From the rapprochement between North and South Korea at the Winter Olympics in January to December’s frantic news agenda, 2018 has had no shortage of surprises. Below are my key picks for the defining moments of the year. 



Elon Musk, Mars, and a roller coaster year for billionaires



On Feb. 6, Elon Musk’s Falcon Heavy rocket&nbsp;<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apps-space-commentary/commentary-spacex-launch-opens-new-frontier-in-space-commerce-idUSKBN1FQ38W">blasted into space</a>&nbsp;from Florida and sent a cherry-red Tesla roadster hurtling toward Mars. It was a powerful statement about the influence and ambition of a new generation of tech billionaires.



Overall, however, 2018 would be a rough year for the group, and Musk was no exception. By July, he was&nbsp;<a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-ceo/tesla-shares-fall-after-ceo-musk-abuses-british-caver-idUKKBN1K62H7">embroiled in a high-profile spat</a>&nbsp;with a British cave rescue diver over a miniature submarine he had hoped would help rescue 12 boys trapped underground in Thailand, just one of a series of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/19/elon-musk-tesla-timeline-difficult-painful-year">increasingly negative headlines</a>.



Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg – once touted as a potential U.S. presidential candidate – had scarcely a better year, his firm plagued by its own stream of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.recode.net/2018/11/15/18097064/facebook-political-reaction-new-york-times-capitol-hill">scandals and political headwinds</a>.



Google, whose chief executive Sundar Pichai became the latest tech chief&nbsp;<a href="https://www.recode.net/2018/12/11/18134984/live-google-ceo-congress-hearing-china-testimony-house-judiciary-committee-censored-search">summoned before Congress</a>, faces a mutiny from some workers on multiple topics, including his dealings with the U.S. and Chinese governments. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos&nbsp;<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/14/jeff-bezos-low-income-people-pay-amazon-workers-better">faces mounting criticism</a>&nbsp;over working conditions and low tax payments.



Yet none of this looks set to stop tech firms from continuing to radically disrupt the world – indeed, many of their founders appear to believe their mission is to do so. Expect these battles to grow in 2019, particularly if new technology such as artificial intelligence and driverless cars accelerate change.



Trump fires advisers, tightens his grip



One billionaire learning his way around the political system in 2018 was U.S. President Donald Trump. After reports of growing frustration with some of his most senior officials, March saw him fire Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. Both had been viewed as moderating influences on Trump, with successors Mike Pompeo and John Bolton&nbsp;<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apps-bolton-commentary/commentary-with-bolton-trump-shakes-off-generals-restraints-idUSKBN1GZ2W4">perceived as less prone</a>&nbsp;to questioning him.



<a href="https://uk.reuters.com/news/picture/john-kelly-to-leave-white-house-idUKRTX6HPZZ">December&#8217;s departure</a>&nbsp;of White House Chief of Staff John Kelly leaves Defense Secretary James Mattis the key restraining influence.



Overall, Trump seems increasingly keen to trust his own judgment rather than that of establishment-based gatekeepers or Republican insiders.



POTUS woos Kim and Putin. Elsewhere, diplomacy unravels.



In Singapore in June and in Helsinki in July, Trump upset many in his own administration with the warmth of his meetings with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The friendliness of the summits stood in stark contrast to the G7 gathering of Western and Allied leaders in Canada, also in June. There, Trump appeared&nbsp;<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-g7-summit/trump-torpedoes-g7-effort-to-ease-trade-spat-threatens-auto-tariffs-idUSKCN1J50H3">more isolated than ever before</a>&nbsp;on topics including climate change, protectionism and relations with Russia. The G7 leaders were unable to agree on a communiqué, with the six non-U.S. members making their own statement independent of Washington.



Events at the G7 pointed to a wider malaise in international diplomacy. World leaders at November’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Papua New Guinea&nbsp;<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apps-china-commentary/commentary-can-u-s-china-relations-be-saved-idUSKCN1NO2EJ">also failed to agree</a>&nbsp;on a communiqué, this time due to divisions between China and the United States and its allies over trade.



Military posturing is also on the rise. Russia, China and NATO&nbsp;<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apps-wargames-commentary/commentary-why-china-and-russia-are-obsessed-with-vast-new-war-games-idUSKCN1LE1O6">each held their largest wargames</a>&nbsp;in recent history this summer, while confrontations between jets and warships in the South China Sea and Europe have also increased markedly.



Khashoggi killed as authoritarian states take the gloves off



The world’s authoritarian states appeared at least equally as focused on stifling dissent and opposition. Nowhere was that clearer than in the case of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was&nbsp;<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-saudi-khashoggi-adviser-insight/how-the-man-behind-khashoggi-murder-ran-the-killing-via-skype-idUKKCN1MW2H4">murdered and reportedly dismembered</a>&nbsp;in his own country’s consulate building in Istanbul. Like the suspected Russian nerve agent assassination attempt on a former double agent in the UK town of Salisbury the previous year, the killing sparked international outrage and some diplomatic isolation of Riyadh – but little in the way of convincing apology from those believed responsible.



A string of autocratic governments appear increasingly dismissive of human rights, openly taking draconian action against critics and enemies alike. Russia is continuing its ruthless military campaign against remaining rebel enclaves in Syria, and a Saudi-led coalition has persisted in its war in Yemen – at catastrophic cost to civilians, where millions now face starvation.



China is cracking down on its Muslim Uighur minority, with a U.N. report&nbsp;<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-un/u-n-calls-on-china-to-free-uighurs-from-re-education-camps-idUSKCN1LF1D6">citing estimates Beijing has</a>&nbsp;interned up to one million in “reeducation camps.” Such steps suggest authoritarian rulers like China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Putin may not feel as secure as they appear – or that they believe such brutal tactics are simply necessary to retain their grip.U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korea&#8217;s leader Kim Jong Un leave after signing documents that acknowledge the progress of the talks and pledge to keep momentum going, after their summit at the Capella Hotel on Sentosa island in Singapore June 12, 2018. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst



G20 meets as Paris burns



November’s G20 gathering in Argentina was&nbsp;<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apps-g20-commentary/commentary-for-g20-leaders-greater-problems-yet-to-come-idUSKBN1O22FW">perhaps the year’s most successful</a>&nbsp;multilateral gathering, with world leaders managing to agree on a largely bland communiqué on reform of global trade. Trump’s meeting with China’s Xi brought some temporary relief from the two countries’ trade war, even as Ukraine tensions and Mueller’s Russia probe made a Trump-Putin meeting impossible. There was still no shortage of disagreements on show, however – and as the leaders met, riots in Paris were grabbing global headlines.



Almost every Western leader in Argentina returned home to an existential political crisis. French President Emmanuel Macron has since bowed to some of the demands of the “yellow vest” protesters, particularly over fuel tax, but that has not been enough to stem the unrest. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has signaled she will shortly leave politics, although she has seen some success in appointing a protegé to lead her party. Trump went back to Washington to face the fallout from former lawyer Michael Cohen’s admission of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/cohen-new-charge-trump-1.4925270">lying to Congress</a>&nbsp;about a Trump Tower project in Moscow; British Prime Minister Theresa May has so far failed to find a Brexit deal she can get through Parliament.



Many of these impasses stem from a much wider crisis in Western nations, with rising wealth gaps and often mounting discontent and hardship among the poorest. Solving those issues will be tough – and more disruption feels inevitable through 2019 and beyond. &#8211; Reuters



<ul class="wp-block-list"><li>Peter Apps </li></ul>

gettyimages-855492078-594×594

Commentary | Five Moments That Defined 2018

President Donald Trump’s vow to hit North Korea with “fire and fury like the world has never seen” is an unveiled threat to unleash America’s most potent weapons of mass destruction onto the Korean peninsula. According to many defence analysts, the risk of nuclear confrontation over <a href="https://theconversation.com/west-could-sleepwalk-into-a-doomsday-war-with-russia-its-time-to-wake-up-59936" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Europe</a> and the <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/concerns-raised-about-risk-nuclear-war-between-india-pakistan-says-us-1566210" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Indian subcontinent</a> has also increased in recent years.
In a more hopeful turn of events, 122 countries voted in June to adopt the United Nations <a href="http://www.undocs.org/en/a/conf.229/2017/L.3/Rev.1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons</a> in New York. The “ban treaty” will make nuclear weapons illegal for ratifying countries, and many see it as an <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-efforts-to-secure-a-deal-on-banning-all-nuclear-weapons-are-so-important-75484" target="_blank" rel="noopener">opportunity</a> to kick start a renewed effort towards multilateral disarmament. Supporters of the treaty argue that even a limited, regional nuclear war would produce a catastrophic and global humanitarian crisis.
Equally, other analysts suggest that the reality is not as severe as is often depicted. In March this year, Matthias Eken, a researcher of attitudes towards nuclear weapons, <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-understandable-fear-of-nuclear-weapons-doesnt-match-reality-73563" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote in The Conversation</a> that their destructive power “has been vastly exaggerated” and that one should avoid overusing “doomsday scenarios and apocalyptic language”.
Eken argued that nuclear weapons are not as powerful as often described, on the basis that a 9 megaton thermonuclear warhead dropped over the state of Arkansas would only destroy 0.2% of the state’s surface area. He also observed that more than 2,000 nuclear detonations have been made on the planet without having ended human civilization, and argued that if we want to mitigate the risk posed by nuclear weapons, we must not exaggerate those risks.
Eken’s sanguine approach towards nuclear weapons stands in contrast to the more dramatic rhetoric of global humanitarian catastrophe and existential threats to humanity. So what is the basis for the latter?
<a href="http://www.forbesafrica.com/focus/2016/11/01/potential-presidents-men/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">All The (Potential) President&#8217;s Men</a>
<h2>Nuclear war is also a war on the environment</h2>
The greatest concern derives from relatively new research which has modelled the indirect effects of nuclear detonations on the environment and climate. The most-studied scenario is a limited regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan, involving 100 Hiroshima-sized warheads (small by modern standards) detonated mostly over urban areas. Many analysts suggest that this is a <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2015/08/31/the-future-of-land-warfare/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">plausible scenario</a> in the event of <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/2017/01/24/us-intelligence-national-council-predicts-indo-pakistan-nuclear-war-in-2028/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">an all-out war</a> between the two states, whose combined arsenals amount to more than 220 nuclear warheads.
In this event, an estimated <a href="https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00296197/document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">20m people could die within a week</a> from the direct effects of the explosions, fire, and local radiation. That alone is catastrophic – more deaths than in the entire of <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25776836" target="_blank" rel="noopener">World War I</a>.
But nuclear explosions are also extremely likely to ignite fires over a large area, which coalesce and inject large volumes of soot and debris into the stratosphere. In the India-Pakistan scenario, up to 6.5m tonnes of soot could be thrown up into the upper atmosphere, blocking out the sun and causing a significant drop in average surface temperature and precipitation across the globe, with effects that could last for more than a decade.
This ecological disruption would, in turn, badly affect global food production. According to <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0518-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">one study</a>, maize production in the US (the world’s largest producer) would decline by an average by 12% over 10 years in our given scenario. In China, middle season rice would fall by 17% over a decade, maize by 16%, and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EF000283/abstract" target="_blank" rel="noopener">winter wheat by 31%</a>. With total world grain reserves amounting to less than 100 days of global consumption, such effects would place an estimated <a href="http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/nuclear-famine-two-billion-at-risk-2013.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">2 billion people at risk of famine</a>.
Although a nuclear conflict involving North Korea and the US would be smaller, given Pyongyang’s limited arsenal, many people would still die and ecological damage would severely affect global public health for years. Additionally, any nuclear conflict between the US and North Korea is likely to increase the risk of nuclear confrontation involving other states and other regions of the world.
<h2>It gets worse</h2>
A large-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia would be far worse. Most Russian and US weapons are <a href="http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/nuclear-weapons-beginner-s-guide-threats#S4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">10 to 50 times stronger</a> than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima. In a war involving the use of the two nations’ strategic nuclear weapons (those intended to be used away from battlefield, aimed at infrastructure or cities), some 150m tonnes of soot could be lofted into the upper atmosphere. This would <a href="http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockNW2006JD008235.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reduce global temperatures by 8°C</a> – the “nuclear winter” scenario. Under these conditions, food production would stop and the vast majority of the human race is likely to starve.
Eken suggests that both the scenarios of a limited regional nuclear conflict and an all-out war between US and Russia are unlikely. He may be right. However, both scenarios are possible, even if we can’t reliably quantify the risk. Continued adversarial rhetoric from both Donald Trump and <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-threat-of-fire-and-fury-is-a-gift-to-north-koreas-propaganda-machine-82275" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kim Jong-un</a> about the use of nuclear weapons is not making this possibility any smaller.
What we can say, is that the doctrine of nuclear deterrence represents a high-risk gamble. Nuclear weapons do not keep us safe from acts of terrorism, nor can they be used to fight sea level rise, extreme weather, ocean acidification, biodiversity loss or antimicrobial resistance.
This is why so many medical and public health organisations have been campaigning to make nuclear weapons illegal. Regardless of how many need to be exploded to cause a catastrophe or produce an <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-five-biggest-threats-to-human-existence-27053" target="_blank" rel="noopener">existential threat to humanity</a>, and regardless of the risk of this happening, the adage that “prevention is the best cure” remains the case when it comes to these abhorrent and dangerous weapons. &#8211; Written by <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-mccoy-265876" target="_blank" rel="author noopener">David McCoy</a>, Professor of Global Public Health, Queen Mary University of London
Originally published in <a href="https://theconversation.com/africa" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82288/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />

Tag: Kim Jong-un

FORBES AFRICA SOCIAL MEDIA

Commentary | Five Moments That Defined 2018

Even a ‘minor’ nuclear war would be an ecological disaster felt throughout the world