C-SPAN airing of Tony Blair's talk on Populism Politics

On the night of 3/16/20, C-SPAN aired a talk on Populism's Politics given by Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister and currently, holding the position of Executive Chair, the Institute for Global Change.  The talk was recorded the previous Thursday.

He started off by citing the many social and political problems that the movement attempts to cope with--immigration, low wages, and the preservation of our environment--for which it claims the traditional parties have failed in their promise to overcome for the sake of our off-springs' better days.

But he insists that at least the traditional parties have attempted to bring in modern technology into the picture of the brave new world that we must prepare for because it is in our future.  Indeed, it is a weakness of populism to attempt to hold on to a glorious remembrance of the good old days--without the need to contend with the presence of a workplace of computerized machines and automated processes that are in the forefront of today's rush toward a future where mankind must fight to maintain his very dignity and worth!

Change is what threatens and dispels the message of hope that populism heralds to its listeners and fellow citizens.  And it is change that is an inherent characterization of our future. Therefore, populism has no way to ward off the forces that make our future perilous for our very survival as a people.

Blair urges us to embrace the very technology that makes change the necessary feature of our future.
We must see technology and its A-I features as some things we can draw upon from our environment, that we can use to make our world a better place to live in than our forefathers had in their day.

Indeed, Blair suggests, we ought to be using medical technology to solve the problem of coronavirus we now face. Technology is the means to bring about new solutions, solutions we must find to lead a better life!  The change that the future holds for us can have therefore beneficial ramifications.  Above all, for our children, teaching them technology that is currently extant, prepares them for the jobs of the future.

Indeed, in my opinion, we must learn to deny populism its romantic qualities that makes its political appeal to the general public so cunningly deceptive as to lull hearers to ward off preparing for the changes inevitably it will mean to us in our years to come and to those of our offspring.   


 

Brookings: Rep. Mac Thornberry reminiscing on his years in the Armed Services Committee, Congress

The title of his talk "Congress and defense policy" was introduced by Mike O'Hanlon of Brookings on Mondaay, March 2, 2020 at the Brookings.

Though Representative Thornberry presented much to reflect upon and mull over, I picked up on two points he raised and will discuss herein.  He's obviously done a lot of thinking on the topic assigned him.

1.  The military is a-political. 

That does not mean, the military doesn't have a culture of its own.  He pointed out that the F35 is packed with an intelligence system that is super-armed with knowledge and capabilities of a full-scale combat-ready planning system for any ontoward event.  That it is housed in a fighter-plane bespeaks the Air Force's culture that casts its fighting and planning capacities within its flying orientation to prepare a though-going defense of the country.

But he also pointed out that as a branch of the military, it is a-political--neither Democratic nor Republican in a political arena.  This feature has long been established in Turkey in years past, as the mechanism whereby when a particular government could no longer function in an administrative capacity, the military would step in, temporarily, before another government could be formed.  Be it noted that the Egyptian government in power a few decades ago was replaced through military intervention.  Then too, several other countries, e.g., in Africa, have used the military to act as interim government from time to time.

2.  It is prudent that military alliances establish an institutional organization lasting over time that guards and protects its member states. 

One that comes to mind because of its many years in service is the African Union that intervenes in political conditions of unrest, extending its area of service to the entire continent of Africa.  NATO provides the same degree of protection to the countries of Europe, but is also supported by the United States.

Along this line, the OAS--Organization of American States--could establish a military arm to handle political disputes in countries of the Americas.  Something like NATO, only in this hemisphere, might be called upon to cope with political stalemates, as in Venezuela, today.

With countries in the region of Indo-China and Japan becoming involved in increased international trade the world over, some new institution, a-poliitical in orientation, could serve the security needs of  protection and promote the cause of peace in situations of political unrest arising in that region of the world.       

Cato Institute: "The Failure of Forcible Regime-Change Operations" Talk presented by Ben Denison

The presenter, Mr. Ben Denison, Postdoctoral Fellow at Tufts University surveyed a century of attempts to bring about regime-change through the use of force to rid illiberal regimes and supplant them with something better.  Supplementing his presentation was Prof. Lindsey O'Rourke, Boston University paper on covert regime-change attempts during much the same time period, last Century till now.  Professor Alexander Downes of George Washington University provided comments on these offerings.  The moderator was Cato's own Vice President, Christopher Preble.  The event occurred at Cato, February 26, 2020.

The topic was well-chosen though over the years analysts on the issue have come to much the same conclusions:  such forced regime-changes tend to unleash political confusion even to the point of civil war--at least does not advance the cause of democracy among all peoples.

I found the material these two authors cited thoroughly digested and well analyzed.  We don't know the precise success record of covert regime-change efforts, but I think the United States State Department and the many Presidential Administrations are aware of the many problems encountered from the many tries to achieve it over time.

I would think those interested in the topic would agree with Denison and O'Rourke that these attempts constitute learning lessons when contemplating any further ventures into supplanting a  regime. I take it is vacuous to add "forced" to any regime-change that is implemented by some other government than the one in power, since a government that is being deposed is likely to take it as a hostile act.

My response to this lively discussion: 
1.  I think it is widely recognized that the time a President is in office, especially, if for only one term, is just too short to successfully wage a regime-change.  And, if a two-term Presidency, there are plenty of competing goals other than some government's regime change that would vie for top priority consideration.

2.  Yet one would hope some government or some international organization would be responsive to a moral demand for regime change.  It is unconscionable that mankind would allow millions of people to be displaced as in the instance of Venezuela or Syria or Yemen because of tyrants and despots who have seized control of government for their own ends, causing devastation and migration and, yes, famine.

Africa has the African Union, which has seemed a viable mediator to bring about peace, e.g., in the Sudan; but the Americas' OAS organization has no military group to work for the cause of peace and governmental stability on its continent save the military and the State Department of the US--acting as the moral agent on behalf of the cause of peace.  Europe has benefited over the years of the services of NATO to stand for justice and peace to the very border of Russia.  May there be always some organization to stand up for the cause of mankind's existence and well-being on earth!

3.  I am cognizant that those interested in doing regime-change for the moral good know from the US bitter experience through the years that the new leadership must be well-trained and receive the very best education in the use of technology as is offered here in the States.  Indeed, the current batch of leaders in China were, by and large, educated here at our very distinguished colleges and universities to take their place thereafter among China's high echelon of administrators and business entrepreneurs.  Years ago, however, a leader was propped up in these foreign countries who had very little education and little experience in what he was being called on to do!  (As I attempted to clarify in the Q/A, those who pursue regime-changing have learned a lot from the past tries and embarrassments.) 

Thanks to the Cato Institute for a needed discussion of this issue.


 

Nobody knows best than our USA political Administration!

We citizens are living through the caronavirus scare.  We are looking from evaluation on how bad it is for us to endure, but we are told that we must take the word of the Administration, in particular, Vice President Pence; and that there should be no communication with the experts, even those on the committee to advise Pence.  Pence will tell us about the situation as it pertains to the US and not them, though we are told that they, not the US President nor his Vice President, is a recognized expert in the medical field. 

All this is a warning of what it means when politicians hog what will be told to the people over the airwaves to include their--the politicians'--own desires to control all forms of  mass media!

Shocking: The US President is viewed as a Putin sympathizer; and the Military isn't instructed to remove him!

The leader of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi said right to the President's face at a meeting aired on TV not long ago that he, President Trump, is a Putin sympathizer, defending his (Putin's) positions and denying Russian interference in the 2016 election process; and yet, nobody asks the Military to remove him from office, pending determination of his loyalty to the US.  After all, the US has just spent years of the Cold War, during which Russia had been viewed as a world aggressor yet now, today, the USA President is ignoring Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 and 2020 elections and seemingly decries the US intelligence's community reports of fact that contradict his opinion.

And seemingly, the whole Republican Party stands by his declaration of loyalty, despite his going along with Russia's support of the Venezuelan President that impoverishes and starves the people of that country and sends millions of its citizens in flight--when Russia is transgressing on the Monroe Doctrine that a US President enunciated over a century ago and that President Kennedy may have been defending during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Giving credence to President Trump's dictum, "Times--they are a-changin'!" 

   

BBC reports: Good news--Malaysia has started retraining Muslim radicals successfully

Ending the violent outbursts and hatreds against members of their society.  I wonder if the Chinese are aware of the Malaysian attempts to change extremest behaviors to crumble the power structure of their nations.  That de-radicalization is possible is an acknowledgement that the Christian message of rehabilitation works.

To my mind, the Saudis have instigated a large measure of the violence in the Middle-East against Muslims who don't subscribe to Sunnai religious principles.  Particularly, in contiguous Yemen.     Nevertheless, Muslims must live together regardless of sect differences in beliefs.

Maybe, Indonesia, rather than Saudi Arabia, could lead as the paradigm of  a Muslim life of virtue and morality.

Brookings Institution: Book Review of "Fateful Triangle: How China Shaped US-Indian Relations" by Madan

The session was held at the Brookings, February 12, 2020: Introduction: Suzanne Maloney, Intrim Vice President, Brookings; Remarks by the author: Tanvi Madem, Brookings; Panelists: Thomas Wright, Brookings, and Kurt Campbell, The Asia Group.

The book traces how US-India relations have proceeded, recognizing that China has had friendly relations with both in trade and in military partnerships through the years since India's independence from Britain.  Both India and China trade a lot together, reaching nearly 50 billion dollars in 2013-14.  India buys military weaponry mostly from Russia, but understands that nuclear proliferation worldwide is not good for the planet.  Its official position is one of nonalignment with any political bloc, maintaining a certain autonomy, free to pursue its own national interests.

Now China has just recently had to adjust its trade with the United States because of Trump's tariffs imposed on Chinese manufactured goods, etc. But up to recently, China was benefiting from its trade agreements with the US--Trump thought by implementing some illegal practices that were not censured significantly through the WTO court system. His administration has been encouraging US companies interested in manufacturing abroad to consider India as a place to invest their overseas specialized equipment and factories.

The point is that the US may regard India in terms of the experiences that China has had with India.  Using the prism of China's perception, India may come to regard the US as an unreliable partner in the long run.

That is to say, what I think India may gain from China's recent turnabout in trade is how unreliable the US is in trade and commerce, particularly with Donald Trump as its President and chief negotiator.

In any case, commenting on India's current stance of nonalignment, Mr. Campbell pointed out that India has successfully maintained a posture of meeting its own needs by taking advantage both of what the West and the Russian communists have to offer in goods and services to India and other nonaligned nations in that region.