Diplomacy & Crisis News

Peter Suciu

Aircraft Carriers, World

The entire concept isn't flawed though.

Here’s What You Need to Remember: Aircraft carriers on the water are protected by destroyers and submarines, and unless similar craft could be built to fly alongside this "mother ship" it couldn't be properly protected. Even with such screening aircraft, it isn't too hard to see how a missile or just a "kamikaze" could all too easily take out such a craft.

In theory, it probably seems like a perfect solution, a carrier that can fly over land and water and become a floating base in the sky. It is unlikely however that such a weapon platform would, or even could be constructed. Forgetting the fact that the scale of such a craft would likely bankrupt a small nation, it would require a construction facility to be purpose-built just to handle the project, and much of the technology to keep it afloat remains well beyond reality.

However, the concept of an aircraft carrier in the sky has been something military thinkers have considered but in far less high-tech ways than movie magic allows.

The U.S. Navy was actually the first to pioneer the concept of a flying carrier, and it began construction of two rigid airships, the USS Macon and the USS Akron, in the late 1920s. Neither of these airships had a runway, but instead, each carried five lightweight Curtiss F9C Sparrowhawk biplane fighters that could be launched and recovered through a hook system that lowered them into the airstream.

The airships had some advantages. They were twice as fast as surface ships of the era, could fly over land and could see much further over the horizon than any surface ship. But each also had some serious disadvantages, the biggest being that bad weather made the airships difficult to control and essentially grounded them. Tragically both airships suffered notable accidents—in April 1933, USS Akron crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of New Jersey killing seventy-three out of seventy-six personnel on board; while two years later USS Macon suffered a less serious crash, which killed two of its eighty-three crew and passengers.

The United States Air Force considered a flying carrier concept during the Cold War, but it was far less ambitious and involved a Republic F-84 "parasite" fighter that could be launched from the belly of a B-36 Peacemaker nuclear bomber for reconnaissance operations. This was followed by a slightly more ambitious plan that would transform the interior of a Boeing 747-200 into a hanger in the sky for a dozen or so small jet fighters that could be launched and recovered. This one never went further than the planning stage. While the Flight Dynamics Laboratory claimed it was possible –how possible or practical remains the issue.

All of these concepts were seriously flawed and were really attempts to find a solution for a problem that didn't exist. To put it bluntly, there is no reason to develop a flying aircraft carrier because there simply is no need for a flying aircraft carrier. Long-range bombers can reach any point on the globe already, and a flying aircraft carrier would be a flying target.

Aircraft carriers on the water are protected by destroyers and submarines, and unless similar craft could be built to fly alongside this "mother ship" it couldn't be properly protected. Even with such screening aircraft, it isn't too hard to see how a missile or just a "kamikaze" could all too easily take out such a craft.

This doesn't mean the entire concept is flawed though.

A more realistic solution might be one conceived by defense contractor Dynetics, with support from DARPA. It involved launching an X-61A Gremlin Air Vehicle—an unmanned drone—from a C-130 Hercules that could be used in a variety of missions including reconnaissance but it isn't too hard to see how it could be utilized in a combat role as well.

The ability to launch and recover a drone at least offers the very practical ability to send a drone to regions not otherwise readily accessible. But for now, the flying aircraft carrier is best left in comic books and the movies.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He is the author of several books on military headgear including A Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.

This article first appeared in 2020 and is being reprinted for reader interest.

Image: Flickr

Charlie Gao

T-80,

But how do Korean tankers think the T-80U stacks up against the Korean tanks, which were designed with a more Western philosophy?

Here's What You Need to Remember: The lack of modernization due to the foreign nature of the parts for the tank and lack of will to “domesticize” a foreign design impeded the T-80U from being fully embraced by the South Korean military. As a result, nowadays Korean tankers don’t find the T-80U to be favorable, as it’s still a relic. But it is one that served admirably, and even contributed to the K2 Black Panther project when it was in its infancy.

One of the great ironies of the military balance in the Koreas is the fact that South Korea operates more advanced Russian tanks than North Korea. This situation came about in the 1990s after Russia inherited a $1.5 billion debt to South Korea. A deal was made: Russia would give many items of then top-of-the-line military equipment, in exchange for South Korea canceling 50 percent of Russia’s debt. Interestingly, this included the T-80U Main Battle Tank. Nowadays, South Korea fields three “modern” main battle tanks, the T-80U and the indigenous K1 and K2. But how do Korean tankers think the T-80U stacks up against the Korean tanks, which were designed with a more Western philosophy?

In a pure technical comparison, the T-80U lags behind the K1A1 and K1A2. The T-80U has been kept in a relatively stock configuration, while the K1A1 and K2 have been receiving upgrades from the Korean defense industry. While the T-80U has a Day/Night panoramic commander’s sight in the PNK-4S, the K1A1 and K2 both have thermal commander sights. The Korean defense industry puts out the modern M279 APFSDS round for the 120-millimeter cannons of the K1A1 and the K2, but the T-80U is still using imported Russian ammunition. The K2 also has many features that the T-80U doesn’t have, being one of the newest MBTs in the world.

The reliability of the T-80U also doesn’t gain it favors in South Korean service. Reports state that the T-80U’s reliability isn’t the best, although it is better than the BMP-3. Although some T-80U parts, such as the tracks, are produced in South Korea, the majority of parts must be ordered from abroad. The cost of ordering replacement parts from Russia has been steadily increasing over the years (with the cost of some parts doubling or tripling from 1996 to 2006), so many in the South Korean government are considering getting rid of the T-80U to cut maintenance costs.

Not all is bad, though. Koreans do report some advantages over the K1A1 and K2 domestic tanks. The T-80U’s engine has better acceleration performance and is lighter than the domestic tanks due to its turbine nature. Unfortunately, this also makes it consume more fuel. The reduced weight compared to domestic also allows it to be more nimble in the mountains of Korea.

Soldiers who crewed the T-80U generally didn’t have nice things to say about it. The more cramped internal design compared to the K1A1 and K2 could seem claustrophobic, and in gunnery, the T-80U was found to underperform the domestic tanks, both in accuracy and in reload speed.

However, one must take into account the time period in which these criticisms were made. Most soldiers who made these comments compared the T-80U to the K1A1, which only started seeing service in 2001. Compared to the original K1 tank which was Korea’s most advanced tank at the time, the T-80U possessed far more advantages, packing a 125-millimeter gun to the K1’s 105-millimeter, as well as better advanced armor technology. The T-80U was the most advanced tank on the Korean Peninsula when they first arrived. The lack of modernization due to the foreign nature of the parts for the tank and lack of will to “domesticize” a foreign design impeded the T-80U from being fully embraced by the South Korean military. As a result, nowadays Korean tankers don’t find the T-80U to be favorable, as it’s still a relic. But it is one that served admirably, and even contributed to the K2 Black Panther project when it was in its infancy.

Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national-security issues.

This article first appeared in 2019 and is being reposted due to reader interest. 

Image: Reuters

David Axe

Great Power Competition, Asia

It would be funny if it wasn't such a dangerous idea.

Here's What You Need to Remember: Cancian ignores the possibility that China might retaliate against American privateering by issuing letters of marque to its own seafarers. 

China has a 9,000-mile coastline and, by one recent count, the world’s second-largest merchant fleet after Greece’s. Thousands of ships in all.

So how could the United States even hope to blockade China and starve its economy during a major war?

One retired U.S. Marine has an idea, and it’s not a good one. Privateers.

“Privateering, authorized by letters of marque, could offer a low-cost tool to enhance deterrence in peacetime and gain an advantage in wartime,” Mark Cancian proposed in an article in Proceedings, the professional journal of the U.S. Naval Institute.

“In wartime, privateers could swarm the oceans and destroy the maritime industry on which China’s economy—and the stability of its regime—depend. The mere threat of such a campaign might strengthen deterrence and thereby prevent a war from happening at all.”

Never mind that, in deploying privateers, the United States might invite privateering along its own shores.

Privateers, in essence, are pirates, albeit pirates with official state sponsorship. In past centuries, governments often authorized, via “letters of marque,” private seafarers to arm themselves and attack rivals’ merchant ships.

The privateers kept the spoils. The sponsoring government benefited from the economic hit its enemy took from each seizure.

Modern privateering “would attack an asymmetric vulnerability of China, which has a much larger merchant fleet than the United States,” Cancian wrote. “Indeed, an attack on Chinese global trade would undermine China’s entire economy and threaten the regime’s stability. Finally, despite pervasive myths to the contrary, U.S. privateering is not prohibited by U.S. or international law.”

Hiring private raiders would be faster than expanding the Navy, Cancian argued. “Letters of marque could be issued quickly, with privateers on the hunt within weeks of the start of a conflict. By contrast, it would take four years to build a single new combatant for the Navy.”

Cancian in his article acknowledged one of the greatest risks privateering could pose to law and order and American credibility in the world. As the Pentagon learned the hard way during the Iraq war, mercenaries can be difficult to regulate and control. And they can be unpredictable.

In 2007, gunmen working for private military company Blackwater murdered 17 civilians in Baghdad’s Nisour Square. The incident soured U.S.-Iraqi relations and alienated American troops from the very people they were trying to protect.

But Cancian stressed the benefits of recruiting for-profit maritime forces. “The existing private military industry would doubtless jump at the chance to privateer,” he wrote.

“Dozens of companies currently provide security services, from the equivalent of mall guards to armed antipiracy contingents on ships. A large pool of potential recruits has shown willingness to work for private contractors. At the height of the Iraq war, for example, the United States employed 20,000 armed contractors in security jobs.”

Cancian ignores the possibility that China might retaliate against American privateering by issuing letters of marque to its own seafarers. The former Marine seems to think that the United States’s relatively small merchant marine, numbering just 250 U.S.-flagged ships, makes it all but impervious to privateering. “Even if China threatens to dispatch its own privateers, U.S. vulnerability is comparatively small.”

But those 250 U.S.-flagged ships aren’t the only merchant vessels that the United States relies on for trade. Indeed, the U.S. merchant marine is deceptively small because the U.S. tax code and regulations incentivize shippers to flag their vessels under foreign flags.

If China authorized privateering, the raiders could target all shippers serving U.S. ports, not just shippers with U.S.-flagged vessels. The simple truth is that the United States depends on foreign trade nearly as much as China does, and that trade mostly travels in ships.

Privateering would release for-profit killers on the world’s oceans in the same way the so-called “war on terror” released for-profit killers on America’s foreign battlefields. The consequences likely would be ugly.

David Axe served as defense editor of The National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels War Fix, War Is Boring and Machete Squad. This article is being republished due to reader interest. 

Image: Reuters. 

Kris Osborn

Chinese Army, Asia

The Chinese People’s Liberation Army is now deploying a new kind of weapon.

Here's What You Need to Know: Beijing may be building new weapons, but America has recently improved its well-known and lethal javelin anti-tank missile.

New Chinese-built, vehicle-mounted anti-tank missiles are being engineered to attack U.S. tanks “from above,” meaning at higher altitudes that cause more destruction with a top-down attack.

The Chinese People’s Liberation Army is now deploying this new kind of weapon reported to be more powerful and more mobile than existing weapons for mounted off-road attack missions against armored vehicles.

Quoting an unnamed “military expert,” the Chinese government-backed Global Times newspaper says the top-down attack is in part intended to exploit the top of a tank where soldiers might be exposed. The new missile can be mounted on China’s Mengshi series off-road assault vehicle or infantry fighting vehicles. The concept of a higher-altitude top-down attack is interesting in that it could be of particular relevance in the mountainous plateau regions of Western China and places where air support is not available.

“China operates a wide selection of anti-tank missiles, including portable ones and those launched by attack helicopters, drones, armored vehicles and assault vehicles, military observers said, noting that the new missile could be mass produced and be widely used by the PLA in the near future,” the Global Times writes.

There are not a lot of details available regarding the weapon available in the report, however its existence brings some interesting parallels to mind, such as the U.S. Army’s TOW missile, Javelin anti-tank weapon or even ground-launched Hellfire missile. But there are several key respects in which the Chinese weapon may not parallel a number of more recent U.S. anti-tank weapons innovations.

The Army’s ongoing upgrades to the Javelin anti-tank missile offer an interesting point of reference, as a new Raytheon-built Lightweight Command Launch Unit for the weapon actually doubles the attack range from 2.5km to 4.5km. The more recent innovations, slated to enter production in 2022, also incorporate improved sensor fidelity and a “fast lock” for improving attacks on the move. Army officials told The National Interest last year that the service is also engineering a new warhead for the Javelin as well.

The Javelin’s on-the-move targeting ability is also of great relevance as it seems to rival, if not outmatch the Chinese claim that its new vehicle-mounted weapon can attack while off-road. The Javelin can dismount and operate as a shoulder-fired weapon used by small groups of soldiers on the move or also mount and fire from tactical vehicles as well, such as those that go off road. The concept of a top-down attack certainly makes sense as something of tactical relevance, but apart from being deployable on mobile, off-road vehicles, there is nothing mentioned about what might better enable that kind of attack? Any weapon, if fired from an advantaged point at higher altitudes, should it be able to go off road, can exploit a tactical advantage and strike from the top down.

Kris Osborn is the defense editor for the National Interest. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Master’s Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University.

This article first appeared in March 2021.

Image: REUTERS/David Gray

Dan Goure

Air Defense, Asia

The Japanese government needs to rethink its decision to halt work on the Aegis Ashore program.

Here's what you need to know: In light of the growing missile threats posed by China and North Korea, Japan needs to field a multi-layer missile defense.

This week, Japan’s Defense Minister, Taro Kono, surprised the world by announcing the decision to suspend construction in his country of two missile defense sites. This decision could not have come at a worse time for both the security of Japan and its strategic relationship with the United States. Both China and North Korea continue to build up their inventories of theater ballistic missiles. The suspension decision came right on the heels of Pyongyang, ramping up its bellicose rhetoric and even blowing up a building that housed a liaison office for North-South talks. Japan needs to reconsider its decision to suspend the Aegis Ashore program. Instead, in consultation with the United States, the Japanese government should devise a new plan that will address any concerns while ensuring that its people are protected by the best missile defense capability currently available.

Today, U.S. allies, facilities, and forces in the Western Pacific face a missile threat that is expanding quantitatively and becoming ever-more sophisticated and capable. In the event of a conflict with China, Japan can expect to face an intensive barrage of Chinese theater-range ballistic and cruise missiles intended to devastate military facilities, mobile forces, critical infrastructure, and command and control nodes both along the so-called First Island Chain and in the Home Islands.

Although the Japanese government now rates China as its number one security challenge, it cannot dismiss the North Korean ballistic missile threat. According to Japan’s 2019 annual Defense White Paper, North Korea has achieved the ability to put a nuclear warhead atop a ballistic missile. In addition, its ballistic missiles are becoming more sophisticated with improved guidance systems and greater reliability.

To counter the growing worldwide threat from ballistic missiles, the United States and its allies are deploying ballistic missile defenses. The U.S. is building a layered missile defense system to protect the homeland as well as forward-deployed forces and allies. A key pillar of U.S. and allied missile defenses is the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system. The Aegis BMD currently consists of the AN/SPY radar, the Standard Missile (SM), and the Aegis Combat System. Both the U.S. Navy and Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) operate Aegis-equipped ships.

The Aegis Ashore system is a land-based variant of the extremely mature and proven sea-based Aegis BMD system. In essence, the Aegis Ashore is the three elements of the Aegis BMD system placed on land. The AN/SPY radar is located in a deckhouse that also supports the system’s command and control capabilities. Co-located with the deckhouse are fixed launchers for the current version of the SM-3 ballistic missile interceptor, the Block IB, as well as SM-6 air defense missiles. Aegis Ashore was initially conceived as the central part of the European Phased Adaptive Approach designed to protect Europe from missiles launched from the Middle East. The first Aegis Ashore site in Romania was declared operational in 2016. A second site, being constructed in Poland, is expected to become operational in 2022.

The Japanese government decided in December 2017 to purchase two Aegis Ashore systems. In addition, the U.S. and Japan are partnered in the SM-3 Cooperative Development Program to build a larger, 21-inch diameter variant of the SM-3 missile, the SM-3 Block IIA. This variant will be able to reach out farther, providing a defense against longer-range ballistic missiles. The new missile is expected to be deployed with the U.S. Navy and Japanese MSDF, as well as all Aegis Ashore sites.

One reason Japan decided to acquire the Aegis Ashore was to reduce the burden on its destroyer fleet associated with serving as that country’s primary missile defense capability. A missile defense based entirely on sea-based capabilities is not always optimally located to protect land areas. In addition, destroyers assigned the missile defense mission for the Japanese homeland are generally restricted to a small ocean area, close to land. As a result, ships on missile defense patrols are unavailable for other critical missions.

Given the growing ballistic missile threat to Japan, the decision to suspend its Aegis Ashore program came as something of a surprise. According to Minister Kono, the suspension decision was based on both technical and cost issues with the program. The principal technical concern is the danger that from the currently planned sites, the SM-3 Block IIA booster might fall into populated areas. Modifications will be required to the missile’s software and, possibly, hardware to solve this problem. There was also local opposition to the placement of the AN/SPY radar near populated areas. There are reports that the Japanese Government had decided to halt the planned deployment at the Akita Prefecture site in the northwest of Honshu, Japan's main island, and to explore alternative locations.

With respect to cost, it is true that the price for completing each of the two sites had increased by some 25 percent to around $900 million. However, it should be pointed out that the cost of a single Japanese missile defense-capable destroyer is now approximately $1.5 billion, exclusive of expendables such as the SM-3 Block II missiles. For defense of the Japanese homeland, Aegis Ashore is the cost-effective solution.

To be clear, the suspension does not suggest that Japan has lost confidence in the effectiveness of missile defenses, in general, or the Aegis system and the Standard Missile, in particular. Today, the Japanese MSDF operates seven Aegis destroyers with another one under construction. These ships, as well as U.S. Aegis-capable cruisers and destroyers, will eventually carry the SM-3 Block IIA. In addition, Japan has deployed four batteries of the advanced version Patriot missile defense system to provide a terminal layer.

The Japanese government needs to rethink its decision to halt work on the Aegis Ashore program. In light of the growing missile threats posed by China and North Korea, Japan needs to field a multi-layer missile defense. Such a defense is essential to maintaining a credible deterrent. In addition, in the case of North Korea, it is a hedge against a potential accidental or unauthorized launch. Seven or eight Aegis-capable destroyers are not sufficient to manage the threat. The most sensible and cost-effective solution is to move forward with Aegis Ashore deployments, modified as necessary to meet credible concerns.

Dan Gouré, Ph.D., is a vice president at the public-policy research think tank Lexington Institute. Goure has a background in the public sector and U.S. federal government, most recently serving as a member of the 2001 Department of Defense Transition Team. You can follow him on Twitter at @dgoure and the Lexington Institute @LexNextDC. Read his full bio here.

This article was first published by RealClearDefense.

Image: Reuters

What to look for at the COP26 meeting in Glasgow.

The company has failed to allocate resources to curb extremist and inflammatory content in India and beyond.

Major oil executives insisted that they haven’t misled the public about the link between fossil fuels and climate change.

At least 200 million boys and girls, live in 31 countries which do not have the resources to deal with remote learning during any future emergency school closures, the UN Children’s Fund, UNICEF, said in a study released on Thursday. 

Vulnerable countries are stepping up and taking climate action, amid a slow response from some of the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide, said the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on Thursday. 

An independent UN expert on Thursday, strongly criticized countries which continue to boycott the 20-year-old Durban Declaration against racism, and called on them to recommit to combatting discrimination and intolerance, in line with the landmark conference which took place in the South African city, in 2001.

A new strategy announced on Thursday by the World Health Organization (WHO) calls for $23.4 billion to combat inequities in accessing COVID-19 vaccines, tests and treatments, as cases of the disease mount globally for the first time in two months. 

Ahead of the UN Climate Conference COP26, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said on Thursday it was time now to act, and put “empty speeches, broken promises, and unfulfilled pledges behind us”. 

Can the U.S. president get relations with Europe back on track?

The deputy UN chief on Thursday emphasized the “vital importance” of peace and security in Africa, thanking ambassadors in the Security Council for helping the UN shine a spotlight on the issue, and how all Member States can work with the African Union and other regional and sub-regional groups, to make lives more secure across the continent.

Forests in at least 10 World Heritage sites have become net sources of carbon, due to pressure from human activity and climate change, according to a new report released on Thursday, by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 

German universities are bowing to China on censorship. That could finally change under the new government.

The “Free Tibet” shoes worn by Enes Kanter

 

Enes Kanter has reemerged on the political stage.

The eleven year NBA veteran made waves after wearing a pair of speakers expressing support for Tibetan independence. The game between Kanter’s Boston Celtics and the New York Knicks was being broadcast around the world, until the feed was abruptly cut off for Chinese consumers by Tencent, the Chinese media conglomerate that is licensed to show NBA games in the Chinese market. On that same day, Kanter posted a three minute video to his twitter feed in which he condemns China’s repression of Tibet, and wore a shirt featuring the Dalai Lama- something that is considered a crime in China.

Despite backlash from Chinese state media, two days after this first public demonstration, Kanter made another post to his twitter in which he highlighted the horrific treatment of the Uyghurs population in China and damned Xi Jinping as a brutal dictator. In the following days, he has continued to make posts directly challenging Xi and condemning the slave labor that he believes takes place in Chinese reeducation camps. 

I highly encourage each of you to listen to Kanter’s statements yourself.

This is far from Kanter’s first serious venture into politics. He has long been a vocal critic of the Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who Kanter considers a dictator, and wears his arrest warrant as a badge of honor. As a consequence of his political activities, Kanter has suffered a tragic personal cost- his father was sent to prison in 2018. 

Additionally, Kanter has been outspoken regarding his views on American politics. Alongside athletes like Colin Kaepernick and LeBron James, Kanter has participated in protests against racist policing in the United States. Earlier this year, Kanter expressed his support for the Covid-19 vaccine, saying that players have a responsibility to be role models and work to promote public health. 

In order to understand what makes Kanter’s public statements on China so interesting, it is important that we understand the tremendous popularity of the NBA in China. Over 500 million Chinese watched an NBA game last year, and the sport has seen tremendous growth following the popularity of stars like Kobe Bryant, Steph Curry, and Yao Ming in China’s domestic market.

Despite the nationalistic rubmilings that appeared on social media in the wake of Kanter’s comments on Xi’s regime, there is reason to believe that the Chinese people continue to love the NBA and its biggest stars. Some 40 million Chinese fans play the NBA 2k basketball video game, and video recordings from NBA games held in Chinese arenas suggest major fan support.

Given the huge support (through both fans and finances) for the NBA in China, and given the wide-reaching censorship employed by the Chinese government, Kanter’s public position could present a problem for both the CCP and the National Basketball Association. China’s dedicated NBA fans will surely notice that all Boston Celtics games have been removed from their servers, and even in the face of Chinese misinformation many fans will become aware of the censorship. More than that, the NBA stands to lose some $1.5 billion in broadcast rights alone over the next five years if China were to completely ban the showing of NBA games. Kanter’s tweets and sneakers have certainly put a lot of very important people on their toes- this is the benefit of speaking truth to power.

Given Kanter’s consistent support for other types of social justice issues, the NBA, Nike, and other groups that do business with China will have a difficult time ignoring his criticism of their behavior. Dismissing Kanter as a consequence of this particular set of political activities -condemning China- would highlight the inconsistency that groups may have regarding their commitment to human rights- like support for Black Lives Matter.

All of this takes place in the foreground to the 2022 Winter Olympics which will be held in China. There are real questions about how the repressive elements of the CCP will respond to athletes who have become increasingly outspoken about social justice and human dignity. Should China respond in traditional “Wolf Warrior” diplomacy fashion to Kanter’s comments, other athletes will surely take notice, and hopefully work to resist the attempt at censorship. 

Politics and sports have long been interconnected. Jackie Robbinson, Jesse Owens, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, Muhammad Ali, Colin Kaepernick and now Enes Kanter, there is tremendous power when public figures use their platforms to fight against injustice and repression. Kanter’s ongoing activism protesting the cruelty of Xi’s government in China is the next leg in this proud legacy.

 

—

 

Please join the Foreign Policy Association today, October 28th, in welcoming Mr. Carl Gershman, who was President of the National Endowment for Democracy from its foundation in 1984 until 2021. Mr. Gershman will be delivering the annual John B. Hurford Memorial Lecturetitled, “Reflections on NED’s Past and Democracy’s Future”.  If you are interested, please register for the event here. 

 

—

 

Peter Scaturro is the Director of Studies at the Foreign Policy Association

 

The Taliban promised justice. They are hard-pressed to provide it.

Green industrial policies will be critical for developing countries to adapt to climate change, UN trade and development body UNCTAD said in a report published on Thursday.