NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

The Russian Conspiracy Theory Boils Over The Left camouflages a “rolling coup attempt” as a righteous national security push. Matthew Vadum

Posted By on February 17th, 2017

The so-called scandal involving former National Security Advisor Mike Flynn is 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Iran-Contra, Watergate, proof of presidential fascism, a cynical money-making scheme, and a pro-Russian spy thriller all rolled into one, according to the increasingly deranged rants of howling left-wingers and their truth-adverse confederates in the mainstream media.

Despite this relentless barrage of fake news and smears, President Donald Trump pushed back against the orchestrated campaign against him yesterday at what is sure to go down in history as The Best Presidential Press Conference of All Time as he gave the mainstream media the beat-down it deserves. (See transcript.)

“To give you an idea how Trump’s press conference went, afterwards, the press corps demanded a safe space,” Ann Coulter tweeted of the 77-minute long White House event, Trump’s first solo presser as president. “I wish this press conference could go on all day.”

“The public doesn’t believe you people anymore,” a ferocious, animated Trump told the assembled press corps. “Maybe I had something to do with that. I don’t know. But they don’t believe you.”

“This whole Russia scam that you guys” are pushing on people is “so you don’t talk about the real subject which is illegal leaks.”

“The public sees it,” he said. “They see it. They see it’s not fair. You take a look at some of your shows and you see the bias and the hatred. And the public is smart. They understand it.”

“I didn’t do anything for Russia,” he said. “I have done nothing for Russia. Hillary Clinton gave them 20 percent of our uranium. Hillary Clinton did a reset, remember with the stupid plastic button that made us look like a bunch of jerks.”

A mewling Chuck Todd of NBC was offended by the president’s conduct at the press conference and tweeted, “This [is] not a laughing matter. I’m sorry, delegitimizing the press is un-American[.]”

Perhaps he shouldn’t have signed on to the effort to delegitimize President Trump.

Todd, of course, is one the members of the media out to get Trump.

He recently said the invented Flynn-Russia crisis is “arguably the biggest presidential scandal involving a foreign government since Iran-Contra.”

MOVIES AND TELEVISION Comments turned off

‘The Great Wall’ Review: Keeping Monsters at Bay Matt Damon stars in this medieval saga as a sharp-eyed European archer helping Chinese soldiers defend against zombified beasts By Joe Morgenstern

Posted By on February 17th, 2017

The organizing principle of “The Great Wall” is Lots—lots of Chinese and American money lavished on a remarkably dull spectacle in which lots of medieval Chinese soldiers, plus a European mercenary played by Matt Damon, struggle to repel successive attacks from lots—and we’re talking in the zillions now—of ravening, slavering beasts that behave a lot like zombies. The Great Wall of China wasn’t built to keep out the Mongol hordes, as we’ve been told, but to keep out these digital hordes (who were not, as far as we’re told, asked to finance its construction). That isn’t a bad idea for a fantasy, but the computer-generated monsters, like the film as a whole, are numbingly repetitive, and devoid of any power to move, scare or stir us.

And what, you may ask, is Mr. Damon doing here? Mainly providing a star presence for an expensive movie that was produced, with extensive English dialogue, for the international market. He also seems to be channeling his inner Charlton Heston—his character, known only as William, is stolid as a fence post, except for occasional moments of fugitive charm. But William, who came to China in search of gunpowder, is a formidable archer and a good soul who can’t resist helping the soldiers who captured him, especially since their anti-monster campaign is being led by the lissome Commander Lin (Jing Tian), a young woman warrior of unlimited courage, if limited interest in a hot love affair. (The culminating mood is one of human commonality and international solidarity.)
Jing Tian

Jing Tian Photo: Universal Pictures

The director was Zhang Yimou. He’s a seminal figure in Chinese film, the man who directed such small-scale masterpieces as “Red Sorghum” and “Raise the Red Lantern,” then made a different sort of name for himself with lavish spectaculars like “House of Flying Daggers” (martial arts as MGM might have staged them) and the opening ceremony for the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. There’s no lack of spectacular sequences or fancy weaponry in “The Great Wall,” the most expensive movie ever produced in China: syncopated drums, incendiary arrows, giant harpoons, explosive grenades, aerial balloons that predate the Montgolfier brothers by several centuries, and an elite battalion of female fighters in gorgeous blue uniforms who swoop down on the monsters like aerialists in a circus designed by Busby Berkeley. Yet there’s not a lot of levity, let alone exuberance. Even the 3-D effects are flat, though I did enjoy dodging one wayward discus. CONTINUE AT SITE

MOVIES AND TELEVISION Comments turned off

The Great Wall, on the Border of Art Zhang Yimou’s visionary epic on monsters and diplomacy By Armond White

Posted By on February 17th, 2017

When a blockbuster titled “The Great Wall” opens now at the beginning of a new political administration that pledges to “build a wall” as U.S. border protection, it’s a delirious coincidence. Hollywood’s storytelling and money-making impulses collide with the industry’s professed political leanings, seeming to mesh with stated White House policy. But the truly spectacular result achieved by director Zhang Yimou is more delicious than political pundits and moviegoers deserve in this destabilized social moment. It may even be unifying.

The Great Wall itself uses the history of China’s partition, built in the seventh century b.c. and measured today at 55,000 miles, as the source of a fantasy narrative. A band of Western mercenaries, including Matt Damon as William and Pedro Pascal as Tovar, sneak into China, searching for black powder (“the weapon of my dreams,” as belligerent William describes the explosive that “turns air into fire”). They encounter a monster that attacks the Wall and the imperial court of the Song dynasty, whose elite military unit, the Nameless Order, is headed by Commander Lin Mae (Tian Jing) and Strategist Wang (Andy Lau).

Bordering on Hollywood’s conventional, fact-based Oriental historical epics (55 Days at Peking, The Inn of the Sixth Happiness, The Sand Pebbles), The Great Wall adds a supernatural monster element that also respects Asian sci-fi and supernatural conventions (Bong Joon-Ho’s The Host, Stephen Chow’s Journey to the West). The film is a model of that longtime business practice, the international co-production, which was common for several decades after World War II, as Hollywood sought to rehabilitate the European film industry and expand its own global market. The decision to co-produce was politically ingenious. East-and-West histories and antagonisms are resolved in the diplomacy of legend.

Protectionist ideology, older than any U.S. president and with ancient, global precedents, gets personified and made into a metaphor. The Tao Tei are mythic creatures whose rapacious claws William first severs and presents to the Chinese as evidence of a conquerable opponent. The Tao Tei are like Ray Harryhausen beasts, updated with digital technology reminiscent of other sci-fi ogres, from Godzilla to Alien. But the green-skinned and green-blooded Tao Tei makes for a wonderfully nightmarish foe, a political analogy that could have been envisioned by a wartime global economist: Its jaws and claws attack first, while its eyes are set back (foresight and reason recessed). The Tao Tei are explained as mutations from outer space (from the gods) sent to punish the emperor, but in fantasy movies monsters are always a reflection of one’s inner conflicts.

The monster-movie script by Hollywood hands Carlo Bernard, Doug Miro, and Tony Gilroy (from a story by Edward Zwick, Marshall Herskovitz, and Max Brooks) reflects a humanist agenda: The only thing that stops these masses of savages in their rampage is a magnetic rock that William claims for use as a compass. A symbol of what draws East and West together, it also holds all dangerous opposing forces in equilibrium.

As a hybrid of historical, fantasy, and political genres, The Great Wall requires a certain equipoise from viewers. The best thing about this hybrid is the decision by producers Thomas Tull and Charles Roven (who also produced Man of Steel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice) to enlist director Zhang Yimou, best known for staging the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, a spectacle still unsurpassed. Zhang is also a true cinematic master (Hero, Curse of the Golden Flower, Coming Home, Raise the Red Lantern), who raises this film to a level that transforms its politics into pure vision and emotion. When the Nameless Order prepare to fend off the Tao Tei, the military phalanx, from drum corps to aerial soldiers leaping from towering parapets, are dressed in an array of colors that recall Kurosawa’s Ran, but perfected. Underground scenes of the army traversing caves dug by the Tao Tei combine the atmospherics of Andrzej Wajda’s Kanal with the tense pursuit of Alien. Images of the army’s hot-air-balloon squadron rising into dark skies for a nocturnal offensive are also dreamlike.

This era’s degraded movie sensations are part of our degraded social perception. Zhang’s deployment of realism and abstraction is a reminder that Peter Jackson’s standard-lowering Lord of the Rings F/X had no beauty. Zhang achieves visual splendor worthy of silent movies — Griffith’s teeming crowds, Fritz Lang’s geometric patterns — plus digital intercutting that makes images seem to burst before your eyes.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Trump’s Flaws Don’t Justify Illegal Leaks The leakers are not patriots; they’re saboteurs. By Jonathan S. Tobin

Posted By on February 17th, 2017

It may be tiresome and whiny, but there’s a reason President Donald Trump keeps reminding us that he won the election. We’re almost a month into his presidency and somehow we’re still discussing whether he should have been elected. The questions about his fitness were serious enough that many conservatives refused to vote for him. But from the moment he took office, the only relevant questions about Trump have been whether his policies are sound and well executed.

Instead, his opponents are still spending an inordinate amount of time telling us something we already knew: Donald Trump is not an ordinary president and the things he says and tweets are often offensive, foolish, and/or untrue. As he proved twice this week at press conferences, he can’t even answer straightforward questions about anti-Semitism and racism — the sorts of questions any normal politician would consider softballs — without treating the query as a personal insult and an excuse to rant about the press rather than say the few simple words that would put the matter to rest.

As the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne put it yesterday, it is Trump’s “approach to leadership” that is the core reason his opponents are determined to “resist” his government and topple it. That’s why they regard the leaks of secret surveillance tapes and transcripts of Michael Flynn’s conversations with the Russian ambassador as not merely convenient but completely justified.

The controversy over alleged contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russians is worth investigating. But since the key point in the New York Times report on the matter was that nothing the intelligence community has discovered points to any collusion between the Trump team and the Kremlin, the leaks that brought it all to light weren’t some patriotic attempt to inform the public that Trump’s or Flynn’s loyalty was in question; they were an attempt to embarrass and undermine the new administration.

Those who point out Trump’s hypocritical response to the leaks are not wrong. On the stump during the campaign, he was positively gleeful in describing the e-mails written by John Podesta and DNC officials and published by WikiLeaks. But liberals have engaged in the same hypocrisy, screaming bloody murder about WikiLeaks while touting each new anonymously sourced revelation about the Trump administration.

The key question of the moment isn’t whether this is a president who offends the sensibilities even of many of those who would like to support him. It’s whether any of this justifies government employees’ efforts to take down a sitting president with classified leaks. Whether or not you despise Trump, the answer to that question must be “no.”

Writers such as Dionne have a right to think Trump is unfit to be president. But there is nothing laudable about the anti-Trump resistance’s moving from street protests to the offices of disgruntled government officials, especially those tasked with protecting the nation’s secrets. The willingness of the intelligence community to take out Flynn with a flurry of leaks ought to scare all Americans. In the absence of evidence that Flynn’s conduct was illegal, these leaks must be viewed as part of a policy dispute rather than as an effort to protect American national security.

The intelligence community is right to worry about Trump’s puzzling crush on Vladimir Putin and his desire to appease the Russians rather than to confront them. Many conservatives rightly share those concerns. But even if Trump’s coddling of Putin is naïve or worse, that doesn’t put government employees who use illegal leaking to hamstring his efforts on a higher moral plane than the president.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

A day without women? By Anna L. Stark

Posted By on February 17th, 2017

If the “March of Parts” women’s protest in Washington, D.C. on January 22 wasn’t enough to leave you begging for eye bleach, apparently, the crowd of perpetually aggrieved protest organizers are gearing up again. They’ve hijacked March 8 (formerly known as International Women’s Day) and renamed it the “Day without a Woman.”

Aside from word salad gymnastics, organizers published a plethora of questions regarding their cause. Their litany is as follows:

In the spirit of women and their allies coming together for love and liberation, we offer A Day without a Woman. We ask: do businesses support our communities, or do they drain our communities? Do they strive for gender equity or do they support the policies and leaders that perpetuate oppression? Do they align with a sustainable environment or do they profit off destruction and steal the futures of our children? We saw what happened when millions of us stood together in January, and now we know that our army of love greatly outnumbers the army of fear, greed and hatred. On March 8th, International Women’s Day, let’s unite again in our communities for A Day without a Woman. Over the next few weeks we will be sharing more information on what actions on that day can look like for you. In the meantime, we are proud to support Strike4Democracy’s as National Day of Action to Push Back against Assaults on Democratic Principles. This Friday, February 17th, gather your friends, families, neighbors, and start brainstorming ideas for how you can enhance your community, stand up to this administration, integrate resistance and self-care into your daily routine, and how you will channel your efforts for good on March 8th. Remember: this is a marathon, not a sprint.

Confused? If the overarching goal is to rally women across the country into a cohesive and riled up mob of estrogen-fueled resistance, it would certainly behoove the organizers to clarify exactly what they are resisting. As a rule, keeping it simple always works – like when the crowd gathered in front of the Supreme Court building on the evening President Trump announced his SCOTUS nominee. Easy-peasy – the protesters brought along blank signs and, using markers, simply penciled in the name “Gorsuch.” The same can’t be said for the “Day without a Woman” planners. Nothing the organizers have offered up is simple, easy to understand, or coherent.

Diving into the murky mix, “Do businesses support our communities, or do they drain our communities?” The obvious answer is…what businesses, which communities, and do we have a plumbing problem? Serving a big plate of nothingburger isn’t very inspiring and doesn’t give potential planners much to go on, if in fact large numbers of disgruntled and angry women will actually gather on February 17 to brainstorm. And what about those businesses owned by women? Or is the target of organized resistance directed only at businesses owned by men?

During the course of the brainstorming sessions, women are also asked to consider questions on gender equity (really? all 56 genders?), support for policies (policies regarding what and written by whom?), and identifying leaders (using the anonymous nondescript “they” reference) who perpetuate oppression.

It’s worth noting that no list of factionless oppressed people, groups, clusters, or subsets of the larger oppressed set was provided with the organizing statement. Also missing is a comprehensive list of villainous oppressors. Oppressed women have to be oppressed by someone, right? Surely, someone has a list?

Moving along and keeping up with the current politically correct groupspeak, women should also discuss leaders or perhaps companies (the reference is not clearly defined) that align with a sustainable environment, while tossing around terms like profit (the horror!), greed (a Pavlovian response in Socialist circles), destruction (maybe referring back to the environment?), and “for the children” (Progressive Liberal groupthink trigger words used to emit guilt). Surprisingly, the anthropomorphic climate change screed was not directly mentioned – unless, of course, “sustainable environment” is the adopted catch-all phrase to include the “hottest year ever” meme, which now occurs every year and will be officially declared every year…going forward. Or CO2 is bad. Take your pick.

WORLD NEWS Comments turned off

Ciaran Ryan: An Empty Hijab Makes the Most Noise

Posted By on February 17th, 2017

Abdel-Magied’s claim that ‘Islam is the most feminist religion’ rests on the no less ridiculous notion that it was first in allowing women to own property. If only the Wife of Bath, entrepreneur and lusty, well-heeled legatee of five husbands, could have taken Jacqui Lambie’s place and set her straight.
Remind me to pick up a hat on my way to work, preferably a rather ostentatious one. You see, I feel like asking my boss to swap his salary for mine, and in my opinion this is the best way to get away with what on a normal day would be regarded as a shocking impudence. Heavens, you know what? The more I think about it, I reckon I’m in with a shot. After all, if Monday night’s Q&A episode is a guide, it seems you can get away with spouting utter absurdity provided you wear a quaint and colourful headpiece.

This is, of course, in reference to Senator Jacqui Lambie and media commentator Yassmin Abdel-Magied getting into a shouting match when the former asserted that proponents of sharia law need to be deported from Australia. There was also the matter of enacting a measure similar to Trump’s stalled Executive Order, which attempted to ban arrivals from seven failed and overwhelmingly Muslim states where it is impossible to adequately check the backgrounds of visa applicants.

Whilst Lambie did make some salient points, albeit already established ones, arguing the interests of Australians must be put first before we look after those overseas, as is the way with most panellists on the program she failed to argue her points with any epistemic control or, for that matter, self-control. Instead, she fulminated in a manner the ABC’s admirers routinely paint as typifying those nasty conservatives. We’re actually rather measured, us conservativs, but Quadrant readers know that already. Lambie at times carried herself like a quarrelsome fool, her lesser moments were eclipsed by Abdel-Magied’s own ear-assaulting rejoinders; the latter shouting the most incoherent rant since Mohammed dictated the Quran. “Islam to me…is the most feminist religion,” was one of her paste gems.

In a video subsequently posted on Junkee, Abdel-Magied attempted to clarify the position she had taken on Q&A — and with a straight face, mind you. Sharia “is about justice and equality”, she said. Then, as can be expected of any accomplished rhetorician of the Left who is forced to address female oppression in the Middle East, Abdel-Magied suggested that it was the “conservative and patriarchal nature” of certain Islamic nations’, rather than Koranic example and injunction which sees stonings, child marriages and honour killings. That these abominations occur in lands where Islam holds sway is, apparently, no more than unfortunate coincidence.

Abdel-Magied’s claim that “Islam is the most feminist religion” rests on her notion that Islamic women “were given the right to own land” and “got equal rights well before the Europeans”. Truth hides in the shadow of Abdel-Magied’s contention; one need only consider the Wife of Bath, who Chaucer tells us was wealthy, owned a cloth business and had done very nicely as the legatee of five husbands.

Whilst Islamic women do have the right to own land, if a dispute over that land arises in an Islamic nation where sharia informs the judicial system, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan for example, and if the dispute is with a man, because certain interpretations of the Quran promulgate that a women’s testimony counts as only half that of a man’s, under the auspices of sharia the disputed land could come under the man’s ownership. Think of it as a game of he said/she said with the male’s testimony and claim being awarded greater weight.
In Australia, or any Western country for that matter, both parties would be afforded afforded equal standing before the court. Need it be said that, ideally, any verdict will hang on the credibility of evidence, not gender. A quick aside: if that land was left to a brother and sister, more often than not the brother would be entitled to double of what his sister inherits.

FOREIGN POLICY, ISRAEL Comments turned off

Standing With Israel on the Golan Heights Recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the territory would send a strong message to U.S. friends and foes alike. By Jonathan Schanzer and Mark Dubowitz

Posted By on February 17th, 2017

Benjamin Netanyahu has achieved his primary objective of resetting ties with the U.S. after eight years of tensions. True, the Israeli prime minister and Donald Trump still need to bridge the gap on issues such as Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy and West Bank settlements. But they seem to be on the same page on a broad range of regional matters.

That could lead to a breakthrough on an issue of strategic importance to Israel. According to reports of the two leaders’ meeting on Wednesday, Mr. Netanyahu asked for U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

The move makes sense for both sides. It would provide the Israeli government with a diplomatic win while helping the Trump administration signal to Russia and Iran that the U.S. is charting a new course in Syria.

Israel captured the bulk of the Golan from Syria in the 1967 war and annexed the territory in 1981. The move was met with international condemnation.

For two successive Assad regimes, first Hafiz and now his son Bashar, restoring full Syrian sovereignty over the Golan has been an axiomatic demand. Israel floated partial Golan withdrawals during several rounds of peace talks with Syria over the past two decades, but the Syrians were never satisfied with the deals on offer.

With the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, the facts on the ground have changed. Had Israel ceded the Golan to Syria, Islamic State, al Qaeda or Iran would be sitting on the shores of the Galilee across from the Israeli city of Tiberias.

Mr. Netanyahu and other senior Israeli government officials argue that Syria is destined for partition along sectarian, ethnic and regional lines. And while the retaking of Aleppo shifted the tide of war in favor of the Assad government, some Israelis believe it might be time to acknowledge Israel’s hold on the Golan as permanent.

This position has so far found no traction among the major powers, which still say they want to preserve a unitary Syria. Russia, which intervened militarily to shore up Bashar Assad in the name of Syrian territorial integrity, is chief among them.

A disagreement with Russia over Syria is a long time coming. By recognizing Israel’s sovereignty in the Golan, the Trump administration would signal to Russia that, while Washington may now coordinate with Moscow on activities such as fighting Islamic State, it doesn’t share Russia’s goals for Syria.

Moreover, it would show that the U.S. will take a tougher line on the provision of arms and intelligence to Iran and Hezbollah.

Recognition of Israel’s Golan claims would acknowledge that it needs these highlands to hold off a multitude of asymmetric and conventional military threats from Syria—and whatever comes after the war there. Israel continues to target Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah to prevent them from establishing a base of operations on the Syrian Golan.

Recognizing Israel’s sovereignty in the Golan would also soften the Palestinians’ core demand for a state within the 1967 borders. If an international border can be revised along the Syrian border, the Palestinians will have a harder time presenting the 1949 armistice line along the West Bank as inviolable. This might pave the way for compromise when Mr. Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, begins to make his push for Palestinian-Israeli peace.

The move will anger the Europeans and the United Nations, but that storm will pass. Syrian opposition groups will also protest. While some might be tempted to break their tenuous ties with Israel, they understand that the real enemy is Mr. Assad. CONTINUE AT SITE

EDUCATION, NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Even the SAT Has Become Political The exam should follow dinner etiquette and stay away from controversial topics such as religion, politics and sex. By Trip Apley

Posted By on February 17th, 2017

As more than six million high-school students do every year, I sat down to take the College Board’s SAT exam on Dec. 3, 2016. The test was going well until I reached the essay question, which asks students to assess how an author of an article supports his claims.

The basic concept was easy enough, but I was surprised by the source our essay was supposed to be based on. We were asked to analyze a February 2014 Huffington Post article supporting the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act. The author: New York’s junior senator, Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, who had recently introduced the legislation.

It wouldn’t be appropriate to have an SAT essay question using an article from a conservative blog about reasons to ban late-term abortion. And it is equally inappropriate to force students to focus their attention on a one-sided argument from one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate.

The exam made clear that the “essay should not explain whether you agree with” the article. It should only “explain how the author builds an argument to persuade.” Still, why would a controversial political topic be selected for this evaluation? Why a divisive, partisan issue? We would have had the same educational benefit if the SAT provided an article about banning laptops in school. Maybe the SAT essay should follow the rule of topics that are appropriate for dinner conversation: no religion, politics or sex.

The SAT is an assessment tool and not a mechanism to promote a political agenda to millions of impressionable students. This article might be the only point of view some students ever hear about paid leave, and they are required not only to read it but to restate its central arguments. Educators know that writing down facts is an effective way to retain information. Students should be memorizing algebraic equations, not arguments for progressive labor policy.

Data from the Federal Election Commission show that College Board executives have an overwhelming preference for Democratic candidates. The College Board also spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Maybe it’s just a coincidence that a prominent Democratic senator’s piece was chosen, but I’m not convinced. (A spokeswoman said that “College Board is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization.”) CONTINUE AT SITE

FOREIGN POLICY Comments turned off

A Trump Agenda for Taiwan How to deepen ties without changing the ‘One China’ policy.

Posted By on February 17th, 2017

WRONG! AMERICA SHOULD NOT ACCEPT THE IMPERIALIST CHINESE CLAIM OF “ONE CHINA”.RSK
President Trump’s affirmation of America’s “One China” policy last week avoids one U.S.-China pitfall, but that still leaves the issue of how to build on his landmark December phone call with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. He has several tools to boost ties with Taiwan as a democratic and strategic partner.

The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act commits the U.S. to helping Taiwan defend itself, including the sale of defensive weapons. We hear the Trump team has inherited a roughly $1 billion arms package prepared by the Obama Administration, but it consists mainly of munitions, not new systems such as upgraded fighter jets or unmanned vehicles. This reflects the modest pattern of recent years. From 2011 to 2015 the U.S. even blocked Taiwan from submitting letters of request for weapons.

The new Administration could set arms sales on a more stable course by reinstating annual meetings to discuss the island’s needs. For example, Taipei wants U.S. technology to build submarines, a request U.S. planners will have to weigh against the virtue of offering cheaper weapons that can be fielded more quickly and are less vulnerable to Chinese attack, such as mines and missile systems.
Last year’s Pentagon budget called for flag-grade U.S. officers to begin visiting Taiwan for the first time in decades, an ideal mission for U.S. Pacific Commander Admiral Harry Harris. The law also called for more cooperation in threat analysis, force planning, intelligence and joint training. In 2012 the U.S. considered inviting Taiwan to the multinational Red Flag air combat exercise in Nevada but decided against it for fear of angering Beijing.

Diplomatic exchanges have practical and symbolic value. U.S. Cabinet officials could visit Taiwan, and their Taiwanese counterparts should have dignified and reliable access to officials in Washington. U.S. diplomats could also give Taiwan more help at forums such as the World Health Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization, where China wants to freeze out Taiwanese representatives.

Trade is crucial. Taiwan’s dependence on exports to China threatens its economic and political autonomy, so Taipei should conclude a bilateral deal with the U.S. after a decade of delay. The U.S. can encourage other friendly countries to pursue deals, too, especially Japan and Australia. Japan, like the U.S., faces Taiwanese restrictions on its food exports, and Australia will hesitate to upset Beijing, but the deals would be major advances for democratic cooperation in the Pacific.

The U.S. can also help Taiwan with its shaky energy supply. Taipei is making the mistake of closing its nuclear power plants by 2025 and trying to replace that 18% share of energy production with renewables. It makes more sense to import cheaper and abundant U.S. natural gas, reducing the danger if China ever halts cross-Strait exports of coal.

These initiatives are all consistent with the “One China” policy, though that wouldn’t stop Beijing from protesting. Many inside and outside of China spun Mr. Trump’s policy statement last week as a sign he blinked to get a phone call from Chinese President Xi Jinping. The way to prove that’s not true is to deepen ties systematically, even if quietly, with America’s longtime friends in Taiwan.

NATIONAL NEWS & OPINION Comments turned off

Trump Picks Alexander Acosta to Serve as Labor Secretary Acosta would be first Hispanic member of Trump’s Cabinet; nomination comes after Andrew Puzder withdrew By Eric Morath

Posted By on February 17th, 2017

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump’s second choice for labor secretary, veteran federal attorney Alexander Acosta, has a potentially smoother path to confirmation than the controversial fast-food executive who came before him.

Mr. Acosta, who was named Thursday, has already passed muster with senators three times, winning confirmation under President George W. Bush for a position on the National Labor Relations Board, as assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida. He has been dean at Florida International University’s law school since 2009.

Mr. Acosta would be the first Hispanic member of Mr. Trump’s cabinet.
The record of public service by the 48-year-old stands in sharp contrast to that of Andy Puzder, the executive who withdrew himself from consideration for the labor post Wednesday. Personal controversies emerged after Mr. Puzder was picked in December, the most glaring of several vetting glitches the Trump administration has faced.

Mr. Acosta’s nomination is “off to a good start,” because he has been previously cleared by the Senate, said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), the chairman of the committee overseeing the confirmation.

“He has an impressive work and academic background,” Mr. Alexander said. “I look forward to exploring his views on how American workers can best adjust to the rapidly changing workplace.”

Mr. Trump announced his choice at a press conference in the White House’s East Room on Thursday. Mr. Acosta wasn’t in attendance, possibly a reflection of the speed with which the president moved less than 24 hours after Mr. Puzder withdrew himself from consideration.

Mr. Trump said Mr. Acosta would be “tremendous” in the job, noting his credential as a Harvard-educated attorney. Mr. Trump said he spoke with Mr. Acosta about the position earlier Thursday.

Many of the president’s nominees have faced contentious fights in the Senate, and several cabinet posts remain vacant nearly a month into Mr. Trump’s term. A less controversial pick in Mr. Acosta could signal the White House is anxious to win speedy approval and begin altering former President Barack Obama’s labor policies. CONTINUE AT SITE