The Turkey-Trump brawl might have a good outcome for the EU
Turkey got into a huge trade brawl with the US (or rather: with Trump). It is seeing some bad consequences of this at the moment. However it is a big and robust economy so this might not stick.
Behind Trump's warlike attitude to trade there is another reason for him to target Turkey. In the Middle-East/West-Asian region Saudi Arabia is the most powerful ally and proxy of the US (besides Israel), Iran is the key partner of Russia. Turkey is a regional competitor for the Saudis, Israel, and Iran. And it has several conflicts of interests with Russia. Trump coordinates several of his movements with Russia now. One of Trump's aims is to weaken the EU. He is afraid of a strong and well-coordinated EU policy that he can't push around easily so he is trying to weaken the bloc in every way he can (that's the same strategy that Putin and Xi Jinping are pursuing).
Attacking Turkey, which is usually aligning with the EU on global scale issues is one way of doing this. Turkey is now in a difficult position. The president, Erdogan has made several political, legal, economic, and military moves which make the EU distrustful of him. The population of the EU in general has a strongly negative opinion of him and his government. So, he is in a hard position when needs help and financial support. In the long run of course it is not in the EU's interest to lose one of their key allies in the region, or to see them destabilised.
However, Trump's push might also come in handy for the EU. Challenging Erdogan proved to be a hard task so far since Turkey is big enough and Erdogan popular enough not to have to rely on the EU too much in the short run. The joint US-Russian pressure on Turkey might weaken it enough to prompt Erdogan seek EU favour and support and to be willing to give up some of his prerogatives. The EU shouldn't give in at that point. If Erdogan becomes unpopular enough and he can be removed so much the better for Turkey and for the EU. In the long run this could get Erdogan out of the way and enable transition to a more democratic, transparent legal governance in Turkey. That would be a wonderful result. Trump inadvertently might enable this.
Showing posts with label trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trump. Show all posts
Thursday, 23 August 2018
Tuesday, 14 August 2018
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.
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)
Monday, 13 August 2018
Tensions between the US, Japan, and China
Trump is pushing ahead with his extremely aggressive trade attacks. He is indiscriminate: he attacks rival China, which has an economy of the same size as the US, but also long standing allies Japan, South-Korea and Germany. It is obvious that what Trump can gain are mostly short term small wins, insignificant in real, long term economy. But that's enough for a celebrity who wants to get rich quick and then be out of the game. That this policy ruins trust between allies, undermines the international trade treaty system and institutions is of no concern to him.
How he treats Japan is also a good example of his arrogance and neglect for long term goals. The US has a policy of being present militarily in all regions which it perceives as important to its defense. Since its coastline is open to the Pacific, East-Asia is such a region. That is why it was important to the US to stop Japan from becoming a large power during WWII (not out of humanitarian concern for the Chinese or anyone else).
The US used the defeat of Japan to keep it under control. This is even so today. Its stationing a large part of its Asian military force in Japan. Every time Japan is doing well or would gain any advantage over the US in terms of technology or trade the US is using the 'we defend you' card, meaning: our military is in your country, and if you don't cooperate 1 we won't defend you, even though we have restricted your military development for 70+ years, and 2 we can attack you easily.
This has already happened, most notably during the 'trade wars' of the 1980s. This period saw large troubles in the US economy. Rather than addressing the microeconomic issues at home, US politicians bashed Japan and other trading partners with made-up claims of unfairness, etc., and used their military and political weight to force these countries to open their markets to US products. This happened for example with Microsoft, Intel and other companies. They entered Japan, and with heavy state backing killed off the local rivals. Meanwhile the US only opened its market to Japanese products partly and typically avoided purchasing the products of Japanese companies if possible (this is what happened to Fuji, Hitachi and other tech companies in the late 1980s/early 1990s). All these, to put it mildly, unfair actions were justified by aggressive, sometimes downright hateful propaganda by US politicians and corporate lobbyists.
The US is now doing the same. Trump is not a genius who is shaking up the US economy. He is just an opportunist who is using old tricks to gain short term advantages. His threat to increase tariffs on Japanese cars by 25% could cause huge losses for Japan, which is a much smaller economy dependent on exports. It is also an ally of the US, hosting its military bases, and often supporting the US's interests.
What Trump doesn't seem to grasp is that many Japanese voters, many foreigners, and many Japanese politicians are fed up with the current situation. If he keeps pushing policies in this direction Japan will lose its incentives to cooperate with the US in the future. If it aligns itself more with China or carves out a more independent position that would be a huge diplomatic, political, credibility and economic loss for the US. It could of course retaliate financially, but the many competitors of the US who would be happy about this could offset much of the losses of Japan, and a political-military realignment could lead the country to a much more independent or at least less directly threatened position.
A realignment for Japan might be the good idea then. If the US is not only an unreliable business partner, but it also cannot be trusted to keep its and its partners' long term defense interests in mind, then why stay close to it? China is closer, its economy is already in some measures larger than the US and a market of 1.4 billion buyers will have more potential as it develops than a 330 million market. Militarily, if the US is pursuing such an opportunist, short term strategy as it is doing under Trump, its presence in East-Asia can be reasonably doubted.
The Chinese government is already putting enormous pressure on Taiwan politically and militarily, while integrating with investment and joint ventures as much of its economy as possible. The US supports Taiwan on paper and sells its weapons, however it doesn't recognise the country formally. It is, as in many cases, not making a clear commitment and is balancing between two interests.
The Chinese leadership would of course love nothing more than having Japan on its side. This is after all how things were for most of the history: the two countries existed relatively peacefully, trading and exchanging diplomatic missions since 500AD. We might be headed back to those times. Trump is just hastening the dawn of US influence in the region by undermining his country's credibility.
How he treats Japan is also a good example of his arrogance and neglect for long term goals. The US has a policy of being present militarily in all regions which it perceives as important to its defense. Since its coastline is open to the Pacific, East-Asia is such a region. That is why it was important to the US to stop Japan from becoming a large power during WWII (not out of humanitarian concern for the Chinese or anyone else).
The US used the defeat of Japan to keep it under control. This is even so today. Its stationing a large part of its Asian military force in Japan. Every time Japan is doing well or would gain any advantage over the US in terms of technology or trade the US is using the 'we defend you' card, meaning: our military is in your country, and if you don't cooperate 1 we won't defend you, even though we have restricted your military development for 70+ years, and 2 we can attack you easily.
This has already happened, most notably during the 'trade wars' of the 1980s. This period saw large troubles in the US economy. Rather than addressing the microeconomic issues at home, US politicians bashed Japan and other trading partners with made-up claims of unfairness, etc., and used their military and political weight to force these countries to open their markets to US products. This happened for example with Microsoft, Intel and other companies. They entered Japan, and with heavy state backing killed off the local rivals. Meanwhile the US only opened its market to Japanese products partly and typically avoided purchasing the products of Japanese companies if possible (this is what happened to Fuji, Hitachi and other tech companies in the late 1980s/early 1990s). All these, to put it mildly, unfair actions were justified by aggressive, sometimes downright hateful propaganda by US politicians and corporate lobbyists.
The US is now doing the same. Trump is not a genius who is shaking up the US economy. He is just an opportunist who is using old tricks to gain short term advantages. His threat to increase tariffs on Japanese cars by 25% could cause huge losses for Japan, which is a much smaller economy dependent on exports. It is also an ally of the US, hosting its military bases, and often supporting the US's interests.
What Trump doesn't seem to grasp is that many Japanese voters, many foreigners, and many Japanese politicians are fed up with the current situation. If he keeps pushing policies in this direction Japan will lose its incentives to cooperate with the US in the future. If it aligns itself more with China or carves out a more independent position that would be a huge diplomatic, political, credibility and economic loss for the US. It could of course retaliate financially, but the many competitors of the US who would be happy about this could offset much of the losses of Japan, and a political-military realignment could lead the country to a much more independent or at least less directly threatened position.
A realignment for Japan might be the good idea then. If the US is not only an unreliable business partner, but it also cannot be trusted to keep its and its partners' long term defense interests in mind, then why stay close to it? China is closer, its economy is already in some measures larger than the US and a market of 1.4 billion buyers will have more potential as it develops than a 330 million market. Militarily, if the US is pursuing such an opportunist, short term strategy as it is doing under Trump, its presence in East-Asia can be reasonably doubted.
The Chinese government is already putting enormous pressure on Taiwan politically and militarily, while integrating with investment and joint ventures as much of its economy as possible. The US supports Taiwan on paper and sells its weapons, however it doesn't recognise the country formally. It is, as in many cases, not making a clear commitment and is balancing between two interests.
The Chinese leadership would of course love nothing more than having Japan on its side. This is after all how things were for most of the history: the two countries existed relatively peacefully, trading and exchanging diplomatic missions since 500AD. We might be headed back to those times. Trump is just hastening the dawn of US influence in the region by undermining his country's credibility.
Saturday, 8 April 2017
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.
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.
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.
Break
I took a longer break from blogging. I did this mainly for two reasons.
One was that I simply did not want to write about Trump. Everyone writing about Trump during the election was basically advertising him. As we now see, all that advertisement was advertisement for a lot of hot air. A big nothing. No policy, no knowledge, no directions, no performance. It doesn't matter anymore. The idiot is in the house, in the chair. Let's hope he gets impeached soon, or otherwise becomes incapable of going on.
The other was that Brexit was still hanging in the air, there was still hope that some preliminary positive agreements would be put in place between May's 'dazed and confused' government and the very calm and calculative EU leadership. Sadly, this did not happen. May drove the car full speed against the wall. We will see how things go from now. Not much can be known at the moment, so I do not see any good reason either to panic or to confuse people.
The following is imperative:
Stay calm. Things are NEVER as bad as politicians would like you to believe. Like any manager, politicians are trying to sell ideas and push them through. Then they claim credit for the changes they made. Most things are going OK in the world, and smart people are working on the ones which aren't (disease, illness, inequality, education, etc.). Politicians stir up shit to create an opportunity to rise and shine. They create most of the problems and issues that they claim only they can solve. So they can claim credit and cement their rule. This happens in the US, in Russia, in China, in Africa, and elsewhere. For example see the UK, where this artificial-shit-storm-mongering created a change in the political leadership, or Hungary, where Orban's authoritarian government is still using the migrant issue to create panic and rally its supporters.
We need to stay calm. We need to send the politicians who try to drive us into wars to prison. We need to kick those out who make us believe that it's rational that the rich shouldn't pay more taxes, but the poor should, and social services should be cut too. These people are doing a bad job.
We need to keep our calm and our cool heads to organize kicking them out and keeping them under check. Everywhere. Whether you read this in Zimbabwe, in Peru, in Afghanistan, in Chile, in Austria, Saudi Arabia, in Finland, in China, in Myanmar, in the US: it doesn't matter. Organize, and keep your politicians, your military leaders, and your top managers under check. Create unions, reading groups, parties. Invite researchers - not hacks, not journalists, not 'public speakers', not think tank people. Invite the researchers who are publicly funded and publish everything in journals that can be publicly accesses. They are the people doing an honest job, giving their years and name to what they do.
Keep calm. Don't fall for the propaganda. It is not the US that is evil. Not Russia. Not China. Not Syria. The average person doesn't want to do any harm, nor does he or she care about others in other countries. The average person wants to go on in a decent life. It is the power-crazy brutal loonies who are the real danger. Not that minority your local MP accuses. Not that other religion your imam is warning you about. Not people who like something else in sex or in love. It is the corrupt and greedy leaders and their henchman, those serving them.
One was that I simply did not want to write about Trump. Everyone writing about Trump during the election was basically advertising him. As we now see, all that advertisement was advertisement for a lot of hot air. A big nothing. No policy, no knowledge, no directions, no performance. It doesn't matter anymore. The idiot is in the house, in the chair. Let's hope he gets impeached soon, or otherwise becomes incapable of going on.
The other was that Brexit was still hanging in the air, there was still hope that some preliminary positive agreements would be put in place between May's 'dazed and confused' government and the very calm and calculative EU leadership. Sadly, this did not happen. May drove the car full speed against the wall. We will see how things go from now. Not much can be known at the moment, so I do not see any good reason either to panic or to confuse people.
The following is imperative:
Stay calm. Things are NEVER as bad as politicians would like you to believe. Like any manager, politicians are trying to sell ideas and push them through. Then they claim credit for the changes they made. Most things are going OK in the world, and smart people are working on the ones which aren't (disease, illness, inequality, education, etc.). Politicians stir up shit to create an opportunity to rise and shine. They create most of the problems and issues that they claim only they can solve. So they can claim credit and cement their rule. This happens in the US, in Russia, in China, in Africa, and elsewhere. For example see the UK, where this artificial-shit-storm-mongering created a change in the political leadership, or Hungary, where Orban's authoritarian government is still using the migrant issue to create panic and rally its supporters.
We need to stay calm. We need to send the politicians who try to drive us into wars to prison. We need to kick those out who make us believe that it's rational that the rich shouldn't pay more taxes, but the poor should, and social services should be cut too. These people are doing a bad job.
We need to keep our calm and our cool heads to organize kicking them out and keeping them under check. Everywhere. Whether you read this in Zimbabwe, in Peru, in Afghanistan, in Chile, in Austria, Saudi Arabia, in Finland, in China, in Myanmar, in the US: it doesn't matter. Organize, and keep your politicians, your military leaders, and your top managers under check. Create unions, reading groups, parties. Invite researchers - not hacks, not journalists, not 'public speakers', not think tank people. Invite the researchers who are publicly funded and publish everything in journals that can be publicly accesses. They are the people doing an honest job, giving their years and name to what they do.
Keep calm. Don't fall for the propaganda. It is not the US that is evil. Not Russia. Not China. Not Syria. The average person doesn't want to do any harm, nor does he or she care about others in other countries. The average person wants to go on in a decent life. It is the power-crazy brutal loonies who are the real danger. Not that minority your local MP accuses. Not that other religion your imam is warning you about. Not people who like something else in sex or in love. It is the corrupt and greedy leaders and their henchman, those serving them.
Tuesday, 22 November 2016
The U.S. working class and its role in electing Trump
Joan C. Williams wrote a very informative and cool-headed piece in The Harvard Business Review on what the Democratic Party's strategy got wrong about working class U.S. citizens, and how much this influenced the votes of masses of people.
Williams summarizes several ways in which working class people are misrepresented by Democrats and mainstream media. She emphasizes, that working class people in the U.S. are usually solid middle class, nevertheless are usually presented as poor. Also, often when Democrats focused on policies benefiting the poor, they didn't take into account that these policies would not affect in any beneficial way the middle classes, including working class people. These are surely important and significant points to make, and Williams makes them with admirable clarity.
In this entry I want to discuss two issues she mentions:
- The fact that some working class voters turned away from the Democrats because they detest professionals, teachers, and researchers, and the rhetoric of Democrats was too intellectual.
- That 'manly dignity', male pride, is important to several working class voters.
Williams doesn't say that either of these two things is good. She just highlights them as something that a party that wants to win the elections cannot forget. This is very sound pragmatic advice.
My main issue is the following: while there certainly are many neglected aspects of working class existence these days in the U.S. which should have been addressed by the Democrats, the two attitudes highlighted by Williams and mentioned before are very hard to accept for someone leaning towards enlightenment ideals. Endorsing that people can improve themselves and their society underlies the drive for continuous social improvement. And hence it is very hard to campaign in a way that caters to voters who oppose academics, intellectuals, and white collar workers. Of course this doesn't mean that such voters are bad people. But it does mean that their views of how the world works are very one-sided: while recognizing the importance of skills, experience and expertise in some fields, they play down the importance and legitimacy of these aspects in other fields.
This is what the Republican party, the Christian church, and Trump have both relied on in making many perfectly obvious questions seem controversial:
There is no serious debate regarding whether evolution is the process through which humans came to be what they are.
There is no serious evidence showing that allowing equal pay and equal rights regardless of gender and race has any bad implications for society.
There is no serious debate regarding climate change. It is happening and it will be devastating.
Still, Trump and others have managed to present these issues as if they would still be open questions in the sense, that they haven't been substantially argued for and supported by evidence. They have.
What Trump and others relied on in undermining such perfectly legitimate expert consensus was in part the fact that a number of voters don't have basic science and cultural literacy, they don't understand what researchers, scientists, managers, etc. are doing, and they are suspicious or even antagonistic towards them.
These attitudes surely need to be changed. What to do? Since it seems that simple explanation, fun talks, public intellectuals, politicians who campaign to get the word out are not enough, Williams might actually be right: maybe we should rely on the man-pride of those voters who couldn't get on board with the Democrats because they felt neglected. It might be that if they think they are being cared for, they matter, and they are on the winning team, they would be more open to think in progressive ways.
Still, their resistance is worrying, and it is sad that this is what we would need to rely on. In the long run one can only hope that most people come to understand that in itself neither their social position, nor their gender, or how important they themselves feel that their problems are, can justify ignorance. This in turn will hopefully lead to a more informed and critical acceptance to science and society related issues. Such a stance would enable to endorse the views of proper experts and to neglect fakes. The general idea that the world is too complex now for us to look to one politicians who thinks he himself is the source of authority on every question needs to seep through.
Of course such a change would be much better facilitated by conversations than by talking down. On the other hand it is hard to have the patience to do this all the time, just to save the egos of people who are unwilling to adapt, but whom we do want the best for, and also need them on our team.
If interested in more depth in the connection between work, traditional gender roles, and working class life in affluent Western countries, Williams also has a number of publications, and her recent books (2012 and 2014) discuss these issues. I'm sure many readers would find them interesting, and they can provide plenty of insight.
Wednesday, 9 November 2016
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.
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.
Monday, 31 October 2016
On the new FBI investigation of Clinton's emails
The last minute opening of a new investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of her emails shows three things:
- Trump and his team were convinced that if they don't get some serious mud-throwing done in the last minute they will lose.
- The Republican party has its pants full. Trump has hijacked them, and if Trump loses then not only did a madman tarnish their reputation, he will even lose for them, making them very weak.
- The Republican party and Trump have enough leverage with people at the FBI to force the opening of such an investigation before the election. Gives you an idea where the money that Trump saved on not paying taxes is going.
This is such an outrageous case of corruption that if the Russian government wouldn't be so eager to push its propaganda against the US others would nevertheless say the same things this week.
- Trump and his team were convinced that if they don't get some serious mud-throwing done in the last minute they will lose.
- The Republican party has its pants full. Trump has hijacked them, and if Trump loses then not only did a madman tarnish their reputation, he will even lose for them, making them very weak.
- The Republican party and Trump have enough leverage with people at the FBI to force the opening of such an investigation before the election. Gives you an idea where the money that Trump saved on not paying taxes is going.
This is such an outrageous case of corruption that if the Russian government wouldn't be so eager to push its propaganda against the US others would nevertheless say the same things this week.
Monday, 10 October 2016
The second Clinton-Trump debate...
...reminded me a lot of some of the biggest debates in our elementary schools.
The level at which foreign and military policy were discussed would make any 7 year old proud.
The level at which foreign and military policy were discussed would make any 7 year old proud.
Sunday, 29 May 2016
On the road back to feudalism
There is a gruesome trend we can observe: economic inequality is starkly on the rise in every country on Earth and fundamentalist, radical parties are gaining more and more following.
Just one example of the many horrors to which this leads is the fact that ISIS is now holding 50000 civilians hostage. They are ready to do anything they can to preserve their power. That means, they are ready to kill 50000 non-combatant innocent civilians to cause the enemy to suffer heavier losses. Why would anyone want a power like ISIS to rule over themselves? Why would anyone support an organization that is willing to sacrifice so many people in such a horrible way?
Many of those people in Fallujah will lose their father, mother, children, sister and brothers. Many of them will burn alive, will be shot, will blow into pieces, will be reduced to bloody blobs, will suffer horrible agonizing slow deaths, will be handicapped for the rest of their lives, will suffer incredible traumas. Who wants that? Who supports such a power?
We see far-right leaning nationalist dictators and autocrats on the rise elsewhere too: just consider Putin's new solidified might in Russia, Trump's candidacy and his atrocious way of thinking, Orban in Hungary where he is bartering with the Russians to get into a position where he can get away with corruption in the EU, or Xin's iron-fisted rule in China.
The serious problem is that Russia, the US, China, and even tiny Hungary, have better organized systems of rule and military in place than ISIS. These are solid nation states. That means that if the wrong people get in power they can become even more dangerous, as we can see this in the case of the Chinese party's rule in China. Censorship is extremely strong, most people are fed government designed news, they don't have access to critical voices, there is no option to changing and ousting people from the rule who are not doing well and not acting in the interests of their people.
We see clearly that economic inequality is on the rise globally. The rich are in control of more and more land, more and more companies, and have massive clout and powerful tools to pressure and influence governments.
Add to this that in the EU and the US many are turning back towards a repressive and outdated - not to mention factually wrong - religious fundamentalism.
It is almost as is if we would be on the way back to Feudalism, where the rich landowners own the lands of their vassals who in change serve them, and also own the land and means by which the rest of us can work. They command armies, and are only responsible towards themselves.
Just one example of the many horrors to which this leads is the fact that ISIS is now holding 50000 civilians hostage. They are ready to do anything they can to preserve their power. That means, they are ready to kill 50000 non-combatant innocent civilians to cause the enemy to suffer heavier losses. Why would anyone want a power like ISIS to rule over themselves? Why would anyone support an organization that is willing to sacrifice so many people in such a horrible way?
Many of those people in Fallujah will lose their father, mother, children, sister and brothers. Many of them will burn alive, will be shot, will blow into pieces, will be reduced to bloody blobs, will suffer horrible agonizing slow deaths, will be handicapped for the rest of their lives, will suffer incredible traumas. Who wants that? Who supports such a power?
We see far-right leaning nationalist dictators and autocrats on the rise elsewhere too: just consider Putin's new solidified might in Russia, Trump's candidacy and his atrocious way of thinking, Orban in Hungary where he is bartering with the Russians to get into a position where he can get away with corruption in the EU, or Xin's iron-fisted rule in China.
The serious problem is that Russia, the US, China, and even tiny Hungary, have better organized systems of rule and military in place than ISIS. These are solid nation states. That means that if the wrong people get in power they can become even more dangerous, as we can see this in the case of the Chinese party's rule in China. Censorship is extremely strong, most people are fed government designed news, they don't have access to critical voices, there is no option to changing and ousting people from the rule who are not doing well and not acting in the interests of their people.
We see clearly that economic inequality is on the rise globally. The rich are in control of more and more land, more and more companies, and have massive clout and powerful tools to pressure and influence governments.
Add to this that in the EU and the US many are turning back towards a repressive and outdated - not to mention factually wrong - religious fundamentalism.
It is almost as is if we would be on the way back to Feudalism, where the rich landowners own the lands of their vassals who in change serve them, and also own the land and means by which the rest of us can work. They command armies, and are only responsible towards themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)