asiapacificresearch--2020-11-16--America’s Social Credit System Is Worse than China’s

China is notorious for a “ Social Credit System ” that controls the lives of citizens , rewarding what the authorities want and punishing what they don ’ t .
The United States has a social credit system , too , even if we don ’ t call it that .
And ours is worse .
The Chinese system tries to build social trust .
Ours destroys trust .
The Chinese system defends the interests of the Han , the ethnic group that built and sustains Chinese civilization .
Our system hurts whites .
The Chinese system encourages charity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incites hatred and spreads bitterness and division .
The Chinese government ’ s goals are clear : According to a 2014 planning document , the state wants to build a “ social credit environment of honesty , self-discipline , trustworthiness , and mutual trust.
” Despite the reputation of the Chinese Communist Party , there is no central system of control , but that is only because the government lacks the capacity .
According to the 2014 plan , by this year , China should have “ basically ” completed “ a credit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ credit information and resource sharing.
” Vox reports China has a grading system for people from A to D. Ds are “ untrustworthy.
” “ Citizens can earn points for good deeds like volunteering , donating blood , or attracting investments to the city , ” said the MIT Technology Review in 2019 .
“ They can lose them for offenses like breaking traffic rules , evading taxes , or neglecting to care for their elderly parents.
” Taking seats on public transportation reserved for old people or doing anything the South China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can also cost points .
January 17 , 2018 – Rongcheng , China : So-called model citizens are depicted on a board , who reached a particularly high score .
( Credit Image : © Andreas Landwehr / DPA via ZUMA Press ) You can lose points for playing video games too often , buying too much alcohol , arguing at check-in counters , boarding a train without a ticket , getting into a fight , posting stickers hostile to the government , or letting chickens out of their coop .
You can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too often without a leash or if it bothers people .
NPR reports that “ if you spread rumors online ” you could lose points , and even “ spending frivolously ” can cost points .
The system punishes some things just as we do in the United States .
If you drive drunk in China , you lose points .
If you drive drunk in America , you can lose your license .
How does the system find out all this about you ?
The Chinese track people through a combination of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and data from tech and social media companies .
There are an estimated 626 million security cameras in China , capturing all sorts of behavior .
The Straits Times reported that cameras caught a citizen jaywalking , recognized her face , and immediately put her photo up on a video screen above the street , along with her name and past infractions .
The Chinese use drones disguised as birds .
There are groups of paid government informers .
In one case , a group of senior citizens called the Chaoyang Masses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought the group was questionable .
This could be a feature of the system ; you don ’ t know who is watching .
The New York Times reported in 2019 that the government uses students to track professors .
Companies such as Alibaba and Tencent track your online activity , and you can lose points if you publish political opinions without permission or talk about certain issues such as Tiananmen Square .
You also lose points if your friends commit infractions ; collective punishment helps isolate dissidents and discourage others .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parrot the government line .
Some of this is self-reported and checked against data held by the government , tech companies , and surveillance records .
There is an app called Sesame Credit that lets you track people ’ s scores .
It is voluntary for now but will eventually be mandatory .
July 30 , 2016 – Shenzhen , Guangdong , China – Chinese tech giant Tencent is now the world ’ s 10th biggest company .
Most people likely know the company for its social network , WeChat , which has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , along with its online gaming platforms .
( Credit Image : © Imaginechina via ZUMA Press ) “ Trust-breakers ” go on an online “ blacklist ” that anyone can search .
“ Trust-keepers ” go on an equivalent “ redlist.
” Everyone ’ s behavior is public , and the authorities encourage citizens to compete with each other to get good scores .
Good citizens can get discounts on energy bills , better returns on bank deposits , and can rent bikes or hotel rooms without paying deposits .
Local officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ trust-keepers ” get cut-rate public transportation .
Depending on the locale , if your credit score reaches 600 , you can take out an instant loan of about $ 800 without collateral when shopping online .
At a score of 650 , you can rent a car without a deposit .
At 700 , you get priority for a Singapore travel permit , and at 750 , you are on the fast track for a coveted Schengen visa for 28 European countries .
Punishments include banning you or your children from top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the best hotels , and preventing you from buying high-speed train or air tickets .
Businesses also get grades on , for example , whether their advertising is deceptive .
If their grades are too low , they can ’ t issue bonds or bid in land auctions .
There ’ s a financial aspect to the system .
It costs points if a person or business fails to repay a loan .
We have credit scores , too .
The difference is that the Chinese government can — and does — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could cut a business or family out of normal activity for saying the wrong things .
Your social credit “ grade ” could wreck your life .
January 17 , 2018 – Rongcheng , China : Posters of ‘ model citizens ’ are put up in front of the citizen centre .
( Credit Image : © Andreas Landwehr / DPA via ZUMA Press ) If the system is fully imposed , it would be terrifying to be a D. China does not yet have a centralized , all-encompassing system .
Different government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private companies share information and have different programs , rewards , and penalties .
Two years ago , Foreign Policy explained that “ unless people are sole proprietors or company representatives , have taken a loan or credit card , violated the law , or defaulted on a court judgment , they ’ re unlikely to be in the social credit database.
” China wants to get all 1.4 billion people into the system .
Since China routed the Hong Kong autonomy movement , the system will surely spread there too .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unity , ” says the plan .
China is working hard in two areas that will help it control its people .
The first is artificial intelligence to manage vast amounts of data .
The United States and China are competing in AI systems , and that battle could help determine who rules this century .
Collecting enormous amounts of data on citizens will mean finely detailed control .
The second area is digital currency .
China is already experimenting with a digital yuan .
Most people in China already use mobile apps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full record of transactions , combined with AI , means tremendous government power to track individual behavior and modify social credit scores .
A “ cashless , ” total-social-credit China could be a prison .
It would mean no unauthorized buying or selling , no political opposition ( “ ideological unity ” ) , and little privacy .
However , citizens would be forced to fulfill basic duties such as taking care of families and paying bills .
They would be rewarded for helping their communities .
The Chinese Communist Party would succeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typical petit bourgeois with conservative norms .
The Chinese government wants to “ broadly shape a strong atmosphere in the entire society that keeping trust is glorious and breaking trust is disgraceful .
.
.
.
” In other words , China wants a high-trust society .
Diversity destroys trust , as white advocates often point out .
China is working to overcome this problem by replacing Tibetans and Uighurs with Han Chinese .
The government is also Sinicizing these areas , especially by suppressing Islam .
A faithful Muslim should rebel against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sees this as protecting national interests .
Xi Jinping , President of China , can be seen on a video wall in the western Chinese city of Kashgar .
Strict security measures are in place in the oasis city , making reporting difficult for journalists and affecting the lives of Uighur minorities .
( Credit Image : © Simina Mistrenau / DPA via ZUMA Press ) We have the equivalent of a social credit system in the United States .
It just has different incentives .
You can lose your job for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Political dissidents find they can no longer use PayPal or even banks .
Twitter bans people with whom it disagrees , while users with verified accounts can make threatening or violent statements .
“ Spreading rumors ” or “ conspiracy theories ” is cause for social media to boot you .
Some journalists spend time hunting down people who spread “ conspiracy theories.
” If journalists or trolls decide that your small business or video channel needs to be deplatformed , they can complain to tech companies , and once you are off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many people , that means loss of livelihood .
Power-hungry people invent new forms of social credit all the time .
Democrats have started a Trump Accountability Project so that Trump supporters can “ never serve in office , join a corporate board , find a faculty position or be accepted into ‘ polite ’ society.
” With a remarkable new website called Donor.Watch , you can find out exactly how much your neighbors ( or anyone in the country ) gave to any of the 2020 candidates .
The tools are there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to harass or intimidate Trump supporters .
Social media , which let ordinary people express themselves and were originally to be bastions of free speech , have taken it upon themselves to determine what is official information .
Even now , Twitter is censoring President Trump , and Facebook is removing Trump supporters and their groups .
You can ’ t cast an informed vote or express yourself if you can ’ t learn or speak the truth .
In his book Deleted , Allum Bokhari showed Google ’ s power to direct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stories it doesn ’ t want covered .
While the Democrats often say tech companies don ’ t censor enough , they at least recognize their power .
A House Judiciary Committee report recently found that Amazon , Alphabet ( Google/YouTube ) , Apple , and Facebook use monopoly power to suppress competition .
President Trump ’ s Department of Justice recently sued Google , calling it the “ gatekeeper of the Internet.
” Conservatives banned from the big platforms can go elsewhere , but what happens when Parler and Gab lose their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bank accounts ?
Will we have to build our own banks and internet ?
Our system is not exclusively punitive .
The American system encourages banks to lend to non-whites with doubtful credit .
There is a broad set of incentives to promote minority — especially black — bank ownership , even as black banks keep going under because they keep lending money to dubious black borrowers .
Social media openly promote Black Lives Matter , and every minority cause , holiday , and celebration .
Book sellers direct you to endless titles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Chinese version , American social credit is not state run and is even less centralized than China ’ s .
However , it ’ s not true that the state has no involvement .
Acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan admittedin 2019 that although the government can not act as a censor , it expects to work with tech companies and “ watchdog groups ” to force ideas it doesn ’ t like off the internet .
The Republicans have done hardly anything about this .
An American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Xi Jinping , can ’ t issue orders through the bureaucracy and expect obedience .
Perhaps President Trump lacks the will .
Kamala Harris , probably the next vice president , appears to have plenty of it .
She wants to give the FBI millions of dollars to “ more vigilantly monitor white nationalist websites ” and “ put pressure on online platforms to take down content that violates their terms and conditions.
” June 11 , 2019 – Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey speaks to Entrepreneurial Refugee Network members to discuss how technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaking barriers in the UK .
( Credit Image : © Matt Crossick / PA Wire via ZUMA Press ) Under a Biden/Harris White House , the partnership between state and media would therefore grow stronger .
Like Chinese officials , many Democrats and journalists take it for granted that not only traditional media should promote certain stories and suppress others , but “ open ” social media should do the same .
The American system increasingly resembles the Chinese , with ideology imposed from the top .
We do not have single-party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we do when it comes to white interests .
Republicans and Democrats unanimously blamed “ White nationalists , white supremacists , the Ku Klux Klan , neo-Nazis and other hate groups ” for violence at the Unite the Right rally in 2017 — as if antifa were not even there — even though local officials deliberately forced demonstrators and antifa together so that violence would be an excuse to shut down a legal rally .
There may be two parties , but both agree that whites must not promote their collective interests in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Chinese system punishes people for associating with low-scoring trust-breakers , the media and “ watchdog ” groups love to publicize “ links.
” The Washington Post recently revealed in an indignant article that a Trump Interior Department official had linked to an article at AmRen.com .
American dissidents routinely use pen names , and “ respectable ” people keep their relations with them secret .
In some respects , an openly authoritarian government is better than our system .
It ’ s clear who is in charge .
Citizens know who rules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remove a tyrant because you can always march on the palace or the party HQ .
If you are ruled by a dictator , king , or party , you also know what the rules are ; if you follow them , you can avoid trouble .
Our system is much more diffuse and therefore much harder to fight or even understand .
Private companies , on a whim , can shut down your social media account , refuse to sell your books , make it impossible for your business to take credit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You have no recourse , not even to the courts .
Each company has its own inconsistent , arbitrary , ever-changing rules .
Now , they all say , in effect , “ We ’ ll kick you out if we don ’ t like you.
” And that ’ s what they do .
If there were legal censorship , there would be laws that limited free speech .
They might be vague and inconsistently enforced , but there would be rules .
If the court system had any integrity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In our system , every person you know is a potential commissar .
If you become the subject of a “ viral ” story , literally millions of people can turn against you .
This is “ public shaming ” worse than anything the Chinese face .
Their system is authoritarian , but it has this crucial difference from ours : It pushes people to behave correctly .
In our Anglo-American tradition , personal virtue is the guarantor of our liberties , so we don ’ t need overarching government .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least not in the way the Founders understood virtue .
Instead , anti-racism has become America ’ s moral code , and blacks are semi-sacred .
Any social interaction with a non-white can be a life-changing disaster if it is caught on camera .
The rules for what is politically correct change so quickly no one can be sure what to say to avoid trouble .
We ’ re in an absurd system in which groups that enjoy government mandated “ affirmative action ” lecture us about our privilege .
Although “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social credit system punishes there are others : “ homophobia , ” “ Islamophobia , ” “ misogyny , ” “ xenophobia , ” with more new ones invented all the time .
While the Chinese social credit system builds a better — if regimented — society , ours makes it worse .
The media feed non-whites moral arguments to use against whites , whether they are about “ racist ” police , “ systemic racism , ” or “ far-right extremists.
” Anyone non-white , from educated elites to illiterate thugs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the only explanation for inequality is white racism .
November 2 , 2017 – Rongcheng , China : Ju Junfang , vice director of the social credit system , provides voluntary work for the citizens of Rongcheng , who need plus points for their social certificate of good conduct .
( Credit Image : © Aurelien Foucault / DPA via ZUMA Press ) Thus , our system doesn ’ t build “ mutual trust ” but suspicion and even hatred .
Instead of building national unity , the American system undermines the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history and heroes were racist and evil .
The Chinese system punishes destructive behavior and rewards charity .
The American system winks at destructive behavior such as BLM rioting , and rewards “ virtue signaling , ” not real virtue .
White-owned business can be deplatfromed online and some can be ransacked by radicals , with no interference from the police .
The right even to self-defense is under attack ( ask Kyle Rittenhouse or Mark and Patricia McCloskey ) .
In some areas , people can not gather to demonstrate or even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesters can do almost anything with impunity .
Can we honestly say we have more freedom than the Chinese ?
Can we say that our government pursues our interests or protects our rights ?
Can we trust technology companies and major media ?
Are our elites pushing us towards greatness or towards dispossession and pariah status ?
Still , we do have advantages .
The great strength of the American Social Credit System is that it is ad hoc and unofficial .
It ’ s hard to know exactly what or whom to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weakness .
There are “ gaps ” in the system we can exploit .
At the same time , our rulers ’ lust for power is clearer than ever .
Donald Trump , however half-hearted and bumbling , forced our opponents to reveal their snarling hatreds and their breathtaking arrogance in believing they have the right to control what we read , hear , watch , and think .
Shanghai , China – Diners eat lunch near a restaurant ‘ sincerity display ’ that provide video feeds from kitchens , health ratings and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a “ social credit ” system .
( Credit Image : © Dave Tacon / ZUMA Wire ) We still have rights .
American Renaissance sued the state of Tennessee , and won the right to use public facilities without paying for security .
Others are suing tech companies .
We are creating new ways of donating and accepting money , spreading our message , and building new platforms .
These aren ’ t temporary workarounds , but steps towards community- and even nation-building .
They are forcing us to do the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What should a healthy society want ?
Perhaps every advanced society will have a formal or informal Social Credit System .
Elites always try to control information , capital , and behavior .
When we take control of our own destiny , we will promote strength , beauty , and virtue .
We are a freedom-loving people , so I believe that if we slough off this current system , we can achieve these goals without repression .
Who rules the United States ?
I ’ d argue it ’ s media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can speak in the public square , raise money , do business online , or enjoy the full protection of law .
They encourage victimhood instead of heroism , and distrust instead of unity .
China ’ s system promotes positive values , exalts its people , and directs them towards positive ends .
It ’ s hard not to feel envious .
The greatest threat to white Americans certainly isn ’ t Beijing .
It ’ s those who presume to rule us , holding us captive , trapping us behind a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .

China is notorious for a “Social Credit System” that controls the lives of citizens, rewarding what the authorities want and punishing what they don’t. The United States has a social credit system, too, even if we don’t call it that. And ours is worse.
The Chinese system tries to build social trust. Ours destroys trust. The Chinese system defends the interests of the Han, the ethnic group that built and sustains Chinese civilization. Our system hurts whites. The Chinese system encourages charity, good citizenship, and patriotism. Ours incites hatred and spreads bitterness and division.
The Chinese government’s goals are clear: According to a 2014 planning document, the state wants to build a “social credit environment of honesty, self-discipline, trustworthiness, and mutual trust.” Despite the reputation of the Chinese Communist Party, there is no central system of control, but that is only because the government lacks the capacity. According to the 2014 plan, by this year, China should have “basically” completed “a credit investigation system covering the entire society with credit information and resource sharing.”
Vox reports China has a grading system for people from A to D. Ds are “untrustworthy.” “Citizens can earn points for good deeds like volunteering, donating blood, or attracting investments to the city,” said the MIT Technology Review in 2019. “They can lose them for offenses like breaking traffic rules, evading taxes, or neglecting to care for their elderly parents.” Taking seats on public transportation reserved for old people or doing anything the South China Morning Post called “uncivilized behavior” can also cost points.
January 17, 2018 – Rongcheng, China: So-called model citizens are depicted on a board, who reached a particularly high score. (Credit Image: © Andreas Landwehr / DPA via ZUMA Press)
You can lose points for playing video games too often, buying too much alcohol, arguing at check-in counters, boarding a train without a ticket, getting into a fight, posting stickers hostile to the government, or letting chickens out of their coop. You can lose your dog if you walk it too often without a leash or if it bothers people. NPR reports that “if you spread rumors online” you could lose points, and even “spending frivolously” can cost points. The system punishes some things just as we do in the United States. If you drive drunk in China, you lose points. If you drive drunk in America, you can lose your license.
How does the system find out all this about you? The Chinese track people through a combination of cameras, facial recognition software, spies, and data from tech and social media companies. There are an estimated 626 million security cameras in China, capturing all sorts of behavior. The Straits Times reported that cameras caught a citizen jaywalking, recognized her face, and immediately put her photo up on a video screen above the street, along with her name and past infractions. The Chinese use drones disguised as birds.
There are groups of paid government informers. In one case, a group of senior citizens called the Chaoyang Masses supposedly tracked behavior, though some people thought the group was questionable. This could be a feature of the system; you don’t know who is watching. The New York Times reported in 2019 that the government uses students to track professors.
Companies such as Alibaba and Tencent track your online activity, and you can lose points if you publish political opinions without permission or talk about certain issues such as Tiananmen Square. You also lose points if your friends commit infractions; collective punishment helps isolate dissidents and discourage others. However, you can gain points if you parrot the government line. Some of this is self-reported and checked against data held by the government, tech companies, and surveillance records. There is an app called Sesame Credit that lets you track people’s scores. It is voluntary for now but will eventually be mandatory.
July 30, 2016 – Shenzhen, Guangdong, China – Chinese tech giant Tencent is now the world’s 10th biggest company. Most people likely know the company for its social network, WeChat, which has become completely intertwined with life in China, along with its online gaming platforms. (Credit Image: © Imaginechina via ZUMA Press)
“Trust-breakers” go on an online “blacklist” that anyone can search. “Trust-keepers” go on an equivalent “redlist.” Everyone’s behavior is public, and the authorities encourage citizens to compete with each other to get good scores.
Good citizens can get discounts on energy bills, better returns on bank deposits, and can rent bikes or hotel rooms without paying deposits. Local officials praise them publicly. In Suzhou, “trust-keepers” get cut-rate public transportation.
Depending on the locale, if your credit score reaches 600, you can take out an instant loan of about $800 without collateral when shopping online. At a score of 650, you can rent a car without a deposit. At 700, you get priority for a Singapore travel permit, and at 750, you are on the fast track for a coveted Schengen visa for 28 European countries.
Punishments include banning you or your children from top schools, barring you from top jobs and the best hotels, and preventing you from buying high-speed train or air tickets.
Businesses also get grades on, for example, whether their advertising is deceptive. If their grades are too low, they can’t issue bonds or bid in land auctions.
There’s a financial aspect to the system. It costs points if a person or business fails to repay a loan. We have credit scores, too. The difference is that the Chinese government can — and does — deduct points for political reasons. It could cut a business or family out of normal activity for saying the wrong things. Your social credit “grade” could wreck your life.
January 17, 2018 – Rongcheng, China: Posters of ‘model citizens’ are put up in front of the citizen centre. (Credit Image: © Andreas Landwehr / DPA via ZUMA Press)
If the system is fully imposed, it would be terrifying to be a D. China does not yet have a centralized, all-encompassing system. Different government agencies, localities, regions, and private companies share information and have different programs, rewards, and penalties. Two years ago, Foreign Policy explained that “unless people are sole proprietors or company representatives, have taken a loan or credit card, violated the law, or defaulted on a court judgment, they’re unlikely to be in the social credit database.”
China wants to get all 1.4 billion people into the system. Since China routed the Hong Kong autonomy movement, the system will surely spread there too. “All regions and departments should have ideological unity,” says the plan.
China is working hard in two areas that will help it control its people. The first is artificial intelligence to manage vast amounts of data. The United States and China are competing in AI systems, and that battle could help determine who rules this century. Collecting enormous amounts of data on citizens will mean finely detailed control.
The second area is digital currency. China is already experimenting with a digital yuan. Most people in China already use mobile apps for transactions, not cash. A full record of transactions, combined with AI, means tremendous government power to track individual behavior and modify social credit scores.
A “cashless,” total-social-credit China could be a prison. It would mean no unauthorized buying or selling, no political opposition (“ideological unity”), and little privacy. However, citizens would be forced to fulfill basic duties such as taking care of families and paying bills. They would be rewarded for helping their communities. The Chinese Communist Party would succeed in turning the people it rules into typical petit bourgeois with conservative norms.
The Chinese government wants to “broadly shape a strong atmosphere in the entire society that keeping trust is glorious and breaking trust is disgraceful . . . .” In other words, China wants a high-trust society.
Diversity destroys trust, as white advocates often point out. China is working to overcome this problem by replacing Tibetans and Uighurs with Han Chinese. The government is also Sinicizing these areas, especially by suppressing Islam. A faithful Muslim should rebel against these policies, but a Han Chinese sees this as protecting national interests.
Xi Jinping, President of China, can be seen on a video wall in the western Chinese city of Kashgar. Strict security measures are in place in the oasis city, making reporting difficult for journalists and affecting the lives of Uighur minorities. (Credit Image: © Simina Mistrenau / DPA via ZUMA Press)
We have the equivalent of a social credit system in the United States. It just has different incentives. You can lose your job for a politically incorrect remark caught on camera. Political dissidents find they can no longer use PayPal or even banks. Twitter bans people with whom it disagrees, while users with verified accounts can make threatening or violent statements.
“Spreading rumors” or “conspiracy theories” is cause for social media to boot you. Some journalists spend time hunting down people who spread “conspiracy theories.” If journalists or trolls decide that your small business or video channel needs to be deplatformed, they can complain to tech companies, and once you are off, there is no appeal. For many people, that means loss of livelihood.
Power-hungry people invent new forms of social credit all the time. Democrats have started a Trump Accountability Project so that Trump supporters can “never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into ‘polite’ society.” With a remarkable new website called Donor.Watch, you can find out exactly how much your neighbors (or anyone in the country) gave to any of the 2020 candidates. The tools are there for Democrats to set up shaming mobs to harass or intimidate Trump supporters.
Social media, which let ordinary people express themselves and were originally to be bastions of free speech, have taken it upon themselves to determine what is official information. Even now, Twitter is censoring President Trump, and Facebook is removing Trump supporters and their groups.
You can’t cast an informed vote or express yourself if you can’t learn or speak the truth. In his book Deleted, Allum Bokhari showed Google’s power to direct information, sway votes, and bury stories it doesn’t want covered. While the Democrats often say tech companies don’t censor enough, they at least recognize their power. A House Judiciary Committee report recently found that Amazon, Alphabet (Google/YouTube), Apple, and Facebook use monopoly power to suppress competition. President Trump’s Department of Justice recently sued Google, calling it the “gatekeeper of the Internet.”
Conservatives banned from the big platforms can go elsewhere, but what happens when Parler and Gab lose their payment processors or servers or even their bank accounts? Will we have to build our own banks and internet?
Source: Stonetoss, October 30, 2018
Our system is not exclusively punitive. The American system encourages banks to lend to non-whites with doubtful credit. There is a broad set of incentives to promote minority — especially black — bank ownership, even as black banks keep going under because they keep lending money to dubious black borrowers.
Social media openly promote Black Lives Matter, and every minority cause, holiday, and celebration. Book sellers direct you to endless titles on anti-racism and white privilege.
Unlike the Chinese version, American social credit is not state run and is even less centralized than China’s. However, it’s not true that the state has no involvement. Acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kevin McAleenan admittedin 2019 that although the government cannot act as a censor, it expects to work with tech companies and “watchdog groups” to force ideas it doesn’t like off the internet.
The Republicans have done hardly anything about this. An American president is relatively weak, and unlike Xi Jinping, can’t issue orders through the bureaucracy and expect obedience. Perhaps President Trump lacks the will. Kamala Harris, probably the next vice president, appears to have plenty of it. She wants to give the FBI millions of dollars to “more vigilantly monitor white nationalist websites” and “put pressure on online platforms to take down content that violates their terms and conditions.”
June 11, 2019 – Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey speaks to Entrepreneurial Refugee Network members to discuss how technology is opening up new opportunities for refugees breaking barriers in the UK. (Credit Image: © Matt Crossick / PA Wire via ZUMA Press)
Under a Biden/Harris White House, the partnership between state and media would therefore grow stronger. Like Chinese officials, many Democrats and journalists take it for granted that not only traditional media should promote certain stories and suppress others, but “open” social media should do the same. The American system increasingly resembles the Chinese, with ideology imposed from the top.
We do not have single-party rule in the United States, but we do when it comes to white interests. Republicans and Democrats unanimously blamed “White nationalists, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis and other hate groups” for violence at the Unite the Right rally in 2017 — as if antifa were not even there — even though local officials deliberately forced demonstrators and antifa together so that violence would be an excuse to shut down a legal rally. There may be two parties, but both agree that whites must not promote their collective interests in the streets or online.
Just as the Chinese system punishes people for associating with low-scoring trust-breakers, the media and “watchdog” groups love to publicize “links.” The Washington Post recently revealed in an indignant article that a Trump Interior Department official had linked to an article at AmRen.com. American dissidents routinely use pen names, and “respectable” people keep their relations with them secret.
In some respects, an openly authoritarian government is better than our system. It’s clear who is in charge. Citizens know who rules them. It’s easier to remove a tyrant because you can always march on the palace or the party HQ. If you are ruled by a dictator, king, or party, you also know what the rules are; if you follow them, you can avoid trouble.
Our system is much more diffuse and therefore much harder to fight or even understand. Private companies, on a whim, can shut down your social media account, refuse to sell your books, make it impossible for your business to take credit cards, and close your bank account. You have no recourse, not even to the courts. Each company has its own inconsistent, arbitrary, ever-changing rules. Now, they all say, in effect, “We’ll kick you out if we don’t like you.” And that’s what they do.
If there were legal censorship, there would be laws that limited free speech. They might be vague and inconsistently enforced, but there would be rules. If the court system had any integrity, there could be litigation and legal appeals. In our system, every person you know is a potential commissar. If you become the subject of a “viral” story, literally millions of people can turn against you. This is “public shaming” worse than anything the Chinese face.
Their system is authoritarian, but it has this crucial difference from ours: It pushes people to behave correctly. In our Anglo-American tradition, personal virtue is the guarantor of our liberties, so we don’t need overarching government. However, we are no longer virtuous, at least not in the way the Founders understood virtue. Instead, anti-racism has become America’s moral code, and blacks are semi-sacred. Any social interaction with a non-white can be a life-changing disaster if it is caught on camera. The rules for what is politically correct change so quickly no one can be sure what to say to avoid trouble. We’re in an absurd system in which groups that enjoy government mandated “affirmative action” lecture us about our privilege. Although “racism” is the main sin our social credit system punishes there are others: “homophobia,” “Islamophobia,” “misogyny,” “xenophobia,” with more new ones invented all the time.
While the Chinese social credit system builds a better — if regimented — society, ours makes it worse. The media feed non-whites moral arguments to use against whites, whether they are about “racist” police, “systemic racism,” or “far-right extremists.” Anyone non-white, from educated elites to illiterate thugs, can feel justified in attacking middle-class whites because the only explanation for inequality is white racism.
November 2, 2017 – Rongcheng, China: Ju Junfang, vice director of the social credit system, provides voluntary work for the citizens of Rongcheng, who need plus points for their social certificate of good conduct. (Credit Image: © Aurelien Foucault / DPA via ZUMA Press)
Thus, our system doesn’t build “mutual trust” but suspicion and even hatred. Instead of building national unity, the American system undermines the foundation of patriotism by telling us our history and heroes were racist and evil. The Chinese system punishes destructive behavior and rewards charity. The American system winks at destructive behavior such as BLM rioting, and rewards “virtue signaling,” not real virtue.
White-owned business can be deplatfromed online and some can be ransacked by radicals, with no interference from the police. The right even to self-defense is under attack (ask Kyle Rittenhouse or Mark and Patricia McCloskey). In some areas, people cannot gather to demonstrate or even to worship, while antifa and BLM protesters can do almost anything with impunity.
Can we honestly say we have more freedom than the Chinese? Can we say that our government pursues our interests or protects our rights? Can we trust technology companies and major media? Are our elites pushing us towards greatness or towards dispossession and pariah status?
Still, we do have advantages. The great strength of the American Social Credit System is that it is ad hoc and unofficial. It’s hard to know exactly what or whom to attack but that’s also its weakness. There are “gaps” in the system we can exploit. At the same time, our rulers’ lust for power is clearer than ever. Donald Trump, however half-hearted and bumbling, forced our opponents to reveal their snarling hatreds and their breathtaking arrogance in believing they have the right to control what we read, hear, watch, and think.
Shanghai, China – Diners eat lunch near a restaurant ‘sincerity display’ that provide video feeds from kitchens, health ratings and other information. Such displays are part of a “social credit” system. (Credit Image: © Dave Tacon / ZUMA Wire)
We still have rights. American Renaissance sued the state of Tennessee, and won the right to use public facilities without paying for security. Others are suing tech companies. We are creating new ways of donating and accepting money, spreading our message, and building new platforms. These aren’t temporary workarounds, but steps towards community- and even nation-building. They are forcing us to do the things we should have been doing anyway.
What should a healthy society want? Perhaps every advanced society will have a formal or informal Social Credit System. Elites always try to control information, capital, and behavior. When we take control of our own destiny, we will promote strength, beauty, and virtue. We are a freedom-loving people, so I believe that if we slough off this current system, we can achieve these goals without repression.
Who rules the United States? I’d argue it’s media and Big Tech. They decide who can speak in the public square, raise money, do business online, or enjoy the full protection of law. They encourage victimhood instead of heroism, and distrust instead of unity. China’s system promotes positive values, exalts its people, and directs them towards positive ends.
It’s hard not to feel envious. The greatest threat to white Americans certainly isn’t Beijing. It’s those who presume to rule us, holding us captive, trapping us behind a blue screen.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


asiapacificresearch--2020-11-16--India and US Signed a Game-changer Defence Deal, Amid the Rise of What Could be a New Bipolarity

After the third annual “ 2+2 ” high-level US-Indian talks in Delhi on October 27 , a very important defence pact was signed : the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement ( BECA ) .
With so much focus on the American election , little attention has been given to this crucial deal .
Last Tuesday , the Australian navy joined Indian , American , and Japanese warships for the annual Malabarar exercises .
This is yet another sign of the growing convergence between the four QUAD countries ( Quadrilateral Security Dialogue ) .
Both events must be seen in light @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counter ” China .
The BECA was signed nearly a week before the US elections – and it certainly was a kind of diplomatic victory for Trump ’ s administration .
Regarding a future administration , we should not expect any major change .
Joe Biden , who has declared victory in the US election ( Trump is contesting the outcome ) , is on the record stating in 2006 that his “ dream ” is for the US and India to be the “ two closest nations in the world ” .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Biden campaign during the election , India is a “ high priority ” and , among other things , the US should support Indian aspirations to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council .
After the two previous 2+2 talks in 2018 and 2019 , the US and India signed the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement ( LEMOA ) and the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement ( COMCASA ) .
The former gave mutual access to each other ’ s military facilities for the purpose of refueling , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information from the US Navy .
The latest BECA , in its turn , takes such cooperation to a whole new level .
This was made possible and even fast-tracked partly because both Trump ’ s Indo-Pacific Strategy and the COVID-19 outbreak have brought India and the US closer .
The deal will give New Delhi access to American geospatial data and intelligence – for its missiles and drones .
It will also enhance Indian automate hardware systems and weapons and will improve New Delhi ’ s navigation capabilities and its military targeting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have voiced concerns with Indian sovereignty .
The agreement , after all , also gives the US a high degree of control over Indian operations .
According to security analyst Bharat Karnad , a former member of India ’ s National Security Council and an emeritus professor at the Centre for Policy Research in Delhi , it could even open the possibility of Washington tampering with data and misdirecting Indian missiles .
The full texts ( and even official summaries ) of the agreements the US has with some of its allies , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it fuels suspicions and reservations among part of Indian strategic analysts .
According to a 2018 paper by Abhijnan Rej , a Fellow with Observer Research Foundation ’ s Strategic Studies Programme , some Indian officers fear that becoming part of any military communication network with the US would make India vulnerable to Pakistan tapping – because Pakistan , India ’ s main rival , is a member of the US Central Command ( CENTCOM ) Partner Network .
The US claims such networks do not necessarily interface with each other but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If some sectors in India are concerned about being part of a military network together with Pakistan , the US worries about Indian-Russian relations and cooperation .
From the American point of view , the fact that Russia remains India ’ s top supplier of weapons – and has been so since Cold War era – is in itself a concern .
Moreover , Moscow is eager to sell New Delhi its S-400 Triumf anti-aircraft weapons system by 2021 .
Washington fears that the presence of any Russian defense system into an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and data is also present ) would expose some features of American platforms to Moscow .
That is probably why the US has even threatened India with sanctions over its decision to purchase such system from Russia – top diplomat Alice Wells , Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs , claimed in May that could be possible .
From Washington ’ s perspective , however , there is plenty to be concerned : one should also remember that the Kudankulam nuclear power plant ( KKNPP ) counts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The BECA agreement holds tremendous geopolitical importance for the future of the region , especially when we consider the tensions between India and China – as well as Chinese-Japanese tensions , Indian-Japanese relations and concerns over QUAD becoming a kind of a “ new Asian NATO ” in the Indo-Pacific region .
Washington and New Delhi certainly have an area of common interest regarding Beijing ’ s growing power .
The US , in turn , have been engaged in a trade war with China and in what many describe as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such a game-changing deal brings also a kind of dilemma .
In Indian political landscape , the anti-American left – which has always opposed the Indian-US strategic partnership – has been largely irrelevant for a while .
The hegemonic Hindu right has traditionally rejected Western and American cultural influence while reaffirming Indian national culture and values .
BECA will demand a closer political relationship with the US .
Will such relationships be informed by narratives of common values like democracy and the rule of law ?
As for the future , India could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( potentially damaging its relationship with Russia by doing so ) .
It would confirm the fears of many about the QUAD becoming a “ new NATO ” and it would dramatically increase tensions regionally and globally – this scenario would represent the further rise of a supposed “ new bipolarity ” in global politics instead of multipolarity .
Or will India continue pursue its own traditional “ middle path ” way , engaging with both the US and Russia .
In this case , together with allies such as Indonesia , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war ” – over what the Indo-Pacific Region ( IPR ) must be – India could try and push its own view of the IPR .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
This article was originally published on InfoBrics .
Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts .

After the third annual “2+2” high-level US-Indian talks in Delhi on October 27, a very important defence pact was signed: the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA). With so much focus on the American election, little attention has been given to this crucial deal. Last Tuesday, the Australian navy joined Indian, American, and Japanese warships for the annual Malabarar exercises. This is yet another sign of the growing convergence between the four QUAD countries (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue). Both events must be seen in light of Indian and US intentions to “counter” China.
The BECA was signed nearly a week before the US elections – and it certainly was a kind of diplomatic victory for Trump’s administration. Regarding a future administration, we should not expect any major change. Joe Biden, who has declared victory in the US election (Trump is contesting the outcome), is on the record stating in 2006 that his “dream” is for the US and India to be the “two closest nations in the world”. According to a policy paper released by the Biden campaign during the election, India is a “high priority” and, among other things, the US should support Indian aspirations to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.
After the two previous 2+2 talks in 2018 and 2019, the US and India signed the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) and the Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA). The former gave mutual access to each other’s military facilities for the purpose of refueling, while the latter provides New Delhi with classified information from the US Navy. The latest BECA, in its turn, takes such cooperation to a whole new level. This was made possible and even fast-tracked partly because both Trump’s Indo-Pacific Strategy and the COVID-19 outbreak have brought India and the US closer.
The deal will give New Delhi access to American geospatial data and intelligence – for its missiles and drones. It will also enhance Indian automate hardware systems and weapons and will improve New Delhi’s navigation capabilities and its military targeting. On the other hand, some have voiced concerns with Indian sovereignty.
The agreement, after all, also gives the US a high degree of control over Indian operations. According to security analyst Bharat Karnad, a former member of India’s National Security Council and an emeritus professor at the Centre for Policy Research in Delhi, it could even open the possibility of Washington tampering with data and misdirecting Indian missiles. The full texts (and even official summaries) of the agreements the US has with some of its allies, such as the Philippines, remain classified and it fuels suspicions and reservations among part of Indian strategic analysts. According to a 2018 paper by Abhijnan Rej, a Fellow with Observer Research Foundation’s Strategic Studies Programme, some Indian officers fear that becoming part of any military communication network with the US would make India vulnerable to Pakistan tapping – because Pakistan, India’s main rival, is a member of the US Central Command (CENTCOM) Partner Network. The US claims such networks do not necessarily interface with each other but such claim is met with some skepticism.
If some sectors in India are concerned about being part of a military network together with Pakistan, the US worries about Indian-Russian relations and cooperation. From the American point of view, the fact that Russia remains India’s top supplier of weapons – and has been so since Cold War era – is in itself a concern. Moreover, Moscow is eager to sell New Delhi its S-400 Triumf anti-aircraft weapons system by 2021. Washington fears that the presence of any Russian defense system into an Indian military network (where US hardware and data is also present) would expose some features of American platforms to Moscow.
That is probably why the US has even threatened India with sanctions over its decision to purchase such system from Russia – top diplomat Alice Wells, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, claimed in May that could be possible. From Washington’s perspective, however, there is plenty to be concerned: one should also remember that the Kudankulam nuclear power plant (KKNPP) counts heavily on future nuclear cooperation with Moscow.
The BECA agreement holds tremendous geopolitical importance for the future of the region, especially when we consider the tensions between India and China – as well as Chinese-Japanese tensions, Indian-Japanese relations and concerns over QUAD becoming a kind of a “new Asian NATO” in the Indo-Pacific region. Washington and New Delhi certainly have an area of common interest regarding Beijing’s growing power. The US, in turn, have been engaged in a trade war with China and in what many describe as a new cold war.
For India, such a game-changing deal brings also a kind of dilemma. In Indian political landscape, the anti-American left – which has always opposed the Indian-US strategic partnership – has been largely irrelevant for a while. The hegemonic Hindu right has traditionally rejected Western and American cultural influence while reaffirming Indian national culture and values. BECA will demand a closer political relationship with the US. Will such relationships be informed by narratives of common values like democracy and the rule of law?
As for the future, India could further strengthen its ties with the US (potentially damaging its relationship with Russia by doing so). It would confirm the fears of many about the QUAD becoming a “new NATO” and it would dramatically increase tensions regionally and globally – this scenario would represent the further rise of a supposed “new bipolarity” in global politics instead of multipolarity.
Or will India continue pursue its own traditional “middle path” way, engaging with both the US and Russia. In this case, together with allies such as Indonesia, and as part of the on-going “conceptual war” – over what the Indo-Pacific Region (IPR) must be – India could try and push its own view of the IPR.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Uriel Araujo is a researcher with a focus on international and ethnic conflicts.
Featured image is from InfoBrics


asiapacificresearch--2020-11-16--New Trade Zone in Asia-Pacific Could Ensure Chinese Global Leadership

On November 15th , 15 nations in Asia-Pacific , after eight years of negotiations , sealed the largest trade agreement in the world , known as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership ( RCEP ) .
China is part of this new association , which surprises experts for its dimensions : the agreement will not only create the largest free trade area in the world , but will also cover 30 % of the world ’ s GDP and a third of the world ’ s population .
Several world powers are part of the new bloc , including Japan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zealand – however , the Chinese presence is the most notorious .
In fact , the success in the celebration of the RCEP is the result of long and detailed negotiations , which lasted almost a decade and were able to bring together divergent interests in a common point .
The expectation is that , in a not too long term , the agreement will change a lot – or totally – the balance of power of the Asian economy and of the whole world .
In this process , without a doubt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ determining factor , since , despite all its economic potential , this is the first time that Beijing participates in a project of such a scale as this block .
Until now , China had invested only in bilateral agreements with its regional partners , which is changing completely with this new trade zone .
This promises profits and good expectations for all states involved in the negotiations with China .
One of the pillars of the agreement is its exclusively economic orientation , totally abandoning political projects or ideological confrontations .
Asians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that which guides blocs such as the European Union , for example , where trade relations are guided by a common political and ideological agenda shared by the members .
On the contrary , in the RCEP , there is only the economic guideline , and this is precisely what allows partnerships between China and Japan or Australia , for example .
Beijing was the real creator of this project to create an economic zone free of ideological principles , where no country is obliged to sacrifice itself politically for the benefit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the participation of any country in the RCEP is immune from politically based economic sanctions – and this is one of the reasons why this new bloc could have a very significant impact on the economy of the world in the near future .
However , obviously the initiative also had its opponents .
One country that abdicated from participating in the bloc was India .
In November 2019 , during the advanced negotiations for the agreement , the Indian government vetoed its participation in the new commercial zone alleging economic disadvantages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , prioritizing the domestic market , it is undeniable that the rivalry between Chinese and Indians had an effect on this decision .
India has become geopolitically closer to American interests in order to guarantee international support in its regional disputes with China .
Obviously , the American interest is that the largest possible number of countries renounce the bloc due to the advantages that this new zone will bring to China in the midst of a global context of trade war between Beijing and Washington .
Therefore , although there is some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the largest free trade zone in the world , the decision was most likely motivated by political factors and American influence .
Now , a scenario is formed and there does not seem to be many alternatives to the nations that opposed the bloc .
The agreement has already been signed and soon negotiations within the new commercial zone will be proceeding normally .
China will inevitably take a leading role in the bloc due to its economic prominence .
One third of the world ’ s population will be involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What will become of the trade war between Beijing and Washington from now on ?
The US is simply not in a position to boycott the RCEP through sanctions or blockades as it is a bloc that covers a third of the world ’ s population and includes Washington ’ s historic allies , such as Australia , Japan and South Korea .
Still , the US is currently immersed in a political , economic , and social crisis , with judicialized elections and two presidential candidates who do not recognize each @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could Washington undertake any similar project to rival the RCEP ?
In fact , China has taken the global lead in international economic cooperation and multilateralism and the US will not be able to resume this position anytime soon .
Beijing will stand out in the near future as the great capital of world free trade and it will only be up to Washington to isolate itself further .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This article was originally published on InfoBrics .
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro .

On November 15th, 15 nations in Asia-Pacific, after eight years of negotiations, sealed the largest trade agreement in the world, known as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). China is part of this new association, which surprises experts for its dimensions: the agreement will not only create the largest free trade area in the world, but will also cover 30% of the world’s GDP and a third of the world’s population. Several world powers are part of the new bloc, including Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand – however, the Chinese presence is the most notorious.
In fact, the success in the celebration of the RCEP is the result of long and detailed negotiations, which lasted almost a decade and were able to bring together divergent interests in a common point. The expectation is that, in a not too long term, the agreement will change a lot – or totally – the balance of power of the Asian economy and of the whole world. In this process, without a doubt, Chinese development will be the most determining factor, since, despite all its economic potential, this is the first time that Beijing participates in a project of such a scale as this block. Until now, China had invested only in bilateral agreements with its regional partners, which is changing completely with this new trade zone. This promises profits and good expectations for all states involved in the negotiations with China.
One of the pillars of the agreement is its exclusively economic orientation, totally abandoning political projects or ideological confrontations. Asians have chosen a completely different path than that which guides blocs such as the European Union, for example, where trade relations are guided by a common political and ideological agenda shared by the members. On the contrary, in the RCEP, there is only the economic guideline, and this is precisely what allows partnerships between China and Japan or Australia, for example. Beijing was the real creator of this project to create an economic zone free of ideological principles, where no country is obliged to sacrifice itself politically for the benefit of a common flag. In this sense, the participation of any country in the RCEP is immune from politically based economic sanctions – and this is one of the reasons why this new bloc could have a very significant impact on the economy of the world in the near future.
However, obviously the initiative also had its opponents. One country that abdicated from participating in the bloc was India. In November 2019, during the advanced negotiations for the agreement, the Indian government vetoed its participation in the new commercial zone alleging economic disadvantages. Despite the appearance of protectionist policy, prioritizing the domestic market, it is undeniable that the rivalry between Chinese and Indians had an effect on this decision. India has become geopolitically closer to American interests in order to guarantee international support in its regional disputes with China. Obviously, the American interest is that the largest possible number of countries renounce the bloc due to the advantages that this new zone will bring to China in the midst of a global context of trade war between Beijing and Washington. Therefore, although there is some economic advantage for India in not participating in the largest free trade zone in the world, the decision was most likely motivated by political factors and American influence.
Now, a scenario is formed and there does not seem to be many alternatives to the nations that opposed the bloc. The agreement has already been signed and soon negotiations within the new commercial zone will be proceeding normally. China will inevitably take a leading role in the bloc due to its economic prominence. One third of the world’s population will be involved in a common commercial zone with the Chinese. What will become of the trade war between Beijing and Washington from now on? The US is simply not in a position to boycott the RCEP through sanctions or blockades as it is a bloc that covers a third of the world’s population and includes Washington’s historic allies, such as Australia, Japan and South Korea. Still, the US is currently immersed in a political, economic, and social crisis, with judicialized elections and two presidential candidates who do not recognize each other. In such conditions, how could Washington undertake any similar project to rival the RCEP?
In fact, China has taken the global lead in international economic cooperation and multilateralism and the US will not be able to resume this position anytime soon. Beijing will stand out in the near future as the great capital of world free trade and it will only be up to Washington to isolate itself further.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
Featured image is from InfoBrics


asiapacificresearch--2020-11-16--India’s Farewell to ASEAN as It Boards RCEP Train

Prime Minister Narendra Modi ’ s remarks at the 17th ASEAN-India Summit on November 12 makes sad reading .
It comes in the specific context of the signing of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership [ RCEP ] on Sunday — the mega free trade agreement centred on the ASEAN plus China , Japan and South Korea .
Modi avoided mentioning RCEP , although it signifies a joyful occasion in ASEAN ’ s life as much as Diwali is for an Indian .
He instead took detours — ‘ Make in India ’ , ‘ Act East Policy ’ , ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centrality ’ .
India ’ s policy options toward Southeast Asia , a region it calls “ central ” to its Act East Policy , have shrunk dramatically .
Yet , a recent study by RAND Corporation , the Pentagon think tank , titled Regional Responses to US-China Competition in the Indo-Pacific lists Japan , Australia and India as Washington ’ s only allies and partners over whom it can confidently claim to have “ more diplomatic and military influence than China ” .
• China has “ more economic influence ” than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ leverage its economic influence for a variety of goals , including to weaken US military influence.
” • There is “ little evidence ” that ASEAN countries believe that US “ military influence is a counterweight to China ’ s economic influence.
” • “ Concern about US commitment to the region is echoed through Southeast Asia.
” • China has greater leverage than US over the ASEAN countries ; and , • “ For Southeast Asia as well as other countries in the Indo-Pacific , there is a strong desire to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China or appearing to align clearly with one country against the other .
We [ RAND ] expect partner alignment to be weak and incomplete.
” The report bypasses the Donald Trump-Joe Biden binary , which mesmerises Indian analysts and instead underscores that “ There is a widespread expectation [ among regional countries ] that China will overtake the United States as the largest economy in the next ten to 15 years and play a critical role in driving regional economic growth… [ The RCEP ] would deepen economic ties between the countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with China will continue to increase.
” Modi ’ s sombre remarks echo the angst in the RAND report .
The signing of the RCEP is a defining moment .
The ASEAN is boarding the RCEP train all set to depart and India is stranded while its two other QUAD partners — Japan and Australia — are on board and can be seen in the dining car holding Chinese chopsticks .
To be sure , this journey will take ASEAN to exotic destinations from where there is no turning back .
Modi ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t attract the ASEAN as it embarks on an adult relationship of maturity and certitude that India simply can not offer in an on-again , off-again fling .
For the sake of courtesy , ASEAN has left behind an invite to India to join the RCEP at a time of its choosing , but both sides know that is never to happen .
As the RCEP train picks up momentum , ASEAN will get used to a new lifestyle and begin exploring seamless opportunities to indulge itself .
Analysts applaud RCEP as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trade agreement , behind only the World Trade Organization itself .
The saddest part is that in the process , China is also divesting India of its cherished Sinophobic mantras — “ a free , open , inclusive and rules-based Indo-Pacific region ” ; “ freedom of navigation and overflight.
” Ironically , the RCEP was “ free , open and inclusive ” but India failed to appreciate that and turned its back on it .
And the RCEP is , without doubt , “ rules-based ” .
It was painstakingly negotiated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of negotiations and eighteen ministerial meetings until they could reach an agreed “ text ” .
In fact , its principal objective is to harmonise the existing network of “ ASEAN+1 ” FTAs into a unified agreement , creating a single and cohesive set of trade rules for the Indo-Pacific .
And it also includes regulatory provisions for many 21st century trade issues , such as services , investment , e-commerce , telecommunications and intellectual property .
Now , these 15 would-be RCEP participant countries account for nearly a third of the global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gross domestic product .
Measured in terms of trade flow , RCEP ’ s thirty percent share is only a fraction smaller than the EU Customs Union ’ s 33 % share .
RCEP is expected to soon overtake Europe as Indo-Pacific economies rapidly deepen their trade orientation .
Again , RCEP generates such massive maritime traffic once it comes into operation next year that the chanting of “ freedom of navigation ” in the South China Sea sounds ridiculous .
Come to think of it , China is its biggest stakeholder , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ India ’ s QUAD allies .
Trade with RCEP member countries accounts for nearly 50 per cent of Japan ’ s total trade value .
The RCEP countries account for 61 per cent of Australia ’ s total two way trade , and 71 per cent of our exports .
This will be Japan ’ s first free trade agreement with China and South Korea , which will provide a boost to exports of agricultural and other Japanese products .
Australia already has an FTA with China .
The RCEP will probably abolish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in ASEAN , 56 percent of those in China , and 49 percent in South Korea .
The RCEP is also expected to reduce or remove tariffs on industrial goods such as automobile parts , steel , and chemical products .
See the infographic below .
Modi ’ s remarks signal that the enormity of what is happening in India ’ s extended neighbourhood is sinking in .
The catastrophic mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic means that India Inc won ’ t be open for serious business for quite a while .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economic and strategic map of the Asia-Pacific .
The RCEP matrix based on a single , region-wide set of trade rules will change the economic outlook of its members .
The lowering of intra-regional trade and investment will inevitably prompt the RCEP countries to accord higher priority to deepening economic ties among themselves .
To be sure , RCEP heralds the dawn of a new post-Covid regional supply chain .
As a new RCEP supply chain takes shape , India has not only excluded itself but is unwittingly facilitating its “ arch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driver of growth in the Asia-Pacific .
On the other hand , extra-regional economic ties cease to be a priority for the ASEAN , in relative importance .
There isn ’ t going to be any takers in the Asia-Pacific region for even a partial US-China “ decoupling ” .
The RCEP is in reality an ASEAN-led initiative , which is built on the foundation of the six ASEAN+1 FTAs and it secures ASEAN ’ s position at the heart of regional economic institutions .
Meanwhile , the RAND report also makes certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence ” the US has vis-a-vis its QUAD partners .
It is with Japan only that the US has the “ most diplomatic and political influence across all the indicators.
” Australia comes next but Canberra harbours misgivings about US commitment to the Indo-Pacific region , including “ increasing worries about US reliability and predictability ” .
The RAND gives a qualified welcome for India .
It estimates that India sees China as its “ most powerful , significant long-term security challenge… In India ’ s eyes , China is too threatening to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be treated as an overt enemy.
” Thus , “ China ’ s military superiority has made Indian planners risk-averse about taking positions that could provoke full-scale warfare.
” Suffice to say , on balance , the RCEP became a non-option for India while QUAD does not become a natural habitat for it , either .
Meanwhile , the decision to get into the driver ’ s seat in the QUAD and raise it to ministerial level was itself heavily predicated on what has turned out to be a deeply flawed assumption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ term and Mike Pompeo being around as Modi government ’ s preferred counterpart in DC .
The strategic dilemma ensuing out of this incredible sequence of diplomatic blunders is writ large on Modi ’ s remarks .
That fire in the belly evident in Modi ’ s Shangri La speech of June 2018 at Singapore was missing .
His ASEAN counterparts would have taken note .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , @ @ @ @ @

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s remarks at the 17th ASEAN-India Summit on November 12 makes sad reading. It comes in the specific context of the signing of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership [RCEP] on Sunday — the mega free trade agreement centred on the ASEAN plus China, Japan and South Korea.
Modi avoided mentioning RCEP, although it signifies a joyful occasion in ASEAN’s life as much as Diwali is for an Indian. He instead took detours — ‘Make in India’, ‘Act East Policy’, ‘Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative’, ‘ASEAN centrality’.
India’s policy options toward Southeast Asia, a region it calls “central” to its Act East Policy, have shrunk dramatically. Yet, a recent study by RAND Corporation, the Pentagon think tank, titled Regional Responses to US-China Competition in the Indo-Pacific lists Japan, Australia and India as Washington’s only allies and partners over whom it can confidently claim to have “more diplomatic and military influence than China”.
The RAND analysts drew certain stunning conclusions:
China has “more economic influence” than US in Asia-Pacific.
ASEAN countries rank economic considerations over security concerns.
China can “leverage its economic influence for a variety of goals, including to weaken US military influence.”
There is “little evidence” that ASEAN countries believe that US “military influence is a counterweight to China’s economic influence.”
“Concern about US commitment to the region is echoed through Southeast Asia.”
China has greater leverage than US over the ASEAN countries; and,
“For Southeast Asia as well as other countries in the Indo-Pacific, there is a strong desire to avoid choosing between the United States and China or appearing to align clearly with one country against the other. We [RAND] expect partner alignment to be weak and incomplete.”
The report bypasses the Donald Trump-Joe Biden binary, which mesmerises Indian analysts and instead underscores that “There is a widespread expectation [among regional countries] that China will overtake the United States as the largest economy in the next ten to 15 years and play a critical role in driving regional economic growth… [The RCEP] would deepen economic ties between the countries involved. There is expectation that trade with China will continue to increase.”
Modi’s sombre remarks echo the angst in the RAND report. The signing of the RCEP is a defining moment. The ASEAN is boarding the RCEP train all set to depart and India is stranded while its two other QUAD partners — Japan and Australia — are on board and can be seen in the dining car holding Chinese chopsticks.
To be sure, this journey will take ASEAN to exotic destinations from where there is no turning back. Modi’s plaintive appeal for a picnic won’t attract the ASEAN as it embarks on an adult relationship of maturity and certitude that India simply cannot offer in an on-again, off-again fling.
For the sake of courtesy, ASEAN has left behind an invite to India to join the RCEP at a time of its choosing, but both sides know that is never to happen.
As the RCEP train picks up momentum, ASEAN will get used to a new lifestyle and begin exploring seamless opportunities to indulge itself. Analysts applaud RCEP as the world’s second most important trade agreement, behind only the World Trade Organization itself.
The saddest part is that in the process, China is also divesting India of its cherished Sinophobic mantras — “a free, open, inclusive and rules-based Indo-Pacific region”; “freedom of navigation and overflight.” Ironically, the RCEP was “free, open and inclusive” but India failed to appreciate that and turned its back on it.
And the RCEP is, without doubt, “rules-based”. It was painstakingly negotiated by fifteen Asia-Pacific countries who held thirty-one rounds of negotiations and eighteen ministerial meetings until they could reach an agreed “text”.
In fact, its principal objective is to harmonise the existing network of “ASEAN+1” FTAs into a unified agreement, creating a single and cohesive set of trade rules for the Indo-Pacific. And it also includes regulatory provisions for many 21st century trade issues, such as services, investment, e-commerce, telecommunications and intellectual property.
Now, these 15 would-be RCEP participant countries account for nearly a third of the global population and approximately thirty percent of global gross domestic product. Measured in terms of trade flow, RCEP’s thirty percent share is only a fraction smaller than the EU Customs Union’s 33% share. RCEP is expected to soon overtake Europe as Indo-Pacific economies rapidly deepen their trade orientation.
Again, RCEP generates such massive maritime traffic once it comes into operation next year that the chanting of “freedom of navigation” in the South China Sea sounds ridiculous. Come to think of it, China is its biggest stakeholder, too!
Take Japan and Australia, India’s QUAD allies. Trade with RCEP member countries accounts for nearly 50 per cent of Japan’s total trade value. The RCEP countries account for 61 per cent of Australia’s total two way trade, and 71 per cent of our exports.
This will be Japan’s first free trade agreement with China and South Korea, which will provide a boost to exports of agricultural and other Japanese products. Australia already has an FTA with China.
The RCEP will probably abolish tariffs on 61 percent of agricultural imports in ASEAN, 56 percent of those in China, and 49 percent in South Korea. The RCEP is also expected to reduce or remove tariffs on industrial goods such as automobile parts, steel, and chemical products. See the infographic below.
Modi’s remarks signal that the enormity of what is happening in India’s extended neighbourhood is sinking in. The catastrophic mismanagement of the Covid-19 pandemic means that India Inc won’t be open for serious business for quite a while. Meanwhile, RCEP will have begun to remake the economic and strategic map of the Asia-Pacific.
The RCEP matrix based on a single, region-wide set of trade rules will change the economic outlook of its members. The lowering of intra-regional trade and investment will inevitably prompt the RCEP countries to accord higher priority to deepening economic ties among themselves.
To be sure, RCEP heralds the dawn of a new post-Covid regional supply chain. As a new RCEP supply chain takes shape, India has not only excluded itself but is unwittingly facilitating its “arch enemy” China to become the principal driver of growth in the Asia-Pacific.
On the other hand, extra-regional economic ties cease to be a priority for the ASEAN, in relative importance. There isn’t going to be any takers in the Asia-Pacific region for even a partial US-China “decoupling”. The RCEP is in reality an ASEAN-led initiative, which is built on the foundation of the six ASEAN+1 FTAs and it secures ASEAN’s position at the heart of regional economic institutions.
Meanwhile, the RAND report also makes certain incisive assessments regarding the “types of influence” the US has vis-a-vis its QUAD partners. It is with Japan only that the US has the “most diplomatic and political influence across all the indicators.” Australia comes next but Canberra harbours misgivings about US commitment to the Indo-Pacific region, including “increasing worries about US reliability and predictability”.
The RAND gives a qualified welcome for India. It estimates that India sees China as its “most powerful, significant long-term security challenge… In India’s eyes, China is too threatening to be considered a friend but too dangerous to be treated as an overt enemy.” Thus, “China’s military superiority has made Indian planners risk-averse about taking positions that could provoke full-scale warfare.”
Suffice to say, on balance, the RCEP became a non-option for India while QUAD does not become a natural habitat for it, either. Meanwhile, the decision to get into the driver’s seat in the QUAD and raise it to ministerial level was itself heavily predicated on what has turned out to be a deeply flawed assumption — of President Trump securing a second term and Mike Pompeo being around as Modi government’s preferred counterpart in DC.
The strategic dilemma ensuing out of this incredible sequence of diplomatic blunders is writ large on Modi’s remarks. That fire in the belly evident in Modi’s Shangri La speech of June 2018 at Singapore was missing. His ASEAN counterparts would have taken note.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: A container ship at Shenzhen Port, China (File photo)


asiapacificresearch--2020-11-17--Japan Militarizes and Worries Russia and China

In recent years , Japan has started a new wave of militarization , which has surprised experts worldwide .
Its closest neighbors , China and Russia are the countries that are most concerned with this new Japanese militarization .
After World War II in which Tokyo was allied with Nazi Germany and was the last country to surrender , Japan renounced military force as a means of conflict resolution .
After its surrender , in 1947 a new Constitution came into force , which in its ninth article vetoes the use of military power : In 1954 , Tokyo received @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-defense force , whose aim was simply to guarantee national security in a global context of Cold War and bipolarity , in which Japan – a westernized , capitalist and pro-Washington country – found itself constantly “ threatened ” by the growth of the Soviet and Chinese empires .
This decision , although it relativized the Japanese renunciation of military power , still preserved the national choice for the total abdication from war as a legitimate instrument of conflict resolution , serving only as a self-defense resource in case of extreme possibilities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a Japanese military project has gradually begun to gain force .
Within the country , rhetoric has been strengthened in favor of relativizing Article 9 of the Constitution , in order to expand the Japanese military potential .
Contrary to expectations until then , the end of the Cold War did not diminish the Japanese military but opened space for other justifications for its growth .
North Korea ’ s progress , seen as a threat by both Seoul and Tokyo , was the main reason why rhetoric in favor of continuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pillar of the Japanese military resurgence was international cooperation with the US .
Japanese and Americans started joint activities thanks mainly to the efforts of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe , who in the past eight years promoted a true historical reversal of the Japanese state ’ s pacifist ideology , allowing for a extensive militarization , reducing Article 9 of the Constitution to a purely decorative figure .
In any case , Tokyo is currently actively investing in the development of its military capabilities and this work has been remarkably successful .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the biggest industrial giants in the world , so it is not surprising that the country manages to develop modern and efficient war equipment .
The current Japanese military industrial complex is formed by a group of several companies , among which Mitsubishi Heavy Industries stands out , specializing in the production of tanks , combat vehicles , military aircraft , warships , missiles , and other military equipment .
According to a study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ( SIPRI ) published in April 2020 , in 2019 Japan ranked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ billion dollars .
The Japanese agency Kyodo reported that the Japanese military requested 51.7 billion dollars for the next fiscal year , which begins April 1 , 2021 .
Spending has been steadily increasing , corresponding to 0.9 % of Japanese GDP .
This percentage is not so large compared to other military powers on the planet , but they are impressive when we consider Japan in all its context of recent militarization .
A recent factor that has also motivated Japanese militarization is the controversy surrounding the Senkaku Islands , claimed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modernize its class of destroyers and to request Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to produce a new generation of tanks .
As for the Air Force , Japan ordered more than 100 F-35A and F-35B fighters .
It has also developed a fifth-generation fighter prototype and plans to use these technologies to create a sixth-generation fighter in the near future .
This worries Beijing enormously , as it signifies the radicalization of a dispute that has so far been peaceful .
However , isolated factors such as North Korea , the Senkaku Islands , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not sufficient to explain Japanese militarization .
In fact , what Tokyo wants is simply to raise its geopolitical importance and its role as a regional power and bet on increasing its military capacity for this purpose .
The problem is the extent to which this process seems interesting to Japan itself .
The US still maintains active military bases in the Asian country and guarantees its security against possible threats , which makes extreme militarization a questionable strategy .
Russia and China do not see Japan as a current threat , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Russia recently deployed T-72B3 tanks armed with missiles in the Kuril Islands .
Moscow thereby sent a clear message to Tokyo .
By sending tanks , Russia shows that it is ready to defend its territory in case of any aggression .
In the end , will it be useful for Tokyo to have a predominance of a military project on the Japanese political agenda ?
If Japan ’ s intention includes getting rid of the American presence in the country and ensuring the consolidation of a militarily sovereign National State , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if the intention is simply to increase its military power , maintaining an alliance with Washington and rivaling its neighboring states , it seems like a big mistake .
Note to readers : please click the share buttons above or below .
Forward this article to your email lists .
Crosspost on your blog site , internet forums .
etc .
This article was originally published on InfoBrics .
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro .

In recent years, Japan has started a new wave of militarization, which has surprised experts worldwide. Its closest neighbors, China and Russia are the countries that are most concerned with this new Japanese militarization.
After World War II in which Tokyo was allied with Nazi Germany and was the last country to surrender, Japan renounced military force as a means of conflict resolution. After its surrender, in 1947 a new Constitution came into force, which in its ninth article vetoes the use of military power:
“Article 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized”.
In 1954, Tokyo received authorization to create an extremely limited military self-defense force, whose aim was simply to guarantee national security in a global context of Cold War and bipolarity, in which Japan – a westernized, capitalist and pro-Washington country – found itself constantly “threatened” by the growth of the Soviet and Chinese empires. This decision, although it relativized the Japanese renunciation of military power, still preserved the national choice for the total abdication from war as a legitimate instrument of conflict resolution, serving only as a self-defense resource in case of extreme possibilities.
However, since then, the resurgence of a Japanese military project has gradually begun to gain force. Within the country, rhetoric has been strengthened in favor of relativizing Article 9 of the Constitution, in order to expand the Japanese military potential. Contrary to expectations until then, the end of the Cold War did not diminish the Japanese military but opened space for other justifications for its growth. North Korea’s progress, seen as a threat by both Seoul and Tokyo, was the main reason why rhetoric in favor of continuing the militarization process grew. But the pillar of the Japanese military resurgence was international cooperation with the US. Japanese and Americans started joint activities thanks mainly to the efforts of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who in the past eight years promoted a true historical reversal of the Japanese state’s pacifist ideology, allowing for a extensive militarization, reducing Article 9 of the Constitution to a purely decorative figure.
In any case, Tokyo is currently actively investing in the development of its military capabilities and this work has been remarkably successful. Japan is famous for being one of the biggest industrial giants in the world, so it is not surprising that the country manages to develop modern and efficient war equipment. The current Japanese military industrial complex is formed by a group of several companies, among which Mitsubishi Heavy Industries stands out, specializing in the production of tanks, combat vehicles, military aircraft, warships, missiles, and other military equipment.
According to a study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published in April 2020, in 2019 Japan ranked ninth in military spending – about 47.6 billion dollars. The Japanese agency Kyodo reported that the Japanese military requested 51.7 billion dollars for the next fiscal year, which begins April 1, 2021. Spending has been steadily increasing, corresponding to 0.9% of Japanese GDP. This percentage is not so large compared to other military powers on the planet, but they are impressive when we consider Japan in all its context of recent militarization.
A recent factor that has also motivated Japanese militarization is the controversy surrounding the Senkaku Islands, claimed by China. The dispute led Tokyo to modernize its class of destroyers and to request Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to produce a new generation of tanks. As for the Air Force, Japan ordered more than 100 F-35A and F-35B fighters. It has also developed a fifth-generation fighter prototype and plans to use these technologies to create a sixth-generation fighter in the near future. This worries Beijing enormously, as it signifies the radicalization of a dispute that has so far been peaceful.
However, isolated factors such as North Korea, the Senkaku Islands, or the intention to participate in humanitarian missions are not sufficient to explain Japanese militarization. In fact, what Tokyo wants is simply to raise its geopolitical importance and its role as a regional power and bet on increasing its military capacity for this purpose. The problem is the extent to which this process seems interesting to Japan itself. The US still maintains active military bases in the Asian country and guarantees its security against possible threats, which makes extreme militarization a questionable strategy.
Russia and China do not see Japan as a current threat, but they are beginning to take precautions. Russia recently deployed T-72B3 tanks armed with missiles in the Kuril Islands. Moscow thereby sent a clear message to Tokyo. By sending tanks, Russia shows that it is ready to defend its territory in case of any aggression.
In the end, will it be useful for Tokyo to have a predominance of a military project on the Japanese political agenda? If Japan’s intention includes getting rid of the American presence in the country and ensuring the consolidation of a militarily sovereign National State, the strategy may be fruitful. However, if the intention is simply to increase its military power, maintaining an alliance with Washington and rivaling its neighboring states, it seems like a big mistake.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.
Featured image is from Kyodo News