position.”

Woods, who is set to participate in his third golfing tournament after sustaining a serious leg injury in a single-vehicle accident in February 2021, added that the future is uncertain for players who left PGA Tour for LIV Golf to compete in major championships. 

“Some of these players may not ever get a chance to play in major championships. That is a possibility. We don’t know that for sure yet. It’s up to all the major championship bodies to make that determination,” the 46-year-old golfer said at the news conference. 

“But that is a possibility, that some players will never, ever get a chance to play in a major championship, never get a chance to experience this right here, walk down the fairways at Augusta National. That, to me, I just don’t understand it.”

The PGA Tour on Monday acknowledged the Department of Justice (DOJ) launching an investigation into the organization over allegations of anti-competitive behavior, as high-profile golfers such as Phil Mickelson, Brooks Koepka, Bryson DeChambeau, Patrick Reed, and Dustin Johnson left the tour to join the new golf league. 

According to the PGA Tour’s bylaws, golfers aren’t allowed to participate in other golfing leagues unless they get permission from the tour’s commissioner. Some golfers initially signed required release forms to participate in LIV Golf’s inaugural tournament, but their requests were denied by the PGA Tour. 

The PGA Tour has fined or banned golfers who have joined LIV Golf, which has also come under scrutiny for Suadi Arabia’s controversial record of human rights abuses. 

Woods also said that he doesn’t believe the new startup golfing tournament will last long, noting the history of the PGA and European Tour has established over the decades, ESPN noted. 

“I know what the PGA Tour stands for and what we have done and what the tour has given us, the ability to chase after our careers and to earn what we get and the trophies we have been able to play for and the history that has been a part of this game,” Woods said.

Source: TEST FEED1

The highlight of Abe's complex legacy is forging Asia’s security

Shocking people the world over, in the early hours of the day on Friday, news broke out that former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had been shot while campaigning in the northern town of Nara in Japan. Hours later, it was confirmed that the former prime minister died of blood loss. 

This brought sorrow and sadness to Japan, to the many people around the globe whom he had inspired and to many friends. Among those friends are leaders such as President Joe Biden, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi — the heads of state of the Quad group of nations. Over the years, the leaders of the four nations had gotten together on various occasions to discuss security and other challenges in the Indo-Pacific region.  

The Indian prime minister even penned a eulogy in the form of a farewell letter and shared it on social media. It credited the late prime minister with the instrumental role he played in foreign affairs, from coining the term “Indo-Pacific” to having a greater vision for the region. 

For example, the Quad grouping came together at the crucial need of the hour in 2004, when the Indian Ocean Tsunami struck havoc around the Indo-Pacific. It was shelved soon after and wasn’t revamped until Abe initiated the revival in 2017. However, this time around it was a brainchild of Abe, designed to address a plethora of issues in the region.   

As Ken Moriyasu of Nikkei Asia highlighted, Abe identified three strategic concerns or threats — North Korea, China and Russia — as shaping Japanese foreign policy. China was a major concern for all four nations of the Quad, which explains why some Chinese netizens were celebrating Abe’s assassination. Abe was viewed by some as one of the most hawkish Japanese prime ministers since the World Wars.

Not to mention Abe’s affiliation with conservative and revisionist groups such as Nippon Kaigi. The association did not earn him many friends in China or South Korea. The organization espoused views that were antithetical to modern Japan’s foreign policy ambitions. Among the most controversial, Nippon Kaigi was known for its denial of imperial Japan’s kidnapping and use of Korean women as “comfort women” i.e. sex slaves during Japan’s rule over the peninsula. It proved to be a thorn in Japan’s rapprochement with South Korea and maintaining good relations with China. It even got Abe the name “Trump before Trump” indicating his populist appeal and far-right views. However, unlike Trump, he was not a polarizing figure in the world. While in Korea and China he was not the most revered of Japanese leaders, he certainly had a following even amongst nations that were colonized by the imperial Japanese empire.

Experts are noting Abe’s goal to revise Japan’s pacifist approach to international affairs, which was largely brought about due to its surrender to the U.S. in World War II and the constitutional provisions that were part of the surrender. However, Abe was revered in former colonies of Japan from the Philippines to the Mekong region. Japan’s foreign policy under Abe involved development aid, increased trade and assistance to developing countries in South and Southeast Asia. None of these were marks of an imperial empire. As a matter of fact, his administration even went on to support decolonizing efforts in India by financially supporting several projects in India’s North and Northeast states.   

Finally, what could be his ultimate legacy was transforming the Asia-Pacific into the Indo-Pacific. Beyond the term “Indo-Pacific” coming into parlance among international relations scholars and the general populace, the world’s perception of Asia changed and evolved thanks to his vision for the region.  

Several initiatives that have since come to fruition such as the Supply Chain Resilience Initiative, Blue Dot Network and even Biden’s Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity would not have found resonance and audience in the region if not for Abe’s groundwork in establishing goodwill in the countries in the region.  

These could potentially be solutions to preserving long-term security in the Indo-Pacific region. 

Successive U.S. governments since Obama have prioritized the Asia Pacific for both security and economic reasons. President Obama introduced the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Biden has followed suit with his own version of an “Asia pivot.” 

Time will tell if the leaders of the Western world and Asia walk in the footsteps of Abe. That will in turn determine the success of the pivot to Asia.

Akhil Ramesh is a fellow with the Pacific Forum. He has worked with governments, risk consulting firms and think tanks in the United States and India. Follow him on Twitter: Akhil_oldsoul. 

Source: TEST FEED1