Tag Archives: freedom

Yet Another Reason

Posted on by
2

People’s Republic of China President Xi Jinping’s moves to further restrict access to and shipments of rare earths, processed rare earths, and components that use rare earths, an access restriction amounting to virtual cutoff aimed specifically against us, is just one more reason for American businesses to stop doing business with PRC-domiciled companies or inside the PRC. The lede:

With rare-earths export restrictions and a string of actions targeting the US chip industry, Beijing is mounting a full-scale offensive on Washington ahead of an expected meeting between President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

This, too:

On Thursday, China announced new restrictions on rare-earth materials, specifically noting that licenses related to certain types of chips will be granted on a case-by-case basis. Also Thursday, Beijing added roughly a dozen organizations to its “unreliable entity list,” including TechInsights, a Canada-based semiconductor technology research firm that had released reports on chip-development efforts by China’s Huawei Technologies.
China went beyond semiconductors. On Thursday, Beijing also said it would require licenses for exports of certain lithium batteries and some equipment and materials used to make them.

Included in those restrictions are limits on exporting any goods that include as few rare earths as 0.1% of the product’s value in their makeup. That amounts to an outright block on anything that even touches rare earths. It’s a direct attack on our economy and our defense industries, and so on our sovereignty.

It’s long past time for American businesses to shift their business arrangements and their supply chains completely away from the PRC. The patriotic nature of the move as well as the move’s economic optimization, along with the urgency of making it, should be obvious even to the most remote, ivory tower cloistered American business manager.

That shift must include stopping all technology transfers to the PRC, whether the transfer is in the form of goods (viz., chips, chip fabrication equipment, computer equipment, technologically oriented consumer goods, software, and so on) or in intellectual property agreements.

For example:

China’s top market regulator said Friday that it had launched an investigation into Qualcomm for suspected violation of the country’s antimonopoly law. The probe is tied to Qualcomm’s acquisition of Autotalks, an Israeli startup, the regulator said.

If Qualcomm were not operating inside the PRC, the PRC’s regulators would have nothing to say regarding the acquisition.

More broadly, if we as a nation did no business in or with the PRC, Xi would have no levers to swing against us. The changeover will be disruptive and expensive, but only in the short term, if American businesses get off the dime (including literally) and make the shifts. After all, how disruptive is it already to not be making the shifts apace? It’ll also be far more expensive for far longer, if not permanently, for American businesses to remain dependent on an enemy nation for critical items.

That dependency, too, is a direct threat to our independence of action as a sovereign nation, ceding as it does critical parts of our national economy and of our defense establishment to that enemy nation.

“Democracy Wanes in South Asia”

Posted on by
Reply

Sadanand Dhume uses as his canonical examples Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, wherein riots forced the removal of despotic governments and their replacement by popularly chosen leaders. In Nepal in particular, new elections have been set for next March.

Dhume did point out popular failures in Pakistan and Myanmar; however, his apparent concept that popular uprisings are, of necessity, antidemocratic is badly flawed.

This is what our own Declaration of Independence has to say about such popular violence.

[W]henever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

A government deciding unilaterally and with little to no warning to censor—abolish!—major communications systems, a government that has had a single Prime Minister for 15 years during carefully controlled elections with opposition candidates routinely jailed, a government dominated for 17 years by a single pair of brothers whose government did little to protect its population from routine violence—each of these governments with their long train of abuses and usurpations… would seem to be prime candidates for the people to decide that their governments’ evils are sufferable and so to move to exercise their right…their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards.

What must Dhume think of the Color Revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, or the People Power revolution in the Philippines, each of which involved the successful popular overthrow of Despotic governments and their replacement with more democratic institutions?

We’ll see what happens in the subsequent elections, particularly in Nepal. Dhume may be correct vis-à-vis his examples, but it’s much too soon to tell.

Their Plan, Our Necessary Response

Posted on by
Reply

The headline and subheadline of the editorial lay it out succinctly:

China’s No-Exit Plan for Foreigners
Beijing is blocking two more Americans from leaving the country which is part of a pattern.

Then the lede:

Chinese President Xi Jinping has been eager to lure American companies to invest in China, but you wouldn’t know it from Beijing’s latest actions. China is preventing American citizens, including a Commerce Department employee and a Wells Fargo banker, from leaving the country.

This is naked hostage-taking, and the only way to stop it is to counter it decisively, deeply, and broadly. That doesn’t mean if the PRC takes an American hostage, we take 10, nor does it mean if the PRC brings a knife to the matter, we bring a gun and all our friends with guns. It may come to that—tit-for-tat is far worse and more expensive than drastic and rapid escalation—but it’s not useful in the present context.

What is necessary is for Americans to stop traveling to the PRC under any circumstance—not to visit, not for tourism, not on business. This would be made more effective, and safer for business employees, if American businesses stopped doing business inside the PRC completely. Along those lines, our State Department should issue a Level 4 Travel Advisory—Do Not Travel—on travel to the PRC. The specific risks to travel are included with this level of advisory, and SecState should be explicit: there is an unacceptable risk of the American traveler being kidnapped by the PRC government and barred from leaving. It may be true, and it seems to be so for the two kidnap victims above, that the victims are free to roam about the PRC, but that just means they’re in a shabbily gilded cage.

In addition to those steps, our government needs to make those hostages our hostages against PRC good behavior: do nothing diplomatically or economically with the PRC until all of our citizens are back on US soil, safe and healthy. Rescind the PRC’s Most Favored Nation status and impose tariffs of at least 500% on all goods and services originating from the PRC, regardless of the path those things take in getting to the US, again until all of our citizens are back on US soil, safe and healthy.

Accelerate arming the Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Japan. Actively and overtly—with the presence of US Navy and Air Force assets—assist the Philippines in its defense of its island possessions in the South China Sea, including physically blocking PLAN ships from impeding Philippine shipping. Deem PLAN ship refusal to give way, maintaining a collision course as an attack on our ship or the Philippine ship, and fire on and sink the PLAN attacker. Work defense arrangements with Vietnam, Thailand, Singapore, and Malaysia.

The more Xi and his minions object, the more rapidly we should push these moves.

Hostage takers deserve no profit; they do deserve to lose drastically.

California’s Disdain for our 2nd Amendment

Posted on by
Reply

The 9th Circuit(!) has ruled that California’s demand for background checks (and associated delays in obtaining) as a precondition for citizens of that State buying ammunition is unconstitutional.

Naturally, California’s Progressive-Democrat Governor, Gavin Newsom, is up in arms over that ruling:

Strong gun laws save lives—and today’s decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence. Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter.

It’s a well-deserved slap in the face, though; in response to Newsom’s administration’s and State legislature’s own slap in the face of American citizens. What Newsom and his fellow Party syndicate members carefully ignore is that we already have a strong gun law—the strongest—in the form of our 2nd Amendment. Writing for the 9th Circuit, Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta tacitly reminded Newsom, et al., of this:

By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases, California’s ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms[.]

She expanded on that [citations omitted]:

…a person who wants to keep an operable firearm must necessarily acquire ammunition. Because the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to keep operable arms, rules on ammunition acquisition implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment if they meaningfully constrain the right to keep operable arms.
We conclude that California’s ammunition background check meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms.

The 9th‘s ruling was on Rhode v Bonta, and it can be read here.