Failed US-Africa Policy Exposed Yet Again

August 2, 2019
March 1961-President Kennedy provides real leadership by collaborating with President Nkrumah to industrialize Ghana

The article below, “More than Just Investment: Why America Was Once So Popular in Africa” by Nick Danby, published in World News, is a useful contribution to analyzing President Trump’s flawed African policy.  He accurately reports that the Trump’s administration’s “Prosper Africa” will not contribute to the development of Africa. He also highlights, as I have done, the leadership provided by President John Kennedy to support the rights of Africans to achieve economic sovereignty.

More than Just Investment: Why America Was Once So Popular in Africa

“On June 19 of this year, the Trump administration unveiled a new plan, known as “Prosper Africa,” to engage and invigorate the oft-forgotten continent. At the 2019 U.S.-Africa Business Summit in Mozambique, American leaders and allies heralded the $60 billion investment plan as a “once-in-a-generational opportunity” for Africa. But the U.S. government is not strengthening greater commercial and trade connections between U.S. companies and Africa’s ICT sector out of the kindness of its own heart. Both publicly and privately the deal has been construed as a way to “provide financially sound alternatives to state-led initiatives from countries like China” and to prevent countries from falling into “opaque and unsustainable debt traps being laid by Beijing throughout the developing world.” At face value, the White House is working to promote a prosperous Africa by focusing on multilateral investment and trade. Yet the altruism of such an approach is undermined when administration officials, like national security advisor John Bolton, suggest that the new strategy predominantly serves as a counterweight to Chinese and Russian “predatory practices.”

“Countering Chinese and Russian influence in Africa remains a top priority for the U.S., but the most prudent way to win over African leaders and citizens is by demonstrating that American officials truly care about Africa’s well-being. China has built useful connections and alliances on the continent because it acts as though its efforts directly benefit Africa more than themselves. China’s powerful hold on the continent through its dominant commercial presence and debt diplomacy schemes were further developed when Xi Jinping invited dozens of African foreign dignitaries to Beijing and then pledged $60 billion in financial aid for the continent. Xi has also visited Africa on numerous occasions, hob-knobbing with leaders, boosting China’s public relations, and enlisting nations to join the “Belt and Road Initiative.” Even Russian President Vladimir Putin will host 50 African leaders in Sochi for the first Russian-African Summit in October.

“If the Trump administration wishes to engage African leaders and dissuade them from partnerships with the Chinese and the Russians by teaming up with U.S. companies, it must develop a strategy that goes far beyond an anachronistic amalgam of trade and investment. The U.S. must first build off of the goodwill and trust it fostered with PEPFAR by not only continuing to fund PEPFAR (which has been nominated for the chopping block since the Obama days) but also other programs that can improve Africa’s standard of living, whether that be through strategic health diplomacy or the vast array of other issues their civilians must endure on a daily basis.

“President Kennedy always had a special interest in Africa that predated his own time in the White House. In the 1960 campaign, he lambasted Eisenhower for not exerting enough effort or attention on the continent as it underwent decolonization. During one campaign speech, Kennedy told his audience, “We have neglected and ignored the needs and aspirations of the African people. The word is out – and spreading like wildfire…that it is no longer necessary to remain poor or forever in bondage.” The U.S. should heed Kennedy’s words and work toward improving Africa with the Africans. By caring about the continent’s welfare, Chinese and Russian influence will soon dwindle.”

Trump’s Policy for Africa Exists Only to Stop China

July 20, 2019

The analysis in the article below published by WPR is useful. However, I can be more blunt: President Trump’s policy for Africa has nothing to do with helping Africa, but it only to counter China’s influence! President Obama did very little for Africa, but make speeches about so called good governance and promoted his fraudulent “power-less Africa” program. Sadly, President Trump is following in Obama’s footsteps, premising his strategy for Africa on the old British geo-political doctrine of winners and losers in a zero-sum game. Read my article:  President Trump’s Fundamentally Flawed Africa Policy  Stopping China is not a policy to help Africa, a continent still suffering today from enormous infrastructure deficits, a legacy of 500 years of slavery, colonialism, and neo-colonialism. Despite all the propaganda against China, China’s Belt and Road infrastructure initiative has done more to assist African nations in developing their economies in recent decades, that all the combined initiatives of Europe and the United States. President Trump’s “Prosper Africa” will not advance Africa’s interests. The best way to actually promote development in Africa, build robust manufacturing sectors, and industrialize the underdeveloped continent, would be for President Trump to join China in building infrastructure across the continent in the spirit of the Belt and Road Imitative. 

World Politics Review

Donald Trump’s daughter and adviser, Ivanka Trump, and Kwesi Quartey, Deputy Chairperson of the African Commission.
Ivanka Trump, and H,E, Kwesi Quartey, Deputy Chairperson, African Union

Trump’s ‘Prosper Africa’ Strategy Is Fixated on a Cold War-Like View of China

Kimberly Ann ElliottTuesday, July 16, 2019

During the Cold War, American policymakers frequently pushed nonaligned countries to take sides. The Central Intelligence Agency fomented coups against governments that flirted with communism and the Soviet Union, or that just drifted too far to the left for comfort. The State Department threatened to cut aid flows to countries that voted too often against U.S. priorities at the United Nations. Could sub-Saharan Africa find itself caught in the middle again if a cold war with China breaks out?

In a speech at the Heritage Foundation last December, President Donald Trump’s hawkish national security adviser, John Bolton, launched a new initiative called “Prosper Africa” that he said was aimed at promoting trade and commercial ties “to the benefit of both the United States and Africa.” But there are a number of reasons for African governments to be concerned about what the administration really has in mind.

First of all, Bolton cast the goal of increased economic engagement as something necessary for “safeguarding the economic independence of African states and protecting U.S. national security interests,” not as something helpful for African economic development. He pointed to the growing influence of “great power competitors,” China and Russia, which he suggested were investing in Africa mainly “to gain a competitive advantage over the United States.” While there are certainly valid concerns about some of China’s foreign aid and lending practices in Africa and other developing countries, African governments have generally welcomed Chinese aid and investment. It’s not at all clear they would agree that this is a competition where they must choose one side or the other.

A second reason to be skeptical of how seriously this administration takes the goal of helping Africa develop is the low level of U.S. engagement to date. President Donald Trump has not visited the continent; his wife and daughter have in trips heavy on photo ops but light on policy substance. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross—hardly the most dynamic member of the Cabinet—was supposed to represent the administration last month at the U.S.-Africa Business Summit in Maputo, the capital of Mozambique, where details of the Prosper Africa initiative were announced. But he cancelled at the last minute because of a “scheduling conflict,” according to his office, sending Deputy Secretary of Commerce Karen Dunn Kelley instead.

By contrast, Chinese President Xi Jinping has visited Africa multiple times and has welcomed a stream of African officials to Beijing. Russian President Vladimir Putin will host 50 African leaders at a summit in Sochi later this year. Gyude Moore, a former minister of public works in Liberia (he’s now my colleague at the Center for Global Development), called the lack of Cabinet-level U.S. participation at the Maputo meeting insulting.

There are a number of reasons for African governments to be concerned about what the Trump administration really has in mind.

Finally, another reason to question the White House’s intentions with respect to trade with Africa is Trump’s view that trade policy is a zero-sum game: If another country wins, the United States must lose, and vice versa. Indeed, before getting to the mutual benefit part of his speech last December, Bolton asserted that the administration’s new Africa strategy would remain true to Trump’s “central campaign promise to put the interests of the American people first, both at home and abroad.”

So it should be no surprise that when he discussed trade, Bolton emphasized American jobs and exports to Africa. He said that the administration wants to pursue “modern, comprehensive trade agreements… that ensure fair and reciprocal exchange.” In recent congressional testimony, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer also reiterated the administration’s goal of negotiating a bilateral trade agreement with an African country that could become a model for others. Negotiators for a little country, negotiating with a big country like the United States, might wonder just what reciprocity means in that context.

If more than two decades of history is any guide, negotiating a trade deal with the United States will mean more or less accepting whatever text American negotiators put in front of their counterparts, including onerous demands for strict intellectual property protections that could increase prices for drugs and agricultural inputs. Negotiating with one country at a time is also problematic because most African countries are party to one or more regional communities, which they are stitching together in a single, continent-wide free trade agreement that just formally entered into force. The continent—home to a large number of small economies, many of them landlocked—desperately needs more regional integration to increase its competitiveness by lowering transportation and other costs of trade and achieving economies of scale.

Beyond these problematic trade plans, what else is in the administration’s Prosper Africa initiative? Its second stated aim is to engage the private sector and double U.S. trade with and investment in Africa. According to Kelley’s remarks in Maputo, two of the three strands of the program are aimed at helping American companies find and close deals across Africa by streamlining and better coordinating U.S. government activities that provide information, financing and risk insurance to the private sector. She also suggested that these efforts on behalf of American businesses could include “U.S. government advocacy” to “expedite” transactions, which sounds like it might involve a little arm-twisting if African officials question the terms of a deal.

Helping African countries improve the investment climate, which is Prosper Africa’s third strand, and connecting American investors to opportunities on the continent, are worthy—and indeed longstanding—goals. Overall, however, the initiative appears to be a mix of existing programs in shiny new packaging, and with little new money. The $50 million proposed budget for Prosper Africa is a drop in the bucket compared to the administration’s proposed 9 percent cut in overall aid to Africa. And efforts to negotiate bilateral trade agreements country by country would undermine the regional integration that is needed for the continent’s development.

Trade and aid to support development in Africa can and should be to the mutual interest of all involved. But putting Prosper Africa in the context of the geopolitical rivalry with China, alongside Trump’s belligerent America First rhetoric, undermines that positive message.

Kimberly Ann Elliott is a visiting scholar at the George Washington University Institute for International Economic Policy, and a visiting fellow with the Center for Global Development. Her WPR column appears every Tuesday

 

China Helps Ghana Industrialize. First Ever Russia-Africa Summit

June 23, 2019

You will read below the continued cooperation of Russia and China with Africa in promoting economic growth on the continent. In this respect, the US is largely absent in Africa. President Trump would be wise to correct this flawed US policy, and join Russia and China in engaging in the development of African nations. 

Ghanaweb.com

Help Ghana industrialize – Business Development Minister tells China

 

Ibrahim Mohammed Awal 750x406
Ghana’s Minister for Business Development, Dr Ibrahim Mohammed Awal

Play Video

Minister for Business Development, Dr Ibrahim Mohammed Awal, has appealed to China not to be a mere trading partner but to also support Ghana’s efforts to become a manufacturing hub in West Africa.

He said while Ghana appreciated and looked forward to growth in the trade relations between the two countries, it was critical for China to prioritize manufacturing in Ghana as well.

Opening the third China Trade Week in Accra yesterday, Dr Awal said his appeal was premised on the government’s industrialization drive as one of the major pillars to Ghana’s accelerated, all-inclusive and sustainable development.

The three-day event was organised by MIE Events, a global event organizer, as a business to business trade show featuring over 100 Chinese manufacturers looking to develop direct trading partnerships and links with local businesses.

It was also a platform for the local business community to explore business opportunities in China to enhance trade cooperation between the two countries.

It is a platform for both Ghanaian and Chinese businesses and brands to increase their visibility, find vendor partners and distributors in each other’s country.

Organizing for First-Ever Russia-Africa Summit in October Underway

The Kremlin announced officially on May 28 that the first-ever Russia-Africa Summit will be held on Oct. 24, 2019, in Sochi. It will be co-chaired by President Vladimir Putin and current chair of the African Union, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. All the heads of state of Africa are invited to attend, as well as leaders of major sub-regional associations and organizations. An economic forum will be held for Russian and African officials and businessmen the day before (Oct. 23), which some 3,000 African businessmen are expected to attend.

President Putin first proposed the idea of such a summit at the 2018 BRICS summit in South Africa, and his aide, Yury Ushakov, is now chairing the summit Organizing Committee. Russian organizers describe the summit as “of unprecedented scale” for Russia, whose intent is to provide “a strategically important step towards creating the most favorable conditions to develop trade and economic relations and diversity the forms and areas of Russian-African cooperation.”

Preparatory meetings are already being held, including a Russia-Africa Business Dialogue organized as part of the St. Petersburg Forum; a Russia-Africa Economic Forum being held in Moscow yesterday and today, along with the 26th annual shareholders meeting of the African Export-Import Bank, which is being held in Moscow for the first time; and a Russia-Africa Parliamentary Conference on July 1-3. Work started in April on drafting a document to be titled “Russia-Africa: Shared Vision 2030,” involving people from the African continent and Russians.

China’s Belt-Road Initiative Advancing Growth in Africa and Germany. Will the US join?

June 20, 2019

Everyday, nations around the world are experiencing economic growth by participating in China’s Belt and Road Initiative-BRI. For a truly global transformation, the United States must join this new paradigm of development. The most productive way to enhance relations with China, is for President Trump, at next week’s G-20 meeting, to discuss with President Xi Jinping, the US joining the BRI. This would create an unprecedented level of economic growth throughout the world. It would also be a brilliant flank against those voices in the US, and internationally, who are demonizing China, and trying two divide our two great nations. 

{Independent}: Belt and Road Contributing to Prosperity in Africa

A feature today in the South African {Independent Online Business Report} publication reviews the benefits of the Belt and Road Initiative for Africa, saying that Liberia, Morocco, and Tunisia have benefited from African development projects, as has Ethiopia from the Addis Ababa Light Rail, which cut travel time to and from the city. Through the BRI, China has also built a light-rail system in Abuja, Nigeria, the first to be built in Western Africa. Chinese construction companies have further assisted Angola in rebuilding its Benguela Railway, which had been destroyed in the civil war. The country can now transport goods from Angola’s western coastline to the border of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Chinese-funded projects have also led to the construction of the Isimba and Karuma hydroelectric power stations, two new sources of electricity to Uganda, which will ultimately aid development. In Rwanda, road construction projects have brought young citizens into construction through their employment. This ultimately improved their welfare and provided labor skills. In the spirit of BRI’s trade ambitions, Egypt now looks to make the idea of the Cape-to-Cairo road a reality. Since taking the reins as 2019-2020 chairperson of the African Union, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi of Egypt plans to construct a superhighway through multiple African nations, eventually ending in Cape Town, to open
countries to trading in the Cape’s ports and in Cairo, Egypt’s gateway to the European Union.

German Mittelstand Supports New Silk Road

China’s proposed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has been creating opportunities for German enterprises, said Hans von Helldorff, chairman of the board of the Federal Association of German Silk Road Initiative (BVDSI), in an interview with Xinhua on June 17.

“The future markets and the new markets, for example, are in Asia, Africa, as well as Eastern and Southern Europe. They are not so well-connected. China has been providing the connections, thus it will generate great opportunities,” said von Helldorff, stating that new markets are needed by Germany’s Mittelstand firms.

Von Helldorff said that, thanks to the inter-connectivity, businesses have already been on the rise in some German cities, such as Hamburg and Duisburg. Many small and medium-sized companies in Germany got contracts with seaborne and logistics enterprises from China and other countries for local registration, legal, accounting, and tax services, von Helldorff stated.

“The infrastructure projects along the Belt and Road countries also need a lot of know-how. Harbor-related, road-related, train-related, etc. We have to open our eyes and participate in them,” von Helldorff said, declaring that the strengths of German businesses can contribute as an “innovation and investment engine.”

Speaking about prevailing doubts and worries about the BRI, allegations that the initiative might be politically motivated and harm local industries, von Helldorff said that some of them are simply clichés and that some are unfounded.

“The BVDSI sees China as a fast-growing economy that follows a plan. We need to sit and make eye-to-eye contacts and negotiations. Only cooperation in the sense of fair competition is for the benefit of humanity,” von Helldorff said. The BVDSI, founded in March 2019, is a business association serving as a platform for the interests of small- and medium-sized German companies. The BVDSI plans to organize a
forum later this year in Germany on the BRI for partners to establish project-related contacts.

 

President Trump’s Harmful Huawei Sanctions Against China, the US, and the World

June 16, 2019

President Trump’s foolish sanctions against Huawei display a poor understanding of the history of human development on this planet, as we know it. As William Jones points in his article below, it is the US economy and American citizens, more than China, that could suffer from these ill thought out sanctions. The beauty of human beings is our continued ability over millions of years to make discoveries of new physical principles of the universes, due to our inherent capacity for creative thought. Although this quality of human thought is less valued in American culture these days, this is not so in China. China will continue to make scientific advances, as should all nations. We should all rejoice when new discoveries are made, resulting in new advances in applied technologies, which benefits all of mankind. Who will create the next technological platform with “6G?” This is the essence of human progress and it should be celebrated. As I have repeated many times on this website, if The Trump administration and US Congress had any brains, they would enthusiastically join China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and collaborate with China in industrializing the Moon as a stepping stone to colonizing Mars. These joint endeavors would produce a new platform of economic growth across the globe that would benefit humanity for decades to come.

Africa should not be bullied into rejecting Huawei’s 5G technology

HOME>Editor’s picks

The U.S. Could Be Shooting Itself in the Foot with Huawei Sanctions

2019-06-12 China Today

Author:WILLIAM JONES

The near-hysteria in Washington over the expansion of Huawei worldwide and its development of 5G technology has provided some much sought ammunition for politicians here in Washington with a dearth of ideas for resolving America’s economic woes, and may have some short-sighted benefit for them among a populace fearful that the direction of American society is on a downward spiral. Finding a scapegoat for the country’s dilemma apart from the powers in Washington that actually determine the fate of the nation, is always a welcome relief for those power-brokers who hold themselves above scrutiny. And preventing a competing nation from becoming an integral contributor to the vital communications networks on which the world increasingly depends is an added boon. And yet the attempt to undermine Huawei from becoming a bigger player in the world’s communications systems may in fact sabotage the growth of U.S. companies engaged in the same field

Read US Sanctions Against Huawei

African Union Deepening Relationship With Huawei

Africa should not be beholden to US anti-China policy from President Trump’s administration. China and Africa have formed a closed relationship, collaborating to build vitally necessary infrastructure projects that the US and the West have refused to build over many decades. African nations have the right to have the most advanced technologies to realize their full economic potential on a continent rich with people and resources.

 

Huawei’s vice-president for the Northern African region Philippe Wang (on the left) and the deputy chair of the African Union, H.E. Kwesi Quartey

June 2, 2019

Huawei announced on May 31 that they had signed a three-year MOU to “improve the technical expertise of the African Union (AU) and to cooperate on key issues related to information and communication technologies,” according to Quartz Africa. Huawei and the AU will partner to strengthen sectors including the internet, cloud computing, broadband, 5G networks, artificial intelligence, and cyber-security, while also providing training for young people.

Since an MOU signed in 2015, people from across the AU have been hosted on tours to Huawei training centers in China.    While the China-bashers in the U.S. are warning countries against Huawei spying on people, China is “trying to improve its competitive advantage in the continent,” Quartz Africa reports.

“The company is already one of the biggest phone brands operating in Africa, coming just behind China’s Transsion and South Korea’s Samsung in the smartphone space. Since starting its operations in Kenya in 1998, it has used a blend of pricing, customer service, brand awareness, and a vision to bridge the digital divide to penetrate the African market. Huawei has also reportedly built about 70% of Africa’s 4G networks, vastly outpacing competitors in the demand not just for internet but for improved and faster connectivity.”

“Huawei’s deal with the AU could also be seen in the context of trying to improve its competitive advantage in the continent. The company is already one of the biggest phone brands operating in Africa, coming just behind China’s Transsion and South Korea’s Samsung in the smartphone space. Since starting its operations in Kenya in 1998, it has used a blend of pricing, customer service, brand awareness, and a vision to bridge the digital divide to penetrate the African market.

“Huawei has also reportedly built about 70% of Africa’s 4G networks, vastly outpacing competitors in the demand not just for internet but for improved and faster connectivity.

“Under this agreement, we are pleased to consolidate our existing partnership with Huawei, a leading group in the fields of innovation and technological research,” Thomas Kwesi Quartey, the deputy chairperson of the AU said. “It is essential that we work closely with our partners to meet the digital transformation challenges of Africa.”

Continue reading

 

Is There A Plan For A Venezuela Type Regime Change for Nigeria?

April 11, 2019

I cannot verify all the information in the article below, nor do I think President Buhari will be removed from office and replaced by Atiku Abubakar. However, the machinations presented in this article are plausible. Although, President Trump has spoken out against regime change, his administration, led by National Security Adviser, John Bolton, and Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, is in fact attempting to do just that in Venezuela. There, they are endeavoring to replace the current President of Venezuela by installing a member of the National Assembly as head of state, who was never elected as President. Some people in and around the Trump administration are trying to use this precedent in Venezuela to establish a new precedent for regime change.  If the cited article below is true, it appears that there are unscrupulous people,  who are being handsomely paid by the defeated, but wealthy Atiku, to make him President of Nigeria.

Atiku Abubakar-left. President Buhari-right. (courtesy nigerianpilot.com)

The idea of removing President Buhari from office-Venezuelan style, would not only illegally overturn the will of the Nigerian people, but it would be a catastrophe for all of Africa. Africa, especially North Africa, is still suffering horribly from the 2011 regime change and assassination of Libyan President, Muammar Gaddafi. Contrary to the misguided apologists of the Obama administration, there is no escaping the truth; Samantha Powers, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and President Obama are responsible for the death and destruction of North Africa by their reckless action in overthrowing President Gaddafi and then killing him. Following the regime change collapse of Libya, thousands of Tuaregs, along with various extremists, drove out of Libya in their pick-up trucks filled with modern weapons and munitions. As a result, following the collapse of Libya, Mali’s sovereignty was undermined, the nation destabilized, and remains so today!

Nigeria is already familiar with the effects of western inspired regime change. Boko Haram’s growth and sophistication in lethality was also caused by the influx of new terrorist actors streaming across the desert after President Gaddafi was eliminated.  Were those lunatics in the cited article ever to succeed in their fantasy to remove President Buhari, civil war accompanied by an exodus of millions of Nigerians would overwhelm West Africa especially, drawing the continent into new and deadly regional conflicts and massive internal displacement of people.

For the sake of Africa and the world, let’s put end to regime change, now!

Excerpts:

“Enlisting the assistance of two high-powered Washington, D.C. lawyers, a Nigerian presidential candidate is looking for help in his legal challenge after his election loss. Atiku Abubakar, former vice president of Nigeria, lost in the country’s February presidential election to incumbent President Muhammadu Buhari. However, Abubakar swiftly filed a legal suit challenging the election results due to allegations of voting irregularities and violence.

“Abubakar has ties to those in Trump’s orbit, having hired political consultants like Riva Levinson, who worked with Paul Manafort, and Brian Ballard, a major Trump fundraiser. Like many other foreign leaders looking to bolster their standing with Trump, Abubakar stayed at the Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C”

“Abubakar himself has a rocky legal history. A Senate subcommittee report on foreign corruption cited Abubakar as a case study regarding his transfer of millions of dollars into the U.S. through shell companies. He was never prosecuted. In 2009, the FBI alleged that Abubakar demanded bribes from former Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), who was convicted of corruption charges. At one point, Jefferson stored $90,000 in cash for Abubakar in his freezer.”

READ: Failed Nigerian Presidential Candidate Lobbying US to Recognize Him as Authentic President

Finally, US Returning to the Moon and on to Mars: Joins China

Finally, the USA is planning on returning to space in a big way. If President Trump implements his just announced space program he will be reigniting America’s space legacy, initially led by President John Kennedy. Returning to the Moon, which President Obama foolishly dismissed by saying, “been there-done that,” is vital to our culture and economy. Exploration of our solar system and galaxy will stimulate the imagination of mankind, and return hefty economic benefits through discovering new scientific principles. Not having returned to the Moon for almost half a century was a gigantic error in American policy. Establishing a base on the Moon is an essential stepping stone to landing on Mars, the Earth’s closet neighboring planet. Over recent years, China has taken the lead in space exploration, and now, if the US is wise, we can collaborate with China in discovering new wonders about our living Universe.

August 1,. 1971) — Astronaut James B. Irwin, lunar module pilot, gives a military salute while standing beside the deployed United States flag during the Apollo 15 lunar surface extravehicular activity (EVA) at the Hadley-Apennine landing site. (courtesy of nbcnews.com)

President Donald Trump:  “This time, we will not only plant our flag and leave our footprint, we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars, and perhaps someday, to many worlds beyond.”

Highlights of President Trump’s Moon initiative:

*”The United States will seek to land on the Moon’s South Pole by 2024, establish a sustainable human presence on the Moon by 2028 (less than a decade from now0], and chart a future path for Mars exploration.

*”NASA’s lunar presence will focus on science, resource management, and risk reduction for future missions to Mars.”

*”NASA will create a Moon-to-Mars Mission Directorate and make all necessary efforts to achieve Exploration Mission-1, a mission around the Moon without a crew.

*”Exploration Mission-1 will take place no later than 2020 (next year) and a crewed mission around the Moon, Exploration Mission-2, will take place no later than 2022 (3 years from now).

*”NASA will unleash American industry, including through public-private partnerships, to enhance innovation and the sustainability of its space activities.

*”The United States will engage with international partners to enable a sustainable lunar exploration and development program.

*”An American has not walked on the Moon in 47 years [no human being, for that matter], but President Trump is working to change that.

*”To achieve this goal, President Trump is taking action to ensure that American astronauts get to their destination quickly and sustainably.”

*”These recommendations follow President Trump’s bold call for America to go back to the Moon and establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars.

*”The President’s Space Policy calls for NASA to lead an innovative space program with commercial and international partners.

*”Americans will return to the Moon for long-term exploration, followed by missions to Mars and beyond.”

Trump Administration Wrong Not Sending High Level Officials to Belt and Road Forum

President Trump did not attend the first Belt and road Forum-(BRF) in May of 2017, only sending a sub ministerial delegation. According to the US State d\Department, no US delegation will be attending this month’s second BRF. If true, this would represent a serious error by the Trump administration in its future relations with China. Beyond China, the decision not to participate in this historic conference will undermine US commitment to collaborate with more than half the world’s population that has joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Thus far, the only G-7 nation that has the wisdom to join the BRI is Italy. A minimum of 40 heads of state will be attending the second BRF. For the US to abstain, from this conference on the Belt and Road, which has already transformed the planet, would be strategic blunder in US policy. A more enlightened US foreign policy would view China as a partner in development not as a competitor, as China as been described by the Trump administration.

(courtesy huffingtonpost.com)

April 4, 2019

State Department Says U.S. Will Not Attend the Belt and Road Forum

According to an unnamed spokesperson for the U.S. State Department yesterday, the United States will not send high-level officials to attend China’s second Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in Beijing later this month, Reuters reported. In 2017, when the first Belt and Road Forum took place, the U.S. was represented by Matt Pottinger, the senior White House official for Asia. There are no such plans this year, Reuters stated.

Answering a question from Reuters, the unnamed State Department spokesperson said: “We will not send high-level officials from the United States…. We will continue to raise concerns about opaque financing practices, poor governance and disregard for internationally accepted norms and standards, which undermine many of the standards and principles that we rely upon to promote sustainable, inclusive development and to maintain stability and a rules-based order. We have repeatedly called on China to address these concerns.”

On March 29, speaking to the ruling Communist Party’s official mouthpiece, {People’s Daily}, Political Bureau member Yang Jiechi, who runs the party’s foreign affairs committee, said he found that critics of the Belt and Road Initiative “obviously show a lack of objectivity and fair understanding of the Belt and Road initiative. It is a misunderstanding, misjudgment and is even prejudiced,” stated Yang. Yang also confirmed that “about 40” foreign leaders would take part in the second summit.

Is “Climate Change” Scientifically True or Just Culturally Popular?

I am posting a provocative article that challenges our society’s accepted cultural beliefs about climate change. Admittedly more analysis and discussion is required, but let me convey a few concepts that should provide food for thought.

The current hysteria about that the planet is facing impending doom is strongly reminiscent of the old discredited Malthusian theory that too many couples having too many children would over run the capacity of our planet to produce food. We now have over 7 billion people, and we know that our planet can feed billions more, if we properly developed its potential. In the 20th century, Malthus’ unscientific babbling was further extended by the Club of Rome and World Wildlife Fund to assert that the our planet had limited-fixed resources that could only maintain a fixed number of human beings. Of course, none of this is true, nor was it ever scientifically proven, but it became part of the popular culture. I am now approaching 68 years of age, and know how this propaganda spread from the late 1960s on. I was there and organized against it!

Tragically, our culture today has accepted the new mantra of climate change, without a healthy scientific debate and analysis. For example CO2 is not deadly, it is one of the building blocks of life. If you look at weather events over time, a century or more, you will find that there is not an increase in hurricanes, and tornadoes. If you go back hundreds of thousands of years you’ll find several ice ages and warming periods.

Also, why assume the planet has one fixed condition? Tens of millions of years ago there was no Sahara desert; it was caused by the Africa plate banging into southern Europe. Since then, the Sahara becomes moist and dry following a 22,000-25,000 year cycle based on the wobble of the earth’s axis.

If we study our planet and universe over long periods of time, we will discover all kinds on patterns and anomalies. However, they all indicate a self developing universe. Mankind is not an antagonist to our planet and its environment, but rather, a co-contributor to its growth and development, which is not finite.

The principles of our physical universe are coherent with the principle of creativity that all human being posses. This leads to another discussion for a future time.

A special note to my African friends. Beware of propaganda that tells Africans they should have less children and forego industrialization, because it will destroy the planet.

Our planet is about 4.6 billion years old. Separate continents began to form approximately 200 million years ago-(mya). Early stages of mankind emerged only 3-4 mya. Homo sapiens sapiens emerged only a few hundred thousand years ago. Our universe is constantly developing and changing.

The complete article follows the excerpts below:

“The question is not whether, but to what extent human-caused changes in the atmosphere drive climate variations, and whether such changes are good or bad. Meaningful statistics (but ones that do not exist) would include responses to the following questions:

• What would be the impact of doubling atmospheric CO2?
• To what extent does water vapor cause a feedback effect?
• To what extent must we take into account the solar magnetic field’s effect on the creation of clouds via cosmic radiation?
• What is the certainty range on these predictions?
• How well have climate models of the last two decades fared at predicting the global climate during the past 5 to 10 years?
• Will the specific, foreseen changes in climate be beneficial or harmful, or a mixture of the two?

“The climate of the Earth, as it exists in the solar system, is much more complex than a foolishly simple, yes-no question about “believing in” or “denying” climate change.

“How can any such changes be determined? An individual cannot possibly notice that the climate is changing through their personal experience, which is necessarily limited in location and time. And it is absolutely ludicrous to claim that anyone could know, through their personal experience of weather, the cause of any such changes.

“Science is not fashion. It is not decided by taking a poll or by seeing what is most popular…

“A cultural paradigm shift occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, transforming the understanding of the relation of human beings to nature, and transforming the meaning of “progressive” from supporting progress to preventing it!

“From this paradigm shift arise the unstated assumptions that underlie the emotional responses that many people have to these issues. One such assumption is a definition of “natural,” which excludes human activity, implicitly creating a goal—humans should simply not exist. This goes along with the shift from global warming (a specific change that could cause problems) to climate change, taking the assumption that any change to the climate would be bad, simply by virtue of its being change. Is this really true?…”

Continue reading article