Pearls and Irritations

The interview of Jeffrey Sachs, a Social Progressive, by Tucker Carlson, a Social Conservative, makes riveting viewing since its an insight to where the polar enemies of American politics may be converging on their big picture view of US foreign policy.

Jeffrey Sachs: The Looming War With Iran, CIA Coups, and Warning of the Next Financial Crisis / Tucker Carlson

Both agree that Washington’s neocon foreign policy of the last 60 years failed (e.g., Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, and now Ukraine) because it is based on a flawed belief that America can and should control events anywhere in the world because of its right to global primacy.

America’s military

The scale of the US military industrial complex (facilitated by the Pentagon and unaccountable CIA) means it can only prosper if there are continuous international tensions and wars. An outbreak of global peace as happened between the end of the Cold War until the start of the War on Terrorism undermines it.

Sachs says the Ukraine war, Iranian confrontation and Taiwan tensions could have been avoided if the US had assured Russia that Ukraine would not join NATO, the Iran nuclear deal had not been scuttled, and if America assured China that it is firmly against Taiwan seceding from “One China”.

Also, America needs to downsize its global military presence (750 foreign bases) to release resources for renewing US infrastructure that is now worse than that of many developing countries.

America’s social divide

On US domestic problems, Sachs says the country is divided by education – college graduates (professionals) who do well and high-school graduates (working class) who do not. This divide was due in large part to automation of factory work (e.g. cars now are made by robots) not just cheaper imports from abroad. But now AI threatens jobs of professionals too.

The result is a concentration of income and wealth by a tiny minority of enterprising entrepreneurs, the top 10 of whom own total assets of US$1.7 trillion.

Politically, the Democrats have become the party of the professionals while the Republicans have hived off the working class from its Democrat base. The latter no longer trust the educated elite to act in their interests because the well-off not only do not recognise their struggles, but do not care.

America’s foreign policy

If this is a preview of politics in future, then the Bernie Sanders Democrats and Donald Trump Republicans could converge on replacing existing US foreign and military policy for a more isolationist approach that demands US allies pay for and cooperate on their own defences. Also, America would accept that other nuclear powers have spheres of influence where they expect their neighbours not to join hostile military alliances any more than America would tolerate Canada or Mexico doing so.

Managing economic crises

Sachs also covers why financial crises happen because economists ignore the importance of stopping liquidity (credit) freezes at a micro-level (e.g. 2008 Lehman Bros bankruptcy) which trigger an investor panic at the macro-level (e.g. all banks, insurers, and non-banks) if not cauterised quickly. That is because economists take a Keynesian view that all recessions are caused by a shortfall in aggregate national demand (like the 1930s Great Depression) when they are often due to other causes (e.g. a desire to teach Lehman Bros a lesson without considering the domino effect of letting it go broke).

Media’s fawning narrative

Finally, both agree the mass media will not tolerate an alternative narrative to the Pentagon/CIA view of the world. Also, its focus on day-to-day issues ignores growing structural challenges to America’s prosperity and unity which normal politics ignores and cannot address. The mass media won’t rock the boat because it is too dependent on government feeds to seriously challenge the status quo.

Only alternative blogs challenge the world view fabricated by the White House. Contrary opinions are shunned by conventional media.

Bottom line

I do not agree with all of Sachs’ views, but he puts a reasoned case for each of his contentions backed up by referenced evidence that deserves scrutiny rather than dismissed as simply “satire” or “enemy capture” as one commentator on the interview implied.

Where I partially differ with Sachs and think the solutions could be better teased out are Ukraine and Taiwan:

Ukraine

Sach’s view

Sachs believes the Ukraine war was provoked and could have been avoided through diplomatic efforts. He argues that the expansion of NATO and the US’ role in the 2014 overthrow of Ukraine’s pro-Russian President, Viktor Yanukovych, were key provocations. Sachs emphasises that the path to peace lies in negotiations based on Ukraine’s neutrality and a halt to NATO’s expansion.

He criticises the US for prolonging the conflict for its own interests and suggests that a more effective approach would have been for Russia to engage in diplomacy rather than military action.

My view

Putin had aways demanded that Ukraine remain militarily neutral and not join NATO. But on the eve of invading, he disclosed his true motive which was his long-held conviction that Ukraine was an integral part of Russia’s history and identity. To me, that suggests his goal was always imperialist, though he no doubt wanted Ukraine, like Belarus and Finland, to be giant land buffers between Russia and NATO Europe. Also, his subsequent bombing of civilian apartments, schools, hospitals, and utility infrastructure is a war crime that should be called out.

So far, Putin’s efforts have backfired. His quest to overpower a sovereign state quickly and illegally, dismally failed. And instead of keeping NATO at bay, it resulted in Finland joining NATO for fear of being the next Ukraine because it too belonged to Russia under the Czars.

But I agree with Sachs that America might have prevented Russia’s invasion if Biden had told Putin that he recognised Russia’s sensitivity to NATO stationing its troops and missiles on Russia’s border. Biden could have given Putin the assurance that Ukraine would remain a neutral state with only access to the European Union, but not NATO. Putin had no objection on the first score. And Biden could have added that if Russia invaded Ukraine, NATO would come to its defence, which is what happened, though it did not involve “boots on the ground”.

Instead, Biden insisted that Ukraine had a right to join NATO if it wished and gave no warning of what America and NATO would do if Russia invaded. This stance was both a red line and a green light to Putin. A red line since further NATO expansion eastwards was unacceptable to Russia and a green light to invade since it left the impression that Ukraine was on its own since Article 5 of the NATO Treaty only obliges NATO members to come to each other’s defence in the event of an armed attack.

Realpolitik view

Donald Trump continues to promise he would end the Ukraine war in a day. Hungarian PM Viktor Orban, says Trump told him he is prepared to start negotiations “immediately” if he is elected, even without waiting for the inauguration in January 2025. But even under Kamala Harris the likelihood of negotiations would increase. Biden’s successor will want to quickly end the war so that they can focus on the Middle East and China which they view as more vital to America’s military primacy.

So, what could an agreement look like?

According to NZZ, the long-standing Swiss-German newspaper of record:

“Both sides have maximum and minimum positions that result from their interests. Russia wants to subjugate Ukraine. Ukraine wants to preserve its independence.
“Russia’s minimum position is a stepwise victory. After the first step in 2014 and 2015 – the annexation of Crimea and the conquest of parts of eastern Ukraine, the second step is the expansion of Russian-controlled territory in eastern and southern Ukraine, along the front line, which has been largely static since December 2022.
“Ukraine’s minimum position is not stated, but it results from the military situation: freezing the conflict along the existing front line.”

Given the war’s stalemate, a Trump presidency might insist that Ukraine accept Russia’s annexation of the Russian-speaking eastern provinces of Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk. In return, Russia would have to stop bombing Ukraine and pledge to recognising the remainder of Ukraine as a sovereign state which it would not invade or subvert. The war would end. Both sides could then mourn their casualties (killed and injured) which by Christmas should total 500,000 soldiers and 50,000 civilians.

Taiwan

Sach’s view

Sachs advocates for urgent dialogue between the US and China to resolve tensions over Taiwan. He warns that the current escalation cycle is very dangerous and emphasises the need for both sides to engage in meaningful discussions to avoid conflict. Sachs criticises actions that undermine trust, such as high-profile visits to Taiwan by U.S. officials, which he believes exacerbate tensions.

Sachs also highlights the importance of recognising China’s perspective and working towards a multipolar world where the US and China can coexist peacefully.

My view

Hard to argue with that. But the situation is more complex.

China wants peaceful reunification with Taiwan, but will not rule out using force to achieve it. If the latter happened, it could be by blockade of all ships and aircraft travelling to and from Taiwan. These crafts would be diverted to China’s Xiamen Gaoqi seaport and airport across the Taiwan Straits for visa/customs clearance before continuing their journey.

This would signal Taiwan was now an extension of China, not a separate trading and political entity. Negotiations on its formal fusion with China (using the one-sided two-system model applied to Hong Kong) would follow.

War games conducted by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies show that while the US and its allies could potentially defeat a Chinese blockade or invasion of Taiwan, the cost would be extremely high including hundreds of aircraft, dozens of ships, and tens of thousands of service members. It is doubtful that America would take that risk since it could weaken its military capacity and standing in Asia.

Realpolitik view

It is doubtful China, without provocation, would retake Taiwan by force because the military, social and economic consequences are too dire. Militarily it could fail which would be a huge loss of face. Socially, Chinese do not want to fight Chinese as an eminent former Chinese ambassador to the US has said. It would revive horrific memories of the country’s divisive civil war. And economically, America would retaliate by insisting its allies cease trading with China which would plunge it into a deep and prolonged depression that could drag the rest of the world with it.

So, what is the solution to the Taiwan tensions? Sachs is right that the US should cease all provocative acts that imply it might drop its One China Policy in favour of supporting Taiwan’s independence since that is a red line over which China is prepared to wage WWIII.

Instead, America should make it clear that its military aid to Taiwan is strictly conditional on it never declaring independence from China, but instead working towards rapprochement over the long term. Such a kick-the-can down the road strategy is less than satisfactory, but the only one that all sides can live with.

Taiwan’s efforts to make itself a military porcupine makes sense given the lessons of Ukraine. Taiwan ranks as the most democratic country in Asia on the EIU Democratic Index. It would be tragic if it forfeited its local autonomy to China, which is an autocracy.

But to preserve that self-rule requires Taiwan’s government to both conceptually and formally accept that it is part of One China. Just as it did previously. The chauvinist temptation to become a separate nation with America’s help could provoke a needless and destructive war.