International Events IX: I feel like a mushroom

[Knight Of Winter]

So two days ago Josep Borrell, EU minister for foreign affairs, delivered a pretty fine speech. Some key points:

- foundations of security and prosperity that Europe relied on don't exist any more. It's bases were protection from the US and cheap gas from Russia - both of which can't be relied upon any more. For the first - while he praises their cooperation with Biden administration, he's aware that soon Trump or Trump-like figure may come into office again. For the second - the idea of cheap, reliable and ever-available energy sources from Russia turned out be be false, plain and simple.

- EU should work on becoming much more independent, both in terms of security and energy production. It should strive to produce more energy within its own borders, and this will require restructuring part of its economy. 

- in years to come, world will be shaped by rivalry between US and China, like it or not. He calls China system rivals - because both of them (west and China) have fundamentally different value systems and are trying to prove theirs is the best one.

- at the same time, he's aware there are lot more nuances going on. Not everyone supporting west is a democracy, and there are a number of non-aligned, "swing" countries which don't gravitate towards one or another, but support either of them based on their own interest: like Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey etc.

- he doesn't view west rivalry with China in terms of economy, but in terms of value systems and identity. He thins Europe should do a better job at demonstrating how political freedoms, democracy, economic prosperity and human rights are all correlated. Otherwise entire wester model will fail.

- he's critical of EU diplomats, who proved to be slow and inert in times of crisis. And he frames today's political climate as one crisis after another.

- he admits to huge mistakes regarding Ukraine. They didn't think Russians would actually attacked, despite being warned of precise date of the attack by US Secretary of State Tony Blinken. They also underestimated the efficacy of Ukrainian resistance. They didn't expect Putin would be so eager to always escalate the situation.

- climate change and war have already crated a lot of huge problems and will continue to do so.

Lot of things to discuss, for certain. Agree with its sentiments or not - I find lots of admirable things to say about this speech : clear sightedness, willingness to admit mistakes and learn form them, ability to correctly diagnose issues and form possible solutions, natural and practical language devoid of usual bureaucratic meaningless phrases etc. In the past few years, I've seen non-insignificant amount of European politicians' statements which suggest a lot of them are either grossly incompetent, willfully blind, deliberate liars or utter fools. Speeches like the one above show that this is not always the case.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

how political freedoms, democracy, economic prosperity and human rights are all correlated. Otherwise entire wester model will fail.

It'll take a bit of getting its own house in order, *cough* Hungary *cough*

Too much hater-aid coming out about China. Proclaiming a fundamental incompatability suggest never the twain shall meet. Utter failure to recognise the fundamental fact of the human race being one at its core. It's just a slight extension of nationalism, so doesn't really move the needle all that much toward seeing the world as an interconnected and interdependant whole.

[Padraig]

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It'll take a bit of getting its own house in order, *cough* Hungary *cough*

Structurally, the EU can be a lot more effective nudging external countries than internal ones.  Either way, highlighting how democracy, economic prosperity and human rights are all correlated makes sense.

3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It's just a slight extension of nationalism, so doesn't really move the needle all that much toward seeing the world as an interconnected and interdependant whole.

I don't know.  I think its much more complicated than that.  Should how China treats the Uighur people affect how the EU deals with China?  China's influence stretches far beyond its borders, so saying we are all interconnected is very nice but it doesn't help the people in re-education camps.

I'm not saying the EU has been very effective in dealing with China but I can at least appreciate the logic of pointing out the dangers there.

Certainly "hate" is not the required response but highlighting a fundamental disagreement with their system is not a bad thing in itself.

Thanks for the link Knight of Winter.

[Heartofice]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It'll take a bit of getting its own house in order, *cough* Hungary *cough*

Too much hater-aid coming out about China. Proclaiming a fundamental incompatability suggest never the twain shall meet. Utter failure to recognise the fundamental fact of the human race being one at its core. It's just a slight extension of nationalism, so doesn't really move the needle all that much toward seeing the world as an interconnected and interdependant whole.

I think he's just saying out loud the general realisation the world is having that the interconnected and interdependent world is a bit of a utopian dream and that globalisation has not been the entirely positive force it's been built up to be. We are already seeing a move by most countries to become more self sufficient less reliant on supply chains that cause havoc when broken. 

[Wade1865]

Energy Crisis -- looks like La France is getting tense; fights over gasoline, long lines, turning people away at 3/4 full, cops pushing patrol vics, et al.

@Rippounet, ça va bien? 

[Wade1865]

10 minutes ago, Wade1865 said:

Energy Crisis -- looks like La France is getting tense; fights over gasoline, long lines, turning people away at 3/4 full, cops pushing patrol vics, et al.

@Rippounet, ça va bien? 

Context -- Labor Strikes / Strategic Reserves.

"Strikes over wages at TotalEnergies and Exxon Mobil refineries have disrupted refining and delivery, leaving a third of French fuel stations running short."

"The French government said last week that it had tapped its strategic fuel reserves to resupply stations that had run dry."

[Wade1865]

Musingly -- it's as if the world is undergoing some kind of proto-regionalization, at the expense of globalization, divided along the lines of financialization vs commoditization. On one hand, you've got the US-dominant financial order (USD, SWIFT, IMF, et al.) seeking to maintain dominance; on the other, a growing BRICS-recessive commodity order (energy, metals, food, et al.) seeking to compete against (or maybe even replace) it. Although the US would, of course, win this competition, it won't be easy.

I wonder if this is the actual field of competition (involving armed conflict, but not limited to it), similar to what we've seen historically between religious (Christianity vs Muslims) and ideological (capitalism vs communism) orders.

***

OPEC   oil reserves [2022]. "The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Coutries comprises 13 nations that possess about 80 percent of the world's proven crude oil reserves." Notable is how often and severely MBS (and even MBZ, UAE) pimp-slapped the shit out of Uncle Joe.

• Venezuela. 24.4%
• Saudi Arabia. 21.5%
• Iran. 16.8%
• Iraq. 11.7%
• Kuwait. 8.2%

PRC  rare earth production [2021]. "China's hegemony in rare earths production worldwide." Notable is the PRC's efforts to secure these commodities, in Africa and Afghanistan.

• PRC. 60.6%
• US. 15.5%
• Burma. 9.4%
• Australia. 7.9%
• Thailand. 2.9%

BRICS agricultural production [2022]. "Agriculture production is the process of cultivating animals or plants to produce yield for enhancing or sustaining human life." Notably, 4 of the top five are BRICS countries. More notably, the PRC has been hoarding food. On the other hand, the biggest food exporters originiate out of the West.

• PRC. 1st
• India. 2nd
• US. 3rd
• Brazil. 4th
• Russia. 5th

[The Anti-Targ]

10 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I think he's just saying out loud the general realisation the world is having that the interconnected and interdependent world is a bit of a utopian dream and that globalisation has not been the entirely positive force it's been built up to be. We are already seeing a move by most countries to become more self sufficient less reliant on supply chains that cause havoc when broken. 

Given these are relative terms, not absolute it is made even more abundantly clear by what you have written  that the interconnectedness and interdependence of the world is an actual reality and will not end no matter what nationalists / Euro-nationalists think and say. It is, in fact, nationalist self-sufficiency that is the utopian myth, sold to people as achievable but never will be. I would think citizens of the UK (regardless of Brexit or Brexit position) would understand this perhaps to a greater degree than citizens of other countries. 

12 hours ago, Padraig said:

Structurally, the EU can be a lot more effective nudging external countries than internal ones.  Either way, highlighting how democracy, economic prosperity and human rights are all correlated makes sense.

I don't know.  I think its much more complicated than that.  Should how China treats the Uighur people affect how the EU deals with China?  China's influence stretches far beyond its borders, so saying we are all interconnected is very nice but it doesn't help the people in re-education camps.

I'm not saying the EU has been very effective in dealing with China but I can at least appreciate the logic of pointing out the dangers there.

Certainly "hate" is not the required response but highlighting a fundamental disagreement with their system is not a bad thing in itself.

Thanks for the link Knight of Winter.

The problem with that statement is that China is a very effective counter-point to it. China has been responsible for the vast majority of people being lifted out of poverty since 1990, and yet that has happened in the face of continued authoritarian govt, and poor human rights. Singapore is another inconvenient truth in this regard. It is wrong to connect prosperity with democracy and human rights, not merely because there are examples of that not being the case, but also because democracy and human rights should be ends in themselves, irrespective of economic prosperity.

[Padraig]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

It is wrong to connect prosperity with democracy and human rights

Do you actually think this would be effective?

I have heard simplistic arguments that that once you bring in "democracy", prosperity will follow almost immediately.  That is clearly very flawed and has lead to countries regressing (the Arab Spring in Egypt and Tunisia is a good example of this). But if you try to divorce these factors from each other, people are much more likely to put prosperity first (and the other 2 will start to fade).

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The problem with that statement is that China is a very effective counter-point to it.

That is exactly the danger the guy was highlighting.  While "lifting people out of poverty" is great, China can convince others that the ends justifies the means.

The West's job is to convince people they can have it all.  That China's approach may give you one thing but the West's approach can deliver the jackpot.  It may require a bit more work initially but in the longer term, it will have benefits.  China will suggest that the West will inevitably fail (is already failing with people like Trump) and "ours" is the one true path.  That is the conflict identified above.

China's success doesn't mean democracy, economic prosperity and human rights are no longer correlated but the data is murkier than we'd like.  But if countries get more democratic and improve human rights, we better hope that prosperity eventually follows, or we are all in trouble.

[Mentat]

1 hour ago, Padraig said:

The West's job is to convince people they can have it all.

Can they, though?

There's a school of thought that says that, mainly due to climate change, the age of growth and prosperity is over for most everyone, and that the age of restrictions, austerity and hardships will begin (and the longer it takes, the worse it will be for everyone in the long run).

I'm not sure a democratic government can promise prosperity. That depends on a lot of things that might not be under their control (like climate change, wars in foreign lands, rising price of imported raw materials...). They might be able to promise respect to the rule of law and the will of the majority, that human and civil rights will be upheld come what may and that they'll do their best to protect the most vulnerable from the worst of it, though. I very much agree with @The Anti-Targthat democracy and human rights should be ends in themselves.

If people think that economic hardships can be solved via an authoritarian government and that democracy and human rights are worth sacrificing in the altar of economic prosperity, then I think that's a very big problem, because wherever you live, economic hardships are going to come knocking sooner or later, and once you resort to authoritarianism, it might not be easy to go back.