Geo Political Risk

[moka]

Opinion: The attempted assassination of Trump is not nearly as surprising as it should be

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/opinion-the-attempted-assassination-of-trump-is-not-nearly-as-surprising-as-it-should-be/ar-BB1pWpMu?ocid=nl_article_link

The assassination attempt of former President Donald Trump left a nation stunned. But the most shocking aspect was that it was not nearly as surprising as it should have been. For months, politicians, the press and pundits have escalated reckless rhetoric in this campaign on both sides. That includes claims that Trump was set to kill democracy, unleash “death squads” and make homosexuals and reporters “disappear.”

President Biden has stoked this rage rhetoric. In 2022, Biden held his controversial speech before Independence Hall where he denounced Trump supporters as enemies of the people. Biden recently referenced the speech and has embraced the claims that this could be our last democratic election.

Some of us have been objecting for years that this rage rhetoric is a dangerous political pitch for the nation. While most people reject the hyperbolic claims, others take it as true. They believe that homosexuals are going to be “disappeared” as claimed on ABC’s “The View” or that the Trump “death squads” are now green lighted by a conservative Supreme Court, as claimed by MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

Rage is addictive and contagious. It is also liberating. It allows people a sense of license to take actions that would ordinarily be viewed as repulsive.
For months, people have heard politicians and press call Trump “Hitler” and the GOP a Nazi movement. Some compared stopping Trump to stopping Hitler in 1933. Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) declared Trump “is not only unfit, he is destructive to our democracy and he has to be eliminated.” He later apologized.

Others say that Trump “will destroy the world” unless he is stopped.
The media has been quick to denounce reckless rhetoric from the right while largely ignoring the same language on the left. That included threats against conservative Supreme Court justices before the assassination plot against Brett Kavanaugh.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) went to the steps of the Supreme Court and called out Kavanaugh by name: “I want to tell you, (Justice Neil) Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Again, I do not believe that Schumer wanted Nicholas Roske to go to the home of Justice Kavanaugh to kill him. However, these politicians also know that some citizens will hear this rhetoric as a justification for violent conduct.
Thus, when the president is claiming that the election may end democracy in the nation, it can be heard as much as a license as a warning, particularly when he adds “we’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye.”

[troyvdh]

Sorry moka I couldnt help myself.No offence intended.

William Skakespeare "Men of few words are the best of men".

[Davexl]

Helen Clark at it again, pretending that NZ has (had) an independent foreign policy -
not when push comes to shove !

Helen Clark and Don Brash warn Government dragging NZ into US-China conflict

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...OWT5N7X6SGIBE/

[moka]

Helen Clark at it again, pretending that NZ has (had) an independent foreign policy -
not when push comes to shove !

Helen Clark and Don Brash warn Government dragging NZ into US-China conflict

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...OWT5N7X6SGIBE/

I don’t have access to the article but here is Helen Clark and Don Brash’s view.

“Prime Minister is jeopardising both New Zealand’s independent foreign policy and its economic security” Statement from Rt Hon Helen Clark and Dr Don Brash.

https://www.helenclarknz.com/my-diary/statement-on-nz-government-jeopardising-nzsindependent-foreign-policy-and-economic-security

In an interview published in the Financial Times yesterday, the New Zealand Prime Minister made statements which amount to a radical change in NZ’s foreign policy positioning and which have major implications for trade, defence deployments, and public spending.

“Just one month after the New Zealand Government hosted the Chinese Premier in New Zealand, the Prime Minister’s comments to the Financial Times strongly suggest that he has abandoned New Zealand’s independent foreign policy”.
“China not only poses no military threat to New Zealand, but it is also by a very substantial margin our biggest export market – more than twice as important as an export market for New Zealand as the US is.

“New Zealand has a huge stake in maintaining a cordial relationship with China. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to maintain such a relationship if the Government continues to align its positioning with that of the United States.

“Does China spy on New Zealand? Almost certainly, just as the US, the UK, and countless others, including New Zealand, spy on other countries. Is China the only country spying on New Zealand, and is it only governments that engage in spying? Almost certainly not. The obsessive focus on spying by China suggests an agenda going beyond alerting and equipping New Zealanders to better manage all relevant risks.

https://www.ft.com/content/85f96392-...5-0847f7c625d2
NZ Prime Minister vows to name and shame China over spying

[moka]

Statement from Peace Action Wellington

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2407/S00092/dangerous-prime-minister-seeks-war-and-economic-ruin.htm

Upon his return from the US, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has fallen in lock-step with the Americans in the push for war with China. This is an incredibly reckless and deeply misguided approach to world affairs,” said Valerie Morse of Peace Action Wellington.

“The hard work of peacemaking is urgently necessary. We should not underestimate for one moment the utter and complete devastation that a war between the US and China would entail for us here in Aotearoa NZ and across the globe.”
“It is deeply worrying that Luxon has suggested that the NZDF be a ‘force multiplier’ in responding to China as if a request for troops was already a live issue. His careless rhetoric is likely to significantly worsen the situation. It is bizarre for a political leader to taunt the country’s largest trading partner so openly.”

“Luxon has said he does not fear Chinese economic retaliation. He is certainly playing with fire. He must be getting very bad advice if he thinks the US is going to open up its dairy markets to New Zealand farmers. The only free trade that the US is interested in is the freedom to do whatever they like. US trade policy has nothing to do with free markets.”

“Christopher Luxon has clearly mistaken US interests for those of Aotearoa New Zealand. He is wrong to imagine that what is good for the US is necessarily good for us.”

“Luxon has also said he is ‘very open’ to joining AUKUS Pillar 2. He is ready to sign up to a military alliance that he doesn’t even know the details of. It’s quite shocking how cavalier and gung-ho he is about lining up behind the US.”

[Davexl]

Very much respect your opinion Peace Action Wellington, but I would suspect that the time for diplomacy in the form of soft power is coming sadly to an end.

China, by it's actions is demonstrating that it will do whatever it damn wants to eg in the South China Sea, Hong Kong & Taiwan (within limits so far), and the pendulum has swung from soft power relations to hard power between peers.

While it may be expedient to attempt to maintain equi-distance between the two peers involved, at the point the pendulum swings towards hard power it becomes necessary to form (& re-form) alliances and firm up military options, initially for deterrence and then for actual conflict preparation. This takes precious time. This is where we are at now.

For New Zealand to attempt neutrality, it needs to be armed neutrality to be credible to outside parties. New Zealand is too broke to afford this - which leads to option two namely alliances.

Australia, while not broke has at least fully recognised the risks of conflict, directly affecting themselves and is putting their money behind where their values lie, as they deem themselves to be highly vulnerable.

NZ is meant to be an ally of Australia's, yet needs to double its defence expenditure to even be in the picture of supportive ally, yet alone being a "force multiplier". I think Luxon might have been a bit over-awed by his American experience this trip around - he needs to contemplate more before he commits himself to paper and speech, we can both agree on that...

[Davexl]

Sound commentary on future foreign policy / trade considerations from Matthew Hooton

Economic outlook improves but Trump looms - Matthew Hooton

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...J2VN4CFBAZ2JU/

[moka]

Full Peter Zeihan interview. I find that he is a bit black and white in his thinking at times i.e. US are the goodies and both Russia and China are the baddies, but he does discuss important issues including foreign policy and trade with China, and AUKUS in the interview. He is often doom and gloom.

Peter Zeihan on who is going to win the US election | 30 with Guyon Espiner Ep.10 | RNZ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFPuv_OZDg0

0:06 Well our world of the last 70 years was as good as it gets and now a frightening future awaits for much of the world as the US lead order of globalization unwinds and countries with aging populations have to fend for themselves. That's the prediction of Peter Zeihan.

1:56 Well, let's unpack that, because one of the key planks you write about is the sort of end of globalization, a deglobalization. Why do you think that the world will shatter in terms of globalization? Why will that happen?

Well, there's two pieces of it. The first one is almost purely American. At the end of World War Two, the Americans found themselves looking across the plains of Europe at the red armies and realizing this was not a fight we could win. We needed millions of people to not just stand up, but to stand between us and the Soviet army. And since the Europeans had just been through the most horrific war in human history, getting them to sign up for an open ended conflict was going to require some severe inducement. Globalization was our answer.

We would send our Navy out the only Navy to survive the war and patrol the open ocean so that anyone could send any cargo anywhere, import anything from anywhere, access any market anywhere, if in exchange you would sign up for the Cold War.

And that gave us the world that we know. But never, ever, ever forget that it was always a byproduct of an American security plan that honestly has now been outdated for 30 years.
And the Americans, even if they wanted to, no longer have the naval structure to patrol the world. That's kind of piece one.

3:17 Piece two is demographics. As we all globalized, we also industrializing, urbanized. And when you live on a farm, kids are free labor. But when you move into a condo in a city, kids are an expense. And so we went from having four or five and six on average to now less than one and a half in most parts of the advanced world. You play that forward for 75 years, and in most countries there's not even a theoretical possibility of repopulation.

3:58 But if America does withdraw and becomes more isolationist, you're writing about the days of long haul shipping being largely over, and quote “Expect state piracy to come back into vogue”. Now, are you seriously predicting a world where pirates roam the seas attacking container ships?

I would argue that we're, to a certain degree already there with what's going on in the Horn of Africa and with the Houthis in Arabia. We've also seen more activity, of course, in Southeast Asia as well. We're not to the point yet where a specific government is doing it.
But keep in mind, if you want the United States patrol the global oceans, we need about 800 destroyers. We only have about 60. Now we've retooled our Navy. We can't hold the seas open any longer. No one can.

[moka]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFPuv_OZDg0
Peter Zeihan on who is going to win the US election | 30 with Guyon Espiner Ep.10 | RNZ

10:26 But I want to return to demography because you're saying that this whole demographic inversion is going to lead to economic freefall, that we just not having the numbers to replace ourselves.

You look at fertility rates in Japan, China, South Korea, they're all not far above one. In the case of countries like Italy and Germany, they aged past that the theoretical point where they could recover back in the 1980s, and this is the decade when those two plus the Koreans and probably although maybe not the Japanese, basically age into a degree of obsolescence that they just won't have enough people to pay taxes, they won't have enough people to consume goods, they won't have enough people to produce the goods in the first place.

11:19 So, we're looking at a radically different economic model for all of these countries and more to survive. But no one is in a worse position than the Chinese. According to the data that the Chinese have updated in just the last year they're now claiming they've got a fertility rate that is one quarter or below replacement levels in all of their major cities.

So, if you listen to some of their own internal government statisticians, they're now estimating that they've actually over counted their population by over 100 million people. And most independent demographers say it's probably closer to a shortfall of 250 million. So we're looking at a demographic collapse of the Chinese state within ten years, and that assumes nothing else goes wrong.

So, this would lead to a population by 2070 about half of what it was in 2020 in China, according to your book.
And that was the estimate before the statistical update. With the new update, we definitely are going to get there 15 years early. And so why will this be so catastrophic for the world economy? Because some people would look at it and say, for example, for climate change, maybe it'd be better to have a few of the 8 billion people on the planet. Let me deal with climate change first.

13:08 If you breakdown international trade systems, people forget that oil and natural gas are the low carbon fuels that happen to be internationally transported. If people are forced to rely on what they have locally, you're talking about a lot more wood and a lot more coal. So, we can have massive multi continental economic dislocation and skid right past five degrees centigrade this century. Those two things can go hand in hand very easily.

13:33 As for everybody who's not China, China has used a lot of practices, most of which are unfair, to build up the world's largest industrial base for manufacturing. However, if it were to go away before the rest of the world could adapt, then we're in a world where there is no one doing the manufacturing. So I'm in this weird spot in the US politics for like, ‘Please, please, please don't let the Chinese collapse any sooner than they have to’ because every day they continue to exist is a day that we have to build out our own industrial plant, to prepare for the eventual fall.

14:03 And when I hear countries like New Zealand trying to keep a foot in both worlds, I'm like, ‘That's not going to work’. Right now, I'd argue New Zealand has a foreign policy towards China very, very similar to what the Germans had towards the Russians just before the war.
They thought that you could have your security from one side and your economics from another side. You can deal with a genocidal government on one side and still trade with them. It's all right. Until one day it very clearly isn't. And the Germans are paying for that oversight with their economic model. I think Kiwis are a little smarter.

[moka]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFPuv_OZDg0
Peter Zeihan on who is going to win the US election | 30 with Guyon Espiner Ep.10 | RNZ

14:48 We're sending close to 30% of our exports to China. It's our biggest trading partner. We are massively reliant on them. Do you think that we have put too many eggs in one basket there?

Absolutely. But I think for you it's a lot more adjustable than it is for the Germans. The Germans built an industrial model that was based on global access that requires globalization. That was a flaw. It's based on American oversight. We're getting out of that business. That was a flaw. It was based on bottomless demand out of China. I would argue we haven't gotten to that floor yet, and it was based on endless supplies of cheap energy out of Russia.

So, I would argue from the German point of view, three of the four have already collapsed and the fourth one is in the process of. In New Zealand, because you're not known as a manufacturing partner, you're a high value value added agricultural exporter with some very high manufacturing stuff on the top. And that can shift just like the Australians. There are other markets out there that need what you do and so I would anticipate with not too much of an adjustment, you'll be able to ship to Southeast Asia. Not too hard, not too difficult, and you might even be able to pick up a little bit of the slack in Latin America as those economies grow.

15:56 What I would caution about is believing that this two pillar system that you have right now is a good idea because it doesn't serve your economic interests and it definitely doesn't serve your cultural or your strategic interests. Well, this is really coming to a head in New Zealand now and possibly over the next few years as we consider joining what they're calling pillar two of AUKUS. This relationship between Australia, UK and US, the pillar one is the nuclear side. Obviously as a non nuclear free country which doesn't allow even nuclear powered vessels into its water, we are being asked, perhaps invited to join pillar two, which is a military technology sharing arrangement, although it's a bit opaque exactly what it is about. What are your thoughts?

16:45 Because we're making pillar two up as we go. And this is new, and it was primarily designed to anchor American and to a lesser degree, English power in Australia.
So, anything that is hung on it on the side, I'm not saying it can't succeed, but that was not the original intent.
So, if there is an extension of AUKUS to involve New Zealand or more likely Japan, it is going to look very, very different than the original deal. So, from my point of view, it's not so much the format of the deal that New Zealand does or doesn't decide to do or to negotiate with the United States. It's more about the tone and the scale. So let me give you an example, because I think this is probably going to be the best path forward for you.

17:33 The Japanese realize that from an economic, demographic and strategic point of view, their capacity to function as an independent power has gone. The birthrates been too low for too long. China's too front and center and the Americans through the eighties, the nineties and to a lesser degree, the 2000s basically decided that Japan can't be part of the American economic family because it was simply too predatory.

18:01 So, under the previous government of Shinzo Abe, we basically had the Japanese come to the United States, say flat out, they can't go it alone and come up with an absolutely humiliating trade deal that gave in to Washington each and every thing that had ever been an irritant in the relationship. All of them resolved not just by the American point of view, but from the Trump point of view. And it worked.
And Japan is now part of the American inner circle of allies. And probably if they can get their cyberdefense back up, is going to be joining something like the Five Eyes in the not too distant future.
They are, Japanese are the only people who have seen what's coming and gotten ahead of it.
New Zealand, if they want to be part of this network, is going to have to do something similar.