Author: Daria Novak

On a daily basis, the news is truly distressing. A vicious Russian invasion in Ukraine, China’s growing military threat, and rampant inflation all add to doom and gloom.  But looking  beyond the crises of the day can reveal a near-future where rapid advances in space exploitation will provide unprecedented opportunities, a reduction in pollution, and a revolutionary advance for humanity.

NASA Official Brian Dunbar has stated that “We are at an exciting moment. What we see are several converging trends that will change how we approach space technologies, at a rate of innovation that we haven’t seen in a long time. The power of miniaturization, for example, is having a huge impact on satellites. It’s becoming easier to put more capabilities into smaller packages. Constellations of small satellites are allowing for both new capabilities as well as existing capabilities at much lower costs. The exploration of space is also becoming global. More nations are now within reach of space than ever before, while the influx of entrepreneurial capital is driving innovation and new technologies in the private sector. What excites me most about space technologies is that it’s an opportunity for us to put the best of humanity forward into the future. It enables international cooperation, courage, boldness and entrepreneurship. We are doing things for the benefit for the planet.”

The U.S. space agency foresees returning to the Moon to learn more about what it will take to support human exploration to Mars and beyond,  the development of a vibrant low-Earth orbit economy that builds on the work done to date by the International Space Station. NASA engineers will develop new technologies to improve air transport at home and meet the challenges of advanced space exploration.

Writing in the Washington Post, Tom Vice, the CEO of the Sierra Space company   states that “…there is a palpable sense that we have already entered the next and most profound period of innovation in human history… eusable rockets and innovative fuels are lowering launch costs, making trips to low Earth orbit (LEO) more affordable and rapidly more frequent. Space technology companies are racing to build the first commercial, on-orbit destinations to make space manufacturing a reality. Indeed, a group of companies, led by Sierra Space, is building an end-to-end business platform in LEO to accelerate the new space economy and produce breakthrough products that benefit life on Earth.”

Major think tanks are outlining what the next decades hold.

Doug Irving, writing for the Rand Corporation, “There are mining colonies on the moon and tourist resorts floating in Earth’s orbit. People play sports in space, generate power in space, even grow expensive, trendy coffee beans in space…it would not take huge technological breakthroughs to make space and space travel a much bigger part of everyday life. The cost to launch people and payloads into space…could fall to tens of dollars by 2040. [there will be a] Gold Rush of the 21st century’…development of factories in outer space—where air pollution wouldn’t be a concern.”

Part of the optimism comes from growing international cooperation. In June,  officials from the United States and the European Union met to discuss cooperation on Earth observation and disaster response, global navigation satellite systems, spaceflight safety and space situational awareness, and opportunities for trans-Atlantic cooperation to ensure the security and long-term sustainability of outer space activities. 

On January 13, representatives from Japan and the United States formalized an agreement for joint space ventures.  leaders from the two nations signed a framework agreement that recognizes their mutual interest in peaceful exploration.  The Framework Agreement between the America and Japan called for cooperation in space exploration and use of outer space, Including the moon and other celestial bodies, for peaceful purposes.

Illustration: Artist’s concept, NASA’s gateway in lunar orbit. It will consist of at least a power and propulsion element as well as habitation, logistics, and airlock capabilities. The power and propulsion element will be the first component to launch for placement near the Moon in 2022, with additional elements launching in subsequent years.

In early 2022, the Supreme Court called a halt to the Biden Administration plan to have OSHA enforce a mandate that all private employers with more than 100 workers on their payroll have their employees vaccinated against Covid-19.  In  National Federal of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration., the Court stated that  “Administrative agencies are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided. The Secretary has ordered 84 million Americans to either obtain a COVID–19 vaccine or undergo weekly medical testing at their own expense. This is no ‘everyday exercise of federal power’…It is instead a significant encroachment into the lives—and health—of a vast number of employees. ‘We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance’ (citation omitted)…”

Now, at least one Justice of the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, has found it necessary to remind us of the dangers of the government using their emergency powers to override our civil liberties. Ironically, many Republicans have fought hard to maintain the abuse addressed by Justice Gorsuch in Arizona v. Mayorkis. 

Under 42 USC Sec. 265 (“Title 42”), the Surgeon General is “empowered by reason of the existence of any communicable disease in a foreign country (where) there is serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States, and that this danger is so increased by the introduction of persons or property from such country that a suspension of the right to introduce such persons and property is required in the interest of the public health, the Surgeon General, in accordance with regulations approved by the President, shall have the power to prohibit, in whole or in part, the introduction of persons and property from such countries or places as he shall designate in order to avert such danger, and for such period of time as he may deem necessary for such purpose.”  In October of 2020, the Director of the Center for Disease Control used this statute to prevent persons “traveling from Canada or Mexico (regardless of their country of origin) who would otherwise be introduced into…the United States” from entering our country “to continue to protect the public health from an increase in the serious danger of the introduction of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) into” the United States.

Though the Title 42 restrictions began under President Trump, “President Joe Biden initially kept Title 42 in place after he took office, then tried to end its use in 2022. Republicans sued, arguing the restrictions were necessary for border security. Courts had kept the rules in place. But the Biden administration announced in January (2023) that it was ending national COVID-19 emergencies.” 

Arizona v. Mayorkis is one of several lawsuits brought in an effort to maintain in place Title 42’s prohibition of the entry of persons with Covid-19 into the United States, even after the pandemic was declared over. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals had ordered the dismissal of the case as moot, that is, there was no longer an issue that needed to be addressed by the courts.  The Supreme Court agreed in a one sentence order.  

Justice Gorsuch did not disagree with the decision of the lower court, nor did he disagree with the reasoning of those who sought to keep Title 42’s restrictions in place; “’Title 42 orders’…severely restricted immigration to this country for the ostensible purpose of preventing the spread of COVID–19…The States did not seriously dispute that the public-health justification for the orders had lapsed…But the States apparently calculated that even a short, court-ordered extension of those decrees was worth the fight. Worth it because, in their judgment, a new and different crisis had emerged at the border and the federal government had done too little to address it.  Keeping the Title 42 orders in place even temporarily was better than the alternative.”

However, Justice Gorsuch took this opportunity to remind us of all we had lost since 2020 while living under one “emergency order” after another.

“Since March 2020,” Justice Gorsuch writes, “we may have experienced the greatest intrusions on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country. Executive officials across the country issued emergency decrees on a breathtaking scale. Governors and local leaders imposed lockdown orders forcing people to remain in their homes. They shuttered businesses and schools, public and private. They closed churches even as they allowed casinos and other favored businesses to carry on. They threatened violators not just with civil penalties but with criminal sanctions too. They surveilled church parking lots, recorded license plates, and issued notices warning that attendance at even outdoor services satisfying all state social-distancing and hygiene requirements could amount to criminal conduct.”

Justice Gorsuch continued; “Federal executive officials entered the act too. Not just with emergency immigration decrees. They deployed a public-health agency to regulate landlord-tenant relations nationwide. They used a workplace-safety agency to issue a vaccination mandate for most working Americans. They threatened to fire noncompliant employees, and warned that service members who refused to vaccinate might face dishonorable discharge and confinement. Along the way, it seems federal officials may have pressured social-media companies to suppress information about pandemic policies with which they disagreed.”

Justice Gorsuch then looked deep into the soul of the nation. ” Fear and the desire for safety are powerful forces. They can lead to a clamor for action—almost any action—as long as someone does something to address a perceived threat…We do not need to confront a bayonet, we need only a nudge, before we willingly abandon the nicety of requiring laws to be adopted by our legislative representatives and accept rule by decree. Along the way, we will accede to the loss of many cherished civil liberties—the right to worship freely, to debate public policy without censorship, to gather with friends and family, or simply to leave our homes. We may even cheer on those who ask us to disregard our normal lawmaking processes and forfeit our personal freedoms…the ancients warned that democracies can degenerate toward autocracy in the face of fear.”

Justice Gorsuch then addressed the heart of the problem – the overuse of emergency decrees.  “(E)mergency decrees have a habit of long outliving the crises that generate them,” he wrote. “(S)ome federal emergency proclamations…remained in effect for years or decades after the emergency in question had passed…

“Make no mistake—decisive executive action is sometimes necessary and appropriate. But if emergency decrees promise to solve some problems, they threaten to generate others. And rule by indefinite emergency edict risks leaving all of us with a shell of a democracy and civil liberties just as hollow.”

Benjamin Franklin once famously said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Let us remember these words as we contemplate our nation’s reaction to the pandemic of the early 2020s. 

 And as we contemplate this shameful episode, let us also remember the words of George Santayana; “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC.

Illustration: Pixabay

Since the pandemic was declared in early 2020, those living in the United States have been endangered, threatened, and terrorized.  But don’t misunderstand – I’m not talking about Covid-19 itself.  I’m talking about the overreaction of our local, state and federal governments to the introduction of the Wuhan Virus to our shores.

As early as March of 2020, we noted the over-the-top response of several jurisdictions to the coronavirus, including Champaign, Illinois, where the Mayor “signed a declaration of a state of emergency…among the powers…gained after signing the executive order was the power to ban the sale of guns, ammunition, alcohol, and gasoline.”  Under this order, the Mayor of Champaign “could also cut off access to individuals’ gas, water, or electricity. The city also has the ability to ‘take possession of private property’ or order the temporary closing of all bars or liquor stores.’    

“The Mayor granted herself these powers, even though (at the time) there was not a single case of Covid-19 in her town, and 32 cases in all of Illinois.”

Extreme government overreach became the norm in the years that followed. By April of 2020, “(t)he Mayor of Washington, DC…threatened criminal penalties for not obeying her ‘stay at home’ orders, including imprisonment up to 90 days, a $5,000 fine, or both…(t)he Governor of Hawaii and the Governor of Virginia…made similar threats…. Several states, including Maine, New Jersey and California, all attempted to close gun stores, claiming they were not ‘essential services.’… in Kentucky, the governor issued an order stopping all in-person gatherings, including festivals, government meetings and church services.  California also ordered the closure of their churches, deeming them to be an ‘unessential service.’  The Mayor of New York threatened to permanently close churches and synagogues that did not comply with his orders.”  

By July of 2020, “approximately 18 states...mandated wearing facial coverings in public spaces, including California, New York, Hawaii, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Virginia.  Many local governments…mandated masks regardless of whatever rules their state government has promulgated.  The Mayor of Boise, Idaho…ordered the use of face masks in public, as did the Mayor of Minneapolis…”

Once “vaccines” against Covid-19 were made widely available, vaccine mandates became the order of the day throughout 2021 and 2022.  “’President Joe Biden…announced (on July 29, 2021)  sweeping new pandemic requirements…Federal workers will be required to sign forms attesting they’ve been vaccinated against the coronavirus or else comply with new rules on mandatory masking, weekly testing, distancing and more.’  This follows shortly after  ‘California Governor Gavin Newsom announced (on July 26, 2021) that his state will require all state employees and healthcare workers to provide proof of vaccination or be subject to regular COVID-19 testing…Then, on August 18, 2021, ‘Washington Governor Jay Inslee expanded his state’s vaccine mandate to include all education staff, faculty, and on-site contractors.  The mandate extends to employees working in K–12 settings, most childcare and early learning, and higher education.’”  

In particular, religious objections to the “vaccine” were roundly ignored.  “As of November, 2021, ‘The Navy has not yet approved any religious exemptions for the COVID-19 (vaccine)…There were 2,531 requests for religious exemptions, according to the Navy. However, the Navy has not adjudicated all of the request(s)…Exemptions are being handled on a case by case basis…Some sailors have already found out if their request has been denied, while others are still waiting. Those who were denied a religious exemption now have five days, from when they were notified, to start the vaccination process or they face separation.” 

But as their legislatures, mayors and President violated civil liberties wholesale, one branch of government made every effort to protect the rights of all – the Courts.

When the Navy rejected all applications for religious exemptions from the “vaccine,”  “Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas…granted an injunction against the Biden administration and the Department of Defense, preventing them from enforcing the vaccine mandate against…service members who had applied for a religious exemption. O’Connor ruled that the blanket denial of their religious waiver requests amounted to a violation of the service members’ rights under the First Amendment…” 

When the Biden Administration extended the face mask requirement on commercial airliners, even after most airlines called for the removal of the requirement, “at the beginning of May (2022), federal District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of Tampa, Florida struck down the mandate.  Her reason?  ‘The Court concludes that the Mask Mandate exceeds the (Center for Disease Controls) statutory authority and violates the procedures required for agency rulemaking.'”

“Exceeding statutory authority” has been the basis of almost every court decision striking down government-imposed coronavirus mandates.  After the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of the Biden Administration’s Student Loan Forgiveness Program, in a lower court case in another jurisdiction, Brown v. US Department of Education, Judge Mark Pittman of Texas ruled that “the executive branch unconstitutionally exercises ‘legislative powers’ vested in Congress” when it used the HEROES Act as the basis for its Student Loan Forgiveness Program.  As the Court stated, “the HEROES Act— a law to provide loan assistance to military personnel defending our nation—does not provide the executive branch clear congressional authorization to create a $400 billion student loan forgiveness program. The Program is thus an unconstitutional exercise of Congress’s legislative power and must be vacated.”

Judge John Wilson’s article concludes tomorrow

Illustration: Pixabay

Daria Novak

China operates more than 7,000 private security companies (PSCs) domestically. Recent estimates indicate its overseas PSC firms have expanded and are now operational in over 40 countries. One of those nations is the United States; another is Pakistan. The PSCs provide a way for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to project power overseas and, in some cases, protect its nationals. South Asia, including Pakistan, is not well-integrated into the global economy but economic and investment activities in Pakistan are of growing importance to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). That means more Chinese on Pakistani spoil. Early on in its economic expansion China depended on local Pakistani physical security forces to protect its assets and nationals working in country. With Islamabad unable to guarantee the safety of Chinese citizens, Beijing has, according to the Jamestown Foundation’s Sergey Sukhankin, “intensified its requests concerning the option of using its own security providers on Pakistani soil” this summer. 

China is facing increasing scrutiny from Pakistani authorities who view its de-facto semi-independent agents in a negative light. “In addition to growing anti-Chinese sentiments (in certain parts of the country that are particularly dependent on the BRI), the deployment of Chinese PSCs in Pakistan might lead toward a surge of Sinophobia in the country, which most likely will be used by Islamic radicals and underground militants for their own purposes,” says Sukhankin. Although most security experts do not believe the PSCs will be permanently deployed there, they still will be a significant tool for China resulting in increased aggravation of the security milieu, he adds, and leading toward a weakening of ties between Islamabad and its other strategic partner, the United States.

Last year there was a 5.2% year-on-year increase in China’s outbound direct investments, a large part of which is directed to Asia and BRI-related countries in Southeast Asia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and the United Arab Emirates.  For China, South Asia serves as geopolitical curb on Indian influence in the region. The key state is Pakistan although it is not the wealthiest or most politically stable, according to the Jamestown Foundation. The country is located in a strategically important transportation and logistical artery, notes Sukhankin, but also one facing increased violence and political instability that may be constraining China’s ambitious BRI plans for the region.

Pakistan plays an outsized role due to its strategic importance since it occupies a key geopolitical position linking the Middle East, South Asia, Central Asia and the Indian Ocean. It has the second largest Muslim population after Indonesia and maintains strategic ties with both the United States and China. Pakistan in recent years has emerged as more important to China due to the improvement in US-Indian relations. After Xi Jinping assumed the presidency, he visited Pakistan to upgrade the bilateral relationship to one he labeled an “all-weather friendship” (全天候友谊). 

Earlier this year, Chinese Premier Li Qiang reinforced it calling China and Pakistan “good neighbors, friends and brothers” and an investment priority. While Pakistan benefits from some of the BRI projects, officials in Islamabad are growing increasingly concerned that the influx of Chinese could threaten Pakistan’s cultural identity. An additional concern is the external financial indebtedness its assuming that, as of 2021, topped $27.4 billion. Pakistan does not want to become too dependent on China.  

China faces two interconnected concerns. First, several radical Islamist groups are targeting Chinese nationals in Pakistan, and second, increased Sinophobia in key economic areas of the country such as Balochistan. There are a number of Muslim militants there who see China as exploiting the local populations and effectively “colonizing” the province. Recently, some Pakistani leaders in the area have called for ousting the Chinese for their failure to recognize the sovereignty of the local residents. This particular region is growing in importance, too, due to the copper and gold deposits China needs for modernizing its economy.   

A July Jamestown Foundation report says that “well-informed Pakistan experts and security analysists believe that discontent within the Chinese military-political elite over the growing number of security incidents and attacks against Chinese nationals in Pakistan is increasing.” It quotes Ejaz Haider, a  security analyst, as saying that it is “deeply disconcerting that, despite being engaged with and against Afghanistan and in Balochistan, our [Pakistani] intel capabilities are less than satisfactory.”  If security can’t be improved there are concerns in Islamabad that China will send in paramilitary to protect its nationals and resources in country. It is unlikely that Pakistan will give China permission this summer to allow the permanent deployment of PSCs. China is also concerned about its image if these paramilitary troops were left there unsupervised. Even with additional Chinese security forces in country it may not be enough to make a difference in guaranteeing Chinese nationals security while working in Pakistan. The China-Pakistan bilateral relationship is undergoing increased strains at a time when China needs the relationship to offset issues with India. It could become yet another flashpoint over the coming year.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Photo: Pixabay

Last week at the NATO Summit in Lithuania, Georgia once again was not offered a formal Membership Application Plan (MAP). Tbilisi first indicated in 2002 it was willing to join NATO and then in 2008, with Ukraine, received a promise of future membership, according to Beka Chedia of the Jamestown Foundation. In subsequent years Georgia was told that the government had not yet met the reform requirements required for membership and, therefore, would not be offered a Plan which is mandatory to achieve full Membership. Last week, Ukraine which had been in the same status, was granted permission to skip this step, according to a July 11 report from NATO.

The Georgian case is complicated as several NATO Member states are concerned that should Georgia be admitted into NATO, the alliance could be drawn into a conflict if Russia attacked the country or became too intertwined in it. In late May, NATO’s Special Representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia, Javier Colomina visited Georgia and according to Amerikiskhma.com told authorities there that the alliance expects Georgia to strongly support Ukraine as well as extensive democratic reforms. Chedia adds that “NATO officials have also expressed outrage at the resumption of air traffic between Georgia and Russia.” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg added: “We also expect non-NATO Allies to adhere to the sanctions and to not make it easier for Russia to finance and to organize the war of aggression against Ukraine.”

Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili at the Global Security Forum in Bratislava this spring pointed out that NATO expansion and Ukraine’s intent to join helped spark the Russian invasion. Frankfurter Allgemeine, a German newspaper says it was this scandalous statement that became the reason why Garibashvili was not invited to the NATO summit, as the alliance itself explained that he was “an undesirable,” according to the Jamestown Foundation.

Last week, US ambassador to Georgia, Ian Kelly suggested that Georgia does not appear interested in joining NATO. “The Georgian government should explain why it is not at this critical summit. Reasonable people will conclude that Georgia is no longer interested in seriously promoting its Euro-Atlantic aspirations.” Georgia’s only representative at the Vilnius summit was Foreign Minister Ilia Darchiashvili.  Earlier this month, Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, said in an interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, that “The leadership of Georgia right now does not really believe in [NATO membership], so they do not really push that agenda. What does the change in attitude mean? Chedia suggests that until a decade ago, Georgia was trying hard to work with NATO. At the time there was no eastward expansion of the alliance. Last year, after Russia invaded Ukraine, NATO states moved to strongly support an eastward expansion. At the time NATO also designated the Black Sea as a vital region for the alliance organization.

The current pro-Russian ruling elite of Georgia, according to Chedia has suddenly taken an indistinct position. At the same time as the Vilnius Summit, Moscow announced that it was expanding its flights into Georgia to 284 a week. Last year Garibashvili published a first-of-its-kind Facebook post covering his speech at an economic forum in Qatar, saying: “Georgia has territorial problems. We must first resolve this issue and then become a member of NATO.” Two weeks ago, the Georgian publication Netgazeti commented that it appeared to be a sign of capitulation to Moscow. Russia, says Chedia, “has been skillfully using Georgia’s occupied territories for years to prevent the country’s integration into transatlantic structures.” Given Russia’s occupation of two regions in northern Georgia, it would be ineligible for full Membership. However, some Georgian officials are trying to sidestep the issue by urging NATO partners not to follow Russia’s agenda and not to link the membership with Georgia’s territorial challenges.

It may mean that if Georgia backs away from joining NATO this year, Moscow will cut a deal to return the Georgian occupied territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Four years ago, when the Georgian president offered this deal, Moscow turned him down. Chedia says Georgia has broken away from being associated with the classic trio of Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia in the case of European Union membership. In the case of NATO, Georgia is left alone with only a vague perspective. Chedia suggests that while some see it as an unfulfilled NATO commitment, others say the pro-Russian authorities in Georgia are skillfully using NATO’s indecision to offer Georgian society its alternative geopolitical project for neutrality. This may be the best outcome from Moscow’s perspective.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Photo: Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg concludes the recent summit (NATO Photo)