Mediaboss Marketing

Its been a busy week for President Trump. In less than seven days, he has learned that Russia is not our ally and that far from being obsolete, NATO is instead a great alliance and the bulwark of international peace and stability as he declared to NATOs Secretary General during a meeting at the White House on April 12.

That offers hope. To really reduce innocent deaths and violence, Trump could add United Nations peacekeeping, and democracy support to his tutorial. Meanwhile, like a clock stuck on twelve, Trump was occasionally if unwittingly correct about the need for NATO reform.

Yet, NATO was fundamentally designed for an older style of warfare in which the Russians came barreling through the Fulda gap in tanks. NATO is simply not designed for todays murky form of proxy warfare.

Prepositioning weapons in Eastern Europe may offer some deterrent, but weaponry is less decisive than willpower and more creative methods of intervention.

Wars today are likely to mimic the Ukraine where Russian troops mingle with fifth-column separatists, or Syria, where Russian weapons and air support assist Assads troops and murkier forces from Iran and Hezbollah.

A united NATO may deter such incursions, but the Wests admonishment of Georgias President for egging Russia into war in 2008, the failure of Britain and the U.S. to uphold a red line in Syria in 2013, and the weak pushback on Russias seizure of the Crimea the following year have encouraged Russia to continue its strategy.

To do its primary job, NATO must recalibrate, creating tripwires and treaties that serve as deterrents to a new form of warfare that is likely to continue.

Meanwhile, war is no longer the great killer it once was. Battle deaths used to be in the millions, but todays shadowy wars are far less deadly. On average, wars between states kill only about 3,000 people a year today, and despite an uptick in civil war deaths thanks to Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, civil wars now kill only about 90,000 people a year.

Meanwhile, Mexicos drug cartels killed the same number of people as the violence in Iraq in 2015. More Nigerians and Indians died violently that year than Syrians, and more people died violent deaths in Brazil than in Iraq and Syria combined. The devastation of war is horrific, but 83 percent of violent deaths today occur outside of conflict zones.

From 2010 to 2015, three kinds of violence were responsible for the deaths of more than four times as many individuals as battle deaths from war: Homicide often caused by organized crime; violence among organized groups of citizens, such as paramilitaries and gangs; and violence from terrorists and states killing their own citizens. And the people killed were more likely to be children and ordinary people, rather than professional soldiers or self-proclaimed rebels.

If Trump is truly concerned about the violent, unwarranted deaths of innocent children and it seems he is there is more he can do.

The much-maligned United Nations actually has a strong track record of keeping peace. A RAND study analyzing U.S. and UN missions from the 1960s through 2005 found that two-thirds of those UN peacekeeping missions were successful. They are also cheap: In 2005, the UNs 17 peacekeeping operations, involving 70,000 troops, cost less than one month of U.S. led operations in Iraq. Despite its flaws, peacekeeping contributed to the fact that since the early 1990s, civil wars have been cut in half and from 1993 to 2003, deaths in civil wars reduced by fivefold.

Some of the greatest problems with peacekeeping stem from the Security Councils imposed rules of engagement and the failure of the great powers to provide speedy money for troops. Some of the worlds best conflict scholars estimate that if the peacekeeping budget was increased to $800 million and stronger rules of engagement were mandated, major armed conflict might be halved. The deal-maker-in-chief could get better security for less cost by really focusing on reforming and strengthening the United Nations, building on the work of his predecessor.

Finally, state killings, terrorism and even homicide are all linked by a single thread: rotten governments that extract most of a countrys wealth, favor certain groups of citizens, and leave most of society to fend for themselves.

U.S. democracy assistance has a track record of helping people in such countries help themselves. Thats why Russia hates it and has been funding lobbying efforts in the U.S. to curb the paltry money the U.S. spends helping civil societies. Yet instead of doubling down, the Trump Administration and some Senators are letting Russia divide us internally.

Lifeless infants cradled in their fathers arms and grey-faced toddlers gassed to death should drive America and its allies closer together to fight the deaths of innocents. Seizing the moment to reform NATO and the UN and deepen democracy support could place Trump in the surprising role of statesman.

Rachel Kleinfeld has a doctor of philosophy and master of philosophy fromSt. Antony's College, Oxford and aB.A. from Yale University. She is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Her forthcoming boo is on how countries escape immense violence. You can find her onTwitter: @RachelKleinfeld.

The views of contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Read this article:
NATO, the UN and democracy: A trio for Trump - The Hill (blog)

Source: gastoncavalleri.com

In class this week, we read Bartleby, the Scrivener by Herman Melville. This story is one of my favorite American literature stories of all time. I just love the entire premise of the story, and Bartleby is a character that really intrigues me.

I read this at one point in an American Literature class. This week, I read this in my American Political Thought class. I understood why we read this in my American Lit class, but I am beyond confused as to why this is in American Political Thought.

My teacher flat out told us there is no right answer as to how Bartleby relates to American politics, yet there are a bunch of small, nuanced answers. When I researched, I found something about a passive aggressive paradox the idea that democracy is so incredibly passive aggressive, nothing ever truly gets done. Sure, I can see this. Another classmate brought up the idea that democracy surrounds freedom of choice, which Bartleby had. Democracy supports freedom of choice, like Bartlebys boss, much to the detriment of his company and Bartlebys character. One student even brought up the idea of confusion in democracy; the story is filledwith the confusion that ensues when Bartleby stops doing his job. Democracy is confusing and messy, much like this office was. It could even be a critique of capitalism because the office is working Bartleby and the other scriveners in a mundane job where they are miserable.

I know I have readers who have read Bartleby before. If not, it might be worth your time to look up the story and familiarize yourself with it. Its quite a good read. What do you think is the relation between Bartleby and democracy? If there are no right answers, I want to hear what people think. I think the more discourse we can get going on the topic, the better understanding we can all have. Myself included, Im stumped.

So, tell me what you think. What is the relationship between Bartleby and democracy?

See the article here:
Bartleby's significance to democracy. - Albany Times Union (blog)

New York Times

Is It Too Late for Turkey's Democracy? New York Times Representative democracy has never come easily for Turkey. Founded in 1923, the Turkish republic did not hold its first multiparty elections until 1946. Few Turkish governments since have run the country effectively; none has truly adhered to the rule ... Turkey's referendumThe vote that will determine the fate of Turkey's democracyThe Economist Q&A: 'Executive presidency will help Turkish democracy'Aljazeera.com Turkish government 'is against democracy'Deutsche Welle The Independent -Daily Sabah all 220 news articles »

Read the rest here:
Is It Too Late for Turkey's Democracy? - New York Times

In the West, it is difficult to escape the pessimism that pervades current discussions of global affairs. From Russias invasion of Crimea and the never-ending crises of the European Union, to the Syrian catastrophe and the rise of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS), the world appears to be tearing at the seams. Meanwhile, democracy itself appears to be unravelinghelped along by resurgent authoritarianism, weakened liberal democratic values, rising populism, and contagious illiberalism.

Democracy has unquestionably lost its global momentum. According to Freedom House, there are only a handful more electoral democracies in the world today than there were at the start of this century. Dozens of newer democracies in the developing world are struggling to put down roots, and many older democraciesincluding, of course, the United Statesare troubled. The theory that democratic transitions naturally move in a positive direction and that established democracies dont tumble backward no longer holds water.

The gloom has become so thick, however, that it obscures reality. A number of politicians, journalists, and analysts are overstating or oversimplifying negative trends and overlooking positive developments. They too easily cast U.S. President Donald Trumps rise, the Brexit vote, and the mainstreaming of populism in many parts of Europe as part of an all-embracing, global counterrevolution against liberal norms. Although the state of democracy around the world is indeed very troubled, it is not uniformly dire, especially outside the West.

IDEALIZING THE PAST AND FOCUSING ON THE NEGATIVE

Todays intensifying apprehension is infused with nostalgia for the 1990s and early 2000s as a period of strong global commitment to liberal norms. Yet even then, illiberal forces were asserting themselves. In 1997, for example, the political commentator Fareed Zakaria famously warned in Foreign Affairs of the rise of illiberal democracy, arguing that half of the democratizing countries in the world today are illiberal democracies. Earlier that year, also in Foreign Affairs, one of the authors of this article (Thomas Carothers) gave a

More here:
Democracy Is Not Dying - Foreign Affairs (subscription)

By Isaac Stone Fish By Isaac Stone Fish April 11 at 3:42 PM

Isaac Stone Fish is a journalist and senior fellow at the Asia Societys Center on U.S.-China Relations, on sabbatical from Foreign Policy Magazine.

A few hours after the recent U.S. airstrikes on Syria, Chinas foreign ministry press spokeswomananswered a question about whether Beijing still considered the beleaguered regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad the sole legitimate government in Syria. We believe that the future of Syria should be left in the hands of the Syrian people themselves, the spokeswoman unironically replied. We respect the Syrian peoples choice of their own leaders and development path.

The irony, of course, is that neither the Syrians nor the Chinese choose their own leaders, or their development path. (Syrian state media still claims Syria is a democratic state.) Both are authoritarian governments one failed, one flourishing masquerading as democracies.

China is now the worlds second-largest economy, and its rulers run it with an authoritarian ruthlessness that is envied by many politicians around the world. And yet Beijing goes on insisting despite its lack of free and fair elections, uncensored media, or an independent judiciary that its a democracy.

One recent article published by Chinas state news agency Xinhua declared that in China, democracy means the people are the masters of the country. On a trip to Beijing in October, I saw several posters featuring an old man urging Chinese to cherish the power of democracy, and cast their sacred and solemn vote. One of Chinas Communist Party Secretary Xi Jinpings favorite slogans refers to the 12 core socialist values of which democracy is second only to national prosperity. At a conference I attended last year, several Chinese Communist Party officials were quick to stress that, like the United States, China can accurately and credibly be called a democracy.

During his presidential campaign Trump talked tough on China, accusing them of undervaluing the yuan. The International Monetary Fund has said that Chinese currency is "no longer undervalued". Does China still deserve to be called a "currency manipulator"? (Daron Taylor/The Washington Post)

Considering where Beijing is now politically, its an astonishingly obtuse claim. In reality the Chinese political system, which ensures obedience to the government at the expense of personal freedom, could only be described as authoritarian. Its true that Xi is not a dictator like Mao Zedong, who wielded virtually absolute power. Moreover, Xi rose to the top of the Communist Party through a process of selection. But Xis electorate isnt the people at large. It consists of a much smaller group of the top elite: the hundreds of active and retired members of the Politburo (the top political body), the provincial party secretaries, generals, senior aides and advisers, and the CEOs of major state-owned and private corporations.

So why does China still call itself a democracy? Making this claim allows Beijing to legitimize its own actions and, in the case of its views on the U.S. missile attacks, the Syrian governments as representing the will of the people. This hoodwinking and hypocrisy has served Beijing well. Imagine calling yourself the Peoples Autocracy of China, or the Glorious Autocracy of China, said Perry Link, a professor at the University of California at Riverside who has studied Chinas human rights issues for decades. Alternatively, he said, the Peoples Republic of China, or, for example, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea the official name of North Korea shifts the burden of proof to the other side to show that the country is not, in fact, democratic.

Yes, Beijing means something different with the word democracy than Americans do and this has a lot to do with the Chinese Communist Partys ideological origin story. Vladimir Lenin preached democratic centralism, a system where supposedly democratically elected officials dictated policy. Similarly, Mao called for the peoples democratic dictatorship a dictatorship by the people, for the people, allegedly far superior to the bankrupt system of Western bourgeois democracy, where elites plundered the working class. In her 2015 essay The Populist Dream of Chinese Democracy, the Harvard University political scientist Elizabeth J. Perry contextualizes Chinese democracy as more akin to populism. She quotes Xi Zhongxun, the former propaganda chief (and the late father of Chinas current leader), who once exhorted fellow party members to put your asses on the side of the masses.

In November 2014, when a Trump presidency was still unimaginable, Chinas longtime ambassador to the United States Cui Tiankai compared Americas political system with Chinas. In the United States, you could have somebody just a few years ago totally unknown to others, and all of a sudden he or she could run for very high office because you could use all kinds of media, Cui told me in an interview. You look at the Chinese leaders, they spend long years in the grassroots. Indeed, Xi, and most of the rest of Chinas top elite, are lifelong politicians. Throughout his nearly four decades in politics, Xi served as a delegate to Chinas national Congress, a political commissioner in the military, the executive vice mayor of a second-tier city, the party secretary of a province and so on.

But as Syrians have learned over their decades of authoritarian rule, and as Americans are learning from a president with only a casual relationship to facts, lying to the people does not the sound foundation of good governance make. In the seven years I lived in China, no Chinese person who was not a Communist Party hack could tell me with a straight face they were living in a democracy. In justifying Chinas autocracy, Cui told me that to govern such a big country, you need the experience of serving for decades around the nation. Debatable. But a much truer statement than pretending China is a democracy.

See the rest here:
Why does China pretend to be a democracy? - Washington Post