The complex dance of Middle Eastern politics just got even more complicated

With Trump sucking all the oxygen out of the media room, it's easy to forget that there are other things going on around the world, some of them almost as bad as what Trump is bringing.

For instance, did you know that Saudi Arabia is currently bombing the United Arab Emirates. Sounds improbable, right? Saudi and UAE are anti-Iran allies, no? It's not just that UAE and Saudi Arabia are majority Sunni Muslim countries, while Iran is largely Shia. But both countries are strongly opposed to Iran's regional influence, and its support for insurgent groups like the Houthis in Yemen.

So, why would the Saudi Royal Air force be dropping bombs on UAE troops in the Yemeni port city of Mukalla. Well, it turns out that UAE is also supporting, financially and militarily, the Southern Transitional Council (STC), the secessionist group that has effectively carved out a statelet in South Yemen, right on Saudi Arabia's southern border. 

The Saudis have been fighting against Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen since 2015 in a kind of Sunni-Shia proxy war. The STC's call for an independent Yemeni state has complicated an already difficult situation

But when Saudi Arabia recently found out that UAE was sending armoured vehicles and heavy weaponry to the STC, it decided to intervene in dramatic fashion. Rightly or wrongly, the Saudi kingdom views the presence of a separatist entity on its southern border as an existential threat. 

The Saudi attack was clearly strong enough to force UAE forces to quit Mukalla completely, and its personnel were seen in a rather chaotic retreat out of the area. The Riyadh-backed National Shield Forces (Daraa al-Watan) has moved into the vacuum created. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is also somewhere in the mix, looking to capitalize on any confusion and dissent. Man, Middle Eastern politics is complicated!

Surprisingly, the Trump administration has had nothing to say about all this. It's not clear if they are even aware of it. Israel is of course worried that the once monumental Arabic anti-Iran front now appears fractured and fighting among themselves. The complex dance that is the Middle East has just made another pirouette.

Trump seems to be serious about Greenland

After Venezuela, what next? There seems no end to Trump's megalomaniac imperialist tendencies, and his administration seems completely unwilling or unable to reign him in.

So: Colombia? Cuba? Greenland? Iran? Mexico? Canada? Trump talked about all of these countries and "failed states" in an unhinged presser after the Venezuela coup.

Perhaps the most likely next target is Greenland, and this has set alarm bells ringing like no other. Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, has been since 1814. It is therefore part of the European Union and part of NATO. 

And there's the rub. A major member of the NATO alliance claiming the sovereign territory of another member is uncharted territory, and may well spell the beginning of the end of the alliance. As Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen put it, "If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops". Trump appears not to care about that prospect, but the rest of the world certainly does. And the likes of Russia and China definitely care. The alliance seems all but paralyzed at the moment, uncertain how seriously to take Trump's threats.

The answer is "very seriously". In a late night Truth Social post, Trump has declared that Greenland is now an American "protectorate", and who is to say him nay? If he says it, is it true? No-one was ever quite sure if Trump planned to acquire Greenland, which he insists he "needs" for national security reasons, by force, coercion or just by buying off the population with bribes. But maybe he doesn't need to resort to any of those tactics.

Trump has repeatedly said that the US needs Greenland "for defense", and that it is "covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place". And the USA does have a military base there, focussing on missile detection and space surveillance. But many analysts think that Trump's obsessiveness about Greenland is more to do with its natural resources, particularly rare earth minerals.

A complicating factor is that a majority of Greenlanders do in fact support seceding from Denmark. But an even greater majority rejects the idea of becoming part of the US. 

Militarily, neither Denmark nor any other NATO would be able to resist the USA. As one European official out it: "We're won't be able to defend Greenland. Are you kidding?" But, as the German Foreign Minister pointed out recently, technically Greenland falls under Article 5 of the NATO agreement, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all, and the other members are obliged to respond. So, NATO would be at war with the USA?

Politically and diplomatically, many countries are making their positions clear. Just yesterday, the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and Denmark came together to issue a joint statement saying, "Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations". Even Canada's notoriously circumspect Prime Minister Mark Carney has come out publicly to say that "the future of Greenland is a decision for Greenland and Denmark exclusively", and moved to establish a new Canadian consulate on the island.

All of this is if course true, but what is the practical import of such declarations? None of the tub-thumping coming from other supportive members is realistically going to have any impact at all on a man who only hears what he wants to hear, and who is oblivious to any normal logical, or even legal, arguments. 

The indications of Trump's intentions have been there all along. At first, it seemed like a throwaway line, poor-taste joke of the kind he excels in, kind of like calling Canada the 51st state. But sometimes those jokes become real threats. Next he despatched Trump Jr. to do a recce of the place, needless of the bad optics. Then he installed Louisian Governor Jeff Landry as his "special envoy" to Greenland (Landry calls it a "volunteer position to make Greenland a part of the US"). And now Stephen Miller's annoying wife is posting pictures of Greenland swathed in the Stars and Stripes on X. The writing seems to be on the wall of a thousand Facebook accounts.

If Trump play his trump card by tying US possession of Greenland to American security guarantees for Ukraine, and even interrupting intelligence sharing and weapons sales to the Ukraine cause, as some suggest he is likely to do in the next few days, then NATO'S goose is all but cooked. What a mess!

Realpolitik trumps principles in reactions to Venezuelan invasion

International reaction to Trump's latest outrage - the US invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of its president (and his wife!) - has been predictably mixed.

Russia and China, of course, publicly condemned it out of hand, calling it "an act of armed aggresssion", although they are doubtless rubbing their hands in glee in private as Trump is engaging in just the kind of cynical and illegal unilateral action and regime change they themselves would like to enact in Ukraine and Taiwan. Anything that works to normalize such actions, however illegal they technically are, is a step in their favour.

Iran, which has its own worries about American aggression, also came out strongly, calling Trump's move a "flagrant violation of the country's national sovereignty".

Most Latin American leaders, painfully conscious of their "there but for the grace of God go we" situation, also condemned the invasion. Brazil's Lula saying that it "crossed an line", and marked "the first step toward a world of violence, chaos and instability". Colombia's Gustavo Petro, who must be worried that he might be next after Trump's recent comments, called it "an assault on the sovereignty"of Latin America. Venezuelan ally Cuba's Diaz-Canel, also himself firmly in Trump's crosshairs, called the act "a criminal attack".

More distant South American countries could afford to be a bit more concilatory. Chile's Boric contented himself with a relatively innocuous and non-specific "concern and condemnation" comment. Uruguay similarly talked about "attention and serious concern", although it "rejects, as it always has, military intervention". Trump buddy and fellow right-wing populist Javier Milei of Argentina, other other hand, positively gushed in Orwellian fashion about "freedom moves forward" and "long live freedom".

Ditto with Israeli Prime Minister and best buddy Benjamin Netanyahu, who enthused about Trump's "bold and historic leadership on behalf of freedom and justice". But what would he know about "freedom and justice", and who would ever expect him to criticize Trump on anything.

In Europe, there was a mixed bag of reactions, mainly involving platitudes about respecting international law, but tempered with a recognition that Maduro was indeed a bad man. France's Macron, so often a critic of Trump, said that the transition of power "must be peaceful, democratic and respectful of the will of the Venezuelan people", even though it clearly hasn't been. Germany's Merz claimed that the legality of the US operation was "complex" (er, not really) and that international law in general must apply (er, that ship has already sailed).

Top EU diplomat Kaja Kallas merely repeated the EU'S theoretical position that Maduro lacked legitimacy, but that there should be a peaceful transition of power and that the principles of interational law should be respected (once again, they haven't been - why do they not come out and say so). 

The UK's Keir Starmer, whose tenure had been marked by his rather pusillanimous collaborationist approach to Trump, refused to be drawn on the matter of international law (of which he claimed to be a "lifelong advocate"), and was at pains to distance the UK from any involvement in the strikes. He too would like to see a "safe and peaceful transaition to a legitimate government that reflects the will of the Venezuelan people". Well, yes, but what about the fact that somebody just militarily invaded an independent sovereign country and abducted its president.

Norway's foreign minister came closest to outright European criticism: "The American intervention in Venezuela is not in accordance with international law". Quite. The UN's Antonio Guterres' spokeperson, for his part, said that he is "deeply concerned that the rules of international law have not been respected", and that the American intervention sets a dangerous precedent". Quite, quite. 

And Canada? "Canada calls on all parties to respect international law and we stand by the people of Venezuela and their desire to live in a peaceful and democratic society" (from Foreign Minister Anand). "Canada attaches great importance to resolution of crises through multilateral emgagement, and is in close contact with international partners about ongoing developments" (from Prime Minister Carney). Well, it doesn't get much more vague, safe, non-committal and middle-of-the-road than that, does it? I think they are being especially careful because, if America takes control of Venezuela's huge reserves of heavy crude oil and sanctions are dropped, it may well reduce its imports of Canadian heavy crude oil.

Basically, the reactions were largely predictable, and based on the extent to which various countries feel able to criticize Trump, and the extent to which they are scared of him and his reaction to their reactions. There has been very little in the way of principled criticism of an illegal attack on a sovereign state by a rogue actor whose behaviour is lurching further and further from international norms. Realpolitik rules the day in the age of Trump.

America itself is, as ever, split along ideological lines, with Republicans and the right-wing press stressing that this was a bold but necessary "law enforcement" action, tied to longstanding drug-trafficking charges laid against Maduro. Democrats see it more as an illegal imperialistic regime change campaign, and more about Venezuela's oil reserves than drugs. (In his more unguarded moments, Trump has publicly admitted it's really all about the oil, in case anyone was in any doubt.)

"The President does not have unilateral authority to invade foreign countries, oust their governments, and seize their resources" was one typical comment from a Democratic congressman. On the other hand, "President Trump used his constitutional authority to arrest Maduro and save American lives" sums up the Republican take on the events. Or, as Secretary of state Marco Rubio puts it, "We're not going to allow the Western Hemisphere to be a base of operations for adversaries, competitors nd rivals of the United States", suggesting that they see the whole of the Americas as belonging under the US's "sphere of influence" (i.e. control). This will do nothing to unite this hopelessly divided country, that's for sure.

There is even division within Venezuela. The official line is that this was a "cowardly kidnapping", although acting president Delcy Rodriguez seems resigned to "working with" (i.e. obeying) Trump, particularly given Trump's overt threats against her if she doesn't toe the American line, despite her combative tones in public). Many Venezuelans opposed to Maduro see it as a positive change that would not have happened any other way. But many others hate the way it occurred, and still others worry that it will destabilize the country even more than before. A smooth and peaceful transition seems extremely unlikely according to most analysts.

Like the world needs more instability right now...

UPDATE

And just for good measure, here is part of the text of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, to which the USA is a signatory:

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security amd justice are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

'Nuff said.

New Finch West LRT not so rapid

The Finch West LRT (Line 6) opened a couple of weeks ago to a certain amount of fanfare. After all, it was the first rapid transit line to open in Toronto since the Sheppard subway line (aka the Sheppard Stubway, for its short and largely redundant route) over two decades ago. Line 6 began construction in 2016, nearly 10 years after it was first proposed. And it opened before the beleaguered Eglinton Line 5, which was begun 5 years earlier. Things take a long time to get built in Toronto...

The new light rail line runs 10.3 km from the Yonge subway line at Finch West station to Humber College north station in Toronto's far northwest. It was designed to link some of Toronto's more needy suburbs to the main subway system, and to improve the long commute downtown. It runs above ground on the central median of busy Finch Avenue and incorporates 18 stops.

But it also opened to a lot of criticism, mainly for its slowness. Part of the problem is that, although the line is segregated from the regular traffic, it does not take advantage of any signal priority, so it is often to be found idling at traffic lights. It also doesn't seem to go very fast even when it is able to, and is constantly overtaken by cars and even the buses it is designed to largely replace. It was theoretically supposed to complete the 10km route in about 34 minutes; in practice, it takes 55-60 minutes.

To underline this slowness, runner Mac Bauer, who blogs under the name 514runner, and has made a name for himself running - and beating - Toronto's streetcars, raced the Finch LRT on foot and beat it by a healthy 18 minutes (that day, the LRT took an hour and four minutes to complete the 10.3 km route).

Now, I'm pretty sure that Mac didn't bother waiting for the traffic lights, but his stunt certainly shone a light on the challenges of the new LRT, and Toronto's transit system in general.

Does a liberal arts education set you up for modern-day employment?

Recent US data suggests that a liberal arts education may not be such a bad thing after all as regards employment prospects, flying in the face of coventional wisdom.

For example, art history graduates are more likely to be employed than computer engineering grads (3% unemployment, compared to 7.5%). The theory is that liberal arts graduates are more adaptable and flexible, able to move between different job types and industries. They also tend to be more creative and willing to think outside the box than computer science geeks (sorry, grads).

Other research papers suggest that jobs requiring AI tools are much more likely to require social, cognitive, language and interpersonal skills, all areas in which arts graduates supposedly excel, and computing graduates most definitely do not.

It all seems a bit improbable to me, but that's what we're told. Certainly, my 30-year old daughter has many friends who are in full employment, but the only ones who are buying houses are coding and computer science specialists...

Canadian cities triumph in new sustainability index

Well, this is surprising. A new ranking of the greenest and most sustainable cities in the world has three Canadian cities in the top ten, with one Canadian city right at the top of the pile.

The Green Cities Index, by Dutch sustainability experts Reinders Corporation (whoch makes industrial climate systems, dehumidifiers, etc), takes into account accessibility of green space per capita, renewable energy usage, air quality, public transportation efficiency, bikeability, and a few other measures. It shows Vancouver at No. 1, above the likes of Oslo, Stockholm and Copenhagen. Montreal is at No 7, and hometown Toronto comes in at No. 9.

I don't think of our cities as being in the same league as many European cities as regards suatainability, so this comes as quite a (pleasant) surprise. Vancouver scored particularly highly on green space and renewable energy, and had the best air quality in the study (this was presumably measured outside of wildfire season).

The full top 10 is:

1. Vancouver, Canada
2. Oslo Norway
3. Stockholm, Sweden
4. Munich, Germany
5. Zurich, Switzerland
6. Copenhagen, Denmark
7. Montreal, Canada
8. Sam Francisco, USA
9. Toronto Canada
10. London, UK

Interestingly, although the findings are reported by several media outlets, I can't find a link to the original Reinders index. Also interesting that a similar exercise by Canadian sustainability organization Corporate Knights has Vancouver down at No. 10, Toronto at No. 15, and, yes, the Scandinavian cities at the top.

What is fire?

So, here's a question: what actually is fire? Of course, everyone knows what fire is. We've known since the Stone Age, right?

Well, yes and no. We might think we know what fire is because it's so familiar. But scientifically, it's kind of hard to pin down.

Clearly, it's not a solid or a liquid. So, maybe a gas? The flames of a fire do involve hot gas products, which rise because they are less dense than the surrounding cooler air. But the flames we see are actually burning soot (burned particles of carbon) that glows yellow-orange because of the high temperatures. However, the flames only exist while the fire is burning, and don't exist in a stable state on their own. They can't be collected in a jar like CO2 or water vapour, and so they are not a gas.

How about plasma, the fourth state of matter? Plasma is like a soup of charged particles, electrons and ionized atoms. It's possible there might be enough ionized atoms in the hottest part of the most intense fires to qualify as a kind of weak plasma, but fire as a whole does not behave as a plasma.

In fact, it turns out that fire is not matter at all. Fire is a process, a kind of chemical reaction called combustion, which requires fuel (something to burn), oxygen, and an initial spark or heat source. Interestingly, it seems that fire - with visible oxygen-fuelled flames - is unique to Planet Earth (or so this Science Alert article claims, although this seems improbable to me).

Who is Kevin Hassett and why is he the front-runner for Fed Chair?

I confess I'd never even heard of Kevin Hassett until just recently, when he's suddenly the front-runner - possibly the only runner-  for the job of director the United States Federal Reserve (the Fed), one of the most powerful positions in the USA.

Well, it used to be a powerful position. Under Trump 2.0 it may well be demoted to the status of a largely ceremonial quango. Never shy of controversy, Donald Trump has publicly stated that "Anybody that disagrees with me will never be the Fed Chairman". Chilling stuff. Of course, Hassett is on record as saying that Trump would have "no weight" in interest rate decisions, but everyone knows differently: under Trump, the Fed's sole job is to reduce interest rates.

But, even more chilling is that there was a time - a time that lasted decades - when Hassett would definitely not have fit the mould for Trump's Fed director. See, he used to be an outspoken proponent of free trade and of the economic necessity for immigration. But then, suddenly, he seems to have experienced a Paulian conversion to isolationism, tariffs and the mass deportation of immigrants, coincidentally the very same policies that Trump espouses. His ex-friends and colleagues say they don't recognize the man.

So, what happened to disabuse him of beliefs he has held most of his adult life? Hassett himself says "I signed up with Trump knowing that some in my party might never forgive me ... I did so because Trump saw truths in plain sight ignored by politicial professionals and coastal elites". Eeeuww! 

So, is Trump's economic vision so very compelling? (Most economists disagree with it.) Is Trump just really that persuasive? Does he have some sort of a hold over Hassett? Or is Hassett either so submissive or so nakedly ambitious that he is willing to sacrifice all his beliefs and principles to get to the top of the pile (or what passes for the top of the pile under Trump)?

Hassett was a Colombia University Business School professor and an advisor to George Bush John McCain and Mitt Romney before joining Trump's National Economic Council. There are those, even within the Trump administration, who maintain that Hassett does not deserve the top Fed job anyway, particularly as he has not been at all effective as head of the National Economic Council. They say that all Hassett did at the NEC was to serve as a public messenger for Trump's agenda, without personally contributing to driving policy at all.

But, wait, that's EXACTLY the brief for Trump's Chair of the Federal Reserve. Hassett will be perfect!