Israel Faces Grave Internal Problems

By Henry Srebrnik, [Moncton, NB] Times & Transcript

While much of the world’s focus earlier this month was on the war between Hamas and Israel, something else was happening within Israel itself that may pose a potentially greater long-term problem.

On May 12, almost as soon as the conflict between Hamas and Israel began, rival Israeli Arab and Jewish mobs began attacking businesses, cars and people in cities across Israel. Border police were deployed in cities across Israel to help tackle the unrest.

In Israel’s cities, casualties were not a result of rocket fire, but of stone throwing, fire, and gunshots.

It reminded many people of the type of communal violence seen in India between Hindus and Muslims, and in Northern Ireland between Catholics and Protestants.

Israeli Arabs, like Jews, are citizens who have lived within the original 1948-49 borders since the founding of the state. Their population, at 1,890,000, represents 20.95 per cent of the country’s people.

They live mostly in Arab-majority towns and cities, mainly in parts of the Galilee and the so-called Tringle in north-central Israel. Many have ties to Palestinians who fled or were displaced by the fighting in 1947-48.

Jewish mobs took to the streets of Haifa and Tiberias. An Arab man was stabbed in the Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem, A crowd of Jewish Israelis attacked a driver in Bat Yam, a coastal city just south of Tel Aviv, smashing Arab property as they headed toward neighboring Jaffa.

The northern port city of Acre, a mixed Arab-Jewish town, saw Arabs torching a popular restaurant, hotel and arts centre. The municipality had invested in education, employment, and cultural events that all residents could participate in together.

Hooligans in Lod, another Arab-Jewish municipality, clashed with police and set cars, stores and five synagogues ablaze. A 32-year-old Palestinian-Israeli was shot and killed, and a Jewish man died after being attacked by a group of Arab Israelis. The government imposed a state of emergency and the mayor called it “civil war.”

Violence flared in other cities and towns with sizeable Arab populations, including Ramle, where a synagogue was destroyed, as well as Haifa, Tamra and Jisr al-Zarqa. In Umm el-Fahm, following the May 21 ceasefire, a convoy of cars drove through the streets, honking their horns and waving Palestinian flags.

Israel’s government responds that Arab citizens have equal social and political rights as individuals, although they are exempt from compulsory military service. They vote and mostly support their own political parties. Some have become judges and diplomats.

The current outburst of Arab violence comes after a positive decade in the state’s relations with the Arab minority. Government Resolution 922, a $4.6 billion act passed in 2015, has been a step forward towards the social and economic advancement of Israel’s Arabs.

But Israeli Arabs say they face legal, institutional and social discrimination. Eight of Israel’s ten poorest cities are Arab-majority. Only 44 per cent feel part of the State of Israel, according to a 2020 study by the Israel Democracy Institute.

Nasreen Haddad Haj-Yahya, Director of the Arab Society in Israel program at the Israel Democracy Institute, observes that Arab residents of mixed cities live almost completely separate lives from the Jewish majority.

Neighborhoods, and even city blocks, are clearly delineated between Jewish and Arab residents. The vast majority of children attend separate schools, and Arab political parties have never joined a government coalition.

Approximately 30 per cent of Arab citizens between the ages of 18-24 are neither employed nor studying. Among Jews, only 13 per cent are not working or studying.

Less than 20 per cent of Arabs in mixed cities have academic degrees, greatly limiting their ability to improve their lot and gain meaningful employment.

Gershon Hacohen, a senior research fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, places more blame on the Arab minority.

He sees the violence “as a nationalist (and Islamist) rising stemming not from the lack of rights or opportunities but from the rejection of a minority status that is regarded as unlawful domination by an alien invader who must be supplanted.”

This is not something the so-called “two-state solution” – the creation of an independent Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank, areas conquered by Israel after the 1967 war, can rectify.

 

Uneasy Allies? China and Russia Face the West

By Henry Srebrnik, [Moncton, NB] Times & Transcript

A common ideology, paradoxically, once drove them apart. But realpolitik has now turned them into allies. After all, the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

For the first three decades of its existence, the Soviet Union was, apart from Mongolia, the sole Communist country in the world. In 1949, it was joined by the new People’s Republic of China (PRC).

At first, all seemed well. The new Chinese Communist leader, Mao Zedong, travelled to Moscow in 1950 and met with Joseph Stalin, secretary-general of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the acknowledged head of the world Communist movement.

The USSR promised economic assistance to China and to protect it in case of another war with Japan. Moscow also sent over 20,000 advisors to the PRC and helped construct over 200 industrial projects.

But Mao was nonetheless less than pleased by the Soviet treatment. While China was provided with $300 million in aid, it was in the form of repayable loans, including interest. China also had to recognize continued Soviet control over Mongolia and influence in Manchuria.

As well, though China bore the brunt of the Korean War that began a few months later, on the Communist side, yet it had to pay back to the USSR $1.35 billion for weapons that the Soviets had supplied to China. Over one million Chinese troops had fought against the American-led alliance, with over 700,000 casualties.

Much worse lay ahead. In February 1956, in a major speech to the 20^th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, Nikita Khrushchev, the new Soviet leader who followed Stalin’s death in 1953, shocked the Communist world by denouncing the former dictator’s crimes.

His policy of destalinization had widespread repercussions, including in Beijing. Chinese Communists had been taught to admire Stalin, and Mao, who ruled along the same lines, was particularly offended.

In foreign affairs Khrushchev pursued a policy of “peaceful coexistence” with the capitalist West. Mao denounced this too, as decadent and revisionist. He insisted that the Soviets continue to prioritize revolution worldwide.

At a November 1958 summit Mao learned that the Soviets would insist on retaining control over any warheads sent to China and would not share missile technology. When the Soviets also failed to back the Chinese in their conflicts with Taiwan and India, Sino-Soviet tensions increased. On July 16, 1960, the USSR recalled all its specialists from China.

The Sino-Soviet split shattered the unity of the Communist movement and turned Beijing and Moscow into bitter rivals for leadership in the Communist world. By 1969 the two powers almost came to war along their border in the far east. They never ceased warring over their interpretations of Marxism-Leninism.

But all this is now ancient history and re-reading the polemics between them regarding correct Communist doctrine feels like being a witness to debates between theologians of a long-forgotten religion. The Soviet Union has ceased to exist, and China is Communist in name only.

The two countries now deal with each other in purely pragmatic terms, as dictated by their economic, military, and political standing in the world, and in terms of their respective foreign policies. And this has brought them closer together.

The most influential bilateral relationship in Eurasia today is the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership, as the two sides continue to deepen their relations.

In defying the West, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping both have tapped into nationalist feelings. And they each seem set to rule their respective nations for the foreseeable future.

The two nations have overlapping interests. China is the world’s largest importer of oil and natural gas. Russia is the number two exporter of oil and the top for natural gas. This is a symbiotic economic partnership.

Geopolitically, China and Russia want recognition and a say when and where global leadership decisions are made. They share a common desire to limit American political and economic leverage in their neighborhoods. Neither wants to hear criticism of how they manage dissent within their own borders or listen to sermons on democracy for Taiwan and Ukraine.

So, when asked last October about the prospect of a formal military alliance with China, Putin replied, “Theoretically it is quite possible.”

 

Why did Hamas Resume Hostilities with Israel?

By Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

Why did Hamas choose this moment to commence hostilities with Israel? Among many reasons, two stand out.

The first was to put a dent into the Abraham Accords signed last year normalizing relations by a number of Arab states with Israel, the second to put pressure on the new Democratic administration in Washington to once more put the Palestinian issue on the front burner.

Israel’s new allies are aware of the possible impact of the current tensions, given the largely pro-Palestinian sentiment in their countries.

Vali Nasr, a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, contended that the accords had been “based on the idea that the Palestinian issue is dead.” Hamas set out to disprove that.

Meanwhile, the conflict is playing out where it may have the most effect: in the halls of the U.S. Congress, where Joe Biden’s administration faces growing pro-Palestinian sympathy within the ranks of the Democratic Party.

Much of the party’s left-wing, especially its non-white supporters, now view politics through an identity lens, especially since the murder of George Floyd in 2020. And they are projecting that onto the Middle East conflict.

Typical is New York Congressman Jamaal Bowman. He told his constituents there has been “enough of Black and brown bodies being brutalized and murdered.”

Of course Israelis, more than half of whom originate in Africa and Asia, are no more white than are Palestinian Arabs, nor does their conflict have much to do with skin colour.

Still, Bowman has been joined by a host of other elected officials trying to transpose their own American issues onto a national and territorial conflict. For those activists, Palestinian rights and the decades-long conflict over land in the Middle East are linked to causes like police brutality and conditions for migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.

Nearly two dozen Democrats took to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on May 13 to give impassioned speeches reacting to the ongoing violence. It exposed the growing rift in the Democratic Party between increasingly popular progressive lawmakers and more moderate representatives with closer ties to the Biden administration.

The progressive bloc included Representatives Mark Pocan, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Betty McCollum, Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Cori Bush, Jan Schakowsky, Jesus Garcia, Andre Carson and Joaquin Castro.

 “You’d hardly know Palestinians existed at all” based on recent statements from the Biden administration regarding the Gaza violence, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, who is of Palestinian descent, said.

“We’re currently blocking the UN from calling for a ceasefire,” added Ilhan Omar from Minnesota, panning the Democratic administration and blasting Israel for its airstrikes in Gaza.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York criticized Israel more broadly for its actions in the West Bank. “Do Palestinians have a right to survive?” she asked. She also tweeted, “Apartheid states aren’t democracies,” repeating a charge made by the left in recent years.

“We are anti-war, we are anti-occupation, and we are anti-apartheid,” declared Cori Bush of Missouri, adding that she stands in solidarity with Palestinians just as Palestinian activists stood with Black Americans in the unrest in Ferguson, in her home state, in 2014. “Until all our children are safe, we will continue to fight for our rights in Palestine and in Ferguson.”

Massachusetts Representative Ayana Pressley called for “equal outrage” over “state violence” be it in the U.S. or Israel, criticizing Israel for its crackdown on Palestinian protesters.

They spoke in favor of legislation that they’ve co-sponsored, which seeks to prohibit American aid to Israel from being used in certain actions in the West Bank.

Right now, Washington provides $3.8 billion to Israel annually, equivalent to 20 per cent of Israel’s defence budget and nearly three-fifths of U.S. foreign military financing globally.

A day later, nearly 150 prominent liberal advocacy organizations issued a joint statement calling for “solidarity with the Palestinian residents” and condemning “Israeli state violence” and “supremacy” in Jerusalem.

The statement was signed not just by groups focused on Middle Eastern and Jewish issues but by groups dedicated to causes like climate change, immigration, feminism and racial justice.

It’s a sign that for the party’s liberal faction, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has moved far beyond the realm of foreign policy.

 

As COVID Crushes India, Things go from Bad to Worse

By Henry Srebrnik, [Moncton, NB] Times & Transcript

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has suffered some major reversals in the past month.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been overwhelming the country, and his Indian People’s Party (BJP) lost a hotly contested election in the important state of West Bengal.

India’s coronavirus numbers are setting world records for infections and deaths day after day. In early May it became the second country, after the United States, to cross the grim milestone of 20 million infections.

The country added the second 10 million cases in just over four months, after taking more than 10 months to reach the first 10 million. India has accounted for nearly half of all reported infections across the world in recent weeks. Some religious festivals became super-spreader events.

Almost 250,000 people have died, though the actual number could be far higher. There have been more than 4,000 deaths per day of late.

India’s healthcare spending, including both private and public, is around 3.6 per cent of GDP, far lower than developed countries.

The surge in infections of the highly infectious Indian variant of the coronavirus has coincided with a dramatic drop in vaccinations due to supply and delivery problems.

Many states, including Maharashtra, home to the commercial capital of Mumbai, have reported a scarcity of vaccines, shutting down some inoculation centres.

Hospitals have run out of beds and oxygen, and morgues and crematoriums are overflowing. Many Indians have died in ambulances and cars, unable to gain access to medical attention.

This second wave is ravaging wide swathes of rural India, which are starved of public health resources. Over 65 per cent of Indians live in rural districts without access to treatment.

Modi’s government is reluctant to impose a national lockdown for fear of the economic fallout. But many states have imposed curbs on their own.

The government’s principal scientific adviser, K. Vijay Raghavan, has said that even when the numbers subside, the country should be ready for a third wave of the pandemic.

Rahul Gandhi, a leader of the opposition Congress party, said that “a lockdown is now the only option because of a complete lack of strategy by the Indian government.”

As for the recent elections, in a blow to Modi, Mamata Banerjee is set to remain the chief minister of West Bengal for the third time. Her Trinamool Congress party (TMC) won a two-thirds majority, taking more than 200 seats in the 294-seat state assembly.

Normally, regional polls wouldn’t matter that much to the federal government. But Modi himself made it a prestige issue to defeat Banerjee, India’s only female chief minister.

Banerjee framed the challenge from Modi’s Hindu nationalist BJP as one between the insider Bengalis and the outsider, largely Hindi-speaking BJP, which runs the federal government. Bengalis, in Kolkata and elsewhere, have always had a fierce sense of loyalty to their language.

Banerjee had stormed to power in 2011 after dislodging a Communist-led government that ruled the state for 34 years. Celebrating the current win, she said tackling Covid-19 would be her first priority.

Still, the BJP did make substantial gains and became the main opposition party. Its tally in the state legislature went to nearly 80 seats, compared to just three seats won in the last state election in 2016.

Modi, his colleagues and other regional politicians campaigned in five state elections, including West Bengal, despite the wave of COVID-19, prompting criticism he was focusing on elections instead of making the pandemic his top priority. West Bengal is now reeling under a surge of infections.

In northeastern Assam state, the BJP managed to retain power. In Tamil Nadu, victory went to the Dravidian Progressive Federation (DMK), the main regional opposition party. In Kerala, a ruling left democratic front consisting of six major parties formed the government while the BJP led-alliance won no seats. In the union territory of Puducherry, the All India NR Congress-led alliance regained power.

Some critics blamed the country’s federal election commission for allowing rallies and voting in which large crowds flouted rules on social distancing and mask-wearing.

If the opposition can build up a serious alternative to challenge Modi in the next general election in 2024, this country’s political landscape could see a fundamental change.

 

Egypt’s Islamist Parties Face an Uncertain Future

By Henry Srebrnik, [Moncton, NB] Times & Transcript

Since the 2011 Arab Spring, upheavals in domestic politics, shifting regional power balances and international shocks have affected Islamist movements and parties that have been coming to the forefront of the political arena in the Middle East.

They came on the scene as powerful political actors in the 1970s and have evolved over time. However, it is the strong showing they made in Egypt, where they finally came to power through electoral politics, that represents the most striking turning point in their recent history.

In January of 2011, the Egyptian people mobilized in massive numbers against the political regime of President Hosni Mubarak and ended his 30-year reign. A year later Egyptians conducted an election which chose as president Muhammed Morsi, the candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP).

This victory and the subsequent Islamist-led government in Egypt in 2012–2013 aroused fierce opposition. After the favourable momentum they enjoyed in the aftermath of the 2010–2011 uprisings, they found themselves in an increasingly hostile environment.

The 2013 military coup in Egypt against Morsi and the crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood proved how easily elected institutions could be toppled as a result of social discontent. It exposed the vulnerability of the Islamists’ condition, even when in power.

The modern Egyptian state has been engaged in complex and dynamic relations with the Brotherhood for decades, just as it has alternately tolerated, censored, suppressed, and promoted a wider range of Islamic voices in public discourse.

A new party, the Salafist fundamentalist Islamic Party of the Light, formed in 2011, adapted to this environment to gain relevance at the expense of the Muslim Brotherhood. Its origins lay in a powerful religious organization called the Salafi Da‘wa, or the Salafi Call, established in the late 1970s. 

The party was founded by Imad Abd al-Ghaffour, a medical doctor, who decided that, in the post-revolution era, they needed a party of their own separate from the FJP to have a say in the post-Mubarak transition.

Applying Islamic Sharia in all aspects of life was the party’s main goal. They called for people to follow the Islam that was practiced during the time of the Prophet Muhamad and his companions, and for Islamic ethics to be the terms of reference of daily life.

However, the political behavior the party adopted puzzled most observers, who had expected it to become an Islamist party on the far right of the FJP and therefore more politically intransigent.

Instead, it took a pragmatic, flexible approach to politics, in contrast to the Muslim Brotherhood. Abd al-Ghaffour even rejected the label “Salafi” for the party, arguing that it was a “party for all Egyptians.”

Showing a greater extent of flexibility and strategic thinking, it contested the 2011 parliamentary elections and won 112 seats out of 498 in the first post-Mubarak parliamentary polls held between November 2011 and January 2012. This made them the second-largest political force in parliament after the FJP, which won 222 seats.

It also captured 45 seats in the Senate elections in January 2012, coming in second to the FJP, which won 105 seats, out of a total of 270 seats.

Though the Party of the Light had joined an alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood, it would later support the July 3, 2013 military coup against President Morsi.

Meanwhile, Abd al-Ghaffour lost a leadership battle with Younes Abd-al-Halim Makioun and launched the new Homeland Party in early 2013; however, it has faded as a political force.

Have the Islamic parties had their day under the post-Morsi regime of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi? During the 2015 parliamentary elections, in which the Party of the Light was the sole religious party to compete, some speculated that the party would do well, since it was now the only electoral option for religious conservatives.  However, it gained only 12 seats out of 596.

In last October’s vote, it fared even worse, with just seven seats. The failure of the party as well to capture any seats in the 300-member Senate elections a month earlier, in September, won overwhelmingly by pro-Sisi forces, raises questions about the prospects of the party as well as the future of political Islam in the country.

 

Is Joe Biden Up for the Job?

By Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

Don’t be fooled, after hearing U.S. President Joe Biden read a speech to a joint session of the U.S. Congress April 28, into thinking he’s running the country.

He was simply giving voice to the two ventriloquists sitting behind him – Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Vice-President Kamala Harris. They, along with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, are really in charge, for better or worse.

Backing them in prime positions in Biden’s administration are many old Obama hands like Avril Haines, Samantha Power and Janet Yellin. In fact nearly 60 percent of appointees are officials from the Obama administration.

One month ago, on March 25, Biden had finally held his first press conference. Anyone could see how frail he was. Many newspapers revealed several “cheat sheets” used by Biden, including one with the headshots and names of reporters he planned to call upon.  

The press pool was limited to 25 reporters, and Biden only took questions from a list of journalists whose names and outlets he read from a cue card. He abruptly wrapped up the press conference, telling reporters, “But folks. I’m going,” without allowing follow-up questions.  

Roger Kimball in the March 25 Spectator observed that Biden “faced a few mild questions from essentially friendly reporters who were hand-picked by his minders to be sure they were on side.” 

As one (anonymous) critic pointed out, he is, to put it charitably, in “cognitive decline.” In case I’m accused of “ageism,” I’d like to point out that I’m not much younger than Biden. 

So we were left to analyze a video of Biden falling down the stairs of Air Force One or hearing him state that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a “killer” — a word the leader of one powerful country should never use against another, unless willing to break off relations or go to war.

I’d feel sorry for Biden if he had been forced into this job. But he asked for it — literally. 

Still, his selection as the Democratic party candidate remains a puzzle. The country, mired in a pandemic, mutual hatred between Democrats and Republicans, and serious ethnic tensions, needs strong leadership. Instead, it got Biden. 

Even sycophants can’t turn him into a Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln or even Bill Clinton, though they try. One puff piece, a March 26 Politico article, “Why Joe Biden is embracing his age,” by Michael Kruse, hoped he might “ultimately rank among the most consequential of modern presidents.” 

America’s ruling circles have shown disdain for the rest of the country. Since most of the “oligarchs,” as they’d be called elsewhere, support the Democrats, the party had no qualms about putting Biden in the White House. They knew others would shape actual policy. 

The Democrats perpetrated a fraud on the American people and sold them a bill of goods. Other presidents have also become ill, but only after many years in the White House — Woodrow Wilson and Ronald Reagan towards the end of their second terms, Franklin Roosevelt after 12 years in office. 

Biden was simply a placeholder because the party insiders didn’t want those whom most of their supporters preferred: for some, it was Kamala Harris, for others Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. 

It made a mockery of the whole primary process, too. That simply came to an abrupt end. 

In their book Lucky: How Joe Biden Barely Won the Presidency, journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Pares describe the concerns that some Democrats had last summer about him.  

Back in April 2019, when Biden announced he was running, he wasn’t an obvious favourite in a crowded field of Democratic aspirants. During the early days of his campaign, he was rambling and repeating himself more than ever. 

Allen and Parnes even quote a staffer who worried about the optics of Biden sitting in his basement during the summer: It looked, he remarked, as if Biden were in hiding. 

The election was indeed “stolen” -- not via fraudulent voting, but by the very choice of the candidate. Surprisingly, at that press conference, Biden told the reporters he was willing to run for a second term — at which point he’d be almost 82 years old. That won’t happen.

 

Can America Contend With a Rising China?

By Henry Srebrnik, [Moncton, NB] Times & Transcript

China’s President Xi Jinping has called for a new world order, using a speech at the Boao Forum for Asia Annual Conference April 20 to launch a veiled attack against American global leadership.

“Bossing others around and interfering in other countries’ internal affairs would not get one any support,” Xi told the 4,000 participants. “World affairs should be handled through extensive consultation, and the future of the world should be decided by all countries working together. We must not let the rules set by one or a few countries be imposed on others, or allow unilateralism pursued by certain countries to set the pace for the whole world.”

China’s ambition is to be a global leader of nations that oppose Washington and its allies. It not only refutes American criticism of its internal affairs but presents its own values as a model for others.

Most of America’s problems in competing with China are domestic.  Americans are the ones who have spent the past year rejecting their history, destroying statutes of prominent figures, tolerating widespread looting and arson, eliminating meritocratic competition in many of their schools and universities, and directing their military to focus on social issues rather than fighting wars.

When members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff claim the biggest threats to national security are domestic terrorists led by white nationalists, there is real trouble afoot.

The pandemic heightened this self-destruction. The wealth gap has soared. While those at the top, along with professionals, bureaucrats and teachers, have been spared, small business entrepreneurs and the working class has been ravaged by lockdowns and other restrictions.

The southern border with Mexico is a shambles and the governors bearing the brunt are adamant. Arizona Governor Doug Ducey on April 21 sent the National Guard to the southwest border, declaring a state of emergency. It’s no wonder that China sees the country as decadent and weak.

The Chinese in years past had told Washington they were going to trade fairly and honour their treaty to leave Hong Kong alone until 2047. They said they were going to stop coercing American companies into handing over their intellectual property to Chinese companies. But they didn’t honour those promises.

Today’s aggressive stance on the part of Beijing has been termed “wolf-warrior diplomacy,” a foreign policy named after a recent Chinese movie. The days when China would seek to hide its strength are over.

Chinese representatives when meeting their American counterparts in Anchorage March 19 made it clear that they do not believe that the new administration is dealing from a position of strength.

Such tough talk, which even includes insulting foreign leaders, is paired with Chinese hard power initiatives for construction of artificial islands for military bases in the South China Sea, the Belt and Road Initiative, and Chinese entry into dual-purpose (military and private sector) technologies.

Basing the Chinese Communist Party’s legitimacy by obtaining nationalist goals internationally has proven to be a powerful legitimating ideology which provides popular support and insulates President Xi from any dissatisfied elites. They recognize that toppling a leader forwarding a strong international Chinese agenda would invite backlash.

 U.S. President Joe Biden downplayed Xi’s repressive policies at a CNN televised event in Milwaukee on Feb. 16. “I am not going to speak out against what he’s doing in Hong Kong, what he’s doing with the Uighurs in western mountains of China and Taiwan.  Culturally there are different norms that each country and their leaders are expected to follow.”

China’s foreign minister, Wang Yi, took advantage of this on Feb. 22 when addressing the United Nations Human Rights Council by claiming that Xinjiang-related issues “are in essence about countering violent terrorism and separatism.”

The United States and China may be caught in the Thucydides’ Trap, a term that refers to the dangerous dynamic that occurs when a rising power threatens to displace an existing great power as an international hegemon.

There’s a time lag between the end of an empire and perceptions of its demise by its leaders and citizens. The British Empire was doomed after 1945, but it took some two decades before the average Briton realized it. Is the same true of the American empire today?