International Laws? You Kidding Me?

At the beginning of the new year, Donald Trump has single-handedly changed the United States, and the global landscape may also be reshaped. First, he declared that as Commander-in-Chief, the President’s authority is limited only by his own morality. Later, he posted an image on his social platform Truth Social with the caption “Acting President of Venezuela”. The New York Times directly questioned: “Does this mean ignoring international law and acting without any constraints to invade other countries?” Regarding international law, Trump stated, “I abide by it,” but made it clear that when such constraints apply to the United States, he would be the ultimate arbiter.

On January 7, 2026, the President signed a presidential memorandum ordering the United States to withdraw from 66 international organizations, including 31 United Nations entities and multiple major international agreements. This action is aimed at exiting organizations deemed by the White House to be “contrary to U.S. interests” and a waste of taxpayer funds. The UN bodies to be withdrawn from include UN Women, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the International Law Commission.

Clearly, Trump has a unique blueprint that serves only American interests. He might retort: “What era is this, still talking about international law and core values? Don’t you know the current state of the U.S.? Don’t you know that the U.S. has long been planning drastic actions?”

In April 2020, retired U.S. Marine Corps officer Mark Cancian proposed a bold strategy. The National Interest reported: “With a coastline of 9,000 miles and the world’s second-largest merchant fleet after Greece, including Hong Kong, China has over 4,000 ships. This is not an advantage but a vulnerability. The U.S. could effectively blockade China’s economy by launching a clever campaign, leaving it exhausted.” The suggestion was for the U.S. to emulate 16th-century Britain by supporting privateers—civilian organizations specialized in plundering Chinese merchant ships. Given China’s current military capabilities, it should be able to meet such challenges, so there’s no need to worry. Still, one can’t help but applaud the audacity of such an idea.

Back then, Biden paid no attention to this plan, as the Democrats were still refined and attached great importance to the cloak of universal values. At the same time, Biden, at least nominally, had to pay lip service to the United Nations, because ideology mattered. The U.S. had previously displayed a magical logic: attacking you to save your people, destroying your country to introduce democracy and freedom, imposing sanctions because you’re a dictatorship... Trump cannot be like ordinary advocates of universal values, who always cite international law and classical references. First, neither he nor his team possess such knowledge. Second, pretending to uphold morality can no longer maximize American interests. Third, former adversaries have “risen,” gradually establishing international moral authority. If the U.S. continues to preach benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness, it will only become a laughingstock. After all, Trump has already discarded America’s credibility like trash.

Retired officer Cancian’s plan is exactly the White House’s cup of tea. For context—in the 16th century, Britain supported privateers, civilian organizations that plundered rival nations’ merchant ships. This was essentially the legalization of piracy, with the British monarch issuing “letters of marque” to recruit outlaws for royal service, dubbing them “royal pirates.” These privateers helped Britain destroy the then-dominant Spain at sea, significantly boosting British power and laying the foundation for the Industrial Revolution.

In reality, Trump has already begun “highway robbery” operations, seizing multiple cargo ships in the Caribbean. The White House has also dropped the pretense. Foreign media reported that Deputy Chief of Staff Miller recently declared: “The only permissible maritime energy transportation must comply with U.S. law and national security.” This is no different from robbery—“This mountain is my domain, these trees are my planting; if you wish to pass, leave your toll.” The only difference is that the U.S. is not just a bandit but a pirate. Similarly, Trump and Cheng Yaojin from the Dramatized History of Sui and Tang Dynasties share the title of “Chaos Demon King.”

Next, following the “Trump Gold Card,” Trump could publicly issue “letters of marque,” auctioning them to the highest bidder, and even list them on Wall Street. Their valuation might surpass that of the “Seven Sisters” oil companies—who knows?

Deep Blue

** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **

Zhuque has silenced America. SpaceX's repeated successes in rocket recovery drove home one point: American business works. And China? How could a feat achieved by marshaling the strength of an entire nation possibly compare with a private outfit pulling off a mission impossible?

Cast your mind back. The Clinton boom, built on the information superhighway, delivered four consecutive fiscal years of budget surplus. From 2015 onwards, SpaceX achieved rocket recovery, putting American commercial spaceflight at least a decade ahead of China. What more could anyone say? Behold the splendor of America's overall national power!

At 7:35 this morning, the reusable Zhuque-3 Y2 carrier rocket lifted off smoothly. Its builder is LandSpace, a Chinese commercial space company founded, coincidentally, in that very same year of 2015. The mission report reads: "About 137 seconds after liftoff, the first and second stages separated. The first stage then began its return sequence. After key maneuvers including high-altitude attitude adjustment, deceleration and aerodynamic gliding, it made a successful soft landing at the Gansu landing pad at 7:43. The flight test was a complete success."

A few points are worth adding. First, the Zhuque-3 Y1 made its maiden flight on December 3, 2025. It successfully delivered a satellite into its designated orbit, though its first-stage vertical recovery test failed.

Second, eight months on, Zhuque-3 has delivered on its mission, a task of major significance. Zhuque becomes our country's second reusable rocket after the Long March 10B.

Third, mind you, the Long March rockets belong to the "national team."

Fourth, China's state and commercial space programs are setting sail like "twin dragons out to sea." America is feeling the competitive pressure.

SpaceX has made a blockbuster stock market debut. The world is counting on America, following the internet, to lead the globe once more through space technology. The hope is a replay of the Clinton-era golden age. SpaceX pulled off the first successful recovery of a Falcon 9 rocket, then industrialized the technology. Today it launches the Falcon 9 around 150 times a year, roughly three times a week. A single booster can be reused dozens of times.

Yet even before the successful recovery of the Zhuque-3 Y2, American think tanks were already worried. China, doing things the Chinese way, has achieved recovery in both state-run and commercial spaceflight, with equally precise touchdown points. China's "catch-up" is no longer out of reach.

What deserves attention is this: China's state and commercial sectors are advancing in tandem, while NASA has widely adopted the commercial model. In return-to-the-Moon programs such as Artemis, NASA has contracted out uncrewed lunar landers, precursor satellite launches and even rocket servicing and replenishment support to multiple private space companies. Commercial players such as SpaceX, Firefly Aerospace and Rocket Lab are the mainstays.

Two years ago, analyses weighed the relative strengths of the Chinese and American space programs. Commentators argued that NASA's shift from "designing and building in-house" to "commercial contracting" would push national scientific talent out of front-line positions. Over the long run, that would weaken the state's "deep control and independent assessment capability" over space technology.

And if complex spaceflight life-support systems or new space station designs were left entirely to private leadership, NASA would face the twin hazards of technology and risk. Boeing's Starliner saga, which stranded two American astronauts on the International Space Station for a full nine months, is in its own way the same tune as today's USS Abraham Lincoln incident. Go figure.

The pair finally left the station "smoothly" aboard a SpaceX Dragon on March 18, 2025. They landed safely back on Earth the next day. Trump sang Musk's praises for a job well done.

A quick explainer: history has seen a so-called "Sputnik moment." In truth, it was a "Sputnik" crisis for America. In 1957, the Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik 1, humanity's first artificial satellite. The phrase has since come to describe the turning point when a nation suddenly realizes it is lagging a rival in technology or a critical field. That realization triggers an acute sense of crisis and an urgent drive to catch up.

President Kennedy led America out of the Sputnik crisis with the Apollo lunar landing program. Today, can America build a crewed Mars program to overtake its rival? Musk, this round is all on you. Stop firing off low-orbit satellites like crazy to rake in cash. The day a crewed Mars landing succeeds will be the ultimate MAGA moment. Let's keep at it, together.