Category Archives: China
The UN likes to pick on Israel. But the U.S. usually stands up for its ally by vetoing hostile Security Council resolutions. Last week was different. UN ambassador Samantha Powers ole’d through a resolution condemning Israel for building settlements on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem.
Abstention on the UN vote reflected our values – according to John Kerry.
However, the resolution didn’t reflect the values of Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz. He does not believe Barack has your back:
“It goes right to the heart of Jewish Jerusalem. It says Jews can’t pray at the holiest site in Judaism, they can’t attend Hebrew University,” Dershowitz said, adding that Obama had Israel’s back, but “as a target.”
It won’t be easy for Trump to roll back a Security Council resolution because Russia and China hold veto power. But one thing The Donald could do is cut the United States $3 billion contribution to the UN. That amounts to 20% of all UN funding.
Speaking of having Israel’s back, Bret Stephens says Obama has a habit of helping enemies and back stabbing friends.
Barack Has Your Back
Stanford Professor Victor Davis Hanson thinks Obama has sought to rewrite the traditional approaches to foreign policy.
To paraphrase the Sophoclean code, it is wise to help your friends and hurt your enemies…
Turning the other cheek is the proper New Testament aspiration for individuals to live by, but the Sermon on the Mount is deadly for nations, at least until the nature of man changes…
Diplomacy is like the tax code: Subsidize hostility and you get more hostile actors; tax friendship and you get fewer friends.
Bibi, on the other hand, won’t be turning the other cheek. Or his back.
Donald Trump’s phone conversation with the president of Taiwan was a diplomatic blunder. According to diplomats. They say it upsets the One China Policy. That’s the policy where everybody pretends Mainland China exits and Taiwan doesn’t.
One China Policy
Henry Kissinger helped invent the One China policy in 1971. This week he took a ride up the golden elevator to meet Trump. He was impressed. He says Trump is a unique president-elect because he has “no baggage.”
I don’t think The Donald cares who calls him on the phone. William Murchison of the Dallas Morning News definitely doesn’t care. You can read his column here.
NSA may have cut back on stealing your data but China hasn’t. Chinese government operatives continue to hack U.S. government, university, and corporate networks. A WSJ editorial titled The Chinese Have Your Numbers claims they made off with the personnel files of 2.1 million fed employees. Could be you’ve earned a purple heart in a cyber war and don’t know it.
China is filled with with smog. You can taste the PM 2.5 – little particles that go into your lungs to kill you. So what was the signing event of the week? A deal to reduce the carbon dioxide you exhale to cough those little buggers out. And the Chinese don’t even have to do it until 2030. If they’re still alive.
The agreement is for America to set the example by cutting co2 emissions right away. The really silly part is that it’s a deal about nothing. Carbon dioxide emissions in the United States have been falling due to increased use of natural gas and a decreased role for industrial production. We’re expected to reach the goals of the agreement by doing nothing. China will reach peak population growth by 2030 and it’s co2 emissions are expected to fall naturally by then too.
The other big news of the week was the revelation that our governing elites lack a positive attitude toward us voters. They think we’re stupid. Ok, so maybe they’re right. It’s certainly not a problem shared by China – a situation much admired by Tom Friedman of the NYT.
President Obama made another end run around Congress in order to end the basis of all life on earth.
A 30% cut in carbon emissions from 2005 levels and must be achieved by 2030, or else.
Not a big deal says Robert Samuelson. Carbon emissions are already declining without EPA orders.
By 2012, CO2 emissions had already dropped to 2,023 million metric tons, a decline of 379 million metric tons. That’s 53 percent of the 2030 target. All of this has occurred without federal regulation of greenhouse gases.
The proposal’s real significance is that, if blessed by the courts, it would create a complex and costly regulatory apparatus that, in the future, might govern much of the U.S. economy.
China and India will more than make up for any U.S. cuts. But if you’re going to do it, Samuelson thinks the best way to reduce carbon emissions is to tax them.
If you want less of something, tax it… But there’s little public taste for this. Indeed, support for any anti-global warming legislation is weak. In 2009, when Democrats controlled the House and Senate, they could not pass a bill.
So Obama resorted to regulatory fiat: The EPA sets emission limits under the Clean Air Act. The proposal is hugely complex. Each state receives a target that can be met in many ways, subject to agency approval. This will be challenged in court and, if upheld, will strain the EPA’s administrative capacity. Winners and losers would be determined as much by political pressures as by market forces. It would be a bonanza for lawyers, lobbyists, economic consultants and public relations advisers. Whether it would affect the world’s climate is more questionable.
Krauthammer says the whole thing shows Obama is operating under his own constitution.