2015-2016 School Year Commitment Form Due Friday March: Fill & Download for Free

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.Indirectly its a small percentage of children maimed or killed each year compared to those who commit suicide due to being bullied.Bullying is a form of child abuse regardless of the age of the aggressor. Its long term affects can and do cause some victim’s of bullying to commit ‘bullicide’“Bullying is the systematic abuse of power and is defined as aggressive behavior or intentional harm-doing by peers that is carried out repeatedly and involves an imbalance of power, either actual or perceived, between the victim and the bully.1 Bullying can take the form of direct bullying, which includes physical and verbal acts of aggression such as hitting, stealing or name calling, or indirect bullying, which is characterized by social exclusion. (e.g., you cannot play with us, you are not invited, etc.) and rumor spreading”Below is a long list of just some of the children who took their lives due to being bullied.If you don't think bullies can ‘kill’ their victims then just read the list below.List of suicides[edit]William Arthur Gibbs (1865–1877) was a boarder at Christ's Hospital school in Sussex who committed suicide by hanging on 4 May 1877 at age 12 after being bullied and beaten. This caused an outcry and the government subsequently held an official inquiry.[1][2][3]Kelly Yeomans (1984–1997), age 13, an English schoolgirl from the Derby suburb of Allenton, became widespread news when the cause was blamed on bullying to which she had been subjected by other local children. She was reported to be the victim of repeated harassment and taunting, particularly about her weight. Matters came to a head in September 1997, when a group of youths reportedly gathered at Yeomans's home on several consecutive nights, on each occasion throwing food at the house[4] and shouting taunts aimed at Yeomans. This prompted Yeomans to tell her family, "I have had enough and I'm going to take an overdose."[5] Five youths between the ages of thirteen and seventeen were convicted of intentionally harassing Yeomans in the months leading up to her death.[6]Jared High (1985–1998), age 13, was a middle school student who committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with a gun because of being bullied. He died on September 29, 1998, six days after his thirteenth birthday.[7]April Himes (1986-2000), age 13, was an eighth grade student at Carmichael Middle School who committed suicide by hanging herself in the closet on Valentine's Day 2000 because of bullying. Students at school would go around and called her "fat" because of her weight.[8]Hamed Nastoh (1985–2000), age 14, Afghan-Canadian high school student who committed suicide by jumping off the Pattullo Bridge due to bullying.[9][10] Nastoh was a Grade 9 student at Enver Creek Secondary School in Surrey, British Columbia. He left a note for his family about all the bullying he had suffered. In the note it mentions that he was teased by his mates, classmates and even his friends would laugh at him. They would always call him "four-eyes", "big-nose", and "geek", because his average marks were above 90 percent.[9] At 5:00 pm, Nastoh's mother, father, and younger brother, David, went outside to hang out with a neighbour. Hamed and his older brother, Abdullah, were home during the night. One hour later, Abdullah took a shower. Hamed put on his new Tommy Hilfiger jacket, slipped out, and made his way, probably by bus, to the Pattullo. When Nastoh arrived at the Pattullo Bridge, he jumped.[11]Dawn-Marie Wesley (1986–2000), age 14, Canadian high school student who committed suicide by hanging due to bullying.[12] She was a student who committed suicide, after allegedly experiencing a cycle of bullying by psychological abuse and verbal threats from three female bullies at her high school.[13] She left behind a note to her family that referred to the bullying to which she had been subjected: "If I try to get help, it will get worse. They are always looking for a new person to beat up and these are the toughest girls. If I ratted, they would get expelled from school and there would be no stopping them. I love you all so much." She committed suicide by hanging herself with her dog's leash in her bedroom.[13]Nicola Ann Raphael (1985–2001), age 15, Lenzie Academy high school student who died by suicide via an overdose of co-proxamol due to bullying.[14]Ryan Halligan (1989–2003), age 13, was an American student from Essex Junction, Vermont, who died by suicide at the age of 13 after allegedly being bullied by his classmates in person and online. According to the Associated Press, Halligan was allegedly repeatedly sent homophobic instant messages, and was "threatened, taunted and insulted incessantly".[15] Halligan's case has been cited by legislators in various states proposing legislation to curb cyber-bullying.[15] In Vermont, laws were subsequently enacted to address the cyberbullying problem and the risk of teen suicides, in response.[16] In 2008, his suicide and its causes were examined in a segment of the PBS Frontline television program entitled "Growing Up Online." His suicide has also been referenced in many other news stories on bullying.Jeff Weise (1988–2005), age 16, was an American high school student who committed the Red Lake shootings and then died by suicide after years of bullying, gunshot.[17]Desire Dreyer (1989-2006), age 16, was a junior at Glen Este High School who committed suicide by hanging in her bedroom after being bullied by a group of girls at school.[18]Megan Meier (1992–2006), age 13, was an American teenager from Dardenne Prairie, Missouri, who died of suicide by hanging three weeks before her fourteenth birthday. A year later, Meier's parents prompted an investigation into the matter and her suicide was attributed to cyber-bullying through the social networking website Myspace. Allegedly, individuals intended to use Meier's messages to get information about her and later humiliate her.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25]Brodie Panlock (1987–2006), age 19, was an Australian waitress from Melbourne who died after jumping from a multilevel carpark in Hawthorn. Her suicide was attributed to serious workplace bullying at the café where she worked. Her parents successfully lobbied the Victorian Government to amend the Crimes Act 1958 to include serious bullying as a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment.[26]Jessica Logan (1990-2008), age 18, committed suicide by hanging in her bedroom after being badly bullied at school by students over a nude picture. When she and her ex-boyfriend broke up, the boyfriend forwarded her picture to hundreds of other high school girls, many of whom allegedly harassed Logan at school, calling her a "slut" and "whore." [27]Sladjana Vidovic (1992–2008), age 16, from Mentor, Ohio, hanged herself in October 2008 by jumping from a window with a sheet around her neck. She and her family were from Croatia. Because of her accent and her name, other students called her names like "Slutty Jana" and "Slut-Jana-Vagina".[28][29][30]Jaheem Herrera (1997–2009), age 11, was a fifth grade student in Atlanta, DeKalb County, Georgia, who committed suicide by hanging in the closet with a belt after being bullied by his classmates.[31]Hope Witsell (1996–2009), age 13, was a middle school student who committed suicide due to bullying. The bullying began when Hope "sexted" a photo of her breasts to her boyfriend. The photo went viral after it was posted online, causing all the other kids at school to start bullying Hope. When the school officials discovered the photo, they kicked her out of school. Hope struggled to handle the pain, later deciding she couldn't take it anymore. Her mother found her hanged from her bed canvas with a pink scarf.[32]Tyler Long (1992–2009), age 17, was a homosexual student with Asperger syndrome. Because of his homosexuality and disability, students would steal from him, spit in his cafeteria food, and call him names like "gay" and "faggot". When his mother Tina Long went to the school to complain about the bullying, the school responded to them saying that "boys will be boys" or "he just took it the wrong way." On October 17, 2009, two months into his junior year of high school, Tyler Long changed his pajamas into his favorite T-shirt and jeans. He strapped a belt around his neck and hanged himself from the top shelf of his bedroom closet. The story of his suicide was later told in the 2011 documentary Bully.[33]Ty Smalley (1998–2010), age 11, was bullied because he was small for his age. Bullies would cram him into lockers and shove him into trash cans. They would also call him names like "Shrimp" and "Tiny Ty". On May 13, 2010, Ty was cornered in the school gymnasium and a bully started a fight by pushing him. Normally, Ty would just walk away when a situation like this occurred, but on this occasion, he stood up for himself and pushed back. He and the bully were both sent to the school office. Ty served a three-day suspension, but the bully only served one day of his victim's suspension. After school that day, Ty committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with his father's .22 caliber pistol.[34] His story was also told in the 2011 documentary Bully.[35][36]Phoebe Prince (1994–2010), age 15, an American high school student who died by hanging herself, following school bullying and cyberbullying.[37] Her death led to the criminal prosecution of six teenagers for charges including civil rights violations,[38] as well as to the enactment of stricter anti-bullying legislation by the Massachusetts state legislature.[39] Prince had moved from Ireland to South Hadley, in the U.S. state of Massachusetts.[40] Her suicide, after suffering months of bullying from school classmates, brought international attention to the problem of bullying in US schools. In March 2010, a state anti-bullying task force was set up as a result of her death. The Massachusetts legislation was signed into law on May 3, 2010.[39] The trial for those accused in the case occurred in 2011.[41][42] Sentences of probation and community service were handed down after guilty pleas on May 5, 2011.[43]Tyler Clementi (1991–2010), age 18, a student at Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey, who jumped to his death from the George Washington Bridge on September 22, 2010. On September 19, Dharun Ravi, his roommate, and a fellow hallmate allegedly used a webcam to view, without Clementi's knowledge, Clementi kissing another man.[44] On September 21, the day prior to the suicide, the roommate allegedly urged friends and Twitter followers to watch via his webcam a second tryst between Clementi and his friend.[45][46] Clementi's death brought national and international attention to the issue of cyberbullying and the struggles facing LGBT youth.[47]Jamie Hubley (1995–2011), age 15, died by suicide on October 14, 2011. The Ottawa teen was subjected to anti-gay bullying. Hubley's death was the impetus for the Accepting Schools Act, 2012, an act of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which mandated school boards across the province to develop tougher anti-bullying programs with tougher penalties for infractions, and offered legal protections for gay-straight alliances in the province's schools.[48] On June 3, 2013, Allan Hubley (the father of Jamie) and Laureen Harper announced a new federal anti-bullying strategy, which will see approximately 2,400 teenagers across Canada trained in delivering peer education workshops and presentations against bullying for their fellow students.[49]Jamey Rodemeyer (1997–2011), age 14, was a gay[50] teenager, known for his activism against homophobia and his videos on YouTube to help victims of homophobic bullying. He ended his life by hanging himself, allegedly as a result of constant bullying.[51]Ashlynn Conner (2000–2011), age 10, was an elementary school student who committed suicide by hanging herself in the closet on November 11, 2011 because of bullying. According to her mother, she had tried to get help from teachers, but they told her to "sit down and stop tattling". Kids would go around in school calling her "fat", "ugly", and a "slut". When she asked her mother to be homeschooled, she refused. As a result, she took her own life. Her body was discovered by her sister.[52]Audrie Pott (1997–2012), age 15, a student attending Saratoga High School, California. She died of suicide by hanging on September 12, 2012. She had been allegedly sexually assaulted by three teenage boys at a party eight days earlier and pictures of the assault were posted online with accompanying bullying.[citation needed] Pott's suicide and the circumstances surrounding it have been compared to the suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons, a young woman in Canada, appearing to show highly similar characteristics. New laws are being considered as a result of these events.[53][54]Amanda Todd (1996–2012), age 15, a Canadian high school student who died of suicide by hanging due to school bullying and cyberbullying.[55] She died by suicide at the age of 15 at her home in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia, Canada. Prior to her death, Todd had posted a video on YouTube in which she used a series of flash cards to tell her experience of allegedly being blackmailed into exposing her breasts via webcam;[56] bullied; and physically assaulted. The video went viral after her death,[57] resulting in international media attention. The video has had more than 20 million views as of 2019.[56] The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and British Columbia Coroners Service launched investigations into the suicide. At the time of her death, Todd was a grade 10 student[58] at CABE Secondary in Coquitlam,[59] a school that caters to students who have experienced social and behavior issues in previous educational settings.[60] In response to the death, Christy Clark, the premier of British Columbia, made an online statement of condolence and suggested a national discussion on criminalizing cyberbullying.[61][62] Also, a motion was introduced in the Canadian House of Commons to propose a study of the scope of bullying in Canada, and for more funding and support for anti-bullying organizations. Todd's mother Carol established the Amanda Todd Trust, receiving donations to support anti-bullying awareness education and programs for young people with mental health problems.Kenneth Weishuhn (1997–2012), age 14, was a teen who is known for his suicide which raised the national profile on gay bullying and LGBT youth suicides. Weishuhn, then 14 years old, was allegedly bullied in person, death threats were sent to his mobile phone, and he was the subject of a Facebook hate group. He was targeted for being gay, having come out one month before his suicide. Weishuhn told his mother Jeannie Chambers "Mom, you don't know how it feels to be hated". The bullying was characterized as "aggressive",[63] "merciless"[64] and "overwhelming".[65] In response to the bullying, Weishuhn took his own life in April 2012.[66] He hanged himself in the family's garage.[67][68]Jadin Bell (1997–2013), age 15, was an Oregon youth known for his suicide which raised the national profile on youth bullying and gay victimization in bullying. Bell, a 15-year-old gay youth, was allegedly intensely bullied both in person and on the Internet because he was gay. He was a member of the La Grande High School cheerleading team in La Grande, Oregon, where he was a sophomore. On January 14, 2013, Bell went to a local elementary school and hanged himself from the play structure. He did not immediately die from the strangulation and was rushed to the emergency room, where he was kept on life support.[69] The Associated Press reported that a spokesman for the Oregon Health and Science University's Portland hospital announced that after being taken off life support Bell died on February 3, 2013.[70] Bell's death was largely reported in the media, starting discussions about bullying, the effect it has on youth, and gay bullying. The Huffington Post,[71] Salon,[72] Oregon Public Broadcasting,[73] Raw Story,[74] GLAAD,[75] PQ Monthly,[76] PinkNews[77] and many other media outlets reported on Bell's death. The media reported his suicide stemmed from being bullied for being gay, which Bell's father fully believed, stating "He was hurting so bad. Just the bullying at school. Yeah there were other issues, but ultimately it was all due to the bullying, for not being accepted for being gay."[78]Rehtaeh Parsons (1995–2013), age 17, a former Cole Harbour District High School who died by suicide from hanging. [79] on April 4, 2013, at her home in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada, leading to a coma and the decision to switch her life support machine off at Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre on April 7, 2013.[80] Her death has been attributed to online distribution of photos of an alleged gang rape that occurred 17 months prior to her suicide attempt, in November 2011.[80][81] On a Facebook page set up in tribute to her daughter, Parsons' mother blamed the four boys who allegedly raped and released images of her, the subsequent constant "bullying and messaging and harassment," and the failure of the Canadian justice system, for her daughter's decision to attempt suicide.[82]Rebecca Ann Sedwick (2000–2013), age 12, American middle school student who committed suicide by jumping due to bullying. Sedwick was a seventh grader at Crystal Lake Middle School in Lakeland, Florida. Sedwick was cyberbullied and bullied in person for one and a half years. Two girls, ages 14 and 12, encouraged others to fight Sedwick, and sent her electronic messages encouraging her to kill herself.[83] In November 2012, her mother Tricia said that "she came home near tears every day".[84] Rebecca committed suicide by jumping from a concrete silo tower to her death.[85]Matthew Burdette (1999–2013), age 14, was a ninth grade student at University City High School in California. He took his own life after two weeks of bullying at school over an embarrassing video. He left a suicide note saying, "I can't handle school anymore and I have no friends. I didn't want to kill myself, but I can't do this anymore." According to Matthew's friends, who spoke up, a classmate went to the bathroom hearing Matthew's moans, peered over the bathroom stall and secretly recorded Matthew while he was in the bathroom. He then posted the video on social media sites including Snapchat and Vine, claiming he caught Matthew "jacking off". According to the Burdette's attorney Allison Warden, a teacher sent Matthew out of class for eating sunflower seeds, but gave him no direction to go, so he went to the bathroom. The boy who took the video confessed and was arrested by the San Diego Police Department.[86]Alyssa Morgan (2002–2015), age 12, was a seventh grade student who was bullied, some part because she was bisexual, kids went around calling her worthless, stupid, and called her racial slurs. On April 6, 2015, Alyssa hung herself in her room.After 3 days in the hospital, Alyssa died on April 9.[87]Ash Haffner (1998–2015), age 16, was a North Carolina student who died by suicide in 2015 at age 16, after being bullied for years because they identified as LGBTQ.Izabel Laxamana (2002–2015), age 13, Filipino-American student attended Giaudrone Middle School in Tacoma, Washington as a 7th grader. She was bullied by family and peers. However, her father, Jeff, had cut her hair short due to having put on a sports bra and leggings to send to her boyfriend. The employees called Laxamana's parents for a parent-teacher conference on the 4th while the haircut happened 24 days later. Izzy was even forced to drop out as student body president, even if it meant more bullying from other students. She cried all day, and the bullies failed to give up as she ignored them. On Friday, May 29, 2015, she jumped off a bridge after an encounter with her grandparents. She died roughly 24 hours afterward in a Seattle hospital.[88]Kennedy LeRoy (1998–2015), age 16, was a high school student with Asperger's Syndrome who committed suicide after being bullied at school.[89]Cassidy Trevan (2000–2015), age 15, was an Australian high school student who committed suicide two years after being gang-raped by a group of older boys from her school in Melbourne. The gang-rape had been orchestrated by two female classmates who pretended to offer her their friendship after bullying her incessantly. The girls and another boy acted as lookouts while the assault took place. The five teenagers involved were named to the police but were never interviewed.[90]Felix Alexander (1999–2016), age 17, was a high school student who took his own life, throwing himself in front of a train after seven years of bullying.[91]Daniel Fitzpatrick (2002–2016), age 13, ended his life by hanging himself from the attic with a belt after years of relentless bullying while a student at Holy Angels Catholic Academy. He wrote a letter about his former friends (who didn't like him for no reason) how they were bullying and blaming him, and his teachers weren't doing anything to help him. He ended his life on August 11, 2016, two weeks before his fourteenth birthday.[92]Tyrone Unsworth (2003–2016), age 13, was an eighth grade student in Brisbane, Australia who committed suicide on November 22, 2016 after years of bullying motivated by his homosexuality.[93] His grandfather had planned that he would be at school on this day, but he remained at his grandfather's farm. His grandfather returned to the farm from work at about 1 p.m. When he did not find Unsworth in the house, he "walked out the back" and found him dead.Brandy Vela (1998–2016), age 18, was a high school senior who committed suicide in November 2016 after years of bullying in person and online by her peers about her weight. According to Brandy's sister Jacqueline, the bullies creating dating websites to harass Brandy. They would lie about her age, use her picture, and use her phone number to tell people she's giving herself up for sex for free to call her. Brandy shot herself in the chest with a firearm and died at the hospital the following day. After Brandy's death, a couple of teenagers were arrested for bullying her.[94]Katelyn Davis (2004–2016), age 12, was sexually abused by her stepfather,phiscallly abused by her mother, and bullied online. On December 30 2016,Katelyn hung herself in her backyard over her treehouse.[95]Gabriel Taye (2008–2017), age 8, was a third grade student who committed suicide after being bullied. According to documents, school video footage shows students in the boys bathroom knocking Gabriel down, he was unconscious by the time the school faculty came to pick him up and send him to the clinic. When Gabriel returned to school two days later, the bullying continued. He later committed suicide by hanging himself from his bunk bed with a neck tie.[96]Jessica Scatterson (2004–2017), age 12, was a student from England who committed suicide by hanging in the closet due to bullying at school and online. One of Jessica's friends said that she came home from school with scratches on her face and a swollen eye from a fight with another girl. Her body was found at 3:45 a.m. on April 22, 2017, two days before her thirteenth birthday.[97]Mallory Grossman (2005–2017), age 12, was a sixth-grade student at Copeland Middle School who committed suicide after nine months of relentless bullying at school and online. Her parents complained to the school officials about the bullying, but their concerns were dismissed. Her mother, Dianne, said that the bullies still haven't been punished. The method in which she ended her life has not been revealed. After her death, she was cremated. According to the Mallory's Army Facebook page, Mallory was born on Earth Day of 2005.[98]Toni Rivers (2006–2017), age 11, was a sixth grade student in South Carolina who committed suicide by shooting herself with a gun after being bullied. Before her death, she told her friends that she couldn't take the bullying anymore. She was taken to the hospital, where she received treatment for 72 hours before dying.[99]August Ames (1994–2017) (born Mercedes Grabowski) was a Canadian pornographic actress and model. On December 5, 2017, Ames was found dead at her home in Camarillo, California at the age of 23.[100] Her death was ruled a suicide by the Ventura County Medical Examiner's Office.[101] Media outlets have insinuated Ames committed suicide following successive comments on Twitter in which she defended her refusal to perform in a pornographic movie with a man who had previously worked in gay pornography and sparking an "online firestorm".[102] Ames wrote that the decision was out of concern for her health. Some members of the gay community suggested her comments were homophobic and ill-informed about STI testing in the adult industry. Friends said she suffered from depression,[103] and Ames had previously discussed struggles with bipolar and "multiple personality" disorder.[104]Rosalie Avila (2004–2017), age 13, was an seventh grade student at Mesa View Middle School who committed suicide after two years of bullying. Her mother found her body, hanging in the closet. Before she took her own life, she left some suicide notes on her bed including, "Sorry, Mom and Dad, I love you.", "Sorry, Mom, you're gonna find me like this. And "Please don't show my picture at my funeral" Her father later discovered what she had written in her journal. It is said the kids were bullying her at school about her braces: "They told me I was ugly today. They're making fun of me about my teeth." In late December of 2017, she was buried.[105]Ashawnty Davis (2007–2017), age 10, was a fifth grade student in Colorado who committed suicide by hanging after being bullied at school and online. According to her parents, Ashawnty was bullied after a video of a fight she was in at her school in Aurora in October was posted on an app. Ashawnty confronted a girl who had already been bullying her and the fight was recorded on a cellphone and posted to an app called TikTok - Make Your Day. When Ashwanty found out about the video, she was devastated. Two weeks after the video was taken, she took her own life.[106] About a week after Davis' death, an eight year old girl from New Jersey named Imani Mccray saw news reports of the suicide of Ashwanty Davis on the computer before taking her own life. Her parents discovered McCray unconscious in her room that afternoon not long after they reportedly sent her to her room for a timeout. She was pronounced dead 40 minutes after arriving to the University Hospital.[107]Gabriella Green (2005–2018), age 12, was a middle school student in Florida who committed suicide after being bullied at school and on social media. According to police, the two bullies, who were also 12, confessed to bullying and stalking Gabriella. When Gabriella told one of the bullies she tried to hang herself, the bully responded, "If you're going to do it, just do it!" Gabriella's cousin told the police that she slipped a dog leash around her neck and hanged herself in the closet. The bullies were arrested.[108]Andrew Leach (2005–2018), age 12, was a sixth grade student at Southheaven Middle School who committed suicide by hanging himself in the garage on March 6, 2018. Andrew was bullied in school after revealing he might be bisexual. The kids at school would go around calling him "fat", "ugly" and "worthless." One day, his classmates followed him to the bathroom and told him, "We're gonna put hands on you. You're not going to make it out of this bathroom." After his death, he was buried.[109]Stephanie Johnson (2005-2018), age 12, was a sixth grade middle school student who committed suicide by hanging herself in the bathroom after being bullied. Before her death, her classmates told her to go to the bathroom and "kill herself." She died in the hospital four days later.[110]Jamel Myles (2009–2018), age 9, was a fourth grade student from Denver, Colorado who committed suicide after his classmates bullied him for being gay.[111]Du Yuwei (1999–2018) was a Chinese singer and ex-member of GNZ48. On October 16, 2018, Du Yuwei committed suicide at the age of 19 via charcoal-burning, after being bullied for her affair with Huang Jiawei.[112]McKenzie Adams (2009–2018), age 9, was a fourth grade student in Alabama who committed suicide by hanging herself in the bathroom after months of relentless bullying from her classmates.[113]Seven Bridges (2008–2019), age 10, was a fifth grade student at Kerrick Elementary School in Louisville, who committed suicide by hanging in the closet with a belt after his classmates teased him over his colostomy bag.[114]Hailie Masson (2005–2019), age 13, was a middle school student who committed suicide by hanging after being bullied. Before her death, she had a TikTok account and later became a famous TikTok star. She was cremated after her death.[115]Kevin Reese, Jr. (2008–2019), age 10, was a fifth grade student in Robinson Elementary School who committed suicide after being relentlessly bullied by his classmates. According to his mother, his classmates wrote on his tablet 'kill yourself' and 'You don't belong here'. His sister later found his body, hanging in the closet.[116]Ashley Lovelace (2002–2019), age 16, was a high school sophomore known as misslovelace on Instagram. On January 21, 2019, Ashley Lovelace committed suicide due to cyberbullying and depression. [117]Hailey Nailor (2002–2019), age 16, was a high school student who committed suicide by jumping off a mall parking garage roof after being bullied at school and online.[118]Niegel Shelby (2004–2019), age 15, was a ninth grade student from Hunterville, Alabama,He was a homosexual teenager who commited suicde because his classates and friends bullied him because of his sexuality. On April 18, Nigel hung himself in his bedroom, his mother later discovered his body.[119]These children are gone but will never be forgotten.

To quote a man named Archie Williams who was in prison for 37 years for a crime he did not commit and it took close to 27 years for the Innocence Project to get the BOP to release him: “Freedom is of the mind”.I spent 1163 days in jail May of 2006 - July of 2009 and the rest in prison from July of 2009 - December 2014. For every month I was in prison, I received 10 days off my prison sentence (called “gain time”). Every year had the potential to earn 120 days off my prison sentence and I received that every year until my sentence was done. If I hadn’t done that, I wouldn’t be here until 2021.Every time I received my gain time sheet, it brought me closer to freedom. Long story short, on December 21st 2014, I was on a bus from Tallahassee to Orlando Florida where a place to live had been prearranged with the help of a placement service with which I had been corresponding when my release date was finalized. A few of those who had been released a month or two earlier, a couple of ministry personnel and a representative of the placement service met me at the Orlando terminal upon my arrival. It was late at night and I got settled into the house (with 2 other people in their respective bedrooms) in my room, given a box of shirts and pants and some canned goods. December 21st 2014 was my first night of freedom in a bed (not a rack) by myself (not with 70 other men in the same dorm, since May 6, 2006. I slept like a rock.The next morning I was taken to registration to register my address at the Sheriff’s Office in downtown Orlando. Then I was taken to the Driver’s License place to get an I.D. card. The next day I was introduced to my probation officer at the D.O.C. location in Orlando. I was getting back into the swing of things by that time. I don’t recall ever thinking about how the other guys I left behind were doing back at Calhoun C.I.The next 3 months were filled with activities, church, errands to be run with my host as we drove around town to get me familiarized, and the most important thing … getting my Social Security Retirement checks set up. I was 62 years old then and we had to get special dispensation to file early (instead of waiting for me to be 65). Then, in mid-March of 2015 I was taken to the hospital by ambulance, unconscious having dropped on the kitchen floor of the house. Two days later I awoke in the hospital and at that point I was diagnosed with End Stage Renal Disease. My kidneys had stopped working completely. The surgeons also removed my large intestine due to the immense sepsis, and unblocked my bladder (the culprit of my kidney failure) with a catheter. I was in the hospital from mid-March 2015 to the first week in July 2015.My thoughts were about survival. I never looked back to the days of my incarceration. I HAD to look forward to my healing first. Concentrated only on that and my prayers that followed. I had given my life to Jesus back in jail on November 11, 2007. My faith and the positive mental attitude I had gave me strength to mow through all of this. My host (now a very good Christian friend) had made sure my room was not rented out to anyone else because I would be back and would make good on the back rent.When I was in prison, I was already deemed as “old school” and it was “hands off” to anyone who wanted to do nasty things to me. Over a short period of time, I became used to the routine at the compound. I got a job at the chow hall and I was on the shift that served lunch and dinner, so I was out of that 70-man dormitory for a major portion of the time. From 5a.m. to 10:30a.m. Monday-Friday there were things I did in the dorm. Mostly I was writing … anything that had a spiritual bent on it. I submitted many articles to a prison ministry based in Auburn, IN. I was published pretty regularly. I also helped some of the guys write letters back home. We did have a prayer circle and we pretty much stuck with each other. Sometimes, we’d pool our resources, went to commissary to buy some soft tortillas, Slim Jims, Ramen noodles, dill pickles, and other “ingredients” to make a real tasty “goulash”. We were eight in our prayer circle. We knew who had money and who didn’t. We made tortilla wraps with the goulash fillings and gave to those who had nothing.During that morning time, our dorm and others on the same side of the compound went to commissary one day and the rec field the next. At 10:30 a.m. the call for the chow hall workers came to either our dorm (when commissary happened) or the rec yard (when it was our time/day for that). I went to work.The weekends were mine (no work). Saturdays were spent pretty much relaxing. That’s when I did most of my writing (I also wrote letters to my youngest son who was married and had two boys). I would sit “indian-style” on my rack (it was a single bed no upper bunk) place the pillow on my lap, took a couple of legal pads and placed them on the pillow and I wrote. Sundays were for Chapel service. Our chapel had seating capacity for 260 people. Upholstered pews just like a real church. The Praise Team (the band in Chapel) were all in the dorm I was in. It was called the Faith-Based Honors dorm.I think there was only 3 fights I saw over the 4-year period I was in that dorm. I was put into gen pop the first year I was at Calhoun. They lasted approximately a minute or two when one of them got a good beating and capitulated to the stronger. There were a few group fights in the rec yard, but we pretty much distanced ourselves from that general area where the shanks were buried under certain parts of the grass. One would kneel down to “tie his shoe”, pulled the shank out of the shallow hole and it was “game on”.I was involved and interacted as much as I could or would be allowed. I stayed busy. I didn’t get into the politics of the dorm (such as it was). I made my acquaintances my only real contacts. I didn’t have to worry about my life being taken even though pretty much everyone knew the crimes I had committed. I guess one could say there was safety in numbers primarily because many of those people in the Faith-Based Honors dorm committed similar crimes as I did.After I was released from the hospital and back at home, I settled into the domestic lifestyle. My youngest son drove from Sarasota to my home in Orlando in June of 2017. We had been talking on the phone from early 2016 every other Friday (when he was picking up his two sons by his previous marriage to spend the weekend with him). His second wife and their set of two children were over at Disney World and my son drove to my place. It was very special. He took pictures of the two of us and he sent them to his wife’s phone while they were at the hotel. She cried happy tears for the two of us.I remember faces from prison back then. Names seem to evade me now. There was my spiritual mentor in prison and I remembered his name. Talriq. He looked like a big silver-backed gorilla, but he was very soft spoken … unless it was about God and football in that order. LOL. He helped me out so much when I needed to get past my own self-condemnation. I had forgiven everyone else, but I was having a hard time forgiving myself for what I had done. He got me through all of that and I was whole again.When I gave my life to Christ 11/11/07 in jail, my entire life did a complete 180. I was no longer frightened or concerned for my backside or anything like that. The men I associated with I thought were good people for the most part …. convictions notwithstanding. I learned a lot about human nature and what happens when life becomes very rough outside the walls. Saw a lot of people released from jail and then a month or two later were right back in for a 90 to 180 day stint. Three hots and a cot. They couldn’t make it out there in the city. Had it better in jail. I didn’t think that way. My eyes were on what would happen later and what I would do once out. One of the books that I read when I was in jail was “Man’s Search for Meaning” by Viktor Frankl. Viktor Frankl is the founder of logotherapy, a form of psychotherapy that he developed after surviving Nazi concentration camps in the 1940s. After his experience in the camps, he developed a theory that it is through a search for meaning and purpose in life that individuals can endure hardship and suffering. The Bible and Mr. Frankl’s book were my primers throughout my stay behind the walls.Not what you expected, eh? No hardship. No beatings. No nightmares. Just one success after another. Success breeds success. Now, in between dialysis treatments, doctors visits, some outpatient operations and living with two other old farts because we can’t make ends meet on our own with our individual incomes I do volunteer work for CollegeGuild.org. They created correspondence courses devoted strictly to prisoners. I am one of 200 volunteers who read and provide feedback from the prisoner’s answer sheets after they’ve studied a unit. When I found out that such an entity existed, I jumped at the chance to be a reader for them. I wanted to give back to those men AND women in prison who are constantly told they are no damn good. I was one of them, but as I said in the beginning and I agree with Archie 110%, “Freedom IS of the mind”.

Answer will be lengthy but worth it.First you need to know about US-CHINA relations.On Dec 5,2018 in Washington DC the United States and the world marks the passing of President Bush Senior.President Bush Snr. was a truly remarkable President. For those of us engaged in the business of the world—the first Gulf War, the end of the Cold War, and the reboot of the U.S.-China relationship in the early 90s after the implosions of 1989—President Bush Snr. was a truly remarkable American, and a truly remarkable American President. And we honor him this day.Over the last twelve months, much of Asia has been turned on its head through the new dynamics we have witnessed in U.S.-China relations and on North Korea. It was only 12 months ago that the U.S. and North Korea appeared to be on the verge of armed conflict as “rocket man” was threatened by President Trump with “fire and fury” over the North’s continued nuclear weapons program. Twelve months later, President Trump and President Kim appear to be the best of friends following their historic summit in Singapore, and despite the fact that there seems to have been negligible substantive progress on denuclearization, the thaw in inter-Korean relations has been unprecedented.Twelve months ago, President Trump had just returned from his state visit plus to Beijing, where it seemed Trump’s anti-Chinese rhetoric of the 2016 campaign had finally been put to bed. But 12 months later, China and the U.S. are now in the middle of a still unresolved trade war, while the Administration has declared America’s 40-year long era of strategic engagement with China is now over and a new period of strategic competition has begun.Twelve months ago, the American, European and Chinese economies and markets were roaring. Whereas 12 months later, they are beginning to slow, albeit for different reasons, causing concerns about the sustainability of long-term growth, employment and income levels.If a week is a long time in politics, in international politics and economics, a year is an eternity. And China remains a dominant driver in all three of these major unfolding changes. During the course of this year, we have all been wrestling with three big questions: how is China changing under Xi Jinping; how is America changing under Donald Trump; and to what extent have the traditional moorings of the U.S.-China relationship of the last 40 years now been severed, in which case what, if anything, can now anchor the relationship into the future?In other words, are we now as Graham Allison warns us, now “destined for war”—either cold, medium or hot? Or is a new strategic equilibrium now possible between the two, based on a new common strategic narrative for the relationship which can be shared and observed in both capitals? The truth is, these are genuinely hard questions. There force us to think clearly about one another through the fog of perception and misperception. They force us to think clearly about our values, our interests and our identity. And they force us to think through carefully what is essential, what is non-essential, where should there be compromise, and what should remain contestable.I do not intend to try to answer all these questions today because they require further thought, although I am deeply conscious of the fact that they must be analyzed and answered soon. That’s because we are now in potentially dangerous terrain - some sort of “no man’s land” between one set of strategic assumptions about each other that have stood for several decades, and a brave new world where everything may be up for grabs.Over the last twelve months, we have, however, made a start in a series of addresses aimed at analyzing core aspects of the collective challenge we are facing. In March I spoke at West Point on the question of what does Xi Jinping want, while in June at the Lee Kuan Yew School in Singapore I began to analyses the Marxist origins of Xi’s emerging worldview. In September I spoke on America’s response to Xi Jinping though a new declaratory doctrine of strategic competition and posed a series of questions for U.S. policymakers as they seek to operationalize that strategy. I’ve also spoken in Silicon Valley on what strategic competition might look like if allied to a high technology war between the two countries. And most recently in Jakarta I’ve sought to analyze what this emerging strategic cleavage between Washington and Beijing means for South East Asia which has become the new “great game” for strategic influence, as ASEAN itself continues to hedge against a rising China and what is perceived to be an indifferent, uncertain and potentially unreliable America. We need also to analyze other regions within a similar frame: including Africa, Eurasia, the Middle East, South Asia, and Latin America. There are commonalities but differences across them all which we need to understand.In my remarks today, part of the same series, I want to look at the state of the relationship at year’s end in the aftermath of the Buenos Aires Summit; the impact of the continuing trade war on China’s unfolding domestic economic policy debate and where that may lead in the future; as well as what are the prospects for the overall U.S.-China relationship for the year ahead. I’m always challenged by Henry Kissinger who enjoins us in strategic analysis to understand first and foremost what we are seeing. And to ask ourselves also what we are not seeing. All before going onto the critical question of policy of what then is to be done.The Buenos Aires SummitWhat Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping did in Buenos Aires was buy time. Three months’ worth in fact. Which is good when measured against the alternative, which was a full-blown trade and broader economic war between the two countries starting next month. Which in turn had the potential to trigger a further collapse in global market sentiment, particularly coming on the back of other negative trends emerging in both the U.S. and Chinese domestic economies. But even from those of us who have been arguing publicly that on balance a deal of some sort between the Chinese and the Americans was more probable than not: one swallow doth not a summer make. Much can still unravel. Both Trump and Xi have indeed bought valuable, though limited, time for themselves and the world. But for a number of different reasons.To begin with, there are five, complex baskets of policy disagreements to work through. First, the current annual $370 billion bilateral trade deficit needs to be reduced. Then there are the possible cuts to tariff rates themselves. The Chinese average tariff rate currently stands at about 9.8% compared with an American average tariff rate at 3.4%. Then there are those industry sectors that are most politically sensitive in each economy, led by agriculture: Republican-voting farmers in the U.S., matched by China’s historical paranoia over national grain self-sufficiency. Then there are the three hardy perennials: intellectual property protection; forced technology transfer (an American term) and the use of the full resources of the Chinese state to support China’s stated national industrial strategy (Made in China 2025) to dominate global advanced technology markets and product standards by 2030. These three are the really ugly ones. Setting a deadline of 1 March 2019 to resolve these five problems is smart. Particularly if it’s driven hard by the prospect of a further working-level summit with Trump and Xi later in March, although I note that a number of trade professionals have argued that 90 days is so ambitious that it’s unrealistic and sets both sides up for failure.This 90-day pause also serves Trump and Xi in other ways. By March, Trump will have a fuller idea of the lay of his domestic economic and political landscape. He will then know the extent of any significant softening in the economy already induced by monetary policy tightening by the Fed, and the extent to which the American economy could then sustain further tariffs should the efforts of Chinese and American officials have come to naught. On the political front, the Mueller investigation should also have reported by March. If the results of the investigation are seriously bad for Trump, then we should be alert to the possibility of Trump having a renewed interest post-Mueller in doubling down against China—if in fact he is found then to have been compromised in his dealings with Russia. That certainly would be an “X factor” that our Chinese friends are worried about.March, however, also presents Xi and his chief economic advisor Liu He with opportunities of their own. On the international front, March might enable Xi to take a bold trade message to Davos in January, should he decide to go. China has sought to mobilize global sentiment in support of its efforts to uphold the global economic and environmental order. A major Chinese announcement on trade liberalization across the board, not just on a bilateral basis with the U.S., could indeed take the world by storm. It would also send a stark signal to the world on the 40th anniversary of the Chinese economy’s “reform and opening up”. And that indeed could represent a serious new challenge to American global leadership.Furthermore, a serious commitment to trade liberalization from Beijing, accompanied by the underlying message of competitive neutrality between foreign firms and domestic firms, as well as between private firms and state-owned enterprises, would reinforce Liu’s valiant efforts in recent months to re-prosecute the full implementation of China’s stalled “phase two” economic reform program first announced in 2013. This is something that China desperately needs for its own economic interestsThis takes us to the core question of the organic relationship between any concessions that China might offer the United States' trade and economic negotiators bilaterally, and those things that Chinese economic reformers understand needs to be done in any case domestically, if indeed the economy is to be able to have strong, sustainable growth into the future.China’s Changing Domestic Economic NarrativeThose who follow the Chinese economy closely understand the significance of the economic reform blueprint first released by Xi Jinping’s administration in November of 2013. This came earlier in his period in office. After a fierce internal debate in its preparation, agreement was finally reached on its central organizing principle that: “the market play the decisive role in resource allocation.” The decision incorporated 60 different reform measures covering ten broad categories of trade, cross-border investment, state-owned enterprise reform, competition policy, financial system reform, fiscal policy, innovation policy, labor, environment, and land reform. This was a conscious effort by China’s economic leadership at the time to transform China’s historical economic growth model over the previous 35 years to what became then universally known as “the new model”.The old model, as we are all familiar, was based on two pillars: labor intensive, low-cost manufacturing for export; reinforced by high levels of public investment in national economic infrastructure. The new model was based on three pillars: high levels of domestic consumption; private sector-driven innovation following the completion of the SOE-driven infrastructure build; and third, a sustainable development revolution.Implementation began in 2014-15 but the party’s confidence in the market was dealt a body-blow by the implosion of Chinese equity markets, and broader financial markets, in August 2015. From that time on, as we at the Asia Society Policy Institute have tracked throughout our China economic dashboard, the pace of implementation of the reform program slowed drastically and in most areas ground to a complete halt. Harsh capital controls were also imposed on China’s capital account, making it much more difficult for private firms to expand their operations abroad. At the same time, because of legitimate fears about the size of China’s debt to GDP ratio, driven in large part by an out-of-control shadow banking sector, as well as ballooning local government debt, the central government began a national deleveraging campaign which over the last several years has also resulted in credit being withdrawn indiscriminately from otherwise profitable private firms. At the same time, Chinese SOEs had been given a new lease of life where the national deleveraging campaign has had less effect on SOEs than their private sector counterparts.Furthermore, there has been the rolling impact of China’s anti-corruption campaign has fundamentally slowed government decision-making processes as officials sought to protect themselves from political exposure, which meant that the private sector-driven development projects also began to slow significantly. To this was added Xi Jinping’s emphasis on the central role of the party and the primacy of ideology, resulting in an enhanced role for party secretaries operating within private firms. And on top of all the above, there has been considerable confusion as to the precise implications of China’s so called “mixed ownership model” – whether it was an invitation for private firms to absorb poorly-performing public trading enterprises; or whether in fact it was creating a fresh opportunity for SOEs to “nationalize” well-performing private firms.All these factors had been unfolding across the Chinese economy over several years prior to the beginning of the U.S.-China trade dispute in the first half of 2018. The net effect of all of the above has been a growing number of anecdotal reports pointing to the significant slowing of Chinese economic growth during 2018 with private sector firms, concerned about an increasingly adverse policy environment, refraining to invest in further expansion of their enterprises, either at home or abroad. By the time the annual leadership retreat occurred at Beidaihe in August this year, reports had begun to come in from across the country that China was facing a serious domestic crisis of private sector business confidence with potentially profound implications for future growth.From Adversity Springs Opportunity: Competition Policy ReformIt was about at this time that those who have long understood the continuing imperatives of China’s market economic reform agenda saw an opportunity emerging out of adversity – namely to bring about the next wave of competition policy reform within the Chinese economy by opening China to more foreign competition, thereby lifting long term productivity growth. It will be recalled that competition policy reform had long been a key component of the original 2013 national economic blueprint, but had been allowed to slide.The need for a more effective competition policy was particularly felt within China’s poorly performing financial services sector. In any efficient market economy, the effective allocation of capital across competing corporate needs, based on the business case advanced by would-be borrowers, and the associated risk taken on by lenders, is fundamental to sustainable economic growth. By contrast, China’s financial services industry has developed inefficiently, despite the growing number of domestic private players within it, because capital allocation decisions are driven less by market considerations than by political or administrative necessity.China’s economic reformers are fully seized of the dimensions of this problem in the heart of the Chinese financial system. The reformers see the future lying not just in bringing China’s grossly indebted second-tier banks and SOEs back within reasonable borrowing limits from their previous borrowing and lending habits. They equally recognize the structural importance of introducing market disciplines for capital allocation decisions for the future. In other words, it’s not just the matter of cleaning up decisions from the past. It’s also about creating a functioning market framework for the future so that scares financial capital is allocated rationally, and corporate debt burdens do not simply blow out once again.Chinese reformers also see the greater introduction of wholly-owned foreign financial institutions into the Chinese domestic market as being a new way of grafting these market disciplines into the Chinese system. This differs qualitatively from previous Chinese approaches to allow limited foreign financial institutional participation within China – where foreign presence has largely been limited to minority stakes in second tier banks with the limited policy objective of Chinese banking officials “learning” how Westerners do these things, before eventually asking said Westerners to leave. The alternative approach is to fundamentally shake up the Chinese system from the top down, by introducing large-scale foreign competitors across the breadth of the financial services industry in order to force Chinese firms to be more efficient.This year, for example, we have seen a number of foreign investment limitations eased for entry into China’s $45 trillion financial services sector. These have included:Foreign investment limits in securities companies and mutual funds were raised to 51% in April and set on a three-year path to allow full foreign control. Indeed last Friday, UBS became the first foreign securities firm to be approved for majority ownership, with applications from JPMorgan and Nomura in process.Foreign insurance firms are now to be allowed a controlling 51% ownership of domestic insurers as of May this year. And German insurer Allianz was approved to be the first wholly-owned foreign insurance company on November 25. French firm AXA has quickly followed, purchasing the outstanding share of their previous joint venture on November 26.Foreign ownership limits on banks and other debt managers were also removed in August. Previously foreign firms were limited to 20% as a single entity, or 25% as a group. To-date, however, no foreign firms have applied to use the new regulations.Additional Support for the Private SectorFinancial services reform, driven by increased foreign participation is one thing. Wider reforms to promote China’s somewhat beleaguered private sector have also been forthcoming. On 19 November, the State Administration of Taxation issued a policy note outlining 26 concrete measures centered on reducing the tax burden for private firms. According to the State Administration of Taxation, these were not yet fully utilized. Nonetheless, in the most recent quarter, there were over 143 billion RMB (21 billion USD) in tax deductions for Chinese SMEs, a 41% increase from third quarter last year.Beyond these various reform measures, there have also been recent announcements from the central government aimed at improving credit availability to Chinese firms. The party secretary of the PBOC on 7 November outlined the new so-called “1-2-5” policy.This was a directive for at least 1/3 of new corporate loans from large banks to be extended to private firms;At least 2/3 of new loans from small and medium size banks; andOver the next three years, for at least 50% of all new corporate credit across the banking system to be extended to the private sector.First Steps Toward a New Chinese Political Economy?To repeat: the key to the success of this newly emerging political economy in China is the extent to which China’s economic reformers are able to develop a domestic political narrative within the party and the country which explains any “external concessions” to the U.S. Administration as necessary internal reforms to undergird China’s long-term economic growth prospects.This is a tough challenge given that over the last several years at least, Xi Jinping’s political center of gravity has lain elsewhere – namely his predilection for a stronger party, stronger politics, and a more nationalist posture. Nonetheless, it seems that Xi Jinping has now had a large encounter with economic reality - Chinese-style. Namely that the Chinese private sector really matters! Furthermore, if this economic policy correction continues, basically from left to right, then this may turn out to be a seminal period of reform indeed.There are grand precedents in recent Chinese history for such economic policy corrections to occur. Barely three years after Tiananmen, Deng Xiaoping undertook his famous Southern Expedition, where he told China to redouble its efforts in economic reform and opening to the world. And China did. Five years later Jiang Zemin, in the midst of the Asian financial crisis said to China’s emerging entrepreneurial class to “go out into the world”. And they did. Five years after that, Zhu Rongji in 2002 secured China’s admission into the WTO, heralding the next phase of China’s economic reform program, including China’s emergence as the global export superpower it has since become.It may well just be that we are witnessing a policy redirection of a similar order of significance with what is unfolding now. Certainly a careful reading is warranted of Xi Jinping’s speech of September 27 on the economy; Vice Premier Liu He’s of October 19 on the private sector, and perhaps most significantly of all Liu He’s comprehensive statement on China’s future economic direction outlined in his address to the Hamburg economic forum in late November on the eve of the G20 summit.Of course, many things can go wrong with all of this. Policy momentum may stall.Chinese bureaucrats may simply hedge their bets and sit on their hands. Even worse, they may simply resort to the vast array of non-tariff barriers at their disposal to undermine the letter and the spirit of reforms to China’s overall trade and investment policy environment on the ground. And beyond all that, China’s private sector, still facing significant restrictions on the capital account, may not respond positively to what the party and the government are now telling them to do, on the grounds that there is too much policy and regulatory unpredictability for them to have sufficient confidence to invest in the future.That’s why it will be critical to see China’s emerging data on private fixed capital investment to see whether Chinese firms have bought the Chinese leadership’s new policy message, thereby unlocking a further period of reform, opening, and sustainable economic growth.Prospects for 2019Against this general economic background, what then are the prospects for the U.S.-China relationship for 2019? By March, it’s probable that there will be an agreement between China and the United States on the quantum of bilateral trade deficit reduction and the import decisions that China will make to bring that about over time. As for tariff reform by March, that is possible, although the degree of technical difficulty remains significant. If it’s a tariff line by tariff line approach, given the multiplicity of tariffs which currently apply to the overall trading relationship, this may well blow out way beyond March. If however Chinese economic reformers take a more dramatic approach by committing to zero tariffs over time, and challenging the Americans to do likewise, that would be precisely the sort of measure which could be announced relatively rapidly. It would, however, run totally against the grain of half a century of training of Chinese trade bureaucrats to give away nothing if at all possible—let alone be seen to “give away everything” in one fell swoop.The reform of so-called forced technology transfer, within the contractual arrangements between Chinese and American enterprises, should be relatively straight forward. This, however, is different to how contractual arrangements may be interpreted on the ground, even in the absence of any specific technology transfer provisions. Intellectual property protection is deeply problematic. Not only are there traditional forms of commercial espionage. There is now cyber espionage as well. Previous agreements reached under the Obama Administration could be reconstituted. But the critical problem remains jurisdictional enforcement of breaches if and when discovered. One possible mechanism for building confidence is for all relevant contracts between Chinese and foreign firms to be made subject to international commercial arbitration regimes located in either Singapore or Switzerland. These could be designed in a manner to specifically deal with IP protection. The recourse to international commercial arbitration is now relatively common around the world. If China objected, it might also be possible to develop China’s own domestic international commercial arbitration system. But for foreigners to have confidence in this system would require China to appoint qualified foreigners to its panel of arbitrators. Other countries already do this. China could do the same. But in the absence of an independent Chinese legal system, even in the commercial law, this would seem logically to be the only way through this continuing thorn in the side of the relationship.On China’s use of state subsidies in support of its national plan for domestic and international high technology market domination, it is difficult to identify any readily available solution. The uncomfortable reality is that all countries use varying levels of government support for their indigenous technology industries. Even if we were to mandate a maximum proportion of state support for a given firm (either by way of state R&D support or other related tax breaks) the problem would invariably arise as to how all of this is measured. I am not therefore confident of a negotiated outcome in this area. America may simply need to outcompete “China at its own game” in terms of a radical increase in public investment in research and development across the full spectrum of information technology and biotechnology sectors. The major public universities would, I’m sure, welcome this with open arms.As indicated above, we should also not rule out the possibility in 2019 of China pitching any tariff reforms that it is prepared to implement to resolve the U.S.-China trade war to the wider international community as well. We should not rule out the possibility, for example, that if China was to undertake something dramatic—like a commitment to zero tariffs over time—that such a commitment would not just be made on the basis of reciprocal actions by the United States, but by all WTO member states. Indeed, this would represent and almost irresistible geopolitical opportunity for China to champion global free trade and to arrest the global trend towards protectionism that currently threatens the wider global economy. Furthermore, we should not rule out the possibility that China approaches TPP 11 member states to negotiate possible accession to the TPP. This would comprehensively outflank the United States within the Asia Pacific region. It would also turn out to be supremely ironic that a TPP originally designed by the Obama Administration as part of its Pivot to Asia, ended up including China but not the U.S. itself. China, when it sees a political and market opening, can be remarkably fleet-of-foot. The technical negotiations would, of course, be formidable. But there is already evidence of a softening in traditional Japanese reservations towards possible Chinese accession as evidenced during Prime Minister Abe’s recent visit to Beijing.On the wider foreign policy and security policy front, 2019 is likely to see China increasingly pull its head in. There is already evidence of a normalization in relations with Tokyo. The Japanese Coastguard has published data already indicating a radical reduction in the frequency of Chinese incursions into the Senkaku/Diaoyudao area in the East China Sea. China is also seeking to de-escalate tensions with the ASEANs over the South China Sea through an intensification of its negotiation of a “code of conduct”. Although maritime incidents with the United States have continued to be sharp. And may well get sharper if the United States implements a more vigorous campaign of Freedom of Navigation Operations in the coming year. China has also sought to de-escalate tensions with India following the bilateral summit with Prime Minister Modi in Wuhan in April 2018. That is likely to continue through the Indian national elections due in 2019. China may also begin to moderate its posture towards Taiwan during 2019 given the remarkably poor results of the DPP in the most recent Taiwanese local government elections.This, of course, would change radically if the United States proceeds, as is likely, with a further significant arms sale to Taiwan.Across Eurasia, the Belt and Road Initiative continues to be implemented. But for those observing China closely, the BRI now attracts considerably less political fanfare within China, at least over the last several months. It’s still too early to tell. But already there is a debate underway in Beijing about revising certain BRI modalities. The Sri Lankan case looms large in the mind of the Chinese official class. So too does the long-term affordability of this multi-trillion dollar project. We may therefore be seeing less Chinese triumphalism over the BRI on 2019 than we’ve seen the last couple of years.Common to all these adjustments in the year ahead is a general tactical approach that until such time as China is able to finally bed down the fundamentals of its trade, investment, and economic relationship with the United States, it is wise for China to reduce tensions between Beijing and other countries and regions of the world.As for China’s engagement in the wider international system during the course of 2019, China is likely to continue to be the new-found champion of the WTO. It is also likely to sustain its posture on global climate change action which it agreed to under the Paris Accord. In other words, China is likely to use the period ahead to consolidate and expand its role within the existing institutions of international governance, rather than the continued construction of new institutions of international governance that lie outside the UN and the Bretton Woods system.Of course, the BRI and the AIIB will continue. But there may well be a parallel reduction in the global profile attached with China’s more recent institutional innovations. Among some of the more sober minds in the Chinese foreign policy establishment, it’s better to focus instead on the existing machinery of the global rules-based system, particularly when the United States is demonstrating systematic contempt for those very same institutions.Taken together, these are nonetheless likely to represent tactical rather than strategic shifts in China’s overall posture towards both the United States, third countries, and the wider international system. China is likely to use 2019-20 to form a deep judgment about what happens to the future of U.S. politics. Will Trump be derailed by Mueller? What will China policy be like if Trump is weakened by Mueller? Would Pence be even more hard-line than Trump on China? And would a Democratic Party candidate, if successful in 2020, adopt an equally hard-line strategy towards Beijing, and if so, how would it differ from the Republicans?On these big strategic questions, the Chinese system moves deliberately slowly. It seeks to analyze carefully the operating environment in which Chinese strategy and tactics are deployed. And while China’s leadership has already concluded that there is indeed a deep shift in American attitudes to China, they are still uncertain as to what precise shape and form this will take in the future. Tactically, therefore, China is likely to seek to buy time to reach these conclusions. And in the meantime, to de-escalate tensions wherever possible, both with Washington and other capitals, while China seeks to reach a more fundamental judgment about America’s future strategic direction and political resolve.This is consistent with China’s predilection for the long term, rather than the short. At present, China sees Trump as being a problem for the next two years for China, possibly not longer, before being replaced by another political leader with different priorities. Whereas China equally assumes that Xi Jinping will be leading China not just for another two years, but probably another ten. Or even more.ConclusionAs I said at the outset, we are dealing with profoundly complex questions. Indeed it is historically unprecedented to be in the midst of a debate about whether the world’s largest economy and oldest continuing democracy, can happily co-exist with the world’s second-largest economy and oldest continuing civilization, given that the latter has never exhibited in its history any attraction to liberal democratic norms. But grapple with the debate we must. And resolve it we must as well. One way or the other.This is despite the fact that we must do so in the midst of an increasingly polarized debate in both countries about the other. Americans believe China is stealing their future. They are angry. They have finally woken up and are fighting back. The Chinese, whether they are on the right or the left of their own debate, believe that the Americans are now deliberately containing China because Americans cannot cope with the idea of ever being number two. Particularly if number one happens to be Asian.The debate is, therefore, a highly charged one. Which is why we need to be careful about the manner in which it is conducted in both our countries. In America, as in other countries, I am concerned about the rise of “neo-McCarthyism” in a debate which conflates concerns about the actions of the Chinese party and state on the one hand, with the actions and attitudes of Chinese Americans on the other.The recent report on foreign interference in the United States and a number of other countries is a case in point. Foreign interference, from whichever country, is an entirely legitimate subject for debate. After all, that’s why democracies have laws, courts, law enforcement agencies, the intelligence services and other institutions preserving the careful set of checks and balances guarding our civil liberties as well as protecting us against internal and external threats to our security. That’s why the best solution to questions of foreign interference lies in a policy of full transparency on the part of any institutions receiving foreign funding. It’s when things are done in secret that we should be particularly concerned.But that’s also why it’s critical to constrain the terms of the debate so that the patriotism of Chinese Americans is not brought into question. I’m concerned that in the current febrile political environment this could occur. I presume that’s why the recent report on foreign interference in this country has attracted dissenting submissions from among its authors, namely Susan Shirk.Having read Susan’s dissent, I support her reflection. I have also noted Bill Bishop’s observation about the title of the report and its conflation of the Chinese Communist Party with the simple word “Chinese”, capable as Bill says of sparking anti-Chinese sentiment in general.So as we advance this hard debate on this country’s future with China, let us learn from the events of the last Cold War, Joe McCarthy and his committee on un-American activities. This debate requires full candor. Not a show trial. We are all better than that."India and China Will Catch Up with the United States."With his prognoses on international politics he has become one of the most influential authors in the United States. The British historian, Paul Kennedy, from Yale, is considered to have been one of the brains behind the Clinton era. Thoughts on India and China as future super powers, the likelihood of military conflicts, the poker-player Vladimir Putin and the unrecognised strengths of the Europeans.Kosmos: Professor Kennedy, in your bestsellers "The Rise and Fall of The Great Powers" (1988) and "Preparing for the Twenty-First Century" (1993) you voiced concern about imperial overstretch of the United States as well as about global environmental issues. Given global warming, no one would argue with you about the latter. However, your forecast about America's dark future as a superpower has not come true. What makes you think that the current US government should still be concerned about its decline?Kennedy: First of all, we are not talking about immediate collapse of the US but about a long-term process of relative decline. A great power needs a long time to decline. The Ottoman empire took 300 years. But there are signs.Kosmos: What signs?Kennedy: International opinion has swung against the US. The attractiveness of the US Dollar has gone. The competitiveness of certain key industries like automobiles has gone. Daimler selling off Chrysler is not just economic news, it's also symbolic. The US allowed a massive build-up of very large budget, borrowing and trade deficits leading to an increasing dependency upon Asian nations to bail America out each month through purchase of treasury bonds. It's hard to think that will go on forever. This means dependency, and that's the first sign of overstretch. If the two giant countries of China and India continue to grow at eight or ten percent a year for the next few decades, they will catch up with the United States which is growing at two or three percent. That will mean shift s in the power balance. India and China will be able to pay for greater influence in world affairs and also, crudely, in military establishments.Kosmos: Will industrial growth alone do the trick for China?Kennedy: The fact that so many foreign businessmen and CEOs and heads of state feel that they have to go to Delhi or especially now to Beijing is only one indicator. Another indicator for Chinese awakening is its foreign policy. China discovers Africa. Just before last Christmas, the Chinese President Hu Jintao made three long visits to African states and signed trade agreements about oil and timber. Just before that, the Chinese government invited leaders of 43 African states to an African conference in Beijing while the US were too busy in Iraq to even notice what was happening.Kosmos: What risks are there for India and China on their way up?Kennedy: I am a bit sceptical of visitors to China and India who just visit Mumbai, Shanghai or Hong Kong and then say: Wow, that's the future! In India, in particular, the levels of rural poverty and the gap between rich and poor are widening. There is a rise of ethnic and religious intolerance and murders across India which have shot up in the past five years. And the Chinese government is clearly frightened about massive unemployment in the inner provinces and also very real environmental dangers. They have colossal domestic problems. It's not just inevitable that they grow at eight or ten percent every year and everybody gets richer. When gaps open up in society and internal tensions increase it's quite tempting for the leadership to divert attention to the foreign devils.Kosmos: Could the fall of the old empire and the rise of new ones lead to military conflicts?Kennedy: I am afraid that military conflicts are more likely than unlikely. The fi rst indicator is the pretty terrible relationship the USA has got itself into vis-à-vis the Muslim world, or at least the radical parts of the Muslim world, radical parts which not only want to hurt America and Europe but want, of course, to overthrow the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt to attack Israel. Secondly, we have an increasing vulnerability of the West for energy supplies, now made worse by the increasing vulnerability of China and India for energy supplies, too. A struggle for energy is already beginning. It would be surprising if there were not actual physical conflicts over control of petroleum supplies. Thirdly, Europe seems to think that naval power is not important to national policy. Why is it that the Chinese, the Japanese, the Indian and even the South Korean naval budgets are going up and up? In Asia a naval race is going on. Under these circumstances, it is pretty hard to stop some clash at sea turning into deeper trouble.Kosmos: What will be the role of Europe in this scenario? As a military power it is rather toothless.Kennedy: Admittedly, Europe has no unified foreign policy and it has no unified defence forces. The best it can do are some Franco-German joint brigades or British-Netherlands naval operations. It doesn't have much influence on the military sphere. But in the economic sphere Europe has enormous influence. It negotiates through the World Trade Organisation as a single trading block. And Europe has increased its share in the field of soft power attractiveness. Th e Europeans do a lot more in terms of aid to Africa. And they are way ahead of the US in issues of global warming. Europe has terrific strengths.Kosmos: But it has difficulties in playing them out. Recently we saw a Russian President who did not seem to be impressed by the Europeans at all. Is this a sign of new Russian strength?Kennedy: For many years all that the Russian State could do was to reduce the army and the navy. You still see dozens of rusting old Soviet warships. With the rise of oil prices and with the advantage going to Mr. Putin's poker game, he is now saying that they will be putting additional money into modernising the Russian armed forces, including the rocket forces. It now looks as if Russia's strong foundation is the high price of natural gas and petroleum. If that was to come down, which is possibly unlikely, he'd be weakened. Whereas Europe has a variety of strengths - from high technology to cultural influence to strong trade balances. Russia has a single natural resource as its strength. It is also dependent upon energy even though it is an energy exporter. The future, therefore, hangs very much on the sustainability of stable government - not necessarily democratic liberal government - on the one hand and the continuation of the flow of additional moneys to the central treasury on the other - which has allowed Russia, for instance, to start modernising its railway system and its subways. You can do an awful lot when the price of oil has gone up two or three times.Kosmos: As an historian, you tend to think rather long-term. However, would you dare to make a prognosis about the state of US foreign policy and its war against terror in four years time?Kennedy: It would completely surprise me if in four years time there was still a US army troop of 165,000 soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Public opinion is against it, the junior officers in the army are resigning as fast as they can and even George W. Bush's Republican buddies are trying to get out of it. And I think that the US could actually strengthen itself by getting out of Iraq. A critic of General de Gaulle said it would be dreadful for France to withdraw from Algeria. In fact, it freed de Gaulle to play a much more prominent role in the world and in Europe. Nixon was freed by getting out of Vietnam. He could do the diplomacy which divided China and Russia. The British were freed when they got out of India and Palestine. They could make much more of a commitment to NATO. Possibly the best argument to off er those who say we have to stay in, is that by staying in, you give advantages not just to the Iranians and the Muslim enemies; but you give Mr. Putin a big advantage and you give the Chinese government a big advantage. They want you to stay in Baghdad. And that's a strong argument to get out.Kosmos: Your books and you yourself are said to have influenced the Clinton administration. How did this reputation as one of the important minds behind Clinton grow?Kennedy: That is much exaggerated. I think it was one of my publishers who got it all pretty well wrong. I met Clinton in spring of 1988 when "The Rise and Fall of Th e Great Powers" was a very controversially discussed bestseller. I was asked to address the meeting of the Council of American State Governors which Clinton attended. At that time, he was the Governor of Arkansas. Sometime in the middle of that conference I was stopped by a lot of young and shiny American students. They were all on Clinton's staff and would later go with him in the Presidential campaign. They had copies of my book and said, "Oh, Mr. Clinton has told us all to read it and that it's terribly important, so can you sign it for us." From that incident, I think, grew a sort of legend that I was a kind of eminence grise for the Democrats. It might be good if you could cut that myth.