Two Systems, Two Chinas?

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Both the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC), the latter being the formal name of what is more commonly known as Taiwan, recently celebrated the 110^th anniversary of the Chinese revolution that resulted in the overthrow of the Qing Empire and created a Republic of China under Sun Yat-sen. Subsequently, China erupted in a civil war between the governing Nationalists under Gen. Chiang Kai-shek and the Communists led by Mao Zedong. The Communists prevailed and the Nationalists, in 1949, withdrew to the island of Taiwan, then known as Formosa, which had been ceded to Japan in 1895 by the Qing Emperor after the Sino-Japanese war. Chiang established the ROC government in exile in Taiwan which had been part of the Empire of Japan until WW II.

                Assisted by U.S. aid to this WW-II ally, Taiwan became a thriving democracy with a free-market economy, the seventh- largest in Asia and twentieth-largest in the world. It now boasts advanced technology and research facilities and is one of the world’s leading producer of microchips. The United States formally recognized the ROC government in exile until 1979 when, in a joint U.S.-PRC Communique, the U.S., bowing to Chinese pressure and as an economic expedient, accepted the so-called One-China policy and switched diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing, tacitly accepting Beijing’s demands that it consider Taiwan a part of China and recognizing the Beijing regime as the sole legal government of the one China.

                This was viewed by many as a betrayal of a faithful ally and friend, even though the Communique stated that the U.S. intended to maintain continued cultural and commercial relations with Taiwan but on an “unofficial” basis. The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act describes this relationship and commits the U.S. to assist Taiwan in maintaining its defense capabilities. It did not contain language supporting Taiwan’s independence but nevertheless insisted that any issues regarding reunification between Taiwan and the PRC be resolved peacefully. It was not made clear, however, what the U.S. would do if the PRC used less than peaceful methods to effect reunification and the policy toward Taiwan has been cloaked in ambiguity since.

                This brief review of a piece of history is provided in order to emphasize the fact that Taiwan has never been under Chinese Communist rule and Beijing’s insistence that it is part of China does not justify making it so by force against the wishes of the people of Taiwan, most of whom have never lived under Communist rule. PRC President Xi Jingping marked the occasion of the anniversary of the Chinese Revolution by warning that “Reunification of the nation must be realized and will definitely be realized.” This followed a four-day military exercise during which the People’s Liberation Army flew bombers, fighter jets and other warplanes toward the island in a clear warning that Beijing was running out of patience over Taipei’s failure to “reunite” and its talk of independence. He warned again that no external interference in this “internal matter” would be tolerated, obviously directing this warning to the U.S.

                Meanwhile, it was revealed that a small number of U.S. special forces and marines have been secretly training local military forces in Taiwan for about a year. Some experts believe that the PRC will soon have the capability to successfully occupy the island by force if they don’t already have it and will act sooner rather than later. The Chinese navy is undergoing rapid expansion and is on track to surpass ours in both size and capability.

                The PRC is dealing with significant internal problems including a slowing rate of economic growth, a growing debt problem and overbuilding in its huge real estate sector, an ageing and somewhat restive population with high expectations for improved standards of living and serious pollution problems. Mr. Xi is clearly not anxious for an armed conflict with the United States which would be devastating for trade which its economy depends on for its required growth. On the other hand, he is committed to reunification with Taiwan and any perceived backing down from this position could weaken his people’s perception of him as a strong leader who will lead China to displace the U.S. as the world’s pre-eminent economy and military power.

                The U.S. and the western world, however, cannot stand idly by if the PRC decides to reunify Taiwan by force as we essentially did while Beijing cracked down on promised freedoms for Hong Kong, claimed sovereignty over most of the South China Sea including areas claimed by its neighbors and built and militarized islands there. Japan has indicated that it would regard forceful occupation of Taiwan by Beijing as a threat to its own nearby islands. But Beijing will not be dissuaded by diplomatic bluster or the threat of economic sanctions and it would regard U.S. inaction as a sign of weakness and confirmation of its belief that the U.S. is a declining power and that it is China’s destiny to assume its rightful role as world leader.

                The best way to defend Taiwan and preserve its independence is to commit to doing so and persuading other Indo-Pacific nations to join us which they will likely do if we firmly commit to leading them. And the best way to deter the PRC from testing our resolve is to expand Indo-Pacific alliances like AUKUS (Australia, UK and US) and the Quad (Australia, India, Japan and US). Faced with strong and determined alliances, Beijing’s Communist regime is unlikely to risk provoking a conflict that would be devasting to its economy and to its international and domestic reputation. No one should want to provoke a war but time has run out for us to rely on diplomatic ambiguity as a policy to prevent one.

October 29, 2021

(Kelly is a retired Navy Captain and freelance writer.)

Biden’s Build Back Better Blowout

                

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                The national debt currently totals about 28 trillion dollars, give or take a few billions, but heck, who’s counting? That’s $28,000,000,000,000.00. Can you even begin to comprehend the enormity of such a figure? How can it ever be repaid? Well, of course, it won’t be but the interest must when it comes due and the interest will grow as we add to the debt which we will. Eventually, it will crowd out what’s left for discretionary items like defense which is why the exploding national debt has been described as an existential threat to national security.

                To this debt, the Biden Administration, driven by its progressive wing, wishes to add upwards to $3.5 trillion in social spending, climate control and covid relief in order to implement the Biden agenda, using the budget reconciliation process to pass it with a simple majority. The final figure is the subject of intense negotiation between moderate and progressive members of the president’s party with Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (D. Ariz.) leading the argument for a reduced price tag.

                The $3.5 T package, which would create new entitlements including paid family leave, child credits, child care, pre-K education, free community college, expanded Medicare and Medicaid coverage and other goodies, could cost more like $5.5 T but it’s difficult tell. The proposed legislation numbers 2465 pages and, like the Affordable Care Act, you have to pass it to fully understand what’s in it. It’s doubtful anyone took the time necessary to read it all, least of all, the politicians debating it. Tucked into this spending bill is a proposal to require banks to report annual deposit and spending totals over $600 for “ordinary” account holders to the IRS. According to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, this would help the IRS “target” accounts for possible audit. There was talk of raising the $600 threshold to $10,000 but that would still involve millions of account holders and raise the cost of retail banking which would undoubtedly be passed on to customers in increased fees.

 If, as we are told, Medicare and Social Security will soon run out of enough funds to pay full benefits, how can we afford to add new entitlements? “Easy,” says Mr. Biden. “It would cost nothing.” How is that possible? Somebody must eventually pay and that would be us. Nothing’s free. This is the party that accused the Reagan Administration of practicing voodoo economics.

                Democrats realize that the votes aren’t there to approve a $3.5 T package and will have to settle for something less. But instead of eliminating some new entitlements, their strategy apparently is to retain most at reduced funding levels, knowing that once enacted into law, new entitlements gain eternal life and only grow, never shrink. Mr. Biden says, “We’ve got to pass something to stay competitive,” presumably with China. But Democrats in the House, as of this writing, are holding the $1T infrastructure bill, that passed the Senate on a bipartisan vote, hostage to passage of the $3.5 T package at some level acceptable to progressives. Without question, infrastructure is necessary to stay competitive but the $3.5 T is less about real infrastructure like bridges, roads, port facilities and surface transportation and much more about entitlements, Covid relief, climate control and social spending.

                It’s plain for any objective person to see that the social, climate and covid spending package has little to do with keeping America competitive and a lot to do with accelerating the transformation of the country into a European-style social democracy with cradle-to-grave government care and the tax structure and income redistribution necessary to support it. Far from making us more competitive, it will weaken us as a global power as the cost of entitlements crowds out defense and real infrastructure spending. We are already seeing the effects of ageing and insufficient port facilities and transportation systems on our trade, supply lines and industry.  

                New entitlements may have initial popular appeal but they come with a price that must be paid and there aren’t enough billionaires to cover it all. Is this really what most Americans want? Did Mr. Biden’s election come with a mandate for this kind of spending? This nation was built by pioneers, entrepreneurs and workers that had no financial safety net at all. They were attracted to a country that offered freedoms and opportunities unknown elsewhere, not by benefits and entitlements because there were none. Although we must always provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, the founders clearly did not intend to create an entitlement state, but rather a land where people could enjoy the benefits of freedom and mutual defense, raise their families and enjoy the fruits of their labor without giving most of it back to the government who would decide how to spend it.

                What they built was the strongest, freest, finest, richest and most envied country in the world, something that no socialist nation, including China, has ever managed to accomplish.

October 25, 2021

Getting Away With Murder

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                The spike in murders in metropolitan areas throughout the nation in 2020 was among the more predictable outcomes for the year. Still, the magnitude of the increase seemed to surprise some. It broke a record for the United States, not for total murders, but for a one-year increase. Homicides rose in the U.S. by nearly 30% over 2019. Major crime overall went down, but there were nearly 5000 more homicides in 2020 than in 2019 and the upward trend is continuing into 2021, albeit at a slightly lower rate. Aggravated assaults increased by 12% in 2020.

                Most of the murders involved guns and, according to FBI data, much of the gun violence occurred in areas where gang shootings are common. There were more black victims (9,913) than white (7,029) and most were shot by other Blacks, not by white police officers. Nearly three quarters of the victims were males.

New York City had about 500 murders in 2020 compared with 319 in the previous year, an increase of 56%. Chicago’s total climbed from about 500 to 771, an increase of 54% and Los Angeles had 351 homicides, up from 257 for a 37% jump. Even relatively peaceful San Diego, with the lowest murder rate among the nation’s ten most populous cities, had a 10% increase, although county-wide it was 35%.

Major crime overall, including burglaries, continued to drop, in the case of burglaries, most likely because more people spent more time at home because of pandemic restrictions but also possibly because more prospective burglars realized that a majority of residents now were armed. A burglar’s biggest nightmare is being confronted by an armed and frightened resident with a nervous finger on the trigger. The continued decrease in the overall major crime rate is of little comfort, of course, to those who fear becoming a statistic in the rapidly-rising murder rate or losing a loved one to a murderer. Violent crime overall rose 5.6% nationwide in 2020 from the previous year. 

The possible reasons for the increase in murders and other violent crimes are several but their ranking in importance probably depends a lot on one’s political and social perspectives. Pandemic restrictions caused families to spend more time cooped up together, sometimes causing stress, anxiety and arguments that turned violent. So did loss of jobs, businesses and other sources of income. So did growing anger over government policies and mandates. Some sources cited these factors as reasons for the spike in violent crime and they probably did contribute.

More people bought guns and a majority of households now have one or more. Some states permit open carry and certainly guns have become more accessible. Still, municipalities that have the most stringent gun control laws are among those having the highest murder rates. Some data purport to show that that a gun maintained in a residence is more likely to be used against a family member or for suicide than in self-defense but gun ownership is clearly on the rise because of decreased confidence on the part of the public in the ability of the police to protect them.

Another likely reason for the spike in the murder rate is simply a diminished respect for the law and law enforcement and the realization that, with a reduced police presence and limitations on officers’ ability to use deadly force, they are more likely to get away, literally, with murder and other crimes. The reduced police presence and restrictions on policing techniques were a result of the murder of George Floyd and the public outrage that followed. Police budgets in some cities were drastically reduced or even eliminated and calls for defunding and repurposing police departments resulted in plummeting morale and waves of early retirements and resignations, increasing the costs of training and recruiting and some frantic efforts to rehire officers when crime subsequently surged and riots broke out after some rallies protesting police brutality resulted in arson, assaults, looting and attacks on police and police stations. Prosecutors eliminated bail requirements for criminals and thousands were released from confinement because of Covid concerns.

Disregard for laws and disrespect for those charged with enforcing them seems epidemic. Drivers ignore speed limits imperiling others, knowing that police are unlikely to risk high speed chases after them. Shoplifters steal with little fear of being caught, knowing that store owners probably won’t risk a confrontation. Road rage is a growing epidemic. So are assaults on flight crews by passengers angry with restrictions. With so much anger and rage being acted out and so little respect being shown for those who risk their lives to protect us, is it any wonder that violent crime is increasing?

The justifiable outrage over the murder of George Floyd by a policeman unfortunately led to an unjustified overreaction that turned a large segment of the public against the police, resulting in numerous attacks on police, lessening their effectiveness and reducing their ability or willingness to act more assertively to protect the public from violent and dangerous persons. The spike in violent crime was an entirely predictable outcome of these things. The overreaction, far from accomplishing its stated purpose, instead put the public at greater risk, especially minorities who constitute an outsized share of the victims. It diminished public support for the BLM movement.  It did not reduce the cost of policing but rather increased it as municipalities act to restore some of the damage caused by defunding as violent crime soars. The trend will not be reversed by simply restoring the cuts to police budgets. It will require the restoration of public respect for the police themselves and it begins with parents instilling that respect in their children at an early age.

October 17, 2021

The Trump Problem

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

                Every new president deserves time to settle in but for President Joe Biden time is running out and the honeymoon is over, if there ever was one. The first eight months of his administration has been a horror show and it grows worse daily. Our southern border is a mess, posing a continuing humanitarian, health and security crisis. The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, leaving some Americans and most Afghans who helped us behind, is a national embarrassment. It has emboldened our adversaries and caused our allies to question our resolve and ability to lead. A botched drone attack intended to target terrorists instead killed friendly civilians including seven children, justifying the existing doubt about our ability to deal with terrorists in Afghanistan from over the horizon without a robust presence on the ground.

                In just eight months, the Biden Administration has demonstrated breathtaking incompetence of the sort that would cause most governments to fall because of lack of confidence in their ability to govern. The buck stops with the commander-in-chief, of course, and Biden must bear the bulk of the blame but there is still plenty to go around and some of it should be reserved for former president Donald Trump. “Why Trump?” you ask. Because he lost an election that he could have won against a weak and visibly aging establishment liberal who previously had twice failed in attempts to win the presidency and who ran an uninspiring, gaffe-filled campaign from his Delaware basement. As the incumbent who actually accomplished most of what he promised, Trump might have won if only he had disciplined himself to act more like a president and leader of the western world and controlled his impulse to reflexively tweet every thought that came into his mind. If he had won, we wouldn’t be dealing now with a weak and failing president of questionable competence.

                The 2020 election was a golden opportunity for the GOP to retain not only the White House, but control of the Senate but Mr. Trump screwed that up as well with his heavy-handed involvement in the election for Georgia’s two Senate seats, insisting that that election was rigged along with the presidential election. Instead of conceding gracefully, he continued to damage his party by holding an incendiary rally in Washington, D.C. which prompted some supporters to storm the Capitol in a misguided attempt to interfere with the certification of the electoral college vote. He has continued to target those who supported his subsequent impeachment and those Republican candidates who dispute his claim that the election was stolen.

                As readers know, I was never a Trump fan and urged the party to dump him during the campaign for the 2016 nomination. I felt that there were other Republicans better qualified for the most powerful elected office on earth. I didn’t vote for him in 2016 but I supported him against unrelenting Democrat attempts to delegitimize his election including baseless claims that his campaign colluded with the Russians. He deserves credit, in my view, for much of what he accomplished in his term including Operation Warp Speed which produced the Covid vaccines in record time. He also deserves credit for shaking up the political establishment whose candidates too often have delivered far less than they promised.

                But that’s history now and Mr. Trump has become more of a burden than an asset to the GOP and thus an asset to the Democrats. He is the gift to the Democrats that keeps on giving and a favorite source of material for the mainstream media who just can’t seem to get enough of him. Democrats simply love to loathe him and focusing on his faults helps deflect attention from their own. He has become a toxic force within the GOP, the latest example being the failed attempt to recall California’s Gov. Gavin Newsome. Democrats successfully linked Trump to Fox contributor Larry Elder, the leading candidate among the dozens of wannabes on the ballot to succeed Newsome if he was recalled. In the solidly-blue Golden State, linking Elder to Trump was all it took for Mr. Newsome to easily survive the recall which was doomed from the start anyway. Californians wasted millions on a recall election just one year before the regular election.

                With more than three years of Biden’s term remaining, the nation is facing a dangerous crisis of leadership. The Democrat party is moving further to the left and Mr. Biden seems to lack the strength, energy or will to do anything about it but to go with flow. It is imperative, in my view, that Republicans take back control of Congress in 2022 to provide needed checks and balances. But that effort will be hampered by growing divisions within the GOP pitting Trump supporters against those who want him to take up some other hobby besides politics. And if he decides to run again in 2024, it will doom the party’s chances to regain the White House. Losing an election he should have won makes him a loser, a term he was quick to apply to others.

                Those GOP candidates who fear alienating Trump supporters need to get over it and Trump supporters need to come to grips with the fact that Trump lost re-election through his own fault, managing to lose to a weak candidate who ran a weak campaign. Mr. Trump’s failure gave us Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Antony Blinken, chaos on our southern border, a costly retreat from Afghanistan, damage to America’s credibility and failures of leadership too numerous to list in this space. It’s time to find a new party leader who understands what it takes to lead and unite.

October 9, 2021