HOW RELIGION INFLUENCES BEHAVIOUR

 Our experiences, environment and even genetics form our beliefs and attitudes. In turn, these beliefs influence our behavior, and determine our actions. Beliefs that are widely accepted become part of our culture and, in many ways, shape the society we live in.

Religion is probably the strongest belief system that has existed for thousands of years. In many ways, it is a code of conduct, a rule book that allows believers to function in a non-primitive or cultured manner. The earliest forms of religion were established to facilitate social bonding. In fact, it is also believed that religious practices are adaptive and have emerged to sustain survival and reproductive advantages through gene selection or gene-culture coevolution dynamics.

 

It is no surprise then, that this system is crucial to thinking patterns and plays a vital role in formation of self-identity and a collective identity of a community, which then shapes attitudes, cultural norms and influences individual and group behaviour. Children are particularly perceptive to religious beliefs and the concepts of Gods and other supernatural agents, which leads to a teleological bias of accepting explanations of phenomenon, based on the purpose they serve rather than their postulated causes, which persist into adulthood (Kelemen, 2004). These attitudes are contingent upon factors such as beliefs about God's existence, immortality and omnipresence; attributions about psychological characteristics such as fairness, compassion and harshness; and attributions about God's causal involvement and motives in one's life events.   

 

Most, if not all religions, have some thematic principles that make them similar to one another, namely concepts of god and love, honesty, altruism, miracle workings and peacekeeping. However, every religion has elements and ideologies that set them apart from the other. These ideological differences may not be overt and easy to discern, but they are present and account for a lot of disharmony and discord at times. This is mainly due to irrational and distorted deductions of religious scriptures by some followers which go against the fundamental principles. Moreover, coexistence of diverse religions in a single community or nation is a comparatively recent trend. Sacrifices and wars in the name of religion are not unheard of, with some of the significant examples being The Crusades, Sati System, Buddhist Burma, Jihadists and the Witch Hunt, which ended thousands of lives. What is even more mind-boggling is the dichotomous function that religion seems to serve, where it imbibes compassion and kindness towards all, but also instigates religious hatred, violence and religious martyrdoms, especially in radical believers.

Most religions enforce moral behaviour through positive and negative reinforcement by infusing ‘god-fearing’ elements in scriptures, such as the concept of karma and reincarnation in Hinduism, heaven-hell and salvation in Christianity, paradise and hell in Islamism, peaceful afterlife and reincarnation in indigenous Chinese folk religions, and release from the cycle of reincarnations and reaching enlightenment in Buddhism. This was further reiterated through Shariff and Norenzayan’s (2011) study where they found that individuals are more likely to behave in a moral or honest manner when they believe in fearsome and punishing supernatural agents. In their subsequent studies, they concluded that the concept of hell exists to make people act in a moral and ethical manner, whereas the concept of heaven (or its equivalent in other religions) exists to make people feel good, and has a direct and positive relation with happiness. However, another possible explanation for this suggests that it may have nothing to do with religious beliefs. Rather, the religious scriptures or rituals act as a moral reminder, through priming, and impel us to act in a moral and honest manner.

 

It is important to note here that although, religious beliefs may play a causal role in some of the actions, it is not the only factor that influences behaviour. Rather, it's an important factor in a pool of other factors like genetics, environment, parenting, drives, and needs that determine our behaviour.

Research supports that there is a correlation between religious beliefs and behaviour, but does this necessarily mean that there is a causality? It doesn’t really matter whether one believes that people form these belief systems in order to adapt and function, or if existing beliefs influence religious attitudes. What is important is how we use (or misuse) such a powerful instrument, and to what extent we let it influence our behaviour.

Soft Power: China’s Emerging Strategy in International Politics

·          Soft power is “the ability to induce what you would like through attraction instead of coercion or payments.” The soft power of a rustic has 3 primary sources: its culture (in places wherever it's engaging to others), its political values (when it lives up to them reception and abroad), and its foreign policies (when they're seen as legitimate and having ethical authority). Despite the current use of the term soft power since the Nineteen Nineties, the complicated relationship between exhausting power and soft power still must be scrutinized and higher understood. The discourse of sentimental power was single-handed started in 1990 by Joseph Nye. However, within the Nineteen Nineties, the notion of sentimental power failed to figure into Chinese policy. it's wide acknowledged that Nye’s initial purpose for inventing the construct of “soft power” is to counter the prevailing pessimism regarding the decline of yankee power at the tip of the conflict with the disappearance of a shaping Soviet threat.

·         In Joseph Nye’s words, soft power happens,
“… once one country gets different countries to require what it needs.” Further, the exercise of sentimental power involves setting the agenda and structuring the things in world politics “as to induce others to vary above all cases.”
The discourse of China’s soft power had taken on its own life. it had been claimed in International Herald apse back in 2004 that China was changing into a “cultural magnet” for several folks in Asia. big apple Timesasserted, additionally in 2004, that “China moves to eclipse the U.S. charm in South Asia.”
Back in Oct of 2007, a conference was control in Singapore underneath rubric of “The Rise of China and Its Soft Power”. this book is that the reflection of that conference. the foremost frequent argument is that soft power needs to be a part of “comprehensive power” that a serious nation is predicted to possess. Soft power has become a awfully in style construct in world affairs. Ever since Joseph Nye coined it in 1990 in his book guaranteed to Lead, the term has oft appeared in government policy papers, educational discussions, and also the in style media.
Soft power lies within the soft use of power to extend a state’s attraction, power, and appeal. If a nation state (or the other actor) makes smart use of its resources of power through numerous domestic cultural, economic, and political programs to bring well-being to its own nationals, it'll manufacture loads of admiration from different countries. If a state uses its resources of power in a very prudent, cautious, accommodating, and considerate approach in its relations with different states and plays a number one role in providing public merchandise to international society, it'll for certain win respect, amity, and positive reciprocity from different states.
hey argue, for example: “Soft power and exhausting power area unit reciprocally complementary to every different. Soft power will facilitate the expansion of exhausting power; whereas exhausting power will demonstrate and support the rise of sentimental power.”
Another study that's crucial of Nye’s duality of exhausting power and soft power, argues that:
‘depending on the context, any supply of power are often each exhausting and soft, which China’s soft power is best illustrated within the “China model”, multilateralism, economic diplomacy and good-neighborly policy.’

Excessive or inappropriate use of exhausting power will result in the decline of a state’s soft power. a decent example of this can be the war in Asian nation. Joseph Nye has been unrelentingly criticizing the yank war in Asian nation as weakening U.S. soft power: (p.5)
‘The four-week war in Asian nation was a stunning show of America’s exhausting military power that removed a dangerous dictator, however it failed to solve the matter of coercion. it had been additionally pricey in terms of America’s soft power to draw in others. within the aftermath of the war, polling by the church bench center showed a dramatic decline within the quality of the u. s. even in countries like Spain and Italian Republic whose governments had supported the war.’
Former Party Chief and President Hu Jintao highlighted soft power in his political report back to the seventeenth Party Congress in Oct 2007, stressing the imperative have to be compelled to build China’s cultural soft power to satisfy domestic desires and increasing international challenges. The 2007 World Economic Forum control in Dalian, a coastal town in China’s Liaoning Province, self-addressed the difficulty of China’s soft power.
The Chinese discourse on soft power has chiefly targeted on its sources and potential utility in Chinese foreign strategy. The thought assessment of the state of China’s soft power by Chinese analysts is that soft power continues to be a weak link in China’s pursuit for stronger comprehensive national power.
It has lagged considerably behind the expansion of the country’s exhausting power. several strategists maintain that China continues to be not refined in incorporating soft power into its strategic designing.
Nevertheless, soft power associatey|isn't any} longer an alien construct for prime Chinese political leaders. The political report back to the sixteenth Chinese political party (CCP) Congress in 2002, for example, points out that, “… in today’s world, culture intertwines with economic science and politics, demonstrating a additional distinguished position and role within the competition for comprehensive national power.”
Some international observers appear to not be distressed regarding China’s soft power. it's believed that China’s capability to influence the remainder of the planet through soft power is restrained by an absence of agreement on what constitutes Chinese culture and values. Fareed Zakaria, for example, claims that “China has used soft power solely within the sense that it's exercised its power softly. It will this consciously to point out that it's not a bully.”

The four components associate degreed thirteen chapters of this book obtain to gift an in-depth examination of China’s soft power potential, the views among Chinese elites on soft power.
A comprehensive understanding of the importance of sentimental power in China’s international politics is however the construct is being mentioned among the Chinese political elites. in contrast to Joseph Nye’s primary concentrate on the effectivity of sentimental power in achieving policy goals, Chinese discourse oft refers to a domestic context and evinces a mission for domestic functions.
However, soft power, as expounded by Chinese analysts, continues to be a weak link in China’s pursuit of comprehensive national power and for the most part perceived as a tool for defensive functions, as well as cultivating a higher image of China to the skin world, correcting foreign misperceptions of China, and heading off Western cultural and political inroads in Chin

California Is the Future of American Politics

America is stuck between two historical eras. That’s the best way to understand the strange, unprecedented politics of Trump, the political polarization and paralysis of government, the deep dissatisfaction of public opinion, the lack of trust in all institutions — all of it. The post-Industrial era that blossomed in the second half of the 20th century is over. That world of secure manufacturing jobs, generally homogenous societies and respected traditional institutions is done. And while it’s over from a dispassionate historical perspective, it’s markedly not done in the minds of many. This is half the problem: Too many people are hanging onto a worldview and way of life that is fast slipping away. The other half of the problem is that almost no one knows what will replace it. To that we say: Trump is the last gasp of the conservative era and will bring down Republican rule. What’s coming next is in California right now. 

California is the future. That’s the best way to understand the way forward for America, and ultimately the world. California is roughly 15 years ahead of the rest of America in confronting the very different realities of the 21st century. A world of transformative new technologies with capabilities that we are only just beginning to fully comprehend and harness. A polyglot world of diverse mixes of races and ethnicities that are both super-creative and periodically combustible. A world that increasingly is shaped by climate change and the immense challenges it poses for all of us. California not only has faced up to the 21st-century challenges, but it’s begun to seriously adapt to them. Californians saw waves of new technologies early, then got a jump on leveraging and accommodating them, and occasionally constraining them. They began integrating a massive influx of Latino and Asian immigrants, coping with diversity in schools and work, and coming to terms with whites being the minority. Californians took a beating in climate-related catastrophes like the recent drought, and have aggressively moved forward with some of the most ambitious clean energy and sustainability measures in the world. California is the future of American politics as well. The once Red and now deep Blue state has largely figured out a new political way forward for itself and by extension for America — as well as for other democracies — that’s up to the new realities and immense challenges of the 21st century. This is the most important insight for this historical juncture, this time of despair. It’s also the most difficult point for Americans on the east coast and the heartland to accept. But there is a compelling case to be made, based on data and an understanding of history, that what’s happening right now in California is going to come to the rest of America much sooner than almost anyone thinks.  

The Takedown of the Old Order

If you were a political strategist looking to make California a model of how America could change for the better, what would you do? First, the Republican party and the conservative movement that captured it essentially would have to be neutralized — completely discredited and marginalized to the sidelines of politics. California would have to get beyond dealing with crazy conservative ideologues who could not face up to the real world of facts and let go of outdated ideas already proven not to work. No bipartisan dealing with zealots, no trying to pry one brave soul from a ridiculous pledge of no new taxes. No, the whole party must be decisively beaten — so decisively that it would take at least a generation for the party to get back on its feet again. In California, that very mission was accomplished by the Democratic Party and the voting public. Now the state is totally run by Democrats. All statewide offices are controlled by Democrats, and both Houses of the Legislature have Democratic super-majorities. This takedown of the Republican Party was the precondition to clear the public policy space to get truly innovative and future-oriented. The flip side of the Republican party take-down was the reinvention of the Democrats — which is well on its way, though still a work in progress. California Democrats for the most part are not constrained by old-school, 20th-century policy solutions. They genuinely are groping their way forward towards a new set of 21st-century policies and solutions. They are guided by a familiar set of progressive values that tries to look out for everyone over the long term. It’s a more people-oriented politics, not tethered to 20th-century welfare state liberal solutions. Californians have a healthy respect for the role of the market — but not harsh right-wing orthodoxies that see the market as always superior to government. The main insight about Californians is that they are not enamored of old ways or old ideas. The people are truly innovative and more apt than anywhere else in the country to try new things out. This general impulse for innovation is complemented by an unusual initiative system that ensures that its politics is guided by periodic populist impulses. Watching the results of California’s initiatives is like studying the id of California’s electorate. Every couple of years the political terrain is reshaped by the evolving will of the people — for better and, it must be admitted, sometimes for worse. In recent years it’s been for the better as increasingly clear guidelines have been set for state and local policy makers. The result is an emerging progressive agenda for the 21st century. It’s the building blocks for a resurgent Democratic party not just in California, but in the rest of America as well. We can hear the objections: “But California is a deep blue state whose trends do not apply, and will never apply, to red states and purple states in the rest of the country.” No, that’s just wrong. California was a reliable red state for decades before it turned blue in response to the new realities of the 21st century. From the time of Eisenhower through the first George Bush, California always voted Republican in presidential elections with the one exception of the LBJ landslide (when even California could not vote for Goldwater.) Other statewide offices like governors and senators were frequently occupied by Republicans as well.  

The 15 Year Time Delay

That began to noticeably shift in the 1990s when California shifted to the blue side of the Presidential column with the 1992 election of Bill Clinton — and it has been increasingly true since then. Republican statewide officers were key players through the 1990s and were active in the legislature into the early 2000s — which accounted for the political paralysis of the state during that period. Uncompromising Republican ideologues kept the state government hostage and thus paralyzed until they eventually got squeezed off the political map and California government could function again. Does that political dysfunction sound familiar? It’s Washington D.C. right now. This brings up the most remarkable, though controversial, part of the California is the future frame: The 15-year time delay. Modern California politics prefigures American politics by roughly 15 years. The clearest example is the resurgence of American conservatism itself — starring Ronald Reagan. Reagan won the governorship of California in 1966 from a liberal Democrat incumbent about 15 years before he did the same thing to become president of the United States in 1980. All kinds of conservative milestones beyond the rise of Reagan emerged in California about 10 to 15 years before analogous developments happened in America at large. The draconian tax cut revolt of California’s Howard Jarvis (of Proposition 13 fame) in 1978 prefigured Newt Gingrich’s 1994 revolution in which Republicans rode similar sentiments and took over control of the U.S. House of Representatives for the first time in about 40 years. California passed a series of initiatives aimed at stopping the influx of immigrants in the 1990s (starting with Proposition 187 in 1994) that has eerie parallels with the rise of the national Tea Party in the 2010 election. And California went through the Trump drill in 2003 when an angry electorate frustrated by paralyzed state government elected as governor a Hollywood celebrity with no experience in government — Arnold Schwarzenegger. Close to 15 years later an equally frustrated national electorate narrowly went for Trump. The California story did not end well for Schwarzenegger or the Republicans. The obsession with tax cuts at any cost led to slashing cuts in popular public programs, ignorance of needed investment in infrastructure, and the creation of huge budget deficits — alienating almost everyone. The large numbers of Latinos, Asians and their allies who had borne the brunt of anti-immigrant measures came of age politically — and they did not forget who was to blame. And climate denial made Republicans look either ignorant or corrupt to the growing ranks of millennials and college-educated professionals.The turning point came in a 2005 special election where a conservative reform agenda of initiatives was decisively defeated statewide. From then on Schwarzenegger moderated his stances, and started playing ball with the increasingly progressive Democratic legislature. By 2010 Democrat Jerry Brown was back in his third term as governor with large Democratic majorities that started remaking California. (More on this part of the story later in this series.) 

The 21st Century Democratic Agenda

This brings up another objection to the California is the Future theme: “But California has so many problems. The housing costs are skyrocketing. Their public education system is struggling. They had to ration water!” Let us be crystal clear: California by no means has everything figured out. The state faces huge challenges. But welcome to the 21st century. America and the rest of the world face huge challenges too. The global economy of the last 30 years has created massive inequalities that are unsustainable for democratic society, and they must be rectified. New technologies are bringing huge changes to how we get work done and how people make a living — or not. Climate change is closing in and humans simply must transition off carbon energy and onto clean energy as fast as possible. All true. But there is nowhere on the planet better positioned to figure out practical solutions to that complex future than California right now. If the 7.5 billion people on Earth today needed a real-time experiment to design a better way forward, look to California. It’s big enough to be meaningful: California has 40 million people and is the sixth largest economy in the world. Yet it’s small and coherent enough to be quick and flexible. The political playing field has been cleared with one party fully in charge with legislative super-majorities. The foundation has been laid. Outsiders also under-appreciate how much California has already accomplished in developing and executing a new 21st-century political agenda. For example, on the initiative front, look how the California electorate has evolved in regards to taxes and spending. In 2010, the voters passed Prop 25, which allowed state budgets to pass with a simple majority, rather than the two-thirds margin that had throttled state spending since the days of Prop 13. In 2012, voters approved temporarily raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year, and raising sales taxes for everyone, in order to prevent massive education cuts. And in 2016 Prop 55 extended the taxes on those making $250,000 or more for another 12 years. The legislature has been swinging for the fences as well. California has some of the most aggressive measures in the world related to global warming. California established a Cap-and-Trade program in 2012 and this year extended it until 2030. It has also mandated that half of all its electricity must come from clean energy by 2030. Unlike Trump and his yakking about investment in infrastructure, California this year passed a massive infrastructure law investing in roads, bridges and public transportation that will raise $52 billion from increased gasoline taxes and vehicle fees that everyone will pay. There have also been a slew of laws trying to improve the lot of workers — including the 2016 commitment to raise the minimum wage across the state to $15 by 2022. It would be a mistake to think the political pendulum has simply swung back to old school tax and spend policies from the 20th-century Democratic party playbook of Liberalism. There’s a new kind of 21st-century playbook being developed that might call for a new label. Californians tend to be more pro-growth, practical progressives. They share many long-standing progressive values like looking out for working people or the poor, but they also are enamored of channeling the power of markets and entrepreneurial energy towards solving problems. They see the potential of new technologies and innovative approaches to solving some of our old problems in new ways. Maybe we’ll call them 21st-Century Progressives. (More on this part of the story later in this series.)

The California Model Works

So how has California’s big, bold progressive political approach worked for the state? It turns out — awesome. The California economy is booming, doing better than the rest of the United States by many standard economic measures. Since Brown started leading as governor, California has added 2.3 million jobs, which leads the nation (from 2012 to 2016, California accounted for 17 percent of job growth in the United States, and a quarter of the growth in GDP.) From 2011 to 2014 coming off the Great Recession, California’s economic growth rate was 4.1 percent. In 2016, California’s rate was still 2.9 percent compared to rival Texas’s paltry growth rate of 0.4. The San Francisco Bay Area, in particular, has outpaced the rest of the state and the country for at least the fifth consecutive year, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Silicon Valley even beat China’s growth rate of 6.9 percent in 2015. The wealth of this booming economy is not just flowing to a handful of tech bros. Money is moving through all levels of the economy, into construction, restaurants, service work. Anecdotally, the labor supply at all income levels is tight as a drum. But the stats back that up: Wealth is spreading. For example, the state’s per capita income increased 9.5 percent since 2015, the most of any state. Median household income in California stands at almost $67,000, 13 percent above the national figure, and growing faster than the nation as a whole. Two of the top three metro areas for Latino median income are also in California. To be sure, income inequality is a huge problem in California, as it is throughout the American economy, and there is much to do. And affordable housing is a particular problem in the Bay Area, but that problem is a symptom of success. From 2010 to 2015, the Bay Area gained 531,000 jobs and 487,000 people, but only issued permits for 82,000 new housing units. That translates into a lot of people having a hard time finding a place to sleep. However, the California legislature just in September passed — and Governor Brown signed into law — no fewer than 15 laws all aimed at helping solve the housing crisis. These laws will plow billions into new construction, as well as providing a series of incentives and penalties to encourage housing development, especially for low and middle income Californians. Clearly these laws by themselves will not solve the crisis, but they set the stage for continued robust action on this front. And what does the California public think about what’s going on around them in California, if not in the country as a whole? They largely love what they are seeing. Voter appraisals of the job performance of Governor Brown and the state’s legislature were at record highs earlier this year, with Brown’s approval rating over 60 percent, and the state legislature pushing 60 percent, the best in nearly 30 years. Since then approval ratings for Brown and legislature have subsided somewhat, but remain strongly positive. A solid majority of Californians, at 54 percent, believe the state is generally moving in the right direction, compared to just 36 percent who say this about the nation as a whole. Just for context, Americans give Trump an approval rating hovering around 38 percent, and they rate Congress, controlled by Republicans, at around 15 percent. (More on this part of the story later in this series.) 

A New Civilization, Really

Here’s the really mind-boggling part: What’s happening in California now and in the coming decades could be understood as the design of a new civilization. Yes, you read that right: civilization. The best way to understand that is to pull back from the froth of stories and tweets today and try to see what’s going on from the big picture, with an historical perspective. What will people in 50, 100 even 500 years from now think about what went on in the first half of the 21st century? From that vantage point, it will be clear that the planet went through fundamental system changes on an historic level. One, the world went all digital. Everyone from advanced economies and societies though developing ones moved fully onto digital infrastructures, everything became increasingly computerized and instantaneously interconnected, and that allowed for a reorganization of pretty much everything. Two, the world went fully global. For the first time ever humans organized at a planetary scale, partly though the new technologies, but also through the inexorable enmeshment of 10 billion people on a relatively confined space. Three, the world went sustainable. Building on the new generation of technologies, devising new ways to organize our resources globally, humans will have figured out a way to stabilize the climate and manage life on earth. If we don’t figure that out, those people in 500 years won’t be around to look back on our deeds. The point is that the level of change coming to the world is at best awe-inspiring, at worst overwhelming. The level of system change is only just beginning to dawn on people with foresight. Ultimately, this level of change must be civilizational. The last time we saw this level of fundamental system change was the Enlightenment, which in American terms is the time of the Founding Fathers. That’s the kind of time we’re in again today. Back then, ground zero for the Enlightenment was London circa 1650 to 1780. The people of that time initiated all the big systems that defined the coming centuries: Financial capitalism with its stable monetary system that enabled robust international trade. The beginnings of representative democracy that for the first time processed public opinion of at least some large classes to help steer government. The start of the Industrial Revolution that could scale up fledgling manufacturing and lead to a much more prosperous world. The shift to carbon energies, starting with coal, that would power that industrial civilization. The development of public media, starting with nascent newspapers and pamphlets, that educated the new voters and economic middle classes.These core systems of the Enlightenment held together more than 200 years of expansion, prosperity and progress. (To be sure, there was extraordinary collateral damage and suffering along the way too.) But now these core systems are almost all ready for fundamental reform, and, in some cases, outright replacement. Think about each of these systems and how flawed and ineffective they currently are: Finance-dominated capitalism. Representative democracy now paralyzed in most western nations. The decline of industry as a source of jobs. Outdated and unsustainable carbon energies. Struggling public media. Time for a change, a really big change, a civilizational change. (More on this part of the story later in this series.) 

So keep an eye on California. In particular, closely watch the San Francisco Bay Area, the region that encompasses Silicon Valley, as our ground zero for 21st-century civilization building. This is the London of our time. Just like London was not the only place for Enlightenment innovation at that time (France, Germany, and even the fledgling United States had a role), the San Francisco Bay Area is not alone. There are other urban centers in American and throughput the world playing a role, but you can’t beat California for its singular importance right now.

Three of the five most valuable public companies in the world right now are rooted in the Bay Area: Apple, Google and Facebook. The other two of the top five are still tech companies on the West Coast in the form of Amazon and Microsoft in the Seattle region. These companies now occupy the commanding heights of the global economy and the rest of society has started to notice that power and urge them take on more responsibility. The unique users each month for Google and Facebook come close to 2 billion on a planet with a total of just over 7 billion people. And all those companies are still very much ascendant with much more growth to come. Their influence on the world in the coming decade will only grow.

Then one notch down from that group are many more tech companies that are relatively big, just not as big as those top five with market capitalizations of more than $350 billion. Each of these companies, from Intel and Cisco to Uber and Airbnb, are also scaling globally and beginning to make a big impact. Then there are the waves of startups that are like the spawn of the tech giants, with former employees and investors taking their options and investing in entrepreneurial ventures, both for profit and non-profit. Innovation is rippling through all sectors of the economy and society. It’s in the air.

Meanwhile, San Francisco has become a magnet for ambitious Millennials from around the country who want to make their impact on the world. Entrepreneurs of all ages from all over the world are flocking there too. (No wonder the price of housing is going through the roof.) And of course capital is flowing to where good ideas lie. This stew of entrepreneurs, and capital, and future-oriented young people is creating all kinds of opportunities. We cannot predict the exact results of this ferment, but they are sure to be both big and important.

And it’s not just about tech and business. Social entrepreneurs, academics, and innovators in the public sector will help work out the new systems of the new era. Look for all kinds of combinations of talent to work out the early contours of what will be the next reinvention of America, but also the building of foundations for a new civilization. Together they will figure out the protocols for how humans work with increasingly powerful artificial intelligence. They will figure out the early parameters for how we will integrate advanced robotics like autonomous vehicles into our lives. It won’t just be the techies calling the shots but the local governments who set the rules for the streets those vehicles drive on.

The coming decades will see an explosion of innovation in almost all directions. We will have to figure out how far to take biotechnologies and the manipulation of genetics. We will have to figure out how schools will evolve to prepare children for a continuously innovative society. We will have to figure out how to feed everyone in a healthy and sustainable manner in a world of climate change. And how do we finally figure out how to house people of all income levels in a sustainable way in our burgeoning cities? The list of challenges goes on and on, but if what’s going on in California right now is any indication, the solutions will keep coming too.

The Trump Trap and the Progressive Era to Come

So when you despair at the latest outrageous tweet that President Trump fires off, or you grit your teeth at the self-inflicted gridlock of the Republican U.S. Congress, just remember that California is the future. California in the last 15 years has been where America is today. We had that gridlock. We had that polarization. We had a conservative Republican party that refused to face up to the 21st century, that undermined all reasonable movement forward — and California moved on.

The rise of Trump is likely nothing more than the last emotional backlash before America moves forward again. In a sense, we needed Trump to lay out the whole conservative agenda in all its absurdity — denying climate change, demonizing immigrants, calling for tax cuts for billionaires in the face of historic inequality. We needed Trump to once and for all show Americans what rule by and for billionaires, and oil companies, and Wall Street, really means. We needed Trump to get the entire Republican party and conservative movement to embrace truly reactionary ideas in the minds of all the growing constituencies of the 21st century —millennials, people of color, immigrants, college-educated knowledge workers.

One way or another, Trump will eventually crash and take down a good chunk of the Republican establishment with him. The takedown will be thorough, running through the U.S. House and Senate, and into governorships and state legislatures. We’re talking a long-term political takedown that could last for a generation or two. Trump will be more like Hoover. The Republicans back then went down and were crippled for almost 50 years before Ronald Reagan led them out of the wilderness and back to power.

Trump’s going down. Much of the Republican party is likely to collapse with him. The conservative movement in its current form is going to be discredited for many, many years. As that happens, the progressive movement is going to surge on the strength of those growing constituencies throughout the rest of the country. The Democratic party is going to go through an historic revitalization. America is going to turn mostly Blue and go through a fundamental reinvention. And we’re all going to build a digital, global, sustainable civilization for the 21st century.

Marine Plastics are destroying our Blue Economy

 Blue economy is a term that refers to all economic activities related to oceans, seas and coasts and the interlinked benefits around biodiversity , coastal protection and its precious natural heritage. Indian Agriculture and its allied industries contribute to around 20% of India’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product is the total value of goods and services produced in a country). The allied industry consists of forestry,
animal husbandry, natural resources and fisheries . The Blue economy directly linked to fisheries and ocean resources is estimated to contribute to around 4% of our GDP which is ~100 Billion USD (7 lakh crore INR). 

And why is the blue economy in focus ?

Typical ocean activities are around fisheries, tourism and maritime transport . Fisheries have harmed our oceans ; fish catches have gone down and 87 % of our fish stocks are over-exploited. Let us consider Aquaculture. Aquaculture refers to water farming, breeding, harvesting fish, shellfish, aquatic plants etc. is a growing economy critical to the food security of our poorest people. Aquaculture provides more than half of all fish consumed with 63%  of production in freshwater (mostly in ponds on land), 28% in marine waters, and 9% in coastal ponds.

To improve our blue economy , we need to accelerate our focus on emerging areas such as offshore renewable wind energy(ocean energy), marine biotechnology and Bioprospecting (usage of medicinal plants for healthcare).Not only will these prevent rapid degradation of our ocean resources but spur our governments and public sectors to invest and create new employment and development opportunities.

Looking at India’s projected population growth, such measures are needed for improving the social and economic status of our current and future generations. The picture below shows the importance of  ‘blue economy’ as the seventh largest contributor to our global economy.

Due to ineffective waste management of plastic on land , smaller particles of plastics called as Microplastics ends up in our oceans . A concerning fact is 80% of the debris in our oceans is from plastic .

A bigger problem is the volume of plastic pollutants from Textile, Tourism, Fishing and Shipping Industries . The table below summarizes the extent of marine pollution from these industries .

India’s Initiatives :

Though India has committed to a ban of single-use plastic by 2022 and uses about 14 million tons of plastic annually, there is a lack of an organized system for management of plastic waste . Blanket bans are ineffective as alternatives are not immediately available and so it is a multi-step process for phasing-out of plastics.

India has 7500 kilometers of coastline and has established national and regional campaigns to measure marine plastic footprint and take steps towards a plastic pollution free India. The Saaremaa program is a port modernization program to enhance the capacity of India’s ports and power the blue economy. Implementation of sustainable fisheries, conservation of biodiversity, enforcement of strict environmental laws with respect to pollution is a key aspect of Saaremaa but coastal industrialization programs have adverse impacts on marine ecology and strong alignment between governments, policy makers and engaged research scientists is need of the hour.

Blue Carbon is here to help ….

Mangroves are salt tolerant trees with inter-wining branches found along our coastlines and is known to store carbon, improve water quality and provide protection against floods and storms. Mangroves are super-hero trees and have an enormous capacity to suck up carbon-dioxide from air and covert to biomass in the form of thick, heavy layers of carbon-rich soil that stays waterlogged and does not rot . Promoting Mangroves along our coastal ecosystems and declaring them as protected and reserved forests is essential.

Technology to our rescue ….

A new study reveals that plastic-eating super enzymes can break-down plastics in a few days. Scientists are engineering a super plastic-eater by stitching together the DNA found from plastic eating bacteria into one enzyme that can breakdown plastic quickly . Nature’s most affected are several species of marine life and we humans must help save them. How quickly these solutions would come to the market and leveraged by our industries remains to be seen

Plastics impacting marine life- Seabird in picture

In conclusion…It is indeed disheartening to see slow progress of mega government projects, lack of governance by our local municipalities ,careless public attitude towards garbage disposal and the cleanliness levels of our localities and the sea of litter that often surrounds us. Strong governance and investment in technologies that help our natural habitats can accelerate our progress towards a cleaner society .

We are grappling with a world-wide problem and need to come together as a civil society and break the plastic wave that is endangering our planet. It is important to recognize that this marine pollution topic has cross-boundary impacts with global plastic supply chains and our careful consumer attitudes with respect to consumption and safe disposal of plastic products is key to a sustainable marine life.

Taking Action For Our Shared Ocean

Plastic pollution is one of the biggest threats the oceans face today. But how much do we really know about it?

The environment plays a significant role to support life on earth and saving marine ecosystems is one of the most important environmental issues we are facing today. Many of these environmental issues are causing harm to marine mammals, their habitats, and ecosystems around the world. Marine ecosystems, which encompass the sea, marine wildlife, estuaries, and coastal habitats, are fa

cing many threats. The elimination of marine pollution has become one of the major issues that pose a clear and present threat to human health and well-being.

Every year, an estimated 33 billion pounds of trash and other pollutants enter the ocean. In fact, the amount of global trash is expected to increase every year for the rest of the century! When talking about ocean pollution there are many different types of chemical, light, and plastic pollution. One of the most devastating and widespread problems we’re facing today is plastic pollution. For many decades, plastic has affected the health and life of humans in ways that have garnered the attention of the whole world and sparked the question about the daily use of plastic. When throwing out plastic, it is very easy to forget the value of plastic and how it can take up thousands of years for it to decompose. Humans on a daily basis manage to dump garbage into the ocean and leave the trash to float in rivers. Plastic is one of the most harmful trash because it does not readily break down it just accumulates in the ocean. The ocean is full of little plants and animals for instance, phytoplankton that grows on things, so it sometimes floats along it collecting debris that can harm or kill any organism that ingests it.

Why is Marine Debris a Problem?

Marine debris is a problem that has raised concerns for scientists as an increased amount of marine debris has reached worldwide throughout our oceans and the great lakes. Many of this marine debris comes from trash and many land-based sources including litter, and debris from construction. This comes from different sources and enters the oceans in many ways. Mostly, litter makes its way into the ocean from a majority of people often entering the ocean and leaving trash on beaches. Improper dumping or disposal of plastic leads to contamination of the environment. The trash then goes directly into the ocean and a collection of marine debris covers the seas and large bodies of water. Debris that’s denser can sink centimeters or even several meters beneath the surface and less dense debris remains floating with surface ocean currents. It can take many years for debris to travel from coast to coast which causes the plastic to break down. Small pieces of plastic can block sun rays making it hard for plants and algae to get enough sunlight to create nutrients. These tiny pieces of plastic can also accumulate in the stomachs of tiny marine animals which makes it hard for them to digest food. It is also noteworthy that small plastic particles have been found in human lung tissue. There is more and more evidence that microplastics are entering the human body which has had a wide range of health effects on humans

Specific debris items that are eaten by the marine taxa and are responsible for causing death are shown in red. Debris items that are present in the gastrointestinal tract (not responsible for mortality) are shown in blue.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, discovered in 1997, is a collection of ocean and marine plastic in the world and is the largest of one of the five offshore plastic accumulation zones. Studies have found that 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic can be found in this area of the Pacific Ocean between Hawaii and California. About 80% of the plastics in the garbage patch come from the land. Garbage patches are made up of microplastics and if ingested can block the GI tract of many organisms ultimately leading to starvation. As plastic waste proliferates around the world, more research was put into microplastics as it is crucial and microplastics fill our marine environment causing a greater concentration of these particles to turn up in our food chain. Microplastics can enter the environment from several sources which include plastic waste, plastic microfibers like tiny polyester and threads from each cycle of a washing machine, microplastics shed from car tires, etc. It’s also very important to understand what effects they have on animals living in the ocean.

A study undertaken of the garbage patch shows that the plastic floating between Hawaii and California has grown more than 600,000 square miles TWICE the size of Texas.

Most Polluted Beaches in the World

People from all over the world go to beautiful beaches filled with clear waters with stretches of sand ideal for sunbathing and strolling along the shores. However, contaminated beaches are arising a controversial issue to the public as many beaches are becoming harmful if left untreated. Although we are taught to believe that our plastic gets recycled, unfortunately in today’s recycling processes, less than 9% of all plastic waste ever created has been recycled. The developed world send’s a large part of our waste to countries like China and Malaysia. For many of these developing countries, better infrastructure is needed to properly dispose of the waste. Here is what some of the world’s most polluted beaches look like today.

cientific Fallacies and Common Misconceptions

With a lot of focus on plastic pollution in the marine environment, there are a number of myths and misconceptions surrounding our perception of plastic pollution. Here are some of them:

Myth 1: “Ocean plastics are just a trash problem”

Fact: Plastic particles have been found inside human lung tissue and throughout the ocean food chain from mussels to fish to turtles to whales

Myth 2: “The Great Pacific Garbage Patch” is a large island of plastic floating around on the surface in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

Fact: The accumulation of plastic does not consist of a large island of plastic bottles, plastic bags, and other discarded plastic debris. It’s more made up of small microplastics and tiny particles that are not even visible to the naked eye.

Myth 3: Ocean plastic primarily comes from ocean dumping and industry, such as cruise ships or container ships

Fact: Most of the plastics in the ocean come from everyday items such as bags, bottles, caps, food containers, etc. By limiting the use of plastics in our daily lives we can reduce the amount of plastic in the ocean.

Strategies For Preventing Plastic Pollution

“Plastic is not the root of the problem, but rather the single-use lifestyle we’ve become accustomed to”

Faye Haslam

Each of us socially plays a role in being conscious consumers so correcting our plastic waste problem requires each one of us to fundamentally change the way we think about how plastics are made, used, and discarded. A plan of action is needed for this issue because the scale of the problem in the upcoming years will be critical. From reducing the use of single-use plastics to making mindful purchase decisions, simply being aware of how our actions affect society can impact the amount of waste that goes into the ocean every year. Many volunteer organizations and individuals around the world have been fighting to save the ocean from plastic pollution. Some non-profit agencies that initiate volunteer beach cleanups are:

International Coastal Cleanup: The International Coastal Cleanup (ICC) engages people to remove trash from the world's beaches and waterways. So far, more than 17 million volunteers have collected more than 348 million pounds of trash

Plastic Free Foundation: The Plastic Free Foundation is helping millions of people around the world to limit their use of plastic. The movement has inspired 250 million in 177 countries to host events and make changes toward a plastic-free lifestyle

1 million Women: Launched in 2009, it is a movement of over 950,000 women and girls working to address the most pressing issues our earth is facing today.

Plastics For Change: Committed to uplifting waste-picker communities in India, the Plastics for Change foundation provides sustainable opportunities for people living in India to improve their quality of life.

Such approaches, adopted by billions of individuals, could prove of immense significance in ensuring our future health and food security as well as reducing waste and pollution

China Is Not Russia. Taiwan Is Not Ukraine.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — the most consequential military conflict Europe has witnessed since the Second World War — has riveted the attention of the world. Observers have grappled with the meaning of the act of aggression and scrambled to ponder the wider implications of the war. Almost inevitably people look to draw analogies—both historical and contemporary ones.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — the most consequential military conflict Europe has witnessed since the Second World War — has riveted the attention of the world. Observers have grappled with the meaning of the act of aggression and scrambled to ponder the wider implications of the war. Almost inevitably people look to draw analogies—both historical and contemporary ones. 

Taiwanese helicopters fly the country’s flag through the capital Taipei. October 5, 2021. (Lam Yik Fei/The New York Times)

One popular contemporary analogy is between Russia’s actions vis-à-vis Ukraine and China’s approach to Taiwan. Beyond some broad-brush parallels — the most obvious parallel being that both Ukraine and Taiwan are peace-loving democracies that are the objects of belligerent irredentism on the part of more militarily powerful and threatening neighboring autocracies — there are also significant differences. Xi Jinping’s China is not Vladimir Putin’s Russia, and Taiwan is not Ukraine.

China Is Not Russia

Russia under Putin has repeatedly dispatched its armed forces for combat missions overseas to a range of countries, including Georgia, Syria and Ukraine, as well as conducted major military interventions against other states, most recently Kazakhstan (albeit at the invitation of that country’s president). Moscow has also actively supported armed groups and militias in some of these same countries and others.

Although China has also been active and assertive in the use of its armed forces beyond its borders in recent years, Beijing has eschewed large-scale combat operations. Around its periphery, China has engaged in provocations, confrontations and even violent clashes. But China, unlike Russia, has refrained from massive interventions, invasions or occupations of other countries since it invaded Vietnam in 1979. China’s largest deployments of troops overseas in the post-Cold War era have been on U.N. Peacekeeping missions. Whereas Russia has more than 20 military installations beyond its borders, to date, China has only one official military base on foreign soil — in Djibouti (established in 2017) — and a handful of other facilities it does not formally acknowledge.

Of course, Beijing has a history of using its potent armed forces and muscular coercive apparatus within China’s borders to repress vigorously peaceful protesters, political dissidents and disaffected ethnic minority peoples. The locations of these operations include Beijing, Tibet and Xinjiang, as well as Hong Kong. China has also not hesitated to employ armed force and a wide array of coercive instruments around its periphery. This includes building roads and bunkers in remote frontier areas of the high Himalayas along its contested border with India and constructing artificial islands and military installations in disputed waters of the South China Sea. In recent years, China’s armed forces have also engaged in deadly clashes and violent confrontations with Indian army units along the disputed Line of Actual Control and harassed and rammed the fishing boats and coast guard vessels of Vietnam, the Philippines and other countries.

Putin appears to relish projecting the image of a strongman who is routinely willing to thumb his nose at the rest of the world. By contrast, Xi — at least to date — has mainly sought to cultivate a statesmanlike image on the global stage. At times he has given speeches attempting to cast China as a more responsible, less meddlesome and values-free version of the United States. And Xi has invested a lot of time and resources in promoting a set of high-profile international efforts intended to demonstrate that China is a constructive and proactive great power. Employing positive rhetoric touting “win-win” solutions and aspirations to build a “community with a shared future for mankind,” China under Xi’s leadership has launched ambitious efforts such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

Putin, by contrast, has made no real effort to offer an alternative to U.S. global leadership beyond delivering vague grandiose declarations (often in tandem with Xi) and has offered the world little in the way of economic stimulus beyond the prospect of more energy exports and hype about the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Despite consisting of only a handful of Soviet successor states, the EAEU is touted as Russia’s answer to China’s BRI. In terms of geostrategic activism, Russia’s major multilateralist initiatives have tended to involve China. These include the establishment of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in 2001 and the formation of the BRICS grouping in 2010. The former is a security community with a Central Asian focus consisting of Russia, China and four Central and two South Asian states. The latter is a loose association of some of the world’s largest “emerging economies”: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

However, Moscow’s most significant geostrategic maneuver under Putin has been to strengthen Russia’s strategic partnership with China. Both Beijing and Moscow insist that their relationship is not an alliance and their 2001 treaty of friendship — which was renewed in 2021 — does not commit either signatory to come to the defense of the other in case of military conflict. Yet, the Sino-Russian relationship is a clearly consequential alignment that has grown closer in recent years, particularly as their respective relationships with the United States have deteriorated.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has put China in a very uncomfortable position: Beijing does not want to antagonize Moscow but neither does it want to damage its relations with Washington and European capitals. Consequently, China has equivocated in its statements and actions. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has called for peace but has stopped short of condemning Russia or calling upon Moscow to withdraw its military. The lengthy joint statement of February 4, 2022, issued by Putin and Xi during the Russian leader’s visit to Beijing on the eve of the Winter Olympics, makes no mention at all of Ukraine — and China has pointedly abstained on all U.N. Security Council resolutions related to Russia’s invasion. Xi appears to have asked Putin to delay any military action against Ukraine until after the Olympics.

Russia’s invasion poses other difficulties for China both in terms of running counter to Beijing’s long espoused principles in foreign affairs and its adverse impact on China’s national interests in Ukraine. Russia’s actions clearly contradict China’s cornerstone foreign policy principles of noninterference in other countries’ affairs and respecting territorial integrity. Moreover, China has sizable economic investments in Ukraine and is a good customer of Ukraine’s armaments industry. In 2020, Ukraine signed the BRI cooperation agreement, which further bolstered the economic relationship between the two countries and marked Ukraine as an important partner in Beijing’s signature foreign policy and economic initiative.

Taiwan Is Not Ukraine

The fact that Ukraine is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was almost certainly a decisive factor in Putin’s calculus to invade Ukraine. Russia’s commander in chief knew that his invading forces would likely not have to contend with the militaries of any other countries. And if there were any lingering doubts in the Kremlin about the disposition of the most powerful member of NATO, U.S. President Joe Biden stated publicly that the United States would not send military forces to help defend Ukraine. Nevertheless, the Biden administration has taken strong steps to reinforce NATO allies in Eastern Europe and provide robust military assistance to Ukraine.

By contrast, Xi and his Politburo colleagues have long been convinced that Taiwan has the resolute support of the world’s most capable military. The People’s Liberation Army — as all branches of China’s armed forces are known — continues to assume that if it launches an invasion of Taiwan, the U.S. military will swiftly and decisively intervene. The U.S.-Taiwan relationship, while technically “unofficial” due to the One China policy, has strengthened in recent years. On February 28, the Biden administration sent an unofficial delegation of former U.S. defense and national security officials to Taiwan as a signal to China of that commitment. It remains true that the greatest deterrence to a massive Chinese military attack on the island is Beijing’s assumption that war with Taiwan also means a war with the United States.

However, there is no formal military alliance between the United States and Taiwan. The defense pact binding Washington to Taipei was formally abrogated in 1979. So why is Beijing convinced that Washington has an ironclad alliance-like relationship with Taiwan? There are at least two reasons. First, successive U.S. administrations have publicly committed themselves to support Taiwan against Chinese aggression and have regularly sold arms to the island’s armed forces. Second, although there is no language in the1979 Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) that explicitly commits the United States to come to Taiwan’s defense in the event of an attack on the island by China, many in Washington believe that such a commitment exists. While there are different interpretations as to what the TRA means, the most significant fact is that the vast majority of U.S. political and military leaders are fully convinced that this legislation binds the United States to a de facto alliance with Taiwan.

China’s increased military assertiveness and greater level of armed provocations in the Taiwan Strait and elsewhere around China’s periphery in recent years have only served to strengthen the conviction in Washington that the island is a staunch democratic partner worthy of U.S. support as it tries to defend tiny Taiwan against efforts by Beijing to coerce the island into unwanted unification with China.

However, Taiwan, unlike Ukraine, is not a member of the United Nation. While Ukraine has ambassador-level diplomatic relations with more than 180 countries, including China and the United States, Taiwan only has full diplomatic ties with approximately a dozen countries and none of these are major powers. Yet, thanks to the TRA, Taipei enjoys robust quasi-diplomatic relations with Washington, and thanks to Taiwan’s pragmatic ingenuity, the island possesses a vibrant worldwide network of de facto diplomatic missions.

Although Ukraine’s diplomatic standing is far superior to Taiwan’s, the European country’s military alliance status is less impressive — Ukraine is not a member of NATO, although it is a very active member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace initiative. While Taiwan also has no formal military allies, the island has several close and consequential security partners, most notably the United States.

China Is China and Taiwan Is Taiwan

Taiwan continues to be the most contentious issue in U.S.-China relations. Moreover, the Taiwan Strait is routinely identified as the most plausible location of a military confrontation between the United States and China. For Xi and his Politburo colleagues, Taiwan looms large and is prominently identified as a “core” national interest of China’s, with Xi reiterating in 2021 that “resolving the Taiwan question and realizing China’s complete reunification is a historic mission and an unshakable commitment of the Communist Party of China” and that “no one should underestimate the resolve, the will, and the ability of the Chinese people to defend their national sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

Moreover, most Chinese citizens consider Taiwan to be Chinese territory and view the island as something worth fighting for. Indeed, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has staked its political legitimacy on the ultimate goal of unifying Taiwan with China and in the meantime is working resolutely to prevent the island from becoming de jureindependent. Beijing’s preferred means of realizing unification or preventing independence is peaceful but the CCP has never renounced the use of armed force. Furthermore, the PLA’s central warfighting scenario is Taiwan and China’s military has been focused on planning and preparing for an operation against the island for decades.

A Cautionary Tale?

The above differences notwithstanding, Russia’s combat experience in Ukraine will have a spillover impact on how China thinks about Taiwan. If the Russian armed forces remain bogged down in a stalemate in Ukraine for an extended period and/or face a prolonged and widespread insurgency, this may give Xi and his fellow Politburo members pause. If Russia’s military experiences major setbacks and perhaps even embarrassing defeats, this may make China’s political leaders think twice about the advisability of an invasion of Taiwan.

After all, an invasion of Ukraine is relatively straightforward — the country is geographically contiguous to Russia, sharing an extended land border with mostly gentle terrain. By contrast, an invasion of the island of Taiwan is a far more complex operation — a successful campaign requires careful planning and coordinated execution between air, naval and ground forces. It would also involve amphibious landings in addition to considerable urban warfare — on an even larger scale than in Ukraine — including operations on rugged mountainous terrain. Certainly, the PLA will carefully study Russia’s Ukrainian campaign and draw lessons from it, much as they have studied campaigns of other major powers. Such analyses are conducted with great seriousness because China’s armed forces themselves have not fought a major war since 1979 (when Chinese forces invaded Vietnam) and have not conducted a major island landing campaign since 1950 (against Hainan Island).

One way that China’s leadership might be taking notes from Russia’s Ukraine invasion is by rethinking the risks associated with escalation. In addition to noting the potential military embarrassment that Russia is facing, China might be wary of the sweeping economic sanctions levied by the international community. If China were to receive similar backlash for an invasion of Taiwan, it would raise the possibility of truly crippling sanctions at a time when the Chinese economy is experiencing anemic growth and structural challenges.

In particular, the weaponization of the SWIFT payments system might give China pause. Russia has been trying to popularize a cross-border financial information transmission system, and China is committed to developing the CIPS payment network, but neither has had significant success outside Russian or Chinese borders. Despite its flaws, SWIFT remains the most efficient system for international financial transactions for banks and being removed from SWIFT could potentially be devastating to the Chinese economy. Furthermore, the lessons of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to date are that the costs of armed aggression are high in blood and treasure, as well as strong international censure of Moscow and a resolute collective response by NATO member countries.

In any event, at present Xi and his Politburo colleagues display little sense of urgency about realizing unification with Taiwan via military means and there is no indication of a massive Chinese military buildup in the vicinity of the Taiwan Strait. Of course, Beijing’s calculus vis-à-vis the use of force against Taipei can change, so the world must continually monitor the situation and remain alert to warnings and indicators. Part of this monitoring must include scrutinizing Chinese assessments of Russia’s performance in Ukraine in the coming weeks, months and years.