World Politics News   Articles for World Politics Course

Ronen Bergman and Mark Mazzetti have written a very detailed and well-informed article for The New York Times entitled “The Secret History of the Push to Strike Iran”. The article does an excellent job of interpreting the objectives of the three major actors in this elaborate diplomatic dance: the US, Israel, and Iran. The essay highlights the different bureaucratic factions within each and how those differences affected day-to-day decisions. Given that Iran figures prominently among global concerns that could lead to war, I would recommend that citizens read the essay carefully. The most interesting part of this conflict is the extent to which it seems to be clear that neither the US or Iran are really interested in war; it seems to be Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that is the main driver behind the path toward conflict.

Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam has formally withdrawn the extradition bill that led to weeks of demonstrations by Hong Kongers who believed that the bill violated the British-Chinese agreement on “One Country, Two Systems”. It is unclear whether this decision will bring an end to those demonstrations. The Straits Times makes this assessment:

“Although Mrs Lam had previously suspended the Bill – saying it was ‘dead’ – her move did little to appease demonstrators, who continued protesting and expanded their demands to include calls for greater democratic freedom. Without the Bill’s formal withdrawal, it could be reintroduced in a matter of days. 

“Mrs Lam’s announcement essentially responds to one of five demands protesters have asked for. The others are: the retraction of the word ‘riot’ to describe rallies; the release of all arrested demonstrators; an independent inquiry into the police; and the right for Hong Kongers to democratically choose their own leaders. 

But the government’s response to the demonstrations has eroded public trust to an extraordinary degree. Vox quotes several protesters who have vowed to continue the protests in an effort to forestall a future clampdown by the Beijing government. The central government will determine its future course of actions depending on how other movements, such as in Taiwan, interpret the outcome of the protests.

Raoni Metuktire is chief of the indigenous Brazilian Kayapó people and he has written an essay on the importance of the Amazon basin for The Guardian. The essay comes partially in response to the fires which are currently burning in the basin, but it is primarily a cri de coeur against the depredation of the Amazon which has been ongoing since the arrival of European colonists. Metuktire writes:

“We call on you to stop what you are doing, to stop the destruction, to stop your attack on the spirits of the Earth. When you cut down the trees you assault the spirits of our ancestors. When you dig for minerals you impale the heart of the Earth. And when you pour poisons on the land and into the rivers – chemicals from agriculture and mercury from gold mines – you weaken the spirits, the plants, the animals and the land itself. When you weaken the land like that, it starts to die. If the land dies, if our Earth dies, then none of us will be able to live, and we too will all die.

“Why do you do this? You say it is for development – but what kind of development takes away the richness of the forest and replaces it with just one kind of plant or one kind of animal? Where the spirits once gave us everything we needed for a happy life – all of our food, our houses, our medicines – now there is only soya or cattle. Who is this development for? Only a few people live on the farm lands; they cannot support many people and they are barren.”

President Bolsonaro is unlikely to be moved by the essay, but one can only hope that Metuktire’s plea will be heard by many who can put pressure on Brazil to protect the Amazon. Unfortunately, the US did not agree to participate in the plan to begin to protect the Amazon at the recent G7 meeting.

Conservative MP Phillip Lee has defected to the Liberal Democrats, erasing the one-vote majority held by the Tories in the British Parliament. The defectors from the Conservative Party are joining with the Labour Party to pass legislation barring a “no-deal” Brexit, an option that Prime Minister Boris Johnson regards as an essential lever to force concessions from the European Union. But the defectors believe that a “no-deal” Brexit would destroy the British economy. Johnson will likely call for a new election to secure a more supportive House of Commons, but that strategy is a real roll of the dice. We shall see if the Labour Party and the defectors from the Conservative Party can pass legislation to demand an extension from the European Union, a possibility that is probably unlikely. It is very difficult to see the outcome of this very convoluted political strategy.

The International Monetary Fund publishes a journal called Finance and Development. The most recent edition of the journal is focused on how the international financial system allows corporations and individuals to avoid paying taxes through offshore banks. The scale of tax avoidance is truly amazing. According to the report:

“Global GDP last year was $87 trillion, up from just $11 trillion in 1980. While GDP is just one among many measures of well-being, the improvement is remarkable. But before we start celebrating, consider these numbers, which point to the dark side of the global economy:

$7 trillion

“That figure, equal to 8 percent of global GDP, represents the amount of private wealth estimated to be hidden in offshore financial centers, much of which likely comes from illicit activities.

$1 trillion

“That’s the gain in government revenue, by one calculation, that could be achieved by reducing corruption around the world by one-third.

The chances that these loopholes will be closed by the current governments of the rich world is essentially zero. The poor will continue to subsidize the rich.

Great Britain needs to make a deal with the European Union on its departure from the community by 31 October. The new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, was a strong advocate for Brexit and he just asked the Queen to suspend (prorogue) Parliament until 14 October (a completely legal move). The move will effectively limit the amount of time Parliament can debate the terms of Brexit to two weeks. Many in Britain regard the prorogation as a “coup” against democracy. There are techniques for voiding the prorogation, but none seems to be highly likely given Johnson’s opposition. The suspension makes the possibility of a British exit without an agreement with the European Union (a “no-deal” Brexit) more likely. There are many issues yet to be resolved, but the thorniest seems to be the relationship between Northern Ireland (which is part of Great Britain so it will also leave the European Union) and the Republic of Ireland (which will remain in the Union as an independent state). Since the Good Friday Agreement reached 20 years ago between Great Britain and Ireland, movement between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland has been seamless. If an agreement between Great Britain and the EU is not reached, then a “hard” border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland–complete with immigration and customs controls–would have to be resurrected, reminding the Irish of their long, tortured history with Great Britain.

There have been negotiations going on for months between the US and the Taliban over a possible peace agreement in Afghanistan. The discussions have been held in the Qatari city of Doha since the US does not recognize the legitimacy of the Taliban regime. These discussions have been set against the backdrop of US President Trump’s desire for a complete US withdrawal from this war which began in October 2001 (a sentiment also held by his predecessor, President Obama, who failed to accomplish that end). The withdrawal is strongly opposed by most in the US military who believe that the situation in Afghanistan is very unstable and that a US withdrawal at this time would allow terrorist forces to once again use Afghanistan as a base for operations. Al Jazeera outlines the essential points of the current round of negotiations:

“Since last year, the two sides have held discussions over a potential agreement that is focused on four key issues: a Taliban guarantee that it will not allow foreign armed groups and fighters to use Afghanistan as a launchpad to conduct attacks outside the country; the complete withdrawal of US and NATO forces; an intra-Afghan dialogue; and a permanent ceasefire.

“A Taliban representative in Doha who is part of the negotiating team told Al Jazeera on Tuesday that a peace agreement was ‘near’, without providing further details.

“‘This round of talks has been very productive and we are near to an agreement that will be finalised and hopefully announced in the next coming weeks,’ he said.

“The Taliban, who was overthrown in 2001 by a US-led military coalition for sheltering al-Qaeda, the group blamed for the September 11, 2001 attacks in the US, has long demanded a complete withdrawal of foreign troops in order to ‘end the occupation’ in Afghanistan.

“About 14,000 US troops and around 17,000 troops from 39 NATO allies and partner countries are in Afghanistan in a non-combative role. “

We know that President Trump’s policy is opposed by his National Security Adviser, John Bolton, who apparently has been sidelined in the discussions. But don’t count this hardliner out–he is reputedly a straight-edge kind of bureaucratic fighter.

Despite a police ban on demonstrations, thousands of Hong Kongers protested in the streets. The protesters escalated their actions by setting up barricades in the streets and setting them on fire. The protesters continue to use social media to avoid detection by the police, using a messaging app called Telegram that encrypts telephone numbers. Nevertheless, the police appear to be able to identify some users by uploading huge numbers of telephone numbers and matching them with known identities. I suspect that Telegram will try to circumvent this strategy, but the sophistication of the protesters continues to impress me and I am sure that the techniques are being shared globally. The police are also using blue dye to identify protesters. The Chinese government has ramped up its charges that the US and the EU are encouraging the protests, but there is little evidence that the US President has said anything that suggests support for the protesters:

“‘The remarks made by some US politicians disrespect the strict law enforcement by the Hong Kong police,’ the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong said.

“‘The real purpose is to let criminals continue to plague Hong Kong and completely destroy the rule of law in Hong Kong.’

“In a separate statement, the office opposed remarks by Ms Federica Mogherini, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. “

But President Trump has yet to formulate any coherent policy toward China. There are too many conflicting issues: Taiwan, Iran, North Korea, and trade. Trying to balance them all seems to be beyond his diplomatic capabilities.

Pakistani Prime Minister, Imran Khan, has written an op-ed for The New York Times, entitled “The World Can’t Ignore Kashmir. We Are All in Danger.” It is an essay in response to India’s decision to eliminate the special status of Kashmir and Jammu and to place the people within those territories under the normal constitutional protections of India proper. The Pakistanis regard the move as an attempt to integrate the territories into Indian sovereignty, jeopardizing the rights of the Muslims who will now be under the control of the Hindu-nationalist government of Narendra Modi. Khan writes:

“On Aug. 5, in its most brazen and egregious move, Mr. Modi’s government altered the status of Indian-occupied Kashmir through the revocation of Article 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution. The move is illegal under the Constitution of India, but more important, it is a violation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Kashmir and the Shimla Agreement between India and Pakistan.

“And Mr. Modi’s ‘New India’ chose to do this by imposing a military curfew in Kashmir, imprisoning its population in their homes and cutting off their phone, internet and television connections, rendering them without news of the world or their loved ones. The siege was followed by a purge: Thousands of Kashmiris have been arrested and thrown into prisons across India. A blood bath is feared in Kashmir when the curfew is lifted. Already, Kashmiris coming out in defiance of the curfew are being shot and killed.

“If the world does nothing to stop the Indian assault on Kashmir and its people, there will be consequences for the whole world as two nuclear-armed states get ever closer to a direct military confrontation. India’s defense minister has issued a not-so-veiled nuclear threat to Pakistan by saying that the future of India’s ‘no first use‘ policy on nuclear weapons will ‘depend on circumstances.’ Similar statements have been made by Indian leaders periodically. Pakistan has long viewed India’s ‘no first use’ claims with skepticism.”

For an hour today, Pakistanis recognized the precarious status of Muslims in Kashmir, indicating strong support to reverse the Indian decision. The Pakistani newspaper, Dawn, has run an op-ed supporting Khan’s position on the matter. The Pakistani Senate has unanimously passed a resolution condemning the Indian action. Despite US President Trump’s offer to mediate the crisis, which was rebuffed by India, the US has not issued any hard statements on the crisis. Apparently, the US seems willing to let events in South Asia take their course without any proposals to avoid a deepening of the crisis.

On the way to Yellowstone, we went through the Grand Tetons National Park. Who cares about what is going on in the world?

This post will be the last one for about a week. I am off to Yellowstone National Park and I hope that I can avoid newspapers and television. A break from news is long overdue. Perhaps when I return home the world will be more peaceful (I doubt it, but my aspiration is to be less frantically disgusted).

US President Trump has cancelled his scheduled trip to Denmark ostensibly because the state would not discuss the sale of Greenland to the US. The US has purchased land from Denmark in the past: the Danish West Indies became the US Virgin Islands in 1917 as the US feared German control of the islands during World War I. The price was $25 million. US interest in Greenland is twofold. First, the US has only a very small territory abutting the Arctic (Alaska) in comparison to Russian territory (west of Murmansk to the North Pole and from the eastern Chukchi Peninsula). As ice in the Arctic melts because of climate change, many states are interested in the region for maritime routes and resources. Second, Greenland has mineral resources that are quite valuable.

But what was once ordinary state behavior in the early 20th century is now regarded as preposterous. It does not appear as if the US overture to Denmark (which controls the foreign policy of Greenland, but not its domestic policy) was well-considered or even more than a brain fart (I really do need a vacation). When the government of Denmark indicated that Greenland was not up for sale, President Trump cancelled his scheduled meeting with the Danish government–a government that historically has been a steadfast ally to the US. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen made a very diplomatic statement about the cancellation, but did say that the idea of buying Greenland was “absurd”. She went on: “Thankfully, the time where you buy and sell other countries and populations is over…..Let’s leave it there. Jokes aside, we will, of course, love to have an even closer strategic relationship with the United States.” President Trump characterized the response as “nasty”.

A more likely explanation for President Trump’s cancellation is that he is afraid that former President Obama will upstage his visit when Obama visits Denmark at the end of September.

Zachary Karabell has written a fascinating essay for Foreign Affairs which addresses the demographic decline affecting many of the states in the world. Global population is still predicted to increase to about 10 billion by the middle of the century, but several countries, like Germany and Japan, but also countries like China and India, are experiencing fertility rates less than replacement. A slowdown of population growth would undoubtedly be better for the global environment, but only if people stopped consuming so much. The demographic decline may make that possible:

“No capitalist economic system operates on the presumption that there will be zero or negative growth. No one deploys investment capital or loans expecting less tomorrow than today. But in a world of graying and shrinking populations, that is the most likely scenario, as Japan’s aging, graying, and shrinking absolute population now demonstrates. A world of zero to negative population growth is likely to be a world of zero to negative economic growth, because fewer and older people consume less. There is nothing inherently problematic about that, except for the fact that it will completely upend existing financial and economic systems. The future world may be one of enough food and abundant material goods relative to the population; it may also be one in which capitalism at best frays and at worst breaks down completely.”

The shift should not be surprising. Capitalism developed when there were about 700 million people on the planet and in a region of the world (Europe) where scarcity was the main feature of human existence. Its emphasis on production led to the pillaging of the environment; its neglect of consumption will perhaps be its final undoing.

For the 11th weekend in a row, protesters mobbed the streets of Hong Kong, and the number of protesters seemed to be the largest so far. The protesters moved back into the streets and away from the airport, a strategy designed to reduce the economic backlash against the protests. President Xi is faced with difficult choices. The People’s Liberation Army has some troops stationed in Hong Kong and there are apparently more troops being massed outside the city. But the use of troops would remind too many people of the brutal repression of the 1989 protests in Tiananmen Square. And harsh repression would damage the city’s reputation as a safe place for foreign investors. President Trump also faces a difficult choice. Many Congresspeople have condemned the treatment of Hong Kong by the Beijing government, but President Trump has so far refused to criticize openly President Xi. The protesters also have difficult choices. They have clearly made their point: do they also demand that Beijing back down? Or is there some way to manage the issues without push coming to shove?

For the last few weeks, an Iranian oil tanker, the Grace I, has been held in Gibraltar, accused of violating sanctions against Syria. The seizure was part of the US policy of “maximum pressure” against Iran and was designed to deprive Iran of necessary oil revenues. Gibraltar is a British colony and it has decided to release the oil tanker. The US issued a warrant to seize the tanker on the grounds that it was associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and therefore associated with terrorism. The government of Gibraltar rejected the warrant. Al Jazeera explains the decision:

“Gibraltar’s government said on Sunday it could not comply with the US request because of European law.

“‘The Central Authority’s inability to seek the Orders requested is a result of the operation of  European Union law and the differences in the sanctions regimes applicable to Iran in the EU and the US,’ the government said in a statement.

“‘The EU sanctions regime against Iran – which is applicable in Gibraltar – is much narrower than that applicable in the US.’

“Iran has denied the tanker was ever headed to Syria. 

“Al Jazeera’s Andrew Simmons, reporting from Gibraltar, said the authorities in the overseas British territory had determined that US sanctions on Iran were not applicable in the EU.

“‘The US action is based on US sanctions, while the action taken by Gibraltar and the UK was enforced under EU sanctions, and as far as that issue goes there is compliance now. There was an assurance [from Iran] that this cargo on board, 2.1 million barrels of light crude oil, is not destined for Syria,’ he said. “

The British decision to repudiate the US position is a serious setback for the US government. The ship changed its name to the Adrian Darya-1 and set sail flying an Iranian flag, not the Panamanian flag of the Grace I.

The Economic Policy Institute has published its report on the compensation of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) in the United States. The data confirm the trend toward economic inequality:

“Average pay of CEOs at the top 350 firms in 2018 was $17.2 million—or $14.0 million using a more conservative measure. (Stock options make up a big part of CEO pay packages, and the conservative measure values the options when granted, versus when cashed in, or “realized.”) CEO compensation is very high relative to typical worker compensation (by a ratio of 278-to-1 or 221-to-1). In contrast, the CEO-to-typical-worker compensation ratio (options realized) was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 58-to-1 in 1989. CEOs are even making a lot more—about five times as much—as other earners in the top 0.1%. From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.”

The report notes that the stock options often granted in compensation packages have increased dramatically in value as the stock market has gone up, often because of the buy-backs that were stimulated by the tax changes made by the US Congress in 2017.