- Welcome to WestCoastAftershock Online Forum.
Recent posts
#41
General Non-Music Discussion / Trump’s ‘liberation day’ tari...
Last post by LToremark - May 07, 2025, 01:48 AMTrump's 'liberation day' tariffs are likely just the beginning of a longer-term vision
Trump's 'liberation day' tariffs are likely just the beginning of a longer-term vision
Expert comment
LToremark
3 April 2025
Amid strident rhetoric and shifting targets, many observers have written off Trump's tariff agenda either as a thoughtless time bomb that may wreck the global economy or as a negotiating tactic. But they are missing the bigger picture.
President Trump's 'liberation day' tariffs were both bigger and broader than many observers expected. It is now time to understand that the moves – the largest single imposition of tariffs in at least 70 years – are not a one-off or a negotiating tactic.
Beyond the chaos, Trump's key advisers have a set of theories that they believe will transform politics and economics at home, as well as the foundations of US power abroad. In their telling, a mix of tariffs and negotiations can help the US dramatically increase manufacturing employment, cover a significant fraction of government spending, and reserve security alliances for countries that balance trade and exchange rates with Washington.
Although this worldview has thus far failed to convince everyone in Trump's administration – and many mainstream economists – its seductive promise that the US can have both power and freedom of action, at home and abroad, likely means that it is here to stay.
The intellectual underpinnings of MAGA economics
Trumpian economics is grounded in two critiques of the existing global trade system that sound sensible to non-experts while driving trade wonks to madness. Trump used both to great effect in his remarks launching the new policies.
Beyond the chaos, Trump's key advisers have a set of theories that they believe will transform politics and economics at home, as well as the foundations of US power abroad.
The first critique is that trading partners' practices are unfair. Trump argues that US businesses, workers and security all suffer because foreign countries are breaking international rules or taking advantage of lax rules negotiated by his predecessors.
The result, according to Trump, is that businesses and workers cannot compete and industries essential to US security are threatened. Notably, here Trump is pushing on a strong view among Republicans, and an increasingly close divide among Democrats, that increased trade has cost Americans more than it has gained them .
His unfairness case has two sub-arguments. First, that the policies of the Chinese government, from extensive subsidies for exporting industries to intellectual property theft, pose a unique and existential threat to the US economy, security, workers and way of life. This view of Beijing as fundamentally undercutting the rules of the game is now broadly held across Washington.
The second is that US allies owe the US balanced trade in exchange for security guarantees such as NATO membership. 'In many cases, the friend is worse than the foe', Trump said as he announced the new tariffs. This added pressure on allies completely overturns a standard tool in the US security toolbox – offering access to the US market in exchange for countries making closer security arrangements.
Related content
The international trading system needs urgent support to survive
It is also utterly antithetical to the letter and spirit of existing trade rules, which foresaw the global economy as a place where different systems could meet on equal footing – and assumed that liberal democracies would win out economically. Members of Trump's team are now saying those assumptions were wrong or just irrelevant, and countries that eliminate their trade surpluses should be closer allies than those that do not.
The second critique is that trade deficits are bad in themselves. This argument has not figured in US policy circles in decades. Mainstream economists argue that persistent US trade deficits are closely linked to the US dollar's position as the global reserve currency – or even beneficial as they are mirrored by massive global purchases of dollars and investments in the US.
Leading figures around Trump, however, believe differently. Robert Lighthizer, who served as US trade representative in Trump's first term, argues that the deficits have transferred 'some $20 trillion of our wealth (in the form of equity in our companies, debt and real estate) to the governments and citizens of the exploiting countries ' over the past 20 years. He further argues that the decline of manufacturing jobs – specifically for men – must be reversed to improve the national character. In an electorate sharply divided by gender, arguments about male dignity are falling on receptive ears, economic theories notwithstanding.
The longer-term vision
The sheer number of tariff possibilities thrown around by Trump, and his penchant for modifying, delaying or removing them, has led many observers to argue that there is no larger plan behind them – or that the negotiating leverage is the point, rather than any particular outcome. However, this misses the extent to which key members of his team spent recent years gaming out longer-term scenarios in which US tariffs reshape the domestic economy, the federal budget and global economic architecture.
If domestic manufacturing replaces imports that means tariffs are no longer being paid on imports and thus that revenue will not materialize.
Trump has promised his voters that he will bring manufacturing jobs and industries back to the US. He sees tariffs helping him achieve this in two ways: supporting US manufacturers by making imports more expensive and encouraging foreign manufacturers to set up shop in the US.
But this objective is somewhat in tension with his pledge that tariffs will cover the costs of corporate tax cuts, reduce the federal budget deficit and eventually replace the income tax. If domestic manufacturing replaces imports that means tariffs are no longer being paid on imports and thus that revenue will not materialize. Likewise, if the dollar falls against other currencies (another goal of the administration that is shared by important bipartisan constituencies), imports become more expensive and tariffs raise less revenue.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/04/trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-are-likely-just-beginning-longer-term-vision Apr 03, 2025, 05:02 AM
Trump's 'liberation day' tariffs are likely just the beginning of a longer-term vision
Expert comment
LToremark
3 April 2025
Amid strident rhetoric and shifting targets, many observers have written off Trump's tariff agenda either as a thoughtless time bomb that may wreck the global economy or as a negotiating tactic. But they are missing the bigger picture.
President Trump's 'liberation day' tariffs were both bigger and broader than many observers expected. It is now time to understand that the moves – the largest single imposition of tariffs in at least 70 years – are not a one-off or a negotiating tactic.
Beyond the chaos, Trump's key advisers have a set of theories that they believe will transform politics and economics at home, as well as the foundations of US power abroad. In their telling, a mix of tariffs and negotiations can help the US dramatically increase manufacturing employment, cover a significant fraction of government spending, and reserve security alliances for countries that balance trade and exchange rates with Washington.
Although this worldview has thus far failed to convince everyone in Trump's administration – and many mainstream economists – its seductive promise that the US can have both power and freedom of action, at home and abroad, likely means that it is here to stay.
The intellectual underpinnings of MAGA economics
Trumpian economics is grounded in two critiques of the existing global trade system that sound sensible to non-experts while driving trade wonks to madness. Trump used both to great effect in his remarks launching the new policies.
Beyond the chaos, Trump's key advisers have a set of theories that they believe will transform politics and economics at home, as well as the foundations of US power abroad.
The first critique is that trading partners' practices are unfair. Trump argues that US businesses, workers and security all suffer because foreign countries are breaking international rules or taking advantage of lax rules negotiated by his predecessors.
The result, according to Trump, is that businesses and workers cannot compete and industries essential to US security are threatened. Notably, here Trump is pushing on a strong view among Republicans, and an increasingly close divide among Democrats, that increased trade has cost Americans more than it has gained them .
His unfairness case has two sub-arguments. First, that the policies of the Chinese government, from extensive subsidies for exporting industries to intellectual property theft, pose a unique and existential threat to the US economy, security, workers and way of life. This view of Beijing as fundamentally undercutting the rules of the game is now broadly held across Washington.
The second is that US allies owe the US balanced trade in exchange for security guarantees such as NATO membership. 'In many cases, the friend is worse than the foe', Trump said as he announced the new tariffs. This added pressure on allies completely overturns a standard tool in the US security toolbox – offering access to the US market in exchange for countries making closer security arrangements.
Related content
The international trading system needs urgent support to survive
It is also utterly antithetical to the letter and spirit of existing trade rules, which foresaw the global economy as a place where different systems could meet on equal footing – and assumed that liberal democracies would win out economically. Members of Trump's team are now saying those assumptions were wrong or just irrelevant, and countries that eliminate their trade surpluses should be closer allies than those that do not.
The second critique is that trade deficits are bad in themselves. This argument has not figured in US policy circles in decades. Mainstream economists argue that persistent US trade deficits are closely linked to the US dollar's position as the global reserve currency – or even beneficial as they are mirrored by massive global purchases of dollars and investments in the US.
Leading figures around Trump, however, believe differently. Robert Lighthizer, who served as US trade representative in Trump's first term, argues that the deficits have transferred 'some $20 trillion of our wealth (in the form of equity in our companies, debt and real estate) to the governments and citizens of the exploiting countries ' over the past 20 years. He further argues that the decline of manufacturing jobs – specifically for men – must be reversed to improve the national character. In an electorate sharply divided by gender, arguments about male dignity are falling on receptive ears, economic theories notwithstanding.
The longer-term vision
The sheer number of tariff possibilities thrown around by Trump, and his penchant for modifying, delaying or removing them, has led many observers to argue that there is no larger plan behind them – or that the negotiating leverage is the point, rather than any particular outcome. However, this misses the extent to which key members of his team spent recent years gaming out longer-term scenarios in which US tariffs reshape the domestic economy, the federal budget and global economic architecture.
If domestic manufacturing replaces imports that means tariffs are no longer being paid on imports and thus that revenue will not materialize.
Trump has promised his voters that he will bring manufacturing jobs and industries back to the US. He sees tariffs helping him achieve this in two ways: supporting US manufacturers by making imports more expensive and encouraging foreign manufacturers to set up shop in the US.
But this objective is somewhat in tension with his pledge that tariffs will cover the costs of corporate tax cuts, reduce the federal budget deficit and eventually replace the income tax. If domestic manufacturing replaces imports that means tariffs are no longer being paid on imports and thus that revenue will not materialize. Likewise, if the dollar falls against other currencies (another goal of the administration that is shared by important bipartisan constituencies), imports become more expensive and tariffs raise less revenue.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/04/trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-are-likely-just-beginning-longer-term-vision Apr 03, 2025, 05:02 AM
#42
General Non-Music Discussion / Putting the Digital Services ...
Last post by jon.wallace - May 07, 2025, 01:48 AMPutting the Digital Services Tax on the table in US negotiations sends worrying signal on UK digital sovereignty
Putting the Digital Services Tax on the table in US negotiations sends worrying signal on UK digital sovereignty
Expert comment
jon.wallace
2 April 2025
It would likely be unpopular for a government that has cut welfare services and introduced new taxes on UK businesses, but it also risks undermining wider attempts to regulate big tech.
The UK's Digital Services Tax (DST) was originally introduced as a stopgap measure, passed in 2020 pending an international agreement to reform the international tax framework (the agreement never materialized). The DST looked to make tech multinationals not headquartered in the UK pay a tax on the revenues they made from their UK users.
The tax, set at 2 per cent on the revenues of search engines, social media services and online marketplaces, raises a modest amount – £800 million a year, on average. But it holds significant symbolic value: corporate tax avoidance is a bugbear for the UK public.
The tax may be popular domestically, but it is anything but across the Atlantic.
Persistent rumours that the UK government plans to reduce or eliminate the DST for US tech giants, in hopes of persuading President Donald Trump to row back or reduce tariffs on UK goods, will naturally worry some in the Labour Party. Announcing tax breaks for US tech conglomerates immediately after squeezing the UK welfare system, and months after raising UK employers' national insurance contributions, will in the words of Labour MP Clive Lewis, 'look absolutely horrific '.
But the UK government is in a difficult position: the tax may be popular domestically, but it is anything but across the Atlantic. President Trump has likened the medley of digital taxes, regulatory fines and other costs levied by other governments on US tech companies as 'overseas extortion '.
Within a month of taking office, Trump had withdrawn the US from OECD negotiations on a global tax system, and issued an executive order 'Defending American Companies and Innovators From Overseas Extortion and Unfair Fines and Penalties', targeting precisely those digital services taxes 'designed to plunder American companies ... through extortive fines and taxes'.
The UK's goldilocks zone
To date, the UK has sought to position itself in a 'Goldilocks zone' between the US and EU positions on technology governance, emphasizing sovereignty and growth. The hope is that the UK can be both a friend of Europe and, through less stringent regulation than the EU, the best place East of the Atlantic to scale technology products and services.
The UK should think hard about how much control it is willing to cede to improve US relations.
The offer to reduce or ditch the DST follows other moves that on the surface emphasize this British 'middle way'. The UK was the only country to join the US in not signing a joint statement emerging from the recent International AI summit in Paris , citing national security concerns among others.
But it's unlikely the UK can maintain this strategy for long. The Trumpian approach to technology development, of minimal regulation to bolster big tech's contribution to the stock market, and maintain a technological edge over China, is unlikely to fly in the UK. The British public is broadly supportive of tech regulation, particularly on the issues of online harms and young people growing up online . And most expect companies doing business in the UK to pay their fair share of tax.
Related content
Europe must forge a new role in the global economy
That would seem to incline the UK more towards the EU approach. The EU has been at the forefront of regulating big tech, including via its AI Act, similar digital tax regimes to the UK in countries like France, Italy and Spain, and GDPR data privacy laws with which most UK workers are familiar.
More fundamentally a combative US will force other countries to confront a difficult question. How much sovereignty over domestic technology is sufficient?
The UK should think hard about how much control it is willing to cede to improve US relations. It must realistically assess its ability to shape and influence the technology on which increasing parts of its social, economic and political foundations rest, but also whether concessions to the US will really deliver benefits.
The EU may be grappling with how to stay globally economically competitive while maintaining its regulatory approach. But its strategy towards big tech is nonetheless one of the most meaningful attempts to use pooled democratic power to manage and rein in the influence of these companies. Piecemeal concessions to the US in exchange for the uncertain prospect of tariff exemptions or trade deals might be less beneficial than aligning with the EU approach.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/04/putting-digital-services-tax-table-us-negotiations-sends-worrying-signal-uk-digital Apr 02, 2025, 09:04 AM
Putting the Digital Services Tax on the table in US negotiations sends worrying signal on UK digital sovereignty
Expert comment
jon.wallace
2 April 2025
It would likely be unpopular for a government that has cut welfare services and introduced new taxes on UK businesses, but it also risks undermining wider attempts to regulate big tech.
The UK's Digital Services Tax (DST) was originally introduced as a stopgap measure, passed in 2020 pending an international agreement to reform the international tax framework (the agreement never materialized). The DST looked to make tech multinationals not headquartered in the UK pay a tax on the revenues they made from their UK users.
The tax, set at 2 per cent on the revenues of search engines, social media services and online marketplaces, raises a modest amount – £800 million a year, on average. But it holds significant symbolic value: corporate tax avoidance is a bugbear for the UK public.
The tax may be popular domestically, but it is anything but across the Atlantic.
Persistent rumours that the UK government plans to reduce or eliminate the DST for US tech giants, in hopes of persuading President Donald Trump to row back or reduce tariffs on UK goods, will naturally worry some in the Labour Party. Announcing tax breaks for US tech conglomerates immediately after squeezing the UK welfare system, and months after raising UK employers' national insurance contributions, will in the words of Labour MP Clive Lewis, 'look absolutely horrific '.
But the UK government is in a difficult position: the tax may be popular domestically, but it is anything but across the Atlantic. President Trump has likened the medley of digital taxes, regulatory fines and other costs levied by other governments on US tech companies as 'overseas extortion '.
Within a month of taking office, Trump had withdrawn the US from OECD negotiations on a global tax system, and issued an executive order 'Defending American Companies and Innovators From Overseas Extortion and Unfair Fines and Penalties', targeting precisely those digital services taxes 'designed to plunder American companies ... through extortive fines and taxes'.
The UK's goldilocks zone
To date, the UK has sought to position itself in a 'Goldilocks zone' between the US and EU positions on technology governance, emphasizing sovereignty and growth. The hope is that the UK can be both a friend of Europe and, through less stringent regulation than the EU, the best place East of the Atlantic to scale technology products and services.
The UK should think hard about how much control it is willing to cede to improve US relations.
The offer to reduce or ditch the DST follows other moves that on the surface emphasize this British 'middle way'. The UK was the only country to join the US in not signing a joint statement emerging from the recent International AI summit in Paris , citing national security concerns among others.
But it's unlikely the UK can maintain this strategy for long. The Trumpian approach to technology development, of minimal regulation to bolster big tech's contribution to the stock market, and maintain a technological edge over China, is unlikely to fly in the UK. The British public is broadly supportive of tech regulation, particularly on the issues of online harms and young people growing up online . And most expect companies doing business in the UK to pay their fair share of tax.
Related content
Europe must forge a new role in the global economy
That would seem to incline the UK more towards the EU approach. The EU has been at the forefront of regulating big tech, including via its AI Act, similar digital tax regimes to the UK in countries like France, Italy and Spain, and GDPR data privacy laws with which most UK workers are familiar.
More fundamentally a combative US will force other countries to confront a difficult question. How much sovereignty over domestic technology is sufficient?
The UK should think hard about how much control it is willing to cede to improve US relations. It must realistically assess its ability to shape and influence the technology on which increasing parts of its social, economic and political foundations rest, but also whether concessions to the US will really deliver benefits.
The EU may be grappling with how to stay globally economically competitive while maintaining its regulatory approach. But its strategy towards big tech is nonetheless one of the most meaningful attempts to use pooled democratic power to manage and rein in the influence of these companies. Piecemeal concessions to the US in exchange for the uncertain prospect of tariff exemptions or trade deals might be less beneficial than aligning with the EU approach.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/04/putting-digital-services-tax-table-us-negotiations-sends-worrying-signal-uk-digital Apr 02, 2025, 09:04 AM
#43
General Non-Music Discussion / Myanmar’s military prioritize...
Last post by thilton.drupal - May 07, 2025, 01:48 AMMyanmar's military prioritizes its own survival in earthquake response
Myanmar's military prioritizes its own survival in earthquake response
Expert comment
thilton.drupal
2 April 2025
The devastating earthquake has put further strain on the embattled military regime as it fights a civil war. It is unlikely to collapse imminently, but the country's crisis will only get worse.
The scenes from earthquake-hit parts of central Myanmar are apocalyptic. At least 2,000 people are known to have been killed and unknown numbers lie buried in the rubble. Thousands of homes have been destroyed or damaged and key pieces of national infrastructure, from the Ava railway bridge between the cities of Mandalay and Sagaing to the airport at Naypyidaw, have been destroyed or rendered unusable. The costs of years of shoddy construction and poor maintenance have been made painfully obvious. The consequences of the events of 28 March will be long-lasting.
The earthquake is the latest in a line of tragedies to affect the people of Myanmar in the past few years. The hope created by the first democratic elections of 2015 has long since evaporated. In August 2017, the military and local militias killed thousands of Rohingya Muslims in the north-western state of Rakhine and hundreds of thousands more were forced to flee to Bangladesh. In February 2021, the military launched a coup and imprisoned the country's democratic leadership, including Aung San Suu Kyi. During the four years since, the country has fragmented. Separatist ethnic armed groups have restarted dormant campaigns and more than 6,000 people have been killed by the military's response.
Estimates by the US-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (Acled) in November 2024 suggested that ethnic armed organizations and so-called 'self-defence forces' control 42 per cent of Myanmar, and described a further 29 per cent of the country as 'contested.' The military is in complete control of only 21 per cent of the country (the remaining 8 per cent is sparsely populated forest). It is the highly populated area controlled by the military that was most badly hit by the earthquake. This is not entirely coincidental. The earthquake was caused by the Sagaing Fault, along which the Ayeyarwady (Irrawaddy) River flows. This low-lying, rice-growing river valley is the heartland of the Bamar, the country's largest ethnic group from which the army recruits most of its soldiers.
The dilemma faced by Western governments and aid agencies is how to get support to those who need it without it being diverted to the military or used as a bargaining tool in the civil war.
The army rules, and fights, with extreme brutality. In its heartland areas it forcibly conscripts young men and brutalizes those who demonstrate for democracy. In the areas controlled by its opponents it has conducted thousands of airstrikes, bombing schools, hospitals and churches. These are still continuing, despite the earthquake. This is only to be expected. Throughout the previous period of military rule, from 1962 to 2015, the army displayed ruthlessness and inflexibility. It sees itself as the sole force capable of keeping the country united and is determined not to give away territory to separatist ethnic groups or give up control of the state.
There is a parallel with the way the regime prioritized internal security over international aid after the impact of Cyclone Nargis in 2008. Back then it continued with the organization of a sham referendum intended to endorse a new constitution even as a storm surge drowned thousands of people. With its generals isolated in the newly built capital in Naypyidaw, the military was more focused on regime survival than saving lives. It is unlikely to be any different this time.
Foreign aid dilemma
The military's international partners, notably China, Russia, India and Vietnam, have rushed to provide highly visible displays of help, in particular through the deployment of brightly coloured search and rescue teams. These operations were largely performative but have been highlighted by state media in both Myanmar and the donor countries as evidence of strong relations.
The dilemma faced by Western governments and aid agencies is how to get support to those who need it without it being diverted to the military or used as a bargaining tool in the civil war. Given the location of much of the damage, it is likely that they will be obliged to work with the military, despite their well-founded misgivings, in order to reach those who need help the most. The military will want to control the aid distribution and present it as their own initiative to reduce the embarrassment of being seen to rely on foreigners. Each government and aid agency will have to decide whether it is worse to abandon the victims or to be used as tools of military propaganda.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/04/myanmars-military-prioritizes-its-own-survival-earthquake-response Apr 02, 2025, 08:18 AM
Myanmar's military prioritizes its own survival in earthquake response
Expert comment
thilton.drupal
2 April 2025
The devastating earthquake has put further strain on the embattled military regime as it fights a civil war. It is unlikely to collapse imminently, but the country's crisis will only get worse.
The scenes from earthquake-hit parts of central Myanmar are apocalyptic. At least 2,000 people are known to have been killed and unknown numbers lie buried in the rubble. Thousands of homes have been destroyed or damaged and key pieces of national infrastructure, from the Ava railway bridge between the cities of Mandalay and Sagaing to the airport at Naypyidaw, have been destroyed or rendered unusable. The costs of years of shoddy construction and poor maintenance have been made painfully obvious. The consequences of the events of 28 March will be long-lasting.
The earthquake is the latest in a line of tragedies to affect the people of Myanmar in the past few years. The hope created by the first democratic elections of 2015 has long since evaporated. In August 2017, the military and local militias killed thousands of Rohingya Muslims in the north-western state of Rakhine and hundreds of thousands more were forced to flee to Bangladesh. In February 2021, the military launched a coup and imprisoned the country's democratic leadership, including Aung San Suu Kyi. During the four years since, the country has fragmented. Separatist ethnic armed groups have restarted dormant campaigns and more than 6,000 people have been killed by the military's response.
Estimates by the US-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (Acled) in November 2024 suggested that ethnic armed organizations and so-called 'self-defence forces' control 42 per cent of Myanmar, and described a further 29 per cent of the country as 'contested.' The military is in complete control of only 21 per cent of the country (the remaining 8 per cent is sparsely populated forest). It is the highly populated area controlled by the military that was most badly hit by the earthquake. This is not entirely coincidental. The earthquake was caused by the Sagaing Fault, along which the Ayeyarwady (Irrawaddy) River flows. This low-lying, rice-growing river valley is the heartland of the Bamar, the country's largest ethnic group from which the army recruits most of its soldiers.
The dilemma faced by Western governments and aid agencies is how to get support to those who need it without it being diverted to the military or used as a bargaining tool in the civil war.
The army rules, and fights, with extreme brutality. In its heartland areas it forcibly conscripts young men and brutalizes those who demonstrate for democracy. In the areas controlled by its opponents it has conducted thousands of airstrikes, bombing schools, hospitals and churches. These are still continuing, despite the earthquake. This is only to be expected. Throughout the previous period of military rule, from 1962 to 2015, the army displayed ruthlessness and inflexibility. It sees itself as the sole force capable of keeping the country united and is determined not to give away territory to separatist ethnic groups or give up control of the state.
There is a parallel with the way the regime prioritized internal security over international aid after the impact of Cyclone Nargis in 2008. Back then it continued with the organization of a sham referendum intended to endorse a new constitution even as a storm surge drowned thousands of people. With its generals isolated in the newly built capital in Naypyidaw, the military was more focused on regime survival than saving lives. It is unlikely to be any different this time.
Foreign aid dilemma
The military's international partners, notably China, Russia, India and Vietnam, have rushed to provide highly visible displays of help, in particular through the deployment of brightly coloured search and rescue teams. These operations were largely performative but have been highlighted by state media in both Myanmar and the donor countries as evidence of strong relations.
The dilemma faced by Western governments and aid agencies is how to get support to those who need it without it being diverted to the military or used as a bargaining tool in the civil war. Given the location of much of the damage, it is likely that they will be obliged to work with the military, despite their well-founded misgivings, in order to reach those who need help the most. The military will want to control the aid distribution and present it as their own initiative to reduce the embarrassment of being seen to rely on foreigners. Each government and aid agency will have to decide whether it is worse to abandon the victims or to be used as tools of military propaganda.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/04/myanmars-military-prioritizes-its-own-survival-earthquake-response Apr 02, 2025, 08:18 AM
#44
General Non-Music Discussion / The false economy of DOGE
Last post by jon.wallace - May 07, 2025, 01:48 AMThe false economy of DOGE
The false economy of DOGE
Expert comment
jon.wallace
2 April 2025
Criticism of US government inefficiency is justified. But rapid cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency threaten US resilience and competitiveness.
Since US President Donald Trump launched the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), it has been a lightning rod for controversy.
Under the guidance of Elon Musk, DOGE has moved systematically through agencies to remove civil servants and cancel programmes under the mantle of rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse, promising to cut $1 trillion in spending . The agency's first significant operation, to make steep cuts at USAID, has been criticized as undermining the US's international position and is still disputed in the courts.
$1 trillion
Cuts in federal spending targeted by DOGE
There are legitimate grounds for criticism of the US government's inefficiency. Cumbersome procurement, Kafkaesque administrative processes, and programmes that have outlived their usefulness detract from agencies' ability to deliver on their core missions. And the ambition in President Trump's executive order establishing DOGE, to modernize outdated technology across government, is a sensible one.
A useful approach to improving government efficiency would prioritize programmes where government funds deliver significant economic returns. It would rely on evidence to make decisions. And crucially, it would ensure the US government remains prepared to manage catastrophic risks that neither the private sector nor individuals can adequately address.
But expansive DOGE cuts are taking place rapidly, with what even some Republicans characterize as a distinctly ideological mission . And it is far from certain that DOGE is achieving its key objective of saving taxpayer dollars. (DOGE's $140 billion in claimed savings is riddled with errors and obfuscations, according to a New York Times analysis ).
More significantly, its approach risks costing taxpayers – and the US – far more than it saves by cutting revenue-positive functions, diminishing crisis and risk-related capacity, and underinvesting in science and research.
Undermining revenue collection
Among DOGE's most prominent targets are agencies that return significant multiples of budget outlays to taxpayers. Cuts of 20 per cent of headcount at the IRS have led Treasury officials to predict a 10 per cent drop in tax revenues – over $500 billion – by the 15 April filing deadline.
Shrinking revenues risk...undermining international investor confidence in the US.
With diminished enforcement capacity, fewer Americans will file or pay their fair share. Estimates of lost revenue range from hundreds of billions to over 2 trillion dollars over a decade.
Similarly, DOGE has targeted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Bureau has returned roughly $20 billion to consumers during its 14 years existence – with a budget a fraction of that. Efforts to effectively shutter the agency, currently facing legal challenges, would undermine a demonstrably cost-effective agency, leaving taxpayers worse off and inviting fraud and abuse.
Further, shrinking revenues risk damage to perceptions of US fiscal management that could darken an already deteriorating fiscal outlook, undermining international investor confidence in the US and putting upward pressure on borrowing costs.
Undermining risk management and crisis prevention
Beyond revenue loss, DOGE threatens to create significant fiscal exposure for the US by reducing its crisis surveillance, mitigation, and response capacity. From cybersecurity to extreme weather to infectious disease, reducing capabilities and staffing could harm national resilience and heighten vulnerability to crises.
Related content
First USAID closes, then UK cuts aid: what a Western retreat from foreign aid could mean
Particularly alarming are deep cuts to scientific and health agencies like The National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control, which have lost critical research funding, and seen experts laid off. These cuts to scientific infrastructure threaten not just public health but also national security and economic stability. And costs to government could easily exceed any funds saved through DOGE's cuts.
A notable example of the wider costs from healthcare cuts was seen under the first Trump administration, which eliminated a programme to track novel coronaviruses. Despite upfront savings, COVID-19 subsequently necessitated $4.6 trillion in US spending on response measures.
The cut programme would not have prevented the disease's spread to the US, but it might have strengthened early response efforts. Speedy DOGE reductions to public health agencies – even as bird flu spreads and mutates – raise parallel concerns.
Equally, some key USAID activity was concerned with identifying diseases at their point of origin and preventing their spread globally. Much of that early warning infrastructure has gone, exposing the US to further risk .
Constraining innovation
Beyond exogenous shocks, DOGE's cuts also threaten the dynamism and innovation that underpin US international competitiveness. Government-backed research has helped produce technological advances like the internet, GPS, and mRNA vaccines that generate trillions in economic value, boosting the nation's economy and security while generating substantial tax revenue.
As top scientists consider moving abroad, the US advantage may erode.
Reductions to basic and applied science funding will impede growth and competitiveness, just as China increases its research investment in an effort to overtake the US. This forgone innovation will constrain the US economy, impeding ambitions to outgrow its mounting debt problem. And, as top scientists consider moving abroad , the US advantage may erode further – with China and Europe vying to recruit talent whose work DOGE threatens.
A test case at the Pentagon
The Department of Defense (DoD) provides a compelling litmus test for DOGE's commitment to efficiency. With nearly 3 million personnel and a budget exceeding $800 billion, the DoD is an obvious candidate for streamlining. DOGE has an opportunity to disrupt an ossified system and address longstanding inefficiencies and vulnerabilities.
Secretary Pete Hegseth's support for software acquisition reform represents a promising, though limited step toward productive cuts in tandem with DOGE. But so far, the Department has faced more incremental changes to programmes and personnel compared to civilian agencies.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/04/false-economy-doge Apr 02, 2025, 07:13 AM
The false economy of DOGE
Expert comment
jon.wallace
2 April 2025
Criticism of US government inefficiency is justified. But rapid cuts made by the Department of Government Efficiency threaten US resilience and competitiveness.
Since US President Donald Trump launched the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), it has been a lightning rod for controversy.
Under the guidance of Elon Musk, DOGE has moved systematically through agencies to remove civil servants and cancel programmes under the mantle of rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse, promising to cut $1 trillion in spending . The agency's first significant operation, to make steep cuts at USAID, has been criticized as undermining the US's international position and is still disputed in the courts.
$1 trillion
Cuts in federal spending targeted by DOGE
There are legitimate grounds for criticism of the US government's inefficiency. Cumbersome procurement, Kafkaesque administrative processes, and programmes that have outlived their usefulness detract from agencies' ability to deliver on their core missions. And the ambition in President Trump's executive order establishing DOGE, to modernize outdated technology across government, is a sensible one.
A useful approach to improving government efficiency would prioritize programmes where government funds deliver significant economic returns. It would rely on evidence to make decisions. And crucially, it would ensure the US government remains prepared to manage catastrophic risks that neither the private sector nor individuals can adequately address.
But expansive DOGE cuts are taking place rapidly, with what even some Republicans characterize as a distinctly ideological mission . And it is far from certain that DOGE is achieving its key objective of saving taxpayer dollars. (DOGE's $140 billion in claimed savings is riddled with errors and obfuscations, according to a New York Times analysis ).
More significantly, its approach risks costing taxpayers – and the US – far more than it saves by cutting revenue-positive functions, diminishing crisis and risk-related capacity, and underinvesting in science and research.
Undermining revenue collection
Among DOGE's most prominent targets are agencies that return significant multiples of budget outlays to taxpayers. Cuts of 20 per cent of headcount at the IRS have led Treasury officials to predict a 10 per cent drop in tax revenues – over $500 billion – by the 15 April filing deadline.
Shrinking revenues risk...undermining international investor confidence in the US.
With diminished enforcement capacity, fewer Americans will file or pay their fair share. Estimates of lost revenue range from hundreds of billions to over 2 trillion dollars over a decade.
Similarly, DOGE has targeted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Bureau has returned roughly $20 billion to consumers during its 14 years existence – with a budget a fraction of that. Efforts to effectively shutter the agency, currently facing legal challenges, would undermine a demonstrably cost-effective agency, leaving taxpayers worse off and inviting fraud and abuse.
Further, shrinking revenues risk damage to perceptions of US fiscal management that could darken an already deteriorating fiscal outlook, undermining international investor confidence in the US and putting upward pressure on borrowing costs.
Undermining risk management and crisis prevention
Beyond revenue loss, DOGE threatens to create significant fiscal exposure for the US by reducing its crisis surveillance, mitigation, and response capacity. From cybersecurity to extreme weather to infectious disease, reducing capabilities and staffing could harm national resilience and heighten vulnerability to crises.
Related content
First USAID closes, then UK cuts aid: what a Western retreat from foreign aid could mean
Particularly alarming are deep cuts to scientific and health agencies like The National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control, which have lost critical research funding, and seen experts laid off. These cuts to scientific infrastructure threaten not just public health but also national security and economic stability. And costs to government could easily exceed any funds saved through DOGE's cuts.
A notable example of the wider costs from healthcare cuts was seen under the first Trump administration, which eliminated a programme to track novel coronaviruses. Despite upfront savings, COVID-19 subsequently necessitated $4.6 trillion in US spending on response measures.
The cut programme would not have prevented the disease's spread to the US, but it might have strengthened early response efforts. Speedy DOGE reductions to public health agencies – even as bird flu spreads and mutates – raise parallel concerns.
Equally, some key USAID activity was concerned with identifying diseases at their point of origin and preventing their spread globally. Much of that early warning infrastructure has gone, exposing the US to further risk .
Constraining innovation
Beyond exogenous shocks, DOGE's cuts also threaten the dynamism and innovation that underpin US international competitiveness. Government-backed research has helped produce technological advances like the internet, GPS, and mRNA vaccines that generate trillions in economic value, boosting the nation's economy and security while generating substantial tax revenue.
As top scientists consider moving abroad, the US advantage may erode.
Reductions to basic and applied science funding will impede growth and competitiveness, just as China increases its research investment in an effort to overtake the US. This forgone innovation will constrain the US economy, impeding ambitions to outgrow its mounting debt problem. And, as top scientists consider moving abroad , the US advantage may erode further – with China and Europe vying to recruit talent whose work DOGE threatens.
A test case at the Pentagon
The Department of Defense (DoD) provides a compelling litmus test for DOGE's commitment to efficiency. With nearly 3 million personnel and a budget exceeding $800 billion, the DoD is an obvious candidate for streamlining. DOGE has an opportunity to disrupt an ossified system and address longstanding inefficiencies and vulnerabilities.
Secretary Pete Hegseth's support for software acquisition reform represents a promising, though limited step toward productive cuts in tandem with DOGE. But so far, the Department has faced more incremental changes to programmes and personnel compared to civilian agencies.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/04/false-economy-doge Apr 02, 2025, 07:13 AM
#45
General Non-Music Discussion / Members’ question time: Hope ...
Last post by Anonymous - May 07, 2025, 01:48 AMMembers' question time: Hope and expectations – can Syria govern itself?
Members' question time: Hope and expectations – can Syria govern itself?
30
April 2025 — 2:00PM TO 2:45PM
Anonymous (not verified)
1 April 2025
Online
Join us as Dr Haid Haid examines how Syria is emerging from civil war and what its future holds. Submit your questions in advance.
Join us as Dr Haid Haid, who will examine how Syria is emerging from civil war and what it's future holds.
Three months into Ahmed al-Sharaa's leadership, the de-facto leader of Syria, the country's future feels more uncertain than ever. Al-Sharaa has tried to move quickly in reshaping Syria's future. However, critics claim the transition has been rushed with too much power is concentrated in his hands. The heavy presence of HTS members in government has only deepened fears that the new leadership is not as inclusive as it claims.
Economically, the country is still mired in difficulty as it looks to emerge from years of civil war. Hopes for stability and recovery are fading as living conditions worsen.
Despite the end of the civil war, security has not been established across the country. A recent rebellion in Latakia and rising violence across the country are fuelling concerns that Syria could spiral back into unrest.
Without real economic progress, stronger security, and a government that represents all Syrians, the country risks repeating the cycles of instability it has fought so hard to escape.
Join Dr Haid Haid, Consulting Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, who will lead an overview of the latest developments in Syria.
Submit your questions to the experts in advance of the event. Your questions drive the conversation.
By registering for this event, attendees agree toour Code of Conduct, ensuring a respectful, inclusive, and welcoming space for diverse perspectives and debate.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/events/all/members-event/members-question-time-hope-and-expectations-can-syria-govern-itself Apr 01, 2025, 09:02 AM
Members' question time: Hope and expectations – can Syria govern itself?
30
April 2025 — 2:00PM TO 2:45PM
Anonymous (not verified)
1 April 2025
Online
Join us as Dr Haid Haid examines how Syria is emerging from civil war and what its future holds. Submit your questions in advance.
Join us as Dr Haid Haid, who will examine how Syria is emerging from civil war and what it's future holds.
Three months into Ahmed al-Sharaa's leadership, the de-facto leader of Syria, the country's future feels more uncertain than ever. Al-Sharaa has tried to move quickly in reshaping Syria's future. However, critics claim the transition has been rushed with too much power is concentrated in his hands. The heavy presence of HTS members in government has only deepened fears that the new leadership is not as inclusive as it claims.
Economically, the country is still mired in difficulty as it looks to emerge from years of civil war. Hopes for stability and recovery are fading as living conditions worsen.
Despite the end of the civil war, security has not been established across the country. A recent rebellion in Latakia and rising violence across the country are fuelling concerns that Syria could spiral back into unrest.
Without real economic progress, stronger security, and a government that represents all Syrians, the country risks repeating the cycles of instability it has fought so hard to escape.
Join Dr Haid Haid, Consulting Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, who will lead an overview of the latest developments in Syria.
Submit your questions to the experts in advance of the event. Your questions drive the conversation.
By registering for this event, attendees agree toour Code of Conduct, ensuring a respectful, inclusive, and welcoming space for diverse perspectives and debate.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/events/all/members-event/members-question-time-hope-and-expectations-can-syria-govern-itself Apr 01, 2025, 09:02 AM
#46
General Non-Music Discussion / Yemen: What has a decade of m...
Last post by Anonymous - May 07, 2025, 01:48 AMYemen: What has a decade of military intervention achieved?
Yemen: What has a decade of military intervention achieved?
10
April 2025 — 2:00PM TO 3:00PM
Anonymous (not verified)
1 April 2025
Online
Experts examine the impact of a decade of regional and international military intervention in Yemen and implications for the country's future.
The recent US airstrikes on Yemen signal a dramatic shift in the ongoing conflict. In March 2015, the Saudi Arabia and UAE-led Arab Coalition, with Western military and intelligence support, launched a major military campaign, Decisive Storm. The campaign aimed at pushing back the Iran-backed Houthi after they seized Yemen's capital, Sanaa, in September 2014.
Despite the fragile truce that emerged parallel to the formation of Yemen's Presidential Council in April 2022, the conflict has only deepened. Regional and international actors are increasingly involved. The country also faces one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. The Houthis' crackdown on aid workers, diplomats, and activists in mid-2024 has led donors to reconsider their support for Yemen. This has been exacerbated by the Trump administration's decision to shut down USAID—one of Yemen's largest humanitarian contributors.
Moreover, the Houthis' missile and drone attacks on Israel after October 7th, along with their role in global trade disruptions, have taken the international community off-guard, with significant costs and consequences.
Speakers in this webinar will address the following key questions:
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/events/all/research-event/yemen-what-has-decade-military-intervention-achieved Apr 01, 2025, 05:46 AM
Yemen: What has a decade of military intervention achieved?
10
April 2025 — 2:00PM TO 3:00PM
Anonymous (not verified)
1 April 2025
Online
Experts examine the impact of a decade of regional and international military intervention in Yemen and implications for the country's future.
The recent US airstrikes on Yemen signal a dramatic shift in the ongoing conflict. In March 2015, the Saudi Arabia and UAE-led Arab Coalition, with Western military and intelligence support, launched a major military campaign, Decisive Storm. The campaign aimed at pushing back the Iran-backed Houthi after they seized Yemen's capital, Sanaa, in September 2014.
Despite the fragile truce that emerged parallel to the formation of Yemen's Presidential Council in April 2022, the conflict has only deepened. Regional and international actors are increasingly involved. The country also faces one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. The Houthis' crackdown on aid workers, diplomats, and activists in mid-2024 has led donors to reconsider their support for Yemen. This has been exacerbated by the Trump administration's decision to shut down USAID—one of Yemen's largest humanitarian contributors.
Moreover, the Houthis' missile and drone attacks on Israel after October 7th, along with their role in global trade disruptions, have taken the international community off-guard, with significant costs and consequences.
Speakers in this webinar will address the following key questions:
- What is the current situation in Yemen, and what prospects exist for the resumption of a UN-led peace process?
- What are the current policies and priorities of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other regional actors in Yemen?
- What is the long-term strategy of the US and the UK regarding Yemen?
- What role does Yemen, and specifically the Houthis, play in current regional conflicts, such as the situation in Gaza?
- How does the US designation of the Houthis as an FTO affect the peace process and humanitarian efforts in Yemen?
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/events/all/research-event/yemen-what-has-decade-military-intervention-achieved Apr 01, 2025, 05:46 AM
#47
General Non-Music Discussion / South Africa can mitigate Tru...
Last post by thilton.drupal - May 07, 2025, 01:48 AMSouth Africa can mitigate Trump's ire through economic diplomacy and non-alignment
South Africa can mitigate Trump's ire through economic diplomacy and non-alignment
Expert comment
thilton.drupal
1 April 2025
US tariffs could hurt the South African economy, but Pretoria is already leveraging its energy transition to attract support from the EU and other partners.
South Africa is under fire from the new US administration, which has cancelled aid and expelled its ambassador from Washington. But Pretoria's instincts to engage across geopolitical divides mean that it could yet leverage the global energy transition to navigate a multipolar world to its advantage. Doing so will require it to align its political messaging with its economic diplomacy abroad and work with the private sector at home.
The Trump administration's hostility towards the South African government encompasses a mix of realpolitik, genuine concerns, factual revisionism, and deliberate misinterpretation that has put Pretoria on the back foot in its relations with one of its largest trading partners. Washington's core frustrations are with fundamental elements of South African policy that are unlikely to change – most notably its genocide case against Israel at the ICJ and its advocacy for global governance reform, including playing a central role in BRICS.
The Trump administration has also picked a fight with South Africa over its legislation on land reform and economic ownership transformation. Trump has offered to resettle white Afrikaner farmers in the US, who he claims are suffering racial discrimination, while Pretoria-born Elon Musk has repeatedly criticized the South African government and alleged it has 'openly racist ownership laws'. South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa has strongly rejected these allegations, describing them as a 'completely false narrative' and 'misinformation and distortions.'
The rift has also impacted South Africa's current presidency of the G20 , with the US boycotting a meeting of G20 foreign ministers last month. The US has been frustrated by South Africa's use of international forums to exert its influence, and the new administration has particularly opposed Pretoria's advocacy of BRICS.
Pretoria's instincts to engage across geopolitical divides mean that it could yet leverage the global energy transition to navigate a multipolar world to its advantage.
Analysts in Johannesburg told me they now fear the US might seek to make an example of South Africa to demonstrate that American economic might cannot be replaced by BRICS partners. This has led to widespread concern amongst other African nations fearful of what a 'with us or against us' US approach to the continent might yield.
While Ramaphosa has stated that South Africa 'will not be bullied,' his government will be keen to mitigate the impact of the potential loss of tariff-free trade access to the US under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which is up for renewal this year, or increased US pressure on NGO funders to cut their support.
South Africa is reportedly preparing a bilateral trade deal to offer Trump that could offset some of the impact if the AGOA is not renewed.
Economic diplomacy and energy transition
Alongside seeking to mend relations with the US, Pretoria's response has been focused on enhancing its relationship with multiple actors including China, Canada, the EU, UK and others.
South Africa has a long history of non-alignment, rooted in the country's ideological and political history, that can provide a strong basis for maintaining complex foreign relations with a range of actors, in line with its progressive political rhetoric. The current crisis could be the force needed to galvanize political will and government ability towards implementing an economic-focused foreign policy that has often been lacking in the past.
Related content
South Africa's G20 presidency is a chance for the West to engage with Global South priorities
South Africa's multi-party unity government has recently come under significant strain over the delayed national budget, which has worried international investors. While coalition partners disagree on some key foreign policy issues, there is common ground on the need to promote the country's national economic interest through maintaining economic relationships with a broad range of international partners. Unlike many countries, South Africa has a codified National Interest Framework, derived from the constitution, which formally sets out the country's values.
These values were lauded by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen during her participation at the EU-South Africa Summit on 13 March, where a package for €4.7 billion was committed to support South Africa's Just Energy Transition, infrastructure, and vaccine production.
The summit came after the US's withdrawal from the Just Energy Transition Partnership with South Africa, which the agreement's governing International Partner Group noted with regret. But with an influx of new funders including Canada, Spain, and Switzerland, the overall pledge stands at $12.8 billion, of which $2.5 billion has already been spent. South African concerns over the balance of debt to grants have been listened to, and the partner countries have increased their grant offer by 57 per cent since the initial pledge at COP26.
$12.8bn
pledged to South Africa's Just Energy Transition Partnership by international partners.
In addition, China has pledged support for energy transition and has exported nearly 8GW of solar panels in 2023 and 2024. In another deal, UK GuarantCo and British International Investment committed a $100million default guarantee to support renewable provider Etana.
These commitments to energy cooperation demonstrate the breadth of international support for South Africa, which could prove key in the face of US hostility.
This support for South Africa has been enabled by important reforms to national policy, including the lifting of restrictions on Independent Power Producers and structural changes to the energy sector. Accessing international finance to support the restructure of national energy utility ESKOM has necessitated a plan for new renewable generation to replace an aging coal fleet that will create significant opportunities for investors.
Domestic policies and coordination
For South Africa to continue to attract international support, it should present a unified national objective rooted in economic interests. This requires domestic political and bureaucratic coordination, including engaging with commercial actors.
In neighbouring Namibia, newly elected president Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah has streamlined her cabinet and strategically merged the ministry of international relations and cooperation with the ministry of trade. It is unlikely this will happen in South Africa due to the political compromises that underpin its coalition government, but Namibia's case does provide a good model of improved cross-ministry coordination to promote commercial interests abroad.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/04/south-africa-can-mitigate-trumps-ire-through-economic-diplomacy-and-non-alignment Apr 01, 2025, 05:46 AM
South Africa can mitigate Trump's ire through economic diplomacy and non-alignment
Expert comment
thilton.drupal
1 April 2025
US tariffs could hurt the South African economy, but Pretoria is already leveraging its energy transition to attract support from the EU and other partners.
South Africa is under fire from the new US administration, which has cancelled aid and expelled its ambassador from Washington. But Pretoria's instincts to engage across geopolitical divides mean that it could yet leverage the global energy transition to navigate a multipolar world to its advantage. Doing so will require it to align its political messaging with its economic diplomacy abroad and work with the private sector at home.
The Trump administration's hostility towards the South African government encompasses a mix of realpolitik, genuine concerns, factual revisionism, and deliberate misinterpretation that has put Pretoria on the back foot in its relations with one of its largest trading partners. Washington's core frustrations are with fundamental elements of South African policy that are unlikely to change – most notably its genocide case against Israel at the ICJ and its advocacy for global governance reform, including playing a central role in BRICS.
The Trump administration has also picked a fight with South Africa over its legislation on land reform and economic ownership transformation. Trump has offered to resettle white Afrikaner farmers in the US, who he claims are suffering racial discrimination, while Pretoria-born Elon Musk has repeatedly criticized the South African government and alleged it has 'openly racist ownership laws'. South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa has strongly rejected these allegations, describing them as a 'completely false narrative' and 'misinformation and distortions.'
The rift has also impacted South Africa's current presidency of the G20 , with the US boycotting a meeting of G20 foreign ministers last month. The US has been frustrated by South Africa's use of international forums to exert its influence, and the new administration has particularly opposed Pretoria's advocacy of BRICS.
Pretoria's instincts to engage across geopolitical divides mean that it could yet leverage the global energy transition to navigate a multipolar world to its advantage.
Analysts in Johannesburg told me they now fear the US might seek to make an example of South Africa to demonstrate that American economic might cannot be replaced by BRICS partners. This has led to widespread concern amongst other African nations fearful of what a 'with us or against us' US approach to the continent might yield.
While Ramaphosa has stated that South Africa 'will not be bullied,' his government will be keen to mitigate the impact of the potential loss of tariff-free trade access to the US under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), which is up for renewal this year, or increased US pressure on NGO funders to cut their support.
South Africa is reportedly preparing a bilateral trade deal to offer Trump that could offset some of the impact if the AGOA is not renewed.
Economic diplomacy and energy transition
Alongside seeking to mend relations with the US, Pretoria's response has been focused on enhancing its relationship with multiple actors including China, Canada, the EU, UK and others.
South Africa has a long history of non-alignment, rooted in the country's ideological and political history, that can provide a strong basis for maintaining complex foreign relations with a range of actors, in line with its progressive political rhetoric. The current crisis could be the force needed to galvanize political will and government ability towards implementing an economic-focused foreign policy that has often been lacking in the past.
Related content
South Africa's G20 presidency is a chance for the West to engage with Global South priorities
South Africa's multi-party unity government has recently come under significant strain over the delayed national budget, which has worried international investors. While coalition partners disagree on some key foreign policy issues, there is common ground on the need to promote the country's national economic interest through maintaining economic relationships with a broad range of international partners. Unlike many countries, South Africa has a codified National Interest Framework, derived from the constitution, which formally sets out the country's values.
These values were lauded by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen during her participation at the EU-South Africa Summit on 13 March, where a package for €4.7 billion was committed to support South Africa's Just Energy Transition, infrastructure, and vaccine production.
The summit came after the US's withdrawal from the Just Energy Transition Partnership with South Africa, which the agreement's governing International Partner Group noted with regret. But with an influx of new funders including Canada, Spain, and Switzerland, the overall pledge stands at $12.8 billion, of which $2.5 billion has already been spent. South African concerns over the balance of debt to grants have been listened to, and the partner countries have increased their grant offer by 57 per cent since the initial pledge at COP26.
$12.8bn
pledged to South Africa's Just Energy Transition Partnership by international partners.
In addition, China has pledged support for energy transition and has exported nearly 8GW of solar panels in 2023 and 2024. In another deal, UK GuarantCo and British International Investment committed a $100million default guarantee to support renewable provider Etana.
These commitments to energy cooperation demonstrate the breadth of international support for South Africa, which could prove key in the face of US hostility.
This support for South Africa has been enabled by important reforms to national policy, including the lifting of restrictions on Independent Power Producers and structural changes to the energy sector. Accessing international finance to support the restructure of national energy utility ESKOM has necessitated a plan for new renewable generation to replace an aging coal fleet that will create significant opportunities for investors.
Domestic policies and coordination
For South Africa to continue to attract international support, it should present a unified national objective rooted in economic interests. This requires domestic political and bureaucratic coordination, including engaging with commercial actors.
In neighbouring Namibia, newly elected president Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah has streamlined her cabinet and strategically merged the ministry of international relations and cooperation with the ministry of trade. It is unlikely this will happen in South Africa due to the political compromises that underpin its coalition government, but Namibia's case does provide a good model of improved cross-ministry coordination to promote commercial interests abroad.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/04/south-africa-can-mitigate-trumps-ire-through-economic-diplomacy-and-non-alignment Apr 01, 2025, 05:46 AM
#48
General Non-Music Discussion / Arab states must adapt their ...
Last post by jon.wallace - May 07, 2025, 01:48 AMArab states must adapt their Gaza peace plan and persuade Washington to engage with it
Arab states must adapt their Gaza peace plan and persuade Washington to engage with it
Expert comment
jon.wallace
31 March 2025
Israel is pursuing the illusion of total victory and likely plans to reoccupy Gaza. Arab countries must persuade President Trump that an alternative is better.
On 18 March, Israel shattered the fragile ceasefire deal in Gaza with a renewed military assault. The ceasefire had enabled a vital break in the conflict, allowing desperately needed humanitarian aid to enter the Strip. Over 190 Israelis and foreign nationals, held captive since 7 October 2023, had also been released during the pause in fighting – alongside thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli custody.
The resumption of the war has already claimed hundreds of Palestinian lives with high numbers of women and children among the dead and wounded . Politically, Israel, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) find themselves in a complex situation with no return to negotiations in sight.
Israel's offensive has been denounced by Arab, European and other governments, and by many Israelis, although it has been supported by the US. Families of the Israeli hostages still held in Gaza accuse Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of sacrificing their loved ones for his political survival. They are supported by Israelis concerned for the state of their democracy as the prime minister attempts to oust senior officials and drive through changes to the judicial system.
Israel's objectives
This time around, the statements and actions of the Israeli government suggest that the ultimate war objective is the military reoccupation of Gaza and to 'encourage' Palestinians to leave the territory for other countries.
The IDF has already drawn up plans which would see Gaza's two million strong population confined to the al-Mawasi 'humanitarian zone' while the Israeli military administers Gaza as it did for four decades until 2005.
Related content
Egypt's plan for Gaza may have thwarted Trump's 'riviera' for now. But its loopholes need to be fixed
Earlier this week, a spokeswoman for Netanyahu announced the establishment of a Voluntary Emigration Bureau for Gaza residents interested in relocating to third countries, adding that this new entity will operate 'in compliance with Israeli and international law '. These plans align with US President Donald Trump's suggested proposal to displace Gaza's population to Egypt and Jordan while transforming the Strip into a Middle Eastern riviera – an idea that caused UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to warn against attempts to ethnically cleanse the territory.
Publicly Netanyahu continues to insist on achieving 'total victory' over Hamas. This despite the limited results of the past 18 months – manifest in the fact that Hamas still exists and continues to fire rockets and hold hostages.
The new assault on the Gaza Strip is not cost-free for Israel. It also risks destabilizing neighbouring Jordan and Egypt. Efforts to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia have been set back. Perhaps more significantly, international support for Israel after 7 October has shifted substantially after the deaths of over 50,000 Palestinians .
Palestinians' lack of options
While Israel may be caught in a quagmire, Hamas is running out of choices. With its military capacity degraded it was forced to put all its hopes in the January ceasefire, insisting that it remained open to negotiations and calling for pressure on Israel to implement a truce. Hamas appears to have miscalculated the value of the Israeli hostages' lives to Netanyahu's government, which seems determined to escalate its military offensive regardless of the risks to the hostages.
The PA clings to the vestiges of its legitimacy, hoping that the Arab plan for peace, adopted on 4 March, will be realized and somehow save it.
Recent anti-Hamas protests in Gaza will concern a movement that has seen almost no opposition to its rule since the beginning of the war in 2023, although it is too early to assess how Hamas will emerge from the war politically. Hamas continues to sustain a support base in the Strip, but visible public discontent may force it to further soften its positions.
Meanwhile, the PA finds itself stuck once again in a difficult position. Its attempts to present itself as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians and win US support to resume government in Gaza have drastically failed.
The PA has dwindling legitimacy and credibility amongst Palestinians and is unable to exercise its authority inside the West Bank, following Israel's escalated military operations and settler violence. President Mahmoud Abbas's pledge to pardon exiled members of his own party Fatah hasn't materialized yet, further undermining the possibility for unity talks between all Palestinian factions. Instead, the PA clings to the vestiges of its legitimacy, hoping that the Arab plan for peace, adopted on 4 March, will be realized and somehow save it.
Solutions
As Israeli plans to take over the Gaza Strip solidify, it is clear that the semi-solutions on the table, including an extension of phase one of the ceasefire, are not going to be enough for the region's long-term needs.
A recent Egyptian bridging proposal to restore the ceasefire through an incremental hostage release and return to phase two of the January ceasefire may save lives. But it leaves the difficult issues that may set back the entire process unresolved and does not offer new guarantees for ending the war and Israeli withdrawal. It's a good start but needs further development.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/03/arab-states-must-adapt-their-gaza-peace-plan-and-persuade-washington-engage-it Mar 31, 2025, 07:15 AM
Arab states must adapt their Gaza peace plan and persuade Washington to engage with it
Expert comment
jon.wallace
31 March 2025
Israel is pursuing the illusion of total victory and likely plans to reoccupy Gaza. Arab countries must persuade President Trump that an alternative is better.
On 18 March, Israel shattered the fragile ceasefire deal in Gaza with a renewed military assault. The ceasefire had enabled a vital break in the conflict, allowing desperately needed humanitarian aid to enter the Strip. Over 190 Israelis and foreign nationals, held captive since 7 October 2023, had also been released during the pause in fighting – alongside thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli custody.
The resumption of the war has already claimed hundreds of Palestinian lives with high numbers of women and children among the dead and wounded . Politically, Israel, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) find themselves in a complex situation with no return to negotiations in sight.
Israel's offensive has been denounced by Arab, European and other governments, and by many Israelis, although it has been supported by the US. Families of the Israeli hostages still held in Gaza accuse Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of sacrificing their loved ones for his political survival. They are supported by Israelis concerned for the state of their democracy as the prime minister attempts to oust senior officials and drive through changes to the judicial system.
Israel's objectives
This time around, the statements and actions of the Israeli government suggest that the ultimate war objective is the military reoccupation of Gaza and to 'encourage' Palestinians to leave the territory for other countries.
The IDF has already drawn up plans which would see Gaza's two million strong population confined to the al-Mawasi 'humanitarian zone' while the Israeli military administers Gaza as it did for four decades until 2005.
Related content
Egypt's plan for Gaza may have thwarted Trump's 'riviera' for now. But its loopholes need to be fixed
Earlier this week, a spokeswoman for Netanyahu announced the establishment of a Voluntary Emigration Bureau for Gaza residents interested in relocating to third countries, adding that this new entity will operate 'in compliance with Israeli and international law '. These plans align with US President Donald Trump's suggested proposal to displace Gaza's population to Egypt and Jordan while transforming the Strip into a Middle Eastern riviera – an idea that caused UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to warn against attempts to ethnically cleanse the territory.
Publicly Netanyahu continues to insist on achieving 'total victory' over Hamas. This despite the limited results of the past 18 months – manifest in the fact that Hamas still exists and continues to fire rockets and hold hostages.
The new assault on the Gaza Strip is not cost-free for Israel. It also risks destabilizing neighbouring Jordan and Egypt. Efforts to normalize relations with Saudi Arabia have been set back. Perhaps more significantly, international support for Israel after 7 October has shifted substantially after the deaths of over 50,000 Palestinians .
Palestinians' lack of options
While Israel may be caught in a quagmire, Hamas is running out of choices. With its military capacity degraded it was forced to put all its hopes in the January ceasefire, insisting that it remained open to negotiations and calling for pressure on Israel to implement a truce. Hamas appears to have miscalculated the value of the Israeli hostages' lives to Netanyahu's government, which seems determined to escalate its military offensive regardless of the risks to the hostages.
The PA clings to the vestiges of its legitimacy, hoping that the Arab plan for peace, adopted on 4 March, will be realized and somehow save it.
Recent anti-Hamas protests in Gaza will concern a movement that has seen almost no opposition to its rule since the beginning of the war in 2023, although it is too early to assess how Hamas will emerge from the war politically. Hamas continues to sustain a support base in the Strip, but visible public discontent may force it to further soften its positions.
Meanwhile, the PA finds itself stuck once again in a difficult position. Its attempts to present itself as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians and win US support to resume government in Gaza have drastically failed.
The PA has dwindling legitimacy and credibility amongst Palestinians and is unable to exercise its authority inside the West Bank, following Israel's escalated military operations and settler violence. President Mahmoud Abbas's pledge to pardon exiled members of his own party Fatah hasn't materialized yet, further undermining the possibility for unity talks between all Palestinian factions. Instead, the PA clings to the vestiges of its legitimacy, hoping that the Arab plan for peace, adopted on 4 March, will be realized and somehow save it.
Solutions
As Israeli plans to take over the Gaza Strip solidify, it is clear that the semi-solutions on the table, including an extension of phase one of the ceasefire, are not going to be enough for the region's long-term needs.
A recent Egyptian bridging proposal to restore the ceasefire through an incremental hostage release and return to phase two of the January ceasefire may save lives. But it leaves the difficult issues that may set back the entire process unresolved and does not offer new guarantees for ending the war and Israeli withdrawal. It's a good start but needs further development.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/03/arab-states-must-adapt-their-gaza-peace-plan-and-persuade-washington-engage-it Mar 31, 2025, 07:15 AM
#49
General Non-Music Discussion / Independent Thinking: Can Eur...
Last post by john.pollock - May 07, 2025, 01:48 AMIndependent Thinking: Can Europe replace the US as a global power?
Independent Thinking: Can Europe replace the US as a global power?
Audio
john.pollock
28 March 2025
Creon Butler, Olivia O'Sullivan and Nicolai von Ondarza discuss whether Europe can defend the global economic system in the face of Donald Trump's policies.
[soundcloud]https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/2065422284&visual=&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=false&show_user=false&show_reposts=false&color=%23ff5500[/soundcloud]
In this week's episode of Independent Thinking, Bronwen Maddox discusses whether Europe can take up the mantle of the US, and lead the world as an economic and political powerhouse. Can Europe can fill the vacuum caused by America's shifting foreign policy, and in doing so, become more of an economic force?
Bronwen explores this topic with three Chatham House experts: Creon Butler, director of the Global Economy and Finance Programme, Olivia O'Sullivan, director of the UK in the World Programme, and Nicolai von Ondarza, an associate fellow in our Europe Programme.
About Independent Thinking
Independent Thinking is a weekly international affairs podcast hosted by our director Bronwen Maddox, in conversation with leading policymakers, journalists, and Chatham House experts providing insight on the latest international issues.
More ways to listen: Apple Podcasts , Spotify.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/03/independent-thinking-can-europe-replace-us-global-power Mar 28, 2025, 07:05 AM
Independent Thinking: Can Europe replace the US as a global power?
Audio
john.pollock
28 March 2025
Creon Butler, Olivia O'Sullivan and Nicolai von Ondarza discuss whether Europe can defend the global economic system in the face of Donald Trump's policies.
[soundcloud]https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/2065422284&visual=&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=false&show_user=false&show_reposts=false&color=%23ff5500[/soundcloud]
In this week's episode of Independent Thinking, Bronwen Maddox discusses whether Europe can take up the mantle of the US, and lead the world as an economic and political powerhouse. Can Europe can fill the vacuum caused by America's shifting foreign policy, and in doing so, become more of an economic force?
Bronwen explores this topic with three Chatham House experts: Creon Butler, director of the Global Economy and Finance Programme, Olivia O'Sullivan, director of the UK in the World Programme, and Nicolai von Ondarza, an associate fellow in our Europe Programme.
About Independent Thinking
Independent Thinking is a weekly international affairs podcast hosted by our director Bronwen Maddox, in conversation with leading policymakers, journalists, and Chatham House experts providing insight on the latest international issues.
More ways to listen: Apple Podcasts , Spotify.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/03/independent-thinking-can-europe-replace-us-global-power Mar 28, 2025, 07:05 AM
#50
General Non-Music Discussion / China’s military build-up ind...
Last post by LToremark - May 07, 2025, 01:48 AMChina's military build-up indicates it is serious about taking Taiwan
China's military build-up indicates it is serious about taking Taiwan
Expert comment
LToremark
27 March 2025
The more the US dithers in its response, the more the strategic balance shifts in China's favour.
There is a storm brewing across the Taiwan Strait. China has increased its military activity around Taiwan and deployed new landing barges in the South China Sea, while the counter-influence policies of Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te and shifts in US rhetoric are viewed as provocations by Beijing – fuelling a vicious circle of tensions.
Beijing has long hoped for the 'peaceful reunification' of Taiwan with mainland China, but has repeatedly stated that it will not renounce the use of force to achieve unification if necessary. While Beijing's ideal long-term strategy is to pressure Taiwan to unify without the need for conflict, the emerging pattern of its actions suggests that it increasingly believes that forceful intervention could be necessary.
Perceived provocation by Taiwan and the US
Beijing has made clear that it considers Taiwan a red line in the context of China–US relations – 'the core of China's core interests' . Beijing also set out several conditions under which a red line would be crossed over Taiwan in its 2005 Anti-Secession Law .
Related content
Trump's ambiguous stance on China raises the risk of accidental conflict in the Indo-Pacific
A formal declaration of independence is unlikely – Taiwan is de facto independent and this would bring little material gain. The real risk is that Beijing sees peaceful reunification as no longer possible due to a decisive shift in political sentiment in Taiwan, or if the US takes pre-emptive actions which would make future unification challenging, militarily or politically.
Given the importance Beijing attaches to reunification and how explicit it has been about its red lines, failure to act would be a major blow to China's credibility. It should therefore be assumed that China is willing to use force if it believes a red line has been crossed.
From Beijing's perspective, the actions of President Lai of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) are moving towards those red lines, if not yet crossing them. While Beijing has long viewed the DPP as separatist, it views Lai with particular hostility due to his outspoken criticism of China and perceived 'pro-independence' agenda. Lai's efforts to crack down on Chinese infiltration and influence operations, including his labelling of China as a 'hostile foreign force', has been met with condemnation, warnings and heightened Chinese military activity around the island.
Given the importance Beijing attaches to reunification and how explicit it has been about its red lines, failure to act would be a major blow to China's credibility.
This is compounded by recent shifts in US language which have similarly angered Beijing. The US State Department removed language stating that it does not support Taiwanese independence from its website, and a recent G7 statement omitted the typical iteration of support for a 'one China policy', a diplomatic acknowledgment of Beijing's position that Taiwan is not an independent country.
These shifts could contribute to a perception in Beijing that the US is moving away from its policy of 'strategic ambiguity' – not committing explicitly to the island's defence in the hope of containing both Chinese aggression and Taiwanese pursuit of formal independence. The apparent lack of consensus on Taiwan within the Trump administration presents a risk – if Beijing thinks decisive US commitment to Taiwan is on the cards, but not yet explicit, it may perceive a limited window in which it can act before the US adopts a clear policy.
Chinese military preparations
Beijing has long sought the capacity to conquer Taiwan militarily if necessary; the guiding principle of People's Liberation Army (PLA) modernization has been to be able to fight and win a war over Taiwan involving the United States.
Related content
As China's purge of top military officials continues, will Xi's high-stakes gamble pay off?
China's development of material capabilities such as the new D-Day-style landing barges, and the PLA's focus on interoperability between the navy, air force and rocket force, are part of this modernization – although they do not in themselves indicate that war is imminent.
What is concerning is the frequency and intensity of PLA actions in the context of a shift in Taiwanese political opinion and a US position of ambiguity which is of diminishing strategic value . Perceived provocations by Lai and the US are now routinely met with actions such as exercises, unannounced live fire drills and undersea cable cutting .
China is normalizing PLA activity around the island, including joint combat patrols designed to improve coordination between the different armed services. While this forms part of Beijing's greyzone strategy, their increasing frequency puts pressure on Taiwan to respond, which in turn prompts a stronger Chinese response. In this context, the risk of escalation to actual conflict is heightened.
The role of the US remains the decisive challenge for Beijing
Beijing's preparations indicate that it still takes the possibility of US involvement in a conflict seriously. The new barges expand the range of plausible sites for an amphibious landing, complicating Taiwanese and US defence planning. New cable-cutting technology would enhance Beijing's ability to cut communications to and from the island. Meanwhile, the trend towards continuous Chinese air and naval activity around the island means the PLA is in a position to rapidly switch from greyzone actions to a genuine blockade or preparations for an invasion.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/03/chinas-military-build-indicates-it-serious-about-taking-taiwan Mar 27, 2025, 10:19 AM
China's military build-up indicates it is serious about taking Taiwan
Expert comment
LToremark
27 March 2025
The more the US dithers in its response, the more the strategic balance shifts in China's favour.
There is a storm brewing across the Taiwan Strait. China has increased its military activity around Taiwan and deployed new landing barges in the South China Sea, while the counter-influence policies of Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te and shifts in US rhetoric are viewed as provocations by Beijing – fuelling a vicious circle of tensions.
Beijing has long hoped for the 'peaceful reunification' of Taiwan with mainland China, but has repeatedly stated that it will not renounce the use of force to achieve unification if necessary. While Beijing's ideal long-term strategy is to pressure Taiwan to unify without the need for conflict, the emerging pattern of its actions suggests that it increasingly believes that forceful intervention could be necessary.
Perceived provocation by Taiwan and the US
Beijing has made clear that it considers Taiwan a red line in the context of China–US relations – 'the core of China's core interests' . Beijing also set out several conditions under which a red line would be crossed over Taiwan in its 2005 Anti-Secession Law .
Related content
Trump's ambiguous stance on China raises the risk of accidental conflict in the Indo-Pacific
A formal declaration of independence is unlikely – Taiwan is de facto independent and this would bring little material gain. The real risk is that Beijing sees peaceful reunification as no longer possible due to a decisive shift in political sentiment in Taiwan, or if the US takes pre-emptive actions which would make future unification challenging, militarily or politically.
Given the importance Beijing attaches to reunification and how explicit it has been about its red lines, failure to act would be a major blow to China's credibility. It should therefore be assumed that China is willing to use force if it believes a red line has been crossed.
From Beijing's perspective, the actions of President Lai of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) are moving towards those red lines, if not yet crossing them. While Beijing has long viewed the DPP as separatist, it views Lai with particular hostility due to his outspoken criticism of China and perceived 'pro-independence' agenda. Lai's efforts to crack down on Chinese infiltration and influence operations, including his labelling of China as a 'hostile foreign force', has been met with condemnation, warnings and heightened Chinese military activity around the island.
Given the importance Beijing attaches to reunification and how explicit it has been about its red lines, failure to act would be a major blow to China's credibility.
This is compounded by recent shifts in US language which have similarly angered Beijing. The US State Department removed language stating that it does not support Taiwanese independence from its website, and a recent G7 statement omitted the typical iteration of support for a 'one China policy', a diplomatic acknowledgment of Beijing's position that Taiwan is not an independent country.
These shifts could contribute to a perception in Beijing that the US is moving away from its policy of 'strategic ambiguity' – not committing explicitly to the island's defence in the hope of containing both Chinese aggression and Taiwanese pursuit of formal independence. The apparent lack of consensus on Taiwan within the Trump administration presents a risk – if Beijing thinks decisive US commitment to Taiwan is on the cards, but not yet explicit, it may perceive a limited window in which it can act before the US adopts a clear policy.
Chinese military preparations
Beijing has long sought the capacity to conquer Taiwan militarily if necessary; the guiding principle of People's Liberation Army (PLA) modernization has been to be able to fight and win a war over Taiwan involving the United States.
Related content
As China's purge of top military officials continues, will Xi's high-stakes gamble pay off?
China's development of material capabilities such as the new D-Day-style landing barges, and the PLA's focus on interoperability between the navy, air force and rocket force, are part of this modernization – although they do not in themselves indicate that war is imminent.
What is concerning is the frequency and intensity of PLA actions in the context of a shift in Taiwanese political opinion and a US position of ambiguity which is of diminishing strategic value . Perceived provocations by Lai and the US are now routinely met with actions such as exercises, unannounced live fire drills and undersea cable cutting .
China is normalizing PLA activity around the island, including joint combat patrols designed to improve coordination between the different armed services. While this forms part of Beijing's greyzone strategy, their increasing frequency puts pressure on Taiwan to respond, which in turn prompts a stronger Chinese response. In this context, the risk of escalation to actual conflict is heightened.
The role of the US remains the decisive challenge for Beijing
Beijing's preparations indicate that it still takes the possibility of US involvement in a conflict seriously. The new barges expand the range of plausible sites for an amphibious landing, complicating Taiwanese and US defence planning. New cable-cutting technology would enhance Beijing's ability to cut communications to and from the island. Meanwhile, the trend towards continuous Chinese air and naval activity around the island means the PLA is in a position to rapidly switch from greyzone actions to a genuine blockade or preparations for an invasion.
Source: https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/03/chinas-military-build-indicates-it-serious-about-taking-taiwan Mar 27, 2025, 10:19 AM