Tag Archives: geopolitics

Oliver Stone on Recent U.S. History

Oliver Stone is adding a chapter to his 2012 book The Untold History of the United States covering 2012-2019. He basically argues that in 2012 things were not great but getting better, while in 2019 “the unthinkable has become thinkable”. The litany includes continued threats of NATO expansion, wars in the greater Middle East, backing out of the Iran deal and historic Cold War-era nuclear weapons treaties, expanding the nuclear arsenal, threatening behavior against North Korea and China, and continuing to deny and ignore climate change.

In my view, while the U.S. adversaries are not blameless, we need to understand that their governments feel legitimately threatened by our government. The U.S. government has the world’s largest military, the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, and has used its military frequently and unilaterally against weaker countries. A path to real peace would have to include some credible means of convincing other countries that we will not attack except in self defense, and we don’t have the track record to convince anyone of this. And in a world where the food supply and coastal population centers are going to start coming under threat from nature, humanity needs to be unified and undistracted to have a chance to deal with other threats.

NYT on Saudi Arabia’s Nuclear Program

The New York Times has a disturbing article about Saudi Arabia’s nuclear program. It is somewhat of an open secret that their nuclear program has been to bankroll Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program over the years. The U.S. and most media outlets that I am aware of have turned a blind eye to that, even as we have been attacked by some of their citizens and fought against their extremist proxies for 17 years now. We also fought two wars in Iraq at least partly to protect their government against aggression. Apparently they are asking for nuclear energy technology that can be used for peaceful purposes, but it can also be weaponized, and they are resisting efforts to include unconditional UN weapons inspections in any deal. Putting more nuclear materials within potential reach of these extremists, whether in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia itself, seems like a bad idea.

the most dangerous country in the world?

Axios says it could be Pakistan, if the extremist elements the military has cultivated as weapons against neighbors India and Afghanistan ever gain control at home.

Pakistan has the world’s 5th largest population, 5th largest military and 6th largest nuclear arsenal. The danger begins, Morell says, with a dysfunctional economy and a rapidly growing population of young people without education or job prospects. Add to that a military that continues to call the shots as though war could break out at any moment.

“The main reason the military has a grip on decision-making is because of a long-held and now mistaken belief in Pakistan that India is an existential threat to Pakistan and that Islamabad must do everything it can to protect itself from that threat,” he says.

Simultaneous Policy

Simultaneous Policy is an idea where multiple legislatures around the world agree to a single policy on a fairly narrow issue (like climate change or arms reductions). It’s supposed to solve the prisoner’s dilemma problem. The policy doesn’t go into effect until all or a certain number of nations agree to it. I think it’s a good idea, but idealistic because people often perceive problems as zero sum when they are not, and politicians either have the same misconceptions or cynically exploit the misconceptions of voters. And in the U.S. of course, politicians are captive to industrial interests that profit from policies that result in a loss to everyone else, while using cynical propaganda to convince voters of the opposite.

Here’s a blog post with a little more detail on how it is supposed to work:

The Simultaneous Policy (SIMPOL) will consist of a series of multi-issue global problem-solving policy packages, each of which is to be implemented by all or sufficient nations simultaneously, on the same date, so that no nation loses out. Citizens who join the campaign can contribute to the design of those policies and to getting them implemented. But how?

By joining the campaign, citizens agree to ‘give strong voting preference in all future national elections to politicians or parties that have signed a pledge to implement Simpol simultaneously alongside other governments, to the probable exclusion of those who choose not to sign’. This pledge (the ‘Pledge’) commits a politician, party or government to implement SIMPOL’s policies alongside other governments, if and when sufficient other governments have also signed on.

In this simple way, politicians who sign enhance their electoral chances, while those who refuse risk losing our votes to politicians who signed instead. Thus, in tightly contested electoral areas, failing to sign could cost a politician their seat.

 

Novichok

A toxicology expert at Michigan State University says Russia (or Russians) may have used a class of extremely deadly weaponized nerve agents called Novichok to kill people inside the UK.

Novichok has been implicated in the poisoning of two couples in Great Britain, causing the death of one woman. The chemical structures of Novichok agents are not known for sure, but they bind more tightly and rapidly to their enzyme target, called acetylcholinesterase, found in nerves and muscle cells than other nerve poisons such as sarin or tabun. This causes death within minutes by making normal nerve-muscle, nerve-gland, and nerve-heart function impossible.

The deaths have been attributed to Russia, either the country’s intelligence service or a rogue who obtained them illegally. Russia vehemently denies either involvement in the poisonings or development of the Novichok chemicals…

First, the chemicals are reported by Soviet chemists to be the most potent agents ever made, with potency between 6-10 times higher than VX, the chemical used to kill the half brother of Kim Jong-Un, or sarin, the prototypical poisonous nerve gas the Iraqi government allegedly used in 1989, and which was used Syria last April. Thus extremely low doses, powder or liquid, the exact concentration of which remains unknown, are lethal.

CIA World Fact Book: U.S. vs. Russia

Is the U.S. vs. Russia really a contest of equals? Well no, other than nuclear arsenals, it shouldn’t be. Here are some facts and figures from the CIA World Factbook, with China thrown in for good measure.

GDP (purchasing power parity)

  • USA: $19.36 trillion
  • Russia: $4 trillion
  • China: $23.12 trillion

GDP per capita (purchasing power parity)

  • USA: $59,500
  • Russia: $27,900
  • China: $17,000

Military budget

  • USA: 3.29% of GDP ($637 billion)
  • Russia: 5.4% of GDP ($216 billion)
  • China: 1.9% of GDP ($439 billion)

So compared to the U.S., China has a slightly larger overall economy spread out over a lot more people, but directs less of its economic output to the military and ultimately underspends the U.S. Russia’s economy is only 1/5th the size of the U.S., but it diverts a lot of its people’s wealth to military spending so it can be roughly 1/3rd the size of the U.S. military. So Russia really is not a worthy adversary at all, it’s a poor country whose leaders want to project an image of strength to its people as a substitute for actually making their lives better. The average American still has a much higher living standard than the average Chinese in spite of our military spending, but we shouldn’t just take this for granted as we may be still riding past momentum and slowly drifting into the slow lane.

Camp David

This post from 38 North compares the North Korean (possible, budding?) peace process to the Camp David accords of 1978-79.

The Camp David agreements were also implemented in phases over time. Moreover, US troops were stationed in the Sinai as part of the UN’s Multinational Force and Observers (MFO) to ensure an effective transition from Israeli occupation to Egyptian rule there and keep the peace. In effect, this was a peace enforcement mechanism; and if the Korean War is to be brought formally to a close, then some kind of analogous mechanism may well be needed that can prevent violations of the accords involved. It might be necessary and beneficial for all the parties to the Korean conflict to have some impartial outside party, trusted by all sides—such as Sweden or India—to monitor moves toward peace. In the nuclear sphere, that could likely be the IAEA because it alone has the depth of technical capability and international standing to report credibly on steps towards complete denuclearization and verify its occurrence. But along the 38th parallel, it might be desirable for someone agreeable to both sides to perform functions analogous to those carried out by US forces in the Sinai. As noted above, we have cited the UN MFO in the Sinai or we could look to alternatives like the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Other alternatives may, of course, be possible. But presumably some such mechanism will be needed to distance the now hostile armed forces from each other and the truce lines at the 38th parallel.

Saudi AramCo IPO may not happen

Saudi Aramco was planning a $2 TRILLION initial public offering which would have been unique, but now it sounds like that may not happen. Aramco is interesting:

Aramco is a company like no other. Its profits easily outstrip those of every other company on Earth, from Apple to Exxon Mobil Corp. The billions of petro dollars it pumps out every month underpin the kingdom’s decades-old social contract: generous state handouts in return for the political loyalty that maintains stability in the birthplace of Islam. Those dollars also finance the lavish lifestyles of hundreds of princes. For decades, diplomats have joked that Saudi Arabia is the only family business with a seat at the United Nations. As the world’s largest petroleum producer, Aramco is key for global economic growth and international security. At one point during the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s, the U.S. even considered the possibility of seizing the company’s oil fields by force, according to declassified British intelligence papers.

Apparently, the U.S., China and India are all pressuring Saudi Arabia to pump more and lower the price of oil, while it needs to prop up the price of oil to support this IPO.

The main problem is valuation. There’s a wide gulf between MBS’s ambitious $2 trillion target—which the prince says is nonnegotiable—and the $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion that most analysts and investors see as more realistic, according to two persons directly involved in the internal discussions. The gap between what the market thinks Aramco is worth and what the Saudi royals want is so wide that, even at the narrowest end it would overshadow the combined value of America’s two largest oil companies—Exxon Mobil and Chevron Corp...

Fund managers also worry that the value of oil fields could dwindle as governments ramp up their efforts to reduce fossil-fuel consumption to fight climate change. The spread of electric vehicles, for example, will reduce demand growth over the next two decades. In May a group of investors including Standard Life Aberdeen, Fidelity Investments, and Legal & General Group warned oil companies about the risk of global warming. “As long-term investors, representing more than $10.4 trillion in assets,” they said in an open letter, they believed “the case for action on climate change is clear.”

Maybe that last paragraph is wishful thinking, I don’t know. Personally I want to believe it. Maybe the market is starting to reduce how much it thinks oil is worth in the long term if viable alternatives emerge.

Is the U.S. at war in Africa?

According to Politico, U.S. Special Forces are choosing, planning, directing and occasionally participating in missions in at least eight African countries.

A spokesman for Africa Command declined to say which African states host teams under the authority, but former special operations officers have identified eight countries as current or recent sites of the surrogate programs. They include well-known combat zones like Somalia and Libya as well as more surprising sites for American-directed commando raids like Kenya, Tunisia, Cameroon, Mali and Mauritania — and Niger, where the October mission that ended in tragedy involved one of two units that Green Berets run in the country under the authority…

After planning the mission based on U.S. intelligence and getting approval from higher headquarters, the Americans drive or fly with their local partners to the vicinity of the target, where they are required to hang back at “the last position of cover and concealment.” That is the military term for the last place where they can stay out of sight and are protected from gunfire by some sort of natural obstacle. But the former special operations officer pointed out that in the deserts and scrubland of northwestern Africa, “a lot of the time there really isn’t any cover or concealment to be had.”

There, the team “remotely commands and controls” the raid while monitoring feeds from drones and aircraft that eavesdrop on enemy phone calls. Afterward, the Americans move forward to check the raid site for intelligence — or, if something goes wrong during the raid and the African troops need help, they might move forward and join the shooting.

This is done with the full knowledge and participation of the host countries, apparently. Still, it raises questions. To what extent have the keys to U.S. foreign policy been turned over to the military, with little or no civilian involvement? What exactly is the return on the American blood spilled and taxes spent on this? To what extent are some of these people fighting simply because the U.S. is there in the first place?

The Guns of August (2018)?

According to NBC:

U.S. intelligence agencies believe that North Korea has increased its production of fuel for nuclear weapons at multiple secret sites in recent months — and that Kim Jong Un may try to hide those facilities as he seeks more concessions in nuclear talks with the Trump administration, U.S. officials told NBC News…

Joel Wit, who negotiated a 1994 nuclear agreement with North Korea, said the U.S. always believed North Korea had two facilities to enrich nuclear material: Yongbyon and a second site the U.S. is aware of but whose name has not been disclosed…

The latest U.S. intelligence assessment concludes that there is more than one secret site, officials tell NBC News. The question is whether Kim will be willing to admit it.

This is the kind of deal that would work. We know North Korea would like to feel safe from U.S. attack. We can offer them that, along with eventual normal diplomatic and economic ties, in exchange for giving up their nuclear program. Giving up their nuclear program means first they have to declare everything they have, then let weapons inspectors in without restrictions to verify that what they said is true. Once they meet those commitments, the long process of dismantling and removing the materials and equipment can begin. Each time they fulfill a commitment, they can get something in return. This process was working pretty well in Iraq until George W. Bush messed it up. It was starting to work in Iran until Trump messed it up. Now Trump has been duped into a non-deal with North Korea when the Iran deal he was against is actually the kind of thing that could work with North Korea.

I don’t like the U.S. leadership looking stupid, ignorant and incompetent, but let’s face it, at this point that ship has sailed. The biggest risk here is actually that Trump will realize he was duped and overreact by doubling down on his earlier threats. North Korea would probably respond with threats of their own against the U.S. and its Asian allies. In the worst case it could escalate to one side or the other launching some kind of limited attack, followed by a larger retaliation, followed by regional alliances being triggered, and then the downward spiral to 2018 looking more like 1918. Let’s hope this is just my imagination getting away from me.