Back in the late 1940s and early 1950s, before the European Union was invented, the United States was keen on European integration to hasten economic recovery, provide a market for its goods and better defend against the growing Soviet threat.

Since then it has never really understood the dynamics of the European Union, mistakenly thinking that it represented the views of citizens across all the European nations and imagining that it would grow to become a prosperous partner for United States endeavors.

The reality is different. The EU is an elite-driven, man-made institution with its own agenda.

It has shown itself to be increasingly out of touch with citizens across Europe and often in competition with or opposition to the United States. Its defense policy is essentially an exercise in political integration and divisive in terms of transatlantic solidarity. It is not designed to strengthen NATO but to create something separate from it.

It’s not surprising the British decided to leave.

In this context, we can see at least one beneficial side effect of COVID-19: The European Union has had to scale back its ambitions for an “autonomous” defense strategy.

In May, we heard the president of the European Commission repeat the familiar refrain “this is Europe’s moment” as she presented a controversial $825 billion EU post-COVID recovery package.

The regular budget for the next seven years, the so-called Multiannual Financial Framework 2021-2027, remains unsettled. What is clear is that a relatively minor but significant change will be the near halving of the proposed expenditure of some $14.3 billion on a European Defense Fund.

There should be no misunderstanding about this. It is not a setback for Western defense. The EU is not Europe and EU Defense is a purely political project. It makes no useful military contribution.

It is, of course, essential that the U.K. and major continental European nations do not reduce their national defense expenditure and not least, therefore, their ability to fulfill their NATO obligations under the massive economic pressures now on us all.

But this is quite separate from EU meddling in this area.

Just when we should be revitalizing the NATO alliance, given all the threats and challenges to our security, we see that the EU-induced ambivalence at its heart has not disappeared. Twenty-one of its 30 member states are also EU members.

In spite of lip service to NATO, the EU will continue its efforts, albeit now delayed, to create its own separate military structures. This is sold to the Americans as an effort by the Europeans to get their act together and share more of the defense burden.

Actually, it is about EU political integration and the EU desire to be a separate actor on the world stage with its own military and diplomatic capabilities, not necessarily as a helpful partner of the United States, and with a defense industrial capability designed to exclude the Americans and make British participation difficult.

As Robert Kagan foresaw in his 2008 “The Return of History and the End of Dreams,” the world of the future is likely to be defined by competition between the democracies and the autocracies.

The threat to our democracies did not disappear with the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991, but our cohesion, preparedness and resilience have now weakened. The alliance that has served us so well is again under threat from both within and without.

A regrettable “isolationist” tendency still exists within the United States, despite the lessons of history. But many of the European allies within NATO failed to reach the target of spending at least 2 percent of GDP on defense. Now, the impact of COVID-19 on all our economies means that this will be 2 percent of much less as GDP falls.

Russia, with a smaller GDP than Britain, has massively increased its military expenditure, retooled its armed forces and expanded its presence in the North Atlantic, the Arctic and the Mediterranean. Its seizure of Crimea and eastern Ukraine showed its readiness to use military force in Europe to achieve its objectives.

China is rapidly approaching the economic power of the U.S.A. Its military capabilities have also expanded massively to challenge the U.S. presence in its region and develop a strategic presence beyond, with significant naval facilities being developed in the Indian Ocean and the Horn of Africa.

Rogue states such as Iran and Nort Korea also have the potential to launch mass destruction in various forms, an ambition shared by fanatical, apocalyptic Islamist terror groups. The threats to our democracies are therefore very real. COVID-19 and daily cyberassault have exposed the vulnerabilities of our societies, even in time of peace.

The danger has been that EU “strategic autonomy” – the newly fashionable buzzphrase promoted by President Macron of France, was becoming accepted through familiarity.

It would create precisely that transatlantic divide that NATO was designed to overcome. In whatever way it is dressed up, the EU ambition for an autonomous European Defense Union can only serve to create divisions within NATO, widening transatlantic differences, distracting from the real priorities and further differentiating those European NATO members that are not in the EU (the U.K., Turkey, Norway, Iceland, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Albania) from the 21 countries that are.

Moscow and Teheran can only be delighted.

So perversely, it may be COVID-19 that puts the brakes on one misplaced EU ambition. Already many of the EU countries that pay the bills (just nine out of 27) were protesting about European Commission proposals for an increased budget contribution to cover the loss of the U.K.’s payments (second largest in the EU) and for its grand ideas.

Now the economic impact of COVID-19 is making further massive demands and a shift in priorities for the EU budget.

The EU’s politically motivated defense ambitions will have to be shelved, at least in the medium term. Instead, we should all invest in transatlantic solidarity with a fresh focus on the NATO alliance, ensuring that the democracies are well prepared and resilient enough to deal with the many threats and challenges that face us.

This article was also published as an OPED in The Western Journal

By: Susan Yoshihara, Senior Fellow

The purpose of appointing inspectors general is to ensure no one is above the law. Instead of guarding this public trust, State Department IG Steve Linick weaponized it.

How A State Department IG Used His Job To Take Down A Heroic Diplomat

source: The Federalist

By: Neil W. McCabe, Senior Fellow

The Cambridge University academic portrayed in the mainstream media as retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn’s Russian mistress and spy recruiter caught in the web of fake news and the Russian Collusion Hoax.

The Cambridge University academic portrayed in the mainstream media as retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn’s Russian mistress and spy recruiter told the Star Newspapers about her ordeal—caught in the web of fake news and the Russian Collusion Hoax.

“In April 2016, the Obama administration renewed General Flynn’s security clearance—it was a top secret/sci, sensitive compartmentalized information, it is the highest clearance there is—so all is fine but, then suddenly in August 2016, the FBI start secretly investigating him for being a Russian spy—that is why they needed me to be his recruiter,’ said Svetlana Lokhova, a former By-Fellow of Cambridge’s Churchill College.

Margot Cleveland wrote for The Federalist: “This honey pot storyline originated with Lokhova’s mentor at Cambridge, the official MI5 historian, Professor Christopher Andrew, when on February 19, 2017, Andrew penned an article for the London Sunday Times, “Impulsive General Misha Shoots Himself in the Foot.”

The Times article is no longer available, but Cleveland continued: “That article portrayed the unnamed Lokhova’s brief meeting with Flynn during a dinner event two years prior at Cambridge as the beginning of a compromising relationship between Flynn and a Russian spy.”

Luke Harding, one of the earliest and most prolific advocates of the Russian Collusion Hoax, wrote about the meeting in March 31, 2017 edition of The Guardian:

Flynn’s erratic conduct had troubled US intelligence officials for some time, multiple sources have told the Guardian.
One concern involved an encounter with a Russian-British graduate student, Svetlana Lokhova, whom Flynn met on a trip to Cambridge in February 2014.
At the time, Flynn was one of the top US spies and the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which provides information to the Pentagon about the military strengths and intentions of other states and terrorist groups.

In his book, Collusion: Secret meetings, dirty money, and how Russia helped Donald Trump win, Harding quotes from email traffic between Lokhova and Flynn that he obtained access to and mischievously wrote: “In his emails, Flynn signed off in an unusual way for a U.S. spy. He called himself ‘General Misha.’ Misha is the Russian equivalent of Michael.”

Lokhova said she was shocked when reporters started calling her about her relationship with Flynn, but she now sees the connection between this false narrative with the events of August 2016.

“I have no idea what the trigger was, but it is clear that in August there was a significant pickup in activity,” she said. In August, the Trump campaign did not collapse like conventional wisdom predicted after the Republican National Convention in July.

“On Aug. 10, the FBI opened up counter intelligence investigations on Carter Page, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort, but not General Flynn,” said the authoress of the book “The Spy Who Changed History” about master Russian spy Stanislav Shumovsky, who traveled the U.S. in the 1930s stealing military and industrial secrets.

“Something happened. We know from the Horowitz report that Stefan Halper then met with the FBI on the 11th and 12th, Thursday and Friday,” she said. “Monday is the 15th and that is the day Strzok sends the text to Page about the insurance policy discussed in McCabe’s office—and on the 16th, they open the shocking counter intelligence investigation into General Flynn. It is an unprecedented step to do such a thing  on a former head of a U.S. intelligence agency.”

Flynn stepped down as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency in August 2014 after clashing with President Barack Obama and his team. At the same time, he retired from the Army ending a 33-year career, mostly in military intelligence.

Strzok texts Page about ‘insurance policy’ day before FBI opens Flynn inquest

The full Strzok text read: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way he gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.” Andrew G. McCabe was the deputy director of the FBI. Lisa Page was an attorney working for McCabe and Peter Strzok was an FBI agent working closely with Page.

Halper is a long-time U.S. political and intelligence operative and the former son-in-law of Ray S. Cline, who rose to become deputy director of the CIA. In 2015 and 2016, the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment awarded Halper contracts for research projects, and in the context of those projects he interacted with both Page and Papadopoulos. In the same timeframe, Halper was on and FBI contract to infiltrate the Trump campaign. Halper is, himself, a life fellow at Cambridge’s Magdalene College.

Lokhova said she places the blame for her unwitting involvement in the scandal at the feet of Halper, so much so that soon she will file a motion with the Fourth Circuit to continue her lawsuit against the Cambridge don and NBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.

She would not discuss the lawsuit in any way, but she did say that Halper was the one who told the FBI and reporters that at a February 2014 dinner at Cambridge University, Flynn, still leading DIA, met Lokhova, that Halper further falsely claimed the general and the academic became lovers.

“He told them he was an eyewitness and saw General Flynn and I leave together in a taxi,” she said. “It is just not true. Halper was not at the event. My husband came and picked me up and he left with his security detail. It is so crazy. The reporters ignored that General Flynn met his wife with he was 14 and that I am a mother.”

Flynn speaks at RT dinner in Moscow

The narrative continued that Flynn had no idea that Lokhova was a Russian agent and to further entrap Flynn, she gave him money and invited him to the infamous Dec. 10, 2015 Moscow dinner to celebrate the 10th anniversary of RT, a Russian state-owned broadcaster. At the dinner, General Flynn sat at the same table as Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“Then, at RT dinner, the Russians confront General Flynn with kompromat,” Lokhova said. “They always use the word ‘kompromat’ to make is sound authentic, but no Russian ever uses this word.”

The bogus story goes that the Russians presented Flynn with the evidence of the payments and the relationship with Lokhova, they were able to flip him to work for them, she said.

Lokhova also said that part of the absurdity of the so-called confrontation at the RT dinner, where Flynn was supposed to be turned into her intelligence asset was that General Flynn was paid to give a attend and give remarks through his Washington speakers bureau that handled all of his engagements.

Flynn’s bureau was Leading Authorities Inc, or LAI, the same bureau that represents McCabe, the former FBI deputy director.

“The speakers bureau was the one pushing it and asking the Russians for more money than they wanted to pay,” she said. “If the Russians really wanted Flynn in Moscow for a nefarious reason , surely they would have paid him anything, instead of arguing over the fee?” Also, contrary to media reports, Flynn’s legal team put out a statement detailing who the general briefed DIA before and after the RT dinner.

The British citizen said she was nothing to do with the RT dinner, but she said the photo of Flynn and Putin sitting together is another deception.

“There was a woman sitting between Flynn and Putin and when she got up, someone took a picture,” she said. In the photo run by the Associated Press, the back of the empty chair between the two men is visible. “Flynn speaks no Russian. Putin speaks no English. The idea that they had any conversation is impossible.”

Now, that the truth about the attacks on Flynn and Trump and his campaign staffers is coming to the fore, the academic said she is still fighting to clear her name and rebuild her shattered life.

“The people going after Flynn always talk about the same three incidents: payments from the Russian government in 2015, the RT dinner and his affair with me,” she said.

All three pieces of the Flynn-Russia narrative are deceptions, but the FBI needed the affair as the predicate to go after a man, who had just been cleared with the government’s highest clearance less than five months prior, she said.

Lokhova’s new book about her ordeal

Lokhova has written a book “SpyGate Exposed” about her experiences at the heart of the Russian Collusion Hoax and how the FBI, CIA and the media all conspired to destroy Flynn and rig the 2016 campaign and attempt to topple the administration of President Donald Trump.

This article was published in The Tennessee Star

In early April, the imagination of the British people was captured by the efforts of a 99-year old British Armyveteranwho had set out to walk around his house 100 times before his 100th Birthday on 30 April. His aim wasto raise £1,000($1200)for the BritishNational Health Service. Donations poured in, he became a national celebrity, and by1 May he had raised the astonishing amount of £33 million ($41 million)! (Read more)

Fourteen Republicans in the House Oversight and Reform Committee sent a warning letter to World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus expressing grave concerns about his questionable reaction to what they called the Chinese government’s role in exacerbating the COVID-19 pandemic, including its large-scale propaganda campaign…

U.S. Lawmakers Demand Punitive Action Against the World Health Organization for ‘Taking Cues from China’ on COVID19 Amid Calls for Tedros Resignation,U.S. Lawmakers Demand Punitive Action Against the World Health Organization for ‘Taking Cues from China’ on COVID19 Amid Calls for Tedros Resignation

Fourteen Republicans in the House Oversight and Reform Committee sent a warning letter to World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus expressing grave concerns about his questionable reaction to what they called the Chinese government’s role in exacerbating the COVID-19 pandemic, including its large-scale propaganda campaign.,Fourteen Republicans in the House Oversight and Reform Committee sent a warning letter to World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus expressing grave concerns about his questionable reaction to what they called the Chinese government’s role in exacerbating the COVID-19 pandemic, including its large-scale propaganda campaign.
source: The Investigative Journal,The Investigative Journal

The security and defence policies of Britain and the other Western democracies are approaching a strategic crossroad. NATO has launched a “reflection process” to strengthen its political dimension. The British government is embarking on the most comprehensive appraisal of national security strategy in a generation. Yet the coronavirus plague will dramatically affect the direction of both reviews. The massive economic impact of Covid-19, with its implications for defence expenditure, and the clear evidence of the devastating potential of biological weapons, will inevitably cause a major rethink of national security resources, capabilities and threats. Meanwhile, the UK remains the leading European military power and NATO ally. Its exit from the EU does not affect this except that the UK is now less able to constrain EU ambitions to create defence structures separate from NATO, which will only weaken the Alliance and delight potential enemies.

Much has rightly been made of the importance of the Commonwealth network as part of the U.K.’s increased global presence – in terms of trade and security as well as values. There is great scope for enhancing this – but we should not forget other friends such as Georgia, on Europe’s vital eastern flank, one of just six Black Sea states, and a country where Britain has interests at stake.

At a time when NATO’s cohesion is under threat, and most European allies spend far too little on defence, Georgia is regarded as one of NATO’s closest operational partners. It contributes troops to the NATO Missions in Afghanistan at a higher level proportionately than any other country. The pro-Western government in Tbilisi is determined to fulfil the decision made by the NATO Alliance at its 2008 Bucharest Summit that Georgia will became a member of NATO. This is a goal shared both by the ruling Georgian Dream party, and by the population at large, where support for NATO membership runs at around 80%.

If this sounds fanciful – a small country, 20% of which has been illegally occupied by Russia since 2008, joining the largest Western military alliance – the process is in fact well underway. The NATO-Georgia Commission, meeting in Batumi in October 2019, agreed to refresh the so-called Substantial NATO-Georgia Package, already in existence for five years. It underlined increased Alliance support for Georgia including Coast Guard training and enhanced interoperability between Georgian patrol boats and NATO’s Standing Naval Forces. The Georgian government has recently acceded to NATO’s cybersecurity platform, becoming only the second non-NATO country (after Finland) to join the platform. The timing is no coincidence. Tbilisi has been on the frontline not just of territorial aggression but of cyber and disinformation attack from Russia, and the Georgian government, working hand-in-hand with the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) and US intelligence services, has exposed Russian GRU efforts to cripple parts of the Georgian government’s online ecosystem.

It is for this reason that Prime Minister Giorgi Gakharia has explicitly called on Britain, and other NATO partners, to engage more assertively and consistently to support Georgia’s security, arguing that “Georgia’s geography, its defense and security attachments, and its proven commitment to Western and trans-Atlantic objectives make it an essential pillar of emerging strategies for NATO cooperation”.

Britain is no stranger to the Caucasus and fully supports Georgia’s economic and security aspirations including Georgia’s integration into European and Euro-Atlantic structures. Its commitment is set out in the comprehensive Strategic Partnership and Cooperation Agreement signed by Boris Johnson’s British Government with Georgia in October 2019. In addition to a comprehensive Free Trade Agreement, the 359-page document includes measures to combat terrorism and organized crime, respect the territorial integrity of Georgia and improve regional cooperation and confidence-building, as well as security undertakings. It should be noted that Britain also has strong positive relations with two of Georgia’s key neighbours, Turkey and Azerbaijan, for which Georgia provides the crucial bridge for the export of its Caspian oil to Europe.

The Georgian economy is growing at an impressive 4.5% per year, and the World Bank rates the country as the seventh best place in the world to do business (above 26 of the 27 EU countries) and recent economic and social reforms have resulted in poverty being cut in half in just a decade. Georgia places 12th in the latest global Index of Economic Freedom published by the Heritage Foundation, just 2 points below the UK and, incredibly, ahead of the US. The economic opportunity for the UK, and Georgia, is clear.

A dynamic economy is a key condition for security in such a volatile region of the world, stable democracy is another. Recent democratic reforms – the Georgian Dream government led a cross-party agreement on a new electoral system that was welcomed by the US, NATO and EU – have cemented Georgia’s pro-Western commitment.

For our part, Britain can once more engage in its own way with friends in many different – and challenging – areas of the world now that it has reasserted full control of its foreign relations, international aid, trade, and economic and security partnerships. Clearly, Britain’s long-standing and closest allies will be the priority for these intensified global relationships. But there are many other countries that respect the integrity and stability of British institutions, our intelligence, security and defence expertise, and the practical, robust experience that Britain brings to world affairs. Georgia was among the first of our friends to back post-Brexit Britain and seek a close future partnership. In return, we must now show our good faith and strengthen our relationship both with Georgia and with its friendly neighbours.

Recently, the World Health Organization and other sensitive souls have instructed the media (and the West in general) to stop referring to the new strain of coronavirus as the “Wuhan” or “Chinese” flu because of the racist connotations that this may entail.

It is common practice to often name diseases after the people who first described the condition -Asperger’s syndrome after Hans Asperger, Parkinson’s disease after James Parkinson, Alzheimer’s disease after Alois Alzheimer, and so on. Relatedly, naming viral diseases after a population or the site of their first major outbreak is also a customary modus operandi; West Nile Virus, Guinea Worm, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Ebola etc. Admittedly, viruses “come” from someplace, after all, thus people tend to gravitate towards disease-naming structures, which reference place names; on this note, I doubt we came up with “Lyme disease” because of some deep animosity towards Connecticut. Not to mention that “COVID-19” or “H1N1” do not exactly roll off the tongue. The latter was, until very recently, widely referred to as the “Spanish flu,” the world’s worst pandemic on record, killing an estimated 50-100 million people worldwide. The term “Spanish flu” has now retroactively fallen into disfavor as well, and to be fair there is some historical evidence that suggests that the virus may have actually originated in France or…China, but tracing the origins of another deadly virus back to China (!) is rather unfashionable right now. Spanish it is, then.

It is no secret that the Chinese government has been far more effective in stopping the spread of information about the coronavirus than in stopping the spread of the coronavirus itself. It was recently revealed that government officials destroyed samples and suppressed vital information that could have helped mitigate the impact of this new strain of coronavirus. The government reportedly silenced doctors who warned about the disease. Some were censured for “spreading falsehoods” or sharing test results with colleagues, and some were forced to write apology letters admitting that they ‘disrupted the social order’. Then again, the practice of punishing whoever reveals embarrassing truths has been the order of the day since at least the time of Confucius, in the sixth century B.C. and is an effective means of coercing stability in China. Now, however, muzzling the messenger has helped spread the deadly COVID-19, which has infected some 75,000 people.

But why did both SARS and the current epidemic break out in China? Well, eating game animals has a long history in China and supports a massive industry that has been encouraged by the state as a source of income for poverty-affected areas. Until January, breeding exotic animals had been a thriving business. Additionally, in recent years, the consumption of wild animals had also become associated with higher social status and wealth. For years, the Chinese government encouraged the commercial use of wild animals, promoting the practice as a way to “accelerate the growth of farming”. So, as news of the Wuhan virus spread online, videos showing Asian people eating bat soup started circulating widely on social networks, with captions suggesting that eating bats was a possible source of the Chinese coronavirus outbreak. A specific video showing a young Chinese woman, supposedly in Wuhan, biting into a virtually whole bat as she held the creature up with chopsticks soon became viral and thousands of Twitter users blamed the supposedly “dirty” Chinese eating habits -in particular the consumption of

wildlife- for the outbreak. Nonetheless, it was later revealed that the video was not set in Wuhan at all, where bat isn’t a delicacy. It wasn’t even from China. Instead it showed Wang Mengyun, the host of an online travel show, eating a dish in Palau, a Pacific island nation.

Unsurprisingly, at a time of heightened fear over a viral pandemic, images of Chinese people or other Asians eating insects, snakes, or mice made clickbait headlines, effectively re-introducing the old narrative that the Chinese and their so-called ‘disgusting’ eating habits were at the epicenter of the virus. Indeed, scientists suspect, but have not proven, that the new coronavirus passed to humans from bats via pangolins, a small ant-eating mammal whose scales are highly prized in traditional Chinese medicine. Wet markets where live animals are sold, mostly for medicine or food, still exist in most Chinese cities, and the Huanan Seafood Market was originally believed to be the source of this outbreak. China temporarily shut down all such markets in January, warning that eating wild animals posed a threat to public health and safety.

Generally speaking, many Chinese people would probably gourmandize dishes that most Westerners would consider unusual if not repulsive, but our dietary cultures and what kind of animals they include vary a lot and are quite arbitrary. Vegetarianism is ethically congruent but deploring the eating of dogs, while feasting on amiable pigs, isn’t really. And it goes both ways: A lot of East Asians, for instance, find the taste of lamb revolting. Dietary habits are as broad inside China as they are outside; the Cantonese habit of eating “everything with four legs save the table and everything that flies but the airplane” is a standing joke in the rest of the country. Now, when it comes to the much-dreaded Covid-19, it is not what is being eaten that matters as much as the poorly regulated conditions of China’s wet markets i.e. workers inadequately trained on public health management or food safety standards, the lack of hygienic practices and barriers at markets, and the absence or bribing of regulators and health inspectors. The H1N1 virus, after all, started not in any rare, uncommon species, but in pigs.

Actually, what lies beneath all that is a deeply-engraved cultural imperative; many wild animals in China are killed not for culinary reasons but due to folklorish or esoteric beliefs. Traditional Chinese medicine is based on the premise that certain foods have healing powers, a notion that encourages some hazardous habits. There is, for instance, the concept of jinbu, which roughly means ‘nourishing by taking in (food)’. This holistic theory rests on the assumption that food is not only fuel, but medicine for the body. Well-known kinds of jinbu include tiger bones for ulcers, typhoid, dysentery, burns etc; dried pangolin scales are used to treat malarial fever and deafness, while gallbladders and bile harvested from live bears are good for treating jaundice; bats, which are thought to be the original source of both the current coronavirus and the SARS virus, are believed to be able to cure eye diseases -especially the animals’ granular feces. Recent field studies suggested that masked palm civets (a mammal native to Asia and Africa) might have served as intermediate hosts between bats and humans. When stewed with snake meat, apparently, palm civets are said to cure insomnia. As a matter of fact, in many people’s eyes, animals are living for man, not sharing the earth with man. It is also thought that animals killed just before serving are more “jinbu” potent, which is one reason the more exotic offerings in wet markets tend to be sold alive (“wet” because the meat sold was only recently slaughtered, which also makes it more virus-friendly). To top it all, the government has been heavily promoting traditional Chinese medicine, especially under President Xi Jinping’s new nationalistic

undercurrent, and while officially pharmaceutical companies following this model eschew the wildlife trade, these beliefs have become firmly embedded in the Chinese collective consciousness.

Nevertheless, these practices are not legion across China. Nor are they uniquely Chinese. But the avian influenza was likely transmitted to humans from chickens in a “wet” market, too. Scientists have been warning for years that the eating of exotic animals in southern China “is a time bomb.” The Chinese government is perfectly capable of enforcing policies in wet markets to make sure that there is no food safety risk (and by extension that it is not killing everyone in the world with preventable zoonotic diseases); but is it truly willing?

If the fallout from the Wuhan outbreak changes anything for the better, it may be that it gives a push towards reform and streamlining of the control and management of wet markets. Unified management, along with thorough hygiene and regulation standards could also help prevent the next catastrophe. But as with so many past disasters in China, it could also mean a brief period of change before profitability and entrenched interests take precedence once again. Nonetheless, it is necessary to investigate the real causes behind this deadly epidemic, whatever their nature -because if we don’t, we will only be inviting the next one; and soon.

Yvonne Marie Antonoglou is a Senior Fellow at the Gold Institute for International Strategy, a Washington, D.C. based think tank. The Gold Institute actively engages in the discussion of foreign policy and defense concerns by those who have not only thought deeply about them, but who have actively participated in efforts to affect them. By providing both coherent thoughts, and recommended actions to address various issues, the Gold Institute aims to bring real solutions to real problems in real time

By: Shana Forta, VP of Operation

Everyone has their own favorite part of the Superbowl. Some people eagerly await the Game, the commercials, or the half time show. Halftime at the Superbowl is generally borderline family friendly fare for the millions of fans watching during their yearly ritual of watching the Super Bowl with family and friends. Admittedly in years past there have been ‘wardrobe malfunctions’ involving Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. However, as bad it was, we were not mired in the investigations into sexual abuse by actor Bill Cosby, Hollywood director Harvey Weinstein, and Jeffrey Epstein.

Perturbed that Beyoncé and Jay Z did not stand for the National Anthem, my expectations for the half time show were quickly dashed when I realized that the NFL had failed miserably, allowing cheap sexual messages of bare skin and provocative dancing to take over the screen. What seemed missing to me was the loud and echoing message from the global #Me too movement, the one that highlights the rampant sexual abuse that is de rigueur and seemingly so prevalent in the entertainment business. Surely, TV executives haven’t lived with their heads in the sand during the past year and know just how important messaging is to the youth of this country? It seems like they are saying to do as I say, but not as I do.

We live in the most tolerant and women friendly country in the world. Yet it appears that the openly tolerant are actually intolerant and that sexual innuendo and female objectification is alive and well and helps to sell time for ads. In fact what transpired last night highlights how out of touch the organizers of the Superbowl must be to allow this raunchy and provocative show to go ahead: Jennifer Lopez making her entrance sashaying and cavorting off a stripper pole; she goes on to tear off her skirt to showcase her ripped abs and toned legs. She is 50. I get it. Show some modesty and self – respect Jennifer.

You would be forgiven for thinking this was strictly Adult entertainment.

In the age of the #MeToo movement, it seems incredibly hypocritical to tell our young and impressionable youth, that it’s okay to act provocatively on screen in front of millions of people, to wear skimpy clothing that seem to get more skimpy as the song is progressing, but yet don’t behave like we do, because doing so may just get you into trouble. Either we objectify women, or we don’t. We can’t have our cake and eat it. Seems like a tremendously mixed message, and one that we as the adults in this country, are sending to our youth. Enough is enough.

By: Ehud Elam, Senior Fellow

The Iranian regime is at a low point. This evil empire of the Middle East is in trouble due to several reasons, both political and economic.

Those who seek to topple the Iranian regime should seize the opportunity to tighten the net around Iran. It is in the interest of the United States and its allies, including those in the Middle East such as Israel and the Arab states. Getting rid of the Iranian regime will serve the Iranian people, as well. The anti-Iranian coalition has to initiate and increase steps against the Iranian regime.

In recent weeks there has been unrest in both Lebanon and Iraq.

Some of the protesters are supposed to be on Iran’s side since they are Shiites. (Iran is mostly Shiite, unlike most of the Arab states.) The protesters demand improvements to their quality of life by adding jobs and fixing public services. They also oppose Iran’s intervention in their country. They go against their own governments, which in both Lebanon and Iraq are heavily influenced by Iran and its allies. The demonstrations, therefore, are another part of the struggle against Iran. The anti-Iranian coalition needs to be cautious here in order not to allow Iran and its partners to argue that the unrest is planned by other states.

Nevertheless, those who just want a better life and wish to reduce Iran’s grip on their country should receive aid.

There were protests in Iran itself in recent years. The Iranian regime had managed to survive the recent wave of protests that occurred in November. More than 300 Iranian civilians were killed by the Iranian regime during the crackdown.

It shows how desperate the Iranian regime has become. The next wave of demonstrations against it might be stronger than the last one. The anti-Iranian coalition has to support the protesters, yet be careful not to give an excuse to the Iranian regime to present demonstrations against it as a Western plot.

The Iranian regime has not done enough to provide basic needs to its people. The 1979 revolution promised a lot for the Iranian people but failed to deliver. In spite of Iran’s potential and its vast oil fields, many of the people there are struggling to make ends meet. This is because the regime is corrupt and ineffective.

Furthermore, the regime prefers to pour its money into adventures in the Middle East.

Iran is involved in several wars in the region, supporting its allies in countries such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon. The cost to Iran has been more than $20 billion in Syria alone. Iran sees that as necessary for its national security but so far this approach certainly has not paid off for the Iranian people.

This policy is executed at the expense of raising the living standards of the Iranian people. Iran’s strategy also brought heavy sanctions against it that crippled its economy and caused more suffering to its people. It is causing enormous resentment against the Iranian regime. Iran is digging its own grave.

The Iranian regime has high ambitions: to be the superpower of the Middle East.

Therefore, Iran gives its protégés not just money but also weapons and advisers. Sometimes, Iran even sends its own troops to fight in places like Syria. All that effort demonstrates how eager Iran is to expand — regardless of the cost for many in the region, including many Iranians. The anti-Iranian coalition has to be strong and united so it can block and contain Iran. It will weaken Iran and buy time until the regime there collapses.

Iran is striving to build nuclear weapons. This project has been going on for several decades now and it is very expensive, another example for Iran’s willingness to ignore the needs of its people in favor of other goals.

Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons in order to have enough military strength to do whatever it wants. Iran has breached the 2015 nuclear agreement that is supposed to limit its nuclear capabilities. If the country actually tries to produce the bomb, it must be stopped by the anti-Iranian coalition. All the options have to be on the table, including the military one.

The Iranian regime is doomed to fail; it is only a matter of time considering the country’s foreign and domestic policy. The huge cost of corruption, poor management of domestic affairs and eagerness to take over the Middle East will eventually bring it down. Meanwhile, the economic pressure on Iran is growing. The anti-Iranian coalition must continue.

This article was originally published as an Op-Ed in The Western Journal on 20 December 2019.

We are living through a period of increasing threat to our security. This comes from dangerously well-equipped rogue states, from international terrorism, and from random hi-tech dissidents. Each threat requires a different type of response. Yet public opinion in Britain is apparently not convinced of the need to spend more on defence and security, which is the foremost duty of the state.

Britain’s defence faces additional challenge at this moment. At home, there is the possibility of an extreme Left-wing government whose leaders have expressed support for the Queen’s enemies and for regimes most hostile to western democratic values. Abroad, the EU is now obsessed with two essentially French ideas of “strategic autonomy” and a European Defence Union. These will lead to separation from transatlantic allies and from non-EU European states, including Britain and Turkey.

Over the years, national vetoes on EU policy have been removed in more and more policy areas and EU competences have been expanded at the expense of our national governments. It is now proposed that previously sacrosanct areas of foreign and defence policy will be handled by ‘Qualified Majority Voting’ – national governments would then no longer have ultimate responsibility for the deployment, equipment and lives of their armed forces.

Josep Borrell, a member of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party, has just been anointed as the new EU Foreign and Defence chief, the so-called High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. He will control over 139 EU ’embassies’ with nearly 7,000 staff costing some £500 million. He has a military staff, scanning the globe for opportunities to run up the EU flag on military operations. So far it has notched up some 30 operational “Common Security and Defence Policy missions”. Most were self-generated. Few stand up to scrutiny. There was no requirement for the EU as such to be involved in any of them.

France’s leadership has always seen Britain as a ‘Trojan horse’ for American influence on European security. They have been trying to remove this influence for the past 60 years. France left the military part of NATO in 1966 while keeping her seat at the NATO top table. She returned in 2009 only to be the driving force in creating separate EU defence structures that imitate NATO. The highest European strategic priority should be to ensure the continued commitment of the US to the security of Britain and continental Europe, as the ultimate guarantor of peace. NATO, an inter-governmental organisation, is designed to achieve

this. The EU will never have the necessary strategic credibility to deter our potential adversaries.

Military capabilities take time to develop but are quickly lost. Aware how drastically our armed forces have been cut over the past 30 years, many of us have persistently called for a significant increase in real defence spending in the UK and for upgrading NATO. At the same time we have opposed EU defence policy, not through any shallow motive, but because we see it for what it is – a political project.

The continental states, but also Britain, all need to spend more on national defence capabilities, revitalising NATO and stepping up to form coalitions of the willing rather than meekly going along with the creation of alternative EU structures, which sap material and political resources and send the wrong signals to our enemies.

Those pushing European integration see the defence realm as key to their political objectives. Far from strengthening the alliance of the democracies at this time of unprecedented challenge, the ‘EU army’ idea will further dilute what limited capabilities exist, blur responsibility, and send the wrong signals to our adversaries. The EU also aims to create a defence industrial development programme with common procurement rules that would effectively keep the Americans out of the EU defence market. All this will lead to division and a widening of transatlantic difference. In time of crisis, the democracies are best served by sitting around the same table to decide on a response. NATO is designed for precisely that. In spite of the fact that 22 EU countries are also NATO members, the EU wants to meet separately, keeping the Americans out. Moscow and Teheran can only be delighted.

Our incoming Prime Minister will face many immediate and enormous challenges. High among these will be our national defence and security. Clearly someone with Jeremy Corbyn’s beliefs cannot be allowed anywhere near our armed forces, our nuclear deterrent, our defence industries or our intelligence services. Boris Johnson is well aware that improved defence capabilities are not only essential for our national security, but central to our ambitions to enhance our global presence post-Brexit and to play a leading role in the development of our hi-tech industries. In support, much will need to be done to develop positive public understanding.

Rather than us being the needy one, Britain must once more become the indispensable ally that others need.