Podcasts about chinese belt

President Trump has been threatening to “take back” the Panama Canal since he regained power. In this episode, listen to testimony from officials serving on the Federal Maritime Commission who explain why the Panama Canal has become a focus of the administration and examine whether or not we need to be concerned about an impending war for control of the canal. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Current Events around the Panama Canal March 5, 2025. the Associated Press. Sabrina Valle, Suzanne McGee, and Michael Martina. March 4, 2025. Reuters. Matt Murphy, Jake Horton and Erwan Rivault. February 14, 2025. BBC. May 1, 2024. World Weather Attribution. World Maritime News Staff. March 15, 2019. World Maritime News. July 29, 2018. Reuters. Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 U.S. Department of State. The Chinese “Belt and Road Initiative” Michele Ruta. March 29, 2018. World Bank Group. The Trump-Gaza Video February 26, 2025. Sky News. Laws Audio Sources Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation January 28, 2025 Witnesses: Louis E. Sola, Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) Daniel B. Maffei, Commissioner, FMC , Professor, Scalia Law School, George Mason University Joseph Kramek, President & CEO, World Shipping Council Clips 17:30 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Between the American construction of the Panama Canal, the French effort to build an isthmus canal, and America's triumphant completion of that canal, the major infrastructure projects across Panama cost more than 35,000 lives. For the final decade of work on the Panama Canal, the United States spent nearly $400 million, equivalent to more than $15 billion today. The Panama Canal proved a truly invaluable asset, sparing both cargo ships and warships the long journey around South America. When President Carter gave it away to Panama, Americans were puzzled, confused, and many outraged. With the passage of time, many have lost sight of the canal's importance, both to national security and to the US economy. 18:45 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): But the Panama Canal was not just given away. President Carter struck a bargain. He made a treaty. And President Trump is making a serious and substantive argument that that treaty is being violated right now. 19:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): President Trump has highlighted two key issues. Number one, the danger of China exploiting or blocking passage through the canal, and number two, the exorbitant costs for transit. 19:20 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Chinese companies are right now building a bridge across the canal at a slow pace, so as to take nearly a decade. And Chinese companies control container points ports at either end. The partially completed bridge gives China the ability to block the canal without warning, and the ports give China ready observation posts to time that action. This situation, I believe, poses acute risks to US national security. 19:50 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Meanwhile, the high fees for canal transit disproportionately affect Americans, because US cargo accounts for nearly three quarters of Canal transits. US Navy vessels pay additional fees that apply only to warships. Canal profits regularly exceed $3 billion. This money comes from both American taxpayers and consumers in the form of higher costs for goods. American tourists aboard cruises, particularly those in the Caribbean Sea, are essentially captive to any fees Panama chooses to levy for canal transits, and they have paid unfair prices for fuel bunkering at terminals in Panama as a result of government granted monopoly. Panama's government relies on these exploitative fees. Nearly 1/10 of its budget is paid for with canal profit. 21:25 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Panama has for years flagged dozens of vessels in the Iranian ghost fleet, which brought Iran tens of billions of dollars in oil profits to fund terror across the world. 21:40 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): And Chinese companies have won contracts, often without fair competition, as the infamous Belt and Road Initiative has come to Panama. China often engages in debt trap diplomacy to enable economic and political coercion. In Panama, it also seems to have exploited simple corruption. 32:40 Louis Sola: The Panama Canal is managed by the Panama Canal Authority, ACP, an independent agency of the Panamanian government. The ACP is a model of public infrastructure management, and its independence has been key to ensure a safe and reliable transit of vessels critical to the US and global commerce. 33:25 Louis Sola: In contrast, the broader maritime sector in Panama, including the nation's ports, water rights, and the world's largest ship registry, falls under the direct purview of the Panamanian government. 33:35 Louis Sola: Unfortunately, this sector has faced persistent challenges, including corruption scandals and foreign influence, particularly from Brazil and China. These issues create friction with the ACP, especially as it works to address long term challenges such as securing adequate water supplies for the canal. 33:55 Louis Sola: Although the ACP operates independently, under US law both the ACP and the government of Panama's maritime sector are considered one in the same. This means that any challenges in Panama's maritime sector, including corruption, lack of transparency, or foreign influence, can have a direct or indirect impact on the operations and long term stability of the canal. This legal perspective highlights the need for diligence in monitoring both the ACP's management and Panama government's policies affecting maritime operations. 34:30 Louis Sola: Since 2015, Chinese companies have increased their presence and influence throughout Panama. Panama became a member of the Belt and Road Initiative and ended its diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Chinese companies have been able to pursue billions of dollars in development contracts in Panama, many of which were projects directly on or adjacent to the Panama Canal. Many were no bid contracts. Labor laws were waived, and the Panamanian people are still waiting to see how they've been benefited. It is all more concerning that many of these companies are state-owned, and in some cases, even designated as linked to the People's Liberation Army. We must address the significant growing presence and influence of China throughout the Americas and in Panama, specifically. 35:20 Louis Sola: American companies should play a leading role in enhancing the canal's infrastructure. By supporting US firms, we reduce reliance on Chinese contractors and promote fair competition. 36:55 Daniel Maffei: Because the canal is essentially a waterway bridge over mountainous terrain above sea level, it does depend on large supplies of fresh water to maintain the full operations. Panama has among the world's largest annual rainfalls. Nonetheless, insufficient fresh water levels have occurred before in the canal's history, such as in the 1930s when the Madden Dam and Lake Alajuela were built to address water shortages. Since that time, the canal has undertaken several projects to accommodate larger, more modern ships. In the last couple of years, a trend of worsening droughts in the region, once again, has forced limits to the operations of the canal. Starting in June of 2023 the Panama Canal Authority employed draft restrictions and reduced the number of ships allowed to transit the canal per day. Now the Panama Canal limitations, in combination with the de facto closure of the Suez Canal to container traffic, has had serious consequences for ocean commerce, increasing rates, fees and transit times. 39:30 Daniel Maffei: Now, fortunately, Panama's 2024 rainy season has, for now, alleviated the most acute water supply issues at the canal, and normal transit volumes have been restored. That said, while the Panamanian government and Canal Authority have, with the advice of the US Army Corps of Engineers, developed credible plans to mitigate future water shortages, they also warned that it is likely that at least one more period of reduced transits will occur before these plans can be fully implemented. 41:55 Eugene Kontorovich: We shall see that under international law, each party to the treaty is entitled to determine for itself whether a violation has occurred. Now, in exchange for the United States ceding control of the canal which it built and maintained, Panama agreed to a special regime of neutrality. The essential features of this regime of neutrality is that the canal must be open to all nations for transit. That's Article Two. Equitable tolls and fees, Article Three. An exclusive Panamanian operation, Article Five. The prohibition of any foreign military presence, Article Five. Article Five provides that only Panama shall operate the canal. Testifying about the meaning of the treaty at the Senate ratification hearings, the Carter administration emphasized that this prohibits foreign operation of the canal, as well as the garrisoning of foreign troops. Now, Article Five appears to be primarily concerned about control by foreign sovereigns. If Panama signed a treaty with the People's Republic of China, whereby the latter would operate the canal on Panama's behalf, this would be a clear violation. But what if Panama contracted for port operations with a Chinese state firm, or even a private firm influenced or controlled in part by the Chinese government? The Suez Canal Company was itself, before being nationalized, a private firm in which the United Kingdom was only a controlling shareholder. Yet this was understood to represent British control over the canal. In other words, a company need not be owned by the government to be in part controlled by the government. So the real question is the degree of de jure or de facto control over a Foreign Sovereign company, and scenarios range from government companies in an authoritarian regime, completely controlled, to purely private firms in our open society like the United States, but there's many possible situations in the middle. The treaty is silent on the question of how much control is too much, and as we'll see, this is one of the many questions committed to the judgment and discretion of each party. Now turning to foreign security forces, the presence of third country troops would manifestly violate Article Five. But this does not mean that anything short of a People's Liberation Army base flying a red flag is permissible. The presence of foreign security forces could violate the regime of neutrality, even if they're not represented in organized and open military formations. Modern warfare has seen belligerent powers seek to evade international legal limitations by disguising their actions in civilian garb, from Russia's notorious little green men to Hamas terrorists hiding in hospitals or disguised as journalists. Bad actors seek to exploit the fact that international treaties focus on sovereign actors. Many of China's man made islands in the South China Sea began as civilian projects before being suddenly militarized. Indeed, this issue was discussed in the Senate ratification hearings over the treaty. Dean Rusk said informal forces would be prohibited under the treaty. Thus the ostensible civilian character of the Chinese presence around the canal does not, in itself, mean that it could not represent a violation of the treaty if, for example, these companies and their employees involved Chinese covert agents or other agents of the Chinese security forces. So this leads us to the final question, Who determines whether neutrality is being threatened or compromised? Unlike many other treaties that provide for third party dispute resolution, the neutrality treaty has no such provision. Instead, the treaty makes clear that each party determines for itself the existence of a violation. Article Four provides that each party is separately authorized to maintain the regime of neutrality, making a separate obligation of each party. The Senate's understanding accompanying to ratification also made clear that Article Five allows each party to take, quote, "unilateral action." Senator Jacob Javits, at the markup hearing, said that while the word unilateral is abrasive, we can quote, "decide that the regime of neutrality is being threatened and then act with whatever means are necessary to keep the canal neutral unilaterally." 46:35 Joseph Kramek: My name is Joe Kramek. I'm President and CEO of the World Shipping Council. The World Shipping Council is the global voice of liner shipping. Our membership consists of 90% of the world's liner shipping tonnage, which are container vessels and vehicle carriers. They operate on fixed schedules to provide our customers with regular service to ship their goods in ports throughout the world. 47:15 Joseph Kramek: As you have heard, using the Panama Canal to transit between the Atlantic and Pacific saves significant time and money. A typical voyage from Asia to the US or East Coast can be made in under 30 days using the canal, while the same journey can take up to 40 days if carriers must take alternate routes. From a commercial trade perspective, the big picture is this. One of the world's busiest trade lanes is the Trans Pacific. The Trans Pacific is cargo coming from and going to Asia via the United States. Focusing in a bit, cargo coming from Asia and bound for US Gulf and East Coast ports always transits the Panama Canal. Similarly, cargo being exported from US and East Coast ports, a large share of which are US Agricultural exports, like soybeans, corn, cotton, livestock and dairy also almost always transits the Panama Canal. The result is that 75% of Canal traffic originates in or is bound for the United States. 48:55 Joseph Kramek: We've talked about the drought in 2023 and the historic low water levels that it caused in Lake Gatún, which feeds the canal locks, a unique system that is a fresh water feed, as contrasted to an ocean to ocean system, which the French tried and failed, but which is actually active in the Suez Canal. These low water levels reduced transits from 36 transits a day to as low as 22 per day. Additionally, the low water levels required a reduction in maximum allowable draft levels, or the depth of the ship below the water line, which for our members reduced the amount of containers they could carry through the canal. This resulted in a 10% reduction in import volumes for US Gulf and East Coast ports, with the Port of Houston experiencing a 26.7% reduction. 51:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Are you aware of allegations from some vessel operators of disparate treatment such as sweetheart deals or favorable rebates by Panama for canal transits? Louis Sola: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman, we have become aware through some complaints by cruise lines that said that they were not getting a refund of their canal tolls. When we looked into this, we found a Panamanian Executive Order, Decree 73, that specifically says that if a cruise line would stop at a certain port, that they could be refunded 100% of the fees. And as far as I know, that's the only instant where that exists. 53:05 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): So Panama was the very first Latin American country to join China's Belt and Road Initiative, and right now, China is building a fourth bridge across the Panama Canal for car traffic and light rail. Chairman Sola, why should Chinese construction of a bridge near Panama City concern the United States? Louis Sola: Mr. Chairman, we all saw the tragedy that happened here in the Francis Scott Key Bridge incident and the devastation that had happened to Baltimore. We also saw recently what happened in the Suez Canal, where we had a ship get stuck in there. It's not only the construction of the bridge, but it's a removal of a bridge, as I understand it, called the Bridge of the Americas. It was built in 1961 and that would paralyze cargo traffic in and out of the canals. 53:55 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Panama also recently renewed the concessions for two container ports to a Chinese company, Hutchison Ports PPC. Of course, Chinese companies are controlled by the Communist Party. How does China use control of those ports for economic gain? Louis Sola: Mr. Chairman, I am a regulator, a competition regulator. And the Chinese ports that you're referring to, let me put them into scope. The one on the Pacific, the Port of Balboa, is roughly the same size as the Port of Houston. They do about 4 million containers a year. They have about 28 game tree cranes. The one on the Atlantic is the same as my hometown in Miami, they do about 1 million containers. So where Roger Gunther in the Port of Houston generates about $1 billion a year and Heidi Webb in Miami does about $200 million, the Panama ports company paid 0 for 20 years on that concession. So it's really hard to compete against zero. So I think that's our concern, our economic concern, that we would have. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Commissioner Maffei, anything to add on that? Daniel Maffei: Yeah, I do too also think it is important. I would point out that you don't have to stop at either port. It's not like these two ports control the entrance to the canal. That is the Canal Authority that does control that. However, I think it's of concern. I would also point out that the Panamanian government thinks it's of concern too, because they're conducting their own audit of those particular deals, but we remain very interested as well. 56:25 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Would the facts discussed here be considered violations of the neutrality treaty in force right now between the United States and Panama? Eugene Kontorovich: So I think Senator, I think potentially they could, but it's impossible to say definitively without knowing more, in particular, about the degree of Chinese control and involvement in these companies. I think it's important to note that these port operation companies that operate the ports on both sides, when they received their first contract, it was just a few months before Hong Kong was handed over to China. In other words, they received them as British companies, sort of very oddly, just a few months before the handover. Now, of course, since then, Hong Kong has been incorporated into China, has been placed under a special national security regime, and the independence of those companies has been greatly abridged, to say nothing of state owned companies involved elsewhere in in the canal area, which raised significantly greater questions. Additionally, I should point out that the understandings between President Carter and Panamanian leader Herrera, which were attached to the treaty and form part of the treaty, provide that the United States can, quote, "defend the canal against any threat to the regime of neutrality," and I understand that as providing some degree of preemptive authority to intervene. One need not wait until the canal is actually closed by some act of sabotage or aggression, which, as we heard from the testimony, would be devastating to the United States, but there is some incipient ability to address potential violations. 58:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): If the United States determines that Panama is in violation of the treaty, what is the range of remedies the United States would have for that treaty violation? Eugene Kontorovich: So I think it may be shocking to people to hear today, but when one goes over the ratification history and the debates and discussions in this body over this treaty, it was clear that the treaty was understood as giving both sides, separately, the right to resort to use armed force to enforce the provisions of the treaty. And it's not so surprising when one understands that the United States made an extraordinary concession to Panama by transferring this canal, which the United States built at great expense and maintained and operated to Panama, gratis. And in exchange, it received a kind of limitation, a permanent limitation on Panamanians sovereignty, that Panama agreed that the United States could enforce this regime of neutrality by force. Now, of course, armed force should never be the first recourse for any kind of international dispute and should not be arrived at sort of rationally or before negotiations and other kinds of good offices are exhausted, but it's quite clear that the treaty contemplates that as a remedy for violations. 1:03:20 Louis Sola: I believe that the security of the canal has always been understood to be provided by the United States. Panama does not have a military, and I always believed that there's been a close relationship with Southern Command that we would provide that. And it would be nice to see if we had a formalization of that in one way or another, because I don't believe that it's in the treaty at all. 1:05:05 Daniel Maffei: While we were down there, both of us heard, I think, several times, that the Panamanians would, the ones we talked to anyway, would welcome US companies coming in and doing a lot of this work. Frankly, their bids are not competitive with the Chinese bids. Frankly, they're not that existent because US companies can make more money doing things other places, but even if they were existent, it is difficult to put competitive bids when the Chinese bids are so heavily subsidized by China. 1:06:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): What would China's incentive be to heavily subsidize those bids to undercut American companies and other companies? Daniel Maffei: Yeah, it's not a real short answer, but Senator, China's made no secret of its ambitious policies to gain influence of ports throughout the globe. It's invested in 129 ports in dozens of countries. It runs a majority of 17 ports, that does not include this Hong Kong company, right? So that's just directly Chinese-owned ports. So it has been a part of their Belt and Road strategy, whatever you want to call it, the Maritime Silk Road, for decades. So they believe that this influence, this investment in owning maritime ports is important to their economy. 1:07:05 Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE): In 2021, Hutchison was awarded those two ports, Port Balboa and Port Cristobal, in a no-bid award process. Can you tell me, does the United States have any authority or recourse with the Panama Canal Authority under our current agreement with Panama to rebid those terminal concession contracts. And perhaps Mr. Kantorovich, that's more in your purview? Louis Sola: Senator, both of those ports were redone for 25 years, until 2047, I believe. And they have to pay $7 million is what the ongoing rate is for the Port of Houston- and the Port of Miami-sized concessions. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE): And it can't be rebid until after that date? Louis Sola: Well, I believe that that's what the comptroller's office is auditing both of those ports and that contract. That was done under the previous Panamanian administration. A new administration came in, and they called for an audit of that contract immediately. 1:20:10 Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Are the companies now controlling both sides of the Panama Canal, the Chinese companies, subject to the PRC national security laws that mandate cooperation with the military, with state intelligence agencies. Does anyone know that? Eugene Kontorovich: They're subject all the time. They're subject to those laws all the time by virtue of being Hong Kong companies. And you know, they face, of course, consequences for not complying with the wishes of the Chinese government. One of the arguments -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Wouldn't that be a violation of the treaty? And isn't that a huge risk to us right now that the Chinese -- Eugene Kontorovich: That is a threat to the neutrality -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): If they invaded Taiwan, invaded the Philippines, they could go to these two companies saying, Hey, shut it down, make it hard, sink a ship in the canal. And wouldn't they be obligated to do that under Chinese law if they were ordered to by the PLA or the CCP? Eugene Kontorovich: I don't know if they'd be obligated, but certainly the People's Republic of China would have many tools of leverage and pressure on these companies. That's why the treaty specifically says that we can act not just to end actual obstructions to the canal. We don't have to wait until the canal is closed by hostile military action. Thatwould be a suicide pact, that would be catastrophic for us, but rather that we can respond at the inchoate, incipient level to threats, and then this is up to the president to determine whether this is significantly robust to constitute -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): So aren't we kind of walking up to the idea of a suicide pact, because we've got two big Chinese companies on both ends of the Panama Canal, who, if there's a war in INDOPACOM, Taiwan that involves us and China, these companies would be obligated to do the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party and PLA? I mean, are we kind of walking up to a very significant national security threat already? Eugene Kontorovich: Yeah, certainly, there's a threat. And I think what makes the action of the Chinese government so difficult to respond to, but important to respond to, is that they conceal this in sort of levels of gray without direct control. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Let me ask you on that topic, as my last question, Professor, let's assume that we find out. And again, it wouldn't be surprising. I think you can almost assume it that these two companies have Chinese spies or military officials within the ranks of the employees of the companies. Let's assume we found that out, somehow that becomes public. But I don't think it's a big assumption. It's probably true right now. So you have spies and military personnel within the ranks of these two companies that are controlling both ends of the Panama Canal for you, Professor, and Chairman Sola, wouldn't that be a blatant violation of Article Five of the neutrality treaty, if that were true, which probably is true? Eugene Kontorovich: Yeah, I do think it would be a clear violation. As former Secretary of State, Dean Ross said at the ratification hearings, informal forces can violate Article Five as well as formal forces. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Is there any evidence of Chinese spies or other nefarious Chinese actors embedded in these companies? Louis Sola: Senator, we have no information of that. That's not under the purview of -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): But you agree that would be a violation of Article Five of the neutrality treaty? Louis Sola: I do. 1:26:25 Daniel Maffei: Senator Sullivan was talking about Hutchison Ports. That's actually the same company that runs terminals on both ends of the canal. I am concerned about that. However, if we want to be concerned about that, all of us should lose a lot more sleep than we're losing because if there are spies there, then there might be spies at other Hutchinson ports, and there are other Hutchinson ports in almost every part of the world. They own the largest container port in the United Kingdom, Felix Dow, which is responsible for nearly half of Britain's container trade. They control major maritime terminals in Argentina, Australia, the Bahamas, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Myanmar, the Netherlands, South Korea and Tanzania. If owning and managing adjacent ports means that China somehow has operational control or strategic control over the Panama Canal, they also have it over the Suez, the Singapore Straits, the Mediterranean Sea and the English Channel. 1:35:45 Louis Sola: The fees that I think we are looking at, or have been looked at, the reason that we went there was because of the auctioning of the slots. And so what Panama did is they had a smaller percentage, maybe 20% allocation, and then they moved it up to 30% and 40% because it became a money maker for them. So as they were doing -- Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): Okay, let me interject here. The auctioning of the slots gives these the right to skip the queue? Louis Sola: Yes, ma'am. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): Okay, so just for the record there. Continue. Louis Sola: So the auctioning of the slots. Under maritime law, it's first come first serve, but Panama has always put a certain percentage aside, and they started to put more and more. So we got a lot of complaints. We got a lot of complaints from LNG carriers that paid $4 million to go through, and we got a lot of complaints from agriculture that didn't have the money to pay to go through, because their goods were gonna go down. So if you look at the financial statements -- I'm a nerd, I look at financial statements of everybody -- the canal increased the amount of revenue that they had from about $500 million to $1.8 billion in the last three years just because of those fees. So this is what is very concerning to us. 1:39:20 Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): Do you know of any instances where the United States has been singled out or treated unfairly under the neutrality treaty in the operation of the canal? Daniel Maffei: I do not. I would add that one of the reasons why saying the US is disproportionately affected by raises in Canal fees and other kinds of fees at the canal is because the United States disproportionately utilizes the canal. 1:44:55 Louis Sola: We have a US port there, SSA, out of Washington State that I actually worked on the development of that many years ago, and helped develop that. That used to be a United States Navy submarine base, and we converted that. As far as the two ports that we have, they're completely different. One is a major infrastructure footprint, and also a container port that's moving 4 million containers a year. That's really phenomenal amount. That's more than Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and you've probably got to get Tampa and a little bit of Jacksonville in there to get that type of volume. And on the other side, we have a very small port, but it's a very strategic port on the Atlantic. So how are the operations done?I don't know how they don't make money. I mean, if you want to come right down to it, if they've been operating the port for 20 years, and they say that they haven't made any money, so they haven't been able to pay the government. That's what concerns me is I don't believe that we're on a level playing field with the American ports. 1:58:50 Eugene Kontorovich: I think the charges and fees are less of an issue because they don't discriminate across countries. We pay more because we use more, but it's not nationally discriminatory. 1:59:00 Eugene Kontorovich: The presence of Chinese companies, especially Chinese state companies, but not limited to them, do raise serious issues and concerns for the neutrality of the treaty. And I should point out, in relation to some of the earlier questioning, the canal, for purposes of the neutrality treaty, is not limited just to the actual locks of the canal and the transit of ships through the canal. According to Annex One, paragraph one of the treaty, it includes also the entrances of the canal and the territorial sea of Panama adjacent to it. So all of the activities we're talking about are within the neutrality regime, the geographic scope of the neutrality regime in the treaty. 2:00:30 Daniel Maffei: I actually have to admit, I'm a little confused as to why some of the senators asking these questions, Senator Blackburn, aren't more concerned about the biggest port in the United Kingdom being run by the Chinese. Petraeus in the port nearest Athens, one of the biggest ports in the Mediterranean, is not just run by a Chinese-linked company, it's run directly by a Chinese-owned company, and I was there. So you're on to something, but if you're just focusing on Panama, that's only part. 2:01:45 Louis Sola: About a year ago, when we were having this drought issue, there was also a lot of focus on Iran and how they were funding Hamas and the Houthis because they were attacking the Red Sea. What the United States has found is that Iranian vessels are sometimes flagged by Panama in order to avoid sanctions, so that they could sell the fuel that they have, and then they can take that money and then they can use it as they wish. Panama, at the time, had a very complicated process to de-flag the vessels. There was an investigation, there was an appeals process. By the time that OFAC or Treasury would go ahead and identify one of those vessels, by the time that they were doing the appeals and stuff like this, they've already changed flags to somewhere else. So when we went to Panama, we met with the Panamanian president, and I must say that we were very impressed, because he was 30 minutes late, but he was breaking relations with Venezuela at the time because the election was the day before. We explained to him the situation. The very next day, we met with the maritime minister, with US embassy personnel and Panama actually adjusted their appeals process so to make it more expedient, so if the United States or OFAC would come and say that this Iranian vessel is avoiding sanctions, now we have a process in place to go ahead and do that, and 53 vessels were de-flagged because of that. 2:06:05 Sen. John Curtis (R-UT): Is there any reason that China can't watch or do whatever they want from this bridge to get the intel from these containers? And does that concern anybody? Louis Sola: Well, it definitely concerns Southern Command, because they've brought it up on numerous occasions that there could be some sort of surveillance or something like that on the bridges. 2:20:30 Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): We segregate ourselves artificially in a way that they do not. We segregate ourselves. Let's talk about military. Let's talk about intelligence. Let's talk about economics. They don't. China doesn't work that way. It's a whole of government approach. They don't draw a delineation between an economics discussion and a military one. And their attack may not look like Pearl Harbor. It may look like an everyday ship that decides, you know, it pulls into the locks and blows itself up. And now the locks are non-functional for our usage, and we can't support an inter ocean fleet transfer, and our ability to defend it, as you referred to Chairman, is now inhibited by the fact that we no longer have the military infrastructure around the canal that we did just as recently as 1999. 2:21:10 Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): So from a commercial perspective, do the shipping companies have concerns over the security of the narrow waterways? We've the Strait to Malacca, we've got the Suez Canal, we've got Gibraltar, we've got Panama. Is that a concern that's thrown around in the boardrooms of the largest shipping corporations in the world? Joseph Kramek: Senator, I think it's something they think about every day. I mean, really, it's drawn into sharp relief with the Red Sea. It was what I call a pink flamingo. There's black swans that just come up and there's pink flamingos that you can see, but you don't act. But no one really thought a whole lot that one of the most important waterways in the world could be denied, and moreover, that it could be denied for such a sustained period. The good news is that -- Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): And denied, I might add, by a disaffected non-state actor of Bedouins running around with rocket launchers, who also managed to beat us in a 20 year war in Afghanistan. My point to saying all this is we're just debating operational control of the canal, yet it seems very clear to all of us that a very simple act can debilitate the canal and eliminate our ability to use it in a matter of minutes with no warning, and we have no ability to intervene or stop that. To me, that means we do not have operational control of the canal. 2:30:40 Daniel Maffei: I will say that certainly we need to look at other kinds of ways to get US companies in positions where they can truly compete with the Chinese on some of these things. Blaming it all on Panama really misses the point. I've seen the same thing in Greece, where Greece didn't want to give the concession of its largest port to a Chinese company, but because of its financial difficulties, it was getting pressure from international organizations such the IMF, Europe and even maybe some of the United States to do so. So I just ask you to look at that. 2:31:20 Daniel Maffei: Panamanians are making far more on their canal than they ever have before. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's going to the right place. But where they're really making the money is on these auctions, and that is why it remains a concern of mine and I'm sure the chairman's. That is where we are looking at, potentially, using our authority under Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act where we could, if we can show that it is a problem with the foreign trade of the US, it's interfering with foreign trade of the US, there are certain things that we can do. Senate Foreign Relations Committee January 15, 2024 Clips 4:01:40 Marco Rubio: The thing with Panama on the canal is not new. I visited there. It was 2016. I think I've consistently seen people express concern about it, and it's encapsulized here in quote after quote. Let me tell you the former US ambassador who served under President Obama said: "the Chinese see in Panama what we saw in Panama throughout the 20th century, a maritime and aviation logistics hub." The immediate past head of Southern Command, General Laura Richardson, said, "I was just in Panama about a month ago and flying along the Panama Canal and looking at the state owned enterprises from the People's Republic of China on each side of the Panama Canal. They look like civilian companies or state owned enterprises that could be used for dual use and could be quickly changed over to a military capability." We see questions that were asked by the ranking member in the house China Select Committee, where he asked a witness and they agreed that in a time of conflict, China could use its presence on both ends of the canal as a choke point against the United States in a conflict situation. So the concerns about Panama have been expressed by people on both sides of the aisle for at least the entire time that I've been in the United States Senate, and they've only accelerated further. And this is a very legitimate issue that we face there. I'm not prepared to answer this question because I haven't looked at the legal research behind it yet, but I'm compelled to suspect that an argument could be made that the terms under which that canal were turned over have been violated. Because while technically, sovereignty over the canal has not been turned over to a foreign power, in reality, a foreign power today possesses, through their companies, which we know are not independent, the ability to turn the canal into a choke point in a moment of conflict. And that is a direct threat to the national interest and security the United States, and is particularly galling given the fact that we paid for it and that 5,000 Americans died making it. That said, Panama is a great partner on a lot of other issues, and I hope we can resolve this issue of the canal and of its security, and also continue to work with them cooperatively on a host of issues we share in common, including what to do with migration. 4:38:35 Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT): Now, President Trump has recently talked a little bit about the fact that there are some questions arising about the status of the Panama Canal. When we look to the treaty at issue, the treaty concerning the permanent neutrality and operation of the Panama Canal, we're reminded that some things maybe aren't quite as they should be there right now. Given that the Chinese now control major ports at the entry and the exit to the canal, it seems appropriate to say that there's at least an open question. There's some doubt as to whether the canal remains neutral. Would you agree with that assessment? Marco Rubio: Yes. Here's the challenge. Number one, I want to be clear about something. The Panamanian government, particularly its current office holders, are very friendly to the United States and very cooperative, and we want that to continue, and I want to bifurcate that from the broader issue of the canal. Now I am not, President Trump is not inventing this. This is something that's existed now for at least a decade. In my service here, I took a trip to Panama in 2017. When on that trip to Panama in 2017 it was the central issue we discussed about the canal, and that is that Chinese companies control port facilities at both ends of the canal, the east and the west, and the concerns among military officials and security officials, including in Panama, at that point, that that could one day be used as a choke point to impede commerce in a moment of conflict. Going back to that I -- earlier before you got here, and I don't want to have to dig through this folder to find it again, but -- basically cited how the immediate past head of Southern Command, just retired general Richardson, said she flew over the canal, looked down and saw those Chinese port facilities, and said Those look like dual use facilities that in a moment of conflict, could be weaponized against us. The bipartisan China commission over in the House last year, had testimony and hearings on this issue, and members of both parties expressed concern. The former ambassador to Panama under President Obama has expressed those concerns. This is a legitimate issue that needs to be confronted. The second point is the one you touched upon, and that is, look, could an argument be made, and I'm not prepared to answer it yet, because it's something we're going to have to study very carefully. But I think I have an inkling of I know where this is going to head. Can an argument be made that the Chinese basically have effective control of the canal anytime they want? Because if they order a Chinese company that controls the ports to shut it down or impede our transit, they will have to do so. There are no independent Chinese companies. They all exist because they've been identified as national champions. They're supported by the Chinese government. And if you don't do what they want, they find a new CEO, and you end up being replaced and removed. So they're under the complete control of their government. This is a legitimate question, and one that Senators Risch had some insight as well. He mentioned that in passing that needs to be looked at. This is not a joke. The Panama Canal issue is a very serious one. 4:44:30 Marco Rubio: In 2016 and 2017 that was well understood that part of the investments they made in Panama were conditioned upon Panama's ability to convince the Dominican Republic and other countries to flip their recognition away from Taiwan. That happened. Jen Briney's Recent Guest Appearances Travis Makes Money: Give and Take: Music by Editing Production Assistance

Al eeuwenlang vinden er uitwisselingen plaats tussen China en Afrika. In de veertiende eeuw voer de Chinese ontdekkingsreiziger Zheng He al naar Oost-Afrika. Er werd ivoor verhandeld, hardhout meegenomen, maar het waren vooral giraffes die grote indruk maakten. Tien jaar terug gaf Xi Jinping het startschot voor de nieuwe Chinese Zijderoute. Al snel werd dit het beruchte Chinese Belt and Road Initiative en inmiddels is ook dit alweer achterhaald. Nu hebben wij het over het Global Development Initiative, maar dan veel meer gericht op Afrika. Zijn deze Chinese initiatieven neokoloniaal of is het juist heel nobel dat zij ook Afrika uit de armoede willen trekken? We hebben het er deze aflevering over met China-deskundige, onderzoeker en publicist Fred Sengers. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/africast/message

Vicki Dillard reports on the State Department admitting of pushing propaganda in Africa against China's Belt & Road program. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/africandiasporanews/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/africandiasporanews/support

This episode of Democracy IRL is a companion piece to Michael Bennon and Francis Fukuyama's essay, "China's Road to Ruin," published in the September/October 2023 issue of Foreign Affairs.Here, Bennon and Fukuyama discuss how bad Chinese Belt and Road projects are, leading to financial crises in developing countries, and how international financial institutions like the IMF and EBRD are being asked to bail out dodgy Chinese loans.Michael Bennon is a Research Scholar at CDDRL for the Global Infrastructure Policy Research Initiative. Michael's research interests include infrastructure policy, project finance, public-private partnerships, and institutional design in the infrastructure sector. Michael also teaches Global Project Finance to graduate students at Stanford. Prior to Stanford, Michael served as a Captain in the US Army and US Army Corps of Engineers for five years, leading Engineer units, managing projects, and planning for infrastructure development in the United States, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Thailand.Democracy IRL is produced by the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL), part of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) at Stanford University.To learn more, visit our website or follow us on social media.

Pakistan would desperately like to produce enough electricity, but it usually doesn't. Despite prioritization by successive governments, targeted reforms shaped by international development actors, and featuring prominently in Chinese Belt and Road investments, the Pakistani power sector continues to stifle economic and social life across the country. Why? In Access to Power: Electricity and the Infrastructural State in Pakistan (Oxford UP, 2022), Ijlal Naqvi explores state capacity in Pakistan by following the material infrastructure of electricity across the provinces and down into cities and homes. Naqvi argues that the national-level challenges of crippling budgetary constraints and power shortages directly result from conscious strategic decisions that are integral to Pakistan's infrastructural state. As he shows, electricity governance in Pakistan reinforces unequal relations of power between provinces and the federal center, contributes to the marginalization of subordinate groups in the city, and cements the patronage-based relationships between Pakistani citizens and the state that have been so detrimental to development progress. Looking through the lens of the electrical power sector, Access to Power reveals how Pakistan actually works, and to whose benefit. Sneha Annavarapu is Assistant Professor of Urban Studies at Yale-NUS College. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Pakistan would desperately like to produce enough electricity, but it usually doesn't. Despite prioritization by successive governments, targeted reforms shaped by international development actors, and featuring prominently in Chinese Belt and Road investments, the Pakistani power sector continues to stifle economic and social life across the country. Why? In Access to Power: Electricity and the Infrastructural State in Pakistan (Oxford UP, 2022), Ijlal Naqvi explores state capacity in Pakistan by following the material infrastructure of electricity across the provinces and down into cities and homes. Naqvi argues that the national-level challenges of crippling budgetary constraints and power shortages directly result from conscious strategic decisions that are integral to Pakistan's infrastructural state. As he shows, electricity governance in Pakistan reinforces unequal relations of power between provinces and the federal center, contributes to the marginalization of subordinate groups in the city, and cements the patronage-based relationships between Pakistani citizens and the state that have been so detrimental to development progress. Looking through the lens of the electrical power sector, Access to Power reveals how Pakistan actually works, and to whose benefit. Sneha Annavarapu is Assistant Professor of Urban Studies at Yale-NUS College. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Pakistan would desperately like to produce enough electricity, but it usually doesn't. Despite prioritization by successive governments, targeted reforms shaped by international development actors, and featuring prominently in Chinese Belt and Road investments, the Pakistani power sector continues to stifle economic and social life across the country. Why? In Access to Power: Electricity and the Infrastructural State in Pakistan (Oxford UP, 2022), Ijlal Naqvi explores state capacity in Pakistan by following the material infrastructure of electricity across the provinces and down into cities and homes. Naqvi argues that the national-level challenges of crippling budgetary constraints and power shortages directly result from conscious strategic decisions that are integral to Pakistan's infrastructural state. As he shows, electricity governance in Pakistan reinforces unequal relations of power between provinces and the federal center, contributes to the marginalization of subordinate groups in the city, and cements the patronage-based relationships between Pakistani citizens and the state that have been so detrimental to development progress. Looking through the lens of the electrical power sector, Access to Power reveals how Pakistan actually works, and to whose benefit. Sneha Annavarapu is Assistant Professor of Urban Studies at Yale-NUS College. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Pakistan would desperately like to produce enough electricity, but it usually doesn't. Despite prioritization by successive governments, targeted reforms shaped by international development actors, and featuring prominently in Chinese Belt and Road investments, the Pakistani power sector continues to stifle economic and social life across the country. Why? In Access to Power: Electricity and the Infrastructural State in Pakistan (Oxford UP, 2022), Ijlal Naqvi explores state capacity in Pakistan by following the material infrastructure of electricity across the provinces and down into cities and homes. Naqvi argues that the national-level challenges of crippling budgetary constraints and power shortages directly result from conscious strategic decisions that are integral to Pakistan's infrastructural state. As he shows, electricity governance in Pakistan reinforces unequal relations of power between provinces and the federal center, contributes to the marginalization of subordinate groups in the city, and cements the patronage-based relationships between Pakistani citizens and the state that have been so detrimental to development progress. Looking through the lens of the electrical power sector, Access to Power reveals how Pakistan actually works, and to whose benefit. Sneha Annavarapu is Assistant Professor of Urban Studies at Yale-NUS College. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/south-asian-studies

Pakistan would desperately like to produce enough electricity, but it usually doesn't. Despite prioritization by successive governments, targeted reforms shaped by international development actors, and featuring prominently in Chinese Belt and Road investments, the Pakistani power sector continues to stifle economic and social life across the country. Why? In Access to Power: Electricity and the Infrastructural State in Pakistan (Oxford UP, 2022), Ijlal Naqvi explores state capacity in Pakistan by following the material infrastructure of electricity across the provinces and down into cities and homes. Naqvi argues that the national-level challenges of crippling budgetary constraints and power shortages directly result from conscious strategic decisions that are integral to Pakistan's infrastructural state. As he shows, electricity governance in Pakistan reinforces unequal relations of power between provinces and the federal center, contributes to the marginalization of subordinate groups in the city, and cements the patronage-based relationships between Pakistani citizens and the state that have been so detrimental to development progress. Looking through the lens of the electrical power sector, Access to Power reveals how Pakistan actually works, and to whose benefit. Sneha Annavarapu is Assistant Professor of Urban Studies at Yale-NUS College. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

Pakistan would desperately like to produce enough electricity, but it usually doesn't. Despite prioritization by successive governments, targeted reforms shaped by international development actors, and featuring prominently in Chinese Belt and Road investments, the Pakistani power sector continues to stifle economic and social life across the country. Why? In Access to Power: Electricity and the Infrastructural State in Pakistan (Oxford UP, 2022), Ijlal Naqvi explores state capacity in Pakistan by following the material infrastructure of electricity across the provinces and down into cities and homes. Naqvi argues that the national-level challenges of crippling budgetary constraints and power shortages directly result from conscious strategic decisions that are integral to Pakistan's infrastructural state. As he shows, electricity governance in Pakistan reinforces unequal relations of power between provinces and the federal center, contributes to the marginalization of subordinate groups in the city, and cements the patronage-based relationships between Pakistani citizens and the state that have been so detrimental to development progress. Looking through the lens of the electrical power sector, Access to Power reveals how Pakistan actually works, and to whose benefit. Sneha Annavarapu is Assistant Professor of Urban Studies at Yale-NUS College. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

Pakistan would desperately like to produce enough electricity, but it usually doesn't. Despite prioritization by successive governments, targeted reforms shaped by international development actors, and featuring prominently in Chinese Belt and Road investments, the Pakistani power sector continues to stifle economic and social life across the country. Why? In Access to Power: Electricity and the Infrastructural State in Pakistan (Oxford UP, 2022), Ijlal Naqvi explores state capacity in Pakistan by following the material infrastructure of electricity across the provinces and down into cities and homes. Naqvi argues that the national-level challenges of crippling budgetary constraints and power shortages directly result from conscious strategic decisions that are integral to Pakistan's infrastructural state. As he shows, electricity governance in Pakistan reinforces unequal relations of power between provinces and the federal center, contributes to the marginalization of subordinate groups in the city, and cements the patronage-based relationships between Pakistani citizens and the state that have been so detrimental to development progress. Looking through the lens of the electrical power sector, Access to Power reveals how Pakistan actually works, and to whose benefit. Sneha Annavarapu is Assistant Professor of Urban Studies at Yale-NUS College. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Pakistan would desperately like to produce enough electricity, but it usually doesn't. Despite prioritization by successive governments, targeted reforms shaped by international development actors, and featuring prominently in Chinese Belt and Road investments, the Pakistani power sector continues to stifle economic and social life across the country. Why? In Access to Power: Electricity and the Infrastructural State in Pakistan (Oxford UP, 2022), Ijlal Naqvi explores state capacity in Pakistan by following the material infrastructure of electricity across the provinces and down into cities and homes. Naqvi argues that the national-level challenges of crippling budgetary constraints and power shortages directly result from conscious strategic decisions that are integral to Pakistan's infrastructural state. As he shows, electricity governance in Pakistan reinforces unequal relations of power between provinces and the federal center, contributes to the marginalization of subordinate groups in the city, and cements the patronage-based relationships between Pakistani citizens and the state that have been so detrimental to development progress. Looking through the lens of the electrical power sector, Access to Power reveals how Pakistan actually works, and to whose benefit. Sneha Annavarapu is Assistant Professor of Urban Studies at Yale-NUS College.

In this episode of TishTalk, I speak with Andrew Lawton. Andrew is a journalist for True North and also hosts the The Andrew Lawton show. He recently wrote the bestselling book "The Freedom Convoy-The Inside story of three weeks that shook the world". We discuss the state of affairs in Canada today where many families cannot afford food or the cost of rising gas and energy payments. We cover his visit to Davos recently to cover the WEF meeting and his opinions on how they influence Canadian MPs, the bigger threats to democracy with censorship and why most Conservative MPs are not speaking out against Agenda 2030 and the 17 sustainability goals which largely mirror the Marxist Manifesto in Klaus Swabb's Great Reset book. We cover the Chinese Belt and Road initiative and how Canada can fuel economic growth with similar "national building" infrastructure projects along with many other topics.

Beijing now plays a crucial part in the global supply chain, and with it, the global CO2 output. However, even though China only recently reached this level of industrialisation, climate change is hitting them at the same time as everywhere else. These changes in the environment are pushing China to fish in potentially war-starting waters, dam potentially drought-causing rivers, and force the state to attempt to achieve 60 years of energy development in the space of 5. Can they do it, or will China collapse under its own weight? On the panel this week: - Lou Munden (Mission Climate Project) - Kevin Rudd (Fmr Prime Minister of Australia) - Erin Sikorsky (Cnt for Climate and Security) - Erik Solheim (President of the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative) This is Part 2 of our special 5-Part Series focusing on The Geopolitics of Climate Change This Production was Brought to you by The Red Line and Mission Climate Project Follow the show on @TheRedLinePod Follow Michael on @MikeHilliardAus Follow TMP on @Mission2020s For more info visit - www.theredlinepodcast.com

China is at war with us: Stay alert – stay alive, because a bullet to the brain isn't the worst part of war. 00:00 – Sam's introduction for WEDNESDAY JUNE 29, 2022   00:29 – Sam, Chuck & Tom – Show Hosts – 9 min – Open up by laughing along with Lauren Boebert.   09:44 – Louie Gohmert – Republican Representative TX-01 – 11 min – Louis disclosed that former chief of staff for Mike Meadows Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony was hearsay. He said that her description of the supposed incident in the motorcade on January 6th would be nearly impossible to accomplish because of the configuration of the vehicle. He said either she lied about his supposed request for a pardon, or the Democrats on the committee made up that lie. He is demanding the release of the full deposition and transcript of Cassidy Hutchinson's deposition.   36:06 – Col. Steve Bucci – Heritage Foundation – 13 min – Steve talks about the slaughter of civilians in Kremenchuk shopping mall and the fact that it is a war crime, but common tactic of the Russians. He revealed that he is proficient at Greek, Albanian, Arabic, Swahili, Serbo-Croatian, and German. But he said the languages themselves are not enough.  You need to know the culture that goes along with it. Those skills are essential for military operations overseas because you either work with allies, or you fight them as enemies. 33:39 – Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis – Author of "Alliances of Evil" – 8 min – Bob said the Russians in Ukraine are acting like they always do – If they are not winning, or not winning as fast as their leadership wants, they use terror tactics.  He said both Russia and China are waging war via multiple avenues, cyber, economic, political, information, etc., calling it unrestricted warfare. The Chinese Belt and Road initiative has captured large parts of the world in Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America.  Biden needs to wake up before China owns the world. 00:00 -- CloseSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Title: Nicaragua-Renewable Energy Preserves National Sovereignty & Economic DevelopmentToday, we have the privilege of conversing with the Executive President of the Nicaragua Electrical Energy Company (ENEL), Ernesto Martinez Tiffer.Nicaragua is the leader in the Hemisphere of the Americas on renewable energy and has been for almost a decade. In this episode, we talk about the continuation of this program and the further development of renewable energy in Nicaragua. We also discuss Nicaragua's partnership with the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative to assist energy infrastructure development in the country as well.In partnership with Friends of Latin America, Massachusetts Peace Action and Task Force on the Americas, original broadcasts of WTF is Going on in Latin America & the Caribbean can be viewed every Wednesday at 4:30pm PT/7:30pm ET on CODEPINK YouTube Live

Who are the Wa of Myanmar and how, in three decades, have they built a force that is now the largest non-state military actor in Asia-Pacific? How does China's economic, political, and military support for the Wa factor into the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative? What role might the Wa play in the unfolding political crisis in the wake of the February 1, 2021 coup in Myanmar, and Covid-19 pandemic? In this episode, Bertil Lintner discusses these topics and more, related to his recent book The Wa of Myanmar and China's Quest For Global Dominance from NIAS Press (2021). Bertil is Swedish journalist who has lived permanently in Thailand since 1979. He is a full-time correspondent for Asia Pacific Media Services and writes regularly for Asia Times, The Irrawaddy and other publications. He has written 20 books on Asian politics and history. The Nordic Asia Podcast is a collaboration sharing expertise on Asia across the Nordic region, brought to you by the Nordic Institute of Asian Studies (NIAS) based at the University of Copenhagen, along with our academic partners: the Centre for East Asian Studies at the University of Turku, Asianettverket at the University of Oslo, and the Stockholm Centre for Global Asia at Stockholm University. We aim to produce timely, topical and well-edited discussions of new research and developments about Asia. Transcripts of the Nordic Asia Podcasts: http://www.nias.ku.dk/nordic-asia-podcast

Who are the Wa of Myanmar and how, in three decades, have they built a force that is now the largest non-state military actor in Asia-Pacific? How does China's economic, political, and military support for the Wa factor into the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative? What role might the Wa play in the unfolding political crisis in the wake of the February 1, 2021 coup in Myanmar, and Covid-19 pandemic? In this episode, Bertil Lintner discusses these topics and more, related to his recent book The Wa of Myanmar and China's Quest For Global Dominance from NIAS Press (2021). Bertil is Swedish journalist who has lived permanently in Thailand since 1979. He is a full-time correspondent for Asia Pacific Media Services and writes regularly for Asia Times, The Irrawaddy and other publications. He has written 20 books on Asian politics and history. The Nordic Asia Podcast is a collaboration sharing expertise on Asia across the Nordic region, brought to you by the Nordic Institute of Asian Studies (NIAS) based at the University of Copenhagen, along with our academic partners: the Centre for East Asian Studies at the University of Turku, Asianettverket at the University of Oslo, and the Stockholm Centre for Global Asia at Stockholm University. We aim to produce timely, topical and well-edited discussions of new research and developments about Asia. Transcripts of the Nordic Asia Podcasts: http://www.nias.ku.dk/nordic-asia-podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/southeast-asian-studies

Who are the Wa of Myanmar and how, in three decades, have they built a force that is now the largest non-state military actor in Asia-Pacific? How does China's economic, political, and military support for the Wa factor into the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative? What role might the Wa play in the unfolding political crisis in the wake of the February 1, 2021 coup in Myanmar, and Covid-19 pandemic? In this episode, Bertil Lintner discusses these topics and more, related to his recent book The Wa of Myanmar and China's Quest For Global Dominance from NIAS Press (2021). Bertil is Swedish journalist who has lived permanently in Thailand since 1979. He is a full-time correspondent for Asia Pacific Media Services and writes regularly for Asia Times, The Irrawaddy and other publications. He has written 20 books on Asian politics and history. The Nordic Asia Podcast is a collaboration sharing expertise on Asia across the Nordic region, brought to you by the Nordic Institute of Asian Studies (NIAS) based at the University of Copenhagen, along with our academic partners: the Centre for East Asian Studies at the University of Turku, Asianettverket at the University of Oslo, and the Stockholm Centre for Global Asia at Stockholm University. We aim to produce timely, topical and well-edited discussions of new research and developments about Asia. Transcripts of the Nordic Asia Podcasts: http://www.nias.ku.dk/nordic-asia-podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/chinese-studies

Who are the Wa of Myanmar and how, in three decades, have they built a force that is now the largest non-state military actor in Asia-Pacific? How does China's economic, political, and military support for the Wa factor into the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative? What role might the Wa play in the unfolding political crisis in the wake of the February 1, 2021 coup in Myanmar, and Covid-19 pandemic? In this episode, Bertil Lintner discusses these topics and more, related to his recent book The Wa of Myanmar and China's Quest For Global Dominance from NIAS Press (2021). Bertil is Swedish journalist who has lived permanently in Thailand since 1979. He is a full-time correspondent for Asia Pacific Media Services and writes regularly for Asia Times, The Irrawaddy and other publications. He has written 20 books on Asian politics and history. The Nordic Asia Podcast is a collaboration sharing expertise on Asia across the Nordic region, brought to you by the Nordic Institute of Asian Studies (NIAS) based at the University of Copenhagen, along with our academic partners: the Centre for East Asian Studies at the University of Turku, Asianettverket at the University of Oslo, and the Stockholm Centre for Global Asia at Stockholm University. We aim to produce timely, topical and well-edited discussions of new research and developments about Asia. Transcripts of the Nordic Asia Podcasts: http://www.nias.ku.dk/nordic-asia-podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Who are the Wa of Myanmar and how, in three decades, have they built a force that is now the largest non-state military actor in Asia-Pacific? How does China's economic, political, and military support for the Wa factor into the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative? What role might the Wa play in the unfolding political crisis in the wake of the February 1, 2021 coup in Myanmar, and Covid-19 pandemic? In this episode, Bertil Lintner discusses these topics and more, related to his recent book The Wa of Myanmar and China's Quest For Global Dominance from NIAS Press (2021). Bertil is Swedish journalist who has lived permanently in Thailand since 1979. He is a full-time correspondent for Asia Pacific Media Services and writes regularly for Asia Times, The Irrawaddy and other publications. He has written 20 books on Asian politics and history. The Nordic Asia Podcast is a collaboration sharing expertise on Asia across the Nordic region, brought to you by the Nordic Institute of Asian Studies (NIAS) based at the University of Copenhagen, along with our academic partners: the Centre for East Asian Studies at the University of Turku, Asianettverket at the University of Oslo, and the Stockholm Centre for Global Asia at Stockholm University. We aim to produce timely, topical and well-edited discussions of new research and developments about Asia. Transcripts of the Nordic Asia Podcasts: http://www.nias.ku.dk/nordic-asia-podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

This week on the New World Next Week: Banks around the world are suffering IT-related disruptions; the Chinese Belt and Road is debt-trap diplomacy; and old Yellen is looking to get the IRS' mitts on every over $600. The Corbett Report corbettreport.com Video/Audio Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-LD51Ucbbc Video Upload Date: Oct. 7, 2021 Message from KQWANO: Greetings! I invest in crypto and Hex! I simply document some of my favorite happenings in the world of Hex.com and Pulsechain.com. I am always learning but also found it difficult to access good Hex content on the podcast platforms. I also don't expect to get anything off of the work of others. If you by any chance are the owner and wish me to remove any content, please email Kqwano@protonmail.com Connect: Twitter: @kqwano IG: @kqwano7 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kqwano/message

Banks around the world are suffering IT-related disruptions; the Chinese Belt and Road is debt-trap diplomacy; and old Yellen is looking to get the IRS' mitts on every over $600.

Banks around the world are suffering IT-related disruptions; the Chinese Belt and Road is debt-trap diplomacy; and old Yellen is looking to get the IRS' mitts on every over $600.

Dr. Marina Kaneti specialises in questions of global development, including the Chinese Belt and Road initiative, environmental governance, human rights, the sustainable development goals and for the purpose of this discussion – migration. I started by asking her what made her interested in migration in the first place. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

1. Pakistan bus blast kills Chinese BRI workers 2. Influencer posts false claims about Cuba protests 3. U.S. FCC program to remove Chinese equipment 4. 67 Falun Gong practitioners die amid persecution 5. Insider exposes China's prison organ industry

Chinese spy ship spotted near allied war games; Pakistan bus blast kills Chinese "Belt and Road" workers

Chinese spy ship spotted near allied war games; Pakistan bus blast kills Chinese "Belt and Road" workers

1. Pakistan bus blast kills Chinese BRI workers 2. Influencer posts false claims about Cuba protests 3. U.S. FCC program to remove Chinese equipment 4. 67 Falun Gong practitioners die amid persecution 5. Insider exposes China's prison organ industry

A senior Australian security bureaucrat warned his staff that free nations "again hear the beating drums" of war, as military tensions rise in the Asia-Pacific region.Department of Home Affairs Secretary Mike Pezzullo's message to all department staff on Australia's veterans' day on Sunday, known as Anzac Day, was published in The Australian newspaper on Tuesday."In a world of perpetual tension and dread, the drums of war beat – sometimes faintly and distantly, and at other times more loudly and ever closer," Pezzullo said."Today, as free nations again hear the beating drums and watch worryingly the militarisation of issues that we had, until recent years, thought unlikely to be catalysts for war, let us continue to search unceasingly for the chance for peace while bracing again, yet again, for the curse of war," he added.Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews said she had approved of the wording of Pezzullo's message."He is absolutely at liberty to prepare such a speech, a document, and to have that published," Andrews said. "The overarching message from government is that we need to be alert but not alarmed."Senior opposition Labor Party lawmaker Bill Shorten described Pezzullo's reference to "drums of war" as "pretty hyperexcited language.""I'm not sure our senior public servants should be using that language because I'm not sure what that actually helps except to cause more anxiety," Shorten said.Defense Minister Peter Dutton raised the prospect of conflict between China and Taiwan in his own comments on Anzac Day."Nobody wants to see conflict between China and Taiwan or anywhere else in the world," Dutton said. "I don't think it should be discounted."In response to Dutton's remarks, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said on Monday that Taiwan was part of Chinese internal affairs that do not tolerate external interference."It's hoped that the Australian side will fully recognize that the Taiwan question is highly sensitive, abide by the one-China principle, be prudent in its words and deeds, avoid sending any wrong signals to the Taiwan independence separatist forces and act in ways beneficial to peace and stability," Wang said.Western Australia state Premier Mark McGowan — the Labor government leader of the state that exports Australia's most lucrative export, iron ore, to China — called on the federal government to "tone down" its language on military tensions."I just urge the Commonwealth (government) and people in this position, elected and otherwise, to tone it down. Tone it down," McGowan told reporters, referring to Pezzullo's "drums of war" reference."What good does that do, saying things like that? It's totally unnecessary," McGowan said, adding that diplomacy should be conducted "diplomatically."Pezzullo noted that this year marks the 70th anniversary of Australia's defense treaty with the United States. He cited U.S. wartime generals Douglas MacArthur and President Dwight Eisenhower."Let us remember the warnings of two American generals who had known war waged totally and brutally: we must search always for the chance for peace amidst the curse of war, until we are faced with the only prudent, if sorrowful, course — to send off, yet again, our warriors to fight the nation's wars," he said.Australia must reduce the likelihood of war, "but not at the cost of our precious freedom," Pezzullo said.Australia last week provoked an angry response from Beijing by cancelling two Chinese Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure deals with the Victoria state government on national interest grounds.The Chinese Embassy in Australia said in a statement the decision would "bring further damage to bilateral relations and will only end up hurting" Australia.

China is the largest source of development assistance and investment in Cambodia and Laos. Both governments maintain close relations with China, where its presence is more marked than anywhere else in Southeast Asia. The region is one of the primary targets for the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), with one main line running from Kunming, China to Vientiane, Laos to connect Chinese markets to Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and Myanmar.Your host:  Nico Luchsinger, Co-Executive Director, Asia Society SwitzerlandModerator: Denise Staubli, Program Officer, Asia Society SwitzerlandSpeaker: Sebastian Strangio, Southeast Asia Editor, The Diplomat  Production: Denise Staubli, Program Officer, Asia Society SwitzerlandSources:Asia Society Switzerland Mini-Conference The Giant Next Door – China In Southeast Asia, The Case of Cambodia and Laos, November 10, 2020  Asia Society Switzerland Mini-Conference The Giant Next Door – China In Southeast Asia, keynote presentation by Sebastian Strangio, November 10, 2020In the Dragon's Shadow: Southeast Asia in the Chinese Century, by Sebastian Strangio, 2020 Asia Society Switzerland Webcast Can Laos Cope With Chinese Megaprojects? with Jessica diCarlo and Susanne Schmeier, May 13, 2020

"Flyblown with Communist Maggots" Hosts: Darren Weeks, Vicky Davis, Melodee Hallet Vicky's Websites: https://thetechnocratictyranny.com and http://channelingreality.com Melodee's Website: http://givemesometruth.info COMPLETE SHOW NOTES AND CREDITS AT: https://governamerica.com/radio/radio-archives/22406-govern-america-march-27-2021-flyblown-with-communist-maggots Listen LIVE every Saturday at 11AM Eastern Daylight time at http://live.governamerica.com Text GOVERN to 80123 to be notified of live broadcasts and special reports that occur outside of our regularly-scheduled Saturday broadcasts. These transmissions are moved when circumstances warrant. If you received any value from this podcast, please consider helping us cover the costs of bringing it to you by going to https://governamerica.com/donate ON THIS SHOW: Analysis and commentary as multiple, high profile shooting stories develop. Joe Biden finally delivers his first press conference, which raises more questions than it answers. Expansion of the mysterious Denver International Airport. Masks and testing swabs a part of the depopulation agenda? Chinese Belt and Road Initiative is a move toward total world dominance for the CCP. War scenarios: China, Taiwan, and the Biden administration. Would Blinken blink? No winners in a global conflict. Making our enemies stronger through self-flagellation. Water, the Law of the Sea, dam removal, saving the salmon, destroying the food supply, and more.

"Flyblown with Communist Maggots" Hosts: Darren Weeks, Vicky Davis, Melodee Hallet Vicky's Websites: https://thetechnocratictyranny.com and http://channelingreality.com Melodee's Website: http://givemesometruth.info COMPLETE SHOW NOTES AND CREDITS AT: https://governamerica.com/radio/radio-archives/22406-govern-america-march-27-2021-flyblown-with-communist-maggots Listen LIVE every Saturday at 11AM Eastern Daylight time at http://live.governamerica.com Text GOVERN to 80123 to be notified of live broadcasts and special reports that occur outside of our regularly-scheduled Saturday broadcasts. These transmissions are moved when circumstances warrant. If you received any value from this podcast, please consider helping us cover the costs of bringing it to you by going to https://governamerica.com/donate ON THIS SHOW: Analysis and commentary as multiple, high profile shooting stories develop. Joe Biden finally delivers his first press conference, which raises more questions than it answers. Expansion of the mysterious Denver International Airport. Masks and testing swabs a part of the depopulation agenda? Chinese Belt and Road Initiative is a move toward total world dominance for the CCP. War scenarios: China, Taiwan, and the Biden administration. Would Blinken blink? No winners in a global conflict. Making our enemies stronger through self-flagellation. Water, the Law of the Sea, dam removal, saving the salmon, destroying the food supply, and more.

There is no doubt that the COVID-19 pandemic is going to wreak havoc politically, economically, and socially on the continent of Africa. The pandemic came at a time in which Africa was starting to see political and social change. It also came at a time when the Chinese Belt and Road initiative was starting to place Africa into a Chinese sphere of influence. Now, South Africa is accepting unprecedented loans from the IMF and there are growing issues with China’s large projects in the region. In this episode, Drew and Alex touch on the future of Chinese investment in Africa, a shared African currency, the problems with the IMF and World Bank, and a potential African unification. 

STA's Luke Patterson and Michael Smith host an educational and informative show focused on helping listeners build and maintain their personal wealth.

Ideology is a hell of a drug. The communist government of China has found an unlikely defender in the pseudonymous Alt-Right personality Eric Striker, who recently joined the WHO, the NBA, NBC/Universal, and a whole chorus of far-left media talking heads who are all going waaaaay out of their way to defend the honor of the Chinese. In a recent article, he calls it an "unfounded conspiracy theory" to suggest that the Chinese manufactured the Wu Flu -- even though the bats from which it came aren't native to the area where the outbreak first occurred, and even though there are viral research facilities within walking distance of Wuhan's wet markets. Hailing them as "potential liberators" of the entire Asian continent, Striker claims that the Chinese Belt and Road initiative (BRI) will undermine the powers of American finance based in Washington and New York. The BRI will certainly undermine the Federal Reserve and the dollar's de facto status as the international unit of exchange, sure. But will it "liberate" China's neighbors (or anyone, for that matter) from the influence of global finance, or will it simply transfer the seat of global government from the United States to China? I'm going to explore the question and critique Striker's recent article on the subject. This is EPISODE 407 of So to Speak w/ Jared Howe!

The Stephenson Ocean Security Project invites you to the second annual CSIS Ocean Security Forum on January 7, 2020. The annual forum highlights how marine resources disputes, exacerbated by climate change and ecosystem collapse, drive instability in key regions of the globe. This year’s event will feature keynotes from U.S. Coast Guard leadership and key members of Congress and will highlight opportunities to improve security and human rights in the global fishing industry. Speakers will explore two themes: Opportunities to address human rights violations in the seafood supply chain through U.S. policy, emerging technologies, and corporate accountability. Implications of Chinese Belt and Road Initiative port investments on ocean sustainability and on the security and sovereignty of developing coastal states. Please follow us on Twitter @CSISOceans   Phil Stephenson, Founder, The Philip Stephenson Foundation Dr. Whit Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean Security Project, CSIS Dr. Dyhia Belhabib, Principal Investigator, Fisheries, Ecotrust Canada Jonathan Hillman, Senior Fellow, Simon Chair in Political Economy, and Director, Reconnecting Asia Project, CSIS Philip Chou, Senior Advisor, Oceana Ernesto Fernandez Monge, Officer, Reducing Harmful Fisheries Subsidies, Pew Charitable Trusts Moderator: Tabitha Mallory, Affiliate Professor, University of Washington, and CEO, China Ocean Institute Roberta Elias, Director of Policy and Government Affairs, World Wildlife Fund Bradley Soule, Chief Fisheries Analyst, OceanMind Jenny Barker, Chief of Party, Seafood Alliance for Legality and Traceability, FishWise Amol Mehra, Managing Director, The Freedom Fund Moderator: Dr. Whit Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean Security Project, CSIS Vice Admiral Daniel B. Abel, Deputy Commandant for Operations, U.S. Coast Guard Dr. Whit Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean Security Project, CSIS This event is made possible with the generous support of the Philip Stephenson Foundation.

The Stephenson Ocean Security Project invites you to the second annual CSIS Ocean Security Forum on January 7, 2020. The annual forum highlights how marine resources disputes, exacerbated by climate change and ecosystem collapse, drive instability in key regions of the globe. This year’s event will feature keynotes from U.S. Coast Guard leadership and key members of Congress and will highlight opportunities to improve security and human rights in the global fishing industry. Speakers will explore two themes: Opportunities to address human rights violations in the seafood supply chain through U.S. policy, emerging technologies, and corporate accountability. Implications of Chinese Belt and Road Initiative port investments on ocean sustainability and on the security and sovereignty of developing coastal states. Please follow us on Twitter @CSISOceans   Phil Stephenson, Founder, The Philip Stephenson Foundation Dr. Whit Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean Security Project, CSIS Dr. Dyhia Belhabib, Principal Investigator, Fisheries, Ecotrust Canada Jonathan Hillman, Senior Fellow, Simon Chair in Political Economy, and Director, Reconnecting Asia Project, CSIS Philip Chou, Senior Advisor, Oceana Ernesto Fernandez Monge, Officer, Reducing Harmful Fisheries Subsidies, Pew Charitable Trusts Moderator: Tabitha Mallory, Affiliate Professor, University of Washington, and CEO, China Ocean Institute Roberta Elias, Director of Policy and Government Affairs, World Wildlife Fund Bradley Soule, Chief Fisheries Analyst, OceanMind Jenny Barker, Chief of Party, Seafood Alliance for Legality and Traceability, FishWise Amol Mehra, Managing Director, The Freedom Fund Moderator: Dr. Whit Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean Security Project, CSIS Vice Admiral Daniel B. Abel, Deputy Commandant for Operations, U.S. Coast Guard Dr. Whit Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean Security Project, CSIS This event is made possible with the generous support of the Philip Stephenson Foundation.

The Stephenson Ocean Security Project invites you to the second annual CSIS Ocean Security Forum on January 7, 2020. The annual forum highlights how marine resources disputes, exacerbated by climate change and ecosystem collapse, drive instability in key regions of the globe. This year’s event will feature keynotes from U.S. Coast Guard leadership and key members of Congress and will highlight opportunities to improve security and human rights in the global fishing industry. Speakers will explore two themes: Opportunities to address human rights violations in the seafood supply chain through U.S. policy, emerging technologies, and corporate accountability. Implications of Chinese Belt and Road Initiative port investments on ocean sustainability and on the security and sovereignty of developing coastal states. Please follow us on Twitter @CSISOceans   Phil Stephenson, Founder, The Philip Stephenson Foundation Dr. Whit Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean Security Project, CSIS Dr. Dyhia Belhabib, Principal Investigator, Fisheries, Ecotrust Canada Jonathan Hillman, Senior Fellow, Simon Chair in Political Economy, and Director, Reconnecting Asia Project, CSIS Philip Chou, Senior Advisor, Oceana Ernesto Fernandez Monge, Officer, Reducing Harmful Fisheries Subsidies, Pew Charitable Trusts Moderator: Tabitha Mallory, Affiliate Professor, University of Washington, and CEO, China Ocean Institute Roberta Elias, Director of Policy and Government Affairs, World Wildlife Fund Bradley Soule, Chief Fisheries Analyst, OceanMind Jenny Barker, Chief of Party, Seafood Alliance for Legality and Traceability, FishWise Amol Mehra, Managing Director, The Freedom Fund Moderator: Dr. Whit Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean Security Project, CSIS Vice Admiral Daniel B. Abel, Deputy Commandant for Operations, U.S. Coast Guard Dr. Whit Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean Security Project, CSIS This event is made possible with the generous support of the Philip Stephenson Foundation.

The Stephenson Ocean Security Project invites you to the second annual CSIS Ocean Security Forum on January 7, 2020. The annual forum highlights how marine resources disputes, exacerbated by climate change and ecosystem collapse, drive instability in key regions of the globe. This year’s event will feature keynotes from U.S. Coast Guard leadership and key members of Congress and will highlight opportunities to improve security and human rights in the global fishing industry. Speakers will explore two themes: Opportunities to address human rights violations in the seafood supply chain through U.S. policy, emerging technologies, and corporate accountability. Implications of Chinese Belt and Road Initiative port investments on ocean sustainability and on the security and sovereignty of developing coastal states. Please follow us on Twitter @CSISOceans   Phil Stephenson, Founder, The Philip Stephenson Foundation Dr. Whit Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean Security Project, CSIS Dr. Dyhia Belhabib, Principal Investigator, Fisheries, Ecotrust Canada Jonathan Hillman, Senior Fellow, Simon Chair in Political Economy, and Director, Reconnecting Asia Project, CSIS Philip Chou, Senior Advisor, Oceana Ernesto Fernandez Monge, Officer, Reducing Harmful Fisheries Subsidies, Pew Charitable Trusts Moderator: Tabitha Mallory, Affiliate Professor, University of Washington, and CEO, China Ocean Institute Roberta Elias, Director of Policy and Government Affairs, World Wildlife Fund Bradley Soule, Chief Fisheries Analyst, OceanMind Jenny Barker, Chief of Party, Seafood Alliance for Legality and Traceability, FishWise Amol Mehra, Managing Director, The Freedom Fund Moderator: Dr. Whit Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean Security Project, CSIS Vice Admiral Daniel B. Abel, Deputy Commandant for Operations, U.S. Coast Guard Dr. Whit Saumweber, Director, Stephenson Ocean Security Project, CSIS This event is made possible with the generous support of the Philip Stephenson Foundation.

Welcome to Finance and Fury, The Furious Friday Edition Last ep – lead up to the market crash of 1929 - and how thanks to central bank leveraging once removed – the market crashed Today – want to run through the internal political wars that were created – similar landscape to today Corporatism versus fascism – Private central banks versus the merging of the Government with Markets Has similarities to the modern era – with The New Silk Road and the Green New Deal   Start - The Living Hell that was the Great Depression Throughout the Great depression - unemployment skyrocketed to 25%, industrial capacity collapsed by 70%, and agricultural prices collapsed far below the cost of production accelerating foreclosures and suicide. Life savings were lost as 4000 banks failed. This despair was replicated across USA, Canada, Europe and Britain - the population was pushed to its limits making western countries highly susceptible to fascism and socialism/ communism ideals England saw the rise of Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists in 1932 Britain, Australia and Canada had its own fascist/socialist solution with the Rhodes Scholar “Fabian Society” and League of Social Reconstruction (which later took over the Liberal Party in Canada and Labour part in Aus) calling for the “scientific management of society” Mosley Fascists were more smash and grab power while Fabians were slow and steady In America as well - Time magazine was telling people that corporate fascism was the economic solution to all of America’s economic woes – 6 times in 1932 Was a wild political time - Communist parties, Nazi party – mass protests, rioting, damaging buildings and assaulting people – while not on the same scale - climate activist demonstrations today are acting out their perceived disenfranchisement – in the 30s it was real (living through the great depression) – while one is manufactured (world ending in 12 years) But With civil unrest came the atmosphere that one of the least understood battles unfolded in 1933.   Brings us to a political movement that isn’t really ever talked about - is another entity in the control sphere – never really gets talked about – could and have talked about commies, nazis, socialists, etc. – go check those eps out – but today want to narrow in on one type and its variants https://financeandfury.com.au/give-the-people-what-they-want-socialism-for-the-masses-the-human-economy/ https://financeandfury.com.au/cannibalism-nazism-and-property-rights/ https://financeandfury.com.au/furious-fridays-evil-capitalism-efficiencies-incentives-equal-opportunities-and-reducing-poverty/ Fascist/Corporatocracy versus the fascist/socialist – in this case – Central banks versus Roosevelt Corporatocracy is used to refer to an economic and political system controlled by corporations or corporate interests – an ideology which advocates the organisation of society by corporate groups In this case – the type of Corporatocracy is that of the financial system in the form of Central Banks and BIS (IMF in 1944 to try and solve this mess by more of what created it in the first place – very similar to today) But if you think about it – they both essentially want the same thing – complete control over individuals - just who is in charge is different   Let’s look at 1932 and how the Bankers’ Dictatorship Attempt went down – plans to overthrow FDR Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) won the presidency in America – He was described by many as a fascist – he was an authoritarian – but I would say he was more socialist – using the Government as his tool to implement his ‘New Deal’ Ideas were based off John Maynard Keynes – One of the engineers of the Versailles treaty talked about last Friday Keynes advocated the planning of a nation's economic life, political supervision of private industry, and manipulation of the currency – all of which required a massive increase in the size and scope of government at the time – today is a given but wasn’t back then Every Authoritarian loved this idea though – in Britain - first enthusiastic review by economist, Marxist and a founding member of the Fabian Society - G. Cole In America were government officials in Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration - The greatest strides in American socialism occurred under Franklin D. Roosevelt or arguably Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson But to pull these ideas off Roosevelt - threatened to regulate the private banks and assert national sovereignty over finance This would have been bad for the FED and the private owners of the central banks – would destroy their plans for global fascism – control of the monetary supply So the City of London Corporation needed a new global system controlled by their Central Banks Don’t let a good crisis go to waste - their objective was to use the Great Depression as an excuse to remove nation-states from any power over monetary policy – putting it in their hands and not national governments December 1932 - economic conference “to stabilize the world economy” was organized by the League of Nations under the guidance of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and Bank of England.  Remember - The BIS was set up as “the Central Bank of Central Banks” in 1930 in order to facilitate WWI debt repayments and was a vital instrument for funding Nazi Germany- long after WWII began. Bank of England was privately owned at that stage - Independent Central Banks as enforcers of “balanced global budgets” City of London with the Bankers organised the London Economic Conference Brought together 64 nations where a resolution passedby the Conference’s Monetary Committee stated: “The conference considers it to be essential, in order to provide an international gold standard with the necessary mechanism for satisfactory working, that independent Central Banks, with requisite powers and freedom to carry out an appropriate currency and credit policy, should be created in such developed countries as have not at present an adequate central banking institution. The Bank of International Settlements should play an increasingly important part not only by improving contact, but also as an instrument for common action.” Essentially – this was to deprive nation states of their power to generate and direct credit for their own development. FDR wanting control over the economy shut down the London Conference – Back in America - an assassination attempt on Roosevelt was thwarted on February 15, 1933 Gun knocked out of the hand of an anarchist-freemason in Miami resulting in the death of Chicago’s Mayor instead – But without FDR being killed – he still was in opposition - hence London conference met an insurmountable barrier FDR recognised the necessity for a new international system, but he wanted it to be controlled by Governments and not central banks After this the London Conference crumbled - FDR stated “The United States seeks the kind of dollar which a generation hence will have the same purchasing and debt paying power as the dollar value we hope to attain in the near future.” These words seem foreign in the Fiat currency of today – but the Brits drafted a statement - “the American statement on stabilization rendered it entirely useless to continue the London conference.” Around the same time - FDR’s War on Wall Street – in his inaugural speech on March 4th: “The money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization. The measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit”. Hence FDR declared a war on Wall Street on several levels, beginning with his support of the Pecora Commission which sent thousands of bankers to prison - exposed criminal activities of the top tier of Wall Street’s power structure who manipulated the depression, buying political offices and pushing fascism Pecora called this out - stating “this small group of highly placed financiers, controlling the very springs of economic activity, holds more real power than any similar group in the United States.” Pecora’s highly publicised success empowered FDR to impose sweeping regulation in the form of 1) Glass-Steagall bank separation (one Clinton overturned), 2) bankruptcy re-organisation (remove investment banks from the control of the corporate reorganisation process by eliminating the equity receivership technique and put Government in charge) and 3) the creation of the Security Exchange Commission to oversee Wall Street. FDR disempowered the London-controlled FED by installing his own man as Chair - forced it to obey Government commands for the first time since 1913 with Wilson Had the plan to get the US out of the economic slump through the New Deal – Four million people were given immediate work, and hundreds of libraries, schools, and hospitals were built and staffed From 1933-1939, 45 000 infrastructure projects were built – similar to Climate infrastructure plans and the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative today - But he needed money - So what did he do? Created a new lending mechanism outside of Fed control called the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) which became the number one lender to infrastructure in America throughout the 1930s – Similar to today with Climate funds – with the proposal of this to lend for infrastructure to help get out of the Depression This provided an alternative option between the central banks on Gold Standard and his own Government lending (RFC) – He needed to be able to create money out of thin air to pay for his New Deal program – hard under the Gold Standard This was done as he abolished the gold standard – remember GS constricted the money supply to an exchange of gold per paper dollar – limited how much he could spend on his public works – look at the history of Government spending to GDP from 30s Also – GS could be manipulated by the Central Banks – making it a financial weapon rather than a bonus to the system – Devaluations became a beggar thy neighbour policy – drop you currency peg to gold and you are more competitive due to lower cross exchange rates – France and Britain post WW1 and leading up to the depression – France was the last mover and lost badly in economic output Also – Gold Standard had no inflation – Central Banks with limited inflation can lead to a world where the commodity prices below the costs of production – so inflation was needed for producers to become solvent Gold standard held that back – inflation of money supply was capped by gold supply – would accumulate through surplus of trade increasing money supply – FDR imposed protective tariffs to favour agro-industrial recovery on all fronts ending years of rapacious free trade – Sound familiar? FDR stated his political-economic philosophy in 1934: “the old notion of the bankers on the one side and the government on the other side, as being more or less equal and independent units, has passed away. Government by the necessity of things must be the leader, must be the judge, of the conflicting interests of all groups in the community, including bankers.” See – it is a policy war between Central Bankers and Governments over control of us all – resources determine our lives – any number of resources – power, food, water, shelter, or money to buy these things – this is all a resource One does it monetarily/financially – the other does it on the physical resources and financially Government – controls taxes, charges, regulations on land, employment, what you can and can’t do – every part of your life Like any war – both sides fight back – as such wall Street set out to destroy the New Deal Example, JP Morgan asset - Lewis Douglass (U.S. Budget Director) forced the closure of the Civil Works Administration in 1934 resulting in the firing of all 4 million workers. 1931 - NY bank loans to the real economy amounted to $38.1 billion which dropped to only $20.3 billion by 1935. Remember – they were positioned to the crash - had 29% of their funds in US bonds and securities in 1929 but rose to 58% by early 30s - cut off the issue of productive credit to the real economy – i.e. business lending over speculation Bankers not limited to financial sabotage – there was Coup Attempt in America – which was Thwarted amidst the conspiracy – Attempted a fascist military coup which was exposed by Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler in his congressional testimony of November 20, 1934 – Same person who wrote the War is a Racket book detailing those who influence nations to start wars profit from them Butler had testified that the plan was begun in the Summer of 1933 and organized by Wall Street financiers who tried to use him as a puppet dictator leading 500,000 American Legion members to storm the White House. As Butler spoke, those same financiers had just set up an anti-New Deal organization called the American Liberty League which fought to keep America out of the war in defence of an Anglo-Nazi fascist global government which they wished to partner with – America was divided in this time period – lots of immigrants in USA were German At the time of the incidents, news media dismissed the plot, with a New York Times editorial characterising it as a "gigantic hoax" Truth is probably close to the middle – wasn’t a hoax but a real plot that was in the ‘testing the waters’ phase – As historians questioned whether or not a coup was actually close to execution, but most agree that some sort of plot was contemplated and discussed – how close to execution is unknown – conspiracy definition Coup thwarted - 1937 - FDR’s Treasury Secretary persuaded him to cancel public works – see if the economy “could stand on its own two feet” – at the same time Bankers pulled credit out of the economy collapsing – Two million jobs were lost and the Dow Jones lost 39% of its value - Industrial production index dropped from 110 to 85 erasing seven years’ worth of gain Steel fell from 80% capacity back to depression levels of 19%. This was no different from kicking the crutches out from a patient in rehabilitation and it was not lost on anyone that those doing the kicking were openly supporting Fascism or Nazis in Europe - remember Prescott Bush, then representing Brown Brothers Harriman was found guilty for trading with the enemy in 1942 – as he bailed out the bankrupt Nazi party But after FDRs death – Bankers got back on top – from 1944 once the IMF was established and the BIS got back in control – 1 year later FDR dies in office and things took off Next week – Finish with the world Today – Similarities taken from these episodes and apply to current political, financial and social environments Hopefully, you found this interesting - Thanks for listening today. If you want to get in contact you can do so here: http://financeandfury.com.au/contact  

I discuss in more detail what countries are signing on to the Chinese Belt And Road Initiative, and we look at funding and some potential benefits and downsides to developing countries --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/tstuch/support

Harley Schlanger, www.LaRouchePAC.com, Need for US Belt and Road to Prevent War, Turn Up Trump Trade Talk Volume, Turn Down Media Pence Pompeo Bolton War Call Volumes, Trump Trilateral Nuclear Arms Treaty Deal, End to Maduro as Negotiated Vote for Regimen Change, NO Invasion Force, NO Bay of Pigs Type Mistake by Trump, Russian Nukes Out of Venezuela with Treaty Trade, China Special Forces Out of Venezuela but Trade with South America is OK, Dr Bill Deagle MD AAEM ACAM A4M, NutriMedical Report Show, www.NutriMedical.com, www.ClayandIRON.com, www.Deagle-Network.com,NutriMedical Report Show, TIME FOR LAROUCHE’S IDEAS ABOUT “INFRASTRUCTURE” TO SHAPE ECONOMIC/POLITICAL BATTLESby: Harley SchlangerMay 3 — At a moment of utmost insanity in Washington, D.C., in which some crazed Democrats, including presidential candidates, are calling for the impeachment of President Trump, a rather interesting meeting occurred in the White House on April 30. Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, and Charles Schumer, the minority leader in the Senate, emerged from a discussion with Trump, on rebuilding America’s infrastructure, expressing optimism over the potential to work together.“We’re very excited about the conversation we had with the President,” Pelosi said. “We have the opportunity to work together in a bipartisan way.” Schumer said there was “good will in this meeting,” in contrast to several previous brawls between Trump and Democratic Party leaders. He said he was somewhat surprised that Trump agreed that a larger-than-anticipated sum of $2 trillion is needed as a minimum, to begin fixing the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure, and announced there would be a follow-up meeting in three weeks, to discuss how to pay for the plan.Trump, for his part, evinced enthusiasm, saying “I want to do something.” Delaware Democratic Senator Carper said Trump told them, “I have responsibility to lead…and I’m prepared to do so.” One point of agreement was the rejection of the public-private partnership (PPP) model, promoted by Wall Street speculators, to fund profit-making boondoggles rather than deploying federal funds in new, state-of-the-art projects. This has been a problem in the past, as many Republicans oppose any use of federal funds for infrastructure, while many Wall Street-connected Democrats go along with PPP under the fraudulent economic theory of “pay as you go.” Trump recently stated that he never agreed with the PPP model, saying the proposal came from former White House economic adviser Gary Cohn. Trump said he always thought that proposal “was so stupid”.While Pelosi was the one who proposed the meeting, it is noteworthy that Trump had called on Democratic leaders after the November 2018 midterm elections to join him in solving problems, rather than “harassing” him, with multiple hearings into “Russiagate”, and digging into his personal business and finances. Pelosi sent a signal, following the release of the Mueller report, which cleared Trump of charges that he “colluded” with Putin in “rigging” the 2016 election, saying that impeachment should not be on the agenda, acknowledging there was important work to be done. While she remains quite outspoken against the Trump presidency, she has stated that making impeachment the issue not only undermines the possibility of making progress through bipartisan cooperation on issues such as infrastructure, but may backfire, by creating an image of Trump as a victim of unjustified attacks. Further, she recognizes that putting enormous effort into an impeachment campaign will hand Trump an easy campaign issue, allowing him to say, While I was out fighting for your interests, the Democrats continued the witch hunt against me!DEM JACOBINS STICK TO IMPEACHMENTThe May 1 hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee highlighted a real split within the Democratic Party, as leading Senators ignored Pelosi’s appeal to back off from impeachment. Both Senate and House Democrats are insisting on relitigating the Mueller investigation, with a new focus on removing Attorney General William Barr. They are accusing Barr of “acting as Trump’s lawyer” in his handling of the Mueller report. There are now demands circulating that Barr resign, or be charged with “lying to Congress”, based on charges that he has “misrepresented” the Mueller report. A number of Democratic presidential candidates have called for Trump to be impeached and removed from office, led by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. While former Vice President Joe Biden, who entered the race last week, has not explicitly called for impeachment, his announcement centered on a vicious attack against Trump as an “aberration” in the White House.The focus on impeachment reflects the ongoing failure and inability of the party to address the concerns facing the American people, which are primarily related to the deteriorating state of the nation’s economy, and the growing disparity between rich and poor. Senator Bernie Sanders, who currently is polling a close second to Biden in the race for the Democratic nomination, called the focus on impeachment a “distraction.” Sanders is by no means “soft” on Trump, but recognizes that Trump will be a formidable opponent in 2020, especially if the Democrats have nothing to offer except demanding his impeachment.In an attempt to come up with an issue, many Democrats rallied around the mindless radicalism of freshman Representative Ocasio Cortez, and her foolish “Green New Deal.” Promoting radical anti-growth policies, which would threaten massive population reduction if they were to be implemented, the Green New Dealers have drawn significant opposition even from some Democrats, including union officials, who recognize that the policy would destroy what is left of American manufacturing and advanced agriculture.It is unfortunate for the Democrats — and for the nation — that the party is still controlled by the Obama-Hillary Clinton-Wall Street faction, which sided with London in pushing the anti-Russia line against Trump. During the Bush and Obama presidencies, the Democrats joined the Republicans as the party of war and regime change, and its leaders continue to favor the interests of the global financial cartels over those of working and middle-class Americans. Trump won the votes of many former Democrats and Independents with his campaign against the never-ending wars of the neo-cons, and with his pledge to engage in cooperative dialogue with Russia and China, rather than reckless provocations, designed to defend the collapsing post-Cold War order. For example, when Trump announced his intent to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, many Democrats joined with Republicans in voting for a non-binding resolution, opposing that move.THE REAL BIPARTISAN SOLUTIONThe potential for bipartisan collaboration on developing new platforms of infrastructure is hampered not only by the continuing yapping about impeachment, but by the lack of overall competence of all involved, when it comes to answering the question of how to pay for it. The Chinese Belt-and-Road Initiative provides a beautiful example of how to overcome neo-liberal ideology, which demands no new debt — even while supporting a bankrupt financial system drowning in uncollectible debt, by producing new debt to rollover the bad debt! By investing in what LaRouche identified as “physical economy”, with an emphasis on science driver projects, the debt problem is solved by the increase in real wealth production, stimulated by a system of national credit.LaRouche often made presentations on the “Hamiltonian principle” of national credit, generated by a National Bank, rather than a private, central bank system, in his approach to ending the global domination by the City of London-directed global monetary system. One example of this was a December 7, 2012 webcast, “No to the Green Policy: Revive Our Credit System.” LaRouche opened by insisting again that Glass-Steagall banking regulation, which had been repealed by an alliance of neo-liberals in both parties in 1999, must be restored, to protect the needed, honest part of the banking system. He went on to specify, “However,… Glass-Steagall is indispensable, but it does not contain a cure. It contains a preventive of gambling, and it is necessary. But here’s where the problem comes in: We’re going to be operating, not on the basis of the present system. That is, if the United States is going to survive: if the U.S. economy is not going to disintegrate entirely, what’s going to have to happen, relatively immediately, now, is the installation of a creditsystem as the basis of actually creating the growth of the U.S. economy. That is, an inflation-free form of growth, or hyperinflation-free form of growth, as the matter is now.”To clarify this, he added, “Credit does not lie in letting money sit in a bank; it must {do} something. It must change its character; it must be more {efficient}; or it must be more {enriching}. It means technological progress; it means higher rates of energy-flux density, which is an essential part of this.People are more skilled; they do a job which is a more skilled job; they produce more value with the same amount of nominal labor. That’s the system. {We must generate growth}. We must increase the productive power of labor. We must advance technology–absolutely. We must increase the energy-flux density flowing through the entire system.“So all the myths which Republicans and Democrats alike believe in, with a kind of religious fervor, or, shall we say, Satanic passion, are {wrong}. The generation of credit, as {real} credit, occurs {only} by the increase of the productive powers of labor, as measured in {physical} terms. This means physical terms in the sense that people doing the same thing do it more efficiently, or do it at a higher technology.”As LaRouche noted, such a system could be brought into being by a Four Power alliance, with the U.S. joining Russia, China and India to implement it, as a “New Bretton Woods” system. A step in this direction would be for the U.S. to become a full participant in China’s BRI global development project. Despite all the nonsense directed against President Trump, there have been times when his statements, especially about cooperation with Russia and China, have verged toward LaRouche’s idea. This is precisely why the financial elite behind the collapsing system deployed their attack dogs in the intelligence agencies and media to prevent Trump from moving in this direction, through impeachment if necessary.If Pelosi and Schumer are serious about cooperating with Trump through investing in infrastructure, they must take up LaRouche’s ideas, and move against the Jacobins in their party, who are fixated on impeaching Trump and destroying the U.S. through radical anti-science, anti-growth policies. This is not about an “electoral” strategy for 2020, but about the very survival of the United States.END For information regarding your data privacy, visit Acast.com/privacy See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche opens this class series celebrating Lyndon LaRouche’s life and the continuation of his mission. The matter before everyone today is the lesson Mr. LaRouche demonstrated with his life's work: one person can change history. The most powerful force in history is not weapons, money, or armies, it is ideas. Today, the fruits of his organizing, alongside many colleagues, and his wife, are seen in the potential for international collaboration exemplified by the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative.

With Jorge Valero, EU Correspondent J. Valero reviews the talks between the EU and China on trade, multilateralism, climate change and other matters. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative raises the question of a common response to “systemic” challenges.

In this episode of our series Rethinking Asia, we spoke with Frederic Neumann, Managing Director and Co-Head of Asian Economics Research at HSBC. Currently based in Hong Kong, Fred previously taught graduate level courses at schools in the United States and holds a Ph.D. in International Economics and Asian Studies from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. Fred guided us through the complex economic dynamics at play between China and ASEAN members.  We learned why intra-Asian trade is expected to increase as more trade agreements are signed within Asia, and how China’s Belt and Road infrastructure investment can best help Southeast Asian economies. Some of our main takeaways from our exchange with Fred include: An earlier period of fierce competition between China and Southeast Asia has given way to an era of greater complementarity with many areas of mutual benefit in the region including increased trade and tourism and integrated supply chains. However, as many ASEAN economies now have lower average wage costs than China, supply chains are diversifying into Southeast Asia and increasing intra-Asian trade. U.S. reluctance to join the two major multilateral trade agreements in Asia is accelerating regionalization, or regional engagement and integration fueled by greater economic codependence within Asia. Chinese Belt and Road investment in Southeast Asia can alleviate domestic constraints in engineering know-how and capital availability to improve infrastructure and link markets, particularly if it steers clear of prestige projects. A rapidly aging Northeast Asia will raise labor costs and domestic savings, thus paving the way for more foreign investment to flow into relatively younger Southeast Asian economies. Across Southeast Asia, macroeconomic fundamentals remain sound overall; however, current account deficits in Indonesia and the Philippines appear most vulnerability to global threats. The views expressed are not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or of the Federal Reserve System.

Russia’s inward and outward investment includes the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, according to speakers at a first seminar of its kind in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is seen as Russia’s B&R investment connector. The Chinese mainland’s largest private equity player also rates Hong Kong as a “comfort zone” while underlining Russia’s investment importance.

In this episode of The Sound of Economics, we focus on trade relations between the EU and China. We asked Alicia Garcia Herrero, Senior Fellow at Bruegel, where relations between China and the EU stand at the moment, and why their trade relations are so important. Currently the US seems more interested in the Pacific than its Atlantic alliance. Does this situation leave any room for the EU and China to get closer? We asked Pascal Lamy, former General Director- of the World Trade Organisation. Lawrence Lau, Professor of Economics at the University of Hong Kong, told us why he believes that both China and the EU can benefit from closer relations. We spoke with Jianwei Xu, Visiting Scholar at Bruegel, about the effects of Brexit on the EU-China relations: what would happen if the UK strikes a free trade agreement with China before the EU does? Finally we discussed the Chinese Belt and Road initiative, which aims to reduce transportation costs between China and the EU. We asked professor Lau what this initiative entails, and Alicia shared her opinion on potential opportunities and dangers that the initiative can bring to Europe. SPEAKERS Alicia Garcia Herrero, Senior Fellow, Bruegel Pascal Lamy, former General Director, World Trade Organisation Lawrence Lau, Professor of Economics, University of Hong Kong Jianwei Xu, Visiting Fellow, Bruegel CREDITS Presented and produced by Vanessa Cotterell and Giuseppe Porcaro