Tag Archives: geopolitics

Ol’ Lindsey Graham’s gettin’ pretty hot, Time to turn Iran into a parking lot

Leave a reply

Lindsey Graham was on Meet the Press on Sunday, October 16 (yesterday as I write this) saber-rattling against Iran. I couldn’t help myself thinking of this catchy little hit from 1980…uh, what year is it now?

I looked up the lyrics to this 1980 song. Pretty offensive. Or, let’s go with intended as parody.

Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb
Bomb Iran
Let’s take a stand
Bomb Iran
Our country’s got a feelin’
Really hit the ceilin’, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran

Went to a mosque, gonna throw some rocks
Tell the Ayatollah, “Gonna put you in a box!”
Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb
Bomb Iran
Our country’s got a feelin’
Really hit the ceilin’, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran

Ol’ Uncle Sam’s gettin’ pretty hot
Time to turn Iran into a parking lot
Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb
Bomb Iran
Our country’s got a feelin’
Really hit the ceilin’, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran

Call the volunteers; call the bombadiers;
Call the financiers; better get their ass in gear
Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb, bomb
Bomb Iran
Our country’s got a feelin’
Really hit the ceilin’, bomb Iran
Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran
(Let’s nuke ’em! Whoo!)

genius.com

cognitive empathy

Leave a reply

This article in the “Nonzero Newsletter” has a litany of complaints about how the U.S. is seen by many people around the world to be hypocritical when it talks about peace and democracy. This lack of trust goes back at least to the Vietnam War, so it might take us a long time to dig ourselves out of this hole, if we were to actually start digging.

We think a “rules based order” is a morally good thing, but we also think it serves the interests of other nations by fostering a peaceful, stable, predictable world.

And it’s true that their interests would be served by this kind of order—but unfortunately this isn’t the kind of order America actually supports. Our “rules based order” allows us to inflict mayhem when and where we please, because it doesn’t involve the consistent application of rules. It’s an “order” that camouflages the pursuit of US interests as the US (however confusedly) conceives of them. And people in the “nonaligned world” see this—which helps explain why they’re not signing onto our mission.

The people who don’t see it are the people responsible for it: US foreign policy elites. So their failure to understand the motivations of other world actors is sometimes intertwined with, and in a sense rooted in, a failure to understand their own motivations—the ultimate blind spot. If we saw ourselves more clearly, we’d have an easier time understanding why others react to us as they do. Sometimes cognitive empathy begins at home, with simple self awareness.

Nonzero Newsletter

Here are some shovels, “foreign policy elites”, now start digging.

I was recently reading George W. Bush’s memoir Decision Points at the suggestion of a relative. The book helped me to see him as a better-intentioned leader than I did previously, but it also reinforced my sense that he had an extraordinarily oversimplified understanding of other parties’ motivations. Take Al Qaeda for example. His understanding was that they “hated us because they hate freedom”. Nothing could justify their cowardly attacks on civilians, of course. But try to put yourself in their shoes, and it seems clear that they saw themselves acting in self defense in response to what they (Bin Laden at least) saw as a U.S. occupation of Muslim holy lands, going back to at least the 1990s. Then, following the U.S. and NATO actual occupation of Afghanistan, they perpetrated more cowardly attacks on civilians in the UK and Spain, in their minds in response to the occupation. So there was a cycle of escalating violence, and just being able to recognize this might have been a first step in figuring out how to deal with it. We might be making similar errors in our dealings with Russia and China today.

civilian victimization

Leave a reply

I think it is clear that Russia felt threatened by NATO expansion since the 1990s and this played a role in the decision to invade Ukraine. This does not excuse their actions, but perhaps if different decisions had been made in the 1990s and 2000s we would not be here. Given that we are here, the question is how much to support Ukraine and oppose Russia militarily. Some are suggesting that pumping in as many deadly weapons as possible will shorten the war and ultimately reduce civilian suffering. Some scholars, for example the ones quoted in this Atlantic article, are citing evidence for the opposite. My hunch has always been that there may be a rational case for war to achieve geopolitical objectives at times, but I doubt that it ever reduces civilian suffering.

Alex Downes has conducted methodologically rigorous research on the causes of civilian victimization, a wartime strategy that targets and kills noncombatants. To this end, he compiled a data set of every country in the world that participated in “interstate wars between 1816 and 2003, which produced a list of 100 wars, 323 belligerent countries, and 52 cases of civilian victimization.” He found that states are significantly more likely to escalate against the population as they become more desperate from higher battlefield fatalities, longer war duration, or the transition of the conflict to a war of attrition.

Whether civilian victimization pays remains contested, but the strategic logic is not—to sap the morale of an adversary’s population or undermine the enemy’s ability to resist. Empirical research by other scholars with different samples likewise finds that “as a conflict actor weakens relative to its adversary, it employs increasingly violent tactics toward the civilian population as a means of reshaping the strategic landscape to its benefit.” Contrary to the conventional wisdom, scholarship suggests that Ukrainian citizens may paradoxically benefit from us supporting them less.

Atlantic

what’s a good U.S. strategy?

Leave a reply

Here are some ideas:

  • Rearm Germany and Japan. Why not throw in some nuclear proliferation while we are at it. Maybe South Korea or Taiwan would like to host some nuclear weapons, if they are not already?
  • Get involved in a land invasion of Russia, preferably in winter. (A convenient way to do this is to start your campaign in the fall or even late summer, and just assume it will be short.)
  • Also plan some Pacific island-hopping warfare.
  • Just assume this will not end with the deployment of weapons of mass destruction by any of the parties involved, especially not the world’s guiding light for peace and democracy.

Kissinger – yes, still alive

Leave a reply

Kissinger. The Wall Street Journal had an article in which Henry Kissinger made some attention-getting statements about the insanity of current nuclear risk taking. Kissinger is apparently 99 so we may not have the arguable  benefits of his instincts much longer. (Although, I suspect he has whatever cyborg implants are keeping Dick Cheney alive.)

Basically, I see Kissinger as an immoral calculated risk taker. He has the blood of millions of human beings in Southeast Asia and South Asia on his hands because he believed the potential benefits to the United States was worth the risk and ultimately suffering and death that resulted. The immoral part was putting next to no value on those lives, in my view. There was a rational calculation involved, at least in his mind.

Assuming he has not become a more moral person with age, and assuming he is still rational, what he is saying is that the risks we are taking now are not worth it and are therefore not rational.

I don’t believe the ends justified the means even in Kissinger’s time, but one thing this highlights is the loss of any significant peace movement in our society and politics. It is rational to work towards peace and stability in the world. This has benefits to our country and to everyone else. Then add the moral layer for those who think morally and it seems like something we should all be able to agree on. Only the irrational AND immoral should support these policies. I consider myself a realist about human nature, but I still believe this is a relatively small minority. Everyone else is being manipulated, marginalized, or drowned out.

IMF World Economic Outlook

Leave a reply

The IMF predicts a worldwide slowdown over the next 2-3 years, although not an outright contraction. Of course, we know these things are not predictable.

Global growth is projected to slow from an estimated 6.1 percent in 2021 to 3.6 percent in 2022 and 2023. This is 0.8 and 0.2 percentage points lower for 2022 and 2023 than projected in January. 

Beyond 2023, global growth is forecast to decline to about 3.3 percent over the medium term. War-induced commodity price increases and broadening price pressures have led to 2022 inflation projections of 5.7 percent in advanced economies and 8.7 percent in emerging market and developing economies—1.8 and 2.8 percentage points higher than projected last January. Multilateral efforts to respond to the humanitarian crisis, prevent further economic fragmentation, maintain global liquidity, manage debt distress, tackle climate change, and end the pandemic are essential.

IMF

the 30-year anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union

Leave a reply

A big milestone of 2021 was the 30-year anniversary of the end of the Soviet Union in December 1991. I was born in 1975, so I was 16 when this occurred. I didn’t have a good understanding of it at the time, and I am not sure the average person has a good understanding of it today. As I read about it now, Russia, somewhat oddly, essentially declared independence from itself (aka, the Russian empire, aka the Soviet Union), and Mikhail Gorbachev found himself in charge of a political entity that no longer existed. I have vague memories of Boris Yeltsin and tanks in the streets of Moscow. I have no memory of the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. This suggests to me my parents and teachers did not spend much time talking to me about current events, or talking to each other about current events within ear shot. Maybe I can do a bit better with my children, while trying not to make the world seem too depressing.

Is the cold war over? Not really. There are many, many ways its legacy affects us today. The most obvious ones are all the nuclear weapons the U.S. and Russia have pointed at each other, nuclear proliferation around the world, and the tensions at the Russia-Ukraine border. Less obvious but crucially important is the extreme free market propaganda that constrains possibilities for the U.S. and economic and political systems around the world to this day. First, I think globalization had a lot to do with cold war propaganda. The U.S. invested heavily in industrializing and trading with Japan and South Korea after World War II at least in part to keep them out of the Soviet orbit. At first, the exports the U.S. was buying were a tiny trickle compared to the economy. The policies were so successful though, that those economies grew to rival and out-compete U.S. industry. The propaganda suited U.S. multinational corporations just fine because it provided access to cheap labor and lax environmental regulations abroad, while keeping the U.S. market wide open. Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore copied the model with spectacular success, and then China copied it on a massive scale, and the system the U.S. had created swallowed it (the tail wagged the dog, the pig swallowed the python? I struggled to come up with the right animal-based metaphor here). Certainly, this economic growth lifted a lot of people out of poverty in Asia. It is somewhat ironic though that the biggest beneficiary turned out to be a (nominally, at least) Communist empire.

Back to those U.S. corporations and the propaganda that suits them. To this day, they are able to use that Cold War anti-tax, anti-regulation propaganda to scare the public into voting against “socialist” policies that would benefit the vast majority of citizens and even the economy as a whole, but would trim the profits of a tiny minority running mega-corporations. Commie red policies like having health care, education, and child care systems that are not failures and that would allow the U.S. to stop falling toward the bottom and eventually getting shit out of its peer group of advanced nations (I think I got that metaphor about right!) The mega-corporations can then invest a small fraction of their profits to ensure election of politicians who will continue to spew the propaganda and in some cases even actively work to undermine voting itself. This is a cycle that is going to be very hard to break, if it can be broken.

The National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends 2040

Leave a reply

Every four years, or early in each U.S. presidential administration, the National Intelligence Council publishes a scenario report. I had to look up what the council actually is, and basically it is an organization reporting to the Director of National Intelligence, who reports to the President and is sort of but not really in charge of the U.S. “intelligence community”, which sprawls across various military and civilian agencies with their own organizational structures.

Since this is a U.S. government report and not copyrighted, I can copy and paste as much of it as I want. Here are the five scenarios they came up with:

RENAISSANCE OF DEMOCRACIES: The world is in the midst of a resurgence of open democracies led by the United States and its allies. Rapid technological advancements fostered by public-private partnerships in the United States and other democratic societies are transforming the global economy, raising incomes, and improving the quality of life for millions around the globe. In contrast, years of increasing societal controls and monitoring in China and Russia have stifled innovation.

A WORLD ADRIFT: The international system is directionless, chaotic, and volatile as international rules and institutions are largely ignored. OECD countries are plagued by slower economic growth, widening societal divisions, and political paralysis. China is taking advantage of the West’s troubles to expand its international influence. Many global challenges are unaddressed.

COMPETITIVE COEXISTENCE: The United States and China have prioritized economic growth and restored a robust trading relationship, but this economic interdependence exists alongside competition over political influence, governance models, technological dominance, and strategic advantage. The risk of major war is low, and international cooperation and technological innovation make global problems manageable.

SEPARATE SILOS: The world is fragmented into several economic and security blocs of varying size and strength, centered on the United States, China, the EU, Russia, and a few regional powers, and focused on self-sufficiency, resiliency, and defense. Information flows within separate cyber-sovereign enclaves, supply chains are reoriented, and international trade is disrupted. Vulnerable developing countries are caught in the middle.

TRAGEDY AND MOBILIZATION: A global coalition, led by the EU and China working with NGOs and revitalized multilateral institutions, is implementing far-reaching changes designed to address climate change, resource depletion, and poverty following a global food catastrophe caused by climate events and environmental degradation. Richer countries shift to help poorer ones manage the crisis and then transition to low carbon economies through broad aid programs and transfers of advanced energy technologies.

Everything above is a quote by the way. I couldn’t get horrible, terrible, no good very bad WordPress editor to make them look like quotes, even using the HTML editor.

Anyway, there is a lot of doom and gloom here. I am oftentimes all about doom and gloom, especially when others are feeling optimistic, but the contrarian in me wants to think that now that almost everyone is feeling doomy gloomy, maybe the reality will not be so bad. Certainly the major food crisis above gets my attention. A major war, terrorist attack, major natural or industrial disaster, or combination of these could obviously be devastating. Smaller-scale disasters and conflicts are pretty much guaranteed, and refugee flows from poorer to richer nations are going to become an issue more and more. It is hard to see our natural environment coming under less pressure in the coming 20 years, and hard to imagine much progress toward a peaceful world government and equality on a global scale.

On the other hand, much of Europe and Asia have the managed economy thing reasonably figured out, where the capitalist economy is able to grow while the government collects taxes and provides services people need, like health care, education, and retirement. Cynical politicians in Europe and North America may figure out that the refugee pressure they are going to face will be catastrophic and that helping potential refugees in their home countries is a win-win for everyone. The world really has done pretty well with the food situation so far, and let’s assume this will continue to be a priority and that competent visionary people will remain in charge of that. Medical breakthroughs seem very likely over the next 20 years – for example, widespread cures for cancer, diabetes, HIV, and other dread diseases seem like they might be on the horizon. The population explosion will start to slow down. And let’s just say we avoid major war, plagues, or famines through a combination of competence and luck. Things really could be okay, and a generation of children could grow up in a relatively stable, sheltered, prosperous situation much as the majority of today’s middle-aged adults in developed countries did. Some of those children will be the problem solvers of tomorrow who come up with additional breakthroughs and incremental progress.

There, I just talked myself into not being quite so doomy gloomy.

George H.W. Bush’s September 11 Speech

Leave a reply

No, not that George Bush. And not that September 11th. This speech was given shortly after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. I remember being impressed by the lofty rhetoric at the time. I had turned 15 just a few days earlier. My family had actually been sight-seeing in Washington D.C. when the invasion happened, and I remember a buzz in the air. Great power competition was over, peace and democracy and human rights and the rule of law were supposedly ascendant.

Our objectives in the Persian Gulf are clear, our goals defined and familiar:

Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait completely, immediately and without condition.

Kuwait’s legitimate government must be restored.

The security and stability of the Persian Gulf must be assured.

Americans citizens abroad must be protected.

These goals are not ours alone. They have been endorsed by the U.N. Security Council five times in as many weeks. Most countries share our concern for principle. And many have a stake in the stability of the Persian Gulf. This is not, as Saddam Hussein would have it, the United States against Iraq. It is Iraq against the world.

As you know, I’ve just returned from a very productive meeting with Soviet President Gorbachev. I am pleased that we are working together to build a new relationship. In Helsinki, our joint statement affirmed to the world our shared resolve to counter Iraq’s threat to peace. Let me quote: “We are united in the belief that Iraq’s aggression must not be tolerated. No peaceful international order is possible if larger states can devour their smaller neighbors.”

Clearly, no longer can a dictator count on East-West confrontation to stymie concerted U.N. action against aggression.

A new partnership of nations has begun.

We stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective – a new world order – can emerge: a new era, freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony.

A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor. Today that new world is struggling to be born. A world quite different from the one we’ve known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.

This is the vision I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He, and other leaders from Europe, the gulf, and around the world, understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.

The test we face is great – and so are the stakes. This is the first assault on the new world we seek, the first test of our mettle. Had we not responded to this first provocation with clarity of purpose; if we do not continue to demonstrate our determination; it would be a signal to actual and potential despots around the world.

America and the world must defend common vital interests. And we will.

America and the world must support the rule of law. And we will.

America and the world must stand up to aggression. And we will.

And one thing more. In pursuit of these goals America will not be intimidated.

Vital issues of principle are at stake. Saddam Hussein is literally trying to wipe a country off the face of the earth.

We do not exaggerate.

Nor do we exaggerate when we say: Saddam Hussein will fail.

Vital economic interests are at risk as well. Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that. An Iraq permitted to swallow Kuwait would have the economic and military power, as well as the arrogance, to intimidate and coerce its neighbors – neighbors who control the lion’s share of the world’s remaining oil reserves. We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless. And we won’t.

Recent events have surely proven that there is no substitute for American leadership. In the face of tyranny, let no one doubt American credibility and reliability.

Let no one doubt our staying power. We will stand by our friends.

George H.W. Bush, September 11, 1990

So was I just an impressionable 15-year-old taken in by the rhetoric? What does my cynical middle-aged self think? Well, I still think it was a damn nice speech. The U.S. was going to lead the world’s powerful nations through the United Nations in standing up to cross-border aggression against a sovereign nation. We did that, achieved that limited objective, and got out. Everyone except Iraqi soldiers and civilians was happy. Did it make the world safer for giant oil companies that make giant campaign contributions to U.S. politicians for awhile? Sure. But it was a predictable, restrained use of power that other nations (except Iraq) did not feel threatened by. Our strategy and goals have been muddled ever since, and we have lost our credibility and reliability and leadership position. We need to understand that other countries are simply afraid of us because it seems like we can turn on them at any moment. We can learn something from the vision laid out in this speech.

how to fix international relations after Trump

Leave a reply

Well, here are some ideas anyway, from Joseph Nye, a professor at Harvard. The basic idea is to “establish rules-based international institutions with different membership for different issues.” In other words, isolate issues and then try to form groups that will be able to reach consensus on each narrow issue.

  • Countries like Russia and China are likely to accept a return to the idea of respect for sovereignty as defined in the UN charter. This allows some bad things to happen within borders, of course, and doesn’t solve disputed borders, but it used to limit cross-border military action and allow for joint international peace keeping missions in smaller troubled countries in less strategic areas.
  • Reboot the World Trade Organization with new international rules rather than bilateral or regional agreements.
  • Continue international financial cooperation, which he says is actually a bright spot.
  • “International ecological cooperation” – he says this has to override sovereignty. Not a lot of specifics here, but a return to the climate treaty and reinvigorating the WHO would certainly be a starting point. I would suggest we need to start taking biodiversity seriously, and also have a look at the long-term stability of the global food supply. Surely this last is something everyone can agree on?
  • Cyberspace – not a lot of specifics, but new agreements and norms are needed. Nuclear and biological weapons are not mentioned, and in fact weapons in general are not mentioned (drones, autonomous weapons, missiles, mines, space weapons?), and I would suggest adding these. Anything that will reduce risk in the short term will buy time to figure out a long term plan to give our species and civilization to make it.