MESSAGE
| DATE | 2017-01-20 |
| FROM | Rick Moen
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [Hangout-NYLXS] Word of the Year for 2016
|
Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben-at-mrbrklyn.com):
> Indeed, and NATO is not the same organization that is was designed to
> be in the late 1940's.
Fair enough.
> Yes, but I didn't disagree with that. What I said was that NATO is
> not what it was originally designed for....
OK, noted. Given that this is what you meant when you said that 'NATO
as it was formed is long dead', again, fair enough. It served its
purpose through the Cold War, and that original purpose came to its end
with the 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union, but it's evident to me
that it remains vital as a defensive alliance against Russian
expansionism. The Baltics have reason to be nervous, Ukraine (not a
NATO member) is being dismembered by covert Russian military action,and
this is a really bad time for an American president-elect to go around
making isolationist noises. And the latter is what Trump's been doing
-- raising further suspicions, frankly, about just how far his ties with
Russia go.
And it's even less reassuring to speculate that all of the man's
diplomacy faux-pas so far have _not_ been careful policy to remake the
world order, but just an impulsive narcissist shooting off his mouth on
a whim.
And, by the way, I do understand Putin's beef with the West about
Ukraine, and largely agree with him. NATO and Russia had an explicit
understanding that the West would respect Russia's sphere of influence
and not expand NATO right to Russia's border, and then NATO did exactly
that. Also, the US attempted clumsy covert subversion in Ukraine
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/03/03/glenn-greenwald-pandodaily-tussle-over-ukraine-editorial-independence/)
and in general ignored its sensitivity to Russia. All of this was
really not smart at all, and even though the moves to first grab Crimea
(Russian until Khrushchev signed a memo transferring it to the Ukrainian
S.S.R. in 1954, and majority-Russian-populated all along) and then
interfere militarily in Russia-leaning eastern Ukraine were probably
impromptu and done primarily for reasons of Putin's domestic politics
(again, see Mark Ames,
https://pando.com/2014/05/14/sorry-america-the-ukraine-isnt-all-about-you/),
it was a natural reaction. I suspect Ames is correct: The West's best
move is to just stop poking Russia with a stick, let Ukraine be its
chewtoy for a while, and let it work out its issues.
> OK - so just to pick this one item out of a long list of grievances,
> and in the spirit of dialog, I want to say that I've never been in
> favor of large trade agreements with 3rd world countries on moral
> grounds.
I don't even know anybody who advocates them on moral grounds.
Certainly not I. All I really said about trade agreements (NATO not
being a trade agreement) is that Trump's hinted-at intention to launch
protectionist measures against various foreign countries, notably China,
is a dumb idea that will hurt people. (That expands out the much
shorter bit I mentioned in passing, upthread.)
I'm a capitalist, and one who agrees with the basic economist consensus
that lower tariff barriers and free[r] trade is in almost every case
better on balance for all participating countries (though obviously not
for every individual in every country), where by 'better' I mean in a
material sense. Closing down trade opportunities makes all partners to
that trade poorer.
Can this lead to exported pollution, labor exploitation, money to skeevy
dictatorships? Certainly. It very likely will. However, the
alernative is everyone being a lot poorer. Also, some particulars of
many trade agreements have stunk to high heaven, as you well know
(starting with copyright, secret terms, secret negotiation, and going on
from there).
Point is, no, free[r] world trade doesn't get you the power to make
distant countries treat their citizens well, or have democratic
processes, or respect the environment -- but it does help raise the
entire world out of grinding poverty and make everyone on average better
off materially. And at least with trade relations with those countries,
you have hopes of influencing labor laws, environmental regulation, and
transparent government that you didn't have before. You know what most
of those Chinese workers would have gotten out of life without their
soul-destroying factory jobs? Soul-destroying rural poverty. And you
know the single biggest reason we have no influence inside North Korea?
Because of no trade.
> Of course, your well aware that the discssions about the use, upgrade,
> and purpose of nuclear weapons does not induldge such idiotic rational.
I assume you mean 'rationale'. I nowhere made any moral claim as a
rationale for either trade agreements or military alliances. The
rational grounds for trade agreemenys are economic. Those for military
alliances are military.
> The ICBMs and Nukes are going to need an upgrade, increased mobility,
> and modern control and tracking, not to mention that tactical weapons
> also need a large upgrade in order to counter the growing world wide
> threat... not just from Russia.
See, that's perfectly true, which is why we have existing arrangements
already in place to do exactly that. However, that has nothing to do
with what Trump said.
On Dec. 22nd, the president-elect tweeted that the US 'must greatly
strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the
world comes to its senses regarding nukes'. Pretty much everyone
familiar with nuclear policy rose as one to say 'WTF?' To clarify, he
spoke the next day on television's Morning Joe interview program, and
rather than walk that remark back, he doubled down, saying he is fine
with the country taking part in an 'arms race' if it puts the U.S. in a
stronger position against foreign adversaries. He then elaborated in an
off-camera comment to the TV host: 'Let it be an arms race.... We will
outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all.'
So, he is trying to basically throw away fifty years of efforts at
preventing nuclear escalation -- seemingly just pulling this terrible
idea out of his toupee.
Earlier in the campaign, candidate Trump out of nowhere suddenly
suggested that some countries including Japan, South Korea and Saudi
Arabia, should be allowed and encouraged to develop nuclear weapons.
http://time.com/4276960/trump-wants-to-free-the-nuclear-genie/
But then, showing no sign of seeing any contradiction, he told the NY
Times in an interview that 'Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is
nuclear, and proliferation.' It was about this time I started
suspecting that the man is already lapsing into dementia, thus the
frequent erratic behavior, lack of focus, total absence of discipline,
and occasionally very incoherent statements.
During a separate, different Morning Joe appearance, candidate Trump
last August denied utterly
(http://time.com/4437089/donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-nukes/) a highly
credible report that a foreign policy expert had visited to advise
Trump, and Trump had asked three timed why we don't just use nuclear
weapons, given that we have them. Host Joe Scarsborough didn't believe
the denial, and really neither did essentially anyone else.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-if-nuclear-weapons-them.html
(In fairness, this was a story that Scarsborough heard after it escaped
from the Trump campaign as rumor: He certainly was not party to that
conversation. But he clearly felt he had reason to believe his source.)
_______________________________________________
hangout mailing list
hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://www.nylxs.com/
|
|
