The debt ceiling in the United States originated from the need to control government spending and ensure fiscal responsibility. Initially, Congress had to authorize each new batch of debt issued, a cumbersome process that was modified with the passage of the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917. This act established an aggregate amount, or , to govern the total debt to be issued. Since World War II, the debt ceiling has been adjusted over 100 times to accommodate the country’s evolving financial needs.

The concept of a debt ceiling, however, itself poses logical inconsistencies. All federal government spending is already authorized by Congress, making it contradictory to prevent the Treasury Department from raising the necessary debt to fund these authorized expenditures. In other words, Congress forbids spending which it has already mandated. Reaching the debt limit forces the government to choose between not fulfilling previously agreed obligations or defaulting on existing debt service. Either of these would be a violation of obligations established by law, and would therefore have severe implications for the US economy.

Implications of reaching the limit

Reaching the debt ceiling carries significant implications for the US economy. It can lead to a government shutdown, disrupt essential services, and even result in default on financial obligations, jeopardizing the nation’s creditworthiness. Credit rating agencies closely monitor debt ceiling debates. If they were to downgrade the federal government’s credit rating, this would increase borrowing costs and undermine investor confidence. Uncertainty surrounding the debt ceiling, even if it is not eventually reached, also introduces volatility into financial markets and can impact global economic stability.

An Outstanding Deep Dive Into the American Economy

Government default entails the non-payment of interest or principal on its obligations. This triggers a credit event that has far-reaching consequences. Individuals and institutions relying on government funds would not receive payments. Credit default (CDSs)—insurance contracts taken out against credit events—would be triggered, potentially causing financial difficulties for institutions which have written CDSs. Rating agencies would downgrade the US credit rating, impacting other borrowers, and Treasury securities would no longer serve as acceptable collateral for institutional borrowing, leading to a collapse of credit availability, choking the economy and leading to a severe contraction.

Rating agencies such as Fitch and Standard & Poor’s have expressed concerns about the United States’ , despite the recent agreement on the debt ceiling. A potential downgrade could have implications not only for the US but also for all other borrowers whose credit rating is usually influenced by the sovereign rating. With the US bond market dominating global markets, the loss of the anchor role of US Treasuries, which form a substantial part of institutional portfolios worldwide, could create disarray in international bond markets.

Partisan shenanigans and a borrowing spree

The debt ceiling has become a contentious political issue in recent decades, with both major parties sharing responsibility for substantial increases in outstanding debt. The threat of a debt default has often been used as a bargaining tool in political negotiations. However, neither party wants to bear the blame for driving the country into a crisis, resulting in a risky game of chicken in which each party attempts to see who will budge first and agree to concessions favorable to the other party’s spending policy. This raises questions about whether the debate really revolves around the debt itself. The recent deal, featuring a suspension of the debt limit, essentially provides the Treasury the freedom to borrow as much money as needed until January 2025—a carte blanche.

The government’s account at the Federal Reserve, the Treasury General Account (TGA), has almost been depleted. It will have to be replenished to 600 billion US dollars (it peaked at US dollars during the pandemic). Those funds will have to be raised by raising additional debt—on top of money needed to fund the current federal fiscal deficit of around 2 trillion dollars. As I mentioned in a previous article, it is not apparent who would buy that amount of Treasury securities. The Federal Reserve might be forced to reverse its plan to slowly shrink its balance sheet, having to absorb additional government debt.

Who Will Buy �������������’s Debt Now?

After borrowing 726 billion dollars during the second quarter of 2023, the Treasury Department expects to raise another in the following quarter. Total government debt is hence guaranteed to continue rising at a fast pace. Having briefly been arrested at 31.4 trillion dollars (the amount of the debt ceiling), federal debt is expected to exceed by 2033. The exponential growth of government debt is going to continue unabated.

The includes some mild cuts of non-military discretionary spending in 2024, and a limit of all discretionary spending in 2025. Military spending, however, will increase further, to 886 billion US dollars in 2024, and 895 billion in 2025, a 23% increase over the amount spent in 2022.

The bill’s drafters found other devices to cut costs. 20 billion dollars originally awarded to the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) to fight tax evasion will be clawed back. The bill imposes new requirements for adults to maintain access to food stamps. It also ends the freeze on student loan repayments. In short: money taken from the poor is being given to the military and to people crafting “innovative” tax returns.

Hidden under the surface-level negotiations was a fight over permit reform. Local governments had the ability to block interstate pipelines and electricity lines by dragging out the permitting process. Alternative energy companies need new transmission lines to transport energy produced by wind and solar farms towards population centers near the coasts. Fossil fuel companies need pipelines to move abundant natural gas from sparsely populated areas with shale reservoirs towards the big cities or harbors for export. In the end, the Mountain Valley Pipeline, bringing natural gas from the Marcellus shale fields in West Virginia to Virginia, made it into the bill, securing Senator Joe Manchin’s vote.

A proposal to end recurring debt ceiling drama

US lawmakers the insanity of recurring debt ceiling debates, especially since it is a question of funding spending that has already been authorized by Congress once.

One option contemplates a bureaucratic rather than a legislative solution. This would involve the Treasury Department disregarding the debt ceiling and continuing to issue debt. The perspective finds support in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned.” However, pursuing such a unilateral move could result in a legal dispute and potentially generate still more uncertainty.

Another suggestion entails the Treasury minting a platinum with a denomination of 1 trillion US dollars, as it is legally permitted to do. This coin would then be deposited with the Federal Reserve in exchange for a credit of 1 trillion dollars. However, Treasury Secretary Yellen has dismissed this idea, noting that the Federal Reserve is unlikely to agree to such a proposal.

It is worth noting that the US government has in fact experienced instances of default in the past. Esteemed Wall Street veteran Jim Grant that a default can occur through a unilateral change in payment terms, resulting in a diminished financial obligation, such as forced currency redenomination. Two events over the past century align with this definition. Firstly, the devaluation of the dollar relative to gold under US President Roosevelt in 1933, when the gold price was raised from $20.67 to $35 per ounce. Secondly, the “temporary” suspension, which has since become permanent, of the dollar’s convertibility into gold by US President Nixon in 1971.

In reality, persistent inflation can be viewed as another form of default, albeit spread out over many years. Over time, the US dollar has lost approximately of its purchasing power since the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913. While the dollar remains an effective medium of exchange, it has proven to be a poor long-term store of value due to the erosion of its purchasing power through inflation.

If spending is not controlled, the government will find one way or another of making ends meet, and all too often it is the consumer who foots the bill.

[ edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post What You Need to Know About the Debt Ceiling appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 brought about a significant shift in the dynamics of US-Mexico relations. While NAFTA aimed to promote economic growth and development, it also had unintended consequences for Mexican farmers and small-scale industries. The influx of subsidized American agricultural products led to the displacement of local farmers and increased unemployment. This economic upheaval, coupled with the lure of higher wages and employment opportunities to the north, further fueled from Mexico to the United States.

A Teetering System

After years of stabilizing or even numbers of undocumented, unauthorized, or illegal migrants (pick your term) crossing the southern border, the influx has recently and remains at levels. The Migration Policy Institute estimated that around 79% of the undocumented immigrant in the United States in 2018 originated from Mexico and Central America, including countries such as El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

The numbers tell us that the US has an immigration crisis. Past reforms have attempted to address the complexities of the border but have failed. The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 sought to grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants while simultaneously increasing border enforcement measures. However, the implementation of IRCA faced challenges, and subsequent reforms failed to provide a comprehensive solution. The absence of a clear path to legal status for those unauthorized immigrants who arrived after the IRCA, coupled with inadequate border security measures, to an ongoing cycle of unauthorized migration.��

Since early 2021, there has been a notable increase in the number of individuals attempting to cross the US-Mexico border. The reasons behind this surge are multifaceted and can be attributed to a combination of push and pull factors. Economic challenges, violence, political instability, natural disasters, and the desire to reunite with family members already in the United States are among the factors that drive individuals to leave their home countries and entry into the United States.On top of that, the Biden Administration has a history of sending to migrants.��

The influx of migrants has overwhelmed border facilities and strained the resources of immigration agencies, such as Customs and Border Protection and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The capacity to process and house migrants has been stretched thin, resulting in overcrowded detention centers and temporary facilities. The situation has raised concerns about the conditions in which migrants are held, including issues of overcrowding, limited access to healthcare, and inadequate facilities to accommodate families and unaccompanied minors.

The increase in migrant arrivals has also strained the capacity to handle asylum claims and legal processing. The backlogs in immigration courts have further prolonged the time it takes to resolve cases, leaving individuals in limbo and creating challenges for the flow of migrants.

Trump Policies Dismantled

While the issue predates the Biden administration, it is crucial to analyze how President Joe Biden’s policies have shaped the current immigration crisis at the border.

From day one, Biden has prioritized dismantling the immigration policies implemented by his predecessor. His eagerness to erase any trace of Donald Trump’s immigration legacy has left our border vulnerable and created a magnet for illegal immigration. During his presidency, Donald Trump implemented various immigration policies aimed at reducing the influx of undocumented immigrants into the United States. While these policies were controversial and faced criticism from many quarters, supporters argue that they had notable effects on immigration patterns.

Here are some of Trump’s key immigration policies:

Border Security and Wall Construction: Trump made border security a priority and pushed for the construction of a physical barrier along the US-Mexico border. Although significant portions of the wall were replacement or reinforcement of existing barriers, it to deter illegal crossings.��

Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP): The MPP, also known as the “Remain in Mexico” policy, required individuals seeking asylum at the southern border to wait in Mexico while their claims were processed in US courts. Supporters argue that this policy helped manage the influx of asylum seekers and the incentive for fraudulent claims.

Title 42: It was introduced in March 2020 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under the Trump administration. This policy invoked a public health provision, allowing the swift expulsion of individuals who posed a risk of spreading infectious diseases, including COVID-19. It acted as a necessary and effective tool to protect both Americans and migrants themselves from potential health hazards.

Title 42 proved crucial in managing the overwhelming surge of illegal immigration at the southern border. By enforcing swift deportations, it discouraged the dangerous practice of human smuggling and reduced the strain on our already burdened immigration system. Curiously, the Biden Administration fought Title 42 expulsions even as it officially maintained the COVID crisis was ongoing.

Asylum Policy Changes: The Trump administration implemented several changes to the asylum system, including the expansion of “safe third country” agreements and imposing stricter requirements on asylum seekers. These policies aimed to limit the number of individuals qualifying for asylum and the asylum process.

Immigration Enforcement: Trump focused on ramping up immigration enforcement, empowering Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to target undocumented immigrants, including those with criminal records. This led to apprehensions and deportations.

Indifference by Design

The most egregious aspect of Biden’s approach lies in his weakening of border enforcement measures. The termination of the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), has resulted in a surge of illegal border crossings. By allowing migrants to enter the United States while awaiting court proceedings (that more often than not are skipped anyway), Biden has effectively a “catch and release” system that encourages further illegal entry.

The Biden Administration, led by its disdain for immigration enforcement, In May 2021 began winding down Title 42. The impact of repealing Title 42 has been swift and devastating. The number of illegal border crossings has skyrocketed to levels unseen in recent history, overwhelming Border Patrol agents and immigration facilities. Our border communities are forced to bear the brunt of this burden, grappling with the consequences of uncontrolled immigration.

Furthermore, Biden’s reckless expansion of immigration enforcement priorities is a slap in the face to law-abiding citizens. The administration’s focus on dismantling ICE and limiting deportations has created a dangerous environment where criminal illegal aliens are shielded from justice. This flagrant disregard for public safety and the rule of law the very fabric of our society.

While the Biden administration claims to prioritize “humane” immigration policies, it conveniently ignores the humanitarian crisis that its own policies have exacerbated. The overcrowded detention facilities, unsanitary conditions, and the exploitation of vulnerable migrants are all consequences of an open-borders .By failing to provide a deterrent and a clear message that illegal entry will not be tolerated, Biden’s policies perpetuate a cycle of human suffering and incentivize more dangerous journeys.

Sound Immigration Policies, Not Border Chaos

It is not a matter of heartlessness or xenophobia to demand secure borders and a rational immigration system. The United States has a rich history of legal immigration, and we have always welcomed those who abide by our laws. However, Biden’s policies prioritize the desires of foreign nationals over the well-being of American citizens.

The solution lies in a balanced approach that combines border security, immigration enforcement, and compassionate solutions for those seeking legal entry. This means investing in technology and infrastructure to secure our borders, reforming our broken immigration system, and prioritizing the interests and safety of American citizens.

The Biden administration’s reckless disregard for the rule of law and the sovereignty of our nation will have lasting consequences. It is high time that we recognize the dangers of these policies and demand a return to a sensible, secure, and fair immigration system that puts America and its citizens first. Our nation’s future depends on it.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Truth About Joe Biden’s Immigration Policy appeared first on 51�Թ�.

A year and a half later, it’s worth reflecting on where the United States stands when it comes to both that forever war against terrorism and war generally. As it happens, the war on terror is anything but ended, even if it’s been overshadowed by the war in Ukraine and simmering conflicts around the globe, all too often involving the United States. In fact, it now seems as if this country is moving at breakneck speed out of the era of Forever War and into what might be thought of as the era of Eternal War.

Granted, it’s hard even to keep track of the potential powder kegs that seem all too ready to explode across the globe and are likely to involve the US military in some fashion. Still, at this moment, perhaps it’s worth running through the most likely spots for future conflict.

Russia and China

In Ukraine, as each week passes, the United States only seems to ramp up its commitment to war with Russia, moving the slim line of proxy warfare ever closer to a head-to-head confrontation between the planet’s two great military powers. Although the plan to avoid a direct confrontation with Russia clearly remains in effect, once taboo forms of support for Ukraine have over time become more acceptable.

As of early March, the United States, one of more than 50 countries offering some form of support, had allocated on 33 separate occasions, amounting to more than worth of humanitarian, military, and financial assistance. In the process, the Biden administration has agreed to provide , including Bradley fighting vehicles, Patriot missile batteries, and , while pressure for even more powerful weaponry like Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMs) and F-16s is only growing. As a recent Council on Foreign Relations noted, Washington’s aid to Ukraine “far exceeds” that of any other country.

In recent weeks, the with Russia has expanded beyond Ukraine, notably to the Arctic, where some experts see potential for direct conflict between Russia and the US, branding that region a “future flashpoint.” Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin recently raised the possibility of storing in neighboring Belarus, perhaps more of a taunt than a meaningful gesture, but nonetheless another point of tension between the two countries. 

Leaving Ukraine aside, China’s presence looms large when it comes to predictions of future war with Washington.  On more than one occasion, Biden has stated publicly that the United States if China were to launch an invasion of the island of Taiwan. Tellingly, efforts to fortify the US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region have ratcheted up in recent months.

In February, for example, Washington unveiled to strengthen its in the Philippines by occupying bases in the part of that country nearest to Taiwan. All too ominously, four-star Air Force General went so far as to suggest that this country might soon be at war with China. “I hope I am wrong. My gut tells me [we] will fight in 2025,” he wrote in a to the officers he commands in anticipation of a future Chinese move on Taiwan. He also outlined a series of aggressive tactics and weapons training maneuvers in preparation for that day. And the Marines have been three regiments for a possible future island campaign in the Pacific, while such battles in Southern California.  

North Korea, Iran, and the War on Terror

North Korea and Iran are also perceived in Washington as simmering threats.

For months now, North Korea and the US have been playing a game of nuclear chicken in parallel shows of missile strength and submarine maneuvers, including the North’s mid-March launch of capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and, at least theoretically, reaching the US mainland. In its leader Kim Jong-un’s words, it was intended to “strike fear into the enemies” of his country. In the last days of March, his military even launched a reputed underwater , taking the confrontation one step further. Meanwhile, Washington has been intensifying its security commitments to South Korea and Japan, flexing its muscles in the region, and upping the ante with the involving the South Korean armed forces in years.

As for Iran, it’s increasingly cooperating with an embattled Russia when it comes both to there and receiving from that country. And since Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the with Iran in May 2018, tensions between Washington and Teheran have only intensified. International monitors have recently concluded that Iran may indeed be approaching the brink of being able to produce enriched uranium. At the same time, Israel has been ramping up its threats to attack Iran and draw the United States into such a crisis.

Meanwhile, smaller conflicts are sizzling around the globe, many seemingly tempting Washington to engage more actively. On President Biden’s agenda in his recent meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, for instance, was the possibility of a Canadian-led multinational force to Haiti to help quell the devastating gang violence ravaging that country. “We believe that the situation on the ground will not improve without armed security assistance from international partners,” a National Security Council official ���ʸ�’s Morning Edition ahead of the summit. , however, backed away from accepting such a role. What Washington will now do — fearing a wave of new immigrants — remains to be seen.  

And don’t forget that the forever war on terror persists, even if in a somewhat different and more muted form.  Although the US has left Afghanistan, for instance, it still retains the right to conduct “over the horizon” air strikes there. And to this day, it continues to launch targeted strikes against the al-Shabaab terror group in Somalia, even if in far lower numbers than during the Trump years when drone strikes an all-time high of more than 200. So far, the Biden administration has launched 29 such strikes in the last two years.

American drone attacks persist as well. Only recently, in retaliation for a drone attack against US troops there that killed an American contractor and wounded another, as well as five soldiers, the Biden administration carried out against Iranian-backed militias. According to National Security Council spokesperson , President Biden has still not ruled out further retaliatory acts there. As he told Margaret Brennan on Face the Nation at the end of March, referring to ISIS in Syria, “We have under 1,000 troops [there] that are going after that network, which is, while greatly diminished, still viable, and still critical. So we’re going to stay at that task.”

Other than Syria and Iraq (where the US still has ), the war on terror is now particularly focused on Africa. In region, the swath of that continent just below the Sahara Desert, including Chad, Niger, Nigeria, Mauritania, and Sudan, among other countries, the legacies of past terrorism and the war in Ukraine have reportedly converged, creating devastatingly unstable and violent conditions, exacerbating what USAID official has called “decades of undelivered promises.”

As journalist put it recently, “With little public notice, the two-decades-long US war on terrorism continues in the Sahel.” According to the 2023 , that region is now the “epicenter of terrorism.” The in West Africa is in Niger, which, as Nick Turse , “hosts the largest and most expensive drone bases run by the US military,” intended primarily to counter terrorist groups like Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, and the Islamic State. from the war in Ukraine have found their way to such terrorist groups, while climate-change induced weather nightmares, deepening food insecurity, and ever more dislocated populations have led to an increasingly unstable situation in the region. Complicating things further, , the Russian mercenary paramilitary outfit, has been offering security assistance to , intensifying the potential for violence. US and in the region have grown apace as the war on terror in Africa intensifies.

Legislative Support for Eternal Warfare

Legislative moves in Congress unabashedly reflect this country’s pivot to Eternal War. Admittedly, the push for an ever-expanding battlefield didn’t start with the great-power conflicts leading today’s headlines. The 2001 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which paved the way for the invasion of Afghanistan, gave the president essentially unlimited authority to take offensive action in the name of countering terrorism by not naming an enemy or providing any geographical or time limits. Since the fall of 2001, just as (D-CA) predicted while casting the only vote against it, that AUMF has served as a presidential “blank check” when it comes to authorizing the use of force more or less anywhere.

Former State Department lawyer has pointed out that the perpetuation of “much of the legal, institutional, and physical infrastructure that underpin this decades-long” war on terror is now being extended to the Sahel, no matter the predictable results. As Soufan Group terrorism expert Colin Clarke told me, “A global war on terrorism has never been winnable. Terrorism is a tactic. It can’t be fully defeated, just mitigated and managed.”

Nevertheless, the 2001 AUMF remains on the books, available to be tapped in ever-expansive ways globally. Only this month, Congress once again voted against its .

Admittedly, the Senate did the 1991 and 2002 authorizations for the use of force that undergirded the Iraq War of 1991 and the 2002 invasion of that country. Notably, a new amendment proposed by Senator (R-SC) to also create an AUMF against Iran-backed militias in the region was defeated. As recent military engagements have shown, new authorizations have proven unnecessary.

Congress seems to be seconding the move from Forever War to Eternal War without significant opposition. In fact, when it comes to funding such a future, its members have been all too enthusiastic. As potential future war scenarios have expanded, so has the Pentagon budget which has grown astronomically over the past two years. In December, President Biden the , which granted the Pentagon an unprecedented $816.7 billion, than the year before (with Congress upping the White House’s suggested funding by $45 billion).

And the requests for the 2024 budget are now in. As Pentagon expert reports, at , $69 billion more than this year’s budget, Congress is on a path to enacting “the first $1 trillion package ever,” a development he labels “madness.” “An open-ended strategy,” Hartung explains, “that seeks to develop capabilities to win a war with Russia or China, fight regional wars against Iran or North Korea, and sustain a global war on terror that includes operations in at least is a recipe for endless conflict.”

Whatever Happened to the Idea of Peace?

When it comes to the war in Ukraine, there is a widely shared sense that it’s going to last and last — and last some more. Certain experts see nothing short of years of fighting still on the horizon, especially since there seems to be little appetite for peace among American officials.

While French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz have reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to consider peace talks, they seem to have few illusions about how long the war is likely to go on. For his part, has made it clear that, when it comes to Russia, “there is nothing to talk about and nobody to talk about over there.” According to , a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the mood in both Moscow and Kyiv could be summed up as “give war a chance.”

China is, it seems, an outlier when it comes to accepting a long-term war in Ukraine. Even prior to his visit to Russia in late March, offered to broker a ceasefire, while releasing a on the perils of continued warfare and what a negotiated peace might aim to secure, including supply-chain stability, nuclear power plant safety, and the easing of war-caused global humanitarian crises. , the summit between Xi and Putin made little headway on any of this.

Here in the US, calls for peace talks have been minimal. Admittedly, last November, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley the Economic Club of New York, “When there’s an opportunity to negotiate, when peace can be achieved, seize it. Seize the moment.” But there has been no obvious drive for diplomatic negotiations of any sort in Washington. In fact, , the National Security Council spokesperson, responded to President Xi’s proposal this way: “We don’t support calls for a ceasefire right now.” The Russians, he claimed, would take such an opportunity “to only further entrench their positions in Ukraine… [and] rebuild, refit, and refresh their forces so that they can restart attacks on Ukraine at a time of their choosing.”

Disturbingly, American calls for peace and diplomacy have tended to further embrace the ongoing war. The New York Times , while plugging future peace diplomacy, suggested that only continued warfare could get us to such a place: “[S]erious diplomacy has a chance only if Russia accepts that it cannot bring Ukraine to its knees. And for that to happen, the United States and its allies cannot waver in their support [of Ukraine].” More war and nothing else, the argument goes, will bring peace. The pressure to provide ever more powerful weapons to Ukraine remains constant on both sides of the aisle. As , the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee put it, “[T]his approach of ‘more, better, faster’ would give the Ukrainians a real shot at victory.”

Whether in Ukraine, in the brewing tensions of what’s being called a “new cold war” in Asia, or in this country’s never-ending version of the war on terror, we now live in a world where war is ever more accepted as a permanent condition.  On the legal, legislative, and military fronts, it has become a mainstay for what passes as national security activity. Some of this, as many , is driven by economic incentives like lining the pockets of the to the tune of multibillions of dollars annually; some by what passes for ideological fervor with democracy pitched against autocracy; some by the seemingly never-ending legacy of the war on terror.

Sadly enough, all of this prioritizes killing and destruction over life and true security. In none of it do our leaders seem to be able to imagine reaching any kind of peace without yet more weapons, more violence, more conflicts, and more death.

Who even remembers when World War I was known as “the war to end all wars”? Sadly, it seems that the era of Eternal War is now upon us. We should at least acknowledge that reality.

[ first published this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Can the US End its Frightening Addiction to War? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Even the nations of Europe most loyal to NATO have begun to understand the danger of committing to a war that they perceive as having less and less to do with Ukraine and everything to do with Washington’s belief in its capacity to control the global economy, even at the cost of undermining the economy of its allies.

Wars are expensive and produce a wide range of annoying effects. They end up taking a toll on people’s psyche. And though most of the time what the people think and want generally has little effect on policy, when elections roll around, their psyche might end up mattering. And even if the US manages to control the message at home, it counts on its allies, whose media are much harder to control from Washington.

The grief attached to the Ukraine war has begun to rattle some people in Washington. The Washington Post featured an this week with the title: “U.S. privately asks Ukraine to show it’s open to negotiate with Russia.” The three journalists who authored the article describe the delicate task the US government is faced with today, as many leaders in Europe are beginning to worry precisely about the state of their populations’ psyche.

Chorus for Peace in Ukraine Sings Louder

READ MORE

As the article’s title indicates, it isn’t a question of making decisions or revising policy. The point is “to show” something, not to make it happen. Politics will also produce a particular version of hyperreality, in which things need not be real. They must simply appear to be real.

The article claims to share with its readers the true motives of the White House, “according to people familiar with the discussions.” It takes the trouble to clarify what this “show” of being open does not mean. “The request by American officials is not aimed at pushing Ukraine to the negotiating table, these people said. Rather, they called it a calculated attempt to ensure the government in Kyiv maintains the support of other nations facing constituencies wary of fueling a war for many years to come.”

Americans can thus be reassured. The “show” isn’t: an attempt to provoke the unimaginable: actual negotiations with the diabolical Vladimir Putin. It’s nothing more than a “calculated attempt” to show something that isn’t true.

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Calculated attempt:

Carefully fabricated lie designed to create an impression opposite to visible reality

Contextual note

The trio of The Washington Post journalists articulate with precision what’s behind this need for a calculated attempt. “US officials,” they report, “acknowledge that President Volodymyr Zelensky’s ban on talks with [Putin] has generated concern in parts of Europe, Africa and Latin America, where the war’s disruptive effects on the availability and cost of food and fuel are felt most sharply.” In other words, this is neither a diplomatic nor a political problem. It certainly isn’t inviting a debate about the morality of war or promoting the advantages of peace. No, it’s about the image of a policy that is beginning to fray some people’s nerves in other parts of the world. In short, it’s a PR problem. The task at hand is damage control.

One person cited in the report has even given it a name. “Ukraine fatigue is a real thing for some of our partners,” according to one of their anonymous officials. Notice this official’s emphasis on the idea of Ukraine fatigue being “a real thing.” It’s the fatigue that’s real and worrying, not the horrors associated with the war or its consequences for humanity at large. 

Is Thinking Now Forbidden in the Media?

READ MORE

One interesting and revealing remark in this article concerns The Washington Post’s analysis of the state of opinion in the US, where “polls show eroding support among Republicans for continuing to finance Ukraine’s military at current levels.” The Biden administration and The Washington Post’s want readers to believe that only Republicans are questioning the unlimited generosity of the White House in its commitment to prolonging the war. In fact, a significant minority of Democrats (19%) also even supporting the Ukraine war effort, let alone signing a blank check.

American media and US politicians appear to be complicit in seeking to maintain the perception of an absolute contrast between the two dominant parties, even when, more often than not, they rarely disagree, especially on foreign policy. The insistent focus on a binary contrast and party rivalry conveniently serves to deviate attention from the more fundamental issues that neither of the parties seems eager to address.

Historical note

Most people are now aware of the fact that after a series of traumatic events we are living through a momentous period of history: four years of Donald Trump in the White House, three years of Covid and the dramas attached to it, the chaotic US withdrawal from the oldest of its “forever wars” in Afghanistan, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine followed by the apoplectic if not apocalyptic reaction of the nations associated in NATO, to say nothing of the increasingly visible effects of climate change. All these things have heightened everyone’s uncertainty about the future and of the trajectory of human history. 

�մǻ岹��’s journalism has an uncomfortable relationship with history. Journalists have traditionally preferred highlighting the drama of simple oppositions, of contests that pit one side against the other. They prefer reducing questions to the level of black and white decision-making. But history will always be complex. At moments of radical transition or transformation, simple oppositions cannot do justice to reality. Believing they can make things even more desperately complex. In this case it raises the very real prospect of nuclear war.

The Washington Post’s journalists acknowledge the growing complexity but decline to make sense of it. Here is how they describe the quandary the US is faced with. “The discussions illustrate how complex the Biden ���峾���Ծ����ٰ����پ��Dz�’s position on Ukraine has become, as U.S. officials publicly vow to support Kyiv with massive sums of aid ‘for as long as it takes’ while hoping for a resolution to the conflict that over the past eight months has taken a punishing toll on the world economy and triggered fears of nuclear war.”

In Times of War History Goes Missing

READ MORE

The journalists even highlight what has become an embarrassing historical fact, adding to the complexity. “While Zelensky laid out proposals for a negotiated peace in the weeks following Putin’s Feb. 24 invasion, including Ukrainian neutrality and a return of areas occupied by Russia since that date, Ukrainian officials have hardened their stance in recent months.” But that is as far as they accept to go.

Unsurprisingly – because that would truly complicate things – they don’t ask themselves the essential questions any journalist aware of these facts should focus on. Who are these “Ukrainian officials?” What is their relationship with Zelenskyy or Zelenskyy’s with them? What avowable or unavowable logic is behind the “hardening” that took place? Do the hardliners represent average Ukrainians or, as some have suggested, groups of radical nationalists with strong neoNazi sympathies? Are there other identifiable interests inside or outside Ukraine that have produced this hardening?

All mainstream journalists in the US appear not to be curious about these questions. Or perhaps they are instructed not to be curious in public. As the kerfuffle within the Democratic party around progressives timidly recommending negotiations showed, seeking peace is a forbidden topic of discussion. Policy, everywhere and always, is about power plays. So why shy away from tracking and analyzing them, especially when the stakes may be nuclear war?

For the media, the answer to that question is easy. Just as at the time of George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, journalists interested in keeping their jobs have been given a task to accomplish: make sure that the nation remains unified behind its leaders. It’s an argument that has some merit. But when things become this complex and downright dangerous, it may be time to reconsider its wisdom.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Biden Administration Makes a Show Of Being Open appeared first on 51�Թ�.

This law intends to give parents greater control over their children’s upbringing and comes at the heels of a raging debate around (CRT) and its purported instruction in schools (K-12). Debates around the bill also culminated in the passage of another bill- HB 7:The Individual Freedom bill, which quite ironically curtails speech by prohibiting classroom instruction, curricula design, and workplace training on particular kinds of discussions about race, color, sex, or national origin. Once again, the law does not define what those restricted forms of speech are. The of this law is to crack down on what DeSantis calls “wokeness”.

Advancements in Gay and Lesbian Rights over the Years: What went wrong?

While these two laws are specific to Florida residents, ongoing hysteria over sexuality, gender, and race in American classrooms has a long political and legal history. On the issues of sexuality and gender in particular, the United States has made tremendous progress over the years. Pew research show that three decades ago, nine-in-ten American adults (89%) would have been upset if their child told them they were gay. But by 2015, that number fell to just four-in-ten adults (39%). On the issue of same-sex marriage too, support has meteorically over the years. In 2005, only 36% of adults favored legalizing same-sex marriage, while a much larger 53% opposed it. By 2015, opinions flipped and 57% of adults favored same-sex marriage, while only 39% opposed it. However, this support/opposition was pretty much confined to party lines, with 65% of Democrats and 65% of Independents showing support for same-sex marriage, compared to only 34% of Republicans (as of 2015). At the time of this Pew survey, same-sex marriage was already legal in 36 states and the District of Columbia but wasn’t yet legal nationwide. Yet almost 75% of voters across party lines believed it would inevitably become the law of the land (this indeed occurred in the landmark 2015 US Supreme Court ruling,). So how did the United States go from legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015 to banning certain types of classroom and workplace discussions on gender and sexuality in 2022?

Most of the activism over the past three decades focused on securing rights for gay and lesbian Americans, which meant same-sex marriage was typically the key issue at stake. As far back as 1986, the US Supreme Court ruled in that the US Constitution did not grant homosexuals the constitutional right to engage in same-sex conduct (“sodomy”) even within the privacy of their homes. Further, the Court repudiated a lower court’s ruling that ‘gay rights’ emanated from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Seventeen years later in 2003, this judgment was overruled in, in which the same Court held that the reasoning in Bowers was flawed because the Fourteenth Amendment did in fact protect homosexual people’s liberty to engage in private and consensual same-sex conduct. 

By this time, debates around the (ill)legality of same-sex marriage had also taken center stage in American politics, with Congress the now-infamous Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996. DOMA defined marriage as a “legal union between one man and one woman” for federal purposes (under Section 3 of DOMA) and allowed states not to recognize same-sex marriages recognized in other states if they so wanted (under Section 2 of DOMA). Section 3 of DOMA was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court in (2013), and Section 2 fell in (2015). With Obergefell legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, any state ban on same-sex marriage was invalidated, effectively overturning DOMA. 

It should be noted that Windsor and Obergefell were decided by narrow 5-4 margins, and both victories emanated from decades of sustained efforts by gay and lesbian lawyers and activists. Such was the opposition they faced that a detailed 45 page by the Committee on the Judiciary accompanied the DOMA legislation, which cited the need for an Act like DOMA. The report spelled out the fear that legalizing same-sex marriage, even at the state level, would “divide people unnecessarily” and adversely affect governmental interets. These interested were not confined to “defending and nurturing” heterosexual marriage but encompassed a fear of state sovereignty “subversion” and the “impingement” of scarce government resources. 

At that time, no state in the US had yet recognized same-sex marriage. However, in May 1993, the Hawaiin Supreme Court held in that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples may constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. It was this ruling in Hawaii that then-Congressman Charles Canady and others called a “significant threat to traditional marriage laws,” leading to multiple same-sex marriage across the length and breadth of the US over the next three decades, with DOMA being just the beginning.

While gay rights activists may have ultimately won the same-sex marriage debate, new and unfamiliar issues now animate voters, specifically conservatives. These issues include the rights of transgender people and those beyond the lesbian and gay sexuality spectrum (i.e. those beyond the “L” and”G” of LGBTQ+). Since 2017, have considered passing “bathroom bills” that would prohibit transgender and gender non-conforming people from accessing multiuser restrooms, locker rooms, and other sex-segregated facilities of their choice. Instead, these laws would compel them to use rooms corresponding with their biological sex. As recent as April 2022, Alabama’s state legislature an expanded “bathroom bill” that would not only limit transgender and gender-nonconforming people’s bathroom access but also prohibit certain discussions of gender and sexuality in classrooms from kindergarten through fifth grade (very similar to Florida’s HB 1557). 

Florida’s law has been named the “don’t say gay” law by because of its vague language proscribing classroom discussions on gender and sexuality in any manner not conducive to state standards. Moreover, parental notification rules in the law have raised speculation by critics that teachers may be compelled to “out” LGBTQ+ students to their parents under this law. Conservatives, however, have pushed back on these claims, arguing instead that the law “protects” children from sexual predators and ““. By re-defining this law as an “anti-grooming” law, conservatives effectively draw from age-old tropes about homosexuality, such as the idea of a “”- one that popular American evangelical commentator and theologian Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. once as “propaganda for immorality” and “poisonous to Christian morality.” He was, however, referencing the increasing representation of gay and lesbian characters in Hollywood. Nonetheless, the is applied by conservatives today to address gender and sexuality in school pedagogy. 

What lies ahead?

Ever since Lia Thomas became the first transgender athlete to the NCAA swimming title, conservative media has run a series of non-stop against her, which included multiple instances of intentional misgendering that eventually ignited a new debate about ‘women’s rights’ and the ‘protection of women’s sports’. have already passed laws banning transgender girls and women from participating in sports corresponding with their gender identity, while have banned gender-affirming care for minors with gender dysphoria. This fixation with ‘protecting’ women and children has now become a common thread in many Republican-backed laws – from, to, to the slew of. The conservatives of today may have made a begrudging truce with same-sex marriage, but they still consider other LGBTQ+ issues a form of “dangerous woke propaganda” that is detrimental to children.

Clearly the path ahead is rocky. While gays and lesbians may have won the hard-fought right to marry, there is still a long way to go. Americans are still uncomfortable discussing sexuality, gender identity, and gender nonconformity, and only time will tell how all of this will play out in the courts and in the upcoming midterm elections.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post With Midterm Elections just days away, LGBTQ+ issues continue to provoke American conservatives appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Compared to a range of other industrial countries, the SGI 2022 shows that the US remains a weak in terms of sustainable policies in general (rank 33 out of 41 nations) and it receives middling scores overall (rank 22) with regard to economic policies – a topic which looms large for almost every US voter. 

Will American Democracy Perish Like Rome’s?

READ MORE

The SGI 2022 US Report explains that “GDP growth bounced rapidly back, returning to robust levels in 2021,” which coincides with the first year of the Biden administration. Massive emergency spending, which had already started under former president Trump, “included payments to individuals and firms, as well as expanded tax credits and unemployment benefits”. Based on the findings on economic performance, while the incumbent president’s party could be vulnerable, slight increases in some policy indicators since the Trump years, especially economic measures, also suggest that the incumbent majority party is unlikely to face a thumping defeat.  

The party polarization indicator of SGI – where the US is ranked as the most country – makes it plausible that both sides of a politically divided voting public feel energized in this election year, albeit for different reasons. Democrat optimism regarding their party’s chances to contain losses is driven by the recent Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that ended the nationwide constitutional right to abortion that had existed since the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. At least initially, the Dobbs decision had a significant energizing effect, especially on women, steering them towards Democratic candidates. In contrast, polls taken until the early fall of 2022 seemed to indicate that Republican-leaning conservative voters in small-town America may have felt complacent after the success of the conservative movement’s decades-long effort to strike down Roe v. Wade. 

The Trump effect

Former president Trump remains a central, and polarizing figure. Trump continues to claim falsely that the 2020 election was stolen and he has remained in the public gaze amid Congressional investigations into the January 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol and his handling of classified documents. As a consequence, Democrats’ campaigns focus on perceived threats to US democracy by Trump and his followers. From the perspective of SGI 2022, this strategy is obvious, but not risk-free. While the report states that there is “increasing tension over the conduct of elections”, and “voting rights have become a contested issue, with the Republican party seeking to suppress low-income and minority votes”, it is also true that Democrats have failed to pass a major voting-rights act through Congress despite their majority. The United States falls into the upper-middle ranks (rank 15) in terms of quality.

The Next Surge of Trumpism

READ MORE

Meanwhile, the Republican electorate is reveling in President Biden’s approval ratings of well below 50 percent, though ratings are not as low as it was a few months ago. In the polls, it is inflation, not abortion or democracy, that tops potential voters’ concerns. Recent economic data—which showed ongoing inflation—will keep it there. Nearly every US household is grappling with higher costs, energy and gasoline prices. But only Republican-leaning voters see inflation as the number one issue, blaming it squarely on Joe Biden and the Democrats. For Democrat-leaning voters, however, inflation is important but does not top the agenda, seen instead in the context of global economic disruptions following the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. For these voters, abortion rights for women after the Dobbs decision is the top issue. The number two and three issues for Republican-leaners are immigration/border control and rising crime. For the Democrat-leaning constituencies these topics matter less. For them, a close second after abortion rights is saving US democracy from the perceived attack by MAGA-Republicans, followed by health care.  

It’s the economy, stupid

But the mobilization of white suburban Republican and independent women who may be worried about the cost of living, school decisions or rising crime could neutralize or offset the impact of those who are mobilized by abortion and the threat to US democracy. As a consequence, Republicans aim to focus voters’ attention on crime and immigration and away from abortion. Meanwhile, rising prices and inflation remain a factor everywhere and will ultimately decide at least the House elections. 

In sum, the midterms are more than just a referendum on President Biden. A few weeks before election day, predictions of sweeping Republican gains have been tempered by the changing political climate, thanks in large part to the Dobbs decision, although the Republicans remain favored to take control of the House. In the final weeks, amid economic jitters, elections could turn on how much sustaining energy the Dobbs decision provides for Democrats or whether it fades in the face of so-called “kitchen table” concerns. 

What happens now in 2022 will also lay foundations for the presidential elections of 2024. If Trump-backed Republican Senate candidates like Herschel Walker in Georgia or J.D. Vance in Ohio do badly on November 8, 2022, Trump is less likely to be nominated as their 2024 presidential candidate. If Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida is re-elected as governor of the sunshine state for a second term, this will give him momentum for a likely bid for the White House. Conversely, if the Democrats manage to keep their Senate majority and win statewide races for governor and/or the Senate in crucial presidential battlegrounds like Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania, it would likely fuel confidence for a President Biden re-election campaign for 2024. On the other hand, if the Democrats fare badly in the midterms and other state elections on November 8, 2022, the current president faces rising pressure not to seek a second term. 

[We thank the Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) project of the German Bertelsmann Foundation for this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Much More than Congress is at Stake this Midterm appeared first on 51�Թ�.

US President Joe Biden has boldly claimed that the war in Ukraine will last “as long as it takes,” clearly meaning that the US will do everything in its power to make it last. For the media, that means months, if not years of sensational war stories as well as continuous coverage of a talented Ukrainian actor in the role of president. But the idea of another forever war stretching out for years to come risks turning off a population weary of being told that growing domestic problems are less important than the sacred duty of fueling a conflict in Eastern Europe.

Fortunately, Vladimir Putin’s sometimes heated rhetoric has allowed Joe Biden to feed the media with some authentic fear by evoking the risk of Armageddon, a term that should certainly resonate with Christan fundamentalists. It also revives for those who are old enough to remember memories of the golden years of the real Cold War, when people were investing in bomb shelters. It was a time when, at any random moment, Americans might be spontaneously visited by the vision of a mushroom-shaped cloud suddenly appearing at the end of the road stretching out before them as they drove back home from work. By the mid-1960s, they could begin wondering whether the hippies hadn’t made the right decision of tuning in, turning on and dropping out. That was truly a period of nuclear optimism. Thanks to the hippies, American consumers felt they still had a choice. Even learned “to stop worrying and love the bomb.”

The hyperreal ocean of electronic media we bathe in today has changed our perception of the very real risks that surround us. No one under the age of 50 today can truly appreciate the deeper anguish that characterized the nuclear age during the original Cold War. A in Insider from last Saturday epitomizes the change of atmosphere:“Putin’s nuclear threats are pushing people like Trump and Elon Musk to press for a Ukraine peace deal. A nuclear expert warns that’s ‘dangerous.’”

Yes, peace has become dangerous. The first paragraph makes its case: “An understandable desire to avoid a nuclear war could actually make the world more dangerous if it means rushing to implement a ‘peace’ in Ukraine that serves Russian interests, an expert told Insider.”

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Understandable desire:

A temptation whose attraction appears legitimate while recognizing that no virtuous person should succumb to it

Contextual note

The journal provides the author, Charles R. Davis, with the title, “Senior Reporter at Insider.” Senior clearly means experienced and well-paid. It does not mean over 50. Like many younger journalists, Davis believes his job starts with communicating his (and his journal’s) values to his readers even before reporting the news. He effectively does so by expressing his condescending judgment of weak-minded people who succumb to their “understandable” desires. The value he adheres to is the hallowed American ideal of assertiveness, or in this case, extreme assertiveness. The enemy of assertiveness is humility and a culpable preference for “peace” over war. It is usually referred to as appeasement.

Davis takes the astonishing step of accusing Donald Trump and Elon Musk of failing to be adequately assertive. But that is not all. They have failed in their civic duty for a specific reason: their unreasoned fear of nuclear war. They fail to understand that nuclear war is not something to fear. It is a useful concept real Americans must learn to enthusiastically embrace, not as a desired outcome of their actions, but as the trump card Americans play in the favorite game practiced by the daring minds on Wall Street:.

The reasoning of people like Davis – and the same may paradoxically be said of Joe Biden, though he is clearly over 50 – reposes on the belief that nuclear war is too surreal to ever become real. Davis clearly agrees with the man he interviewed, Pavel Podvig, “an expert on Russia’s nuclear doctrine and capabilities at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research.” As is common in today’s journalism, instead of challenging the “expert,” Davis prefers to record uncritically his assertions and denigrate the reasoning of his critics.

Davis begins subtly, by attempting to sound objective when describing what he holds to be the position of Tump, Musk  and other Kremlin apologists and spineless appeasers. “Some observers, in good or bad faith,” Davis writes, “have cited the possibility of the unthinkable as all the more reason to negotiate a ceasefire and have at times criticized the US administration they see as leading the world to the precipice of nuclear conflict with its steady stream of aid to Ukraine.”

By inserting “in good or bad faith” in the opening clause, Davis calls into question the sincerity of the critics. More significantly, by focusing on the fear of a nuclear holocaust, he consciously omits another complementary and more substantial argument: that extended wars spreading massive suffering locally and across the globe are in no one’s interest. They merit being resolved rather than prolonged “as long as it takes.”

The recent forever wars in Afghanistan and Iraq should offer convincing evidence of the validity of a futile course of action that has nothing to do with a nuclear threat. But Davis clearly assumes his mission of using the nuclear pretext to justify the White House’s adamant position that negotiations are out of the question. Davis dismisses that position as “capitulation, dressed up in a universal desire for peace.”

This is clearly not reporting. It is the language of bellicose propaganda.

Historical note

According to MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, Trump, as president, asked a foreign policy expert the, “if we have nuclear weapons, why can’t we use them?” Any moral philosopher would consider the question legitimate and probably necessary. Anyone with access to nuclear devices should seek to answer that question. But the anecdote served the virulently anti-Trump media agenda of mocking what they viewed as Trump’s failure to comprehend what everyone in Washington understands without ever having to ask or answer the question.

It’s not, after all, as if no ambiguity exists. Fifty years ago, in November 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis in a meeting with President John F Kennedy, General Curtis LeMay, a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, advocated nuking Cuba. He had obviously framed his own answer to Trump’s future question. Historian David Coleman the scene. “LeMay had told Kennedy that the course the President had settled on – a naval blockade of Cuba – was a bad idea and was ‘almost as bad as the appeasement at Munich.’ And at another point of this November 16 meeting, he advocated “solving” the problem, by which he meant implementing CINCLANT OPLAN 312-62, the air attack plan for Cuba.”

It was only decades later that the world learned about Kennedy’s choice of negotiating directly with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev rather than risking nuclear war. What had to remain hidden from the public and even the Chiefs of Staff was the major concession Kennedy made to remove the nuclear arsenal the US had installed in Turkey targeting Russia.

Davis somewhat comically believes that by pursuing its belligerent goal of weakening Russia “the US and its allies could hold onto the moral high ground.” Does he really believe the global community perceives the US as being a moral actor? Countries representing the overwhelming majority of the world’s population have, alas, evinced what Davis should acknowledge as an “understandable desire” for peace and avoiding nuclear war.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Insider Makes the Case for Nuclear War appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Throughout the summer, the president hoped to have made his point. But then came the dreaded October surprise. Biden appeared shocked by what The Washington Post as a “move by OPEC Plus last week to cut its oil output by 2 million barrels a day,” a decision that would most certainly “boost oil prices in the United States and worldwide.”

MBS should have known that bucking the always wisely calculated requests of the United States can be risky. The US will not brook insubordination. In this case, Biden’s reaction appears to be deeper than usual. Reducing production and letting prices drift upwards is one thing. Choosing the worst possible moment to do so is another. As The Post notes, “its timing a month before the midterm elections was a political blow to Biden that some in the president’s circle saw as a personal shot at the president.”

The insult MBS inflicted was so severe the White House is now officially calling into question the formerly stable and traditionally tight relationship that literally oiled the American global economic empire over the past 80 years. “President Biden,” we learned last week, “is kicking off a process of reevaluating, and potentially altering, the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia following the announcement by a Saudi-led coalition that it would slash oil production.”

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Reevaluating a relationship:

In US foreign policy, applying a variable set of often extreme punitive measures leveled against any disrespectful ally who fails to toe the line

Contextual note

An article co-signed by The Washington Post and AP offered this tasty designed to further embarrass Biden: “Saudi Arabia said Thursday that the U.S. had urged it to postpone a decision by OPEC and its allies — including Russia — to cut oil production by a month.” The White House desperately wanted to prevent a spike in gas prices ahead of November’s midterm elections.” This is clearly a low blow. Normally, diplomacy avoids deconstructing the ally’s partisan motives. The Saudis are telling Americans that Biden is more focused on electing Democrats to Congress than easing the pain of American citizens.

Gambrell notes that “the Saudi Foreign Ministry’s lengthy statement showed how tense relations between the two countries have become.” Tense is the right word. The past tense may henceforth be required when narrating the once unbreakable Saudi-US friendship, which, built around the petrodollar, had more closely come to resemble a collusion.

Biden’s team denied any purely electoral motivation. Instead, White House staffer John Kirby accused Saudi Arabia of coercing other OPEC members into endorsing a decision they didn’t agree with. Washington added the inevitable that the Saudis were “siding with Russia in its war in Ukraine.” The Saudis in turn responded that the decision was technical. Delaying it for a month would have had “negative economic consequences.” They took the moral high ground, claiming that they were guided by their “noble objectives to protect the global economy from oil market volatility.”

This is the kind of accusatory dialogue that occurs when two nations eager to vaunt their commitment to “noble objectives” suddenly fall to quarreling. Each wants the world to understand that its mission consists of sacrificing its self-interest for the well-being of the entire planet. Who could doubt �������������’s commitment to justice in the world or the Saudis’ to the stability of markets?

With neither side willing to back down, the debate ended with Biden predictably promising the kind of punishment for nonconformity the US routinely applies, while at the same time refusing to define what form it might take. “��’m not going to get into what I’d consider and what I have in mind,” Biden insisted. “But there will be — there will be consequences,” he maintained, with a more menacing tone.

Historical note

Though some claim it is all about the Saudis’ hope to see Donald Trump in the White House again, the rift between the US and Saudi Arabia is real and is likely to be lasting. It may have begun with the gruesome murder of Jamal Khashoggi four years ago, but it has now become a major geopolitical psychodrama, linked to the polarizing effect of the war Ukraine.

Alliances deemed unbreakable are now unequivocally exposing their fragility. New alliances will undoubtedly emerge. To what end, nobody knows. The US, ensconced in its “as long as it takes” posture, appears to have fabricated in Ukraine its latest “forever war.” By excluding any consideration of a negotiated settlement, it has brought the world to the brink of a nuclear holocaust. The escalating instability of a geopolitical reality no longer controlled by Washington, and even less by the United Nations, appears to be approaching a tipping point. When things get that grim, new configurations of alliances become as inevitable as they are unpredictable.

Here is how John Kirby put it: “In light of recent developments and the OPEC Plus decision about oil production, the president believes we should review the bilateral relationship with Saudi Arabia and take a look to see if that relationship is where it needs to be.” Only in American culture can a relationship be thought of as something to be defined in terms of what it “needs to be.” What could possibly be the criteria for defining such needs?

So, Washington is busy working on a new needs analysis. The Washington Post reveals that “calls to revisit �������������’s support for Saudi Arabia have emerged in Congress and elsewhere. Officials said Tuesday that Biden is doing so, but they offered no details on how the relationship might shift or what policies the president is considering.” We will only know once Biden begins his effort to “discuss this relationship with members of Congress.” That should produce some exciting dialogue focused on formulating and meting out appropriate punishment for the Saudis’ bad behavior. It is expected to include “limiting security cooperation; reducing arms sales; and removing OPEC Plus’s exemption from U.S. antitrust laws.”

Congressman Chris Murphy from Connecticut made this revealing comment: “The whole point of looking the other way when it comes to the Saudi war in Yemen and their awful human rights record was to make sure they would pick us in the middle of an international crisis, and instead they chose the Russians.” Punishment is clearly required.

Murphy’s comment sounds like the complaint of a lover who has been jilted. That means emotion is likely to trump reason. But it gets worse. CNN that the White House circulated “draft talking points” that “warned that it could be taken as a ‘hostile act.’”

Nostalgic for the halcyon days of the Cold War, the US has spent the past 30 years turning the ghost of an eviscerated post-Soviet Russia into not just a theoretical enemy but a frightening bugbear. It began when US experts intervened to redesign ��ܲ�������’s economy along the lines of their neoliberal “rules-based order.” When that experiment failed and Vladimir Putin began his work of reverting to a Tsarist style of authority to restore order, Russia the new US ally became Russia the much-needed traditional adversary.

Can the same thing happen with Saudi Arabia? It seems unlikely for multiple reasons. But if an adversarial relationship develops, who will the Saudis turn to and what will that mean for the balance of power across Africa, the Middle East and Asia and the ability of the US to maintain its global hegemony?

The increasingly hyperreal and hyper-militarized US once again seems surprised by events it can’t control. Welcome to the very real 21^st century.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten genera“��’m not going to get into what I’d consider and what I have in mind. But there will be — there will be consequences.”tions of readers of the news. Read more of 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Joe Biden Promises to Take on Mohammed bin Salman appeared first on 51�Թ�.

How do Rome and Tagliacozzo come into the picture in an article on Afghanistan?

Well, both places are relevant because my friend Tonino Bettanini is a philosopher, a politician and a Renaissance man with much expertise on Afghanistan. He was presenting his latest book, Bruxelles, Les Pelouses des Anglais (Brussels, the Lawns of the English) at the prestigious 38^th mid-summer international festival of Tagliacozzo. Fortuitously, , a noted Italian diplomat and author was also presenting his book at the same time. Pontecorvo was  NATO’s last senior civilian representative to Afghanistan and served as Italy’s ambassador to Pakistan.

Furthermore, Pontecorvo spent his childhood in the 1960s in Kabul and Islamabad, where his father also served as a diplomat. The  good ambassador was presenting his book, L’ultimo aereo da Kabul (The Last Flight from Kabul), which describes the last few days of NATO’s hurried withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 and his own departure on one of the last flights out from Kabul. 

Going to Tagliacozzo did not only give me an hour with one of Italy’s most talented and colorful diplomats, it also gave me Pontecorvo’s point of view on the current situation in Afghanistan. This was a godsend because the US had just killed Ayman al-Zawahiri on July 31. Obviously, Italy’s star diplomat had a lot to say and I have done a lot more thinking on the matter since.

Why kill al-Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri?

The killing of , the lackluster, pedantic idealogue of Al-Qaeda, brings a strange closure to the US “War on Terror,” which began with 9/11.  Egyptian-born al-Zawahiri, was known to be a confidant of Saudi Osama bin Laden, who was �������������’s public enemy number one, until he was found and killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan, over 10 years ago.

The Taliban-Occupied Afghanistan Threatens Global Security

READ MORE

The world had all but forgotten about al-Zawahiri and al-Qaeda. This organization had declined dramatically since the days of bin Laden and was no longer the most dangerous global Islamic terrorist organization. More deadly organizations such as ISIS have taken its place. Islamic terrorism has evolved extensively since bin Laden and al-Zawahiri masterminded the attacks on New York and, before 9/11, on several other US targets. The aging al-Zawahiri neither had the finances nor the sophistication to upgrade to “,” a concept popularized by Adewunmi J. Falode in 2018. Falode argues this terrorism “has two basic and definable characteristics: it is fratricidal and genocidal in nature.”

The killing of al-Zawahiri marks the end of a chapter for the US. However, its timing, significance and collateral results open uncomfortable questions. Since the killing of Osama bin Laden by the Obama administration in which Biden was vice president, al-Zawahiri’s role and importance has been downgraded by intelligence and political analysts. After bin Laden’s death, al-Zawahiri was proclaimed the leader of al-Qaeda. Under his leadership, the organization was unable to launch any significant attack on the West.

After hurriedly abandoning Afghanistan less than a year ago, the Biden administration has steered clear of South Asia. This has allowed China and Russia to increase their influence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The region is now literally in flames. Myanmar is being ruled by a pro-China military junta that executes democracy activists arbitrarily. The Taliban control Afghanistan. The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) are at war with the Pakistani establishment despite Pakistan’s close relationship with the Afghan Taliban and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) exercising much control over the Haqqani network. Both Pakistan and Sri Lanka are facing unprecedented economic catastrophes.

As if the mess in South Asia and Ukraine was not enough, Speaker Nancy Pelosi had to fly to Taiwan to fan flames in East Asia too. Curiously, this is precisely the time that the Biden administration authorized a drone strike to kill the most famous face in the US after bin Laden. That al-Zawahiri might never have been that relevant or important an operative is immaterial. It made Americans feel good and took Pelosi as well as Ukraine off the headlines for a day or two.

Not only Indian analysts but also South Asia expert Michael Kugelman, Pakistan might have had a role to play in al-Zawahiri’s killing. The army and the ISI need US support. So does the ragtag coalition government led by who is dealing with “an ailing economy amid political turmoil.” To ride out the crisis, Pakistani bigwigs have done what they always do: go with a begging bowl to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). With US support, Pakistan could get the latest installment of funds from the IMF and avoid defaulting on its debt a la Sri Lanka.

Other analysts that “Mullah Yaqoob, Afghanistan’s defense minister and son of the late Taliban founder Mullah Omar, disclosed al-Zawahiri’s location during his recent visit to Qatar.” Who enabled the killing of al-Zawahiri is neither here nor there. The key question here is simple: what does it achieve?

Justice, Revenge or Convenient Distraction?

One argument for killing al-Zawahiri is it brings this terrorist to justice. A reason to kill is America’s emotional need for revenge, which curiously might not be that different from the Pashtun tradition of . As this author mentioned earlier, the killing might just have been a convenient distraction at an inconvenient time.

�������������’s Afghanistan Fiasco: The Buck Stops With Biden

READ MORE

The Russia-Ukraine War is not going terribly well. Boris Johnson and Mario Draghi, two great proponents of war, have been defenestrated. The Russians are making slow but steady and bloody progress. Inflation has ripped through the global economy, putting hundreds of millions at risk of starvation. Biden, Pelosi and their fellow Democrats are increasingly nervous about November’s midterm elections. The word on the street in Washington is that Democrat staffers are now gunning for lobbying positions in anticipation of the defeat of their bosses.

The youthful-looking 82-year-old Pelosi has flown to Taiwan arguably to boost Democrat poll prospects and burnish her legacy. This visit has been an unmitigated disaster. has opined that her “trip to Taiwan highlights �������������’s incoherent strategy” and that the Biden ���峾���Ծ����ٰ����پ��Dz�’s foreign policy is a mess.

After al-Zawahiri’s killing, the farce of the has been formalized. The Taliban never observed this agreement. It is fair to say that it paved the way for the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul. After all, al-Zawahiri was living in a building owned by the Haqqanis in a posh Kabul neighborhood. The are infamous and powerful. They hold key positions in the Taliban government. As per the BBC, the Haqqani network is “one of the region’s most powerful and feared militant groups.” With al-Zawahiri’s killing, the US has joined the Taliban in signaling that the Doha agreement is dead and buried six feet under.

The Consequences of Killing an Aging Has-Been

The Biden administration might have scored a big point at home by killing al-Zawahiri. However, this killing will not go down well with the Haqqani network. As per the honor code of the Pashtuns, which is known as Pashtunwali, they are now duty bound to avenge the killing of a guest. After all, al-Zawahiri was under the protection of the Haqqanis and they have now lost face. Honor dictates that they act against the US.

As and when the Haqqani network strikes, Pakistan will find itself in a tight spot. Pakistani elites need to keep Uncle Sam in good humor. Inflation is rising, unemployment is skyrocketing and the state’s coffers are empty. For the 23^rd time since 1958, Pakistan needs from the Washington-based IMF. This is only possible with US blessing. If the ISI-backed Haqqani network strikes American targets, any politician in Washington will find it hard to make a case for Pakistan getting more IMF cash.

There is another fly in the ointment. Pakistan is not only suffering from economic meltdown but also political turmoil. The Afghan Taliban brokered talks between Pakistan and the outlawed TTP. They have ended in . A spike in cross-border terrorist attacks by the TTP have followed. In retaliation, Pakistan has launched airstrikes in Afghanistan targeting the TTP. This has led to a dangerous deterioration in the internal security situation in Pakistan.

The jihadist groups that the still somewhat secular Pakistani military backed to dominate Afghanistan and undermine India are now turning against their masters. It is yet another case of Dr. Victor Frankenstein not being able to control his monster. In Islamabad’s case, it has to deal with too many monsters.

Pakistan’s turn to violence is also because the state has become completely dysfunctional. The populist Imran Khan has been turfed out by Pakistan’s traditional dynasties. Military rule failed the country and now democracy is not delivering either. Kleptocratic elites are packing off their children abroad in droves. It is an open secret that property prices in Dubai go up when IMF money comes into Pakistan. The people are fed up with the system and are turning to jihadis for recourse.

Pakistan’s colonial state has been unable to deliver basic services to its people. This includes elementary education. Religious schools termed madrassas have stepped in to fill the void. These madrassas teach millions of male children the Quran and the teachings of the prophet. Numerous by various intelligence agencies and think tanks chronicle how these schools have increased fanaticism and become breeding grounds for terror. The Taliban are their most illustrious alumni. Even China’s CCTV News, generally not known for its worldliness, has now started making documentaries on .

Reports that Pakistan provided the information that led to al-Zawahiri’s killing will cause many, if not all, of radical Islamist Frankenstein’s monsters to turn on their master. Terror incidents are likely to increase in the country. Even if Pakistan is absolved of blame, the blame may land on Yaqoob. This will pit the faction led by Yaqoob and against the Haqqani network, creating conditions for yet another civil war in Afghanistan.

As Pontecorvo aptly summed up, “When Osama bin Laden flew to Afghanistan in the early 1990s as a guest of Mullah Omar, he started marrying Arab fighters to local women and vice versa. This created over 300 mixed Arab-Pashtun families who were part of bin Laden’s al-Qaeda entourage. Now, many of them are senior members of the Haqqani network, including himself. These families have both Arab and Pashtun blood, making it improbable that al-Qaeda and the faction of the Haqqani network will ever separate.” The killing of al-Zawahiri might set off the Loya Paktia and the Loy Kandahar factions of the Taliban against each other.

The Caliph v The Emir al-Mu’minin: Which Islamic Model of Statehood Will the Taliban Adopt?

READ MORE

Apart from triggering fratricidal fighting within the Taliban, al-Zawahiri’s killing will cause an upheaval in al-Qaeda itself. A new leadership will take over and might be leaner, meaner, younger, hungrier and bloodier than bin Laden’s sidekick. In fact, the killing might lead to just the sort of CEO change that al-Qaeda needed.

The Biden administration has clearly not thought beyond its nose while killing al-Zawahiri. This White House is proving to be fractious, overstretched and incompetent in its foreign policy decisions. Instead of closure to the trauma of 9/11, al-Zawahiri’s killing has opened a Pandora’s box in one of the most dangerous times since 1945.

This is not only my thinking but also those of my eminent Italian friends with whom I enjoyed an aperitivo in the glorious piazza of Tagliacozzo before driving back home.

(In an era of a global pandemic, social media wars and explosively evolving geopolitics, the human spirit and its expression have suffered the most. With apologies to Edward Morgan Forster, “Rome, with a View” is a view of humanity from an interesting perspective. The author, a third culture kid, gathers from his various perches in the eternal city of Rome — Caput Mundi,  the capital of the ancient world — the whispers of wisdom through the ages imperfectly and perhaps even unwisely.)

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Al-Zawahiri’s Killing Will Increase Global Chaos and Insecurity appeared first on 51�Թ�.

This aggressive response of MBS is unprecedented in US-Saudi relations. It demonstrates that MBS has consolidated his power within the kingdom. It also reveals how high oil prices have given MBS much economic clout. He now clearly believes that Saudi Arabia doesn’t need the US in the same way his predecessors did.  If anything the shoe is on the other foot. Biden is heading into midterms that his party is likely to heavily because of surging inflation driven by high energy costs. The American president needs MBS to pump more oil.

Rising Oil Prices Boost Saudi Economy

The latest economic forecasts have put more wind in MBS’s already expansive sails. London-based Capital Economics estimated that Saudi Arabia’s GDP might have grown by 10% in the first half of 2022 thanks to high oil prices. In their words:

“The oil sector has sustained its strong momentum. Production rose from 10.36mn bpd in April to 10.42mn bpd in May, translating into growth of 22.9% y/y….  Looking ahead, the prospects for the oil sector look very bright. The decision by OPEC+ to raise its output quotas by 50% in July and August will provide an additional boost to Saudi production. And if, as we expect, OPEC+ removes the shackles of quotas beyond September, Saudi Arabia is one of the few members that will be able to capitalise and we think that output will reach a record high by late-2023.

Capital Economics says the economy, and particularly the private sector, will be further boosted by the loosening of fiscal policies now underway and the distinct possibility of a  The VAT tax rate was tripled in 2020 to 15%. This increase was to shore up government finances under strain because of the then low oil prices.

Biden and MBS hit an impasse on the issue of human rights. That is immaterial. In truth, human rights was not a for the US president. What is significant is that Biden and BMS issued a  shared communique on the economic quagmire in which Lebanon is currently stuck.

As reported by :

In a joint statement, the two men “noted the importance of forming a government and implementing structural and global reforms in politics and economy so that Lebanon can overcome its crisis and not constitute a launchpad for terrorists, drug trafficking and criminal activities which threaten its stability (and) the region’s security.”

Using the King Salman Relief Center the kingdom $36 million in humanitarian aid to Lebanon in March. That was followed in April by the full restoration of that had ruptured over critical comments by Lebanese politicians over the Yemen war.

The Lebanese Economic Crisis

Since 2019, Lebanon has endured a complex economic and financial crisis, deepened by political deadlock, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the Beirut Port explosions in August 2020 and now the global food and fuel crisis. As the has highlighted, the ongoing political paralysis is destroying “key pillars of Lebanon’s post-civil war political economy.”  It cites the collapse of most basic public services and the flight of young Lebanese from a failed country in a colossal brain drain.  Both these phenomena will inflict further damage going forward. “Meanwhile,” the report acidly notes: “the poor and the middle class, who were never well served under this model in the first place, are carrying the main burden of the crisis.”

The comic Keystone Cops quality of the current situation emerged yet again on in a farcical judicial matter. Ghada Aoun is the presiding judge in a case against Riad Salameh, the governor of Lebanon’s central bank Banque de Liban (BDL). Aoun attempted to haul BDL’s big boss Salameh in front of court. Aoun first sent state security officers to storm Salameh’s residence in El Metn, a posh neighborhood in Rabieh, an upscale northern suburb of Beirut. When the officers did not find the governor at home, Aoun packed them off to the BDL offices in central Beirut. Again, they did not find Salameh.

The Aoun gambit did accomplish a couple of things. First, it rebuked the current caretaker prime minister Najib Mikati who called the incident a “raid for show.” Second, it led to a three-day strike by outraged BDL employees. The head of the BDL union declared: “We refuse to be treated with militia-like methods. We are not defending Riad Salameh but rather this institution, and these methods are unacceptable to us.”

The bank employees join several other strikers, among them university lecturers and public sector employees. In a broken country, gallows humor is now the order of the day. L’Orient Today summed up the current situation brilliantly:

“Do you need an “Ikhraj Eid” (extract of civil registry)? Sorry, it’s not possible. Do you need a passport? Sorry, it’s not possible. The public sector is collapsing as employees continue in their fifth week of an open-ended strike. Everyone is striking… The problem is that they are still being paid in lira. It is the government’s cowardly strategy of reducing the sector’s headcount through attrition. Expenses will definitely drop, but so will revenues. Where are the thinking heads? And they say they want to approve the 2022 budget! With what numbers? More made up ones.”

Lebanon is hurtling to disaster and time is running out.

[ first published this article and is a partner of 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Saudi Arabia and Lebanon: A Tale of Two Economies appeared first on 51�Թ�.

There was great interest in, and much speculation about, the outcome of US President Joe Biden’s July visit to Saudi Arabia. Once it moved from “will he, won’t he” to “yes, he will,” it gave rise to a cottage industry of op-eds, analyses, and roundtables. There was much talk about Biden and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) making up with the US, Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords. Aramco increasing oil production, Israeli security gaining primacy and the US leading the creation of a so-called Middle East Defense Alliance, including the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Israel—and, crucially, what the US and Saudi “asks” of each other might be. 

In the end, the meeting’s outcome was modest, but critical—it re-established a direct line between the White House and the Saudi leadership (read MBS). This was most likely the optimum result for this administration—not a relationship overhaul or reset, but a recognition that functionality must win out and thus communication at the top was restored.

The US-Saudi Relationship Was Never in Danger

Contrary to public perception, the fundamental relationship was never actually in peril.  Granted, certain elements came under pressure, especially due to respective domestic political considerations, and personal tensions over difficult issues such as human rights, press freedoms, the Yemen conflict and the Khashoggi murder that played out on the international stage.

As is the case for all new incumbents, Biden’s initial focus was to set himself apart—by some distance—from his predecessor, as much for his international as for his home audience. His was a particular mission to return the US to the more stable and reliable foreign policy upon which the world had come to depend. However, in the Middle East, his challenge was different. The leadership in Saudi Arabia had fully embraced former president Trump, while in the West, political watchers had waited in vain for the crown prince’s brash style to be tamed by the weight of office. But MBS was never socialized by his position of power, leaving the incoming Biden administration to shift gears and, in the eyes of Democrats, course-correct to a more traditional approach towards the Kingdom.

Biden’s assertive attitude towards Riyadh—from campaign through to entering the Oval Office—was more to address Democrat concern over Trump’s turning a blind eye towards behavior considered morally questionable by the US political left than it was to chastise the Gulf state. His pressing priority was to show moral strength to his party, and he made a series of decisions that set him on a collision course with MBS. His early announcement that he would speak only to King Salman, citing protocol, was a clear snub to MBS. Biden intended to deliver a message: we are going to play by the rules, and we expect you to do so too. In February 2021, the White House did two things. First, it released the on the Istanbul murder of Jamal Khashoggi. The report found that MBS had personally ordered the assassination of the Saudi journalist Adnan Khashoggi. Second, the White House halted US support for offensive operations in Yemen and suspended sales of specific weapons to Saudi Arabia.

MBS Plays Hardball

In response, MBS took his own hard line, which was intended to show both the Saudi population and international leaders that Riyadh’s policies will not be determined, or unduly influenced, by the US. He was striking out and his sentiment was widely shared by many Saudis and others in the Gulf. MBS was the personification of the feeling that Washington no longer calls the shots in the Middle East. With the advantage of youth, MBS basically shrugged his shoulders at Biden and said “whatever” as evidenced in his interview with in March.

The US calculus towards Saudi Arabia changed when Russia invaded Ukraine. The US and its European allies sought to respond to Russian aggression even as oil prices spiraled to around $140 per barrel. Rising oil prices left Biden with little choice other than to reach out directly to MBS after attempts to do so by National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan failed. Sullivan was unable to persuade the Saudi leadership to increase production and offset crippling price hikes. 

MBS’s’ well-publicized to take Biden’s “oil call” in March was something of a pinnacle moment. It not only inflamed personal animosity between Biden and MBS, but it also impressed upon both of them the necessity to dial things down and work together for the sake of their mutual national interests. Buoyed by a combination of high oil prices and the fact that he was feted by French President Emmanuel Macron and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, MBS must have felt vindicated that Biden wanted to visit. Global events had forced another gear change in the White House: Biden succumbed to realpolitik and met MBS in Riyadh, fist bump and all.

Convergent Interests

But underneath the public spat and the personal tensions, the multifaceted dimensions of bilateral ties—defense, trade, finance and investment—continued at pace, and in both directions. The trade volume between the two countries reached close to $25bn in 2021, a 22% from 2020. There was a significant rise in non-oil exports from the Kingdom to the US. Now, Biden is slowly thawing on defense sales with whispers that restrictions may be reconsidered in the near future. Some might point to the need for more oil on the market to combat high gasoline prices as a driving force, while others note a broader strategy to push Arab-Israeli security cooperation to counter Iran, particularly now that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) seems to be dead. Earlier this year, the US allowed the sale of Patriot missiles and anti-ballistic defense systems to Riyadh following Houthi attacks against the Kingdom. If the shaky, but still holding, recently extended truce in Yemen becomes a permanent ceasefire, the scope of US weapons sales to Saudi Arabia may broaden yet again.

While the Biden-MBS meeting drew most media attention, and many analysts, including your authors, rolled their eyes at the suggestion of yet another so-called Arab NATO project, the Jeddah visit did lay down some tracks towards developing a multilateral regional security framework. Instead of focusing on the harder security elements such as air and missile defense, the US and Saudi Arabia will seek to bring onboard the members of the by engaging with them at different times, paces and spaces on softer security issues in a bid to work towards greater multilateral security integration, but with no precise end date in mind.

By doing so, the Biden administration is continuing a long-held tradition of trying to develop a regional security architecture that incorporates Israel—following the success of the Abraham Accords—and advances Israel’s long trek to normalization of ties with Arab states. If successful, it would, on the one hand, allow the US to remain central to regional security and, on the other, reduce its level of commitment, as regional partners increasingly share the burden.

There is no question that the US would like to spend less time and energy on helping manage regional affairs, particularly given its focus on China. Its pursuit of a new regional security architecture bringing together ‘like-minded’ states to work collaboratively is a long-term project that may benefit from the catalyst of technological leapfrogging that could spur quicker and more comprehensive cooperation. But there can be no doubt that its success will only be realized if Washington shows unwavering commitment and constantly reassures regional leaders that they are valued and are never to be forgotten. Fist bumping with MBS may have stuck in Biden’s craw, but he knew that it was a necessary step to not only to open up critical communications between the White House and the Saudi leadership, but also to serve as a milestone in galvanizing regional partners into a security framework to meet the challenge of Iran in a post-JCPOA era.

[ first published this article and is a partner of 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post President Joe Biden, Crown Prince MBS and Realpolitik appeared first on 51�Թ�.

No one knows how this meal will end. Ukraine is eager to force Russia to disgorge what it’s already devoured, while the still-peckish invader clearly has in leaving the table.

This might seem like an ordinary territorial dispute between predator and prey. Ukraine’s central location between east and west, however, turns it into a potentially world-historical conflict like the Battle of Tours when the Christian Franks turned back the surging Umayyad army of Muslims in 732 AD or the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam in 1975.

The pivotal nature of the current war seems obvious. Ukraine has for some time wanted to join western institutions like the EU. Russia prefers to Ukraine into its russkiy mir (Russian world). However, this tug of war over the dividing line between East and West isn’t a simple recapitulation of the Cold War. Russian President Vladimir Putin clearly has no interest in reconstituting the Soviet Union, much less in sending his troops westward into Poland or Germany, while the US isn’t wielding Ukraine as a proxy to fight the Kremlin. Both superpowers have far more circumscribed aims.

Dirty Oil v Clean Energy

Nonetheless, the war has oversized implications. What at first glance seems like a spatial conflict is also a temporal one. Ukraine has the great misfortune to straddle the fault line between a 20^th century of failed industrial strategies and a possible 21^st century reorganization of society along clean energy lines.

In the worst-case scenario, Ukraine could simply be absorbed into the world’s largest petro-state. Or the two sides could find themselves in a punishing stalemate that cuts off the world’s people from vast stores of grain and continues to distract the international community from pushing forward with an urgently needed reduction of carbon emissions. Only a decisive defeat of —with its toxic mix of despotism, corruption, right-wing nationalism, and devil-may-care extractivism—would offer the world some sliver of hope when it comes to restoring some measure of planetary balance.

Ukraine is fighting for its territory and, ultimately, its survival. The West has come to its aid in defense of international law. But the stakes in this conflict are far more consequential than that.

What Putin Wants

Once upon a time, Vladimir Putin was a conventional Russian politician. Like many of his predecessors, he enjoyed a complicated ménage à trois with democracy (the boring spouse) and despotism (his true love). He toggled between confrontation and cooperation with the West. Not a nationalist, he presided over a multiethnic federation; not a populist, he didn’t care much about playing to the masses; not an imperialist, he deployed brutal but limited force to keep Russia from spinning apart.

Putin also understood the limits of Russian power. In the 1990s, his country had suffered a precipitous decline in its economic fortune, so he worked hard to rebuild state power on what lay beneath his feet. Russia, after all, is the world’s largest exporter of , its second-largest , and its third-largest . Even Putin’s efforts to prevent regions from slipping away from the Russian sphere of influence were initially constrained. In 2008, for instance, he to take over neighboring Georgia, he just forced a stalemate that brought two breakaway regions into the Russian sphere of influence.

Meanwhile, Putin pursued strategies aimed at weakening his perceived adversaries. He ratcheted up cyberattacks in the , expanded maritime provocations in the , advanced aggressive territorial claims in the . He also supported right-wing nationalists like France’s Marine Le Pen and Italy’s Matteo Salvini to undermine the unity of the EU. In 2016, he even attempted to further polarize American politics via in support of Donald Trump.

Always sensitive to challenges to his own power, Putin watched with increasing concern as “color revolutions” spread through parts of the former Soviet Union—from Georgia in 2003 and Ukraine in 2005 to Belarus in 2006 and Moldova in 2009. Around the time of the 2013-2014 Euromaidan protests in Ukraine, he began shifting domestically to a that prioritized the interests of ethnic Russians, while cracking down on dissent and attacks on critics abroad. An intensifying sense of paranoia led him to an ever-smaller circle of advisors, ever less likely to contradict him or give him bad news.

In the early 2020s, facing disappointment abroad, Putin effectively gave up on preserving even a semblance of good relations with the United States or the EU. Except for Viktor Orbán in Hungary, the European far-right had proven to be a complete disappointment. Putin’s fair-weather friend Donald Trump had lost the 2020 presidential election. Worse yet, European countries seemed determined to meet their Paris climate accord commitments, which sooner or later would mean radically reducing their dependence on Russian fossil fuels.

In contrast to China’s eagerness to stay on good terms with the United States and Europe, Putin’s Russia began turning its back on centuries of “westernizing” impulses to embrace its Slavic history and traditions. Like North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and India’s Narendra Modi, Putin decided that the only ideology that ultimately mattered was nationalism, in his case a particularly virulent, anti-liberal form of it.

All of this means that Putin will pursue his aims in Ukraine regardless of the long-term impact on relations with the West. He’s clearly that political polarization, economic sclerosis, and a wavering security commitment to that embattled country will eventually force Western powers to accommodate a more assertive Russia. Putin might not be wrong.

Whither the West?

Since the invasion of Ukraine, the West has never seemed more unified. Even previously neutral Finland and Sweden have lined up to join . The US and much of Europe have largely agreed when it comes to sanctions against Russia.

Still, all is not well in the West. In the US, Trumpism continues to metastasize within the Republican Party. According to a January NPR/Ipsos , 64% of Americans are convinced that democracy is “in crisis and at risk of failing.” Meanwhile, in a surprising last year, 44% of respondents in 53 countries rated the US, a self-proclaimed beacon of liberty, as a greater threat to democracy than either China and 38 percent) or Russia who got 38% and 28% of the votes respectively.

In Europe, the far-right continues to challenge the democratic foundations of the continent. Uber-Christian Viktor Orbán recently won his fourth term as Hungary’s prime minister. The super-conservative Law and Justice Party is firmly at the helm in Poland. The anti-immigrant, Euroskeptical Swiss People’s Party remains the most significant force in that country’s parliament. The top three far-right political parties in Italy together attract of the vote in public opinion polls.

Meanwhile, the global economy, still on neo-liberal autopilot, has jumped out of the pandemic frying pan into the fires of stagflation. With stock markets heading into bear territory and a global recession looming, the recently cut its 4.1% growth forecast for 2022 to 2.9%. The Biden ���峾���Ծ����ٰ����پ��Dz�’s perceived failure to address inflation may deliver the Congress to Republican extremists this November and social democratic leaders throughout Europe may pay a similar political price for record-high Eurozone .

Admittedly, the continued military dominance of the US and its NATO allies would seem to refute all rumors of the decline of the West. In reality, though, the West’s military record hasn’t been than ��ܲ�������’s performance in Ukraine. In August 2021, the US ignominiously withdrew its forces from its 20-year war in Afghanistan as the Taliban surged back to power. This year, France pulled its troops from after a decade-long failure to defeat al-Qaeda and Islamic State militants. Western-backed forces failed to dislodge Bashar al-Assad in Syria or prevent a horrific civil war from enveloping Libya. All the trillions of dollars devoted to achieving “full-spectrum dominance” couldn’t produce enduring success in Iraq or Somalia, terrorist factions throughout Africa, or effect regime change in North Korea or Cuba.

Despite its overwhelming military and economic power, the West no longer seems to be on the same upward trajectory as after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Back in the 1990s, Eastern Europe and even parts of the former Soviet Union signed up to join NATO and the EU. Russia under Boris Yeltsin inked a partnership agreement with NATO, while both and South Korea were interested in pursuing a proposed global version of that security alliance.

Today, however, the West seems increasingly irrelevant outside its own borders. China, love it or hate it, has rebuilt its Sinocentric sphere in Asia, while becoming the most important economic player in the Global South. It’s even established alternative global financial institutions that, one day, might replace the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank. Turkey has turned its back on the EU (and vice versa) and Latin America is heading in a more independent . Consider it a sign of the times that, when the call went out to sanction Russia, most of the non-Western world .

The foundations of the West are indeed increasingly unstable. Democracy is no longer, as scholar Francis Fukuyama it in the late 1980s, the inevitable trajectory of world history. The global economy, while spawning inexcusable inequality and being upended by the recent pandemic, is exhausting the resource base of the planet. Both right-wing extremism and garden-variety nationalism are eroding the freedoms that safeguard liberal society. It’s no surprise, then, that Putin believes a divided West will ultimately accede to his aggression.

The Ukraine Pivot

There’s never a good time for war. But hostilities have flared in Ukraine just as the world was supposed to be accelerating its transition to a clean-energy future. In another three years, carbon emissions must hit their and, in the next eight years, countries must cut their carbon emissions if there’s any hope of meeting the goals of the Paris climate accord by 2050. Even before the current war, the most comprehensive put the rise in global temperature at a potentially disastrous 2.7° Celsius by the end of the century (nearly twice the 1.5° goal of that agreement).

The war in Ukraine is propelling the world full tilt in the opposite direction. China and India are, in fact, their use of coal, the worst possible fossil fuel in terms of carbon emissions. Europe is desperate to replace Russian oil and natural gas and countries like Greece are now considering increasing their own production of dirty energy. In a similar fashion, US is once again oil and gas production, from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and hoping to persuade oil-producing nations to pump yet more of their product into global markets.

With its invasion, in other words, Russia has helped to derail the world’s already faltering effort at decarbonization. Although last fall Putin his country to a net-zero carbon policy by 2060, phasing out fossil fuels now would be economic suicide given that he’s done so little to diversify the economy. And despite international sanctions, Russia has been making a killing with fossil-fuel sales, raking in a record in the first 100 days of battle.

All of this could suggest, of course, that Putin represents the last gasp of the failed petropolitics of the 20^th century. But don’t count him out yet. He might also be the harbinger of a future in which technologically sophisticated politicians continue to pursue their narrow political and regional aims, making it ever less possible for the world to survive climate change.

Ukraine is where Putin is making his stand. As for Putinism itself—how long it lasts, how persuasive it proves to be for other countries—much depends on China.

After Putin’s invasion, Beijing could have given full-throated support to its ally, promised to buy all the fossil fuels Western sanctions left stranded, provided military equipment to buoy the faltering Russian offensive, and severed its own ties with Europe and the US. China could have broken with international financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF in favor of the New Development Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, its own multinational organizations. In this way, Ukraine could have turned into a genuine proxy war between East and West.

Instead, Beijing has been . Unhappy with Putin’s unpredictable moves, including the invasion, which have disrupted China’s economic expansion, it’s also been disturbed by the sanctions against Russia that similarly cramp its style. Beijing isn’t yet strong enough to challenge the hegemony of the dollar and it also remains dependent on Russian fossil fuels. Now the planet’s of greenhouse gases, China has been building a tremendous amount of renewable energy infrastructure. Its wind sector generated more power in 2021 than the year before and its solar sector increased by nearly 15%. Still, because of a growing appetite for energy, its overall dependence on coal and natural gas has hardly been reduced.

Reliant as it is on Russian energy imports, China won’t yet pull the plug on Putinism, but Washington could help push Beijing in that direction. It was once a dream of the Obama administration to partner with the world’s second-largest economy on clean energy . Instead of focusing as it has on myriad ways to contain China, the Biden administration could offer it a green version of an older to create a Sino-American economic duopoly, this time focused on making the global economy sustainable in the process. The two countries could in advancing a Global Green Deal.

In recent months, President Joe Biden has been willing to entertain the previously unthinkable by mending fences with and in order to flood global markets with yet more oil and so reduce soaring prices at the pump. Talk about 20^th century mindsets. Instead, it’s time for Washington to consider an eco-détente with Beijing that would, among other things, drive a stake through the heart of Putinism, safeguard Ukraine’s sovereignty, and stop the planet from burning to a crisp.

Otherwise, we know how this unhappy meal will end—as a Last Supper for humanity.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post China Will Decide Who Wins the Fight: Russia or the West appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Unlike President Harry Truman, who in December 1963 expressed his with the CIA’s acquired taste for skulduggery, Biden sees all virtue and no vice in the history of an agency created under Truman’s watch. Weeks after the assassination of President John F Kennedy, Truman had the temerity to pen an op-ed column for The Washington Post decrying the CIA’s betrayal of the mission with which he had endowed it: to gather facts and inform the president as transparently as possible. That presumably also implied refraining from acts such as fabricating facts or assassinating a sitting president.

Biden wants today’s CIA to understand that he feels none of Truman’s exasperation. He asserted to the faces of a new generation of operatives that for three quarters of a century “our nation’s intelligence professionals have worked unceasingly and sacrificed willingly to make our country safer.  And that’s not hyperbole.  That’s a simple, straightforward fact.”

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Hyperbole:

A deliberate exaggeration of the truth, the preferred figure of speech of politicians who depend on it to put to sleep the public’s capacity for critical thinking and reduce every issue to a binary opposition.

Contextual note

One thing it would be fair to say about Joe Biden is that he never gives up. His persistence in supporting the war in Ukraine to the last Ukrainian is a testament to his perseverance. As are the rhetorical devices Biden uses and abuses, over and over again. In last week’s speech to the CIA, the president insisted on three occasions that hyperbole is not hyperbole. “And again, not hyperbole, you are clearly the best in the whole world,” he insisted. Later in the speech, he offered a second example of non-hyperbole: “We’re the most unique nation in the history of the world.  That’s not hyperbole.” Whether it is or isn’t, some people would complain that there is no such thing as degrees of uniqueness. One can be unique but not the “most unique.” Which is one indication that what Biden claims is simply hyperbole!

At another point in the speech, after praising “the quiet bravery of the women and men of this agency” that has resulted “in lives saved, in crises averted, in truths revealed, in decisions of the 75 years of American presidents made better because of the insights you’ve provided,” he asserts “that’s not exaggeration.” Truman might have responded: “Of course it isn’t exaggeration, it’s a downright lie.”

On his trip to Poland at the end of March to bolster NATO and congratulate himself on his courageous decision to impose US drastic sanctions on Russia, Biden did an equally convincing of his skill of using the word hyperbole three times in the same speech.

“The fact of the matter is that you are the finest — this is not hyperbole. You’re the finest fighting force in the history of the world.”

He later added:

“Thank you very, very much for all you do. And it’s not hyperbole to suggest you’re the finest fighting force, not in the world — in the world (sic). That’s not hyperbole.”

Any expression of value, formulated in absolute terms, such as “the finest fighting force in the history of the world,” is likely to be hyperbole. Biden’s formulation can be nothing other than a hyperbole, which means, it is not to be taken literally. So why take the trouble to deny it, and no less than three times?

Biden’s trope belongs to a category of rhetorical figures called apophasis. Like most tropes it can be used cleverly (comically) and produce a strong effect. When a politician asserts: “I refuse to discuss the rumor that my opponent is a drunk” or when the candidate Donald Trump said of his rival, Carly Fiorina, “I promised I would not say that she ran Hewlett-Packard into the ground, that she laid off tens of thousands of people and she got viciously fired. I said I will not say it, so I will not say it.” Trump knew his audience would receive that self-contradiction as high comedy and an effective blow to his opponent.

Most masters of rhetoric style will point out that hyperbole should be used sparingly. It carries a serious risk of sounding phony. They also presume that a good politician will try to avoid sounding phony for fear of losing credibility with voters. So why does Biden constantly return to phony-sounding talk?

Biden’s addiction to hyperbole that he denies is hyperbole highlights a feature of linguistic practice that lies at the core of US culture. Most professional rhetoricians in the US understand that people recognize hyperbole and do not take it literally. It serves to make a strong point that can subsequently be nuanced.

Biden is different. In denying that his hyperboles are hyperboles, he is denying nuance. Like any carnival barker or conman, his rhetoric reflects a belief that Americans crave flattery, even hyperbolic flattery. When people feel flattered they are vulnerable to any other insincere message you propose, especially when convincing them to buy something. Perhaps he learned this from his father, who was a successful car salesman.

In US culture, so heavily influenced by the pragmatism of PT Barnum, it is considered a form of primordial wisdom to “give people what they want to hear.” It is much easier and far more effective than bothering about establishing the truth. US culture uncritically celebrates success, rarely questioning how it was achieved. The ethically suspect idea of “anything that works” has achieved the status of “common sense” in US culture. It is a softer version of “the ends justify the means.”

The problem for society and politics is that such a success-oriented and salesman-defined culture upends the value of sincerity in human relations. It encourages lying. This culture is what guides most US media in crafting their reporting to the perceived desires—rather than the needs—of their target audiences. What “works” doesn’t have to be true.

Historical note

Biden is known for tirelessly repeating the same formulation on multiple occasions. If it works once, the logic is, it will work every time. He isn’t alone. It’s a trick skillful politicians have used throughout history, from Cato’s Carthago delenda est (“Carthage must be destroyed”) to presidential candidate Kennedy’s standard phrase to introduce any discussion of foreign policy: “We live in a world that is half-slave and half-free.”

It would hardly be hyperbole, however, to suggest that Biden may be in a category of his own, so frequent is his practice. How many times have we heard Biden say, “we lead not by the example of our power, but by the power of our example” as if it was an original thought and a deeply moral realization that had just popped into his head? He pulls the rabbit out of his rhetorical hat once again in his speech to the CIA. Back in January 2021, we commented that when he included it in his inauguration speech with this friendly advice: “a witty rhetorical figure loses its quality of wit when parroted over and over again.”

Biden has a litany of other examples, such as when he insists that “we can define America in one word: Possibilities.” And then there’s his favorite, “there has never been anything we haven’t been able to do when we’ve done it together,” which, on occasion, he mangles to mean its opposite (“There’s never been anything we’ve been able to accomplish when we’ve done it together,” spoken at the Democratic convention that nominated him in 2020).

Critics may conclude that mindless repetition occurs when the rational content of discourse vanishes. In Biden’s case one may wonder if it was ever there. At 79 going on 80, Biden, apparently seeking to run again in 2024, is already the “most unique” president, if age is the criterion. And that is most certainly not hyperbole.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Biden’s Hyperbolic Fawning Before the CIA appeared first on 51�Թ�.

P.S. Each heading is a quote from something somewhere or other. To the person who emails me 11 correct identifications, I’ll buy you a drink at Martin’s Tavern…or we can have a friendly chat over the phone while ��’m at Martin’s having a drink. Why 11? Because that’s how we play NumberWang around here.]

“Milton Friedman isn’t running the show anymore.”                                                
Joe Biden –

Glibly thus did then-presidential candidate Joe Biden describe his economic vision for America on the campaign trail in April 2020. Had he not so clearly delineated his economic approach against that of the Nobel Prize-winning economist of the Chicago School, comparisons between Republican policies and Democratic policies might be murkier. The results of Biden’s 2021 stimulus package are now in. As senior economists at the US Treasury warned him, this package was bound to be inflationary and has to be so. Good old Milton Friedman would have told him the same. It is clear now as to who is running the economic show.

When Biden spoke those words, I was reminded, as I am more so now, of the t-shirts that were in vogue in my youth that read:

“God is dead.”

                        -Nietzsche

“Nietzsche is dead.”

                        -God

President might think the economy is going great guns. He might even think that Afghanistan was a success. Maybe the actually believe we have the “fastest-growing economy in the world” () or that core inflation is down (), but most Americans are not quite as convinced. They’re worried about inflation and consumer sentiment plunged to an low. The Business Roundtable CEO Economic Outlook Index has dramatically in six months. After 18 months of Biden’s presidency, and amidst the January 6 Committee’s anti-Trump extravaganza, people Trump to Biden in a head-to-head contest.

Given the dire state of affairs, this would be the time for the president to get serious, demonstrate clear thinking and come up with new ideas. Instead, Biden has published a rather curious detailing his plan to tackle inflation in The Wall Street Journal. Sadly, this plan amounts to very little. Biden grandly promises three things:

1. To leave the Federal Reserve alone,
2. To push green energy, and
3. To reduce the deficit.

To use this Irish Catholic president’s own words, this plan is .

“Don’t use three words when one will do, don’t shift your eyes, look always at your mark but don’t stare, be specific but not memorable, funny but don’t make him laugh, he’s gotta like you then forget you the moment you’ve left his sight…”

Biden’s op-ed is rather prolix. He uses a lot of words but says little and is utterly forgettable. There is another point to remember. The law prohibits Uncle Joe from playing footsie or getting handsy with the Federal Reserve. So, the president is promising not to do what the law tells him not to do. No shit, Sherlock!

In recent months, the Federal Reserve has not exactly covered itself with glory. The cover story of the April 23^rd-29^th edition of was “The Fed That Failed.” I agree. ��’m not sure I have faith in the very people who ignored inflation as a “” phenomenon. Yet I would prefer they deal with inflation instead of Uncle Joe.

Ah, dream too bright to last!

Ah, starry hope! that didst arise

But to be overcast!

Biden’s second promise kicks the fever dream of ideologues on the left. They believe that a Green New Deal would build infrastructure, create jobs, and bring down inflation at the same time. It would be a magic bullet or, even better, a bullet train to the Promised Land.

This green romance does not seem to survive first contact with reality though. Nickel prices may not be at the highs they soared to in March but they are still bloody , and you can’t go green without Class 1 nickel. Even if we did have reasonable nickel prices, the US has a nickel mine, the Eagle Mine in Michigan. There is simply not enough nickel to go green. 

Furthermore, as we learned from the energy crisis of the 1970s, it’s not great to put all your eggs in a foreign-sourced basket. This is what the Biden administration has ended up doing by the mining leases of the Twin Metals mining project that was the other nickel mine in the US. 

Twin Metals claims it has of US nickel reserves, yet Biden’s Interior secretary said she if it will ever be allowed. We import a lot of nickel. In fact, Russia is one of the main suppliers of to the US. So, nickel mines in the US make eminent sense. Instead, the administration seems to be hell bent on killing nickel babies in their cradles and putting clean energy security at the mercy of the likes of Russia.

It is not just nickel that is scarce. We have a single US mine for rare earths. China produces four times what we do and makes up 60% of the rare earths global market. There’s no way we can be a green energy powerhouse when China has six state-owned mining companies while the US has only one, single mine: Mountain Pass. We very much have a simple problem; the US lacks the raw materials to go green.

It is not just raw materials that are the problem. When it comes to solar power, of all panels installed in the US come from China and Southeast Asia. Note that panels from the latter part of the world are manufactured by Chinese companies. These companies have been accused of dumping solar panels into the US market, undercutting American companies in the process. These companies petitioned the US Commerce Department, which launched an investigation into the matter.

Under the Biden administration, that investigation has been practically . So, China will continue to corner the market in solar and we will offshore our green energy to the Middle Kingdom. Under President Pangloss, we will build the entire US green economy around the kindness of strangers from sea to shining sea.

I would think that the key lever to control inflation would be to curb energy prices. Since February 24 when Russia invaded Ukraine, there has been a supply shock when it comes to oil and natural gas. For years, the Democrats have been squeezing domestic energy production and distribution in an idealistic and ideological pursuit of making the US cleaner and greener. They have killed offshore drilling, fracking, shale gas, the Keystone XL pipeline and the like.

Today, the US needs more domestic production and distribution if it is to control inflation and achieve energy security. Yet the Biden administration seems to be unable to dismount from its ideological high horse. The president is busily sending oil execs nasty , oil and gas lease auctions, and doing his best to make sure the US doesn’t have lease sales while he’s in office. 

Biden has anointed to draw up the US offshore energy policy. She has drafted a five-year that was released on July 1, in a pre-July 4 holiday Friday afternoon news dump. This makes drilling all but impossible in the waters off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. If this does not tighten energy supply, I don’t know what else will.

Instead of producing more oil and natural gas, the US seems to be looking to import them from abroad, including Iran and Venezuela. Surely, it is unlikely that their production methods are cleaner than US ones. Also, why should US taxpayer money go to foreign ones, especially those with a history of hostility to Uncle Sam.

It is not only production but also refining capacity that needs to go up in the US. That would lower oil prices at the pump and bring down inflation. Yet Chevron’s CEO, Mike Wirth, recently said he didn’t envision a new US refinery . What is going on?

Refineries are capital intensive. As Wirth said, “You’re looking at committing capital 10 years out, that will need decades to offer a return for shareholders, in a policy environment where governments around the world are saying we don’t want these products.” Given the likes of Lefton in charge, it makes little sense for Wirth or any oil and gas executive to make capital investments in the US.

In the country of the motor car, Biden has promised to fossil fuels. He has turned up the rhetoric against oil companies. Recently, the president said, “Exxon made more money than God last year” before angrily telling the company “Start investing. Start paying your taxes.” For all its faults, it is highly unlikely that Exxon stopped doing either.

Few know that oil companies have to pay royalties when they drill on federal lands. These have remained flat for more than a century, but recently the Biden administration hiked up royalties by a whopping . Given surging inflation, this is not exactly the best time to hike up royalties. Biden claims oil companies aren’t investing and are consumers. It seems that the Biden administration is doing the gouging instead. Note that gasoline prices went up by over during the first year of the Biden presidency. Blaming the “Putin price hike” for all the US energy troubles is a bit too clever by half.

Lately, I feel the haters eatin’ away at my confidence
They scream out my failures and whisper my accomplishment

Biden’s third promise is to reduce the deficit. In his op-ed, Biden’s claims that he has already done so. Yet the president feels that people do not give him credit for his many accomplishments. Is this true?

Let us just examine one of the accomplishments for which Biden pats himself on his back. The president claims that he has reduced the deficit this year. Given that he passed the $1.9 trillion COVID stimulus last year, a reduction in the deficit this year was not such a big deal. As pointed out earlier, economists in the US Treasury had told senior officials in the Biden administration that the stimulus would be inflationary as it has clearly proved to be.

Biden has also signed into law further spending of $1.1 trillion on “infrastructure,” which takes his total expenditure to $3 trillion already. Ironically, little of the money earmarked for infrastructure will actually be spent on infrastructure. Yet Biden has the cajones to tout his credentials as a deficit reducer. 

In reality there are three reasons why he isn’t increasing the deficit in a wild blowout. First, the US Congress has put the kibosh on Build Back Better, which originally planned to spend approximately $4.5 trillion over 10 years. Second, the COVID panic is finally over in the US. Third, tax receipts are way up because job numbers are up with COVID under control and -triggered wage increases have put people in higher tax brackets.

At a time when the stock markets have crashed and people are feeling poorer, Biden makes another curious argument in his op-ed. He will dramatically increase the budget for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to collect “taxes Americans already owe.” As many others have done before him, the president is promising to reduce the infamous “tax gap,” the $600 billion that the IRS loses out on because of unreported payments (often in cash) and the sheer complexity of the US tax code. While I support collecting taxes that are owed, significantly increasing the size of a tarnished, IRS at a time of economic and political uncertainty does not make sense.

While concluding this op-ed, Biden does what any good politician does in a campaign. He paints his Republican rivals as barbarians at the gate who would sack the US economy. Most Americans now no longer buy Biden’s shtick. They have lost confidence in his competence to run the economy and the midterms are likely to reflect that fact.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post This is Biden’s Inflation Plan‽ appeared first on 51�Թ�.

US President Joe Biden and many Democrats have argued for a . They seem to emulate Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal that pulled the US out of the Great Depression. They believe that public investment in green energy and new technologies will fight climate change, create high-paying jobs in the US and boost the American economy.

We spoke to Contributing Editor Christopher Roper Schell, a Capitol Hill veteran who has also worked on the Pentagon, to make sense of the Green New Deal in the context of soaring oil and gas prices, and the prospect of blackouts.

Christopher Roper Schell on Joe Biden’s Energy Policy

(We have edited this transcript lightly for clarity.)

Is clean energy a mirage? 

Christopher Roper Schell: It depends on what you mean by clean energy. 

If you think windmills and solar panels are going to run the US electric grid, that’s not going to happen.

What we need is baseload power and baseload power is going offline primarily because of the economic incentives behind green energy in the United States. Interestingly, CO₂ has been declining substantially, primarily because natural gas is simply cheaper.

What we’ll have to concern ourselves with is to ensure that we do not have the blackouts we’re being warned against. A semi-regulatory body has issued a warning that up to 2/3 of America could experience blackouts this summer. That is simply unacceptable to Americans and a green energy future that eventually has blackouts is not going to transpire.

What is the significance of high gas and nickel prices? 

Christopher Roper Schell: For the Greens, high gas prices are the point: they actually want gasoline prices to go up. However, Americans have rejected this.

They’re getting a look at what a potential carbon tax would look like, and they don’t like it. The Biden administration has tried to suffocate traditional energy sources such as natural gas and oil. In fact, the Chevron CEO said last week that he didn’t envision another refinery ever in the United States.

There’s clearly a rebellion against high gas prices and also against nickel prices. Nickel goes into almost everything that’s green and the US doesn’t produce that much of it. There is one single nickel mine in the US.

And we’re seeing nickel prices that are at peaks that we have not seen for the last 30 years. America cannot go green without producing a lot of nickel cheaply, and that’s not happening. 

Watch the full video here

Is there a supply-side threat from China? 

Christopher Roper Schell: Yes, there is. China produces four times more rare earths than America does. China has six rare earths mining companies. America has one mine.

In terms of solar panels, most of the US solar panels that are installed come from foreign shores; about 90% in fact. 

Interesting story — is this little bitty US domestic solar panel producer, and they have filed a complaint with the Commerce Department. The Commerce Department began investigating and the installation of solar panels completely froze in this country. Ultimately, the Biden administration stepped in and declared that there would be no new tariffs on imported solar panels to prevent the market from collapsing.

So in this rush to green utopia, the administration decided that it’s OK to support China and to essentially leave their own domestic suppliers out to dry. 

Is the Keystone XL pipeline the answer? 

Christopher Roper Schell: No one disputes that Keystone XL would have produced 830,000 barrels of oil a day. That’s a drop in the bucket in terms of global consumption.

The big problem today is that we just need to produce more oil and currently producers are not responding to price signals. Why? Because they’ve been punished.

Last week, Biden said of Exxon, pay your taxes. I didn’t know that oil producers had ever stopped paying taxes, but the president is using all sorts of regulatory methods to disincentivize the production of oil and gas.  Amongst other things, as I mentioned earlier, he’s not holding . I know he will say that there are already loads of outstanding leases, but that also means that they need permits. And oftentimes, the Biden administration has not allowed permits.

Either way, it’s better to get oil from places like the US and Canada via Keystone vis-à-vis places like Iran and Venezuela. 

Is the Green New Deal now dead? 

Christopher Roper Schell: Let me put it this way, no politician right now is saying if you like your new high gas prices, you can keep your new high gas prices. 

[There is now no appetite for] a carbon tax. The Green Deal is dead if it ever was alive. While people may virtue signal with their post-consumer cup or rich people may drive around feeling very fancy in their electric cars, the fact is that most people aren’t willing to make the major compromises they will have to make for a Green New Deal type future.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Why Joe Biden’s Green Energy Policy is Dead appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Then-presidential candidate Biden’s comment undermined the near century-long relationship of deeply interwoven national interests between America and Saudi Arabia. This has ramifications that include the history of the mass murder on 9/11 and the slaughter of , who had at one time been editor of the Saudi newspaper, Al Watan, as well as being longtime advisor to Saudi Intelligence chief Prince Turki Al-Faisal.

Neither an American President nor a Saudi Prince can escape these harsh realities.

Saudi Arabia’s proven oil run deep, as it is home to the world’s largest oil field, and the country clearly holds in the oil and gas basin. With 298 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, according to 2019 estimates, only Venezuela edges ahead of Saudi Arabia at 302 billion barrels.

US stand at 69 billion barrels, in the top 10 nations worldwide, but as the most consumer at almost 17.2 million barrels per day, or 20% of the world’s supply, as revealed by US Energy Information , US supplies may diminish before those of Saudi Arabia.

This is a key factor in the US-led drive to pursue renewable energy that will perhaps liberate the United States from dependence on hydrocarbons, exacerbated by the high cost of gasoline. Exorbitant prices at the pump are influenced by the pandemic, the war in Ukraine and the trend of price .

Balancing Biden’s diplomatic rhetoric

Instead of a sweeping rebuke, perhaps an acknowledgement of the heinous crime without the excoriation of the US’ most valuable ally in the Muslim-majority world, would have been more astute. This is a region where memories are measured by the reigns of monarchs and time dates back to the Hijra, the Prophet Mohammed’s divinely ordained decampment from Mecca, in the year 622 of the modern era.

Middle East’s rulers and officials will trace Biden’s legacy back to President Barack Obama’s policies, which further divided a Muslim world already wrenched apart by the global war on terror. Obama’s presidency in this region is defined for many by a US stance that empowered Islamists over Muslims and favored cultivating the mothership of Islamism, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, under former Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi. 

Many in the region also say the era also empowered the AKP Islamists by Turkey’s President at the expense of the persecuted Kurds. Some report these US policies also emboldened Shia Islamist Iran during their colonization and proxy wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen’s internecine civil war.

Yet despite being embroiled in Yemen in the South and being flanked by a deeply conflicted Iraq and failed Syrian state, Saudi Arabia is demonstrating a certain facility at playing the long game.

On the threshold of Biden’s visit, Saudi Arabia’s allies are now confronting a nuclear power in Iran that has sufficient uranium to be weaponized. recently disconnected 27 monitoring camera-feeds to the international atomic energy agency.

In Northern Tehran at the Saadabad Palace, President of Iran Sayyid Ebrahim Raisolsadati and Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela signed a 20-year deal to rebuild Venezuela‘s refining capabilities. This will enable Iranian engineers to help process Venezuela‘s crude oil in exchange for Iranian condensates to make Venezuela‘s oil more attractive on the global market.

Also in the region, Israel is reportedly escalating its own aggressive activities aimed at defanging nuclear Iran while forming security alliances not only with the Abraham Accords’ nations but also with Saudi Arabia.

Biden states that he is attending the summit in Saudi Arabia to solidify US national security in the region and beyond. But the region, including the two custodians of the world’s oldest Abrahamic religion and its youngest – Israel and Saudi Arabia – are no longer heeding US intentions. They are reportedly following their own regional security concerns and increasingly shared foreign policies.

Saudi Arabia is complicated and critical for the US

In the last 20 years since leaving Saudi Arabia where I practiced medicine and performed the Hajj, there has been an undeniable expansion of both the voice and rights for men and women.

Since 2013, the Majlis al-Shura Consultative Council (a legislative consultancy in existence since 1926) has instituted, by law,  a mandatory 20% quota for women representatives. Saudi Arabia has become more porous to the international world as both its intellectual liberals and its orthodox clerics enjoy expanded accessibility by the Saudi public. This is posing a new to the Saudi monarchy, which must manage the impact of clerics with millions of followers on social media channels.

Saudi Arabia’s conceived by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to realize Saudi Arabia’s post-petrochemical future, includes the goal of a vast expansion of its international tourism that attracts millions of religious pilgrims from around the world. In 2019 the country expanded access to tourists through e-visas, a program launched just before the global pandemic.

To be sure, political dissent is not tolerated in Saudi Arabia and remains a global human rights concern. Khashoggi’s reported political dissidence resulted in his state-sponsored assassination. More recently, in March 2022, Saudi authorities carried out a mass of 81 men.

These painful realities must inform and shape both the current diplomacy and the direction of future policies between the US and Saudi Arabia, a relationship that will continue long after Biden’s administration ends.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Biden’s America and MBS’s Saudi Arabia: Is Diplomacy Possible? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The headlines in the United States have all been about Ukraine, inflation, and gun violence. Biden’s trip was designed to prove that the United States is in fact focused on one thing above all: China, China, China.

The strengthened alliance with South Korea is a signal to Beijing that the more accommodating era of the Moon Jae-in administration is over. The Quad meetings are part of a strategy of countering China’s ambitions in the region including its ports and bases along the Asian littoral. And the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework is a deliberate effort to roll back China’s considerable economic ties with its neighbors.

If you believe that China is the most important threat to US interests, all of these moves make perfect sense. Indeed, Biden’s trip to Asia generally from the foreign policy elite in Washington, DC. Virtually the entire US expert class believes that it is necessary to confront China.

Push Reset Button with Beijing

This fear of China, however, has created a certain blindness. By , the United States is missing a golden opportunity. The Biden administration should be taking advantage of the war in Ukraine to push the reset button with Beijing. Closer relations with China would serve to isolate Russia, reorient the global economy in a more sustainable direction, and even reduce inflation in the United States.

The easiest and most obvious policy change the Biden administration should make involves the Trump-era tariffs on Chinese products. Indeed, some members of the administration, notably Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, have indicated for reducing the tariffs. Tariff reductions could bring inflation down within a year by a full percentage . That would be good news for US consumers and businesses—and for the Democratic Party’s political prospects.

Beijing would obviously welcome this move. It would also provide an opening for US negotiators to try an even bolder gambit, one that recalls an earlier geopolitical venture by the administration of Richard Nixon. In the 1970s, Nixon and his top advisor Henry Kissinger orchestrated an opening with Communist China. It was not a particularly happy time in China. The country was still in the midst of its murderous Cultural Revolution, and the elderly Mao Zedong was an increasingly erratic leader.

But Nixon and Kissinger saw an opportunity to drive a wedge between the two chief communist powers: China and the Soviet Union. It was of utmost importance for the United States to prevent any serious rapprochement between Moscow and Beijing. Moreover, Kissinger wanted to put pressure on the Soviets to be more compromising in arms control negotiations. Also driving the opening was a US business community that was cautiously optimistic about the profits that could be made in the Chinese market.

In many ways, the gamble worked perfectly. The United States was able to negotiate a détente with the Soviet Union that lasted, more or less, until the end of the 1970s. The Nixon-Kissinger policy also helped guide China out of its Cultural Revolution and into a more sensible engagement with the outside world.

Of course, the United States is now angry that China has proven so successful in engaging with its neighbors and the global economy. Beijing is no longer content to play a subordinate role. It is challenging the US position as the world’s top economy. It is also flexing its muscles near its borders—in the South China Sea and perennially with Taiwan—and challenging US claims that it is the preeminent Pacific power.

Go Back to the Future

But, as in the 1970s, there are still some very good reasons why the United States should open the door once again to China. Russia and China have formed an energy partnership based on their mutual fossil fuel needs (Russia to export, China to import). They have a shared distrust of certain liberal tenets concerning, for instance, free elections and freedom of speech. They have both aligned themselves with other authoritarian governments for their own security interests. If push comes to shove, Russia and China could form the basis of an anti-Western alliance.

But such an alliance is not inevitable. The Kremlin has long worried about Chinese designs on the Russian Far East. China is appalled at the way Russia has violated the sovereignty of its neighbors like Ukraine. Most importantly, China wants to preserve its more-or-less good economic relations with the West, while Russia seems to have given up on any potential rapprochement by doubling down with its invasion of Ukraine.

To further isolate Putin, the Biden administration should step in to offer Beijing a wide-ranging set of negotiations to normalize trade, address outstanding questions like intellectual property rights, and come to some shared understanding of the rules of the road in places like the South China Sea.

Perhaps most importantly, the United States has to offer China a different kind of energy partnership than what the Kremlin is promising. Instead of fossil fuels, Washington should expand the clean energy collaboration that the Obama administration began with Beijing. Together, the United States and China can lead the world into a new era of renewables that is far and away more compelling—and urgently needed—than the dirty energy paradigm that Russia is offering.

Is it too hard to imagine Biden turning his back on the foreign policy consensus in Washington in order to push the reset button on relations with China?

Perhaps.

But Biden as a presidential candidate to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah.” Now, President Biden is this month to Riyadh, despite Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s assassination of a US journalist and the multiple war crimes the Saudi leader has committed in his war in Yemen. The reason for this reconciliation is quite simple and quite narrow: Biden wants to persuade the Saudis to put more oil into global markets to drive down the price of gas in the United States.

Surely if Biden is willing to make friends with the assassin of Riyadh, he can mend fences with Beijing for a much larger set of benefits and the prospect of a much more advantageous peace.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Biden’s Golden Opportunity to Reverse Course on China appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The designation conformed to a statement that Biden made to His Highness Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, the emir of Qatar, during his visit to Washington in late January 2022.  During the visit, Biden had sent a to the US Congress indicating his intention to give Qatar the designation of  a major non-NATO ally. In the letter, the president acknowledged “Qatar’s many years of contributions to US-led efforts in the US Central Command area of responsibility” and recognized that the US had a “national interest in deepening bilateral defense and security cooperation with the State of Qatar.” 

BIden’s designation for Qatar has a historical basis. For years, Qatar has supported US foreign policy objectives. The country has hosted and provided substantial financial support for the Al Udeid Air Base and engaged with the US on issues of strategic importance, including its recent assistance in relocating thousands of Afghans and its ability to serve as an effective mediator in critical situations. The designation 

What Does This Designation Really Mean?  

What are the legal foundations for the designation and its implications for Qatar? Under a federal statute, the US president has the unilateral power to designate a country a major non-NATO ally with the requirement that Congress receive notice in writing at least 30 days before this designation. As aptly noted, the designation alone does not make Qatar a NATO member and thus the collective security obligations and mutual defense benefits under NATO are not applicable to this GCC country.  

Yet, in addition to recognizing the close military ties between Qatar and the US, the designation as a major non-NATO ally ensures defense trade and security cooperation benefits. Qatar is now eligible for loans, research, training, and development, as well as gaining priority access to US military equipment and the ability to bid on certain US Department of Defense contracts. 

In the past, other regional players have benefitted from the designation. Their experience highlights the importance of a military and defense relationship for any GCC state with the US, especially given recent events. For example, Kuwait has benefitted from arms sales through the Foreign Military Sales Program. This the capabilities of the Kuwaiti military and enhanced the country’s security. 

The Biden administration has given $1 billion to the US Army Corps of Engineers and other US companies to build Kuwait’s new defense ministry headquarters. A training initiative, the International Military Education and Training (IMET) program, enables Kuwaiti students to be trained at US military institutions at a discounted rate.

Capacity building is one of the main incentives for US-Qatar cooperation, which is of great importance to this GCC state. Its defense regime is relatively young and capable of playing an influential role due to the country’s proximity to both Saudi Arabia and Iran. Qatar can also play a key role as a mediator in the region. In the light of the above, the designation as a major non-NATO ally has critical long-term benefits to the country.

The new development also certainly signals closer cooperation between the US and Qatar. Historically, these designations tend to be mutually beneficial. In the case of Qatar, increased engagement with the US promises to strengthen its status as a security leader in the Middle East and benefit both the region as well as its superpower friend.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Making Sense of the US Designating Qatar as a Major Non-NATO Ally appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Though actively encouraged – or at least enthusiastically predicted – by Biden’s State Department, the Russian invasion of Ukraine had the inevitable, embarrassing effect of upsetting the global oil market. Prices at the pump in the US began climbing vertiginously upwards. MBS, the best friend of Trump’s corrupt son-in-law Jared Kushner, proved deaf to Washington’s entreaties to increase production to relieve the pressure on prices.

Biden’s dilemma with rising prices at the pump was compounded by his intention, displeasing to the Saudis, to return to the Iran nuclear deal from which Trump had withdrawn. His latest response to the crisis or degraded relations with the traditional Saudi ally appears to be as surprising as many other turnarounds: a return to the totally discredited Trump-Kushner “deal of the century” touted to solve the perennial Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Trump’s Farcical “Vision for Peace” in the Middle East

READ MORE

“The Biden administration,” reported last week, “has been quietly mediating among Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt on negotiations that, if successful, could be a first step on the road to the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel.”

In diplomatic parlance, quietly means conducted in a way that, even if leaked, the public may not take notice. Normalization is a little trickier, providing the Devil’s Dictionary entry of this week.

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Normalization:

In diplomacy, an arrangement ensuring that the interests of the most powerful and influential will be defined as a norm that everyone – including the victims of such arrangements – must respect, if not honor.

Contextual note

by The Intercept, Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of Democracy in the Arab World Now, clarifies the meaning of normalization in this context. “Normalization? What’s that looking like? An apartheid government signing a deal with unelected tyrants in the region? What kind of normal is that?”

This raises a series of other questions for President Joe Biden and the Democrats. How “normalized” can things get in the Middle East under Biden before voters at home accuse him of betraying his own “moral stance” regarding the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi? How will this affect whatever progress Biden’s team hopes to make with the Iran deal, which is ongoing but appears seriously stalled? Finally, what effect will the knowledge of the expected normalization have on the Palestinian question itself? There seem to be a few contradictions that will someday have to be resolved.

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, explained to The Intercept that �������������’s role as a security partner in the process will have the effect of incentivizing �������������’s partners “to pursue reckless policies with the impression that the United States will fix it for them at the end of the day.” This has become a recognizable pattern with increasingly disastrous direct or indirect consequences, from Vietnam to Ukraine.

All this highlights a serious turning point in geopolitics. For decades the “Pax Americana” was considered an inviolable norm, the key to normality across much of the face of the globe. The implicit role of the US as the benevolent overseer of the security – not just of its allies but of entire regions – has increasingly become the object of explicit critique. The interests and actions of the US were long considered synonymous with the famous “rule of law” that held the world together financially, commercially and militarily.

It could be that the strongest sign of a declining empire – and a calling into question of the meaning of a particular “rule of law” – is precisely the shift from implicit, automatic acceptance to explicit critique and indistinct rumblings of discontent. Anything that is implicitly accepted by a majority of nations becomes the standard by which normalization of relationships will be achieved.

When implicit acceptance becomes fragile, the norms themselves may shift. Norms, after all, are fundamentally pragmatic and have no inherently positive moral status. They are defined statistically as practices that are so common they become features of the behavioral landscape. Once a practice is accepted, it may be disapproved by significant minorities, but it cannot be seriously contested. That is why diplomacy more often than not results in a fait accompli. That is also why private gun ownership in the US is considered an inviolable right. It’s a right that produces multiple and increasingly frequent wrongs.

Historical note

The idea behind normalization has always been semantically related to the reduction of tensions. In some people’s minds it is associated with the obtention of peace. But normalization describes a process of moving towards a goal, whereas peace describes a stable status, or the goal itself. As Trita Parsi explains, the eventual normalization now being negotiated “reduces tensions between Saudi and Israel while cementing enmity with Iran. That is not a peace agreement.”

The history of the word normalization reveals something about the role the idea has taken on in the modern world. It is a distinctly modern term. At the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 that ended Europe’s horrific Thirty Years’ War pitting Protestant and Catholic polities against one another, no one would have thought of the solution as normalization. At the time, no ideal existed that people might be tempted to call “normal.” Westphalia nevertheless marks the moment the idea of the nation state began to emerge as the norm for political organization.

The word normalization first appeared in written English in the middle of the 19^th century as a scientific term. According to it was only following the First World War “that the words normalize and normalization were used to refer to the act of achieving political stability between two nations.” It is also the moment, in 1920, when the future president Warren G Harding produced his campaign slogan –  “Return to Normalcy” – coining a word many still considered barbaric. 

For all its faults, Harding’s idea of normalcy expresses a truly modern concept, an unstated ideal associated with the emerging consumer society. Normal life consists not of soldiers going to war, but of average Joes competing for a job that enables them to work for a corporation where they produce and, even more importantly, consume. Normal human beings shouldn’t even think about politics –  though they should be prepared for war if their nation decides to go to war. In other words, between wars, there really should be something called normalcy.

The contrast between normalcy and war thus became a binary constant in Americans’ thinking. This was a moment in history in which people began to think that war might not be a “normal” occurrence, whereas in the European tradition dating from feudal times, war was the usual form of competition. It is hardly coincidental that World War I was the first major war in which a wide variety of powerfully efficient technologies became the “norm” for weaponry and in which civilian populations were suddenly affected in novel ways and on more massive scales than in the past.

The First World War was quickly given the misnomer of “the war to end all wars” by its survivors. Two decades later, a bigger war to end all wars occurred. And though we are still awaiting the possibility of a third world war, all kinds of wars have been conducted since the last world war. Normalizing has become a lost art to the extent that peace between ideological or cultural adversaries now depends largely on trade relations that are too costly to call into question rather than the existence of a peace-enforcing authority.

But perhaps fond memories of how the original Cold War correlated with a phase of unrivaled prosperity for the consumer society have left their imprint on decision-makers inside the Beltway. Despite nearly provoking a nuclear conflagration on at least two occasions the first time around, they appear tempted to have a go at a 21^st century Cold War, convinced as they seem to be that what made the American empire then can save it from its precipitous decline today. They may see that as just another attempt at normalization.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Can Anything About US Foreign Policy Be Normal? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

I began a life-long understanding of the island nation decades ago in my graduate studies. Last December, I spent three weeks there, engaging with Cubans in many cities about their lives. I spoke with a range of demographics, from humble cabbies to senior Communist leaders. I was shocked at the depth of desperation of the people, who have no alternative but to queue up for exhausting hours each day to buy a few rationed basic foods. Most items are available only to those who receive currency from émigré relatives, and the US sanctions even block international donations of medical supplies.  

Most people I met knew little but deprivation, yet harbored no disdain for US citizens.  I never sensed anything but interest in and respect for this Americano. Whether such a charitable response is borne out of the memory of Fidel Castro’s legendary approach of brotherhood with Americanos, or the fact that so many must rely on overseas donations, the reality is that there has always been a wide-open door in Cuba for amicable Cuban-American relations.  

The Strong Do What They Can and the Weak Suffer What They Must

Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the that the US embargo had cost Cuba $130 billion since 1962. This is a terrible cost for a tiny impoverished island. In last year’s UN General Assembly, virtually every one of 184 member countries of a resolution to demand the end of the US economic blockade on Cuba.  Contrary to its intentions, this de facto blockade does not much impact the government elites in Cuba. In spite of a professed socialist system, there is a small subset of Cubans with political leverage enjoying  luxury. But, since the Cuban government can continue to point to a proximate enemy as the cause for suffering — especially since the misplaced policies of the Trump administration — it can avoid blame and the inequities persist.  

I have long been familiar with the charity and sacrifices of the Cuban people. I worked alongside many Cubans during Haiti’s recovery from the 2010 earthquake. As a US Foreign Service  officer, I worked in many Latin American countries and witnessedthe incredibly positive impact of the Cuban doctors and medics.  

As a counterpoint, I retain insights into the perspective of  Cuban-Americans from living in South Florida for many years. My father’s second wife was a Cuban-American who immigrated to the US in the 1960s. I would often listen to her excoriate Fidel Castro and hone my Spanish by tuning into Miami-based radio stations that regularly condemned the Cuban Revolution. 

Over the years, Cubans have faced increasing and unhealthful privations. Obesity and diabetes caused by nutritional deficits are a growing cause of premature deaths that well exceeds those caused by COVID-19. Thousands of Cubans find no recourse but to make the life-threatening journey by land or sea to the US as refugees and end up becoming financial burdens to the US taxpayer. The number of Cubans arriving at the US-Mexico border is presently at the level in more than a decade.  

Because the nation has found itself in a virtual state of war since the early 1960s, the authoritarian government was able to muffle the spontaneous cries for libertad last July by thousands in the streets of key Cuban cities  quickly and expeditiously. Dissenters were arrested or exiled. Sham trials have followed since and arbitrary punishments meted out. Subsequent protests have, for the most part, been stymied for fear of reprisals. The Cuban people desperately yearn to be unshackled from both the blockade and their government — yet without bloodshed.

Joe Biden Reaches Out But Not Much

President Joe Biden recently made some helpful but limited removals of US embargo restrictions. The Wall Street Journal was not . Yet the real trouble with Biden’s measures was not that they did too little, not too much. This was a huge missed opportunity. Biden could have improved bilateral relations in the context of Russia’s invasion and genocide of the Ukrainian people.

After additional US warfare materials arrived in Ukraine in early February 2021, Russia threatened to retaliate by moving troops or military equipment to Cuba. The US government could have revisited its approach to the Cuban government and reduced tensions. Innovation and vision were some of the few remaining practical options in this extremely dangerous  situation. Removing the counter-productive US embargoes would have signaled to Russia constructive intentions regarding their allies, and the onus might have inclined V. Putin to likewise pull back the  concerning troops on Ukraine’s borders. Such timely response would not have been a quid pro quo, but rather one of many positive effects of a fresh U.S. policy toward Cuba. Alas, the door was closed in February, tens of thousands have been killed, millions have been uprooted, much of the nation has been leveled, and utter famine from absent wheat crops confronts much of the developing world.  

The visions and voices of thousands of long-suffering Cubans I encountered remain fixed in my memory. Yet, in spite of its proximity to the United States, the plight and misery of Cubans somehow remain veiled for most in the West. Cuba, as all marginalized nations throughout the world, must now confront impending famine and even mass starvation given disruption of grain production and exports from Russia and Ukraine.  

When it comes to Cuba, I believe the Biden administration is now on the right track. But the administration must urgently implement more common sense political and economic solutions to the grave humanitarian crises caused by a counter productive, decades-long, and devastating US embargo of Cuba.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Time for the US to Rethink Its Failed Cuba Policy appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Even as US President Joe Biden leaves for his inaugural Asia visit, American foreign policy is in turmoil in the aftermath of the disastrous Vietnam-like withdrawal from Afghanistan and the catastrophic Russia-Ukraine War. 

Therefore, we spoke to Contributing Editor Christopher Roper Schell, a Capitol Hill veteran who has also worked on the Pentagon, to make sense of Biden’s foreign policy.

Christopher Roper Schell on Joe Biden’s Foreign Policy

How do you rate Joe Biden’s foreign policy?

Christopher Roper Schell: Biden’s foreign policy is coalition-based but it is weak and naive.

Why? Because it doesn’t contemplate realpolitik. Some people don’t care about your rules-based order or the values that matter so much to you, or ideals that are inconsequential in the face of power. In many ways he is a lot like Obama 2.0. Biden doesn’t necessarily enforce things, he just states what cannot be done.

What must not be done? The red line in Syria comes to mind for Obama. And Biden seems to be making himself another version of Obama. Policy is based on the notion that this is who we are. This statement often employed by Biden and by Obama alike is utterly meaningless.

Perhaps the most ridiculous thing is that Biden is negotiating simultaneously with the Iranians as he seeks to curtail Russia. However, he cowers every time Russia mentions a nuclear weapon. Well, what do you think the Iranians and the others are thinking? Get a nuclear weapon as soon as possible and no one messes with you. 

Did Biden play his cards well against Russia in Ukraine?

Christopher Roper Schell:  Biden was initially strong out of the gate. His decision to reveal classified information relating to a supposed false incursion by the Ukrainians, which the Russians would then use as a provocation to retaliate, was a great idea, as was his decision to provide a list of names of the people Moscow could have used to run Ukraine. 

However, from thereon Biden’s will flagged. Indeed, he was dragged virtually kicking and screaming to impose sanctions. Once he saw that the Congress was going to act, Biden didn’t want to be left behind. Similarly, when the Russians withdrew from Northern Ukraine, we should have been arming Mariupol to the teeth. We did not do this.

So, there seems to be an absence of confidence or will to provide any real defense to the Ukrainians. For example, the MiGs out there should have been sent to Ukraine. If the US could not send the entire planes, why not chop them up into parts and send them to Ukraine? Or leave the keys in the car and say we don’t know who took them…

So we are left in a situation where there could potentially be a frozen conflict for a long time. Ukraine could be left as a rump state. And there doesn’t seem to be the will to ensure that Russia loses, as Biden claims he wants. 

What do you make of Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan?

Christopher Roper Schell: It was a masterstroke. It was brilliant. It was perfectly executed, no, I’m kidding you. It was a dumpster fire. It was a mess. Now I grant you Trump left Biden in a bad position. Right? Right? 

Withdrawal timelines being what they are, Biden didn’t have a lot of good options but I mean, really, this was the best you could make of this? I mean, the region is now a mess.

For the American side, there hadn’t been casualties in a year. We had 2,500 to 3,500 people there keeping the top on this. And we withdrew everyone on such an artificial political timeline like 9/11. 

That’s the day you decide that you’re going to pull out, and when that doesn’t work and you see it’s kind of sort of going south, you think, oh, I know this isn’t working out. Let’s like move the timeline up, ’cause that’s way better, right? No, no.

Biden wanted a triumphant political 9/11 20-year wrap up ceremony. Instead, he got Saigon and I guarantee you his advisers were like no helicopters on rooftops, no helicopters on rooftops. And when he got helicopters on rooftops, those same advisers were probably saying nobody’s falling from the sky. Guess what? He got bodies falling from the sky strangely reminiscent of 9/11, and it was an absolute debacle. And of course this also eroded American credibility. I mean, regionally, once again it’s a complete mess. So, dumpster fire!

How has Biden handled the Middle East?

Christopher Roper Schell: The Middle East is a mess. What else is new? However, the new caveat here is that Biden has absolutely infuriated the Saudis, and he’s done so on numerous and different fronts. I wrote about this in my first The View from the Carriage House.

And Biden has completely alienated the Saudis. They won’t even take his calls, and he’s asking them to pump more oil. Not going to happen. At the same time, Biden is negotiating a contract with the Iranians, the Saudis’ mortal enemy. So what do you think the Saudis are going to do?

You’re talking about delisting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). You’re talking about giving the Iranians all sorts of goodies. We’ve already delisted the Houthis and we also wouldn’t even sell the Saudis Patriot Missiles. So they’re quite frustrated and the place is a mess and we don’t seem to be making any headway on the Iranian Deal.

It’s a wash-rinse-repeat cycle of negotiations, pocketed gains, going back to the negotiation table, so the Middle East in general is not going well at all. 

Has Biden done well with allies like France, Australia and India?

Christopher Roper Schell: France is America’s oldest ally, which is why it got a little bit awkward in the room when the Aussies decided to buy US submarines and not French submarines. The French seemed to be caught off guard by this and Biden was too. Biden claimed that honest to God he didn’t know that the French hadn’t been told.

Which kind of makes sense. I do think he probably was the last guy to know. Nonetheless the Aussies are getting serious. They were sanctioned by China in a pretty profound way and they have recognised that China is a threat. The French are OK, you know, some fences have been mended there.

Perhaps most interesting is the relationship with India, which is founded on the QUAD. And I think America has to come to a better understanding to get on top of India. The US has to recognize that India can’t just throw away 70% of its military hardware, which is Russian. It has to remember that the old non-alignment days weren’t truly non-aligned, that there was a bit more of a Russian influence, and the time has come to recognize India’s past but also forge a very strong relationship moving forward.

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Making Sense of Joe Biden’s Foreign Policy appeared first on 51�Թ�.

[We’re going to try something new here at 51�Թ�. I live in a small, quirky carriage house in Washington, DC, and this column is my view of DC as I see things. If I don’t get too much hate mail, then maybe we’ll keep it rolling. On the other hand, if I get enough hate mail, maybe I’ll keep doing it “just for the sake of my own stupid pleasure.” Let’s find out.

P.S. Each heading is a quote from something somewhere or other. To the person who emails me 11 correct identifications, I’ll buy you a drink at Martin’s Tavern…or we can have a friendly chat over the phone while ��’m at Martin’s having a drink. Why 11? Because that’s how we play around here.]

“Water, water every where, / Nor any drop to drink.”

After spending trillions and trillions of dollars on COVID, much of it recklessly, Congress is digging through the couch cushions to find another $10 billion for actual COVID treatment. How did this happen? 

Start off with the fact that most of the money was thrown at transfer payments, not on treatment. To a degree this was entirely understandable, but the level of fraud that has come to light is staggering. Both parties spent like drunken sailors, but the most egregious was US President Joe Biden’s $1.9 trillion extravaganza as the pandemic was waning. That law, amongst other things, bought tremendous “relief” to the poor, pitiful state governments that are presently drowning in cash. We also had a million other things that were tangentially related to treating the coronavirus. Oh, and we bought inflation with that money. Maybe you’ve heard something about that?

��’m not saying the Republicans were any less scattershot, but they spent the money when a) the virus was a real unknown, and we were going into the lockdown blind, and b) we had not developed an actual, real, very good vaccine. When Biden splurged cash, several vaccines were already in production. The issue now seems to be whether to use unspent funds from other COVID programs to spend it on… wait for it… actual COVID treatment. What an idea! Yet here we are in a panic over what is, relative to other COVID spending, a drop in the bucket.

Speaking of panic… 

“It was like when you make a move in chess and just as you take your finger off the piece, you see the mistake you’ve made, and there’s this panic because you don’t know yet the scale of disaster you’ve left yourself open to.”

Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona must be in a panic these days. Around the turn of the year he was perp-walked into a volley of machine gun fire on the Build Back Better bill that failed, and his “yea” vote has come back to haunt him. Perhaps that’s why he’s so eager to embrace . 

Title 42 was a Trump administration program that prevented immigrants from entering the US during COVID. Lifting such a restriction is understandable now that the pandemic is on the wane. However, this does not jive with retaining restrictions that the Biden administration seems to be fond of. The Department of Justice is appealing the revocation of the public transportation mask mandate by the court. 

This inconsistency is largely immaterial relative to the burning issue of asylum seekers. The “Remain in Mexico” policy keeps asylum seekers south of the border while their claims are heard in the US. The Biden administration sought to end this policy, which Texas is currently enforcing. The administration’s lawyers took Texas to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 26. Clearly, immigration will be on the ballot come midterms in November.

The combination of “Remain in Mexico” and Title 42 prevented the spread of COVID and avoided a bum-rush to the US border. If both of them were to go, there would be a tsunami of immigration. The Democrats in swing states might find voters would like them to be giving a damn about this issue, which hits headlines as immigrants surge and families are inevitably broken up every summer.

“This is family business,
And this is for everybody standin’ with us”

And while we’re talking about dealing with families, there’s a distinct disjoint between the rhetoric surrounding Florida’s “Don’t say gay” , a mischievously if ingeniously labeled piece of legislation, and its popularity. This law does not want kindergarten children taught liberal sex education. When told what’s in the law and not just spoonfed the hashtag du jour, folks seem to like it. Go figure.

Polite circles won’t mention this, but according to a by Public Opinion Strategies, Democratic voters support the law by 55% to 29%. Biden voters swing 53% to 30% in its favor. Even those who “know someone LGBTQ” go 61% for and 28% against, and just to show that Disney is on the wrong side of this, parents like the law to the tune of 67% to 24%. Disney brought a knife to a gunfight by supporting this law. 

Social mores may have brought “a whole new world,” but Disney seemed to have wished upon the wrong star, and its special treatment by the state of Florida is over. Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill into law that revokes the status of Disney’s independent district, Reedy Creek. There’s now even talk of taking away the entertainment behemoth’s preferential copyright treatment.

Turns out running your own independent “Magic Kingdom” is a lot less expensive than letting the government run the show. Sure, Disney could probably fix potholes and run emergency services and utilities better and cheaper. Once the new law takes effect, Disney will also lose control of land use, building standards, and environmental protection that it has enjoyed for decades. Insiders predict Disney will have to pony up of dollars annually to the government now and join the hoi polloi.

If Disney is going to support progressive policies, what could be more progressive than letting government get more involved? frets that Disney will no longer be able “to manage its own streets, permitting, bond issuance, and so forth.“ Wait, I thought corporate control over things government usually does was a great threat to “our democracy.” At least that is what left-leaning publications like Slate tell me.

But lo and behold, even Mother Jones is defending corporate personhood, an idea hitherto hated by Democrats, with a stating Disney’s Civil Rights were violated. To be fair, Mother Jones has said it stands against corporate personhood but dislikes Republican hypocrisy. However, the defense of Disney’s special privileges by blue-blooded Democrat-supporting publications certainly seems incongruous. However, there might be a way out of this Disney-Florida impasse. The law doesn’t come into force until June 1, 2023, so there’s plenty of negotiating to be had.

Part of the problem was the over-the-top language Disney’s CEO Bob Chapek chose when he the Florida bill “yet another challenge to basic human rights.” Mr. Chapek, Bob. May I call you Bob? Bob, didja read the bill? This isn’t Bucha where basic human rights are being violated. No cluster munitions spray labeled “for the children” are being dropped. These are first world concerns at best. A pertinent section of the law reads “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate.” Bob, take a deep breath: this is not exactly a Nuremberg Trial transcript.

When I think of Bob’s situation, it reminds me of what happened to Rob Manfred, the commissioner of Major League Baseball (MLB). He moved last year’s All-Star Game from Georgia to Colorado in the wake of the supposed “voting rights” kerfuffle. He was then reminded of MLB’s cozy relationship with China and the fact that though he opposed showing ID to vote, you needed one just to work concessions at the game. So, Mr. Manfred was against IDs for the purposes of voting, but in favor of them if you wanted to hawk beer under his banner. Because… yeah, that totally makes sense. Finally, there was this . Turns out the Commish is a member of the tony Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia. Was he going to stand by his principles and resign from such a toxic Georgian institution? Apparently not. All of this over a bill he likely didn’t or understand.

I have no horse in this race, except I wish companies would simply stick to their knitting and stop virtue signaling at every turn. For years companies figured it was worth the signal to prevent marches, employee walkouts, and internet shenanigans, and that more conservative minds would grit their teeth and get on with life, but that thinking may be coming to an end. Fine by me.

One of the underreported friends lost by the US is Saudi Arabia. Recently the Saudis have cogitated on the idea of accepting yuan for oil, thus undermining the petrodollar. Who can blame them? Biden has done everything possible to infuriate our ally.

Those in the Biden Administration scratch their heads and wonder why the Saudis won’t play ball and just pump more oil, but a quick recap leaves little to the imagination. Start off by campaigning with the friendly of calling the House of Saud a “pariah.” Then declare that Saudi Arabia would “pay the price” for, amongst other things, having a government with “very little social redeeming value,” and you start to get the picture.

After such pronunciations, Biden went on to withhold support for Saudis’ defense against the Houthis and no longer designate this Yemeni group as terrorist. His administration withheld Patriot missiles from the Saudis, fundamentally breaking the long understanding that the US provided the Saudis defense cover while they dutifully pumped oil. Also of note was Biden’s decision to release a CIA report in February 2021 that said Mohammed bin Salman, AKA MBS, was responsible for the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Come September, MBS was so hot on the subject he started at Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, when asked about the murder.

To top it off, the Biden administration has further inflamed relations with Saudi Arabia by trying to cobble together a nuclear pact with the Iranian regime, the sworn enemy of the Arabs. This project seems doomed. For all the humiliating US prostrations before Iran, including an offer to drop the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps from the terrorist list, the Ayatollahs appear unmoved. US flirtations with Iran might not have succeeded but it has caught the eye of Saudi Arabia, and it’s not winning Biden any friends over there. Even before recent Saudi-US tensions, the Asia Pivot under Barack Obama and the flaming dumpster fire left behind by Biden in Afghanistan were perceived as waning US interest in the Middle East.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

Having run an expensive election campaign, Biden should know that money talks. Beijing purchases 1.8 million barrels of Saudi oil per day and the Kingdom has become China’s. The petrodollar may soon be in limbo, and with it the old deal between the US and Saudi Arabia that originally propped up the dollar. Starting in 1974, Saudi Arabia agreed to price oil in dollars in return for Washington providing arms, oilfield security, and defense cover to Riyadh. Now we have a situation where Saudi and the United Arab Emirates won’t even take Biden’s call, won’t pump more oil, and MBS is yelling that the US should “forget about its request to boost oil production.” Hell’s bells.

HMU @: christopher.roper.schell@fairobserver.com

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post DC Deconstructed: The View from the Carriage House appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Less officially, President Joe Biden has been emphasizing the emotional side of US motivation when he wants to turn Russia into a “pariah,” while branding its president as a “war criminal” and a “murderer.” Biden’s rhetoric indicates clearly that whatever purely legal and moral point the United States cites to justify its massive financial engagement in the war, its true motivation reflects a vigilante mindset focused on regime change.

A Russian-American Game of Mirrors

READ MORE

The administration denies it has regime change on its mind. But Ferguson cites a senior administration official who privately confided that Biden’s “end game now … is the end of Putin regime.” The historian concludes that rather than seek a negotiated end to the war, the US “intends to keep this war going.”

As usual in foreign policy matters, Ferguson notes a certain convergence of viewpoint from his own government. He quotes an anonymous source affirming that the United Kingdom’s “No. 1 option is for the conflict to be extended and thereby bleed Putin.” A little later in the article, Ferguson qualifies as “archetypal Realpolitik” the American intent “to allow the carnage in Ukraine to continue; to sit back and watch the heroic Ukrainians ‘b������ Russia �����.’�ĝ

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Bleed (a country):

To encourage and prolong an unnecessary and unjustified conflict in the interest of sucking the life out of the political establishment of a declared enemy, a process that usually automatically implies sucking the life out of at least one other country, including eventually one’s own

Contextual Note

Ferguson dares to question the dominant belief in the US that bleeding Russia is a recipe for success. “Prolonging the war runs the risk not just of leaving tens of thousands of Ukrainians dead and millions homeless, but also of handing Putin something that he can plausibly present at home as victory,” he writes.

When the focus is both on bleeding and prolonging the combat, there is a strong likelihood that the bleeding will be shared. If a boxer sees a cut over his opponent’s eye, he may strategically focus all his punches on the opponent’s face hoping for a technical knockout. But, by focusing on the loss of blood, he may drop his guard with the risk of getting knocked out or opening his own bleeding wound.

“I fail to see in current Western strategizing any real recognition of how badly this war could go for Ukraine in the coming weeks,” Ferguson observes. The reason may simply be that the hyperreal moment the Western world is now living through is proving too enjoyable to critique, at least for the media. The more horror stories of assaults on innocent civilians make their way into the headlines, the more the media can play the morally satisfying game of: here’s one more reason to hate Vladimir Putin.

If the White House is focused, as it now appears, not on saving Ukrainian democracy but on bleeding Russia, all the stories of Russian abuse of brave civilians are designed with the purpose of prolonging the war, in the hope that, discredited by Putin’s failure to break Ukraine’s resistance, Russians will revolt and depose the evil dictator. In the meantime, those Ukrainians who manage to survive are being asked to play the supporting role of watching their country reduced to ruins.

Ferguson speculates that US strategists have come to “think of the conflict as a mere sub-plot in Cold War II, a struggle in which China is our real opponent.” That would be an ambitious plan, riddled with complexity. But the Biden administration has demonstrated its incapacity to deal effectively even with straightforward issues, from passing the Build Back Better framework in the US to managing a pandemic.

The Ukraine situation involves geopolitics, the global economy and, even more profoundly, the changing image of US power felt by populations and governments across the globe. At the end of his article, the historian describes this as an example of dangerous overreach, claiming that “the Biden administration is making a colossal mistake in thinking that it can protract the war in Ukraine, bleed Russia dry, topple Putin and signal to China to keep its hands off Taiwan.”

Historical Note

One salient truth about Americans’ perception of the Ukraine War should be evident to everyone. �մǻ岹��’s media thoroughly understands the American public’s insatiable appetite for the right kind of misinformation. Niall Ferguson makes the point that the US government may nevertheless be inept in providing it. The history of misinformation in times of war over the past century should provide some clues.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

In 1935, Major General Smedley Butler wrote a book describing the logic behind his own service on several continents. Its title was “War Is a Racket.” He described the American vision of war as a quest for corporate profit. He tried to warn the nation of the inhumanity of such an approach to the use of military force. He manifestly failed because he was late to the game. Back in 1917, Edward Bernays, the “father of Public Relations,” seduced the American public into believing that the only motive for the nation’s invasions and wars is the spreading of democracy. It was Bernays who provided Woodrow Wilson with the slogan “make the world safe for democracy.”

For the rest of his life, Bernays not only helped private companies boost their brands, he also consulted on foreign policy to justify regime change when it threatened a customer’s racket. In 1953, working for United Fruit, he collaborated with President Dwight Eisenhower’s secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, and his brother, CIA Director Allen Dulles, to overthrow Jacobo Arbenz, the elected president of Guatemala. Arbenz had a plan to redistribute to the country’s impoverished peasants “unused land” monopolized by United Fruit. In a 2007 article for the Financial Times, Peter Chapman that both Dulles brothers were “legal advisers” to United Fruit. Chapman notes that the company was also involved in the 1961 CIA-led Bay of Pigs invasion.

In other words, concerning their impact on the American psyche, Bernays the PR man defeated Butler, celebrated at the time as �������������’s greatest living war hero. His fame was such that a group of powerful fascist-leaning businessmen tried to recruit him to overthrow President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the infamous 1933 “.”

Americans continue to rally around Bernays’ genius for reducing a suspect ideology to a catchy slogan. American interventions abroad are framed as noble efforts to support democracy and promote American business (Butler called them rackets). It’s a population of avid consumers of the media’s plentiful supply of misinformation.

There are nevertheless odd moments when real information breaks through, though it rarely leaves much lasting impact. Last week, the Pentagon leaked news the narrative the State Department, the intelligence community and US media have unanimously adopted and promoted. In the Defense Department’s view, ��ܲ�������’s invasion is not an example of unrestrained sadism toward the Ukrainian people. “As destructive as the Ukraine war is,” Newsweek reports, “Russia is causing less damage and killing fewer civilians than it could, U.S. intelligence experts say.”

The US military establishment calls it the “Russian leader’s strategic balancing act,” observing that Russia has acted with restraint. It realistically assesses that, far from seeking to subdue and conquer Ukraine, Putin’s “goal is to take enough territory on the ground to have something to negotiate with, while putting the government of Ukraine in a position where they have to negotiate.”

Ferguson has gleaned his own evidence concerning US and UK strategy that “helps explain, among other things, the lack of any diplomatic effort by the U.S. to secure a cease-fire. It also explains the readiness of President Joe Biden to call Putin a war criminal.” Peace is no objective. Punishment is. This is a case where the Pentagon has received the message of Smedley Butler and dares to contradict an administration guided by the logic of Edward Bernays.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post When Will We Know the Bleeding Truth? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

We invite readers to join us by submitting their suggestions of words and expressions that deserve exploring, with or without original commentary. To submit a citation from the news and/or provide your own short commentary, send us an email.

March 3: “Every Inch”

At his State of the Union on Tuesday, US President Joe Biden repeated a mantra he has been using for at least the past two weeks. “As I have made crystal clear,” he intoned in his address to Congress, “the United States and our Allies will defend every inch of territory of NATO countries with the full force of our collective power.”

Biden was in effect quoting himself, or repeating crowd-pleasing sentences and phrases, as he often does. Political marketing has become a science in which the rules of brand recognition defined by the wizards of Madison Avenue dominate. It is a convenient substitute for other more traditional political practices, such as critical thinking, responding creatively to an evolving situation, reacting and adapting to the shifting parameters of a dynamic context. The basic rule of branding consists of repeating the same message in exactly the same formulation over and over again to create familiarity and brand recognition.

The Troubling Question of What Americans Think They Need to Know

READ MORE

On February 22, in practically identical terms, Biden had already proclaimed the same : “that the United States, together with our Allies, will defend every inch of NATO territory and abide by the commitments we made to NATO.”  Two days later, on February 24, he : “As I made crystal clear, the United States will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of American power.”

Some may find this tirelessly repeated commitment, surprising not for its vehemence but for its banality. One member of Ukraine’s parliament, Oleksandra Ustinova, on The Today Show, expressed her “total disappointment” in Biden’s speech because she was expecting military engagement rather than vehement rhetoric. 

The sad fact of the matter — for Ukraine but also the rest of the world, including Russia — is that Biden’s promise to defend every inch of NATO territory is fundamentally meaningless in the context of ��ܲ�������’s war on Ukraine. Not because Biden’s commitment to NATO isn’t real — it definitely is genuine — but because it simply repeats the conditions delineated in the articles of NATO.

The message it sends to Europe is that if your country does not accept to be a vassal state of the US through membership in NATO, we will not only create the conditions that will expose you to war, but will leave you to suffer the consequences. Had the US not insisted on promoting Ukrainian membership in NATO — something France and Germany had rejected more than a decade ago — Russia would have had no reason and certainly no excuse for invading Ukraine. By insisting and refusing even to discuss the question of Ukraine’s candidacy for NATO, the inevitable occurred, as Mikhail Gorbachev, John Mearsheimer and other realists predicted.

Biden’s promise is also slightly odd in its logic because it sends a message to the Russians that they had better do everything they can to crush Ukraine now, in order to prevent Ukraine from ever becoming a territory full of square inches that one day will be occupied and defended by “the full force of American power” to say nothing of the “collective power” of 30 countries — some of whom are endowed with nuclear arsenals — that Biden evoked in his State of the Union address.

As the rhetorical effect of the commitment to defend every inch, Biden undoubtedly sought to create the fragile illusion that Ukraine is already spiritually part of NATO and that the bold sanctions he is capable of mobilizing to punish Russia will be adequate to spare Ukraine the worst. But illusions create confusion. In this case, it has created that particular form of confusion we call war. And it has fallen on the largely defenseless population of an entire nation.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Politicians, just like advertising wizards, choose repetition to instill a fixed idea in people’s minds without necessarily reflecting on the unintended consequences of that idea, which they generally write off as collateral damage. The marketers focus on what really matters: product awareness and brand recognition. In the world of commerce, it makes some sense because no one is obliged to keep buying the product. 

One of the predictable effects of the confusion created by Biden’s rhetoric has already been revealed in the growing call for actual military engagement, not only by the Ukrainians themselves but also by Americans. Some members of Congress and even a seasoned journalist, Richard Engel, have suggested that the US institute a no-fly zone. The White House has rejected that idea precisely because it would be an act of war, with potential nuclear consequences.

Another dimension of the president’s pet phrase appeared when, at a press conference last week, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg twice repeated Biden’s exact . He began with this promise: “We will do what it takes to protect and defend every Ally. And every inch of NATO �ٱ�������ٴǰ���.” Later in the Q&A with the press, he spoke of the “reason why we so clearly send the message that we are there to protect all Allies and every inch of NATO �ٱ�������ٴǰ���.”

Americans will not be surprised by Stoltenberg’s repetition of Biden’s slogan, but Europeans should be. The US is the only nation, along with Liberia and Myanmar, that has not committed to the metric system, not just for science and industry, but as the nation’s cultural norm, making it the basis for informal talk in everyday life about weights and measures. Even the UK made the metric system official in the 1990s, where it is now taught in schools. Europeans think and talk according to the metric system. Americans think and talk — appropriately enough — according to the imperial system.  

Stoltenberg is Norwegian. The population of 29 of NATO’s 30 members uses the metric system in their daily activities. So, what does it tell us when instead of saying every square centimeter, the European head of NATO says “every inch”? The answer should be obvious to Europeans. Stoltenberg is the lead actor in a play written and directed by the United States. NATO is not the collegial entity that some cite, with the intent of proving its legitimacy. It is an instrument of US power and culture. And that happens to be a militaristic and hegemonic culture, in direct contrast with most European nations following World War II.

One of the longer-term consequences of the current crisis is something no one seems willing to talk about at this moment as everyone is concerned with expressing their solidarity with the Ukrainian people. Numerous commentators have interpreted ��ܲ�������’s aggression as a signal that the West is for once becoming united and will be stronger than ever when the fighting dies down and Russia is humbled. 

The question no one wants to assess realistically is precisely the evolving image of NATO, particularly for Europeans. The idea that the Russian assault will strengthen Europe’s commitment to NATO to avoid future crises is naive at best and the product of the kind of illusion Biden has created with his rhetoric. What is happening today is frightening, and to the extent that the problem itself turns around the existence of NATO, without compromising their empathy for Ukrainians, Europeans have already begun reflecting on the danger NATO represents for their political and economic future.

Europeans have plenty to think about. Depending on how the war itself plays out, two things seem likely in the near future. The first is that, thanks to the unpopularity of Biden at home, it seems inevitable that the Republican Party will control Congress in 2023 and that a Republican will likely defeat the Democrats in the presidential election of 2024. This appears even more likely were either President Biden or Vice-President Kamala Harris to be the party’s standard bearer. The Republican Party is still dominated by Donald Trump, a fact that clearly unsettles most politicians and political thinkers in Europe. The marketers of both parties, over at least the past eight years, have failed to defend their once prestigious brand. 

Depending on Europe’s capacity to act independently after decades of accepting to remain in the shadow of the US, welcomed as their protector in the aftermath of World War II, it is highly likely that a movement will emerge to create a European and possibly Eurasian security framework that could replace or, at the very least, marginalize NATO. And even after the fiasco of the Ukraine War (Vladimir Putin’s folly), that new framework might even include Russia. 

Why Monitoring Language Is Important

Language allows people to express thoughts, theories, ideas, experiences and opinions. But even while doing so, it also serves to obscure what is essential for understanding the complex nature of reality. When people use language to hide essential meaning, it is not only because they cynically seek to prevaricate or spread misinformation. It is because they strive to tell the part or the angle of the story that correlates with their needs and interests.

In the age of social media, many of our institutions and pundits proclaim their intent to root out “misinformation.” But often, in so doing, they are literally seeking to miss information.

Is there a solution? It will never be perfect, but critical thinking begins by being attentive to two things: the full context of any issue we are trying to understand and the operation of language itself. In our schools, we are taught to read and write, but, unless we bring rhetoric back into the standard curriculum, we are never taught how the power of language to both convey and distort the truth functions. There is a largely unconscious but observable historical reason for that negligence. Teaching establishments and cultural authorities fear the power of linguistic critique may be used against their authority.

Remember, 51�Թ�’s Language and the News seeks to sensitize our readers to the importance of digging deeper when assimilating the wisdom of our authorities, pundits and the media that transmit their knowledge and wisdom.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Coherent Is NATO Today and in the Future? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

But there is a more insidious reality at work beneath the surface of this classic morality play, and that is the role of the United States and NATO in setting the stage for this crisis.

The Unthinkable: War Returns to Europe

READ MORE

US President Joe Biden has called the Russian invasion “,” but that is far from the truth. In the four days leading up to the invasion on February 24, ceasefire monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) a dangerous increase in ceasefire violations in the east of Ukraine. Most were inside the de facto borders of the Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR) regions of Donbas in eastern Ukraine, consistent with incoming shell-fire by Ukrainian government forces. With nearly OSCE ceasefire monitors on the ground, it is not credible that these were all “false flag” incidents staged by separatist forces, as American and British officials claimed.

Whether the shell-fire was just another escalation in the long-running civil war in eastern Ukraine or the opening salvos of a new government offensive, it was certainly a provocation. But the Russian invasion has far exceeded any proportionate action to defend the DPR and LPR from those attacks, making it disproportionate and illegal. 

The New Cold War

In the larger context, though, Ukraine has become an unwitting victim and proxy in the resurgent Cold War against Russia and China, in which the United States has surrounded both countries with military forces and offensive weapons, withdrawn from a whole series of arms control treaties, and refused to negotiate resolutions to rational security concerns raised by Russia.

In December 2021, after a summit between Biden and his counterpart in Moscow, Vladimir Putin, Russia submitted a draft for a new mutual security treaty between Russia and NATO, with nine articles to be negotiated. They represented a reasonable basis for a serious exchange. The most pertinent to the crisis was simply to agree that NATO would not accept Ukraine as a new member, which is not on the table in the foreseeable future in any case. But the Biden administration brushed off ��ܲ�������’s entire proposal as a nonstarter, not even a basis for negotiations.

So, why was negotiating a mutual security treaty so unacceptable that Biden was ready to risk thousands of Ukrainian lives — although not a single American life — rather than attempt to find common ground? What does that say about the relative value that Biden and his colleagues place on American vs. Ukrainian lives? And what is this strange position that the United States occupies in today’s world that permits a US president to risk so many Ukrainian lives without asking Americans to share their pain and sacrifice? 

The breakdown in US relations with Russia and the failure of Biden’s inflexible brinkmanship precipitated this war, and yet his policy externalizes all the pain and suffering so that Americans can, as another president once said, “go about their business” and keep shopping. �������������’s European allies, who must now house hundreds of thousands of refugees and face spiraling energy prices, should be wary of falling in line behind this kind of “leadership” before they, too, end up on the front line.

NATO

At the end of the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact, NATO’s Eastern European counterpart, was dissolved. NATO should have been too since it had achieved the purpose it was built to serve. Instead, NATO has lived on as a dangerous, out-of-control military alliance dedicated mainly to expanding its sphere of operations and justifying its own existence. It has expanded from 16 countries in 1991 to a total of 30 countries today, incorporating most of Eastern Europe, at the same time as it has committed aggression, bombings of civilians and other war crimes. 

In 1999, NATO launched an illegal war to militarily carve out an independent Kosovo from the remnants of Yugoslavia. NATO airstrikes during the Kosovo War killed hundreds of civilians, and its leading ally in the war, Kosovan President Hashim Thaci, is now on trial at The Hague charged with committing appalling war under the cover of NATO bombing, including murder, torture and enforced disappearances. 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Far from the North Atlantic, NATO joined the United States in its 20-year war in Afghanistan and then attacked and destroyed Libya in 2011, leaving behind a failed , a continuing refugee crisis and violence and chaos across the region.

In 1991, as part of a Soviet agreement to accept the reunification of East and West Germany, Western leaders assured their Soviet counterparts that they would not expand NATO any closer to Russia than the border of a united Germany. At the time, US Secretary of State James Baker promised that NATO would not advance “one inch” beyond the German border. The West’s broken promises are spelled out for all to see in 30 declassified published on the National Security Archive website.

The INF Treaty

After expanding across Eastern Europe and waging wars in Afghanistan and Libya, NATO has predictably come full circle to once again view Russia as its principal enemy. US nuclear weapons are now based in five NATO countries in Europe: Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Turkey, while France and the United Kingdom already have their own nuclear arsenals. US “missile defense” systems, which could be converted to fire offensive nuclear missiles, are based in Poland and Romania, including at a in Poland only 100 miles from the Russian border. 

Another Russian in its December proposal was for the US to join a moratorium on intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) in Europe. In 2019, both the United States and Russia withdrew from a 1987 treaty, under which both sides agreed not to deploy short- or intermediate-range nuclear missiles. Donald Trump, the US president at the time, pulled out of the INF treaty on the advice of his national security adviser, John Bolton.

None of this can justify Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, but the world should take Russia seriously when it says that its conditions for ending the war and returning to diplomacy are Ukrainian neutrality and disarmament. While no country can be expected to completely disarm in today’s armed-to-the-teeth world, neutrality could be a serious long-term option for Ukraine. 

Neutrality

There are many successful precedents, like Switzerland, Austria, Ireland, Finland and Costa Rica. Or take the case of Vietnam. It has a common border and serious maritime disputes with China, but Vietnam has resisted US efforts to embroil it in its Cold War with Beijing. Vietnam remains committed to its long-standing “” policy: no military alliances, no affiliation with one country against another, no foreign military bases and no threats or uses of force. 

The world must do whatever it takes to obtain a ceasefire in Ukraine and make it stick. Maybe UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres or a special representative could act as a mediator, possibly with a peacekeeping role for the United Nations. This will not be easy. One of the still unlearned lessons of other conflicts is that it is easier to prevent war through serious diplomacy and a genuine commitment to peace than to end war once it has started.

If or when there is a ceasefire, all parties must be prepared to start afresh to negotiate lasting diplomatic solutions that will allow all the people of Ukraine, Russia, the United States and other NATO members to live in peace. Security is not a zero-sum game, and no country or group of countries can achieve lasting security by undermining the security of others. 

The United States and Russia must also finally assume the responsibility that comes with stockpiling over 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons and agree on a plan to start dismantling them, in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the new UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Lastly, as Americans condemn ��ܲ�������’s aggression, it would be the epitome of hypocrisy to forget or ignore the many recent wars in which the United States and its allies have been the aggressors: in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, , Somalia, Palestine, Pakistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen. 

We sincerely hope that Russia will end its illegal, brutal invasion of Ukraine long before it commits a fraction of the massive killing and destruction that the United States has committed in its own illegal wars.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The US Leaves Ukraine to Fight New Cold War With Russia appeared first on 51�Թ�.

We invite readers to join us by submitting their suggestions of words and expressions that deserve exploring, with or without original commentary. To submit a citation from the news and/or provide your own short commentary, send us an email.

February 24: Unmistakable

Our regular examination of language in the news cycle has been bringing us back to the major international story thus far of 2022. The Russia–Ukraine crisis keeps generating examples of the deliberately twisted and sometimes directly inverted semantics, a trend that will probably continue and perhaps become amplified in the coming weeks and months.

As a general rule, when politicians claim to be “clear,” the observer can be certain that what they are clear about is at best half the story. Clarity imperceptibly fades into obscurity. It gets worse when the speaker claims that the message is “unmistakable.” Quoted by the New York Times, US President Joe Biden offered a wonderful example of such while explaining the measures he is taking to counter ��ܲ�������’s incursion into Ukraine.

Ukraine’s Tug of War and the Implications for Europe

READ MORE

“Let me be clear: These are totally defensive moves on our part,” Biden proclaimed. “We have no intention of fighting Russia. We want to send an unmistakable message, though, that the United States, together with our allies, will defend every inch of NATO territory and abide by the commitments we made to NATO.”

This is the standard mantra in Washington. Economic sanctions are always intended to punish civilian populations in the hope that they will revolt against their government. They should never be thought of as aggressive or offensive, not even partially. Perish the thought. Biden makes that “clear” when he claims they are “totally” defensive, like a soldier in the field raising a shield before his face to deflect an enemy’s arrow. 

As for the “unmistakable message,” it may simply mean that the White House has made so many mistaken guesses in recent weeks about the date of a Russian invasion, it is now necessary to inform people that the latest message, for a change, is not just one more in an endless series of mistakes.

Biden also called Vladimir Putin’s move “the beginning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine.” For the moment, it is an aggressive incursion into contested Ukrainian territory, but it isn’t an invasion. It can only be deemed the beginning of an invasion if there actually is an invasion that follows from it. There is no question that President Putin’s initiative violates international law, but that alone doesn’t make it a military invasion.

Biden should know something about what invasions look like. He was, after all, the key Democrat, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to champion US President George W. Bush’s tragically planned and utterly unjustified of Iraq in 2003, a well-documented episode Biden persistently denied during his election campaign.

Putin’s move may be a prelude to an invasion, but preludes only become real when the event they are preparing becomes real. The real reason Biden calls it “the beginning of an invasion” is to save face in an attempt to maintain a modicum of credibility regarding his ���峾���Ծ����ٰ����پ��Dz�’s warnings in recent weeks. He may well be hoping it turns into a Russian invasion just to prove his repeated predictions were somewhat correct.

Then there’s Biden’s promise to defend “every inch of NATO �ٱ�������ٴǰ���.” Everyone knows Ukraine is not NATO territory. So why offer such a justification? Perhaps Biden’s reason for saying this on record is that, when Republicans and the more bellicose Democrats begin castigating him for failing to support Ukraine militarily, he will be able to use Ukraine’s non-NATO status to defend his policy. At the same time, he is getting the best of both worlds. He may thus safely stand back and watch a bloody proxy war proceed, much as Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Biden have done for the past seven years with Yemen.

Finally, Biden made the important decision to call off the proposed summit meeting with Putin. At the same time, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken a planned meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that should have taken place on February 24. “Now that we see the invasion is beginning,” Blinken explained, “and Russia has made clear its wholesale rejection of diplomacy, it does not make sense to go forward with that meeting at this time.” 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

That statement on Blinken’s part is literally a “wholesale rejection.” He even used the expression “pretense of diplomacy,” disparaging the very idea of trying to solve the problem rather than let it get worse. Lavrov had made no attempt to scotch the meeting. In its coverage, Reuters added that “Blinken said he was still committed to diplomacy.” Except, apparently, when he’s committed to preventing it from happening. In former times, diplomacy consisted of getting a conversation going whenever a serious problem arose. It certainly did not consist of explaining why there was no need for a dialogue.

In the light of this new style of diplomacy, historians may now find it an interesting counterfactual exercise to wonder what might have happened during the Cuban missile crisis had either John F. Kennedy or Nikita Khrushchev objected that diplomacy was a waste of time. 

Why Monitoring Language Is Important

Language allows people to express thoughts, theories, ideas, experiences and opinions. But even while doing so, it also serves to obscure what is essential for understanding the complex nature of reality. When people use language to hide essential meaning, it is not only because they cynically seek to prevaricate or spread misinformation. It is because they strive to tell the part or the angle of the story that correlates with their needs and interests.

In the age of social media, many of our institutions and pundits proclaim their intent to root out “misinformation.” But often, in so doing, they are literally seeking to miss information.

Is there a solution? It will never be perfect, but critical thinking begins by being attentive to two things: the full context of any issue we are trying to understand and the operation of language itself. In our schools, we are taught to read and write, but, unless we bring rhetoric back into the standard curriculum, we are never taught how the power of language to both convey and distort the truth functions. There is a largely unconscious but observable historical reason for that negligence. Teaching establishments and cultural authorities fear the power of linguistic critique may be used against their authority.

Remember, 51�Թ�’s Language and the News seeks to sensitize our readers to the importance of digging deeper when assimilating the wisdom of our authorities, pundits and the media that transmit their knowledge and wisdom.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post From Repeated Mistakes to an Unmistakable Message appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In a new for Foreign Affairs bearing the title, “Enemies of My Enemy: How Fear of China Is Forging a New World Order,” Beckley makes the case that having and sharing an easily identified enemy is the key to effective world government. The Cold War taught him that “the liberal order” has nothing to do with good intentions and being a force for good. Instead, it thrives on a strong dose of irrational fear that can be spread among friends.

Ukraine’s Tug of War and the Implications for Europe (Language and the News)

READ MORE

As the Republican presidential candidate in 2000, George W. Bush produced these immortal : “When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were. It was us vs. them, and it was clear who them was. Today, we are not so sure who the they are, but we know they’re there.” Probably unwittingly, Beckley echoes Bush’s wisdom. “Today, the liberal order is fraying for many reasons,” Beckley writes, “but the underlying cause is that the threat it was originally designed to defeat—Soviet communism—disappeared three decades ago.”  Unlike the clueless Bush, Beckley now knows who the “they” is. It’s China.

History has moved on. China can now replace the Soviet Union as the star performer. Bush proposed Islamist terrorism as his coveted “them,” but that ultimately failed. The terrorists are still lurking in numerous shadows, but when President Biden withdrew the last American troops from Afghanistan in August 2021, he definitively delegitimized it as a threat worthy of spawning a new Cold War. And now, even while Russia is being touted as the best supporting actor, the stage is finally clear to push China into the limelight.

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Shared enemy:

A powerful nation whose negative image can be modeled by another powerful nation in such a way that its name alone inspires fear, to the point that it may be generously offered to governments of weaker nations on the pretext of forming a profitable alliance

Contextual Note

For Beckley, US hegemony needs China’s help. Now that the Middle Kingdom has now achieved the status of a high-profile enemy to be generously shared with obedient allies, the liberal order may thrive again, as it did during the Cold War. For Beckley, it is China, not Donald Trump, that will “make America great again.”

Some may find Beckley’s historical logic slightly skewed. He explains that the modern liberal order was “designed to defeat … Soviet communism.” If it was “designed,” what does he have to say about the designer? Who indeed could that have been, and what were their real motives? Could it have been the Dulles brothers, whose combined clout in the Dwight Eisenhower years allowed them to dictate US foreign policy? More alarmingly, Beckley seems to be suggesting that without a pretext for paranoia, the liberal order would not or could not exist.  

Beckley is probably right but for reasons he might not appreciate. The idea of needing an identifiable enemy stands as a purely negative justification of the liberal order. But Beckley has already dismissed the idea that it is all about bettering the world. He seems to underestimate the need ordinary Americans have to think of their country as a shining city on a hill, endowed with the most powerful military in the history of the world whose mission is not to maraud, destroy, displace populations and kill, but to intervene as a “force for good.”

It’s not as if social harmony was the norm in the United States. The one thing that prevents the country from descending into a chaos of consumer individualism, or from becoming a nation populated by angry Hobbesian egos intolerant of the behavior of other egos, is the ideology that Beckley denigrates but which politicians continue to celebrate: the “enlightened call to make the world a better place.” Americans would fall into a state of despair if they no longer believed that their exceptional and indispensable nation exists as an ideal for humanity.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

But recent events have begun to shake their faith in what now appears to be a manifestly not very egalitarian democracy. Increasingly oligarchic, if not plutocratic, American society remains “liberal” (i.e., free) for those who control the growing mountains of cash that visibly circulate among the elite but rarely trickle down to meet any real human needs.

As the defender of an idealized liberal order, Beckley is right to assume that, with so many factors undermining the American consensus, the cultivation of a shared enemy may be the necessary key to maintaining that order. Fear has always had the unique virtue of diverting attention from serious and worsening problems. Between income inequality, climate change and an enduring pandemic punctuated by contestable government mandates, people’s attention definitely needs to be diverted.

Historical Note

Michael Beckley is certainly very knowledgeable about China. He admires Chinese civilization and many of its accomplishments. He also believes a war between the United States and China is far from inevitable. Moreover, he is a realist. He admits that, as many people across the globe affirm, the US represents the biggest threat to world peace. At the same time, he “that the United States has the most potential to be the biggest contributor to peace.” He lucidly notes that “when the United States puts its weight behind something the world gets remade, for better or for worse.” But, having said this, he eludes the implicit moral question. If both the better and worse are possible, the rest of the world should be the ones to decide every time its reality is “remade” whether that remaking was for the better or the worse.

As Pew show, most people outside the US appear to believe that American initiatives across the globe over at least the past half-century have been predominantly for the worse. Beckley himself cites Iraq and Vietnam as egregious examples. But, ever the optimist, he sees in what he calls the ability of the “system of US alliances” to create “zones of peace” the proof that the worse isn’t as bad as some might think.

Beckley recognizes that alliances are not created out of generosity and goodwill alone. In his influential book, “Super-Imperialism,” the economist Michael Hudson describes the workings of what is known as the “Washington Consensus,” a system of economic and military control that, in the decades after World War II, managed, somewhat perversely, to miraculously transfer the immense burden of its own debt, generated by its military adventurism, to the rest of the world. The “Treasury-bill Standard,” an innovation President Richard Nixon called into being to replace the gold standard in 1971, played a major role. With the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, Hudson notes that “foreign governments were obliged to invest their surplus dollars in U.S. Treasury securities.” It was part of a complex financial, diplomatic and military system that forced US allies to finance American debt.

Beckley’s  “zones of peace” are zones of dependence. Every country that participated in the system found itself forced to hold US Treasury bonds, including China. They thus had an interest in maintaining the stability of a system that dictated the flow of money across the globe. To a large extent, that is still the case. It explains why attempts to dethrone the dollar are systemically countered, sometimes violently through military action (as in Libya, to scotch Muammar Gaddafi’s for a pan-African currency).

None of that worries the eternal optimist Beckley, clearly a disciple of Voltaire’s Pangloss. He believes that — even while admitting the US has “wrecked the world in various ways” — its “potential” for peace trumps the reality of persistent war and that its “capability to make the world much more peaceful and prosperous” absolves it from the wreckage it has already produced. 

From a cultural point of view, Beckley is right. Americans always believe that what is “potential” trumps what is real and that “capability” effaces past examples of incapable behavior. That describes a central feature of American hyperreality.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post An Expert Explains Why We Need a New Cold War With China appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Why Now?

The raid comes after IS conducted an attack on al-Sinaa prison in the northeastern city of Hasakah in January in an attempt to break free its fighters. In the assault, several Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) fighters were . According to SDF officials, IS was  for six months. Nevertheless, the US-backed SDF recaptured the prison about a week later. 

Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona suspects that the attack on the prison “was the catalyst that led to the decision to act on what was obviously already known location intelligence on … al-Qurayshi.” Francona, who served as the US military attaché in Syria from 1992 to 1995, notes that “Over the past few months, there has been an increase in ISIS activity — more widespread and bolder in nature. This also comes at a time when Iranian-backed militias have also stepped up attacks on US forces in Syria and Iraq.”

Both Qurayshi and his predecessor, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, were eliminated in Idlib province, in areas under the control of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). Previously, HTS was known as Jabhat al-Nusra, affiliated with al-Qaeda and initially  with IS. In 2013, however, it  from IS and has been with the group since 2014. In 2016, it also  relations with al-Qaeda and  itself as Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (JFS). The following year, JFS assumed its current iteration as it  with other groups. 

During much of the past decade, Idlib served as a  for extremists. In 2017, then-US envoy to the coalition fighting the Islamic State, Brett McGurk,  that “Idlib Province is the largest Al Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.” Following Baghdadi’s elimination in 2019, former US President Donald Trump suggested Baghdadi was in Idlib as part of a plan to rebuild IS. Indeed, it was  to see Qurayshi hiding in Idlib as well. 

According to David Lesch, professor of Middle East History at Trinity University in Texas and author of “Syria: A Modern History,” “it seems strange that al-Baghdadi and al-Qurayshi were killed in [a] province largely controlled by its rival HTS and overseen by Turkey, but on the other hand it is the only area not under the control of the Syrian government and its allies or the US-supported SDF, all of whom are opposed to ISIS.”

“Idlib is now home to thousands of IDPs, therefore it was easier for the two to blend in, live secretively, and not be identified as outsiders since most everyone in certain areas of the province are outsiders,” Lesch explains. “Yet they were still found because despite all this they lived in an area still teaming with enemies who were obviously directly or indirectly assets to US intelligence.”

The recent US operation in Idlib, which was  planned over several months, has been the largest of its kind in the country since the 2019 raid that eliminated Baghdadi. Although Qurayshi was  than Baghdadi, the fact that he was targeted in the US raid confirms his .

It is worth noting that Qurayshi was named as the leader of IS in 2019, following the death of Baghdadi. While IS called on all Muslims to pledge allegiance to Qurayshi as the new “caliph,” it did not provide much information about his . The use of the name “Qurayshi” seemed to be an attempt to  to the Prophet Muhammad. This is a tactic that was  vis-à-vis Baghdadi with the aim of  his leadership role. Qurayshi’s real name is Amir Muhammad Said Abdal-Rahman al-Mawla but he is also known as Hajji Abdullah and Abdullah Qaradash.  

As the US continues to create an impression that it is minimizing its presence in the region, especially following its withdrawal from Afghanistan last year, the raid seems to have been used to demonstrate  to reassure Washington’s partners. It also  as a needed win for Biden at a time when the Ukraine crisis remains unsolved. 

However, while Qurayshi’s elimination is a positive development, it may simply be a “,” as Sean Carberry suggests in The Hill. While the operation against Qurayshi may create internal chaos within IS, ultimately, the terror group is likely to name a new leader and move on, which is what took place following Baghdadi’s assassination. Although IS was militarily defeated, the group has not been eliminated and remains a threat. In fact, there have been increased indications, such as the attack on al-Sinaa prison, suggesting that the group is in a state of resurgence. The militants might also seek to use the recent US raid to encourage revenge attacks. 

US Policy in Syria

The Biden ���峾���Ծ����ٰ����پ��Dz�’s policy vis-à-vis Syria seems to indicate that the official approach will be “,” as Abdulrahman al-Masri and Reem Salahi suggest. It should not be surprising to learn that Syria does not constitute a top diplomatic priority for President Biden. Yet while the US does not want to remain engaged in endless regional wars, it seems to  that a political settlement in war-torn Syria would only empower President Bashar al-Assad, whom Washington would never back. 

Moreover, the US and the Kurds are partners, and Washington would not want to portray an image that it has abandoned those who have shouldered the fight against the Islamic State. This was the overall perception when Trump announced the withdrawal of US forces from Syria in 2019, and Biden seems keen to remedy that controversial decision. 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

It is worth noting that during President Barack Obama’s tenure, Vice President Biden was one of the  when it came to what the US could achieve in Syria. Nevertheless, it  be taken as a given that as president, Biden may be in favor of removing all US forces from the country. For instance, he criticized Trump’s decision to withdraw forces from Syria,  it granted IS “a new lease on life.” In the same year, Biden also  he supports keeping some forces in eastern Syria for the foreseeable future. 

Middle East expert and former US State Department analyst, Gregory Aftandilian doesn’t see the US leaving Syria anytime soon. Aftandilian, who is also a non-resident fellow at Arab Center Washington DC, thinks “It is doubtful [Biden] will do more than the anti-ISIS campaign and humanitarian aid. In light of the attempted prison break in northeastern Syria he may put pressure on some countries to take back ISIS ��������DzԱ����.”

For the US to play a role in stabilizing Syria, there needs to be a clear strategy. Unfortunately, at the moment, that strategy is largely . While the elimination of Qurayshi is a positive step, much more work needs to be done to stabilize the country.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Elimination of IS Leader Is a Positive, But Not a Final, Step appeared first on 51�Թ�.

February 22: Practice

For the past month or so, the Biden administration has been demonstrating a unique innovation in diplomacy. It consists of explaining not its own intentions — which might be interesting for the media and the world to understand — but the will of the party it has decided to brand not as a rival or even an adversary, but as the archenemy embodied in the person of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

No one doubts that ��ܲ�������’s deployment of troops on the Ukrainian border that began at the end of 2021 was a powerful and unusual provocation. We now know that it was a prelude to Putin’s decree on February 21 recognizing the separatist regions of eastern Ukraine as independent. On the basis of that decree, Russian troops are now entering those regions, not as an invading force, but under the pretext of assisting those areas in the exercise of their autonomy.

Ideally, at any point following the initial buildup of Russian troops along the border, if Washington’s intention truly was to avoid war, the appropriate response would have been to engage in a serious and discreet diplomatic dialogue. Far less ideally, working the media in a way that exacerbates tensions and could produce the perception of a bungled or inappropriate response could only exacerbate the risk of war. For the past few months, brinkmanship has become the rule on both sides. The Biden ���峾���Ծ����ٰ����پ��Dz�’s choice of predicting an invasion went beyond mere brinkmanship and at times resembled the theater of the absurd.

Serious diplomacy should take place as quietly as possible between governments that understand the stakes. This is especially true when there is a sense of standing on the brink. The Biden administration chose instead to use the popular media to stir up a belief that conflict is inevitable. The intention behind that tactic can be interpreted in three ways.

The first could be that its experts believe the opposing forces are not on the brink, that it’s a tempest in a teapot. If that is true, we should find it reassuring. The second is that Washington doesn’t really care because Ukraine is so far away. Some would call that the Tucker Carlson thesis, which may be true even if the US does insist on engaging. The third is that because President Joe Biden has promised not to send US troops, he counts on the perception that only Russia could be blamed for the killing and destruction to follow. In this scenario, the aim would be to draw Russia into Ukraine and let the fireworks play out.

Pundits in US media have been endlessly speculating about what the evil genius Putin’s ultimate intentions are. He has now begun his gambit, but how he intends to develop the game remains a mystery. A new round of speculation can begin. It might be useful now for the pundits to begin making the same effort to guess the intentions of the White House by considering the three hypotheses stated above or a possible fourth or fifth one. 

Careful and discreet diplomacy rather than largely unbelievable declarations directed toward the media about an imminent invasion would have been the logical and even traditional approach to avoiding what is now almost certain to become, at the very least, a form of civil war within Ukraine. Despite Washington’s claim, the crisis has never been about a simple question of national sovereignty. It has unfolded within a historical context whose complexity seasoned non-political experts on Russia and diplomacy — such as John Mearsheimer and the recently departed Stephen Cohen — had little trouble understanding. It is unthinkable that the advisers in the Biden administration might remain ignorant of the insight those and other analysts have provided. Consequently, the tactic the White House has employed — that consisted of predicting not just what Russia will do but when it will do it, and getting it repeatedly wrong — can only be seen as the opposite of serious diplomacy.

The best indication that things are truly out of kilter appears when someone as ideologically inflexible and bellicose as John Bolton plays the role of a realist. According to The Hill, the former national security adviser to Donald Trump worries about the of the current administration because he thinks it “is so consumed by the reaction to its catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, that it’s overhyping the imminence of the potential attack.” When you talk for weeks on end of an imminent attack, the message it sends is that you are aching for an imminent attack. 

It is hardly surprising that the Russians were not pleased by the Biden ���峾���Ծ����ٰ����پ��Dz�’s tactic, traditionally used by end-of-the-world cultists who keep predicting and then having to re-predict the apocalypse. Perhaps it was just a psychological game invented by the Biden administration as nothing more than a ploy to throw Putin off balance. The Russians ended up complaining not about the substance of the predictions, but about the very real risk such an alarmist campaign may provoke among the Ukrainian population. “So all this has – may have – detrimental consequences,” commented Dmitry Peskov, quoted by Reuters. “The daily exercise of announcing a date for Russia to invade Ukraine is a very bad practice.”

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Peskov is right to call what the White House sees as a powerful tactic an “exercise” and a “practice.” For weeks on end, everyone in the State Department and the security apparatus has been focused on exercising and practicing, rather than addressing real issues or preparing for a tense future. As Peskov warns, such a practice will inevitably ratchet up tension on the ground, a tension over which the leaders themselves on both sides are likely to have no control. 

Washington’s practice has already unnerved the Ukrainians themselves, the very people Biden claims to support. That includes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who has repeatedly asked the Biden administration to tone down the rhetoric. With so much heat generated, at any point, a minor spark could set off a blaze. Putin’s decree is not quite the spark, but by encouraging the pro-Russian population of Ukraine to believe in its independence, the conditions for producing that spark have been immensely magnified.

���ʸ�’s Mary Louise Kelly interviewed the US-educated Russian journalist Vladimir Pozner, who “that this whole drumming up of the possibility or the reality of Russia attacking Ukraine is something that the West is interested in and that Russia doesn’t want because Russia can win nothing by invading Ukraine.” Kelly has a hard time believing that. She also fails to react when Pozner correctly observes that “most people are … victimized by their media.” It is common knowledge that Americans are put off by their omnipresent media, but they are still victimized by it, especially when it uncritically plays the government’s game to create expectations of the worse rather than hope for the better.

In the same interview, Pozner cites the precedent of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, drawing a parallel between President John F. Kennedy, who focused on discreet negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. He successfully avoided war by making a concession that was kept from the media concerning US missiles in Turkey. Kelly, who is certainly too young to remember, mistakenly objects that “that did not bring these countries to the brink of war.” Pozner corrects her, affirming that it “did bring the countries to the brink of war.” It required enormous skill and tact on Kennedy’s part to prevent the military’s insistence on an invasion of Cuba that could easily have escalated into nuclear war.

Kelly’s response to Pozner’s clarification is revealing: “To the brink of war but not to war.” Apparently, she fails to understand the distinction between the brink and what’s beyond the brink. Many people are now wondering whether the current team in the White House understands that distinction. The sanctions the US has promised and will certainly deliver are likely to have little effect if the aim is to prevent a civil war — that has already been smoldering for eight years — and ensure Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The situation was already complex and has now become more complex.��

Washington still has the possibility of pushing diplomacy forward, though the latest events have weakened its position. The real question that needs to be asked is this: Does anyone inside the Beltway know how to conduct true crisis diplomacy. The theatrical performance that consists of standing on the stage like a failed magician trying to identify the card a member of the audience has drawn from the deck and constantly being foiled would seem to indicate that the art of US crisis diplomacy died with Kennedy on November 22, 1963. That may be the result of Biden’s State Department practicing and exercising too hard instead of assessing the stakes, thinking and discreetly preparing the move that could possibly avoid checkmate.

February 21: In Some Senses

In an with the BBC, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson demonstrated his talent for diverting attention from his own precarious situation that includes a growing lack of legitimacy even within his own party. He undoubtedly remembers how another Tory prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, reversed her waning approval numbers by going to war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1982.

The BBC sums up the prime minister’s message: “Russia plans biggest war in Europe since 1945.” In other words, Johnson wants the world (and voters in the United Kingdom) to understand his firm intention of stepping up as a national hero ready to wreak havoc on the enemy by promising to bring in even more far-reaching sanctions “against Russia than have been suggested before,” the BBC reports.

Johnson may have some difficulty convincing people as he attempts to step into the role of the valorous knight in shining armor prepared for the most challenging battle of his career. The observant will perceive someone more like the squire who tends to US President Joe Biden’s needs. Johnson has no hope of emulating Thatcher’s performance as the resolute and ultimately victorious wartime leader.

On the other hand, Johnson’s role of raising the alarm demands little effort. And delivering on his promises will entail no painful sacrifice as they only consist of playing the now traditional US game of imposing sanctions that will prevent Russian firms from “trading in pounds and dollars.” This phrase creating a false equivalence between the once mighty pound and the almighty dollar may impress a few people who cling to the image of a past empire, but it sounds hollow in today’s world.

The prime minister’s precise words merit a brief effort at close reading. “The plan that we’re seeing,” he insists, “is something that could be the biggest war in Europe since 1945.” At the most obvious level, this is simple alarmism. It evokes the most costly war in European history and, more implicitly, the specter of Adolf Hitler (played on the world state today by Vladimir Putin).

Johnson’s “plan that we’re seeing” evokes a great British tradition in entertainment from to and . The dread of a diabolical plan — or the pride in a great strategic plan — has long been a standard melodramatic trope. But that too is risky, as in the British tradition those plans are almost always comically mocked.

Johnson claims that “we” are “seeing” the plan. Since by “we” he means the nation as a whole, this apparently refers to the media, including the BBC, that are only too happy to broadcast the news about the supposed plan. The fact that the plan is still only supposed is borne out by Johnson’s use of the now classically evocative but utterly uncertain “could,” followed by the superlative of “the biggest war.” The qualifying condition of “since” allows him to compare it with World War II, clearly the biggest of all time. It is clearly time to think about things more alarming than Friday night cocktail parties at 10 Downing Street.

“All the signs are that the plan has already in some senses begun,” Johnson continues, making sure the public understands that it’s all about a devious “plan.” He claims that the plan, whose details nobody knows, has begun, which is nonsense since plans do not begin or end, especially ones we know nothing about. What he means is that the execution of the supposed plan has begun, though it is impossible to say how. For the moment, and possibly for a long time to come, the only thing being executed on either side is a campaign to create fear and suspicion. And that plan has clearly begun in the West, led by the US and followed by Johnson.

Johnson’s cluelessness, which he has tried to masquerade as strategic insight, becomes evident in his dodge when he uses the phrase, “in some senses.” It’s an expression as vague as the all-inclusive “could.” Though the evidence is invisible, the prime minister, whose own senses may be slightly out of whack, wants everyone to believe that they are “seeing” something real and active, not something that simply “could” happen. Because we can see it despite its being invisible requires bold action on the part of bold leaders, such as himself.

That is why only some of Johnson’s senses (but not actual seeing, hearing, touching, tasting or smelling) have perceived what he wants us to believe is an already “begun” invasion of Ukraine. In such a case, who wouldn’t be ready to have confidence in Boris Johnson’s sixth sense?

February 18: Defensive Alliance

Political will is a real thing. It defines geopolitics and international relations. Recognizing it is always useful, but in a civilized world (or a world that likes to think of itself as civilized), pure political will inevitably rubs against the duty political leaders feel they have to appeal to a rules-based order to justify their actions.

Everyone who manipulates power knows the value of invoking rules to legitimate any purely willful action. If there’s any contradiction between the act and the rule, you simply aim to impose the fait accompli. As the events since World War II have demonstrated, even in a respectfully observed rules-based order, the rules more often than not bow submissively to the force of political will. Political savvy consists of understanding when and how to bend the rules, if not simply to ignore them.

“Russia says it may be ‘forced’ to respond militarily if the US won’t agree to its unacceptable security demands on Ukraine” is the title of an article in Business Insider describing the at the Ukrainian border between the US and Russia. “The US and NATO,” John Haltiwanger writes, “have firmly rejected Russia’s demand that Ukraine be forever banned from the alliance, stating that countries should be free to choose their own allies and defensive partnerships.”

This accurately described difference of interpretation has produced a curious and dangerous misunderstanding about respecting and applying rules. If it turns into a direct contest of wills, it could lead to a new world war. ��ܲ�������’s idea of banning the further expansion of NATO isn’t just a willful attempt to expand its own influence. It is based on what any relationship-based culture considers sacrosanct: respecting one’s word and fulfilling one’s promises. Several US presidents, beginning with George H.W. Bush, promised not to expand NATO eastward after the fall of the Soviet Union. Their governments failed to take that promise literally.

The US invokes a different, more abstract rule. This is logical since the US culture eschews even the idea of relationships. Like marriage, they are too unstable. Instead, Americans place all of their faith in formal written laws or contracts. Every self-assertive American knows that promises are the stuff of sales pitches. They have no meaning. The only thing that counts is the text that finally appears in the contract.

But US insistence builds on yet another rules-based principle: that sovereignty means the freedom to sign any contract one wishes to, regardless of the immediate or long-term consequences. For the US State Department, as Haltiwanger writes, the basic iron-clad rule is that “countries should be free to choose their own allies and defensive partnerships.” That means that, as a matter of principle, neither the US itself nor NATO’s executives can contractually oblige Ukraine to accept being eternally excluded from NATO. US jurists cannot even imagine how such a thing can be done. It contradicts the very idea of law.

The geopolitical problem, however, is fundamentally linguistic and cultural rather than legal. Even the legally established idea of the right to select one’s “defensive partnerships” is ambiguous. Every realist knows that, when push (military buildup) comes to shove (acts of war), “defensive” means “potentially offensive.” They also know that in the hands of a powerful political entity such as the United States, defense routinely and pretty much exclusively manifests itself as offense, as happened when, to defend the American homeland, the US (dragging NATO along with it) spent decades attacking multiple nations on the other side of the world. All of those nations happen to be closer to Russia than to the US.

In other words, for three decades, Russia has been seeking to negotiate a relationship rather than a formal political solution. Paradoxically, that relationship, if anything, has a precedent in the Monroe Doctrine, which at the time no European nation had the means of countering, not only because of the geographical distance and the limited means of communication in the early 19^th century, but because of Europe’s disarray following the Napoleonic wars.

The sad fact is that US culture has no time for relationships. Every question must be settled by a point of law or the signature of a contract. And quite literally, neither the US — which clearly controls NATO and uses it for its own purposes — nor NATO itself has the authority to change its own rules that allow it to weigh the merits of any nation’s candidacy to become a member. That is a rule it would be impossible to change since a just law admits no exceptions.

In other words, the key to understanding the current crisis may be less political and military than cultural and to some extent linguistic. Rudyard Kipling may have been right after all: “East is east and West is west, and never the twain shall meet.” Relationship and law are culturally incompatible. Russian culture, like all Asian cultures, is relationship-based rather than rules-based. The US is prohibitively laws-based, and not even rules-based, because the idea behind rules is that their interpretation and application can be negotiated and adapted whereas laws must be obeyed or canceled from the books.

That is bad enough already. But there is a further complication. European culture, from north to south and east to west, is a mix of relationship-based and rules-based cultures. Although it is literally impossible to guess what might come of the current showdown between Russia and the United States, it is easier to forecast that things are likely to get much more complicated for Europe itself in the next decade, and that the fiction of solidarity within NATO, on which the US now insists, will not survive. That alone, as a consequence of the current crisis, could represent a major geopolitical earthquake that would be further complicated by the possible return of Donald Trump to the White House in 2024.

February 17: Needless

US President Joe Biden really seems to need a war. But not a war that will actually be waged with guns, bombs and explosions — just a war that plays out in people’s heads. He may remember George W. Bush’s popular when he called himself a “war president.” Or perhaps Biden is thinking of how media pundits expressed their excited praise of the suddenly “presidential” Donald Trump the day he launched missiles on Syria. To be thought of as a leader in the United States, the president must find a way of promoting the idea of American force. If Biden can’t really afford to wage war, he must show the public he is always ready to appeal to the specter of war in the name of American ideals.

Biden, of course, made headlines last year when he ended a war believed to be as interminable as it was futile. Unfortunately, his handling of it, which was bound to be messy, branded him in American eyes as both weak and confused. It produced a PR disaster that has seriously compromised the prospects of Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections. In such circumstances, talk of war will always emerge as an attractive theme for the clever political strategists in the White House. Biden desperately needs to plant the idea of a war in the American public’s mind, even if he is convinced allowing war to happen is senseless.

The president needs a fantasized war for yet another reason, as all presidents do. The core business of the United States depends on the specter of war. The defense industry consumes more resources than any other industry, puts a hell of a lot of people on the government payroll and guarantees employment in most of the major industries. It also develops, with taxpayer money, the technology that future generations of billionaires — the people who finance political campaigns — will exploit essentially to feed their greed and their desire to participate in power. Even more importantly, the job of the entire military-industrial complex across the globe consists of protecting the supply chains and access to raw materials for all of �������������’s global businesses. The US always needs war. A fragile US president even more.

That is one explanation of the otherwise incomprehensible showdown taking place at the limits of Eastern Europe, nearly halfway across the globe from Kansas. The United States is facing off with Russia, a nation concerned about its relationship with its neighbors that says it does not intend to go to war or to invade Ukraine, itself a country that is uncomfortable with the prospect of war evoked by the US war machine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who otherwise accepts to be a vassal of NATO and in fact is given no choice, has expressed — both seriously and sarcastically — his personal disapproval of the kind of aggressive talk about war the Biden administration is now relying on to bolster its image.

So, we have reached a point of pure absurdity. Biden needs a climate of war, but not an actual war on the other side of the world. If it were to happen, he might be right about the dire consequences for Russia, but for the US and Biden, in particular, the effect would be worse. Apart from the short-term electoral advantage politicians seek, the experience of the past two decades should have taught them that wars easily get out of hand and produce a long and messy series of unintended consequences.

Biden has worked out a strategy for deflecting any blame if war does occur, but not many people outside of the US are ready to swallow it. The president claims the entire onus will fall on Russia. It’s useless to imagine, he tells us, that either Biden himself or the United States could be blamed. “If Russia attacks Ukraine, it would be a war of choice, a war without cause or reason.” Speaking of ��ܲ�������’s “accountability” (yes, he uses that utterly inappropriate word), The Guardian reports that he such a “war would bloody the country’s reputation in the history books. The world, he said, would ‘not forget that Russia chose needless death and destruction.’”

Biden is right when he reminds us that the death and destruction of war is “needless,” though he might have mentioned the exception in cases where the leader of a powerful nation needs the war to bolster his electoral prospects. He makes it clear that he would never sanction a war that produces needless death and destruction. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, he championed the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, but at the time, he clearly thought the death and destruction it was about to spawn was needful rather than needless.

If a war does break out on the Russian-Ukrainian border, Biden has made it clear that it will be the result of ��ܲ�������’s choice. It will have nothing to do with Washington’s adamant insistence that Ukraine become a member in NATO. That would be nothing more than an insignificant convenience for a free nation. It has nothing to do with the idea of pushing the zone of authorized US military intervention right up to the Russian border.

Biden fully understands the core issue. The US is committed to peace in the world. Russia must be persuaded not to choose war. Vladimir Putin should abandon his evil ways and seek to emulate the US, a nation that never chooses war. The fact that, over the past two centuries, it has set the world record on the number of wars it has conducted causing “needless death and destruction” in practically every corner of the world should not distract us from the realization that, as Biden himself repeatedly , the US must lead “by the power of example rather than the example of our power.”

February 16: Sarcastic

Jonathan Guyer at Vox has become justifiably fed up with the US State Department’s predictions of a date for evil genius Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine that some feel could trigger the launch of World War III. In an with the title, “Enough With the Ukraine War Predictions,” Guyer reveals a probable truth the rest of the overly solemn media has sought to avoid: that the origin of the decidedly hyperreal citing of today’s date, February 16, as the launch of ��ܲ�������’s “imminent” invasion of Ukraine was a joke by the comedian-president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky.

Before going into the background of a series of dire predictions proffered by the Biden administration, the Vox article summarizes the situation that reached its surreal culmination this week. “Monday afternoon,” Guyer writes, “American news outlets startled markets when they reported that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said in a video, ‘We are told that February 16 will be the day of the attack.’”

The problem for the US government and, to a large extent, the media is that Zelensky may have been sarcastic when he cited the specific date. For weeks, the Biden administration has been using language that sounds more like promising than predicting a Russian invasion of Ukraine. By the end of last week, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan announced that the invasion “may well happen soon,” indicating that that meant before the Olympic Games end on Sunday.

“Any day now,” Sullivan Fox News on February 13, “Russia could take military action against Ukraine or it could be a couple of weeks from now, or Russia could choose to take the diplomatic path instead.” He even called that absurdly imprecise time frame “the window.” The three examples of “could” in his prediction showed that, in fact, the US is clueless about a situation it can neither understand nor control. That is what impelled Zelensky to crack a joke at the expense of an administration that has no qualms about creating confusion and exaggerated anguish in the very country it has taken upon itself to defend against President Putin’s evil empire.

What Guyer describes is precisely the transformation of hyperreality — the controlled fabrication of a worldview designed to replace reality in the average person’s mind — into a complicated work of art worthy of the surrealists. Media coverage of this entire episode of history has come to resemble a Dali painting or the theater of the absurd. 

The language solemnly intoned by the State Department appears as something akin to Andre Breton’s automatic writing. After promising a Russian invasion as some sort of divinely ordained fatality that is certain to take “before the Olympic Games end,” with evidence of at least a partial pullback by the Russians, US President Joe Biden now says it merely “remains distinctly possible.” Citing the Russians’ “threatening position,” and invoking a time for evacuation “before it’s too late to leave safely,” Biden seems possessed by the fear that people may stop feeling sufficiently afraid. “Misinformation abounds,” Guyer notes, “and information is being used to tell stories that may not hold up.”

When this episode winds down — whether that is “any day now” or years into the future — it will generate some interesting insights about geopolitics and history to draw from it. For the moment, it’s a strange political pantomime presented on the stage by poor players improvising a script full of sound and fury but, as yet, signifying nothing.

February 15: Self-Supervised Algorithm

Back in January, only weeks before the spectacular decline of its stock price, at a time when the prospect of its future conquest of the soon-to-be-born metaverse was still in the air following the renaming of Facebook as Meta, Newsweek the bold new vision of the platform’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg. The Menlo Park firm’s suitably autocratic and reliably narcissistic CEO “hailed the development of Meta’s data2vec, a new artificial intelligence algorithm that is capable of learning about several different types of information without supervision.”

To make sure the public understood the significance of the breakthrough Meta has prepared for humanity, Newsweek cites a blogpost in which “Meta developers described data2vec as ‘the first high-performance self-supervised algorithm that works for multiple modalities.’” That’s an impressive string of adjectives: high-performance, self-supervised and multiple. Utopia is indubitably nigh.

In making such statements, Zuckerberg and his acolytes appeared unaware of the growing anxiety some people have concerning the “types of information” about them that his company is not only collecting, but of course exploiting for profit. If artificial intelligence (AI) is the agent executing the task rather than the brave souls trapped in human bodies that populate Meta’s Menlo Park offices, will the public be reassured?

Though most neurologists, psychologists and philosophers are likely to disagree, Zuckerberg holds to the unscientific belief that his AI is capable of thinking “the way we do.” What could that mean? Is Zuckerberg referring to the way he and his loyal team think? Or does he imagine he understands the way real people think? 

The case could be made — and most anthropologists and psychiatrists would probably make it — that Zuckerberg lives in a world where thinking doesn’t quite mean the same thing it does for most of us. Yes, the instinct and the thought patterns that focus on optimizing one’s interest are things all humans and indeed all animals share. But when ordinary people think, promoting self-interest may not be the permanent obsession and unique motivation that regulates their actions and language. It’s true that our civilization wants us to believe that because there’s no such thing as a free lunch, we spend our lives calculating the price of the one we will have to pay for. But real people live their lives according to different, non-ideological principles. They simply do not conform to that model of homo economicus the ideological economists and politicians have foisted upon us.

In an attempt to prove that he too can be connected with the real world, “Zuckerberg predicted that the development could eventually be used to more effectively help people perform common tasks like cooking.” Will his AI know when to dip its finger in the broth to make sure it’s right for Aunt Leonine? Will AI’s self-learning capacity teach it how to duplicate the succulence of the madeleines that revived the associations and sensual memories of Marcel Proust’s childhood? No, it will help Meta’s customers to enjoy their experience of an essentially visual metaverse from which fragrance and taste are absent and in which sounds are never random but programmed. But man, what a trip for the eyes! You won’t want to miss it.

That conviction that the metaverse will connect with our lives gives us the first clue as to the radical difference between Zuckerberg’s and the rest of humanity’s thinking. For Zuckerberg, it’s simple. Put on a show, a feast for the eyes, and people will pay. First, the other billionaires (not Zuckerberg himself) and the venture capitalists who fund the creation of the tools. Then the public whom you can count on to always buy into novelty. Zuckerberg’s famed “business genius” is precisely that. He thinks exclusively about what people will buy, not like the rest of us, who think about what we need to get by. There can be no doubt that his AI will be programmed to think the way he thinks, not the way the rest of us think.

True to his shtick that began nearly two decades ago when he decided that all he was ever trying to do was “connect people,” Zuckerberg shows no hesitation in making an entirely erroneous claim about human perception, understanding, knowledge and insight. “People experience the world,” he , “through a combination of sight, sound and words, and systems like this could one day understand the world the way we do.”

No, Mark, people experience the world through the complex combination of sensations that come together to form our state of self-perception. When the promoters of AI talk about duplicating human intelligence and predict “the singularity” — the moment when AI surpasses human intelligence — the one basic physiological and psychological concept they carefully avoid thinking about is a phenomenon well known to science: proprioception. The medical designates the sense of where our body is in space. It includes the notion of kinaesthesia, the combined effect of all our sensory input that tells us not only where we are in the world but, on another psychological plane, who we are in the world. It is the true root of everything we perceive and know.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

To control the public that already funnels revenue to Meta, Zuckerberg wants the billions of customers already subscribed to platforms to believe that to achieve pseudo-social fulfillment, all they need is “a combination of sight, sound and words, and systems” the wizard of Menlo Park promises to deliver to our individual brains.

Even if Meta’s share price is taking a hit today, there is little doubt that Mark Zuckerberg and others like him will continue to push the idea that we are all destined to live at least part-time in their metaverse. They will do it not because it is good, not because people want it and not because people need help “performing common tasks.” The masters of the metaverse will do it because they know they can make money by doing it.

And there’s no doubt that they will make money. What they won’t do, however, is capture humanity’s mind, which is what they and all the commercial interests that are aligning with the opportunity of a metaverse hope will happen. One day they may have the humility to realize that proprioception is a more powerful force than any of their self-supervised algorithms. For the moment they prefer to pretend it doesn’t exist. When that day comes, unless we are all held prisoner in the future metaverse, humanity may once again feel free to return to its traditional business of trying to live reasonably harmoniously among other fully sentient beings.

February 14: Ubiquitous

Dictionary.com provides definitions of the words in the English language. It also keeps track of the people look up and save. The website has just announced the winners for 2021. A quick glance at the list leaves us wondering why people think those particular words might help them talk about the world they are living in today.

Nine of the top 10 words were: pernicious, desolate, ephemeral, egregious, ostentatious, capricious, conspicuous, benevolent and ambiguous. At the top of the list was: ubiquitous.

If the selection can be seen as a barometer of today’s culture, it is worth noting that only one word has a strong positive connotation: “benevolent.” It’s reassuring to see that people want to keep thinking of benevolence. But it may simply indicate that it has become so rare in our dog-eat-dog hyper-competitive world that people need a dictionary to remind them what it means.

Four of the words are anything but reassuring: “desolate,” “egregious,” “ostentatious” and “capricious.” The first two are seriously negative, evoking destruction and something that is extremely reprehensible, while the other two belong to the category of behavioral failings.

The remaining words that appear more neutral are “ephemeral,” “conspicuous” and “ambiguous.” But even these words tell us something about the Zeitgeist. In an increasingly polarized society, like that of the United States, where people camp on their positions while refusing to consider even the slightest nuance of critique, could it be that they have begun wondering about the very real ambiguity that is always at the core of social life and political reality, especially in a pluralistic society? 

Democracy was not meant to be about which group should dominate another or all others, but how some consensus may be found. That means tolerating ambiguity. The fact that many people have to look the word up in a dictionary reveals how much they may have lost touch with the idea. The trend from the past in US culture has been to see ambiguity as something that impedes progress toward a goal rather than as the clue to understanding complexity. Can the fact that people now want to explore the meaning of the word mean that they are beginning to recognize the value of ambiguity and the appreciation of nuance that provides the key to understanding ambiguity?

Ephemeral evokes a similar reflection. In the consumer society, nothing is meant to last and everything to be exploited in the short term. The ephemeral has become the normal, to the point that people no longer need the word because there is little to contrast with it. Whether it is in business (quarterly results) or social life (fulfilling desires), value is typically measured only in the short term.

Then there is “conspicuous,” a fairly rare adjective that nevertheless entered the general conversation at the dawn of the 20^th century when the sociologist and economist Thorstein Veblen, in his book, “Theory of the Leisure Class,” launched the concept of “conspicuous consumption.” It is the notion that drove the growth of the consumer society in the 20^th century, defining the modern economy. Veblen described behavior that, in his day, was limited to a small leisured class. During that century, everyone in the US strove to be a conspicuous consumer, dedicated to purchasing their leisure. It is a concept Madison Avenue and companies like Apple became experts at fostering.

The winner, however, was “ubiquitous,” a concept that becomes quite literally inescapable in our connected world thanks to a new generation of speculators, investors and techies who are now seeking to invite us to live our lives, not in this boring real world, with all its annoying physical and material constraints, but in the spotless metaverse they are creating for us. It is filled with imaginary products they expect us to consume and represents the final stage in the triumph of hyperreality. Their commercial interests and the ability these companies have to dictate our tastes endow provide them with a literally ubiquitous character; ensuring that their reality will replace our own.

It is important to bear in mind that the list contains not the words people most often looked up, but the ones they chose to save. That presumably means that people who saved these words felt a need to use them in their conversation or writing. It is worth noticing that every one of them is an adjective. That alone tells us that people are struggling to find ways of describing the reality or hyperreality — or the mix of the two — they are currently living in. Things (nouns) don’t matter so much anymore. Neither do verbs (actions), when in the metaverse even can fly without restriction and human avatars have unlimited powers. None of the parts of speech of our traditional language matters quite as much as the qualities we attribute to things and the adjectives — dominantly negative — required to designate those qualities. Evidence, perhaps, of our civilization’s troubled mind.

February 11: Not Flaky

When politicians and political parties find themselves in difficulty, a condition shared currently by US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, their language begins to be encumbered by negative formulations whose tortured logic sounds as if it is describing something seriously concerning, but when analyzed ends up saying nothing at all.

Johnson is under a concerted attack especially within his own party for a of sins that former Conservative Prime Minister John Major has taken the trouble to list in great detail. The Ukraine crisis has provided Johnson with the opportunity to deviate attention from his failings by responding to something he wants the public to believe is so important they need to rely on his leadership.

Following Biden’s game plan that consists of proclaiming an imminent invasion of Ukraine by the evil empire of Vladimir Putin, Johnson offered a brilliant of nothing thanks to his ability to twist a series of negative ideas into a solid knot. “I don’t think,” he said, “a decision has yet been taken but that doesn’t mean that it is impossible that something absolutely disastrous could happen very soon indeed.”

Between not thinking and not meaning, he has managed to say that what he is saying contains no substance. Major himself might agree with the beginning of Johnson’s statement when he says, “I don’t think.” No thinking politician in Major’s view would make all the mistakes Johnson has made. But the key phrase in the prime minister’s pronouncement is “that doesn’t mean that it is impossible,” a stale circumlocution for saying that way he envisions is unlikely but requires insisting that it is real. “Absolutely disastrous” could of course describe any of the documented actions from Johnson’s past, which is why he wants the public to focus on a not impossible absolute disaster in the future.

Johnson was seconded by his defense secretary, Ben Wallace, who explained: “What this is really about is saying to President Putin [that] NATO is not flaky. NATO will stand by its members, big or small.”

Business Insider notes the obvious, that “Ukraine is not a NATO member” before relating Wallace’s justification when he “said an invasion of the country would affect its NATO neighbours including Poland by prompting a refugee crisis.” Following this reason, in our globalized economy anything anywhere will affect NATO countries, so why even bother to explain whatever aggressive action NATO undertakes anywhere in the world. But Wallace’s most interesting negative formulation was that “NATO is not flaky.” It is typically one of those denials politicians utter when they know everyone understands that what they are denying is fundamentally true. In any case, this may be the first time or at least rare times anyone has used the epithet flaky with NATO.

February 10: Dovetail

The respected journalist Anderson Cooper at CNN is carrying on what has become a great media tradition of accusing of treason anyone who questions official US foreign policy under President Joe Biden and fails in their civic duty to frame Russia as the evil empire that meddled fatally in the 2016 election and is now seeking to reconstitute the Soviet empire. These accusers have found various ways of designating heretical Americans as useful idiots rather than conscious tools of the Kremlin.

But the implication of their remarks is clear: They are seeking to incite the public to question the patriotism of anyone with a voice in the politics or the media, from the left or the right, who dares to suggest a nuanced reading of the dilemma at the Russian border. The most prominent targets have been easy ones on the right like Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson, but also more complex ones on the left, such as Glenn Greenwald and Tulsi Gabbard.

Following the State Department’s lead, the media invented a convenient to dismiss anything that seems to correlate with the interests of Russia as an act of disinformation straight out of the “Russian playbook.” Last week, Cooper accused Fox News host Tucker Carlson of pleading in favor of Russia when he claims that the US has no reason to engage militarily over Ukraine. The CNN journalist offers a subtle stylistic : “It is striking how neatly Kremlin propaganda seems to dovetail with Carlson’s talking points.”

Democratic strategist Alexandra Chalupa was more and aggressive when she tweeted: “Tucker Carlson needs to be prosecuted as an unregistered agent of the Russian Federation and treason under Article 3, Sec. 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution for aiding an enemy in hybrid warfare against the United States.” Business Insider followed a similar line of thinking when it offered this : “Tucker Carlson told The New York Times he’s not a Russian agent amid controversy over his pro-Kremlin stance.”

Unlike Chalupa or Business Insider, Cooper discreetly avoids implying Carlson may be guilty of treason. His much gentler use of the metaphor “dovetail,” borrowed from carpentry, is doubly intriguing. The dove is a symbol of peace. Carlson argues in favor of peace and decries the folly of war. He makes it clear that his position concerns the interests of Americans and implies no alignment with ��ܲ�������’s policies or ambitions. He simply claims that there is no historical or political justification for preparing for war with Russia over Ukraine because it entails no threat to US security.

If we really want to find a metaphor to describe what is going on here, it could be this: CNN’s suspicion of anything short of blindly obedient, aggressive militarism could be said to “hawktail” with the propaganda of the military-industrial complex.

Whether it’s State Department spokesman Ned Price implying that AP reporter Matt Lee was looking to “find solace in information that the Russians are putting out” or Cooper pointing out that Carlson says things that dovetail with Russian talking points, the government and the media appear to have devised a concerted campaign to discredit any voice that counsels prudence or even prefers peace over military intervention and eventually war.

Carlson is of course an easy target. His platform is Fox News, and on domestic issues, he is known to voice outrageously xenophobic and even potentially racist opinions. But, if they had the courage, there are other more serious targets they could have taken on: respected and historically important diplomatic thinkers such as the late George Kennan and the political scientist, John Mearsheimer. These two men are known for producing fundamental ideas about diplomacy, while avoiding the realm of everyday politics that the media prefers to cover.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Kennan is credited with defining the “Truman doctrine” based on the idea of communist containment. It set the diplomatic tone at the start of the original Cold War. But Kennan, unlike the Washington establishment, remained a realist, eschewing the Cold War hysteria that began to define an epoch in which Senator Joe McCarthy’s anti-Soviet paranoia could emerge and in which the Dulles brothers — John Foster, the secretary of state under the Eisenhower administration, and Allen, the Harry Truman-appointed director of the CIA — became the duo who had a free hand in defining and executing US foreign policy.

Kennan never lost his sense of perspective. He deplored the policy of the Soviets but saw a mirror image of it in US policy. “But what about my own government,” he wrote in his, “and its state of blind militaristic hysteria? It has not only convinced itself of the reality of its own bad dreams, but it has succeeded in half-convincing most of our allies, and that to such an extent that anyone who challenges that view of the world appears to them as dangerously subversive.” The “dovetailing” rhetoric of Tucker Carlson is mild in comparison to Kennan’s acerbic but realistic critique.

Several years ago, assessing the complex situation in Ukraine, Mearsheimer — in 2015 — analyzed the of ��ܲ�������’s security with regard to NATO. Like Ian McCredie in these columns, he made the case that Russian President Vladimir Putin is devious and unscrupulous, but it cannot be doubted that he is a clever operator. Most of what he says dovetails with the strategic concerns for ��ܲ�������’s security that has led Putin to his current aggressive posturing at the Ukrainian border.

Kennon died in 2004 but his analysis, which was true in 1950 (the year he left the State Department) and again at the time of his death, has remained as pertinent as ever. Mearsheimer is very much alive, but the media would never even think of inviting him onto their programs to explain the “realistic” view of geopolitical issues. They prefer hiring former intelligence directors like James Clapper and John Brennan, who can be counted on to hawktail with their former agencies. Mearsheimer can be relegated to the category of an irrelevant, eccentric academic. Because he is a respected thinker, like Noam Chomsky, he can simply be ignored rather than accused of treasonous thoughts.

February 9: Binary Exclusion

​​Thanks to Ned Price, Joe Rogan and Whoopi Goldberg, the curious relationship between language and culture in the US has exploded into the headlines.

“False flag,” “the N-word,” “race” and “apartheid” reveal an emotional and coercive power that goes far beyond their literal meaning.

More to come (read here).

February 8: Not Completely Wrong

French President Emmanuel Macron may be seeking the spotlight in his initiatives regarding the Ukrainian border crisis, but it isn’t only to bolster his fragile lead in the polls ahead of April’s first round of the presidential election, as he hopes to earn a second term. That is undoubtedly a strong motivating factor, but Macron’s attempt to single-handedly solve the world’s biggest diplomatic crisis, one deemed to bring humanity to the brink of nuclear war, is perfectly consistent with his historic commitment to redefining Europe’s security order that has for three-quarters of a century been defined by NATO and largely controlled by the US.

Nobody knows exactly what Macron has in mind or even what is possible in a situation where both Russia and the United States have declared incompatible red lines. Apart from the difficulty he will have getting the rest of Europe on board with anything initiated unilaterally by France, his margin of maneuver is so limited that any prospect of success seems unlikely. After talking with Vladimir Putin, unless Macron manages to persuade US President Biden that giving ground in the name of resolving a crisis with Russia — as John F. Kennedy did in secret to defuse the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 when he agreed to remove American missiles from Turkey — there is little hope for a negotiated solution to a standoff that cannot reasonably be prolonged indefinitely.

So, what is Macron trying to accomplish? The New York Times the head of the Paris Peace Forum, Justin Vaisse, who believes it may just be a question of how the complaints about Putin’s posturing are framed. Promising to “take a step toward Putin,” Vaisse recommends that the West “recognize he is not completely wrong,”

Does that mean accepting that President Putin is partially right? Is it even possible to identify what part or percentage of Putin’s putative wrongness may be right? The Times opines that “Macron wants to explore whether American offers last month could be complemented by further confidence-building measures that permit a way out of the crisis.” Can anyone hope to build confidence with someone they qualify as being “not completely wrong?”

Jeremy Shapiro, a former State Department official, had a more realistic suggestion that consists of going beyond the existing the arms control offers by the US and combining them “with some sort of consultative mechanism for changes in NATO status, or some sort of moratorium on NATO expansion, or some creative interpretation of the Minsk agreement that gives a Donbas constituent assembly veto powers over what the government will do.”

Any of those solutions would constitute an acknowledgment that Putin was basically right in his analysis, rather than being “not completely wrong.” The only reason any of those outcomes remains unlikely to be adopted or even put forward is similar to the principal motivating reason for Macron seeking the spotlight. Any of Shapiro’s solutions would appear to show Biden backing down to Putin. Democratic presidents — especially when the election prospects for their party are on a depressingly downward incline, as they are today for Democrats — must never back down. Kennedy did back down, but he did so in secret. That will likely be impossible for Biden. Could the US president be hoping that Macron will get the job done for him, sparing Biden the suspicion that he caved to Putin?

In a made to France’s Le Journal de Dimanche, Macron appeared to deviate rather significantly from Biden’s position when he affirmed that ��ܲ�������’s “geopolitical objective … today is clearly not Ukraine, but to clarify the rules of cohabitation with NATO and the European Union.” This appears to contradict the State Department’s insistence for weeks that an invasion of Ukraine was imminent, with Putin’s implicit goal of taking over at least part of the nation. State Department spokesman Ned Price has insisted that intelligence has determined how the invasion will play out, starting with a false flag for which he refuses to provide any evidence. There is clearly a difference in the intelligence assessments of France and the United States. Would it be wrong to think that, despite the NATO alliance, each nation simply fabricates its own brand of propaganda? Public messaging on international issues always tends to target voters at home. They hold the key to any incumbent’s hope of maintaining power. And most observers would agree that is not completely wrong to insist power is still the only real priority of politicians, however statesmanlike they may seek to appear.

February 7: Noble Act

In a world that accepts money as the indicator not just of worth, but of worthiness and the accumulation of wealth as a measure of all value, including moral value, Melinda French (formerly Mrs. Bill Gates) stands out as one of the rare multi-billionaires willing to admit publicly what the male members of her elite class, seconded by the media, consistently deny. “It’s important to acknowledge,” Fortune French as saying, “that giving away money your family will never need is not an especially noble act.”

She adds a particularly cutting observation, that “philanthropy is most effective when it prioritizes flexibility over ideology.” Could this be an implicit critique of her ex-husband, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, whose actions as a philanthropist have consistently reflected a deep sense of greed, a strong touch of narcissism and an all too obvious ideological commitment to privileging corporate profit over the human needs philanthropy is believed to address?

Melinda French represents a small, select club composed of the divorcees of overweening hyper-wealthy men who see themselves as masters of the universe. Two years before the Gates couple’s divorce, MacKenzie Scott, formerly Mrs. Jeff Bezos, had already set the tone for sincere rather than cynically calculated, self-interested philanthropy. Without trying to show up Scott, French takes the rhetoric a step further in the analysis of the reigning masculine style of philanthropy, designed fundamentally to serve the philanthropist’s ego and broaden his power over society and its institutions. 

In an article on last December, Scott expressed a similar idea concerning the role of ideology, explaining that “the gifts will do more good if others are free from my ideas about what they should do.” In other words, it isn’t only the self-interested ideas of men that must be avoided, but the women’s own as well. Though it cuts across the grain of today’s competitive, self-aggrandizing culture, in these women’s minds, humility trumps hubris. Especially when you say you are doing things to help other people.

According to Vanity Fair’s Bess Levin, MacKenzie Scott’s discreet generosity has led her, with zero fanfare, to “at least $8.6 billion to worthy causes” since her divorce in 2019. Levin points to “the uncomfortable fact that, by comparison and as a proportion of his wealth, Jeff Bezos is kind of a cheapskate!” Bezos may wish to send rockets to another world, but he himself already lives in another world. Between space travel and building a superyacht too big to leave the port of Rotterdam without having to dismantle a historic , Bezos, like Gates, believes that monopolies, not spontaneous generosity, will save the world. Like Gates when weighing in on vaccines, Bezos claims that “for-profit models improve the world more than philanthropy models.”

This contrast between the men and their ex-wives may point to a possible solution. Society (rather than government) should find a way to oblige any family that holds more than $1 billion in assets to put every dollar above the first billion in the stewardship of the lady of the house. This would not only mean that philanthropy could live up to its promise of helping humanity, but it would also relieve men of the fastidious task of feeling the need to parade in public as benefactors of humanity.

With rare exceptions, super-wealthy men seem stricken by a pathology that induces them to believe they have been chosen by the almighty (whose name is now Mammon) to guide the benighted masses toward fulfilling their personal vision of a better world. Society would be wise to let the men of this world — whether they are called Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk or even the less narcissistic Warren Buffet — build their wealth to the symbolic level of $1 billion and not a penny more. Anything in excess of this amount should then be removed from their hands and entrusted to the women who will use it to meet humanity’s needs. For the men themselves, this will have the salutary effect of preventing the fantasy of power bred by excessive wealth from rotting their brains, as it apparently never fails to do.

February 4: Level of Consciousness

In an article on Ondalinda, a winter festival in the tropics designed for a class of people that could be called the “superwoke international elite,” Sheila Yasmin Marikar, writing for, quotes Filippo Brignone, a member of the Italian family that founded a festival for the wealthy that takes place every year on the Pacific coast of Mexico: “At one time, my father didn’t want any Americans. You want people who have a certain level of consciousness.”

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

“It’s rich people with an intellectual level,” Brignone says. “Artists, successful businessmen—you know, opinion leaders.” That is, the custodians of hyperreality.

Marikar quotes philanthropist Gillian Wynn: “It’s not an unsavory thing like Las Vegas. There’s a wholesome component. Everything is tasteful.” For example, “a polo field illuminated by ten thousand candles and towering neon mushroom puppets with red-rimmed eyes. L.E.D. lassos swirled.”

For these people having consciousness therefore appears to mean: wealthy, self-indulgent and narcissistic but weaned of the vulgar, plebeian tastes. Donald Trump would not qualify.

February 3: Anti-Western Tropes

Anton Troianovski at The New York Times — perhaps following the lead of our dear friends, Atul Singh and Glenn Carle — believes that the showdown at the Ukrainian border can be explained by President Vladimir Putin’s ideology that sees “Russia as a bulwark of ‘traditional values.’”

Singh and Carle identified Vladislav Surkov as the actor who, honoring the Tsarist tradition, stepped up to the role of Putin’s Rasputin and shaped Russian politi

The simple truth is that projecting a misleading understanding of national history is the duty of the government of every nation-state, especially ones that achieve the status of hegemon. In the US, a Democratic president such as Joe Biden has less need to make the effort. He counts on Republicans fulfilling that role. The Democrats seem quite happy to have delegated to their rivals that ungrateful task. Republican senators such as Tom Cotton not only militate to the taste for slavery of the republic’s founders, Cotton’s fellow Republicans have traditionally dominated the publication of US history books to make sure that the undiminished glory and unanimously proclaimed “exceptionalism” of the nation is the only message taught in schools and, implicitly, transmitted by the media.

In 2010, during Barack Obama’s presidency, The New York Times that the Texas Board of Education “approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.”

Democrats may occasionally carp in the background at Republicans’ super-patriotism, but they have never even acknowledged, let alone championed, the one historian who dared to state a case closer to their party’s supposed commitment to people rather than power: Howard Zinn. Zinn’s flair for and delight at exposing the American conquerors’ crimes was uncompromising, to the point that even today it can embarrass the unimpeachably leftist Matt Taibbi. But the facts he reported were real and had for generations been locked out of the curriculum. Just like the old Cold War, but this time with a reversal of roles, the new one features a nation that is guided by traditional values (Dwight Eisenhower’s “under God”) against a nation that disdains them (Soviet atheists). For Putin’s Russians, the US undermines marriage and everything else that binds a traditional culture together. For the US, Russia refuses to join the enlightened, inclusive modern world. For both, the president of the adversary is being called, through their media, a modern version of Adolf Hitler.

February 2: Choreography

Commenting on the situation at the Russia-Ukraine border that is much too complex for any commentator to fully understand, Yahoo the artistic opinion of Retired Army General Martin Dempsey, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “The choreography of our actions matter, because you want to enable and empower diplomacy, while at the same time not being seen as indecisive,” he said. “And I think we have the choreography and sequence of moves about right.”

As Dempsey describes it, the dance sequence managed by US President Joe Biden may not be that similar to the art of Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly, but it may prove reasonably effective in the short term. The diplomacy is directed at the Europeans, who can be cajoled into a formal alliance, rather than Russia. The image of decisiveness is held firmly by the White House. But for the medium term and an even longer term, the prospects are more ambiguous. Some of the dancers are showing signs of looking into the future for a new dance master.

Even today, contradictions abound. An unnamed expert described as “a retired four-star general with long experience in NATO” expressed an opinion at odds with the discourse coming from the Biden administration. “At the end of the day,” he explained, “I don’t think [Putin] plans to invade Ukraine so much as force it back into Moscow’s sphere of influence.”

If the wisest sages in the US military, as well as the Ukrainians themselves, believe that Russia will not invade, why does the White House keep insisting the invasion is imminent? On the geopolitical front, it doesn’t even make for good diplomacy. It has already diminished the trust the Ukrainians themselves have in their American protectors.

Most likely, Biden is calculating the posture required to look tough, the “true grit” Americans expect from their president. If, as most anticipate, Russia does not invade, as both the Ukrainians and the military’s top brass contend, Biden can then say it was because he stood up to Vladimir Putin and flexed Uncle Sam’s powerful muscles. It’s what the in the US call looking “presidential,” something even Donald Trump managed to do when he bombed Syria. 

February 1: Multiple Audiences

CNN that Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is feeling some discomfort in the face of US President Joe Biden’s eagerness to create panic around the idea of a Russian threat. Zelensky himself describes ��ܲ�������’s actions as “dangerous but ambiguous.”

“Earlier in the day, another source from the US side said there is a recognition in the White House that Zelensky has ‘multiple audiences’ and is trying to balance them. ‘On the one hand, he wants assistance, but he has to assure his people he has the situation under control. That’s a tricky balance.’”

Though the source cited only two of the audiences, there are certainly a few others that were not mentioned. It could be said that nearly every relatively powerless country has at least two audiences: its people and whatever hegemonic power has decided to support it. The United States is by far the most prolific hegemonic “audience” of countries across the globe, though some fear China may surreptitiously catch up. The idea of being an audience, of course, implies an attitude of listening attentively, usually through the hegemon’s diplomats but just as significantly, through its spies.

We invite readers to join us by submitting their suggestions of words and expressions that deserve exploring, with or without original commentary. To submit a citation from the news and/or provide your own short commentary, send us an email.

Why Monitoring Language Is Important

Language allows people to express thoughts, theories, ideas, experiences and opinions. But even while doing so, it also serves to obscure what is essential for understanding the complex nature of reality. When people use language to hide essential meaning, it is not only because they cynically seek to prevaricate or spread misinformation. It is because they strive to tell the part or the angle of the story that correlates with their needs and interests.

In the age of social media, many of our institutions and pundits proclaim their intent to root out “misinformation.” But often, in so doing, they are literally seeking to miss information.

Is there a solution? It will never be perfect, but critical thinking begins by being attentive to two things: the full context of any issue we are trying to understand and the operation of language itself. In our schools, we are taught to read and write, but, unless we bring rhetoric back into the standard curriculum, we are never taught how the power of language to both convey and distort the truth functions. There is a largely unconscious but observable historical reason for that negligence. Teaching establishments and cultural authorities fear the power of linguistic critique may be used against their authority.

Remember, 51�Թ�’s Language and the News seeks to sensitize our readers to the importance of digging deeper when assimilating the wisdom of our authorities, pundits and the media that transmit their knowledge and wisdom.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post When Practice Doesn’t Make Perfect in Eastern Europe (Language and the News – Updated Daily) appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Fact-checking Is Not Enough. Sense-checking Is Equally Important.

One of the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic has been to highlight the awkward gap between what our institutions and media express in official language and people’s sense of reality. From our school days behind a desk to sitting down in front of the evening news after a hard day’s work, we have been conditioned to trust a class of people we call professionals who know things we don’t know. These professionals feed us not just what they present as facts, but also the message and especially the meaning that results from interpreting those facts. Once their job is done, the media in particular count on us to share the information we have received with family, friends, coworkers and acquaintances we happen to converse with. And all of us most of the time obey. That is what keeps our private conversations going.

In recent times, certain anomalies and blatant contradictions in the news cycles have upset this pattern of behavior that formerly structured civilized life. We have experienced a series of major crises that end up dominating the news cycle, including financial meltdowns, climate change, pandemics, to say nothing of the damage resulting from mass surveillance and meaningless wars. The not always convincing reporting on these events has seriously disrupted the ability of information professionals in both the media and education to maintain the stable cultural order that once seemed so sure to so many people.

Coming to Terms With the Game Being Played on the Russia-Ukraine Border

READ MORE

This has led to a well-documented serious of confidence in the authority of democratic governments and their institutions on a global scale. Yahoo Finance recently cited Edelman’s Trust Barometer for 2022 that describes a global trend. “Among the key findings of the report was the overall lower trust in world leaders and institutions around the world, with 67% of respondents saying they worry that journalists and reporters were ‘purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.’ The figures were 66% and 63% for government and business leaders, respectively.” 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

With few exceptions, the populations of nations across the globe have deemed the performance of their government leaders seeking to manage the now two-year-old pandemic unsatisfactory, if not worse. A much longer trend reveals that in the media has never been more shaky. Many governments and media pundits have attempted to blame social media for this visible decline in trust. But that seems like a ruse or at best a distraction, encouraged by the very authorities in whom the public has been losing trust. Though the owners and promoters of social media platforms, motivated by profit, narcissism and especially rapidly expanding power, are by no means to be trusted, most ordinary people understand that social media itself is little more than an extended space of personal conversation. For that reason, some in the political world see it as a threat to the established order.

Commercial media and political authorities have increasingly touted the idea that fact-checking will solve the problem of restoring trust in information providers. But that is naive. We have already seen that making decisions about what is true and false is a perilous undertaking, not only because the boundaries between the two is often fuzzy, but also because powerful interests will inevitably step in to impose their preferred distinctions. 

Things become even more complex when we realize that truth is not simply a set of verifiable facts, but an understanding that can be built up of the complex relationships and patterns those facts combine to create. We try to make sense of the world, but the act of making sense should require its own quality control. Expecting those who “manage” the information to provide that control is as dangerous as it is naive.

Is There an Answer? Can Sense-checking Exist?

51�Թ�’s “Language and the News” launched at the beginning of this year will focus on the curious ways in which public personalities — those who have knowledge to impart — literally play with the range of meaning language permits. On the face of it, playing sounds entertaining. And indeed, the purveyors of news understand that. It is why so many people now count on the news for entertainment. It is also why so much of the news is indistinguishable from entertainment. It is a game, but it’s a game in which there are clearly winners and losers. One of those losers is not so much the facts themselves, which do of course get distorted, but our perception and understanding of the reality we live in.

Only by looking at the variety of resonances produced by language does the true complexity of reality come into view. But something else, slightly more sinister also comes into view. It is the relentless effort engaged by those who are empowered to use language for our information and entertainment to reduce complexity to a simple idea that serves some practical or ideological end that they are attached to. Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky once described the processes in detail in their book, “Manufacturing Consent.”

At the end of the month of January 2022, 51�Թ� launches its feature, “Language and the News.” It includes a “Weekly Devil’s Dictionary” but will also be composed of short vignettes that pick up salient examples from the current news cycle to highlight how they produce or obscure meaning. In the coming weeks, we will open the channel of communication for our readers to provide their own sense-checking. Think of it as a communication game. But it is the kind of game in which there should be no losers, since — at least theoretically — everyone in a democratic society profits from clarity. 

Here are the first two examples to inaugurate the new feature.

Example 1: Mitch McConnell’s America

Newsweek Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell’s objections to the voting rights bill the Democrats proposed. With impeccable self-revelatory logic, he derided the need for reform or the fact that the current system in many places was built to reduce access to the polls for black Americans. “Well, the concern is misplaced,” he said. “Because if you look at the statistics, African American voters are voting in just as high a percentage as Americans.”

Sigmund Freud maintained that verbal slips reveal deeper levels of psychical truth. What would he say about this? 

Coming from the senator from Kentucky, one of the Confederate states during the Civil War, he would see a true continuity with the spirit and culture of the Old South. It is likely that at the nation’s founding, blacks who were in their vast majority slaves were not considered Americans. Even though each slave counted, for the needs of representation, as three-fifths of a “real” American, they could not vote. They were property. McConnell may feel that because the black community consistently votes at more than 90% for Democrats, they are the property of Democrats rather than “Americans.”

Example 2: Joe Biden’s Extended Property

In his extended press conference last week, US President Joe Biden offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. “We used to talk about, when I was a kid in college, about “�������������’s backyard,” the president reminded the press. “It’s not �������������’s backyard. Everything south of the Mexican border is �������������’s front yard.”

Everyone in the United States knows that your front yard is not only identified as your property, but more significantly it represents the image of yourself you wish to convey to the outside world. The traditional reference to a backyard contained the idea that it was a stretch of land that was far less significant, required less upkeep, if any at all, and could even merge with the countryside. Calling Latin America �������������’s backyard was disrespectful but suggested the possibility of benign negligence.

Biden most certainly believed his metaphor would convey a notion of respect and even solidarity with the people who inhabit the land in front of his house. But that is the crux of the problem. People who live in your front yard are squatters, not neighbors. The very idea that there may be people in a space the owner controls and designs to convey the family’s image is shocking. At least it should appear shocking to anyone who lives anywhere between El Paso and Tierra del Fuego.

To avoid misunderstanding, though with no real intention to correct the terrifying image he created, Biden added: “And we’re equal people. We don’t dictate what happens in any other part of that — of this continent or the South American continent. We have to work very hard on it.”

And so, between Mitch McConnell and Joe Biden, we learned that blacks are not quite the same thing as Americans and that Latinos and Latinas are at best thought of as tolerated squatters. The land of the free continues, at least unconsciously, to make distinctions between those who are authentically free and those who may, according to their ethnic or cultural identity, simply aspire to be free. 

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post 51�Թ�’s New Feature: “Language and the News” appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Pentagon’s Latest Glorious Failure

READ MORE

Since the question of whether he will invade has been put aside, the pundits are asking themselves a different question. It concerns President Putin’s motives. Does Putin feel he needs to overthrow the Ukrainian government and reestablish a friendly regime that will serve as a buffer state between Russia and Europe? Or will he simply be content with controlling the Russian-speaking eastern parts of Ukraine, effectively destabilizing the current regime and thus preventing the possibility of the nation’s integration into NATO?

Given the apparently Beltway mantra that an invasion is imminent and that the West insists on Ukraine’s right to do what it wants, including joining NATO, it was therefore surprising to read in The New York Times this week that people in the White House — in this case, people who usually are removed from communication with the media — may have made a different assessment. In an whose title “War May Loom, but Are There Offramps?” is an acknowledgment of the level of uncertainty that surrounds the current geopolitical standoff, David E. Sanger reveals that “even President Biden’s top aides say they have no idea if a diplomatic solution, rather than the conquest of Ukraine, is what Mr. Putin has in mind.”

Like most Russians, and unlike most Americans, Putin knows something about how the game of chess is played. Geopolitics for Russians has always been a game of chess. Curiously, Western commentators instead seem to believe that the game logic Putin respects is similar to that of American football or basketball. They talk about ��ܲ�������’s “playbook.” These are sports where you assign roles, plan actions and then try to execute. However complex the configurations may come, plays in a playbook follow a logic of going from step one to step two. Chess requires a different form and level of thinking.

It is reasonable to suppose that the Russian-American AP reporter Vladimir Isachenkov has a good understanding of Russian politics and Russian culture. Here is how he describes the: “Amid fears of an imminent attack on Ukraine, Russia has further upped the ante by announcing more military drills in the region.

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Up the ante:

A metaphor from poker that when used correctly means to increase the initial stakes of a game, the amount that must be advanced by each player to enter the game. It is often used incorrectly as an equivalent of another poker term: call the bluff.  

Contextual Note

Isachenkov predictably foresees the invasion authorities in the West almost seem to desire, and not only in Washington. This week, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson Putin’s “plan for a lightning war.” Translated into German, that means Blitzkrieg, a term Johnson preferred to avoid using, though the innuendo was clear. The point of the entire effort to predict a Russian invasion is to instill the idea that Vladimir Putin is Adolf Hitler.

Russians, however, are not known for practicing Blitzkrieg. Chess players prefer to construct their game patiently through a series of maneuvers that look at a long-term evolution. They challenge their opponent’s understanding of an evolving situation and are extremely sensitive to the layout on the chessboard, with the intent of making a checkmate inevitable. Americans, in particular, tend to go for strikes and are always hoping for a lucky strike.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Perhaps because Isachenkov believes Americans may not understand such strategies, instead of looking to the subtlety of chess for his gaming metaphor or even to Putin’s documented experience of judo, he draws his literary inspiration from another quintessential American game, poker. He tells us Russia has “upped the ante.” In so doing, he misinterprets not only the meaning of Putin’s moves but even the practice of poker itself. Isachenkov appears to interpret “up the ante” as meaning “increase the pressure” or “raise the temperature.” He didn’t realize that poker offers a better metaphor for Putin’s actions: calling Biden’s bluff.

No respectable Western commentator would frame the situation in those terms. It would mean acknowledging that the US resorts to the ignoble art of bluffing. Bluffing implies hypocrisy. The US has only one goal: to make the world more equitable and to help democracy prevail. Secretary of State Antony Blinken the mission in these terms: “It’s about the sovereignty and self-determination of Ukraine and all states,” before adding that “at its core, it’s about ��ܲ�������’s rejection of a post-Cold War Europe that is whole, free, and at peace.” And, just to make things clear: “It’s about whether Ukraine has a right to be a democracy.”

Isachenkov points out that Russia “has refused to rule out the possibility of military deployments to the Caribbean, and President Vladimir Putin has reached out to leaders opposed to the West.” He calls this “military muscle-flexing” but perhaps fails to see this for the theater it is meant to be, coming from the president of a nation that gave us Pushkin, Gogol, Chekhov and Gorki. Evoking the Caribbean is Putin’s way of alluding to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. It may especially be meant to call Americans’ attention to the idea that powerful nations do not look kindly to discovering an adverse military nuclear presence at its borders. If John F. Kennedy could force Nikita Khrushchev to back down 60 years ago, Putin should be allowed to do the same to Biden today.

Historical Note

If Vladimir Putin is calling Joe Biden’s bluff, what is the nature of that bluff? In the simplest terms, Biden’s bluff is the latest version of what President George H.W. Bush, after the demise of the Soviet Union, proudly called the “new world order.” After defeating Donald Trump, Biden announced to his allies in Europe that “America is back,” which was his way of saying “my version of America is great again,” the version that uses its military reach to protect its business interests across the globe.

In a New York Times dated January 24, national security expert, Fiona Hill, who served under presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, claims that Putin’s aim is not just to annex all or part of Ukraine. He isn’t looking at taking a pawn or even a bishop. He has the whole chessboard in view. Hill is undoubtedly correct about Putin’s real purpose, that he “wants to evict the United States from Europe.”

“Right now,” Hill writes, “all signs indicate that Mr. Putin will lock the United States into an endless tactical game, take more chunks out of Ukraine and exploit all the frictions and fractures in NATO and the European Union.” In other words, the current posture of the United States is offering Putin a winning hand (poker) or setting itself up for a checkmate.

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who knows something about the stakes associated with warfare, makes a point concerning the nature of the risk for the US: “It is another thing altogether to speak only of the pain sanctions would cause Russia, with little thought, if any, to the real consequences that will be paid on the home front.” If events get out of control, as is likely if there is no diplomatic solution, the effects on the West’s economy will be far more dramatic than any damage that can be inflicted on Russia through sanctions. 

The US has refused to listen to the arguments not just of Putin, but also of foreign policy wonks such as John Mearsheimer. They believe that even the daydream of linking Ukraine with NATO crosses the reddest of lines, not just for Putin but for Russia itself. Failing to take that into account while insisting that it’s all a question of respecting an independent nation’s right to join a hostile military alliance represents a position that makes war inevitable.

In a 2021 Geopolitical Monitor with the title “Do We Live in Mearsheimer’s World?” Mahammad Mammadov cited “Mearsheimerian realism,” which he claims “sees Ukraine’s future as a stable and prosperous state in its being a ‘neutral buffer’ between multiple power poles, akin to Austria’s position during the Cold War. Accordingly, Russia is still a declining power with a one-dimensional economy and need not be contained.”

That seems like a solution most people in the West could live with… apart from the military-industrial complex, of course. And Democratic presidents seeking to prove they are not weaklings before this year’s midterm elections.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Coming to Terms With the Game Being Played on the Russia-Ukraine Border appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Will Joe Manchin Remain a Democrat?

READ MORE

Into that mix, up steps Joe Manchin, a US senator from West Virginia to put the transformational agenda of the progressive movement in America on life support. Amid the cascade of bad news here, there is also plenty of “democratic” absurdity. In his last reelection in 2018, Manchin won a six-year US Senate seat from West Virginia with a whopping of 290,510 votes. Joe Biden won the presidency in 2020 with over 81 million votes. So what? In the land of the free, Manchin’s personal agenda, the agenda of the fossil fuel industry and apparently that of a sliver of America trumps that of a president elected by a significant majority of all Americans who voted in the presidential election.

It is largely the ongoing institutional paralysis of the US Senate that gives Manchin and a handful of other US senators veto power over virtually all legislative initiatives. This paralysis is now so deeply ingrained that the results are almost always foreordained. In �������������’s two-party system, the Republican Party is presently committed solely to a scorched earth drive to political victory at the cost of even the most basic of policy discussions.

West Virginia and More

This is the fertile ground in which corruption and influence peddling thrive. Here again, Manchin steps up to the plate, this time to institutionally piss on the 93% of West Virginia’s children who are eligible to from a child tax credit that is about to expire. Since this should be a huge incentive for him to support the extension of the child tax credit, Manchin’s singular effort to kill the legislation can only be explained by fealty to some special interest that surely doesn’t give a damn about those children.

Moreover, the child tax credit is just one pillar of the transformational safety net legislation that Senator Manchin and those who have likely bought his vote are attempting to bury. Corrupting special interests and their right-wing Republican allies are also hard at work scuttling universal pre-school education, childcare and elder care assistance, increased nutritional security for children, paid family leave, some measure of drug price controls, improved Affordable Care Act access and Medicare and Medicaid benefits, and support for affordable housing alternatives.

Critically, as well, the proposed transformational social legislation that has already been by the US House of Representatives includes a significant (yet modest) effort to meet our national and international commitments to confront climate change. In fact, it may be antipathy toward these latter provisions that has pushed Manchin to abandon the West Virginia children and their families he would like you to think he cares about.

Much of this should come as no surprise. After all, the legislative process in America is working as it was designed to work, ensuring that corporate interests, corrupt influence peddlers and wealthy Americans are able to bludgeon democratic reform with impunity. Unfortunately, no amount of policy response will win the day tomorrow in the face of the perfidy that is winning today. It will take a street fight to even begin to turn the tide.

No Other Way Forward

I do not say this lightly, but I see no other way forward. Adding voting rights, abortion rights, gun control and police reform to the scrapheap of history will make the rout complete. So, all Americans who understand the nation’s peril either seize this moment or they will continue to live in a country rife with inequality, racial and social injustice, gun violence, fundamental inequity and corruption. America will never be better if no one forces it to be better.

To start, President Biden has to step up and demand that the key elements of the social safety net and climate change legislation be passed now. He must identify a legislative path forward and demand in no uncertain terms that all applicable legislative tools need to be utilized to that end. He must also make it clear that he will go directly to the people as their president to forge the necessary alliances to meet his legislative objectives. Then, every senator and every representative must be required to cast a vote, for or against. There is no choice.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

If the legislation fails to pass the Congress, then Biden must call the people to the streets. This means that those of us who care on our own behalf or on behalf of others either answer the call or accept an America unworthy of our allegiance. There is no choice.

Meanwhile, it is way past time to eliminate minority rule in the US Senate, not just for the moment but forever. Understand that there will be no voting rights legislation, no abortion rights bill, no gun control measures and no police reform measures if a Republican Party in the minority in Congress can effectively prevent the majority party and its president from confronting the issues they were elected by the majority to confront. Again, back to Biden and his legislative allies, this time to demand an end to the filibuster to move critical legislation forward. There is no choice.

Although much attention has been focused on the social safety net, climate legislation and infrastructure funding, critical voting rights legislation must now be moved front and center. Any talk of seizing the moment based on today’s majority will be rendered meaningless if today’s majority cannot vote in tomorrow’s elections.

Voting

The vilest forces on �������������’s political landscape are now laser focused on control of the right to vote at all levels of government and then using that control to ensure electoral outcomes that reflect a narrow right-wing and racist agenda. If successful, this path will enshrine economic, racial and social inequality for generations to come. That pernicious work is well and advancing with success.

In this context, I am hardly the first person to suggest that a democracy that properly encourages a minority voice in its political discourse ceases to be a democracy when that minority is permitted to rule with no corresponding responsibility to govern. This, unfortunately, is the state of play in today’s Congress. It can only change if President Biden and his allies call us to the streets and we respond in numbers unseen before in this nation.

*[This article was co-published on the author’s , Hard Left Turn.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post America Is on the Edge of a Critical Precipice appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Second, the United States has repeatedly provoked Russia by pushing the boundaries of NATO ever eastward. Virtually all of Eastern Europe is part of the military alliance, and so are parts of the former Soviet Union such as the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Ukraine is in a halfway house called “NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partners” and it has  to NATO-led missions.

The Response to ��ܲ�������’s Brinkmanship Over Ukraine

READ MORE

A majority of Ukrainians — those not living in Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk — support NATO , according to a November 2021 poll. Such poll results are no surprise given that membership would provide Ukraine with the additional insurance of NATO’s collective defense clause. Of all the countries considering membership in NATO, Ukraine is the one that most threatens ��ܲ�������’s national interests in what it calls the “near abroad.”

That’s some of the necessary context to the recent news that Russia has been massing around 100,000 soldiers along its border with Ukraine, coupled with medium-range surface-to-air . Russia argues that such maneuvers are purely precautionary. Ukraine and its supporters think otherwise.

The United States has rallied its allies to warn Russian President Vladimir Putin not to invade Ukraine. It has promised to levy additional economic sanctions against Moscow as well as send more US troops to Eastern Europe to add to the several thousand American soldiers in Poland as well as those stationed at four US military  in Bulgaria, a military facility on  Black Sea coast and elsewhere. The Biden administration has been clear, however, that it wouldn’t send US soldiers to Ukraine to confront Russian invaders.

Putin, meanwhile, has demanded that Ukraine’s membership in NATO be taken off the table. He has also  for an immediate security dialogue with the United States and has been strategizing with China’s Xi Jinping on how to coordinate their policies.

The transfer of troops to the Ukrainian border may simply be a test of the West’s resolve, an effort to strengthen Putin’s hand in negotiations with both Kyiv and Washington, a way of rallying domestic support at a time of political and economic challenges or all of the above. Given enormous pushback from the Ukrainian army among other negative consequences of a military intervention, a full-scale invasion of Ukraine is not likely in the cards. Putin  short wars, not potential quagmires, and working through proxies wherever possible.

A hot war with Russia is the last thing the Biden administration wants right now. Nor is an actual détente with Moscow on the horizon. But could Putin’s aggressive move raise the profile of US-Russia relations in such a way as to lay the foundation for a cold peace?

Fatal Indigestion?

The civil war in Ukraine does not often make it into the headlines these days. Ceasefires have come and gone. Fighting along the Line of Contact that separates the Ukrainian army from secessionist forces breaks out sporadically. Since the beginning of the year, 55 Ukrainian soldiers have  and, through the end of September, so have 18 , including four children. Many residents of the border towns have fled the fighting, but millions who remain require humanitarian .

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

For the Russian government, this low-level conflict serves to emphasize its main message: that Ukraine is not really a sovereign country. Moscow claims that its seizure of Crimea was at the behest of citizens there who voted for annexation in a referendum. It argues that the breakaway provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk are simply exercising their right of self-determination in a political climate that discriminates against Russian speakers. Such fissures in the territory of Ukraine, according to this logic, suggest that the government in Kyiv doesn’t have complete control over its borders and has thus failed at one of the principal tests of a nation-state.

For Ukraine, the issue is complicated by the presence of a large number of Russian-language speakers, some of whom feel more affinity for Moscow than Kyiv. A 2019 law that established Ukrainian as the country’s primary language has not helped matters. Anyone who violates the law, for instance, by engaging customers in Russian in interactions in stores, can be subjected to a fine. So far, however, the government hasn’t imposed any . That’s not exactly a surprise given that the current president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who objected to the  when he was running for office, is more comfortable speaking Russian in public.

Despite its domestic challenges and the recent history of Russian military incursions, Ukraine is very much a country. It is a member of the United Nations. Only a handful of states — Somalia, Palau — have neglected to extend it diplomatic recognition. There is no strategic ambiguity about Ukraine’s place in the international order as compared to, say, Taiwan.

Not even Putin, despite his  to “one Russia,” realistically contemplates trying to absorb a largely resistant country into a larger pan-Slavic federation with Russia and Belarus. After all, Moscow has had its challenges with the much smaller task of integrating little Crimea into the Russian Federation. Upgrading the peninsula’s infrastructure and connecting it to the Russian mainland has cost tens of billions of  even as the sanctions imposed by the West have cost Russian corporations more than $100 billion. A water crisis in Crimea — because Ukraine blocked the flow from the Dnieper River into the North Crimean Canal — has offset the infrastructure upgrades Moscow has sponsored, leading to  last year that Russian would invade its neighbor simply to restart the flow of water.

Invading Ukraine to resolve problems raised by the earlier invasion of Crimea would turn Vladimir Putin into the woman who swallowed a fly (and then swallowed a spider to catch the fly, then a bird to catch the spider and so on). Such a strategy promises larger and more diverse meals followed by the inevitable case of fatal indigestion.

An Improbable Peace?

So far, the Biden administration has offered a mix of threats and reassurances in the face of a possible Russian invasion. New sanctions and the dispatch of additional troops to Eastern Europe have been balanced by the refusal of the administration at this point to consider any direct involvement in Ukraine to counter Russian forces. Biden communicated this strategy not only in speeches, but in a two-hour telephone call with Putin last week. It was, by all , a diplomatic conversation, with no bridge-burning and no Donald Trump-like fawning.

Biden and Putin may  in early 2022. If that sounds like deja vu, you’re right. After Russia mobilized troops on Ukraine’s border last April, a Biden–Putin summit took place in mid-June in Geneva. Long ago, North Korea discovered that missile launches were an effective way of getting Washington’s attention. Russia can no longer count on Trump’s affection for authoritarian leaders to secure summits, so it has now adopted the North Korean approach.

The important thing is that Putin and Biden are talking and that the respective diplomatic establishments are engaging with one another. The problem is that both leaders face domestic pressure to take a more aggressive stance. In the United States, bipartisan efforts are  to send Ukraine more powerful armaments and escalate the threats against Moscow. In the Russian Duma, far-right nationalists like  and putatively left-wing leaders like Communist Party head  have at one point or another called for the outright annexation of Ukraine’s Donbass region. Also, the approval ratings of both  and  have been dropping over the last year, which provides them with less maneuvering room at home.

To resolve once and for all the territorial issues involving Ukraine, the latter has to be sitting at the table. The civil war, although still claiming lives, is thankfully at a low ebb. But it’s important to push through the implementation of the 2014 Minsk accords, which committed Ukraine to offer special status to Donetsk and Luhansk that would provide them greater autonomy within Ukrainian borders. Ukraine can bring such a compromise to the table by pushing stalled constitutional amendments through the parliament.

Crimea is a different problem. Even if Ukraine has international law on its side, it cannot easily roll back Russian integration of the peninsula. As the Brookings Institution’s Steven Pifer  out, success might be the best form of revenge for Ukraine. If the country manages to get its economic act together — a difficult but not impossible task — it will present itself as a better option for Crimeans than being Moscow’s charity case. Queue a second referendum in which Crimea returns to Ukraine by popular demand.

The question of NATO membership should be treated with a measure of strategic ambiguity. The US government won’t categorically rule out Ukrainian membership, but it also can deliberately slow down the process to a virtual standstill. Russia has legitimate concerns about NATO troops massed on its border. Putin’s demand that the alliance not engage in a military build-up in countries bordering Russia is worthwhile even outside of its value as a bargaining chip.

Another major thorn in US-Russia relations is Washington’s opposition to the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline to Germany. Obviously, it should be up to Germany where it gets its energy, and surely Russia is no worse than some of the places the US has imported oil from in the past (like Saudi Arabia). But the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is yesterday’s problem. The pipeline will soon become a huge stranded , a piece of infrastructure that will send unacceptable amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and will be made redundant by the falling price of renewable energy. The European Union, additionally, is considering a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism that will only add to the cost of imported natural gas, stranding that particular asset even earlier than expected.

Everyone talks about the United States and China working together to battle climate change. The same spirit of cooperation should animate US-Russia relations. The Russian government has been a little bit more forthcoming of late on setting decarbonization goals, but it has a long way to go, according to the  of these three Russian environmental activists.

Imagine Washington and Moscow working together to wean themselves off of their mutual dependency on fossil fuels. Let’s call it a “green détente” that includes regular “carbon control” summits designed to reduce mutual emissions, much as arms control confabs have aimed to cut back on nuclear armaments.

Of course, there are plenty of other issues that can and will come up in talks between the two superpowers: denuclearization, cyberwarfare, the Iran nuclear agreement, the future of Afghanistan, UN reform. Sure, everyone is talking about avoiding worst-case scenarios right now. The conflict over Ukraine and the conflict inside Ukraine are reminders that the United States and Russia, despite powerful countervailing pressures, can indeed go to war to the detriment of the whole world. Perhaps Putin and Biden, despite the authoritarian tendencies of the former and the status-quo fecklessness of the latter, can act like real leaders and work together to resolve mutual problems that go well beyond the current impasse in Ukraine.

*[This article was originally published by .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Could There Be War With Russia? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In other words, it acknowledges serious problems in a system it believes can be reformed. The question that even its thinkers cannot begin to answer is whether those who profit from the system, and thus control its resources, will ever be willing to reform it. In the background lies another question few in governments, industry or think tanks want to entertain: What happens if they don’t agree to reform it?

Washington’s Tawdry Victory Over Julian Assange

READ MORE

In a detailed of one of the major features of the global financialized economy that appeared in The American Interest with the title, “The Financial Infrastructure of Corruption,” Feygin offers a pertinent observation. “The parallels between ‘tax optimization’ and ‘corruption,’” he writes, “are so strong that the illegality of the latter is only present because in the United States, we have made tax optimization legal and acceptable de jure.”

�մǻ岹��’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Tax optimization:

Corruption

Contextual Note

This succinct definition is, at least implicitly, Feygin’s own, though he has signaled the tenuous distinction in the law that prevents Americans — and especially American politicians — from acknowledging the identical nature of the two. Tax optimization is, by definition, an activity conducted by people who know the law and are skilled at working within it. So why complain? After all, our entire civilization since the Second World War derives its legitimacy from its alignment around the “rule of law.” If the law is respected by those who know it best, all must be well.

At his virtual Summit for Democracy last week, US President Joe Biden appeared, at least at one point, to be pushing in the same as Feygin. He said it was all about the effort to “strengthen our own democracies and push back on authoritarianism, fight corruption, promote and protect human rights of people everywhere,” before ending his litany with this motivational coda: “To act. To act.”

A week earlier, the White House the “fact sheet” of its Strategy for Countering Corruption. It declared Biden’s intention to “better hold corrupt actors accountable, and strengthen the capacity of activists, investigative journalists, and others on the front lines of exposing corrupt acts.” Some may have suspected a hint of hypocrisy at the very moment the US was continuing its aggressive pursuit of investigative journalist Julian Assange. 

There is an explanation. Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, targeted the sacrosanct institution known as the defense establishment, not the private purveyors of corruption in the world of commerce. This distinction becomes clearer later in the document expressing the intent “to support, defend, and protect civil society and media actors, including investigative journalists who expose corruption.” War crimes don’t merit the same scrutiny.

What, after all, does Biden’s anti-corruption initiative concretely propose? Is any of it consistent with Feygin’s critique? The first bullet point in the fact sheet reads: “Better understanding and responding to the transnational dimensions of corruption.” So far, so good. But it immediately tells us this will be done “by prioritizing intelligence collection and analysis on corrupt actors and their networks.”

“Intelligence collection” quickly trumps the goal of “better understanding.” Understanding is dangerous because it can lead to reform. Intelligence collection typically leads to judicial processes and rarely produces understanding. Moreover, the long track record of intelligence agencies, including the CIA and FBI, has demonstrated that collecting, storing and using information — primarily against others for purposes of control and intimidation — has consistently impeded not only the will, but more significantly the ability to understand complex problems. 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

The second bullet point focuses on expected bureaucratic efficiency through the coordination of “anti-corruption work” across “departments and agencies.” The third seeks to increase “law enforcement resources and bolstering information sharing between the intelligence community and law enforcement.” The emphasis is clear. It is more about policing than understanding. Reforming or restructuring can only be an afterthought.

The document then goes on to list four objectives concerned with regulations that will permit identifying culprits. Perhaps the most worrying promise is this one: “Working with the private sector to improve the international business climate by encouraging the adoption and enforcement of anti-corruption compliance programs.” As Feygin’s analysis shows, the private sector employs and depends on the experts specialized in tax optimization. Talk about letting the fox rule the henhouse.

Compare Biden’s description with what the Berggruen Institute envisions as the features of a solution: “sovereign wealth funds, publicly supported individual savings institutions, public retirement institutions, and cooperative enterprise ownership.” The institute seeks to convince governments to “envision ways that publics can retain stakes in common goods that are now being commercialized by private actors.” At this point, Noam Chomsky, Yanis Varoufakis and the late David Graeber might loudly applaud.

If Biden is really interested in understanding how to counter corruption, he might begin by reading Feygin’s article and then consulting political economists such as Varoufakis and Thomas Piketty. But, reflecting recent traditions, the president appears focused on reinforcing intelligence networks and law enforcement. Reasonable observers might ask: Isn’t that precisely what the authoritarian regimes are tempted to do, the very regimes Biden contrasts with democracy? Those who do ask the question are rarely cited in the legacy media.

Historical Note

The problem of abiding by the rule of law imposed in the name of liberal democracy ends up looking eerily similar to the problem of establishing a moral order within the structural lawlessness of the feudal system capitalism replaced nearly three centuries ago. Feudalism allowed might to conquer right. The hierarchical system allowed evil despotic rulers, but also benevolent ones, to govern within their territories. 

In today’s age of nation-states, the law itself can be an agent of hierarchy, a system that structures power relationships and tends toward increasing inequality. In some cases, it may be designed to protect the public welfare and the general good, but in others, it serves to defend evil-doers who use the facility of corruption specifically permitted by the laws to reinforce and abuse their power.

The obvious advantage a true liberal democracy possesses lies in the fact that laws can be reformed — and indeed, if required, entirely reformulated — with the consent of the people. But thanks to the unequal distribution of influence, some laws, including the laws that govern the procedures of democracy itself, may be specifically designed to escape even the notice of the people and even the scrutiny of the experts. When that happens, it is no longer the rule of law, but the law of rule, meaning whoever has power over the law can ensure that the law itself protects their own potentially despotic rule.

Democratically elected governments are not immune to the law of rule for the simple reason that the principle of rule is the power of money. That is why a government in which money plays a major role in elections is bound to be corrupt. It will also be empowered to seek ways of consolidating its preferred forms of corruption, even while calling into question its less preferred forms of corruption. This allows it to maintain the image of combating corruption, but even more significantly, to protect its preferred version.

The Berggruen Institute manifestly seeks to identify and eliminate the true roots of corruption in order to save the capitalist system that has spontaneously produced a variety of forms of corruption that have contributed to the economy’s impending divorce from democracy. Its noble effort may resemble an attempt at squaring the circle, although it would be more appropriate to call it the rounding of the dangerously sharp corners of the square.

The Biden administration prefers to put warning signs on the ever-sharper corners of the square before pursuing those who try to make the corners even sharper. The Berggruen Institute believes the system can be given new life. The Biden administration hopes simply that it will survive a little longer.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Biden’s Cosmetic Battle Against Corruption appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Last week ended with its own day of infamy when a British court overturned an earlier judgment banning the extradition to the US of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Following in the footsteps of the Trump administration, President Joe Biden’s Justice Department successfully appealed the ban in its relentless effort to judge Assange for violating the 1917 Espionage Act, itself a relic of the history of the First World War.

Guns and the Wrong Side of Rights

READ MORE

Back then, President Woodrow Wilson’s government pulled no jingoistic punches when promoting �������������’s participation in Europe’s war. It actively incited the population to indulge in xenophobia. Public paranoia targeting Germany, the nation’s enemy, reached such a pitch that Beethoven was banned from the concert stage, sauerkraut was officially renamed “liberty cabbage” and hamburger “liberty steak.”

The manifestly paranoid sought to punish anyone who “communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver or transmit to any foreign government … any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, etc.” The law, specifically for a state of war, was so extreme it was rarely used until Barack Obama unearthed it as the elegant solution for the whistleblowers he had to defend in his first presidential campaign.

Despite overindulging his taste for punishing whistleblowers, Obama refrained from seeking to extradite Assange. He feared it might appear as an assault on freedom of the press and might even incriminate The New York Times, which had published the WikiLeaks documents in 2010. In the meantime, Democrats found a stronger reason to blame Assange. He had leaked the Democratic National Committee’s emails during the 2016 presidential primary campaign. Democrats blamed the Australian for electing Donald Trump.

During his 2016 campaign, Trump repeatedly WikiLeaks for its willingness to expose the undemocratic practices of the Clinton campaign. But once in power, Trump’s administration vindictively demanded Assange’s extradition from the UK for having revealed war crimes that deserved being hidden for eternity from the prying eyes of journalists and historians. 

Many observers expected Biden to return to the prudent wisdom of Obama and break with Trump’s vindictive initiative. He could have quietly accepted the British judge’s decision pronounced in January. Instead, his Justice Department appealed. Unlike Trump, who sought to undermine everything Obama had achieved, Biden has surprisingly revealed a deep, largely passive respect for his predecessor’s most dangerous innovations — not challenging corporate tax cuts, the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and Trump’s aggressive support for Israel’s most oppressive policies with regard to Palestinians.

Biden’s eagerness to follow Trump’s gambit aimed at subjecting Assange to the US brand of military-style justice allowed New York Times journalists Megan Specia and Charlie Savage to Friday’s decision by the British court as a success for the administration. “The ruling was a victory,” they wrote, “at least for now, for the Biden administration, which has pursued an effort to prosecute Mr. Assange begun under the Trump administration.”

�մǻ岹��’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Victory:

Triumph in combat, including, at two extremes, cases marked by heroic action and others prompted by malicious self-serving motives and driven by the perpetrator’s confusion of the idea of justice with sadistic, vindictive pleasure

Contextual Note

The Times journalists quote Wyn Hornbuckle, a Justice Department spokesman, who “said the government was ‘pleased by the ruling’ and would have no further comment.” At no point in the article do the authors evoke the hypothesis that Biden might have sought to overturn Trump’s policy. Nor do they analyze the reasons that could undermine the government’s case. They do quote several of Assange’s supporters, including one who called “on the Biden administration again to withdraw” the charge. Serious observers of the media might expect that a pillar of the press in a liberal democracy might be tempted to express its own concern with laws and policies that risk threatening its own freedom. Not The New York Times. This story didn’t even make its front page. None of its columnists deemed it deserving of comment.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Journalist Kalinga Seneviratne, writing for The Manila Times, offered a radical . “If this year’s Nobel Peace Prize is about promoting ‘press freedom,’” he speculates, “the Norwegian Nobel Committee missed a golden opportunity to make a powerful statement at a time when such freedom is under threat in the very countries that have traditionally claimed a patent on it.” He quotes the UN’s special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, who claims that “what has been done to Julian Assange is not to punish or coerce him, but to silence him and to do so in broad daylight, making visible to the entire world that those who expose the misconduct of the powerful no longer enjoy the protection of the law.” 

Deutsche Welle’s Matthias von Hein the interesting coincidence that three converging events took place on the same day. “In a bitter twist of irony,” he writes, “a court in London has essentially paved the way for Assange’s prosecution on Human Rights Day — of all days. And how ironic that it happened on the day two journalists were honored with the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. Last, but not least, it coincided with the second day of the Summit on Democracy organized by US President Joe Biden.”

Von Hein added this observation: “We’re constantly hearing how Western democracies are in competition with autocratic systems. If Biden is serious about that, he should strive to be better than the world’s dictators.” But, as the saying goes, you can’t teach a 79-year old dog new tricks.

Historical Note

The coincidences do not end there. On the same day the news of Julian Assange’s fate emerged, Yahoo’s investigative reporter Michael Isikoff the story of another man “brought to justice” by US authorities: Mohamedou Ould Slahi. The Mauritanian citizen had the privilege of spending 14 years in the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba without ever being charged with a crime, even after confessing to the crimes imagined by his torturers.

It turns out to be a touching moral tale. Even after years of imprisonment and gruesome torture, Slahi “holds no personal animus against his interrogators.” According to Isikoff, “he has even met and bonded with some of those interrogators,” years after the event. “I took it upon myself,” Slahi explained, “to be a nice person and took a vow of kindness no matter what. And you cannot have a vow of kindness without forgiving people.”

It wasn’t the Prophet Muhammad who said, “turn the other cheek” or “Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” Those words were spoken by the man George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld claimed to revere and whom Bush considered his “favorite philosopher.” The Quran did continue the original Christian insight, pronouncing that “retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it,” and that reconciliation and forgiveness will be rewarded by Allah.

There has clearly been no forgiveness in Washington for the “evil” committed by Assange: exposing war crimes conducted in secret with American taxpayers’ money. Slahi’s torture was conducted by the declared proponents of “Judeo-Christian” culture. Shahi’s forgiveness stands as an example of what that culture claims as a virtue but fails to embrace in its own actions.

Shahi is reconciled with his interrogators. But does he also feel reconciled with those who gave them their orders? In 2019, he , “I accept that the United States should follow and put to trial all the people who are harming their citizens. I agree with that. But I disagree with them that if they suspect you, they kidnap you, they torture you, and let you rot in prison for 15 or 16 years. And then they dump you in your country and they say you cannot have your passport because you have already seen so many things that we don’t want you to travel around the world to talk about.”

Despite appearances, Mohamedou Ould Shahi’s case is not all that different from Julian Assange’s.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Washington’s Tawdry Victory Over Julian Assange appeared first on 51�Թ�.

There are one or two positive developments, such as the renewal of Barack Obama’s New START Treaty with Russia and Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s for a UN-led peace process in Afghanistan, where the United States is finally turning to peace as a last resort, after 20 years lost in the graveyard of empires.

By and large, though, President Joe Biden’s foreign policy already seems stuck in the militarist quagmire of the past 20 years, a far cry from his campaign promise to reinvigorate diplomacy as the primary tool of US foreign policy. In this respect, Biden is following in the footsteps of Obama and Donald Trump, who both promised fresh approaches to foreign policy but, for the most part, delivered more endless war. 

Biden’s New Culture of Brinkmanship

READ MORE

By the end of his second term, Obama did have two significant diplomatic achievements with the signing of the Iran nuclear deal in 2015 and the normalization of relations with Cuba in 2014. So, progressive Americans who voted for Biden had some grounds to hope that his experience as Obama’s vice-president would lead him to quickly restore and build on the achievements of his former boss with Iran and Cuba as a foundation for the broader diplomacy he promised.

Instead, the Biden administration seems firmly entrenched behind the walls of hostility Trump built between America and its neighbors — from his renewed Cold War against China and Russia to his brutal sanctions against Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and dozens of countries around the world. There is also still no word on cuts to a military budget that keeps on growing.    

Despite endless Democratic condemnations of Trump, President Biden’s foreign policy so far shows no substantive change from the policies of the past four years. Here are 10 of the lowlights.

1) Rejoining the Iran Nuclear Agreement

The ���峾���Ծ����ٰ����پ��Dz�’s failure to immediately rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — aka the Iran nuclear deal — as Senator Bernie Sanders promised to do if he had become president, has turned an easy win for Biden’s promised commitment to diplomacy into an entirely avoidable diplomatic crisis.

Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018 and the imposition of brutal “maximum pressure” sanctions on Iran were broadly condemned by Democrats and US allies alike. But now, Biden is making new demands on Iran to appease hawks who opposed the agreement all along, risking an outcome in which he will fail to reinstate the JCPOA. As a result, Trump’s policy will effectively become Biden’s policy. The administration should reenter the deal immediately, without preconditions.

2) Waging Bombing Campaigns

Also following in Trump’s footsteps, Biden has escalated tensions with Iran and Iraq by attacking and killing Iranian-backed forces in and who played a critical role in the war against the Islamic State (IS) group. US airstrikes have predictably failed to end rocket attacks on deeply unpopular American bases in Iraq, which the Iraqi parliament passed a to close over a year ago.

US attacks in Syria have been condemned as illegal by members of Biden’s own party, reinvigorating efforts to repeal the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for the Use of Military Force that presidents have misused for 20 years. Other airstrikes the Biden administration is conducting in , Iraq and Syria are shrouded in secrecy, since it has not resumed publishing the monthly that every administration has published since but which Trump discontinued in 2020.

3) Refusing to Hold Mohammed bin Salman Accountable

Human rights activists were grateful that President Biden released the intelligence report on the gruesome murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi that confirmed what we already knew: that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman the killing. Yet when it came to holding him accountable, Biden choked. 

At the very least, the administration could have imposed the same sanctions on Mohammed bin Salman, including asset freezes and travel bans, that the US on lower-level figures involved in the murder. Instead, like Trump, Biden is wedded to the Saudi dictatorship and its diabolical crown prince.

4) Recognizing Juan Guaido as President of Venezuela

The Biden administration missed an opportunity to establish a new approach toward Venezuela when it decided to continue to recognize Juan Guaido as “interim president,” ruled out talks with the Maduro government and appeared to be freezing out the moderate opposition that participates in elections. 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

The administration also it was in “no rush” to lift the Trump sanctions. This was despite a recent from the Government Accountability Office detailing the negative impact of sanctions on the economy and a scathing preliminary by UN Special Rapporteur Alena Douhan, who noted their “devastating effect on the whole population of Venezuela.” The lack of dialogue with all political actors in Venezuela risks entrenching a policy of regime change and economic warfare for years to come, similar to the failed US policy toward Cuba that has lasted for 60 years.

5) Following Trump on Cuba Instead of Obama

On Cuba, the Trump administration overturned all the progress toward normal relations achieved by President Obama. This included sanctioning the Cuban tourism and energy industries, blocking coronavirus aid shipments, restricting remittances to family members, Cuba on a list of “state sponsors of terrorism,” and sabotaging the country’s international medical missions, which were a major source of revenue for its health system.

We expected Biden to immediately start unraveling Trump’s confrontational policies. But catering to Cuban exiles in Florida for domestic political gain apparently takes precedence over a humane and rational policy toward Cuba.

Biden should instead start working with the Cuban government to allow the return of diplomats to their respective embassies, lift all restrictions on remittances, make travel easier and work with the Cuban health system in the fight against COVID-19, among other measures.

6) Ramping Up the Cold War With China

Biden seems committed to Trump’s self-defeating Cold War and arms race with China, talking tough and ratcheting up tensions that have led to racist hate crimes against East Asian people in the United States.

But it is the US that is militarily surrounding and threatening China, not the other way round. As former President Jimmy Carter patiently to Trump, while the United States has been at war for 20 years, China has instead invested in 21^st-century infrastructure and in its own people, lifting 800 million of them out of poverty.

The greatest danger of this moment in history, short of all-out nuclear war, is that this aggressive military posture not only justifies unlimited US military budgets, but it will gradually force China to convert its economic success into military power and follow the Americans down the tragic path of military imperialism.

7) Failing to Lift Sanctions During a Pandemic

One of the legacies of the Trump administration is the devastating use of US sanctions on countries around the world, including Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and Syria. have condemned them as “crimes against humanity” and compared them to “medieval sieges.” 

Since most of these sanctions were imposed by executive order, President Biden could easily lift them. Even before taking power, his team a thorough review, but months later, it has yet to make a move. 

Unilateral sanctions that affect entire populations are an illegal form of coercion — like military intervention, coups and covert operations — that have no place in a legitimate foreign policy based on diplomacy, the rule of law and the peaceful resolution of disputes. They are especially cruel and deadly during a pandemic, and the Biden administration should take immediate action by lifting broad sectoral sanctions to ensure every country can adequately respond to the health crisis.

8) Doing Enough for Yemen

Biden appeared to partially fulfill his promise to stop US support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen when he announced that the US would stop selling “offensive” weapons to Saudi Arabia. But he has yet to explain what that means. Which weapons sales has he canceled?

We think he should stop all weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, enforcing the , which prohibits military assistance to forces that commit “gross human rights violations,” and the Arms Export Control Act, under which imported US weapons may be used only for legitimate self-defense. There should be no exceptions to these US laws for Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Israel, Egypt or other allies around the world.

The US should also accept its share of responsibility for what many have called the greatest humanitarian crisis in the world today, and provide Yemen with funding to feed its people, restore its health care system and rebuild its devastated country. A recent donor netted just $1.7 billion in pledges, less than half the $3.85 billion needed. Biden should restore and expand funding for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and American financial support to the UN, the World Health Organization and World Food Program relief operations in Yemen. He should also press the Saudis to reopen the air and seaports and throw US diplomatic weight behind the efforts of UN Special Envoy Martin Griffiths to negotiate a ceasefire.

9) Backing Diplomacy With North Korea

Trump’s failure to provide sanctions relief and explicit security guarantees to North Korea doomed his diplomacy. It became an obstacle to the diplomatic process underway between Korean leaders Kim Jong-un of North Korea and Moon Jae-in of South Korea. So far, Biden has continued this policy of Draconian sanctions and threats.

The Biden administration should revive the diplomatic process with confidence-building measures. This includes opening liaison offices, easing sanctions, facilitating reunions between Korean-American and North Korean families, permitting US humanitarian organizations to resume their work when COVID-19 conditions permit, and halting US-South Korea military exercises and B-2 nuclear bomb flights.

Negotiations must involve concrete commitments to non-aggression from the US side and a commitment to negotiating a peace agreement to formally end the Korean War. This would pave the way for a denuclearized Korean Peninsula and the reconciliation that so many Koreans desire and deserve.

10) Reducing Military Spending

At the end of the Cold War, former senior Pentagon officials told the Senate Budget Committee that U.S. military spending could safely be cut by over the next 10 years. That goal was never achieved. Instead of a post-Cold War “peace dividend,” the military-industrial complex exploited the crimes of September 11, 2001, to justify an extraordinary one-sided . Between 2003 and 2011, the US accounted for nearly half of global military spending, far outstripping its own peak during the Cold War.

Now, the military-industrial complex is counting on Biden to escalate a renewed Cold War with Russia and China as the only plausible pretext for further record military budgets that are setting the stage for World War III.

Biden must dial back US conflicts with China and Russia and instead begin the critical task of moving money from the Pentagon to urgent domestic needs. He should start with at least the 10% cut that 93 representatives and 23 senators already voted for in 2020. In the longer term, Biden should look for deeper cuts in Pentagon spending, as in Representative Barbara Lee’s bill to cut $350 billion per year from the US military budget, to free up resources we sorely need to invest in health care, education, clean energy and modern infrastructure.

A Progressive Way Forward

These policies, common to Democratic and Republican administrations, not only inflict pain and suffering on millions of our neighbors in other countries, but they also deliberately cause instability that can at any time escalate into war, plunge a formerly functioning state into chaos or spawn a secondary crisis whose human consequences will be even worse than the original one.

All these policies involve deliberate efforts to unilaterally impose the political will of US leaders on other people and countries, by methods that consistently only cause more pain and suffering to the people they claim — or pretend — they want to help.

President Biden should jettison the worst of Obama’s and Trump’s policies and instead pick the best of them. Trump, recognizing the unpopularity of US military interventions, began the process of bringing American troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq, which Biden should follow through on.  

Obama’s diplomatic successes with Cuba, Iran and Russia demonstrated that negotiating with US enemies to make peace, improve relations and make the world a safer place is a perfectly viable alternative to trying to force them to do what the United States wants by bombing, starving and besieging their people. This is, in fact, the core principle of the United Nations Charter, and it should be the core principle of Biden’s foreign policy.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post 10 Problems With US Foreign Policy Under Biden appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Japan used Taiwan during the Second World War as the launching pad for its aggressive operations in Southeast Asia. At the end of the war, with the Japanese defeated and Mao Zedong’s communists in control of mainland China, Mao’s rival, Chiang Kai-shek, the leader of the Kuomintang, fled to Taiwan. This put the dissident government out of Mao’s reach. Chiang declared his government the Republic of China (ROC) in opposition to Mao’s People’s Republic of China (PRC). For forty years a single-party regime ruled Taiwan following Chiang Kai-shek’s initial declaration of martial law in 1949.

Macron Promotes Fraternity in the Middle East

READ MORE

Because the United States had defined its post-war identity as anti-communist, Taiwan held the status of the preferred national government in what was then referred to as “the free world.” The fate of Taiwan — still referred to by its Portuguese name, Formosa — figured as a major foreign policy issue in the 1960 US presidential campaign that pitted John F. Kennedy against Richard Nixon. The debate turned around whether the US should commit to defending against the People’s Republic two smaller islands situated between continental China and Taiwan.

In short, Taiwan’s history and geopolitical status over the past 150 years have become extremely complex. There are political, economic and geographical considerations as well as ideological and geopolitical factors that make it even more complex. These have been aggravated by a visible decline in the supposed capacity of the United States to impose and enforce solutions in different parts of the globe and the rise of China’s influence in the global economy.

Complexity, when applied to politics, generally signifies ambiguity. In the aftermath of the Korean War, the Eisenhower administration established a policy based on the idea of backing Taiwan while seriously hedging their bets. Writing for , Dennis Hickey explains that in 1954, the US “deliberately sought to ‘fuzz up’ the security pact [with Taiwan] in such a way that the territories covered by the document were unclear.”

Following President Nixon’s historic overture in 1971, the US established diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. This led to the transfer of China’s seat at the United Nations from the ROC to Mao’s PRC. The status of Taiwan was now inextricably ambiguous. US administrations, already accustomed to “fuzzy” thinking, described their policy approach as “strategic ambiguity.” It allowed them to treat Taiwan as an ally without recognizing it as an independent state. The point of such an attitude is what R. Nicolas Burns — President Joe Biden’s still unconfirmed pick for the post of US ambassador to China — calls “the smartest and most effective way” to avoid war.

Recent events indicate that we may be observing a calculated shift in that policy. In other words, the ambiguity is becoming more ambiguous. Or, depending on one’s point of view, less ambiguous. There is a discernible trend toward the old Cold War principle of brinkmanship. A not quite prepared President Biden recently embarrassed himself in a CNN Town Hall for stating that the US had a “” to defend Taiwan. The White House quickly walked back that commitment, reaffirming the position of strategic ambiguity.

This week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken appeared to be pushing back in the other direction, the Chinese with “terrible consequences” if they make any move to invade Taiwan. Blinken added, the Taipei Times reports, that the US has “been very clear and consistently clear” in its commitment to Taiwan. 

�մǻ岹��’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Consistently clear:

In normal use, unambiguous. In diplomatic use, obviously muddied and murky, but capable of being transformed by an act of assertive rhetoric into the expression of a bold-sounding intention that eliminates nuance, even when nuance remains necessary for balance and survival.

Contextual note

If Donald Trump’s administration projected a foreign policy based on fundamentally theatrical melodrama that consisted of calling the leader of a nuclear state “” and dismissing most of the countries of the Global South as “shitholes,” while accusing allies of taking advantage of the US, the defining characteristic of the now ten-months-old Biden ���峾���Ծ����ٰ����پ��Dz�’s foreign policy appears to be the commitment to the old 1950s Cold War stance known as brinkmanship.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

In November, the CIA director, William Burns, comically threatened Russia with “consequences” if it turned out — despite a total lack of evidence — that Vladimir Putin’s people were the perpetrators of a series of imaginary attacks popularly called the Havana syndrome. This week, backing up Biden’s “of a ‘strong’ Western economic response” to a Russian invasion of Ukraine, Security Adviser Jake Sullivan was more specific. “One target,” France 24 reports, “could be Russia’s mammoth Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline to Germany. Sullivan said the pipeline’s future was at ‘risk’ if Russia does invade Ukraine.” This may have been meant more to cow the Europeans, whose economy depends on Russian gas, than the Russians themselves.

These various examples have made observers wonder what is going on, what the dreaded “consequences” repeatedly evoked may look like and what other further consequences they may provoke. The US administration seems to be recycling the nostalgia of members of Biden’s own generation, hankering after what their memory fuzzily associates with the prosperous years of the original Cold War.

Historical Note

Britannica brinkmanship as the “foreign policy practice in which one or both parties force the interaction between them to the threshold of confrontation in order to gain an advantageous negotiation position over the other. The technique is characterized by aggressive risk-taking policy choices that court potential disaster.”

The term brinkmanship was coined by Dwight Eisenhower’s Democratic opponent in both of his elections, Adlai Stevenson, who dared to mock Secretary of State John Foster Dulles when he celebrated the principle of pushing things to the brink. “The ability to get to the verge,” Dulles explained, “without getting into the war is the necessary art…if you are scared to go to the brink, you are lost.” Eisenhower’s successor, John F. Kennedy, inherited the consequences of Dulles’ brinkmanship over Cuba, the nation that John Foster’s brother, CIA Director Alan Dulles, insisted on invading only months after Kennedy’s inauguration. This fiasco was a prelude to the truly frightening Cuban missile crisis in October 1962, when Kennedy’s generals, led by Curtis Lemay, sought to bring the world to the absolute brink.

When, two years later, Lyndon Johnson set a hot war going in Vietnam, or when, decades later, George W. Bush triggered a long period of American military aggression targeting multiple countries in the Muslim world, the policy of brinkmanship was no longer in play. These proxy wars were calculated as bets that fell far short of the brink. The risk was limited to what, unfortunately, it historically turned out to be: a slow deterioration of the capacities and the image of a nation that was ready to abuse its power in the name of abstract principles — democracy, liberation, stifling terrorism, promoting women’s rights — that none of the perpetrators took seriously. Threats and sanctions were features of the daily rhetoric, but the idea at the core of brinkmanship — that some major, uncontrollable conflagration might occur — was never part of the equation.

The Biden administration may have serious reasons for returning to the policy of brinkmanship. The position of the United States on the world stage has manifestly suffered. Some hope it can be restored and believe it would require strong medicine. But there are also more trivial reasons: notably the fear of the administration being mocked by Republicans for being weak in the face of powerful enemies. 

Both motivations signal danger. We may once again be returning to the devastating brinkman’s game illustrated in Stanley Kubrick’s “Dr. Strangelove.”

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Biden’s New Culture of Brinkmanship appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Intercept authors describe the complex game of cat-and-mouse played between the two leaders, one known for ordering the gruesome murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, the other more conventionally engaged throughout his career in a form of organized mass murder called war. Since the responsibility for killing in war is shared across an entire nation’s political structure, and since war is supposedly regulated not by personal command but by “rules of engagement,” Biden and his predecessors, whose policies have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, cannot be compared with the kind of bloodthirsty assassin Mohammed bin Salman has become.

The Democratic Party vs. Its Voters

READ MORE

This contrast has created a problem for Biden, who — unlike his predecessor Donald Trump, the ultimate opportunist — has the obligation of consolidating his image as a man of solid moral fiber. Biden has repeatedly insisted that the US must lead by the power of its example rather than the example of its power. He has no choice — in contrast with the abject Trump — but to avoid being seen as the puppet of a Middle Eastern powermonger.

The long and the short of The Intercept’s story is that Biden has adamantly avoided accepting to have a private conversation with the Saudi crown prince. In retaliation, bin Salman has refused to listen to an American president’s predictable requests to expand oil production to ease the tension on global oil prices. There is of course more to the story than that, but the only thing Biden has attempted to explain to the American public is that oil prices have risen “because of the supply being withheld by OPEC.” The fact that Saudi Arabia has a predominant voice in OPEC spared Biden the trouble of mentioning Riyadh itself.

To clarify Biden’s dilemma, Grim and Klippenstein reached out to Ali Shihabi, a man who on Twitter as an author and “commentator on Middle Eastern politics and economics with a particular focus on Saudi Arabia.” Grim and Klippenstein offer a bit more precision, Shihabi “a voice for MBS in Washington.” This became evident when Shihabi : “Biden has the phone number of who he will have to call if he wants any favours.”

�մǻ岹��’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Favors:

Something people who understand the effective role of obsequiousness and servility in international relations can seek and eventually obtain by simply sabotaging their own ideals to please the person capable of granting favors

Contextual Note

Shihabi turns out to be an excellent stylist when it comes to using irony disingenuously. Grim and Klippenstein quote a statement Shihabi made in response to The Intercept’s request for comment: “Saudi has put a lot of work into getting a cohesive OPEC+ to work over the past 15 months since the crisis that dropped oil futures below zero so will not break ranks with the consensus or Russia on this. Also, the kingdom resents being blamed for what is essentially a structural problem not of its own making in the US which has hampered its own energy production. Finally, I hear that the price of Thanksgiving Turkeys has doubled in the US so why can oil prices also not inflate?”

The capitalized “Turkeys” quip might be a sly (or possibly unintended) allusion to the 2018 murder of Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Everything else in Shihabi’s explanation has some historical merit. But throwing the spotlight on consumer prices in the context of what is perhaps the most “sacred” American holiday is equivalent to giving Biden a quick karate kick in the family jewels.

What can Biden do, other than capitulate to bin Salman and improve the consumer index? Doing so would brand him as weak and cowardly. In the end, Americans and political analysts all over the world are left wondering what the US stands for or is capable of standing for. Because a democratic consumer society’s political system is dependent not on the ideals of good government reflected in its constitution and repeated endlessly by demagogic politicians, or even on the “national interest,” but instead on the reaction of consumers to the prices of the goods they buy, the question must be asked: Who controls US politics?

Is it the people? No, because their dual role is simply to show up to vote every couple of years and to consume on a daily basis. What about the president? No, because presidents are in a constant battle with Congress. So, is it Congress? Not really, because Congress is known for debating everything and accomplishing nothing. The entire superstructure of government functions as a machine to find excuses for maintaining the status quo.

With regard to today’s news cycle, if we are seeking the answer to the question by naming individuals, the best candidates would be Joe Manchin and Mohammed bin Salman, who have demonstrated the power to create situations from which there is no exit.

Historical Note

The key to understanding Biden’s problem with bin Salman is of course neither the crown prince nor the West Virginia senator. It’s Donald Trump. Grim and Klippenstein quote Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, one of the most astute observers of the Middle East in Washington. Parsi “said the move by MBS is aimed at boosting Republicans, whom the crown prince sees as a more reliable ally.”

More specifically, Parsi claims that it isn’t about oil revenues or even the arms sales to the kingdom that Biden had promised to halt on moral grounds but eventually accepted. According to Parsi, bin Salman has long-term geopolitical considerations in mind. “MBS calculates that a Republican president,” according to Parsi, “will reinvest in the idea of dominating the Middle East militarily, which makes the relationship with Saudi Arabia critical once more.”

Parsi further notes that under Trump a new coalition had grown up, bringing together the interests of Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Israel, in lockstep with traditional US policy aimed at dominating the entire Middle East. Trump’s innovation was to delegate some of US power to its unconditionally supported allies Israel and Saudi: “MBS wants to return to the days when Saudi Arabia was fully immune from any criticism and had U.S. support with no questions asked.”

This situation that has resulted in Biden’s helplessness was created by Trump. It highlights the embarrassing decline of US prestige, if not also of US power in the world. Because of the way US democracy has evolved, the national interest — that of the people as a whole — will always be mediated if not dictated by local and corporate interests rather than any expression of the “will of the people.” In an officially decentralized and privatized social and economic structure, all decisions tend to be conditioned by “favors.”

For the politicians and political operators who hope to play their role in Congress or even intervene in the executive branch, getting elected or selected requires not just accepting, but soliciting favors from wealthy corporate donors and establishing what may be called “intimately interested” relations with them.

Trump succeeded at this game because of his talent for letting his personality eclipse the consequences of his politics. His voters and members of his party followed his lead because of his ability to play the role of a “winner.” That meant that Trump could let scoundrels like Mohammed bin Salman have their way while appearing to be the dominant personality in the couple. Biden had no chance. Not only did he not look like a winner, he gave the impression that the only thing he was interested in winning was the election.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

In short, when the Democrats forced Biden’s selection as their candidate in 2020, they did Biden the favor of allowing him to be elected by circumstance (thanks to COVID-19) but did themselves no favors if they really had the hope of using Biden’s presidency to govern the nation.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Biden’s Lost Battle With Mohammed bin Salman appeared first on 51�Թ�.

On Sunday, he Congressman John Curtis, a Republican who uncharacteristically acknowledges the reality of climate change. If only other countries emulated the US, all would be well. Knowles politely challenges Curtis with this observation: “The Republican Party has been way behind when it comes to accepting the reality of climate change.”

COP26: Can People Power Save the World?

READ MORE

Curtis jumps on the occasion to wax sentimental about a trip to the top of a mountain as a Boy Scout that left him with a “deep desire to leave this Earth better than we found it.” He concludes: “I actually think all conservatives, Republicans, have those same feelings — maybe some stronger than others.” In the US, feelings always trump action.

To close the interview, Knowles poses an even more obsequious rhetorical question to Curtis: “Should the U.S. be prepared to lead with new commitments in terms of reaching net-zero emissions?” This allows Curtis to have the last uncontested word as a cheerleader for the Republican Party, generously committed, as always, to responding to the world’s needs: “Republicans want all options and hands on deck to solve this problem.”

Knowles’ Tuesday article focused on the made by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. He misleadingly quotes the New York representative as asserting that “America is back.” Knowles failed to mention what The New York Times’ Lisa Friedman , namely that the celebrated member of “The Squad” traveled to Glasgow as part of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s congressional delegation. It consisted of 20 Democrats making the trip under the banner of “America is back” slogan as a PR operation for the Biden administration and the still imperiled and largely insufficient Build Back Better bill.

Knowles’ article devoted to Ocasio-Cortez maintains to the very end that the US commitment to solving the climate crisis is already underway and is destined to succeed. In contrast, Friedman details the reasons why none of the legislation Ocasio-Cortez and Pelosi are championing in Glasgow has been passed. She explains why it may not be passed, largely due to opposition by Democrats such as Joe Manchin to its cost. It goes without saying that Curtis’ Republicans will unanimously oppose the bill.

On Monday, Knowles produced an article based on an with Samantha Power, administrator of the United States Agency for International Development. Among the various quotes, Power praised her boss in these terms: “President Biden is the first president to declare fighting corruption a national security imperative, and of course he considers the climate crisis a national security threat.”

�մǻ岹��’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Fighting corruption:

A mission adopted by one type of regime whose policies are determined by moneyed interests against other types of regimes whose policies are determined by moneyed interests

Contextual Note

In a 2006 in “Third World Quarterly,” Alice Hills noted that the George W. Bush administration “broadened the remit of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in such a way as to make it a quasi-security agency.” In other words, an agency presumably dedicated to helping the developing world become fully integrated into the security state and the military-industrial complex.

This was already the trend well before the Bush administration. As by France’s School of Economic Warfare, “the CIA nevertheless uses USAID to infiltrate certain political milieux, for example in Latin America, to destabilize socialist regimes in the 1970s and 1980s.”

That is why Knowles can be accused of a certain lack of curiosity when he uncritically reports Power’s formulation of USAID’s mission with regard to the climate crisis: “We want to do more to help countries around the world, especially developing countries, accelerate their clean-energy transition, address pollution, and ensure the world we all must share a cleaner, safer, healthiest planet. And we have an obligation to help.”

Instead of challenging her on the operations USAID engages in and on its ambiguous role in geopolitics, he takes this statement as proof that “Power firmly believes that creating climate equity is a moral imperative.”

Power applauds President Joe Biden’s “pledge to donate $3 billion annually to help developing nations adapt to climate change.” But she “acknowledged that addressing rampant corruption in countries that will need those funds could prove challenging.” Having made such a complaint, one can only presume that Power is aware of how corruption works. But there may be good reasons to suspect some hypocrisy.

The idea she puts forward is that of a generous rich nation, the US, giving away money to small, struggling nations that are somehow afflicted with a cultural disease known as systemic corruption. This means that money made available by magnanimous benefactors is routinely stuffed into the pockets of self-interested local politicians. How regrettable that these backward people have retained such uncivilized and unproductive behavior.

Presumably, Power has, at some point, found the time to consult John Perkins’ , “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,” who defined in his preface what the job he exercised when he worked for Chas T Main consultants consists of: “They funnel money from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and other foreign ‘aid’ organizations into the coffers of huge corporations and the pockets of a few wealthy families who control the planet’s natural resources.” They “cheat countries around the globe out of trillions of dollars.”

Power presents things a little differently. The problem isn’t the operations conducted by global businesses working hand in hand with the CIA. Instead, it’s the fact that the poor countries of the world haven’t solved a problem that no longer exists in the US — corruption: “I think it’s really important for donor countries to do what the United States has done, which is to elevate the anti-corruption agenda and mainstream it across development financing.”

Historical Note

Although both Perkins and Power have conducted their professional lives in the same context, their views could not be more divergent. Is it possible that Power hasn’t had time to read Perkins’ book? Or does she believe that what he doesn’t exist? The real problem is that they have two different views not just of the political organization but of history and the notion of corruption.

Corruption has existed throughout history. It is a standard feature of human relations. At its simplest level, it is an exchange of favors between two people. It becomes more complex when those favors create a conflict with other interests, responsibilities and stated moral commitments.

The truly complicating factor is money, precisely because, unlike a lot of personal favors, it has no . The greatest contribution to the history of the shared Anglo-Saxon civilization initiated by England and perfected by the US was to put money at the core not only of all human activity but of morality itself. When financial success becomes the unique measure of social respectability and when personal interest is elevated above social responsibility, corruption becomes a way of life.

The greatest innovation came with globalization, an inevitable consequence of 500 years dedicated to colonial conquest. It enabled wealthy countries to create a sophisticated, indirect system of corruption that they could even call democracy while condemning the more primitive type of corruption that consists of granting direct favors. Democracy that depends on corporate financing of politicians’ electoral campaigns is an example of systematic, institutionalized corruption.

This is now considered moral. Political leaders of formerly colonized countries who skim money off from aid or loans offered by wealthy nations and corporations provide the example of traditional, “immoral” corruption.

In a series of decisions, the US Supreme Court formalized the distinction between the absolute domination of money over politics — now considered normal and moral — and immoral corruption. Conveniently, people like Joe Manchin are normal (i.e., not corrupt), but leaders of African countries who are manipulated by corporations and supported by the US security state can be critiqued as not living up to the high standards of American democracy.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Uncomfortable Presence of US Politicians at COP26 appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Taiwan Becomes a Point of Strategic Ambiguity

READ MORE

While President Joe Biden said in an October town hall that the US was committed to defending Taiwan, his administration later walked back his statement as it clashed with Washington’s official policy of strategic ambiguity vis-à-vis Taipei. Strategic ambiguity, or not publicly declaring how the United States would react in the event of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, has guided US-Taiwan relations for over 40 years.

The policy has recently come under scrutiny as relations between Tapei and Beijing continue to deteriorate and as the prospect of an invasion, according to some analysts, becomes more likely.

Chinese Ambitions

Admiral Philip Davidson, who led the US Indo-Pacific Command until April, in March to the Senate Armed Services Committee that annexing Taiwan is “clearly one of [China’s] ambitions” and that the threat will likely materialize within six years. Taiwan’s defense ministry last month that Beijing would be able to launch an attack against the island with minimal losses by 2025.

Despite sending nearly , alongside nuclear-capable bombers and anti-submarine aircraft, into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone in early October, coinciding with the anniversary of the declaration of the People’s Republic of China, President Xi Jinping said that Beijing was committed to pursuing peaceful unification with Taiwan. According to John Culver, a former CIA analyst, Xi has framed unification as a requisite to achieving the “China Dream” by 2049, that Xi may take risks that his predecessors would not in order to secure unification.

Taiwan is likely not prepared for a Chinese invasion. It spends just over $11.5 million on defense. This, as former Deputy National Security Adviser Matt Pottinger , is an amount similar to that of Singapore, which has a population a quarter of the size of Taiwan’s and lacks the existential threat facing Taipei. Pottinger added that Taiwan neglected national defense for the first 15 years of the 21^st century, spending too much on equipment that would be quickly destroyed in an invasion.

The readiness of its military was also called into question by a Wall Street Journal published last month reporting low-quality basic training and a widespread unwillingness to defend the island. The article quoted US Marine Colonel Grant Newsham as stating that while Taiwan’s military has well-trained troops and “,” it lacks adequate funding and could benefit from more training with the US and its allies. The Wall Street Journal also reported that many Taiwanese expect the US to intervene in case of kinetic military action by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

While the US supports Taiwan through arms sales, it remains committed to strategic ambiguity. Instead, the US Strategic Framework for the Indo-Pacific, a document declassified near the end of President Donald Trump’s tenure, recommends that the United States “e�Բ������� Taiwan to develop an effective asymmetric defense strategy and capabilities that will help ensure its security, freedom from coercion, resilience, and ability to engage China on its own terms.”

While the framework has not been formally implemented, the Biden administration has not replaced the document, and officials within the administration have acknowledged a degree of continuation of Trump-era policies vis-à-vis China and Taiwan.

Constant Reminder

As Washington readies itself for escalation with Beijing, others are less convinced that rising tensions between China and Taiwan will result in violence. Project 2049 research associate Eric Lee, for instance, that the threat is “nothing new,” and that the growing perception of China as a threat to the United States is what has led to greater alarm regarding Taiwanese-Chinese relations.

According to , former head of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, China’s aim is to prevent Taiwanese independence, not to seek forceful unification. She adds that every leader since Mao Zedong has projected determination to unify Taiwan with the mainland, and that while some Chinese have come to believe that time is no longer on China’s side and that it should use force to compel unification, Xi has resisted such pressures. The latest five-year plan that came into effect in 2021 describes China’s policy vis-à-vis Taiwan as a “peaceful development of cross-strait relations.”

Those who believe that China is unlikely to use kinetic action against Taiwan think that it will instead pursue unification using economic and political means. Taiwan is heavily reliant on China’s economy: Beijing is Taipei’s , which gives the mainland leverage over the island. China has isolated Taiwan by pressuring countries not to sign free trade agreements with Taipei and has pushed for the island’s exclusion from the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, two major trade agreements in the Indo-Pacific Region.

China has also restricted tourism to Taiwan and has pressured international businesses to label the island as a Chinese province. Taiwan also faces a brain drain to China as hundreds of thousands of well-educated Taiwanese opt to work on the mainland instead of their home country, with Chinese firms offering the wages available on the island.

Glaser argues that China’s goal is to “constantly remind” the Taiwanese of its increasing power to instill a pessimism about Taiwan’s future and deepen cleavages within its political system. While pursuing unification through this gradual, nonviolent approach will likely take longer than kinetic action would, it will also be less costly and risky for the Chinese government.

As tensions between Taiwan and China grow, the possibility of a Chinese invasion is considered by some as more imminent than ever before. Taiwan’s military is not prepared for kinetic action against the PLA, and calls to assist Taiwan by increasing arms sales and conducting joint exercises with its military are consequently growing in the US.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

However, not everyone is convinced that the Chinese government will pursue unification through violent means. Some argue instead that Beijing is more likely to use economic and political coercion to achieve unification. Regardless of the means, the Chinese government will likely continue to pursue unification with Taiwan as it is a crucial step toward the Chinese government’s future dreams.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Will the US Maintain Its Strategic Ambiguity Toward Taiwan? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Liberalism was supposed to reign supreme. In the grand battle of ideas, Marx had lost out, Hegel had won — or so his American acolyte, Francis Fukuyama, claimed. Fukuyama proclaimed that the “end of history” was at hand, and the cognoscenti and would-be cognoscenti on both sides of the Atlantic enthusiastically applauded.

COVID-19 Is a Wake-Up Call on the Shortcomings of Globalization

READ MORE

Three decades later, the world is in disarray. The attacks of September 11 were a drastic reminder that not everybody was sold on Fukuyama’s utopia. The financial crisis that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers and, with it, the house of cards built on a derivatives market that had spun out of control exposed the irrationality of rational behavior — taking more and more risks simply because everybody else did so. Finally, COVID-19 has demonstrated how quickly the beautiful world of ever-expanding consumer choices, sustained by cheap labor in remote parts of the world, can grind to a screeching halt.

Benign Hegemon

It is too early to tell whether or not global turbulences have reached a point of no return. The prospects are not great, and that has a lot to do with the United States. There is a strong sense that �������������’s , which it assumed after World War II, is on the wane and, with it, the country’s “commitment to promoting a liberal international order.” Or, perhaps, the United States suffers from a severe case of “” and no longer wants to play the role of the “benign hegemon.”

The notion of the benign hegemon is derived from hegemonic stability theory, popular among some experts in international relations. The theory posits that order and stability in world affairs crucially depend on a Great Power capable of sustaining them and willing to do so. As , of the Wharton School, has recently put it, “A stable, open economy requires a hegemon, a dominant power who can provide some of the necessary public goods, absorb costs, and order the system.”

Although this pertains particularly to international economic relations, it can be applied to other areas, such as international security. Order and stability require, among other things, that the hegemonic power and underwrite the rules that define and govern the interactions between states in the international system. This was the case in the second half of the 19^th century when Great Britain assumed this role, providing and guaranteeing global public goods such as free trade, capital mobility and the British pound, backed up by the gold standard, as the global reserve currency.

The system came to an end with World War I. The conflict left Britain weakened and largely unable to reassume its prewar role. The interwar period was characterized by turmoil and crises, paving the way for the rise of autocratic regimes, committed to establishing a new order on the ruins of the old one. They accomplished the latter, but the new order was not theirs to create. The new hegemonic power that emerged from the war was not Hitler’s Germany but the United States, which filled the void left by an exhausted Great Britain.

This was anything but a natural transition. In fact, for most of the interwar period, the United States had refused to get entangled in international affairs. �������������’s retreat from internationalism after World War I was epitomized by Congress’s refusal to join the League of Nations — and that despite the fact that the league had been the brainchild of US President Woodrow Wilson.

Isolationism went hand in hand with protectionism. Throughout the 19^th century and way into the beginning of the 20^th, the United States boasted some of the highest tariffs in the world. The culmination was the infamous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which had a devastating impact on international trade and contributed to the Great Depression. It was not until the United States entered the war against Nazi Germany that it assumed the role commensurate to its position as the economically and militarily by far strongest power in the world.

Alternative Options

The failure of the most recent G20 meeting in Rome to arrive at a meaningful common position on global warming and climate change ahead of the COP26 in Glasgow is further proof that the United States is no longer in a position to fill this role. Instead of leading, President Joe Biden China and Russia “for any disappointment over the level of commitment by G20 leaders to fight climate change.” This is not to deny that Biden has a point. But given the enormity of the impact climate change is bound to have on the natural environment and life on this planet, it is little more than an exercise in passing responsibility.

Biden’s remark, however, does address a serious issue, namely the role of China in a rapidly changing world. A few weeks ago, Chinese coal production reached new historic highs, amounting to an estimated 4 billion tons for this year. Accelerated coal production is supposed to alleviate energy shortages that have threatened to slow down the country’s growth. Unfortunately, emissions-wise, coal happens to be one of the worst sources of energy.

A on the impact of carbon dioxide emissions on coastal areas predicts catastrophic devastation as a result of rising sea levels for some of the world’s megacities, particularly in India, Indonesia, Vietnam and China — all major coal consumers. Given the concentration of China’s population in a string of coastal cities, one might assume that it has a particular interest in combating climate change. In theory, this would entail an active involvement in global governance, a proposition that China has been more than reluctant to embrace, presumably because it would entail directly challenging the United States.  

At the same time, however, China has launched major initiatives, such as the foundation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and particularly the . Together with China’s massive engagement in Africa, these projects leave the impression that they are part of a comprehensive drive designed to establish China as an alternative to the United States.

This might herald the emergence of a new system, no longer dominated by one power but multipolar, and certainly very different from the one established after World War II. For, as Princeton’s John Ikenberry has a few years ago, “there is no liberal internationalism without American and western hegemony — and that age is ending.” With the decline of the United States and the parallel rise of China, countries to “seek alternative patrons rather than remain dependent on Western largess and support.”

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

The end result might very well be a bifurcated world order, on the heels of a period of instability and turmoil, or what have called a “G-Zero” world, one without clear leadership and global cooperation. Bifurcation means the coexistence of competing systems that follow fundamentally different rules. This can already be observed in the realm of economic governance.

Olga Petricevic and David Teece have recently of a “noticeable defiance of the principles of classical economic liberalism and the rule-of-law” by Russia and China. The Chinese “alternative model of governance,” they note, “is deploying coordinated protectionist trade and investment policies and government intervention aimed at accessing and acquiring foreign intellectual property, thereby influencing the global economic and innovation system.” Its success is likely to inspire imitation and attempts to jump on the bandwagon, resulting not only in bifurcation but in polarization reminiscent of the Cold War period.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Uncertain Times in a World Without American Hegemony appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The published on October 22, exactly 58 years and one month since the assassination of John F. Kennedy, seeks to explain as transparently as possible its commitment to opacity. Referring to an act of Congress in 1992 that foresaw the future release of all the archived documents concerning the assassination, finally revealing all the sensitive things that embarrassed people in government five decades ago, the White House has produced a long, legalistic document whose message is clear: It’s too soon for the public to know the truth.

Who Won the Match: Tucker Carlson or Pete Buttigieg?

READ MORE

The memorandum explains that “the profound national tragedy of President Kennedy’s assassination continues to resonate in American history and in the memories of so many Americans who were alive on that terrible day.” People apparently still want to know the truth. Furthermore, it acknowledges that “the need to protect records concerning the assassination has only grown weaker with the passage of time.” So far, so good. 

Two generations later, the government is intent on revealing the truth, but, apparently, not too boldly and not all of it. “It is therefore critical to ensure that the United States Government maximizes transparency, disclosing all information in records concerning the assassination, except when the strongest possible reasons counsel otherwise,” the memorandum states.

�մǻ岹��’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Maximize transparency:

Minimize opacity while keeping it firmly intact

Contextual Note

The White House believes there are “reasons” that “counsel” its dedicated truth seekers to hide the truth, even truth that is six decades old. Who needs to be sheltered from the light historical truth? Most of the people involved have died and all of the decision-makers are no longer in office. On the other hand, could it be that some of our existing institutions may have had an undisclosed role that would be revealed in the unreleased documents? Can protecting such sacred institutions constitute “the strongest possible reasons” for not admitting documented historical truth?

Clearly, the most sacred institution requiring protection is the one whose very name indicates how central it is to the operations of government: the Central Intelligence Agency. In detailing the compelling reasons for continuing to conceal the truth, the White House inadvertently reveals that the CIA is a prime candidate. The act passed by Congress “permits the continued postponement of disclosure of information in records concerning President Kennedy’s assassination only when postponement remains necessary to protect against an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”

One part of the excuse the White House offers for delays in disclosure belongs to the category of “the dog ate my homework.” The memorandum states that “unfortunately, the pandemic has had a significant impact on the agencies,” requiring “additional time to engage with the agencies and to conduct research within the larger collection to maximize the amount of information released.”

Once again, the White House wants to “maximize,” which really means to reveal everything except the smoking gun, which, given the precautions taken, must still be smoking. The comedy continues with this remark: “The Archivist has also noted that ‘making these decisions is a matter that requires a professional, scholarly, and orderly process; not decisions or releases made in haste.’” Fifty-eight years after the event, the scholars want to avoid haste? Some “scholars,” including true investigators and forensic pathologists, who have worked on the case for decades and unearthed plenty of troubling conclusions about what actually happened, have had enough time to hasten to their grave or are settled into tranquil retirement after decades of being ignored.

The White House then offers one of the most admirable circumlocutions in the fabled history of bureaucratese: “The Archivist therefore recommends that the President ‘temporarily certify the continued withholding of all of the information certified in 2018.’” The verb “recommends” is meant to sound wise and serious coming from someone with the title, “The Archivist.” But the gold medal goes to the phrase, “certify the continued withholding.” Usually, achievements are certified. “Withholding” is a non-achievement or a failure to act. Yet that is what is being certified. Not only that, but this contains the utterly surreal notion of certifying the withholding of something that was certified. Lewis Carroll wouldn’t have imagined subjecting Alice to this kind of convoluted reasoning.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

But there is more. It promises “two public releases of the information that has ‘ultimately’ been determined to be appropriate for release to the public.” The adverb “ultimately” may never have been used as creatively as in this tale of perpetually repetitive postponement. And the idea of “determined to be appropriate” raises the unanswered questions of who determines, when and how. The word “postponement” appears three times alongside the synonymous euphemism, “extension of time” in that paragraph.

Historical Note

The document then repeats the list of institutions that need protection: “Temporary continued postponement is necessary to protect against identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure.” Apart from the comic effect of justifying the avoidance of “immediate disclosure” nearly six decades after the event, this confession offers the serious historian the choice of possible culprits. The suspects are: “the military defense” (the Pentagon), “intelligence operations” (the CIA), “law enforcement” (the FBI), foreign relations (other governments). The last one may have been added to the list to keep open the idea that the Russians were behind it, the same people who hosted Lee Harvey Oswald and now are focused on attacking upstanding Americans with the Havana syndrome.

The one item in the memorandum that may comfort anxious historians is the promise made bureaucratically official in the following sentence: “Accordingly, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Act, I hereby certify that all information within records that agencies have proposed for continued postponement under section 5(g)(2)(D) shall be withheld from full public disclosure until December 15, 2022.” There is now an official date scholars can note in their agendas, but a closer look reveals that the promise is not to release anything before the date. It doesn’t promise to open the cornucopia after it. And if the COVID-19 pandemic endures, the dog will have more homework to digest.

Things become even murkier as we learn about the probable scenario for the coming 12 months: “Over the next year, agencies proposing continued postponement and NARA shall conduct an intensive review of each remaining redaction to ensure that the United States Government maximizes transparency.” Maximized transparency means just enough opacity to effectively hide the truth.

The rest of the document contains specific instructions drafted by talented jurists capable of making black (censorship, mendacity) seem white (maximized transparency). The aim is to ensure people still believe they live in a democracy. One detail, however, seems to point to the crucial evidence that has been obvious for decades to most lucid critics of the Warren Commission’s report. Among the parties charged with reviewing the documents to be released in 2022 is “The Office of the Director of National Intelligence if the agency proposing the redaction asserts an anticipated harm to intelligence operations.” Translated into conversational English, this means that if the revelation of the complicity of the CIA in the assassination is deemed to have a harmful effect on the image of the intelligence community, further concealment of the truth will be justified. would be proud of this provision.

Some may wonder why a modern administration would go to such trouble. Maybe because it identifies with the same military-industrial complex that killed JFK less than three years after another president, Dwight Eisenhower, it.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post JFK Assassination: Biden’s Commitment to Keep Concealing the Truth appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Americans had just elected whom they thought would be a moderate, measured president, and what they heard from Senator Schumer amounted to a battle cry for a sea change.

Concerns were already heightened that Democrats would take a less measured approach in the wake of presidential election debates about , a key minority right that prevents a bare Senate majority from passing major legislation. There had also been debate in Democratic circles about packing the Supreme Court.

�������������’s Afghanistan Fiasco: The Buck Stops With Biden

READ MORE

Recognizing Democratic vulnerability on these points and the broader issue of temperate governance going forward, Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, playing the most avuncular moderate on the Democrats’ roster, was trotted out two days later to that “whether it be packing the courts or ending the filibuster, I will not vote to do that.”

Senator Manchin assured all that he wanted to “rest those fears” and would stand as a bulwark against more extreme maneuvers. The charm offensive in conjunction with Donald Trump’s -and- position on whether Georgia Republicans should bother to vote at all enabled Democrats to seal their razor-thin majority in the Senate.

Unrequited Democracy

However, Senator Manchin’s love for his party has gone unrequited, as has his fidelity to the principle of the filibuster. From the beginning of the 117^th Congress, he has been treated to a buffet of and has had to take positions at times at odds with his party’s expansive legislative ambitions and, at times, at odds with his conservative home state.

Manchin was instrumental in cobbling together the $1.2-trillion infrastructure bill, yet he has received little praise for his efforts. But when he made possible Democrats’ control of the Senate and, thereby, the full legislative and executive levers of power, he might as well have painted a target on his back. Once he opened himself to the “,” effectively gutting the filibuster in all but name, he was never to be taken seriously again.

Sparing the Senate a painful fight and mixed press, Democrats quickly found they did not necessarily have to eliminate the filibuster but could use the available mechanism of for passing massive legislation, albeit certain . This approach, coupled with Great Society ambitions on a threadbare majority, has led to the current predicament in which Senator Manchin finds himself.

Since the massive reconciliation bill was conceived, Democrats and the media have persisted in the narrative of an inscrutable Senator Manchin, who simply will not articulate what he wants in a deal, but his requirements have long been . Late last month, brought forth the revelation of a signed agreement between his office and Majority Leader Schumer, dated July 28. In it, Manchin outlined parameters for the reconciliation bill, yet the Democrats persisted steely-eyed when, on August 11, the Senate with their original $3.5-trillion bill.

Clearly, Manchin had not made his point, and he was consequently forced to put his foot down yet again in an for the Wall Street Journal published on September 2 wherein he objected to the topline figure and pressed for a “strategic pause” in the reconciliation bill. Crickets again. Three days later, his assertion was met with an eye roll by President Biden’s chief of staff, Ron Klein, who said Manchin was “.” Manchin’s barbaric yawp seemed to strike the powers that be as a whimper.

On September 29, Senator Manchin decided to release his own , writing, “I cannot — and will not — support trillions in spending or an all or nothing approach that ignores the brutal fiscal reality our nation faces.” He went on to reporters: “I’ve never been a liberal in any way shape or form. … I guess for them to get theirs, I guess elect more liberals. I’m not asking them to change. I’m willing to come from zero to $1.5 trillion.” Manchin claimed he wanted to avoid “changing our whole society into an entitlement mentality.” How much clearer could he have been?

Yet Manchin continues to endure slings and arrows from his own party. He has become the punching bag for progressives and has endured at least one public criticism by the . Beyond the inaccuracy of the president’s claim that Senator Manchin votes more with Republicans than with Democrats (depending on how you slice it, he with the Democrats 61.5% of the time), this was hardly a thank you for his service to the party.

Tightrope Walk

This is not to say Senator Manchin’s goodwill is inexhaustible. Democrats have increasingly abandoned the coal country voters who once were the base of the party in West Virginia. Whereas some argue that coal production has somewhat receded in economic impact within the state, 91% of West Virginia’s electricity comes from , and cultural affinity for and pride in the hydrocarbon run deep.

This is at odds with today’s Democratic platform, where the fossil fuel and industrial agendas are at odds with green ambitions. As green priorities increasingly win out within the party, frustration grows with industrial voters.

Once untenable policies like the Green New Deal have taken root within the party, and, as a result, Democrats have been leaking like a sieve. A common explanation for why these voters are migrating to the Republican Party is to imply there are racist motivations by middle-class whites, but Hispanic and black blue-collar voters continue to migrate to the GOP in equal percentages.

West Virginia is not only economically (energy and mining) aligned with the Republican Party these days but is culturally (guns, abortion, wokeism) more consistent with Republican stances, and there may come a time when Joe Manchin will have to change parties to remain viable. The question could be not if but when he leaves. In departing, he would surely endure the enmity of Democrats, though many would understand his decision.

On the positive side, were Manchin to fully uproot, he would no doubt be welcomed with open arms by his Republican peers and likely retain his seniority, making a very light-footed step from one majority to another overnight. Yet another possibility is to eschew the “D” label and become an independent, thereby curiously paring under that non-affiliation a left-wing Bernie Sanders and a left-of-center Joe Manchin.

As Gerald F. Seib observed in his excellent , “It is probably no exaggeration to say that Mr. Manchin is the only Democrat in the country who could hold his seat for his party.” Yet he also notes that “even the formidable Mr. Manchin isn’t holding that seat comfortably; he won re-election in 2018 by a 50% to 46% count against Republican Patrick Morrisey.” Not only that, his increasingly vulnerable seat is in a state that Trump won by 39 points in 2020. In the future, keeping his seat as a Democrat will be quite a trick.

Manchin’s Dilemma

It seems that rumors of Joe Manchin’s defection abound, and even is in on the act. This last case, which occurred earlier this week, met with a strong from Manchin, who declared the reports of his switching parties “Bullshit” (“with a capital B’’). Yet no matter how many times Senator Manchin says “bullshit,” it doesn’t engender fidelity to the party when, say, Bernie Sanders carpetbags an into Machin’s backyard that contains a strait jab at Manchin in the penultimate paragraph.

Interestingly, Sanders might have added to the pressure for Manchin to vote against the bill when he wrote, “This reconciliation bill is being opposed by every Republican in Congress.” (Note to Senator Sanders: Heavily Trump-leaning West Virginia voters don’t necessarily “Feel the Bern.”) Nor did Manchin particularly appreciate Vice President Kamala Harris’ attempt on local West Virginia TV to on a vote for the $1.9-trillion COVID-19 relief bill earlier this year. This, too, did not meet with a dispassionate response from Manchin.

Sometimes it’s “bullshit” until there simply is no choice. For nearly a decade, I worked as a staffer for a man of humor, kindness, intelligence and practicality. A lifelong Democrat like Joe Manchin, my former boss eventually had to switch parties to continue doing what he did so well: represent his constituents.

Moments before filing for reelection, he weighed whether to run as a Democrat or a Republican. Heading out the door, he told his staff to file the Republican paperwork (both had been prepared). By the time he arrived at his house, his wife, also a life-long Democrat who had heard the party switch story over the radio, met him at the front door, arms crossed, asking: “You got anything to tell me, big boy?” My boss would laugh and say that switch banished him from the bedroom to the sofa for a week.

Senator Manchin might end up sleeping on the couch for a while when it comes to his Democratic supporters, but were he to switch, he would no longer be the whipping boy for all that ails the party. He would no longer be subject to Joe Biden rousing himself for to vote for an agenda that is unpopular in West Virginia. No more would he be tied to a president who has , or maybe , and whose poll numbers have declined substantially, including one that 35% of Americans say “mentally sharp” describes Biden “not at all well.”

In formally making the switch, Senator Manchin would merely what his state’s governor and potential billionaire Senate race opponent, Jim Justice, did in 2017, which could help shore up support with those back home questioning the current rash of trillion-dollar bills.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

It also seems that the progressive wing wouldn’t even notice if Manchin and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema left the party. Late last month on CNN, Representative Ilhan Omar of the two senators: “It is saddening to see them use Republican talking points. We obviously didn’t envision having Republicans as part of our party, and I hope that they will understand that Democrats need to be united behind the president’s agenda.” Not content with hounding the pair, Democrats seem eager to foist them on Republicans and unite in the minority.

From Manchin’s perspective, both the passage and the failure of the reconciliation bill lead to difficult places. The former hastens his departure from the Senate or his party, and the latter heaps blame at his feet for destroying party unity and the Democrats’ ability to affect their priorities. The best West Virginia residents can hope for is that the bill fails as much for the country and West Virginia‘s economy as for the senator’s own prospects for keeping his seat. Despite the outcome, with a little more friendly fire from his own party, Democrats might soon wake up to a diminished party and the plaintive, “Say it ain’t so, Joe!”

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Will Joe Manchin Remain a Democrat? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The one issue on which both may have agreed is the growing need for humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan. The UN and various international NGOs have alerted the international community to the imminent faced by the Afghan people, especially inadequate health care and food shortages. Many of the 12 million at-risk Afghans are children.

Germany Lacks Political Courage to Welcome More Afghan Refugees

READ MORE

To complicate matters, with only 2.2 million Afghans prior to the Taliban takeover, COVID-19 infections are on the rise. Starved of resources, hospitals and clinics lack basic medicines, and staff is forced to work without pay. Then there is the country’s fast-approaching, notoriously harsh winter when food and fuel come at a premium.

Aware of the pending crisis, the earlier this week at an emergency meeting called for and hosted by Italy agreed to respond, though no specific pledges were made. Attendees, while aware of the need to coordinate any assistance effort with the Taliban, also expressed concerns over the Taliban’s commitment to fighting terrorism, specifically mentioning the Islamic State’s (IS) Khorasan faction inside Afghanistan, known as ISK.

Where’s Our Money?

Part of the humanitarian problem stems from the inability of the Taliban to access Afghanistan’s international accounts, frozen by most of the Western governments in whose banks the funds had been deposited. The asset freeze was imposed almost immediately after the Taliban took control. Of the estimated $9 billion in frozen accounts, $7-$8 billion are believed held in US banks, and the Taliban want it. They assert that they can’t care for their citizens properly without it.

As reflected in the G20 discussions, the US and other governments don’t necessarily dispute the claim but also know full well that the Taliban may, and likely will use any unfrozen funds for other purposes, some not at all to the liking of those governments, such as weapons, aid to terrorist groups, support for their drug trade, etc.

The US and other governments are also well aware of the Taliban’s egregious mismanagement of the Afghan economy when they previously ran the country from 1996 to 2001. Their gross ineffectiveness brought the economy to its knees and their strong affiliation with al-Qaida put the country off-limits to outside aid.

Today, it is fair to ask whether the Taliban have learned anything about economic management since they were toppled by the US in 2001. Unless they are willing to accept genuine experts from the previous regime without prejudice, it’s difficult to believe that 20 years of fighting their way back into political power has taught them much about finance, monetary policy, macroeconomic planning, budgeting, banking or any of the other responsibilities that are needed of competent governments to responsibly manage an economy for 40 million people.

Show Us the Goods

With winter on the way, the Americans are acutely aware of the need to start humanitarian assistance now. But they have their own list of wants. These include fighting terrorism, adhering to basic human rights norms and respecting the rights of women and girls, including to equal education, health care and employment opportunities.

Additionally, the US has a number of citizens who could not be repatriated in the rushed evacuation effort that followed the Taliban’s capture of Kabul and the fall of the previous government. Thousands of Afghans who had worked for the US during its 20-year presence in Afghanistan were also left behind. The US wants immediate and unhindered departure of these individuals and their families, if they freely elect to leave.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

Following the meeting, a Taliban spokesman announced that the Americans had agreed to provide humanitarian assistance. But there was no official confirmation from the US side, and there likely won’t be until it receives some affirmative responses to its demands from the Taliban.

That holds particularly true for the frozen Afghan assets. Without airtight commitments from the Taliban followed by genuine action, the Americans will continue to withhold the Afghan funds. It’s leverage, and right now, it’s the only means the US has of assuring some of its basic requirements for the Taliban government are met. Needless to say, trust on either side likely hovers around zero. Therefore, it’s all about, “What are you going to do for me?” The fact that the Afghan people may bear the brunt of the suffering for this position is unquestionably tragic.

Stepping Up to Responsibilities

The US demands, as well as those of the rest of the international community, are reasonable, basic and expected of a responsible and competent governing authority in any country. So, the Taliban face their first test of governance. Having prevailed in their two-decade struggle, they now need to demonstrate they can govern. That the fate of millions of innocent Afghans hangs in the balance is an unfortunate consequence. But consider it a yardstick of Taliban goodwill to their own people.

Nevertheless, neither the US nor the rest of the international community will be able to ignore for long the increasing need — soon to be desperation — of the Afghan people. Soon, some interim solution will be necessary whereby international NGOs and UN humanitarian organizations can enter and operate in the country to provide and distribute goods and services to meet basic human needs, starting with essential food items, medicines and health care. The G20, working with the UN, may be the best approach for that.

But such an emergency effort will do little to get the Afghan economy on its feet. Much more is necessary, starting with the release of the frozen assets. That will mean the Taliban stepping up to its responsibilities and likely not before.

The Biden administration — already under some pressure at home over an ambitious domestic economic agenda stalled in Congress and the humiliating manner in which the Afghanistan withdrawal unfolded — isn’t about to complicate matters by releasing those funds without real Taliban action. Joe Biden is no doubt familiar with the opprobrium heaped on President Barak Obama when he released about $30 billion in frozen Iranian assets in 2015 after the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. To quote from many classic American crime shows, it’s “Show me the goods before I show you the money.”

Perhaps the only good that may be claimed after this first meeting is that the two sides have opened a dialog. But considerable territory will need to be covered before any assertion of “a relationship” may be said to exist.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Can the Taliban Govern Responsibly? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Democrats face challenges of their own trying to figure out how to weave together moderate Biden Democrats with a new generation of democratic socialists. One way to become “the party of the future” is to articulate a clear plan for solving the problems of the future. Here is one clear opportunity.

The Weak European Reflex in German Cybersecurity

READ MORE

Both the Trump and the Biden administrations approved multibillion-dollar pandemic stimulus programs. Despite the gravity of the COVID-19 economic crisis, half of the did not get to the working Americans who desperately needed help. Much was stolen by fraudsters and criminal rings who exploited online claims. Made worse, 70% of the stolen funds went abroad to Russia, China and Nigeria.

California State Auditor Elaine Howle as much last August and announced in a January report that the Employment Development Department (EDD) had sent 555,000 claims to 26,000 suspect addresses — an of 21 per address — despite the evidence of fraudulent activity. One address had more than 80 claims, and yet EDD’s missed 12 as late as in December 2020. Howle also noted that a disturbing number of claims went to people currently incarcerated in California prisons.

This begs the question: How long will taxpayers support government programs only to learn that the money ended up in the hands of criminals? This is how we stop it.

Every FBI or Drug Enforcement Administration office has a special agent in charge (SAC) to coordinate efforts in combatting criminal threats. We need state-based SACs for cybersecurity to assist state and local governments, prevent fraud and direct funding for state task forces as we already do for counterterrorism.

Under the authority of the secretary of homeland security, chief security officers in each state would provide a full conduit of information to all levels of government to intercept criminals. Besides preventing fraud, they could play a valuable role in helping local governments encrypt both and as well as portect against .

Governments in general also need more cyber experts. Cyber gangs have upped the ante, going so far as to examine companies’ before activating ransomware as experts believe was done in the most recent Kaseya hack. We need to raise the bar to intercept these bad actors before they reach private citizens or entities. A Marshall Plan for cyber hiring across all government would put us on stronger footing to combat increasingly aggressive behavior by state-supported crime syndicates.

Lastly, we need to measure how we are doing. We need to require that states publicly account for the share of unemployment benefits that get into the right hands. Obviously, not every malicious individual can be caught. By spotlighting our efficacy, we can highlight the problem, heighten demand and recruit more people with the tech backgrounds we need to tackle fraud.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

As a lifelong Democrat, I believe in the power of a strong government that provides a social safety net to protect its citizens. The answer is not less government or pretending there will not be more tech-based attacks on our citizens and businesses. The answer is for government to demonstrate it can proactively provide solutions to stop the problem and provide accountability.

We need a government that is technologically capable enough to protect our people and smart enough to get the money to those who need it most. Whichever party shows it understands the future by solving new problems like cybersecurity will be in the pole position to win in 2022 and beyond.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post A 21st-Century Marshall Plan for Cyber Defense appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The shaky pillar is the Gulf monarchies’ reliance on a powerful external ally that, in the of Middle East scholar Roby C. Barrett, “shares the strategic, if not dynastic, interests of the Arab States.” In the first half of the 20^th century, the allies were Britain and France. Since then, the US has taken on the role. Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan, the revered founder of the United Arab Emirates, implicitly recognized Gulf states’ need for external support. In a to a book in 2001, he noted that the six monarchies that form the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) “only support the GCC when it suited them.”

Taiwan Becomes a Point of Strategic Ambiguity

READ MORE

Going forward, question marks about the reliability of the United States may be unsettling. Yet the emerging outline of what a future US approach could look like is not all bad news for the region’s autocratic regimes. There have been to dial down regional tensions and strengthen regional alliances. The factors driving this are the uncertainty over the US role in the region, the unwillingness of GCC states to integrate their defense strategies, a realization that neither China nor Russia would step into Washington’s shoes, and a need to attract foreign investment to diversify the Gulf’s energy-dependent economies.

Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid and his Emirati counterpart, Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan, are headed to Washington this week for a tripartite meeting with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The three officials intend “to discuss accomplishments” since last year’s establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and the UAE “and other important issues,” Blinken . The Israeli Foreign Ministry those other issues include “further opportunities to promote peace in the Middle East” as well as regional stability and security, in a guarded reference to Iran.

Good News for the Gulf

From the Gulf’s perspective, the good news is also that the Biden ���峾���Ծ����ٰ����پ��Dz�’s focus on China may mean that it is reconfiguring its military presence in the Middle East. The US has  some assets from the Gulf to Jordan and withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, but it is not about to pull out lock, stock and barrel. Beyond having an interest in ensuring the free flow of trade and energy, Washington’s strategic interest in a counterterrorism presence in the Gulf has increased following the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in August. The US now relies on an “over the horizon” , for which the Middle East remains crucial.

Moreover, domestic US politics mitigate toward a continued, if perhaps reduced, military presence, even if Americans are tired of foreign adventures. This is despite the emergence of a Biden doctrine that deemphasizes military engagement. The focus of US foreign policy is also now on Asia rather than the Middle East.

Various powerful lobbies and interest groups — including Israelis, Gulf states, evangelists, and the oil and defense industries — retain a stake in a continued US presence in the region. Their voices are likely to resonate louder in the run-up to crucial midterm elections in 2022. A recent Pew Research concluded that the number of white evangelicals had increased from 25% of the US population in 2016 to 29% in 2020.

Similarly, the fading hope for a revival of the Iran nuclear deal, from which former US President Donald Trump withdrew in 2018, and the risk of a major military conflagration makes a full-fledged US military withdrawal unlikely. It also increases the incentive to continue major arms sales to Gulf Arab countries.

That’s further good news for Gulf regimes against the backdrop of an emerging US arms sales policy that the Biden administration would like to project as emphasizing respect for human rights and rule of law. However, that de facto approach is unlikely to affect big-ticket prestige items like the F-35 fighter jets promised to the UAE.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Instead, the policy will probably  to smaller weapons, such as assault rifles and surveillance equipment that police or paramilitary forces could use against protesters. Those are not the technological edge items where the US has a definitive competitive advantage. The big-ticket items with proper maintenance and training would allow Gulf states to support US regional operations. Examples include the UAE and Qatar‘s role in Libya in 2011 and also the UAE in Somalia and Afghanistan as part of peacekeeping missions.

Nothing to Worry About

In other words, the Gulf states can relax. The Biden administration is not embracing what some arms trade analysts define as the meaning of ending endless wars such as Afghanistan. “[E]nding endless war means more than troop withdrawal. It also means ending the militarized approach to foreign policy — including the transfer of deadly weapons around the world — that has undermined human rights and that few Americans believe makes the country any safer,” a group of experts in April.

There is little indication that the views expressed by these analysts, which stroke with thinking in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, are taking root in the policymaking corridors of Washington. As long as that doesn’t happen, Gulf states have less to worry about.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post It’s Not All Bad News for the Gulf appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Taiwan Becomes a Point of Strategic Ambiguity

READ MORE

This week offered a stunning example of political hyperreality in the form of a trivial controversy around a trivial controversy. The media can thank more particularly the most trivial of current political personalities, Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema. After a video showing two of her female voters harassing her in a restroom, President Joe Biden’s commentary on the incident became a in its own right. Expressing his disapproval of such tactics, Biden indulgently added, “So, it’s part of the process.”

�մǻ岹��’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

The process:

In US culture, fatality; the equivalent of God’s will

Contextual Note

US media culture has always sought to amplify the preference in US culture for binary thinking and linear logic. This means that the multiple perspectives and the complex logic that underlie most political issues will be systematically reduced to a binary opposition the public can understand and the media can exploit.

This typically produces a pendular dynamic that may continue ad infinitum with very little evolution. One obvious example of this is the arbitrary division of a varied political spectrum into two rigidly defined poles of political identity. One is either a Democrat or Republican, a liberal or a conservative. What this means is never clear, but it exists as a sign of identity.

Independents exist, but they live in a voluntary no man’s land. They possess the purely negative quality of being neither Democrat nor Republican. This distinction simply indicates a supplementary binary opposition between having one of the two party identities or refusing them.

In such a binary system, the introduction of complexity undermines the supposed logic of the whole, confusing the entire body politic. This is the case today in the debates in Congress over President Biden’s pair of ambitious infrastructure bills. The simpler one has bipartisan approval. In binary terms, this means it gets a green light rather than a red light.

The second one has run into a crippling binary quandary due to the added complexity of its link to the first that prevents it from offering a simple choice between green and red. Further confusion arises from the fact that the parties themselves can no longer function as the simple binary entities they were once intended to be.

The Democrats are credited with a majority in the Senate, with 50 senators plus the deciding vote of the Democratic vice president. But two of the Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have taken a position on the second bill that places them in the same binary ideological category as the entire Republican Party. They have become the equivalent of a category error in a system that was designed, like an on-off light switch, to toggle conceptually between two opposing value systems.

In a non-linear legislative system, an issue would be raised, its features examined from different angles and multiple responses would be evoked. These would be followed by responses to those responses that are not framed in terms of acceptance or rejection but as elements contributing to the construction of a shared understanding of the issue’s facets. In a linear system, the issue is never fully explored and understood. From the beginning, every proposition is tested against the pre-defined ideologies governing the binary frame of reference.

In today’s media-dominated hyperreality designed to produce entertaining political theater, things quickly become even murkier. The need to reduce complex issues to binary choices allows the media the opportunity to highlight and amplify two types of conflict: the expected ideological conflict between the two parties — usually with a reference to future electoral strategies, as in a sporting event — and the personal conflict between the colorful personalities of a political farce.

This most recent episode brings together a few leading characters, some supporting actors and even some extras. The stars are President Joe Biden; Senators Kirsten Sinema, Cory Booker, and Bernie Sanders; the extras, a pair of female protesters from Arizona. For the media, the serious question of how senators reason about legislation likely to have a major impact on the future of the nation is quickly eclipsed by the entertainment value of the melodramatic skirmishes between the characters on stage.

Here is a summary of the sequence of events in this drama. A pair of female protesters followed Senator Sinema into a public restroom to accuse her of betraying their expectations as voters. They then published a video of the confrontation on social media, creating an immediate stir.

It followed that the press desperately needed to know President Biden’s take on such tactics. Expressing his disapproval, the president added some random reflections on what the incident says about a political system dominated by media events. These included his mention of its being “part of the process.”

Sinema and others predictably reacted indignantly to the video, calling the actions of the protesters an unacceptable invasion of privacy. Social media reacted with similar indignation to Biden’s remark about “process.” His critics accused him of cynicism.

A group of Democrats led by Cory Booker, embarrassed by the sympathy that seemed to be accruing to Sinema and the possible damage done to Biden’s reputation, formulated a statement to be released in the name of the Senate’s Democratic leadership, condemning the restroom video as “inappropriate and unacceptable.”

They then asked their colleague Bernie Sanders to sign it. Sanders agreed on the condition that the statement also included the expression of regret that Sinema was unwilling to change her position on prescription drugs. When Booker refused to include Sanders’ addendum, Sanders requested that the statement not be labeled as coming from the Democratic leadership.

The entire public debate thus turned into a competition to prove who could best disapprove the actions of two young protesters. Once the initial act of filming in the ladies’ restroom had been culturally cast as unacceptable behavior, the media and the politicians themselves treated it as a competition in the expression of indignation. What followed was a series of binary choices that sought to compare and judge the moral probity of a range of political personalities. The stakes of the legislation that provoked this sequence of events disappeared from the news.

Historical Note

The two-party system in the US emerged in the waning years of the 18^th century, despite George Washington’s warning “in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.” The founders’ idealistic vision of a nation supposedly governed by “we the people” posited the ability to develop the kind of non-linear reasoning that would enable democratic debate to focus on the solution of real problems.

They were fully aware of the natural human tendency — when private and local interests are at play — of turning politics into a contest between organized groups of politicians seeking to hold the reins of power. They had seen its effects in England with Whigs and Tories. Factions might exist, but a two-party system spelled trouble.

Despite the founders’ reticence, a binary two-party logic quickly became the norm. The Hamiltonian Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans began vying for dominance. Later in the 19^th century what would become the classic Democrat–Republican two-party system would emerge. Its contours followed the curious fault lines created in the aftermath of the Civil War, in which the Republicans earned the reputation of being the abolitionist party, while the more populist, increasingly working-class Democratic Party in the North inherited the loyalty of the rural anti-abolitionist South.

The 1960s civil rights movement created another seismic shift in party identity, exploited largely to the Republicans‘ advantage thereafter. More recently, the increasing incoherence of a binary party system focused on winning elections rather than governing has led to the emergence of independents as the largest segment of voters. Logically, this should favor non-linear problem-solving in politics. Instead, the two parties have combined with the media to maintain their binary culture and reinforce their purely linear approach to policy.

Biden was right. As the chief beneficiary of the binary system, he is well aware that linear logic “is part of the process.”

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Kyrsten Sinema’s Cinematic Performance appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Nature hates a vacuum and, when it comes to war, so does US media that has always viewed peace as a vacuum. Publications like The New York Times and The Washington Post must keep the public focused on the global military mission of the United States. Middle East terrorism is still hanging around, but the idea of deploying a massive military effort to oppose it has been definitively discredited.

Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are the kind of formless enemies that justify an infinitely prolonged hot war, keeping military activity going. But cold wars are all about an arms race, and terrorist groups simply can’t compete.

Algeria to France: No Thanks for the Memories 

READ MORE

With the disengagement from the Middle East, some may have the impression that we have entered a period of peace. But Washington’s strategists would panic if they believed there was a real possibility of peace. Like the media, they know that the American public needs to believe in an ongoing noble military mission whose purpose is to vanquish the next formidable enemy of the American way of life.

In the past, it has depended on having a clearly defined ideological rival: first communism, then terrorism. What comes next isn’t yet clear, but the media and the security state know it needs to be put in place, if only to justify the massive and continually bloated military budget.

For the past five years, politicians and media fearful of Donald Trump have spent their energy playing on the Cold War reflex of suspecting Russia. They remember how effective it was in the 1950s and ‘60s. The marketers of the security state understood that the idea of an evil Russia was so deeply implanted in the American mindset that it can still inspire a reflex of both hatred and fear. The Soviet Union disappeared three decades ago, but Russia itself is associated with the idea of something existentially evil. 

Through clever management of the news, the intelligence community, echoed by the media, successfully instilled the idea that Donald Trump was Vladimir Putin’s best friend forever. Now, with Trump out of the picture, at least temporarily, ��ܲ�������’s feeble and failing economy clearly poses no credible threat to the US. China has thus become the logical and far more credible adversary for anyone imagining an impending war scenario.

The New York Times is accordingly directing the public’s attention to the effort now being made in Washington with a focus on Taiwan: “At the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon, officials are trying to figure out if the longtime American policy of “strategic ambiguity” — providing political and military support to Taiwan, while not explicitly promising to defend it from a Chinese attack — has run its course.”

This week, Daniel L. Davis, a retired lieutenant colonel in the US Army, in The Guardian that war over the defense of Taiwan should be avoided at all costs. “Publicly, Washington should continue to embrace strategic ambiguity,” he recommends, “but privately convey to Taiwanese leaders that we will not fight a war with China.”

�մǻ岹��’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Strategic Ambiguity:

The normal content of all diplomatic discourse

Contextual Note

President Joe Biden appears to be respecting at least half of Davis’s recommendation. He that he has spoken with Chinese President Xi Jinping about Taiwan, and that the two agree they will “abide by the Taiwan agreement.” It consists of having relations with Taiwan but not recognizing it as an independent nation. Strategic ambiguity will remain intact. But is Biden ready to explain to Taiwan that the US has no intention of going to war with China?

Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen is clearly aware of the ambiguity. She that the “Taiwanese people would ‘rise up’ should Taiwan‘s existence be threatened.” This is certainly true, but without US backup, rising up may not be an effective response to the world’s second most powerful army. At the same time, she “reiterated a call for talks with China” and admitted that Taiwan is “influenced by Chinese civilization and shaped by Asian traditions.”

Clearly, the US cannot go to war with China over Taiwan. At the same time, the US needs to maintain the idea that a war with China is possible. In the 1950s and 1960s, a militarized economy thrived thanks to the belief instilled in Americans that a nuclear war with Russia was possible, if not inevitable. It was just a question of what minor spark might set it off. This literally was the era of Dr. Strangelove.

In response to China’s Taiwan’s defense zone with 56 Chinese military aircraft, Taiwan’s Premier Su Tseng-chang last week accused China of being “more and more over the top.” Could this be an allusion to Washington’s vaunted policy of its “over the horizon” capacity to intervene in Afghanistan? Or does the expression simply mean “exaggerated” and “beyond the ordinary”? Dr. Strangelove was an over-the-top satire about military decisions that literally went over the brink.

As with everything concerning Taiwan’s situation in the coming months and years, the ambiguity will be more evident than the strategy.

Historical Note

The 1975, hearings in the US Senate forced American media to reveal the longstanding complicity between the CIA and the media concretized in . Congressional testimony a carefully structured propaganda campaign run through privately-owned commercial media. Its purpose was to instill the Cold War mentality required to justify an aggressive foreign policy and the unrelenting expansion of the all-powerful military-industrial complex.

It specifically sought to exaggerate the USSR’s destructive capacity while maintaining the public’s belief that the Soviet regime’s unique goal was to undermine, if not physically destroy, the American way of life. A cartoon Superman appeared on TV every day to convince children that the superhero was fighting for “truth, justice and the American �ɲ���.”

Fast forward to 2016. Following the rock-solid marketing logic of never calling into question a formula that has paid off in the past, much of the Democratic-leaning legacy media, more worried about Donald Trump than Russia itself, began promoting the multiple threads of what developed into the Russiagate narrative.

It appeared to be the easiest means of developing the propaganda required to protect and reinforce the military-industrial complex that some feared that Trump was threatening when he began challenging the “deep state.” Though Trump had no such intention, inciting Americans to think so could only work to the advantage of the Democrats.

This tactic nevertheless encountered a problem of credibility. Not enough people were convinced that Russia was still the evil Soviet Union. Once Trump was gone, the Russia threat definitively lost its sting. Post-Soviet Russia has only negligible influence on the world economy, unlike the Middle East with its historically established virtual monopoly on fossil fuel and its utility for the US as the vector of petrodollars. 

With Russia reduced to insignificance and the Middle East written off the agenda, China has become the only credible candidate to play the role of �������������’s fright-inducing enemy. China is conveniently run by the Communist Party, like the Soviet Union was. Its features and behavior identify it as an alien economy. It possesses a political system that is clearly autocratic and therefore the enemy of capitalist democracy.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Everything is falling into place for a new Cold War that will take center stage following the shame-faced exit of the global war on terror. All eyes (including the ) are trained on China. In Act I, Taiwan will be the focus of attention, as it was 70 years ago when it was known as . But China is not the Soviet Union, and the US is no longer an empire sweeping up the spoils of European colonialism. What happens next will be difficult to forecast. We are truly entering an age of strategic ambiguity.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Taiwan Becomes a Point of Strategic Ambiguity appeared first on 51�Թ�.

What Is the Ruckus Over AUKUS?

READ MORE

Real fiscal insanity is what Congress does year after year, taking most of its discretionary spending off the table and handing it over to the Pentagon before even considering the country’s urgent domestic needs. Maintaining this pattern, Congress just splashed out for 85 more F-35 warplanes, six more than Donald Trump bought last year, without debating the relative merits of buying more F-35s vs. investing $12 billion in education, health care, clean energy or fighting poverty.

The Military Budget

The 2022 military spending bill (the National Defense Authorization Act) that passed the House on September 23 would hand a whopping $740 billion to the Pentagon and $38 billion to other departments (mainly the Department of Energy for nuclear weapons), for a total of $778 billion in military spending. This is a $37-billion increase over last year’s military budget. The Senate will soon debate its version of this bill, but don’t expect too much of a debate there either. Most senators are “yes men” when it comes to feeding the war machine. 

Two House amendments to make modest cuts both failed: one by Representative Sara Jacobs to strip that was added to Biden’s budget request by the House Armed Services Committee; and another by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for an across-the-board (with exceptions for military pay and health care).  

After adjusting for inflation, this enormous is comparable to the peak of Trump’s arms build-up in 2020. It is only 10% below the set by George W. Bush in 2008 under the cover of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would give Biden the dubious distinction of being the fourth post-Cold War US president to militarily outspend every Cold War president, from Harry Truman to George H.W. Bush. In effect, Biden and Congress are locking in the $100 billion per year arms build-up that Trump justified with his that Barack Obama’s record military spending had somehow depleted the military. 

As with Biden’s failure to quickly rejoin the nuclear deal with Iran, the time to act on cutting the military budget and reinvesting in domestic priorities was in the first weeks and months of his administration. His inaction on these issues, like his deportation of thousands of desperate asylum seekers, suggests he is happier to continue Trump’s ultra-hawkish policies than he will publicly admit.

In 2019, the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland conducted a in which it briefed ordinary Americans on the federal budget deficit and asked them how they would address it. The average respondent favored cutting the deficit by $376 billion, mainly by raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations, but also by cutting an average of $51 billion from the military budget. 

Even Republicans favored cutting $14 billion, while Democrats supported a much larger $100 billion cut. That would be more than the in the failed Ocasio-Cortez amendment, which from only 86 Democratic representatives and was opposed by 126 Democrats and every Republican.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Most of the Democrats who voted for amendments to reduce spending still voted to pass the bloated final bill. Only 38 Democrats were willing to a $778 billion military spending bill that, once Veterans Affairs and other related expenses are included, would continue to consume over of discretionary spending.

“How’re you going to pay for it?” clearly applies only to money for people, never to money for war. Rational policymaking would require exactly the opposite approach. Money invested in education, health care and green energy is an investment in the future, while money for war offers little or no return on investment except to weapons makers and Pentagon contractors, as was the case with the $2.26 trillion the United States wasted on death and destruction in Afghanistan. 

A by the Political Economy Research Center at the University of Massachusetts found that military spending creates fewer jobs than almost any other form of government spending. It found that $1 billion invested in the military yields an average of 11,200 jobs, while the same amount invested in other areas yields: 26,700 jobs when invested in education, 17,200 in health care, 16,800 in the green economy, or 15,100 jobs in cash stimulus or welfare payments. 

Tragically, the only form of that is uncontested in Washington is the least productive for Americans, as well as the most destructive for the other countries where the weapons are used. These irrational priorities seem to make no political sense for Democrats in Congress, whose grassroots voters would cut military spending by an average of $100 billion per year on the Maryland poll. 

Why the Disconnect?

So, why is Congress so out of touch with the foreign policy desires of their constituents? It is well-documented that members of Congress have more close contact with well-heeled and corporate lobbyists than with the working people who elect them, and that the “unwarranted influence” of Dwight Eisenhower’s infamous military-industrial complex has become and more insidious than ever, just as he feared.

The military-industrial complex exploits flaws in what is at best a weak, quasi-democratic political system to defy the will of the public and spend more public money on weapons and armed forces than the world’s next 13 military . This is especially tragic at a time when the wars of mass destruction that have served as a pretext for wasting these resources for 20 years may finally, thankfully, be coming to an end.

The five largest US arms manufacturers (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics) account for 40% of the arms industry’s federal campaign contributions. These companies have collectively received $2.2 trillion in Pentagon contracts since 2001 in return for those contributions. , 54% of military spending ends up in the accounts of corporate military contractors, earning them $8 trillion since 2001.

The House and Senate Armed Services Committees sit at the very center of the military-industrial complex, and their are the largest recipients of arms industry cash in Congress. So, it is a dereliction of duty for their colleagues to rubber-stamp military spending bills on their say-so without serious, independent scrutiny.

The , dumbing down and corruption of US media and the isolation of the Washington “bubble” from the real world also play a role in Congress’s foreign policy disconnect. 

There is another, little-discussed reason for the disconnect between what the public wants and how Congress votes, and that can be found in a fascinating by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations titled, “The Hall of Mirrors: Perceptions and Misperceptions in the Congressional Foreign Policy Process.” The study surprisingly found a broad consensus between the foreign policy views of lawmakers and the public, but that “in many cases Congress has voted in ways that are inconsistent with these consensus positions.”

The authors made a counterintuitive discovery about the views of congressional staffers. “Curiously, staffers whose views were at odds with the majority of their constituents showed a strong bias toward assuming, incorrectly, that their constituents agreed with them,” the study found, “while staffers whose views were actually in accord with their constituents more often than not assumed this was not the case.”

This was particularly striking in the case of Democratic staffers, who were often convinced that their own liberal views placed them in a minority of the public when, in fact, most of their constituents shared the same views. Since congressional staffers are the primary advisers to members of Congress on legislative matters, these misperceptions play a unique role in Congress’ anti-democratic foreign policy. Overall, on nine important foreign policy issues, an average of only 38% of congressional staffers could correctly identify whether a majority of the public supported or opposed a range of different policies they were asked about.

On the other side of the equation, the study found that “Americans’ assumptions about how their own member votes appear to be frequently incorrect … [I]n the absence of information, it appears that Americans tend to assume, often incorrectly, that their member is voting in ways that are consistent with how they would like their member to vote.”

Resources for the Public

It is not always easy for a member of the public to find out whether their representative votes as they would like or not. News reports rarely discuss or link to actual roll-call votes, even though the Internet and the Congressional make it easier than ever to do so.

Civil society and activist groups publish more detailed voting records. lets constituents sign up for emailed notifications of every single roll-call vote in Congress. tracks votes and rates representatives on how often they vote for “progressive” positions, while issues-related activist groups track and report on bills they support, as CODEPINK does at. enables the public to track money in politics and see how beholden their representatives are to different corporate sectors and interest groups.

When members of Congress come to Washington with little or no foreign policy experience, as many do, they must take the trouble to study hard from a wide range of sources, to seek foreign policy advice from outside the corrupt military-industrial complex, which has brought us only endless war, and to listen to their constituents. 

The study should be required reading for congressional staffers, and they should reflect on how they are personally and collectively prone to the misperceptions it revealed. Members of the public should beware of assuming that their representatives vote the way they want them to, and instead make serious efforts to find out how they really vote. They should contact their offices regularly to make their voices heard, and work with issues-related civil society groups to hold them accountable for their votes on issues they care about.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Looking ahead to next year’s and future military budget fights, we must build a strong popular movement that rejects the flagrantly anti-democratic decision to transition from a brutal and bloody, self-perpetuating “war on terror” to an equally unnecessary and wasteful but even more dangerous arms race with Russia and China. 

As some in Congress continue to ask how we can afford to take care of our children or ensure future life on this planet, progressives in Congress must not only call for taxing the rich but cutting the Pentagon — and not just in tweets or rhetorical flourishes, but in real policy. While it may be too late to reverse course this year, they must stake out a line in the sand for next year’s military budget that reflects what the public desires and the world so desperately needs: to roll back the destructive, gargantuan war machine and to invest in health care and a livable climate, not bombs and F-35s.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Congress Fights Over Childcare But Not the Military appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The United States and its G7 allies have on Saied to appoint a prime minister and restore parliamentary functions. Washington should seriously consider withholding military aid to urge the Saied administration to remain within existing constitutional limits and prevent any potential military crackdown against protesters.

Tunisia and the Gulf

WATCH

The Biden administration should similarly consider revoking Tunisia’s designation as a , which provides it military aid that Saied could use to suppress the opposition. US failure to meet this challenge would represent a severe blow to President Joe Biden’s abroad and would further diminish his ���峾���Ծ����ٰ����پ��Dz�’s credibility following the fall of Kabul to the Taliban last month.

For international observers of the Arab Spring, Tunisia was initially seen as a “” as the only country that had transitioned from authoritarianism to democracy during that period. However, 10 years after the overthrow of dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, economic turmoil and political gridlock have worsened the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and have deeply polarized the Tunisian political landscape.

The current president, Kais Saied, was elected in 2019 as an independent candidate in a . The retired law professor’s appeal was his outsider status and his strident anti-corruption platform. However, he repeatedly clashed with the deeply divided Tunisian parliament, which has no . The Islamist Ennahda party, which is viewed by large swathes of the Tunisian public as and ineffective and has even been accused of two leftwing politicians, currently holds the most seats.

Following months of political stalemate and a worsening COVID-19 spike, Saied invoked emergency powers to dismiss his former prime minister, Hichem Mechichi, freeze parliamentary functions and use the police to target and . Saied has some for his actions given the widespread unpopularity of the parliament.

Consequently, the United States and the rest of the G7 must follow through on its urging a return to constitutional processes. It is essential that they challenge Saied’s increasing anti-parliamentarian actions, especially his reliance on the military to cement his rule, to prevent continued democratic backsliding in Tunisia.

Freedom House has repeatedly warned about an alarming systemic shift toward across the world, something which the Biden administration was aiming to address with its commitment to democracy promotion. However, events like the “” will begin to ring hollow if the United States and its allies do not take a stronger stand against democratic backsliding, such as in the case of Tunisia.

The primary option that is available to the Biden administration and US allies is reducing military aid to Tunisia until Saied enters a dialogue with the parliament. Although President Saied and his supporters have been to such suggestions and a mediation offer by a US Congress delegation has already been , the United States and its allies should increase their efforts to support dialogue.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Crucially, the influential Tunisian General Labor Union now openly Saied’s unilateral plan to create a new constitution, demonstrating that dialogue is necessary to resolve this crisis.

Revoking Tunisia’s major non-NATO ally designation will send a strong message and remove Tunisia’s privileged access to US military aid. The measure would reduce the possibility of Saied continuing to use the threat of military force against protesters, an 2,000 of whom have come out on Sunday in the capital to denounce the president’s power grab.

On September 29, Saied finally a new prime minister, Najla Bouden Romdhane — the first woman to hold that office — and asked her to form a new government, whose main task would be to “put an end to the corruption and chaos that have spread throughout many state institutions.” Despite these positive steps, the United States and its democratic allies should remain vigilant and ensure the crisis in Tunisia is dissolved in a peaceful and democratic manner.

*[51�Թ� is a  partner of .]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The US Must Keep Tunisia’s Slide Toward Autocracy in Check appeared first on 51�Թ�.