Colombia should be added to the list of states this year that have been rocked by protests. Protesters have taken to the streets of Bogotá demanding the resignation of President Iván Duque. Duque is a right-wing populist who was elected last year and began to revise the terms of the peace treaty the state had signed with guerrillas who had been actively opposed to the government over a long period of time. The BBC outlines the issues raised by the protesters.
“Colombians have taken to the streets over possible changes to the minimum wage, pension and tax reforms, and the privatisation of state companies. The government insists there are no planned pension or labour reforms and that any changes would take place in consultation with labour groups.
The US Navy has indicated that it may proceed with the expulsion of Edward Gallagher from the SEAL program despite US President Trump’s decision that he should not be expelled. Gallagher was convicted of war crimes during his deployment in Iraq in 2017. According to Reuters:
“On Thursday, Trump lashed out at the proceedings, declaring on Twitter: ‘The Navy will NOT be taking away Warfighter and Navy Seal Eddie Gallagher’s Trident Pin. This case was handled very badly from the beginning. Get back to business!’
“The Navy responded with a statement saying it would follow ‘lawful orders’ from the president to halt the review but was awaiting further guidance, suggesting his Twitter post was not considered a formal directive.”
“Navy SEAL Chief Eddie Gallagher was charged with killing a wounded ISIS captive and shooting civilians during his time in Iraq in 2017. At the end of his court-martial, a jury acquitted him of the most serious allegations and convicted him of the offense of posing for photos with the body of the deceased fighter.
“A military jury sentenced Gallagher to four months’ confinement, which he served before trial, and reduced his rank to petty officer 1st class, or E-6.
“On Nov. 15, President Donald Trump restored Gallagher’s rank to E-7, or chief petty officer. The same day, Trump pardoned two Army service members accused of war crimes. His action on Gallagher’s behalf was not a pardon or an exoneration.”
The matter should not be controversial. Gallagher was convicted in a lawful court martial and maintaining discipline within the ranks is of critical importance to the US military. The idea that military discipline should be undermined by political considerations is anathema to the US military, and that standard should be rigorously supported by civilian authorities.
The Chinese have blasted the US at the meeting of the G20 being held in Japan. According to Reuters:
“…Chinese State Councillor Wang Yi did not hold back in his criticism of the United States.
“’The United States is broadly engaged in unilateralism and protectionism, and is damaging multilateralism and the multilateral trading system. It has already become the world’s biggest destabilizing factor,’ China’s Foreign Ministry cited Wang as saying.
“The United States has, for political purposes, used the machine of state to suppress legitimate Chinese businesses and has groundlessly laid charges against them, which is an act of bullying, he added.
“’Certain U.S. politicians have smeared China everywhere in the world, but have not produced any evidence.’
“The United States has also used its domestic law to ‘crudely interfere’ in China’s internal affairs, trying to damage ‘one country, two systems’ and Hong Kong’s stability and prosperity, he added.”
The statement reflects growing tensions over the trade war between the US and China, as well as Chinese anger over the US Congress’s passage of a law requiring the US to monitor human rights violations in Hong Kong. The statement reflects Chinese anger over a bizarre statement by US President Trump on Hong Kong as related by the South China Morning Post:
“‘If it weren’t for me, Hong Kong would have been obliterated within 14 minutes,’ Trump boasted in a phone interview on Fox & Friends, his audiovisual Wikipedia of world news. Chinese President Xi Jinping ‘has got a million soldiers standing outside of Hong Kong that aren’t going in only because I asked him, please don’t do that’. “
We will see whether Trump vetoes the Hong Kong Democracy and Human Rights Act in order to curry favor with President Xi. The votes in both houses of Congress were overwhelming and large enough to override such a veto.
The US Senate has unanimously passed a bill that would require the US government to conduct an annual review of the special treatment that Hong Kong receives under US law. That special treatment involves Chinese adherence to the 1997 Sino-British Joint Declaration. That declaration stipulates that for 50 years (until 2047) “The current social and economic systems in Hong Kong will remain unchanged, and so will the life-style. Rights and freedoms, including those of the person, of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of travel, of movement, of correspondence, of strike, of choice of occupation, of academic research and of religious belief will be ensured by law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Private property, ownership of enterprises, legitimate right of inheritance and foreign investment will be protected by law.”
The House of Representatives has already passed similar legislation, and the unanimous passage by the Senate of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 is a powerful statement. It is, however, unclear whether President Trump will sign the legislation since he is apparently concerned that the law will jeopardize the trade talks with China. On the other hand, if he vetoes the bill, the US will be ignoring the plight of the Hong Kongers who are demanding that the China-Britain agreement be honored. The Beijing government condemned the bills as an unwarranted intrusion into the internal affairs of China. The Global Times, a media outlet known to be close to the Chinese government, editorialized:
“The US Senate on Tuesday unanimously passed the ‘Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act,’ a move that seriously tarnished sacred terms like ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy.’ The bill’s real title should be ‘Support Hong Kong Violence Act’ as it has overtly taken sides with rioters who are destroying the rule of law in Hong Kong. And it has targeted the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) government and Hong Kong police, who are struggling to prevent chaos from turning into anarchy.
“The core of the new US bill is to oppose HKSAR government’s efforts to stop violence, end chaos as well as to prevent the Chinese central government from saving Hong Kong under any circumstance. The most prominent clause subjects the city to an annual review for its special trade status, which would strip Hong Kong of the status.
“Some opposition figures in Hong Kong stupidly kowtow to Washington and express their gratitude for US support for the radical protesters’ ‘democracy struggle.’ But if the US imposes economic sanctions on Hong Kong, all Hong Kong people will have to bear the consequences.
“Once the bill is signed by the US president, subtle changes will take place in Hong Kong’s international business environment, because of the uncertainties caused by the US. American investors in Hong Kong will panic, and the city’s geoeconomic status and function will be reevaluated.”
We will have to see whether President Trump signs the bill.
I am still trying to determine the significance of the US decision to consider Israeli settlements in the West Bank as legal under international law. The statement did not attempt to justify the decision in legal terms–there was no attempt to make the decision compatible with the 1907 Hague Convention or the Geneva Conventions. Thus, the decision should be considered as purely political. The Trump Administration has made several decisions which are consistent with the interests of the Netanyahu government: to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, to end support for the UN Relief and Rehabilitation Agency which supports Palestinian refugees, and to pull out of the Iranian nuclear deal. So there is nothing really new about the decision except that it makes US policy even closer to Israeli policy.
It may be the case that Secretary of State Pompeo made the declaration as a way of currying favor with President Trump, who is reportedly upset that so many State Department officials have been critical of his policies toward Ukraine. It may also be the case that the decision was made to blunt the decision of the European Court of Justice that all products sold in Europe that were made in the West Bank be labelled as such instead of being labelled as having been made in Israel. Nonetheless, the UN repudiated the position of the US:
“‘We continue to follow the long-standing position of the U.N. that Israeli settlements are in breach of international law,’ U.N. human rights spokesman Rupert Colville told a news briefing.
“’A change in the policy position of one state does not modify existing international law nor its interpretation by the International Court of Justice and the Security Council,’ he said.
“The International Court of Justice, in an advisory opinion issued in 2004, said that Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, were established in breach of international law.”
It is very difficult to determine the overall US objective in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The US is unquestionably siding with Israel, but it is unclear where the US expects the Palestinians to go. It is a serious mistake to assume that the Palestinians will quietly accept Israeli rule over their lives. But there is little question that the decision will resonate strongly with evangelical Christians who comprise a significant part of President Trump’s electoral base.
“Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Regulations (HR) states that a ‘territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.’
“According to their common Article 2, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 apply to any territory occupied during international hostilities. They also apply in situations where the occupation of state territory meets with no armed resistance.
“The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter and the law known as jus ad bellum. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful.
“Therefore, for the applicability of the law of occupation, it makes no difference whether an occupation has received Security Council approval, what its aim is, or indeed whether it is called an ‘invasion’, ‘liberation’, ‘administration’ or ‘occupation’. As the law of occupation is primarily motivated by humanitarian considerations, it is solely the facts on the ground that determine its application.”
In March of 2019, President Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, the only state in the United Nations other than Israel to make such a declaration. The UN Security Council had passed Resolution 497 which declared the Israeli announcement of sovereignty over the Golan Heights in 1981 null and void–a resolution which the US supported at that time. But there are few Israeli settlements in the Golan Heights nor are there any in the Gaza Strip. In the West Bank, however, there almost 600,000 Israeli settlers in about 140 settlements.
The new US position was welcomed by Israel but was repudiated by Palestinians. The new US position makes the stated objective of US foreign policy–a two-state solution–virtually impossible. But it also makes the prospect of peace between Israelis and Palestinians more unlikely. Ultimately, Israel will have to decide whether it will completely annex the West Bank. If it does, it will have to make a choice: give the Palestinians full citizenship rights (which means that Palestinians will be able to outvote Israelis in any national election) or to treat Palestinians in the West Bank as less than full legal citizens in Israel. The first choice means an end to the idea of Israel as a Jewish state. The second choice means an end to the idea of Israel as a democratic state. Neither choice is a good one for Israel.
The International Institute for Strategic Studies has published a very informative article on Iran’s strategic intent. The article points out how Iran has been pursuing a very robust foreign policy in the Middle East since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq in 2003:
“By 2019, Iran’s influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen had become a new normal in a region where such a concept would have once been unthinkable by the region’s leaders, including those in Tehran. Iran had achieved much of this change using a transnational Shia militancy, capable of fighting with varying degrees of skill and discipline, which confronted different Iranian adversaries on disconnected battlefields simultaneously.
“No state has been so active, and perhaps as effective, as Iran in regional conflicts in modern times. The list of Iran’s actions against regional targets is long: Iranian personnel and equipment have conducted offensive cyber attacks, enabled naval attacks in the Red Sea, and missile and UAV attacks on Saudi Arabia and its population. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC’s) Quds Force operations have sparked hundreds of Israeli airstrikes against Iranian and Iranian-backed-group sites in Syria. Iran has also maintained small ground forces in Syria, Yemen and sometimes Iraq.”
The article is incredibly detailed and will be useful for anyone who wishes to understand Iran’s intentions and capabilities in the Middle East.
“‘We explicitly defined the joint military drill being planned by the U.S. and South Korea as a main factor of screwing up tensions of the Korean peninsula and the region out of control,’ the statement reads.
“‘Despite our repeated warnings, the US and the South Korean side decided to push ahead with the military drill hostile to the DPRK at the most sensitive time,’ the statement reads. North Korea has imposed a year-end deadline for the US to come up with a strategy for reopening dialogue between the two countries; US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said ‘talks about talks’ are in the works as he headed to South Korea on Wednesday, according to The Washington Post.
“But while the statement is clear that North Korea is dissatisfied, it’s not clear what the consequences of that dissatisfaction are.”
It is unclear what North Korea is threatening. NDTV quotes a South Korean analyst about the statement’s implications: “Cheong Seong-chang, a senior fellow at South Korea’s Sejong Institute think-tank, said the North Korean statement appeared to be aimed at justifying future military actions.”
It is also unseemly for the US to make its monetary demands public. The US declaration makes it appear as if the US forces are mercenaries. It is far better for such negotiations to be handled discreetly. It seems highly implausible that the US would pull its troops out of the Korean peninsula if South Korea refuses to pay.
President Trump hosted Turkish President Erdogan at the White House at a time when US-Turkish relations are quite tense. The US disapproves of the Turkish decision to buy Russian anti-missile systems that could compromise the effectiveness of the American top-of-the-line fighter plane, the F-35. Additionally, the Turkish decision to invade Syria placed the Kurds, an important US ally in the region, in a very dangerous situation. These disputes need to be resolved, but it is not clear that a White House visit, with all the legitimacy it confers, was the right venue to discuss those matters. Indeed, President Erdogan took the occasion to return a letter send to him by President Trump that Erdogan considered highly insulting. Despite all these controversies, it is clear that the Turkish press regards the Erdogan visit as a victory for President Erdogan.
“Aykan Erdemir, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former member of the Turkish parliament, said Erdoğan’s remarks are meant to send a message in Turkey.
“’Erdoğan really is a very cunning politician, so he is speaking in a way, when translated into English, let’s say harmless comments,’ he said. ‘But when his loyalists listen in Turkish, in Turkey, they can be interpreted as Erdoğan dominating Trump, or even insulting Trump.’”
There are reports that the Trump Administration is considering additional tax cuts specifically targeted toward the middle class. The political aspect of this possibility lies in its attractiveness as a campaign promise in 2020. The ideological aspect is neoliberal: lower taxes are believed to stimulate investments that stimulate job creation (the “trickle-down” theory). These cuts follow those made in 2017 which changed rates in dramatic fashion. For the first time in US history, “labor income was taxed at a higher rate than capital income”. Perversely, the tax cuts of 2017 have not delivered on the promise of increasing business investments: “15 months after it took effect, business investment has actually been contracting, falling 1 percent and 3 percent in the past two quarters.” Finally, the current tax rates are profoundly regressive: “the 400 richest Americans now pay a total tax rate of about 23% — that’s lower than the bottom half of U.S. households, who pay a rate of about 24%.” What is especially curious is how little outcry has developed as the less well-off begin to subsidize the life styles of the better-off.
On 7 November there was a US Defense Department Press Briefing by Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Jonathan Rath Hoffman and Navy Rear Admiral William D. Byrne Jr. It was a fascinating briefing and the press asked several very good questions about the decision of the US to place troops to secure the Syrian oil fields. Ostensibly, the mission is to prevent ISIS from gaining control of those oil fields and the oil revenues that they could gain from selling the oil. It is hard to imagine ISIS having the capability to take control of the oil fields since the organization is very fragmented now and has no weaponry such as tanks that could hold territory. The US holds that all the revenues from the oil fields will go to the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Force (SDF), perhaps as a way to help the Kurds after they were betrayed by the US decision to leave northeastern Syria last month. The Kurds, however, have no legal right to the oil revenues. But the most interesting question was how the US would handle an attempt by the Syrian government to take control of the oil fields–after all, the oil is on Syrian sovereign territory and US troops are not in Syria at the request of the Syrian government.
Q: If I may follow up? So if – do – do the – the U.S. troops have the – the authorization to shoot if a representative of the Syrian government comes to the oil fields – oil fields and says I am here to take property of these oil fields?
REAR ADM. BYRNE: On the other forces in the area, I think we’re all aware of who the players are in the field here. And to the rules of engagement in particular, I’m not going to get into specifics but – but I’ll make a couple of quick points on that.
First is deconfliction; and there are existing – existing deconfliction channels in place in theater amongst U.S. forces and all of the players – that’s airspace deconfliction, deconfliction on the ground. So we want to prevent incidents from happening by getting out in front of it.
The second is de-escalation; and when – when met with an unsure situation, an uncertain situation, the first thing we try and do – to do is de-escalate the situation. So we step through pre-planned responses to de-escalate. We identify who that potential threat might be, we make our presence known by sight and sound, and then we communicate with them to figure out who are you, why are you here, and what are your intentions, in order to de-escalate the situation.
And – and finally, our commanders always retain the right and the obligation of self-defense when faced with a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent.
(CROSSTALK)
Q: The legal basis of controlling the oil fields, the government of Syria is still, based on international law in the U.N., is still recognized legitimate government. Are government forces allowed to go back and retake national resources that belong to …
MR. HOFFMAN: I will – I will – I will make it – I’ll …
(CROSSTALK)
MR. HOFFMAN: … I’ll put it very simply. Everyone in the region knows where American forces are. We’re very clear with anyone in the region in working to deconflict where our forces are. If anyone – we work to ensure that – that no one approaches or has – shows hostile intent to our forces, and if they do, our commanders maintain the right of self-defense.
The position of the US in Syria is untenable. US troops are an occupation force and have no legal right to hold Syrian territory. If Syria decides to regain control of the oil fields, and they may have the support of Russian troops in the country, then the US will be placed in a very uncomfortable position. The right of “self-defense” in such a situation is essentially the right to withdraw troops if they are threatened.
“It may not be long before one-percenters actually surpass the middle and upper-middle classes. Household wealth in the upper-most bracket grew by $650 billion in the second quarter of 2019, while Americans in the 50th to 90th percentiles saw a $210 billion gain.
“For now, those Americans in 90th to 99th percentiles — well-to-do, but not the super rich — still control the biggest share of wealth, with $42.6 trillion in assets.
“The lone group left out of the fun: the bottom 50% of Americans. Those households have 35.7% of liabilities in the U.S. and just 6.1% of assets.”
The increase in wealth is hardly the result of robust economic growth–the US economy is growing but only at a rate of about 2% a year, much lower than the 18% increase in the value of the stock market. The stock market continues to grow rapidly because the cost of money is very low due to the low interest rates maintained by the US Federal Reserve.
The political question is how much tension these disparities will create. In the US, the Baby Boomer generation has 11 times the wealth of the Millennial generation. Right now, it does not appear as if the Millennials will take to the streets. But it is clear, that inequality is a prime mover of the protests that have occurred throughout the world this year.
Today marks two anniversaries. One is the anniversary of Kristallnacht, the night in 1938 when mobs of people in Germany, Austria, and the Sudetenland attacked the homes and shops of Jewish owners. The word Kristallnacht refers to the sound of shattered glass as windows were broken by the mobs, acts that were tolerated by the authorities. The violence presaged the Holocaust catastrophe. The violence was followed by the following changes in the treatment of Jews in Nazi-controlled areas:
Jews were required to turn over all precious metals to the government.
Pensions for Jews dismissed from civil service jobs were arbitrarily reduced.
Jewish-owned bonds, stocks, jewelry and art works can be alienated only to the German state.
Jews were physically segregated within German towns.
A ban on the Jewish ownership of carrier pigeons.
The suspension of Jewish driver’s licenses.
The confiscation of Jewish-owned radios.
A curfew to keep Jews of the streets between 9:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. in the summer and 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. in the winter.
Laws protecting tenants were made non-applicable to Jewish tenants.
[Perhaps to help insure the Jews could not fight back in the future, the Minister of the Interior issued regulations against Jews’ possession of weapons on November 11. This prohibited Jews from “acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.”]
Unfortunately, the world turned its back on the Jews who were disenfranchised by these actions. The inaction of the global community gave the Nazis the sense that their treatment of Jews would not result in any penalties.
The second anniversary is the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The wall was built in 1961 by East German authorities who wanted to prevent the outflow of people from East Berlin to West Berlin because the outflow suggested the failure of Communist rule in East Germany. For people in the West, the Wall symbolized the totalitarian rule enforced by the Soviet Union on its client states in East and Central Europe.
In 1989, there was increased pressure by the people of East Berlin to have access to the West and the ability of the East Germans to control the population of their part of the city declined precipitously. Ultimately, people began to move across the border and people in West Berlin began to tear down the wall. The collapse of the Berlin Wall signaled the beginning of the end of the Cold War which finally resulted in the dissolution of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in 1991.
World Politics News 