Day: June 26, 2024

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty declares that NATO members will assist another member if attacked by “taking action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force.” But the UN Charter does not say anywhere that warmaking is authorized for whoever jumps in on the appropriate side.

The North Atlantic Treaty’s authors may have been aware that they were on dubious legal ground because they went on twice to claim otherwise, first adding the words “Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.” But shouldn’t the United Nations be the one to decide when it has taken necessary measures and when it has not?

The North Atlantic Treaty adds a second bit of sham obsequiousness with the words “This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.” So the treaty that created NATO seeks to obscure the fact that it is, indeed, authorizing warmaking outside of the United Nations — as has now played out in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Libya.

While the UN Charter itself replaced the blanket ban on all warmaking that had existed in the Kellogg-Briand Pact with a porous ban plagued by loopholes imagined to apply far more than they actually do — in particular that of “defensive” war — it is NATO that creates, in violation of the UN Charter, the idea of numerous nations going to war together of their own initiative and by prior agreement to all join in any other member’s war. Because NATO has numerous members, as does also your typical street gang, there is a tendency to imagine NATO not as an illegal enterprise but rather as just the reverse, as a legitimizer and sanctioner of warmaking.

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty forbids transferring nuclear weapons to other nations. It contains no NATO exception. Yet NATO proliferates nuclear weapons, and this is widely imagined as law enforcement or crime prevention. The prime minister of Sweden;said in May;that NATO ought to be able to put nuclear weapons in Sweden as long as somebody has determined it to be “war time.” The Nonproliferation Treaty says otherwise, and the people who plan the insanity of nuclear war say “What the heck for? We’ve got them on long-range missiles and stealth airplanes and submarines?”

The people of Sweden seem, at least in large part, to also want to say No Nukes — but when were people ever asked to play a role in “defending democracy”? The purpose of bringing nukes into Sweden, for those in the Swedish government who favor it, may in fact be purely a show of subservience to U.S. empire, driven by fear of its obliging partner in the arms race, the militarists in Russia.

Poland’s president says his country would be happy to have “NATO” nuclear weapons there, “war time” or not, and this proposal is;reported in U.S. corporate media;with no mention of any legal concerns and with the claim that it comes as a response to the Russian placement of nuclear weapons in Belarus. Last year I asked the Russian ambassador to the United States why putting nuclear weapons into Belarus wasn’t a blatant violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, and he said, oh no, it was perfectly fine, because the United States does it all the time.

In fact, NATO itself owns and controls no nuclear weapons. Three NATO members own and control nuclear weapons. We cannot be certain;how many weapons;they have, since nuclear weapons are both justified with the dubious alchemy of “deterrence” and, contradictorily, cloaked in secrecy. The United States has an estimated 5,344 nuclear weapons, France an estimated 290, and Great Britain an estimated 240.

NATO calls itself a “nuclear alliance” and maintains a “Nuclear Planning Group” for all of its members — those with and those without nuclear weapons — to discuss the launching of the sort of war that puts all life on Earth at risk, and to coordinate rehearsals or “war games” practicing for the use of nuclear weapons in Europe. NATO partners Israel and Pakistan are estimated to possess 170 nuclear weapons each.

Five NATO members have U.S. nuclear weapons stored and controlled by the U.S. military within their borders: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. These are estimated at 35 nuclear weapons at Aviano and Ghedi Air Bases in Italy, 20 at Incirlik in Turkey, and 15 each at Kleine Brogel in Belgium, Volkel Air Base in the Netherlands, and Büchel Air Base in Germany. The United States is reportedly also moving its own nuclear weapons;into RAF Lakenheath;in the UK, where it has stored them in the past.

The people of each of these countries routinely protest the presence of nuclear weapons and have never been asked to vote on the matter. The notion that the nuclear weapons in a European country are still U.S. nuclear weapons and thus haven’t been proliferated is an odd fit with the general understanding of international treaties, which are conceived and written as if there were no such thing as empire.

With so-called U.S. or NATO nuclear weapons in potentially eight nations in Europe — and perhaps South Korea as well, at least on U.S. submarines docked there to please certain war-crazed South Koreans — there could soon be more nations in the world with “U.S.” nuclear weapons than nations with anybody else’s.

In recent years, the United States has been;replacing;its nuclear bombs stored in European nations with a newer model (the B61-12), while NATO members have been buying new U.S.-made airplanes with which to drop them. Turkey has had U.S. nukes stored in it even while U.S.-backed and Turkish-backed troops have;fought each other;in Syria, and even during a non-U.S.-backed coup attempt;at the very base;where the nuclear weapons are stored.

Seven other NATO members are said to;support “nuclear missions”;using their non-nuclear militaries: The Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Norway, Poland, and Romania.

Poland and Romania also host new U.S./NATO missile bases that could launch missiles into Russia from very short distances, leaving the Russian government mere moments to decide whether the weapons are nuclear, or to decide whether to launch missiles of its own. The U.S. and NATO claim the bases are purely defensive, and various supporters of the bases have even claimed they had nothing to do with Russia—that they were either focused on Iran (then-U.S. President Barack Obama) or purely functioned as jobs programs for U.S. workers (former U.S. Ambassador Jack Matlock).

Meanwhile, the U.S. has been manufacturing what many of its officials describe as “more usable” or “tactical” nuclear weapons (merely several times the destructive power of what was used on Hiroshima). At the same time, the U.S. military is aware that, in its war game scenarios, the use of a single so-called “tactical” nuclear weapon tends to lead to all-out nuclear war. Or, as then-Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis;told the House Armed Services Committee in 2018, “I don’t think there is any such thing as a ‘tactical nuclear weapon.’ Any nuclear weapon used any time is a strategic game-changer.”

The U.S.-made, disaster-prone F-35 is the first “stealth” airplane designed to carry nuclear bombs, meaning that it can in theory;drop a nuclear bomb on a city with no warning from radar at all. The U.S./NATO have managed to sell F-35s to the U.S., UK, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Poland, Israel, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore, with efforts under way to spread them to more nations, eventually perhaps creating a general need for them on the grounds of “interoperability.” The F-35 is currently being demonstrated on the people of Gaza.

The U.S. military has enough nuclear weapons in each of the following three forms to threaten all life on our planet: missiles on U.S. submarines in oceans around the world; bombs on U.S. airplanes circling the globe; and missiles in the ground in the United States. So why also keep nuclear bombs in European countries, where they would have to be loaded onto airplanes and flown (presumably to Russia) on missions either so “stealth” that they avoid all warning or so risky that they would have to be preceded by massive efforts to destroy air defenses?

If the decision to “go nuclear” were up to NATO, all members;would have to reach a consensus on it. However, NATO has not always easily reached a consensus. For example, the U.S. attempted to bring NATO into its plans for a war on Iraq in 2003 but failed, in part because of huge public pressure against that war in NATO nations.

Nuclear war is one of the least popular ideas ever, so the launch of a nuclear weapon might have to be “stealth” not only in relation to Russia but also in relation to the Western public. If the U.S. decides to use nuclear weapons, it almost certainly will not bother trying to use the ones it keeps stored in Europe. For that matter, were U.S. officials intent on reaching secret bunkers under hills some distance from Washington, D.C., they would need significant warning that a nuclear war had been secretly scheduled — a problematic concept for both the idea of deterrence and the idea of democracy.

The purpose of NATO in the North Atlantic Treaty is supposed to be defense against an attack on Europe, not deterrence. But in the event of responding to such an attack, whether the response were nuclear or not, the U.S. bombs stored in Europe would probably not be used. Threats in the name of deterrence have tended to fuel arms races and wars. But keeping U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe seems to fail even by the usual standards of deterrence theory, since their most likely use would be in an unlikely secret attack. Some U.S. officials believe those nuclear bombs serve no “military purpose” but;only a “political” one, to reassure the host countries that the U.S. government cares about them.

The argument;has also been made;that, since Russia would like the nuclear bombs removed from Europe, the U.S. should either keep them there or demand something huge from Russia in exchange for removing them. Another argument is that this is part of making European nations share the burden, along the lines of making them spend more money on weapons. But if the burden serves no purpose, why should anyone share it?

European government officials know the bombs are not useful as bombs. They know the bombs are provocative toward Russia. They know, in fact, that Russia is using the U.S. storage of nuclear bombs in European nations as an excuse to put Russian nuclear weapons into Belarus. So a more realistic understanding of the “political” purpose of U.S. nukes in Europe is probably a combination of the idea that the U.S. military will fight for any nation in which it has stored nukes, the perverse prestige that many imagine comes with possessing nukes (even if someone else actually possesses them on your land), and the general U.S. goals of keeping European governments intertwined with the U.S. military, supportive of U.S. military strategies, and willing to spend vast amounts on U.S.-made weapons.

Spreading along with nuclear weapons is nuclear energy — climate-disastrous, slow, expensive, super-dangerous nuclear energy, which creates permanent deadly waste, which poisons those around it, which no insurance company will insure, and the facilities for which constitute nuclear catastrophes waiting for accident or attack. Listen to Harvey Wasserman on;what drugs you need to take in order to believe that nuclear energy is good for the climate. Not only are various nations pursuing nuclear energy in order to be closer to developing nuclear weapons, but nuclear NATO countries like the U.S. and UK are promoting this spread of nuclear technology at home and abroad because it is;through nuclear energy;that they maintain skills, training, and materials they want for nuclear weaponry.

There is a better way, and everyone who cares about avoiding nuclear apocalypse is invited to join in preparations for;unwelcoming NATO;to its 75th birthday party this July in Washington DC, July 6-7, 2024.

Bolivia attempted coup: Troops, armored vehicles pull back from presidential palace | AP News https://t.co/iCzcmgdBtP

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) June 26, 2024

Bolivia’s presidential palace attacked in apparent coup attempt https://t.co/HibwulFf1h

— Financial Times (@FT) June 26, 2024

Tbilisi erupts in celebration as Georgia advance at Euro 2024  The Straits Times

NPR News: 06-26-2024 7PM EDT

Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoices

NPR Privacy Policy

Nights in India’s capital, Delhi, of late, became uncomfortably and dangerously hot, as the world’s most populous nation grappled with relentless heat. Northern India has experienced an intense summer, with one part of Delhi hitting 49.9°C (121.8°F) in late-May, marking the highest temperature ever recorded in the city. However, the intense heat did not subside even after sunset.

According to a report by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) tracking urban heat stress in Delhi, the city cools down by only 8.5°C at night. In contrast, urban outskirts see a more significant drop of 12.2°C.

Scientists warn that hotter nights are a result of the climate crisis, increasing the health risks associated with heat stress. Research indicates that higher nighttime temperatures make it harder to fall asleep and reduce deep sleep and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, both crucial for the body’s nighttime repair and refreshment.

Exposure to heat waves during pregnancy may lead to adverse outcomes, such as pre-term birth, as noted in a 2019 study. Older adults may experience higher heart rates and more stress when sleeping in warmer conditions. Deaths due to mental and behavioral disorders increased during heat waves, especially among older adults, as reported by CNN quoting a 2008 Australian study.

The rise in nighttime temperatures—particularly noticeable in such cities as Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore, besides other metropolitan cities—is due to the urban heat island (UHI) effect. These places are much hotter than their surrounding rural areas.

In a UHI, heat is generated not just from the sun, but also from the energy consumed by people, cars, buses and trains. UHIs are common in areas with high activity levels and dense populations. There are many causes for UHIs. When homes, stores and factories are built close together, UHIs can form. The materials used in these buildings often trap heat, making the areas around them warmer.

‘Waste heat’ also contributes to the UHI effect. Human activities—such as driving cars, exercising, running factories, or simply going about daily chores—consistently release energy. This energy typically escapes as heat. When a large number of people is concentrated in one area, a significant amount of heat is generated.

Urban areas are highly populated. These areas are also densely built. When urban areas run out of space to expand outward, engineers construct taller buildings, resulting in skyscrapers. All this construction generates waste heat and the heat that escapes from insulation has no place to dissipate. It remains trapped in and around the buildings, contributing to the UHI effect.

At night, UHIs have higher temperatures because buildings, sidewalks and parking lots prevent ground heat and pollutants from escaping into the cold night sky. This traps the heat at lower levels, making it warmer.

UHIs can experience poorer air and water quality compared to their rural counterparts. The air quality in such areas is frequently compromised due to a higher presence of pollutants, which are emitted from vehicles, industries and human activities. Water quality is also adversely affected in urban heat islands. The influx of warm water from a UHI into nearby streams poses a challenge for indigenous species that are accustomed to living in cooler aquatic environments.

Researchers are examining the potential contribution of UHIs to the phenomenon of global warming, which encompasses the ongoing increase in Earth’s temperature.

In times of extreme heat, individuals often seek relief by turning on their fans or air-conditioning units, particularly in urban regions impacted by the presence of UHIs. Urban heat islands exert pressure on energy resources by increasing the demand for energy during summer. Power outages, commonly known as ‘rolling blackouts’, are a recurrent occurrence in UHIs. The utilization of electric fans and air conditioning systems actually adds to the overall heat of the urban heat island, exacerbating its temperature.

When utility companies cannot meet the energy demands of their customers, they initiate ‘rolling blackouts’ as a measure to cope with the shortfall. During a ‘rolling blackout’, specific areas or groups of customers are intentionally and temporarily deprived of electricity for a predetermined period of time, typically on a rotational basis, in order to balance the energy supply and demand.

To mitigate the adverse consequences mentioned above, experts propose that urban residents, architects and designers collaborate to minimize human activities’ impact on urban areas. One effective strategy to combat the negative effects of UHIs is the implementation of green roofs, where rooftops are covered with vegetation.

Green roofs have the ability to absorb carbon dioxide, a major pollutant, while also reducing the ambient temperature of the surrounding areas. Additionally, using lighter-coloured materials for buildings can contribute to cooling effects. Light colours reflect sunlight and minimize heat absorption, as highlighted by National Geographic.

Saudi women have obtained their citizenship rights through their own struggle and there is little truth in the widely held idea in the West that their role in the fight for their freedom has been negligible.

The finding is part of a new research in the journal Diogenes authored by Zahia Salhi, a professor at Sharjah University’s College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences. The University of Cambridge Press has also posted Prof. Salhi’s research online.

“Far from being passive victims of their society, Saudi women are active agents who possess the tools and the necessary resilience that enable them to militate for their citizenship rights. This goes against prevailing stereotypes, especially in the West,” says Prof. Salhi.

The research comes as Saudi Arabia’s women can now get freely behind the wheel, travel abroad without a male guardian’s permission, apply for passports, and are almost on equal footing to men.

These rights, unimaginable a decade ago, were only honored in response to harsh and long struggle by Saudi women for equality, Prof. Salhi adds.

Prof. Salhi’s research maps out Saudi women’s battle for equal treatment and full citizenship via a vibrant movement, demonstrating that the Saudi women’s course of struggle for their rights is not dissimilar to that of other women’s movements elsewhere.

“My research traces Saudi women’s trajectory to secure citizenship rights and achieve autonomy against the threat of a conservatism that is deeply imbedded in the Saudi socio-cultural fabric,” affirms Prof. Salhi.

Two important epochs in Saudi Arabia’s modern history are highlighted in Prof. Salhi’s research as watershed moments that awakened Saudi women to the fact that their rights have long been usurped.

The first watershed epoch in the pursuit of Saudi women for freedom began with the oil boom of the 1970s that brought in its wake massive wealth, fueling “numerous fundamental socio-historical changes,” Prof. Salhi writes.

The second occurred at the onset of the 1990s. “It is hardly surprising to note that before 1991 Saudi women could not mobilize in a movement to demand their confiscated rights. Until very recently, Saudi women were deprived of suffrage rights, freedom of movement, and the right to own their bodies and act freely without the consent of their male guardians,” Prof. Salhi points out in her research.

The research marks two incidents in Saudi Arabia, which Prof. Salhi says galvanized Saudi women movement, spurring women activists to voice their protest and even demonstrate openly for their rights.

In one incident which took place in 2002,15 girls died and many others were injured when fire broke out in a girls-only school as religious police prevented girls from escaping and barred volunteers to come to their rescue because “the (female) students were not wearing their abayas, possibly because their (male) guardians were not present,” Prof. Salhi writes.

The tragic incident was a game-changer as it emboldened both women and the Saudi government to curtail religious police powers and transfer responsibility for women education to the government-run Ministry of Education.

The incident and subsequent events “led to a wave of protests by female university students … culminating in the protest at King Khalid University in the Saudi town of Bha” in which reportedly nearly 8,000 female students took part, Prof. Salhi notes in her research.

“In the absence of a free national press that would broadcast the true story about their demonstration, the students resorted to social media and posted videos about the event. Furthermore, in a desperate act to let the world know about their ordeal, they reached out to international news agencies by telephone to tell their own story.

“Although the demonstration was brutally put down by the police, this event constitutes a milestone in Saudi women’s mobilization to demand their citizenship rights.”

Another incident outlined by Prof. Salhi as pivotal on the path of Saudi women’s drive for their rights is their defiance of the driving ban.

;She mentions several driving protests by Saudi women one of them as recently as 2013 in which hundreds of them, in defiance of religious police and civil authorities, appeared behind the wheel on main streets despite their being fully aware of the consequences.

One main factor assisting Saudi women to stage protests and demonstrate for their rights relates to education which Prof. Salhi sees as a major catalyst for change and women’s ongoing struggle to slacken the grip of the conservative and clerical dominance of the society.

“Saudi women have indeed gained in feminist political awareness and against the fortress of conservative ideology, they have reaped important human rights achievements,” says Prof. Salhi. “Having followed closely the work of the women of the Saudi Shura Council (legislative body), I can affirm that they are not mere ‘cosmetic female representation’ in the council, but active women who have their human rights at heart.”

Prof. Salhi’s research dwells at length with Saudi women’s campaigns for their rights among them the July 2016 launch of the ‘I AM My Own Guardian’ campaign via a hashtag and posts on social media, which eventually culminated in a 2019 royal decree allowing them to travel independently.

“They are intelligent, outspoken, highly motivated, and mostly determined to secure more rights for Saudi women. They demanded legal representation from the state, in the form of full citizenship and governmental responsiveness to their demands as citizens,” Prof. Salhi says, adding that Saudi women’s struggle for rights encompasses calls for social recognition and economic redistribution.

Prof. Salhi believes her research will have good implications, hoping for the findings to change stereotypical perceptions of Saudi women. “They (the findings) will be valuable for international organizations such as Amnesty International, and the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women.

“I hope the research will help forming a different judgement about Saudi women, who have often been perceived as passive victims of their religion and culture.

“Saudi Women, like their Muslim sisters from across the world, do not need the West to save them from their own people, as often claimed by Western feminists. They know how to fight for their rights, and they know how to achieve them.”

Asked what she would expect from Saudi women reading her research, Prof. Salhi said first she would like them to “feel good about themselves and their important achievements in their quest for becoming full citizens.”

And second, she would be happy if after reading her article, Saudi women’s reaction was “thank you for not describing us as victims.”

The research is part of a larger project Prof. Salhi is considering investigating in the future to include cases of “feminist trajectories from other countries of the Arab and Muslim world.”

By Richard Pomfret

The world trade system has been challenged by tariff increases introduced by former US president Donald Trump and maintained by President Joe Biden, and by both candidates’ commitments to increase US tariffs further after the 2024 election. Both presidents have also undermined the effectiveness of the World Trade Organization (WTO) by neutering the dispute settlement mechanism and withdrawing from efforts to improve and extend world trade law.

One of Trump’s first actions in January 2017 was to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).;The Trump administration also refused to approve new members of the;WTO Appellate;Body, allowing lost cases to be appealed into the void.;These steps halted the most viable institution for extending world trade law among like-minded trading nations and undermined the enforcement of current international trade law.;After Biden was inaugurated;in January 2021, he quickly made clear that he would not reverse the US position on either of these issues.

Extension of world trade law is essential because the world trade system has gone through;major changes;since 1995 when the internet was in its infancy. But the consensus requirement has stymied WTO reform.

The United States under former presidents George W Bush and Barack Obama led the way in designing the TPP, a non-discriminatory agreement signed in 2016 under which like-minded countries extended WTO law. Obama made;his reason for negotiating;the TPP clear when he said in 2015 that ‘we have to make sure the United States — and not countries like China — is the one writing this century’s rules for the world’s economy’.

After the United States failed to ratify the TPP, the 11 other signatories proceeded with the;slightly revised Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), which came into effect in 2018.

Much of the CPTPP’s agenda is shared by the European Union in its own trade agreements, and by Southeast Asian countries unwilling to go all-in on the CPTPP but committed to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). The United Kingdom joined the CPTPP in June 2023. China and Taiwan are next in the queue for accession, followed by other Asian and South American countries.

As an alternative appeal;process, in 2020 47 WTO members, including Australia, Canada, China and the European Union created;the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), whose signatories recognise binding arbitration on disputed decisions of the WTO’s dispute settlement body.

Further responses were hampered;by the;COVID-19 pandemic, which curtailed face-to-face meetings in 2020 and 2021. In 2023, the number of MPIA members increased when Japan;became the 53rd MPIA signatory. The MPIA’s credibility was augmented when China accepted a WTO decision in a dispute with Australia after the MPIA raised;the prospect of losing an appeal.

Despite these efforts to overcome US inaction, the downgrading of the WTO as the institution setting world trade law and resolving disputes makes it harder to address other trade issues, such as the trade aspects of;industrial policy;and other subsidies. In April 2022, the IMF, the OECD, the World Bank and the WTO published;an explicit plea;for a renewed work program and policymaker engagement on industrial policy. Balancing trade policies with the global imperative of addressing climate change and implementing border adjustments to address differing carbon taxes are other urgent topics.

World trade has flourished in 2022 and 2023 as economies recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic. But the system of trade law that has grown out of the WTO has been threatened by the transformation of US attitudes since 2016. Other major trading nations are working to extend world trade law and strengthen compliance so that, even without US collaboration, they can realise greater gains from trade.

If a new institutional order for global trade based on an expanded CPTPP emerges, and if RCEP members and the European Union commit to compatibility, then the global economy will continue to function, but with different levels of commitment to trade rules. CPTPP and RCEP members and EU countries will observe the highest standard world trade rules and accept dispute resolution processes. A second group — India, South Africa and many developing economies — will accept current WTO rules, but no more. A third group — countries like North Korea — will have no interest in being bound by world trade rules at all.

On their post-2017 record, the United States could be in any of these three groups.

The actions of other trading nations matter. The larger the group of important trading nations accepting CPTPP rules, the greater the incentive for the United States to re-join the process of trade lawmaking. Out of a;world GDP;of US$106 trillion in 2023, the United States accounted for 25 per cent, China 18 per cent, the European Union’s 27 nations 16 per cent and the CPTPP’s 12 nations 15 per cent. The next largest economies — India 4 per cent, Brazil 2 per cent, and Russia 2 per cent — lagged far behind.

The European Union, CPTPP members, plus China and other Asian countries intending to join the CPTPP account for over half of global output. Together they are a persuasive force, but a reversal of;US attitudes;towards global trade rules will likely have to wait until after the presidential election in November 2028.

• About the author: Richard Pomfret is Adjunct Professor of International Economics at The Johns Hopkins University SAIS Europe in Bologna, Italy, and Professor of Economics Emeritus at the University of Adelaide.
• Source: This article was published by East Asia Forum