RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Stop Jailing People for Saving Refugees' Lives in the Mediterranean Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58798"><span class="small">Nathan Akehurst, Jacobin</span></a>   
Tuesday, 23 March 2021 12:34

Akehurst writes: "A prosecutor in Sicily has charged twenty-one people, including the crew of the Iuventa migrant rescue ship, with aiding illegal immigration."

Twenty-one people face jail for helping to save the lives of refugees on the Mediterranean Sea. (photo: Flickr)
Twenty-one people face jail for helping to save the lives of refugees on the Mediterranean Sea. (photo: Flickr)


Stop Jailing People for Saving Refugees' Lives in the Mediterranean

By Nathan Akehurst, Jacobin

23 March 21


A prosecutor in Sicily has charged twenty-one people, including the crew of the Iuventa migrant rescue ship, with aiding illegal immigration. The potential long jail terms show how European countries have criminalized aid for refugees — and how little they care about the thousands who drown in the Mediterranean.

n spring 2019 Italian prosecutors opened an investigation into Miguel Roldán, a Spanish firefighter. A potential two-decade sentence was attached to his crime — namely, aiding drowning people. One of a number of such investigations into aid crews, it was part of a long war pursued by Europe’s reactionaries against refugee rescue operations.

Italy took a leading role in this, not least under the pugnacious Il Capitano — the far-right Matteo Salvini, the country’s interior minister until the end of summer 2019. Rescue captains Carola Rackete and Pia Klemp were also arrested that spring, joining two hundred fifty people arrested for similar offenses including the mayor of a small Italian town.

That autumn, Ursula von der Leyen entered the European Commission presidency. Her opening speech appeared to be a continent away from Salvini’s rhetoric. She belonged to a German government who had rendered more than its fair share of humanitarian assistance. The refugee crisis was a shame upon the continent, she said. And she had skin in the game, having personally adopted and cared for a young Syrian refugee. She was cited as an example of how the right-wing populist tide could be halted across the world.

But the speech turned sharply a few paragraphs later. Von der Leyen announced that Frontex, the EU’s border agency, would take on thousands of new guards. One defense of this move held that their role would involve rescue — and yet, increased enforcement has already made the Mediterranean more lethal. Worse, patrol boats are giving way to drones which cannot carry out rescues and can only impassively observe disasters. This colossal humanitarian crisis is occurring not on the other side of the planet, but just off Europe’s beach resorts.

And Von der Leyen’s launch had one final sting in the tail; the gathering of migration policy under a commissioner for “Protecting Our European Way of Life,” a Trumpian title that sparked outrage even in Brussels circles. Such “protection” is premised, however much it publicly baulks at the consequences, on perpetuating a saltwater graveyard where six people a day die preventable deaths, including thousands of people who died while the predominant European policy focus was on Brexit, and tens of thousands since the 1990s.

It is an organism with limbs and antennae in run-down detention centers outside London and Glasgow, in the sun-drenched skies over the Ionian and Tyrrhenian Seas, in mountain border posts in the Balkans, and in air-conditioned committee rooms in the EU’s Berlaymont HQ in Brussels.

A Feature Not a Bug

Three years and a pandemic later, the case against the Iuventa, the search-and-rescue vessel on which Roldán once worked, is back. On March 3, 2021, the prosecutor in Trapani, Sicily officially charged twenty-one people and three organizations of aiding and abetting illegal immigration, including Roldán and the Iuventa crew.

The charges relate to rescues carried out between 2016 and 2017, with evidence gained by undercover agents in direct contact with Salvini, ostensibly providing “security” on rescue boats under the auspices of a security firm whose boss is linked to far-right group Generation Identity. One of these spies later expressed regret and admitted he had no evidence of a relationship between NGOs and people smugglers. If convicted, the crews could face decades in jail.

This is the decision of a local prosecutor. But rather like Von der Leyen’s speech, it exposes the brutal system in which a dizzying range of people and organizations are complicit. It may be tempting to view this case as a simple moral failure. But it is so much more than an unpleasant bug in the system. Across ideological divides from Von der Leyen to Salvini, and across moral frameworks and cultural backgrounds, Europe is complicit.

The Mediterranean murder machine is the system, that reproduces itself through all of its constituent parts, along every point of the refugee journey. The far right, the mainstream right, and liberals in local and global politics; police forces, armies, and military security contractors; think tanks and academics; criminals and traffickers; all share in producing and reproducing human suffering.

The most brutal, and brutally honest, component in that system is the renewed hard-right as represented by Viktor Orbán and Matteo Salvini, or inspired by Jair Bolsonaro and Donald Trump further afield. In its account, those who seek a better life across the sea essentially deserve their death. This external enemy has given a narrative unity to the far right across Europe, allowing it to shift a general malaise into racism, both on the street and at the ballot box.

There is, of course, real discontent in coastal communities that have been negatively affected by the sudden influx of people — but here, there have also been considerable expressions of solidarity which are neglected or even outlawed. The far-right current is in the personal politics of many border police, and often their institutional leaderships. On the fringes, it also inspires vigilante “migrant hunters” in helicopter gunships.

There are also those whose investment in this economy of suffering is less ideological and more financial. There are the people traffickers who profit off misery and sometimes treat life so cheaply that they fling people into the sea in order to avoid being caught smuggling.

There are the gangsters who reportedly run both smuggling operations and reception centers. There is every contractor who runs squalid accommodation in Britain, rips off state-run refugee camps over mattresses and tent pegs in Greece, or whose shareholders’ dividends are dictated by each new mile of razor wire and weaponry sold.

Elsewhere, a section of the body politic acts to cloud and complicate what should be a very instinctive, unpolitical response to suffering. Mainstream conservatives (generally) acknowledge that the intentions of Miguel Roldán and his ilk were good but ultimately misguided. The chance of encountering a rescue boat “encourages” people to make a lethal journey, they say, in a vacuum of evidence.

Treating these (non-)people with decency will only encourage them. The unarguable evils of the traffickers become used as arguments not to open safe routes, but to bomb their boats and infrastructure, inevitably risking more refugee lives in the process.

This doctrine of tolerating mass death out of simple practicality extends into liberalism; into many people who would place themselves on the Left and be appalled by Trump’s border walls. Even Von der Leyen’s opposition candidate from the center-left European Socialists spent several years acting as the Commission’s go-between in a set of tawdry deals involving paying Recep Tayyip Erdo?an’s Turkey to detain refugees, claiming most were simply economic opportunists. The doublethink in Von der Leyen’s inaugural speech is replicated across mainstream politics.

Prisons of History

The self-styled enlightened nations often claim their commitment to values and human rights distance it from the less civilized world. In one sense it’s true: Europe does not abuse, torture, or enslave refugees, but merely makes deals to return them to places that do. Frontex does not drown people — it shifts the patterns of its patrols in a way that makes having to rescue people less likely. Europe sniffs at the outrages of member states like Hungary, while confining the issue to its periphery, for instance by threatening to close the border with Greece if it could not prevent people journeying northward.

Those who make the crossing are condemned to extended stays in neglected camps. The coronavirus pandemic, as well as legitimizing even harsher entry control measures, has created a time bomb in refugee camps. In Greece, suspected cases have been forcibly isolated together in shipping containers with three-level bug-ridden bunk beds.

The lack of effective government response has indicated (unsurprisingly) little regard for camp-dwellers, but also a shocking lack of recognition that underfunded, ham-fisted approaches to potential virus clusters put the general population at risk.

Meanwhile, those who do not drown or face random deportation, and who arrive in a place that makes some effort to aid their integration have still not escaped the system. Their interests as workers will be pitted against those of domestic workers, in a grim race to the bottom. Among the refugees’ ranks will be liberals, socialists, conservatives, and everything else and yet their contributions will rarely be articulated in public discourse; they are subjects upon who “we” will decide the correct policy.

This system endures. The European polity (including Brexit Britain) prefers to think of 1945 as Year Zero — but there was no clear endpoint between European colonization of the globe, the carving up of postcolonial borders, and the birth of neocolonial relationships of extraction. The European polity continues the internal discipline of its own periphery from the Greek financial crisis to Balkan structural adjustments, and the maintenance of an iron wall around its supposed utopia of free exchange and free movement. It promotes its cultures and historic relationships across the world but will not honor requests for sanctuary within the embrace of those relationships.

This current history informs present and future strategy, and not just because many of those seeking sanctuary are refugees from Western military misadventures or colonial hangovers. Europe’s Mediterranean border is not enough for its architects; a concerted military-diplomatic approach is underway to push that border further south into Africa and collaborate with whatever questionable regimes are necessary to that end. It is not hard to speculate about the endpoint of this grand strategy. The global North (wrongly) believes it can use vast peripheries to insulate itself by force from the migrations, upheavals, and challenges to the nation-state posed by climate chaos.

Challenging the Murder Machine

We are used to systems that normalize the senseless and monstrous. We live with starvation amid wealth, homelessness amid luxury skyscrapers, and more recently health workers responding to a pandemic in bin bags. Yet the normalization of this vast system of multinational institutions and street gangs, liberals and conservatives, law enforcers and criminals, all complicit in a vast economy of suffering at the foot of our beach resorts, is an extreme case, nonetheless.

So too is the idea that in a coalition of advanced liberal democracies, a firefighter who takes part in an operation to save thousands of lives is worthy of a potential life in jail while those who perpetuate the processes behind such loss of life are worthy of lives in public office.

The case of the arrested rescuers is interesting for another reason. Sometimes it seems impossible to fight. The political environment seems as immutable as the sea itself and restructuring it a task as arrogant and foolish as stemming the tides. Yet the twenty-one arrestees and all their peers did fight, both practically saving lives in huge numbers, and symbolically demonstrating that this system can be penetrated.

As well as the cross-political complicity in the crisis, there are also voices throughout politics — liberals and even some conservatives — whose humanity has risen above so-called realpolitik. Building a coalition which can expose and overcome this monstrosity is still within our grasp.

The inhumanity of the Mediterranean machine does not occur just because of some people with moral deficiencies, it occurs because of the historic and present imbalance of wealth and power. The logic of upholding this imbalance is why figures across the moral and ideological spectrum perpetuate the scale of suffering it. The experience of people like Miguel Roldán, and British firefighter Brendan Woodhouse who was detained in a similar incident, points to how trade unionists and socialists can make a difference.

From the UK Fire Brigades Union demonstration in favor of Roldán on Europe Day to the efforts of unions to organize refugees who arrive in sanctuary and join the ranks of migrants facing exploitation and division at work, the labor movement has been at the heart of the movement for refugee justice. It has done so by making the case for the dignity of labor, and broadening it into a powerful case for universal dignity and humanity.

In the waters of the Mediterranean, the behavior of advanced economies is reflected back at them. From surveillance machinery to administrative brutality to militarism, pandemic response failure, and a narrow nationalist response to climate crisis, we are seeing the technologies of power which may yet come to define this century for all of us, not just those currently subjected to them. But none of this is inevitable. Currently, twenty-one people face jail for jamming the system. Their fight is a shared fight for a more just and decent world.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
RSN: The Urgent Need for a Biden-Putin Summit Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=48990"><span class="small">Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 23 March 2021 12:03

Solomon writes: "Last week's outbreak of rhetorical hostilities between the White House and the Kremlin has heightened the urgent need for a summit between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin."

Joe Biden. (photo: Melina Mar/Getty Images)
Joe Biden. (photo: Melina Mar/Getty Images)


The Urgent Need for a Biden-Putin Summit

By Norman Solomon, Reader Supported News

23 March 21

 

ast week’s outbreak of rhetorical hostilities between the White House and the Kremlin has heightened the urgent need for a summit between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin. The spate of mutual denunciations is catnip for mass media and fuel for hardliners in both countries. But for the world at large, under the doomsday shadow of nuclear arsenals brandished by the United States and Russia, the latest developments are terribly ominous.

Whatever you think of Biden’s assertion during an ABC News interview that Russia’s President Putin is “a killer” — and whether or not you think the label might apply to Biden, given his pro-war record — the existential imperative of U.S.-Russian relations is to avert a nuclear war. Biden’s claim during the same interview that Putin does not have “a soul” indicates that much of the new president’s foreign-policy thinking is stuck in a cold-war rut.

No doubt many Americans have welcomed Biden’s holier-than-thou stance toward Putin. But an overarching reality is routinely hidden in plain sight: Everyone’s survival on this planet hinges on Washington-Moscow conflicts not spinning out of control.

Let’s face it: Biden is playing to the domestic anti-Russia gallery in the U.S. media and “defense” establishment, while making a dangerous mockery of his own claims to be a champion of diplomatic approaches to foreign affairs.

“Diplomacy is back at the center of our foreign policy,” Biden said when he spoke at the State Department in early February. Those who’ve been heartened by such statements during the first two months of Biden’s presidency should insist that he live up to that vow by meeting with the head of the Russian government.

But it’s now clear that much more is needed from Biden than just willingness to sit down with Putin. Biden also needs a major attitude adjustment. He would greatly benefit from pondering what happened in a small New Jersey town for a few days in the early summer of 1967.

Keep in mind that at the time, the Soviet Union was in the iron grip of Communist Party leader Leonid Brezhnev and Premier Alexei Kosygin, who saw to it that freedom of the press or the right to publicly dissent did not exist inside their nation. Compared to those days, Russia under Vladimir Putin in 2021 has far more freedom in terms of media, politics and society as a whole.

The Soviet repression and violation of human rights didn’t stop President Lyndon B. Johnson from trying to reduce the chances of the world blowing up. He engaged in real summitry with Kosygin. Their extended talks on the campus of Glassboro State College gave rise to what became known as “the Spirit of Glassboro.”

That spirit signified only a limited breakthrough. It did not prevent the next year’s Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, or the continuing horrific American escalation of the war in Vietnam. Yet it was genuine diplomatic dialogue — at the highest levels of government — and it decreased the chances of nuclear annihilation.

In the process, LBJ wouldn’t have dreamed of proclaiming his Soviet counterpart “a killer” or declaring him to be without a soul. After more than a dozen hours of direct talks, Johnson stood next to Kosygin and, in effect, made a plea for safeguarding human survival. “We have made further progress in an effort to improve our understanding of each other’s thinking on a number of questions,” Johnson said.

Fifty-four years later, with mutual hostility now at fever pitch in Washington and Moscow, such understanding is essential. But President Biden is not showing that he has the wisdom to seek it.

A former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack F. Matlock, wrote last month that “the vital interests of both countries are endangered when their governments treat the other as a threat, or worse, an enemy, rather than as a potential and necessary partner.” He noted that the shared challenges include dealing with threats posed by “nuclear weapons, pandemics, global warming and ever more destructive technologies if used in warfare.”

Matlock, who served as the top American envoy in Moscow from 1987 to 1991, added: “Presidents Biden and Putin now have the opportunity to find ways to cooperate in dealing with global threats, and encouraging others to do so as well. That would constitute a new operating system, suited to the threats of the present and future rather than replaying follies of the past.”

No matter how much we might wish to forget or deny it, we are tied together — as a matter of survival — by a fraying thread of relations between the United States and Russia.

For those in the USA’s government, media and general public who don’t want a Biden-Putin summit to happen, I have a simple question: “Do you want to reduce the chances of nuclear war?” Assuming the answer is yes, any opposition to such a summit is illogical at best.

If the leaders of the two countries with more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads can’t have a summit meeting and talk with each other, we’re in trouble. Real trouble.



Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and the author of many books, including War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. He was a Bernie Sanders delegate from California to the 2016 and 2020 Democratic National Conventions. Solomon is the founder and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: A Strategic Blunder of Historic Proportions Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58324"><span class="small">Dan Rather, Steady</span></a>   
Tuesday, 23 March 2021 11:12

Rather writes: "Eighteen years ago, March 20, 2003, the United States began its second war against Iraq in a little over a decade."

Dan Rather. (photo: NYT)
Dan Rather. (photo: NYT)


A Strategic Blunder of Historic Proportions

By Dan Rather, Steady

23 March 21

 

ever forget. Or do we?

Eighteen years ago, March 20, 2003, the United States began its second war against Iraq in a little over a decade. It is difficult to fully comprehend what led up to that point, or all that followed. We don’t talk much about Iraq now, beset by new crises that rightfully demand our attention. But I did not want to let this anniversary pass quietly. I believe strongly it merits much more than a mere mention or a tweet. So I share a deeper set of thoughts.

I write this knowing that this topic is likely to get less visceral attention than others I might have chosen for this Sunday’s essay. Even when the war was raging at its height, this was a story that the American people didn’t want to fully confront. With an all-volunteer armed forces, the vast majority in this country were insulated from a moment-to-moment consciousness about the conflict. It was distant. And the pain and sacrifice, while tragic, did not strike at the heart of the nation’s identity. Even as a war that was sold on being relatively tidy and quick stretched on into months, and then years. Even with Fallujah, and Abu Ghraib, and the ubiquity of the term IED.

To turn back to Iraq is to recognize a painful professional chapter in my own life, a moment where courage and moral clarity were called for, and the press, me included, did not fully rise to the challenge. As I wrote in What Unites Us (slightly re-edited):

I consider my biggest journalistic failure to be one in which I unfortunately was not alone. In the lead-up to the second Iraq War, when the American public needed a strong and independent press, too many of us blinked, didn’t ask enough tough questions, didn’t investigate deep enough, were not skeptical enough of government claims —and the nation was worse for our drifting from our core purpose.

By all assessments, Iraq was a bloody and costly conflict that was poorly planned and poorly executed, not so much in the initial military campaign but in the rationale for invasion in the first place and then the management of occupation. Almost all of the press, myself included, accepted the selling of the war around “weapons of mass destruction” with far too little skepticism. The term “WMD” was a brilliant marketing campaign by the Bush administration to conflate the Armageddon scenario of a nuclear weapon (although most experts believed Iraq didn’t have anywhere near the capability) with the specter of chemical weapons, which, while horrific, are much more limited in scope. This wasn’t simply a vague case of “fake news.” It was subtle propaganda, with just enough of an air of plausibility to lull a nation into a war of choice. And yet the press continued to use the term “WMD” up to and after the war.

Meanwhile, the links of Iraq to al-Qaeda, which we now know were nonexistent, involved so much nuanced explanation of people and groups with foreign names that it was easy for the administration to sow confusion to sell its policies. And the press didn’t do enough to try to explain the differences. As the military effort in Iraq became an increasingly fractious occupation, the press began to ask harder questions, despite the predictable blowback from the administration. Much of what we now know about what happened in Iraq is because of great journalism. But the policy decisions had already been made and the damage had already been done.

To try to measure the cost of the war, where to even begin?

  • The biggest winner of the Iraq War was Iran. In a destabilized region, Iran’s power and influence have grown and spread. Iraq had been an implacable foe, one against which Iran had fought their own bloody and intractable war in the 1980s. But now, they have a far friendlier government in Baghdad. And American’s reputation and interests in the Middle East have been harmed, not enhanced.

  • Before we attacked Iraq, we took our eyes off the real battle against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, at a climatic moment when we might have defeated a terror network forcefully and conclusively. The U.S. and its NATO allies appeared to be on the cusp of taking command in Afghanistan, at least militarily, when resources and focus were suddenly yanked away and poured into a new war in Iraq. Now, Afghanistan is a war that is still ongoing, approaching 20 years! Americans are still serving and dying. Afghanis are dying, and struggling, caught in interminable conflict. (And new phases of the Iraq war still drag on.)

  • As mentioned above, the second Iraq War was a war based on untruths at best, lies at worst. It was a lie that there was solid proof Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. (They didn’t). It was a lie that there was proof of a connection between Iraq and 9/11. (There wasn’t). It was not true that this was a war of necessity. It was not true that those who launched the war had any detailed plan to end what they started. The sketchy outline they did have for occupation of the country quickly turned into a disaster.

  • Estimates put the financial cost to the United States at around $2 trillion. This does not include an additional “$490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans.” According to the Costs of War Project by the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University, that expense could accumulate more than $6 trillion in interest over the next few decades.

  • On both sides, there was a human cost. Nearly 5,000 U.S. service members died fighting in the Iraq War. Thousands more were maimed. Each represents a life upended and extended webs of family and friends who will never be the same. Then there is the cost for the Iraqis. A 2013 analysis as summarized by Phillip Bump for The Washington Post shows that between violence and war-related causes, there were more than 600,000 deaths. To put this in perspective: “that is about equivalent to the population of Washington, D.C., in 2010. As if every man, woman and child in the District of Columbia were killed in war, died as a result of failing infrastructure or were killed by Islamic State terrorists.” Although numbers help to frame and quantify loss, any tally would be an incomplete estimate. The toll of war and its rippling consequences on human life affect, directly and indirectly, far more than a specified war zone. And they stretch across decades.

Just a few weeks before the war began, in February 2003, I headed to Baghdad to interview Saddam Hussein. The capital was quiet, but you could feel the tension of the unknown. I had interviewed Hussein before the first Gulf War, and you could not be in his presence without feeling (excuse the language) that the pucker factor was high. This man was a mass murderer, with no remorse. If you had been in the room as I was, and considering his record, his answers to some questions, his body language, and the look in his eyes, I believe you would have concluded as I did: here was a stone cold killer.

We had to do a dance on the day of the interview —blindfolds, changing vehicles, driving in circles. We eventually arrived at one of Hussein’s palaces. It is odd to sit before someone whom you knew was in the sights of your own nation’s armed forces. I tried to cover the expected ground, attempting to break through the bravado and the practiced responses, and most importantly keep him talking. His answers came with a performance: a man who you knew was never questioned.

In my first interview with Saddam in 1990, I had asked him if he thought that the United States military, with its overwhelming firepower, would still find itself in another Vietnam. He had said it would be worse, that the United States would be defeated, and in the process knocked from its position as a superpower. History in that case proved him wrong. In the first Gulf War, the U.S.-led coalition was content in driving Saddam from Kuwait. He would remain in power. There was no nation-building, no long occupation, no echoes of Vietnam. The second war with Iraq, of course, turned out much differently.

A few weeks after my interview with Saddam, I was heading back to Baghdad, over the road from Jordan. U.S. forces had overrun the Iraqi military with little to no opposition. Saddam was on the run. The mighty statue of him in the capitol had been pulled down by Marines (the Shelley sonnet "Ozymandias" was top of mind).

There were still pockets of resistance. We had to huddle under gunfire for a night off the side of the road west of Baghdad. As we made our way into the historic metropolis, I remember yearning for a faint hope that maybe things would turn out better than I had feared. But I had seen enough of war, of the false certainty of leaders, and of the Middle East to put much stock in optimism.

Early on the war cheerleaders were eager for a victory lap. There was even a now-infamous photo op where President Bush crowed for the cameras in front of a banner that rang with hubris: Mission Accomplished, even though the crisis of so-called “post-war” Iraq was already emerging. What would transpire would be a catastrophe, one that might very well go down as the greatest strategic blunder in American history.

With the benefit of hindsight, I can see that the failures Iraq embodied have infused subsequent crises —both domestic and international. Conceit. Recklessness. Unpreparedness. Xenophobia.

I think of the women and men I met on my multiple trips back to Iraq and Afghanistan. I think of those who came back broken in mind and body or carried in flag-draped coffins. Was their sacrifice necessary? Did the immense burden of the few serve the many? I think about all that could have been, and was not. Books have been written on Iraq, and historians will undoubtedly return to the topic for as long as people are writing about the United States and its place on the world stage. I know I can only scratch the surface of this topic here, to give faint relief to the web of tragic detail. But I hope that you have read to this point and I want to leave you with a final thought.

Never forget what happened, or how it came to be.

—Dan

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Biden's Global, Muscular Liberalism Is an Indefensible Foreign Policy in 2021 Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58793"><span class="small">Elbridge Colby, The Washington Post</span></a>   
Tuesday, 23 March 2021 08:10

Colby writes: "The central theme of President Biden's foreign policy is a global, muscular liberalism. Ensuring that democracy 'will and must prevail,' Biden told the Munich Security Conference, is 'our galvanizing mission.'"

Joe Biden. (photo: Frank Franklin II/AP)
Joe Biden. (photo: Frank Franklin II/AP)


Biden's Global, Muscular Liberalism Is an Indefensible Foreign Policy in 2021

By Elbridge Colby, The Washington Post

23 March 21

 

he central theme of President Biden’s foreign policy is a global, muscular liberalism. Ensuring that democracy “will and must prevail,” Biden told the Munich Security Conference, is “our galvanizing mission.” This appears to mean taking on threats to democracy wherever they lie — challenging both China and Russia, which Biden has said posits “just as real” a threat as Beijing — while continuing the “forever wars,” halting reductions of U.S. forces in Europe, sanctioning the new military government in Myanmar, signaling a firm line against North Korea and more.

This might have been a defensible policy decades ago, when U.S. wealth dwarfed that of the Soviet Union and China. Or in 1999, before China’s rise, the sapping wars in the Middle East or the profound effects of the financial crisis had all been felt. But it is not a sensible policy today.

For the first time since the 19th century, the United States is not clearly the world’s largest economy. China is already larger by many measures and growing faster than we are, including in the wake of covid-19. And traditional U.S. allies are declining in relative wealth and power. Meanwhile, the United States and its allies face challenges as varied as Russia, Iran and North Korea; nonstate terrorists; pandemics; economic recovery; and climate change.

Given all this, Americans must refocus on what our foreign policy should be about. That means, beyond defending ourselves from attack, making sure we can determine our future free of external coercion and being able to trade and invest overseas on terms that promote a broad-based national prosperity. This requires ensuring that key markets, particularly Asia, are not dominated by a hostile power. Such a state could exclude us from these markets and use its growth and power advantages to dominate our national life.

This is not a partisan issue: Strong constituencies on both the left and right are tired of and frustrated by the proposition that U.S. foreign policy should entail safeguarding the success of democracy and development around the globe. Global, muscular liberalism of both parties has manifestly failed to deliver the strength and broad-based prosperity to allow us to shape our future on our own terms. Americans deserve better.

This doesn’t mean withdrawing from everywhere and hoping for the best. Nor does it mean muzzling ourselves about human rights abuses or democracy. But we need to look after U.S. interests in a competitive, rivalrous world — enlightened interests that frequently align with others, yes, but our interests all the same. “Realpolitik” has a cynical, old-world overtone. Yet it means focusing on what matters and working with others who share our interests.

To start, this involves concentrating on China, which is by far the most important entity in the international system other than the United States. If Beijing dominates Asia, the world’s largest market, China will be globally preeminent — and is likely to use its power to coerce and weaken the United States. Consider what China is already doing to Australia, Taiwan and other states. No other global threat — not Russia, Iran or North Korea — can do this. As Winston Churchill said, if we get things right in the decisive theater, we can put everything straight after.

This will require working with whoever would help achieve U.S. goals. The Biden team seems to be betting that democracies will align in a global struggle against what Secretary of State Antony Blinken calls “techno-authoritarianism.” But full-scale alignment is unlikely. As German Chancellor Angela Merkel has demonstrated, most prominently by striking a major investment pact with Beijing shortly before Biden’s inauguration, rhetorical fondness for the “rules-based international order” can exist alongside pursuit of self-interest. Many democracies, especially in Europe, don’t share U.S. threat perceptions, given our country’s history as a Pacific power. Recognizing this, we need to work with those countries willing to invest resources in confronting China, such as India and Vietnam, or those willing to help us shift effort away from lesser threats like Iran — even if those partner countries are not model democracies.

For the first time in a long time, the United States is not overwhelmingly predominant. That means we cannot afford to be profligate with our power, wealth and resolve. Rather, we must manage the threats we face — above all China — in ways that promote U.S. power and well-being, rather than vainly expending them in a global ideological struggle or retreating in hopes that the world will favorably stabilize on its own. Such a course is the only option responsive to the needs and risk tolerances of the great bulk of Americans. It is thus the only responsible foreign policy for our democracy in this day and age.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
An Open Letter to Senator Joe Manchin: Stop Worrying About Inflation and Focus on Keeping Hurting Workers Afloat Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58791"><span class="small">John Buell, Informed Comment</span></a>   
Tuesday, 23 March 2021 08:10

Buell writes: "Dear Senator Manchin; Corporate media now portray you as one of the most powerful politicians in DC."

Joe Manchin. (photo: Getty Images)
Joe Manchin. (photo: Getty Images)


An Open Letter to Senator Joe Manchin: Stop Worrying About Inflation and Focus on Keeping Hurting Workers Afloat

By John Buell, Informed Comment

23 March 21

 

ear Senator Manchin;

Corporate media now portray you as on of the most powerful politicians in DC. Hard bargaining on the amount and length of unemployment insurance chopped 100 dollars a week off the compensation workers will receive. This compromise, which you defended on the grounds it would curb Republican obstruction and keep money flowing to the unemployed, still did not win a single Republican vote. Worse still, although the $100 a week reduction may seem a minor matter to you it is exceptionally burdensome to the many workers in today’s economy who stand on the threshold of poverty.

One of your concerns, shared by arch-conservative Senator Lindsey Graham, is that generous unemployment relief would incentivize workers to leave the workforce and sit around watching TV at home. Do you really think that workers are unemployed because they have stopped looking for a job? Why even look for a job when there are no jobs to be found?

Your concerns about workers leaving the workplace reveal an appalling ignorance of the demands and inequities of the labor market.

Your hard bargaining on unemployment insurance may seem like an act of fiscal responsibility and hard-headed realism. Instead it reflects ignorance of the real situation of many even middle class workers and the discipline imposed by the current labor market.. Wheaton College economist John Miller argues that a job, even in today’s economy, “is more secure than enhanced unemployment benefits, and over time will pay more than unemployment insurance benefits. State unemployment benefits expire in less than a year, and in most states they expire within 39 weeks.”

What I would add to Miller is that worker concern to hold a job and forego the expanded unemployment benefits is fully rational. State governments too often play a low road competitive strategy that includes attempts to cut unemployment compensation and workman compensation.

Others who share your concerns about an overly generous government policies, the so-called fiscal hawks, believe that the rebound is will under way and that government is pumping money into an economy closing in on capacity. Uncontrolled inflation may be the result. At the very least once inflation rears its ugly head and becomes a regular player it builds on itself. Workers demand higher wages, employers have to raise prices causing more inflation.

Claudia Sahm, Director of Macroeconomic Policy, Washington Center for Equitable Growth has shown the gaps and improbable events in this horror scenario::. Federal government economists have a history of underestimating the economy’s full potential and overestimating current GNP. Thus the economy is viewed as closer to an inflection point than it proves to be.

Inflation hawks of course are drawing on their recollections of early seventies stagflation, and they view organized labor as one of the villains in the story. Hawks worry that Chairman Powell will wait too long to raise interest rates and curb labor demands. I worry that he will shut the party down too soon, especially if high levels of employment empower labor to gain real wage increases or even, God forbid, to organize. As Sahm points out the Fed has a forty- year history of obsessive fears of inflation.

This obsession has had tragic consequences. Wolf Richter argues:”Long-term, the Employment Population Ratio is one of the most dismal two-decade trends out there. The ratio drops during each recession – that much is normal – but until 2000, the ratio more than recovered each time. In the three recessions since 2000, it never fully recovered before the next recession hit, a testimony to companies trying to bring their costs down by sending work overseas or automating it away:”

This is not an abstract academic argument. Low rates of inflation and the accompanying policies benefit the wealthy and hurt debtors, who are usually poor. Nor is it only the poor who suffer. Even many of the middle class live from paycheck to paycheck, and the possibility of premature economic tightening adds to the general insecurity of our era.

Inflation hawks point to how aggregate employee compensation is back on track. But as Salm argues “narrowly focusing on aggregates is the wrong way to judge the current situation among families. The need remains widespread and urgent. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, half of U.S. families lost employment income last year and less than one fifth received jobless benefits. Millions are behind on paying their rent, mortgage, and student loans. Food banks remain under stress. The breadth of suffering and the gaping holes in our safety necessitate broad relief. “

Senator, lets not repeat the mistakes of the past.

The world has changed over time and disinflationary pressures now persist. Globalization both in practice and as a threat tempers inflation. Labor remains far weaker than in the seventies. Although one cannot totally rule out inflation, tools for dealing with it are available and effective. The greater risk is that personal experiences decades ago and improbable horror scenarios will inflict needless harm on an already desperate nation.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 Next > End >>

Page 161 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN