| | | | What Did Pompeo Know About Ukraine? | | As foreign-policy officials continue to testify on Capitol Hill, some are wondering about their superiors. Politico's Nahal Toosi asks what Secretary of State Mike Pompeo knew about the alleged Ukraine scheme and when he knew it—particularly after US Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland recounted keeping him informed.
Pompeo has said little, Toosi writes, but witness testimony depicts "a secretary of State kept apprised of the Giuliani-led 'irregular channel' of U.S. policy toward Ukraine who nonetheless did little to rein it in or protect U.S. diplomats damaged by the affair." And yet, there are "indications" Pompeo may have been "privately troubled" by what was going on.
At The Washington Post, Ruth Marcus adds to the list of higher-ups from whom Congress deserves to hear, despite the White House kibosh on their testifying: Vice President Mike Pence, acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, former National Security Advisor John Bolton, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, and President Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani all appear to have had some role or knowledge, Marcus writes. | | In US-China Cold War, Two Forms of Capitalism Square Off | | With the fall of the Soviet Union behind us, Nils Gilman writes for The American Interest, the new global competition isn't between capitalism and communism but between two distinct forms of capitalism. Outlining an argument made by Branko Milanović in his book Capitalism, Alone, Gilman writes that "liberal meritocratic capitalism" championed by the US is squaring off with "political capitalism" (in which political leaders steer a business-based economy toward national interests) employed by China.
It's not a clash of ideas, like the US and USSR engaged in, Gilman writes: Today's two superpowers are connected economically, and China might not be trying to spread its "model," anyway—unlike the US, it seems more concerned with preserving its own system and expanding its reach than converting developing countries to any political-economic gospel. ("In the end, whereas Americans want to be emulated, the Chinese merely want to be paid tribute," he writes.) That said, countries may adopt China's system incidentally, as they do more business with Beijing—and to compete, Gilman advises, the US model will need to fix its inequities and deliver the meritocracy it promises. That said, neither will "win," Gilman predicts, partly because neither the US nor China will adopt the other's variety of capitalism anytime soon. | | Why South America Is Engulfed in Turmoil | | To review South America's recent problems: Peru's president dissolved the country's congress at the end of September amid a corruption fight; in October, mass demonstrations over the end of a fuel subsidy forced Ecuador's president to flee the capital; weeks later, protests over a transit-fare hike rocked Chile; and this month, unrest forced Bolivia's just-resigned president to seek asylum in Mexico following a disputed election.
What's behind the chaotic trend? Writing for Americas Quarterly, María Victoria Murillo suggests two reasons: Amid an economic downturn, redistribution models were revealed to advantage some groups over others, while corruption scandals made capitalism and democracy seem unfair. "The former confronted popular sectors against the middle classes; the latter, everyone against the elites," Murillo writes. "In a schematic way, the current Bolivian crisis exemplifies the former and the Chilean one, the latter." Growth in the 2000s created a new, more-diverse South American middle class, which now sees its position as fragile.
In the end, discontent is about a lack of fairness, Murillo writes, and countries are reacting to it differently: On the more productive end, Chile will hold a constitutional referendum, while Bolivia is taking "a less hopeful praetorian road," as the new government granted immunity to soldiers for any violence committed to keep order. | | Are Nuclear-Arms Races on the Horizon? | | Turkey's desire for nuclear weapons has made headlines, but signs may foreshadow a broader arms race. A recent UN speech by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan signified an eroding consensus, Victor Gilinsky and Henry Sokolski argue in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: "One cannot recall another national leader of a country that signed the [Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons]'s no-nuclear-weapons pledge who insisted publicly on the right to have the Bomb if any other countries have it," they write.
Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass, meanwhile, warns at Project Syndicate that nukes could spread in multiple regions. Iran's program could lead Saudi Arabia and possibly others in the Middle East to develop nukes, and Japan and South Korea could conceivably pursue the same course thanks to North Korea. On top of that, history seems to prove nuclear weapons confer advantage: Ukraine gave them up only to be attacked by Russia decades later.
"With nuclear technology increasingly available, arms control unraveling amid renewed great power rivalry, weakened alliances as the US pulls back from the world, and fading memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we are entering a new and dangerous period," Haass writes. "Nuclear competition or even use of nuclear weapons could again become the greatest threat to global stability." | | | | | | |
No comments:
Post a Comment