Midweekly Overview
Important note: This is the final free post under the previous free signup terms.
If you have not yet, please upgrade your subscription to not lose access to the future emails, and to receive next Monday’s post - and all others going forward.
P.S. Going forward, I will try to read/respond to / post about questions/suggestions by all paid subscribers - founding members will continue to secure their position in the queue.
——————————————————————————————————————
Estimated Reading Time: 4 mins, 51 sec + response to a founding member’s question.
Canada and UK demonstrate their utility in the developing narrative warfare with China
Going forward, a lot of the US/China confrontation will be limited to the frame/narrative war.
China’s narrative: US is a bully. A declining empire that is insecure about China’s rise, and will resort to bullying, slander and meddling in China’s internal affairs. This is not surprising, since US is doing this with every country that does not bend a knee to its global institutions. It tries to impose its own way of life and governance on other countries in an effort to recruit them as vassal states.
China has a three part strategy for advancing this frame:
1. Offer partnership/investment opportunities to developing nations with no strings attached - no reqs on governance, on democracy or rule of law. Just business.
The most recent example of this is Uganda.
At the time when US/EU are mulling over sanctions against the Uganda’s ruling regime (in response to the fraudulent presidential elections and crackdown against the political opposition), China is very happy to do business with them.
To contrast their no strings attached approach with America’s meddling in internal affairs approach, senior Chinese diplomat Yang Jiechi promised that China will fund infrastructure projects in Uganda (and donate Covid-19 vaccines too).
China is doing this all over Africa, Middle East and Central Asia.
Their Belt and Road initiative does not have any governance/democratic values requirements that are associated with western liberal democracy.
This is naturally appealing to many authoritarian leaders in these said countries.
Currently, most of these countries are not big shots. They do not matter that much in the grand scheme of things. They don’t have the weight of a typical EU/Nato state.
But China is looking to change that. Precisely with these infrastructure investments (coupled with modern tech), they want to create modern authoritarian states in the aforementioned regions.
They are looking at Africa as a long term investment strategy.
Taking a Venture Capitalist’s approach towards tech start ups, they don’t expect or hope that all of their investments will bear fruit.
But if 8-10 countries across these regions become 1) rich 2) stable and authoritarian in governance (sharing China’s values vs US and EU) , then China (perhaps in 20-30 years) will succeed in creating a serious challenge to the western liberal democratic global order.
This is the key factor to take into account when evaluating Chinese motivations - they don’t only see the US as a rival. They see the whole liberal global order as a threat. That includes EU, Japan, Australia, NZ, Canada, UK ..
2. Challenge the narrative of western promise of stability, prosperity and democracy as a package.
This is why the Jan 6 Capitol riot played into their hands so well.
China wants to separate the promise of prosperity with that of stability and democracy. Leading by example, it demonstrates to the whole world that it is possible to become a global economic superpower even without these additional institutions.
They use disinformation and cyber campaigns to constantly sow discord and confusion in western societies as part of this strategy.
3. Concocting a false image of China as a team player ready for multilateralism and cooperation - always striving to label/imply America’s isolation of China as paranoia driven, self -serving, unreasonable policy that harms the global cooperation over major issues.
Most recent example: speaking at Lanting forum on Monday, Chinese State Councillor and a Foreign Minister, Wang Yi blamed America for interference in China’s internal affairs and simultaneously offered to cooperate on global challenges.
Some key quotes:
“Over the past few years, the United States basically cut off bilateral dialogue at all levels”
Positioning US as an unreasonable party in contrast to China’s willingness to cooperate:
“We stand ready to have candid communication with the U.S. side, and engage in dialogues aimed at solving problems.”
It is important to rebut these pretensions immediately, and to promptly return to the American/western frame/narrative.
This is why I criticized Merkel for entertaining Xi Jinping’s assertions that China is a global team player (and why Australia’s response was spot on).
So what is the US / western narrative?
:
China is a powerful, rapidly growing and ruthless dictatorship that stops at nothing to fuel its quest for a world domination. It is ready and willing to violate all basic human rights, engage in cyber attacks, disinformation, and false territorial claims against its neighbors. To ensure its rapid rise, China is ready to shamelessly steal western tech, and to make smaller, poorer countries depend on it through its shady financing and investment activities - far from being no strings attached, these are aimed at creating dependent vassal states to be ruled indirectly by the Chinese Communist Party.
This is a much stronger narrative - mainly because it is true.
The added benefit of this frame: normal, reputable, well-developed countries like Canada, UK and Australia/Japan/NZ support this frame.
Who is on China’s side? North Korea? Iran? some ruthless dictatorship in Central Asia?
Canada and UK in particular have demonstrated willingness and ability to promptly put China back in its place.
Not allowing Wang’s frame/narrative to air for even a few days unchallenged, UK’s Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab attacked China for its “industrial scale” repression of Uyghurs and crackdown in Hong Kong, demanding for UN to have an “urgent and unfettered” access for inspection into Xinjiang.
Canada promptly followed, and recognized China’s treatment of Uyghurs as a ‘Genocide’.
Take note EU.
Nord Stream 2 embarrassment continues - allies call out America’s weak response
In previous cables, I discussed how a weak response on NS2 project is even worse than a total inaction - how coming up with only a semblance of sanctions reduced America’s credibility and international prestige.
It is better to pretend indifference, than to get involved only to thereafter impose ineffective/weak sanctions.
Well now that hypothesis has left the realms of theory..
America’s allies in Europe (and more specifically prime anti-Russia countries), Ukraine and Poland have called out America’s inadequate response on Nord Stream 2.
Ukrainian president Zelensky went even further:
‘‘The Ukrainians are a bit disappointed that President Biden did not commit during the Munich [Security] Conference to use every tool in his power to stop Nord Stream 2."
Does not get any much more straight talk than this (between partner states)
This is a diplomatic way of saying ‘‘you are f**ng us over Joe!’’
There is no point to loudly proclaiming ‘‘America is back’’ only to subsequently resort to platitudes, and be more passive than the Trump administration on a range of issues like NS2/Russia and Iran.
Whatever happened to no longer ‘‘rolling over’’ to Russia?
Someone reminds Blinken of the US leverage over Iran
Blinken addressed a U.N.-sponsored Conference on Disarmament in Geneva on Monday.
A speech full of usual stuff + this important addition:
“Working with allies and partners, we will also seek to lengthen and strengthen the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) and address other areas of concern, including Iran’s destabilizing regional behavior and ballistic missile development and proliferation”.
I always said how JCPOA in itself is not enough - that Iran’s proxy activity + ballistic missile development capabilities must also be addressed.
The devastation caused to the Iranian economy from the maximum pressure campaign ensures America a great leverage to do precisely that.
It is great that someone finally reminds Blinken of this..
Iran is now warned that the new administration did not simply forget wider issues stemming from their adversarial activities.
That the new normal frame that Iran is fighting to enforce on JCPOA has not (yet.. hopefully will remain that way) been accepted by the new administration.
Having said that.. it took a very indirect route for Blinken to get it out there.
Why did he not start off with this on his day one? Right when Iran was piling up various tactical moves in its attempt to change the future negotiation’s base terms…
Founding member question: ‘‘You previously talked about Russia’s threat to the Southern Gas Corridor. How they could inflame a new war in the Caucasus between Armenia and Azerbaijan to destroy that pipeline and make Europe even more reliant on Russian gas. Could you elaborate on this? How likely is this to happen since there is a peace treaty in place that Russia is also party to ?’’
Absolutely.
Well for starters, couple of points:
1. There isn’t technically any peace treaty in place.
a) There is only a piece of paper signed by three heads of state (of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia) and no ratification by the respective legislatures.
b) that piece of paper describes terms of ceasefire, true. But there is no peace treaty per se. In spite of their defeat and capitulation (and withdrawal of all remaining troops), Armenia continues to dispute Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan. The whole world (including Russia and US) recognizes Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan - only Armenia does not (and maybe there are some random third world countries). Obviously that is a recipe for future friction between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
c) military activities are not 100% over. There were few recent incidents where Armenian soldiers were caught crossing (the new borders) trying to plant roadside bombs etc.
2. Russia and Armenia are formal military allies. Let’s be clear about this: Azerbaijan would not want Russian ‘‘peacekeepers’’ in its territory. Why would they? Why would any country want a military ally of its enemy as a supposedly neutral arbiter of peace? That is nonsense. Azerbaijani president was clearly forced to accept this deal by Putin. Since Russia has the monopoly of ‘‘peacekeeping’’ presence in the territory, it can easily concoct devious scenarios and close its eyes to Armenia’s actions.
In return, it can order Armenia to use Russian Iskander-M missiles (given free of charge to Armenia back in 2018) to target the Southern Gas Corridor - easy. Who is there to prove that the pipeline was not hit by accident? in the fog of war?
3. This is no longer a hypothetical scenario. Just this week, Armenia sought a bigger Russian military base on its border with Azerbaijan.
Protests against the current Armenian PM (for his role in defeat) also continued. Opposition is backed by Russia.
Here is the apparent plan:
1. Current PM Pashinyan is toppled by pro Russia protesters.
2. Pro Russia new government attacks Aze, (reclaims few small towns - thereby increasing its popularity and increasing its staying power) and in the process destroys the Southern Gas Corridor pipeline.
3. Russia closes its eyes for few days, and then steps in only after it gets what it wanted from the outset.
There are of course variations to this.
For example, the current PM may agree to change its tune and become a Russian vassal (in return to remaining in power).
This plan is also not guaranteed to succeed.
Perhaps Azerbaijan’s President will make a new side deal with Putin - offering something better in return for continuing peace.
Or Turkey could get heavily involved on Azerbaijan’s side.
America must not leave this to chance, however. US and EU must coordinate to make sure that actual UN peacekeepers are promptly invited into Karabakh - where they can provide a fair and impartial observation over the conflict.
And prevent a flare up and a Russian manipulation - ultimately ensuring safety of the Southern Gas Corridor.