World Politics News   Articles for World Politics Course

US President Trump has publicly called out China for selling oil to North Korea despite the UN Security Council prohibitions on doing so.  In a Twitter post today, Trump said:

“Caught RED HANDED – very disappointed that China is allowing oil to go into North Korea. There will never be a friendly solution to the North Korea problem if this continues to happen!”

Satellite photos show Chinese and North Korean vessels transferring oil while in the Yellow Sea.  The photos were released by South Korean but were likely taken by US spy satellites.  China has made it clear that it does not support any sanctions that harm ordinary North Koreans and that it does not wish the regime in North Korea to fall.  President Trump does not seem to understand China’s interests in this dispute and he clearly expects China to support US objectives without reservation.  It is very difficult to understand how publicly shaming China’s behavior serves US interests in this matter.  In fact, Trump’s actions will likely alienate China even further.

Satellite Photos of Chinese and North Korean Ships Transferring Oil at Sea

The US military would have us believe that it has defeated Daesh (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria, but while it no longer controls extensive territory in those countries it is far from being defeated.  Indeed, the group has launched a brutal attack in Afghanistan where the US military has been engaged in its longest war.  The group attacked a Shi’ite cultural center in Kabul and the primary victims were children.  There is no military solution to the problem of violent extremism.  The US (as well as the Russians, the Kurds, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and the Syrian Army) have killed many supporters of ISIS, but the movement has proven to be highly resilient.

It is cold in South Hadley!!!  Much colder than we are used to in December and the forecast does not offer much hope for a warm-up very soon.  The rest of the world, however, seems to be enjoying warmer than usual temperatures.  Note how much warmer than normal it seems to be in the Arctic.

The world’s richest people became significantly richer in 2017.  The Bloomberg media outlet keeps a list of the 500 richest people in the world and found that they added $1 trillion to their collective wealth in 2017.  The increase was 23% greater than the increase in 2016 so the pace of accumulation seems to be picking up.  According to Bloomberg: “By the end of trading Tuesday, Dec. 26, the 500 billionaires controlled $5.3 trillion”.  The Guardian puts the good fortunes of the wealthy in context:

“These millionaires – who account for 0.7% of the world’s adult population – control 46% of total global wealth that now stands at $280tn. At the other end of the spectrum, the world’s 3.5 billion poorest adults each have assets of less than $10,000 (£7,600). Collectively these people, who account for 70% of the world’s working age population, account for just 2.7% of global wealth.”

It is hard to imagine that such inequality is sustainable over the long run.  As The Guardian puts it: “The world’s super-rich hold the greatest concentration of wealth since the US Gilded Age at the turn of the 20th century”.

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has released its annual “Arctic Report” and the report suggests that the Arctic is changing at a more rapid rate than ever in the last 1,500 years.  Jeremy Mathis is an arctic scientist at NOAA and assesses the changes in this way: “There is no normal….That’s what so strange about what’s happening in the Arctic. … The environment is changing so quickly in such a short amount of time that we can’t quite get a handle on what this new state is going to look like.”  The change in sea ice has been dramatic in recent years and many believe that permanent sea ice may not exist in a few years.

Alexei Navalny, a prominent opposition figure to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has been barred by the Russian Election Commission from running in next year’s election as a Presidential candidate.  The grounds for his disqualification were a conviction for embezzlement in 2013, a conviction that was rejected by the European Curt of Human Rights, but reinstated by the  Russian Supreme Court.  Navalny is a popular figure who had no chance of defeating Putin but someone who was quite adept at mobilizing his base to undermine Putin’s authoritarian rule.  Navalny has called for a boycott of the election, but Russian authorities dismiss his significance and the chances for an effective boycott.

Alexei Navalny

The US has negotiated a substantial decrease in its contributions to the UN budget.  The decrease is $285 million off the 2016-2017 final budget and represents a big cut to the UN’s overall budget.  According to The Guardian: “the US is responsible for 22% of the the body’s annual operating budget, or around $1.2bn in 2017-18, and 28.5% of the cost of peacekeeping operations, estimated at $6.8bn over the same period.”  In defending he budget cuts, the US Ambassador to the UN said:

“The inefficiency and overspending of the United Nations are well known. We will no longer let the generosity of the American people be taken advantage of or remain unchecked. This historic reduction in spending – in addition to many other moves toward a more efficient and accountable UN – is a big step in the right direction. While we are pleased with the results of this year’s budget negotiations, you can be sure we’ll continue to look at ways to increase the UN’s efficiency while protecting our interests”.

There is little question that the US action is in response to the 128-9 vote condemning the US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

The US State Department announced on Friday that it would supply lethal weapons to Ukraine to aid the government in suppressing the rebellion in the eastern part of the country.  The conflict in Ukraine has deep historical roots, but the cause of the immediate crisis stems from popular protests against the Ukrainian government in late 2013.  The protests overthrew a Russian-backed leader and led to a Russian takeover of Crimea and Russian support for separatists in the east.  That conflict has waxed and waned over the years despite attempts at cease-fires.  The US has avoided sending lethal weaponry into Ukraine to fight the separatist, fearing an escalation of the conflict which might give Russia an excuse to annex outright the Russian-speaking parts of the country.  Needless to say, the Russians interpret the American move as aggressive and I fear that the conflict, which has already taken 10,000 lives, might escalate quickly.

New Zealand’s Mount Taranaki is the third natural feature of the country’s geography to be granted legal status as a person.  The mountain joins the Whanganui river as a legal personality.  The ruling is significant because it protects these geographic features in a distinctive and effective manner.  The decision is a victory for the Taranaki iwi, a group within the Maori nation, who have suffered under the Treaty of Waitangi which founded New Zealand in 1840.  The decision also recognizes the fact that the Maori rights have long been ignored in the islands’ governance and is an attempt to redress those grievances.  But the decision is also important because it is a fundamental change in the way humans recognize their relationship to the natural environment.

Mount Taranaki

In the first year of World War I, allied and German troops celebrated what has come to be known as the “Christmas Truce”.  It was an extraordinary event in military history and one that rattled the military command centers of both sides.  German and British soldiers decided not to continue firing at each other and instead came out of their trenches and exchanged gifts, drank together, and played soccer.  The personal accounts of the incident are deeply moving (for another account, click here).  The soldiers recognized that their common humanity overrode their national identity.  Their officers realized that such a recognition undermined their authority and the objectives of the war.  It is too bad that the soldiers did not prevail.

The UN Security Council has voted to impose more sanctions on North Korea.  The sanctions include refined petroleum products and North Korean exports of food products, machinery, electrical equipment, stone and wood.  The final resolution represented a compromise since the US had lobbied for an immediate repatriation of North Korean workers from Russia and China and for a complete ban on petroleum exports to North Korea.  These measures were opposed by China and Russia, and the China Times ran an editorial which outlined the concessions demanded by the two states:

“China and Russia went through tough negotiations with the US regarding the proposals. China firmly opposes any indication that the council might grant the US permission for military action. It also objects to a maritime military blockade against Pyongyang that might trigger conflict. The US compromised on these issues. The new sanctions include slashing limits on North Korean imports of refined oil from an annual 2 million barrels a year to 500,000. The resolution caps crude oil imports at 4 million barrels a year and extends the deadline for North Korean workers to return home from 12 months to 24 months. The sanctions don’t include leading North Korean leaders. North Korean exports and its imports from China are restricted by category, but not entirely banned.”

The editorial goes on to point out the reasons for the concessions:

“Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile development is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable to use force against it and change the political situation in North Korea and the Korean Peninsula. It is hoped that Washington and Pyongyang can discover their common interests.
“The new resolution is extremely harsh. It may be the last hope for a desperate situation on the peninsula. South Korea recently said it could suspend joint military drills with the US until after the PyeongChang Winter Olympics in February 2018. It is hoped Pyongyang gets the message and responds positively.”

In other words, China’s position remains unchanged:  it wants North Korea to stop the development of its nuclear weapons testing (but does not support the US objective of denuclearization) but is also not willing to impose measures that might lead to the downfall of the North Korean regime.

Jane’s Defence Budgets is one of the world’s most authoritative sources on military spending and it has just released its annual report (it is incredibly expensive so I cannot provide a link to the actual report).  The press release on the report contains some interesting information.  Significantly, global defense spending has reached a record high:

“According to the Jane’s report, defence spending will grow for the fifth consecutive year, reaching $1.67 trillion in 2018 and overtaking the previous post-Cold War record of $1.63 trillion seen in 2010.”

Not surprisingly, the US leads the pack with a proposed 4.7% increase in the defense budget in President Trump’s budget.  But western and eastern European states are also raising their military spending to a tremendous extent and many of those states will meet NATO’s target of 2% of total spending (US, Greece, Estonia, Turkey, Latvia, the UK, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania).  The increase spending reflects growing fears of Russia military pressure as that country continues to forge a more ambitious foreign policy in Europe and the Middle East, despite the fact that Russia’s own military spending is going down.  Even though the absolute numbers are increasing, military spending is taking a smaller share of total wealth: “….over the last decade global defense spending has dipped to an average of 2.2 percent of GDP, down from 2.7 percent.”

The New York Times is reporting that the recently passed tax bill in the US might result in counter-actions by many of the US trading partners.  US trade and investment partners realize that they now have to compete with the US on their corporate tax rates and all the subsidies in the tax code to promote US investments abroad.  In a very real sense, the chief export of the new US tax code will be austerity as other countries will have to reduce their revenue streams as well.  The impact on China will be significant, particularly since its corporate tax rate is about 45%.  When considering dramatic changes in economic policy in a globalized world, one should never forget to anticipate the reaction of other states to expected outcomes.  One should always assume that whatever one thinks is a positive for the domestic economy will have a negative effect on international partners.

Environmental economists Wolfram Schlenker and Anouch Missirian have published a paper in Science that correlates requests for asylum in Europe and climate change projections of the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).  The abstract of the paper reads:

“Here we examine how, in the recent past (2000–2014), weather variations in 103 source countries translated into asylum applications to the European Union, which averaged 351,000 per year in our sample. We find that temperatures that deviated from the moderate optimum (~20°C) increased asylum applications in a nonlinear fashion, which implies an accelerated increase under continued future warming. Holding everything else constant, asylum applications by the end of the century are predicted to increase, on average, by 28% (98,000 additional asylum applications per year) under representative concentration pathway (RCP) scenario 4.5 and by 188% (660,000 additional applications per year) under RCP 8.5 for the 21 climate models in the NASA Earth Exchange Global Daily Downscaled Projections”.

2016 saw a record number of asylum seekers in Europe.  According to the Public Broadcasting System: “The EU received 1.2 million applications from first-time asylum seekers in 2015, a record setting number and more than double the year prior. What’s more, about half of Europe’s asylum applicants from 2015 to 2016 still had decisions pending at the end of 2016.”  An increase of 188% would be politically unsustainable.

If you are rich, however, there is a different way to get into Europe: buy distressed properties in Greece whose housing market has yet to recover from the financial crisis of 2008-09.  Russians, Chinese, Turks, and Arabs are snapping up these properties and buying a “golden” passport from Greece.  According to Bloomberg:

“Greece awarded 2,053 golden visas between 2013 and October 2017, with Chinese investors accounting for 43 percent of them, according to Enterprise Greece, the state agency responsible for promoting investments and exports. Russians are in second place with 18.6 percent and investors from neighboring Turkey third at 8.4 percent. Greece has raised more than 513 million euros in foreign investments from the visa program.”

With a resident visa from Greece, foreigners have access to the entire European Union under the Schengen Program.

In an interesting twist to a long-simmering story, pro-independence candidates have won 70 seats in the 135-seat Catalan regional parliament.  The regional election was called by the central government of Spain after an attempt at independence by Catalonian separatists was short-circuited by the imposition of Spanish control over the regional government.  It now appears that Spain will continue to address the demands for independence, although the three parties that have the majority of seats are not united in their stance toward independence or greater autonomy.  The leaders of the pro-independence parties state that they will only meet with the Spanish government outside of Spain.

Election Results

The pro-independence parties are Mr Puigdemont’s Together for Catalonia (JxCat), the Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC) and Popular Unity (CUP)

The UN General Assembly considered a resolution rejecting the US position on recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  The resolution is similar to the one supported by 14 members of the UN Security Council–including Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and Ukraine–but vetoed by the US.  The Guardian has seen a copy of the letter US UN Ambassador Nikki Haley has sent to 180 of the 193 members of the UN.  It reads, in part:

“As you consider your vote, I encourage you to know the president and the US take this vote personally.

“The president will be watching this vote carefully and has requested I report back on those who voted against us”.

It is rare to see such a heavy-hand in diplomatic circles (it is also very weird to see a reference to the US as a person).  Many of the countries receive large amounts of US financial assistance.  The resolution refers to all the UN Security Council resolutions since 1967 (there are 10 such resolutions) which demand that the status of Jerusalem not be changed.  If the resolution passes overwhelmingly in the General Assembly, US standing in the world will be severely compromised.  Reuters quotes the Bolivian Ambassador to the UN to reflect the views of most countries to such blatant threats:

“‘The first name that she should write down is Bolivia,’” Bolivia’s U.N. Ambassador Sacha Sergio Llorentty Solíz said of Haley’s message. “’We regret the arrogance and disrespect to the sovereign decision of member states and to multilateralism.’”

There were 28 countries that voted in favor of the resolution.   Nine countries–US,  Israel, Togo, Micronesia, Guatemala, Nauru, Palau, Marshall Islands and Honduras–voted against the resolution and 35 countries abstained.  Significantly, some European countries–Hungary, Croatia, Latvia, Romania and the Czech Republic–abstained, which broke the European Union consensus that the status of Jerusalem should not be changed.  The vote is a stunning rebuke of the US decision and an indication that the US threat was ignored by most countries.

On 23 September, I posted about an academic dispute occasioned by the publication of “The Case for Colonialism” by Bruce Gilley.  The debate centered on whether there were some redeeming features of European imperialism, a rather silly debate since it never addresses the fundamentally coercive and violent nature of imperialism itself.  My cynicism aside, the debate has continued in Great Britain with the publication of an essay by Nigel Biggar in The Times entitled “Don’t Feel Guilty About Our Colonial History“.  A group of very prestigious Oxford academics have written an open letter to Biggar, disassociating themselves from his views and criticizing its premises.

The US Center for Disease Control has released its data for life expectancy in the US and, for the second year in a row, life expectancy for males declined.  The main reason for the decline was a rather sharp increase in opioid-related deaths.  The data indicate that

• In 2016, there were more than 63,600 drug overdose deaths in the United States.
• The age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths in 2016 (19.8 per 100,000) was 21% higher than the rate in 2015 (16.3).
• Among persons aged 15 and over, adults aged 25–34, 35–44, and 45–54 had the highest rates of drug overdose deaths in 2016 at around 35 per 100,000.
• West Virginia (52.0 per 100,000), Ohio (39.1), New Hampshire (39.0), the District of Columbia (38.8), and Pennsylvania (37.9) had the highest observed age-adjusted drug overdose death rates in 2016.
• The age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids other than methadone (drugs such as fentanyl, fentanyl analogs, and tramadol) doubled between 2015 and 2016, from 3.1 to 6.2 per 100,000.

It is highly unusual for life expectancy to decline in a rich country and to have two successive declines is a serious aberration from what one should expect.  The data is the clearest evidence for the devastating effects of job losses and wage declines in the US.  The US needs to address the root causes of the opioid epidemic and not focus on simply interdicting the drugs.

US National Security Adviser McMaster continues to ramp up the rhetoric against North Korea, telling the BBC that US policy is “not committed to a peaceful resolution — we’re committed to a resolution.  We have to be prepared, if necessary, to compel the denuclearization of North Korea without the cooperation of that regime”.  (To see the video of the BBC interview with McMaster, click on the link below) Further, Yonhap News from South Korea reported on 17 December that “South Korean and U.S. forces conducted a joint training last week for infiltrating North Korea and removing weapons of mass destruction in case of conflict”.  Last August, Business Insider published a report on how such an attack to seize North Korea’s nuclear weapons would go down.  Finally, The New York Times is reporting that the Chinese are building five refugee camps along the North Korean border in case there is a flood of refugees after an attack on the country.  The Chinese are also conducting air force drills over the Yellow and East seas near the Korean peninsula along “routes and areas it has never flown before” signaling “a warning to Washington and Seoul not to provoke Pyongyang any further”.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/embed/p05rhjgq/42403260

The European Union is initiating a process to penalize Poland for violating the human rights protections of the Union.  The process, invoked by Article 7 of the Union Treaty, could ultimately strip Poland of its right to vote on Union matters.  The process started after Poland passed a new law that could “force two-fifths of Supreme Court Justices to retire and give politicians sway over court appointments”.  The European Commission outlined its reasons for initiating the process in defense of judicial independence in Poland in a press release.  The European Council head, who is also a former Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk stated that “Poland is perceived today as a disintegrating force in this part of Europe and this is why I believe that it is important to end this devastation of Poland’s reputation”.  It is unlikely that Article 7 will be fully invoked since it requires a unanimous vote of all 27 members of the Union and Hungary, led by Viktor Orban, is highly sympathetic to the new Polish law.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is an extraordinary initiative which, in a very real sense, will try to revitalize the old Silk Road trading routes.  China is building a transportation infrastructure that promises to unite East, South, and Central Asian markets with those in Europe and Africa.  Much of this infrastructure is being built with Chinese loans, the terms of which rarely conform to the transparency required of most loans proffered by international banks or international lending agencies (environmental reviews, for example, are rarely conducted).  Countries are usually required to offer the facility being constructed as collateral on the loans, so that in the case of a default China simply takes control over it.  In this manner China has taken over the Greek port of Piraeus, the Australian port of Darwin, the port in Djibouti, and most recently the Sri Lankan port of Hambantota.  The takeover are 99-year leases, similar to the leases taken out by the British over the Chinese port of Hong Kong many years ago and that of the American lease over the Cuban port of Guantanamo in 1899.  Some patterns of imperialism never die.

The US vetoed, for the first time in the last six years, a resolution in the UN Security Council.  The resolution was introduced by Egypt and read, in part,

“…that any decisions and actions which purport to have altered, the character, status or demographic composition of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal effect, are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with relevant resolutions of the Security Council.”

The resolution also called upon member states “to refrain from the establishment of diplomatic missions in the Holy City of Jerusalem.”

The vote was 14-1 in favor of the resolution.  Great Britain, Japan, and France voted in favor of the resolution, as did Russia and China.  The Palestinians called immediately for a meeting of the UN General Assembly to discuss the matter, indicating at the same time that it no longer considers the US to be an effective mediator in the peace negotiations.

In an editorial in Global Times, which often serves as a mouthpiece for the Chinese government, China has responded to the National Security Strategy report released by the US yesterday.  The editorial reads like a tutorial on the theory of international relations:

“US President Donald Trump on Monday released the new National Security Strategy, citing China and Russia as competitors. He defined China and Russia as ‘revisionist’ countries that ‘challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity.’ The document also pillories China for seeking to ‘replace’ the US in Asia and claims that China ‘expanded its power at the expense of the sovereignty of others.’

“Trump’s new strategy report directly highlights the rivalry between Beijing and Washington, which might be a result of changes in the balance of power. It also indicates the White House has now adopted a different view toward US-China relations. For instance, previous administrations concentrated more on developing Sino-US collaboration, through which they expected to mollify bilateral contradictions. The Trump government, on the contrary, may input more resources to rival and pressure China, in the hope that Beijing will seek cooperation with Washington on Washington’s terms.

“This report is a manifestation of the Trump administration’s tough posture, which counts on US power instead of international rules. It showcases Washington’s indisputable insistence on its global hegemony. Neither Beijing nor Moscow will buy it.”

China’s response is not surprising.  It views its return to great power politics as normal and its weakness in the 20th century as an aberration.  It remains to be seen whether President Trump shares that point of view.  Russia characterized the new strategy as “imperial”.

President Trump’s National Security Adviser, H.R. McMaster, was interviewed by Norah O’Donnell on CBS News on Tuesday morning.  In the interview, McMaster was asked the following question by one of O’Donnell’s colleagues:

ANTHONY MASON: So General, you’re saying that there’s — is there any way in which the US can coexist with a nuclear North Korea?

MCMASTER: Anthony, I don’t think we can’t tolerate that risk. The world can’t tolerate that risk. I mean, if North Korea has a nuclear weapon, I mean, who are you going to try to prevent getting one? Look at the behavior of this regime, the hostility of this regime to the whole world.

I am not sure how to interpret McMaster’s response.  After all, North Korea is a nuclear power–it has exploded six bombs, and the US has “co-existed” with North Korea since its first nuclear test in 2006.  Experts estimate that North Korea could have between 30 and 60 nuclear warheads.  So, apparently, the US can coexist with a nuclear North Korea, as have Russia, China, South Korea, and Japan.  But McMaster has something else in mind.