Daily Archives: April 23, 2023

Growing carbon footprint of industries has put sectors such as power and steel in the spotlight as major contributors to the climate crisis. The challenge of climate change can be tackled only by making our industries and businesses follow practices and processes that reduce their carbon footprint. That's possible only with heavy investment that aids such a transition, and the solution lies in green financing. What is green finance?Green financing is to increase the level of financial flows (from banking, micro-credit, insurance and investment) from the public, private and not-for-profit sectors to sustainable development priorities, as per the United Nations Environment Programme. A key part of this is to better manage environmental and social risks, take up opportunities that bring both a decent rate of return and environmental benefit and deliver greater accountability.Green financing could be promoted through changes in countries regulatory frameworks, harmonizing public financial incentives, increases in green financing from different sectors, alignment of public sector financing decision-making with the environmental dimension of the Sustainable Development Goals, increases in investment in clean and green technologies, financing for sustainable natural resource-based green economies and climate smart blue economy, increase use of green bonds, and so on.Why we need green financeIndia has updated its Nationally Determined Contributions (a climate action plan to cut emissions and adapt to climate impacts), aiming to reduce the country's carbon intensity by more than 45% by 2030 from its 2005 levels. As per estimates by the International Finance Corporation, India will need around $403 billion in renewable finance by 2030 to achieve its renewable targets.

India's sovereign green bonds

The government had announced plans to raise 16,000 crore through green bonds in two equal tranches in the current fiscal, and the first tranche - the country's first issuance of sovereign green bonds - in January drew a robust response, with orders exceeding the offer size of 8,000 crore by more than four times.

According to the framework approved by finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman, the sovereign green bonds will focus on financing public projects across nine areas including renewable energy, climate change, clean transportation, sustainable water and waste management, and pollution control. A green finance working panel, headed by chief economic adviser V Anantha Nageswaran, has been mandated to select projects from the proposals submitted by various government departments.

Risks in green financeAs green finance is a new practice, it comes with risks too which need effective regulation of this sector.

On March 8, RBI Governor Shaktikanta Das said the central bank would soon issue guidelines for regulated entities to increase green lending, accept green deposits and mitigate risks related to climate change.How businesses can benefit from green financeBusinesses that take to green finance can benefit in various ways. It can help them follow different environmental norms and regulations and thus avoid possible fines. Since climate change has gained huge public attention, adopting sustainable practices by relying on green finance enhances brand value and offers a positive differentiator.

Customers tend to prefer brands that adopt clear sustainable practices. The energy-efficient and other sustainable practices promoted by green finance also often help in saving costs thus boosting profitability of businesses.

Read the rest here:

World Earth Day: What is green finance, and why do we need it so much? - The Economic Times

ASTANA., KAZINFORM Kazakhstan is rapidly emerging as a hub for innovation in the region of Central Asia, with numerous startups and research initiatives driving technological advancements in diverse fields that are becoming increasingly crucial for its sustained growth and prosperity.

QazInnovations National Agency for the Development of Innovation seeks to help Kazakhstan bring the share of innovation-active companies to 25 percent by 2030 and bring the volume of innovative products to 2.5 trillion tenge ($5.5 billion) by 2025, said Madiyar Abilov, director of Innovation Ecosystem Development Center at QazInnovations, in an exclusive interview with Kazinform.

Innovations and science are closely intertwined with the country's leadership recognizing the importance of science and innovation in achieving their goal of transitioning from a resource-based economy to a knowledge-based one. Importance of investing in innovations and science has repeatedly been raised by President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev.

Manufacturing industry is rapidly developed only by innovation and high technology. This is obvious. That is why the economy of Kazakhstan should be based on scientific achievements. It is not enough to conduct research and obtain a patent. It is necessary to use scientific discoveries in production, said Tokayev in his address to the first session of the Kazakh Parliament on March 29.

How does Kazakhstan promote innovation?

Kazakhstan has a number of tools to support small and medium-sized businesses, large enterprises, innovators, start-up entrepreneurs, provided by various government agencies, development institutions, national companies and holdings. Innovators are supported through various programs and initiatives aimed at stimulating the development of scientific and technological innovations, as well as increasing the competitiveness of Kazakh enterprises in the global market.

Kazakhstan promotes innovation through the creation of innovation centers, simplification of business registration, and startup support.

There are several innovation centers in the country, including Astana Hub and TechGarden, which provide entrepreneurs and startups with assistance in the development and commercialization of their ideas. The Tumar Venture Fund was established to stimulate the financing of projects in the seed stages as part of the Stimulating Productive Innovation project implemented with the World Bank.

To develop the culture of investment, the educational courses for investors, Investor School, were created on the basis of the Astana Hub. This is an intensive course on venture capital investment for business owners, investors and business angels. The program of the course is aimed at formation of holistic view of the methodology of evaluation and investment in technology companies throughout the investment lifecycle - from sourcing to investment exit.

Kazakhstan has also greatly simplified the procedure for registering a business, which promotes entrepreneurial activity and stimulates the emergence of new innovative projects.

With these measures in place, what are some of the problems that Kazakhstan still faces?

However, despite these efforts, there are still problems that need to be overcome to achieve the full development of the innovative economy in the country.

Despite the fact that Kazakhstan has programs for financing innovative projects, there is still a lack of funds, which could hinder the development of innovative projects. There is lack of sufficient financial support for startup projects, including through the provision of soft loans and subsidized loans from the state.

Kazakhstan has also insufficient number of qualified personnel. There is a need to increase the number of qualified specialists in the field of innovations to improve the quality and quantity of innovative projects.

There is still a low culture of innovation in Kazakhstan, which makes it difficult to disseminate innovative ideas and introduce new technologies. That is, not everyone fully understands the need to develop and implement innovation.

To stimulate the angel investment market, it is necessary to promptly introduce tax preferences in the legislation. For example, in Russia, losses incurred by an angel investor in unsuccessful projects are compensated with personal income tax refunds from a successful startup. This measure is expected to reduce the risks for business angels, so they will invest more in the riskiest, but at the same time the most innovative enterprises.

Most importantly, perhaps, there is a low level of critical mass of projects. Limited presence of startups, low potential for exits and weak development of the stock market, limited scalability due to the small population, lack of competent specialists in the field of venture financing and talent outflow.

What are some examples of innovative products recently introduced in Kazakhstan?

If we talk about the example of innovative grants for the commercialization of technology from QazInnovations, we can note the following projects. Alina Group acquired innovative technology and equipment for the production of marble filler for a plant for the production of dry construction mixtures and paint and varnish products.

Steklo-Service modernized the production complex for industrial glass processing with the use of innovative processing technologies.

Kazelectromash benefited from new innovative production of cross-linked polyethylene cables with improved technical characteristics for the power industry (energy, mining and metallurgical industry, oil and gas, construction industry) instead of paper-insulated cables.

These examples demonstrate that Kazakhstan is actively developing innovations and technologies. The introduction of new products and services helps improve the quality of life of the country's citizens.

In what areas does Kazakhstan excel in innovation?

Kazakhstan is actively developing innovative projects in various sectors of the economy: energy, agriculture, medicine, information and communication technologies (ICT), space technology, transport and logistics.

In recent years, the ICT industry is booming - it is the digitalization of everything that can be digitized, it is different marketplaces and basically everything related to IT solutions and Artificial Intelligence. A proof to that is innovative grants by QazInnovations for commercialization of technologies. In 2022, the competition for innovative grants from QazInnovations received 146 applications on priority areas: ICT, including Industry 4.0 - 92 applications; new materials, additive technologies, nanotechnologies - 8 applications; biotechnologies, new technologies in medicine and public health - 9 applications; new technologies in manufacturing industry - 7 applications; environmentally friendly technologies, energy efficiency, energy conservation, and alternative energy - 11 applications; new financial technologies - 10 applications; electronic industry - 4 applications and robotics - 5 applications.

Photo: tribune.kz

Based on the results of the competition, innovative grant agreements were concluded with 17 projects, all of them from the ICT industry. It is approximately the same for 2021. Because the ICT industry is rapidly scalable, it is easier to commercialize compared to projects/start-ups from other industries. You don't have to do a bunch of clinical or preclinical studies like in medicine, publish research papers in foreign accredited journals, get FDA and other patents, or test your spacecraft many times until it takes off.

Taking into account global trends and domestic competence, the Council for Technology Policy under the government of Kazakhstan approved medtech, agritech and greentech as priority areas for economic development at the end of last year. The state will prioritize support for projects and in general stimulate the buildup of a critical mass of projects particularly in these areas.

How does QazInnovations work with the private sector and academia to stimulate innovation?

Commercialization of technologies and stimulation of innovations is a very important and timely phenomenon for domestic science. The process of transferring scientific developments to industry has already broad support in the world, while in Kazakhstan such a mechanism is still being established.

To work properly with the private sector and academia to foster innovation, we need to ask the following questions - how do we become technologically advanced, how do we gain a critical mass of innovation, what do our scientists lack to become innovators and where are the gaps.

For this purpose, let us consider the formula of innovation: suppose we have an innovator who can generate ideas, to create a scientific and technological innovation he or she must also be a scientist, but to commercialize his or her development, i.e., enter the market, he or she must also be an economist.

Photo: phonoteka.org

Only under such conditions, innovator + scientist + economist, can we achieve the creation of high-tech innovation and generally stimulate innovation.

In addition to support measures already provided, to gain a critical mass of innovation it is necessary for innovators/scientists to develop and implement their ideas into a finished prototype. For this purpose, it is important to create prototyping laboratories, the so-called FabLab, on the basis of universities.

We propose to include the innovation course in university curricula, which will include training in auditing, marketing, intellectual property protection, technology transfer and acceleration.

Where does Kazakhstan's innovation ecosystem stand compared to other countries in the region or the world?

Kazakhstan's innovation ecosystem is relatively young, but rapidly developing. It is a complex system of interacting elements - government agencies, the business community, investors, startups, academic institutions and technology incubators.

Compared to other countries in the region, such as Russia, China, Korea, Japan and Singapore, Kazakhstan's ecosystem is at an earlier stage of development. However, the Kazakh government is developing and implementing measures to support innovation activities, including tax incentives, grants for startups, and programs to support small and medium-sized businesses. Kazakhstan is actively attracting foreign investment and technology, especially in information technology and the digital economy.

Photo: cnipmmr.ro

Compared to developed Western countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Germany, Kazakhstan's ecosystem is still in its infancy. However, our country continues to actively invest in the development of scientific and technological research, as well as attracting talented and experienced specialists from abroad.

Overall, Kazakhstan continues to make significant efforts to attract attention and investment from developed countries, and is becoming an increasingly attractive entry point for innovative startups and technology investors.

What goals does QazInnovations set in stimulating innovation in the country and how do you think the innovation ecosystem of Kazakhstan will develop in the coming years?

The mission of QazInnovations is analytical, methodological and operational support for the development of the national innovation ecosystem. By 2031, we want to become a key development institution - a so-called think tank, providing an independent assessment of the national innovation ecosystem as the Innovation Observatory.

The national agency will foster innovation activity as part of the Entrepreneurial Code of Kazakhstan. At the same time, the procedures and format of their provision will be revised to improve efficiency, expediency and compliance with international practice, for example, the development of business incubators, prototyping centers, and technology competence centers.

To increase the capacity of the innovation system, focusing on the Global Innovation Index, where we were ranked 81st in 2022, we have fixed indicators, developed roadmaps to improve our performance in the Global Innovation Index at the Council for Technology Policy.

Photo: e-vid.ru

One of the strategic goals of QazInnovations is to increase the innovative and technological potential of the country. We seek to provide innovation grants, bring the share of innovation-active companies to 25 percent by 2030, bring the volume of innovative products to 2.5 trillion tenge by 2025. It is expected that if these targets are achieved, the share of innovative products will reach 5 percent of GDP by 2030.

All these figures are envisioned in the Technological breakthrough through digitization, science and innovation national project, approved by the government decree and is a document of state planning system designed to implement a long-term Kazakhstan Development Strategy until 2050.

And QazInnovations as the only national institution in the field of innovative development of the country makes every effort to achieve these parameters.

See the original post here:

QazInnovations: Kazakhstan seeks to bring volume of innovative ... - inform.kz/en

Lets clean up for the future this Earth Day! Join SOLVE and Friends of Netarts Bay WEBS for the Spring Cleanup Between the Capes on Saturday, April 22, 2023, from 10 am to 1 pm. This year, there are two places to check in and pick up supplies. Meet at Netarts Bay Boat Ramp (2065 Netarts Boat Basin Road, Netarts, OR) or Oceanside Surf Co (1505 Pacific Ave, Oceanside, OR 97134).

Friends of Netarts Bay WEBS has been a longtime coordinator of this local cleanup with several great partners, including Tillamook County Parks Department, Netarts-Oceanside Fire District, and Oregon State Parks. Friends of Netarts Bay WEBS members and our partners have been working with SOLVE to host cleanups in the area from Cape Lookout to Cape Meares to Bay Ocean for over a decade. This year, Current Cafe and Oceanside Surf Co. are joining the fun! We will have a second check-in table next to Oceanside Surf Co. Join us this year to help continue this long legacy of stewardship for our bay and ocean.

This beach cleanup is family-friendly! Whether you are up for getting muddy, hiking to more remote spots, or looking to share your love for our coast and the value of volunteering with your family we have a spot for you! We recommend bringing a bucket, work gloves, and gear to keep you comfortable outdoors. If needed, bags and gloves are available free of charge to all volunteers and trash grabbers will be available to borrow.

Remember our ocean shores can be dangerous. Avoid logs in the water. Keep your distance from marine mammals, and never turn your back on the ocean! If you find any hazardous material, please alert your Beach Captain at the check-in table. Bring a buddy, stay safe, and have fun!

WEBS and Partners hope to see you in Netarts, but if that is too far away, remember SOLVE supports numerous check-in sites across the state. Volunteers are encouraged to register at their favorite beach or riverside location by visiting solveoregon.org.

The Friends of Netarts WEBS Facebook event link for this beach cleanup is here: https://fb.me/e/284U2Gu0S - help us spread the word to friends and family!

When: Saturday, April 22, 2023, 10:00 AM to 1:00 PM

Advanced Registration Recommended: Pre-registration will speed up event check-in! Save time and get out on the beach faster by registering ahead of time.

What to Bring: You are encouraged to bring your own reusable bucket/bag, gloves, and water bottle to help reduce plastic waste. If you happen to forget, SOLVE will provide bags and gloves.

If you bring personal belongings please bring a backpack so you can pick up trash hands-free. Dress for the weather, wear closed-toed shoes, and long pants. Be prepared for the variable Oregon coast weather. Also bring your cell phone, and a filled reusable water bottle.

Whats Provided: SOLVE will provide all instructions, disposal, recycled trash bags, and disposable work gloves.

Accessibility: This event will take place mostly on sandy beaches with some opportunities in rocky areas.

Youth Volunteers: This event welcomes chaperoned youth of all ages, and unchaperoned youth 16 and older.

WEBS and partners are hosting this event as part of the Explore Nature series of hikes, walks, paddles and outdoor adventures. Led by a consortium of volunteer community and non-profit organizations, these meaningful nature-based experiences highlight the unique beauty of Tillamook County and the work being done to preserve and conserve the areas natural resources and natural resource-based economy. Learn more about Explore Nature at http://www.explorenaturetillamookcoast.com.

Friends of Netarts Bay WEBS (Watershed, Estuary, Beach, and Sea) is a non-profit organization dedicated to sustaining the Netarts Bay area through education and stewardship. Stay connected with WEBS via Facebook, Eventbrite, and their website at http://www.netartsbaywebs.org.

Read the original here:

Netarts Bay cleanup scheduled for Earth Day with SOLVE and ... - Tillamook Headlight-Herald

Pakistans ongoing political instability, inter-institutional rivalry and economic failure are three major factors that are fast changing the role of local state and non-state actors in the country. On the economic front, according to a recent report of Pakistan Bureau of Statistics , Pakistan is at the doors of hyperinflation as the annual inflation rate surged to 35.4% in March the highest in last five decades. The food inflation in rural areas was over 50%. As a consequence, the central bank may use the new inflation rate as a base to further increase the interest rate. As the prices of almost all goods are increasing exponentially, the real value of Pakistani rupee is fast depreciating and common man is in the grip of worst economic crisis. Pakistan is close to a stage where people may lose their confidence in local currency altogether and switch to stable foreign currencies. The situation demands a de novo approach towards shaping the parameters and determinants of humanitarian and ethical governance in Pakistan.

There is no denying the fact that institutions are long run determinants of economic growth in a country. However, the working and informal culture of governance in developed and developing countries is very different. In developed countries, one could hardly see any inter-institutional confrontation. If it is there, it always has a strong legal and moral basis. But in developing countries, like Pakistan, some institutions are directly involved in power struggle. The role of institutions and their domains remain blurred and one cant see any mechanism or process that could right-align ethical governance in the country. The inter-institutional rivalry is so ossified that no state actor is ready to understand that the poor masses are real stakeholders and they are suffering economically.

Pakistans economy has historically been dependent on foreign aid. In the beginning the country received massive aid from the West in the name of socioeconomic uplift. However, the aid was not used as initial capital to kickstart the culture of business and entrepreneurship in the country. It was rather consumed as income with no business and trade planning. As the quantum of Western aid gradually diminished, the country started to exploit its natural resources like urban lands. These lands were exploited both individually and institutionally. Some institutions saw a great opportunity in land development because the demand for housing is very high. These institutions started developing their own housing societies in almost all big cities of Pakistan. Fertile lands were ruthlessly transformed into a jungle of concrete structures through over-urbanisation. The industrialists started to close down their industries and instead invested their capital in housing societies without realising that the factories they are closing dont just belong to them. The workers and their dependent families were also associated with those factories for earning their livelihood. The overall trend of economic transformation from an agricultural-cum-industrial economy to a natural resource based economy is very excruciating and that is the root cause of Pakistans economic crisis.

Today, the inter-institutional rivalry is actually a war of winning control over countrys natural resources. No political party or institution could develop a culture of humanitarian and ethical governance in the country. The dictatorial approach of the heads of political parties and institutions actually lacks the element of collective wisdom and long-term understanding about the countrys future. There is no effective governance framework that could suggest way forward for the suffering of ordinary citizens who have nothing to do with the ongoing political and institutional turmoil. They only want a respectable way to meet their both ends meet.

It is, therefore, important to raise the question: why is humanitarian and ethical governance relevant in the context of Pakistans current political and institutional crisis? It is because the lives of people are endangered, as reflected in the stampede and killing of people at the flour distribution sites, and they are rendered destitute because of politico-economic collapse, institutional tug-of-war and the fight of the powerful for control over natural resources. Politico-institutional turbulence in Pakistan is actually reimagining and reorganising humanitarian governance patterns in the country. The accountability and advocacy processes are also fast changing because of active involvement of media and civil society. The ongoing politico-institutional crisis will indeed change the governance patters in the context of state-society-aid relations. There is, therefore, a need to develop a Pakistan-based model of alternative humanitarian ethics by reimagining and reorganising human governance patterns in the ongoing politico-institutional conflict. One of Pakistans leading universities could consider kickstarting a research project on reshaping humanitarian and ethical governance model in Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan must provide funding for such a project. This is a better way to avoid identical political crisis in future.

A similar project has recently been launched by the International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University, with the financial support of European Research Council. The project Humanitarian Governance (Hum-Gov) seeks to develop models of alternative humanitarian ethics, for example centering on solidarity in addition to humanitarian principles. The Hum-Gov project raises three basic questions: 1) How is humanitarian governance imagined and organised in the interplay of different actors? 2) How do accountability and advocacy processes of aid recipients and civil society actors alter governance relations from below? 3) How do different patterns of governance emerge in different types of crisis and contexts of state-society-aid relations? Similar questions need to be raised in the proposed project in Pakistans context. The heads of political parties and powerful institutions are exercising powers in their respective domains but they are unable to draw a clear boundary where politico-institutional conflicts occur. The proposed project must provide the principles defining these blurred lines. That means a greater focus on processes rather than just framing policy.

Economic instability and unprecedented inflation in Pakistan is the long-term outcome of the countrys conventional dependence on foreign aid and natural resources. Unless a new framework of humanitarian and ethical governance is shaped, the institutions and political parties will continue to engage in power struggle in future. There has to be an end to this sadistic power struggle so that economy and business entrepreneurship could be right-aligned. Pakistan will have to ultimately shun foreign aid and natural resource based development and revert back to industrialisation and business entrepreneurship as a long-term strategy to attain sustainable economic growth rate.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 19th, 2023.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

The rest is here:

Shaping humanitarian and ethical governance in Pakistan - The Express Tribune

As Prepared for Delivery

Good morning, everyone. Dean Steinberg, thank you for your kind introduction. And thank you for your service to our country. Im grateful for your contributions not only during your time in government but here at SAIS.

Im particularly glad to be at this institution. SAIS has one of the oldest and most extensive China studies programs in the country. In 1979, the United States established full diplomatic relations with the Peoples Republic of China. Just two years after, your university leaders had their own talks with their Chinese counterparts. The goal was to see whether Johns Hopkins and Nanjing University could partner together to educate future leaders.

The result: the establishment of the Hopkins-Nanjing Center in 1986 one of the first Western academic programs in modern China. This collaboration has been tested by the realities and complexities of our bilateral relationship. But I believe the students on this campus have served as a reminder of the respect that the American and Chinese people have for each other. And they demonstrate that people around the world can learn from one another if we communicate openly and honestly even and especially when we disagree.

Since I began my career, the relationship between the United States and China has undergone a significant evolution. In the 1970s, our relationship was defined by rapprochement and gradual normalization. I watched President Nixon make his famous journey to China in 1972. And I heard our two countries begin to speak to each other again after decades of silence. In the years that followed, I saw China choose to implement market reforms and open itself to the global economy, driving an impressive rise into the second-largest economy in the world. Its development was supported by assistance from the World Bank and other international economic institutions. And the U.S. Congress and successive administrations played a major role in supporting Chinas integration into global markets.

But in recent years, Ive also seen Chinas decision to pivot away from market reforms toward a more state-driven approach that has undercut its neighbors and countries across the world. This has come as China is striking a more confrontational posture toward the United States and our allies and partners not only in the Indo-Pacific but also in Europe and other regions.

Today, we are at a critical time. The world is confronting the largest land war in Europe since World War II just as it recovers from a once-in-a-century pandemic. Debt challenges are mounting for low- and middle-income countries. Some nations, including our own, have faced pressures on their economic and financial systems. And a U.N. report released last month indicates that the Earth is likely to cross a critical global warming threshold within the next decade if no drastic action is taken.

Progress on these issues requires constructive engagement between the worlds two largest economies. Yet our relationship is clearly at a tense moment.

So today, I would like to discuss our economic relationship with China. My goal is to be clear and honest: to cut through the noise and speak to this essential relationship based on sober realities.

The United States proceeds with confidence in its long-term economic strength. We remain the largest and most dynamic economy in the world. We also remain firm in our conviction to defend our values and national security. Within that context, we seek a constructive and fair economic relationship with China. Both countries need to be able to frankly discuss difficult issues. And we should work together, when possible, for the benefit of our countries and the world.

Our economic approach to China has three principal objectives.

First, we will secure our national security interests and those of our allies and partners, and we will protect human rights. We will clearly communicate to the PRC our concerns about its behavior. And we will not hesitate to defend our vital interests. Even as our targeted actions may have economic impacts, they are motivated solely by our concerns about our security and values. Our goal is not to use these tools to gain competitive economic advantage.

Second, we seek a healthy economic relationship with China: one that fosters growth and innovation in both countries. A growing China that plays by international rules is good for the United States and the world. Both countries can benefit from healthy competition in the economic sphere. But healthy economic competition where both sides benefit is only sustainable if that competition is fair. We will continue to partner with our allies to respond to Chinas unfair economic practices. And we will continue to make critical investments at home while engaging with the world to advance our vision for an open, fair, and rules-based global economic order.

Third, we seek cooperation on the urgent global challenges of our day. Since last years meeting between Presidents Biden and Xi, both countries have agreed to enhance communication around the macroeconomy and cooperation on issues like climate and debt distress. But more needs to be done. We call on China to follow through on its promise to work with us on these issues not as a favor to us, but out of our joint duty and obligation to the world. Tackling these issues together will also advance the national interests of both of our countries.

Let me begin by discussing the state of our economies.

In recent years, many have seen conflict between the United States and China as increasingly inevitable. This was driven by fears, shared by some Americans, that the United States was in decline. And that China would imminently leapfrog us as the worlds top economic power leading to a clash between nations.

Its important to know this: pronouncements of U.S. decline have been around for decades. But they have always been proven wrong. The United States has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to adapt and reinvent to face new challenges. This time will be no different and the economic statistics show why.

Since the end of the Cold War, the American economy has grown faster than most other advanced economies. And over the past two years, we have mounted the strongest post-pandemic recovery among major advanced economies. Our unemployment rate is near historic lows. Real GDP per capita has reached an all-time high, and we have experienced the strongest two-year growth in new businesses on record.

This recovery is made possible by the strength of our economic fundamentals. Of course, this does not mean that our work is finished. Our top economic priority is to rein in inflation while protecting the economic gains of our recovery. A few weeks ago, the United States took decisive action to strengthen public confidence in the banking system after the failures of two regional institutions. The U.S. banking system remains sound, and we will take any necessary steps to ensure the United States continues to have the strongest and safest financial system in the world.

Over the past few decades, China has experienced an impressive economic rise. Between 1980 and 2010, Chinas economy grew by an average of 10 percent per year. This led to a truly remarkable feat: the rise of hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Chinas rapid catch-up growth was fueled by its opening-up to global trade and pursuit of market reforms.

But like many countries, China today faces its share of near-term headwinds. This includes vulnerabilities in its property sector, high youth unemployment, and weak household consumption. In the longer term, China faces structural challenges. Its population is aging, and its workforce is already declining. And it has experienced a sharp reduction in productivity growth amid its turn toward economic nationalism and policies that substantially increase the governments intervention in the economy. None of these recent developments detract from Chinas progress or the hard work and talent of the Chinese people. But Chinas long-run growth rate seems likely to decline.

Of course, an economys size is not the sole determinant of its strength. America is the largest economy in the world, but it also remains an unparalleled leader on a broad set of economic metrics from wealth to technological innovation. U.S. GDP per capita is among the highest in the world and over five times as large as Chinas. More than resources or geography, our countrys success can be attributed to our people, values, and institutions. American democracy, while not perfect, protects the free exchange of ideas and rule of law that is at the bedrock of sustainable growth. Our educational and scientific institutions lead the world. Our innovative culture is enriched by new immigrants, including those from China enabling us to continue to generate world-class, cutting-edge products and industries.

Importantly, our economic power is amplified because we dont stand alone. America values our close friends and partners in every region of the world, including the Indo-Pacific. In the 21st century, no country in isolation can create a strong and sustainable economy for its people. Thats why, under President Bidens leadership, weve sought to rebuild and reinvest in our relationships with other countries.

All this to say: Chinas economic growth need not be incompatible with U.S. economic leadership. The United States remains the most dynamic and prosperous economy in the world. We have no reason to fear healthy economic competition with any country.

There are many challenges before us. But the President and I believe that China and the United States can manage our economic relationship responsibly. We can work toward a future in which both countries share in and drive global economic progress. Whether we can reach this vision depends in large part on what both countries do in the next few years.

Let me speak to our first objective: securing our national security and protecting human rights. These are areas where we will not compromise.

As in all of our foreign relations, national security is of paramount importance in our relationship with China. For example, we have made clear that safeguarding certain technologies from the PRCs military and security apparatus is of vital national interest.

We have a broad suite of tools to achieve this aim. When necessary, we will take narrowly targeted actions. The U.S. governments actions can come in the form of export controls. They can include additions to an entity list that restricts access by those that provide support to the Peoples Liberation Army. The Treasury Department has sanctions authorities to address threats related to cybersecurity and Chinas military-civil fusion. We also carefully review foreign investments in the United States for national security risks and take necessary actions to address any such risks. And we are considering a program to restrict certain U.S. outbound investments in specific sensitive technologies with significant national security implications.

As we take these actions, let me be clear: these national security actions are not designed for us to gain a competitive economic advantage, or stifle Chinas economic and technological modernization. Even though these policies may have economic impacts, they are driven by straightforward national security considerations. We will not compromise on these concerns, even when they force trade-offs with our economic interests.

There are key principles that guide our national security actions in the economic sphere.

First, these actions will be narrowly scoped and targeted to clear objectives. They will be calibrated to mitigate spillovers into other areas. Second, it is vital that these tools are easily understood and enforceable. And they must be readily adaptable when circumstances change. Third, when possible, we will engage and coordinate with our allies and partners in the design and execution of our policies.

In addition, communication is essential to mitigating the risk of misunderstanding and unintended escalation. When we take national security actions, we will continue to outline our policy reasoning to other countries. We will listen and address concerns about unintended consequences.

Among our most pressing national security concerns is Russias illegal and unprovoked war against Ukraine. In my visit to Kyiv, I saw firsthand the brutality of Russias invasion. The Kremlin has bombed hospitals; destroyed cultural sites; attacked energy grids to cause widespread pain and suffering among civilians. Ending Russias war is a moral imperative. It will save many innocent lives. As Ive said, it is also the single best thing we can do for the global economy. To help end Russias war, we have mounted the swiftest, most unified, and most ambitious multilateral sanctions regime in modern history. Our broad coalition of partners has also provided assistance to Ukraine so it can defend itself.

Chinas no limits partnership and support for Russia is a worrisome indication that it is not serious about ending the war. It is essential that China and other countries do not provide Russia with material support or assistance with sanctions evasion. We will continue to make the position of the United States extremely clear to Beijing and companies in its jurisdiction. The consequences of any violations would be severe.

Like national security, we will not compromise on the protection of human rights. This principle is foundational to how we engage with the world.

With our own eyes, the world has seen the PRC government escalate its repression at home. It has deployed technology to surveil and control the Chinese people technology that it is now exporting to dozens of countries.

Human rights abuses violate the worlds moral conscience. They also violate the foundational principles of the United Nations which virtually every country, including China, has signed onto. The United States will continue to use our tools to disrupt and deter human rights abuses wherever they occur around the globe.

In public and in private with Beijing, the United States has raised serious concerns about the PRC governments abuses in Xinjiang, as well as in Hong Kong, Tibet, and other parts of China. And we have and will continue to take action. We have imposed sanctions on the PRCs regional officials and companies for a range of human rights abuses from torture to arbitrary detention. And we are restricting imports of goods produced with forced labor in Xinjiang.

Across these actions, we are working in concert with our allies knowing that we are more effective when we all go at it together.

As we protect our security interests and human rights values, we will also pursue our second objective: healthy economic engagement that benefits both countries.

Lets start with the obvious. The U.S. and China are the two largest economies in the world. And we are deeply integrated with one another. Overall trade between our countries reached over $700 billion in 2021. We trade more with China than with any countries other than Canada and Mexico. American firms have extensive operations in China. Hundreds of Chinese firms are listed on our stock exchanges, which are part of the deepest and most liquid capital markets in the world. According to the Nature Index, the United States and China are each others most significant scientific collaborators. And China remains among the top sources for international students in the United States.

As Ive said, the United States will assert ourselves when our vital interests are at stake. But we do not seek to decouple our economy from Chinas. A full separation of our economies would be disastrous for both countries. It would be destabilizing for the rest of the world. Rather, we know that the health of the Chinese and U.S. economies is closely linked. A growing China that plays by the rules can be beneficial for the United States. For instance, it can mean rising demand for U.S. products and services and more dynamic U.S. industries.

In April 2021, I delivered my first major international economic policy speech as Treasury Secretary. I said that credibility abroad begins with credibility at home. At a basic level, Americas ability to compete in the 21st century turns on the choices that Washington makes not those that Beijing makes.

Our economic strategy is centered around investing in ourselves not suppressing or containing any other economy.

In the two years since my speech, the United States has pursued an economic agenda that I call modern supply-side economics. Our policies are designed to expand the productive capacity of the American economy. That is, to raise the ceiling for what our economy can produce. To do so, President Biden has signed three historic bills into law. Weve enacted the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law our generations most ambitious effort to modernize roads, bridges, and ports and broaden access to high-speed Internet. Weve mounted a historic expansion of American semiconductor manufacturing through the CHIPS and Science Act. And we are making our nations largest investment in clean energy with the Inflation Reduction Act. These actions have fortified U.S. strength in the industries of the future. And they are lifting our long-term economic outlook.

Its important to understand the nature of the healthy economic competition that the United States is pursuing.

The United States does not seek competition that is winner-take-all. Instead, we believe that healthy economic competition with a fair set of rules can benefit both countries over time. A basic principle of economics is that sustained, repeated competition can lead to mutual improvement. Sports teams perform at a higher level when they consistently face top rivals. Firms produce better and cheaper goods when they compete for consumers. There is a world in which, as companies in the U.S. and China challenge each other, our economies can grow, standards of living can rise, and new innovations can bear fruit.

For example, China has benefited from American inventions like the personal computer and the MRI. In the same way, I believe that new scientific and medical developments from China can benefit Americans and the world and spur us to undertake even more leading-edge research and innovation.

But this type of healthy competition is only sustainable if it is fair to both sides.

China has long used government support to help its firms gain market share at the expense of foreign competitors. But in recent years, its industrial policy has become more ambitious and complex. China has expanded support for its state-owned enterprises and domestic private firms to dominate foreign competitors. It has done so in traditional industrial sectors as well as emerging technologies. This strategy has been coupled with aggressive efforts to acquire new technological know-how and intellectual property including through IP theft and other illicit means.

Government intervention can be justified in certain circumstances such as to correct specific market failures. But Chinas government employs non-market tools at a much larger scale and breadth than other major economies. China also imposes numerous barriers to market access for American firms that do not exist for Chinese businesses in the United States. For example, Beijing has often required foreign firms to transfer proprietary technology to domestic ones simply to do business in China. These limits on access to the Chinese market tilt the playing field in favor of Chinese firms. Further, we are concerned about a recent uptick in coercive actions targeting U.S. firms, which comes at the same moment that China states that it is re-opening for foreign investment.

The actions of Chinas government have had dramatic implications for the location of global manufacturing activity. And they have harmed workers and firms in the U.S. and around the world.

In certain cases, China has also exploited its economic power to retaliate against and coerce vulnerable trading partners. For example, it has used boycotts of specific goods as punishment in response to diplomatic actions by other countries. Chinas pretext for these actions is often commercial. But its real goal is to impose consequences on choices that it dislikes and to force sovereign governments to capitulate to its political demands.

The irony is that the open, fair, and rules-based global economy that the United States is calling for is the very same international order that helped make Chinas economic transformation possible. And the inefficiencies and vulnerabilities generated by Chinas unfair practices may end up hurting its own growth.

Chinas senior officials have repeatedly spoken about the importance of allowing markets to play a decisive role in resource allocation including in a speech just earlier this year. It would be better for China and the world if Beijing were to actually shift policies in these directions and meet its own stated reform ambitions.

As we press China on its unfair economic practices, we will continue to take coordinated actions with our allies and partners in response. A top priority for President Biden is the resilience of our critical supply chains. In certain sectors, Chinas unfair economic practices have resulted in the over-concentration of the production of critical goods inside China. Under President Bidens leadership, we are not only investing in manufacturing at home. We are also pursuing a strategy called friendshoring that is aimed at mitigating vulnerabilities that can lead to supply disruptions. We are creating redundancies in our critical supply chains with the large number of trading partners that we can count on.

Of course, we know that the best way for us to strengthen the global economic order is to show the world that it works. Our investments in the international financial institutions and efforts to deepen our ties around the world are enabling more people to benefit from the international economic system. We are also accelerating our commitments in the developing world. For example, the United States and the rest of the G7 aim to mobilize $600 billion in high-quality infrastructure investments by 2027. Our focus is on projects that generate positive economic returns and foster sustainable debt for these countries. And when the international system needs updating, we will not hesitate to do so. The United States is working with shareholders to evolve the multilateral development banks to better combat todays pressing global challenges like climate change, pandemics, and fragility and conflict.

As we set the terms of our economic engagement with China, we will also pursue our third objective: cooperation on major global challenges. It is important that we make progress on global issues regardless of our other disagreements. Thats what the world needs from its two largest economies.

As a foundation, we must continue to develop steady lines of communication between our countries for macroeconomic and financial cooperation. Economic developments in the United States and China can quickly ripple through global financial markets and the broader economy. We must maintain a robust exchange of views about how we are responding to economic shocks. My conversations with Vice Premier Liu He and Chinas other senior officials have been a good start. I hope to build on them with my new counterpart.

Beyond the macroeconomy, there are two specific global priorities Id like to highlight today: debt overhang and climate change. These issues can best be managed if both countries work together, and in concert with our allies and partners.

First, we must work together to help emerging markets and developing countries facing debt distress. The issue of global debt is not a bilateral issue between China and the United States. It is about responsible global leadership. Chinas status as the worlds largest official bilateral creditor imposes on it the same inescapable set of responsibilities as those on other official bilateral creditors when debt cannot be fully repaid.

Chinas participation is essential to meaningful debt relief. But for too long, it has not moved in a comprehensive and timely manner. It has served as a roadblock to necessary action.

Earlier this year, I felt the urgency of debt relief firsthand during my visit to Zambia. Government and business leaders spoke to me about how Zambias debt overhang has held back critical public and private investment and depressed economic development. But Zambia is not the only country in this situation. The IMF estimates that more than half of low-income countries are close to or already in debt distress.

The United States has had extensive discussions with Beijing about the need for speedy debt treatment. We welcome Chinas recent provision of specific and credible financing assurances for Sri Lanka, which has enabled the IMF to move forward with a program. But now, all of Sri Lankas bilateral creditors including China will need to deliver debt treatments in line with their assurances in a timely manner. We continue to urge Chinas full participation to provide debt treatments in other cases in line with IMF parameters. This includes urgent cases like Zambia and Ghana.

Prompt action on debt is in Chinas interest. Delaying needed debt treatments raises the costs both for borrowers and creditors. It worsens borrowers economic fundamentals and increases the amount of debt relief they will eventually need.

More broadly, there is considerable room for improvement in the international debt restructuring process. With the IMF and World Bank, we are working with a range of stakeholders to improve the Common Framework process for low-income countries and the debt treatment process more generally. As I heard from Zambian officials, solving these issues is a true test of multilateralism.

Second, we must work together to tackle longstanding global challenges that threaten us all. Climate change is at the top of that list. History shows us what our two countries can do: moments of climate cooperation between the United States and China have made global breakthroughs possible, including the Paris Agreement.

We have a joint responsibility to lead the way. China is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, followed by the United States. The U.S. will do its part. Over the past year, the United States has taken the boldest domestic climate action in our nations history. Our investments put us on track to meet U.S. commitments under the Paris Agreement and achieve net-zero by 2050. And they will have positive spillovers for the world, including through reductions in the costs of clean energy technologies. We are also working abroad to help countries make a just energy transition to reduce their carbon emissions. These transitions will also help expand energy access and provide economic opportunity for impacted communities and workers.

We expect China to deliver on its commitments in our Joint Glasgow Declaration. This includes meeting mitigation targets and ending overseas financing of unabated coal-fired power plants. China should also support developing countries and emerging markets in their clean energy transitions. Further, we look forward to working together to boost private capital flows as co-chairs of the G20 working group on sustainable finance.

We stand ready to work with China on the existential challenge of climate change. And we urge China to seriously engage with us and deliver on its commitments. The stakes are too high not to.

Some see the relationship between the U.S. and China through the frame of great power conflict: a zero-sum, bilateral contest where one must fall for the other to rise.

President Biden and I dont see it that way. We believe that the world is big enough for both of us. China and the United States can and need to find a way to live together and share in global prosperity. We can acknowledge our differences, defend our own interests, and compete fairly. Indeed, the United States will continue to proceed with confidence about the fundamental strength of the American economy and the skill of American workers. But as President Biden said, we share a responsibilityto prevent competition from becoming anything ever near conflict.

Negotiating the contours of engagement between great powers is difficult. And the United States will never compromise on our security or principles. But we can find a way forward if China is also willing to play its part.

Thats why I plan to travel to China at the appropriate time. My hope is to engage in an important and substantive dialogue on economic issues with my new Chinese government counterpart following the political transition in Beijing. I believe this dialogue can help lay the groundwork for responsibly managing our bilateral relationship and cooperating on areas of shared challenge to our nations and the world.

As you know, I am an economist by trade. Economics is popularly seen as a field concerning the structure and performance of entire economies. But at its most granular level, economics is much more foundational. Its the study of the choices that people make. Specifically, how people make choices under specific circumstances of scarcity, of risk, and sometimes, of stress. And how choices by individuals and firms affect one another, and how they add up to a national or global picture.

In other words, an economy is just an aggregate of choices that people make.

The relationship between the United States and China is the same. Our path is not preordained, and it is not destined to be costly. The trajectory of this relationship is the aggregate of choices that all of us in these two great powers make over time including when to cooperate, when to compete, and when to recognize that even amid our competition, we have a shared interest in peace and prosperity.

The United States believes that responsible economic relations between the U.S. and China is in the self-interest of our peoples. It is the hope and expectation of the world. And at this moment of challenge, I believe it must be the choice that both countries the United States and China make.

Thank you.

###

Read the original here:

Remarks by Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen on the U.S. ... - Treasury

April 20, 2023Is protecting nature and natural resources antithetical to growing the economy? These vital goals dont have to be at odds.

Expanding areas of nature conservation and increasing investments is often seen as limiting job creation, but this tradeoff is often false, says Duko Hopman, a McKinsey partner who focuses on nature conservation and natural capital innovation. Entire communities economic activities rely on intact ecosystems and healthy natural capital.

Duko works on nature conservation projects from Fiji to Africa, and recently in Central America. One aspect of this work is expanding protected lands, whichwhile good for the environmentcan restrict local economic activity, such as fishing.

Video

Meet some of our colleagues working to accelerate nature conservation and strengthen local economies.

Alejandra Carson, a McKinsey business analyst based in Bogota, Colombia, traveled to various communities to understand their needs. She explained that through use of geospatial data from McKinsey, local authorities would be able to target areas that are most in need of conservation to protect fish populations. By opening specific areas for fishing, local communities can report their catch numbers, helping with monitoring and ensuring the optimal plan for preventing overfishing is in place.

These communities came in with a scarcity mindset, that this land and their livelihood would be taken away from them, says Alejandra of her workshops with local communities and government stakeholders. But they left understanding that this plan makes them part of a solution that ensures there will be fish for their children and grandchildren.

McKinseys team of scientists, based in Belgium, uses analytics to determine where issues such as deforestation and natural resource depletion is most acute and then creates maps that outline where to plant trees or create conservation areas, calculating cost and risks to the area as the climate changes.

This use of analytics not only protects local communities and natural environments, but many corporate supply chains, which the data shows would see major disruptions without investments in the health of natural capital, says Duko.

We have the data now to show how important natural capital is and what the solutions areit can no longer be ignored.

Maintaining healthy ecosystemsforests, biodiversity, waterways, and moreis essential to sustaining communities, businesses, and the planet itself. Its also key to fighting climate change. Yet while about 80 percent of global Fortune 500 companies have targets for carbon emissions reductions, less than 5 percent have the same targets for biodiversity and nature-related loss, says Kartik Jayaram, a McKinsey senior partner based in Nairobi, Kenya.

That is a very stark difference, says Kartik. Our research shows that companies can take actions on their own that can address many issues around nature conservation, particularly in retail and agriculture. We continue to work with them to move the needle.

The scale of repair to nature is large and the work ahead wont be easy. But Duko is optimistic about what lies ahead.

Its still possible to reverse this trend of natural capital degradation and keep the world economy within planetary boundaries. We have the data now to show how important natural capital is and what the solutions areit can no longer be ignored, says Duko.

McKinsey has a catalytic role to play, Duko adds, because we are in the privileged position of working with leaders across geographies and sectors to help scale the solutions and act now.

More here:

Investing in nature: Building local economies through conservation - McKinsey

View(s):

Lalith Athulathmudali was assassinated on a political platform 30 years ago on April 23, 1993. He was the Minister of Trade and Shipping in the J.R. Jayewardene government of 1977-1988 during which period he was in charge of the export drive. The article below would give an insight into his vision and strategy on the subject. The article was Based on the Export development concepts by Lalith Athulathmudali as Minister in charge of the subjects of Trade, Export Development, & Agriculture 1978-1989 and many of his policy documents and writings:

Export trade has always played a key role in shaping the destiny of our nation. It is because others wanted our goods that traders and imperialists came to our country. A unique combination of resource endowments of Sri Lanka and a strategic location straddling the major trade routes between the East and the West had made this island a focal point for international trade from historic times.

During our early history, the countrys precious stones, pearls, ivory, and spices were traded in the far-flung kingdoms from China to Persia. The trade brought us good wealth and prosperity. In more recent times, Western trading nations such as Portugal, Holland, and Britain fought each other for the monopoly of our export trade: invaded our shores, and left their impact on our economy and our way of life. During the last chapter of Western colonialism, the British not only traded our existing products but also geared the whole country for the production of new products for the international market, tea and rubber being the foremost among them.

The countrys economic framework and administrative system were restructured to support the colonialists export efforts. In fact, if one looks at the railroad map of Sri Lanka, one will see that it is structured for the purpose of helping the British to develop the export trade.

Post-independence Sri Lanka followed a policy of import substitution until 1977, when an open-market economy was introduced, liberalising imports. The main objective of the open-market policy was to remove barriers to trade locally and create an export-oriented economy with the aim of developing non-traditional products and services from Sri Lanka to the huge global market. Everybody was happy that imports have been liberalised and there were no more shortages of goods, but very few understood and appreciated the need to give importance to the fact that any import programme could only be sustained and supported in full by an equally rigorous export drive.

With the introduction of the open-economic policy, Sri Lanka realised the necessity of a complete institutional framework and infrastructure in achieving this goal. The introduction of Free Trade Zones, the creation of the Export Development Board, the Sri Lanka Export Credit Insurance Corporation, the Board of Investment, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority, and the introduction of transshipment and containerisation were pivotal steps taken in the promotion of exports.

The need to revolutionise the export trade and explore unique areas for the development of the trade was paramount. Until the introduction of the open market system, mainly tea, rubber and coconut were exported in bulk form. For instance, only 5% of the tea was exported in packets and a similar percentage of rubber production went out in the form of rubber goods.

Although the export trade has been a dominant activity in this country for many decades, it was only after the opening of the economy that entrepreneurs and export organisations participated in meaningful export trading.

Trading activity in this country was for a long time in the hands of foreign buyers. Sri Lankans did not get actively involved in export marketing functions. What really happened is that while Sri Lanka received the profit from the merchandise, the profits from the merchandising went into foreign hands. Even the major commodities had not developed any industrial marketing capabilities. For example, Sri Lanka itself was marketing its tea on a very small scale. There was an inherent need to develop a marketing arm for Sri Lankas exports.

Athulathmudali's export promotion zone concept became an engine of growth for Lanka's economy

Sri Lanka has a rich potential for both agro and mineral-based resources. However, industrial exports based on these resources, although most promising from the point of view of value addition and future growth, need to be encouraged.

The Sri Lanka Export Development Board Act no 40 of 1979 was enacted to initiate an aggressive export promotion drive. The EDB has done some remarkable work in the development of non-traditional exports, and value-added exports and in introducing new export products.

While tea, rubber and coconuts and spices remain traditional exports, the value addition has enhanced the markets considerably. It also opens windows to new entrants to the business by providing financial assistance schemes, marketing opportunities, organising buyer-seller meetings, exporters forums, presidential export awards, training, branding, and marketing strategies, etc.

With the introduction of the Free Trade Zones, new export-oriented industries came into the country. They can be classified into three categories:

1. Semi-industrial products, i.e. garments, electronic components, toys, wood crafts, reed ware packaging, artificial flowers, umbrellas, paper-based products, handloom material, etc.

2. Agricultural produce, i.e. vegetables, fruits, yams, black gram, sesame seeds, orchids and cut flowers, ornamental fish, etc. Palmyra products, Passion fruit, Cashew kernels, spices, etc.

3. Value-added agro-based products: white fibre, white coir, coco peat bricks, papain ekel, tawashi (domestic brushes) medicinal herbs, etc. During the past four decades, the export portfolio grew to more than 4,500 products mainly small and medium-scale industrial and agricultural produce and products.

While introducing the Export Development Board Act No 40 of 1979, Lalith Athulathmudali said in Parliament (Quote- Hansard 25th May 1979- vide col.487): I have paid special attention to two groups of people one, the small man, the one who starts up a small industry in the village with 10, 15, or 20 people. I want to give him a helping hand to go into the export industry. That is how Japan started. I am also concerned with the small agricultural producer. We are going to form small joint export groups, create Trading Houses to look after their things and export for them.

The Export Production Village (EPV) and Agricultural Export Village (APV) programme as an innovative development strategy was introduced in 1980, giving export-led development activities a prominent place in the economic policies with the intention of solving some major economic issues facing the country, i.e. balance of payments, unemployment, low-income levels, etc. Thus, the EPV/APV programme is a result of the changed policy environment of the country.

The basis of the EPV/APV concept is organisation of production at the village level directly aiming at the export market. Its objectives are;

1. Bringing returns from exports back to the village

2. Increased employment opportunities

3. Higher living standards

4. The overall growth of economic activity in rural areas

5. Pre-assurance of the export market will remove the reluctance on the part of farmers to produce crops which are more remunerative but risky in terms of marketing.

6. The direct contact of the producer with the exporter. It was intended to remove the intermediary, preventing the siphoning off of a part of the profit in export marketing.

7. Improvement in entrepreneurship and organisation at the village level to meet the greater demand for products

8. Higher level of productivity

9. Return on investment

The EPV/APV strategy is based on a number of key factors;

1. The EPV/APVs operate on the free play of market forces, with production as a direct response to market demand and production for profit.

2. The pre-existing agrarian structures and distribution of resources and power within village communities are not significant obstacles to attaining the needed efficiencies, EPV benefit distribution, and their subsequent productive use. Upward development would ensue with the investment pattern and production orientation of village producers incorporated by the EPV strategy. That is from a pre-existing mode of production based on subsistence; they would move up to a more diversified surplus-producing mode.

3. The benefit of the EPV would trickle down to the surrounding areas by way of an increase in demand for goods and services and an increase in commerce.

The operational unit of the EPV/APV programme is the EPV/APV Peoples Company formed under the Companys Act, which organises the supply of products to established exporters on the island.

There are three categories of EPVs, according to the nature of the products supplied by them.

1. Agricultural products vegetables, fruits, yams, black gram, sesame seed, spices, cut flowers, medicinal herbs, etc.

2. Agro-based industries or processed agricultural products white fibre, yarn, ekels, palmyrah products, cashew, papain, etc.

3. Manufactured and/or assembled goods Handloom textiles, electronic components, umbrellas, toys, woodcraft, packaging materials, etc.

The Export Development Board (EDB) played a key role in the journey of the EPV. Its role is:

1. Identifying the products that could be exported

2. Assessing the villagers potential of supplying the produce to the market

3. Be the mediator and encourage the rural producer to become an exporter

4. Identifying the exporter who markets the products,

5. Organising and helping the establishment of the EPV by coordinating the officials, producers/beneficiaries to assemble into one forum

6. Linking up the EPV company with exporters

7. Providing incentives to both the exporter and the EPV to encourage the export drive

8. Organising workshop training to improve management skills, quality control, creative marketing, etc.

This initiative was launched in 1981 in Dambadeniya, where a Peoples Company was established to produce packaging materials using reed ware. These packages were used by leading tea exporter to introduce value-added tea to foreign markets. This innovative exercise was expanded to other areas and goods, and by 1990 there were 36 such EPVs spread throughout the country producing various items for the export market.

With the establishment of the SLEDB, several measures were taken to encourage exports.

The Exporters Forum was one of the major steps taken in this respect where the exporters were provided with the opportunity of bringing their problems to the notice of the government hierarchy for solutions. The Forum was chaired by the Minister and attended by all the representatives of the government institutions involved in the export drive, i.e. the Ministry of Trade, Finance, Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, Communications, Ports, the Central Bank, banks, etc. A single window operation to facilitate the exporters needs worked well during this period. This forum was held once a month and worked well towards developing export trade.

The introduction of the annual Presidential Export Awards was another step in the right direction where exporters were encouraged to perform in competition.

Participation at international trade fairs by Sri Lankan exporters was expanded and encouraged resulting in harnessing new markets for our products.

The introduction of the Sri Lanka Export Credit Insurance Guarantee Corporation No.15 of 1978 was another milestone in the export drive where exporters were able to obtain assistance and relief in export trade.

This article was sent by the Lalith Athulathmudali Trust

View original post here:

Lalith's economic vision for Lanka: Export or perish - The Sunday Times Sri Lanka

The Alliance for an Energy Efficient Economy (AEEE), a New Delhi-based energy-efficiency policy advocacy group and marker enabler, has expressed its willingness to collaborate with the Andhra Pradesh State Energy Conservation Mission (APSECM) for implementing projects in the State.

In an interaction with CEO A. Chandrasekhar Reddy and other officials of the APSECM on April 23 (Sunday), AEEE president Satish Kumar congratulated Andhra Pradesh on its consistent performance in promoting and implementing energy-efficiency and conservation measures. He said its high time all States laid greater emphasis on contributing to the mitigation of climate change.

Mr. Satish Kumar said that the setting up of Energy Conservation (EC) Cells was a thoughtful step by the Andhra Pradesh government towards encouraging efficient use of energy and ensuring the reduction of energy consumption, which brings down electricity bills.

The AEEE president said he was impressed with the constitution of EC cells by nine Secretariat departments, offices of 33 Heads of Departments and more than 70 autonomous organisations in the State. The concept of EC cells should be replicated by other States to achieve energy-efficiency goals. Due to the timely support of the Union Ministry of Power, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Rajasthan and Telangana have obtained tangible results in the area of energy efficiency, he said.

Mr. Kumar said the AEEE promotes energy efficiency as a resource and collaborates with governments and industries for developing the market for energy-efficient products and services, contributing towards meeting Indias energy security, clean energy and climate change goals.

AEEEs core-activities include promoting the use of Low Carbon Manufacturing Technologies in industries, supporting sub-national governments in expanding energy-efficiency actions through effective policy implementation and stakeholder partnerships.

Mr. Chandrasekhar Reddy explained various energy-efficiency initiatives taken by the State government.

See more here:

Alliance for an Energy Efficient Economy to help A.P. govt. implement energy-efficiency projects - The Hindu

WASHINGTON Today, President Biden announced his intent to appoint the following individuals to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Black Americans:

Presidential Advisory Commission on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Black Americans

The Presidential Advisory Commission on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity for Black Americans aids in developing, implementing, and coordinating educational programs and initiatives for agencies such as the Department of Education. Specifically, the Commission provides advice to the President through the Secretary of Education on matters pertaining to educational equity and economic opportunity for the Black community. The Commission primarily focuses on: 1) promoting career pathways for Black students through programs such as internships, apprenticeships and work-based learning initiatives, 2) increasing public awareness of the educational disparities Black Americans face and providing solutions to these problems, and 3) establishing local and national relationships with public, private, philanthropic, and nonprofit stakeholders to advance the mission of equity, excellence, and economic opportunity for Black Americans.

Malcolm Kenyatta, Chair

Representative Malcolm Kenyatta is a third-generation North Philadelphia native, thought leader, and legislator, currently serving in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. He earned his Bachelor of Arts in Public Communications with a minor in Political Science from Temple University and his Master of Science in Strategic and Digital Communications from Drexel University. Kenyatta also completed the Harvard Kennedy Schools Executives in State and Local Government Program. Kenyatta was chosen for multiple prestigious fellowships and international delegations, including the Bertelsmann Leadership Fellow in the Digital Economy, the bipartisan Hunt/Kean Leadership Fellow in Education, and the American Jewish Committee Project Interchange.

Kenyatta is a barrier-breaking public figure, becoming the first openly LGBTQ+ Person of Color and one of the youngest members elected to the PA General Assembly in 2018. In 2022, he became the first openly LGBTQ+ Person of Color to run for the U.S. Senate in American history. Kenyatta has been a vocal proponent of protecting workers rights, enacting common-sense gun safety policies, and rooting out government corruption and waste. He has multiple legislative leadership roles, serving as a Member of the State Government Committee with oversight on state agencies and elections, Chair of the Subcommittee on Campaign Finance and Elections, Chair of Automation and Technology in the Committee on Commerce, and Member of the Finance Committee. Since his election, he has served on Governor Tom Wolfs Suicide Prevention Task Force and has been a member of the Philadelphia Delegation leadership team.

Kenyatta lives in North Philadelphia with his husband Dr. Matthew Kenyatta and their dog Cleo.

Lezli Baskerville, Member

Attorney Lezli Baskerville, an Honors graduate of Howard University School of Law and a constitutional justice lawyer, is a Howard University School of Law Lifetime Achiever. She is an Honors graduate of Douglass College at Rutgers University and a Douglass Society inductee, which she received in recognition of her work on improving the quality of life for vulnerable populations. Baskerville is the CEO of the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, the membership and advocacy association of richly diverse HBCUs and PBIs. Baskerville, a Harvard University Advanced Leadership Fellow, served in the Education Group/Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law on the NAACP Legislative Counsel, as a National Black Leadership Roundtable Chief, as a DC Administrative Appeals Judge, and as a senior executive staff for members and committees of Congress. Baskerville has directed 34 political campaigns, designed and directed public policy campaigns, and wrote articles in or edited 40 public policy documents credited with shaping public opinion on state, national, and global policy.

Baskerville is a Founding Investor and Member of the Board of ECRID, the first Black-Founded and controlled publicly traded credit bureau and lending corporation that offers a fix to FICO and credit access to a broader and more diverse applicant pool. Baskerville has been by the Higher Education Leadership Foundation as Woman of the Year, by STEMConnector as one of 100 Women Leaders in STEM, by Diverse Issues in Higher as one of 25Women Making a Difference, by AOL Black Voices as one of the Nations Top 10 Black Women in Higher Education, and by Ebony Magazine for six consecutive years as one of Americas Top 100 Most Influential Association Leaders. Baskerville is acknowledged in The History Makers as a distinguished lawmaker.

Marla Blunt-Carter, Member

Marla Blunt-Carter is an Associate Professor of Professional Practice at Rutgers University School of Social Work in New Brunswick, New Jersey. As a recipient of multiple teaching awards, she instructs graduate-level courses on social policy, community organizing, advocacy, and political social work. Blunt-Carter holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of Delaware and a Master of Social Work from Rutgers University. Blunt-Carter combines social work practice approaches and her extensive background in political and public policy work to provide a unique perspective to her teaching.

Blunt-Carters professional experience includes serving as Projects Manager and Director of Constituent Services for then-U.S. Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Delaware State Director for the 2008 Obama-Biden Presidential Campaign, and Senior Agency Liaison in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama-Biden Administration. Blunt-Carter has also held positions as Senior Advisor and Communications Director for Delawares Insurance Commissioner and Director of Community Planning and Policy Development for the Delaware HIV Consortium.

In 2015, Blunt-Carter became the Senior Advisor and Political Strategist for Lisa Blunt Rochester, who became the first woman and Person of Color to represent Delaware in the U.S. House of Representatives. She continues to provide consultation to the Congresswoman and also provides assistance to other local officials in Delaware. Blunt-Carters exceptional ability to merge her experience in political and public policy with social work gives her a distinctive perspective, making her an outstanding educator and mentor to her students.

Stacy Brown-Philpot, Member

Stacy Brown-Philpot is Founder & Managing Partner at Cherryrock Capital, an early-stage venture firm focused on investing in Black and Latinx entrepreneurs. She is the former CEO of TaskRabbit, the leading task management network, which she led from a fast-growing startup into a global business, and eventually to its successful acquisition by the IKEA Group. Prior to that, Brown-Philpot spent over a decade with Google and Google Ventures where she lent strategic expertise, led global operations for key Google flagship products, and served as Head of Online Sales and Operations for Google India. Brown-Philpot also brings a background in finance from her experience at PricewaterhouseCoopers and Goldman Sachs.

Brown-Philpot is a founding member of SoftBanks $100mm Opportunity Fund, established to invest in Black and Latinx entrepreneurs. She is on the Board of Directors for HP Inc., Nordstrom, Noom, StockX, Joy, Black Girls Code, and The Urban Institute. She was named a 2016 Henry Crown Fellow with the Aspen Institute and has been ranked by Business Insider as one of the 46 Most Important Blacks in Technology. Originally from Detroit, where she developed a deep and abiding love for all things Motown, Brown-Philpot now resides in the San Francisco Bay Area with her husband and two daughters. She holds a Bachelor of Science in Economics from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and a Master of Business Administration from the Graduate School of Business at Stanford University.

Vilicia Cade, Member

Vilicia Cade, an accomplished educational leader, scholar, author, and social justice advocate, is the first Black female CEO and Superintendent of the Capital School District in Dover, Delaware. Cade is the only Black female Superintendent in the state, and she brings over three decades of improving outcomes for vulnerable children and adults to her current role. Her portfolio of public-private partnerships validates her track record in improving the quality of life and economic opportunities for her students. Cade is known for her inspired and innovative approaches to bolstering community, faith-based, and business partnerships interrupting the school-to-prison pipeline. Notably, she was a key administrator of the Brooklyn High Schools New Visions reform project, Co-Creator of the College Readiness Scholars Institute at the University of Delaware, and is credited for launching numerous parent empowerment programs.

Cade enthusiastically embraces her personal journey as a former ward of the State of New York, described in her debut bestseller If Not For Love. Her story resonates with many Black Americans illuminating the gaps in our child welfare system. Her childhood has established a firm foundation for resilience proving why empowering the disenfranchised is quintessential. Cade has served on boards such as Northeast Ohio Boys & Girls Club and United Way of Delaware. Cade earned her bachelors degree, three masters degrees, and doctorate from New York University. In 2020, she received the prestigious Zeta Phi Beta Sorority Inc. Education Advocate Centennial Dove Award. A radio personality on the Stellar Awarded WNZN in Lorain, Ohio, she uses urban inspiration to connect the significance of service, educational equity, and economic development.

Vincent Dorien Evans, Member

Vincent Evans serves as Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus. He oversees the legislative policy agenda, manages the external and political affairs of the Caucus, and provides strategic leadership for the Caucus 58 Members of Congress. Prior to this role, Evans served as the Deputy Director of the Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs for Vice President Kamala Harris at the White House where he was responsible for creating and coordinating direct dialogue between the Biden-Harris administration and the diverse American public. He worked at the local, state, and national levels to ensure community leaders, diverse perspectives, and new voices all had the opportunity to inform the work of the President and Vice President. Evans served as Political Director to then-Senator Kamala Harris on the Biden-Harris Campaign during the general election and the campaigns Southern Political Director during the primary season. Prior to this, he served on the senior staff of U.S. Representative Al Lawson of Florida, with a portfolio that focused on state and local issues.

Before his role in the Congress, Evans worked as the Aide to Tallahassee City Commissioner Curtis Richardson after running Richards successful campaign. His experience includes working at a government relations firm focused on state legislative matters in the Florida Senate Democratic Caucus for Democratic Leader Nan Rich and later at a cabinet-level state agency. He managed or served in leadership roles on the campaigns of the two most recent Florida Democratic gubernatorial nominees and several local, state, and congressional races in Florida. In 2022, Evans was named a Young Black Changemaker by NextGen America, the Nations largest youth voter organization. Born and raised in Florida, Evans attended Florida A&M University.

Michael Anthony Holmes, Member

Michael A. Holmes currently serves as President and CEO of MD and Partners, a consulting firm that focuses on strategic community planning and program development, and Executive Director of the Black Community Provider Network, a collaboration of Community Based Organizations in Illinois. Holmes is the former Executive Director of the Illinois African American Family Commission. He has served as an administrator for more than 20 years in both the City of Chicago and State of Illinois. Holmes has also served as former Vice President of Operations for Westside Holistic Services and Statewide Quality Assurance Administrator for six regions in the State of Illinois. Over the last 15 years, Holmes has been actively involved in working with the State of Illinois General Assembly as Deputy and Associate Director of two State agencies. Holmes worked specifically with the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus to monitor and identify policies and legislation that affect the African American communities in the State of Illinois. As Executive Director of the Illinois African American Family Commission, Holmes developed the role of liaison to the Governors office and the States administration for the purpose of recommending State services and resources to communities.

Holmes is actively engaged in civic and community activities. He is currently a member of the Youth and Child Development Committee for Congressman Danny Davis of the 7th Congressional District, Chairman of the Country Club Hills Police and Fire Commission, former Chairman of the Country Club Hills Umbrella Project, and former Member of the Illinois Department of Human Services Child Care Advisory Council. Holmes has also served as Coach and League Coordinator for CHA Midnight Basketball, Coordinator of Chicago Housing Authority Biddy Basketball, Volunteer for Chicago Inner City Games, former Member of the child watch African American Family Commission, former Member of the Illinois Department of Human Services Statewide Advisory Committee, former Commissioner at the Country Club Hills Park District, Founding Member of the Department of Children and Family Services African American Advisory Council, and Member of the Statewide Foster Parent Recruitment and Retention Steering Committee.

As a Seaman in the United States Navy, Holmes completed his basic training at the Great Lakes Naval Base and completed eighteen months of military service at the Naval War College, an international military leadership training institute. As a result of his service at the College, Holmes became a computer operator, which enabled him to develop war strategy. He received an associates degree from Kennedy King Jr College and bachelors degree and masters degree in Inner City Studies from Northeastern Illinois University. Holmes has been married to his wife for 40 years and they have raised four sons in the Chicago land area.

Fedrick C. Ingram, Member

Fedrick C. Ingram is Secretary-Treasurer of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), serving 1.7 million members. Ingram is the immediate former President of the 140,000-member Florida Education Association. He served as Vice President of the AFTs Executive Council from 2014 to 2020 before getting elected as the AFTs Secretary-Treasurer. Ingram grew up in inner-city Miami where he attended public schools. Pursuing his love of music, he attended Bethune-Cookman University on a scholarship and became the first member of his family to earn a postsecondary degree in music education. In 2006, he was named the Francisco R. Walker Miami-Dade County Teacher of the Year. He was also a finalist for the state of Florida Teacher of the Year Award in 2006. In addition to his bachelors degree from Bethune-Cookman, Ingram earned a masters degree in educational leadership from Barry University and holds an honorary doctorate of Humane Letters from Florida Memorial University for a lifetime of work in education.

Lonnie L. Johnson, Member

Lonnie L. Johnson retired from Exxon Mobil Corporation in 2019 as Senior Counsel, Downstream Commercial Litigation. Prior to serving in that position, Lonnie served as Senior Director, Federal Relations at Exxon Mobil Corporation in Washington, DC. Lonnie received his J.D, with distinction, from The University of Iowa College of Law, where he served on the Iowa Law Review and was a member of the Phi Delta Phi Legal Fraternity. Johnson earned his Bachelor of Science from the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Johnson currently serves on the Board of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and on the Tugaloo College Research Board. Johnson also serves on the Board of Silence the Shame, an organization dedicated to removing the stigma associated with mental illness and getting people the help they need. Johnson is a former member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Advisory Board and the Board of the National Democratic Club. He served on the Board of Council for Legal Education Opportunities for more than 10 years. Johnson is married to Eartha Jean Johnson and they have three children, Teiva Johnson Bell (Criminal District Court Judge, Harris County Texas), Tiera Johnson Williams (Prosecutor, Family Violence Cases, Harris County Texas), and Antuan Johnson (Criminal Defense Attorney, Houston Texas).

Chad Dion Lassiter, Member

Chad Dion Lassiter is a national expert in the field of American Race Relations. Lassiter has worked on race, peace, and poverty-related issues in the United States, Africa, Canada, Haiti, Israel, and Norway. Lassiter is the current Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission where he has developed and launched a No Hate in Our State Townhall to address the surge of White Nationalism in Pennsylvania, a Social Justice Lecture Series providing an outlet for communities to discuss imperative issues, and serves as a Racial Reduction Response team for those communities impacted by hatred. Lassiter has also developed programs such as the Global Social Justice Initiative, Black and Jewish Beloved Community Dialogue, and the College Race Dialogue Initiative.

Lassiter received his masters degree from the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Social Work, where he was the A. Phillip Randolph Award winner in 2001 and was the recipient of the prestigious Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Involvement Award in 2008.

Lassiter is the Co-Founder and current President of The Black Men at Penn School of Social Work, Inc., an organization within the School of Social Policy and Practice at the University of Pennsylvania, the first Ivy League Black male group of social workers. In 2019, he was inducted into the School of Social Policy and Practice Alumni Hall of Fame. Lassiter was recently chosen as the National Association of Social Workers Pennsylvania Chapters Social Worker of the Year for 2021 and was recognized by the Philadelphia Tribune as The Most Influential African American Leader from 2010-2022.

Adena Williams Loston, Member

Dr. Adena Williams Loston possesses over 40 years of professional leadership experience including spearheading a national agenda for education, engaging communities in addressing economic development issues, providing organizational and institutional leadership towards workforce readiness and academic preparation. She has served as the 14th President of St. Philips College, the Nations Historically Black College and Hispanic Serving Institution, since 2007 with responsibilities for 13,000 students including four early college high schools, programs at three military base sites and dual credit and P-TECH programs. Through her strategic leadership and management oversight in 2018, St. Philips College received the Governors Award for Performance Excellence and the national Malcolm Baldrige Award as one of the Alamo Colleges. She has instituted the Planning Budget and Assessment Cycle, Resource Allocation Process, Presidents Academy, Department Chair Academy, Good to Great Strategic Planning Process, and three Centers of Excellence. Loston also provides oversight for $400 Million in new and renovated facilities construction.

Loston previously served as the Chief Education Office for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in Washington DC, President of San Jacinto College South, and held administrative positions at Santa Monica College and the El Paso County Community College District. She has also served as an associate professor at George State University and instructor at Arkansas State University. Loston was a three-term appointee to the HBCU Capital Financing Committee. She graduated Alcorn State University with a bachelors degree in 1973 and received her M.Ed. and Ph.D. degrees from Bowling Green State University in 1974 and 1979.

William Billy Mitchell, Member

Representative William Billy Mitchell, a former public-school teacher, was previously elected to the City Council of the historic Stone Mountain in 1995. His colleagues then unanimously selected him to serve as Vice Mayor. Appointed Chair of the Finance Committee, he led the City to outstanding financial status, as reported by independent auditors. Among the ordinances he was most proud to author, Representative Mitchell granted the City the authority to erect the Freedom Bell in the middle of its downtown, commemorating Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.s call in his immortal I Have a Dream speech to let freedom ring, from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

A depended upon leader in the Georgia General Assembly, Mitchell has authored legislation signed into law every term he has served. His Caucus in the State Legislature selected him to receive their highest honor, the Legislator of the Year award, after only his second term. Mitchell earned his Bachelor of Science degree from Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, his Masters of Arts degree from the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and his Juris Doctor degree from Atlanta Law School. Mitchell has also been bestowed a Doctorate degree from the Trinity United School of Ambassadors. Elected by his colleagues, he currently serves as Chair of the Georgia House of Representatives Democratic Caucus. He was also elected by his nationwide peers to serve as President of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators (NBCSL) and now serves as President of the NBCSL Foundation. NBCSL members represent seventy million Americans, and former members of NBCSL include 40% of the current Congressional Black Caucus and the 44th U.S. President. Mitchell was also elected to serve on the Executive Committee of the National Conference of State Legislators, which is the worlds largest legislative organization serving legislators and legislative staff in all of Americas 50 states and territories.

Clarence A. Nesbitt, Jr., Member

Clarence A. Nesbitt is the Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary of THINK450, the business, innovation, and partnership engine of the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA). In this role, Nesbitt serves as the principal legal advisor across THINK450s business units, working to propel the organizations next stage of growth by amplifying the value of the collective players rights, expanding commercial opportunities, and securing innovative deals in the business of basketball among other responsibilities. Prior to this role, Nesbitt has served as the NBPAs General Counsel where he led the legal and government affairs functions of the union, negotiated modifications to the collective bargaining agreement associated with the coronavirus pandemic, and led the successful voluntary recognition campaign to unionize the NBA G League players (the NextGen Basketball Players Association).

Nesbitt attended Florida A&M University, where he received a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration and a Masters Degree in Business Administration. Nesbitt went on to Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, DC for his Juris Doctor degree. Nesbitt currently serves on the Board of Trustees for the Central Park Conservancy and the Black Entertainment & Sports Lawyers Association.

Denise L. Pease, Member

Denise L. Pease has committed her dynamic career as a senior government executive to developing impactful and sustainable policies that improve the lives of people, particularly those living in low- and moderate-income communities, by providing greater access and opportunities. Her talent for identifying problems and finding viable solutions has gained her the respect of national and international government, business, and community leaders. Pease served as the Northeast and Caribbean Regional Administrator at the General Services Administration in the Obama-Biden Administration. Through her leadership, the region succeeded in increasing minority business participation, returning the federal government to the World Trade Center site, and reconstructing federal government facilities and services after Hurricane Sandy. She has also served as the New York State Deputy Superintendent of Banks and the New York City Assistant Comptroller for Commercial Banking. In both positions, she created and implemented policy initiatives that increased banking services to the un-banked and under-banked communities.

Denise is a disability advocate, having developed and advocated on behalf of those with epilepsy and as a breast cancer survivor. Denise earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Columbia Universitys School of General Studies. She has furthered her pursuit to develop innovative sustainable solutions to the economic disparity found in many communities through the completion of advanced studies at internationally renowned educational institution including Executive Management training at the European Institute of Business Administration (INSEAD) Paris Strategic Management of Financial Structures Programme. She has received numerous awards and recognition for her accomplishments including serving as a National Urban Fellow at the Bernard Baruch School of Public Administration and as a Charles H. Revson Fellow on the Future of New York at Columbia University.

Denise devotes her time to working with organizations to ensure that future generations have lives of endless possibilities, including her work with UN Women, the Disability Council of the DNC, the Greater Queens Chapter of the Links, Inc., and serving as a Life Member of NAACP and Heritage Member of the Claude B. Govan Chapter of Tuskegee Airmen, Inc.

Rebecca Becky Pringle, Member

National Education Association (NEA) President Becky Pringle is a fierce social justice warrior, defender of educator rights, unrelenting advocate for all students and communities of color, and valued and respected voice in the education arena.

A middle school science teacher with more than three decades of classroom experience, Pringle is singularly focused on uniting the members of the largest labor union with the Nation, and using that collective power to transform public education into a racially and socially just and equitable system that is designed to prepare every student to succeed in a diverse and interdependent world.

Pringles passion for students and educators, combined with her first-hand classroom experience, equip her to lead the movement to reclaim public education as a common good. Before assuming NEAs top post in 2020, Pringle served as NEA Vice President and before that as NEA Secretary-Treasurer. She directed NEAs work to combat institutional racism and spotlight systemic patterns of racism and educational injustice that impact students. Under Pringles guidance, NEA works to widen access and opportunity by demanding changes to policies, programs, and practices. The Associations goal is to ensure the systemic, fair treatment of people of all races so that equitable opportunities and outcomes are within reach for every student. This is why Pringle is a staunch advocate for students who have disabilities, identify as LGBTQ+, are immigrants, or English Language Learners.

Pringle is a passionate Philadelphia Eagles fan, loves anything purple, and is the Best Nana B ever for two special someones.

Marisa J. Richmond, Member

Marisa J. Richmond teaches history and womens and gender studies at Middle Tennessee State University. She previously taught at Tennessee State University, Vanderbilt University, and Nashville State Community College. She is the current President of the Tennessee Federation of Democratic Women, and a Co-Chair of the Transgender Advisory Committee of the Democratic National Committee. Locally, she is a member of the Metro Historical Commission, having previously served as a member, and Past Chair, of the Metro Human Relations Commission. She also served on the Mayors Council on the Status of Women and the Davidson County General Sessions Court Judicial Equity Collective. Previously, she served many years as the President and Lobbyist for the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition.

Richmond is a prolific author and speaker on transgender rights, and has served on many boards at the local, state, and national levels. She has been recognized for her work with many awards. Richmond has three degrees, all in U.S. History. Her Bachelor of Arts is from Harvard University, her Master of Arts from the University of California, Berkeley, and her Ph.D. from George Washington University.

Bernice G. Scott, Member

Bernice G. Scott is a resident of Hopkins, South Carolina. She has 20 years of experience serving as a member of Richland County Council in South Carolina, including a tenure as Chairwoman. She has 15 years of experience working in county and state government, including service in Governor Jim Hodges administration. She is the founder of the nationally recognized grassroots political advocacy group, The Reckoning Crew. Since retiring from county government, she has been volunteering with the Tri-City Visionaries, Inc. to help senior citizens in rural and disadvantaged areas repair and secure their homes. She is the mother of two children, five grandchildren, and four great-grandchildren.

Richard Mouse Smith, Member

Richard Mouse Smith is a lifelong Delawarean his family has been in Delaware since the 1860s. Smith is the President of Delawares NAACP Coalition of Branches and he has been in the NAACP since 1959. He was a union president for eight years and worked at the Port of Wilmington for 42 years. Over the years, he has worked with seven Wilmington mayors and six Delaware governors. Smith helped establish the Delaware Rainbow Coalition with Jesse Jackson, which was part of the coalition to desegregate schools. Education has been integral in his life, and it is one of his main priorities for his community.

He has been friends with President Biden for over 50 years. The people and leadership of the City of Wilmington and State of Delaware made him who is today.

Joe Tate, Member

Representative Joe Tate is serving his third term and now represents Michigans 10th State House District, a diverse community that covers Detroits lower east side and the communities of the Village of Grosse Pointe Shores, Grosse Pointe Woods, Grosse Pointe Farms, Grosse Pointe City, and Grosse Pointe Park. Tate is Michigans first Black Speaker of the House, now holding the gavel and setting House priorities in a legislative term in which Democrats have the majority for the first time in over a decade. His policy priorities include uplifting Michigan families, protecting the rights of all people, ensuring workers are valued, and investing in a world-class education system, a strong infrastructure, and a thriving economy.

Tate decided to run for office as a part of his deep and lifelong commitment to public service. The value of service was taught to him by his parentsa teacher in the Detroit public school system and a Detroit firefighter. As a teenager, Tate earned a scholarship to play football at Michigan State University before joining the National Football League (NFL). After the NFL, he went on to serve in the U.S. Marine Corps, deploying twice to Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom. After an honorable discharge from the Marine Corps, he earned both an MBA and a masters in environmental policy and planning from the University of Michigan. Before joining the Legislature, Tate helped small businesses grow their capacity as a program manager for the Detroit Economic Growth Corp.

Kenny D. Thompson, Jr., Member

Kenny Thompson, Jr. is the Chief Public Affairs Officer at Vail Resorts (NYSE: MTN) overseeing government relations, community relations, communications, sustainability, and the Companys social responsibility platform, EpicPromise. Vail Resorts is the leading global mountain resort operator with 41 resorts in 15 states and four countriesincluding some of the worlds most iconic destinations as well as travel-centric retail and hospitality businesses.

Prior to joining Vail Resorts, Thompson served as the Vice President of External Affairs, North America at PepsiCo. While at PepsiCo, he developed PepsiCos strategy for targeting, investing, cultivating, and maintaining partnerships with external stakeholders to support PepsiCos broader business goals. Before joining PepsiCo in 2013, Thompson held several positions in the Obama-Biden Administration, including Director of Message Events for then-Vice President Joe Biden, Senior Advisor to United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk, and Special Assistant and Advance Lead for President Barack Obama. In 2020, Thompson was selected to serve on the Biden-Harris Transition as the Private Sector Liaison where he provided strategic and management oversight of the interaction with the private sector while managing relationships with Fortune 500 CEOs, Wall Street firms, venture-backed enterprises, and industry groups.

A native Texan, Thompson completed his bachelors degree at Texas Christian University, where he was a member of the Horned Frog baseball team. He later earned a Master of Business Administration from Georgetown University. Currently, Thompson serves on the Board of Trustees at Texas Christian University and the Board of Directors at the Sandy Hook Promise Foundation.

Benaree Bennie Pratt Wiley, Member

Benaree Bennie Pratt Wiley is a Corporate Director and Trustee. For fifteen years, Wiley was the President and Chief Executive Officer of The Partnership, Inc., an organization that strengthened Greater Bostons capacity to attract, retain, and develop talented professionals of color. Wiley is currently a director on boards of the BNY Mellon Mutual Funds and CBIZ (NYSE: CBZ). She has served as the Chair of PepsiCos African American Advisory Board and formerly served on the boards of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts and First Albany (NASDAQ: FACT). Her civic activities include serving on the boards of Dress for Success Boston, Spaulding Hospital, and formerly Howard University where she served as Vice Chair. She is a frequent speaker on leadership, diversity, and professional development, and has been the recipient of numerous awards, honors, and four Honorary Doctorates including from Boston College and New England School of Law. Among her many honors are induction into the Academy of Distinguished Bostonians, the Pinnacle Award for Lifetime Achievement from the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, and Harvard Business School Distinguished Alumni Award from the African American Student Union. Wiley also had the honor of being featured on the cover of Boston magazine as one of Bostons most powerful women and being the subject of a Harvard Business School case, Bennie Wiley and The Partnership.

###

The rest is here:

President Biden Announces Key Appointments to Boards and ... - The White House

Executive Summary

A responsible U.S. restraint approach to relations with China represents the least dangerous, most potentially beneficial and mutually productive strategy compared to any of the alternatives, including the current soft containment approach and a much more hardline strategy explicitly designed to weaken China and undermine the PRC regime. The current soft containment approach is part of a larger dynamic driven by a neartotal lack of strategic trust, worstcase, zerosum threat assumptions about intentions, and deep, mutually exclusive political and ideological approaches.

A genuinely hostile SinoU.S. relationship will at the very least undermine global stability, severely disrupt efforts to manage major common threats such as climate change, and increase greatly the chances of severe crises or even war between the two great powers.

Unless reversed or moderated significantly, this negative dynamic is likely, on balance, to produce a genuinely hostile SinoU.S. relationship that will at the very least undermine global stability, severely disrupt efforts to manage major common threats such as climate change, and increase greatly the chances of severe crises or even war between the two great powers.

Our preferred Restraint strategy for Asia centers on replacing the intensifying SinoU.S. security competition with a regional structure emphasizing bounded and clearly defined areas of competition and red lines, integrated and inclusive (to the maximum extent possible) economic and technological relations, positivesum political and diplomatic exchanges, and genuinely coordinated, highpriority efforts to combat climate change and other transnational threats. The ultimate success of this strategy will require persistent, longterm efforts to:

End the harsh, zerosum rhetoric that now dominates on both sides.

Reduce greatly the current heavy reliance on military posturing and signaling in preserving stability.

Clearly define and bound areas of bilateral competition.

Stabilize the Taiwan situation and other potential politicalmilitary sources of conflict through a clearer understanding of red lines and a revitalization of the U.S. One China policy, and work toward their longterm neutralization as a potential source of intense rivalry between Washington and Beijing.

Put in place a defensive, denial (not control)oriented force posture in the Western Pacific.

Redefine U.S. alliances in Asia not only to deter, but also to nurture expanding cooperative security measures and confidencebuilding measures (CBMs).

Establish clear SinoU.S. understandings to permit mutually productive economic and technological growth.

Enhance Americas overall economic and political attractiveness to Asia and the world, and its ability to compete and cooperate with China.

All of this likely requires a fundamental shift in the mindset of American (and Chinese) decisionmakers regarding threats, opportunities, and paths to future stability and prosperity in Asia. This new mindset should stress climate change, positivesum forms of bilateral competition, balance and inclusiveness over dominance or primacy, and the dropping of great power competition as a strategic frame.

Implementing such a strategy would involve a longterm process, initially including several lowrisk, lowcost actions designed to moderate the SinoU.S. rivalry (such as forgoing provocative U.S. force posture moves in Japan and revitalizing the One China policy toward Taiwan) but continually building over time through reciprocal CBMs between Beijing and Washington.

Despite the above efforts, if the SinoU.S. rivalry in Asia intensifies, and assuming Chinas aggregate economic and military power continues to grow at a historically low rate of between 3 to 5 percent per annum, Washington will gradually need to adjust to the new power realities in order to best protect its vital interests while avoiding a great power war. This scenario points to sustained, deepening rivalry.

The United States should continue to seek cooperation with China on issues critical to its interests and that of the international system.

Such a scenario will necessitate a significant restructuring (in both hard and soft directions) of existing U.S. commitments and alliances in Asia, likely involving a pullback from those existing alliance commitments in Southeast Asia that would expose the United States to unnecessary dangers, and strengthening of the security of Japan and South Korea, alongside a reduction in U.S. ground forces on the Korean Peninsula. It would not involve a dangerous and futile U.S. effort to reestablish regional primacy. Any such adjustments in U.S. alliances would be phased in over several decades and require stabilizing reactions by U.S. allies, thereby minimizing risk to themselves and the region.

Even in this scenario of deepening rivalry, however, the United States should continue to seek cooperation with China on issues critical to its interests and that of the international system. These include Asian stability, nuclear stability, the environment, and global health. A thinner level of cooperation under rivalry is indeed possible, as was demonstrated by U.S.Soviet understandings on nonproliferation and arms control during the Cold War.

Regarding the critically important issue of Taiwan, the U.S. should revitalize and sustain its One China policy under either the best case or sustained rivalry scenario of U.S.China relations. Under the former scenario, an overall improvement in SinoU.S. relations should facilitate a steady improvement of the Taiwan situation and a reduction in U.S. defense commitments to the island, commensurate with concrete positive actions by Beijing and Taipei.

Under the scenario of deepening SinoU.S. rivalry and a militarily dominant China in the area around Taiwan, Washington should put in place a multifaceted strategy designed to sustain its One China policy while permitting it to eventually end any intention to directly intervene militarily in a TaiwanChina conflict while doing all it can to reassure other Asian nations. Under such conditions U.S. intervention would almost certainly lead to a major war and quite possibly a defeat for the United States. If mishandled, such a policy could cause some of these allies to acquire nuclear weapons or strike differing levels of accommodating political and security arrangements with Beijing that alarm the United States and other powers, thus precipitating further instability.

This shift away from direct military intervention in a crossStrait Taiwan conflict would be accompanied by continued strong U.S. support for Taiwan in other areas (including the provision of military material to the island), and a stronger focus on the U.S.Japan security alliance. Such a strategy will doubtless confront many challenges and will take many years to implement, but would be an advantage over a policy that would almost certainly end in a disastrous conflict with Beijing.1

This paper first presents those general core restraint views regarding U.S. interests and the international system today and in the future that justify and support the above best case and sustained rivalry Restraint strategies. It is followed by a Restraintbased assessment of the challenges and opportunities that China poses for the United States, followed by a more detailed presentation of the features of the two alternate (but overlapping) strategies for two potential futures of the U.S.China relationship. It ends with an assessment of the relative costs and benefits involved in implementing a responsible Restraint strategy toward China compared to more zerosum, adversarial approaches.

A Restraint approach to U.S.China relations is founded upon and reflects several overall views and assumptions regarding both vital American national interests and policies and several key features of the international system.

Efforts to maintain U.S. global military primacy, whether emphasizing deterrence or active intervention, have most often produced a more dangerous, less stable world.

One core Restraint set of views is that the United States is unnecessarily overextended in its military involvement across the globe, has an excessively broad definition of its vital interests, and too frequently relies on military over diplomatic means to defend those interests while seeking to maintain, to the maximum extent possible, economic and military dominance worldwide and to extend democracy to as many nations as possible.2

A second Restraint view that follows from the above is the notion that postCold War efforts to maintain U.S. global military primacy, whether emphasizing deterrence or active intervention, have most often produced a more dangerous, less stable world, thereby undermining the most vital U.S. interest of safeguarding the security and wellbeing of the American people.3

The United States is physically very secure behind two oceans and with two friendly neighbors on its borders, and in any event has the capability, through nuclear weapons and a territorybased conventional power projection capability, to counter any direct or indirect military threats to its most vital interests. The definition of vital national interests should thus be limited to the defense and preservation of conditions directly necessary to the territorial integrity, security, and wellbeing of the American people and their way of life.

This primarily requires the ability to protect the nation against both direct and indirect, national, transnational, and subnational threats to such interests, and a stable global order open, as much as possible, to trade, investment, technological innovation, and peopletopeople contacts. It also requires coexistence with countries with different political systems, congruent with a stable and open global order. Above all, it requires a strong and cohesive domestic political, economic, and social order. It does not require absolute security, the maintenance of a prominent global military presence, a reliance on frequent overseas military forays, or extensive, formal, often onesided, security commitments to a wide range of other nations.

A third Restraint viewpoint stresses the fact that the international system within which the United States defends or advances its interests is no longer unipolar.4 The conditions that elevated the United States to the status of global hegemon after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 no longer exist and cannot be restored. The United States has no practical alternative but to accept the reality of an increasingly multipolar world and recognize that both continued U.S. dominance and world peace are illusions. For the foreseeable future, mutual coexistence, compromise, and balance among the great powers will have to suffice as an operative conception of peace.5 This concept thus rejects the use of distorting and dangerous, usually zerosum ideological frameworks in understanding global politics, such as democracy versus authoritarianism, or a singular stress on great power competition.6

The Restraint view holds that, within this system, two existential or nearexistential international threats endanger humankind above all else in the present century: first, the increased possibility of largescale nuclear war (as a result of proliferation, new technologies, the erosion of arms control agreements, and deepening great power rivalries); and second, the largely unchecked worsening of the climate crisis as the preeminent expression of global environmental degradation.7

A third threat is primarily domestic and mostly affects democratic states, although it certainly also has international implications: the rise of extremely nationalist, antidemocratic, racebased nativism and the political polarization and dysfunction it engenders.8

For Restraint advocates, these threats supersede any supposed global, valuebased threats, including the commonly perceived inflated and distorted international struggle between democracy and authoritarianism, as well as narrower, conventional security or economic rivalries among nonnuclear powers.

In assessing the role of diplomacy (and other nonmilitary forms of international engagement and conflict resolution) versus military force, despite the introduction of new technologies, Restrainers believe that military conflict remains fraught with risk, uncertainty, higher than expected costs, and the likelihood of unexpected consequences. This fact, along with the gradual emergence of a multipolar order and the frequent historical failures of U.S.led attempts to invade, occupy, and remake distant nationstates, provide good reasons to prioritize diplomacy and economic or other forms of nonviolent tools of statecraft over military intervention.9 While the political use of military capabilities is in many cases essential in the conduct of diplomacy, any actual use of force should be considered a last resort, employed only under extreme conditions, and in the defense of vital interests only.

The United States, as the dominant military and economic power on the planet, has developed and maintained the dangerous notion that only American global primacy and leadership can keep the world peaceful and ensure prosperity.10 Restrainers believe this idea has led the United States to engage frequently in a feckless misuse of military power, resulting in large part from inflated threats, overconfidence, and a deep belief in American exceptionalism. With the possible exception of Israel, no nation employs force as frequently. Moreover, many Americans remain strongly supportive of high levels of U.S. defense spending and Washingtons many global security alliances. However, many citizens are also growing weary of U.S. military interventions and the heavy reliance on military options in handling foreign problems.11 Large numbers of Americans now favor diplomacy over military force.12 And some question the need for large numbers of overseas military bases around the world.13 This suggests popular support for a Restraintoriented foreign policy, including reduced defense spending if and as security competitions with other great powers are reduced.

Compounding the problems caused by military intervention in the service of primacy is the emergence in the United States of deep levels of public uncertainty and insecurity about the future. The many factors underlying this feeling of uncertainty include a crisis of legitimacy involving widespread dissatisfaction with prevailing conceptions of freedom and democracy when viewed through the lens of race, gender, and sexuality, as well as egregious government ineptitude, fiscal irresponsibility, and persistent social problems.14

Politicians often exploit the worsening domestic situation by inflating the threats posed by undemocratic states like China to divert attention from their own responsibility for problems at home and to unify their political base.15 Domestic circumstances have also created a strong tendency toward an excessive level of economic protectionism which, in the absence of countervailing domestic policies, undermines growth and weakens incentives to cooperate with China and other nations in handling common global economic and financial threats.16

The United States, as the dominant military and economic power on the planet, has developed and maintained the dangerous notion that only American global primacy and leadership can keep the world peaceful and ensure prosperity.

Restrainers assert that this dynamic, along with a deeplyrooted commitment to sustaining high levels of defense spending and hundreds of overseas bases, are increasing the chance of conflict with nondemocratic powers while undermining efforts to properly define, prioritize and deal with threats at home and abroad.17

Finally, many U.S. friends and allies have both the capacity and the need to do far more to provide for their own defense, thereby allowing the United States to significantly reduce its own global military posture. But Restraint does not encourage those countries to rapidly ramp up their defense spending. Deepening interdependence, the possibility of largescale nuclear war, and the emergence of high priority common security threats such as climate change all argue in favor of efforts to reduce interstate security competition, which would lower the need for ever higher defense budgets, and enhance incentives for more cooperative forms of security.18

If successfully implemented, Restraint as a basis of policy visvis China will buy the United States time to repair its severely damaged domestic order and reallocate national security resources to concerns that pose a greater threat to the security and wellbeing of the American people than China. More broadly, it will facilitate the identification of clear red lines based on the protection of genuinely vital interests, the adoption of prudent and balanced approaches to contentious issues, and the opening of intellectual and political space allowing for greater dialogue, understanding, and compromise between Washington and Beijing.19 This will significantly reduce the chances of conflict.

Multipolarity and the end of American dominance, rising domestic problems, looming, highpriority transnational threats, heavy levels of global economic and technological interdependence, and the resulting need to create a stable longterm basis for productive and peaceful coexistence together justify an array of Restraintbased U.S. policies toward Beijing. This must begin with a serious effort to rightsize the threats and opportunities that China poses, both now and over time, to the international system, American democracy, economic growth, and U.S. national security.20 Rightsizing the threats posed by China, along with a factbased assessment of current and likely future U.S. and Western resources and capabilities, will provide the foundation for a realistic and effective Restraintbased strategy toward China.

A responsible Restraint perspective acknowledges that there are competitive aspects to the SinoU.S. relationship, and that a SinoU.S. security dilemma, along with low levels of trust, is to some extent unavoidable, especially given the different political systems of the two nations and Chinas growing power, both globally and especially in Asia. However, the security dilemma can certainly be alleviated significantly, and not all great power competition need be zerosum in nature. Furthermore, most SinoU.S. competitions will not end in a neat victory for one side over the other, unless one or both regimes collapse, an unlikely prospect. Excessive levels and types of competition can unnecessarily undermine attempts at cooperation over issues such as climate change, as trust disappears and the good will needed to fashion mutual compromises evaporates.21

The current U.S. policy toward China is largely based on a zerosum, adversarial mindset that assumes above all else a fundamental Chinese commitment to weakening and countering the West and resisting any form of meaningful bilateral cooperation. Beijing is regularly presented as a vaguelydefined existential threat, a rapidly growing military and economic power bent on global domination through predatory trade and investment practices and/or armed coercion, a burgeoning hightech superpower determined to control the key drivers of future global growth, a hostile opponent of the existing socalled rulesbased international order, and a pernicious threat to democratic societies from within.22 Moreover, in many instances, the alarm over such supposedly dire threats is magnified by the inaccurate claim that Washington had been essentially asleep at the wheel until very recently as China worked to undermine the United States and all democratic societies.23

China does pose certain challenges to existing and likely future U.S. interests. These consist primarily of:

In the military arena, the danger of costly and destabilizing conflicts or severe crises, resulting from military and political provocations by either Beijing or Washington (or by U.S. allies) e.g., over Taiwan, disputed territories in Asia, the Korean Peninsula, or as a result of incidents involving U.S. and Chinese ships and aircraft operating in close proximity to one another.24 Chinese military and political actions could also weaken U.S. alliances and reduce support for the forwarddeployed U.S. military presence in Asia and elsewhere, thereby increasing the likelihood of arms races and miscalculations by the United States, China, and other states.25

In the economic and technological area,26 the possibility of Chinese behavior eroding U.S. economic growth rates, U.S. competitiveness in some key hightech areas, and possibly, in some extreme cases, U.S. access to certain technologies and critical regions, most notably Asia. Chinese actions in this area could also reduce the incentives for other nations to trade and invest heavily with the United States, whether as a result of Chinese pressure or zerosum forms of competitiveness. China could weaken free market norms in various ways, through its loan practices and political influence. And Beijing could damage key U.S. corporations by ejecting them from the critical Chinese market.

In the area of norms and values, a concern that Chinese behavior over time could weaken existing Western norms regarding liberal democratic governance, centered on the rule of law, freedom of political speech and behavior, various cyber freedoms, and individual voter rights, as well as current or future norms concerning forms of foreign international intervention relating to human rights. China challenges many of these norms by stressing economic and physical security and top-down state authority over the protection of individual political freedoms and the activities of non-state actors outside of government control.

While certainly very troublesome, and requiring effective countermeasures in many cases, these concerns are not grave enough to justify the kind of absolute, largely zerosum and confrontational approach now common in U.S. policies toward Beijing. Many gray areas exist in all three of the above realms, largely reflecting Chinese support for longstanding core principles of the international order, such as state sovereignty, a preference for diplomacy over force in resolving disputes, the use of force only in defense of imminent and clear security threats, open air and sea lines of communication and transport across international zones, many marketbased forms of economic intercourse, and various other United Nations norms and approaches.

The current U.S. policy toward China is largely based on a zerosum, adversarial mindset that assumes above all else a fundamental Chinese commitment to weakening and countering the West and resisting any form of meaningful bilateral cooperation.

In fact, critics of Chinas global stance often conflate the values and norms of the global order, as reflected in various international regimes and practices, with the U.S.centered structure of global economic and military power.27 In reality, the preservation or constructive adaptation of most of the values, structures, and processes of the global order does not require a single, dominant, democratic ruling power. The limited and contingent nature of Chinese threats requires a strong, competitive United States, clearer, more extensive, and to the extent possible, binding bilateral and international agreements, and specific, credible red lines regarding violations of truly vital interests. It also requires a common international commitment to resolve differences over contentious issues such as Taiwan, political rights and protectionism or state capitalism through negotiation and compromise.

Contrary to the prevailing mindset in Washington, China does not pose an existential or nearexistential threat to the United States in the above areas. It is not in a position either to replace the dominance of U.S. and Western economic and military power worldwide or to overturn the socalled liberal world order.28

As a military power, Beijing poses no threat to the existence of the United States except possibly via an extremely unlikely nuclear attack, which would be suicidal. There is no evidence that China wants to threaten, much less use, its relatively small (but growing), secondstrike, countervalue strategic nuclear force to attack the United States or its allies. To the contrary, there is much evidence to suggest that Chinas leadership regards nuclear weapons predominantly as a deterrent, not as a possible firststrike, offensive war weapon.29

Moreover, Beijings recent improvements of its strategic nuclear forces are almost certainly intended primarily to increase the survivability of its secondstrike force in the face of significant improvements in U.S. offensive nuclear capabilities and ballistic missile defense. The Chinese might also be expanding their nuclear arsenal in response to an increased fear that Washington would level nuclear threats or actually employ tactical nuclear weapons in a future Taiwan conflict, if the U.S. military were losing on a conventional level.30 That speaks to the urgent need to stabilize that worsening situation (as discussed below).

On the conventional level, Chinese military capabilities are for the foreseeable future only of serious concern in the western Pacific, where Beijing has reached a rough parity of forces with the United States and Japan along the first island chain near Taiwan, and is arguably now the dominant military power in the South China Sea, as measured in numbers of naval and air platforms.31 But even in this vast region, China is not poised to acquire the kind of overwhelming conventional power that would give it the military confidence, even in the face of high political and economic costs, to attempt to seize Taiwan by force, eject the United States from the region, or assert total, direct control over the South China Sea or maritime Asia as a whole unless, that is, the United States were to force it to undertake the acquisition of such capabilities and take such actions by threatening to permanently separate Taiwan from China, or by precipitating a conflict in the region.32

Fears that China has decided in the near or medium future to invade Taiwan and, going further, is planning eventual aggression against other Asian states are therefore unconvincing.33 The lessons of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and particularly Russias failures in Ukraine reinforce for the Chinese the difficulties of an allout invasion of Taiwan, as discussed further in the appendix.34

Beyond this, China is nowhere near acquiring the capabilities to replace the United States as a global military hegemon and shows few if any signs of having made a commitment to do so.35 This would require a force structure capable of successfully fending off any attempt to defeat Chinese military components within virtually any ocean or air space, and to safeguard passage to virtually any major world port. The United States has enjoyed something approaching this capacity for decades. China is far from attaining it and currently has no clear imperative to do so. This does not mean China will eschew developing a military with a significant global presence. It has already done this to some extent in the naval realm. And Chinese leaders have said that their goal is to develop world-class forces by 2049.36 But such a presence could take many forms well below anything approaching that of the U.S. military today, including relatively smallsized, highquality flotillas or expeditionary groups capable of conducting a variety of important missions well short of achieving control overall critical international ocean areas and air spaces.37

The above suggests that China is unlikely to undertake an unprovoked, outoftheblue lunge at Taiwan, or anywhere else in the region, either today or in the neartomedium-term (i.e., to about 2035). The most prominent threat will emerge from miscalculations stemming from efforts by the United States, China, and other nations to deter one another in an extreme, zerosum manner within an increasingly hostile and polarized security landscape. This could involve a highrisk miscalculation and resulting overreaction in the use of military force by one or both sides stemming from excessive overconfidence or insecurity, in response to perceived provocations. In other words, the primary Chinarelated threat is not about the threat Beijing poses to the United States, other nations, or the global order. It is the threat that arises from an interactive, worsening security competition driven by threat inflation and zerosum worst casing of actions and motives on both sides.38

The primary Chinarelated threat is not about the threat Beijing poses to the United States, other nations, or the global order. It is the threat that arises from an interactive, worsening security competition driven by threat inflation and zerosum worst casing of actions and motives on both sides.

Moreover, the Chinese almost certainly realize that any effort to achieve global (or even regional) military dominance over the United States will prove extremely costly, could ultimately fail, or place it in a virtually endless, mutually debilitating zerosum military rivalry with Washington. This sort of gamble is even more unlikely given the enormous domestic challenges that China faces, including high levels of pollution, a rapidly aging population, a weakened leadership succession system, limited domestic natural resources, low levels of productivity, and an excessively ideological, repressive, and topdown policy approach to development and social order.39

These challenges demand a continuous, longterm emphasis on ensuring domestic order and growth, not expanding Chinas powers to dominate all others. All this implies that, despite its ambitious goals, likely belief that the West is in decline, and increasing suspicion and pushback toward the United States, Beijings policies will necessarily allow for some level of flexibility that could make global (and even Asian) competition more constructive and less destructive, while keeping many doors open to some level of meaningful cooperation between the two powers, including in the militarysecurity arena.

It is certainly not inconceivable that growing threats to Chinas sea lines of communication (SLOCs) and overseas economic and political interests could one day cause Chinas leaders to fundamentally reassess the nations strategic interests and goals in the direction of a costly, dominanceoriented military strategy. Nonetheless, it would be reckless to assume that such a reassessment is inevitable and that the many factors in favor of cooperation and balance in Chinas presentday global (and regional) strategy will disappear. Indeed, the huge costs and risks involved in a Chinese attempt to displace the United States as the dominant global military power are unlikely to diminish to such a degree in the decades ahead that Beijing would conclude it is worth the effort to undertake unless, of course, Washington makes it clear that it is using its global military dominance to support efforts to strangle China and threaten the stability of its government.40

In the economic and technological arenas, blanket, unqualified characterizations of Chinas economy as predatory or mercantilist and its loan and assistance programs as debtinducing distort the reality that some Chinese abuses exist alongside huge levels of mutual economic benefit for many countries.41 Moreover, China poses a limited, not comprehensive and existential, economic and technological threat to the United States, in the form of commercial and technology theft (of which at least the latter is apparently diminishing), unfair trading practices, and other activities that result in unfair advantages or possibly dominance in some specific areas.42

It is highly unlikely that such practices would result in decisive Chinese leverage over the United States, given the likelihood of continued American global economic and technological power and expertise, based on the continuation of its highquality higher education system, its rule of law, its competitive energy and drive, its overall receptivity to talented immigrants, and its ample domestic resource base.43All of these features urgently need strengthening. But this places an even greater premium on reducing distracting and destructive tensions with China. And in any event, Americas advantages are unlikely to diminish to such an extent that China will achieve decisive leverage over the United States, given its own huge domestic problems.

There is also the threat that would result from excessive decoupling of the United States and China in many economic and technological areas. Such actions would produce high levels of inefficiency, lower the benefits of global exchange, and create excessive confidence in the quixotic goal of removing all vulnerabilities to the U.S. economy.44 As a result, U.S. (and Chinese) economic growth and resiliency would decline, along with overall global growth and prosperity.

In addition, it is virtually certain that any effort by Beijing to create a Sino-centric, hegemonic regional (or global) order would encounter serious resistance from many other major states aside from the United States (such as Japan, South Korea, India, Germany, France, and the U.K.), many of which have or could muster considerable economic and military capabilities and would politically and ideologically oppose being dominated by an autocratic China. Although these states could not counterbalance Chinese aggression on their own, they would likely unify to greatly augment a U.S. effort to do so, if necessary.45

It is virtually certain that any effort by Beijing to create a Sino-centric, hegemonic regional (or global) order would encounter serious resistance from many other major states aside from the United States.

Regarding global norms, despite assertions by some to the contrary, China is not committed (and does not have the capability) to overturn what many describe as the global order, replacing it with an autocratic, mercantilist, Sinocentric order.46 First, this argument relies on the false notion that such an order is centered primarily, if not solely, on the three principles of democracy, human rights, and a free market economic system. In reality, the global order consists of a wide array of normbased regimes and understandings, only some of which are associated with Westerndefined concepts.47 Moreover, numerous studies have shown that Beijing benefits from and upholds the goals and norms of many of these regimes, such as those governing relatively free trade and finance, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) proliferation, freedom of navigation, the peaceful resolution of disputes, and the management of transnational security threats China presses for reforms in global institutions that are, in many cases, long overdue, including the idea of providing greater representation for China and developing states in multilateral economic organizations.48

Beijing does want to reduce the influence of Western liberal democratic values within global regimes in favor of a more statecentered set of views that reflect the values of economic growth, topdown political control, limited political freedoms, and social order. However, despite some American rhetoric to the contrary, Beijing is not energetically engaged in a deliberate effort to duplicate its system across the world, nor poised to establish a predatory, debtinducing network of dominance across Eurasia via the Belt and Road Initiative.49 In fact, unlike many 19th and early 20th century imperialist powers, with some limited exceptions during the revolutionary Mao Zedong era in the 1970s, China has not espoused an ideology or mindset that views the acquisition of other territories or the coercive expansion of its system to other countries as essential to its continued national vitality.50

Finally, the socalled global order is rapidly becoming a multipolar order that no single country can dominate in most or all spheres.51 Hence, even if Beijing wanted to create a Sinocentric order, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to see how they could make this happen.

Despite the above developments and conflicting interests, Beijing continues to recognize its own need to sustain substantive areas of cooperation with Washington and to avoid slipping into a truly adversarial, destructive, and purely mercantilist form of competition. While increasingly assertive, the Chinese see the obvious problems of such a stance. Of course, it is possible that Beijing eventually comes to regard the high risks of engaging in such intense competition as worth taking, if the danger of not doing so increases. Such a change in perception could occur in part as a result of a continued U.S. or broader Western drive toward confrontation and zerosum competition with Beijing. This development would greatly undermine those voices within China who favor moderation in the U.S.China rivalry. In addition it would significantly raise the danger of SinoAmerican crises and military conflict, and divert huge amounts of U.S. resources away from desperately needed nonmilitary uses at home and abroad.52

From the above, it is clear that a responsible Restraint strategy toward China should seek to replace the current, largely zerosum, comprehensive competition and confrontation with Beijing with a stable, balanced, mutually beneficial form of peaceful coexistence and bounded competition that can sustain global peace and prosperity while effectively addressing the primary threats facing both countries. This will require a policy toward China geared to effective deterrence regarding red lines, alongside mutual, credible reassurance in key areas, and the channeling of SinoU.S. competition into as many constructive realms as possible, most importantly including the effort to combat the overriding threats posed by climate change, pandemics, nuclear war, WMD proliferation, and global financial and economic disorder.

An openended, winnertakeall security competition can substantially increase the chance of crises and conflict and eliminate options for cooperation in dealing with the truly existential threats all nations face. Ending hostile, zerosum political rhetoric, and replacing simplistic, confrontational policies with prudent, balanced approaches to contentious issues holds the possibility of creating the intellectual and political space for compromise and the search for common ground.

A Restraint strategy toward China would thus have six main goals:

1.) To construct a new national public narrative that redefines and expands the concept of national security to prioritize common transnational threats over narrow, interstate security competition and arms racing. Avoiding or reducing greatly the intensity of the latter should obviously be an important precondition permitting a focus on the former. In this regard, China should be seen as one major pole in an increasingly complex and multipolar world that no single nation will have the capacity to dominate or lead. Instead of casting Beijing as an existential threat and intense, zerosum competitor for global control, Washington should focus on reducing the effect of those ideological, political/military, and historical factors driving the current highly interactive SinoU.S. rivalry to which both nations contribute, while developing more positivesum modes of interaction.

An openended, winnertakeall security competition can substantially increase the chance of crises and conflict and eliminate options for cooperation in dealing with the truly existential threats all nations face.

2.) To minimize the chances of a nuclear or major conventional conflict with China by stabilizing the Taiwan situation (see Appendix), reducing incentives for arms racing and security competition, and increasing incentives for positivesum, cooperative approaches in the economic, technological, and security realms.

3.) To maximize economic openness and stability by building more inclusive and integrated, Asiawide and global economic structures and relationships, limiting economic and technological decoupling with China to genuinely critical national security areas, avoiding competing economic blocs, and strengthening the U.S. ability to play a stronger and more influential economic and technological role in Asia and beyond.

4.) To facilitate the Asian (and especially SinoU.S.) contribution to combating climate change by reaching regional (and especially American and Chinese) acceptance of the primary threat that rapidly developing phenomenon poses to all nations, as a first step toward developing a coordinated regional (and global) strategy involving e.g., broad agreements on the trade of environmental products and the development of climate technologies.

5.) To buy the time that will enable Americans to repair their severely damaged domestic political and economic order, a goal essential for maintaining U.S. economic and technological competitiveness, and for creating predictability in U.S. policies across administrations, and raising the overall image of the United States in the world.

6.) To reallocate national security resources to address concerns that pose a greater proximate danger to the security and wellbeing of the American people than does China. Two specific concerns stand out: first, an erosion of faith in the established domestic constitutional order, and second, environmental degradation, most prominently expressed in the climate crisis.

To achieve these goals, a best case version of a longterm U.S. restraint strategy should focus on building an inclusive, cooperative, highly interdependent, and multipolar global and regional order that does not rely upon either American or Chinese military or economic primacy or dominance. This should involve two elements:

Regionwide, cooperative political/diplomatic, economic/technological, and military security structures and agreements to address specific common regional and global threats, including first and foremost climate change, followed by pandemics, financial instability, cyberattacks, and WMD proliferation.

Limited collective security arrangements with U.S. allies and partners, China, and possibly other nations to ensure maritime security and combat terrorism, and resolve local disputes and conflicts.

These two sets of best case elements of a Restraint strategy will require at least a dozen sets of preconditions:

1) The official abrogation of the Bush Doctrine of preventive war in favor of a policy that commits the United States to using force only as a last resort and (except in immediate selfdefense) only with the prior authorization of Congress and in compliance with the U.N. Charter. Washington should demand that China also honor the latter norm.

2) Acceptance by senior policymakers of an expanded, overarching redefinition of national security and wellbeing that includes a primary focus on addressing common transnational threats and global challenges over narrow, interstate security competition and arms racing, and a recognition of the common need for all countries to promote economic justice alongside economic growth.

This change in priorities will likely require the emergence of a less paranoid and more pragmatic, diplomacyoriented leadership in both China and the United States, involving a reassessment and reordering of threat perceptions. This could emerge from a deeper appreciation of the dangers of conflict inherent in the current SinoU.S. dynamic, along with a genuine recognition of the overriding need to increase cooperation to deal with increasingly obvious common threats such as climate change.53

3) Detailed, sustained U.S. policy deliberations with key East Asian allies, the ASEAN states, other East Asian nations (including China) India and the E.U. regarding the most appropriate norms and types of fora, understandings, etc. required for developing regional approaches to handling common transnational threats and strengthening cooperative security interactions. In the critical area of climate change, given the manifestly unsatisfactory progress under the U.N. Climate Change Conference of Parties umbrella, Washington should propose the creation of a PRC/U.S.led Emergency Climate Change Commission, with the two wealthiest and top pollutionemitting nations on the planet jointly undertaking a massive and wellfunded effort to address the problem and thereby demonstrating the feasibility of collaboration, rather than adversarial competition.

As part of this overall process, Washington should also revisit versions of some of the more positive-sum initiatives that were proposed during the 200010 time frame, including the cooperative maritime security strategy of former Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, South Koreas Sunshine policy toward North Korea, the joint SinoJapanese proposal to develop the East China Sea into a realm of peace, prosperity, and cooperation, and the East Asian Community concept promoted by many Japanese policy elites during the late 1990s and early 2000s.54

4) The deployment of a less provocative, more affordable, defensivelyoriented, U.S. regional force posture sufficient to support stability across the Taiwan Strait, perform emerging cooperative and collective security functions, and dampen the security dilemma. This will likely require, at a minimum, over at least the short to medium term, a set of denial (not control)oriented military capabilities and force postures, CBMs, and cooperative security dialogues among the top Asian powers sufficient to deter against realistic threats of attack without provoking openended arms racing.55

Such a U.S. force posture would require a significant restructuring of U.S. forces in the Western Pacific, with a narrower focus on improving air and navalbased denial capabilities, a greatly reduced ground force presence, much greater levels of U.S. and allied resilience to Chinese missile attacks, and enhanced Taiwan defense capabilities. This would likely entail greatly improved passive and active defenses on land, a more dispersed pattern of force deployments, greater numbers of antiship and antiair cruise and other missiles, less reliance on large, forward deployed aircraft carriers, a greater reliance on more limited-range unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), submarines and antisubmarine warfare (ASW) capabilities, and a greater ability to resupply Guam and more forward areas from Hawaii and Continental United States. In a crisis or conflict, these capabilities would focus on interdicting, deterring or destroying offshore Chinese forces arrayed against Taiwan without striking logistics points and C4ISR locations deep within the Chinese mainland, thereby limiting escalation. The overall objective of this force posture would be to blunt any Chinese attack long enough to permit additional U.S. forces to be brought in from out of theater without escalating the conflict by striking early on targets on the Chinese mainland.

Aside from these changes in force structure and defense strategy, an effective active denial posture would also require serious U.S. efforts to reduce tensions with Beijing and thereby lower Chinas incentives to sustain high levels of military modernization and employ force in the first place, and to improve both U.S. and Chinese crisis management and deescalation capabilities. Such efforts should center on stabilizing the Taiwan situation through a variety of measures outlined in the appendix. Moreover, such a force posture and strategy will likely be welcomed by U.S. allies and partners because it is more credible and economically and politically sustainable than the alternatives and because it would be sensitive to the crosspressures and tradeoffs allies and partners face regarding the rise of China.56

5) Likely greater levels of defense burden sharing by U.S. allies in Asia, in support of specific, agreedupon security goals, along with discussions on redefining the purpose of U.S. alliances, to transition gradually from largely onesided bilateral security pacts based on high levels of U.S. forward presence directed at China and North Korea, to support for broader cooperative and collective regional security arrangements, CBMs and a Korea peace regime, the latter as part of a twotrack strategy of tension reduction and demilitarization leading to the eventual denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and the signing of a peace treaty and CBMs with Pyongyang.

The United States should affirm its existing security commitments to Japan, South Korea, Australia, Thailand, and the Philippines, but with no further expansion of forces or bases. Washington should also sustain a comprehensive schedule of military exercises with regional allies while scrupulously adhering to defensive scenarios. In this process, the United States needs to provide greater assistance in strengthening the independent, indigenous defense capacities of allies and filling in gaps in their deterrence capabilities.

However, U.S. policies should place an equally high priority on encouraging all Asian states to support a more cooperative and inclusive regional order, providing for their own welfare and security as much as possible through positivesum forms of engagement with one another that reduce the worst casing of objectives and intentions and hence lower the need to expend huge amounts of resources to build up their military capabilities. Under this scenario, the U.S.Japan alliance would likely approximate what Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama had in mind in 200910: a more equal alliance, with a reduced U.S. military presence and Tokyo strictly adhering to a defensive policy even while increasing defense expenditures and pursuing a multilateral cooperative security process.

In this, the United States should play a lowlevel role, allowing other Asian nations to define their own security and development needs without relying primarily on U.S. forwarddeployed forces or U.S. economic assistance or leverage. Washington should consider promoting the creation of an Asian equivalent of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), to bridge differences and build trust between states by cooperating on conflict prevention, crisis management and postconflict rehabilitation.57 The aim will be to encourage greater collective Asian responsibility for Asian stability.

As part of this process, the U.S.-led security pact AUKUS, which seeks to position a highly costly, new offensive capability in Australia, should be seriously reconsidered.58The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) comprising the United States, Japan, India, and Australia should eliminate its military dimensions and greatly enhance its ability to deliver the public goods it has promised.59

6) Related to the previous point, given its sensitive position in Asia, this best case strategy should avoid any efforts to push Japan away from its current peace constitution or greatly increase its defense spending (especially if this is geared towards a Taiwan intervention), as long as progress is being made toward lessening regional security competition and increasing cooperative security measures. Japan should make any decision to increase its military capabilities or alter its peace constitution largely on its own, without U.S. pressure.

In addition, absent the complete collapse of SinoU.S. understandings regarding Taiwan and a marked increase in hostility, the Japanese government should continue resisting any commitment in advance to backing a U.S. decision to employ force in a possible confrontation or conflict with Beijing over the island. The United States should accept such a restrained Japanese stance, which could create more incentives for Washington to act in turn in a restrained manner toward the Taiwan issue. Indeed, under this best case scenario of increasing cooperation with Beijing, Tokyo should avoid acquiring provocative new weapons systems (such as intermediate and longrange, land attack missiles), while working with South Korea and other allies to use its leverage as a location for U.S. bases to argue for such restraint.

See the original post here:

A Restraint Approach to U.S.China Relations: Reversing the Slide ... - Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft