Welcome to a New Year and a new season of Kellogg’s Global Politics!
As funding for Ukraine has been held up by negotiations on the US Border Crisis, we take a deep dive into the recent history and the current status of immigration to the United States through its Southern border..
We then turn to the Middle East and concerns over the increase in military violence throughout the region and the implications of the escalating threat of war with Iran.
Finally, we discuss the latest in East Asia and whether there might be an increased chance of war with North Korea. We also look at the implications of the recent Taiwanese presidential elections.
Topics Discussed in this Episode
Articles and Resources Mentioned in Episode
US Border Crisis
Middle East Spiraling Out of Control?
North Korea Preparing for War?
Taiwan’s Election
Follow Us
Welcome to a New Year and a new season of Kellogg’s Global Politics!
As funding for Ukraine has been held up by negotiations on the US Border Crisis, we take a deep dive into the recent history and the current status of immigration to the United States through its Southern border..
We then turn to the Middle East and concerns over the increase in military violence throughout the region and the implications of the escalating threat of war with Iran.
Finally, we discuss the latest in East Asia and whether there might be an increased chance of war with North Korea. We also look at the implications of the recent Taiwanese presidential elections.
Topics Discussed in this Episode
Articles and Resources Mentioned in Episode
US Border Crisis
Middle East Spiraling Out of Control?
North Korea Preparing for War?
Taiwan’s Election
Follow Us
Anita Kellogg: [00:00:00] Welcome to Kellogg's Global Politics, a podcast on current events in U. S. foreign policy and international affairs. My name is Dr. Anita Kellogg, an international relations scholar specializing in the relationship between economics and national security. I'm here with my co host Ryan Kellogg, an expert in energy investment and policy.
Ryan Kellogg: Thanks, I'm glad to be back. This is episode 42, and we're recording this on January 21st, 2024.
Anita Kellogg: Welcome to a new year and a new [00:00:30] season of Kellogg's Global Politics. As funding for Ukraine has been held up by negotiations on the U. S. border crisis, we take a deep dive into the recent history and current status of immigration to the United States through its southern border.
We then turn to the Middle East in concerns over the increase in military violence throughout the region and the implications of an escalating threat of war with Iran. Finally, we discuss the latest on East Asia and whether there might be an increased chance of war with North Korea. [00:01:00] We also look at the implications of the recent Taiwanese presidential elections.
So, like most people in the country, we have had quite a few snow days this week.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, yeah, no, we certainly have. I mean, it's been a real break for our, our daughter and to all the kids of the DMV area. Basically getting the entire week off of school, which is the dream when you're a middle school student, for sure.
That was definitely my dream. I never got, I don't remember a lot of snow [00:01:30] days or that many snow days in a row in North Carolina where I got the whole week off. That would have been pretty awesome.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I can't remember. At
Ryan Kellogg: all. Yeah. The joys of living in the South. Not enough, not enough snow. But if you get any snow, it basically shuts down things completely, which I think here is, is kind of a blend where it's like they have slightly more capability than the deep South, like a little bit more.
So basically anything shuts it down. But there can [00:02:00] be snow on the ground and them have to go back to school. I don't remember a lot of that in North Carolina, like the snow had to have been completely melted. And then you had to go back to school.
Anita Kellogg: But I will say, I'm surprised that it isn't a little more like the North, how it's more like the South.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And even in Maryland, which I really associate with the beginning of the North.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah. Because technically it is. [00:02:30] No, no,
Ryan Kellogg: no. It's not. Well, complicated. Yeah. Mason Dixon line, technically the border between Pennsylvania and Maryland and slavery was still allowed in Maryland but it was part of the union.
That was kind of their why they joined and you couldn't have Washington DC surrounded by Confederate States. So, they had to give Maryland something and that's what they gave Maryland.
Anita Kellogg: Huh. I guess I didn't realize that. Yeah.
Ryan Kellogg: Yep. [00:03:00] So makes sense. It's it's in between, but yeah, I would expect it to be a little bit more robust, although I mean, man, the sidewalks here are pretty well salted and even the nature trail here.
Anita Kellogg: No, it's not salted. Well, I was slipping on it yesterday.
Ryan Kellogg: Not well, but large parts of it are. I think in the south. I mean, one, if there are sidewalks. They would not be salted down at all and everything would just be completely slippery. But I felt like overall you got 80 percent coverage at least. [00:03:30] Not on the nature trail.
Oh, not on the nature trail. Yeah, yeah. No. Yeah, they did a good job the first snowfall clearing it, but then didn't keep up with it.
Anita Kellogg: Didn't do much, yeah. Yeah, yeah. But we had a fun walk the first day it was snowing. We walked the nature trail and that was fun. Yep. We bribed our daughter with McDonald's.
Cause that's at the end of the The part of the nature trail we usually go on. Yeah.
Ryan Kellogg: That's the only way to get her to, to take a walk. Snow isn't good for packing. Bad. No snowmen out there. Yeah, no snowball. Even though [00:04:00] the news made a big deal about the snowball fight and the National Mall, that that was a thing, but I, I do not know unless you go six miles south of here and that snow was completely different characteristics.
It could be. That thing was not packing into. It could be a little wetter. I think it had to be a little wetter. It was very dry powdery. Yeah.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. Teleworking meetings were fun this week because everybody was dealing with their kids. So, there were, there were a lot of [00:04:30] interruptions. And, parents trying to tell their kids one thing and then tell the person in the meeting another thing and getting it kind of confused
Ryan Kellogg: and I don't know.
Okay. This is with like the, the cameras on or? Yeah, camera's on. Yeah, so the kid would make an appearance and
Anita Kellogg: Either make an appearance or those one where she was like, Okay, I'm trying to tell my kid to no and tell you yes at the same time. Yeah, yeah. So things like that. That's funny. So anyway, made teleworking interesting.
Ryan Kellogg: Throwbacks to COVID days,
Anita Kellogg: [00:05:00] yeah. Although now it's, everyone is like, you don't ever really, Adults don't get snow days because of teleworking. Yeah, yeah. Where they used to. Although some of the students said that they, when you work with confidential information, then you get snow days.
Ryan Kellogg: Oh, cause you can't go into the what's that called?
Skiff. The Skiff, yeah, yeah. Yep. Yeah, the Skiff, I only came familiar with that from those UFO hearing discussions. Yeah. Had no idea what a Skiff [00:05:30] was until they mentioned that a lot in those hearings. And then, of course, the UFO podcast I listened to. Which I have not, but I did listen to it recently. Just because obviously Congress, Congress is too dysfunctional to do fun things like the UFO hearings anymore.
Anita Kellogg: We're back to UFOs. I had a classroom right, that was next to a skiff, and like one day the white noise just totally wiped us out. Like we couldn't hear each other talk
Ryan Kellogg: because it was right next door. Oh, okay. Yeah, [00:06:00] and I assume it's like, my only experience with the white noise thing is like in the courtroom.
Mm. I assume it's something like that, where it just kind of blocks out. Something like that. Hearing from a certain distance. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's
Anita Kellogg: cool. Yeah. So anyway, on with the show? Yep. Alright, so we wanted to begin with the U. S. border crisis as it's become known. And why don't you take it away? [00:06:30]
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, so we wanted to cover this issues because Republicans made the decision last fall when the refunding for the Ukraine war came up to link it, link that funding to US border security.
And of course, this has been a hot button issue for Republicans for the last three or four election cycles, at least. So, essentially, [00:07:00] in order to, to move forward, in order to bring it to the House for vote there's been a general push for having some major concessions given on the current border policy.
And I think, , especially what House Republicans are seeking is to go back to the Trump era policies. Which really focused on limiting the and virtually eliminating asylum seeking, which of course has been [00:07:30] around since World War II and just kind of it has international stipulations on the rights for people, , given certain categories of persecution or fear of persecution to seek refuge in, in
The due process when a person is, , apprehended at the border , where they're held until an immigration lawyer can review it, or if an immigration lawyer [00:08:00] can even, , even has the right to review the case. Right. So I think what they want to return to and what, , like Marjorie Taylor Greene was talking about because she is looking to reject the the Senate bill that was actually negotiated over this past week between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, led by James Lanford has a number of compromises.
On the Democratic side Republican senators, including like Mitch McConnell, are pushing the [00:08:30] House to adopt this resolution that this is going to be the best that they can possibly get in any sort of realistic situation where the Senate needs 60 votes in order to pass legislation that if a Trump is reelected in 2025, there's no way that they're going to get it.
Get something this good, , from, from what they want to accomplish in terms of, of border security.
Anita Kellogg: So what were some of those
Ryan Kellogg: compromises? Yeah, so the compromise is really, I mean, one is around the [00:09:00] asylum system, and that's making it more difficult for migrants to claim asylum. It involves expanding the detention and the expulsion authorities.
This is the whole, , getting more boots on the ground. At the border in order to process the number of cases, because I think that's where the real crisis has been. It's a number of people showing up on a per month basis. It's then having the sufficient detention facilities for those that are.
Determined, , that [00:09:30] that can't be expelled immediately and a lot of it, the reason that , you're having an increased number held in detention as opposed to immediate expulsion is the end of the Title 42, which essentially was put in place during the Trump era is actually something looked at prior to COVID 19 because it involves health restrictions, but it just gives Homeland Security kind of a instant reason to, to reject claims towards, towards asylum and to be able [00:10:00] to, basically so they're forced to go back into Mexico immediately.
You can immediately expel them either to Mexico or to their country of origin.
Anita Kellogg: I thought that a court ruled that Title 42 can't be used outside of like a health pandemic.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, it can, and that's why it ended when the COVID national emergency ended back in May. Now what was attempted prior to COVID 19 was [00:10:30] Stephen Miller explored the approach of using, I think there was like an outbreak of smallpox or something that they tried to link to immigrants.
So it was a widespread crisis per se, but they wanted to use any sort of excuse of disease. It has to be linked to disease spreading. That was the, that was the theory, and they, of course, had already explored it, so they immediately put Title 42 in place when COVID
Anita Kellogg: happened. Right, so, but in this compromise, they're going to use Title 42, or?[00:11:00]
No, no,
Ryan Kellogg: no, no, this is just a, yeah, this is the, the reason that they need more detention facilities. Huh. Is because Title 42 is no longer in place. Oh, right. Okay. So, just the, the processing, and, and in a lot of cases, what's been happening is that previously under the Trump administration, the asylum migrants were required to stay in Mexico or their country of origin while the judicial immigration [00:11:30] courts considered their application for asylum.
And that's what that's what the Trump administration wants to return to what you saw under under Biden. What's been ongoing is that they have a right to stay in the US until they see it is as long as they claim that right? Because that's that's a whole other thing is that the asylum seeker has to claim when they are arrested or detained that they are seeking asylum.
With or without a lawyer. You don't have to have a [00:12:00] lawyer in order to do this, but they have to actually claim that right to asylum to start the process. This course has created problems as we've seen, , just the sheer scale of it. And part of the scale is due to the it's due to multiple different reasons.
But one is the, the pent up demand. So obviously the demand was very suppressed during the four years of the Trump administration. So when Biden was elected, a lot of people saw this as an opportunity that. to either because of political persecution, because [00:12:30] of fear of gang violence, because of economic hardship, wanted to leave their country, so they took the opportunity to do so, to seek asylum, and then, Because we're no longer doing the go back to Mexico policy while they waited for immigration lawyers.
Those are now within the U. S. That, of course, creates issues if individual cities aren't prepared. And that's why, like in New York City, you've had 116, 000 migrants enter in to the city over the [00:13:00] last, year or two and they've been, they've had trouble housing them because the other thing that, , some of these sanctuary cities have stipulated New York city in particular, is that they have a right to housing.
They have they've kind of I mean. In a lot of ways it's kind of beautiful because I feel like New York City actually is living up to the Statue of Liberty, the poem. I mean it is truly the huddled masses. These are people that are desperate. I think in, [00:13:30] unlike other previous surges of, of migration, it is families.
So it's a lot of people with, , it's women and children and New York is, is housing them at great expense. They're getting, a lot of this is coming out of the city budget. It's, it's 12 billion. It's kind of the projection over three years. So it's like 4 billion a year. That's a lot for a city budget, even the size of, of New York.
They're getting, A little bit of support from the federal government, they're going to get about a billion [00:14:00] from the state, but that's what's really led to, especially, I think, over the summer , the crisis in terms of housing and when you saw the pictures of them outside the Roosevelt Hotel , sleeping on the sidewalk and things like that, that they have been able to, to house them but it's still been, it's been a struggle for cities that aren't necessarily set up to deal with that number of migrants.
Anita Kellogg: Right. Yep. Definitely. I mean, in one way, like, I kind of, the whole busing issue [00:14:30] and sending them to sanctuary cities, I mean, on one hand, I'm almost a little sympathetic to that, because all these border communities have to take on all this cost themselves. Right. And so, it's, one, it's the manner in which they do it.
, not explaining to the asylum seekers themselves what's going on and making it easy for them to meet their court dates, which, because if they're sent to a totally different city than where their court case is supposed to be [00:15:00] held, it adds this huge complication. I mean, I think the way it's been done is very poor, but I think that I just have some empathy with forcing border towns to have to deal with this.
And now we can see, like, when they send it to all these other cities without really the infrastructure for immigration, like, how difficult that is. Yeah,
Ryan Kellogg: yeah, and I think in particular it's, it's [00:15:30] difficult because the way that the refugee process is currently set up as well in terms of, of work permits.
Anita Kellogg: Yes, that's a
Ryan Kellogg: real. Yeah, so they, they basically in the first six months, , upon submitting the application, they are not eligible for a work permit. And then even after that, it's not guaranteed they'll get a work permit in six months because that application process is so backlogged, it could take several years.
So essentially they're, they are on the dole. Especially in a [00:16:00] city like. New York, which is very generously. I mean, they've put limits on the housing, , the time that they can stay in a shelter, but, , they qualify for Medicaid. They qualify for public school. They qualify for food assistance.
All this, , it does come at a cost,
Anita Kellogg: right? And it, it makes no sense that we have to put in the cost of taking care of them without them having any ability to , like we have to feed them and house them and clothe them because they [00:16:30] don't have the means to do it themselves because we've told them they can't work.
Ryan Kellogg: Right, and I think what makes it especially, and I , we've talked about this before years ago, , when it seemed to be more, , there was a surplus of, of low skilled labor, but since COVID, it's been the exact opposite. I mean, one of the biggest thing, one of the things currently still driving inflation is higher wages, particularly at that, that bottom 10%.
And you can, [00:17:00] yeah, obviously everybody complains on the lack of, , lack of help at, at a Walmart, or a checkout line, or in a restaurant, or all these places that, that these migrant workers could easily
Anita Kellogg: fill. Right. And have filled in the past. Right. I mean, maybe we'll get into the history of it, but one reason why there was so much illegal 90s and early 2000s is because the country looked the [00:17:30] other way when businesses went down.
To basically collect whole communities to come and work for them and there's all kinds of problems with that But that's where so much of that labor used to come from and without having it then you get to where you have these shortages driving up both the cost of labor and the prices then of what's being produced and certain things [00:18:00] that But that even higher wages aren't really addressing not enough construction crews, right?
And there's the problem with having enough housing on the market, which we know there's not a lot of inventory, but they're constrained by building new houses by the fact of there's less construction crews available anymore.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. And then the cost of building those houses go up as well. So, even with the new housing, that's [00:18:30] And it can be pretty expensive.
Mm hmm.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah. So it leads to a lot of economic problems that the U. S. used to I don't agree that it should be illegal immigration. I, I think we have all these asylum seekers. It makes, it makes a lot of sense to have a legal process for it. I mean, the problem with illegal immigration is they were subject to terrible work conditions.
But certainly there's a demand and a need for these workers. And we have the ability to fulfill that demand. And [00:19:00] when I looked at, like, numbers for refugees, , who don't have very good English skills a lot of times, and get all the same benefits, but their economic contributions, right, starting with these low level jobs, and then usually their children getting education, and, and some of them, , being our Nobel Peace Prize starting businesses But contribute, , 400 times fold than whatever economic aid that they possibly get from the [00:19:30] state.
They are huge contributors to the economy. They help grow the communities. And you could see if asylum seekers were given the right to work earlier, how they might be making these contributions to communities rather than being a burden upon them.
Ryan Kellogg: But I think it goes back to there's no real political appetite to, to resolve this issue.
I think in particular around giving [00:20:00] asylum seekers kind of the right to work. Republicans have basically come out and stated they don't want to do that because that creates more incentive for more of them to come. It's better to round them up and, and kick them out of the country. And yeah, maybe we'll let in a couple if there, If Mexico is willing to house them, essentially, during that time.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah, it's unfortunate. We have a problem. We have a means and a solution. And we have, like, the political appetite. Or, [00:20:30] when party does.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, so I think it's, I mean, I think, , and what it goes back to is, , this, this is hardly a new story. It seems like a lot of analysis begins in 2016 with the Trump administration and the comparison is only over, over the last eight years.
When in reality, I mean, we, we grew up, we became adults and grew up in the nineties [00:21:00] and graduated college in two thousands. And that's really, , from an immigration standpoint that's when this became more of an issue. And it was really because the the amount of immigration during this period and where immigrants settled changed dramatically from what it did historically.
And just as, as context of, so people know, I looked up a 2020 Pew research study and I think that the interesting points are [00:21:30] that period from 1990 to 2007, this is when you actually had the unauthorized immigrant population tripled in size. So from three and a half million to 12 million and then the migration flows, which again, are coming particularly during this period from Mexico, instead of being concentrated in California and Texas, where historically that's where most of the immigrant population had been, it spread out to a lot [00:22:00] of communities like where we're from in the Midwest and the South where people were not used to seeing People of other ethnicities, period, beyond, beyond white, white, Midwest or Southerners.
So this really created the, the conditions that, oh, , our cultures change, the, the things that really dominated, , European politics too, it doesn't have to be like large numbers, but it's in an area that previously had no [00:22:30] other kind of foreign born. immigrants and, , created something that, that set, set the whole issues around how Trump frames it right now that we're being invaded, let alone the really toxic stuff about the blood of our country being poisoned.
It really began during this. Don't even get me
Anita Kellogg: started on that. That's horrible.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Real Nazi stuff. It began, , during this period, and it's [00:23:00] and even this was part of a continuation of , you go back, you look at U. S. immigration policy. Beginning in the 1920s, we had a quota system that basically eliminated immigration from Asia and from South America.
Then 1965, you got rid of that quota system, and ever since then, you've seen a steady increase. in terms of the percentage of Americans that are foreign born to the point where it's as, as much as it was in the 1890s, kind of during the peak [00:23:30] of Irish and, and Italian immigration to this country. And I think it's that, that change which really accelerated in the 90s and 2000s that set off the nativist backlash that, that we're currently seeing now.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I mean, I've always had a hard time dealing with that, just because we have an identity as Americans, as a nation of immigrants. So it just seems to really, nativism seems to really conflict with identity of America, but [00:24:00] I guess maybe I have an old fashioned notion of the identity of America, because certainly a lot of people don't share that.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, yeah, no, I mean, that, that was always a core. Part of it. And I mean, one of my distinct memories as a, as a wee little kid in terms of being like nationally conscious was when the country with President Reagan celebrated the, I guess, hundredth anniversary of the Statue of Liberty. Do you remember [00:24:30] that?
And the fireworks and the kind of, they debuted the golden torch and yeah, it was very much a celebration of immigrate. I mean, cause that's what the Statue of Liberty, especially in schools. Is, is taught as, , this is the, the beacon of freedom of immigrants coming to Ellis Island and then the, was it the Ezra Klein?
Yeah, I can't remember the name of the poet that has the inscription around the, , giving your huddle masses yearning to breathe free.[00:25:00] So yeah, I think it's, it's core to our identity. It's. It's, and I think maybe another threatening part is it represents 80 percent so foreign born immigrants and their kids represent 80 percent of U.
S. population growth. That's where our population, that's the reason, I mean our birth rates have fallen considerably like a lot of developed countries. But the reason we're not losing population is because yeah, new fresh blood is, is, is coming in. [00:25:30]
Anita Kellogg: Which is a really important point because that's a really huge economic struggle when you're losing population instead of growing your population.
And it's something that you're, Europe has suffered from and they try all kinds of crazy things to get people to make babies. And have not been successful in doing so. And so
Ryan Kellogg: And China hasn't either since they dumped the one child policy. That's been, yeah, no success whatsoever.
Anita Kellogg: So, I mean, it's really important [00:26:00] that we have this source of growth to our economy.
I mean, really, the advantages of this immigration to our economy can't really be understated. It's growing. It grows communities. But, like you said, the cultural shock, there's also a cultural shock element of it. I mean, I remember when our community was transformed by large migration of Hispanic immigrants.
I think mostly, like, Tyson's went down and got them to work on the Tyson's plant. But, [00:26:30] I mean, there was definitely a lot of cultural conflict. And I think, yeah, like you said, that, that animates the conversation too much. But I, I also feel like the political economy benefits are just so amazing, right?
And we don't think of them, we think of it just like Suppressing wages and such, but the way that they grow the community because they're paying taxes, because they're buying things in the community, [00:27:00] making new jobs just the long term impact, , a lot of places that really have sought refugees, in particular are the old Rust Belt towns where they've just seen losing Migration losing population for such a long time and that just devastates your economy leaves abandoned buildings That then kind of get that's very expensive actually to remove an abandoned building.
So they get left there taken over by gangs more criminal violence [00:27:30] refugees will come into those places and Transform it and make kind of a multicultural sort of environment in these areas that used to be known for gang violence I know Buffalo talks about how for the first time ever in a census that they didn't lose population for like the last, I don't know, four decades at least, maybe longer.
So, I mean, having this is a huge advantage for the United States economically. , The amount [00:28:00] of, , Nobel Prize winners that we have, I think like 40 percent of them have been immigrants. It really So you have to our, our intellectual capital as well as all these other benefits. And so, none of this gets talked about and we just are flooded.
Particularly, as you said before, if you listen to Fox News, just by all the negative deluge. [00:28:30]
Ryan Kellogg: Right. Right. So, so yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm hoping that the Senate bill, which I think represents a, a a good compromise between the two sides. And I think, clearly, there are a number of cities in the U. S. that are overwhelmed by the current asylum seeking.
So, tightening that up, giving more resources in terms of being able to process these cases in a quicker way, more border agents, all of that makes, makes perfect sense.[00:29:00] But. Unfortunately, it looks like it's politically toxic. Even if Johnson, Speaker Johnson, wanted to go down that route, given the fact that he kept the government open, and the far right was pretty angry about that, him doing one more compromise with the Democrats will mean probably the end of his job.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I mean, And this is what's frustrating about it because you do have the Democrats like, okay, we'll give you something and we really want funding for Ukraine. [00:29:30] And you have the, , Republicans on the right, which is still a very large number saying, no, we want all or nothing. We're not going to negotiate.
We want everything. We want like no asylum seekers. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Immigration dropped to like, less than 40, 000 during the end of the Trump years using and, , that [00:30:00] actually it slowed down some population growth because we were missing. Normally we have about a million. And this is legal immigration and losing that, , our economy also lost like at least probably at least 2 million immigrants.
And I don't think Yeah, that's a good point. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So so that's just something like that's part of the dialogue and while some people think that's good, , it's, it's not, I mean, just look around and look at the type [00:30:30] of, of jobs that need to be filled and, and again, losing, but we're not just losing low class.
I mean, we're losing, , higher, higher skilled labor too.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, to add nuance, it, I mean, we, we talked about a couple of episodes ago about the gains of that bottom 10%. I mean, some of that's due to the, the fact that they have a lot of power as labor now and they have more power because yeah, they're missing 2 [00:31:00] million.
Yeah. It's too many migrants. So
Anita Kellogg: it's true. And that is one thing that is true. And one of the reasons why yeah. It was hard, even when Republicans were big champions of having a true comprehensive immigration reform bill, which is why we have this crisis, is because the situation has been politically toxic, but the last, I don't know if it was the very last attempt, but the very last attempt I thought might be successful was under George W.
Bush, and both, and I [00:31:30] think an attempt by Obama just blocked by Democrats by Labor. Yeah.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, that's why it's real schizophrenic now, because Republicans now want to be the new champion of the working class. Yeah. Not, not by passing any policies to help the working class, maybe except, I guess, the migration
Anita Kellogg: policy.
Well, that's why you won't see a comprehensive immigration reform coming out of the Democrat
Ryan Kellogg: Party. But then they're ignoring their traditional [00:32:00] constituent capital. Capital wants more labor. Labor has way too much power now. They're all unionizing and they're all charging way higher wages. Yeah. So I don't know.
It's a mixed up world now. At least you understood the sides before.
Anita Kellogg: It's complicated. The economic interest of everyone is complicated, right? Cause that leads to higher prices. I mean on one hand, I want to say it's good that labor has more power. But also we need more [00:32:30] workers.
Ryan Kellogg: Right, yeah, because you could technically, you're constraining the growth of the economy too.
If you have a labor shortage.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah. Exactly. Yep. So, I hope that brings some clarity to To this difficult and complicated situation that, like we've said, too, is frustrating for a lot of reasons. And it's certainly something that needs to be addressed. But the big problem also in tying Ukraine funding to this is [00:33:00] something that is enormously irritating to me.
Because Yeah,
Ryan Kellogg: no way these two issues should be linked at all. Shouldn't be linked.
Anita Kellogg: And Ukraine is in our national security, and saying that we're gonna, , because of the difficulty of getting compromise in the House, we're, we are hurting our own national security and, and if you say, well, the borders are national security too, which is true, but the lack of being able to negotiate, have a real [00:33:30] negotiation, which did come out of the Senate, but unlikely to see that in the House.
That's, that's part of the national security problem too, if you're not negotiating. This is how this country works, that's how you make laws. Okay, enough. But still, it's very irritating to me. That's still a mild way of putting it. So, it definitely feels like lately the world might be spinning out of control.
[00:34:00] And that is largely been due to the violence in the Middle East. Certainly the central point is still the Israel Hamas war. And maybe you want to talk a little bit about that. Yeah,
Ryan Kellogg: I mean, not not a lot update here, even from the from our last episode in December. It's now been 15 weeks since the October 7th attacks and the start of the invasion of Gaza.[00:34:30]
And what you've really seen emerge within Israel is kind of a split. amongst the people of Israel and within the elites in terms of the strategy going forward. So you have one strategy, it was very public ex general made a pretty lengthy debate or broadcast on Israeli TV calling for a ceasefire with Hamas.
And that the focus should be on freeing the hostages, because out of the 240 hostages from October [00:35:00] 7th there's still 130 that are held captive. Keep in mind that 25 have actually been killed in captivity, part of that from friendly fire and cases of trying to rescue them. And then the other camp.
Obviously supported by the Israeli government and Netanyahu is just total victory over Hamas, still pursuing the complete elimination of Hamas leadership before, before ceasing operations within Gaza. And that really came, yeah, in terms of other [00:35:30] developments, you've seen a further split between the U.
S. and the Netanyahu administration. Blinken has continued to make the push for building a post war plan of what that would look like. And all of that plan has focused around the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state, , whether that's kind of initially occupied by an Arab coalition or, or, or the UN.
That's not clear, but [00:36:00] Netanyahu's basically come out and said that's unacceptable. That every area including the West Bank and Gaza has to be under direct Israeli security control.
Anita Kellogg: Which makes sense from his perspective, in the sense that if they're a sovereign nation, then you couldn't go in and have an operation like you do now.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, you could, but it's act of war, but. It would
Anita Kellogg: be war. Although you probably, after that attack, you probably would justify war, but. [00:36:30] Right, yeah. But it would change the nature of it a little bit. Yeah. Oh, it's, I
Ryan Kellogg: mean, it's just another way of saying he rejects the two state solution. Yeah, I mean,
Anita Kellogg: I totally believe in the two state solution.
I totally believe that we need a post war plan that includes. That has to be some sort of sovereign Palestinian state. I totally think that, but I also get why Israel rejects it.
Ryan Kellogg: You don't? Not if they have their long term, I mean, this isn't something you're committing to immediately. [00:37:00] This is the same blah, blah, blah you've said for 30 years. You're just going back to the same blah, blah, blah, non committal, committal. I guess that's true. Yeah, so the fact that he's not even entertaining the thought of the two state solution, that represents a major issue.
Not that I think the Netanyahu administration has longed for office, short of extrajudicial shenanigans that they may commit. But as soon [00:37:30] as a free and fair election happens again within Israel, they're going to be punished for their huge security failures that October 7th represented, and rightfully so.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah. Well, and we were never going to see, really, any progress on a two state solution under Netanyahu. But It's definitely, yeah, well, if you won't even commit to the idea of it, Yeah, you're right. That's, that's definitely a step backwards. And then, of course, you can't ever [00:38:00] even possibly solve the terrorist problem when Palestinians don't have their own state.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. Or, or, again, re, the most important thing, restarting talks around normalization with Saudi Arabia. That, that's the, the longer term stability for Israel within the region. Right. Instead of that complete Gulf state normalization. Right.
Anita Kellogg: But this isn't the only place that Israel has been attacking, and there were [00:38:30] airstrikes into Lebanon targeting Hamas leaders recently, and then I guess Damascus a senior Iranian military figure yesterday.
So you have, even from Israel, this risk of spreading violence beyond the Israeli and Palestinian territory.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I know. I mean, it's definitely not just Israel. I mean, we'll, we'll get into the number of strikes that Iran has been making and no, but I, I feel like they've, they've probably have had their most success in terms of targeting and [00:39:00] eliminating Hamas leadership is the Hamas leadership that's outside of, of Gaza.
I think that's, I think that's, that's fair to, to have kind of these, these targeted strikes given. kind of where Hamas leadership, wherever they lie.
Anita Kellogg: Tricky though. I mean, in sovereign countries like Lebanon.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, it's tricky. I mean, well, yeah, in Syria as well. But Syria is basically a free for all.
Yeah. Ungovernable state with so [00:39:30] many national actors. I mean, Russia's there. We're there. Iran's there.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah, I mean, I put Lebanon. Hezbollah's there. Lebanon in a different category than Syria or Yemen.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, they do, marginally. Although, again, you have a large part of the country territorially controlled by a non government entity, non state actor.
In Lebanon? Yeah, Hezbollah controls southern Lebanon. Yeah. Just like the Houthis that we'll talk about control [00:40:00] northern Yemen. Yeah. But, yeah, so, this week's been insane. It really feeds into the narrative that seems like things are, are spiraling out of control just because the different numbers of states striking The different number of countries and targets is you would think this is like a borderline world war But yeah, I ran fired missiles into just in this week toward Iraq Syria in Pakistan [00:40:30] US troops were impacted in Iraq And we're targeted.
This is just yesterday by Iran backed militants. And there's been over 140 rocket attacks against U. S. troops in Syria and Iraq over, over the last several months. This is the, the Pakistan situation, which isn't technically tied to the to Gaza or to kind of the greater conflict brewing between Israel and, and Iran [00:41:00] through its proxies.
But nevertheless, you had, due to a completely different issue, yeah, kind of these, these strikes.
Anita Kellogg: It's kind of weird, it's, if I recall, I didn't read the article, if I recall from listening to the news this week, it's, it's about a terrorist group as well. Yeah. What's notable is Pakistan and Iran are actually allies.
Good, good relationships in general. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So that was what was kind of really unexpected about that experience.
Ryan Kellogg: But I think both are, so Pakistan is [00:41:30] facing elections later, as it seems most of the world. You have 60 nations that are having some form of elections this year. And then Iran, we've, we've talked about before, its internal challenges to its leadership.
So both of them kind of have reasons to appear strong, and this is a cheap way to appear strong. Yeah.
Anita Kellogg: And then of course, you have the U. S., U. K. The U. S. likes to bill this as a coalition strike I'm not sure if it's having the U. K. with us, consists of that, [00:42:00] but basically you've had this huge problem of commercial ships going through the Red Sea and being attacked and even sunk in many cases by the Houthi rebels.
And so, in order to counter this because now ships are like having to take a much longer route, a much much longer route to avoid the Red Sea to kind of have this freedom of navigation again. So there's been attacks on the Houthis who [00:42:30] are a militant group in control of much of northern Yemen funded and trained by Iran who sympathizes with the Palestinian cause.
So This was to diminish their capabilities in being able to strike these vessels.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I mean, I think that's, I mean, again, we Saudi Arabia waged a nearly decade long war against the Houthis using at least U. S. arms and equipment. Did not in [00:43:00] their, their activities, obviously did not in their, their capabilities.
So I think the hope is to, can you, can you at least get rid of their, their higher end capabilities, their ability to strike from very far distances enough to the point where you can encourage the global shipping industry, which is very risk adverse to return. to the, to the Red Sea as, and, and the Suez Canal.
I [00:43:30] thought the economist made a good point in terms of like the economic impact , particularly the countries like Eritrea and Sudan that depend on, , are directly adjacent to the Red Sea, that depend on shipments either for exporting, , their goods and agricultural goods and mining.
And then Sudan, which depends on for humanitarian aid. But then Egypt, Egypt earns 9 billion a year from tolls on the Suez canal. And traffic has dropped 70%. Right. , since this has started. So it's a big economic [00:44:00] impact on, on Egypt as well. So I think it remains to be seen, obviously the, the first group of strikes.
haven't deterred them enough in some ways it gives them more global credibility, especially with, I guess, terrorist organizations and those against the U. S. of, oh, here we are, we're, we're standing up against the U. S. and, and they're striking us with everything they got and we're still able to to attack these commercial centers [00:44:30] and, and what they view standing up for the Palestinian people.
Anita Kellogg: Right. So. I think the risk of true escalation to a wider war is low, but it definitely is not a good sign to have all these smaller conflicts going on.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think the, the only reason that it won't spiral out is is yeah, neither of the main players, the U. S. [00:45:00] and Iran, don't want it. Right.
Anita Kellogg: Which is important. Cause people who go to war actually have to like, commit to want at least one of them
Ryan Kellogg: does, right? Yeah, unless you, you create a situation where it becomes just unavoidable. Yeah. Even the elites, if they don't want it, that there's enough pressure on them to respond. That's true. Yeah.
Anita Kellogg: That is true. And so that's always the danger of any of these, , smaller conflicts because you just worry about escalation. You worry about [00:45:30] miscalculation.
Ryan Kellogg: Well, yeah, I mean, because it goes back, I mean, you dealt with that data set before around, like, the causes of war and, like, lethal incidences, and these are just, like, boom, boom, boom, boom, one after another, that are these cross border things that you'd think would be triggering, like, a model like that of, there's definitely a very high chance of regional war breaking out with, with this amount of airstrikes and casualties, and.
It definitely
Anita Kellogg: dramatically increases the probability. [00:46:00] probability to have actual armed conflict. So, things are bright and sunny in the Middle East, as usual. Yeah. No, but seriously concerning and hopefully will not escalate anymore. So, moving to another region getting attention the past couple weeks, we moved to East Asia, and we start with North Korea.
So there was an article recently by two North Korean [00:46:30] experts, Robert Carlin, who's been analyzing North Korea for 50 years for the CIA, State Department, other organizations, and Siegfried Hecker, a nuclear expert at Stanford, who's visited North Korea seven times and was given extensive access to the country's nuclear programs.
They created a lot of attention when they said Kim Jong un has made a strategic decision to go to war. They raised the [00:47:00] possibility that North Korea might use its nuclear warheads to strike the region. It's not clear if its warheads could reach the U. S. and survive reentry into the atmosphere, but certainly could reach South Korea and Japan.
So, people are reacting like, is this true? Is, should we worry more about North Korea starting a war? Some of the support they list and others have mentioned is that there's, in the last year in particular, [00:47:30] been a lot of changes to the North Korean posture. They have reunification by changing their constitution and their long standing policy on reunification.
And have stated that they will not respect traditional boundary lines. Also at some point Kim said his army was making preparations for a great revolutionary event. Which Carlin said is phrasing that has previously been used to describe war with South Korea. Another change [00:48:00] is Mr. Kim now claims that Northern and Southerners can no longer belong to a single Korean people.
And that talk of unification with the South's governing clan is pointless. North Korean propaganda sites and radio stations targeting the South have gone dark. And on January 15th, Mr. Kim ordered the closure of three departments that deal with the South. Another troubling trend is that this comes from Deborah Bikes, a member of the [00:48:30] National Committee on North Korea, a coalition of people with deep experience with the country, said that many non profits that normally have working relations with North Korea have been unable to even get a response to their inquiries.
So these are some of the reasons. Why people are so concerned that things may have changed on the Korean Peninsula. North Korea has also grown more capable militarily. They're always testing ballistic missiles and, , or even providing arms to [00:49:00] Russia in the war. So there's belief that they have more capability to launch an attack.
The big problem is Why would they do this? Why would Kim start a war that would lead to the destruction of North Korea? I can't find any convincing incentives, but I do think that Karl [00:49:30] and Hecker make a good point when they say there is a long history of surprise attacks around the world that were Surprising precisely because they didn't make sense to those attacked.
Some of Ukraine didn't make sense to me as well. So, I think I put that with a caveat. I think there's a good question though, and this is what some accommodators responding to that article said is like this, is this really a change or is this just more of [00:50:00] the same? , North Korea is known for saber rattling, to get attention, to get leverage in, in negotiations.
He may be hoping for a Trump win, in, in the hope that, , that they, he would make some progress, and maybe something with, getting something in return from America. I mean, I lean on the saber rattling, but I think a lot of people, a lot of experts are saying, but they are more dangerous than they have been in the past.
I'm not. I'm not [00:50:30] personally worried about war breaking out, but I think that sometimes we ignore North Korea to our own detriment and that it still poses a major threat to global security and as in the interview with David Maxwell pointed out, all kinds of ways that North Korea endangers the stability of the global order as well by providing arms to terrorist groups, [00:51:00] it's weapon sales so there's a lot of illegal activities that it engages in.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, yeah, yeah, because like you said, they're directly linked to to Russia, arms sales and support their assault on Ukraine, and then of course they've been linked to the Iranian nuclear program as well. Yeah.
Anita Kellogg: So. So, yeah. So, I mean, they make good points, but also, there's also this, like, history of people [00:51:30] saying North Korea is gonna attack, or, , there's imminent danger from North Korea.
And why? Yeah, but what, I mean, I think, think, but why these are extremely respected. I mean, I think the reason
Ryan Kellogg: why, right, and that's the reason Christophe highlighted this in the New York Times is because, yeah, there's always sable rattling. There's always some crazy thing that they threaten. But it's the fact that these respected experts are saying, this is different this time, right?
And we should pay attention.
Anita Kellogg: And I, I think the only, , I gave all the reasons [00:52:00] why North Korean posture does seem to have changed. Particularly in the last year. But I think The only thing they really go off of is I don't know. They say these changes, but There's also like Is it intu Is there just Do they just feel some intuition for it?
Because I don't know if you look at these on a piece of paper, I would say, Oh, this means that they're going to war. Yeah. But there are troubling signs. One thing I thought was [00:52:30] interesting in the Kristoff article is that he refers to Joel Witt, a long time North Korean expert at the State Department, now at Simpson Center, that China is now deeply alarmed about North Korea, that Beijing may be of help.
So this is the dream always in trying to deal with North Korea, because the only country that probably has influence over North Korea is China. There's a debate over how much, but it's China that keeps North Korea economically afloat. [00:53:00] And, , the idea, there's still a question, like, how much, would North Korea attack if they didn't have tacit support from China?
Because could they really afford to have a war if China, like, cut off all of its economic corridors with North Korea, is the big question. I, , there's been a lot of progress in the relationship with Russia. I could see Kim thinking, [00:53:30] well, if we can get Russia to support our war.
Ryan Kellogg: That seems like a miss, at least in the short term, that seems like a miscalculation, because Russia has its hands full with, with its current war.
Anita Kellogg: But to even launch a war, it has to be an act of miscalculation in some sense, thinking that you're not going to be annihilated.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, I guess it depends on what, what the tactic is. I mean, , they immediately deploying tactical nuclear weapons, but they don't have tactical nuclear. They just have their handful [00:54:00] of 10 nukes that could be deployed on ballistic missiles, which are, I assume, significant size, like considerably bigger than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You don't really pull those tactically that, that commits to the destruction of your nation right there. You use that, your regime's over. So I. I can't think that would make rational sense, right? So isn't it a, a surprise assault that devastates Seoul and, and assumes enough [00:54:30] chaos in a distracted U. S.
that they can gain a significant part of the Korean peninsula? Like the popular, I mean, you don't have to gain that much to take Seoul. That is the most defended and armed part, I would think. But could you, do they feel confident that they could conventionally Catch the US and South Korea enough off guard that a surprise assault could overwhelm forces and they could hold that territory.
I mean, the loss of Seoul would [00:55:00] devastate this out. That would basically be the war because so much of their economy is focused in, in that that's what makes it vulnerable. It's in that first 30 miles or so of the border.
Anita Kellogg: Right. I mean, the economists pointed out like, and again, this goes more logic. What would North Korea do with, , 50 million South Koreans who are all democratic, , oriented,
Ryan Kellogg: right?
Yeah, it doesn't make any. It yeah, it seems irrational. The [00:55:30] use of nuclear weapons means their death. Yeah, I get it. I get it. But then, I guess it goes back to the point of When these conflicts are happening like Russia, it doesn't necessarily make rational sense.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah, but, I'm still inclined to go on, if we're gonna, you have, there's reasons to expect people to make rational decisions.
And so, I don't know, maybe you should be aware of it, but I just have a hard [00:56:00] time seeing them make such a dramatically irrational decision.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah, because this is, this would be a order of magnitude more rational than Putin's decision to take Ukraine. Mm hmm.
Anita Kellogg: Definitely. Mm hmm. Yeah, of course. And one other tension that I think, oh, this was, came out in The Economist, that the current president of South Korea has said that any provocation by North Korea would be met multiple times [00:56:30] over.
Mm hmm. So there's danger of that, of, of North Korea, , killing a few soldiers and then South Korea escalating. Yeah, yeah. So there's a small danger of that. It's a dangerous, , part of the world that we can't ignore, but I don't find their argument overall very convincing.
Ryan Kellogg: Well, that's good.
I'm glad we don't need another, another massive crisis. Two, two seems plenty.
Anita Kellogg: Speaking of [00:57:00] crises that could break out. We
Ryan Kellogg: have Taiwan. Well, this is the big one. Yeah, of course. This is the one everybody you work with is getting ready for. I mean, this one won't be a surprise.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah Won't be a surprise.
That's for sure There'll be a lot of I told you so So taiwan had held elections on january 13th I was reading somewhere that they had 72 percent participation rate. So that is great. It was not a [00:57:30] surprise They elected for the, I guess the historic third term, the Democrats Progressive Party presidential candidate and the current vice president, Lau Ching Ti?
That's my guess. And basically the significance of them winning is that unlike the other, unlike the other parties, the DPP emphasizes It emphasizes Taiwan's [00:58:00] separate democratic identity and preserving the status quo with stronger security ties to the United States, although they do call for closer economic ties with China as well.
So the idea, the reason why people care about this is the more it seems that the Taiwanese people are unwilling to consider reunification, then China might see that as its only choice being [00:58:30] able to resort to force to reunify. In reaction, there were a lot of predictions that China would make some additional military maneuvers, possibly infringing in Taiwan's territory, but it did not.
So it's been a lot calmer than people predicted. One thing I found interesting in an Economist article on it, It was like looking about the Chinese perspective. How do they look at these elections and the attitude in Taiwan? And it seems like a lot of people [00:59:00] do buy the hype that the Taiwanese want to unify with Taiwan.
The thing that was kind of interesting in one study, they found that almost 40 percent were ready to rule out unifying Taiwan with mainland by force under any circumstances. And I think that's important because of this idea that China has hyped up the expectations for unification so high that they would have no other choice but to use force, but to see that so much of their [00:59:30] population believes in not using force still not that that would keep the party from doing it, but it means the party wouldn't feel compelled that they had to do it.
Ryan Kellogg: Right. Yeah, and this is a 2019 survey. Yeah, that is interesting. Yeah, I had always assumed that that was seen as such, so important to capstoning the full redemption from the century of humiliation [01:00:00] that , it definitely had to be achieved by the hundredth anniversary of the communist takeover.
But yeah, that's interesting that people wouldn't necessarily support it. Yeah. From, from any means, any circumstances.
Anita Kellogg: Yeah. I think that's really notable. One thing that was really unexpected, though, is there was a paper in the Journal of Contemporary China that found that the, that support for keeping force on the table was actually highest among [01:00:30] those well educated and knowledgeable about Taiwan.
Which is kind of weird. Because normally we think of the highly educated as being more for peace.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. Cause you think of the most important thing for that class being be more the economic ties with with Taiwan and why, why interrupt the status quo, , we're prosperous as is, but at the same time, , they could be the people that are [01:01:00] more ideologically committed or more nationalistic.
Just because, , they, they buy into that, that full comprehension of, like, the history of the century of humiliation and kind of the redemption arc for that and more personal stake in, or psychological stake in Chinese global preeminence. I
Anita Kellogg: guess that's true, but I think we also think, tend to think of them more well educated in China, being more exposed to [01:01:30] Western sources, and so, of information, and so, less ideological.
Yeah,
Ryan Kellogg: but I think the, the openness and the, the relative liberalism in Chinese universities, while I think it exists at the very elite institutions, the vast majority wouldn't be educated at those elite institutions. And I'm, I I don't believe that, especially since Xi Jinping that exposure to those ideas, or at least if they are exposed to it, they don't immediately reject those [01:02:00] ideas has come down significantly.
So I don't think that's necessarily the case for the majority, depending on how they're defining highly educated here. I assume, like, a bachelor's degree at
Anita Kellogg: college. That's true, that's a good point, and because this is just a quote in The Economist, I can't tell you much about the study itself. Yeah,
Ryan Kellogg: yeah.
Yeah, that's, that would be my only thought. I think if you're, if you're going to , some of the more elite universities like Peking University, then you may have more of those, those attitudes that you're [01:02:30] expecting, but that's also the equivalent of going to like a Harvard or Yale or, it's not even, I think, there's a big drop off, I think, unlike here, where there's not that big of a drop off in terms of quality education going from Ivy League to state universities.
There's a big drop off going from the elite universities to kind of an average college in China. That
Anita Kellogg: makes sense. So I just think it's interesting, like I've said, that it's not like the Chinese people putting pressure on the government to use force. [01:03:00] Yeah, that is interesting. It was notable that there was, , no real military response to the elections like some people expected.
Provocations.
Ryan Kellogg: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, and they're certainly going to have to The incoming administration there has a challenging timeline to play in terms of , navigating kind of the, the status quo while still preparing for the worse and then , potentially having to navigate a change [01:03:30] in administrations within
Anita Kellogg: the Well, I think this brings us to the end of this episode of Kellogg's Global Politics.
You can visit our website at www. kelloggsglobalpolitics. com and follow us on Twitter at Global Kellogg or me, AR
Ryan Kellogg: Kellogg. You can also reach us by email, so anita at kelloggsglobalpolitics. com and myself, Ryan at kelloggsglobalpolitics. com. As always, please see the show notes for the articles we discussed in this episode.
If you like the [01:04:00] show, please take time, tell your friends, share it on your social sites. It's a simple, quick, and free way to support the show. Thanks everybody! Bye!