Economist and bestselling author Jeffrey Sachs told CNBC a Cold War with China would be a “dreadful mistake.” Sachs said attacking China has become a bipartisan strategy for political gain. He urged global leaders to come together on issues like climate change as the economy undergoes a “remarkably choppy period of disruption and transition.”

American politicians risk making a “dreadful mistake” by escalating tensions with China, economist and bestselling author Jeffrey Sachs told CNBC.

Sachs, a Columbia University professor and director of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, warned that a “geopolitical Cold War” with China would threaten global security in an already tumultuous period marked by the coronavirus pandemic.

“The last Cold War was dangerous enough,” he said. “This one would be even more dangerous. It’s completely misconceived and misguided, but a lot of Americans want to put it to China and think that we run the show, which is a very dangerous view of thinking.”

Tensions between the world’s two biggest economies have intensified during the pandemic, which originated in Wuhan, China. In July, the U.S. ordered China to close its consulate in Houston, citing risks to American intellectual property. China retaliated by revoking the license for the U.S. consulate generate in the Chinese city of Chengdu.

The U.S.-China relationship has been under strain for several years amid a trade war sparked by President Donald Trump and a race to develop key technologies such as 5G wireless networks.

Sachs said attacking China has become a bipartisan strategy for political gain.

“While politics is a game, and a pretty tough one in the U.S., it’s an incredibly dangerous sport also, and to play with the facts and the lies that we’re saying about China right now has consequences,” he said.

Some companies have said they will reevaluate their dependence on Chinese supply chains in the wake of the pandemic. Sachs, author of the new book “The Ages of Globalization: Geography, Technology and Institutions,” said a movement toward “manufacturing nationalism” was already underway as countries compete in new sectors of the economy such as electric vehicles and renewable energy.

He urged global leaders to come together on issues like climate change as the economy undergoes a “remarkably choppy period of disruption and transition.”

“If we face [these crises] together, cooperatively, with a sense of decency, we’ll have some pride that the waters were very high and very choppy but we made it through,” he said. “If we face it as each one is on your own, then we’re going to look back with a lot of regret.”

When I saw the scenes of French President Emmanuel Macron visiting the devastated areas of Beirut, I was filled with a number of conflicting emotions.

I was pleased that he went directly to the site of the explosions as a sign of deep respect for the suffering of the people and the city. I was furious that no one in the Lebanese government joined him. And I was amazed by the throngs of Lebanese who turned out thankful for his recognition of their pain and eager to demonstrate their contempt for their own failed leaders.

I was once again conflicted when Macron announced that France would be convening a donor conference to provide aid to Lebanon that would be conditioned on the implementation of real reforms. What he said was “I will propose a new political pact in Lebanon and I will be back September 1, and if they can’t do it, I’ll take my political responsibility.”

It made me both sad and angry that in the face of the massive corruption that has bilked billions of dollars from the country and the political dysfunction that has brought Lebanon to its knees, that it took this enormous tragedy and the French president to press hard on the reform issue. Hundreds of thousands of protesters in sustained demonstrations were not enough. COVID-19 was not able to do it. Neither was the economic crisis that has left many Lebanese impoverished and in despair.

Through all these crippling challenges, the government dithered, the elites remained unmoved, and the armed groups, Hizbollah included, stood defiant against reform, “self-policing” their individual communities with the threat of force against protesters. Lebanon continued its slow march to death.

It is, therefore, upsetting that it is the arrogance of the French, who created and saddled Lebanon with its sectarian feudal regime, that is now demanding to “fix” the country. At the same time, I will admit a bit of relief that at last someone put down their foot and said “you must reform, or else”. But it was embarrassed relief, coupled with annoyance, that the ultimatum was left to the French to deliver, especially since that had been the very demand of the massive prolonged protest movement of the fall of 2019.

Last year, in the midst of the country-wide protests against corruption, I was honoured by a Lebanese humanitarian organisation. I began my remarks paraphrasing Kahlil Gibran’s poem “You have your Lebanon, I have my Lebanon.” Like Gibran, I love the Lebanese people, their poetry, art, song and love of life. I love their generous and welcoming spirit. I also love what Lebanon has given to the world, especially its gifted people. And I love the sheer beauty of the country, its majestic snow-capped mountains and its pristine seascapes.

And, like Gibran, I do not love Lebanon’s petty bickering politicians who lead because of an accident of birth. Nor can I embrace the country’s system of sectarian privilege and the corruption that is endemic to the political-economic regime that has squeezed Lebanon dry to the benefit of their chosen ones. And I reject the armed militias, whether they be Christian, Muslim or secular that in the past and in the present continue to torment those who challenge their dominance.

I told the audience that the Lebanon I loved was in the streets making their voices heard demanding fundamental reform, an end to sectarianism, corrupt feudal elites, and rule by force of arms.

In the wake of the protests, the government fell, but was replaced by more of the same. The economy, already in shambles, went into free-fall. And still the leadership could not make needed reforms. “How could they,” one might ask, “when they were the problem.”

Over the past few decades, I have polled in Lebanon and the results are instructive. Lebanese, of all sects, want “one man one vote.” They reject sectarian governance and the tyranny of militias. And they are wary of US and Iranian meddling in their internal affairs. In other words, they want reform.

From everything I’ve heard since the explosions in the port, many Lebanese have crossed the line from frustration with their government to despair that change is possible. A collapsing economy, a loss of control over their domestic and foreign policies, a dysfunctional government that remains insensitive to their needs and aspirations, coupled with a pandemic and continuing refugee crisis that has strained limited resources, have left them still angry but despondent. I believe that was why they responded so hungrily to Macron’s presence at the scene of their newest hurt.

While France is an unlikely patron of change, Macron, therefore, was “singing to the choir”. But it should not be the French alone who should join the Lebanese people in demanding fundamental reform and restructuring of the system of governance. The planned donor conference should provide immediate assistance to aid those in need of support and combine it with a long-term package to rebuild — conditional on needed reforms. This will empower the popular movement in Lebanon and restore their hope that they have allies who will be by their side in the long road ahead to save, rebuild, and restore the country.

Make no mistake, the path forward won’t be easy. The sectarian elites will not just step aside, nor will Hizbollah simply agree to end their threat to use arms against those who demand change. But we’ve come to a crossroads. If the Lebanon we love is to be saved, then the Lebanon we do not love must be defeated. Either that or Lebanon may die.

I have been engaged in Democratic Party platform debates for over three decades and am amazed at how the party consistently gets the section on Israel/Palestine wrong.

Wrong because the positions expressed are out of touch with political realities on the ground. And wrong because the language they adopt has been out of sync with the opinions of Democratic voters. Unfortunately, the same is true this year. Despite some marginal progress in the 2020 platform language, it’s still 20 years behind the times and out of touch with the views of Democratic voters.

Before I critique this year’s proposed platform plank on Israel/Palestine, let’s review a bit of history.

Back in 1988, representing Jesse Jackson, I introduced an amendment to the platform calling for “mutual recognition, territorial compromise, and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians”. The platform drafters not only rejected this mild formula, they also accused us of trying to destroy the Democratic Party. They were wrong.

At that time, Palestinians were in the midst of the first Intifada and US opinion was shifting in response to the disproportionate force being used by the Israelis to crush the revolt. A poll conducted by the Atlanta Constitution showed that 70 per cent of Democrats supported our position. But the party leadership was adamantly opposed to any changes.

Since the platform did call for implementation of the Camp David Accords, we offered compromise language simply spelling out the terms of Camp David. We suggested adding phrases like “land for peace” and “the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people”. I was told that if the “‘P’ word” were even mentioned in the platform “all hell would break loose”.

Because they wouldn’t give, I proceeded to introduce our plank from the convention podium and “all hell did break loose,” not because we raised it, but because they so disrespectfully tried to shut it down.

In 1996 in the early years of the Oslo Process, the party platform draft included a plank calling for “an undivided Jerusalem” as Israel’s capital. I found this troubling since at that very moment the Clinton Administration was cautioning both Israelis and Palestinians against taking “unilateral actions that might predetermine final status issues” (and Jerusalem was one of these). I called Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, and expressed my concern that this would undercut the Administration’s position. He agreed and while he couldn’t intervene in the platform process, he dispatched the State Department spokesperson to read a statement to the platform committee clearly distancing the White House from the party’s position. It was an avoidable embarrassment.

In 2012, the party’s platform did not initially mention this language regarding Jerusalem and we were pleased. But on the day after the platform had already been approved by the convention, the chairman of the Platform Committee came to the podium to announce a last-minute amendment declaring “a united Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel”. Three times, he called for a voice vote to approve the change. And all three times the “No” votes clearly won. Clearly unsettled, the chair decided to announce that the “Yes” votes had won in response, the convention erupted with booing.

That day and the next, I was interviewed by countless media outlets about how Democrats had, in fact, rejected the plank, despite the heavy-handedness of the chair. The party had committed another unforced error.

In 2016, I was involved in the platform drafting effort and found, once again, the party leadership to be out of touch with reality. When I asked to include opposition to settlements in the platform, I was told that the party didn’t want to decide final status issues. When I countered with then we shouldn’t mention Jerusalem, my objection was met with embarrassed silence. It was against this background that I approached the 2020 platform. It’s a mixed bag.

There is language that for the first time creates some degree of recognition for Palestinian rights and attempts to reflect a balanced concern for both Palestinians and Israelis. And the document (for the first time!) recognises the Palestinians right to a state and promises to undo the damage done by the Trump Administration. It calls for restoring US assistance programmes sorely needed by Palestinians, reopening the US Consulate in East Jerusalem that long served Palestinians in the occupied lands, and working to reopen the Palestinian Mission in Washington, DC. But calling for a state two decades too late or promising to return to the status quo ante just is not good enough.

There is one area where significant progress was made relating to the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement for Palestinian rights. While this year’s platform keeps problematic language from 2016 stating opposition to “any effort to delegitimize Israel, including at the UN or through the BDS movement”, it also notably adds a commitment to “protect the constitutional right of our citizens to free speech”. Pro-Israel groups are trying to spin this as a victory, but it’s akin to a GOP platform reading, “We are opposed to abortion, but we support the right of citizens to make their own choice on this matter.”

Even with this advance, there are still significant areas where the platform falls far short of where it should be.

I am baffled why the platform committee once again drew a red line on including any mention of the word “occupation” in the document even though every Democratic leader (including president Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden) has spoken about the need to end Israel’s military occupation over Palestinians.

And while it opposes “settlement expansion” (another belated first in our party’s platform), it fails to acknowledge that while successive Democratic administrations have opposed such expansion, the settler population has continued to grow. By refusing to accept our amendment to place conditions on US aid to Israel should Israel continue to build settlements or annex Palestinian lands, the platform only serves to foster Israel’s sense of impunity.

For decades prior to Trump, successive US administrations have called for an end to occupation and expressed opposition to settlements, but have taken little or no action to back up their words. Now, the overwhelming majority of Democratic members of Congress say they oppose annexation. But precisely because these same lawmakers have been reticent to say that there will be consequences if Israel annexes or continues to expand settlements, Israel has continued to ignore what the US says. When there are no consequences to bad behavior, bad behaviour continues.

There are, however, reasons to be hopeful about where this debate is headed. It’s reflected in the courage demonstrated by Bernie Sanders and newer members of Congress, like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who are speaking out for Palestinian rights, and in polls showing that a majority of Democrats support conditioning aid to Israel based on its human rights performance.

And so this fight isn’t over. Not by a long shot. We will continue to push Democrats to recognise reality and oppose Israel’s occupation. Instead of just expressions of opposition “settlement expansion” we will continue to press for conditioning US aid to Israel, making it absolutely clear that there will be consequences if Israel does annex Palestinian land or continues its settlement enterprise.

Polls show that these positions have the support of most Democrats and they reflect political imperatives on the ground. It is high time for our party’s platform to catch up with reality.

Last month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered an anti-China speech that was extremist, simplistic, and dangerous. If biblical literalists like Pompeo remain in power past November, they could well bring the world to the brink of a war that they expect and perhaps even seek.

Many white Christian evangelicals in the United States have long believed that America has a God-given mission to save the world. Under the influence of this crusading mentality, US foreign policy has often swerved from diplomacy to war. It is in danger of doing so again.

Last month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo launched yet another evangelical crusade, this time against China. His speech was extremist, simplistic, and dangerous – and may well put the US on a path to conflict with China.

According to Pompeo, Chinese President Xi Jinping and the Communist Party of China (CPC) harbor a “decades-long desire for global hegemony.” This is ironic. Only one country – the US – has a defense strategy calling for it to be the “preeminent military power in the world,” with “favorable regional balances of power in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, and the Western Hemisphere.” China’s defense white paper, by contrast, states that “China will never follow the beaten track of big powers in seeking hegemony,” and that, “As economic globalization, the information society, and cultural diversification develop in an increasingly multi-polar world, peace, development, and win-win cooperation remain the irreversible trends of the times.”

One is reminded of Jesus’s own admonition: “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5). US military spending totaled $732 billion in 2019, nearly three times the $261 billion China spent.

The US, moreover, has around 800 overseas military bases, while China has just one (a small naval base in Djibouti). The US has many military bases close to China, which has none anywhere near the US. The US has 5,800 nuclear warheads; China has roughly 320. The US has 11 aircraft carriers; China has one. The US has launched many overseas wars in the past 40 years; China has launched none (though it has been criticized for border skirmishes, most recently with India, that stop short of war).

The US has repeatedly rejected or withdrawn from United Nations treaties and UN organizations in recent years, including UNESCO, the Paris climate agreement, and, most recently, the World Health Organization, while China supports UN processes and agencies. US President Donald Trump recently threatened the staff of the International Criminal Court with sanctions. Pompeo rails against China’s clampdown on its mainly Muslim Uighur population, but Trump’s former national security adviser, John Bolton, claims that Trump privately gave China’s actions a pass, or even encouraged them.

The world took relatively little notice of Pompeo’s speech, which offered no evidence to back up his claims of China’s hegemonic ambition. China’s rejection of US hegemony does not mean that China itself seeks hegemony. Indeed, outside of the US, there is little belief that China aims for global dominance. China’s explicitly stated national goals are to be a “moderately prosperous society” by 2021 (the centenary of the CPC), and a “fully developed country” by 2049 (the centennial of the People’s Republic).

Moreover, at an estimated $10,098 in 2019, China’s GDP per capita was less than one-sixth that of the US ($65,112) – hardly the basis for global supremacy. China still has a lot of catching up to do to achieve even its basic economic development goals.

Assuming that Trump loses in November’s presidential election, Pompeo’s speech will likely receive no further notice. The Democrats will surely criticize China, but without Pompeo’s brazen exaggerations. Yet, if Trump wins, Pompeo’s speech could be a harbinger of chaos. Pompeo’s evangelism is real, and white evangelicals are the political base of today’s Republican Party.

Pompeo’s zealous excesses have deep roots in American history. As I recounted in my recent book A New Foreign Policy, English protestant settlers believed that they were founding a New Israel in the new promised land, with God’s providential blessings. In 1845, John O’Sullivan coined the phrase “Manifest Destiny” to justify and celebrate America’s violent annexation of North America. “All this will be our future history,” he wrote in 1839, “to establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man – the immutable truth and beneficence of God. For this blessed mission to the nations of the world, which are shut out from the life-giving light of truth, has America been chosen…”

On the basis of such exalted views of its own beneficence, the US engaged in mass enslavement until the Civil War and mass apartheid thereafter; slaughtered Native Americans throughout the nineteenth century and subjugated them thereafter; and, with the closure of the Western frontier, extended Manifest Destiny overseas. Later, with the onset of the Cold War, anti-communist fervor led the US to fight disastrous wars in Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) in the 1960s and 1970s, and brutal wars in Central America in the 1980s.

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the evangelical ardor was directed against “radical Islam” or “Islamic fascism,” with four US wars of choice – in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya – all of which remain debacles to this day. Suddenly, the supposed existential threat of radical Islam has been forgotten, and the new crusade targets the CPC.

Pompeo himself is a biblical literalist who believes that the end time, the apocalyptic battle between good and evil, is imminent. Pompeo described his beliefs in a 2015 speech while a Congressman from Kansas: America is a Judeo-Christian nation, the greatest in history, whose task is to fight God’s battles until the Rapture, when Christ’s born-again followers, like Pompeo, will be swept to heaven at the Last Judgment.

White evangelicals represent only around 17% of the US adult population, but comprise around 26% of voters. They vote overwhelmingly Republican (an estimated 81% in 2016), making them the party’s single most important voting bloc. That gives them powerful influence on Republican policy, and in particular on foreign policy when Republicans control the White House and Senate (with its treaty-ratifying powers). Fully 99% of Republican congressmen are Christian, of whom around 70% are Protestant, including a significant though unknown proportion of evangelicals.

Of course, the Democrats also harbor some politicians who proclaim American exceptionalism and launch crusading wars (for example, President Barack Obama’s interventions in Syria and Libya). On the whole, however, the Democratic Party is less wedded to claims of US hegemony than is the Republican Party’s evangelical base.

Pompeo’s inflammatory anti-China rhetoric could become even more apocalyptic in the coming weeks, if only to fire up the Republican base ahead of the election. If Trump is defeated, as seems likely, the risk of a US confrontation with China will recede. But if he remains in power, whether by a true electoral victory, vote fraud, or even a coup (anything is possible), Pompeo’s crusade would probably proceed, and could well bring the world to the brink of a war that he expects and perhaps even seeks.