Simple question: who’s looking more presidential right now?
Dear President Trump,
On September 11, 2001, nineteen foreign nationals hijacked four planes on American soil and murdered over 2,500 innocent civilians.
Within 24 hours, America’s NATO allies came to her aid and invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty We did so without hesitation, without shirking, and without bickering about money. Whatever history’s view of the subsequent wars, our soldiers fought shoulder-to-shoulder with yours, were injured with yours, and died with yours.
In your speech to NATO on 25 May, you did not mention that America’s friends came to her immediate aid. No. You came to bicker about money. To do so, you lied about the nature of a mutual defense pact, and you lied about how that pact is funded.
In your speech in Saudi Arabia earlier this week, you did not once mention that 14 of the 19 murderers on that day were Saudi nationals; that in the aftermath of 9/11, Saudi prevaricated; nor did you mention that Saudi has never publically acknowledged, let alone apologized, for its nationals’ actions. Instead, you applauded their religious tolerance in a country where the practice of Judaism, Christianity and even some types of Islam is in effect banned; you praised their advancement of Women’s Rights in a country where women are not even permitted to drive, or leave the country without the permission of their husband or guardian, and you announced funding for “Global Centre for Combatting Extremist Ideology” in the home of Wahhabism, the most extreme ideological form of Islam, and the direct motivation of the 9/11 terrorists.
Rex Tillerson has earlier said that shared values will take a back seat to practice, and Newt Gingrich observed on Tuesday that your Saudi remarks amount to a major foreign policy shift. Your words tell us and your actions now confirm that values such as fidelity, loyalty, honor and mutual respect have no place in your future world. So craven are you, that neither does shame: in your Saudi speech you announced she purchased US$110bn of American weapons, and a Saudi investment of US$400bn in the US.
A nation is great to the extent that it is worth defending. By this measure, America’s greatness is soon to be over.
A former proud friend of America.
Trump is no doubt proud of the US$100bn order for bombs that he received from Saudi Arabia this week. This is huge. It is a win of the kind that he promised.
It is also about double UNICEF’s annual budget. If Saudi were instead to spend that huge amount of money on education, HIV elimination, clean water, nutrition and child protection, imagine how much better the world would be, and for billions of people. And imagine how much impact that would have on the root causes of terrorism.
But they chose bombs.
So I wondered about Trump’s choice of destinations on his first visit to The Rest Of The World, and was reminded of his Republican predecessor’s “Axis of Evil” speech. This, you may remember, singled out North Korea, Iran and Iraq as somehow evil.
North Korea’s subjects live under a corrupt dynasty that denies them the vote, enriches itself at the expense of its subject’s lives, has no hesitation in killing political opponents, has a tightly regulated press and internet, and will almost certainly cause a horrid war as it spends most of its surplus on arms. The only reason it exists is because it has a powerful sponsor (China) that turns a blind eye to its obvious sins and shields it from its adversaries. Now cross out “North Korea” and replace with “Saudi Arabia” (and replace “China” with “USA”).
Iran is ruled by a corrupt theocracy which nevertheless cloaks itself in some of the trappings of democracy, practices a form of apartheid that discriminates against its own subjects on the basis of their religion, and has an economy that is permanently fucked because none of its neighbours like it. Now cross out “Iran” and plug in “Israel.”
Iraq, at the time of George W.’s speech, was run by a lunatic who got off on big guns. Cross out “Iraq” and write in – need I say more?
Carbon Democracy is a book about the links between the oil industry and the current world order. The basic hypothesis is that many of our political institutions, both in the developed world and in the rest of the world, are shaped by the oil industry.
When I read it, and without faulting the detailed footnotes and bundles of research, my reaction was that the author asked too much of the data, and didn’t give sufficient consideration to other explanations. But that was pre-Trump.
I took the book’s point that many developing countries which have oil have been ravished by oil companies, and beaten up when their respective peoples tried to organize themselves to get part of the action. Iran in 1953 democratically elected a prime minister who was overthrown by a CIA-engineered coup d’état (ironically in the interests of British Petroleum) when he nationalized Iran’s oil; Ken Saro-Wiwa paid the price for standing up to Royal Dutch Shell when the then government of Nigeria hung him on trumped-up charges and Shell failed to intervene, thereby winning an extension of its concession. The list goes on.
I also took the point that, just as Imperial Britain in the nineteenth century imported tea at such a vast rate that it had to export opium to make up the balance-of-payments gap, the West imports oil at such a vast rate that it has to export arms to cover the difference. Hence most petro-cracies are armed to the teeth – even if incapable of using those arms.
But, I thought when I read the book, oil doesn’t have Western democracies in its pocket in the same way. Yes, the author pointed out that, with oil reserves becoming increasingly difficult to find and expensive to bring to production, oil companies are now turning to the developed countries for reserves – hence, fracking and tar sands – and that the people who live next door are not enjoying extraction on their doorsteps. Poisoned groundwater just isn’t the same. But the developed economies, I thought, were sufficiently diversified that this would be a side-show
No longer. Tillerson aside, the US government’s agenda is essentially oil. To the extent that it has a discernible policy, it is to bring back manufacturing, and especially car manufacturing, to bring back coal-fired power stations and coal mining, and to burn, burn and burn. As the oil industry’s proxy, on top of their well-publicized de-funding of the EPA, etc., Trump’s administration has been quietly removing references to climate change from the US Government’s website.
The Trump administration is not exactly dominated by intellectual heavyweights. In fact, they’re noticeable by their absence. But the tradition they draw on stems from Hayek, the intellectual father of neo-liberalism. It was Hayek, they say, who decried government interference and regulations that increase the cost of doing business. Perhaps the later Hayek did – I don’t know; I’ve only just started reading him – but his earlier work, The Road to Serfdom (I’ve chosen a gee-wow review) doesn’t mention regulation at all. The thesis is that, when a government becomes singles out any industry or group of industries for favorable treatment, totalitarianism is round the corner.
There’s no doubt that Trump has singled out a group of industries for his favours; you don’t need The Economist to point out that Trump and his team seem barely even aware that there’s more to the economy that digging fossil fuels out of the ground and finding various ways of burning them. What, I wonder, would the father of neo-liberalism think of this?
Writing on how totalitarianism states come into being – a process that he lived through in pre-Nazi Austria, so had seen (and suffered from) first hand – Hayek sets out the steps. First, choose an industry or group of industries for favour (√). Given finite resources, this will come at the expense of other industries, so throw away the free market (think trade treaties: √). Because this will disadvantage those who are not favoured, win them over. As it is likely that the majority will be so disadvantaged, this is no easy feat. So some mass psychology is needed:
The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve [in the transition to totalitarianism] is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they… have always held… And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarianism regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as the complete perversion of language.
I don’t it takes a critical reading of Trump’s abuse of language to see this in action. “Security” becomes the deprivation of rights, “fake news” the utterances of anyone opposed, and the like – so √ again.
The part of Carbon Democracy which I thought the author got dead right is that peak supply of oil has almost certainly passed, and that peak demand either soon will or has already happened. The result is that a massive and very powerful industry is dying – and knows it. Massive things are at their most dangerous in their death throes. As the oil industry is dominated by Anglo-American companies, it’s perhaps not surprising that British and American democracies will be the main victims.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory. People of similar dispositions and interests collaborate all the time without conspiring. It is, rather, the confluence of various independent historical trajectories that makes totalitarianism in Britain and America almost inevitable. But not quite. Because, as another hero of the right said, all it takes for the success of evil is for good men to do nothing – and good men are doing something.
Update: The UK is advancing Teresa May’s Snooper’s Charter. According to The Telegraph, the Hom Office wants to extend the already highly intrusive Investigatoy Powers Act seeks to give the government the right to read all communications in real time, and to ban the encryption of such communications. If that isn’t totalitarian, I don’t know what is.
Thank you to my friend, JT, for pointing me at a long, detailed article exposing just how much technology the right-wing threw at winning Brexit. In short, a small coterie of right-wing billionaires applied data-mining and psychological profiling technology to social media data, to identify those undecided and target on the one-hand those disaffected to go out and vote for Brexit, and on the other hand those unaffected to stay at home. And it worked. We will probably never know how many people voted Brexit as a “fuck-you” to the ruling classes and how many because they believed Britain was better off out, but no one voted “Remain” as a fuck you: our billionaires exploited this asymmetry in voting patterns to great effect.
Now, I’m no fan of conspiracy theories, and influencing voters is part and parcel of politics. And anyone reading this can judge the article on its own merits. But let’s just say that, in this case, there’s smoke because there’s fire. Extraordinary advances in technology have made invasive influence possible, and an elite have exploited that. But why? Why would Brexit matter so much to this coterie of billionaires? I guess they’re motivated by more than just money, but what would they gain either financially or ideologically from such an exercise?
In the case of Brexit, nobody really knew, either at the time of the vote or now, what the impact would be.
The economic arguments for and against Brexit were, to say the least, inconclusive. To say a little more, they bordered – on both sides – on incoherence. Remain threatened an instant economic melt-down if Britain left; Leave stated at one point that Britain’s contribution was (something like) £350 million a week which, on the back of an envelope, is £18 billion a year. In an economy of about £1,200 billion, this is 1.5%, which although it’s a huge amount to me (and probably you), is rounding error in the overall scheme of things – and was never substantiated. So, to your average plutocrat, case not proven.
The security arguments were at best xenophobic and at worst racist. The Syrian hordes, we were told, were arriving in their hundreds of thousands; the EU nationals working in the UK were doing so at pittances that no self-respecting “Brit” (I use the quote marks because what they mean by a Brit and what I mean are two different things) would.
Neither of these positions seem very pertinent to a billionaire: the world’s plutocrats worry about borders only in as much as they present opportunities for arbitrage in investments and tax. There may have been a mild ideological inclination to Brexit, but it was at heart a sordid little referendum in an island that is increasingly irrelevant. Why bother?
At first blush, I was tempted to say “because they can” – manipulating the Brexit vote was a kind of alpha-male dick-waving exercise. But, in the course of writing this, I wondered if there was more to it.
And I think there is a plausible explanation: I think the real prize was not Brexit, but the US, and that the Brexit exercise was what IT people call a Beta-test. Our billionaires had some great technology, and wanted to use it to sway the US election, but they weren’t sure it would work. Britain is culturally very close to the US, and the psychological profiling on which the technology hinged based would be more likely to be repeatable between the UK and US than profiling developed for, say, China or Arabia. In addition, votes for Brexit and Trump have deep structural similarities: both were to a large extent framed as votes against the status quo rather than votes for something. (As I’ve said before, I’m still not sure what Trump stands for.)
So the structural similarities between the Brexit and Trump votes, coupled with the need for psychological profiling that would transport across cultures, made Brexit a perfect test ground. Once they’d proven their technology in Brexit, the way was open for Trump.
And boy, did it work. One very telling thing: the activist Linda Tirado withheld her vote for Clinton for the usual reasons – Wall St., corruption, Benghazi. None of these reasons stands up to inspection: everyone in politics (or business – a propos Trump) in US has connections to Wall St., The Clinton Foundation is not corrupt, and numerous Federal and Congressional investigations absolved Clinton of any blame. These memes were put out there by precisely the people Linda didn’t want in power. Yet people like her fell for the right-wing profinling by staying home just as much as those who cast protest votes for Brexit and Trump did by coming out to vote.
It may be said that all parties are free to use this technology. But this kind of invidious and invasive technology is more than influencing people’s rational decisions: it’s a corruption of democracy: making informed choices is a very different thing to be bamboozled into a vote you don’t understand. And if Internet companies regard personal, private data as a resource to be sold to anyone with the money, irrespective of the use to which it will be put, democracy is dead.
So the real challenge is to take that power away from the big Internet companies. That’s for another post, and probably much more techy blog than this, but I believe it can be done – by technology, not by statute.
[Updated: thanks to Andrew, who reminded me that the claim was £350 billion with a “b”, not an “m”]
[Thanks to JT, who sent me a photo of a bus with £350 million a week on it. So I’ve changed that bit, but it doesn’t really affect the overall flow of the argument.]
Rex Tillerson gave a speech yesterday. Setting aside the folksy language that has come to dominate US political discourse, it was the first articulate expression by the Trump administration of anything at all, and I commend it on those grounds alone.
That said, I can’t say I liked all of it. Tillerson set out what he has learnt in his first three months, and where he is taking the US in the world. The entire subjects of Europe and climate change were conspicuous by their absence. But, on the positive side, he’s the first Secretary of State to recognize in public how clapped-out our Cold War institutions are, and, perhaps unlike his boss, he does seem aware that foreign policy consists of many parts and that those parts interlock in strange, curious and often unpredictable ways.
The ethical core of the speech, according to The Guardian, was this: “In some circumstances, if you condition our national security efforts on someone adopting our values, we probably can’t achieve our national security goals” – i.e., sometimes you have to deal with bad guys to get good things done. The Guardian, however, read no further and condemned Tillerson without even pausing to mention that all governments and indeed most people sometimes turn to distasteful means to achieve worthy ends. This is a shame in part because this take renders the piece opinion rather than news so fuels the fake-news fire, but mainly because it misses the more revealing aspects of Tillerson’s approach.
A more telling quote is: “We must secure the nation. We must protect our people. We must protect our borders. We must protect our ability to be that voice of our values now and forevermore. And we can only do that with economic prosperity.” This is very clear: economic prosperity is good only in as much as it secures the nation. Or, to put it another way around, economic prosperity is subordinate to security: if there’s a choice between the economy and security, security will win (which perhaps explains why the economy prospered under Clinton and Obama, tanked under Bush and George W. and augers ill for Trump.)
So what does Tillerson mean by “secure”? He doesn’t spell it out but, as “security,” “foreign policy,” “defense” and similar terms are all politically correct terms for war, let’s turn to that.
Since Reagan, securing the nation and protecting the people has rested on the war on drugs. Since George W, it has further rested on the war on terrorism. Those wars are conducted because drugs and terrorism are bad. (This may seem obvious, but historically both of these “wars” were knee-jerk reactions to crises – crack cocaine and 9/11 respectively. Before the crack-cocaine crisis, drugs were merely one evil amongst many, and before 9/11, few Americans had a clue what terrorism was, and indeed many even funded it – think IRA).
But the point is not whether or not drugs and terrorism are bad – I’m simply saying that what is bad is disputable because it is to some extent fashionable – but that, far from divorcing policy from values, Tillerson’s stance is a reinforcement of policy by values. Securing the nation means ridding it of drugs and terror for the very reason that drugs and terror are bad.
If this is the case, what Tillerson means is not that exporting values per se is bad, but rather that “freedom, human dignity, the way people are treated” can be sacrificed, but that the wars on drugs and terror can’t. In other words, negative values (preventing bad things – security) are more important than positive values (engendering good things – liberty).
This is a depressing approach. If freedom and human dignity are to be switched off as soon as drugs or terror are involved, the reason for keeping the nation secure is already lost. And I’m not the first to observe that, in the tide of history, those who sacrifice liberty to gain security end up with neither.
`Exercise pill’ could deliver benefits of fitness in tablet form says a headline in yesterday’s Guardian. It sounds like more of a threat than a promise. In the last few days, I’ve
- Crewed on a yacht, juggling poles and sails on an under-crewed foredeck (and not done a very good job of it),
- Been for a short, easy walk with friends,
- With thanks to Derek Irwin for organizing it, and for the pictures, I’ve been for a long, tough hike through some stunning, inaccessible places in Hong Kong
- Won my first literary prize (albeit in an impromptu competition with few entrants) for the haiku verse inspired by the above walk, and
- Compounded the aches and pains from the above by doing another tough walk yesterday.
Here goes the haiku:
Mottled green moss
Under fast bubbling water
A dragonfly dies
for which I received a bottle of champagne which we drank.
Even with a certifiable nutcase in charge of the world’s biggest nuclear arsenal, life is still pretty damn good. And they can’t put that in a pill.
According to my sister’s book (yes, that was a plug), the 200,000 tonnes of rock that Kalgoorie’s Super Pit blows up every day yields three or four bars of gold. As each bar weighs 12.4 kg, that’s a yield of about 0.00002%. The Great Confusicator’s ratio of information to words must be about the same.
Trump’s recent AP interview is typical (and a very funny account of reading it is here). Set aside the self-aggrandizement, blaming Obama for everything, and the rambling asides about how he, alone of the previous five Republican presidents, beat the electoral college system (which is a, er, pre-requisite to becoming president), and what’s left are stock phrases – “Great guy, done some wonderful stuff” – “We’re gonna have a plan and it’s gonna be a great plan.” As we never get to learn what wonderful stuff the great guy has done, or what the plan is, the yield of information content thus far is zero.
However, buried in the drivel, this interview does contains two nuggets.
The first is the slow dawning on Trump that the US government “is thousands of times bigger than the biggest company in the world.” Well, duh-uh. As it happens, his numbers are wrong: at UDS3.46tn / year, the federal government is about one thousand times as big as the total probable worth of Trump’s own company, but it’s only about ten times as large as Exxon. And his related statement that the Department of Defense is the second-largest is plain bollocks: the economies of China, Japan, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, California and India are all larger than the DoD.
The second nugget is “you know the human life that’s involved.” We do. He apparently is new to the concept. More telling yet: “Well in business, you don’t necessarily need heart, whereas here, almost everything affects people. … Here, everything, pretty much everything you do in government, involves heart, whereas in business, most things don’t involve heart.” Having had this epiphany, he goes on: “In fact, in business you’re actually better off without it.”
I know of a large number of businesses that take a different view, but that single statement is probably the clearest summing up of Trump’s own way of doing business.
Now, to be fair, our new-found convert to the strange concept of “heart” goes on to say “You have to love people. And if you love people, such a big responsibility…” But do you notice something about the locution? Trump doesn’t say “I love people.” He doesn’t say “I have heart.” No, he says “You have to love…”, “you know that humans life’s involved,” “everything you do in government.”
So heart, after all, is for others, not for President Trump.
I’m sorry, delicate reader, but is more proof needed that President Trump’s not only an idiot, but also a cunt of the first order?
So tweeted, according to the NY Times, Donald Trump Jr as the Motherfucker Of All Bombs was dropped – as if a single bomb and 40 casualties will end the quagmire in Afghanistan or ISIS, and as if 59 Tomohawk missiles specifically targeted at nothing will solve Syria’s intractable problems.
But the President, in his own eyes and I suppose those his supporters, has been keeping his promises. He’s put the Muslim Ban in place (that’s 1) and, when Gorsuch (2) is sworn in, will no doubt take it to the Supreme Court where, if the Republican majority votes with its politics instead of with the law it will be upheld.
Jeff Sessions is ploughing ahead, deporting illegal immigrants (3), Scott Priutt is dismembering the EPA (4), and although TrumpCare was an embarrassment, it meant a lot more to house Republicans than to Trump.
Tax reform is next. As Trump doesn’t do details, he’ll probably be able to claim success no matter what the house agrees, so let’s give him that one (5). And, at least in his own mind and that of his supporters, the Syrian and Afghanistan pyrotechnics will probably count as having made America Great (6). With the military
games exercises happening off South Korea this week very likely to end up in a skirmish, which no one involved has the diplomatic skills to prevent developing into a war, that’ll be more Greatness (6), especially as the only outcome if China and Japan get involved is nuclear, thus ending the competition from China (7).
And, as I live in Hong Kong, I’ll be nuked with everyone else on this side of the planet, so that’s one fewer pesky blogger (8 – well, 7.0000000001).
It is difficult to be optimistic under such circumstances. But I am. Short of an all-out nuclear war – which is on the cards – all this exposes what we knew already, which is that the political system in America, while not quite broken, is in need of some serious running repairs. Perhaps a second constitutional congress is overdue?
But I am ultimately optimistic because Imperium Americum, which stopped being a force for good some time back, is coming to a rapid end. That creates a space for a new, and I hope better, world.
You saw it here first a few posts ago, when I predicted that Trump’s madness, folly and incompetence would soon paint his administration into a corner from which war was the only escape. I didn’t think he’d manage it this fast. (However, if you scroll down today’s NY Times here and here and here and here – and that’s only today – which show an administration in tail-spin, perhaps it’s not surprising.)
Let me be clear: chemical weapons are horrid, and Assad deserves a special place in hell. But – after taking almost a week for Trump to move from indifference to moral outrage when the rest of us took about a micro-second – is a sudden, trigger-happy launch of ballistics the appropriate response? Would a phone-call to Trump’s and Assad’s mutual sponsor, Putin, not be a better start? Is there an endgame here, a vision of a Middle East after the Syrian civil war has ended? Is there a path towards peace in the region, a peace that includes Russia, Iran, Iraq and Israel as well as the umpteen factions that vie for political supremacy? Will bombing a few of Assad’s targets weaken his regime thus strengthening ISIS?
I do not know the answer to any of these questions. But, and although it’s early in the piece, there is no evidence that Trump or his administration do either.
The path to rapid escalation and ultimate nuclear conflict is very clear. The path to peace is not. The former has just taken a big step forwards.