Foreign Policy and the 2020 Election

Biden in Munich - CBS

Will we look for a President in 2020 with foreign policy roots close to the post WWII approach? Will we stay with Trump’s approach of isolationism and of undoing all the post-war organizations and alliances? Or will we look for a totally new approach to foreign policy?

On Tuesday, 2.19.19, when Mike Pence, the American VP said he was speaking at the Munich Security Conference on behalf of Donald Trump, the President of the United States of America, he waited for applause from the gathered world leaders after he passed on the greeting that Donald Trump had sent to his peers. There was only silence.

Also on Tuesday, 2.19.19, Joe Biden was interviewed live at the same Munich meeting. He is something that Trump is not. He’s nice; not soft-nice, but calm and nonconfrontational, unless confrontation is called for. What would happen if a President Biden was introduced at a Munich meeting? First of all, he would most likely be present at the meeting. Would there be applause? There was plenty of applause. Perhaps we should apply this test to each of the many candidates for President running as Democrats. What will their foreign policy be? How will they be received by our allies and our closely-held enemies?

When it comes to Joe Biden, I believe that we would find him continuing the post-World War II alliances and working with Europe to ensure peace; at least peace in Europe. I am not backing Joe Biden. He isn’t even running yet. But he could be expected to follow traditional guidelines for foreign policy. These policies are older than Biden and he knows the policies and our allies well.

After World War II Europe became ground zero for a tug of war between Russia and America, between capitalism/democracy and communism. For the past 70 years it seemed that America and the other world proponents of capitalism and democracy were winning nations over to these ideologies. We did not have a new war, but neither did we have peace. We ended up in a ‘Cold War’, that apparently did not end when the Iron Curtain parted.

As early as 1945 Churchill warned us that after WWII our temporary and very valuable ally, Russia, had turned its back on Western Europe already, taking most of Central and Eastern Europe with it. America and Russia conducted opposing campaigns to win new recruits to either communism or democracy. While the US offered economic prosperity and military security, Russia offered weapons and oil. For a while it seemed we were winning but now, not so much.

The USSR died a mostly economic death and split back into the satellite nations it had sucked up after World War II. These newly released nations had been split along unnatural geographic lines that divided the cultural groups which had learned to live peacefully within old national boundaries. Once released from Russian domination old hostilities that had festered since WW II, and while behind the Iron Curtain, reared their ugly heads and we had things like what happened with Croatia and Bosnia. This release of pent up hostilities was similar to what we saw in Iraq.

Our own President seems to back authoritarian states in Europe (while he tries to topple them in South America), and he smiles on Putin in Russia and makes us very nervous. There is also a huge backlash against capitalism in America on the left which complicates the outcome of the democratic/communist war for ascendancy even more. It looks like the future of the world may be authoritarian. Some leaders seem to want to bring back the monarchy. Others back a very loosely defined socialism.

There are many factors which have contributed to this decline in democracy and capitalism. With the more aggressive ideology of a newly empowered Putin who wishes to create a new Russia that looks a lot like the old USSR, with the arrival of the Great Recession which hit Europe rather hard, with the angers of people from austerity economies, the disruptions of terrorism, the waves of immigration as people escape cruel war in Syria, and the military moves by Russia in Georgia and the Ukraine, ‘strong men’ have begun to look attractive as chaos seems imminent. Authoritarianism, as we have seen, is on the rise. Will these new authoritarian states align with Russia or with the United States? Given that even president Trump seems to be more interested in aligning with Russia than any past President, the order imposed on the world after WWII, which never took into account the rise of the USSR, could easily dissolve.

Many have been critical of America’s aggressive moves to turn Europe towards capitalism and democracy. They have felt that our control in Europe has been antithetical to the values of a democracy and that we have often had selfish goals, as opposed to more altruistic ones. In fact, some even express horror and grief at mismoves we have made in our supposed diplomacy, although perhaps our worst moves have not occurred in Europe. Perhaps we did go off the rails a bit, but wanting a future that is democratic – is this still a goal people have? Capitalism, on the other hand, has become so rapacious that it will be overthrown if capitalists continue to refuse regulation. Although democracy is in more trouble at the moment, younger people are poised to exert pressures that may shift the target to capitalists.

What will happen in the world if we back off the agreements reached at the end of WWII? Is the UN obsolete? Is it weak and ineffective or secretly plotting a new world order? Which thing is true? Are we done with NATO? Should we loosen the bonds made after Hitler almost turned Europe into a white supremacist dictatorship? What will happen to the 70 years of “relative” peace our leaders forged after WW II? Were these protections essentially training wheels and the world is now ready to take them off? With “illiberal democracies” multiplying like flies this hardly seems like the moment to pull US bases out of Europe and make nice with Putin in Russia.

Will we look for a President in 2020 with foreign policy roots close to the post WWII approach, will we stay with Trump’s approach of isolationism and of undoing all the post war organizations and alliances, or will we look for a totally new approach to foreign policy? If so, what will it be? I want to hear each of the Democratic candidates on this topic. Should one person be able to set America’s foreign policy? We used to have a strong Department of State and a Congress that weighed in (sometimes too much so). How will foreign policy be handled in the future? Will we elect a person who will be applauded in Munich? If we don’t want an authoritarian future how must we proceed?

Photo Credits: From a Google Image Search – CBS

 

Trump, America First, and Venezuela

john-bolton-notepad-indexnewyorkpost

Trump, America First, and Venezuela

America First, as Trump proclaimed it during his campaign for the presidency in 2016, sounded good to some Americans (MAGA). Trump promised to put America’s interests first. He railed against all our allies who, according to his reckoning, had let America pick up the tab for far too many military operations over too many years. His followers, the Trumpers, also were led to believe that Trump intended to take care of the forgotten Americans who had lost their jobs to outsourcing and industrial migration.

To give some credit to Trump, he has tried to do this. Someone said on the news just today that the problem Trump has is that he is trying to bring back the America of 20 or 30 years ago and that the world does not do business the same way now (not an exact quote). Trump does seem out of step with economic changes that are most likely irreversible. He tried to save the Carrier plant in Indiana. That fell through. He tried to help Harley Davidson but made things worse. He celebrated when FoxConn said it would bring 13,000 jobs to Wisconsin, but today’s news suggests that that will not happen. Of course he also stepped all over his attempts to keep jobs in America with his tariffs.

Trump said he would deport illegal immigrants who were taking American jobs and using American benefits. Trump backed himself into a corner when he promised a wall that many think is a waste of money and which will not address the real reasons for high numbers of folks living here without proper documents. Despite the fact that just building a wall is an oversimplification of a more complex problem, to his “cult” members it said not only America First, but Americans First.

America First is a slogan that was not greeted with cheers by many other Americans who did not end up being followers of Trump. It harkens back to things that Hitler promised the German people that lead to World War II and the murder of 6 million Jews. It echoed the words of Nazi sympathizers in American who liked to repeat the slogan ‘America über alles’, because it echoed Hitler’s slogan for Germany. There are far too many authoritarian and genocidal memories to make this stance palatable to Americans who remember the history of the slogan. Did the President know about the connections to Nazism? His family immigrated to America from Eastern Europe so he probably did. It doesn’t matter if he makes the connection or not, and we cannot read his mind, but it matters to many Americans who don’t like the slogan and don’t like the isolationist positioning that goes with it.

But this America First policy may have a lot to do with speculations about our future activities in Venezuela and with the drumbeats of war that are sounding, at least in the media. It happens that John Bolton, for one reason or another, did not hide his notebook from the press. The list on his legal pad had the mysterious entry 5000+ troops to Columbia. Guess where Columbia is? It’s in South America, bordered by Panama, Venezuela, Brazil, Ecuador and Peru.

This is John Bolton we are talking about, a man with a reputation as a war monger. If his list has an item that says 5000+ troops to Columbia, media sees that as a possible step towards intervening in Venezuela. Venezuela is an oil rich nation, but Nicolás Maduro, dictator-in-charge is either not good with economics (at all), or is a big time thief because his people, living in what was once a thriving economy and what is now a failed state, are starving. Oil is a commodity that has fallen prey to a set of market circumstances that have hurt its value. There is a lot of competition in the oil market these days and price per barrel rates have vacillated accordingly. Natural gas is readily available because of fracking and is cleaner to burn than oil, so that is helping to drive down the price of oil. Perhaps Maduro is not completely to blame but has still proved to be incompetent.

When Trump was running for the presidency he often chided America for leaving Iraq without taking over the oil and annexing those sites for America. He attributed the fact that we left the oil wells for Iraq (or perhaps ISIS) to the wimpy behavior of President Obama, who took the last troops out of Iraq. It appears that Trump would fit in well back in the Age of Imperialism.

It is not as if modern America has never been guilty of taking advantage of another nation; we have meddled often and deeply in the name of both democracy and capitalism. Since World War II many nations give space to American military bases, berths to our ships, and hangers for our planes, and not always out of the kindness of their hearts. But it’s not easy to steal oil  or annex oil wells. There is the problem of manning these operations, even if ownership is not disputed, the problems of shipping the oil, and the problems of optics, since the media sees all.

So, although Trump’s eyes may light up at the thought of all that oil, that is unlikely to be the reason that we are backing Juan Guaidó as the man to take Maduro’s place. He is the man the people of Venezuela want, but so far Maduro controls the military.

Perhaps the reason for tiptoeing so close to the regime change line has to do with Trump’s passion to stem migration from Venezuela and neighboring countries. People have been flooding out of Venezuela. Many have gone to Chili and Columbia. Current wisdom advises Trump that if he wants to stem migration he needs to attack the problems people are facing in South America from bad leaders, to violent gangs, to changes in climate that have made food production unpredictable. Add these problems to those that are plaguing oil markets and you have a perfect storm. People cannot stay where life has no quality, where food is scarce, and where their children are either starving, or forced to join a gang or die.

Trump’s America First stand has him withdrawing from international entanglements around the globe. He took us out of the Paris Climate Accord, decided not to join the Trans Pacific Partnership. He wants to leave NATO and the UN. His isolationist tendencies argue against American involvement in the affairs of South American nations. However, if propping up South American economies and cleaning up violent gangs will end the caravans of people so traumatized that they can’t wait to leave home, if it will end the lines of “undesirables” seeking asylum in America, then sending troops to Columbia sounds like something Trump’s people might suggest (or that Trump might suggest). Trump does not want brown people, people who don’t speak English, or people who are poor. He says there is no room for these people in America. He wants a wall to keep them out. But he may be hedging his bets on the wall by supporting a little regime change and a little military action to reverse the decline of certain South American or Central American nations.

Perhaps that cryptic note on Bolton’s tablet meant that sending 5000+ troops to Venezuela is imminent, especially since the first thing on the list had to do with Afghanistan, but experts say that sending troops into a large failed state like Venezuela would be like getting America involved in another Vietnam. Experts also tell Trump that a wall is not what we need to solve the problems of migrants who enter America illegally. However, once Trump decides that he know best, all the expert advice in the world will not sway Trump. He is busy listening to his gut, which he tells us he trusts more than he trusts experts.

Photo Credit: From a Google Image Search – New York Post

This is a view from the cheap seats.

 

 

Economic Globalism: The United States of China

global economics

I find it sort of ironic that, while Republicans make the kinds of globalism advocated on the left suspect and even part of a grand conspiracy, economic globalism has been trending for years. Trade has been a global concern in America since the triangle that involved sugar, rum, and slaves.

Wikipedia:

Sugar (often in its liquid form, molasses) from the Caribbean was traded to Europe or New England, where it was distilled into rum. The profits from the sale of sugar were used to purchase manufactured goods, which were then shipped to West Africa, where they were bartered for slaves.

Imports and exports have played a role in the economies of just about every nation. However globalism went viral in the 1980’s and beyond when factories started to leave America (and other industrial nations) to tap into an unused work force that was plentiful and which did not require high wages or benefits. The temptation to keep overhead costs and employee costs low while creating new buyers and opening new markets was apparently just too tempting.

There were other perks of relocating factories such as being able to keep profits away from America where taxes were high and place them in tax-sheltered situations. Although Trump wants American manufacturers to come home to the continental United States and bring their money with them, although he wants these wealthy Americans to practice a new-old policy of “America First”, economic globalism is highly unlikely to become isolationist any time soon. I have heard of no big rush to repatriate profits sitting abroad. Neither have I heard any patriotic fervor for bringing factories back home. While a few businesses may come home, a few more businesses are always leaving. Unless we invent a fuel to use in space and a ship designed to burn it and become a center of space exploration and colonization, unless an amazing new science of cheap, safe, and efficient space technology is found, I don’t know how we become a hub of industry again as we were in the past. That’s why we need all the talented physicists and engineers we can train and attract. Getting to space is once again a race.

It is tempting to look at the way we kept our economy booming in the past and then to simply try to replicate it. If the whole culture decays and times become more primitive a new industrial age might replicate the 1890’s – 1950’s but having to take so many steps backwards just to hope that we can recreate past innovations would mean that something catastrophic had occurred. In that case we are just as likely to languish in a primitive state as we are to reinvent the combustion engine, and the assembly line.

Annoying our trading partners, blowing up established trade relationships, does not seem like the most productive way to keep the world economy (and therefore the American economy) ticking along. If we are angry at China or Mexico or any other trading partner there must be ways to negotiate trade agreements that are not harmful to our own economy. China may be experiencing temporary challenges with its debt and its currency, but the Chinese economy looks like it still has much more room for growth than ours does. Just look up the population demographics.

I am no economist but a couple of very respected economists wrote articles this week about the complex considerations we need to keep in mind when speaking of economies and trade and globalism versus nationalism.

Sam Natapoff writing in Salon begins his recent article like this:

“The U.S.-China trade war is heating up in a battle that may last for years to come. Last week President Trump imposed new tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese exports to the United States. The Chinese government responded with tariffs on $60 billion of U.S. goods. The economic effects of this trade war between the world’s two largest economies (the U.S. at $19 trillion and China at $12 trillion) are slowly emerging. While many around the world are ignoring this, the recent damage is only the beginning.

This U.S.-China trade war was primarily caused by confusion. The Chinese government does not understand Donald Trump’s trade goals, because they are not primarily trade goals. Donald Trump has the bit between his teeth. He wants both a victory and public adulation, to feed his ego and to keep a promise to his 2016 voters that he would renegotiate unfair U.S. trade deals. He also fantasizes that he is teaching China who is boss. What’s really going on is that China has been gaining ground on the U.S. in key strategic areas, such as military power, economic influence, and scientific accomplishment, and the U.S. is now turning to aggressively confront a new rival.

At heart, everyone should be worried. The U.S., China, and all trading nations will feel real economic pain as a result of this trade war. …

This clash of economic titans threatens all multilateral trade norms and would replace them with rising tariff and non-tariff barriers around the world, placing pressure on multiple economies and eliminating any winners from this process. More concerning, this trade volatility is triggering a run by global investors into dollar assets, increasing pressures on countries with unstable currencies that were already worried about inflation and depreciation.

Even though the U.S. is being harmed, there is no chance Trump will back down. He feels that he alone can change the global trade order, make the U.S.-China trade relationship fair, and, most importantly, he wants a personal win. This position is reinforced by several of Trump’s officials and even some outside forces, for very different reasons.”

https://www.salon.com/2018/09/29/the-u-s-china-trade-war-this-is-only-the-beginning/

There was also an interesting article in the NYT about an invisible recession and its implications for the future.

Neil Irwin writes:

In 2015 and 2016, [in the United States]…

“There was a sharp slowdown in business investment, caused by an interrelated weakening in emerging markets, a drop in the price of oil and other commodities, and a run-up in the value of the dollar.

The pain was confined mostly to the energy and agricultural sectors and to the portions of the manufacturing economy that supply them with equipment. Overall economic growth slowed but remained in positive territory. The national unemployment rate kept falling. Anyone who didn’t work in energy, agriculture or manufacturing could be forgiven for not noticing it at all.

Most important, the mini-recession of 2015-16 offers a cautionary tale for any policymaker who might want to think of the United States as an economic island.

The episode is stark evidence of the risk the Trump administration faces in threatening economic damage to negotiate leverage with other nations on trade and security. What happens overseas can return to American shores faster and more powerfully than once seemed possible.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/upshot/mini-recession-2016-little-known-big-impact.html

The last article I will talk about said things that some might find controversial but that I thought were illuminating. The topic here is five myths about corporations. Its written by Steven Pearlstein who writes about economics at the Washington Post.

“Thirty years ago, in the face of a serious economic challenge from Japan and Europe, the UnitedStates embraced a form of free-market capitalism that was less regulated, less equal, more prone to booms and busts. Driving that shift was a set of useful myths about motivation, fairness and economic growth that helped restore American competitiveness. Over time, however, the most radical versions of these ideas have polarized our politics, threatened our prosperity and undermined the moral legitimacy of our system. (A recent survey found that only 42 percent of millennials support capitalism.)

Here are five of the most persistent myths about corporations.

[Remember these are myths so the author sets out to prove these statements are not true. Follow the link to see the author’s reasoning about why these statements, although widely believed are not necessarily accurate.]

  1. Greed, a natural human instinct makes markets work.
  2. Corporations must be run to maximize value for shareholders.
  3. Workers’ pay is an objective measure of economic contributions.
  4. Equality of opportunity is all people need to climb the economic ladder.
  5. Making the economy fairer will make it smaller and less prosperous.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/five-myths/five-myths-about-capitalism/2018/09/27/3f0b72f6-c06f-11e8-90c9-23f963eea204_story.html

Bank of England Vault

What I am trying to say is that Conservatives seem to like globalism for economics, but not when it might cost them in some way. They are inclined to use fossil fuels for as long as they are available and have lived in an oil, gas, and coal based economy for so long that they cannot conceive of an economic scenario that offers similar profits without these fuels. So when scientists and citizens talk about environmentalism, and climate change and global warming, and CO2levels all they picture is their dollars flying out the windows. It is more profitable to imagine this as a liberal plot to “redistribute wealth” than it is to take a long view and figure out what will happen when the ice caps melt and flood coastlines forever, not just during storms.

Having invested millions of dollars in building business all around the globe it seems that Conservatives are pulling back from this kind of investing in areas that are still underdeveloped, have climates that make running a business expensive, do not have enough workers or enough consumers. Once again when liberals speak of lifting up nations that are still too poor, the wealthy among us hear more dollars flying out the windows. While the world might be more stable with stronger economies in many Arab nations, African nations, and South American nations, rich folks seem to want to hang on to their own wealth rather than spread it around right now. But China is not so worried about losing individual wealth and they are filling the development gap in these nations.

Great wealth has turned our corporate heads and wealthy business people into global citizens already. They live in America only part time. They keep their money anywhere but in America. They wish to pay as few taxes as possible to help a nation of people that they have made poor by hoarding profits. No amount of excess wealth is enough. Stockpiling money for a rainy day is the prime goal. It’s mine, it’s all mine is the message. No one who did not use the public schools to get a decent education is touching a cent of my profits. No one who won’t or can’t work gets a dollar from me. If you reward them for not working they will go on not working. No one who needs to work three jobs to support dependents they had out of wedlock will engage my sympathies. They declare themselves the greatest patriots as they take their factories off to another nation where paychecks are so low as to be almost criminal. Trump thinks he can buy these people back, but they are already citizens of nowhere in particular and claiming to be an American citizen does not carry the same cachet it once did.

I cannot imagine an America isolated from everyone, turned in upon itself, not gregariously, confidently, annoyingly, and heartily interacting with nations around the globe. If we withdraw and pout about how unfairly other nations have treated us I don’t think anyone will come to comfort poor old America and try to offer expensive gifts to lure us out of our funk. The world will just go along without us and we will not only have a small government; we will have a small America. And rather than be a global force competing and scrapping with our allies and enemies we may eventually be adopted by an all-powerful Chinese Empire and become part of the United States of China. Just for a minute, imagine what we might be able to accomplish if nations worked cooperatively. I guess that can never happen unless we have reasons to toss out some excesses of national identity and national pride.

Photo Credits: From Google Images Searches:  Google sites, alfahir.hu

This is a view from the cheap seats.