This isn’t some run-of-the-mill corporate dispute but a crucial battle in a new cold war. For all intents and purposes, the United States and China are locked in a technological arms race, seeking to build influence and soft power through social media, 5G networks and other innovations. TikTok just happens to be the latest battlefield. Bringing TikTok under American oversight would help us score an important victory against China in the short term. But it’s not enough. If we want to claim lasting victory in the cyber cold war ― and secure U.S. digital dominance for decades to come ― we need to enact federal data-privacy legislation. Here’s why: If U.S.-based Oracle becomes the service provider for TikTok, it would protect Americans from having their data exploited by the CCP. Even in this scenario, however, third-party brokers could still legally purchase user data and, in turn, sell it to the Chinese government. That’s why we need a national privacy standard that applies to all companies operating in the United States, regardless of their country of origin. To keep our data safe, we can’t expect American tech firms to buy every foreign app that goes viral. We can, however, require every Internet platform seeking to do business here to comply with a U.S. privacy standard. Our European partners have been pushing us to adopt a uniform privacy standard for years. And our inability to do so contributed to the dissolution of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield last July. But without the guidance provided by the Privacy Shield, small and mid-size American companies will have more difficulty navigating European markets, where the slightest privacy infraction could result in an existential lawsuit.

In August, President Trump announced his intentions to ban TikTok unless the Chinese company finds an American buyer. The news came just weeks after a European court struck down the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield, which facilitated data sharing on both sides of the Atlantic. What do these seemingly disparate events have in common? They both underscore growing concerns over the misuse of consumer data ― and the urgent need for Congress to pass a federal privacy framework. Passing this framework is essential to securing America’s digital leadership in the new cold war with China. Over the last decade, China has become Silicon Valley’s fiercest competitor, proving that it’s not just good at stealing technology but building its own innovations as well. Beijing has established itself as a near-peer adversary in quantum computing, artificial intelligence and 5G technology. Huawei, meanwhile, is growing faster than any other smartphone maker in the world, even as the company’s reputation for being a pawn of Chinese intelligence grows with it. Then there’s TikTok, the white-hot social media platform with more than 1 billion users around the globe, including more than 80 million in the United States alone. Like Huawei, U.S. officials consider TikTok a tool of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). They even suspect the CCP of using the app to spread propaganda and harvest American user data ― hence the president’s decision to take action against its parent company, ByteDance. Set against the backdrop of China’s rise in tech, its long record of IP theft and recent acts of cyberaggression, the significance of the TikTok controversy comes into focus.

For the communists in China, like communists everywhere, Catholics pose a serious challenge. On the mainland, decades of repression have driven much of the Catholic Church underground. After the Communist Party took power and eviscerated religious freedom on the mainland, Hong Kong became a natural conduit for missionary outposts that helped keep contact with the mainland faithful. There are an estimated 400,000 Catholics in Hong Kong (in a population of 7.5 million), and many of the city’s elite - like here in the U.S. - are products of Catholic schools. Not surprisingly, Catholics have been influential in the city’s pro-democracy movement. Many have been arrested. One of them, publisher and entrepreneur Jimmy Lai, perhaps Hong Kong’s most prominent Catholic, was recently arrested for violating the national security law. Pope Francis, who seems to have an opinion about everything, has sat by silently while the wolves have circled his sheep. The idea that the Chinese Communist Party can be brought into the civilized world simply through trade and empty rhetoric about engagement is, by now, thoroughly discredited. If that approach worked, we would not now be thinking about how to deal with concentration camps in Xinjiang or repression of Catholics in Hong Kong or seizure of territory in the Pacific. To its credit, the nascent Biden administration understands that the concept of economic engagement has been a failure. That is something that neither the Europeans nor Pope Francis seem to grasp. In this instance, as elsewhere, Mr. Pompeo was right. China’s aggressive and illicit behavior cannot be ignored, should not be tolerated, and will not be changed by European money.

So far, Mr. Kim has successfully played Russia, China, South Korea and the U.S. against one another. Russia and China would like to reduce - if not eliminate altogether - the U.S. military presence on the Korean peninsula. Both Moscow and Beijing have argued for reducing international sanctions before North Korea completes denuclearization. The Biden administration should be prepared for three equally precarious scenarios: that the North accelerates its missile and nuclear programs; that the North seeks to sell its nuclear and missile technology to U.S. adversaries and non-state groups to bolster its economy; or that the regime collapses altogether, spawning a destabilizing nightmare of loose nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Mr. Kim’s bellicose threats might have been designed to assuage his population. But if past is prologue, the North Korean leader is also seeking to encourage a new round of negotiations with a new team in Washington. Having eschewed Mr. Trump’s top-down, personal diplomacy, Mr. Biden should consider appointing a special envoy to re-start negotiations with North Korea, which has been largely frozen since Mr. Trump rightly walked away from what would have been a bad deal at the 2019 Hanoi summit. As a trust-building measure, the U.S. and North Korea could begin by opening liaison offices in their respective capitals. Diplomatic engagement should focus on matching concrete North Korean nuclear arms cuts and transparency with economic incentives and the possible easing of sanctions. The special envoy should also seek common ground for engaging Mr. Kim with China and Russia, neither of whom wants a nuclear North Korea or a chaotic failed state on their border.

Of all of the wickedly challenging national security threats awaiting the Biden administration, none might be as complex as North Korea. In spite of international sanctions, natural disasters and a COVID-induced border lockdown, North Korea has advanced its ballistic missile capability, including a new ICBM unveiled in October, and added an estimated 30 to 40 nuclear weapons to its stockpile. President Biden will no doubt be asking his intelligence agencies, the military and the State Department to reexamine U.S. policy on North Korea, which has for years sought face-to-face negotiations with Washington, a peace treaty ending the Korean war, diplomatic recognition by the U.S. and acceptance of the North as a nuclear state. But Mr. Kim has never provided an inventory of his nuclear arsenal or an itinerary for their destruction. His behavior strains the logic that North Korea has accumulated ICBMs and nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of bartering them away for food, energy and a more productive relationship with the international community. Mr. Kim knows his brutal regime, which denies its citizens every political, civil and religious liberty, is inherently unstable and in great need of an economic lifeline. One of the world’s most isolated countries, the “Hermit Kingdom” has a young, literate and inexpensive workforce as well as large reserves of coal, iron ore, limestone and minerals. A prosperous North Korea integrated with the outside world, however, would increase pressure for greater political freedom, which would threaten the regime’s survival. North Korean leaders have no doubt internalized the lessons of the Soviet Union’s collapse in the wake of Mikhail Gorbachev’s glasnost reforms.

One idea comes from scientists who calculate that the world has an additional 2.2 billion acres of land suitable for reforestation. That provides enough room to plant an extra 1.2 trillion trees that would contribute to carbon sequestration. More than half of reforestation potential is in six countries: Russia (373 million acres), the United States (255 million), Canada (194 million), Australia (143 million), Brazil (123 million) and China (99.3 million). Many countries are welcome to join this effort, but the United States and Russia must lead. With all the differences between Mr. Trump and Mr. Biden, it looks like this idea is a rare case when both men have a similar vision. On Oct. 13, 2020, following up on his pledge made the during 2020 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland and later during the State of the Union, Mr. Trump signed an executive order establishing the “One Trillion Trees Interagency Council,” which will be responsible for coordinating the federal government’s support of this initiative. President Biden said: “In my view, we’ve already waited too long to deal with this climate crisis, and we can’t wait any longer. We see it with our own eyes, we feel it, we know it in our bones, and it’s time to act.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. climate envoy John Kerry also discussed climate change and the implementation of the Paris climate agreement in a call on Feb. 13. They agreed to cooperate further within the Arctic Council, including developing contacts, “given the significance of climate issues on the Arctic agenda.” Some American and Russian activists propose to involve in this process general public and have a tree planting international Flashmob on April 25.

So, when Mr. Biden talks about a return to “normal,” what exactly does he mean? This is especially important to know since, as senator and vice president, he endorsed all these wars. Another interesting question arises when one hears about the return of American values to U.S. foreign policy. Besides the obvious fact that Washington often works with and supports dictatorial regimes whenever it serves its interests, the very meaning of the term “values” has itself become rather ambiguous. American society is heavily polarized and judging from the often-mega-hateful rhetorical exchanges between Republicans and Democrats, the conflicting sides apparently confess a different set of values. Therefore, as Steven Cook of the Council of Foreign Relations correctly suggests, Americans “must first repair the damage they have done at home to their own sacred values, principles and ideals. Unless the United States demonstrates some humility on both fronts, its messages to the world about freedom and rights will be so diminished that they will be easily ignored.” Considering the chances that the U.S. establishment might follow Mr. Cook’s advice are slim, and that Russia and China are not prepared to yield to America’s hegemony, does that mean World War III is inevitable? Some may accept this bleak destiny but there are many Americans and Russians who agree with Sting when he sings that “I do not subscribe to this point of view” and suggest starting a dialogue. Why not begin with an area where former President Donald Trump, Mr. Biden, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping - or for that matter leaders and peoples of around 200 countries or territories on this planet - would agree on how we can save our beautiful planet without losing but adding jobs.

Adm. Charles Richard, who heads the U.S. Strategic Command responsible for nuclear deterrence, recently stated on the pages of this newspaper that “there is a real possibility that a regional crisis with Russia or China could escalate quickly to a conflict involving nuclear weapons, if they perceived a conventional loss would threaten the regime or state.” So, does that mean that the words of Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev that a “nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought” and that “each nuclear arms state should renounce any and all options involving the initiation of nuclear warfare” are obsolete and we should get ready for Armageddon? To answer this question let us review President Biden’s “America is back,” return to “normal” foreign policy that will be infused with “American values.” As Harvard professor Stephen Walt correctly states: “When U.S. foreign-policy officials have pursued realistic goals in a flexible and nonjudgmental way, they have mostly succeeded. When they have tried to do the impossible, have relied too heavily on military force and overt coercion, and have expected other states to ignore their own interests and just do as they are told, these U.S. officials have mostly failed.” Mr. Walt did not present the consequences of these failures but his colleagues at Brown university did, and they are horrific: Since 2001, more than 801,000 people have died due to direct war violence, among them more than 335,000 civilians. The number of wounded is several times higher and 37 million people became war refugees and displaced persons. Tens of thousands of Americans have been killed and wounded and the U.S. federal price tag for the post-9/11 wars is more than $6.4 trillion.

Closely related to the multi-cultural fabric of Azerbaijan is this Muslim nation’s strong relations with Israel. In fact, one of the largest synagogue’s outside of Israel is located in Baku. Not surprisingly, Israel has shown its strong support of Azerbaijan’s counter-offensive to liberate its occupied territories by providing advanced military technology to Azerbaijan. The Iranian regime’s fealty to Moscow is yet another reason why Tehran tilts towards Armenia. For example, in reaction to footage on social media showing Iranian trucks transporting Russian military cargo to Armenia across the Norduz border crossing, Iranians in Tabriz demonstrated to protest the Iranian regime’s support for Armenia. Not surprisingly, thugs under the control of Ali Khamenei brutally put down the demonstrators. In short, neither Moscow nor Tehran can be trusted to deliver lasting peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia. And while some have criticized Turkey’s recent foray into the conflict by siding with Azerbaijan, this bold move is simply an outgrowth of frustrations by Ankara over the failure of Russian “diplomacy” during the past 28 years to deliver lasting peace for the peoples of Azerbaijan and Armenia. Any enduring peace agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia must address the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan as well as the deep-seated and legitimate security concerns of Armenia, especially in view of the historic tragedies inflicted upon the Armenian people during the Ottoman Empire. When the U.S. puts its diplomatic muscle behind a peace initiative, former enemy combatants can become friends.

Third, while Russia has forcefully pushed for and demanded respect for U.N. resolutions when it comes to its allies such as the murderous Iranian regime, it has never pushed hard for the implementation of the four U.N. Security Council resolutions in support of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and withdrawal of Armenian troops from occupied Azeri territories. Instead, and until now, it has unequivocally supported Armenia, especially by providing military support to Yerevan. While Russia’s ambitions and motivations along its southern periphery are clear, less understood but equally menacing have been the dangerous objectives of the Iranian regime - Iran shares a border with both Armenia and Azerbaijan. The launching pad for the Iranian regime’s Nagorno-Karabagh policy starts with Tehran’s deep and strategic ties with Armenia. Yet, the Tehran-Yerevan axis has more to do with what Azerbaijan represents. First, the Iranian regime does not want a prosperous and independent Azerbaijan on its no rthern border. Why? Because the Azerbaijan model for economic growth and prosperity is based on normal and constructive ties with the U.S. Not surprisingly, under the leadership of President Aliyev, poverty rates in Azerbaijan have dropped to 5% while the dictatorship of Ali Khamenei has forced 60 million Iranians below the poverty line. Second, the thugs ruling Iran despise Azerbaijan’s culture of religious tolerance. While Christians, Jews and Bahais can practice their faith freely in Azerbaijan, under the dictatorship of the ayatollahs, religious minorities (especially the Bahai community) are harassed, and in some cases murdered.