Archive by Author

What would a Chinese strategy of restraint look like?

What if China is not a rising power on course to displace the United States as the world’s leading power, but a plateauing power. In other words, what if China has peaked — what if the economic, demographic and geopolitical headwinds it is now encountering are likely to preclude any future bid for global primacy. What if China’s rise has stalled and it is destined to become nothing more than another great power with a major, but not predominant, role in global affairs?

In these circumstances, what strategic path is Beijing likely to follow? Or, put slightly differently, what grand strategy would a rational actor such as China adopt as it sees its window of opportunity for pursuing primacy – for “moving to center stage of world politics,” as President Xi Jinping once put it – start to close?

It is impossible, of course, to know precisely how China’s leaders would answer these questions. But one option available to Beijing would be to adopt a grand strategy of restraint. As originally conceived, restraint was envisioned as a specifically American strategy — as an alternative to what its advocates considered to be the self-defeating postwar American grand strategy liberal hegemony.

The argument was that this maximalist strategy ultimately undercut U.S. primacy by driving Washington to ever more counterproductive expenditures of blood and treasure in an ultimately futile effort to remake the world in America’s liberal image. Restraint was advocated as a more prudent way of using limited resources to achieve a more limited goal — sustainable American security rather than unsustainable liberal empire. It was explicitly not about the U.S. abandoning its position as the world’s sole superpower or retreating to some sort of “Fortress America.” It was about sustaining American primacy through prudent rebalancing and retrenchment.

On the face of it, then, restraint – at least as it has come to be conceptualized in the U.S. literature – would seem to be a uniquely American strategic option. But there is nothing inherent in the logic of the strategy that limits its applicability solely to an existing hegemon like the U.S. Indeed, with a few minor modifications, it might also meet the needs of any great power. If that is the case, it is worth asking what such a variant – a grand strategy of “restraint with Chinese characteristics” – might look like.

To begin with, such a Chinese variant would share with its American counterpart a fundamental commitment to local dominance. As restrainers typically assume with respect to the United States, America’s global hegemony has always rested on its dominance in the Western Hemisphere — on excluding any extra-hemispheric great powers and preventing the rise of a potential hegemonic challenger within the hemisphere. Historically, once the U.S. had established its hemispheric supremacy, it was able to project its power confidently around the world. Absent that hemispheric dominance, the restrainers argue, the U.S. would have been too distracted by local threats to assert itself globally. Put more generically, the theory of restraint holds that primacy in one’s own neighborhood is a necessary precondition for global supremacy.

In China’s case, a grand strategy of restraint would begin with establishing its primacy in the Western Pacific or Northeast Asia. This does not mean physically occupying neighboring countries, as the Soviets did in Eastern Europe following World War II. But it does mean that China would have to make itself the dominant player at least out to the first island chain (which runs from Japan to Taiwan to the Philippines). And that, in turn, would require that it disrupt America’s alliance system in the region and push the U.S. military out all the way to the third island chain (which begins at the Aleutian Islands, runs through the central Pacific to Oceania, and includes Hawaii).

Failing this, regional powers – from Vietnam to Taiwan to Japan – would feel able to count on U.S. support and would thus be emboldened to resist Chinese power rather than accommodate themselves to it. Simply put, the theory holds that China cannot be an effective restrainer if it remains on the permanent defensive in its own neighborhood, hemmed in by American bases, naval forces, allies and partners. It must have regional supremacy.

Additionally, the two variants would share a commitment to countering hegemons in regions they deemed to be critically important. For American restrainers, these regions include Europe, Northeast Asia and the Persian Gulf – Europe and Northeast Asia because they are the major industrial centers of the world and contain all of the other great powers, and the Persian Gulf because of its oil.

For a Chinese restrainer, in addition to its home base in Northeast Asia, the regions crucial to Beijing would likely also include Europe and the Persian Gulf. But the Indian Ocean region might also be considered crucial because of its importance as a maritime trade route, and the Arctic might make the list because of its increasingly accessible minerals and hydrocarbon deposits — and because, as the polar ice melts, it promises to provide an alternative sea route between East Asia and Europe.

Finally, like the U.S. version, a grand strategy of restraint with Chinese characteristics would eschew permanent military deployments around the globe, resting instead on a strategy of buck-passing and vanishingly rare interventions undertaken only when friendly local countries proved incapable of maintaining a stable regional balance.

But there the similarities would end. Given China’s distinctive geopolitical situation, Beijing’s version of restraint would necessarily differ from Washington’s in at least one important way. In the U.S. case, the focus of such a strategy would be on preventing the emergence of regional hegemons. In China’s case, it would be on disrupting already existing regional power balances favoring, and backed by, the U.S.

It would, for example, doubtless involve disrupting the balance of power in the Persian Gulf, perhaps by backing Iran’s bid to challenge the U.S.-Saudi domination of the region. It might also entail a concerted effort to undermine U.S. influence in Europe through the use of overt and covert means to exert its influence on political and economic elites and on academia. Taken to its logical conclusion, a Chinese strategy of restraint would even necessarily involve efforts to upend – or at least undermine – American dominance in the Western Hemisphere.

Ultimately, the goal of any Chinese strategy of restraint would be to disrupt U.S. dominance in all the world’s major regions to create a global sanctuary for China, even as Chinese power peaks and Beijing’s bid to move to center stage of world politics falters.

Will China adopt such a grand strategy? Only time will tell. And if it does, will it change the “great game” of Sino-American rivalry for better or for worse? Again, only time will tell.

Andrew Latham is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minn., and a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities in Washington, D.C. Follow him on Twitter @aalatham.

Source: TEST FEED1

Democrats target location data sales

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Wednesday introduced legislation targeting the sale of location data by third party data brokers.

The Health and Location Data Protection Act would ban companies in the shadowy multi-billion dollar industry from selling or transferring sensitive data.

The Federal Trade Commission would be given $1 billion over 10 years to promulgate and enforce rules on data brokers. State attorneys general and individuals would also be allowed to sue for violations of the new law.

The data broker industry has come under renewed scrutiny in light of the leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, allowing abortion bans in several states to take effect.

The tech news publication Motherboard, which first reported on the legislation, has identified several data brokers selling location data gathered from smartphones of people visiting abortion clinics, information that could easily be weaponized by prosecutors to crack down on pregnancy terminations.

“Data brokers profit from the location data of millions of people, posing serious risks to Americans everywhere by selling their most private information,” said Warren. 

“With this extremist Supreme Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade and states seeking to criminalize essential health care, it is more crucial than ever for Congress to protect consumers’ sensitive data,” she continued. “The Health and Location Data Protection Act will ban brokers from selling Americans’ location and health data, rein in giant data brokers, and set some long overdue rules of the road for this $200 billion industry.”

The legislation is cosponsored by Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

While the bill is being pitched in anticipation of Roe v. Wade being overturned, it would have more wide-ranging implications for the data broker industry.

The complex net of apps, data harvesters and aggregators that take the digital footprints of unsuspecting consumers and sell them has become an essential fountain of information for a variety of government agencies and law enforcement.

Wyden has introduced legislation, the Fourth Amendment is Not For Sale Act, that would require agencies to obtain a warrant before purchasing any third party data about American citizens.

Source: TEST FEED1

Celebrity chef Andrés says Russian missile blew up food train in Ukraine

Chef José Andrés said Wednesday a Russian missile blew up a World Central Kitchen food train in Ukraine. 

Andrés, founder of World Central Kitchen, posted on Twitter that Russia attacked a train carrying food in eastern Ukraine. 

An employee for the organization said the missile destroyed 34 pallets of food.

No one was hurt during the attack and some of the food can be be salvaged, according to Andrés. 

“Russian missile blew up our @WCKitchen food train in Eastern Ukraine… Nobody hurt thankfully…but they are now hitting train infrastructure hard!” Andrés said. 

“Only 1 wagon of food fully lost, will save the rest! This won’t stop us—our amazing Ukrainian WCK teams will keep feeding the people!” he added. 

Ukrainians are facing a severe humanitarian crisis from the war against Russia with food shortages affecting civilians in the country. 

Andrés previously testified to the House Oversight and Reform Committee regarding the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine. 

Andrés is known for his famous restaurants and humanitarian work around the world after crises. He provided food to families in Kentucky after the state was hit by tornadoes and helped reopen restaurants that had to close during the pandemic.

Source: TEST FEED1

Buffalo shooter charged with federal hate crimes

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Wednesday filed federal hate crime charges against the accused Buffalo supermarket shooter.

The DOJ filed a criminal complaint in the Western District of New York, charging 18-year-old Payton Gendron with 26 counts, including 10 counts of a hate crime resulting in death.

The alleged gunman from Conklin, N.Y., is accused of opening fire at Tops Market in Buffalo on May 14, killing 10 and injuring three others in a racially-motivated attack.

Gendron has pleaded not guilty to a 25-count indictment, which includes first-degree murder charges, that a New York grand jury returned earlier this month.

Developing

Source: TEST FEED1

Navy's Red Hill debacle is both a warning and an opportunity

In March, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced that the Navy would finally drain the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility in Hawaii and close it down permanently. Built during the Second World War, the Red Hill facility is the largest underground fuel storage facility in the world, holding up to 250 million gallons of fuel, and critically important for the U.S. military.

Hawaiian officials have long called for the facility to be closed because it is a danger to the local water supply. The Sierra Club estimates that as many as 180,000 gallons of fuel have spilled over the lifespan of the tanks, and a Navy-sponsored report estimated that every year there is a 28 percent chance of a major spill between 10,000 and 30,000 gallons.

The November 2021 leak that prompted the facility’s closure saw an estimated 14,000 gallons of fuel contaminate the local water supply and sicken hundreds of residents on and off base. Nearly 10,000 households were affected.

The Department of Defense’s decision to permanently close the facility puts the military in the worst possible position — it has imposed human costs on its own sailors and their families, while also losing a strategically important facility in the Pacific. Years of denials and delays also damaged the Nay’s relationship with the local community in Hawaii.

The Red Hill debacle is an example of what could happen if the military similarly mismanages energy infrastructure at an overseas base. The unexpected closure of a fuel storage site overseas would handicap U.S. forces and throw regional strategy and military planning into turmoil.

The disaster at Red Hill has also exposed the fragility of the fuel distribution infrastructure which overly relies on large, aging bulk fuel storage facilities that are a hazard in peacetime but also vulnerable to attack. And we need not look any farther than the current war in Ukraine for proof that failures in fuel infrastructure can have devastating consequences.

The Defense Department’s vague plan to use a mix of commercial storage as a replacement for Red Hill exposes the truth that there is not a replacement. A 2018 study assessed the cost of moving the facility at up to $10 billion dollars and estimated it could take as long as three decades; what’s more, the Red Hill closure comes on top of existing preoccupation with U.S. military fuel storage capacity in the region.

The overdue closure of Red Hill is also an opportunity for the United States to reevaluate its energy infrastructure in the Pacific. The military should invest in the energy resilience and efficiency of its facilities across the region, perhaps as part of the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, and look for alternative concepts for sustaining U.S. capability in the region.

Over the last two decades, the U.S. military has quietly upgraded the energy resilience and efficiency of its bases with micro grids, solar power and other forms of alternative energy. How much more can be done to help reduce the demand for petroleum?

In addition to prioritizing efficiency, the DOD needs to be pragmatic in seeking alternatives to bulk petroleum storage like the Army’s Project Pele nuclear mini-reactors, solar or bulk hydrogen.

Hydrogen is gaining traction with our Pacific allies like Japan and Australia. Is there an opportunity to replace petroleum with hydrogen fuel in some places while strengthening our military and economic alliances with those countries? Geologic formations like salt caverns, saline aquifers, and depleted oil and gas wells provide the ability to store massive quantities of hydrogen fuel underground and replace the storage lost at Red Hill.

Investments in alternative energy would be received well by U.S. partners in the region at a time when the U.S. is jockeying for influence in the Pacific. Focusing on clean and resilient energy infrastructure is also a way to engage nations who see climate change as an existential threat but are less interested in wading into a competition between the United States and China.

The repeated fuel spills from the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility in Hawaii are an embarrassment to the military, and it is long overdue that the facility be closed despite the dilemma this poses for military planners. But the story doesn’t have to end there. The closure of the Red Hill facility can be the catalyst for a new strategy of defense-oriented energy investments in the Pacific that makes U.S. forces more resilient, helps meet U.S. climate goals, and strengthens our relationship with allies and partners in the region.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the United States Marine Corps or the Department of Defense.

Walker D. Mills is a Marine Corps infantry officer currently serving in Cartagena, Colombia. He is a non-resident fellow at Marine Corps University’s Brute Krulak Center for Innovation and Future War and a non-resident WSD-Handa fellow at Pacific Forum, a Hawaii-based think tank. Follow him on Twitter @WDMills1992

Source: TEST FEED1

Dolly Parton donating $1 toward pediatric infectious disease research

Dolly Parton is giving $1 million to aid pediatric infectious disease research, including studying ways to fight COVID-19 in kids.

The donation announced Wednesday from the “Jolene” singer will go toward research at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn.

The money is being called a “transformative gift,” with officials saying it could “help in the fight against serious infectious diseases such as coronavirus that have worldwide ramifications.”

“I love all children,” Parton, 76, said in a statement. “No child should ever have to suffer, and I’m willing to do my part to try and keep as many of them as I can as healthy and safe as possible.”

It’s not the first time that Parton has put money toward Vanderbilt’s medical research.

In 2020, the country music legend donated $1 million to coronavirus research there, in honor of her longtime friend, Naji Abumrad, a surgery professor at the university.

The 2020 donation helped fund the development of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine, according to The New England Journal of Medicine.

“We are deeply honored by Dolly’s contribution to our research mission,” Mark Denison, a professor of pediatrics and director of Vanderbilt’s division of pediatric infectious diseases, said of Parton’s latest gift.

Denison said Parton’s donation will “accelerate” the work already being done and “support new ideas.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Jan. 6 panel releases Loudermilk tour footage

The House committee investigating the attack on Jan. 6 has released footage tied to a tour Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) gave the day before, showing a man taking photos of hallways in the Capitol complex before ultimately attended the rally itself.

Loudermilk has acknowledged showing a small group of constituents around House office buildings the day before the attack, but claimed those participants “immediately turned back” once they saw the “chaos” developing at the rally.

But video shared by the committee claims one of the men was at the riot, showing clips of the unnamed man marching toward the Capitol the morning of Jan. 6 

“There’s no escape Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler. We’re coming for you. We’re coming in like white on rice, for Pelosi, Nadler, Schumer even you AOC, we’re coming to take you out, and pull you out by your hairs,” the man says, referring to several Democratic leaders and lawmakers.

Loudermilk was subpoenaed by the committee in May alongside four other lawmakers, but has thus far failed to comply with the compulsory order for testimony.

His office did not immediately respond to request for comment.

In some respects, the footage affirms Loudermilk’s description. The video shows him leading a handful of people through different tunnels underneath the Capitol, but they never reach the main building.

The man can be seen taking photos throughout the tour. It’s move that alarmed some Democrats after the events of Jan. 6 who feared some lawmakers may have lead “reconnaissance tours” through the Capitol, allowing rally participants to better understand the different passageways that lead into the building.

But the footage is a departure from how Loudermilk described the actions of the group he gave a tour too.

In an interview given on Jan. 6 as the attack was unfolding, Loudermilk referenced that he had “about a dozen people up here” when asked if he had a chance to talk to any of those involved in the rally. 

“They definitely were peaceful people, people that we met at church, they were supporters of the president, they just wanted to be up here as if it was another rally. We’ve actually checked on them to make sure they are safe,” Loudermilk said in an interview with Georgia-based WBHF.

“They saw what it was turning into and they immediately turned back down the mall to get away from the crowds here,” he added, noting that some rally goers came with the intention of creating “chaos.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Herschel Walker’s campaign acknowledges second son after report

The campaign of Georgia Senate hopeful Herschel Walker is acknowledging that the Republican nominee has a second son in the wake of a report published Tuesday.

“Herschel had a child years ago when he wasn’t married. He’s supported the child and continues to do so. He’s proud of his children. To suggest that Herschel is ‘hiding’ the child because he hasn’t used him in his political campaign is offensive and absurd,” Scott Paradise, Walker’s campaign manager, said in a statement after the Daily Beast report.

The news outlet, citing a person close to the child’s family, public posts and a court document in which Walker is named the father of the child, reported that Walker, a critic of absentee fathers, appears to have an estranged relationship with his second son. The names of the son and his mother were withheld for privacy reasons, but the Daily Beast noted that one year after the child was born, Walker was sued by the mother in order to obtain child support and a paternity declaration.

Walker has previously been outspoken on the issue of absentee fathers, including in a 2021 interview with Diamond and Silk, the conservative social media personalities.

“If you have a child with a woman, even if you have to leave that woman, even if you have to leave that woman, you don’t leave the child,” Walker said during the interview. “You let that child know you trying to work it out. You’re going to be respectful to her.”

Paradise also accused Walker’s challenger, Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), of being involved in a “nasty mudslinging campaign.”

“Raphael Warnock is currently engaged in both a nasty mudslinging campaign and a nasty custody dispute with his ex-wife. He’s dodged voters by sealing the case and even has tried to dodge authorities,” he said. “This is a complete double standard.”

The Hill has reached out to Warnock’s campaign for comment.

Source: TEST FEED1

Obama on DACA anniversary: Let's treat Dreamers like the Americans they are

Former President Obama said that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA) was still “vulnerable” to politicians who choose to ignore its “remarkable benefits” to the U.S.

In an emailed statement on the program’s 10th anniversary, Obama said that while the program was always meant to be temporary, Dreamers had to live through the cruelty of the previous administration’s attacks and legal challenges to the program, their families, and their communities.

The former president added that he is renewing his call for Congress to offer Dreamers a path to citizenship.

“Let’s honor these Dreamers and everything they’ve done to strengthen our country. Let’s treat them like the Americans that they are. And let’s do everything we can to help build a common sense immigration system that honors our heritage as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants,” he said.

DACA was implemented during the Obama administration in an effort to protect undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as minors after the then-president’s legislative attempts to modernize the immigration system failed.

Since then, DACA has seen several challenges. The Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration’s efforts to end the program on procedural grounds in 2020. Next month, a case over DACA will head to court in Texas, where the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments against the program.

According to Obama, many of the undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. when they were very young did not know they were undocumented until they applied to college or tried to enlist in the military.

“And not only did a piece of paper suddenly stand in the way of their aspirations, it added a threat of deportation to a country they might not know, with a language they might not speak,” he said.

He added that the Obama administration made it possible for them to apply for work authorization and protection from deportation through DACA.

Obama said that the program recipients were able to stop living in fear and instead live freely in the only country they know.

“It lifted the shadow of deportation from people of extraordinary promise. And the results—for them and for us all—cannot be denied,” he added.

He added that these Dreamers now face increasing challenges and that only a quarter of the undocumented students graduating high school this year are eligible for DACA under existing rules.

More than 800,000 people have received DACA since the program’s inception, including 200,000 people who served as frontline workers during the COVID-19 pandemic, Obama said.

A White House official told The Hill that it will host more than 20 Dreamers on Wednesday for discussions on preserving DACA protections.

Source: TEST FEED1