Photo, left:  Entrance tunnel to old Soviet submarine base; comparable to current Chinese sub tunnels (albeit with more elegant Russian architecture).  Recent Chinese military enthusiast websites have posted photographs of suspected Chinese submarine tunnels. In May, photos posted online showed the opening of a nuclear missile submarine cave at an undisclosed location; one was published in the Washington Free Beacon at  http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/129_2015_ring-nuclearsu...
See Hour One, Block A, below:  During the Cold War, Russian naval surveillance got so close that the American commanding officer would assign the Soviet craft a place in the formation just so it wouldn't get in the way.
 
JOHN BATCHELOR SHOW
 
Co-hosts: Gordon Chang, Forbes.com & Daily Beast. 
Hour One
Wednesday   8 June 2016 / Hour 1, Block A: James Holmes, professor of strategy at the Naval War College and a former surface warfare officer, in re:  At the annual Chinese-Am mtg on  broad range of issues, Chinese jets buzzed and intercepted American jets over the South China Sea.  Aggressive hostility.  Tie-in esp to the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week.  Ash Carter said that China is constructing a Great Wall of Isolation between it and the rest of the world.  . . . . When will the US Navy recognize that China is hostile and trying to drive the US out of the region?  Dangerous.  Something peculiar about the Pentagon and Navy; what intl relations scholars call “functionalism.”   Fine to work out a joint code of conduct, but we need to be realistic.  Understanding will have to cone from a political level.    Mr Hong:  “The US side is deliberately hyping up [the matter]of Chinese surveillance [sic].  We demand the US stop close reconnaissance activities.”  These aggressive harassments are coming frequently; show a decision by Beijing to ramp up hostilities.    Humint.   Up and down the seaboard, can gather data. Ere there to be a fight in the South China Sea, we have to know that ground.  Surveillance aircraft are big and slow, so China can see them coming from far away.  No stealth.  That’s part of the US messaging: everybody has the prerogative to operate in international airspace.  Russia monitors US sites currently.  In China’s view, it, only, can do whatever it wants. 
During the Cold War, Russian naval surveillance got so close that the American commanding officer would assign the Soviet craft a place in the formation just so it wouldn't get in the way.
‪http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/07/politics/us-china-planes-unsafe-intercept/  ;  ‪http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-usa-idUSKCN0YT0OI
Wednesday   8 June 2016 / Hour 1, Block B:  Julia Famularo, research affiliate at Project 2049 Institute, in re:  Two nations, formerly free, invaded by the Imperial Chinese army; now being presented as Chinese colonies (or worse).  In Tibet, the people naturally want to practice Buddhism and revere His Holiness the Dalai Lama.   Overall suppression of Tibetans:  at a mine in Gansu Province within a sacred Tibetan mountain, police and security beat any Tibetan protestors attempting to counteract violent Chinese deeds; protests also against Chinese stealing Tibetan lands in Chinghai.  Year in and year out, China seizes property. Same thing in Western China in Xinjiang Province, where Beijing brutalizes Uyghurs.  A lot of envtl damage over the years, incl polluting water.   Govt officials come in, engage in mining or other actions with no permission or acceptance from locals. Property violati0ns and religious repercussions.  Muslim Uyghurs in Xinjiang: Chinese restrictions on religious practice during Ramadan are horrific – children are forbidden to practice, as are all govt employees, with rough reprisals. Cultural genocide in Tibet and northwestern China.  The atheist leaders fear any of these religions: if the people place their faith in a religious leader then they’re no longer are terrified by the Communist Party. In Tibet, one lone monk has recently walked through the streets with a picture of His Holiness. We may be at an inflection point.  China calls its reporession an “anti-terrorism” effort, but the so-called ETIM, the East Turkestan Independence Movement, which Beijing claims to counter so harshly, may not exist.   ‪http://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/ngaba-06072016131230.html  ;  ‪http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-03/china-angered-by-questioning-of-xinjiang-anti-terrorism-campaign/7476798   ;  
‪http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-36472103
Wednesday   8 June 2016 / Hour 1, Block C: Aaron Klein, Breitbart Middle East Bureau Chief, in re:  Gunmen kill 4 at trendy Tel Aviv market across street from Israel’s ‘Pentagon’  Police said two assailants were in custody — one of them wounded — after what Israeli authorities described as a terrorist attack.   Perhaps the busiest intersection in the entire country of Israel, two Palestinians from Yata near Hebron (in the south, a sort of gray area between Palestinian territory and Israeli tourism), perhaps disguised as Orthodox Jews, shot up a most popular market then ran three blocks and was shot down (still alive).  Waited at Max Brenner, a favorite dessert place, for a crowd, then shot. Had two large weapons, ergo connected to terrorist group – who sent them? The two men are cousins from Yata.  Within moments, a Hamas leader tweeted that the murderer was a hero.  Celebratory fireworks in Gaza and candies handed out in the West Bank.   Hamas is splintered: military rather separate, usu controlled by a certain strongman from Turkey or Qatar.  Hamas’s second-biggest problem is Palestinian citizenry: an economic disaster – 83% unemployment, occasional suicides by indigent people. Also, ISIS: nothing yet n an Islamic State Internet forum.  IS also has had members arrested in Hebron, where there appears to be an ISIS cell, possibly connected to the Sinai, where Egyptians and Israelis are coordinating to shut down ISIS.  Israel has a new defense minister: Avigdor Liberman, considered to be a strongman. Bibi Netanyahu has just returned for Moscow to an emergency mtg.  Clearly was an organized terrorist attack, coordinated assault.  Islamic Jihad?  —Could be Iranian involvement;  there are Palestinian on the Iranian dole.  Right up to the interrogations, major IDF presence in the area of Hebron known to be a Hamas stronghold.  (1 of 2)
Wednesday   8 June 2016 / Hour 1, Block D:  Aaron Klein, Breitbart Middle East Bureau Chief, in re: Gunmen kill 4 at trendy Tel Aviv market across street from Israel’s ‘Pentagon’  Police said two assailants were in custody — one of them wounded — after what Israeli authorities described as a terrorist attack.  Over the weekend, Israeli jets attacked Syrian mil storage, perhaps an air defense system, and also Hezbollah – the two are fighting hand in hand, as well as alongside the IRGC (Iranian mil).  IDF declines to respond to questions on these alleged attacks but Liberman in northern Israel, says, “I would not advise anyone to test us.”  Netanyahyu in Moscow said: “Israel does not act in Syria” – although occasionally it has.   . . .  Saudi Arabia has proposed a common intell-gathering operation among Israelis, Saudis, Egyptians, and Russians. Maybe bring Turkey in at some level.  (2 of 2)
 
Hour Two
Wednesday   8 June 2016 / Hour 2, Block A:  Alan Tonelson, independent economic policy analyst who blogs at RealityChek and tweets at @AlanTonelson, in re: Steel tariffs (China is dumping). American and European businesses are concerned that they’re being shut out of Chinese markets. China has 60% of the world’s steel manufacturing, is dumping worldwide. Within the last year or two, has reached near-crisis proportions for US steel co’s and workforce.  They've taken extreme steps to compete at a high level and find they're competing not against private companies but against h Chinese government  and Chinese treasury. Can’t find any choice but to slap sky-high tariffs on Chinese steel – it’s not just steel; overcapacity is the condition in which many Chinese industries find themselves. Overcapacity has been driven by the simple fact that China is still ‘way too poor simply by supplying its own market; must produce for foreign markets.  China has decided to drop the mask of economic partner and revealed predatory policies. Chinese made the move to work with the West not because it was converted to economic openness but because it knew it could extort enormous benefits from foreign firms. Ab initio, it intended to steal all their IT, chew ’em up and then spit them out.  Which is what it's doing now.   Reagan said, “If you’re in a boat and the other guy start to drill a hole the answer is not to drill a second hole”  — China does not see itself in a boat with us, but as a zero sum.  They win, we lose.   Meanwhile, while Europe complains it’s been skillful at making deals behind the scenes, which the US has declined to do.  “Nuking the Chinese” is the current Euro pan to shut all Chinese steel out.   http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/uschina-dialogue-ends-in-tension-over-business-barriers/news-story/90849f9febd40d5a41ce786eddd6e73e   ;  http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/06/06/why-the-u-s-steel-industry-is-molten-hot-over-chinas-trade-practices/
Wednesday   8 June 2016 / Hour 2, Block B:  Phelim Kine, deputy director, Asia Division, Human Rights Watch, in re: Tien An Men massacre, 4 June 1989  – young people from Hong Kong say, “We’re not Chinese, we’re from Hong Kong, so we refuse to commemorate Tien An Men. We’re free and independent.”  Including Joshua Long and the kids in the Umbrella Movement.  They speak of Tien An Men, but hold that their democracy issue is the matter of liberty in Hong Kong, which Beijing is still and endlessly trying to throttle. The success of the Occupy /Umbrella movement of last year, protesting for months in favor of universal suffrage and being able to elect their leaders directly. The “One Country/Two Systems” is a failure –Beijing is oppressive and violent (vide: the booksellers abducted and kidnapped across the border).  Parallels Taiwan, where they speak Chinese language and consider themselves to be Taiwanese, not at all Chinese.  Do the young people of HK know how wicked and violent Beijing is?   . . . What is true is what the people of HK eventually decide to do.  “We’re not Chinese. I’ll make my own decision.”  They seem to be discounting the threat from Mainland. . . .  They depart from the narrative of their parents – there was initially a lot of popular support from leaving England and returning tot the motherland. Turns out the deal is not working at all – they hearken back to the original border between Mainland and Hong Kong.  Both TW and HK have the same dynamics: the closer they get to mainland, the warier they grow (and for cause).  The kids aren't rich enough to flee; they’re staying and fighting.   Recall the Eighteenth Century: we hang together or we hang separately.  — Yes, I see that , but they’re rebelling against oppression and I love it.  http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/asia/hong-kong-china-tiananmen/
Wednesday   8 June 2016 / Hour 2, Block C:  Gordon Chang, in re: Shangri-La. Economic dialogue: the futility of dialogue. The last of the Obama Administration . . . Mrs Clinton was at a big women’s mtg in China in 1995 about how great China’s social development would be.   The Strategic and Economic Dialogue would probably continue under Mrs Clinton, but everyone sees it’s all going nowhere.  China thinks it can deal with Trump, hates Clinton. Recall Mrs Clinton in Vietnam:  events in the South China Sea are of strategic interest to the US.  Freaked out Beijing. The TPP – Trans-Pacific Partnership – encompasses 12 nations, excludes China, was organized by Clinton She’s opposed  it publicly during her campaign, but China thinks later she’ll get it ratified.  China wants the US gone, and Trump’s proposal to withdraw from treaty alliances in that region cheer Beijing a great deal.  The steel tariffs being put in place now could do damage to Chinese trade.    Problem: China twice has very unsafely buzzed a US plane; aggressive in aerial manoeuvers. Looking forward to Court ruling on Scarborough Shoal; may create an ADIZ over it, which would generate extreme turbulence, not seen since 1949.
Wednesday   8 June 2016 / Hour 2, Block D:  Simon Denyer, Washington Post Beijing bureau chief, in re:  A city without people.  Along the new Silk Road, a city built on sand is a monument to China’s problems  LANZHOU NEW AREA, China —This city is supposed to be the “diamond” on China’s Silk Road Economic Belt — a new metropolis carved out of the mountains in the country’s arid northwest.  But it is shaping up to be fool’s gold, a ghost city in the making.  Lanzhou New Area, in Gansu province, embodies China’s twin dreams of catapulting its poorer western regions into the economic mainstream through an orgy of infrastructure spending and cementing its place at the heart of Asia through a revival of the ancient Silk Road.  . . .
..  ..  .. 
The worst thing that can happen to you if you’re a Party official is to have protests – unemployed workers in the street.   . . . A replica of the Parthenon and the Sphinx won't be the draws to tourists that the builders seem to think.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/along-the-new-silk-road-a-city-built-on-sand-is-a-monument-to-chinas-problems/2016/05/29/982424c0-1d09-11e6-82c2-a7dcb313287d_story.html
 
Hour Three
Wednesday   8 June 2016 / Hour 3, Block A:  Monica Crowley, Fox, & Washington Times Online opinion editor; in re:  HRC and Obama  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/06/08/daily-202-primary-wins-show-hillary-clinton-needs-the-left-less-than-pro-sanders-liberals-think/5757867a981b92a22deb72ee/
President Obama is committed to keeping the White House in Democratic hands.  The White House released a statement at midnight Eastern to declare Clinton the winner, announce that Obama will meet with Sanders on Thursday and reveal that POTUS called both candidates last night. “The President congratulated both candidates for running inspiring campaigns…,” Josh Earnest said. “The President congratulated Secretary Clinton for securing the delegates necessary to clinch the Democratic Nomination for President. Her historic campaign inspired millions and is an extension of her lifelong fight for middle-class families and children.” Earnest said Sanders requested the meeting with Obama, and it will take place at the White House: “The President looks forward to continuing the conversation with Senator Sanders about how to build on the extraordinary work he has done to engage millions of Democratic voters, and to build on that enthusiasm in the weeks and months ahead.” (The Sanders campaign has scheduled a rally at the D.C. Armory for Thursday evening.)
Beyond Obama, a handful of other Democrats are also pursuing unity. Philip Rucker and Dan Balz report this morning that Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are all working to bring both sides together: “Obama and White House political director David Simas, as well as Warren and Reid, have been in communication with both camps to lay the foundation for an eventual coming together, according to several senior Democrats.” Sanders also plans to meet with Reid tomorrow on Capitol Hill.  (1 of 4)
Wednesday   8 June 2016 / Hour 3, Block B:  Monica Crowley, Fox, & Washington Times Online opinion editor. (2 of 4)
Wednesday   8 June 2016 / Hour 3, Block C:  Monica Crowley, Fox, & Washington Times Online opinion editor; in re:   Donald Trump Is Getting a Late Start on Fundraising Donald Trump will escalate his fundraising in the coming weeks, yet his late start has left him . . .    Donors: Trump's remark on judge hurts fundraising ; Donald Trump to host fundraiser in Boston on Monday
Trump and the economy:  Trump Has One Card to Play and He Better Play It Now: The Economy Is Trump washed up? Done for? Kaput? Probably not, but he has surely taken a thrashing this past few days. Boiling it all down, there are two . . .   Trump is doing a great job if he's trying to lose   (3 of 4)
Wednesday   8 June 2016 / Hour 3, Block D:  Monica Crowley, Fox, & Washington Times Online opinion editor; in re:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-rant-that-could-derail-trump--and-the-gop-rush-to-get-him-back-on-track/2016/06/08/ef8d0484-2d8f-11e6-9de3-6e6e7a14000c_story.html?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_trumpjudge-825pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory   (4 of 4)
 
Hour Four
Wednesday   8 June 2016 / Hour 4, Block A:  Dr Lara M Brown, George Washington University, &  Salena Zito, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, in re:   What Hillary Clinton Sounded Like In College   The Atlantic: “The voice in the audio clip is unrecognizable. But it belongs to Hillary Clinton, who was making her first major public address 47 years ago this spring at Wellesley College. And if the voice is hard to place, it’s the words that are really difficult to reconcile with her present-day image.”
Wednesday   8 June 2016 / Hour 4, Block B:  Dr Lara M Brown, George Washington University, &  Salena Zito, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, in re:   Flake Suggests Convention Challenge to Trump   Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) told the AP that the Republicans cannot win in November with Trump as the party’s standard-bearer. Said Flake: “Let’s face it: meet the old Trump, just like the new Trump. We’ve got what we’ve got. That’s not somebody who can win the White House.”   He added: “Where there’s no talk of a convention challenge or anything else, this might spur it.”   For members: It’s Not Too Late to Dump Trump
Wednesday   8 June 2016 / Hour 4, Block C: Kori Schake, Hoover, in re:  How to Manage a Rising Power—or Two   What America can learn from 19th-century Britain  When new countries rise to power, the transition can end badly, often in war. Harvard’s Graham Allison has argued in The Atlantic that “judging by the historical record, war is more likely than not” between the United States, the world’s current reigning superpower, and China, a rising military and economic force. There is considerable debate on this point, but American pundits and presidential candidates often talk as if China were already an American adversary; Donald Trump has warned, for example, that China will “take us down.” Yet few in the United States seem worried about Asia’s other rising giant, India.
To the contrary, there’s a temptation to support India, a like-minded democracy, as a counterweight against the growing power of authoritarian China. But if American leaders feel confident India can accumulate power without becoming an antagonist, can they find a way to make the same true for China?  The United States is not the only world power to have faced the rise of two potential challengers simultaneously. The British Empire encountered a similar situation in the late 19th century, as two other powers encroached on its dominance in world politics. Both these rivals had strong economies, were rapidly industrializing, and sought a place for themselves in the international order. One, Germany, was a monarchy, and the other, the United States, was a democracy. Both shared some, but not all, of Britain’s values. Yet Britain handled each very differently.  The analogy is, like all historical analogies, imperfect. But it yields a view of the possible paths America could follow as it navigates a similar environment. Over several decades, Britain’s leaders chose to accommodate the rise of the United States, believing that the country would generally align itself with the rules of the international system Britain had established. British leaders tolerated many disagreements with their U.S. counterparts as America’s power grew—including America’s land grab in the Mexican War, and its practice of slavery, which the British outlawed in 1831. But Britain also set clear, consistent boundaries, for example by threatening war over America’s audacious 1845 claims on the Oregon Territory, over which it shared sovereignty with Britain. The two avoided major conflicts and ultimately became staunch allies.
By contrast, while Britain made some friendly overtures to Germany as well, it treated Germany mostly as a rival to be balanced. The scramble for African colonies after the Suez Canal opened in 1869, and the fact that railroads began cutting into the advantages of Britain’s maritime dominance, fueled the rivalry. Both countries rapidly built up their navies in the lead-up to World War I, and ultimately fought two devastating wars. 
Some may argue that the history of the 20th century justifies British judgment that Germany was uniquely dangerous—and extrapolate the parallel to contemporary China. But Britain might have been in a much stronger position to handle the rise of fascism following World War I if it had remained aloof from the continental struggle of 1914 to 1918 that devastated British power. And it merits remembering that American international behavior in the 19th century was not so different from that of Germany, irrespective of its domestic political creed.  The British-American alliance was by no means inevitable just because the United States was a like-minded state. Britain had as much in common with Germany politically in the 19th century as it did with the United States. British efforts to cooperate with America predate Britain’s own move towards democracy in the 1860s. Prior to that, both Britain and Germany were monarchies. The British fought two wars against the United States, the Revolutionary War beginning in 1775, and the War of 1812. Far from being preordained, today’s British-American alliance was the result of steady, thoughtful policies and an effort to find common cause.
* * *
China’s military build-up and intimidation of weaker states—in particular its efforts to build on islands claimed by other powers in the South China Sea—mirrors the aggression of a rising Germany at the turn of the 20th century. But what if American leaders adopted toward both China and India the same perspective the 19th-century British held toward the upstart Americans?  Just as Britain benefited by creating incentives for the United States to become a responsible power, America’s own economic strength depends on trading and investing with both China and India, which are the engines of world growth, with joint populations approaching 3 billion people.
Some Americans worry that free trade is threatening U.S. jobs, which are being shipped to places like China and India where labor is cheaper, even while those countries remain protectionist and don’t play fair. During its own rise, the United States was also deeply protectionist—and it was Britain that helped nudge the country toward open trade. British companies invested heavily in America, and in the late 19th century, American companies began to invest in Britain. Understanding that their intervention would likely make U.S. politicians resist, British leaders also wisely stayed out of a lengthy U.S. domestic monetary dispute in the 1890s about moving away from U.K.-dominated gold to a silver standard, a decision that would make American debts payable in a domestically generated currency. It is a debate oddly reminiscent of the current one about the prospect of China’s renminbi becoming one of the world’s international reserve currencies.
It is true that China, and to some extent India, have taken actions that harm the American economy, making cooperation harder. China coddles its “national champions,” permits cyber-spying on U.S. companies, and recently passed a vaguely worded law requiring tech companies to decrypt sensitive user data, and thus expose their users to Chinese government spying when asked. India restricts investment in many sectors, including insurance, petroleum refining, banking, and air transport. Through the World Trade Organization and diplomacy, Washington has ways to combat these practices, and impose consequences when China or India breaks trade rules.
Despite these frustrations, American trade with and investment in China and India is already helping all three economies grow. Chinese investment has directly created more than 80,000 jobs in the United States, with $58.7 billion invested between 2013 and 2015 alone. American exports to China indirectly support hundreds of thousands more jobs in the United States. Indian foreign direct investment is thought to have created at least 90,000 direct jobs in the United States in total; the Indian tech industry alone is estimated to have indirectly supported more than 400,000 U.S. jobs in 2015. Economic cooperation benefits all three.
Military relations are the most difficult to get right and the most likely to lead to catastrophic consequences if leaders in the United States, China, or India mismanage them. Current trends are not promising: The United States is being neither assertive nor inclusive enough. In practice if not explicitly, China departed from its previous policy of “peaceful rise” around 2008. In addition to the country’s activities in the South and East China Seas, Chinese troops recently moved several times into Indian territory over their disputed Himalayan border.
American leaders have been hesitant in their reaction, allowing China to declare exclusive air and sea zones, build islands with military installations, and harass ships in disputed waters. This was met with little more than rhetorical objections—and there were several years in which the U.S. conducted no patrols in the South China Sea. Just recently, the U.S. military restarted freedom-of-navigation patrols. America has ways to oppose China more consistently where their interests differ. It could, for example, conduct regular freedom-of-navigation exercises with other countries in the South China Sea and thus leave China’s military less likely to wonder whether the U.S. is willing to enforce this point.  
This is not inconsistent with accommodating China’s legitimate interests—such as protecting the sea-lanes vital to China’s trade and economic health—and finding creative ways to give China the stature all rising powers crave. Including China in many joint exercises and establishing procedures to manage incidents at sea are useful starting points. The United States can also, for example, invite China to participate in some U.S.-South Korean exercises aimed at deterring North Korea, to build trust from each other’s mutual concerns about North Korea’s erratic behavior. This kind of cooperation comes more easily to America and India, and the two militaries exercise frequently together, given their mutual worries about China.
It is lucky that China and India are rising into a world where the institutional order is fairly well-developed. When the United States rose, by contrast, great-power wars were a normal occurrence, but Britain went out of its way cooperate with the United States even where there were disagreements. In the 1890s, for example, both countries together established an international court of arbitration to settle their commercial disputes.  The United States cannot expect China and India to accept, without some changes, the institutions America helped create after World War II. Chinese President Xi Jinping emphasized in a 2015 visit to the United States that China doesn’t want to undermine existing institutions but seeks more influence to match its new position in the world. To underscore this point, China recently almost tripled its contribution to the United Nations budget, increased Chinese peacekeepers by several thousand, and committed several billion dollars in aid for the poorest countries to meet the UN’s sustainable development goals.There are ways to make room for both China and India in existing institutions—by allowing them to have more voting rights in the IMF and World Bank, as both institutions recently, belatedly, did; by supporting India for a UN Security Council seat, as President Obama has done; and by joining China’s new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which the U.S. has refused to do.
The most important step the United States can take to ensure good relations with China and India is not dramatic at all: It is to prioritize goodwill and make cooperation the dominant element of its interactions. Cooperation is not automatic. It must be practiced at the level of diplomacy, business, and interpersonal relations. Britain did this in important ways with the United States in the 19th century. For example, British private capital contributed greatly to the westward expansion of U.S. railroads, and during the Spanish-American War, the British government let the U.S. use the one existing trans-Pacific cable to get information to the U.S. fleet in the Philippines.
Prioritizing goodwill won’t preclude disagreements or competition. But it does mean resolving conflicts in private and prioritizing joint problem-solving in public. With India, the United States has already taken important steps in this direction. In 2005, the United States agreed to negotiate a civil nuclear-energy agreement with India, which powerfully demonstrated that it supports India’s rise. Those negotiations (in which one of the present authors took part) were often difficult, but they taught each side how to work together. The nuclear agreement has unlocked cooperative behavior on topics from defense sales to intelligence sharing to agricultural partnerships. The nascent Chinese-American work on climate change, announced in December 2014 after months of tough, private negotiations, is a fantastic start. This agreement then helped prod other countries (including recalcitrant India) into action and achieve a successful outcome at the Paris climate talks in 2015. America is already well down the path of peaceful accommodation with India. Where China is concerned, it should not leave that path untraveled. . . .  http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/05/china-india-rising-powers/484106/  (1 of 2)
Wednesday   8 June 2016 / Hour 4, Block D:   Kori Schake, Hoover, in re: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/05/china-india-rising-powers/484106/    (2 of 2)