“Since the U.S. declared war on our country, we will have every right to make countermeasures, including the right to shoot down the U.S. bombers even when they are not yet inside the airspace border of our country”.
The statement ratchets up the harsh rhetoric between the two states, although the actual substance of the rhetoric remains opaque. The US and North Korea have been in a technical state of war since 1953 since the Korean War ended only with an armistice, not a peace treaty. The two states do not even share diplomatic relations. But the threat of shooting down US airplanes in international airspace is extraordinary. Joseph DeThomas has written a superb essay on the risk of war for the blog, 38North, which outlines the heightened risks we now all face.
North Korean Airspace
Today marks the 60th anniversary of the desegregation of the schools in Little Rock, Arkansas. Nine brave young African-Americans were escorted to school under the protection of National Guard units who were following the 1954 decision of the US Supreme Court in its decision, Brown vs. the Board of Education, Topeka Kansas and ordered to do so by President Eisenhower. The Governor of the state, Orval Faubus, had closed the schools in order to resist the order to integrate. The integration of Little Rock schools was an important moment in the civil rights movement in the US.
But it was only a moment. To be followed by other “moments”. As athletes in the US take action to demand racial equality in the US today, it is worthwhile to remember other times in US history when athletes have taken a stand. One of the most stirring moments was when boxing champion, Muhammad Ali, refused induction into the armed forces because of his opposition to the war in Vietnam. Ali was similarly excoriated when he took he stand and he was convicted for the crime and stripped of his championship. The Supreme Court overturned his conviction in 1971. But Ali was clear in his beliefs:
Finally, in the 1968 Olympics held in Mexico City, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, winners in the 200 meter race, held their arms up on the podium while the “Star-Spangled Banner” was being played.
“On the morning of 16 October 1968, US athlete Tommie Smith won the 200 meter race with a world-record time of 19.83 seconds. Australia’s Peter Norman finished second with a time of 20.06 seconds, and the US’s John Carlos won third place with a time of 20.10 seconds. After the race was completed, the three went to the podium for their medals to be presented by David Cecil, 6th Marquess of Exeter. The two US athletes received their medals shoeless, but wearing black socks, to represent black poverty. Smith wore a black scarf around his neck to represent black pride, Carlos had his tracksuit top unzipped to show solidarity with all blue-collar workers in the US and wore a necklace of beads which he described “were for those individuals that were lynched, or killed and that no-one said a prayer for, that were hung and tarred. It was for those thrown off the side of the boats in the Middle Passage”. All three athletes wore Olympic Project for Human Rights (OPHR) badges after Norman, a critic of Australia’s former White Australia Policy, expressed empathy with their ideals. Sociologist Harry Edwards, the founder of the OPHR, had urged black athletes to boycott the games; reportedly, the actions of Smith and Carlos on 16 October 1968 were inspired by Edwards’s arguments.
“The famous picture of the event was taken by photographer John Dominis.
“Both US athletes intended to bring black gloves to the event, but Carlos forgot his, leaving them in the Olympic Village. It was Peter Norman who suggested Carlos wear Smith’s left-handed glove. For this reason, Carlos raised his left hand as opposed to his right, differing from the traditional Black Power salute. When The Star-Spangled Banner played, Smith and Carlos delivered the salute with heads bowed, a gesture which became front page news around the world. As they left the podium they were booed by the crowd. Smith later said, “If I win, I am American, not a black American. But if I did something bad, then they would say I am a Negro. We are black and we are proud of being black. Black America will understand what we did tonight.”
Protests invariably incite a negative reaction. But the passage of time often vindicates those who were brave enough to take a stand. It is unfortunate that these lessons are too often forgotten.
“Updated projections have the CDU/CSU (Christian Democrats/Christian Social Union) on 33.1%, an improvement but still below the party’s lowest vote-share since 1949. And they have the SPD (Social Democrats) on a dismal 20.4%, almost three points below its previous post-war nadir in 2009.”
On Monday, 25 September Kurds in Iraq will vote in a referendum concerning possible Kurdish independence. The Kurds constitute one of the largest nations in the world (between 25-30 million people consider themselves to be Kurds) without a state. There was a possibility for an independent Kurdistan early in the 20th century. After World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the British and French concocted the Treaty of Sèvres which divided up the Ottoman Empire into different nation-states, including an independent Kurdistan. The Turks, led by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, fought several battles against the Allied powers, culminating in the Armistice of Mudanya (1922) with Turkish troops in control of critical parts of Anatolia. That Armistice led to the Treaty of Lausanne in which the Sèvres Treaty was nullified and modern Turkey was created and the promise of and independent Kurdistan was squashed.
Treaty of Sèvres (1920)
Treaty of Lausanne (1923)
Ultimately, however, both of these Treaties were frauds. The intentions of the British and the French were clearly stated in their secret Sykes-Picot Treaty in 1916. The two powers deluded themselves into thinking that their empires would survive the ongoing World War and they had every intention of integrating the collapsed Ottoman Empire into them. The Sèvres and Lausanne Treaties were partial capitulations to those aspirations, but both countries intended to treat the “new” countries as semi-colonies. Indeed, some Kurds actually fought on the side of the Turks in the war against the Allies between 1920 and 1923 because they feared becoming that the proposed “independent” country of Kurdistan would be a satellite of the British.
Kurds in Iran once did have an independent state. During World War II British and Soviet troops occupied Iran, and Kurds in the northern zone controlled by the Soviet Union declared the independent Republic of Kurdistan in Mahabad, Iran in January of 1946. The Kurdish armed forces were led by Mustafa Barzani, the father of the current leader of Iraqi Kurds. The Mahabad republic lasted less than a year before it was crushed by Iranian forces.
Given this history, it is not surprising that every state in the region, including the US which has armed and used Kurdish forces in its war against Daesh (the Islamic State) in Iraq and Syria, is opposed to Kurdish independence, with the single exception of Israel. Israel sees an independent Kurdish state as an important counterweight to Iranian influence in the region. The Kurds never seem to catch a break.
It is always difficult to interpret political rhetoric, but the exchanges between Us President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un are especially difficult to analyze. Zack Beauchamp has written an article which tries to parse out the language and he argues that the most recent exchanges are significant, largely because the North Korean statement signals the first time Kim has personally identified with the statement. Beauchamp also makes an obvious point: the US needs to stop responding to North Korea’s rhetoric. Every time it responds, it only increases North Korea’s insecurity. The best course of action would be for the US simply to stick to behind the scenes diplomacy. Unfortunately, the US decided to fly two B1-B Bombers over waters close to North Korea but still in international airspace.
Iran has tested a new intermediate-range ballistic missile, ignoring US President Trump’s concerns that such tests violate the “spirit” of the nuclear agreement. Iran is not constrained either by the nuclear agreement with the P5 +1 or by the Non-Proliferation Treaty to test missile technology. The Iranian Defense Minister, Amir Hatami, minced no words in defending the test: “As long as some speak in the language of threats, the strengthening of the country’s defence capabilities will continue and Iran will not seek permission from any country for producing various kinds of missile”. President Trump must report to the Congress on 15 October on whether Iran has upheld the terms of the nuclear agreement. It will be interesting to see what he does on that date.
Vijay Prashad has resigned from the editorial board of a once-prestigious journal, Third World Quarterly, because it published what he considered to be a “mediocre” essay entitled, “The Case for Colonialism”. The essay has subsequently been withdrawn, but Prashad has written a essay for Quartz which delivers a broadside to a rash of publications, beginning with Niall Ferguson’s Empire: How Britain Made the Modern World, which have tried to temporize European imperialism. There is nothing good that comes from a coercive and violent relationship such as imperialism. Whatever “benefit” accrued could have been more effectively realized in a peaceful and cooperative relationship.
North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho warned that Pyongyang could test a hydrogen bomb in the Pacific Ocean in response to the volley of insults being thrown by US President Trump and North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un. Needless to say, such a move would be a highly provocative act would rattle everyone in the world–no state has tested a nuclear bomb in the atmosphere for over 40 years. But since North Korea is no longer a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (it abrogated the Treaty in 2003) the test is perfectly legal, albeit highly dangerous. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made this comment about the behavior of the US and North Korea:
“Together with China we’ll continue to strive for a reasonable approach and not an emotional one like when children in a kindergarten start fighting and no-one can stop them”.
Although the Russians also have much to account for in Ukraine and Syria, the sentiment is likely shared by many in the world. I have become increasingly worried about this dispute getting out of hand even as I continue to believe that neither side wishes to see an open conflict. This dispute is foolish.
Two researchers have published a paper which examines the rise of right-wing and nationalist parties in Europe. Their findings are intriguing. They believe that the rise of these parties does not reflect a rise in such sentiments among the European populations, Rather, they argue that the rise of these parties indicates a loss of faith in “political institutions and leaders.” In other words, Europeans have not become more right-wing; they have become more strongly anti-establishment, and the nationalist parties are the only way to express their dissatisfaction. If true, this conclusion offers a degree of hope if the traditional parties in Europe (and, in the US as well) begin to offer good solutions to the economic malaise the people are enduring.
The North Korean Press Agency issued Kim Jong-un’s response to US President Trump’s speech to the United Nations. Here are some excerpts:
“But, far from making remarks of any persuasive power that can be viewed to be helpful to defusing tension, he made unprecedented rude nonsense one has never heard from any of his predecessors.
“A frightened dog barks louder…..
“The mentally deranged behavior of the U.S. president openly expressing on the UN arena the unethical will to ‘totally destroy’ a sovereign state, beyond the boundary of threats of regime change or overturn of social system, makes even those with normal thinking faculty think about discretion and composure.
“His remarks which described the U.S. option through straightforward expression of his will have convinced me, rather than frightening or stopping me, that the path I chose is correct and that it is the one I have to follow to the last.
“Now that Trump has denied the existence of and insulted me and my country in front of the eyes of the world and made the most ferocious declaration of a war in history that he would destroy the DPRK, we will consider with seriousness exercising of a corresponding, highest level of hard-line countermeasure in history…..
“Action is the best option in treating the dotard who, hard of hearing, is uttering only what he wants to say.
“As a man representing the DPRK and on behalf of the dignity and honor of my state and people and on my own, I will make the man holding the prerogative of the supreme command in the U.S. pay dearly for his speech calling for totally destroying the DPRK…..
“Whatever Trump might have expected, he will face results beyond his expectation.
“I will surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged U. S. dotard with fire.”
It is hard to determine what Mr. Kim intends to do. The language of the two leaders defies analysis.
The US Congressional Budget Office issued a report last year on the distribution of wealth in the US. Wealth is more difficult to measure than income since it includes assets, such as homes, works of art, and other valuable objects, that are not assessed in monetary terms on an annual basis. But wealth is probably a more important variable to measure when there are discussions about how “fair” the distribution of economic power might be in a given society. The report described a highly unequal society:
“In 2013, families in the top 10 percent of the wealth distribution held 76 percent of all family wealth, families in the 51st to the 90th percentiles held 23 percent, and those in the bottom half of the distribution held 1 percent. Average wealth was about $4 million for families in the top 10 percent of the wealth distribution, $316,000 for families in the 51st to 90th percentiles, and $36,000 for families in the 26th to 50th percentiles. On average, families at or below the 25th percentile were $13,000 in debt.”
Moreover, the rate of change toward a more unequal society seems to be accelerating:
“The distribution of wealth among the nation’s families was more unequal in 2013 than it had been in 1989. For instance, the difference in wealth held by families at the 90th percentile and the wealth of those in the middle widened from $532,000 to $861,000 over the period (in 2013 dollars). The share of wealth held by families in the top 10 percent of the wealth distribution increased from 67 percent to 76 percent, whereas the share of wealth held by families in the bottom half of the distribution declined from 3 percent to 1 percent.”
It is unlikely that this trend is politically sustainable over the longer term. In many respects, this data explains a great deal about the anger in the electorate which seems to be growing.
Since the Great Recession of 2008-09, many governments in the world have increased their total indebtedness. According to the Pew Research Center, “the total amount of government debt now exceeds $63.1 trillion”. The growth of debt has been particularly high in the rich countries: “In the world’s seven major advanced economies (known as the Group of Seven), debt as a share of GDP increased by an average of 22.2% between 2008 and 2011”. Debt is a very imperfect indicator of economic health. The real index is whether the debt will ultimately contribute to generating economic growth that will make repaying the debt easier. But debt is an marker for vulnerability to specific, unforeseen events. From that perspective, we should all hope that we are not surprised by natural or political disasters anytime soon.
US President Trump’s speech at the United Nations has received a wide range of responses. China’s People’s Dailyran an editorial which said:
“Trump’s political chest-thumping is unhelpful, and it will only push the DPRK to pursue even riskier polices, because the survival of the regime is at stake. It is time for the US to realize that irresponsible words and actions are backing the DPRK into a corner with no way out, and it would be a tragedy if Trump’s risky game of chicken with the DPRK crosses the point of no return.
“In over 30 years in my experience with the UN, I never heard a bolder or more courageous speech. President Trump spoke the truth about the great dangers facing our world and issued a powerful call to confront them in order to ensure the future of humanity.”
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani responded today to President Trump’s characterization of the nuclear agreement and stated that: “I declare before you that the Islamic Republic of Iran will not be the first country to violate the agreement; but it will respond decisively and resolutely to its violation by any party.” He went on to say:
“The ignorant, absurd and hateful rhetoric, filled with ridiculously baseless allegations, that was uttered before this august body by the president of America yesterday (Tuesday), was not only unfit to be heard at the United Nations – which was established to promote peace and respect between nations – but indeed contradicted the demands of our nations from this world body to bring governments together to combat war and terror.”
I have yet to read an analysis of the speech that is dispassionate. The speech clearly targeted certain constituencies which have responded somewhat predictably. But the language of the speech, particularly its emphasis on sovereignty and what I believe to be some misunderstandings of sovereignty suggested that the speech was an attempt to be something doctrinal. I have not yet figured out the specifics of the doctrine.
Spanish authorities raided Catalan government offices and arrested several Catalan government officials in an attempt to stop the proposed referendum on Catalan independence scheduled for 1 October. The Spanish Constitution has no provision for provincial secession and the central government argues that any effort to secede is illegal. Up to this point, it seemed as if the referendum would not support Catalonian independence, but the raids on the Catalonian governmental offices might provoke a counter-reaction to the central government. We should watch how this unfolds.
US President Trump gave his first speech to the United Nations today. In keeping with the character of his Presidency, the speech eschewed diplomatic language and was unusually blunt for a UN speech. The speech was anchored in what was called “principled” realism. He emphasized the centrality of sovereignty to his worldview, a point of view that is consistent with the language of “America first”. But he was straightforward in condemning specific states for following policies that they believe are essential to the protection of their sovereignty (and territorial integrity). For example, his criticism of North Korea’s nuclear program was apocalyptic:
“The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself and its allies, it will have no choice but to destroy North Korea…Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime”.
The purpose of war is most emphatically not to “destroy” one’s opponent; the purpose of war is to coerce one’s opponent to change a course of action. “Destroying” another country is rhetoric that is dangerous–if practiced, it is nothing other than genocide. Moreover, referring to the leader of a country in derogatory terms is a deliberate attempt to goad one’s opponent into a confrontation. Referring to Kim Jong-un as “Rocket Man” in a highly public forum personalizes the conflict. Such disrespect begs a countermove and President Trump seems to want an excuse to use force against North Korea. No leader should ever wish to use force. The use of force is a confession of failure to resolve a dispute without violence.
Similarly, President Trump signaled his clear dissatisfaction with the nuclear agreement with Iran:
“We cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program….” calling it “one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into” and “an embarrassment to the United States. And I don’t think you’ve heard the last of it. Believe me.”
President Trump failed to mention that the agreement was one sanctioned by the very body he was speaking to: the United Nations. It was also an an agreement that the US voluntarily signed, fully exercising its sovereignty to agree or disagree with the agreement. It is also an agreement that all parties involved agree has had Iran’s full compliance. But the US undoubtedly has the sovereign right to leave the agreement. What President Trump left unsaid was what would come after the US leaves the agreement and whether the other six signatory countries would continue to adhere to the agreement. It is not enough to criticize the status quo; the purpose of criticism is to propose something better. As of yet, we have no idea what that better agreement might be.
There was also a thread to the speech that was inconsistent with the venue. President Trump emphasized the importance of nationalism in no uncertain terms:
“Are we still patriots? Do we love our nations enough to protect their sovereignty and take ownership of their futures?”
Again, this is rhetoric, but rhetoric that is at odds in an international body whose purpose is to maximize cooperation among nations. Indeed, these words from the Preamble to the United Nations Charter were expressed to counter the excesses of nationalism that had led to World Wars I and II:
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples
We will have a much better sense of the impact of the speech after more time to reflect on the words.
Russian President Putin personally observed the Russian military exercises with Belarus along the border with the Baltic States. It apparently is an impressive show of military power with 250 tanks and 70 fighter aircraft involved. Russia asserts that the exercise is purely defensive, but what one side may regard as defensive is invariably viewed by the other side as offensive. The US military and NATO forces are wargaming the exercise as well. The critical question is whether all Russian forces and military equipment are removed when the exercise ends in two days. If not, the pre-positioned forces will cause a high degree of concern among the Baltic allies in NATO.
The Syrian government has sent its military forces near the town of Deir al-Zor across the Euphrates River into an area controlled by US-backed rebels. The river has served as an informal dividing line between those forces backing the Syrian government and those opposed to President Assad. It has also served to keep pro-Russian and pro-US forces apart in the battle against Daesh (the Islamic State). The area is not densely populated but it is the region where Syrian oil and natural gas reserves are located. Thus far, the two sides have not openly clashed, but a potential clash is something to worry about.
“One-tenth of the world’s GDP is held in offshore tax havens, but that share jumps to as much of 15 percent for Europe and as much as 60 percent for Gulf and some Latin American countries, new research shows. When it comes to total offshore wealth as a share of GDP, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Argentina lead the pack, while Germany, the U.K. and France all have above-average holdings. The U.S. is slightly below average.”
The money is increasing being held in Asian tax havens because national efforts to restrict the ability of citizens to hide their money in Swiss bank accounts have been successful to a degree. TO make sure that everyone pays their fair share for public services, these efforts should be redoubled.
Germany will hold its national elections on 24 September and all the polling evidence that Angela Merkel’s party will retain control of the Bundestag. But some observers are concerned about the apparent strength of the far-right nationalist party, Alternative for Germany (AfD). Reuters has an excellent run-down of the candidates and parties involved in the upcoming election. All the Germans parties have indicated that they will refuse to work with AfD, but if the polling is accurate, it could emerge with the third largest number of seats in the Bundestag, giving it considerable power.
Alice Weidel and Alexander Gauland of the AfD party
Since there were elections in 2006, the Palestinian people have been ruled by two political factions: Fatah, the more moderate wing of the Palestinian Authority has ruled in the West Bank; and Hamas, the more radical wing which has ruled in the Gaza Strip. The division has undermined the legitimacy of the Palestinian Authority and the welfare of the Palestinian people has suffered tremendously by the lack of leadership. But Hamas has apparently decided to initiate a reconciliation by permitting elections and inviting the new government to take control of the Gaza. There have been similar overtures in the past which have not succeeded, but this one, under the aegis of Egypt, seems to have a better chance of working.
Polls in Mexico indicate that most Mexicans now view the US very unfavorably. The shift in attitude was very sharp and is almost totally related to the election of Donald Trump as American President. Mexicans also have a negative view of their own country. According to the Pew Research Center:
“Overall, the national mood in Mexico is grim: 85% are dissatisfied with the way things are going in Mexico generally, and perceptions of the national economy are not much better, with seven-in-ten believing the economic situation is bad.
“Today, Mexicans are most concerned with crime, political corruption, cartel-related violence and rising prices, though corrupt police officers and a lack of employment also alarm many. Lower-level but still significant concerns include poor-quality schools and the wealth gap.”
Americans should be very concerned about the disintegration of this relationship, one of the most important for the US and the world.
Recent research indicates that the process of climate change is even more dangerous than we have expected. According to Scientific American:
“Scientists Yangyang Xu and Veerabhadran Ramanathan found in a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that there already exists a 1 in 20 chance that the 2.2 trillion tons of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere could cause an existential warming threat. This “fat tail” scenario would mean the world experiences “existential/unknown” warming by 2100 — defined in the report as more than 5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels.”
A 1 in 20 chance is extraordinarily high. Particularly when one considers that those odds concerning extinction will be experienced, not by us, but by our grandchildren.
“After steadily declining for over a decade, global hunger appears to be on the rise, affecting 11 percent of the global population.
“In addition to an increase in the proportion of the world’s population that suffers from chronic hunger (prevalence of undernourishment), the number of undernourished people on the planet has also increased to 815 million, up from 777 million in 2015.”
To make matters worse, food production will have to increase by about 50% to feed the expected population in 2050. This shortage exists despite the fact that today “there is more than enough food produced in the world to feed everyone, yet 815 million people go hungry.”
World Politics News 