The Rosett Report

The Rosett Report

Sure, an Iran nuclear deal might work as envisioned by the White House — as long as it’s enforced by some power more functional than the crew that is concocting this deal in the first place.

If a deal finally emerges from the latest diplomatic hoopla in Vienna, maybe the Obama administration should farm out the monitoring and enforcement to an outfit that actually keeps its promises and meets its deadlines. Say, Federal Express. Or the Bombay lunchbox delivery system. As it is, the Iran nuclear deal reportedly taking shape is one that, instead of dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, would aim merely to keep Iran at least a year away from nuclear breakout.

This would require rapid detection of any cheating by Iran, swift confirmation of the problem, and decisive response — one timely and effective enough to stop Iran in its tracks.

In whose fantasies would it really work that way?

The negotiations themselves tell us plenty about the problem. Consistent features of the talks have been delays and missed deadlines, as Iran has wrangled, balked, equivocated, and contradicted in public what U.S. officials have described as “agreed upon” in private. More than 19 months have passed since an interim deal was struck in Geneva, the Nov. 24, 2013 Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) that set out terms for the talks. Under the JPOA, the time frame envisioned for the talks was six months. But it took a while to get things organized, so the talks actually began on Feb. 18, 2014, with a July 20, 2014 deadline for a final, comprehensive deal.

There was no deal by that July deadline. So a new deadline was set, for Nov. 24, 2014. There was no deal by that deadline, so another deadline was set for June 30, 2015.

That’s today. And while we can’t rule out a surprise announcement of a done deal, the negotiators have been saying they have more work to do. They need more time.

And small wonder. In order to produce a deal that defers to Iran’s insistence on such dangerous absurdities as the “inalienable right” to enrich uranium, the U.S. and its P5+1 negotiating partners (Russia, China, France, the U.K., and Germany) have been haggling with the Iranians over an agreement with so many moving parts that it takes relays of technical experts working around the clock to keep track of what’s being agreed to.

Here’s how a senior U.S. administration official described the condition of the draft agreement on Monday in a background briefing to the press:

… a many, many page document, a main text and several annexes. It takes a long time, a lot of — huge amounts of detail, all of which has to be checked. And then our lawyers have to look at it all, for heaven’s sakes.

And that’s the easy part. For the nuclear inspectors of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency, U.S. officials are now talking about “managed access” to Iranian facilities.

Pages: 1 2 | 18 Comments»

To the colossal compost heap of anti-Israel screeds churned out by the United Nations, we can now add the so-called Schabas Report on the 2014 summer war between Gaza and Israel.

Not that the eponymous William Schabas saw the production of this report right through to the end. Appointed last summer as chair of this UN inquiry, Schabas was forced to resign this past February when news emerged that he had served as a paid adviser to the Palestinian Authority. (This UN report notes that he resigned – but does not say why.)

Officially, this document is titled: “Report of the independent commission of inquiry established pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution S-21/1.”

A more fitting title would be: “A UN Field Guide to Making the Most of Human Shields.”

Of course there’s more than that to this report, which runs 34 pages, accompanied by 200 pages of “detailed findings.” There is the UN’s usual moral equivalence between the democratic state of Israel — which withdrew from Gaza in 2005 hoping for peace — and the Hamas terrorists who then came to power in Gaza, devoted in practice to terrorizing Israel and dedicated in their charter to obliterating Israel entirely.

You can find a good rundown on the overall report from Anne Bayefsky writing for Fox News, and no doubt there will be more coverage when this report is formally presented next Monday for what the UN Human Rights Council is pleased to describe as “debate.” But let’s focus here on how this report deals with the Hamas tactic of using human shields.

So pervasive is this horrifying practice that even the UN’s investigators cannot quite manage to ignore it. So they make do, instead, with embarking on a series of bizarre locutions that effectively excuse it.

Step One, in paragraph 63 (page 16) of the main report, is to suggest uncertainty that any such thing might have happened (boldface mine):

Palestinian armed groups allegedly often operated from densely populated neighborhoods, including by firing rockets, mortars and other weapons from built-up areas. In addition, they were alleged to have frequently placed command control centers and firing positions in residential buildings and to have stockpiled weapons and located tunnel entrances in prima facie civilian buildings.

“Allegedly”? “Alleged”? The report goes on in this vein, beset by existential doubts.

Step Two, in paragraph 64, is to excuse this use of human shields just in case it really did happen:

The commission recognizes that the obligation to avoid locating military objectives within densely populated areas is not absolute. The small size of Gaza and its population density make it difficult for armed groups to comply with this requirement.

Really?

Beyond the technical point that even in densely populated Gaza there are open areas, this UN locution reduces the use of human shields to an accident of bad urban planning — as if the solution were to provide Hamas with more acceptable locations from which to launch its attacks.

The real problem is that instead of providing civilized government in Gaza, Hamas and its brethren “armed groups” devote themselves to firing rockets and mortars and digging attack tunnels into Israel. Those were the prolific bombardments and threats that triggered the 2014 conflict. And when Israel finally acted in its own defense, the horrifying use by Hamas of human shields provided the expected grist for propaganda aimed at damaging Israel, including this report.

But the UN investigators are not done with this topic.

Step Three: just in case the “alleged” use of human shields was not entirely a function of inconvenient geography, they slather on the kind of bureaucratic language that would have captivated George Orwell (boldface mine):

While the commission was unable to verify independently the specific incidents alleged by Israel, the frequency of Palestinian armed groups carrying out military operations in the immediate vicinity of civilian objects and specially protected objects suggests that such conduct could have been avoided on a number of occasions. In those instances, Palestinian armed groups may not have complied to the maximum extent feasible with their obligations.

Civilian “objects”?

The problem was not that Hamas and its fellow terrorists used “objects” as protection, but that these terrorists used other human beings as shields. And the grave abuse here was not that that Hamas “could have” avoided such conduct, but that it didn’t.

Pages: 1 2 | 16 Comments»

Tiananmen and China’s Long March

June 3rd, 2015 - 11:11 pm

In the 66 years since Mao Tse-tung founded the People’s Republic of China, there has been just one brief spell in which the people of China escaped the chains of their rulers, enough to speak freely to each other and to the world. That was the uprising we remember as Tiananmen Square. The name does not do it justice. The uprising was centered in Beijing’s vast Tiananmen Square, and it was the student protests there that are most remembered. But the protests spread to other cities in China: Shanghai, Canton, Chengdu. Millions joined these protests — not only students, but laborers. People of all ages. Some came from other parts of China to Beijing for the chance to take part, though after 40 years of communist government brutality, they surely knew the risks.

It was a signal moment in the history of the 20th century, bedeviled for generations by Russia’s 1917 communist revolution, and its spawn around the globe. In the spring of 1989, the Soviet Union was on its way to implosion, but it had not yet collapsed — nor was its collapse clearly foreseen. Eastern Europe was about to break free, but that, too, was not a given. The Berlin Wall still stood. In Romania, the Ceausescus still ruled. And then, in China, the world’s most populous communist country, came the great tremor that was Tiananmen. For more than two weeks, in the run-up to June 4th, China’s government lost control of its capital city. It lost control to people who were peacefully demanding justice, liberty, and some way to hold their rulers accountable. These protesters built their own statue of liberty, facing the huge portrait of Mao, in Tiananmen Square. They quoted the Gettysburg address, with Lincoln’s closing line about government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

It was the most moving story I have ever covered. I was working at the time out of Hong Kong for the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page in Asia, and my editors — newsmen of the old school — told me to head to Beijing and stay there awhile. In the sleepless weeks that spanned the protests, the June 4th pre-dawn onslaught with which China’s army reclaimed Tiananmen, and the terrible aftermath of continued shootings and arrests, the word I heard from many people, the word that stays with me to this day, is “truth.” China’s people wanted the truth. They wanted a government that would no longer lie to them to justify its chokehold on power. They wanted the world to hear this truth. “Tell the truth about China” is what they said, over and over.

Pages: 1 2 | 3 Comments»

Reports out of southern Lebanon tell us that the Iran-backed terrorist group Hezbollah  continues to expand its network of tunnels along the border with Israel, preparing for another war. That’s not an accusation by Israeli sources, but a boast by Hezbollah, detailed in a series of recent articles in a Hezbollah-linked newspaper, As-Safir. As summed up by The Times of Israel, Hezbollah provided As-Safir reporters with a tour of its tunnel network, which they duly described as vast, advanced, reinforced, equipped with a 24-hour power supply, a ventilation system, and webs of escape shafts — connected to bunkers and surveillance posts.

While building this maze, Hezbollah has also been restocking its arsenal, following the 2006 summer war it launched against Israel. The Times of Israel story goes on to cite the estimates of a senior Israeli intelligence official that Hezbollah now has, as they sum it up, some “100,000 short-range rockets capable of striking northern Israel, several thousand missiles that can reach Tel Aviv and central Israel and hundreds more that can strike the entire country.” Most of these weapons have come from Syria and Iran. This adds up to much more firepower than Hezbollah had when it triggered the 2006 war by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers — whom Hezbollah murdered, while the UN assured Israel that it was negotiating their safe release.

So, where in this alarming picture are the United Nations peacekeepers? Recall that the UN keeps thousands of them in southern Lebanon: the blue berets of UNIFIL (the UN Interim Force in Lebanon). Prior to the 2006 summer war, the UNIFIL troops apparently failed to notice the labyrinth of tunnels and bunkers that Hezbollah was then building right under their noses, and the arsenal of weapons Hezbollah was trucking in. Or maybe they noticed, but felt it would be awkward to interfere. In any event, UNIFIL’s troops not only failed to keep the peace, but had to be rescued from the 2006 war that broke out under them.

The UN, with then-Secretary-General Kofi Annan leading the charge, proposed to remedy that peacekeeping disaster by providing yet more peacekeepers.The UN Security Council passed  Resolution 1701, which entailed plans to completely disarm all non-governmental forces in Lebanon. The UN beefed up UNIFIL. This UN peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon currently fields well over 10,000 troops, from 38 countries, operating on a budget of roughly $500 million per year (more than 28% of that funded by U.S. taxpayers).

And while Hezbollah today is building its new, improved, huge labyrinth of war tunnels, bragging about them, and stocking its arsenal with weapons to terrorize and kill Israelis, what are UNIFIL’s peacekeepers doing? Evidently they are not busy disarming Hezbollah. Nor have these blue berets been sounding a public alarm that they are failing abysmally in a mission that by now amounts to a costly panacea — prelude to worse war than the conflict that so shocked UNIFIL in 2006.

But they do keep busy. A glance at their web site finds that that they have been providing students in southern Lebanon with lessons in road safety. Earlier this month they took part in a half marathon in Beirut.  Last month they performed folkloric dances at a spring festival in the southern Lebanese town of Sultaniyeh. They’ve hosted visits by the president of Ireland and the king of Spain. They’ve celebrated the 37th anniversary of UNIFIL’s establishment in southern Lebanon. They’ve hosted a handicrafts exhibition.

And on May 15th, they organized a clown show, for children with special needs, featuring a “team of highly trained professionals specialized in clown therapy to promote messages of hope and peace.” We need not doubt the kindly impulse behind that exercise, or the pleasures of entertaining children. But if that’s how UNIFIL is spending its time and resources, while once again, under the noses of it dancing peacekeepers, Hezbollah turns southern Lebanon into a vast ant farm of war tunnels and bunkers stuffed with weapons, then the entire UNIFIL mission has become a clown show. And it’s not funny.

steineim_north_korea_5-20-15-2

“Artist’s” simulation of visit.

Gloria Steinem has landed… in Pyongyang. From there she plans to head south and on Sunday lead a group of women’s rights activists in a peace march — pardon me, an “historic” peace march (have you noticed that everything done these days in the name of peace is dubbed “historic”?) — across the Demilitarized Zone, from North to South Korea.

Organized by a group called Women Demilitarize the Zone, this march is meant to help end the unresolved Korean War, reunify the peninsula, reunite divided families and nudge North and South toward peace.

As a self-serving publicity stunt, this exercise has already been something of a success. It has netted the 81-year-old Steinem more news coverage than she usually gets these days (though not quite as much as Dennis Rodman enjoyed during his Pyongyang phase). And I think we can safely assume that for the participants in the march, it will be a gratifying tour of some fascinating parts of the Korean peninsula, including the DMZ — during which they can congratulate themselves that they are not only serving the cause of peace, but providing a feminist counterpoint to all those armed men facing off across the Zone. The governments of both North and South Korea have agreed to permit the march; peace events are planned on both sides of the DMZ, and presumably the historic peace marchers will cross the DMZ  along a carefully selected route that will be misleadingly free of land mines.

As Steinem explained her DMZ project in an interview published May 1 in the Washington Post:

“There is no substitute for putting your bodies where your concerns are…in my experience conflicts are far more likely to be solved when people sit down together… you have to be together with all five senses in order to produce the oxytocin that allows us to empathize with each other.”

These are excellent points if the aim is for Gloria Steinem and her co-marchers to enjoy their visit to the Korean peninsula. But they are at best an absurd gloss on the realities of the scene, in which the nuclear-testing missile-building repressive and murderous regime of North Korea maintains one of the world’s largest standing armies, deployed chiefly along the DMZ, with artillery threatening Seoul. The problem on the Korean peninsula is not a dearth of oxytocin, but a totalitarian government in North Korea, facing off against a democratic system in the South. There are plenty of people in both North and South Korea who would like to see the peninsula reunified. The sticking points are, on what terms? Which system prevails? At what cost? Who wins?

On that score, this Sunday’s planned procession across the DMZ does plenty for Pyongyang and less than nothing for peace. It might more accurately be called a march of moral equivalency. The marchers are endeavoring to treat the governments of Pyongyang and Seoul as equals, telling the Associated Press, “There is nothing in this action that prioritizes one government over another.”

Pages: 1 2 | 33 Comments»

China has just sentenced 71-year-old ace journalist Gao Yu to seven years in prison on charges of “leaking state secrets overseas.” And what are those secrets she is accused of leaking? They center on renewed efforts by the Chinese Communist Party under President Xi Jinping to suppress free speech.

We have here a sort of infinite regress of absurdities. If China’s authorities consider it a state secret that their policies are to smother free speech and punish dissent, then they themselves are broadcasting this secret by jailing a journalist for exposing it. Presumably, any Chinese journalist who might dare to delve into this could be accused of exposing the exposure of this secret — which is actually no secret at all.

But that’s the very point: To shut up other Chinese journalists, and chill discussion more broadly among those who cover China. Censorship is easier to practice when people are afraid even to suggest that it exists.

According to China’s Xinhua state news agency, Gao Yu was arrested in May 2014 on suspicion of “illegally obtaining a highly confidential document and sending an electronic copy of it to an overseas website in June last year.” Chinese authorities have not confirmed what document this was. But the Wall Street Journal reports that according to Gao’s  lawyer, Mo Shaoping, it was an internal Communist Party directive known as “Document No. 9,” which “identified ideological trends that the party should target.” Accounts from other sources, including Radio Free Asia, the BBC and the Committee to Protect Journalists, also point to Document No. 9, which the BBC describes as calling for “aggressive restrictions on democracy, civil society and the press.”

As the Wall Street Journal further reports: “Ms. Gao had admitted to the crime and apologized in a confession aired on state television in May, but she later retracted her confession, saying it had been made under duress after police detained her son.”

This terrible scene gets worse. According to the same Journal dispatch, Gao — a veteran dissident of the 1989 Tiananmen uprising, who spent years in jail in the 1990s for activities that displeased the Party — is one of three elderly dissidents prosecuted amid “a sustained crackdown on criticism and independent political activity in which dozens of activists, lawyers, scholars and others have been detained or jailed, in some cases for unusually long periods.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists reports that in 2008 China had 24 journalists in prison. Today it has 44. This is a testament to two phenomena: a resurgent campaign of repression by China’s ruling Communist Party, and, beneath that boot, the courage and profound desire among China’s people for something better. It is the latter that China’s regime is actually trying to keep secret.

It’s not only at the nuclear talks that Iran is goose-stepping right over those polite U.S. diplomats to grab all it can get. At the United Nations, Iran has just won a seat on the governing board of — what else? — UN Women.

Yes, you read that right. On Friday, at the UN, Iran won a three-year term, starting Jan. 1, 2016, on the board of UN Women — the UN’s self-described agency “for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.” Never mind that the UN’s own special rapporteur on human rights in Iran, Ahmed Shaheed, reported last month that under President Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s oppression of women is worse than ever.

How did this happen? In procedural terms, it was the latest product of the toxic UN system in which seats on governing boards are allocated to geographic blocs. Each bloc gets a quota of seats to fill, and puts forward a slate of candidates. Iran belongs to the Asia-Pacific States, which in this case avoided such awkward democratic customs as competition by putting forward five candidates for five seats: Samoa, United Arab Emirates, Turkmenistan, Pakistan and Iran.

The U.S. made a feeble gesture to do something about this, calling for a vote on this slate, instead of the usual “election” by acclamation. Under rules of the 54-member Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), which elects the governing board of UN Women, this translated into a secret ballot on which voting members had to write in the names of the countries they favored. Iran got the lowest number of votes: 36 (compared to 53 each for Samoa and the UAE, 52 for Turkmenistan and 49 for Pakistan). But it was still a classic UN no-contest election. Iran won a seat. Let’s run those numbers again. Yes, among the 54 members of ECOSOC — which claims broad responsibility for some 70% of the UN’s resources, some 22% of which are bankrolled by U.S. tax dollars — there are 36 members who wrote in “Iran” as one of their picks to guide UN policy toward women.

U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power described herself as “deeply disappointed” by the result. That’s a slight variation on the wording she used last year, when Iran won a slew of seats on various UN bodies, including reelection to the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women. Last year Power said the U.S. was “very disappointed.”

Among those who should be even more deeply disappointed are American citizens, whose money not only pays for a big share of the UN, but who also maintain in high style a massive  U.S. Mission to the UN in New York, appended to a huge State Department that operates as part of a lavishly funded gargantuan federal government — which right now appears unable to achieve even the modest goal of keeping Iran’s misogynist regime off the governing board of the UN program set up with great fanfare in 2010 as the UN’s flagship for fostering decent treatment of women.

Pages: 1 2 | 21 Comments»

Never mind whether the U.S. can keep track of Iran’s nuclear program — that’s next week’s problem. The question at the Iran nuclear talks, in full frenzy right now amid the chocolate shops of Lausanne, Switzerland, is how Secretary of State John Kerry can even keep track of his own meetings.

With a looming March 31 deadline for reaching an amorphous arrangement that U.S. senior officials describe as “a political framework that addresses all of the major elements of a comprehensive deal,” the talks have become a whirligig of high-level bilaterals, trilaterals, etc.  (or, as the talk-weary retinue of reporters have come to know them, bilats, trilats, etc.) among Iran and the P5+1 negotiating partners (U.S., Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany), hosted by European Union high representative Federica Mogherini.

Each meeting involving the U.S. is duly announced to the press by the State Department in detail that provides no information other than the names and timing:  an hour and five minutes with a bevy of Iranians, 44 minutes with the EU high representative, 30 minutes with Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, 40 minutes with the French, Germans and EU high representative, 59 minutes with the Chinese foreign minister… with additional permutations, this has been going on since Kerry arrived Thursday in Switzerland for the current round.

The only major player missing from the scene has been Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, reportedly due to arrive at the talks today [Sunday afternoon update: Lavrov has now arrived]. Perhaps he decided, reasonably enough, that the U.S. is digging itself into a hole so large that there is no need for Russia at this stage to pitch in. It’s been quite enough for the Kremlin to watch from afar. In any event, Kerry has already found time amid the bilats and trilats, etc., to phone Lavrov — one of the stipulations of the P5+1 negotiations being that no deal gets done unless it is acceptable not only to the U.S., Britain, France and Germany, but also to China (a major hub of illicit procurement for Iran’s nuclear program) and Russia (which despite what were once vociferous U.S. objections built Iran its nuclear reactor at Bushehr, and during the current Iran talks has itself come under targeted U.S. sanctions for chewing off pieces of Ukraine).

What is this all for? The real deadline for the Iran nuclear talks is not March 31, but June 30. Is that even really a deadline? The initial framework for these talks was announced in Nov., 2013, with a time frame of six months for nuclear talks to reach a comprehensive and permanent deal. The talks did not begin until Feb., 2014, almost three months later. Then the deadline was extended, twice. The aim at the moment is for a political framework to be agreed by the end of this month (this coming Tuesday), and then the “technical” details are to be hammered out by the end of June.

Except, senior U.S. officials have been repeating in background briefings since at least last February that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” — or variations on that theme. Presumably this means that Iran could agree to a political framework now, and then spend the next three months creating havoc with those irritating “technical” details. That approach worked out well for North Korea — which agreed at the Six-Party Talks in 2007 to a nuclear climbdown deal, and enjoyed a welter of rewards and U.S. concessions even as it began to come clear that Pyongyang disagreed with the U.S. over such technicalities as disclosing its full nuclear program and permitting actual verification. That deal collapsed at the end of 2008, followed in 2009 and 2013 by North Korea’s second and third nuclear tests.

Then there’s the problem of what the U.S. is by now aiming for. The catch-phrase of Obama administration officials, repeated endlessly, with slight variations, since the start of these nuclear talks, has been that the U.S. and its partners are seeking a deal that will prove to “the international community” that Iran’s nuclear program is “exclusively peaceful.” You can find seven repetitions of that basic line in this March 16, 2015 State Department background briefing alone (just search on the keyword “peaceful”).

The absurdity here is, of course, that Iran’s nuclear program is patently not exclusively peaceful. In these nuclear talks, Iran has reportedly been demanding terms, such as the “right” to uranium enrichment, which are not remotely necessary for a peaceful nuclear program. The Obama administration is now touting it as a desirable goal to try to keep Iran just a year away from a breakout to nuclear weapons. In the context of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s terror-sponsoring messianic tyranny, already expanding its reach across the Middle East, that is not a peaceful setup. Nor does it sound particularly reliable, given Iran’s long record of nuclear deceit, smuggling and lying about its nuclear program, compounded by errors and lags in western detection of the same.

But to judge by the frantic behavior of Kerry and U.S. envoy Wendy Sherman (U.S. point person at the talks since they began), President Obama apparently wants a nuclear deal with Iran, whatever that means, and whatever it takes. So let’s focus for a moment on the wiggle-room afforded by the term “international community” —  as in, the international community that is supposed to end up satisfied that Iran’s nuclear program is “exclusively peaceful.”

What is that “international community”? Who belongs to this apparently select crowd? Evidently it consists of the diplomats at the talks, and the politicians behind them. It includes Obama, Kerry, Putin, Lavrov, China’s President Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. It includes the British, German and French (who reportedly have not been entirely satisfied so far that Iran’s intentions are exclusively peaceful, but maybe with enough bilats and trilats Kerry will wear them down, if only by way of sheer exhaustion).

Anyone else who might have doubts about any deal (or quasi deal) emerging from the current talks  is apparently not part of the “international community.” If they are not satisfied, their concerns are less important than Iran’s demands. This crowd of non-members of the international community evidently includes a great many members of the U.S. Congress, Israel, Saudi Arabia, me, maybe you, and anyone else prone to wondering whether Tehran just might have plans to do something beyond powering the electric grid — with all that nuclear infrastructure which, along with its ballistic missile program, the Iranian regime is refusing to give up.

Are these talks by now really about stopping Iran from getting the bomb? Or are they preparing the way for U.S. administration officials and their select “international community” cohorts to start telling us, not so far down the road, that it’s really all right for Iran to get nuclear weapons, as long as the bombs are for purposes that Iran assures us are — what’s that phrase again? — “exclusively peaceful”?

 

pjtv_china_screenshot_3-28-15-1

Click to watch online trailer.

 

Among the most colossal shifts of our time has been the rise of China, from the black hole of Mao’s ruinous communism,  to a  power increasingly to be reckoned with around the globe.

But what is today’s China? Is it still communist? Capitalist? Is it friend or foe to the U.S.? Should we fear China’s rise? Resist it? Welcome it? What lies ahead?

These are the big questions tackled by PJTV in a special in-depth series of video reports: “Made in China.” Hosted by PJTV’s Bill Whittle, with Scott Ott, this is a three-part exploration of what China has become, where it came from, and what might lie ahead. You can watch a trailer, and purchase it here.

This is not your standard MSM China debate. For insights, PJTV enlisted people who have both firsthand experience with China, and great respect for the principles of freedom and free markets; who proceed from the understanding that China’s model of a quasi-market economy coupled with continuing repression by China’s Communist Party is not — as some would have it — a recipe for stability. It is profoundly unstable.

In the first segment, PJTV  focuses on “China: Still Communist, or Have They Gone Capitalist?” Hillsdale College economics professor Charles Steele explains that China is still trying to walk a line between the two: it certainly has markets, but they are hugely subject to government intervention. Coming from utter destitution under Mao’s communism, the result of even limited freedom to do business and own property has been to lift more people out of poverty than has ever happened before, anywhere in the history of mankind. But China’s continuing political repression has left it with enormous and potentially explosive problems, yet to be solved. Terry Jones of Investors Business Daily jumps in to explain why China’s economy is running into growing difficulties, a shrinking work force, and why he believes “What has been called the China Miracle is officially over.”

The second segment addresses the implications of the raw repression with which China’s Communist Party keeps power: “From Mao to Tiananmen Square: Chinese Communists are Murderers.” For a clear-eyed reminder of the real character of communism and its role in shaping the government of today’s China, PJTV turns to Marion Smith, of the Victims of Communism Foundation. More insight comes from Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute, who argues that China today is more fascist than communist, and who along the way explains why evil comes of a system in which the imperative is not equality of rights, but equality of outcome.

Full disclosure: I’m also one of the commentators for this segment on Chinese communism. In 1989, I covered the massive Chinese uprising centered in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, and its bloody suppression on June 4. I witnessed both the tremendous yearning of China’s people for the kind of freedom that made America great (in Tiananmen they built their own Statue of Liberty), and I saw some of the killing with which they were silenced. This PJTV special was a chance to share some thoughts on what America, today, could or should do to address the continuing repression.

In the final segment, Bill Whittle asks: “Made in China: Will They Attack Us?” He gets disturbing answers from experts Gordon Chang, Yaron Brook and the Heritage Foundation’s James Jay Carafano. Some things depend on what America does next, and with China — as its ruling Communist Party tries to navigate the instabilities and domestic discontent it has wrought — we are entering a dangerous passage.

What comes next in China could greatly affect us all. There’s a lot more I could tell you about this PJTV special, in which Bill Whittle asks all the right questions, and gets answers that take into account the basic principles that shape the course of human events. But even better, you can watch this “Made in China” special for yourself, available here.

At the Iran nuclear talks, U.S. negotiators have been aiming for a deal that would involve a so-called breakout time of one year — meaning a deal structured so that the Tehran regime, should it cheat, would still need at least a year to be able to produce nuclear weapons. The idea is that this would be a period long enough for inspectors to detect the cheating, and the international community — presumably the “world powers” now negotiating with Iran — to do something about it.

At a background press briefing, held Monday in Switzerland on the sidelines of these nuclear talks, an American senior administration official was asked by a reporter, “Why did you pick one year, instead of nine months, or 15 months?… What’s the reasoning behind that?”

The senior official replied that the U.S. arrived at this goal of a one-year breakout time by using a secret, proprietary model to run “very complicated calculations, which have been validated by our labs and by outside opinion leaders with security clearances because these calculations are based on classified information.” This model, and the information, and the calculations, are all so secret that according to this official the U.S. has not discussed the details with its P5+1 negotiating partners — Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany. They all have their own models, and they negotiate with each other over how to haggle with Iran over arrangements that could yield some collectively acceptable margin of breakout time.

All this secrecy is disquieting, in an era when trust is not the first thing that springs to mind regarding complex government deals designed to be signed and sealed before we find out what’s in them. (If, indeed, we ever discover in full what’s in them. The full terms of the Nov. 2013 Joint Plan of Action that ushered in the now twice-extended Iran nuclear talks have yet to be disclosed by the Obama administration).

Even more disturbing, however, was the initial response of this senior U.S. official to the breakout-time question, before the official got down to such brass tacks as secret proprietary models and complex calculations. The first thing the official said was that the one-year breakout goal had been decided so early in the negotiating process that it was hard to remember: “I actually would have to go back, because it’s so — such a long time now.”

Yes, it is rather a long time. And that is a very important detail. The issue here is not only how long it might take Iran to break out to a bomb, but how long it might take the U.S. and those other world powers to genuinely face up to any such effort (and cheating is likely — Iran’s record to date has been an epic tale of nuclear deceit). Then they would probably need time to gin up the nerve to genuinely do something. Call it the necessary Diplomatic Breakout Time — the time needed for the rest of the world, or the P5+1 world powers cutting this deal, to take decisive action.

Here’s a nonproprietary, non-secret guide to how that might work. Look at the time spent already on these Iran talks. After years of European talks with Iran, and haggling over terms of broader talks… after assorted discoveries of smuggling and global front networks and secret Iranian nuclear facilities (remember Qom, 2009)… after failed talks and back channel talks and talks about talks, there eventually came the Joint Plan of Action in November, 2013, setting the framework for the current talks. Those were supposed to be wrapped up in six months with a permanent and comprehensive deal. But following the announcement of the Joint Plan, it took almost two months to get the talks started (Iran’s lead negotiator, Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, took advantage of the break to go lay a wreath in Lebanon on the grave of the late Hezbollah terrorist Imad Mughniyah). By the July deadline, Iranian officials were having a good time declaring their “right” to enrich uranium. The talks were extended through November, 2014. Then they were extended again, with a current deadline of June 30, 2015, and plans to reach a framework agreement for a permanent deal by the end of this month.

During the many rounds of talks, there have by now been countless (OK, I could probably count them, but it could take days) hours of bilateral, trilateral and full court meetings. There have been working dinners, and discussions in capitals. There have been rounds of meetings in Geneva, Vienna, New York, Geneva again, and now the Swiss city of Lausanne. With Iran plus the countries of the P5+1 engaging each other during well over a year of acrobatic permutations, these talks have been a seven-ring circus. Senior U.S. officials have compared the process to doing a puzzle, solving a Rubik’s cube, and at one giddy and perhaps sleep-deprived moment invoked the metaphor of “an amoeba that sort of moves in and out until all of the pieces lock into place.”

That’s how this deal is taking shape. So, if an agreement is actually reached, with a built-in buffer — as calculated by secret models — of a one-year breakout time for Iran, how does the diplomatic decision process work for the U.S. and its P5+1 partners? Presumably they would all first have to be persuaded that Iran was really cheating, and how, and how much, by whatever standards are set when the amoeba pieces lock into place. Presumably they would then have to debate and decide exactly what action to take, and — since Iran might use its talents to devise a form of cheating that such a deal has not fully anticipated and planned for — the logistics of the when, and the whom and the where and the how.

If, as the Obama administration has been considering, the deal is turned over to the UN Security Council, where Russia and China wield permanent vetoes, how long might it take to authorize and launch decisive action?

Here’s some unclassified information to help model an answer to that question. North Korea has been under UN sanctions for its nuclear and missile programs since 2006, when it conducted its first illicit nuclear test. North Korea is still building missiles and nuclear weapons, and the diplomats of the P5 are still brooding over what to do about it. So in that case there’s already been a diplomatic breakout time of almost nine years, and they haven’t broken out yet. If the P5+1 consummate the nuclear deal now taking shape with Iran, and Iran cheats (as it almost certainly will) what, realistically, would be the diplomatic breakout time for dealing with that? Factor in your own best guess, but all the signs suggest it would take a lot more than one year.