The late American statesman Zbigniew Brzezinski once described America’s ally Azerbaijan as the cork in the bottle of the massive energy resources of the Caspian Sea region. Brzezinski’s apt description of one of America’s strongest and most reliable partners on the global stage is precisely why Russia in general and President Vladimir Putin in particular have played a less than constructive role in the resolution of the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the territory of Nagorno-Karabagh. Russian objectives as it concerns the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia are clear. Moscow prefers control as opposed to stability along its southern periphery. Mr. Putin, like Stalin before him, is a firm believer in the concept of divide and rule. By extension, Moscow does not want to see an enduring peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan because peace means that the entire Caucasus region would be free and independent of Moscow, once and for all. And while Azerbaijan has achieved its independence from Moscow, Russia continues to treat Armenia as its own aircraft carrier in the Caucasus so as to keep the region unstable. Second, Russia does not share Azerbaijan and the United States’ geopolitical goal of uninterrupted transportation of oil and gas resources from the energy-rich Caspian Sea to Europe. Why? Because every cubic meter of natural gas that replaces Russian gas sold into Europe is one less dollar. Russia may very well have given its ally Armenia the green light this past July to launch an attack in the Tovuz region of Azerbaijan - the pipeline corridor that delivers oil and gas to Europe.

President Biden wants the world to know America is back, prepared to lead and committed to shared goals, multilateralism and diplomacy. All this could end worse than America First. American foreign policy must operate at two levels. The existential threats to civilization - climate change, pandemics and nuclear proliferation. And East-West competition - Russia’s obsession with lost empire in former Soviet states, Europe and the Middle East, and China’s ambition to overtake America to impose an international order more friendly to its autocratic capitalism. If China and Russia viewed proliferation as a genuine threat, Iran and North Korea by now would be subjected to severe enough multilateral sanctions to give up nuclear weapons ambitions or face regime change. Instead, Beijing and Moscow like those thorns in America’s side. China appears confident it can thrust upon the world one pandemic after another, use the resulting chaos to advance its timeline for gaining global economic dominance. No solution to climate change is possible without India, but its sense of entitlement as a developing nation make net-zero by 2050 politically impossible without massive Western aid. Should Mr. Biden convene his Summit of Democracies, the convocation will yield a high-sounding communique - ambitious words with little action to fig leaf business as usual. President Xi Jinping who lusts for a legacy via reunification with Taiwan, may test Mr. Biden in the Straits. Multilateralism and diplomacy are tools not strategies but when raised up as idols, they invite aggression and capitulation or war as surely as appeasement did in the 1930s.

To date, the United States has pushed back strongly against China as have several regional actors. India, Japan and Australia have joined the United States in forming the so-called Quad Group to oppose Chinese bullying. Some commentators have expressed the desire to see this expanded into a NATO-like alliance. That is not likely to happen any time soon. Many regional nations don’t like each other much more than they do China, and some have competing territorial claims. For the last seven decades, the United States has maintained bilateral defense agreements with a number of these nations, which have not historically been prone to work with each other. For example, Japan and South Korea have major issues that Americans are constantly forced to referee. Vietnam, Taiwan and the Philippines have the previously mentioned competing claims in the South China Sea. That doesn’t necessarily mean that an effective coalition for deterrence of China is not possible, but it will take much American patience to make one happen. As I have said in these pages before, the first step should be an Indo-China version of the Monroe Doctrine strongly stating that any attempt to resolve a regional issue by force would cause American intervention against the party initiating the conflict. Regional actors would be invited to participate in exercises designed to counter such aggression under U.S. leadership. The United States would not formally recognize Taiwan independence but Taiwan would be covered in this doctrine. China’s bullying of regional actors is as much economic as military, and the United States should be prepared to assist victim nations with both economic aid and lucrative bilateral trade agreements.

China is building up one what may become one of the most impressive military coalitions in world history in the Indo-Pacific region, including India, Australia, the Asian Tigers, Vietnam, Korea, Japan and the Republic of the Philippines. Unfortunately for Beijing, this emerging coalition is anti-Chinese. China’s President Xi Jinping has apparently made a deliberate policy of bullying and antagonizing his nation’s neighbors in the region, and he has succeeded. For centuries, the Chinese traditionally looked at neighboring states as tributaries at worst or clients at best, but there has generally been a mixture of conciliation and coercion in the relationships. Pre-Xi, China seemed to be on regional charm offensive; but all of that has changed recently. There is not much diplomacy involved in China’s regional actions of late. China claims that its crackdown in Hong Kong and its bullying of Taiwan are internal political disputes, but its aggressive actions in the South China Sea are clear violations of international norms and law of the sea. Vietnam and the Philippines as well as Taiwan have issues with China’s illegal claims to sovereignty over islets in the South China Sea. Japan and China have a dispute over the Senkaku Islands. Taken as a group, it is easy to write these issues off as normal border disputes along with the longstanding China-India border disagreements. However, some of China’s recent actions are hard to explain other than as regional bullying. China’s “my way” approach to regional actors is a clear message to them that it wants the United States out of the Indo-Pacific theater and that it intends to use all elements of national power ― to include military and economic coercion ― to enforce its will.

The EU plans to diversify supply from other countries and develop their own capacity for the extraction, processing, and recycling of rare earths. The U.S. took similar action last fall when President Trump issued an executive order addressing the threat and reliance on critical minerals from foreign adversaries. The president declared the “nation’s undue reliance on critical minerals in processed or unprocessed form from foreign adversaries” constitutes a national emergency. There are several rare earths projects currently in development and production in the U.S., Australia and Canada. These three countries have rigorous environmental and mining standards and potential for additional development of economically viable and resource-rich deposits. However, the rest of the world lags decades and billions of dollars behind China in this race for natural resources supply and control. The Biden administration will need to address Chinese manipulation of the critical mineral supply chain across all aspects of U.S. policy, including domestic, economic, climate, trade and foreign policy. The need is urgent. Critical minerals are the backbone of any economy reliant on manufacturing and technology, and it’s also paramount to U.S. national security and clean energy endeavors. We must break free of our dependence on China as soon as possible. Doing so will take a broad bipartisan and industry-wide effort, featuring partnerships and innovative collaborations between governments and industry around the globe. Joe Biden’s climate policy should be inclusive of a critical materials resilience strategy for the U.S. and its partners.

To support the effort, China’s “Belt and Road” initiative has monopolized new global corridors for the supply and distribution of critical minerals from Australia to Malaysia to Argentina to support its infrastructure needs. China is also stockpiling rare earths and critical minerals for its own domestic use, as companies and governments face worldwide shortages in the supply chain. The country’s recently implemented Export Control Law is China’s latest effort to control the export of strategic commodities and to squeeze out an advantage over global technology manufacturers. The OPEC oil embargo in the 1970s is a cautionary tale in the supply and demand of natural resources. Similarly, one nation controlling the supply of rare earth elements, from ground to gear, has exponential disruptive effects on nation economies transitioning to clean energy. As the U.S. became energy independent from the Middle East in the oil and gas sectors, it also became resource dependent on China for advanced metals and minerals. With that comes mining, pollution and labor standards beyond our control. China is one of the least eco-friendly countries - especially its rare earth mining industry, known for its non-sustainable and even dangerous extraction and refining techniques, as well as unsafe working conditions - causing pollution and illness both locally and globally. Our allies in the European Commission announced recent actions to make Europe’s raw material supplies more sustainable and secure for a green and digital economy. Europe will need up to 18 times more lithium by 2030 and 60 times more by 2050.

The Biden climate plan will accelerate zero emission vehicles to support a 100% clean energy economy by 2050, but currently, electric vehicles rely heavily on China’s industrial sector for high-tech metals. American consumers are likely unfamiliar with how climate-friendly technologies like EV drive trains, batteries, solar panels and wind turbines depend on critical materials sourced or processed overseas, primarily from China. The Biden administration will have to balance environmental concerns toward mining with the material resource demand for technology. With five-fold growth expected for electric vehicle sales by 2025, the U.S. will increasingly need alternatives to China-mined materials for the EV supply chain. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. imported $2.6 trillion of finished rare earths products in 2018. More than 90% of all battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids sold globally rely on permanent magnet motors. China is the world’s largest producer of these rare earth magnets. A low carbon future will be mineral intensive and has already sparked a resource race worldwide, and even beyond the scope of this planet. In December, China successfully went to the moon and collected lunar rock samples for potential rare earth metals, the first retrieved since 1976. The World Bank estimates the clean energy transition could increase demand for critical minerals globally, like lithium graphite and lithium, by nearly 500% by 2050 to deploy solar, wind, geothermal and energy storage. Made in China 2025 is a state-led industrial policy to rapidly develop 10 high-tech China sectors, including energy-saving cars, new materials and electrical equipment.

Two decades ago, most economists - including me - believed that as a country became richer it would likely become more democratic and more protective of basic human rights and liberty. After all, we had seen South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Chile and most of the countries of Eastern Europe go through that progression. China was expected to follow the same path. Economic liberties were greatly expanded, and by the 1990s, political power appeared to be increasingly decentralized, and the yoke on essential freedoms seemed to be lightening. But then, the great reversal occurred, particularly after President Xi Jinping gained more and more power. Freedom of expression, religion, assembly and so forth have all been curtailed. Hong Kong’s independence has been destroyed, despite the treaty with the U.K. Most foreign advocacy organizations - including human rights groups and even aid organizations - have been extremely restricted or banned. The Chinese have perfected the art of saying one thing while acting in a totally contrary manner. The Chinese leadership mouths all of the slogans of the environmental activists, takes their money and proclaims partnerships, while at the same time greatly expanding the number of coal-fired power plants. Environmental lobbies like Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council sing the praises of the world’s largest polluter - because of China’s “good intentions”. China now has planned or has under construction more coal-fired power plants than rest of the world combined. Regrettably, China has not followed the road to political and human rights reform that brought prosperity and liberty to tens of millions in other parts of the world.

U.S. airports are particularly vulnerable to bad actors, as they are a rich environment of both professional and personal information. Airline companies are also attractive targets for cybercriminals because of their massive dependence on computer networks. Between 2015 and 2017, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) found 34 IT outages that crippled airlines and led to grounded, delayed or cancelled flights. Not only is this detrimental to the airline companies that are losing revenue, but it is a headache to consumers, too. The Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) understands it needs to make cybersecurity improvements, as admitted in a recent GAO report. However, in order to make these improvements the FAA must have the proper infrastructure to support cyber-hardened modernization. The FAA is rightfully considering a shift from our nearly 20-year old FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI) program to the FAA Enterprise Network Services (FENS) program. While the FAA fields the FENS program, it is critical that it is flexible and cost-efficient to best serve our nation’s needs. Integrating to this newer system will allow our nation to keep pace with the rapidly changing technology environment and keep Americans’ data secure. Bad actors and nation-states have proven time and time again their interest in harming Americans, whether interfering with our election process or stealing consumer data. It’s time that the FAA recognize these looming threats and implement a program that is capable of defending against malicious cyberattacks, while maintaining cost efficiency and flexibility. It is irresponsible to ignore these threats as our nation continues its ongoing recovery.

Each week brings new revelations of cyber hacks and digital attacks. Unfortunately, no industry appears immune. From health care networks to air traffic control systems, our nation regularly defends its citizens’ sensitive information. However, as cyberattacks grow more sophisticated, it is vital our nation’s cybersecurity infrastructure modernizes to maintain our security. Cyberattacks are growing across the spectrum. For example, while our health care system scrambles to address the raging COVID-19 pandemic, Russian hackers are ramping up attacks on American hospitals, clinics and medical complexes. In an already vulnerable situation, frontline workers are now facing data-hostage scenarios that threaten to take their facilities offline if they refuse to give multimillion-dollar random payments. In another instance, a team of hackers successfully attempted to sabotage a vital flight system for a U.S. military fighter jet. At a time when businesses and American families are trying to recover from the grips of COVID-19, letting our technology infrastructure go to the wayside only puts our country at further risk. Additionally, with teleworking becoming more increasingly popular across industries, as Americans wait for a vaccine, more businesses are adopting cloud migration for their day-to-day operations. According to a study conducted by LogicMonitor, 66% of IT professionals note their biggest concern with migrating to the cloud is security. With phishing attempts and malware attacks nearly doubling for teleworkers, their concern is more than valid. Less physical control over information increases vulnerability to foreign interference.