O Grande Salto para o Sul Global: a China olha a África e o Oriente Médio - Zineb Riboua (Hudson Institute)

The Great Leap South: China’s Ambitions in the Middle East and Africa

 Zineb Riboua

Hudson Institute, Jan 30, 2025

https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/great-leap-south-chinas-ambitions-middle-east-africa-zineb-riboua

This monthly report by Hudson’s Zineb Riboua explores President Xi Jinping’s strategic push to broaden the People’s Republic of China’s influence across the Middle East and Africa. Click here to subscribe.

Saudi Arabia Threatens China’s Congo Stranglehold

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), home to 80 percent of the world’s known cobalt reserves, is taking steps to loosen China’s grip on its mining sector, Congolese senior official Marcellin Paluku announced. PRC-owned companies currently control the majority of the Congo’s cobalt output and refine it in China before supplying the world’s battery makers. But Kinshasa is turning to Saudi investors to diversify its partnerships and break Beijing’s dominance over the DRC’s mineral wealth.

Saudi Arabia, armed with the immense capital of its Public Investment Fund and driven by its Vision 2030 strategy to pivot beyond oil, is uniquely positioned to challenge China in the cobalt supply chain. Unlike Beijing, Riyadh does not have a reputation for extractive economic practices or cutting corners. This makes Saudi Arabia an attractive partner for the DRC as the embattled African nation looks to reduce its dependence on China.

Paluku’s announcement follows the arrest of three Chinese nationals who were caught in eastern Congo with several gold bars and hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash stashed under their car seats. South Kivu Governor Jean Jacques Purusi revealed that Congolese law enforcement kept the operation secret after other Chinese nationals accused of running illegal gold mines were unexpectedly released and allowed to return to China.

Why it matters

China’s extensive investments in the DRC and strategic infrastructure projects in neighboring Tanzania and Zambia are crucial to Beijing’s dominance over the cobalt supply chain. But Chinese firms’ shady and often illegal business practices have fostered discontent in the Congolese government and opened the door for new players.

With cracks forming in China’s cobalt empire, the United States has an opportunity to reshape the global resource landscape. By partnering with Saudi Arabia in the Congo, Washington can promote competition, champion ethical mining practices, and chip away at China’s near monopoly on critical minerals.

Eurasian Reroute: Ankara and Beijing Could Outflank Russian Railways

A Turkish official revealed that China is interested in contributing around $60 billion to upgrade Turkey’s rail network—an investment that could provide European freight companies an alternative to routes through Russia. This development is particularly striking given that Russia and China have grown closer in recent years as Beijing backs Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine through increased energy and technological trade.

The proposed upgrades, from railway electrification to the creation of a high-speed line connecting Istanbul and Ankara, signal Turkey’s ambitions to become a transit hub between Europe and Asia. But the real twist is China’s involvement: by backing Turkey’s plans, Beijing would help Ankara undercut Moscow’s freight dominance.

Why it matters

In what seems like a geopolitical backstabbing, China may quietly reroute trade from its so-called no-limits partner, Russia, to benefit from Turkey’s strategic location.

This development weakens Russia’s economic leverage over Europe, aiding US efforts to isolate Moscow. But it also highlights China’s growing influence in critical infrastructure projects in Turkey, a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This deepens Beijing’s strategic foothold in Europe.

Turkey’s balancing act between the US, European NATO, and China underscores a shifting geopolitical landscape where middle powers exploit great power competition. Washington needs to counter China’s expanding global reach while maintaining cohesion within these alliances.

The US should offer Turkey alternative infrastructure investments and joint projects to compete with Beijing. Supporting European freight routes like the Three Seas Initiative can help America’s continental allies bypass China and Russia altogether.

Washington also needs to address Ankara’s security and trade concerns to ensure Turkey’s ambitions align with NATO and Western interests. Meanwhile, the US should emphasize the risks of China’s debt-trap diplomacy and promote transparent connectivity initiatives like the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII). Finally, American policymakers and diplomats should monitor fractures in the China-Russia relationship and amplify rifts to turn quiet tensions into loud divisions.

Beijing Arms the Houthis, Causing Trouble for the World

American intelligence sources revealed to i24NEWS that Beijing supplies the Iran-backed Houthis with sophisticated weaponry to help the terror group destabilize one of the world’s most critical maritime routes. The Houthis, known for chanting “death to America,” allegedly receive these weapons in exchange for Chinese ships’ safe passage in the Red Sea.

Why it matters

China’s support for the Houthis does not just bolster the group’s capacity to destabilize the region. It also threatens global trade routes and emboldens anti-American actors to challenge US influence. China’s support is particularly important because Israeli strikes, the collapse of Hezbollah, and the fall of the Assad regime have weakened the Houthis’ primary backer, Iran.

China has cultivated its ties with the Houthis and other anti-Western groups by presenting itself as a champion of the Global South, forging strategic ties through economic and military support to challenge US dominance. To counter China-Houthi collaboration, the US should enhance its security cooperation with regional partners like Saudi Arabia and Israel to safeguard trade routes, disrupt Houthi supply chains with targeted sanctions, and increase diplomatic pressure on Beijing.

China Squeezes a Crumbling Iran

In a scramble to prop up its faltering militia network, Iran transferred nearly 3 million barrels of oil from a Chinese storage site onto tankers to be sold. The Wall Street Journal reports that this oil could be worth around $2 billion, but that Tehran will owe Beijing around $1 billion in storage fees. This underscores Tehran’s increasing dependence on Beijing as the Iranian economy crumbles under crippling sanctions and a string of regional defeats. Iran’s roar of defiance against the West has faded into a whisper of deference to Beijing.

China and Iran’s relationship became a 25-year “strategic partnership” in 2021. But this partnership increasingly looks more like a lifeline with strings attached. Beijing is tightening its grip, leveraging economic and political influence to control Iran’s resources and decision-making. The Iranians’ choice to move the 3 million barrels of oil echoes a 2018 shipment they made to evade Trump-era sanctions. Both examples paint a clear picture: China is not merely propping up Tehran—Beijing is exploiting the regime’s fragility to further Chinese interests.

Why it matters

The mercantilist Chinese government sees Iran’s desperation as an opportunity to solidify its role as a power broker in the Middle East. By offering Iran a financial lifeline and alternative markets, China allows Iran to sidestep Western sanctions and sustain its regime.

Through opaque oil deals and strategic investments, Beijing has become both Tehran’s benefactor and gatekeeper. China undermines US efforts to curb Iran’s destabilizing activities to reshape regional power dynamics in its favor.

To counter this, the US should close sanctions loopholes by targeting Chinese entities involved in facilitating Iran’s oil trade and financial flows. Washington should also bolster economic and security ties with its Middle Eastern allies to present a clear alternative to Chinese influence and reinforce its commitment to maintaining stability in the region.

Building Bridges: Pakistan Becomes China’s Shortcut to the Gulf

The Gulf’s abundant energy and status as a trade hub are critical to Beijing’s growing global ambitions. Pakistan, the crown jewel of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), offers PRC firms a direct route to the Arabian Sea and Gulf markets—which could be China’s shortcut to securing influence in the Middle East while sidestepping chokepoints like the Strait of Malacca.

To capitalize on China’s ambitions, Pakistan’s National Logistics Corporation (NLC) launched its first operation through the Transports Internationaux Routiers (TIR) procedure, which alleviates duty and tax burdens for certain goods provided that their transit includes roads. The NLC’s new route links China to the United Arab Emirates via the Khunjerab Pass. Hailed as a “good omen” for Pakistan’s trade and logistics sectors, the move streamlines regional connectivity, paving the way to deepen China’s economic foothold in the Gulf.

The pass has evolved from a bilateral trade route into a key link in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The NLC called the route “a major leap forward” as the shortest, most efficient route from China to the Gulf, cementing Pakistan’s role as a vital bridge for Beijing.

Why it matters

China is using Pakistan as a bridge to the Gulf while making Islamabad more dependent on Beijing. The US should recognize this as a wake-up call about China’s growing influence, strengthen its own partnerships in the region, and offer Pakistan an alternative to Beijing’s debt-laden projects.

The timing is no coincidence. China is capitalizing on the West’s distractedness to cement its foothold in the Middle East. The UAE, a key US ally and strategic partner, is now squarely in Beijing’s sights. This new trade artery is a fast lane from China to America’s Gulf partners. In a region where Washington once called the shots, Beijing is rapidly gaining ground.

Georgia: a primeira vítima do imperialismo de Putin, continua sob a pressão do ditador russo - Hudson Institute

Georgia on Your Mind: An Event with President Salome Zourabichvili

Georgian President Salome Zourabichvili spoke virtually at Hudson amid mass demonstrations against the pro-Russia Georgian Dream party’s suppression of political opposition and its pivot away from the European Union.

Afterward, Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) and an expert panel explained why supporting Georgians who are courageously standing up against Russian influence is in the United States’ interest. Key excerpts are below.

Watch the event, read the transcript, or listen here.

 

 

Key Insights

1. The Russia-China-Iran axis is expanding its influence in Georgia and the region.

If this Russian strategy were to win, it would be other countries that would be winning over this part of the world. China has very many interests linked with the ruling party. . . . We have seen the Georgian prime minister of the ruling party, Mr. Kobakhidze, going to Iran and siding with terrorist organizations. So, that is at stake. Not only democracy, not only Georgia’s future as a European country, but . . . the strategic control of this part of the world, of this Caucasus and of this Black Sea—because [the] Ukraine war is also about the Black Sea. . . . All of that is under challenge and threat by Russia in what it’s trying to do today in Georgia.

— President Salome Zourabichvili

 

2. Georgian Dream is aligned with Russia and China, and the US should not recognize its suspicious election victory.

We know that this regime corruptly gave the contract of a major deep-sea port to the Chinese Communist Party against bids of the EU and the United States. [Former Prime Minister Bidzina Ivanishvili] seeks to sell out Georgia and the Georgian people for the benefit of his dictatorship, which is maintained by rule of gun, instead of democracy, by rule of law. As war criminal [Vladimir] Putin continues his efforts to recreate the failed Soviet Union, the Georgian people want freedom. They show over and over again they are now in over 40 days of protests with [a] simple demand: free and fair elections.

— Representative Joe Wilson

 

3. The US has options to protect its interests in the region.

We need decisive action. I think we need bold action. We use our veto power inside NATO to block further cooperation at the NATO level with Georgia. This breaks my heart to say this as someone who’s spent more than a decade advocating for NATO [and] Georgia getting closer, but the situation warrants this. We should continue with our suspension of US-Georgian military cooperation. Again, it saddens me to say this. The Georgian military on a per capita basis suffered more casualties in Afghanistan than any country in the world when we were there. But we are at a point that, because of the illegitimate government, we cannot cooperate militarily with Georgia any longer. . . . We have to decide what is in America’s interest, what we want to do, and then we have to do it.

— Senior Fellow Luke Coffey

 

Quotes may be edited for clarity and length.

Watch the event, read the transcript, or listen here.

 

What Ukraine Needs for Its Counteroffensive - Hudson Institute

What Ukraine Needs for Its Counteroffensive

Hudson Institute, May 5, 2023 

Ukraine’s spring counteroffensive may soon begin, but its armed forces still lack certain weapon systems that could prove decisive in overwhelming Russia’s entrenched troops. Hudson Institute experts have long argued that the United States should equip Kyiv with a range of weapons and equipment—some of which the Biden administration has thus far withheld—for Ukraine to liberate its territory. 

As the world awaits Ukraine’s counteroffensive, the US should move with speed to arm Ukraine with the following items: 

• 155mm Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICM): DPICMs possess a 155mm-class artillery shell that sprays grenade-like munitions with a shrapnel-like effect. These cover a larger area than traditional artillery shells, making them highly effective against fortified positions. DPICMs would help Ukraine penetrate Russian defenses and serve as an artillery force multiplier that could propel operational breakthroughs.
• Maneuver Short Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD): This capability integrates air defense guns, air defense artillery, and missiles into highly mobile platforms that accompany principal maneuver units. Ukraine has received a few of these capabilities—12 Avengers with Stinger missiles and 37 Flakpanzer Gepard systems with 35-mm twin aircraft cannons—but a large-scale counteroffensive would benefit from many more.
• MQ-9 Reaper Drones and MQ-1C Gray Eagles: MQ-9s would allow Ukraine to eliminate Russian artillery stationed inside the Donbas or Crimea. MQ-9s, which can carry AIM-9X Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, would also shoot down Iranian-supplied drones at a lower cost while deterring future attacks. With hundreds of these units scheduled for retirement, MQ-9s would provide a sizable boost to Ukraine’s air defenses at minimal cost to US readiness. For its part, MQ-1C Gray Eagles would enable Ukraine to attack command centers and supply lines in addition to providing real-time intelligence for targeting. Both drones would give Ukraine a naval deterrent in the Black Sea, which it currently lacks.
• Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) Systems: Large numbers of AMRAAM missiles for the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS) can serve a similar purpose as an F-16 at a much lower cost, offering crucial protection against withering Russian airstrikes.
• M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle (ABV): This heavily armored and highly mobile platform is equipped with a mine plow and demolition charge systems that would detonate Russian explosives from safe distances, clearing the way for follow-on combat formations to penetrate heavily mined areas of operation.
• M198 Howitzer: The M198 would provide Kyiv with a powerful 155mm-class asset without pulling equipment from operational American combat formations’ arsenals; open-source writings suggest that Washington has up to hundreds of these assets in storage. While the M198 is aged by US standards, it would stack up well with other Cold War-era artillery being used in the conflict.
• MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS): Western-supplied Multiple Launch Rocket Systems and Turkey’s TB-2 drones proved critical in Ukraine’s past offensives. ATACMS come with the benefit of more than triple the range of Ukraine’s High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, and would enable Ukraine to strike critical targets and launch sites now out of reach. 

Without these systems and munitions, Ukraine will be waging its upcoming counteroffensive at an unnecessary disadvantage. While offensive operations may soon commence, they will not be over quickly. It is not too late for the US government to supply Kyiv with the arsenal it needs to regain its territory and push back Putin’s invading army. The time to act is now.

How China’s Nuclear Ambitions Will Change Deterrence - Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr. (The Economist, Hudson Institute)

O mundo será mais instável a 3, ou a 3 e meio (EUA, Rússia, China, UE), do que ele foi a dois: EUA e União Soviética. O desafio nuclear dos três grandes é o de não cair na busca infinita de dissuasão a três, isto é, de um contra os outros dois....

How China’s Nuclear Ambitions Will Change Deterrence

Shifting from a bipolar system to a tripolar one.

Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr.

China is expanding its nuclear arsenal, from a few hundred weapons to roughly 1,000 by 2030. It may have 1,550 warheads or more by the mid-2030s—the limit agreed to by Russia and America in a deal originally signed between them in 2010. This Chinese buildup is changing geopolitics. The American-Russian bipolar nuclear system, which has dominated the nuclear balance for over half a century, is evolving into a less stable tripolar system that risks undermining long-standing pillars of deterrence and triggering a nuclear arms race.

All this comes as America prepares to modernize its ageing “triad” of nuclear-weapons delivery systems (land-based and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and long-range bombers). China’s gambit raises questions over how best to proceed, as a tripolar system will erode several critical pillars of deterrence that proved effective in the bipolar system.

One pillar of deterrence, “parity”—a rough equivalence in nuclear forces—has been a cornerstone of all arms agreements between America and Russia over the past half-century. It is rooted in the belief that if neither power enjoys a significant advantage, each is less likely to use its nuclear weapons. As a senior Russian official declared in 2021, parity “stabilizes the entire system of international relations”. The need to maintain parity is particularly important for America, which seeks not only to deter nuclear attacks against itself, but also against crucial allies such as Australia, Germany, Japan and South Korea that lack nuclear forces of their own.

China’s decision to “superpower-size” its nuclear arsenal suggests Beijing seeks nuclear parity with America and Russia. Parity can be enjoyed by both rivals in a bipolar system. But it cannot be achieved in a tripolar system, because it is not possible for each member to match the combined arsenals of its two rivals. Any attempt to do so risks triggering an arms race with no possible end state, or winner.

A similar problem exists with respect to another pillar of the bipolar system, known as “assured destruction”. It holds that deterrence is strengthened when a country’s nuclear forces can survive an all-out surprise attack and still retain enough weapons to inflict unacceptable damage on its opponent’s society in a retaliatory strike. During the cold war one American estimate concluded that 400 weapons would suffice as an assured-destruction capability against such an attack by the Soviet Union.

But what about maintaining an assured-destruction capability against both Russia and China? America will need a substantially larger cache of weapons so that a surviving force could provide an assured destruction capability in a tripolar system. As with maintaining parity, this state of affairs could cause Moscow and Beijing to build up their arsenals too, resulting in an open-ended arms race.

Some argue that maintaining parity and assured destruction does not matter much, noting that China maintained a “minimal” nuclear deterrent of a few hundred weapons for decades. But when it comes to nuclear weapons, it seems Beijing has never been comfortable being a distant third to Russia and America. Others say that half of America’s deployed nuclear weapons could be placed on submarines, which are exceedingly difficult to detect. But this assumes that America’s submarines will remain undetectable over service lives lasting half a century, despite the proliferation of increasingly advanced detection technology. It also ignores the fact that, at any given moment, roughly half of American submarines may be in port where they are not stealthy sharks, but sitting ducks.

Although the shift from a bipolar to a tripolar nuclear system risks destabilizing the fragile balance of power, we have at least some understanding of how things will change. Yet we are only in the early stages of thinking through the tripolar system’s characteristics and their implications. A similar intellectual enterprise early in the bipolar era by some of the West’s best strategic thinkers paid great dividends for America’s security, and that of its allies. This kind of effort is needed now.

Fortunately there is time for this, as it will take the better part of a decade before China reaches the force levels of America and Russia. There is no need to rush pell-mell into new arms-control agreements or to expand America’s arsenal. The first step is to understand the dynamics of a tripolar nuclear system and what they mean for security. Only then should America consider whether or not, for example, to sign a follow-on agreement to the New START treaty (the Russian-American deal limiting each side to 1,550 warheads) when it expires in 2026.

America should keep its options open and its powder dry. This means energetically pursuing the administration’s plans to modernize the country’s triad of nuclear delivery systems until America has a clearer picture of how best to ensure its security in a tripolar system. The modernization program, even in its most expensive years, would probably consume less than 7% of the defense budget.

Modernization creates the possibility for serious negotiations with the Chinese and the Russians, who are already modernizing their nuclear forces. They will have far less incentive to negotiate if America allows its triad to age into obsolescence.

Proceeding with triad modernization will also enable America to expand its arsenal should China and Russia blow past the New START treaty’s 1,550-warhead limit. Exercising this option will require a “warm” industrial base with active production lines. As the Pentagon is discovering after transferring large quantities of munitions to Ukraine, its inability to boost production to meet unanticipated needs risks compromising America’s security, and that of its allies. Hence the importance of triad modernization as the best way to hedge against an uncertain future.

Read in The Economist.

Could Putin Use Weapons of Mass Destruction? - Bryan Clark, David Asher, Rebeccah Heinrichs, William Schneider, Kenneth Weinstein (Hudson Institute)

Hudson Institute:

Could Putin Use Weapons of Mass Destruction?

 

1. If Putin Uses Nuclear Weapons, It Will Be to Send a Message [Bryan Clark]

 

"The level of destruction from nuclear weapons can be high enough to give Putin a military advantage. But the problem is, an advantage in what? A contaminated area that Russian forces will not be able to deploy into? 

"It's more likely that you would see a nuclear weapon being used in a demonstration of some sort, whether it's an air defense demonstration or going after some ancillary target that might induce some casualties but isn't a mass casualty event. That would allow Putin to show that he has broken the nuclear taboo. For Russia, breaking the nuclear taboo opens up this whole set of options that they might employ in the future. For them, it's very useful from a messaging perspective.

"The U.S. needs to learn from this experience and think more carefully about how we persistently engage our opponents or adversaries, and show our willingness to do things at lower levels of escalation and maybe even at higher ones. And take some small risks that allow us to convey resolve, to a much greater degree than we have up till now."

 

2.  Russia Refuses To Rule Out Possible WMD Use [David Asher]

 

"Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said recently that if this becomes an existential crisis for Vladimir Putin, nuclear weapons use is not ruled out. This is the first we've had the Putin regime talk about it four, five, six times. Why? Everything else they've talked about, they've delivered on. Let's not forget that.

"My fear is that Putin decides to do something ahistorical, atypical, but in his mind, great. And that could be the use of something that would try to decapitate the Zelensky regime. Just because nobody has used a nuclear weapon doesn't mean that Putin thinks it's verboten. He might do it just because he thinks it's going to shift the entire power balance, and then he immediately opens negotiations and says it'll never ever happen again, or will say, 'Oh, it was a mistake. Some general went off and did it,' ala Dr. Strangelove, and then Putin shoots the guy in the head."

 

3.  Russia Is Effectively Employing Nuclear Coercion [Rebeccah Heinrichs]

 

"The Russians are using nuclear coercion, and it's working on the U.S. in terms of how unwilling or risk-averse it's making this administration. Russia moved one of its massive strategic military exercises that used nuclear delivery systems to coincide right before the invasion, when the United States had a long-planned Minuteman III test. This administration essentially decided, even though the Russians would have known about the U.S. exercises in advance and it would not be a surprise, 'We can't plan it to be happening during the invasion.'

"The administration decided to not move forward with the Minuteman III test because they wanted to signal that they would not go back-and-forth with these nuclear threats. Unfortunately, I think this affirmed in Russian minds that the U.S. is intimidated by the thought of nuclear employment. This increases the power that the threats of nuclear weapons have over the United States and how we might respond in Ukraine."

 

4. Putin Aims To Build a Russian Empire, Not Recreate the Soviet Union [William Schneider]

 

"In thinking about Putin’s possible nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons use, it's important to bear in mind Putin's aims. They are not to produce a neutral Ukraine. They are not to keep Ukraine out of NATO. It is to absorb Ukraine into a Russian empire. And his vision of a so-called Russian world, which would be a Eurasian-Russian empire that is unlike the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was shaped by Stalin to be a multinational empire led by the communist ideology. Putin sees it as an all-Russian empire that would be based on Russian ethnicity. And as the late Zbigniew Brzezińskii said, Ukraine is the key to preventing the reemergence of a facsimile of the former Soviet Union."

 

5. Policymakers Must 'Think About the Unthinkable' [Kenneth Weinstein]

 

"In recent days we’ve seen policymakers, most notably President Biden openly and many more behind closed doors, speculate about the potential use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons by Russian forces. While the use of WMD might not be likely, it is a possibility that policymakers in the U.S. and Europe need to grapple with, as an ominous editorial in The Economist recently noted. Like The Economist, which cited Hudson Institute founder Herman Kahn and his 44-step ladder of nuclear escalation, we're also following in Herman's footsteps.

"Herman, of course, was famous for 'thinking about the unthinkable' in his classic 1962 book in which he made a very simple but controversial case: 'Thermonuclear war may seem unthinkable, immoral, insane, hideous, or highly unlikely, but it is not impossible. To act intelligently, we must learn as much as we can about the risks. We may therefore be able to avoid nuclear war. We may even be able to avoid the crises that bring us to the brink of nuclear war.'"

 

Excerpts are drawn from the Hudson event, "Thinking About the Unthinkable in Ukraine: Could Putin Use Weapons of Mass Destruction?"
Quotes have been edited for clarity and length. 

60 anos de "Pensando no Impensável" de Herman Khan, e do Hudson Institute, um dos melhores think tanks paranóicos dos EUA

O Hudson Institute é um dos mais antigos think tanks paranóicos dos EUA, e um dos de melhor qualidade, sem deixar de ser paranóicos. Mas os soviéticos também eram, o que diminui um pouco a culpa dos gringos. Lembro-me de quando Herman Khan veio ao Brasil, no início da ditadura militar, com seu sonho impossível de unir as três grandes bacias hidrográficas, ou pelo menos a platina e a amazônica por meio de grandes lagos no interior do Brasil. A ideia era tão maluco que acho que nem os militares mais americanófilos toparam sequer considerar a hipótese.

No seu livro O Ano 2000, feito em meados dos anos 1960, com dados econômicos do Brasil do início da década, ele previa o Brasil ainda muito pobre no ano 2000 justamente. Por causa do livro, Roberto Campos e Mario Henrique Simonsen escreveram dois livros, Brasil 2001 e depois Brasil 2002, prevendo um futuro brilhante para o Brasil. Todos eles erraram: o Brasil não ficou tão pobre quanto previa Herman Khan, mas tampouco chegou à prosperidade como aventavam Campos e Simonsen. Creio que com algum esforços dos petistas e do Bolsonaro estamos chegando novamente na pobreza. 

Acho que o Herman Khan ganhou pelo menos essa, não porque ele acertou, mas porque o Brasil errou muito mais do que deveria ou poderia.

O Hudson Institute tem como motos "Security. Freedom. Prosperity". Tudo muito bem, apesar de que eu inverteria a ordem dos fatores, mas ele representa um mundo à parte, válido apenas para os americanos, que veem o mundo segundo uma "geografia" muito simples, não a terra plana, mas uma terra feita de duas partes bem distintas: America and the ROW, Rest of the World. Os americanos estão tão entranhados num mundo que só é o deles, que se enganam quanto ao resto do mundo.

Eles são tão "bolcheviques" na defesa do capitalismo quanto o eram os verdadeiros bolcheviques na defesa do comunismo. No fundo, eles estão certos em defender o capitalismo, as liberdades, a economia de mercado, como sinais de prosperidade, mas o fazem com o fundamentalismo dos true believers na redenção dos pagãos, como foram (e ainda são) muitos "missionários" da verdadeira fé, querendo convertes os demais. Deveriam mostrar pelo exemplo, não pela imposição. Essa geografia simplória deles atrapalha um bocado na política externa e na diplomacia.

Espero que pelos próximos 60 anos, "humbled" pela China, eles mudem sua visão do mundo, pois já são três ou quatro gerações que se acreditam estar na vanguard do mundo e como "farol da democracia". Se não houver uma guerra, eles vão começar a repensar sua relação com o mundo, que começa por uma tomada de consciência de suas deficiências internas, a tal prosperidade que lhes faz ainda falta.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida

No images? Click here   Hudson founders Herman Kahn and Max Singer pictured during the Institute's early years.  video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA4qq6jyOTc Hudson Institute celebrated its 60th anniversary this week, marking more than half a century of policy research dedicated to keeping America and its allies secure, free, and prosperous. Founded in 1961, Hudson Institute was established to foster a better understanding of deterrence in the atomic age and create the conditions for the free world to triumph over communism. Its founder Herman Kahn, a leading defense intellectual of the atomic age, wrote the groundbreaking book Thinking About the Unthinkable, which urged policymakers to plan for nuclear war to prevent it from occurring. This approach to tackling the most challenging foreign policy issues has informed Hudson’s decades-long tradition of unconventional thinking. Watch our anniversary video and read key excerpts from Thinking About the Unthinkableto learn more.   60th Anniversary Video Thinking About the Unthinkable         Thinking About the Unthinkable with Herman Kahn     Key excerpts from Herman Kahn's 1962 book Thinking About the Unthinkable.   1. Approach National Security with Dispassionate Clarity   Critics frequently refer to the icy rationality of the Hudson Institute, the Rand Corporation, and other such organizations. I’m always tempted to ask in reply, “Would you prefer a warm, human error? Do you feel better with a nice emotional mistake?” We cannot expect good discussion of security problems if we are going to label every attempt at detachment as callous, every attempt at objectivity as immoral. Such attitudes not only block discussion of the immediate issues, they lead to a disunity and fragmentation of the intellectual community that can be disastrous to the democratic dialogue between specialist and layman. The former tends to withdraw to secret and private discussions; the latter becomes more and more innocent, or naive, and more likely to be outraged if he is ever exposed to a professional discussion.   2. The Risks of Modern Technology Must Not Be Ignored   Reality may be so unpleasant that decision makers would prefer not to face it; but to a great extent this reality has been forced on them, or has come uninvited. Thanks to our ever-increasing technology, we are living in a terrible and dangerous world; but, unlike the lady in the cartoon we cannot say, “Stop the world, I want to get off.” We cannot get off. Even the most utopian of today’s visionaries will have to concede that the mere existence of modern technology involves a risk to civilization that would have been unthinkable twenty-five years ago.   3. 'Unthinkable' Scenarios Must Be Given Serious Consideration   Many intelligent and sincere people are willing to argue that it is immoral to think and even more immoral to write in detail about having to fight a thermonuclear war...We Americans and many people throughout the world are not prepared to face reality, that we transfer our horror of thermonuclear war to reports about the realities of thermonuclear war. In our times, thermonuclear war may seem unthinkable, immoral, insane, hideous, or highly unlikely, but it is not impossible. To act intelligently we must learn as much as we can about the risks...We must appreciate these possibilities. We cannot wish them away. Nor should we overestimate and assume the worst is inevitable. This leads only to defeatism, inadequate preparations (because they seem useless), and pressures toward either preventive war or undue accommodation.   Quotes may be edited for clarity and length.   60th Anniversary Video Thinking About the Unthinkable     Hudson Institute celebrated its 60th anniversary with a reception in New York City on Wednesday evening with a discussion featuring Hudson Distinguished Fellows Walter Russell Mead and Kenneth R. Weinstein and Senior Fellows Nadia Schadlow and Michael Doran, moderated by Hudson President and CEO John P. Walters.

Go Deeper

Deter Russia by Arming NATO Allies

As Russian troops mass on the border with Ukraine, the U.S. must act urgently to protect states on the front line and restore deterrence in Europe, writes Hudson Senior Fellow William Schneider in The Wall Street Journal. The failure to stand firm against Russian aggression risks destroying the entire postwar security system in Europe.  Read

The Realistic Path to Deterring China

The blurred line between peace and war exemplified by China's gray-zone military operations renders the Pentagon’s traditional planning constructs obsolete, write Hudson Senior Fellows Bryan Clark and Dan Pattin National Review. As the Pentagon completes its new defense strategy, it should ensure that the U.S. military looks beyond the Taiwan Strait to focus on reducing the Chinese military's operational confidence. Read

The Diminishing Path to Growth: Can Xi Jinping Avoid Crisis during China's Economic Transition?

Predictions that China’s integration into the global market would transform the country into a responsible stakeholder have foundered on the reality of Xi Jinping's increasingly mercantilist economic policies. Is the country headed towards financial catastrophe? Hudson Senior Fellow Thomas Duesterberg assesses the economic challenges faced by China in a new policy memo.  Read

Hudson Institute
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Fourth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20004