Markets plunge as US enters manufacturing recession

Andre Damon

The US manufacturing sector has entered recession—defined as two quarters of contraction—the Institute for Supply Management said Tuesday, falling to the lowest level since the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crash.

The figure is only the latest in a series of negative economic indicators that contributed to a substantial selloff in the US and global stock market Wednesday.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) said that growth in trade this year would be the lowest in a decade, amid the eruption of a trade war that it called a “destructive cycle of recrimination.”

World trade will grow by only 1.2 percent this year, the WTO reported. Just six months ago, it expected trade to grow at 2.6 percent this year.

Markets around the world plunged in response to the figures. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 494.42 points, or 1.9 percent, after a 1.3 percent drop the day before. The S&P 500 had its worst two-day selloff of the year. All three major US stock indexes are below their values over the past 12 months.

The UK stock market had its worst day in over three years, with the FTSE 100 closing 3.2 percent lower.

Aircraft being assembled [via Canva Pro]

But the global trade war, which is dragging down economic growth worldwide, is only intensifying. After the markets closed Wednesday, the White House announced the imposition of an additional $7.5 billion in tariffs on imports from the European Union.

The measures, targeting European aircraft, will be the most aggressive US trade measures against the EU since Washington imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum last year.

The negative economic figures are putting increased pressure on the Federal Reserve board to cut interest rates at its next meeting this month. The Wall Street Journal reported that the likelihood of another Federal Reserve rate cut this year rose to 89 percent, up from 73 percent a week earlier.

Responding to the negative economic data Tuesday, US President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter: “As I predicted, Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve have allowed the Dollar to get so strong, especially relative to ALL other currencies, that our manufacturers are being negatively affected. Fed Rate too high. They are their own worst enemies, they don’t have a clue. Pathetic!”

Trump has repeatedly demanded that the Federal Reserve take a more accommodative monetary policy, and has sought to blame it for a slump in the stock market.

Under pressure from Trump and substantial sections of Wall Street, the Federal Reserve has abruptly reversed course from its plans to “normalize” monetary policy after a decade of bailouts, “quantitative easing” and zero percent interest rates.

The New Evil Empire

Serge Halimi

The US seems to have decided that it can’t take on China and Russia at the same time, so its principal geopolitical rival in the coming decades will be China. Trump’s Republican administration and the Democrats agree on this, though they are campaigning vigorously against each other ahead of next year’s presidential election. China has replaced the ‘evil empire’ of the Soviet Union and ‘Islamic terrorism’ as the US’s main adversary. But China, unlike the Soviet Union, has a dynamic economy, with which the US has an enormous trade deficit. And China’s strength is far more impressive than that of a few tens of thousands of Islamic fundamentalist fighters wandering the deserts of ancient Mesopotamia or the mountains of Afghanistan.

Barack Obama instigated a US foreign policy pivot to Asia and the Pacific. Trump typically formulates the new strategy with less elegance and subtlety (see Curbing China’s rise, in this issue). Trump views cooperation as a trap, a zero-sum game, so China’s economic growth automatically threatens that of the US, and vice versa: ‘We are winning against China,’ he said in August. ‘They had the worst year … in a half a century, and that’s because of me. And I’m not proud of that.’

‘Not proud’ doesn’t sound like Trump. Just over a year ago, he allowed a cabinet meeting to be broadcast live. They discussed everything: one member congratulated himself on the slowdown in China’s economic growth; another blamed the epidemic of opioid addiction in the US on fentanyl imported from China; a third blamed the problems of American farmers on China’s retaliatory trade measures. Trump blamed North Korea’s recalcitrance over nuclear weapons on the indulgence of its ally, China.

Selling more maize or electronics to China is no longer enough. The US wants to isolate a rival whose GDP has increased nine-fold in 17 years, to weaken it, to stop it from extending its sphere of influence, and above all to prevent it from becoming a strategic equal. Since China’s spectacular increase in wealth has not made it more American, or more docile, the US will show no mercy.

In a fiery speech on 4 October 2018, Vice-President Mike Pence criticised China for its ‘Orwellian system’, ‘tearing down crosses, burning bibles and imprisoning believers’ and ‘coercing American businesses, movie studios, universities, think tanks, scholars [and] journalists’. He even talked of an ‘effort to influence … the 2020 presidential elections’. After Russiagate, could this be a Chinagate, this time aimed at ousting Trump? The US seems somewhat fragile.

The Root Problem is the Capitalist System

Evo Morales

Brother President of the United Nations General Assembly, Tijjani Muhammad Bande.

Brother Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres.

Sisters and brothers Presidents, Chancellors and Delegates

Sisters and brothers of the International Organizations and all the peoples of the world:

Once again we meet in the most important multilateral organization of humanity, to reflect and analyze collectively on the global problems that concern the peoples of the world.

We note with concern the deterioration of the multilateral system, product of unilateral measures promoted by some states which have decided to ignore the commitments, good faith and global structures built for a healthy coexistence between states, within the framework of international law and the basic principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

We meet in this forum to discuss and find solutions to the serious threats facing humanity and life on the planet.

The Threat to Mother Earth

Our house, Mother Earth, is our only home and is irreplaceable. It increasingly suffers more fires, more floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts and other catastrophes.

Each year is hotter than the previous one, the thaws are greater, the level of the oceans grows. Every day we suffer the disappearance of species, soil erosion, desertification and deforestation.

Sisters and brothers, we are warned that if we follow this course of action, by the year 2100 we will reach an increase of 3 degrees Celsius. That would imply massive and devastating changes.

The consequences of climate change will condemn, according to data from our organization [the United Nations], millions of people to poverty, hunger, no potable water, losing their homes, forced displacement, more refugee crises and new armed conflicts.

Sisters and brothers, in recent weeks we have been surprised by the forest fires that have been unleashed in different parts of the planet: in the Amazon, in Oceania and Africa, affecting flora, fauna and biodiversity.

In recent weeks, fires have broken out in Bolivia, which we have been fighting against using our financial, technical and human resources. To date, our country has spent more than $15 million to mitigate fires.

We thank the International Community for their timely cooperation in our fight against the fires, as well as their commitment to participate in post-fire actions.

Military Spending and World Poverty

Sisters, brothers and the peoples of the world:

The arms race, military spending, technology at the service of death and the unscrupulous arms trade have increased.

The financial system remains undemocratic, inequitable and unstable, which privileges tax havens and the banking secrecy that subjects weak countries to accept conditions that perpetuate their dependence.

We note with sadness that the great social asymmetries continue. According to Oxfam, today 1.3 billion people live in poverty, while 1% of the richest kept 82% of the world’s wealth in 2017.

Inequality, hunger, poverty, the migration crisis, epidemic diseases, unemployment, are not just local problems, they are global problems.

On the other hand, the creative capacity of humanity, every day surprises us with new inventions and new technological applications. They have offered great solutions to very complex problems. Technology has meant a qualitative leap for humanity. However, it is necessary that from this multilateral body agreements on the matter be established with the participation of all States.

The Root Problem: The Capitalist System

Sisters and brothers, it is essential to talk about the structural causes of the different crises.

Transnational companies control food, water, non-renewable resources, weapons, technology and our personal data. They intend to commercialize everything, to accumulate more capital.

The world is being controlled by a global oligarchy, only a handful of billionaires define the political and economic destiny of humanity.

26 people have the same wealth as 3.8 billion people. That is unfair, that is immoral, that is inadmissible.

The underlying problem lies in the model of production and consumerism, in the ownership of natural resources and in the unequal distribution of wealth. Let’s say it very clearly: the root of the problem is in the capitalist system.

That is why the United Nations is more relevant and important than ever.  Individual efforts are insufficient and only joint action and unity will give us an opportunity to overcome them.

As we have already said, the responsibility of our generation is to give the next a fairer and more human world.

That will only be achieved if we work together to consolidate a multipolar world, with common rules, defending multilateralism and the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and International Law.

Bolivia‘s Achievements

Sisters and brothers, in Bolivia we have taken very important steps:

We are the country with the highest economic growth in South America, with an average of 4.9% in the last six years.

Between 2005 and 2019, the Gross Domestic Product increased from $9.574 billion to $40.885 billion.

We have the lowest unemployment in the region. It fell from 8.1% in 2005 to 4.2% in 2018.

Extreme poverty fell from 38.2% to 15.2% in 13 years.

Life expectancy increased by 9 years.

The minimum wage rose from $60 to $310.

The gender gap in land titling for women was reduced. 138,788 women received land in 2005 and 1,011,249 up to 2018.

Bolivia ranks third country in the world with the highest participation of women in Parliament. More than 50% of Parliament is made up of women.

Bolivia was declared a territory free of illiteracy in 2008.

School dropout rate fell from 4.5% to 1.5% between 2005 and 2018.

The infant mortality rate was reduced by 56%.

We are in the process of implementing the Universal Health System, which will guarantee that 100% of Bolivians access a free, dignified service, with quality and warmth.

We passed a law to provide free health care for cancer patients.

The above data are part of the achievements of our democratic and cultural revolution, which have given Bolivia political, economic and social stability.

Sisters and brothers:

How do we achieve these achievements in such a short time? How is it that Bolivia has taken the path to defeat poverty and underdevelopment?

Thanks to the conscience of the people, of the social movements, of indigenous, peasants, workers, professionals, of men and women of the countryside and of the cities.

We nationalized our natural resources and our strategic companies. We have taken control of our destiny.

We are building a Community and Productive Social Economic Model, which recognizes basic services (water, electricity, telecommunications) as a human right.

Today we can say with pride and optimism that Bolivia has a future.

Bolivia’s Right of Access to the Pacific Ocean

Sisters and brothers, there is a pending issue in the region, the sea is indispensable for life, for the integration and development of peoples.

Therefore, Bolivia will not give up its right to sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.

In 2015 and 2018, the International Court of Justice of the Hague, through its decisions, ruled on the following elements:

First: In paragraph 19, of the ruling of October 1, 2018, it established that “Bolivia had a coastline of more than 400 kilometers along the Pacific Ocean.” [This Pacific coastland was lost to Chile in a late 19th century war].

Second: In paragraph 50, of the ruling of September 24, 2015, it established that “The issues in dispute are not matters resolved by arrangement of the parties, by arbitration, or by judgment of an international tribunal” or “governed by agreements or treaties in force”.

Third: In paragraph 176, of the ruling of October 1, 2018, it established “However, the conclusion of the court should not be understood as an impediment to the parties [Chile and Bolivia] continuing their dialogue and exchanges, in a spirit of good neighborhood, to address the issues related to the situation of [land-locked] confinement of Bolivia, a solution that both parties have recognized as a matter of mutual interest. With the will of both parties, significant negotiations can take place.”

Sisters and brothers, this judicial decision has not ended the controversy, on the contrary, it is explicit in recognizing that it continues and emphasizes that it does not close off the possibility of both states finding a solution.

Therefore, the United Nations Organization must monitor and demand full compliance with the decisions of the court, so that both peoples continue negotiating in good faith, to close open wounds. It is possible to promote a good neighborhood spirit, and open a new time in our relationship, to forge mutually acceptable and lasting solutions.

Sisters and brothers, our countries face diverse and conflicting situations, which must be approached in a sovereign manner and solutions must be found through dialogue and negotiation, in favor of the interests of the people.

Bolivia, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations, ratifies its rejection of the economic and financial blockade imposed against Cuba, which violates all human rights.

Finally, sisters and brothers, I take this opportunity to thank all member countries for their support in the various initiatives promoted by Bolivia.

This year: The International Year of Indigenous Languages, The Declaration of the Rights of Peasants and the Declaration of June 21 as International Solstice Day.

To conclude, we ratify our commitment to consolidate a new world order of peace with social justice, in harmony with Mother Earth to Live Well [Vivir Bien], respecting the dignity and identity of the peoples.

Thank you.

Peace without demolishing caste privileges is not possible

Vidya Bhushan Rawat

Is it possible to speak of social justice and democracy without talking about the privileges of those who have looted the resources as well as exploited the social system and provided it ‘divine’ sanctity to justify the caste discrimination. I have found this biggest challenge in India from those who claim to fight for the ‘poor’. Now we should all fight for ‘peace’ and talk about ‘protecting’ the ‘nature’. Question is who is destroying the nature and how is peace possible.

Is peace possible unless there is a sense of guilt and acknowledgement of fact of exploiting nature as well as people historically. How can we protect our nature unless those who have amassed huge wealth and resources by hook or by crook, voluntarily do so. Is it possible that the crook will voluntarily leave their privileges whether they got from socially hierarchical positions, caste hierarchies or state patronage ?

We are telling the people that the end is coming. Yes, end is already there but should people stop asking question now. Should people stop seeking justice now. We know the earth is exploited but then who exploited it. Why we hesitate in naming and shaming them. The exploitation of the earth is not done by the Adivasis or indigenous people. It is not done by the Dalits. It is not exploited by the farmers. So why should all these communities be made to suffer the guilt and thuggery of those who really exploited it.

There are massive campaign against exploitation of nature. There is natural calamities now. Climate change is the real crisis but can we handle it without involving the Dalits and Adivasis in it. There is consciousness but if we all are worried about it then we need to also think of leaving our privileges. How will you do it when the meaning of economic growth is related to sale of cars and other vehicles. How will you maintain the environment, a great level of clean air and clean water if millions wash their sins ( literally) in the rivers. Ofcourse, there is dirt also going from the big factories.

Tomorrow, we will celebrate Gandhi Jayanti. There will be marches and talks. People would speak about his dreams, non violence and what not as if he was the only person who spoke about it. Will write about it in the coming days but my question is who should become non violent. How do we speak of non violence from those who are exploited for centuries. Talking and teaching non violence and peace to the communities exploited and shamed by the caste system will never bring peace. Why dont we teach peace and non violence to those who celebrate violence in every day life, in their festivals, in their every deed.

So, it is easy to preach everything to the communities who have protected our environment and our lives. Important for us to name and shame those who exploited our system. It is they who need to learn importance of non violence and peace. It is they who need to leave their privileges and not those who are being hounded out in the name of environment protection. Expose those who built big corporate resort in our forests and then talk about Adivasis encroaching those land.

So far not heard a single sentence from peace nicks about why the two Valmiki children were killed ? This is not the first case and nor will this last. The Savarna violence on Dalits continue unabated. Who should we talk about peace. Shouldnt the criminals be punished. What do you do with the community which join hands in the name of caste.

‘ We must unite’, we must end caste system, we must not segregate, it is too much they say. Please go to your village, without taking your privileged people along with you. Stay with the most marginalised, organise their meet and then see the reactions of your privileged friends you have not asked to come. Who should end caste system. Can it go by just removing surnames. Who will remove the poison in the belly ? There are good people in every caste, they say. Yes, you dont decide your caste, you did not choose your religion and that is fair enough but why dont you speak against the caste atrocities, the untouchability that these caste inflict. Why dont you stand with those who face such violence and I call it divine violence. Empty rhetoric wont work. Caste is privilege and see it, if you have sensitivity and understanding from the villages we all ‘love’ so much.

Will they go to those caste communities who still feel proud of their violence and have no shame in their misdeeds. We have not heard much from political class as well as champions of peace on any murders that are committed in the name of caste and come from those villages highly romanticised by the preacher of ‘peace’.

We Need Peace In The Middle East

John Scales Avery

We need solidarity to face future stress

Stress can produce conflict. For example shortages of food or water can lead to regional wars.  But wars only make original problems worse. Today the world is facing a number of severe problems, and solidarity will be needed to minimize the suffering with which we and future generations are threatened. The problems include shortages of fresh water, rising temperatures due to climate change, and food insecurity. These problems are especially acute in the Middle East, a region that is already torn by bitter conflicts and wars. In order to successfully minimize suffering, it is vital that peace be achieved in the Middle East. Let us look at some of the problems in detail:

Shortages of fresh water

It is estimated that two thirds of the world’s peoples currently live under water stress for at least one month each year. Half a billion people now suffer from water shortages and stress for the entire year. Half of the world’s large cities are currently plagued by water scarcity, and the situation is expected to get worse.

Under many desert areas of the world are deeply buried water tables formed during glacial periods when the climate of these regions was wetter. These regions include the Middle East and large parts of Africa. Water can be withdrawn from such ancient reservoirs by deep wells and pumping, but only for a limited amount of time.

In oil-rich Saudi Arabia, petroenergy is used to drill wells for ancient water and to bring it to the surface. Much of this water is used to irrigate wheat fields, and this is done to such an extent that Saudi Arabia exports wheat. The country is, in effect, exporting its ancient heritage of water, a policy that it may, in time, regret.

Lethal heat events

A new study by C. Mora et al., “Global Risk of Deadly Heat”, published in Nature: Climate Change, on 19 June, 2017,  has warned that up to 75% of the world’s population could face deadly heat waves by 2100 unless greenhouse gas emissions are rapidly controlled. The following is an excerpt from the article:

“Based on the climatic conditions of those lethal heat events [studied], we identified a global threshold beyond which daily mean surface air temperature and relative humidity become deadly. Around 30% of the world’s population is currently exposed to climatic conditions exceeding this deadly threshold for at least 20 days a year.

“By 2100, this percentage is projected to increase to 48% under a scenario with drastic reductions

of greenhouse gas emissions and 74% under a scenario of growing emissions. An increasing threat to human life from excess heat now seems almost inevitable, but will be greatly aggravated if greenhouse gases are not considerably reduced.”

Food insecurity

Unless efforts are made to stabilize and ultimately reduce global population, there is a serious threat that climate change, population growth, and the end of the fossil fuel era could combine to produce a large-scale famine by the middle of the 21st century.

As drought reduces food production, as groundwater levels fall in China, India, the Middle East and the United States; and as high-yield modern agriculture becomes less possible because fossil fuel inputs are lacking, the 800 million people who are currently undernourished may not survive at all.

According to a report presented to the  Oxford Institute of Economic Policy by Sir Nicholas Stern on 31 January, 2006, areas likely to lose up to 30% of their rainfall by the 2050’s because of climate change include much of the United States, Brazil, the Mediterranean region, Eastern Russia and Belarus, the Middle East, Southern Africa and Southern Australia.

Modern agriculture has become highly dependent on fossil fuels, especially on petroleum and natural gas. This is especially true of production of the high-yield grain varieties introduced in the Green Revolution, since these require especially large inputs of fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation.

Today, fertilizers are produced using oil and natural gas, while pesticides are synthesized from petroleum feedstocks, and irrigation is driven by fossil fuel energy. Thus agriculture in the developed countries has become a process where inputs of fossil fuel energy are converted into food calories. Therefore there is a threat that the end of the fossil fuel era may produce a very large-scale famine.

The end of the fossil fuel era

The fossil fuel era is ending. The extraction and use of  petroleum and natural gas must  certainly end within a century because these resources will be exhausted within a hundred years. However, we must remember that human society and the biosphere are threatened by the existential risk of catastrophic climate change unless immediate steps are taken to stop the extraction an burning of fossil fuels. Therefore, one way or another, the fossil fuel era will end. On hopes, for the sake of future generations, that it will end very quickly. The end of the fossil fuel era will have an especially great impact on the Middle East because so many economies of the region are based on oil. Ways must be found to diversify these economies.

Steps towards peace in the Middle East

One of the most important steps towards peace in the Middle East would be to guarantee the security of all the peoples and countries of the region. Perhaps a coalition of the United States, the European Union, Russia and China could act as guarantors.

A nuclear-free Middle East would be highly desirable, but difficult to achieve.

Palestinians who wish to leave Israel or Lebanon should be allowed to do so, and they should be welcomed by the Arab states of the region, where jobs for them should be provided.

These steps could help the Middle East to achieve peace, and peace is urgently needed so that the serious future problems mentioned above can be faced with solidarity.

Hypersonic Weapons and National (In)security- Why Arms Races Never End

Rajan Menon

Hypersonic weapons close in on their targets at a minimum speed of Mach 5, five times the speed of sound or 3,836.4 miles an hour. They are among the latest entrants in an arms competition that has embroiled the United States for generations, first with the Soviet Union, today with China and Russia. Pentagon officials tout the potential of such weaponry and the largest arms manufacturers are totally gung-ho on the subject. No surprise there. They stand to make staggering sums from building them, especially given the chronic “cost overruns” of such defense contracts — $163 billion in the far-from-rare case of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Voices within the military-industrial complex — the Defense Department; mega-defense companies like Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Boeing, and Raytheon; hawkish armchair strategists in Washington-based think tanks and universities; and legislators from places that depend on arms production for jobs — insist that these are must-have weapons. Their refrain: unless we build and deploy them soon we could suffer a devastating attack from Russia and China.

The opposition to this powerful ensemble’s doomsday logic is, as always, feeble.

The (il)logic of Arms Races

Hypersonic weapons are just the most recent manifestation of the urge to engage in an “arms race,” even if, as a sports metaphor, it couldn’t be more off base. Take, for instance, a bike or foot race. Each has a beginning, a stipulated distance, and an end, as well as a goal: crossing the finish line ahead of your rivals. In theory, an arms race should at least have a starting point, but in practice, it’s usually remarkably hard to pin down, making for interminable disputes about who really started us down this path. Historians, for instance, are still writing (and arguing) about the roots of the arms race that culminated in World War I.

The arms version of a sports race lacks a purpose (apart from the perpetuation of a competition fueled by an endless action-reaction sequence). The participants just keep at it, possessed by worst-case thinking, suspicion, and fear, sentiments sustained by bureaucracies whose budgets and political clout often depend on military spending, companies that rake in the big bucks selling the weaponry, and a priesthood of professional threat inflators who merchandise themselves as “security experts.”

While finish lines (other than the finishing of most life on this planet) are seldom in sight, arms control treaties can, at least, decelerate and muffle the intensity of arms races. But at least so far, they’ve never ended them and they themselves survive only as long as the signatories want them to. Recall President George W. Bush’s scuttling of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Trump administration’s exit from the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in August. Similarly, the New START accord, which covered long-range nuclear weapons and was signed by Russia and the United States in 2010, will be up for renewal in 2021 and its future, should Donald Trump be reelected, is uncertain at best. Apart from the fragility built into such treaties, new vistas for arms competition inevitably emerge — or, more precisely, are created. Hypersonic weapons are just the latest example.

Arms races, though waged in the name of national security, invariably create yet more insecurity. Imagine two adversaries neither of whom knows what new weapon the other will field. So both just keep building new ones. That gets expensive. And such spending only increases the number of threats. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, U.S. military spending has consistently and substantially exceeded China’s and Russia’s combined. But can you name a government that imagines more threats on more fronts than ours? This endless enumeration of new vulnerabilities isn’t a form of paranoia. It’s meant to keep arms races humming and the money flowing into military (and military-industrial) coffers.

One-Dimensional National Security

Such arms races come from the narrow, militarized definition of “national security” that prevails inside the defense and intelligence establishment, as well as in think tanks, universities, and the most influential mass media. Their underlying assumptions are rarely challenged, which only adds to their power. We’re told that we must produce a particular weapon (price tag be damned!), because if we don’t, the enemy will and that will imperil us all.

Such a view of security is by now so deeply entrenched in Washington — shared by Republicans and Democrats alike — that alternatives are invariably derided as naïve or quixotic. As it happens, both of those adjectives would be more appropriate descriptors for the predominant national security paradigm, detached as it is from what really makes most Americans feel insecure.

Consider a few examples.

Unlike in the first three decades after World War II, since 1979 the average U.S. hourly wage, adjusted for inflation, has increased by a pitiful amount, despite substantial increases in worker productivity. Unsurprisingly, those on the higher rungs of the wage ladder (to say nothing of those at the top) have made most of the gains, creating a sharp increase in wage inequality. (If you consider net total household wealth rather than income alone, the share of the top 1% increased from 30% to 39% between 1989 and 2016, while that of the bottom 90% dropped from 33% to 23%.)

Because of sluggish wage growth many workers find it hard to land jobs that pay enough to cover basic life expenses even when, as now, unemployment is low (3.6% this year compared to 8% in 2013). Meanwhile, millions earning low wages, particularly single mothers who want to work, struggle to find affordable childcare — not surprising considering that in 10 states and the District of Columbia the annual cost of such care exceeded $10,000 last year; and that, in 28 states, childcare centers charged more than the cost of tuition and fees at four-year public colleges.

Workers trapped in low-wage jobs are also hard-pressed to cover unanticipated expenses. In 2018, the “median household” banked only $11,700, and households with incomes in the bottom 20% had, on average, only $8,790 in savings; 29% of them, $1,000 or less. (For the wealthiest 1% of households, the median figure was $2.5 million.) Forty-four percent of American families would be unable to cover emergency-related expenses in excess of $400 without borrowing money or selling some of their belongings.

That, in turn, means many Americans can’t adequately cover periods of extended unemployment or illness, even when unemployment benefits are added in. Then there’s the burden of medical bills. The percentage of uninsured adults has risen from 10.9% to 13.7% since 2016 and often your medical insurance is tied to your job — lose it and you lose your coverage — not to speak of the high deductibles imposed by many medical insurance policies. (Out-of-pocket medical expenses have, in fact, increased fourfold since 2007 and now average $1,300 a year.)

Or, speaking of insecurity, consider the epidemic in opioid-related fatalities (400,000 people since 1999), or suicides (47,173 in 2017 alone), or murders involving firearms (14,542 in that same year). Child poverty? The U.S. rate was higher than that of 32 of the 36 other economically developed countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Now ask yourself this: how often do you hear our politicians or pundits use a definition of “national security” that includes any of these daily forms of American insecurity? Admittedly, progressive politicians do speak about the economic pressures millions of Americans face, but never as part of a discussion of national security.

Politicians who portray themselves as “budget hawks” flaunt the label, but their outrage over “irresponsible” or “wasteful” spending seldom extends to a national security budget that currently exceeds $1 trillion. Hawks claim that the country must spend as much as it does because it has a worldwide military presence and a plethora of defense commitments. That presumes, however, that both are essential for American security when sensible and less extravagant alternatives are on offer.

In that context, let’s return to the “race” for hypersonic weapons.

Faster Than a Speeding Bullet

Although the foundation for today’s hypersonic weaponry was laid decades ago, the pace of progress has been slow because of daunting technical challenges. Developing materials like composite ceramics capable of withstanding the intense heat to which such weapons will be exposed during flight leads the list. In recent years, though, countries have stepped up their games hoping to deploy hypersonic armaments rapidly, something Russia has already begun to do.

China, Russia, and the United States lead the hypersonic arms race, but others — including Britain, France, Germany, India, and Japan — have joined in (and more undoubtedly will do so). Each has its own list of dire scenarios against which hypersonic weapons will supposedly protect them and military missions for which they see such armaments as ideal. In other words, a new round in an arms race aimed at Armageddon is already well underway.

There are two variants of hypersonic weapons, which can both be equipped with conventional or nuclear warheads and can also demolish their targets through sheer speed and force of impact, or kinetic energy. “Boost-glide vehicles” (HGVs) are lofted skyward on ballistic missiles or aircraft. Separated from their transporter, they then hurtle through the atmosphere, pulled toward their target by gravity, while picking up momentum along the way. Unlike ballistic missiles, which generally fly most of the way in a parabolic trajectory — think of an inverted U — ranging in altitude from nearly 400 to nearly 750 miles high, HGVs stay low, maxing out about 62 miles up. The combination of their hypersonic speed and lower altitude shortens the journey, while theoretically flummoxing radars and defenses designed to track and intercept ballistic missile warheads (which means another kind of arms race still to come).

By contrast, hypersonic cruise missiles (HCMs) resemble pilotless aircraft, propelled from start to finish by an on-board engine. They are, however, lighter than standard cruise missiles because they use “scramjet” technology.  Rather than carrying liquid oxygen tanks, the missile “breathes” in outside air that passes through it at supersonic speed, its oxygen combining with the missile’s hydrogen fuel. The resulting combustion generates extreme heat, propelling the missile toward its target. HCMs fly even lower than HGVs, below 100,000 feet, which makes identifying and destroying them harder yet.

Weapons are categorized as hypersonic when they can reach a speed of at least Mach 5, but versions that travel much faster are in the works. A Chinese HGV, launched by the Dong Feng (East Wind) DF-ZF ballistic missile, reportedly registered a speed of up to Mach 10 during tests, which began in 2014. Russia’s Kh-47M2 Kinzhal, or “Dagger,” launched from a bomber or interceptor, can reportedly also reach a speed of Mach 10. Lockheed Martin’s AGM-183A Advanced Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW), an HGV that was first test-launched from a B-52 bomber this year, can apparently reach the staggering speed of Mach 20.

And yet it’s not just the speed and flight trajectory of hypersonic weapons that will make them so hard to track and intercept. They can also maneuver as they race toward their targets. Unsurprisingly, efforts to develop defenses against them, using low-orbit sensors, microwave technology, and “directed energy” have already begun. The Trump administration’s plans for a new Space Force that will put sensors and interceptors into space cite the threat of hypersonic missiles. Even so, critics have slammed the initiative for being poorly funded.

Putting aside the technical complexities of building defenses against hypersonic weapons, the American decision to withdraw from the ABM Treaty and develop missile-defense systems influenced Russia’s decision to develop hypersonic weapons capable of penetrating such defenses. These are meant to ensure that Russia’s nuclear forces will continue to serve as a credible deterrent against a nuclear first strike on that country.

The Trio Takes the Lead

China, Russia, and the United States are, of course, leading the hypersonic race to hell. China tested a medium-range new missile, the DF-17 in late 2017, and used an HGV specifically designed to be launched by it. The following year, that country tested its rocket-launched Xing Kong-2 (Starry Sky-2), a “wave rider,” which gains momentum by surfing the shockwaves it produces. In addition to its Kinzhal, Russia successfully tested the Avangard HGV in 2018. The SS-19 ballistic missile that launched it will eventually be replaced by the R-28 Samrat. Its hypersonic cruise missile, the Tsirkon, designed to be launched from a ship or submarine, has also been tested several times since 2015. Russia’s hypersonic program has had its failures — so has ours — but there’s no doubting Moscow’s seriousness about pursuing such weaponry.

Though it’s common to read that both Russia and China are significantly ahead in this arms race, the United States has been no laggard. It’s been interested in such weaponry — specifically HGVs — since the early years of this century. The Air Force awarded Boeing and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne a contract to develop the hypersonic X-51A WaveRider scramjet in 2004. Its first flight test — which failed (creating something of a pattern) — took place in 2010.

Today, the Army, Navy, and Air Force are moving ahead with major hypersonic weapons programs. For instance, the Air Force test-launched its ARRW from a B-52 bomber as part of its Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW) this June; the Navy tested an HGV in 2017 to further its Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) initiative; and the Army tested its own version of such a weapon in 2011 and 2014 to move its Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) program forward. The depth of the Pentagon’s commitment to hypersonic weapons became evident in 2018 when it decided to combine the Navy’s CPS, the Air Force’s HCSW, and the Army’s AHW to advance the Conventional Prompt Global Strike Program (CPGS), which seeks to build the capability to hit targets worldwide in under 60 minutes.

That’s not all. The Center for Public Integrity’s R. Jeffrey Smith reports that Congress passed a bill last year requiring the United States to have operational hypersonic weapons by late 2022. President’s Trump’s 2020 Pentagon budget request included $2.6 billion to support their development. Smith expects the annual investment to reach $5 billion by the mid-2020s.

That will certainly happen if officials like Michael Griffin, the Pentagon’s undersecretary for research and engineering, have their way. Speaking at the McAleese and Credit Suisse Defense Programs conference in March 2018, he listed hypersonic weapons as his “highest technical priority,” adding, “I’m sorry for everybody out there who champions some other high priority… But there has to be a first and hypersonics is my first.” The big defense contractors share his enthusiasm. No wonder last December the National Defense Industrial Association, an outfit that lobbies for defense contractors, played host to Griffin and Patrick Shanahan (then the deputy secretary of defense), for the initial meeting of what it called the “Hypersonic Community of Influence.”

Cassandra Or Pollyanna?

We are, in other words, in a familiar place. Advances in technology have prepared the ground for a new phase of the arms race. Driving it, once again, is fear among the leading powers that their rivals will gain an advantage, this time in hypersonic weapons. What then? In a crisis, a state that gained such an advantage might, they warn, attack an adversary’s nuclear forces, military bases, airfields, warships, missile defenses, and command-and-control networks from great distances with stunning speed.

Such nightmarish scenario-building could simply be dismissed as wild-eyed speculation, but the more states think about, plan, and build weaponry along these lines, the greater the danger that a crisis could spiral into a hypersonic war once such weaponry was widely deployed. Imagine a crisis in the South China Sea in which the United States and China both have functional hypersonic weapons: China sees them as a means of blocking advancing American forces; the United States, as a means to destroy the very hypersonic arms China could use to achieve that objective. Both know this, so the decision of one or the other to fire first could come all too easily. Or, now that the INF Treaty has died, imagine a crisis in Europe involving the United States and Russia after both sides have deployed numerous intermediate-range hypersonic cruise missiles on the continent. 

Some wonks say, in effect, Relax, hi-tech defenses against hypersonic weapons will be built, so crises like these won’t spin out of control. They seem to forget that defensive military innovations inevitably lead to offensive ones designed to negate them. Hypersonic weapons won’t prove to be the exception.

So, in a world of national (in)security, the new arms race is on. Buckle up.

Crisis of unmet need in New Zealand’s health system

Harry Hall

The New Zealand public health system is in deep crisis. After the 2017 election the Labour Party-Greens-NZ First coalition government promised an end to decades of underfunding of essential services. Instead it has continued to starve hospitals of funds and staff, while funnelling more resources into military spending. As conditions continue to worsen throughout the government’s second year in office—falsely touted as its “year of delivery” on election pledges—Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s claims to be “transformational” stand exposed as a lie.

New Zealand is divided into District Health Boards (DHBs), which are under constant government pressure to be in surplus, despite rundown hospital buildings, growing demand and stagnant funding. Nineteen of the country’s 20 DHBs are in deficit, with the health system’s total deficit more than doubling over the last year.

An analysis by the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists and the Council of Trade Unions estimated that health funding is $139 million less than what is required to cope with this year’s increased costs and population growth. They concluded that the health system urgently needs an extra $2.5 billion to return to the funding levels of 10 years ago.

In August, Health Minister David Clark blamed the previous National Party government’s neglect, but then demanded further cuts: “Some DHBs manage to post small surpluses, break even or only post small deficits while maintaining services. It can be done,” he told the media.

Underfunding affects all areas of the health system and has resulted in many cases of serious harm, including deaths.

In mental health, the suicide rate has reached an all-time high despite the government holding a mental health inquiry and approving $1.9 billion in extra mental health funding. The rate for Pacific Islanders, among the poorest people in New Zealand, rose by an extraordinary 48 percent over the past year. Of the nearly $2 billion in extra funding, only $10 million per year is in suicide prevention.

Although the government has announced it will train 1,600 new mental health workers over the next five years, it is not clear that they will recruit enough workers to meet demand. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions says specialist mental health services are still being underfunded by $55 million, taking population growth into account.

Maria Baker, chief executive of indigenous health organisation Te Rau Ora, told Newsroom, “socio-economic deprivation is a major issue for us,” and getting people out of poverty would make the most difference to suicide rates. Poverty and inequality have continued to soar under the Labour-led government.

There is a dire lack of treatment for cancer patients. A damning report commissioned for Southern DHB found that it had the country’s highest rates of bowel cancer, but the lowest rate of colonoscopies.

Report co-author Dr Phil Bagshaw said the DHB had “lost the war against bowel cancer.” A review of 20 cases found that 10 had undue delay to diagnosis or treatment. Patients have been denied procedures and medication despite clear signs they may have cancer, forcing them to wait for months or pay for care in private hospitals. Some have resorted to crowd-funding to access medicines that are not subsidised by the government’s drug funding agency Pharmac.

Southern DHB’s only neurosurgeon Dr Ahmed Taha says patients are also at risk because of a drastic shortage of specialist staff. “We have experienced a few unfortunate incidents where I was not covering where patients lost lives,” he recently told Radio NZ. Taha says that 30–40 percent of New Zealand’s 22 neurosurgeons in public hospitals may retire over the next 10 years. It takes 10 to 15 years to train a consultant-level surgeon, but New Zealand has not trained one for the last 10 years.

New Zealand is in the midst of a major measles outbreak, with more than 1,443 confirmed cases as of September 24. Of these, 1,203 are in the Auckland region, with the centre of the outbreak in economically deprived South Auckland. On September 27, Stuff reported that many children are “being turned away from pop-up clinics and GP offices” due to a shortage of vaccines.