| | | | A Uniquely American Problem | | | After the horrific shootings in El Paso and Dayton, David Frum of The Atlantic identifies access to guns as a particularly American problem. Reviewing their history, he points out that mass shooters in America have espoused different ideologies, but "[d]espite their diversity, all these killers had one thing in common: their uniquely American access to firearms. In turn, these killers unite the country in a uniquely American determination to ignore the obvious." The Soufan Group, meanwhile, links white-supremacist violence to a worldwide trend: "The scourge of radical right-wing extremism is not relegated to domestic or local contexts but is instead a global phenomenon where a shared ideology of hate, racism, and a call to violence have energized a transnational movement," the group writes, noting that in the US, the government has "done little" to fight it. Graeme Wood, also of The Atlantic, raises a question about confronting right-wing extremism in the US: "Given that Americans are supposed to enjoy freedom of conscience, how do you police an ideology at all?" | | What India's Kashmir Decision Portends | | | Now that India has declared an end to the special status of Jammu and Kashmir, Happymon Jacob writes in the Hindustan Times that the "message from Monday's decisions is loud and clear: New Delhi, from now on, won't be keen on taking the difficult but democratically prudent path of peace-building in Kashmir, nor would it be willing to keep Kashmir on the negotiating table with Pakistan." In the disputed region of Kashmir, India has granted special status and autonomy to the parts it controls. This decision would remove that autonomy and grant India's central government more authority; for an explanation of how Kashmir's special status has worked, CNN's Manveena Suri has a concise review, which notes that the decision could be challenged in court. The move by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government is more akin to "open heart surgery" than a "surgical strike," Jacob writes, predicting ominously that "bleeding" will result, in his metaphor. | | The Next Moves in Hong Kong | | | Will China crack down on Hong Kong's protesters more aggressively? Michael C. Davis and Victoria Tin-Bor Hui predict it won't, writing in Foreign Affairs that Beijing "doesn't need to turn to what commentators call the 'nuclear option': it hopes to achieve what it wants at lower costs with tools it has used before." Those include directing violent responses by Hong Kong police, the suspected support of Triad gang violence against protesters, and a "whole of society" strategy to repress dissent by exerting control over Hong Kong's politics. Writing in the Hong Kong Free Press, Hong Kong legislator Charles Mok urges protesters to find "more peaceful and sustainable tactics to carry on the struggle for political and social justice and democracy in Hong Kong"—and to sway Beijing in the long run. "The world cares about our city and our wellbeing, and this attention may turn out to be our last and most important safety net," he concludes. | | The Last Thing East Asia Needs | | | The burgeoning trade war between South Korea and Japan proves "just about everything that could go wrong from Washington to Tokyo is going awry, and at the worst possible moment for the global financial system," William Pesek writes in the Nikkei Asian Review. The trade disagreement has roots in long-simmering, post-World War II disputes between the two countries, and Celeste L. Arrington and Andrew Yeo write at Foreign Affairs that the rupture will endanger high-tech supply chains, drag on the global economy, and has already "inflamed public sentiment." Troublingly, it's also shown the US to be uninterested in mediating, they write. Appraising the situation at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, Benjamin Katzeff Silberstein writes that Japan and South Korea are already tightly interconnected, and a trade war will benefit no one. He chalks up the current rift to populism and a genuine belief by South Korean President Moon Jae-in that he's in the right. | | Can Europe Join the Fray? | | | As great-power competition reemerges in world politics, two recent papers by the European Council on Foreign Relations ask how Europe can start throwing around its economic and political weight—rather than getting trampled.
"Europeans are in danger of becoming hapless playthings in a tussle for pre-eminence between China, Russia, and the United States," Carl Bildt and Mark Leonard warn, suggesting other powers are using economic pressure, diplomacy, and military capabilities in greater concert than Europe has been able to muster. Their overarching recommendation is for EU institutions in Brussels to drive policy and consensus on these fronts, rather than passively take direction from member states. Another study, based on interviews with European policymakers, finds a lack of consensus between European countries on what to prioritize in seeking "strategic autonomy." Europe's major powers have warmed to that goal and tend to have a more expansive view of European power projection, the authors find, while most European countries are baffled by American concerns about Europe going its own way. | | | | | | |
