World Politics News   Articles for World Politics Course

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.

The US has issued its annual security report, a report that is mandated by Congress.  The report is a way for the President to outline the priorities of American foreign policy, to identify strategic threats, and to lay out the defense spending necessary to implement the foreign policy.  This year, President Trump has submitted a report that emphasizes the economic foundations of defense strategy.  The key threats are identified early on in the report: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran (p. 2).  The report, as published, suggests that it was a rush job.  A key part of the report reads:

“The United States must retain overmatch—the combination of capabilities in sufficient scale to prevent enemy success and to ensure that America’s sons and daughters will never be in a fair fight.” (p. 28)

I suspect that the sentence should read “that America’s sons and daughters will [always] be in a fair fight.”

The report also reads:

“The Joint Force must remain capable of deterring and defeating the full range of threats to the United States. The Department of Defense must develop new operational concepts and capabilities to win without assured dominance in air, maritime, land, space, and cyberspace domains, including against those operating below the level of conventional military conflict.” (p. 29)

Winning without dominating the field is called “luck”.  I am not sure that the Defense Department would be satisfied with non-dominant capabilities.

Moreover, there are numerous inconsistencies in the document.

First, the report singles out transnational criminal organizations as a security threat: “The United States must devote greater resources to dismantle transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) and their subsidiary networks. Some have established global supply chains that are comparable to Fortune 500 corporations.” (p. 11-12) The point is unquestionably true, but there is no mention of any intent to clamp down on offshore banking which is the principal mechanism for the money-laundering that keeps criminal money flowing freely.

Second, the report mentions foreign interference with domestic use of electronic communications: “The United States will impose swift and costly consequences on foreign governments, criminals, and other actors who undertake significant malicious cyberactivities.” (p. 13)  Additionally, the report says: ” These attacks can undermine faith and confidence in democratic institutions and the global economic system.” (p. 31) But there is no mention of Russian interference in US elections or the penalties imposed on Russia for those activities.

Third, the report emphasizes the need to attract innovators and inventors: “The United States must continue to attract the innovative and the inventive, the brilliant and the bold. We will encourage scientists in government, academia, and the private sector to achieve advancements across the full spectrum of discovery, from incremental improvements to game-changing breakthroughs.” (p. 20).  But a few pages later, the text says: “The United States will review visa procedures to reduce economic theft by non-traditional intelligence collectors. We will consider restrictions on foreign STEM students from designated countries to ensure that intellectual property is not transferred to our competitors, while acknowledging the importance of recruiting the most advanced technical workforce to the United States.” (p. 22)

Fourth, the report departs profoundly from previous national security reports that identifies climate change as an important security threat to the US.  Instead, the report outlines a policy toward climate change that borders on the incoherent: “Climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system. U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests. Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty.” (p. 22)   Indeed, the report emphasizes the need to export more fossil fuels to the rest of the world: “The United States will promote exports of our energy resources, technologies, and services, which helps our allies and partners diversify their energy sources and brings economic gains back home. We will expand our export capacity through the continued support of private sector development of coastal terminals,
allowing increased market access and a greater competitive edge for U.S. industries.”  (p. 23)  Renewable energies do not require coastal terminals–only fossil fuels do.

Fifth, in assessing the Intelligence Community (IC) in the US, the report acknowledges that “the IC, as well as the law enforcement community, offer unique abilities to defend against and mitigate threat actors operating below the threshold of open conflict. Both communitites (sic–another example of a rush job) have exceptionally strong liaison relationships throughout the world, allowing the United States to cooperate with allies and partners to protect against adversaries.” (p. 32)  The report does not acknowledge the reluctance of Britain and Israel to share intelligence with the US because of intelligence leaks.

Sixth, the report notes the singular importance of diplomacy in the security of the US: “Diplomacy is indispensable to identify and implement solutions to conflicts in unstable regions of the world short of military
involvement. It helps to galvanize allies for action and marshal the collective resources of like-minded nations and organizations to address shared problems. Authoritarian states are eager to replace the United States where the United States withdraws our diplomats and closes our outposts.” (p. 33)  The report does not address the 37% reduction in the State Department and USAID budget or the fact that many important Ambassadorial Post (such as the US Ambassador to South Korea) remain unfilled.

Seventh, the report talks about the liberal international economic order and the institutions that underpin that order (the IMF, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization): “the United States will continue
to play a leading role in institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and World Trade Organization (WTO), but will improve their performance through reforms. These reforms include encouraging multilateral development banks to invest in high-quality infrastructure projects that promote economic growth. We will press to make the WTO a more effective forum to adjudicate unfair trade practices.” (pp. 40-41).  The report does not mention President Trump’s threat to “ignore” the rulings of the WTO.

Eighth, the report refers to the freedom of the internet: ” The United States will advocate for open, interoperable communications, with minimal barriers to the global exchange of information and services. The United States will promote the free flow of data.” (p. 41)  The report does not mention the repeal of Net Neutrality which makes the internet significantly less “free”.

Ninth, with respect to refugees, the report states that: “No nation can unilaterally alleviate all human suffering, but just because we cannot help everyone does not mean that we should stop trying to help anyone. For much of the world, America’s liberties are inspirational, and the United States will always stand with those who seek freedom. We will remain a beacon of liberty and opportunity around the world.” (p. 41)  Nowhere are the recent constraints on refugees and immigrants to the US mentioned.

Tenth, the report celebrates religious freedom: “The United States also remains committed to supporting and advancing religious freedom—America’s first freedom. Our Founders understood religious freedom not as the state’s creation, but as the gift of God to every person and a fundamental right for our flourishing society.”  (p. 41) Hard to square this rhetoric with a “Muslim ban”.

Eleventh, the report discusses the need for humanitarian assistance: “The United States will continue to lead the world in humanitarian assistance.”  There is no explanation for why the US has done little to help the Royingha in Myanmar, the people of Yemen or Syria, or the starving people in South Sudan and Venezuela.

The last two sections of the report are on regional issues and the conclusion.  I will try to write about those two sections in a subsequent post.

It is very difficult to predict how wars might unfold.  Prior to the US-Iraq War in 2003, Americans were told that the cost of the war would be between $50 and $60 billion and President George W. Bush declared that “major combat operations” were over after 41 days.  The war is still going in in some form and the US has spent well over $3 trillion on the effort and more than 4,500 American soldiers dies and perhaps as many as 500,000 Iraqis.  When the war began, about 70% of the American population polled favored the war.  There is a sense of deja vu in the current discussions about a possible war with North Korea.    It seems as if most Americans believe that Defeating North Korea would be a relatively simple process with little risk to Americans.  Other observers believe that the costs would be quite high.  Moreover, it seems clear that some countries, such as China, now believe that a US-North Korean War is imminent.  We should be demanding a more accurate and reasonable assessment of what the war would entail before we sleepwalk into another catastrophe.

Despite rhetoric condemning the US recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, there was little effective opposition to the decision on the part of the oil-producing Arab states.  The lack suggests that those states, led primarily by Saudi Arabia, are willing to sacrifice the Palestinian demand for a separate state with East Jerusalem as its capital in order to secure US and Israeli support for a larger strategic effort to confront growing Iranian influence in the region.  Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates decided to push the Palestinians to accept the city of Abu Dis as an acceptable alternative capital to East Jerusalem–a proposal that was first broached by the US at the 2000 Camp David Summit and is apparently the bargaining position of Jared Kushner, the Trump Administration’s Middle East peace negotiator.  As such, the decision is a real gamble.  A few days ago, The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) met in Istanbul and King Abdullah of Jordan and Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, decided to attend despite Saudi Arabia’s suggestion that they boycott the meeting.  The OIC passed a resolution that declared that “East Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Palestine and invite all countries to recognize the State of Palestine and East Jerusalem as its occupied capital”.  Moreover, the UN Security Council is slated to vote on a resolution (introduced by Egypt) to reject the US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  That resolution has no possibility of passing given the US veto, but it will be interesting to see how American allies vote on it.

The fact that Abbas, Abdullah, and Egypt are not cooperating with Saudi Arabia and the UAE suggests that the opposition to the US decision is stronger than the two states anticipated.  Now they will wait to see if US President Trump follows through with his stated intention to de-certify the Iran’s adherence to the nuclear agreement, a decision that needs to be made in January.  After Ambassador Haley’s press conference at the UN on Iranian missiles, it seems as if Mr. Trump will de-certify.  But we also know that there are constituencies in the US that wish the agreement to continue.

Philip Alston, United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, issued a statement yesterday which summarized his understanding of extreme poverty in the United States.  His office did an extensive study of the topic which was very similar to studies it has done in several other countries as part of the UN mission to understand the link between poverty and the violations of human rights.  Thus far, there have been very few references to the report in any of the large news media in the US although it has received extensive reporting outside the US.  The study was grim.  Among the findings:

• By most indicators, the US is one of the world’s wealthiest countries.  It spends more on national defense than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan combined.
• US health care expenditures per capita are double the OECD average and much higher than in all other countries. But there are many fewer doctors and hospital beds per person than the OECD average.
• US infant mortality rates in 2013 were the highest in the developed world.
• Americans can expect to live shorter and sicker lives, compared to people living in any other rich democracy, and the “health gap” between the U.S. and its peer countries continues to grow.
• U.S. inequality levels are far higher than those in most European countries
• Neglected tropical diseases, including Zika, are increasingly common in the USA.  It has been estimated that 12 million Americans live with a neglected parasitic infection. A 2017 report documents the prevalence of hookworm in Lowndes County, Alabama.
• The US has the highest prevalence of obesity in the developed world.
• In terms of access to water and sanitation the US ranks 36th in the world.
• America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, ahead of Turkmenistan, El Salvador, Cuba, Thailand and the Russian Federation. Its rate is nearly 5 times the OECD average.
• The youth poverty rate in the United States is the highest across the OECD with one quarter of youth living in poverty compared to less than 14% across the OECD.
• The Stanford Center on Inequality and Poverty ranks the most well-off countries in terms of labor markets, poverty, safety net, wealth inequality, and economic mobility. The US comes in last of the top 10 most well-off countries, and 18th amongst the top 21.

The report deserves a close read and much wider dissemination.  It is unlikely that the US will take any steps to assure that its citizens are aware of how serious a problem extreme poverty is in their country.

The far-right Freedom Party has been offered the cabinet posts of foreign, interior and defense in a coalition with the Conservative Party in Austria.  That coalition creates the first far-right government in Europe in the current wave of enthusiasm for nationalist parties.  The Freedom Party is skeptical of pro-immigration and pro-EU policies which are quite similar to the positions of the National Front Party in France, the Freedom Party in the Netherlands, and the Alternative for Germany Party in Germany.  But those parties have not thus far been successful in joining a government coalition.

The US Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, delivered remarks at the UN which accused Iran of violating a broader interpretation of the Iranian nuclear agreement.  She was quite explicit in suggesting that the agreement should not be interpreted solely in terms of uranium enrichment and the delivery of nuclear weapons:

“It’s really important that you be here today, because we have a story to tell, and the story is a very important one. And it’s not just important for the United States, it’s important for the entire international community. As President Trump announced on October 13, the United States is taking a new approach to Iran by focusing on all of the regime’s destabilizing behavior. That means we are focused not just on the nuclear program.

“We’re also taking a hard look at Iran’s ballistic missile program, its arms exports, and its support for terrorists, proxy fighters, and dictators.”

It is unlikely that any of the other partners to the agreement (Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China) believe that this interpretation is valid.  The question is whether the US interpretation will be used as a reason to tear up the agreement.  Some fear that the interpretation might be the basis for greater hostilities between the US and Iran.