A former student, Jenna Ruddock, is the advocacy director of Free Press Action and she has been monitoring the press situation in Minnesota. The arrests of independent journalists are not unprecedented in US history, but in every case, such arrests have threatened the freedom of the press which is indispensable to democracy. Jenna was just quoted in The Guardian and her words deserve close attention:
“’While journalists and civilians continue to heroically document conditions on the ground in the face of escalating violence from federal agents, the Trump administration is using every weapon at its disposal to shut down efforts to document, report and dissent,’ she said.
“These latest arrests are just the latest in a long line of first amendment violations by the administration. Too often, corporate media have readily capitulated to the administration’s demands. Independent journalists, on the other hand, are continuing to lead by example with their critical reporting under increasingly unsafe conditions – indeed, with targets on their backs.”
One should not underestimate the importance of independent journalists. Some prominent mainstream media outlets, such as the Washington Post, have compromised their independence by seeking favor with the Trump Administration. Jeff Bezos is more than likely expecting solicitude by the Trump Administration by producing flattery projects such as the documentary, “Melania”. These journalists lack the law departments that most large media firms employ and are therefore highly vulnerable. People like Jenna are to be applauded for their willingness to protect and defend our freedoms.
Watching the debate over Trump’s wish to take over Greenland (how many of us ever thought that there would ever be such a debate?) was profoundly dispiriting. And Trump’s intemperate remarks decisively rejected the world order that has been remarkably stable for the last 80 years. His replacement for that order, the so-called Board of Peace, is designed to solidify the power of wealthy states in world affairs (why else would there be a membership fee of $1 billion?). I am certain that the Board of Peace will be an abject failure (like Trump University, Trump Steaks, and Trump Airlines), but that still leaves us searching for a substitute for the old world order.
One very refreshing aspect of the meeting at Davos was the speech by Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada. I recommend that everyone should listen carefully to someone who truly appreciates how vulnerable we all are to those who wish to depart from a world order based upon principles of international law.
“He also added that he is “a fan” of Denmark but questioned the country’s claim to Greenland.
“I’m big fan, but you know the fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn’t mean that they own the land,” Trump said. “I’m sure we had lots of boats go there also.”
I am not sure how anyone could be as ignorant as Trump, but I am certain that Native Americans would be happy to school him on this subject.
Unfortunately, he went on to articulate his plans for Greenland:
“President Donald Trump said Friday that the U.S. will do ‘something’ on Greenland, ‘whether they like it or not.’
“He made the comments during a meeting with oil executives at the White House.
“The president said that he would like to make a deal ‘the easy way’ to acquire Greenland, because if the U.S. doesn’t own it, he claimed Russia or China will take over it, and the U.S. does not want them as neighbors.
“‘If we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way,’ Trump said, without explaining what the ‘hard way’ entailed.”
I sincerely doubt that the Greenlanders, the Danish, and most of Europe wish to see China or Russia in control of Greenland, and they would all be happy to join the US in resisting invasions by either state. But Trump apparently wants to “own” everything. As I have indicated before, “America First” is “America Alone”.
As I have argued before, Trump is reviving the balance of power (or, at least, being explicit about his intentions) which also suggests that he is a practitioner of Realpolitik. There was little question in my mind that his adviser, Stephen Miller, is a hardline realist (sovereignty seems to be his favorite word which is the holy mantra of all realists). The New York Times has published a good overview of the lineage of realism, and all its varied meanings. The rubric, realist, gives too much credit to Trump since I doubt he is aware of any of the possible implications or significance of what it means to be a realist: a realist wants to enhance the power of the state while Trump seems to be interested in enhancing personal benefit. The Times article points out the crucial difference:
“For Walt and other realist thinkers, Trump’s aggressive and chaotic actions on the world stage — his antagonism of U.S. allies, threats of territorial conquest and assertions that the U.S. is not afraid of putting ‘boots on the ground’ — undermine any claim he could make to practicing a realist foreign policy. Realists largely opposed the U.S. wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, preferring policies of restraint. The failures of those episodes vindicated the realist worldview.”
I was reminded of this difference by a conversation with a colleague about the Venezuelan attack who reminded me of earlier episodes of US balance of power moves. One earlier intervention in hemispheric affairs was the US intervention of Haiti which lasted from 1915 to 1934. It was a brutal occupation:
“In 1910 an American investor acquired Haiti’s National Railroad with rights to establish banana plantations on either side of the track between Port-au-Prince and Cap Haitien. This land had sustained rural farmers and their families for generations. The Haitian Constitution did not even permit foreigners to own land – a safeguard against restoring slavery. The abrupt eviction of peasants from their land to make way for banana plantations prompted fierce resistance. Four years of insurrection followed, involving peasant armies – the Cacos – along with urban elites and members of Parliament who were opposed to foreign domination.
“This period of government instability became the pretext for the US occupation. By August 1915, there were 3000 US Marines in Haiti. They seized the customs houses, imposed martial law, instituted press censorship, and outlawed dissent. The US installed a compliant president, imposed a “treaty” that was ratified only by the US Senate, disbanded the legislature, and rewrote the Constitution eliminating the ban against foreign land ownership.
“Haiti’s indigenous religion, Vodou – so central to the war for independence – was banned. US Marines – all white, many Southern, replaced local heads of every town and rural district throughout the country. By 1922, the US completely controlled Haitian finances – including the treasury, collected taxes and forced Haiti to repay American loans.”
Butler was a highly decorated Marine: “Butler had received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to receive the Medal of Honor twice, one of three to be awarded both the Marine Corps Brevet Medal and the Medal of Honor, and the only Marine to be awarded the Brevet Medal and two Medals of Honor, all for separate actions.” Butler wrote a pamphlet entitled “War is a Racket” in which he argued that there was no national interest involved in the occupation of Haiti, but that it served corporate interests (Parenthetically, it is interesting to note that this pamphlet does not rest with the other writings by Butler: “at the Library of the Marine Corps at Quantico, Butler’s anti-war writings are isolated from his memoirs and other texts about him—in a separate bookshelf for radical thought that includes the works of Marx.”)
When he retired from the Marine Corps, Butler assessed his role in the military:
“I spent 33 years and 4 months in active service as a member of our country’s most agile military force—the Marine Corps.… And during that period I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism.”
It is always dangerous to compare events in different historical periods, but the US attack on Venezuela resonates with Butler’s final analysis. The Trump Administration offered a number of explanations for its acts of war against Venezuela. First it was to interdict Fentanyl (very little of which comes from Venezuela). The intervention was also justified as a means of countering Chinese influence in Venezuela. The US has also claimed that its attack on Venezuela was not an intervention but rather a “law enforcement operation” since the US had indicted Venezuelan President Maduro on drug trafficking charges. This last explanation ignores the fact that attacking the capital city of a state and kidnapping its President are both acts of war, even if the US claims it does not intend war (just think what the US response would be if a country attacked Washington, DC and kidnapped President Trump).
The real explanation is somewhat tortured, but it revolves around oil. The claim is that Venezuela has the largest reserves of oil in the world. Technically, this assertion may be true, but it is highly misleading. Venezuelan oil reserves are considered “heavy” which means that it has a high sulfur content and high viscosity. These characteristics make the refining of the oil a very expensive process, one that would not be profitable with today’s oil prices of around $59 a barrel. According to World Energy News:
“…estimates that breakeven costs for the Orinoco belt’s key grades are already above $80 per barrel. This puts Venezuelan oil on the high end of the “global cost scale” for new production. The average cost to break even for heavy oil produced in Canada is around $55 per barrel. Exxon has set a breakeven price of $30 per barrel for its global oil production in 2030, largely due to low-cost fields located in Guyana and U.S. Permian Shale Basin. Chevron also has a similar goal, and Conoco is working on a plan that will generate cash flow for the company even if oil drops to $35 per barrel.”
Nonetheless, Trump invited oil company executives to a meeting at the White House to persuade them to make the necessary investments to produce Venezuelan oil. The executives seemed unenthusiastic and an Exxon executive all Venezuela “uninvestable” (which I do not believe is a real word). I also find it hard to believe that Trump would prefer oil to be priced at $80 a barrel.
As far as I can tell, the real reason for attacking Venezuela was to gain control of its oil reserves but no oil company really wants to drill in Venezuela. Ordinarily, I would be flummoxed by this contradiction, but rationality does not seem to be an important consideration for Trump’s foreign policy. Smedley Butler would probably not be surprised at all.
The New York Times conducted an extensive interview with President Trump which is definitely worth reading with a very critical eye. Much of the interview was simple gibberish, but the Times highlighted an astonishing excerpt:
“President Trump declared on Wednesday evening that his power as commander in chief is constrained only by his ‘own morality,’ brushing aside international law and other checks on his ability to use military might to strike, invade or coerce nations around the world.
“Asked in a wide-ranging interview with The New York Times if there were any limits on his global powers, Mr. Trump said: ‘Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.’
“’I don’t need international law,’ he added. ‘I’m not looking to hurt people.’
When pressed further about whether his administration needed to abide by international law, Mr. Trump said, ‘I do.’ But he made clear he would be the arbiter when such constraints applied to the United States.
“’It depends what your definition of international law is,’ he said.
“Mr. Trump’s assessment of his own freedom to use any instrument of military, economic or political power to cement American supremacy was the most blunt acknowledgment yet of his worldview. At its core is the concept that national strength, rather than laws, treaties and conventions, should be the deciding factor as powers collide.”
The quotes reveal a mentality toward governance that harks back to Louis XIV: “L’État, c’est moi“. It is a perspective that generated abject misery among the poorer classes during Louis’s reign and ultimately led to the French Revolution. It is a perspective that has no place in a democratic republic. And it epitomizes an arrogance that is truly sinister and frightening.
Trump continues to dismantle the world order created after the end of World War II. It was a system based upon a belief that multilateral cooperation should replace the national systems that had fostered the tensions that created the mistrust that had led to World Wars I and II. It was an aspirational system that never really realized its ambitions, but the new system proved sufficient to dampen the pressures among Great Powers sufficiently to avoid another cataclysmic war. Trump believes that the multilateral system compromises US autonomy and prevents it from realizing certain national objectives.
Today Trump activated Executive Order 14199 and ordered the US to withdraw from 66 multilateral organizations. I am not familiar with most of these organizations, but among them are ones that I consider crucially important, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and the UN Conference on Trade and Development. I am also not certain how much advantage the US gains from not being a member of all these organizations, but I think it is safe to say, that many of the organizations will not survive without US financial assistance.
“America First” is clearly “America Alone”. Trump apparently believes that the US does not need to maintain close relations with the rest of the world. He is profoundly mistaken.
Here is the list of affected organizations:
Sec. 2. Organizations from Which the United States Shall Withdraw.
(a) Non-United Nations Organizations:
(i) 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact;
(ii) Colombo Plan Council;
(iii) Commission for Environmental Cooperation;
(iv) Education Cannot Wait;
(v) European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats;
(vi) Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories;
(vii) Freedom Online Coalition;
(viii) Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund;
(ix) Global Counterterrorism Forum;
(x) Global Forum on Cyber Expertise;
(xi) Global Forum on Migration and Development;
(xii) Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research;
(xiii) Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development;
(xiv) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
(xv) Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services;
(xvi) International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property;
(xvii) International Cotton Advisory Committee;
(xviii) International Development Law Organization;
(xix) International Energy Forum;
(xx) International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies;
(xxi) International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance;
(xxii) International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law;
(xxiii) International Lead and Zinc Study Group;
(xxiv) International Renewable Energy Agency;
(xxv) International Solar Alliance;
(xxvi) International Tropical Timber Organization;
(xxvii) International Union for Conservation of Nature;
(xxviii) Pan American Institute of Geography and History;
(xxix) Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation;
(xxx) Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combatting Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia;
(xxxi) Regional Cooperation Council;
(xxxii) Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century;
(xxxiii) Science and Technology Center in Ukraine;
(xxxiv) Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme; and
(xxxv) Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.
(b) United Nations (UN) Organizations:
(i) Department of Economic and Social Affairs;
(ii) UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) — Economic Commission for Africa;
(iii) ECOSOC — Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean;
(iv) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific;
(v) ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia;
(vi) International Law Commission;
(vii) International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals;
(viii) International Trade Centre;
(ix) Office of the Special Adviser on Africa;
(x) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General for Children in Armed Conflict;
(xi) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict;
(xii) Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children;
(xiii) Peacebuilding Commission;
(xiv) Peacebuilding Fund;
(xv) Permanent Forum on People of African Descent;
(xvi) UN Alliance of Civilizations;
(xvii) UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries;
(xviii) UN Conference on Trade and Development;
(xix) UN Democracy Fund;
(xx) UN Energy;
(xxi) UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women;
(xxii) UN Framework Convention on Climate Change;
(xxiii) UN Human Settlements Programme;
(xxiv) UN Institute for Training and Research;
(xxv) UN Oceans;
(xxvi) UN Population Fund;
(xxvii) UN Register of Conventional Arms;
(xxviii) UN System Chief Executives Board for Coordination;
This is clearly a day that will live in infamy for the US, even as many in the US regard the insurrection as a patriotic act. I remain dumbfounded how the lie of a “stolen” election persists. It is a mark of how willing some are to be deluded in the thrall of an execrable and selfish person who manages to make promises that he can never keep. More bewildering, however, is how easily Trump has discarded the world order promised by the creation of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. My hope was that some countries who benefited from that world order (think China and Europe) would have tried harder to maintain the system.
But, as argued in a previous post, Trump has led the world into the 19th Century system of the balance of power.
The balance of power is perhaps the most enduring pattern in world politics, and we can trace its applications in many historical situations. The first record of powers explicitly talking about the balance of power was during the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta (431–404 BCE) written by Thucydides. The part of that war which most clearly expresses the logic of the balance of power occurs when the Athenians try to conquer the island of Melos, which was a colony of Sparta. In debating with the people of Melos, the Athenians are explicit about the importance of the balance of power: “Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can. And it is not as if we were the first to make this law, or to act upon it when made: we found it existing before us, and shall leave it to exist forever after us; all we do is to make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power we have, would do the same as we do.”
As one can see from this map, Melos was quite far from Athens, and it posed no security threat at all to Athens. The Melians tried to persuade the Athenians that they would remain completely neutral in Athens’ war with Sparta. When that gambit failed, they resorted to a moral argument: that it was morally wrong for a stronger power to exert its will on a weaker power if there was no security threat to manage. Ultimately, the Athenians simply said that their power gave them the right to subjugate Melos–the first fully articulated defense of the argument that “might makes right”.
In the end, the Athenians conquered Melos, and Thucydides, writing of this tragedy, simply stated “Reinforcements afterwards arriving from Athens in consequence….the siege was now pressed vigorously…the Melians surrendered at discretion to the Athenians who put to death all the grown men whom they took and sold the women and children for slaves…and settled the place themselves.”
With this in mind, it was startling to hear Stephen Miller, an advisor to Trump, in an interview with Jake Tapper of CNN, sounding exactly like the Athenians. For those who cannot bear to listen to Miller, the important part of the interview begins at around the 5:30 minute-mark.
The phrase “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” only hints at the melancholy I felt when I heard this interview. Indeed, Miller is correct that “might makes right” operates in many situations. But that adage brought about World War I and World War II, and the effort after 1945 was to try to create a different world order. I guarantee that Miller’s worldview will only lead to similar catastrophes to the world wars because the Great Powers today agree on very little about the world they prefer. Eventually, the balance of power system fails after there are no longer any weaker states to conquer and the Great Powers turn on each other.
Imperialism never dies, but it changes its clothes every so often. After World War II ended, the colonial empires created by European states slowly disintegrated, a process that is still ongoing. But at the end of the war, there was a sense that the idea of self-determination should override the impulse to dominate. That end never materialized, but the more ostentatious trappings of imperialism became difficult to maintain and the right to dominate was articulated in the language of democracy and liberation.
This particular perspective on mimics one of the founding acts of European imperialism, the Treaty of Tordesilla which divided up the entire world into two parts in 1494, one owned by Spain and the other by Portugal. It was a plan crafted by Pope Julius II, which was subsequently modified by the Treaty of Zaragoza, signed in 1529, to include the eastern hemisphere (by tracing out the antemeridian), which included the Spice Islands.
The settlement did not last long, as other European states (the Dutch, the French, the Belgians, and the British) did not want to miss out on the benefits (to them) of imperialism.
We will see how the Venezuelans feel about the US being in charge of domestic affairs once the dust settles. Undoubtedly, many of them are relieved that Maduro is no longer in power, and the Venezuelan economy is in a deep contraction. Right now, there is tremendous uncertainty about how the US will “run” the country. There is, however, not much the Venezuelans can do as long as US forces remain offshore. But there are countries that depend on Venezuelan oil (Cuba and China, in particular) which will probably contest US “ownership” of the oil fields. Moreover, the US will find that it is impossible to “run” a country at arms-length, and as US personnel begin to filter into Venezuela, they will unquestionably be targets of armed opposition.
Regime change is easy for a country as powerful as the US. What happens after the change, however, is extraordinarily difficult for an outside power. The US learned that lesson in Vietnam, Libya, and Iraq. It’s incredible how the US has forgotten those lessons wo quickly and emphatically.
We all woke up to the news that the US had attacked Venezuela and kidnapped its President and his wife. This outcome was not on my bingo card. I fully expected Trump to overthrow Maduro, but I honestly did not think that Trump would be so blatant in violating US obligations under the United Nations Charter (which outlaws wars of aggression). I am still digesting the few scraps of real information that we have and will probably write more as additional information becomes available. Right now, however, I can make some general observations.
First, the act is the literal end of the world order under which we have lived since 1945. This world order was based upon a repudiation of balance of power politics which was the norm since 1648. Under the balance of power system, states are free to use any and all means available to increase their power and an important part of the system was an implicit recognition that powerful states can take actions to preserve their spheres of influence. Thus, for example, Russia simply asserted that Ukraine was an integral part of the Russian sphere of influence and justified its aggression in those terms. China makes similar claims to the South China Sea and to Taiwan. The US now is firmly entrenched in that 19th century doctrine and we now live in a world where, as the Athenians said to the Melians in the Peloponnesian War: “The strong do as they will, and the weak suffer what they must”.
Second, Trump apparently made the decision to attack Venezuela without consulting any members of Congress and without informing its allies of what was going to happen. In other words, he made a unilateral decision: it was neither democratic nor multilateral. It was an imperial order and that apparently means that Trump is prepared to do whatever he thinks necessary to secure what he believes are US interests. Unless the decision is restrained in some way by Congress, the Supreme Court, or by widespread protests, we now effectively live in a dictatorship.
Third, I suspect that the US will relearn the same lessons it ignored in its earlier attempts at regime change: Guatemala, Iran, Libya, Iraq, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, and Vietnam. It’s easy to overthrow a government, but very difficult to establish a viable, legitimate government to replace it. That task will be even more difficult in the case of Venezuela since Maduro was the only authority removed. All his henchmen are still there, and it is very likely that there will be political instability as the different groups compete for power. In this press conference Trump said that the US would “run” Venezuela for the immediate future. The profound irony of that assertion is that Trump has yet to learn who to “run” the US. And with Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio in charge, I expect that the Keystone Kops will meet their match in incompetence.
Fourth, Trump asserts that Venezuela “stole” US oil when it nationalized some US companies holdings. TO be clear, Venezuela never gave up its sovereign rights to its own oil. It simply gave the US oil companies the right to lift a certain number of barrels of oil and set a price for that sale. The companies never “owned” the oil; they simply agreed to pay Venezuela for its oil. So nothing was “stolen”. It is true that Venezuela refused to renew those contracts, but for Trump to argue that contracts are sacrosanct is absurd after he’s fired so many Federal employees who had their contracts simply annulled.
I suspect that I will have more to say about this matter as more information is available. But I can assert confidently that this decision to invade Venezuela will go down as one of the most egregious diplomatic failures in American diplomatic history.
World Politics News 