Friday News Roundup — May 21, 2021
Endless Frontier Act Advances; Blinken & Lavrov Meet; Simple, Rugged, Reliable…and for the Air Force?; Hype vs. Reality on Bitcoins & Digital Currency
Happy Friday from Washington DC. As we are writing this, news is breaking from Jerusalem and Gaza that a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is near. Issues involving Israel, its Arab citizens, and Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza take up a lot of collective energy in the policy community because they have a very high level of salience for huge numbers of Americans. This latest outbreak of fighting, including within Israeli cities and including what can only be described as far-right extremist groups, presages a new challenge for the region. Even when the guns go silent, however, the situation will remain unstable. Israel will continue to chip away at the status quo, Hamas will continue to try and inject itself violently into political issues to increase its relevance, and the Palestinian Authority will try to hold on despite its own corruption and internal contradictions. No amount of rocket attacks or air strikes will solve that.
This week at CSPC, we hosted Amy Myers Jaffe to talk about her new book Energy’s Digital Future: Harnessing Innovation for American Resilience and National Security. She described how changes in the production, delivery, and storage of energy will affect geopolitics and the future of society. You can watch a replay of our conversation with her on our Youtube Channel. Next week, we are hosting Steven Feldstein, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace to talk about his new book The Rise of Digital Repression: How Technology is Reshaping Power, Politics, and Resistance. You can register for that event here.
This week in the Roundup, Dan looks at the bipartisan agreement on the Endless Frontier Act, and what other major legislative pieces are proposed related to U.S.-China competition. Joshua looks at the meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for clues on the future of U.S.-Russian relations. Ethan talks about an issue close to his heart: how to provide close air support to special operators in the field. Michael investigates how Bitcoin is influencing a new generation of digital currencies backed by central banks. As always, we end with some news you might have missed.
Looking to the Endless Frontier
Dan Mahaffee
As we have often noted in these pages, one of the few areas of bipartisan agreement in Washington regards the competition with China and increasing attention to this long-haul competition. In a testament to how bipartisan this sentiment is, the Senate moved on an 86–11 vote to advance the Endless Frontier Act, co-sponsored by Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senator Todd Young (R-IN), and 12 additional colleagues. Companion legislation has been introduced in the House co-sponsored by Representatives Ro Khanna (D-CA) and Mike Gallagher (R-WI). This week, the White House also issued a Statement of Administration Policy endorsing this legislation.
The Endless Frontier Act focuses on the technology competition with China. First, the legislation identifies ten key technologies, including artificial intelligence/machine learning, quantum computing, supercomputers, semiconductors, robotics, advanced telecommunications, and advanced research in energy and materials. The legislation authorizes $100 billion over five years for a newly created Directorate of Technology at the National Science Foundation — effectively creating a National Science & Technology Foundation.
As concerns over strategic vulnerabilities in supply chains are furthered by the ongoing semiconductor shortage, the legislation also creates a Department of Commerce “supply chain resiliency and crisis response program” to address the security of supply chains in the ten technology areas listed in the legislation, as well as others the Secretary of Commerce deems critical. Still, as noted in our event on the Semiconductor Shortage, measures from Washington — even ones authorizing figures with many trailing zeroes — will not bring about immediate changes in the semiconductor supply chain or other critical supply chains.
Some have been critical of the legislation, seeing it as a handout to industry, or questioning the inclusion of the NASA reauthorization and SPACE Act in what was supposed to be a technology-competition bill. Given the popularity of this legislation as well as the range of China-focused legislation under consideration, more amendments are to come. Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) has already announced a planned amendment to authorize a doubling of the DARPA budget from $3.5 billion per year to $7 billion.
Endless Frontier is not the only major China-related legislation currently under consideration. Some proposals could still find their way into this legislation, such as measures to restrict goods from supply chains with forced Uyghur labor, further responses to the crackdown on Hong Kong, and measures to counter Beijing’s influence in academia and campus Confucius Institutes. Other proposals are worth noting, such as Senator Rick Scott’s (R-FL) proposal specifically addressing Chinese drone and unmanned aircraft firms by banning their procurement by the Federal government. This legislation creates a specific process by which the Department of Homeland Security, along with the Defense Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence could ban technology from companies deemed to be under the extrajudicial influence of a foreign government — along with specifically banning “any entity domiciled in the People’s Republic of China or subject to influence or control by the Government of the People Republic of China or the Communist Party of the People’s Republic of China, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security.”
Even more expansive is the Strategic Competition Act, which has moved with bipartisan support from the leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Senator Jim Risch (R-ID). This expansive legislation starts by identifying China as a “strategic, near-peer, global competitor” and moves to reorient U.S. policy accordingly. The five sections of this legislation include the following areas: competition in technology and energy; alliance efforts to counter Chinese influence in international organizations and regional strategies for addressing Chinese influence; human rights concerns from Xinjiang, Tibet, and Hong Kong, to a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics and technological efforts to crack the Great Firewall; transparency measures to address Chinese economic statecraft; and strategic arms control issues with Beijing.
These expansive pieces of legislation reflect both the complete shift in Congressional attitudes towards China and the bipartisan consensus to reorient U.S. policymaking. At the same time, despite the broad scope of these proposals, they are only authorization measures — actual appropriation of these funds and the vehicle for those monies remains to be seen. Others will balk at the push towards industrial policy, while others will think this does not do enough when many of our private sector leaders are too beholden to Beijing. Either way, a laissez-faire legislative approach is long gone when it comes to China.
Anthony Blinken & Sergey Lavrov Meet in Iceland
Joshua C. Huminski
On Wednesday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov met on the sidelines of an Arctic Council meeting in Reykjavik, Iceland in their first face-to-face meeting since the election of President Joseph Biden. The meeting did not produce any significant breakthroughs or statements, but is notable in and of itself as it is the first high-level dialogue Washington and Moscow have had under the new administration, and it is seen as a prelude to a possible bilateral summit between Presidents Putin and Biden this summer.
Not unexpectedly, both Blinken and Lavrov made standard diplomatic platitudes, with Blinken saying “It’s also no secret that we have our differences… When it comes to those differences, as President Biden has also shared with President Putin, if Russia acts aggressively against us, our partners, our allies, we’ll respond.” He added, “Having said that, there are many areas where our interests intersect and overlap” such as Covid, climate change, and the nuclear programs of Iran and China. Blinken reiterated Biden’s sentiment that Washington “seek[s] a predictable, stable relationship with Russia.”
Lavrov, for his part, responded saying that Russia’s “position is clear. We are prepared to discuss all issues on the table, with the understanding that our discussions will be honest, factual and with mutual respect.” Lavrov added, “Our position is very simple: we are ready to discuss all the issues without exception, but under perception that the discussion will be honest, with the facts on the table, and of course on the basis of mutual respect.” He did note that Moscow and Washington “greatly diverge when it comes to our assessment of international situation and our approaches towards how we should resolve it.”
Speaking after the summit, Lavrov was generally positive: “The talks seemed constructive to me. There is an understanding of the need to overcome the abnormal situation that took shape in relations between Moscow and Washington in the previous years. There are numerous roadblocks. It is not easy to clear them.”
The summit comes at a time when U.S.-Russia relations are at one of their lowest points since the Cold War. Neither country has an ambassador in the other’s capital, as both withdrew their ambassadors following the latest round of sanctions from Washington in response to election interference and the SolarWinds breach. Moscow also retaliated, preventing Russians from working in the U.S. embassy in Moscow. Lavrov noted that Russia was prepared to “unload the baggage” and work to return to normal relations: ““If we don’t ensure proper working conditions for our diplomats, we’ll undermine the whole meaning of diplomacy, which is about creating and reinforcing bridges.”
The laundry list of issues between Washington and Moscow is extensive: from the increased militarization of the Arctic to Alexei Navalny and Russia’s moves against Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, to cybersecurity and Ukraine, to say nothing of counterterrorism, Afghanistan, and others such as strategic arms.
Prior to the meeting, during a post-meeting question and answer session at Russia’s Foreign Ministry, Lavrov highlighted the breadth of the question of strategic stability: “We have repeatedly described our approach to this important issue. Everything that affects strategic stability (nuclear and non-nuclear arms, offensive and defensive weapons) must be on the negotiating table. The Americans know our approach.”
That aforementioned laundry list also offers opportunities for cooperation and engagement. Ideally, finding those areas of mutual interest and cooperation will be a first step towards improving and normalizing relations between Russia and the United States. Blinken said as much: “There are many areas where our interests intersect and overlap, and we believe that we can work together and, indeed, build on those interests.”
Nord Stream 2 & Sanctions
Before Lavrov and Blinken sat down, the Biden administration decided to waive sanctions against the company in charge of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project — Nord Stream 2 AG — and its CEO, Matthias Warnig (a former Stasi officer) opting instead to sanction four other entities and four pipe laying vessels. In the last round of sanctions, it was notable that Nord Stream 2 was left unaffected, with the White House keeping the option at least open and on the table. The move was welcomed by the Kremlin with spokesperson Dmitry Peskov saying “This is definitely a positive signal.”
The pipeline represents a significant issue for U.S.-Russia and U.S.-European relations, requiring Washington to balancing strategic competition with Moscow with the energy security needs of allies like Germany. Nord Stream 2 would double the amount of natural gas supplied to Germany. While the likelihood of ever cancelling the project was slim to none, it was seen as a potential tool in discussions with Moscow — should tensions have ever ratcheted up severely (beyond what threshold remained to be see, of course) implementing sanctions was still an option.
By not sanctioning it, at least at this time, Washington is likely signaling to Moscow that it is willing to engage, while conscious of the limitations of Washington’s ability to inflict pain. Sanctioning Nord Stream 2 at this stage would likely only alienate Germany at a time when it is trying to rebuild relations within and amongst NATO partners, and almost certainly drive Moscow away from the negotiating table.
Illustrating the dynamics behind the decision, Blinken said “Today’s actions demonstrate the Administration’s commitment to energy security in Europe, consistent with the President’s pledge to rebuild relationships with our allies and partners in Europe.” He added, “We will continue to oppose the completion of this project, which would weaken European energy security and that of Ukraine and Eastern flank NATO and EU countries. Our opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is unwavering.”
While this may be a short-term sensible tactical move, it does not address the strategic situation vis-à-vis Europe’s reliance on Russian energy sources. This reliance provides Russia a not insignificant piece of psychological leverage with Europe. Of course, it is too simplistic to say that Moscow will simply turn off the proverbial taps, but the threat of doing so, however unrealistic, remains in the calculus of European capitals.
SOCOM host’s Light-Attack vendor showdown
Ethan Brown
Strategic Competition is a fickle animal, and the very definition belies any elevator pitch. Where the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) is concerned, the idea of strategic competition is multifaceted in intensity and capabilities, but the enterprise must maintain an eye on both technologically advanced peer states, as well as the austere environments where non-state actors threaten the security of the U.S. and its partners. To accommodate the variety of security threats facing the post-Afghanistan era of U.S. security policy, SOCOM will be pitting multiple vendors against one another in a head-to-head competition for its Light Attack Aircraft Program dubbed “Armed Overwatch”.
Low-tech supremacy in a high-tech paradigm
Earlier this year, SOCOM pitched the idea to congress that it needed a rapid-acquisition, modular airframe capable of austere employment and sustainment in order to engage in a variety of offensive support and surveillance roles, the likes of which the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) has relied upon the vaunted U-28, C-130, and the C-208 platforms in the preceding decades of counter terror conflict. Note, there are plenty more airframes that have served the Air Force and broader SOCOM air capabilities requirements in myopic or limited modular capacities; a variety of rotary wing (helicopter) systems, and platforms like the Embraer A-29 Super Tucano (partnered with Sierra-Nevada Corp, one of the SOCOM vendors), noted for its role as the Afghan Air Forces primary strike platform — which yours truly had the privilege of helping integrate into service back in 2015 — are among those previous systems. But while each of these platforms provided specific capabilities, SOCOM is on the hunt for something that is wholly modular, robust, and capable of performing those multi-role missions in a truly austere (think dirt-airstrip, no apron or taxiway) environment. Hence this summer’s Armed Overwatch test and validation exercise, which is really something exciting to see unfold.
I have spilled plenty of ‘ink’ over the past year arguing that the SOF enterprise must pivot away from the dominated battle spaces of Afghanistan and the Middle East chasing loosely organized terror networks, and focus on the emerging threats from peers and near-pears. A major component of that reality lies in playing the pseudo-insurgency game as it has been played against the coalition. Simply, cheaper and flexible airpower options that can be discarded at reduced cost are a key component in countering strategic force, by way of overtaxing an adversaries resources in conflict in ways that losing shiny toys like an F-35 fail to do. Two key words fairly summarize the strategy thought process in SOCOMs pursuit of these rapid acquisition/cheap multirole systems — cheap and swarm. Last week, I talked about how DARPA is fielding contracts to balloon the low-earth orbit small-sat options for an GPS alternative, less vulnerable to adversary ‘spoofing’ and ‘jamming’ by way of too many nodes to target. With SOCOM looking for auster-capable Light Attack Aircraft options, the principle of swarm and low cost remains intact as a guiding principle for countering adversaries in non-dominated environments.
To put it another way, the cost of the DoD’s flagship multirole aircraft, the F-35, rolls in at a average cost of $178 Million per unit, with an average cost-per-flight-hour of $42,169. The A-29 Super Tucano, noted above as one of the Armed Overwatch contestants, averaged $18 Million per unit with a flying hour cost of ~$1000. Shorthand math tells me that for the cost of one F-35 and all of its hyper-sensitive avionics, stealth capabilities, to say nothing of the logistical demands for ground control and mission support, the DoD can field about ten A-29’s, which can in fact plop down on an unimproved airstrip and refuel with good old-fashioned Jerry cans of JP-8 aviation fuel. As of this writing, SOCOM has been allocated $101 Million in the 2021 budget to procure five of a total planned 75 LAA platforms, once the vetting process has concluded.
Armed Overwatch: Let’s meet the contestants
Five vendors have been selected to proffer their prototypes: Leidos Inc., MAG Aerospace, Textron Aviation Defense, L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, and Sierra-Nevada Corp. The Armed Overwatch exercise is slated to go down at Eglin Air Force Base (Florida) some time in June-July, and will test the prototype platforms in a variety of those multirole mission sets, anchored to the ability to land/take off from an unimproved airstrip, demonstrate the capabilities necessary for low-intensity conflict, and sustain operations in the absence of a robust flightline ecosystem. The key performance points of the exercise will assess the following:
Rapid acquisition timelines (who can source units the quickest)
Range and Endurance (which is always affected/limited by weather extremes)
Avionics (autopilot, full-motion video, cockpit configuration)
Payload distribution and capacity (these are light aircraft, and higher capacity must be balanced against modularity, meaning the full array of collection sensors is just as important as the number of bolt-on weapon racks)
It hasn’t been announced which systems are being fielded by the vendors, but here is a best-guess at the Armed Overwatch training camp roster:
A-29: The single-engine two-seater from Sierra-Nevada has already proven its chops in a demanding environment (Afghanistan), where its main limitations revolve around warm-weather weight constraints due to climb-rate and engine performance — meaning weight must be sacrificed in hot weather — more weapons or more sensors? While the Afghan Air Force cannot be measured against the same sensor-dependency of western air forces, this could prove pivotal in SOCOMs decision where a aircraft incapable of sourcing both intelligence collection and offensive capabilities may not fit the bill.
Bronco II: Partnered with Leidos (whose specialities originate with sensors and collection capabilities), the BRONCO II harkens back to an earlier era of close air support, namely its near-legendary status during the Vietnam War. Nimble and unique with its push-pull dual engine design, the greatest detractor for this aircraft is in its limited range and weight capacity (1250lbs total sensor/weapons payload and reported 150NM operating range). Austerity could very well mean long-distances, which cut into payload in favor of fuel storage.
AT-6: Textron Aviation’s offering (partnered with Beechcraft) is the smallest footprint of the bunch, boasting a baffling 66-configuration panoply. Arguably the most high-tech of the lot, the Wolverine comes with questions regarding its viability in austerity — the cockpit is comprised of a fully integrated glass-in flight systems array, including an F-16-style HOTAS (hands-on-throttle-and-stick) control system, which is closer to a cadillac than an F-150 for these purposes. Unlike the A-29 (which I was lucky enough to fly in while deployed to Afghanistan) and others whose heads-up displays are considerably more ruggedized.
MC(AC)-208: From MAG Aerospace, the C-208 platform was another familiar multi-role platform I toyed with in Afghanistan, and saw additional employment in Iraq to great effect. Closer to a civilian platform than any other competitor, the 208 “Guardian” has the most cargo space of the bunch, owing to its Cessna-originated cabin design, much like the average sky-diving platform you’d find on a vacation getaway. This means the 208 offers something the others do not: troop mobility (#paratroopers #airbornerangerinthesky). Performance places the 208 slightly ahead of the others, but its large footprint could be a detractor for logistics purposes, although its rugged and austere competence is surely a boon for its relevance to SOCOM requirements.
AT-802L: The biggest brute of the bunch, L-3’s partnership with Air Tractor has produced the “Longsword”, built to carry a huge payload over long distances, and due to its sheer wingspan, can accommodate those multirole needs fairly equitably without the sacrificing of options noted from some of the other systems. In terms of range and loiter time, the AT-802 Sky Tractor is tough to beat.
The SOCOM exercise will consist of five total missions, with each platform reconfiguring to accommodate the unique mission requirements (which will be an assessment in and of itself) by mission. The fifth and final flight for each aircraft will have a right-seat AFSOC pilot proctoring a full-mission profile, likely executed with personnel performing a ground-phase event simultaneously. The exercise will no doubt feature beyond-line-of-sight (BLOS) communication demands, as well as sensor targeting and collection sequences to validate the capabilities of the integrated systems (critical for decision making based on remote-viewing of those sensor feeds).
It is events like this that occasionally make me miss being in uniform, because this is an event I would have potentially been tabbed to participate in as a ground controller. As someone who has argued vehemently for the application of low-tech solutions to counter an increasingly tech-dominated battlefield, it is particularly exciting to see SOCOMs OA-X program arriving at this injunction which portends a shift in strategic thinking. Rest assured, there will be more roundup coverage following the conclusion of this event.
Who’s Afraid of Digital Currencies
Michael Stecher
A few years ago, a friend asked me what fraction of her retirement savings she should put into Bitcoin. My response was, “zero” because Bitcoin is primarily a financial thought experiment: what if there was an asset that called itself a currency but was not easily spendible, had no other assets denominated in it, did not give the owner the right to any cash flows, and was extremely volatile, but also it was really popular for some reason? I feel a little bad about this because her investment would have returned around 20:1 if she had bought Bitcoin that day, but less bad than I would have felt a couple weeks ago when the price of Bitcoin was much higher than it is as I write this.
More than a decade after it was first released, Bitcoin has still not made the leap into usability. Over the last month from the top of the market to the bottom, its value dropped by 50%. If you were a true believer and actually denominated your life in Bitcoin — used it the way I use dollars: buying groceries; paying rent; receiving compensation for labor — you would have experienced a level of inflation (the decrease in the purchasing power of your money) reminiscent of Germany in 1930 or Zimbabwe in 2008. But that is also an absurd thought. You cannot actually denominate your life in Bitcoin.
What Bitcoin has, however, is the germ of a very interesting idea. The ability to make payments securely, instantaneously, and cheaply is extremely attractive. Most electronic payments today are actually pretty expensive. When you pay for a meal at a restaurant with your Mastercard, the company takes a 2% cut of the bill; sending money abroad can be even more expensive. China has been at the forefront of developing a digital currency — what they call Digital Currency/Electronic Payment (DCEP) and which everyone else seems to be calling Digital Yuan. The fact that China is a first mover in this area has caused some consternation, but, unlike other areas at the nexus of technology and society, China’s digital authoritarianism will put a brake on the country’s ability to set standards in digital currencies.
Aside from ease of payments, there are many other reasons why a central bank would want to issue a digital currency. Creating a way for people to access money securely without a bank account is extremely valuable. Unbanked people are vulnerable to predation, both in the form of usurious fees for bank-like services like payday lenders or check cashing and outright theft. In the United States, roughly 5% of households are unbanked, but in China around 20% of adults are unbanked. Most of the unbanked are very poor, but their lack of bank accounts limits their ability to receive government support. When the U.S. government sent stimulus checks to Americans, they primarily did it through direct deposit to bank accounts. For unbanked people, receiving a check in the mail could result in a fee of 0.5% or more.
If everyone could transact directly with the central bank, that money could just instantly appear in their accounts. It could even allow the central bank to charge negative interest rates, where the money would slowly disappear over time. That may sound horrifying, but it would make monetary policy easier to manage for the central bank — i.e. you would go spend that money right away, stimulating the economy. Digital transactions that are all visible to the central bank would also make it easier to collect real-time economic data, better informing policy responses.
There are a lot of countries that are looking into digital currencies. According to the Bank for International Settlements, dozens of central banks are at least researching a digital currency project, so it is not like the Digital Yuan will catch the world by surprise. Nor will it become popular outside China absent structural changes in that country. China is (depending on how you count it) either the largest or second-largest economy in the world, but the Yuan is only as widely used around the world as the Canadian Dollar is. The reason for this is that the Yuan is not easily convertible to other currencies. The Chinese government has made a series of choices for domestic political reasons to limit the global usefulness of its currency; changing the relationships Chinese citizens have with their banking and payments systems will not change that.
The macroeconomic policy trilemma states that countries can have any two of the following three choices:
Monetary policy sovereignty, the ability to raise and lower interest rates in order to manage short term money supply
Fixed exchange rates to help manage inflation and make business easier for importers and exporters
Free flow of capital, which increases investment and makes economies more efficient
The United States has chosen 1 and 3. The Federal Reserve can raise and lower interest rates and dollars can be easily converted into any other currency, but the value of the Dollar floats. Members of the Eurozone have picked 2 and 3. The Euro floats against the Dollar or the Pound Sterling, but rates are fixed within the bloc. When Greece’s economy collapsed, there was nothing it could do to stop money from flowing out of the country and into safer investments in Germany. China has selected 1 and 2. China kept its exchange rate artificially low for decades to make its exports more attractive as a form of industrial policy; without capital controls, money and investment would have seeped out of the country for higher returns.
Regardless of whether or to what extent China is currently a currency manipulator, capital controls also serve to enforce loyalty on political and economic elites. Countries with limited commitment to the rule of law have a serious problem with rich people moving money abroad so that the government cannot seize it from them for spurious reasons — see for example the Panama Papers. Making its currency easier to track, even at the individual level, is a feature from the Chinese central bank’s perspective, it would not be for any of the other major central banks around the world.
China’s capital controls and the political reasoning behind them are a major reason that the country is moving fast on digital currency. If Bitcoin or some other non-national, globally accessible digital currency became usable, it would limit the effectiveness of their controls and allow people to move their money someplace safer. That is why China banned its banks and payment companies from transacting in Bitcoin this week.
A successful rollout of the Digital Yuan would not change these incentives for the Chinese government, nor would it cause other countries to reconsider their decision for the macroeconomic policy trilemma. Other controls will test out different versions of a digital currency that matches their policy preferences. There is nothing in the development of these new kinds of currency that suggest that this will be like the development of TCP/IP protocol, where the United States’s first mover advantage allowed them to set the rules of the road. It is much more likely that digital currency will be like … regular currency, reflecting the issuing country’s economic power, bounded by its policy choices.
News You May Have Missed
Belgian Soldier, Linked to Extreme Right, Steals Heavy Weapons
Jurgen Conings, a former marksmanship instructor in the Belgian Army was reassigned after his involvement in far-right extremist groups came to light. He was demoted, yet he retained access to the armory at his base. Conings also made threats against a Belgian virologist who is the subject of conspiracy theories about COVID-19. After these threats became public, Conings disappeared from base, having apparently stolen body armor, an automatic weapon, and two anti-tank rocket launchers. Elite counterterrorism forces from Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Germany are now jointly searching for Conings. While Conings does not appear to have links to a terrorist organization, his case demonstrates the risk posed by extremist views in military institutions, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
European Parliament Halts China Investment Agreement
Deepening investment relations between Europe and China has long been a policy priority in many European capitals. Despite the EU’s public statements on human rights, there was a major push, especially from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, to make it easier for companies to operate in both regions. During the process of ratification, however, China placed sanctions on European politicians and academics who criticized repression in Xinjiang and Hong Kong. The resolution blocking the agreement called China’s actions, “an attack against the European Union and its Parliament as a whole, the heart of European democracy and values, as well as an attack on freedom of research.”
NOAA Predicts Above Average Hurricane Season
The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released their 2021 hurricane season forecast, predicting for the sixth year in a row an above average hurricane season. This year’s forecast calls for 13–20 named storms, which indicates a less active season than 2020, where a record-setting 30 storms exhausted the alphabetical list of names, leaving storms named after letters of the Greek alphabet.