Month: January 2020

Categories
Quick Analysis

Hypocrisy and Anti-AntiSemitism

In the wake of a horrific machete assault in Monsey, New York on a rabbi’s home, the state’s governor, Andrew Cuomo stated: “This is a national phenomenon that we are seeing. It is frightening and it is disturbing. If anyone thinks that something poisonous is not going on in this country, then they are in denial frankly…”

The words are appropriate, but they were also a study in hypocrisy. The governor is a leading standard bearer of the Democrat Left, a political movement which openly espouses anti-Israel and anti-Jewish views.

In New York State’s Hudson Valley, Rep. Antonio Delgado, (D-NY) has blasted Israel with false accusations.  He has not been rebuked by his party. Consider also former Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, who was the Democrat candidate for governor in Florida. Gillum is a staunch supporter of groups that push the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. The Obama Administration opened the door to both hard-left policies and anti-Israel sentiments, dramatically replacing America’s support for both Israel and moderate Arab states with support for Iran and the Moslem Brotherhood.

A study by the AMCHA Initiative found that “Israel-related harassment increased by 70% from 71 in 2017 to 121 in 2018. Antisemitic acts involving the singling out of Jewish and pro-Israel students and groups for personal vilification more than doubled, with a tripling of expression falsely implying these students or groups are linked to ‘white supremacy.’ Antisemitic acts involving the unfair treatment of Jewish and pro-Israel students or attempts to exclude them from campus activities more than doubled, with expression calling for the total boycott or exclusion of Zionist students or expression from campus life nearly tripling.”

The anti-Semitism of prominent members of the Democrat Party is illustrated by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who, among other biased acts, posted an anti-Semitic political cartoon. A Daily Mail article .noted that the cartoon’s illustrator, Carlos Latuff, is known for creating anti-Semitic images.

Jonathon Marks, writing for Commentary magazine, notes that “Democrats… seem determined to hold on to those who do Jews harm.”

The bias against both Jewish individuals and the Jewish state has reached an unprecedented level within the Democrat Party. Nation of Islam head Louis Farrakhan has compared Jews to termites, and his history of ties with former Democrat National Committee Deputy Chair (and current Minnesota Attorney General) Keith Ellison is undeniable.

But it doesn’t end there.

The new anti-Semitism is broader than the traditional ethnically-based hatred that history is all too familiar with.  It contains the seeds of the broader Progressive/Left’s disdain and hatred for all religion. A devotion to religious principles means that individuals see a higher power than government, a belief that the Left, which places the power of government on a solitary pedestal above individual rights, cannot tolerate.

The problem is not surprising.  As the Democratic Party moves towards socialism, it takes on the traits historically common to socialist regimes. The Soviet Union was anti-Semitic from its inception. The trait was at the core of the National Socialist (Nazi) regime of Hitler’s Germany. An Adam Smith study found that “Anti-Semitism has formed a key part of Chavismo, Hugo Chávez’s political ideology, and is now maintained by Chávez’s successor Nicholas Maduro. From the early days of his presidency, Chávez targeted Venezuela’s small Jewish community with abuse and sought to push them out of Venezuela. This was despite the absence of any anti-Semitic tradition in Venezuelan culture, which was always welcoming towards its Jewish population. When Chávez came to power in 1999, 30,000 Jews lived in Venezuela. Now only an estimated 5,000 remain after two decades of persecution.”

Many Americans may be unaware of the Leftist Democrat’s growing bias against Jews because key information outlets refuse to cover the problem. While left-leaning Twitter goes to great lengths to find excuses to censor conservative-leaning writers, it refused to object to Farrakhan’s tweet comparing Jews to termites.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Governor Tells Citizens to Leave

This article was provided exclusively to the New York Analysis of Policy and Government by New York radio personality Ted Flint.

Increasingly, those who believe in limited government, low taxes and traditional moral values are deemed racist, or “deplorable.” Politicians, including Hillary Clinton and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo feel free to engage in verbal abuse against them.  During the 2016 Democratic primary debates, Ms. Clinton, when asked who she believes the “enemy” is, didn’t say terror, Russia, China, poverty or disease. She said, “Republicans.”

 New York’s Governor Cuomo has doubled down on that concept.

Cuomo promised within 100 days of his new term, “The most progressive agenda this state has ever seen, period.” It sounds good, if you’re a progressive. But what if you are not fully on board with the Governor’s statist agenda or his methods for implementing it? Well, you’ll have to find another state to call home. The governor has hinted that on more than one occasion – and many New Yorkers, 1.2 million of them over the last decade, have taken him up on his offer. In fact, according to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau, New York’s population continues to decline faster than any other state. The report found New York was just one of nine states to see a decrease in population, losing an estimated 48,510 residents between July 1, 2017, and July 1, 2018. That’s more than any other state. Deep Blue Illinois saw the second largest population drop at 45,116. Upstate New York has been hit the hardest. Since 2010, 42 of the 50 upstate New York counties lost population.

The governor and his fellow democrats don’t appear to understand the reasons for New York’s outward migration. The governor has blamed New York’s cold climate for the exodus, but it’s the economic climate that is fueling the decline. The best and brightest New Yorkers are fleeing to more friendly economic environs in lower-taxed Red States, where the cost of living isn’t so onerous.

With Governor Cuomo’s State of the State coming soon, what better time to assess the economic well-being of what was once called the Empire State, under his “progressive” reign. The state is plagued by a government that has to raise taxes to pay for its profligate spending.

Due to limitations of space, we’ll confine our criticism of the Governor to three areas: ethics, economic development and religious liberty. In 2013, the governor created the Moreland Commission to weed out public corruption and to recommend reforms to the state’s ethics and election laws. Less than a year later, the governor abruptly shut down the commission. Cuomo’s office came under harsh criticism for interfering and restricting the commission’s investigations. According to media reports, then Secretary to the Governor, Lawrence Schwartz, barred the commission from issuing subpoenas to organizations with ties to the governor. With characteristic hubris, Cuomo said, as reported by Crain’s New York, “It’s not a legal question. The Moreland Commission was my commission…It’s my commission. My subpoena power, my Moreland Commission. I can appoint it, I can disband it. I appoint you, I can un-appoint you tomorrow.” 

The latest ethics cloud hanging over Albany involves allegations the governor had improperly received details of a closed-door vote of the state Joint Commission on Public Ethics. According to the Albany Times Union, Julie Garcia, appointed to the panel by Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie, complained to the former JCOPE Executive Director in January that a Heastie staff member had contacted her shortly after a commission meeting and informed her of Cuomo’s alleged conversation with Heastie. Garcia told the TU : “I was being told the governor knew how I voted in executive session, even though I was unable to confirm whether or not the information was accurate.” Garcia resigned from JCOPE October 10, six days after the Inspector General’s Office issued a letter saying it could not substantiate the allegations the governor had been tipped off to how Garcia voted. That vote was about whether JCOPE should investigate Cuomo’s former campaign manager Joe Percoco, who performed his duties from his government desk, which was not far from the governor’s second floor office at the Capitol.  State leaders are tight-lipped about whether the IG’s Office interviewed the governor or Heastie concerning the matter.

Then there are the economic development “initiatives” – or rather, boondoggles, that went bust. Case in point, SUNY Polytechnic Institute opted to sell a Rochester building after waiting six years to fill it with high-tech jobs. Needless to say, the jobs never materialized. When SUNY Poly purchased the site from Kodak in 2013, the governor and his “economic guru” Alain Kaloyeros vowed millions in private investments. According to the New York Post, “Team Cuomo promised the building would become a 100 million dollar solar panel manufacturing plant. Then it was a 500 million dollar electronics facility- and, next, a photonics showplace. None of these grandiose plans panned out. And Kaloyeros is headed to prison.

Not content with New York State having some of the most liberal abortion laws in the country, the governor and his democratic cohorts are continuing their attempts to silence pro-lifers by recently passing into law, the Boss Bill.  According to Denise Harle, legal counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom Center for Life, the Boss Bill mandates that employers must “be willing to employ people whose beliefs and behavior as to “reproductive health decisions” run counter to their own.” In other words, if you run a Christian church or a Christian school, you could be forced by state government to hire people who don’t share your faith values or your respect for the lives of the unborn. This law, however, may be unconstitutional. Last year, the U.S. Supreme court ruled that faith-based ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ are not obliged to tell women that free or low cost abortions may be available elsewhere. In a victory for free speech the High Court ruled that a pro-abortion rights state government “cannot co-opt pro-life speakers to deliver its message for it.” Of course, state leaders could have carved out an exemption for religious organizations, but chose not to do so.

In 2014, during an Albany radio program the governor said republicans with “extreme” views were creating an identity crisis for their party and represented a bigger concern than Democrats such as himself.

“Their problem isn’t me and the Democrats; their problem is themselves,” “Who are they? Right to life, pro-assault weapons, anti-gay — if that’s who they are, they have no place in the state of New York because that’s not who New Yorkers are.” Then California Governor Jerry Brown offered a similar ultimatum to Golden State residents just three years earlier. If they didn’t like the progressive policies emanating from Sacramento, they were free to leave. So much for inclusion.

Many New Yorkers are choosing that option.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Listen, Carefully Part 2

The Left’s assault on the Constitution, and the concept of fair play in politics, rose to its highest level in 2019. What will happen in 2020?

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Terry McAuliffe, then-governor of the key swing state of Virginia and a personal friend of Hillary Clinton, announced that he was restoring voting rights of more than 200,000 Virginians who were convicted of felonies such as murder, rape, armed assault and other crimes.  Some analyses indicated that the governor’s restoration would be permitted despite the status of any unpaid fines or restitution requirements. A press release from McAuliffe’s office noted “Each of those Virginians will immediately regain the right to register to vote, to run for office, to serve on a jury and to serve as a notary public…”  

Rep. Ilhan Omar  (D-Minn) told Fox News that she  wants to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, and have the United Nations supervise the U.S.  southern border. She states “We need to abolish ICE and end all inhumane deportation and detention programs. We need to fight back against the criminalization of immigrants and those crossing the border.”

Despite the rampant expense and the increase in crime (64% of federal arrests were of aliens) and the existence of many seniors and homeless veterans in need, some Democrat state officials, particularly in California, seem to put the needs of illegals first.

A National Council on Aging study reports that “Over 25 million Americans aged 60+ are economically insecure—living at or below 250% of the federal poverty level…These older adults struggle with rising housing and health care bills, inadequate nutrition, lack of access to transportation, diminished savings, and job loss. For older adults who are above the poverty level, one major adverse life event can change today’s realities into tomorrow’s troubles.”

According to the National Council on Homeless Veterans,  the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimates that 40,056 veterans are homeless on any given night.

Nevertheless, illegals are given more attention by Democrat-run jurisdictions and presidential candidates than either seniors or homeless veterans.

 A Forbes study discusses the collapse of California, where illegals are given top priority. “So, what is an impoverished California to do?  It’s not an academic question.  California leads the nation in poverty when cost of living is factored into the equation…According to… the Democrats, the answer is: fight for future immigrants, refugees, sanctuary cities, social issues and global warming.”

On the other coast, reports the New York Post, Democrats in the New York State Legislature “… set aside $27 million in tuition assistance for the children of undocumented immigrants in the new state budget — but wouldn’t add hundreds of thousands of dollars to expand a similar program for kids of deceased and disabled veterans.”

In foreign policy, it appears that many Democrats haven’t had time to review international realities, or simply have conflicting personal interests.

Ignoring Moscow’s massive weapons programs, which have made Russia the planet’s strongest nuclear power, and China’s leap to military superpower status (as well as the aggressive moves made by each, and their alliance with each other) is dangerous and absurd.  Yet little emphasis on defense is placed by the field of 2020 Democratic presidential contenders. Worse, they uniformly seek to slash U.S. defense spending at a time of the most significant threats since the end of the Second World War.

Far too many Democrats openly support anti-Semitic movements, such as the “Boycott, Disinvest, and Sanction” (BDS) movement.  Some key Democrats, such as former DNC vice chair (and current Minnesota Attorney General) Keith Ellison have allied with anti-Semitic figures.  

In dealing with all of these contentious issues, it would be somewhat of a reassurance, limited as it might be, if the Democrats were open to at least discussing their differences with other Americans reasonably and peacefully.  Unfortunately, that is not the case. Those disagreeing with their policy preferences are branded with horrible epithets.  Some associate with individuals who openly support and encourage violence against those they disagree with.

American politics is rapidly reaching the edge of a dangerous precipice.

Picture: U.S. Constitution (National Archives)

Categories
Quick Analysis

Listen, Carefully

Will 2020 be the most dangerous year yet for the United States Constitution?

Recently, Senator Sheldon WhiteHouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, threatened the United States Supreme Court. In essence, he stated that if the high court did not rule the way leftist Democrats wish on a case involving another instance of New York City’s harassment of those exercising Second Amendment Rights, he would push to “pack” the court with additional leftist judges. He was joined on this attack on the Constitution by fellow Democrat Senators Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York.

This was yet another attack on the Constitution by the left. Startling proposals and legislation pushed by Democrat presidential candidates, elected officials, and the legislative bodies and jurisdictions they dominate need to be listened to far more carefully. They are a road map to the diminution of the United States, and the rights of every citizen.

In March, House Democrats voted to defend localities that allow illegal immigrants to vote in their elections. Only six Democrats voted against the measure.   Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Tx) stated to Fox News “What kind of government would cancel the vote of its own citizens, and replace it with noncitizens?”

Federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections.  If the Democrats do well in the 2020 election, that could be changed.

The cost of this strange tilt towards illegal aliens and away from the needs of U.S. citizens, particularly seniors and homeless veterans, was reviewed in 2016 by Federation for Immigration Reform study:

  • Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.
  • The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien population in that locality
  • Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.
  • At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.
  • Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.

The 2016 figures cited by the Federation have risen in the past several years.

 Not content with allowing noncitizens to vote, many prominent Democrats seek to allow convicted felons to cast ballots as well. The Hill reports that Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vermont) wants to extend the vote even to the worst felons, still incarcerated. “You’re paying a price, you committed a crime, you’re in jail. That’s bad,” Sanders told The Hill. “But you’re still living in American society and you have a right to vote.”

The reason for the Democrats’ interest in this topic is clear.  According to an NYU study, “disenfranchisement laws tend to take more votes from Democratic than from Republican candidates. Analysis shows that felon disenfranchisement played a decisive role in U.S. Senate elections in recent years. Moreover, at least one Republican presidential victory would have been reversed if former felons had been allowed to vote… felon voters showed strong Democratic preferences in both presidential and senatorial elections…even comparatively unpopular Democratic candidates… would have garnered almost 70 percent of the felon vote.”

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Foreign Policy Update

IRAQ

According to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, the US is closely monitoring the situation at the American Embassy in Iraq. He said that Washington never contemplated abandoning the site and added that numerous times a day: “I made clear when I spoke with the Iraqi leadership that the Iraqis have the responsibility to keep our facilities safe.” The Iraqi government recently met their obligation and has deployed counterterrorism forces to property the property.

IRAN

When asked if the American people should contemplate being on a war footing in 2020 over Iran’s behavior, the Secretary responded that the activity Iran supported in Iraq was state-sponsored terrorism. Just a day after he made that comment a US rocket attack at Baghdad International Airport killed several Iranian military leaders including General Qassim Soleimani, one of the country’s most revered Islamic Revolutionary Guard leaders. Pompeo pointed out that the Trump Administration takes a fundamentally different approach to responding to terrorism. He noted that “We have starved them of resources, we have denied them access, we have put pressure on the Iranian leadership, and I think you see that.” The Secretary previously on several occasions labeled Soleimani as equally dangerous as the ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was in the past.

NORTH KOREA

In a state media announcement, North Korea said the world will “witness a new strategic weapon to be possessed by the DPRK” and that in the near future, it is ending its moratorium on nuclear and ballistic missile testing.

In response to the announcement Secretary Pompeo said he was “more concerned about it when this administration took office.  We were in a place where it was very likely that we would have ended up in a war with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, North Korea.  President Trump has taken an approach where we’ve tried to develop a diplomatic pathway.” 

When asked if he believes North Korea has reneged on its commitment to President Trump, Pompeo responded that if it is true, it is “deeply disappointing.” He noted: “I was there when Chairman Kim made the commitment that said he would not engage in intercontinental missiles or test-firing of their nuclear weapons, testing their nuclear weapons systems.  He made those commitments to President Trump in exchange for President Trump agreeing not to conduct large-scale military exercises.  We’ve lived up to our commitments.  We continue to hold out hope that he’ll live up to his as well.” 

RUSSIA

Inside the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2020 is Section 7503(d), also known as the Protecting Europe’s Energy Security Act (PEESA) of 2019. It calls for those companies involved to immediate cease construction of Russia’s underwater Nord Stream 2 pipeline or face sanctions. The law gives the Secretary of State up to 60 days to issue a report to Congress to identify violating entities. Pompeo reportedly will comply to the letter of the law and report promptly to Congress any violations.

According to a recent statement released by the State Department, the pipeline is a “tool Russia is using to support its continued aggression against Ukraine,” as Russia seeks to prevent it from integrating more closely with Europe and the United States.  The underwater pipeline will enable Russia to bypass Ukraine for gas transit to Europe, which the State Department says “would deprive Ukraine of substantial transit revenues and increase its vulnerability to Russian aggression.” It also would create an economic dependency on Russia which European nations would have a difficult time bypassing both economically and politically in the future.

Washington’s intention is to stop construction of Nord Stream 2. According to the State Department the US position has been consistent across multiple administrations. The statement said it is “part of a longstanding practice to promote energy security through diversification of energy supplies by country of origin, path of delivery, and fuel types, including renewables.  Anyone engaged in the energy trading business ought to do it under fair terms, which are transparent, and operate according to market principles.”

SYRIA

Secretary Pompeo called the Russian Federation’s and China’s veto last week of a Security Council resolution that allows for humanitarian aid to reach millions of Syrians “shameful.” The resolution put forward by Germany, Belgium and Kuwait, and supported by the U.S. would have enabled life-saving assistance to reach at least four million Syrians throughout the country, according to Pompeo. 

“Unfortunately,” he said, “the Russian Federation for the 14th time, and China, for the 8th time, failed in this commitment. Both countries preferred instead to provide cover and support for its junior partner in Damascus; thus placing the lives of millions of innocent civilians in the balance at the height of winter, while further threatening civilians by supporting the continued Assad regime and Russian military offensive on Idlib.”

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government.  Each Saturday, she presents key updates on U.S. foreign policy from the State Department.

Illustration: Pixabay


Categories
Quick Analysis

Democrats Criticize Death of Terrorist Leader

Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian Major General in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and since 1998 commander of its Quds Force, a division primarily responsible for extraterritorial military and clandestine operations, has been killed.  He was in charge of an international terrorist organization and was implicated in the assassination attempt on a Saudi ambassador on U.S. soil. He was one of the most feared terrorist leaders on the planet.

According to the Department of Defense, “At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. He was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.  This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.”

There is little doubt about Soleimani’s extreme record of human rights violations.  Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, not a hawk by any means, tweeted: “Soleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans.”

Despite widespread agreement that Soleimani’s record of horrendous human rights violations in the past and his leading and key role in planning future crimes against humanity and against Americans in particular, leading Democrats are taking a stand against the President’s action.  Warren’s tweet concludes: “But this reckless move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority must be to avoid another costly war.”

Similarly, Connecticut Democrat Senator Blumenthal tweeted “Trump Admin owes a full explanation of airstrike reports—all the facts—to Congress & the American people. The present authorizations for use of military force in no way cover starting a possible new war. This step could bring the most consequential military confrontation in decades.”

Democrat President Andrew Yang issued a similar statement: “War with Iran is the last thing we need and is not the will of the American people. We should be acting to deescalate tensions and protect our people in the region.”

Democrat leaders are, according to some analysts, tone deaf on terrorism issues. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama acted shamefully in response to the attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi, even resorting to lying to the American people about its origins and the Administration’s failure to engage in protective measures.

A 2017 National Review analysis noted: “…as voters continued to amplify their anxiety around the threats they felt terrorism posed, Democratic politicians seemed to be tone deaf. Voters last summer — even those supporting nominee Hillary Clinton — suggested they wanted to hear more during the upcoming presidential debates about what the candidates would do to keep America safe from terrorism. More, in fact, than about any other single topic, including economic growth, gun policy, health care, or climate change.”

Soleimani’s death was necessitated by his plans to engage in future acts of terrorism in general and Americans in particular. A long Congressional debate or serious of consultations would have given him the time to avoid his fate. Apparently, that doesn’t concern Democrat leaders.

Photo: Iranian President expresses condolences at the death of his chief terrorist

Categories
Quick Analysis

China, Russia, May Take Lead in Key High Tech

The Ronald Reagan Institute has produced a landmark, and worrisome, report revealing what America must do to prevent China and Russia from taking the lead in technologies that can threaten U.S. national security and the economy.  It outlines the dire challenges in applying key technology.  The New York Analysis of Policy and Government provides key excerpts.

The Contest for Innovation: Strengthening America’s National Security Innovation Base in an Era of Strategic Competition.

The United States has entered an era of long-term competition with revisionist powers. A key aspect of this competition will revolve around a contest for technological superiority waged between the national innovation bases of the respective competitors. The outcome of this competition will determine not just American national security but also how the nations of the world interact—and whether a free and open political and economic system will remain the foundation of those interactions.

After a long post-Cold War focus on rogue regional powers and nearly two decades of continuous warfare in the Middle East and a focus on rogue regional powers, the United States now faces a new defining national security challenge: a long-term strategic competition with a resurgent Russia and a rising China.

Russia seeks to reestablish itself as a global power. While Russia is able to compete with the United States militarily in certain domains, its economic outlook and long-term demographic prospects are grim. Accordingly, it is unlikely to develop and nurture a true national innovation ecosystem. Given these disadvantages, Russia is limited to acting as a geostrategic spoiler seeking to undermine and weaken the United States, its alliances, and its global interests.

China, on the other hand, is already challenging the United States economically, militarily, and politically. China’s economy has surpassed that of the United States in terms of purchasing power parity and could, under some scenarios, pass the U.S. GDP in absolute terms in the mid- to late 2020s. Under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, China defines its vital national interests in ways that are irreconcilable with both the interests of the United States and the values of self-determination and individual freedom to which we and our allies are committed. China’s global expansion, from both a trade and military perspective, is challenging the United States in virtually every region of the world.

In pursuit of its goal of reshaping the world order, China aims to supplant the United States as the world’s leading technological power by 2030. China has articulated a distinct strategy of state driven innovation, defined by its concept of “military–civil fusion,” to lead the world in cutting-edge technologies that might allow it to leapfrog the United States both economically and militarily.

That strategy presents a two-fold challenge for the United States. Economically, the challenge is to sustain American prosperity and access to markets on equal terms with other nations against China’s ambition to control the economic sectors that will determine national primacy in the decades ahead.

Militarily, the fundamental mission of the U.S. government (USG) is to deter a great-power war and, if deterrence fails, to prevent escalation of the conflict and end the war on terms favorable to the United States and its allies. An important key to this mission is achieving and maintaining military–technical superiority. However, over the last several decades, China—and, to a lesser extent, Russia—has invested heavily in advanced military capabilities specifically aimed at overcoming the technological lead of America’s armed forces.

As a result, the conventional overmatch that the United States has relied upon to undergird its deterrence posture since the end of the Cold War is eroding. The balance of power in East Asia has already shifted substantially in China’s direction. If this trend continues, effective deterrence in that region will likely fail, leaving the United States to face the unattractive alternatives of accepting aggression against its interests or its allies or triggering armed conflict with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), with all the attendant risks of escalation.

The National Security Strategy recognized the importance of technological innovation to every domain of the competition with China. Consistent with that, a key theme of the 2018 National Defense Strategy is that the U.S. military must move rapidly to arrest further erosion of its technical advantage and then restore and maintain a comfortable conventional overmatch.

Unfortunately, the technological development relevant to national security is no longer exclusively or even primarily in the control of the Department of Defense (DOD) and its prime contractors.

In the past, cutting-edge technology was usually developed by the government sector for military use and then migrated into the civilian sector. Today, the direction of innovation has reversed. Many of the technologies most important to national security are being developed and produced for civilian purposes by civilian actors who have no history with or connection to the national security community. China is aware of this new reality. Its policy of military–civil fusion seeks to better exploit dual-use technologies originating from the commercial sector. To avoid a crippling competitive disadvantage, the United States must adopt means to accomplish the same end.

Accordingly, the most important question [The Reagan Institute] Task Force grappled with was the following: How do we transform, organize, sustain, and leverage our national security technology and innovation community to prevail in a long-term competition against an authoritarian regime that has centralized, long-range national plans to dominate the critical dual-use technologies central to future economic and military competitiveness?

America’s ability to prevail in a long-term strategic competition with China depends on a strong and growing [National Security Industrial Base]  NSIB. That in turn depends on more effectively aligning government policy and resources and public–private partnerships to strengthen U.S. national security and its strategic position with respect to China.

An ascendant, technologically advanced China poses a threat not just to U.S. security but also to the values of freedom and democracy that have shaped the world for more than a half century.

The contest for innovation between the United States and China will turn largely on which system innovates more effectively over time. If it is the Chinese system, then China may unseat America as the primary global power, supplant the technological dominance of the United States and its allies, and reshape the world in its authoritarian image. That need not and should not be the result—but preventing it will require swift and decisive action to strengthen the National Security Innovation Base.

Rolling back Chinese high-tech authoritarian ambitions will require a strong, dynamic, cohesive, and secure NSIB. Though the American private sector has delivered transformational technologies in the past, today’s NSIB will be incapable, in its current state, of producing the national security innovations needed for the United States to outcompete China. To respond to China’s technological challenge, enhance the American way of life, and protect the national security, the NSIB ecosystem must produce cutting-edge technologies more often and more reliably than China’s centralized, government-led innovation system.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

2020’s Challenges

2019 saw the economy’s significant upturn that began with the Trump Administration continue. It also hosted the ongoing rebuilding of the armed forces that had endured a significant lack of funds during the prior presidency. A new trade agreement with Canada and Mexico was established, and some progress was made in trade talks with China.

However, long-standing challenges remain to be addressed in the New Year. Among the many key issues:

EDUCATION

 If an invading force sought to obscure America’s history, falsely indoctrinate its youth that their nation was an evil entity, and ignore the enormous, indeed unmatched, good that has been achieved by the United States, there is little doubt that the populace would rise up. But much of that is being done within America’s schools, and the silence from many in politics and the media is deafening.

 There is little that is as dangerous to the political health of a free people as ignorance, particularly of their own past. The university and educational dons, who are overwhelmingly hard-left, know that contrasting the success and human rights of American history with the tyranny and economic disaster of Socialism will not serve their political beliefs well, have done all they can to avoid and miscast the nation’s past. Foreign influences are also at play. The Chinese government has actively attempted to push its propaganda through “Confucius Institutes” at universities across the nation. 

The extreme left-wing partisan bias of America’s educational system is the most significant threat to the long-term health of the nation.

EMP

A declassified report from the Congressional Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, first obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, warns that China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have developed the technology for an Electronic Pulse Attacks (EMP) against America.  The danger lurks not only from war.  A repeat of the long-overdue “Carrington Effect,” a result of natural sun cycles, could cripple the entire U.S. electronic grid. As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government previously reported, In 2017 testimony to Congress about the imminent threat of an EMP attack on the United States by Dr. William R. Graham, Chairman, and Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, chief of staff, of the Commission to Assess the Threat to America from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), the two experts noted: “In the event of a nuclear EMP attack on the United States, a widespread protracted blackout is inevitable.” According to their report, “The damage level could be sufficient to be catastrophic to the Nation, and our current vulnerability invites attack…”

America’s electrical grid must be hardened to protect against this threat. The estimated cost is between $10 and $20 billion.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRTATION

The numbers of illegals entering the United States is soaring. According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), The U.S. Border Patrol encountered illegal immigration at the highest rates since 2007. Increased crime, contagious diseases, significant costs, and national security concerns have been tied to the problem.  The Federation for American Immigration Reform provides this estimate of costs: “At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion.”

RUSSIA

In the aftermath of the New Start Treaty with Russia agreed to by President Obama and Secretary Clinton, the United States for the first time in history, assumed a position of nuclear inferiority.

The numbers are clear. As noted by the Arms Control Association, Russia has 7,700 warheads to America’s 7,100. Russian sources, however, note that in one category, Moscow has an even greater lead. The Moscow Times reports that “By most estimates, the United States today deploys just between 200 and 300 tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, compared to Russia’s arsenal of between 2,000 and 3,000.”

The Kremlin has vastly modernized its conventional armed forces.  It continues its attempts to destabilize its neighbors. 

CHINA

China, which has increased its rate of military spending at a faster clip than either the Soviet Union or the U.S. at the height of the Cold War, has become a nuclear and conventional military superpower that is not reluctant to intimidate its regional neighbors and perpetuate massive espionage and intellectual property theft throughout the globe.  It is not a party to any nuclear arms deal. It has become an active and malign presence throughout the globe. Trump is the first President to confront China in any meaningful way, winning some trade concessions and preparing the U.S. military for a possible confrontation. Much work remains to be done.

NORTH KOREA and IRAN

North Korea has developed nuclear weapons and is currently perfecting the means to launch them anywhere across the globe,

The Arms Control Association describes the decades-long history of failed attempts to rein in North Korea’s nuclear program:

“For years, the United States and the international community have tried to negotiate an end to North Korea’s nuclear and missile development and its export of ballistic missile technology. Those efforts have been replete with periods of crisis, stalemate, and tentative progress towards denuclearization, and North Korea has long been a key challenge for the global nuclear nonproliferation regime.

“The United States has pursued a variety of policy responses to the proliferation challenges posed by North Korea, including military cooperation with U.S. allies in the region, wide-ranging sanctions, and non-proliferation mechanisms such as export controls. The United States also engaged in two major diplomatic initiatives to have North Korea abandon its nuclear weapons efforts in return for aid.

“In 1994, faced with North Korea’s announced intent to withdraw from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which requires non-nuclear weapon states to forswear the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons, the United States and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework. Under this agreement, Pyongyang committed to freezing its illicit plutonium weapons program in exchange for aid.

“Following the collapse of this agreement in 2002, North Korea claimed that it had withdrawn from the NPT in January 2003 and once again began operating its nuclear facilities.”

The Iranian government makes no secret of its goals: utterly annihilate Israel, dominate the entire Middle East, and severely damage the United States. Even if the Iran nuclear deal was followed by all parties completely, it would still leave the nation free to develop a nuclear arsenal by 2025. It is rapidly developing its missile capabilities to deliver nuclear weapons. Iran’s leadership is a theocracy that envisions these acts as a sacred duty. It must be stopped.

HEALING THE NATIONS’ WOUNDS

The aftermath of the 2016 election was unlike anything in American history since the Civil War. President Trump’s opponents refused to accept the election result. Former CIA director John Brennan and various FBI officials conspired to cripple the new administration, with the aid of a biased media. Americans, regardless of political party or ideological affiliation, must use 2020 to reaffirm allegiance to our Constitution and place the nation’s good above partisan concerns.

Illustration: Pixabay