Showing posts with label Carnegie Endowment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carnegie Endowment. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

North Korea Said To Seek Help From Republicans "To Figure Out Trump"

In what may be the most bizarre development of the day, the WaPo reports that in their ongoing feud with President Trump, the North Korean government has quietly sought the help of an unlikely counterparty: Republicans.


As the WaPo details, officials in Pyongyang have been quietly trying to arrange talks with Republican-linked analysts in Washington, "in an apparent attempt to make sense of President Trump and his confusing messages to Kim Jong Un’s regime." The outreach is said to have begun before the current eruption of threats between the two leaders, but will likely become only more urgent "as Trump and Kim have descended into name-calling that sharply increases the chances of potentially catastrophic misunderstandings."


“Their No. 1 concern is Trump. They can’t figure him out,” a source with direct knowledge of North Korea’s approach to Asia experts with Republican connections told the WaPo.


While the North Koreans do not appear to be interested in negotiations about their nuclear program, they want forums for insisting on being recognized as a nuclear state, something the Trump administration has made clear it is not interested in. At a multilateral meeting here in Switzerland earlier this month, North Korea’s representatives were adamant about being recognized as a nuclear weapons state and showed no willingness to even talk about denuclearization.





But to get a better understanding of American intentions, in the absence official diplomatic talks with the U.S. government, North Korea’s mission to the United Nations invited Bruce Klingner, a former CIA analyst who is now the Heritage Foundation’s top expert on North Korea, to visit Pyongyang for meetings.



Trump has close ties to Heritage, a conservative think-tank which has influenced the president on everything from travel restrictions to defense spending, although not to Klingner personally.



“They’re on a new binge of reaching out to American scholars and ex-officials,” said Klingner, who declined the North Korean invitation. “While such meetings are useful, if the regime wants to send a clear message, it should reach out directly to the U.S. government.”


North Korean intermediaries have also approached Douglas Paal, who served as an Asia expert on the national security councils of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and is now vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.





They wanted Paal to arrange talks between North Korean officials and American experts with Republican ties in a neutral place like Switzerland. He also declined the North Korean request.



“The North Koreans are clearly eager to deliver a message. But I think they’re only interested in getting some travel, in getting out of the country for a bit,” Paal said.



While in the past North Korea has traditionally participated in strategy meeting with foreign power on neutral soil such as Geneva, Singapore and Malaysia, since Trump’s election in November, the North Korean representatives have been predominantly interested in figuring out the unconventional president’s strategy, according to almost a dozen people involved in the discussions. 


While early in Trump’s term, the North Koreans had been asking broad questions - Is President Trump serious about closing American military bases in South Korea and Japan,  as he said on the campaign trail? Might he really send American nuclear weapons back to the southern half of the Korean Peninsula - the questions have since become more specific. Why are Trump’s top officials, notably Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, directly contradicting the president so often?


“My own guess is that they are somewhat puzzled as to the direction in which the U.S. is going, so they’re trying to open up channels to take the pulse in Washington,” said Evans Revere, a former State Department official. “They haven’t seen the U.S. act like this before.”


Still, participants at various international summits which included the North Koreans are skeptical about this approach: “I’m very pessimistic,” said Shin Beom-chul, a North Korea expert at the South’s Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security, after participating in the meeting in Glion. “They want to keep their nuclear weapons and they will only return to dialogue after the United States nullifies its ‘hostile policy.’ They want the U.S. to stop all military exercises and lift all sanctions on them.


The bottom line: “North Korea wants to be recognized as a nuclear weapons state,” said Ken Jimbo, who teaches at Keio University in Japan. “But when is North Korea ready for talks? This is what I kept asking the North Koreans: How much is enough?”


While we doubt that Pyongyang will ever be able to figure out Trump, perhaps as a token of diplomacy, Kim Jong-Un can create a twitter account and engage in direct head-to-head tweetstorms with Trump. While that would hardly prevent a potential adverse fallout from the two leaders" relentless jawboning, at least the devolution of the world to a pre-nuclear war state will be far more entertaining.

Thursday, June 1, 2017

The Bilderberg 2017 Agenda: "The Trump Administration - A Progress Report"

Every year, the world"s richest and most powerful business executives, bankers, media heads and politicians sit down in some luxurious and heavily guarded venue, and discuss how to shape the world in a way that maximizes profits for all involved, while perpetuating a status quo that has been highly beneficial for a select few, even if it means the ongoing destruction of the middle class. We are talking, of course, about the annual, and always secretive, Bilderberg meeting.


And just like last year"s meeting in Dresden, the primary topic on the agenda of this year"s 65th Bilderberg Meeting which starts today and ends on Sunday, is one: Donald Trump.


Ironically, this year "the storm around Donald Trump" as the SCMP puts it, is not half way around the world, but just a few miles west of the White House, in a conference centre in Chantilly, Virginia, where the embattled president will be getting his end-of-term grades from the people whose opinion actually matters: some 130 participating "Bilderbergs".


The secretive three-day summit of the political and economic elite kicks off Thursday in heavily guarded seclusion at the Westfields Marriot, a luxury hotel a short distance from the Oval Office.



As of Wednesday, the hotel was already on lockdown and an army of landscapers have been busy planting fir trees around the perimeter, to try protect "coy billionaires and bashful bank bosses" from prying lenses and/or projectiles.  Perched ominously at the top of the conference agenda this year are these words: “The Trump Administration: A progress report”.





So is the president going to be put in detention for tweeting in class? Held back a year? Or told to empty his locker and leave? If ever there’s a place where a president could hear the words “you’re fired!”, it’s Bilderberg.



Sarcasm aside, the White House was taking no chances, sending along some big hitters from Team Trump to defend their boss: national security adviser, HR McMaster; the commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross; and Trump’s new strategist, Chris Liddell (curiously, neither Gary Cohn nor Steven Mnuchin will be there although the controversial new Chairman of Goldman Sachs International, Jose Barroso will be present). Could Trump himself show up to receive his report card in person: we are confident he will tweet all about it... which is probably why he will never be invited.


Stil, none other than Henry Kissinger, the gravel-throated kingpin of Bilderberg, visited the White House a few weeks ago to discuss “Russia and other things”, and certainly, the Bilderberg conference would be the perfect opportunity for the most powerful man in the world to discuss important global issues with Trump.


Sarcasm aside, what are among the "Trump agenda" items to be discussed?  The publicly list is as follows:


  • The Trump Administration: A progress report

  • Trans-Atlantic relations: options and scenarios

  • The Trans-Atlantic defence alliance: bullets, bytes and bucks

  • The direction of the EU

  • Can globalisation be slowed down?

  • Jobs, income and unrealised expectations

  • The war on information

  • Why is populism growing?

  • Russia in the international order

  • The Near East

  • Nuclear proliferation

  • China

  • Current events

The US president’s extraordinary chiding of NATO leaders in Brussels is sure to be first and foremost on the Bilderberg discussing panel. The Bilderbergers have summoned the head of Nato, Jens Stoltenberg, to give feedback. Stoltenberg will be leading the snappily titled session on “The Transatlantic defence alliance: bullets, bytes and bucks”. He’ll be joined by the Dutch minister of defence and a clutch of senior European politicians and party leaders, all hoping to reset the traumatised transatlantic relationship after Trump’s galumphing visit.


As the Guardian puts it, the guest list for this year’s conference is a veritable “covfefe” of big-hitters from geopolitics, from the head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, to the king of Holland, but perhaps the most significant name on the list is Cui Tiankai, China’s ambassador to the US.


According to the meeting’s agenda, “China” will also be discussed at a summit attended by Cui, the US commerce secretary, the US national security adviser, two US senators, the governor of Virginia, two former CIA chiefs and any number of giant US investors in China, including the heads of the financial services firms the Carlyle Group and KKR. And for good reason: as last night"s PMI numbers showed, the Chinese economy - the global growth dynamo - is finally contracting. If China goes, the rest of the world will follow. 


Additionally, the boss of Google Eric Schmidt, who warned in January that Trump’s administration will do “evil things”, is expected to attend, too. The executive chairman of Alphabet, Google’s holding company, has just come back from a trip to Beijing, where he was overseeing Google AI’s latest game of Go against humans. He declared it “a pleasure to be back in China, a country that I admire a great deal”. It’s possible three days spent chatting to the Chinese ambassador could even be good for business.


Several journalists are participating in this year’s forum, including London Evening Standard editor George Osborne and Cansu Camlibel, the Washington bureau chief for Turkey’s Hurriyet newspaper. But per convention, news outlets are not invited to cover the event.


“There is no desired outcome, no minutes are taken and no report is written,” the group stated. “Furthermore, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.”


Ex-deputy secretary of state William Burns and former deputy assistant secretary of defence Elaine Bunn, both Obama-era officials, will also attend. Burns, the current president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has warned that Trump “risks hollowing out the ideas, initiative and institutions on which US leadership and international order rest.”


With one of the agenda items titled simply enough "can globalisation be slowed down?" it is no surprise that anti-globalisation protesters have already descended on the location of the meeting.


* * *


Below is a full list of this year"s participants:


CHAIRMAN


  • Castries, Henri de (FRA), Former Chairman and CEO, AXA; President of Institut Montaigne

 
PARTICIPANTS


  • Achleitner, Paul M. (DEU), Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG

  • Adonis, Andrew (GBR), Chair, National Infrastructure Commission

  • Agius, Marcus (GBR), Chairman, PA Consulting Group

  • Akyol, Mustafa (TUR), Senior Visiting Fellow, Freedom Project at Wellesley College

  • Alstadheim, Kjetil B. (NOR), Political Editor, Dagens Næringsliv

  • Altman, Roger C. (USA), Founder and Senior Chairman, Evercore

  • Arnaut, José Luis (PRT), Managing Partner, CMS Rui Pena & Arnaut

  • Barroso, José M. Durão (PRT), Chairman, Goldman Sachs International

  • Bäte, Oliver (DEU), CEO, Allianz SE

  • Baumann, Werner (DEU), Chairman, Bayer AG

  • Baverez, Nicolas (FRA), Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher

  • Benko, René (AUT), Founder and Chairman of the Advisory Board, SIGNA Holding GmbH

  • Berner, Anne-Catherine (FIN), Minister of Transport and Communications

  • Botín, Ana P. (ESP), Executive Chairman, Banco Santander

  • Brandtzæg, Svein Richard (NOR), President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA

  • Brennan, John O. (USA), Senior Advisor, Kissinger Associates Inc.

  • Bsirske, Frank (DEU), Chairman, United Services Union

  • Buberl, Thomas (FRA), CEO, AXA

  • Bunn, M. Elaine (USA), Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

  • Burns, William J. (USA), President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Çakiroglu, Levent (TUR), CEO, Koç Holding A.S.

  • Çamlibel, Cansu (TUR), Washington DC Bureau Chief, Hürriyet Newspaper

  • Cebrián, Juan Luis (ESP), Executive Chairman, PRISA and El País

  • Clemet, Kristin (NOR), CEO, Civita

  • Cohen, David S. (USA), Former Deputy Director, CIA

  • Collison, Patrick (USA), CEO, Stripe

  • Cotton, Tom (USA), Senator

  • Cui, Tiankai (CHN), Ambassador to the United States

  • Döpfner, Mathias (DEU), CEO, Axel Springer SE

  • Elkann, John (ITA), Chairman, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles

  • Enders, Thomas (DEU), CEO, Airbus SE

  • Federspiel, Ulrik (DNK), Group Executive, Haldor Topsøe Holding A/S

  • Ferguson, Jr., Roger W. (USA), President and CEO, TIAA

  • Ferguson, Niall (USA), Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University

  • Gianotti, Fabiola (ITA), Director General, CERN

  • Gozi, Sandro (ITA), State Secretary for European Affairs

  • Graham, Lindsey (USA), Senator

  • Greenberg, Evan G. (USA), Chairman and CEO, Chubb Group

  • Griffin, Kenneth (USA), Founder and CEO, Citadel Investment Group, LLC

  • Gruber, Lilli (ITA), Editor-in-Chief and Anchor "Otto e mezzo", La7 TV

  • Guindos, Luis de (ESP), Minister of Economy, Industry and Competiveness

  • Haines, Avril D. (USA), Former Deputy National Security Advisor

  • Halberstadt, Victor (NLD), Professor of Economics, Leiden University

  • Hamers, Ralph (NLD), Chairman, ING Group

  • Hedegaard, Connie (DNK), Chair, KR Foundation

  • Hennis-Plasschaert, Jeanine (NLD), Minister of Defence, The Netherlands

  • Hobson, Mellody (USA), President, Ariel Investments LLC

  • Hoffman, Reid (USA), Co-Founder, LinkedIn and Partner, Greylock

  • Houghton, Nicholas (GBR), Former Chief of Defence

  • Ischinger, Wolfgang (INT), Chairman, Munich Security Conference

  • Jacobs, Kenneth M. (USA), Chairman and CEO, Lazard

  • Johnson, James A. (USA), Chairman, Johnson Capital Partners

  • Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. (USA), Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC

  • Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies

  • Kengeter, Carsten (DEU), CEO, Deutsche Börse AG

  • Kissinger, Henry A. (USA), Chairman, Kissinger Associates Inc.

  • Klatten, Susanne (DEU), Managing Director, SKion GmbH

  • Kleinfeld, Klaus (USA), Former Chairman and CEO, Arconic

  • Knot, Klaas H.W. (NLD), President, De Nederlandsche Bank

  • Koç, Ömer M. (TUR), Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.

  • Kotkin, Stephen (USA), Professor in History and International Affairs, Princeton University

  • Kravis, Henry R. (USA), Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, KKR

  • Kravis, Marie-Josée (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute

  • Kudelski, André (CHE), Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group

  • Lagarde, Christine (INT), Managing Director, International Monetary Fund

  • Lenglet, François (FRA), Chief Economics Commentator, France 2

  • Leysen, Thomas (BEL), Chairman, KBC Group

  • Liddell, Christopher (USA), Assistant to the President and Director of Strategic Initiatives

  • Lööf, Annie (SWE), Party Leader, Centre Party

  • Mathews, Jessica T. (USA), Distinguished Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • McAuliffe, Terence (USA), Governor of Virginia

  • McKay, David I. (CAN), President and CEO, Royal Bank of Canada

  • McMaster, H.R. (USA), National Security Advisor

  • Micklethwait, John (INT), Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP

  • Minton Beddoes, Zanny (INT), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist

  • Molinari, Maurizio (ITA), Editor-in-Chief, La Stampa

  • Monaco, Lisa (USA), Former Homeland Security Officer

  • Morneau, Bill (CAN), Minister of Finance

  • Mundie, Craig J. (USA), President, Mundie & Associates

  • Murtagh, Gene M. (IRL), CEO, Kingspan Group plc

  • Netherlands, H.M. the King of the (NLD)

  • Noonan, Peggy (USA), Author and Columnist, The Wall Street Journal

  • O"Leary, Michael (IRL), CEO, Ryanair D.A.C.

  • Osborne, George (GBR), Editor, London Evening Standard

  • Papahelas, Alexis (GRC), Executive Editor, Kathimerini Newspaper

  • Papalexopoulos, Dimitri (GRC), CEO, Titan Cement Co.

  • Petraeus, David H. (USA), Chairman, KKR Global Institute

  • Pind, Søren (DNK), Minister for Higher Education and Science

  • Puga, Benoît (FRA), Grand Chancellor of the Legion of Honor and Chancellor of the National Order of Merit

  • Rachman, Gideon (GBR), Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator, The Financial Times

  • Reisman, Heather M. (CAN), Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.

  • Rivera Díaz, Albert (ESP), President, Ciudadanos Party

  • Rosén, Johanna (SWE), Professor in Materials Physics, Linköping University

  • Ross, Wilbur L. (USA), Secretary of Commerce

  • Rubenstein, David M. (USA), Co-Founder and Co-CEO, The Carlyle Group

  • Rubin, Robert E. (USA), Co-Chair, Council on Foreign Relations and Former Treasury Secretary

  • Ruoff, Susanne (CHE), CEO, Swiss Post

  • Rutten, Gwendolyn (BEL), Chair, Open VLD

  • Sabia, Michael (CAN), CEO, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec

  • Sawers, John (GBR), Chairman and Partner, Macro Advisory Partners

  • Schadlow, Nadia (USA), Deputy Assistant to the President, National Security Council

  • Schmidt, Eric E. (USA), Executive Chairman, Alphabet Inc.

  • Schneider-Ammann, Johann N. (CHE), Federal Councillor, Swiss Confederation

  • Scholten, Rudolf (AUT), President, Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue

  • Severgnini, Beppe (ITA), Editor-in-Chief, 7-Corriere della Sera

  • Sikorski, Radoslaw (POL), Senior Fellow, Harvard University

  • Slat, Boyan (NLD), CEO and Founder, The Ocean Cleanup

  • Spahn, Jens (DEU), Parliamentary State Secretary and Federal Ministry of Finance

  • Stephenson, Randall L. (USA), Chairman and CEO, AT&T

  • Stern, Andrew (USA), President Emeritus, SEIU and Senior Fellow, Economic Security Project

  • Stoltenberg, Jens (INT), Secretary General, NATO

  • Summers, Lawrence H. (USA), Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University

  • Tertrais, Bruno (FRA), Deputy Director, Fondation pour la recherche stratégique

  • Thiel, Peter (USA), President, Thiel Capital

  • Topsøe, Jakob Haldor (DNK), Chairman, Haldor Topsøe Holding A/S

  • Ülgen, Sinan (TUR), Founding and Partner, Istanbul Economics

  • Vance, J.D. (USA), Author and Partner, Mithril

  • Wahlroos, Björn (FIN), Chairman, Sampo Group, Nordea Bank, UPM-Kymmene Corporation

  • Wallenberg, Marcus (SWE), Chairman, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB

  • Walter, Amy (USA), Editor, The Cook Political Report

  • Weston, Galen G. (CAN), CEO and Executive Chairman, Loblaw Companies Ltd and George Weston Companies

  • White, Sharon (GBR), Chief Executive, Ofcom

  • Wieseltier, Leon (USA), Isaiah Berlin Senior Fellow in Culture and Policy, The Brookings Institution

  • Wolf, Martin H. (INT), Chief Economics Commentator, Financial Times

  • Wolfensohn, James D. (USA), Chairman and CEO, Wolfensohn & Company

  • Wunsch, Pierre (BEL), Vice-Governor, National Bank of Belgium

  • Zeiler, Gerhard (AUT), President, Turner International

  • Zients, Jeffrey D. (USA), Former Director, National Economic Council

  • Zoellick, Robert B. (USA), Non-Executive Chairman, AllianceBernstein L.P.

Natrually, the secretive nature of the group has given birth to conspiracy theories. Some have claimed that the Bilderberg is a group of rich and powerful kingmakers seeking to impose a one world government. Whether that is true remains in the eye of the beholder, however one thing is clear: as the graph below shows, the members are connected to virtually every important and relevant organization, media outlet, company and political entity in the world.


Thursday, March 16, 2017

Europe Mulls Acquiring Its Own Nuclear Deterrent

Authored by Andrei Akulov via The Strategic Culture Foundation,



With Donald Trump leading the United States, Europe seems to be losing trust in the American nuclear umbrella. As the EU focuses on the need to have its own military, the issue of European nuclear deterrent comes to the fore. The debate has been triggered. This issue is intensively discussed in Germany.


The nuclear deterrence plan is eyeing France, proposing to turn the French nuclear potential into a European nuclear deterrent. It is believed that Germany could play a decisive role in convincing France, and may be the UK, to provide security guarantees for all of Europe. Under such a plan, Europe would become independent from the US.


The French nuclear forces would move under a common European command. Or France could move its aircraft with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles to other European countries, like Germany, leaving the sea-based arsenal under the national control. From France’s perspective, this may be a good way to get the rest of the alliance to pay for the costly arsenal’s upkeep. Both Charles de Gaulle and Francois Mitterrand floated the idea of France extending nuclear deterrence to West Germany during the Cold War.


Britain’s decision to leave the European Union could preclude its participation, though it may join the project even outside the EU under certain conditions. It’s not in the headlines, but the possibility of including the UK into a European nuclear shield is under consideration.


Just three days before the US elections, an op-ed in Germany’s largest left-leaning news outlet, Spiegel Online, mused about the possibility of Germany pursuing its own nuclear weapons. In late 2016, Roderich Kiesewetter, a lawmaker and foreign policy spokesman with Germany’s ruling party, raised the issue after Donald Trump was elected president of the United States. According to him, a Franco-British nuclear umbrella could be financed through a joint European military budget that is due to begin in 2019, along with joint European medical, transportation and reconnaissance commands. This would require a doctrine, he said, allowing Europe to introduce nuclear weapons to a non-nuclear conflict.


It is important to emphasize that Kiesewetter is well-versed in foreign and security policy matters as a former Bundeswehr general staff officer; former chairman of the Subcommittee for Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation of the Bundestag; and current spokesperson of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. He certainly had a good reason to bring this issue into focus.


Berthold Kohler, a publisher of the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, followed with the suggestion that Germany might need to augment the small British and French arsenals with a nuclear force of its own to successfully confront Russia and maybe China. The Carnegie Endowment’s Ulrich Kuehn called such musings «an important early warning sign».


Jaroslaw Kaczynski, Poland’s former prime minister and now the head of its ruling party provided the highest-level call for a European Union nuclear program in the February interview with a German newspaper. Kaczynski has broached a taboo subject.


Maximilian Terhalle, a German professor currently teaching in Britain, says Germany, Poland or the Baltic countries could never fully rely on France or Britain retaliating against Russia for a strike against them. He concludes that Germany must think about getting its own nukes, perhaps in collaboration with neighbors.


Douglas «Doug» Bandow, an American political writer, currently working as a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, believes that «Rather than expect the United States to burnish NATO’s nuclear deterrent, European nations should consider expanding their nuclear arsenals and creating a continent-wide nuclear force, perhaps as part of the long-derided Common Security and Defense Policy».


There are actors who watch attentively the ongoing debates about the European deterrent. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin said during his visit to the United States on March 7 that his country wanted revision of nuclear weapons status. If the EU decides to go nuclear, Kiev may become a part of the plan.


Definitely, the proposal is not so popular at present. It will take a lot of time and effort to convince people it should be done. Nobody of those who have advocated the idea remembered that a deterrent under a European command would mean collapse of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The chain reaction would lead to the emergence of 55 to 60 nuclear countries.


For Germany, going nuclear means facing enormous financial and political costs. Among other things, it would have to pull out from the the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (Two Plus Four Treaty), where it renounced «the manufacture and possession of and control over nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons». Berlin would also have to tear up the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the European Atomic Energy Community. Actually, the entire system of arms control would collapse.


There is another aspect of the problem that needs to be addressed here. The B61-12, the new US nuclear bomb intended to replace the B-61 deployed in Italy, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Turkey, was officially authorized last August by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).


Around 200 B-61 bombs are currently deployed in underground vaults at six bases in Italy, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Turkey. About half of the munitions are earmarked for delivery by the national aircraft of these countries – the parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 that forbids non-nuclear states from receiving nuclear weapons.


Article I of the NPT prohibits the transfer of nuclear weapons from NWS (nuclear weapons states) to other states: «Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices». Article II requires NNWS (non-nuclear weapons states) not to receive nuclear weapons: «Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transfer or whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices».


Thus, the process of dismantling the existing arms control system has already started, with Europeans, including German pilots, trained to navigate the delivery means of nuclear weapons.


The recently emerged or revived concepts of two-speed, multi-speed Europe, the European Federal Union and the European Defense Force prove the EU is blowing hot and cold seeking other forms of European integration to preserve the United Europe one way or another. The problems multiply and the future is uncertain in the rapidly changing world.


This is the time when making the arms control system unravel is like shooting itself in the foot. Europe does not have the acreage to survive a retaliatory strike. With the NPT not in force anymore, Europe is toast. Its interest lies in strengthening, not weakening, the security mechanism in place.


A lot has been said about the danger of an arms race in Europe. The very fact that the very idea of creating an «independent» European nuclear deterrent has triggered debates and is considered seriously by European savvies and politicians is a matter of grave concern. Europe has suffered so much from wars. It is the only continent to create a complex system of security to prevent the horrors from repetition. It’s important to preserve the existing security tools at the times of uncertainty. It’s easier to destroy that to create. Round tables strengthen security much better than unleashing arms races and violating the existing treaties.

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Obama Used Cyberattacks To Sabotage North Korean Launches For Years

Long before Kim Jong-Un launched his latest ballistic missile test in February, prompting an angry response from not only the US, Japan and various other countries, most notably China, which banned North Korean coal imports in retaliation and unleashed what may be a political crisis in Pyongyang, former president Barack Obama was already engaged in a cyberwar with North Korea.


According to the NYT, three years ago Obama ordered Pentagon officials to step up their cyber-strikes against North Korea’s missile program in order to sabotage missile test launches in their opening seconds. That explains why shortly after various North Korean launches, a large number of the country"s military rockets began to explode, veer off course, disintegrate in midair and plunge into the sea, as detailed here on various occasions.


While advocates of such efforts believe that targeted attacks have given American antimissile defenses a new edge and delayed by several years the day when North Korea will be able to threaten American cities with nuclear weapons launched atop intercontinental ballistic missiles, other experts have grown increasingly skeptical of the new approach, arguing that manufacturing errors, disgruntled insiders and sheer incompetence can also send missiles awry. In other words, something is causing the crashes, but US cyberspies is just one of the possible factors.



Making matters more complex, over the past eight months, they note, the North has managed to successfully launch three medium-range rockets. And Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, now claims his country is in “the final stage in preparations” for the inaugural test of his intercontinental missiles — perhaps a bluff, perhaps not, according to the NYT.


According to the NYT, which cites an examination of the Pentagon’s disruption effort, based on interviews with officials of the Obama and Trump administrations the United States still does not have the ability to effectively counter the North Korean nuclear and missile programs. Those threats are far more resilient than many experts thought, The New York Times’s reporting found, "and pose such a danger that Mr. Obama, as he left office, warned President Trump that they would likely be the most urgent problem he would confront."


As part of its inquiry, the NYT notes that it had agreed to keep silent to avoid leakage of US involvement:





The Times inquiry began last spring as the number of the North’s missile failures soared. The investigation uncovered the military documents praising the new antimissile approach and found some pointing with photos and diagrams to North Korea as one of the most urgent targets.



After discussions with the office of the director of national intelligence last year and in recent days with Mr. Trump’s national security team, The Times agreed to withhold details of those efforts to keep North Korea from learning how to defeat them. Last fall, Mr. Kim was widely reported to have ordered an investigation into whether the United States was sabotaging North Korea’s launches, and over the past week he has executed senior security officials.



If the US sabotage of North Korea"s missile program sounds familiar to the joint-US/Israeli "Stuxnet" takedown of Iran"s nuclear program several years ago, is because it is:





The approach taken in targeting the North Korean missiles has distinct echoes of the American- and Israeli-led sabotage of Iran’s nuclear program, the most sophisticated known use of a cyberweapon meant to cripple a nuclear threat. But even that use of the “Stuxnet” worm in Iran quickly ran into limits. It was effective for several years, until the Iranians figured it out and recovered. And Iran posed a relatively easy target: an underground nuclear enrichment plant that could be attacked repeatedly.



Obama"s escalating response was due to rising concerns that Washington was behind the curve in stopping North Korean technological development:





By the time Mr. Obama took office in January 2009, the North had deployed hundreds of short- and medium-range missiles that used Russian designs, and had made billions of dollars selling its Scud missiles to Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen. But it aspired to a new generation of missiles that could fire warheads over much longer distances. In secret cables written in the first year of the Obama administration, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laid out the emerging threat.




Among the most alarming released by WikiLeaks, the cables described a new path the North was taking to reach its long-range goal, based on a missile designed by the Soviets decades ago for their submarines that carried thermonuclear warheads. It was called the R-27. Unlike the North’s lumbering, older rockets and missiles, these would be small enough to hide in caves and move into position by truck. The advantage was clear: This missile would be far harder for the United States to find and destroy.



“North Korea’s next goal may be to develop a mobile ICBM that would be capable of threatening targets around the world,” said an October 2009 cable marked “Secret” and signed by Mrs. Clinton.



Despite their early success, with sabotage efforts failing in recent months, and with the story now public, it appears that the NYT"s intel community leakers are hoping to push the story into the open, and to prompt North Korea to escalate its ballistic missile development.



Meanwhile, Kim Jong-un has pressed ahead on his main goal: an intercontinental ballistic missile. Last April, he was photographed standing next to a giant test-stand, celebrating after engineers successfully fired off a matched pair of the potent Russian-designed R-27 engines. The implication was clear: Strapping two of the engines together at the base of a missile was the secret to building an ICBM that could ultimately hurl warheads at the United States.





In September, he celebrated the most successful test yet of a North Korean nuclear weapon — one that exploded with more than twice the destructive force of the Hiroshima bomb. His next goal, experts say, is to combine those two technologies, shrinking his nuclear warheads to a size that can fit on an intercontinental missile. Only then can he credibly claim that his isolated country has the know-how to hit an American city thousands of miles away.



In the last year of his presidency, Mr. Obama often noted publicly that the North was learning from every nuclear and missile test — even the failures — and getting closer to its goal. In private, aides noticed he was increasingly disturbed by North Korea’s progress.


Now it"s up to Trump to decide what to do about North Korea"s missile program; also since the US "cyberwar" against Kim is now in the public domain, continuing it does not seem like a logical option, despite what the NYT suggests.





As a presidential candidate, Mr. Trump complained that “we"re so obsolete in cyber,” a line that grated on officials at the United States Cyber Command and the National Security Agency, where billions of dollars have been spent to provide the president with new options for intelligence gathering and cyberattacks. Now, one of the immediate questions he faces is whether to accelerate or scale back those efforts. A decision to go after an adversary’s launch ability can have unintended consequences, experts warn.



Once the United States uses cyberweapons against nuclear launch systems — even in a threatening state like North Korea — Russia and China may feel free to do the same, targeting fields of American missiles. Some strategists argue that all nuclear systems should be off-limits for cyberattack. Otherwise, if a nuclear power thought it could secretly disable an adversary’s atomic controls, it might be more tempted to take the risk of launching a pre-emptive attack.



Considering the relentless (dis)information about Russian hacking of everything American, all it would take for an all too real, not cyber, war breaking out is for a false flag attack in some US nuclear silo which is then quickly blamed on Russia courtesy of all the prevalent anti-Russian sentiment. Needless to say, the neo-cons would certainly win in such a scenario.


That said, escalation may be avoided: Trump’s aides say everything is on the table. China recently cut off coal imports from the North, but the United States is also looking at ways to freeze the Kim family’s assets, some of which are believed held in Chinese-controlled banks. The Chinese have already opposed the deployment of a high-altitude missile defense system known as Thaad in South Korea; the Trump team may call for even more such systems.


However, as we reported last week, a far worse outcome is also likely. As the WSJ reported previously, the White House is also looking at pre-emptive military strike options, though the challenge is huge given the country’s mountainous terrain and deeply buried tunnels and bunkers. Placing American tactical nuclear weapons back into South Korea — they were withdrawn a quarter-century ago — is also under consideration, even if that step could accelerate an arms race with the North.


Mr. Trump’s “It won’t happen!” post on Twitter about the North’s ICBM threat suggests a larger confrontation could be looming. “Regardless of Trump’s actual intentions,” James M. Acton, a nuclear analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently noted, “the tweet could come to be seen as a ‘red line’ and hence set up a potential test of his credibility.”


One thing we do know: the last time global debt reached similar levels, world war broke out. This time may not be different; all that is needed is a spark.



Now the question is whether Kim Jong-Un, already facing a potential mutiny at home (to which he has so far responded by demonstratively executing official with anti-aircraft guns) will take this confirmation of what many would call an act of war by the US, and retaliate.

Wednesday, January 25, 2017

"Frightened" Democrats Propose Bill To Limit Trump's Ability To Launch A Nuclear Strike

"Frightened" Democrat lawmakers introduced a bill Tuesday that would prevent the president from launching a nuclear first strike without a congressional declaration of war. The bill - proposed by Rep. Ted W. Lieu and Sen. Edward J. Markey - follows through on a policy that was long debated - but never seriously pursued - during the Obama administration.


As FP reports, this isn’t the first mention of such legislation - the idea of it has been mentioned on and off for years, advocated by groups such as the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. At a January event at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden said he is “confident we can deter and defend ourselves and our allies against non-nuclear threats through other means,” adding that he “strongly believes” that “deterring and if necessary retaliating against a nuclear attack should be the sole purpose for the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”



But now the idea is anything but academic as the bill overtly questions President Trump"s judgment, with the lawmakers saying in a joint release:





"the crucial issue of nuclear "first use" is more urgent than ever now that President Donald Trump has the power to launch a nuclear war at a moment’s notice."



Congresman Ted Lieu, who has a paper sign reading, "Alternative Fact Free Zone" outside his office, took aim at Trump’s ignorance...





“It is a frightening reality that the U.S. now has a Commander-in-Chief who has demonstrated ignorance of the nuclear triad, stated his desire to be ‘unpredictable’ with nuclear weapons, and as President-elect was making sweeping statements about U.S. nuclear policy over Twitter. Congress must act to preserve global stability by restricting the circumstances under which the U.S. would be the first nation to use a nuclear weapon.



Our Founders created a system of checks and balances, and it is essential for that standard to be applied to the potentially civilization-ending threat of nuclear war. I am proud to introduce the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017 with Sen. Markey to realign our nation’s nuclear weapons launch policy with the Constitution and work towards a safer world.”



Senator Edward J. Markey issued the following statement:





“Nuclear war poses the gravest risk to human survival. Yet, President Trump has suggested that he would consider launching nuclear attacks against terrorists. Unfortunately, by maintaining the option of using nuclear weapons first in a conflict, U.S. policy provides him with that power. In a crisis with another nuclear-armed country, this policy drastically increases the risk of unintended nuclear escalation.



Neither President Trump, nor any other president, should be allowed to use nuclear weapons except in response to a nuclear attack. By restricting the first use of nuclear weapons, this legislation enshrines that simple principle into law. I thank Rep. Lieu for his partnership on this common-sense bill during this critical time in our nation’s history.”



Markey and Lieu introduced their bill immediately following those September remarks, but brought it up again in the first week of Trump becoming president, receiving more press coverage. The bill has support from former Defense Secretary William Perry as well as five other prominent pro-disarmament groups.:





William J. Perry, Former Secretary of Defense – “During my period as Secretary of Defense, I never confronted a situation, or could even imagine a situation, in which I would recommend that the President make a first strike with nuclear weapons—understanding that such an action, whatever the provocation, would likely bring about the end of civilization.  I believe that the legislation proposed by Congressman Lieu and Senator Markey recognizes that terrible reality.  Certainly a decision that momentous for all of civilization should have the kind of checks and balances on Executive powers called for by our Constitution.”



Tom Z. Collina, Policy Director of Ploughshares Fund – “President Trump now has the keys to the nuclear arsenal, the most deadly killing machine ever created. Within minutes, President Trump could unleash up to 1,000 nuclear weapons, each one many times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. Yet Congress has no voice in the most important decision the United States government can make. As it stands now, Congress has a larger role in deciding on the number of military bands than in preventing nuclear catastrophe.”



Derek Johnson, Executive Director of Global Zero – “One modern nuclear weapon is more destructive than all of the bombs detonated in World War II combined. Yet there is no check on a president’s ability to launch the thousands of nuclear weapons at his command. In the wake of the election, the American people are more concerned than ever about the terrible prospect of nuclear war — and what the next commander-in-chief will do with the proverbial ‘red button.’ That such devastating power is concentrated in one person is an affront to our democracy"s founding principles. The proposed legislation is an important first step to reining in this autocratic system and making the world safer from a nuclear catastrophe.”



Megan Amundson, Executive Director of Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND) – “Rep. Lieu and Sen. Markey have rightly called out the dangers of only one person having his or her finger on the nuclear button. The potential misuse of this power in the current global climate has only magnified this concern. It is time to make real progress toward lowering the risk that nuclear weapons are ever used again, and this legislation is a good start.”



Jeff Carter, Executive Director of Physicians for Social Responsibility – "Nuclear weapons pose an unacceptable risk to our national security. Even a “limited” use of nuclear weapons would cause catastrophic climate disruption around the world, including here in the United States. They are simply too profoundly dangerous for one person to be trusted with the power to introduce them into a conflict. Grounded in the fundamental constitutional provision that only Congress has the power to declare war, the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act of 2017 is a wise and necessary step to lessen the chance these weapons will ever be used.”



Diane Randall, Executive Secretary of the Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers) – “Restricting first-use of nuclear weapons is an urgent priority. Congress should support the Markey-Lieu legislation.”



Well if you weren"t terrified before, you sure are now. But of course, the Congressman and Senator are just doing this to ensure your safety... because to them, with all that is going on, the decision to reintroduce this bill and gain more press coverage is the highest priority.


Ironically, Trump tweeted this afternoon that tomorrow is a big day for national security...


Monday, January 16, 2017

Davos Elite Eat $40 Hot Dogs While "Struggling For Answers", Cowering in "Silent Fear"

For those unfamiliar with what goes on at the annual January boondoggle at the World Economic Forum in Davos, here is the simple breakdown.


Officially, heads of state, captains of industry, prominent academics, philanthropists and a retinue of journalists, celebrities and hangers-on will descend Tuesday on the picturesque alpine village of Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum;


Unofficially, it"s the world"s biggest echo chamber, where wealthy, influential and/or powerful people, yet vastly out of touch with the rest of the world, sit down with other wealthy, influential and/or powerful people who are just as out of touch, to validate to each other that nobody really knows anything (also known as the "ratings agency effect"), but because the press is there and fails to point out that these emperors of industry, commerce, entertainment and politics are naked in hopes of maintaining their annual invitation and direct access, everyone goes home happy. And just as clueless.


Hence Trump.



Case in point, as Reuters fondly recalls, last year, the consensus here was that Trump had no chance of being elected (actually, last January the world"s elites were far more worried about plunging markets as we pointed out in "How Billionaires Are Investing In 2016: "The Only Winning Move Is Not To Play The Game"). 


Trump was elected. His victory, less than half a year after Britain voted to leave the European Union, "was a slap at the principles that elites in Davos have long held dear, from globalization and free trade to multilateralism."


We"ll get to Trump in a second, but first some more on the background of this festival which revels in everything the populist backlash of 2016 found excerable, courtesy of the NYT.


Who Attends the Conference?


More than 2,500 people will attend this year’s conference from 90 different countries, paying up to $50,000 per person to attend (that of course excludes the ultra-celebrities who get in for free). In fact, so many people are attending, some of the local staff may sleep in shipping containers. Most of the participants are corporate executives, but more than two dozen heads of state and government are expected to attend.  Theresa May, the prime minister of Britain, and Xi Jinping, president of China, are attending the conference for the first time this year. Xi is the first Chinese president to attend the event, and will also be the star attraction. His presence is being seen as a sign of Beijing"s growing weight in the world at a time when Trump is promising a more insular, "America first" approach and Europe is pre-occupied with its own troubles, from Brexit to terrorism.


On the other hand, Trump has decided not to officially send a member of his team as it would "betray his populist-fueled movement." Likewise German chancellor Merkel will be absent, worried about her own image ahead of the 2017 German elections.


Aside from politicians, Shakira and the actor Forest Whitaker are to receive awards this year. Expected attendees include Sheryl Sandberg, COO at Facebook; Matt Damon; Formula One driver Nico Rosberg; and Alibaba"s Jack Ma. While only 17% of last year’s participants were women, according to the forum, this year the number is not expected to change.


How Are These People Kept Safe?


All of those dignitaries need security. During the conference, Davos transforms into a fortress. Roadblocks restrict traffic on the city’s main streets and checkpoints spring up outside each venue. At the Congress Center, where the main panels take place, and at each hotel that hosts parties and talks, attendees pass metal detectors, armed guards and beneath the watchful eyes of sharpshooters. In the past, the conference was targeted by protesters associated with the anticapitalist Occupy movement. In 2013, members of the Ukrainian activist group Femen were arrested after a topless demonstration. The Swiss government estimated it will spend 8 million Swiss francs, about $8 million, on security, but said that number could increase if there were a credible threat to the conference. “Switzerland is still not regarded as a priority target for jihadist terrorists,” the Federal Council said on its website. “On the other hand, even on Swiss soil, the interests of states participating in the military coalition against the so-called Islamic State face an increased threat.”


Is It as Elitist as It Sounds?


Yes. The meeting runs on a tiered system of colored badges denoting just how important one is, or is not. White badges are for attendees able to attend any official event and make full use of the forum’s facilities. Orange badges are reserved for the 500 journalists who cover the forum, but are not allowed at some parties. Other badges, like purple ones, denote technical or support staff and limit their holders to a few areas. Local hotels like the Belvedere and the InterContinental often sell their own badges to the bankers and consultants who descend upon Davos to strike deals and chat up clients. These souls camp out at the hotels, renting rooms for business meetings by day and soiree hopping at night.


What About the Parties?


Beyond the boring, ineffective, and circle-jerking lectures and panel discussions, a much more important agenda unfolds after sunset. One notable event, according to the NYT, is a simulation of a refugee’s experience, where Davos attendees crawl on their hands and knees and pretend to flee from advancing armies. It is one of the most popular events every year. The theme of this year’s conference is “Responsive and Responsible Leadership.” But attendees like to play as hard as they work.


There are several official cocktail receptions, but the action really lies in a galaxy of events hosted by corporations. Some are small, intimate dinners that feature the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio and Bono. Others are dazzling affairs worthy of a modern day Gatsby: JPMorgan Chase, for example, has previously taken over the Kirchner Museum Davos for drinks with its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, and Tony Blair, the former British prime minister. Google’s annual party at the InterContinental Hotel has become the hottest ticket in town. The investor Anthony Scaramucci, now an adviser to Donald J. Trump, for years has hosted a reception at the famed Hotel Europe featuring a sometimes eye-popping list of high-end Champagne and Bordeaux red wine. A more recent up-and-comer is hosted by Salesforce.com, a business software maker, whose chief, Marc Benioff, is one of the forum’s most ardent boosters. Last year’s Salesforce party included Mr. Benioff flying in scores of fresh flower leis and a band from Hawaii, as Eric Schmidt of Google and other tech notables danced in a corner. Several years ago, Sean Parker of Napster and Facebook fame, hosted an over-the-top gathering that featured stuffed animal heads shooting laser beams out of their eyes. And the Russian billionaire Oleg Deripaska has thrown opulent gatherings at a nearby villa where the Champagne flowed freely For a nightcap, the Davos crowd traditionally retires to the Tonic Bar at Hotel Europe, sipping cocktails while the forum fixture Barry Colson leads the crowd in Billy Joel singalongs.


* * *


With the background of the event covered, we once again focus on the key topic at hand, namely quite ironic "social and wealth inequality" - which incidentally has been a core topic for the past several years, demonstrating just how clueless Davos really is, and of course Trump.


Just so readers can get a sense of just how delightfully surreal this whole event is, one of the most prominent panels is called "Squeezed and Angry: How to Fix the Middle-Class Crisis"


Its description: "Poor employment prospects and low-income growth in many developed economies have laid the groundwork for the rise of populism. Did policy-makers ignore these trends or do too little to redress them? What can be done to restore growth in the middle class and confidence in the future?"


Who are these experts on the woes of the middle class? Read em and weep: Ray Dalio - a billiionaire who encourages spying on his employees; Christine Lagarde - a convicted criminal and tax evader, head of an organization that takes from the poor and gives to the world"s creditors; and Larry Summers, a firm believer, and doer, in wealth redistribution from the middle classes to the wealthy.


* * *


While in previous years the Davos party was not to be spoiled with any actual concerns about the real world violating the inner sanctum of the world"s uber-poseurs, this year something has changed.


Beneath the veneer of optimism over the economic outlook lurks acute anxiety about an increasingly toxic political climate and a deep sense of uncertainty surrounding the U.S. presidency of Donald Trump, who will be quite symoblically, even if purely accidentally, inaugurated on the final day of the forum.


And with Trump"s election come worries that the ivory towers inhabited by the 2,500 or so Davosites, are far less sturdy than previously believed.  "Regardless of how you view Trump and his positions, his election has led to a deep, deep sense of uncertainty and that will cast a long shadow over Davos," said Jean-Marie Guehenno, CEO of International Crisis Group, a conflict resolution think-tank.


Moises Naim of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was even more blunt, suggesting that the people in Davos are even more clueless than usual, which is saying quite a lot.


"There is a consensus that something huge is going on, global and in many respects unprecedented. But we don"t know what the causes are, nor how to deal with it."


Brilliant.


* * *


Meanwhile, in an attempt to figure out the causes and "how to deal with it", the participants in the World Economic Forum, which runs from Jan. 17 to 20, will partake in such panels as the abovementioned "Squeezed and Angry: How to Fix the Middle Class Crisis", "Politics of Fear or Rebellion of the Forgotten?", "Tolerance at the Tipping Point?" and "The Post-EU Era".


The central question in Davos, a four-day affair of panel discussions, lunches and cocktail parties that delve into subjects as diverse as terrorism, artificial intelligence and wellness, is whether leaders can agree on the root causes of public anger and begin to articulate a response... aside from the forum participants themselves of course.


A WEF report on global risks released before Davos highlighted "diminishing public trust in institutions" and noted that rebuilding faith in the political process and leaders would be a "difficult task". Guy Standing, the author of several books on the new "precariat", a class of people who lack job security and reliable earnings, believes more people are coming around to the idea that free-market capitalism needs to be overhauled, including those that have benefited most from it.


"The mainstream corporate types don"t want Trump and far-right authoritarians," said Standing, who has been invited to Davos for the first time. "They want a sustainable global economy in which they can do business. More and more of them are sensible enough to realize that they have overreached."


But Ian Bremmer, president of U.S.-based political risk consultancy Eurasia Group, is not so sure, and he recounted ro Reuters a recent trip to Goldman Sachs headquarters in New York where he saw bankers "rejoicing in the elevators" at the surge in stock markets and the prospect of tax cuts and deregulation under Trump. Both Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein and his JP Morgan counterpart Jamie Dimon will be in Davos.


It remains to be seen if there will be as much "elevator rejoicing" when the market finally crashes under Trump, an inevitable outcome which some speculate is precisely why Trump was allowed to become president: so that all the blame on the grand crash, once it, happens can be placed on him.


Others are less worried about the impact of Trump, and more concerned that the pace of technological change and the integrated, complex nature of the global economy have made it more difficult for leaders to shape and control events, let alone reconfigure the global system. The global financial crisis of 2008/9 and the migrant crisis of 2015/16 exposed the impotence of politicians, deepening public disillusion and pushing people towards populists who offered simple explanations and solutions.


The problem, says Ian Goldin, an expert on globalization and development at the University of Oxford, is that on many of the most important issues, from climate change to financial regulation, only multilateral cooperation can deliver results. And this is precisely what the populists reject.  "The state of global politics is worse than it"s been in a long time," said Goldin. "At a time when we need more coordination to tackle issues like climate change and other systemic risks, we are getting more and more insular."


* * *


Whatever the reason, sense of dread that things are moving, changing beyond the participants" control will be all too tangible.


It is also why, as Bloomberg reported today, the World Economic Forum will convene a special meeting in Washington this year to discuss issues raised during the president-elect’s campaign "and the populist wave that swept him to victory" WEF founder Klaus Schwab told Bloomberg Television on Sunday. The gathering will explore U.S. investment and job-creation opportunities for companies that participate in the forum, he said.


“It’s very natural that with the new administration we plan a major event in the U.S. to see what are the implications of the new president and how the business community could engage,” Schwab said in advance of the forum’s 47th annual meeting in the Swiss ski resort of Davos. “We have to be responsive to the call.”


People have become very emotionalized, this silent fear of what the new world will bring,” Schwab said in the town’s hulking conference center. “We have populists here and we want to listen. We have to respond to these individuals’ fears and to offer solutions. It’s not just enough to listen; we have to provide answers and that’s what were here for in Davos."


No, that"s what you were there for in Davos in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, and you did nothing. Now it"s too late as the pendulum has already swung.


That, however, is not obvious to the forum organizers who will enjoy another blockbuster year. Business is booming for the WEF and Schwab, 78, said he has no plans to abandon or alter its annual retreat. Revenue is up 45%  in the past five years and staff have increased by about a third - with employees earning an average of 135,000 Swiss francs, ($133,875) which rises to 213,000 Swiss francs with the addition of costs such as pensions and healthcare.


“Our salary structure is completely in line with others such as the Bretton Woods organization, the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund,” Schwab said. “We also have to be competitive with organizations like Goldman Sachs and McKinsey. We are competing for the same talent.”


How does Schwab reconcile the glaring hypocricy of the world"s wealthiest debating social injustice and wealth inequality? Simple:





Despite the glitzy parties that have become the hallmark of the annual gathering, Schwab said his aim is not to celebrate the “outrageous excesses of life,” but rather to create a “global village,” where participants can mull weighty issues facing the world without the distractions of a large city. And he insists that as the power and beliefs of business and political leaders face unprecedented challenges, the meeting is needed more than ever.



Schwab says the WEF’s annual meeting, where companies host lavish parties awash in champagne and rare vintage wines, attendees pay $50,000 and thousands of soldiers and police stand guard, remains an appropriate forum to discuss political issues like the rise of populism and seek solutions to society’s biggest problems. Unfortunately, that"s all it is, as no concrete, revolutionary decisions can ever take place within the confines of this giant echo chamber.


Schwab concludes by saying that "the right solution will require a lot of effort and many steps in the right direction. I am optimistic that in a new multi-polar world we still have the notion of a joined and shared destiny" but adds that his "biggest fear is that we will believe there are very simple answers to very difficult questions.”


Actually, herr Klaus Schwab, there are other far more tangible things you and your peers should be afraid of, but somehow we doubt that those will become apparent while eating $40 hot dogs.