Many voters—or people generally—in this country seem to be too consumed with their own petty grievances to have any real understanding of where this country is headed, and have no clue to the damage being done to their rights by far-right judges, many of whom were personally selected for Donald Trump by the Federalist Society. And it only takes one federal court—such as the Fifth Circuit Court based in Texas—to do such damage that effects the whole country, along with five far-right Supreme Court justices to support its rulings, or not rule on them at all.
Not everyone can know how much they are affected by the lawlessness of these judges until they or people they know are directly affected by their decisions. One of the ways that businesses can shield themselves from the lawsuits is through the legal loophole called forum non conveniens, which a business can sneak into a contract, stating that if an employee wants to file a claim against the business, they can only do so in a “jurisdiction of convenience”—meaning the business’ “convenience.”
Thus in its recent ruling in the Mathews v. Tidewater case, the go-to court for far-right extremists, the Fifth Circuit with its six Trump appointees, dismissed the lawsuit brought by Malek Mathews against Tidewater, who claimed that the marine company had for decades exposed him to hazardous chemicals on board their merchant ships, leading to his now terminal illnesses. The court did so by ignoring at least the “suggestion” by the U.S. Supreme Court that a serious illness caused by the defendant would be reason enough to bring a case to a “reasonable” location—say in the same country both the defendant and plaintiff are located. But Tidewater had put in the contract that any case brought against them had to be brought before a UK high court.
The far-right court ruled that Mathews taking the case to the UK would not “inconvenience” him, it’s “logic” being that “modern technology" was sufficient to overcome such “inconvenience,” and besides, it would “inconvenience” the defendant to have the case tried “locally.” As the Transnational Litigation Blog noted in calling the court’s ruling “troubling,” the court did not have even attempt to rationally “explain” its reasoning behind either "opinion."
Tidewater is incorporated in Delaware, but its base of operations is in Texas. No “mystery” why; the vendor I was working for at SeaTac Airport pre-ACA offered a “health insurance” plan that was on a list of healthcare “scams” that were illegal in the state of Washington; it was less “insurance” than “income replacement”—meaning it paid a small lump sum and you paid the rest (the opposite of what “real” insurance is supposed to provide), which is why health care providers would suddenly remember they are taking “no new patients” when you mentioned it.
But the vendor was allowed to skirt the state law because the “situs” of the company was in Texas, where it was “legal.” If the ACA had not been largely “approved” by previous Supreme Court decisions, the Fifth Circuit Court would long have struck down the program, and there would be no ACA and continuing denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions, and people would be condemned to die without justice or rights by its rulings, just as it has done in the Mathews case.
But hold on a minute: didn’t we just learn that Trump secretly provided best friend Vladimir with American-brand COVID-19 test kits for his “personal use”? So Putin’s life and criminal activities—that include the “mysterious” deaths of political opponents—is more important to him than all those “suckers” and “losers” who believed his COVID misinformation and conspiracies?
And what do we see now between “friends”? Putin and Kim Jong Un are making even more hysterical nuclear threats against the U.S. and NATO less than a month before the election, obviously election interference in support of Trump; Kim has even insinuated his belief that Trump is dumb enough to give him what he wants in “exchange” for a renewal of “talks.”
So, we are supposed to believe that dictators who have had opposition leaders “mysteriously” murdered by KGB-type methods—or in the case of Kim, his “traitor” uncle beheaded, and his exiled half-brother poisoned in a “hit-and-run” attack in an airport, and who doubtless ordered the torture that ended in the death of American student Otto Warmbier—do not see Trump as someone with criminal inclinations of his own who has already enabled their crimes, and will do so again?
Well, we do know what Putin’s motivations are: the war in Ukraine hasn’t gone exactly as “planned,” since he assumed he would capture Kyiv in three days, and such an “easy” victory would have motivated him to complete the “conquest” of the old Soviet empire (no doubt Belarus was next if nationalists took control over its current dictator and Putin puppet, Alexander Lukashenko)., and then intimidate the former Warsaw Pact countries out of NATO.
Putin obviously believes that Trump—who has already expressed his contempt for NATO and Western European democracies—simply doesn’t care what happens to Ukraine, he will just get bored with the whole thing and walk away, just like he did with talks with Kim, whose own negotiators in Sweden simply walked away after a few hours of “talks,” claiming that Trump offered them “nothing.” Of course Kim wanted something for nothing, keeping his nuclear arsenal for “safekeeping” while the U.S. would abandon sanctions and support for the South Korean government.
Of course if Trump had agreed to such a “deal,” his reputation as a “deal maker” would have taken a hit that even his lies and bluster could never overcome. But with Trump claiming that he can still make a “deal” with Kim, the latter seems to think that Trump can yet be taken advantage of if he is elected and owes him (and Putin) a "favor."
As for Putin, he has a plan that Trump and his supporters are too stupid to imagine: he will con Trump into believing he is “serious” about “negotiations” to end the war, convincing him to end all aid to Ukraine. Putin will then fake non-serious talks while he re-builds his forces, and when ready to attack, he will declare the “negotiations” a “failure” and that will be the end of Ukraine as an independent state, or so he hopes. Trump, of course, will blame Biden and Zelensky, just as he blames Biden and Harris for his incompetent and disastrous actions in regard to Iran and Afghanistan.
Of course if Trump was privy to Putin's plan, and went along with it because it was the kind of thing he would do if he was Putin's place, what would that make him? A traitor?
But let’s talk more about North Korea, why it is where it is today, and why past negotiations have failed, and will continue to as long as Kim and his family remain in power. This is a country that survived economically with trade with the old Soviet Union; instead of building its economy on “light” industry, meaning consumer goods, the regime built the economy on heavy industry, which in time meant mainly in military hardware. Its economy collapsed after the fall of the Soviet Union, and today 60 percent of the population lives in abject poverty and starvation.
Any occasional allowances for "humanitarian" assistance via sanction relaxation has gone not to people in desperate need but either to the military or into the pockets of the Kim family. There have been “economic plans,” but there has never been any kind of effort at privatization or encouraging entrepreneurship, since it is seen as a “threat” to the “family” regime, and thus the country remains a state-controlled economy.
Naturally, a country ruled by a paranoid family dynasty must find a “cheap” way to defend itself, and that would be with a few nuclear-tipped missiles to threaten its neighbors with, who wish nothing more than North Korea just taking care of its own problems, not making their problems everyone else’s. As noted on the Arms Control Association website, the Clinton administration made efforts to control North Korean belligerence and seemed on the cusp of doing so, but further negotiations were derailed with the election of George Bush, who was against any “settlement,” even against the building of light-water nuclear power plants which were to be built as “peaceful” power-generators by Japanese and South Korean contractors. These were in fact under construction until suspended for failure of the North Korean government to comply with the agreement; in fact the regime continued to seek to produce weapons-grade plutonium in secret hideouts.
So in fact in 1994, following negotiations surrounding North Korea’s announced withdrawal from the nuclear weapons non-proliferation treaty, the United States and North Korea signed an agreement—the “Agreed Framework”—
calling upon Pyongyang to freeze operation and construction of nuclear reactors suspected of being part of a covert nuclear weapons program in exchange for two proliferation-resistant nuclear power reactors. The agreement also called upon the United States to supply North Korea with fuel oil pending construction of the reactors. An international consortium called the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) was formed to implement the agreement.
But afterwards, North Korea began testing long-range missiles in 1998, the only purpose of which appeared to be for the use of nuclear warheads, and when presented with evidence that it was not in compliance with the agreement to stop development of weapons-grade material, North Korea announced its withdrawal from the “agreement,” which then resulted in reinstating sanctions. It wasn’t quite over yet, since a six-nation mediation process was begun that included China and Russia was begun, but eventually that also failed to produce any results.
While the Clinton initiative largely failed to achieve its ambitions during the remaining six years of Clinton’s tenure—blamed on his “crisis of the day” approach instead of focusing a long-term resolution—the Bush administration decided it wasn’t going to be “blackmailed” by the regime with threats and missile launches, and would not start talks or relieve sanctions unless the regime halted its nuclear program.
And that’s how events progressed since then: North Korea threatening the status quo with renewed quests to become a “nuclear superpower,” and negotiations going nowhere if started at all. While there have been occasional attempts by the regime to fake trade cooperation, this hasn’t been enough to end the on-going famine crisis in the country, and the current Kim has created an economy that is basically as a weapons dealer to those who ignore international sanctions against it (mainly Russia and Iran), and is obviously taking a chapter out of the Trump—or any oppressive dictator’s—playbook, misdirecting the people’s attentions away from the failures of the regime by shifting blame to outside “threats.”
Would Trump “fix” this? Oh, those of short memory. As the Wilson Center noted that after all the pomp and circumstance following Trump taking a walk over the border for a happy-face photo-op with Kim,
By the end of Trump’s term, the talks had petered out and he had little more to show for his efforts than a drawer full of flattering letters. For all of the talk of their great personal relationship, Kim Jong Un had only advanced his capabilities once again. At a military parade in October, he rolled out his biggest intercontinental ballistic missile yet, immediately dubbed the “monster missile” by analysts. Donald Trump could only add his name to the list of American presidents who had tried and failed to curb North Korea’s nuclear ambitions before him.
Trump failed because he thought that he could “persuade” Kim with his “brand.” That’s right, slap the “Trump” name on the side of a crumbling barn and suddenly it becomes a $10 million mansion. History tells us that the Trump “brand” means nothing, save eventual failure and bankruptcy for those foolish enough to believe that Trump is anything but an empty shell in front a Potemkin Village.
And here we are today, with North Korea teetering on the brink, and the regime still believes that making ever more hysterical threats of nuclear blackmail is its only way out. So what is Kim’s eventual plan, if like Trump he even has one? In a BBC story in 2022, it isn’t about a “negotiated settlement” acceptable to any side save the North Korean dictator’s:
Professor Brian R Myers at Dongseo University in the South Korean city of Busan says Pyongyang has a much more ambitious goal for its nuclear and missile programmes. He believes North Korea's hope is to use its arsenal as leverage to negotiate a peace treaty with South Korea and a US withdrawal from the Korean peninsula. After that, he says, the North believes it will be free to subjugate the South.
Sound “familiar”—like Putin, for example, or even China “reclaiming” territory from its neighbors? Dictators are not interested in “negotiations”—it all must be a win-win proposition for them alone at the expense of their neighbors and world peace and security. Given an inch, and they will eventually demand a mile. And Trump is just the man to give it to them, since he’s done it in the past—with his “deal” with the Taliban example number one. Putin knows this, and he has certainly advised Kim on one his visits to North Korea that Trump can still be played for a fool against the interests of his own country if you are “friendly” enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment