On request from the United States, Canada has arrested Meng Wanzhou, Huawei's chief financial officer.
Another line has been crossed. Where are we, if it is a part of political and trade relations to arrest a leading person from a economically competing company from a politically competing nation under some pretext? As if the countries of the world were just small appendixes you can treat like pieces of shit. To repeat myself once more, the Romans were in that position, the United States is not. The Europeans may often behave like American puppets, but other powers are too strong for this. Or maybe the American behavior is a compensation for perceived weakness, a sign showing that the United Sates has fallen into Thucydides's Trap. Anyway, it is another clear example of the political decline and the descent back to the law of the jungle.
The United States has been crossing one line after another these last two years. Crossings which make the world more dangerous and push us closer to barbaric conditions. Clearly other countries have behaved likewise, but one may have expected a more civilized behavior from the “leader of the free world”.
Chinese IT-companies, not least Huawei are accused: They MAY abuse their hardware and software to spy, and they are assumed to do so even more in the 5G-future. Therefore they should be stopped. But in fact there is very little proof of spying by Huawei.
Have the disclosures by Mr. Snowden already been forgotten? The Americans already DO abuse their IT dominance to spy. They sit heavily on the servers and arteries of communications in large parts of the world.
Here to refresh our memory, a few examples of US espionage and control. Some are well-known facts, some were disclosures by Mr. Snowden and others.
- The American intelligence agencies are connected directly to servers and IT communications in Europe.
- American spy-hardware is built into computers sold to China and who knows where else.
- The NSA is spying on ordinary citizens in the USA and abroad. Metadata from many mobile phones in the world are stored.
- Also the position of cellphone users is tracked.
- Apparently also all internet activity from almost all users in the world is registered.
- As has turned out, foreign statesmen, ambassadors, EU politicians etc. are being listened to, and other forms of their communication spied.
- Through the british vassals the Americans are also spying in hotels where foreign politicians stay.
- All the thus gained information is being used for political purposes and also economic gains in connection with negotiations at conferences and meetings.
- The methods are also used for economic espionage against foreign firms competing with American companies.
- The Swift system for int'l financial transactions permits US control. The EU was forced to accept this.
- Generally the United States controls financial transactions in dollars all over the world. And as we see in connection with sanctions against Iran only valid in the United States, this is abused to control independent countries.
The points are examples of real US espionage and abuse of IT-dominance. Obviously also China and Russia spy on other countries using IT. But in light of the examples of known massive US activities, the accusations against China are highly hypocritical. And even if Huawei is being used for espionage or may be so in the future (!), the arrest in Canada is difficult to justify. Obviously a suspected breech of sanctions against Iran is only a pretext. The suspicions are at least 6 years old. Why suddenly act in 2018?
There has been much outrage over President Trump inside and outside of the United States. But in some countries there does not seem to be a serious will to liberate themselves from US dominance. Partly it is a question of lack of ability to stand on own feet in matters of IT and security. Partly it is a lack of guts.
For Europe it would be wise to have a diversification of their IT-providers and gradually develop its own IT-competences. Europe will be more independent if it from case to case choses which of more than one IT-providing countries to use. This will give a position of strength. With the extreme importance of information technology today, relying on providers from only one country leads to vulnerability, dependency and submission as simple vassals. Many US allies have already been moving in this direction for decades. Remember the embarrassing episode in 2013, where European countries forced the plane with the Bolivian president to land in Vienna and searched it to see if it carried Mr. Snowden. This showed an astonishing degree of European submission. But who except for the Brexiteers wants to be vassals with members of the present US administration as puppeteers?
The arrest of Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou is a sign of an increasing US ruthlessness, unthinkable a few years ago. What would be the reaction if China arrested a leading official of Apple? What may come next? The arrest of leaders of European companies? Or even of a member of the European Commission who works to tax and reduce the monopoly of big US companies? Or why not arrest a PM from an irritating European country? Beware Europe and Canada! It is frightening, but such methods can become a normal part of trade relations and politics.
Friday, December 7, 2018
Sunday, December 2, 2018
Gilets jaunes
The centralization of people and social life into bigger and bigger metropoles is typical for later modernities. This phenomenon is obviously evident today all over the world. The process is partly due to an almost diabolic attraction from the big cities and partly due to bad living conditions outside. In some cases in earlier civilizations such processes went very far. Landscapes could be depopulated, and peasants had to be replaced by ‘coloni’ from other parts of the known world.
But the process of centralization should be a voluntary movement and not be driven by disadvantageous and painful living circumstances. Such motivations should only be the driving force in third-world countries unable to do something about it. As we see today, it creates resentment favoring the political wings to be living in the outback without services, without nearby jobs and looked upon with disrespect or even disgust from city elites. Elites who feel themselves far above people who do not eat organic food, but often themselves are guided by internet-borne viral superstitions like the belief that lactose and gluten are dangerous. In earlier modernities comparable processes could end with insurrections, often started because of taxations. We saw such phenomena in the Oriental modernity in numerous revolts in provinces away from Bagdad and the other big cities which were perceived as exploiting the smaller cities and the countryside. In the Greco-Roman late modernity the peoples in Italy (91-88 BC) revolted against being exploited by the Romans without equal influence. In the second Chinese modernity in the Sung Dynasty there were truly anti-globalist riots in South China. They resembled right -wing populism in our time by often targeting Arab immigrants.
In our case the protests are difficult to ignore because the marginalized people have the same voting rights as the chosen few in the big cities. Also, through modern means of transportation protesters can easily reach the capital, smash the shining facades (so embarrassing that the tourists should see this) and demonstrate in front of the government.
Right- and left-wing populism is boosted from the margins, not least the geographical margins. Those who want to be an alternative to populism should not marginalize these margins further. Instead the margins could simply be given positive special treatment to counteract their disadvantages. This could be through eg. a tax reduction or a remboursement, both scaled after distance to work, or whatever.
But the process of centralization should be a voluntary movement and not be driven by disadvantageous and painful living circumstances. Such motivations should only be the driving force in third-world countries unable to do something about it. As we see today, it creates resentment favoring the political wings to be living in the outback without services, without nearby jobs and looked upon with disrespect or even disgust from city elites. Elites who feel themselves far above people who do not eat organic food, but often themselves are guided by internet-borne viral superstitions like the belief that lactose and gluten are dangerous. In earlier modernities comparable processes could end with insurrections, often started because of taxations. We saw such phenomena in the Oriental modernity in numerous revolts in provinces away from Bagdad and the other big cities which were perceived as exploiting the smaller cities and the countryside. In the Greco-Roman late modernity the peoples in Italy (91-88 BC) revolted against being exploited by the Romans without equal influence. In the second Chinese modernity in the Sung Dynasty there were truly anti-globalist riots in South China. They resembled right -wing populism in our time by often targeting Arab immigrants.
In our case the protests are difficult to ignore because the marginalized people have the same voting rights as the chosen few in the big cities. Also, through modern means of transportation protesters can easily reach the capital, smash the shining facades (so embarrassing that the tourists should see this) and demonstrate in front of the government.
Right- and left-wing populism is boosted from the margins, not least the geographical margins. Those who want to be an alternative to populism should not marginalize these margins further. Instead the margins could simply be given positive special treatment to counteract their disadvantages. This could be through eg. a tax reduction or a remboursement, both scaled after distance to work, or whatever.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Responsible rulers instead of rules
The recent developments around the Sea of Azov represent a good example of one aspect of the end of rule-based int'l politics: the lack of inhibition of escalation. No doubt the dispatch of the three naval ships was a childish Ukrainian provocation. Russia reacts with a disproportionate escalation by using military force, and no doubt the West will react with a further escalation in the form of more sanctions. The ease with which such escalations get started today is a striking newcomer. The diplomatic rules which would earlier have counteracted the spirals, are disappearing. Instead political acts are carried out in the media.
I have been somewhat ambivalent towards the emerging declined late modernity. Should this condition be rejected or embraced?
The historical philosopher Oswald Spengler together with Arnold Toynbee has conceived the ideas on historical periodicity from which this blog has departed. In parts of his major work Spengler seems to regard it as nostalgia leading to weakness if one clings to the good old days of humaneness and rule-based behavior. Thus a man like Cicero who in the late Greco-Roman modernity fought against chaos and the approaching dictatorship, is called a weakling. Instead politicians should embrace the new era, adapt to it and ruthlessly use it in the competition for internal and international power. Otherwise one will be left behind as a looser. As Spengler puts it: Fate guides those who will and drags those who will not.
Another good example of such thinking are the Legalists in the first Chinese modernity, men like eg. Han Feizi (3. century BC). For the Legalists the power of the state/country was the only important thing. People and other countries were subordinated under this need for power of the state. The Ghaznavid state (around AD 1000) in the late Oriental modernity functioned along the same lines. The ultimate consequences of Legalist reasoning were the raids of the Chinese country Qin into enemy countries with the purpose of killing parts of the male population in order to reduce the number of potential soldiers. Compared to such excesses the Romans seem rather humane. Nevertheless they started their late modernity by destroying Carthage and Corinth in146 BC because these cities were trade competitors.
Now, should we go along with such rule-less excesses of late modernities? Clearly, if powerful politicians and states ignore humane behavior and rules, those who do not will have a disadvantage, unless they are in majority amongst the community of nations and have big strength. This was the case in 1939-1945. Today the forces in favor of rules and int'l organizations are becoming a minority.
Thus let us accept that the new era with politics not based on rules and restraints is a fact, and the only rule is the wish for political, economic, military and cyber- power. Should this acceptance be unconditional? Should everything be allowed? No rules or limits whatsoever?
No. Certain facts are new and unseen compared to late modernities before our:
1) Weapons of mass destruction can kill millions and billions of people and ultimately destroy all civilization. In this category we may add the possibilities of cyber-warfare.
2) The threatening and eminent climatic changes can destroy life spaces, produce enormous suffering and cause huge numbers of refugees. Here teargas over the border will not suffice.
Maybe we should all agree on a minimum of rules of behavior to avoid escalations bringing us close to the use of any weapons of mass destruction. And of course continue the efforts to limit climate change. Could such rules be accepted ?
Even agreement on this minimum of rules seem difficult to achieve with rulers like Bolsonaro, Trump and MBS. Therefore a continuance of the rule-based int'l politics seems outright impossible. Thus we may as well embrace the unavoidable. But let us agree on avoiding destroying civilization and our habitat.
Apart from these few rules you are free to unleash chaos.
But this does not take away responsibility. It should be self-evident that suffering is only acceptable insofar as it is necessary in order to prevent bigger suffering.
As history shows, if we open the box of Pandora we risk gruesome excesses of death and oppression.
I have been somewhat ambivalent towards the emerging declined late modernity. Should this condition be rejected or embraced?
The historical philosopher Oswald Spengler together with Arnold Toynbee has conceived the ideas on historical periodicity from which this blog has departed. In parts of his major work Spengler seems to regard it as nostalgia leading to weakness if one clings to the good old days of humaneness and rule-based behavior. Thus a man like Cicero who in the late Greco-Roman modernity fought against chaos and the approaching dictatorship, is called a weakling. Instead politicians should embrace the new era, adapt to it and ruthlessly use it in the competition for internal and international power. Otherwise one will be left behind as a looser. As Spengler puts it: Fate guides those who will and drags those who will not.
Another good example of such thinking are the Legalists in the first Chinese modernity, men like eg. Han Feizi (3. century BC). For the Legalists the power of the state/country was the only important thing. People and other countries were subordinated under this need for power of the state. The Ghaznavid state (around AD 1000) in the late Oriental modernity functioned along the same lines. The ultimate consequences of Legalist reasoning were the raids of the Chinese country Qin into enemy countries with the purpose of killing parts of the male population in order to reduce the number of potential soldiers. Compared to such excesses the Romans seem rather humane. Nevertheless they started their late modernity by destroying Carthage and Corinth in146 BC because these cities were trade competitors.
Now, should we go along with such rule-less excesses of late modernities? Clearly, if powerful politicians and states ignore humane behavior and rules, those who do not will have a disadvantage, unless they are in majority amongst the community of nations and have big strength. This was the case in 1939-1945. Today the forces in favor of rules and int'l organizations are becoming a minority.
Thus let us accept that the new era with politics not based on rules and restraints is a fact, and the only rule is the wish for political, economic, military and cyber- power. Should this acceptance be unconditional? Should everything be allowed? No rules or limits whatsoever?
No. Certain facts are new and unseen compared to late modernities before our:
1) Weapons of mass destruction can kill millions and billions of people and ultimately destroy all civilization. In this category we may add the possibilities of cyber-warfare.
2) The threatening and eminent climatic changes can destroy life spaces, produce enormous suffering and cause huge numbers of refugees. Here teargas over the border will not suffice.
Maybe we should all agree on a minimum of rules of behavior to avoid escalations bringing us close to the use of any weapons of mass destruction. And of course continue the efforts to limit climate change. Could such rules be accepted ?
Even agreement on this minimum of rules seem difficult to achieve with rulers like Bolsonaro, Trump and MBS. Therefore a continuance of the rule-based int'l politics seems outright impossible. Thus we may as well embrace the unavoidable. But let us agree on avoiding destroying civilization and our habitat.
Apart from these few rules you are free to unleash chaos.
But this does not take away responsibility. It should be self-evident that suffering is only acceptable insofar as it is necessary in order to prevent bigger suffering.
As history shows, if we open the box of Pandora we risk gruesome excesses of death and oppression.
Saturday, October 27, 2018
So what's ten million dead if it's keeping out the Iranians - and makes money for the weapons industry?
Lost sense of proportion has always characterized the parts of the media landscape which we call the tabloid press. A football star having broken his leg is more important than a major political crisis. In todays declining political climate this kind of focus also characterizes some of the political and governmental thinking and actions. A cleaning lady having stolen from an old gentleman can quickly lead to new laws.
This kind of shifted attention is also clear in connection with the murder of the dissident Saudi journalist Khashoggi. Clearly this brutal murder carried out by the Saudis is not a minor detail which should mainly be of interest for the tabloid press. It should indeed be sanctioned. But why is it catching so much more interest than the situation in Yemen? According to the UN and other aid organizations this country under constant bombardment from the Saudi led coalition is threatened by starvation and death on a massive scale unseen for decades.
It is bad enough that politicians of our time are destabilizing the world, as they remove rules, treaties and organizations regulating behavior in armament, international relations and trade AND replace this not with well-considered practices, but with actions determined by personal moods from ignorant politicians.
The decline of our modernity into unpredictable conflicts looks almost preprogrammed. But we do not need another disaster which in the number of dead caused by politicians, could be in the same order of magnitude as the genocide in Rwanda or worse. Do we want to end in future history books as those who added one more massive human-caused loss of life?
This kind of shifted attention is also clear in connection with the murder of the dissident Saudi journalist Khashoggi. Clearly this brutal murder carried out by the Saudis is not a minor detail which should mainly be of interest for the tabloid press. It should indeed be sanctioned. But why is it catching so much more interest than the situation in Yemen? According to the UN and other aid organizations this country under constant bombardment from the Saudi led coalition is threatened by starvation and death on a massive scale unseen for decades.
It is bad enough that politicians of our time are destabilizing the world, as they remove rules, treaties and organizations regulating behavior in armament, international relations and trade AND replace this not with well-considered practices, but with actions determined by personal moods from ignorant politicians.
The decline of our modernity into unpredictable conflicts looks almost preprogrammed. But we do not need another disaster which in the number of dead caused by politicians, could be in the same order of magnitude as the genocide in Rwanda or worse. Do we want to end in future history books as those who added one more massive human-caused loss of life?
Sunday, October 21, 2018
Rules or suffering
Often modernities have seen a succession of violations of established unwritten and written rules for conduct. This both on the internal political level and in the relations between countries. In the beginning of a modernity this process can serve the fight for freedom from traditional oppression, especially when we are talking of internal politics. But in the latest third of modernities these rule-breaking processes clearly lead into barbary. And when we are talking about relations between countries, the rule-breaking processes during most of a modernity means ruthless treatment of peoples and countries, not least in wars. The end of rule-governed behavior between countries lead to destabilizations, more conflicts and the easier start of wars.
An end of modernities in the civilizations before us and probably also including us looks like a rule. It also looks like a rule that this ending involves conflicts and wars. But it is not a law that every modernity and all phases in modernities should be characterized by chaos, wars and suffering caused by rule-breaking decisions. In history we see many very different versions. The Orient was utterly chaotic in most of its modernity 750-1071. The second Chinese modernity in the Sung Dynasty and its neighbors 960-1279 was ordered and relatively peaceful. At least up till the onslaught of the Mongolians.
Specific political decisions play a crucial role in deciding the path of a modernity. Therefore it is very worrying to follow the present US president and administration, the triumvirate Trump - Bolton - Pompeo. They systematically retreat from deals and treaties. They break down rules and int'l alliances, organizations and institutions regulating the relations between countries. Of course they are aided in this by declined politicians all over the world and proteges like MBS. The triumvirate and their likes risk going down in history as those who turned the rest of the modernity of the Western civilization into a series of conflicts and wars (cyber and field).
In the light of the annihilative power of weapons of mass destruction an end to treaties regulating nuclear weapons like the INF Treaty is potentially catastrophic. And this so much more if the end of rule-based behavior in general destabilizes the world.
Monday, October 1, 2018
Betrayals of our history
The recent speech by the French President Macron before the UN General Assembly 2018 deserves to be heard and read again and to be remembered as a passionate warning to the World against the final decline which can destroy the democratic, cooperative and rule-based world order. Centuries from now it may be read by historians who will wonder why and how a historically minded civilization with a strong ability to work with the future in mind could stumble into chaos, demagogy and ultimately authoritarian rule.
Here I repeat the end of the speech.
__________________________________________
I know, my dear friends, that many people may be tired of multilateralism. I know that in a world where information clashes, where we have entered a world of showbiz, in a sense, freed of inhibitions, and where saying the worst things means being in fashion, making the news; I know that denouncing consequences whose causes one has cherished can be a crowd-pleaser; I know that championing cooperation and multilateralism may no longer be in fashion.
Then let’s not be in fashion any more, because we owe it to those who have enabled us to be seated here, because never forget that the genocides that led to your being here today were fuelled by the language we are growing accustomed to, because they were fuelled by the demagoguery we applaud, because we are currently seeing this international law and all forms of cooperation crumbling, as if it were business as usual – out of fear, out of complicity, because it looks good!
No, I can’t agree to that, because I come from a country which promoted the declarations that brought us here, because I come from a country which stands up, which has made a lot of mistakes and done a lot of bad things but has, throughout its history and international history, had something universal about it! It’s today, it’s now!
So don’t grow accustomed, let’s not accept all these forms of unilateralism! I can’t get used to these pages being torn every day, these betrayals of our history!
So I say to you very clearly: the century which has begun is watching us, and our children are waiting for us! Let’s resolve the crises! Let’s work together to combat all these inequalities, but let’s do so in a human way and with the stringency of our principles, our history, passionately driven by our universalism!
In any case, this will be my commitment to you, and I am counting on you for it.
Here I repeat the end of the speech.
__________________________________________
I know, my dear friends, that many people may be tired of multilateralism. I know that in a world where information clashes, where we have entered a world of showbiz, in a sense, freed of inhibitions, and where saying the worst things means being in fashion, making the news; I know that denouncing consequences whose causes one has cherished can be a crowd-pleaser; I know that championing cooperation and multilateralism may no longer be in fashion.
Then let’s not be in fashion any more, because we owe it to those who have enabled us to be seated here, because never forget that the genocides that led to your being here today were fuelled by the language we are growing accustomed to, because they were fuelled by the demagoguery we applaud, because we are currently seeing this international law and all forms of cooperation crumbling, as if it were business as usual – out of fear, out of complicity, because it looks good!
No, I can’t agree to that, because I come from a country which promoted the declarations that brought us here, because I come from a country which stands up, which has made a lot of mistakes and done a lot of bad things but has, throughout its history and international history, had something universal about it! It’s today, it’s now!
So don’t grow accustomed, let’s not accept all these forms of unilateralism! I can’t get used to these pages being torn every day, these betrayals of our history!
So I say to you very clearly: the century which has begun is watching us, and our children are waiting for us! Let’s resolve the crises! Let’s work together to combat all these inequalities, but let’s do so in a human way and with the stringency of our principles, our history, passionately driven by our universalism!
In any case, this will be my commitment to you, and I am counting on you for it.
Boring but Competent
Members of the German Constitutional Court
Nominee for the US Supreme Court
In North Europe Brett Kavanaugh's suitability as judge in a Supreme Court would be questioned also without him being suspected by some of attempted rape. This because of his partisanship and his belief in conspiracy theories. But no doubt a Liberal candidate could have shown an equal lack of neutrality.
Also, the reason for showing this picture of Brett Kavanaugh is not to show a "bad" or angry character. The purpose is to illustrate how derailed political processes have become in the United States. As earlier I use Germany as a counterexample. Here the Constitutional or Supreme Court is strictly neutral and its members are chosen in an undramatic procedure. Serious and conscientious work characterize its proceedings. Compared to the American way this may be boring, but exactly this is the ideal condition. Parts of the explanation for the difference between America and Germany is the greater specificity of the German constitution leaving less room for differing interpretations and also the confounding in the American constitution of the highest executive power and Supreme Court. But clearly the main reason is the downward spiraling of US politics.
This said, Brett Kavanaugh has some interesting and prophetic ideas concerning the power of the president. In the future we will indeed see a stronger and more sacrosanct presidency. This will be enforced by presidents and their followers either simply to gain personal power or in order to better control chaos. But in 2018 and with an unpredictable president the idea is premature...
Nominee for the US Supreme Court
In North Europe Brett Kavanaugh's suitability as judge in a Supreme Court would be questioned also without him being suspected by some of attempted rape. This because of his partisanship and his belief in conspiracy theories. But no doubt a Liberal candidate could have shown an equal lack of neutrality.
Also, the reason for showing this picture of Brett Kavanaugh is not to show a "bad" or angry character. The purpose is to illustrate how derailed political processes have become in the United States. As earlier I use Germany as a counterexample. Here the Constitutional or Supreme Court is strictly neutral and its members are chosen in an undramatic procedure. Serious and conscientious work characterize its proceedings. Compared to the American way this may be boring, but exactly this is the ideal condition. Parts of the explanation for the difference between America and Germany is the greater specificity of the German constitution leaving less room for differing interpretations and also the confounding in the American constitution of the highest executive power and Supreme Court. But clearly the main reason is the downward spiraling of US politics.
This said, Brett Kavanaugh has some interesting and prophetic ideas concerning the power of the president. In the future we will indeed see a stronger and more sacrosanct presidency. This will be enforced by presidents and their followers either simply to gain personal power or in order to better control chaos. But in 2018 and with an unpredictable president the idea is premature...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)