North Staffs Heart Committee: Fill & Download for Free

Those who ask this question do not know the history; the United States has done this before.Immediately after the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950, the United States imposed an export licensing system on North Korea, China, and the then-colonial Hong Kong and Macao, and also expanded the embargo list of the Paris Coordinating Committee. munitions, military supplies, atomic materials, petroleum, transport equipment of strategic value and materials that can be used for the manufacture of ordnance, munitions and military supplies" to the United Nations in 1951, no longer seeking to improve relations with the Chinese Communist Party. The US also declared that "anything available to a soldier" would not be allowed to be shipped to China, in an attempt to block China's military and trade.The Paris Coordinating Committee also established a China Committee in August 1952 with a stricter embargo list than the Soviet camp. For example, member states could export some controlled goods under an "exception procedure" if they had a compelling need for certain goods from the Soviet camp, but China was severely scrutinised, creating a "China Differential". When in 1954 the Paris Coordinating Committee reduced the total number of controlled lists from 474 to 252, China was the only one that still had 472. The US government made no bones about why it was unusually harsh on China: "Trade controls on Communist China were intended to impede not only the growth of its war potential itself but also its industrialisation, while trade controls on the Soviet bloc in Europe were intended only to impede the growth of its war potential in Europe", underlining that its motives were not simply to suppress Chinese military power, but rather to contain China's development on all fronts.Under the UN and Paris Coordinating Committee embargoes, China was unable to obtain strategic goods such as arms, oil and rubber from the West, significantly slowing down its modernisation process, and even telescopes could not be acquired because of their use and the optical glass they contained, which could be used for military purposes. In 1955, trade with the Soviet Union accounted for 47.4 per cent of China's foreign exports and 64.5 per cent of its imports, in effect deepening the ties between China and the Soviet Union. In addition, the KMT government, which had retreated to Taiwan, also made great efforts to blockade the Communist Party of China, starting in June 1949 with its "closure policy", interfering with the mainland's coastal and foreign trade, plundering foreign cargo tankers bound for the mainland, and even attempting to provide the business network of Southeast Asian Chinese to Japan, in order to cooperate with the US in linking Japan with the Southeast Asian economy and pulling the strings. This was in line with the US strategic intent of linking Japan to the Southeast Asian economy and pulling it away from the mainland Chinese market.However, Arthur William Radford (1896-1973), appointed by President Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969) as Co-Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff, was not satisfied with this and cried out that "from a strictly military point of view, any attempt to moderate the differences between China and the United States would be a mistake. Any move to moderate the Chinese differential would, from a strictly military point of view, have serious consequences for the chain of islands off the Pacific coast falling under Communist control"; Assistant Secretary of State Walter Robertson (1893-1970) even went so far as to advocate that a relaxation of controls on China would increase China's bargaining leverage with the Soviet Union and give it more advantages. Therefore, maximum pressure had to be exerted in order to divide the Sino-Soviet alliance. This "extreme pressure" mentality and approach is still reflected in US diplomacy today, but it often backfires, showing that the US has never learnt the lessons of history.Despite the fact that the US economy was in decline and the US could not afford to continue to provide military and economic aid in exchange for the cooperation of the Allies, Western European countries requested the relaxation of trade controls on the Soviet Union with China. The United Kingdom and Japan were the first to call for the abolition of the "China differential" in 1955, as the United Kingdom still had colonies such as Hong Kong and Malaya, and the United States had not taken care of British and French interests during the Suez Canal crisis in 1956; Japan was also eager to resume trade with China to eliminate its entry into China, as the United States suggested that Southeast Asia simply lacked the facilities for the distribution of goods and transportation to meet the needs of the Japanese economy. Japan was also anxious to resume trade with China, but the United States suggested that South East Asia simply lacked the facilities to distribute and transport goods to meet the needs of the Japanese economy, so it was not allowed to develop economic and trade relations with China. Although the United States tried to prevent this, it could not prevent the member states from declaring in 1957 that they would ease their controls on China. In the end, the "China differential" was repealed by member states other than the United States, leaving only the United States to continue to apply it unilaterally.It should be noted, however, that the abolition of the "China Differential" only meant that the Western embargo list against China was reduced to a level similar to that of the Soviet Union, while the export of sophisticated technology and strategic goods was still restricted, and the DRC and others were only trying to satisfy their own interests by exploiting the Chinese market in a limited way, not genuinely expecting China to rise. So when the Cold War ended, although the Paris Coordinating Committee had to be disbanded in 1994 due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US soon launched the Wassenaar Arrangement in 1996, proposing a list of controls on high-technology goods for military and civilian use. Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea and other countries are all subject to restrictions. This has led to a generational gap between China and the West in some areas of technological development, such as semiconductors, spectral mass spectrometers and precision moulds, which has caused a fatal "neck jam" and allowed the US to deter China by cutting off the supply of chips.The US once wanted to maintain its advantage over China by creating a self-focused trade system through the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement (TPP), but since Donald Trump took office, it has adopted a more brutal approach. As a result, the US has launched trade wars, blocked Huawei, restricted exchanges between Chinese scholars, and tried to promote the "China threat theory" to the rest of the world in an attempt to "de-Chinaise" the global industrial chain, thereby facilitating the isolation and weakening of China.But apart from forcing China to speed up its research and development, these moves are undoubtedly damaging to global trade, which relies heavily on Chinese markets and capital. How can the US convince countries to work together against the economic demands of China when it was unable to get all its allies to act in unison during the Cold War alone, when ideological conflicts were rampant? So this vicious war of blockade waged by the US is not going to last long, let alone win the hearts and minds of the people.As a result, trade between the US and China still increased substantially.The reason why the United States was able to ban Cuba is that it is too small. No one is offending the US for that little Cuban interest. And the Chinese market is so big that no one is willing to give up the Chinese market. Even if the US is offended for the sake of the Chinese market, in many cases it is still cost effective. That is the reality.So the US can't treat China the way it used to

It is a gratifying moment for me, personally, to see one of my former General Officers from the challenging days of 2011 in Srinagar being appointed as the new Chief of the Army Staff. Lt Gen Bipin Rawat, currently Vice Chief of the Army Staff (VCOAS) is set to be the new army chief with effect from 1 January 2017, on the superannuation of Gen Dalbir Singh Suhag.The announcement has drawn attention for various reasons. First, the appointment has been made a mere two weeks before the crucial position is due to fall vacant; it usually happens at least two months prior. Second, Gen Rawat supersedes two competent General Officers, Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi and Lt Gen P M Hariz. The Indian Army has normally followed a system of appointing the senior-most qualified officer as army chief. The tenure is three years or till the age of 62, whichever comes earlier. In the past, it is only at the time of appointing the successor to Gen K V Krishna Rao that the government did something similar and overlooked the then senior-most qualified officer, Lt Gen S K Sinha, and appointed Lt Gen (later Gen) Arun Vaidya as the army chief in 1983. That remains the only precedent.There is a system in place for appointing the army chief. The army headquarters and, in turn, the Ministry of Defence forward the names and dossiers of five senior-most qualified officers, after the current army chief, to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). The record of service of the officers is scrutinised. The ACC may ask for a longer list if they decide that some of the names under consideration are unsuitable. The word ‘qualified’ here means that the names of officers of the General cadre only can be forwarded. There may be officers of services or other arms who have not been inducted into the General cadre but are senior to the others eligible; but since they are not in the command chain, they are not eligible for consideration.So, what is unusual about this appointment? First, for the first time ever, two of the senior-most General Officers after the army chief have been overlooked and the fourth in seniority appointed. The government is within its right to do that. The only speculation doing the rounds is that Lt Gen Bakshi, currently General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Eastern Command and the senior-most after Gen Dalbir Singh could be appointed the first Permanent Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee in the rank of General. It is not certain at this moment what this appointment finally will be or whether it has been approved at all. It is the near-equivalent of the contemplated Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS). If that does happen, the only one superseded would be Lt Gen Hariz, the current General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Southern Command.There can only be speculation and debate on why the government has opted for a deeper selection and not followed the time-tested system of seniority. Lt Gen Bakshi is a highly competent cavalry officer from the Skinner’s Horse. Cavalry officers do not command troops in a counter-insurgency environment or at the Line of Control due to the nature of responsibility of different arms and services of the army. Cavalry officers serve their command assignments in the desert, plains or obstacle-ridden terrain where no insurgency or situations involving terror threats or infiltration exist. This is their task and they come up in service learning and experiencing these conditions for future contingencies in conventional warfare. At best, they can serve in staff appointments in formations deployed in such threat-prone areas.However, from the rank of Brigadier and upwards, all officers belonging to the arms (including infantry, cavalry, mechanised infantry and other arms by selection) can serve in command assignments at the Line of Control and in counter-insurgency operations such as in Jammu & Kashmir. Lt Gen Bakshi has not had that kind of experience but for no fault of his own, because the system would have considered him more competent to command in his own environment in the plains and appointed him accordingly.The same is true in the case of Lt Gen Hariz. He is a hardcore mechanised infantry officer who does not have operational experience because such experience in today’s environment is only available to those who serve at the Line of Control, Siachen or in intense counter-insurgency operations. Lt Gen Hariz, like Lt Gen Bakshi, has an excellent career record, having attended the Staff College, Camberley, United Kingdom and served in the United Nations, but alas, it’s the operational experience that is missing.To make up for his lack of exposure to counter-insurgency and Line of Control/Siachen-type operations, Lt Gen Bakshi was posted by the army to the headquarters of Northern Command as the No 2 (Chief of Staff), and thereafter has commanded Eastern Command, which deals with the challenging Chinese front all along the Line of Actual Control and the insurgency in the North East. Possibly the government did not consider this as adequate experience in handling turbulent situations.Lt Gen Rawat commanded a company at Uri, a battalion of the 11th Gorkhas in the North East, the Rashtriya Rifles Sector at Sopore (the heart of militancy in North Kashmir), the famous Dagger Division at Baramulla, which is responsible for the most crucial part of the Line of Control at Uri and a Corps in the North East, where he oversaw the management of the Line of Actual Control in Arunachal Pradesh and handled the insurgency in Nagaland, Manipur and Lower Assam. He oversaw the planning and execution of the raid along the Myanmar border in early July 2015. He commanded the Southern Command at Pune, whose orientation is in the desert areas, before assuming the appointment of VCOAS under Gen Singh.Even on staff, he has been in the Military Operations Directorate and the Military Secretary Branch handling crucial policy issues besides being the Head of Operations of the headquarters of Eastern Command. Additionally, he also won the Sword of Honour for his course being declared the best all-round Gentleman Cadet.So, in the current threat environment, it appears that the government perceives the type of operations that Pakistan will involve itself in to be low-intensity ones, in Jammu & Kashmir and North Punjab, along the Line of Control and the International Border. Typically hybrid in nature and at the highest levels, it is usually perceived that such threats require competent understanding, handling and directions or orders. However, the government, troubled by the extent of casualties that the army has suffered in this persisting threat environment, may have decided to opt for an experienced hand to lead. On the operational side, there could not be a better officer than Lt Gen Rawat to handle the nature of threats that Pakistan and indeed China are posing to India.Lt Gen Rawat has five decorations, almost all of them in operational command. He is also the winner of the Sword of Honour from the Indian Military Academy, and has attended the Command and General Staff Course at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, United States. While one does feel sorry for the General Officers senior to him, who too are extremely competent, in all probability, the government considered Lt Gen Rawat’s hands-on experience in the current environment and decided to appoint him the army chief in the national interest.At the outset, I’d like to add that in 2011, when in command of the Srinagar-based 15 Corps, I put in a special request to the Military Secretary Branch that I would best prefer the services of then Major Gen Rawat for the command of the crucial Baramulla Division. The request was accepted and Lt Gen Rawat served an outstanding tour of duty with me, displaying throughout his complete understanding of the threats and the ways of overcoming them. I have no doubt that he will display the same grit and competence in the elevated role. The eyes of the Indian Army and the nation are on him. I wish him a great innings as army chief.

This question and my answer were triggered by a discussion on a related question and answer of mine: Should rational Quora users engage with science deniers, or should they block and mute deniers, delete deniers' comments, and report or downvote deniers' questions and answers?A Quoran asked a couple of follow-up questions in comments, including this one. I’ve edited their question to be more generic and less specific to the discussion.Let’s start with context. Quora is having a real problem with science deniers having undue prominence of their content on the site. Major climate change questions with a hundred answers often see the majority of the top 10 responses espousing climate change denial, not useful responses to the question. Climate change deniers are successfully subverting the platform for their own agenda, not the stated mission of Quora.Quora's mission is to share and grow the world's knowledge.The vast majority of human knowledge is still not on the internet. Most of it is trapped in the form of experience in people's heads, or buried in books and papers that only experts can access. As a consequence most people don't have the knowledge they should, and don't have the time, connections, or skills to get to the knowledge they would have in an ideal world.Disinformation such as climate change denial and anti-vaccination propaganda does not share and grow the world’s knowledge. Cognitive psychology has shown that comments which contradict factual articles leave people less informed and more likely to doubt reality. Similarly, providing a platform which can be gamed by deniers leads to the platform decreasing the knowledge in the world and increasing the disinformation.Global warming is one of the major issues facing the world this century. Vaccination refusal is rising in North America due to anti-vaccination propaganda, leading to the deaths and long-term disability of children, not only those of the anti-vaccination people themselves, but of the children of others. Quora can be a positive force or a negative one.Quora isn’t alone in being challenged by this. Every major social media platform is struggling with related issues. But they don’t have a mission of sharing and growing knowledge.Quora needs to do better, but how?First, some contextLet’s acknowledge that while science deniers are completely off base and harmful in the fields of vaccination, biology and climate change, they are likely people who have professional and academic expertise unrelated to those topics where they might add value. For example, there are relatively few of the climate change deniers who restrict themselves solely to that subject, although there are a couple.Second, there are a few of Quora features worth noting. The first is Topics. The second is the Top Writer accolade, something I have shared for years. The third is the Anonymous feature. The fourth is the Ask to Answer feature. Each of these features can see restrictions to prevent the spread of science denial on Quora without completely deplatforming individuals (although banning for ongoing violation of Quora’s policies is a very reasonable and highly defensible choice).Step 1: governanceThe first thing I would do is establish science oversight committees, likely voluntary with some perks from the $185 million in funding that Quora has accrued, before any of their ad revenue. On each of the three or four important, impactful topics such as climate change where denialists spread their nonsense, an oversight committee would be formed.The committees would be formed from decently credentialed people in the mainstream of scientific knowledge, preferably ones already on Quora such as Katharine Hayhoe (Note I’m naming her without asking her for her opinion on this, just saying that she’s an obvious candidate should she have time and inclination.)Their job would be to review the contributions of regularly reported deniers on the topics they are associated with. Where they saw that the person was simply a denier spreading nonsense, they would have one power: remove the ability of that person from asking questions, adding answers or commenting within those topics. As a result, many of the inveterate climate change deniers would no longer be able to provide questions or answers on questions with the topics Climate Change, Climate Change Debate, Global Warming, or UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), to list the most followed topics. Some cleanup and collapsing of redundant topics would follow as well.A Quora staff member would administer this process, provide a report to the committee monthly, the committee would make their recommendations and the staff member would enact them. Easy peasy.This would mean that those contributors could continue to add questions and answers on other topics to their hearts content, but would only be able to read the content on topics where they can’t help but decrease knowledge.As a related action, anyone identified through this filter would have their answers on all these topics set to the status of “Collapsed by Moderation”, eliminating them from the primary page view but allowing others to see them should they choose to wander through the bowels of questions.Step 2: Top Writer status filterThe second thing that I would do is ensure that no one on the list of those who have been barred from specific topics for regular science denial be granted the Top Writer accolade. It provides them with authority which they don’t have, authority which means that their unempirical opinions on global warming or vaccination are taken more seriously than they should be. It lends them higher order credibility which they do not have. Quora is effectively extending its authority as a high value source of information to disinformation providers.Personally, I have a growing list of roughly 20 Quorans with Top Writer status who are climate change deniers. Every few weeks I find another 2018 Top Writer who is spouting drivel on the climate change subject. That shouldn’t have happened.While my preference would be that existing Top Writer status be rescinded retroactively, it’s likely that barring denialist Top Writers from the topics that they are deniers on would suffice. After all, if a Top Writer can no longer leverage Quora to spread denial and their denialist content is collapsed, Pareto’s Law is satisfied.Step 3: Remove Anonymous capabilities on the topicsFinally, on topics selected for this advanced curation and moderation, no Anonymous questions would be allowed. There are cases for Anonymously asked questions regarding personal health, sexual proclivities and the like where significant embarrassment or outing with repercussions might ensue, but not on the topics in question. There are no questions in Climate Change which should be anonymous, nor in Vaccination.Step 4: Don’t show topic banned Quorans in A2A listsThe Ask to Answer (A2A) feature provides a list of people who have answered regularly, regardless of whether they are science deniers or rational individuals, to people who ask questions. People who ask questions are usually not people who know who the science deniers are. Eliminating the science deniers from the suggested list of people to answer based on the topics for the question would remove a trigger for the science deniers to mount their hobby horses and put their trumpets to their lips. Why encourage them?Note that this doesn’t ban anyone from using Quora, it just puts reasonable limits on their engagement in specific areas where they are clearly at odds with Quora’s mission and empirical reality. It allows people to add value where they have value to add, it merely prevents them from spamming their incorrect opinions on important topics with Quora’s imprimatur and authority.The other thing to note is that it’s simple for climate change deniers to avoid being rendered without voice on these topics. Stick to the science. Stick to actual facts. If you disagree on solutions to global warming, stick to the specifics of the solutions and articulate positive ways in which preferred solutions would work to mitigate the problem.These are simple changes. Quora could enact them immediately. I’d be glad to assist, volunteering my time to help Quora get better. I’ve built governance programs for major technological and business transformations, so this one is straightforward.