Arnaud Bertrand

Hard to compete with that, especially given the U.S. system where key diplomatic posts are often filled by political appointees who get the job because they've donated to the president's campaign...

This extensive language training produces diplomats with absolutely exceptional linguistic capabilities, drawn from among China's very best students.

BFSU for instance teaches all "the official languages of the 183 countries that have established diplomatic relations with China" (including such niche languages as Sango, Tok Pisin, Niuean or Tetum which I bet none of you have even heard of 😅, list available here: en.bfsu.edu.cn/overview.html).

Something not many people know about: China's diplomatic training institutions - particularly China Foreign Affairs University and Beijing Foreign Studies University - rank among the nation's most elite schools and have very stringent language requirements.

Extraordinary anecdote about U.S. vs Chinese diplomacy in Africa 👇: the U.S. team were speaking with their African counterparts in French via translators whilst Chinese diplomats had actually gone through the effort of learning the local African language.

Chomsky and Robinson would win hands down. I wouldn’t have written that last sentence when I began my career 40 years ago. I’ve been paying attention, however, and my thinking has evolved as the evidence has piled up."

Walt concludes: "If I were asked whether a student would learn more about U.S. foreign policy by reading [Chomsky's] book or by reading a collection of the essays that current and former U.S. officials occasionally write in journals such as Foreign Affairs or the Atlantic...

Walt writes that US government efforts are "aided by a generally compliant media, which repeats government talking points uncritically and only rarely questions the official narrative."

Walt also agrees with Chomsky that this is enabled by a massive brainwashing campaign by a US government that "works overtime to 'manufacture consent' by classifying information, prosecuting leakers, lying to the public, and refusing to be held accountable even when things go wrong".

As he explains, all of US history proves the contrary, from the genocide the country was founded upon, to the fact it intervened militarily "to thwart democratic processes in many countries, and waged or backed wars that killed millions of people in Indochina, Latin America, and the Middle East."

Walt agrees with Chomsky that "the claim that U.S. foreign policy is guided by the lofty ideals of democracy, freedom, the rule of law, human rights" is "nonsense".

Noam Chomsky Has Been Proved Right The writer’s new argument for left-wing foreign policy has earned a mainstream hearing.

Quite a sign when Stephen Walt, one of the most renowned scholars of international relations in the world (and Harvard professor), writes an article in Foreign Policy arguing that "Noam Chomsky has been proved right"

foreignpolicy.com/2024/11/15/c...

A 🧵 on the article

This is genuinely hilarious, when reality hits...

Milei in September 2023 (cepr.net/167657-2/): "Not only will I not do business with China, I won’t do business with any communists."

Milei in The Economist today (economist.com/the-americas...) 👇

All in all, it's obvious that this 'Department of Government Efficiency' isn't about making government more efficient - it's about making it friendlier to corporate interests while leaving the military-industrial complex comfortably untouched.

For that purpose it might be quite efficient indeed...

Funny how a department focused on 'efficiency' ignores the largest, most expensive, least auditable, and most destructive part of the government...

And most cynical of all, if they actually wanted to cut spending and headcount, what they should focus on is what represents the lion's share of both: the defense and national security apparatus. It constitutes 70%-80% of all federal employees but no, they decide to focus on the other 20%-30%...

So to summarize it all, here we have an initiative that's pretty much exactly what you'd expect when you put billionaires in charge of "government efficiency": you end up with less oversight of corporate America and zero effort to make the government work better, just make it work less.

Which explains why, despite mentioning that 'The Pentagon recently failed its seventh consecutive audit' of its $800+ billion budget, they don't actually plan to target it. Apparently, failing seven audits in a row is fine as long as it's authorized...

...excludes defense and national security spending, since these are specifically authorized by Congress each year through the National Defense Authorization Act.

Funny how these "unauthorized" expenditures neatly align with traditional Republican political targets...

More seriously, what's most interesting is what you exclude when you focus on "the $500 billion plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress": by definition this...

The examples they give are: "$535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood."

3) Cut spending by targeting what they call 'unauthorized' expenditures

They write they'll "take aim at the $500 billion plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended".

Cynically they write that one way they'll go about firing all these people is by "relocating federal agencies out of the Washington area" and "requiring federal employees to come to the office five days a week" which "would result in a wave of voluntary terminations that we welcome".

2) Fire masses of federal employees

Their logic is beautiful in its simplicity: since they're eliminating regulations, they'll need fewer people to enforce them! That's what they write: "drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions".

So when they say they'll use these cases as their "North Star" for reform, it's pretty clear which sector they'll be gunning for first: environmental protection rules that challenge corporations...

... and Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) which overturned the so-called "Chevron doctrine", two cases which specifically challenged environmental regulations. The EPA case limited the agency's authority to regulate power plants' emissions, while Loper Bright challenged fishing industry regulations.

Looking through the details they want to:

1) Identify a list of "thousands of regulations" which enforcement should be paused, and that should ultimately be rescinded

They write they'll be doing so based on the court cases West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (2022)...

Honestly, even I'm surprised how crude their proposal is. Since this was supposed to be about "efficiency", I expected there to be at least some effort to make government work better for citizens.

But no, they don't even mention it, it's all about "cutting government down to size", in their words.

Opinion | Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy: The DOGE Plan to Reform Government Following the Supreme Court’s guidance, we’ll reverse a decadeslong executive power grab.

What a surprise! Turns out the "Department of Government Efficiency" has nothing to do with government efficiency but is simply a pro-business deregulation, mass layoff and cost-cutting exercise...

It's all explained by Musk and Ramaswamy in the WSJ: wsj.com/opinion/musk...

A small 🧵

The beauty of this move is how strategically elegant it is: it costs China almost nothing to demonstrate, but forces Washington to contemplate some very uncomfortable possibilities.