Authored by Vijay Prashad via thetricontiental.org,

On 24 February 2023, the Chinese Foreign Ministry released a twelve-point plan entitled ‘China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis’.

This ‘peace plan’, as it has been called, is anchored in the concept of sovereignty, building upon the well-established principles of the United Nations Charter (1945) and the Ten Principles from the Bandung Conference of African and Asian states held in 1955. The plan was released two days after China’s senior diplomat Wang Yi visited Moscow, where he met with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.

Russia’s interest in the plan was confirmed by Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov shortly after the visit: ‘Any attempt to produce a plan that would put the [Ukraine] conflict on a peace track deserves attention. We are considering the plan of our Chinese friends with great attention’.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky welcomed the plan hours after it was made public, saying that he would like to meet China’s President Xi Jinping as soon as possible to discuss a potential peace process. France’s President Emmanuel Macron echoed this sentiment, saying that he would visit Beijing in early April. There are many interesting aspects of this plan, notably a call to end all hostilities near nuclear power plants and a pledge by China to help fund the reconstruction of Ukraine. But perhaps the most interesting feature is that a peace plan did not come from any country in the West, but from Beijing.

When I read ‘China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis’, I was reminded of ‘On the Pulse of Morning’, a poem published by Maya Angelou in 1993, the rubble of the Soviet Union before us, the terrible bombardment of Iraq by the United States still producing aftershocks, the tremors felt in Afghanistan and Bosnia. The title of this newsletter, ‘Birth Again the Dream of Global Peace and Mutual Respect’, sits at the heart of the poem. Angelou wrote alongside the rocks and the trees, those who outlive humans and watch us destroy the world. Two sections of the poem bear repeating:

Each of you, a bordered country,
Delicate and strangely made proud,
Yet thrusting perpetually under siege.
Your armed struggles for profit
Have left collars of waste upon
My shore, currents of debris upon my breast.
Yet today I call you to my riverside,
If you will study war no more. Come,
Clad in peace, and I will sing the songs
The Creator gave to me when I and the
Tree and the rock were one.
Before cynicism was a bloody sear across your
Brow and when you yet knew you still
Knew nothing.
The River sang and sings on.

…

History, despite its wrenching pain
Cannot be unlived, but if faced
With courage, need not be lived again.

History cannot be forgotten, but it need not be repeated. That is the message of Angelou’s poem and the message of the study we released last week, Eight Contradictions of the Imperialist ‘Rules-Based Order’.

In October 2022, Cuba’s Centre for International Policy Research (CIPI) held its 7th Conference on Strategic Studies, which studied the shifts taking place in international relations, with an emphasis on the declining power of the Western states and the emergence of a new confidence in the developing world. There is no doubt that the United States and its allies continue to exercise immense power over the world through military force and control over financial systems. But with the economic rise of several developing countries, with China at their head, a qualitative change can be felt on the world stage. An example of this trend is the ongoing dispute amongst the G20 countries, many of which have refused to line up against Moscow despite pressure by the United States and its European allies to firmly condemn Russia for the war in Ukraine. This change in the geopolitical atmosphere requires precise analysis based on the facts.

To that end, our latest dossier, Sovereignty, Dignity, and Regionalism in the New International Order (March 2023), produced in collaboration with CIPI, brings together some of the thinking about the emergence of a new global dispensation that will follow the period of US hegemony.

The text opens with a foreword by CIPI’s director, José R. Cabañas Rodríguez, who makes the point that the world is already at war, namely a war imposed on much of the world (including Cuba) by the United States and its allies through blockades and economic policies such as sanctions that strangle the possibilities for development. As Greece’s former Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis said, coups these days ‘do not need tanks. They achieve the same result with banks’.

The US is attempting to maintain its position of ‘single master’ through an aggressive military and diplomatic push both in Ukraine and Taiwan, unconcerned about the great destabilisation this has inflicted upon the world. This approach was reflected in US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin’s admission that ‘We want to see Russia weakened’ and in US House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul’s statement that ‘Ukraine today – it’s going to be Taiwan tomorrow’. It is a concern about this destabilisation and the declining fortunes of the West that has led most of the countries in the world to refuse to join efforts to isolate Russia.

As some of the larger developing countries, such as China, Brazil, India, Mexico, Indonesia, and South Africa, pivot away from reliance upon the United States and its Western allies, they have begun to discuss a new architecture for a new world order. What is quite clear is that most of these countries – despite great differences in the political traditions of their respective governments – now recognise that the United States ‘rules-based international order’ is no longer able to exercise the authority it once had. The actual movement of history shows that the world order is moving from one anchored by US hegemony to one that is far more regional in character. US policymakers, as part of their fearmongering, suggest that China wants to take over the world, along the grain of the ‘Thucydides Trap’ argument that when a new aspirant to hegemony appears on the scene, it tends to result in war between the emerging power and existing great power. However, this argument is not based on facts.

Rather than seek to generate additional poles of power – in the mould of the United States – and build a ‘multipolar’ world, developing countries are calling for a world order rooted in the UN Charter as well as strong regional trade and development systems. ‘This new internationalism can only be created – and a period of global Balkanisation avoided’, we write in our latest dossier, ‘by building upon a foundation of mutual respect and strength of regional trade systems, security organisations, and political formations’. Indicators of this new attitude are present in the discussions taking place in the Global South about the war in Ukraine and are reflected in the Chinese plan for peace.

Our dossier analyses at some length this moment of fragility for US power and its ‘rules-based international order’. We trace the revival of multilateralism and regionalism, which are key concepts of the emerging world order. The growth of regionalism is reflected in the creation of a host of vital regional bodies, from the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), alongside increasing regional trade (with the BRICS bloc being a kind of ‘regionalism plus’ for our period). Meanwhile, the emphasis on returning to international institutions for global decision-making, as evidenced by the formation of the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter, for example, illustrates the reinvigorated desire for multilateralism.

The United States remains a powerful country, but it has not come to terms with the immense changes taking place in the world order. It must temper its belief in its ‘manifest destiny’ and recognise that it is nothing more than another country amongst the 193 members states of the United Nations. The great powers – including the United States – will either find ways to accommodate and cooperate for the common good, or they will all collapse together.

At the start of the pandemic, the head of the World Health Organisation, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, urged the countries of the world to be more collaborative and less confrontational, saying that ‘this is the time for solidarity, not stigma’ and repeating, in the years since, that nations must ‘work together across ideological divides to find common solutions to common problems’.

These wise words must be heeded.

Authored by Marie Hawthorne via The Organic Prepper blog,

Fighting between Russia and Ukraine has been going on for a little over a year now, ending the lives of hundreds of thousands of young men and displacing millions.  Ukraine’s Defense Minister, Oleksii Reznikov, invited Western arms manufacturers to test their newest weapons against Russians in 2022. And indeed, all kinds of weaponry have been flowing into Ukraine.  It is truly a testing ground.

So, this begs the question, is anything else getting tested there?  The Ukrainian government seems pretty willing to use its own citizens as guinea pigs, and the American government seems pretty willing to foot the bill.  Are American tax dollars going to any other interesting projects?

Here’s what the US is funding in Ukraine.

Yes, actually.  Volodymyr Zelensky became president of Ukraine in May 2019, and almost immediately he introduced his idea of a “country in a smartphone.”

In early September 2019, Ukraine launched its Ministry of Digital Transformation, headed by a World Economic Forum participant, Mykhailo Fedorov  According to Federov, the goal of this new government department was to streamline government services, making it easier to apply for driver’s licenses, passports, and so on.  Ukraine has long held the reputation as Europe’s most corrupt country, and young politicians like Federov want to take advantage of new technology to make changes.

So, in early February 2020, the Ukrainian government launched its Diia app for smartphones.  Developed by volunteers from EPAM Systems, Diia has been touted as a way to streamline government services.  By 2021 it had allowed Ukraine to become the first European nation to accord digital passports and one of the first to issue digital drivers’ licenses.  Federov reported in 2021 that about one-fourth of the Ukrainian population was using it, and it was gaining in popularity.  As of January 2023, about half the adult Ukrainian population was using it.

There is a positive side to streamlining government services.  Diia has allowed Ukrainians to easily start new businesses, making all the required government paperwork easily available.  I can see this being helpful for young entrepreneurs.

However, negative consequences became readily apparent, too.

Within a year of its launch, millions of Ukrainians found that their personal data, such as driver’s licenses, social media information, and banking information, were being traded online.  There’s always been the risk of losing your wallet and your driver’s license, but with everything online, the risks of fraud and identity theft increase astronomically.

Early on in his presidency, Zelensky talked about streamlining the voting process via the app.  Aside from the fact that experts have never agreed about the safety of online voting, by July 2022, Zelensky had banned political opposition parties and shut down media companies with alternative views. Having one central app that controls everyone’s important documents makes it far easier for any ruling party to maintain its power.

Controlling elections is only the beginning.  Diia launched in February 2020, and by March 2020, Diia was helping the Ukrainian government enforce its lockdown policies, as discussed in the recent report by Redacted.

The Redacted report shows portions of various WEF summits and at 2:06 has a clip of a WEF paper saying, “This digital identity determines what products, services, and information we can access—or conversely, what is closed off to us.”  Diia (and other digital identity products) have been marketed as a convenience, but don’t be fooled.  Developers of this technology have seen their potential as a control mechanism from the beginning.

The Redacted report also shows clips of Federov speaking at the 2021 WEF summit, and at 5:40 he openly admits that the pandemic allowed the Ukrainian government to speed up Ukraine’s digital transformation.  “The pandemic has accelerated our progress,” says Federov.  “People are really now demanding digital online services.  People have no choice but to trust technology.”

The Redacted report traces Diia’s transformation from a convenient service to a military tool.  At 6:39, they discuss an interview in Wired with Anton Melnyk, an adviser in Ukraine’s Ministry for Digital Transformation.  In March 2022, Dr. Melnyk stated, “We have restructured the Ministry of Digital Transformation into a clear military organization.”

Wartime features in an app

Shortly after the Russian invasion, Diia added all kinds of new wartime features.  Ukrainians can report Russian troop movements through Diia’s chatbot, eVorog (eEnemy).  Ukrainians can receive government payments even if they’re displaced.  But Diia doesn’t stop there.

Diia encourages citizens to snitch on their neighbors.  The wartime features allow any citizen to anonymously accuse any other citizen of being a Russian collaborator.  Stalin’s rule in the Soviet Union demonstrated how wrong this can go.  Ukrainians hate Stalin, and rightfully so.  But using cutting-edge technology to encourage the exact same kind of community-destroying snitching is a page right out of his playbook.  Between the snitching and its one official, government-approved news station, Diia is rapidly becoming Stalin in a smartphone.

Here’s why Americans should care.

In case you’re wondering why we should care about the ins and outs of Ukrainian bureaucracy, there are two big reasons worth paying attention to this.  The first is that Americans have been paying for much of the technical development.  The second is that the “government in a smartphone” concept is rapidly spreading around the world.

USAID has been supporting Ukraine’s digital transformation since 2016.  The volunteers that developed Diia were Ukrainians working with EPAM Systems, a software engineering company based in Pennsylvania.  And EPAM Systems may be a private company, but USAID isn’t. It’s taxpayer-funded.

After the Russian invasion, USAID donated another $8.5 million to Ukraine to help develop Diia’s wartime features.  USAID director Samantha Power spoke at the World Economic Forum in 2023, touting Diia’s success.  She and Federov both talked about the huge successes and discussed sharing Diia’s model with other countries.  Incidentally, Samantha Power is married to Cass Sunstein, the author of Nudge and a number of other books that some might consider pro-social-manipulation.

Power has stated that USAID intends to look for leaders in developing nations that have been running on anti-corruption platforms and sharing Diia-like technology with them to help modernize their countries.  She specifically cited Zambia, the Dominican Republic, and Ecuador. In January, Estonia announced that they would begin trial runs of their mRiik app, modeled after Ukraine’s Diia.

And, of course, all of this sounds very loving and charitable. However, it’s impossible to ignore the financial incentives.

The digital shift in America

The U.S. got a giant shove online when lockdowns were enforced in 2020 and 2021.  The U.S.’s “digital transformation,” even though it was only partial, still made already-wealthy tech companies even wealthier. Even though billionaire wealth can fluctuate pretty dramatically, by the end of 2022, American billionaires were still 50% richer than pre-pandemic.

Lovers of free-market economics will point out that increased technological ability is a rising wave that lifts everyone.  That can be true, but ask yourself, are most people you know 50% richer than before the pandemic?  Probably not.  Our lives have been getting pushed online over the past few years.  Some people profited, but the quality of life of the average citizen decreased.

Combine the shift to a digital world with the reconstruction after wartime destruction, and you see huge opportunities for profit.  It’s estimated that rebuilding Ukraine, so far, will cost over $1 trillion.  Zelensky and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink have already come to an agreement about managing the rebuilding of Ukraine.  USAID may be charitable, but BlackRock isn’t.  Ukraine is in the process of being destroyed and being rebuilt.  This is going to be hugely profitable for certain people, and Big Tech seems to be intent on getting their slice of the pie.

This kind of thing isn’t new.  Brigadier General Smedley Butler, combat veteran and Medal of Honor recipient, wrote War Is a Racket back in the 1930s.  The book is full of examples of industries generating huge wartime profits in conflicts a hundred years ago.  War profiteering isn’t new. It isn’t a conspiracy. It’s human nature.

There’s no reason not to think that the same powerful Big Tech figures will not continue to push the expansion of their businesses by pushing life around the world online, with or without violent conflict.

Will we all be pushed into government-by-smartphone?

Maybe some emerging markets will be helped by Diia-like apps.  But what about countries that already had reasonably safe and secure government services?  Will functional governments be pushed onto a smartphone?

It’s likely, though not imminent.  The Improving Digital Identity Act of 2021 is in Congress right now. There are a few versions of it under review. The Senate version actually states that the government cannot require digital identity for any kind of transaction.

Americans are still, on average, relatively concerned about privacy and the concentration of power.  The many concerns surrounding Centralized Bank Digital Currencies apply to digital identification, as well.  The OP ran an article last month discussing the total loss of anonymity that will occur when CBDCs become implemented.

And there are other, less discussed applications.  Look at geofencing.  A federal district judge just issued a first-ever “geofencing” warrant for anyone in the vicinity of the Capitol on January 6.  This gave police the authority to search the cell phone data of every American whose coordinates happened to be in the area, regardless of whether or not they had anything to do with the shenanigans at the Capitol.

Imagine if they could pull your driver’s license or freeze your bank account, too.  Right now, that’s not possible. With all of your important documents linked to something like Diia, it could be.

Here’s how it could unfold.

I don’t think we will all be forced onto something like Diia in the space of a year, but I think we’re at the beginning of a certain chain of events.  Digital IDs begin to be offered as a convenience, they become popular, they begin to be preferred by businesses and governments, and we eventually lose the option of physical IDs.  And, of course, some kind of crisis (climate change, another pandemic, a hot war) could speed this up more quickly, as happened in Ukraine.

The tools to implement a CBDC linked to a digital identity are already out there.  Look at China’s social credit system.  It’s technically possible for us, too. It sounds crazy, but conspiracy theorists have been proven correct so consistently lately I don’t think skepticism regarding these new, profitable technologies is unreasonable.

How to retain our privacy

We need to remember that life’s about more than convenience.  It’s about the freedom to try new things, some of which will fail spectacularly and some of which will lead to resounding successes.  That combination of failure and success is what leads to the deeper insights that make most of us into interesting people.  If we continue to trade privacy for convenience, we may find we don’t have much freedom left, either.

If we want to retain some measure of privacy and control over our own lives, if we want to avoid the techno-prison currently being constructed for us, if Americans don’t want our own “Stalin in a smartphone,” we need to avoid feeding the digital beast.  Yes, it’s hard, and no, it’s not going to be realistic for 99.9% of us to live completely offline.  But we can keep our friendships and purchases offline as much as possible.  We can drag our feet when it comes to getting the newest smart gadgets.  Perhaps most importantly, those of us with teenagers and young adults can spend time explaining our privacy concerns to the younger generation, so they try to live life offline, as well.

The digital prison is being constructed, but it’s by no means done yet.  Grand plans like “government in a smartphone” always fall apart at some point.  The problems with Diia are obvious to anyone paying attention.  If enough of us can postpone moving everything online, hopefully, this impetus will collapse on its own.