World Politics News   Articles for World Politics Course

It now seems as if the US has decided to show its military power as a means of asserting its foreign policy.  The Syrian attack, the use of the MAOB bomb in Afghanistan, and the deployment of the USS Carl Vinson carrier group just off the coast of North Korea are all examples of the US demonstrating its military might.  Such demonstrations are important at some points, but one should remember that military power only makes sense in the context of a clearly articulated and understood foreign policy.  That underlying logic is not yet apparent and, in its absence, the demonstrations of military power are not likely to influence the other major powers, notably Russia and China, very much.

The Pew Research Center has found that government restrictions on religious practices increased in 2015.  The study identified non-governmental restrictions, defined as “increases in mob violence related to religion, individuals being assaulted or displaced due to their faith, and incidents where violence was used to enforce religious norms,” as well.  The study found that

“Of the 198 countries in the study, 105 (53%) experienced widespread government harassment of religious groups, up from 85 (43%) in 2014 and 96 (48%) in 2013. Limited harassment – cases that were isolated or affected a small number of groups – also rose, taking place in 52 countries (26%) in 2015 (up from 44, or 22% of countries, in 2014).

“Government use of force against religious groups increased as well, with 23 countries (12%) experiencing more than 200 cases of government force in 2015, up from 21 (11%) in 2014. There was an even bigger increase in the number of countries with at least one, but no more than 200 incidents of government use of force against religious groups: 83 nations (42%) fell into this category in 2015, an increase from 60 countries (30%) in 2014.”

The rise in intolerance is small but troubling.  Religion is a dynamic component of nationalism and the passions of nationalism often lead to conflict.

John Tasioulas teaches law at King’s College in London and he has written a worthwhile essay on human rights, raising questions about how one can justify them.  He does not believe that human rights are adequately protected simply as laws or as agreements in democratic societies.  He asserts that

“human rights are rooted in the universal interests of human beings, each and every one of whom possesses an equal moral status arising from their common humanity. In other words, in defending human rights, we will need to appeal to the inherent value of being a member of the human species and, in addition, the interests shared by all human beings in things like friendship, knowledge, achievement, play, and so on. And we will need to ask whether these considerations generate duties that are owed to each and every human being.”

I am not sure why this argument offers greater integrity to the idea of human rights.  Unfortunately, there are far too many examples of human rights atrocities committed when some people are considered “sub-human” by the dominant powers.

The USA National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has released a stunning composite video of the earth at night.  It is visually mesmerizing, but it also reveals how humans have distributed themselves along waterways and oceans.  The site also has some fascinating photos comparing space shots of certain areas in 2012 and 2016, showing how the process of electrification has accelerated in certain areas of the world.

China has sent two messages to the world on the North Korean issue through its semi-official news outlet, China Times.  The first was on 12 April when the paper warned North Korea that there would be “a response of ‘unprecedented ferocity‘ if the government of Kim Jong Un goes ahead with a test of either an intercontinental ballistic missile or a nuclear device.”   The second was in an article that was entitled “China warns against use of force on NK nuclear issue”.   According to the article:

“Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Lu Kang said at a daily press briefing Thursday that it has always been the stance of the Chinese government that dialogue and consultations are the only ways to achieve denuclearization and safeguard peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.

“‘We have taken note of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s remarks that Russia and the US agree that the only solution to the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue is political,'” Lu said.

“‘We hope that all related parties will forge consensus on this general direction and fundamental principle and make concrete efforts accordingly,'” Lu said.

The two articles are somewhat confusing and it is difficult to determine what the official Chinese response to a nuclear test may be.  We will likely find out on Saturday.

On 16 April, Turks will vote on a referendum that would give the office of the president expanded powers.  The current president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has campaigned on behalf of the referendum but current polls suggest that the “no” camp may have more votes.   Support for Erdogan was very strong in the face of an attempted coup in 2016, but there seems to be a growing sentiment that he is going to far in consolidating so much power.  If the referendum does fail to pass, then it will be interesting and revealing to see Erdogan’s next move.

The Guardian an active slave market is developing in Libyais reporting that as migrants from West Africa become hostages to an almost complete governmental breakdown.  The slave trade has never been eradicated and it is particularly active for sexual slavery.  But the situation in Libya has deteriorated to the point where slaves are being bought and sold in public.  The deterioration of the political system in Libya can be traced to the overthrow of former dictator Gaddaffi in 2011, an outcome that US President Obama called the “worst mistake” of his presidency.

Income inequality has deepened in the US over the last forty years.  We unfortunately rationalize the income disparities by believing that the only victims of low incomes are the poor themselves.  But the truth is that everyone subsidizes low wages.  The example of Wal-Mart employees is instructive.  Wal-Mart wages are quite low and, in order to survive, many Wal-Mart employees need to receive public subsidies.  But by funding those subsidies, we are also subsidizing Wal-Mart.  According to USA Today:

“According to a 2014 report by Americans for Tax Fairness, Walmart receives an estimated $6.2 billion in subsidies every year, primarily from the Federal Government.

“The reason? The world’s largest retailer, infamous for its poor working conditions and unfair treatment of employees, pays its workers so little that thousands of Walmart employees are forced to rely on public assistance programs like food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing. Programs funded by American taxpayers.

“No matter the town or city, if you have a Walmart in your community, you are paying a Walmart Tax. In fact, a single Walmart Supercenter is estimated to cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.74 million per year in public assistance money.”

Poverty is a problem for everyone and it is a mistake to think that any one of us is insulated from the costs of poverty.

Journalists in North Korea have been told to prepare for an historic event on Sunday, 15 April.  Sunday is the annual “Day of the Sun” event which commemorates the 105th anniversary of the regime’s founder, Kim Il Sung, the grandfather of the current leader, Kim Jung-un.  No one knows what to expect, but the fear is that North Korea will test its sixth nuclear weapon or an intercontinental ballistic missile. Since US President Trump’s meeting with Chinese President Xi, all eyes are on China’s response to such a move.  In the absence of a Chinese move, then everyone will look to the US response as Trump indicated that if the Chinese don’t act, then the US will be willing to go it alone. 

Fortunately there are non-governmental organizations that do incredible research on issues that receive very little public attention.  One such organization is Airwars. It keeps close tabs on civilian casualties in conflict areas.  It recently shifted its attention to focus on civilian casualties caused by US operations in Syria.  The information is quite disturbing: there has been a significant spike in civilian casualties caused by US air strikes in Iraq and Syria.  According to the most recent report:

“The intensity of strikes in 2017 – notably around Raqqa and Mosul – has no precedent. To March 15^th, a record 245 alleged Coalition civilian casualty events have been monitored by Airwars – roughly three events a day. At this pace, the number of alleged Coalition incidents this year could surpass 800.”

Needless to say, civilian casualties undermine the US effort to degrade Daesh (the Islamic State).

The French presidential campaign started today with 11 candidates running.  In two weeks, the first round of voting will occur and pare down the number of candidates to two.  At this point, the two leading candidates are Marine Le Pen of the National Front Party and a center-right candidates, Emmanuel Macron, who is running as an independent.  Unexpectedly, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, running on a hard-left platform, is now in fourth place.  The French election will be a significant marker of French dissatisfaction with globalization and the European Union.

India has been engaged with a complex and troubling strategic debate over its nuclear weapons.  Traditionally, India has considered those weapons to be principally a deterrent to aggressive action.  But over the last few months, a number of Indian policy makers and strategic analysts have been thinking out loud about changing the strategy to a “first-strike”.  That change would seek to disarm an opponent (likely Pakistan) before an attack occurs.  The change suggests a growing confidence in the nuclear arsenal as well as in India’s ability to gather and assess intelligence.  Needless to say, such a change would also make strategic decisions significantly more complex and time-urgent.  We would also have to wait and see what Pakistan’s response to the change would be.  Relations between India and Pakistan have recently been very testy over the issue of control in Kashmir.

There are some ambiguities emerging in the US policy toward Syria.  On Sunday, US Ambassador to the UN indicated that the strike on Syria was part of the objective to remove Syrian President Assad from office; on the same day US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson indicated that the US is primarily interested in defeating Daesh (the Islamic State).  Then today, Press Secretary Sean Spicer indicated that one of the US “red lines” was the use of barrel bombs and not simply chemical weapons.  The  Syrian regime has used barrel bombs extensively in the civil war, so that red line has a much lower threshold than the use of chemical weapons.  These issues are important since they provide insight into what might happen next.  If the US restricts its bombing to only the use of chemical weapons, then it is highly likely that we will not see another military strike and nothing will have changed.  But if more strikes occur in the absence of a chemical attack, then the implication is that the US is going to be an active participant in the war.  That possibility is an absolute nightmare.  It is highly unlikely that either Russia or Iran will abandon Assad under pressure.

Jeanette Rankin was the first woman to serve in the Congress and she was sworn in one hundred years ago.  Since that time, women have steadily increased their representation in Congress and today woman comprise 19.4 percent of the members of Congress.  The world average is 23.3 percent, with the Nordic countries having the highest representation:  41.7 percent.  Interestingly, the US actually scores favorably with other countries in terms of the overall position of women in society according to the UN Gender Development Index.  The discrepancy between the over ranking and representation in the national legislature is worth investigation.

Almost 50% of federal arrests in the US in 2014 were for immigration-related offenses.  Since 2004 federal arrests for other offenses such as drugs or weapons have dropped sharply.  Those arrests are also concentrated with distinct geographic areas of the US.  According to the Pew Research Center:

“The geographic distribution of federal arrests also shows the growing emphasis on immigration offenses. In 2014, 61% of all federal arrests – or more than 100,000 – occurred in just five federal judicial districts along the U.S.-Mexico border. In 2004, those five districts – one each in Arizona, California and New Mexico, plus two in Texas – accounted for 40% of federal arrests.”

For a country whose demography has relied heavily on immigration, these statistics are provocative.

The Chinese press had an interesting take on the meeting between US President Trump and Chinese President Xi.  Perhaps the most telling insight came from a photograph published by Renmin Ribao.  The photo of a slouching Mr. Trump on the couch suggests a view of him as careless, lazy, and lackadaisical.  In contrast, President Xi looks authoritative and in control.  The meeting was overshadowed by the news of the US military strike in Syria, but the Chinese refused to accept the legitimacy of the US action.  On the difficult economic differences between the two states, both sides agreed on a 100-day “cooling off” period before any concrete actions are taken on trade and currency manipulations.  The meeting was notable for its lack of progress on any substantive matters. 

The US is sending the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier and its entire group to the Korean Peninsula.  The move follows the air strike in Syria which has set a tone of unpredictability to President Trump’s foreign policy.  The move is also a pre-emptive move that anticipates additional missile launches from North Korea.  The timing also corresponds to some significant events in North Korea.  As the Washington Post notes:

“North Korea is expected to hold a huge military parade on April 15 to celebrate the 105th birthday of its founding president, Kim Il Sung, and to mark the 85th anniversary of the creation of the Korean People’s Army on April 25 with similar fanfare.”

We do not know if Chinese President Xi was informed of this move.  The message to the South Koreans was that the Chinese were informed, but it is hard to tell exactly what was communicated.  If the Chinese were not fully briefed then the Chinese are undoubtedly quite concerned as well.  No matter what President Trump thinks about Nixon’s “Madman Theory”, unpredictability is not a virtue in foreign policy.

USS Carl Vinson Carrier Group

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is one of the natural wonders of the world and was declared a World Heritage Site in 1981.  In the last two years it has experienced an extraordinary bleaching due to climate change. According to the Washington Post:

“Coral bleaching occurs when unusually warm waters provide a stress to corals that in turn trigger a mass exodus of photosynthetic algae, called zooxanthellae, from their cells. The corals lose color and turn white, an outward indicator that their metabolism has been upended. The stronger the bleaching and the longer it goes on, the more likely corals are to die.

“The Great Barrier Reef, the largest structure of its kind, is about 1,400 miles long. Nine hundred miles of that length have now experienced severe bleaching at some point during the past two years.”

What is happening off the coast of Australia is happening to virtually every coral reef in the world.  It is not clear that even adherence to the Paris Agreements can prevent future damage, and the possible extinction of these living organisms would be a crime against the planet.

North Korea has stated that the US strike on Syria confirms that its decision to develop nuclear weapons was correct.  North Korea withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003 after US President Bush placed it on the list of the “axis of evil” along with Iraq and Iran.  The US subsequent decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 was, for North Korea, vindication of its decision to develop a nuclear capability.  North Korea exploded its first nuclear bomb in 2006.  For North Korea, a nuclear weapon is the only effective deterrent against an American attack.  The North Koreans have justification for their fears.  According to NBC NewsUS National Security Council has presented President Trump with a number of options, the for dealing with North Korea, including reinserting US nuclear weapons into South Korea, assassinating Kim Jong-un, and sending US special operation troops into North Korea to commit acts of sabotage.  These options are the height of lunacy.

We will have to see whether the US strike on the air base in Syria actually does deter Syria from using chemical weapons in the future.  But it does seem to be clear that the air strike did nothing to degrade Syria’s capability to conduct air operations against its own citizens.  Indeed, Syrian planes took off today from the Shayrat air base that was attacked.  I continue to be amazed by how many consistently overestimate the efficacy of military action.  

The Venezuelan government has banned Henrique Capriles from public office in a move that further degrades the legitimacy of the state.  Large protests followed the announcement, but it seems that President Maduro is moving toward an outright dictatorship without any pretense of democracy even though elections are scheduled for 2018.  The political dysfunction has crippled the economy for years and there are widespread shortages of virtually every necessary item.  It is hard to imagine any outcome other than an outright revolution in Venezuela.

Protest in Caracas

We are getting more information about the US missile strike on a Syrian airbase and the commentary on the strike is confusing and conflicting.  All the commentary misses the central point of military action. Every military action should be guided by one single and overriding concern:  does this action bring us closer to bringing a war to an end?  The air strike does not meet this objective.  But it does meet another objective, which is justifiable but not related to the conflict itself.  If this strike had the single intent of sending a clear message to the Syrian regime–and to the world at large–that the use of banned chemical weapons will not increase the chances of victory, then it can be justified on those terms if it turns out that the Syrian government does not use such weapons again. We will see if that outcome is realized.

But in terms of the Syrian civil war, and its attendant international dimensions, the strike itself does not bring us closer to an end to the violence, and all the commentary I have read and heard seems to miss this point.  And some of the commentary distorts what actually happened.  The New York Times ran an article by Mark Landler entitled “On Syria Attack, Trump’s Heart Came First.”  I sincerely doubt that this headline is accurate.  If moral imperatives were the driving force, then the current administration would not be restricting refugees from Syria.

Moral considerations have been conspicuously absent in Mr. Trump’s statements about Syria and Iraq until his statement yesterday.  The current administration said nothing after 300 civilians were killed in Mosul, Iraq after a US airstrike.  I wish to be very clear:  I am not equating the chemical attack in Syria with the US strike in Mosul.  The Mosul attack appears to have been unintentional and was not conducted with banned weapons of war.  These distinctions are critically important to us, but they matter little to the innocents who were killed and their families.  We will wait for the US military to conduct its investigation of the Mosul attack, and I am fully confident in the US military’s willingness to issue a truthful report and to punish those involved if the attack occurred because of negligence.  But if morality were a primary concern of the current administration then I would have expected a sincere apology and a profound expression of remorse by the US after the Mosul attack.  An honest heart is not selective.

The attack also comes as the US is increasing its military commitment to overthrowing Assad (see this blog post of 31 March 2017).  That objective is not part of the so-called “war on terror”.  The attack in Syria was rather an expression of realpolitik and should be assessed in terms of whether the national interest of the US was advanced in Syria.  On this issue, the air strike makes very little sense.  The US is in Syria and Iraq to defeat Daesh (the Islamic State).  The states who share this same objective and are actively involved in fighting Daesh are the Syrian government, Russia, and Iran.  But these states have all condemned the sir strike.  In other words, the realpolitik allies of the US have been driven away by the US action.  Other states have praised the US action, but these states do not have armed forces on the ground fighting Daesh.  If one wishes to play realpolitik, then the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

But realpolitik will not solve the problem of the Syrian civil war.  The US is now at war with the Syrian state: an armed attack is a sufficient condition to initiate a state of war.  If the objective of US military action in Syria is regime change, then we need to know a lot more about how the US will define “peace” if Assad is removed.  Which of the various constituencies in Syria will be involved in this definition?  We know that overthrowing a government is possible, and the US has been involved in many of those operations in the past:  Mossadegh in Iran in 1953,  Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, Trujillo in the Dominican Republic in 1961, Diem in Vietnam in 1963, and Hussein in Iraq in 2003. In every single one of those cases, the failure of the US to anticipate the turmoil it unleashed led to even greater problems for American national interests.

The air attack also raises serious constitutional issues.  This war was decided upon by Mr. Trump and Mr. Trump alone.  It is not covered by the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) that was passed by the Congress after the 11 September 2001 attacks.  That resolution reads as follows:

“That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

There is no evidence that the Syrian government was in any way involved in the 11 September attacks.  Congress was not consulted–it was merely informed.  The attack on Syria may  be covered by the War Powers Act, in which case Mr. Trump can conduct military operations for 60 days before the Constitution requires a Congressional declaration.  But the US ground troops in Syria have already been operating in Syria for over 60 days.  The clock did not start ticking with yesterday’s air attack.

Ending the suffering of the Syrian people is a legitimate interest of the US.  There is as of yet little evidence that the air strikes have moved us closer to that objective.  Indeed, I suspect that we may have moved further away.

US President Trump justified his attack on the Syrian air base yesterday on two grounds.  The first was a moral justification:

“On Tuesday, Syria launched a horrific chemical attack on innocent civilians. Using a deadly nerve agent, Assad choked out the lives of hopeless men, women, and children.

It was a slow and brutal death for so many. Even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack. No child of god should ever suffer such horror.”

The second was based on the American national interest:

“It was in the vital national security interest of the US to prevent and deter the use of deadly chemical weapons.

There can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons, violated its obligations under the chemical weapons convention and ignored the urging of the UN security council.”

Both justifications seem compelling, but we need to withhold judgment until we see how the matter unfolds. But there is a context to these statements that needs to be appreciated.

First, the Sarin attack in Idlib was clearly an atrocity and a global response to that atrocity was imperative.  The news is reporting that President Trump informed various allies and the Russians about the strike beforehand, but we do not know to what extent he received replies that indicated support for an attack.  The timing of the US response suggests that it was a unilateral act.  I suspect it would have been far better if US allies had had a chance to demonstrate solid support for that specific military attack, as opposed to having little alternative but to agree that the chemical attack demanded a response.

Second, the invocation of the position of the UN Security Council would have been far stronger if the Security Council had had a chance to vote to authorize the use of military force.  Unquestionably, the Russians and the Chinese would have vetoed such a resolution.  But in so doing, both states would have isolated themselves from global public opinion and international law in a way that would have diminished the force of the vetoes and in that sense legitimated a coordinated response by other countries.  I would also parenthetically note that invoking the UN after submitting a budget guideline that reduced US funding for the UN is hypocritical.

Third, identifying the Sarin attack as the single reason for a dramatic change in policy (see an earlier post from 5 April) is somewhat difficult to accept given that almost 300,000 people have already died in the conflict.  Admittedly, Sarin gas is a singularly vicious way to die. But it is problematic to understand the moral framework that allows the earlier inaction of the US to be justified when the deaths of around 60 civilians is so decisive.

Fourth, everything really depends on how the politics unfold.  If it turns out that this is a single strike that does not lead to an escalation of the war, then it is probably justifiable in terms of a message about the impermissible use of chemical weapons.  That message should be heeded by all states in the world.  But if the strike leads to a wider war, then more innocents will die.  The important thing to remember is that all wars are political disputes and that military action is only a way of expressing a calculation of the benefits of holding a particular position.  If defending innocents were the highest priority of states, then, in all likelihood, wars would never be fought.

Turkey has conducted autopsies on some of the dead from the chemical attack in Syria and has confirmed that the chemical used was Sarin.  According to the US Center for Disease Control (CDC), Sarin is an especially vicious weapon of war:

• Symptoms likely will appear within a few seconds after exposure to the vapor form of sarin and within a few minutes to hours after exposure to the liquid form.
• All nerve agents cause their toxic effects by preventing the proper operation of an enzyme that acts as the body’s “off switch” for glands and muscles. Without an “off switch,” the glands and muscles are constantly being stimulated. Exposed people may become tired and no longer be able to keep breathing.
• Sarin is the most volatile of the nerve agents. This means it can easily and quickly evaporate from a liquid into a vapor and spread into the environment. People can be exposed to the vapor even if they do not come in contact with the liquid form of sarin.
• Because it evaporates so quickly, sarin presents an immediate but short-lived threat.

Under a deal brokered with Russia, Syria was supposed to have turned over all its chemical weapons for destruction.  The revelation puts Russia in a very awkward situation, but only if the international community expresses its outrage not only over Syria’s use of the weapon but also for Russia’s failure to honor its commitment.

In what seems to be a dramatic change from his previous accommodating position, Philippines President Duterte has ordered military vessels to visit a part of the Spratly Islands claimed by China.  The international name for the island is Thitu, and it is part of the Spratly Islands complex.  An International Tribunal in the Hague has ruled in favor of the Philippines and against China in terms of territorial control, but the Chinese have disregarded that ruling.  It is hard to determine Duterte’s objective in sending the military mission, but it will undoubtedly provoke some response from China.

The Pew Research Center has released a study that indicates that Muslims are the fastest growing religious group in the world.  According to the study:

While the world’s population is projected to grow 32% in the coming decades, the number of Muslims is expected to increase by 70% – from 1.8 billion in 2015 to nearly 3 billion in 2060. In 2015, Muslims made up 24.1% of the global population. Forty-five years later, they are expected to make up more than three-in-ten of the world’s people (31.1%).

The explanation for the increase is simple: “In all major regions where there is a sizable Muslim population, Muslim fertility exceeds non-Muslim fertility.”