For the first time, the US has seized a North Korean cargo vessel that it claimed was violating sanctions by carrying coal. The seizure came just hours after North Korea tested two short-range missiles, as it rattles the US cage to speed up the nuclear negotiations. North Korea has also ceased to cooperate with the US on the return of military remains from the Korean War. These actions will undoubtedly make further negotiations between the US and North Korea more difficult. They also complicate the situation for South Korean President Moon who has been steadily losing favor among the South Korean population. The US has not gained much in its two-year pursuit of better relations with North Korea and it appears as if it is losing credibility with one of its main allies, South Korea.
As the US ratchets up its pressure on Iran, it also seems to be unaware that it is heavily dependent on states that have good relations with Iran. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo went to Iraq to persuade it to reduce its relations with Iran. Iraq politely refused, hardly the outcome the US anticipated when it overthrew Saddam Hussein in 2003 (if Hussein were still in power, he would gladly acquiesce to Pompeo). The US also sent 4 B-52 bombers to the region to reinforce the aircraft carrier group it sent to the Persian Gulf. But those bombers are based in Qatar, another country with good relations with Iran (dictated by the fact that the two countries share a large natural gas reservoir in the Persian Gulf). The strong military presence of the US in the region rests upon two very tentative allies–not the strongest bargaining position.
Reuters has published an article describing the reasons why the Trump Administration has decided to impose new tariffs on Chinese products. The trade talks have been going on for some time, and there was a sense that an agreement was in the offing. But the Chinese apparently understood certain parts of the agreement in ways that differed profoundly from the US understanding. It is hard to determine whether the disagreements are substantive or whether they are part of a negotiating strategy. The Reuters report gives the impression that the disagreements are real:
“The administration said the latest tariff escalation would take effect at 12:01 a.m. Friday, hiking levees on Chinese products such as internet modems and routers, printed circuit boards, vacuum cleaners and furniture.
“The Chinese reversal may give China hawks in the Trump administration, including Lighthizer, an opening to take a harder stance.
“Mnuchin – who has been more open to a deal with improved market access, and at times clashed with Lighthizer – appeared in sync with Lighthizer in describing the changes to reporters on Monday, while still leaving open the possibility that new tariffs could be averted with a deal.
“Trump’s tweets left no room for backing down, and Lighthizer made it clear that, despite continuing talks, ‘come Friday, there will be tariffs in place.’”
“In a televised speech, [Iranian President] Rouhani said that Iran would hold on to stockpiles of excess uranium and heavy water used in its nuclear reactors. He set a 60-day deadline for new terms to the nuclear accord, after which Tehran would resume higher uranium enrichment.
“’We are ready to negotiate, within the boundaries of JCPOA,’ he said referring to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal. ‘It is not us who has left the negotiation table.’”
The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported that Iran has up to this point adhered to the agreement despite the US withdrawal from it. It seems as if Rouhani’s statement is an attempt to prod more negotiations on the deal, but there is no evidence that the US is interested in further discussion.
Dina Esfandiary, writing in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, raises an interesting take on the US actions: that the US policy of maximum pressure is designed to provoke a war:
“Reframing a routine deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln strike force to the region only serves to unnecessarily heighten tensions and foster the potential for miscalculation. The only reason to do any of this is to push Iran into a corner, paving the way toward military confrontation—something few want because it will achieve little.”
Sending an aircraft carrier close to Iran is an unmistakable provocation. Sending an aircraft carrier into the Strait of Hormuz is also not a smart move. The aircraft carrier is designed for open waters, not the cramped space of the Strait.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is a committee of 145 expert authors from 50 countries who have met over the past three years, with inputs from another 310 contributing authors. It has released a 1600-page report which argues that up to a million species are threatened with extinction, many within a few decades: “The average abundance of native species in most major land-based habitats has fallen by at least 20%, mostly since 1900. More than 40% of amphibian species, almost 33% of reefforming corals and more than a third of all marine mammals are threatened. The picture is less clear for insect species, but available evidence supports a tentative estimate of 10% being threatened. At least 680 vertebrate species had been driven to extinction since the 16th century and more than 9% of all domesticated breeds of mammals used for food and agriculture had become extinct by 2016, with at least 1,000 more breeds still threatened.” Among the other findings:
“Three-quarters of the land-based environment and about 66% of the marine environment have been significantly altered by human actions. On average these trends have been less severe or avoided in areas held or managed by Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.
“More than a third of the world’s land surface and nearly 75% of freshwater resources are now devoted to crop or livestock production.
“The value of agricultural crop production has increased by about 300% since 1970, raw timber harvest has risen by 45% and approximately 60 billion tons of renewable and nonrenewable resources are now extracted globally every year – having nearly doubled since 1980.
“Land degradation has reduced the productivity of 23% of the global land surface, up to US$577 billion in annual global crops are at risk from pollinator loss and 100-300 million people are at increased risk of floods and hurricanes because of loss of coastal habitats and protection.
“In 2015, 33% of marine fish stocks were being harvested at unsustainable levels; 60% were maximally sustainably fished, with just 7% harvested at levels lower than what can be sustainably fished.
“Urban areas have more than doubled since 1992.
“Plastic pollution has increased tenfold since 1980, 300-400 million tons of heavy metals, solvents, toxic sludge and other wastes from industrial facilities are dumped annually into the world’s waters, and fertilizers entering coastal ecosystems have produced more than 400 ocean ‘dead zones’, totalling more than 245,000 km2 (591-595) – a combined area greater than that of the United Kingdom.
“Negative trends in nature will continue to 2050 and beyond in all of the policy scenarios explored in the Report, except those that include transformative change – due to the projected impacts of increasing land-use change, exploitation of organisms and climate change, although with significant differences between regions.”
It is unlikely that there will be a positive response to this report by the Trump Administration. But it is clear that the absence of a response is completely unacceptable and reprehensible.
The Trump Administration is sending the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group as well as bombers to the Middle East, citing intelligence that suggests that Iran is planning the threaten US forces in the region. The US is claiming that there were “’multiple, credible threats’ against U.S. forces on land, including in Iraq, by Iran and proxy forces and at sea.” The intelligence sources were not identified and I will confess that I am skeptical of the claim. This is not the first time that the National Security Adviser, John Bolton, has exaggerated threats from Iran. Bolton argued for an attack on Iran in an op-ed for the New York Times in 2015: “The inconvenient truth is that only military action like Israel’s 1981 attack on Saddam Hussein’s Osirak reactor in Iraq or its 2007 destruction of a Syrian reactor, designed and built by North Korea, can accomplish what is required. Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed.” Fortunately, President Obama chose to pursue the Iranian nuclear agreement, a decision that Iran still observes, even though the US has violated the agreement by abrogating it.
“Bolton’s strategy was based on the claim that Iran was hiding its military nuclear program from the IAEA, and in early 2004, he came up with a dramatic propaganda ploy: he sent a set of satellite images to the IAEA showing sites at the Iranian military reservation at Parchin that he claimed were being used for tests to simulate nuclear weapons. Bolton demanded that the IAEA request access to inspect those sites and leaked his demand to the Associated Press in September 2004. In fact, the satellite images showed nothing more than bunkers and buildings for conventional explosives testing.
“Bolton was apparently hoping the Iranian military would not agree to any IAEA inspections based on such bogus claims, thus playing into his propaganda theme of Iran’s “intransigence” in refusing to answer questions about its nuclear program. But in 2005 Iran allowed the inspectors into those sites and even let them choose several more sites to inspect. The inspectors found no evidence of any nuclear-related activities.
“But the whole story of the so-called ‘laptop documents’ was a fabrication. In 2013, a former senior German official revealed the true story to this writer: the documents had been given to German intelligence by the Mujahedin E Khalq, the anti-Iran armed group that was well known to have been used by Mossad to ‘launder’ information the Israelis did not want attributed to themselves.”
It is not an accident that the US moves come after Netanyahu won re-election and during heightened tensions between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Increased tensions with Iran also work to relieve some of the pressure on US President Trump caused by the Mueller and Congressional investigations. My advice would be to be very suspicious of any moves against Iran.
There have been intensifying exchanges of rockets and air strikes between militants in Gaza and Israel. The situation has been worsening over the last few weeks and it appears as if both sides are hunkering down for an extended period. The Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have been living under a strict Israeli blockade for many years and the escalation of violence suggests that there is a sense among some in the Gaza that there is nothing more left to lose. The timing of the strikes is awkward for both sides, as explained by the Public Broadcasting system:
“Israel has vowed to hit back hard against both Hamas and Islamic Jihad, whom it suspects of triggering the current conflagration. But, as in previous rounds where it stopped short of a full-fledged war, the timing for a prolonged round of fighting is tricky for Israel.
“The country marks Memorial Day and Independence Day this week. The following week it is set to host the Eurovision song contest, in which large groups of tourists are expected.
“For Gazans, the violence comes ahead of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, in which the faithful fast from dawn to dusk, which begins Monday.”
The fighting has erupted as the White House is preparing to roll out its proposed peace plan between the Israelis and Palestinians. We still do not know what the plan will involve, but most analysts believe that the few bits of information we have about the plan suggests that it will not be successful.
We are getting more information about the tests North Korea recently conducted. They are being described a “projectiles” and not necessarily missiles. Since the projectiles did not travel more than 120 miles it appears as if the tests were calibrated not to break any understandings between the US, South Korea, and North Korea. But they were clearly designed to demonstrate North Korea’s displeasure with the slow pace of negotiations. In Slate, Molly Olmstead relates the significance of the test:
“According to the Post, South Korea’s president said the North’s actions violated a September military cooperation agreement between the two countries aimed at reducing tensions. A spokeswoman for the president said the South would work with the U.S. to ‘ramp up vigilance and closely communicate with neighboring countries as needed.’ According to the Times, the South Korean foreign minister said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had said in a conversation with her that the U.S. would respond ‘with caution.’ In a tweet on Saturday, Trump said he still believes he can reach a nuclear deal with Kim.”
US President Trump had an hour-long telephone conversation with Russian President Putin. Trump reported that Putin told him that Russia did not want to get “involved” in Venezuela and that he and Putin had the same views on events in Venezuela.
“‘He is not looking at all to get involved in Venezuela other than he’d like to see something positive happen for Venezuela,’ Trump told reporters at the White House on Friday, following a call with the Russian leader earlier in the day. ‘And I feel the same way. We want to get some humanitarian aid — right now people are starving, they have no water, they have no food.’”
Trump’s assessment differs profoundly from the views expressed yesterday by his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and his National Security Adviser, John Bolton. Both those officials had strong views that both Russia and Cuba are actively propping up the regime of Nicolas Maduro. Additionally, Mr. Trump said that he had spoken “briefly” about the “hoax” that there was collusion with Russia during the 2016 US election. When asked by a reporter about the issue, Mr. Trump said that he found the question “very rude”. David Graham recounts the exchange with reporters today in the Oval Office:
“In brief remarks during a visit with the Slovakian prime minister, reporters asked Trump about the call. Had he discussed Russian meddling with Putin?
Trump: He sort of smiled when he said something to the effect that it started off as a mountain and it ended up being a mouse. But he knew that, because you knew there was no collusion whatsoever. So that is pretty much what it was—
Reporter: Did you tell him not to meddle in the next election?
Trump: Excuse me. I’m talking. I’m answering this question. You are very rude. So we had a good conversation about many different things. Okay.
Reporter: Did you tell him not to meddle in the next election?
Trump: We didn’t discuss that. Really, we didn’t discuss it. We discussed five or six things.
Cyclone Fani hit eastern India today and more than a million people had to be evacuated. Fani is the strongest storm to affect India in the last 20 years and early reports suggest widespread damage. The storm is tracking toward Bangladesh. It will likely take several days for the damage from the storm to be fully assessed.
Kiron Skinner, the Director of Policy Planning for the US State Department, gave an interview with Anne-Marie Slaughter (who once held Skinner’s position) at a conference in Washington DC. Her comments raised some eyebrows. Masha Gessen desxcribed parts of the talk in this way:
“A large part of Skinner’s job is listening to what the President says and trying to make sense of it. She said as much. ‘The President provides the hunches and instincts,’ she said, ‘and it’s my job, and that of Secretary Pompeo, to turn those hunches and instincts into hypotheses.’ She called the hypotheses the ‘Trump Doctrine’ and the ‘Pompeo Corollary.’
“Slaughter, logically, asked what the Trump Doctrine was. ‘That’s a tough one,’ Skinner responded, without a hint of irony. ‘It is, in a kind of broad way, a set of pillars that address twenty-first-century realities.’
“The pillars were: the ‘return to national sovereignty’; national interest; reciprocity in international relations and trade; ‘burden sharing,’ particularly in defense; and ‘new regional partnerships’ for what she described as ‘particular crises.’
“’If I can summarize,’ Slaughter suggested, ‘the Trump Doctrine is ‘The United States is a sovereign nation guided by its national interest—we’ll do for you if you’ll do for us.’
“Skinner confirmed that Slaughter’s understanding was correct.”
“When we think about the Soviet Union and that competition, in a way, it was a fight within the Western family. Karl Marx was a German Jew who developed a philosophy that was really within the larger body of political thought … that has some tenets even within classical liberalism …
“You could look at the Soviet Union, part West, part East, but it had some openings there that got us the Helsinki Final Act in 1975. It was a really important Western concept that opened the door really to undermine the Soviet Union, a totalitarian state, on human rights principles. That’s not really possible with China. This is a fight with a really different civilization and a different ideology. And the United States hasn’t had that before …”
“It’s also striking that it’s the first time we will have a great power competitor that is not Caucasian.”
I am not certain why Skinner thinks that China is so radically different from other great powers, but the injection of race into the equation is distinctly not consistent with realism. Perhaps Skinner can provide us with an explanation for how race changes the dynamics of power and interest.
The rise of authoritarian governments in the world since the Great Recession of 2008-09 has been startling and difficult to explain. But the erosion of faith in democratic institutions globally has been dramatic. The Pew Research Center has conducted a poll on the issue and the results are dispiriting.
“Anger at political elites, economic dissatisfaction and anxiety about rapid social changes have fueled political upheaval in regions around the world in recent years. Anti-establishment leaders, parties and movements have emerged on both the right and left of the political spectrum, in some cases challenging fundamental norms and institutions of liberal democracy. Organizations from Freedom House to the Economist Intelligence Unit to V-Demhave documented global declines in the health of democracy.”
What is most striking is the extent to which people tend to associate bad economic times with failures in democracy. The number of people who believe that their national economy is in bad shape is very high.
It is difficult to imagine that these economies will improve dramatically at any time in the near future. The demographics for economic activity are not favorable and the current policies of protectionism in many states will make export-oriented growth very difficult.
One of the pre-eminent analysts of international relations, John Mearsheimer, has written an essay for International Security entitled “Bound to Fail: The Rise and Fall of the Liberal International Order”. It is a theoretical piece that is deeply entrenched in some of the more arcane issues in international relations. But the essay is well-written and intelligent, and deserves close attention. Mearsheimer investigates the significance of the declining support globally for what we call the international liberal order, constructed after the end of World War II.
“Creating a liberal international order involved three main tasks. First, it was essential to expand the membership in the institutions that made up the Western order, as well as erect new institutions where necessary. In other words, it was important to build a web of international institutions with universal membership that wielded great influence over the behavior of the member states. Second, it was imperative to create an open and inclusive international economy that maximized free trade and fostered unfettered capital markets. This hyperglobalized world economy was intended to be much more ambitious in scope than the economic order that prevailed in the West during the Cold War. Third, it was crucial to vigorously spread liberal democracy around the world, a mission that was frequently shortchanged when the United States was competing for power with the Soviet Union. This goal was not the United States’ alone; its European allies generally embraced this undertaking as well.
“These three tasks, of course, are directly tied to the principal liberal theories of peace: liberal institutionalism, economic interdependence theory, and democratic peace theory. Thus, in the minds of its architects, constructing a robust, sustainable liberal international order was synonymous with creating a peaceful world. This deep-seated belief gave the United States and its allies a powerful incentive to work assiduously to create that new order. Integrating China and Russia into it was especially important for its success, because they were the most powerful states in the system after the United States. The goal was to embed them in as many institutions as possible, fully integrate them into the open international economy, and help turn them into liberal democracies.”
Mearsheimer argues that the liberal order created tensions in states that lead to the demise of the order: intense nationalism spawned by the economic inequalities created by globalization. It is a powerful observation, but one that sells short the resiliency of liberal institutions. The world faced the same pressures in the wake of World War I and it is true that liberal institutions failed to contain economic nationalism and the rise of fascism. But liberal institutions were revived in 1945 and proved to be quite effective. Perhaps we should focus on the cycles of international orders and not hold them to a static analysis.
“Bartiromo: Is the US support going to include troops? Are the military troops in the US going to head there and support Guaidó?
“Pompeo: The president has been crystal clear and incredibly consistent. Military action is possible. If that’s what’s required, that’s what the United States will do. We’re trying to do everything we can to avoid violence. We’ve asked all the parties involved not to engage in that kind of activity. We’d prefer a peaceful transition of government there where Maduro leaves and a new election is held, but the President has made clear in the event that there comes a moment — and we’ll all have to make decisions about when that moment is and the -resident will ultimately have to make that decision — he is prepared to do that if that’s what’s required.”
Protests continued in Venezuela and the situation remains fluid and uncertain. The Russians also made threats to the US on the issue of intervention. According to The Independent:
“The comments were quickly seized on by Russia, which warned the US not to become more directly involved in events in Venezuela, a situation that has rapidly turned into a proxy contest between Washington and Moscow.
“Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov told Mr Pompeo by phone on Wednesday that further ‘aggressive steps in Venezuela would be fraught with the gravest consequences’. Mr Lavrov also condemned US ‘interference’ in Venezuela’s internal affairs as a breach of international law.”
“For 10 days in April, Extinction Rebellion occupied major junctions across London. It blocked traffic on Oxford Street, Marble Arch, and Waterloo Bridge. Some protestors painted graffiti on the headquarters of oil giant Shell, calling the company “climate criminals.” Others glued themselves to trains, delaying commuters’ journeys. Still others blocked the entrance to the London Stock Exchange, calling on the financial industry to act on climate change. Their tactics to disturb public order led to more than 1,000 arrests.”
The movement has made it clear that its actions have only just begun. It is unclear, however, whether those tactics will spread to other countries or whether there is a natural limit on how far the protests will go to disrupt daily life in various countries.
Institutional Investor publishes an annual list of the world’s richest hedge fund managers. The amount of money these men (and they are all men) made in 2018 is staggering. We only have a rough idea of how rich the rich actually are (and the rich have no clue about how poor the poor actually are). But one also has to remember that these people did not produce anything nor did they employ a large work force. They all made money by manipulating money. It is also important to note that last year was a nad year for hedge funds.
Name
Annual Compensation
Ray Dalio
2019: $2 billion
James Simons
2019: $1.5 billion
Kenneth Griffin
2019: $870 million
John Overdeck, David Siegel (tie)
2019: $820 million
Israel (Izzy) Englander
2019: $750 million
Crispin Odey
2019: $530 million
David Shaw
2019: $500 million
Chase Coleman
2019: $465 million
Alan Howard
2019: $390 million
There were widespread clashes between protesters and law enforcement in Venezuela as the Interim President, Juan Guaido, urged the Venezuelan military to stop supporting Nicolas Maduro. Guaido stood by Leopoldo López, an opposition leader who has been under arrest since 2014 for staging protests against the government. López claims that he was released by members of the military, lending credence to the idea that the military’s support for Maduro may be weakening. The Guardian published a graphic and disturbing video of military vehicles being driven into crowds of protesters. The US is apparently heavily involved in supporting Guaido, but the details of that support are not fully known. But Newsweek assesses the US position:
“White House national security adviser John Bolton has said that the U.S. was actively backing opposition forces seeking to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Amid clashes Tuesday between Venezuelan security forces and defectors supporting U.S.-endorsed National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó, Bolton told reporters that the administration’s ‘principal objective’ was ‘the peaceful transfer of power,’ but reiterated President Donald Trump’s stance that ‘all options are on the table’ in ensuring Maduro was unseated.
“The U.S. has recognized Guaidó as acting president since January, cutting all ties with Maduro and targeting him with increasingly restrictive sanctions.
“‘We’re providing support in a variety of respects, certainly we have done everything we can to get humanitarian assistance into the country, we’re doing a lot of other things, some of which I’m not going to talk about,’ Bolton told said.”
The US involvement comes as both Cuba and Russia are increasing their involvement as well. The situation is becoming more intense and fraught as the violence escalates. The US should not become more involved in this power struggle–it has very little legitimacy in intervening in the internal affairs of states in Central and South America.
Alex Ward has written a very informative article for Vox on Japan’s recent defense build-up. With the encouragement of the US, Japan has been drifting away from the pacifist constraints imposed on it by the constitution written by the US at the end of World War II. States in East and Southeast Asia have not forgotten the behavior of the Japanese state during that war, and they are apprehensive about the change. In particular, the Chinese believe that the build-up is specifically intended to constrain Chinese power. Ward gives excellent background on Japan in world affairs to provide context for the recent decisions. It remains to be seen how far Japan can move in this direction; public opinion polls indicate that the Japanese population is still committed to a pacifist tradition.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has released its annual report on military spending in 2018. Global military spending reached $1.8 trillion in 2018. The two largest spenders were the US and China and the two states accounted for half of the total for the world.
“Total global military spending rose for the second consecutive year in 2018, to the highest level since 1988—the first year for which consistent global data is available. World spending is now 76 per cent higher than the post-cold war low in 1998.* World military spending in 2018 represented 2.1 per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP) or $239 per person. ‘In 2018 the USA and China accounted for half of the world’s military spending,’ says Dr Nan Tian, a researcher with the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure (AMEX) programme. ‘The higher level of world military expenditure in 2018 is mainly the result of significant increases in spending by these two countries.’”
Interestingly, despite Russian President Putin’s rhetoric about Russian military capabilities, Russian military spending has declined. According to the Economist:
“The most interesting contraction is, however, in Russia. “Can they count?” President Vladimir Putin asked of his Western rivals in February. “I’m sure they can. Let them count the speed and the range of the weapons systems we are developing”. But despite the theatrical flaunting of new missiles, and NATO’s impressive rearmament to the west, SIPRI calculates that Russia’s defence budget actually shrank by 3.5% in 2018—putting it outside the top five for the first time in over a decade. This may be the result of a weakening rouble. But Russia’s long military spending spree seems to be drawing to a close. That is a sobering thought for Mr Putin.
” In 2018, Congress gave the military an additional $61 billion in appropriations — giving the U.S. what then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis called ‘the largest military budget in history.’
“Trump this year has proposed increasing military spending by $33 billion — a 5% increase. At the same time, Trump is proposing cutting spending on diplomacy and development by $13 billion, or 23%. Trump has also criticized American allies in NATO for not spending enough on defense.”
It is difficult to imagine that pace of spending can persist for a long period of time, particularly since the US budget deficit has increased substantially in the last year. Forbes details the deficit: “The official estimated deficit for the year is supposed to be just under $1.09 trillion. If the current pace keeps up, the total could run to almost $1.4 trillion.”
“Vox shares the same fundamental precepts as the other comparable formations in surrounding European countries. It is a nativist and ultranationalist force, deeply opposed to immigration and promoting a strongly Islamophobic message. In economic terms, it is much closer to the ultra-neoliberal doctrines of Jair Bolsonaro and US libertarians than to the protectionist measures promised by Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (ex-Front National).”
World Politics News 