LibertyVoter.Org

By Caroline Dorminey

Caroline Dorminey

Vladimir Putin’s Thursday speech about Russia’s new and “invincible” array of nuclear weapons accomplished many of its objectives. It provided a strong image for a politician heading into a presidential election on March 18. It declared Russia triumphant after years of economic turbulence and military stagnation. And its assertions about the “practically unlimited range” of a new nuclear-powered cruise missile cast doubt on the viability of American missile defense systems.

If true, the emergence of this new capability could have serious consequences for U.S.–Russian bilateral relations and implications for nuclear nonproliferation efforts worldwide.

Nuclear analysts rushed to dissect the grainy video of the new technology shown in Putin’s address. Some claimed that the new system could be a ruse intended for promotional campaign purposes. Others wondered why there appeared to be conflicting records of traces of radioactive particles that nuclear weapons tests leave in the atmosphere — raising questions about the timeframe in which Putin claims the system was created and the current stage of its development.

But without more technical information on this missile, it’s difficult to determine the truth of Putin’s boasts. However, the creation of an entirely new nuclear weapon further complicates already-tense U.S.–Russian relations. In 2010 both countries signed the New START Treaty — a bilateral agreement to reduce the size of their nuclear arsenals and limit the number of deployed weapons.

New START was intended to be just that — a new start for the relationship between Russia and America, as well as for global nonproliferation efforts. The two countries with the largest arsenals signaled to the world that the time had come to downsize and decommission these weapons. It preserved each country’s viable deterrent, keeping the limit on missiles large enough to dissuade their use in a combat scenario because the costs of starting and finishing that fight would be far too high.

The treaty even allows for the modernization of existing nuclear weapons to that end. But it complicates the creation of new technologies because of how they would be incorporated and counted under New START. Article V dictates that if either country creates “a new kind of strategic offensive arm,” then that country should raise the question of consideration to the Bilateral Consultative Commission that is in charge of implementing the treaty.

If the Russian government developed the new rocket without consultation, it could be seen as a violation of New START. The treaty is already on …read more

Source: OP-EDS

By Daniel J. Ikenson

Daniel J. Ikenson

Media report that President Trump intends to announce import
restrictions on steel and aluminum at a press conference or signing
ceremony today. Where exactly that leads is anyone’s guess,
but it is certain to be a place less stable, less predictable, and
less cooperative than the place we are right now.

In reports published last month, the U.S. Department of Commerce
concluded that steel and aluminum imports “threaten to impair
the national security” of the United States and recommended a
range of remedies to the president. Those reports were the
culmination of two investigations conducted under Section 232 of
the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, a seldom used statute that
authorizes the president to respond to perceived national security
threats with trade restrictions.

Once Trump opens
Pandora’s Box by rationalizing protectionism as a national security
imperative, the durability of the rules based trading system will
be tested like never before, with global economic security hanging
in the balance.

For steel, the Commerce report recommends moderate to highly
restrictive quotas, and tariffs ranging from 24 to 53 percent; for
aluminum, the recommendations are also for moderate to highly
restrictive quotas, and tariffs ranging from 7.7 to 23.6 percent.
But the supposed “cure” of these restrictions would
prove far worse than the disease.

According to the Commerce Department reports, trade restrictions
would induce U.S. producers to build and use more domestic
capacity, which would reduce U.S. dependence on
foreign—potentially hostile—sources of supply of
materials deemed critical to national defense. Oddly, the reports
say nothing about the adverse effects of steel and aluminum
restrictions on the U.S. producers who purchase those basic inputs
to manufacture the very materials deemed critical to national
defense. Those U.S. producers would be weakened by trade
restrictions, exposing them to competition from foreign rivals with
lower production costs capable of offering lower prices in the U.S.
market.

Of course, the problems wouldn’t end there. Any U.S.
decision to restrict imports based on the argument that an
abundance of low-priced raw materials from a diversity of sources
somehow threatens national security would lower the bar so
significantly as to invite every other member of the World Trade
Organization to invoke national security to protect favored
industries.

Under WTO rules dating back to the establishment of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in 1947, member governments are
permitted to raise trade barriers for purposes of protecting
national security without obligating them to demonstrate that their
rationale conforms to some agreed definition of national security
or national security threat. While the GATT’s original
contracting parties were well aware of the importance of trade
openness to the goals of economic growth and goodwill among
nations, …read more

Source: OP-EDS

By Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow

Officially the Chinese Empire ended in 1912 with the abdication
of Pu Yi. He went on to head the puppet state of Manchukuo under
Japanese occupation during World War II and died as an apparently
loyal citizen of the People’s Republic of China in 1967.

Although Pu Yi was long referred to as the Last Emperor of
China, that title really belongs to the so-called Red Emperor, Mao
Zedong. Mao is credited with creation of the PRC, but his selfish,
unbalanced, and xenophobic rule led to the deaths of tens of
millions of people. He launched the Cultural Revolution, which
unleashed veritable civil war throughout China. Relief at his death
was widespread, since it allowed the PRC to evolve into something
approaching a normal nation — and to subsequently undertake
reforms that turned the PRC into a global economic powerhouse.

Most people believed imperial China was gone forever.
Mao’s successors were willing to use extreme brutality to
maintain power, witness the carnage in Tiananmen Square in June
1989. However, they attempted to prevent the return of personal
dictatorship, ultimately setting a two-term limit on the president,
which was respected by Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao. Neither of them
enjoyed the untrammeled authority of Mao or Deng Xiaoping. The
system wasn’t exactly collective rule, but politics no longer
was uniquely scary.

Xi Jingping goes back to
the future — the U.S. should consider itself duly
warned.

But that is changing. Xi Jinping appears set to become
China’s next de facto emperor. He’s not exactly
“red” — after all, among his political victims
was Bo Xilai, a representative of the “New Left.” As
provincial chief Bo promoted the “red culture” movement
and used Maoist imagery to advance his career. In 2012 Bo was
stripped of his position and put on trial, more for his outsize
ambition than retrograde philosophy. Nevertheless, few of the
PRC’s leaders wanted to return to Maoism.

After serving only one term, however, Xi is positioning himself
to rule for life. Not from behind the scenes, like Deng, who set
China on its reform course. But in front, as president, apparently
the modern Chinese term for emperor.

Xi quickly established his authority, launching a carefully
targeted — meaning mostly against his political opponents and
their support networks — anti-corruption campaign. He upset
the unwritten rule of not prosecuting “Tigers,” top
leaders who had preceded him. He quickly gained authority over the
military and asserted control over economic policy, traditionally
left to the premier. At last fall’s party congress he failed
to nominate a successor, a clear signal that term limits were
kaput. Now the Chinese Communist Party has announced plans …read more

Source: OP-EDS