Since the overthrow of Muammar Gaddaffi in Libya in 2011, the country has been run by a number of local strongmen. The two most prominent centers of power have been the United Nations-backed government in Tripoli, led by Prime Minister Fayez al-Serraj, and a rump government based in the eastern city of Tobruk, led by a Libyan army commander named Khalifa Haftar. Haftar has now ordered his forces to move on the city of Tripoli to take complete control over the country. The states backing Serraj–the United States, Britain, Italy–have called upon Haftar to stop his aggression, but it is unlikely that words alone will prevent the outbreak of violence. Haftar had lived in the US since 1987 and opposed Gaddaffi while he was in exile and many suspect that he was supported in that effort by the US so the US support for Serraj reflects a change in the US position. Libya is an important supplier of oil to Europe and is also a staging area for many refugees seeking asylum in Europe. The stability of Libya is critical for Europe.
As the Arctic warms, many states are looking north to explore national security options. The principal concern is the protection of new shipping lanes that may open up as the sea ice retreats. Russia has a very large stake in the Arctic since it and Canada have the longest boundaries affected by the opening up of the Arctic. The Russians have been especially ambitious in developing military bases in the region, equipping them with air defense systems and missile launchers. Needless to say, the difficulties in maintaining such bases in such harsh conditions are legion. But the Russians are strongly committed to a sustained military presence.
“It limits each side to no more than 800 deployed and nondeployed land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers and deployed and nondeployed heavy bombers equipped to carry nuclear armaments. Within that total, each side can retain no more than 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped to carry nuclear armaments. The treaty also limits each side to no more than 1,550 deployed warheads; those are the actual number of warheads on deployed ICBMs and SLBMs, and one warhead for each deployed heavy bomber.”
That Treaty expires on 5 February 2020 and there is no evidence that either side is interested in extending it. It also seems to be the case that both sides are quite interested in developing more missiles and weapons. The Russians are developing weapons specifically designed to evade the anti-missile systems being developed by the US. Those new Russian weapons are described by Matthew Gault:
“Last year Russian President Vladimir Putin unveiled six new weapons during a governmental address. The most impressive, according to nuclear experts, were the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle, the nuclear-powered cruise missile Skyfall and the RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). These three are the crown jewels in Russia’s aggressive new nuclear policy, capable—according to Putin—of circumventing U.S. missile defense systems. Currently, American defenses are designed to knock an incoming nuke out of the air before it can hit its target—but this was already a complicated and difficult task before the development of hypersonics.”
It is highly likely that we will soon witness a new nuclear arms race that will be very expensive and highly destabilizing.
Hypersonic Missiles
The Pew Research Center has conducted a poll among American citizens about their views on the status of the US in 2050. The future is a mixed bag for most Americans, but most believe that the power of the US will decline substantially in the future. According to the report:
“Majorities predict that the economy will be weaker, health care will be less affordable, the condition of the environment will be worse and older Americans will have a harder time making ends meet than they do now. Also predicted: a terrorist attack as bad as or worse than 9/11 sometime over the next 30 years.
These grim predictions mirror, in part, the public’s sour mood about the current stateof the country. The share of Americans who are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country – seven-in-ten in January of 2019 – is higher now than at any time in the past year.
The report is filled with interesting and important information, but the most distressing part of the report for me was the sense that Americans have about the effectiveness of the Federal government. Most Americans believe that the government is not capable of addressing the future problems of the country. Under those circumstances, it is difficult to imagine that the people will have much trust in the government and that they will try to find alternative ways of managing their lives.
Local elections in Turkey suggest a dramatic shift in politics. The ruling AK Party did not win the local elections in the two largest cities, Istanbul and Ankara. The results represent a setback for the President, Tayyip Erdogan, as the secularist Republican People’s Party (CHP) seems to have won in both contests. The AK party and its predecessor have ruled in Turkey for the last 25 years, so the elections signal a rather dramatic change in direction. The shift is likely due to the dire economic conditions in Turkey–the Turkish Lira lost 40% of its value against the US dollar. It is not likely, however, that Erdogan will change direction quickly. The AK Party is likely to challenge the election results.
“Canada’s Changing Climate Report concludes that, on average, Canada’s climate has been warming at double the rate of the world as a whole — a trend that scientists expect to continue. Since 1948, Canada’s average land temperature has increased by 1.7 degrees Celsius, or about 3 degrees Fahrenheit. Temperatures in northern Canada have increased even more. For comparison, scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies estimate that the average global temperature has increased 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since 1880.
“Many of the effects of Canada’s warming are ‘effectively irreversible,’ the report states. And it affirms that “human influence” is more to blame for the observed temperature increases than natural causes.”
March 2019's total #Arctic sea ice extent was tied for the 7th lowest in the passive microwave satellite record. Note that there is large year-to-year variability in addition to a long-term trend. pic.twitter.com/Utxd2ZDgNb
The World Meteorological Organization has released its annual report on the State of the Global Climate for 2018. The report has a tremendous amount of information on climate change and much of the information is alarming. The report assesses the effects of climate change on amplifying natural hazards:
“In 2018, weather and climate events accounted for most of nearly 62 million people affected by natural hazards, according to an analysis of 281 events recorded by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED).9 Floods continued to affect the largest number, amounting to more than 35 million people in 2018. The CRED statistics also highlight that over 9 million people were affected by drought worldwide, including in Kenya, Afghanistan, and Central America, as well as migration hotspots El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.”
“When Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act, it imposed stringent controls on the export of U.S. technology to a foreign country that could be used to create nuclear weapons. Under Section 123 of the Act, the U.S. may not transfer nuclear technology to a foreign country without the approval of Congress, in order to ensure that the agreement reached with the foreign government meets nine specific nonproliferation requirements.
“The whistleblowers who came forward have expressed significant concerns about the potential procedural and legal violations connected with rushing through a plan to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. They have warned of conflicts of interest among top White House advisers that could implicate federal criminal statutes. They have also warned about a working environment inside the White House marked by chaos, dysfunction, and backbiting. And they have warned about political appointees ignoring directives from top ethics advisors at the White House who repeatedly and unsuccessfully ordered senior Trump Administration officials to halt their efforts.”
This plan is sheer madness. Saudi Arabia has not proven to be a reliable US ally nor a state governed by laws and norms consistent with US values. Moreover, if these plans were adopted, there is little question that Iran would regard them as a significant national security threat which would lead Iran to adopt nuclear weapons itself. But there is evidence that the plan is consistent with the private interests of members of the Trump Administration. According to the Washington Post:
“The report released Tuesday notes that one of the power plant manufacturers that could benefit from a nuclear deal, Westinghouse Electric, is a subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management, the company that has provided financial relief to the family of Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and a senior White House adviser. Brookfield Asset Management took a 99-year lease on the Kushner family’s deeply indebted New York City property at 666 Fifth Ave.”
“As in colonial times 200 years ago, the U.S. continues to regard Latin America as a zone for its exclusive interests, its own ‘backyard’ and they directly demand that it should obey the U.S. without a word and that other countries should steer clear of the region….[D]oes the U.S. think that people are waiting for it to bring democracy to them on the wings of its bombers? This question can be answered by Iraqis, Libyans and Serbs.”
The Parliament considered eight options in a series of “indicative votes” and rejected everyone of them. ABC News relates the options that came closest to passing: “In the end, none of the eight motions tabled by individual lawmakers setting out alternative Brexit plans found a majority. The closest run votes were for the U.K. to stay in a permanent customs union with the EU, which received 264 votes in favor and 272 against, and for a second referendum, which received 268 votes and 295 against.”
The Brexit saga has taken yet another strange turn. Conservative MP Oliver Letwin submitted an amendment which will allow Parliament to take a series of non-binding votes (called “indicative votes”) on a variety of options. British Prime Minister May opposed the amendment, but is passed 329-302 in a decisive repudiation of her authority. According to the BBC, these are some of the possible options:
Another binding vote on the deal May negotiated with the E.U.
Asking the government to renegotiate the deal toward a specific outcome in mind, such as further changes to the Irish border backstop
Scrapping May’s negotiated arrangement in favor of a softer Brexit involving a Canada- or Norway-style trade relationship with the E.U.
A second referendum allowing the British public to decide what kind of Brexit they want, or if they would prefer to cancel Brexit entirely
Revoking the U.K.’s withdrawal notice and canceling Brexit entirely
The use of indicative votes is unusual, but not unprecedented. Shepp provides some perspective:
“In the Westminster system, the government usually sets the agenda for Parliament, deciding what gets voted on and when. The opposition and backbench MPs are given opportunities to set the house’s business on certain days, but the government still gets to decide when those days are. Letwin’s motion is unusual because it involves taking that power away from the government on a specific day, and against the government’s explicit wishes at that. While it’s not strictly “unprecedented,” Parliament hasn’t made a move like this in a very long time: The closest analogue in the past century is the Norway Debate of 1940, which led to the downfall of Neville Chamberlain’s war cabinet and ushered in the prime ministry of Winston Churchill.
“In her futile attempts to maintain control of the Brexit debate, May has recently avoided scheduling days for nongovernment MPs to take control of the agenda, fearing precisely what is going to happen on Wednesday: votes on proposals her government didn’t have any hand in developing and can’t necessarily deliver. Some of Letwin’s backers argued on Monday that May’s attempts to tightly control the Brexit agenda had forced their hand; Conservative MP Dominic Grieve said the house had been ‘prevented from doing its ordinary job’ by the government’s ‘straitjacket.’”
“‘The Spanish government profoundly regrets the publication of the Mexican president’s letter to his majesty the king on 1 March and completely reject its content,’ a government statement read.
“’The arrival of the Spanish on Mexican soil 500 years ago cannot be judged in the light of contemporary considerations. Our closely related peoples have always known how to view our shared history without anger and from a shared perspective, as free peoples with a common heritage and an extraordinary future.’”
This debate is worth conducting. The sins of empire need always to be remembered.
Thailand has been ruled by a military junta since 2014 after the military ousted populist leader Yingluck Shinawatra. The first election since that time was held on Sunday, but the Election Commission, whose members were appointed by the military junta, halted the publication of the results. The election was contested by a pro-military party, Palang Pracharat, and an anti-military party, Pheu Thai. Both parties are challenging the election because of evidence of fraud and manipulation, and it could be that the outcome will not be known for some time. Unfortunately, the election, which was supposed to bring stability to the country, will apparently only bring confusion and distrust.
A rocket was fired from the Gaza Strip and it hit a house near Tel Aviv in Israel. As of the writing of this post, no group in the Gaza has claimed responsibility for the rocket, but Israel holds Hamas responsible for everything that happens in the Gaza. The Gaza Strip is about 25 miles long and six miles wide and is home to about 2 million Palestinians. There have been a number of conflicts between Israel and Hamas: in 2009-10, 2012, and an extended battle in 2014. Israel has responded with air strikes against Hamas-related buildings in Gaza, but the area is so densely populated, precision strikes are virtually impossible. There are reports that Egypt has brokered a cease-fire, but we will have to see if it holds. The elections scheduled for April place Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in a position where he may feel obliged to respond forcefully to the rocket attack.
“Energy demand worldwide grew by 2.3% last year, its fastest pace this decade, an exceptional performance driven by a robust global economy and stronger heating and cooling needs in some regions. Natural gas emerged as the fuel of choice, posting the biggest gains and accounting for 45% of the rise in energy consumption. Gas demand growth was especially strong in the United States and China.
“Demand for all fuels increased, with fossil fuels meeting nearly 70% of the growth for the second year running. Solar and wind generation grew at double-digit pace, with solar alone increasing by 31%. Still, that was not fast enough to meet higher electricity demand around the world that also drove up coal use.
“As a result, global energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 1.7% to 33 Gigatonnes (Gt) in 2018. Coal use in power generation alone surpassed 10 Gt, accounting for a third of the total increase. Most of that came from a young fleet of coal power plants in developing Asia. The majority of coal-fired generation capacity today is found in Asia, with 12-year-old plants on average, decades short of average lifetimes of around 50 years.”
Unfortunately, demand for coal, the most serious source of greenhouse gas emissions, has grown substantially in Asia. Even though the world is using more renewable energy, the consumption of carbon-based energy continues to grow apace. The Washington Post quotes a climate researcher who gives a very pessimistic assessment of the current situation:
“Rob Jackson, a professor of Earth system science at Stanford University, said the substantial growth of wind and solar energy detailed in Monday’s report was overshadowed by the world’s ongoing reliance on fossil fuels.
“’The growth in fossils is still greater than all the increases in renewables,’ Jackson said, adding that few countries are living up to the pledges they made as part of the Paris climate accord. ‘What’s discouraging is that emissions in the U.S. and Europe are going up, too. Someone has to decrease their emissions significantly for us to have any hope of meeting the Paris commitments.’
“The new results dash prior hopes that global emissions might be flattening and starting to decline. From 2014 through 2016, they fell slightly, and coal emissions in particular dipped as well. But with a renewal of growth in 2017 and new record highs in 2018, turning the corner on emissions remains nowhere in sight.
“As a result, optimism from earlier this decade has largely faded. International efforts to combat climate change have struggled to maintain momentum and the U.S. government has undergone a reversal of priorities.
“’We are in deep trouble,’” Jackson said of Monday’s findings. ‘The climate consequences are catastrophic. I don’t use any word like that very often. But we are headed for disaster, and nobody seems to be able to slow things down.’”
It is becoming increasingly more difficult to think rationally about the wrong-headedness of the way we live out or lives at the expense of future generations. These years will go down in history as the most incomprehensible years in human history.
James Dorsey has written an essay entitled “Civilizationism Vs The Nation State – Analysis” which deserves a close read. The core idea is one developed by several authors in the last decade: that the civilizational state is one defined culturally and not territorially as is the case in most liberal societies. It is a difficult idea to parse, but the framework does explain the rise of authoritarian societies which use power to defend values and not interests. Dorsey is particularly engaging when he discusses the way the murderer at Christchurch, New Zealand interpreted the world.
Italy has signed up to be a member of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the Chinese effort to revive the old Silk Road. Italy and China signed a number of agreements, the most important of which were agreements on the management of the ports of Genoa and Trieste. Italy is the first member of the European Union to make such an agreement, and other European states are suspicious of the initiative. Other countries, such as Sri Lanka, have made similar agreements and the terms of the agreements meant that when the Sri Lankans could not make the debt payments on the agreement, the critical port of Hambantota came under Chinese control. Additionally, many European states are concerned that these ports may give China a strategic entry into European affairs. The US is also concerned about the expansion of Chinese influence in Europe. But the US has done little to reinforce US-European ties over the last two years.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative
Reuters is reporting that two Russian airplanes, carrying a high defense official and 100 troops, has landed in Caracas, Venezuela. Russia is a strong supporter of Nicolas Maduro, the erstwhile President of Venezuela, but the sending of troops represents a dramatic and perhaps dangerous escalation of the crisis in Venezuela. Previously, Russia has flown two nuclear-capable bombers to Venezuela in an unmistakable show of solidarity. The Russians have also said they will be sending humanitarian aid to the country, even as humanitarian aid from the US and other countries sympathetic to Juan Gauido has been blocked. Russia is clearly challenging the US in the Western Hemisphere.
Hans Maull has written an essay for the International Institute for Strategic Studies entitled “The Once and Future Liberal Order” which is both insightful and provocative. The essay gives a quick overview of what we mean when we talk about a “world order” and how the particular world order that we call “liberal” evolved. It then goes over the slow erosion of the liberal order since the end of the 20th century and the dynamics unleashed by its weakening.
“There has also been a turn to geopolitics and geo-economics, and a renewed emphasis on raw power in international relations. This began with the political disintegration and external interventions in Libya and Syria, and was exacerbated by the more assertive policies of China in the East and South China seas; by Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its support for the separatist forces in eastern Ukraine; and, most recently, by the war in Yemen. These developments imply a shift towards a more conflictual international system and a return to zero-sum logic among a number of important actors. For example, while open markets offer all participants opportunities to realise gains (although not necessarily equal ones), spheres of influence are exclusive. Any expansion of such a sphere will therefore come at the expense of others. Similarly, nationalist conceptions of sovereignty emphasise its indivisibility: anything less than complete sovereignty – which is, of course, a chimera – is anathema. This contrasts with a multilateralist conception of sovereignty, in which the shared exercise of sovereignty allows all participants to benefit.”
Maull also does a good job of pointing out the conflicting and shared US and Chinese interests in an evolving world order. The essay is long but well worth a close read.
British Prime Minister May asked the European Union (EU) for a delay on Brexit until 30 June, a request that the EU rejected immediately. Instead, the EU said that if the British Parliament accepted the earlier arrangement (which Parliament has rejected twice) by March, then Britain could have until 22 May. If the Parliament does not approve the arrangement, then Britain will have until 12 April “to indicate a way forward”. The pressure on Prime Minister May will be intense and it is likely that if she fails to get the Parliament to approve the Withdrawal Agreement, then she will be ousted as Prime Minister. It is also clear that the EU is losing patience as well. Unfortunately, as of right now, it does not appear as if a “no-deal” Brexit can be avoided.
On Thursday, the US Treasury announced that it was placing new sanctions on two Chinese shipping companies for evading the sanctions on North Korea. On Friday, US President Trump announced that he was lifting the sanctions. The inconsistencies in these actions are striking–obviously some people in the Administration are not communicating effectively. But it is also unclear why Trump lifted the sanctions. Was it to curry favor with North Korea or with China? North Korea has not taken any steps recently that deserve a reward so it does not appear as if Trump’s decision was part of a denuclearization strategy. We do not know much about how much progress has been made with China on trade issues, but there seems to be a resigned attitude that trade breakthroughs are not imminent. The US decision is difficult to understand.
World Politics News 