Send Salon mailing list submissions to
salon@listserve.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mlm2.listserve.net/mailman/listinfo/salon
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
salon-request@listserve.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
salon-owner@listserve.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Salon digest..."
To access the full archive of posted links, visit the Salon Archive https://mlm2.listserve.net/mailman/private/salon/ If you never set up a password for your account (It’s optional), just enter your email address and click the Password “remind” button. The system will send you a randomly generated password that you can use to log into the archives.
Today's Topics:
1. The American intelligence community has no accountability ?
so how can it keep us safe? (Chas Freeman)
2. Breaking the Addiction to Secrets and Secrecy (Chas Freeman)
3. Biden?s Passivity Is a Big Problem for Israeli Democracy.
From Blinken to Nides, the message is ?It will be okay; we can
work with him.? This sends Israelis a message of weakness
(Chas Freeman)
4. Neutral countries should mediate between Russia and Ukraine
(Chas Freeman)
5. Asia?s response to US trashing of the rules-based
international trading system (Chas Freeman)
6. China Is Still The Biggest Driver Of Oil Prices (Chas Freeman)
7. How an American couple charmed Saudi families at Riyadh's
Boulevard World (Chas Freeman)
8. The War in Ukraine Will End With a Deal, Not a White Flag
(Chas Freeman)
9. Saudi Arabia: 'No normalisation with Israel without Palestine
state' (Chas Freeman)
10. Creating a Russian Bogeyman. Lawmakers stirred up
anti-Russian sentiment long before the invasion of Ukraine
(Chas Freeman)
11. Why the world needs Ukrainian victory (Chas Freeman)
12. U.S. Veterans in Ukraine Are Fighting Each Other in Court
(Chas Freeman)
13. Re: Putin?s Ukraine Folly Enables Kremlin Rivals (twpauken)
14. Re: Did Twitter files expose how Dem leaders created
conditions for war? (Todd Pierce)
15. Re: Did Twitter files expose how Dem leaders created
conditions for war? (Kelley Vlahos)
16. Re: Did Twitter files expose how Dem leaders created
conditions for war? (Edward Hughes)
17. Re: Did Twitter files expose how Dem leaders created
conditions for war? (Raymond L McGovern)
18. Re: Did Twitter files expose how Dem leaders created
conditions for war? (Todd Pierce)
19. Re: Did Twitter files expose how Dem leaders created
conditions for war? (Marshall Carter-Tripp)
20. "Untraceable" surveillance firm sued for scraping Facebook
and Instagram data (Todd Pierce)
21. Re: Did Twitter files expose how Dem leaders created
conditions for war? (Todd Pierce)
22. Everything about Russia's Massive Winter Offensive in Ukraine
(Chas Freeman)
23. What the US Gets Wrong About Taiwan and Deterrence (Chas Freeman)
24. Using the Espionage Act against journalist Julian Assange in
blatant violation of the First Amendment means the First
Amendment is essentially gone (Chas Freeman)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
To: salon@listserve.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 10:43:22 -0500
Subject: [Salon] The American intelligence community has no accountability — so how can it keep us safe?https://nypost.com/2023/01/21/with-no-accountability-how-can-us-intelligence-community-keep-us-safe/The American intelligence community has no accountability — so how can it keep us safe?
January 21, 2023James Bamford, author of the new book "Spyfail," says the US intelligence community has a lot of explaining to do when it comes to the loss of top-secret documents, cyberweapons and more. Getty Images
The revelation that President Biden had stacks of classified documents stashed in his garage — alongside jugs of anti-freeze and piles of cleaning rags — comes as little surprise. For several years I have been working on a new book, “SpyFail,” that examines the collapse of the country’s counterintelligence and security operations. And by far, no administration has had a more disastrous record than those of Barack Obama and Biden. For years, insiders at the hyper-secret National Security Agency were able to walk out the door with more than half a billion pages of documents classified higher than top secret, some dealing with nuclear weapons and many of which ended up in Russia. And that was after the supposed crackdown following the million or so documents removed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, also on Obama and Biden’s watch.
Still another NSA insider was able to steal nearly all of the agency’s highly dangerous cyberweapons — the tech equivalent of loose nukes — and put them up for auction on the internet in 2016. Eventually, the weapons ended up in Russia and North Korea, where they were used to cause a worldwide cyber pandemic that shut down hospitals and medical facilities all over the world, including in the US, thus turning our own weapons against us.
North Korean intelligence secretly attacked Sony Pictures at the behest of Kim Jong Un, stealing millions of confidential documents and unreleased films. KCNA VIA KNS/AFP via Getty Image
It was the worst cyberattack in world history, yet the NSA didn’t have a clue as to how to stop it.
Instead, it was a young American on vacation in London who luckily discovered a temporary “kill switch.” And although the cyber thief left many clues, the counterintelligence agents have never come close to catching him. As a result, he continued to sell the NSA’s cyberweapons to whatever government or terrorist would pay for them.
And then there were the foreign moles under Obama/Biden. At the same time the FBI counterspies were hunting under every rock for non-existent Russian spies within the Donald Trump campaign, they completely missed two top foreign moles within Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Both were secretly working for the government of the United Arab Emirates with orders to insert themselves into Clinton’s inner-circle, collect intelligence, and pass on pro-UAE influence. And thanks to millions of dollars in dirty money passed to Clinton’s campaign, they were enormously successful. For a demand of $2 million dollars, Clinton even allowed the spies to host her and former President Bill Clinton at the private home of one of the spies, along with another party for her in Las Vegas. “Had a terrific meeting with my Big Sister H,” the spy wrote to his spymaster, using a code for Hillary. “You will be most delighted!”
FBI Counterintelligence Supervisory Agent Robert Hanssen was actually a highly paid Russian agent, sending bag-loads of secrets to Moscow.Shutterstock
What is astounding is that neither spy was detected by either the FBI counterspies or the Secret Service during the entire campaign, even though one was a serial pedophile with multiple arrests. The other spy was a professional swindler who would eventually be charged with bilking the public out of more than $100 million. It was only by accident, more than a year after the campaign, that the two were discovered. Although one was arrested, the other managed to flee the FBI and get asylum in Lithuania.
The key question is why Clinton herself was not investigated for conspiracy. It seems hard to believe that a former secretary of state didn’t know that the two odd characters were foreign agents. After all, for six months they constantly pumped millions and millions of dollars into her campaign coffers for endless questions, spin, and face time with her.
The FBI completely missed two foreign moles within Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Both were secretly working for the government of the United Arab Emirates.AP
Around the same time that the US suffered the worst loss of classified documents in US history, the worst theft of cyber weapons in US history and the worst penetration of a presidential campaign in US history, it also suffered the worst corporate cyberattack in US history. North Korean intelligence secretly attacked Sony Pictures, stealing millions of confidential documents and unreleased films. Yet as the attack was secretly taking place, an oblivious James Clapper, America’s top spymaster, was having dinner in North Korea with the man conducting the operation, North Korea’s top spy master. It was only after tens of thousands of Sony computers around the world had been turned into useless bricks that the operation was finally discovered.
NSA Director Michael Hayden missed the 9/11 terrorist attacks and then declared that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction — before being promoted to deputy head of the Office of Director of National Intelligence.ap
Not only is the FBI deficient in finding foreign spies, it can’t even keep them out of its own counterintelligence force. For nearly four decades, the bureau has been constantly infiltrated by high level Russian and Chinese moles, resulting in the tragic death and imprisonment of scores of cooperative clandestine agents in both “hard target” countries. From 1979 to 2001, FBI Counterintelligence Supervisory Agent Robert Hanssen was a highly paid Russian agent, sending bag-loads of secrets to Moscow. He was finally arrested in February 2001. Less than a month later, Chinese intelligence allegedly recruited a former CIA officer, Alexander Ma, who applied to work for the FBI and became a highly paid mole for China. Assigned to the Bureau’s Counterintelligence Division in Hawaii, a critical office focused on China, Ma would simply fly to Shanghai every few months with a briefcase packed full of FBI and CIA secrets. Many identified key US agents, yet it wasn’t until 2020 that Ma was finally arrested. He is currently awaiting trial.
In addition to missing dangerous spies, moles, cyber thieves and saboteurs, the Obama administration was even unwitting when four former agents went to work for a political party planning a violent Russian-backed coup in a friendly European country about to join NATO. In 2016, a former CIA officer and three former FBI agents were hired by Montenegro’s “Democratic Front” which was conspiring with Russia’s GRU spy agency to overthrow the Montenegrin government. The American agents were to act as the front’s “exfiltration team” in case the coup went sideways, which it did. Afterward, the agents returned to the US, where the entire matter was brushed under the rug with no embarrassing investigations, arrests, or Congressional hearings.
NSA Director Mike Rogers paid no professional price for the loss of millions of top secret documents. AP
Author James Bamford. Courtesy of James Bamford
A key reason for the dangerous and damaging security breaches is the total lack of accountability within the FBI and intelligence community. After NSA Director Mike Rogers, a 3-star admiral, lost hundreds of millions of top secret documents and most of the agency’s cyberweapons, he paid no price, keeping his stars, job and salary intact.
The same was true of former NSA Director Michael Hayden, who after completely missing the 9/11 terrorist attacks also managed to get the war in Iraq completely wrong by declaring that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Rather than getting the boot, he instead got promoted to deputy head of the Office of Director of National Intelligence.
Nor were any FBI directors fired for allowing the bureau to be infiltrated by Russian and Chinese spies for more than four decades. Such disasters would never be tolerated in most of the corporate world. And until there’s accountability, there will likely be more spies, moles and saboteurs.
James Bamford is the bestselling author of The Puzzle Palace, Body of Secrets and other books on intelligence. His latest is SpyFail: Spies, Moles, Saboteurs and the Collapse of America’s Counterintelligence.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
To: salon@listserve.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 10:48:01 -0500
Subject: [Salon] Breaking the Addiction to Secrets and SecrecyBreaking the Addiction to Secrets and Secrecy
Melvin Goodman January 23, 2023Photograph Source: United States Department of Justice – Public Domain
The mainstream media has done their best to scramble the information on classified documents and the issue of secrecy. Because the media treasures the idea of balance and equivalence, it has unnecessarily equated the criminal culpability of Donald Trump and the sloppiness of Joe Biden’s staff. The former led to Trump’s intentionally keeping large amounts of classified material at Mar-a-Lago; the latter led to small amounts of intelligence at Biden’s former office and his home. Since I held high-level security clearances for more than four decades while in the U.S. Army, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense, I have something to offer on the issue of secrets and secrecy.
First, there is a simple fix to the problem of presidents being responsible for the closing of their White House offices and the boxing of sensitive materials. This work is done at the final stages of a presidential term by members of the president’s staff, some of whom probably even lack the clearances to handle sensitive materials. The closing down of these offices and the sorting of materials should be done by qualified members of the General Services Administration or, better yet, the National Archives and Records Administration, which can catalogue sensitive materials as well as package them. In the case of Trump’s perfidy, the National Archives knew it was missing certain documents but had no idea about the rest of the items Trump was concealing. This must be corrected.
Second, the media actually endorses the government’s classification system that terms items marked “confidential” as liable to cause “damage to the national security”; “secret” as running the risk of “serious damage”; and “top secret” causing “exceptionally grave damage” to national security. I never read a “confidential” or “secret” document that could cause serious damage to national security, and even in the case of “top secret” the notion of “exceptionally grave damage” is hyped to the point of uselessness. In the case of the documents found in Biden’s former office, these probably date from his term as vice-president, and their shelf life from seven to fifteen years ago probably renders them limited in value.
A simple fix would be to drop the terms “confidential” and “secret” or at least automatically declassify these items after five years. This would not harm the national security of the United States. The government and the intelligence community must protect the sources and methods in the collection of intelligence, but it is extremely rare for intelligence marked confidential or secret to be based on sensitive sources and methods. There are more sensitive materials in the New York Times and the Washington Post on a daily basis then there are in so-called confidential and secret pieces of information.
Third, there is a serious amount of classified material that conveys false and even politicized intelligence. For example, the Reagan administration conducted the largest peacetime weapons spending spree in the 1980s, which transformed the United States from a creditor nation to a debtor nation. This defense spending was based on politicized intelligence from CIA director William Casey and the deputy director for intelligence Robert Gates throughout the 1980s. In actual fact, the Soviet Union was in decline and its economy was a sorry state that Casey and Gates concealed from the White House and the Congress. The military buildup in the 1980s was costly and unneeded.
The so-called domino theory to justify the Vietnam War in the 1960s was a fraudulent concept within the intelligence community at every level. The domino theory was used to sell the war to the American public, which seriously questioned the war before the mainstream media joined the anti-war movement. I joined the CIA in 1966 and was not aware of any leading policy maker who believed in the idea of a domino theory.
Fourth, the Pentagon and the CIA use the veil of secrecy to keep information out of the public arena, thus foreclosing the possibility of public debate. Both of these institutions use a review process to make sure that their employees are unable to publish materials that are falsely labeled as classified. In one of my manuscripts, for example, the CIA took out every reference to the use of drones in Afghanistan, which it considered classified although it had been fully documented in the mainstream media. A CIA censor even removed a footnote from one of my manuscripts because it contained the headline of a Times’ story that linked the CIA to the use of drones. Some secret!
Fifth, secrecy is necessary, but it must be limited. Senator Daniel Moynihan chaired a secrecy commission in the 1990s that reported over six million lower-level classification decisions in 1997. The classification figure had grown to 80 million by 2014. Most of these materials were totally innocuous. Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email service for largely innocuous items was an act of arrogance on her part that cost her the presidency in 2016, but it didn’t jeopardize national security. Whereas the CIA blocks its former employees from citing press articles in their writings, the Pentagon goes further and classifies press articles that are circulated within the building.
Finally, we need to recognize that a great deal of classification of political materials is designed to prevent embarrassing the individuals or institutions involved in acts of policy. The Pentagon Papers is an excellent example of a document that presented no threat to national security, but did provide an understanding of the lies made to the American public, such as the so-called domino theory, to defend the use of force in Vietnam that cost 56,000 American lives as well as countless Vietnamese civilians.
There is no question that the government must protect its sources and methods in the collection of intelligence. Regarding substance, however, I believe that, with the exception of details on weapons systems as well as on sensitive negotiations, there are few legitimate secrets and almost none that must remain classified for more than ten years at most. The secrecy that surrounded the Iran-Contra affair probably saved the Reagan presidency over the short term, but greater transparency would have prevented Iran-Contra from ever getting off the ground in the first place.
Our Cold War culture of secrecy must be addressed. The loss of blood and treasure in two decades of fighting unnecessary wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fueled to a great extent by phony intelligence in the case of Iraq and a disdain for history’s lessons in the case of Afghanistan. A policy of complete openness in most areas of information would lead to a more useful debate of national security issues and perhaps sounder policy choices.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
To: salon@listserve.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 10:50:58 -0500
Subject: [Salon] Biden’s Passivity Is a Big Problem for Israeli Democracy. From Blinken to Nides, the message is ‘It will be okay; we can work with him.’ This sends Israelis a message of weaknessBiden’s Passivity Is a Big Problem for Israeli Democracy
From Blinken to Nides, the message is ‘It will be okay; we can work with him.’ This sends Israelis a message of weaknessAmir TibonJan 22, 2023On Saturday night, as more than a hundred thousand Israelis took to the streets to demonstrate against his attack on the Israeli judicial system, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shared an article on his Twitter account in favor of that “legal reform.”
It was written by a far-right U.S. journalist who last year wrote a glowing endorsement of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. More recently, he had shared conspiracy theories about the Brazilian presidential election in which Jair Bolsonaro – the darling of the global far-right movement – lost power.
There was nothing unusual or sinister about Netanyahu sharing that article. This is the company he keeps these days. Once a self-described liberal right-winger devoted to Israel’s democracy, the prime minister is now part of an international alliance of antidemocratic leaders that includes Orbán, Bolsonaro, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. It makes total sense for him to share articles from the Steve Bannon mediascape in support of his extremist agenda.
The strange, unusual and harmful part of this story is the Biden administration’s response to what is happening. Would U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken pay a visit to Budapest anytime soon? Probably not.
Had Bolsonaro won the Brazilian election instead of narrowly losing it, would President Joe Biden invite him to the White House? Maybe, but certainly not while his government was promoting a vengeful plan to dismantle Brazil’s democratic institutions.
But when it comes to Netanyahu, the Biden administration is living in a fantasy world. From Blinken to ambassador Thomas Nides, the message is “It will be okay; we can work with him.” This sends a message of weakness. Israelis, no matter their political affiliation, don’t appreciate weakness.
The U.S. administration will probably claim, in its defense, that National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan “discussed” the government’s legal plan in his recent meeting with Netanyahu (as journalist Barak Ravid first reported last week).
That’s not nothing, but Israel is a society that doesn’t understand understatement. “Discussing” is an ambiguous word, as is “raising concerns” about something. Things need to be said clearly in order to get people’s attention here. The Orbán and Trump fans cheering on Netanyahu get it. Too bad Blinken and his team don’t.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
To: salon@listserve.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 10:54:04 -0500
Subject: [Salon] Neutral countries should mediate between Russia and Ukrainehttps://braveneweurope.com/jeffrey-sachs-neutral-countries-should-mediate-between-russia-and-ukraineJeffrey D. Sachs – Neutral countries should mediate between Russia and Ukraine
Odd that such articles are so rare, while those in mainstream media demanding more weapons, more death, more destruction, yet ignoring the possiblitiy of the use of nuclear weapons are like sand on the beach.
Jeffrey D. Sachs is Professor at Columbia University, is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He has served as adviser to three UN Secretaries-General, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General António Guterres.
Cross-posted from Other News
Neither Russia nor Ukraine is likely to achieve a decisive military victory in their ongoing war: both sides have considerable room for deadly escalation. Ukraine and its Western allies have little chance of ousting Russia from Crimea and the Donbas region, while Russia has little chance of forcing Ukraine to surrender. As Joe Biden noted in October, the spiral of escalation marks the first direct threat of “nuclear Armageddon” since the Cuban missile crisis 60 years ago.
The rest of the world also suffers alongside, though not on the scale of the battlefield. Europe is probably in recession. Developing economies struggle with rising hunger and poverty. American armsmakers and big oil firms reap windfalls, even as the overall American economy worsens. The world endures heightened uncertainty, disrupted supply chains and dire risks of nuclear escalation.
Each side might opt for continued war in the belief that it has a decisive military advantage over its foe. At least one of the parties would be mistaken in such a view, and probably both. A war of attrition will devastate both sides.
Yet the conflict could proceed for another reason: that neither side sees the possibility of an enforceable peace agreement. Ukrainian leaders believe that Russia would use any pause in fighting to rearm. Russian leaders believes that NATO would use any pause in fighting to expand Ukraine’s arsenal. They choose to fight now, rather than face a stronger foe later.
The challenge is to find a way to make a peace agreement acceptable, credible and enforceable. I believe that the case for a negotiated peace needs to be more broadly heard, first to spare Ukraine from becoming a perpetual battleground, and more generally, as beneficial for both sides and the rest of the world. A strong argument can be made for involving neutral countries to help enforce a peace settlement that would benefit many.
A credible agreement would first need to meet the core security interests of both parties. As John F. Kennedy wisely said on the path to the successful Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty with the Soviet Union in 1963, “even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.”
In a peace agreement, Ukraine would need to be assured of its sovereignty and security, while NATO would need to promise not to enlarge eastward. (Although NATO describes itself as a defensive alliance, Russia certainly feels otherwise and firmly resists NATO enlargement.) Some compromises would need to be found regarding Crimea and the Donbas region, perhaps freezing and de-militarising those conflicts for a period of time. A settlement will also be more sustainable if it includes the phased elimination of sanctions on Russia and an agreement by both Russia and the West to contribute to the rebuilding of war-torn areas.
Success may well hinge on who is included in trying to find and enforce peace. Since the belligerents themselves cannot forge such a peace alone, a key structural solution lies in bringing additional parties to the agreement. Neutral nations including Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa have repeatedly called for a negotiated end to the conflict. They could help to enforce any agreement that is reached.
These countries are neither Russia-haters nor Ukraine-haters. They neither want Russia to conquer Ukraine, nor the West to expand NATO eastward, which many see as a dangerous provocation not only to Russia but perhaps to other countries as well. Their opposition to NATO enlargement has sharpened as American hardliners have urged the alliance to take on China. Neutral countries were taken aback by the participation of Asia-Pacific leaders of Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand in a summit last year of supposedly “North Atlantic” countries.
The peacemaking role of major neutral countries could be decisive. Russia’s economy and war-making capacity depend on continued strong diplomatic relations and international trade with these neutral countries. When the West imposed economic sanctions on Russia, major emerging economies, such as India, did not follow suit. They did not want to choose sides and have maintained strong relations with Russia.
These neutral countries are major players in the global economy. According to the IMF’s estimates of GDP at purchasing-power parity, the combined output of Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa ($51.7 trn, or almost 32% of world output) in 2022 was larger than that of the G7 nations, America, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. The emerging economies are also crucial to global economic governance and will hold the G20 presidency for four years in a row, as well as leadership positions in major regional bodies. Neither Russia nor Ukraine wants to squander relations with these countries, making them important potential guarantors of peace.
Moreover, many of these countries will seek to burnish their diplomatic credentials by helping to negotiate peace. Several, including of course Brazil and India, are long-time aspirants for permanent seats on the UN Security Council. The possible architecture of a peace deal could be an agreement co-guaranteed by the UN Security Council with several of the major emerging economies. In addition to the countries mentioned above, other credible co-guarantors include Turkey (which has skillfully mediated Russia-Ukraine talks); Austria, which is proud of its enduring neutrality; and Hungary, which holds this year’s presidency of the UN General Assembly and has repeatedly called for negotiations to end the war.
The UN Security Council and the co-guarantors would impose UN-agreed trade and financial measures against any party that breaches the peace agreement. The implementation of such measures would not be subject to veto by the breaching party. Russia and Ukraine would have to trust the fair play of the neutral countries to secure peace and their respective security goals.
It makes no sense for the fighting to continue in Ukraine. Neither side is likely to win a war that is currently devastating Ukraine, imposing massive costs in lives and lucre on Russia, and causing global harm. Major neutral countries, in conjunction with the UN, can be the co-guarantors to begin a new era of peace and rebuilding. The world should not allow the two sides to continue a reckless spiral of escalation.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
To: salon@listserve.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 11:14:25 -0500
Subject: [Salon] Asia’s response to US trashing of the rules-based international trading systemAsia’s response to US trashing of the rules-based international trading system
EAF editors23 January 2023Author: Editorial Board, ANU
The end of 2022 left no doubt that the Biden administration in Washington had joined its predecessor on the mission to trash the rules-based international trading system, of which the United States had been the architect-in-chief in the aftermath of the Second World War. In December, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai thumbed her nose at the WTO rulings against the Trump administration’s steel and aluminium tariffs, which she too had gone into bat for.
And Biden’s team introduced the CHIPS and Science Act that sought to limit Chinese participation in the complex international semiconductor chip trade and production networks. Gone is any pretence of not forcing countries to choose — if US allies remain in the semiconductor business with China, they’ll be hit by sanctions. This is sold as security policy, but with some US companies given a temporary licence to continue to do business in China it looks very much like crude protectionist industrial policy.
In case there was any doubt, the Biden administration then introduced the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act which gave a massive boost to the subsidisation of electric vehicle manufacturing in the United States with large scale buy-in to industrial policy — exactly the issue it has been accusing the Chinese of — and retreat from open trade.
This is a significant U-turn in US economic policy and a major blow to the rules based economic order, of which the United States had historically been the primary defender. It’s a development of systemic importance because, however challenged its economic and social infrastructure, the United States is still the largest economy in the world and the world’s second largest trader. It’s much less important than it used to be in the world economy and global trade, but it’s still the world’s superpower and its innovation and moral authority mean that countries still look to Washington to lead.
From architect-in-chief to enforcer-in-chief, the United States has become spoiler-in-chief of the international trade regime.
How did this come about? And what should the rest of the world do, especially the heavily trade dependent economies in Asia whose economic and political security are so deeply tied to the effectiveness of a rules-based multilateral trading system?
It did not come about quickly, although Mr Trump undoubtedly accelerated the policy shift decisively by his embrace of populist protection against foreigners and foreign goods as a winning political gambit. Absent a national contract that valued social protection or policy strategies and institutional arrangements that cushioned and compensated for the impact of economic and social change on those at the frontline or caught in the backwash of it, Trump captured a polity that was fecund with discontent.
The Biden administration has tapped into that political payload too, and its philosophy of policy that embeds the same elementary policy mistakes, assigning the wrong policy instruments to the wrong policy targets.
As William Reinsch argues in this week’s lead article, the change in US trade policy is due in part to ‘the belief of many in the Biden administration that traditional free trade agreements have benefitted large corporations and their executives at the expense of workers’. If that’s true, there are more efficient ways of rectifying the inequity than by cutting off the benefits from trade. The Biden administration’s trade policy for the middle class is focused on distributing the gains from trade but without a trade policy that creates them.
Open trade has made America measurably richer; America First policies and decoupling make America poorer. Worker-centred trade policy that undermines international specialisation and competitiveness reduces the national wealth from which worker incomes and welfare can be guaranteed.
In forcing countries into a choice between the United States and China, Reinsch argues that ‘the changes in other countries’ policies that the United States is seeking are by no means economically or politically cost-free, but so far the United States does not seem prepared to pay for them’.
What is principally a problem of domestic policy mismanagement nonetheless has high stakes geopolitical dimensions. China is now cast as America’s — and by extension its allies’ — dominant economic and security threat. Economic decoupling from China is justified in terms of national security strategy. The COVID pandemic has fed irrational fear of vulnerabilities through exposure to international trade. And Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has deepened anxieties about the security implications of trade dependence.
Nationally, Mr Biden aims at a number of disparate targets at once: ring-fencing production that is seen as important in national security terms (such as high-quality semi-conductors); boosting national production of leading high value goods like electric vehicles; protecting jobs in industries that have political power like steel; and lowering income inequality.
Internationally he wants to make the United States more self-sufficient with more secure international supply chains in critical areas; create regional and global alliances to achieve that; and at the same time, deal with the climate change issue. But his administration appears to have only a muddled idea of the implications of the interventions in one area of this policy mix for the ability to achieve the desired outcome in others.
There is one thing about which the rest of the world can be absolutely sure. There is no quick fix to sorting out the dysfunction in US national policies now infecting the good conduct of national economic policy. The previously unthinkable reality is that the United States has given itself a red card in the conduct of sound international economic diplomacy and will likely be out of the game for some years to come. It will take a political generation or two to resolve the pickle that America has got itself into.
That is now the starting point for the conduct of international economic policy in Asia.
Asian countries and others in Europe and elsewhere (including US allies) — most of the rest of the world — with a deep strategic interest in an open, rules-based multilateral trading system must defend that system from the United States while working to upgrade the rules, step by step in regional and plurilateral agreements. That’s no easy task and will require political courage as well as deft diplomacy, particularly in dealings with the United States itself.
Beijing’s actions will need to change to match its rhetoric, but it’s clear that China, the world’s largest trader, has a stake in the existing rules-based system. The United States needs to be engaged in the effort in a way that avoids the American inclination to isolate China and break the world up into blocs.
The hope, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, is that the United States, as is its wont, will make the right call after trying everything else.
The EAF Editorial Board is located in the Crawford School of Public Policy, College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University.
What Other People Are Reading
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
To: salon@listserve.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 11:17:04 -0500
Subject: [Salon] China Is Still The Biggest Driver Of Oil PricesJanuary 23, 2023China Is Still The Biggest Driver Of Oil Prices
- Since China doesn’t report crude oil inventories, it’s all guesswork as to just how much crude the country has stashed over the past year.
Oil prices settled on Thursday at their highest level since December 1 as the market is turning bullish on China’s oil demand this year.
The Chinese reopening is set to drive oil demand growth and push oil higher if most of the developed economies manage to avoid recessions, analysts say.
China likely accelerated the pace of crude oil stockpiling last year, according to estimates by Reuters’ Asia Commodities and Energy Columnist Clyde Russell based on Chinese data on imports, domestic production, and refinery processing rates.
More stocks in commercial and strategic storage could mean that China’s imports may not be as strong as anticipated. But it could also mean that refiners are preparing for a surge in demand in the coming months once the exit Covid wave after the restrictions were dropped fades.
Since China doesn’t report crude oil inventories, it’s all guesswork as to just how much crude the country has stashed over the past year.
As China reopened its borders in early January, authorities issued a massive batch of allowances for independent refiners to import crude oil.
There is one certainty in the oil markets – the economic growth in China has been and will continue to be a key factor in global oil demand, capable of moving oil prices in either direction.
Over the past few days, the key driver of oil prices was the Chinese reopening and the improved outlook on Chinese demand due to said reopening. OPEC and the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in their respective monthly reports this week that the prospects of global oil demand were improving thanks to the Chinese exit from the ‘zero Covid’ policy.
China’s reopening is set to drive global oil demand to a record high of 101.7 million barrels per day (bpd) this year, up by 1.9 million bpd from 2022, the IEA said in its report, raising its demand growth estimate for 2023 by 200,000 bpd from 1.7 million bpd growth expected in December.
“Two wild cards dominate the 2023 oil market outlook: Russia and China,” the IEA said in its Oil Market Report.
“China will drive nearly half this global demand growth even as the shape and speed of its reopening remains uncertain.”
OPEC also expressed more optimism about Chinese oil demand and the global economy this year in its Monthly Oil Market Report (MOMR).
China’s reopening is set to push demand higher, and “In addition, China’s plans to expand fiscal spending to aid the economic recovery is likely to support oil demand in manufacturing, construction and mobility,” OPEC said.
Globally, economies look more resilient than previously expected, the cartel said.
“The global momentum in 4Q22 appears stronger than previously expected, potentially providing a sound base for the year 2023, especially in the OECD economies. The 2022 growth in both Euro-zone and US has surpassed previous forecasts,” OPEC noted.
Moreover, the U.S. looks to have more chances to avoid a recession this year.
“Upside potential may come from the US Federal Reserve successfully managing a soft landing in the US. This is the most likely outcome, given the expected slowdown in inflation and the sufficient underlying demand dynamic,” according to the organization.
Fears of recession may have subsided, but the oil market continues to react with selloffs to every weak economic data point from the United States, Europe, or China.
Nevertheless, market sentiment has turned bullish on China over the past two weeks, which resulted in rising oil prices. This highlights the fact that the Chinese economy and oil demand will continue to drive oil markets this year, alongside economic performance elsewhere, the extent of Russian oil supply losses, and the policy of the OPEC+ group to balance the market and support prices.
By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
To: salon@listserve.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 11:20:34 -0500
Subject: [Salon] How an American couple charmed Saudi families at Riyadh's Boulevard World
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
To: salon@listserve.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 11:26:53 -0500
Subject: [Salon] The War in Ukraine Will End With a Deal, Not a White FlagThe War in Ukraine Will End With a Deal, Not a White Flag
Police officers look at collected fragments of Russian rockets, in Kharkiv, Ukraine, Dec. 3, 2022 (AP photo by Libkos).
A sad reality is setting in: The Russia-Ukraine war will not end anytime soon. This possibility had already been raised by the middle of 2022, but Ukraine’s massive counteroffensive in September resulted in rapid gains, raising hopes in the West of a quick path to victory. Those hopes are now fading.
Writing recently in Foreign Affairs, Jim Goldgeier and Ivo Daalder observed that Ukraine would have great difficulty regaining all its territory, including Crimea, “even with greater Western military aid,” as that “would require the collapse of dug-in and reinforced Russian defenses.” Similarly, retired British Air Marshal Edward Stringer recently told the Wall Street Journal, “By continuing to drip-feed just enough for Ukraine not to lose, what the West is doing is just prolonging the war.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s recent visit to Washington underlined the point: A key reason for the trip was to buttress continued U.S. support, which Zelensky referred to as an “investment” in his address to a joint session of the U.S. Congress. He wouldn’t have made that speech if he thought the war would be over soon.
Nevertheless, even if the war drags on for some time more, it will end someday. But what will that ending look like? A complete Ukrainian victory and total Russian collapse? Russia regrouping and turning the tide? A perpetual stalemate that leaves both sides exhausted, but, like the Korean War, without a formal peace?
In all likelihood, the ending will be a negotiated settlement, though the terms of that settlement remain to be seen. Perhaps Ukraine will accept Russia retaining control of Crimea, if not the Donbas. Or maybe Russia will drop its opposition to Ukraine’s entry into NATO. These and many other possibilities are conceivably on the table.
But having possibilities on the table is not enough to end the war. Russia and Ukraine must be willing to sit down together at that table, and they are currently far from doing so. Indeed, for many observers, it’s appalling to think that Ukraine, which was the victim of Russia’s unprovoked attack, should ever grant anything to Russia in order to end the war. But in all likelihood a deal ending the war will be brokered, with both sides making concessions.
For one thing, a negotiated settlement to the war is consistent with the historical record. We tend to think of wars ending in the manner that World War II ended, both in Europe and Asia: with unconditional surrender. But that is simply not the case with most wars, including large wars.
Negotiated settlements are much more common. This has long been known by those who study war, be they military historians or security studies scholars. Back in 1916, Coleman Phillipson published a book titled “Termination of War and Treaties of Peace,” which, as the title suggests, showed that peace treaties whereby the two sides make concessions is how wars usually ended. Over 60 years later, Berenice Carroll identified the same trend. Over 100 years later, the finding that states end wars by agreement remains true, though states have increasingly dispensed with the signing of the actual treaties. Wars are now more likely to end in ambiguous outcomes where both sides can claim something from the war, but clear “white flag” surrenders by one side to the other remain rare.
While Russia can’t win, it won’t lose. Instead, it will hold out until Ukraine is willing to bargain.
Second, Russia started this war because it preferred war over a negotiated bargain. A core finding from the scholarship on war is that while it would seem sensible for the sides to strike a deal and avoid the death and destruction of fighting, wars occur because one side—and sometimes both—thinks it can win easily. And an easy victory that delivers all of a belligerent’s objectives at low cost is more attractive than a bargained agreement that only ensures some of them. Only after the war begins and the fighting reveals that victory will not be as easy as imagined will the sides return to bargaining.
This dynamic is clearly on display in how this war has unfolded. Russia launched its invasion under the apparent assumption that it would be a cakewalk. That this assumption has been proven wrong means Russian President Vladimir Putin should call off the invasion and bring his troops home, right? Unfortunately, it is not unusual to see aggressors double down when it’s clear they can’t win. Leaders often continue to prosecute wars, out of a concern that losing will be electorally costly or lead to a horrible personal postwar fate, or else because the losing side can’t be confident that the other will stop fighting, especially since suing for peace makes its own weakness readily apparent. While Russia can’t win, it won’t lose. Instead, it will hold out until Ukraine is willing to bargain.
Third and related, the fighting is on track to produce an indecisive battlefield outcome. While Russia will not accept defeat, Ukraine will have great difficulty achieving victory, defined as fully driving Russian forces out of the country. Indeed, some observers, such as former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, think time is actually on Russia’s side. Even if that is not the case, this war is likely to drag on for a long time with neither side clearly gaining an advantage.
Consider the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. That deadly confrontation lasted for 8 years, resulting in over a million battlefield deaths, until eventually the two sides were simply ready to stop fighting. The war ended when both Iran and Iraq accepted United Nations Security Council Resolution 598, with the final outcome closely resembling the conditions existing prior to the outbreak of fighting. There is a real possibility that the war in Ukraine could come to resemble that conflict.
Admittedly, the war’s dynamics could change. For instance, the recognition that this may become a “long war” is fueling the “Free the Leopards” campaign, an attempt to push the German government into allowing NATO member states to re-export their German-produced Leopard tanks to Ukraine. But current conditions suggest that the war’s most likely outcome is a negotiated settlement, once the two sides eventually recognize that only striking a deal can end the hostilities.
That settlement can and should be on Kyiv’s terms, not dictated by Ukraine’s Western allies. But that is also why this is likely to be a long war. For as long as it enjoys Western support, Ukraine can avoid defeat, but will not be able to achieve victory. Meanwhile, Russia can’t win, but will not accept losing. The combination means this war will almost certainly continue, well past the upcoming one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion. Indeed, it could well last through several such anniversaries before both sides are ready to settle. It’s a sad realization, but one that is also consistent with what we know about war.
Paul Poast is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago and a nonresident fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
To: salon@listserve.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 11:31:00 -0500
Subject: [Salon] Saudi Arabia: 'No normalisation with Israel without Palestine state'Saudi Arabia: 'No normalisation with Israel without Palestine state'
January 21, 2023Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud in Moscow, Russia on January 14, 2021 [Russian Foreign Ministry/Handout/Anadolu Agency]January 21, 2023Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal Bin Farhan Al-Saud announced on Thursday that there would be no normalisation of ties with Israel without a Palestinian state, news agencies reported.
"We have said consistently that we believe normalisation with Israel is something that is very much in the interest of the region," he told Bloomberg TV during an interview held on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos.
But he stressed: "True normalisation and true stability will only come through giving the Palestinians hope, through giving the Palestinians dignity."
According to Bloomberg, the foreign minister said an agreement to create a Palestinian state would be a precondition to establishing formal diplomatic ties with Israel.
Israel normalised ties with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain and Morocco in 2020. The deal, known as the Abraham Accords, was signed in a bid to normalise diplomatic relations, establish economic agreements and support social exchanges.
Following the Abraham Accords, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been working hard to forge official ties with Saudi Arabia.
When he met with White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on Thursday, he discussed several issues with him, including reaching a breakthrough with Saudi Arabia.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chas Freeman <cwfresidence@gmail.com>
To: salon@listserve.com
Cc:
Bcc:
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 11:44:24 -0500
Subject: [Salon] Creating a Russian Bogeyman. Lawmakers stirred up anti-Russian sentiment long before the invasion of UkraineCreating a Russian Bogeyman
Lawmakers stirred up anti-Russian sentiment long before the invasion of Ukraine.
Kelley Beaucar VlahosJan 23, 2023Politics
