Informal Institute for National Security Thinkers and Practitioners

Quotes of the Day:

"In unconventional warfare, the terrain is not just geographical; it's psychological, cultural, and societal. Success hinges on mastering these dimensions."

- Unknown

"Unconventional warfare is a mindset as much as it is a set of tactics. It's about leveraging asymmetrical advantages to achieve strategic objectives."

- Unknown

"Unconventional warfare is not about brute force; it's about finesse. It's the art of achieving strategic goals through unconventional means."

- Unknown

1. Xi and Blinken Trade Small Nods Over a Large Gap

2. In war-battered Gaza, residents grow angry with Hamas

3. Britain Does Its Part in Ukraine and on Defense Spending By Rishi Sunak

4. Opinion | What Students Read Before They Protest

5. Secret meetings, social chatter: How the Columbia protest sparked a student revolt

6. Inside the Pro-Palestinian Protests Disrupting Columbia University

7. Putin Didn’t Directly Order Alexei Navalny’s February Death, U.S. Spy Agencies Find

8. A Surge of Wartime Brain Injuries Is Changing Lives—and Offering Lessons

9. America’s Military Isn’t Providing Enough Bang for the Buck

10. Chinese state media backs US college campus protesters: 'Justified'

11. Terry Glavin: Iran is the China-funded fulcrum of global terror

12. Is China Rethinking its Invasion of Taiwan?

13. Why China risks US sanctions arming Russia: survival

14. TikTok ban won't solve foreign influence, data privacy problems

15. US is no longer the arsenal of democracy

16. Alaska an important Special Operations training ground, as Arctic sees interest from Russia and China

17. Philippines' counter-terrorism strategy still stalled after 7 years since the 'ISIS siege' on Marawi

18. Somalia detains U.S.-trained commandos over theft of rations

19. Blinken tells CNN the US has seen evidence of China attempting to influence upcoming US elections

20. Asia’s next war could be triggered by a rusting warship on a disputed reef

21. Baltimore principal was framed by school athletic director using AI to fabricate racist attack

1. Xi and Blinken Trade Small Nods Over a Large Gap

So is our relationship now "stabilized?"

Excerpt:

In a sign of how the countries’ relations — which hit perhaps their lowest point in decades last year — had stabilized in recent months, Chinese officials struck a more conciliatory tone on Friday than they had during Mr. Blinken’s last visit, in June.

“China is happy to see a confident, open, prosperous and thriving United States,” Mr. Xi told Mr. Blinken, according to a Chinese foreign ministry readout. “We hope the U.S. can also look at China’s development in a positive light.”

Mr. Blinken told Mr. Xi that he hoped to move forward on agreements on topics where Mr. Xi and President Biden had agreed to cooperate after they met near San Francisco in November.

“We are committed to maintaining and strengthening lines of communication to advance that agenda and again deal responsibly with our differences so we avoid any miscommunications, any misperceptions, any miscalculations,” Mr. Blinken said.

Xi and Blinken Trade Small Nods Over a Large Gap

By Ana Swanson and Vivian Wang

April 26, 2024

The New York Times · by Vivian Wang · April 26, 2024

The U.S. secretary of state and the Chinese leader struck conciliatory notes in Beijing. But there was no budging on, or hiding, their governments’ core differences.

Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken meeting China’s leader, Xi Jinping, at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday.Credit...Pool photo by Mark Schiefelbein

April 26, 2024

阅读简体中文版閱讀繁體中文版

The areas where the United States and China can work together seem to be shrinking fast, and the risks of confrontation are growing. But it was clear on Friday that both countries are trying to salvage what they can.

Preserving some semblance of cooperation — and the difficulty of doing so — was at the heart of a meeting between Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, in Beijing on Friday. It was the latest effort by the rivals to keep communications open even as disputes escalate over trade, national security and geopolitical frictions.

Officials in both countries said they had made progress on a few smaller, pragmatic fronts, including setting up the first U.S.-China talks on artificial intelligence in the coming weeks. They also said they would continue improving communications between their militaries and increase cultural exchanges.

But on fundamental strategic issues, each side held little hope of moving the other, and they appeared wary of the possibility of sliding into further conflict.

China has accused the United States of working to stifle its technological progress and encircle Chinese interests in the Pacific.

The Biden administration is deeply concerned that cheap Chinese exports are endangering U.S. jobs, and is threatening more sanctions on China if Beijing does not roll back its support of Russia in its war in Ukraine.

“Russia would struggle to sustain its assault on Ukraine without China’s support,” Mr. Blinken said at a pre-departure news conference on Friday. “I made clear that if China does not address this problem, we will.”

Mr. Blinken said he had pressed China to take further actions to stem the flow of materials used to make fentanyl, including prosecuting those who were selling chemicals and equipment.

He said the issue of TikTok, the Chinese-owned social media platform that faces a potential U.S. ban in nine to 12 months under a law passed this week, did not come up.

In a sign of how the countries’ relations — which hit perhaps their lowest point in decades last year — had stabilized in recent months, Chinese officials struck a more conciliatory tone on Friday than they had during Mr. Blinken’s last visit, in June.

“China is happy to see a confident, open, prosperous and thriving United States,” Mr. Xi told Mr. Blinken, according to a Chinese foreign ministry readout. “We hope the U.S. can also look at China’s development in a positive light.”

Mr. Blinken told Mr. Xi that he hoped to move forward on agreements on topics where Mr. Xi and President Biden had agreed to cooperate after they met near San Francisco in November.

“We are committed to maintaining and strengthening lines of communication to advance that agenda and again deal responsibly with our differences so we avoid any miscommunications, any misperceptions, any miscalculations,” Mr. Blinken said.

In Mr. Blinken’s meeting with China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, on Friday, Mr. Wang warned that negative factors in their countries’ relationship were intensifying.Credit...Pool photo by Mark Schiefelbein

Still, more factors appear to be driving the two countries apart than keeping them together. Geopolitical disputes in Ukraine and the Middle East have presented new challenges. With an election approaching in the United States, the Biden administration is under pressure to offer more protections for American factories against Chinese imports.

Mr. Xi told Mr. Blinken that “the international situation is fluid and turbulent,” and that the United States and China should “honor words with actions, rather than say one thing but do the opposite,” according to the Chinese readout.

China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, who spent over five hours with Mr. Blinken on Friday, was more blunt, warning that negative factors in the relationship were “increasing and building.”

In recent weeks, U.S. officials have begun more urgently raising concerns about China’s economic assistance to Russia and have held out the possibility of further sanctions, including on the Chinese banks that have financed the trade.

Mr. Blinken said on Friday that the Chinese support for Russia was creating a threat not just to Ukraine, but to Europe more broadly, and that European leaders shared those concerns.

“All I can tell you is I was extremely clear about our concerns in some detail,” he said. “But we’ll have to see what actions follow from that.”

In a briefing with reporters in mid-April, a senior Biden administration official said that China had provided Russia with significant quantities of semiconductors, drones and industrial materials. That was helping to fill critical gaps in Russian supply chains that might otherwise cripple Russia’s war effort, causing the Russian military sector to expand more quickly than American officials had believed possible.

China has denied providing weapons to Russia, which Washington has said would be a red line. Otherwise, though, Chinese officials have shown little inclination to scale back their ties with Russia. On Thursday, soon after Mr. Blinken arrived in Beijing from Shanghai, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia announced that he would visit China in May, in probably his first overseas trip since securing re-election last month.

A Ukrainian soldier entering a trench in the Donetsk region of Ukraine. The Biden administration is trying to warn China away from supporting Russia’s efforts in that war. Credit...Tyler Hicks/The New York Times

Asked about Mr. Putin’s announcement at a routine news briefing on Friday, a spokesman for the Chinese foreign ministry said he had no information to provide.

Trade frictions between the countries also continue to simmer, as American officials consider adding new tariffs on Chinese imports and restricting more exports of technology to China because of national security concerns.

Economic ties between the countries have long provided a source of strength for the relationship, a point Mr. Blinken reiterated while meeting with business executives in Shanghai on Thursday.

But with American businesses calling for more protections against China, and the prospect of a return of Donald J. Trump to the presidency, economic issues could turn more explosive.

To jump-start the economy, Mr. Xi and other Chinese leaders are stoking factory production and exports. But American leaders believe they must protect U.S. manufacturing, particularly the new factories making semiconductors, solar panels and car batteries in which the Biden administration is investing tens of billions of dollars this year.

At his news conference, Mr. Blinken said that China alone was producing more than 100 percent of global demand for products like solar panels and electric vehicles, and was responsible for one-third of global production but only one-tenth of global demand.

“This is a movie that we’ve seen before, and we know how it ends,” he said. “With American businesses shuttered and American jobs lost.”

Mr. Wang, the foreign minister, also saved some of his sharpest words for American trade policy. “The United States has adopted an endless stream of measures to suppress China’s economy, trade, science and technology,” he told Mr. Blinken during their meeting, according to the Chinese foreign ministry. “This is not fair competition but containment, and is not removing risks but creating risks.”

China knows that it probably has little room to sway the United States on trade, said Xie Tao, the dean of the School of International Relations and Diplomacy at Beijing Foreign Studies University. Instead, the Chinese government seems to be putting its focus on people-to-people exchanges, Professor Xie said.

Chinese media outlets have frequently raised Mr. Xi’s goal, announced after the summit near San Francisco last year, of inviting 50,000 young Americans to visit China. (Mr. Blinken said on Friday that he supported more Americans studying in China.)

“The Chinese government is really investing a lot of energy in shaping the future generation of Americans’ view of China,” Professor Xie said.

Li You contributed research.

Ana Swanson covers trade and international economics for The Times and is based in Washington. She has been a journalist for more than a decade. More about Ana Swanson

Vivian Wang is a China correspondent based in Beijing, where she writes about how the country’s global rise and ambitions are shaping the daily lives of its people. More about Vivian Wang

A version of this article appears in print on , Section A, Page 9 of the New York edition with the headline: Small Steps in Beijing, But Few on Core Issues

206

The New York Times · by Vivian Wang · April 26, 2024

2. In war-battered Gaza, residents grow angry with Hamas

How much and for how long will this be reported in the mainstream media? WIll it have any effects on the student protestors' views on Hamas? (a rhetorical and sarcastic questions)

Excerpts:

But while the majority of Palestinians in Gaza blame Israel for their suffering, according to polling conducted in March, they also appear to be turning their ire toward the militants. In interviews with more than a dozen residents of Gaza, people said they resent Hamas for the attacks in Israel and — war-weary and desperate to fulfill their basic needs — just want to see peace as soon as possible.

If Hamas wanted to start a war, “they should have secured people first — secured a place of refuge for them, not thrown them into suffering that no one can bear,” said Salma El-Qadomi, 33, a freelance journalist who has been displaced 11 times since the conflict started.

Palestinians want leaders “who won’t drag people into a war like this,” she said. “Almost everyone around me shares the same thoughts: We want this waterfall of blood to stop. Seventeen years of destruction and wars are enough.”

Hamas, an Islamist political and military movement, was founded in 1987 during the first Palestinian uprising. It staged some of the deadliest attacks on Israeli civilians and later won Palestinian legislative elections, beating out the secular Fatah party that leads the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

In war-battered Gaza, residents grow angry with Hamas

By Claire Parker, Heba Farouk Mahfouz, Hazem Balousha and Hajar Harb

April 27, 2024 at 2:00 a.m. EDT

The Washington Post · by Claire Parker · April 27, 2024

JERUSALEM — More than six months into the war in Gaza and with dimming hopes for a cease-fire deal, Palestinians there are growing more critical of Hamas, which some of them blame for the months-long conflict that has destroyed the territory — and their lives.

The war has displaced most of the Gaza Strip’s population, killed tens of thousands of people and pushed the enclave toward famine, its infrastructure in ruins. The Israeli military waged a punishing campaign to eliminate Hamas after the group, which ruled Gaza for 17 years, attacked Israel on Oct. 7, killing an estimated 1,200 people and abducting more than 250.

But while the majority of Palestinians in Gaza blame Israel for their suffering, according to polling conducted in March, they also appear to be turning their ire toward the militants. In interviews with more than a dozen residents of Gaza, people said they resent Hamas for the attacks in Israel and — war-weary and desperate to fulfill their basic needs — just want to see peace as soon as possible.

If Hamas wanted to start a war, “they should have secured people first — secured a place of refuge for them, not thrown them into suffering that no one can bear,” said Salma El-Qadomi, 33, a freelance journalist who has been displaced 11 times since the conflict started.

Palestinians want leaders “who won’t drag people into a war like this,” she said. “Almost everyone around me shares the same thoughts: We want this waterfall of blood to stop. Seventeen years of destruction and wars are enough.”

Hamas, an Islamist political and military movement, was founded in 1987 during the first Palestinian uprising. It staged some of the deadliest attacks on Israeli civilians and later won Palestinian legislative elections, beating out the secular Fatah party that leads the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.

The rival parties entered into a deadly power struggle, fighting a brief but bloody battle in Gaza in 2007, when Hamas seized control. For years after that, the group fought sporadic wars with Israel, but it also presided over periods of calm.

It used the smuggling tunnels under the border with Egypt to manage the territory’s besieged economy and cracked down on criminal gangs that preyed on locals. More recently, however, Hamas’s fortunes turned. The tunnel trade had dried up after Egypt sealed off the network, and the group’s isolation deepened as some Arab states began normalizing relations with Israel.

Still, many observers, including Israel’s leaders, were sure Hamas wanted to stay in power and had little interest in a major conflict. The attack in October took many Palestinians — and much of the world — by surprise.

Hamas has said it launched the assault in part to avenge what it claimed was Israel’s “desecration” of the al-Aqsa mosque compound in Jerusalem, Islam’s third-holiest site, known to Jews — who also consider it sacred — as the Temple Mount.

The attack, a terrifying rampage through southern Israeli communities, initially boosted the group’s support in both Gaza and the West Bank, according the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, which carried out polling in late November and early December.

Even recently, in a poll conducted over five days in March, a majority of respondents in both places say Hamas’s decision to carry out the attack was “correct.”

But, the center’s researchers said, “it is clear from the findings … that support for the offensive does not mean support for Hamas.” Instead, the results show three-quarters of Palestinians believe the attack refocused global attention on the conflict “after years of neglect.”

The anger mounting now in the enclave appears centered on stalled cease-fire talks, with Hamas insisting on a permanent truce and Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza before it hands over any hostages.

“We can’t live like this anymore,” said a 29-year-old displaced lawyer and mother of three, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. Hours before the interview, she said, Israeli drones fired at her and her children on the street in central Gaza.

“We need to be able to mourn what has happened to us, to bury those who were killed and look for those lost,” she said. “By any means, we want the war to stop, whatever it takes.”

Fedaa Zayed, a 35-year-old writer from northern Gaza, said she thinks Hamas is avoiding a cease-fire agreement because it doesn’t want to admit defeat. She fled her Gaza City apartment on the second day of the war and is now staying in Rafah on the border with Egypt.

“In reality, we are in full retreat, the domestic front is destroyed,” Zayed said. “We, as a people, want a cease-fire, the withdrawal of the Israeli army. We want to return to our homes even if they are in rubble.”

Hamas says it understands the frustrations of those who are suffering in Gaza. “But these complaints do not reflect the political situation,” said Basem Naim, a senior Hamas official.

Instead, he said, “we are listening to thousands of voices that are emphasizing that despite the sacrifice, they refuse to let go of the big goals that involve ending the occupation, freeing Jerusalem and setting up a Palestinian state.”

Naim and other senior political leaders, including Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh, are based outside Gaza. Inside the enclave, Hamas leader Yehiya Sinwar, the apparent mastermind of Oct. 7, is believed to be hunkered down in a tunnel to escape the Israeli strikes.

Hamas, however, has never really tolerated dissent, and it arrested, jailed and beat activists who spoke out against its rule.

The group’s administration in Gaza was “full of corruption, nepotism, and bias in favor of the movement,” said Mohamed, 35, a graphic designer from Rafah. He spoke on the condition that only his first name be used out of fear of reprisal by the group’s fighters.

Also in Rafah, Ayman, 46, said he voted for Hamas in 2006 because he thought the Palestinian Authority was corrupt. But what came next, he said, also speaking on the condition that only his first name be used, “was a number of wars, the destruction of homes, the martyrdom of thousands, difficulty in life, and the siege.”

Earlier this year, demonstrations calling for a cease-fire broke out in at least two cities in Gaza. In a video of a protest in January, a crowd of mostly men and boys marches down a street in the city of Khan Younis, holding antiwar signs and chanting: “The people want an end to the war!”

Analysts say they have also seen an uptick in social media posts critical of Hamas.

“Hamas... don’t be upset with us and try to understand us correctly,” Rami Haroon, a 45-year-old dentist and father of five, wrote on Facebook on April 20.

“We have been suffocated by you for a long time,” wrote Haroon, who said he is not affiliated with any political party. “Your ship will sink and you will drown us with you.”

But while resentment is brewing, many Palestinians “feel it’s a shame to go after Hamas during this Israeli assault,” said Mkhaimar Abusada, associate professor of political science at al-Azhar University in Gaza, who is now based in Cairo. “They don’t want to be seen as collaborators with the occupation if they protest against Hamas now.”

In the March poll from the policy center, a slim majority of respondents in Gaza said they would prefer Hamas — rather than the Palestinian Authority — to control the Strip after the war. The other options included the United Nations, the Israeli military, or one or more Arab countries.

“Given the magnitude of the suffering in the Gaza Strip, this seems to be the most counter intuitive finding of the entire poll,” the researchers wrote. At the same time, the results were consistent with the increase in the percentage of Palestinians in Gaza who think Hamas will win the war and stay in power.

“There are many ways to understand that,” Palestinian political analyst Khalil Sayegh, who is based in Washington, said of the finding in an interview last week. “One of which is that the people understood and saw that Hamas is staying, and thus they’re afraid to express their opinions.”

According to Abusada, people “care about Palestine and resistance and freedom and independence. But first of all, they want to live as humans, to be able to eat and sleep.”

“That’s why the criticism is much more vocal now and much more public now,” he said. “Israel really sent us to the Stone Age.”

Mahfouz and Balousha reported from Cairo, and Harb from London. Sarah Dadouch in Beirut contributed to this report.

The Washington Post · by Claire Parker · April 27, 2024

3. Britain Does Its Part in Ukraine and on Defense Spending By Rishi Sunak

The Prime Minister gets it here (and he does not neglect north Korea):

The challenges to global security are growing. Members of an axis of authoritarian states—Russia, Iran, North Korea and China—are determined to challenge the post-Cold War order that has provided unprecedented prosperity. We must act to deter our enemies, defend our values and secure our interests. Our decision to increase our defense budget proves that—as it always has—the U.K. stands ready to play its role.

Britain Does Its Part in Ukraine and on Defense Spending

Our military budget will reach 2.5% of GDP by 2030. European allies need to step up as well.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/britain-does-its-part-in-ukraine-and-on-defense-spending-d8a6c42f?mod=Searchresults_pos1&page=1

By Rishi Sunak

April 26, 2024 4:01 pm ET

British soldiers cross the Vistula River during NATO military exercises in Korzeniewo, Poland, March 4. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGE

Britons understand and appreciate the vital role the U.S. plays in the world. We are proud to be Washington’s closest ally and welcome the supplemental support for Ukraine that Congress passed and President Biden signed Wednesday.

This funding will make a huge difference in the fight against tyranny in Europe. We welcome the administration’s leadership, which advances not only our interests but also those of the U.S.

China and Iran are closely watching what happens in Ukraine. A victory for authoritarianism and aggression would make us all less secure. For those who recognize the need for Europe to do more for its own security, America’s aid package is an inspiration and an incentive to do so.

The U.K. has acted. This week I announced a major and immediate increase in Britain’s support for Ukraine and in our defense spending, which will reach 2.5% of gross domestic product by 2030. We understand that being an ally means matching words with actions.

That is why the U.K. fought against fascism and communism, and alongside the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is why we both stood firmly with Ukraine and most recently joined in the defense of international shipping from Houthi attacks. It is why we helped protect Israel from Iran’s missiles and drones. When the going gets tough, we are a steadfast partner: a fellow permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, always by America’s side.

Since Russia’s invasion, the U.K. has been at the forefront of the coalition supporting Ukraine. We were proud to have been the first European country to mobilize lethal aid, from tanks to long-range weapons.

We know that being an ally also requires burden-sharing and investment. At the 2014 North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit in the U.K., we agreed that each member state was to contribute 2% of its GDP toward defense. We spearheaded that effort because we worried that since the end of the Cold War, Europeans nations had been cutting defense budgets and relying only on NATO for their security. This wasn’t sustainable—and the U.S. and the U.K. are winning the argument for changing course. In 2014, only four NATO members spent 2% on defense. Today, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg puts the figure at 18.

Since 2020 the U.K. has increased defense spending steadily, and as chancellor I granted the largest single increase in spending since the end of the Cold War. As Winston Churchill understood, failing to rearm only emboldens your adversaries. And as Ronald Reagan demonstrated, boosting defense spending is the best way to deter enemies and ensure our values prevail.

The U.K.’s increased investment has allowed us to commit to new capabilities such as the alliance among Australia, the U.K. and the U.S. Aukus will contribute to security in areas such as the Indo-Pacific—one of America’s top priorities. The U.K. also is putting more funding into our nuclear deterrent, which forms part of NATO’s nuclear umbrella, and the stockpiles vital to war readiness on the Continent and in Ukraine.

During a visit to Poland and Germany this week, I agreed to enhance our defense-spending commitments with the biggest single investment for a generation.

We will provide more for Ukraine—with a package that brings total U.K. military support to nearly $15 billion. Overall European support is now $180 billion. The U.K. was the first country to make a long-term security guarantee with Ukraine, which I signed on my visit to Kyiv in January. We will now commit to sustain our support for Ukraine at least at the same levels until the end of the decade.

We are also increasing overall defense spending. Our new baseline is 2.5% of GDP, effective immediately. This will mean an additional $93.6 billion for defense over the next six years.

As I told Mr. Stoltenberg this week, I hope this will become the new baseline for all allies. America should be assured that more European countries are stepping up. Our friends and neighbors are listening to our argument that we can’t expect America to pay any price and bear any burden if we on this side of the Atlantic aren’t prepared to invest in our own security.

Among America’s allies, including the whole of the rest of the Group of Seven, the U.K. is the biggest spender on defense by a significant margin. This is bolstered by our close intelligence cooperation and military interoperability. Above all, however, what distinguishes our partnership is our shared willingness to act.

The challenges to global security are growing. Members of an axis of authoritarian states—Russia, Iran, North Korea and China—are determined to challenge the post-Cold War order that has provided unprecedented prosperity. We must act to deter our enemies, defend our values and secure our interests. Our decision to increase our defense budget proves that—as it always has—the U.K. stands ready to play its role.

Mr. Sunak is Britain’s prime minister.

4. Opinion | What Students Read Before They Protest

An essay very much worth reading this weekend.

I noticed this in my classes at Georgetown in the Doctorate of Liberal Studies program. It was much different in my undergraduate studies in the 1970s.

But Mr. Douhet left out one important concept though he is describing it in much of this essay. Professors today very much emphasize postmodern thought and philosophy and I think that is a part of the problem:

"Postmodern philosophy is a movement in Western philosophy that emerged in the late 20th century. It is characterized by a broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism, and a general suspicion of reason. Postmodernists are particularly critical of the assumptions and values of the Enlightenment period, which emphasized the power of reason and science. They argue that reality and truth are not objective and universal but are instead contingent on historical and social contexts."

I think it is great to be skeptical (and very much necessary) but you need reason and science to effectively evaluate any idea of which you may be skeptical. Ironically, some postmodern ideas are employed by those who would vehemently deny they are using postmodern thought and would decry such accusations as fake news and tell us that there are different "facts" and more than one truth.

"The MAGA movement is known for its skepticism towards mainstream media and what it perceives as established facts. Members of the movement often believe that mainstream media outlets are biased against their views and may disseminate false information. This has led to a reliance on alternative news sources and a propensity to support certain conspiracy theories. The movement’s approach to facts can be characterized by a distrust in traditional sources of information and an emphasis on narratives that align with its political beliefs."

Opinion | What Students Read Before They Protest

The New York Times · by Ross Douthat · April 27, 2024

Ross Douthat

What Students Read Before They Protest

April 27, 2024, 7:00 a.m. ET

Credit...Bing Guan for The New York Times

Opinion Columnist

When I was a college undergraduate 25 years ago, the fancy school that I attended offered what it styled as a “core curriculum” that was really nothing of the sort. Instead of giving students a set of foundational courses and assignments, a shared base of important ideas and arguments, our core assembled a grab bag of courses from different disciplines and invited us to pick among them.

The idea was that we were experiencing a variety of “approaches to knowledge” and it didn’t matter what specific knowledge we picked up. There was no real difference between taking the late Helen Vendler’s magisterial “Poems, Poets, Poetry” survey class or taking instead a course on “Women Writers in Imperial China: How to Escape From the Feminine Voice.”

At the time I looked with a certain envy southward, to Columbia University, where the core curriculum still offered what the name promised: a defined set of important works that every undergraduate was expected to encounter. Against the belief that multiculturalism required dismantling the canon, Columbia insisted that it was still obligatory to expose students to some version of the best that has been thought and said.

That approach survives today: The Columbia that has become the primary stage for political drama in America still requires its students to encounter what it calls “cornerstone ideas and theories from across literature, philosophy, history, science and the arts.”

This is an admirable goal, and also a useful one, since it gives a clear look into what kind of “ideas and theories” the current consensus of elite academia deems important to forming citizens and future leaders — including the future leaders currently protesting at Columbia and other campuses around the country. It helps pin down, in a particular syllabus, general impulses that anyone with eyes to see will notice all across the meritocracy, from big Ivies to liberal arts colleges to selective high schools and middle schools.

The Columbia core’s requirements include many of the traditional “Great Books” — Genesis and Job; Aeschylus and Shakespeare; Adam Smith and Alexis de Tocqueville — along with readings in the sciences and exposure to music and fine arts. They also include sources obviously intended to diversify the traditional core and bring it up to date — some from the medieval and early modern past, many from the 20th century.

I want to look in particular at the syllabus for “Contemporary Civilization,” the portion of the core that deals most with political arguments and authors. The pre-20th century readings follow traditional patterns (Plato, Aristotle, Augustine; Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) with specific supplements that diversify the list: more Islamic writers in the Middle Ages, Christine De Pizan alongside Machiavelli, a raft of readings on the conquest of the Americas, the Haitian Declaration of Independence and Constitution alongside the American Declaration and Bill of Rights.

But then comes the 20th century, and suddenly the ambit narrows to progressive preoccupations and only those preoccupations: anticolonialism, sex and gender, antiracism, climate. Frantz Fanon and Michel Foucault. Barbara Fields and the Combahee River Collective. Meditations on the trans-Atlantic slave trade and how climate change is “colonial déjà vu.”

Many of these readings are absolutely worth engaging. (Some of them I have even assigned in my own limited experiments in teaching.) But they still embody a very specific set of ideological commitments.

To understand the world before 1900, Columbia students read a range of texts and authors that are important to understanding America and the West in their entirety — Greek and Roman, religious and secular, capitalist and Marxist.

To engage with the contemporary world, the world they are being prepared to influence and lead, they read texts that are only really important to understanding the perspective of the contemporary left.

Of course these reading lists can change and the way they are taught will vary with the instructor. But the priorities of Columbia’s canon fit a wider trend. I speak to both college students and high school students fairly often, and it is common to meet kids whose entire sense of contemporary political challenges consists of racism and climate change. (Note that these are usually children of the upper middle class; 18-to-29-year-olds in general are more likely to be worried about economic issues.) They are not necessarily enthusiastically embracing these causes; if they’re talking to me, they’re more likely to be disillusioned. But this is the scope of ideas they’re being given about what an educated person should find concerning or worthy of attention.

This has two effects, one general and one specific to the current protests at Columbia. The first effect is a dramatic intellectual and historical narrowing. In the Columbia curriculum’s 20th-century readings, the age of totalitarianism simply evanesces, leaving decolonization as the only major political drama of the recent past. There is no Orwell, no Solzhenitsyn; Hannah Arendt’s essays on the Vietnam War and student protests in America are assigned, but not “The Origins of Totalitarianism” or “Eichmann in Jerusalem.”

Absent, too, are any readings that would shed light on the ideas that the contemporary left is ranged against: There is no neoconservatism, certainly no religious conservatism, but also nothing that would make sense of neoliberalism in all its variations. There is no Francis Fukuyama, no “end of history” debate. Class critiques are mostly invisible, left behind in the 19th century with Karl Marx. And there are no readings that focus on the technological or spiritual aspects of the present, or offer cultural critiques from a nonprogressive vantage point — no Philip Rieff, no Neil Postman, no Christopher Lasch.

This narrowing, in turn, leaves students with an equally narrow list of outlets for the world-changing energy that they’re constantly exhorted to embrace. Conservatism of any sort is naturally off limits. A center-left stewardship seems like selling out. There’s no clear path to engagement with many key dramas of our time — renewed civilizational competition, the stresses of digital existence, existential anomie.

Climate change looms over everything, but climate activism is expected be merged somehow with anticolonial and antiracist action. Yet it’s actually quite difficult to make anti-colonialist preoccupations map onto a world where Western Europe is aging and declining and once-colonized populations now fill its major cities, where the locus of world power has shifted into Asia, where the world’s most tyrannical and imperialist regimes are non-Western and nonwhite. You inevitably have to mystify things a bit, perpetually discovering the hidden key to the 21st century in the power relations of the distant past.

But if you’re willing to simplify and flatten history — 20th-century history especially — it is easier to make these preoccupations fit Israel-Palestine. With its unusual position in the Middle East, its relatively recent founding, its close relationship to the United States, its settlements and occupation, Israel gets to be the singular scapegoat for the sins of defunct European empires and white-supremacist regimes.

Sometimes this scapegoating seems subconscious, but quite often it’s entirely literal — as in the video circulating this week in which one of the organizers of the Columbia protests explicitly analogizes contemporary “Zionists” to the slaveowners of pre-revolutionary Haiti, whom he says were justly murdered by their slaves. (The student has since issued a statement apologizing for rhetorical excess.)

Recognizing that this is happening — that Israel is a kind of enemy of convenience for a left-wing worldview that otherwise lacks real-world correlates for its theories — does not excuse the Israeli government for its failings, or vindicate its searching-for-an-endgame strategy in Gaza, or justify any kind of mistreatment of student protesters.

But it helps explain the two things that seem so disproportionate in these protests and the culture that surrounds them. First, it explains why this conflict attracts such a scale of on-campus attention and action and disruption, while so many other wars and crises (Sudan, Congo, Armenia, Burma, Yemen …) are barely noticed or ignored.

Second, it explains why the attention seems to leap so quickly past critique into caricature, past sympathy for the Palestinians into justifications for Hamas, past condemnation of Israeli policy into anti-Semitism.

The truth is that these aspects of contemporary protest politics are not just a recrudescence of past bigotries. They are partially that, but they are also something stranger, a reflection of a worldview that has come to its anti-Semitic temptations through a circuitous route.

This worldview is broad enough to set curricula but too narrow to find full purchase in the world as it exists, intent on finding enemies but discovering more of them in the past than in the present, and fastening on Israel with a sense of excited vindication — a spirit that yields easily, as righteous vindication often does, to hate.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads.

Ross Douthat has been an Opinion columnist for The Times since 2009. He is the author, most recently, of “The Deep Places: A Memoir of Illness and Discovery.”

A version of this article appears in print on , Section SR, Page 3 of the New York edition with the headline: What Students Read Before They Protest

The New York Times · by Ross Douthat · April 27, 2024

5. Secret meetings, social chatter: How the Columbia protest sparked a student revolt

The irony about targeting endowments is that the Ivys, with their large endowments, are able to fund the tuition of many students who are in need because they are not born with the proverbial silver spoon that define many of the Ivy League students (and especially legacy students).

Are these protests really "loosely organized?" I will be interested in seeing the results of research into this. I heard one report on a radio show in the last day or so claiming some organized support because 40% of all the tents at the campus campsites are exactly the same. Mayor Adams in New York fears outside support for the protestors.

But I also heard a comment on a news show that many students have "Selma Envy" - they want to be part of a movement that does some good. (but they are so misguided in choosing this movement but agistors can certainly ex[loit this "envy"). And this is also different from the Vietnam War protests. There is no chance that any of these American students will be going off to the war they are protesting.

One last note. All unconventional warfare practitioners who focus on revolutionary, resistance, and insurgent movements should be studying these protests in detail (organization, communitions, actions, logistics support, messaging and propaganda) for lessons learned and understanding. (but not for countering them from anyone's official capacity!)

Excerpts:

The protests are loosely organized, with no central leaders and one primary demand: that colleges disinvest from weapons manufacturers or companies that do extensive business with Israel.

At Brown, students have prepared a 50-page manual on how to do that and say it could be modeled after the university’s steps to divest from tobacco in 2003 or fossil fuels in 2020. Brown also divested from companies that did business with Sudan in 2006 over the crisis in Darfur.

“This new generation quite frankly is not going to allow the blatant misuse of our tax money,” said Nour Abaherah, a graduate student who participated in the hunger strike.

But how universities invest their money makes disinvestment complicated, said Chris Marsicano, a Davidson College assistant professor of educational studies who researches endowments and finance.

...

What happened next recalls the way protests spread in 1968, when Columbia students seized five buildings to protest the Vietnam War — and fueled student antiwar activity nationwide that ultimately shut down hundreds of campuses, said Thai Jones, a Columbia University lecturer who studies radical social movements. He cautioned that it’s too soon to say whether the pro-Palestinian demonstrations will equal the firepower of ’68.

But “it proves the very close connections between student movements on different campuses, and the power of media to show incredibly dramatic images of students being arrested that can really spark a mass movement,” Jones said.

In 2024, that includes social media platforms that did not exist in the 1960s: Apps such as Instagram, TikTok and X. Such sites allow students to immediately spread glossy, professional-looking pictures and videos of their activities, Jones noted, spurring admiration and emulation.

At Yale, by the time news of the Columbia arrests began ricocheting across 23-year-old Adam Nussbaum’s X feed, the occupation was already a definite “go,” he said. But the number of prospective occupiers — and bystander supporters — swelled dramatically as friend networks between the two Ivy League schools exploded with alarmed texts, DMs and calls.

“A lot of us just know people at Columbia, so people were talking to their friends,” said Nussbaum, a junior. “It all happened with so much organic energy.”

Officials in New York contend, nonetheless, that there is more to the protests there than might meet the eye. After the Columbia arrests, New York Mayor Eric Adams compared the situation to the challenges New York police faced during the Black Lives Matter demonstrations in 2022. Back then, he said, disruptive actors came into New York intent on “tearing our city apart.”

“We strongly believe that is the case right now,” he said at a news conference.

Secret meetings, social chatter: How the Columbia protest sparked a student revolt

By Tim Craig, Hannah Natanson and Richard Morgan

April 26, 2024 at 6:00 a.m. EDT

The Washington Post · by Tim Craig · April 26, 2024

NEW YORK — When police raided a protester encampment at Columbia University last week, the students at Yale were ready, tracking every minute of the chaos that followed with their smartphones on social media.

If students at the New York City Ivy League school were going to risk arrest, they would, too. By the next morning, Yale demonstrators had pitched their own tents. On a Zoom call that day, more than 200 students from dozens of other colleges across the country were strategizing on how they could replicate Columbia’s protest.

“We talked about what it was like to recruit people and join, and what it meant to stand in solidarity together, and what it would look like if these camps started popping up everywhere,” said Soph Askanase, 21-year-old junior at Barnard College who was arrested at Columbia.

What followed was the start of what historians now call one of the most consequential student uprisings the nation has seen in recent times. Though officials hope the tensions calm when classes end next month, the protests have become a crisis for college administrators struggling to rein in demonstrations while juggling competing demands to combat antisemitic rhetoric and permit students’ right to free speech.

“I think the ivory tower stands on shaky ground,” said Steven Mintz, a professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin. “Its foundations are far more fragile and vulnerable than it might seem, and there are big cracks in the facade.”

Though the demonstrations have made headlines across the globe in recent days, they are the culmination of months of activism and earlier tensions on campus. Protests began on college campuses within days of the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7. Students then started organizing around a particular demand: university divestment from weapons manufacturers. Their activism steadily escalated throughout the spring, as students employed increasingly aggressive tactics after saying they got little or no response from administrators.

The growing uprising has been supercharged by social media and smartphones, which allowed students to quickly communicate with one another and replicate tactics in ways unthinkable in earlier university movements.

Historians like David Cortright, a professor emeritus at the University of Notre Dame, say the demonstrations already compare to several other large protest movements over the last 60 years, including the campaign to end apartheid in South Africa and the 2011 Occupy Wall Street demonstrations over corporate greed.

But unlike the protests of decades past, college administrators have fewer tools at their disposal to assuage demonstrator demands. Experts say student requests for divestment are not only impractical but also are likely to yield little if any real benefit. More broadly, the students could face a challenge in trying to build alliances. Some would-be demonstrators have been deterred by tactics and chants some view as antisemitic.

“Dr. Martin Luther King used to talk about ‘creative tension,’ where surface calm gets disturbed and the powers that be have to pay attention,” said Cortright, who is also a visiting scholar at Cornell University this year. “But in terms of what counts as effectiveness, one of the cardinal rules is to build a broad coalition and don’t alienate potential supporters. … You don’t come up with a slogan that turns away potential allies.”

‘We’ve never lived in normal times’

For students attending college today, life has been defined by waves of upheaval.

Columbia’s student body president, Teji Vijayakumar, notes that graduating seniors like herself were entering elementary school during the Occupy Wall Street protests, middle school during student walkouts over gun control and former president Donald Trump’s executive order barring travel from some Muslim-majority countries, and were in high school when the Black Lives Matter demonstrations erupted.

Vijayakumar recalls being 13 years old and writing her emergency contacts on her arm when she attended the Women’s March in Washington a few days before Trump was sworn in as president.

“I think a difference with older generations is that for them college was a coming of age, whereas my class started elementary school in the financial crisis, started high school in the Trump presidency, and started college in the pandemic,” Vijayakumar said. “We’ve never lived in normal times.”

When the war in Gaza broke out, their universities became a new front line.

At Brown University, protests against Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas erupted almost immediately. Police arrested 61 people at two demonstrations last fall, including Ariela Rosenzweig, a senior. Similar demonstrations were simultaneously taking place at other colleges.

Rosenzweig said the campus demonstrations were organic, student-led initiatives anchored in a demand that Brown divest from weapons manufacturers. Rosenzweig said students stayed in contact with their peers at other schools, a process often coordinated through the national Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter.

“We all have our phones, and we all know each other,” Rosenzweig said. “We have friends at other schools, and the youth of our country feels ... our institutions, whether they be our government or our universities, cannot be complicit with occupation, apartheid and genocide.”

The push for divestment was also gaining traction at other elite universities, including Columbia. Administrators there suspended chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace in November after the groups held an unauthorized walkout in support of the Palestinian territories.

The suspensions only made students want to protest more, Askanase, the junior at Barnard, recalled. Within days, students formed a coalition called “CU Apartheid Divest,” a callback to the successful student protest movement that forced Columbia to divest from apartheid-era South Africa in the 1980s. It quickly garnered support from more than 90 campus groups.

“We realized the administration still wasn’t listening to us, no matter how loud we screamed or how much we begged,” Askanase said. “We realized an escalation was necessary.”

The night before announcing the new coalition, Askanase and friends stayed up until 4 a.m. drafting an 1,800-word manifesto that ran on Nov. 14 in the Columbia Spectator.

University officials “underestimate our resolve,” the students wrote. “We will not rest until Columbia divests from apartheid Israel, Palestinians are free, and liberation is achieved for all oppressed people worldwide.”

In the following weeks, students kept protesting — holding some kind of demonstration at least once a month, Askanase said, from public “art builds” to “die-ins.” During winter break, the activists kept in touch on video calls. And when they got back for the spring semester, they began meeting in off-campus apartments, fearing detection by administrators.

At some meetings, before digging into pita dipped in za’atar and Palestinian olive oil, students placed their phones and laptops in a pile in another room, to guard against leaks.

They were already at work at something bigger, and they wanted it to stay secret.

Protests were ramping up at other universities, too. In February, Rosenzweig and 20 other Brown University students held an eight-day hunger strike to press their demands. She said students came up with idea after discovering how Brown University students had held a hunger strike to protest apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s.

“We saw ourselves in the legacy of those student protests,” said Rosenzweig, who is Jewish.

At Columbia, students were also drawing inspiration from the past. Askanase said they researched student protesters who set up encampments in 1968 and 1985 at Columbia against the Vietnam War and apartheid South Africa, respectively. They also read about the Black Panthers, as well as the words of writer Angela Davis.

Then they got to work on the more practical preparations: ordering tents, food, masks and medical supplies, sketching out responses to probable arrests and suspensions — and figuring out where occupiers would use the bathroom.

“We ordered little camping bathroom tents that are not the nicest, but they do the trick,” Askanase said.

On April 14, the students finalized their date: The occupation would begin three days later, when Columbia’s president would be out of town testifying before Congress. The demonstrators figured Columbia would have a harder time coordinating a response with the president gone. Plus, they hoped to disrupt the university’s preparations for graduation.

At 8 the night before go time, Askanase sat down to paint a large banner declaring the tents a “Gaza Solidarity Encampment.” Later, student protesters spaced out in small pockets across campus, clutching their tents and supplies and trading texted updates on the positions of security guards.

They stayed huddled, waiting in the cold to act. Askanase re-watched a YouTube video giving instructions on how to set up a tent one more time.

‘Way more complicated’

The protests are loosely organized, with no central leaders and one primary demand: that colleges disinvest from weapons manufacturers or companies that do extensive business with Israel.

At Brown, students have prepared a 50-page manual on how to do that and say it could be modeled after the university’s steps to divest from tobacco in 2003 or fossil fuels in 2020. Brown also divested from companies that did business with Sudan in 2006 over the crisis in Darfur.

“This new generation quite frankly is not going to allow the blatant misuse of our tax money,” said Nour Abaherah, a graduate student who participated in the hunger strike.

But how universities invest their money makes disinvestment complicated, said Chris Marsicano, a Davidson College assistant professor of educational studies who researches endowments and finance.

First, it’s impossible to know just how and where universities’ endowments are invested: Schools are notoriously closemouthed about it, revealing as little as they can. Disclosing investments can lead to complications large and small, Marsicano said, from the embarrassment of discovering that a company targeted for investment directly competes with a company owned by one of the university’s trustees — to the possibility that a university disclosing its decision to sell or buy stock could affect the price of that stock.

“When endowment funds are this large, we’re talking tens of billions of dollars, there are legal and practical reasons not to show exactly, explicitly, what they’re invested in,” Marsicano said.

Many of the student groups are demanding an end to this secretiveness. For example, students at Columbia are asking that the university offer “complete transparency for all … financial investments” — an unlikely prospect.

Divestment, meanwhile, is practically impossible, experts said. Universities probably have very few if any direct ties to companies that are Israeli based or weapons manufacturers; most of those relationships would come through index funds.

Mariscano said it can be extremely difficult to figure out what companies are represented in a large index fund — or what companies the fund may be indirectly linked to. Israel is a hot spot right now for solar energy, innovative climate change solutions and pharmaceuticals.

Mintz, the University of Texas history professor, said the complications associated with divestment is one reason college administrators have no easy solutions for ending the protests. In the 1960s and 1970s, students offered up solutions that were more actionable, he noted, like nudging administrators to create an African America students program.

“If students demanded a Black Studies program, you could set up a Black Studies program. And it was easy for [college] leadership to denounce the Vietnam War,” Mintz said. “All of this is way more complicated.”

After the raid

A day after pitching their tents, Columbia administrators called the New York Police Department to the campus, saying students were breaking multiple university rules, had been suspended and were trespassing.

As police moved in on the Columbia encampment, Askanase said students sat in two concentric circles, chanted “Disclose, Divest!” and sang “classic protest songs.” Askanase then watched as, one by one, student protesters were marched onto a bus and taken to jail.

When Askanase was released hours later, a friend shared some unexpected news: Protesters had already made a new encampment on campus.

“It was the most beautiful moment,” Askanase recalled. “I was so honored and in shock. ... I had no clue our student body would stand up and support us like that.”

What happened next recalls the way protests spread in 1968, when Columbia students seized five buildings to protest the Vietnam War — and fueled student antiwar activity nationwide that ultimately shut down hundreds of campuses, said Thai Jones, a Columbia University lecturer who studies radical social movements. He cautioned that it’s too soon to say whether the pro-Palestinian demonstrations will equal the firepower of ’68.

But “it proves the very close connections between student movements on different campuses, and the power of media to show incredibly dramatic images of students being arrested that can really spark a mass movement,” Jones said.

In 2024, that includes social media platforms that did not exist in the 1960s: Apps such as Instagram, TikTok and X. Such sites allow students to immediately spread glossy, professional-looking pictures and videos of their activities, Jones noted, spurring admiration and emulation.

At Yale, by the time news of the Columbia arrests began ricocheting across 23-year-old Adam Nussbaum’s X feed, the occupation was already a definite “go,” he said. But the number of prospective occupiers — and bystander supporters — swelled dramatically as friend networks between the two Ivy League schools exploded with alarmed texts, DMs and calls.

“A lot of us just know people at Columbia, so people were talking to their friends,” said Nussbaum, a junior. “It all happened with so much organic energy.”

Officials in New York contend, nonetheless, that there is more to the protests there than might meet the eye. After the Columbia arrests, New York Mayor Eric Adams compared the situation to the challenges New York police faced during the Black Lives Matter demonstrations in 2022. Back then, he said, disruptive actors came into New York intent on “tearing our city apart.”

“We strongly believe that is the case right now,” he said at a news conference.

Since the protests erupted, there have been newspaper and social media reports of the harassment of Jewish students, behavior including chants of “from the river to the sea” — a slogan some find deeply offensive, interpreting it as a call to annihilate Israel — and one Jewish Yale student’s allegation she was poked in the eye with a Palestinian flag.

Jonathan Greenblatt, chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League, wrote in a post on X that he spent an afternoon walking around Columbia and determined that “Jewish students have been explicitly threatened, increasingly menaced and physically attacked.”

“It’s extremely hostile,” said Rotem Weiss, 27, a Jewish and Israeli student at Columbia. “It’s beyond anything I have ever imagined that I would experience here.”

Protesting students at encampments nationwide have repeatedly denied any such harassing behavior, often attributing it to outsiders.

Many college professors, alumni and civil rights leaders, meanwhile, have condemned police for moving aggressively against the campus demonstrators. They say fears of external agitators are overblown because the protests are mostly peaceful.

“I think the signs of a healthy democracy is where you see a lot of protests,” said Greg Jobin-Leeds, an expert on social movements. “Right now, we are seeing the limiting of that democratic state and it’s very, very concerning.”

A generation changed

Although summer break is rapidly approaching, student protesters say they will use the time away from campus to figure out ways their movement can return with even more force in the fall.

“This student movement is of the utmost importance,” Rosenzweig, the Brown student, said. “I don’t see people backing down.”

There will be other venues for students to express their discontent in the months ahead. The Republican and Democratic nominating conventions are scheduled for this summer, and both expect to draw a large number of protesters. Thus far, students have been mum on whether they plan to join those demonstrations.

Overall, students are offering few specifics on their next steps, saying they wanted to avoid alerting university officials to their plans. At Yale, though, the students who occupied Beinecke Plaza have now announced that they are morphing their movement to a broader “Occupy Yale” campaign, which — in addition to divestment from weapons manufacturers — is also demanding the university increase its investments in the New Haven local area.

Meantime, as the protests forge a chaotic end to the school year in many places, some students just wish they would stop.

Cameron Ofogh, a 22-year-old junior at George Washington University, isn’t one of those protesting — like the vast majority of his student body, he noted. Instead, Ofogh watched on Thursday as a few hundred students, some from other D.C.-area schools, set up roughly 30 tents to form a pro-Palestinian encampment. George Washington enrolls 26,000 students.

Ofogh said he doesn’t believe campus occupations and chants of “from the river to the sea” represent an effective way to have a substantive discussion about the war. He respects that people on both sides of the conflict have strong opinions. But he wishes they would actually start debating them, rather than chanting slogans or hiding in dorm rooms.

“They’re not hearing each other out; they’re not having civic engagement,” Ofogh said. “And I think this is happening because colleges have failed to teach students to talk to each other.”

By contrast, Nussbaum of Yale sees the growing web of protests and encampments as evidence of students’ eloquence — and their power to change the world.

“It cracks open what is possible,” he said.

Alisa Shodiyev Kaff contributed to this report.

The Washington Post · by Tim Craig · April 26, 2024

6. Inside the Pro-Palestinian Protests Disrupting Columbia University

Inside the Pro-Palestinian Protests Disrupting Columbia University

Protesters and counterprotesters navigate turbulent final weeks of school year as New York campus is riven by differing views on Israel-Hamas war'

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/pro-palestinian-protest-new-york-city-universities-71c4c93e?mod=hp_lead_pos3

Police called in

The atmosphere remained charged heading into the weekend, as activists and Columbia University President Minouche Shafik continued negotiations aimed at dismantling the encampment while ensuring that students had an avenue to express their feelings. “

We have our demands; they have theirs,” the university said.

Tensions remained raw ahead of final exams, which start in the week ahead. Many students said they were still processing their shock after Shafik called in the New York City Police Department, which forcibly cleared students from their initial encampment and arrested more than 100 on April 18.

Higher-education pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian protests since April 18

2,000

Number of protesters

1,000

Seattle

100

size unknown

Boston

Chicago

New York

San Francisco

Washington, D.C.

Los Angeles

Note: As of April 25. Number of protesters indicates the average number of demonstrators recorded at each protest event. Protests include rallies, marches, demonstrations and similar events.

Source: Crowd Counting Consortium

Carl Churchill and Max Rust/WSJ

A new encampment, begun almost immediately after the old one was cleared, teemed with activists who had pitched tents on a lawn bordered by hedgerows in front of Butler Library. People in yellow vests controlled who entered the camp, pointing newcomers to a set of 10 community guidelines on a whiteboard.

No. 1: “We all commit to remain grounded in why we enter this space—as an act of solidarity with the Palestinian people.” No. 10: “Do not engage with counter protesters.”

Many in the encampment declined to share their names, and kept their faces shielded out of concern for their safety. Some said they worried about blowback on their families.

Maryam Alwan, a 22-year-old Palestinian-American who was among the Columbia students arrested April 18, said she learned of the new encampment shortly after being released from an NYPD holding cell and given a trespass summons. She is an organizer for Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine.

Alwan, a junior studying comparative literature and society, rushed back to campus and has been sleeping and eating at the camp since then. Like other students arrested at the first encampment, she has been suspended by Columbia and can’t access her dorm or use her dining plan.

Palestinian flags on display at the Columbia University encampment. PHOTO: JEENAH MOON FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

She has a May 8 court hearing on the trespassing charge, and the school hasn’t set a hearing on her suspension. Meanwhile, Alwan is part of a civil-rights complaint brought by the advocacy group Palestine Legal, alleging that Columbia’s actions have discriminated against Palestinian students and their allies.

Columbia declined to comment on the complaint.

“All of us have been suppressed for so long, and we refuse to be anymore,” Alwan said, adding that the way Columbia’s encampment has inspired others has been invigorating.

A contested space

The protesters are pushing for Columbia to divest from companies with business ties to Israel. Activists including Khymani James held a press conference this past week to reiterate divestment calls, as Karten and another counterprotester held their ground just inside the camp.

“If they feel the need to walk in and protest and counterprotest then that is their prerogative,” said James, a 20-year-old junior who is on the encampment’s security team. “And we will continue to be peaceful, we will continue to stand firm together in our demands.”

James later became a flashpoint himself after a months-old video of his being questioned by university representatives circulated online. He said things including: “Zionists don’t deserve to live.” Some pointed to the comments as proof that the broader movement for Palestine is fueled by antisemitic hate.

Columbia University students Chaya Droznik and Jessica Schwalb say they want the discord to end. PHOTO: JEENAH MOON FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

James apologized in a statement posted on X early Friday, saying he spoke in heat after “an online mob targeted me because I am visibly queer and Black.”

Columbia said Friday that James has been banned from campus. He didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Chaya Droznik and Jessica Schwalb, both juniors, pushed back against their pro-Palestinian peers, entering the encampment a couple of times this past week as a way of demonstrating they have the same right to open spaces.

The women, both Jewish, said protesters had subjected them to harassment, including a moment they recorded of a man standing near the encampment with his face covered by a kaffiyeh, telling them, “I’m gonna do just like they did all the soldiers on Oct. 7…yo, you all got smoked.”

They wanted the discord to end.

“I think Palestinians should have their own state, I think they should have equal human rights, civil rights,” said Schwalb, who is studying human rights. “That’s what I want for anyone.”

Uncertain graduation

Roland List, a 20-year-old sophomore, paused on a campus walkway to watch the goings-on at the encampment earlier in the week with next month on his mind.

The camp is situated where parents and family members usually sit during the school’s graduation ceremony. Behind him, a grounds crew laid hard flooring and fake grass over an adjacent lawn in preparation for the May 15 commencement.

Near the encampment of pro-Palestinian protesters are posters spotlighting the hostages taken by Hamas on Oct. 7. PHOTO: ANDREA RENAULT/ZUMA PRESS

“I kind of like that it’s throwing off graduation preparations—I guess that’s sort of the point,” said List, who described himself as “antiwar, antikilling, death” and generally in support of the pro-Palestinian protesters. “If it bothers Minouche, then it’s serving its purpose.”

Matthew Oey, a senior, said his 90-year-old grandmother was planning to fly in from Singapore to watch him accept his diploma. He was worried that the ceremony could be canceled outright. “Honestly, I just kind of want to graduate,” Oey said.

The blue, green and orange tents packing the lawn had air mattresses and blankets strewn around them, but in other ways the small encampment looked like any other spring student gathering. Pink blossoms floated through the air from nearby trees as students tapped on laptops or checked their cellphones. One student embroidered on a small hoop as others doled out food from tables laden with chicken with pasta and pizza.

Protesters said they felt safe and supported despite the tumult outside. Some held Seder dinners, observed Shabbat, attended yoga classes and danced and sang.

“It’s honestly a beautiful showing of solidarity,” said Kannel.

Outside Columbia’s gates—which have been closed to the public for the past several days—the NYPD used metal barriers to confine protesters unaffiliated with Columbia, who have been rallying daily on Broadway.

Hostage posters in the plaza

Steps away from the encampment, Jewish students this past week sat by a low wall in the main plaza that hid them from view.

On the wall were rows of posters featuring the hostages taken by Hamas on Oct. 7.

Ariana Pinsker-Lehrer, a graduate student, said she wished the protest movement “would learn to advocate for Palestinian rights without dehumanizing, demonizing and devaluing my community’s identity and lived experience.”

She looked at the hostage posters and wondered whether the attention was in the wrong place.

“They are the center of what is happening,” she said of the hostages. “People in Gaza who are suffering are at the center of what is happening. And not Columbia, and definitely not this encampment.”

Write to Erin Ailworth at erin.ailworth@wsj.com and Joseph Pisani at joseph.pisani@wsj.com

7. Putin Didn’t Directly Order Alexei Navalny’s February Death, U.S. Spy Agencies Find

Dictators do not need to give direct orders. All he needs is someone to overhear him say, it sure would be nice if I did not have to worry about Navalny anymore. His security services will take it front there.

Putin Didn’t Directly Order Alexei Navalny’s February Death, U.S. Spy Agencies Find

The finding, which doesn’t absolve the Russian leader of ultimate responsibility, deepens the mystery surrounding the dissident’s death at an Arctic gulag

https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/alexei-navalny-death-us-intelligence-71bc95b0?mod=hp_lead_pos2

By Aruna ViswanathaFollow, Dustin Volz,FollowWarren P. StrobelFollow, Alan CullisonFollow and Thomas GroveFollow

Updated April 27, 2024 12:02 am ET

WASHINGTON—Alexei Navalny’s February death in an Arctic penal colony prompted a new wave of sanctions targeting Russia’s economy, upended delicate negotiations to exchange prisoners between Russia and the West, and left Russia’s limited opposition in disarray.

Russian President Vladimir Putin might not have planned for it to happen when it did.

U.S. intelligence agencies have determined that Putin likely didn’t order Navalny to be killed at the notoriously brutal prison camp in February, people familiar with the matter said, a finding that deepens the mystery about the circumstances of his death.

The assessment doesn’t dispute Putin’s culpability for Navalny’s death, but rather finds he probably didn’t order it at that moment. The finding is broadly accepted within the intelligence community and shared by several agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the State Department’s intelligence unit, the people said.

Alexei Navalny: 1976-2024

Coverage of Alexei Navalny's life from The Wall Street Journal

Appeared in the April 27, 2024, print edition as 'U.S. Spies Doubt Putin Ordered Navalny Death'.

8. A Surge of Wartime Brain Injuries Is Changing Lives—and Offering Lessons

A Surge of Wartime Brain Injuries Is Changing Lives—and Offering Lessons

Mental-health problems often follow traumatic brain injuries; U.S. doctors are helping their Ukrainian counterparts, and learning from them

https://www.wsj.com/health/healthcare/a-surge-of-wartime-brain-injuries-is-changing-livesand-offering-lessons-898a9745?mod=hp_lead_pos10

By Alistair MacDonaldFollow | Photographs by Joseph Sywenkyj for The Wall Street Journal

Updated April 27, 2024 12:04 am ET

DNIPRO, Ukraine—Oleksandr Biliaiev was hit by a cluster munition in the early weeks of the war in Ukraine that left him with 11 pieces of shrapnel in his head, and unable to walk, talk or feed himself.

While those physical effects are improving, the mental-health problems that often come with traumatic brain injuries still plague the former soldier.

Beyond the loss of life and limb, doctors say the brutal explosive power used by Russia and Ukraine has resulted in an epidemic of TBIs not seen since at least the Vietnam War. That’s left a growing number of civilians and soldiers experiencing psychological problems, including depression, insomnia and aggression.

U.S. medical professionals are now helping their Ukrainian counterparts deal with the physical and mental-health fallout, while also trying to learn from Ukraine’s experience.

“Ukraine is a unique situation in that it is modern warfare by organized militaries with modern weapons,” said Elkhonon Goldberg, a New York-based neuroscientist and author. “This is what makes the current Ukraine conflict potentially so valuable in terms of research.”

A photograph on Stasiuk’s phone shows Biliaiev in a hospital after he was wounded.

Goldberg is among a number of American doctors who have provided Ukraine with information and tools to diagnose and treat TBIs.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has hosted more than 100 Ukrainian doctors for trauma training sessions, where it says the psychological fallout from TBIs was a big component. Members of the American Psychiatric Association have separately visited Ukraine to train civilian and military professionals.

Modern warfare is leading to more brain injuries, American doctors said, because improvements in medical care, and armor, are keeping more people alive who might have died in past conflicts.

Aside from physical effects, mental-health problems often follow TBIs because of damage to nerve endings in parts of the brain related to behavior.

U.S. doctors want to learn from Ukraine to improve treatments back home. From 2000 to 2022—a period including engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq—about 458,894 U.S. service members were diagnosed with a TBI during training or in combat, according to an Inspector General evaluation of the Defense Department’s management of TBIs. The report, published last March, found a lack of consistency in implementing policies and procedures to determine the care needed for sufferers.

Biliaiev says his wife is his most effective carer; ‘She is better than any doctor.’

He struggles to sleep and to concentrate, and takes up to nine different medications a day, including antidepressants.

The issue gained attention last year when Robert Card, a U.S. Army reservist, killed 18 people in Maine. Card had a TBI that likely played a role in his change of behavior, according to an analysis by Boston University for Maine’s chief medical examiner. The 40-year-old had served as an instructor at a hand-grenade range, where he was exposed to thousands of blast waves over a period of years, it said.

The war in Ukraine is likely resulting in a large number of TBIs because both soldiers and civilians are being exposed to a high volume of blasts. Russia alone has fired millions of artillery and tank shells since its 2022 invasion as well as thousands of missiles.

Biliaiev is one of the victims. The former artillery man has damage to the prefrontal cortex of his brain, its so-called personality center, which has caused apathy and lack of concentration, said Sergiy Sievtsov, his clinical psychologist.

Sievtsov received training from the U.S. group Goldberg put together, which also provided him with diagnostic and cognitive rehabilitation methods that the Ukrainian said has aided Biliaiev’s recovery.

U.S.-developed apps have helped Biliaiev regain his memory, ability to focus and speech, enabling him to help his wife with some household tasks such as basic cooking and cleaning. One program built on the 34-year-old’s love of soccer by testing his memory of players and jerseys, allowing doctors to track improvements in his reaction time, attention and visual and verbal memory.

Biliaiev has received speech therapy at Garvis, a private clinic in Dnipro; he has created art as part of his treatment.

Biliaiev is on an anonymized database of TBI cases compiled by Ukrainian psychiatrists that they, Goldberg and other U.S. doctors are studying. The database allows them to compare each patient’s symptoms and response to treatment.

U.S. medical professionals say they are learning about how to deal with such injuries and associated problems when the battlefield is at home as opposed to the foreign wars America has fought in. That includes how to prepare service members for the psychological effects of seeing their own country being destroyed.

“We also can better understand just how challenging it is for a country’s healthcare system to manage the injuries of war for both veterans and civilians during an active war,” said Dr. Steven L. Lieberman, the VA’s deputy undersecretary for health.

Despite some progress, Biliaiev is often still depressed, according to Anna Stasiuk, his wife and full-time carer. “Sometimes he says things like, why didn’t the bomb kill me, why did I survive,” she said.

Biliaiev struggles to sleep and sometimes doesn’t want to get out of bed. He hears ringing noises in his ears. A gentle, good-humored man before the war, Biliaiev was aggressive toward his wife when first in hospital, she said. Biliaiev said he doesn’t remember this but is ashamed of it.

Biliaiev’s treatment at the Garvis clinic also includes physical therapy.

Biliaiev with a psychologist at Garvis.

Biliaiev has a full schedule. He attends sessions with a speech therapist, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a military psychologist, an occupational therapist and a physical therapist, and has sessions at a local gym with a trainer. He takes up to nine different medications a day, including antidepressants.

His most effective carer has been his wife, he said. Medical professionals say such support is important. In interviews the couple often caressed and kissed each other.

“She is better than any doctor,” he said.

Part of the American Psychiatric Association’s training in Ukraine has been to teach those close to an individual with a TBI, such as partners and children, to understand what has happened to that person.

“When a person shouts at them for a trivial or seemingly no reason at all, a spouse or child has difficulty understanding why this is happening” and can blame themselves, said Dr. Joshua Morganstein, the chair of the APA’s Committee on Psychiatric Dimensions of Disaster and a former psychiatrist in the U.S. Air Force.

The VA has also made psychological health first aid a key part of its training, said executive director Dr. Tamara Campbell. Here people are taught to see the signs of mental-health problems at an early stage, and when to seek help, similar to how people are taught to recognize and deal with early signs of strokes or heart attacks.

Physiatrists say the complexities of brain injuries make them hard to treat, and that the related mental-health effects and post-traumatic stress are often difficult to untangle. That adds to the challenge for Ukraine, where the World Health Organization says 9.7 million people are estimated to be at risk of developing a mental-health condition or already living with one.

Ukraine “was not prepared for the amount of injuries they were seeing,” said the VA’s Lieberman. Still, “we learn more from them than we ever thought we would,” he added.

Ievgeniia Sivorka and Isabel Coles contributed to this article.

Write to Alistair MacDonald at Alistair.Macdonald@wsj.com

Copyright ©2024 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Appeared in the April 27, 2024, print edition as 'Brutal Ukraine War Generates Brain-Injury Epidemic'.

9. America’s Military Isn’t Providing Enough Bang for the Buck

Excerpts:

Put bluntly, the Pentagon failed to anticipate this low-price commoditization of military high tech. As a result, our military today has zero cheap frontline drones; its exquisitely engineered surveillance drones are too pricey; its offensive strike missiles are too few; and its defensive missiles cost ten to 50 times more than the attacking drones and missiles.

Looking forward, artificial intelligence (AI) should assist in drone targeting, helping to restore an American edge. But the Pentagon has issued a bewildering 21-page directive to administer AI. That directive, inter alia, “recognizes privacy and civil liberties . . . and will establish transparent governance and compliance.” This misplaced wokeism will smother AI innovation. No other country demands that AI for its weapons be approved by a committee dedicated to privacy, civil liberties, and transparency. The Pentagon’s AI directive must be rescinded. It insults the integrity and intelligence of all involved in military weapons innovation and deployment.

...

Sufficient money is not there to continue to buy only gilt-edged drones and missiles. For four consecutive years, President Biden has proposed defense funding below the rate of inflation. Defense spending was 4 percent in 1990, a year before the Soviet Union disintegrated. It is now heading below 3 percent. The amount of interest on our escalating federal debt now exceeds military spending. As that interest balloons, downward pressure upon the military budget will increase, jeopardizing our national security. Our military is not responsible for this irresponsible trend, but it must adapt to its reality.

In 1938, the British military pleaded a lack of capability to respond to Hitler’s seizure of the Sudetenland. When China challenges us — and it will — we don’t want our military, like the British in 1938, saying it lacks the capability to respond. The way forward is for our active-duty and retired generals to speak out on two fronts. First, by informing Congress that our inventory of munitions, drones, and missiles is too skimpy to be confident of prevailing against China. There are precedents for being that blunt. In the late ’70s, for instance, our admirals persistently and publicly told the Congress that the Carter administration’s view of military strategy was simply wrong. Our military supported President Reagan as he went in a different direction. Today, our military leaders have not made clear that they do not support President Biden’s consistent reduction of our forces and his diffidence toward our enemies. Second, our military leaders must speak out against the procurement process that inexorably enmeshes start-ups inside a web of inefficiencies and cost bloat. The Pentagon’s procurement culture of regulations and massive, slow-moving corporations simply has not kept pace with the commercial commoditization of high tech.

NATIONAL REVIEW

America’s Military Isn’t Providing Enough Bang for the Buck

By Bing West

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/04/americas-military-isnt-providing-enough-bang-for-the-buck/

The Pentagon’s procurement culture of regulations and massive corporations has not kept pace with the commercial commoditization of high tech.

In the summer of 1944, German V1 drones attacked London, forcing the British to spend four times more on defense. Fortunately, already on the road to defeat, Germany could not exploit its advantage. Fast forward to April of 2024. As happened in 1944, the Iranian launch against Israel of 300 drones and missiles resulted in a disproportionate defense in terms of resources expended. Israeli costs were estimated at $550 million, with the American defensive screen of F-15 aircraft, destroyers, and Patriot anti-missile systems costing at least as much. That same disproportion pertains to the Red Sea, where in the past six months, the U.S. Navy has expended $1 billion, firing $2 million missiles to shoot down Iranian Shahed drones costing $20,000. You can’t prevail in a major war when the defense costs multiple times more than the offense.

How did we get into this situation? In WWII, America was the arsenal of democracy, unmatched at fast mass production. About 300,000 aircraft were built in two and a half years. Beginning in the ’80s, the American way of war shifted from mass production to high tech; precision replaced bulk. Finely engineered drones, with apposite names like Predator, tracked terrorists down crowded streets and obliterated them without harming passersby, while command centers and the White House watched in real-time.

An oligopoly of a half-dozen defense corporations was handsomely paid to produce missiles and drones as elegant and as expensive as Lamborghinis. While our troops were fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were ample funds for items with high price tags. Between 1980 and 2020, we seemed to possess a monopoly on air power, overhead surveillance, and precision strikes. No nation could match us.

That suddenly changed when Russia invaded Ukraine. Motivated by penury, garage shops in Ukraine purchased Chinese commercial parts to turn out hundreds of thousands of drones, each carrying a pound of explosives. For about $500 per unit, frontline platoons now had hand grenades with eyes that could blow up Russian soldiers a half-mile away. This was an unanticipated adaptation of America’s surveillance-and-strike comparative advantage. Russia responded, acquired a million frontline drones, and employed heavier models to strike Ukraine’s housing complexes and power plants, reprising the civilian target set of the Nazi V1s in 1944. Ukraine cobbled together longer-range drones to hit airfields and oil depots inside Russia, despite White House disapproval. On a separate front, Iran supplied its surrogates with drones to strike ships in the Red Sea. Army General Michael Kurilla, commanding U.S. Central Command, said attack drones are at the heart of a “nascent military partnership” between Iran and Russia. Most ominous of all these trends, China, controlling 70 percent of the global commercial drone market, can secretly produce millions of attack drones whenever it chooses.

Put bluntly, the Pentagon failed to anticipate this low-price commoditization of military high tech. As a result, our military today has zero cheap frontline drones; its exquisitely engineered surveillance drones are too pricey; its offensive strike missiles are too few; and its defensive missiles cost ten to 50 times more than the attacking drones and missiles.

Looking forward, artificial intelligence (AI) should assist in drone targeting, helping to restore an American edge. But the Pentagon has issued a bewildering 21-page directive to administer AI. That directive, inter alia, “recognizes privacy and civil liberties . . . and will establish transparent governance and compliance.” This misplaced wokeism will smother AI innovation. No other country demands that AI for its weapons be approved by a committee dedicated to privacy, civil liberties, and transparency. The Pentagon’s AI directive must be rescinded. It insults the integrity and intelligence of all involved in military weapons innovation and deployment.

Concerning procurement, the Pentagon touts a program called Replicator, intended to produce thousands of “small, smart, cheap” drones, with costs ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Only in the Pentagon are hundreds of thousands of dollars labeled “cheap.” Drones, now costing $30,000 for frontline grunts, should cost no more than mortar shells (about $600). Drones should be expendable items like bullets or shells; fire and forget them. However, congressional and bureaucratic regulations, accumulating like barnacles over the years, have scraped away such commonsensical efficiencies. Every contract must pass through a maze of regulations, funneling most efforts into subcontracts to the prime corporations.

Sufficient money is not there to continue to buy only gilt-edged drones and missiles. For four consecutive years, President Biden has proposed defense funding below the rate of inflation. Defense spending was 4 percent in 1990, a year before the Soviet Union disintegrated. It is now heading below 3 percent. The amount of interest on our escalating federal debt now exceeds military spending. As that interest balloons, downward pressure upon the military budget will increase, jeopardizing our national security. Our military is not responsible for this irresponsible trend, but it must adapt to its reality.

In 1938, the British military pleaded a lack of capability to respond to Hitler’s seizure of the Sudetenland. When China challenges us — and it will — we don’t want our military, like the British in 1938, saying it lacks the capability to respond. The way forward is for our active-duty and retired generals to speak out on two fronts. First, by informing Congress that our inventory of munitions, drones, and missiles is too skimpy to be confident of prevailing against China. There are precedents for being that blunt. In the late ’70s, for instance, our admirals persistently and publicly told the Congress that the Carter administration’s view of military strategy was simply wrong. Our military supported President Reagan as he went in a different direction. Today, our military leaders have not made clear that they do not support President Biden’s consistent reduction of our forces and his diffidence toward our enemies. Second, our military leaders must speak out against the procurement process that inexorably enmeshes start-ups inside a web of inefficiencies and cost bloat. The Pentagon’s procurement culture of regulations and massive, slow-moving corporations simply has not kept pace with the commercial commoditization of high tech.

Bing West is a military historian who served as a combat Marine in Vietnam and as assistant secretary of defense. In his best-selling books he chronicles our wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. @BingWest

10. Chinese state media backs US college campus protesters: 'Justified'

But would China allow such college protests in Beijing? Or at Tiananmen Square?

Chinese state media backs US college campus protesters: 'Justified'

Newsweek · by Carlo Versano · April 26, 2024

An editorial in an English-language Chinese newspaper this week slammed the Biden administration's "nonchalant response" to the demands of student protesters that have been demonstrating on college campuses over U.S. support of Israel.

"These demands are fully justified given the US' backing of Israel's "self-defense campaign" in Gaza," the editorial says.

The editorial, headlined "US people know well what's going on," appeared in the state-run China Daily on Wednesday. The piece claimed the White House was using Israel as part of a proxy campaign against Iran and Russia:

"Washington has seized on Israel's response to the [Oct. 7 attacks] as the opportunity to use Tel Aviv as its enforcer to advance its overall Middle East geopolitical agenda to reduce the influence of Iran and Russia in the region," the editorial says.

The piece goes on to tie the campus protests to the war in Ukraine, arguing U.S. involvement in the crises in that country and Gaza shows a "disconnect between the US elites and ordinary Americans." The editorial ends by blasting America's "schizoid three-in-one China policy of confrontation, competition and, supposedly, cooperation."

Pro-Palestinian students at Columbia University have a demonstration near their encampment on April 25, in New York City. Pro-Palestinian students at Columbia University have a demonstration near their encampment on April 25, in New York City. Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images

Newsweek has reached out to the White House for comment.

The editorial's support for the anti-Israel protests in the U.S. comes in spite of Beijing's policy of allowing virtually no dissent within its borders. In June, the world will mark the 35th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, in which the Chinese military violently put down student-led demonstrations, killing hundreds of civilians. China has long censored any discussion of Tiananmen Square in its own media.

The China Daily piece was published on the same day Secretary of State Antony Blinken arrived in Shanghai for a multi-day trip, one of several recent missions undertaken by top White House officials to diffuse tensions between the two superpowers. Blinken met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on Friday afternoon to discuss, among other issues, China's support of Russia's war efforts in Ukraine.

Back home, protests on some of the country's most elite universities — from Columbia to Emory to USC — continued, with demonstrators calling for their schools to divest from companies supplying arms to the Israelis as well as broader calls for the U.S. to end its military support of Israel. Some of the protests have included rhetoric widely seen as anti-Semitic calls for violence, and many Jewish students have said they've been made fearful for their lives.

The ongoing war in Gaza, which was triggered after Hamas militants killed some 1,200 Israelis and took another 250 hostage on Oct. 7, has killed more than 30,000 people, including women and children, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

Newsweek · by Carlo Versano · April 26, 2024

11.

11. Terry Glavin: Iran is the China-funded fulcrum of global terror

If accurate, what should be the focus of efforts? Counter terrorism and counter violent extremist organizations? Counter Iran? Or strategic competition with China? it is hard to compartmentalize and categorize lines of effort or "mission categories."

So many complex and complicated interrelationships.

Terry Glavin: Iran is the China-funded fulcrum of global terror

But with an election on the horizon, the U.S. isn't inclined to clamp down on the world's most genocidal, warmongering tyrants

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/terry-glavin-iran-is-the-china-funded-fulcrum-of-global-terror

Author of the article:

Terry Glavin

Published Apr 26, 2024 • Last updated 1 day ago • 6 minute read

43 Comments

This file photo taken on March 12, 2017 shows a view of an oil facility in the Khark Island, on the shore of the Gulf. PHOTO BY ATTA KENARE/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Article content

Three events, separated in time and space. All part of the same story, the same war.

Last May in Malaysian waters, near the mouth of the Malacca Straits, an explosion destroyed the rusty Gabon-registered oil tanker Pablo, tearing off its deck and prompting the ship’s 28 crewmen to jump into the sea for safety. Three went missing and were never recovered.

Article content

This past New Year’s Day, Vladimir Putin’s Russia launched a record 90 suicide drones at various targets across Ukraine. All but three of the drones were intercepted, but a 15-year-old boy was killed and seven people were wounded in the Black Sea port city of Odesa.

In a massive response to six months of persistent rocket attacks from across Israel’s northern border, the Israel Defense Forces hit 40 fortified targets in southern Lebanon on Wednesday, killing half of Hezbollah’s commanders in the area, according to Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant.

The fulcrum balancing these three events is the Quds Force of Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The money behind it all is Chinese.

It’s not called a “shadow war” for nothing.

Despite years of United Nations sanctions, on-again, off-again unilateral American restraints and the Khomeinist regime’s standing with North Korea and Myanmar on the 200-nation Financial Action Task Force blacklist, Iran performed better than any other member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) last year. Iran held its title as OPEC’s third-biggest producer, with crude oil exports up 50 per cent in 2023, reaching a five-year output high of about 1.29 million barrels per day.

China buys between 80 and 90 per cent of Iran’s sanctioned oil exports. Iranian crude is carried by a growing global fleet of creaky, often uninsured and opaquely-owned oil tankers, like the Pablo, which turned into a bomb from fumes in its hold. Its owner, ostensibly a company registered in the Marshall Islands, is nowhere to be found.

The “dark fleet” of perhaps 1,400 tankers also carries Russian crude to buyers around the world, often showing up with the Iranian oil that’s delivered to several dozen below-the-radar refineries that have sprung up along China’s Shandong coast over the past decade. Those refineries now account for about one-fifth of China’s crude oil imports. China is the world’s biggest oil importer.

While the IRGC controls about one-third of the Iranian economy, it’s China’s purchase of the IRGC’s oil that has been financing the Quds Force terror network of proxies across the Greater Middle East. Among them: Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, Hassan Nasrallah’s Hezbollah in Lebanon, entire divisions integrated into Bashar Assad’s army in Syria, the de facto Houthi government in Yemen and Kata’ib Hezbollah, which is now the leading element in a consortium of militias embedded in the Iraqi military’s chain of command.

Meanwhile, those suicide drones that Russia has been launching into Ukraine by the hundreds are Iranian Shahed and Mohajer drones. Iran has also helped Russia replenish its stockpile of artillery shells, and has assisted Russia in building its own Shahed factory in Tartarstan. In return, Tehran is looking forward to acquiring Russian Su-35 fighter jets and Mi-28 attack helicopters.Article content

According to indictments drawn up last year by the United States Justice Department in its first-ever convictions involving the illegal sale of Iranian oil to China, the Iran-China oil trade funds the IRGC’s “full range of malign activities, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, support for terrorism and both domestic and international human rights abuses.”

Last month, General Michael Kurilla, the head of the U.S. military’s Central Command (CENTCOM), told the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, “So, in effect, China is funding Iran’s subversive and malign behavior in the region.”

This is not the sort of thing the White House likes to talk about too candidly. After having revived the effusively Iran-friendly policy of the Obama years, President Joe Biden quietly reversed course around the time that his handpicked Iran envoy, Robert O’Malley, had his security clearance pulled last summer. O’Malley’s predicament remains a mystery, but it appears to be connected to a scandal involving an inside-the-beltway Iranian influence operation, the “Iran Experts Initiative,” that was exposed by a Semafor open-source intelligence investigation last year.Article content

The Iran-China oil trade is not the kind of thing Biden is likely to do much about anyway.

The $95 billion foreign aid package approved by the Senate Tuesday night includes a new and tougher package of sanctions on Iran’s oil sector, which covers transactions between Chinese financial institutions and sanctioned Iranian banks. Biden signed that new sanctions law Wednesday, but it’s anyone’s guess whether he’ll bother to make much use of it. There’s a presidential election coming in November, and the last thing the Democrats need is an oil price wobble sufficient to knock the U.S. economy off balance.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken is in China this week to plead with Xi Jinping’s regime to trim the economic lifelines China provides to Putin that allow him to prosecute his war of conquest in Ukraine. China is also the main customer for Russian oil.

With global oil prices in mind, the G7 and European Union countries are enforcing a rule allowing Russian oil to get to global markets so long as Russia sells at no more than US$60 (C$80) per barrel. But with their transponders turned off and their flags of convenience traded back and forth, sometimes several times a month, hundreds of “dark fleet” tankers are carrying Russian crude to buyers to get out from under the price cap. Nobody wants China to monkey around with that.

AdvertisemeThe Europeans are similarly reluctant to rock any boats.

More than $300 billion in Russian central bank assets were frozen by Kyiv’s nominal allies after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. That’s five times the size of the $60 billion Ukrainian aid package the U.S. Congress authorized the White House to spend on Ukraine’s defence last weekend. And it’s just sitting there.

Roughly $200 billion of those frozen Russian assets are held by a single financial services conglomerate in Belgium — the securities clearinghouse Euroclear. But Euroclear is fighting European efforts to free up those funds for Ukraine. The European Central Bank is skittish about a run on the euro, about retaliation against European companies with investments in Russia, and lawsuits.

Last month, the European Commission proposed that at least the interest generated by Euroclear’s Russian assets should go to Ukraine. But Kyiv is being made to fight even for that much, and Ukraine is desperate for hardware sufficient to defend itself against Russia’s growing armada of Iranian-supplied drones and missiles.

Article content

Some of that hardware is finally on its way. The Americans are hurrying along with IM-7 and AIM-9M missiles and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced a $500 million support package this week that will include more than 1,600 air defence missiles and long-range precision-guided missiles.

Meanwhile, last April, Ottawa announced that a $406 million National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System was already en route to Ukraine. But it wasn’t, and still hasn’t, been sent. The Department of National Defence says it’s still getting things in order.

None of this is exactly evidence of Churchillian resolve to defeat the 21st century’s most genocidal, warmongering tyrants.

There’s a U.S. presidential election coming up in November. Ukraine is fighting for its life. Hamas has sacrificed the people of Gaza on its bloody altar of jihadist “resistance.” The fulcrum balancing the barbarism is the Quds Force of Tehran’s IRGC. The money behind it all is Chinese.

National Post

Sign up for the National Post’s Channel Israel newsletter to keep up to date with what’s happening in Israel and the effects of antisemitism on life here in Canada.

12. Is China Rethinking its Invasion of Taiwan?

A lesson perhaps: Don't make predictions? (e.g., Admiral Gilday)

Excerpts:

The point is the U.S. intelligence services likely can’t agree on what the Chinese are going to do or when they would do it. Like previous administrations, the Biden administration is hoping deterrence will do the trick. In addition to arms sales and Navy patrols the administration has deployed Army Special Forces units to at least two of Taiwan’s outer island chains Penghu and Kinmen. The Kinmen Islands are less than six miles off the coast of mainland China. It’s debatable if this military assistance registers in China more as an attempt at deterrence or provocation. If Xi has made the decision to move against Taiwan, then the presence of a few hundred U.S. advisors won’t change his mind. What happens if some of the U.S. soldiers get killed or captured in the event of an invasion?

The situation boils down to a few key points: Does the Biden administration intend to intervene in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan? If it does, then have the Pentagon’s planners delivered contingency plans on how it will get it done? Prudence dictates the U.S. assumes China hasn’t rethought its invasion of Taiwan and that deterrence has failed. If the U.S. intends to act it must be prepared to go immediately or the whole thing would likely be over before it can prevent a Chinese victory.

Is China Rethinking its Invasion of Taiwan? - American Thinker

americanthinker.com

When Admiral Michael Gilday, chief of U.S. naval operations, gave an interview in 2022, he made a point of saying he believed China could invade Taiwan in 2022 or 2023. As of the last week of April 2024, China has not invaded Taiwan. Does this mean that Taiwan and the international community can breathe a collective sigh of relief? Maybe. A compelling case can be made that if China does intend to take Taiwan, then the period between now and January 2025 is as favorable a time as it is likely to have over the near term.

There is an array of measures China could employ in a runup to an invasion of Taiwan. These include disrupting the U.S. military’s ability to intervene by destroying command and control satellites as well as severing key undersea fiber optics cables. Wouldn’t these actions demand a vigorous U.S. response? This is exactly what China must avoid if it’s to take Taiwan. Experts have been wargaming various scenarios for years and the consensus seems to be that if the U.S. intervenes quickly it will thwart China’s invasion, but there would be heavy casualties on both sides.

Xi Jing Ping and his regime must be weighing the probabilities of a Biden versus a Trump victory in November because the outcome would be a significant variable in their calculus.

China’s best opportunity to invade Taiwan in the short term without meaningful U.S. intervention seems to be between now and January 2025 might be a valid conclusion. However, China likes to play the long game so its timetable might not match up at all with conventional wisdom. China’s true intentions remain opaque.

Perhaps Xi has decided that an invasion of Taiwan is too risky — at least in the short term. It is also possible that the regime has reached the conclusion that invading its island neighbor is simply a bridge too far — for now. “Now” can be defined in different ways. In the U.S. we’re largely thinking in terms of the next eight months because of the November election. Xi might not be in power for life, but he has years to work with instead of months.

Even if Xi and his military advisers are thinking in terms of years instead of months it feels like the longer they wait the less likely it is an invasion will happen. The window of opportunity may be closing because the U.S. commitment to its Pacific Pivot will likely only grow stronger in the next few years. Also, Americans might be starting to wake up to the serious threat posed by China. For example, bipartisan legislation aimed at hamstringing the Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok has slowly been working its way through Congress.

It is an open question whether the Biden administration is prepared to come to Taiwan’s defense if China attacks. Like his predecessors, President Biden has maintained a state of strategic ambiguity regarding his administration’s intentions. Even a short, limited war between China and the United States in and around the Taiwan Strait would be a nasty, brutal event with the potential for several thousand casualties on both sides. Within this relatively confined waterway there would be at the very least dozens of ships, hundreds of fighter planes and thousands of missiles of all types grinding up this little patch of the Pacific.

A Chinese invasion of Taiwan would almost certainly begin with a combination of cyberattacks, psychological and information operations, disguised troop landings such as civilian car transports carrying Marines and special operations forces, conventional amphibious landings, airborne/air assault operations on key targets such as airports. We would also expect sabotage of critical infrastructure such as bridges, communication nodes, and supply depots by Chinese agents.

The scenario described is no small undertaking and, like any military operation, would be fraught with many difficulties. Xi needs a quick victory so he can present the world with a fait accompli that could not be reversed without an ugly and protracted war that the U.S. certainly does not want.

While no one knows exactly what a Trump administration would do in the event of a Chinese invasion, we do know that Trump regards China as a serious threat to the U.S. This is contrasted with the Biden administration’s weakness on China in general and specifically the Biden family’s alleged corrupt dealings with Chinese businessmen and government officials. What the rest of 2024 holds for American politics is uncertain and this is why the Chinese have a decision to make. Do they go now with the perceived low possibility of U.S. intervention, or do they wait a year or more and risk a greater chance of intervention with a Trump administration? Do the Chinese really see it this way? Perhaps they fear a flailing Biden administration would react aggressively to an attack on Taiwan in hopes of bolstering its standing in the short term.

It’s possible that Communist China has already calculated, despite its bellicose rhetoric and aggressive actions in the Taiwan Strait, that the cost of an invasion of its island neighbor is not worth the benefits of “reunification.” Perhaps the regime believes it can sufficiently pressure and isolate Taiwan to the point that a shooting war can be avoided. For example, Taiwan could be weakened by embargoes or blockades to the point that the embattled nation eventually chooses to reunify with the mainland to avoid further damage.

The point is the U.S. intelligence services likely can’t agree on what the Chinese are going to do or when they would do it. Like previous administrations, the Biden administration is hoping deterrence will do the trick. In addition to arms sales and Navy patrols the administration has deployed Army Special Forces units to at least two of Taiwan’s outer island chains Penghu and Kinmen. The Kinmen Islands are less than six miles off the coast of mainland China. It’s debatable if this military assistance registers in China more as an attempt at deterrence or provocation. If Xi has made the decision to move against Taiwan, then the presence of a few hundred U.S. advisors won’t change his mind. What happens if some of the U.S. soldiers get killed or captured in the event of an invasion?

The situation boils down to a few key points: Does the Biden administration intend to intervene in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan? If it does, then have the Pentagon’s planners delivered contingency plans on how it will get it done? Prudence dictates the U.S. assumes China hasn’t rethought its invasion of Taiwan and that deterrence has failed. If the U.S. intends to act it must be prepared to go immediately or the whole thing would likely be over before it can prevent a Chinese victory.

Mike is the author of the book A Short History of the Long War: The Global Struggle Against Militant Islamism. He can be reached at mcpthx1138@aol.com

Image: National Archives

americanthinker.com

13. Why China risks US sanctions arming Russia: survival

Interesting thesis. If true then we should be able to exploit this in a number of ways, from political warfare to our defense posture.

Why China risks US sanctions arming Russia: survival - Asia Times

If Russia falls, Beijing realizes, the West could consolidate its resources to deal with the ‘Chinese threat’

asiatimes.com · by Chee Meng Tan · April 26, 2024

US secretary of state Antony Blinken fired a warning salvo toward China during a G7 foreign ministers’ meeting on the Italian island of Capri on April 20. The United States’ top diplomat described China as a “prime contributor” of weapons-related technology to Russia, saying Beijing was fueling the “biggest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War.”

Blinken gave further details when he landed in Beijing this week: While China has complied with US requests not to sell arms to Russia during the Ukraine war, the list of items it sells that could have military use is extensive. They include semiconductors, drones, helmets, vests, machine tools and radios.

Apparently, the Chinese resupply of the Russian industrial complex also undermines Ukrainian security. And unfortunately for China, Chinese support of the Kremlin’s war effort is likely to earn Chinese firms sanctions from the US government.

Why is Beijing aiding Moscow so ardently even when imminent US sanctions are likely to aggravate its problems with an already weak economy? One word: survival.

China’s need for allies

China realizes that if it wishes to break the US monopoly on power, it can’t go about it alone. Aside from requiring a strong Russia to help reform the US-dominated international system, China needs Russia for its long-term survival.

There is a famous Chinese idiom: “Once the lips are gone, the teeth will feel the cold.” (The meaning is that when two things are interdependent, the fall of one will affect the other.) Right now, the West is dealing with the Russian rogue state. But if Russia falls, Beijing realizes, the West could consolidate its resources to deal with the “Chinese threat.” Therefore, Beijing must aid Moscow.

At present, presidents Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin enjoy a close friendship. The closeness of both regimes became more apparent through a joint statement released on February 4, 2022, which declared that there were “no limits” to Sino-Russo friendship and no “forbidden” areas of cooperation.

But let’s get one fact straight: China-Russia relations have not always been rosy. Both the Soviet Union and China experienced massive bouts of tension over the communist doctrine and had disputes over border issues.

Relations became so tense that both communist regimes broke off their formal alliance in 1961, and Chinese and Russian soldiers later clashed in northeast China and the Xinjiang region.

Not surprisingly, there’s lingering distrust on both the Chinese and Russian sides, and Chinese experts fear that Russia may prioritize its own interests over bilateral ties.

For instance, if a renewed Trump presidency does occur, the US may express less support for Ukraine and improve ties with Russia. In such a scenario, the Kremlin may prioritize better ties with the West and may withhold support for China’s struggle against the US.

Incidentally, China’s distrust of Russia and existential concerns may have fueled a recent high-level visit from Beijing to Pyongyang, North Korea. On April 13 2024, China’s top legislator and third-most-senior Chinese communist leader, Zhao Leji, paid an official visit to Pyongyang.

During the meeting with North Korean strongman Kim Jung Un, Zhao claimed that the meeting was meant to reaffirm good relations and deepen bilateral cooperation between the two nations.

So, was Zhao simply making a courtesy call?

The timing of the meeting could not be more curious. It occurred amid surging North Korea-Russia relations. Reports indicate that Russia is purchasing large quantities of munitions from North Korea to fuel the Kremlin’s war effort against Ukraine. This would have brought Moscow and Pyongyang closer together.

The reality is that Pyongyang has traditionally exploited Russian and Chinese rivalry to achieve its goals. The strategy of pitting the Chinese against the Russians comes right off a chapter in the realpolitik playbook.

But the truth is that Beijing cannot afford to lose its influence on North Korea to anyone else, be it American or Russian. This is because China’s security risk hinges on North Korea’s dependence on China.

North Korean threats

That fear is not unfounded. North Korea has a tradition of defying China. Defiance came in the form of the execution of Kim Jung Un’s pro-Chinese uncle, the assassination of Kim Jong Nam in Malaysia or North Korea’s high-profile weapons tests.

More importantly, Beijing fears that if North Korea becomes a fully-fledged nuclear power, it might even detonate nuclear weapons on Chinese soil.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

This all sounds strange, since both regimes signed a treaty of mutual defense and cooperation in 1961 that was renewed in 2021. But beneath the veneer of friendship lies deep rooted resentment that has been festering for centuries.

Korea used to be a tributary state to imperial China and played second fiddle to the Chinese for centuries. So when the Chinese interfered with the course of the Korean War, and even normalized ties with North’s primary foe, such actions not only angered North Korea, but also opened up historical wounds of being treated as China’s vassal.

If Beijing wishes to maintain a major foothold in North Korea it needs to contain non-Chinese influence surrounding Pyongyang at all costs. It does so with a two-pronged approach.

First, China sends Zhao to cajole Kim Jung Un and assure the North Korean strongman that Beijing has his back. Second, China sends weapons and technology to Russia so that the Kremlin’s arms dependence on Pyongyang diminishes.

At first glance, Beijing’s supply of arms and technology to the Kremlin may seem unrelated to Zhao’s visit to Pyongyang. But that simply isn’t true.

Chee Meng Tan is an assistant professor of business economics at the University of Nottingham.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

asiatimes.com · by Chee Meng Tan · April 26, 2024

14. TikTok ban won't solve foreign influence, data privacy problems

So what is the answer?

Is it only this?

From the 2017 National Security Strategy on page 14:

"A democracy is only as resilient as its people. An informed and engaged citizenry is the fundamental requirement for a free and resilient nation. For generations, our society has protected free press, free speech, and free thought. Today, actors such as Russia are using information tools in an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of democracies. Adversaries target media, political processes, financial networks, and personal data. The American public and private sectors must recognize this and work together to defend our way of life. No external threat can be allowed to shake our shared commitment to our values, undermine our system of government, or divide our Nation."

Access NSS HERE

TikTok ban won't solve foreign influence, data privacy problems - Asia Times

China-owned TikTok is being targeted but US-based Facebook, Instagram, X and YouTube are just as prone to foreign government exploitation

asiatimes.com · by Sarah Florini · April 26, 2024

When President Joe Biden signed a US$95 billion foreign aid bill into law on April 24, 2024, it started the clock on a nine-month window for TikTok’s China-based parent company, ByteDance, to sell the app. The president can extend the deadline by three months, and TikTok has indicated that it plans to challenge the law in court.

If the law stands and the company fails to sell the app, TikTok will be blocked from any US app store or web-hosting service. This would affect TikTok’s over 170 million US users, including 62% of Americans ages 18 to 29.

It would also alter the news and information landscape. Unlike its competitors, TikTok has been annually increasing its proportion of users who regularly seek news on the platform. Nearly one-third of Americans under 30 use TikTok as a news source.

The main arguments against TikTok under ByteDance’s ownership include that it enables foreign influence of US public opinion, promotes harmful behaviors among minors, and undermines Americans’ data privacy.

However, none of these concerns is new or unique to TikTok among social media platforms.

Foreign influence and propaganda

Lawmakers have expressed concern that the Chinese government could influence US public opinion, and thereby politics, by exerting control over what content TikTok users see.

Representative Mike Gallagher, a Republican from Wisconsin who co-sponsored the House bill on TikTok, warned that allowing TikTok to establish itself as the dominant news platform in America would mean placing control of information in the hands of ByteDance and, by extension, the Chinese Communist Party.

Senator Dan Sullivan, a Republican from Alaska, referred to TikTok’s role in challenging ConocoPhillips’ Willow oil drilling project in his state as a possible Chinese influence operation meant to undermine US energy dominance.

But US-based social media platforms have been and continue to be exploited by a range of foreign governments, including China, and their proxies who use them to attempt to influence US public opinion.

Beginning with its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election, Russian intelligence for nearly a decade has used platforms like Facebook and X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, to these ends.

These influence campaigns create and maintain coordinated cross-platform networks. Researchers assert that Facebook, Instagram, X and YouTube refuse to provide access to the data that would be needed to track or prevent such activities.

Hazardous to minors

Some lawmakers also caution that TikTok feeds children content linked to dangerous behaviors such as eating disorders and self-harm. However, all social media may pose these threats.

For example, leaked internal documents from a whistleblower revealed that Meta has known since 2019 that its platforms are likely hurting US minors’ mental health and well-being. The company’s internal research found that the platform contributed to body image issues and eating disorders among teen girls and exposed teens to other harmful behaviors, such as bullying, drug abuse and self-harm.

Currently, 41 US states and the District of Columbia have filed lawsuits against Meta for the damage allegedly done to minors. Whistleblower Frances Haugen spoke before the US Senate in 2021 about the dangers posed by Meta’s platforms.

At the same time, there has been little outcry about how time spent on social media increases young people’s exposure to hate-based content or about how platforms such as YouTube funnel users into pipelines for radicalization.

Data security and privacy

Proponents of the TikTok sale-or-ban law also claim that the app constitutes an unacceptable threat to data privacy. Gallagher asserted that the Chinese government could use TikTok for espionage to “find Americans, exfiltrate data and track the location of journalists.”

Yet, there is little reason to believe Americans’ data is safer with US-based companies. Meta has had a wide range of data privacy scandals. Last year, leaked documents showed that even Meta engineers themselves have minimal understanding or control over how people’s data is used.

Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat from Illinois who co-sponsored the House bill on TikTok, invoked a case involving the dating app Grindr as a successful precedent for forcing ByteDance to divest TikTok. In 2020, the Chinese company that owned Grindr sold the app to a U.S. company following security concerns similar to those surrounding TikTok.

But, just last year, a fringe Catholic group in Denver purchased location and usage data from Grindr and other dating apps to track LGBTQ+ priests.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

Additionally, the Chinese government hardly needs control of TikTok to access the troves of data that apps, devices and smart appliances collect from Americans. A large proportion of these data can be purchased, completely legally, from commercial data brokers, regardless of who’s the owner.

Data freely available for purchase on the open market have been shown to include the location data for people visiting Planned Parenthood and mobile device location pings that can be deanonymized to reveal the whereabouts of the president of the United States.

The need for regulation

Concerns about TikTok are not unfounded, but they are also not unique. Each threat posed by TikTok has also been posed by US-based social media for over a decade. I believe that lawmakers should take action to address harms caused by US companies seeking profit as well as by foreign companies perpetrating espionage.

Protecting Americans cannot be accomplished by banning a single app. To truly protect their constituents, lawmakers would need to enact broad, far-reaching regulation.

Sarah Florini is an associate professor of film and media studies at Arizona State University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

asiatimes.com · by Sarah Florini · April 26, 2024

15. US is no longer the arsenal of democracy

US is no longer the arsenal of democracy - Asia Times

It’s hard to imagine a US effort sufficient to rebuild the defense industrial base and catch up with China

asiatimes.com · by Urban C. Lehner · April 24, 2024

For the first several decades after World War II, the United States championed free trade. Exporting sectors like agriculture benefited from it. Many economists still support it.

Much of the rest of the country has soured on it.

The economic logic behind free trade is that goods should be produced where they can be produced most cheaply. Consumers are better off. So are investors; constructing factories in uncompetitive places misallocates capital.

But some factory workers lose as production is moved offshore to lower cost venues. Heeding the public’s outcry over runaway jobs, Congressmen no longer support free-trade agreements. Presidents push tariff increases and industrial policy instead.

National-security policymakers have a different concern with free trade, one spurred by the possibility of war over Taiwan. No one wants that to happen, but if it did American industry would be hard pressed to keep our military supplied.

When the US won World War II, it was the world’s manufacturing powerhouse “the arsenal of democracy.” Consider these statistics, taken from naval historian Craig Symonds’s Teaching Company course “World War II: The Pacific Theatre.”

From 1939 to 1945, the Allies (the United Kingdom, China, the Soviet Union and especially the US) built:

4.4 million tanks, trucks and armored vehicles while the enemy Axis powers – Japan, Germany and Italy – built only 670,000;
637,000 aircraft to the Axis countries’ 229,000; and
55,000 ships, the lion’s share in the US, to the Axis powers’ 1,700.

The US won the war, Symonds argues, “because the United States was able to produce the tools of war, and especially the warships and the transport ships, not only faster than the Japanese but in numbers that were previously unimaginable.”

What haunts policymakers is the realization that the US no longer has that kind of industrial edge. Today China is the world’s manufacturing powerhouse. The US isn’t as far behind China as Japan was behind the US in the 1940s, but it’s no longer the arsenal of democracy.

Today the US has the world’s second largest manufacturing economy and its $2.5 trillion in annual manufacturing output exceeds the entire economies of all but seven countries. But it’s a distant second and its capacity to build enough of the most important tools of war is open to question.

Old-fashioned metal bending is among America’s hollowed-out sectors. Measured by output dollar value, the three largest US manufacturing industries are chemicals; computer and electronic products; and food, beverage and tobacco products.

In shipbuilding, the US is a nonentity. According to the US Naval Institute, China has nearly 47% of the global market, South Korea is second with 29% and Japan is third with 17%. The U.S. has less than 1%.

It takes the US more than five years to build an aircraft carrier. Between 1943 and 1945, the US built 24 Essex class carriers, Symonds said. Granted, they were less sophisticated than today’s flattops. But the difference in volume is still striking.

A Chinese attempt to take Taiwan by force would test the US industrial base severely. War games conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a non-profit think tank, suggest the US would “likely run out of some munitions – such as long-range, precision-guided munitions – in less than one week in a Taiwan Strait conflict.”

CSIS stated that this would “make it extremely difficult for the United States to sustain a protracted conflict.” The think tank added that the US defense industrial base “lacks adequate surge capacity for a major war.”

Meanwhile, China is said to be acquiring weapons five to six times faster than the US. In a conflict over Taiwan, would its vast manufacturing infrastructure enable it to outproduce the US the way the US outproduced Japan and Germany in World War II?

Peacetime complacency partly explains this role reversal. The US has always slimmed down its military when wars have ended. In the wake of the Cold War three decades ago, the Pentagon forced the defense industry to consolidate, as well.

But free trade arguably also has played a role. Once China was admitted to the World Trade Organization, free-trade logic kicked in. China’s endless supply of disciplined, low-wage workers and generous government subsidies made it the world’s preferred factory floor. Many manufacturers from other countries moved production there. Others closed down, unable to compete.

The shrunken US defense industry did neither, but the broader erosion of U.S. manufacturing put weapons makers at a disadvantage. Just for starters, China produces more than 10 times as much steel as the U.S.

Given enough time and budgetary support, the defense industrial base can be shored up. The foreign-aid bill the House just passed includes money to replenish US munitions supplies.

Allies can help. Japan recently abandoned a decades-old policy of not exporting armaments and promised to help the US replenish its supply of Patriot missiles.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

Restoring the broader manufacturing base, though, will be difficult. Tariffs and industrial policy may help stop the erosion and keep high-tech industries producing domestically but they’re unlikely to give birth to a broad manufacturing renaissance.

The US economy has made the transition to services and high technology. It’s hard to imagine a US governmental effort large enough, sustained enough and well-targeted enough to reverse that.

But a Chinese governmental effort? That’s imaginable. Beijing’s answer to its economic problems has been to double down on its support for manufacturing and its reliance on exports. At the very least, then, you can expect the US to take further steps down the road to protectionism in self-defense.

Former longtime Wall Street Journal Asia correspondent and editor Urban Lehner is editor emeritus of DTN/The Progressive Farmer.

This article, originally published on April 22 by the latter news organization and now republished by Asia Times with permission, is © Copyright 2024 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved. Follow Urban Lehner on X @urbanize

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

asiatimes.com · by Urban C. Lehner · April 24, 2024

16. Alaska an important Special Operations training ground, as Arctic sees interest from Russia and China

Alaska an important Special Operations training ground, as Arctic sees interest from Russia and China

ktoo.org · by Alaska Public Media · April 25, 2024

Navy SEALs stationed on the East Coast jump from an MC-130J Commando II near Kodiak, Alaska, Sunday, February 25, 2024. (Salwan Georges/The Washington Post)

The United States military has become more focused on training in Alaska, as Russia and China have looked to expand into the resource-rich and increasingly ice-free Arctic.

And that goes not just for conventional forces, but also for Special Operations forces like Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets. Both were training in Alaska this past winter by parachuting into frigid water off Kodiak or skiing through the woods around Fairbanks, among other exercises.

That was the subject of a story this month by the Washington Post, which was given rare access to Special Operations training in Alaska.

Washington Post reporter Alex Horton wrote the story and says the unforgiving environment is unique for such training.

Listen:

Alex Horton: In the Arctic, just surviving is the important part. You know, the extreme cold can have such an impact on you and your equipment that the first mission, really, is just to stay alive. And then the second mission is to conduct whatever you’re doing, right, whether it’s a patrol, an attack or a recovery operation. That survivability piece is, like, amped up more than any other environment on Earth.

Let’s just say, for example, you’re a Green Beret, and you’ve been shot. And you’re probably wearing big pants, coats, you know, the big thick boots. And the first thing that happens when you are wounded and a medic comes to help you is they open up your coat, they open up your pants, and all that heat just goes rushing out. And if you’re bleeding, that’s another way for your body to lose warmth. And even an IV bag that has blood in it, if they’re giving you a transfusion, the act of them giving you a transfusion is going to lower your body temperature even more. So the threat of hypothermia, the threat of water making you hypothermic, it’s an ever-present looming danger everywhere you operate in the Arctic.

Casey Grove: We’re talking about, you know, the importance of this training and what the military says about that and the whole, you know, sort of the geopolitical situation that we find ourselves, in this day and age. What did you hear from, you know, the military about that, about why it would be important for the special operations folks to be training in Alaska?

Alex Horton: You know, it’s important for Special Operations forces to be ready in any kind of environment and terrain where conflict can happen. And as climate change makes the ice recede, and there’s ships and all kinds of operations. You know, there’s energy exploration, there’s cruise ships, you know, they’re up in the Arctic, and that invites what the Pentagon calls “competition” (from) Russia and China, because there are resources to exploit, there are shipping routes to claim. You know, the sort of northern part of Russia, the way to get that energy to markets in Asia is going through the Bering Sea, around Alaska, to, you know, where Japan and Korea are. So it’s an important route for them. And it’s important route for China as well.

Why it’s important for Special Operations, specifically, too, is, you know, for the last 20 years, the command has really been focused on what they call “direct action” in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s going on raids, doing high-profile stuff like the SEAL raid to kill Osama bin Laden. That’s what they’ve been doing, and that’s what they’ve been focused on. So now, once the Pentagon has started looking to Russia and China as more of a strategic threat and as strategic competitors, they have to find a role for Special Operations. That means they have to change. They have to focus on places like the Arctic, to operate in a climate where they didn’t have to work in, you know, 5, 10, 15 years ago.

Casey Grove: Yeah, we’ve talked kind of about like, shipping lanes opening up and exploration and that kind of thing. But every once in a while, some Russian parliamentarian, you know, says, “We should take back Alaska,” and sort of puts this idea in Alaskans’ heads that maybe somebody’s going to invade mainland Alaska. From, you know, the individual Special Operations members to the commanders, did anybody that you talked to, like, even allude to something like that?

Alex Horton: It was interesting, because, you know, the folks who were helping coordinate the trip, Northern Command, which is the the military authority that oversees, you know, North America and also NORAD, like the missile command and defense of the country, their primary mission is homeland defense. When I asked them about how they view Alaska, it’s like, you know, as you said, it has a lot of bases, has a lot of training ranges. And I asked them, like, “Do you view Alaska as, not just a place to go train, but a place to go fight? You know, maybe you will be in the same places in the future, but shooting real rounds at real enemies?” They stopped short of saying that.

And, you know, they made the point that a lot of the training includes, you know, side-by-side with NATO partners. There were Norwegians in Alaska. There were the Danish soldiers training. So a lot of it is relevant to Northern Europe, you know, all those Arctic nations, because they have similar challenges up there that you find in Alaska. There’s glaciers, there’s extreme weather, and they’re right next to Russia, and Russia has substantial Arctic infrastructure. And it’s growing, too. They’re starting to turn the lights back on in some of those Soviet, Cold War-era bases. So yeah, I think they think of this in kind of two slices. One, this kind of exercise helps you, the U.S., get strong and competent in the Arctic, in extreme cold-weather training that they can apply if something were to happen in Europe. But I think what’s left unsaid is, this could also happen in the theoretical scenario of Russia or China invading through what the military calls the “Northern Approach,” which is through Alaska.

Casey Grove: Was it difficult to get access to this, to these training exercises? Or was the Pentagon, you know, the military, like, “Please, come do a story about this?”

Alex Horton: I gotta say, it was an unusual amount of access for Special Operations Command. You know, this is something that we were invited to, and it was very limited media availability, just because of the infrastructure, you know, like seats on aircraft and cold weather equipment to go around. Like, it was just logistically difficult to have any media there. So, you know, the Special Operations Command North facilitated this trip, and, you know, all the things we saw.

And yeah, it was fairly remarkable. You know, I was just a regular Army soldier in an infantry unit, and I served on a combat deployment in Iraq. And some of the teams and the aircraft that I saw, I’d only read about, I’ve never even seen in person, like the Special Operations variant of the Chinook (helicopter) is something I saw in movies, you know, so it was kind of cool to see that stuff. The soldiers are being flown around by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, which is the unit that flew SEAL Team Six on the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. So they’re a very storied unit. And they were just, you know, the nicest, most professional folks you could meet. So, it was unusual, I would say, for reporters to meet with folks in that unit, and to be in those aircraft and to witness some of the training. It was a rare opportunity.

ktoo.org · by Alaska Public Media · April 25, 2024

17. Philippines' counter-terrorism strategy still stalled after 7 years since the 'ISIS siege' on Marawi

Excerpts:

"Seven years later violence in Marawi is flaring up again from the very same groups thought extinguished at great cost. We show how, despite changes, the opportunity to build peace in the rubble of Marawi has been squandered.

"While changes in strategy, resource allocation, and legal frameworks have been initiated, their tangible outcomes on the ground remain to be seen in terms of a reduction in terrorist violence across the country's complex landscape.

"As such, the journey towards effective counterterrorism in the Philippines post-Marawi is one that demands an as yet unseen perseverance and adaptability, and a steadfast commitment to rebuilding the city and lives destroyed."

Bajo added, "The release of our paper comes at a critical juncture for the Philippines, as it grapples with ongoing security challenges and seeks to chart a course for sustainable peace and stability. It is hoped that the findings and recommendations outlined in the paper will inform policy discussions and contribute to the development of more effective counter-terrorism strategies."

Philippines' counter-terrorism strategy still stalled after 7 years since the 'ISIS siege' on Marawi

phys.org · by University of Portsmouth

Credit: Pixabay/CC0 Public Domain

Following the 2017 siege of Marawi, the Philippines' counter-terrorism efforts have faced an increasingly complex and unpredictable landscape. While authorities have claimed victory, one which garnered global media attention during the peak of ISIS reign in Syria and Iraq, the aftermath of Marawi highlights the urgent need for a comprehensive reassessment of the country's counter-terrorism strategy.

A new study, led by experts in security and terrorism studies at the University of Portsmouth, provides a thorough examination of the terrorist environment following the armed conflict between Philippine forces and Islamist militants who seized the southern city of Marawi for five months, in which over a thousand people died and a million were displaced.

The research is published in the Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism.

The study evaluated the effectiveness of strategies implemented by Philippine security forces since the battle and found that while steps have been taken in the right direction, the opportunity to fundamentally reset counter-terrorism has been squandered.

The analysis reveals that, seven years after Marawi, the focus on combating the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) in Sulu has overshadowed persistent security threats posed by long-standing insurgent groups such as the MNLF, MILF, and the NPA. The proliferation of these other rebel groups and the resurgence of terrorism pose significant challenges that demand commitment and capability to a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to peace in the region.

Other key findings from the paper include the politicization of US security assistance to the Philippines in wake of confrontation with China in the South China Sea dispute. Similarly, the concerning ongoing struggles with anti-corruption and human rights issues; the ineffectiveness of the National Action Plan for Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism (NAP-P/CVE); and an in-prepared judicial system that has struggled to implement The Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020.

Study co-author, Ann Bajo from the University of Portsmouth and former National Defence Analyst from the Philippines, said, "Our findings underscore the importance of addressing systemic issues such as governance and community neglect in Marawi. Failure to address these issues risks undermining the progress made in counter-terrorism efforts and perpetuating instability in the region.

"Philippine security forces must be receptive to developing softer skills and collaborating with civil society and international partners to gauge their impact on communities and strike a balance in their approach. This necessitates a commitment to ongoing training and reforms, particularly in community engagement and welfare operations.

"Moreover, addressing generational grievances requires sustained effort and a long-term perspective, with a focus on cultivating trust and respect within communities being paramount."

The authors argue that heavy handed military attention centered around local militants branding themselves "ISIS" must be measured by an approach targeting the symptoms of extremism, risks exacerbating grievances and further alienating communities, rather than addressing the underlying causes of violence.

Co-author Dr. Tom Smith, Associate Professor in International Relations at the University of Portsmouth and Academic Director of the Royal Air Force College, said, "The international media attention Marawi received at a time during the height of the global campaign against ISIS in Syria and Iraq has diminished. Yet the city is still in ruins, along with the lives of hundreds of thousands who have no homes to return to.

"Seven years later violence in Marawi is flaring up again from the very same groups thought extinguished at great cost. We show how, despite changes, the opportunity to build peace in the rubble of Marawi has been squandered.

"While changes in strategy, resource allocation, and legal frameworks have been initiated, their tangible outcomes on the ground remain to be seen in terms of a reduction in terrorist violence across the country's complex landscape.

"As such, the journey towards effective counterterrorism in the Philippines post-Marawi is one that demands an as yet unseen perseverance and adaptability, and a steadfast commitment to rebuilding the city and lives destroyed."

Bajo added, "The release of our paper comes at a critical juncture for the Philippines, as it grapples with ongoing security challenges and seeks to chart a course for sustainable peace and stability. It is hoped that the findings and recommendations outlined in the paper will inform policy discussions and contribute to the development of more effective counter-terrorism strategies."

More information: Tom Smith et al, The false dawns over Marawi: examining the post-Marawi counterterrorism strategy in the Philippines, Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism (2024). DOI: 10.1080/18335330.2024.2346472

Provided by University of Portsmouth

Citation: Philippines' counter-terrorism strategy still stalled after 7 years since the 'ISIS siege' on Marawi (2024, April 25) retrieved 27 April 2024 from https://phys.org/news/2024-04-philippines-counter-terrorism-strategy-stalled.html

This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

phys.org · by University of Portsmouth

18. Somalia detains U.S.-trained commandos over theft of rations

Somalia detains U.S.-trained commandos over theft of rations

The Danab unit has been a key pillar of U.S.-backed efforts to combat the Al Qaeda-linked militant group Al Shabaab.

NBC News · by Reuters

Somalia’s government said it had suspended and detained several members of an elite, U.S.-trained commando unit for stealing rations donated by the United States, adding that it was taking over responsibility for provisioning the force.

The Danab unit has been a key pillar of U.S.-backed efforts to combat the Al Qaeda-linked militant group Al Shabaab. The United States agreed in February to spend more than $100 million to build up to five military bases for Danab.

Somalia’s defence ministry said in a statement late on Thursday that it had notified international partners of the theft and would share the outcome of its investigation.

A U.S. official said in a statement to Reuters that Washington takes seriously all accusations of corruption.

“We look forward to engaging with the Danab on creating the necessary safeguards and accountability measures to prevent future incidents that could affect future assistance,” the official said, without directly addressing whether any U.S. support had already been suspended.

The United States agreed in 2017 to help train and equip the 3,000-strong Danab to act as a quick reaction strike force against al Shabaab. The group has been waging an insurgency against the central government since 2006.

Danab has been heavily involved in a military offensive by the Somali military and allied clan militias since 2022 that initially succeeded in wresting swathes of territory from Al Shabaab in central Somalia.

However, the campaign has lost momentum, with the government-allied forces struggling to hold rural areas and al Shabaab continuing to stage large-scale attacks, including in the capital Mogadishu.

Washington suspended some defence assistance to Somalia in 2017 after the military was unable to account for food and fuel.

The United States also conducts frequent drone strikes targeting al Shabaab militants.

Reuters

NBC News · by Reuters

19. Blinken tells CNN the US has seen evidence of China attempting to influence upcoming US elections

Substitute China for Russia in the 2017 NSS.

From the 2017 National Security Strategy on page 14:

Access NSS HERE

Blinken tells CNN the US has seen evidence of China attempting to influence upcoming US elections | CNN Politics

amp.cnn.com · by Simone McCarthy · April 26, 2024

Beijing CNN —

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US has seen evidence of Chinese attempts to “influence and arguably interfere” with the upcoming US elections, despite an earlier commitment from leader Xi Jinping not to do so.

Blinken made the comments to CNN’s Kylie Atwood in an interview Friday at the close of a three-day to trip to China, where the top American diplomat spent hours meeting with top Chinese officials including Xi, as the two countries navigated a raft of contentious issues from US tech controls to Beijing’s support for Moscow.

Blinken said he repeated a message President Joe Biden gave to Xi during their summit in San Francisco last November not to interfere in the 2024 US presidential elections. Then, Xi had pledged that that China would not do so, according to CNN reporting.

“We have seen, generally speaking, evidence of attempts to influence and arguably interfere, and we want to make sure that that’s cut off as quickly as possible,” Blinken said when asked whether China was violating Xi’s commitment to Biden so far.

“Any interference by China in our election is something that we’re looking very carefully at and is totally unacceptable to us, so I wanted to make sure that they heard that message again,” Blinken said, adding there was concern about China and other countries playing on existing social divisions in the US in influence campaigns.

Beijing has repeatedly said it does not interfere in US elections, based on its principle of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs. China or actors that are believed to be affiliated with Beijing have been accused of political interference in other countries, such as Canada.

Blinken’s trip — his second to the country in less than a year — is the latest in a string of high-level engagements that culminated in the Biden-Xi summit late last year and that have seen the two countries start to expand what had been severely diminished bilateral communications.

“We are (now) focused on areas where we’re working to cooperate, but also we’re being very forthright about our differences and that’s important if we’re going to avoid the competition we’re in turning into conflict,” Blinken told CNN.

Warning on support for Russia

Blinken also said he used his meeting to raise the Biden administration’s concerns about China’s support for Russia’s defense industrial base – and to stress that further action would be taken by the US on top of existing sanctions on more than 100 Chinese entities and individuals if such support continues.

The US believes that Chinese support is enabling Russia to ramp up production of tanks, munitions and armored vehicles – and to continue its onslaught on Ukraine.

Alexander Avilov/Moscow News Agency/Reuters

A Russian Yars intercontinental ballistic missile system drives during a military parade on Victory Day, which marks the 78th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in World War Two, in Red Square in central Moscow, Russia May 9, 2023.

China is giving Russia significant support to expand weapons manufacturing as Ukraine war continues, US officials say

“What we said to China is this – we’re going to take actions we already have, and if it doesn’t stop, we’re going to have to take more action, and you can anticipate as well, that other countries will (too),” Blinken said, adding that he raised the issue to both Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Xi. “We’re looking to them to act, and … if they don’t, we will.”

He also said that Chinese counterparts had not acknowledged the role of these goods in the war in Ukraine. Instead, they characterized this as trade with Russia and said Moscow’s success didn’t depend on China, Blinken added.

Beijing has previously slammed the US as making “groundless accusations” over “normal trade and economic exchanges” between China and Russia.

China has long contended that it maintains neutrality in the Ukraine war and has continued to present itself as a potential peace broker in the conflict, even as it has strengthened its economic, strategic and diplomatic ties with Russia since the war began.

Defending the right to protest

Blinken also defended the American right to protest, when asked about pro-Palestinian protests that have erupted across college campuses in the US in recent days amid mounting concern about the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza.

Responding to a question referencing reports of use of antisemitic rhetoric at some of these gatherings, Blinken said there had been instances where there have been clear expressions of antisemitism, but “protests in and of themselves are not antisemitic.”

“What we’re also seeing is people, young people, people from different walks of life, who do feel very passionately, who’ve had very strong emotions about (the conflict),” he said.

He also stressed the importance of such expression in democracies, without explicitly noting the lack of such freedoms in China.

“In our country, and in our society and in our democracy, giving expression to that is, of course, something that’s both appropriate and protected,” he said. “But we’ve certainly seen instances where that has clearly veered from a totally legitimate expression of views and beliefs, to in some instances, yes, clear expressions of antisemitism.”

Blinken said that the administration listens to the American people and “takes their views into account.” But he did not explain how the protestors concerns would impact Biden administration policy.

Asked if the administration would consider stopping sending weaponry to Israel, because that is what some of the protestors are calling for, he said no.

“No we are focused on what’s in the interests of the United States. How do we best reflect both our interests and our values in our foreign policy across the board, whether that’s with Israel, or with any anyone else,” Blinken said.

02:13 - Source: CNN

Reporter asks Blinken if pro-Palestinian protests in US will affect policy

Ending the war in Gaza

When asked about resolving the conflict in Gaza, Blinken said it was on Hamas to decide if they are going to allow a ceasefire to go forward or not, after the militant group refused to agree to multiple possible deals.

He also said tensions in the wider region seemed to be alleviating following apparent tit-for-tat airstrikes between Iran and Israel earlier this month that ratcheted fears that the war in Gaza could expand into a wider conflagration.

“I think now, hopefully we are not seeing that kind of escalation,” Blinken said, explaining that Hamas might have been looking at that escalation when it rejected Israel’s hostage proposal.

Blinken also said it could be possible to roll out a framework for the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia along with a two-state solution proposal for Israel and the Palestinians before a Gaza ceasefire in place, marking a reversal in the order of events that US officials had previously expected to follow.

“Certainly that’s, that’s possible,” Blinken said. “Ceasefire or not we’ll continue to make these possibilities known. But in order to actually realize this, there’s going to have to be an end of the conflict in Gaza. And as I said, there’s also going to have to be a resolution to the Palestinian question, or at least an agreement on how to resolve it.”

Previously US officials said that the ongoing negotiations to secure a ceasefire had to reach an agreement before any further regional efforts could manifest.

Referencing the countries that came to Israel’s defense after Iran launched its April 13 aerial attack, Blinken said you could “see a path in the future where Israel is genuinely integrated in the region, where other countries are helping to make sure it’s defended.”

“But that also requires that (the conflict in) Gaza come to an end, and that there be a clear pathway to a Palestinian state. In that kind of future, Israel gets what it has sought from the start of its existence, which is normal relations with countries in the region,” he said.

Blinken cited the sustained US efforts to work towards normalizing relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia as part of a potentially reach a historic agreement to bring the Israel-Hamas war to an end.

“We’ve been working intensively to flesh it out, working with our partners, working – with European partners on this as well. And I think the more concrete it becomes, and the more it moves from the hypothetical and theoretical to something that’s actually possible, that’s real, then everyone involved is actually going to have to make decisions and make choices. And so we’re doing this work. And we’re trying to make it as real as possible,” Blinken said.

CNN’s Jennifer Hansler contributed reporting.

amp.cnn.com · by Simone McCarthy · April 26, 2024

20. Asia’s next war could be triggered by a rusting warship on a disputed reef

Please go to the link to view the maps, graphics, videos, and photos. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/26/asias-next-war-could-be-triggered-by-rusting-warship-disputed-reef/

Asia’s next war could be triggered by a rusting warship on a disputed reef

By Rebecca Tan, Regine Cabato and Laris Karklis

April 26, 2024 at 2:00 a.m. EDT

The Sierra Madre, a U.S.-built Philippine navy landing craft, was run aground on Second Thomas Shoal and is overseen by the Philippine navy. (Video: Sky News/Film Image Partner via Getty Images)

Listen

8 min

Comment

590

Add to your saved stories

Save

MANILA — In the most hotly contested waterway in the world, the risk of Asia’s next war hinges increasingly on a ramshackle ship past her time, pockmarked with holes, streaked with rust and beached on a reef.

To buttress its claims in the South China Sea, the Philippines in 1999 deliberately ran aground a World War II-era landing ship on a half-submerged shoal, establishing the vessel as an outpost of the Philippine navy. The BRP Sierra Madre, which has remained on Second Thomas Shoal ever since, has now become the epicenter of escalating tensions between the Philippines and China — and a singular trip wire that could draw the United States into an armed conflict in the Pacific, say officials and security analysts.

A Philippine supply vessel was hit with water cannons by the China Coast Guard on March 23 on its way to bring provisions to the Sierra Madre. (Video: Armed Forces of the Philippines)

China claims the vast majority of the South China Sea and, in recent months, has ramped up efforts to prevent the Philippines from providing supplies to personnel aboard the Sierra Madre. Analysis of ship-tracking data and videos over the past year shows that Chinese coast guard and militia ships have repeatedly swarmed and collided with Philippine resupply vessels. The Chinese vessels have also increasingly deployed water cannons at close-range, at times disabling Philippine ships and injuring sailors.

China’s coastguard fired water cannons at Philippine ships on March 5 as the vessels attempted to resupply the Sierra Madre. (Video: Armed Forces of the Philippines)

Any further escalation, warn Western and Philippine officials, could lead to open conflict.

Biden administration officials have stressed that an armed attack on a Philippine military vessel, such as the Sierra Madre, would trigger a U.S. military response under a 1951 mutual defense treaty. Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. said after meeting with President Biden in Washington earlier this month that the killing of Philippine service members by a foreign power would also be grounds to invoke the treaty.

China has spent the past three decades expanding its presence in the South China Sea, a strategic waterway through which a third of global shipping passes, according to the United Nations. Beijing may not intend to start a war here, analysts say, but repeated confrontations at sea between vessels have raised the potential for fateful accidents, also potentially provoking a U.S. response.

CHINA

TAIWAN

Hong Kong

10-dash line

China’s maritime claims

Hainan

(CHINA)

Luzon

Paracel

Islands

Subic Bay

Manila

Scarborough

Shoal

VIETNAM

Second Thomas

Shoal

PHILIPPINES

Palawan

Mischief

Reef

Mindanao

Seven islands

occupied by China

within the

Spratly Island

chain

BRUNEI

Borneo

200 MILES

MALAYSIA

Adding to the uncertainty is the question of what to do with the 328-foot Sierra Madre, which is no longer seaworthy and badly degraded after decades of exposure to the elements. The Chinese say replacing the ship with a more permanent structure is unacceptable. But in interviews, top Philippine officials said emphatically they will not give up control of Second Thomas Shoal.

At no time in recent decades have geopolitical tensions in the South China Sea reached such a prolonged and precarious state as they have recently at Second Thomas Shoal, said Harrison Prétat, deputy director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) at the D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Members of the Philippine coast guard aboard the BRP Sindangan watch as a Chinese ship sails nearby during a mission last month to resupply Philippine troops on the Sierra Madre at Second Thomas Shoal. (Ezra Acayan/Getty Images)

The dispute over that shoal — one of dozens of contested islands, reefs and other features — is part of an increasingly perilous competition among the countries that border the South China Sea for sovereignty over these strategic waters and control of the energy and other resources that lie below.

Skip to end of carouselTrouble in the South China Sea

arrow left

arrow right

Tensions in the South China Sea have grown more intense than at any time in recent years. Under President Xi Jinping, China has become more aggressive in asserting sovereignty over the sea’s contested islands, rocks, reefs and other features and the strategic waters that surround them. A half dozen other countries that border the sea have also been pursuing their own claims and economic interests.

About one-third of the world’s trade passes through the South China sea, according to the U.N., including crucial energy supplies for U.S. allies Japan and South Korea. The sea also includes oil and natural gas reserves as well as valuable fishing grounds, coral and minerals.

The U.S. has not formally endorsed any of these claims, urging that disputes be settled on the basis of international law. The U.S. insists on freedom of navigation through these contested waters and has repeatedly sailed warships through them to assert that right.

1/3

End of carousel

As China under leader Xi Jinping has grown ever more aggressive in pursuing its claims, Southeast Asian countries such as the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia have been taking steps — some in public, some largely below the radar — to assert their own claims and pursue their own economic interests, potentially bringing the region closer to war than at any time in years.

Before every mission to resupply the Sierra Madre, Marcos is briefed, said Philippine officials, as is the U.S. ambassador to the Philippines, according to U.S. officials. The United States has significantly increased its deployment of Navy personnel in the Philippines in direct response to the situation at the Sierra Madre, said a U.S. State Department official. Not since the siege of Marawi in 2017, when Islamic State-affiliated rebels seized a town in the Philippine south, has the United States provided such extensive support for a Philippine military operation, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he had not been authorized to speak publicly on the issue.

To many in the Philippines, Chinese behavior at Second Thomas Shoal, which they call Ayungin Shoal, has become a symbol of Beijing’s increasingly brazen projection of power. Orlando Mercado, a former Philippine secretary of defense, called it “the biggest, most graphic illustration of bullying.” Commodore Roy Trinidad, a spokesman for the Philippine navy, said it is a display of China’s “expansionist” ambitions.

Video footage shows another angle of the Philippine supply vessel hit by water cannons on March 23 on its way to bring provisions to the Sierra Madre. (Video: Armed Forces of the Philippines)

“What’s happening in the West Philippine Sea is only a microcosm of what China wants to do to the world,” Trinidad added, using the Philippine name for the waters that it claims.

The Chinese Embassy in the Philippines declined requests for interviews and responded to questions by pointing to a previous statement saying that the Philippines has been violating China’s sovereignty. “We demand that the Philippines tow away the warship,” the statement said. Until it is removed, the statement added, China will “allow” resupply missions only if “the Philippines informs China in advance and after on-site verification is conducted.”

Research groups say China has hundreds of vessels deployed across the South China Sea at any time — a mix of coast guard and maritime militia, which are government-funded ships registered for commercial fishing but used to establish China’s presence in disputed waters. These vessels have loitered around the Sierra Madre for years but began to surge in number in 2023, according to ship location data tracked by AMTI. In 2021, China on average deployed only a single ship each time the Philippines conducted one of its resupply missions, which are carried out by civilian boats staffed with navy personnel. By 2023, the average had jumped to 14. During one mission last December, researchers found at least 46 Chinese ships patrolling Second Thomas Shoal.

Ship traffic at Second Thomas Shoal is on the rise during resupply runs

The Chinese response to Philippine resupply missions to the BRP Sierra Madre

has been to vastly outnumber the Philippine vessels.

2023

2021

2022

Nov. 10

Number of ships

Chinese

Philippine

Water cannon usage

by China*

Aug. 5

April 22

Nov. 16

Feb. 6

April 30

Feb. 19

2021

2022

2023

Dec. 10

*There have been two incidents in 2024 where China has used water cannons on Philippine vessels: March 5 and 23.

The analysis on ships involved for those incidents has not been completed at this time.

Source: CSIS/AMTI, Starboard Maritime Intelligence

During the Dec. 10 resupply mission, Chinese ships largely based at nearby Mischief Reef tried to form a “blockade” at a greater distance from Second Thomas Shoal than before, said Ray Powell, director of SeaLight at Stanford University’s Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation. “They made the approach as tense and as difficult as possible.”

Shipping traffic on Dec. 10, 2023

Chinese

Philippine

China forms an overwhelming blockade seeking to prevent Philippine ships from entering Second Thomas Shoal.

Shown are BRP Sindigan and BRP Cabra that were escorting two smaller ships containing supplies for the BRP Sierra Madre.

Mischief

Reef

Location of the

SIERRA MADRE

CABRA

SINDANGAN

Military base

from which

China can

launch

operations.

Sabina

Shoal

South

China

Sea

Second Thomas

Shoal

CABRA

10 MILES

Note: Some vessels had their trackers turned off or did not transmit location data during this incident.

Source: SeaLight at the Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation at Stanford University

Videos from that day show that as one of the four Philippine ships, M/L Kalayaan, began to near Second Thomas, two significantly larger Chinese vessels pulled up on either side of it, and one blasted it with a water cannon. The M/L Kalayaan’s engine was damaged and had to be towed back to shore, according to Philippine officials. The vessel could not reach Second Thomas, though another Philippine ship, the Unaizah May 4, made it through.

Video shows a confrontation between Chinese and Philippine vessels and the use of water cannons in the South China Sea on Dec. 10, 2023. (Video: Armed Forces of the Philippines)

Once rare, the use of water cannons has become routine since December. During a resupply mission on March 5, two Chinese vessels deployed water cannons within several feet of the Philippine ship, shattering its windscreen and injuring four sailors on board.

Share this article

No subscription required to read

The Unaizah May 4 returned to shore without delivering its cargo. When it tried again three weeks later, it was again targeted by water cannons. This time, the Chinese ships “didn’t stop until the vessel was entirely disabled,” said a Philippine military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to share undisclosed details of the incident. The water cannons caused the ship to lose propulsion and wrecked its wooden hull, forcing the crew to transport the supplies to the Sierra Madre on inflatable dinghies. When the Chinese boats came close, the official added, Chinese personnel on board also yelled at the Philippine crew. “They were shouting at us, saying, ‘Construction? Construction?’” said the official.

Members of the Philippine coast guard sail a rubber boat past a Chinese coast guard vessel during a mission to resupply Philippine troops aboard the Sierra Madre on March 5. (Ezra Acayan/Getty Images)

China has for months accused the Philippines of secretly transporting construction material to the Sierra Madre in an attempt to “permanently occupy” Second Thomas. Philippine officials deny this. Since last October, the Philippines has been conducting “superficial repairs” to the Sierra Madre to ensure habitability for soldiers, but it has not been constructing a new outpost, say officials.

With several Philippine resupply ships damaged and concerns growing over the escalating violence, Philippine officials said they have been rethinking how best to conduct the missions. “We will not be deterred,” said Trinidad, the navy spokesman. But neither, say security analysts, will the Chinese.

About this story:

To map the behavior of Chinese and Philippine vessels, The Washington Post drew upon data collected by the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Gordian Knot Center for National Security Innovation at Stanford University.

Both organizations track vessels based on location information transmitted by their Automated Identification System (AIS). Researchers say the data paints a representative picture of ship behavior but is incomplete because not all ships turn on their AIS. Chinese vessels, in particular, are known to turn off the AIS, or “go dark,” in the South China Sea.

590

Comments

By Rebecca Tan

Rebecca Tan is the Southeast Asia Bureau Chief, covering all 10 countries in ASEAN, Timor-Leste and the Rohingya refugee community in Bangladesh. She was previously on Local, covering government in D.C. and Maryland. She was part of the team that won the 2022 Pulitzer Prize in public service for coverage of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Twitter

By Regine Cabato

Regine Cabato is the Manila reporter for The Washington Post Southeast Asia Bureau. Before joining The Post in 2018, she worked as a writer for broadcast and digital platforms at CNN Philippines. Twitter

By Laris Karklis

Laris Karklis has been working at the Washington Post since 2000. Twitter

21. Baltimore principal was framed by school athletic director using AI to fabricate racist attack

Danger, Will Robinson. This is only going to get worse.

Baltimore principal was framed by school athletic director using AI to fabricate racist attack - Washington Examiner

Washington Examiner · April 25, 2024

A former Baltimore County athletics director was arrested after being caught using AI to frame a principal for making racist and antisemitic remarks.

According to the Baltimore Banner, Pikesville High School Principal Eric Eiswert was temporarily removed from his position after an audio clip surfaced appearing to show him making disparaging remarks about black students and the Jewish community. A police investigation found the clip was created using AI, the alleged work of embittered former athletic director Dazhon Darien, who was arrested.

“The audio clip … had profound repercussions,” police wrote in charging documents, according to the outlet. “It not only led to Eiswert’s temporary removal from the school but also triggered a wave of hate-filled messages on social media and numerous calls to the school. The recording also caused significant disruptions for the PHS staff and students.”

Darien is also being charged with theft, retaliating against a witness, and stalking.

In January, an audio clip was published on the Instagram account murder_ink_bmore, appearing to show Eiswert saying that black students “couldn’t test their way out of a paper bag,” and that if he got “one more complaint from one more Jew in this community, I’m going to join the other side,” among other remarks. The post, made on an account with over 200,000 followers, garnered over 7,000 likes and gained the attention of the school.

Though Eiswert was briefly removed, authorities and AI experts soon began questioning the clip’s authenticity. In charging documents, police said that Darien had searched for OpenAI tools on the school’s network on several occasions. He was also connected to an email account that distributed the recording.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Darien allegedly used “Large Language Models” that practice “deep learning, which involves pulling in vast amounts of data from various sources on the internet, can recognize text inputted by the user, and produce conversational results.”

The release of the clip led to widespread panic at the school, requiring an increased police presence, police said. A police presence was also required at Eiswert’s home after he was inundated with threats and harassment. Some teachers, believing the recording to be real, became paranoid as they believed recording devices were planted throughout the school.

Washington Examiner · April 25, 2024