# data[].attributes.body
This is an example for free and open trade because it protects US companies from unfair treatment. It also requires labor rights on both sides. The removal of tariffs also supports free trade.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S.- Panama Trade Promotion Agreement | United States Trade Representative

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The United States—Panama Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) entered into force on October 31, 2012. The TPA is a comprehensive free trade agreement that provides elimination of tariffs and removes barriers to U.S. services, including financial services. It also includes important disciplines relating…

# data[].attributes.body
This is an example of the US supporting Taiwan's Democracy by including them in the Summit for Democracy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Biden administration recently announced arrangements for Taiwan's participation in the Summit for Democracy, which will be held virtually December 9-10. This was not an easy call. The issue was not whether Taiwan has a genuine democracy; it does. The island's leaders and much of its public wanted very much to participate and share Taiwan's experiences as a thriving democracy. The problem was the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC), which has long sought to exclude Taiwan from the international system and multilateral events like the summit. The Biden administration appears to have threaded the needle just right, affording Taiwan the dignity it deserves in the process.

TAIWAN'S DEMOCRATIC EVOLUTION

In the late 1940s, the Republic of China government led by Chiang Kai-shek and his Nationalist Party (KMT) relocated to Taiwan after being defeated by Mao Zedong's communists in a civil war. For the next four decades, the Taiwan population lived under a tough, authoritarian system that suspended civil and political rights, allowed elections mostly at the local level only, and maintained a monopoly of power. Although Taiwan became an economic success story, its political development was stunted.

That changed in the late 1980s, for a variety of reasons. The leader at that time, Chiang Ching-kuo (Chiang Kai-shek's son) made a firm decision to bring democracy to Taiwan. The PRC had begun its program of economic reform and Chiang wanted to keep ahead by doing political reform. He also probably realized democratization was his best way of sustaining American support and protection.

But there were other reasons. A political opposition had grown up, which in difficult circumstances exerted pressure on the government to undertake reform. A middle class had emerged that sought more political freedoms. And there was some pressure from the U.S. Congress.

Chiang Ching-kuo began the democratic transition in 1986, two years before he died. His successor, Lee Teng-hui, completed the process. The first popular elections for the entire legislature were held in 1992. The first popular election for president occurred in 1996.

As one of us (Bush) described in his recent book, " Difficult Choices," several factors made this transition remarkable. First, it was basically peaceful. Second, it occurred gradually. Third, under Lee's leadership, an ad hoc, centrist coalition of moderates of the ruling party, the KMT, and the primary opposition party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), in effect negotiated the scope and pace of change. Taiwan thus became the poster child of the " third wave " of democratization, all the more impressive because it occurred at the same time as the tragedy of Tiananmen Square and its repressive aftermath was unfolding in the PRC.

China was relevant to Taiwan's democratization in a couple of different ways. On the one hand, the PRC government asserts that Taiwan is a part of China and that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait should unify. In 1981, it proposed a formula for doing that, known as "one country, two systems," the same approach that was applied to Hong Kong. Beijing's offer was unappealing, in part because many on Taiwan were anti-communist by ideology. In addition, "one country, two systems" offered partial democracy at best, and Taiwan was quickly moving to full democracy. One result of Taiwan's democratic transition was that the island's public would have a say in whether to accept any agreement that might be negotiated between leaders in Beijing and leaders in Taipei.

Democratization also affected Taiwan's relationship with the PRC because it unleashed a flood of ideas about Taiwan's future. Most disturbing to Beijing was the dream of some in the DPP that Taiwan should be an independent country with no legal or political ties to China. President Lee (1988-2000) and his successor Chen Shui-bian (2000-2008), the island's first DPP president, certainly played up Taiwan nationalism for political purposes, which PRC leaders perceived to be covert moves to independence. The rising cross-Strait tensions that arose as a result were of concern to the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, who each worked to limit risks of an unwanted conflict.

Taiwan politics stabilized in 2008 with the election of the KMT's Ma Ying-jeou, who believed that engaging China was better than provoking it. Both Ma and his successor, Tsai Ing-wen of the DPP, who was first elected in 2016, seem to have adjusted the positions of their political parties to the status quo preferences of the Taiwan population. Neither independence nor unification has much appeal with voters. China has alleged that Tsai is another closet independence advocate, but her record does not lend serious credence to such assertions. She was easily reelected in 2020.

MEASURING TAIWAN'S DEMOCRATIC PERFORMANCE TODAY

In some respects, Taiwan's democracy deserves all the admiration it receives. Political rights are protected and vigorously exercised. Policy issues are intensely debated. Civil society is lively. Trust in election integrity is high. There have been three rotations of power between the KMT and the DPP.

On the other hand, there are problems: political corruption, polarization between the two political camps, the emergence of an occasionally destabilizing protest culture, and an increasing reliance on referendums to challenge government policy. In short, political forces have become very good at blocking what they do not like, but they find it difficult to forge compromises to enact what society needs.

Another challenge confronting Taiwan's political system is Beijing's multi-pronged campaign to influence decisions on Taiwan toward the mainland's preference for peaceful integration. Such efforts often fall in the grey zone between peaceful exchange and actions that could invite conflict. Efforts that fall within this realm of coercion without violence include cyber campaigns, misinformation and disinformation efforts, illicit cash flows to political actors sympathetic to Beijing's aims, military intimidation, preferential policies to attract Taiwan's innovators and companies to relocate to the mainland, and attempts to isolate Taiwan diplomatically.

Viewed holistically, such efforts are intended to weaken the will of the Taiwan people. Beijing would prefer for Taiwan society to be divided. It seeks to compel the people of Taiwan to lose confidence in their ability to provide peace and prosperity for future generations. They also would like to call into question whether the United States remains committed to supporting Taiwan's democratic development, i.e., whether Washington is willing to pay costs and accept risks in relations with Beijing to keep open a path to peaceful resolution of cross-Strait differences in a manner that reflects the will of the people in Taiwan.

THE BIDEN TEAM MAKES THE RIGHT CALL

These were the circumstances under which the Biden administration decided to include Taiwan in the Summit for Democracy. The administration faced a choice of whether to exclude Taiwan from the summit in service of seeking to stabilize relations with Beijing, or to invite Taipei's participation, recognizing that Taiwan has meaningful contributions to offer.

At a more fundamental level, the Biden administration likely also concluded that its calls for Taiwan's meaningful participation in the international community would ring hollow if it boxed Taiwan out of its own summit. Its decision to include Digital Minister Audrey Tang and Taiwan Representative to Washington Bi-Khim Hsiao builds on past precedent of Taiwan's involvement in U.S.-organized coalition efforts. Taiwan officials previously have played active roles in U.S.-led coalitions to protect religious freedom and counter the Islamic State group, to name but two examples.

The combination of Tang and Hsiao to represent Taiwan is a smart choice. Tang is a subject-matter celebrity in the democratic world, given her innovative track-record leading Taiwan's efforts to counter disinformation and misinformation. She and her team have built a rapid-response system to counter Beijing's attempts to manipulate public discourse in Taiwan, often employing humor to expose the sources of malicious information. Hsiao is a longtime trusted advisor to President Tsai who has built strong relationships across the political spectrum in the United States. Together, they will be able to speak authoritatively on Taiwan's behalf and offer meaningful contributions to the summit's objectives of defending against authoritarianism, fighting corruption, and promoting respect for human rights.

Even as Beijing can be counted on to object to Taiwan's participation in the summit and cry foul at America's emboldening of "Taiwan independence forces," Chinese officials likely will frame their opposition to the summit in broader terms than just Taiwan's participation. For example, in a joint op-ed, the Chinese and Russian ambassadors to the United States cast the summit as an attempt by Washington to split the world into blocs. They argued that the U.S. had no standing to judge other countries' governance systems and asserted that effective governance should be measured by whether it "brings about economic development, social stability and progress, and better lives for the people."

There is a fair debate to be had over whether America's hosting of the summit and its choices on whom to invite and exclude will do more to aid or undermine its broader global objectives. Leaving aside broader questions, the Biden administration made a sound decision to include Taiwan and to invite Minister Tang and Representative Hsiao to speak to Taiwan's experiences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Biden administration is right to include Taiwan in the Summit for Democracy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Biden administration recently announced arrangements for Taiwan's participation in the Summit for Democracy, which will be held virtually December 9-10. This was not an easy call. The issue was not whether Taiwan has a genuine democracy; it does. The island's leaders and much of its public wanted very much to participate and share Taiwan's experiences as a thriving democracy.

# data[].attributes.body
At the request of the government of Haiti, Joint Task Force-Haiti supported U.S. foreign disaster assistance, led by the U.S. Agency for International Development Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance, to aid victims of a devastating earthquake in Haiti's Southern Claw as part of a whole-of-government effort Aug. 15 - Sept. 2, 2021.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
U.S. military efforts were in support of the U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance.

In Haiti, the U.S. military worked in coordination with USAID, the Government of Haiti, other international partners, and non-governmental organizations (NGO) to provide relief to the people of Haiti, as requested by their government. The main mission was to facilitate disaster relief operations to rapidly reduce the suffering of survivors.

The role of U.S. military forces during this disaster relief support mission was to rapidly respond with critically needed capabilities to deliver assistance and aid to areas the Government of Haiti deems most necessary. The U.S. military provides unique capability in support of USAID Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance efforts until local resources have the capacity and capability to assume and manage humanitarian assistance requirements.

We have stood side by side with Haiti and its people for decades and we will continue to be with Haiti through this natural disaster.

Background Information

The U.S. military has a history of supporting USAID-led relief missions and working with international relief organizations and host countries to aid those afflicted by disasters

Historically, U.S. military capabilities are needed most in the critical early stages of a disaster relief operation, when fewer resources, capabilities and disaster-response experts are available to help victims and impacted communities. As those disaster-relief missions progress and more experienced experts arrive to aid longer-term recovery and reconstruction, U.S. military capabilities are no longer requested, and roles previously performed by military units are assumed by other, more experienced relief organizations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Military Support to Haiti Earthquake Relief

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
U.S. military efforts were in support of the U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance. In Haiti, the U.S. military worked in coordination with USAID, the Government of Haiti, other international partners, and non-governmental organizations (NGO) to provide relief to the people of Haiti, as requested by their government.

# data[].attributes.body
We have called for a withdawl of our 200 American Troops in syria but we will still keep peace where it is needed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The US military will keep 200 troops in Syria to serve as a peacekeeping force after it pulls out most of its soldiers, the White House says.

President Donald Trump has come under fierce criticism for his decision last December to withdraw 2,000 troops.

He said the Islamic State group (IS) had been "defeated", but critics warn the group has not disappeared entirely.

The latest announcement comes as the battle to turf IS out of the last pocket it holds in Syria continues.

US-backed fighters belonging to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) alliance are making fresh attempts to evacuate civilians from Baghuz, a village in eastern Syria on the Iraqi border.

An estimated 300 IS fighters are thought to be holed up inside a tiny pocket of land.

Why now?

President Trump's announcement of a rapid withdrawal in late December took US allies and his own military and defence advisers by surprise back in late December. It prompted concerns that Turkey could attack Kurdish forces, who have been working with the US to battle IS in Syria.

US officials said American forces were initially given 30 days to leave Syria, but Mr Trump later said the withdrawal would be slowed down.

Speaking at a press conference on Thursday, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said: "A small peacekeeping group of about 200 will remain in Syria for a period of time."

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who was a vocal opponent of the withdrawal decision, praised Mr Trump's latest move and said the troops would work "as part of an international stabilising force".

US troops currently have a presence in a network of bases and airstrips in an arc across north-eastern Syria.

A temporary reprieve - but still falls short

By Jonathan Marcus, BBC defence correspondent

This shift in the US position may to some extent reassure its Kurdish allies and help to keep some small elements of allied troops and special forces on the ground.

The troops have been described as "peacekeepers" by the White House but they clearly will be helping to keep the Kurdish forces credible and linking them up to US air power if necessary.

Ostensibly this is about preventing the resurgence of IS and it also prevents an even deeper push into Syria by the Turks.

But the fact that one of the two remaining US bases will be in the south east, near to Syria's border with Iraq and Jordan, shows that countering Iranian influence remains one of the central guiding principles of the US approach.

However, this still falls far short of a comprehensive strategy for the future of Syria or the region and, for Washington's Kurdish allies, may just be a temporary blessing.

What's the latest in the battle against IS?

The SDF alliance has IS militants surrounded in their final populated stronghold in Syria, but says it has delayed its final attack to allow remaining civilians to be evacuated.

A convoy of about 30 trucks was seen carrying mainly women and children out of the area on Friday, but the SDF warns that thousands of civilians remain.

Some 20,000 civilians are estimated to have already fled the area in recent weeks, but these departures stalled earlier this week.

Most have been taken by the SDF to a makeshift camp for displaced people in Hassakeh province, north-eastern Syria. Among them are the wives and children of IS militants and many foreign nationals.

They include British teenager Shamima Begum and American woman Hoda Muthana, who are both in limbo after being told by their respective governments they no longer have citizenship.

Separately, the jihadist group said it was behind a car bomb attack at an oil field 100 miles north of Baghuz, which killed at least 13 people, including SDF soldiers, on Thursday.

The fall of the last IS territorial stronghold in Syria is significant - but experts have warned the group's ideological pull endures.

At its height, five years ago, IS controlled 88,000 sq km (34,000 sq miles) of territory stretching from western Syria to eastern Iraq.

Please upgrade your browser to view this content.

More on this story

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Syria war: US to leave 200 troops for peacekeeping after withdrawal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The US military will keep 200 troops in Syria to serve as a peacekeeping force after it pulls out most of its soldiers, the White House says. President Donald Trump has come under fierce criticism for his decision last December to withdraw 2,000 troops.

# data[].attributes.body
The U.S responded by refusing to engage with the Marshallese on claims for environmental and health damage caused by dozens of nuclear tests it carried out in the 1940s and '50s, including a huge thermonuclear blast on Bikini Atoll.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) - For decades, the tiny Marshall Islands has been a stalwart American ally. Its location in the middle of the Pacific Ocean has made it a key strategic outpost for the U.S. military.

But that loyalty is being tested amid a dispute with Washington over the terms of its "Compact of Free Association" agreement, which expires soon. The U.S. is refusing to engage the Marshallese on claims for environmental and health damage caused by dozens of nuclear tests it carried out in the 1940s and '50s, including a huge thermonuclear blast on Bikini Atoll.

The dispute has some U.S. lawmakers worried that China might be willing to step into the breach, adding to a bruising competition for geopolitical dominance between the two superpowers.

Since World War II, the U.S. has treated the Marshall Islands, along with Micronesia and Palau, much like territories. On the Marshall Islands, the U.S. has developed military, intelligence and aerospace facilities in a region where China is particularly active.

In turn, U.S. money and jobs have benefited the Marshall Islands' economy. And many Marshallese have taken advantage of their ability to live and work in the U.S., moving in the thousands to Arkansas, Hawaii and Oklahoma.

But this month, 10 Democratic and Republican members of the House of Representatives wrote to President Joe Biden's national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, about the U.S. compact talks with the Marshalls, Micronesia and Palau.

"It is distressing that these negotiations do not appear to be a priority - there have been no formal meetings since this Administration began - even as our international focus continues shifting to the Indo-Pacific," they wrote.

The lawmakers said the delays were putting the U.S. in a weaker position, and "China is all too ready to step in and provide the desperately needed infrastructure and climate resiliency investment that is sought by these long-time partners."

China's Foreign Ministry said the U.S. should face up to its responsibility to restore the environmental damage it caused with its nuclear tests. It said China was willing to engage with the Marshall Islands and other Pacific island nations on the basis of mutual respect and cooperation under the "One China Principle," in which Taiwan is viewed as part of China.

"We welcome efforts to boost economic relations and improve the quality of life between the sides," the ministry said in a statement.

China has steadily poached allies from Taiwan in the Pacific, including Kiribati and the Solomon Islands in 2019. Just this week, angry protesters in the Solomons set fire to buildings and looted stores in unrest that some have linked to the China switch.

James Matayoshi, the mayor of Rongelap Atoll on the Marshall Islands, said he and hundreds of others have remained displaced from their atoll since the nuclear tests and want to see it revitalized. He said officials have been talking with potential investors from Asia, after a previous proposal by a Chinese-Marshallese businessman fell through.

"It would be a business transaction. We don't advocate for war or any superpower influence," Matayoshi said. "But we want to be able to live in our backyard, and enjoy life here."

Like many others on the Marshall Islands, Matayoshi believes a U.S. settlement of $150 million agreed to in the 1980s fell well short of addressing the nuclear legacy. He said his late mother was pregnant at the time of one massive nuclear blast and got exposed to radiation that was the equivalent of 25,000 X-rays before giving birth to a stillborn baby.

But the U.S. position has remained static for more than 20 years, the last time the compact came up for renegotiation. The U.S. maintains that nuclear compensation was dealt with in a "full and final settlement" and cannot be reopened.

Marshallese Senator David Paul - who is on the islands' negotiating committee and also represents Kwajalein Atoll, which is home to a major U.S. military base - said continuing high cancer rates and the displacement of people remain huge issues.

"Everyone knows the negotiations at that time were not fair or equitable," Paul said. "When you look at the total cost of property damage and the ongoing health issues to date, it's a drop in the bucket. It's an insult."

Various estimates put the true cost of the damage at about $3 billion, including for repairs to a massive nuclear waste facility known as the Cactus Dome which environmentalists say is leaking toxic waste into the ocean.

A report to Congress last year from the U.S. Department of Energy said the dome contains over 100,000 cubic yards (76,000 cubic meters) of radioactively contaminated soil and debris but the structure wasn't in any immediate danger of failing. The report concluded that any contaminated groundwater flowing beneath the structure was not measurably impacting the environment.

As it did in earlier compact negotiations, the U.S. has stonewalled discussions on the nuclear legacy, something that American officials acknowledge.

"We know that's important, but there is a full and final settlement, and both sides agreed to it," said a senior U.S. official who wasn't authorized to publicly discuss the issue and spoke on condition of anonymity. "So, that issue is just not subject to being reopened. But, we're still quite willing to work with the (Marshallese) on the broader issues that are important to us and that's what we hope to do."

The U.S. State Department said the Indo-Pacific is central to U.S. foreign policy.

"We are prioritizing achieving success in the negotiations related to the Compacts with the Freely Associated States as a regional foreign policy objective," the department said.

The frustrations of the Marshallese were apparent in a letter sent last month by Foreign Minister Casten Nemra to Rep. Katie Porter, a California Democrat who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee's oversight and investigations panel.

"The State and Interior Department officials involved have been unwilling to discuss an agenda for the talks and tried to confine the discussion to their own limited proposals," Nemra wrote. "The nuclear issue clearly was one reason. All issues raised by the Marshall Islands were met with assertions that they did not have authority to discuss the matters without any indication that they would seek it."

Sen. Paul said the American approach needs to change.

"I believe the U.S. has the legal and moral obligation to make sure they clean up this debris," Paul said. "We want to make sure we get a better deal this time around. As they say, the third time is a charm."

Show Full Article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Some Fear China Could Win from US Spat with Marshall Islands

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) - For decades, the tiny Marshall Islands has been a stalwart American ally. Its location in the middle of the Pacific Ocean has made it a key strategic outpost for the U.S. military. But that loyalty is being tested amid a dispute with Washington over the terms of its "Compact of Free Association" agreement, which expires soon.