6 Jul 2017

Xi’s visit to Berlin highlights growing US-EU conflicts before G20 summit

Alex Lantier 

Donald Trump arrived in Poland Wednesday night in advance of the July 7-8 G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, which is taking place amid deepening tensions between Washington and its traditional allies in the European Union. The summit, supposedly an economic meeting, will focus on world military crises such as the US-Chinese standoff over North Korea and growing EU-US geopolitical conflicts in Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Another issue will be Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord.
Prior to Trump’s arrival in Poland, US officials issued a barrage of statements denouncing China’s refusal to economically strangle North Korea after the Pyongyang regime test-fired an intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday. Nonetheless, Chinese President Xi Jinping received a warm welcome during his state visit in Berlin on Wednesday, which focused on growing trade and political links between the two countries, the economic powerhouses of Asia and Europe. The dominant issue in Xi’s visit was unmistakably the escalating conflict between the major powers at the heart of the world capitalist economy, with Xi and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both issuing sharp criticisms of US policy.
Asked by Die Zeit whether she would repeat her now-famous remark from May that Europe could not simply rely on its alliance with Washington, she replied: “Yes, exactly that way.”
Xi arrived in Germany fresh from his summit in Moscow with Russian President Vladimir Putin, where the two leaders agreed on a common policy toward North Korea at odds with Washington’s. Xi published a comment in the German media titled “To Make the World a Better Place,” which called for closer German-Chinese strategic ties and implicitly criticized Trump’s “America First” policy.
The Chinese president wrote that Germany and China should “play a leading role and enhance strategic communication on bilateral relations and major international and regional issues… The G20 needs to stay committed to open development, support the multilateral trading regime with the WTO at its heart, and enable trade and investment to continue to drive global economic growth.”
At a press conference, Merkel endorsed China’s Silk Road/One Belt-One Road plan to develop a Eurasian infrastructure network to connect China, Russia, the Middle East and Europe. “We believe we would be happy to participate in such projects and hope the bidding process will be transparent,” she said. Merkel highlighted preparations for an investment treaty that could lead to the negotiation of an EU-China free trade zone, as well as greater opportunities for German foundations to work in China after the passage of a new Chinese law on NGOs.
German and Chinese officials also signed a $22 billion contract for the purchase by China of Airbus jetliners.
Amid growing competition between EU and Chinese companies, however, Merkel demanded larger and more favorable trade positions for German firms in China. “We also want to be treated fairly and to have access to markets,” she said. “That is very important for our companies.”
Thomas Oppermann, the parliamentary group leader of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), demanded that the European powers adopt an even more explicitly hostile line toward US interests at the G20 summit. “If you try to react to Trump with permanent appeasement, that ultimately leads to an erosion of Western values. And already there are little Trumps in Poland and Hungary,” he said.
Oppermann also called on Merkel to unify the 19 other states at the G20 against Trump, isolating the United States: “There may also be a good chance to accomplish that,” he said.
Xi’s visit to Berlin in the lead-up to the G20 summit underscores the breakdown of the international institutions and alliances that have dominated the affairs of world capitalism since the Stalinist bureaucracy dissolved the Soviet Union in 1991. As Washington threatens North Korea with military action that could unleash war with China and Russia, the NATO powers are going into the G20 summit deeply split. The summit is not so much an economic conference as a gathering of rival powers, all seeking to decide with whom they will ally as the prospect looms of a new, horrific global conflict.
Trump’s visit to Poland itself is a reprise of US strategy during its first major standoff with the EU in the post-Soviet period. In 2002, as the Bush administration prepared its illegal invasion of Iraq over the objections of Berlin and Paris, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld counterpoised “New Europe,” that is, the Eastern European countries, to the countries of “Old Europe” that were opposing the invasion.
These growing conflicts between the world’s major economies are a warning to workers internationally. Xi’s visit to Berlin yesterday and Trump’s visit to Poland today underscore that the conflict over Iraq between Washington and the Berlin-Paris axis fifteen years ago was not an isolated development. Rather, it was the product of deep, lasting antagonisms rooted in the competing corporate interests of the major imperialist powers, which twice in the last century erupted into world wars.
In visiting Poland on the eve of the G20 summit, Trump is seeking to encourage opposition to the EU, and particularly to its dominant power, Germany, whose trade policies Trump has publicly called “really bad,” and whose auto exports to the United States he has threatened to cut off.
Trump is slated to speak today in front of a monument to the 1944 Warsaw Uprising against the Nazi occupation of Poland, which was brutally suppressed by the German military, with the loss of some 200,000 lives.
Officials of the ruling far-right Law and Solidarity (PiS) party in Poland are planning to bus large numbers of PiS supporters to Warsaw to provide Trump with a friendly crowd. PiS leader Jarosław Kaczyński has hailed Trump’s decision to speak in Warsaw before the G20, telling a party congress on Saturday: “We have a new success, Trump’s visit… [Others] envy it; the British are attacking us because of it.”
The invitation does not reflect any broad popularity of Trump in Poland. One poll found that only 23 percent of the population trusts Trump to “do the right thing” in international politics, compared to 22 percent in Britain. Rather, the PiS hopes to use Trump’s visit to send a signal that it has powerful allies in its bitter conflicts with the EU, which has criticized the Polish regime’s moves to strip the Polish judicial system of its powers, block immigration into Poland, set up far-right militias and consolidate an authoritarian regime.
US officials made clear that Trump intends to use his speech in Poland to lay out his position on the conflicts that are emerging within Europe and within the NATO alliance between Washington and the European powers.
“He will praise Polish courage throughout history’s darkest hour, and celebrate Poland’s emergence as a European power,” said Gen. H. R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, at a White House briefing last week. “He will lay out a vision, not only for America’s future relationship with Europe, but the future of our trans-Atlantic alliance and what that means for American security and American prosperity.”

5 Jul 2017

L’Oréal-UNESCO Maghreb Fellowships for African Women in Science 2017

Application Deadline: 28th July 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Libya.
Fields of Award:
  • Sciences of Life: Biology, Biochemistry, Genetics, Physiology, Biotechnology, Ecology and Chemistry.
  • Sciences of matter: such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, information sciences, earth and universe sciences.
About the Award: The Maghreb Fellowships L’Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science aim at promoting the participation of young women in science. This program determines and rewards young talented female researchers in the following fields (Biology, Biochemistry, Gene@cs, Physiology, Biotechnology, Ecology and Chemistry applied to life). Like those of Sciences of the matter (such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, information sciences, earth and universe sciences).
Founded in 2007, the L’Oréal-UNESCO Fellowships aim to distinguish young female researchers for the quality of their works and to encourage them to pursue a brilliant career in science. The fellowship is within the framework of a partnership between the L’Oréal Foundation and the National Boards for UNESCO in the 4 previously-named countries.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: Eligible for the fellowship applicants who are:
• Applying for a PhD or a post-doctoral fellowship.
• Not working permanently in 2017.
• Working on your PhD or having obtained it and willing to pursue research in one of the fields cited above
• African, working in one of the 4 countries listed above.
• Being aged at most 35 years at the closing date of the call for applications.
Selection Criteria: Selection criteria of the applicants as established by the jury are the following:
• Excellence of the applicant’s academic portfolio (including number, quality and impact of their publications, conference presentations, patents …).
• The scientific quality of the research project.
• The innovative and promising character of their research works (relevant, original, unique …) and its implementation in science.
• The socio-economic impact of the project/ research.
• The path of the candidate (career…).
Scholarships must be devoted exclusively to the promo@on and development of research and should in no way substitute the responsibilities of laboratory towards its researchers (Displacement, work tools, equipment, and participation in congress…).
Scholarships are neither renewable nor combined with other research grants.
Number of Awards: 5
Value of Award: 10 000 €. Cost of traveling and accommodation for Fellows non-residents in Morocco will be provided by the L’Oréal Maroc.
Duration of Program:
How to Apply: Applications can only be made through the online platform: www.fwis.fr by the applicants themselves.
An application is considered complete when it contains all of the following parts, in English or in French:
• A detailed resume (Curriculum Vitae) filled directly in the website www.fwis.fr.
• Copies of diplomas obtained starting from the BS.
• A copy of an official transcript of undergraduate and graduate studies.
• A detailed abstract / description of the research project of a maximum 2 pages
• Including research projects in progress
• A suggested project of the grant’s use supporting the application and inclusive to some budgetary indications
• The list of publications and patents.
• Recommendation letters from supervisor and / or director of the scientific institute or school where the thesis has been carried.
• Letter of acceptance from the host laboratory for post-doctoral studies.
Incomplete applications or those received after the deadline as well as applications that do not fulfill the above conditions will not be considered.
Award Providers:  L’Oréal Maroc

Government of Ireland Africa Agri-food Development Program (AADP) for African Agricultural Organisations 2017

Application Deadline: 17th August 2017.
Eligible Countries: Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia.
About the Award: The Objective of the AADP is to develop partnerships between the Irish Agri-Food Sector and African countries to support sustainable growth of the local food industry, build markets for local produce and support mutual trade between Ireland and Africa.
It is intended that any investment by the AADP will be catalytic support with co-funding from the private sector. The fund is designed to leverage greater expertise, experience and investment from the Irish agri-food sector and projects should demonstrate results with a long-term developmental impact that will ultimately lead to sustainable benefits through investment by the private sector.
Irish agri-food expertise is extremely wide-ranging and examples of suitable AADP projects include:
  • Business development
  • Production system
  • Technology Transfer
  • R & D
  • Project Management
Type: Entrepreneurship/Grants
Eligibility: 
  • The partners involved must include one Irish registered agri food company and one local commercial entity in Africa;
  • The project must be commercial in focus;
  • AADP funding will not exceed 50% of the costs of the project;
  • Projects will be supported in the following countries – Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria Malawi, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia;
  • Funding from the AADF must bring about additionality and not replace existing funding;
  • AADP funding is up to a maximum up to a maximum of €250,000 per company for a full project or €100,000 for a feasibility study.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: Possible funding of up to €250,000 in total per company
How to Apply: Applications to the Fund (doc 90Kb) ‌‌ are now being accepted through the official application form only.
A seminar to provide prospective applicants with further information will take place in July 2017 in Dublin.  Email aadp@agriculture.gov.ie to request an invite.
Award Providers: Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Yousef Jameel Scholarship Fund for Natural Scientists from Developing Countries 2017 – Germany

Application Deadline: 15th July 2017
Eligible Countries: Arab countries including Turkey
To Be Taken At (Country): Humboldt-Universität, Berlin, Germany
Fields of Study: Informatics/ Computer Science, Mathematics, Biology/ Biomedicine, Chemistry, Physics, Geography and Agricultural Science.
About the Award: Promoting the development of young scientists and scholars is a declared goal of Humboldt-Universität. Humboldt-Universität places a high priority on preparing leading young researchers and scientists for careers in research and teaching.
With support of the Yousef Jameel Scholarship Fund Humboldt-Universität will annually award five scholarships to doctoral candidates in the natural science fields of Informatics/ Computer Science, Mathematics, Biology/ Biomedicine, Chemistry, Physics, Geography and Agricultural Science.
Type: Doctoral
Eligibility:
  • Applicants must possess an academic degree and fulfil the requirements necessary for admission to a doctoral programme at the appropriate Humboldt Universität faculty.
  • The applicant must obtain admission to a doctoral programme (Promotionszulassung) before the scholarship’s starting date.
  • Very good written and spoken English as well as good German communications skills are required.
  • Applications will only be considered from students of Arab countries and Turkey who credibly demonstrate their intent to return.
  • To increase the proportion of women at the university, applications from qualified women are particularly encouraged.
  • Disabled persons will receive preference, assuming equal qualifications.
Number of Awards: 5
Value of Award:  The stipend awarded is in the amount of 1350 Euros per month, plus materials expenses.
Duration of Program: The scholarships are awarded for a period of three years and commence on October 1.
How to Apply: 
– A cover letter detailing the intended field of study of the doctoral program, as well as the motivation of the applicant;
– A CV and list of publications, if applicable;
– An Exposé including a detailed work plan for the three-year scholarship period (maximum ten pages);
– Copies of academic records and references from previous employers, with certified German translations if necessary;
– An evaluation from the applicant’s Ph.D. supervisor of the Humboldt-Universität
Send Applications and Questions to:
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Forschungsabteilung
Yousef Jameel Scholarship
Unter den Linden 6
10099 Berlin
nachwuchs@uv.hu-berlin.de
Award Providers: Yousef Jameel Scholarship Fund

British Council new Art, new Audience (nAnA) Program for East African Creatives 2017

Application Deadline: 13th August, 2017
Offered annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: England; Ethiopia; Kenya; Northern Ireland; Rwanda; Scotland; South Sudan; Sudan; Tanzania; Uganda; and Wales
About the Award: new Art new Audiences (nAnA) is an annual open call for 18 to 35-year-old artists, arts organisations, and art collectives from cities within England; Ethiopia; Kenya; Northern Ireland; Rwanda; Scotland; South Sudan; Sudan; Tanzania; Uganda; and Wales. nAnA gives an opportunity for artists from these cities to create new art together, and to showcase this art to audiences across these countries.
nAnA 2017 is particularly interested in supporting projects by artists, arts organisations and/or art collectives that already have, and want to build upon, cross country collaborations and connections. New partnerships are also encouraged and in the FAQs, you will see how British Council are offering support to identify arts partners in the UK and the East African region;
Type: Contest
Eligibility: There are no restrictions on art forms and there are no restrictions on themes.
– Applicants can apply as an individual artist(s), an arts organisation(s) or an art collective(s);
– Each project must focus on the creation of a new piece, or a new body of art;
– At least three different countries must be involved in the project, with at least two of these countries being from the East African region (and from the countries specified above);
– nAnA focuses on supporting art sectors within cities from the countries specified – artists, artworks and audiences must be connected to cities;
– Each project must focus on reaching an 18 to 35-year-old face to face, and online audience. nAnA aims to increase the visibility and awareness of new contemporary art from East Africa and the UK. The engagement of an online and/or face to          face audience is therefore essential;
– All key contributors involved in the project must be between 18 and 35-years-old;
– The projects can be match funded by other financial partners;
– Applicants can apply more than once to new Art new Audiences;
– Those who received nAnA 2016 grants (either primary or secondary partner) are also eligible to apply to nAnA 2017. However a primary nAnA 2016 partner cannot apply as the lead partner for nAnA 2017;
– All projects must be completed within 12 months of receiving funds from the British Council;
– A mid-project report and an end of project report will be expected in order to receive payment, a template will be provided for these reports;
– The project must be administrated by one person or organisation. They must have a bank account and a national ID in order to receive funds. They must also be responsible for the mid-project, end of project report, and for the externals communications of the project;
– 70% of funds will be granted upon signing a contract with the British Council, the remaining 30% of funds will be granted upon submitting your mid-project report.
Number of Awardees: 5 projects will be selected for nAnA 2017/18.
Value of ProgramUp to £30,000 will be allocated to each project
How to Apply: To apply, download application form from the downloads section in the programme webpage (link below)
Award Provider: British Council

CCMP Journalism Fellowships to Attend the UN Climate Negotiations in Bonn, Germany 2017

Application Deadline: 21st July 2017
Eligible Countries: All
To Be Taken At (Country): Bonn, Germany
About the Award: Formed in 2007 by Internews’ Earth Journalism Network (EJN), Panos London and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), the CCMP has brought developing country journalists to the annual UN climate summits since 2007. This has enabled them to cover the summit for their home media organizations, work with experienced and knowledgeable journalists from around the world, and gain a multifaceted understanding of climate change’s global impact. Numerous regional organizations also play a supporting role in the partnership. This year’s Fellowship program will be a partnership between EJN and the Stanley Foundation.
During COP 23, the Fellows will engage with fellow participants and EJN staff in a series of specially designed activities, including an orientation session, daily breakfast briefings, and possibly a field trip.
As part of the application process, journalists will be asked to submit examples of their work. These can be uploaded as pasted text or links; stories can be sent in a native language as long as they are accompanied by a short English synopsis. A good command of English, however, will be needed to answer the essay questions and will also be important to participate in Fellowship activities.
The CCMP fully respects the editorial independence of all journalists. Throughout the conference, Fellows are free to report as they see fit. As well as the requirements above, we ask that journalists agree to cross-post all stories they file during COP 23 on the Earth Journalism Network website.
Type: Fellowship
Eligibility: To be eligible for this Fellowship, applicants must:
  • Be a professional journalist from or representing an established media house;
  • Fill out the application form using the link below, including answering essay questions that illustrate his/her experience reporting on climate change issues and the kinds of stories you might pursue at the conference;
  • Be available to travel to Bonn, Germany with arrival on Nov 10th and departure on Nov 18th;
  • Commit to participate in all Fellowship activities;
  • Provide a letter of support from an editor, producer or supervisor who can confirm your ability to publish or broadcast your material in an established media organization. Freelancers are welcome to apply, but must provide a letter of support.
Selection Criteria: Criteria for evaluating applicants will include the prospective Fellow’s demonstrated experience covering climate change and other environmental topics, their interest in continued coverage of these issues, and their audience and outlet reach. We also particularly welcome applications from journalists who identify as indigenous peoples.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: As part of the Fellowships, the CCMP will cover travel, lodging, and several group meals, and will reimburse for other meal and transport expenses, will help with the press accreditation process, and provide other support services. Please note that the process of obtaining a visa is a Fellow’s responsibility; however, visa costs can be reimbursed.
Duration of Program: Program will hold for about a week in mid-November 2017.
How to Apply: To submit an application, please sign up for an EJN account by clicking on the “Create an Account” button in the Program Webpage Link below. When you submit this registration form, you will receive an e-mail containing a link that directs you to set your password (if you don’t find the e-mail in your Inbox, please check your spam folder). Once you have set a password, you can log in to your account to submit an application.
The application form can be accessed by logged-in users by clicking the “Apply Now” button in the Program Webpage Link below.
Award Providers: CCMP

British Council Researcher Links Trilateral Workshop for Early-Career Researchers in Africa and UK 2017

Application Deadline: 16th  July 2017
Offered Annually? Yes
Eligible Countries: UK, Kenya, South Africa
To Be Taken At (Country): Stellenbosch, South Africa
About the Award: The workshop on “Postharvest Technology, Sustainable Energy and Food Processing”, will explore ways of improving postharvest systems for rural communities to improve food security in Kenya and South Africa.
The workshop will provide a unique opportunity for sharing research expertise and networking. During the workshops early career researchers will have the opportunity to present their research in the form of brainstorming and discussion of specific case studies with established researchers from the UK, Kenya and South Africa. There will be a focus on building up links for future collaborations and participants selected on the basis of their research potential and ability to build longer term links.
Type: Workshops/Conferences
Eligibility: 
  • – Participants must be early career researchers: Early career researchers are defined as an individual who has been awarded his or her PhD not more than 10 years prior to the workshop, or is currently near completing their PhD. Allowances can be made for career breaks.
  • – If a researcher does not hold a PhD, but has research experience equivalent to a PhD holder and works in a field where a PhD is not a pre-requisite for established research activity, they can still be considered eligible.
  • – Participants must have a research or academic position (a permanent post, research contract, or fellowship etc.) at a recognised research institution either in the UK, South Africa or Kenya.
  • – Please note that participants are expected to attend and contribute to all sessions of the workshop.
  • – Applications must be submitted using the Researcher Links application form
  • – Application must be submitted before the above deadline
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: The British Council and the Newton Fund will cover the costs related to the participation in the workshop, including: travel (both international and local), accommodation and meals. Costs for the visa will also be covered; however participants will be responsible for making all the necessary arrangements. The British Council accepts no responsibility for any problems which may occur when the participants are in-country.
Duration of Program: 4th – 8th September 2017
How to Apply: 
  • The full application below must be completed and submitted by the 16th  July 2017 to Dr Yaodong Wang (yaodong.wang@newcastle.ac.uk) and Dr Pankaj Pathare (Pankaj.Pathare@newcastle.ac.uk)
  • Please enter ‘Trilateral workshop application’ in the email subject line.
  • Applicants will be notified by email two months prior to the workshop.

Workshop Application MSWord 113Kb

Award Providers: British Council, Newton Fund

Mobility East Africa Travel Grant for Artists and Cultural Practitioners in East Africa 2017

Application Deadline: 
  • The Mobility East Africa grant programme accepts applications all year round.
  • You can apply at any time but grant review can take up to 3 months.
Eligible Countries: East African countries
About the Award: This fund is exclusively for East African nationals and residents looking to travel to either Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda or Ethiopia.
Type: Grants
Eligibility: Apply for a Mobility East Africa travel grant for your chance to participate in an arts event in East Africa.
  • The grant is accessible to artists between 18 – 35 years of age looking to participate in exhibitions/festivals/residencies/workshops across Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, and Ethiopia.
  • Successful applicants will be expected to share their travel experience in innovative, digital and publically accessible ways.
Selection Criteria: The selection team will be looking for applications that:
  •  Show generous and innovative ways of sharing your travel experience with others, both online and offline;
  •  The impact of the grant is clear: you have had limited travel before or it is clear that this experience will greatly benefit your practice.
Number of Awards: Not specified
Value of Award: This travel fund covers only the transport cost to a maximum of £ 400 per person.
How to Apply: To apply, simply produce a: two-minute video; or a one-minute audio recording; or fill in this application form   to answer the following questions:
  • Where do you want to go and what’s happening there?
  • When and why do you need to go?
  • How will you share your journey with others?
You need to answer all three questions for your application to be considered, no more and no less.
Only applications submitted through the form will be considered.
Award Providers: The Mobility East Africa programme is co-produced by British Council, DOEN Foundation, and Lambent Foundation.

The Great Power Shift: a Russia-China Alliance

Ray McGovern

Top Russian and Chinese leaders are busy comparing notes, coordinating their approach to President Donald Trump at the G20 summit in Hamburg this weekend. Both sides are heralding the degree to which ties between the two countries have improved in recent years, as Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visits Moscow on his way to the G20. And, they are not just blowing smoke; there is ample substance behind the rhetoric.
Whether or not Official Washington fully appreciates the gradual – but profound – change in America’s triangular relationship with Russia and China over recent decades, what is clear is that the U.S. has made itself into the big loser.
Gone are the days when Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger skillfully took advantage of the Sino-Soviet rivalry and played the two countries off against each other, extracting concessions from each. Slowly but surely, the strategic equation has markedly changed – and the Sino-Russian rapprochement signals a tectonic shift to Washington’s distinct detriment, a change largely due to U.S. actions that have pushed the two countries closer together.
But there is little sign that today’s U.S. policymakers have enough experience and intelligence to recognize this new reality and understand the important implications for U.S. freedom of action. Still less are they likely to appreciate how this new nexus may play out on the ground, on the sea or in the air.
Instead, the Trump administration – following along the same lines as the Bush-43 and Obama administrations – is behaving with arrogance and a sense of entitlement, firing missiles into Syria and shooting down Syrian planes, blustering over Ukraine, and dispatching naval forces to the waters near China.
But consider this: it may soon be possible to foresee a Chinese challenge to “U.S. interests” in the South China Sea or even the Taiwan Strait in tandem with a U.S.-Russian clash in the skies over Syria or a showdown in Ukraine.
A lack of experience or intelligence, though, may be too generous an interpretation. More likely, Washington’s behavior stems from a mix of the customary, naïve exceptionalism and the enduring power of the U.S. arms lobby, the Pentagon, and the other deep-state actors – all determined to thwart any lessening of tensions with either Russia or China. After all, stirring up fear of Russia and China is a tried-and-true method for ensuring that the next aircraft carrier or other pricey weapons system gets built.
It’s almost like the old days when the U.S. military budgeted to fight wars on multiple fronts simultaneously. Recent weeks saw the following:
–The guided-missile destroyer USS Stethem on Sunday sailed within 12 nautical miles of the Chinese-claimed Triton Island in the Paracels in the South China Sea. The Chinese Foreign Ministry immediately branded this “a serious political and military provocation.”
–The U.S. last week announced a $1.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan, placed sanctions on a Chinese bank for its dealings with North Korea, and labeled China the world’s worst human trafficker.
–On June 20, President Donald Trump sent off a condescending tweet intimating that, at his request, China had tried but failed to help restrain North Korea’s nuclear program: “It has not worked out. At least I know China tried.” (Over the centuries, the Chinese have had bad experience with Western condescension.)
Common Concern: Missile Defense
On the eve of his arrival in Moscow, Xi gave an interview to Russia’s TASS news agency, in which he focused on missile defense – an issue particularly close to Vladimir Putin’s heart. Xi focused on U.S. deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missiles to South Korea as “disrupting the strategic balance in the region” and threatening the security interests of all countries in the region, including Russia and China.
Xi also reiterated that Beijing is urging Washington and Seoul to back off military pressure on North Korea, and he may even hope that South Korea’s new President will react more sensibly than his predecessor who authorized THAAD deployment, which has made the North even more nervous about a possible preemptive strike. [In a seminar on the Web in February, Professor J. J. Suh and I discussed THAAD in the historical perspective of missile defense systems.]
Less than a month ago, Putin and Xi met in Kazakhstan’s capital, Astana, on the sidelines of a Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit. At that time, Putin predicted that the bilateral meeting now under way in Moscow would be “a major event in bilateral relations.”
The Russian leader added, “By tradition, we use every opportunity to meet and to discuss bilateral relations and the international agenda.”
If Sino-Russian “tradition” is meant to describe relations further back than three decades ago, Putin exaggerates. It was not always so. A half-century retrospective on the vicissitudes of Russia-Chinese relations illustrates the difficult path they have taken. More important, it suggests their current closeness is not likely to evaporate any time soon.
Like subterranean geological plates shifting slowly below the surface, changes with immense political repercussions can occur so gradually as to be imperceptible until the earthquake. As CIA’s principal Soviet analyst on Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s and early 1970s, I had a catbird seat watching sign after sign of intense hostility between Russia and China, and how, eventually, Nixon and Kissinger were able to exploit it to Washington’s advantage.
The grievances between the two Asian neighbors included irredentism: China claimed 1.5 million square kilometers of Siberia taken from China under what it called “unequal treaties” dating back to 1689. This had led to armed clashes during the 1960s and 1970s along the long riverine border where islands were claimed by both sides.
In the late 1960s, Russia reinforced its ground forces near China from 13 to 21 divisions. By 1971, the number had grown to 44 divisions, and Chinese leaders began to see Russia as a more immediate threat to them than the U.S., which had fought Chinese troops during the Korean War in the 1950s and refused to recognize the country’s communist leadership diplomatically, maintaining the fiction that Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists on Taiwan remained the legitimate government of China.
Enter Henry Kissinger, who visited Beijing in 1971 to arrange the precedent-breaking visit by President Richard Nixon the next year. What followed was some highly imaginative diplomacy orchestrated by Kissinger and Nixon to exploit the mutual fear China and the USSR held for each other and the imperative each saw to compete for improved ties with Washington.
Triangular Diplomacy
Washington’s adroit exploitation of its relatively strong position in the triangular relationship helped facilitate major, verifiable arms control agreements between the U.S. and USSR and the Four Power Agreement on Berlin. The USSR even went so far as to blame China for impeding a peaceful solution in Vietnam.
It was one of those felicitous junctures at which CIA analysts could jettison the skunk-at-the-picnic attitude we were often forced to adopt. Rather, we could in good conscience chronicle the effects of the U.S. approach and conclude that it was having the desired effect. Because it was.
Hostility between Beijing and Moscow was abundantly clear. In early 1972, between President Nixon’s first summits in Beijing and Moscow, our analytic reports underscored the reality that Sino-Soviet rivalry was, to both sides, a highly debilitating phenomenon.
Not only had the two countries forfeited the benefits of cooperation, but each felt compelled to devote huge effort to negate the policies of the other. A significant dimension had been added to this rivalry as the U.S. moved to cultivate better relations simultaneously with both. The two saw themselves in a crucial race to cultivate good relations with the U.S.
The Soviet and Chinese leaders could not fail to notice how all this had increased the U.S. bargaining position. But we CIA analysts saw them as cemented into an intractable adversarial relationship by a deeply felt set of emotional beliefs, in which national, ideological, and racial factors reinforced one another. Although the two countries recognized the price they were paying, neither seemed able to see a way out. The only prospect for improvement, we suggested, was the hope that more sensible leaders would emerge in each country. But this seemed an illusory expectation at the time.
We were wrong about that. Mao Zedong’s and Nikita Khrushchev’s successors proved to have cooler heads. The U.S., under President Jimmy Carter, finally recognized the communist government of China in 1979 and the dynamics of the triangular relationships among the U.S., China and the Soviet Union gradually shifted with tensions between Beijing and Moscow lessening.
Yes, it took years to chip away at the heavily encrusted mistrust between the two countries, but by the mid-1980s, we analysts were warning policymakers that “normalization” of relations between Moscow and Beijing had already occurred slowly but surely, despite continued Chinese protestations that such would be impossible unless the Russians capitulated to all China’s conditions. For their part, the Soviet leaders had become more comfortable operating in the triangular environment and were no longer suffering the debilitating effects of a headlong race with China to develop better relations with Washington.
A New Reality 
Still, little did we dream back then that as early as October 2004 Russian President Putin would visit Beijing to finalize an agreement on border issues and brag that relations had reached “unparalleled heights.” He also signed an agreement to jointly develop Russian energy reserves.
A revitalized Russia and a modernizing China began to represent a potential counterweight to U.S. hegemony as the world’s unilateral superpower, a reaction that Washington accelerated with its strategic maneuvers to surround both Russia and China with military bases and adversarial alliances by pressing NATO up to Russia’s borders and President Obama’s “pivot to Asia.”
The U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, marked a historical breaking point as Russia finally pushed back by approving Crimea’s request for reunification and by giving assistance to ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine who resisted the coup regime in Kiev.
On the global stage, Putin fleshed out the earlier energy deal with China, including a massive 30-year natural gas contract valued at $400 billion. The move helped Putin demonstrate that the West’s post-Ukraine economic sanctions posed little threat to Russia’s financial survival.
As the Russia-China relationship grew closer, the two countries also adopted remarkably congruent positions on international hot spots, including Ukraine and Syria. Military cooperation also increased steadily. Yet, a hubris-tinged consensus in the U.S. government and academe continues to hold that, despite the marked improvement in ties between China and Russia, each retains greater interest in developing good relations with the U.S. than with each other.
The sports slogan has it that nothing is over “until the fat lady sings,” but on this topic, her tones are quite clear. The day of the U.S. playing China and Russia off against each other is no more.
One perhaps can hope that someone in the U.S. government will inform President Trump that his Russian and Chinese counterparts are singing from essentially the same songbook, the unintended result of arrogant miscalculations by his immediate predecessors. Implications for U.S. national security are enormous.

Washington and Berlin on a Collision Course

Pepe Escobar

The Russia sanctions bill that passed the US Senate by 98:2 on June 15 is a bombshell; it directly demonizes the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, under the Baltic Sea, which is bound to double Gazprom’s energy capacity to supply gas to Europe.
The 9.5 billion euro pipeline is being financed by five companies; Germany’s Uniper and Wintershall; Austria’s OMV; France’s Engie; and Anglo-Dutch Shell. All these majors operate in Russia, and have, or will establish, pipeline contracts with Gazprom.
In a joint statement, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern stressed that, “Europe’s energy supply is a matter for Europe, not the United States of America”; “instruments for political sanctions should not be tied to economic interests”; and the whole thing heralds a “new and very negative quality in European-American relations”.
An oil trader in the Gulf bluntly told me, “the new sanctions against Russia basically amount to telling the EU to buy expensive US gas instead of cheap Russian gas. So the Germans and the Austrians basically told the Americans to buzz off.”
A top US intel source, Middle East-based and a dissident to the Beltway consensus, stresses how, “the United States Senate by a nearly unanimous vote have decided to declare war on Russia (sanctions are war) and Germany has threatened retaliation against the United States if it initiates sanctions.
Germany accused the United States of trying to stop the Nord Stream 2 pipeline of Russia to the EU so that the US can export their liquid natural gas to the EU, making the EU dependent on the United States.”
But then, there’s a possible game-changing aftermath; “That would spell the end of NATO if a trade war between the EU and the United States takes place.”
The usual Brexiteer suspects obviously are falling like a ton of bricks over the “Molotov-Ribbentrop 2 pipeline” – another trademark expression of paranoia by Poland.
They are even demonizing Germany for daring to do business with Russia, “undermining the security and economic interests of Eastern and Central Europe” and – yes, roars of laughter are in order — undermining “American emotional backing for NATO.”
So much pent-up “emotion” even leads to a nasty accusation of betrayal; “We know which side Poland is on. Which side is Germany on?”
What’s really unforgivable though is that Nord Stream 2, in practice, buries for good failed state Ukraine’s $2 billion in revenue from pipeline fees.
Nord Stream 2 is opposed by all the usual suspects; Poland; the Baltic states; Washington; but also the Nordic states. The top official argument is that it “harms EU energy security”. That in itself embeds a massive joke, as the EU has been harming itself in interminable “energy security” discussions in Brussels for over a decade.
Lucrative creative destruction, anyone?
Analyst Peter G. Spengler qualifies the US Senate bill as a “declared, but not yet executed act of warfare, an act of (sanctions) war against Germany and Austria directly, possible recipients within the EU indirectly.”
Spengler draws attention to the reminder of the FRG/USSR Agreement on Economic Cooperation of 1978 with a 25 years duration 1978 Agreement of Economic Cooperation between the then Federal Republic of Germany and the USSR, designed to last for 25 years; “This agreement together with all the foregoing treaties between West Germany and the Soviet Union were the basis on which [Helmut] Kohl could build his ‘Haus Europa’ with the Soviet Union/Russia from the summer of 1989 in Bonn onwards.”
Crucially, this agreement also included a gas transportation triangle between Moscow, Teheran and Bonn, and was “fiercely but completely clandestinely embattled by the Carter administration, among so many silent wars against the Federal Republic of Germany in those years.”
And guess who was trying to sabotage the agreement 24/7; recently deceased Polish “Grand Chessboarder” Zbigniew Brzezinski.
So nothing much changed since the late 1970s; Washington demonizing both Tehran and Moscow. The section of the US Senate bill related to Russia is some sort of after thought to yet another hardcore package against Iran, the Countering Iran’s Destabilizing Activities Act (which includes the Russia sanctions.)
It’s not an accident that the US Senate sanctions bill targets energy; this is a sub-product of a fierce energy war. But what is the US Senate really up to? Call it creative (lucrative) destruction.
The US Senate is convinced that Nord Stream 2 “would compete with US exports of liquefied natural gas to Europe”. Thus the US government “should prioritize the export of United States energy resources in order to create American jobs, help United States allies and partners, and strengthen United States foreign policy”.
Yet this has absolutely nothing to do with helping “allies and partners”; it’s rather a case of US energy majors getting a little help from their friends/puppets in the Senate. It’s in the public domain how US energy majors donated over $50 million in 2015/2016 to get these people elected.
Watch those Hamburg fireworks
Compared to the US Senate, the role of the European Commission (EC) in the saga remained somewhat murky, until it became clear it will interfere via a “mandate”. This “mandate” will have to be approved by a “reinforced qualified majority” vote by member states, a higher than usual threshold of 72 percent of EU states representing 65 per cent of the population.
Spengler observes how, “the commission’s continued attempts to get a legal foot in the contracts between European companies and Gazprom would be much more detrimental and potentially efficient than even a President’s signing of the Senate (and House) sanctions law.”
So where will this all lead? Arguably towards an extremely messy clash “between the European Commission/Court of Justice and German/Austrian (plus Russian) jurisdiction.”
The Senate bill will have to be backed by a veto-proof majority in the House; that vote won’t happen before the G-20 in Hamburg. Then it would become law – assuming President Trump won’t squash it.
The key, “nuclear” issue is a non-mandatory clause for the US Treasury to sanction those five Western firms involved in Nord Stream 2. If the law is approved, the White House better ignore it. Otherwise Germany, Austria and France will definitely interpret it as a declaration of war.
Trump and Chancellor Angela Merkel will definitely be on a collision course at the G-20, with Merkel emphasizing discussions on climate change, refugees and no trade protectionism, much to Trump’s disgust. The Russia sanctions bill just adds to the unholy mess. Expect a lot of fireworks “celebrating” those bilaterals in Hamburg.