Meloni achieves little in naive attempt to sway Trump

Meloni's meeting with Trump triggered varied responses. The Spectator suggested her mission to "make the West great again" would infuriate Macron. Sky News meanwhile pointed to her playing the 'role of political peacekeeper'. However, while many news outlets attempted to elevate her visit to one of diplomacy and soothing words in order to win over the US president, Le Monde noted that she ended up without anything to show for her visit. 

During the meeting Meloni offered Trump a visit to Rome, though there wasn't a sweetener with the meeting of a monarch which the UK PM Starmer attempted a few weeks previously. Italy is no longer a monarchy and it wasn't perhaps the best idea to suggest a meeting with the ailing pope.

The announcement of the visit to Italy was by way of an attempt to kick start negotiations with the EU and come to a deal in order to mitigate US tariffs. The invite did not spark Trump's enthusiasm, nor did he even begin to confirm the trip.

There was some sense of comradery with Giorgia Meloni being warmly welcomed by Trump who called her a "great prime minister" and said she had "taken Europe by storm".

Some cynical observers might suggest this was more about her being a woman and Trump was showing his misogynistic colours as he fawned over the 48 year old blonde as she arrived at the White House in a dazzling white trouser suit.

There was some awkward body language on display however. Meloni sat cross-legged throughout the meeting, her hand folded gripping a pen with a notepad on her lap. At times her foot folded behind her grounded leg pointing to even more awkwardness or defensiveness as Trump watched her intently all the while.

There were further awkward moments. After Trump suggested they take questions from reporters Meloni practically leapt from her chair in shock as journalists threw a barrage of demands at the pair, the cacophony overwhelming the Italian PM. Briefly thrown back into her chair, her eyes wide open like a rabbit caught in the headlights of a car on a dark country road, Meloni composed herself. But further uncomfortable moments were to come.

 
When an Italian journalist insisted on asking Meloni a question in her native Italian she looked disgusted. Reluctantly she answered in Italian, her features relaxing slightly as she embarked on an extended discourse. Her body language betrayed her as she lifted both feet off the ground, one crossed leg folding behind the other once again. As she finished and an American journalist tried to ask another question, Trump interjected. "No, wait, I want to hear what you said," the president insisted.

Meloni's female interpreter, sitting nearby, revealed. "Prime Minister Meloni was asked … what she thinks about the fact that President Trump holds Zelenskyy responsible for the war in Ukraine."

Sensing the moment could have worsened, Meloni intervened in a moment of damage limitation and reinterpreted her own answer in Italian, steering her comments towards her vow to in raising Italy's contributions to NATO.

Trump, reading between the lines concerning her response, attempted to defend his position concerning Zelenskyy. "I don't hold Zelenskyy responsible," he insisted, a full retreat from his previous false accusations that Ukraine started the war [BBC]. "But I'm not exactly thrilled with the fact that that war started. I'm not happy with anybody involved."

Meloni may have visited Washington DC with good intent to kick start negotiation with the EU and to temper the fallout of Trump's trade war. But there is clearly a sense of naivety if she, or any other leader, believes they can tame the savage beast that is Donald J. Trump and his pack of loyal doberman pinschers.

With his launch of his Trade War there is clearly a shift in geopolitics. Trump's flip-flopping concerning tariffs has created uncertainty in financial markets. His stance on Gaza and the possibility of building a Mediterranean resort has caused consternation in the Middle East. And then there's the president's attempt to broker a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. He has been accused of aligning himself too closely with Russia's Vladimir Putin and appeasing his demands in order to bring about a ceasefire. Meanwhile his bullying of Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelenskyy whilst trying to force him to sign over mineral rights has been likened to Hitler's forcing of the Czech leader Hacha to hand over his country to the Reich in 1939 [Dominic Grieve Twitter/X]. 

There is no certainty in this new world order. While the world beyond the American borders may want to calm the savage beast, it is probably best just to look beyond the US, as China appears to be doing. Europe has already been shocked into creating a so-called coalition of the willing to ward off the Russian threat and help defend Ukraine as the US shows signs of withdrawal.

And so too with trade. Europe, and the rest of the world need to focus on trade partners outside of the US and leave Trump’s America withdraw into its own borders if that’s what he has planned or wishes to do.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Trump blinks as China ups the stakes

The US president paused his 'reciprocal tariffs' reducing them across the board to 10% except for China after a week of turmoil in global markets wiped trillions off the value of shares. He said he would however continue to maintain punitive tariffs on China which he raised to 125% after Beijing had earlier raised its tariff on US imports to 84%. But can Trump win this trade war which has been likened to a high stakes game of poker in which he may not hold all the cards?

Trump's stated aim in his trade war and widespread tariffs is to reduce the US deficit with other trading partners and bring manufacturing back to the United States. But this cannot be achieved in the short term.

The US is reliant on imports from around the globe, not only in terms of food and goods but also the raw materials with which it relies upon to build products in the US. There are countless examples, but some key imports include rubber, steel, metal and other raw materials. It is almost totally reliant upon other countries for rubber. In 2024, the United States imported $1.68Bn of rubber, being the 269th most imported product. Its top suppliers include China, Canada, Mexico, Korea, Rep. and Thailand, all of which have been hit with high tariffs.

Likewise the United States is also a significant importer of steel and aluminium. Canada, Brazil, and Mexico are its top suppliers of steel while it relies upon other countries for its much needed aluminium. Around half of all aluminum used in the US is imported, with the vast majority coming from its neighbour Canada.

The list is virtually endless and whichever way one looks at it the US manufacturing industry as it stands is reliant upon foreign imports.

The other overlooked factor is the cost of the US workforce. While some globalists will point to the iniquity of wages paid to workers in China, Bangladesh, Vietnam and India, the fact is that should the products they supply be made in the US the cost of wages would likely make such products cost prohibitive. An Apple iPhone currently costs anywhere between "600 and a little over $1000. With the 125% tariffs placed on Chinese imports this will double. But should that same iPhone be made in the US, with current wage structures and other factors the cost could be over $3500 according to some reports [CBS].

Wedbush Securities tech analyst Dan Ives points to many things that the Trump administration appears to overlook, even putting aside the time it would take for the likes of Apple to relocate to the United States.

"Saying we can just make this in the USA is a statement that incredibly understates the complexity of the Asia supply chain and the way electronics, chips, semi fabs, hardware, smartphones, etc. are made for US consumers over the last 30 years," he said.  

While the US produces rubber, primarily synthetic rubber, with about 920,000 tonnes produced annually, the country imports almost all its natural rubber. Both types are integral to tyre manufacture so the US car manufacturing industry is reliant on foreign supplies.

Trump's war on China could have a number of effects. There is a risk that if products were unable to enter the US, Chinese firms could seek to "dump" them abroad. While that could be beneficial for some consumers, it could also undercut producers in some countries and threaten jobs and wages.

However, this might be too simplistic. China's exports to the US account for only 2.9% of the country's GDP. This is significant in cash terms but it would be a loss that China could easily absorb should it stop supplying the United States altogether.

Trump, through his punitive tariffs may intend to force China to kowtow to his will. But it risks irreversibly damaging the US economy.

Trump paused his tariffs as it was observed that US treasury bonds were being sold off. China holds at least a fifth of US debt and it is speculated that China was playing a trump card by selling off some of its holdings. Economists have long thought that China cannot afford to do this since it would damage its own economic standing. However China has been building its reserves in gold for a significant period and may be willing to weaponize its US treasury holdings.

Should China unilaterally stop exporting to the US, this too would cripple the economy. Retail shelves in the US would likely be empty inside 6 weeks, and the impact on the US economy would be debilitating. China dominates the global rare earth supply chain and without them the US chip industry would collapse. The US military, along with various other sectors, is highly dependent on rare earth elements for critical technologies, and China's dominance in their production and processing creates a significant vulnerability for the US.

Another key import is that of pharmaceutics. China exports many active pharmaceutical ingredients for America's drug industry in terms of key medicines China supplies 95% of US imports of ibuprofen, 70% of acetaminophen, and 40-45% of penicillin. The migraine experienced by some Wall Street traders over the last week may become a bigger headache if there isn't a painkiller or prophylactic.

Across Europe the main indices have seen significant losses over the last month with the FTSE down 7%, the CAC40 down 10% and the Dax down 8.9%. The US indices rose on the back of Trump's tariff pause but have yet to regain what they lost in the last week and into Thursday's open showed further losses. Both of China's main indices have seen some drops but they have remained relatively stable throughout Trump's trade war on the world.

Trump may on the surface appear to be the strong man in the room as he increases the stakes by placing a 125% tariff on Chinese imports, but China is in it for the long game and may have many more cards to play.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Trump trade war escalates as China says it will fight

Trump's trade war has rocked global markets wiping trillions of dollars off the value of companies. From Wall Street to the Japanese stock market, there was nowhere unaffected after the US president slapped tariffs on nearly every country around the world.

Trump's claim is that his tariffs are a way of bringing industry back to the United States and to Make America Wealthy Again. But his sledgehammer approach with apparently random targeting has left many outside his circle bewildered and confused, as well as panicked.

Trump's tariffs ranged from a flat rate of 10% up to 50% with no particular logic as per its targeting [BBC]. The UK, a country with a supposed 'special relationship', with America was hit with a 10% tariff along with the likes of Brazil, Argentina, Australia and Ukraine. Most of those hit with 10% tariffs had a less than 1% share of US imports, though there were some exceptions with Brazil, Singapore and the UK all providing a little more than 1%. However there were some countries in the bracket of sending small amounts of exports and yet were hit with punitive tariffs. Angola and Algeria were hit with tariffs of some 30% despite providing less that 1% of US imports while Vietnam was hit with 46% tariffs while sending around 4.2% of American imports, primarily computers, electrical products, machinery, apparel and footwear. Bizarrely the Falkland Islands, a British overseas territory, was itself hit with a separate 42% tariff despite sending only around $27.4m [£21.2m] of goods to the US per year, as of 2023, mostly non-fillet frozen fish. In contrast, the Observatory of Economic Complexity [OEC] said the US exported $329,000 (£255,000) of goods to the Falklands.

The islanders were surprised, shocked, and angry to be placed in Trump's "worst offenders" list. With a population of about 3,600 people, the Falkland Islands has little room to manoeuvre. There has been little coverage concerning one of Britain's territories being slapped with such punitive tariffs with the UK prime minister conveniently ignoring the issue while talking of a calm and pragmatic approach to Trump's trade war on the world.


There have been some lone voices with the Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey urging the prime minister Sir Keir Starmer to urgently meet Falklands Governor Alison Blake to discuss the impact of the tariffs. Describing it as an "outrageous act of aggression", Sir Ed said that "Trump's trade war could be the biggest threat facing the Falklanders since Argentina's invasion." [BBC]

Such apparent random and arbitrary attacks could be potentially explained by so-called trade deficits, in that some places buy less from the US than is sent to the United States. But this does not explain why two uninhabited territories were hit with 10% tariffs.

There was much made of a 10% tariff levied at the Heard and McDonald Islands, an overseas territory belonging to Australia. The tiny group of islands in the Antarctic are home only to penguins and a few other animals and exports nothing. And also on the list were the Svalbard and Jan Mayen islands which belong to Norway. Despite having virtually no economy the islands were slapped with a 10% tariff while Norway was levied a 15% tariff.

Meanwhile the French territories of Guadeloupe and Martinique in the Caribbean, French Guiana in South America and the islands of Mayotte, in the Indian Ocean were singled out for 10% tariffs while France itself, under the umbrella of the EU, faces a 20% tariff. Réunion island, another French territory, faces tariffs of 37% [Politico]. 

The disproportionate and apparently random list has puzzled economists and commentators. Why was an uninhabited island slapped with 10% tariffs? Why the disparity of tariffs on overseas territories owned by Britain and France and the mainland?

It's almost as though the numbers and countries were plucked out of a hat. Indeed there have even been suggestions the plan was drawn up with the help of AI [Guardian / The Verge / Newsweek]. This has been denied by the US Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick however [CBS].

Soon after the tariffs were announced the White House published a formula with which it had calculated its sums [Newsweek / USTR / BBC / YouTube].

Even if actual economists were working out the levies on paper, many were critical of the methodology and claimed it did not make sense [AEI].

Trade deficits with a given country are not determined only by tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers, but also by international capital flows, supply chains, comparative advantage, geography amongst other things. It is all very well to suggest the EU take more US cars or other countries or territories take more American goods, but it may not be practical or financially viable for such places.

The EU and the UK don't buy American cars because they don't like such vehicles. Whilst there are safety rules sometimes prohibiting certain SUVs and large trucks on European roads, it is more the practical aspect that dissuades the consumer.

Many American vehicles are simply not economical enough and with fuel prices significantly higher in Europe it is not cost effective for people to buy such vehicles. Moreover many US vehicles are too big for European roads.

But is the trade war really about raising revenue as much as a policy of isolationism? According to Professor James Angel, who specialises in the market structure and regulation of global financial markets, Trump's trade war is driven by "extreme isolationists" that are "trashing 75 years of US policy".

Trump has publicly said he wants to clip the wings of China, as well as the EU who he has claimed was specifically "formed in order to screw the United States" [Sky News]. 

Of China he has particularly set his sights and taken aim with a series of tariffs which have levied 54% on all goods arriving on American shores.

But while the UK PM is resistant to retaliation and the EU is already attempting to negotiate with the Trump administration along with up to 70 other countries, China is not standing by idly.

China reacted to the compound tariffs with a retaliatory tariff of 34% having held emergency discussions on Friday 4th April despite it being a national holiday.

Trump was not amused and responded via social media post saying he would "impose ADDITIONAL Tariffs on China of 50%, effective April 9th," if China did not pull back [Truth Social]. But instead of pulling back China responded with a Foreign Ministry spokesperson saying China would "fight to the end".

"The US threat to escalate tariffs on China is a mistake on top of a mistake, China will never accept this," the spokesperson added [Xinhua / Axios], just hours before a 104% tariff was imposed on Chinese imports.

However the war of words could escalate into more than just a global recession as Goldman Sachs and others have already predicted.

There are concerns that China could escalate matters significantly. As of January 2025, China held approximately $760.8 billion in US Treasury securities, making it a significant foreign holder of US debt. In fact it is believed China may hold even more than this despite having been in a process of selling off its treasuries and building up its reserves of gold.

Should China opt to dump this government debt, the blow to the US would be seismic. Such a sell off would also hit global markets [Yahoo].   

Many economists believe that China would be unlikely to make such a move since such a sell off could also hurt China. However with China having become less reliant on the dollar and built its gold reserves, whilst reinforcing its ties with BRICs and south-east Asian partners. China may feel emboldened enough to hit back hard [YouTube]. 

The trade war Trump has started has become a high stakes game of poker. It remains unclear who really holds the cards, but it is well known that China often keeps its cards close to its chest. In such a game however, the whole world may well get burned.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

USA on the road to a fascist state

The 47th President of the United States has said "there are methods" for seeking a third term in White House and added that he wasn't joking during an interview with NBC aired on Sunday 30th March. His bold assertion came after just 70 days in office.

If it wasn't clear to anybody by now that Trump has all but created an American Fascist state then they are surely delusionary.

First 70 days

In the 70 days in office Trump has ruled by diktat, signing countless executive orders that have overwhelmed the judiciary. When judges have attempted to countermand his orders Trump has simply ignored them and steamrollered ahead, ignoring the judges and the constitution. One particular case in point was when more than 200 Venezuelan individuals were deported in shackles to a supermax prison in El Salvador

In other high profile cases, members of ICE [The US Immigration & Customs Enforcement agency] have grabbed individuals and summarily arrested them without charge and incarcerated them at detention centres. The first high profile case was when US Immigration authorities arrested Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil amid President Trump's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activism. Then on the 25th March ICE arrested a Tufts University doctoral student who co-authored an op-ed supporting Palestine. Rümeysa Öztürk was taken from the street by masked, plainclothes officers in a Boston-area suburb before being bundled into an unmarked car and disappeared. Her lawyers were unable to find her for many hours until she finally surfaced at a detention centre in Louisiana, some 2,500 km away.

For some it might be brushed away as radicals and criminals being rounded up. But for others, even for those not necessarily sympathetic to the political cause of Khalil and Öztürk, it is disquieting.

The clampdown of supposed dissent and the rounding up of 'illegal immigrants' has prompted many to recollect Martin Niemöller's infamous quote.

Martin Niemöller was a German theologian and Lutheran pastor. He is known for his opposition to the Nazi regime during the late 1930s. But he is best remembered for his quote made following the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II.

"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

While Trump's targets for deportation and incarceration have differed, Niemöller's statement made in the mid-1940s has brought back uncomfortable memories from the past.

It has often been said that while history doesn't repeat itself, it often rhymes.

Echoes from the past

Trump's second term in office and his consolidation of power has greatly concerned many for the strong similarities of Hitler's rise to power.

On the face of it, this might seem like an exaggeration and hyperbole. But there are a great many similarities as well as differences.

Hitler's battle with the judicial system and his being jailed arguably helped him into power as his incarceration was seen by some at the time as being a witch hunt.  Having failed in taking power by force, Hitler chose the ballot box to secure his grip on Germany.

Similarly, Trump failed to overturn an election with an insurrection - known simply as January 6th - and faced multiple charges which he capitalised upon by claiming it was a witch hunt.

Both would-be dictators came to power on the ticket of promising to make their respective countries great once more. The mantra of Make America Great Again is little different from what Hitler, and other fascist leaders such as Mussolini and Austria's Engelbert Dollfuss attempted to sell to their people in the 1930s.

It is all too simplistic, of course, to make direct comparisons with the likes of Hitler. But fascism comes in many guises. Fascism does not necessarily come with neat uniforms, jackboots and swastikas. Dollfuss was a fascist, but most often wore a suit. Mussolini's attire was somewhat militaristic but less extreme than the imagery the Nazis employed. Politically too, facism can take different forms. Hitler's fascism was on one extreme level while Austria's Engelbert Dollfuss' fascistic rule was liberal by comparison. Indeed, pressured by Hitler to allow his country to be annexed, Dollfuss was for a time even protected and supported by Italy's Mussollini.

Where fascism is mostly grounded is in its focus on 'the leader'. It might even become a cult of personality as seen with China's Mao Zedong or in North Korea with its dynasty of leaders; Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un.

Trump has already built around himself a cult of followers under the slogan of MAGA. Meanwhile he has repeatedly expressed his expansionist dreams of 'taking back' the Panama Canal, annexing Canada - making it the 51st state - and Greenland with claims it is necessary to protect the security of America.

Peacemaker

Trump meanwhile has proclaimed himself to be the peacemaker with his attempt to broker a 'peace deal' and halt the Russia-Ukraine war. Yet critics have said Trump's real motive is not so much a lasting peace than to be awarded a Nobel peace prize.

His attempts to secure a ceasefire and a peace deal has been criticised for appeasing Vladimir Putin while bullying Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelenskyy, calling him a dictator and later at a White House meeting on Friday 28th February 2025, verbally assaulting the beleaguered wartime leader.

That meeting has been likened to an event some 86 years ago when on the evening of the 14th March 1939, Hitler had summoned President Hácha to the Reich Chancellery in Berlin. Hitler had deliberately kept him waiting for hours, while Hitler watched a film. A clear attempt to belittle him. Finally, at 1:30 a.m., on the 15th March 1939, Hitler saw the President. He told Hácha that as they were speaking, the German army was about to invade Czechoslovakia.

In an ultimatum Hitler then gave the Czech President two options: cooperate with Germany, in which case the "entry of German troops would take place in a tolerable manner" and "permit Czechoslovakia a generous life of her own, autonomy and a degree of national freedom..." or face a scenario in which "resistance would be broken by force of arms, using all means."

The German ministers [Göring and Ribbentrop] were pitiless. They literally hunted Dr. Hácha and M. Chvalkovsky around the table on which the documents were lying, thrusting them continually before them, pushing pens into their hands, incessantly repeating that if they continued in their refusal, half of Prague would lie in ruins from bombing within two hours, and that this would be only the beginning. Hundreds of bombers were waiting for the order to take off, and they would receive that order at six in the morning if the signatures were not forthcoming.

While Trump and Vance did not chase Zelenskyy around the Oval office insisting he sign away his country, the public haranguing of the Ukrainian president had strong echoes of the past.

"You got to be more thankful, because let me tell you, you don't have the cards. With us, you have the cards, but without us, you don't have any cards," Trump told Zelenskyy, after a bitter war of words where the vice president J.D.Vance also chimed in to suggest he was ungrateful and hadn't thanked the administration enough for their help.

Trump also accused Zelenskyy of risking millions of lives and risking WWIII in his pushing back of Trump's proposals and his demand for security guarantees..

Following the 1939 meeting Hácha reportedly had a heart attack and eventually signed the documents thrust at him, thus handing over Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany.

Zelenskyy has yet to concede to Trump's and Putin's pressure but the parallels are, nonetheless, stark.

Europe has since come together in solidarity, saying they stand with Zelenskyy and Ukraine. But there is growing unease as Trump's allegiance to Putin seems to increase.

Talks have continued since that fraught meeting, but a ceasefire remains elusive. And for his part, Trump is now reportedly said to be losing patience with the Russian leader. Speaking to NBC the US president said he was "pissed off" with Vladimir Putin over his approach to a ceasefire in Ukraine and threatened to levy tariffs on Moscow's oil exports if the Russian leader does not agree to a truce within a month. Meanwhile Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said the minerals deal being pushed at him is being continually changed with the US now seeking rights to mine gas and oil reserves, while still avoiding any mention of security guarantees. 

Tariffs and sabre rattling

With regards the economy, Trump has shocked the world with his widespread tariffs. Particular targets thus far have been Canada, Mexico and China. However, he plans to roll out more far reaching tariffs on Europe and other countries in the coming days and weeks. His policy of tariffs allows Trump to assert his economic power without seeking approval from Congress, another aspect by which the president has secured autocratic power. 

The tariffs have rocked markets and political establishments around the globe. Some nations have kow towed to Trumpian demands while others have sought to negotiate with him in order to soften the blow to their export market. Others, such as Canada, China and the EU as a whole have threatened reciprocal tariffs.

It is not entirely clear what Trump's motive and end game is. Tariffs applied to foreign nations, while potentially hurting said countries, also hurt the US consumer. A 25% tariff on European cars does not mean the EU pays more. It means that the importer has to pay the US government the extra 25% which ultimately will be passed to the consumer. Thus a $20,000 car from the EU will suddenly cost the US customer $25,000. The incentive is to get EU car manufacturers to build in the US. However, this can't happen overnight. The other motive is to force more factories to manufacture at home and get Americans to buy products Made in America. This argument falls down, in that many of the raw materials or parts needed to make such products are imported from abroad, and on which Trump has already placed punitive tariffs.

There have been suggestions that members of his own administration are capitalising on the volatility by shorting the markets. The suggestion has been rebutted by the White House. When White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt was asked,"You're sure nobody here at the White House shorted the Dow?"   she responded by saying "No, I don't think so."

Consolidation of Power

But what of Trump's longer term plans? Perhaps one of the best ways to answer this would be to point to Project 2025, a political initiative to reshape the federal government of the United States and consolidate executive power in favour of right-wing policies.

Dismissed during the 2024 campaign by Trump himself, as something he was not familiar with, Project 2025 has been key to Trump's game plan.

In particular the project calls for merit-based federal civil service workers to be replaced by people loyal to Trump and to take partisan control of key government agencies, including the Department of Justice [DOJ], Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], Department of Commerce [DOC], and Federal Trade Commission [FTC].

With respect to this Trump has placed Elon Musk in charge, and who has laid off thousands of government employees under the umbrella Department Of Government Efficiency [DOGE].

The project has also laid out plans for other agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] and the Department of Education [ED], to be dismantled or abolished.

In this regard Trump has already signed an executive order aimed at the dismantling of the Department of Education. In addition the Trump administration has shut down three watchdog agencies in the Department of Homeland Security.

All of this has occurred without congressional oversight in as much as most decisions thus far have been made by presidential decree in the form of executive orders.

Criminalising porn & targeting LGBTQ+

One key element of Project 2025 is its proposal to criminalise pornography. To date no overt plans have been enacted upon. However, within Trump's base and amongst ultra-conservative Republicans there would likely be strong support.

While the proposals are certainly targeted towards pornography in general, the Project 2025 proposal is even more sweeping, indicating that its anti-porn language may be covering for a broader crusade against LGBTQ rights.

Within the document it states, "Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian knot inextricably binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare. It has no claim to First Amendment protection. Its purveyors are child predators and misogynistic exploiters of women. Their product is as addictive as any illicit drug and as psychologically destructive as any crime. Pornography should be outlawed. The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered."

While some of this may seem incongruous given Trump's own misogynistic behaviour, it seems likely that he will nonetheless follow through on such proposals.

Already Trump has removed some legal protections against anti-LGBT discrimination and has ended diversity, equity, and inclusion [DEI] programs across government departments which has prompted many large conglomerates to follow suit.

Immigrants and dissidents

One of Trump's most outspoken policies has been one of tackling 'illegal immigration'. Project 2025 recommends the arrest, detention, and mass deportation of illegal immigrants. And within days of the inauguration ICE had been deployed to carry out these objectives. The arrests were carried out without warning making media coverage difficult, and their detention has been veiled in secrecy. Some have been sent to already established detention centres while others have been swiftly deported, ignoring court orders and pushback by politicians and human rights groups. Trump has even looked into the possibility of reopening Guantanamo Bay to house immigrants ahead of their repatriation.

So swift have some of these changes in policy been made that it has been almost impossible for the media to keep up and report on events. When Trump initially ordered that an existing migrant detention facility at the base be expanded to hold some 30,000 people there was some brief reportage across many news platforms. But as immigrants began to arrive, there was scant reporting as events were drowned out by other things the administration was doing.

In fact that has seemingly been much of the game plan in terms of rolling out Trump's plan for autocracy.

End of democracy

With information overload, courts and the judicial system overwhelmed with procedural attempts to counter unconstitutional diktats, and dissent being stifled with arrests which further distracts as media coverage focuses on comparative minutiae, Trump is consolidating his power.

Anyone suggesting Trump is attempting to establish an autocracy and bring about a form of American fascism is accused of wearing a tin-foil hat or being a conspiracy theorist. Yet it seems that to believe otherwise is delusional.

Many of the guardrails of American democracy have, in just a few short weeks, been dispensed with, eroded or ignored. Congress has been left largely impotent, given little, if any, actual legislation has passed through the body. Judges and their rulings have been ignored. And those opposing the administration, either within government or on the streets are being targeted verbally or with detention. Even those entering the United States have found themselves singled out for not having the right viewpoint.

In late March three members of the UK Subs, a punk band, were detained and returned to the UK after flying to Los Angeles for a gig, supposedly for having incorrect visas. One band member suspected it was for his "less than flattering, public comments regarding their president".

Just days before, a French scientist was returned after phone messages critical of Trump were found on his device. It is unclear whether such instances are the tip of the iceberg or an unfortunate mistake met out by overzealous immigration staff.

The detaining of pro-Palestinian activists Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk may be two anomalies or just two examples of many that have gone unreported because someone was not on hand to record the arrests on their phones. Yet further examples have come to light with another pro-Palestianian activist, Momodou Taal, leaving the US having had his visa revoked. And it emerged just days ago, according to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, that some 300 university students have had their student visas revoked due to involvement in pro-Palestinian protests.

Repeating history

In the 1930s, as Martin Niemöller alludes to, many might not have spoken out as the first inmates arrived at the likes of Dachau. When the first bus arrived at the Dachau concentration camp, located near Munich, Germany, it carried mainly communists, social democrats, dissidents and other undesirables. The incarceration of such individuals may not have created consternation amongst the general population, even if they were fully aware of the goings on at the camp, since they may well have thought these people were 'enemies of the state'. By the time it became an execution camp for gypsies, homosexuals and Jews, it was too late to protest.

The pro-Palestian cause is a divisive issue and tends to attract a greater number of younger, left leaning individuals. Thus in a twist of the words Niemöller uttered some 80 years ago; 'First they came for the pro-Palestinians, and I did not speak out—because I was not a pro-Palestinian. Then they came for the Venezuelans, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Venezuelan. Then they came for the Salvadorans, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Salvadoran. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.'

This is only the list thus far, and it is unclear how far reaching Trump's policy of detainment and expulsion will go. But there have been some dissenting voices. Most vocal have been politicians, political pundits and even comedians to the left of centre. But even some right wing commentators have weighed in, such as Joe Rogan, a Trump supporter who hosts a right leaning radio show podcast.

Speaking soon after the mass deportation of 300 Venezuelans, Rogan expressed his concern that innocent individuals were being swept up in the deportation policy. Whilst he has praised President Donald Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration he expressed horror at the news that the administration had deported a gay Venezuelan asylum-seeker along with suspected members of the Tren de Aragua gang.

"You got to get scared that people who are not criminals are getting lassoed up and deported and sent to El Salvador prisons," Rogan said. "It's horrific," he added. "It's horrific." Sending non-criminals back, Rogan says, was "bad for the cause." Or is it just getting caught?

There will be less chance of accountability as Trump seeks to erode the free press. There is already a push to revoke licences and funding for state run broadcasters. VoA, RFA and others have already been targeted and Marjorie Taylor Greene and others have made a bid to get funding pulled from PBS and NPR.

With the media forced to kowtow to Trump, and with the great leader staring down from Mount Rushmore or from a proposed $100 bill, the Trump Reich will be all but complete.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Sources: Guardian / Guardian / BBC / Reuters / BBC / Guardian / BBC / AP News / Wikipedia / NBC / Sky News / Guardian / ABC / Wikipedia / BBC / NYT / MSNBC / BBC / Yahoo / Guardian / Guardian / BBC / Daily Beast / Independent / BBC / Guardian / MSN / Independent 

 

Threat to the West comes from more than just cyberattacks

On Friday 21st March a massive fire at an electric substation forced the closure of Heathrow Airport resulting in the disruption of some 13,000 flights and affected hundreds of thousands of passengers.

There was speculation early on that the fire might have been deliberate , potentially an asymmetric attack by the Russian state coming on the back of a meeting of some 30 military leaders headed by the UK PM Sir Keir Starmer at Northwood HQ in northwest London.

However, within hours the incident was later described as not suspicious despite the coincidence of events and timing.

If, as both the London Fire Brigade and Metropolitan Police have said, the fire was an unfortunate accident that is perhaps a sigh of relief on one hand.

But for a single fire to shutdown one of the world's busiest airports, it is nonetheless concerning.

Britain's enemies will certainly be taking notes concerning how easy the country can be brought to its knees.

There was no COBRA meeting held following the unprecedented incident. Yet discussions will have likely been held behind closed doors.

UK security services are responsible for protecting the country's infrastructure as well as monitoring external attacks.

Important assets include Britain's nuclear power stations, its rail infrastructure, water distribution networks, electricity supply and transport hubs.

While the substation that went up in flames may have been an inconvenient accident, its destruction was clearly a failure on so many levels.

It is too early to say what failed and caused the fire and explosion, but such a catastrophic failure would surely point to maintenance issues.

Thus it would not be unfair to say that, given its importance to supplying a major transport hub, such facilities should be prioritised concerning their maintenance and protection.

The Ukraine war has shown the importance of the use of drones. And it would not be too far-fetched to see the UK's enemies employing drones to target important assets.

Cyber attacks are already being employed by rogue actors to shutdown computer systems.

In the last year there have been several high profile computer systems failures. Supermarkets have been hit, with Sainsbury's, Tesco and Lidl all affected. Banks were hit with an apparent cyber attack last year seeing payment systems going down and ATMs being put out of use. On the same day even Sky News was forced off the air.

The major global IT outage hit broadcasters, banks and IT companies as well as some airports.

Such outages have often been blamed on system updates rather than deliberate attacks. The July 2024 outage was blamed on an apparently untested update by CrowdStrike cyber security software. The CrowdStrike update caused computers across the globe to crash and display what's commonly referred to as the "blue screen of death."

The catastrophic failure prompted many to speculate that the IT failure was a deliberate attack.

But even if the events of July 2024 was simply a software problem, the events that day highlighted the vulnerability of not only UK infrastructure, but also computer systems around the world [Daily Mail]. 

The CrowdStrike incident is estimated to have cost in excess of $1 billion having affected 8.5 million Microsoft Windows devices, leading to widespread disruptions of airlines, banks, broadcasters, healthcare providers, retail payment terminals, and cash machines globally. Airlines were forced to cancel thousands of flights, supermarkets couldn't accept credit card payments, and hospitals cancelled non-urgent surgeries.

Even putting the CrowdStrike incident aside there have been dozens of actual cyberattacks, often in the form of Ransomware attacks, that have left companies unable to operate [SecureFrame].

Many incidents are reported to be software glitches or blamed on human error. But there is growing suspicion that some cyberattacks are being hidden from the general public in order to allay concerns.

When a huge cargo ship crashed into a bridge in Baltimore resulting in its collapse and closing a major port for weeks, there was widespread speculation as to the cause. Claims ranged from a cyberattack or a ship captain impaired by side effects from COVID-19 vaccines being responsible for the crash [CNN].

All evidence to date points toward a tragic accident. Yet it could just have easily been a deliberate targeting of the vessel. The grounding of the cargo ship Ever Given in the Suez canal in 2021 for just 6 days caused chaos to international shipping, forcing vessels to reroute around South Africa. The cost to the global economy of that incident was in excess of $400 million per hour! [USNI]

When two cargo ships collided in the North Sea in mid March 2025, there were concerns this might have been deliberate. Again, however this has been blamed on probable negligence [BBC / Sky News].

Many cyberattacks go unreported since they affect relatively few individuals, despite their seriousness [CM Alliance].

To suggest such incidents are deliberate cyberattacks or otherwise deliberate assaults by those that might wish to harm the West, is often dismissed as being conspiratorial.

There is growing suspicion amongst the public that the truth is being hidden. It harks to the age old line that just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean you're not being followed.

But even without the tin foil hats and speculation that we are under attack by Russian, Chinese, Iranian or terrorist hackers, the risks are nonetheless real enough.

There are certainly hackers out there wishing to do real ham to the west. But the bigger threat is likely to be more mundane.

Indeed, the Russians may not need to launch cyberattacks and drone attacks to shutdown Britain given the country's crumbling infrastructure. A concerted and deliberate attack would however push Britain to the edge.

But as seen in other outages and serious incidents in the past year or so, it is not just Britain that needs a wake up call. Europe, the US and others all need to focus not only in defending itself from deliberate attacks, but also to prevent major disasters occuring as a result of otherwise minor glitches.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Welcome to the new world order!

"He's a tough negotiator. I'm not sure if I like that, but that's okay," Trump said upon introducing the UK PM Keir Starmer this week [Thursday 27th Feb].

The meeting was summed up by many as a 'success'. However, while there were some positive messages coming from both Trump and Starmer, beneath the shiny veneer it remained unclear whether Trump will prove to be a trusted friend or instead thow Britain under the bus as has been seen before so many times, not just by the Trump administration but also by other US presidents who have continually placed Britain in second place or "at the back of the queue."

What Trump does on Monday could be very different as to what he does the following day or even a week later.

Asked whether he still thought the Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was a dictator just a week after he posted a message on Truth Social lambasting the leader, Trump glibly responded by saying, "Did I say that? I can't believe I said that, Next question."

It's not clear whether it was Starmer's suggestion, or at King Charles' request, that an offer was made for a second state visit. But Starmer's pulling an envelope from his inside jacket pocket gave the impression he was pulling a rabbit from a hat, like a magician, in order to somehow gloss over Trump's lies and half truths while trying to butter up the leader of the free world.

Upon opening the invitation letter for a second state visit, Trump talked of the King as a "a great gentle man, a great, great gentleman; a beautiful man, a wonderful man," and followed by saying that he'd accept the offer.

The "very special" and "historic" offer was very much like a stunt that Del Boy, from Only Fools and Horses, might pull; offering a cheap deal on a paint job for the White House in order to secure a trade deal.

While Trump might initially be impressed with the glitz and glamour of being wined and dined with the King of England, there will be nothing lasting from such a visit other than a photo for the Trump family album.

Reporters attempted to delve into the issues that Trump has himself and put the prime minister on the spot. One asked Starmer whether the King might be concerned over Trump's assertion that Canada might become the 51st state which the PM attempted to gloss over by claiming that other discussions were positive.

"Look, we had a really good discussion, a productive discussion, a good discussion as a result of which our teams are happy to be working together on an economic deal, our teams are going to be working together on security in Ukraine," Starmer responded.

"You mention, Canada, I think you're trying to find a divide between us that doesn't exist. We're the closest of nations, and we had very good discussions today, but we didn't address Canada —" Starmer continued.

"That's enough, thank you" Trump said, waving in the direction of the press to move on to another question.

Then came a meeting with the Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelenskyy who met with the US president on Friday.

But there was none of the bromance seen between Macron and Trump on Monday or the slightly awkward but relatively upbeat meeting that the world witnessed as the UK PM met Trump on Thursday.

After a fairly cordial discussion at the start of the informal meeting at the White House it all descended into chaos as both the vice president, J D Vance, and the president, Donald Trump effectively ganged up against Zelenskyy.

Trump told his Ukrainian counterpart to be "thankful" and accused him of "gambling with World War Three". [BBC / Sky News]

After 10 minutes of Trump and Vance haranguing the Ukraine president, the meeting was over and soon after Zelenskyy was asked to leave.

The events came just a week after Zelenskyy said Trump was "living in a disinformation space" created by Russia following Trump's accusation that Zelenskyy was a "dictator".

It seemed more clear than ever that Trump's allegiance was more strongly aligned to Putin. And while there have been voices in support for Volodymyr Zelenskyy, there was little condemnation of Donald Trump.

Following the events on Friday, Sir Keir Starmer expressed his "unwavering support for Ukraine" but stopped short of making comment concerning Trump's remarks.

The French president Emmanuel Macron pointed to his continued support for Ukraine. In a post on X [aka Twitter], he said, "There is an aggressor: Russia. There is a victim: Ukraine. We were right to help Ukraine and sanction Russia three years ago—and to keep doing so."                      

"By 'we,' I mean the Americans, the Europeans, the Canadians, the Japanese, and many others," Macron continued, "Thank you to all who have helped and continue to do so. And respect to those who have been fighting since the beginning—because they are fighting for their dignity, their independence, their children, and the security of Europe."

Germany's Friedrich Merz, who won the country's election on Sunday, went further however. "Dear Volodymyr @zelenskyyua, we stand with #Ukraine in good and in testing times. We must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war. (FM)" he posted on X [formerly Twitter].

Starmer, meanwhile, merely expressed his "unwavering support for Ukraine" having spoken to both Trump and Zelenskyy after their fiery Oval Office feud threatened to derail Ukraine peace deal [Daily Mail].

There were many comments showing loyal support however. Hungary's Victor Orban was quoted as saying, "Strong men make peace, weak men make war. Today President Trump stood bravely for peace. Even if it was difficult for many to digest. Thank you, Mr. President!"

Meanwhile, Republican senator Lindsey Graham posted a message saying, "Today, President Trump gave a masterclass on how to stand up for America." 

In a little over five weeks, Trump has managed to implement some 36% of the right wing agenda of Project 2025 according to some trackers. This week has shown that  America is an adversary of Europe, seeking to rob Ukraine of its mineral wealth but hoping to deliver respectability to a war criminal in the Kremlin who has stifled free speech, rigged elections, murdered his opponents, and may yet unleash his army on the Baltic states.

Recently, Bernie Sanders said,  "The struggle against Trump, the struggle against authoritarianism, that is not going to be won here in Capitol Hill. It's going to be won by millions of people all over this country standing up and saying, "you know what, we fought and died for democracy, we're not gonna move toward authoritarianism."" [sic]

But, authoritarianism is not America's future, it is the country's present. A nation captured by Trump, his family, the high priests of tech; simultaneously bankrolling the president, enriching themselves, and now casting Europe and Ukraine to the wind.

Following the dystopian scenes in the White House, Bernie Sanders, one of few voices of protest to emanate from Congress, posted this, " After years of Republicans talking about "freedom," is there ONE Republican in Congress prepared to stand with Ukraine and democracy? Or do they ALL agree with Trump that Vladimir Putin, a blood-thirsty dictator, is our ally in this horrific war that he started."

Welcome to the new world order!

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Chinese spies rattle the British

Anger has boiled over and screams have reached fever pitch in the British media and amongst a number of politicians following revelations that an alleged Chinese spy had formed an "unusual degree of trust" with the Duke of York, Prince Andrew.

Accusations

The man made headlines in early December after being banned from entering the UK and it was subsequently revealed had a close relationship with the disgraced prince.

Initially identified only as H6, the Chinese businessman is also accused of having developed relationships with politicians to be "leveraged" by China.

The Chinese embassy in London has accused some UK parliamentarians of having a "twisted mentality towards China" and that such "anti-China clamours" were an attempt to "smear China, target against the Chinese community in the UK and undermine normal personnel exchanges between China and the UK" [sic]. [Daily Mail / Guardian]

Iain Duncan Smith, who has often criticised China for its human rights abuses, intellectual property theft and espionage, has said he could not understand why people around Prince Andrew were not being checked by the security services.

Growing concerns

 
The naming of the 'spy' had been blocked, despite his name being in the public domain and easily searched in news articles going back many years. Indeed, the man in question was the subject of some controversy as recently as 2020 when the Daily Mail reported that he had gained access to influential establishment figures, including George Osborne and Prince Andrew.

The article claimed the former Chinese government official had founded the Hampton Group, one of a number of Chinese businesses that facilitated "subtly infiltrating areas of influence," according to the then chair of the defence committee in Britain, Tobias Ellwood. "We have to be very worried about how the regime is manipulating Britain's important areas of interest using these kind of tactics.[sic]"

Yang's background

Yang Tengbo [杨腾波] was born in China in 1974. Having graduated with a bachelor's degree in history from the School of History and Archives at Yunnan University in 1995 he went on to join the civil service [Wikipedia]. While Chinese civil servants are not necessarily members of the Chinese Communist Party [CCP], some 95% of civil servants in leading positions from division (county) level and above are CCP members, thus it is likely Yang had by this time secured membership.

He first came to the UK in 2002 and studied in London for a year, before taking a masters degree in public administration and public policy at the University of York.

In 2005 he founded consultancy firm Hampton Group International - one of five companies he has been publicly listed as a director of in the UK. By this time Yang had become an honorary member of the 48 Group Club, a pro-China lobbying group, and a member of the Chinese Communist Party [BBC / Wikipedia].

In the 2020 book "Hidden Hands" published by Australian researchers, the 48 Group Club was accused of acting as a conduit for the Chinese government to "cultivate" senior British businessmen and politicians, and explored China's covert influence around the world. Meanwhile Yang has reportedly had his membership revoked in light of the allegations against him [Botanwang - Chinese]. 

Yang's rise to importance continued following the founding of his consultancy firm. In April 2009, Yang Tengbo was cordially received by President Hu Jintao in London and the following year he was awarded the title of "Top Ten Leaders of the 11th China Era Who Influence China" in Beijing. He later initiated the establishment of the China-UK Entrepreneurs Association which facilitated the landing of "Pitch@Palace", a venture capital platform initiated by Prince Andrew, Duke of York, to China to support young entrepreneurs. It was perhaps this enterprise that established his close links with Prince Andrew and which later raised eyebrows with the British security service [zgcforum - Chinese / Guardian].

Gaining advantage

China's foreign policy should come as no surprise to anyone who understands the country. Ever since China 'opened up' in the 1980s, it has sought to gain advantage wherever it can.

For example China might conveniently ignore some WTO and other international trade rules while taking advantage of others. Many people might for example be unaware that China is able to take advantage of cheap postal rates when shipping items all over the world. These lower postal rates are set by the Universal Postal Union (UPU) treaty for so-called 'developing countries'.

In practice a consumer in the US or Europe can order an item from China including shipping for less than what a local seller or distributor might be able to offer the same product. While China is still developing in many ways, the fact that it is the second largest economy seems to be somewhat incongruous with its being judged to have access to more favourable shipping rates. 

China has feathered its nest in other ways too. By 'investing' in Africa and other places, building roads and other infrastructure, China has secured cheap copper, oil and other important natural resources.

China has long 'welcomed' businesses to invest and create manufacturing bases in China. However, this has come with a hidden cost as many firms find their intellectual property copied or blatantly stolen.

The world has been coaxed by China's cheap manufacturing base to knock out everything from clothes to hi-tech items. But the factories where these items are produced often have a secret output of items which end up on the 'black-market'.

Stolen IP

Those shanzhai or counterfeit items one might buy at 10% of the cost of the real item at a Beijing store, may in fact be the real item. In other cases, the items are an exact copy since the blueprint is simply passed around between enterprises. Most shanzhai products tend to be aimed at the domestic or tourist market and as such may little dent the profits of some firms. Most Chinese people will be unable to afford a real North Face jacket, Chanel bag or Burberry scarf but will be happy to wear the fake. The tourists are happy too, as they go home with a fake 'Rimowa' suitcase, that normally costs in the region of $1,000, having paid less than $50.

Authorities turn a blind eye to such things for several reasons. The first is 'Bread and Circuses'. Keep the people happy. If people are happy in their lives with their designer clothes, watches, suitcases and phones, they are less likely to create problems. Keep the tourists happy. While the draw to China is more than the lure of cheap designer products at Beijing's infamous Silk Market, there won't be many tourists leaving Beijing without at least a couple of 'knock-off' items.

China, has of course used IP theft to bolster its international position too. It is clear that while many people in the West might buy a branded product, there is a shift towards Chinese brands or cheaper Chinese made products that are essentially copies of well known brands.

Data theft and retention

It will be of no surprise that people's data is worth much to companies. Be it your browsing history on your favourite shopping website to purchasing habits at your local supermarket, collected via a loyalty card, such data is a goldmine.

So it is of growing concern that hacking and cyberattacks are becoming more frequent. And many such attacks are emanating from China. In recent weeks AT&T and other telecoms giants in the US have been targeted prompting the FBI to advise consumers not to send text messages [NPR].

Traditional espionage

Information is everything and can give advantage in business deals and securing contracts. Thus, traditional spying also maintains a place in a world of hi-tech espionage.

It is in this world that the likes of Yang Tengbo play a role. His name was revealed following a High Court ruling on the 16th December. His ban from entering the UK is due to his being deemed a national security risk. He is accused of being engaged in "covert and deceptive activity" on behalf of the Chinese state [Politico].

In part this may be true, in as much as any information, private or otherwise, he gleaned from his contacts would have likely been shared with the Chinese state.

Allegiance to the state

Any member of the CCP [the Chinese Communist Party or Zhongguo Gongchandang 中国共产党] is expected to pay allegiance to the state. Moreover, nearly every professional in China is likely to be a member of the CCP.

While membership is usually by invitation only, without being a member of the CCP an individual is less likely to excel in business or gain a promotion within a company.

Thus the assertion that Yang had 'close links to the Chinese government' is in fact true of probably every top Chinese business person, ambassador or official.

Banned

Yang is reported to have been stopped and questioned by police in November 2021 at the UK border under powers to investigate suspicions of "hostile activity" by a foreign state. This followed shortly after a meeting in London with the Chinese Ambassador to the UK Zheng Zeguang, in his role as Executive Chairman of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in the UK [UKCBA - Chinese]. 

During that stop he surrendered a number of electronic devices including a mobile phone. From what was found on the devices it prompted a decision by the then Home Secretary Suella Braverman to use exceptional powers to ban him from the UK.

Information obtained from the devices, including a letter addressed to Yang from Prince Andrew's adviser Dominic Hampshire, appeared to suggest that Yang had placed himself in a position "to generate relationships between senior Chinese officials and prominent UK figures which could be leveraged for political interference purposes by the Chinese State" [BBC].

This is all likely to be true. Though there is an element of naivety on the part of the press and amongst politicians that Yang is an exception. However there are some lone voices calling out the Chinese. Iain Duncan Smith, a former Conservative party leader and strong critic of the Chinese government, has said the allegations surrounding Yang were "the tip of the iceberg" of Chinese influence in the UK [Guardian]. 

Chris Yang, has described the claims as "ill-founded" while China has repeated it oft repeated line of not meddling in China's internal affairs.

"The UK side must have a right perception of China, see the historical trend clearly, and handle its relations with China on the basis of mutual respect, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit," a spokesperson from the Chinese Embassy in London said in a statement.

Difficult playing fields 

At the heart of it all, China is not only seeking strength in terms of its economic position on the world stage, it is also establishing a position of self-sufficiency should it decide, in the future, to close its doors and end its open door policy. Should that happen, despite all the criticisms of China, the world beyond its borders would find itself in a world of hurt. The global economy would find itself without the necessary rare earths needed for technology, much of the world's manufactured goods and even food, given China supplies a quarter of the world's grain and feeds one-fifth of the world's population. Moreover, China ranks first globally in producing cereals - such as corn, wheat, and rice - fruit, vegetables, meat, poultry, eggs, and fishery products [CFR]. 

It's all very well to criticise China. Many criticisms are of course well founded. But the West has made decisions over the last few decades that has resulted in the erosion of domestic manufacturing and agriculture in favour of a quick economically viable solution by farming industry out to China. Some resources, such as rare earths, do exist outside of China. But the mining operations have, in many cases, been mothballed, partly due to environmental and other considerations. Thus, should China shut its doors, it would take decades for the world to recover its industry, agriculture and restart mining of natural resources.

The West must plan for such eventualities. China plans for years, decades and even centuries ahead. Most western democracies focus only on the short term, planning only from one election cycle to another. Such short-termism will be their undoing if they don't wake up and smell the coffee. At least one doesn't have to rely on China for the morning brew with the likes of Brazil, Vietnam, Indonesia and Columbia providing the bulk of the world's coffee beans [Wikipedia]. However, an increasing amount is now being shipped to China as their appetite for coffee grows. Exports of Brazilian coffee to China surged 186.1% in 2024 compared to 2022-2023. So even that's not a safe bet [Xinhua].

tvnewswatch, London, UK