World Politics News   Articles for World Politics Course

Israel has confirmed that it destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007.  The strike was not a secret and most knew that Israel conducted it, so the question is why did Israel break its long-standing tradition of staying silent?  There was a fear that the admission was going to be released in an upcoming memoirs by former Prime Minster Barak and former Defense Minster Barak, due to be published this spring.  But it also highly likely that Israel is sending a message to Iran if the nuclear agreement with the P-5+1 breaks down in May if the US decides to withdraw from the agreement.  It is important to remember that the Israeli strike in 2007 was a “preventive” strike, not a “pre-emptive” strike.

Many are evacuating the area of Eastern Ghouta in Syria which has been subjected to intense bombardment in recent months.  The area has long been held by rebels opposed to President Assad, but the humanitarian crisis in the city is clearly overwhelming and untenable.  The evacuation represents a victory for Assad.  But it is a Pyrrhic one since his government is saddled with large debts, the loss of a large proportion of the population, and widespread destruction of many formerly productive areas.  Assad may emerge as the leader of a country that will be on life support for many years to come.

China has blamed the US for its balance of payments deficit with China.  As President Trump announced new tariffs and other restrictions on trade with China, the Chinese point out that the US has many export restrictions on goods sold to China, primarily of high technology products.  China would willingly buy those products if it could.  The US is angry about the loss of intellectual property, but tariffs are not nearly precise enough to alleviate that problem.  They will, however, spark a response from China.

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman is in Washington to meet with US President Trump.  The main topic of discussion will be Iran since the US must make a decision by 12 May whether to recertify the Iran nuclear agreement.  In an interview with CBS News, Salman stated that it Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia would no choice but to develop them as well.  Logic would suggest that the US should not break the Iran nuclear agreement to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to yet another state.  But it appears as if the opposite path is going to be followed, particularly now with Mike Pompeo, a noted opponent of the agreement, as DirectorUS o of the CIA and the rumor that John Bolton, another fierce opponent of the agreement, will succeed McMaster as the National Security Advisor.  But there are members of Congress who wish to condemn US cooperation with Saudi Arabia in the war against Yemen, and that opposition may complicate the US-Saudi discussions.

Mohammed bin Salman

There are reports that n the national security clauses of US law and could therefore be implemented unilaterally by the President, the Chinese tariffs need to undergo a period of public review before they can go into effect.  It is highly likely that many US companies will lobby hard against the tariffs, relieving the Chinese of an immediate response to the tariffs.  Nonetheless, China’s response was highly negative  and the prospect of a trade war with China is not remote.

Israeli historian, Yuval Noah Harari, conducted a rather depressing interview with the New York Times about the future of humanity given current technological trends.  One paragraph of the story goes as follows:

“Just as the Industrial Revolution created the working class, automation could create a “global useless class,” Mr. Harari said, and the political and social history of the coming decades will revolve around the hopes and fears of this new class.  Disruptive technologies, which have helped bring enormous progress, could be disastrous if they get out of hand.”

There are good reasons to suspect that the future will not be so grim, but Harari’s prediction is not fanciful.  But unless societies decide to prevent such a future, it may well be inevitable.

Katie LaRoque is a Mount Holyoke alumna who served in Ukraine for the Peace Corps.  She has spent a great deal of time in Ukraine after her Peace Corps service and has become a distinguished analyst of the country.  She has written an article for The Hill which argues that corruption in Ukraine hampers the struggle against Russian attacks on Ukrainian sovereignty.  Her conclusion is straightforward:

“Until Ukraine wins its internal war on corruption, it will be more difficult to make the case to residents of occupied Crimea and the Donbass that their reintegration would bring about a full and equal partnership in Ukraine’s political development. A well-governed Ukraine reduces the vulnerability of these already vulnerable regions to Russian influence, and gives citizens a stake in Ukraine’s future as a united democratic country.”

She also stresses the need for the US and the European Union to offer support for the anti-corruption efforts.  Such efforts must be coordinated carefully with local authorities to avoid the appearance of outside interference.  An important article for a conflict that has largely been forgotten in the US.

In 2004 a movie entitled “The Day After Tomorrow” was released which posited a change in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) because of climate change.  The ocean currents carry warm, salty water to the north, and cold, freshwater then circulates back down to the tropics.  It is a relatively stable and accounts for the stability of the Gulf Stream which keeps northwestern Europe fairly warm in the winter.  The movie overdramatized the possibilities of such a change and the consequences from such a change.  But there is no question that such a change is possible and we are beginning to see evidence that the AMOC is changing.   The Washington Post summarizes the research and articulates the tentativeness of the findings:

“Again, it’s important to underscore that there are no predictions in this study about when these processes would reach such a threshold or cause a major switch to a new regime. Climate change simulations have generally found that while global warming should indeed weaken the Atlantic overturning circulation, that should play out gradually — but scientists acknowledge that these simulations are not necessarily complete.”

The evidence suggests that the process has been going on since 2008 but there is no way to determine at this time whether the process is unusually rapid nor is there any way to determine the threshold at which dramatic changes could be expected.

The Tax Justice Network has published its annual Financial Secrecy Index which”ranks jurisdictions according to their secrecy and the scale of their offshore financial activities. A politically neutral ranking, it is a tool for understanding global financial secrecy, tax havens or secrecy jurisdictions, and illicit financial flows or capital flight.”  People use these jurisdictions in order to hide their money from tax authorities, creditors, or disgruntled relatives.  According to the report:

“An estimated $21 to $32 trillion of private financial wealth is located, untaxed or lightly taxed, in secrecy jurisdictions around the world. Secrecy jurisdictions – a term we often use as an alternative to the more widely used term tax havens – use secrecy to attract illicit and illegitimate or abusive financial flows.

“Illicit cross-border financial flows have been estimated at $1-1.6 trillion per year: dwarfing the US$135 billion or so in global foreign aid. Since the 1970s African countries alone have lost over $1 trillion in capital flight, while combined external debts are less than $200 billion. So Africa is a major net creditor to the world – but its assets are in the hands of a wealthy élite, protected by offshore secrecy; while the debts are shouldered by broad African populations.”

Switzerland leads the list and the US is in second place (for a full list of the jurisdictions, click here).  Political institutions create the laws that provide the secrecy and thus deprives the states from collecting taxes.  Government revenues would be substantially greater if those political institutions took away the ability to hide such great wealth. The laws provide a grotesque way for the poor to subsidize the rich.

The Guardian is reporting on new research which suggests that current policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are unlikely to forestall serious changes to many parts of the world.  According to The Guardian:

“The world’s greatest forests could lose more than half of their plant species by the end of the century unless nations ramp up efforts to tackle climate change, according to a new report on the impacts of global warming on biodiversity hotspots.

“Mammals, amphibians, reptiles and birds are also likely to disappear on a catastrophic scale in the Amazon and other naturally rich ecosystems in Africa, Asia, North America and Australia if temperatures rise by more than 1.5C, concludes the study by WWF, the University of East Anglia and the James Cook University.

The article contains several graphs which dramatically show how the current reductions designed to limit temperatures to 1.5°C are profoundly insufficient to protect these ecosystems since the actions taken fall far short of meeting that goal.  In the worst cases, almost half of the plant and animal species in the Amazon forest will die off.

FDD Long War Journal is reporting that the US has been actively launching attacks against suspected terrorist groups in Yemen.  There has been little reporting on US military actions in Yemen.  The blog states:

“The United States’ air campaign in Yemen has shown no signs of slowing down. US forces conducted 12 airstrikes against terrorist groups in Yemen over the last month that were not publicly announced, FDD’s Long War Journal has learned.

“Maj. Josh T. Jacques at US Central Command Communication Integration said yesterday in an email that “U.S. forces have conducted twenty-two (22) strikes against AQAP and ISIS-Y terrorists in Yemen 2018.” The US had conducted 10 counterterrorism strikes in Yemen when CENTCOM last issued a press release updating figures in early in February.

“The latest data put this year’s number of strikes on-pace to fall just short of last year’s record surge. In 2017, the United States conducted a record 131 strikes in Yemen.”

The humanitarian crisis in Yemen is one of the worst in the world.  It is also a proxy conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the US has weighed in heavily on the side of Saudi Arabia.  Unfortunately, very few Americans are aware of how deeply involved the US is in this balance of power struggle.

There are reports that US President Trump is seeking to reduce the trade deficit with China by $100 billion (out of $375 billion deficit with China overall) and invoking penalties on alleged theft of intellectual property seems to be part of his strategy.  The tariffs would be based on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law that has been invoked very infrequently since the creation of the World Trade Organization which is supposed to adjudicate such matters.  Needless to say, China has a dim view of Mr. Trump’s proposals. An editorial in China Times is quite blunt:

“China won’t allow itself to be trampled upon. Perhaps it is China’s destiny to struggle with the US only in order to teach Washington a lesson. In which case, so be it.”

Unfortunately, any trade war between the US and China would have serious consequences for the rest of the world.

US President Trump has fired Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson.  It has long been known that Trump and Tillerson were not a good match (it is reported that Tillerson once referred to the President as a “moron”), but the termination comes rather abruptly.  Tillerson was warned that his job was in jeopardy, but fund out officially via Twitter.  Tillerson did not protect the personnel of the State Department which has seen a rather remarkable exodus of highly competent persons.  Tillerson also supported the Iranian nuclear agreement (Pompeo, like Trump, is a fierce opponent) and has consistently supported diplomacy in the dispute with North Korea.

President Trump has named CIA Director Mike Pompeo as his next Secretary of State and has nominated Gina Haspel as the CIA Director.  Haspel is a long-time CIA professional and is apparently highly regarded within the Agency.  But she comes with a great deal of baggage.  She was responsible for much of the torture (“enhanced interrogation techniques”) used by the CIA during the “war on terror”.  That CIA program was soundly condemned by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in 2014.  Dexter Filkins contextualizes Haspel’s appointment:

“Haspel, a career C.I.A. employee, took part in another of the agency’s darkest moments: the destruction, in 2005, of video tapes of the interrogation of Zubaydah and a second suspect, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, at whose torture she was present, three years before.

“Because Haspel’s new job is exempt from congressional confirmation, it’s doubtful she will ever have to publicly answer questions about her role in what amounts to America’s dirty war.” [editor’s note: I thought that the CIA Director did require confirmation–I will check into this matter.  It does, Filkins is wrong]

The appointment of Pompeo likely signals the end of the Iranian nuclear agreement which Pompeo has soundly condemned.  It is highly unlikely that the other partners to the agreement will leave, so we will have to see what Iran does when it happens or if the US imposes new sanctions on Iran.  But there is little question that the agreement has succeeded in its primary objective to at least delay the development of an Iranian nuclear bomb for at least ten years.   Pompeo also favors a very hard line on North Korea.  In an interview with CBS News he stated that he agreed with Trump’s objective of “the complete verifiable irreversible denuclearization of North Korea.”  The words complete, verifiable, and irreversible are very high bars for any agreement and would require an intrusiveness that North Korea would never allow.

Yet another former Russian has been killed in Great Britain, an emigre named Boris Berezovsky.  Last week, Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with Novichok, a poison developed by the former Soviet Union.  British Prime Minister May gave the Russians a deadline of midnight Tuesday night to respond to the charge of attempted assassination.  It is not clear what sanctions Great Britain may impose on Russia for the assault, but if they are to be effective, the EU and the US must support them.  The Russian Foreign Ministry’s spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, said in a televised interview: “no one can come to parliament and say: ‘I give Russia 24 hours.'”  According to US News and World Reports, she also said that “Britain mustn’t try to scare Russia and pointed to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent speech in which he presented a range of new nuclear weapons.”  Initially, President Trump did not fully endorse Prime Minister May’s accusation, but more recent reports suggest that he might be willing to blame Russia for the assassination.

On this day in 1947, US President Truman announced what would come to be known as the Truman Doctrine.  The Truman Doctrine announced US support for democracies all over the planet.  It was triggered by the belief that the Soviet Union was growing stronger and becoming more attractive to polities in Europe and in the newly decolonized states.  The US was told by the British that they could no longer guarantee the security of the eastern Mediterranean and there were scattered uprisings in Turkey and Greece that were interpreted as Soviet-inspired.  At that point in time, the defense of the emerging liberal international order, set up by President Roosevelt, was confined to the institutions created in 1944–the United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions (the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and what we now call the World Trade Organization).  Truman, stimulated by the fear of Soviet power, decided that the US needed to defend those institutions militarily.  At that moment, the Cold War crystallized and would endure until the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The Pew Research Center  conducted a public opinion survey in 35 countries and found that in countries where people did not have a strong affiliation with a political party support for democracy was low.  Competing political parties formed the bedrock of representative democracy and robust competition among parties was a key index of the health of a democracy.  The finding is depressingly consistent with elections in liberal democracies since the Great Recession of 2008-09.  Many of these elections were determined, not by support for a political party, but rather for those who claimed to be outside the mainstream of political parties.  The erosion of these democracies blurs the distinction between liberal and illiberal states and it seems right now that illiberalism is becoming far more common.

One thing to watch carefully as a Trump-Kim summit is being considered is the reaction of China.  The Chinese have historically supported North Korea and most certainly do not wish to see it disappear.  But relations between China and North Korea have been difficult in recent years as Kim has forged a path for North Korea without consideration for Chinese concerns in East Asia.  It would be very difficult to reconcile US and Chinese regional and hegemonic objectives in such a summit and the Chinese do not wish to be excluded from such an important meeting.  At this point I doubt that the meeting will even be held, but the Chinese can probably be counted on to throw obstacles in the path of such a planned summit.  The South Koreans are making every effort to keep the Chinese in the loop because they are acutely aware of Chinese sensitivities on the matter.

It is now official.  China’s National People’s Congress eliminated term limits from its constitution giving current President Xi Jinping the right to rule indefinitely.  The change is yet another setback for those of us who hoped that China would slowly establish a robust democracy.  China’s censors have been working overtime to suppress any criticism of the change. The Malaysian newspaper, the New Straits Times describes the change as “further evidence of the world’s slide towards more nationalist, authoritarian regimes”.  The censorship extends to virtually every space on the internet and includes blocking works by George Orwell and references to Winnie the Pooh who some Chinese believe Mr. Xi resembles.

President Xi Jinping

Enrique Krause has written a long essay on the situation in Venezuela for the New York Review of Books.  Krause makes the argument that it is poor governance, not the collapse in global oil prices, that is responsible for the misery in Venezuela.  His characterization of the lives of ordinary Venezuelans is stark:

“This is a humanitarian crisis of immense proportions. By May 2017, Venezuela’s minimum monthly wage wasn’t enough to meet even 12 percent of a single person’s basic food needs.² A survey of 6,500 households by three prestigious universities showed that 74 percent of the population had lost on average nineteen pounds in 2016. Infant mortality in hospitals has risen by 100 percent. Diseases nearly eradicated in many countries, like malaria and diphtheria, have flourished; illnesses largely new to the area, like Chikungunya, Zika, and dengue, have spread. Caracas is now the most dangerous city on the planet. All this is happening in a country that has one of the largest oil reserves in the world.”

The villain in this story is Nicolás Maduro who took power after Hugo Chavez died in 2013.  Maduro has crushed the opposition despite heroic and massive protests against his rule.  Elections are scheduled for May, but the main opposition parties have vowed to boycott the vote.

A third state plagued by the rise of authoritarianism is Egypt.  President Abdel Fatah al-Sissi is running for re-election and there is little evidence that there is an organized opposition willing to contest the election.  The Washington Post describes the state of Egyptian politics:

“Over the past year, Sissi has intensified an assault on basic freedoms. Hundreds of websites deemed critical of his regime have been blocked. Extrajudicial killings are rising, human rights groups say. Countless opponents have been jailed, “forcibly disappeared” or sidelined in other ways, targeted often by security forces in the name of combating terrorism, especially a virulent Islamic State affiliate in the northern Sinai Peninsula.”

As in China, Egyptian authorities are trying to suppress the spread of unflattering news.  The US appears to be unwilling to apply pressure on Egypt, despite lavishing it with significant foreign aid.  Sissi runs few risks for dismantling Egyptian democracy.

There is still a great deal of ambiguity about the tariffs that President Trump has threatened on steel and aluminum.  He has, however, claimed that “trade wars are good, and easy to win”.  The historical record, however, does not support that characterization.  The essential point about trade wars is that tariffs almost invariably invite retaliation and the tit-for-tat responses raise prices and reduce demand.  Outside of Europe, most countries have held back in identifying specific retaliatory tariffs, but virtually every country has indicated that they will do so once it is clear how the US will implement its plans. One of the more interesting countries to watch is South Korea which has one of the most open trading arrangements with the US of any country outside of North America.  South Korea has already been harmed by the US tariffs on washing machines, and will suffer significantly if the steel tariffs are levied on its steel.   But the US also desperately needs South Korean cooperation in the ongoing dispute over North Korea’s nuclear program.

Trade wars are also related to actual military conflict.  Trade does not always bring peace, but trade disputes often escalate into actual conflict if there is a power disparity between the trading partners.   The Opium Wars between the British and the Chinese is perhaps the most obvious example, but there is also considerable evidence linking the trade wars in the early 1930s to the outbreak of World War II.  The US decision to halt petroleum and iron ore exports to Japan in the 1930s likely tipped the political balance to the war factions in Japan.

The British Iron-clad Naval Vessels Outmatched the Wooden Chinese Ships in the Opium Wars

We are still trying to determine the consequences of the decision by the Chinese Communist Party to allow President Xi Jinping to stand for another election.   Liberals bemoan the possible emergence of another authoritarian leader in the world who refuses to abide by norms that prevent personal power from determining the terms of governance.  But the Chinese seem to think that their model offers a viable alternative to the chaos usually associated with democracy.  Given the breakdown of democratic norms in the world at this point in time, there are many who are attracted to the possibility of a “Chinese model” for governance.

Patrick Smyth has written an op-ed piece for the Irish Times on the decline of social democracy in Europe.   Smyth has a panoramic view of European politics, including his interpretation of the recent Italian elections, and his argument is sobering:

“Like it or not the consensus politics of the postwar years are coming to an end, surviving perhaps only in the renewed, weakened German coalition of Angela Merkel and the Social Democrats (SPD). The changing times are manifest in the previously taboo willingness of politicians to bring far-right, sometimes openly fascist parties, into governments from Austria to Greece to Finland.”

The collapse of the left and center-left has paralyzed democratic politics, and now most voters view the choices as between right and far-right parties.  The problem is not so much that voters are attracted to the right-wing.  They do not believe that the left has any vision for the future.  Much of that disillusion has to do with the collapse of socialism in the 1990s.  But one would think that the legacies of the Great Recession would have energized, not eviscerated, the left.

US President’s Trump’s announcement that he will accept an invitation from North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, caught everyone by surprise.  The invitation came after a South Korean delegation met with the North Korean leader, and those officials came directly to Washington to convey the invitation.

I honestly do not know how to assess this development.  On the one hand, any attempt at diplomacy is to be welcomed, particularly after the fiery rhetoric from both sides in recent months.  As I have indicated in previous posts, I think that the US recognizing North Korea as a nuclear power is the correct stance.  It is a nuclear power and should be treated as such.  Moreover, I think that North Korea has developed a nuclear capability not to attack anyone but to deter a US attack.  One must deal with the world as it is.

On the other hand, I find it difficult to figure out what is actually going on.  North Korea has tested six nuclear bombs and has tested a missile that comes close to intercontinental ranges.  It remains unclear whether the North Koreans have miniaturized a warhead to fit on the missile and whether it has a guidance system sufficient to lend targeting capability.  Thus, North Korea has come very close to developing a capability that can threaten the US homeland, a crucial attribute necessary for effective deterrence.  It has, however, not conducted any tests since last November and, with the prospect of meeting President Trump sometime soon, it is unlikely to conduct any additional tests that might jeopardize the meeting.

It is also probably the case that President Trump’s rhetoric and his success in forging sanctions that have genuinely harmed the North Korean economy.  Thus, Trump’s strategy has achieved short-term success in shifting North Korean strategy to a diplomatic track.  That diplomatic track also makes it impossible for the US to launch an attack on North Korea but also gives North Korea additional time to further develop its capabilities.

President Trump’s decision to meet Kim also satisfies one of North Korea’s key objectives: to be treated with respect.  Meeting the US President was an objective that Kim’s father and grandfather also desired but failed to realize.  There is probably no way for Mr. Trump to meet Kim without treating North Korea as a legitimate state.

That is a critical concession by the US and much depends on what it gets in return.  We have subsequently learned that Mr. Trump’s announcement was later modified by the White House Press Secretary, Sarah Sanders:

“Let’s be very clear. The United States has made zero concessions but North Korea has made some promises. This meeting won’t take place without concrete actions that match the promises that have been made by North Korea.”

Additionally, US Secretary of State Tillerson said:

“In terms of direct talks with the United States — and you asked negotiations, and we’re a long ways from negotiations….I don’t know yet, until we are able to meet ourselves face to face with representatives of North Korea, whether the conditions are right to even begin thinking about negotiations.”

These details will likely be worked out.  President Trump is unlikely to back down from the meeting now, but he may find pressure building to attach preconditions that Kim will not be able to meet.  The President is also hampered by the serious lack of Korean experts currently in the Administration.

We should all keep in mind that North Korea has broken promises to previous US administrations (See the 6 March post on this blog).  The most recent broken promise was made to US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 2000.  President Trump should also be aware that if he meets with Kim he must be prepared to offer concessions to North Korea if he expects North Korea to make concessions.  Apparently, South Korea and the US have agreed that US aircraft carriers will not participate in the scheduled military exercises (and perhaps nuclear submarines as well), a significant concession that is not widely known. If he goes to the meeting with only the single objective of denuclearization, then the meeting will not succeed.  First, the North Koreans define denuclearization in terms of the US-South Korean alliance so the US needs to know what the South Koreans are willing to concede.  Second, denuclearization will be nearly impossible to verify without extremely intrusive inspections, something the North Koreans would be unlikely to accept.  Inspecting a non-nuclear Iran was difficult; inspecting a country which may already have between 30-60 nuclear bombs would be very difficult.

President Trump should also be aware of the fact that denuclearization is an objective that no other country save Japan believes critically important.  South Korean President Moon has already decided that diplomacy is the only route to better relations with the North.  China and Russia have already accepted North Korea’s status as a nuclear power.  So the US will be negotiating without allies supporting its singular objective.  Moreover, there is substantial evidence that substantial portions of President Trump’s administration do not support any concessions to North Korea:  the military, the intelligence community, and many Republicans.

With all these caveats in mind, I think the idea of a meeting is a worthwhile risk since I am not deeply troubled by North Korea’s status as a nuclear power.  Perhaps Kim should think seriously about having a very dramatic and impressive military parade.

US President Trump has formally announced that the US will impose tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.  I am not sure what the President signed today, but presumably it is a finding that the tariffs are being imposed to protect US national security.  That authority comes from Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.  The Commerce Department has submitted reports to the President that these imports do in fact jeopardize US national Security.  The information provided by the White House, however, does not provide specific terms of the President’s order.

First, the information emphasizes the need to protect jobs in both industries.  There is a national security aspect to employment in certain industries:  trained workers need to be available in case of a national security.  But the information briefing emphasizes the economic aspect of protecting jobs:

“The tariffs on steel and aluminum are anticipated to reduce imports to levels needed for these industries to achieve long-term viability.

“As a result, these industries will be able to re-open closed mills, sustain a skilled workforce, and maintain or increase production.

“The strengthening of our domestic steel and aluminum industries will reduce our reliance on foreign producers.”

Second, Canada and Mexico will be exempted from these tariffs, pending a renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA).  These two countries account for 27% of US steel imports and 42% of aluminum imports.   It is hard to argue that Mexico and Canada pose a national security threat to the US and the size of the imports from these countries suggest that it would be very difficult to have a sizable impact on the economic viability of the two industries.

Third, the economic viability of these industries does not depend upon tariffs.   The jobs losses in the steel and aluminum industries are more closely associated with automation, not imports.  Additionally, aluminum smelters in the US have largely disappeared (there are only two left in the US) because of the environmental damage they cause (the same reason why there are so few oil refineries in the US).

Fourth, it is hard to imagine that US trading partners will not respond to these tariffs.   The 11 countries who along with the US forged the Trans-Pacific Partnership until Mr. Trump withdrew US participation have announced that they are going to go forward with the trade pact and will invite China to join.  The US will be shut out of the agreement which will certainly have a negative impact on US industries.

Fifth, Mr. Trump singles out China as the biggest offender in the world trading system.  Yet Mr. Trump’s actions do not address China’s behavior in any way.  As The Economist notes:

“But anti-dumping and countervailing duties have already shut most Chinese steel out of the American market. And the tariffs will alienate WTO members with which America might otherwise make common cause. In December 2017 America, the EU and Japan released a joint statement saying that they would work together to combat “market distorting and protectionist practices”—by which they meant “China”. That looks harder now. To add to the incoherence, America is no longer pursuing a WTO case against Chinese aluminium subsidies started by Barack Obama’s administration in 2017. Instead of helping keep China’s rise within the rules, Mr Trump is providing a distraction from it.”

Finally, the whole trade issue has not been framed in a way that accurately informs good decision-making.  Much of Mr. Trump’s rhetoric is based upon selective interpretations of data that is complex and hard to document with hard evidence.  The Washington Post has published a very good article on other ways to interpret the debate over the US trade deficit. 

One of the most ambiguous developments in world politics is the advent of what we loosely call “cyberwarfare”.   Did Russian meddling in the US presidential election of 2016 constitute what we have called in the past as an “armed attack” justifying acts of self-defense?  Ryan Goodman has published an interesting essay on the ambiguities of interpreting cyberwarfare in the traditional framework of world politics.  The essay is a very thoughtful one raising serious problems if one were to regard cyberwarfare in the same terms as traditional uses of “force”.