#Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies

[awesomegoodmusic]

TheWhiteHouseSpin.Com / SPIN PUBLISHING May 14, 2024 LIVE 7:35 PM ET ~ President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. Presents Remarks at the APAICS 30th Annual Gala Reported by Karen Ann Carr WASHINGTON DC - President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. presents remarks at the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies’ 30th Annual Gala. These remarks are presented at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington DC U.S.A. at 7:35 PM ET on Tuesday, May 14, 2024. https://thewhitehousespin.blogspot.com/2024/05/live-735-pm-et-president-joseph.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V843b0uhLH0 #NEWS #Noticias #CNN #CSPAN #PBS #ABC #CBS #NBC #MSNBC #FoxNews #NewsMax #TheWhiteHouse #WhiteHouseSpin #SpinPublishing #Guerra #Paz #Peace #Violencia #Matrimonio 

[rauthschild]

‘Kick that f**king door down’: Kamala Harris drops F-bomb for no apparent reason

Kamala Harris delivered remarks at the annual Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies Legislative Leadership Summit in Washington, DC.

“And then you need to kick that f**king door down! Ha ha ha! Excuse my language,” Harris said.

Zelensky is already complaining that this bomb should have been sent to him.

[theyayadiamond]

From Struggle to Triumph_ The Amazing Story of author AJ Rasih Making it Big as an Author in America from Yaya Diamond on Vimeo.

Buu-Van AjareyaJemir Hope Nguyễn Rasih

American Poet/ Author,

Christian Thinker,

Author of Change,

Spoken-word American Poet, Son of Immigrants and Son of Man(kind).

1950, Rasih was born on March 1st in Luangprabang, Laos as the youngest of four children to his Vietnamese immigrant parents.

1975, he received his undergraduate degree in irrigation engineering from Nonthabury College of Irrigation Institute in Pakkred, Thailand. After the fall of the Lao Royal Government in 1975, he escaped to thailand and eventually arrived in The United States of America.

1976, April 9 he immediately began working as Refugee Resettlement Associate Director for Catholic Charities of San Diego and promoted to work for the home office USCC based in Florida as a Regional Resettlement Specialist for 8 states in the Southern regions of the U.S.

1977, January 29th he married his other half, Vilaykhone Rasih Connie Simuong. They have three wonderful children: Bobby, George Jr. and Valentina Cupid Rasih McClees and two grandchildren Hayelee and Fox Rasih.

1984, January 20th he became proud naturalized citizen of the United States of America. 1991-1994 he was appointed as a City Commissioner by the San Diego City Council to serve the City's Commision for Human Relations. 1994, he felt the presence of the Holy Spirit and became an ordained Christian minister in Las Vegas, Nevada .Soon after this experience, he engulfed himself with oral literature, and began writing new modern American poetry

2001, he decided to further education and earned his graduate degree from Cali State University of San Marcos in Business Administration and leadership Studies 2000. He's Polyglot. He speaks five languages:

Laotian, Vietnamese, Thai, English and French.

2005-2006, he is a winner of both the Asian Heritage Awards 2006 for Art, Literature and Philosophy and the International Society of Poets for Editor's Choice Awards I'm 2005 and 2006; He was named one of the 100 great Poets of the Western World by Famous Poets Press, was selected by Marquis Who's Who in America and in the World and Who's Who of Asian Americans.

1995 to present, he Co-founded Global Childe/ Rasih Citizenship Education Institute(RACE) to promote civic education to the Asian immigrants for successful citizenship throughout the states of America and assisted 2,776 refugees and new immigrants in successful achieving their American dream of becoming American citizens. His honors also include being Immortalized on the Immigrant Wall of Honor, a permanent exhibit by the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation and recognized as Statue of Liberty Museum Founder.

On March 9th, 2019, he was recognized as the Inaugural recipient of the Asian Pacific American Coalition Lifetime Achievement Award for his extraordinary personal commitment to improving the Asian Pacific American community through volunteer service, civic engagement, and dedication to his APAC organization.

In 2022, he was recognized with the Top Honor of the Little Saigon Foundation of the Year 2022 Award in Outstanding Leadership and Community Service from Congressional, State, City and County of San Diego.

[96thdayofrage]

Reparations are possible — they happened for Asian Americans

Saturday marks the 80th Day of Remembrance of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, which removed over 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry to remote incarceration camps for over four years.

My grandmother never talked about her time in the camps. It wasn’t until she passed away that we found her collection of books and photographs about Japanese American incarceration. We have her scrapbook with the names of her classmates. We have her hand-drawn maps of the camps. And we have the letter she received from the U.S. government: an official apology reading, “A monetary sum and words alone cannot restore lost years or erase painful memories … but we can take a clear stand for justice and recognize that serious injustices were done.”

She left a folder “for Danielle.” In it were recent articles about how Japanese Americans were speaking out against the Muslim registry because they knew the pain of these racist policies. Even though she didn’t speak to me about it, I believe my grandmother wanted people to use our history to create better futures.

We know reparations are possible because they happened for our community. We have had the privilege of redress, and now, it is time to use our history to advocate for others. 

Many Japanese Americans have testified in support of Congressional bill HR 40, calling for a commission to study the legacy of slavery, including racial disparities in wealth, health care, education, and housing, and consider a formal national apology.

Earlier this month, a coalition led by the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America, the National African American Reparations Commission, Human Rights Watch, and the NAACP published a letter signed by over 350 organizations. Signatories include over 60 Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) organizations. The letter references the commission created to study the harm of Japanese American incarceration, holding up the Japanese American redress awarded by the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 as a precedent that should not be ignored.

Here in New Jersey, a multiracial and multifaith coalition led by the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice’s Say the Word campaign has been calling for action on Reparations Task Force Bill (A938/S386), a bill with diverse co-sponsors that would require New Jersey to study its role in slavery and to make policy recommendations.

Currently, the campaign is asking Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin and Senate President Nick Scutari to post the bill for committee hearings during this Black History Month. This process is critical in educating New Jerseyans about the deep and often forgotten history of slavery and its aftermath of structural racism, and beginning the process of repairing that harm. California recently became the first state to pass reparations task force legislation; New Jersey should be the second.

New Jersey’s more than 1 million Asian Americans owe so much of our progress to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ‘60s. We also share beautiful and often overlooked histories of Asian American and Black solidarity, exemplified by Yuri Kochiyama, Grace Lee Boggs, Ram Manohar Lohia, and others. Our country and state have waited too long to formally acknowledge the grave wrong of slavery and must take steps to repair that harm, as was done for Japanese Americans.

Last year, in a conversation with Duncan Ryuken Williams of the USC Ito Center, Ta-Nehisi Coates said we have a “responsibility across history” and “have to fight for what we cannot see.” Today I’m sharing my grandmother’s map of a history that I couldn’t see, with the optimism that we can follow it toward a more just future for all.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 28, 2021

Heather Cox Richardson

It appears that it is finally infrastructure week.

Today, negotiators hammered out a deal on a bipartisan bill, which includes $550 billion in new spending. This evening, the Senate voted to move the bill forward by a vote of 67 to 32, with 17 Republicans joining all the Democrats to begin debate on the measure.

The bill is not fully hammered out yet, and the Congressional Budget Office, which examines bills to see how much they will cost, has not yet produced a final number, but it appears that the bill will cost about $1.2 trillion over 8 years. It puts together unspent monies from other programs and from new “user fees” to pay for it, but Republicans demanded that funds to increase funding for the IRS to enable it to crack down on tax cheats, who cost the United States about $1 trillion a year, be stripped from the bill.

The White House said the bill would create about 2 million “good-paying” jobs a year for the next decade. It provides $110 billion for roads and bridges, $39 billion for public transit, $66 billion for passenger rail, $73 billion to upgrade the electrical grid; $7.5 billion for electrical vehicle chargers on highway corridors, $17 billion for rebuilding our ports, $50 billion for addressing climate change and cybersecurity, and $55 billion for clean drinking water.

The bill also calls for $65 billion to expand broadband internet, tying all Americans into the same grid and lowering prices. In the White House statement, Biden explicitly tied the expansion of broadband to the nation’s 1936 expansion of access to electricity through the Rural Electrification Act. Through that act, the government tried to level the playing field between urban Americans who had electricity through private companies and rural Americans who did not because the profit margins weren’t high enough to make it worthwhile for private companies to bring electricity to them.

Electrification not only enabled rural Americans to enjoy the new products created in the early twentieth century, but also created a new industry of consumer products that helped the post–World War II economy boom. Then, as now, federal funding for a vital infrastructure need opened up the door to government oversight and regulation of that utility, a principle that today’s Republicans oppose, especially when it comes to broadband. (It’s an interesting thought, though: could regulation of publicly supported broadband help address the problem of disinformation on social media?)

That is only one of the ways in which this bipartisan bill remains precarious. There are others. It is always possible that the Republicans cannot muster the 10 votes they need to pass the bill, and continuing to tinker with it is simply a way to run out the clock on the congressional session so that the Democrats cannot get the infrastructure deal they want so badly.

From the other direction, progressive Democrats have made it clear they will not accept this bill, which focuses on “hard” infrastructure like roads and bridges, unless it goes along with a larger “soft” infrastructure bill that focuses on human infrastructure. There are not enough Republican votes to pass that second measure over a Senate filibuster, so it will have to pass the Senate through budget reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority. But that means it will need all 50 Democratic votes, and today Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema said she does not support the bill in its current form. She apparently wants adjustments, but what they are and whether progressives will accept them remains unclear.

Still, the idea of this new, sweeping infrastructure package becoming reality is huge. Former president Donald Trump, who wanted badly to pass an even larger infrastructure bill during his own term of office but who couldn’t do so, has responded to the idea that Biden might manage to pull this off with a demand that Republicans scuttle the entire thing. That several prominent Republicans are ignoring him illustrates the potential of this deal to weaken the Trump supporters in the party as the weight begins to shift toward measures that are popular with voters and away from the party’s more common obstructionism.

News of this historic investment in the country happened to come on the same day researchers Laura Wheaton, Linda Giannarelli, and Ilham Dehry of the Urban Institute think tank, established by the Lyndon Johnson administration to study the results of antipoverty laws passed during its years in power, published a study of the effects of the American Rescue Plan.

That $1.9 trillion economic stimulus package, passed without a single Republican vote and signed into law by President Joe Biden on March 11, 2021, was projected to reduce the annual poverty rate to 8.7% for 2021—it had been 13.9% in 2018—and to cut child poverty by more than half. The new study shows that, in fact, the poverty rate for 2021 looks to be on track to hit 7.7%. The study’s authors project the 2021 poverty rate to be highest for Hispanic people (11.8%), non-Hispanic Asian American and Pacific Islanders (10.8%), and Black, non-Hispanic people (9.2%). For white, non-Hispanic people, the rate is projected to be 5.8%.

The study pointed to federal stimulus checks as the more important piece of this development. Those checks alone raised 12.4 million people out of poverty. Taken all together, recent antipoverty measures reduced child poverty from 30.1% to 5.6%.

For all that other issues are getting more dramatic headlines, the infrastructure bill marks a sea change from the past forty years of slashing government investment and regulation to the more traditional vision of a government that promotes the general welfare. The latter vision was behind the Rural Electrification Act that, more than eighty years later, still shapes the national economy. Getting today’s Republicans to sign onto such a measure would be momentous indeed.

—-

Notes:

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/28/1021768174/bipartisan-senate-negotiators-say-they-reach-a-deal-on-infrastructure-after-hicc

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senators-white-house-in-talks-to-finish-infrastructure-bill/2021/07/27/6f22d026-ee9b-11eb-81b2-9b7061a582d8_story.html

​​https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/564860-public-private-partnerships-key-to-providing-high-quality-broadband-to-all

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/2021-poverty-projections-assessing-impact-benefits-and-stimulus-measures

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[tcifiscal]

Let’s Make Sure the Census Counts Every Virginian

Equal representation in Congress, the state legislature, and county board of supervisors. Funding for schools, highways, and healthcare. All this and more is at risk if the 2020 Census does not achieve a full and fair count of Virginia residents, and the federal government isn’t doing its part this time around to provide funding for outreach and follow-up in hard-to-count communities. With the 2020 Census only a year away, this year’s budget amendments are the last opportunity to get any state funding to make up for the lack of federal resources. Unfortunately, both the the state Senate and House eliminated the modest $1.5 million that was included in the introduced budget for Census outreach in Virginia.

We can’t just assume that the federal government will do enough and that it will all work out. Even in 2010, when more federal resources were provided, non-Hispanic white residents were overcounted nationally, while Black and Hispanic residents were undercounted. With the federal Census funding levels at very low levels, the 2020 results may look more like the 1990 Census undercounts, when nationally 5 percent of Latinx and Black residents were undercounted, compared to 1 percent of non-Hispanic white residents.

And as a new report from the Census Bureau shows, communities of color and immigrants are particularly at risk of being undercounted in 2020. Only 55 percent of Asian American survey respondents said they were “extremely” or “very” likely to fill out the Census form, compared to 64 percent of Black respondents, 65 percent of Latinx respondents, and 69 percent of non-Hispanic white respondents. Sixty-three percent of foreign-born respondents said that they are very or extremely likely to fill out the form, compared to 68 percent of U.S.-born respondents. The low planned response rates among Asian Americans and foreign-born respondents may be the result of high levels of fear that Census responses will be used against them and a reported lack of familiarity with the Census. And the planned addition of a citizenship question for all respondents to the Decennial Census is likely to complicate matters more.

Low-income communities and rural communities are also at risk of being undercounted, with over 5 percent of rural white renters undercounted in 1990. With the Census moving to primarily digital responses for 2020, undercounts may be even worse in rural areas with unreliable internet access.

An undercount would have major implications for equal representation and federal funding that helps boost low-income communities. The problem is so acute that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is suing the federal government over the lack of Census funding.

Meanwhile, here in Virginia, people of color and immigrants are particularly likely to live in hard-to-count neighborhoods (those Census tracts where fewer than 73 percent of respondents mailed back responses in 2010). While just 7 percent of non-Hispanic white Virginians live in hard-to-count neighborhoods, 17 percent of non-Hispanic Black Virginians, 18 percent of non-Hispanic Asian American and Pacific Islander Virginians, and 28 percent of Hispanic Virginians live in hard-to-count neighborhoods. And 24 percent of all foreign-born Virginians live in hard-to-count neighborhoods. (The Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights provides similar estimates for every state based on prior-year data, along with further explanations of the barriers to achieving a full and fair Census count for America’s diverse communities, including Latinx, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander, and Black communities, as well as young children.) This matters because if you live in a neighborhood where your neighbors are undercounted in the 2020 Census, you and your neighbors will not get fair representation when legislative and congressional districts are redistricted using the 2020 Census data.

Making sure all Virginians have access to equal representation in all levels of government is the most important reason Virginia needs a full and fair count. But adequate funding for public services is also at stake. An accurate count is necessary to determine appropriate funding levels for states and localities, so that they can provide high-quality public services at a reasonable cost to taxpayers. Virginia received over $5 billion in federal aid during fiscal year 2015 alone for 11 federal-state partnerships for which funding levels are influenced by Decennial Census data. That includes almost $1 billion in federal highway funding and $234 million of Title I funding for public schools.

Many states are stepping up to fill this gap by providing their own funding for Census outreach, and it is vital for Virginia to do so to in order to get a fair count of our community members, particularly in communities of color and rural areas that are hard to reach. A national study estimates that Virginia needs over $13 million for Census outreach work to make sure we get the most full and fair count possible. Removing the modest $1.5 million that was included in the introduced budget moves Virginia in the wrong direction.

Virginia’s House and Senate conferees have the opportunity to reduce the expected Census undercount and make sure every Virginian is counted, including Virginia’s communities of color and immigrant communities that are most at risk of being left out. It may seem like a heavy lift because both the House and Senate removed it, but given all that’s at stake, retaining the $1.5 million that was in the introduced budget is the least they should do.

Voices for Virginia's Children has set up a tool to make it easy to contact your legislator on this important issue if they are on the House Appropriations or Senate Finance committees. Click here: bit.ly/VaKids-Census

– Laura Goren, Research Director

Print-friendly Version (pdf)

Learn more about The Commonwealth Institute at www.thecommonwealthinstitute.org

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

Welcome to Pollapalooza, our weekly polling roundup.

Polls of the week

Understanding the political preferences of Asian Americans is tricky. They make up a little less than 7 percent of the total U.S. population, which means pollsters often don’t sample enough of them to draw robust conclusions. And the demographic category lumps together people from a huge range of backgrounds, with roots in a large and diverse group of countries, which means political opinions can vary dramatically within the group.

But one thing we do know is that this group has increasingly leaned toward the Democratic Party over the past two decades. In 2017, 65 percent of Asian Americans were Democrats or leaned Democratic, up from 53 percent in 1994, according to annual totals of Pew Research Center study data.

And in California, which votes on Super Tuesday, Asian Americans make up 16 percent of the population, the largest percentage of any state except Hawaii. The state’s Asian American voters account for 12 percent of likely voters who are registered Democrats, according to the Public Policy Institute of California, which released a study of California voters last August. And that same research showed that 36 percent of Asian American likely voters in California are independents, compared to 43 percent who are Democrats, which means that if independents choose to cast a Democratic ballot, Asian Americans’ share of the primary electorate could be even higher.

Heading into Super Tuesday, we have four recent California polls with crosstab information on who Asian American are leaning toward voting for, and Sen. Bernie Sanders seems to have an edge, earning the most support in three of the four surveys we looked at. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg also did well across the board.

Sanders leads with Asian American voters in California

Top Democratic candidates’ support among poll respondents who identified as Asian American, in four polls conducted since Feb. 6

Poll Sanders Warren Bloomberg Biden Buttigieg Point Blank Political 29% 9% 19% 6% 6% Change Research 40 17 9 14 0 SurveyUsa 19 9 28 11 16 Capitol Weekly 28 22 11 12 12

Point Blank Political poll was conducted Feb. 23-25, Change Research poll was conducted Feb. 20-23, SurveyUSA poll was conducted Feb. 13-16, and Capitol Weekly poll was conducted Feb. 6-9.

Source: Polls

Sanders’s focus on “working class” issues might be helping him with this group, because almost a quarter of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in California say they are struggling with poverty, according to a PRRI report published last November. The survey found that most AAPIs reported coming from a middle, working or lower-class family and described their economic situations as largely unchanged from the one in which they grew up. Sanders’s proposals to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, strengthen unions, invest in affordable housing and provide health care for all could appeal to economically insecure Asian Americans.

But, of course, not all Asian voters are struggling economically. The median household income for Asian Americans in California is about $97,000, according to 2018 data from the Census Bureau, higher than the roughly $75,000 median for Californians of all races. This could help explain some of the support we see for Bloomberg, as he tends to do better with older, wealthier and more moderate Democratic voters whereas Sanders tends to do worse with voters whose household income is over $100,000.

In addition, some older Asian Americans may be less willing to back Sanders because they may be wary of politicians who label themselves socialists. Varun Nikore, president of the AAPI Victory Fund, a super PAC that aims to mobilize Asian American voters in support of Democratic candidates, told me that many older Asian Americans came to the U.S. after fleeing socialist or communist regimes in Vietnam, Korea or China and are therefore more apprehensive of socialism than younger, U.S.-born generations are.

So the fact that both Sanders and Bloomberg are doing reasonably well in the polls we have could reflect a divide within the California Asian American community, where older voters tend to prefer a more moderate candidate and younger voters tend to prefer a more progressive candidate like Sanders.

Of course, this is just four polls, so we should be cautious about reading too much into them. And some of these candidates’ support can probably be chalked up to the same forces that are influencing Americans of all races this election cycle. For instance, it’s hard to escape the Bloomberg ad machine, which has helped him build support in multiple Super Tuesday states, and Sanders, Warren and Bloomberg are all polling pretty highly in California, according to our polling average. Former Vice President Joe Biden, on the other hand, should maybe be a bit concerned he doesn’t have more support among Asian Americans in California, given that he ranks third in our polling average of the state, ahead of Bloomberg, but is trailing the former New York mayor among Asian American voters.

Other polling bites

In a Public Policy Polling survey of likely Texas Democratic primary voters released this week, 32 percent of Asian Americans supported Sanders, 29 percent supported Bloomberg, 20 percent supported former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and 9 percent supported Biden. If Bloomberg wasn’t on the ballot, 53 percent would support Sanders, 17 percent would support Biden and 16 percent would support Buttigieg.

A plurality of Democrats think the Democratic candidate with a plurality of delegates should be the nominee. In other words, Democrats are split on what constitutes a win. In a YouGov poll conducted after the Nevada caucuses, 36 percent of Democrats said the candidate with the most delegates should be the nominee while 33 percent said they shouldn’t. A separate Economist/YouGov poll found that in a open convention scenario, 36 percent want the candidate who won the most votes to receive the nomination, 20 percent of likely primary voters want the candidate who won the most delegates, 10 percent want the candidate who won the most states and 16 percent want the candidate who the polls say will do better in the general election.

4 in 10 Americans are worried about personally experiencing coronavirus, while 2 in 10 are not worried at all, per a Economist/YouGov poll released Feb. 26. The remaining 40 percent said they are not too worried. Concern is pretty uniform across party, but diverges by race: While 51 percent of black Americans reported being worried, just 35 percent of white Americans reported the same.

Of the 77 percent of likely Democratic primary voters who think Russia is interfering in the 2020 election, 40 percent think that Sanders is being helped, according to the Economist/YouGov poll. Seventy-two percent said the same about Trump, 12 percent for Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and 12 percent said Russia is not helping any specific candidates. In that same poll, 81 percent of likely Democratic primary voters said they don’t think Sanders wants Russia’s help, while just 59 percent of all registered voters said the same. In comparison, 81 percent of likely Democratic primary voters said they do think Trump wants Russia’s help, while 48 percent of all registered voters said the same.

A majority of Americans (55 percent) prefer creamy peanut butter to crunchy peanut butter (31 percent), per a recent YouGov poll. Preference for creamy peanut butter falls to 49 percent in the West and rises to 59 percent in the Northeast.

Trump approval

According to FiveThirtyEight’s presidential approval tracker, 43.2 percent of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 52.3 percent disapprove (a net approval rating of -9.1 points). At this time last week, 44.0 percent approved and 51.5 percent disapproved (for a net approval rating of -7.5 points). One month ago, Trump had an approval rating of 42.8 percent and a disapproval rating of 52.8 percent, for a net approval rating of -10 points.

Generic ballot

In our average of polls of the generic congressional ballot, Democrats currently lead by 6.5 percentage points (47.8 percent to 41.3 percent). A week ago, Democrats led Republicans by 6.4 points (47.7 percent to 41.3 percent). At this time last month, voters preferred Democrats by 5.8 points (46.9 percent to 41.3 percent).

Check out all the polls we’ve been collecting ahead of the 2020 elections, including the latest Democratic primary polls.

Politics Podcast: Who Won The South Carolina Debate?

[hellofastestnewsfan]

The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Thursday to condemn anti-Semitism, along with a litany of bigotries against Muslims, immigrants, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, LGBT people, and members of other religious minorities. The resolution followed a week of drama in the Democratic Party, with members clashing over yet another controversial comment on Israel by Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota. In a recent panel discussion, she suggested that pro-Israel political groups in Washington “push allegiance to a foreign country,” seeming to echo the classically anti-Semitic allegation that Jews are more loyal to other Jews or to Israel than to the United States.

Thursday’s resolution was an attempt at compromise between House members who believe Omar has repeatedly dabbled in anti-Semitic tropes, and those who feel she has been unfairly berated for criticizing and singled out because she is black and Muslim. The resolution specifically condemns intimations of dual loyalty wielded against Jews in discussion about Israel, along with similar accusations made against Muslims in the wake of 9/11. This week, a poster connecting Omar to the September 11 terrorist attacks was displayed outside the West Virginia House of Delegates during a state GOP event.

While this vote passed 407 to 23, with unanimity from Democrats in attendance, the party was really voting on something much bigger: how to balance competing visions for the future of the party. The debate over Ilhan Omar reflects the radical shift happening in the Democratic base. The party’s young, multiethnic, definitively progressive wing has demonstrated its power to steer the country’s conversation on Israel and Palestine. Muslim political leaders have helped make this happen. Omar and her colleague from Michigan, Rashida Tlaib—along with activists such as Linda Sarsour, who helped lead the national Women’s March—have emerged as visible symbols of American progressivism. These leaders are pushing a vision of the Democratic Party as the unambiguous champion of the marginalized. Several 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, including Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, and Elizabeth Warren, have expressed their support for Omar.

And yet, the firestorms over Omar’s Israel comments show that the party doesn’t have the tools to smoothly negotiate competing claims of marginalization, especially when it comes to Jews, Muslims, Israel, and Palestine. As the progressive wing of the Democratic Party continues to gain power and push for changes to American policies on Palestine, this problem of conflicting identities and convictions will return again and again, testing the Democrats’ ability to live up to their claim as the party of the marginalized.

In November, Omar and Tlaib became the first Muslim women ever elected to the U.S. Congress. Especially among young Muslims, their election was seen as a triumph, demonstrating that women like them—a Somali refugee and a Palestinian—have a place in America’s halls of power. Both women quickly emerged as vocal champions of an issue that many American Muslims care deeply about: dismantling the strong American alliance with Israel and defending the rights of Palestinians.

Although neither Tlaib nor Omar represents a predominantly Muslim congressional district, their politics reflect a major change in Muslim political identity in recent years. According to the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, American Muslims tend to be much younger and more religious than other Americans. They are racially diverse and very progressive; they strongly support causes such as Black Lives Matter and immigrant rights. This is a big change from even two decades ago. “The first wave of the post-9/11 responses [was] to emphasize the Americanness … of the American Muslim community—a willingness to wrap ourselves in the flag, and to swear fidelity to the country,” says Omid Safi, the director of the Duke University Islamic Studies Center. “A shift has taken place where, increasingly, American Muslims … are expressing themselves in the language of being … unapologetically pro-justice.”

Compared with the past, American Muslims are also more politically involved—and willing to advocate vocally for Palestinian rights. “There was almost no conversation years ago … by any mainstream Democrats about the policies of any Israeli administration that was in power at the time,” says Dean Obeidallah, a Muslim comedian who hosts a show on Sirius XM and has family in the West Bank. And “up until a few years ago, there were almost no Muslims involved in politics. We weren’t there as human beings, to be a counter-narrative. Now we’re active.”

In terms of numbers, Muslims make up a small part of the Democratic Party—after all, they only account for roughly 1 percent of the American population. But especially under the Trump administration, support for Muslims has been a central part of the Democratic Party’s identity. Politicians have pledged to fight the president’s so-called Muslim ban, Islamophobic rhetoric, and attacks on immigrants. “I think Donald Trump woke everyone [up],” Obeidallah says. “His open bigotry has spurred people to get active, and understand that the stakes are too important to sit out.” Democrats’ rush to defend American Muslims from perceived and real political attacks is central to its claim as party of the marginalized.

The inconvenient flip side to being that party, however, is that Democratic leaders actually have to listen to its putatively marginalized members. In recent weeks, as Omar has repeatedly made comments that alarmed some American Jews, claiming that support for Israel is “all about the Benjamins” and seeming to flirt with the trope of dual loyalty, left-wing groups have vocally defended her, claiming that supposed fear of Omar’s anti-Semitism is being wielded to undermine her criticisms of Israel. Established Democratic leaders, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have distanced themselves from Omar and called on her to apologize. But progressives have revolted on Twitter and in backroom meetings, delaying the House resolution on anti-Semitism that Democrats promised earlier this week. “We are not just to be paraded symbols of diversity,” Safi says. “This is our House. This is our country.”

Pelosi seemed a little shaken as she addressed the House floor on Thursday. “I salute all our members for demonstrating the courage to have this difficult conversation,” she said. “Disagreeing sometimes, but never questioning the patriotism or motivation of anyone with whom we serve.” Notably, Omar did not address the floor.

This is a huge shift in power and posture from just a few years ago, when a former representative from Minnesota, Keith Ellison, was accused of attacking Israel and supporting Louis Farrakhan, the notoriously anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam. Ellison, who is Muslim, was also called out by top Democrats, prominent Jewish leaders, and pro-Israel groups. But he didn’t get the same powerful upswelling of support—the progressive, largely pro-Palestinian wing of the Democratic Party didn’t have nearly as much power. Today, if Democrats’ support for Muslims “remains at the level of token celebration when it’s convenient, and then immediately throwing them under the bus, well that’s one option,” Safi says. “I think most American Muslims would say we have no interest in being part of that.”

As the Democratic Party tilts left, it faces hefty liabilities, which the controversy over Omar has powerfully illustrated. In progressive activist circles, support for Palestine is often part of the price of admission, along with support for LBGT rights and causes such as Black Lives Matter. This can foster a lack of sensitivity around language that tends to alarm American Jews, progressive and otherwise, including anti-Semitic tropes around Jews’ love of money, outsize influence on banks and governments, and divided loyalties. “We carry some responsibility on the left for not acknowledging that anti-Semitism just exists in American society,” says Eric Ward, the executive director of the Western States Center, which trains Jewish and Muslim leaders on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. “It is not simply a phenomenon of the right, nor a phenomenon of the left. It is in the air we breathe. If we aren’t conscious of it, we will sometimes act out anti-Semitism, in the same way that we may act out sexism or homophobia or racism.”

Anti-Semitism highlights the tension inherent in Democrats’ effort to be the party of the marginalized: Sometimes defending one group can come at the expense of hurting another. In general, it can be difficult for Jewish fear to be heard in progressive spaces. “We live in a society that is based off of the binary race definition of black and white. Most Jews are not people of color,” Ward says. “For the left, it has become very difficult to understand that there are people in the United States who aren’t people of color, yet still face a form of racialized bigotry.” On Thursday, several members of Congress, including the Democrat Eliot Engel of New York, criticized the fact that the House resolution grew over the past two days to include basically every form of discrimination against minorities, rather than specifically addressing anti-Semitism. The 23 Republicans who voted no ostensibly did so for this reason. Steve King, the Iowa representative who has been accused of supporting white nationalism, voted present.

The difficulty of any group being heard is exacerbated in conversations about Israel and Palestine, an issue that many Jews and Muslims see as a central part of their identity. Often, “Muslims and Jews come in with the biggest and best of intentions,” says Aziza Hasan, the head of NewGround, a group that facilitates Muslim-Jewish dialogue. But they “start to realize and uncover that [with] some of the things we say, we unknowingly walk into tropes and histories that we weren’t aware of.”

While this round of the ongoing Omar controversy has seemingly come to a conclusion, the underlying conflict is going to remain urgent for Democrats, especially in the lead-up to the 2020 election. “Part of the genuine, multiracial, multireligious coalition-building of today is recognizing that African Americans, Jews, queer folk, women, poor folk, Native Americans, Muslims, Hispanics—all of us have experienced a kind of marginalization,” Safi says. “At different points in time, the Trump regime is going to target one or more of us, or even try to pit us against one another.”

Many Jews and Muslims, across the spectrum of positions on Israel, have worked hard to form relationships and better understand the nature of Islamophobia and anti-Semitism in America today. But others are more interested in calling out their opponents. “Being able to talk through and seek deeper understanding with integrity and honesty, with respect, isn’t in fashion—it’s literally … not expedient,” Hasan says. “My biggest worry is that if we are so focused on winning all the time, where is that going to lead us … ? … We’re going to be a minority-majority country here pretty soon, and we need to figure out how we’re going to interact in society.”

If nothing else, the Democrats will have to figure out how to negotiate the differences in their coalition on Israel and Palestine to avoid losing more days to headlines blaring another trope: “Democrats in disarray.”

“Whether it is antiblack racism, whether it’s Islamophobia, whether it’s anti-Semitism—it has no place within the halls of Congress. And we should have a party that is strong enough to hold one another accountable without demonizing one another, and without disparate treatment based off of race or religion or gender,” Ward says. “Two years [and] 44 days of Donald Trump find the political left in this country rearranging deck chairs on the [Titanic] … throwing each other overboard.”

from The Atlantic https://ift.tt/2HlvL3K

[michaelamcneece17augustana-blog]

Gender and Sexuality Portfolio Post Two: Connection to Foundational Course Concepts

   When studying women and politics, it is often difficult to find distinguishable research that explains the bias currently present within the United States’ governmental system. As many may find, there is not a lot of present analytical data and scholarly research regarding the political sphere (especially in regards to discrimination); however, when answering central questions, one must also analyze course concepts that attribute to lack of female representation in politics. Looking at gender, party affiliation, and the primary process this essay uses a wide lens and five foundational concepts (social constructionism, agency, privilege, oppression, intersectionality) to explain women’s underrepresentation in politics.

   During the last couple of decades, the numbers of women running and successfully securing political seats in the United States has significantly increased. Despite this, it is apparent that women are drastically underrepresented. While the number of statistics present in these first couples of paragraphs may seem overwhelming, it is vital to see and truly acknowledge the major gaps between female and male representation in office. Men still currently occupy over 80 percent of the United States Congress, with the proportion of women in Congress has never exceeded 20 percent in all of American history (Women in the U.S. Congress, 2018)(Michel 2018). While women in state legislatures have had better results (managing to reach 25 percent), “fewer than 19 percent of mayors in large cities are [currently] female” (Michel 2018).  

   An even more striking division is the view of gender discrimination between political parties. “Republican women are more likely than their male counterparts to say that there are too few women in politics by a 20 point margin, 44 percent to 24 percent. That’s compared with 73 percent of Democratic men and 84 percent of Democratic women” (Dann 2018). Taking intersectionality (interconnection between different social categories in regards to systems of oppression/discrimination that interact to influence either an individual’s or group’s life experiences and access to power) into account, the paucity of ethnic women in office is more than obvious (Launius and Hassel, 2015). 38 of the 107 women currently serving in the United States’ Congress are women of color (35.5%); furthermore, there is one Latina, one Black woman, and two Asian Pacific Islanders currently serving in the U.S. Senate out of the 100 total members. Of the 312 statewide elective executives, only 2.6 percent are women of color (Women of Color, 2018). While women, in general, do face systems of oppression (prejudice and discrimination socialized by the general public and supported by institutional power and authorities) and prejudice (Special benefits, rights, or advantages available only to certain groups/individuals from institutional inequalities) within the American political system, women of ethnic groups face a much greater barrier. While this essay focuses on women in general, it is important to recognize the statistics and influence intersectionality plays in accordance to the underrepresentation of women in politics (this includes women of all ethnicities) (Launius and Hassel, 2015). This essay also focuses on the reasons behind these numbers.

   At first, I figured that the reason behind women’s underrepresentation was due to voter bias. Indeed, voter bias is very significant when it comes to elections but it is not the only factor that attributes to political discrimination. According to Lawless and Pearson, when women run for office they tend to win at the same rates as men (2008). So, then, the answer is not simply in the general elections nor in the voters. Research conducted on U.S. elections is almost always focused on the end-stage results of the electoral process; however, I discovered that women’s underrepresentation in Congress was in part due to the congressional primary process. When becoming a candidate for an election, one must first establish linkages to political party organizations as well as other platforms and support networks. Unlike what the general public believes, political party organizers generally do not choose nominees; instead, candidates themselves raise money, build support, and develop connections (Lawless & Pearson, 2008). Due to this type of system within the United States, women generally face bigger challenges than men.  The primary process involves the utilization of “skills, experiences, and characteristics that have historically been impressed upon men but discouraged among women” (Lawless & Pearson, p. 68). In other words, social constructionism - the theory that certain behaviors and attitudes are learned through life experience and socialization, and are deemed either appropriate (or not) through cultural contexts and ideologies - discourages women from running for office as women are not socialized to possess the characteristics politicians usually have (Launius & Hassel, 2015). Candidates and elected officials have to be confident, aggressive, loud, and self-promoting - all of which are taught to men but not to women. As a consequence of social constructionism, politics are often seen as “inappropriate” and intimidating for women, resulting in women losing the primary elections or women choosing to not participate in the primary elections.

   As mentioned before, voter bias does, in part, have an influence on the underrepresentation of women in office. Currently, most citizens tend to only pay a small amount of attention towards political information, relying instead on “partisan cues” when choosing their candidates. Partisan cues are based on well-established parties with stable reputations and core values (Arceneaux, 2008). For example, when you hear the terms left-leaning, and progressive you usually think of the Democratic Party, but when you hear conservative, and traditional you generally think of the Republican Party. This can often give agency (the ability to choose, change, or act) to individual voters as it enables them to freely make decisions in an easier, more simplified fashion (Foss, Domenico, & Foss 2013). Having said that, partisan cues can also limit agency because it can lead to incorrect assumptions/opinions about certain nominees and parties. For example, women candidates are generally regarded as more liberal than men, which can lead to voters mistaking female Republican candidates as Democrats. According to Lawless and Pearson, “both male and female Republican party identifiers are less likely to vote for a fictitious female Republican candidate than a fictitious male candidate” (p. 69). What this quote is saying is that Republicans are generally less likely to vote for Republican women than Republican men because women are assumed to be more liberal. This type of stereotyping and oppression (prejudice and discrimination socialized by the general public and supported by institutional power and authorities) then leaves women at a disadvantage (Launius and Hassel, 2015). In other words, women disproportionately suffer from elections because of personal prejudices from voters whereas men do not. Men have privileges (special benefits, rights, or advantages available only to certain groups/individuals from institutional inequalities) based on this type of system because they do not have to worry about voters “assuming” their political affiliations, therefore their election process remains unaffected (Launius and Hassel, 2015). As new elections are conducted, it has only become more apparent that party affiliation and gender play a significant role in women’s representation in politics.

    From every skin color to every race, to every political stance women account for over less than half of governmental seats/offices in the United States. While it is easy to blame this occurrence on male voters and male politicians, it is also important to recognize that oppression, prejudice, intersectionality, agency, and social constructionism also play a part. The major gap between Democrats and Republicans as well as the behaviors, attitudes, and biases towards these political parties are incredibly influential in women’s underrepresentation in the government. By continuing to analyze data, the United States (hopefully) can soon come to a consensus and work to close the rift between men and women. Women are ready to be in office, women want to be in office, men want women to be in office, so why aren’t we? As Ryunosuke Satoro once said, “individually, we are one drop. Together, we are an ocean”.

Reference Page

Arceneaux, K. (2008). Can Partisan Cues Diminish Democratic Accountability?  Political Behavior, 30(2), 139-160. Retrieved fromhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40213310

Dann, C. (2018, September 20). Nbcnews:card_graphic. Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://www.nbcnews.com/card/poll-major-gaps-views-women-politics-gender-party-affiliation-911211

Lawless, J., & Pearson, K. (2008). The Primary Reason for Women's Underrepresentation? Reevaluating the Conventional Wisdom. The Journal of Politics, 70(1), 67-82. doi:10.1017/s002238160708005x

Miller, C. C. (2018, September 20). Women Are Increasingly Doubtful That Voters Are Ready to Elect Them. Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/upshot/women-elections-survey-leadership-discrimination html

Women and American Politics: Another Great Awakening? (2018, March 23). Retrieved September 20, 2018, from http://prospect.org/article/women-and-american-politics-another-great-awakening

Women in the U.S. Congress 2018. (2018, June 28). Retrieved from http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-congress-2018

Women of Color in Elective Office 2018. (2018, September 10). Retrieved September 20, 2018, from http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-color-elective-office-2018

[visionmpbpl-blog]

New Post has been published on http://www.visionmp.com/new-jerseys-attorney-general-called-turban-man-radio-hosts-apologise/

New Jersey's Attorney General Called "Turban Man"; Radio Hosts Apologise

Two hosts of a talk radio program in New Jersey have been suspended after referring to the state’s attorney general, Gurbir Grewal, as “Turban man” during a segment on Wednesday. Grewal is Sikh. Dennis Malloy and Judi Franco, who host a conservative-leaning talk show every day from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on New Jersey 101.5 F.M, will be off the air for 10 days, the station announced.

“We take these comments seriously and echo Dennis and Judi’s sincere apology to Attorney General Grewal and his family, as well as the Sikh and Asian communities,” Ron deCastro, the station’s president, said in a statement posted on its website. “Dennis and Judi are known for their plainspoken brand of humor, but in this case, the language used was clearly demeaning and inappropriate.”

Grewal, a first-generation American who grew up in Essex, New Jersey, became the country’s first Sikh state attorney general when he took office earlier this year. Malloy and Franco were discussing his recent order to suspend marijuana prosecutions in the state when Malloy said he would never know Grewal’s name and would just call him “the guy with the turban.”

“Turban man!” Franco said, imitating a condom company’s slogan.

“Yeah, turban man,” Malloy said. “And listen if that offends you, then don’t wear the turban, man. I’ll remember your name.”

The comments drew strong rebukes from Gov. Phil Murphy, Sen. Cory Booker and the state’s ACLU chapter, which tweeted: “Racism isn’t cute. It’s just racist.”

“Outraged by the abhorrent and xenophobic comments mocking @NewJerseyOAG on The @DennisandJudi Show,” Murphy, a Democrat who appointed Grewal, wrote on Twitter. “Hate speech has no place in NJ, and does not belong on our airwaves.”

Grewal responded as well.

“My name, for the record, is Gurbir Grewal,” he wrote on Twitter. “I’m the 61st Attorney General of NJ. I’m a Sikh American. I have 3 daughters. And yesterday, I told them to turn off the radio.”

Sikhs in the United States have been the target of slurs and hate crimes and are sometimes confused with Muslims. Men who follow the religion typically wear a beard and turban.

Grewal also shared a video from a speech he gave at the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies in which he talked about the ways racism had affected his political career.

“Scroll through any of the online comments about my work or my office or any news story, it can really be stomach turning,” he said, noting that he’d been receiving death threats since he became attorney general. “I have been called a towel-head, a raghead, a terrorist.”

In an interview with the New York Times last year as he prepared to take office, he spoke about how he was harassed after Sept. 11 by a stranger who would wait outside of his office and shout, “I’ve found him, I’ve found bin Laden!”

“Speaking on behalf of Judi and myself today in offering our heartfelt apologies to the attorney general of the state of New Jersey, who is a man who certainly deserves more respect than our comments reflected on Wednesday,” Malloy said in a video apology. “I made a mistake on Wednesday in saying something that was out of bounds and it was wrong.”

According to NorthJersey.com, the two hosts are known for their blunt talk on everyday issues with a conservative slant. They have defended President Trump and made fun of National Public Radio and former 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, while mixing in “light-hearted banter” and talk about the “mundane aspects of everyday life,” according to the website.

Multiple callers phoning into the station during Malloy and Frano’s slot on Thursday defended the hosts’ remarks, according to NJ.com.

[alamante]

Eduardo Munoz / Reuters

Current New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, right, pictured in 2013. 

A pair of New Jersey radio hosts have been suspended “until further notice” after repeatedly referring to the state’s attorney general, Gurbir Grewal, who is Sikh, as “turban man” during a Wednesday afternoon broadcast. 

“You know the attorney general — I’m never going to know his name. I’m just going to say ‘the guy with the turban,’” host Dennis Malloy told his companion, Judi Franco, on NJ 101.5 FM. 

Franco reacted by saying “Turban Man,” theatrically drawing out the name.

Malloy added, “Listen, if that offends you, then don’t wear the turban, man, and I’ll remember your name.”

The “Dennis & Judi Show” hosts briefly debated whether the term was offensive, concluding that it was not because if Malloy “was in a culture where nobody wore baseball hats, and you called me ‘Baseball Hat Man,’” he would not be offended. 

A representative for NJ 101.5 FM acknowledged the controversy in a statement posted to Twitter on Thursday.

“We are aware of the offensive comments made by Dennis and Judi during Wednesday’s broadcast,” it read. “We have taken immediate action and have taken them off the air until further notice. We are investigating the matter and will have further comment shortly.”

The attorney general, who is the American-born son of Indian parents, also responded to the name-calling.

“My name, for the record, is Gurbir Grewal,” he wrote over Twitter early Thursday. “I’m the 61st Attorney General of NJ. I’m a Sikh American. I have 3 daughters. And yesterday, I told them to turn off the radio.”

Grewal also shared video of a speech addressing intolerance that he made at Washington, D.C.’s annual Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies awards gala in May. 

.@nj1015: My name, for the record, is Gurbir Grewal. I’m the 61st Attorney General of NJ. I’m a Sikh American. I have 3 daughters. And yesterday, I told them to turn off the radio.

— Gurbir S. Grewal (@GurbirGrewalNJ) July 26, 2018

“Some of this is obviously the result of ignorance. But some of this does go further than that. Scroll through any of the online comments about my work or my office, or any news story ― it can really be stomach-turning,” he said at the event. Death threats, he added, are “a fact of life” for him.

“As awful as these comments are, they provide a window into what people are thinking and what is going on in this country in this moment,” Grewal said at the time.

This is not the first indignity I’ve faced and it probably won’t be the last. Sometimes, I endure it alone. Yesterday, all of New Jersey heard it. It’s time to end small-minded intolerance. It’s an issue I addressed at @APAICS conference this May: pic.twitter.com/XnxJp53cxv

— Gurbir S. Grewal (@GurbirGrewalNJ) July 26, 2018

HuffPost reached out to managers at NJ 101.5 FM and to Grewal’s office but did not receive an immediate response. 

Billing themselves as “your favorite sloppy, unfocused mess,” Malloy and Franco are known for their conservative commentary on the station. They have previously railed against high taxes and complained about political correctness.

Malloy brought up Grewal because on Tuesday he ordered state prosecutors to adjourn all marijuana offenses until September ― a step toward decriminalizing marijuana in the state led by Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy.

Murphy issued a statement Wednesday evening in response to the hosts’ comments, calling them “abhorrent and xenophobic.”

“Hate speech has no place in New Jersey, and it does not belong on our airwaves. Station management must now hold the hosts accountable for these intolerant and racist comments,” the governor said.

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js(function (d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.async = true; js.src = “http://connect.facebook.net/en_GB/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.10&appId=238320442863988”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, ‘script’, ‘facebook-jssdk’));

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,document,’script’,’https://ift.tt/2EUDMIP);

fbq(‘init’, ‘1112906175403201’); // Edition specific fbq(‘track’, “PageView”);// custom event(s) for bpages fbq(‘trackCustom’, ‘EntryPage’, { “section_name”: “Religion”, “tags”: [ “racism”, “new-jersey”, “sikh”, “gurbir-grewal” ], “ncid”: “” });fbq(‘init’, ‘10153394098876130’); // Partner Studio fbq(‘track’, “PageView”);

(function () { ‘use strict’;

document.addEventListener(‘DOMContentLoaded’, function () { $(‘body’).on(‘click’, function(event) { fbq(‘track’, “Click”, data); }); }); }) (); Source link

   The post Radio Hosts Suspended For Calling Sikh Attorney General ‘Turban Man’ appeared first on MySourceSpot.

[csrgood]

Walmart Supports Future Leaders Through $2 Million in Funding to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute

Today, Walmart announced $2 million in grants to organizations working to expand internship opportunities for diverse youth populations, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc. (CBCF) and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI). The grants build on previous Walmart funding to the two nonprofits, bringing the company’s total investment to more than $6 million over the last several years. The funding will help provide career pathways on Capitol Hill for students and young professionals through education and hands-on experience in the nation’s capital.

“At Walmart, our commitment to diversity and inclusion spreads beyond our stores and out into the communities where our associates and customers live,” said Julie Gehrki, vice president of programs at Walmart. “Through relationships with organizations like CHCI and CBCF that reflect the diversity of American society, we can open the door to help more young people build a career in public service and expand the pipeline of talent on Capitol Hill and beyond by providing our future leaders with the tools needed for success.” 

At a time when people of color currently make up less than 20 percent of U.S. lawmakers (Pew Research Center), these grants come at a critical moment. Although diverse populations represent approximately 36 percent of the population, only 7.1 percent are senior staffers in the Senate, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

The CBCF will receive a three-year, $1 million grant to help prepare college students and young professionals for careers in public policy and advocacy. The funding will provide exposure to the development and implementation of national policies – from Capitol Hill to federal field offices – as well as support intern housing, monthly stipends, professional development and leadership training.

A three-year, $1 million grant to the CHCI will provide Latino undergraduates with paid summer or spring Congressional internships. Through Walmart’s support, students will gain valuable work experience, benefit from a strong leadership development curriculum, participate in a community service project and interact with professionals and industry leaders in Washington, D.C.

“The CBCF is committed to increasing diversity on Capitol Hill and in the public sector by creating a new generation of informed and engaged citizens and leaders,” said Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, Chair, CBCF Board of Directors. “Internships are a critical component toward building a career in public policy. Through Walmart’s continued support and dedicated partnership, the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation has successfully increased the number of scholars who have access to the intern-to-staffer pipeline.”

“Walmart has led the way as the Founding Partner for CHCI’s Congressional Internship Program by significantly investing in our nation’s future leaders, “said Rep. Joaquín Castro, chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute.  We value Walmart’s support of CHCI’s mission to address underrepresentation of Latinos on Capitol Hill by providing transformative experiences and the critical skills needed to embark on careers in public service.”

Walmart has a long history supporting diversity and inclusion to create equal access to opportunity. Recently, Walmart and the Walmart Foundation granted nearly $4 million to organizations helping to promote access, equity and inclusion among diverse populations. The funding was part of the Foundation’s Diversity & Inclusion competitive grant competition, which provides support to initiatives with measurable impact on and demonstrated reach into diverse communities including African Americans, Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Asian American and Pacific Islander, women and girls, the LGBTQ community and individuals with disabilities.

For more information on Walmart’s commitment to diversity and education, please visit https://corporate.walmart.com/global-responsibility/opportunity/diversity-and-inclusion.

###

About Walmart

Walmart Inc. (NYSE: WMT) helps people around the world save money and live better - anytime and anywhere - in retail stores, online, and through their mobile devices. Each week, nearly 270 million customers and members visit our more than 11,700 stores under 65 banners in 28 countries and eCommerce websites. With fiscal year 2018 revenue of $500.3 billion, Walmart employs approximately 2.3 million associates worldwide. Walmart continues to be a leader in sustainability, corporate philanthropy and employment opportunity. Additional information about Walmart can be found by visiting http://corporate.walmart.com, on Facebook at http://facebook.com/walmart and on Twitter at http://twitter.com/walmart.

source: http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/41224-Walmart-Supports-Future-Leaders-Through-2-Million-in-Funding-to-the-Congressional-Black-Caucus-Foundation-and-the-Congressional-Hispanic-Caucus-Institute?tracking_source=rss

[fenghuileng]

澳大利亞國會議員Michael Danby在第十二屆族群青年領袖研習營上的兩個演講

編者按：澳大利亞國會議員Michael Danby 先生應邀出席2017年11月14-17日在日本東京召開的族群青年領袖研習營，並發表兩個演講，在此發表他的演講以饗讀者。

      1.    Michael Danby先生應邀在16日於日本國會舉辦的第三屆公民力量獎頒獎儀式上與公民力量發起人楊建利博士一起擔任頒獎人並發表演講。演講中譯稿如下。

  首先我想要感謝我們在這裡受到的日本國會款待，我尤其想要感謝楊建利博士和「公民力量」為來自全世界的全部少數群體組織了中國民主支持者的精彩集會。我遠道而來參加這次會議，來到這裡我由衷的欣喜。來會見這裡所有的人，不論你們來自東土耳其斯坦、內蒙古、台灣、香港還是西藏——我親愛的來自西藏的朋友們。在日本見到有中國淵源的民主人士在這裡力圖見證普世人權與民主權利延伸至所有的人們。正如我們堅信的那樣，堅信這些權利是普世的、堅信民主有一天終將在中國實行，這是多麼美妙的啊。

  中國是一個盡人皆尊敬的文明古國，聞知伊力哈木·土赫提如同達賴喇嘛一樣深知人們願意與中國人民協作，不是與中國人民對抗，而是正如曼德拉先生所做的和眾多為正��而鬥爭的人們所表達的那樣反對龐大政府的某些政策，我們深表讚歎。

  這個會議打破的一個你經常在工業化國家聽到的充斥著全世界的神話就是：中國與民主無法相伴而行。這當然不是真的，中國人民與所有少數族裔當然渴望我們在世界其他地方享有的同樣權利。而且這被在這裡的來自香港和台灣的年青人所證實，被藏族人選舉他們的國際代表的方式所證實——儘管他們還身處流亡之中。而且民主當然能夠與經濟發展和一如中國所擁有的偉大歷史與偉大文化相伴共存。

  我們此時此地在東京置身「公民力量」主辦的本屆精彩會議的現場，我們不應當相信也許就在來年，那裡不會發生戲劇性的突破、我們在這裡表達的民主價值不會在北京和上海以及中國所有的大城市里得以分享。讓我們回憶在1989年蘇聯共產黨將會倒台。沒有人相信瓦茨拉夫.哈維爾這樣的劇作家能夠成為捷克斯洛伐克（或者後來的捷克共和國）的總統。因此對於人們非常重要的就是不放棄希望，這就是這個會議的重要之所在。我要祝賀你楊建利博士，要祝賀支持「公民力量」為中國人民保有鮮活希望的所有的人。你們正在為他們做一件偉大的事情，不是為了你們自己，而是為了一個偉大的文明，這一偉大文明應當贏得比現在更好的收穫。向人們提供經濟進展無可厚非——多一點錢、多一點洗衣機、多一點汽車，但這不是生活，這不是生活的終點。而我作為一名澳大利亞的民主人士，見到這邊的這些來自西藏的和那邊的來自香港的年青人，見到你們所有人，深感鼓舞。這表明你們能夠讓希望之樹長青，而這就是「公民力量」做到了的。

  當我得知土赫提博士的遭遇，我知道的所有的情況都還在西藏繼續，對台灣的威脅，我深知世界其他地方的人民值得為中國人民挺身而出。當我想到不光彩的對待劉曉波的眾多案例之時，我為澳大利亞而自豪。一位為了和平而奮鬥的諾貝爾和平獎獲得者，被他自己的國家

基本上合法的謀殺了，而世界上其他國家沒有人、沒有人對此說任何話。因此，當中國國家不幸的被殘忍的以這樣的願望做事的共產黨統治，我引以為自豪的是澳大利亞各類政治信仰的民主人士團結一致而且說出：不，我們不想與中國締結引渡條約——因為我們認為它不是一個民主國家、沒有法治，我們不能把被宣稱有商業犯罪的人送往那個國家接受公平處理。

  因此我要祝賀楊建利博士和「公民力量」，祝賀從世界各地來到這裡做出努力的每一個人和日本的東道主，這是在保持希望之樹長青，不是為了我們，不是為了這個會議，而是為了中國的更廣大的人民。

    2. 下面是Michael Danby先生在11月15日下午給研��營的主題演講的英文原稿，題目是「中國硬戰略和政治力量的崛起」，其中涉及了中國過去10年的軍備擴建，從巴基斯坦、斯里蘭卡到非洲角的軍事擴張，東海和南海的建島，習近平的西藏、香港、台灣和新疆政策，中國錢在澳大利亞的運作和對亞太的影響。

  China』s Rise In Hard Strategic And Political Power

My speech will examine;

·      China’s military build-up last 10 years

·      expansion of military bases from Pakistan, Sri Lanka to the Horn of Africa 

·      A short overview of island build up in SCS And East China Sea

·      Latest Xi doctrine on Tibet, HK, Taiwan and Xinjiang

·      Political influence operations in East Asia and Pacific

  A. China’s military build-up last 10 years

Spending

Over the past decade, the Chinese military has benefited from significant funding increases.  According to the US Department of Defense, between 2007 and 2016, 『China』s official military budget grew at an average of 8.5 percent per year in inflation-adjusted terms over that period.』[1] 

  The table below highlights the growth of Chinese military spending:

  As the table above highlights, though Chinese military spending has increased significantly over the last decade, it has not risen at the same pace as GDP growth.  Its military build up has commenced from a low base.  States such as the United States and Russia, for example, have long operated sophisticated military』s.  China, protesting its peaceful rise, has acquired a military commensurate with its economic weight.

  Estimates of Chinese military spending are bedevilled by a lack of transparency, and China』s official figure is dwarfed by external estimates.  As an example, in 2015 the official Chinese defence budget was $144.2 billion.  However, the US Department of Defence argued China actually spent $180 billion, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) estimated a figure of $193 billion and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) arrived at a sum of $214.1 billion.[2]

  People』s Liberation Army – Navy (PLA-N)

China』s navy has benefitted more than any other service from Beijing』s largesse.  Perhaps most notably, it has acquired and modernised a Soviet-era aircraft carrier which it has commissioned as the Liaoning.  Though dated, it serves as a test-bed for China』s forthcoming indigenously built aircraft carriers.  Its second carrier has been launched, though it has yet to enter service.  Reports suggest that China plans to operate up to six carriers, but it remains to be seen how accurate these are.

  China is also modernising its surface fleet which will help it to defend its carriers.  China』s Type 055 cruiser is proceeding rapidly.  This vessel carries 112 vertical-launch missile cells, eclipsed only by the US Ticonderoga-class cruiser and dwarfing Australia』s 48-cell Hobart-class destroyers. 

A key characteristic of Chinese naval procurement is to build small numbers of multiple classes of vessels, refining their capabilities with each generation.  This has allowed a substantial growth in platforms over the last decade.  As the Congressional Research Service has highlighted, in 2007 China had 13 commissioned destroyers and 16 commissioned frigates; by 2017 their numbers had risen to 24 and 40 respectively.[3]

  China is also modernising its submarine force.  According to the US Department of Defence, China』s current force, comprised of five nuclear-powered attacked submarines, four nuclear-powered ballistic missile boats and 54 diesel attack submarines, is likely to expand to a force of up to 78 submarines by 2020.[4]

  People』s Liberation Army – Air Force (PLA-AF)

The PLA-AF has also enjoyed considerable support.  For example, its advanced fifth-generation aircraft, the Chengdu J-20, has reportedly entered service.  China is also developing a second fifth-generation aircraft, the Shenyang J-31, which reportedly benefited from the theft of information relating to the American F-35.[5]  China』s development of combat aircraft is, however, frustrated by its inability to build a reliable military jet engine. 

People』s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLA-RF)

The PLA-RF has also benefited from China』s military modernisation program.  Most notably, China has deployed anti-ship ballistic missiles — the DF-21D and DF-26 — that have been dubbed 『carrier killers』 due to their alleged ability to attack and sink US aircraft carriers.   However, doubt exists about China』s ability to locate US carriers and successfully strike them with these missiles.

  In addition to these conventionally-armed missiles, China is also upgrading its nuclear weapons.  It is both upgrading its missile delivery systems and expanding, albeit slowly, its inventory of warheads.[6]

  The political utility of Chinese military modernisation

China』s military modernisation serves President Xi Jinping』s political objectives.  Drawing on the historical grievances promoted by the Communist Party』s narrative of a century of humiliation in which China was dismembered by European and Japanese imperialism, he has promoted his Chinese dream, which aims to achieve 『the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation』 and is characterised by a considerable degree of nationalism.[7] A recent study exposed Beijing』s military contingencies to attack and suppress Taiwan.

Many will wonder whether President Trump would do what President Clinton did in 1998 and place two US Carrier groups so they could prevent Beijing making a Cross-Straits attack.

  China』s military modernisation supports a view that the Communist Party is keen to convey; that it has built a strong China that can no longer be bullied by foreign powers.  Elements of hard power, such as aircraft carriers and fighter jets, carry a potent symbolism in this regard by demonstrating that China has arrived as a great power.[8]

  Military modernisation also serves Xi』s foreign policy.  For example, by acquiring missiles capable of striking US forces in Japan and Korea, and making it extremely costly for US aircraft carrier battle groups to approach Chinese shores, China』s military force structure is designed to dissuade the United States from projecting force against China in, for example, a Taiwan contingency.[9]  This supports the domestic goal of conveying to the Chinese public a sense of growing strength and rejuvenation, but it also serves as a way to attempt to decouple Washington from its regional alliances.

  It does so by raising doubts among America』s allies about the reliability of US security guarantees.  As the Australian strategic academic Hugh White has noted, Beijing is using its South China Sea disputes as a means of 『demonstrating there that America is no longer willing to risk a military confrontation with China to sustain its own leading position in the Asian strategic order, and thereby concede that leadership to China.』[10]  If, for example, states such as Japan, the Philippines and Australia begin to doubt the will and ability of the US to use force against China to defend their interests, they may become more willing to defer to China』s preferences.  Given that the US relies on its regional bases to project power into the region, should US allies begin to doubt Washington』s staying power with China, America』s position in the region will be untenable. The continuation of freedom of navigation exercises (FONOPS in the South China Sea will be a key test of US resolve.

  Furthermore, the modernisation of China』s military — it already has the largest navy in Asia[11] — increasingly enhances its ability to project force within its region, intimidating states with which it has maritime disputes.  For example, in July 2017 it was reported that Vietnam had ordered a Spanish firm that was exploring for gas in disputed South China Sea waters to leave the area after China threatened to attack Vietnamese bases if the exploration continued.  Furthermore, it has recently been reported that the Philippines ceased construction of shelters for fishermen on a sandbar near Philippine-occupied Thitu Island in the Spratly Islands in response to Chinese protests.

  B. Expansion of military bases from Pakistan, Sri Lanka to the Horn of Africa 

China』s first overseas military base is located in the African state of Djibouti. The 36-hectare base is located to the southwest of the Doraleh Multi-Purpose Port under construction by China State Construction Engineering Corporation, and it located not distant from Camp Lemonnier, currently the only permanent U.S. military base in Africa. China has a 10-year lease on what it calls a logistics base. Construction started in March 2016 and it was formally opened in August 2017.

Satellite imagery shows:

a 「massive fortress」 able to 「easily accommodate over a brigade-strength force,」 adding that it would allow China to 「monitor all shipping movements through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden」 as well as 「exert influence in the African continent….. the base contains numerous storage barracks, an ammunition point, an office complex and a heliport. For security, the base perimeter consists of four layers of fencing and walls, with roads built in between the layers for security patrols.

It seems China plans to set up an expeditionary force in Djibouti, ready for use to respond to any crisis threatening its numerous economic and commercial interests in Africa and the 「maritime silk road」 — part of Xi』s One Belt One Road Initiative linking China to Europe. India has also expressed concerns about the base.

Xi Jinping has recently spoken to the PLA troops in Djibouti by video link and urged them to 「promote peace and stability.」

China is also busy developing the port of Gwadar in Pakistan, as part of its enormous $50 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project, a key element of the One Belt One Road initiative. China will enjoy a 40-year lease over the port.

In November 2016, it was declared that China would deploy its naval ships along with Pakistan Naval vessels to safeguard Gwadar port and trade routes connecting it to other regions. In early 2017, China handed over two ships to the Pakistan Navy for Gwadar security.

  There are also concerns that China』s continuing interest in Sri Lanka and particularly the ports of that country will see China attempting to establish some sort of military base on that island. In July 2017, Sri Lanka signed a $1.1bn deal with China for the control and development of the southern deep-sea port of Hambantota. Under the proposal, a state-run Chinese company will have a 99-year lease on the port and about 15,000 acres nearby for an industrial zone. The government has given assurances that China will run only commercial operations from the port, on the main shipping route between Asia and Europe. Hambantota port, overlooking the Indian Ocean, is expected to play a key role in China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, otherwise known as the new Silk Road, which will link ports and roads between China and Europe.

In 2014, a People』s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) Song-class conventional submarine along with Changxing Dao, a Type 925 submarine support ship, docked at the Chinese-run Colombo International Container Terminal in Sri Lanka. While Sri Lanka rejected a May 2017 request by China to dock one of its submarines in Colombo, it is clear that China has aspirations for further utilising the key position of Sri Lanka in the centre of the Indian Ocean.

Some Indian strategists  have long perceived China as building a 「string of pearls」 across the Indian Ocean. This  refers to the network of Chinese military and commercial facilities developed by China in countries across the Indian Ocean between China and the Middle East. India』s 『Look East Policy』 was seen as a response to China』s  『String of Pearls』.  The thesis suggests that China will develop commercial/military port facilities in Cambodia, Indonesia, the Straits of Malacca, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea.

  C. A short overview of island build up in SCS and East China Sea

China』s claim to islands and maritime zones in the South China Sea are based on a Nine-Dash line which made its debut in the late 1930s, created by the then Nationalist government. This dashed line encompasses some 90 percent of the South China Sea and extends across most of the exclusive economic zones granted to the other littoral states under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The People』s Republic of China has nonetheless progressively intensified its campaign to secure acceptance of its claims to these waters and islands.

In July 2012, China created a prefecture-level city named Sansha City located on  Woody Island (Yongxing Dao) in the Paracels. It nominally administers several island groups and undersea atolls in the South China Sea including the Spratly Islands, the Paracel Islands, Macclesfield Bank, Scarborough Shoal, and a number of other ungrouped maritime features. Foreign reaction to the declaration was not positive. The United States Department of State called the change in the administrative status of the territory “unilateral”, and the move has received criticism from nations engaged in the South China Sea dispute, particularly the Philippines and Vietnam.

In recent years China has utilised a continuing program of island building as the means by which to convince competing polities that China is the rightful sovereign of the territory and maritime zones in the South China Sea. Under Xi Jinping, the program escalated. The island-building program ramped up quickly from August 2014 and was declared complete in June 2015. It appears to have caught the previous Obama Administration in the US unawares and was ineffectively responded to by that US Administration.

Islands built or reclaimed are in either the Paracels or the Spratlys and include:

  Subi Reef  (976 acres reclaimed)

Mischief Reef (1,379 acres reclaimed)

Johnson Reef (27 acres reclaimed)

Hughes Reef (19 acres reclaimed)

Gaven Reefs (34 acres reclaimed)

Fiery Cross Reef (677 acres reclaimed)

Cuarteron Reef  (56 acres reclaimed)

  As the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) notes:

Since 2014, China has substantially expanded its ability to monitor and project power throughout the South China Sea via the construction of dual civilian-military bases at its outposts in the disputed Spratly and Paracel Islands. These include new radar and communications arrays, airstrips and hangars to accommodate combat aircraft, shelters likely meant to house missile platforms, and deployments of mobile surface-to-air and anti-ship cruise missile systems at Woody Island in the Paracels.

AMTI also provides a useful map showing how these capabilities overlap in the South China Sea.

Beijing』s reclamation in the Paracels continues.

China dismisses concerns expressed by neighbours and others:

 “I want to reiterate that China building facilities, including deploying necessary and appropriate national defense installations in its own territory, is exercising our sovereign right recognized by international law,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said.

Let us not forget that ASEAN in a lawful, peaceful way tried to respond to China』s aggression by an appeal to a UN mandated court which arbitrates disputes under the Law of the Sea. China has continued to ignore a ruling by the Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration which in 2016 rejected Beijing』s claims to the seas within its nine-dotted line. The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative note of the ruling:

The tribunal invalidated Beijing』s claims to ill-defined historic rights throughout the nine-dash line, found that Scarborough Shoal is a rock entitled only to a 12-nautical-mile territorial sea, and surprised many observers by ruling on the legal status of every feature in the Spratly Islands raised by the Philippines. It found that none of the Spratlys, including the largest natural features—Itu Aba, Thitu Island, Spratly Island, Northeast Cay, and Southwest Cay—are legally islands because they cannot sustain a stable human community or independent economic life. As such, they are entitled only to territorial seas, not EEZs or continental shelves. Of the seven Spratlys occupied by China, the court ruled that Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, Fiery Cross Reef, and Gaven Reef are rocks, while Hughes Reef and Mischief Reef are below water at high-tide and therefore generate no maritime entitlements of their own. It also ruled that Kennan Reef is a low-tide elevation, while Second Thomas Shoal and Reed Bank are submerged and belong to the Philippine continental shelf. Taken together, these decisions effectively invalidate any Chinese claim within the nine-dash line to more than the disputed islets themselves and the territorial seas they generate.

Chinese Coast Guard vessels maintain a near-constant presence at Luconia Shoals off the coast of Malaysia』s Sarawak State, over 1,000 km distant from internationally-recognised Chinese territory.

Annually China unilaterally declares a fishing moratorium in the waters of the South China Sea. It then uses its maritime militia to enforce this ban, driving away or attacking  fishing boats from other countries across huge swathes of the South China Sea.

  China has just unveiled a new dredging ship capable of creating islands such as those Beijing has already built in the disputed South China Sea. Described as a “magical island-maker” by the institute that designed it, the vessel was unveiled on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s tour of Asia.

D. Latest Xi doctrine on Tibet, HK, Taiwan and Xinjiang

In addition to pursuing expansive actions in the South China Sea, Xi Jinping has also stepped up repression within PRC and strengthened reactions to events in Hong Kong and Taiwan.

President Xi has launched a campaign to tighten China』s grip on the religious communities across China since 2016. Against that backdrop, the United Front Work Department  — the agency within the Chinese Communist Party that oversees China』s religious affairs, among others — has vowed to  「sinicize religions」 in China. On the sidelines of the CCP』s 19th National Party Congress on October 20, Zhang Yijiong, the executive deputy head of the UFWD, elaborated on the CCP』s policy on religious affairs since the 18th Party Congress in 2012.  Zhang said that the CCP has adhered to the goal of 「sinicizing religions」 in China and has made 「socialist core values」 play a leading role in the religious community. In the next step, Zhang added, China will keep cracking down on acts such as 「taking advantage of religion to harm national security,」 「promoting extremism for terrorist activities,」 and 「endangering national unity.」

A 2016 working conference has been widely regarded as the starting point for a new CCP campaign to tighten its grip on religious communities. The policy brought about a wave of criticism abroad. A think tank affiliated with the Tibetan government-in-exile in particular reprimanded the Chinese government for 「carrying out systematic annihilation of the cultural heritage of Tibet with the destruction of Tibetan Buddhism and religious traditions.」

China has claimed:

Tibetan Buddhism, born in our ancient China, is a religion with Chinese characteristics. It is true that Tibetan Buddhism in formation had received influence from other neighboring Buddhist countries, but it adapted to the local reality and formed its own unique doctrine and rituals, which is a model of sinicization itself… That we are actively guiding Tibetan Buddhism in the direction of sinicization is in the hope that Tibetan Buddhism will further absorb the nutrition of the Chinese excellent culture.

China has continued with a strong stance against the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile. Governments globally have been warned  to 「speak and act with caution and give full consideration their friendship with China and their respect for China』s sovereignty」 when they consider meeting with the Dalai Lama. 

In Xinjiang, Xi Jinping has pursued draconian measures. Accompanying massive 「anti-terror」 rallies in Xinjiang, tens of thousands of heavily armed troops have been poured onto the streets of Xinjiang and Xi has vowed to wage a 「people』s war on terror」 against militants.  Xi Jinping wants to build a 『Great Wall of Steel』in Xinjiang. All sorts of restrictions have been imposed on the Turkic peoples of Xinjiang.

In Hong Kong, Xi has pursued a policy of increasing PRC influence. Beijing』s State Council released a 15,500-word white paper spelling out what it called the 「accurate」 understanding of one country, two systems in June 2014. Issued at a time when Hong Kong was debating political reform to achieve universal suffrage for the chief executive in 2017, it said Beijing enjoys comprehensive jurisdiction over Hong Kong, while the city was given 「high degree of autonomy」 to run its affairs only as authorised by Beijing. The paper also listed out at least nine types of power that Beijing enjoys over Hong Kong, as stipulated in the Basic Law, the city』s mini-constitution, such as the power over defence, foreign affairs and political reform, as well as the ability to appoint and instruct the city』s chief executive and to amend and interpret the Basic Law.

Street demonstrations against further inroads by Beijing into Hong Kong autonomy have marked the last few years. Pro-independence activities have seen the election of young law-makers from the Umbrella Movement who reject Beijing』s opposition to the rule of law and democracy in Hong Kong.

At the 19th Congress, President Xi set his course for Hong Kong and Macau』s governance, calling for the melding of Beijing』s authority, or 「comprehensive jurisdiction」, over the two cities with their 「high degree of autonomy」 in a natural or 「organic」 way. China appears willing to kill the great commercial benefits it gains from Hong Kong』s legal system which enhances Western investor confidence, not just in Hong Kong, but investments made in Hong Kong on the mainland.

E. Political influence operations in East Asia and Pacific

China under Xi Jinping has increasingly pursued efforts to influence the politics and economies of neighbours in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, as an aspect of his overall program to compete with the influence of the United States globally.

In June 2017 the New York Times and The Economist featured stories on China’s political influence in Australia. The New York Times headline asked “Are Australia’s Politics too Easy to Corrupt?,” while The Economist sarcastically referred to China as the “Meddle Country.” The two articles were reacting to aninvestigation by Fairfax Media and ABC into the extent of China’s political interference in Australia, that built on internal enquiries into the same issue by ASIO and Australia’s Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet in 2015 and 2016. The media and official reports concluded that Australia was the target of a foreign interference campaign by China 「on a larger scale than that being carried out by any other nation」 and that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was working to infiltrate Australian political and foreign affairs circles, as well to acquire influence over Australia’s Chinese population.

However, such efforts have not been directed solely at Australia and there are many examples of efforts to influence from countries across the region. The avenues of influence are diverse and can be divided into the following spheres:

The key concept in Chinese foreign policy which links party and state organisations is the 「United Front」 and which parallels the Russian controlled comintern of old. The United Front is originally a Leninist tactic of strategic alliances, now operating beyond China』s borders. The CCP』s efforts to influence the overseas Chinese population has helped to extend China’s global influence and to expand its economic agendas. Post-1989 the CCP』s policies were designed to discourage the Chinese diaspora from supporting Chinese dissidents to reduce the impact of the Taiwan democratic model, as well as to draw on the patriotic sentiments of the overseas Chinese to get them to assist in China’s economic development.

Just like the Soviet controlled Communist International (Comintern), United Front Work Department personnel often operate under diplomatic cover as members of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, using this role to guide United Front activities outside China, working with politicians and other high profile individuals, Chinese community associations, and student associations, and sponsoring Chinese language, media, and cultural activities, and in future years we will undoubtedly read stories of Beijing』s equivalent of the Rote Kapelle (Red Orchestra) where Russian agents orchestrated political movements across countries.

United front work not only serves foreign policy goals, but can sometimes be used as a cover for intelligence activities.

Even more than his predecessors, Xi Jinping has led a massive expansion of efforts to shape foreign public opinion in order to influence the decision-making of foreign governments and societies. Just like Putin』s full spectrum warfare. the old Soviet doctrine of active measures seems to have been added to China』s armoury.

Thus the revitalized CCTV International, re-branded in 2016 as CGTV (China Global Television), provides the CCP line to the outside world (emphasizing business, not politics) via 24-hour satellite broadcasts and social media. At the same time, China Radio International (CRI) and the Xinhua News Service have cornered niche foreign radio, television, and online platforms via mergers and partnership agreements. China Daily, the CCP』s English language newspaper, has arrangements to publish supplements in major newspapers around the world.

Chinese universities and university presses have set up partnerships with their foreign counterparts and we are steadily seeing the creep of Chinese censorship into these domains as a result.

Recently, in her study Magic Weapons: China’s political influence activities under Xi Jinping, Ann-Marie Brady has examined the efforts by China to influence regional neighbours and has summed up the avenues of influence (as well as the agencies involved and the policies pursued) as follows:

  1. 「Bring together the hearts and the power of the overseas Chinese」 

Xi Jinping』s ambitious strategy to harness the overseas Chinese population for the CCP』s current economic and political agenda, builds on existing practices and then takes it to a new level of ambition.

Agencies Involved:

State Council Overseas Chinese Affairs Office, CCP United Front Work Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of State Security, PLA Joint Staff Headquarters』 Third Department, and other relevant organs.

  Policies:

• Monitor the local long term Chinese community via community organizations to coordinate this work, cherry pick which groups to work with, and establish Overseas Chinese Service Centres

• Sponsor and support the emergence of new united front organizations to represent the overseas Chinese, recognizing that they are a diverse group and flexibility is required to establish a positive working relationship with them. Avoid directly interfering in overseas Chinese community affairs unless there is a situation that directly affects China』s political interests, such as the whistleblower Red Capitalist Guo Wengui37 (Miles Kwok)38, whose international campaign to expose corruption and espionage activities of the Chinese government at the highest level has provoked a massive counter-attack.

• Unite the ethnic Chinese communities through nurturing and subsidizing authorized Chinese cultural activities.

• Supervise Chinese students and visiting scholars through the united front organization the Chinese Student and Scholars Association (中國學生學者聯合會).

• Encourage influential figures within the overseas Chinese community who are acceptable to the PRC government to become proactive in helping shape ethnic Chinese public opinion on political matters.

• Encourage wealthy overseas Chinese who are politically acceptable to the PRC government to subsidize activities which support China』s political agenda.

• Draw on China』s agents and informers abroad to enhance China』s political influence.

• Encourage political engagement of the overseas Chinese community (華人參政). This policy encourages overseas Chinese who are acceptable to the PRC government to become involved in politics in their host countries as candidates who, if elected, will be able to act to promote China』s interests abroad; and encourages China』s allies to build relations with non-Chinese pro-CCP government foreign political figures, to offer donations to foreign political parties, and to mobilize public opinion via Chinese language social media; so as to promote the PRC’s economic and political agenda abroad. Of course it is completely normal and to be encouraged that the ethnic Chinese communities in each country seek political representation; however this initiative is separate from that spontaneous and natural development.

Herald Sun Front Page Article

  2. Make the foreign serve China

In 2013, at the national conference on CCP Propaganda and Thought Work Xi Jinping utilized a well-known saying of Mao Zedong 「make the past serve the present, make the foreign serve China」 to sum up his administration』s back-to-the-future approach to governance, traditional CCP policies of utilizing people-to-people, party-to-party, and now PRC enterprise-to-foreign enterprise relations in order to co-opt foreigners to support and promote China』s foreign policy goals.  

Agencies Involved:

CCP International Liaison Department, Ministry of State Security, CCP national, provincial and city government leaders, Chinese State-Owned Enterprises and Red Capitalists, the Chinese People』s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries and other such CCP Front organizations.

Policies:

• Strengthen party-to-party links.

• Building a global network of strategic partners—a classic united front approach.

• Appoint foreigners with access to political power to high profile roles in Chinese companies or Chinese-funded entities in the host country.

• Use sister city relations to expand China』s economic agenda separate to a given nation』s foreign policy. The CCP front organization, the Chinese People』s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries is in charge of this activity.

• Coopt foreign academics, entrepreneurs, and politicians to promote China』s perspective in the media and academia. Build up positive relations with susceptible individuals via shows of generous political hospitality in China. The explosion in numbers of all-expenses-paid quasi-scholarly and quasi-official conferences in China (and some which are held overseas) is a notable feature of the Xi era, on an unprecedented scale.

• The use of mergers, acquisitions, and partnerships with foreign companies, universities, and research centres in order to acquire local identities that enhance influence activities; and potentially, access to military technology, commercial secrets, and other strategic information.46

  3. 「Make the CCP』s message the loudest of our times」

  The Xi government』s go-global, multi-platform, national and international strategic communication strategy aims to influence international perceptions about China, shape international debates about the Chinese government and strengthen management over the Chinese-language public sphere in China, as well as globally.

Link to 4 Corners Programme

Agencies Involved:

Xinhua News Service, CGTV, CRI, State Council Information Office/Office for Foreign Propaganda, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other relevant state organs.

Policies:

• The approach is multi-platform and multi-media. The Xi era media strategy creates new platforms which merge China』s traditional and new media such as WeChat, and takes it to new global audiences in the developing world, the former Eastern Bloc, as well as to developed countries.4849

• Under the policy known as to 「borrow a boat to go out on the ocean」, China has set up strategic partnerships with foreign newspapers, TV, and radio stations, to provide them with free content in the CCP-authorized line for China-related news. The formerly independent Chinese language media outside China is a key target for this activity.

• Integrate and 「harmonize」 the overseas Chinese media with the Chinese media.

• Under the policy to 「buy a boat to go out on the ocean,」 China』s party-state media companies are engaging in strategic mergers and acquisitions of foreign media and cultural enterprises.51

• Under the 「localizing」 policy, China』s foreign media outlets such as CGTV are employing more foreigners so as to have foreign faces explaining CCP policies.

• A new focus on the importance of think tanks in shaping policy and public opinion. China is making a massive investment in setting up scores of China, as well as foreign-based, think tanks and research centres to help shape global public opinion, increase China』s soft power, improve international visibility and help shape new global norms.52

• Setting up academic partnerships with foreign universities and academic publishers; then imposing China』s censorship rules as part of the deal.

• Offering strings-attached academic funding through the Confucius Institutes and other China-connected funding bodies, and investment in foreign research centres.

• Under the slogan “tell a good Chinese story,”  restoring to prominence China』s cultural and public diplomacy. Central and local governments are once again providing massive subsidies for cultural activities aimed at the outside world; from scholarly publishing, to acrobatics, to Chinese medicine. This policy builds on and extends efforts established in the Hu era. China promotes Chinese culture and language internationally through Confucius Institutes, cultural centres, and festivals. The revised strategy particularly focuses on youth; and in countries with a significant indigenous population, attempts to develop close relations with indigenous communities.

  4. One Belt, One Road

This is the Xi government』s initiative to create a China-centered economic bloc, one that is 「beyond ideology」 and will reshape the global order.  One Belt, One Road, also known as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), builds on, and greatly extends, the 「going out」  policy launched in 1999 in the Jiang era and continued into the Hu era, which encouraged public-private partnerships between Chinese SOEs and Chinese Red Capitalists in China and overseas to acquire global natural resource assets and seek international infrastructure projects.5355

Agencies Involved:

National Development and Reform Commission (lead agency), State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and other relevant state agencies, Chinese SOEs and Red Capitalists, Chinese People』s Association for Friendship with Foreign Countries or such CCP united front organizations.

Policies:

• Use OBOR to stimulate China』s economic development via external projects; secure access to strategic natural resources.

• Set up trade zones, ports, and communications infrastructure that connects back to China.

• Provide China-based 「China-model」 training programs and exchanges for foreign government officials.

• Get foreign governments to do the work of promoting China』s OBOR to their own citizens and neighbouring states (another version of 「borrowing a boat」).

• Work closely with both national and local government leaders on OBOR projects. Local governments control considerable assets and can make planning decisions at the local level.

• Invest in both China-based and foreign-based OBOR think tanks to help shape global public opinion, strengthen China』s soft power, improve China』s international visibility, and ability to help shape new global norms.

• Offer governments who sign up to OBOR privileged access to the Chinese market.

• Draw on the resources and assistance of overseas Chinese entrepreneurs to extend the objectives of OBOR.

• Promote the view that that OBOR is a win-win strategy both for China and the countries who accept OBOR projects.

• Use united front work to increase support for OBOR.

The recent Yang Jian case in New Zealand, where it was revealed that National MP Yang Jian was formerly a PLA member and spy-trainer in China suggests that some of the policies China uses in its efforts to influence  have very long time frames.

Australian Reactions

Many countries like Australia want to maintain good commercial and trading relations with China, but this blatant Comintern-like activity has led to push-back by Australia』s democratic system. Tightened procedures and a more strategic understanding by the Foreign Investment Review Board have seen a bar on majority China interests purchasing a major NSW electricity grid. Beijing』s crude interference in political donations, Chinese language and student organisations have all been the subject of major media exposés.

Bi-Partisan support will see Parliaments committee on electoral matters recommend the barring of political donations. The Australian government has foreshadowed further legislation against foreign interference

Michael Danby is the Federal Member for Melbourne Ports, and former Chair of the Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade throughout the 42nd Parliament and was again chosen for this position in the 43rd parliament

  [1] US Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People』s Republic of China 2017, p. 65. 

[2] Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 『What does China really spend on its military?』, CSIS China Power website, n.d., accessed 9 November 2017.

[3] R O』Rourke, China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities – Background and Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service, 29 March 2017, pp. 32-34.

[4] US Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People』s Republic of China 2017, p. 24. 

[5] See D Majumdar, 『America’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter vs. China’s J-31, F-15SA and Russia’s Su-35: Who Wins?』, The National Interest website, 20 September 2016, accessed 9 November 2017.

[6] See D Logan, 『Hard Constraints on China』s Nuclear Forces』, War on the Rocks website, 8 November 2017, accessed 9 November 2017 for a discussion of factors that shape the development of Chinese nuclear forces.

[7] See The Economist, 『Xi Jinping and the Chinese dream』, The Economist website, 4 May 2013, accessed 9 November 2017 and C Campbell, 『Xi Jinping’s Party Congress Speech Leaves No Doubts Over His Leadership Role』, Time website, 18 October 2017, accessed 9 November 2017.

[8] R.S. Ross, 『China』s Naval Nationalism: Sources, Prospects and the U.S. Response』, International Security, Vol. 34, No. 2. (Fall 2009), p. 67.

[9] See R Cliff et al, Entering the Dragon』s Lair: Chinese Antiaccess Strategies and Their Implications for the United States, Rand Corporation, 2007 for details about how China』s military has been optimised for this purpose.

[10] H White, 『Let』s be clear: China would call America』s bluff in the South China Sea』, The Interpreter website, 21 July 2017, accessed 9 November 2017.

[11] US Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People』s Republic of China 2017, 24.

    《公民議報》首發

原文鏈接：澳大利亞國會議員Michael Danby在第十二屆族群青年領袖研習營上的兩個演講 - 澳洲最新新聞

本文標籤：澳大利亞

相關文章:

北京通過華文媒體和華人社區對外影響具有戰略性

AVA聯盟: 本聯盟請媒體關注馮崇義教授在中國被禁回澳事件

放風俞正聲不入常 顯江派陷困境

8.30 聯盟專稿： Mao Concert: Hatred and Division（英文版）

柯林頓向習奧喊話? 批江澤民站在歷史錯誤一邊 (圖)

8.31 聯盟特稿：一封第二代華僑青年的信（英文）

德新社獲知十八大召開日期

10.02 聯盟公告：呼籲簽名請願信：請停止演出《紅色娘子軍》

致中國網民的公開信(圖)

AVA聯盟: 華人紐西蘭價值聯盟關於楊健事件的聲明

from 澳洲新聞網 http://ift.tt/2zo4MgF via via Blogger http://ift.tt/2BJb6oV