Irwin Tang on John McCain

As the nation mourns senator John McCain, there has been nothing more than lavish praise for his life and career. Democrats and Republicans have spoken highly of this long serving politician, yet he was not the American hero that many in the mainstream media have been praising. John McCain has a long history of racism and specifically an anti-Asian bias. Irwin Tang published a book in 2008 called Gook John McCain's Racism and Why It Matters. The anti-Asian ethnic slur was a term used to dehumanize people of  Filipino, Korean, Japanese, and Vietnamese descent. The slur was first called goo goo in reference to Filipinos  and then was turned into gook in reference to Haitians when the US invaded that country in 1915. The epithet is not only used to dehumanize, but as a rallying cry for war. John McCain regularly used the term to refer to Asian people. The only reason he stopped was that in the year 2000 he was running for president. This matter was not even mentioned when he ran for president eight years later. His image as war hero and public servant  was not tarnished. America never has confronted its legacy of racism and imperialism in Southeast Asia. Irwin Tang explains that John McCain's racist ideas could influence policy that could lead to a war with Iran and possible human rights abuse. The Republican Party has used hate and fear to gain votes among white voters. This method included   was used during the election of 2008, when John McCain refused to address the growing birther movement or the islamophobic sentiment within his campaign.  Irwin Tang warns of the growing revival of racist sentiment the John McCain unleashed in 2008, which would later be a force in the election of  2016.  

Kofi Annan's Statement on Iraq (2003)

Kofi Annan (1938-2018) was UN Secretary General from 1997 to 2006. He wanted a United Nations that favored a rational diplomacy as opposed to military based intervention. There were many challenges during his tenure. The Second Congolese Civil War, the NATO invention in Kosovo, and the Iraq War. The Bush administration wanted to get support of the United Nations for military action against Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the UN claiming that Iraq was arming itself with chemical and biological weapons. This message of weapons of mass destruction was based on unreliable intelligence and had an ulterior motive to it. The US was not honest about Iraq and was seeking to remove Saddam Hussein to remake the Middle East. Kofi Annan urged the US and UK not to intervene. This nation building project led to the rise of ISIS and a more powerful Iran. Kofi Annan had been a supporter of responsibility to protect, which some criticized as violation of national sovereignty. The reason he became an advocate of such a policy was due to the Rwandan genocide. The UN was under criticism for the conduct of the Yugoslavian collapse in the 1990s. Annan as shown in the video from 2003 shows that he advocates peaceful resolutions, rather than humanitarian intervention by means of military force. Kofi Annan was attempting to reform the United Nations and prevent the world from losing faith in the international organization. The Ghanaian diplomat will best be remembered for reforming an international body in which the world powers too often dominate. His leadership encouraged other to change the way in which the UN was run, but challenges still remain in the complex world of international affairs.     

RIP Aretha Franklin

Apple Has Become A Trillion Dollar Company

The company that was started by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak has become a trillion dollar company. Apple may have more wealth than the US government in the future. While this is an example of stunning business, it causes complications. The possibility that Apple could use its influence on politics or consumer advocacy would be cause for alarm. If other companies cannot remain competitive, Apple may end up being a monopoly in which consumers have little choice. Microsoft continues to be Apple's main rival  in the field of information technology. However, it does not have the same level of enticement with consumers compared to Apple. Some have criticized the company of creating a technology cult and exploiting customers. There was a void that was left after the death of Steve Jobs. He was an innovator who thought of technology that one would imagine in a science fiction film. This did not harm the profitable company seeing as it reached a milestone in terms of net worth. If  the company has reached a trillion dollar mark, this means there is no legitimate excuse not to increase employee wages or salaries. As long as the principle of supply and demand operate in an economic system there should relative stability. Apple's biggest challenge is to continue to be innovative and produce new technology. If it does not a gradual decline will occur. There comes a time in which companies may fail or deteriorate due to various factors. Apple may face this same fate if it does not continue to explore new hardware, software, or new computing technologies. Simply making iphones with minor variations every few years may not be enough to placate long time customers. Another issue with such immense power of a trillion dollar company is the protection of consumer data. What has occurred with Facebook could be happening with other tech companies . Apple has a responsibility to consumers to protect user data and make terms of service policies clear. Without such regulation,  the right to privacy may be at risk. Apple should also be willing to pay its proper share of taxes. Regardless of popular belief, tax breaks to not encourage growth or more employment. There will be other companies attempting to reach a trillion dollar net worth and this may cause certain social and political problems. The disparity in wealth, a distorted federal income tax,  and the possible stifling of competition and creativity could generate discord in public spaces and the market place.        

Noam Chomsky on Free Speech

Africa News: Gambia's Barrow reshuffles cabinet, appoints Darboe as Vice President

President Barrow has reshuffled his cabinet in attempt to avoid political crisis. Gambia is continuing to struggle after the removal of Yahya Jemmeh in 2017. When a longtime leader gone, the successors often struggle to reform or change political systems. President Barrow did not give a specific reason for the change in positions and ministries. One can only speculate that he is attempting to consolidate political power. Adama Burrow has been in office for a year and yet debt as well as corruption continues to plague the Gambian nation. This will take some time to reverse. However, if Barrow continues to embrace a economic policy that does not promote development, employment, or  infrastructure projects his presidency might not survive. Gambians are growing restless and want change, but it may not happen as rapidly as some would hope. President Barrow did inherit a country that was under stern rule of Jemmeh from 1994 to 2017, but at some point this may not be a suitable excuse for a public struggling economically and demanding political change.  

The Consequences of Withdrawing From The Iran Nuclear Deal

The United States announced that it would be withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal after contentious debate. President Donald Trump has been stating that the  Iran nuclear agreement was not in the best interest of the United States or international community. This change in policy could have consequences beyond the Middle East. If  there is no concrete alternative the possible scenarios could be perilous. The meeting between Kim Jung Un and Donald Trump could be complicated by the sudden event related to Iran. Tension with Russia will increase to a higher level.  The United States will be more alienated from its European allies. France, Germany, and the U.K. want to see the nuclear agreement continue. If  such tension grows between Iran and the US it could lead to war. A regional war would attract world powers. Such a war would involve the US and Israel fighting Iran, Syria, as well as Russia. It appears at the moment the Donald Trump administration has embraced the neoconservative foreign policy in which warfare and nation building are pillars. It is not entirely certain if regime change is the objective, but it could become a possibility. A war of that scale would be devastating. The repercussions could range from increased refugee traffic, regional instability, and economic turmoil. The news of war can effect stocks and fuel prices. If a conflict were to be long term it could cause financial damage to the United States and the world economy as a whole. Withdraw has consequences that may result in sparking mass global conflict, diplomatic complications, and the breakdown of US foreign policy. 

       The withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal complicates the delicate situation with North Korea. Donald Trump and Kim Jung Un are expected to meet to discuss matters of nuclear disarmament and possible peace terms. Media sources allege that North Korea promised to denuclearize on the condition that the US does not wage war on the peninsula. South Korean President Moon Jae-In has through his efforts produced an atmosphere of negotiation. The reason the political situation is different is that it is a Korean solution to a Korean problem. When the US or China were involved in talks, these were not successful  due to the fact the two nations have used Korea as an indirect confrontation ground. There is a lack of trust directed at the United States. If Donald Trump is willing to withdraw from a nuclear agreement with Iran when they were compliant, this would cause a level of trepidation in the North Korean leadership. What happens in West Asia can have an impact on East Asia. Nuclear weapons for North Korea and Iran are basically used a deterrence against a future US invasion. Witnessing the invasions of Iraq and Libya have made many governments around the world more paranoid about US intentions. 

Donald Trump's unpredictable approaches to international affairs and politics only increases the amount of distrust. North Korea is a different situation, because political power is concentrated in one person. Kim Jung Un conducted a purge of the Korean Communist Party ensuring that his power is consolidated and unchallenged. This may make it easier for the US to negotiate with a political system and leader that will not change in terms of operation. Iran's political structure is different. There are factions within the government that are divided between extreme anti-US conservatives and moderates who want to use diplomacy, rather than confrontation. President Hassan Rouhani represents a moderate faction in the Islamic Republic. During the Obama administration it seemed as if US-Iranian relations were improving. The progress made could be completely erased. If Rouhani's political base is neutralized this would mean the more conservative elements would take power. Donald Trump's reasoning is that what worked for North Korea can be replicated with Iran. The reason this would not work is that China and South Korea were a factor in North Korea's decision to change behavior.  Xi Jingping's government decided to vote at the UN in favor of sanctions for North Korea. It also threatened to stop purchases of coal from North Korea. If relations with North Korea's major ally were deteriorating this could have caused collapse. President Moon Jae-In favored peace, rather than confrontation that the previous administration of Park Geun Hye. Depending on what happens to Iran, Kim Jung Un  may not be willing to denuclearize if the US behaves belligerently. 

         US and Russia relations are at a nadir. The withdraw from the nuclear agreement only complicates matters. Russia and Iran have close relations. They have a common foreign policy objective in Syria. Both Russia and Iran want to see the Baathist government remain in power. President Bashar Al-Assad has remained a political survivor during the country's brutal civil war. Ethnic conflict, terrorism, and wars of proxy have torn the country apart. Iran and Hezbollah have provided military assistance to Syria in its fight against ISIS and armed groups seeking an overthrow of  President Assad. Russia also became involved conducting airstrikes against various targets. Russia has vital interests in Syria and the status of that would be uncertain if the Assad government were to be deposed. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are aiding Sunni terrorist groups with the intent to eliminate the only remaining Baathist government. The Sunni Muslim states are attempting to stop the rise of Iranian power in the region. Donald Trump erroneously claimed that Iran is responsible for the rise in terrorism in the Middle East. A large portion of the emergent terrorist groups are Sunni Muslim oriented ISIS being the most recognizable. Saudi Arabia for decades has been arming numerous groups and teaching extreme Whabbist ideology in madrassas around the globe.   

   

Lebanon has become part of the rivalry with Saudi Arabia exerting a huge amount of influence over Prime Minister  Saad Hariri. Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman has risen in prominence since the anti-corruption crackdown and is next in line for the Saudi throne. He has more control over policy and day to day governance. His ideas and perspectives do not differ from that of King Salman Abdelaziz Al-Saud. Iran is considered a threat and competitor. Yemen must be made compliant to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia wants the fall of Assad mainly because it will reduce Iranian influence. The US and Russia are using Syria as a war of proxy front. Russia's continued support of Assad is a reaction to events in Libya and Ukraine. US external interference in the affairs of other nations has caused Russia to defend its interests even more aggressively. The logical step that Russia would take would be to support Iran as a means of opposing the United States. Russia has shown this support by providing Iran with S-300 air defense missiles. Russia has also done the same with Syria. Iran, Russia , and Hezbollah have allowed the survival of the Assad presidency to the ire of the West. The intent was regime change and the US under the Obama administration was calling for Assad's removal. The obstacle to this is Iran locally and Russia externally. If there is any move against Iran or Syria this will induce a Russian response. If both the Syrian and Iranian governments were to collapse, Russia would be effectively isolated from the Middle East. The Russian Federation would not allow that to happen with out projecting military force. President Donald Trump intended to improve relations with Russia, but an investigation into collusion and a general anti-Russian sentiment makes this insuperable. A conflict with Iran will inevitably lead to confrontation with Russia. 

         The US leaving the nuclear agreement only increases chances for war. Putting sanctions back on the country is close to economic warfare. This is functioning on the theory that if conditions are so terrible, this will cause insurrection. Such sanctions do not causing hate for the government of Iran, but allows for unity among the population against the United States. Israel could have a desire to see a war beak out with US support. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also proclaimed that the Iran nuclear deal was not strict enough or adequate. The reason Israel is in conflict with Iran is due to the fact it does not want regional challengers. The Zionist  state wants to remain dominant in the region and seeks to expand. The refusal to stop the establishment of settlements in the West Bank or negotiate a peace with the Palestinians is clear evidence. When the announcement was made about the nuclear deal, only a day afterwards there was an alleged rocket attack on the Golan Heights. Israel has conducted a multitude of airstrikes on Syria during the course of the civil war with no repercussion. The US withdrawing from the nuclear deal has created an atmosphere in which Israel is encouraged to take more aggressive action. This reckless behavior will escalate into full scale war. it may start with confrontations between Iran and Israel with the Gulf states following after. 

This hostility comes from religious and ethnic conflict. Arabs and Persians have through history been in a state of rivalry. The bloodiest of these recent conflicts was the Iran-Iraq War. During the 1980s the Gulf monarchies were alarmed by the rise of the Islamic Republic  and how the Shah was deposed. The fear was that such a revolution would come to their countries. They supported Saddam Hussein's war that lasted eight years. The most powerful Shia Muslim state this cause trepidation among the majority Sunni Muslin states. When Saddam Hussein was removed by a US invasion in 2003, Iranian power grew. While the Bush administration took a belligerent tone, the situation never reached a level to what is seen currently. The difference was that the Arab Spring was a factor. Nimir al-Nimr a Shia Muslim cleric who was popular in Iran and Syria was executed in Saudi Arabia. His Arab Spring like movement called for free elections in Saudi Arabia and more rights for Shia Muslims. The protests that occurred in 2011 to 2012 were not tolerated by the Saudi government. Nimr was later executed causing relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia to decline. Yemen became a war of proxy between Houthi rebels with Iranian support and the Saudi supported Abdrabbuh  Mansur Hadi.  Yemen and Syria will become fronts in the regional war. The United States and Russia may get involved directly. The United States still has troops and Syria assisting rebels or other armed groups. Iraq could be caught between warring nations. Turkey would respond in either occupying parts of Syria or Iraq. A wider conflict would give them an opportunity to go after the PKK and YPG. It is likely that a Kurdistan could emerge if the Arab nations and Turkey exhausted themselves with a regional war. The only Gulf states that may not go to war against Iran are Oman and Qatar. Qatar has better relations with Iran compared to its Gulf neighbors. Since the diplomatic isolation that other Gulf states were putting Qatar through relations with Iran improved tremendously. Oman shares a unique bilateral economic cooperation with the Islamic Republic. These countries may either remain neutral or fight with Iran in a large scale regional war. Hezbollah will play a major role in such a war and Israel will be a theater of operations. Israel was never able to defeat Hezbollah in 2006 and their appears to be a desire for revenge. Military victories for Hezbollah means success for Iran against Israel. Hamas which governs the Gaza Strip has renewed ties to Iran and with a full scale war it would mean Israel would be fighting a war on two fronts. Saudi Arabia could engage in naval battles with Iran while launching ground invasions with Kuwait. Saudi Arabia has already invaded Bahrain before to stop the Arab Spring movement there and this could be done as a counter measure. If Russia is involved NATO could be activated to not only attack in the Middle East, but on Russia 's border. The result would be a mass global conflict formed from smaller disputes. A war of such proportions may result in more refugee traffic, inflated fuel prices, and destabilization across continents. 

         The United States has become more isolated from its European allies. France, Germany, and the UK do not agree with the America First policy that has been promoted by the Trump administration. French President Emmanuel Macron during his visit to the United States urged the president to remain with the Iranian nuclear deal. It was apparent that President Donald Trump was unwilling to let go of his campaign promise or seek an alternative. The perspective from the America First policy is that Europe should pay more for the burdens of military assistance. Chancellor Angela Merkel even suggested in the the face of this new policy, Europe should be moving away from the US guidance and have a more defined path. While European nations still observe the Iran nuclear agreement this complicates enacting sanctions. If France and Germany were to establish business ties to Iran this means their companies or government could face US sanctions. 

What Donald Trump has done unwittingly is moved France and Germany closer together. Both Merkel and Macron are pushing for greater EU integration as means of opposing growing euroscepticism. The America First policy is based on the foundation of anti-globalism , economic nationalism, and the idea that the US should only use other countries for its own benefit. The withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal was more than the US being hostile to the Islamic Republic, rather it was a test of Trump's undefined foreign policy. Donald Trump wants to take the United States in a radically different directions doubtless of the admonishments or possible risks. The new tariffs that Trump has proposed not only effect China, but EU countries as well. Germany which has become an economic power on the continent could retaliate by investing in Iran. France may also follow similar actions if there is a lack on consensus on Iran or other topics of foreign policy. It would seem that the US has become more alienated from Europe compared to the Obama administration. At the time, there was an attempt to reverse the effects of unilateral action in global affairs. President Donald Trump has reversed that policy by putting an even greater emphasis on unilateral action. If the United States decides to attack Iran, Germany and France will not come to aid in such an operation. There is a divide emerging between American and European leaders. There are leaders of the EU who favor a diplomatic solution to the issue of nuclear weapons. The American approach is that of either unilateral action or regime change. President Macron and Chancellor Merkel have been willing to meet with President Putin to discuss economic as well as political issues. President Donald Trump has not attempted to do so. Even though the West and Russia are having a number of disputes there is at least room for dialogue. Trump may have an ally with Prime Minister Theresa May. Recently, the United Kingdom  has come into negative relations with the Russian Federation  over the murder of a former Russian spy Sergei Skripal . The UK will most likely still be close to the US even with the coming changes brought on by the withdraw from the nuclear agreement. Doing so would mean the UK would be more willing to follow the United States into a war with Iran. Other than the UK, the US is gradually becoming more diplomatically estranged from the rest of Europe. 

         The conclusion of this decision may follow a foreign policy break down. Iran may retaliate under pressure from severe sanctions. North Korea realizing that the US may not be trustworthy could refuse to denuclearize. The meeting between Kim Jung Un and Donald Trump would not amount to anything permanent or substantive. An error with Iran could mean more tension in North Korea. Nuclear weapons for countries that are not as powerful as a superpower ensure that aggression will not be directed at them or their people. Donald Trump when announcing withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement stated that"Iran having nuclear weapons would cause an arms race." The reality is that stopping the spread of nuclear technology may not be possible. There may be in the future many countries that have nuclear weapons. If the concern is able security, then Israel must be held accountable for its nuclear capabilities. The United States and Russia have the world's largest nuclear arsenals. To say certain nations should not have nuclear weapons is contradictory when a possible arms race could be emerging between the US and Russia. The Iran nuclear deal was a diplomatic solution that was working. Iran has not detonated nuclear weapons and so far there is no evidence that they are enriching uranium. North Korea has a nuclear program, but has not faced such harsh scrutiny. The agreement will eventually expire, but the intention should be for a permanent end to contention between the US, the West, and Iran. Possibly, over a number of decades relations could be normalized, while ensuring a stable Middle East. This seems unrealistic seeing as Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are in competition for regional dominance. The United States and Russia are now using the conflicts in the Middle East as a geopolitical chessboard. Donald Trump has yet to provide an alternative agreement that could replace the current one. There may not even be a coherent plan or path forward. The United States is facing an identity crisis. The image of being the leader of the free world has been gradually shown to be a myth masking a system of perpetual warfare and neocolonialism. The America First policy came about from the frustration of neoconservative nation building projects and multilateral military action . The withdraw from the Iran nuclear agreement demonstrates the America First policy in practice going against world opinion. The manner in which  events unfold, the Middle East will never be the same.