World Politics News   Articles for World Politics Course

In an interview with Fox News correspondent, Tucker Carlson, President Trump raised serious questions about the US commitment to NATO.  Mr. Carlson raised the specter of defending a tiny state, Montenegro, against a Russian attack and whether the US commitment to NATO would pull the US into a war with Russia over a state that Mr. Carlson seemed to believe was not worth the price.  Mr. Trump’s response revealed that he understands little about the true nature of the NATO alliance or any comprehension of deterrence strategy.  Mr Trump’s response was, according to ABC News: “The president replied that he’s asked the same question. Montenegro ‘may get aggressive and congratulations, you’re in World War III,’ Trump said.  [If you would like to watch the entire interview, click here.  Carlson’s commentary and questions in the interview are highly revealing]

The first point to make is that NATO is a defense alliance.  No NATO state is obliged to defend another member state that initiates a war.  When the US invaded Iraq in March 2003, no member of NATO joined the invasion under the rubric of the alliance because Iraq had not attacked the US.  Contrariwise, the only time NATO has ever invoked Article V of the alliance charter which states that “an attack against one shall be considered an attack against all” was in 2001 when the US invaded Afghanistan after the attacks of 11 September 2001 against the US.

Second, Russia has been trying hard to undermine Montenegro ever since it joined NATO in 2017, including a plot to assassinate the country’s Prime Minister.  Liberal states in NATO should be concerned with protecting other liberal states, particularly against aggressive actions by a non-liberal state such as Russia.  Russia has violated international law by attacking Georgia and dismembering parts of that country in 2008, creating two new entities, Abkhazia and South Ossetia which have yet to be recognized as legitimate states by most of the international community.

Russia also invaded and annexed part of, Crimea, as part of Russia in 2014.  It has also maintained a rebellion against the government of Ukraine in the eastern part of the country since that time, supporting a secessionist movement to dismember the country.  Ukraine is not a member of NATO Interestingly, the Trump political campaign was able to remove a strong pro-Ukrainian position from the Republican Party’s platform in the 2016 campaign.  That amendment included support for “providing lethal defensive weapons” to the Ukrainian military and read, in part, “Today, the post-Cold War ideal of a ‘Europe whole and free’ is being severely tested by Russia’s ongoing military aggression in Ukraine….The Ukrainian people deserve our admiration and support in their struggle.”  The removal of the Ukrainian plank in the Republican platform was a clear aberration from historical Party positions vis-a-vis Russia.

Russia also indicated in 2014 that it sees a role in protecting Russian-speaking populations in the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania which became members of NATO in 2004.  There are, indeed, many Russian-speaking people in the Baltic states.  According to The Guardian: “In 2015, the Foreign Policy Research Institute found that the percentage of ethnic Russians in Estonia and Latvia make up around 24% and 27% of the populations as a whole, whereas Lithuania can only boast of a population of 6%. Coincidentally, the percentage of ethnic Russians in Latvia is the same as that found in Crimea.”  The Baltic states were once unwilling parts of the former Soviet Union (given to the USSR by the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty between Nazi Germany and the USSR in 1939) and Russian military provocations against them in recent years have been numerous and highly unsettling.

In other words, Russian attacks against Montenegro seem to be part of a pattern.  Russian President Putin once declared that “the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the century” and many analysts have interpreted that statement as evidence of his desire to restore the boundaries as well as the formidable power of the former USSR.

Third, one need not believe that Putin is a highly aggressive totalitarian leader bent on world conquest to support a defensive alliance such as NATO.  I certainly do not believe that Putin is another Hitler.  He is, rather, the opportunistic leader of a middle-range power (Russia’s nuclear weapons notwithstanding) with significant economic weaknesses.  He also, unfortunately, lives in the balance of power world of the 19th century since his country is totally unsuited to prosper in the globalized world of the 21st century.  His only strategy is to exploit perceived weaknesses to assert Russian power, but he can be counted on to assiduously exploit the weaknesses of others.   A unified NATO is a relatively inexpensive way of checking Putin’s ambitions; weakening NATO only increases the number of opportunities for the expansion of Russian power.  President Trump’s behavior during the recent NATO summit magnified the natural fissures that exist in any alliance comprised of 29 sovereign states and was therefore a serious strategic blunder.

Finally, weakening NATO only increases uncertainty in world politics.  All member states of NATO are now going through the very difficult process of trying to figure out whether the US under the leadership of President Trump is a reliable alliance partner.  Lacking the clear certainty about the reliability of the US means that NATO states are now forced to think about alternative ways to defend their interests in the absence of US support.  Each of the 28 states will now take actions to fill that confidence gap and each of those actions will have knock-on effects on the calculations of the other member of NATO as well as on non-members of NATO.  The security dilemma of world politics–the unfortunate situation in which defensive actions taken by a state often are interpreted as offensive actions by its neighbors–is thus amplified in ways that are often unpredictable and dangerous.

It will take us all more time to process the results of the meeting between US President Trump and Russian President Putin.  It is important for us to remember that Mr. Trump initiated this meeting, initially wanting Mr. Putin to come to the White House but finally settling on the neutral site offered by Finland.  We should also remember that many analysts raised serious concerns about the wisdom of the meeting, which gave great standing to Mr. Putin.

Under those circumstances, one would imagine that Mr. Trump had objectives he wished to attain.  It turns out that we actually know very little about how US national security was protected in the summit.  The 2-hour conversation between the two remains opaque aside from oblique references to Syria, North Korea, Iran, and arms control.  In many respects, our lack of information about the discussion is perhaps the most terrifying aspect of the summit.

All attention, however, is riveted on the press conference held by the two in which the main area of concern was on the Russian attack on the American election in 2016.  And President Trump humiliated himself and the country by his refusal to confront Mr. Putin when he was asked about the 2016 attack.  Richard Sokolsky and Aaron David Miller of the Carnegie Endowment for International peace have written a short essay in which they encapsulate the impact of the press conference on Mr. Trump’s stance:

“Never before has a U.S. President so willfully catered to an American adversary and so effortlessly sacrificed American values and interests as the entire world watched. His performance starkly highlighted not only a lack of impulse control and appallingly poor judgment, but also a consistent and inexplicable willingness to submit to Russian interests. This was not a display of ‘America first,’ but rather a very disturbing performance by a man who put himself and Russia above American interests and American values…..

“There were no grand betrayals on substance at Helsinki. Trump didn’t endorse Russia’s annexation of Crimea, undermine NATO’s Article 5 or cancel Baltic military exercises. But with Putin beside him, and before all the world to see, Trump stood there, passive, weak, feckless and all too willing to do Putin’s bidding. Trump played the role of the fool or, as Lenin might have described him, a “’useful idiot.’”

President Trump tried to correct his statements at the Helsinki press conference today by suggesting that he had misspoke:  “In a key sentence in my remarks I said the word “would” instead of ‘wouldn’t.’ … The sentence should’ve been, and I thought it would be maybe a little but unclear on the transcript … ‘I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t be Russia.’ Sort of a double negative. You can put that in and I think that probably clarifies things by itself.”  Even if one gives Mr. Trump the benefit of the doubt and accept that change, but then none of his other comments at the press conference are consistent with the change.  His feeble effort at a correction is an insult to our intelligence.

Which leaves us with an interesting question:  Does President Trump have the will or the capability to defend the national interest of the United States?  I think not.

The Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) has published a study of NATO defense spending which addresses the major flaw in comparing defense budgets among the members:  US defense spending reflects it global commitments and European defense spending reflects regional security concerns.  Thus, the argument that the US funds 72% of NATO activities is misleading.  According to the FPRI:

“But this viewpoint overstates U.S. contributions and undermines the need for European contributions.  The United States’ share of the aggregate NATO member defense spending may be 72% of the total, but that accounts for the entire U.S. defense budget. The U.S defense budget is not paid to NATO, is not entirely available to NATO for spending, and is not an allocation of the U.S. forces and combat power for which NATO can practically plan. Worse, this allotment exaggerates the resources available to Europe’s defense and undercuts the rationale for why increased contributions from NATO countries should be a priority for the Alliance.”

The chart below reflects European defense spending with respect to the most serious security concern of European states–Russia–and suggests that European defense spending is commensurate with its threat.  Indeed, if one breaks down US defense spending, perhaps only 25% of its budget is allocated to European security.  According to James Dobbins of the RAND Corporation:

“The United States defense budget is larger than the combined total of its NATO allies, but the bulk of that, perhaps 75 percent, is devoted to the defense of Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq other allies and partners in Asia and the Middle East and of course the continental United States.”

The discussion about US support for NATO needs to be much more nuanced than it has been so far.  Indeed, much of the criticism from US President Trump seems to be specific to Germany and not NATO as a whole.

The Trump-Putin summit will take place in Helsinki tomorrow and we still do not have a clear idea of what is on the agenda.  But Alina Polyakova of the Brookings Institute has written an essay on Putin’s objectives in the summit.  It appears as if Putin learned a lot from how the Trump-Kim summit in Singapore and is prepared to exploit Mr. Trump’s relative inexperience in diplomacy.  No matter what happens in Helsinki, Putin has achieved what Kim also achieved: recognition of equal status with the US.  For his part, President Trump does not appear to be optimistic about what might happen.  He told CBS News: ““I go in with low expectations.  I’m not going with high expectations.”  Of most concern to many is how the US may change its strategy in Syria, essentially giving Russia free rein in Syria in exchange for an unenforceable promise to contain Iranian power in Syria.  What us clear us that global attitudes toward the US vis-a-vis Russia have changed dramatically in recent years.

Israel’s ruling party, Likud, is pushing a very controversial bill in the Knesset which would legalize “Jewish-only communities”.  The bill has been discussed over many years, but it is expected to come up for a vote very soon.  According to the Middle East Monitor:

“The bill is expected to come to a final vote at the Israeli parliament (Knesset) on Monday. If passed, it could become part of Israel’s basic laws that serve as a de facto constitution.

“The draft law prioritises Jewish values over democratic ones in the occupied territories, declares Jerusalem al-Quds the “capital” of Israel, allows Jewish-only communities, sets Hebrew as the official language of Israel and relegates Arabic from an official language to one with ‘special status.’”

The bill is likely to be modified, but the discussion has been highly contentious within Israel and also with the Jewish communities abroad.  It poses the central dilemma of Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state.

Haitian Prime Minister Jack Guy Lafontant has resigned as he faced a vote of no confidence from the Parliament over protests over fuel prices increases ordered by the International Monetary Fund.  Even though the price increases were rescinded, the protests have continued and Lafontant no longer had support within the Parliament.  The IMF said that it expected the Haitian government to submit a revised reform plan, but any plan will probably have to include reductions in subsidies to the poor.

Israelis and Palestinians exchanged intense fire along the border of the Gaza Strip.  Hamas launched more than 100 missiles toward Israel and Israeli fighter jets responded with over 40 sir strikes.  It was the most intense confrontation since the 2014 war between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip.  According to the New York Times:

“Saturday’s fighting did not arise out of the blue: It came as a ratcheting-up of hostilities a day earlier, when an Israeli army officer was wounded by an explosive hurled across the barrier fence from Gaza, and an unarmed 14-year-old Palestinian boy was shot and killed as he climbed the fence.”

Egypt and the Islamic Jihad tried to broker a cease-fire which seems to be holding, but it is quite fragile.  Tensions between Hamas and Israel have been building for months.

US President Trump made comments during his trip to England which raised serious questions about his immigration policies.  In the past he has linked immigration to security fears such as the Central American gang M-13 or to radical Islamist terrorists. But ABC News reported his comments in this way:

“President Trump doubled down on his hardline immigration views on Friday, saying he thinks immigration is a ‘very negative thing’ for Europe and that European leaders ‘better watch themselves’ because immigration is ‘changing the culture. I know it is politically not necessarily correct to say that, but I will say it and I will say it loud,’ Trump said during a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Theresa May.

“’I think it’s been very bad for Europe. I think Europe is a place I know very well and I think what has happened is very tough. It’s a very tough situation,’ Trump said. ‘I just think it’s changing the culture. It’s a very negative thing for Europe.'”

President Trump seems to be saying that immigration is intrinsically a bad thing, a rather remarkable statement from the leader of a country that is comprised largely of a population derived from immigration.

I have tried very hard to avoid any posts that refer to the controversy over Russian interference in the 2016 US elections, largely because it is viewed by many as a “domestic” political matter in the US.  Moreover, the issue is highly politicized and I have long ago despaired over rational dialogue over the matter.  But the indictments issued today by the US Justice Department have, for the first time, produced credible evidence of official Russian government interference in the US political system.  The indictments identify “twelve Russian military officers” as part of the conspiracy.  The specificity of the charges is radically different from the conclusion of the US intelligence community that the Russians interfered with the US election.

One should think about these charges outside of the abstract mental box we have created for high technology.  Instead, one should think about these twelve Russian military officers and the soldiers under their command entering US territory surreptitiously on the command of the central authority of the Russian government, breaking into several US and state office buildings, and stealing thousands of files from metal filing cabinets, including personal information about 500,000 US citizens sufficient to destroy the economic lives of those citizens with the explicit intent of undermining the political process guaranteed by the US Constitution.  By any traditional measure, such an assault upon the sovereignty of a state would constitute an act of war.  My impression of the reaction of the US government and the American people is that that interpretation is not shared by many in the US.

On Monday the head of state of the US, Donald Trump, will meet with the head of state of the attacker in a meeting with no clear or stated agenda and with no other US officials present to record the conversation or to verify the substance of that conversation.  In my many years of studying world politics, I have never come across anything remotely as incomprehensible as the current situation.  At least Neville Chamberlain gave away other countries, not his own.

Visual Capitalist is a website that does an incredible job of creating graphics that compress tremendous amounts of information in easily comprehensible terms.  It has produced a graphic that shows the relative weight of the largest trade importers in the world.   There is little doubt that the US has a balance of trade deficit, but the real question is why do Americans buy so much stuff from others.  Most other countries have substantially smaller deficits.  Moreover, the US Treasury Department has suffered a serious outflow of staffers in its critically important international affairs office, an outflow similar to the departures of key State Department personnel.  More than 20 professional staffers have left the unit even as the US has increased its activity in international trade.  According to Bloomberg:

“About 20 career staff have quit the U.S. Treasury Department’s international affairs unit in less than a year, draining resources from a key office in the Trump administration’s escalating trade battles with China and Europe.

The US-North Korean relationship defies comprehension.  North Korean leader sent a very nice note to US President Trump, dated 6 July, that said “I firmly believe that the strong will, sincere efforts and unique approach of myself and Your Excellency Mr. president aimed at opening up a new future between the DPRK and the U.S. will surely come to fruition.”  On the other hand, US Secretary of State Pompeo went to North Korea expecting to talk with Kim who did not show up and instead visited a potato farm.  Furthermore, US officials were at the Demilitarized Zone last Thursday to meet with North Korean officials to discuss the returns of American servicemen who died in the Korean War, but the North Koreans never showed up.  It is hard to interpret these actions as anything other than a dismissal of US overtures on the subject of denuclearization.  It is hard not to conclude that the US is getting played by Kim Jong-un–President Trump apparently believes anyone who calls him “Your Excellency”.

The Trump Administration has announced another round of tariffs that could affect about $200 billion of products imported from China.  The list does not go into effect until late August and consumers and producers can comment on the tariffs before they take effect.  The list includes about 6,000 products (if one wants to peruse the list, it can be accessed here (it’s long!!).  One should expect lobbying against the tariffs to be intense.   But Ivanka Trump’s fashion line has already been exempted. The Chinese response to the announcement was swift and did not mince any words:

“Chinese society is enraged by the US trade hegemony. Some export-oriented companies in China have suffered directly from the trade war and deserve the government’s help to minimize the losses. The Chinese government can adjust economics and trade toward less dependence on the US.

“China is not alone in dealing with the US. The Ministry of Commerce said it will immediately lodge an additional complaint with the WTO over the unilateral acts of the US. Chinese people have become more confident in handling outside challenges. As long as China stays resolute, rational and calm, it will remain invincible against the US.”

Business Insider provided a list of the products most likely to be affected by the tariffs if they go into effect:

The Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs has published a fascinating essay on how maps are used to make political points .  We tend to think of maps as accurate representations of both geography and political realities, but nothing could be further from the truth.  The manipulation of images and border lines have decisive effects on how we view the world.  The image below speaks volumes about how the British viewed their role in the world and how they regarded those under their control.

The British Empire, 1886

If one has any questions about whether European states are exasperated with US President Trump, one need to go no further than to read the speech by the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk:

“Speaking on the eve of the NATO summit here in Brussels, I would like to address President Trump directly, who for a long time now has been criticising Europe almost daily for, in his view, insufficient contributions to the common defence capabilities, and for living off the US. Dear President Trump: America does not have, and will not have a better ally than Europe. Today Europeans spend on defence many times more than Russia, and as much as China. And I think you can have no doubt, Mr President, that this is an investment in common American and European defence and security. Which can’t be said with confidence about Russian or Chinese spending.

“I would therefore have two remarks here. First of all, dear America, appreciate your allies, after all you don’t have that many. And, dear Europe, spend more on your defence, because everyone respects an ally that is well-prepared and equipped.

“Money is important, but genuine solidarity is even more important. Speaking about solidarity, I want to dispel the American President’s argument, which says that the US alone protects Europe against our enemies, and that the US is almost alone in this struggle. Europe was first to respond on a large scale when the US was attacked, and called for solidarity after 9/11. European soldiers have been fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with American soldiers in Afghanistan. 870 brave European men and women sacrificed their lives, including 40 soldiers from my homeland Poland. Dear Mr President, please remember about this tomorrow, when we meet at the NATO summit, but above all when you meet president Putin in Helsinki. It is always worth knowing: who is your strategic friend? And who is your strategic problem?”

Tusk’s language is unusually blunt and harsh.  But before taking off to the NATO summit in Brussels, there was little evidence that President Trump was affected.  Mr. Trump said:

“THE PRESIDENT:  Well, it’s going to be an interesting time in the UK, and it’s certainly going to be an interesting time with NATO.  NATO has not treated us fairly, but I think we’ll work something out.  We pay far too much and they pay far too little.  But we will work it out, and all countries will be happy.  With the UK, that’s a situation that’s been going on for a long time.

:So I have NATO, I have the UK, which is in somewhat turmoil, and I have Putin.  Frankly, Putin may be the easiest of them all.  Who would think?  Who would think?  But the UK certainly has a — they have a lot of things going on.”

When asked whether Russian President Valdimir Putin was a friend or foe, Mr. Trump said:

“THE PRESIDENT:  I really can’t say right now.  As far as I’m concerned, a competitor.  A competitor.  I think that getting along with Russia, getting along with China, getting along with others is a good thing, not a bad thing.  I’ve said that many times for many years.  So we’ll see.  We’re meeting with Vladimir Putin on Monday.  We’ll see how that goes.”

I am certain that the other NATO leaders are deeply troubled by these remarks, particularly the one about the meeting with Putin being “easier” than with the US’s most reliable and loyal allies.  Jonathan Chait has written a very detailed story on the links between Trump and Putin for New York magazine.  The article raises a large number of very troubling questions about Mr. Trump’s vulnerability to Russian influence.

Israel has closed the  Kerem Shalom border crossing to the Gaza Strip.  The move comes in response to the tactic of flying kites with flaming, oil-soaked rags that land on farming plots in Israel.  The move aggravates a dire situation in the Gaza Strip.  As Jessica Corbett notes:

“Israel and Egypt have maintained a naval, aerial, and land blockade of the occupied territory for more than a decade, the Kerem Shalom crossing is how most commercial goods and foreign aid reach Gazans. Under the new restrictions, only food, medicine, and “humanitarian equipment” can come through the entry point.

“The rules, Al Jazeera noted, “will also affect Gaza’s exports, further straining an already crippled economy brought to its knees by the 12-year blockade.”

The Gaza Strip only covers 17 square miles and roughly 1.7 million Palestinians live there.  The incendiary kites are unquestionably a hazard to Israelis who live within the range of an unguided kite.  But punishing an entire people with economic destitution is disproportionately harsh. The US has also halted all economic aid to the Palestinian Authority.  There is no end game for either the Palestinians or the Israelis–just more misery for each other.

Ethiopia and Eritrea have reached an agreement to end 20 years of hostility.  Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki signed a five point agreement brokered by the African Union and the European Union.  According to africanews:

“At the end of the visit, the two leaders signed a five-point agreement ending twenty-year war and restoring relations between them. The summaries read as follows:

• State of war has come to an end;
• The 2 nations will forge close political, economic, social, cultural & security cooperation
• Trade, economic & diplomatic ties will resume
• The boundary decision will be implemented
• Both nations will work on regional peace

“The ‘State of war that existed between the two countries has come to an end,’ Eritrea’s information minister, Yemane Gebremeskel, wrote on Twitter.”

The agreement is a great step forward but we should be only cautiously optimistic.

The trade war between the US and China will probably not have much of an effect on the overall economies of both.  But certain economic sectors will be significantly affected, and the Chinese retaliation will unquestionably have an effect on US farmers.  Two major crops, soybeans and corn, will be dramatically affected by the Chinese tariffs, and farmers of both of those crops are already facing lower prices. Tom Philpott of Mother Jones presents the relevant data:

“The current slide comes at a precipitous time for US farmers. They have about 179 million acres of the two crops growing in their fields—a combined land mass equal to nearly two Californias, and just 1 percent less than last year’s plantings. To make a profit on these crops, farmers will have to make at least $4 per bushel on corn and $10.05 on soybeans for the 2018 harvest, a University of Illinois analysis found. Currently, the two commodities fetch $3.43 and $8.40, respectively.”

We will see what the political effects of these price declines will be in the November elections in the US.

Just as he prepares to leave for a NATO summit, US President Trump issued harsh criticisms of the alliance.  Trump complained about the fact that only a few of the NATO allies meet their promise of spending 2% of their GDP on defense and that European states have trade surpluses with the US.  The US currently spends about 4% of its GDP on the military, but it also maintains nearly 800 military bases all around the world.  According to Bloomberg:

“Total defense expenditure by North Atlantic Treaty Organization members grew to 2.42 percent of their gross domestic product last year from 2.4 percent, the alliance said in an annual report released on Thursday in Brussels. The increase in 2016 was the first since 2009.

“The U.S. led with defense expenditure of 3.57 percent of GDP last year, up from 3.56 percent, while European nations boosted their spending on such outlays to an average 1.46 percent from 1.44 percent, according to the report. Canada, the second North American member of NATO, registered 1.29 percent last year compared with 1.16 percent in 2016.”

The difference in military spending is largely a feature of the global commitments of the US–a choice made by the US which is similar to the choice it has made to spend more than it saves which explains the balance of trade deficit as well.  It is difficult to imagine how Mr. Trump’s words will be received at the Brussels meeting, but he has definitely done a very good job of implementing Russian foreign policy.

British Prime Minister Theresa May faces a serious crisis as two members of her Cabinet–David Davis and Boris Johnson–have resigned in protest of her decision in favor of retaining limited ties with the European Union after Britain leaves.  Both Davis and Johnson represent members of her party that favor a “hard” Brexit–a dramatic cessation of ties with the EU.  It is unclear whether May’s government can survive, nor is it clear that Britain’s exit from the EU is assured.  The confusion means that both Great Britain and the Union have to reconsider their options.

The USS Mustin, a guided missile destroyer, and the USS Benfold, an anti-aircraft destroyer, have sailed through the Taiwan Strait in a show of support for what China regards as a renegade province.  But the move was substantially less provocative than many had feared.  China Times offered a nuanced interpretation of the move:

“The Pentagon told the media last month that the country would sail warships through the Taiwan Straits, triggering a round of media speculations.

“It now appears that Washington has chosen a more discreet approach: It opted for sending destroyers instead of aircraft carriers at the weekend, no drills were conducted, and the US military hasn’t officially announced the voyage.

“Since a vast stretch of the Taiwan Straits is considered an international waterway, Beijing cannot raise the issue if Washington’s passage is uneventful.”

The US has taken numerous steps on the issue of Taiwan, including allowing high level officials to visit the island, even though it acknowledged in the Shanghai Communique in 1972 that Taiwan was part of China.  It is not clear why the US continues to make the status of the island an issue, particularly in light of the trade dispute with China and the need for China’s support in the denuclearization of North Korea.

The Turkish government has fired more than 18,000 civil servants, including nearly 9,000 police officers, “over suspected links to terror organizations and groups ‘acting against national security.’”  The decision is based upon emergency decrees granted to the Erdogan government and represents further consolidation of his power in Turkey.  Erdogan is scheduled to be sworn in as President on Monday, and he has been in power for over 15 years.  The emergency has been going on for two years in response to a failed coup attempt against Erdogan which he has blamed on supporters of an exiled political figure, Fethullah Gülen, who is currently in the US.  Turkey has most definitely decided not to develop into a liberal democracy.

The US has historically taken in more refugees than any other country in the world: “Since 1980, the U.S. has taken in 3 million of the more than 4 million refugees resettled worldwide.”  But the Pew Research Center has determined that the US pattern has now changed dramatically:

“But in 2017, the U.S. resettled 33,000 refugees, the country’s lowest total since the years following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and a steep drop from 2016, when it resettled about 97,000.

“Non-U.S. countries resettled more than twice as many refugees as the U.S. in 2017 – 69,000 – even though refugee resettlement in these nations was down from 92,000 in 2016.

“Previously, the closest the rest of the world had come to surpassing the U.S. on this measure was 2003, when the U.S. resettled about 28,000 refugees and the rest of the world resettled about 27,000.”

Unfortunately, the number of refugees in the world has increased significantly even as the doors are being closed on them.

“The decline in refugee resettlement comes as the global refugee population increased by 2.75 million, and reached a record 19.9 million in 2017, according to UNHCR. This exceeds the high in 1990, following the fall of the Berlin Wall.

“Refugees represent nearly a third (30%) of the world’s displaced population – people forced to leave their homes due to persecution, conflict, violence or human rights violations. The number of internally displaced people – those displaced within their home country – reached about 40 million in 2017, bringing the world’s total displaced population to 68.5 million in 2017 (a total that also includes Palestinian refugees and asylum seekers).

We should all think seriously about the way we would probably want to be treated if we were refugees.  The current trend is intolerable.