Tag Archives: defense policy

Biden’s Tightrope

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what the editors over on The Wall Street Journal calls President Joe Biden’s (D) move to bar US investments in certain People’s Republic of China technologies and enterprises.

President Biden’s executive order on Wednesday restricting US investment in Chinese military technologies tries to balance national security and business interests. The problem is that Beijing doesn’t distinguish between the two, which is why business risk in China is rising.

This is the fallacy of the editors and of Biden: since the PRC does not distinguish between national security interests and business interests—does not separate out military utility from civilian utility—when it comes to technology there is no balance for our government to seek. All tech, in the PRC’s eyes, has military utility, therefore all tech American businesses and those of our friends and allies might sell or otherwise transfer into the PRC has military utility, and all such American sales and transfers should be barred, and those of our friends and allies should be jawboned against. The transfers threaten our national security as well as that of our friends and allies.

The White House concern is that the Communist Party will weaponize US venture and private-equity investment in technologies such as artificial intelligence.

In a heartbeat the CPC will. Biden’s bar reflects some understanding of PRC President Xi Jinping’s avowed goal, which he facilitates by eliminating

barriers between civilian and commercial sectors and military and defense industrial sectors, not just through research and development, but also by acquiring and diverting the world’s cutting-edge technologies, for the purposes of achieving military dominance.

But then Biden shied away from taking the full step.

open global capital flows create valuable economic opportunities and promote competitiveness, innovation, and productivity.

And:

Auto makers will still be able to invest in Chinese self-driving systems. Drug makers can join with Chinese companies to develop new drugs.

Never mind that self-driving technology has obvious uses in the PLA’s mechanized/armored ground forces, the PLA’s air forces, the PLA’s naval forces. Never mind, either that the tech used in developing new drugs supports the PLA’s ability to develop drugs for treating PLA diseases and casualties and to develop drugs and other biologics for offensive use.

The editors join him in that failure to follow through:

A complete de-coupling of the US and Chinese economies probably isn’t possible, or desirable, given their interdependence.

Yes, it is, and it’s more than desirable, it’s critical to our national economic and military security, and so to our political security. There will be some economic disturbances as our businesses relocate their supply chains—from ore and minerals in the ground up through final assembly components and end products—out of the PRC, and there will be some economic disturbances as our businesses buy and sell technologies with other customers than the PRC. Those temporary disturbances, though, need to be balanced against the long-term costs of being dominated by the PRC.

There’s no tightrope here, except in Biden’s timidity.

Misplaced Push

Posted on by
Reply

Too many Republican Senators are joining their Senate Progressive-Democrat colleagues in pushing Senator Tommy Tuberville (R, AL) to drop his blocking of President Joe Biden’s (D) military appointments and flag officer promotions.

Tuberville is holding up—not blocking—final confirmation votes on those appointments and promotion lists over SecDef’s insistence on using taxpayer funds to pay for abortion and abortion-related services used by military members and/or families.

Tuberville isn’t holding up anything; he’s merely blocking blanket moves to use unanimous consent for approval. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) readily enough could bring each of those appointments and promotion lists to the Senate floor for votes, but they refuse. Apparently, they want, instead, the spectacle of the holdup.

That’s a minor point, though. The larger point is SecDef Lloyd Austin’s stubbornness in demanding that those tax dollars be used for abortion services, Hyde Amendment be damned, on the legal front, and he just doesn’t care about those babies’ lives on the moral front.

If Austin wants his promotion lists, and if Biden wants his appointments, all they need do is remove their demand to spend our money on abortion services and on abortion.

It’s that straightforward.

Biden’s Ongoing Betrayal of Ukraine

Posted on by
Reply

The lede in the Wall Street Journal article says it all.

The slow pace of Ukraine’s counteroffensive against entrenched Russian invaders is dimming hopes that negotiations for an end to the fighting could come this year and raising the specter of an open-ended conflict, according to Western officials.

The terms of negotiation have been clearly, and repeatedly, stated by Ukraine’s President Volodymir Zelenskyy. President Joe Biden (D) has steadfastly ignored them, as he’s more terrified of Russian President Vladimir Putin than he is supportive of actual Ukrainian victory, territorial integrity, and national sovereignty.

And this, in the immediately following paragraph:

A potential stalemate would test President Biden’s stated strategy of pouring billions of dollars in military aid into Ukraine, to enable Kyiv to negotiate with Russia from a position of strength.

It’s a stalemate created entirely by slow-walking—and outright blocking—delivery of the weapons, ammunition, training, and logistic support the Ukrainian defense establishment needs to win quickly and decisively. It’s a stalemate proximately created by Biden with his refusal to deliver the weapons and ammunition the Ukrainians needed to begin their offensive last winter. Instead, Biden’s timidity in front of Putin delayed the Ukrainians’ start for months, transferring to the barbarian, instead, those months for him to prepare his present defenses.

Then there’s this bit of despicable-ness in the article:

The US stay-the-course strategy holds some risks, however.

There should be no such strategy, and there never should have been. There should have been—and there still should be, with very good effect—a constant acceleration of delivery to Ukraine so that it could have, and still could, win decisively and quickly. Instead, Biden is perfectly happy to have Ukrainian soldiers and civilians, including women and children, bleed and die for Biden’s battle between democracy and authoritarianism.

It’s also an immediate Ukrainian battle for national survival, for Ukraine’s very existence. But Biden doesn’t care about that.

Investing in the People’s Republic of China

Posted on by
Reply

Foreign direct investment in the PRC has fallen to $20 billion in the first quarter of this year, compared with $100 billion in last year’s first quarter. This is strongly influenced by, if not a direct result of, PRC President Xi Jinping’s “security” policy that explicitly targets foreign investors as likely spies.

A Xi-led campaign this year has hit Western management consultants, auditors, and other firms with a wave of raids, investigations, and detentions. Meanwhile, an expanded anti-espionage law has added to foreign executives’ worry that conducting routine business activities in China, such as market research, could be construed as spying.

There’s this, also:

A senior official in a county of southern Guangdong province, which earlier this year set a goal of attracting nearly $300 billion in investment in the next five years, told a visiting American trade group recently that the county would reward any US corporate “decision maker” investing there 10% of the value of the promised deal, according to people briefed on the matter.
The trade group turned down the county official’s offer, which in the US would constitute an illegal bribe, the people said.

The Guangdong senior official knew his offer would be a bribe under US law, and he made the offer anyway.

There is no investment in anything in the PRC that’s worth the political, or the legal, risk.

More than that, as long as the PRC continues its genocide (in the present time against the Uighurs, but those people have not been the PRC’s only targets), it’s morally impossible to invest in any way, in any thing, in the PRC.

That’s apart from, and in addition to, the national security risk presented by any trade with or within the PRC, given its present control over our supply chains, particularly in critical items such as the rare earths it embargoed from Japan for a time and its current bar of gallium and germanium export to us.

We, and the West at large, have nothing to gain from investing in or trading with this enemy nation, and everything to lose.

Security Guarantees

Posted on by
Reply

In an editorial regarding this week’s NATO summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, The Wall Street Journal‘s editors dropped this line:

A debate is underway over whether Ukraine should benefit from a formal Western security guarantee, or perhaps join NATO.

A Western security guarantee for Ukraine is utterly worthless, as the Budapest Memoranda demonstrate. Marginally better would be NATO membership. Ukraine has some security and government integrity criteria to meet, but it’s working to meet them and would benefit from assistance in that direction.

Better for Ukraine, and the West generally, would be a separate mutual security treaty that would include Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland, and the rest of the Three Seas Initiative nations, along with the US and Great Britain (and, perhaps, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway to strengthen Western control over Russia’s ability to leave the Baltic Sea). For all of the editors’ claimed NATO “improvement,” it still lags heavily in satisfying its own mutual defense obligations, much less doing anything to defend Europe at large.

Along with that, it’s necessary to make clear to Russia that, so long as it insists on playing the barbarian, it will continue to be isolated and contained and that the containment will be rapidly tightened.

Russian paranoia needs also to be corrected. No one in the civilized world has any desire to run over Russia or conquer it. Its vast resources are much more cheaply obtained—to mutual benefit—through free trade than through conquering and occupation. The history of Russian-world relations make such convincing deucedly difficult, but they do not make the convincing impossible.