The International Monetary Fund is about to release its World Economic Outlook, April 2017 and some chapters to the study are already available. Chapter 3, “Understanding the Downward Trend in Labor Income Shares,” has been published and its findings confirm what other studies have found. One of the more telling statistics confirms the growing discrepancy between low- and high-skilled wages:
“The decline in the global labor share has been borne by low- and middle-skilled labor. During 1995–2009 their combined labor income share was reduced by more than 7 percentage points, while the global high-skilled labor share increased by more than 5 percentage points.”
The study also indicates that it is hard to assess the income inequality trends across countries:
“A less well-known fact about the fall in labor shares at the global level is that it reflects declining shares in both advanced and, to a lesser extent, emerging market and developing economies. Indeed, the labor share of the chosen period also serves to maximize data coverage of emerging market and developing economies. This finding corroborates that of Karabarbounis and Neiman (2014). Relative to that paper, the chapter’s data cover a larger number of countries and extend their time period by up to four years. Importantly, the data used in this chapter include significant revisions to the official labor share data for systemically large countries such as Brazil, China, Germany, and the United Kingdom. income has declined in four of the world’s five largest economies, led by the steepest decline in China, while the labor share of income in the United Kingdom has trended up.”
The study is quite important and should become part of the mainstream conversation about the global economy.
“Just in the past two weeks, the world witnessed the strength and resolve of our new president in actions taken in Syria and Afghanistan.
“North Korea would do well not to test his resolve or the strength of the armed forces of the United States in this region.”
The truth of the matter is that the US can do very little about the situation in North Korea. A pre-emptive strike would likely not be wholly successful in the short-run and would undoubtedly trigger off a conventional war which would kill thousands. According to The Hill, a senior North Korean official stated that the US had created “a dangerous situation in which a thermonuclear war may break out at any minute.” Meanwhile, there are reports that the US is sending two more aircraft carrier groups to join the USS Carl Vinson off the coast of North Korea: the USS Ronald Reagan and the USS Nimitz.
The Pew Research Center has released a very detailed analysis of American views of the US government, particularly on President Trump’s ability to lead the country. The results are consistent with common views: Republicans support Mr. Trump strongly, while Democrats are very skeptical. But on the some of the questions, there are clear doubts about Mr. Trump. Virtually, no one thinks that Mr. Trump is “too cautious”. Another insight is that many Americans do not believe that they can trust what Mr. Trump says:
“When asked to compare Trump with previous presidents, 51% say they trust what Trump says less than they trusted what previous presidents said while in office, compared with 30% who say they trust him more and 16% who say they trust what he says about the same as what previous presidents said.”
Turkish voters have apparently approved a referendum to give the President vast new powers under the constitution. According to reports, 51.5% of voters approved the measure which give the president the right to “appoint the cabinet and an undefined number of vice-presidents, and be able to select and remove senior civil servants without parliamentary approval.” The changes will not become effective until 2019, but opponents fear that the changes will create a highly authoritarian regime. Erdogan has become increasingly authoritarian over the years and single-party rule is not out of the question. The changes will also make it more difficult for the European Union to allow Turkey to join the union.
Dr. Mohamed Chtatou has written a very good essay on the challenges of globalization to education. The topic is often mentioned, but rarely analyzed closely. Chtatou frames the issues in terms of tradeoffs, an approach that is often misleading, since there are usually a variety of ways to think about things. But the tradeoffs pose the issues in a debate framework which is a good approach for a discussion . His tradeoffs are as follows:
“The tension between the global and the local: people need gradually to become world citizens without losing their roots and while continuing to play an active part in the life of their nation and their local community”;
“The tension between the universal and the individual: culture is steadily being globalized, but as yet only partially. We cannot ignore the promises of globalization nor its risks, not the least of which is the risk of forgetting the unique character of human beings, it is for them to choose their own future and achieve their full potential within the carefully tended wealth of their traditions and their own cultures which unless we are careful, can be endangered by contemporary developments”;
The tension between tradition and modernity: how is it to adapt to change without turning one’s back on the past, how can autonomy be acquired in a complementary fashion with the free development of others and how can scientific progress be assimilated? This is the spirit in which the challenges of the new information technologies must be met”.
The need to preserve culture in the face of the homogenizing influences of globalization is one of the most serious challenges we face. Without cultural identity, we all become rootless.
The world was expecting some sort of North Korean challenge to US President Trump’s rhetoric about “solving” the North Korean nuclear program. There was a missile test, but it failed. Missile tests are not unusual since the technology is complex. But there are also suspicions that the missile failure may have been caused by US hacking into the North Korean program. We do know that former President Obama had ordered a significant boost to such activities during his terms, but it is impossible to know how effective it may have been (and the US will never admit that it had any role at all). But the mere fact that North Korea attempted the launch indicates that it intends to test Mr. Trump. So it is highly likely that other tests, of missiles or bombs, will be forthcoming.
It now seems as if the US has decided to show its military power as a means of asserting its foreign policy. The Syrian attack, the use of the MAOB bomb in Afghanistan, and the deployment of the USS Carl Vinson carrier group just off the coast of North Korea are all examples of the US demonstrating its military might. Such demonstrations are important at some points, but one should remember that military power only makes sense in the context of a clearly articulated and understood foreign policy. That underlying logic is not yet apparent and, in its absence, the demonstrations of military power are not likely to influence the other major powers, notably Russia and China, very much.
The Pew Research Center has found that government restrictions on religious practices increased in 2015. The study identified non-governmental restrictions, defined as “increases in mob violence related to religion, individuals being assaulted or displaced due to their faith, and incidents where violence was used to enforce religious norms,” as well. The study found that
“Of the 198 countries in the study, 105 (53%) experienced widespread government harassment of religious groups, up from 85 (43%) in 2014 and 96 (48%) in 2013. Limited harassment – cases that were isolated or affected a small number of groups – also rose, taking place in 52 countries (26%) in 2015 (up from 44, or 22% of countries, in 2014).
“Government use of force against religious groups increased as well, with 23 countries (12%) experiencing more than 200 cases of government force in 2015, up from 21 (11%) in 2014. There was an even bigger increase in the number of countries with at least one, but no more than 200 incidents of government use of force against religious groups: 83 nations (42%) fell into this category in 2015, an increase from 60 countries (30%) in 2014.”
The rise in intolerance is small but troubling. Religion is a dynamic component of nationalism and the passions of nationalism often lead to conflict.
John Tasioulas teaches law at King’s College in London and he has written a worthwhile essay on human rights, raising questions about how one can justify them. He does not believe that human rights are adequately protected simply as laws or as agreements in democratic societies. He asserts that
“human rights are rooted in the universal interests of human beings, each and every one of whom possesses an equal moral status arising from their common humanity. In other words, in defending human rights, we will need to appeal to the inherent value of being a member of the human species and, in addition, the interests shared by all human beings in things like friendship, knowledge, achievement, play, and so on. And we will need to ask whether these considerations generate duties that are owed to each and every human being.”
I am not sure why this argument offers greater integrity to the idea of human rights. Unfortunately, there are far too many examples of human rights atrocities committed when some people are considered “sub-human” by the dominant powers.
The USA National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has released a stunning composite video of the earth at night. It is visually mesmerizing, but it also reveals how humans have distributed themselves along waterways and oceans. The site also has some fascinating photos comparing space shots of certain areas in 2012 and 2016, showing how the process of electrification has accelerated in certain areas of the world.
China has sent two messages to the world on the North Korean issue through its semi-official news outlet, China Times. The first was on 12 April whenthe paper warned North Korea that there would be “a response of ‘unprecedented ferocity‘ if the government of Kim Jong Un goes ahead with a test of either an intercontinental ballistic missile or a nuclear device.” The second was in an article that was entitled “China warns against use of force on NK nuclear issue”. According to the article:
“Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lu Kang said at a daily press briefing Thursday that it has always been the stance of the Chinese government that dialogue and consultations are the only ways to achieve denuclearization and safeguard peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.
“‘We have taken note of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s remarks that Russia and the US agree that the only solution to the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue is political,'” Lu said.
“‘We hope that all related parties will forge consensus on this general direction and fundamental principle and make concrete efforts accordingly,'” Lu said.
The two articles are somewhat confusing and it is difficult to determine what the official Chinese response to a nuclear test may be. We will likely find out on Saturday.
On 16 April, Turks will vote on a referendum that would give the office of the president expanded powers. The current president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has campaigned on behalf of the referendum but current polls suggest that the “no” camp may have more votes. Support for Erdogan was very strong in the face of an attempted coup in 2016, but there seems to be a growing sentiment that he is going to far in consolidating so much power. If the referendum does fail to pass, then it will be interesting and revealing to see Erdogan’s next move.
The Guardian an active slave market is developing in Libyais reporting that as migrants from West Africa become hostages to an almost complete governmental breakdown. The slave trade has never been eradicated and it is particularly active for sexual slavery. But the situation in Libya has deteriorated to the point where slaves are being bought and sold in public. The deterioration of the political system in Libya can be traced to the overthrow of former dictator Gaddaffi in 2011, an outcome that US President Obama called the “worst mistake” of his presidency.
Income inequality has deepened in the US over the last forty years. We unfortunately rationalize the income disparities by believing that the only victims of low incomes are the poor themselves. But the truth is that everyone subsidizes low wages. The example of Wal-Mart employees is instructive. Wal-Mart wages are quite low and, in order to survive, many Wal-Mart employees need to receive public subsidies. But by funding those subsidies, we are also subsidizing Wal-Mart. According to USA Today:
“According to a 2014 report by Americans for Tax Fairness, Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion in subsidies every year, primarily from the Federal Government.
“The reason? The world’s largest retailer, infamous for its poor working conditions and unfair treatment of employees, pays its workers so little that thousands of Walmart employees are forced to rely on public assistance programs like food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing. Programs funded by American taxpayers.
“No matter the town or city, if you have a Walmart in your community, you are paying a Walmart Tax. In fact, a single Walmart Supercenter is estimated to cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.74 million per year in public assistance money.”
Poverty is a problem for everyone and it is a mistake to think that any one of us is insulated from the costs of poverty.
Journalists in North Korea have been told to prepare for an historic event on Sunday, 15 April. Sunday is the annual “Day of the Sun” event which commemorates the 105th anniversary of the regime’s founder, Kim Il Sung, the grandfather of the current leader, Kim Jung-un. No one knows what to expect, but the fear is that North Korea will test its sixth nuclear weapon or an intercontinental ballistic missile. Since US President Trump’s meeting with Chinese President Xi, all eyes are on China’s response to such a move. In the absence of a Chinese move, then everyone will look to the US response as Trump indicated that if the Chinese don’t act, then the US will be willing to go it alone.
Fortunately there are non-governmental organizations that do incredible research on issues that receive very little public attention. One such organization is Airwars. It keeps close tabs on civilian casualties in conflict areas. It recently shifted its attention to focus on civilian casualties caused by US operations in Syria. The information is quite disturbing: there has been a significant spike in civilian casualties caused by US air strikes in Iraq and Syria. According to the most recent report:
“The intensity of strikes in 2017 – notably around Raqqa and Mosul – has no precedent. To March 15th, a record 245 alleged Coalition civilian casualty events have been monitored by Airwars – roughly three events a day. At this pace, the number of alleged Coalition incidents this year could surpass 800.”
Needless to say, civilian casualties undermine the US effort to degrade Daesh (the Islamic State).
The French presidential campaign started today with 11 candidates running. In two weeks, the first round of voting will occur and pare down the number of candidates to two. At this point, the two leading candidates are Marine Le Pen of the National Front Party and a center-right candidates, Emmanuel Macron, who is running as an independent. Unexpectedly, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, running on a hard-left platform, is now in fourth place. The French election will be a significant marker of French dissatisfaction with globalization and the European Union.
India has been engaged with a complex and troubling strategic debate over its nuclear weapons. Traditionally, India has considered those weapons to be principally a deterrent to aggressive action. But over the last few months, a number of Indian policy makers and strategic analysts have been thinking out loud about changing the strategy to a “first-strike”. That change would seek to disarm an opponent (likely Pakistan) before an attack occurs. The change suggests a growing confidence in the nuclear arsenal as well as in India’s ability to gather and assess intelligence. Needless to say, such a change would also make strategic decisions significantly more complex and time-urgent. We would also have to wait and see what Pakistan’s response to the change would be. Relations between India and Pakistan have recently been very testy over the issue of control in Kashmir.
There are some ambiguities emerging in the US policy toward Syria. On Sunday, US Ambassador to the UN indicated that the strike on Syria was part of the objective to remove Syrian President Assad from office; on the same day US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson indicated that the US is primarily interested in defeating Daesh (the Islamic State). Then today, Press Secretary Sean Spicer indicated that one of the US “red lines” was the use of barrel bombs and not simply chemical weapons. The Syrian regime has used barrel bombs extensively in the civil war, so that red line has a much lower threshold than the use of chemical weapons. These issues are important since they provide insight into what might happen next. If the US restricts its bombing to only the use of chemical weapons, then it is highly likely that we will not see another military strike and nothing will have changed. But if more strikes occur in the absence of a chemical attack, then the implication is that the US is going to be an active participant in the war. That possibility is an absolute nightmare. It is highly unlikely that either Russia or Iran will abandon Assad under pressure.
Jeanette Rankin was the first woman to serve in the Congress and she was sworn in one hundred years ago. Since that time, women have steadily increased their representation in Congress and today woman comprise 19.4 percent of the members of Congress. The world average is 23.3 percent, with the Nordic countries having the highest representation: 41.7 percent. Interestingly, the US actually scores favorably with other countries in terms of the overall position of women in society according to the UN Gender Development Index. The discrepancy between the over ranking and representation in the national legislature is worth investigation.
“The geographic distribution of federal arrests also shows the growing emphasis on immigration offenses. In 2014, 61% of all federal arrests – or more than 100,000 – occurred in just five federal judicial districts along the U.S.-Mexico border. In 2004, those five districts – one each in Arizona, California and New Mexico, plus two in Texas – accounted for 40% of federal arrests.”
For a country whose demography has relied heavily on immigration, these statistics are provocative.
The Chinese press had an interesting take on the meeting between US President Trump and Chinese President Xi. Perhaps the most telling insight came from a photograph published by Renmin Ribao. The photo of a slouching Mr. Trump on the couch suggests a view of him as careless, lazy, and lackadaisical. In contrast, President Xi looks authoritative and in control. The meeting was overshadowed by the news of the US military strike in Syria, but the Chinese refused to accept the legitimacy of the US action. On the difficult economic differences between the two states, both sides agreed on a 100-day “cooling off” period before any concrete actions are taken on trade and currency manipulations. The meeting was notable for its lack of progress on any substantive matters.
The US is sending the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier and its entire group to the Korean Peninsula. The move follows the air strike in Syria which has set a tone of unpredictability to President Trump’s foreign policy. The move is also a pre-emptive move that anticipates additional missile launches from North Korea. The timing also corresponds to some significant events in North Korea. As the Washington Post notes:
“North Korea is expected to hold a huge military parade on April 15 to celebrate the 105th birthday of its founding president, Kim Il Sung, and to mark the 85th anniversary of the creation of the Korean People’s Army on April 25 with similar fanfare.”
We do not know if Chinese President Xi was informed of this move. The message to the South Koreans was that the Chinese were informed, but it is hard to tell exactly what was communicated. If the Chinese were not fully briefed then the Chinese are undoubtedly quite concerned as well. No matter what President Trump thinks about Nixon’s “Madman Theory”, unpredictability is not a virtue in foreign policy.
“Coral bleaching occurs when unusually warm waters provide a stress to corals that in turn trigger a mass exodus of photosynthetic algae, called zooxanthellae, from their cells. The corals lose color and turn white, an outward indicator that their metabolism has been upended. The stronger the bleaching and the longer it goes on, the more likely corals are to die.
“The Great Barrier Reef, the largest structure of its kind, is about 1,400 miles long. Nine hundred miles of that length have now experienced severe bleaching at some point during the past two years.”
What is happening off the coast of Australia is happening to virtually every coral reef in the world. It is not clear that even adherence to the Paris Agreements can prevent future damage, and the possible extinction of these living organisms would be a crime against the planet.
North Korea has stated that the US strike on Syria confirms that its decision to develop nuclear weapons was correct. North Korea withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 after US President Bush placed it on the list of the “axis of evil” along with Iraq and Iran. The US subsequent decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 was, for North Korea, vindication of its decision to develop a nuclear capability. North Korea exploded its first nuclear bomb in 2006. For North Korea, a nuclear weapon is the only effective deterrent against an American attack. The North Koreans have justification for their fears. According to NBC NewsUS National Security Council has presented President Trump with a number of options, the for dealing with North Korea, including reinserting US nuclear weapons into South Korea, assassinating Kim Jong-un, and sending US special operation troops into North Korea to commit acts of sabotage. These options are the height of lunacy.
The Venezuelan government has banned Henrique Capriles from public office in a move that further degrades the legitimacy of the state. Large protests followed the announcement, but it seems that President Maduro is moving toward an outright dictatorship without any pretense of democracy even though elections are scheduled for 2018. The political dysfunction has crippled the economy for years and there are widespread shortages of virtually every necessary item. It is hard to imagine any outcome other than an outright revolution in Venezuela.
We are getting more information about the US missile strike on a Syrian airbase and the commentary on the strike is confusing and conflicting. All the commentary misses the central point of military action. Every military action should be guided by one single and overriding concern: does this action bring us closer to bringing a war to an end? The air strike does not meet this objective. But it does meet another objective, which is justifiable but not related to the conflict itself. If this strike had the single intent of sending a clear message to the Syrian regime–and to the world at large–that the use of banned chemical weapons will not increase the chances of victory, then it can be justified on those terms if it turns out that the Syrian government does not use such weapons again. We will see if that outcome is realized.
But in terms of the Syrian civil war, and its attendant international dimensions, the strike itself does not bring us closer to an end to the violence, and all the commentary I have read and heard seems to miss this point. And some of the commentary distorts what actually happened. The New York Times ran an article by Mark Landler entitled “On Syria Attack, Trump’s Heart Came First.” I sincerely doubt that this headline is accurate. If moral imperatives were the driving force, then the current administration would not be restricting refugees from Syria.
Moral considerations have been conspicuously absent in Mr. Trump’s statements about Syria and Iraq until his statement yesterday. The current administration said nothing after 300 civilians were killed in Mosul, Iraq after a US airstrike. I wish to be very clear: I am not equating the chemical attack in Syria with the US strike in Mosul. The Mosul attack appears to have been unintentional and was not conducted with banned weapons of war. These distinctions are critically important to us, but they matter little to the innocents who were killed and their families. We will wait for the US military to conduct its investigation of the Mosul attack, and I am fully confident in the US military’s willingness to issue a truthful report and to punish those involved if the attack occurred because of negligence. But if morality were a primary concern of the current administration then I would have expected a sincere apology and a profound expression of remorse by the US after the Mosul attack. An honest heart is not selective.
The attack also comes as the US is increasing its military commitment to overthrowing Assad (see this blog post of 31 March 2017). That objective is not part of the so-called “war on terror”. The attack in Syria was rather an expression of realpolitik and should be assessed in terms of whether the national interest of the US was advanced in Syria. On this issue, the air strike makes very little sense. The US is in Syria and Iraq to defeat Daesh (the Islamic State). The states who share this same objective and are actively involved in fighting Daesh are the Syrian government, Russia, and Iran. But these states have all condemned the sir strike. In other words, the realpolitik allies of the US have been driven away by the US action. Other states have praised the US action, but these states do not have armed forces on the ground fighting Daesh. If one wishes to play realpolitik, then the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
But realpolitik will not solve the problem of the Syrian civil war. The US is now at war with the Syrian state: an armed attack is a sufficient condition to initiate a state of war. If the objective of US military action in Syria is regime change, then we need to know a lot more about how the US will define “peace” if Assad is removed. Which of the various constituencies in Syria will be involved in this definition? We know that overthrowing a government is possible, and the US has been involved in many of those operations in the past: Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, Trujillo in the Dominican Republic in 1961, Diem in Vietnam in 1963, and Hussein in Iraq in 2003. In every single one of those cases, the failure of the US to anticipate the turmoil it unleashed led to even greater problems for American national interests.
“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
There is no evidence that the Syrian government was in any way involved in the 11 September attacks. Congress was not consulted–it was merely informed. The attack on Syria may be covered by the War Powers Act, in which case Mr. Trump can conduct military operations for 60 days before the Constitution requires a Congressional declaration. But the US ground troops in Syria have already been operating in Syria for over 60 days. The clock did not start ticking with yesterday’s air attack.
Ending the suffering of the Syrian people is a legitimate interest of the US. There is as of yet little evidence that the air strikes have moved us closer to that objective. Indeed, I suspect that we may have moved further away.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8356463/Screen_Shot_2017_04_17_at_11.44.37_AM.png)
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8310983/Fig_1_Gender_Balance_in_National_Legislatures.png)
World Politics News 