Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Trump, Orbán, Kaczyński and Netanyahu
Trump on trade with China: "Listen you m-----f------, we're going to tax you 25 percent!"
He also claimed that the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. Hillary Clinton was the worst foreign minister ever etc. etc.
Netanyahu recently accused the Palestinian leader Abbas of directly urging Palestinians to attack Israelis with knives. And worse, he claimed Hitler only started the Holocaust after being persuaded to this by the Palestinian Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.
Kaczyński, now de facto leader of Poland, claimed that there is a secret plan to destroy the Polish nation by filling the country with Moslem refugees bringing diseases and parasites.
Such obviously absurd viewpoints from leading politicians is a bad omen for the future of democracy.
That the tendencies have been apparent for some time also in West Europe is no secret. The large influx of Syrian refugees is not causing, but reinforcing the tendency in Eastern and Western Europe. But the development is universal.
The simple figure of a parable rising to and then decreasing from a top illustrates the development of mature democracy in our Western civilization.
Of course the real curve is not as smooth as in the figure. Economic, military and political crises have resulted in large deviations. We were at the top-point or rather top-plateau perhaps in the 60s and 70s. Since then the decline has set in. No matter the deviations the overall averaged developmemt follows the pattern of increase, top and decline in level of maturity.
Seen apart from the 30s and 40s North America and West Europe have followed the curve quite closely. In contrast, because of their position east of the Iron Curtain East European countries had the deviations continued until Gorbatjov.
Since then these countries have come back on the main track, following West Europe with a certain time lag. But now almost before they have reached the peak, the general decline sets in, and some of these countries revert to more undemocratic forms. Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary with their geographic and political proximity to West Europe and their pre-war development had the strongest democratic traditions, also under Sovjet dominance. Now even these countries show worrying signs.
Hungary has become quite authoritarian under Orbán, it maltreats refugees and builds fences against them.
Slovakia broke out from Czechoslovakia partly because it was not as mature as the Western part and wanted to oppress the Gypsies and the Hungarian minority. Now the Czech Republic seems to follow the Slovaks in its attitude to the refugees.
Despite economic progress and almost complete lack of Middle Eastern refugees the new government in Poland won the elections by abusing a postulated threat from Syrians. The ideal is Orbán's Hungary.
Despite their sad recent past the post-Yugoslavian Balkan states almost seem like the most mature states in East Europe except for the southernmost part like Kosovo which seems on the way to chaos before it ever reaches a functioning democracy.
But it is important to keep in mind that the picture in East Europe may be complicated by the possible emerging still rudimentary East European civilization.
Turkey may be the same story of decline. Erdogan builds a giant palace for himself, destroys the peace process with the PKK, reduces press freedom and democracy. Latin America could follow a similar path of late reached maturity with a short duration.
As often said the right wing parts of the US Republicans are a sign of the same decline as we see in Europe.
The developments in Israel more and more turning towards the right and towards racism are not only a political development per se, but as we can see in the absurdities from not only the prime minister, but in broad sections of society, it also represents the decay. New irresponsible settlements are approved all the time. Even Israeli Arabs are treated and defamed as second class inhabitants, Communists and terrorists.
Of course the political decline needs not only manifest itself as a movement on the right wing. Also left wing and even centrist populism as seen not least in southern European countries are parts of the tendency.
All these developments are of course worrying in themselves, as they are damaging national policies and continuity. But when they affect countries with international importance it is directly dangerous. Just a couple of well-known examples which do not need elaboration:
- Turkey's new war with the Kurds compromises the fight against ISIS.
- Israel's policy can have disastrous consequences.
- Worst of course are the developments in the worlds leading power, the United States. If one of the very few countries with the ability to calm the world itself gets unstable, we are in real trouble.
As said elsewhere, in pre-decline times democracy was stable. Self-sustained responsible political parties through the press, radio and TV guided the different groups within the societies who identified themselves with them and voted for them. Governments cooperated closely with experts and affected groups of society, and matters were debated seriously in the public sphere. Now mob rule replaces this, see my posts "The Decline of Politics" and "Decline of Modernity".
China and Russia are better equipped to resist the decline. The Chinese collective and meritocratic leadership is supplementing itself and finds leaders from its own circle. Of course decline may also affect Chinese politicians as the leading circles get richer and more influenced from abroad. Maybe it was not a bad idea to ban communist party members from attending golf clubs.
In the old USSR the intelligent leadership under Kosygin, Brezhnev and Gromyko could have developped in the same direction as the present Chinese party top. But the rigidity and lack of adaptability lead to the necessary but perhaps too quick changes under Gorbatjov and the resulting disintegration and chaos under Jeltsin. Putin with great skill succeded in rising Russia again. And his continued leadership gives a new stability replacing that of the old rule of the Communist Party. The stability can continue, but this demands that a way of transition can ensure that Putin is followed by people with similar abilities. This is an absolute condition.
In this respect one-man-rule has the same weakness as democracy: a capable leader can be followed by an idiot. But it takes longer time.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
Feeding the hawks
If Russian bombs hit the moderate opposition in Syria, then the Russians must stop this part of their campaign. They attack the wrong people and drive them into the arms of extremists.
It increases once more the tensions between the United States and the Russian Federation. Tensions that seemed to be falling. The cold war scenario threatens again.
And working against one of the most intelligent and reasonable US presidents for decades instead of cooperating is indeed unwise and in the medium and long run counterproductive almost no matter the goal.
Sooner or later a declined Republican party will retake the presidency with far reaching negative consequences for world politics. Is a Donald Trump better than Obama?
Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Syria
The situation in Syria is in desperate need of a solution. Both to end suffering, to stop the stream of refugees and not least to eradicate ISIS. But the complications make it seem difficult, perhaps more difficult than it needs to be. In this post I will say nothing revolutionary or new, just restate the logical possibilities in a deliberately simplified way.
Very roughly spoken we have three bad groups: a) he Assad government, b) the alliance around al Nusra and c) ISIS. No doubt the last group is by far the worst. And we have d) the democratic opposition. Till now there have been and are two attempts at solving the situation. None will work:
1) Allying oneself with a handful of good guys without using massive forces on the ground (US) may be portrayed as morally right, but it will not succeed.
2) Churchill was prepared to ally himself with the Devil, Stalin, against Hitler. Allying oneself with a devil against the other 2 devils (as Russia does) is more effective than the US alliance with a dwarf. But without more massive force than air bombardments, it will not suffice, not least because it risks uniting the opponents, thereby indirectly strengthening ISIS.
Divide and rule is a better strategy vis a vis the Islamist groups. An obvious goal must be to isolate ISIS. At the same time foreign ground forces are an absolute necessity.
A negotiated solution can not remove, but reduce the need for more force.
Three possibilities:
1) A negotiated solution involving the democratic opposition and a gradually reformed government in Damascus combined with a foreign invasion against the two Islamist alliances.
2) A negotiated solution involving the democratic opposition and the government and the alliance around al Nusra combined with military aid against ISIS.
3) A huge foreign invasion to fight against both the government, ISIS and the the al Nusra alliance.
Of course the United States and Russia should act together. If Assad is the main point of disagreement, he must leave the scene gradually or after a certain time.
Very roughly spoken we have three bad groups: a) he Assad government, b) the alliance around al Nusra and c) ISIS. No doubt the last group is by far the worst. And we have d) the democratic opposition. Till now there have been and are two attempts at solving the situation. None will work:
1) Allying oneself with a handful of good guys without using massive forces on the ground (US) may be portrayed as morally right, but it will not succeed.
2) Churchill was prepared to ally himself with the Devil, Stalin, against Hitler. Allying oneself with a devil against the other 2 devils (as Russia does) is more effective than the US alliance with a dwarf. But without more massive force than air bombardments, it will not suffice, not least because it risks uniting the opponents, thereby indirectly strengthening ISIS.
Divide and rule is a better strategy vis a vis the Islamist groups. An obvious goal must be to isolate ISIS. At the same time foreign ground forces are an absolute necessity.
A negotiated solution can not remove, but reduce the need for more force.
Three possibilities:
1) A negotiated solution involving the democratic opposition and a gradually reformed government in Damascus combined with a foreign invasion against the two Islamist alliances.
2) A negotiated solution involving the democratic opposition and the government and the alliance around al Nusra combined with military aid against ISIS.
3) A huge foreign invasion to fight against both the government, ISIS and the the al Nusra alliance.
Of course the United States and Russia should act together. If Assad is the main point of disagreement, he must leave the scene gradually or after a certain time.
Tuesday, September 22, 2015
VW
It seems almost unbelievable that an old large and respectable company from one of the least corrupt countries in the World, Germany, should behave like VW has done. Disrespect for the environment and peoples health is not uncommon, but deliberately faking the results from tests through installed software shows an incredible lack of business ethics.
That such a way of thinking can affect VW is a sign of the same declining tendency as the one we see in other parts of the late modern societies, not least in politics. As Lenovo's adware shows, VW is not the first example of bad business ethics. But it is new in its severity and not least in the fact that it involves a company in a highly developed country otherwise characterized by a level of seriousness and responsibility which exceeds that of many other countries.
One could fear that VW is not the last example of such behavior. In the future other companies in developed countries, certainly not just in Europe, could show similarly low moral. And even worse in its consequences are politics on the same level.
_
That such a way of thinking can affect VW is a sign of the same declining tendency as the one we see in other parts of the late modern societies, not least in politics. As Lenovo's adware shows, VW is not the first example of bad business ethics. But it is new in its severity and not least in the fact that it involves a company in a highly developed country otherwise characterized by a level of seriousness and responsibility which exceeds that of many other countries.
One could fear that VW is not the last example of such behavior. In the future other companies in developed countries, certainly not just in Europe, could show similarly low moral. And even worse in its consequences are politics on the same level.
_
The United States and China
In the post "The Third Sphere" I talked about two new factors destabilizing the known pattern of seldom wars with long periods of peace between. They are:
1) IT warfare and 2) two-sided interventions in important North hemisphere countries.
The last of these points may be generlized to also include conflicts like the one in the South China Sea. It would then be formulated as two-sided interference in areas which by one side with or without right are seen as essential to its vital interests. This is in its turn with or without right challenged by the other side.
In the modernity of our Western civilization this phenomenon has typically occurred after periods of stability in the northern hemisphere or rather the richer world, the great powers and their satellites. In the first 5 decades after WW2 the USA and the USSR, NATO etc. and WAPA. The stability was based on mutual respect on spheres of interest and rules for behavior. This was also the reason for the lack of destabilizing effect of the interventions in Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968. Of course the mutual acceptance of legitimate interests did not involve the Third World.
The kind of destabilizing conflicts with interventions in contended areas typically comes after events which change the political landscape. Such developments lead to unclear borders between the spheres of interest and thus makes it possible to challenge these borders. A classical event was the Cuban Revolution which moved a Caribic island out of the American sphere. The Soviet intervention with employment of nuclear missiles in the American backyard followed. Kennedy had to intervene, and fortunately the destabilizing effect was stopped quickly with a redefined border between East and West with new specific rules for conduct. Thus the episode did not alter the overall picture.
A far deeper change of political landscape came from the fall of the USSR with the independence of both East Europe and former Soviet republics. Russia suffered a very significant reduction in controlled areas. This meant that new definitions of spheres of interest were needed, but till now there certainly has been no such agreements. Obviously the problems with two-sided interventions in Ukraine stems from here.
The rise of a new country, China to a world power is another way the political landscape can change. A new big power claims its own sphere of interest. In this case including the South China Sea. If this is challenged by the United States, we have a conflict of the same type as the one in Ukraine.
It must be stressed here that I am not siding with any country in these analyses.
As said conflicts of this type are a new destabilizing factor in int'l politics, just like Cyber-attacks are. They should be contained. Ideally there should be no spheres of interest outside the big powers. Each smaller country should be fully independent. But things do not work this way. As often said many small countries are not any longer fully independent.
In conclusion it would be desirable to have mutual three-sided agreements between the United States, China and Russia on spheres of interest and on conduct to preserve stability and predictability.
1) IT warfare and 2) two-sided interventions in important North hemisphere countries.
The last of these points may be generlized to also include conflicts like the one in the South China Sea. It would then be formulated as two-sided interference in areas which by one side with or without right are seen as essential to its vital interests. This is in its turn with or without right challenged by the other side.
In the modernity of our Western civilization this phenomenon has typically occurred after periods of stability in the northern hemisphere or rather the richer world, the great powers and their satellites. In the first 5 decades after WW2 the USA and the USSR, NATO etc. and WAPA. The stability was based on mutual respect on spheres of interest and rules for behavior. This was also the reason for the lack of destabilizing effect of the interventions in Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968. Of course the mutual acceptance of legitimate interests did not involve the Third World.
The kind of destabilizing conflicts with interventions in contended areas typically comes after events which change the political landscape. Such developments lead to unclear borders between the spheres of interest and thus makes it possible to challenge these borders. A classical event was the Cuban Revolution which moved a Caribic island out of the American sphere. The Soviet intervention with employment of nuclear missiles in the American backyard followed. Kennedy had to intervene, and fortunately the destabilizing effect was stopped quickly with a redefined border between East and West with new specific rules for conduct. Thus the episode did not alter the overall picture.
A far deeper change of political landscape came from the fall of the USSR with the independence of both East Europe and former Soviet republics. Russia suffered a very significant reduction in controlled areas. This meant that new definitions of spheres of interest were needed, but till now there certainly has been no such agreements. Obviously the problems with two-sided interventions in Ukraine stems from here.
The rise of a new country, China to a world power is another way the political landscape can change. A new big power claims its own sphere of interest. In this case including the South China Sea. If this is challenged by the United States, we have a conflict of the same type as the one in Ukraine.
It must be stressed here that I am not siding with any country in these analyses.
As said conflicts of this type are a new destabilizing factor in int'l politics, just like Cyber-attacks are. They should be contained. Ideally there should be no spheres of interest outside the big powers. Each smaller country should be fully independent. But things do not work this way. As often said many small countries are not any longer fully independent.
In conclusion it would be desirable to have mutual three-sided agreements between the United States, China and Russia on spheres of interest and on conduct to preserve stability and predictability.
Monday, August 17, 2015
The 3. Sphere cont'd
In continuation of The Third Sphere:
The importance of the new electronic arena will have and already has consequences for the policies toward the industries of software, hardware and Internet. Every country with ambitions to dominate will increasingly bring vital parts of its IT-industry under control. Certainly not own it (it is important to seem to respect the Holy Market) and not control or rule every detail. But have
- access to channels of ingoing and outgoing streams of data,
- access to activities of users,
- ability to control and change the content of data,
- ability to control what is stored and accessible in the Internet.
They will also secure
- ability to evaluate and manipulate software and also hardware delivered to chosen costumers.
And finally they will have
- the possibility to veto what IT-companies decide to do if it harms national security interests.
Parts of these points are already being implemented.
In countries with power-ambitions or just the will to stay independent it will be regarded as treason to sell essential parts of the IT-industry to compagnies in foreign powers.
Countries whose inhabitants and politicians don't know, don't think and don't care or just have given up will continue to let vital parts of their IT-industry like earlier Skype and Bluetooth be sold to foreign companies without reflection. They will even be proud that firms in such important countries want our technology! These countries will be open fields for the electronic infiltration from more ambitious states.
The importance of the new electronic arena will have and already has consequences for the policies toward the industries of software, hardware and Internet. Every country with ambitions to dominate will increasingly bring vital parts of its IT-industry under control. Certainly not own it (it is important to seem to respect the Holy Market) and not control or rule every detail. But have
- access to channels of ingoing and outgoing streams of data,
- access to activities of users,
- ability to control and change the content of data,
- ability to control what is stored and accessible in the Internet.
They will also secure
- ability to evaluate and manipulate software and also hardware delivered to chosen costumers.
And finally they will have
- the possibility to veto what IT-companies decide to do if it harms national security interests.
Parts of these points are already being implemented.
In countries with power-ambitions or just the will to stay independent it will be regarded as treason to sell essential parts of the IT-industry to compagnies in foreign powers.
Countries whose inhabitants and politicians don't know, don't think and don't care or just have given up will continue to let vital parts of their IT-industry like earlier Skype and Bluetooth be sold to foreign companies without reflection. They will even be proud that firms in such important countries want our technology! These countries will be open fields for the electronic infiltration from more ambitious states.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Turks and Kurds
The Ottoman Empire was the sum of most of the nations in the Oriental civilization. As said in the post "Ethnic Cleansing in the Arab World" these nations lived in a patchwork of smaller and bigger areas between each other, the typical pattern in this civilization.
Since the dissolvement of this empire and its parallel Westernization began, more and more of these nations have become transformed into nations of the type normal in the Western civilization. And this implies the wish for a coherent territory for each nation.
This proces has happened through numerous etcnic cleansings. Beginning already in the 19th century in the Balkans, where the development restarted several times up to the 1990s. Continuing with the genocide of the Armenians and after the war with Greece the expelling of Turks and Greeks from Greece and the now reduced Turkey.
But Turkey continued to house miliions of Kurds. The policy towards these was one of forced assimilation in culture and language. This is another form of ethnic cleansing. It resulted in oppression and resistance, including the war with PKK, which used guerrilla-war and also terrorism though on a level infinitely smaller than that of the later IS.
The long running peace process with PKK gave hope that this conflict would be ended. Both kurds and Turks had become quite Westernized and therefore they were ready to live in a modern state where national difference did not matter as much as before. This would have been the last and third stage in the development from Oriental to modern Western nations after 1) patchwork nations and 2) ethnic cleansing. In this last stage like in modern Western countries there is room for more peoples.
But now after the last elections the AKP has ended the peace process and started extensive bombings. Of course provocations from PKK has also played a role. But from this to a full scale war there is a difference. Also worrying are the beginning measures against the legal party HDP, which has electoral support from Kurds, but also other people. The party could thus have pointed to a future modern Turkey, the mentioned third stage.
The changes in policy from Ankara looks like a return to the old policy against the Kurds seing them as an alien element. I do certainly not claim that Erdogan's purpose is renewed ethnic cleansing. Rather the purpose is to remove the Kurds as a political factor robbing AKP of their absolute majority. But ethnic tensions will inevitably rise as a result. PKK will answer with more violence. Mutual ethnic hatred between Turks and Kurds could rise once more.
The consequences for the war against IS is another chapter. But weakening PYD in Syria will definitely not help. A buffer-zone cannot be established without troops on the ground.
Since the dissolvement of this empire and its parallel Westernization began, more and more of these nations have become transformed into nations of the type normal in the Western civilization. And this implies the wish for a coherent territory for each nation.
This proces has happened through numerous etcnic cleansings. Beginning already in the 19th century in the Balkans, where the development restarted several times up to the 1990s. Continuing with the genocide of the Armenians and after the war with Greece the expelling of Turks and Greeks from Greece and the now reduced Turkey.
But Turkey continued to house miliions of Kurds. The policy towards these was one of forced assimilation in culture and language. This is another form of ethnic cleansing. It resulted in oppression and resistance, including the war with PKK, which used guerrilla-war and also terrorism though on a level infinitely smaller than that of the later IS.
The long running peace process with PKK gave hope that this conflict would be ended. Both kurds and Turks had become quite Westernized and therefore they were ready to live in a modern state where national difference did not matter as much as before. This would have been the last and third stage in the development from Oriental to modern Western nations after 1) patchwork nations and 2) ethnic cleansing. In this last stage like in modern Western countries there is room for more peoples.
But now after the last elections the AKP has ended the peace process and started extensive bombings. Of course provocations from PKK has also played a role. But from this to a full scale war there is a difference. Also worrying are the beginning measures against the legal party HDP, which has electoral support from Kurds, but also other people. The party could thus have pointed to a future modern Turkey, the mentioned third stage.
The changes in policy from Ankara looks like a return to the old policy against the Kurds seing them as an alien element. I do certainly not claim that Erdogan's purpose is renewed ethnic cleansing. Rather the purpose is to remove the Kurds as a political factor robbing AKP of their absolute majority. But ethnic tensions will inevitably rise as a result. PKK will answer with more violence. Mutual ethnic hatred between Turks and Kurds could rise once more.
The consequences for the war against IS is another chapter. But weakening PYD in Syria will definitely not help. A buffer-zone cannot be established without troops on the ground.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)