Wednesday, May 2, 2018

House Farm Bill’s SNAP Cuts, Work Requirements Would Hurt Older Americans [feedly]

House Farm Bill's SNAP Cuts, Work Requirements Would Hurt Older Americans
https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/house-farm-bills-snap-cuts-work-requirements-would-hurt-older-americans

The House Agriculture Committee farm bill (H.R. 2) would end or cut SNAP (formerly food stamp) benefits for a substantial number of older Americans, increasing food insecurity and hardship.




 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Trump Plan to Raise Minimum Rents Would Put Nearly a Million Children at Risk of Homelessness



----
Trump Plan to Raise Minimum Rents Would Put Nearly a Million Children at Risk of Homelessness // Center on Budget: Comprehensive News Feed
https://www.cbpp.org/blog/trump-plan-to-raise-minimum-rents-would-put-nearly-a-million-children-at-risk-of-homelessness-0

Under President Trump's proposal to raise rents by up to $1,800 a year on the poorest households receiving federal rental assistance — virtually all of which have annual incomes of less than $7,000 — roughly 1.7 million people (including nearly 1 million children) would face eviction, hardship, and homelessness.


----

Read in my feedly.com

Tuesday, May 1, 2018

Eugene Debs: A New Film Does Him Proud [feedly]

Eugene Debs: A New Film Does Him Proud
https://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2018/04/30/eugene-debs-a-new-film-does-him-proud/

by Michael Hirsch

A charismatic and militant labor leader, five-time Socialist Party presidential candidate, class-war prisoner jailed by the ostensibly liberal Woodrow Wilson administration for opposing U.S entry into World War 1 and a fiery, moral force in a corrupted era — Eugene Victor Debs was among the greatest orators this nation ever produced, yet no recording of his voice survives. And what a speaker he was! John Swinton, the late 19th century New York labor writer who as a young man heard Lincoln speak, likened Debs to Lincoln not just in intellect but in character. And unlike Lincoln, Debs could speak cogently to crowds for hours without notes.

Even foreign-language speakers were won over, with many testifying that Debs' mannerisms alone were magnetic, his fist smacking his palm as he offered such injunctions as "Progress is born out of agitation. It is agitation or stagnation."

To know Debs and his impact on American working-class politics as it emerged to confront the mammon of industrial and finance capital, we are ably served by his voluminous writings and by a series of fine, highly readable biographies by such writers as Ray Ginger, Nick Salvatore and Ernest Freeberg, the latter author focusing on Debs' later years as "democracy's prisoner." Add to those a plethora of histories of the old Socialist Party. Ira Kipnis's "The American Socialist Movement: 1897-1912"  is likely the best, though it ends prematurely with a massive vote for Debs in the presidential race and party membership peaking at 118,000 — all before the government's full-bore assault on the left and Debs' jailing.

Fortunately two strong movies are also available that help underscore  Debs' impact, including a 1979 documentary by Bernie Sanders and a new feature: American Socialist: The Life and Times of Eugene Victor Debs, by filmmaker Yale Strom, currently artist-in-residence and professor in the Jewish Studies Program at San Diego State University, and narrated by actor Amy Madigan. Debs' legacy is especially well served by the new production, which takes advantage not only of scholarly accounts of Debs' life and American socialist movement he rose out of but judiciously utilized the extensive Debs archives at Michigan State University-Lansing, the Debs Foundation collection in Terra Haute, Indiana and others.

So Who was Debs?

Born in 1855 and named by his immigrant parents after the French novelists Eugene Sue and Victor Hugo, Debs was slow to embrace radical politics in his hometown of Terra Haute, where the capitalists were still of the small, local variety and social mobility was not impossible for working people. The metastasizing of monopoly capital in the area through the intrusion and consolidation of finance and industry would come soon enough. The future socialist even married a rich man's daughter and was a Democratic state office holder, if briefly.

The film makes clear that Debs, a strong railroad worker-unionist, didn't start out as a socialist; that transposition came after the Democratic administration of Grover Cleveland broke the American Railway Union strike under the mendacious claim that strikers were sabotaging mail delivery. Debs, it's president, went into prison a militant trade unionist and, courtesy of the federal evisceration of his union and a prison reading of Marx's Capital, came out six months later a committed revolutionary, though of a discernible American type. He would, for example, define socialism as "Christianity in action." For Debs' religiously inclined listeners, greed and the pursuit of personal wealth were presented as sin, the riches of capitalists balefully gained.

That appeal to traditional religion as a bulwark of cooperation — the essence of socialism — sparked interest in Debs' "Red Special" whistle-stop electoral campaign in areas such as Oklahoma, where, the film argues, small-farmer militancy combined with ingrained Evangelical Christianity. The strategy was less successful in the South, where we can intuit that racial division was a prime factor mitigating unified class action.

But whether addressing farmers, workers or urban intellectuals at such venues as New York's Cooper Union, Debs was in his element.

It was the Socialist Party's opposition to World War I that led to its undoing and to a five-year prison sentence for Debs. His crime: violating a Sedition Act provision against urging young men to dodge the draft.

On July 16, 1918, a year after the act's passage, Debs was in Canton, Ohio to address the Ohio Socialist Party's state convention and visit comrades jailed for speaking out against the war. He knew he was at risk of arrest himself. "I must be exceedingly careful," he told the convention delegates, "prudent as to what I say. I may not be able to say all I think, but I am not going to say anything that I do not think. I would rather a thousand times be a free soul in prison than to be a sycophant and coward in the streets. They may put those boys in jail — and some of the rest of us in jail — but they cannot put the Socialist movement in jail."

True to form, government stenographers in the crowd noted his comments selectively. Prison followed, based on the alleged danger that his remarks, those of a known "agitator," posed to troop recruitment — this just months before the Treaty of Versailles was signed.

A red scare followed the war. Foreign radicals were rounded up and deported. Native-born leftists of any stripe were imprisoned.

Running for president on the Socialist ticket in 1920 while incarcerated, Debs garnered just under 1 million votes. Even as late as 1921, on the eve of his leaving office, Wilson still refused to pardon Debs. It was the GOP's Harding who granted Debs and 23 others a Christmas commutation.

The Irony of a Humble Man Lionized

It seems odd that a movement valorizing collective action and the social context of everyday life over invidious egotism and careerist grasping would also need to anoint leaders and elevate heroes. As Debs himself put it 1906 to an audience of workers in Detroit: "I would not be a Moses to lead you into the Promised Land, because if I could lead you into it, someone else could lead you out of it. You must use your heads as well as your hands, and get yourself out of your present condition."

Even allowing for the early glint of its religious trappings, his was an American variant of Marx's insistence on working-class self-activity, that the emancipation of working people was not the provenance of elites no matter how well-intentioned but a task largely of the workers alone. Debs' often quoted statement to his trial judge at his conviction for violating the Sedition Act makes much the same point.

"Years ago, I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class I am in it; while there is a criminal class I am of it; while there is a soul in prison I am not free."

Debs' heroes were not great men and women but ordinary people who showed uncommon bravery and solidarity with one another.

A story Debs told, though not included in the film, concerns a black-balled former railroad worker in desperate straits who proudly tells Debs that he never scabbed, knowing the principled stance meant exorcism from a decent-paying job. "If I'd have been like some of them, I'd had a passenger train years ago and been saved lots of grief," he tells Debs. "But I'd rather be a broken-down old umbrella fixer without a friend than to be a scab and worth a million…. And when I cross the big divide, I can walk up to the bar of judgment and look God in the face without a flicker."

Debs' cited the man as the epitome of working-class solidarity.

"There was something peculiarly grand about the scarred old veteran of the industrial battlefield," Debs wrote in 1913. "His shabbiness was all on the outside, and he seemed transfigured to me and clad in garments of glory. He loomed before me like a forest monarch the tempests had riven and denuded of its foliage but could not lay low. He had kept the faith and had never scabbed."

Neither did Debs. See the film.

American Socialist: The Life and Times of Eugene Victory Debs opened at New York City's Cinema Village (Manhattan) on April 27 for one week, and includes a Q and A with the film creator for several performances. Showings are also scheduled for Hudson, NY (April 26-May 13); Los Angeles and Pasadena, (May 4-10); San Diego (May 11-16), Washington, D.C., (May 22), and the Cleveland Museum of Art (June 12-15.)  

This post first appeared in the reader-supported Indypendent and is reposted her with the permission of the author.

____

Photo: Eugene Victor Debs speaking to a crowd in Canton, Ohio 1914. Courtesy of First Run Features.



 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Beyond raising rent, Ben Carson’s housing overhaul would increase burdens on low-income Americans [feedly]

Beyond raising rent, Ben Carson's housing overhaul would increase burdens on low-income Americans
https://www.urban.org/urban-wire/beyond-raising-rent-ben-carsons-housing-overhaul-would-increase-burdens-low-income-americans

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

HUD Secretary Ben Carson's proposal to raise rents comes during the worst rental housing crisis in generations.



_________________________________


On Wednesday, secretary of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Ben Carson announced a proposal to amend the US Housing Act to raise the rents that low-income Americans who receive housing assistance pay and to remove up-front income exemptions, while allowing public housing agencies to establish new work requirements.

These changes, if Congress approves them, would increase rents for nonelderly residents who are able to work and for people who are elderly or disabled. 

Rent increases would result from

  1. a change from rent calculations based on 30 percent of monthly income to calculations based on 35 percent of monthly income for nonelderly, nondisabled households;
  2. the removal of income adjustments for child care, medical expenses, and other factors for allhouseholds (changing from rent based on adjusted income to rent based on gross income); and
  3. a minimum rent based on at least a 15-hour work week at the federal minimum wage (effectively, a $150 minimum rent) for nonelderly, nondisabled households and a minimum rent of at least $50 for elderly or disabled households.

Carson's proposal to raise rents comes during the worst rental housing crisis in generations and as we face a severe shortage of housing assistance. Only one in five eligible households receives anyhousing assistance, leaving most households struggling to find decent, affordable housing. And although proposed work requirements are framed as measures intended to lift people from poverty, evidence shows they do little toward achieving that goal and that work alone is often not enough to lift people from poverty.

The bill contains other proposals that might harm residents, including   

  1. a change in the definition of "elderly" from age 62 to 65,
  2. a tightening of the hardship remedy language and process, and
  3. greater authority to deny an interim recertification of income to reset rent when income decreases.

Currently, tenants must recertify that they are still eligible for assistance every year. The proposed changes would shift this requirement to every three years, which could benefit tenants and reduce the administrative burden on tenants.

Households whose income increases between recertifications will not see their rent increase until their next recertification. But if a household experiences a decrease in income (e.g., from losing a job, becoming disabled, or losing an income earner), the bill proposes making it more difficult for households to receive an interim recertification.

Currently, a family can receive an interim recertification between the required annual recertifications if household income decreases 10 percent. The proposed bill would allow an interim recertification only if income decreases 20 percent or more.

The proposal also deletes language regarding tenants' ability to request hardship remedies when their expenses increase because of medical bills, child care, transportation, education, or similar costs. Tenants with burdensome expenses related to caregiving, health, or household advancement will need to not only request a hardship exemption but hope to be granted an exemption under the broad "other situations" clause.   

The proposal raises questions and offers few answers

Other elements of the bill raise concerns about the potential impact on assisted households. First, the bill makes no mention of a maximum rent. Currently, tenants can choose to pay more than 30 percent of income toward rent to access desired housing or neighborhoods, but they are not allowed to pay more than 40 percent of income. Whether the administration intends to continue this practice is unclear.

Further, the bill identifies alternative rent structures that agencies and owners can establish in place of the standard percent-of-income approach. But there is no mention of a flat-rent option, which has been allowed since 1998. (A flat rent or subsidy amount is based on local market rents and is the same for all households regardless of income.)

Finally, the bill allows agencies and owners to require nonelderly, nondisabled residents to work. But the bill does not specify who would be subject to a work requirement (e.g., tenants 18 and older or parents of young children), how many hours they would need to work, or the activities that qualify (e.g., training or education). Instead, it states that the secretary will establish the details through regulation.

These proposed changes to the Housing Act raise questions and provide few answers. No evidence shows that raising rents or imposing work requirements will help nonelderly tenants who are able to work achieve self-sufficiency. And increasing rents and changing rent calculations could harm many vulnerable families who depend on HUD assistance to keep a roof over their heads.

HUD Secretary Ben Carson tours the Mariposa development, the Denver Housing Authority's mixed-income living and urban redevelopment, on October 23, 2017 in Denver, Colorado. Photo by Helen H. Richardson/The Denver Post via Getty Images.


Baker: Making Finance Pay [feedly]

Making Finance Pay

Dean Baker

http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/making-finance-pay

Mick Mulvaney, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), publicly said what many of us had long believed: corporate lobbyists have to pay to talk to their representatives in Congress or the executive branch. If they expect to have their views taken seriously by those in power, they have to be prepared to cough up the campaign contributions needed to get through the door.

Given the rules of engagement described by Mulvaney, it is hardly surprising that he is doing everything he can to undermine the purpose of the bureau he now leads. This includes suspending lawsuits and enforcement actions already in process and making it virtually impossible for the Bureau's staff to initiate new actions.

He is clearly trying to give the financial industry a good return on their investment in his political career. In effect, he is telling the industry to do their best to find new and creative ways to rip-off their customers, and he will give them a government stamp of approval.

But there is some good news for those who don't want to see more of the economy's resources committed to rip-off schemes. The budget passed last month by New York's legislature, and signed into law by Governor Cuomo, would create a state-managed 401(k)-type system which would cover every New York worker who does not already have a retirement plan.

While this part of the budget bill went largely unnoticed, it is a very big deal. Tens of millions of workers are approaching retirement with little other than their Social Security benefits to support them. While Social Security is a tremendously important and effective program, the benefits are not large enough to support a middle-class standard of living in retirement.

Most current middle-class retirees can count on some income from traditional defined benefit pensions. However, these pensions are disappearing rapidly in the private sector and are under constant attack in the public sector, where they are still common.

Few of the people retiring 10 or 15 years from now will be receiving any income from a defined benefit pension. This means their only supplement to Social Security will be the money that they have saved in 401(k)s or equivalent retirement plans.

Most workers are able to accumulate very little in these plans. This is especially true of lower paid workers who are less likely to have a job that offers retirement benefits. And even when workers do have a job with benefits, they may end up leaving before they qualify for a contribution.

Under the plan put in place in New York, workers who do not have a plan at their workplace would automatically have 3 percent of their pay deducted and placed into an account managed by the government. They would have the option not to have the money deducted. But if they do nothing, the default is that this money gets placed in their retirement account.

The state would piggyback on the expertise developed by the retirement system for New York public employees. This should allow it to offer good investment options at a fraction of the cost of private 401(k)s.

Many private plans charge fees of more than 1.0 percent annually, whereas a state-managed plan is likely to cost less than 0.3 percent of the funds under management. For a middle-class person who has accumulated more than $100,000 over their working lifetime, this difference can easily add up to $1,000 a year, or more. That is money that workers basically had been handing to the financial industry for nothing, but now would add tens of thousands of dollars to many workers' retirement savings.

New York is following the lead of Illinois and California in going this route. If other states and the federal government follow suit, it can save workers tens of billions in annual fees, directly at the expense of the financial industry.

In a similar vein, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand introduced legislation to create a postal banking system. The plan is to have the Post Office offer basic checking and saving services. These services could save low- and moderate-income workers a substantial amount of money that they now pay to check cashing services. If a postal saving bank also can get into small dollar loans, it will be a low-cost alternative to the payday loan business that Mulvaney is trying to promote at the CFPB.

It would be ideal if we could count on government agencies to regulate industry rather than be ripped-off by it, but that is clearly not the way business is done in Donald Trump's America. In this case, we can hope for more efficient public alternatives, which will take away the customers from Mulvaney's campaign contributors.



 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Patents Without Examination: A Bad Solution For The 21st Century [feedly]

Patents Without Examination: A Bad Solution For The 21st Century
http://cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/patents-without-examination-a-bad-solution-for-the-21st-century

Brazil has historically been at the forefront of developing countries pushing for a more balanced intellectual property (IP) regime.

Over the past two decades, there has been serious pushback from the developing world against the dominant IP regime. In large part, this is because wealthier countries have sought to impose a one-size-fits-all model on the world, by influencing the rule-making process at the World Trade Organization (WTO) and forcing their will via trade agreements.

The IP standards advanced countries favour typically are designed not to maximise innovation and scientific progress, but to maximise the profits of big companies able to sway trade negotiations. No surprise, then, that large developing countries with substantial industrial bases – such as South Africa, India and Brazil – have been leading the counterattack.

These countries are fully justified in opposing an IP regime that is neither equitable nor efficient. In a recent paper, for a Shuttleworth Foundation project on access to medicines, and published by Fiocruz in Rio de Janeiro, we review the arguments about the role of intellectual property in the process of development. We show that the preponderance of theoretical and empirical evidence indicates that the economic institutions and laws protecting knowledge in today's advanced economies are increasingly inadequate to govern global economic activity, and are poorly suited to meet the needs of developing countries and emerging markets.

Even in the United States and other advanced industrialised countries, the patent system is in a period of crisis. There is widespread concern over the proliferation of bad patents — those that are not real advances on existing knowledge. Bad patents can provide an impediment to follow-on innovation, while providing at best weak incentives for innovative activities themselves.

In fields such as information technology, a whole set of bad patents and an epidemic of over-patenting has made subsequent innovation difficult, and has eroded some of the gains from knowledge creation. There is a shrinking of the knowledge commons as even publicly funded and promoted innovation is privatised, thereby reducing both equity and efficiency. There is no agreement on what exactly ought to be done, but it is certainly recognised that the current system is not satisfactory for developed countries.

The central problem is that knowledge is a (global) public good, both in the technical sense that the marginal cost of someone using it is zero and in the more general sense that an increase in knowledge can improve wellbeing globally. Given this, the worry has been that the market will undersupply knowledge and research will not be adequately incentivised.

Throughout the late 20th century, the conventional wisdom was that this market failure could best be rectified by introducing another one: private monopolies, created through stringent patents, strictly enforced. But private IP protection is just one route to solving the problem of encouraging and financing research. It has been more problematic than had been anticipated, even for advanced countries.

An increasingly dense "patent thicket" in a world of products requiring thousands of patents has sometimes stifled innovation, with more spent on lawyers than on researchers in some cases. Research is often directed not at producing new products but at extending, broadening and leveraging the monopoly power granted through the patent.

We recognize that Brazil has a serious problem with a large backlog of patents, but the proposed solution of approving patents without a substantive examination is inviting disaster. While many of the pending patents are surely deserving of approval, it is undoubtedly the case that many are not.

In some cases, people will have filed for patents that overlap with existing patents. This will be an invitation for a large number of lawsuits, as owners of conflicting claims will fight over royalties.

In the same vein, many of the pending patents are almost frivolous. There is a long history of people attempting to patent processes or products that are completely obvious and involve no innovation whatsoever. For example, Amazon attempted to patent the use of one-click shopping online. Granting frivolous patents will both drastically raise costs for Brazilian consumers, as they will then have to pay patent fees for items that should be free, as well as impede further innovation since many areas for research will be far more costly as a result of wrongly granted patents.

The result of this wholesale granting of patents will be to simply move the backlog at the patent office to the legal system, as it virtually guarantees a flood of lawsuits that Brazil's courts will be unable to deal with.

The current backlog in Brazil is problematic. Pending patent applications can also be harmful for innovation, for competition, and for access to the fruits of innovation. However, the proposed "solution" is not the way to go. It is against Brazil's historical position to fight for a better balance between public and private and developed and developing countries in the IP system. It is also against theoretical and empirical evidence that shows a more open system could encourage the diffusion of knowledge, leading to economic growth – and thus to gains in human development and welfare. And it is in the opposite direction of what is being done by other emerging economies.

South Africa, for instance, after decades of implementing a non-examination system for the granting of patents, in which the claims only get interrogated if a third party challenged them, is now implementing a major policy shift whose main goal is to end the depository patent system.

An IP regime dictated by the advanced countries more than a quarter of a century ago, in response to political pressure by a few of their most powerful corporations, makes little sense in today's world. Maximising profits for a few, rather than global development and welfare for many, did not make much sense then, either – but it happened anyway, due to the power dynamics at the time.

Those dynamics are finally changing, and emerging economies are taking the lead in creating a balanced IP system that recognises the importance of knowledge for development, growth and wellbeing. What matters is not only the production of knowledge, but also that it is used in ways that put people's health and welfare before corporate profits.

Brazil has historically taken good decisions toward that goal. The automatic granting of patents without a substantive examination would send the country backwards.


Arjun Jayadev is Professor of Economics at Azim Premji University in Bangalore and a senior economist at the Institute for New Economic Thinking.

Dean Baker is senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. He is frequently cited in economics reporting in major media outlets, including the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, CNBC, and National Public Radio.



 -- via my feedly newsfeed

China’s Bid To Assist Assad In Syrian Reconstruction Is About Security and Profit [feedly]

China's Bid To Assist Assad In Syrian Reconstruction Is About Security and Profit
http://triplecrisis.com/chinas-bid-to-assist-assad-in-syrian-reconstruction-is-about-security-and-profit/

Even as the West favors airstrikes against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and steers clear of supporting the president in rebuilding Syria, China has stated that it is interested in reconstructing the war-torn nation, and Chinese firms are lining up to become part of the process. The reconstruction cost is expected to amount to $250 billion, according to the United Nations. China's motivations are apolitical, and are not aimed at opposing the policies of Western nations. Rather, China is propelled by economic and security reasons to take part in rebuilding Syria.

Chinese firms interested in reconstruction include infrastructure construction companies such as China Energy Engineering Corporation and China Construction Fifth Engineering Division. In addition, a Syria Day Expo held in Beijing was attended last year by hundreds of Chinese infrastructure investment firms. At the First Trade Fair on Syrian Reconstruction Projects held last summer, officials pledged $2 billion for the reconstruction process. Chinese energy firms might have benefited as well, since before the Syrian war began, Syria's main energy contracts were held with Western energy companiessuch as Shell and Total. However, Russia has been given exclusive rights to produce oil and gas in Syria.

Reasons for China's support of Syria

China has previously provided funds to the Assad regime during the crisis, and does not appear to have any qualms about Assad's brutal governance tactics. China has proven that it is often unwilling to involve itself in foreign conflicts unless it will benefit from intervention, even when worst practices are being carried out. A case in point was China's support for Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe, who likened himself to Hitler in the massacre of his own people. In recent years, China has attempted to engage to some extent in humanitarian crisis, with negative results. China initially supported a UN-backed and NATO-led intervention in Libya designed to prevent the killing of civilians under the Qaddafi regime, but when this turned out to involve the use of force, China strongly opposed the actions. This buttressed China's refusal to take action in Syria.

Another major reason for this may be that Chinese officials are much in favor of Assad's secular socialist politics, and are opposed to the spread of radical Islam, which they believe is igniting Uighur attacks against the mainstream Han Chinese in Western China. Some Uighurs have been said to go to Syria in order to learn how to fight, in order to bring violence back to China, although to some extent, China's reporting on Uighur "terrorists" has been misstated. In any case, due to China's perceived importance of the secular Assad regime, China has vetoed a number of resolutions in the U.N. to impose sanctions on or condemn Syria in any way since 2011.

China's choice to fund Syrian reconstruction also appears to be economically motivated, in large part because Syria provides an important pathway along China's Silk Road. On the ancient Silk Road, the city of Aleppo acted as a key market for buying and selling international goods, and the west coast of the country continues to provide access to the Mediterranean Sea. At present, Syria has the potential to be an important logistics hub. Not only that, but the construction of infrastructure itself will generate income for Chinese firms that have shown interest in taking part. This will aid Chinese firms, especially since the Asian nation is going through a period of slowing economic growth that has led to lower rates of infrastructure investment.

In addition, serious security will help ensure that Chinese investments in the region will remain intact. Some of these are located in Egypt, Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. The region is essential to Chinese investment in energy and infrastructure, and is viewed as an important crossroads between Asia and Europe. The security of this region can help to stabilize Xinjiang, home to Uighur separatists that China views as a threat to security and an important node on China's new belt and road.

China and the West

The U.S., Europe, and Gulf Arab allies are steering clear of funding reconstruction in Syria, as they believe that the wrong side won the Civil War. These nations have called for Assad's departure as a precondition for receiving reconstruction aid, as they believe Assad is responsible for myriad atrocities carried out on his own people. The U.S. took the side of moderate Syrian rebels. For his part, Assad has stated he will reject aid from nations that supported the opposition during the war. Syria has received aid from Iran, Russia, and China, and will likely continue to do so.

Despite the opposition of the West against Assad, China's decision to support the current Syrian government does not appear to be motivated by anti-Western sentiment or the desire to compete for influence with the United States. There are those who rally around the Chinese flag due to opposition to the United States, for sure, but these include less powerful nations, like Syria or Iran, that are politically and/or ideologically opposed to U.S. hegemony in the region and in the world.

In conclusion, China's position of support for Assad's Syria underscores its security and economic interests in the region. While any measure of support for a particular regime may be viewed as political, China is attempting to refrain from engaging in directly political activities in the country and in the Middle Eastern region. China's aim is to make economic gains through One Belt One Road, employing its own firms in the construction of much-needed infrastructure, and attempting to ensure security in order to do so. While the West may dislike China's support of the Assad regime, China's involvement in the reconstruction process is likely to bolster its role in the Middle East and strengthen its global soft power going forward.



 -- via my feedly newsfeed