Friday, November 29, 2024

Emergency Summit Regarding Antarctic Meltdown

November 29, 2024
Facebook

Image by Annie Spratt.

“Runaway ice loss causing rapid and catastrophic sea level rise is possible within our lifetimes.” (Source: Our Science, Your Future: Next Generation of Antarctic Scientists Call for Collaborative Action, Australian Antarctic Research Conference, November 22, 2024)

Hundreds of scientists gathered in Australia for an “emergency summit” within the auspices of the inaugural Australian Antarctic Research Conference d/d November 2024. This gathering of 450 mostly “early-career” polar scientists flexed scientific muscles to alert the world to the what’s happening to our planet, taking off the gloves and coming out swinging. They claim we’re got a bigger problem than generally realized: “Efforts to slow down climate change through coordinated global action are paramount to protect the future of Australia, Antarctica, and our planet,” Ibid.

“The experts’ conclusion, published as a press statement, is a somber one: if we don’t act, and quickly, the melting of Antarctica ice could cause catastrophic sea levels rise around the globe.” (Source: Emergency Meeting Reveals the Alarming Extent of Antarctica’s Ice Loss, Earth.com, Nov. 24, 2024)

According to the polar scientists: “The services of the Southern Ocean and Antarctica — oceanic carbon sink and planetary air-conditioner — have been taken for granted. Global warming-induced shifts observed in the region are immense. Recent research has shown record-low sea ice, extreme heatwaves exceeding 40°C (72°F) above average temperatures, and increased instability around key ice shelves. Shifting ecosystems on land and at sea underscore this sensitive region’s rapid and unprecedented transformations. Runaway ice loss causing rapid and catastrophic sea-level rise is possible within our lifetimes. Whether such irreversible tipping points have already passed is unknown.” (Our Science, Your Future)

The scientists are calling for society to set immediate targets to “bend the carbon curve.” Failure to do so will commit generations to unpredictable, unstoppable sea level rise, likely beyond current expectations. Drastic action is necessary before it’s too late, calling for immediate reduction of emissions, CO2.

Coastline Megacities at Risk

However, reducing emissions is likely impossible unless and until major governmental authorities force the issue. Voluntary commitments to cut GHG (greenhouse gases) have not worked for over 30 years. Pledges by more than 150 nations to voluntarily cut emissions at the celebrated Paris 2015 UN climate meeting have flopped like a house of cards.

Meanwhile, residents of vulnerable coastal cities may need to consider forcing the issue by forming Citizen Action Flood Prevention Committees to pressure local, state, and federal officials to take immediate measures to protect valuable real estate that’s subject to turning worthless. These committees could be supported by petitions signed by residents, demanding political action to take mitigation measures to protect their coastlines. For example, would nearly 100% of the residents of Miami Beach sign, maybe. And, how about residents of Jersey City? Maybe yes. And onward….

According to Earth.org, coastal megacities are at serious risk, e.g., Bangkok, Amsterdam, Ho Chi Minh City, Cardiff (UK), New Orleans, Manila, London, Shenzhen, Hamburg, and Dubai as well as megacities Miami and New York City. Many Florida and East Coast cities are high risk, e.g., Ft. Lauderdale, Norfolk, Hampton, Charleston, Cambridge, Jersey City, Chesapeake, Boston, Tampa, Palm Beach. It’s a long list.

Unless and until citizen committees authorized by locals with demands en masse are presented to and accepted by local, state, and national policymakers and acted upon, according to a highly regarded analysis by The Universal Ecological Fund, working with climate scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, The Truth Behind the Climate Pledges: “An environmental and economic disaster from human-induced climate change is on the horizon. An analysis of current commitments to reduce emissions between 2020 and 2030 shows that almost 75 percent of the climate pledges are partially or totally insufficient to contribute to reducing GHG emissions by 50 percent by 2030, and some of these pledges are unlikely to be achieved.”

Moreover, the situation at hand is double trouble as the oil and gas industry has already committed to rapid expansion of fossil fuels at the same time as major corporations are turning up their noses at prior commitments. Climate change has lost its cachet at the worst possible moment: “In February 2024, three major investment companies stepped back from efforts to limit climate-damaging emissions. JPMorgan Chase’s and State Street’s investment arms have both quit a global investor alliance encouraging companies to avoid emissions, and BlackRock has largely limited its involvement. These companies aren’t the only ones backing out on climate agreements. In 2023, Amazon dropped an effort to zero out emissions of half its shipments by 2030, BP scaled back on its plan to reduce emissions by 35 percent by the end of 2030 and Shell Oil dropped an initiative to build a pipeline of carbon credits and other carbon-absorbing projects. Hundreds of companies across the world are backtracking on commitments toward green policies, despite growing concerns that the planet is reaching a crisis point.” (Source: Why Are Companies Reneging On Emissions Reduction? Earth Talk, April 11, 2024)

Recent headlines tell the story: Top Companies Exaggerating Their progress (BBC) When Companies Reverse Their Climate Commitments (Yale Insights) Net Zero Promises from Major Corporations Fall Short (NBC News) Oil Companies Are Still Committed to Burn the Planet Down (Jacobin). A comprehensive list of reneging corporate interests is astonishing.

Making matters more challenging yet, the polar scientists are severely compromised by politics, to wit: “Far-right parties opposing climate action are gaining significant momentum worldwide, especially in Western nations including Argentina, Italy, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. It is particularly noteworthy that despite their differing domestic agendas, these parties are unified in their resistance to climate initiatives.” (Source: The Betrayal: Why the Far Right Abandoned Action on Climate Change, Oxford Political Review, 18 June 2024)

“The contemporary far-right’s turn against the environment is a major break from the past. During the 1980s, traditional conservatives, like Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, showed an interest in addressing environmental issues,” Ibid.

The World at a Crossroads

Which will it be? The choice is crystal clear. There are two and only two: (1) Fight dangerous climate change by stopping fossil fuel CO2 emissions now, or (2) Bale-out flooded megacities down the road?

Based upon data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 6^th Assessment and multiple lines of evidence, current and future emissions will determine the amount of additional sea level rise: the greater the emissions, the greater the warming, and the greater the likelihood of higher sea levels. Based upon emissions to date, two feet of sea level rise will likely occur along the U.S. coastline between 2020 and 2100. That’s already baked into the cake. Failing to curb future emissions could add an additional 1.5 to 5 feet of rise, for a total of 3.5 to 7 feet. (Source: U.S. Sea Level Change, USGS Technical Report, 2022)

The USGS 2022 Technical Report, as outlined in the preceding paragraph, is now choking on the dust of two-years of the hottest 24 months on record, smashing all records with 2023 +1.48C hotter and January-September 2024 +1.54C above the pre-industrial average. A USGS technical update today would almost certainly add to sea level rise projections. Thus, prompting an obvious concern: Is global warming already getting out of hand?

Which way will society turn: (1) stop fossil fuel emissions now, or (2) bale-out flooded megacities later? And would that even be possible?

450 polar scientists are not scaremongers. They’re professionals that are deadly serious. We’ve got a much bigger problem than generally realized.

Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at rlhunziker@gmail.com.

Biden Declares Another ‘National Emergency’ Because of the Threat Posed by Tiny Nicaragua

In the dying days of his administration, President Biden must have needed a reminder by his officials on November 22. He had to decide whether Nicaragua still poses an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States”. Presumably he agreed that it does, because he renewed its status as a “national security threat” for a further year, repeating the designation that first began under the last Trump presidency.

As figures from the Latin America Security and Defense Network show, this “threat” comes from a state which spends less of its national income on defense than almost any other country in the hemisphere. It even spends slightly less than neighboring Costa Rica, which has no army. Its total national income (GDP) is the equivalent of a small US city. Its seven million people have the second lowest income per capita in the region.

Source: RESDAL, 2024 Atlas Comparativo de la Defensa en América Latina y el Caribe

What “unusual and extraordinary threat” does Nicaragua pose to a country with 50 times its population and the world’s biggest military budget, whose southern border is in any case nearly 2,000 miles away? According to the White House press release, the first threat is the Nicaraguan government’s “violent response” to a coup attempt that took place over six years ago and was, it omits to mention, instigated by the US. This attempted justification turns the story of what happened on its head. The uprising that shook Nicaragua lasted roughly three months, resulted officially in 251 deaths (including 22 police officers; others put the total deaths as higher) and over 2,000 injured. It allegedly “caused $1 billion in economic damages,” and led to an economic collapse. (After years of continuous growth, GDP fell by 3.4% in 2018). What other government would not have responded to such a damaging attack on its country?

In Washington’s view, further “threats” arise because Nicaragua’s government is “undermining democracy”, using “indiscriminate violence” against its citizens and destabilizing its economy through “corruption”. Quite apart from the fact that these are gross distortions of reality in Nicaragua and are in any case blatantly hypocritical, nothing in the press release shows how – even if true – these conditions could present any threat to the US, let alone an “unusual and extraordinary” one.

Or could it be something else? Recently, in response to Nicaragua’s support for Palestinian liberation, the Israeli regime has made allegations that “radical Iranian forces and terror groups operate freely” in the country, again with no evidence, presumably hoping to encourage Washington to add Nicaragua to the list of “state sponsors of terrorism”. However, this is not mentioned in the White House press release.

Nevertheless, perhaps Nicaragua’s “threat” to the US comes from its international relations? General Laura Richardson, until recently the head of the US Southern Command, put the blame for Russia’s “malign activities” in the region on its links with Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela. Nicaragua’s growing relationship with China is also seen as a problematic, with Taiwan warning that China’s planned deep-water port for Bluefields in Nicaragua will be its “naval outpost” in Central America. However, Nicaragua is hardly alone in developing close links with major powers seen by Washington as key adversaries. Peru’s Chinese-built port is also viewed as a threat by General Richardson. Many other countries in the region, including Brazil, now have close ties with China and, to a lesser extent, Russia. In part, the drive behind these links is a desire to be less dependent on the US and insure against its economic sanctions.

Of course, if any country is showing threatening behavior here, it is the US itself. Its sponsoring of the 2018 coup attempt involved the US embassy in Managua and funding from bodies like USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, which (as they boasted at the time) trained 8,000 young Nicaraguans to take part in the coup. Washington has been trying to undermine Nicaragua’s Sandinista government since the moment it returned to power in 2007. It has repeatedly refused to acknowledge the outcomes of democratic elections, scores of Nicaraguan officials have been sanctioned, development loans via bodies like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have been blocked for the last six years, Nicaragua’s government has been falsely accused of “preying on migrants”, and its people have been encouraged to migrate to the US. The State Department advises tourists not to visit a country which, according to an international Gallup poll, is “the most peaceful place on earth”.

Nicaragua has suffered 17 years of continuous bullying by its near neighbor but this, of course, is only a short episode in a history of US intervention that began in 1854 when US warships were sent to threaten Nicaragua’s Caribbean coast. Later it included two decades of the country’s occupation by US Marines, Washington’s support for the Somoza dictatorship for four more decades and then, under the Reagan administration, its sponsoring of the “Contra” war which cost 30,000 Nicaraguan lives in the 1980s. Reparations ordered by the World Court for the economic damage caused by that war were, of course, never paid.

So, not only is Washington the guilty party in terms of threatening behavior, but Biden’s declaration and his administration’s policies towards Nicaragua augment this by labelling Nicaragua as a pariah state, which holds “pantomime” elections and where its people flee “communism” and “political persecution”. This labelling is, of course, then repeated by corporate media.

In 2025, Nicaragua can expect new threats from Washington. Marco Rubio is penciled in as the Trump administration’s Secretary of State, acting as Trump’s “sharpshooter” against governments such as those in Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela. One target is likely to be the remittances sent by migrants in the US. As in neighboring Central American countries, they account for a quarter of Nicaragua’s national income, and could soon fall both because Trump plans to tax them and because he promises to deport large tranches of those migrants, who will return, jobless, to their home countries.

John Perry is based in Masaya, Nicaragua and writes for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, London Review of Books, FAIR, Covert Action magazine and elsewhere.

Whathttp://

Senator Ossoff Reminds Us of One of President Reagan’s Best Foreign Policy Decisions

Reprinted from David Henderson’s substack, I Blog To Differ.

On November 20, 2024, Senator Jon Ossoff, one of the two Democratic U.S. senators from Georgia, spoke in the Senate to remind us of President Reagan’s call to Menachem Begin in 1982. In both cases, the Israeli government was taking aggressive measures against innocent people in Lebanon.

Here’s the link to Ossoff’s speech and here’s the transcript of his speech. (Thanks to Eric Garris, managing editor of Antiwar.com, for painstakingly transcribing the speech from the Congressional Record.)

Senator Ossoff:

Mr. President, in 1982, as Israeli forces pursued the PLO deep into Lebanon, President Reagan was angered by what he viewed as excessive civilian casualties resulting from the Israeli bombardment of Beirut.

Concerned by the suffering of innocent civilians and its impact on American diplomacy, not only did President Reagan personally call Israeli Prime Minister Begin and demand a halt to the bombing – and the bombing reportedly stopped within hours – but the American President then blocked the provision of cluster munitions to Israel out of concern that their use by the IDF was killing too many innocent people.

President Reagan imposed conditions on the provision of U.S. arms, using leverage to influence the conduct of an ally. He took those steps to protect innocent life and to defend what he perceived to be America’s interests. And Israel, faced by President Reagan’s ultimatum, adjusted its policy to accommodate America’s demands.

The United States remained Israel’s closest ally, and the world kept turning.

This story is not a perfect mirror image for the agonizing situation we face today and have faced since the despicable Hamas attacks of October 7. Today, Israel faces a multifront assault by Iran and its proxies while the war in Gaza has devastated the territory’s civilian population.

But I tell this story, Mr. President, to remind my colleagues that in the pursuit of America’s national interests, to use the leverage that comes with the provision of arms, as President Reagan did in 1982, is not just sometimes necessary; it is expected and appropriate. The United States is and will remain Israel’s closest ally. Our commitment to Israel’s security is ironclad.

But no foreign government is simply entitled as a matter of right to American weapons with no strings attached. No foreign government, no matter how close an ally, gets everything it wants whenever it wants, to use however it wants. It is entirely appropriate for the United States to insist that foreign powers use American weapons consistent with our interests, our values, and our laws.

And to insist otherwise weakens American foreign policy and undermines our ability to protect the interests of the American people. And to impose conditions on the provision of certain weapons to an ally when necessary is not a betrayal of that alliance. It is the pursuit of our national interest. Again, President Reagan understood that in 1982.

So let’s apply the principle to the present moment. In November of last year, I addressed the Senate on the war in Gaza in the aftermath of the October 7 attack, affirming Israel’s right to defend itself, to wage war against and defeat its enemies. And I affirmed, as I do again today, America’s enduring support for our ally.

I also urged that Israel respect American requests to reduce unnecessary civilian casualties in Gaza, to provide safe passage for food and essential medical supplies, to clearly define Israeli objectives, to present a credible plan for Gaza’s future governance, and to prevent atrocities by Israeli extremists in the West Bank.

These requests of the Israeli political leadership have been made not just by me and many others in the Senate but repeatedly by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the President over the past year.

That Israel take these reasonable and necessary steps has been and remains in America’s national interests. No one in this body or the American government has suggested that Israel lay down its arms and be overrun or that Israel does not have a right and, indeed, an obligation to defeat its enemies and defend its people. Rather, the United States has insisted that Israel’s conduct of the war respect our interests and our values – the interests and values of Israel’s closest ally.

And yet, for the most part, this insistence has been ignored. The United States has been ignored, in part, because the Israeli Prime Minister is beholden to cabinet ministers, in [Finance Minister] Mr. Smotrich and [Minister of National Security] Ben-Gvir, who insist there be no deviation from policies that are gratuitously brutal, even over American objections. We should be disgusted by the spectacle of Israeli extremists running amuck in the West Bank, sometimes with the protection of Israeli security forces, shooting and maiming goat herders and olive farmers and burning and seizing their land.

And the American people are rightly horrified by the lack of sufficient concern for innocent Palestinian life that has left so many children unnecessarily dead in Gaza, without limbs, or riddled with shrapnel.

As I said on the floor last year, no one should be naive to the inherent risk to civilians that comes with warfare in a place like Gaza against an enemy like Hamas. Tragically, horribly, fighting terrorists in a dense urban environment makes civilian casualties inevitable. And yet the evidence that force has repeatedly been applied with reckless disregard for the innocent is too credible for us to ignore. We are talking about precious, innocent children and other innocent civilians who might otherwise be alive or without grievous wounds today.

And, Mr. President, these things aren’t just horrific; they are inconsistent with America’s national security interests. Yet we seem to have forgotten that we have the power to influence our ally’s conduct and that we can do so without betraying our ally. It is often said that our efforts to influence close allies are best done in private and, where possible, done gently, and I agree. But in this case, that has not been sufficient nor have heartfelt public statements and harshly worded letters been effective.

So what would President Reagan do? Judging by his actions 40 years ago, I think he would judiciously use the power that comes with our provision of weapons in order to shape Israel’s conduct.

Some have taken to the floor tonight to argue that holding up two or three arms sales today would have been an abandonment of our ally, leaving Israel naked and undefended in the face of Iranian aggression. And that’s nonsense.

The question on the floor today was not whether to shut off military support for Israel. The resolutions we debated accounted for less than 5 percent of American arms that will likely flow to Israel over the next 3 years, and most of the shipments debated will not even arrive until 2026 or 2027. Bipartisan American support for Israel’s nonnegotiable right to exist and to defend itself is rock solid.

Had these resolutions passed, however, perhaps Israeli politicians would have received the necessary message that has so far been disregarded, which is, yes, defend yourself, yes, defeat your enemies, but have mercy for the innocent, restrain your own extremists, and respect the interests of the United States.

The realization that every shipment is not simply available on an unlimited basis with no strings attached might have resulted in changes to Israeli policy that would reduce civilian suffering and support America’s regional and global interests, as he believed it would when President Reagan used American power in 1982.

I remain steadfastly committed to the U.S.-Israel alliance. And I also believe we must be willing to say no, even to our closest friends, when we believe it is in America’s national interest.

When Eric told me about the speech, I told him that I had read this story in Revolution, Martin Anderson’s book about Ronald Reagan’s time in the White House. I painstakingly copied the relevant paragraphs from Marty’s book. I should add something I had not noted when I read the book earlier: Marty’s telling of the story is all from Michael Deaver’s co-authored 1988 book, Behind the Scenes. Deaver, as you’ll see, is one of the two key players in the drama. Marty clearly took Deaver’s word for it, as I am doing here.

Here’s the excerpt from Revolution:

One morning in 1982 Michael Deaver, the deputy chief of staff, opened the door that led from his office into the Oval Office and walked in on President Reagan unannounced. Deaver was very troubled. The war in Lebanon was escalating. In June 1982 the Israelis moved across the border to attack the PLO. Soon their tanks and ships and planes were shelling and bombing the PLO strongholds in Beirut. Many people were being killed and wounded, and the casualties upset Deaver.

“Mr. President, I have to leave.”

The president was startled.

“What do you mean?”

“I can’t be part of this anymore,” replied Deaver, “the bombings, the killing of children. It’s wrong. And you’re the one person on the face of the earth right now who can stop it. All you have to do is tell Begin you want it stopped.”

Reagan started at Deaver with a look, as Deaver later described it, of “My God, what have we done?” and then asked his secretary to get Menachem Begin, the prime minister of Israel, on the phone.

George Shultz then joined Deaver and the president, and endorsed the idea of Reagan intervening with Israel. When the call to Israel came through, Reagan told Begin bluntly that the shelling and bombing of Beirut had to stop. Reagan’s last words were, “It has gone too far. You must stop it.”

In twenty minutes [DRH note: Ossoff had said within hours; he was right] Begin called back and said it was done. The shelling and bombing was stopped. Reagan was somewhat incredulous and said, “I didn’t know I had that kind of power.”

Notice something interesting. Reagan told Begin to stop. Ossoff is asking the Senate to hold up some arms sales. In a sense, Ossoff’s “ask” is more modest than Reagan’s “tell.”

Ultimate Irony Comes as Taliban Asks Russia’s Help To Evade US Sanctions, Closing 50-year Loop of Violence

It was said at the time that Operation Cyclone was the most successful covert operation in CIA history. It involved sending over $2 billion in weapons to Muslim rebels in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan between 1982 and 1987.

Today, as the Taliban gradually rebuilds the nation according to Islamic law, they have asked Russia to help their government circumvent the imposition of Western sanctions on their economy.

Russian Security Council Secretary Sergei Shoigu headed a Russian delegation that held talks with senior officials in Kabul this week, including deputy prime ministers and the defense and interior ministers of the new administration. Among his finer points was that Russia hoped to establish broader political ties and dialogue between the two nations.

“We have tried to ensure conditions for a growth in exports of Afghan goods and a growth in foreign investment,” Abdul Ghani Baradar, the nation’s finance minister, was supposed to have said at the meeting, bringing up the issue of sanctions. Shoigu said the US should return frozen funds that had been held by the previous regime, and help rebuild the country.

This fledgling collaboration presents as the richest ironies. The US had spent billions arming freedom fighters to fight the Russians out of Afghanistan, only to watch, and groom, as those freedom fighters became international terrorists in Bosnia and Chechnia, and eventually destroyed the World Trade Center on September 11th, prompting the persecution of an unrelated group of Muslims (the Taliban) and an invasion of Afghanistan in the name of remaking the country—this time into a Western democracy rather than a Soviet socialist republic.

That war dragged on for 2 decades, cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, and ended with a disorganized retreat in the face of the very power Washington had invaded to topple. Three years later, that power is now collaborating with Moscow, the very entity the US had sought to roust from the country’s borders when Washington first became involved in Afghanistan’s affairs.

How times change

Just as in 1982, there are many reasons why Putin’s administration would want to make friends out of a regime in Kabul. Russian regimes going back to the Tzars of the 19th century have sought control of Afghanistan for geostrategic regions. Though landlocked, the country borders many nations which present security concerns for Russia.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said last month a decision had been taken to remove the Taliban from its list of terrorist organizations, but legal procedures would extend beyond that announcement for some months.

Shoigu pointed to cooperation in extracting minerals as a prime example of proposed economic cooperation. WaL reported in September that the Taliban was gradually regaining control of international diplomatic missions and embassies that had previously been staffed by the US-backed Ghani regime.

WaL also reported that the Taliban have been extremely liberal in international trade and market liberalization. It’s believed that $1 trillion in mining revenue and mineral rights have already been auctioned off to investors from Iran, Turkey, and China, the latter of which also pledged to include Afghanistan in its Belt and Road infrastructure initiative.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksei Overchuk, who accompanied Shoigu to Kabul, told Taliban officials that Russia wanted to participate in a project to create a trans-Afghan railway as another economic boon to the country.

Shoigu hastened to add that the US should be the one rebuilding the country.

“Again we have the theme of the United States, which robs everyone around them,” he was quoted as saying, according to Reuters. “We’re talking here about returning assets, funds which belong to Afghans and which, so it appears, they are not about to return, as in many other countries, like Libya and Syria. In my view, the United States should be the main entity to invest in the rebuilding of Afghanistan”.

Andrew Corbley is founder and editor of World at Large (WaL), an independent news outlet. He is a loyal listener of Antiwar radio and of the Scott Horton Show. Reprinted with permission from World at Large.

Dilemmas

by Michael Brenner / November 26th, 2024

We are experiencing times of global transition. Where we have been is self-evident. Where the world is headed remains obscure. Some states are implacably resisting that transition; others strive to foster a modified international system that conforms to emerging realities. The actions of governments in the two categories are reinforcing each other’s commitments to pursuing these incompatible tacks. There’s the rub.

This is the context for the major crises over Ukraine, in the Middle East, and over Taiwan. Ongoing war in the first two carries the potential for escalation with dire, far-reaching consequences. Each is at once symptomatic of the systemic changes occurring in world affairs and the cause for a raising of the stakes in how that transition is handled or mishandled.

Dilemma 1 USA

There is a lot of talk about how Donald Trump will move quickly to resolve the Ukraine conflict. Maybe not within the advertised 24 hours – but supposedly he sees the pointlessness of an open-ended war with Russia. So, he is expected to get in touch with Putin, personally and/or via a designated envoy, to make a deal. We have heard hints of what the ingredients could be: a ceasefire, the lure of reduced sanctions, some recognition of a special Russian association with the four oblasts Moscow has annexed, Crimea ceded, the remainder of Ukraine autonomous with links to the EU if not NATO. The sequencing, the specifics, ancillary trade-offs are cloudy. To the minds of the more optimistic commentators, an eventual agreement is likely since Trump wants to be unburdened of the Ukraine albatross, since he is not a fan of NATO expansion or NATO itself, since he wants to concentrate on dismantling the federal government while pressing ahead with the rest of the MAGA agenda. Relations with Russia, as with every other foreign power, will be treated in terms of bilateral dealing wherein the U.S, focuses on the trade-offs, i.e. how much it gains as opposed to how much it gives.

It is by no means clear that this approach could achieve the stated goal of ending the war in Ukraine and easing the tense confrontation with Russia. For the Kremlin has set stipulations for a peaceful resolution that could only be met by a broader accord than is visualized in the horse trading anticipated by the Trump entourage and like-minded think tankers. Russia will not stop the fighting until a firm agreement has been reached. That is one. It will not accept any ambiguity as to the future status of the Russophile territories in question. That’s two. It will not tolerate leaving in place a Kiev government controlled by the rabid anti-Russian nationalists who have run it since 2014. That’s three. It will demand a treaty that formally neutralizes Ukraine on the model of post-war Austria. That’s four. It will press hard for the constitution of a pan-European security architecture which accords Russia a legitimate place. That’s five.¹

The implication is that the prospects are dim for a quick, short-term deal that leaves these sensitive issues indeterminate and open to the vagaries of politics in Washington and European capitals. It appears unrealistic that Trump will have the discretionary power, the political will or the strategic vision to design and to implement a multifaceted plan as required to weave together the varied strands of the European security fabric. It is one thing to intimidate the Europeans into taking on a fuller responsibility for their own security by threatening to leave them to their own devices. It is something far more demanding to recast the American relationship with its European allies, with Russia, with other interested, neighboring parties. For meeting that wider challenge has as its precondition a comprehensive redrawing by the United States of the imprinted mental map of the world system. For it is being transformed in basic ways which are at variance with the deep-seated American presumptions of dominance, control and privilege.

Trump is not the man to man to replace the prevailing strategic vision and America’s paramount position in the world with something more refined and in correspondence to the emerging multi-nodule system. Although instinctively he is more of an America firster than a hegemonic imperialist, his actions will be piecemeal and disjointed rather than pieces of an artful new pattern. Even in regard to specific matters like Ukraine or Taiwan it is impossible simply to snap one’s fingers and on impulse shift course. A carefully thought through design and the crafting of a subtle diplomacy is the prerequisite. Donald Trump, incontrovertibly, has no plan, no strategy, no design for any area of public policy. He is incapable of doing so; for he lacks the necessary mental concentration and organized knowledge. The same holds for dealing with China.

[The focal shift from Russia in Europe to China in Asia is less a mechanism for coping with defeat in Ukraine than the pathological reaction of a country that, feeling a gnawing sense of diminishing prowess, can manage to do nothing more than try one final throw of the dice in a vain attempt at proving to itself that it still has the right stuff – since living without that exalted sense of self is intolerable.]

Were Trump to take a series of purely tactical actions that have the net effect of lowering American presence globally, he would be running against the grain of fundamental national beliefs. Belief in the country’s birth under a Providential star to lead the world along the path of enlightenment, belief in American exceptionalism, belief in American superiority (the last jeopardized by signs of losing a battle with a superior armed Russia, by signs of losing an economic battle with a technologically superior China). Moreover, many Americans’ faith in these national myths is bound closely to their own individual sense of self-esteem that already is felt to be under threat in this age of anxiety. Trump is hardly the one to guide them to a mature appreciation of what America is and who they are.²

Dilemma 2 Russia & China

These two great powers, who are the principal obstacles to the United States’ retention of its dominant global position, face a quite different dilemma. Put simply, it is how to deal with an America that remains blind in vision and impervious in policy to the epochal changes reshaping the configuration of the world system. To the extent that Washington does feel the vibrations from this tectonic shift, political leaders are seen as reacting impulsively to deny its practical consequences in striving to assert an endangered supremacy. That compulsion leads American policymakers to set ever more arduous challenges to prove that nothing fundamental has changed. Hence, the drive to overturn a strategic commitment made half a century ago by pressing by every means for Taiwan’s autonomy. Hence, its strenuous efforts to prevent Russia from assuming a place in European (and Middle Eastern) affairs commensurate with its national interests, its strength and its geography.

[The minimalist aim has been to sever its ties to the Europe of the EU – thereby marginalizing it as a peripheral, inconsequential state. The maximalist aim has been to provoke regime change producing of a weaker, Western-friendly provider of cheap natural resources and open to predatory Western finance. A sharecropper on the West’s global plantation – as one Russian diplomatic bluntly put it. Project Ukraine was to be the spearhead].

From this perspective, Moscow and Beijing face a dilemma of a singular nature. They must devise elaborate strategies to stymie American plans to perpetuate its dominance by undermining the growing political, economic and – derivatively diplomatic – strength of these perceived rivals. Containment both in broadly security terms and in terms of their impressive national achievements – the latter that diminishes the American (Western) claim to representing to representing the one true path to political stability and economic sell-being. Resistance to those plans by the Russians and Chinese has become the overriding strategic imperative in both capitals as manifest in their intensifying collaboration in all spheres. As they see the situation, that momentous move is dictated by the reckless conduct of a fading, flailing superpower still in possession of an enormous strength to disrupt and to destroy.

Still, when it comes to direct confrontations with Washington over Ukraine or Taiwan, they are obliged to temper their actions so as to avoid provoking an unwanted crisis with an America they view as unpredictable and unstable. That concern applies to a Trump presidency as much as it does to the outgoing Biden presidency. Striking the correct balance is a daunting challenge.

The upshot is that Putin and Xi tread carefully in treating with their feckless Western counterparts who disregard the elementary precepts of diplomacy. We are fortunate in the temper of Chinese and Russian leadership. Xi and Putin are rare leaders. They are sober, rational, intelligent, very well informed, capable of broad vision, they do not harbor imperial ambitions, and while dedicated to securing their national interests are not bellicose. Moreover, they have long tenures as heads of state and are secure in power. They have the political capital to invest in projects of magnitude whose prospective payoffs will be well into the future.

Dilemma 3. THE EUROPEANS

European political and foreign policy elites are even less self-aware of their untenable circumstances than the Americans. The latter are as one in their blunt conviction that the United States could and should continue to play the dominant role in world affairs. The former have made no considered judgment of their own other than it is imperative to frame their conceptions and strategies to accord with what their superior partner thinks and does. Therein lies the heart of their dilemma.

For the past 75 years, the Europeans have lived in a state of near total strategic dependence on the United States. That has had profound lasting effects. They extend beyond practical calculations of security needs. Now, more than 30 years after European leaders were relieved from any meaningful military threat, they remain politically and psychologically unable to exercise the prerogatives and responsibility of sovereignty – individually or collectively. They are locked into a classic dominant-subordination relationship with America. So deeply rooted, is has become second nature to political elites.

[The extremity of the prerogatives granted the United States to act in disregard for European autonomy and interests was demonstrated in Washington’s destruction of the Baltic gas pipeline. That extraordinary episode punctuated the unqualified Europeans’ commitment to serve as an America satrap in its all-out campaign to prevent China as well Russia from challenging its hegemony. Securing the obedience of the European economic power bloc undeniability represents a major strategic success for the United States. So does cutting off Russia’s access to capital investment, technology and rich markets to the West. The heaviest costs are being paid, though, by the Europeans. In effect, they have mortgaged their economic future for the sake of participating in the ill-thought through severing all connection with what now is an implacably antagonist Russia whose abundant energy and agricultural resources have been a prime element in their prosperity and political stability.]

Under that unnatural condition, European governments have inflicted serious damage on themselves. Moreover, they have jeopardized their strategic and economic future. By following Washington’s lead in the campaign to neutralize Russia as a presence in continental affairs – dating from 2008, they have cut themselves off from their natural partner in natural resource trade, technological development and investment. They have institutionalized a hostile relationship with a neighbor who is a major world power. They have made themselves the residual custodians of a bankrupt, corrupt Ukrainian rump state which carries heavy financial cost. Furthermore, in the process they have undermined the legitimacy of their democratic institutions in ways that open the door to radical Far Right movements. These deleterious consequences are reinforced by the Europeans signing on to the no-holds-barred American economic cum political war against China. This latter misguided action reverses the EU’s eminently sensible prior policy of deepening economic ties with the world’s rising superpower.

The net effect of this unthinking relegation of European countries to becoming a de facto American vassals is a distancing themselves from the world beyond the trans-Atlantic community. When we add to the tilting scales the alienation of global opinion disgusted by Western enthusiastic support for the Palestinian genocide, we discern an historic retrenchment. The once proud rulers of the globe are circling-the-wagons in a defensive posture against forces they barely understand and have no plan for engaging.

Europe’s feeble response to this formidable challenge is a series of schematic plans that are little more than placebos mislabeled as potent medication. The EU’s proposed answer to its acute energy predicament is a vaguely sketched strategy whose central element is a diversification of suppliers alongside acceleration of green energy projects. Various initiatives in this direction taken over the past two years give reason for skepticism. The main substitute for Russian natural gas has been LNG from the United States; attempts to form preferential arrangements with other suppliers (like Qatar) have come up short. Relying on the U.S. has its drawbacks. American LNG is 3 to 4 times more costly than pipeline Russian gas. Trump’s declaration that limiting exports will dampen inflationary pressures raises doubts about that supposed reliability. Most telling is the disconcerting fact that European countries clandestinely have somewhat eased their energy penury by buying Russian oil and gas on the very large grey market. Indeed, there is statistical data indicating that the EU states, at one point this year, were importing more Russian sourced LNG than American LNG!

In the security realm, there is much talk in Brussels about building a purely European security apparatus – linked to NATO while capable of acting independently of the United States. This is an updated and upgraded revival of an idea from the late 1990s that birthed the now moribund Common Security and Defense Policy. This commotion could be taken as just play-acting given that there is no concrete threat to European security outside the fevered imaginations of a political class inflamed by loud American alarums that Putin is bent on restoring the Soviet Empire and dreams of washing his boots in the English channel – if not the Irish Sea. Moreover, there are the provocative Russian actions in relentlessly moving its border closer to NATO military installations.

The likelihood of the current blue-skying will produce anything substantial is slim. Europe lacks the money in its current stressed financial condition, it lacks the industrial base to equip modern armed forces, and it most certainly lacks the political will. Yes, we hear a lot of bombast issuing from Ursula von der Leyen, Emmanuel Macron, Mark Rutte and their fellow dreamers of a federal European Union. The truth is captured in a saying that we have here in Texas: “All hat and no cattle!”

The glaring omission is any cogent, realistic diplomatic strategy that corresponds to the present configuration of forces in the world. Instead, we see a heightening of anti-Russian rhetoric, solemn pledges to accompany Ukraine on its path to ultimate victory, and joining Washington in ever harsher measures against China cast as an economic predator and security threat.

ENDNOTES:

1
President Trump’s policies toward Russia were no different in nature than Bush/Obama/Biden’s: sanctions, arming Ukraine. The seeming difference in attitude toward Putin the man derives from Trump’s abiding faith in and relishing of deal-making. To do so with somebody as formidable as Putin serves his voracious narcissistic ego.
2
There is one trait in Trump’s malign make-up that offers some small consolation. He is a coward – a blustering bully who evades any direct encounter with an opponent who will stand up to him (even running away from a second debate with Kamala Harris who roughed him up in the first one). Trump has neither the stomach nor the mental strength for a serious brawl/war. Small blessing!FacebookTwitterReddit Email

Michael Brenner is Professor Emeritus of International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh and a Fellow of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at SAIS/Johns Hopkins. He was the Director of the International Relations & Global Studies Program at the University of Texas. Brenner is the author of numerous books, and over 80 articles and published papers. His most recent works are: Democracy Promotion and Islam; Fear and Dread In The Middle East; Toward A More Independent Europe ; Narcissistic Public Personalities & Our Times. Read other articles by Michael.

The Bonhoeffer Movie and Immigrant Rights

by Ted Glick / November 27th, 2024

The church is the church only when it exists for others. To make a start, it should give away all its property to those in need. The church must share in the secular problems of ordinary human life, not dominating, but helping and serving. It must tell people of every calling what it means to live in Christ, to exist for others. It will have to take the field against the vices of hubris, power-worship, envy, and humbug, as the roots of all evil. It must not underestimate the importance of human example (which has its origin in the humanity of Jesus); it is not abstract argument, but example, that gives the word emphasis and power.
– Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Letters and Papers from Prison, Macmillan Publishing, p. 381.

In this relative lull before the second Trump Presidency begins, an important movie, Bonhoeffer, has just been released. It is the story of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a leading Lutheran minister in Germany in the 30’s and 40’s who was killed by the Nazis two weeks before the war’s end. He was part of an underground resistance movement from 1935 on, including unsuccessful organized efforts to assassinate Hitler, which is why he was eventually arrested in 1943.

This is a movie that should be seen by as many US Americans as possible. Those who have done so since it was released five days ago have liked it, garnering a 4.5 out of 5 rating by those who saw it according to a Google survey. That is good news.

I’ve known about Bonhoeffer for a long time. When I was in prison for 11 months during the Vietnam War for my draft resistance activism, the most important book which I had inside was his Letters and Papers from Prison. His life example helped a great deal in making my prison time, as difficult as it was on a daily basis, into something of real value, an important learning and deepening experience.

The movie is very sobering. As it portrayed the steadily mounting, brutal realities of Naziism in Germany in the 30’s and 40’s I increasingly found myself thinking that it is hard to see how anything close to what happened there could happen here, now, in the USA. I thought of how, prior to the Nazis winning power electorally in 1933, the political Left in Germany was seriously divided, with the Communists attacking the Socialists, portraying them as more of an enemy than the Nazis, so that when the Nazis won it was much easier for them to proceed with their anti-Semitic, anti-communist and regressive, violent program. There was no unified Left opposition; just the opposite.

That is not our situation right now in the USA. The overall progressive movement was overwhelmingly on board with the organized efforts to defeat Trump and MAGA. We understood that the only way that could happen as far as the Presidency was through the Democrat, Kamala Harris, getting more electoral votes than Trump. In many different ways, primarily on a grassroots level via door knocking and phone calling and postcard sending, we played an important role. That work was unquestionably a major reason why both the Senate and House are closely divided, which will make it hard, even under Republican control, for Trump/MAGA to do all the damage that they would be doing otherwise.

The Green Party and Cornell West, on the other hand, two Presidential candidates who campaigned knowing that their efforts could help to get Trump elected, together received no more than about 0.6% of the Presidential vote.

But as I’ve continued to think about the movie, I’ve come to realize that there is a key lesson that we need to learn from what happened in Germany in the 1930’s. That lesson is the absolute importance of the progressive movement as a whole prioritizing, when Trump takes office, more than any other issue, resistance to mass deportation of overwhelmingly people of color immigrants.

The Bonhoeffer movie shows how the first, major, mass repressive campaign by the Nazis was against Jewish people. One scene portrays Bonhoeffer watching as people wearing “Jewish badges,” the star of David, were forcibly put into trucks going, we now know, to the concentration camps which later became genocidal, murderous death camps for millions of Jews, as well for socialists, trade unionists, gay men, disabled people, Blacks, Poles and others.

What was the biggest issue of the Trump campaign? Immigration. Repeatedly he spoke in racist and violent ways about immigrants, using words like “vermin” and “criminals” to describe these struggling human beings trying to find a better life for themselves and their families. Much of the immigrant surge in recent years is because of the more frequent and destructive droughts, storms and floods happening because of the disruption of the world’s climate due to the continued burning of coal, oil and gas. Emigration is also happening because of the reality of repressive governments south of the border supported by successive US governments for decades on behalf of corporate interests.

If the MAGA’s are able to carry out their outrageous plans at the scale they are clearly hoping to, who will be next? Will the concentration camps set up for immigrants then become filled with others of us who refuse to kiss Trump’s ring?

Are there reasons to think we can mount a successful resistance to this planned mass deportation assault? Yes, there are. The Congressional reality is one of them. The continuing unified strength of the progressive movement is another huge one. The courts are still a place where some victories can be won. One helpful analysis articulating more specifics can be found in this article recently published by long-time revolutionary Carl Davidson.

As Bonhoeffer wrote, “we must not underestimate the importance of human example; it is not abstract argument, but example, that gives the word emphasis and power.” Like Bonhoeffer and so many others down through history, we must continue and step up our game to meet the new reality.FacebookTwitterReddit Email

Ted Glick works with Beyond Extreme Energy and is president of 350NJ-Rockland. Pa writings and other information, including about Burglar for Peace and 21st Century Revolution, two books published by him in 2020 and 2021, can be found at https://tedglick.com. He can be followed on Twitter at twitter.com/jtglick. Read other articles by Ted.

Arrest Warrants from The Hague

The ICC, Netanyahu and Gallant

by Binoy Kampmark / November 26th, 2024

The slow, often grinding machinery of international law has just received a push along with the issuing of three arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court. They are for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s former defence minister, Yoav Gallant, and, rather incongruously, Hamas figure Mohammed Deif. The last issue is somewhat odd given claims by Israel that he was killed in an airstrike in July, though Hamas has never confirmed nor denied the fate of the man also known as Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri.

The issue of the warrants was the culmination of a request on May 20 by the ICC prosecutor to a Pre-Trial Chamber of the court to issue arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant, and three senior Hamas officials. Two have been withdrawn, given the confirmed killings of both Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh.

On November 21, the three-judge panel of Pre-Trial Chamber I unanimously rejected Israel’s assertion that the ICC lacked jurisdiction over the Situation in the State of Palestine in general and over Israeli nationals more specifically, “as the Court can exercise its jurisdiction on the basis of the territorial jurisdiction of Palestine.” The Chamber also rejected Israel’s request that the Prosecution provide a new notification of an initiation of investigation into its authorities under the ICC Statute, given that the parameters of the investigation had not essentially changed. Nor had Israel pursued a request for deferral of the investigation when given the chance in 2021.

The arrest warrants, issued in accordance with the law of international armed conflict, remain the most telling aspect of the determinations. Despite being classified as “secret”, the Chamber deemed it important to release some degree of detail on what they entail. Accordingly, it found reasonable grounds to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant bore criminal responsibility as “co-perpetrators for committing the acts jointly with others: the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare; and the crimes against humanity of murder, persecution, and other inhumane acts”. There were also reasonable grounds to believe that both figures bore “criminal responsibility as civilian superiors for the war crime of intentionally directing an attack against the civilian population.”

The ghoulish picture of alleged conduct is sketched with chilling detail. The alleged crimes against humanity against the civilian population in Gaza were deemed to be widespread and systematic. It was reasonable to believe that Netanyahu and Gallant had, with intent and knowledge, deprived the population of Gaza of such necessities to survival as food, water, medicine, medical supplies, fuel and electricity “from at least” October 8, 2023 to May 20, 2024. This finding was easy to reach, largely because humanitarian aid had been impeded and restricted without evident military necessity or justification under international humanitarian law. When decisions to allow or increase humanitarian aid into Gaza were made, these were conditional.

The warrant for Deif, as chief commander of the military wing of Hamas (the al-Qassam Brigades) was issued because the chamber found “reasonable grounds” to believe he had allegedly been responsible for various crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, torture, rape and other forms of sexual violence) and traditional war crimes. It remains to be seen whether that can be executed appropriately, given the likelihood that Deif is no longer alive.

International law remains a curious creature, one of mixed shape and uneven maturity. Being based on the mutual, grudging acknowledgment of conventions between countries, its success, or failure, depends on mutual observance. ICC warrants to arrest international figures have been issued with varying results, with signatory states of the Rome Statute making their own decisions whether to execute them. Political interests can rear a nasty head, blowing off legally minded types keen to see judicial proceedings pursued by member states.

When an ICC warrant was issued against Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2023 over the alleged directing of attacks on civilians in Ukraine and the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children to the Russian Federation, the spectacle of such a figure being hauled off to The Hague was simply too much for countries keen to engage with the Kremlin. Putin, for instance, was assured by Mongolia on a state visit this year that he would not be arrested, despite the country being a party to the ICC.

More caution was exercised by Putin regarding the BRICS meeting in Johannesburg in 2023, probably due to such experiences as those of former Sudanese president, Omar Al-Bashir. Despite being the subject of ICC arrest warrants in 2009 and 2010, the defiant leader, wanted for a string of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity against civilians in Darfur, tested the waters by visiting South Africa in 2015 for an African Union summit. His presence, however, interested the judicial authorities, who ordered him to stay in South Africa while consideration was given to his potential arrest.

Bashir’s exit was prompt, leading to a ruling the following year by the South African Court of Appeal that the failure by the authorities to arrest him was unlawful. A Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC also found that the warrant should have been executed as part of South Africa’s obligations, and the Sudanese leader could not rightly have claimed immunity from arrest during his visit.

The warrants against the Israeli figures will have some practical effects. Gallant and Netanyahu will think twice before travelling to member states of the Rome Statute, though such states will naturally reach their own decisions on the issue. But while it is hard to see these men being carted off to proceedings in The Hague bar exceptional circumstances, the warrants have provided a fillip for civil society groups in Israel.

The indomitable efforts of the non-profit B’Tselem organisation called the ICC efforts “a chance for us, Israelis, to realize what we should have understood long ago: that upholding a regime of supremacy, violence and oppression necessarily involves crimes and severe violation of human rights.” Unfortunately for the starving and dying in Gaza, the pity of war will not, at least at this time, halt before any stern judicial eye, especially one cast from an international court.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment