World Politics News   Articles for World Politics Course

US National Security Adviser McMaster continues to ramp up the rhetoric against North Korea, telling the BBC that US policy is “not committed to a peaceful resolution — we’re committed to a resolution.  We have to be prepared, if necessary, to compel the denuclearization of North Korea without the cooperation of that regime”.  (To see the video of the BBC interview with McMaster, click on the link below) Further, Yonhap News from South Korea reported on 17 December that “South Korean and U.S. forces conducted a joint training last week for infiltrating North Korea and removing weapons of mass destruction in case of conflict”.  Last August, Business Insider published a report on how such an attack to seize North Korea’s nuclear weapons would go down.  Finally, The New York Times is reporting that the Chinese are building five refugee camps along the North Korean border in case there is a flood of refugees after an attack on the country.  The Chinese are also conducting air force drills over the Yellow and East seas near the Korean peninsula along “routes and areas it has never flown before” signaling “a warning to Washington and Seoul not to provoke Pyongyang any further”.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/embed/p05rhjgq/42403260

The European Union is initiating a process to penalize Poland for violating the human rights protections of the Union.  The process, invoked by Article 7 of the Union Treaty, could ultimately strip Poland of its right to vote on Union matters.  The process started after Poland passed a new law that could “force two-fifths of Supreme Court Justices to retire and give politicians sway over court appointments”.  The European Commission outlined its reasons for initiating the process in defense of judicial independence in Poland in a press release.  The European Council head, who is also a former Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk stated that “Poland is perceived today as a disintegrating force in this part of Europe and this is why I believe that it is important to end this devastation of Poland’s reputation”.  It is unlikely that Article 7 will be fully invoked since it requires a unanimous vote of all 27 members of the Union and Hungary, led by Viktor Orban, is highly sympathetic to the new Polish law.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is an extraordinary initiative which, in a very real sense, will try to revitalize the old Silk Road trading routes.  China is building a transportation infrastructure that promises to unite East, South, and Central Asian markets with those in Europe and Africa.  Much of this infrastructure is being built with Chinese loans, the terms of which rarely conform to the transparency required of most loans proffered by international banks or international lending agencies (environmental reviews, for example, are rarely conducted).  Countries are usually required to offer the facility being constructed as collateral on the loans, so that in the case of a default China simply takes control over it.  In this manner China has taken over the Greek port of Piraeus, the Australian port of Darwin, the port in Djibouti, and most recently the Sri Lankan port of Hambantota.  The takeover are 99-year leases, similar to the leases taken out by the British over the Chinese port of Hong Kong many years ago and that of the American lease over the Cuban port of Guantanamo in 1899.  Some patterns of imperialism never die.

The US vetoed, for the first time in the last six years, a resolution in the UN Security Council.  The resolution was introduced by Egypt and read, in part,

“…that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered, the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council.”

The resolution also called upon member states “to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem.”

The vote was 14-1 in favor of the resolution.  Great Britain, Japan, and France voted in favor of the resolution, as did Russia and China.  The Palestinians called immediately for a meeting of the UN General Assembly to discuss the matter, indicating at the same time that it no longer considers the US to be an effective mediator in the peace negotiations.

In an editorial in Global Times, which often serves as a mouthpiece for the Chinese government, China has responded to the National Security Strategy report released by the US yesterday.  The editorial reads like a tutorial on the theory of international relations:

“US President Donald Trump on Monday released the new National Security Strategy, citing China and Russia as competitors. He defined China and Russia as ‘revisionist’ countries that ‘challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity.’ The document also pillories China for seeking to ‘replace’ the US in Asia and claims that China ‘expanded its power at the expense of the sovereignty of others.’

“Trump’s new strategy report directly highlights the rivalry between Beijing and Washington, which might be a result of changes in the balance of power. It also indicates the White House has now adopted a different view toward US-China relations. For instance, previous administrations concentrated more on developing Sino-US collaboration, through which they expected to mollify bilateral contradictions. The Trump government, on the contrary, may input more resources to rival and pressure China, in the hope that Beijing will seek cooperation with Washington on Washington’s terms.

“This report is a manifestation of the Trump administration’s tough posture, which counts on US power instead of international rules. It showcases Washington’s indisputable insistence on its global hegemony. Neither Beijing nor Moscow will buy it.”

China’s response is not surprising.  It views its return to great power politics as normal and its weakness in the 20th century as an aberration.  It remains to be seen whether President Trump shares that point of view.  Russia characterized the new strategy as “imperial”.

President Trump’s National Security Adviser, H.R. McMaster, was interviewed by Norah O’Donnell on CBS News on Tuesday morning.  In the interview, McMaster was asked the following question by one of O’Donnell’s colleagues:

ANTHONY MASON: So General, you’re saying that there’s — is there any way in which the US can coexist with a nuclear North Korea?

MCMASTER: Anthony, I don’t think we can’t tolerate that risk. The world can’t tolerate that risk. I mean, if North Korea has a nuclear weapon, I mean, who are you going to try to prevent getting one? Look at the behavior of this regime, the hostility of this regime to the whole world.

I am not sure how to interpret McMaster’s response.  After all, North Korea is a nuclear power–it has exploded six bombs, and the US has “co-existed” with North Korea since its first nuclear test in 2006.  Experts estimate that North Korea could have between 30 and 60 nuclear warheads.  So, apparently, the US can coexist with a nuclear North Korea, as have Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan.  But McMaster has something else in mind.

The US has issued its annual security report, a report that is mandated by Congress.  The report is a way for the President to outline the priorities of American foreign policy, to identify strategic threats, and to lay out the defense spending necessary to implement the foreign policy.  This year, President Trump has submitted a report that emphasizes the economic foundations of defense strategy.  The key threats are identified early on in the report: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran (p. 2).  The report, as published, suggests that it was a rush job.  A key part of the report reads:

“The United States must retain overmatch—the combination of capabilities in sufficient scale to prevent enemy success and to ensure that America’s sons and daughters will never be in a fair fight.” (p. 28)

I suspect that the sentence should read “that America’s sons and daughters will [always] be in a fair fight.”

The report also reads:

“The Joint Force must remain capable of deterring and defeating the full range of threats to the United States. The Department of Defense must develop new operational concepts and capabilities to win without assured dominance in air, maritime, land, space, and cyberspace domains, including against those operating below the level of conventional military conflict.” (p. 29)

Winning without dominating the field is called “luck”.  I am not sure that the Defense Department would be satisfied with non-dominant capabilities.

Moreover, there are numerous inconsistencies in the document.

First, the report singles out transnational criminal organizations as a security threat: “The United States must devote greater resources to dismantle transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) and their subsidiary networks. Some have established global supply chains that are comparable to Fortune 500 corporations.” (p. 11-12) The point is unquestionably true, but there is no mention of any intent to clamp down on offshore banking which is the principal mechanism for the money-laundering that keeps criminal money flowing freely.

Second, the report mentions foreign interference with domestic use of electronic communications: “The United States will impose swift and costly consequences on foreign governments, criminals, and other actors who undertake significant malicious cyberactivities.” (p. 13)  Additionally, the report says: ” These attacks can undermine faith and confidence in democratic institutions and the global economic system.” (p. 31) But there is no mention of Russian interference in US elections or the penalties imposed on Russia for those activities.

Third, the report emphasizes the need to attract innovators and inventors: “The United States must continue to attract the innovative and the inventive, the brilliant and the bold. We will encourage scientists in government, academia, and the private sector to achieve advancements across the full spectrum of discovery, from incremental improvements to game-changing breakthroughs.” (p. 20).  But a few pages later, the text says: “The United States will review visa procedures to reduce economic theft by non-traditional intelligence collectors. We will consider restrictions on foreign STEM students from designated countries to ensure that intellectual property is not transferred to our competitors, while acknowledging the importance of recruiting the most advanced technical workforce to the United States.” (p. 22)

Fourth, the report departs profoundly from previous national security reports that identifies climate change as an important security threat to the US.  Instead, the report outlines a policy toward climate change that borders on the incoherent: “Climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system. U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests. Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty.” (p. 22)   Indeed, the report emphasizes the need to export more fossil fuels to the rest of the world: “The United States will promote exports of our energy resources, technologies, and services, which helps our allies and partners diversify their energy sources and brings economic gains back home. We will expand our export capacity through the continued support of private sector development of coastal terminals,
allowing increased market access and a greater competitive edge for U.S. industries.”  (p. 23)  Renewable energies do not require coastal terminals–only fossil fuels do.

Fifth, in assessing the Intelligence Community (IC) in the US, the report acknowledges that “the IC, as well as the law enforcement community, offer unique abilities to defend against and mitigate threat actors operating below the threshold of open conflict. Both communitites (sic–another example of a rush job) have exceptionally strong liaison relationships throughout the world, allowing the United States to cooperate with allies and partners to protect against adversaries.” (p. 32)  The report does not acknowledge the reluctance of Britain and Israel to share intelligence with the US because of intelligence leaks.

Sixth, the report notes the singular importance of diplomacy in the security of the US: “Diplomacy is indispensable to identify and implement solutions to conflicts in unstable regions of the world short of military
involvement. It helps to galvanize allies for action and marshal the collective resources of like-minded nations and organizations to address shared problems. Authoritarian states are eager to replace the United States where the United States withdraws our diplomats and closes our outposts.” (p. 33)  The report does not address the 37% reduction in the State Department and USAID budget or the fact that many important Ambassadorial Post (such as the US Ambassador to South Korea) remain unfilled.

Seventh, the report talks about the liberal international economic order and the institutions that underpin that order (the IMF, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization): “the United States will continue
to play a leading role in institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and World Trade Organization (WTO), but will improve their performance through reforms. These reforms include encouraging multilateral development banks to invest in high-quality infrastructure projects that promote economic growth. We will press to make the WTO a more effective forum to adjudicate unfair trade practices.” (pp. 40-41).  The report does not mention President Trump’s threat to “ignore” the rulings of the WTO.

Eighth, the report refers to the freedom of the internet: ” The United States will advocate for open, interoperable communications, with minimal barriers to the global exchange of information and services. The United States will promote the free flow of data.” (p. 41)  The report does not mention the repeal of Net Neutrality which makes the internet significantly less “free”.

Ninth, with respect to refugees, the report states that: “No nation can unilaterally alleviate all human suffering, but just because we cannot help everyone does not mean that we should stop trying to help anyone. For much of the world, America’s liberties are inspirational, and the United States will always stand with those who seek freedom. We will remain a beacon of liberty and opportunity around the world.” (p. 41)  Nowhere are the recent constraints on refugees and immigrants to the US mentioned.

Tenth, the report celebrates religious freedom: “The United States also remains committed to supporting and advancing religious freedom—America’s first freedom. Our Founders understood religious freedom not as the state’s creation, but as the gift of God to every person and a fundamental right for our flourishing society.”  (p. 41) Hard to square this rhetoric with a “Muslim ban”.

Eleventh, the report discusses the need for humanitarian assistance: “The United States will continue to lead the world in humanitarian assistance.”  There is no explanation for why the US has done little to help the Royingha in Myanmar, the people of Yemen or Syria, or the starving people in South Sudan and Venezuela.

The last two sections of the report are on regional issues and the conclusion.  I will try to write about those two sections in a subsequent post.

It is very difficult to predict how wars might unfold.  Prior to the US-Iraq War in 2003, Americans were told that the cost of the war would be between $50 and $60 billion and President George W. Bush declared that “major combat operations” were over after 41 days.  The war is still going in in some form and the US has spent well over $3 trillion on the effort and more than 4,500 American soldiers dies and perhaps as many as 500,000 Iraqis.  When the war began, about 70% of the American population polled favored the war.  There is a sense of deja vu in the current discussions about a possible war with North Korea.    It seems as if most Americans believe that Defeating North Korea would be a relatively simple process with little risk to Americans.  Other observers believe that the costs would be quite high.  Moreover, it seems clear that some countries, such as China, now believe that a US-North Korean War is imminent.  We should be demanding a more accurate and reasonable assessment of what the war would entail before we sleepwalk into another catastrophe.

Despite rhetoric condemning the US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, there was little effective opposition to the decision on the part of the oil-producing Arab states.  The lack suggests that those states, led primarily by Saudi Arabia, are willing to sacrifice the Palestinian demand for a separate state with East Jerusalem as its capital in order to secure US and Israeli support for a larger strategic effort to confront growing Iranian influence in the region.  Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates decided to push the Palestinians to accept the city of Abu Dis as an acceptable alternative capital to East Jerusalem–a proposal that was first broached by the US at the 2000 Camp David Summit and is apparently the bargaining position of Jared Kushner, the Trump Administration’s Middle East peace negotiator.  As such, the decision is a real gamble.  A few days ago, The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) met in Istanbul and King Abdullah of Jordan and Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, decided to attend despite Saudi Arabia’s suggestion that they boycott the meeting.  The OIC passed a resolution that declared that “East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine and invite all countries to recognize the State of Palestine and East Jerusalem as its occupied capital”.  Moreover, the UN Security Council is slated to vote on a resolution (introduced by Egypt) to reject the US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  That resolution has no possibility of passing given the US veto, but it will be interesting to see how American allies vote on it.

The fact that Abbas, Abdullah, and Egypt are not cooperating with Saudi Arabia and the UAE suggests that the opposition to the US decision is stronger than the two states anticipated.  Now they will wait to see if US President Trump follows through with his stated intention to de-certify the Iran’s adherence to the nuclear agreement, a decision that needs to be made in January.  After Ambassador Haley’s press conference at the UN on Iranian missiles, it seems as if Mr. Trump will de-certify.  But we also know that there are constituencies in the US that wish the agreement to continue.

Philip Alston, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, issued a statement yesterday which summarized his understanding of extreme poverty in the United States.  His office did an extensive study of the topic which was very similar to studies it has done in several other countries as part of the UN mission to understand the link between poverty and the violations of human rights.  Thus far, there have been very few references to the report in any of the large news media in the US although it has received extensive reporting outside the US.  The study was grim.  Among the findings:

• By most indicators, the US is one of the world’s wealthiest countries.  It spends more on national defense than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan combined.
• US health care expenditures per capita are double the OECD average and much higher than in all other countries. But there are many fewer doctors and hospital beds per person than the OECD average.
• US infant mortality rates in 2013 were the highest in the developed world.
• Americans can expect to live shorter and sicker lives, compared to people living in any other rich democracy, and the “health gap” between the U.S. and its peer countries continues to grow.
• U.S. inequality levels are far higher than those in most European countries
• Neglected tropical diseases, including Zika, are increasingly common in the USA.  It has been estimated that 12 million Americans live with a neglected parasitic infection. A 2017 report documents the prevalence of hookworm in Lowndes County, Alabama.
• The US has the highest prevalence of obesity in the developed world.
• In terms of access to water and sanitation the US ranks 36th in the world.
• America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, ahead of Turkmenistan, El Salvador, Cuba, Thailand and the Russian Federation. Its rate is nearly 5 times the OECD average.
• The youth poverty rate in the United States is the highest across the OECD with one quarter of youth living in poverty compared to less than 14% across the OECD.
• The Stanford Center on Inequality and Poverty ranks the most well-off countries in terms of labor markets, poverty, safety net, wealth inequality, and economic mobility. The US comes in last of the top 10 most well-off countries, and 18th amongst the top 21.

The report deserves a close read and much wider dissemination.  It is unlikely that the US will take any steps to assure that its citizens are aware of how serious a problem extreme poverty is in their country.

The far-right Freedom Party has been offered the cabinet posts of foreign, interior and defense in a coalition with the Conservative Party in Austria.  That coalition creates the first far-right government in Europe in the current wave of enthusiasm for nationalist parties.  The Freedom Party is skeptical of pro-immigration and pro-EU policies which are quite similar to the positions of the National Front Party in France, the Freedom Party in the Netherlands, and the Alternative for Germany Party in Germany.  But those parties have not thus far been successful in joining a government coalition.

The US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, delivered remarks at the UN which accused Iran of violating a broader interpretation of the Iranian nuclear agreement.  She was quite explicit in suggesting that the agreement should not be interpreted solely in terms of uranium enrichment and the delivery of nuclear weapons:

“It’s really important that you be here today, because we have a story to tell, and the story is a very important one. And it’s not just important for the United States, it’s important for the entire international community. As President Trump announced on October 13, the United States is taking a new approach to Iran by focusing on all of the regime’s destabilizing behavior. That means we are focused not just on the nuclear program.

“We’re also taking a hard look at Iran’s ballistic missile program, its arms exports, and its support for terrorists, proxy fighters, and dictators.”

It is unlikely that any of the other partners to the agreement (Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China) believe that this interpretation is valid.  The question is whether the US interpretation will be used as a reason to tear up the agreement.  Some fear that the interpretation might be the basis for greater hostilities between the US and Iran. 

The World Inequality Lab has issued its annual report, World Inequality Report, 2018.  The report confirms with extensive data that income and wealth inequality in the world has grown dramatically since 1980.  Its findings include:

• Since 1980, income inequality has increased rapidly in North America and Asia, grown moderately in Europe, and stabilized at an extremely high level in the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, and Brazil.
• The poorest half of the global population has seen its income grow significantly thanks to high growth in Asia. But the top 0.1% has captured as much growth as the bottom half of the world adult population since 1980.
• Income growth has been sluggish or even nil for individuals between the global bottom 50% and top 1%. This includes North American and European lower- and middle-income groups.

This trend is deeply troubling.  Not only does it indicate that the economic system is hardly equitable, but it also explains the growing political disillusionment in many countries in the world.  The pattern is likely sustainable as long as economic growth is robust, but it definitely suggests serious problems if growth slows down and people begin to believe that they are being left behind deliberately.

The New York Times summarizes the future of inequality if the trend lines are not changed:

“If the evolution of income inequality in every country remains on the same path it has been since 1980, the plateau in global inequality since 2000 will prove to be but a temporary blip: by 2050, the bottom half of the world’s population will draw only 9 percent of the world’s income, a percentage point less than today. One-percenters at the top, by contrast, will reap 24 percent of the global income pie, up from 21 percent in 2016.”

The US policy toward North Korea has become incredibly muddy in recent days.  I have made the point before that the US objective of “denuclearization” is not only completely unacceptable to North Korea but it is also totally unverifiable.  But there is also a high level of incoherence in US policy.  On Monday, US Secretary of State Tillerson spoke to a meeting of the Atlantic Council, and in the Q & A, he made this comment on possible negotiations with North Korea:

“When do the talks begin? We’ve said from the diplomatic side we’re ready to talk anytime North Korea would like to talk, and we’re ready to have the first meeting without precondition.”

But in his speech today at the United Nations, Tillerson said that any negotiations could only occur if there is a “sustained cessation of North Korea’s threatening behavior.”   He also reiterated that the US objective remains a “complete, verifiable and irreversible abandonment of its nuclear weapons programs.”  Moreover, as reported by The Hankyoreh:

On Dec. 13, the White House officially adopted a critical position toward the proposal for meeting North Korea “without precondition” made the previous day by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. In the space of a day, Tillerson’s remarks have been effectively erased. This is thought to illustrate the amateurish coordination of policy inside the Trump administration.

When asked by the Hankyoreh for the White House’s position on Tillerson’s proposal, an official from the National Security Council said that the US’s North Korean policy has not changed and that now is definitely not the time for dialogue.  North Korea must refrain from additional provocations and take serious and meaningful steps toward denuclearization, the official said, adding that the preconditions for dialogue were not limited to refraining from additional tests of nuclear weapons or missiles.

One could be forgiven if one were to say that apparently the US does not now know whether it is pursuing a diplomatic or a military solution to the crisis.  Unfortunately, there is no military “solution” that does not involve widespread destruction.

US Vice-President Pence has a scheduled trip to the Middle East coming up, and the centerpiece of that visit was supposed to be a visit to the town of Bethlehem.  Pence wanted to show support for the many Christians who live in the Middle East, but the Christian community decided that US President Trump’s unilateral recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel has now made its situation in the region highly precarious and it has decided to cancel the visit.  The fear is that Trumps decision has alienated the region’s Muslims and the Christians do not wish to be seen as endorsing the move.  The concern is also part of a larger concern as the Trump Administration has made it clear that it wishes to conduct a foreign policy that favors Christians as a persecuted group in the world.  It would be far better if the Administration decided to conduct its foreign policy to any persecuted group, regardless of its religious affiliation.  The current policy actually endangers Christians who live as minorities in their nation.

A new research paper (“Austerity and the rise of the Nazi party” by Gregori Galofré-Vilà, Christopher M. Meissner, Martin McKee, David Stuckler, NBER Working Paper No. 24106, Issued in December 2017) has raised a very provocative argument: that the austerity policies implemented in the Weimar Republic led to the rise of Nazism in Germany in the 1930s.  Dylan Matthews, writing for Vox, goes through the various arguments that others have made to explain the rise of Nazism, and suggests that the policies implemented by Chancellor Heinrich Brüning from 1930 to 1932 were unique among the European states:

“The scale of the cutback that Brüning enacted from 1930 to 1932 is truly staggering. The authors estimate that Brüning cut German government spending by about 15 percent, after inflation, from 1930 to 1932. He raised income taxes on high earners by an average of 10 percent, and slashed unemployment, pension, and welfare benefits.

“The economic consequences were horrific. GDP fell by 15 percent, as did government revenue. Unemployment increased from 22.7 percent to 43.8 percent. Brüning came to be known as the ‘Hunger Chancellor.’”

The argument deserves careful  scrutiny and attention.  The austerity policies imposed in a variety of countries after the financial crisis of 2007-08 can be correlated with the rise of many right-wing parties and movements in various countries today.  Whether there is a causal relationship is an intriguing proposition.

CNN is reporting that two US F-22 fighter planes chased away Russian fighter planes over a “de-confliction” zone (don’t blame me–that’s the word they use) in Syria.  The zones are presumably set by both the US and Russia as a way to avoid misunderstandings in the air.  The zone runs approximately down the Euphrates River with Russian forces operating on the west side and US forces on the east side.   Not surprisingly, Russia denies that they violated the zone and that the American jets were provocative.  Needless to say, an accidental clash between the two sides would be highly dangerous.

The American Meteorological Society has published its annual report on “Explaining Extreme Events from a Climate Perspective”.  The report tries to differentiate “normal” weather events from atypical weather associated with human induced climate change, a very difficult task.  This year’s report is “the first of these reports to find that some extreme events were not possible in a preindustrial climate. The events were the 2016 record global heat, the heat across Asia, as well as a marine heat wave off the coast of Alaska.”  The report is very detailed and for those with a strong interest in the subject, it is well worth the effort to examine carefully.

On 11 December the Press Office of the US President sent a memo entitled “Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate” which informs the US Congress that the US is conducting combat operations in the following countries:  Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, East Africa, Libya, Lake Chad Basin and Sahel Region, Cuba (the detention center at Guantanamo Bay), the Philippines, Egypt, and Kosovo.  The purpose of this letter was to conform with the War Powers Act which was passed by Congress in 1973 because of concerns over the legal authority of the US war in Vietnam.  The basis for these combat operations was the “Authorization to Use Military Force” (AUMF) which was passed by the Congress in  2001 and 2002 in response to the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001.  Given the list of countries in the President’s Memo to Congress, many have wondered if the original intent of the AUMF has been lost and that to justify these additional operations a new AUMF should be passed.

British Prime Minister suffered a serious loss in the House of Commons which voted to assure that Parliament would have a final vote on the British exit from the European Union.  Twelve members of May’s Conservative Party voted in favor of the measure against the wishes of the Government.  The outcome of the vote suggests that a majority in the House of Commons favors a “soft” Brexit.  The current deadline for Brexit to be completed is March 2019, so there is a strong possibility of further maneuvering, but Prime Minister’s political weakness was made glaringly apparent in the vote.

The House of Commons for the Vote

As both increase their power, India and China have begun a robust, but indirect, competition in South and Central Asia.  There have been sporadic direct confrontations along their contested borders, but the competition has been largely economic.  But the economic investments demonstrate a keen understanding of strategic alliances which have penetrated virtually every country in the region.  The key players in the competition are India, China, Iran, and Pakistan, with both Russia and the US pushed off into the sidelines.  The future of world politics will likely revolve around these four countries.

French President Macron delivered a very somber speech to the delegates at the One Planet Summit, predicting that some of the delegates “in 50, 60 or 100 years, won’t have countries to govern” because climate change will have wiped some of them off the map.  There were few US officials at the summit, but there were many Americans who occupy former posts in the US government and many American business leaders, all of whom suggested that support for the summit’s objectives remain strong in many important US constituencies.  The Los Angeles Times also indicated that some countries were willing to compensate for the US absence:

“Macron awarded 18 climate scientists, most of them based in the U.S., multimillion-euro grants to relocate to France for the rest of Trump’s term. The ‘Make Our Planet Great Again’ grants are part of Macron’s efforts to counter Trump on the climate change front. Macron announced a contest for the projects in June, hours after Trump declared he would withdraw the U.S. from the climate accord.”

US scientists indicated that many of them are concerned that their work will not be supported by the current US government and were grateful to France for its support. Unfortunately, the global efforts to combat climate change still fall short of the necessary objectives, and that “of the 32 countries responsible for about 80% of greenhouse gas emissions, 24 had set insufficient targets, and the majority of them would not achieve even those.”

Russia has declared victory in Syria and announced that most, but not all, Russian forces will be leaving the country.  Russian President Putin then left Syria to visit Egypt and Turkey to discuss future military collaboration and weapons sales.  While the US still has a very strong presence in the Middle East, there is little question that Russia has regained a strong foothold in the region, reminiscent of its former active role in the 1950s and 1960s.   US President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel will create additional space for Russian influence in many Arab states which will find it more difficult to accept the US’s role as an active opponent of Palestinian aspirations.  The Pew Research Centerpolling evidence which supports the idea that Russia has gained greater influence in the Middle East has .

The Council on Foreign Relations conducts an annual poll of US government officials and foreign policy experts about their concerns for the upcoming year.  The report for 2018, “Preventive Priorities Survey: 2018”,  is a handy-dandy catalog of things to worry about over the next year. Paul Stares, the director of CFR’s Center for Preventive Action, which produces the annual survey has an interesting insight into the most worrisome issue for next year:

“The U.S. is now the most unpredictable actor in the world today, and that has caused profound unease. You used to be able to pretty much put the U.S. to one side and hold it constant, and look at the world and consider where the biggest sources of unpredictability, insecurity are. Now you have to include the U.S. in that. … No one has high confidence how we [Americans] would react in any given situation, given how people assess this president.”

I find it hard to disagree with that assessment.

Philip Alston, the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, is on a tour of the US investigating the state of the country’s poor people.  His most recent stop was in Alabama and his reaction to poverty in that state was shock.  As described in Newsweek:

“‘Some might ask why a U.N. Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights would visit a country as rich as the United States,’ Alston said. ‘But despite great wealth in the U.S., there also exists great poverty and inequality.’

“Alston also pointed out that the U.S. ‘has been very keen’ on other countries being investigated by the U.N. for civil and human rights issues.

‘Now, it’s the turn to look at what’s going on in the U.S.,’ Alston said. ‘There are pretty extreme levels of poverty in the United States given the wealth of the country. And that does have significant human rights implications.’”

There are an estimated 41 million in the US, out of a population of about 320 million, who live on an income below the official poverty line.  The US record of poverty is far worse than for the vast majority of highly developed countries.

The island of Corsica is one of France’s 18 administrative regions and it has a long history of strong nationalism.  In an election on Sunday, a coalition of nationalist parties won 56.5 percent of the vote.  The demands of these parties are for greater autonomy from Paris, but not independence.  The vote, however, seems to be consistent with the Brexit vote and the turmoil in Catalonia, as well as sentiments throughout Europe suggesting disillusionment with central control.  France has never looked kindly on separatist movements throughout its history, and the vote in Corsica will likely set up some difficult negotiations.

There was a curious article in the Washington Post about the threat of biological weapons being developed in North Korea.  The article was substantive and there seems to be ample evidence suggesting that North Korea does have a biological weapons program.  And there is no doubt that a biological weapons program is incredibly dangerous and threatening.  What makes the article curious is that all the evidence supporting it is no later than 2015 which means that we have known about it for over two years.  Why, then, is the article being published now with no new information?  I suspect the article was suggested by US government officials who have an interest in accentuating American fears of North Korea.