World Politics News   Articles for World Politics Course

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a speech yesterday to NATO in which he tried to position the US Administration’s emphasis on “America First” with the liberal international order the US helped to create after World War II.  The speech mentioned multilateral institutions that he believes have failed in their mission and called for reform.   He first praised the liberal order:

“The men who rebuilt Western civilization after World War II, like my predecessor Secretary Marshall, knew that only strong U.S. leadership, in concert with our friends and allies, could unite the sovereign nations all around the globe.

“So we underwrote new institutions to rebuild Europe and Japan, to stabilize currencies, and to facilitate trade. We all co-founded NATO to guarantee security for ourselves and our allies. We entered into treaties to codify Western values of freedom and human rights.

“Collectively, we convened multilateral organizations to promote peace and cooperation among states. And we worked hard – indeed, tirelessly – to preserve Western ideals because, as President Trump made clear in his Warsaw address, each of those are worth preserving.

“This American leadership allowed us to enjoy the greatest human flourishing in modern history. We won the Cold War. We won the peace. With no small measure of George H. W. Bush’s effort, we reunited Germany. This is the type of leadership that President Trump is boldly reasserting.”

He then goes on to raise questions about the virtue of multilateralism:

“After the Cold War ended, we allowed this liberal order to begin to corrode. It failed us in some places, and sometimes it failed you and the rest of the world. Multilateralism has too often become viewed as an end unto itself. The more treaties we sign, the safer we supposedly are. The more bureaucrats we have, the better the job gets done.

“Was that ever really true? The central question that we face is that – is the question of whether the system as currently configured, as it exists today, and as the world exists today – does it work? Does it work for all the people of the world?

The speech then goes on to defend the Trump Administration decision to leave agreements such as the Paris Accords, the Iran nuclear agreement, and the International Criminal Court.  The critique of the liberal order was intense (with the exception of NATO itself) , but the strategy articulated does not offer any hints about how to reform or replace any of the components of the liberal order.

For the first time in history, the British House of Commons found the British government in contempt of Parliament for failing to the cabinet’s full legal advice on Brexit.  The vote led to a flurry of newspaper articles in Britain castigating Prime Minister May, dealing her a humiliating defeat.  The controversy centered on the British government’s desire to avoid a “hard border” (one requiring the full gamut of legal and customs restrictions) between the Republic of Ireland (which would remain in the European Union (EU)) and Northern Ireland (which as part of Britain would leave the EU).  A hard border would institutionalize the separation of Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland, an outcome that literally no one wants give the historic turmoil over that separation. The Irish Times points out:  “The legal status of the arrangements for preventing a hard border in Northern Ireland – and in particular, the UK’s ability to extricate itself – are at the heart of the bitter political row about whether MPs should accept the prime minister’s deal.”  Prime Minister May wants a “meaningful” vote in Parliament on the Brexit deal in a few days, but, at this time, it seems as if Parliament will reject the deal.

The news out of the COP24 climate conference in Poland remains unremittingly depressing.  After a brief hiatus, carbon emissions grew 1.6 percent in 2017 and the rise in 2018 is projected to be 2.7 percent.  According to the Washington Post, “The expected increase, which would bring fossil fuel and industrial emissions to a record high of 37.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, is being driven by nearly 5 percent emissions growth in China and more than 6 percent in India, researchers estimated, along with growth in many other nations throughout the world. Emissions by the United States grew 2.5 percent, while emissions by the European Union declined by just under 1 percent.”  Further, “Scientists have said that annual carbon dioxide emissions need to plunge almost by half by the year 2030 if the world wants to hit the most stringent — and safest — climate change target. That would be either keeping the Earth’s warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius — when it is already at 1 degrees — or only briefly “overshooting” that temperature.”

The UN is holding its annual climate conference, COP24, in Katowice, Poland.  The environmental situation today is beyond serious.  Mihai Andrei describes it in this way: “Recent studies have shown that 20 of the past 22 years have been the warmest in recorded history, and climate change action needs to be increased fivefold if we want to have a chance to avoid catastrophic warming, which would cause permanent and irremediable damage to both human and natural environments.”  The naturalist, Sir David Attenborough addressed the conference and in his speech he said: ““Right now we are facing a manmade disaster of global scale, our greatest threat in thousands of years: climate change. If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”  The difficulties facing the UN Conference are huge, and the feeling is one of dark realism, as the US, Brazil, and Australia are all backing off from their previous commitments to the Paris Accords.   Stephen Walt argues that climate change itself will lead to the end of American hegemony in world politics.

The protests in France, named after the yellow vests all drivers in France are required to carry, represent the general feeling of distrust that many ordinary citizens throughout the world feel toward traditional patterns of governance.  Lauren Collins, writing in the New Yorker, describes the movement in these terms:

“Like Macron’s own party, which he founded only months before running for President, the gilets jaunes confound traditional political divisions and have appeared seemingly out of nowhere. Its adherents are old and young, male and female (even if women were conspicuously underrepresented among the rampaging crowds in Paris), apolitical and activist, nonviolent and nihilistic.”

The movement draws its power from the same feelings that propelled the right parties in Hungary and Poland, the anti-European sentiment in Brexit, and the populist parties like the Five Star Movement in Italy.  But the catalyst was the increase in fuel taxes which shows the difficulty in trying to take steps to reduce carbon emissions.

We also need to keep an eye on Iran.  The Iranian President threatened today to block the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world’s petroleum exports flow, if the US blocks its oil exports.   The US has sent its aircraft carrier, the USS John C. Stennis and its affiliated carrier group to the Persian Gulf–the first time the US has had an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf since last March.  At this time, it seems unlikely that any actions will be taken by either side, but both sides are preparing for any contingency.

The US and China reached some sort of trade agreement on Saturday, but, on closer examination, it is not clear what the agreement actually entailed.  Bloomberg went through both the US and Chinese statements and found significant differences between the two (Bloomberg also notes that the Chinese statement was partially censored).  Markets responded favorably to the news, but there is no question that a high degree of uncertainty exists.  It is, however, troubling that the US interpretation of the agreement is not substantiated by the Chinese version.  I would suspect that the US interpretation is excessively optimistic.

The need to reduce carbon emissions is urgent but we often tend to look at country-by-country statistics.  The real issue is how much we as individuals are responsible for.  Per Capita carbon emissions are rarely discussed, but there is little question that richer countries have a more substantial obligation to make a more serious effort.  While India and China have larger populations and therefore are beginning to contribute more carbon on a country basis than some of the richer countries (the US excepted), individuals in those larger countries do not benefit in material terms from the consumption of carbon products.  The impact of carbon reductions on development prospects in poorer countries needs to be carefully considered.

Presidents Trump and Xi agreed upon a 90 day pause in their trade dispute.  The agreement defers the $200 billion in additional tariffs President Trump had threatened and, according to the US, includes an agreement that “China will agree to purchase a not yet agreed upon, but very substantial, amount of agricultural, energy, industrial, and other product from the United States to reduce the trade imbalance between our two countries. China has agreed to start purchasing agricultural product from our farmers immediately.”  It is very hard to interpret the pause.  It could be an indication that progress was more difficult than expected.  But it could also be an indication that promising accommodations were discussed but time was short.  We will simply have to watch the trade deficit during those 90 days.  If it deepens, as it has over the last three months, a compromise would be difficult for the Trump Administration.  The burden is clearly on the Chinese to make concessions. 

The heads of state attending the recent G-20 meeting made many concessions to the US on some very central points.  Language about climate change and the Paris Accords was finally included but noted that the US did not agree.  The communique also did not include the word “protectionism” but added that the World Trade Organization should be reformed.  Both changes were at the insistence of the US.  Language about immigration was also altered at the request of the US.  But the European leaders were adamant about including this language in the communique: “We renew our commitment to work together to improve a rules-based international order that is capable of effectively responding to a rapidly changing world.”  According to the Guardian:

“The US delegation had opposed the positive reference to a ‘rules-based international order’ as they argued the current system is skewed against the US and has allowed China to get away with unfair trading practices. For the same reason, the US opposed references to the threat of protectionism to global growth, insisting Trump’s use of tariffs is a legitimate response to a skewed playing field.”

Diplomatic communiques are generally not substantively important, but the rhetoric is symbolically important.

The Wall Street Journal (unfortunately there is a paywall) is reporting that Saudi Crown Prince Salman had exchanged 11 messages with Saud al-Qahtani just before and after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.  AAero Hedge has extensive quotes from the WSJ article.  The most significant paragraph reads:

“The electronic messages sent by Prince Mohammed were to Saud al-Qahtani, according to the CIA. Mr. Qahtani supervised the 15-man team that killed Mr. Khashoggi and, during the same period, was also in direct communication with the team’s leader in Istanbul, the assessment says. The content of the messages between Prince Mohammed and Mr. Qahtani isn’t known, the document says. It doesn’t say in what form the messages were sent.”

The article goes on:

“The judgment on Prince Mohammed’s likely culpability, the CIA assessment says, is based on the crown prince’s personal focus on Mr. Khashoggi, his tight control over the Saudi operatives sent to Istanbul to kill him, “and his authorizing some of the same operators to violently target other opponents.”

“Mr. Qahtani has led Prince Mohammed’s efforts to crack down on dissent internally and abroad. He is one of the 17 sanctioned by the Treasury.

“[…]

“The highly classified CIA assessment says that the Saudi team sent to kill Mr. Khashoggi was assembled from Prince Mohammed’s top security units in the Royal Guard and in an organization run by Mr. Qahtani, the Center for Studies and Media Affairs at the Royal Court, the Saudi royal court’s media department.

“‘We assess it is highly unlikely this team of operators…carried out the operation without Muhammed bin Salman’s authorization,’ it says.

“The document says that Mr. Qahtani ‘explicitly requested the Crown Prince’s permission when he pursued other sensitive operations in 2015, which reflects the Crown Prince’s command and control expectations.’“

It is therefore true that there is no “smoking gun” proving that Salman ordered the murder, the available evidence seems to point to no other conclusion.  For the US government to pretend otherwise is an insult to our intelligence.

The “yellow jacket” protests seem to be escalating and show no signs of letting up in France.   The protests began in November in dissatisfaction against rising fuel prices caused by higher taxes designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but they seemed to have morphed into more generalized protests against the economic situation in France.  The Guardian describes the situation in France:

“Across France, more than 75,000 gilets jaunes demonstrated in cities or blocked roads and toll booths, some briefly stormed the runway of Nantes airport and others blocked supermarkets and major motorway junctions or staged barricades near government buildings. There were 580 roadblocks across the country.

The yellow jacket protest movement has no leader and no clearly articulated program–it seems to have support across both the left and right.  But it has also spread to Belgium, a worrying sign that it will be difficult to address.

Protests in France

The Ebola virus is a hemorrhagic fever with a mortality rate of about 70%.  The most deadly outbreak was in West Africa in 2014-16 which killed about 11,000 people, but a new outbreak in Democratic Republic of Congo is particularly worrisome.  The new outbreak is in a very dangerous war zone   which makes it very difficult to address because medical authorities are reluctant to send in the highly skilled personnel necessary to contain the spread of the virus.  The violence in Congo has killed hundreds of thousands and has led to “at least 2.7 million internally displaced persons in the DRC, and approximately 450,000 DRC refugees in other nations.”  There is also a large movement of people across the borders to Rwanda and Uganda which is generally uncontrolled.  We will have to watch this situation carefully.

US President Trump and Chinese President Xi are scheduled to have a meeting  tomorrow at the G-20 meeting in Argentina. CNBC has a very informative article on the timeline of the US-China trade dispute which includes some interactive graphics which contain an incredible amount of information.  The timeline shoes the ups and downs of the negotiations between the two states.  At risk tonight  is the possibility of an additional $200 billion worth of tariffs on imports of Chinese goods as well as a yet unknown Chinese retaliation to that move.  The stakes are very high in these negotiations.  One bad sign is that Peter Navarro, one of President Trump’s most hawkish trade advisors, is scheduled to be at the negotiations.

The Murderers of Journalists Share a Laugh at the G-20

For the first time ever, the US Department of Defense issued its Agency Financial Report (AFR) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 or, in more common terms, its financial audit.  The report contains a wealth of information, but one needs to go to p.142 to find the important point:  the audit failed because there was no way to collect and analyze all the information to find out whether monies had been spent appropriately.  The Fiscal Times gives a succinct summary of the findings of the report:

• The audit covered $2.8 trillion in Department of Defense assets, which account for more than 70 percent of the U.S. government’s total assets.
• Those assets include more than 585,000 buildings and structures worldwide.
• DoD operates 4,700 sites around the world, covering 26.9 million acres – roughly the size of Tennessee. The sites range from weather towers occupying a few square feet to the 3.5 million-acre White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.
• The U.S. military owns 15,700 aircraft and more than 280 “battle force” ships.
• The Pentagon is one of the nation’s largest employers, with 1.3 million active personnel, 770,000 civilian employees, and 800,000 personnel in National Guard and reserve forces.
• The consolidated audit was performed by the Pentagon’s Office of Inspector General and was based on 20 standalone audits performed by independent accounting firms involving about 1,200 auditors.
• The auditors conducted over 900 site visits at 600 locations.
• The audit took nearly a year to complete, at a cost of $413 million.
• It found more than 2,000 problems that need to be addressed.
• The Pentagon said it expects to spend more than $500 million to fix problems identified in the audit.

The magnitude of the task cannot be overestimated, but it is nonetheless depressing know that the agency responsible for about 70% of the discretionary spending in the entire Federal budget cannot be accounted for.

The US Senate has passed a resolution calling for a discussion of ending US support for the Saudi Arabian military actions in Yemen.  The resolution is not binding and would also have to be passed in the House of Representatives, but it would also most likely be vetoed by President Trump.  And the resolution is actually nothing more than a Congressional assertion of its powers under the War Powers Act, a law that was passed after the Vietnam War to prevent the expansion of non-declared wars.  But the mere passage of the resolution indicates deep dissatisfaction with the Trump Administration’s response to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.  But there was also an interesting response from the Administration which took the form of enhanced threats against Iran which the Administration believes is supporting the Houthi rebels in Yemen.  Brian Hook, the State Department’s special representative for Iran, told a press conference today that military action against Iran was “on the table” given the threats posed by Iran to US interests in the Middle East.  The Hill reports:

“The Trump administration on Thursday said military action against Iran could be possible should U.S. sanctions against the country fail to curb Tehran from delivering weapons to hostile groups in the region.

“‘We have been very clear with the Iranian regime that we will not hesitate to use military force when our interests are threatened. I think they understand that. I think they understand that very clearly,’ said Brian Hook, the State Department special representative on Iran.”

The argument suggests that if the US fails to support Saudi Arabia in Yemen, then the US may be forced to take military action against Iran.  That position profoundly distorts the strategic significance of Yemen to US interests.

CNN has conducted a poll in Europe about the scope of anti-Semitic attitudes and the results were shocking.  The poll found that

“More than a quarter of Europeans polled believe Jews have too much influence in business and finance. Nearly one in four said Jews have too much influence in conflict and wars across the world.

“One in five said they have too much influence in the media and the same number believe they have too much influence in politics.

Since the crisis over the Kerch Strait developed over the last few days, I have been searching for information which would justify the Russian decision to blockade the strait to Ukrainian military vessels.  Pepe Escobar is a writer for the Asia TImes and is a good reporter who often takes contrary views and he offers an interesting defense of the Russian position:  “The Kerch Strait connects the Sea of Azov with the Black Sea. To reach Mariupol, a key city in the Sea of Azov very close to the dangerous dividing line between Ukraine’s army and the pro-Russian militias in Donbass, the Ukrainian navy needs to go through the Kerch….Yet since Russia retook control of Crimea via a 2014 referendum, the waters around Kerch are de facto Russian territorial waters.”  Escobar also cites Articles 7, 19, and 21 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas.  Escobar’s argument is pure hogwash.  It is only true if one accepts the Russian annexation of Crimea and its occupation of the Donbas region of Ukraine.  The UN and most countries of the world have most decidedly not accepted the Russian actions as a fait accompli.  Russia continues to accuse Ukraine of being the aggressor. 

An official report produced by several of the most relevant economic Departments in the British Government has concluded that under virtually every possible Brexit scenario, the British economy will be worse off after 10 years.  According to The Guardian:

“Officials modelled every scenario across a range, comparing them in nominal terms. Under the worst-case, no-deal scenario, GDP would be 10.7% lower than if the UK had stayed in the EU in 15 years’ time, assuming there is no longer any net migration into the UK from the EU and European Economic Area (EEA) after Brexit.

“The deal negotiated by May will probably end up somewhere between the two Chequers-based scenarios outlined, meaning the UK would be between 0.6% and 2.1% worse off in nominal GDP terms in 2035-36 than if it remained in the EU.

“The official analysis also concluded that:

• Under a Norway EEA scenario, favoured by some Tory remainers, GDP would be 1.4% lower in 15 years’ time, worse than the additional scenario produced after May’s deal was signed over the weekend.

• Under a Canada-style deal, supported by Boris Johnson and David Davis, the UK would be 4.9% worse off than remaining in the EU, the study concludes.”

It may be the case that sovereignty is more important than economic gains to many of the Brexit supporters.  The European Commission has accepted the most recent proposal advanced by British Prime Minister Teresa May.  But the deal still has to be approved by the British Parliament, and most observers right now think that it will be voted down in Parliament.  That may mean that Great Britain may need to hold a second referendum.  All these possibilities need to be accomplished by next March.  The situation still remains quite murky.

All eyes will be on Buenos Aires, Argentina this Friday and US President Trump and Chinese President Xi meet at the G-20 meeting.  CBS News reports:

“The president has already imposed 10 percent tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods this September, and they’re set to rise to 25 percent on Jan. 1. Mr. Trump said this week he’s willing to raise tariffs on every good coming into the U.S. from China. “If we don’t make a deal, then I’m going to put the $267 billion additional on” Chinese goods at rates of 10 percent or 25 percent, Mr. Trump said in an interview this week with The Wall Street Journal.”

The new US tariffs on Chinese goods have already begun to show up in the US economy.  Business Insider gives depressing details about how the 10% tariffs have already affected US farmers and the automobile industry.

US President Trump has made the question of immigration into the US a national security matter.  He has done so by referring to the flow of immigrants as an invasion and by sending US troops to the US-Mexican border.  But the Pew Research Center has investigated the issue and found that the number of unauthorized immigrants in the US is at the lowest level in over a decade.  Moreover, most of those unauthorized immigrants have been living in the US for more than ten years.  According to National Public Radio:  “The study, by the Pew Research Center, is based on 2016 government data. It estimates that there were 10.7 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. that year. That’s down from a high point of 12.2 million in 2007.”  The evidence suggests that unauthorized immigration has not gotten worse; only that the attention of the US government–for whatever reason–has become more intense.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is going to conduct a hearing tomorrow on the civil war in Yemen and US support for the Saudi Arabian-led coalition fighting in Yemen.  US Secretary of State Pompeo and US Defense Secretary Mattis are scheduled to testify before the committee.  But apparently CIA Director Gina Haspel will not testify.  There is no solid information why the most important intelligence officer will not appear, but there are suspicions that the Trump Administration does not wish Haspel to contradict President Trump’s assertion that the CIA did not “conclude” that Saudi Crown Prince Salman authorized the murder of Khashoggi.  Several Senators wanted Haspel to testify but “[o]fficials said that the decision for Haspel not to appear in front of the committee came from the White House, but the national security adviser, John Bolton, denied it.”  I am not sure why Congress would defer to the Executive Branch on who should testify.

Reporters for The Washington Post held a 20-minute interview with US President Trump and one of the topics discussed was the Climate Change Report issued by 13 Federal agencies last week.  President Trump said that he did not believe the report and in the interview said: “One of the problems that a lot of people like myself, we have very high levels of intelligence but we’re not necessarily such believers….As to whether or not it’s man-made and whether or not the effects that you’re talking about are there, I don’t see it.”  Unfortunately, the global environment is indifferent to what humans believe to be true or not true; what it cares about is whether humans respect the earth as an organism.  And the most recent UN report suggests that human activity has not changed at all despite the warning signs about the imminence of climate change.

Russia has seized three Ukrainian naval vessels and opened fire on others in the Kerch Strait.   Ukraine is considering declaring martial law in order to reinforce its control over territory, but eastern Ukraine remains in the hands of separatists that favor Russia.  The Kerch Strait is an important access route for Ukraine to its eastern territories, and shutting down the Strait will diminish Ukraine’s ability to regain control from the rebels.   The UN Security Council is scheduled to meet on the crisis today.  Other European states are very concerned about the possibility of this crisis escalating, but the US has yet to make an official statement on the matter.  The Russians accuse Ukraine of provoking the attack, and there is little question that the government of Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has been quite adamant about Ukrainian rights.  It seems unlikely that Ukraine would choose to provoke a crisis in the Black Sea where it is seriously outgunned.  International law clearly favors the Ukrainian position on the right of free passage through the Strait:

“Ukrainian Navy ships were using their freedom of navigation guaranteed under articles 17, 38 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and article 2 of the agreement between Russia and Ukraine on cooperation on use of the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. Under the quoted articles, they are allowed to pass the Kerch Strait at any time taking into account safety of navigation is secured. Russia blatantly violated all mentioned articles.

President Trump has dismissed his own Administration’s climate report that was issued last Friday.  According to The Hill:  “‘Yeah, I don’t believe it,’ Trump told reporters as he left the White House for a campaign rally for Sen. Cindy Hyde Smith (R) in Mississippi, when asked about the predictions of economic devastation.”  His comment raises an interesting question.  The report was mandated by the Congress and released according to that law.  But Trump has now issued a report that he considers to be not true.  Science Alert has an excellent article that summarizes the report in good detail, although it is hard to summarize a 1600 page study.

ABC News has a very well-documented article on the arms deal with Saudi Arabia which conflicts with the assertions made by US President Trump on its monetary value.  President Trump has stated that the arms deal amounted to about $450 billion.  According to documents seen by ABC, the number is much smaller:

“Since the deal was signed by Mattis and bin Salman in Riyadh, there has been minimal activity toward purchasing the defense equipment and arms laid out in the arms agreements and signed. According to the Department of Defense, of the original $110 billion, Saudi Arabia has signed Letters of Offer and Acceptance valued at around $14.5 billion for equipment, including helicopters, tanks, ships, weapons and training.

“The memo of intent, seen by ABC News in a photograph and verified by a former White House official and first reported by the Washington Post last year, shows billion dollar price tags for what appear to be at vague deals far from being inked. Many of the details about the quantity and types of defense weapons to be purchased are not listed and are slated to be delivered after 2022 or have a ‘to be determined’ delivery dates and quantities.”

President Trump also asserts that the arms deal will create 500,000 new jobs, but that figure conflicts with the State Department’s own assertion that “tens of thousands” new jobs would be created:

“In short, 500,000 jobs Trump keeps bringing up is at least three to five times higher than what one could expect from the Saudi deal, given the estimates from the companies themselves, plus the most generous use of the indirect multiplier.

“By its own math, the U.S. State Department said in May 2017 that the Saudi deal could support ‘tens of thousands of new jobs in the United States.'”

The Saudi arms deal yields far fewer benefits to the US than President Trump assumes.