Tag Archives: observations of an ex pat

The Gulf region is on the cusp of peace. That is according to President Donald Trump who issues more lies and obfuscations than my dog Bear barks in any given day.

Having said that, both Axios and Reuters report that there is now a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which indicates Iranian willingness to discuss suspending uranium enrichment, a partial lifting of US sanctions against Iran and unfreezing of assets and some sort of return to normality in the Strait of Hormuz.

It should be stressed, however, that an MOU is not a peace deal. It is merely an agreement on talking points.

But According to Trump the MOU was enough for him to suspend “Operation Freedom”—a major US naval effort to throw a “red, white and blue protective umbrella” over shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Wrong. The real reason for its suspension was the Saudis fear that Iran would fire on the protective convoy. The convoy would fire back. Trump would order renewed missile attacks, and the war would again spread throughout the Gulf.

Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff may be the two Americans meeting with Iranian (and/or Pakistani) officials in Geneva and Islamabad, but behind the scenes America’s junior partners in the Iran War are calling at least some of the shots. These are Israel, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE.

Israel is more like full partner than junior partner. Its Government is certainly the most hawkish. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played a key role in dragging Trump into the Iran War and according to him is in “almost daily contact” with the president. The Israeli security establishment views Iran as an “existential threat” to Israel. It wants to overthrow the theocratic regime and replace it with a pro-Israeli secular government that will end support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.

Netanyahu has the support of Israeli public opinion. It is starting to drop, but is still pro-war. At the start of March, 80 percent of Israelis supported the war. This had dropped to 54 percent by the end of April. 61 percent are opposed to the ceasefire.

Another factor in Israeli thinking is that they are totally unaffected by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. None of their energy or fertiliser supplies come from the Gulf Region.

TACO or “Trump-Always-Chickens-Out” was especially apparent in Davos Switzerland this week when the US president backed down on his threat to use force to acquire Greenland. He also dropped his threat to impose additional tariffs on the eight European countries—including Britain—that backed Denmark’s refusal to cede sovereignty.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte appears to have stepped in at the last minute to prevent Trump from dropping the expected Davos bombshell that would have left NATO in tatters. Mind you he probably had some help from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Key Republicans in Congress, the stock market and even the opinion polls were also against feeding Trump’s property-driven ego by the forced acquisition of the misnamed Greenland.

Even the other side of the world—Asia—joined battle. Japanese Defense MinisterKoizumi Shinjiro warned at a conference to strengthen US-Asia military ties: “The Indo-Pacific and the Euro-Atlantic are inseparable and indivisible”

Europe may have won this battle but it is battered and bruised and faces a long war with a dangerously unpredictable president whose administration appears to live in Alice’s looking glass world.

The old continent’s leaders are having a difficult time adjusting to the new America. For 80 years it has been a friend, confidant, ally, partner and, most of all, protector. The political, cultural, educational, intelligence, military and financial establishments are so intermeshed as to be almost impossible to imagine untangling them let alone actually doing so.

And then Trump arrives. Europe is villified. It is suffering “civilisational erasure”. It has done nothing for America. Europe’s loyalty to the alliance is being questioned by an American president whose grasp of history and reality is somewhere between tenuous and non-existent.

Europe’s leaders are practically spluttering with anger. But their ire is nothing being belt by the friends and families of the 1,000-plus non-American NATO soldiers who died fighting Afghanistan after 9/11 when America invoked Article 5 of the NATO treaty for the first and only time in the history of the alliance.”Nato,” said Trump “has done nothing to help America.” They gave their lives

It is possible that an agreement can be reached on US bases in Greenland using as a template the British sovereign bases in Cyprus. This would mean that Denmark would allow the US to carve out bits of Greenland that would become sovereign American territory and would be used solely for security purposes.

If the arrangement followed the deal for the British bases at Akrotiri and Dhekelia then the US would be given full sovereignty over designated territory in Greenland. That territory would be governed by US law.

To make a similar arrangement palatable to Cypriot public opinion, the British had to agree that there would be no economic exploitation, commercial development, customs or migration abuse or extraction of natural resources on the sovereign airbases. Legally speaking, the Cypriot bases are what is known as “sterile” territory.

As the US government shutdown enters its fifth week it is a bad time to be an American and a federal employee; need help with food bills; need to travel by plane; need to buy drugs; have to pay health insurance; require Medicare, require Medicaid, be resident in a care home or be in the military or require help with heating bills.

As just about every American is in some way affected by at least one of the above factors, it is fair to say, that it is a bad time to be an American.

The government shutdown is the cause of the current round of American headaches. And the cause of the government shutdown is the Democratic Party’s intense dislike of Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill.

They don’t like the bill’s tax cuts for the wealthy or for corporations. But their biggest gripe is what the One Big Beautiful Bill will do to the health of the nation. It will effectively emasculate Obamacare, put up health insurance premiums by as much as 100 percent, deny Medicaid and Medicare benefits to millions and raise drug charges.

The White House said pass the budget and then negotiations can be held about the health situation. The Democrats don’t trust Trump to hold meaningful talks after he gets what he wants.

So, they have refused to pass the budget and the federal government entered its 22nd shutdown since 1976. This one looks like it will break the record of 35 days. That was set in the first Trump presidency over a dispute for funding for a wall on the southern border.

The president appears unconcerned about the shutdown. In the middle of it he took off for a tour of Asia. The Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, is helping to stretch it out by refusing to recall Congress. Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management Budget (OMB), is using the shutdown to fire tens of thousands of federal employees. Trump has also said that federal employees who work for nothing during the shutdown will not receive back pay when the shutdown is over.

In the meantime, this weekend, the government’s food assistance programme (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme or SNAP) will run out of money. An estimated 25 million Americans receive help from SNAP to pay their food bills.

Another six million Americans receive federal assistance with their heating bills under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Programme. As the cold weather sets in, those payments will stop.

Air traffic controllers are classified “essential workers” which means that they have to turn up for work whether there is any money to pay them or not. They have been working for zero pay for a month and many of them are calling in sick in order to support their families by working part-time at other jobs that pay them. Transport Secretary Sean Duffy has said that any air traffic controller who fails to turn up for work will be fired. In the meantime there is chaos in American airports with delays and cancellations.

“Ukraine is not a real country,” claims Vladimir Putin. “It is,” he has repeatedly stated, “an artificial creation” that is historically and culturally part of Russia.

If you go back far enough—the 9th century—he has a point. Kyiv was the cradle of what became the Russian Orthodox Church which for centuries defined Russian nationalism.

But since the mid-13th century, borders, allegiances and political alignments have been constantly shifting.

It started with the Mongol invasion which led to the heirs of Genghis Khan ruling the Principality of Moscow until the 15th century. Most of Ukraine became part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which lasted until a Cossack rebellion in 1648.

The 1648 rebellion established the Cossack Hetmanate which lasted a little over a century and is viewed as the foundational state by Ukrainians. The Hetmanate rejected the feudal system of Poland and the authoritarianism of Russia. The leadership was not hereditary, but was elected by a warrior class on the basis of merit.

Initially the Hetmanate’s main enemy was Poland. It was the era of religious wars and the Cossacks were Orthodox Christians. So they turned to their co-religionists in Moscow for protection. Big mistake. Russia gradually increased their control over Ukraine and in 1764 Catherine the Great simply abolished the Hetmanate and imposed direct imperial rule.

From that point on Ukraine’s history was a story of Russian domination with the occasional burst of independence. The biggest came with the collapse of the Tsar in 1917. The problem, however, was that the Ukrainians themselves were divided. The Bolsheviks quickly crushed the half dozen independent Ukrainian states that sprang up.

Ukraine then became a nominally independent country within the Soviet Union. In reality it was part and parcel part of the USSR and it suffered more than any other part of the Soviet Union under Soviet rule. Two million-plus Ukrainians were arrested and deported to either Siberia or Kazakhstan. Up to 7 million died in the Holodomyr famine of 1932-33 caused by Stalin’s forced collectivisation. The Ukrainian language, culture and customs were suppressed and an estimated one million ethnic Russians were moved into Ukraine in an attempt to dilute the Ukrainian identity.

Trump’s bombing of Iran and the NATO summit mark the beginning of a new era in international relations.

They were both a political success for the American president.

They were also both a disaster for international law and the rules-based order that has underpinned the longest period of peace and prosperity in world history.

We have now entered an age of strong man politics where laws and political outcomes are determined not by legal precedence and a sense of equality and justice, but by the strength of the political leader and the country they lead. In short, might is right.

Many argue that it has always been thus. To a large degree they are right. But since the end of World War Two the establishment of international structures, law, alliances, global trade and treaties have acted as a brake on unfettered power. Trump has dismantled—or is in the process of dismantling—the post-war world order and removing the brake.

Let’s start with the bombing of Iran. Depriving Iran of the ability to have a nuclear bomb is a good thing. Iran is a dangerous ideologically-driven rogue state. However, the way in which the bombing was organized was another nail in the coffin of international law.

There was no attempt to secure international backing for the attack. There was no attempt to even secure domestic or congressional or bipartisan backing for the attack.

Donald Trump did not try for a UN Security Council resolution. He did not consult with his NATO allies. It is debatable whether or not he should have sought a declaration of war from Congress as the constitution stipulates. But he should have at least conferred with the senior members of both parties in the House of Representatives and Senate. He didn’t.

The Middle East has been called Byzantine, a snake pit and a political cesspit. It is a land where there are said to be no national interests, only interests. Where today’s enemy is tomorrow’s bedfellow and vice versa.

The region’s many leaders have changed horses so many times that the horses are dizzy.

All the above is especially true today when the region’s faraway overlord—the President of the United States—is likely to change his mind at the drop of a bitcoin, especially if the coin drops into his account.

This week Donald Trump has been touring the region and it has changed. The Arabs and the Turks are very happy with America. The Iranians may be coming around. The Israelis are—surprise, surprise—unhappy with the mercurial president.

One of the reasons that the Turks and Arabs are pleased is that the US is lifting sanctions on Syria. This became a certainty when Trump met with Syrian president Ahmed al-Sharaa and pronounced: “I think he has got potential.” Not so many months ago the US had a $10 million dead or alive bounty on his head.

The possibility of a “Big Split” between Europe and America has taken another giant leap forward with a take-it-or-leave-it Ukraine plan from President Trump.

In addition, there are dangers of widening chasms opening up between EU and European members of NATO.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and chief negotiator Steve Witkoff were expected in London this week for talks on Ukraine with key European leaders. But at the last minute they pulled out, saying that the president was tired of negotiations and demanded that all sides accept an agreement hammered out in Moscow between Witkoff and Putin.

The proposal on the table is basically a sell-out to Putin: International recognition of the annexation of Crimea; defacto control of Eastern Ukraine; Ukraine banned from NATO and the end of sanctions. Ukraine gets undefined “robust security guarantees” the return of small slice of the Kharkiv Oblast and undefined sum to rebuild the country. The US gets a minerals deal with Ukraine; operating rights for Zaporizhia nuclear power plant and increased cooperation with Russia, especially in the energy and industrial sectors.

Trump’s proposal makes no effort to uphold any principle of international law. It turns back the diplomatic clock to pay homage to the pre-war axiom might is right.

Vladimir Putin must be turning somersaults. If this proposal is accepted by Zelensky and his European backers the Russian president will have won. As German Chancellor said, if the Russian-American agreement goes ahead, Putin can say: “I can afford such aggression. I will prevail and I will achieve my goals.”

Cometh the hour. Cometh the university. To be more specific, that bastion of American liberalism—Harvard.

The defeated Democratic Party is worse than useless. The lawyers are frightened of threatened retribution. The media are curbing their criticisms in face of mounting law suits. The courts are hard at work, but they take time and the ultimate legal arbiter — the Supreme Court — has a decided conservative bent.

However, Trump may have met his match in Harvard University. In America money talks. Harvard has money. A $53.2 billion endowment fund. This money is a shield against all the arrows — mainly financial — that Trump is raining down on them.

The reason for the attacks on Harvard and other Ivy League universities is alleged anti-Semitism on campus.In reality it is because Harvard—and most of the other American universities are citadels of open-minded, free-thinking, liberalism of the sort that has made America great. It represents everything that the current president opposes. As Trump publicly said: “I think Harvard is a disgrace”

The liberal elite of academia is a top target. If Trump can crush liberalism and force open the university doors to MAGA thinking then he will have changed America for generations. Harvard is America’s top university. If he can succeed there the others will follow.

To that end, Trump’s administration has written to the university with a list of demands to be met with the implied threat of further action if they are not. They include subjecting the university to government oversight of Harvard’s admission and hiring policies. The university must provide personal details of all foreign students, monitor their activities and report on those activities to a federal authority. Anything that smacks of DEI (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion) programs must end along with any criticism of Israel which the Trump Administration has conflated with anti-Semitism.

And finally, Harvard University must agree to the government approving the university curriculum to ensure that faculty are promoting “American values.” Exactly who decides what those values are is needlessly left unspoken.

Harvard–in polite legal terms– has refused to comply.

It’s all about timing, and in my case the time may have arrived for an idea that I first mooted 25 years ago. In 2018 it was shortlisted for a prize in honour of the late Paddy Ashdown.

It if won first prize the idea might have progressed. But instead it has sat on my computer hard drive waiting for the right moment to be pulled out.

The idea concerns foreign aid. Trump has slashed US aid by 80 percent, Britain by 40 percent, France by a third and Germany and Japan by a to-be-announced amount. On top of that, the liberal bastion “The Economist” this week sounded “The Death of Foreign Aid.”

The result will be that literally billions of people will suffer. They will have less money for education, military protection, health and investment in infrastructure projects that can lift their countries out of poverty and create markets for the developed world. Many will die. Many already have.

The Economist argues that the cuts could be silver-lined clouds. That many developing countries have become aid-dependent and the dramatic cutbacks could force governments in the developing world to reorganize and pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

If so, development bonds, might be worth considering by both the developed and developing world. The concept of development bonds had its genesis in Renaissance Italy where bonds were sold to wealthy merchants to fund local building projects. The idea was unearthed by New York to finance the Erie Canal and over the years has become a financial pillar for America’s infrastructure finance. In 2023, $456 billion was raised in municipal bonds. It is estimated that $4.5 trillion is currently outstanding.

The structure is simple. Wealthy individuals invest in a bond issued by a state or local authority. The bondholders receive regular interest payments which they can deduct from federal income tax. When the bond matures they receive the principal which they invested. This also is untaxed.

My development bond proposal would extend the US system to the developing world. Wealthy individuals, banks, pension funds and others would invest in bonds to build infrastructure projects in the developing world. The investors would deduct the interest payments from taxes due in their country of residence.

The world’s liberal democracies suffered a major defeat this week. Its autocracies have chalked up a major win.

Illiberal populist demagogues have for the past few years scored a series of outright victories, or, at least significant advances in the world’s democracies—Hungary, Israel, Georgia, Slovakia, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Sweden…. They have all swung their political barometers towards the far right.

And now, the biggest prize, the United States, has been secured by an angry misogynistic, racist, iconoclastic, divisive, narcissistic, nationalistic, vindictive, authoritarian, mercurial, dishonest, lying, corrupt convicted felon.

The impact of the re-election of Donald J. Trump will have a resounding impact on the world. It has already left a deep and damaging impression on America’s moral standing in the world.

In 1630, as the ship Arabella crossed the Atlantic towards the struggling Massachusetts Bay Colony, future colonial leader John Winthrop gave a sermon in which he expressed the hope that the colony would become a “Shining City on the Hill”—ie a moral example to the rest of the world.

That is how America has projected itself since before independence in 1776.  In reality manna has too often triumphed over morality. But through the centuries Americans have fervently clung to their shining self-image and many others around the world have bought into it—until now.

Americans are angry. On the domestic front they are angry at an amorphous “deep state” which has failed to deliver the perpetual prosperity they have come to expect. They are angry at the rest of the world for what they see as exploiting their better nature.

Americans are also scared. They are scared of losing their jobs to low-paid illegal immigrants. They are even more scared of losing their cultural identity. And on the international front, they are scared of being knocked off their plinth by the Chinese.

So Americans have elected an angry man who has successfully tapped into a rich political vein of fear. He will do well out of it. For a start, Donald J. Trump has avoided prison and will now undoubtedly use the presidency to augment his several billions.

As a box ticking exercise it is difficult to beat the Great Green Wall of Africa.

For those not familiar with this incredibly important and ambitious project, the Great Green Wall (aka GGW) is an international undertaking to prevent creeping desertification in Africa. It proposes to plant and maintain on the southern border of the Sahara Desert a nine-mile wide forest stretching 4,831 miles from Dakar on the Atlantic to Djibouti on the Red Sea.

It is estimated that the GGW will create 10 million jobs in one of the most poverty-stricken regions of the world. That means 10 million people less likely to seek survival in Europe and America.

More jobs means more income for governments which means increased political stability and improved governance in one of the most of the world’s most politically unstable and corrupt regions.

From a climate change perspective the GGW is potential wonderful news. The proposed grass and tree coverage is projected to restore 250 million acres of degraded land and capture 250 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. Trees also play a major role in reducing global temperatures.

So far about $30 billion has been pledged from a variety of sources to complete the project by 2030. There has already been extensive planting in Senegal, Chad and Ethiopia.

But according to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation, one of the GGW’s major sponsors—the Great Green Wall is in danger of collapse. The number one threat is violence. Nine of the countries through which the GGW crosses are in the top 20 of the 2024 Global Terrorism Index.

They are the victims of civil war; Jihadist terrorist attacks; the withdrawal of French troops from the Sahel region and their replacement by Russian forces. The Jihadists in particular—and the Russians to a lesser degree—feed on political instability. The GGW encourages stability, so the Jihadists do whatever they can to disrupt the planting regime.

Violence is not the only problem. Critics also claim that the environmental initiative lacks political leadership. That is not surprising. Its roots stretch back to 1952-53 when one of the early climate change activists, British explorer and botanist Richard St Barbe Baker, first proposed the Great Green Wall. He went on to found the International Free Foundation which has since planted an estimated 26 trillion trees.

Many of the foundation’s trees were planted in the Sahel Region. But the foundation is a charity. Governmental coordination and vast amounts of aid were needed to ensure success. In 2002 the project was revived at a special African summit in Chad to launch World Day to Combat Desertification and Drought. In 2012 the African Union took it on as a flagship project and in 2014 they were joined by the EU and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). At the One Planet Summit in 2021 various partners pledged $14.3 billion.

But the widespread interest also created problems. At the beginning of 2024 the project involved 21 countries and the same number of international organisations as well as a plethora of charities at international, national and local level. The wall needs directed political leadership and instead is plagued by a confusing babel of competing interests.

The European Union is preparing for what was unthinkable—American withdrawal from NATO.

They have been spurred into action not just by Donald Trump’s offer to Vladimir Putin to “do what you want” with any NATO member who fails to devote two percent of their GDP to defence.

No, Europeans detect 1—a growing undercurrent of isolationism; 2- an American perception that the biggest threat to their national interests lie in Asia; 3- that Americans feel that Europeans have taken advantage of American military largesse for too long and 4- Even the greatest military power in the history of the world can’t fight a two-front war in Asia and Europe.

None of the above concerns take into account the many benefits America derives from membership of NATO. And the fact is, that Americans, especially MAGA Republicans, are in no mood to listen.

That is why this week the EU launched its European Defense Industry Strategy. At the moment the US supplies about half of the armaments required by its European allies. If Europe is to stand alone then it needs an armaments industry to supplies its troops.

Launching the EDI Strategy, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called on EU members to spend at least half of their defense procurement budgets on European-produced weaponry.

To encourage national defense ministries to “buy European,” the commission is dangling a few carrots. For a start, they are offering to exempt ministries from paying VAT on EU-made guns and bullets.

The US Congress and the Biden Administration are playing a dangerous game of chicken with the world economy.

Failure to raise the government’s $31.4 trillion debt ceiling by early June would lead to a default on the US debt with car crash results for the US and world.

Respected economists Joseph Bruselas and Tuan Nguyen reckon that an “actual default” would lead to US unemployment soaring from 3.4 percent to 12 percent; inflation rising to over 10 percent and the American economy contracting by 11 percent.

Interest rates would rise affecting household and business borrowings. America’s credit rating would be downgraded which would hit the value of the dollar. And since 70 percent of the world’s trade is conducted in dollars, the cost of everything would increase everywhere.

The saying goes that when America sneezes the rest of the world catches cold. The US is the world’s biggest importer of foreign goods and many countries are heavily dependent on the US market for their economic survival.

America swallows 20.6 percent of British exports, 19.2 percent of the European Union; 18.2 percent of Japan’s; 17.9 percent of Indian exports and a whopping 73.25 percent of Canadian exported goods and services.

Any repercussions will almost also include less predictable political and security implications. Empty stomachs create political instability which in turn lead to simple solution promises from the far left or right. They also create openings for autocracies such as China, Russia and Iran.

On Wednesday Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy said there could be “an agreement in principle” by this weekend to raise the “or suspend” the debt ceiling. He added that this could clear the way for a vote in the House next week. President Biden meanwhile is cutting short an Asia-Pacific tour to return for more talks.

McCarthy’s assurances, however, are suspect because of his lack of control of far-right Republican congressmen. To start negotiations, McCarthy required a vote on a proposal that would raise the debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion contingent on federal government savings of $4.8 trillion. It passed by the narrowest of margins: 217 to 215 votes. Four Republican congressmen voted against and have made it clear that if McCarthy tries to force through anything which does not include big cuts in welfare spending then they will vote him out of the Speaker’s chair and force a default.

When I was a young foreign affairs writer I foolishly suggested to my editor that the newspaper should print more foreign news. It was important, I argued, to educate our readers about the wider world.

His eyes literally bulged from his head as he slowly rose from behind his desk, to bellow: “Educate!? Educate!? Your job is to write stories that sell newspapers, thus making money for our owner. Now get out and do just that.”

He was right. A free and informative press is a cornerstone of our democracy. But to be free and provide accurate information it must be financially viable. To be financially viable it must produce stories that its readers/viewers/listeners want.

Today’s editors and publishers face major problems. As do the burgeoning army of podcasters, bloggers, vloggers and social influencers. The world of the internet and global communications has lowered the cost of entry into the publishing/broadcasting world while the size of the advertising pie which finances the media world has remained static.

Local newspapers have been particularly hard hit. Since 2005, Britain has lost about 300 titles. But this is nothing compared to the US where a staggering 2.514 local newspapers have either merged or disappeared over the same period. Those that survive cling to life with frustrated and underpaid skeleton newsrooms unable to adequately serve their communities.