The Peninsula Foundation

Blog

  • UARCs: The American Universities that Produce Warfighters

    UARCs: The American Universities that Produce Warfighters

    America’s military-industrial complex (MIC) has grown enormously powerful and fully integrated into the Department of Defense of the US Government to further its global influence and control. Many American universities have become research centres for the MIC. Similarly, American companies have research programs in leading universities and educational institutions across the world, for example in few IITs in India. In the article below, Dr Sylvia J. Martin explores the role of University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs) in the U.S. military-industrial complex. UARCs are institutions embedded within universities, designed to conduct research for the Department of Defense (DoD) and other military agencies. The article highlights how UARCs blur the lines between academic research and military objectives, raising ethical questions about the use of university resources for war-related activities. These centres focus on key areas such as nano-technology, immersive simulations, and weapons systems. For example, the University of South California’s Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT) was created to develop immersive training simulations for soldiers, drawing from both science and entertainment, while universities like Johns Hopkins and MIT are involved in anti-submarine warfare and soldier mobility technologies. Sylvia Martin critically examines the consequences of these relationships, particularly their impact on academic freedom and the potential prioritization of military needs over civilian research. She flags the resistance faced by some universities, like the University of Hawai’i, where concerns about militarisation, environmental damage and indigenous rights sparked protests against their UARCs. As UARCs are funded substantially, it becomes a source of major influence on the university. Universities, traditionally seen as centres for open, unbiased inquiry may become aligned with national security objectives, further entrenching the MIC within academics.

    This article was published earlier in Monthly Review.

    – TPF Editorial Team

    UARCs: The American Universities that Produce Warfighters

    Dr Sylvia J Martin

    The University of Southern California (USC) has been one of the most prominent campuses for student protests against Israel’s campaign in Gaza, with students demanding that their university “fully disclose and divest its finances and endowment from companies and institutions that profit from Israeli apartheid, genocide, and occupation in Palestine, including the US Military and weapons manufacturing.”

    Students throughout the United States have called for their universities to disclose and divest from defense companies with ties to Israel in its onslaught on Gaza. While scholars and journalists have traced ties between academic institutions and U.S. defense companies, it is important to point out that relations between universities and the U.S. military are not always mediated by the corporate industrial sector.1 American universities and the U.S. military are also linked directly and organizationally, as seen with what the Department of Defense (DoD) calls “University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs).” UARCs are strategic programs that the DoD has established at fifteen different universities around the country to sponsor research and development in what the Pentagon terms “essential engineering and technology capabilities.”2Established in 1996 by the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, UARCs function as nonprofit research organizations at designated universities aimed to ensure that those capabilities are available on demand to its military agencies. While there is a long history of scientific and engineering collaboration between universities and the U.S. government dating back to the Second World War, UARCs reveal the breadth and depth of today’s military-university complex, illustrating how militarized knowledge production emerges from within the academy and without corporate involvement. UARCs demonstrate one of the less visible yet vital ways in which these students’ institutions help perpetuate the cycle of U.S.-led wars and empire-building.

    The University of Southern California (USC) has been one of the most prominent campuses for student protests against Israel’s campaign in Gaza, with students demanding that their university “fully disclose and divest its finances and endowment from companies and institutions that profit from Israeli apartheid, genocide, and occupation in Palestine, including the US Military and weapons manufacturing.”3  USC also happens to be home to one of the nation’s fifteen UARCs, the Institute of Creative Technology (ICT), which describes itself as a “trusted advisor to the DoD.”4  ICT is not mentioned in the students’ statement, yet the institute—and UARCs at other universities—are one of the many moving parts of the U.S. war machine that are nestled within higher education institutions, and a manifestation of the Pentagon’s “mission creep” that encompasses the arts as well as the sciences.5

    Institute of Creative Technologies – military.usc.edu

    Significantly, ICT’s remit to develop dual-use technologies (which claim to provide society-wide “solutions”) entails nurturing what the Institute refers to as “warfighters” for the battlefields of the future, and, in doing so, to increase warfighters’ “lethality.6 Established by the DoD in 1999 to pursue advanced modelling and simulation and training, ICT’s basic and applied research produces prototypes, technologies, and know-how that have been deployed for the U.S. Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. From artificial intelligence-driven virtual humans deployed to teach military leadership skills to futuristic 3D spatial visualization and terrain capture to prepare these military agencies for their operational environments, ICT specializes in immersive training programs for “mission rehearsal,” as well as tools that contribute to the digital innovations of global warmaking.7  Technologies and programs developed at ICT were used by U.S. troops in the U.S.-led Global War on Terror. One such program is UrbanSim, a virtual training application initiated in 2006 designed to improve army commanders’ skills for conducting counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, delivering fictional scenarios through a gaming experience.8  From all of the warfighter preparation that USC’s Institute researches, develops, prototypes, and deploys, ICT boasts of generating over two thousand academic peer-reviewed publications.

    I encountered ICT’s work while conducting anthropological research on the relationship between the U.S. military and the media entertainment industry in Los Angeles.9  The Institute is located not on the university’s main University Park campus but by the coast, in Playa Vista, alongside offices for Google and Hulu. Although ICT is an approximately thirty-minute drive from USC’s main campus, this hub for U.S. warfighter lethality was enabled by an interdisciplinary collaboration with what was then called the School of Cinema-Television and the Annenberg School for Communications, and it remains entrenched within USC’s academic ecosystem, designated as a unit of its Viterbi School of Engineering, which is located on the main campus.10  Given the presence and power of UARCs at U.S. universities, we can reasonably ask: What is the difference between West Point Military Academy and USC, a supposedly civilian university? The answer, it seems, is not a difference in kind, but in degree. Indeed, universities with UARCs appear to be veritable military academies.

    What Are UARCs?

    UARCs are similar to federally funded research centres such as the Rand Corporation; however, UARCs are required to be situated within a university, which can be public or private.11  The existence of UARCs is not classified information, but their goals, projects, and implications may not be fully evident to the student bodies or university communities in which they are embedded, and there are differing levels of transparency among them about their funding. DoD UARCs “receive sole source funds, on average, exceeding $6 million annually,” and may receive other funding in addition to that from their primary military or federal sponsor, which may also differ among the fifteen UARCs.12  In 2021, funding from federal sources for UARCs ranged “from as much as $831 million for the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab to $5 million for the University of Alaska Geophysical Detection of Nuclear Proliferation.”13  Individual UARCs are generally created after the DoD’s Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering initiates a selection process for the proposed sponsor, and typically are reviewed by their primary sponsor every five years for renewed contracts.14  A few UARCs, such as Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Lab and the University of Texas at Austin’s Applied Research Lab, originated during the Second World War for wartime purposes but were designated as UARCs in 1996, the year the DoD formalized that status.15

    UARCs are supposed to provide their sponsoring agency and, ultimately, the DoD, access to what they deem “core competencies,” such as MIT’s development of nanotechnology systems for the “mobility of the soldier in the battlespace” and the development of anti-submarine warfare and ballistic and guided missile systems at Johns Hopkins University.16  Significantly, UARCs are mandated to maintain a close and enduring relationship with their military or federal sponsor, such as that of ICT with the U.S. Army. These close relationships are intended to facilitate the UARCs’ “in-depth knowledge of the agency’s research needs…access to sensitive information, and the ability to respond quickly to emerging research areas.”17  Such an intimate partnership for institutions of higher learning with these agencies means that the line between academic and military research is (further) blurred. With the interdisciplinarity of researchers and the integration of PhD students (and even undergraduate interns) into UARC operations such as USC’s ICT, the question of whether the needs of the DoD are prioritized over those of an ostensibly civilian institute of higher learning practically becomes moot: the entanglement is naturalized by a national security logic.

    Table 1 UARCs: The American Universities that Produce Warfighters

    Primary Sponsor University UARC Date of Designation (*original year established)
    Army University of Southern California Institute of Creative Technologies 1999
    Army Georgia Institute of Technology Georgia Tech Research Institute 1996 (*1995)
    Army Massachusetts Institute of Technology Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies 2002
    Army University of California, Santa Barbara Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies 2003
    Navy Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory 1996 (*1942)
    Navy Pennsylvania State University Applied Research Laboratory 1996 (*1945)
    Navy University of Texas at Austin Applied Research Laboratories 1996 (*1945)
    Navy University of Washington Applied Physics Laboratory 1996 (*1943)
    Navy University of Hawai’i Applied Research Laboratory 2004
    Missile Defense Agency Utah State University Space Dynamics Laboratory 1996
    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security University of Maryland, College Park Applied Research Laboratory for Intelligence and Security 2017 (*2003)
    Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Stevens Institute of Technology Systems Engineering Research Center 2008
    U.S. Strategic Command University of Nebraska National Strategic Research Institute 2012
    Department of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Threat Reduction and Control) University of Alaska Fairbanks Geophysical Detection of Nuclear Proliferation 2018
    Air Force Howard University Research Institute for Tactical Autonomy 2023
    Sources: Joan Fuller, “Strategic Outreach—University Affiliated Research Centers,” Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering), June 2021, 4; C. Todd Lopez, “Howard University Will Be Lead Institution for New Research Center,” U.S. Department of Defense News, January 23, 2023.

    A Closer Look

    The UARC at USC is unique from other UARCs in that, from its inception, the Institute explicitly targeted the artistic and humanities-driven resources of the university. ICT opened near the Los Angeles International Airport, in Marina del Rey, with a $45 million grant, tasked with developing a range of immersive technologies. According to the DoD, the core competencies that ICT offers include immersion, scenario generation, computer graphics, entertainment theory, and simulation technologies; these competencies were sought as the DoD decided that they needed to create more visually and narratively compelling and interactive learning environments for the gaming generation.18  USC was selected by the DoD not just because of the university’s work in science and engineering but also its close connections to the media entertainment industry, which USC fosters from its renowned School of Cinematic Arts (formerly the School of Cinema-Television), thereby providing the military access to a wide range of storytelling talents, from screenwriting to animation. ICT later moved to nearby Playa Vista, part of Silicon Beach, where the military presence also increased; by April 2016, the U.S. Army Research Lab West opened next door to ICT as another collaborative partner, further integrating the university into military work.19  This university-military partnership results in “prototypes that successfully transition into the hands of warfighters”; UARCs such as ICT are thus rendered a crucial link in what graduate student worker Isabel Kain from the Researchers Against War collective calls the “military supply chain.”20

    universities abandon any pretence to neutrality once they are assigned UARCs, as opponents at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa (UH Mānoa) asserted when a U.S. Navy-sponsored UARC was designated for their campus in 2004. UH Mānoa faculty, students, and community members repeatedly expressed their concerns about the ethics of military research conducted on their campus, including the threat of removing “researchers’ rights to refuse Navy directives”

    USC was touted as “neutral ground” from which the U.S. Army could help innovate military training by one of ICT’s founders in his account of the Institute’s origin story.21  Yet, universities abandon any pretence to neutrality once they are assigned UARCs, as opponents at the University of Hawai’i at Mānoa (UH Mānoa) asserted when a U.S. Navy-sponsored UARC was designated for their campus in 2004. UH Mānoa faculty, students, and community members repeatedly expressed their concerns about the ethics of military research conducted on their campus, including the threat of removing “researchers’ rights to refuse Navy directives.”22  The proposed UARC at UH Mānoa occurred within the context of university community resistance to U.S. imperialism and militarism, which have inflicted structural violence on Hawaiian people, land, and waters, from violent colonization to the 1967 military testing of lethal sarin gas in a forest reserve.23 Hawai’i serves as the base of the military’s U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, where “future wars are in development,” professor Kyle Kajihiro of UH Mānoa emphasizes.24

    Writing in Mānoa Now about the proposed UARC in 2005, Leo Azumbuja opined that “it seems like ideological suicide to allow the Navy to settle on campus, especially the American Navy.”25 A key player in the Indo-Pacific Command, the U.S. Navy has long had a contentious relationship with Indigenous Hawaiians, most recently with the 2021 fuel leakage from the Navy’s Red Hill fuel facility, resulting in water contamination levels that the Hawai’i State Department of Health referred to as “a humanitarian and environmental disaster.”26  Court depositions have since revealed that the Navy knew about the fuel leakage into the community’s drinking water but waited over a week to inform the public, even as people became ill, making opposition to its proposed UARC unsurprising, if not requisite.27  The detonation of bombs and sonar testing that happens at the biennial international war games that the U.S. Navy has hosted in Hawai’i since 1971 have also damaged precious marine life and culturally sacred ecosystems, with the sonar tests causing whales to “swim hundreds of miles, rapidly change their depth (sometimes leading to bleeding from the eyes and ears), and even beach themselves to get away from the sounds of sonar.”28  Within this context, one of the proposed UARC’s core competencies was “understanding of [the] ocean environment.”29

    In a flyer circulated by DMZ Hawai‘i, UH Mānoa organizers called for universities to serve society, and “not be used by the military to further their war aims or to perfect ways of killing or controlling people.”30  Recalling efforts in previous decades on U.S. campuses to thwart the encroachment of military research, protestors raised questions about the UARC’s accountability and transparency regarding weapons production within the UH community. UH Mānoa’s strategic plan during the time that the Navy’s UARC was proposed and executed (2002–2010) called for recognition of “our kuleana (responsibility) to honour the Indigenous people and promote social justice for Native Hawaiians” and “restoring and managing the Mānoa stream and ecosystem”—priorities that the actions of the U.S. Navy disregarded.31  The production of knowledge for naval weapons within the auspices of this public, land-grant institution disrupts any pretension to neutrality the university may purport.

    while the UH administration claimed that the proposed UARC would not accept any classified research for the first three years, “the base contract assigns ‘secret’ level classification to the entire facility, making the release of any information subject to the Navy’s approval,” raising concerns about academic freedom, despite the fanfare over STEM and rankings

    Further resistance to the UARC designation was expressed by the UH Mānoa community: from April 28 to May 4, 2005, the SaveUH/StopUARC Coalition staged a six-day campus sit-in protest, and later that year, the UH Mānoa Faculty Senate voted 31–18 in favour of asking the administration to reject the UARC designation.32  According to an official statement released by UH Mānoa on January 23, 2006, at a university community meeting with the UH Regents in 2006, testimony from opponents to the UARC outnumbered supporters, who, reflecting the neoliberal turn of universities, expressed hope that their competitiveness in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) would advance with a UARC designation, and benefit the university’s ranking.33  Yet in 2007, writing in DMZ Hawai‘i, Kajihiro clarified that while the UH administration claimed that the proposed UARC would not accept any classified research for the first three years, “the base contract assigns ‘secret’ level classification to the entire facility, making the release of any information subject to the Navy’s approval,” raising concerns about academic freedom, despite the fanfare over STEM and rankings.34  However, the campus resistance campaign was unsuccessful, and in September 2007, the UH Regents approved the Navy UARC designation. By 2008, the U.S. Navy-sponsored Applied Research Laboratory UARC at UH Mānoa opened.

    “The Military Normal”

    Yet with the U.S. creation of the national security state in 1947 and its pursuit of techno-nationalism since the Cold War, UARCs are direct pipelines to the intensification of U.S. empire

    UH Mānoa’s rationale for resistance begs the question: how could this university—indeed, any university—impose this military force onto its community? Are civilian universities within the United States merely an illusion, a deflection from education in the service of empire? What anthropologist Catherine Lutz called in 2009 the ethos of “the military normal” in U.S. culture toward its counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—the commonsensical, even prosaic perspective on the inevitability of endless U.S.-led wars disseminated by U.S. institutions, especially mainstream media—helps explain the attitude toward this particular formalized capture of the university by the DoD.35  Defense funding has for decades permeated universities, but UARCs perpetuate the military normal by allowing the Pentagon to insert itself through research centres and institutes in the (seemingly morally neutral) name of innovation, within part of a broader neoliberal framework of universities as “engines” and “hubs,” or “anchor” institutions that offer to “leverage” their various forms of capital toward regional development in ways that often escape sustained scrutiny or critique.36  The normalization is achieved in some cases given that UARCs such as ICT strive to serve civilian needs as well as military ones with dual-use technologies and tools. Yet with the U.S. creation of the national security state in 1947 and its pursuit of techno-nationalism since the Cold War, UARCs are direct pipelines to the intensification of U.S. empire. Some of the higher-profile virtual military instructional programs developed at ICT at USC, such as its Emergent Leader Immersive Training Environment (ELITE) system, which provides immersive role-playing to train army leaders for various situations in the field, are funnelled to explicitly military-only learning institutions such as the Army Warrant Officer School.37

    The fifteenth and most recently created UARC, at Howard University in 2023—the first such designation for one of the historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs)—boasts STEM inclusion

    The military normal generates a sense of moral neutrality, even moral superiority. The logic of the military normal, the offer of STEM education and training, especially through providing undergraduate internships and graduate training, and of course funding, not only rationalizes the implementation of UARCs, but ennobles it. The fifteenth and most recently created UARC, at Howard University in 2023—the first such designation for one of the historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs)—boasts STEM inclusion.38  Partnering with the U.S. Air Force, Howard University’s UARC is receiving a five-year, $90 million contract to conduct AI research and develop tactical autonomy technology. Its Research Institute for Tactical Autonomy (RITA) leads a consortium of eight other HCBUs. As with the University of Hawai’i, STEM advantages are touted by the UARC, with RITA’s reach expanding in other ways: it plans to supplement STEM education for K–12 students to “ease their path to a career in the fields of artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, tactical autonomy, and machine learning,” noting that undergraduate and graduate students will also be able to pursue fully funded research opportunities at their UARC. With the corporatization of universities, neoliberal policies prioritize STEM for practical reasons, including the pursuit of university rankings and increases in both corporate and government funding. This fits well with increased linkages to the defence sector, which offers capital, jobs, technology, and gravitas. In a critique of Howard University’s central role for the DoD through its new UARC, Erica Caines at Black Agenda Reportinvokes the “legacies of Black resistance” at Howard University in a call to reduce “the state’s use of HBCUs.”39  In another response to Howard’s UARC, another editorial in Black Agenda Report draws upon activist Kwame Ture’s (Stokely Carmichael’s) autobiography for an illuminative discussion about his oppositional approach to the required military training and education at Howard University during his time there.40

    With their respectability and resources, universities, through UARCs, provide ideological cover for U.S. war-making and imperialistic actions, offering up student labour at undergraduate and graduate levels in service of that cover. When nearly eight hundred U.S. military bases around the world are cited as evidence of U.S. empire and the DoD requires research facilities to be embedded within places of higher learning, it is reasonable to expect that university communities—ostensibly civilian institutions—ask questions about UARC goals and operations, and how they provide material support and institutional gravitas to these military and federal agencies.41  In the case of USC, ICT’s stated goal of enhancing warfighter lethality runs counter to current USC student efforts to strive for more equitable conditions on campus and within its larger community (for example, calls to end “land grabs,” and “targeted repression and harassment of Black, Brown and Palestinian students and their allies on and off campus”) as well as other reductions in institutional harms.42  The university’s “Minor in Resistance to Genocide”—a program pursued by USC’s discarded valedictorian Asna Tabassum—also serves as mere cover, a façade, alongside USC’s innovations for warfighter lethality.

    the Hopkins Justice Collective at Johns Hopkins University recently proposed a demilitarization process to its university’s Public Interest Investment Advisory Committee that cited Johns Hopkins’s UARC, Applied Physics Lab, as being the “sole source” of DoD funding for the development and testing of AI-guided drone swarms used against Palestinians in 2021

    Many students and members of U.S. society want to connect the dots, as evident from the nationwide protests and encampments, and a push from within the academy to examine the military supply chain is intensifying. In addition to Researchers Against War members calling out the militarized research that flourishes in U.S. universities, the Hopkins Justice Collective at Johns Hopkins University recently proposed a demilitarization process to its university’s Public Interest Investment Advisory Committee that cited Johns Hopkins’s UARC, Applied Physics Lab, as being the “sole source” of DoD funding for the development and testing of AI-guided drone swarms used against Palestinians in 2021.43  Meanwhile, at UH Mānoa, the struggle continues: in February 2024, the Associated Students’ Undergraduate Senate approved a resolution requesting that the university’s Board of Regents terminate UH’s UARC contract, noting that UH’s own president is the principal investigator for a $75 million High-Performance Computer Center for the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory that was contracted by the university’s UARC, Applied Research Laboratory.44  Researchers Against War organizing, the Hopkins Justice Collective’s proposal, the undaunted UH Mānoa students, and others help pinpoint the flows of militarized knowledge—knowledge that is developed by UARCs to strengthen warfighters from within U.S. universities, through the DoD, and to different parts of the world.45

    Notes

    1. ↩ Jake Alimahomed-Wilson et al., “Boeing University: How the California State University Became Complicit in Palestinian Genocide,” Mondoweiss, May 20, 2024; Brian Osgood, “U.S. University Ties to Weapons Contractors Under Scrutiny Amid War in Gaza,” Al Jazeera, May 13, 2024.
    2. ↩ “Collaborate with Us: University Affiliated Research Center,” DevCom Army Research Laboratory, arl.devcom.army.mil.
    3. ↩ USC Divest From Death Coalition, “Divest From Death USC News Release,” April 24, 2024.
    4. ↩ USC Institute for Creative Technologies, “ICT Overview Video,” YouTube, 2:52, December 12, 2023.
    5. ↩ Gordon Adams and Shoon Murray, Mission Creep: The Militarization of U.S. Foreign Policy?(Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 2014).
    6. ↩ USC Institute for Creative Technologies, “ICT Overview Video”; USC Institute for Creative Technologies, Historical Achievements: 1999–2019 (Los Angeles: University of Southern California, May 2021), ict.usc.edu.
    7. ↩ Yuval Abraham, “‘Lavender’: The AI Machine Directing Israel’s Bombing Spree in Gaza,” +972 Magazine.
    8. ↩ “UrbanSim,” USC Institute for Creative Technologies.
    9. ↩ Sylvia J. Martin, “Imagineering Empire: How Hollywood and the U.S. National Security State ‘Operationalize Narrative,’” Media, Culture & Society 42, no. 3 (April 2020): 398–413.
    10. ↩ Paul Rosenbloom, “Writing the Original UARC Proposal,” USC Institute for Creative Technologies, March 11, 2024.
    11. ↩ Susannah V. Howieson, Christopher T. Clavin, and Elaine M. Sedenberg, “Federal Security Laboratory Governance Panels: Observations and Recommendations,” Institute for Defense Analyses—Science and Technology Policy Institute, Alexandria, Virginia, 2013, 4.
    12. ↩ OSD Studies and Federally Funded Research and Development Centers Management Office (FFRDC), Engagement Guide: Department of Defense University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs) (Alexandria, Virginia: OSD Studies and FFRDC Management Office, April 2013), 5.
    13. ↩ Christopher V. Pece, “Federal Funding to University Affiliated Research Centers Totaled $1.5 Billion in FY 2021,” National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, National Science Foundation, 2024, ncses.nsf.gov.
    14. ↩ “UARC Customer Funding Guide,” USC Institute for Creative Technologies, March 13, 2024.
    15. ↩ “Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC) and University Affiliated Research Centers (UARC),” Department of Defense Research and Engineering Enterprise, rt.cto.mil.
    16. ↩ OSD Studies and FFRDC Management Office, Engagement Guide.
    17. ↩ Congressional Research Service, “Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFDRCs): Background and Issues for Congress,” April 3, 2020, 5.
    18. ↩ OSD Studies and FFRDC Management Office, Engagement Guide, 18.
    19. ↩ “Institute for Creative Technologies (ICT),” USC Military and Veterans Initiatives, military.usc.edu.
    20. ↩ USC Institute for Creative Technologies, Historical Achievements: 1999–2019, 2; Linda Dayan, “‘Starve the War Machine’: Workers at UC Santa Cruz Strike in Solidarity with Pro-Palestinian Protesters,” Haaretz, May 21, 2024.
    21. ↩ Richard David Lindholm, That’s a 40 Share!: An Insider Reveals the Origins of Many Classic TV Shows and How Television Has Evolved and Really Works (Pennsauken, New Jersey: Book Baby, 2022).
    22. ↩ Leo Azambuja, “Faculty Senate Vote Opposing UARC Preserves Freedom,” Mānoa Now, November 30, 2005.
    23. ↩ Deployment Health Support Directorate, “Fact Sheet: Deseret Test Center, Red Oak, Phase I,” Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Defense (Health Affairs), health.mil.
    24. ↩ Ray Levy Uyeda, “U.S. Military Activity in Hawai’i Harms the Environment and Erodes Native Sovereignty,” Prism Reports, July 26, 2022.
    25. ↩ Azambuja, “Faculty Senate Vote Opposing UARC Preserves Freedom.”
    26. ↩ Kyle Kajihiro, “The Militarizing of Hawai’i: Occupation, Accommodation, Resistance,” in Asian Settler Colonialism, Jonathon Y. Okamura and Candace Fujikane, eds. (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2008), 170–94; “Hearings Officer’s Proposed Decision and Order, Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law,” Department of Health, State of Hawai‘i vs. United States Department of the Navy, no. 21-UST-EA-02 (December 27, 2021).
    27. ↩ Christina Jedra, “Red Hill Depositions Reveal More Details About What the Navy Knew About Spill,” Honolulu Civil Beat, May 31, 2023.
    28. ↩ “Does Military Sonar Kill Marine Wildlife?,” Scientific American, June 10, 2009.
    29. ↩ Joan Fuller, “Strategic Outreach—University Affiliated Research Centers,” Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering), June 2021, 4.
    30. ↩ DMZ Hawai‘i, “Save Our University, Stop UARC,” dmzhawaii.org.
    31. ↩ University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Strategic Plan 2002–2010: Defining Our Destiny, 8–9.
    32. ↩ Craig Gima, “UH to Sign Off on Navy Center,” Star Bulletin, May 13, 2008.
    33. ↩ University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, “Advocates and Opponents of the Proposed UARC Contract Present Their Case to the UH Board of Regents,” press release, January 23, 2006.
    34. ↩ Kyle Kajihiro, “The Secret and Scandalous Origins of the UARC,” DMZ Hawai‘i, September 23, 2007.
    35. ↩ Catherine Lutz, “The Military Normal,” in The Counter-Counterinsurgency Manual, or Notes on Demilitarizing American Society, The Network of Concerned Anthropologists, ed. (Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press, 2009).
    36. ↩ Anne-Laure Fayard and Martina Mendola, “The 3-Stage Process That Makes Universities Prime Innovators,” Harvard Business Review, April 19, 2024; Paul Garton, “Types of Anchor Institution Initiatives: An Overview of University Urban Development Literature,” Metropolitan Universities 32, no. 2 (2021): 85–105.
    37. ↩ Randall Hill, “ICT Origin Story: How We Built the Holodeck,” Institute for Creative Technologies, February 9, 2024.
    38. ↩ Brittany Bailer, “Howard University Awarded $90 Million Contract by Air Force, DoD to Establish First-Ever University Affiliated Research Center Led by an HCBU,” The Dig, January 24, 2023, thedig.howard.edu.
    39. ↩ Erica Caines, “Black University, White Power: Howard University Covers for U.S. Imperialism,” Black Agenda Report, February 1, 2023.
    40. ↩ Editors, “Howard University: Every Black Thing and Its Opposite, Kwame Ture,” The Black Agenda Review (Black Agenda Report), February 1, 2023.
    41. ↩ David Vine, Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2015).
    42. ↩ USC Divest from Death Coalition, “Divest From Death USC News Release”; “USC Renames VKC, Implements Preliminary Anti-Racism Actions,” Daily Trojan, June 11, 2020.
    43. ↩ Hopkins Justice Collective, “PIIAC Proposal,” May 4, 2024.
    44. ↩ Bronson Azama to bor.testimony@hawaii.edu, “Testimony for 2/15/24,” February 15, 2024, University of Hawai’i; “UH Awarded Maui High Performance Computer Center Contract Valued up to $75 Million,” UH Communications, May 1, 2020.
    45. ↩ Isabel Kain and Becker Sharif, “How UC Researchers Began Saying No to Military Work,” Labor Notes, May 17, 2024.

     

    Feature Image: Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability (DARC) at Johns Hopkins Advanced Physical Laborotory, A UARC facility – www.jhuapl.edu

  • The beginning of the end of Israel

    The beginning of the end of Israel

    One year later, the flames of genocide still burn, but after decades of persecution and bloodshed, we may well be seeing the beginning of the end of the settler-colonial project in Palestine.

    We have reached a grim milestone. A full year of gruesome Israeli mass murder. A year of epic Palestinian suffering.

    A year of direct Western complicity. A year of continuous media incitement. A year of shameful inaction by international institutions.

    For twelve months, we have seen relentless persecution of human rights defenders across the West, solely for peacefully opposing genocide and apartheid.

    And fifty-two weeks of a horrified global public helplessly witnessing on their screens the first live-streamed genocide in history.

    The carnage of this past year is unprecedented. The destruction is almost unimaginable.

    Still, this genocide will end. The Palestinian people and their besieged nation will undoubtedly emerge from the ashes of genocide, recover, and reassert their inalienable rights in their ancient homeland.

    But international institutions and the global human rights system will be left bruised and battered.

    The political capital expended by the US empire and the broader West in defence of the slaughter, as well as their global standing and reputation, will never be recouped.

    And, almost certainly, this year of cruelty and lawlessness will mark the beginning of the end for the Zionist project in Palestine and, therefore, of the state of Israel as we know it.

    A formula for disaster

    Of course, neither the genocide nor the current wave of slaughter of Palestinians started in October of 2023. The systematic massacre, purging, and erasure of the indigenous Palestinian people began in earnest with the Nakba of 1947-48, and it has not ceased since that bloody beginning.

    And the genocidal threat was always obvious. Any thinking person could see, even prior to the establishment of the state of Israel, that the Zionist project of the West was a formula for disaster.

    First, at the very historic moment when colonialism was being dismantled around the world, and global human rights rules were being adopted at the United Nations, the West carved out an exception for Palestine.

    It was at this moment that Zionist forces chose to attack Palestine, murder and terrorize its population, chase many survivors away in terror, and begin the erasure of the indigenous people, and their replacement with a European settler colony founded by foreign invaders and radicalized by a deeply racist and fundamentally violent political ideology.

    The colony was to be sustained at the barrel of a gun by waging constant war both against the Indigenous people and against the neighbouring states.

    A colonial education system and a media ecosystem were built to dehumanize the Indigenous and neighbouring peoples and to instil a supremacist ideology into the settler population.

    The settler state, its economy, and its society were thoroughly militarized, enlisting all adults in the project of state violence, arming it to the teeth, including with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and even integrating the field-testing of new weapons on captive civilian populations as part of the business model of the colony’s arms industry.

    They ring-fenced the entire project with western-guaranteed impunity, carving out an exception to the application of all rules of international law.

    And they built an all-encompassing machinery of repression, including laws, policies, practices, and technologies to ensure the constant subjugation, dehumanization, and persecution of the indigenous Palestinian people.

    The toxic cocktail was complete.

    Maintaining Western support

    Of course, an artificially imposed European colony in the heart of the Middle East, which is necessarily maintained by force, could never become self-sufficient. Rather, it has always, and will always, rely on massive support from Western states, especially the US. Maintaining that vital support was to become a key goal of the Israeli state and its transnational network of proxy groups.

    As such, in the intervening years, the Israeli regime adopted a strategy of incremental genocide, with simmering persecution and dispossession, punctuated by periodic full-blown massacres and marked by a continuous march of expansion.

    It was a pace, tried and true over 75 years, with which the regime’s Western sponsors were comfortable, allowing them to continue unbroken the flow of military, economic, and diplomatic support without significant domestic pressure at home.

    And it allowed like-minded media corporations, decade after decade, to continuously disseminate pro-Israel propaganda as a smokescreen to obscure the horrific realities being perpetrated against the indigenous people on the ground.

    Expedited genocide

    But when Israel’s current ultra-Zionist government took power last year, it immediately abandoned the strategy of incremental genocide.

    In its place, it moved to expedited genocide (beginning with waves of ethnic cleansing in occupied Jerusalem and the West Bank), betting that its Western sponsors (and their captured politicians and complicit media) would not dare (or care) to take the steps necessary to stop it, even when it launched wholesale civilian slaughter in Gaza.

    They were right.

    So much so that Western countries like the U.S., UK, Germany, and others quickly moved beyond mere acquiescence for the genocide and into direct complicity and participation in it.

    As a result, one year later, we are witnessing unprecedented bloodshed in the region, and the broader world is in deep trouble.

    Axis of Genocide

    Thus, Israel is not alone in its march of terror. It is accompanied, in lockstep, by what has been called the Axis of Genocide.

    Four members of that Axis, Israel, the U.S., the UK, and France, are nuclear-armed states. A fifth, Germany, is a serial genocide perpetrator and a major European economic power. Three (the U.S., UK, and France) have veto power in the UN Security Council.

    Adding to the danger, all of its members share a common ideological grounding in militarism, colonialism, white supremacy, and political Zionism. Most have the stain of genocide on their historical records.

    All have political systems that are deeply compromised and corrupted by the influence of the weapons industry, the billionaire class, and the Israeli lobby. And all are marked by profound societal levels of Islamophobia, anti-Arab racism, and anti-Palestinian bigotry.

    And, in defence of a single, small, oppressive, and violent settler colony in the Middle East, all have quickly abandoned the entire edifice of international law and international institutions built up since the end of the Second World War, and which they once claimed as part of their brand.

    As recent history has shown, these biases, linkages, and incentives have become a formula not only for genocide in Palestine but for catastrophe on a global scale.

    Breaking bones and records

    And, indeed, the cost of Western-secured Israeli impunity has been shockingly high.

    Image Credit: @anadoluagency

    In one year, Israel has set new records for the pace of civilian killing, the rate of destruction of civilian infrastructure, the killing of children, the killing of medical personnel, the killing of journalists, the killing of humanitarian workers, and the killing of UN staff.

    The depravity of Israel’s actions has shocked the world. Collective punishment, a chain of massacres, summary executions, torture camps, systematic sexual violence, starvation tactics, imposed disease, the direct targeting of small children with sniper rifles, and the blocking of humanitarian aid to facilitate starvation.

    We have all seen the images. The methodic eradication of whole neighbourhoods, schools, hospitals, universities, food stores, shelters, refugee camps, agricultural fields, and even cemeteries.

    The mangled bodies of Palestinians, the fear-filled eyes of the children, the terror as bombs fall on bread lines. The cold-blooded murder of innocents, of defenceless children like Hind Rajab, trapped in the family car, terrified for hours and then slaughtered by Israeli soldiers, and of thousands of others like her.

    And we have seen the cold, cruel laughter of the Israeli soldiers, the deranged chants of violent Israeli settlers, the genocidal pledges of Israeli political and military leaders.

    The promise of the Prime Minister to wipe out the Palestinians “like Amalek”, a biblical verse that calls for Israel to “utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

    The calls of Israeli leaders to perpetrate another Nakba, to raze Gaza to the ground, to make no distinction between civilians and fighters. To “bury them.”

    And, by now, we have all memorized the familiar barbarous pattern of Israel’s crimes: target civilians and civilian infrastructure, then target the rescue workers who come to help, then celebrate in Hebrew but switch to English to claim that they were all terrorists, human shields, or collateral damage, then reload and do it again.

    The accumulated criminal guilt of the Israeli perpetrators and their complicit Western partners is staggering. But so too is the historic moral lapse of the wider world, both those who have defended the genocide and those who have remained silent as it has been carried out with their tax dollars, with their government’s political support, or in their name.

    Today, everyone knows. No one can say they were not warned before the catastrophe. And no one can say they did not know of the horrors that followed, broadcast in real-time to all of us.

    Seventy-six blood-soaked years into this colonial enterprise, it is clear to all who will see that what the West has constructed in the heart of the Middle East is not an enlightened project, but rather a rampaging Frankenstein monster that threatens to drag the indigenous Palestinian people, the region, and the world into a conflagration from which it may not recover for generations.

    The darkness spreads

    How long the rampage can be sustained is an open question. But there will undoubtedly be much more darkness before the dawn.

    Israel, drunk with Western-backed impunity, even as it continues its genocide in Palestine, is now spreading its attacks across the region and leaving mountains of bodies and rivers of blood in its wake.

    In a matter of weeks, it has waged terror attacks with booby-trapped communication devices in Lebanon, assassinated leaders across the region, launched military attacks on Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen, has invaded Lebanese territory, and is now seeking to draw its U.S. sponsor into an all-out regional war of conquest and domination.

    For their part, collaborationist governments in the West show little appetite for reining in the rampaging monster that they themselves created in the Middle East, and to which they continue to provide endless flows of arms, money, intelligence, diplomatic cover, legal exceptionalism, and a heretofore impenetrable cocoon of impunity.

    When the reckoning comes, as it must, the accountability of both Israel and its Western accomplices must be secured, lest these horrors be repeated in an endless cycle of atrocity, impunity, and recidivism.

    Israeli impunity is coming to an end

    But there are flickering lights in the darkness, and they are growing.

    The just cause of Palestine and the steadfastness of her people have inspired millions around the world to stand up and fight back. The civilized world is now more mobilized than it has been in generations to oppose the horrific evil unleashed on the world by Israel and its Western sponsors.

    More and more people are escaping from the distorting matrix of Western corporate media and turning to independent media and first-hand sources on social media, delivering a powerful blow to the controlled, pro-Israel narrative of official Western institutions.

    Today, Israel is on trial for genocide at the World Court, and its leaders are the subject of arrest warrant requests at the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, including extermination.

    The ICJ has already issued a series of provisional anti-genocide measures against Israel, and a growing list of countries is lining up behind Palestine and South Africa in the genocide case against Israel.

    A dedicated international tribunal is under discussion at the UN. Cases have already been brought in national courts around the world, and more are certain to follow. Plans are also underway to mandate an international anti-apartheid body to focus on Israel.

    In the meantime, the United Nations, its independent human rights mechanisms, and the leading international, Palestinian, and Israeli human rights organizations have all collected massive quantities of evidence, have strongly condemned Israel for its shocking criminality, and are working to ensure accountability.

    Mass demonstrations against Israel are not only daily occurrences in capitals around the globe, but they are actually growing, undeterred by the often-brutal efforts (especially of Western governments) to suppress them.

    The ICJ has declared the obligation of all states to cut off all recognition, aid, investment, trade, weapons, and support of any kind with Israel’s colonial project in the occupied Palestinian territory.

    Israel is increasingly isolated on the global stage. And the global movement for boycott, divestment and sanctions is growing with every passing day.

    In other words, the age of Israeli impunity is coming to an end, despite the best efforts of the U.S., the UK, Germany, and other complicit Western states.

    And we may well be seeing, after decades of endless persecution and bloodshed, the beginning of the end of the European settler-colonial project in Palestine.

    One year later, the flames of genocide still burn. At this tragic moment, it is hard to see through the smoke that obscures the path forward. But white supremacist settler colonialism was defeated in South Africa, Rhodesia, Namibia, and Algeria. It will be defeated in Israel too. Through struggle and solidarity, with law and politics, in resistance and resilience, this will end.

     

    Feature Image Credit: Palestinian Return Center

    This article was published earlier in mondoweiss.net

  • China and the US: Conventional and Nuclear Military Strategies

    China and the US: Conventional and Nuclear Military Strategies

    Occasional Paper: 9/2024

    China and the US: Conventional and Nuclear Military Strategies

    Abstract

    China’s military strategy focuses on developing asymmetric capabilities to counter the United States’ technological advantages and superior military budget by investing in precision missiles, advanced targeting systems, and system destruction warfare. The US initiated the Defence Innovation Initiative to prioritise autonomous learning systems and high-speed projectiles; however, it diminished under the Trump administration, leaving the US reliant on legacy weapons systems vulnerable to new-generation autonomous and hypersonic weapons. Despite China’s advancements, the US maintains a significant advantage in nuclear warheads, with 5,800 compared to China’s 320 in 2020, consistent with Mao’s “minimum deterrent” strategy. While China’s nuclear arsenal primarily comprises strategic weapons, the US possesses both tactical and strategic types. The US complacency regarding China’s military challenge may stem from its nuclear superiority; however, as China progresses technologically, the US risks falling behind by relying on outdated weapons systems, often maintained due to their economic significance in key congressional districts.

    Key Words: #nuclear warheads, #hypersonic weapons, #precision weapons, #asymmetric capabilities, #system destruction warfare, #autonomous learning systems 

     

    Introduction

    Since the beginning of the millennium, China has decided to outsmart the United States’ military strength through a very particular strategy. It aimed at overcoming America’s technological advantages and much superior military budget by investing significant resources in asymmetrical capabilities. As Mark Leonard wrote, China was attempting to become an “asymmetric superpower” outside the realm of conventional military power (Leonard, 2008, p. 106).

    Asymmetric superpower

    Conscious that the Soviet Union had driven itself into bankruptcy by accepting a ruinous competition for military primacy with the US, China looked for cheaper ways to compete. As a result, it invested billions in an attempt to make a generational leap in military capabilities, able to neutralize and trump America’s superior conventional forces. In other words, instead of rivalling the United States on its own game, it searched to engage it in a different game altogether. It was the equivalent of what companies like Uber, Netflix, Airbnb or Spotify did in relation to the conventional economic sectors with which they competed. A novel by P.W. Singer and August Cole depicts how, through surprise and a whole array of asymmetric weapons, China defeats the superior forces of the United States (Singer and Cole, 2016).

    In essence, these weapons are dual-focused. On the one hand, they emphasize long and intermediate-range precision missiles and advanced targeting systems, able to penetrate battle network defences during the opening stages of a conflict. On the other hand, they aim at systems destruction warfare, able to cripple the US’ command, control, communication and intelligence battle network systems. The objective in both cases is to target the US’ soft spots with weapons priced at a fraction of the armaments or systems that they strive to destroy or render useless. The whole notion of asymmetric weapons, indeed, is based on exploiting America’s military weaknesses (like its dependence on information highways or space satellites) while neutralizing its strengths (like its fleet of aircraft carriers). Michael Pillsbury describes this situation in graphic terms: “For two decades, the Chinese have been building arrows designed to find a singular target – the Achilles’ heel of the United States” (Pillsbury, 2015, p. 196).

    America’s military legacy systems

    To counter China’s emerging military threat, the Obama administration put in motion what it called the Defence Innovation Initiative. This was also known as the Third Offset Strategy, as it recalled two previous occasions in the 1950s and the 1970s when, thanks to its technological leaps, the US could overcome the challenges posed by the Soviet military. Recognizing that the technological superiority, which had been the foundation of US military dominance for years, was not only eroding but was being challenged by China, the Pentagon defined a series of areas to be prioritized. Among them were the following: Autonomous learning systems, human-machine collaborative decision-making, network-enabled autonomous weapons, and high-speed projectiles (Ellman, Samp and Coll, 2017).

    However, as with many other initiatives representing the Obama legacy, this one began fading into oblivion with Trump’s arrival to power. As a result, the vision of significantly modernizing America’s military forces also faded (McLeary, 2017). This implied reverting to the previous state of affairs, which still lingers nowadays. In Raj M. Shah and Christopher M. Kirchhoff’s words: “We stand at the precipice of an even more consequential revolution in military affairs today. A new way of war is bearing down on us. Artificial-intelligence-powered autonomous weapons are going global. And the US military is not ready for them (…). Yet, as this is happening, the Pentagon still overwhelmingly spends its dollars on legacy weapons systems. It continues to rely on an outmoded and costly technical production system to buy tanks, ships and aircraft carriers that a new generation of weapons – autonomous and hypersonic – can demonstrably kill” (Shah and Kirchhoff, 2024).

    Legacy systems -aircraft carriers, fighter jets, tanks – are deliberately manufactured in key congressional districts around the country so that the argument over whether a weapons system is needed gets subsumed by the question of whether it produces jobs

    Indeed, as Fareed Zakaria put it: “The United States defence budget is (…) wasteful and yet eternally expanding (…). And the real threats of the future -cyberwar, space attacks- require different strategies and spending. Yet, Washington continues to spend billions on aircraft carriers and tanks” (Zakaria, 2019). A further quote explains the reason for this dependence on an ageing weapons inventory: “Legacy systems -aircraft carriers, fighter jets, tanks – are deliberately manufactured in key congressional districts around the country so that the argument over whether a weapons system is needed gets subsumed by the question of whether it produces jobs” (Sanger, 2024, p. 193). Hence, while China’s military advances towards a technological edge, America’s seems to be losing both focus and fitness.

    Minimum deterrence nuclear strategy

    Perhaps this American complacency concerning China’s disruptive weapons and overall military challenge could be explained by an overreliance on its nuclear superiority. Indeed, in 2020, in the comparison of nuclear warheads, the United States possessed overwhelming superiority with 5,800 against China’s 320 (Arms Control Association, 2020). This was consistent with the legacy of Mao’s “minimum deterrent” strategy. Within the above count, two kinds of nuclear weapons are involved – tactical and strategic. The former, with smaller explosive capacity, are designed for use in battlefields. With a much larger capacity, the latter aims at vital targets within the enemy’s home front. In relation to tactical nuclear weapons, America’s superiority is total, as China doesn’t have any. Nonetheless, in terms of long-range, accuracy, and extensive numbers, China’s conventional ballistic missiles (like the DF-26, also known as the Guam killer) can become an excellent match to the US’ tactical nuclear weapons (Roblin, 2018). The big difference between both countries, thus, is centred on America’s overwhelming superiority in strategic nuclear warheads.

    China’s minimum deterrent nuclear strategy was based on the assumption that, within cost-benefit decision-making, a limited nuclear force, able to target an adversary’s strategic objectives, could deter a superior nuclear force. This required retaliatory strike capacities that can survive a first enemy attack. In China’s case, this is attainable through road-mobile missiles that are difficult to find and destroy, and by way of missiles based on undetectable submarines. Moreover, Beijing’s hypersonic glide vehicle -whose prototype was successfully tested in July 2021- follows a trajectory that American systems cannot track. All of these impose restraint in the use of America’s more extensive arsenal and undermine its ability to carry out nuclear blackmail.

    there is no US defence that “could block” China’s hypersonic glide vehicle “not just because of its speed but also due to its ability to operate within Earth’s atmosphere and to change its altitude and direction in an unpredictable manner while flying much closer to the Earth’s surface”

    For the above aim, Beijing has developed new nuclear ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and a sea-based delivery system. These include the DF-41 solid-fuel road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile (with a range of 15,000 kilometres) or the submarine-launched JL-3 solid-fuel ballistic missile (whose range is likely to exceed 9,000 kilometres). To launch the JL-3 missiles, China counts with four Jin-class nuclear submarines, with an upgraded fifth under construction, each armed with twelve nuclear ballistic missiles (Huang, 2019; Panda, 2018). On top of that, there is no US defence that “could block” China’s hypersonic glide vehicle “not just because of its speed but also due to its ability to operate within Earth’s atmosphere and to change its altitude and direction in an unpredictable manner while flying much closer to the Earth’s surface” (Sanger, 2024, p. 190). All of this shows that America’s overwhelming superiority in terms of strategic nuclear warheads results in more theoretical than practical. What might justify a first American strategic nuclear strike on the knowledge that a Chinese retaliatory one could destroy New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, or all of the three together?

    Matching the US’ overkill nuclear capacity

    Being an asymmetric superpower while sustaining a minimum but highly credible deterrent nuclear strategy implied much subtility in terms of military thinking. One, in tune with the best Chinese traditions exemplified by Sun Tsu’s The Art of War and Chan-Kuo T’se’s Stratagems of the Warring States. However, in this regard, as in many others, Xi Jinping is sowing rigidity where subtility and flexibility prevailed. A perfect example of this is provided by its intent to match the US in terms of strategic nuclear warheads. In David E. Sanger’s words: “But now, it seemed apparent, Chinese leaders had changed their minds. Xi declared that China must ‘establish a strong strategic deterrence system’. And satellite images from near the cities of Yumen and Hami showed that Xi was now ready to throw Mao’s ‘minimum deterrent’ strategy out of the window” (Sanger, 2024, p. 200).

    Three elements attest to the former. Firstly, 230 launching silos are under construction in China. Secondly, these silos are part of a larger plan to match the US’ “triad” of land-launched, air-launched, and sea-launched nuclear weapons. Thirdly, it is estimated that by 2030, China will have an arsenal of 1,000 strategic nuclear weapons, which should reach 1,500 by 2035. The latter would imply equalling the Russian and the American nuclear strategic warheads (Sanger, 2024, p. 197; Cooper, 2021; The Economist, 2021; Hadley, 2023). 

    Xi Jinping is thus throwing overboard the Chinese capability to neutralize America’s strategic nuclear superiority at a fraction of its cost, searching to match its overkill capacity. In essence, nuclear arms seek to fulfil two main objectives. In the first place, intimidating or dissuading into compliance a given counterpart. In the second place, deterring by way of its retaliatory capacity, any first use of nuclear weapons by a counterpart.

    As seen, the second of those considerations was already guaranteed through its minimum deterrence strategy. In relation to the first, China already enjoys a tremendous dissuading power and the capacity to neutralize intimidation in its part of the world. Indeed, it holds firm control over the South China Sea. This is for three reasons. First, through its possession and positioning there, of the largest Navy in the world. Second, by way of the impressive firepower of its missiles, which includes the DF21/CSS-5, capable of sinking aircraft carriers more than 1,500 miles away. Third, via the construction and militarization of 27 artificial islands in the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos. All of this generates an anti-access and denial of space synergy, capable of being activated at any given time against hostile maritime forces. In other words, China cannot be intimidated into compliance by the United States in the South China Sea scenario (Fabey, 2018, pp. 228-231). Nor, in relation to Taiwan, could America’s superior nuclear forces dissuade Beijing to invade if it so decides. The US, indeed, would not be willing to trade the obliteration of Los Angeles or any other of its major cities by going nuclear in the defence of Taiwan.

    Simultaneously confronting two gunfighters

    It was complicated enough during the Cold War to defend against one major nuclear power. The message of the new [Chinese] silos was that now the United States would, for the first time in its history, must think about defending in the future against two major nuclear powers with arsenals roughly the size of Washington’s – and be prepared for the possibility that they might decide to work together

    Matching the US’ nuclear overkill capacity will not significantly alter the strategic equation between both countries. If anything, it would only immobilize in easy-to-target silos, the bulk of its strategic nuclear force. However, Xi’s difficult-to-understand decision makes more sense if, instead of thinking of two nuclear powers, we were to think of a game of three. This would entail a more profound strategic problem for the United States that David E. Sanger synthesizes: “It was complicated enough during the Cold War to defend against one major nuclear power. The message of the new [Chinese] silos was that now the United States would, for the first time in its history, must think about defending in the future against two major nuclear powers with arsenals roughly the size of Washington’s – and be prepared for the possibility that they might decide to work together” (Sanger, 2024, p. 201). This working together factor should be seen as the new normal, as a revisionist block led by China and Russia confronts America’s system of alliances and its post-WWII rules-based world order.

    Although the United States could try to increase the number of its nukes, nothing precludes its two competitors from augmenting theirs as well, with the intention of maintaining an overwhelming superiority. According to Thomas Schelling, leading Game Theory scholar and Economics Nobel Prize winner, the confrontation between two nuclear superpowers, in parity conditions, was tantamount to that of two far-west gunfighters: Whoever shot first had the upper hand. This is because it can destroy a significant proportion of its counterpart’s nuclear arsenal (Fontaine, 2024). In the case in point, Uncle Sam would have to simultaneously confront two gunfighters, each matching his skills and firepower. Although beyond a certain threshold, there wouldn’t seem to exist a significant difference in the capacity of destruction involved, nuclear blackmail could be imposed upon the weakest competitor. In this case, the United States.

    Conclusion

    From an American perspective, overreliance on its challenged nuclear power makes no sense. Especially if it translates into a laid-back attitude in relation to the current technological revolution in conventional warfare. If Washington doesn’t go forward with a third offset military strategy, it could find itself in an extremely vulnerable position. Just two cases can exemplify this. Aircraft carriers are becoming obsolete as a result of the Chinese DF21-CSS5 missile, able to sink them 1,500 miles away, in the same manner in which war in Ukraine is showing the obsolescence of modern tanks when faced with portable Javelins and drones. If the US is not able to undertake a leap forward in conventional military weapons and systems, it will be overcome by its rivals in both conventional and nuclear forces. For Washington, no doubt about it, this is an inflexion moment.

     

    References:

    Arms Control Association (2020). “Nuclear weapons: Who has what at a glance”, August.

    Cooper, Helene (2021). “China could have 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030, Pentagon says”. The New York Times, November 3.

    Ellman, Jesse, Samp, Lisa, Coll, Gabriel (2017). “Assessing the Third Offset Strategy”. Center for Strategic & International Studies, CSIS, March.

    Fabey, Michael (2018) Crashback: The Power Clash Between US and China in the Pacific. New York: Scribner.

    Fontaine, Phillipe (2024). “Commitment, Cold War, and the battles of self: Thomas Schelling on Behavior Control”. Journal of the Behavioral Sciences, April.

    Hadley, Greg (2023). “China Now Has More ICBM Launchers than the US”. Air & Space Forces Magazine. February 7.

    Huang, Cary (2019). “China’s show of military might risk backfiring”. Inkstone, October 19.

    Leonard, Mark (2008). What Does China Think? New York: HarperCollins.

    McLeary, Paul (2017). “The Pentagon’s Third Offset May be Dead, But No One Knows What Comes Next”. Foreign Policy, December 18.

    Panda, Ankit (2018). “China conducts first test of new JL-3 submarine-launched ballistic missile”. The Diplomat, December 20.

    Pillsbury, Michael (2015). The Hundred-Year Marathon. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

    Roblin, Sebastien (2018). “Why China’s DF-26 Missile is a Guam Killer”. The National Interest, November 9.

    Sanger, David E. (2024). New York: Crown Publishing Books.

    Shah, Raj M. and Kirchhoff, Christopher M. (2024). “The US Military is not Ready for the New Era of Warfare”. The New York Times, September 13.

    Singer, P.W. and Cole, August (2016). Ghost Fleet: A Novel of the Next World War. Boston: Eamon Dolan Book.

    The Economist (2021). “China’s nuclear arsenal has been extremely modest, but that is changing”, November 20.

    Zakaria, Fareed (2019). “Defense spending is America’s cancerous bipartisan consensus”. The Washington Post, July 18.

     

    Feature Image Credit: NikkeiAsia

    Text Image: AsiaTimes.com

  • China’s Role in reducing the Global Carbon Footprint: The 2060 Promise and Geopolitics on the Climate Front

    China’s Role in reducing the Global Carbon Footprint: The 2060 Promise and Geopolitics on the Climate Front

    Introduction

    The devastating role carbon plays in climate change cannot be underestimated. The rise in global surface temperatures, air pollution, and sea levels are visible effects of a rapidly changing environment. China, the world’s second most populous country, is also the largest emitter of greenhouse gases[i]. According to the CAIT database, in 2020, China emitted what amounted to 27% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the world[ii]. Under President Xi Jinping, China has moved to position itself as an “ecological civilization”, striving to advance its role in global climate protection[iii]. China’s endeavours received acclaim when it became one of the first major countries to ratify the Paris Agreement in 2015, pledging to attain peak emissions by 2030 and net zero carbon emissions by 2060. This article aims to delineate China’s strategies and motivations for addressing carbon emissions and contrast these with the measures implemented by Western and developing countries to diminish their carbon footprint.

    China’s Image and Geopolitics in the Climate Sector

    Considering China’s position on the world stage as one of the largest and fastest-growing economies in the world, it has faced international pressure to take accountability for its contribution to climate change. China has previously argued that as a developing country, it should not have to share the same responsibilities of curbing climate change that developed countries, whose emissions went “unchecked for decades”, have[iv]. Nonetheless, they have pledged to lead by example in the climate sector. A large part of President Xi’s campaign to amplify China’s climate ambitions may come from appeasing the West while also setting up leadership in the clean energy sector to better cement its role as a superpower. According to a New York Times article, their promise to contribute to climate protection could be used to soothe the international audience and to counterbalance the worldwide anger that China faces over their oppression of the Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang province and their territorial conflicts in the South China Sea and Taiwan[v]. President Xi’s pledge at the UN to reach peak emissions before 2030 may have been an attempt to depict China as a pioneering nation striving to achieve net zero carbon emissions, serving as an alternative powerful entity for countries to turn to in lieu of the United States. This holds particular significance, as the USA remained mute about taking accountability for its own carbon emissions and withdrew from the Paris Agreement during Donald Trump’s presidency[vi]. This also shows China’s readiness to employ the consequences of climate change on its geopolitical agenda[vii].

    The future actions of China may significantly influence the climate policies of both developing and developed nations, potentially establishing China as a preeminent global force in climate change mitigation.

    China has endeavoured to shape its image in the climate sector. In 2015, despite being classified as a developing country, China refrained from requesting climate finance from developed countries and instead pledged $ 3.1 billion in funding to assist other developing countries in tackling climate change[viii]. As per the World Bank’s Country Climate and Development Report for China, China is poised to transform “climate action into economic opportunity.”[ix] By transitioning to a net zero carbon emissions economy, China can generate employment opportunities while safeguarding its non-renewable resources from depletion. China’s economy is also uniquely structured to seize the technological and reputational benefits of early climate action[x]. The future actions of China may significantly influence the climate policies of both developing and developed nations, potentially establishing China as a preeminent global force in climate change mitigation. Nonetheless, if China fails to fulfil its commitment to attain net zero carbon emissions by 2060, it may suffer substantial reputational damage, particularly given its current status as a pioneer in “advancing low carbon energy supply”[xi].

    Domestic Versus International Efforts in the Clean Energy Race

    However, domestic and international factors could affect China’s goal to peak emissions and the deadlines it has set for itself. A global event that may have affected their efforts to peak carbon emissions was the COVID-19 pandemic, in which the rise in carbon emissions from industries and vehicles was interrupted[xii]. However, after the pandemic, China’s economy saw swift growth, and in 2021, China’s carbon emissions were 4% higher than in the previous year[xiii]. Not only is China back on track to peak carbon emissions by 2030, but the International Energy Agency and World Energy Outlook 2023 also found that “China’s fossil fuel use will peak in 2024 before entering structural decline.”[xiv]

    Although China’s industrial sector is heavily reliant on coal and fossil fuels, it also boasts the world’s largest production of electric vehicles and is a leader in manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines[xv]. In contrast, developed countries, particularly the US, which withdrew from the Paris Agreement in 2017 during the Trump presidency, appear to be making less of an effort towards environmental protection.

    Developing countries, while not entirely possessed of the immense sprawl of China’s economy and population, are nonetheless not at the level of transitioning to clean energy that China is. India, too, has pledged to be carbon neutral by 2070 and to have emissions peak by 2030. Given its increasing economic growth rate, India must decrease its carbon intensity at the same pace. India lags behind China when it comes to manufacturing solar panels and other renewable energy sources. India’s central government is preparing to push energy modernization to “align with global energy transition trends.”[xvi] According to the Economic Times, particular emphasis has been laid on renewable energy sources like solar capacity and e-vehicles in the 2024-25 budget.[xvii]

    China and International Cooperation for Climate Protection

    With China producing sufficient solar capacity in 2022 to lead the rest of the world considerably and the deployment of solar power expected to rise until 2028, it is essential that the West does not make the mistake of isolating China

    Given that China has emerged as the leading manufacturer of electric vehicles (EVs), it remains to be seen whether developed and developing countries will leverage their supply chains to combat their own climate crises. While opportunities are plentiful for Western businesses to integrate with China’s cutting-edge alternatives for traditional energy sources, the United States has adopted a hardline stance towards China[xviii]. The US has imposed 100 per cent tariffs on Chinese-made e-vehicles, and solar cells face tariffs at 50 per cent.[xix] Simultaneously, rivalry and competition between the two countries on the climate front may help combat the climate dilemma and ever-increasing carbon emissions by avoiding the collective action problem. However, this will depend heavily on smooth cooperation and effective communication between Chinese authorities and developed nations within the EU and the USA[xxi]. Empowering domestic groups within countries can raise awareness of climate crises. A poll conducted in China revealed that 46% of the youth considered climate change the “most serious global issue.”[xxii] According to a survey conducted by the United Nations, 80% of people worldwide say they want climate action[vii]. With China producing sufficient solar capacity in 2022 to lead the rest of the world considerably and the deployment of solar power expected to rise until 2028, it is essential that the West does not make the mistake of isolating China[xxiii].

    Conclusion

    China has a significant advantage in its renewable energy sector. Western countries and other developing economies rely heavily on China’s green exports to address climate change urgently. China’s stringent measures to curb emissions from its coal-based industries and the growing output from its alternative energy sources reflect its proactive stance in becoming a global leader in addressing climate change — a position that surpasses other nations’ efforts. While it is debatable whether China’s commitment to reduce its carbon emissions was a political strategy to appease Europe, it is undeniable that tackling climate change is a pressing issue. With the public’s overwhelming support for implementing change in the climate sector, governments worldwide must prioritise their citizens’ needs and cooperate to develop policies that ensure a sustainable future for our planet.

     

    Notes:

    [i] Saurav Anand, “Solar Capacity, EVs, and Nuclear SMRs to Get Budget Boost for Energy Security – ET EnergyWorld,” ETEnergyworld.com, July 11, 2024, https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/renewable/solar-capacity-evs-and-nuclear-smrs-to-get-budget-boost-for-energy-security/111648384?action=profile_completion&utm_source=Mailer&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=etenergy_news_2024-07-11&dt=2024-07-11&em=c2FuYS5zYXByYTIyMUBnbWFpbC5jb20.

    [ii]Saurav Anand, “Solar Capacity, EVs, and Nuclear Smrs to Get Budget Boost for Energy Security – ET EnergyWorld,” ETEnergyworld.com, July 11, 2024, https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/renewable/solar-capacity-evs-and-nuclear-smrs-to-get-budget-boost-for-energy-security/111648384?action=profile_completion&utm_source=Mailer&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=etenergy_news_2024-07-11&dt=2024-07-11&em=c2FuYS5zYXByYTIyMUBnbWFpbC5jb20.

    [iii]Shameem Prashantham and Lola Woetzel, “To Create a Greener Future, the West Can’t Ignore China,” Harvard Business Review, April 10, 2024, https://hbr.org/2024/05/to-create-a-greener-future-the-west-cant-ignore-china.

    [iv]“Fact Sheet: President Biden Takes Action to Protect American Workers and Businesses from China’s Unfair Trade Practices,” The White House, May 14, 2024, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/14/fact-sheet-president-biden-takes-action-to-protect-american-workers-and-businesses-from-chinas-unfair-trade-practices/?utm_source=dailybrief&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyBrief2024May14&utm_term=DailyNewsBrief.

    [v]Noah J. Gordon et al., “Why US-China Rivalry Can Actually Help Fight Climate Change,” Internationale Politik Quarterly, March 24, 2023, https://ip-quarterly.com/en/why-us-china-rivalry-can-actually-help-fight-climate-change.

    [vi] Simon Evans Hongqiao Liu, “The Carbon Brief Profile: China,” Carbon Brief, November 30, 2023, https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-profile-china/.

    [vii]“Climatechange,” United Nations, accessed July 18, 2024, https://www.un.org/en/climatechange#:~:text=The%20world’s%20largest%20standalone%20public,to%20tackle%20the%20climate%20crisis.

    [viii]Martin Jacques, “China Will Reach Climate Goal While West Falls Short,” Global Times, accessed July 19, 2024, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202402/1306788.shtml#:~:text=There%20has%20been%20constant%20low,than%202050%20for%20carbon%20zero.

    [ix] Steven Lee Myers, “China’s Pledge to Be Carbon Neutral by 2060: What It Means,” The New York Times, September 23, 2020

    [x] Simon Evans, Hongqiao Liu et al, “The Carbon Brief Profile: China,” Carbon Brief, November 30, 2023, https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-profile-china/.

    [xi] China | nationally determined contribution (NDC), accessed July 17, 2024, https://www.climatewatchdata.org/ndcs/country/CHN?document=revised_first_ndc.

    [xii] Simon Evans, Hongqiao Liu et al, “The Carbon Brief Profile: China,” Carbon Brief, November 30, 2023, https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-profile-china/.

    [xiii] Steven Lee Myers, “China’s Pledge to Be Carbon Neutral by 2060: What It Means,” The New York Times, September 23, 2020,https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/world/asia/china-climate-change.html.

    [xiv] Steven Lee Myers, “China’s Pledge to Be Carbon Neutral by 2060: What It Means,” The New York Times, September 23, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/world/asia/china-climate-change.html.

    [xv] Simon Evans, Hongqiao Liu et al, “The Carbon Brief Profile: China,” Carbon Brief, November 30, 2023, https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-profile-china/.

    [xvi] Matt McGrath, “Climate Change: China Aims for ‘Carbon Neutrality by 2060,’” BBC News, September 22, 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54256826.

    [xvii] Simon Evans, Hongqiao Liu et al, “The Carbon Brief Profile: China,” Carbon Brief, November 30, 2023, https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-profile-china/.

    [xviii] World Bank Group, “China Country Climate and Development Report,” Open Knowledge Repository, October 2022, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/ef01c04f-4417-51b6-8107-b688061a879e.

    [xix] World Bank Group, “China Country Climate and Development Report,” Open Knowledge Repository, October 2022, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/ef01c04f-4417-51b6-8107-b688061a879e.

    [xx] World Bank Group, “China Country Climate and Development Report,” Open Knowledge Repository, October 2022, https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/ef01c04f-4417-51b6-8107-b688061a879e.

    [xxi] Steven Lee Myers, “China’s Pledge to Be Carbon Neutral by 2060: What It Means,” The New York Times, September 23, 2020.

    [xxii]  Steven Lee Myers, “China’s Pledge to Be Carbon Neutral by 2060: What It Means,” The New York Times, September 23, 2020.

    [xxiii] Simon Evans, Hongqiao Liu et al, “The Carbon Brief Profile: China,” Carbon Brief, November 30, 2023, https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/the-carbon-brief-profile-china/.

     

    Feature Image: wionews.com  China leads the charge: Beijing develops two-thirds of global wind and solar projects.

     

  • China has achieved escape velocity: it is now unstoppable

    China has achieved escape velocity: it is now unstoppable

    The 21st century is shaping up to be the Asian, Eurasian, and Chinese century.

    While the Hegemon spent at least $7 trillion – and counting – on unwinnable Forever Wars, China is spending $1 trillion in an array of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects across the Global South: the emphasis is digital/transportation connectivity corridors. Geoeconomic imperatives intertwined with rising geopolitical influence.

    The four-day, twice-a-decade plenum of the Communist Party of China that took place last week in Beijing, designing an economic road map all the way to 2029, was a stunning affair in more ways than one.

    Let’s start with continuity – and stability. There’s no question after the plenum that Xi Dada, or The Big Panda, will stay on the helm until 2029 – the end of the current five-year economic drive.

    And if Xi is healthy enough, he will stay until 2035: the fateful and uber-game-changing target year for China to exhibit a GDP per capita of $30,000, with massive worldwide reverberations.

    Here, we see the confluence between the progression of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” and the defining contours, if not of a Pax Sinica, at least of the non-Hegemon-centric, multi-nodal world (italics mine).

    The proverbial U.S. Think Tankland/Sinophobia axis has been hysterical on China not being able to sustain a 5% a year growth rate for the next few years – the target once again stressed at the plenum.

    The Chinese themselves have not bothered about the growth rate for a long time, since in 2018 they switched to a strategy of so-called qualitative development, that is, not at the expense of traditional industries, but on the basis of high technologies and the creation of new areas, such as the production of new energy sources and artificial intelligence.

    A Russian analysis by the Center for Geopolitical Forecasts makes a crucial point: “The Chinese themselves have not bothered about the growth rate for a long time, since in 2018 they switched to a strategy of so-called qualitative development, that is, not at the expense of traditional industries, but on the basis of high technologies and the creation of new areas, such as the production of new energy sources and artificial intelligence.”

    That’s the rationale behind Made in China 2025 – which is being implemented at breakneck speed: high-tech development leading the way towards a “high-level socialist market economy”, to be consolidated by 2025 and fully constructed by 2035.

    The next step will be to attain the status of “modernized socialist power” by 2049, at the 100th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

    The plenum proved once more that “socialism with Chinese characteristics” – or, for the recalcitrant, Chinese-modified capitalism – is “people-centric”. The supreme values are national interest and the people’s interests – attested by the fact that large private corporations remain under the strategic control of the CPC.

    It’s idle to try to find in the final communique at the end of the plenum any restrictions on private capital on the path to “universal prosperity”. The key point is that the role of capital should always be subordinated to the concept of “socialism with Chinese characteristics”.

    Watch the reform ship steadily sailing

    Everything is explained here in nearly didactic terms, chronicling the birth of the “Decision of the CPC Central Committee on further comprehensive deepening of reforms to promote Chinese modernization”.

    What is now already referred to colloquially all across China as “The Decision” spreads across 15 parts and 60 articles, divided into three main sections, proposing more than 300 important reforms.

    “The Decision”, in full, has not yet been published; only the road map of how Beijing planners got there. Of course, this is no mere policy paper; it’s a quintessentially CPC-style dissertation in which the details of economic and political measures are obscured by clouds of images and metaphors.

    Take a look, for instance, at this passage:

    “To ensure that the reform ship sails forward steadily, the ‘Decision’ proposes that further comprehensive deepening of reform must implement the “six principles”: adhere to the party’s overall leadership, adhere to the people-centred approach, adhere to the principle of maintaining the integrity and promoting innovation, adhere to system building as the main line, adhere to the comprehensive rule of law, and adhere to a systematic approach.”

    Most of the “Decision” – 6 parts in a total of 13 – is about economic reform. Will China pull it off? Of course, it will.

    Just look at the precedents. In 1979, the Little Helmsman Deng Xiaoping started to transform a nation of farmers and peasants into a well-oiled machine of efficient industrial workers. Along the way, GDP per capita was multiplied by no less than 30 times.

    Now, the ramifications of Made in China 2025 are turning a nation of factory workers into a nation of engineers. Of 10,5 million university graduates a year, a third are engineers.

    The emphasis on AI has led, among other examples, to the automobile industry being able to produce a $9,000 EV in complete automation and make a profit. China is already a global leader in EVs (BYD building plants in Brazil, Thailand, Turkey, Hungary), solar power, drones, telecom infrastructure (Huawei, ZTE), steel, shipbuilding – and soon, also semiconductors (thank you, Trump sanctions).

    While the Hegemon spent at least $7 trillion – and counting – on unwinnable Forever Wars, China is spending $1 trillion in an array of Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) projects across the Global South: the emphasis is digital/transportation connectivity corridors. Geoeconomic imperatives intertwined with rising geopolitical influence.

    Hegemon hysteria aside, the fact is the Chinese economy will grow by a whopping $1.7 trillion only in 2024. That is more than in all but the last three years – because of the Covid effect.

    And Beijing borrowed exactly zero yuan for this growth. The U.S. economy, by comparison, may grow by $300 billion in 2024, but Washington had to borrow $3.3 trillion for that to happen.

    Researcher Geoff Roberts has compiled a very useful list of what China is doing right.

    And when it comes to the nitty gritty, the numbers are staggering. Here are just a few, apart from GDP growth:

    • Foreign goods trade is up 6.1% to $2.9 trillion year-on-year.
    • The trade surplus is at $85 billion, up 12% compared to 2023.
    • ASEAN trade is up by 10.5% to $80 billion; China is the number one trade partner of individual ASEAN members.
    • China had a record crop of 150 million tons of cereal grains.
    • The courier sector handled 80 billion parcels, up 23% year-on-year.
    • SMIC is the world’s number two pure-play foundry after Taiwan’s TSMC.
    • China Telecom paid $265 million for 23% of QuantumCTek, the patenter of Micius, the world’s first quantum communications satellite.
    • Commercial aerospace launched 39% of China’s 26 rockets.
    • Invention patents rose 43% to 524,000. China is the first country with 4 million domestic invention patents in force.
    • Baidu’s 1,000 robotaxis in Wuhan will break even in Q4 and will be profitable next year.
    • China has 47% of the world’s top AI talent. It added no less than 2000 AI courses to school and college curricula since 2019.
    • On world-class institutions doubling as research leaders, 7 out of 10 are Chinese, including the top one: the Chinese Academy of Sciences, ahead of Harvard.

    Exceptionalist China “experts” believe their own fantasy that the U.S. allied with occupied Japan, Germany and South Korea would be able to match and surpass China’s pull with the Global Majority, because they have more resources and more capital.

    Nonsense. Even more nonsense is to believe that the Hegemon’s NATO “partners” – as in vassals – will follow the leader in creating cutting-edge technology.

    The high-speed train that matters has already left the station. The 21st century is shaping up to be the ‘Asian, Eurasian, and Chinese’ century.

     

    Feature Image Credit: The Diplomat

    The article is republished from the Strategic Culture Foundation.

  • The NATO Declaration and the Deadly Strategy of Neoconservatism

    The NATO Declaration and the Deadly Strategy of Neoconservatism

    For the sake of America’s security and world peace, the U.S. should immediately abandon the neocon quest for hegemony in favour of diplomacy and peaceful co-existence.

    In 1992, U.S. foreign policy exceptionalism went into overdrive. The U.S. has always viewed itself as an exceptional nation destined for leadership, and the demise of the Soviet Union in December 1991 convinced a group of committed ideologues—who came to be known as neoconservatives—that the U.S. should now rule the world as the unchallenged sole superpower.

    Despite countless foreign policy disasters at neocon hands, the 2024 NATO Declaration continues to push the neocon agenda, driving the world closer to nuclear war.
    The neoconservatives were originally led by Richard Cheney, the Defense Secretary in 1992. Every President since then—Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden—has pursued the neocon agenda of U.S. hegemony, leading theU.S. into perpetual wars of choice, including Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Ukraine, as well as relentless eastward expansion of NATO, despite a clear U.S. and German promise in 1990 to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move one inch eastward.
    The core neocon idea is that the U.S. should have military, financial, economic, and political dominance over any potential rival in any part of the world. It is targeted especially at rival powers such as China and Russia and, therefore, brings the U.S. into direct confrontation with them. The American hubris is stunning: most of the world does not want to be led by the U.S., much less led by a U.S. state clearly driven by militarism, elitism and greed.
    The neocon plan for U.S. military dominance was spelt out in the Project for a New American Century. The plan includes relentless NATO expansion eastward and the transformation of NATO from a defensive alliance against a now-defunct Soviet Union to an offensive alliance used to promote U.S. hegemony. The U.S. arms industry is the major financial and political backer of the neocons. The arms industry spearheaded the lobbying for NATO’s eastward enlargement starting in the 1990s. Joe Biden has been a staunch neocon from the start, first as Senator, then as Vice President, and now as President.
    To achieve hegemony, the neocon plans rely on CIA regime-change operations; U.S.-led wars of choice; U.S. overseas military bases (now numbering around 750 overseas bases in at least 80 countries); the militarization of advanced technologies (biowarfare, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, etc.); and relentless use of information warfare.
    The quest for U.S. hegemony has pushed the world to open warfare in Ukraine between the world’s two leading nuclear powers, Russia and the United States. The war in Ukraine was provoked by the relentless determination of the U.S. to expand NATO to Ukraine despite Russia’s fervent opposition, as well as the U.S. participation in the violent Maidan coup (February 2014) that overthrew a neutral government and the U.S. undermining of the Minsk II agreement that called for autonomy for the ethnically Russian regions of eastern Ukraine.
    The NATO Declaration calls NATO a defensive alliance, but the facts say otherwise. NATO repeatedly engages in offensive operations, including regime-change operations. NATO led the bombing of Serbia in order to break that nation into two parts, with NATO placing a major military base in the breakaway region of Kosovo. NATO has played a major role in many U.S. wars of choice. NATO bombing of Libya was used to overthrow the government of Moammar Qaddafi.
    The U.S. quest for hegemony, which was arrogant and unwise in 1992, is absolutely delusional today since the U.S. clearly faces formidable rivals that can compete with the U.S. on the battlefield, in nuclear arms deployments and in the production and deployment of advanced technologies. China’s GDP is now around 30% larger than the U.S. when measured at international prices, and China is the world’s low-cost producer and supplier of many critical green technologies, including EVs, 5G, photovoltaics, wind power, modular nuclear power, and others. China’s productivity is now so great that the U.S. complains of China’s “over-capacity.”

    Sadly and alarmingly, the NATO declaration repeats the neoconservative delusions.
    The Declaration falsely declares that “Russia bears sole responsibility for its war of aggression against Ukraine,” despite the U.S. provocations that led to the outbreak of the war in 2014.
    The NATO Declaration reaffirms Article 10 of the NATO Washington Treaty, according to which NATO’s eastward expansion is none of Russia’s business. Yet the U.S. would never accept Russia or China establishing a military base on the US border (say in Mexico), as the U.S. first declared in the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 and has reaffirmed ever since.
    The NATO Declaration reaffirms NATO’s commitment to biodefense technologies, despite growing evidence that U.S. biodefense spending by NIH financed the laboratory creation of the virus that may have caused the Covid-19 pandemic.
    The NATO Declaration proclaims NATO’s intention to continue to deploy anti-ballistic Aegis missiles (as it has already done in Poland, Romania, and Turkey) despite the fact that the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and placement of Aegis missiles in Poland and Romania has profoundly destabilized the nuclear arms control architecture.
    The NATO Declaration expresses no interest whatsoever in a negotiated peace for Ukraine.
    The NATO Declaration doubles down on Ukraine’s “irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership.” Yet Russia will never accept Ukraine’s NATO membership, so the “irreversible” commitment is an irreversible commitment to war.
    The Washington Post reports that in the lead-up to the NATO summit, Biden had serious qualms about pledging an “irreversible path” to Ukraine’s NATO membership, yet Biden’s advisors brushed aside these concerns.

    The neoconservatives have created countless disasters for the U.S. and the world, including several failed wars, a massive buildup of U.S. public debt driven by trillions of dollars of wasteful war-driven military outlays, and the increasingly dangerous confrontation of the U.S. with China, Russia, Iran, and others. The neocons have brought the Doomsday Clock to just 90 seconds to midnight (nuclear war), compared with 17 minutes in 1992.

    For the sake of America’s security and world peace, the U.S. should immediately abandon the neocon quest for hegemony in favour of diplomacy and peaceful co-existence.
    Alas, NATO has just done the opposite.

     

    Feature Image Credit: Bloomberg

  • Quantum Revolution: Race Towards Quantum Supremacy

    Quantum Revolution: Race Towards Quantum Supremacy

     

    Decoding Quantum Computing: Understanding the Basics

    Quantum computing has the potential to revolutionise the field of computing and has far-reaching implications for the future of technology. It is a complex and rapidly evolving field that requires a deep understanding of quantum mechanics and computer science.

    Quantum Computing and Moore’s Law

    Quantum computing is set to revolutionise the field of computation by leveraging the principles of quantum mechanics. While classical computing, which follows Moore’s Law, is approaching its physical limits, quantum computing offers a way to surpass these boundaries. Moore’s Law states that the number of transistors on a microchip doubles approximately every two years, leading to exponential growth in computing power. However, this trend cannot continue indefinitely due to the physical limitations of classical hardware.

    Nature Simulation with Quantum Processors

    Unlike classical bits, quantum bits (qubits) can exist in multiple states simultaneously, thanks to a property known as superposition. This means that a quantum computer can process a vast number of possibilities all at once. For example, in a maze, a classical computer would explore each path one by one, while a quantum computer could explore all paths simultaneously. This is illustrated in the following diagram:

    Quantum computing exploits entanglement and superposition to perform calculations at unprecedented speeds. This capability makes it particularly suited for simulating natural processes at the atomic and molecular levels, tasks that classical computers struggle with.

    Challenges in Quantum Computing

    Quantum computing, despite its promising potential, encounters notable obstacles primarily stemming from the delicate nature of qubits. Qubits, the fundamental units of quantum information, exhibit high sensitivity to external factors, rendering them susceptible to coherence loss caused by thermal noise. This susceptibility results in increased error rates during computation. Preserving qubit coherence presents a significant challenge, as even minimal disturbances can induce decoherence, disrupting quantum operations.

    In addition to superconducting qubits, other quantum computing methods also face significant challenges. For instance, trapped ion qubits are highly susceptible to environmental noise and require extremely precise laser control to maintain coherence, which is technically demanding and resource-intensive. Topological qubits, while theoretically more robust against local perturbations, are still in nascent stages of experimental realisation, and creating and manipulating these qubits remains a formidable challenge. Photonic qubits rely on maintaining precise control over individual photons, which is difficult due to losses and the need for high-fidelity detectors and sources. Quantum dot qubits face issues with variability in dot size and composition, affecting their uniformity and coherence times. Each of these methods requires sophisticated error correction techniques and significant advancements in material science and engineering to overcome their respective challenges.

    Remarkably, natural quantum processes (Quantum Biology) operate seamlessly at room temperature, a phenomenon that remains elusive in terms of being replicated effectively in artificial quantum systems.

    If these significant technical challenges can be overcome, quantum computing promises unprecedented computational power and transformative applications across various fields.

    Ultimate Applications of Quantum Computing

    Quantum computing holds the promise of facilitating groundbreaking advancements across various disciplines. Research literature underscores its potential in drug discovery, where quantum computers exhibit superior efficacy in modelling intricate molecular structures compared to classical counterparts. Similarly, in financial modelling, quantum algorithms demonstrate the capacity to optimise portfolios with unparalleled precision.

    Military Advancements

    Quantum sensing and communication technologies have the potential to significantly revolutionise military capabilities. Quantum radar systems, for instance, possess the capability to detect stealth aircraft, overcoming the limitations of conventional radar systems. Additionally, secure Quantum communication could provide robust defences against cyber threats, ensuring the integrity and confidentiality of sensitive information.

    Elevating Humanity

    The applications of quantum computing have the potential to propel humanity towards a Type II civilization on the Kardashev Scale, endowed with the capability to harness and manage energy on a planetary scale. By manipulating quantum processes, we stand poised to address pressing global challenges such as climate change and energy scarcity.

    Green Revolution and Sustainability

    Among the most auspicious applications of quantum computing is its potential to revolutionise artificial photosynthesis, thereby paving the way for sustainable energy solutions. Quantum computers are poised to streamline nitrogen capture processes, indispensable for enhancing agricultural productivity and potentially instigating a second green revolution. Such advancements hold the promise of ameliorating food security concerns and accommodating the burgeoning global population, echoing the transformative impact of the initial green revolution.

    How the Race Started

    The Inception and Influence of Peter Shor’s Algorithm

     The quest for quantum supremacy gained significant momentum with the groundbreaking work of Peter Shor, a mathematician and theoretical computer scientist. In 1994, Shor developed an algorithm that fundamentally challenged the security of classical cryptographic systems. Shor’s algorithm, designed to run on a quantum computer, efficiently factors large integers a task that is exponentially time-consuming for classical computers. This capability poses a direct threat to widely used cryptographic schemes, such as RSA, which rely on the difficulty of factoring large numbers for security.

    Shor’s discovery was a pivotal moment that captured the attention of both the academic community and government agencies, particularly those concerned with national security, such as the National Security Agency (NSA). Recognizing the profound implications for encryption and data security, the NSA and other entities significantly increased their investments in quantum computing research and development.

    This breakthrough ignited international competition, with major world powers like the United States, China, and the European Union vying for dominance in the field. Each nation adopted different technological approaches in their pursuit of quantum supremacy. For example, Google and IBM focus on superconducting qubits, IonQ employs trapped ion technology, and Microsoft explores the potential of topological qubits.

    These diverse methodologies reflect the broad and multifaceted efforts to harness the unprecedented computational power promised by quantum computing.

    Race of the 21st Century

    The quest for quantum supremacy is the new frontier in technological competition, reminiscent of past races like the nuclear arms race (peaking in the 1950s) and the space race1 (culminating in the 1969 moon landing). However, the stakes in the quantum race are arguably higher. Estimates suggest the global quantum computing market could reach $50 billion by 2030. Achieving quantum supremacy, the ability of a quantum computer to outperform a classical computer for a specific task, is not just a scientific milestone but a potential economic and strategic game-changer.

    The country that first achieves and leverages quantum supremacy is poised to become a global leader in innovation, economic growth, and, potentially, military dominance. This potential has spurred fierce international competition, with nations like China, the United States, and the European Union investing heavily in quantum research and development.

    References

    – Kaku, Michio. Quantum Supremacy: The Quest to Build the World’s Most Powerful Computer. New York: Doubleday, 2023

     

  • Book Review: Maritime Security in the 21st Century: Drivers and Challenges

    Book Review: Maritime Security in the 21st Century: Drivers and Challenges

     

    • Publisher ‏ : ‎ Routledge; 1st edition (April 28, 2014)
    • Author: Christian Le Mière – is a senior fellow for naval forces and maritime security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London.
    • Language ‏ : ‎ English
    • Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 160 pages
    • ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 0415828007
    • ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-0415828000

     

     

     

    Maritime diplomacy means using maritime capabilities, strategies, and policies to achieve diplomatic objectives and foster international relations. It encompasses various activities maritime nations conduct to promote their interests, maintain security, and manage disputes in maritime domains. Maritime diplomacy has evolved significantly over time, driven by changes in geopolitical dynamics, technological advancements, economic interests, and environmental concerns. Maritime diplomacy adapts to emerging issues, such as cybersecurity and environmental concerns, while balancing economic, security, and diplomatic interests. Christian’s book redefined the concept of maritime diplomacy, presenting it as a multifaceted approach to achieving diplomatic objectives and fostering international relations. In his interpretation, maritime diplomacy encompasses maritime nations’ activities to promote their interests, ensure security, and manage disputes within maritime domains.

    As a senior fellow for naval forces and maritime security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London, Christian Le Mière brings extensive expertise and insight to the field of maritime security.

    “Maritime Diplomacy in the 21st Century,”[i] authored by Christian Le Mière, stands as a seminal work redefining the concept of maritime diplomacy in the contemporary era. Published in 2014, this book comprehensively explores maritime diplomacy’s significance, highlighting its relevance and utility amidst today’s complex geopolitical landscape. Le Mière’s analysis challenges conventional perceptions of maritime diplomacy, particularly debunking the notion of “gunboat diplomacy” as an outdated relic of the past. Instead, the book argues that coercive tactics persist in modern maritime affairs, profoundly shaping international relations.

    Le Mière’s emphasis on the distinction between “naval” and “maritime” diplomacy underscores a critical aspect of contemporary maritime affairs. Traditionally, the term “naval diplomacy” has been used to describe diplomatic activities conducted exclusively by naval forces. However, Le Mière expands this concept to include a broader range of actors and activities, recognizing the involvement of non-military agencies such as maritime constabulary forces and paramilitary agencies in maritime diplomacy.

    By incorporating these non-military entities into the framework of maritime diplomacy, Le Mière acknowledges the diverse spectrum of actors operating in maritime domains. Maritime constabulary forces, for example, are tasked with enforcing maritime laws and regulations, combating piracy, and conducting search and rescue operations. Paramilitary agencies, on the other hand, may be involved in maritime security operations or territorial defence activities.

    The involvement of these non-traditional actors highlights the complex interplay between various stakeholders in maritime diplomacy. Unlike traditional naval forces, maritime constabulary forces and paramilitary agencies often collaborate with civilian authorities, international organizations, and other non-state actors. Their participation in diplomatic endeavours at sea reflects the multifaceted nature of maritime diplomacy, which extends beyond military engagements to encompass a wide range of cooperative, persuasive, and coercive activities.

    The Book offers a rich exploration of the multifaceted nature of maritime diplomacy, drawing upon contemporary examples to illustrate its diverse spectrum of activities. One example highlighted in the book is Iran’s naval exercises, particularly the Velayat 90 exercises conducted in December 2011 and January 2012. These exercises showcased Iran’s naval capabilities, including anti-ship missiles and submarines, and were explicitly intended to signal Iran’s ability to exert control over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz. Le Mière uses this example to underscore the continued relevance of coercive tactics in contemporary maritime affairs, emphasizing how such displays of naval power can have significant implications for global politics.

    Additionally, Le Mière examines US deployments in East Asia as another pertinent example of maritime diplomacy in action. Specifically, he discusses the participation of the USS Abraham Lincoln in naval exercises in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) and the Yellow Sea in response to provocations from North Korea. These deployments, accompanied by allied vessels from countries like Britain and France, signal Washington’s resolve and commitment to its regional allies while deterring further aggression from North Korea. Through these examples, Le Mière highlights the dynamic nature of maritime diplomacy, which encompasses a wide range of activities to achieve diplomatic objectives and maintain security in maritime domains.

    The book explores the theoretical underpinnings of maritime diplomacy, drawing upon insights from legal theorists like Wolfgang G. Friedmann. Le Mière argues that maritime diplomacy serves as a tool for signalling intentions, deterring conflicts, and promoting state interests but cautions that its failure can lead to unintended escalation.

    Chapters delve into the drivers and dynamics of maritime diplomacy, including its role as an indicator of global power shifts and a predictive tool for conflict prevention. Le Mière also explores the application of game theory to analyse maritime diplomatic incidents, providing insights into decision-making processes and strategies for managing potential escalations.

    It offers a multifaceted perspective on the evolving dynamics of maritime affairs and diplomatic engagements, making it a valuable resource across various domains. For scholars and researchers, the book provides a comprehensive analysis of maritime diplomacy, tracing its historical roots, examining contemporary manifestations, and proposing new theoretical frameworks. By delving into case studies and empirical data, scholars can gain insights into the complexities of maritime interactions and contribute to advancing knowledge in this field. Conversely, policymakers can leverage the book’s insights to formulate more informed maritime strategies, navigate geopolitical challenges, and promote international cooperation. With a nuanced understanding of the spectrum of maritime diplomacy, policymakers can effectively utilize naval deployments, diplomatic initiatives, and conflict resolution mechanisms to safeguard national interests and foster regional stability. The book offers practical guidance and real-world examples for practitioners engaged in maritime security and diplomacy, helping them navigate complex maritime disputes, leverage maritime assets for diplomatic purposes, and manage tensions in maritime regions.

    Moreover, students studying international relations, maritime security, or diplomacy can benefit from the book’s comprehensive coverage. It can be used as a textbook or reference material to deepen their understanding of maritime affairs and global politics. Ultimately, “Maritime Diplomacy in the 21st Century” is an indispensable resource, informing policy debates, guiding practical decision-making, inspiring further research, and educating future leaders in maritime diplomacy’s complex and dynamic realm.

     

    References:

    [i] Maritime Diplomacy in the 21st Century, n.d.

     

    Feature Image Credit: indiafoundation.in

     

  • “And Now to some serious Governance”

    “And Now to some serious Governance”

    A time comes for each leader and government to rise above pettiness, discarding ill will and hatred towards all. For the BJP, now uniquely in its third term, this is the time to show the nation that it is a party with a difference. For the opposition equally, this is the time to cooperate with the government on critical issues impacting the country.  

     

    Since my retirement from active service, I have avoided politics and political writings like the plague, but the avoidable happenings of the past few months have caused me, like am sanguine would have to millions of our countrymen, pain and a sense of despair.

    India has conducted over 18   general elections to its Parliament since 1952 with a lot of fury and vibrancy, but the Lok Sabha 2024 general elections were indeed an example of abysmally low-level politics transcending our better senses.

            How the world’s largest democracy indulged in its Lok Sabha 2024 elections was hardly complimenting to it considering the unquestionable fact that among the emerging nations in the world, call it from the Global South, the conduct of our elections showed some among those participating in poor light. Between competing political parties, enlightened debates and mutual civility were sadly lacking.   India has conducted over 18   general elections to its Parliament since 1952 with a lot of fury and vibrancy, but the Lok Sabha 2024 general elections were indeed an example of abysmally low-level politics transcending our better senses. India, which carries a fair amount of moral authority and is considered an example of a true and vibrant democracy, cannot let its hallowed image be sullied attributable to the selfish electoral games of some of its political leaders. The party in power at the Centre, the principal Opposition party and all those regional parties at the helm in the states have to display adequate maturity and a modicum of propriety and civility towards each other and not politicize each and every aspect of governance or national issues impacting India. The opposition, as it shows the mirror to the government on critical issues of governance, must not criticise each and every act of the government as a matter of routine.

             With the outcome of the general elections now done and dusted and the previous BJP government back in power, albeit with a clear reduction in its seats tally from 303 down to 240, it must get down to the exacting business of good governance from the Centre. That the same government, with its experience of the last ten continuous years in power, fielding more or less the same faces in the Cabinet in critical ministries and importantly serviced by the same bureaucrats should have, relatively speaking, not such an arduous task in governance. However, the thrust for fair, equitable, and sensitive handling of all critical matters across the nation has to come from the top political leadership. All our states must never feel discrimination by the Centre, especially in financial allocations urgently required for developmental works and disaster management. Additionally, the new government must take stern measures to keep rising inflation and unnecessary governmental expenditure under check before the economy takes a severe nose-dive.

             The Modi government, with the continuous experience of the last ten years, will have more than a good idea of the systemic improvements required and about areas needing additional financial resources and effort. It is unnecessary to worry too much about criticisms from the opposition but to carry on regardless in developmental works, without fear or favour, and with impartiality towards all the states in the true spirit of federalism. A time comes for each leader and government to rise above pettiness, discarding ill will and hatred towards all. For the BJP, now uniquely in its third term, this is the time to show the nation that it is a party with a difference. For the opposition equally, this is the time to cooperate with the government on critical issues impacting the country.

             New Delhi’s hands will be full of the nation’s diverse and formidable challenges, requiring attention and effectiveness. On the foreign policy front, India will have to walk the tightrope of maintaining strategic autonomy and sustaining its good relations with both the US and Russia. However, as it determinedly confronts an overly assertive China, India needs to use its economic clout and sophisticated diplomacy to get its South Asian neighbourhood closer to it and each other, avoiding the debt trap diplomacy and financial machinations of China.

    The number of terror-related incidents in J&K has gone up substantially in the last three months, and Pakistan will have to be kinetically chastened.

          India must, at the appropriate level, convey to China that their confrontationist attitude towards us will be harmful to the Chinese, too and may propel India to rethink its existing Tibet policy. Nevertheless, India must maintain the utmost vigil along the 3485 km Line of Actual Control/ IB, which it shares with  China. Meanwhile, Pakistan once again needs to be cautioned against stepping up terror activities in J&K  or elsewhere in the Indian hinterland. India is in full knowledge of Pakistan’s many fault lines. Still, it has refrained from exploiting these, and Pakistan must also cooperate in ensuring a peaceful and prosperous South Asian neighbourhood independent of China’s wily stratagems. The number of terror-related incidents in J&K has gone up substantially in the last three months, and Pakistan will have to be kinetically chastened.

    Meanwhile, India’s preparations to successfully improve its security capabilities to confront a two-front war must go ahead with realism and an unfailing determination. Measures to augment capital expenditure for major defence acquisitions must be identified. Transformative defence reforms like the introduction of integrated theatre commands will need the attention of the Centre. In addition, India must take all steps to restore peace in our restive NE states.

             The Modi government has come in for some criticism abroad on its human rights record and dealings with its Muslim population. This unjust criticism must be dealt with judiciously and with maturity. India’s overall inclusiveness and celebration of its diversity are unique examples for the entire world, especially the nations of the Global South. We must never deviate or be even seen to shift from this noble orientation.

    Reduction of the yawning gap between the countless ultra-rich and those millions in abject poverty is essential as we boast of becoming the 5th largest economy in the world. The many human indices where we are faltering also need to be addressed.

             As economic strength is the pillar that propels and sustains progress, the Modi government must take measures to improve our economic health. Reduction of the yawning gap between the countless ultra-rich and those millions in abject poverty is essential as we boast of becoming the 5th largest economy in the world. The many human indices where we are faltering also need to be addressed.

             By all yardsticks, India is deservingly on the cusp of acquiring a seat on the global high table. Let us not squander away this golden opportunity by internal squabbling but instead work together in addressing crucial issues that affect our nation; we must seize this opportunity.

    Feature Image Credit:  vskbharat.com    

    Cartoon Credit: Times of India

  • Cinema as a tool of National narratives and Geopolitics

    Cinema as a tool of National narratives and Geopolitics

    ABSTRACT

    This paper aims to understand how world politics, the geopolitical environment in the international arena, and economic relationships between countries are portrayed in films and entertainment media. This paper attempts to understand the portrayal of the themes through varied parameters, namely, the geopolitical timeline of when the film was released, the theme or the event that the film is trying to address, the region the movie was produced in and the audience it would cater to. As films are pretty nuanced and very interpretative, these themes might overlap. Nevertheless, it will attempt to identify and understand the themes as best possible. This paper also aims to understand the active relationship between films and the various global interactions among nation-states. It will also examine the impact of these films on the foreign policy decisions made by the State and how the narratives change with changing leadership. This paper will understand films through the lens of international politics and not just as a medium of entertainment.

     

    INTRODUCTION

    Beyond the fiction of reality, there is the reality of the fiction.

    – Slavoj Žižek

    Let’s ask a simple question. How much of the reality that we live in do we see in fiction? This question seems to have a complex answer. The main reason for the existence of films is their ability to transport viewers to a world of imagination or fiction where anything can happen, unlike the rigid realities we live in. However, upon closer examination, one might find that fiction interacts with present, everyday realities and fosters an ideology within itself. Films and ideology have a deep-rooted connection, and it is impossible to analyse films without encountering the ideology they inevitably promote. This is particularly evident in films that fall under the genre of politics or political commentary. Politics is often described as a struggle for power, where ideology plays a crucial role. Films have the power to influence the masses, making them a potent tool for those in power to wield. This is why ideology is embedded in films. According to Slavoj Žižek’s documentary ‘The Pervert’s Guide to Ideology’, ideology is a socio-economic and political apparatus that is created and propagated by humans. He argues that ideology is a social reality, and attempting to escape it is also an ideology.

    Ideology has a significant impact on the superstructure, shaping our perception of political reality. Unfortunately, this often results in a distorted or biased portrayal of events that goes unchallenged due to the disclaimer that it is a work of fiction. This allows ideologies to spread without being acknowledged. Films with political themes are particularly susceptible to this, as they are shaped by the prevailing ideology of the time and place in which they are created and discussed. These films serve as a means of propagating state-sponsored ideologies, which can then be used to legitimise state propaganda. They are essentially used as a trial run to measure the public’s reaction to certain ideas before implementing them. These films function as a symbolic order, swaying public opinion in line with the desired political narrative. The depictions in these movies, being fictional, are often exaggerated and used to evoke feelings of patriotism and nationalism, making it easier for political leaders to shape the status quo in their favour.

    Films are generally regarded as a source of entertainment, but they also have a profound impact on the realities of our lives. Even movies with superhero themes, which are purely fictional, have the power to shape political realities. For instance, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, a franchise that features individuals with exceptional abilities, highlights the inability of governments to address significant issues or credible threats. These governments tend to view those who can effect change as a greater threat than the aliens themselves. This commentary reflects on the governments’ and leadership’s propensity to prioritize personal insecurities and power politics over the greater good. This, in turn, questions the relevance of democratic institutions and government, which is ironic given that the films originate from a country that has historically promoted democracy. This paper aims to explore how these films portray global politics and economic relations, and the rationale behind these depictions.

    RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLITICS AND THE FILM INDUSTRY

    Before examining the portrayal of political institutions in films, it is important to consider the extent to which these institutions influence the film industry, as this relationship will greatly determine the narrative or nature of the films. It is crucial to understand the independence of the film industry when it comes to politics. During the Cold War era, also known as the era of ideological conflict, films played a significant role in fostering a sense of nationalism among the population. They served as an effective means of disseminating an ideology that would advantage the host country. Films became a tool of soft power, and both sides utilized them to the fullest.

    Independence Day, a motion picture released in 1996 and starring Will Smith, exemplifies the interconnection between politics and cinema. The film centres around an alien assault on Earth and the United States of America’s leadership and military’s endeavour to exact retribution and obliterate the extraterrestrial ships, thereby preventing further attacks. This reflects the ‘saviour of the world’ narrative that the United States of America champions and takes pride in. The movie’s portrayal of the United States as the epicentre of the world is strikingly evident. The Cold War period in Hollywood was greatly influenced by the United States’ aspiration for global dominance. It sought to establish US supremacy across the globe. The Cold War was a critical juncture in US political history, and it was essential to emerge victorious in ideological warfare. Consequently, the United States utilised film as a medium to rally the masses and legitimise its actions through an exalted portrayal of patriotism and nationalism. Depicting the US as the only state capable of addressing global threats was a recurring theme in these films. Although the movie is more than a decade old, it accurately portrays the nature of the international arena. It depicts the US at the centre, emphasising that the US is a superpower today and an economically advanced nation with immense financial resources and the ability to carry out military operations. However, compared to the present reality, this portrayal might not be entirely accurate, as the US is currently grappling with enormous debt and bearing significant costs for its interventions around the world.

    Nonetheless, it maintains a significant influence and directs economic ties in some manner or form. Hence, one can argue that the depiction is a fictionalized exaggeration of reality, despite the presence of some factual elements. How autonomous is the film industry -from any location or time frame- in creating or presenting narratives that challenge the established order? This study will delve into specific films as case studies and scrutinize them meticulously to glean a clearer understanding of the portrayal and to what extent it reflects the true picture of the global arena.

    Analysis

    Part 1 of the paper examined films as tools of ideological expression and explored the relationship between the film industry and the State. Moving forward, the paper will delve into regional cinema to investigate its narratives and discourses. Entertainment media has emerged as a powerful socio-political institution that wields influence over the state and individuals through the stories and ideologies it presents. Media has the capacity to depict social realities in accordance with the norms, values, and laws of society at a particular time (Zelizer and Allan, 2011). By comparing and contrasting films from different eras with the social realities of their respective times, it becomes possible to uncover the interconnections between reality and representation. During the Cold War era, films were utilized to foster domestic patriotism, thereby granting the State the legitimacy to pursue its ambitions and achieve greatness. Independence Day is an illustration of this phenomenon.

    The way in which the domestic audience receives information about foreign policy through portrayals of interstate relations is complex, and these portrayals are often influenced by state-centred bias and ideology, which can result in the transmission of biased information (Baum, 2007; Cohen, 1963; Entman, 2004; Chomsky, 1989; McChesney, 2008; McQuail, 2005). The role of the media as a discourse-producing entity and as an entity that defines the complex but symbiotic relationship between the government and the media is central. However, while the media should work independently, it is often commercially motivated and, therefore, promotes the ideas and beliefs of the status quo due to the intertwining of vested interests with the corridors of power (Bagdikian, 2004; Bettig and Hall, 2003; Norris, 1990; Vivian, 2006). This results in the media and government submitting to the interests of a small section of the community being propagated, rather than serving the socio-cultural aspect of the institution.

    In the 21st century, propaganda and ideology have become increasingly pervasive. This is due to the rise in content production that aligns with state agendas and the status quo. In India, the movie “The Kashmir Files” has sparked debates regarding whether it is a right-wing propaganda. The movie recounts the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in Kashmir and the bloodshed that occurred during the 1990s. In today’s context, where right-wing ideologies are gaining momentum, it is evident that ideology and statecraft are interconnected. The portrayal of world and domestic politics is not devoid of an underlying ideological intent. For instance, Bollywood movies like “Raazi” and “LOC Kargil” play a crucial role in propagating India’s foreign policy stance within the domestic political arena. These movies depict India as a progressive global entity, while also propagating the Indian “Big Brother Syndrome” towards its neighbours.

    In the movie “Raazi,” released in 2018 and starring Alia Bhatt and Vicky Kaushal, an undercover RAW agent is married to a Pakistani army official to retrieve crucial information regarding Pakistani moves in Bangladesh and India in 1971. The movie portrays India as a superior state trying to liberate Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) from the “Enemy.” This theme of Indian superiority among its neighbours is prevalent in most films that deal with world and domestic politics. Similarly, the developed West promotes capitalism through films and other visual media.

    Hollywood emerged as a centre for state-sponsored and ideology-driven content during the Cold War. Movies like Wall Street, released in 1987 during an ideological conflict between the United States and the USSR, reflected capitalist ideologies and demonized the USSR and its communist system. The film depicted the ruthless and often exploitative nature of capitalism that prevailed during the 1980s. One of the lead characters, Gordon Gekko, portrayed by Michael Douglas, advocated for the greed and highly capitalistic nature of businessmen. In the context of the Cold War, this promoted a specific type of capitalist ideology to counter the Soviet or communist threat. The glorification of the businessman and the discontentment of the businessman played a significant role in the domestic economic output. The 1980s glorified greed, and this movie accurately represented it. Wall Street explicitly conveyed the notion that morality should not be prioritized over money. The film also featured a speech by Gordon Gekko, in which he declared, “Greed is good.” Movies like this projected a sense of American exceptionalism in the political and economic sense.

    “Don’t Look Up” is a satirical film released in 2022 that critiques the global response to the impending climate crisis. Although the movie aimed to address the issue on a worldwide scale, it primarily focused on Western perspectives. A film that seeks to tackle an international issue should address it on a more comprehensive level. The film, produced in the United States and released on an Over-The-Top (OTT) platform, failed to address the problem it intended to address due to the country’s state-centred ideology and propaganda, which portrays the United States as the saviour of the world. Even though countries like Russia and India were mentioned, the film’s Western bias was evident in the portrayal of these countries as technologically inadequate in stopping the comet from colliding with Earth. This bias is also reflected in movies produced globally, where the notion that national interest takes precedence over all else is a recurring theme.

    Therefore, it can be asserted with confidence that when motion pictures address world politics and economic relationships either currently or historically, the narrative is not unconnected to the state’s agenda. It is permeated with ideology that continually resurfaces. The only solution is the establishment of an autonomous media institution. It is crucial to distinguish between art and the state, as art has proven to be revolutionary in the past. The art produced in India during its quest for independence embodies that essence of truth and authenticity which appears to be lacking in today’s profit-driven, capitalistic world. It is vital to view things objectively, removing the tint of ideology, and acknowledge reality for what it is. This is where the political economy comes into play, exposing the exploitative, biased, and dismissive workings of the industry and institution. Numerous academic studies have examined and concluded that films have significantly influenced the public’s perspective on the State and its actions, making a thorough analysis of contemporary films even more necessary. In a world where false information spreads rapidly, independent media is indispensable.

     

    Feature Image Credit:  Wikimedia Commons
    Scene from Dr Zhivago depicting the Cossacks attacking peaceful demonstrators, a prelude to the Russian Revolution.  Dr Zhivago was a book written by Boris Pasternack, with the plot set in the last days of the Second World War and the break out of the Russian revolution. The book was banned in the USSR, was smuggle out into Europe and translated into English and other European languages. It was made into a classic movie by David Lean during the peak of the Cold War. The movie became a weapon in the cultural component of the Cold War, for its depiction of a totalitarian tendency inherent in the Russian revolution from the start. Boris Pasternack was awarded the Nobel prize (for his book ‘And Quite flows the Don’) but refused to receive it due to the pressure of the ideological  contest between the communist USSR and the capitalist West.    

    Kashmir Files poster Image: koimoi.com

    Raazi poster Image: Mumbai Mirror  

     

    Bibliography

    Bagdikian, Ben H. 2004. The New Media Monopoly. Boston: Beacon. https://library.uniteddiversity.coop/Media_and_Free_Culture/The_New_Media_Monopoly-Ben_H_Bagdikian.pdf.

    BAUM, MATTHEW A. 2007. “Soft News and Foreign Policy: How Expanding the Audience Changes the Policies.” Japanese Journal of Political Science 8 (1): 115–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1468109907002502.

    Bettig, Ronald V., and Jeanne Lynn Hall. (2003) . Big Media, Big Money : Cultural Texts and Political Economics. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

    Chomsky, Noah. 1991. “Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies, Noam Chomsky. 1989. Sough End Press, Boston, MA. 432 Pages. ISBN: 0-89608-366-7. $16.00.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 11 (3): 183–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/027046769101100328.

    Cohen, Bernard C. 1963. The Press and Foreign Policy. The American Historical Review. https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/69.3.805.

    Entman, Robert. 2005. “Robert M. Entman. Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2003. .Public Opinion Quarterly 69 (2): 324–26. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfi017.

    Mcchesney, Robert Waterman . 2008. The Political Economy of Media : Enduring Issues, Emerging Dilemmas. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    McQuail, Denis . 2005. McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. Sage Publications Ltd., London. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1839060.

    Norris, Pippa. 2002. “Studying the Media and Politics in Britain: A Tale of Two Literatures?” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 4 (2): 359–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856x.t01-1-00009.

    Vivian, John. 2006. The Media of Mass Communication. Allyn & Bacon.

    Zelizer, Barbie, and Stuart Allan. 2011. Journalism after September 11. Taylor & Francis.