​Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte made a 3-day state visit to the U.S. from November 29 to December 1st. This is the first state visit of Biden’s Administration, officially announced as the most important visit of an old ally, freedom and democracy fighter, and key partner of the U.S. (after the U.K. exited the EU, PM Boris Johnson and Liz Truss resigned and Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel retired). It was clear that the ‘bromance’ between Trump and Macron was soured over Trump’s view on the expansive and expensive NATO. Later the U.S. - France relationship hit the bottom since the U.S. highjacked the Australian submarine deal from France. The current overextending Russia-Ukraine war, the U.S. Indo-Pacific policy targeting China raising world tension plus a list of global issues such as Iran, climate, energy, supply chain and economy all hanging over Macron’s mind despite his frequent phone calls with Biden (7 one on one calls and a dozen joint calls with other leaders). Although the U.S. diplomatic stand is playing up the old U.S.-France ally relationship and praising Macron with words pleasing to his ears such as strongest U.S. partner, leader of G7 and EU and defender of democracy, the real concern of Macron is that as a 44-year old young world leader, he is standing at a crossroad. The first choice is to follow the U.S. leadership in joining the U.S.-led alliance targeting rising China. The second choice is to act independently rallying the EU to consider its own interest in dealing with world affairs, particularly its relationship with China. Put it in a plain language, Macron needs to check the GPS signal and the real road signs at the crossroad to determine where to go. This glamorous U.S. State Visit and his planned trip to China next year may just prove to be an orientation scout tour to find out whether Uncle Sam is a true pro-Atlanticist caring about the EU or the old Oriental China really has world harmony in her DNA.
 
Prior to the State Visit, Macron had made his complaint clear that the U.S. in solving its domestic problems should not transfer them to Europe. Specifically, he is referring to the U.S. subsidy program to help the U.S. domestic electric vehicle industry which will hurt the European auto industry and export economy, and the U.S. semiconductor policy luring hi-tech manufacturing and supply chain to move to the U.S. while cutting off export to China. These subsidies clearly violate WTO regulations which supposed to protect the free market principles. After the glamorous visit, did Macron obtain any substantial concession from Biden? Based on their joint announcement, press conference, and media report, we would say that the U.S. did not admit any wrongdoing, neither the Administration nor Congress would apologize for their domestic measures. Macron said he did not want the U.S. to give France/Europe anything special whereas Biden offered a conciliatory tone by agreeing to ‘review and adjust’, if necessary. This outcome is expected since the White House had all along decided to pacify Macron with a first glamorous State Visit but would not yield anything to him for two reasons. One, the U.S. would not boost Macron’s gesture as the leader of Europe. Second, the present Europe did not have much to bargain for. Biden essentially treated this State Visit as a social event no matter how hard Macron tried to convince him that  he needed to change his policies and how hard he tried to reach the American people (Macron resorted to English answers in the press conference to reach Americans directly).
 
However, the above observations were on the surface, a lot of events might have a direct or indirect impact on the U.S.- France or U.S.-Europe relations. By reviewing these events, we might discover more hidden truths than what meets the eye. The Russian-Ukraine war is certainly the focal point of world affairs. It is increasingly clear that the rage Russia-Ukraine conflict has become a U.S.-Russia confrontation with Europe acting as an ally of the U.S. As the war rolled on with the bombing of the ocean gas pipes compounding oil sanctions, some European countries, especially the leading nations have experienced severe economic hardship. The only country that benefitted from the Russia-Ukraine war seems to be the U.S. (chipping in surplus weapons but gaining huge profits from energy sales replacing the Russian sales). The U.S.-China policy (Indo-Pacific strategy) not only appears more like Cold War II but also mimic the Russia-Ukraine war with Taiwan Strait tension. The similarity is that the U.S. might be again the only beneficiary when U.S. allies in NATO and Indo-Pacific were dragged into the anti-China conflict. Chancellor Schotz of Germany visited China last month. European Council President Charles Michel is visiting China as Macron is completing his visit to the U.S. Are these separate trips independent of each other? Hell no, for all you know, these trips were all coordinated prior to, during and after the EU Council meeting in October.
 
If Macron were serious trying to get the EU to carve out an independent path free from U.S. control, he must convince the EU to act as a union. He also needs to get Germany’s full support. It is likely that these trips convinced their suspicion that the U.S. will be stubborn in strategy to maintain its supremacy by crushing China’s rise no matter who else will be the collateral victim. These trips may also convince these leaders that China’s rise may not be a real threat to Europe, or the world as being painted. Europe stands to benefit in a multi-polar world especially with China’s market opening to Europe while the U.S. market is shrinking from Europe. If this scenario were true, then Macron’s State Visit to the U.S. may open a new chapter of world diplomacy. We shall be able to see its new direction clearly after Macron steps onto China’s soil next year.
 


​

 
Sixteen years under the Administration of Angela Merkel (Christian Democratic Union, CDU), Germany maintained its steady economy and status of richest big nation in Europe. She was skilled in foreign policy adopting a smooth relationship with the U.S. and a realistic trading partnership with China. During her tenure as Chancellor, she visited China twelve times traveling all over including some underdeveloped regions in southwest China obviously with a long vision for the future. Post WW II, Germany was broken into two, West and East Germany, occupied respectively by the U.S. and Soviet Union with their army. West Germany, under the Marshall plan, with her industrial foundation and industrious people, recovered quickly (>25% GDP growth rate in the '50s and ~18% in '60s) to be no. 3 economy in the world next to the U.S. and the Soviet. During Cold War (1945-1990) the Soviet economy could not keep up, and Japan and later China rose. At the end of the Cold War, the two Germany’s united and became the no. 4 economy after the U.S., China and Japan. Politically, Germany has always been pro-America under the influence of the U.S., partly because the U.S. had always cultivated control of Europe after the war and partly because the U.S. had absorbed many top European elites including many Germans as immigrants to America creating an 'American Dream' for Europeans, especially for youth. Hence, there is a considerable population of German living in the U.S. and a significant attraction of German youth to America. Germany has many political parties, if one party cannot get more than half of the Congressional seats, a multi-party coalition government must be formed. Hence, Olaf Scholz (Social Democratic Party, SPD) the current Chancellor must lead a coalition government, except not as united as Merkel's coalition.
 
Merkel’s party, CDU, formed a union with SPD and Christian Social Union in Bavaria, CSU, to form a government. The opposition parties were Alternatives for Germany, AfD, Free Democratic Party, FDP, the Left, and the Greens. Scholz’s 17 cabinet positions were filled by 9 SPD members (including the Chancellor), 5 Greens members (including Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock) and 3 FDP members (including Christian Lindner Minister of Finance) exhibiting far more divisive political views. For example, Habeck and Boerbock both had expressed their views opposing Scholz’s regarding Germany’s China policy and their attachment to the U.S. Post WW II, West Germany owned up to her responsibility of causing the world war and apologized to the world. Germany adopted a multi-party democratic political system devoted to economic recovery. With the U.S. Marshall plan, West Germany recovered quickly and developed a strong pro-America political sentiment while East Germany was suffering under the West’s economic sanction. After the end of the Cold War, the Soviet Union collapsed, and East and West Germany got United with a more prosperous future. But on foreign policy, Germany has always been following the U.S., even after France promoted EU, Germany still adhered to a following U.S. foreign policy, perhaps because Germany had always been under US military protection. France, on the other hand, had been more independent in her foreign policy and economic development, however, she would always be echoing the U.S. on ideology – promoting freedom and democracy - since French was proud that she had exported those principles to America.
 
The U.S. depended more on its military strength than economic power to lead the world under the banner of freedom and democracy. The U.S. economy was once 40% of the world economy but now is below 20%. Her major assistance to foreign countries is in maintaining the U.S. military bases, troops, and foreign agents. (50,000 troops, $10,000 per soldier stipend and $40,000 expenses and equipment would easily make $2.5 B. The U.S. has hundreds of foreign military bases.) For the security of Europe (and ease of controlling Europe), the U.S. organized the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO established in 1949) to resist the Soviet Union and to tie the West European countries together. NATO may be effective as a collective deterrent to the communist Soviet, but its ever-expanding strategy threatening Russia is neither peacekeeping nor providing real security to Europe. The NATO expansion strategy eventually triggered the Russia-Ukraine war. When Russia invaded Ukraine with the justification of protecting the Russian-speaking Ukrainians and supporting the two states in Eastern Ukraine declared independence, the U.S., EU and NATO were all united in condemning Russia and supporting Ukraine with military aid. As the war prolonged and got serious creating damage and refugees, the U.S. and NATO had no intention to mediate a ceasefire, instead, sanctions on Russia is expanded forcing Russia to control the  energy supply to Europe and trade oil and gas only with Russian Rubles. Then the incidence of bombing the Russia-Europe undersea gas pipeline occurred further creating an energy crisis and severe inflation (The U.S. is the only one benefiting, her liquid gas is shipped to Europe selling with four times the price). With the further bombing of the Crimea bridge, the danger of the conflict is raised to a nuclear war level. The present Europe situation is forcing the leaders of Germany and France to ponder very hard, they must consider acting independently from following the U.S. strategy of confronting both Russia and China, be it the Ukraine war, South China Sea,  or Indo-Pacific policy. Despite his ministers of finance and foreign affairs having given anti-China rhetoric and following the U.S. footsteps of decoupling with China, Chancellor Scholz earnestly organized a team of German enterprise leaders to visit China just before the G20 meeting in Bali, Indonesia. He indeed had obtained a large airbus order. French President, Macron, will be visiting China next year. He also had a private meeting with Xi at G20 in Bali. From what we can learn from the news reports, both sides have expressed concerns about whether EU countries can act independently in foreign affairs. From the above discussion, we may conclude that Germany and France seem to have finally realized that one-way unconditional follow-U.S. foreign policy will actually hurt their own countries. The recent events seem to be evidence that Germany and France have applied a fast brake on their previous U.S.-China foreign policy.
 
In November, G20 and APEC took place in Indonesia and Thailand, respectively. Biden and Xi both attended G20 and held a private meeting for more than three hours. From the news communique, it appears that U.S.-China relations may have thawed a little. Secretary of State Blinken is planning to visit China in the new year to work out crisis avoidance and recovery of cultural exchanges. Examining how Xi and Biden each were welcomed at G20 (more than ten national leaders including Biden tried to have a chance to meet with Xi), the world seems to be showing a big positive change in attitude towards China and Xi's philosophy (prosperity for mankind as a whole). We can sit back and watch what is going to happen in the years ahead!
 



​

The next mid-term election is just a few days away when you read this article. This mid-term election is very important because it not only may change the color map distribution of the 118th Congress as every mid-term election does more or less but also may determine the outcome of the 2024 presidential election because of the turmoil of the past two presidential elections in 2016 and 2020 the voters experienced. We have lots of domestic and international issues challenging our political servants but there are three key issues that may cloud voters' judgment this mid-term election, possibly dragging voters into a bipartisan turf war by voting purely according to the color of the district rather than the quality of the local candidates. There are always some turf war phenomena especially after a national district remapping following the centennial census. But the problem is getting worse as our election campaigns have become focusing more on so called “opposition research and tactics” which tend to generate fake and negative news (significant Ad dollars) rather than dwelling on candidates' qualifications, abilities, achievements and visions for serving the public office.
 
Whether one is a Democrat, Republican or Independent, it is important for you to step outside a red-blue color district map to clear the thoughts and accept the truths of the important issues. There are many of them such as abortion, gun control, immigration, healthcare, etc., but the following three major issues are important because they are relevant to the essence of democracy, our very election system. Hence, we must clearly understand them and accept their truth and then judge your candidates’ positions and focus on your candidates' true merits. The three major issues are:
1.Russiagate and its verdict (relevant to our election system and campaign practice)
2.Truth of the January 6th Capitol Event (relevant to our constitution and civil rights)
3.Position on Russian-Ukraine war versus domestic economic plan. ( relevant to our future and value system)
As a voter, we need to accept the truth of these issues, clearly understand our candidates’ position and value system then judge on their qualifications and merits.
 
Russiagate was the headline news before, during and after the 2016 presidential election. The 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russia were accused of collusion in the election. American presidential election influenced by a foreign country is a very serious matter. After six years of investigation by the Justice department, FBI and investigation of the FBI and the Fed government, the truth is getting clear. Robert Muller, Special Prosecutor finds no collusion between Trump’s campaign and Russia. Following Muller, John Durham, investigator then appointed as Independent Special Counsel, investigated the Russiagate mess over 42 months have cleared the following: The Hillary for America campaign organization did create a joint venture to produce false information against Trump (Christopher Steele’s Trump dossier and fake secret communication through Alfa bank were revealed). Although indictments on individuals were not as successful (some acquitted and some plea bargained) but the case became clear to show the serious effects of “opposition research” that had destroyed the integrity of democratic election and voter confidence. We hope that these kinds of negative (criminal) political campaign will never be repeated again. As voters, we must accept these findings and apply to the judgment on the mid-election candidates and their parties.
 
The Jan 6th committee is another important issue triggered by the 2020 presidential election. Whether an election was stolen was more a critical issue than a squashed protest or violence in the Capitol. Hong Kong's violent protests were praised with false arguments when compared to the much milder protests in Washington. Civil rights and patriotism should be universal values with no double standards. We can use a case involving 18-year old high school student, Bruno Cua, who is a great builder of tree houses in Milton, Ga to call our attention on the election issue. Cua was allegedly seen standing in the Senate chamber of the U.S. Capitol along with a handful of others. In his defense his lawyers said, Cua was an impressionable 18-year old in the middle of working to graduate from high school when he was arrested. The prosecutor suggested that he was genuinely inspired by former President Donald Trump and his unproven ‘intent’ on violence. Both prosecution and defense agree that Cua was influenced by the social media and changed his course of life. More than 250 people have been charged with storming the Capitol. Are they all more guilty than the media which make sensational even fake news? Before the coming mid-term election, shouldn’t the voters clearly understand and accept the truth of this major issue and how media played in fake news. The voters must examine their candidates' position on this issue and whether the candidates partook in fake news generation rather than present their qualification and deeds for the voters to make their choice.
 
Although Russia-Ukraine war is far away from the U.S., it is impacting the world. It was crystal clear that the root of the issue is NATO, whether or not it presented national security threat to Russia especially when the new Ukraine Administration favored the policy of joining the NATO. NATO is supposed to be a defense alliance against aggression. The U.S. invests significant amount of money annually in NATO for the collective defense of NATO nations. Trump had questioned the value of NATO to the U.S. in 2021, the U.S. contributes directly 811,140 million dollars, the largest, to the total NATO budget of 2.5B Euros. Of course, we do enjoy the influence that we exert in Europe because of that. However, when Russia-Ukraine war broke out (Russia felt threat and Russian speaking Ukrainians suffered oppression versus Ukraine felt threat and wanted to join NATO), it created a crisis in Europe. The NATO and U.S. support of Ukraine diminished the chance for peace talk and resolution, in fact, it elevated the risk of having a nuclear war after the Russian gas-pipe line and Crimea bridge were bombed. Is continuing support of Ukraine worth the risk of a nuclear war? Is it a good idea of focusing on foreign affairs with possibility of creating military conflict rather than focusing on our domestic issues, infrastructure, inflation, rising debt and economy? Shouldn’t voters ask our political candidates where is their focus and what are their solutions to domestic issues rather than using foreign issues such as Ukraine and Taiwan to blur voters' attention?
 
In the coming mid-term election, only a few days away, let us clear up fake news and accept the truth. Let us ask our public office candidates the real tough questions on how to build up America and make our lives better.