E-bikes to return to streets of New York and San Francisco after brake issue fixed

(November 22 2019)Last April several thousand pedal-assist electric bikes were taken from service after a number of people were injured due to harder-than-expected brakes.

Brakes are now fixed

Last April Citi Bike announced: "However, we recently received a small number of reports from riders who experienced stronger than expected braking force on the front wheel. Out of an abundance of caution, we are proactively removing the pedal-assist bikes from service for the time being. We know this is disappointing to the many people who love the current experience — but reliability and safety come first." The e-bikes were replaced with conventional pedal bikes.

Citi Bike claims it has redesigned the bike brake setup and also now has a different battery supplier. Citi Bike is operated by Motivate a national bike-share company that is in turn owned by Lyft the ride-hailing company.

Hundreds of e-bikes will appear at docking stations across New York beginning this winter.

In a blog post Citi Bike said: "We're sorry for the delay and appreciate your patience..We expect to initially launch several hundred bikes this winter and will gradually work up to a larger fleet>"

Citi Bike abandons flat fee

Citi Bike does away with its $2 flat fee for each use. Riders will be charged only for the time they use the bike. The company said: “We heard your feedback. Members told us they did not want to pay a flat charge every time they chose an e-bike.”

The new rate will be ten cents for each minute for annual members or a fifteen cents per minute charged for non-members. For members charges will be capped at $2 for rides 45 minute or less beginning and/or ending outside Manhattan. A two-minute wait period between rides is also gone.

E-bikes to return to San Francisco as well

The e-bikes were also withdrawn from San Francisco as well. Motivate also owns the e-bikes deployed there. A new agreement has been reached: "The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) today announced an agreement with Bay Wheels to provide 4,000 stationless shared e-bikes throughout San Francisco. Under the 4-year agreement, Lyft will begin to deploy 4,000 new e-bikes starting in December 2019 with full rollout by April 2020. The new e-bikes will work as "hybrids" that can be docked at stations but also locked to bike racks around the City. This stationless functionality will expand the reach of the system and provide citywide access to bikeshare."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

UN envoy to Yemen says there is growing momentum for a peace deal in Yemen war

(November 23, 2019)Martin Griffiths the UN envoy to Yemen claims that the he is seeing a growing momentum to reach a deal to end the long war in Yemen that has now lasted five years. He says that something is changing in Yemen.

Reduction in the tempo of the war

Griffiths cited improvements to a ceasefire but also the major decline in airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition against the Houthis calling this a "reduction in the tempo of the war".

Reduction in airstrikes

Over the past two weeks there has been an 80 percent reduction in airstrikes. However, this is only for the last two weeks and could represent just a temporary slacking off or it could represent a shift in priorities for the coalition. However, the Houthis too have continued a halt to missile and drone strikes on Saudi Arabia as they have promised. This may lead both sides to work on a permanent ceasefire.

Behind the scenes peace talks being held

A recent article notes: "The Associated Press reported last week that Saudi Arabia and the Houthis are holding indirect, behind-the-scenes talks to end the war mediated by Oman in the Gulf nation, quoting officials from both sides."

Separatists and Saudi-supported Yemen government agree to power sharing

For a while it looked as if the coalition led by Saudi Arabia against the Houthis could break up as Southern Separatists took over Aden and some surrounding areas and rejected any establishment of the Hadi government that the Saudis support. However, Saudi Arabia was able to negotiate a power-sharing agreement on November 5th that prevented a break-up of the state that the Saudis are attempting to restore. Griffiths said that the agreement could serve as a catalyst to reach a political settlement for the war.

Despite some setbacks there has been progress on a ceasefire in Hodeida port

The Houthis have agreed with the government on a new way to deposit taxes and customs fees for commercial oil and gas shipments through the port that averted a crisis and allowed fuel ships to use the Hodeida harbor. The Houthis are supported by Iran and control much of the north of Yemen including the capital Sanaa. Hodeida is a key port for supplies to come into the country including much needed humanitarian aid.

Griffiths also said that the two parties ha strengthened their adherence to the cease-fire in the area through establishing a cease fire enhancement and de-escalation mechanism. This had reduced the number of security incidents by 40 percent in the area. In the city itself the creation of five joint observation post led to an 80 percent reduction in security incidents in the city itself.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Tesla to produce an all-electric pickup

(November 21, 2019)Pickups have increased their share of the light vehicle market from under 13 percent in 2012 to 17.5 percent in 2019. They are the fastest growing segment of the market in the United States. Tesla intends to produce an all-electric pickup.

Tesla pickup is Musk's favorite Tesla vehicle

Recently Elon Musk, Tesla CEO, said: "Probably my personal favorite for the next product is the pickup truck, and we are going to just do an amazing pickup truck.” Musk has used hype terms such as "heart-stopping" to describe the new vehicle. Musk has also said that the pickup will combine Porsche-level performance with utility.

Back in June the Tesla CEO said of the pickup at a shareholder meeting: "Musk reiterated that the Tesla pickup will be more functional than a Ford F-150 but also a better sports car than a basic Porsche 911. (He’s also said he wants it to start at less than $50,000.) Also, it’s tough enough to haul a horse.“We’re trying to create something new and it’s, it’s not just basically a copy of the form factor of everything else,” he said. “But you still want it to be great. It’s very hard. This is a very hard thing.”"

The pickup market is booming and profitable

Last year the top 3 selling vehicles in the US were the Ford F-series, Chevrolet Silverado and Dodge Ram pickups. They also represent the most profitable vehicles for automakers and are expensive.

The pickup market can use an all-electric entry

With an expanding market and profits to be made the pickup market seems ready for an electric entrant. Ford has a forthcoming F-150 but it is only a hybrid and there are newcomers such as Rivian entering the market. Even so Tesla should be in good shape to take on any existing competition and may very well enter the market before the big automakers.

The vehicle is code-named Cybertruck and Musk says the design was inspired by the Blade Runner. A recent Verge article notes: "On Thursday night at 11PM ET, Elon Musk will appear onstage at the Tesla Design Center in Los Angeles to reveal the product he’s most excited about: Tesla’s first electric pickup truck."

Previously published in the Digital Journal 

Trump said to be considering withdrawing 4,000 troops from South Korea

(November 21 2019) The South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo quotes an anonymous US diplomatic source as saying that Trump is considering the withdrawal of 4,000 US troops from the South.

The source said that Trump is considering even withdrawing all US troops if South Korea does not agree to the massive increase in cost-sharing payments he is demanding.

As a Reuters article notes: "The report came two days after the United States broke off defense cost talks after demanding that South Korea raise its annual contribution for maintaining the U.S. contingent to $5 billion, a South Korean official said, more than five times what it pays now, in rare discord in the alliance." The break off is discussed in a recent Digital Journal article.

Some South Korean officials see the reports about US withdrawal as a bluff used as a negotiating tactic by the US.

Pentagon denies it is considering any troop withdrawal

A Pentagon spokesperson, Jonathan Hoffman, said: “There is absolutely no truth to the Chosun Ilbo report that the U.S. Department of Defense is currently considering removing any troops from the Korean Peninsula."

The US Defense Secretary Mark Esper also said earlier that he was not away of any plans to withdraw troops from the South if c cost-sharing talks fail. Stephen Biegun the US special representative to North Korea also said that he wants US troops to stay in the South but that no one gets a free ride.

US may still push for $4.7 billion annual payment

The US looks to be still staying with the $4.7 billion demand at least as a starting point for negotiations. However, the South Koreans may not be willing to settle for anything near that amount. The present payment is already a considerable increase on what they paid before which in turn was already a substantial amount.

South Korea and China sign defense deal

As a recent article notes China and South Korea just recently signed a defense pact: "The defence ministers of South Korea and China have agreed to develop their security ties to ensure stability in north-east Asia, the latest indication that Washington’s long-standing alliances in the region are fraying...Seoul’s announcement coincided with growing resentment at the $5 billion (£3.9bn) annual fee that Washington is demanding to keep 28,500 US troops in South Korea."

Trump often uses brinkmanship and threats in negotiations. The result in this case may be disastrous for US interests but could encourage the South to improve relationships with the North in order to avoid the exorbitant costs of relying on the US to defend it from any incursion from the North.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

California electric scooter company Ojo to buy Gotcha a scooter and bike rental company

California electric scooter company Ojo has announced it intends to buy Gotcha a scooter and bike rental service. The deal is a sign that the micromobility industry needs to consolidate as competition creates financial problems for many in the market.

Ojo's rationale

Ojo claims its purchase of Gotcha, a 10-year-old company with headquarters in Charleston South Carolina will put it on “a path to become a top [three] player in the North American rideshare market, right behind Lime and Bird.” The statement is a bit optimistic perhaps as Ojo has just recently begun to offer shared scooter rides in a handful of cities. However, its e-scooters are said to be highly enjoyable. As can be seen in the appended video Ojo has partnered with Ford.

The Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of both Gotcha and Ojo stressed the positive unit economics resulting from the merger. Companies in the market are struggling to recoup the cost of each scooter or bike in their services a key challenge to making their businesses profitable.

Other mergers are taking place

Bird has just recently bought competitor Scoot as announced in a press release: "Santa Monica and San Francisco, Calif., June 12, 2019 – Bird and Scoot today announced that Bird is acquiring Scoot, the San Francisco-based electric vehicle pioneer. The acquisition is a strategic decision from two like-minded companies. Together, Bird and Scoot will offer riders more vehicles featuring the latest technology advancements for the sharing market, and provide service in more communities, while helping cities meet their ambitious goals of reducing both automobile traffic and climate-changing carbon emissions. Scoot will continue to operate as Scoot, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bird."

There is also consolidation in Latin America as Grin and Yellow combine to form Grow Mobility: "Consolidation in the micromobility space has arrived — in Brazil, at least. A few months after Y Combinator-backed Grin merged its electric scooter business with Brazil-based Ride, it’s now merging with Yellow, the bike-share startup based in Brazil that has also expressed its ambitions to get into electric scooters."

Uber, the ride hailing company has also entered the e-scooter business by investing and partnering with LIme which rents e-scooters.

These consolidations are a sign that after rapid growth companies are having to tackle problems of unit economics, software, batteries, and safety.

Terms of Ojo Gotcha agreement

Ojo will buy 100 percent of the equity of Gotcha and will pay $2.5 million at the time the deal closes and another $2.5 million 5 months later. Ojo says it will issue $7 million in stock. Half of this will be issued on closing and the other half six months later but only providing that certain business milestones are met. The two companies hope to close the deal by the end of this year.

Gotcha's business has mostly concentrated on university campuses. Ojo has launched a rental service in Austin, Memphis, and Dallas just this October. By 2020 Ojo hopes to deploy 25,000 of what it calls mobility units for both on-demand delivery services and ride-sharing.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US Secretary of State says the legality of Israeli settlements in occupied territories should be decided by Israeli courts

(November 18, 2019) US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has announced that the US now repudiates the 1978 State Department legal opinion that the Israeli settlements in occupied Palestine violate international law.

Israeli settlements

Israeli settlements exist in several areas and are described by Wikipedia as follows: "Israeli settlements are civilian communities inhabited by Israeli citizens, almost exclusively of Jewish ethnicity,[1][2] built on lands occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War.[3] Israeli settlements currently exist in the Palestinian territory of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and in the Syrian territory of the Golan Heights, and had previously existed within the Egyptian territory of the Sinai Peninsula, and within the Palestinian territory of the Gaza Strip; however, Israel evacuated and dismantled the 18 Sinai settlements following the 1979 Egypt–Israel peace agreement and all of the 21 settlements in the Gaza Strip, along with four in the West Bank, in 2005 as part of its unilateral disengagement from Gaza.[4] The international community considers the settlements to be illegal under international law,[5] and the United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel's construction of settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

The fourth Geneva Convention explicitly bars occupying powers from transferring its own civilian population into an occupied territory. This is exactly what Israel has done.

Pompeo's position

Pompeo says that the US position is based on "unique facts". While Pompeo claims that the US is not trying to reinterpret international law the State Dept. will now argue that international law does not advance the cause of peace and should therefore be ignored. The unique facts appear to be that the US is a firm and constant supporter of Israeli positions even when they violate international law. The peace that ignoring the law is supposed to bring is the transfer of occupied land to Israeli settlers. Paying attention to international law would provide justification for resisting the spread of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

Pompeo argues that any legal questions on Israel building settlements in occupied Palestine should be handled by Israeli courts. A recent Haaretz article elaborates on Pompeo's position: "The U.S. would not be taking a view on the legal status of any specific settlement, the American top diplomat said, leaving that task to the Israeli judicial system. The Israeli court system accepts challenges to the legality of some settlements over others and is therefore best placed to decide, Pompeo said, "the U.S. will respect decisions on the subject made by Israeli courts.""

In other words the decisions of the occupier's courts and not any regard for international law will govern whether a settlement is legal. The US position is just to accept whatever Israeli courts decide. No doubt this is supposed to be a case of the US ignoring international law in the interests of peace when actually it is in the interests of Israel and against the interests of Palestinians.

The US move will no doubt encourage Israel to build more settlements and block any attempts to create a Palestinian state that could perhaps stop such settlement.

Netanyahu cheers on the Trump administration

Not surprisingly Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu had kinds words for the decision and the Trump administration: "Netanyahu echoed Pompeo’s words, saying “The Trump Administration policy is also correct in stating that those who have categorically denied any legal basis for the settlements not only deny truth, history and the reality on the ground, they also set back the cause of peace, which can only be achieved through direct negotiations between the parties.“Israel remains ready and willing to conduct peace negotiations with the Palestinians regarding all final status issues in an effort to achieve a durable peace but will continue to reject all arguments regarding the illegality of the settlements.”"

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Ford unveils an all-electric Mustang Mach-E

(November 18, 2019) Ford has just unveiled the fully electric Mustang Mach-E. The new EV promises the performance of the fossil-fueled version but with far more practicality. However, naming the EV a Mustang has riled up some supporters of the gas model .

+ Add Image

Ford made a bold move to use the Mustang brand for the EV

Even though there may be some negative reaction to the move it has probably drawn attention to the car that it would not otherwise have had. Perhaps any publicity is good publicity. A new name or that of another existing Ford vehicle would likely not have garnered so much interest.

Design is quite different from the existing Mustang

The Mach-E has a quite different front grille from the traditional Mustang. It has a nose matching the SUV's body color. Electric vehicles tend to need less direct air cooling. This has led automakers to become clever with design. However, the move is bound to elicit scorn from some who love the traditional design.

Features

The Mach-E has a decent range for an all-electric vehicle of up to 300 miles of range. The price range will be between $44,000 to over $60,000. State and Federal tax incentives will help lower the price but the Mach-E is still a premium car.

The Mach-E will not ship for about a year but the models recently tested felt like a complete package even though the software is not yet close to working according to Sean O'Kane of Verge.

Details of different versions of the Mach-E are available in a Verge article.

The Mach-E is said to have a lot of head room by O'Kane and leg room as well especially since it is small as SUVs go. The car also has a USB-C port and also a wireless charging mat a boon for techies. There is a large front trunk and deep storage places in both the doors and the center console.

The 15.5 inch touchscreeen was not yet functional. However, it has a simple digital instrument cluster with basic information. There is also a driver monitoring system. Ford eventually wants a hands-free driving system and the monitoring system will be a safety feature for when that occurs.

Comparisons with Teslas

The forthcoming Tesla Model Y will have similar specs to the Mach-E and is scheduled to be released around the same time.

Shortly after the unveiling event, Elon Musk CEO of Tesla congratulated Ford on the Mach-E tweeting: “Sustainable/electric cars are the future!! Excited to see this announcement from Ford, as it will encourage other carmakers to go electric too."

Ford may end up in financial difficulty

]Ford is committed to a huge investment over the next years: "Ford Motor Company said Sunday that it would more than double its investment in the production of electric vehicles, promising to spend $11 billion on the technology by 2022. The auto giant will roll out 16 fully electric cars within five years, the first of which would arrive in 2020."

O'Kane thinks that Ford made the right choice in going ahead producing the premium and superior Mach-E rather than a slightly improved Ford Focus as they earlier planned. However, the latter vehicle might have been cheaper and more suitable for a mass market. It remains to be seen how many are willing to plump down a fairly high sum for the Mach-E when the entire EV market is just a small fraction of the existing new automobile market.

In May of this year Ford cut 7,000 white collar jobs or ten percent of its workforce: "Ford is cutting 7,000 white-collar jobs, or about 10% of its salaried staff worldwide, as part of a cost-cutting effort it says will save the company about $600 million a year." There have been other cuts since then including 450 workers in the Oakville Canada assembly plant as sales for the Flex model slump.

A recent late October article on Ford stock provides four difficulties Ford faces and concludes: "Ford (NYSE:F) faces too many challenges to be a buy right now. The carmaker reported third-quarter results this week, including earnings declines, lowered guidance, and less-than-promising sales trends overseas. Most of the turmoil seems to revolve around the company's attempt to restructure and move away from stagnant sedans. Nonetheless, it isn't doing much that will create a bull case for its stock. Here are the four key headwinds holding things back."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US War on Terror begun after Sept. 2001 terror attack has cost $6.4 trillion so far say two reports

(November 16, 2019) The US War on Terror begun by the US after the Sept. 11 2001 terror attacks on the US have cost at least 801,000 lives and $6.4 trillion according to two reports just published.

Report was prepared at Brown University

The two reports were prepared by the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. Catherine Lutz, Costs of War co-director and a Brown Professor who authored the projects' report on deaths said: "The numbers continue to accelerate, not only because many wars continue to be waged, but also because wars don't end when soldiers come home. These reports provide a reminder that even if fewer soldiers are dying and the U.S. is spending a little less on the immediate costs of war today, the financial impact is still as bad as, or worse than, it was 10 years ago," Lutz added. "We will still be paying the bill for these wars on terror into the 22nd century."

The report can be viewed here. Part of the summary notes: "These wars,and the domestic counter-terror mobilization,have entailed significant expenses, paid for by deficit spending.Thus, even if the United States withdraws completely from the major war zones by the end of FY2020and halts its other Global War on Terror operations, in the Philippines and Africa for example, the total budgetary burden of the post-9/11wars will continue to rise as the US pays the on-going costs of veterans’ care and for interest on borrowing to pay for the wars.Moreover, the increases in the Pentagon base budget associated with the wars are likely to remain, inflating the military budget over the long run."

The Human Cost report

The report Human Cost of Post-911 Wars tallies direct deaths in major war zones and groups people by civilians, humanitarian and NGO worker, journalists and media workers, US military members, Dept. of Defense civilian and contractors, and members of national and military police forces and other allied troops and opposition fighters.

The report reports death in six categories: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria/ISIS, Yemen and "Other". The civilian death percentage across all categories is up to 335,745 or almost 42 percent of the total.

Indirect deaths are not calculated

However, the report does not even consider indirect deaths caused by starvation, lack of water, and war-related diseases caused by destruction of infrastructure.

David Vine a professor at the American University and board member of the Costs of Wat noted in an article in The Hill that indirect deaths are generally estimated to be four times higher than direct deaths and said: "This means that total deaths during the post-2001 U.S. wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and Yemen is likely to reach 3.1 million or more—around 200 times the number of U.S. dead." Vine went on:"Don't we have a responsibility to wrestle with our individual and collective responsibility for the destruction our government has inflicted? Our tax dollars and implied consent have made these wars possible. While the United States is obviously not the only actor responsible for the damage done in the post-2001 wars, U.S. leaders bear the bulk of responsibility for launching catastrophic wars that were never inevitable, that were wars of choice."

The US Budgetary Costs and Obligation of Post-9/11 wars

Vine also remarked on the opportunity costs of the $6.4 trillion spent on finance post-9/11 wars. The funds could have been used to feed those in need of food, improve schools, help prevent global warming, improve infrastructure and pay f or healthcare.

A summary of the costs can be found at this website including a pie chart representation of costs. There is also a link to the entire paper.

The $6.4 trillion includes spending in a number of categories: overseas contingency operations(OCO); interest on borrowing for OCO; war-related spending in the Pentagon budget; medical and disability care for post-0/11 veterans; and finally Dept. of Homeland Security spending for prevention of and responding to terrorism.

Neta Crawford a co-director of the project and a professor at Brown claimed that there had been a trend to less transparency in reports about the cost of funding among some major agencies. There had also been institutionalization of the costs in the Department of Defense base budget, and the budgets of the Dept. of State and Homeland Security. There was also a growing cost for veteran's medical care and disability payments.

Further remarks by Lutz

Lutz said that the data from the two reports have had an effect in Congress leading some to make calls to put an end to the join resolution to authorize the use of military force. Lutz maintained that if you count all parts of the federal budget that are military related it makes up two-thirds of the total federal budget. Lutz claimed that most people realize this enormous cost or that these expenditures are crowding out expenditure for other national purposes that are not war related.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

High-priced Huawei Mate X foldable phone sells out in flash sale in China

(November 16, 2019) Huawei's new foldable Mate X was originally to be launched in June, then September, and finally some time in November. On November 16 the Mate X officially went on sale in China.

The Mate X is the second foldable smartphone to enter the market since the Samsung Galaxy Fold.

Mate X lacks Google's Android apps and Microsoft chips

The Mate X will be released without Google apps or Microsoft chips as a recent article reports: "Chinese tech giant Huawei is selling its first folding smartphone without Google apps or US-made processor chips following sanctions imposed by Washington.The Mate X, which unfolds to 14.6 centimetres (5.8 inches) wide, went on sale Friday on Huawei’s online store in China priced at 16,999 yuan ($2,422). It competes with Samsung’s Galaxy Fold launched in September."

The Mate X

The Mate X stands out among foldable phones as its folding screen in on the outside of the device. Competitors Galaxy Fold and Motorola Razr have internally folding screens. The Mate X has a 6.6 inch screen on the front and a 6.38 inch screen on the back when folded. When unfolded its screen is 8 inch diagonally.

The phone is also equipped with 5G, the Kirin 980 processor and a dual-celll 4,500 battery. The steep price is explained by all this tech.

In spite of the high price the Mate X sold out in minutes in a flash sale according to a recent report: ""Well, the company did offer a limited number of devices in China, but the Mate X 5G sold out in less than a minute. This was a flash sale, of course, and it was expected that it will be out of stock soon after it went on sale. Huawei confirmed that the next sale of the Mate X 5G is scheduled for November 22. So, those users who did not get a chance to purchase it today, will have another chance next Friday."

No dates yet for a Mate X release in other countries

Even in China the Mate X has only been on sale in its online store. In October Huawei said a global launch plan is under review but nothing has been confirmed since then. Given that Huawei is under heavy scrutiny by the US government for security concerns the phone may never be available in the US.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump claims US troops are in Syria only for the oil

(November 15, 2019) President Trump's new position on the Syrian War simplifies matters but only by ignoring the position of lawmakers and the Pentagon on why the US is there. However, it avoids criticizing Turkey and its occupation of the Syrian safe zone.

US presence is all about oil

A recent article sets forth Trump's position: ""As you know, we've pulled back our troops quite a while ago, because I think it's time for us not to be worried about other people's borders," Trump said to reporters alongside Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the White House. "I want to worry about our borders...So, we want to worry about our things," Trump added. "We're keeping the oil, we have the oil, the oil is secure, we left troops behind only for the oil."

This position avoids any conflict with Turkey. However, the new position is no cure all and adequate substitutes for his earlier often conflicting views on the issue.

Internal opposition to the Trump position

Many lawmakers see the Syrian war as in part protecting the Kurds and the Pentagon sees it as well as together with the Kurds fighting ISIS. Some also see the US a helping promote regime change in Syria, although that seems to have been a failure. However, the continued US presence can make things difficult for Assad. Some in the US even see the US presence as countering Russia which supports the Assad government.

Trump's simplified view may reflect his agenda

The Trump position may simply reflect what Trump cares about in Syria. After all he campaigned about getting the US out of useless wars. His new position gives him a reason to keep some troops in Syria and not withdraw them all. Trump may not care about or at least care to admit other reasons for the US staying in Syria.

However, Trump fails to see the legal complications involved in trying to sell the Syrian oil to add to US revenues. Many top US officials are downplaying the matter. No major oil company has come out to support Trump. This is no doubt due to possible legal complications as to who owns the oil. Many military officials hope that Trump's policy fails to work out as he envisages it.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US wants South Korea to pay $4.7 billion yearly to pay for US troops

(November 15 2019)South Korea has already been paying an unusually large percentage of the cost of keeping US troops in the country. Last year under pressure from President Trump South Korea agree to pay the US $924 million each year.

The earlier agreement is described in an article at the time: "South Korea's agreement with the U.S. follows months of negotiations over the proposal following criticism from President Trump over the amount of South Korea's monetary contributions to U.S. troops.“The reason I do not want military drills with South Korea is to save hundreds of millions of dollars for the U.S. for which we are not reimbursed," Trump tweeted last year."

Trump indicated he wanted even more

Even after that increase Trump has suggested more than once that he wanted even more arguing that South Korea could easily afford it.

Trump's shocker

Trump's new demand is that South Korea pay the US $4.7 billion annually, more than five times what it pays at present, shocking everyone on both sides.

The paper Chosun Ilbo announced the new figure: "The paper provides a translation of U.S. comments, saying that James DeHart, a senior State Department official in charge of the financial negotiations, made an unplanned visit to South Korea yesterday, where he informed South Korea that the new figure was going to be much higher than anyone had expected, more than $5 billion, but that the United States would be willing to take only a portion of the cost and accept $4.7 billion per year as the cost of keeping troops stationed in South Korea."

New amount causes consternation in South Korea and the US

The huge increase is raising questions in the South about the viability of keeping the US around. US officials are also concerned about how they can possibly justify the new figure that appears to have come from nowhere. South Korea had just recently agreed to pay more to support the US troops as a recent article noted: "Last year, the South Korean government paid the United States roughly $830 Million to cover its share of the costs of housing American troops. This was deemed by the Trump administration to be too small a contribution, and they negotiated in February to increase the amount to $924 Million."

What the US may argue

While it may take a great deal of creative accounting to show that the US demand will just cover the costs of the US troops in South Korea, officials may simply argue that the relative prosperity of the South is due to the US presence. The US deserves to share in this prosperity and hence the huge payment each year.

US officials worry that Trump is going to issue similar inflated demands to countries such as Japan and Germany. Trump has indicated before he thinks they should pay more to support US troops deployed in those countries.

Although Trump may think that South Korea and other countries have no choice but to pay up this may be a delusion. South Korea may feel it should reduce the number of US troops present and cut down on joint military drills to lessen the cost. The move may encourage the South to seek better relations with the North by reducing its dependency on the US forces.

A recent article claims that the larger payments may help Trump finance expensive domestic programs but suggests there could also be negative results: "It also alienates international allies, further demonstrates that under Trump the United States is an unreliable military partner, and provides direct material aid to nations which have sworn to harm or even destroy the United States. (It is readily apparent that even the direct threat of US troop departure aids both North Korea and China, regionally, and Russia which has been extending its influence in Southeast Asia). "

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Many top Bolivia coup leaders trained in the US

The United States played a key role in the recent military coup in Bolivia. The US part in the coup has scarcely been sketched in most accounts of events that ended up forcing president Evo Morales to resign on November 10.

William Kaliman commander of Bolivian armed forces.

Just prior to Morales resignation Kaliman had "suggested" that he do so. Kaliman had briefly served as the military attache of the Bolivian embassy in Washington.

However Kaliman's connection with the US goes deeper than that: "Kaliman sat at the top of a military and police command structure that has been substantially cultivated by the US through WHINSEC, the military training school in Fort Benning, Georgia known in the past as the School of the Americas. Kaliman himself attended a course called “Comando y Estado Mayor” at the SOA in 2003".

WHINSEC and the School of the Americas

At least six key coup plotters are graduates of the School of Americas. The School of Americas was renamed the Western Hemisphere Hemisphere Instituted for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC): "The Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) is a United States Department of Defense Institute located at Fort Benning near Columbus, Georgia, created in the 2001 National Defense Authorization Act. It was formerly known as the US Army School of the Americas."

A Wikipedia article explains how the name change came about: "By 2000 the School of the Americas was under increasing criticism in the United States for training students who later participated in undemocratic governments and committed human rights abuses. In 2000, the US Congress, through the FY01 National Defense Act, withdrew the Secretary of the Army's authority to operate USARSA.[7] The next year, the institute was renamed to WHINSEC. U.S. Army Maj. Joseph Blair, a former director of instruction at the school, said in 2002 that "there are no substantive changes besides the name. ... They teach the identical courses that I taught and changed the course names and use the same manuals."[8] "

Top commanders of the Bolivian police who also helped launch the coup have gone through APALA a police exchange training program that operates out of Washington DC. APALA is meant to build relations between US authorities and police officers in Latin American states. It keeps a low profile.

Bolivia's security forces were used by US intelligence as a Trojan horse

The coup plot could not have been successful without the approval of the country's military and police commanders many of whom were groomed in the US. The opposition too has been encouraged by groups such as USAID.

As a recent article concluded: "Leaked audio reported on Bolivian news website La Época, and by elperiodicocr.com and a range of national media outlets, reveals that covert coordination took place between current and former Bolivian police, military, and opposition leaders in bringing about the coup."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump gives Turkish president Erdogan a warm welcome at the White House

(November 14) Trump welcomed Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan to the White House on Wednesday, Trump's warm welcome included the president saying he was a "big fan" of Erdogan.

As a recent article notes Erdogan's warm welcome took place in spite of the Turkish invasion of the so-called safe zone along its border with Syria: "Turkey's recent offensive against a key U.S. ally in Syria did not stop President Trump from honoring Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan with a White House visit and joint press conference. Throughout the afternoon on Wednesday, the president had approving words for the authoritarian leader, whose military invaded northern Syria and forced out America's Kurdish allies. "

On Syria even Trump threatened that he could destroy the entire Turkish economy on a moment's notice. However any such discourse was carefully avoided in the meeting with Erdogan.

As reported in a recent article Trump's position on Turkey and Syria has hardly been consistent: "Trump ordered U.S. troops stationed in the border area to withdraw ahead of the Turkish invasion, while exhorting Erdogan in an extraordinarily undiplomatic letter to avoid too much bloodshed.“Don’t be a tough guy. Don’t be a fool!” Trump wrote in the letter, which was reportedly thrown by Erdogan into the trash."

Lawmakers of both parties critical of Erdogan

The Turkish invasion of Syria was criticized by a number of US lawmakers both Republican and Democrat.

A motion by the US Congress has also condemned the Turkish role in the Armenian genocide a resolution Erodgan has condemned as a grave insult to Turkey.

Earlier this week some members of the US Congress sent Trump a letter urging he cancel the visit: "Earlier this week, a group of Democratic and Republican members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to Trump calling on him to cancel Erdogan’s invitation to the White House. The letter, which was led by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, expressed frustration with both Erdogan’s domestic and foreign policy agenda. "

However, Trump was careful not to bring up any topic disagreeable to Erdogan. Erdogan so far seems not to be looking to pick fights with Congress while he is in the US, and just focus on all the praise Trump has to offer.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Dell plans to manufacture greener products during the next decade

(November 12, 2019)Dell, the computer manufacturer, has announced new plans to lessen its carbon footprint as well as cutting down on e-waste. The new targets were unveiled at a summit in Austin Texas alongside other initiatives on diversity, inclusion, and privacy.

Company statement

On its website Dell says it is committed to advancing sustainability: "We have a responsibility to protect and enrich our planet together with our customers, suppliers and communities. It is a core part of our business and we embed sustainability and ethical practices into all that we do, being accountable for our actions while driving improvements wherever and whenever possible."

The Dell plans

Dell hopes to get 100 percent of its electricity from renewable resources by 2040. Dell is far behind companies such as Apple that announced just last year that it uses 100 percent renewable resources.

Dell is also trying to use less energy. By 2030 Dell is hoping to cut its electricity consumption in half by making its products more energy efficient. It will also cut emissions from its operations and its supply chain.

Recycling efforts

By 2030 Dell plans to reuse or recycle an equivalent product for every device that a customer buys. It is also plans to ensure that by then at least half of all materials used in its products will be "recycled or renewable" and 100 percent of its packing will be so.

Dell plans to expand its present recycling program. Dell already recycles electronics no matter what the brand. Item are dropped off at participating Goodwill locations. It also has mail-back program with Fed-Ex. Dell has recovered 2 billion pounds of used electronics since 2008. However, Dell estimates that it collects less than 10 percent of the products it sells. Only about 5 percent of its products are made from recycled or renewable content.

Christine Fraser, of Dell said to the Verge: “We believe that this is a business critical initiative. The imperative is really what our customers and our team members expect of us.”

The problem

The World Economic Forum(WEF) claims that people throw away 50 million tons of e-waste globally each year the equivalent of about 4,500 Eiffel Towers. The WEF claims that this amount could grow to as much as 120 million tons by 2050. Toxic heavy metals can leach out of electronics waste contaminating soil and water to make matters worse.

A big step to reducing such waste would be for people to keep their electronic products longer and manufactures to produce products with a longer life span. Vesela Veleva, director of the MBA program at the U. of Mass. Boston says that recycling and other plans are not enough: "These are great goals but unfortunately they don’t get to the core of the problem, which is extending the useful life of the product. Recycling is just the tip of the iceberg — it’s not going to be enough.”

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US General claims that the US will keep forces in Afghanistan for several more years

(November 11, 2019)US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair General Mark Milley predicted that US troops would stay in Afghanistan for several more years. This is the first such estimate since President Trump refused to accept a peace plan in principle negotiated with the Taliban.

	1 of 2

Milley's defense of the US mission

Milley defended the Afghan war of 18 years now arguing that the mission would ensure that the Afghan government would have sustainable internal security to protect the US and claimed that "the mission is not yet complete".

Afghan government no closer to defeating the Taliban

However even though the war has now lasted nearly two decades it is not clear that the Afghan government is any closer to being self-sufficient for its own security. As of January last year, the Afghan government controlled only a little over half of the country: "According to a report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), as of January 31 last year, 229 districts were under the Afghan government's control, which is about 56.3 percent of the total Afghan districts. On the other hand, 59 districts, approximately 14.5 percent of all, were under the Taliban control.The remaining 119 districts, about 29.2 percent, remain contested - controlled by neither the Afghan government nor the rebels."

The situation has probably deteriorated since then. At least there is no sign of the Taliban being defeated. Yet Trump declared an agreement in principle with the Taliban to be dead. A BBC article in September reports: ""As far as I'm concerned, they are dead," he told White House reporters on Monday.Over the weekend Mr Trump cancelled secret plans to host a Taliban delegation in the US after the militant group admitted killing a US soldier."

US troop numbers may decline

Trump's presidential campaign involved promises he would withdraw from useless wars but he is often resisted by hawks within his own administration. Even though super hawk John Bolton is gone plenty still remain. Having refused a negotiated peace plan it seems that Trump will continue supporting US involvement in Afghanistan with the war stretching on indefinitely. With reduced US numbers the Afghan government control is likely to be challenged in new areas unless the US finally decides to accept a negotiated settlement with the Taliban accepting a power-sharing agreement.

The alternative would involve even more lives lost most of them of Afghans plus even more damage from the conflict.

The Afghan War

Wikipedia describes the Afghan war: "The War in Afghanistan (or the US War in Afghanistan or the Afghanistan War), code named Operation Enduring Freedom (2001–14) and Operation Freedom's Sentinel (2015–present),[56][57] followed the United States invasion of Afghanistan[58] of 7 October 2001, when the United States of America and its allies successfully drove the Taliban from power in order to deny al-Qaeda a safe base of operations in Afghanistan.[59][60] Since the initial objectives were completed, a coalition of over 40 countries (including all NATO members) formed a security mission in the country. The war has since mostly involved US and allied Afghan government troops battling Taliban insurgents.[61] The war in Afghanistan is the longest war in US history. This war was entered into without any forward planning or thought of long term stabilisation of Afghanistan.[62]"

Over the long stretch of the war, hundreds of thousands have been killed including more than 4,000 from the International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) and over 62,000 Afghan national security forces as well as over 31,000 civilians and even more Taliban.

US deaths: "Since the start of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan through mid-2019, nearly 2,400 American service members have died.[160] Additionally, over 20,000 U.S. service members have been wounded in hostile action, according to the Defense Department.[3][160]

Previously published in the Digital Journal