Our new feudal realms - part 1

Two years ago I wrote a post that showed how we are lapsing back into feudalism. Extremely wealthy elites of professional, life-long reigning politicians and born-rich business and land owners have an enormous influence. They decide what happens in politics. These people are not members of a single nation. There are rather interests groups of them who work together. There are a few such groups in the US, in China, in the EU, in Russia and in most countries.

These people have figured out how to exploit democratic institutions for their own purposes. They rely on expert PR teams, lobbyists, spin doctors, rich supporters who own media outlets and links with the military. Most of these folks are motivated by money, or by ambition, or by a belief that they are the best for the world. Or a mixture of these. None of these delusions are true.

 

Some evidence would be nice you say?

China made Xi Jinping lifelong head of the party and the country. This is tragic. China was in a chaotic and exploited situation at the end of the imperial system around 1910. The abolishing of the old system was followed by almost 40 years of bloody civil wars between local warlords, strongmen, the communists, and the republicans. The British, the French, the Americans, the Russians, German, Dutch, and the Japanese all used this upheaval to push their influence on the country.
Maybe China went then the right way, maybe it didn't. But at least it abolished the single-person rule system, it became a strong free state, and had decent, stable government. The lack of human rights, of free speech, of accountability and transparency is tragic and horrible, as is police and party brutality. Add to this military aggression. Still, for the average Chinese citizen things were better than before.
This period is over. The country is back to the old system. Communism effectively was turned into a one-person lad dictatorship again. A sad, tragic story for a great country and people.

Turkey's democracy got gutted by Erdogan and his cronies. This process took place in front of our eyes, it is well documented and understood. Again, a sad end to a promising path to a country that was a much freer state 20 years ago than it is today.

Putin holds Russia firmly in his hands and showed in several state orchestrated cases against influential business and media actors that he is not afraid to use the whole state machinery to take anyone down opposing his circles.

Trump said several times that he is looking up to Putin and Xi as successful, respectable leaders.

And Orban in Hungary is the prime example of someone deconstructing the democratic state at light speed in order to establish himself and his family at the centre of the state permanently. Other anti-democratic leaders or would be leaders in the EU are dreaming of the same - most notably in Poland - but have been kept in check so far by the other countries and their own population. It seems that only the Hungarians, who have suffered from a semi-feudal monarchic systems inequalities until WWII - are foolish enough to choose returning to the old system, instead of trying to make democracy work.

We will soon find ourselves again as peasants and servants. In a world run by aristocrats and kings.

 

Vincent Van Gogh, Femme semant/Peasant Woman Sowing with a Basket (1881)

Excusing tyrants

There are always well educated and well-off people who are willing to justify what authoritarian strongman do. Putin has such supporters, Xi has them, Erdogan does, Trump too, and so does Orban in Hungary.
As disgusting as Orban is, there are people who are credible enough - as literary critics, not that that's an amazing proof of sound political judgment - who are sympathetic to him. The one I'm talking about is Tibor Fischer, long-time Fidesz sympathizer.
The Guardian has the fairness to introduce right-wing opinions, and the desire to earn clicks by outraging people, and decided to publish an apology piece for Orban, penned by Fischer.
Fischer is alright on literature. Not very knowledgeable and certainly not a friend of anything in literature that came after the 1920s, but hey, at least he sort of knows there what is he is talking about.
When it comes to politics he is just one of those intellectuals who think that politics is a battle of values and ideals, and that when a politicians work is discussed it is not important to look at
- legal changes
- changes to the welfare system
- corruption connected to that politician
- geopolitical implications.

On the first front Orban's performance is appalling. Fidesz modified the electoral laws in a way that it is very hard to beat it, they modified in several places the laws protecting workers' right to the benefit of company owners, they modified the laws about detention and these play now much more into the hands of the police, and so on.
On the second front Orban's government is doing even worse. Since Fidesz had been elected - 7 years ago - they have scrapped several benefits to people with amputated limbs, people with disabilities, people with chronic illnesses. The minimum amount of pensions is around £80 per month, and the minimum wages (currently at £277/month) are taxed for 16% income tax just as the largest salaries of millions of Forints (thousands of pounds).
On the third front, Fidesz's corruption is unprecedented. Medgyessy, Gyurcsany, and Bajnai were deeply corrupt and their cabinets and parties stole us much as was possible. However Fidesz perfected the art of channeling government money into their own pockets. They set up hundreds of companies, use government schemes (construction orders, local government schemes, land law, etc.) to this purpose. The leaders of the party set up through their friends their own companies which sell Hungarian citizenship and they made around 4 billion Euros so far.
On the fourth front, Fidesz is working hard to undermine the EU and slow down NATO, and is drawing ever closer to Putin's Russia. This is not only disastrous for Hungary and Europe, it is also deeply insulting for all those Hungarians who suffered the Soviet forced 'friendship', which was in fact an occupation.

Fidesz is now shutting down a University because Putin does not like Soros. Soros uses his private funds to support NGOs to foster balanced journalism, transparency, and to educate people up to US and European standards. CEU is just a much better run University with higher standards than most East-European institutions. Putin hates Soros because many opposition leaders made use of the support of organizations founded by Soros's charities. So, Putin instructed Orban to make the operations of CEU impossible. And Orban, like an overly eager puppy, jumped.

This is the Prime Minister and party which Fischer is excusing.

Why Putin and Xi didn't want Hilary Clinton to get elected

During the US presidential campaign Putin praised Trump, favoured Trump, and supported Trump through the use of the Russian intelligence services. They spread false propaganda. Putin also emphasized - and so did Trump - that they can have a good, peaceful relationship.

At the same time Clinton was described very often as hawkish. One of the things that was held against her was that she said that she would use the nuclear option if she would have to. Of course any leader would do that 'if they would have to'.

Why was it convenient to portray Clinton after this sane and average statement as a pro-war agressive person who would be dangerous?

There were three main reasons. For Trump this was good because it discredited Clinton in the eye of some very naive voters who don't understand that nuclear are in a normal case only deterrents, but they can only be deterrents if a leader states that they would use them if they would have to.
For Putin this was good because he has an agressive agenda. In the long term he hopes to destabilize the EU and to extend Russia's sphere of influence over the whole of Ukraine and the Baltic states, as well as possibly Hungary. A US leader like Clinton who is firm and vowes to take action against such agression and stop him was not good for him. He can't afford to go against a firm US leader who could be able to unite with the EU countries and halt him. A weak and confused Trump was much more convenient for Putin. Trump is vain. It appealed to him that such a seasoned veteran of the highest level of international politics like Putin paid him compliments.
For Xi in the background, Clinton's defeat was important for the same reason as for Putin. A capable and talented politician who has a good understanding of international relations and could make use of all that Obama and his team have already established would be able to stop Chinese expansion in the Pacific. For Xi and his Chinese advisors Clinton seemed a much bigger threat than an incompetent newby to politics, like Trump.

This is why all the fake news sites were jumping around emphasizing that Trump is great for being peaceful and having good ties with Russia. It was of course bollocks. The current Russian leadership wants to have good ties with the US only in case they will let them play their game in Europe and West-Asia. If not, they don't care, and Russia will still pursue her goals. This was of course also convenient for the Chinese who coordinate their actions at the moment with the Russians to a very high degree to undermine the stability of NATO, and the US-EU led peace of the current system of international relations.

As it emerges more and more clearly, Clinton would have been a much better choice as president than Trump. She could have won over senior experienced policy makers, she does have normal working relationships with many Republicans (a thing Trump often seems to lack) and she would have been able to stop or foresee many of Putin's and Xi's steps. Her firmness would have been an assett in a climate when two superpowers - China and Russia - are becoming more and more agressive. These countries also happen to be authoritarian states that don't respect human rights, cannot and do not want to provide their citizens with really high quality lives, and do not participate to a high degree in international stability and charitable development projects. Letting such states become more powerful could lead to much suffering everywhere. It turns out that Clinton's hawkishness would not only have been justified, it would have been exactly what was needed in such a time.

UPDATE:
Interesting piece in the Japan Times discussing whether China would actually stand up for North-Korea at the moment. It seems like the Chinese intelligentsia is somewhat divided on this. However, I don't think they would budge. Naive to think they would let the US put troops near their borders.

The US strikes in Syria

I never thought I would say anything good about Trump but I have to now.

There is conflict in Syria because Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran would all like to be the dominating state in the region and try to carve it up between them. Russia support Iran and Assad, the US backs Saudi Arabia and to some extent Irak, the EU backs to some extent Turkey, and China is stirring the shit in the background. As long as the regional big three - Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran - don't settle things there won't be peace.

However the chemical weapon strike by Assad's troops a few days ago was not a random thing or part of Assad regular plans. Here is why it happened.
The US is trying to maintain the current power balance both in the Middle-East and in the Pacific.
Russia and China don't like this. They would like more power and everything that comes with that: easier and cheaper access to resources, more military influence in the regions, more political influence, less scrutiny into their corruption and despotic acts. And so on.

Russia and China are at the moment working together and concerting their efforts therefore to erode US dominance everywhere. They do this mostly through proxy-states, since at the moment neither Xi, nor Putin want a conflict on their home territory. That would make them unpopular and lead to their losing their might potentially. So they both finance North-Korea who constantly pressures South-Korea and Japan, both US allies. Russia and China must have lent money and technology recently to North-Korea since it suddenly became able to launch very destructive long range rockets. That's a big danger for Japan and the US too.

Xi and Trump will soon meet. They will have a lot to discuss. Trump has a naive vision that he should lead the US into an economic war with China. This would be horrible for both countries, so Xi wants to avoid this. China wants to occupy and claim the whole of the South-China Sea. This is an extremely rich territory in natural resources. Also, a huge part of the world-trade goes through this sea in form of enormous ships. If it is controlled by a single country that country has a lot of power over everyone else in the world, because everyone is trading. At the moment the South China Sea is international waters. No single country controls it, and there are international contracts that enable everyone to use it. China wants to occupy it, the US wants to push back. China would also like to occupy Taiwan. Taiwan is an independent country, but it is in a strategically very important location in the sea, not too far from China. If it is not a part of China, it can be an enemy of China and China doesn't like this at the moment. The US is happy to have a neutral country near the Chinese border because it keeps China on its toes. It doesn't want China to occupy the island. And there are plenty more issues.

Trump has a very big mouth. He has been very verbal about doing big things. None of it has happened. Xi and Putin wanted to test whether Trump has any balls when it comes to military threats. They wanted to see whether they can put pressure on him if they take some actual military action. Will Trump again just talk but not do anything and shrink from retaliation, as he did on a host of other issues?

That is why North-Korea suddenly acquired the capabiltiy to fire long range rockets. And that is why there was suddenly a horrible chemical attack on civilians and on opposers of Assad in Syria. These were ways for Russia and China to test Trump without getting into a new conflict. They could also mask these questions easily as movements in already ongoing conflicts.

Why I was surprised was this: Trump was earlier very verbal about cutting back on military spending and being friendly with Russia. Standing up to Russia was a smart move in this case. No doubt, it wasn't Trump's idea. Why I'm still glad is because he listened to his more talented military and foreign policy advisors.

Why was it a good idea to demolish some Syrian military capability? Because it shows that the US is willing to engage in a counterstrike if Russia or China (or their proxies, North-Korea or Syria) make nasty moves.

Trump also has his own agenda: his dangerous and corrupt Russian ties have been exposed. He hopes that this strike will make people think that he can't be a friend of Russia, if he was willing to order a strike on Syria. Of course the strike means nothing like this in real life. Before the rockets hit the airbase the Syrians and Russians were informed of the attack and they could move out. It was also only one of several well equipped military air bases. Russia is still operating in the region without any issues. Still, some not well informed people will believe that Trump is some kind of hero, that he has integrity and he isn't compromised by Russian ties. He is. But at least he listened to his advisors and stood up to the pressure of Russia and China in this case.

This means that in the Xi-Trump talks Xi will have to be less brazen and more careful.

On the Trump presidency

Some articles (like this one in The Independent and this one in The Washington Post) mention two possibilities:

1. That Trump might not be as hot-headed and aggressive as he acted in his campaign, and that
2. a Trump presidency might be better for international military politics, because Trump said that he would be reluctant to wage wars if they are costly, or to defend allies if they don't pay towards their defense.

Both of these ideas are mistaken and there is no reason for hope and optimism.

With concern to 1.: The question is not whether Trump might be more sensible than the way he made himself look in his campaign. The question is if there is any good reason to think that is more sensible. There isn't. He was consistently haphazard, offensive, chaotic, unprepared, and unprofessional.

With concern to 2.: I've read in many places that Trump wants to talk to Putin and that is a good thing. Saying this makes it obvious that many - even intelligent - people believe that the U.S. administration and military is not maintaining constant close discussions on many topics with Russia. This is of course a false idea. Russia and the U.S. don't collide on many issues because they don't communicate.
Also, people who think that when Trump said he would talk with Russia that was a considered, serious thing haven't listened to his other ideas. He is just sputtering populist phrases. Whatever works at the moment. He knows as much about strategy, military issues, and economic competition with Russia as about other topics: next to nothing. As soon as he is seriously briefed and informed, if he even understands what he is being told, which is not sure, he might change his mind.

The same is the case concerning his ideas that the U.S. shouldn't offer defense arrangements for Japan, South-Korea and the Philippines. There are three enormous confusions here:
i) the U.S. does not offer defense. Japan had to accept that the U.S. military is stationed there at the end of the occupation following WWII. South-Korea had to accept the troops after the Korean war. The Philippines used to be a de facto U.S. colony. Also, Japan and South-Korea pay huge amounts towards the maintenance of the bases that the U.S. troops are using and towards the costs of the U.S. military.
Third, it is far from obvious that these countries really wanted the U.S. to station their troops there. That the U.S. is there ensures that these countries collide in their diplomacy with their other neighbours, Russia and China. If the U.S. troops would not be there these countries would have much more space for diplomatic manouvering and for looking out for their own interests. It is however part of the U.S. position that there can't be any powerful opponents on its borders. Canada and Mexico are no threats, across the Atlantic is a bloc of NATO countries, and Japan and South-Korea, as well as the Philippines form a big buffer zone between the U.S. and China. If the U.S. does not want to change its major defense policies it won't give up on these alliances.

Hence, there are no good reasons to be optimistic about Trump's presidency if he goes through with anything he has said.

Praising Putin for the Syrian intervention is controversial

Even among enlightened, normal people who endorse democracy one may find advocates of Putin, or people saying things like 'Sure, he is an autocrat, but look at all that he has achieved' or 'You have to admit that he is very talented and he is doing something for stability/peace/etc.' Similar voices can be heard praising the Russian government and Putin for the role they took on in Syria recently, claiming he has been outstandingly successful, and there is a campaign that would like to make out Russia to be the country which finally does something where no one else wanted to intervene before.

That such an idea is even possible shows only two things: i) most people don't follow the news regularly, and ii) they have an awfully short memory. It is very easy to check that Russia - together with China - has vetoed four proposals at intervention and/or resolution of the conflict in Syria in the UN Security Council between 2011 and 2015. Anyone who still claims that the Russian Government or Putin is the good guy in this story or deserves the title of knight in shining armour has been seriously misled.

Russia's approach caused damage in several ways. It allowed the conflict in Syria to deepen, it hampered the effective operation of the UN Security Council, and even after their intervention it is not clear whether they really aim at resolving conflicts and fostering peace, or simply at supporting Assad, their last remaining major ally in the region. Simultaneously, it seems that the intervention is a good excuse to extend their local military capabilities which could be used to establish further strongholds in West-Asia. It is too early to say this, but Russia's basis-building in Syria might be a similar move to the Chinese military's aggressive expansion in the South-China Sea. What is clear is that Putin is using the intervention to gain political weight and restore relations broken over Ukraine. My suggestion is to keep the two issues firmly separated. Whatever Putin achieves in Syria, nobody should soften up on him concerning Ukraine. We should all welcome stability in the West-Asian region, but should be careful not to mistake occupation or the lack of overt fights due to the presence of the Russian military to be peace.