Cato Institute Book Review session: China's Implementation of the Rulings of WTO by W. Zhou

This event took place at Cato, Washington, DC, December 4, 2019 led by the Moderator James Bacchus, Weihuan Zhou of the University of New South Wales-Sydney, presenting, and Simon Lester of Cato, commenting.  The book: China's Implementation of the Rulings of the World Trade Organization, order online-- WWW.IPBBOOK.COM 

Professor Zhou offered his own evaluations of how China is faring in the WTO, particularly pointing to its record of handling complaints and disputes that have surfaced in DSM, the WTO mechanism for settling disputes.  I believe that part of his presentation was especially helpful in understanding why China takes so seriously its participation in WTO for expanding its trade and commerce network: viz., it demonstrates its willingness to be a true and trustworthy trading partner.  His book cites several instances of disputes with complainants and how China sought to comply with rulings against them.

Added to this feature in his talk, Dr. Zhou compared China's record of WTO compliance with that of the United States, which obviously has been a member of WTO many years longer.  He noted that the US does indeed make the effort to comply, though at times takes several times longer than it should take to do so.

But the important aspect of his opus is in highlighting the need for the WTO itself  to make improvements in its rules and procedures.  He noted that the organization does not support commercial innovation in that it permits companies of the larger nations to suppress industry-wide sharing of its professional, technical advances that are already on the market.  He observed that the practice of dumping is still allowed by its rules, too.  And he especially named the Chinese government for the practice of subsidizing home-grown favored industries to counter competition from abroad. 

All-in-all, if you missed his talk, you missed a vital contribution to establish global cooperation and foster international innovation among trading partners--the very aim of Globalization since the Seventeenth Century.  We'll be hearing from this erudite lecturer again and often!       

Brookings Institution undertaking study on the Global Impact of China as an entry on the international scene

To launch the project a meeting was held at the Brookings, Wasington, DC on December 2, 2019.  Bruce Jones Vice President of Brookings gave welcoming remarks to the participants, and  Assistant Secretary of State David Stilwell was featured speaker, his talk emphasizing the importance of multipluralism in recognizing diversity among nations as he saw it a means for tolerance and cooperation, particularly during this period of China's entry on the world stage.  Nevertheless, the study to be undertaken by Brookings, a major "think-tank" in the world, should produce helpful recommendations for both China and the US that will lead to greater appreciation of China as a world leader and at the same time lessen tension and conflict between the two (as both seek to influence and promote their trade in the East).  This particular session was to concentrate on particulars in the East Asian region.

A panel was assembled to round out the day's conversation and comments about the project as pertaining to East Asia: Richard Bush, Lindsey Ford, and Jonathan Stromseth all from Brookings, joined with Lynn Kuok of the University of Cambridge and Evans Revere with the Albright Stonebridge Group. 

But it was Lynn Kuok who seemed well aware of the problems being encountered as China and the US provide trade networks throughout the area.  Trade and business with both these two great powers will help the region's nations to develop and grow to become full partners in international trade.  However, the tendency has become in the West, ever since the Cold War with Russia, to regard "the other nation" as competitor and even as adversary to the US.  No doubt, the Communist adherents in China so regard US presence in East Asia an intrusion upon China's sphere of influence.  And, no doubt, the US' backing off from the TPP has only netted indication that America doesn't really care about lending aid and giving assistance to countries in that region, despite US efforts that show the contrary is true, as pointed out by Jon Stromseth in discussion.

I indeed hope the august group Brookings has assembled will promote healthy dialogue and useful recommendations regarding the need for strong ties as full trading partners all the nations in East Asia--Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.--with the US and with China.       





     

Finding a Significance in Shapiro's recent book "The Right Side of History"

I believe the book The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great by Ben Shapiro (New York: Broadside Books, 2019) has merit in arguing for the position in theology that there is indeed over time an increase in our religious knowledge.

His major thesis appears to be that ancient Greek philosophy's reliance upon using logical methods  with good reasons cited and Jewish tradition's appealing to moral principles have netted the enormous gains in science and human development over the many centuries since their initial deployment in human existence within the West's culture.

Nevertheless, though he discounts the present acceptance of diverse lifestyles, e.g., feminism and homosexuality, as significant advances in the religious awareness of human equality (despite variance in living modes), he seems to accept the notion that with the coming of the Western peoples social living among humans has advanced over the mere tribalism of social organization and way of thinking.  That is to say, mankind has now more understanding to life's potential than simply living a biological-need driven existence we share with animals of the field.  Which is not to say, the tribalism practiced since man has covered the face of the earth is not a meaningful way we relate ourselves to family and our social and physical surroundings.  But there is more to human existence than the tribal mode that sustains life itself.

And the something more to life may be categorized as falling under the topical heading "treating each other as equals":   the foundation of the religious dimension.  On this point, I heartily concur with Professor Shapiro.



 

Improving conditions in Failed States and Fragile Nations--Seminar-5

The Hudson Institute held panel two discussions recently one on aid to failed states and another on the current political status in Iraq.  I caught some of the discussions when aired on C-Span.

One thing stood out in my mind: without first stabilizing the economy and the country's political conditions any aid to these countries labelled as failed or fragile is simply pouring money down a drain, never to yield any changes in the plumbing!

These countries obviously must first grapple with the social and political problem of stability and protection of their people.  Bringing in another military force to act as go-between internal enemy camps is no solution with lasting results.  I believe that proposal was enacted in Libya, costing the UN a lot  of money.  A local militia trained by some competent military force elsewhere willing to take on the burden of supplying military assistance to such indigent military and militia forces in troubled countries is a step-one before going any further.

I believe the US discovered this truth that until the Iraqi government could rely on its trained-by-US military, the major functions of government could not be satisfactorily addressed.       

Brookings Institute Panel Discussion: "The State of Human Rights in Africa"

At the Brookings, DC on November 20, 2019, a panel discussion on human rights in Africa was held.  Moderator was Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings and discussants knowledgeable on the topic were Tsake Kasambala, also of Brookings, Mausi Segun, Director, Africa, Human Rights Watch; and Jon Temin, Director of Africa Program, Freedom House.

The introductory remarks set forth in the program bulletin and uttered by Mr. O'Hanlon's in his closing remarks expressed hope that things will get better in Africa.  Human rights include judicial remediation and social rights to claim housing, food and jobs.  Everybody has the right to demand a human lifestyle that provides individual protection and opportunity to thrive as a human being in this world, the discussants acknowledged.

What the discussion showed beyond any doubt is that the peoples of the continent of Africa, in an aggregate of some 50 plus nations, have conspiratorially joined with the people in the several South American countries, and the land of China, especially, Hong Kong, as well as East Asia in loud and horrific PROTEST against the conditions of poverty, unemployment--particularly of the youth--and their many, many corrupt governments, no matter the type--autocratic, democratic, communistic, etc.--HERALDING THEIR MESSAGE OF RESISTANCE TO THE PEOPLES OF THE WESTERN DOMINATE NATIONS:
                                          WE CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE. 
If this is a message of hope sent to the West, then so be it.

In summary, the Have-Not peoples of the globe are in riot and frenetic panic.

Read in newspapers across the world the current conflagrations of social unrest rampant: no money, no jobs, everybody on the take for whatever meager something on which to survive for another day.  China, trying to join with the nations in Africa by living with Africaners in an apparent move towards unity of purpose to stem the tide of being subservient to whoever attempts to quell their united voices for their own human rights--a chance to live if yet only for another 70 years.

What is also clear from the discussion of these continual upheavals in protest occurring in Africa is that the populists like Trump and his team aren't for the little guy but out to take the entire world for whatever they want to make their own existence happier; and they are not about to even pay attention to protests as those emanating from the Continent down under.
     

 

Cato Institute Presentation: L. Palcerowicz of Poland on Institutional Systems Worldwide

Mr. Balcerowicz has held the position in Polish government of Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister.  Moderating the event was Ian Vasquez, Director of the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity at Cato.  The event was held at Cato in Washington, DC on November 15, 2019.  The talk was entitled, "Liberalism, Authoritianism; and Good and Bad Transitions."

A companion reference on human freedom by Ian Vasquez and Tanja Porcnik served as a  resource:  The Human Freedom Index 2018 published by Cato.

There appeared four systems that Balcerowicz discussed in terms of the one variable, human freedom--personal and economic.  But there appeared to me to be another variable at play in evaluating these different systems, viz., leadership, particularly, a vision and planning for the future.

The governmental system that seemed flat in anticipating and preparing the country for what lies ahead is populism.  It's the type that Trump is a advocate of--looking to what has worked before as a guide to how the country should go in the years ahead.  This approach toward a national leadership suffers from a lack in recognizing present circumstances, e.g., the country is faced with climate change and fallout into water and air of gross amounts of pollution.

Communism as practiced by North Korea suffers from no input, virtually, from the people over which the ruler by edict dictates how the citizenry will conduct their day-to-day affairs.  Socialistic systems attend to the concerns of the citizenry, but don't provide sufficient incentive to motivate the educated to innovate for the changes that each country may come to experience.  They must aim at controlling their future, it would seem, at the cost of being open to the possibilities the future has for them to grow and develop their civilization!

That leaves capitalism as the favored countries who guard the smart resources to their future's prosperity and are the beneficiaries of past and present glories on display throughout their borders.

What I would add only to the very useful typology Cato's evolved is that the leadership in a capitalist democracy is dependent upon both government and industry-commerce in joint interaction to develop policies affecting innovative growth that functions as opportunities for citizenry job and concomitant feelings of worth.    

   

World Leadership: The Demand is great for US leadership once again!

I read from a novel I picked up at the DC library:

"'You see,' the man went on, 'they (the US) come to Africa, and they bring drones and bombs and monitoring bases.  But China comes to Africa and brings railways, phones and hospitals.  Don't you find that interesting?"

from Spy Games, by Adam Brookes, Redbook Books.  2015, p. 58.  I couldn't say it as succinctly.

The point is, China is doing trade talks and making deals with countries all over the world, while the US under President Trump is barely able to piece together a makeshift agreement that is something less than a trade deal, I understand.  How much more evidence is there that Trump would rather placate the power brokers of Turkey and Russia than support US-China trade relations?

The Advanced Nations of the World vs. The Third World Nations?--Seminar-4

On November 4, 2019, the Cato Institute in its DC headquarters held a panel discussion review of the book recently released, Open Borders.  Its co-authors, Professor Bryan Caplan of George Mason University and comic illustrator Zach Weinersmith began by pointing out salient features of the opus that deals with the goods and bads of immigration, particularly as it pertains to a recent backlash of the practice, as led by President Trump.  After that, Tim Kane of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University offered his critique of the work; and then came questions from the audience.

Open Borders is a Libertarian defense of immigration as a means, a tool with social and economic beneficial outcomes, more invaluable than of its deleterious side-effects, the panelists argued.
*****************************************************************************

I want to to further the discussion by noting how immigration has been used since the conclusion of WWII by world leaders to fend off a confrontation between the Advanced Nations on the planet and the Third World Nations, particularly of the East and Orient.  The latter block of nations were making their case back then that their countries have been excluded from participating in the rich materialism that became a hallmark of rebuilding Europe and making the United States the most prosperous and wealthy nation around the world.  It seemed as if Africa and the Orient were being hung out to dry, though the West was sapping their natural resources to construct its own world of a most glamorous existence as a habitat.

In response, business leadership around the globe, I believe, deployed three major trends to make the Third World countries sharing partners in the new peaceful prosperity the West has come to enjoy.  One, immigration, was encouraged of particularly workers with technological training from Third World countries, including India, into the States.  Computer tech graduates from universities abroad and health care providers have come in droves even up to this day.  The second method to integrate the Third World into partnership with the Advanced nations has been through world trade organizations, especially the WTO.  These organizations attempt to introduce and enforce business practices of the Advanced Nations to permit the sharing of techniques for sound management and investment in corporation enterprises and to make their countries' governments stable and more responsive to their individual country's citizenry.  Not to be forgotten in this list of world techniques used to bring about country parody is the flattening of  wages in Advanced nations of the middle class and poverty workers by producing goods made in the US or other Advanced Countries in part also made abroad in the countries of the Third World.  Thus, China has done very well and is fast approaching meeting the standards of the West to become itself an Advanced Nation among all nations.

But as Professor Tim Kane noted, there has been and continues to be a backlash.  Not knowing how serious to take the threats from the Third World to do some kind of violence as a "last straw" effort to change the attitudes of the Western leadership, who seemingly had not cared for so long that Third World nations were still living in abject poverty, the warnings from those leaders of the poor countries were ignored.  Specifically, the entire working class of  the Advanced Nations object to their wages lying in stagnation.  It is true that the goods they buy from Amazon or at Wal-Mart are cheaper because they're made at least in some part (or, for many goods from China in the whole) in Third World Countries where labor is cheap, very cheap--partly, it is also true, because child labor is used to make the end product sold here.

Importantly, the techniques now being in place to bring the Third World Nations into the community of  the Advanced Nations enjoying the benefits of our New Age after WWII are working well.

And, the Panel Discussion of this profound work on the merits of immigration highlights but one of three major trends that world leaders have agreed upon, evidently, to establish international parody among our united nations for the sake of peace and harmony.                     

The Worldwide Social Problem of Unemployment may be closer to a Solution: Brookings Panel

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 the Brookings Institute held a Panel Discussion on the future of work in Africa.  I already presented in this format my comments on it.  But then I got to thinking...

There's a universal problem of unemployment.  Turn on the news, there's rioting in Lebanon, discontent in Iraq; and of course, the whole continent of  Africa is in chaos because there's no work.
In the US, there's more jobs than has been experienced for generations, but Trump has brought back "again" pollutant factories of coal, etc. to bring about his wonder.  Look at northern India where it seems obvious that pollution of air and water is a vicious killer in the cities plagued by dust and smoke, and you see that turning back to fossil fuels for energy is a no-win move for the planet.

That's what makes the Brookings Panel on the nature of work in Africa so powerful.  In presenting their report findings on Harnessing the Potential of Digital Technologies for All, they allude innovation as a prerequisite need for innovation to occur--upon which job grow is dependent: innovation, that can even be sped up through government and business encouragement, once obstacles to it are cleared.  As was brought up in the subsequent discussion, it's the deployment of patent claims of successful businesses that often can be invoked to prevent further innovation, whenever their enforcement precludes dissemination of some products' methodology and programmatic computer code.  These are essential to make possible using commercial products as platforms for further innovation and development in the field.  Patent enforcement done through the courts, and every product patented should not be infringed upon in the marketplace.  But that ought not mean some commercial product's processes should be kept in secret and not shared with those of the community of researchers and innovators in the field.

Be it noted that venture capital is available for getting innovation into production mode, once vouchsafed through testing, but innovation needs the foundations to guiding the way for subsequent innovation to benefit from.  That is to say, there must be trade dissemination of each successfully  commercial product upon which subsequent innovation to draw in creating its own new applications.

Once innovation is supported then, as this Report has argued, workers employed will no longer be victimized as dregs in unemployment, where they must spend hours killing time in unproductive protests for meaningful work! 





       

Commentary, May, 2019 Article: "General Chaos" by Mark Bowden

The article in Commentary, May, 2019 pertains to the WH (White House) Hopefuls running in the Democratic Primaries for the 2020 national election of President of the United States.

Author Mark Bowden points out that these Democratic contenders have "gone wild" in their devising schemes and programs to bring living in the US democracy closer to a Utopian existence.

It is reminiscent indeed of  how our founding fathers of this country tossed tea into Boston harbor to protest the English Tea Tax, which they considered an undue burden upon their trade.

How the US is different from say, Europe, is that from the outset, the US method of marketing a new proposal is essentially that not only the citizen benefit from some proposal or plan that alleviates the burdens of life but that business, too, must share in the newfound way of doing things for the better.  The consumer, e.g.., the citizen, and the entrepreneur enterprise must both be winners by implementing any proposal for change through governmental action.  There should be a big payoff for business, too.

This is by no means a small measure of governmental policy.  On its basis the very foundation of the movement known as Globalization is predicated, dating back for at least 7 Centuries.  Our vast network of international trade organizations adheres closely to the principle that nations involved in commerce among the membership should adhere to rules and regulations that promote international trade and make it a goal within easy reach through participation and adherence.

The long and short of this is that government and business together are to work to bring about a better world through the plans and proposals brought before them.  Their leaders--administrators and business executives--must supply the backing to foster the financing of any proposal having momentous impact upon our lives, such as healthcare; but that means they--the leadership  of government and industry--must be behind the proposal, see that it is just cause in their interest to market the new idea among the people, who should be the prime beneficiaries.

So, Democratic hopefuls, please show it in line with the interests and goals of US business and industry to sponsor your proposal as part of the brave new world you seek for us!    

.  

Commentary, Sept., 2019 article: "Feminism is in Trouble" by Naomi Riley

The article--Feminism is in Trouble--provides the impression that the women of today must make choices, choices and more choices as they accept the roles of mate, mother, and bread winner. With each decision she makes in the expansion of these roles comes a set of obligations she must fulfill to satisfy the culture's expectations and demands for good performance on her part.  The seeming endless list of choices with their accompanied demands upon her is so myriad that at some point in her life she may consider herself going crazy!  It's just too much responsibility she must bear!

And if that's not all, she must confront the prospect of a midlife crisis brought on by hormonal changes in her body, which may cause her to rethink the commitments she is expected to live up to.

Plainly, the women of today need to take a lesson from the women of yesteryear.  Oh yes, the ones before may have not become the sole bread-winners, but even remaining in the home they had many more children than those of today.  And as their kids got older, they took on responsibilities their mothers delegated to them.   The older kids became her helpers.

The lesson their mothers were teaching their girls was that of delegating tasks to those children who were mature enough to accept them.  By delegating tasks and responsibilities, the woman of yesteryear was training her female offspring to do likewise, and that lesson applied in the home or in a business, job setting.  The skills of time management also were honed.

I do not wish to make light of the way in which the today's woman has emerged as a true equal and partner, who is capable of arranging her time and effort in making sure that the responsibilities she has accepted in her social and professional worlds are duly accomplished well.  And in the end, the accomplished woman of today should expect the judgment of her society:  "Well done, thy good and faithful lady!"             

The Atlantic, November, 2019 Article: General Chaos by Mark Bowden

Bowden in this article discusses the military essential concept to understanding the military's role in establishing peace where there is conflict and destruction of life and property: it is to get the disputants to lay down their arms and start talking towards realizing a utopia--you said it--towards making peace.  That movement towards reconciliation and ending hostilities is in military terms, an  ethios.  Through the display of military values of peace in time of war, factions can become embued  with the cause of peace, making war less desirable and less likely to bring about what they want from war.

The military recognize the values they must carry with them whether or not in war is the embodiment of the pursuit of peace.  Virtually apolitical, they want people to live together in harmony with one another, in peace.  President Trump says the United States has been pursuing through its State Department a perpetual display of our military might throughout the world, fanning the flames of a worldwide conflagration through endless wars.

To my mind, US foreign policy has been evolving certainly since the end of World War II, such that its leaders, including the military, have come to realize they all must have in mind the same ends-in-view even before going to war.  That means, the military should be involved before preparing to go to war in knowing what the war's end would bring about: the goal or end-in-view war should achieve.  Putting in the hands of political live-wires what a war would accomplish is a sign that the war is already being conceived by those with clouded judgment.  Good judgment is to freely own up to the world condition that war itself would destructively wraught upon humanity.  The wisdom of seasoned generals must be brought into the planning for war and knowing what a desired peace at its termination would bring about.       

How to emphasize the military ethios among those who would bring about peace?  Trump simply uttered, "I am living up to my campaign promise:  I'll bring back our troops from foreign areas of conflict we have no interest in pursuing a peace for.  We have no vision of a lasting peace for that region.

In Syria, he is attempting to bring about a peace in which the peaceful state satisfies the political and regional ambitions of the Russians, the Turks, possibly some Kurds, but in no way brings about a world of greater peace where communal living together among those who were in combat has been achieved.

The United States Military has bases and installations in over 190 countries, and by their presence are able to encourage peace and cooperation among the many peoples with their own cultures and backgrounds.  Promoting peace by suggesting how hostile parties can sit down and reason together towards peace--material prosperity and long-life--is a role the US military can and should do, for there is no organization dedicated toward peace and the absence of war yet armed with its armor to establish governmental order and stability wherever needed as our military in the service of our people.  To be sure, the US as a significant promoter of business and trade accepts its responsibilities to promote peace with a view to expand trade worldwide and thereby foster the financial well-being of its citizenry.

For there can be no certain trade and commerce in regions of the globe where peace does not exist.    
    

Cato Institute: Book Review--"Fuel to the Fire: How Trump Made America's Broken Foreign Policy Even Worse" by Glaser et al

The three writers of this volume--John Glaser, Christopher Preble both of Cato, A. Trevor Thrall, Professor, George Mason University--were on hand to discuss their work at the Cato Institute, Washington, DC, October 21, 2019; Heather Hurlburt, New America, the Commentator. 

These authors see Trump's attempt at a consistent foreign policy as a reaction to a prevailing doctrine in the State Department with its dealings in international affairs that they identified as the Doctrine of Primacy.  According to it, the US military is given primacy right when the US State Department endeavors to offer solution to an international political problem occurring somewhere in the world.  Trump, while preferring his own doctrine not named in the discussion but appears to be that of the "great man" to "great man" means to resolve conflicts and disputes among nations and political movements such that these men and they alone can establish global rules and edicts through their unified pronouncements that will end international conflict.

We've had at least 30 years of Primacy Diplomacy; and the net result they report is worldwide dissatisfaction with war as an appropriate method to resolve international conflict, they report.  Despite offering his own doctrine, he nevertheless is willing to go along with the current thesis to some degree as long as other nations do so, indicating their support for it by their annual contributions to some military--whether to the US military or to their own particular country that has joined with the US in battle.  Trump's support of the Saudi solution to the Yemen civil war is justified with his comment, "The Saudis pay us for the weaponry we make for them."  To these authors, the doctrine that's been adopted by the US all these long years isn't working well; and they seem to endorse Trump's project to bring the US troops home as indicating his displeasure with the doctrine in vogue.

But to my mind, there are reasons for US military to be present in some advisory capacity, rather than in battle ready mode, around the world--e.g., in Afghanistan to encourage the Kabul government to continue to allow the education of women, and in Syria to support the Kurdish people to remain living there.  These force levels are indeed negligible but send a message of US humanitarian goodwill and moral determination to help do what we can to make the world a better place.   

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My ponderings on Trump's Diplomacy Style...

This discussion never really broached Trump's clear attempt at what I have called for present purposes, a "Great Man" to "Great Man" resolution of international conflicts.  For he seems to advocate through his attempts at diplomacy that if only individuals with enormous power or world prominence in politics (in most cases because of their leadership of countries with vast amounts of oil and gas reserves--governing over the countries of the United States, Saudi Arabia and their OPEC organization, Russia and its former satellite Ukraine, and Venezuela, presently under Russian protection) get together e.g., by phone, Twitter, or in-person meeting, whatever ails in the political realm can be quickly and satisfactorily handled to the world's great delight.  He would extend this "greatness" appellation also to the leaders of Israel and Turkey, apparently, and perhaps also to the Mexican President. 



     

Cato Institute: Book Review of "NATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur" by Ted G. Carpenter

Moderator for this event was John Glasen, Director of Foreign Policy Studies, Cato.  The meeting was held at Cato, October 18, 2019, Washington, DC.  Commenting on the book was Professor Rajas Menon of City College of New York.

What appeared evident as the book was taken up in discussion, was the resiliency of this 'dinosaur.'  Originally it was conceived to bolster military support for the entire of Europe as delineated up through the eastern edge of Germany.  Then it included Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, and even Poland.  Now, because it has provided support to Ukraine, it goes to the very border of Russia.  This latter feature is a violation of Russia's implicit sphere of influence in the area, pointed out the author, Mr. Carpenter of Cato.

What does NATO do that specific nations of Europe can't do on their own, anyway?  someone asked.  Be it noted, that the United States is the command control nation of what NATO does, irrespective of Trump's insistence that the nations in NATO must meet their fair share of costs incurred in maintaining the organization, commentator Menon noted.

----------------------------------------------------------
Personal reaction:  The presence of NATO throughout Europe and up to Russia's territory, provides the countries formerly subservient to the USSR to declare 'NO' to Russian domination in European and Central European affairs!  And continue their self-determined independence they declared in 1991!

Brookings Institution: Panel Discussion on the future of work in Africa

It's about harnessing the potential of digital technologies.  The meeting was held at Brookings, Washington, October 17, 2019.  Brookings Fellow Brahima S. Coulibaly and World Bank Executive Director Jean-Claude Tchatchouang introduced a panel who worked on a Report of 2019 on the implications for jobs in Africa of the changing nature of work in the digital era of AI in which we live.  Presenting the report's findings were Mark Andrew Dutz and Zainab Usman of World Bank. Members of the report team joined the discussion: Jieun Choi, Mary Hallward-Driemeier, Albert Zeufack, all of World-Bank; Lemma W. Senbet, Professor, University of Maryland; and Tricida Williams of Mastercard Corporation.

The thrust of the report was to call for a unified demand for innovation and creativity in the use of the computer given the impending dramatic increase in computer power particularly for the hand-held computer.  It also stressed the need for countries in Africa to prepare for emergence of AI intensive usage, citing the need for the country of Chad, as an example, to vastly increase its ability to generate electricity.  As reliance on the digital computer will increase perhaps as much as a hundred fold, so will human productivity, one panelist noted.

And, these jobs will increase salaries of the low-income worker, added Mr. Dutz.

However, while the report listed how Africaners interested in job increase should respond to anticipated rapid innovation, it assumed that the way is clear for digital innovation and program development.  However, during the Q &A segment (and at a Congressional committee meeting on the computerization by youth in the US the day before), complaints against large computer giants who generate innovative programs and code were iterated--centering around the refusal of these corporations to share their innovative code and procedures with the computerworld, citing patent security.

This is the same problem that China seems to be currently lodging against the American computer giants.  This despite the apparent fact that early on in the infancy of the field, the government insisted that IBM make known to those involved in creating software, i.e., the general public, their processes and code, so that other programs could be created that would make use of them as platforms.       

Tribal Roots in the Sanctuary Cities of US

The civilizations dating far into the past recognize the value of the soil--literally, our roots--ingrained into our existing as human beings.  China is one cultural heritage that preserves the relationship between our physical existence and the geographical location of our life through the notion of the tribe or immediate interactions of self and our community.  The tribe is indeed an inherent aspect of one's self-identity.  That's the notion that the framers of the US Constitution sought to give due homage to in limiting the importance of the vote in elections such that the geographical location of the voter must be factored into the election process in a presidential election through a mechanism known as 'the electoral college.'

In essence, this is the metaphysical principle that where you are is how you live!  The tribe is truly the existential you!

A declared sanctuary city, I believe, exemplifies and points to our tribal awareness of local independence whenever our very day-to-day existence is overlooked by some governmental agency or entity, such as the federal government, itself.  For it looks upon itself as the local and immediate organization of people practicing ways endemic to the area, that particular locale.  It aims to declare what its local cultural ways are, which are special and identifiable features of its own region.  It just is the case that Latinos live in a particular part of Texas and this pertains to them whether or not the federal government classifies any particular Latino as 'illegal' or 'legal,' for instance--which are mere temporary or transient descriptions regarding one's status bestowed by the agency or government.

Importantly, in long-lasting civilizations, the tribe is a fundamental unit of community.  Each tribe must be recognized and each respected, so that one or another 'tribe' is not singled out as the epitome of the governmental entity.  Christians are not to be the 'tribe' of the United States, such that it is regarded as a Christian nation. All religious persons must be respected quite independent of each's religious conviction.                 

"China, 'Now that we're in love!'"--Seminar-3

The song title says it succinctly.  We are sons and daughters of God, all equal in His sight.

According to President Trump, the song title suggests that any son or daughter of his is a member of his family.  A son who's down on his luck and asks for money from his father to get back on his feet--father Trump would seemingly offer it immediately--no questions asked.  Or would he do what he may have asked of the Ukrainians--"Do exactly as I say before you get anything from me, for I am the President of  the United States"?

That our leaders of past years in their dealings with China have cajoled China to join the WTO and to endeavor to live up to its rules governing international trade by extending financial inducement ought not to thereby enable Trump to specifically make demands upon China that only seasoned countries in globalization could be expected to live up to.  The point is, the United States has been involved in educating and bringing along in a spirit of mutual love and respect countries, such as China, that for centuries endured their citizenry treated as subservients and virtual slaves to those living in the advanced nations. It is in that spirit of love that the master welcomed back his prodigal son (recorded in the Bible).  Just so, the US has extended throughout its history aid and financial benefits to its 'backward' trading partners as part of its mission-ing (="bearing witness") to Third World nations--with whom it extends the familial hand of fellowship.  (It certainly did so done during the take-down of the Russian Empire in the 1990s to the joy of the Russian satellite countries!)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NBA players in China

Similarly, as the NBA extends its reach into China, it ought not to demand that Chinese living in China declare an allegiance to democratic principles; but it should regard its venture into Chinese acculturation as an opportunity to perform on and off the court in ways that bespeak the players' dedication to practicing democracy in real-life affairs for the Chinese fans to witness.    







 

What President Trump has taught the US about its presidency: it borders on Monarchical Rule!

What with the abundance of Executive Orders that Trump has issued, permitting him to circumvent the Congressional stamp, and his ability to redirect funds that Congress has already earmarked, and the cavalier manner he can control the setting of tariffs and their levels; and the capricious direction he can give to those who manage our borders, the President is displaying an enthusiastic leap to become the first US King--not in name but in stature.  He even uses tariffs to cajole other countries to do his bidding--e.g., Mexico's deal with him to prevent an escalation of tariffs of goods from Mexico.

And he pooh-poohs in defiance the pleas of Congress to permit them to perform Congressional oversight of his Administration.

Can the Democrats prevent this from becoming a usual way Presidents are to act in the future--Presidents who would be donned a kingly potentate--in power though not in name?         

When a government has failed to represent people in its domain...-Seminar 2

For whatever reason, a region of a country may declare itself an autonomous country within a country, i.e., a state within a larger geographical area controlled by some federal government. 

I believe such is the present situation of Eastern Ukaine in the country of Ukraine.  It is my understanding that the President of Ukraine is permitting the Eastern Ukrainians to vote on the matter.  When I was in Russia during the drawing up of a new constitution for the Russian Federation of Independent States in 1989, I argued that there should be provision for autonomy of regions who want to maintain a separateness within the larger state's territory, so long as that region is financially viable to maintain an independent status and find suitable means for the protection of its citizens within from invasion, etc.

Then too, I believe that the province containing the city of Barcelona in Spain is also currently seeking an independent, autonomous standing with possible EU membership.  The general idea being that a peoples should find a suitable means for representation of its culture and heritage in the governmental structure of the region where they live.

In the country of Georgia, I think the Russians govern a portion and provide military support for those who live therein.  Moldova, too, might have such autonomous pockets.

----------------------------------

Parenthetically, I have argued regarding the Crimea, that since Ukraine received the region as a by-product of a somewhat arbitrary assignment by diplomats, it could reasonably be made a legitimate part of Russia, itself, if the citizens of Crimea so want. 


           

Brookings Institution: Discussion on topic "State of African Security, 6 Critical Countries"

Discussants: Moderator Suzanne Maloney, Brookings; Matthew Carotenuto, Professor of History, St. Lawrence University; Michael OHanlon, Landry Signe, and Jon Temin, all of Brookings.  The event was held Monday, August 12, 2019 at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC.

Even though limited somewhat, the topic became a springboard for comments on the rapid-paced changes occurring on the whole African Continent.  Participants became enthusiastic in their endorsement of both China and the United States in paving the way for the several African countries  to engage in international trade and commerce--China for bringing about infrastructure improvements and the United States for making available its military expertise toward establishing more lasting peace and stability throughout.  Appreciative comments were also forthcoming regarding the many NGOs' humanitarian achievements and institutional structures instituted by religious faiths, including the Catholic Church and the Baptists through each's missionary programs.  Discussants were encouraging of governmental and related groups, too, such as the African Union--O'Hanlon adding, he wishes the Union could even do more in its leadership capacity.

To be sure, there's much work to be done to bring the nations on this Continent up to technological speed.  Mention was made of the fact that the Congo is one of the poorest countries in the world; and that Somalia is war-weary from the many battles fought on its territory.  The Continent is in obvious need of help and assistance for men and women of goodwill around the world to bring about a spirit of peace to end the hostility, which along with famine and disease, threatens the lives of the African people.  Seemingly, the Continent has many dangers. 

The meeting ended with a moderator's note to announce yet another meeting on Africa in the not too distant future!

Brookings Institution: Well-versed participants looking at US-China relations from the perspectives of localized dealings

An august group of seasoned politicians sat around in a forum to express their observations of the dynamics in trade and investment of US enterprises in China:
The Hon. Kate Brown, Governor of Oregon
The Hon. Bob Holden, Former Governor of Missouri
James Fellows, The Atlantic
David Dollar, Brookings Senior Fellow
Reta Jo Lewis, German Marshall Fund
Amb. Nina Hachigian, Deputy Mayor, City of Los Angeles
and
Ryan Hass, China Center, Brookings Institution

The event was held at the Brookings, Washington, DC on Monday, July 29, 2019.

Discussants emphasized that changes between the relationship is currently underway, as China has rapidly become accepted as a bona fide international trading partner, despite its relatively recent meteoric rise.  Through trade with China, nations the world over, and particularly the United States, have met their manufacturing needs through cooperative ventures.

Former Governor Bob Holden made several observations to the effect that for the United States, Chinese trade and its concomitant effect of investment in China, though only representing about 10% of  what the US spends on its trading agreements with other nations, has been an important way to link with the Chinese people in an everyday setting despite our manifold cultural and political differences, I concluded from Governor Brown's impressions.     

Nevertheless, change there is; and we really don't know the outcome of the present trade negotiations between our two countries at the moment of this meeting, several participants pointed out, perhaps in consternation over these year-long proceedings.

For Holden, the key to the significance of the talks lies in the fact that US companies have made relatively minor commitments long-range to developing China through investment.  For it would seem that US companies are counting on some spiraling achievements in Artificial Intelligence and the deployment of robots to replace workers that will herald radically new approaches in industry, thereby lessening reliance on Chinese manpower in the not-to-distant future.   

Nevertheless, several participants emphasized the non-competitive framework of working together for mutual benefit important for gaining mutual respect in the workplace and beyond among us two cultures.  It could even contribute to the cause of world-wide peace by creating trust in all peoples of different backgrounds, someone exclaimed.

All-in-all trade between the two countries has been a person-to-person getting-to-know-one-another experience; and let us hope that relations between the two countries continue to build upon that good-will in the workplace--I thought to myself upon leaving the Auditorium.

Cato Institute: Discussion on topic "What's Next in Venezuela?"

The discussion of the event  was between Professor Pedro Urruchurtu, Universidad Central de Venezuela, and the moderator Juan Carlos Hildalgo, Policy Analyst at Cato on Friday, July 19, 2019 at Cato, Washington, DC.  Questions from those in attendance followed the two repartee.

There is rivalry between two politicians who have declared themselves to be the real president of the country.  Importantly, each has support from political blocks:  the Organization of American States with its American dominance is for Juan Guaido, president of its National Assembly.  He refuses to accept the re-election of Nicolas Maduro in May as valid, and has thus cause to believe himself the legitimate acting president.  And, of course, Maduro, the May election winner, has backing from Russia and its Communist block.

The stalemate between them continues.  Both Hildalgo and Urruchurtu see the dispute as a battle between capitalism and socialism, the latter in the presidency of Maduro.

But there is no question, as evinced in the question-and-answer period that there is a humanitarian crisis in the country.  Maduro won't allow humanitarian aid to be brought in; and the panel participants had no avenue nor recourse to suggest whereby the crisis could be obviated, aside from the Red Cross short-term immediate relief packages.  Because countries in the area (and the US, too) are unable to provide relief from the Venezuelan condition of starvation and death since Maduro won't allow outside aid, there is a mass emigrant exodus of from the country--that Urruchurtu concedes could reach levels of 7 million per year, if conditions in the country are not allowed to improve.

The Venezuelan military, with help from Russia, are standing by their President. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I came away with an impression.

I am of the opinion that the two factions dividing the country could join together to rule the country
After all, the country needs as much help to regain its posture as a viable state in South America as could be offered!  Might the one faction--the socialist group--govern for two years and then the capitalist group as represented in the candidacy of Juan Guaido?  Or might there be a split of offices in the national government between the two factions as in Iraq?

 
  

Brookings Institution:: Panel on Algeria's uprising: Protesters and the military

The discussion was held at the Brookings in Washington, DC, Wednesday, July 17, 2019--Introduction by Natan Sachs of Brookings, findings of a survey of 9,000 Algerian respondents, mostly protesters, conducted by Sharan Grewal, a Brookings visiting fellow; and discussants Alexis Arieff, Congressional Research Service, frm. Ambassador to Algeria, Robert Ford with Moderator: Tamara Cofman Wittes of Brookings.

As presented  by Grewal, the survey showed the protesters, mostly students or protester-sympathizers, drawn from the military lower ranks, were in agreement: clean out the old regime, including the "2 Bs" still in power but leftovers, hold new elections and possibly, author a new constitution with significant institutional changes.

The military as a group did seem not all that far apart from the protesters as indicated by responses regarding policy,  After all it was the military that sought ouster of the former president following his declaration for a fifth term in office.  However, Grewal thought the military were unable to identify particular protesters with whom they might work to influence the street mob.  Anyway, he suggested the two groups were not all that far apart.

From what was said, I surmised the military was in command and should do forthwith, if they are not already so proceeding, (1) issue a timetable for the return of the political arena, identifying those who will govern, and (2) call for a constitutional committee to make changes via a vote by the people.

   

Beijing slows technological change to a trickle in China

I have it on good authority that a recent psychological study found the Chinese are experiencing panic due to the rapid upgrading of virtually their whole way of life in the country of  China.

The government may have responded by slowing further upheaval into the modern era temporarily while the people of China, used to their old ways, make the adjustment to mentally catch up.  It's a pause that is meant to refresh and take a big breath!

-------------------------------------
I got verification of this psychological evaluation by watching on a movie about the Mekong River over PBS yesterday.  For instance, an American was interviewing a Chinese husband and wife who ran a tea-producing farm.  I could see from their interactions with one another that they could scarcely comprehend their good fortune.  Trees on their farm, 800 years old, they continued to pluck the tea leaves off of.  But now their leaves they knew so well were suddenly worth more than the modern house that as if by magic was ceded them!  They pondered their new selves in amazement. Was it really they, the same ones, who lived in a modest hut (torn down) just last year?

What China and Russia are looking for in colonist countries

The Admiral in charge of the Navy's fleet in the South American waters appeared before a Senate armed services committee that was covered by C-SPAN and aired over TV the other night.  I happened to have watched it.  I think the Admiral expressed a point of view about the interests of China and Russia in developing an on-going relationship with countries in South America and for that matter, Africa, too that would seem hostile to our own interests in these self-same countries. In short, the Admiral seemed to be arguing that each of these countries must choose whether to side with either China or Russia. as if the interests of both of them are antithetical to our own interests in developing relationships with some South American country.

I take it to be prima facie obvious that China is interested in the countries it approaches to develop each's natural resources to be used in its own products and goods; and that Russia is interested in reestablishing its empire as it was under the Soviet Union-Russia, headquartered in Moscow.
China and Russia, both, would establish colonies in their host countries of their own citizenry, as each has done in the past of countries they have sought to control so as to achieve their homeland goals.
That is, China in order to secure a host nation's complicity to make available its own natural assets, will extend gifts and remunerations, i.e., whatever it takes to satisfy the host's reasonable demands.
And Russia, in order to utilize the host's capabilities and potentials, will seek to meet its demands list.

That some nation in South America enters into a long-term agreement with either China or Russia ought not be taken to preclude its willingness to engage in trade and cooperation with the United States as a trading partner and/or an ally.  To assume that it does compromises the power of the US in accomplishing its own aims through a variety of dealings with potential partners and friendly governments.  Put succinctly, the US is powerful enough to fashion relationships with any country, independently of that country's supposed commitments to work with some other countries in pursuit of their intentions and purposes.  











       
       

Brookings Institution: Panel on Impact of Militias on Governance in Near East

The panel discussion was held on June 28, 2019 at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC.  Participants were Vanda Felbab-Brown, Jeffrey Feltman, and Shadi Hamid of Bookings, and Paul Wise of the Freeman Spogli Institute.  Moderator: Suzanne Maloney, Brookings.

The concept of these militias was first introduced.  They have their roots in the ISIS movement, and most of them are Muslim religious,  Major ones today are the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Some are tribal in organization and are secular.  The religious ones have a concept of justice that is put in practice through Shria law.  There are two major types: Iranian allegiance to or Saudi Arabian allegiance to, the latter type having a mafia look.  They are local--establishing regional checkpoints but some have support beyond a national boundary.  Some exist in Africa, e.g., Nigeria.

The state government tends to regard them as terrorist challenging the legitimately recognized government (though some have established their own caliphate regime).   This poses a dilemma to the NGOs such as in hospitals and groups like doctors-without-borders who want to administer to those in need of services or care in a geographical region, despite the fact that by some government the people they administer aid are regarded as criminals or terrorists.         

Regarding the Near-East, American interests are cast in a short-range time-table of involvement whereas the Russians internationally and the Chinese in Africa are looking to retain regional relations over an undetermined length of time.  Moreover, the US and its allies have compiled a terrorist list of militias, ones with which the US will not support nor condone.  This means that the militias such as Hezbollah and Hamas are not regarded as legitimate governing agencies despite the services and organization they deliver to those of a geographical area.  Indeed, the organization they provide to the region is regarded as terrorist and hence unrecognized in Western eyes, while the Russians and the Chinese are willing to engage in local entanglements with them.  Accordingly, as the West pulls out, the Chinese or the Russians move in!

Importantly, as the panelists have observed while living amongst them, the militia groups have an attraction to the youth in the Middle East.

I came out of the auditorium where the discussion was conducted with a profound disgust that the West is missing out from exchanging with whole populations of people in the Near East and Africa, too--who would benefit from our developed Western civilization and with whom we could share--if only we were willing to bring them along through the educative process.   

     

       

When a federal government has failed...-Seminar 1

Citizenry Attempts to Rebel against a Tyrannical Government

It has occurred to me that there's really no model agreed upon as to what should happen to a federal government when it has clearly failed--who should take over and what steps should be taken to set it aright for the sake of those who live under it.

Up to now in the history of mankind when a government virtually collapses revolution breaks out, pouring citizens into the streets, clamoring for change.  Sometimes, the matter can be salvaged, as in the recent case in Hongkong, when the students balked over the city's administration's threat to send some detainees to the mainland of China to stand trial.  The matter has been at least temporarily resolved, no Tinamin Square massacre will come about. But there more disastrous situations that call for resolve by reorganizing the entire administrative unit from top down.

I'm thinking of the current crisis in Venezuela that has lasted for months now. The current President simply won't step  down despite his apparent loss in the national election.  Instead, he has declared the victor of the election an enemy of the state!  Meanwhile, the country languishes in  turmoil where he has also refused to accept humanitarian aid from several countries concerned over the well-being of the citizenry.  Various countries are trying to mediate the stalemate, but so far to no avail:  the intransigence of the country's military generals in support of the would-be incumbent President has prevented his leave.  And, the local currency spirals downward to practically being worthless!

What can be done in this situation?

An Ideal Remedy  

In this day and age when nations frequently unite together to seek solutions to crisis situations that have arisen through war or threat of war or even by saber-rattling for the sake of restoring regional tranquility, one might think there is a well-worn path to some conflict resolution short of combat.  True, there is the United Nations that could be appealed to for purposes of discussion and debate, short of imposing a solution. But that body's Security Council cannot even pass a recommended resolve should some permanent member dissent.  If only it had some way to resolve conflicts among nations, but alas it can only lay bare the reasons for conflict in its halls.

Attempts to Mitigate Governmental Conflicts

The continent of Africa has established its African Union, an enforcement agency of recommended remedies to regional strife providing member states assent,  Yet it seems limited in attaining the goals of regional stability in such wars as the Sudan and Somalia.  I am under the impression that it's doing what it can considering the geographical extent of its territory, the entire continent.

Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that history shows us ways are available for resolve short of going to war.

For more than a century, the country of Turkey has made use of the military to step in and provide an interim national government when the civilian government has fallen prey.  It attempted, I guess, recently but the President Lira Erdogan was able to quash it.  The military rebellion may have been caused in large part by Erdogan's move in dramatic fashion to establish the preeminence of the Muslim religion in a state that once was religiously neutral.  On the other hand, Egypt's military was able to oust its civilian government and supplant with a government that enables opposition parties to have a say in governmental policy decisions to an extent not possible in the corrupted government replaced.

The reasons why the military should have a major role in setting up the rules for a popular governance of  the citizenry are that the military is charged with securing the assets of the country as well as defending the homeland and the military is essentially concerned to preserve, protect and be of service in the cause of peace, thereby having the status of being politically neutral.

I see that the Sudan situation is currently fluid: a council is being formed to include military and potentially governing interested parties.

In the next lecture:  how groups can earn the right to declare a region of a country independent from its motherland and fashion a self-sufficient governing unit fir its territory.

Cato Institute Book Review: Tyranny Comes Home. Authors: Professors Coyne and Hall

On June 19, 2019 at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC, the book Tyranny  Comes Home was discussed as presented by its authors Christopher Coyne and Abigail Hall.

They contend that the distinction of the military and the police force has been frequently overlooked such that military deployed methods and equipment have been brought into use domestically by police departments around the country.  Particularly obvious is the use of cameras placed strategically on city streets to record the activities of citizenry in an area of high crime.  I understand that London police have saturated the downtown with these cameras but have not incurred widespread negative opinion.

Anyway, the authors observe there really is no oversight agency to regulate the deployment of techniques that monitor or even curtail one's freedom in the daily routine of social living. They note that nonetheless waterboarding used by intelligent agencies have been banned from domestic use through a negative public opinion response.

These authors admit that the introduction into the domestic scene of coercive techniques in information-gathering may be effective but they ask, at what price to human freedom?  "Bad people" will always be with us!  Nonetheless, it would behoove us to be wary of practices the US military learns are used abroad from entering our shores.  Even though the Chinese government may seek to control its people by examining the content of their cell phone communications, we should not follow their lead without first establishing some oversight of this, as any other, invasive technology upon our legitimate and non-violent activities.

Sad is the case when a policeman is found to have shot his suspect in an unarmed citizen encounter.  There must be oversight to a policeman's use of force in such an instance.

----------------------------------------------------
But how about the apparent successful use of coercion in dealing with our country's allies and partners deployed by Trump?  Should the US employ a similar economic penalty of the imposition of a tariff schedule the US announced effective against Mexico in dealing domestically with the problem of illegal immigration?  That is to say, should employers who hire illegals be charged a penalty for their adhering to this practice?  (Interestingly, when years ago the US encountered the problem of illegal immigration, it enacted just such a penalty that virtually stopped the illegal flow of immigrants into the country at the time!)   

 

Pres. Trump tinkers with executive apparatus to promote one-man monarchy!

Today, President Trump inaugurates his campaign for the 2020 Presidential election.  The first term of his Presidency has been marked by his attempts to establish a monarchical reign in the US, using aspects of the US Constitution as his springboard.

That the US Constitution can enable a President to act as a monarch I knew since I worked on fitting features of the US constitution for Russians who wanted it as a springboard for generating their own Constitution in the late 1980s.  Indeed, aspects of the US Constitution were incorporated into that of their own, a Constitution still in effect in Russia today.  In this item, however, I want to point to devices President Trump has made use of to place the Executive Branch of the US government in such paramount position as to approximate a monarchical form of government--seemingly, the only feature not of the US Constitution in its original form that blocks creating a monarchy being the Congressional hold over the budget:  Congress must approve budgetary appropriations of the Executive departments.

Nonetheless, in the US, the Executive branch has whittled away the will of the other two branches of the US government--the judiciary and the Congress.  (I leave it to historians of the US to demonstrate this conclusion.)

The features especial to Trump's move to make the Executive the overarching branch are (1) his use of the executive order, thereby circumventing the Congress to pass legislation establishing national policies and rules, and (2) his recent deployment of the tariff to gain foreign country compliance with his policies--The latter to "convince" the Mexican government to open its country to those immigrants seeking asylum from their own country of origin; or to convince them to return to their homeland.

What is more, he has even made inroads to erode Congress' control over the US government's budgeting.  He has learned that he can cite some emergency existing in the land that causes budgetary plans to be revamped--as in the need he cites to complete building a wall to separate the US and the Mexican border.

Currently, he and his executive staff are trying to convince Congressional Republicans and his loyal voters that Iran is the government-culprit in attacking ships in Middle-eastern international waters.  Republicans. since the Reagan era, have detested the Iranians and sought means to encourage the overthrow of its government.  And, the drum beat goes on...to this day, even from the days of Cheney and the Second Iraq war.

       

A nation substantively committed to stability and peace should be final arbiter of any country's military legitimacy

I have been asked by one of my sponsoring groups that brought me back to Washington, DC for my considered opinion about who should have final say when a country's military no longer has the support of its citizenry.  The issue arises because of attempts to establish a new government in Venezuela and by attempts to circumvent the pronouncements of the Sudanese generals on their timetable to hand over the government to civilians.

Now it seems to me that a country whose military budget is humongous in proportion to its overall budget overtime is clearly a candidate to pass judgment on some country's military might on the basis of two criteria: the stability of the government in managing the affairs of government, and the peace and tranquility its establishes and promotes across the world.  The one nation that clearly lives by these two criteria in providing for its military is the United States.

And so I believe that the United States military is in position to aid and succor attempts by some country (including its own) to assure the peace and stability in both the handling areas of internal and external governmental control.  It could make policy decisions that would involve alliances such as the African Union to implement its recommendations, e.g., as regarding the Sudanese military and its overall government.  But the point is to establish a paradigm, a model, that might be useful for upgrading the military no longer respected by its people.  In my way of thinking the military is protector not only of its citizenry but of the country's assets, whether publicly or privately owned.  Whenever it loses the public's trust, it must be reorganized. with these two criteria in mind.




   

Brookings Institution: General Dunford on World Hot Spots

I would categorize General Joseph Dunford's speech before the Brooking's group last Wednesday, May 29, 2019 as a recapitulation of items in the Republican Foreign Policy agenda where US military action might occur in the near future.  He is the Chairman, Joint Chief of Staffs of the United States military.

Missing were items pertaining to Venezuela. which I understand a regional conference is attending to, and Syria, where President Trump has already declared victory over Al Qaeda.  There was no relevance to the negotiations of a pending US-China Trade Agreement.  But be it noted that the Republicans have always been leery of helping a Communist nation gain prominence on the world stage.  Specifically, it has never been happy about the US trade with China, I contend.  (Even less happy has been the Christian Right as it witnesses the many conversions to Christianity in China today.) 

General Dunford was asked the question by the event's moderator Mr. Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings, How has the world changed since 2015, when you became Chairman?

He noted that relations with Russia have become less of a military problem, since NATO has become involved in Ukraine's sovereignty.  The relatively recent issue of the capture of the boat and sailors from Ukraine by Russia on open waters was not mentioned.  I suppose they will never be heard of again.  Nor the presence of Russian troops in eastern Ukrainian territory.  Nor did he mention that apparently China is prepared to resurrect a port in the Crimea for Russia that illegally occupies the land.

But he said that Georgia seems better able to deal with Russia, today.

On Korea, Munford argued that the fleet exercises between S. Korea and the US are not being scaled down but becoming less visible and dominating.  Training and readiness are being achieved between their coordination.

The South China sea situation seems stable.  Munford didn't mention any problem with the navigational shipping lanes in that region, despite China's dominance in that geographical area.  Munford emphasized that the rule of law must be maintained in determining regional control of the South China Seas; and I am sure he would also include a factor of competency and ability to maintain a military presence to assure trade and the free-flow of shipping and vessels.  The controlling fleet must be assertive.

The intentions of Iran in waters near it seemed unclear to Munford; and he is prepared to do an investigation to determine how ships in the area have come under attack with artillery and explosive devices in that part of the world.  One questioner from the audience raised the possibility that some group wishing to start hostilities between the US and Iran may be responsible.  Munford assume this person that he will do a thorough investigation and determine the culprits.  Be it relevant, still, that the US has been opposed to the Iranian regime in power since 1979.  Its current sanctions against Iranian industry and government bespeaks its hostility to that regime today.  And the Iranians no doubt are mad that since Trump has pulled out of the nuclear agreement with it, the sanctions have remained in place, when seemingly there are no dealings between these two countries.  The US nonetheless wants its partners to honor the sanctions, to this day.

Peace talks in Afghanistan with Kabul and the Taliban are continuing--seemingly, will go on and on.

He appreciated the 2020 military budget that the Trump administration is proposing.

And that seemed to be it!  The world is a safe place because US military might is keeping war to a planet's minimum!          

   

Cato Institute Book Review: The Wealth Explosion. Author: Stephen Davies

How did the Western World become so rich in the 18th Century?  Why Europe?  Professor Stephen Davies Head of Education, Institute of Economic Affairs, London talked about his book The Wealth Explosion at the Cato Institute on May 23, 2019 at 10 AM.  Moderating was Ryan Bourne of Cato and the commentator was Professor Jack Goldstone of George Mason University.

Professor Davies mentioned the rise of cities and world-wide trade as background factors to one major change in how people lived: for the new modernity sustained very large populations around the world. Specifically, most people were living on the planet in mega-population centers called cities, interacting through communication networks extant at the time globally.  An obvious exchange of ideas among peoples of differing backgrounds.  But the wealth explosion occurred in Europe.  I think one must turn to other features to account for this historical presence in Europe of modernity (with all its accumulated wealth): the rise of the scientific method in the study of the world's features, the success, particularly in the West, of the university system in collecting, storing, and disseminating knowledge; and encouragement of experimentation and innovation among a general public imbued by the wonders of the universe!

Professor Gladstone added the development of conceptual of principles of living together and striving to achieve happiness through becoming committed citizens to Western Civilization.  The understanding that each person has rights inalienable to him.  Gladstone noted that the Chinese did not even have the notion that an individual self could contribute to his society in some lasting way by what he thinks or does.  Further, he pointed out that in several countries, the leaders were not emboldened by the spirit of accountability to those they led.  They made autocratic decisions in time of crises without formulating how their actions would bring about a healthier society of their people.
He alluded to major features in today's changed, modern society: the rise in the status of women and the termination of the practice of slavery as signs in our relating to one another.

The discussion that followed with audience participation simply highlighted Professor Davies' profound identification in world phenomena: the 18th Century was an explosion of knowledge and scientific rigor that heralded a contemporary reliance upon big cities, big corporations and, (what some analysts would say is unfortunate,) big government.             

The Military Has Earned the respect to be at the table of governmental policy decisions

I think one thing that stands out in my on-the-job education in the realm of governmental matters is that the military is a co-equal partner in deciding how to run the government.

Military high echelon are today well-educated and versed in all aspects of governmental operations and design of public policy plans.  It is essential that their point of view be expressed at the President's Cabinet level, for instance. 

The duties of running the military have been greatly expanded, too.  In a profound sense, they are entrusted to preserve and protect and distribute the country's assets, including money, minerals, and property owned by those inhabitants of  land within its boundaries.  Moreover, should questions and disputes arise among the citizenry that cannot easily be resolved through political and judicial systems of the government, the military must see to it that order and stability is maintained in the nation.

I leave it to military historians to describe the many times that the military has demonstrated its loyalty to a nation and its constitution. 

DC goes slow; everywhere else speeds up!

I've been back in DC for a little over one and a half years.  I've noticed that things here go slow, much slower than in the field.  Most of the time I've been associated with government, I've been in the field--abroad a little bit and around the States, based in either San Francisco, LA, El Paso, Vegas, Reno, or Omaha and once-in-a-while in Santa Barbara (I really liked it there).

I think DC does it in slow motion--waiting for the opposition to coalesce and lead the fight, take over the headlines.  It's the English style of a gentlemen's tiff.

Take the Mueller investigation.  I perceived three months before the report was ready, that the Trump people were ganging up ready to strike in the media.  And so they did with the Barr nomination for AG.  At that point, I thought an interim report from Mueller was necessary to take command of the news coverage on the Russian hacking inquiry.  Instead, Trump's twitters took center stage prominence and dictated, virtually, the events that were to transpire in the coming months, until now, we don't know whether Mueller even wants to stay involved in defending the report his name is attached to!

The point is to stay in the lead to dictate how the matter with much controversy should unfold.

In the field, you don't know how long you'll be on any one project, so you stay on top of things and get what you need to do in the forefront of public discussion and you control the agenda of disclosure as much as you can for as long as you're involved in the particular project-subject matter.






     

Comment: Atlantic Article "Witness to the Counter Revolution" by William Burns

The article appeared in The Atlantic April, 2019, adapted from his book The Back Channel: A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for Its Renewal.
------------------------------

Remarkable to witness the establishment of a caretaker government--really, that's what Putin is President of.  The Russian government faltered under Yeltsin after the Empire collapsed, then Putin was installed; and his dicta have been followed ever since, making him a very rich man with several palatial estates.

There could be no rapprochement with the West  afterward because Russia is the land of the Czars--the elegance of aristocrat-dominated Europe.  The best in music, ballet and opera.  A heritage that should not be cast aside to become embroiled in a market economy of an up-and-down stock market and risky future.  I saw Russia first-hand in the 1990s during the demise of the Empire; and it was depressing to see.

Who came on the scene early during the changeover was the Mafia--Burns has it right.  People were hungry and disparate for a staple existence.  And, I believe that early on in Putin's government the people did well in recovering.  But then he longed for more; he longed for what only an Empire resurrected would give him.  To him, Russia became his resource for personal attainment of  Czar status, even when there was no czar any longer.

When you look upon his face you see a depressed man (at least, I do)!  When I was there, everybody knew oil was there in the ground for production and selling.  Their future was not gloom and doom; but nor was it that other nations' would do obeisance to a tarnished star.

Today, he is floundering, yet popular among his people.  He cannot rid NATO from his their station near Russian shores nor gain allegiance from the former Russian satellites.  He is victim of an age in which there are many dictators but none the ruler of an Empire.  Even Ukraine, that once did the bidding at Russia's beck-and-call resists takeover by some puppet regime Putin might otherwise establish, possibly waiting in the wings.  Today, the small state of Ukraine resists his power that rules now the Crimea but now not in Ukraine's capital.

Burn's exhortation to us all: Don't give up on Russia after Putin.

         

Atlantic article about kelptocracy: "The (wealthy) Russians have been coming and coming still with their money!"

In the Atlantic magazine February, 2019 issue, the article by Franklin Foer "Russian-Style Keptocracy Is Infiltrating America" appeared.  It alludes to the fact that since the fall of the Russian Empire in the early 1990s, the wealthy class of Russia has slowly been emigrating to foreign lands for permanent residence, including to the US.  And, I've, myself, seen colonies of Russians here in the states in such places as Santa Barbara, California; Sacramento, Los Angeles, Reno, DC; and Omaha, Nebraska!

When the Russians reach here, they naturally look for places to stash their cash.  The article points out that the most likely professionals they contact here are investment counseling and real estate brokers. Naturally, they go to these people, hoping that they can find ways to minimize their tax liabilities and maximize their chances to increase their fortunes.  Came to my mind, as I read on, was the name Paul Manafort, the former Campaign Manager for President Trump. He had financial dealings with Russian aristocrats; and wasn't he into investment brokering?  Anyway, I imagined these emigres would seek out business people in the US that had clients also back home in Russia.  And I suspect that these investment bankers in the States would do all they could to make a profit both for some Russian client now living here and themselves--whether or not it would take clever machinations in politics and finance to assure the financial transactions were legal; and even if a keptocarcy were seeping onto the halls of Congress and into the woodwork of various departments of the Administration.             

The Military is a Country's Reliance when all else fails!

I've come to believe that the military must be filled with people who are the strongest patriots a country has!  It certainly was true in the US' founding, led by that greatest of  patriots, George Washington.  Of course, he had to believe in the institution of government he was forming.

Venezuela--I've been following even before Chavez and Lopez took over.  I think the Venezuelans might take as a case in point how Columbia eventually got the many warring factions, including the ne'r-do-wells, to work in unison for the country's good.  I believe the factions in Venezuela would do well to get together in common accord to work for the people and goals of their country.  Chavez came to power because of the voice of the common Venezuelan over the protests of the ruling class of  rich and prominent.  He established a record of making oil available to poor countries; and the riches of the country were distributed among those in poverty.  The country has gone into political and economic chaos; and changes must be made.  Maduro must work with his foes for the sake of the country's stability, a longed-for condition to be quickly re-established.

The military has stood behind him, to be sure.  But they must do more: they must themselves become the source and the ground-swell of the country's stability, recognizing that because the country is oil rich, virtually every group that can will try to seize the country's wealth and establish among themselves an heir to the Presidency.

It truly is up to the military; as has been the case in Egypt, Turkey, Israel, and for centuries, the United States to establish tranquility and fight to protect its integrity and order. 

Brookings Institute Discussion: How is US getting along with China?

Discussants at this forum that took place at Brookings in DC on April 22, were Amb. James Green, Amy Celico, Dennis Wilder and the Moderator, James Greek of Georgetown University.

Each brought to mind some incident or memorable dialogue the two countries have interacted during the past 40 years.  It was clear that the participants viewed China as an up-and-coming superpower that could learn much from the United States on how to conduct business and politics, but particularly when it comes to financial dealings one with the other.

Georgetown had recently undertaken a series of interviews with key Americans who have shaped American policies--clearly underscoring the US' commitment to a thriving China--coming of age as a major power in the world.

That the US continues to emphasize the program that brings technical Chinese to our shores to populate our universities and colleges, to learn of us, is to my mind a great tribute to our great country--the US!

As one of the participants noted, China with a fond US blessing, is taking on the Globe, i.e., becoming truly global! 

The presence of apriori thought structures in our brain!

With the advent of empirical science, the notion of the apriori thought patterns has been put to one side, as if they didn't really exist.

In philosophy, the concept of God is one such delimiting thought structure.  Over coffee, Chuck Darling and I have been marveling at, nonetheless, the value of such "implanted" ways of thinking, as it were.  This realm of thought has been categorized as the realm of the spiritual.  I have often wondered how with so little factual data to draw from, the ancient Greeks could have alighted on the concept of atoms, claiming matter is composed of these smallest of particles.  /And was it not hypothesized years of yore that a big bang gave rise to the universe?  These concepts were "known" that is to say at a theoretical level and then applied to the physical.

In a similar vein, the Jew's rendition of the 10 Commandments as given by God bespeak a higher level of existence mankind can attain.  There is the realm of the beastly nature of mankind and then there is a higher realm where mankind can live at peace.  Maslow's hierarchy of needs bespeaks a knowledge of man's true and fulfilled nature, quite independently of his everyday life.  It is also the foundation of religious living.   But that just goes to show that the spiritual (dimension) is embedded in the physical! 

 

The Georgetown Neighborhood Plight, in my opinion

I attend housing committee meetings held at Miriam's Kitchen in the basement of Western Presbyterian Church.  Mariam's Kitchen is also the place that serves superb suppers I try to take advantage of Mondays thru Fridays as often as I can attend.  Anyway, I got talking with the committee chairman about possible projects in the future the group might consider.

I sounded off on the need to bring up the housing units in Georgetown, DC.  The area is obviously old, very old, and the cobblestones that don't fit properly and people keep stumbling walking across is just one indication of the need for overhaul to the housing status of too many locales there.

DC itself has taken major leaps to provide modern living through its housing--apartments and residences, but Georgetown, in my opinion, hasn't kept up--or been kept up. 

New Hospital Group Established in Pakistan

Our Forum meetings are held at St. Stephens Episcopal Church on Sunday mornings, 9-10 AM.  Occasionally, we get NGOs to present what they're doing "in the field," so to speak.

I know Pakistan somewhat and have been apprised of their encouraging humanitarian efforts, undertaken by NGOs.  Last Sunday, Mr. Michel Heitstuman presented what his group is doing to meet the medical needs of Pakistanis with an eye to offer their medical services in certain provinces of India in the future.  This particular NGO does not charge the patient, who more likely than not, could not pay the bills.

He can be reached, according to his business card, at 202-262-6000.  The hospital is just one business he's involved in and the card represents his FraudLens company, where he is Vice President of Operations.

In any case, medical services are badly needed in that area of the world and I applaud his efforts to get involved.[

PM Benjamin Netanyahu seeking all the help he can get, even from Pres. Trump

Well it's time for Prime Minister Netanyahu to face the music of a court of justice, and time again for him to do his best to garner votes for another 4 years as PM.  He gives his performance every time he's up for re-election!  Usually, he can count on the Israelis to vote him in to prevent any impending disturbance in Gaza.  The mere threat of havoc from the lowly Palestinian enclave there on Israeli soil suffices another 4 years as his being Prime Minister.

But this time, he's up for charges in a court of law.  He needs to get some superman support--enter, President Trump to the rescue to save the PM for another term!  Trump promptly on cue claims the Golan Heights the property of Israel!  No need to work out a deal with Syria for the transfer to be complete.

On the radio tomorrow, a commentator likened the blatant act of Trump to Putin's take-over of the Crimea from Ukraine.  Just declare it an international reality.  Nobody cares, one way or another, apparently.

I sincerely hope--that's all I can do from my being in Washington, DC for now--that the Israelis will see through this overture to the impending election day and not be persuaded to vote for Netanyahu and against sound reasoning pertaining to the real solution in Palestine--a single nation of Israel with Palestinians living peacefully alongside their Israeli neighbors (with no Palestinian state that would become defunct the moment it would come into existence).   

Cato Institute Book Review: US Gullibility in Foreign Policy, Author: Ted Galen Carpenter

In a scathing attack on US diplomacy over the centuries, author Carpenter shows the preposterous clowns that drew support in overthrowing some particular government's ner'r-do-well extant regime.  Usually, the US proposed a regime change with a view to promote democracy world-wide, but as Carpenter shows, the results weren't what men of good will were anticipating!  Sheer calamity in most case was the result.  The discussion of  Mr. Carpenter's book on Gullibility took place March 19th in Washington, DC.  Commentator: Mr. Jacob Heilbrunn.

The author Carpenter must have had a good belly-laugh as disaster after disaster unfolded in writing his accounts.

Absolute stupidity regarding the world scene pertaining to a US administration after administration's sincere desire to extend democracy world-wide.  Clearly, what I think his precis shows is that groups not governing most times have not the qualifications to govern.

Being in bondage and enslavement to a repressive government is morally wrong!  Then, let all men and women of good will seek remedy for the immoral oppression!

That is why I believe it so important that the US joins with other democratic countries and their prodigies along-the-way toward citizen freedom through sanctions and whatever other means they can agree upon to exert pressure and exact penalties upon those reigning regimes that terrorize ordinary citizens and freedom-loving peoples the world over.  For me, I am  thankful to the US for is maintaining military bases around the world on behalf of the cause for freedom and the righteousness of democratic principles.  This is a moral stance the US has taken, though it has most times chosen the wrong people to support and want to rule.

 

Brookings Institute: Admiral John Richardson, Chief of Naval Operations, Discussant

This discussion was held at the Brookings Institute, Washington, DC on January 28, 2019.  It was to include plans for the future and an assessment of its maritime current activities.

Now I know that the navy has an especial role in the conduct of a military theater and that it can take advantage of its particular geographical placement: on the seas, capable of reaching any earth-based land   Nor is its fire power constrained to the realm of water.  Its drones and planes hop around nimbly on land masses!  The Admiral admitted the US navy plans are limited to a 5-year cycle, after which is pause for assessment, I would surmise.

The navy's mission even in peacetime involves patrolling international sea lanes and cable networks under the oceans so to protect from threat of interference thus enabling commerce and trade.  At the meeting, questioners from the audience wondered about China's patrolling of the South China Seas, though the Admiral did not make specific comment on the issue of whether China was doing a responsibly good job.  Nor did the Admiral have some apparent comment regarding the Russian detainment of Ukrainian sailors and their ships on the open waters separating Ukraine from Crimea.  He did not take a clear position on whether NATO should have become involved after the seizure.

I came away from the presentation in a puzzling frame of mind regarding naval patrolling of international waters:  is the navy actively attempting to resolve issues of control of international water lanes?

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note-taking of the discussion by Kyla Roberts, Catholic University Graduate Student
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The odyssey continues...about plans to assure that international waterways are being properly guarded--what could the US navy be doing amid all the shipping and transporting water lanes worldwide?          

The Russians have apparently taken over a port-city in Syria for their own use in warm-water.  They are also anticipating China to build a deep-sea port for them in the Crimea.    Meanwhile, China is developing  military installations  in the South China Seas. Even more surprising, England, which once ruled the seas, is now going independent from the EU, perhaps a move to reclaim itself as the  major sea power in the world?  

Brookings Institute: Conversation with General David Goldfein, Chief of Staff, US Air Force

How to bring along our partners in defense to embrace state-of-the-art technologies, including AI, in their weapon systems?  General Goldfein's surprising answer: military camaraderie!  The US air force has the F35 AI military systems and can make use of it in plotting defensive strategies, but it remains for our military partners to design and install their own AI network programs. His remarks came at the Brookings Institute discussion-event regarding the US military budget, February 19, 2019, in Washington, DC.

Suggested I've heard it described, that the military could identify the big industrial suppliers and developers of US software and hardware to lend a helping hand for start-up companies (funded through venture capital) in these allied countries.  In this respect, President Trump has called upon them to increase their military budgets, even as the US Congress has proposed for 2020 here. It is said that China and Russia are our great competitive rivals in military advancement, leaving out of the equation that we are committed to progress in the military of countries aligned with the US military, including S. Korea and Japan, to name just a few concerned specifically over North Korea's military threat.

General Goldfein praised the Israeli military for wanting to incorporate its strategies into the F35 design phase.  Israeli weaponry can be a tactical advantage to our own military might.

To my way of  thinking, there are wars and situational violence areas today which bespeak the need of dramatic overhaul of military organization in certain countries.  Nigeria, that for years has suffered from internal rebellion and strife, should no doubt strengthen its military to overwhelm the enemy from within.  And, it is a scandal how ineffectual the French military is in quelling the violence from homegrown  protesters!  I would think there is need for reorganization to maintain peace and security of the citizenry in instances of unrest and instability whether caused from within or without.

For it seems necessary that our military partners, working with us toward enjoined military progress, requires continual encouragement to act together as a military might, so as to get beyond conventional warfare techniques and make use of cloud technology and AI capabilities in this new era of military readiness.