With electricity prices skyrocketing and dependence on Russian oil in disrepute, the U.K. is scrambling to come up with a new energy strategy. Prime Minister Boris Johnson wants a crash program of nuclear power development, but he is encountering resistance within his own administration:
Boris Johnson is privately frustrated with Rishi Sunak over the Chancellor’s apparent resistance to the Prime Minister’s push for a dramatic increase in the number of nuclear power plants in Britain, The Telegraph can disclose.
Government sources said Mr Sunak’s refusal to endorse the Prime Minister’s “big bet” on a radical expansion of the Government’s plans for nuclear power risked derailing a key element of the energy security strategy promised by Mr Johnson earlier this month.
Mr Johnson is understood to be frustrated that Mr Sunak appears reluctant to embrace a “dash to nuclear” that the Prime Minister believes is needed to shore up Britain’s energy supplies long-term in the face of a crisis fueled by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Currently, the U.K.’s existing nuclear power plants, with one exception, are slated to be decommissioned by 2030. Johnson wants to reverse that policy with a bold expansion of both large and small nuclear plants. Absurdly, the Environment Minister opposes nuclear power on the ground of cost:
Last year, Lord Goldsmith warned that nuclear was “the most expensive form of energy in the history of energy” – a criticism that Mr Johnson appeared to tackle head on last week.
Nuclear power is vastly less expensive than wind and solar. And under a sensible regulatory regime, nuclear power may be the least expensive form of energy in the history of energy.
This battle over nuclear power is being waged around the world, or soon will be. In my opinion, there is no good reason to stop using coal and natural gas to generate electricity. But if one takes the anti-CO2 theories seriously, then the only sane–i.e., reliable–alternative is nuclear power. The logic behind nuclear energy is so compelling that its increasing adoption seems inevitable, and one hopes that it will accelerate on account of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The flood of Ukrainians leaving their war-torn country is creating a humanitarian crisis in neighboring countries. Poland, in particular, is trying to cope with the majority of Ukrainian refugees. Joe Biden said that the United States will welcome Ukrainians with open arms yet so far only seven have been allowed to cross the border. On Friday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said it’s all about the paperwork.
Is the Biden administration actually getting something right in the immigration process? I’m as surprised as anyone by a nod to the legal immigration process that came from Psaki when she was asked why only seven Ukrainian refugees have been admitted to the United States so far, given Biden’s statement that they will be welcomed. I’ll note, however, the irony of holding up Ukrainians at the border while the Biden administration turns a blind eye to other migrants who illegally cross the southern border every day.
As early as January a spike was seen in Ukrainian and Russian migrants at the border. Putin’s build-up of Russian troops on the border with Ukraine prompted citizens of both countries to leave. This month Biden designated Ukrainians for temporary protected status. This status protects them from deportation and allows those eligible to receive work permits while their asylum claims are being processed. The policy for Ukrainians is temporary and will last for eighteen months.
The implementation of Title 42 is expected to end soon because the pandemic mandates and mitigation measures are ending. Illegal migrants are immediately expelled from the border under Title 42 out of public health concerns, like during a pandemic. DHS Secretary Mayorkas reminded Border Patrol agents and other law enforcement at the southern border this week that exceptions can be made at their discretion under Title 42. That reminded me of a story that Senator Chuck Schumer told about a Ukrainian woman and her children being turned away at the border three times using Title 42. However, they continued to try to gain entrance because they were vaccinated and had proof of vaccination and tested negative for COVID-19. My question at the time was whether or not we can trust DHS to properly vet and process a wave of Ukrainian refugees when it has so miserably failed to do so for the flood of migrants from around the world. And, let’s not forget how poorly the process has gone for Afghan refugees brought to the United States.
But, if the administration is finally doing it right and making sure the migration process is being upheld, I will give credit where credit is due. Mind you, as a frequent critic of this administration’s approach to the border, the self-inflicted Biden border crisis, I’m skeptical that they will get it right with the Ukrainian refugees. Biden once again got out in front of it and said the U.S. will welcome them with open arms, just as he campaigned for president promising to end deportations and most enforcement measures at the southern border. Thus, the current humanitarian and public health crisis on the border. He makes sweeping statements before actual policy is in place.
But in the three weeks since Russia first invaded, the US has accepted just seven Ukrainians – and some of those have been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
When challenged about Biden’s failure to keep his promise, Psaki claimed it was a matter of paperwork. She did not address why many other countries had been able to take in hundreds of thousands of people.
‘We are still implementing our immigration laws at the border,’ Psaki said when asked. ‘When the president says he would welcome refugees, of course he would, but they have to apply through the refugee programs,’ she added.
Psaki also noted that Title 42 – a Trump-era program that grants the government ‘power to prohibit, in whole or in part, the introduction of persons and property’ to stop a contagious disease from spreading – is still in effect, making it difficult for people to come over the boarder during the pandemic.
Frankly, I don’t anticipate a wave of Ukrainian refugees at our southern border. I think most Ukrainians hope to return home once the war is over and if that isn’t possible, I think they want to stay in the region. They have shown us that they are fiercely proud and patriotic people who are fighting for the sovereignty of their country.
Mayorkas said this week that DHS is looking into fast-tracking Ukrainian refugees. American taxpayers are providing millions of dollars in humanitarian aid yet, realistically speaking, there must be a plan for Ukrainian refugees who come to the United States. The cities in Europe being overwhelmed with refugees now will likely ask Americans to accept refugees.
The refugee resettlement process, however, is complex and time-consuming, with very few avenues to expediting cases from the point they are referred to the U.S. by the United Nations refugee agency, through the vetting process, to their resettlement in a local community.
But Secretary of State Antony Blinken confirmed the administration is “looking at things that we can do ourselves and do directly.”
“As this and if this goes on, as the numbers increase, as the burden increases for European partners, we will certainly do everything we can to help,” he added Thursday, saying it was “something we’re very focused on right now” and previewing “more to say on this in the coming.”
As I said, I’m skeptical that the Biden administration will handle the Ukrainian refugee process with competence, as they have a track record of showing ineptness. DHS and other departments like the State Department and DOJ are preparing for a new wave of illegal migrants when Title 42 ends. They have established a war room to plan a strategic response, if the reporting is correct. We’ll see if they follow through. There is still the Biden border crisis with mass migration from Central American countries as well as countries around the world at our southern border that has existed since Biden took office.
“We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender….”- Winston Churchill
The Taiwanese, like the Ukrainians, pose no threat to their neighbors. But, like Putin, Xi Jinping denies that they have a right to co-exist as a free people. He is surely watching Putin’s efforts to measure China’s chances against Ukraine. China, though, will face unique challenges if it attacks Taiwan, in addition to meeting the same fierce local resistance Putin’s experiencing.
For two decades, Trump has been fully aware of the danger from China. In 2000, in The America We Deserve, he wrote, “Our biggest long-term challenge will be China.” He could see the potential market with China, but Americans, he said, “were way too eager to please the Chinese” at the expense of America’s national interest. Still, China is not unbeatable.
For starters, Xi’s people will also resent an invasion. China’s 35-year long “one child policy” (1985-2015) has left most Chinese families dependent on a single child, many of whom are now military-aged men. Despite being drafted into the armed forces, these children can’t abandon the “filial duty”—an important Chinese cultural value—they owe to their parents in old age. If they are forced into a meaningless war, the entire army and the public will be demoralized.
It’s true that Xi has been promoting the “China Dream” (中国梦) to his people by building a strong army for an empire. Still, some of China’s neighbors think the military is a paper tiger. Many Taiwanese see the Chinese military display as more of a show than a preparation for an all-out invasion.
Xi’s desire for a quick war may be thwarted by the fact that transporting his troops by sea across the Taiwan strait and maintaining their presence would be a huge challenge. They would be facing the armed forces of Japan, India, Australia, and the ASEAN (an association of ten Southeast Asian nations)—plus the American and British forces currently in the region.
Taiwan also poses a porcupine-like challenge. It’s very well-defended. In 2022, Taiwan is ranked 21 of 142 in the annual GFP review.
Taiwan’s parliament has recently passed an extra spending bill of close to $9 billion for defense spending, which comes on top of its special annual defense budget of roughly $17 billion for 2022. The Defense Ministry says it’s confident that it would be difficult for China to pull off a full-scale invasion. Per the Defense Ministry’s latest threat assessment, China has a limited transport capacity that will slow an invasion:
“However, the nation’s military strongly defends ports and airports, and they will not be easy to occupy in a short time. Landing operations will face extremely high risks,” the ministry said in the report, a copy of which was reviewed by the Reuters news agency.
Still, China is pushing. China’s largest-ever incursion occurred in October last year, with at least 38 Chinese aircraft flying in two waves across the island’s air defense zone. A month before this incident, Taiwan’s air force had scrambled to warn away 10 Chinese aircraft that entered its air defense zone, a day after Taiwan announced that $9 billion boost to military spending.
Beginning in January 2022, China’s military flights into Taiwan’s air-defense identification zone have doubled since 2021. Recently, the Chinese regime has carried out multiple military drills simulating invasion. In recent weeks, Chinese warships were spotted off Taiwan’s Orchid Island three times, according to a military source who spoke to CNA. This heightens regional concerns about the risk of military escalation or even outright war.
Still, China is worried about Western interference. Since 2018, China has been tracking military activity in the South China Sea with a particular focus on American forces, especially after America and Britain increased their military presence in the Indo-Pacific region.
In March 2021, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin met with Japan’s Foreign Minister Toshimitsu and Defense Minister Kishi in Tokyo. They discussed a six-year plan of cooperation to strengthen the US-Japan alliance. Blinken confirmed the US commitment to assist Japan to defend itself and its neighbors.
In June 2021, UK Foreign Secretary Dominic Rabb visited Viet Nam, Singapore, and Cambodia. The government’s document, “Integrated Review of Security, Defense, Development and Foreign Policy,” recommended strategies responding to China’s aggression. The following month, UK Secretary of Defense Ben Wallace met with VN Defense Minister Phan Van Giang for talks in Ha Noi.
In July 2021, Defense Secretary Austin arrived in Singapore to give a speech at the IISS Fullerton Lecture series. When he met leaders of Viet Nam and the Philippines, they expressed concern about China and requested tougher US policies toward Beijing.
The U.S. has also sought to reassure Taiwan since Russia invaded Ukraine. President Biden sent a delegation to Taiwan, led by Mike Mullen, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They arrived in Taipei on March 1, 2022. Part of the group’s mission was to reassure the public in Taiwan about America’s commitment.
Before the invasion of Ukraine, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had scheduled a visit to Taiwan. He arrived on March 2 and gave a reassuring speech on March 3.
Australia is also boosting its defense spending in response to threats from China and Russia. On March 9, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced that the Australian Defense Force will undergo the biggest expansion in 40 years, with a budget of $38 billion. He said the plan will result in 80,000 permanent defense force personnel—a 30% increase—and a total permanent workforce of over 101,000 by 2040. The plan also includes cyber warfare defense.
China may also be put off by the world’s overwhelming response to Russia’s aggression. Putin and Xi had refused to call the Ukraine situation an “invasion” or a “war,” referring to instead it as a “special military operation.” But significantly, on March 9, Beijing called the crisis a “war” for the first time. China has also stopped aircraft parts deliveries to Russia amid sanctions.
Still, on the upside for China, with the Russian ruble crashing due to unprecedented sanctions from the West, only China can buy out Russian businesses at their now lowest prices. Beijing is in talks with state-owned enterprises, expecting to scoop up Russian companies and assets, according to Bloomberg. As to Russia, Xi has revealed himself as a two-faced dragon.
Now that Vladimir Putin’s adventure is making Russia a pariah nation, it serves as a warning to Xi’s designs on Taiwan.
Just how bad is cancel culture getting in the United States these days? Bad enough that the New York Times editorial board felt compelled to write an extensive analysis of the problem and announce a series of upcoming pieces on what might be done to address it. To be sure, their argument included some very weak attempts at whataboutism, somehow concluding that “conservatives do it too” by pointing to recently passed laws regarding books and curricula in public schools and parents’ roles in such decisions. (Just for the record, when the government limits speech legislatively, that’s a First Amendment issue. When a mob shuts down your business or gets you thrown off of social media, that’s cancel culture.) But when you read between the lines in the Times editorial, it pretty quickly becomes clear that the liberal editorial board at the paper recognizes that the crisis is almost entirely emanating from their side of the ideological aisle.
Our era, especially, is not made for this; social media is awash in speech of the point-scoring, picking-apart, piling-on, put-down variety. A deluge of misinformation and disinformation online has heightened this tension. Making the internet a more gracious place does not seem high on anyone’s agenda, and certainly not for most of the tech companies that control it.
But the old lesson of “think before you speak” has given way to the new lesson of “speak at your peril.” You can’t consider yourself a supporter of free speech and be policing and punishing speech more than protecting it. Free speech demands a greater willingness to engage with ideas we dislike and greater self-restraint in the face of words that challenge and even unsettle us.
You likely won’t be surprised to learn that many on the left felt ambushed by this admission of reality in the pages of the Paper of Record. Many immediately rebelled and pushed back. Demonstrating an almost hilarious lack of self-awareness, Dan Froomkin at Presswatchers responded to the Times‘ complaints about cancel culture by demanding the cancellation of the paper’s editorial board for daring to speak the words.
The New York Times editorial board should retract and resign
It’s hard to imagine a more fundamental misreading of the freedom of speech – or an organization whose credibility depends more on understanding it correctly – than today’s lead editorial from the New York Times editorial board.
The First Amendment asserts a right to free speech. It does not assert a right to not be criticized for speech. In fact, it protects critical speech.
And the protection is against government action, not against other people.
Reason’s Robby Soave offers a more (dare I say) “reasonable” analysis of the Times editorial and the public response to it. He also falls into the trap of conflating actual public debate with what he describes as “conservative attempts to legislate away uncomfortable discussions about sex and race in schools.” (Which may indeed wind up being held as a First Amendment issue in some instances.) But his overall recognition of the corrosive effects cancel culture is having on society is mostly on the mark.
The opinion pages of The Times host a diversity of viewpoints, of course; just last week, the paper published a guest essay by Emma Camp, a University of Virginia student and Reason contributor, about the culture of self-censorship she encountered on campus. Camp’s piece generated a massive backlash on social media from the very sort of cancel-culture-denying liberals The Times is criticizing in its editorial. As Politico’s John Harris put it, “The torrent of mockery that greeted her on Twitter made the case about the hazards of saying something unpopular more persuasively than she could have imagined.”
While Froomkin is absolutely correct when pointing out the difference between protection against government suppression of speech and retaliatory strikes by other citizens, he still woefully misses the mark. The basic argument that he and others are attempting to make can be summed up thusly: Only the government can violate the First Amendment. And since cancel culture comes from the private and corporate sectors, it can’t be a First Amendment violation, therefore it’s fine.
This would be a completely valid argument if we were only talking about speech, but that’s not the case at all. Froomkin sprinkles in many examples of actual contrasting speech, claiming that the First Amendment doesn’t protect you from “being shamed” or “being called out.” Those are perfectly sound examples. But he then goes on to ignore the fact that the liberal gang mentality actually shuts down businesses, impacting people’s employment opportunities. It results in people being hounded away from businesses or their place of employment. In some cases, the mob can force employers to fire people they find to be insufficiently woke out of fear of mob retaliation, even if they never would have fired them originally for things the worker said completely outside of the context of their business.
That difference is an important one and the factor that drives a huge hole in the liberal embrace of cancel culture. What we’re really talking about here isn’t censorship or the suppression of speech, but rather a domestic form of the economic warfare that has become so popular of late. Only in this case, the guns are aimed at corporations or even individuals rather than entire nations. The tech giants and major social media outlets provide more ammunition by limiting or eliminating access to channels that now comprise the primary platforms for effective speech, acting much more like public utilities in that regard than simple companies with a product to sell.
That is the distilled reality of cancel culture and it shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind the skirts of the First Amendment. It’s no longer enough to come across speech you disagree with and offer a counterargument in response. You should even be able to attempt to “shame” the person in public, as Froomkin put it. But no. That won’t suffice. The person must be hounded from the public stage to ensure they don’t attempt to voice unpopular thoughts again. And if at all possible, the mob should seek them out and push the person’s employer to end their ability to earn a living and the members of the mob should hound them away from places of public gathering until they effectively become prisoners in their own home.
If you can’t tell the difference between that and simple disagreements and public debate, I really don’t know what to tell you. But you’re not defending free speech. You’re embracing a new form of mob violence, even if the violence is primarily economic rather than physical in nature.
In the Eisenhower Office Building, just across the street from the White House on Tuesday, a select group of businesses were gathered around a board room table with key Biden administration officials to discuss a new data-sharing initiative between industry and government.
It was a complicated plan meant to streamline supply chain data, hopefully adding another tool to the White House arsenal in the fight against inflation. And its bureaucratic name was a mouthful.
“Freight Logistics Optimization Works,” Pete Buttigieg said, reading slowly from his notes then pausing to joke, “I’m going to try to memorize what that stands for.” Everyone laughed. “I think we will just go with ‘FLOW’ at the outset,” the transportation secretary added. More laughter.
Later, John Porcari, a key figure in the White House supply chain task force, offered some help by way of a clarification. The new plan, Porcari explained in an interview with CNN, was meant to increase efficiencies in the flow of goods “from ship to shelf.” But whatever the program is called, major players in trucking and rail aren’t laughing. Most are confused. Some furious.
It isn’t that they disagree with the initiative. Almost everything that moves from ships in ports to shelves in stores must be carried there on either a truck or a locomotive, or more realistically, on both. But representatives from those industries tell RealClearPolitics they were blindsided by an announcement that will affect their businesses without their input.
“It’s like, c’mon guys, let’s get on the same page. It isn’t like we haven’t been having this kind of discussion for some time,” said Chris Spear, CEO of the American Trucking Associations, the largest organization representing the industry in the United States. “Let’s keep the right players at the table because you’re going to need them, and they do. They need all of us. They need rail. They need trucking,”
“To be that blatantly dismissive,” Spear told RCP of the White House decision to exclude his industry from talks, “is very alarming.”
Eighteen different stakeholders were invited to collaborate with the White House, many of them crowding into that EOB conference room in person. There were representatives from port authorities and ocean carriers and terminal operators. Retailers, like Target and True Value, also attended. Even Land O’ Lakes got an invite. FedEx and UPS made it into the room, too, but according to a factsheet published online, they were there to address “logistics and warehousing,” not trucking specifically.
The truckers? They were absent. And so were the railroads. The two industries that kept store shelves stocked during the pandemic did not have a seat at the table. At first, Derek Leathers says he was “shocked.” Then after some thought, the chief executive of Werner Enterprises, which employs more than 9,000 drivers, said his opinion changed to “grave disappointment.”
“It’s almost impossible for me to imagine a world where an announcement relative to a supply chain coalition would not include the two modes that move 90 plus percent of all tonnage in America,” Leathers told RCP. Ted Greener, a spokesperson for the Association of American Railroads, said his group would still “welcome any future discussions with policy makers,” adding that his industry continues “to operate 24/7 to meet customer demand” and “to share data and improve visibility.”
When an industry insider protested to the White House, the response was that the FLOW plan was “just a concept.” That response rankled the insider, who says his industry has worked closely with the Departments of Commerce and Transportation. In fact, they have found a willing partner in Buttigieg, the insider said, adding that the secretary normally gets “a gold star in my book.”
A White House spokesperson told RCP that the administration has “very strong relationships with trucking companies and unions that represent them,” adding that they are already “looking forward to building on these relationships at every opportunity.”
The exclusion of truckers and the railroads isn’t necessarily permanent. The Biden official said that since announcing the program, “we’ve received a lot of interest from more organizations to be a part of FLOW and we expect to expand to include more partners in the near future. This will make the data sharing effort even stronger.”
And besides, the official noted, FedEx and UPS were in the room, and “they are major trucking employers represented in these initial participates, including a unionized firm.” They added that UPS is already part of “our robust Trucking Action Plan.”
This White House has not overlooked truckers in the past, and the plan that the aid pointed to is popular in the industry. The administration worked throughout Biden’s first year in office to put it together, cognizant of the need for more truckers and of the fact that 72% of goods in the U.S. are shipped by truck. To the delight of the industry, they rolled out a first-of-its-kind apprenticeship program to create a steady pipeline of new drivers. Given that past cooperation, the current snub stings all the worse.
Truckers aren’t immune from supply chain shock either. Many have found it difficult to source new parts for their rigs. And increasing fuel prices can bankrupt a non-unionized independent owner-operator if not handled properly. Talk from the White House about quickening the transition from fossil fuels has raised eyebrows.
Biden recently told reporters that the current energy crisis stemming from the Russian invasion of Ukraine “should motivate us to accelerate the transition to clean energy.” And at the beginning of the month, Vice President Harris heralded that “our transportation sector has reached a turning point.” Those remarks set off alarm bells.
The trucking industry knows that electric vehicles are the future, but it’s a future that is decades away. Some wondered if those goals, a top priority among Biden’s economic council, were the reason trucking was left off of the White House invite.
Like everyone else, truckers aren’t immune from the regular partisan divide, but Spear said that shouldn’t matter. “I’ve got a job to do,” he explained, “and it doesn’t matter who the electorate sends to the White House, the House, or the Senate. If they are in charge, we’ve got to work with them – I can’t take two years off and hope for a change in leadership.”
“But when you see something like this come out, and it’s that exclusive with no explanation, no warning,” he said, “man it just it just reinforces what so many out there feel in their gut, ‘you can’t trust these people.’”
Those words are not mine but were spoken on Thursday in a Security Council debate by Albania’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Ferit Hoxha. (Video here)
Who would have thought tiny Albania would become a voice for the voiceless; but I suppose there is logic in one of the world’s smallest countries, recently a theater of war, sticking up for the victims.
The Biden regime crossed its Rubicon this week, with Secretary of State Tony Blinken condemning Russia categorically for its “war of aggression,” and the president-inept himself calling Putin a “war criminal.”
While those are welcome words, they are just that: words. Putin has shown that words can’t break his bones, but he can crush civilians in Ukraine at the drop of a bomb.
Ambassador Hoxha’s statement about Putin came in response to the Russians introducing a resolution at the UN to “protect civilians” in Ukraine, all the while they are bombing them in earnest.
I watched much of Thursday’s Security Council debate on Sky News Arabia, where I was one of three live commentators. Two observations leapt out at me while listening to the debate. First: the UN has shown itself once again to be utterly powerless when faced with real aggression. Unless the UN sends in a peace-keeping force, which is not in the cards, its only weapons against a real tyrant are words or at best sanctions. Until now, it has used only words.
More significant, perhaps: Russia is not the Soviet Union, which could count on a bloc of occupied or client states at the UN to support it no matter what. Putin’s Russia is pretty well isolated, not just economically but also diplomatically. And Putin has only himself to blame.
The U.S. and Europe have been reluctant to impose sanctions or truly isolate Russia, and have only been dragged into it thanks to Putin’s insane barbarity. Until just this week, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson was alone among Europeans in even insulting Vlad the Bad.
What this means is that Russia’s actions cannot be walked back. Those bodies lying in a mass grave in Mariupol will rise from the dead at some time in the future, and they will speak of the horror of Putin’s crimes. The men and women slaughtered while waiting in a breadline in Chernihiv will lift their fingers weeks or even months from now, and point to Putin and shout out, “J’accuse!”
Putin continues to pretend to engage in negotiations for temporary ceasefires and humanitarian corridors to allow civilians to escape. But he cannot accept the more generalized ceasefire Ukrainian president Zelenskyy and many others are seeking because to do so before utterly smashing Kyiv would be to admit defeat. And that’s the one thing Putin cannot do.
MN Prager Discussion Group 