US attempts to ban TikTok are not about ‘security’

Washington lawmakers have an aversion to anything coming out of China and attaining global success

TikTok is the most successful social media app to emerge in the past decade.

A huge phenomenon among young people, TikTok has established itself as the single most downloaded application in the world, which has become a staple for many people’s lives in the same way legacy platforms such as Facebook had before.

However, not everyone is happy. One unique characteristic of TikTok is that it’s the first non-American social media app to ever gain worldwide ascendancy. Even more importantly, it’s Chinese, and as much as the application isn’t political, its association with Beijing has landed it in the line of fire.

A US House committee has just voted to forward an act which, if signed into law, will give the president power to ban TikTok as he wishes. Likewise, US President Joe Biden himself has ordered the application removed from all federally owned devices, a move which has been copied by some other Western countries.

Read more
US House committee votes on TikTok ban

The claim is, because TikTok is “Chinese-owned,” it must be a “national security risk.” The most hawkish US senators, such as Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio, have never disguised their intentions to have it banned completely in the United States, and who can forget that the Trump administration already attempted to do so but was unsuccessful after the move was challenged in court?

Of course, there isn’t any serious evidence of a “security risk” posed by TikTok – only guilt by association, since the app is Chinese. The firm has worked hard, and devotes enormous amounts of money to lobbying and marketing to prove the opposite. Apparently, that is not enough to stop the tide of paranoia sweeping in its direction.

The reality? The US just isn’t rational when it comes to dealing with China. American political culture is deeply affected by ‘McCarthyist’ scaremongering, and when there are not enough solid facts available to justify an aggressive political decision, such decisions are made based on emotional statements. These emotional statements are most often related to fear or hatred, and trumped up as necessary to manufacture public consent. This is a ‘post-truth’ world, and China is on the other side of it.

Over the past few years, the US has developed an aversion to anything coming out of China that has attained global success. US foreign policy is now obsessed with trying to contain China at all costs, especially in the field of high-end technologies which, if Beijing is allowed to succeed, will enormously deplete US power and influence.

The US has subsequently “entity listed” or blacklisted thousands of Chinese companies. Recent measures include targeting Beijing’s entire semiconductor industry. This was after Washington set out to cripple Huawei. As the US pursues the Chinese companies it seeks to take down, it levels the same vague allegations at them, claiming that they are a “national security threat,” and that through their “association” with the Chinese government, there is a risk that the technology will be used to take your data and spy on them.

Read more
Why is the Covid-19 lab leak theory back in the headlines?

These allegations can get as silly as claiming Chinese-made fridges can spy on people. Never in this ‘debate’ is any solid evidence ever provided. The US just simply says so again and again, until it becomes an established trope in popular discourse, is parroted by the mainstream media, and steers the public debate in allied countries to get the foreign policy outcomes that Washington wants. This is precisely how the US was able to convince allied countries to exclude Huawei from its 5G networks.

However, it still remains unclear if the Biden administration will actually ban TikTok countrywide. First, it is because, as much as it is a hugely successful Chinese application, the reality is that the stakes of TikTok’s success are not strategic. It does not alter the balance of power between the US or China in a dynamic which can have military implications, at least not in a way that something such as semiconductors can. Secondly, such a ban can have shocking reverberations for freedom of speech and there is a serious argument that it may be unconstitutional. Case in point, the previous attempts to ban Chinese applications by the Trump administration, including WeChat and TikTok itself, were blocked in the courts. This sets a precedent regardless of any bill the US Congress may pass.

Given this, it is clear that the obsession over TikTok is nothing more than collective mass hysteria, the same mass hysteria which pervades all things related to China in the US today. However, whether this will ever lead to substantial policy outcomes in the TikTok case remains to be seen, and if it ever did, it would likely provoke outrage and cost Biden a generation of young voters.

EU must shift to wartime economy – industry commissioner

The European bloc’s arms sector is struggling to satisfy Kiev’s growing demands

The European Union’s industry chief has said the bloc will have to shift to a “wartime” economic model if it hopes to meet Kiev’s battlefield needs, with senior Ukrainian officials voicing hopes for a massive influx of shells from their foreign sponsors.

Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton discussed plans to bolster arms and ammo shipments to Ukraine during a sit-down with the Financial Times, saying he is working with the EU’s foreign policy head Josep Borrell to expand industrial capacity in Europe, slash supply bottlenecks and pressure banks to boost their lending to facilitate military transfers to Kiev.

“I believe it is time that the European defense industry moves to a wartime economy model to cater for our defense production needs,” he told the outlet on Friday, adding that he and Borrell are “fully determined to support the production ramp-up of the European defense industry to face the realities of a high-intensity conflict – starting with the question of ammunition.”

Read more
Contents of latest Ukraine weapons package revealed

Though unnamed diplomats voiced their doubts to FT – with one asking “How are we going to pay for this?” – the efforts to speed deliveries to Kiev and replenish Europe’s own domestic stocks come after Ukrainian Defense Minister Aleksey Reznikov pleaded with the bloc for 250,000 artillery shells per month, vastly outpacing any existing EU plan.

In a letter to European defense chiefs on Friday, Reznikov spoke of the “crucial role” played by artillery on the battlefield, claiming Ukrainian troops burn through 110,000 155mm shells every few weeks. 

Ukrainian troops are “limited by the amount of available artillery shells” and need at least 356,400 rounds per month to “successfully execute” their tasks – or a whopping 594,000 shells monthly to use their artillery power to full capacity, Reznikov claimed.

According to the Times, Borrell is aiming at a “less ambitious” scheme, instead hoping to disperse €1 billion over “the next few months” to partially cover the bill for donated shells from allies.

Read more
Pentagon says it struggles to track US weapons in Ukraine

With costs soaring amid growing shortages on the continent, 155mm shells produced in Europe could run as much as €3,300 for a single round, a recent weapons contract inked between EU members suggests. Based on that estimate, the ammunition sought by Kiev could cost the bloc some €825,000,000 for just one month, though officials have yet to confirm any specific figures.

It is hard to trace how many shells Ukraine has been getting from the armories of its European backers, but over the past year the United States alone sent “over 1,000,000 155mm artillery rounds,” according to the Pentagon’s latest data.

Argentina ends deal on disputed islands with UK

The Foradori-Duncan Pact on the Falklands/Malvinas was seen as conceding too much

Argentina has formally renounced a 2016 deal with the UK regarding the disputed Falklands/Malvinas islands in the South Atlantic, the site of a bloody 1982 conflict, saying on Thursday that the matter needs to be resolved under the UN guidelines on decolonization. London insists that the issue was settled after local residents chose in a referendum to be ruled by Britain. 

Argentinian Foreign Minister Santiago Cafiero said he had informed his British counterpart, James Cleverly, of the decision at their meeting in New Delhi, India, on the sidelines of the G20 summit.

Argentina “has proposed to resume negotiations on the question of sovereignty,” in compliance with the mandate of the UN General Assembly and the world body’s Committee on Decolonization, added Cafiero.

Read more
Argentina urges dialogue with Britain on disputed islands

“The Falkland Islands are British,” Cleverly responded. “Islanders have the right to decide their own future – they have chosen to remain a self-governing UK Overseas Territory.”

Minister for the Americas David Rutley, who had just visited Buenos Aires, called the decision “disappointing” and accused Argentina of choosing to “step away from an agreement that has brought comfort to the families of those who died in the 1982 conflict.”

The disputed islands are located in the South Atlantic, about 600km off the Argentine mainland. Argentina lays claim to what it calls the Islas Malvinas, saying they were part of the territory granted independence from Spain in 1816. The UK has ruled what it calls the Falkland Islands since 1833. Argentina and the UK fought a ten-week war over the islands in 1982, which claimed almost 1,000 lives and ended in a British victory.

Read more
Secret UK plan for Falklands War revealed

A nonbinding UN General Assembly resolution from 1965 called on both countries not to make unilateral changes in the dispute over the islands.

In the 2016 pact, Argentina and the UK agreed to disagree over sovereignty, but pledged to cooperate on energy, shipping, fishing, transportation, and identifying the remains of soldiers killed in the conflict. Alan Duncan, the minister who negotiated the deal with Argentina’s deputy foreign minister, Carlos Foradori, insinuated in his diaries that the talks were fueled by a constant supply of Merlot from the British Embassy’s wine cellar. Foradori has denied this.

Rt

Top Pentagon official warns Ukraine about paying for arms

Kiev eventually needs to foot the bill for some weapons shipments, a US Assistant Defense Secretary has said

Ukraine should eventually step in to cover the costs of some weapons it receives from its Western backers, the US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Celeste Wallander, told Congress on Tuesday.

Speaking at a House Appropriations Committee hearing, Rep. Michael Garcia (R-Calif.) said that it would be important for the US to initiate foreign military sales to Ukraine, rather than providing Kiev with arms for free, claiming that it “would go a long way with American taxpayers.”

Wallander responded that while the Ukrainians had actually bought some weapons themselves, they “haven’t done any big figure procurement from American companies.”

“They don’t have that scale of capability in their budget right now… but it’s a very good point that we also need to transition them to start their own defense spending planning as well as everything else we will do to support them,” she said.

Read more
Republicans push to end Ukraine aid

Since the start of the Ukraine conflict more than one year ago, the US has committed to support Kiev with more than $31.7 billion in security assistance, including M1 Abrams tanks, hundreds of artillery pieces and thousands of anti-aircraft systems. Russia has repeatedly warned that arms shipments to Ukraine will only prolong the conflict.

While US President Joe Biden has vowed to support Ukraine for “as long as it takes,” that stance has faced some opposition, especially from the Republican Party. Earlier this month, a group of GOP lawmakers put forward the “Ukraine Fatigue Resolution” calling on Washington to “end its military and financial aid to Ukraine” while urging “all combatants to reach a peace agreement.”

Late last year, Republicans introduced a resolution spearheaded by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, calling for an audit of US aid to Ukraine. However, it was narrowly defeated in the House of Representatives in early December.

German FM plans ‘feminist’ blitz

Annalena Baerbock believes gender issues are “bitterly necessary” for Berlin

Green Party leader Annalena Baerbock has put together a platform for “feminist foreign policy,” several outlets reported on Tuesday. The revamp of Berlin’s diplomacy, due to be made public later this week, will infuse “gender issues” into everything from humanitarian aid and energy to climate change.

“We are pursuing a feminist foreign policy because it is bitterly necessary. Because men and women are still not equal worldwide,” Baerbock wrote, according to Politico Europe.

The 80-page report outlines 10 principal guidelines, according to the German news agency DPA. Among them are offering “gender-sensitive” humanitarian aid, involving “women and marginalized groups” in economic development and considering the “gender issues” dimension of climate and energy policies.

The measures are intended to “shape our inner workings and help us to form a ‘feminist reflex’,” Baerbock reportedly wrote, arguing that one of the foreign ministry’s goals should be to “measurably advance gender equality worldwide.” She also wants to create a new post of “ambassador for feminist foreign policy.”

Read more
EU’s largest economy shrinks

By her definition, however, feminism policy is not just for women, but also for those “marginalized by society on the basis of gender identity, origin, religion, age, disability, sexual orientation or other reasons.”

Therefore, in addition to spending 85% of project funds in a “gender-sensitive” manner, the Foreign Ministry intends to spend another 8% in a “gender-transformative” way that “actively challenges gender norms” by the end of the legislative cycle.

Baerbock’s Greens are currently in the “traffic light coalition” with Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Social Democrats and the Free Democrats. The opposition has already pushed back, however. Bavarian PM Markus Soeder, who chairs the CSU party, told the Mediengruppe Bayern that her plan was “incomprehensible” and that “traveling the world and telling everyone else what they should and should not do is doomed to failure.”

Soeder has already called on Scholz to sack Baerbock before she becomes a “security risk.” The foreign minister has made a series of un-diplomatic gaffes over the past several months, mostly in relation to the conflict in Ukraine, reportedly prompting Scholz’s office to keep “careful track” of her mistakes.

Read more
Top politician calls on Scholz to ‘stop’ German foreign minister

In August 2022, Baerbock infamously told an EU conference in Prague that she intended to deliver on her promises to Ukraine “no matter what my German voters think.”

Last month, during a debate in the European Parliament on sending Ukraine more weapons, Baerbock said EU members should not fight among themselves, since “we are fighting a war against Russia.” She later walked that back, but still claimed her remarks were taken out of context and deliberately misinterpreted by the “Russian regime’s propaganda.”

In mid-February, Baerbock told the Munich Security Conference that Moscow’s policy needed to “change by 360 degrees,” prompting former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to dub her a “connoisseur of geometry.”

FBI makes claim over ‘most likely’ Covid origin

The head of the bureau accused Beijing of attempting to “thwart” investigations into the source of the global pandemic

FBI Director Christopher Wray has claimed Covid-19 “most likely” originated due to a leak from a Chinese government laboratory, citing a bureau assessment. The assertion follows reports regarding a classified briefing by the Energy Department, which also alleged that the pathogen may have emerged from a lab.

Speaking to Fox News for an interview that aired on Tuesday, Wray was asked to comment on the genesis of the worldwide health crisis, and replied that his agency is confident the virus escaped from a lab in Wuhan, China in late 2019.

“The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan. Here you are talking about a potential leak from a Chinese government-controlled lab,” he said. Wray added that the virus has killed “millions of Americans” and “that’s precisely what that capability was designed for.”

#FBI Director Wray confirmed that the Bureau has assessed that the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic likely originated from a lab incident in Wuhan, China. pic.twitter.com/LcBVNU7vmO

— FBI (@FBI) March 1, 2023

The bureau took the additional step of transcribing Wray’s comments into a series of tweets, apparently hoping to amplify the director’s claims online. He provided no evidence to support his assertions, instead telling Fox’s Bret Baier that most details surrounding the FBI probe are “classified.”

Read more
China tells US to end lab leak ‘smears’

Wray went on to accuse the Chinese government of “doing its best to try to thwart and obfuscate the work here,” referring to investigations by US federal agencies and “foreign partners,” but did not describe the alleged efforts to hinder the probes.

The director’s comments came on the heels of a report published in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend, which cited a classified intelligence briefing recently seen by the White House and senior lawmakers. The missive noted that the Energy Department had changed its stance on the origin of the virus and now believes Covid-19 probably emerged from the Wuhan lab. However, the department reached that conclusion with only “low confidence,” the report added, also stating that four other federal agencies remain convinced the pathogen jumped to humans by way of natural transmission, not accidental exposure in a laboratory setting.

Read more
White House distances itself from Covid ‘lab-leak’ theory

A previous assessment released by the Director of National Intelligence in 2021 indicated the FBI had “moderate confidence” in the lab leak theory, while the Energy Department was undecided at the time. Officials reached by the Journal said the change in stance was the result of “new intelligence,” though they declined to offer additional details. 

A team led by the World Health Organization (WHO) traveled to China in 2021 to investigate the origins of the virus, ultimately concluding the lab leak theory was “extremely unlikely.” Beijing, for its part, has rejected the leak claim as an unfounded rumor at best, and a coordinated effort to smear China’s international image at worst, insisting it has been “open and transparent” with investigators looking into the cause of the pandemic.