Day: March 2, 2015
Chutzpahdik
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s warm-up pep talk today at AIPAC (the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee) was a classic chutzpahdik performance: he claimed respect for President Obama and his office, appreciation for unprecedented US assistance, and insistence on the importance of bipartisan support in the US for the close relationship with Israel. He even lauded his wife, who has been a serious source of embarrassment.
Netanyahu cited agreement between the US and Israel that Iran should not have nuclear weapons but disagreement on the methods to achieve that goal. Israel, he said, has to worry about its survival, whereas the US worries about its security. Netanyahu claimed Israel can and will defend itself, citing the attack on the Osiraq reactor, the invasion of Lebanon and other instances where the US and Israel disagreed. Israel weathered these disagreements and will weather the current one because of common values and (metaphorical as well as real) family relationships.
The alliance, Netanyahu said, is strong and get stronger.
This is fantasy. Netanyahu has done serious harm to relations with the United States by disrespecting its president, accepting a one-party invitation to address the Congress, bringing his re-election campaign to Washington, and opposing an agreement with Iran without proposing an alternative that would make Israel more secure. He has split the American Jewish community, most of which is far more interested in an agreement not only with Iran but also with the Palestinians than Netanyahu is. Israel is losing ground steadily and irreversibly among young American Jews.
We’ll have to wait for tomorrow’s speech in Congress to hear Netanyahu’s substantive arguments against a nuclear agreement with Iran that lengthens the time it would need to make a nuclear weapon to a year and imposes strict monitoring requirements.
It is hard to picture how Israel would end up better off without such an agreement. Iran would then be free to pursue nuclear weapons at whatever pace it decides. Israel lacks the military punch required to take out dozens of often underground nuclear facilities farther from its territory than the single Syrian and Iraqi reactors it destroyed in the past. Even if it could damage vital nuclear facilities, the Iranians would reconstitute their program and forge ahead, making it necessary to attack the nuclear facilities again within a few years. The sanctions regime that has slowed the Iranian nuclear program and brought Tehran to the negotiating table will fall apart if there is no agreement.
I can agree with Netanyahu’s concerns about Iran’s support for terrorism. Not just its nuclear program but also its support for extremists in many parts of the world are deplorable. But unless he has an alternative worth considering, tomorrow’s speech on the nuclear issue will be nothing but more bluster.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks March 2-6
1. The Israeli Elections and a Future Peace Process in the Light of Past Negotiations| Monday March 2nd | 12:00-1:00 PM| Woodrow Wilson Center|REGISTER TO ATTEND |Former Fellow, Woodrow Wilson Center, Galia Golan will discuss the upcoming March 17 Israeli elections and reflect on her latest bookIsraeli Peacemaking Since 1967: Factors Behind the Breakthroughs and Failures. Examining the Israeli-Arab conflict as an ‘intractable conflict,’ the book seeks to determine just which factors, or combination of factors, impacted on Israel’s position in past peace-making efforts, possibly accounting for breakthroughs or failures to reach agreement.
2. The Future of the Fight against ISIL| Monday March 2nd| 5:00-6:30 PM |The Atlantic Council| REGISTER TO ATTEND | General John Allen, USMC (Ret.), the Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, will discuss what may lie ahead in the US-led fight against the Islamist group that straddles Iraqi and Syrian territory. How will the Coalition sustain the fight against the terrorist group? What role will the United States play as the Coalition broadens and deepens its efforts? Can the fight be ultimately won? And if so, how does the Coalition define success? To answer these and other questions, General Allen will join Atlantic Council President and CEO Fred Kempe.
3. Future Trends in the Gulf | Tuesday March 3rd | 12:00-1:30 PM | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND| Amid a region beset by civil wars and terrorism, the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council are facing growing challenges from an increasingly youthful population, aging rulers, economic pressures, and a new information environment. How well are Gulf regimes responding to these challenges? Jamil De Dominicis is a coordinator in the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House. Kristin Smith Diwan is a visiting scholar at the Institute for Middle East Studies at George Washington University. Jane Kinninmont is deputy head and senior research fellow in the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House. Matar Embrahim Matar is a former member of the Bahraini parliament, and Frederic Wehrey is a senior associate in the Middle East Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
4. Tackling Corruption in the Midst of War: Can Ukraine Change the Equation? |Tuesday March 3rd | 2:00-3:OO PM | USIP | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Ukrainian government has pledged to undertake a major campaign to root out corruption. But a year after the departure of former President Yanukovych, the pace of reform continues to drag. Panelists will examine prospects for reform of the energy, judicial and regulatory sectors, among others, while conflict rages in the country’s East. The discussion will gauge the political will of the Ukrainian leadership and the risks of a public backlash, and explore the role of the media and civil society in the reform effort. Speakers include: Edward Chow, Senior Fellow, Energy and Security Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Adrian Karatnycky, Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council, Professor Robert Orttung, Assistant Director, Institute of European, Russian, and Eurasian Studies, The George Washington University and Inna Pidluska, Deputy Executive Director, Kyiv Office, International Renaissance Foundation (via Skype).
5. Revisiting Marshall: Private Sector Development In the Middle East | Tuesday March 3rd |3:00-4:30 PM| The Stimson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Can the Marshall Plan, which critical post-World War II transformation of Europe, provide policy recommendations for dealing with the turmoil and violence in the region today? Is there is still a place for discussion of the more conventional policy challenges of expanding economic opportunity as a part of political reform and change. Speakers include: Dr. Rob Havers, President, The George C. Marshall Foundation, Mr. Abdulwahab Alkebsi, Regional Director for Africa and MENA, Center for International Private Enterprise, and Representative of the Secretary of State’s Policy Planning Staff, to be confirmed.
6. Arab Public Opinion on Terrorism: A Ground View from Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Libya | Wednesday March 4th | 10:00-11:30 AM | Center for Strategic and International Studies | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Join Dr. Munqith Dagher who will present findings from a major public opinion project on Arab public opinions towards terrorism and terrorist organizations conducted throughout Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Yemen, and Libya. Hosted by Burke Chair in Strategy Anthony Cordesman, the conversation will explore the sudden rise of ISIS, Arab attitudes towards ISIS and other terror groups, shifting public opinion towards terror groups in the region, and support for ongoing counter-terrorist efforts.
7. Aid to Civil Society: A Movement Mindset |Friday March 6th”| 2:00-3:30 PM| USIP | REGISTER TO ATTEND| People worldwide have been stirred by the dramatic images of “people power” movements calling for democracy and economic justice. In Hong Kong and Malaysia, Ukraine and Egypt, Brazil, Venezuela and elsewhere, throngs of citizenry have challenged their governments over corruption, political repression, discrimination, and other scourges. While global audiences respond with sympathy, it has been unclear how governments, pro-democracy groups, or other outside supporters might actually assist effectively. Grassroots campaigns for change often are fluid, diverse, decentralized, and loosely organized, so providing support is tricky. The difficulties and risks can be greater still under authoritarian regimes or, as Yemen and Libya illustrate, in fragile states. In this discussion, panelists include Maria J. Stephan, Sadaf Lakhani and Nadia Naviwala, the authors of a new USIP Special Report, “Aid to Civil Society: A Movement Mindset.”
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Macedonia’s mess
Slobodan Tomic, a Macedonian journalist, asked me some questions. I replied:
1. The Prime Minister of Macedonia, Nikolas Gruevski has denounced an attempted coup d’etat against the country. The former head of intelligence Zoran Verusevski has been arrested. A network of nationals working in the security apparatus of Macedonia has been caught working for a foreign intelligence apparatus aimed at destabilizing the country. The PM said on February 25 the espionage was carried by professionals of high caliber who were highly trained in such activities “According to our information, obtained by the Interior Ministry, a foreign intelligence service, used as their main operative the person identified as Z.V. to set up a group of agents in Macedonia.” The PM specified that the powerful intelligence service spying on the Government of Macedonia was “from abroad.” The PM also revealed that the head of the opposition Zoran Zaev tried to blackmail the government and the PM personally telling him he had received video and recording material by a powerful foreign intelligence service and he, Zaev, would publish it if the elected government was not replaced by a “technical government that included Zaev. Instead Mr Gruevski called a press conference revealing to plot.
What’s your opinion on this attempted coup in our country? In your opinion who is behind this operation?
A: I don’t know who is behind this story. Zaev I understand has said that the recorded material came from within the Macedonian state security apparatus. We’ll have to wait for the court case against Verusevski to see whether he is the source. I know nothing for sure about foreign involvement.
2. Mr. Janusz Bugajski of the Center for European Policy analysis in an editorial (Moscow Applauds Greece-Macedonia Drama) argues that the publication of the illegal material by Zoran Zaev contributes to the alienation of Macedonia from NATO….Could you comment on this analysis?
A: There is no question but that Athens is deepening ties to Moscow and Moscow is opposing NATO and EU membership for Balkans countries. I have no idea however whether Zaev is somehow consciously serving those interests. I hope not.
3. Greece has been opposing the right of Macedonia to choose its name. In the recent Putsch attempt, one of the main conspirators, Ms. Verusevska, the wife of former Intelligence official Zoran Verusevski, works for Stopanska bank that is owned by the National Bank of Greece. Material found in her possession at the moment of her arrest is reported to be extremely revealing concerning the connections between the agents in Macedonia and the foreign intelligence and electronic espionage agency that has targeted our country. Do you think Greek intelligence could be active in undermining Macedonian institutions and in planning a division and a domestic confrontation?
A: I am not convinced there was a coup attempt.
All sorts of things are possible. Greece is not Macedonia’s friend. But I don’t know that what you say is true.
4. Do you see any danger that the Albanian intelligence services could get activated in this situation to push for a dismemberment of Macedonia?
A: I doubt it. But Albanians in Macedonia definitely want to see Macedonia in NATO and will be disappointed if this incident damages that prospect.
5. As you know, Macedonia is a friend of many countries in the West, East, North and South and Macedonia has a treaty of technical agreement with the US. Macedonia, however is not formal part of any alliance. In your opinion, will the US keep an official position as an “observer” or they will act according to the signed Technical Agreement between the two countries. Many sources are saying that the US is behind this attempted coup. Do you think the US is interested in destabilizing Macedonia or to defend its stability?
A: I don’t know what “technical agreement” you are referring to. Macedonia’s army has fought under US command in Afghanistan. We may not have a formal alliance agreement, but that makes for a very close military relationship. I am confident the US has no interest in destabilizing Macedonia, and I am also convinced it isn’t interested enough in Macedonia to be involved in wiretapping thousands of people. Greece and Russia have far more reason to be interested, but I don’t know for sure that they are involved in the wiretapping.
6. Do you see a danger of ethnic confrontation in the next future? A danger of an ISIS or ISIS-like attack against our country? Do you think in such a hypothetical situation the US will take a position?
A: There are extremists in many countries. I can’t rule out that there are some in Macedonia, as there have been occasionally in the past. But I don’t see ethnic confrontation as the issue here. This is a confrontation between two Macedonians: Zaev and Gruevski. The Albanians are bystanders who aren’t sure what to do.
7. The popularity of Prime Minister Gruevski party according to a very recent poll is 8 times that of the SDSM opposition. Still some analysts see an attitude of support by the US for the opposition despite their leadership have been involved in an attempted coup. Why is that?
A: I have no idea why anyone would think that. Washington favors democracy and NATO membership for Macedonia. It will support whoever comes to power there democratically. It will also support the democratic system in Macedonia.
8. Secretary of State John Kerry stated in Congress two days ago that Macedonia was one of those countries “on the line of fire” between US and Moscow. This seems to be a very threatening statement. Could you comment?
A: The threat is from Moscow, not Washington.
9. Some analysts are saying that the electronic espionage was organized by and through the American embassy in Skopje. Do you think this is possible?
A: I think it unlikely. The Americans just aren’t that interested in Macedonia. Greece and Russia are, but I don’t know they are responsible.
10. Many are worried about the consequence of a destabilization of Macedonia. Possible ethnic explosions could take place especially if supposed and fed by outside forces. Some even talk of a snowballing effect in the Balkans, leading to a general conflict. Hopefully nobody want to think that WWI started not far from here in June 1914, But do you see a potential danger of war?
A: No, I don’t. There are precious few military resources left in the whole region. The ones that exist are all being reformed and most aim for NATO membership. The danger is destabilization, not world war. Macedonians and Albanians have been wise enough to keep their country out of the worst kinds of conflict in the past. I trust they will be wise in the future too.
11. The project for a “Turkish Stream” (the gas pipeline that will transport the Russian gas from Turkey to Greece, Macedonia, Serbia, Hungary, Austria and so on) is very much in the mind of government in the Balkans and Europe, The Turkish stream has taken the please of the South Stream, that was canceled by Russia after the EU advanced several requests that were considered impossible to meet. Is it possible that the US administration is displeased with this project and see the countries involved as possible target to be convinced to change their position?
A: I don’t know the official US position on Turkish stream. Best to ask a US government official. I think it important that the Balkans find alternatives to Russian gas, which comes with political strings attached.
My bottom line is this: Macedonia belongs in NATO. But it has to get its own house in order to continue to be qualified for membership
RSS - Posts
