No images? Click here [link removed]

The Pentagon's Trojan Horse

A member of Japan's Air Self-Defense Force looks through binoculars downrange while conducting an initial training scenario reconnaissance at Misawa Air Base, Japan, March 2, 2017. (U.S. Air Force)

Adversarial nations that invest in American companies pose a serious risk to the Pentagon, noted DOD undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment Ellen Lord during a Hudson event [[link removed]] last week. Companies receiving foreign funds could block the DOD from working with them on national security grounds. “They have bought critical national assets, whether that be in terms of intellectual property or whether that be technology development,” she said. “When we work with our partners and allies that’s an even stronger position” to stop the investments. Click below for the event transcript.

READ NOW [[link removed]] Climate Hawks Flock Wall Street

Global warming protestors prepare to march from Battery Park to Broadway in the Financial District on September 22, 2014 in New York City. (Andrew Burton/Getty Images)

Treasury Secretary-designate Janet Yellen is a longtime climate hawk and activists hope she will drive an aggressive use of the department’s wide-ranging regulatory and oversight powers to push the green agenda. Writing in the Wall Street Journal [[link removed]], Walter Russell Mead examines how the considerable power that governments and central banks have over investment decisions is increasingly seen by environmentalists as the key to driving a global transformation that addresses climate change. The strategy hinges on defining climate change as a risk to the financial system. If the green movement manages a friendly takeover of this system, the effects on investor and corporate behavior could be immense.

READ NOW [[link removed]]

China's New Leverage

US Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi (R) during an event about ocean conservation during the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogues in Beijing, June 6, 2016. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)

The conventional wisdom that U.S. policy on China will not change when President-elect Joe Biden replaces President Donald Trump is wrong, argues Bruno Maçães in Foreign Policy [[link removed]]. Biden will quickly recover the language of human rights and numerous commentators will applaud it as a toughening up of the American policy on China. In practice, this toughening up will mean that Beijing will get a cold shoulder but little else. As the appointment of former Secretary of State John Kerry as climate envoy demonstrates, Washington will be desperate for China’s cooperation on the climate change issue and less able to continue a strategy of active confrontation.

READ NOW [[link removed]]

Beijing’s Beef

A package of Australian beef in a Chinese supermarket. China suspended imports from Australian beef suppliers after Beijing's ambassador warned of a consumer boycott in retaliation for Canberra's probe the origins of the coronavirus. (Greg Baker/Getty Images)

With China’s suspension of beef imports from down under, Australia is the latest country to draw China’s ire. As John Lee observes in the Australian [[link removed]], Australia joins a growing list of nations targeted by the CCP’s economic and diplomatic offensive. Beijing has done so against the Japanese over disagreements in the East China Sea; South Korea for protecting itself against Pyongyang’s illegal missile and nuclear threats; and The Philippines for asserting its legal rights in the South China Sea. Others outside East Asia on the receiving end include India, Mongolia, Britain and Norway. The CCP's objective is to entrench a permanent hierarchical order where it has the capacity to exercise influence and even veto domestic and foreign policy decisions taken by countries in its periphery.

READ NOW [[link removed]] Ending Strategic Ambiguity

Tri-Service Honour Guards raise Taiwan's national flag in the morning. (Ceng Shou Yi/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

The United States should end its policy of strategic ambiguity towards Taiwan, writes Seth Cropsey in The Hill [[link removed]]. Prior to the U.S. presidential election — and in light of China’s expanding regional provocations — the U.S. foreign policy community began to examine how to improve Washington’s ability to deter China from using force against Taiwan. From this emerged the question of “strategic ambiguity,” under which a state deliberately refuses to articulate its response to certain actions. To the extent that U.S. policy remains ambiguous, China’s threats will continue to grow and threaten Taiwan’s flourishing democracy — the greatest impediment to China’s military emergence into the Indo-Pacific.

LEARN MORE [[link removed]] DONATE TO HUDSON [[link removed]] Share [link removed] Tweet [link removed] Forward [link removed] Preferences [link removed] | Unsubscribe [link removed]