China

China has marked the first anniversary of the Ukraine War with a pair of unsurprising foreign policy papers. The first one concentrates on the Ukraine War and proposes a well-trod and contradictory solution: Russia respects Ukrainian national sovereignty. Everyone respects Russia’s security aspirations and nobody imposes sanctions against anyone.

The second paper is more about calls for a new world order. Again, no real surprises. China is trying to re-write the international rule book by playing to the interests of the developing world in Africa, Asia and South America.

The second paper is important but China’s position on Ukraine is of more immediate interests and whether Beijing likes it or not, the two issues are clearly linked. The outcome of the Ukraine War will influence which way the global South jumps: If Ukraine wins then American influence grows. If Russia stomps Ukraine then it is a victory for Beijing as well as Moscow.

But back to China’s Ukraine paper which was preceded by foreign minister Wang Yi’s tour of Europe and participation in the Munich Security Conference. The goal of the trip was to drive a wedge between the US and its NATO allies. He failed.

Hanging over Wang’s trip was the claim by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that China is on the cusp of supplying weaponry to Vladimir Putin. Wang Yi denied this to EU foreign affairs commissioner Josep Borrell. But at the same time, Chinese diplomats, are letting it be known that the option is on the table. And if the US pushes them too far they will use it.

START

START has stopped. To be more precise it has been suspended by Vladimir Putin. This means that the last of the US-Russian strategic arms agreements has crumbled. These treaties were key building blocks in the diplomatic structure that ended the Cold War and continues to govern East-West relations.

So what is START? Well, for a start, it is an acronym for Strategic Arms Reduction Talks. Its full name is actually New START and it replaces START One which expired in 2009 as well as START Two and three which never got off the ground and the Treaty of Moscow (aka SORT).

What does (or did) START do? It cut by 10 percent the number of strategic missile launchers of Russia and the US and set up a system of on-site inspections to verify that both sides were sticking to the agreement. The total number of launch platforms, which includes submarines, missile siloes and heavy bombers is limited to 1,550 each. It does not reduce the number of nuclear warheads they can hold, just the delivery systems. But then warheads are pretty useless if a country does not have the means to deliver them.

The START talks are the successor negotiations to the SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation) talks which started with the 1972 ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty and limited the increase in the size of the super powers’ nuclear arsenals. At the height of the Cold War the Soviet Union had an estimated 40,000 nuclear warheads and the US 30,000.

President George W. Bush started unravelling the strategic arms structure in 2001 when he withdrew from the ABM Treaty over Russian objections. START was a major foreign policy victory for the Obama Administration but in 2019 Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump withdrew from the INF Treaty which limited the deployment of Intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe.

New START was last treaty standing. It was due to expire in 2021, but was extended for another five years. However, the Russians have been in breach of the agreement since March 2020. That is the last time Americans were allowed to inspect Russian facilities. The initial excuse for refusing access was the pandemic. That was superseded by the Ukraine War, which, of course, is the reason for the current suspension and, as most diplomats know, there are few things more permanent than the temporary.

USA

An obvious aim of Putin’s Suspension of the START Treaty is to divide American public opinion by raising the spectre of nuclear Armageddon unless they concede Russian victory. To do this he is appealing to the American right who either feel an affinity with a populist Putin and/or are just generally isolationist.

The Republican right was making anti-Ukrainian noises even before Putin’s anniversary speech. Florida Governor Ron de Santis said Ukraine cannot be allowed a “blank cheque” and ultra-right winger Marjorie Taylor Greene said during the mid-term election campaign: “Under the Republicans not another penny will go to Ukraine. Our country comes first.” She marked the first anniversary of the war by re-introducing a bill to audit all US spending in Ukraine.

The anti-Ukrainian focus of right-wing Republicans has been on the cost of a foreign war to American taxpayers. President Putin’s re-launch of the nuclear arms race adds another more dangerous dimension and enables Ms Greene (and others) to claim that Joe Biden’s Ukraine policy is “leading America into World War Three.”

UK

Marie Antoinette has famously gone down in history for telling starving French peasants: “Let them eat cake.” British Environment Therese Coffey insured her legacy by proclaiming to the vegetable-deprived British public: “Let them eat turnips.”

Britain’s supermarket shelves are largely devoid of tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers and other fresh fruit and vegetables which this time of year are supplied from the farmers of North Africa and the Southern EU countries.

According to the government, Brexit has nothing to do with the absence of fresh vegetables. Their disappearance is attributed to freak weather in Spain, North Africa and Southern Italy and supply chain difficulties. However, the government is having difficulty explaining why there are vegetables on EU supermarket shelves and not on British.

There is indeed a shortage of vegetables by a combination of climate change and not enough energy to heat greenhouses. But Brexit is also a factor. Britain is no longer in the EU’s single market which makes it a little bit more difficult for wholesalers to supply British stores. So, when there is a shortage the British go to the back of the queue.

Britain’s departure from the single market, has, not surprisingly, also affected food prices which are up 16.7 percent from this time last year. Ms Coffey has an answer to that problem as well: work longer hours.

USA

The Internet and social media could be completely upended by two cases heard by the US Supreme Court this week. And, as the Worldwide Web has become a vital element in the lives of billions, any disruption in its structure will affect literally everyone.

The cases in question are Reynaldo Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v Taamneh. In both instances the plaintiffs claim that their loved ones were killed in terrorist attacks because the algorithms of the social media giants allowed ISIS to recruit jihadists and plan the attacks.

The plaintiffs are using the Federal Anti-Terrorism Act to sue while Google and Twitter claim they are shielded by Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Act. The latter provides social media companies protection from virtually all civil claims for material posted on their systems. Section 230 is a crucial plank in the business model of social media companies. They argue that without it they would be forced out of business with the loss of millions of jobs and billions of tax revenues as well as the collapse of a vital industry.

But there is also the wider issue of free press protection under the First Amendment of the constitution v. social responsibility. For centuries the free speech rights of print and broadcast media have been legally constrained by restrictions on publishing lies and/or aiding criminals. The likes of Twitter, Facebook and Google claim that they are not media companies. They are digital walls upon which people can post more or less whatever they want. And as a wall, they cannot be held liable for what is posted on it.

The Supreme Court Justices will issue their judgement at the end of June. They appeared unimpressed by this week’s oral arguments of both sides. In fact, they appeared to be of the opinion that the problem was a matter for the legislature rather than the court. So, a likely outcome will be a wishy-washy non-ruling designed to pass the buck to Congress. They in turn will probably continue to procrastinate while the social media companies allow ISIS, Al Qaeeda, White Supremacists, conspiracy theorists and others to shout “Fire” in the crowded theatre.

* Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopaedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”