Video Event | China’s Attempt to Influence U.S. Institutions: A Conversation with FBI Director Christopher Wray

https://www.hudson.org/events/1836-video-event-china-s-attempt-to-influence-u-s-institutions-a-conversation-with-fbi-director-christopher-wray72020?fbclid=IwAR0SbsWIiavxX8euZemulTUUDNuswtJALtCV2rI7fwJm1fikTS-aZNnGovw

A bullshit conversation:

Join Hudson Institute for a conversation with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Christopher Wray on the pernicious influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the United States and how the Bureau is responding to curtail Beijing’s far reaching influence.

From manipulating Fortune 500 companies and stealing intellectual property to subverting U.S. universities and sowing disinformation, the CCP is employing a multipronged approach to distract Americans while filling its coffers and expanding its vision for a communist world.

How is the FBI responding to Beijing’s incursions into American businesses and in the U.S. financial sector? What strategies is the CCP employing to coopt American institutions? How can U.S. businesses protect themselves from Chinese data and monetary theft?

No, There Is No US-China ‘Clash of Civilizations’

The world has changed dramatically over the past few decades and is trending today toward greater complexity and diversity. The popular “clash of civilizations” theory proposed by Samuel P. Huntington is somewhat too simple for modern society. However, this thought is now coming back to life, and might even be unilaterally implemented into policy practice in the United States toward China. Kiron Skinner, the U.S. State Department’s policy planning head, has reignited this discussion with her recent observation that China is “not Caucasian” at a recent event. Her broader remarks made clear that the U.S. State Department taking pains to prepare for a “clash of civilizations” with China.

From once a “economic competitor” to now a rival on the level of civilization, what is behind these perceptions in the U.S. bureaucracy toward China?

To understand that, it is first necessary to get a taste of the policymakers in the American government today. These practitioners who cope with China on a day-to-day basis at both the policy and implementation levels see China as more energetic, assertive, and less reserved over the past few years. But they are missing memories of a time when China was weak and poor, mainly due to the process of internal generational replacement.

The heads of four organizations overseen by the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) fired

The heads of four organizations overseen by the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) were all dismissed Wednesday night — a move likely to heighten concerns that new Trump-appointed CEO Michael Pack intends to turn the agency into a political arm of the administration. The heads of Middle East Broadcasting, Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Open Technology Fund were all ousted, Four of the most Anti-China machines.6-18-20 Watch Trump does a Nixon. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/17/media/us-agency-for-global-media-michael-pack/index.html

African group of 54 nations to investigate US

The U.N. Human Rights Council resumed this week with what it billed as an “urgent debate on racism, alleged police brutality and violence against protesters.” The African Group, a U.N. regional body composed of 54 African member states, requested the meeting, saying it would be “inconceivable” for the council not to address what it described as a worldwide problem.
African countries are reportedly also circulating a draft resolution that demands an investigation into U.S. police violence and racism. 6-17-20 https://thehill.com/policy/international/503202-george-floyds-brother-calls-on-united-nations-to-study-police-brutality

Advice for overseas Chinese firms in hostile climate

Alongside the growth of China’s export-oriented economy, expanding overseas investment has become an important way for enterprises to participate in international economic cooperation, as well as remaining an internal requirement for firms developing internationally.

However, with the rise of international trade protectionism in recent years, particularly affected by China-US trade frictions, Chinese firms are facing increasing disadvantages in the global investment environment. 

The EU is considering expanding its censorship toward foreign takeovers, Reuters recently reported. This has been seen as an attempt to deter Chinese buyers from mergers and acquisitions in more industries in Europe. US President Donald Trump has also issued a presidential memorandum calling for tougher accounting scrutiny of US-listed Chinese companies, arguing that Chinese companies have taken advantage of US financial markets but refused to comply with US regulatory standards. The US Senate earlier also passed the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, aiming to tighten regulations on US-listed foreign firms.

Under the guise of protecting American investors, the US actually intends to restrict Chinese companies’ participation in US financial activities by limiting them from going public in US stock markets, and ultimately aims to suppress China’s economic development.

The global capital market is a vital economic foundation for Western countries, and it was fairness, legislation and marketization that facilitated the rapid growth of the global capital market. Any move for political or discriminatory purposes would damage the market drastically and would be doomed to backfire. As COVID-19 continues to ravage the US, will Washington continue and make new conflicts in its capital markets, and blindly ignore market risks and its difficult position on the road to economic recovery?

Under such complex and changing circumstances, Chinese firms should not only attach importance to risks, but should develop dauntlessly with stronger capacities. That is the only way companies will be able to acquire a more solid stance.

For starters, Chinese firms need to closely follow changes in the international market to adjust their business strategies accordingly, paying great attention to compliance-related work and strictly abiding by local laws and regulations, so as to build a good image of Chinese companies based on principles of transparency and honesty.

Next, firms need to further shore up internal administration, putting rules in place. Employee quality and ability needs to be enhanced to adapt to complicated business environments and strict regulatory requirements. 

Also, it is important for firms to learn local laws and culture – particularly those related to their business – and maintain fair communication with related regulatory institutions. They also need to remain on high alert to deal with any emergency situations that may arise.

In the meantime, governmental departments on both sides need to enhance communications. Chinese-related departments should accept and urge Chinese firms to strictly follow reasonable rules and regulations, and for unreasonable claims which go against market rules, governmental departments are responsible for opening negotiations to protect Chinese firms’ legitimate rights and interests overseas.

Chinese firms also need to actively expand cooperation with Europe against the backdrop of persisting China-US trade conflict. As all countries are currently facing severe economic difficulties, China and the EU should break through the obstacles of bilateral cooperation through win-win cooperation, accelerate negotiations on the China-EU bilateral investment treaty, and expand the space for China’s export-oriented economic development.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1190970.shtml

US latest attack on China in the form of banning Chinese airlines

The US government’s latest attack on China in the form of banning Chinese airlines from continuing the already limited passenger air services between the two countries has been motivated by US politics pandering to anti-China forces, Chinese insiders and analysts said on Friday.

It is the Chinese government that initially made full preparations to ease the restrictions, driven by the demand of Chinese nationals to return home, and also the work and production resumption needs. 

And even with the new rule, US carriers at most can fly twice per week, still far fewer than what the US government said their aviation agreement with China allows, plus a precondition that none of their passengers test positive for COVID-19 for three consecutive weeks, showing that China still puts preventing imported COVID-19 cases as the priority.

Industry insiders suspect that the US issued a flight suspension, which came ahead of China’s adjustment policy only half a day, as a political operation intended to create the illusion of “the US forcing China to follow suit.”

By getting into a new war over flights with China, the Trump administration in essence holds the US airline industry hostage but will fail to pressure China into offering any concessions, as the Chinese rules made it clear how foreign airlines, including those from the US, can resume flights, analysts said.

China keeps own pace

“The new rules the CAAC released on Thursday to ease flight restrictions were prepared for days, which was not forced out by Washington’s flight ban, although it was only a matter of hours,” Zheng Hongfeng, CEO of industry information provider VariFlight told the Global Times on Friday. He cited the details in the CAAC (Civil Aviation Administration of China) statement, such as starting Monday as many as 64 international flights could be added, bringing total international arrivals to about 33,000 a week.

“Those numbers, such as the number of international flights that could be added, could not be calculated overnight, and different departments – ranging from diplomacy to healthcare and immigration–were involved to show that the Chinese regulator fully prepared for it,” he said. 

As early as in May, Li Jian, deputy head of China’s aviation authority, said it would consider increasing international flights as long as imported virus risks are under control. 

The US government is used to bluffing and has resorted to its bullying tactics, while China always sticks to its own plan, and the move fits into the Trump administration’s approach to all issues: always impose sanctions first, Shen Yi, a professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs of Fudan University, told the Global Times on Friday. 

Washington political trap

The global aviation industry is suffering heavily from the pandemic, and US airlines are no exception. But insiders said the US flight polices mirror not only the fight between American political parties, but also the conflict between Trump and the carriers. 

As early as late January, US President Donald Trump set up travel restrictions toward Chinese citizens, followed by a ban on flights from 26 European countries in March, later adding the UK and Ireland to the list.

“US airlines are pissed by the suspension, as Trump’s failure destroyed their domestic and international business,” an insider surnamed Li in the US told the Global Times on Friday. 

The three major airlines, each employs around 100,000 people, bolstered one of the most industry in the US, providing more than ten million peoples with employments. With hubs mostly in pro-Democrat areas and passengers mostly pro-Democrat professionals, the airlines found them at the heart of the bipartisan quarrel, experts said.

Meanwhile, US businesses such as Apple and Qualcomm also suffered from the flight suspensions, as they have become the driving force behind resuming flights to China.

However, companies with business in China are not in line with Trump’s strategy of bringing manufacturing back to the US, which “makes Trump unhappy again,” Li said. 

Data from GM’s website shows that China was the company’s largest market from 2017 to 2019, accounting for 40 percent of its sales. Chip manufacturers such as Qualcomm and Intel are also heavily dependent on the Chinese market. For fiscal year 2019, which ended in September 2019, roughly 48 percent of Qualcomm’s revenue, or $11.6 billion, came from its business with China. 

Before the virus, United Airlines had daily flights from San Francisco and New York to Shanghai and Beijing, and both cities in the US are home to corporate giants such as Apple. Delta’s major trans-Pacific customers are in Seattle’s retail and software industries and Detroit’s automotive industry such as General Motors.

Flight schedules of two giant US airlines have remained unchanged on China’s easing restrictions, with United telling the Global Times that they look forward to resuming passenger service between the US and China when the regulatory environment allows them to do so, while Delta hasn’t confirmed plans to move forward. But analysts said their cautious attitude is partly due to the possibility Trump could play the card to pressure China despite himself.

‘Knife to neck of Chinese students abroad’

It also seems that Chinese students in the US have also become victims of the US government’s policy. 

Several Chinese students studying in the US told the Global Times they are worried that they will face growing difficulty returning to China due to the upcoming restrictions on Chinese airlines. 

Facing soaring coronavirus cases and nationwide protests in the US, a growing number of Chinese students in the US plan to return to their motherland. They have been using third countries in Europe and Asia to get back to China, but many have failed due to various travel restrictions of different airlines. 

“With the US restrictions on Chinese airlines, it will get even more difficult for Chinese students to return to China. It seems that the US is using Chinese students as a bargaining chip in exchange for its interests amid disputes with China,” Zhang Sheng, a graduate of Johns Hopkins University, told the Global Times on Friday. He flew back from New York on May 27 for fear of the pandemic.

“It’s like the US is putting a knife to the neck of Chinese students abroad, saying ‘unless you open the door, I will not let you back home,’ and the US forgets that they were the first to ban flights from China, and if it does not fully control the virus, it would worsen the situation,” Shen said.

By late Thursday, the virus had killed more than 108,000 people in the US and infected at least 1.8 million, according to Johns Hopkins University, and CNN reported that officials fear those numbers will rise following the protests.

The biggest difference between China and the US is that after the epidemic’s outbreak, the Chinese government’s attitude was simple and pure – to control the virus and return to normal life. But the Trump administration mixed too many other factors from the beginning, and put Trump’s reelection first, Shen said.

“The Trump administration is selfish and arrogant, and its policy does not serve US interests, but Trump’s. Trump has kidnapped the US and does whatever he wants,” Shen said. 

China’s new policy on easing restrictions has a higher requirement on local virus control in the country, and it also poses a challenge to the US as the country faces a rising number of cases. The US should control the virus first, then talk about flight resumptions, analysts noted. 

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1190698.shtml#.XtrXqaW7uO4.facebook





Trump threatened to invoking an 1807 Insurrection Act to mobilize the military

Trump threatened to invoking an 1807  Insurrection Act to mobilize the military around the country and “quickly solve the problem.”

“I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them. I am also taking swift and decisive action to protect our great capitol, Washington, DC. What happened in this city last night was a total disgrace,” , “Those who threaten innocent life and property will be arrested, detained and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I want the organizers of this terror to be on notice that you will face severe criminal penalties and lengthy sentences in jail.”

The Insurrection Act is brief. It allows the president, at the REQUEST of a state government, to federalize the National Guard and to use the remainder of the Armed Forces to suppress an insurrection against that state’s government. It further allows for the president to do the same in a state without the explicit consent of a state’s government if it becomes impracticable to enforce federal laws through ordinary proceedings or if states are unable to safeguard its inhabitants’ civil rights.
The general purpose of the Insurrection Act is to limit presidential power, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the United States Army and Air Force (which has also been extended by executive direction to the Navy) for routine law enforcement. Actions taken under the Insurrection Act, as an “Act of Congress”, are exempt from the Posse Comitatus Act.

Read the Act. Or arrest the governors first, then move the troops in. Then again, the coup can go either ways.

French Revolution and our current moment

Fear sweeps the land. Many businesses collapse. Some huge fortunes are made. Panicked consumers stockpile paper, food, and weapons. The government’s reaction is inconsistent and ineffectual. Ordinary commerce grinds to a halt; investors can find no safe assets. Political factionalism grows more intense. Everything falls apart. This was all as true of revolutionary France in 1789 and 1790 as it is of the United States today.
Analogies between the first months of the French Revolution and our current moment are easy to draw. Fauci, the infectious-diseases expert whom Trump often sidelines or ignores, is Jacques Necker, the popular finance minister to Louis XVI. Necker’s firing in early July 1789 was viewed widely as a calamity: “It was like losing your father,” the mathematician and astronomer Jean Sylvain Bailly wrote in his memoirs. The recent spike in American gun and ammunition sales recalls the Parisians who stormed the Bastille Fortress in the hope of finding weapons and gunpowder. (They incidentally released a handful of individuals imprisoned there, but that was not the crowd’s original intent.) The conflict among city, state, and federal officials over coronavirus-related closures directly parallels 1789’s municipal revolutions, in which some cities had leaders who quickly proclaimed devotion to the new National Assembly, while the leaders of other cities remained loyal to the old structures of absolutist royal power and the mayors and aldermen of yet others were violently deposed.
Much like the past 40 years in the United States and Western Europe, the 1700s were a period of remarkable economic, social, and technological transformation. Comparatively cheap mass-manufactured goods from Britain and China sparked what historians call the 18th-century “consumer revolution.”
As sources of information proliferated, long-standing sources of authority (monarchy, aristocracy, and the established Church) feared losing power and turned reactionary. At the same time, the longer-term transformations on which these social and cultural innovations were built—the growth of European overseas empires and the emergence of settler colonialism, massive silver exports from South and Central America, the trans-Atlantic slave trade—continued, and in ever more brutal forms. More than 6 millionAfricans were sold into slavery in the 18th century—a time that some still call the “Age of Enlightenment.”
In the summer of 1789, as peasants attacked chateaus and revolutionaries vowed to “abolish privilege,” many members of the elite felt that their world had suddenly fallen apart. In truth, it had been disintegrating for decades. Today, as in the 1790s, an old order is ending in convulsions. Even before the coronavirus prompted flight cancellations and entry bans, climate activists were rightly telling us to change our modes and patterns of travel. Even before nonessential businesses were shut by government orders, online shopping and same-day deliveries were rapidly remaking retail commerce, while environmental concerns and anti-consumerism were revolutionizing the fashion industry. The pandemic and resulting public-health crisis have caused an abrupt and salutary revaluation in which cleaners, care workers, grocery-store stockers, and delivery drivers are gaining recognition for the essential work they have been doing all along. Taken together, these changes may not look like a revolution—but real revolutions are the ones that nobody sees coming.

The men and women who made the French Revolution—a revolution which, in a few short and hectic years, decriminalized heresy, blasphemy, and witchcraft; replaced one of the oldest European monarchies with a republic based on universal male suffrage; introduced no-fault divorce and easy adoption; embraced the ideal of formal equality before the law; and, for a short time at least, defined employment, education, and subsistence as basic human rights—had no model to follow, no plans, no platform agreed upon in advance. As the UCLA historian Lynn A. Hunt has argued, they made it up as they went along. Yet for more than two centuries, elements of their improvised politics have been revolution’s signature features: a declared sovereignty, devised symbols, an anthem, war. At the junction Americans face today, however, we need to imitate not the outcome of the French revolution but the energy, creativity, and optimism of the French revolutionaries.
Human beings are responsible both for much of what is wrong and for much of what could be right about the world today. But we have to take responsibility. In hindsight a revolution may look like a single event, but they are never experienced that way. Instead they are extended periods in which the routines of normal life are dislocated and existing rituals lose their meaning. They are deeply unsettling, but they are also periods of great creativity. As some Americans take shelter in their homes from a newly arrived threat and others put their health at risk to combat it, we can all mourn lost certainties, but we can also set about intentionally creating new possibilities. To claim this moment as a revolution is to claim it for human action.

Original post:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/04/revolution-only-getting-started/609463/?fbclid=IwAR3DByO414oVcNbU5VCI_A9a8PEGwiwOzsMKdZdiD8lj4P2hTaJH7gb2Ec4