The Godfather's Daughter: An Unlikely Story of Greed, Treason, and Corruption

China Approved More Ivanka Trump Trademarks the Same Week As Daddy’s ZTE Pivot
By David Boddiger

Optics and ethics are two words that simply are lacking in the Trump family lexicon.
We already knew Donald Trump’s recent about-face on the Chinese telecom company ZTE—considered a national security threat by both Democrats and Republicans—was suspect. 

Shortly after Trump tweeted earlier this month that he was reversing policy on ZTE, news reports surfaced that the Chinese government had agreed to grant $500 million in loans to an Indonesian resort project that would directly enrich Donald Trump. 

The loan was announced just 72 hours before Trump tweeted his order to bail out ZTE from impending closure.
Now, the government ethics watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is reporting that the Chinese government approved five trademark applications for Ivanka Trump’s businesses the same week Trump tweeted his pro-China reversal. 

Another trademark was approved the previous week.
The trademarks, applied for in March 2017, give the president’s daughter’s company rights in China on goods including bath mats, textiles, and baby blankets, CREW said.
“Ivanka Trump Marks LLC already holds more than a dozen trademarks in the country as well as multiple pending applications. China is also a major supplier of Ivanka Trump-branded merchandise,” CREW stated.
Ivanka has placed her part of the business that bears her name in a trust, but she continues to receive profits, the watchdog group said. 

Last year, three of her business’s trademark applications in China were approved the same day she and her husband, presidential adviser Jared Kushner, had dinner with Xi Jinping at the family’s Mar-a-Lago estate.
Also, Trump’s looming trade war with China by way of new tariffs on Chinese goods would conveniently exempt clothing, a not-so-subtle benefit to his daughter’s businesses.
On Friday, Trump announced via Twitter that he had struck a deal with ZTE to put the company back in business in exchange for China’s payment of a substantial fine, its placement of U.S. compliance officers at the firm, and changes to its management team, The New York Times reported. 

In doing so, Trump blamed former President Barack Obama and Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, and Democrats in general, for ZTE’s past spying misdeeds, while unabashedly making himself out to be a hero.
But it isn’t just Democrats who are angered by Trump’s ZTE policy shift. 

Republican Sen. Marco Rubio spent all week “raising alarm bells” over Trump’s dealing, according to NBC News, including delivering a “25-minute tirade on the Senate floor.”
“Yes they have a deal in mind. It is a great deal... for #ZTE & China,” he tweeted on Friday.
Additionally, both chambers of Congress advanced amendments to block any executive action ordered by Trump that would benefit ZTE, NBC reported.

Chinese subversion: Look in the gift horse’s mouth

There is growing concern about Beijing’s attempts to shape the thinking of politicians and the public overseas
The Guardian

The arrest of a former CIA agent this week is the stuff of a classic murky spy tale. 

Though he is charged with unlawfully retaining national defence information, the US suspects that he leaked the names of informants. 

An earlier report alleged that China imprisoned or killed multiple US sources between 2010 and 2012. 

Both countries have plans for tackling espionage. 

But analysts, intelligence agencies and politicians are now debating how to handle the subtler challenge of Chinese influence activities: a “magic weapon” neither cloak-and-dagger nor transparent.
China says it does not interfere in other countries’ domestic affairs. 

Yet all nations seek to sway foreign governments and citizens towards their own priorities, interests and perspectives. 

The question is how they do so, and how far they go.
China’s influence work is strategic and multifaceted. 

Some of it is distinctive mainly for lavish resourcing. 

The National Endowment for Democracy recently described other aspects as “sharp power”: the effort by authoritarian states not just to attract support but to determine and control attitudes abroad. It seeks to “guide” the diaspora and enlist it for political activity. 

It embraces foreigners, appointing those with political influence to high-profile roles in Chinese companies. 

Chinese-language media overseas have been bought by entrepreneurs with ties to Beijing. Partnerships with universities shape research and limit debate.
Last month, Australia’s prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, introduced a bill banning foreign donations as he warned of “unprecedented and increasingly sophisticated” attempts to influence politics. 

It follows a senator’s resignation after allegations that he tipped off a Chinese donor that his phone was tapped by security agencies; the case has reportedly prompted the Trump administration to open an investigation into Beijing’s covert influence operations in the US. 

In New Zealand, a Chinese-born MP denied being a spy after it emerged that he had spent years at top Chinese military colleges. 

A leading scholar on China has alleged that its “covert, corrupting and coercive political influence activities in New Zealand are now at a critical level”.

Citizens have the right to listen to the views of a foreign government, be persuaded and share them. But to speak for them, on their order, is different. 

Is someone acting spontaneously, or have they been prodded, coerced or bought? What links or leverage does Beijing enjoy? 

Establishing the answers is hard – and proving self-censorship even tougher. 

But it is essential to at least attempt to distinguish between legitimate, improper and illegal activities.
Casting light on the issue is by far the most important step. 

Democracies must delve into areas that may prove embarrassing. 

They need the capability to do so – starting with language skills. 

Working together would help. 

In places, laws may need to be tightened, though with care: banning foreign political donations is a basic step. 

For this issue says as much about the west as China. 

Beijing’s keenness to control speech is manifest, while influential figures and institutions in democracies proclaim lofty ideals – then fall prey to gullibility or greed. 

China’s influence would not go very far without the western hunger for its cash.

Per un pugno di renminbi

With an eye on China, greedy Hollywood is already self-censoring in its pursuit of profits.
By Matt Lewis

President Donald Trump has spent a significant amount of time talking about our trade balance with China and how American businesses have shipped jobs overseas. 

However, the real story may be about our stories.
I’m speaking of Hollywood: the industry that has done more to promote and export American culture than any government program ever could. 

But that could be changing.
Few Americans realize that a Chinese company, Dalian Wanda Group, is the world’s largest cinema operator (the company owns AMC Theaters and Hoyts Cinema). 

Even fewer probably realize that this same Chinese company owns Legendary Entertainment (Jurassic World and Interstellar)—and that their plans include the acquisition of one of the “Big Six” movie studios.
It doesn’t take the imagination of a La La Land auteur to envision the potential negative consequences.
Last September, 16 members of Congress sent a letter to the head of the Government Accountability Office, asking this question: “Should the definition of national security be broadened to address concerns about propaganda and control of the media and ‘soft power’ institutions?” 

And they’re not alone in their concern. 

A clandestine group called “Wolverine Entertainment” created a Kickstarter campaign to fund a documentary about Chinese influence in Hollywood.
While there are reasonable concerns about China exporting overt propaganda via their increasing control (through a private company) of production and dissemination, we are already witnessing a less-paranoid scenario: self-censorship in Hollywood in pursuit of profits.
Hollywood is understandably interested in reaching an audience of more than a billion Chinese consumers, and China’s increased media presence is already affecting the types of movies that are green-lighted. 

As the Washington Post reported, “the Chinese government and its support of censorship now has a surprisingly big hand in shaping the movies that Americans make and watch. Films like ‘Transformers IV,’ ‘X-Men: Days of Future Past,’ ‘Looper,’ ‘Gravity,’ ‘Iron Man 3’ and many more have adapted their plots to woo Chinese censors and audiences.”

Comedian Stephen Colbert has mockingly named this phenomenon the “Pander Express.” 

But he wasn’t joking when he said that “It’s only natural for American movie makers to try to please the cultural gatekeepers of the Chinese government.”
In The Martian, China saves Matt Damon—a plot point that spurred Colbert’s commentary. 

In fairness to the filmmakers, the Chinese involvement tracks well with the book’s narrative. 

However, this likely made for a nice selling point when it came time to pitch the film to investors.
Interestingly, Damon is now starring in a Chinese production called The Great Wall. 

As Forbes contributor Scott Mendelson notes, “the entire arc of the movie is watching a white American realize that [the] Chinese army and the Chinese culture is [sic] inherently superior.” 

He continued: “It’s amusing to see a Chinese/American blockbuster where the would-be virtues of western individualism are all-but-villainized.”
What we are seeing is a feedback loop where American movie producers are attempting to appease the Chinese market. 

Why else would the remake of Red Dawn voluntarily swap villains, replacing the Chinese with North Koreans?
Part of the reason for this is that there is a lot of competition, not merely to reach China’s large population of moviegoers but also because China has a quota for how many foreign films they allow in. 

This might change. 

According to a recent report, “government officials and industry representatives from China and the U.S. meet to renegotiate trade terms later this month… .”
But who is empowered to negotiate such a deal? 

“This is exactly why General Michael Flynn is in trouble,” a film producer, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of backlash from studio executives, told me. 

“It is against the law for American citizens to negotiate deals with other countries for this very reason—these deals could have a catastrophic impact on the American economy [speaking here of unionized movie crews] and the best and brightest example of our First Amendment to the world.”
It is highly unlikely that anyone will face prosecution for violating the Logan Act, but the notion that a single entity could own both movie studios and theaters might be seen as a violation of anti-trust laws.
Regardless, concerns about incipient propaganda and censorship are the big story. 

The media we create and consume inform our perceptions about life. 

Stories matter. 

Narratives help develop our worldviews; over time, these narratives could even influence our decisions.
This is why Joe Biden believes Will & Grace “did more to educate the American public [about marriage equality] more than almost anything anybody has done so far.” 

It is why The Cosby Show gets credit for helping elect Barack Obama. 

This is also why some people worry about violence in movies. 

People who argue that media doesn’t inform our worldview can never fully explain why businesses spend so much money on advertising.
For better or worse (and sometimes both), popular culture changes our perception. 

So what happens if a few generations of Americans are fed a steady diet of films portraying the Chinese as heroic and superior? 

American public opinion is eventually swayed.
Losing jobs to China is a standard talking point for protectionist politicians, but preserving culture is hardly mentioned.

Personal Interest

Trump did get something for agreeing to 'One China' policy—something for himself
By Mark Sumner

Workers inflated a giant chicken resembling Donald Trump in front of a factory in Jiaxing, China.

Donald Trump made a point of demonstrating a belligerent dismissal of the “One China” policy that the United States has maintained since 1979. 

One of his early calls to foreign leaders was to Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, and in December Trump made it explicit.
Donald Trump said the United States did not necessarily have to stick to its long-standing position that Taiwan is part of "one China," questioning nearly four decades of policy in a move likely to antagonize Beijing.
So when Trump abruptly changed directions last week, a lot of observers were both surprised and quick to declare that Trump had folded without securing any matching commitment from China. Some might even say that Trump showed he was … chicken.
But in doing so, he handed China a victory and sullied his reputation with its leader, Xi Jinping, as a tough negotiator who ought to be feared, analysts said.
But it’s not exactly true that Trump went home empty beaked … er, handed. 

Yes, Trump folded his position without getting anything for America, but that doesn’t mean Trump didn’t get a reward for playing along with Beijing.
The Chinese government has granted Trump and his business something they had been seeking for more than a decade: trademark protection for the use of the Trump name in the construction industry.
China actually began the process of moving the trademark to Trump after the election, but put it on hold until … coincidentally, Trump announced policy changes. 

In given the trademark to Trump, China violated its own laws.
When China awarded Donald Trump a long-coveted trademark of the “Trump” brand this week, it violated its own regulations. 

Chinese legal standards prohibit trademarks of the names of foreign leaders.
But Trump’s trademark deal, which may also be (say it with me) a violation of the emoluments clause, is just the tip of the potential iceberg. 

For a greedy guy who doesn’t believe in conflict of interest, how off base would it be to trade a two-state solution in Israel/Palestine for a nice building lot in Jerusalem? 

Why not toss an extra F-35 into that arms deal in return for rights to build an entirely classy, and very thirsty, golf course in Saudi Arabia?
And why not agree to stay out of Ukraine in exchange for, say, a bit of election help and a few videos staying conveniently invisible?

Hollywood’s dangerous obsession with China

American filmmakers have made common cause with Chinese censors in pursuit of profit. 

By Robert Daly

People walk past a poster for Disney’s “Star Wars” film at a movie theater in Beijing on Jan. 9. 
American film studios are playing a leading role in the growing strategic and ideological competition between China and the U.S., and Washington is taking note. 

Sixteen members of Congress wrote a letter calling for scrutiny of Chinese investments in the U.S. film industry, and former Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) wants a review of Hollywood’s pursuit of Chinese box office. 

“By controlling the financing and distribution of American movies [in China],” Wolf wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed, “and [by] subjecting them to censorship..., Beijing could effectively dictate what is and isn’t made.”
Government attention to these issues raises the specter of federal regulation of culture — a brand of McCarthyism that would be worse than the problem it seeks to solve — but the lawmakers’ warnings are on target. 

American filmmakers have already made common cause with Chinese censors in pursuit of profit. 

Writing scripts to satisfy the rulers of the People’s Republic doesn’t simply weaken the films the U.S. exports to China, it limits what plays at the multiplex on American soil, and it diminishes our understanding of the greatest geostrategic challenge America will face over the coming decades: the rise of China.
There are upsides to Hollywood’s courtship of China. 

Fine Chinese actors are now regularly cast in American movies — Jiang Wen and Donnie Yen will be featured in “Star Wars: Rogue One,” for example, and a treasure trove of Chinese stories, locations and aesthetics is gradually being introduced to American audiences. 

If Hollywood’s China partnerships help erode the cultural myopia of American film, good.
But China’s film industry isn’t run by the talent; it’s run by the Chinese Communist Party, which has grown increasingly assertive and paranoid since Xi Jinping came to power in 2012. 

Xi is waging a soft-power campaign that requires artists, filmmakers, writers, academics and the media to “serve socialism” and show “positive energy” by offering uplifting messages about the party.
Despite this oppressive cultural atmosphere, China’s economy continues to grow. 

China now has a larger middle class (consumers with annual incomes of between $50,000 and $500,000) than the United States. 

It is this combination of massive purchasing power, combined with aggressive authoritarian governance, that makes China a dangerous obsession for Hollywood.
In 2017, China’s box office receipts are expected to surpass America’s. 

Already, a movie cannot break box office records unless it plays in China, and it cannot play in China unless it is approved by the State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television. American studios that want films distributed in China either submit to Beijing’s censors or become adept at self-censorship. 

The problem is compounded because China might object to anything — its censors don’t explain their decisions.
The result is that Hollywood is allowing China to determine which movies get made. 

As U.S. studios gain expertise in winning approval from the censors, they’ve stopped greenlighting projects to which Beijing might object. 

The proof? 

There have been no films in recent years that depict the Chinese Communist Party or mainland Chinese characters in a critical light. 

Instead, China saved the world in “2012” and “The Martian” and provided a stunning backdrop in “Skyfall.” 

We no longer see movies like “Red Corner,” “Seven Years in Tibet” and “Kundun,” all of which were released in 1997, before China’s box office became the force it is today.
It’s not that we need anti-Chinese or Yellow Peril fare. 

But Americans have always used movies to help them make sense of major challenges. 

“The Great Dictator” and “Casablanca” were among hundreds of World War II movies that provided important perspectives on their times. 

The Cold War gave us “Dr. Strangelove,” “The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming,” “The Manchurian Candidate” and “War Games,” to name a few. 

Vietnam inspired some of the best cinematic art ever. 

War in the Middle East has yielded “Three Kings,” “The Hurt Locker” and “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot,” as well as landmark television programs such as “24” and “Homeland.” 

Of course, the Axis powers, the Soviet Union, Vietnam and Saddam’s Iraq didn’t offer much potential box office.
Now China is the United States’ most formidable strategic, economic and ideological competitor. 

It is a one-party state with a dramatically poor human rights record. 

There is little doubt about what Hollywood’s go-to source of international conflict would be if the industry weren’t placating Beijing.
American struggles with racism, sexism, and technology have spawned countless good, bad and indifferent dramas, comedies, romances and suspense films. 

China’s social fissures and moral failings would receive similar treatment if Hollywood were functioning in a healthy way — to the benefit of the U.S. and, in the long run, of the People’s Republic. 

Meanwhile, China sees a stream of American movies about U.S. injustice, crime and corruption. Oliver Stone’s “Snowden” will be seen by Chinese audiences; neither they nor Americans will see Stone’s Mao Tse-tung epic because China has refused to allow him to film it for decades.
China is something new for filmmakers and the U.S. government — a nation of grave concern to us that we also want to sell to and cooperate with. 

If a free culture is essential to our national well-being, it matters that the U.S. is surrendering its ability to respond to this historic challenge through film. 

Congress is right to worry that Hollywood’s global business model has implications for national security. 

The film industry needs to prove it is protecting creative freedom in the face of Chinese pressures and temptations, before the invitations arrive from Capitol Hill.