New poll shows most Americans favor less interventionist foreign policy

(November 25, 2019)A new poll conducted by the Eurasia Group Foundation of 1,200 people across the US shows that belief in American exceptionalism is declining and Americans tend to support a less interventionist foreign policy

]

The poll and summary can be found here.

Is America exceptional?

42.4 percent of the respondents believed that the US was exceptional for what it represents while another 18.2 percent thought it was exceptional for what it had done in the world. However, 39.5 percent thought there was nothing exceptional about the US and that it was just another country which acted in what it thought to be its own interests. This is up fully 6 percent from the previous year.

In the younger 18 to 29 age group only 45.1 thought the US exceptional, less than half. However, 75.2 percent of those over 60 thought America was exceptional.

How can peace best be achieved and sustained by the US?

The most popular choice was to keep a focus on domestic needs, chosen by 34.4 percent. 28.3 percent chose "establishing, encouraging,. and reinforcing, global economic integration". Only 19 percent chose "promoting and defending democracy". Last was the hawkish-sounding "maintaining overwhelming strength" with 18.3 per cent.

How should US respond to overseas humanitarian abuses?

The most popular answer was that the US should opt for restraint chosen by 47.1 percent, up two percent from the previous year. The second highest response favored a UN-led response at 33.5 percent. Only 19.4 percent favored US military action.

The US defense budget

Half of the respondents were in favor of leaving the defense budget as it was but twice as many of the rest preferred decreasing the budget rather than increasing it.

While the Pentagon has been focused on restraining Chinese influence in Asia, 57.6 percent of those polled said that the US should reduce its Asian presence while 42.4 percent favoredj sending more troops to allied Asian countries.

The Afghan war

There was considerable support for withdrawing immediately from Afghanistan 38.8 percent. Another 31.4 percent wanted to keep fighting until a peace deal was reached with the Taliban. However, 29.8 percent took a hawkish approach and wanted US troops to remain until "all enemies are defeated".

The Eurasia Group poll on Afghanistan fits with the views expressed in a Pew Research Poll that found a majority of both the public and veterans did not think that either the Afghan or Iraq war were worth fighting: ".. majorities of both veterans (58%) and the public (59%) say the war in Afghanistan was not worth fighting. About four-in-ten or fewer say it was worth fighting."

64 percent of veterans found the war in Iraq was not worth it and 55 percent thought the same about the war in Syria.

The Cost of War project

Tho Costs of War project based in Brown University this November that added up the costs so far of the War on Terror. Here is a summary of their findings: Over 801,000 people have died due to direct war violence, and several times as many indirectly.

Over 335,000 civilians have been killed as a result of the fighting. 21 million — the number of war refugees and displaced persons. The US federal price tag for the post-9/11 wars is over $6.4 trillion dollars. The US government is conducting counterterror activities in 80 countries. The wars have been accompanied by violations of human rights and civil liberties, in the US and abroad."

Given these costs it is hardly surprising that Americans favor a less interventionist approach in global affairs.

Previously published  in the Digital Journal

US officials confirm that Israel responsible for mysterious explosions in Iraq

August 22) US officials have finally confirmed that a series of mysterious explosions in Iraq were actually caused by Israeli airstrikes although some had already suspected this to be the case

JAP reports confirmation

The Associated Press (AP) account: "Israel was responsible for the bombing of an Iranian weapons depot in Iraq last month, U.S. officials have confirmed, an attack that would mark a significant escalation in Israel’s years-long campaign against Iranian military entrenchment across the region. The confirmation comes as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is strongly hinting that his country is behind recent airstrikes that have hit bases and munitions depot belonging to Iran-backed paramilitary forces operating in Iraq."

Iran promises strong retaliation

The deputy head of Iraqi militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces had earlier in the week openly accused Israeli drones of carrying out the attacks, but he ultimately blamed Washington. He threatened strong retaliation for any future attack.

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki also warned of a strong response should it be proven that Israel was responsible for the recent airstrikes.

Israel appears to be able to do whatever it likes even though its actions may often violate international law. Israel has often hit with airstrikes what it claims are Iranian or Hezbollah targets in Syria. Now it has attacked a sovereign country without provocation. Meanwhile the US is no doubt quite happy the attacks are happening. The US has nothing to say in condemnation. The Israelis claim the Iraqi Shiite militia are just Iranian proxies. No doubt the US feels the same way and appreciates the Israeli attacking them as proxies for US attacks!

Iraq has demanded that the US not make unauthorized flights

A recent article notes that the US would comply with the demand of the Iraqi PM: "The U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State group in Iraq says it will comply with new orders issued by the country's prime minister regarding unauthorized flights in Iraqi airspace. In a statement Friday, it says that as guests of the Iraqi government, the coalition complies with all Iraqi laws and direction from the government." Since then the US has said that many of their missions would not apply.

Iraq may find it difficult to make a strong response

Iraq only has a marginal air defense system so they have little chance of shooting down an attacking plane or drone. Israeli planes are similar to US planes and so it would be dangerous to shoot at a plane whose identity is not known. It would seem that the US will still fly planes without authorization or knowledge of the Iraqi government.

Iraqi militias have taken a few shots at spy aircraft without result so far.

The Iraqi parliament in late December last year was to hold a vote on expelling the US: "Iraqi lawmakers have demanded US forces leave the country in the wake of a surprise visit by Donald Trump, which politicians denounced as arrogant and a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. Politicians from both blocs of Iraq’s divided parliament called for a vote to expel US troops and promised to schedule an extraordinary session to debate the matter." I can find no follow up reports that indicate whether the vote was even held or what the results are.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Facebook rolls out Facebook Lite in the US and several other new countries

Facebook Lite is a version of Facebook specifically designed for developing countries. The version is now being rolled out in a number of more countries including developed countries such as the United States.

Facebook Lite is designed to run on 2G networks. The lite version is meant for people with older Android devices or slower Internet connections. Messenger Lite is a companion version of Messenger with the same purpose. Those with slower mobile data connections even in developed countries will find Facebook Lite useful.

Facebook Lite was first launched in 2015

Then the version was tested in a number of countries: Bangladesh, Nepal Nigeria, South Africa, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Vietnam and Zimbabwe. However, it is now available in over 100 countries..

Other countries besides the U.S. included in the new rollout are: Canada, Australia, U.K., France, Germany, Ireland and New Zealand.

Facebook said: “We’ve seen that even in some developed markets people can have lower connectivity, so we want to make sure everyone has the option to use this app if they want.” The app became available for download yesterday.

The app will be available for download from Thursday.

Facebook has always tried to cater to customers who have poor internet connections. Facebook Lite provides a dedicated app for this purpose. It is just 252 kilobytes in size and designed specifically to work on 2G networks and places where there is poor connectivity.

App may help Facebook keep growing

In order to increase its customer base, Facebook needs to attract users where connectivity is poor. There are cheap phones becoming available in developing countries and prices are failing to as little as $30 a device. Countries such as Bangladesh, Nigeria and Vietnam are among the countries where smartphone use is growing fastest. Not surprisingly, these are among the countries Facebook Lite will serve. Creating a 2G-optimized app for Androic applications makes good sense for Facebook.

Facebook Lite can be downloaded free here and at a number of other sites.

Previously published in Digital Journal

122 countries sign on to treaty to ban nuclear weapons at UN meeting

To loud cheers Elayne Gomez, president of the UN conference that has been negotiating the legally binding treaty announced that 122 nations had signed on to the ban while the Netherlands was opposed and Singapore abstained. Gomez said: "The world has been waiting for this legal norm for 70 years" the time period from when the first atomic bombs were dropped by the US on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in August of 1945. Gomez noted that this was the first multilateral nuclear disarmament treaty in more than 20 years. The treaty comes into effect 50 countries ratify it.

Last December UN member states voted overwhelmingly for a treaty that would ban nuclear weapons even though there was strong opposition from all the nations that have nuclear arms. Every one of them refused to even participate in the talks.All NATO members boycotted the negotiations except for the Netherlands which attended but voted against the resolution. The Netherlands has US nuclear weapons on its territory and parliament urged that a delegation be sent to the meetings.

Countries that ratify the treaty must "never under any circumstances to develop, test, produce, manufacture, otherwise acquire, possess or stockpile nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." The transfer of nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices is also prohibited or even the threat to use nuclear weapons.

Richard Moyes, managing director of Article 36, a UK-based group that works to prevent harm from nuclear and other weapons, claimed that it was not plausible to believe that security could be secured by threatening to kill hundreds of thousands with nuclear weapons. He said we  know that there have been errors of judgment, accidents, and also a degree of instability in leadership in the world.

The nine countries that are known to or believed to possess nuclear weapons are: US, Russia, UK, China, France, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. None support the treaty or even sent delegates. The US and a number of other nuclear powers want to strengthen the nearly five-decade old Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty(NPT). This of course retains the nuclear club as the only countries allowed to have nuclear weapons. Israel was able to develop nuclear weapons in spite of the treaty. Neither Israel, Pakistan, nor India have signed the treaty. North Korea withdrew from it in 2003.

The NPT wss originally intended to prevent the spread of nuclear arms from the five original countries that had such arms: US, Russia, China, UK, and France. The agreement included a provision that the five powers move towards nuclear disarmament and provisions that would allow non-nuclear states access to nuclear technology in order to produce energy.

US ambassador Nikki Haley said when the nuclear talks began in March that:"  "there is nothing I want more for my family than a world with no nuclear weapons, but we have to be realistic."She asked if anyone thought North Korea would give up its nuclear weapons, stressing that North Koreans would be "cheering" a nuclear ban treaty — and Americans and others would be at risk."Of course North Koreans may feel at risk because the US has nuclear weapons. It might very well give up nuclear weapons if was assured the US and others opposed to it did. Yet the US has pointed to the escalation of  North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes as a reason to retain its nuclear capability. One could argue that it is US nuclear capability that leads the North Koreans to believe that they also need to develop nuclear weapons in defense.

The UK did not attend the talks although it claims to support multilateral disarmament. Canada voted against the UN resolution to begin negotiations on the treaty. It did not send anyone to the negotiations. A leaked memo the US wrote to other NATO countries last year show why Canada and other NATO countries opposed the treaty and did not attend them except for the Netherlands. The memo said: "If negotiations do start, we ask allies and partners to refrain from joining them". Passage of the ban would increase pressure to meet disarmament obligations. The US and UK in particular are both planning to modernize their nuclear arsenals a move that is even against the old NPT.

EU, US, and Japan challenge China at WTO over rare earth quotas

Rare earths are critical for the production of many high-tech products. Beijing has set quotas on the export of the minerals. Now a joint case by the EU, U.S. and Japan is being filed with the WTO challenging the quotas. The joint filing by the three is not only rare but the first so far!

The group argues that China which produces 95 per cent plus of the global supply is pushing up prices. China replies that it is enforcing quotas to limit environmental damage through excessive mining. Apparently China suddenly has a laudable interest in the environment! A Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said:"We think the policy is in line with WTO rules,""Exports have been stable. China will continue to export, and will manage rare earths based on WTO rules," he said.

The 17 rare earth metals are used in many electrical and renewable energy devices. Critics claim that prices are kept low in China whereas quotas make the earths more expensive for foreign competitors.

Ivor Shago chair of mining services at Rare Earths Global said that the U.S. should have decided itself to produce rare earths many years ago."They took a deliberate decision about 20 years ago not to develop [rare earth mining] and instead to buy the completed products,""Because of the deliberate decision that was taken, in China we have developed skills and expertise that the others do not have." Nevertheless it remains to be seen whether China is taking advantage of that fact in contravention of WTO rules. For more see this BBC article.

Money in elections a country comparison

According to the Center for Responsive politics a whopping 6 billion dollars will be spent by campaigns, political parties, and corporations in an attempt to elect their chosen candidate as the U.S. president. Those spending all that cash in these lean economic times must expect a good return on their investment.

The amount spent in the U.S. is larger than the sums spent in other countries. However, as TI (Transparency International) points out it is not just the amount but the source of funds that worry many citizens.

In the United Kingdom expenditure on electioneering is actually going down. Expenditures dropped 26 per cent from 2005 to 2010 elections. However the absence of limits for donations by individuals or corporations has helped erode public confidence. A TI spokesperson said:"When donors are making contributions exceeding £20,000 ($31,000) -- and some are making donations well over £250,000 ($390,000) -- it's perfectly understandable you don't give away that kind of money without expecting something in return," Late last year an advisory group recommended increased public funding as a way to make the influence of big donations less powerful in the electoral process. However funding political parties is no doubt not a priority for the public! All the main political parties rejected the idea.

Norway is a country where public funding is accepted. Almost three quarters of the income of parties comes from the public purse. In Norway political ads are banned from television and radio!

India has experienced a huge inflow of corporate money into politics. The Indian Electoral Commission believes that up to 2 billion dollars will be donated by corporations to influence the outcome in Uttar Pradash state elections. In India parties often buy votes with gifts and even cash. At least this means the political process is of some value to citizens!

The CNN article also considers the situation in Russia, Brazil and Nigeria. Brazil is interesting. According to TI about 2 billion dollars was spent by parties and candidates in the 2010 presidential election. Almost 98 per cent of funds for the winner's campaign came from corporations. Her opponent's funding was 95.5 per cent from corporations. In spite of the fact the winner was a former Marxist guerrilla corporations obviously bet slightly more on her. Brazil has great inequality of income and wealth.