Foreign policy in a lame duck period usually fades far into the background, as the outgoing administration usually tries to tying the hands of the new administration with new or unexpected commitments. But, as has been true of the Trump Administration, normal behavior is rare. US Secretary of State made a bombshell statement in an interview with the conservative radio commentator Hugh Hewitt yesterday:
“QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, when I interviewed you at Langley and you were the director at the agency, and when I interviewed you at Foggy Bottom and you were the Secretary of State, both occasions you said our commitments to Taiwan are clear and they will be maintained. I know you talk to Democrats all the time. Do you believe that is a bipartisan commitment that the CCP has to realize? Because there is crazy talk among the most radical elements of the CCP that Taiwan ought to be retaken by force if necessary.
“SECRETARY POMPEO: Well, Hugh, remember, when we talk about – it’s always important to get the language right. Taiwan has not been a part of China, and that was recognized with the work that the Reagan administration did to lay out the policies that the United States has adhered to now for three and a half decades, and done so under both administrations. No, I actually think this is in fact bipartisan. I think the central understandings that this is a model for democracy, that the people who live on Taiwan ought to be honored by having the Chinese live up to the commitments that they have made – I think this is something that both parties can agree to.
“And I hope that this will continue for as long as it’s the case that the Chinese and the Taiwanese can’t figure their way through this. We ought to honor the commitments that have been made and we have a set of obligations. You’ve seen our announcements with respect to weapon sales to Taiwan to assist in their defense capabilities. All of these things are designed to live up to the promises that have been made between, frankly, China and the Taiwanese people.”
The statement “Taiwan has not been a part of China” represents a flat contradiction to US policy since President Nixon and Chinese Premier Chou Enlai signed the Shanghai Communique in 1972. That communique stated:
“The United States acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States Government does not challenge that position. It reaffirms its interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. With this prospect in mind, it affirms the ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan. In the meantime, it will progressively reduce its forces and military installations on Taiwan as the tension in the area diminishes.”
It is very difficult to overestimate the significance of Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China. The Shanghai Communique essentially committed China to a peaceful resolution of the dispute between China and Taiwan as long as the US divested itself of the notion that Taiwan was an independent state. But the US has taken steps that tend to treat Taiwan as separate from China, particularly with respect to arms sales:
“In the latest case, the U.S. State Department approved a $600 million arms package Tuesday that includes four unmanned maritime patrol aircraft, along with maritime radar and other hardware to support the aircraft.
“On October 21 the department greenlighted the potential sale of three weapons systems, including missiles, artillery and sensors. The full price was estimated at $1.8 billion. Five days later it approved a $2.37 billion sale of 100 Boeing-made Harpoon Coastal Defense Systems. Two other arms sale authorizations were announced earlier in the year for a total $800 million.
“’Now what we’re seeing is the transfer of weaponry that can certainly help Taiwan become fortress Taiwan, quote unquote, to make it that impenetrable fortress against Chinese attack,’ said Derek Grossman, a senior analyst with the Rand Corp. research institution.
“Washington cleared sales for Taiwan twice in 2019. They covered three separate arms systems, including F-16 fighter jets and M1A2T battle tanks for a total price of about $10.2 billion. A single $330 million spare parts sale was approved in 2018. President Donald Trump’s administration came out with its first arms package in June 2017 – the only one that year – for a total of $1.42 billion.”
“Beijing’s worst fear is that China hawks in Washington would be tempted to take further steps toward cutting the U.S. clear of its commitment to the so-called One China policy, thus emboldening Taiwan to take actions to solidify its independent status. For example, Taiwan’s legislature has recently formed a committee to amend its constitution, a move Beijing is watching closely to see if Taipei tries to use constitutional amendments to legalize its separation from China.”
All these actions will have the effect of limiting President-elect Biden’s choices with respect to Taiwan. There should be no doubt, however, what the Chinese will do if the Taiwanese decide that the US support for it justifies a move toward independence. Global Times, a reliable mouthpiece for the Chinese government, makes this clear:
“As the US has reached a bipartisan consensus to show toughness toward China, no matter whether Trump gets reelected or his Democratic rival Joe Biden enters the White House, close military ties between the US and the island of Taiwan will only strengthen. But the US and the DPP authorities are clear that if Taiwan crosses the red line of the Anti-Secession Law, the Chinese mainland will definitely resort to force as the means of reunification. Even if the US and Taiwan are military allies at that time, it is uncertain whether the US will send troops to fight for Taiwan. What is certain is the unshakable determination of the Chinese central government to take Taiwan back.”
“In the 1920s, the Soviet government established the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region—where 95 percent of the population is ethnically Armenian—within Azerbaijan. Under Bolshevik rule, fighting between the two countries was kept in check, but, as the Soviet Union began to collapse, so did its grip on Armenia and Azerbaijan. In 1988, the Nagorno-Karabakh legislature passed a resolution to join Armenia despite the region’s legal location within Azerbaijan’s borders. As the Soviet Union was dissolving in 1991, the autonomous region officially declared independence. War erupted between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the region, leaving roughly thirty thousand casualties and hundreds of thousands of refugees. By 1993, Armenia controlled Nagorno-Karabakh and occupied 20 percent of the surrounding Azerbaijani territory. In 1994, Russia brokered a cease-fire which has remained in place since.
The terms of the cease-fire solidifies significant Azerbaijani military successes on the ground and represents a serious defeat for Armenian aspirations. Russian President Putin has asserted that about 5,000 people had died in the most recent outbreak. Both Russia and Turkey gained concessions in the cease-fire, notably the ability to position troops in the territory as well as transit routes through the territory to the Caspian Sea for the Turks.
Significantly, the success of the Azerbaijani forces can be attributed to its advantage in the use of drones, the first time the technology has proven to be decisive in the outcome of a conflict. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan were too poor to invest heavily in modern air forces, but drones are comparatively cheaper than fighter jets and gave significant tactical advantages to Azerbaijan. The Washington Post observes:
“‘Drones offer small countries very cheap access to tactical aviation and precision guided weapons, enabling them to destroy an opponent’s much-costlier equipment such as tanks and air defense systems,’ said Michael Kofman, military analyst and director of Russia studies at CNA, a defense think tank in Arlington, Va.
“’An air force is a very expensive thing,’ he added. ‘And they permit the utility of air power to smaller, much poorer nations.'”
” The OSCE Minsk Group failed miserably and abdicated (or was simply ignored) to Russia and Turkey. While they expanded the rhetoric of “both sides,” Russia and Turkey put Armenia in a corner while everyone else watched. It is no coincidence that the unconditional surrender (my view) was “signed” after Shushi fell. In this way the Azeris can further humiliate the Armenians by losing their cultural capital. This is tragically reminiscent of Stalin giving territorial favors to Attarurk such as Igdir (Mt. Ararat) in an attempt to crush the Armenian psyche. At the end of this chapter, criminal behavior and moral decay prevailed over justice. It is that reality that has numbed our bodies with open wounds and paralyzing emotion. That emotion will eventually fade and our understanding will improve. It is then that our honorable people will adjust and live for another day. This much I am certain of. Imagine how the Armenians must have felt after the battle of Avarayr in 451—an epic defense but we lost the battle. The resistance continued for another 33 years and then our will prevailed. They mourned, analyzed and continued the good fight. Different time, same story. How do you think our people felt in December of 1920 when the First Republic was crushed by the same players—Russians and Turks. Some were relieved the fighting had stopped. Others wished to carry on (February revolt of 1921), but it was one of the darkest moments in our history. Artsakh lost. Nakhichevan lost. Ararat, Kars, Ardahan and Javakhk lost. Yet we endured to live for 1991. This book has not yet been completed.”
There have been protests in Armenia against Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan for signing the cease-fire which is regarded as a betrayal by many Armenians. It is unlikely, however, that Armenia can do very much without the support of outside allies. We can expect the Armenia constituency in the US to place pressure on American foreign policy to redress the perceived injustice.
I received this comment from one of our readers, worldweber2013, who raised a question that I have been pondering since I received it. It concerns my post of 7 November and I am certain that many are asking the same question. Here it is in its entirety:
“I am grateful to have these insights on the recent , and yet to be concluded election. I hope Joe Biden is listening when you say one of the issues facing the American people is how to deal with Mr. Trump. Addressing this painful and divisive question will require courage, discernment and grace.
“Whatever crimes Trump committed as president should be investigated to the extent that guilt or innocence is established, even if Trump is granted immunity from prosecution.
“And we, as a nation, need to deal with more than Trump as an individual. We must assess the weaknesses in the Constitution that his presidency has exposed. How can we as citizens be assured that disregard for the rule of law is never (again?) permitted to control the White House? Trump skated past the Mueller Investigation, which suggests that the power to investigate but not prosecute is insufficient to deter wrongdoing by the president, especially if said president can claim executive privilege, or security risk, or give other reasons for withholding information. If we accept that a president is entitled to stonewall for reasons of national security, then how does one hold them accountable? Do the checks and balances so essential to the configuration of our democracy, and so brilliantly devised by the authors of our constitution, protect us adequately? I would say, based on the past four years, that they do not. The writers of the constitution may have anticipated the election of a self-serving executive, but they apparently did not foresee the extent to which such an individual would be enabled by other self-serving persons in positions of power.
“Or would you, Vinnie, argue that the constitution has done its job, and we should be relieved and reassured?
“Can a constitutional framework be devised that does not rely on the integrity of the participants? If not, democracy depends on the vigilance, knowledge and integrity of the electorate. In which case, we just witnessed an epic fail of four year duration, and we appear to have narrowly avoided an even more debilitating second term.
The urgency of the comment has increased as we witness a full-throated attempt by Mr. Trump and his colleagues to undermine the election results, perhaps with an eye toward forcing the decision to state legislatures where the Republicans have a majority of states (although I would be hard-pressed to imagine Governor Baker of Massachusetts going along with such a travesty).
The critical question is: “Can a constitutional framework be devised that does not rely on the integrity of the participants?” The enforcement mechanism of the Constitution is loosely called checks and balances. The Constitution was written with the assumption that human beings would always want to accumulate power. The trick, then, was to structure power with three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial) so that the competition for power among the three branches would prevent any single branch from becoming pre-eminent.
In my lifetime, I have witnessed the slow consolidation of power in the Executive Branch of the government. But the deference of the Republican Party in the US Senate and its ability to manipulate the courts to mirror that preference during the Trump Administration (including the ability of Congress to prevent President Obama from placing Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court pre-dates the Trump Administration) has almost completely shredded the powers of the Congress. The Congress, apparently, no longer holds the power of the purse (witness Trump’s ability to secure funds for the border wall with Mexico without Congressional approval). Nor does it hold the power to investigate the actions of Executive Branch officials (witness the disregard of the Trump Administration to legal subpoenas).
There is no inherent reason why the Congress could not assert these powers (although the packing of the court system may render such a move bootless). But the answer to the question seems clear: the Constitution requires faithfulness to the Constitution to work. It apparently is incapable of enforcing itself. If Mr. Trump succeeds in vitiating the results of the 2020 election, then the last enforcement power–voting–will be rendered useless. In 1788 James Madison wrote in the Federalist No. 51: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” We seemingly have arrived at that point. The future of the American Republic really hangs in the balance right now.
Needless to say, I am delighted that Mr. Biden is now the President-elect. I suspect that there is little that Mr. Trump can do to change this outcome, but I also suspect that the transition will be ugly and perilous. The most important thing now is for President-elect Biden to outline his policies to address the many issues facing the American people.
One of those issues is how to deal with Mr. Trump. Much depends on how he conducts himself. In my lifetime, George Herbert Walker Bush and Jimmy Carter lost after serving one term in office. Both men conducted themselves with dignity and grace despite the deep emotional scar of failing to be re-elected. I think that Mr. Trump will not follow their footsteps.
It is probably important to divest ourselves as much as possible of the desire to seek revenge for Mr. Trump’s misdeeds. President Lincoln understood this well and was profoundly eloquent in his second inaugural address which is one of the most important speeches ever given. The speech was delivered on 4 March 1865 at the end of the Civil War, still the bloodiest conflict in American history. Lincoln’s task for the previous four years had been to save the Union; he was well aware that a successful end of the war for the Union forces was only the beginning of the final steps of his task: “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”
It is also important to separate Mr. Trump from his supporters. We need to understand and accept the fact that 70 million Americans voted for Mr. Trump. They cannot be dismissed. There are some supporters who deserve no sympathy: those who celebrate white supremacy, hatred for those with different gender identities, and those who believe that their brand of Christianity is the religion that should determine public policy and who show disdain for other religions. These Americans have always been a part of the American society and we should make every effort to teach our children that these patterns of thought are profoundly inconsistent with the better values of the American polity.
But the vast majority of Trump supporters are Americans who believe that they have been betrayed by the American political system. In truth, they are justified in their anger. Both the Democratic and Republican parties pursued policies that have led to the destruction of American jobs and the parties have constructed ways for the rich to concentrate wealth in this country that is probably worse than what the country experienced in the Gilded Age. President Obama was the best President in my lifetime, but I was crushed when he allowed the stimulus money to rectify the financial collapse in 2008 to go to the banks that created the crisis and not to the homeowners that lost their homes. We should keep in mind that corporations, not the government, sent jobs abroad. The fear of being labelled a “socialist” for making this observation is a page from Joe McCarthy’s playbook. We need to make this discussion legitimate and force it to the front of all our political discussions. Ignoring the growing inequality in American society will only aggravate the anger and resentment.
Finally, dealing with Mr. Trump and his enablers is essential, but must be done carefully. Too much of what happened in the last four years is completely unknown and the House of Representatives should be aggressive in uncovering all the details. We need to avoid two desires: first, to punish a person who took delight on inflicting pain on others; and, second, avoid the temptation to simply “move forward”. The US faced a similar problem in 1973 when President Nixon was forced to resign after the Watergate and other associated scandals. When his successor, President Ford (who was never elected to a position that gave him legitimacy to hold the office) pardoned Nixon, the US was in a bad state with the Vietnam War protests and the Oil Embargo. Ford probably did the right thing to pardon Nixon in order to help the country move forward. But this was true only because Nixon had the intelligence to resign from office.
Perhaps Mr. Trump will show similar intelligence in his fall from grace, but I doubt it. His need for public attention is insatiable and he will seize any circumstance and opportunity to force us to look at him and to talk about him. The country needs to be prepared for any attempts by Mr. Trump to rewrite history. Therefore, President Biden and the Congress should be willing to investigate Mr. Trump’s activities as thoroughly as possible and, if warranted, should be prepared to prosecute him as if he were an ordinary citizen because that is precisely what he will become in January 2021. The same is true for all the minions that supported any illegal activities.
The spirit of these investigations should be to re-establish the moral hazard of breaking the law and not to seek vengeance. It is crucially important that from now on we treat Mr. Trump as we would any other citizen. He has not earned and does not deserve any special favors. But we should also not allow ourselves to think that punishing Mr. Trump addresses the problems the nation currently faces. I understand fully the anger that many feel toward Mr. Trump because it burns deeply in my heart. We should heed the words of John Prine in his song, “Bruised Orange (Chain of Sorrow)”:
You can gaze out the window, get mad and get madder Throw your hands in the air, say “What does it matter?” But it don’t do no good to get angry So help me, I know
For a heart stained in anger grows weak and grows bitter You’ll become your own prisoner as you watch yourself sit there Wrapped up in a trap of your very own Chain of sorrow
We should also understand the extraordinary significance of this election. It signals the end of a generation that has dominated American politics for an extended period of time. Let us hope that we do not have another election in which the choices are between a person of 74 years of age and another of 77 years of age. It was also a transformational election. Biden won the election because of the hard work and commitment of people who are not well represented in American politics. Stacie Abrams delivered Georgia. Latinas and Latinos delivered Arizona. African-Americans proved to be the decisive voters in many US cities. Vice-President elect Harris should not be considered the exception; she should be considered the rule.
I did not raise my glass at 10:30 last night. Like many others, I was stunned by what unfolded. My prediction on the outcome of the election was significantly wide of the mark. Right now, it appears as if Biden is within striking distance of receiving 270 electoral votes but it would be premature to declare that he is the victor. I suspect that there will be many obstacles to a smooth transition to a Biden presidency. But everyone should be very suspicious of anything that I predict.
The reasons for my ill-fated predictions seemed obvious to me at the time I wrote them down and I genuinely do not believe that I was merely projecting my own biases. To me, the failure to respond effectively to the COVID-19 pandemic seemed clear and well-substantiated. In comparisons to other countries, such as South Korea, China, and Taiwan, the US situation is abysmal. I thought that the poor performance of the Trump Administration in what should be considered a very important matter would make Americans think seriously about getting new leadership. And I outlined all my other reasons for thinking that the outcome would be a convincing victory for the Democrats.
I am now stuck in the very uncomfortable position of not understanding at all the reasons why so many Americans support Trump and the Republican Party. The 2016 election was difficult for me to accept, but I thought I understood the anger and resentment that many Americans had toward the two parties. Trump represented a sharp divergence from the American political tradition and his election was for me confirmation that the American people wanted a decisive break from the old politics. Trump was the first Third-Party candidate to be elected President in American history. Indeed, elections in other countries, such as in France and in Great Britain, tended to validate the idea that many in the world were looking for something other than the headlong sprint into a fully globalized economy.
But the closeness of the election in 2020 undermines that explanation. Americans had four years to test out the “new” politics under Trump. And all the attributes that I thought were disqualifying–the xenophobia, the racism, the disregard of the environment, and the amplified economic inequality–are apparently not held to be negative to many of my fellow citizens.
So I am adrift. I pretend to be an analyst but I do not understand or comprehend the way the world actually appears to be to many of the people I purport to analyze. I live in a world where deaths from a virus can be considered “alternative” facts. I am, to crib the title of the novel by Robert Heinlein, a Stranger in a Strange Land. It is a disquieting feeling.
I have had a number of online discussions with a number of my friends about the election tomorrow and it is safe to say that there are high levels of anxiety about the outcome. I predict that we will know the result of the election no later than 10:30 pm tomorrow and that Biden will win convincingly. I make this prediction on the basis of these points.
The extraordinary number of early voters suggests to me that there are many people who are highly motivated to see Trump defeated. We are well aware of the devotion of Trump supporters. But their intensity of feeling is outmatched by the views of most that Trump cannot be allowed to remain in office.
There is little evidence to suggest that Trump has expanded his base from 2016 and more anecdotal evidence that some Trump supporters have been disappointed by the last four years. In addition, there are 4 million more voters than in 2016 and most of those voters are young people more likely to reject Trump’s view of what America should be.
The growing number of COVID cases is reaching into areas of the US that some thought would be unaffected by the pandemic. In the early days of the pandemic there was a widespread belief among Trump supporters that the pandemic would be confined to urban areas. That belief has proven to be wrong.
The economic downturn is proving to be deeper and more extensive than many expected. Given the rapid rate of increase in COVID infections, there is little reason to believe that the economy will perk up any time soon. The failure of the Congress to provide additional stimulus will most likely be attributed to Senator McConnell, and not to the Democrats.
If this prediction proves to be correct, then I invite you all to join me with a glass of single malt scotch at 10:30 tomorrow night. If, on the other hand, I turn out to be a dime short on my nickel bet, then I would encourage everyone to forget that they ever read this post. In the meantime, relax. There’s nothing that can be done between now and tomorrow night that will change anything.
French President Macron infuriated many Muslims by asserting that Islam is a religion in “crisis” after French teacher Samuel Paty was killed on 16 October after showing his students caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in a class exercise on freedom of speech. As reported by Al Jazeera:
“Top officials in the Muslim world have condemned France and Macron, including Pakistan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Iran; while tens of thousands have attended protests and called for a boycott of French goods.
“Tensions heated further on Wednesday after the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo published a new caricature depicting Erdogan. In response the Turkish president has threatened to sue the magazine.”
The tensions are rooted in a decision by the French periodical Charlie Hebdo to print caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed in 2015, a decision that resulted in widespread protests in France that left over 260 people dead. Those who are alleged to have murdered 17 people after the publication of the cartoons are currently on trial in France, the occasion which led to Paty’s class exercise. The BBC reports:
“Fourteen people are on trial in France over the deadly attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2015.
“Most of the alleged accomplices are in court in Paris, but three are being tried in absentia.
“They are accused of helping the militant Islamist attackers who shot dead 12 people in and around Charlie Hebdo’s Paris office in January 2015.
“In a related attack, a third gunman shot dead a policewoman, then attacked a Jewish store, killing four people.
“The 17 victims were killed over a period of three days. All three attackers were killed by police. The killings marked the beginning of a wave of jihadist attacks across France that left more than 250 people dead.”
France has had a rather strict policy of secularism, or laïcité, in its governmental affairs since the French Revolution when the Catholic Church was held to have been too intrusive in French life. Macron reiterated that policy in a recent speech earlier this month. In that speech, President Macron was critical of some members of the Muslim community:
“Mr Macron said ‘Islamist separatism’ was a danger to France because it held its own laws above all others and ‘often results in the creation of a counter-society’.
“He said this form of sectarianism often translated into children being kept out of school, and the use of sporting, cultural and other community activities as a ‘pretext to teach principles that do not conform to the laws of the republic’.
“‘Islam is a religion that is in crisis all over the world today, we are not just seeing this in our country.’
“The measures announced by the president will form legislation that will go to parliament before the end of the year.
“They include:
stricter monitoring of sports organisations and other associations so that they do not become a front for Islamist teaching
an end to the system of imams being sent to France from abroad
improved oversight of the financing of mosques
home-schooling restricted
“Mr Macron also said France must do more to offer economic and social mobility to immigrant communities, adding that radicals had often filled the vacuum.”
It is very difficult for a liberal society to enact laws against blasphemy. Indeed, liberal societies could not have been created without the decision to try and create conditions which would reduce the likelihood of religious conflict by essentially excluding religion from political debate.
In 2005, Evo Morales became Bolivia’s first President with almost pure indigenous roots, a rarity in Latin American politics which tended to favor candidates with European ancestry. He was an unabashed socialist and implemented many governmental reforms to favor Bolivia’s indigenous population and to reduce the severe income inequality that characterized the polity. Needless to say, his relationship with the US was strained and Morales forged close ties with other politicians in Latin America who favored the left, such as Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
Morales tried to change the constitution in 2019 to allow himself to run for a fourth term. That attempt alienated the Bolivian military and Morales was forced to resign and go into exile in Argentina. His departure sparked a serious crisis in Bolivian politics:
“Morales left the country in November after a disputed presidential election sparked countrywide protests and led the military to withdraw their support of him. Morales’ exit from office after nearly 14 years was labeled a coup by some and to others, a consequence of a power grab. For others it was both. Though he’s not running in the do-over election, Morales’ legacy – and the controversy over his final days in office – will likely weigh heavily on voters. His recent travels from Argentina to Cuba for ‘health reasons,’ as well as his effort to run for a seat in congress from outside the country, have also kept him front and center in the run-up to May’s vote.
“The result is a divided electorate and polarizing group of candidates. And it’s more than a simple left-versus-right divide. Morales’ Movement toward Socialism (MAS) is fielding a single candidate, but divisions on the left mean its coalition is weaker than in past elections. Meanwhile, several candidates on the center and right are clashing for the mantle of the anti-MAS vote.”
“‘It hurts,’ confessed Eva Copa, the 32-year-old senate president from Morales’ Movement Towards Socialism (Mas), her voice breaking and tears filling her eyes as she pondered what some thought might prove a fatal blow to their pro-indigenous project. ‘What has happened will leave scars.’
“Visibly exhausted, Copa admitted the outlook was uncertain, for her movement and Bolivia as a whole. ‘The last thing the Bolivian people want is more chaos,’ she said.
“But the young senator was adamant Mas could, and would rebuild. ‘We don’t need to refound ourselves. What we’re going to do is reorganise,’ Copa said. ‘We have faith we’ll pull through this.’
“That faith was well-placed. On Friday morning authorities confirmed a stunning political comeback with Mas’s candidate, the former finance minister Luis Arce, winning Sunday’s presidential election by a thumping 26.3% margin.
“His closest rival in the re-run of last October’s voided ballot, the centrist ex-president Carlos Mesa, received 28.8% of the 6.48m votes compared to Arce’s 55.1%. There was a record voter turnout of 88.4%.
When Morales was President, one of his most important initiatives was to control the exploitation of Bolivia’s considerable lithium reserves, an element that has become incredibly important in the production of batteries for electric automobiles. That policy triggered widespread speculation that outside powers engineered a coup against Morales in order to protect their access to Lithium:
“Bolivia’s tumultuous past year also features a powdery white subplot with worldwide implications. Not long after being forced out of the country, Morales and many of his supporters argued that he was ousted in part as a response to his attempts to nationalize the country’s lithium—a mineral used in batteries that power various clean energy technologies, including electric cars. “My crime, my sin, is to be an Indian,” he told American journalist Glenn Greenwald in an interview, “and to have nationalized our natural resources, removed the transnational corporations from the hydrocarbon sector and mining.” Morales had hoped that state-owned Yacimientos de Litio Boliviano, or YLB, would be able not just to mine lithium but refine it into lithium hydroxide and other compounds used in battery manufacturing. Tesla executive Elon Musk—whose renewables empire sources lithium mostly from Australia, not Bolivia—added to theories about a potential lithium coup this summer by tweeting, “We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it.”
Morales will likely return to Bolivia, but MAS seems determined to govern without his return to power. We should keep a close eye on how Bolivia decides to extract its reserves of Lithium. One would expect that Bolivia will seek to have the help of either Russia or China to extract the element and Western companies may be shut out of the process.
“Young protesters first took the streets almost two weeks ago after a video showing a brutal police shooting went viral. They demanded the abolition of a notorious and corrupt anti-robbery police squad known as SARS, and days into the protest, Buhari ordered the unit disbanded. But protesters, who had heard similar promises before, said they wanted prosecutions and an end to corruption.
“So, the protests instead grew into the largest Nigeria has seen since the 1980s, when people took the streets to denounce military rule. On some recent days, Lagos, a metropolis of 14 million people, came to standstill.”
“‘We’ve entered a really new chapter. We are seeing a rapid unravelling of the average Nigerian’s respect for the state and government. The protests are about police brutality but that’s just the tip of the iceberg,’ said Matthew Page, an expert on Nigeria at the London-based thinktank Chatham House.
“The causes for discontent are diverse: a stagnating authority, soaring unemployment, inadequate infrastructure, deep inequality – and a widespread sense that nothing is likely to change. One slogan seen at the protests has been: ‘Stop killing the leaders of tomorrow’.
“Nigeria has some of Africa’s biggest and most globalised cities, and a population with a median age of 18. As elsewhere on the continent, protesters have been drawn predominantly from a young, urban demographic, with popular icons from the worlds of music and film playing high-profile roles.”
The protests have been met with force and there are reports that many protesters have been killed. Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari is viewed with suspicion by many Nigerians in the south of the country and it is not likely that he will be able to address many of the concerns raised by the protests. But Nigeria is one of the most important countries in the world and it would be a serious mistake for the world to ignore these protests.
World Politics News 