Mediaboss Marketing

Over the past 10 years, as relations between the US and the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) have steadily deteriorated, analysts, policymakers and academics have debated whether they are embroiled in a cold war.

However, this debate is unnecessary, as the US-China enmity matches the textbook definition of a cold war, which is being played out in Taiwan, Ukraine and the Middle East.

When people ask whether the US and China are in a cold war, what they truly mean to ask is whether they are locked in a cold war similar to the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union. The answer to that question is no, and the reasons are complex.

A cold war can be defined as a war being fought not in the traditional manner of clashing armies, but by all other means short of actual combat, in the words of Robert J. McMahon, a professor of history at Ohio State University.

A cold war is a condition of political and ideological tension, rivalry and non-violent conflict between major powers or blocs. It is typified by the absence of direct military engagement or declared hostilities. Instead, opposing nations or alliances compete through tactics such as espionage, propaganda and proxy conflicts.

A cold war is marked by the maintenance of a delicate balance of power and a climate of suspicion that might potentially escalate into open warfare.

Cold wars are relatively common. Examples from the 20th and 21st centuries include India and Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, North and South Korea and possibly India and China.

Cold wars are not new. The 19th-century Great Game, played out between the British and Russian empires in Central Asia, never escalated to open warfare. The same was true of the Scramble for Africa, where European powers competed against each other, with open combat being fought by proxies.

The US-Soviet Cold War was a prolonged geopolitical and ideological rivalry spanning from the end of World War II in 1945 to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. During this time, Washington and Moscow, along with their respective allies, engaged amid political and military tensions, without their armies ever exchanging shots.

The Cold War was characterized by ideological competition, a battle of capitalism and democracy against communism and autocracy, a nuclear arms race and proxy conflicts, such as on the Korean Peninsula, and in Vietnam and Central America.

The two countries also spied on one another and both remained on constant alert, anticipating a nuclear exchange.

The ongoing cold war between the US and China is playing out on multiple fronts, with both nations seeking support, influence and political advantages in Taiwan, Ukraine and the Middle East. Chinas interest in Taiwan is straightforward, as it aims to annex the island nation, while the US supports Taiwan without seeking annexation.

In Ukraine, both countries are working through proxies: China supports Moscow, while the US and NATO support Kyiv. In the Middle East, the US provides direct support to Israel, while China indirectly supports Hamas and Hezbollah through its support for Tehran.

These proxy conflicts resemble events during the Cold War, but there are significant differences between the situation with China and the previous one with the Soviet Union.

First is economic competition. The US and China are major economic rivals, whereas the difference in wealth between the US and the Soviet Union was so immense that no competition was possible or necessary. China wants the yuan to replace the US dollar as the global exchange currency. The ruble, by contrast, was never even considered for global trade.

Second is coalitions and blocs. The Soviet Union built a bloc of Warsaw Pact and Soviet-allied states. China is building blocs through the Belt and Road Initiative, BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

However, the Soviet bloc was all or nothing. Members were bound by trade, economic, diplomatic and defense agreements, which excluded them from enacting independent foreign policies, while China-led groupings have no such agreements, nor exclusivity, neither is there a contractual loss of sovereignty for members.

Third is diplomacy. Beyond the Soviet-aligned nations, Moscow had no real diplomatic power. It did not dictate the behavior of nations outside of the bloc. China, by contrast, has convinced almost the entire world to adopt Beijings strategy for virus containment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, China is a plus member, dialogue partner or observer in numerous regional partnerships, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum, the Organization of American States, the China-Arab States Summit, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the China-Africa Cooperation Forum, the African Union and the Pacific Islands Forum.

Fourth is ideology. The Soviet Union and the PRC were and are driven by ideology. However, the Soviet Unions goal was to export communism, to convince other countries to adopt its system of governance and then to bring them into the fold as an official member. China, by contrast, has no interest in exporting socialism or changing the systems followed by other nations. Instead, Beijing just wants other nations to behave in a way that benefits it.

Fifth is proxy wars. It could be argued that the Korean War was a proxy war fought between the US and China, but it would be more accurate to say that it was a proxy war between the US and the Soviet Union, and that China was the proxy army. Apart from that conflict, the US and China have not really fought a proxy war. China backs Iran, and Iran backs Hamas and Hezbollah, but so far, the US has only fought Iran through proxies in Yemen and Syria. While China would have been happy to benefit from those conflicts, China was not very involved. This contrasts with the communist uprisings in Latin America in the 1980s, when Washington backed one side and Moscow backed the other.

Sixth is military buildup. The US and the Soviet Union were in a massive arms race, as well as a race to space. The US and China are also engaged in an arms race, but it does not have the feverish pace of the Cold War. One reason is that the US has had very clear arms superiority during the entire time of competition and will remain on top as long as the US Congress keeps approving large defense budgets. The space race is similar. The US was there first. The best China can do is tie. The US is much closer to achieving a crewed mission to Mars than China. Even if China wins the race to Mars, it would not have a fraction of the impact of the first American on the moon.

Seventh is espionage and intelligence. The Soviet Union and the US spied on each other, but it generally consisted of intelligence gathering related to the military, counterintelligence operations and military technology. China engages in economic-industrial espionage on a massive scale, to obtain US civilian and military technology, to earn money, as well as to bolster its military capabilities. Additionally, Chinas opportunities for espionage are far greater than those afforded the Soviet Union. Chinese comprise the largest percentage of foreign students in the US, and the US is home to about 2.4 million immigrants from China. Between 75,000 and 130,000 Americans live in China. Both countries are open for tourism. What is more, the US government funds joint research projects and labs in China, something that never happened during the Cold War.

The US-China cold war is here, but it is not identical to the competition with the Soviet Union.

However, like all cold wars, it will end either when it transitions to a hot war, or when one opponent loses the ability to compete.

Antonio Graceffo, a China economic analyst who holds a China MBA from Shanghai Jiaotong University, studies national defense at the American Military University in West Virginia.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

Read this article:
Defining the US-China cold war -

GREEN TOWNSHIP, Mich. (AP) Voters in Green Township removed five local officials in a recall election fueled by opposition to a Chinese company's plan to make components for electric vehicle batteries.

The township's supervisor, clerk, treasurer and two trustees all Republicans were defeated Tuesday by challengers who listed no party affiliation.

This recall shows how the community did not want this, recall advocate Lori Brock told The Detroit News, referring to the factory. This just means we have a voice again."

The five officials were part of a 7-0 vote last December supporting a factory by Gotion, a China-based manufacturer, in the Mecosta County township. The project, valued at more than $2 billion, could bring thousands of jobs.

It also has the support of state officials, including Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Millions of dollars in financial incentives have been approved.

But critics point to possible environmental impacts in the rural area, about 60 miles (95 kilometers) north of Grand Rapids, and concerns about national security. An opponent, former U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, said Chinese companies serve the Chinese government.

Jim Chapman, the township supervisor who was removed from office, has called the project a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

Its called democracy, Chapman said after being removed by voters.

Before the recall election, Chuck Thelen, vice president for Gotion's North American operations, said the factory was a done deal" and that job applicants were being screened.

Earlier this year, he said there was no plot to make "Big Rapids a center to spread communism, a reference to a nearby city.

An opposition group, named the Mecosta Environmental and Security Alliance, has threatened to sue over environmental impacts.

Nearby in Big Rapids Township, Supervisor Bill Stanek also was recalled. He, too, supported the factory.

See more here:
Green Township voters remove 5 officials who support Gotion ... - FOX 17 West Michigan News

Published 1:28 pm Friday, November 10, 2023

By Frank S. Ravitch

When Louisiana passed a law in August 2023 requiring public schools to post In God We Trust in every classroom from elementary school to college the author of the bill claimedto be following a long-held tradition of displaying thenational motto, most notably on U.S. currency.

But even under recent Supreme Court precedents, the Louisiana law may violate theestablishment clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from promoting religion. I make this observation as one who has researched andwritten extensively on issues of religionin the public schools.

The Louisiana law specifies that the motto shall be displayed on a poster or framed document that is at least 11 inches by 14 inches. The motto shall be the central focus and shall be printed in a large, easily readable font. The law also states that teachers should instruct students about the phrase as a way of teaching patriotic customs.

Similar bills are being promoted by groups like theCongressional Prayer Caucus Foundation, a nonprofit that supports members of Congress who meet regularly todefend the role of prayer in government. To date, 26 states have considered bills requiring public schools to display the national motto. Seven states, including Louisiana,have passed lawsin this regard.

Recent shift in the law

The Supreme Court has long treated public schools as an area where government-promoted religious messaging is unconstitutional under the First Amendmentsestablishment clause. For example, the Supreme Court held in1962,1963,1992and2000that prayer in public schools is unconstitutional either because it favored or endorsed religion or because it created coercive pressure to religiously conform. In1980, the court also struck down a Kentucky law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in classrooms.

At the same time, the court has protected private religious expression for individual students and teachers in public schools.

The Louisiana law comes at a time ofrising concerns about Christian nationalismand on the heels of a pivotal court case. In the 2022 caseKennedy v. Bremerton School District, the court overturned more than 60 years of precedent when it ruled that a public school football coachs on-field, postgame prayer did not violate the establishment clause. In doing so, the court rejected long-standing legal tests, holding instead that courts should look tohistory and tradition.

The problem with using history and tradition as a broad test is that it can change from one context to the next. People including lawmakers are apt to ignore the negative and troubling lessons of U.S. religious history. Prior to the Kennedy decision, history and tradition were used by a majority of the court to decide establishment clause cases only in specific contexts, such aslegislative prayerandwar memorials.

Now, states like Louisiana are trying to use history and tradition to bring religion into public school classrooms.

A history of In God We Trust

Contrary to what people often assume, the phrase In God We Trust has not always been the national motto. Itfirst appeared on coinsin 1864, during the Civil War, and in the following decades it sparked controversy. In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt urged Congress todrop the phrase from new coins, saying it does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege.

In 1956, amid the Cold War, In God we Trust became the national motto. The phrase first appeared on paper money the next year. It was a time of significant fear about communism and the Soviet Union, and atheism was viewed as part of the communist threat. Atheists weresubject to persecutionduring theRed Scareand afterward.

Since then, the motto has stuck. Over the years,legal challengesattempting to remove the phrase from money have failed. Courts have generally understood the term as a form ofceremonial deism or civic religion, meaning religious practices or expressions that are viewed as being merely customary cultural practices.

The future of the law

Even after the Kennedy ruling, the Louisiana law may still be unconstitutional because students are a captive audience in the classroom. Therefore, the mandate to hang the national motto in classrooms could be interpreted as a form of religious coercion.

But because the law requires a display rather than a religious exercise like school prayer, it may not violate what has come to be known as theindirect coercion test. This test prevents the government from conducting a formal religious exercise that places strong social or peer pressure on students to participate.

The outcome of any constitutional challenge to the Louisiana law is far from clear. Prior cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance offer one example. Though the Supreme Court dismissed on standing grounds theonly establishment clause challenge to the pledgeit has considered, lower courts have held that reciting the pledge in schools is constitutional for a variety of reasons.

These reasons include the idea that it is a form ofceremonial deismand the fact that since 1943 students have beenexempt from having to say the pledgeif it violates their faith to do so.

The Louisiana law, however, requires instruction about the national motto.

If the law is challenged in court and upheld, teachers could teach that the motto was adopted when the nation was emerging fromMcCarthyismand fear of communism was widespread. Moreover, they could teach that many people of faith throughout U.S. history would have viewed this sort of display as against U.S. ideals.

Division is likely

More than two centuries before Roosevelt argued that it was sacrilegious to put In God We Trust on coins, the Puritan minister and Colonist Roger Williams famously proclaimed that forced worship stinks in Gods nostrils. Williams founded the colony of Rhode Island, at least in part, to promote religious freedom.

Additionally, there is no prohibition on alternative designs for the national motto posters as long as the motto is the central focus of the poster. In Texas, a parent donated rainbow-colored In God We Trust signs and others written in Arabic, which were subsequentlyrejected by a local school board. This situation, which gained significant media attention, brought the exclusionary impact of these lawsinto public view.

It could be argued that accepting wall hangings that favor Christocentric viewpoints and rejecting those that reflect other religions or add symbols such as the rainbow isreligious discrimination by government. If so, schools might be required to post alternative motto designs that meet the letter of the new law in order to uphold free speech rights and prevent religious discrimination.

The Louisiana law would have been brazenly unconstitutional just two years ago. But after the Kennedy decision, the law may survive a potential legal challenge. Even if it does, one thing is for certain: It will be divisive.

The Conversationis an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. The Conversation is wholly responsible for the content.

Read the original here:
Louisiana's 'In God We Trust' law tests limits of religion in public ... - American Press

It is not the ambition of Czechast to provide you listeners with news and current affairs analysis on a regular basis. However, I thought it might be useful to give you some background information about this country and its peoples relationship with Israel and the Middle East in general, because its impossible to ignore whats been going on in Israel and the Gaza Strip since October 7th, 2023.

Irena Kalhousov is theDirector of the Herzl Center for Israeli Studies at Charles University in Prague. Among other things, we discuss thatCzechoslovakia was the only country willing to send arms to Israel when it was fighting for its survival in 1948. But as soon as the Communists consolidated their power after the coup d'etat of 1948, they made a ruthless U-turn in the official policy towards the Jewish state.

Irena Kalhousov|Photo: Michal Novotn, Charles University

Irena explainsthe Slnsk trial in 1952, which was a part of the Czechoslovak version of the Stalinist purges and trials in the Soviet Union. Just to explain briefly the context: Rudolf Slnsk who had been the General Secretary of the Communist Party, was arrested as the alleged leader of a conspiracy against Czechoslovakia. He and 13 other co defendants were also accused of Zionism, planning sabotage and it resulted in 14 executions, including Slnsk. Eleven of the executed were Jewish.

In February 1990, literally weeks after the fall of Communism, Czechoslovakia and Israel resumed diplomatic relations. Has it been a kind of smooth sailing ever since? Or were there some disagreements, quarrels? Those are some of the questions that Irena Kalhousov answers in this episode of Czechast.

Continue reading here:
Czechast with Irena Kalhousov, Director of the Herzl Center for ... - Radio Prague International

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada

Zip Code

Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe

Read the original post:
Letter to the editor: We mustn't forget communism's many victims - Bozeman Daily Chronicle