The Spanish king and his government are adamant that there should be no truck with a purported 'sovereign' administration that has just been announced to exist in the region/province of Catalonia. The United Nations has asserted that a 'solution' should be found within the Spanish Constitution. Washington has declared that Catalonia is simply part of Spain, and that fact will not change in the perception of the United States [which fought a very nasty civil war to preserve their Union]. Britain, France and Germany have made similar assertions: there will be no recognition of a rebel 'government' by any European Union member state.
President Putin deeply deplores the fact that the Gorbachev administration in the last stage of the Soviet Union acted in accordance with the 'Stalin Constitution' which had enshrined the myth that the state was a federation of independent [largely ethnically-based] sovereign republics. This was very particularly Stalin's constitutional speciality. He had been sent to Vienna in the early years of the twentieth century to find out how the Habsburg regime was coping with the question of Nationality in Austria-Hungary. Slovaks and Czechs were asserting that they were distinct national groups, with a right to statehood of their own. Minorities of the population spoke Romanian, Polish, Ukrainian and various forms of German in distinctive territories split between the Kingdom of Hungary and the Austrian Empire [and the latter contained a massive range of entities from the Kingdom of Bohemia to small counties that were notionally sovereign]. The heir to the throne [Franz Ferdinand, who was to be killed in 1914 thus triggering the war that ended the monarchy] was said to want to change the 'dual monarchy' of Austria-Hungary into a 'trial' [or triple] monarchy with autonomy for the Slavs, in deference to his Czech wife.
Stalin produced a convoluted account of his thoughts on nationality, and after the revolution he was appointed Commissar for Nationalities. As the Soviet Union consolidated its absolute power over all the former Russian Empire, except Finland, it did not matter that a constitutional charade was enacted whereby the political entity was asserted to be a federation of notionally independent states. However, come the end of the Second World War, in their anxiety to keep Stalin on-side with the new United Nations, Britain, France and the USA agreed that three of the Soviet republics should each be independent members: Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. After Stalin's death, Khrushchev - a Ukrainian - almost casually transferred the Crimea from Russia to Ukraine: it did not seem to matter, at the time. The facts that the Crimea had been hard fought for under Peter the Great and Catherine II, and was seen as strategically important, did not cause any controversy while the USSR was operated as a single hegemonic state.
However, suddenly in 1990, the USSR collapsed; while the Communist party stooges who held office as the presidents and premiers of the various [formally fully sovereign] Socialist Republics simply colluded to ignore Gorbachev and his collapsing central authority and go their own ways. The largest component of the Union, Russia, had the charismatic Boris Yeltsin on hand to crush a half-cock attempt by party old hands to reverse all the democratic changes that Gorbachev had instituted: and as head of the Russian Republic's government Yeltsin established his hold over the biggest and most complex Soviet Socialist Republic; thus of Moscow. A notional federation was established of the former Soviet Republics, while the asserted sovereign authority in each of them began doling out the national assets to their families and friends. The Russian Republic itself became the Russian Federation including all the Autonomous Republics and Regions that Russia has inherited from Stalin's manipulations of notional boundaries. Yeltsin and his associates employed American Economists to assist them with a hugely corrupt and corrupting 'privatisation', which transferred much of industry to the hands of the so-called 'oligarchs' and caused massive deprivation to the mass of the population.
Putin's rise to power came after the damage derived from Stalin's constitutional machinations and Yeltsin's alcoholic incompetence had been done. In territorial terms, he has tried to rectify what he sees as two major failures: the transfer of the Crimea to Ukraine and the welfare of millions of Russians whose families were settled in the southern and eastern Ukraine, particularly in the reigns of Peter I, Catherine II and Stalin's post-1945 implant of Russian speakers into territory known as 'New Russia' that he had assigned to Ukraine. Stalin planted similar minorities of Russians in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; which has ensured that those countries have become very keen members of NATO in order to preserve their territorial integrity. Putin's attempts to make minor revisions of Stalin's and Khrushchev's cavalier actions, at the expense of Ukraine, have placed him under sanction by the western powers, who have set their faces against all tinkering with the pattern of states that was admitted to the United Nations in 1945 and subsequently. I have drawn attention previously to the idiocy of keeping the colonial frontiers in Africa: but they are also part of the stasis that goes with the present, deeply flawed concept of sovereignty.
East Germany was allowed to vanish into West Germany, and an independent Scotland arising from due democratic process would have gained international acceptance: provided it had been set on the international stage by the United Kingdom government acting as its sponsor.
On the other hand, if the Chechens declared themselves independent of the Russian Federation, President Putin could call on the UN to help him to suppress such pretension; at least, with verbal assurances such as have been given to Spain in respect of Catalonia.
The Catalans are having an exciting game; but they need to learn from history, quickly; before hotheads start getting hurt.
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United States. Show all posts
Saturday, 28 October 2017
Thursday, 31 August 2017
Flood, Fuel Prices and Human Costs
The tragic flooding in Texas and Louisiana over the last few days has no precedent in the history of North America, and its consequences will only emerge in full over several years. The immediate effects are that thousands of homes will need to be replaced or majorly reconstructed, a massive proportion of the infrastructure will have to be reinstated and transport links repaired. Mercifully few deaths have been reported so far; and the life-saving capabilities shown by thousands of ordinary small-boat owners and their helpers have been both effective and heartwarming. Much of the damage is insured; probably more is not insured because damage on this scale had previously been inconceivable, so there is a huge cost to be met by the public purse and by private individuals.
The main industry in the area is oil refining, with a huge proportion of the United States' refining capacity being concentrated along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico: precisely where the hurricane [as it then still was] hit the coastline. It is forecast that global oil production is now so flexible that the loss of any oil wells to active exploitation in the coming weeks will have no significant impact on the availability or the price of oil, as such. However, the loss of massive refining capacity for [at least] a period of weeks will significantly affect the availability of petrol ['gas'] to American drivers and of refined fuel for domestic and industrial purposes. There may, therefore, be a period of raised prices for refined oil products, partly because the net supply is cut, but more because to deliver fuel from places other than the Gulf coast requires longer supply-lines, the use of different pipelines and more vehicles to move the products to their consumers, and thus the costs of actually making the petrol and heating oil available will rise significantly until the gulf refineries can begin operation again.
One of the problems that the refinery companies are already tackling is the fact that thousands of staff have had to move from their homes; and a large proportion of them will not be able to reoccupy their homes for many months. Thus, though the operation of the refineries may not suffer much as a result of inundation in the flood [because many measures of damage mitigation could be taken after storm warnings had been issued], the need to rehouse so much of the labour for many months had not been taken into account in the contingent planning of the refining companies. The unforeseen costs of these measures to secure attendance by the workforce - over several months, at least - will add to the increase in the price of petrol and other refined products, and will extend the period over which the price increase will endure. This may be sufficiently significant to add a fraction of a percentage point to US inflation.
So, while the human and social costs are rightly the primary concern at the moment - and for some time to come - the economic consequences of the flooding [and the relative small amount of wind damage that has occurred] will be long-lasting and significant. They will also require the entire risk-management approach of the community and of its major employers to be recast. Nature is constantly stressing her power to disrupt humanity's activities, and to show that our risk management was not sufficient. This is the first lesson of the Texas tragedy of the past few days.
The main industry in the area is oil refining, with a huge proportion of the United States' refining capacity being concentrated along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico: precisely where the hurricane [as it then still was] hit the coastline. It is forecast that global oil production is now so flexible that the loss of any oil wells to active exploitation in the coming weeks will have no significant impact on the availability or the price of oil, as such. However, the loss of massive refining capacity for [at least] a period of weeks will significantly affect the availability of petrol ['gas'] to American drivers and of refined fuel for domestic and industrial purposes. There may, therefore, be a period of raised prices for refined oil products, partly because the net supply is cut, but more because to deliver fuel from places other than the Gulf coast requires longer supply-lines, the use of different pipelines and more vehicles to move the products to their consumers, and thus the costs of actually making the petrol and heating oil available will rise significantly until the gulf refineries can begin operation again.
One of the problems that the refinery companies are already tackling is the fact that thousands of staff have had to move from their homes; and a large proportion of them will not be able to reoccupy their homes for many months. Thus, though the operation of the refineries may not suffer much as a result of inundation in the flood [because many measures of damage mitigation could be taken after storm warnings had been issued], the need to rehouse so much of the labour for many months had not been taken into account in the contingent planning of the refining companies. The unforeseen costs of these measures to secure attendance by the workforce - over several months, at least - will add to the increase in the price of petrol and other refined products, and will extend the period over which the price increase will endure. This may be sufficiently significant to add a fraction of a percentage point to US inflation.
So, while the human and social costs are rightly the primary concern at the moment - and for some time to come - the economic consequences of the flooding [and the relative small amount of wind damage that has occurred] will be long-lasting and significant. They will also require the entire risk-management approach of the community and of its major employers to be recast. Nature is constantly stressing her power to disrupt humanity's activities, and to show that our risk management was not sufficient. This is the first lesson of the Texas tragedy of the past few days.
Sunday, 20 August 2017
Why Bannon Had to Go: The Importance of China
On leaving the White House, Steve Bannon promised to wage war on the enemies of the President of the United States. Of course, he means that he is ready to fight anyone who challenges his idea of the 'mission' of the United States: which may now come to include Donald Trump, if Trump can retain the presidency.
The idea of waging a trade war against China, even at the price of ignoring the buildup of North Korea's nuclear arsenal and Kim's development of rockets capable of reaching the continental USA, is far too crude to be practicable.
The rustbelt that provided a huge cohort of dedicated followers of the Trump line was not created by the Chinese. Factory sites became derelict, and lives were 'ruined', in consequence of thousands of decisions that were taken by US Corporations; with the encouragement and support of the Econocracy. Many of those decisions were based on the fact that components for advanced manufacturing could more cheaply be bought from emergent countries - including China - than by building and equipping new factories in the US and training the appropriate workforce. This enabled major corporations to concentrate their investment on the 'top end' of manufacturing, and on research and development for innovative products.
Simultaneously, American retailers found new cheaper sources of consumer products, which could thus be sold [largely under the retailers' 'own-brands'] at prices that could maintain some shreds of a consumerist lifestyle even for the ex-industrial workers and their children who survived on government benefits in the rustbelt. Hence imports from emergent countries, not just China, enabled their mass-producers of such products to expand their capacity and reduce their costs. Hence they improved their competitiveness with surviving US manufacturers of similar goods; many of whom were ruined. This all suited the model of 'free markets' that forms the basis of recent econocratic theory. The fact that it left individuals who were sunk in mortgaged houses without the means [economic or intellectual] unable to move on from where they were, rather than to seek new economic opportunities for themselves, is beneath the radar of the Econocracy. Equally invisible to most Econocrats is the fact that as the proportion of the population who are sunk in misery expands, so the communities in which they live progressively lack the will and the means to renew or replace collapsing infrastructure. Until an urban area falls so far into dereliction that it becomes a source of potential danger to the rest of the country - as happened with Detroit a few years ago - national government ignores the problem, while the bankrupt local government is incapable of tackling it. Even after a major assault on poverty and its causes, large areas of greater Detroit remain deeply depressed; and eyesores have not been removed.
While the rustbelt was consolidating, the lead by which the USA is ahead of the rest of the world in advanced technologies has become greater than ever. America remains the predominant and military power in the world, and even despite Chinese efforts to develop and promote competitors like Alibaba their corporations remain far behind the US in developing intellectual property. And here is the pressure point. Bannon's reason for wanting a trade war with China rests precisely on the point that China is determined to catch up with the USA in all areas, and that China will use fair means or foul: just as the US did in the nineteenth century when piracy of European intellectual property was fostered by state and federal governments, principally by deferring the development of laws to protect alien intellectual property until there was an equal danger of American inventors loosing out in global competition.
Bannon has picked on an aspect of trade policy that is used heavily by China now, and was used in Europe and America over a couple of centuries. This is the requirement that the technology used in imported devices and products should be understood, so that the items can be allowed into the country on health and safety grounds. It involves requiring the intending importer [or the company hoping to open a subsidiary plant in China] to disclose the technical matters that - whether reasonably or not - the Chinese regulators say is necessary for the product to be sold as safe and healthy in China. Once those technological data are disclosed to Chinese authorities, there is a danger that they will be leaked to Chinese competitors for their commercial benefit; as has happened in Europe and North America in the past.
To treat this as an act of war is absurd: it is a matter for patient negotiation, case by case; always remembering that in such issues it is best to speak gently, and carry a big stick. America needs better to coordinate the ambitions of US companies to develop trade with China with the need to protect American intellectual property. Steve Bannon will have done his country a huge service by highlighting the issue; but his use of bellicose rhetoric meant that his role in government had to be brought to an end.
The idea of waging a trade war against China, even at the price of ignoring the buildup of North Korea's nuclear arsenal and Kim's development of rockets capable of reaching the continental USA, is far too crude to be practicable.
The rustbelt that provided a huge cohort of dedicated followers of the Trump line was not created by the Chinese. Factory sites became derelict, and lives were 'ruined', in consequence of thousands of decisions that were taken by US Corporations; with the encouragement and support of the Econocracy. Many of those decisions were based on the fact that components for advanced manufacturing could more cheaply be bought from emergent countries - including China - than by building and equipping new factories in the US and training the appropriate workforce. This enabled major corporations to concentrate their investment on the 'top end' of manufacturing, and on research and development for innovative products.
Simultaneously, American retailers found new cheaper sources of consumer products, which could thus be sold [largely under the retailers' 'own-brands'] at prices that could maintain some shreds of a consumerist lifestyle even for the ex-industrial workers and their children who survived on government benefits in the rustbelt. Hence imports from emergent countries, not just China, enabled their mass-producers of such products to expand their capacity and reduce their costs. Hence they improved their competitiveness with surviving US manufacturers of similar goods; many of whom were ruined. This all suited the model of 'free markets' that forms the basis of recent econocratic theory. The fact that it left individuals who were sunk in mortgaged houses without the means [economic or intellectual] unable to move on from where they were, rather than to seek new economic opportunities for themselves, is beneath the radar of the Econocracy. Equally invisible to most Econocrats is the fact that as the proportion of the population who are sunk in misery expands, so the communities in which they live progressively lack the will and the means to renew or replace collapsing infrastructure. Until an urban area falls so far into dereliction that it becomes a source of potential danger to the rest of the country - as happened with Detroit a few years ago - national government ignores the problem, while the bankrupt local government is incapable of tackling it. Even after a major assault on poverty and its causes, large areas of greater Detroit remain deeply depressed; and eyesores have not been removed.
While the rustbelt was consolidating, the lead by which the USA is ahead of the rest of the world in advanced technologies has become greater than ever. America remains the predominant and military power in the world, and even despite Chinese efforts to develop and promote competitors like Alibaba their corporations remain far behind the US in developing intellectual property. And here is the pressure point. Bannon's reason for wanting a trade war with China rests precisely on the point that China is determined to catch up with the USA in all areas, and that China will use fair means or foul: just as the US did in the nineteenth century when piracy of European intellectual property was fostered by state and federal governments, principally by deferring the development of laws to protect alien intellectual property until there was an equal danger of American inventors loosing out in global competition.
Bannon has picked on an aspect of trade policy that is used heavily by China now, and was used in Europe and America over a couple of centuries. This is the requirement that the technology used in imported devices and products should be understood, so that the items can be allowed into the country on health and safety grounds. It involves requiring the intending importer [or the company hoping to open a subsidiary plant in China] to disclose the technical matters that - whether reasonably or not - the Chinese regulators say is necessary for the product to be sold as safe and healthy in China. Once those technological data are disclosed to Chinese authorities, there is a danger that they will be leaked to Chinese competitors for their commercial benefit; as has happened in Europe and North America in the past.
To treat this as an act of war is absurd: it is a matter for patient negotiation, case by case; always remembering that in such issues it is best to speak gently, and carry a big stick. America needs better to coordinate the ambitions of US companies to develop trade with China with the need to protect American intellectual property. Steve Bannon will have done his country a huge service by highlighting the issue; but his use of bellicose rhetoric meant that his role in government had to be brought to an end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)