World Politics News   Articles for World Politics Course

The decision made by the US in 1945 to create a rules-based international order was based largely upon the assessment by US President Franklin Roosevelt that the horrors of the Interwar Period (1918-1939) came about because there were essentially no rules after the tragedy of World War I and the US decision to not support the rules-based order suggested by US President Wilson’s proposal for the League of Nations.  That assessment was well articulated by the US Undersecretary of State, Sumner Welles, in a speech in 1942:

“The people of the United States were offered at the conclusion of the last war the realization of a great vision. They were offered the opportunity of sharing in the assumption of responsibility for the maintenance of peace in the world by participating in an international organization designed to prevent and to quell the outbreak of war. That opportunity they rejected. They rejected it in part because of the human tendency after a great upsurge of emotional idealism to seek the relapse into what was once termed “normalcy.” They rejected it because of partisan politics. They rejected it because of the false propaganda, widely spread, that by our participation in a world order we would incur the danger of war rather than avoid it. They rejected it because of unenlightened selfishness….

“In 1920 and in the succeeding years we as a nation not only plumbed the depths of material selfishness, but we were unbelievably blind. We were blind to what constituted our own enlightened self-interest, and we therefore refused to see that by undertaking a measure of responsibility in maintaining world order, with the immediate commitments which that might involve, we were insuring our people and our democratic ideals against the perils of an unforeseeable future, and we were safeguarding our children and our children’s children against having to incur the same sacrifices as those forced upon their fathers. Who can today compare the cost in life or treasure which we might have had to contribute toward the stabilization of a world order during its formative years after 1919, with the prospective loss in lives and the lowering of living standards which will result from the supreme struggle in which we are now engaged?”

Christine Lagarde, the Director of the International Monetary Fund, makes essentially the same point when assessing the current world situation:

“And in 1918, when leaders surveyed the corpse-laden poppy fields, they failed to draw the correct lessons. They again put short-term advantage over long-term prosperity—retreating from trade, trying to recreate the gold standard, and eschewing the mechanisms of peaceful cooperation. As John Maynard Keynes—one of the IMF’s founding fathers—wrote in response to the Versailles Treaty, the insistence on imposing financial ruin on Germany would eventually lead to disaster. He was entirely correct.

“It took the horrors of another war for world leaders to find more durable solutions to our shared problems. The United Nations, the World Bank, and of course the institution I now lead, the IMF, are a proud part of this legacy.”

Some lessons are never learned.

The Pew Research Center polled Americans on their confidence in a number of world leaders to “do the right thing” in world affairs, and the results are quite interesting.  According to Pew:

“Majorities in the U.S. view French President Emmanuel Macron, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and German Chancellor Angela Merkel with confidence, while about half (48%) are confident that Trump will do the right thing internationally.

“Still, Americans are more likely than others around the world to have confidence in Trump: Across 25 other surveyed nations, a median of just 27% have confidence in the U.S. president.

The poll also tests party affiliation and confidence over the course of the term of recent Presidents within the US.  A very worthwhile read.

The South China Morning Post posted an article on the confrontation between a Chinese and US warship last September.  We knew that the Chinese warship Luyang came within 45 yards of the USS Decatur in the South China Sea.  Transcripts of the conversations between the two vessels, however, show that each side was absolutely committed to its course of action.  The SCMP quotes Bill Hayton, an associate fellow with the Asia-Pacific Programme at Chatham House in London, on the gravity of the incident:  “’To my knowledge, this is the first time we’ve had a direct threat to an American warship with that kind of language,’ he said, suggesting China’s response was also intended as a message to US allies with a presence in the waters such as Britain and Australia.”  Another article in the SCMP then goes on to point out how other issues, such as the status of Taiwan, are deeply aggravating the US-China relationship.  War is becoming more, not less, likely.

Daniel Boffey has written a very detailed article for The Guardian which summarizes all the challenges currently facing the European Union.  The list is long:  Brexit and the inability of Great Britain to resolve its internal debate over its exit from the Union; the growth of illiberal regimes in Hungary and Poland and their challenges to the values ofthe Union; the confrontation with Italy over its recent populist budget and its incompatibility with Union rules; the ongoing refugee influx and the strains on the economics and politics of the Union; and the recent political weakness of perhaps the most important member of the Union, Germany, and the planned departure of Chancellor Merkel.  All these problems will weigh heavily on the scheduled elections next year for the European Parliament.  On top of all these issues, Europe also has to contend with US President Trump’s willingness to question traditional rules concerning trade and his antipathy toward NATO, the pre-eminent security alliance for Europe.

The political crisis in Sri Lanka continues.  The “former” Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, who was fired by President Maithripala Sirisena, has refused to leave the Prime Minister’s residence, claiming that his sacking was illegal.  Mr. Wickremesinghe has demanded that Parliament be reconvened to decide the matter, but that demand has been rebuffed.  According to the BBC:

“But Mr Sirisena has not yet allowed this to happen – and analysts say that’s because he knows no majority yet exists that would endorse Mr Rajapaksa as PM. The Sirisena-Rajapaksa alliance is however trying to turn Wickremesinghe loyalists over to their side with ministries and other concessions. Some in the ousted PM’s party allege bribes have been offered, though MPs from Mr Rajapaksa’s party deny this.

“However the wheels of government have not stopped turning amid this crisis – Mr Rajapaksa has begun work and sworn in a cabinet. He, not Mr Wickremesinghe, is listed as prime minister on the official government website.“

Not surprisingly, the Tamil-based parties in Sri Lanka have indicated that they will oppose Mr. Rajapaksa because of his role in opposing the Tamil separatist movement in the country several years ago.  Similarly, many countries oppose Rajapaksa for exactly the same reasons–the repression against the Tamils was brutal.

The Washington Post is reporting that the deployment of up to 15,000 regular troops to the US-Mexico border will cost about $200 million.  One should remember that US regular military are not allowed to enforce domestic law, so the most these troops can do is to provide logistical support to the Border Patrol.  US President Trump continues to call the movement of migrants through Mexico an “invasion” but the Department of Defense analysis suggests that, of the 7,200 people who started the caravan, only 20%–about 1,200–will actually make it to the border (p. 10).  Moreover, President Trump seemed to authorize the use of deadly force in the case of rock-throwing by the protesters: ““we will consider that a firearm. Because there’s not much difference.”  In his White House speech on the subject, the back and forth between the President was described by the New Yorker:

“’Do you envision them firing upon any of these people?’ the reporter asked.

“’I hope not,’ Trump said, in a tone that was more a warning than a reassurance. ‘It’s the military—I hope—I hope there won’t be that. But I will tell you this. Anybody throwing stones, rocks—like they did to Mexico and the Mexican military, Mexican police, where they badly hurt police and soldiers of Mexico—we will consider that a firearm.’ Later, when asked what he meant about the rocks, he added, ‘If they want to throw rocks at our military, our military fights back. We’re going to consider—and I told them, consider it a rifle.’”

The image of troops using deadly force on unarmed asylum seekers would forever damage the reputation of the US as a human rights advocate.

North Korea has threatened to restart its nuclear program unless the US drops its economic sanctions.  The threat comes as US Secretary of State Pompeo is scheduled to meet with North Korean officials to continue the negotiations on the nuclear program.  Satellite images show that North Korea has continued its program of uranium mining and enrichment.   The threat also comes as there are a number of signs that the US is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the growing interactions between North and South Korea, spearheaded primarily by South Korean President Moon.

Joshua Kurlantzick has written an essay on populism in Southeast Asia and how it is different from populism in the US and Europe.  One difference is clear–Southeast Asia sends many migrants to the world and, aside from local ethnic issues, does not experience an influx of refugees or asylum seekers.  Kurlantzick summarizes the key differences in this way:  “Southeast Asian populists focus on spurring religious and ethnic divides, countering drug trafficking, particularly of methamphetamines, and appealing to the working and lower-middle classes. The lower-middle classes, in particular, have become frustrated with democracy because they believe democratic politicians have not tackled inequality, addressed crime, or delivered effective state services.”  He then goes through many of the Southeast Asian countries and assesses the strengths and sources of populism in each.  Unfortunately, populism in Southeast Asia also supports authoritarian politics, as it does in Europe and the US.

US President Trump has dramatically announced the expected sanctions on Iran in a Tweet that mimics the “Game of Thrones” (HBO, the creator of Game of Thrones, issued this statement: “We were not aware of this messaging and would prefer our trademark not be misappropriated for political purposes.”)  Interestingly, however, the US has also issued waivers to 8 countries so that they can continue to import Iranian oil without penalty.  It is not clear whether the US issued the waivers because of diplomatic pressure or out of fear that the universal application of the sanctions would raise oil prices precipitously.

A new study of how much heat is being retained in the world’s oceans was published in the journal, Nature.  The results indicate that, because the instruments traditionally used to measure the ocean’s heat were flawed, we have underestimated how much the oceans have warmed.  New techniques (which I confess are beyond my ability to assess, but Nature is one of the most reputable science journals in the world) have given scientists a more accurate way to measure, suggest that:

“The world’s oceans have been soaking up far more excess heat in recent decades than scientists realized, suggesting that Earth could be set to warm even faster than predicted in the years ahead, according to new research published Wednesday.

“Over the past quarter-century, Earth’s oceans have retained 60 percent more heat each year than scientists previously had thought, said Laure Resplandy, a geoscientist at Princeton University who led the startling study published Wednesday in the journal Nature. The difference represents an enormous amount of additional energy, originating from the sun and trapped by Earth’s atmosphere — the yearly amount representing more than eight times the world’s annual energy consumption.”

The new data show that the oceans have warmed 60% more than assumed by the most recent study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which was alarming enough without the new information.

US President Trump said that her might send between 10,000 and 15,000 more troops to the US-Mexican border.  If he does, that number would equal the number of US troops in both Afghanistan and Syria.  It is not clear what the additional troops would accomplish–they are prohibited by law from enforcing US domestic law.  They can supply logistical support to Border Patrol officials, but there is no real evidence that such support is currently lacking.  It also not clear what the threat is.

“And despite the heightened rhetoric, the number of immigrants apprehended at the border is dramatically lower than past years. Border Patrol agents this year made only a quarter of the arrests they made in 2000 at the height of illegal immigration, when the agency had half of the staffing it does today. The demographics have also drastically changed, from mostly Mexican men traveling alone, to Central American families with children.”

I have yet to find any cost estimates for these operations, but it is likely that supporting such a large contingent will be very expensive if it stays for any period of time.  Most estimates suggest that the “caravan” of asylum seekers is at least a month away from the border.

The Chief Prosecutor for the city of Istanbul officially reported today that the Saudi journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, was strangled and dismembered in the Saudi Consulate.  The Saudis have admitted that Khashoggi was murdered, but they have been forthcoming at all about the circumstances.  There appears to be a challenge to the Crown Prince because of the uproar over Khashoggi’s death.  The only surviving brother of the King, Prince Ahmad bin Abdulaziz , flew to Saudi Arabia from London and he could be perceived as a potential competitor to the Crown Prince, the son of the King.  If there is a challenge to the Crown Prince, Saudi Arabia may confront a serious economic challenge. 

The Pew Research Center has conducted a poll in 14 countries on political engagement and the results suggest that “in many nations around the world, much of the public is disengaged from politics.”  However, there are some issues in the countries–health care, poverty and education–that tend to stimulate higher levels of engagement.  In most of the countries, older voters are more engaged than younger voters, but that finding is mediated by the degree to which engagement can take place online.  It will be interesting to see whether avenues for engagement can begin to become more institutionalized through social media–a dramatic change from traditional forms of engagement but perhaps not at all inconsistent with the idea of direct democracy.

The World Wildlife Federation has issued its annual Living Planet report and it carries a grim assessment of the health of wildlife on the planet:

“The Living Planet Index also tracks the state of global biodiversity by measuring the population abundance of thousands of vertebrate species around the world. The latest index shows an overall decline of 60% in population sizes between 1970 and 2014. Species population declines are especially pronounced in the tropics, with South and Central America suffering the most dramatic decline, an 89% loss compared to 1970. Freshwater species numbers have also declined dramatically, with the Freshwater Index showing an 83% decline since 1970. But measuring biodiversity – all the varieties of life that can be found on Earth and their relationships to each other – is complex, so this report also explores three other indicators measuring changes in species distribution, extinction risk and changes in community composition. All these paint the same picture – showing severe declines or changes.”

The issue, however, does not seem to be high on the list for many politicians since only humans vote.  It is hard to see the necessary action to avert further extinctions.  Reutersstate of the world’s oceans has a similarly distressing article on the .

Jair Bolsonaro won the Presidential election in Brazil with 55% of the vote on a platform of “Brazil before everything, and God above all.”  Simon Jenkins, writing an opinion piece for The Guardian, assesses the significance of his election:

“Brazil has been one of the world’s most exciting emergent nations, yet its evolution over 30 years from dictatorship to hesitant democracy seems to have stalled. Bolsonaro has exploited the oldest politics, that of self-interest, and also the newest, that of anger, polarisation and fear. Voters have stomached his distaste for gay people, feminism, rainforests and the rule of law, to rid themselves of a corrupt leftwing regime unable to contain street violence. A famously tolerant nation has opted for military and economic discipline.

“In any country, the apparent breakdown of social order will drive voters to extremism. This message has proved popular around the world, from Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico, Viktor Orbán of Hungary, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey, even America’s Donald Trump. Liberal values, however defined, will not survive when their defenders cannot transmit their virtues to voters.”

The South China Morning Post ran an article reviewing the likely policy changes under Bolsonaro.  We will have to see how Brazil changes under his leadership.

Jair Bolsonaro

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced that she will step down as the leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) but not as Chancellor of Germany until 2021.  She will thus serve essentially as a lame duck for the immediate future.  The decision comes after two successive regional election setbacks for the party, indicating that German citizens, as well as members of her party, have reservations about her immigration policies.   Merkel has led Germany for the last 13 years and her role in European politics has been as a strong defender of liberal values.  With populist/right-wing parties gaining strength in a number of European states, it is probably safe to say that Europe is facing a very serious challenge to the vision of cooperation it has been pursuing for many years.  With Great Britain contemplating Brexit and Italy’s government dominated by euro skeptic parties, France’s leader, Emmanuel Macron, is the last leader of a dominant economy still supporting the EU.

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that Israel and Saudi Arabia have concluded a $250 million deal involving some of Israel’s most sophisticated intelligence systems.   
   The deal is remarkable since Israel and Saudi Arabia do not have diplomatic relations and the report indicates that it was brokered by a European state with inputs from the US and Great Britain.   Neither state wishes the information to be public which will make the training of Saudis by Israeli technicians very difficult.  But it is clear that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” since both states regard Iran as their central enemy. 

The US endured three acts of domestic terrorism last week.  First, a white man killed two African-Americans in a grocery store in Kentucky.  He had first tried to enter the predominantly African-American First Baptist church but it was locked.  When confronted by bystanders after he had killed the two African-Americans, the killer was reported to have said: “Whites don’t kill whites.”  Then as many as thirteen home-made bombs were sent to various critics of the Trump Administration, including former Presidents Obama and Clinton.  The person arrested for these crimes drove a van embellished with a variety of stickers suggesting a stark view of good and evil in the American political system.  Finally, there was a mass shooting in a synagogue in Pittsburgh in which 11 Jews were killed by a perpetrator who allegedly said “All Jews must die.”

It is impossible not to conclude that American society is in deep distress.  I believe firmly that the majority of Americans are committed to the finest aspiration of the Declaration of Independence that “All men are created equal”.  But the frequency of hate crimes in the US indicates that there is also a willingness to ignore those who refuse to believe in the fundamental equality of all.  As I have read and listened to accounts of these acts in the media, I have been struck by the speciousness of the debate on who is responsible for irresponsible political rhetoric.  Anyone who considers their political opponents to be evil or not deserving of respect fails to meet the most basic requirements of what it means to be an American.   I fear for the future of the Republic.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s governing coalition suffered election losses in Hesse, an important regional state.  Merkel’s center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) each lost about 10% of their votes in previous elections.  The results in Hesse were similar to the recent elections in Bavaria where the left-wing Greens and the right wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) both increased their representation.  The center in Europe continues to lose ground.  The election suggests that Merkel will not be able to hold her position much longer, with significant implications for both Germany and the European Union.  Reuters frames the European issue in this way:  “Merkel’s weakness at home may limit her capacity to lead in the European Union at a time when the bloc is dealing with Brexit, a budget crisis in Italy and the prospect of populist parties making gains at European parliament elections next May.”

Vote Count

Hilary Hurd and Elena Chachko have written a very informative article for Lawfare on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the significance of a possible US withdrawal from the treaty.  The Treaty prohibits “the United States and Russia from possessing, producing or test-flying ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometers and their launchers.”  Earlier US President Trump had indicated that he wanted to withdraw from the Treaty because he believes that Russia has violated it and also because it does not include China.   The INF was signed in 1987 and stopped a dangerous arms race in Europe.  Moreover, the INF called for the elimination of a whole class of nuclear weapons: “the Soviet Union destroyed 1,846 missiles and the United States destroyed 846 missiles by May 28, 1991″  The article assesses the consequences of a US withdrawal:

“On the one hand, continued U.S. compliance in the face of Russian non-compliance undercuts the U.S. strategic position, especially considering the INF-class missile systems that other actors have acquired. Furthermore, NATO appears to support a tougher stance against Russia on INF compliance. Nevertheless, a U.S. withdrawal from the INF would constitute yet another retreat from international instruments and institutions. When coupled with the Trump administration’s intent to replenish the U.S. nuclear arsenal, withdrawal might undermine other longstanding international arms control regimes, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and encourage other actors to opt out and fend for themselves.”

My own view is that it makes little sense to withdraw from an arms control treaty without proposing a viable alternative as well.  Otherwise, one simply opens the flood gates for another arms race by creating a nasty Security Dilemma.

Brazil will hold its run-off national election tomorrow and the polls suggest that Jair Bolsonaro is the leading candidate.  Bolsonaro is a right-wing candidate, running hard on an anti-crime platform, an issue that seems to be of great importance in this election.  Bloomberg characterizes Bolsonaro in this way:

“Again and again, he’s flaunted his contempt for the civility and temperance that cement democratic sensibility. The internet rings with his insults to women and gays, and contempt for left-wing activists. His latest pearl: ‘These marginal reds will be banned from the country.’”

Brazil is Latin America’s largest democracy and, paradoxically, Brazilians seem to be very committed to democracy even though Bolsonaro’s commitment to democracy seems to be tepid.  It is tempting to consider Bolsonaro as part of the wave of support for strong leaders that seems to be quite deep in the world today.  But that parallel is too simplistic–Brazil is a very diverse and complicated country.

Sri Lanka is entering a very serious political crisis after President Maithripala Sirisena replaced Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, ending a national unity coalition that has governed the country uneasily for the last three years.  Sirisena named Mahinda Rajapaksa as the Prime Minister and the national Parliament was prorogued–not dissolved but suspended for a period of time.   Typically, the majority party or parties in a Parliament choose the Prime Minister and it is unlikely that Rajapaksa would have received majority support in Parliament.  Rajapaksa served as Sri Lanka’s President from 2005 to 2015 and was in charge of a brutal repression of Tamil unrest on the island in which an estimated 40,000 Tamil civilians were killed.  In many respects this political turmoil is reflective of a larger struggle between India and China over influence in Sri Lanka.

The rich continue to get richer.   The Swiss bank UBS and the accounting firm of PWC have issued a report, Billionaires report 2018, that analyzes the 2,158 billionaires in the world today.  According to The Guardian:

“Billionaires made more money in 2017 than in any year in recorded history. The richest people on Earth increased their wealth by a fifth to $8.9tn (£6.9tn), according to a report by Swiss bank UBS.

“The fortunes of today’s super-wealthy have risen at a far greater rate than at the turn of the 20th century, when families such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers and Vanderbilts controlled vast wealth. The report by UBS and accountants PwC said there was so much money in the hands of the ultra-rich that a new wave of rich and powerful multi-generational families was being created.”

The report notes that China is producing two new billionaires every week and that billionaires are dominating technological innovation in the world today: ” Just a handful of entrepreneurs, most of them from the US, have changed the world over the past few decades. Billionaires have driven almost 80% of the 40 main breakthrough innovations over the last 40 years. Approximately 70% are technology-related and 80% of the companies behind them are based in the Americas,
with 20% in APAC.”  It appears as if the concentration of wealth is becoming self-perpetuating.

About 97% of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that human activity since the Industrial Revolution is responsible for the warming.  But most Americans seem to be unaware of that consensus.   Yale University and George Mason University have conducted polls on American views and their findings suggest that most Americans do not really know much about the scientific evidence on the issue of global warming.  Among some of their findings:

• Only about one in seven Americans (15%) understand that nearly all climate scientists (more than 90%) have concluded that human-caused global warming is happening.
• About six in ten Americans (62%) say they are at least “somewhat worried” about global warming. About one in five (21%) are “very worried” about it – nearly twice the proportion that were “very worried” in March 2015.
• Six in ten Americans are “interested” in global warming (62%). Fewer feel “disgusted” (47%) or “helpless” (45%). Only about four in ten are “hopeful” (41%).
• About six in ten Americans (61%) think global warming is affecting weather in the United States, and three in ten think weather is being affected “a lot” (29%).

It seems clear that more work needs to done educating many about the issue.

The US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at an annualized rate of 3.5% in the third quarter of 2018–perhaps the highest growth rate of any of the developed economies in the world.  Interestingly, however, the rate would have been higher if the US had not imposed tariffs during the year.  According to Business Insider:

“GDP rose at an annualized rate of 3.5% in the third quarter. But the contribution of net exports of goods and services — the measure of how much trade added or subtracted to GDP growth — was a dismal -1.78 percentage points.

• It was the largest negative contribution to GDP growth for trade in 33 years; in the second quarter of 1985, trade subtracted 1.91 points.
• In other words, if trade were a net neutral, neither adding to nor subtracting from GDP growth, third-quarter GDP growth would have been a dynamite 5.3%.
• If trade had matched its average contribution since 2015, a 0.33-point drag, GDP growth would have come in at 5%.”

Reuters also notes that some producers increased their inventories with imports priced before the tariffs took effect which will affect growth in the future:   “Excluding the effects of trade and inventories, GDP grew at a 3.1 percent rate in the third quarter compared to a 4.0 percent pace in April-June.”

The role of money in US politics is difficult to assess, but there is little question that it plays an important role.  The Washington Post has a fascinating article on 11 donors who collectively gave $1 billion to Political Action Committees (PAC) over the last few years.  Individuals are limited in how much they can contribute to specific candidates, but PACs are not allowed to endorse candidates even though they can endorse specific policies espoused by candidates.   According to the Post the donors are:

“The largest super-PAC contributors are casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and physician Miriam Adelson, the married couple who have given $287 million to conservative super PACs, records show.

“In second place behind the Adelsons is Steyer, who has given $213.8 million. He is followed by Bloomberg ($123.4 million), Democratic media executive Fred Eychaner ($68 million), Democratic hedge-fund executive Donald Sussman ($62.9 million), Republican shipping-supplies magnate Richard Uihlein ($59.9 million), Democratic hedge-fund founder James Simons and his wife, Marilyn ($57.9 million), Republican hedge-fund executive Paul Singer ($41.9 million), Republican hedge-fund executive Robert Mercer ($40.9 million), Soros ($39.4 million) and Republican backer and TD Ameritrade founder J. Joe Ricketts ($38.4 million).”

The total amounts are huge, but correlating the money to specific candidates or policies is a difficult task, although, in the case of the Adelsons, there is little question that US policy toward Israel in the Trump Administration has moved closer to the Adelson preferred position.