| | | | Trump's Worthwhile Gamble | | | The Trump administration is right to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), argues Eli Lake for Bloomberg. Russia was violating the deal. It's time to push for something better. "[I]t's worth recalling the lead up to the original INF Treaty. In the early 1980s, Reagan was under enormous pressure from western European allies to hold off on deploying the Pershing II missiles to counter the Soviet SS-20s. He resisted, and the Pershing II missiles were deployed," Lake writes. "That chess move paid off. The deployment was one factor that helped persuade the Soviets to negotiate seriously for the INF Treaty in 1987. The lesson: Some short-term proliferation may be necessary for long-term arms control. Trump is taking a similar approach today." | | What Erdogan Was Really Saying Today | | | Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan offered little new information in a much-anticipated speech Tuesday even as he rejected the Saudi version of events in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, writes Patrick Wintour for The Guardian. But one thing became clearer: Turkey has Saudi Arabia's crown prince in its diplomatic crosshairs.
"In public Erdoğan cannot be seen to be relishing Saudi Arabia's discomfort. The Turks are conducting an incredibly complex investigation that has political and diplomatic ramifications that could last for years. So far Erdoğan, seeking to cast himself as leader of the Islamic world, has trodden carefully," Wintour writes.
But it "was revealing that Erdoğan stressed his belief that King Salman was sincere and cooperating with the inquiry, but made no such reference to bin Salman, Saudi Arabia's de facto leader."
"The aim appears to be to persuade the king that the only way to save Saudi Arabia's reputation is either by dislodging bin Salman or at a minimum reining in his powers." | | The Truth About the Migrant Caravans | | | Ignore the alarmist rhetoric over the migrant caravan from Central America, writes Elizabeth Oglesby for The Hill. This latest caravan may currently be larger than usual, but it's far from a crisis.
"The migrant caravans usually dissipate as they go further north in Mexico. Last spring's caravan shrunk from 1,500 to around 200 people by the time it got to the border entry in San Diego, as many people chose to stay in Mexico. It remains to be seen whether the current caravan will follow the same trend," Oglesby writes.
"A few hundred, or even a few thousand, destitute people fleeing Central America is not a border security crisis. Despite Trump's attempts to gin up fear, there has never been a terrorist attack against the United States involving people coming across the US-Mexico border, nor any known terrorists arrested here. There is no evidence that such a threat exists with the current caravan. These Central Americans are ordinary people facing extraordinarily difficult situations." | | But Don't Call These People Migrants... | | Venezuelans fleeing their country are being described as migrants. That's a problem, writes Dany Bahar for Foreign Affairs.
"As with other refugee crises, the millions of Venezuelans who have left their homes are not migrants searching for better opportunities but rather refugees fleeing for their lives. Recognizing fleeing Venezuelans as refugees would be an acknowledgment of a reality that can no longer be ignored," Bahar argues.
"Venezuelans—particularly the more vulnerable ones such as poor people, women, children, and vocal critics of the [Nicolas] Maduro regime—lack basic freedoms and are victims of political persecution. They often suffer human rights violations, in the form of government crackdowns on protests, arbitrary detentions, and the use of torture. Moreover, their access to food, health care, and education has been severely curtailed by a man-made crisis that has resulted in malnourishment and often death. Maduro and his regime have refused to give the population access to humanitarian assistance that would alleviate its suffering."
| | Why an "Unwinnable" War Could Still Be Worth Fighting | | The Afghan war might be unwinnable, at least in traditional terms, suggests Michael Gerson in The Washington Post. But the United States might have no choice but to stay indefinitely. Call it the "medium-footprint approach."
"Terrorist havens can't be left in peace for jihadists to prepare and increase their technical sophistication. But striking from afar with drones and planes (as we've seen) is not enough to destroy these havens. American troops are needed on the ground to gather intelligence, provide reconnaissance and embed with local partners. And these troops, in turn, must be adequately protected," Gerson writes.
"But will Americans accept—will President Trump accept—what amounts to a limited but indefinite, forward military presence in the Middle East to preempt emerging threats?"
"This would require people to view commitments such as the one in Afghanistan in a different light—not as a war that will eventually end, but as the farthest outposts of homeland defense."
| | The so-called resource curse—when a country's economy becomes too dependent on a natural resource like oil—is much talked about. But countries relying on tourism are finding themselves in a similar trap, suggests Geert Vansintjan in Foreign Policy. And education is one of the biggest casualties.
"[A]ccording to the World Travel & Tourism Council, tourism made up 10.4 percent of world GDP in 2017. In the OECD area, it accounted for an average of 4.1 percent of GDP and 5.9 percent of employment. Across the developing world, the average is even higher," Vansintjan writes.
Yet "tourism can discourage individual investment in education. In the OECD area, an average of 45 percent of people aged 25-34 have a college degree. In the OECD countries with large tourism sectors, the percentage is far lower: 43 percent for Spain, 34 percent in Portugal, 27 percent in Italy. Education is a lesser priority still in developing countries with large tourism sectors.
"The reason is fairly straightforward. In an economy dominated by tourism (like one dominated by oil), the economic returns on education are low because a large portion of available jobs are in hospitality or in other sectors that don't require it." | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment