Showing posts with label william barr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label william barr. Show all posts

Thursday, July 16, 2020

Maggie Thatcher and Hong Kong

Doug Bandow look back at the British deal made by Margaret Thatcher with China on the terms for the handover of Hong Kong in 1997. "Tragic though this outcome is, the worsening dictatorship cannot be blamed on Thatcher. And there was little she could have done to have saved China or Hong Kong. Moreover, there is good news: history rarely offers permanent verdicts. We have no idea what will follow Xi," he writes. (Negotiating Hong Kong: playing chicken with millions of lives Responsible Statecraft 07/15/2020)

He describes the options that the UK faced if it had tried to set up Hong Kong as a permanent colony - which would have been a real anachronism in the world of 1997! - or to try to support it as an independent country.

Noting that the recent developments produced what looks like an "ugly reality", he describes the practical limitations in the throwback colonial option, but these would also apply to an independence option guaranteed by Britain:
Beijing would have responded angrily but likely avoided war. In 1997, when the lease formally expired, China’s GDP was little more than half of the UK’s and about a tenth of America’s. Beijing had not fared well militarily when seeking to teach Vietnam “a lesson” in 1979. Although the PRC was a nuclear power, so were London and Washington, which would have been on Thatcher’s speed dial to back up the British.

More important, the PRC was only beginning its economic Long March, reforming its economy and entering foreign markets. Conflict would have interrupted that process, with long-term negative impacts. The pragmatic Deng likely would have played the long game, avoiding a direct confrontation until he or his successor was sure of winning.

In the meantime, however, Hong Kong would have become an increasing burden on the United Kingdom, which probably would have been locked out of the newly expanding Chinese market. The right mix of verbal threats and military deployments by Beijing would have forced the UK to maintain a battle-ready garrison with sufficient back-up — perhaps an aircraft carrier permanently berthed in the harbor — just in case. Doing so would be difficult and expensive for London.

Beijing could have isolated the colony and systematically harassed British rule. The result would not just have inconvenienced residents and burdened London. Many foreign companies would have avoided settling in Hong Kong; some established firms would have left for safer and more hospitable havens elsewhere, such as Singapore. [my emphasis]
After Britain's experience with the massive decolonization following the Second World War, it's not surprising that they decided not to rerun the experience with Hong Kong.

With Trump relying on anti-China agitation for his reelection campaign, it's worth paying attention to various kinds of chicanery on the government's part in that regard. The very creepy Attorney General William Barr is threatening businesspeople over "appeasement" of China, threatening prosecutions for espionage. The Financial Times reports (Kadhim Shubber, Barr warns against corporate America's China 'appeasement' 07/16/2020):
Campaign aides believe Mr Trump can regain lost ground against Democratic rival Joe Biden by casting himself as tough on China, part of an effort to draw a contrast on the subject with the policies of the Obama administration, where Mr Biden served as vice-president.

Mr Barr took particular aim at large US technology companies and Hollywood, insisting that business leaders who pander to Beijing's demands would only reap short-term rewards.
Attorney General Barr delivers remarks on China policy in Grand Rapids, Michigan PBS Newshour 07/16/2020:


Monday, March 23, 2020

My Scrooge-ish take on the NeverTrumpers

One phenomenon of the Trump era that I may never be able to grasp is the appeal of the group of hardcore, rightwing, warmongering Republicans known as NeverTrumpers.

Jennifer Rubin has a high public profile among politically engaged Democrats due to her regular Washington Post column. In Don’t torture yourself with the clown show Washington Post 03/22/2020, she argues, "It is only in the disastrous Trump era that we have been bludgeoned by ignorance, cruelty, incompetence and narcissism on an unprecedented scale."

That is an argument that I wouldn't make in the way she does. And it's a reminder of how the political establishment of both parties and the corporate media in general failed to seriously process the implications of the Bush-Cheney Administration with its serious crimes and abuses.

I've been re-reading Al Gore's 2007 book The Assault on Reason. He was engaging in real time with that Administration's policies. It's surprisingly hard going. Not because the writing is difficult to follow, on the contrary. The problem is that I can't make it through a whole chapter in one sitting, because it's stunning to remember how cosmically bad that Administration was.

Think about what was involved: the Iraq War, the bungled Afghanistan War, Guantanamo, Abu Ghuraib and "special rendition" and John Yoo (aka, criminal torture), the total ignoring of the Al-Qaida threat in 2001, John Ashcroft, Halliburton, Katrina.

With the Iraq War in the mix, I wouldn't say that Trump has yet reached the Shrub Bush level of cruelty, incompetence, etc.

But be that as it may, that horror show of a government was creating clear precedents for the worst practices of Trump's scary clown show of a government. People like Gore and John Dean were saying clearly at the time what kind of horrendous precedents Bush and Cheney and their whole crew were creating.

Take this current very legitimate concern as an example. The current Attorney General, William Barr, served in the first Bush Administration, where he was already in favor of packing the jails full. (Sagiv Galai, William Barr Was an Ardent Champion of Mass Incarceration ACLU.org 01/10/2019) Now he's asking for more power to keep people in jail without charges, aka, preventive detention, using the COVID-19 crisis as justification, as Betsy Woodruff Swan reports (Politico DOJ seeks new emergency powers amid coronavirus pandemic 03/21/2020):

The Justice Department has quietly asked Congress for the ability to ask chief judges to detain people indefinitely without trial during emergencies — part of a push for new powers that comes as the novel coronavirus spreads throughout the United States. ...

The request raised eyebrows because of its potential implications for habeas corpus — the constitutional right to appear before a judge after arrest and seek release.

“Not only would it be a violation of that, but it says ‘affecting pre-arrest,’” said Norman L. Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. “So that means you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over. I find it absolutely terrifying. Especially in a time of emergency, we should be very careful about granting new powers to the government.” [my emphasis]
Here is what Gore wrote in his 2007 book:
... the diminished role of individuals in America's national conversation has been accompanied by a diminished respect for the rights of individuals- especially during the Bush-Cheney administration.

For example, President Bush has declared that he has a heretofore unrecognized inherent power to seize and imprison any American citizen whom he alone determines to be a threat to our nation- without an arrest warrant, without notifying them of what charges have been filed against them, and without even informing their families that they have been imprisoned. The president claims that he can simply snatch an American citizen off the street and keep him or her locked up indefinitely - even for the rest of his or her life- and refuse to allow that citizen the right to make a phone call or talk to a lawyer even to argue that the president or his appointees have made a mistake and imprisoned the wrong person. [my emphasis in bold]
Bush's Attorney General John Ashcroft, who like Barr was a Christian dominionist who disdained separation of church and state, infamously used the aftermath of the 2001 9/11 attack, followed by an unrelated shooting spree in the Washington area by two men and the never-fully-explained mailings of anthrax powder to politicians and media offices, to get a grab-bag of increased surveillance and police powers enacted which was basically a wish-list of measures of things the Justice Department wanted anyway.

This history forms my own view of the NeverTrumper schtick. Which starts from the fact that NeverTrumpers particularly visible in the press such as Rubin, Max Boot, Butcher's Bill Kristol, David "Bobo" Brooks, David Frum, Peggy Noonan, Michael Gerson, are rightwing Republicans. They are not people who had some kind of "Road to Damascus" conversion in which they became aghast at the loyal support for the Bush-Cheney Administration and its horrible precedents. The main impulse for the "NeverTrumper" crew was Trump's seeming departures from hawkish Republican war policies, as illustrated by this joint statement of various conservative foreign policy figures from March 2016, Open Letter on Donald Trump From GOP National Security Leaders War on the Rocks 03/02/2016.

So why do some Democrats who don't necessarily identify with their rightwing policy positions find NeverTrumper arguments attractive? It seems to me several factors are at work. One is the novelty factor, which weighs heavily with the favorable media reception of the NeverTrumpers. The NTers are making "counterintuitive" arguments, something the media loves, i.e., they are professed rightwing Republicans arguing against the rightwing Republican President.

But why do Democrats find their arguments attractive? Here are my thoughts at this point.

As Republicans, the NT's have a kind of "insider" credibility.

They insist on what would be nice to believe, that Trump is a bizarre aberration who will soon give way to a restored normalcy. Rubin writes, "Though so much is uncertain and our lives have been put on pause, we will hold elections in November. We will be able to replace Trump and his exasperating band of buffoonish advisers."

They often stress broad (classical) liberal principles like the rule of law and respect for institutions.

The Democratic leadership really has since the Reagan years gotten comfortable with a "duck-and-cover" approach. Part of that, as George Lakoff has described at length, is that Democrats are sorely tempted to adopt Republican "framing" on major issues. Or simply conceding the framing to Republicans are try to argue against a Republican worldview by stressing facts but not distinguishing a progressive, Democratic worldview/framing. (Patt Morrison, Linguist George Lakoff on what Democrats don’t understand — and Republicans do — about how voters think Los Angeles Times 11/22/2018) The NeverTrumpers give centrist Democrats anti-Trump arguments prepackaged in Republican framing.

And, let's be blunt, a not-insignificant number of Democratic voters support the more hawkish worldview of the NeverTrumpers. It's worth noting that the "neoconservative" foreign policy mode of thinking was heavily influenced by Democratic Party "Cold War liberalism," notably that of Washington Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson. The post-1989 political world saw the emergence of a strong "humanitarian hawk" view within the Democratic Party associated with foreign policy figures like Madeleine Albright and Samantha Power. This provided some combination of conviction and political cover that led Democratic Senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry to vote in support of the Iraq War in 2002, a disastrous war whose results were far from being humanitarian.

The Democratic Party is the center-left party of the US and has traditionally was the pro-labor party. But - at least prior to the COVID-19 crisis and the beginning recession! - has not been doing politics in a country where Franklin Roosevelt once famously saw "one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished." (“One Third of a Nation”: FDR’s Second Inaugural Address History Matters) Poverty is obviously a very persistent problem! But a key part of the Democrats' current voting base are affluent city-dwellers and suburbanites, sometimes referred to with the (to me) awkward term "professional-management class (PMC)". These voters tend to be more liberal on formal freedoms like voting rights and women's rights. But many of them are also comfortable with conservative economics, including corporate-deregulation "free trade" treaties and to the rhetoric of "humanitarian hawks".

For some Democrats, the NeverTrumper way of thinking will be an "gateway drug" to becoming, uh, Republicans.

A couple of concluding comments on the NTers. The driving concern of the NeverTrumpers has been their concern that his foreign policy was insufficiently warlike and/or too incompetent at trying to start wars. (On the latter, see Susan Glasser, The Trials of a Never Trump Republican New Yorker 03/23/2020: "Trump has done plenty of things the old Republican foreign-policy establishment would cheer for, if someone else were doing them.") The NTers are Iraq War Republicans. And the Iraq War is what catastrophe looks like.

Which means they are Dick Cheney Republicans. Which is why the prefer to give the impression that they came out of some clean, respectably democratic and responsible Republican Party which went astray with a strange and unprecedented character named Donald Trump. But the Trumpist of 2016-2020 would not have been possible without the Cheney-Bush Republican Party of 2001-2009. That's what the Republican Party still is. The NeverTrumpers just want a slightly more respectable-sounding Dear Leader. And, yes, much of the Republican adoration of Shrub Bush was the same kind of cringe-worthy Dear Leader idolatry that today's Republicans give to the Malicious Orange Clown.

My bottom line: NeverTrumpers, bah, humbug!

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Trump als "Vorbild aller neuen Potentaten"

Armin Thurnher schreibt in FALTER.maily #123 - Mit der Lüge leben. 27.01.2020
Nicht neue Aufklärung brauchen wir, sondern die Verteidigung der alten. Und gerade in der EU (Polen, Ungarn) müssen wir den Anfängen der Unterwanderung von Demokratie und Verfassung wehren. Die österreichische Debatte um Muslim-Bann und Sicherungshaft hat die Funktion, solche verderblichen Tendenzen zu einer Autokratie in die Demokratie einzupflanzen.

Das Vorbild aller neuen Potentaten ist US-Präsident Donald Trump. Dessen Plan scheint die Übernahme des Rechtsstaats mit rechtlichen Mitteln zu sein, wie sie die Nazis vorgemacht haben. In einem brillanten Essay weist die Juristin Tamsin Shaw darauf hin, dass die Argumente von Trumps Justizminister Barr auf frappante Weise jenen von Hitlers anfänglichem Kronjuristen Carl Schmitt gleichen. Barr lässt zusammen mit dem Republikaner-Chef Mitch McConnell im Senat gerade die Impeachment-Versuche der Demokraten auf eine Weise scheitern, die einem Rechtsstaat Hohn spricht: Keine Zeugen, keine Akten, verfassungsrechtlich zweifelhafte Argumente ... [meine Hervorhebung]
Der Artikel, auf den er verweist, ist William Barr: The Carl Schmitt of Our Time von Tamsin Shaw (NYB Daily 15.01.2020) Es zieht eine Parallele zwischen Trumps Generalstaatsanwalt William Barr und dem führenden Justiztheoretiker des Deutschen Dritten Reiches, Carl Schmitt. "Unabhängig von Trump und dieser Präsidentschaft, William Barr, seine Handlanger und seine Anhänger der Federalist Society stellen eine starke Bedrohung für die Grundwerte der liberalen Demokratie dar", schreibt sie.
[Übersetzung aktualisiert 29.01.2020]

Einen interessanten Kontrast lieferten die Oberösterreichischen Nachrichten auf der Titelseite der Ausgabe vom 28.01.2019. Das Foto zeigt den österreichischen Bundespräsidenten Alexander van der Bellen zum Gedenken an den Holocaust mit der Bildunterschrift "Wieder Nie. Das ist unsere Menschenpflicht." Auf der linken Seite steht ein Artikel darüber, wie der Linzer Bürgermeister Klaus Luger (SPÖ) die Idee der Sicherungshaft ohne Hinweise auf ein Verbrechen unterstützt, ein Konzept, das von der aktuellen Bundesregierung unterstützt wird.

Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Italy and the Trump Administration's effort to concoct evidence for a conspiracy theory

There's an Italian piece of the Republicans' attempt to create phony foreign-election-interference stories about the Democrats and their effort to discredit the Mueller Report. Remember Joseph Mifsud? His name comes up in it, too.

Jason Horowitz reports on part of it in Former Italian Prime Minister Says He’s Suing Trump Aide for Slander New York Times 10/04/2019.

Wolfgang Münchau's Eurointelligece 10/07/2019 speculates based on reporting by the Huffington Post's Lucia Annunziata about whether the Trump Administration may have in some way triggered the recent change in government in Italy, in which the Mussolini-quoting former Interior Minister Matteo Salvini and his Lega party were excluded from the previous coalition government. The non-partisan Giuseppe Conte remains as Prime Minister with the Five Star party as senior partner and the Social Democrats as junior coalition partner. (What did Conte know? 10/07/2019)

See also:
Mazzetti in his Times report describes a September visit by our dubious Attorney General William Barr to Italy:
Everything about Mr. Barr’s visit was unusual — not least his companion and their mission: John H. Durham, a top federal prosecutor whom Mr. Barr has assigned to review the origins of the Russia investigation. They were seeking evidence that might bolster a conspiracy theory long nurtured by President Trump: that some of America’s closest allies plotted with his “deep state” enemies in 2016 to try to prevent him from winning the presidency.

After the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, testified to lawmakers in July that he found insufficient evidence to charge any Trump associates with conspiring with Russia, an emboldened Mr. Trump began pressing world leaders to cooperate with Mr. Barr.

Now, glimpses of the review are emerging. Mr. Barr is taking an active role, signaling that he has made it a priority and is personally overseeing it.
The Eurointelligence report also notes:
What is unclear to us is Salvini's role in all of this. Salvini has also been accused of entertaining deep links with Russia and having secured Russian funding for his campaigns. At first blush, it is not clear why Trump and his men would dump him?

We think the timing is also very strange. At the time of the Barr/Durham visit, the Italian government crisis had already started. Five days later, on August 20, Conte launched an attack against Salvini in the Senate which triggered the end of the coalition. On August 24, Conte met Trump at the G7 in Biarritz, where they held a warm bilateral meeting. On August 27 Trump tweeted that he hoped Conte would remain premier.
The Italian Parliament in currently conducting an inquiry on Prime Minister Conte's dealings with Barr and Durham and about what kind of intelligence information he shared with them.